Thread:SavageOpress1138/@comment-104549-20160305012836/@comment-3528596-20160309220700

If I'm understanding correctly, you're saying that the initial adding of "no secondary accounts" was done improperly. Ultimately, I guess I can't debate that point. I obviously wasn't there at the time, so I don't know how much the "Senate Hall" versus "Community Track" different would have made. I still view that as a baseline consensus. Either way, arguing that those seven people are all gone but you may be true. Yet, there are other users (such as myself, Sakaros, etc.) who have always used that baseline as the policy. We didn't know about any potential problems with the initial implementation, so we obviously wouldn't have felt the need to change a policy we agreed with (even if the policy was implement on potentially improper grounds).

That brings us to your change (which I'll stress again,, I know wasn't malicious). I think you making a change alone is very different from community consensus. You said "A conversation between 2 people is no different than one person making a change. It's just as unilateral." If you're referring to me and Sakaros, our intent was never to change something, which is different from a conscious choice to alter the policy. Additionally, "Even you were largely inactive at that time. There was no point in holding a vote." I'm not sure if "you" is supposed to be me or Sakaros. I certainly don't feel like I've ever been "largely inactive" more or less since I joined. (Obviously, I can't speak for Sakaros). Either way, while I agree that the community has been at points where a formal vote are unnecessary, I think at the very least a discussion highlighting the change should have happened.

Ultimately, you're right that it's a "debate over the merits of 'don't sockpuppet' vs 'don't use multiple accounts'." (Although I'm a little confused by your follow up: "And I think that the history of the last many, many years shows that the only policy SWFanon needs is "don't use multiple accounts." Policies, by their nature, should be as reactionary as possible, not as preventative as possible." That seems to go against your argument? Did you mean "don't abuse multiple accounts", because that's the general vibe I'm getting from you.)

Digging into your reason to allow multiple accounts... Past users have written under pen names (or real names, for that matter) without using multiple accounts. Personally, I don't think a secondary account affects one's ability to utilize a pen name if one chooses. Your account isn't really your name. It's just representation of the person on the other side of the screen. A current example would be Firedance, who could still credit his works with his real name, but that doesn't mean he needs a second account with that name.

I also don't feel it undermines a more open community. It isn't adding red tape to new users. It isn't limited their creative process. It is simply website logistics. I'm happy to help people in my role as admin, but I don't think I should have to be constantly double-checking which users are the same person. It makes it harder to ensure only authors edit their pages and that users only vote once (although I wouldn't mind some sockpuppets if it upped the Wiki Award participation ).

But that's just my opinion. I'm not sure where we go from here, other than holding a formal vote to clarify community consensus.