Talk:Sock puppet account/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Orlando Figes' factual inaccuracies?

An anonymous IP has several times sought to remove some or all of the content in the Orlando Figes section as "factually innacurate." There is nothing here that is not in the sources (the BBC and The Guardian). Wikipedia proceeds by what our sources say, if anyone has a reliable source which contradicts the existing information, can they please add it to the article. Thank you. --Andrewaskew (talk) 00:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Andrew, I suggest you read the sources more carefully. There was no court case or court hearing. What was reported by the Guardian and BBC was that Polonsky and Service did threaten Figes with libel for the reviews. 1 May 2013. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.42.53 (talk) 04:47, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you read the sources more carefully. I went back and re-read them again. The BBC does actually report a settlement with damages on 17 July 2010. The Guardian does not but it is 3 months earlier. Andrewaskew (talk) 22:52, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• Problem here is not any factual inaccuracies, but simply the fact that quoted sources never call these episodes "sockpuppetry". Claiming this to be sockpuppetry is WP:OR. Writing anonymous reviews is not sockpuppetry. My very best wishes (talk) 00:54, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Whether or not these sources use the term is irrelevant. This is a clear use of an online identity for deception, writing deceptive anonymous online reviews is sockpuppetry. The source the page uses makes this even more clear:

n. A fake persona used to discuss or comment on oneself or one's work, particularly in an online discussion group or the comments section of a blog.

— Wordspy

The use of language that has been defined elsewhere is not WP:SYNTHESIS. --Andrewaskew (talk) 04:36, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Where is "a fake person"? He wrote a pseudonymous review. I am writing pseudonymous reviews on articles proposed for publication in scientific journals all the time (so called peer reviewing); the reviews can be highly negative; they can lead to someone else work being rejected. Does it make me sockpuppet? This is all your own interpretation. Remember, this is a WP:BLP issue, and we have special rules for this. My very best wishes (talk) 13:54, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

In other words, we are talking about "fake online identity" for the purpose of deception. Simply writing an anonymous review (online or not) does not mean fake identity, just like anonymous writing in wikipedia. If he signed the review online by a name of another writer (let's say "Robert Service"), that would be "fake identity". My very best wishes (talk) 14:05, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I have no problem writing under a pseudonym for Wikipedia; but it'd be a different matter if I praised my own books at Amazon.com using a pseudonym.--John Foxe (talk) 22:27, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

This is an interesting idea. Should every anonymous editor on wikipedia with a conflict of interest be regarded as sockpuppet? Not according to the policy. My very best wishes (talk) 18:40, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Don't confuse personæ with persons, there is no fake person here, but there is a fake persona. We are talking here about constructed social roles used in a deceptive fashion. The peer review system is a very useful tool, but such a tool breaks down if we allowed people to review their own work in this fashion, or if reviewers start to dismiss articles for personal or political reasons.

To continue the anology to Wikipedia, there is nothing wrong with anonymity or pseudonymity. But there is a presumption of neutrality, we expect an editor to declare any possible conflict of interest.

It is not a question of purporting to be someone else, but pretending not to be oneself, where that identity is relevant. It is the use of anonymity for deceptive purposes.

One last point, the WP:BLP policy does encourage editors to be wary, but it is not meant to encourage the wholesale removal of properly sourced material. To assume one's own opinions are correct and repeatedly remove the disputed section when one is well aware that the matter is being discussed on the talk page is a bit indecorous. That said, I am sure everyone here is working towards the best interests of Wikipedia, we don't wish to create an edit war. I am sure we can sort this out. --Andrewaskew (talk) 01:25, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I think it was clear enough. The sources do not call this sockpuppetry. The sources do not tell anything about "fake person" because fake person is the situation when me or you pretend to be someone else, rather than signing a pseudonimous name/account. When this historian singed his review, he did not sing "Robert Service" or something like that (which would be indeed a fake person). I am sorry, but "constructed social roles used in a deceptive fashion" is moot. I do not understand what it means. If you still disagree, let's ask a question on BLP noticeboard. My very best wishes (talk) 04:45, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Started an WP:RFC. --Andrewaskew (talk) 05:51, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Orlando Figes' sockpuppetry?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Does the Orlando Figes section belong on this page?

I would argue yes, this fits the definition of sockpuppetry given by the page, and the section itself is well sourced. (Interested editors may wish to note similar edits on such pages as Orlando Figes, and Robert Service (historian), but those edits are not directly relevant here.) --Andrewaskew (talk) 05:51, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• I would argue, no. This is simply irrelevant material that does not belong to this page. None of sources claims this particular case be "sockpuppetry". Neither they claim it to be a case of "fake identity". He wrote anonymous reviews, which does not mean fake identity. Fake identity is the situation when someone pretends to be another person. He did not. Perhaps his review was inappropriate, but this is a completely different matter. This is a WP:BLP matter. Hence we must be extra careful. My very best wishes (talk) 12:16, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• Here are two secondary sources (#1: The Nation #2: Boston Globe) that refer to this person as using "sock puppets," thus invalidating the claim that there aren't reliable sources that refer to this as sockpuppetry. Breadblade (talk) 06:00, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• Definitely not per the above. By including him on this page we're making a claim about a living person (that what he did constitutes sockpuppetry) which isn't supported by a reliable source. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 21:50, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
• I believe Figes' behavior meets the definition of sockpuppetry.--John Foxe (talk) 22:38, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

It should not matter what you or I believe. Can you please quote any source calling this case "sockpuppetry" or "fake identity"? My very best wishes (talk) 01:13, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, we are familiar with your interpretation of the matter, you do not need to restate it. The difference here is a reading of policy, does a source need to explictly use a word (in this case "sockpuppet") for us to use that word? No-one is disputing (as far as I can tell) that these actions meet the dictionary definition. Can we use the word even if sources do not? Assume good faith and assume that other editors have read your comments, even if they disagree. Andrewaskew (talk) 03:20, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

No, that is not the question under discussion. According to your definition above, sockpuppet is "a fake persona used to discuss or comment on oneself or one's work". None of the sources claims the existence of "fake person". If he was a "fake person", he suppose to sign his review by someone else's name. He did not. P.S. I am thinking about other people in the list ...My very best wishes (talk) 03:29, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Please wait to see the outcome of this RFC before making other edits along the same line. And please, please learn the difference between wikt:person and wikt:persona, they are not the same thing. Andrewaskew (talk) 03:53, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

As Andrew has said, a "fake person" and a "fake persona" are not the same thing. See, for instance, this rabbi who got himself in trouble last month. He's a real person who created a fake persona.--John Foxe (talk) 03:59, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

In this example, Broyde, a professor of law had used an invented persona, Rabbi Hershel Goldwasser, that he claimed to be real person. This is obviously not the situation when someone writes an anonymous/pseudonymous review, as Figes did. And if you are talking about a personage (a character in a play or other work), this also has nothing to do with sockpuppets. My very best wishes (talk) 05:12, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

No, not personage, not person, persona. To wit:

Noun persona (plural personas or personae or personæ)

1. A social role.
2. A character played by an actor.
3. (psychology) The mask or appearance one presents to the world.
4. (computing) A type of skin used in Mozilla software.
   — Wiktionary

What we are talking about is mostly 1 with a touch of 3. An identity, in this case an online identity used for deception. Andrewaskew (talk) 04:08, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

What you believe is of no consequence - Wikipedia publishes only what can be verified in reliable sources. If there are no reliable sources establishing clearly and unambiguously that the person has acted as a sockpuppet, the accusation has no place in this page. A person cannot be a "notable public example" of sockpuppetry if it is not established in reliable sources that the person has been proven to be, or has admitted, to acting as a sockpuppet. This is particularly true of living persons, for whom a claim of acting as a sockpuppet is most certainly negative material subject to significant editorial scrutiny. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:14, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Figes wrote reviews of his own work under his own name. This has been well-documented in the media and fits the definition of sockpuppetry. That said, I don't know why this article needs a big laundry list of minor examples of this phenomenon. I would propose that the "notable public examples" be restructured, removed or condensed down to about five or six examples (instead of 15). Breadblade (talk) 16:08, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, he wrote an initially anonymous review about his own work, and that was documented. But I wonder how many anonymous wikipedia contributors wrote something about themselves or their work (which could be a good contribution if they followed the NPOV and other policies). Do you think they all should be regarded sockpuppets? My very best wishes (talk) 19:38, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

That depends if you are talking about Sockpuppet (Internet) or Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. All of them would fit the definition as given on this page, but parts of what are called sockpuppets on this page are covered on Wikipedia by the conflict of interest policy. Andrewaskew (talk) 04:08, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• That sounds like sockpuppetry to me as well. I don't feel strongly about including or excluding Figes' entry in this article, but his actions were well-documented in reliable secondary sources, unlike the activity of everyday users. And it was called sockpuppetry by at least one reliable secondary source . Breadblade (talk) 05:52, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• Belongs in article As the requirement for it being used for "deceit" is present, as he denied it was he at first, even using a lawyer. As he has admitted using these personas, there is no BLP issue (and I really care a lot about BLP). Collect (talk) 09:26, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

@Collect. I do not think it belongs here. He signed a review by an alias. He did not sign by a name of another person. He used only one alias/account, not many. He latter said it was him. The only "deception" was using an anonymous account and initial denial of his identity. Speaking in wikipedia terminology, he would be a victim of WP:Outing, not a WP:SOCK. My very best wishes (talk) 15:17, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I would agree if it were only one alias, but as he used at least two distinct ones according to at least one report, that crosses the line - though it is not a perfect example. And it is not an example of "Wikipedia outing" as that page is written to refer to his acknowledgements in public about his use of "alternate personas." Collect (talk) 15:27, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

First of all, "orlando-birkbeck" is not an anonymous account. Second, if this was not a perfect example, it hardly should be included in the article (there are other, more clear examples). So, with regard to the original question (does this "section belong on this page"?), I still believe it should not be here. My very best wishes (talk) 14:29, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

To concede the point, revert your concession, and then carry on the debate a week later feels wrong to me. But I'll bite. Why do you believe it should not be here? How does this example conflict with Wikipedian policy? --Andrewaskew (talk) 03:16, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

"I'll bite." What kind of argument is that? I conceded nothing. I only looked at some sources more carefully. If you really disagree, please follow WP:Dispute resolution. You posted RfC already. If this did not help, how about mediation? My very best wishes (talk) 06:17, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

"I'll bite" is not an argument, it is an English idiom meaning 'go ahead' or 'please explain.'

Surely we can work together reasonably without having to resort to the DRN or mediation? You have said in your edit summary that you believe there is a possible compromise version between yourself and the other editors on the page, what is your proposed compromise? Andrewaskew (talk) 07:26, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree as this does not seem to any direct attack on Orlando as a sockpuppet, there should be a compromiseAudicity (talk) 21:31, 8 July 2013 (UTC).

We are not talking about any kind of "attack", but about this be an appropriate (an obvious) example of sockpuppetry, and it is not. There are better (more clear-cut) examples that are currently included. My very best wishes (talk) 19:13, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Reverted again? All right, let's rephrase. I do not challenge any sources here. However, this page will not be significantly better (or worse) if we include information about Figes, quite obviously. So, you just included the negative information about a living person without good reason, aka the "undue weight". Doing this is against WP:BLP. I do not understand: why exactly do you want to include this negative info about a living person? My very best wishes (talk) 23:25, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I think the Figes case is an excellent example of sockpuppetry. He apologized and paid cash at the end of the episode. Harder to get a more slam dunk case than that.--John Foxe (talk) 20:13, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

He apologized for writing an anonymous review about work by his colleague, not for "sockpuppetry". This is simply a case of editing under an anonymous account (like we do), not sockpuppetry (a situation when a person pretends to be someone else), as discussed elsewhere in detail on this talk page. I do not write any negative information about my colleagues, especially if a conflict of interest may exist. If I did, that would be a reason for apology, just as with Figes.My very best wishes (talk) 03:30, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• Belongs in the article. Here's a newsblog expert source that calls it sockpuppetry. The other sources might have decided not to use the particular word "sockpuppet", but describing Figes as "the author of anonymous reviews that praised his own work" seems like an unsynthetic fit for the subject of the article. One of the sources that this article uses to define "sockpuppet" uses the example "authors and entrepreneurs who sneak changes onto their own entries on Wikipedia or the reviews of their books on Amazon.com". --McGeddon (talk) 09:13, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, one can reasonably argue that it can be included. However, here is the problem. This page does not clearly explain what sockpuppetry is (please see discussion about this below). Quite possibly, these is no consensus what sockpuppetry is in the sources. Speaking about this particular example, this is not an essential example which is a clear-cut and would be necessary to illustrate the concept, whatever it might be. On the other hand, it does provide a defamatory information about a living person. Therefore, I believe it is a BLP violation.My very best wishes (talk) 10:41, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with McGeddon. I think the page is clear about the definition of sockpuppetry, there's a clear consensus about its nature in the sources, and nothing defamatory about Figes is included in the paragraph.--John Foxe (talk) 20:59, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

The count is currently 3:2 (including you, but excluding this RfC initiator). This is not a consensus. I responded on your talk page here. My very best wishes (talk) 21:21, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid, Best wishes, that your comments are based on a misunderstanding of the nature of consensus. Wikipedia is not a democracy, and evaluating consensus is never a matter of counting votes. Rather it is a matter of articlate discussion and compromise. I will try again, you have said in your edit summary that you believe there is a possible compromise version of the Figes section, what is your proposed compromise? --Andrewaskew (talk) 00:42, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Reply: Fine, let's explain this differently. Please see section "Single alias" below. There I completely agree with starting argument by Collect. Furthermore, you provided a number of different definitions of sockpuppetry from various sources (quotations). That's fine. These definitions are not completely consistent. According to one of the definitions posted by you, sockpuppetry is "A pseudonym used by someone to distance themselves from their actions". This is basically any pseudonymous account (something we all disagree with). However, the most common theme in several definitions of sockpuppet is a "A phony name made up by a user in order to masquerade as someone else on the Internet" or a "a false online identity" (several definitions). Which means opening an account as Mr. Mogilevich, or Figes editing under name of Robert Service (which he did not do), or someone opening a number of different accounts and pretending that they are different people. That's why I tried to rephrase definition in the beginning of page, and that is why I believe the case of Figes does not belong here. I repeat this diff: [1]. My very best wishes (talk) 04:24, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Your argument sounds tendentious to me. You seem to find all the other examples in the article perfectly fine, and only Figes is a problem.--John Foxe (talk) 13:53, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I did not even look at other cases because I have no idea who these people are. Not my call. I prefer editing something (or someone) I know about. My very best wishes (talk) 14:14, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

You'd make a better case for your position if it didn't seem so obvious that your interest was in Figes alone. Someone's bound to wonder if you're a friend or relative.--John Foxe (talk) 17:36, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

And that is your response to my argument? Please see WP:NPA. If you seriously believe that I am related to the subject (I do not think you do), please report me on WP:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. Thanks, My very best wishes (talk) 18:20, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

That was my response to your statement that you didn't even look at the other examples of sockpuppetry in the article because you didn't know "who those people are."--John Foxe (talk) 19:07, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but why on the Earth I would look at other examples if you and Andrewaskew do not allow me to fix problem even with one person? My very best wishes (talk) 20:56, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

What is your proposed fix? --Andrewaskew (talk) 00:26, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I responded to you question [2]. Now, I suggest waiting for closing of this RfC by admin. Thanks, My very best wishes (talk) 04:48, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

That is not a compromise. --Andrewaskew (talk) 07:02, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

• Notes to closing editor:

1. Parts of this discussion are below at Consolidating "Notable public examples of alleged sockpuppetry" list & single alias account not used to deceive
2. I hope you find that this discussion has kept a degree of civility, and is relatively easy to read.
3. Thank you for your time.

--Andrewaskew (talk) 07:02, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

• Note to closing admin. What had happened here? A previous version of this page clearly explained that "The key difference between a sockpuppet and a regular pseudonym ... is the pretense that the puppet is a third party who is not affiliated with the puppeteer or acting under their control for their benefit." However, User:John Foxe removed this definition, which allowed him and his supporter, Andrewaskew (he received a barnstar specifically for supporting John Foxe in this article) to include here a lot of living people who are not sockpuppets. Sorry, but this looks to me very much as an inappropriate cooperation, especially taking into account actual sockpuppetry by John_Foxe. My very best wishes (talk) 23:19, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree that consensus should be defined by the argument. I believe this particular defamatory material about a living person does not deserve inclusion in this article per WP:DUE and explained why - see my comment (Reply) above and other discussion. However, if an uninvolved admin decides there is a clear consensus about it, this is no longer my responsibility. I posted a request about this to WP:AN several days ago on behalf of John Foxe [3]. My very best wishes (talk) 21:13, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:DUE is the policy which warns against overemphasis of fringe theories. In what way do you feel that policy is violated here? --Andrewaskew (talk) 03:34, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Corrected. My very best wishes (talk) 22:00, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

P.S. According to WP:BLP, When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first. It tells: consensus must be obtained first. Hence I am going to delete this material unless an uninvolved admin decides that there is consensus. My very best wishes (talk) 16:17, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Consensus does not depend on admins. (Where would they find the time to settle every single dispute?) But rather on discussion, and commonalities in editing. You have said that there is no possible common ground, so if you feel there is more to discuss, then please do so.

The policy on biographies of living persons does not give an editor wholecloth license to remove any section that they disagree with. This is not a good-faith removal as there is no clear BLP violation, other editors have said so too. If you disagree, please bring up your reasoning here on talk and we can reach a new consensus.

The primary problem with your alleged grounds for removing Figes is that they are based on a misreading of the definition. A pseudonym is not inherently deceitful, it is when a person uses that psedonymity to lie by omission that it becomes a sockpuppet.

Do you understand? --Andrewaskew (talk) 07:37, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Consensus does not depend on admins? Sure, but admins help to determine if there is a consensus on a regular basis, for example during deletion discussions, movements of categories, content RfCs, and so on. Here, we have a difference of opinions if there is a consensus. This is something very much common and happens all the time. Yes, an admin usually look at the arguments and decides. Right now, the request was posted on AN by a third party, so I hope it will be resolved, one way or another. You also tell that I am not acting in a good faith. Sorry to disagree, but I am acting in a good faith, and I fully explained my argument on the article talk page. To put it simple, I do not understand why do you give such prominence to this highly doubtful example of alleged sockpuppetry when there are many other much better examples, and this is a negative information about a living person (hence WP:BLP applies). Is it because you think that I am acting in a bad faith? I definitely have such impression because you agreed to remove some other doubtful examples, but not this example. As about your argument (lie by omission), opening any anonymous account is already "lying by omission" per se, but not sockpuppetry. My very best wishes (talk) 13:03, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I support Andrewaskew and believe My very best wishes stands alone in his attempt to remove the paragraph about Orlando Figes from this article. Of course, my supposition is easily refutable by anyone else who'd like to argue his position here.--John Foxe (talk) 17:36, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your support and especially for your Barnstar. It means alot to me. --Andrewaskew (talk) 03:24, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

We are not trying here to reach a consensus, or determine if we have reached consensus. But rather a consensus has already been reached and we (the other page editors) are trying to explain how it was reached. The issue is a little complex, and it is understandable that an inexperienced English speaker might find it tricky. So please feel free to ask questions. And please don't take offense.

Consensus is a complex question. While Wikipedia is not a democracy, it is rarely the single editor, the "lone voice in the wilderness," that represents the proper arbiter of a decision. We have all, from time to time, stood against a crowd of editorial disapproval. In my humble opinion, one of the key dividers between a good editor and a great editor is the ability to recognise when you are wrong. That in a given case, the proper thing to do is to step back from one's stance and follow consensus.

I never said that you yourself were not acting in good faith, what I said was that there are no good faith grounds for a BLP violation. The requirements for good faith become stricter as one becomes a more experienced editor. There is nothing in the disputed section that could be considered grounds (style, sources, or privacy) for a BLP violation. While for a new editor good faith is simply an attitude, we must hold ourselves to a higher standard. We must maintain a proper awareness of the complexities of Wikipedian policy, and listen. I could say, for intance, that 'I believe that the reason for your passionate focus on the removal of Mr Figes from this page is because you yourself are a friend of his, perhaps you met at a conference', but I shall not say any such thing. Such wild accusations do not make Wikipedia a harmonious place to edit. I am assuming good faith and assuming the assumption of good faith, as these things are the best strategy for the longterm health of Wikipedia, whether or not they work in a particular case.

As to the specifics of the definition. Pseudonymity and anonymity are NOT inherently deception, they are privacy. Privacy is not necessarily deceptive. We do not expect every honest person to shout their every personal secret from the rooftops. When privacy becomes a lie by omission is when the things that are being kept private are relevant to the matter at hand. When internet anonymity is used to conceal a conflict of interest it becomes sockpuppetry. Now, not every case of sockpuppetry involves lies by omission, some involve more traditional lies, as you have intimated some use a false identity. But it is the complexities of lies by omission that are definitional matter at hand. Is this relationship between privacy, lies by omission, conflict of interest, and deception clear?

Here to help. --Andrewaskew (talk) 01:37, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, I can not agree with "consensus" achieved by means of coordinated edit-warring, especially if this involves placing obviously negative information about three living people (this scandal involves three notable British historians, and it does not belong to this article). My very best wishes (talk) 02:51, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

This feels to me like a false accusation of factionalism and cabalism. Remember that civility and barnstars are a proper part of consensus editing and WikiLove.

If you are unwilling to discuss the matter, I will stop trying to explain the issue. --Andrewaskew (talk) 03:24, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• There is nothing wrong with receiving barnstar, unless it invites you to edit war in specific article, and that is what you actually do. I would not care much, but this involves placing negative information about three notable British historians, information that does not belong to the article. My very best wishes (talk) 12:38, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Since you've garnered no support for your position here, I suggest you try one of Wikipedia's dispute resolution venues. I'd certainly be happy to join you there.--John Foxe (talk) 14:28, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Please respect results of RfC and BLP rules

So, an RfC above was officially closed by uninvolved admin as "no consensus" [4]. There is no consensus to include this information specifically into this article. This is obviously negative information about living person. Now let me quote WP:BLP: When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first.. Why exactly there was no consensus is not really relevant. My very best wishes (talk) 18:11, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Objections to the inclusion of Orlando Figes

Please give provide your good faith objections to the inclusion of Orlando Figes here without referring to any material above. The objections should be presented unambiguously in one place so that our difference of opinion will be easier for for a third party to referee. --John Foxe (talk) 20:27, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Link to RfC above has been already provided [5] and it already includes all arguments, along with other sections. They include comments by many contributors, which were taken into account by the closing admin. Please respect WP:Consensus and WP:BLP. My very best wishes (talk) 22:36, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Please provide your good faith objections here so that our difference of opinion will be easier for a third party to referee.--John Foxe (talk) 23:17, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Everything was already provided before and during RfC above. Why repeat this again? My very best wishes (talk) 01:51, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

When opposed, anyone proposing material for inclusion needs to provide a good reason for the inclusion because articles do not mention everything possible. This article is not a list of everyone who has ever used an alias to avoid revealing their identity, and it is not a list of everyone who has spammed self-praise or attacks on rivals. The article should include only very significant examples of sockpuppetry, and the significance needs to be established by reliable secondary sources. Johnuniq (talk) 02:39, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and it was precisely the point that the case of Figes is simply not a good example of sockpuppetry for this article, because it does not fall under the most common definitions of sockpupptery (pretending to be someone else). Figes first simply edited from an anonymous account like we all do (this is not sockpuppetry according to many definitions), and then switched to another account that explicitly provided his place of work (Birkbeck College). If anything, that was an example of a conflict of interest (making negative reviews about work by his colleagues), not internet sockpuppetry that is very close to our definition of WP:SOCK.My very best wishes (talk) 03:44, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I disagree but lack the interest to pursue the matter. However, I'll include the deleted material below in case someone else is interested in taking it up.

[[Orlando Figes]], an award-winning historian who has written extensively on Russia and the Soviet Union wrote reviews on the [[Amazon.com]] website under the names "orlando-birkbeck" and "historian" praising his own books and condemning those of fellow historians Rachel Polonsky and [[Robert Service (historian)|Robert Service]]. The two sued Figes and won monetary damages.<ref>Richard Lea and Matthew Taylor [http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2010/apr/23/historian-orlando-figes-amazon-reviews-rivals "Historian Orlando Figes admits posting Amazon reviews that trashed rivals"], ''The Guardian'', April 23, 2010</ref><ref name="BBC">[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10670407 "Orlando Figes to pay fake Amazon review damages,"] BBC, July 16, 2010.</ref>

--John Foxe (talk) 15:05, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, he first edited in Amazon under an anonymous account and then under his own name ("orlando-birkbeck"). This is simply not sockpuppetry according to most common definitions of the term (please see this discussion above).My very best wishes (talk) 15:57, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Nevertheless, the following articles in The Nation and the New York Times specifically refer to Figes as a sockpuppeteer.

• http://www.thenation.com/blog/historian-trouble-orlando-figes-and-his-sock-puppet#
• http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/26/nyregion/sock-puppetry-time-honored-tradition-thrives-online.html?_r=0

Figes's real problem was that he was a pretty clumsy deceiver, certainly not up to acceptable modern standards. Then blaming his wife and having to pay monetary damages pushes his lapse in judgment to a higher level.--John Foxe (talk) 18:17, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

As a practical matter, (a) I do not see any substantial objections to my arguments in previous thread ("no consensus" means no inclusion of contentious material about living person per WP:BLP rules), (b) no need to repeat all arguments again (links provided), (c) you said that you "lack the interest to pursue the matter" - this is fine, please keep your word. My very best wishes (talk) 04:42, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

There seems to be additional opposition to your view, and I support that opposition. The links are blather; you need to state your objections to Figes's inclusion briefly in your own words.

On several occasions I've suggested that we take this difference of opinion to a dispute resolution forum. I continue to recommend that course.--John Foxe (talk) 14:41, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Having regrouped the examples section by context rather than surname, it looks like Figes is the only case we have of a review-sockpuppeteer being successfully sued for damages for such behaviour. This seems like an example worth mentioning, and a useful counterpoint to Leather's dismissive "everyone does it". --McGeddon (talk) 15:37, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

First of all, I agree with your changes - this is definitely an improvement. Second, speaking about Figes, these quoted sources consider any unethical use of an anonymous account (for example, a conflict of interest) to be a "sockpuppetry". Not so in other sources (please see this discussion above). More important, we already had exactly the same discussion, it was reviewed by admin and closed as "no consensus" meaning no inclusion of disputed material per WP:BLP - see quote above. My very best wishes (talk) 01:59, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikimedia's Fight Against Sockpuppet Army - NPOV issues

While the obvious COI risk of Wikipedia editors writing about this cannot be avoided, it can and must be carefully handled.

It is best to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest by erring on the side of caution and reducing this section to a bare minimum. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:57, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree and trimmed the material drastically. The rest of the story can be easily followed via the link. Perhaps the sentence could go elsewhere in the article though.--John Foxe (talk) 22:17, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Lori Drew material

The material on the Lori Drew case was a mess. Not only was it incorrect, it contradicted the source material AND the main Wikipedia article on the case.

I made the following corrections.

First, the guilty verdict was thrown out by the trial court judge. This action was not the result of an appeal by Lori Drew. This action was done by the trial court judge, not by the Court of Appeals.

Second, it was the prosecutor who appealed, not Lori Drew. The prosecution appealed the decision of the trial court -- the decision that threw out the guilty verdict.

Last, the prosecution's appeal was not upheld -- the appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeals (indeed, it was dismissed at the request of the government side). Famspear (talk) 22:31, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Sockpuppet (Internet). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.techweb.com/encyclopedia/defineterm.jhtml?term=meat+puppet

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:46, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Monsanto sockpuppets example

A referenced example covering Monsanto's use of sockpuppets was recently added, removed, and re-added. This example appears to be supported by reliable sources. Concerns about the wikilink to Monsanto public relations activities could be addressed by delinking rather than reverting the whole addition. Mentioning WP:FRINGE without elaboration is insufficient justification for removal of referenced content.Dialectric (talk) 08:19, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Sockpuppet (Internet). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051216010438/http://www.theonion.com/content/node/43456 to http://www.theonion.com/content/node/43456
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.msnbc.com/news/581770.asp?cp1=1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:28, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Definition

Is it possible that second accounts without intended deception applies? If so, the first sentence is too specific for the definition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Denwiko99 (talk • contribs) 02:15, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

"Bot account" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Bot account. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 22:04, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 30 July 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Some editors pointed out why the title should be moved to other titles, with no consensus on one particular title. Whereas Andrewa explained why the title should stay what it is, while pointing out the relevant policy. Thank you all for participating, and civility. Regards, —usernamekiran (talk) 22:00, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

---

Sockpuppet (Internet) → Sockpuppet (internet) – Someone had thought at Special:PermanentLink/970204265 that lowercase "internet" should be used, effectively reverting Marudubshinki's 20:31, 9 September 2006 move. The capitalized form, however, has been stable since 2006, so discussion is needed to move it back to the lowercase form. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:51, 30 July 2020 (UTC)—Relisting. —usernamekiran (talk) 07:18, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support. That was 2006 and things have changed since then. The word "internet" is no longer a proper noun. As an aside, of course after I spent a good amount of time fixing links and redirects, this page gets moved again. Please stop moving this page, it's been moved too many times. Sro23 (talk) 05:37, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

  Yeah the problem is that movers have been bypassing the WP:RM process. At least now a full discussion is open and (should) give some finality to this. -- Netoholic @ 11:31, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

• Move to Sock puppet account as WP:NATURALDIS. "Sock puppet" seems to be more common than "sockpuppet" in Google Scholar results by a wide margin, no matter how I adjust the search terms. Adding "account" ensures that the title is clearly about the internet-based topic and not cloth hand puppets (sock puppet). Using (internet)/(Internet) kind of implies that sock puppets are a type of internet. Verb forms like "sockpuppetry" or "sock puppeting" could still be confused with the toy puppet. If we have to use something parenthetical, then Sock puppet (online identity) seems more appropriate. -- Netoholic @ 11:31, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support, it's now a lower-cased word, so that pretty much does it and this seems like a noncontroversial move. I doubt that readers will confuse this title with a cloth sock being used as a hand puppet, or as a new kind of internet. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:59, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
• Move to either Sock puppet account or Sock puppet (internet). Netoholic's already made a solid case for the first option, the second option is also a valid disambiguation that uses a spelling consistent with the primary topic Sock puppet. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:10, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
• page mover comment: I have relisted the discussion as we have equal support for two different titles. pining all the commentors: @GeoffreyT2000, Sro23, Netoholic, Randy Kryn, and Rosguill: —usernamekiran (talk) 07:18, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. We actually have a page on this at Capitalization of Internet. There have been many long and repetitive discussions as to how Wikipedia should use capitalisation, most of which have seemed to me to be based on what people were taught about proper names in primary schools twenty or more years ago and of which no questioning is permitted. So let's instead cut to the chase... What's the damage of capitalisation here? None. What's the damage of non-capitalisation? Some readers are misled. It may not be much damage but it's non-zero. So to me it's a no-brainer. And leave philosophical discussions about proper names and the logic of distribution (which our articles cover very badly I notice) and the use of markers in English to the linguists. (It's not as controversial as some seem to think. But I've given up for the moment.) Andrewa (talk) 17:32, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Distinction between S and Marionette

I think that in English there is an important distinction between S and M. Sockpuppet is a person who mostly talks, agitates, votes, propagates an opinion. A marionette person is more defined by the fact that he/she does what they told him, usually something bad, unwanted, or unsupported by the majority. Like a marionette government of the occupants etc.

I would add a piece of text about it so that there is a clear understanding. As long as there is no such, this article is understood (and translated into other languages!) a bit wrong which causes wrong decisions.

For example, in Russian Wikipedia after some discussion, it was all translated using "marionette" word and the guy who controls it, you guess, a "marionettist". It really shifts the meaning and understanding. Just say aloud "Master of Puppets"! I bet half of you will immediately start singing "Master, Master, where're the dreams that I've been after" etc. A clearly bad guy!

And because of this shift of understanding, some admins believe that creating another account in WP is a clear evidence of bad intentions. Even if nothing was destroyed, if the puppet hasn't written anywhere... Such accounts get banned, the reputation of the owner is questioned. Users go away because of such strict measures that harm the WP.

What should be instead is checking if there are signs of preparation or execution of propaganda, forged voting, and only then the ban-hammer should be pulled out.

So if anyone can clearly distinct a sockpuppet person and a marionette person, please write about it. Nikolay Komarov (talk) 18:11, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 19 August 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 02:05, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

---

Sockpuppet (Internet) → Sock puppet account – For WP:NATURALDIS and common spelling. "Sock puppet" seems to be more common than "sockpuppet" in Google Scholar results by a wide margin, no matter how I adjust the search terms to remove toy references. Adding "account" ensures that the title is clearly about the internet-based topic and not cloth hand puppets (sock puppet). Using (internet)/(Internet) kind of implies that sock puppets are a type of internet. Alternative titles like verb forms ("sockpuppetry", "sock puppeting") could still be confused with the toy puppet. -- Netoholic @ 20:20, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support sure. "Sock puppet" with the space does seem to be more commonly used. Sro23 (talk) 05:32, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
• Weak oppose I'm not sure if this is a good application of NATURAL since its not clear from the Scholar results that "Sock puppet account" is actually treated as part of the name rather than just appearing in running text. Crouch, Swale (talk) 07:13, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support. Adding the space is justified above, and so we need to disambiguate with sock puppet somehow. I don't have a strong opinion as to whether the proposed NDIS is the best way to go, but we should move it somewhere and this seems as good as anywhere. At the very least a redirect from the proposed name would be very helpful, but why not just move the article to that name? Andrewa (talk) 09:21, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

  Then consider moving to Sock puppet (Internet). Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:26, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

• Support. Sockpuppet making and its products deserve a separate article. Nikolay Komarov (talk) 17:53, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Some visuals please

How is our Wiki dealing with these?

See the graphs and more here: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/albertonardelli/facebook-twitter-google-manipulation-nato-stratcom Zezen (talk) 10:27, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Do many organizations, business or otherwise, employ sock puppets?

Or do any? I can see this as a very easy way to sway public opinion for or against something, and i would like to know how prevalent it is. Of course most never get exposed, and its not illegal in most cases... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.81.199.45 (talk) 09:52, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Can we compare it to fake accounts used for recommendations on booking websites ? Can we consider them as sockpuppets ? Ines MERAOUMIA TPT (talk) 10:45, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

See here https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/albertonardelli/facebook-twitter-google-manipulation-nato-stratcom Zezen (talk) 10:28, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Should Wikipedia sockpuppet issues be included

An editor has recently removed several WP:RS referenced sentences about socking on wikipedia. It is my position that sourcing is sufficient to include this information, and that sockpuppeting on wikipedia is of high enough historical importance to be included in the history section of this article. The article Orangemoody editing of Wikipedia has numerous WP:RS refs covering socking on wikipedia.Dialectric (talk) 14:39, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

The relevant policy here is WP:BALASP, which says "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic."

This Wikipedia-related content currently represents more than a third of the History section, which is vastly out of proportion to its importance in the history of sockpuppet accounts. It may be of additional interest to Wikipedia editors, but they aren't Wikipedia's target audience. Dan Bloch (talk) 15:19, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

I should also mention, this information already appears in an article linked from this page. Dan Bloch (talk) 15:50, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Given the extensive coverage of wikipedia socking in RS sources, wikipedia socking is of interest to an audience beyond just wikipedia editors. Two cited sentences about this activity is a reasonable inclusion in a history of sockpuppeting. The issue I see is that the history section needs to be expanded. Wikipedia should not be the only example of online socking in the section. There should be examples from pre-world wide web online activity, examples from the early days of the web, and some of the examples in the 'Examples of sockpuppetry' section may be relevant to a history section.Dialectric (talk) 16:18, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree that the history section could be expanded, and if it were the Wikipedia entry would be appropriate, but until this happens the WP:BALASP argument stands. This section has two pre-internet observations, then leaps forward to a very specific example from Wikipedia. This is jarring to read and shouldn't be there. If you want to move this to the Examples of sockpuppetry section, I'd be okay with that. Dan Bloch (talk) 00:38, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Since there is no consensus, I'll be removing this text tomorrow per WP:ONUS. Dan Bloch (talk) 21:14, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

There is an WP:EDITCONSENSUS, backed up by 4 years+ of different editors working on this article, to include mention of wikipedia socking in the history section. One editor disagreeing does not undo this.Dialectric (talk) 15:38, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

No, WP:EDITCONSENSUS shows that there was a consensus. This discussion shows that there no longer is. But rather than continue this debate, I've made a minor addition which should satisfy everyone. Carry on. Dan Bloch (talk) 17:03, 24 August 2021 (UTC)