 | This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
 | This user page or section is in a state of significant expansion or restructuring. You are welcome to assist in its construction by editing it as well. If this user page has not been edited in several days, please remove this template. If you are the editor who added this template and you are actively editing, please be sure to replace this template with {{in use}} during the active editing session. Click on the link for template parameters to use.
This page was last edited by Red-tailed hawk (talk | contribs) 21 months ago. (Update timer) |
At times, malicious actors attempt to sway the outcome of discussions through the disruptive use of sockpuppets, meatpuppets, canvassing, undisclosed paid editing, or other disruptive editing tactics. Sometimes, this behavior so irreparably harms the coherence or flow of a discussion to such an extent that any attempts to determine consensus are rendered futile by the disruption itself. These discussions should be considered irreparably tainted.
When is a discussion irreparably tainted?
editNot every discussion with sockpuppet-related disruption is irreparably tainted.
editUnfortunately, Wikipedia's history is filled with examples of even some of the most trusted community members engaging in these sorts of illegitimate editing practices. In most cases, there are remedial measures that can be taken in order to ensure a proper cleanup after this sort of disruption. The mere usage of sockpuppets or meatpuppets alone, thus, does not necessarily indicate that a discussion is irreparably tainted. However, this will not always be the case.