Here is a link to an archive of threads which took place before and after the first vote: Archive 1. The voting was stopped after a number of concerns were raised. These are stored in the archive as well.
Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
There was an "Archive 1" page, and a "Discussion" page. The discussion page has now been moved to "Archive 1/history" so that the page history is kept. --HappyCamper01:14, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
As one of the original authors of the policy, I'd like to respond to some of the criticisms raised during the previous (short-lived) voting. I'd also like to note that I wasn't around while voting was taking place, or I would have responded then.
First, the source of this policy was a series of discussions on Village Pump, VIP, and elsewhere about vandals who were using "i" and "l" in usernames to impersonate others. As a result, a trend began (or intensified) to create these kinds of accounts yourself, so the vandals didn't get a chance. Well meaning admins were blocking the accounts, and it was creating extra work for the admins and users involved. I created the template for two reasons:
To identify the accounts as legit, rather than vandals, saving admins the time it takes to block the account, and users the time it takes to get it unblocked. (I still don't understand all the reasons for wanting them unblocked, but the fact remains that users were requesting them to be unblocked and admins were doing it, creating more work). The template was a simple way to say "please don't block" and save a lot of time and frustration.
Becasue vandals were redirecting the imposter accounts to the legit accounts user pages, making themselves harder to detect, and causing a lot of confusion and ill will. If users were to start doing the same thing (as Angela suggested) it would cause more, not less, confusion. The DG template was a way to clearly say "this is what this account is."
Second, I was one of the principal authors of the policy, and it was written because User:TenOfAllTrades suggested that there should be a policy. He outlined it, and I filled in the outline. I never had instruction creep in mind, nor did I have official policy in mind. I was thinking more along the lines of a "guideline" which would outline how and when to use the template, and why it was there. I didn't want an offical "if you create one of these accounts you must do this policy;" I wanted a "if you create one of these accounts, here's some instructions for how to keep it from causing extra work for you and the admins" guidline.
Third, we put the policy up for a vote because it was my understanding that proposed policies were put up for a vote. From the point the "drafting" stage ended and the "voting" stage began, I stepped back 1) because as my first attempt at a policy, I feel a bit protective of it, and 2) because I'm not familiar enough with how voting on policies works to be confient I wouldn't end up being yelled at for doing the wrong thing. HappyCamper came along and seemed eager to do it, so I left it to him. The criteria he set up seemed reasonable to me, so I didn't object.
Fourth, the policy draft was well publicized. I personally put it on RfC & Village Pump, and I know that it was listed on one of the "noticeboard" pages off Special:Recentchanges. If the vast majority of users didn't want to look at it, it's not the fault of the policy drafters.
Finally, I'd just like to say, I feel a bit bitten and I wasn't even the one responsible for most of what has been criticized. I realize that many of you have been here since Jimbo threw the switch, and that some of you are very high up in the chain-of-command, but please remember, all of us are not, and we sometimes make mistakes. -- Essjay · Talk 00:54, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
The problem is neither with the template nor the advice -- but prescribing one particular way to deal with such accounts is not necessary. Why not simply use a redirect to point a doppelgänger to the owning account, for example? (Your response that vandals might do the same applies to the template, too -- in both cases I need to check the page history to be sure.) Once you settle for a highly prescriptive approach, you lose this kind of flexibility. I suggest refactoring the page into general advice on doppelganger accounts.--Eloquence* 04:25, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
Honestly, that sounds like good advice to me! I never meant it to be the "be-all-end-all" on the subject. The biggest argument against using redirects is that the vandals using these accounts for vandalism have done just that (or have copy/pasted the contents of the impersonated user's userpage). Sure, a vandal could use the DG template too, but it's more likely to be met with skepticism, and it's easier to check. The whole idea is to save the admins the hassle that is involved with dealing with these sort of vandals.
Most importantly, I agree totally with the idea of it remaining a guidline/advice page. If I had my way, there would be no more voting on it, it would stay advice, and we could all go back to editing articles and fighting vandals. -- Essjay · Talk 05:22, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
I agree completely - well, unless someone beats me to it, I'll be WikiBold once more and change the page to a "guideline/advice" page. --HappyCamper07:51, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
Hang on Hap; are we allowed to use that template without having a vote/sacrificing a goat/digging a moat? (Okay, I got carried away with the ryhming...) -- Essjay · Talk 08:03, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
Latest comment: 19 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Disable accounts that differ from existing account name only by single letter. This should handle most of problems and people will have more time to do edits instead of hunting ghosts. Pavel Vozenilek02:59, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
But, it rules out the reasonable username scheme of firstname + last initial, as in RickK - under your plan, Rick Adams (for example) couldn't be RickA, Rick Braun couldn't be RickB, etc. Not to mention names like Rick, Dick and Nick. FreplySpang(talk)19:16, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
Why??
Latest comment: 19 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This page outlines the procedure for creating and reacting to doppelgangers very well. However, it does not explain why they shouldn't be blocked. That shouldn't be a complex question but I've yet to see an answer. I think there should be a Wikipedia:Doppelganger blocks page with very simple rules. Anyone can list a "doppelganger set"(group of usernames that are visually identical or extremely similar). The page will ask them to list the "real" account first, but since this will have to be verified anyway, it doesn't really matter. For each set there, admins should indefinitely block all but the account with the first edit chronologically. Then, on all other accounts they should post a template saying something like,
Your username, <USERNAME> is a Wikipedia:Doppelganger account. It is excessively similar to [[User:<Original Account Here>]]. Therefore, it has been permanently blocked. If this resemblance is unintentional, we apologize, but the account will remain blocked to avoid misunderstandings. However, unless you have previously been blocked for an unrelated reason, you may create another account with a distinct username. Also, you may redirect your user and user talk pages to that account's. Thank you for your cooperation.
Because it is a very simple procedure with not subjectivity involved, this likely wouldn't create a admin backlog. I also think it is the best means to ensure doppelgangers are never a problem. Superm401 | Talk19:57, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
The issue you raise concerns imposters, not Doppelgangers (DG's). Imposters, which are created by users other than the "real" user, are always indef. blocked, and a very similar message is left. With the creation of the new user log, this has become far more easy, and the number of such blocks has increased. DG's, which are created by the "spoofed" user or someone associated with that user in order to prevent them being created by potential imposters, are not blocked. The idea of preemptive blocks for DG's was brought up when the guideline was first written. There are three main reasons for not blocking DG's:
It creates additional blocks, potentially hundreds of them, which never come off the blocklog (indef. blocks are, as the name suggests, indef.). This steals server resources that could be better allocated to other concerns, as well as making the blocklist longer and less manageable that it already is. The length/incredibly long load time for the blocklist is already an issue, no need to add to it.
DG's are no less secure than any other account. If you create the DG with a secure password, it is no more likely to be hijacked than any other user's account. There is no need to preemptively block accounts that are otherwise secure.
It creates technical problems, particularly for those with dynamic IP's. If, for example, I create a Doppelganger on an AOL dial-up IP, then have it blocked, everyone who uses that IP subsequently (which experience has shown may be hundreds, if not thousands of innocent users) will be autoblocked, creating havoc for the users who are mistakenly blocked, and for the admins who have to investigate the block (to insure that it is a DG block, rather than a real imposter who was blocked) and release the block. Assuming that one DG on an AOL IP resulting in ten autoblocks a day (a very conservative figure) and that it takes the average admin five minutes to check that the account that was blocked was a DG rather than an imposter, then load up the blocklist (which may take up to two or three mins in itself), find the appropriate block among the 100-200 blocks that are likely there, and release the block, then we have 50 mins a day that is being wasted on needless DG autoblocks. Considering that we have no way to turn the autoblocker off, this will continue to happen, every day, to every user who is assigned that IP, until the original DG block is lifted.
Creating doppelganger accounts can result in blocked IP address!
Latest comment: 18 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion
I tried to create some doppelganger accounts to prevent vandals from impersonating me, but the accounts were permanently blocked before I had a chance to log in with my real username, and my IP addres was blocked for 24 hours. I don't care that the doppelganger accounts were blocked as long as vandals can't use them, but following the instructions at WP:DOPP resulted in an inconvenient block of my IP address. I am unblocked now, but perhaps something should be done to prevent this from happening to other innocent users. --TantalumTelluride04:45, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
There are admins who watch the user creation log and block any impostor-ish username to avoid having them cause problems. Lately, we've had problems with the vandalbots creating impostor usernames, and so imposter blocks have been higher than normal. I invite any affected user to email me (my email is listed on my talk page) and I will investigate and unblock. -- Essjay · Talk20:54, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Your Ip isn't actually blocked until you attempt to make an edit while logged in with a blocked account. If you must create these accounts simply create the account and the immediatley log out without doing anything. You can use your real account to place the template on the page.--God of War03:30, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
What's Annoying is if you are blocked without a notice and only find out you are blocked when making some random edit. If you have AOL (but Don't use it because you don't like AOL) you can edit from your account while your IP is blocked (for being used by the account you are editing). It would be nice if the autoblock would go away after you are unblocked. However, I am not suggesting that you use AOL to Evade a block (That will just get you in more trouble, especially if you were blocked without a good reason). It seams confusing to people to request an unblock on their talk page while you are logged in.
Question..
Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Anyone knows if there is a policy about a somebody creating an Doppelganger account, not on a Wikipedian User but on the subject of a biography of a living person on Wikipedia? --Deenoe01:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
