Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppetry/archive5

Archive 4

I have created archive 4, since the page was getting really long. WLU (talk) 21:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

RfC needing input from editors experienced in applying this policy

See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/TheNautilus. Tim Vickers (talk) 15:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Question-alternate accounts

So, given Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Segregation_and_security, point one, what is the purpose? The other areas seem clear:

2) Editors and admins on possibly compromising computers (tag account should be mandatory)

3) "Users with a recognized expertise in one field might not wish to associate their contributions to that field with contributions to articles about subjects in which they do not have the same expert standing, or which they consider less weighty." - for lack of a better word, this seems...dumb, particularly since credentials don't mean jack on wiki

4) OK, for homosexuals in families and countries where this is a big deal (no tag, but topic-limited)

5) Sure (tag account should be mandatory)

But "A user making substantial contributions to an area of interest in Wikipedia might register another account to be used solely in connection with developing that area" seems to run headlong in to WP:SOCK#SCRUTINY, drub it about the head and steal its wallet. Is there an area in the archives or some discussion I could be pointed to? I'm coming into this because of the RFC on TheNautalis that TimVickers refers to above. WLU (talk) 20:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The only example of 1 that I'm aware of is one editor who uses a separate account to make "substantial contributions" in the area of pornography, since his main account is easily associated with his real life identity (although that's bordering on criterion 4). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

One editor and no discusion I can see makes me want to remove it. Thanks for the reply, I'll see if I can drum up more discussion before actually cutting it out. WLU (talk) 20:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

If you said "Users that edit using accounts that are linked to their real-life identity and have recognized expertise in one field might not wish to associate their contributions to that field with contributions to articles about subjects in which they do not have the same expert standing, or which they consider less weighty." that would make it more limited. For example if I wanted to edit articles about Pokemon, I might not want people to relate that to my work on biochemistry. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I concur that this part of the policy is both unclear and weak. There is too much power to be gained by the use of multiple accounts to allow vague loopholes.

There are two separate issues here: (a) alternate accounts that are clearly identified as such, with links to their main accounts, and (b) alternate accounts that are kept secret or anonymous. Each type of alternate accounts need rules in the policy and should be addressed with separate sections. I'm going to start a new section below to request comments on this issue.

A related issue is the section at Clean start under a new name. I've made an edit to that section to clarify that once the new name is activated, any use of the old name is a form of using an alternative account. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 23:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

More Readily available / visible links for new users who have been sockpuppified

Under WP:DONTBITE - wouldn't there be a clear need to have "Your account has been perma-blocked for suspected sock puppetry - but don't panic - click here to find out more" I'm still figuring my way around here and I may start a help page for new users who've been summarily blocked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hutch1970 (talk • contribs) 10:35, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Still have not found any helpful info - I can still edit, but I still have "Suspected Sock Puppet, blocked indefinitely" on my user page. As I'm still learning the ropes, it's not a big deal yet. Hutch1970 (talk) 17:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Identifies of sockpuppets

How do admins identify sockpuppets?The way they tlak?How we know people have similar methods of working on Wiki?ID number shows? Yorkabes say her account belong to Artisol2345's sister. But people aying it is not neccessairly true. How do we know that message is unture?--Freewayguy ^{Discuss Infolog} 03:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

renamed: Bald Eagle

(Update: This question is asked again in the next section) There is a very legitimate case for someone using a not-real-name account and concealing their identity (such as to be able to edit free from influence from family, work, or other affiliations). If this person believed that someone might have learned their account name, it would be perfectly normal for them to cease using their existing account and start using a new not-real-name account.

This situation is like a partial combination of the "clean start" scenario and the first point of "Segregation and security". It should be mentioned. --Gronky (talk) 18:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The particular case Gronky is concerned with is Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Bald Eeagle (3rd)‎, where it appears likely that a user who was previously indef blocked for using socks has returned under yet another sock but wishes to be allowed to continue editing. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 01:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

No, that case is not at all what inspired me to raise this issue. This presumption is quite irritating. This is an issue of author independence, please do not taint the discussion with off-the-mark assumptions. --Gronky (talk) 11:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

What about new nicknamed accounts

There is a very legitimate case for a wikipedian who uses an account which doesn't disclose their identity (to preserve their independence of action). If this person believed their independence had been compromised, it would be perfectly normal for them to cease using their existing account and start using a new not-real-name account. The person may also opt to periodically migrate to a new account, even if lacking specific knowledge that their independence had been compromised.

This situation is like a partial combination of the "clean start" scenario and the first point of "Segregation and security". It should be mentioned. --Gronky (talk) 11:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Request for Comments re Alternative Accounts

{{RFCpolicy}} Removing the RFC template I'd posted a few weeks ago, due to low activity. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 16:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

This is an RFC, but unlike many RFC's, this one is not a dispute. The purpose of this RFC is to suggest that we clarify the policy regarding alternative accounts as defined at WP:SOCK#LEGIT.

There is too much power to be gained by the use of multiple accounts to allow vague loopholes. As the policy reads now, all that's needed to avoid accusations of sockpuppetry is to start a new account and post a multiple accounts template or a link to WP:SOCK#LEGIT. How does it help avoid the problems of sockpuppets if the user is not required to disclose the identity of their other accounts? Granted, there may be situations in which disclosure could be a problem so a procedure is needed for that. However, the use of announced-but-completely-anonymous alternative accounts can easily have the same disruptive effect as a regular sockpuppet.

Another problem with allowing announced-but-completely-anonymous alternative accounts is that banned users can use that as a method to avoid the obstacle of being noticed as an experienced user even though their account is new. Sophisticated banned users can do this with a proxy and avoid checkuser identification. If alternative accounts required disclosure, either on-Wiki, or by email, that would solve this issue; any banned user returning with a new account would have to be much more careful not to appear experienced too soon, and that would make it more difficult for them to return to causing the same problems for which they were banned.

A way to improve the policy and prevent misuse is to separate the two types of alternative accounts currently covered by the policy:

• Alternative accounts that are clearly identified as such, with links to their main accounts
• Alternative accounts that are kept secret or anonymous.

Below is an initial suggestion for an approach. It might be too strong, ie, overcompensating, but I think it's a useful starting point so we can determine where the line is between what alternate accounts must be disclosed and in what cases it might be OK not to disclose. The non-disclosing situations should be very limited. As it is now, anyone can make a new account, write on the page something like "new account for controversial topics" - then they can proceed to edit, even in conjunction with their other accounts, and if someone asks them, they can hide behind WP:SOCK as it currently reads, stating that it's a valid alternate account and no disclosure of their other accounts is required.

Suggested starting point version follows:

Legitimate uses of alternative accounts Alternate accounts may be used for limited purposes to facilitate an editor's work on Wikipedia. All alternate accounts require disclosure of their existence, either on Wikipedia or privately by email to ArbCom. Any alternate account that is not disclosed shall be considered to be a sockpuppet account and subject to the usual sanctions, as will any alternate account that is used to create an impression of separate editors for the purpose of influencing consensus, edit warring, or any other form of influence contrary to policy. Examples of legitimate uses for alternative accounts are listed below. Alternative accounts for security and organization This form of alternative account requires that the user clearly disclose its use on the user pages or user talk pages of both accounts, for transparency and accountability, as described at Alternative account notification. A user making substantial contributions to an area of interest in Wikipedia might register another account to be used solely in connection with developing that area, for purposes of organizing their work. Since public computers can have password-stealing trojans or keyloggers installed, users may register an alternative account to prevent the hijacking of their main accounts. An editor might use an openly declared alternative account to carry out maintenance tasks in order to simplify the organization of such tasks. Alternate accounts for privacy concerns With very limited exceptions, alternative accounts that are not disclosed publicly on Wikipedia must be disclosed privately by email to ArbCom, as described at Alternative account notification if they are used for any substantive editing or to engage in any consensus discussions or otherwise influence content or policy in any way. The only exceptions are short-term or minimally used accounts that do not influence policy, consensus or controversial content. Users with a recognized expertise in one field might not wish to associate their contributions to that field with contributions to articles about subjects in which they do not have the same expert standing, or which they consider less weighty. A person editing an article which is highly controversial within his/her family, social or professional circle, and whose Wikipedia identity is known within that circle, or traceable to their real-world identity, may wish to use an alternative account in order to avoid real-world consequences from their involvement in that area. Prominent users might create a new account to experience how the community functions for new users.

Regarding the requirement of disclosure through email for alternate accounts that must be kept secret on-wiki, perhaps it's too much to have all those emails go to arbcom. It would be easy to create a mailing list specifically for this disclosure process. It would not even need monitoring, it could just collect disclosures. If at any point a concern came up about one of those accounts, an authorized administrator, perhaps checkuser or RfA clerk, could access the email list archive to confirm the identity of the alternative account user.

I'm not sure about the procedure for that, but something is needed to minimize the use of secret alternative accounts as a way around the WP:SOCK policy.

Please enter comments so the policy regarding use of multiple accounts can be improved. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:54, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Given that arbcom has its old-arbs still on the mailing list, I don't see it as a major issue to require all non-disclosed socks to register with them. It would also save a lot of embarrassing checkusers from being run as well as discouraging people from being aggressive (bad hand) on one account and not on the other. MBisanz ^talk 22:46, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think it sounds like a good idea too, and certainly a good response to the legitimate problem of socking. I think this verification should only be for cases where the user wishes the identity of the 2 or more accounts to be anonymous from each other on wikipedia. Tony Sidaway using his new account Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The would not need verification because he openly identifies as his old account. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I oppose these new draconian requirements. As long as editors are not using multiple accounts in a way that overlaps, editors should be free to use as many accounts as they would like without telling anyone. If you are an Iranian nuclear physicist, you should be able to use one account on articles related to Iran, and another relating to physics, and as long as you don't use them both on the same article, I would never have a problem with no one knowing your secret. -- Kendrick7^talk 15:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose, this is a solution looking for a problem. The people that would submit their accounts to arbcom are not the people that use socks abusively. It will also remove real privacy and replace it with a fake privacy, and will not help reduce abusive sock puppetry one bit as they will not register. We do not go on fishing expeditions with check users so there would be no way to find those who do not "register" their accounts. No, No, No. _{1 != 2} 15:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. This will discourage those with legitimate privacy issues from contributing, while doing nothing to discourage abuse. "Anyone who wants to protect their identity, please raise their hand so we can identify you." Counterintuitive, offensive, and likely to be ignored. ThreeOfCups (talk) 04:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Strong Oppose. This is a rehash of something that we've been through here multiple times already, as you'll find by reading the archives of this talk page. It was unacceptable then to expect a disclosure to all of arbcom for multiple accounts used for privacy reasons and nothing has changed to make that acceptable now. --AliceJMarkham (talk) 00:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that we should do something. There are many problems with alternate accounts even if used with benign intentions, and there is tremendous potential for abuse. Sockpuppetry is one of the more serious problems on Wikipedia. The stated privacy concern, by contrast, is hypothetical and does not seem to reflect a present problem or a major harm to avoid. Wikidemo (talk) 07:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Err. Hypothetical? I'm an actual example, as you will discover if you read through the archives of this page. Privacy of real identity is a genuine issue for some of us, not just hypothetical. I agree that something needs to be done but I don't agree with the proposed extent of exposure of private information. --AliceJMarkham (talk) 14:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

A few related discussions from 2007 archived talk page:

• Wikipedia talk:Sock puppetry/archive4#Undeclared sock puppets are mostly trouble
• Wikipedia talk:Sock puppetry/archive4#Privacy and multiple accounts
• Wikipedia talk:Sock puppetry/archive4#Proposal for immediate voluntary "Approved unassociated socks list"

--Jack-A-Roe (talk) 17:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

RFC: Does Avoiding scrutiny need to be revised?

Is policy established by WP:Suspected sock puppets/Leedryburgh inconsistent with Avoiding scrutiny? Should Avoiding scrutiny be rewritten to permit anonymous vandalism, external link spamming and conflict of interest behaviour? — Dgtsyb (talk) 07:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Would you please consider refactoring this, or moving your grievance to the appropriate page? It's not clear what you are asking or proposing for the sockpuppet policy. You filed a sock puppet report on two accounts that do not seem to have been sock puppets - simply an editor who sometimes logged in and sometimes did not to make his edits. If the user is adding spam links or engaging in COI then that's a separate issue and we have adequate procedures for dealing with that. Wikidemo (talk) 08:14, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Even though this is totally out of place, no that par tof the policy should stay to prevent good hand/bad hand accounts from violating policy. MBisanz ^talk 08:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, no. Now you cause me to redouble the question.

WP:SOCK#SCRUTINY says "Alternative accounts should not be used to edit in ways that would be considered improper if done by a single account." By your statement that "we have adequate procedures for dealing with that" do you mean that all other policy violations made using alternate accounts are not sock puppetry? If this is the case, WP:SOCK#AVOID does not appear to have any practical use because all policy violations are certainly "improper if done by a single account." Perhaps WP:SOCK#LEGIT should be expanded, then, to include violation of any other policy for which there is a remedy?

I think that the use of an anonymous account is only to avoid some degree of scrutiny, and some uses are WP:SOCK#LEGIT but as WP:SOCK#AVOID says, where it is to avoid scrutiny of a policy violation, it is sock puppetry.

But now you confuse me more. What is the WP:SOCK#AVOID policy trying to say if it is not applied to those that violate it? I would really like to know if it is OK for me to use an IP dialup account with a pseudo-random IP address to obscure my identity for making COI entries and, if caught, I will only be held to account for COI and not sock puppetry. The same for link spamming and other vandalism. This appears to be what you and the Leedryburgh case are telling me. If so, does not WP:SOCK#AVOID need to be rewritten to properly reflect that? — Dgtsyb (talk) 08:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. Shalom Yechiel has cleared up my confusion by reaffirming that the WP:SOCK#AVOID policy is indeed applicable in this narrow situation and, therefore, does not need revision. See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Leedryburgh for details. I have commented out the original RFC and it is now closed. — Dgtsyb (talk) 01:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

?????????

Okay what if I make another account that is not for my benefit?????????????????????????????????? --Anfish (talk) 23:22, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

For whose benefit would it be? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

These persons?Vegetationlife (talk) 21:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Secret sock puppets

Would it be acceptable to add the following passage:

Second accounts may also be used for controversial topics only, and are only required to disclose their sockpuppet status, and not the main account of their operator.

Please place a revised copy in your comments if you would accept it only. Thank you.--Ainlina--Speak to me--Ask a question--Praise and criticism 12:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Meatpuppet is a derogatory term

The policy says meatpuppet is a derrogatory term. ArbCom has been using the more genteel expression "proxy editor". This is a more polite way of saying exactly the same thing. I would like to make this edit: [1]. Policy should be as polite as possible and set a good example. Felonious Monk reverted my edit, but failed to provide any sort of explanation. I'd like to discuss this now. Jehochman ^Talk 12:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Meatpuppet is a term of art here on Wikipedia. It's a disfavored activity so there's no way to get around that. We have lots of colorful terms around here about editing practices that come from Internet culture or Wikipedia specifically: trolling, sockpuppetry, revert war, edit war, tendentiousness, POV-pushing, BLP, BRD, snowball, original research, verifiability, vote stacking, cup-of-tea, wikibreak, wikistress, and the ever popular WP:DICK. "Proxy" is a fairly precise word in English that implies things other than meatpuppetry - an alter ego / agency relationship, for example. Adopting that word to stand for meatpuppetry means we're coining a new term, only hanging it on a deceptively technical sounding one - gentility indeed. I don't see any need to sanitize the language in that way, it seems like 1970s-style creeping euphemisms, or putting on airs, like calling garbage workers "sanitary engineers" or calling your car antifreeze "automotive coolant". If we're going to come up with a more cheerful term, why not get to the point? I like the term I just saw someone use in the Obama war: "edit buddy". Wikidemo (talk) 14:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

"meat puppet" is absolutely no more derogatory than "sock puppet" is. If the two are treated identically by policy, then there's no reason to euphemise one. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is supposed to be accessible to the masses, and friendly to newcomers. I suggest we use proper English words to enhance understanding, rather than create our own language and jargon. Proxy editor is very clear. It is an editor who is acting as a proxy for somebody else. Jehochman ^Talk 15:31, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

And there's no obvious indication that this is a bad thing unless the term is described - see "sock puppet" and "alternative account" for a possible point of confusion. The term "meat puppet" is immediately accessible to anyone who understands what a "sock puppet" is - and given that this page is titled "sock puppetry", that should be everyone. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

To be fair it is kind of gross. It evokes the image of ground beef inside a sock. Wikidemo (talk) 20:59, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and what about those who are vegetarian or vegan? Ew. Jehochman ^Talk 01:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Huh. Except it doesn't, really. The use of meat in this sense is probably more common in the science fiction community then "sock puppet" is in the world at large. In the end, it's all just jargon, and it doesn't make sense to try to euphemise parts of it but not others. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

And I always thought it had something to do with male genitalia - that's the connotation anyway - in which case it is derogatory - very. Especially to the human majority who keep their intellects in their skulls. Vegetationlife (talk) 16:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

All us people are made of meat(except for our kind robot overlords), I don't see why it should be gross. I don't think the name is an issue, it describes things very well. _{1 != 2} 20:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Conflict with Wikimedia privacy policy

The Wikimedia privacy policy currently states: When you publish a page in the wiki, you may be logged in or not.. However, WP:SOCK#Avoiding scrutiny says ..it is a violation of this policy to create alternative accounts — or to edit anonymously without logging in to your account — in order to confuse or deceive editors.... Isnt' this a conflict in regards to anonymous editing? Kelly ^hi! 23:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it depends if it is done to avoid scrutiny: i.e. "in order to confuse or deceive editors". Also the Wikimedia privacy policy just mentions that is possible, and that a user is identified by IP address if not logged into an account; my interpretation is that it does not state whether anonymous editing is legitimate within the policy or not, although the permission could probably be disabled if the Foundation (or maybe Wikipedia) decided that was its policy; such as on some non-Wikimedia wikis (e.g. Conservapedia) where it is only possible for registered users to edit. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 01:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Can anyone explain how this[2] is not a change in policy? In the absence of that sentence is IP socking prohibited? Wikidemo (talk) 19:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

IP-socking, if done disruptively or by a blocked/banned user, can be addressed by checkuser (or by blocking the IP itself for disruptive behavior). But editing anonymously or logged out, in and of itself, is specifically allowed by Wikimedia. Kelly ^hi! 19:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

There have been piles of WP:SSP and WP:RFCU reports that have involved I.P. addresses, and plenty of examples of users being blocked for I.P. sockpuppetry. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

This is a significant concern; I support clarifying the policy statement as proposed. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 20:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

If this is actually a change we should revert it pending discussion, and I would strongly oppose it. If it's just a "clarification" I'm not sure how, which is why I asked. Using an IP to avoid detection is exactly the same as using an alternate account to avoid detection. It's one of the more common, and disruptive, forms of sockpuppetry. It's not always that the IP is acting disruptive. The use of multiple accounts is itself (e.g. good hand / bad hand, false implications of consensus, etc., is disruptive. Wikidemo (talk) 21:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I see it as a clarification, not a change. The existing version: " it is a violation of this policy to create alternative accounts in order to..." only addresses the creation of alternate accounts; since IP's are not created as such, they slip through a loophole, that's why the added phrase is needed. Another way to address this would be to change "create" to "use", as follows:

"it is a violation of this policy to use alternative accounts, either logged in or not, in order to confuse or deceive editors...."

One way or the other, the loophole should be closed, because it was not intended to allow IP editing as a way to confuse or deceive. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 22:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikidemo, I'm confused by your comments. You say "Using an IP to avoid detection is exactly the same as using an alternate account to avoid detection", which is exactly what Kelly's changes say. What exactly is your problem with the change? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

WIth Kelly's edit[3] the statement only goes against "create alternative accounts" for an abusive purpose. Doing it from IP edits without logging in isn't included because these are not "accounts" and they are not "created". Thus, Kelly's edit seems to change the policy to permit deliberately failing to log in as a matter of avoiding legitimate scrutiny. Wikidemo (talk) 02:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

discussions internal to the project

From Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Privatemusings#Sockpuppetry, we have this principle decided:

"Sockpuppetry

3) The use of sockpuppet accounts, while not generally forbidden, is discouraged. Abuse of sockpuppet accounts, such as using them to evade blocks, bans, and user accountability—and especially to make personal attacks or reverts, or vandalize—is prohibited. Sockpuppet accounts are not to be used in discussions internal to the project, such as policy debates. (Passed 8 to 0 at 12:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC))"

The last sentence I've bolded. I note that currently there is nothing like this currently in WP:SOCK. Why not? It seems quite reasonable to me, and anyways, it's now the "law of the land" whether we like it or not; I assume this being a decided principle, it is enforceable at WP:AE just like a remedy. (I have not seen this issue addressed in the talk archives after the closing of this case.) - Merzbow (talk) 06:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

It's been discussed elsewhere that rulings by the ArbCom only apply to that particular case, and do not set precedent for other or similar situations - from WP:AP, Former decisions will not be binding on the Committee. (Personally, I disagree with that, but there you go.) Changes to policy can only be done by the community, not by ArbCom - this finding in particular, since it conflicts with the "Segregation and security" part of this policy that was developed by the community. There's no reason why someone should not be able to segregate their policy discussions from their main Wikipedia account if they so wish. Kelly ^hi! 20:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure the point you bring up is relevant - Former decisions will not be binding on the Committee. means that ArbCom is allowed to overrule itself, but this decision has not been overruled. However, by a strict reading of WP:AP, one might conclude that only remedies can be enforceable via WP:AE, not principles. But given that ArbCom did vote to adopt such a principle, it stands to reason they would likely follow the same principle in future, brand-new cases. Which still renders this de-facto the "law of the land". I still think it a wise principle, since it's often been the case that an editor who gets into dustups with others on articles then goes on to attack his enemies in meta-discussions using a sock, in order not to jeopardize the standing of his "article account". People should not be allowed to be WP:DICKS without consequence. - Merzbow (talk) 21:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, if someone is being disruptive or a dick, that's something else entirely. But if they're being constructive, there's no reason they shouldn't be able to contribute under an alternate account. This proposed policy change would seem to forbid even constructive contributions with an alternate account. Kelly ^hi! 00:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the working assumption of such a change would be that if an editor actually did have something constructive to say on policy matters, he wouldn't be afraid to use his real account. Supporting evidence being the large number of socks found evincing unconstructive behavior on meta pages (please see this discussion and subsequent threads for an example of what triggered this). The conclusion is that would the Project as a whole benefit from such a restriction? I think it's a clear yes. - Merzbow (talk) 00:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm - Segregation and security explains why someone might want to use an alternate account to segregate controversial contributions (for instance, to avoid real-world consequences), a use I think is legitimate. Meta-discussions, particularly Arbitration cases, can be just as controversial as article editing. I read the linked discussion on Weighted Companion Cube, and I'm frankly a little baffled at the vehemence and tone of the conversation. If someone uses an alternate account to prevent evidence or a viewpoint, shouldn't we be judging on the basis of the value of the contribution, rather than speculating on the identity or motives of the contributor? In cases where a banned user is suspected, why not just use checkuser? Kelly ^hi! 01:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

WCC is not dispassionately producing evidence; he's pursuing a grudge match against a bunch of editors he's run into on his main via his sock (which he admits to). If this is not a textbook example of why this change is needed, I don't know what is. The "Segregation and security" exception was made for cases like an in-the-closet editor who wishes to contribute to LGBT articles without fear of exposure. It's not for editors to attack others while hiding behind a mask. Since the goal of the Project is the production of articles, not the production of drama, our policies should encourage the former wherever possible, and discourage the latter. - Merzbow (talk) 02:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

You're more familiar with the WCC situation than me, so I'll reserve judgment there. But it seems to me a bad idea to change policy because of a limited problem. If WCC is disruptive, then deal with that account as you would with any other disruptive editor. What I'm not seeing addressed is the issue of constructive alternate accounts. To expand on your other example, someone could not contribute to meta-discussions about LGBT issues using an alternate account under this proposed policy change. I guess my point is that we should be dealing with disruptive accounts on a case-by-case basis, rather than grouping all alternate accounts into a single class of blockable people - that's a bad idea. Kelly ^hi! 02:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

The "judge the edit, not the editor" approach taken to an extreme would prevent us from doing anything about sockpuppetry in any form. Sockpuppetry is explicitly about saying that some people are not entitled to engage in certain identity-based gaming behaviors, regardless of the merits of their edits. Gaming the system is an equally big problem on meta pages as it is on article and talk pages, but for different reasons. On main pages it's often a matter of POV pushing, trolling, and COI. On meta pages it can sometimes be an attempt to enforce a real world agenda, but it can also just be people who want to have their own way and are frustrated by having to play by the same rules as everyone else. Wikidemo (talk) 02:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from, but we don't want to swing too far in the other direction. For example, wasn't JzG using a sock account called "Cruftbane" or something similar a while back, to clean up vandalism and nominate articles for deletion? Absolutely nothing wrong with that, but under this proposed policy change it would be forbidden. Alternate accounts used disruptively should either be dealt with on their own merits or sent to checkuser for possible consequences on the main account; alternate accounts used constructively should be left alone. Kelly ^hi! 02:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I definitely have a problem with JzG's use of that sock account. An administrator shouldn't be hiding under a hidden identity like that. Cruftbane is a hostile name, and between the name and the aggressive AfD nominations, he was being rather WP:BITEy to say the least, and at the most he was being contemptuous and dismissive of people who were earnestly trying to edit the encyclopedia. That time period was marked by a number of sockpuppeting editors crusading against trivia, fanfic, etc., and resulted in a huge amount of Wikidrama, arbcom cases, admins getting de-sysopped, etc. Even if JzG wasn't involved at that level, he may have been fanning the flames. The discomfort for an earnest editor like me is that I can (and probably did) comment on some AfDs that Cruftbane was agitating and should learn manners and civility, read policy before making spurious deletions, listen to consensus rather than trying to impose his will on everyone, etc. At the same time I got some flak from JzG and perhaps even a warning or two. Even if JzG was meticulously being fair, not letting how I treated his sock get his goat when dealing with me in his administrative roll, not using his admin powers on any issue dispute or article where his sock had a role, etc. (something one can't verify if one doesn't know), it nevertheless has a chilling effect on non-admins when you know that a controversial editor you're arguing against may also be an aggressive admin with a reputation for taking harsh action. I think that specific case could be dealt with by imposing stronger decorum requirements on administrators. But even if it doesn't involve the implicit threat of administrative tool use, having someone on an AfD, policy page, arbcom case, etc., who is secretly someone else, is more wikidrama than we need. Wikidemo (talk) 03:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Ugh, I guess that was a bad example. I had no idea of the background on that. Kelly ^hi! 03:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I think not being allowed to contribute to meta-discussions is a necessary price to pay for the unique benefit of being able to edit with a legal sock. The philosophy of the Project has always been one editor, one voice. The hard line between account #1 editing articles A, B, and C and account #2 editing articles D, E, F does not translate easily over to meta-areas, which are shared spaces, like ArbCom and ANI. This Project is hurt far more by the endless violations of the one editor/one voice rule than it benefits by the extremely rare editor who actually edits both articles and metas with more than one account legally (who can name a single one)? - Merzbow (talk) 05:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Me. I've been through this in this talk page plenty of times. Account #1 edits in articles A, B & C and in any related discussion including policy pages, while account #2 edits articles D, E & F and related discussion including policy pages. There is no overlap except that it's possible that both may have taken separate, unrelated issues to AN/I at separate times and both have voted on separate AfDs. There are admins who know who I am in both accounts and know that it's the same person, and I've never broken the rules as they stand but you are proposing to ban my current situation, meaning that wikipedia will get to lose either an editor who is a qualified technical expert (I'm not saying what field) or an editor who is virtually Wikiproject LGBT studies's first point of reference on transgender issues and Australian spokesperson, or both. Which one do you want to throw away for no gain? --AliceJMarkham (talk) 07:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

← I don't think we're about to throw away either of your accounts, because policy has always been descriptive and subject to common sense. If you use two accounts to contribute constructively in different areas without crossing the streams, then no one serious is going to object, regardless of what this policy or prior ArbCom decisions say, and regardless of whether your accounts comment on AN/I. On the other hand, if you were to use account A to pursue a grudge against someone you encountered with account B, then there would be a problem. The problem is the proliferation of socks created specifically to participate in an adversarial situation like an ArbCom case and to pursue a grudge on behalf of the master account without revealing that master account's history or sullying its record. Your situation is entirely different. That said, I don't know that we need to enshrine this in policy; I think most people understand that using a sock in an ArbCom case to attack someone you have a grudge against is disruptive, and these socks can be handled on that existing basis, albeit at the cost of a bit of wikilawyering from them. MastCell ^Talk 18:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

It still would be nice to put something in WP:SOCK to suggest more strongly that this is not acceptable. Perhaps "Editors may not use an alternate account to continue disputes that his or her primary account is involved in." or something like that. - Merzbow (talk) 22:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Meh - I think that's already covered by good hand-bad hand. Kelly ^hi! 00:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Where can a editor appeal a sockpuppet case?

I have searched for information on appealing a sockpuppet case but cant seem to find it. AlbinoFerret (talk) 03:34, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Merge Tag team essay into this article

It seems to me that the essay Wikipedia:Tag team is simply a description of what we usually call meatpuppets. I suggest either merging the essay into this article, or creating a different Wikipedia:Meatpuppet essay and include the relevant "tag team" essay into it, along with a longer discussion about what meatpuppets are there. Any thoughts? Alun (talk) 11:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

A tag team is usually a set of meatpuppet trying to pass itself off as a consensus, yes. In that sense, it would be a good thing to merge the articles.--Ramdrake (talk) 13:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I am afraid I must disagree here. Like-minded individuals who have a common goal are not necessarily meatpuppets; that term implies that a single person is in charge. I believe a more suitable candidate for merging is WP:DE, as the issue is more the disruptive editing style. Risker (talk) 14:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I am opposed to the merge. Tag teams have very little to do with sock puppetry. The definitions in Wikipedia:Tag team (initially) came from the 2008 report by the Working group on ethnic and cultural edit wars, and had to do with nationalistic teams "guarding" an article against POVs from alternate nationalities, or a group of editors from one religion or cultural background banding together against editors that they perceived as being opposed to their religion. The term "tag team" is also used in other situations as well, so a separate page seems appropriate. --Elonka 16:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

What about merging to WP:Disruptive editing, then, as it certainly is a form of disruptive editing. The workgroup's report is one in which the community had no input, and had the community had input, the report might have been worded differently. The current essay is being collaboratively rewritten by the community to better reflect the issue in its own experience.--Ramdrake (talk) 16:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy to contribute to better version of the "tag team" essay, the original version was totally unacceptable because it was clearly a manifesto for any editor to overturn consensus by claiming "tag-teaming". Personally I think there needs to be a very stringent set of criteria to be met before a group is considered a "tag-team", any consensus can be labelled a so called "tag-team", and I'm not sure such a thing really exists outside of the minds of those who want to edit against consensus, but fundamentally Wikipedia is a collaborative venture, this essay seems to turn this concept on it's head and claim that collaboration is now to be considered a bad thing and be distrusted as "tag-teaming". Without a stringent set of criteria and a great deal of community input into identifying "tag-teams" then I think it is damaging to Wikipedia. We already have examples of editors claiming that a group is a "tag-team" without said editor providing any evidence or even identifying the members of the "tag-team" they are talking about. Such unfounded and unsupported claims are by definition a violation of WP:AGF. I'm very sceptical and suspicious of this. Alun (talk) 16:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The members of the Work Group were members of the community, too.  :) And that was kind of the point of the workgroup, was to get a small group of invited editors to analyze the situation, separate from the "dramaz" of Wikipedia. See WP:ARBPIA#Working group. Our report is what it is, has been submitted to ArbCom for their review, and has been provided to the community for public viewing. I don't think that there's anything in the report that is grossly out-of-step with the community's views. Just look at it as another datapoint. And for the record: Wobble and Ramdrake, I get the feeling that you think that I wrote the essay personally, with you in mind. But I assure you, that is not the case.  :) Heck, look at the endorsements at the bottom of the 2008 report. Do you even recognize all of those names? Tag teams are a recognized phenomenon on Wikipedia that have been referred to in multiple ArbCom cases. In WorkGroup discussions, we worked hard to try and come up with a definition, and this was done long before I personally had even heard your names, or Jagz. So please, don't take it personally. Try to step outside the situation, and look at the genuine problem of nationalistic and religious tag teams that are disrupting various parts of Wikipedia. That was the main reason for the formation of the Working Group. --Elonka 16:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there are numerous issues with disputes between national and ethnic groups, and that these problems need to be addressed in a robust way when they infringe on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a battleground and its good that we work hard to prevent it from hosting "proxy wars". I'm also sure that "tag-teaming" is co-ordinated in such articles, where there are likely to be numerous editors on both "sides" co-ordinating their efforts. But let's put it into perspective, such problems are localised to ethnic and national articles, in other articles this is not a big problem. Indeed I've dealt with several racialist pov-pushers at once on articles that discuss human population genetics, and they have not been organised, far from it. I even had an experience where several self confessed fascistas asserted that they were going to make a concerted attack on the Black people article with hundreds of supporters, but nothing came of it. So the somewhat draconian measures that some editors, who happen to be current members of an obscure committee that deals with arbitration (let's remember they are not the government of Wikipedia, they are simply there as a last resort in dispute resolution), believe should be applied to heated ethnic/national rivalries, do not need to be applied across the board on Wikipedia. Personally I'm still against it, I think we should be as free from interference as possible when we edit, discussion is still the best way forward. If editors are disruptive then they get blocked, simple. Alun (talk) 17:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

What exactly is it that you're against? --Elonka 17:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the essay is fine, but as a process, we are not going to block people and cite an essay. We will block and cite meat puppetry and a suspected sock puppet report that has evidence, or we can cite WP:Edit warring which may involve gaming to avoid the three revert rule. It might be useful to incorporate these concepts into the tag team essay. Jehochman ^Talk 18:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• Because one is an essay, and one is policy is would be a gross violation of WP:POLICY to mege the two. More specifically the part that says "an essay should not imply that it represents a policy or guideline.". By merging that essay with this policy you imply some special relationship that a link could not. Discussion Closed.   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 08:00, 23 August 2008 (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.

Procedure on IP orphan-socks?

I've just run across an issue of IP socking by a clearly experienced editor using a new IP address, and almost solely to participate in (and arguably game) AfD and DrV discussions, WP:AN, and so on. I call it an "orphan sock" because I have no idea who the master account may be, if there even is one, or any other sockpuppets. Is there a proper forum and procedure for bringing that up? They have more or less admitted to the facts - being an experienced editor who is deliberately using an IP to be anonymous while participating in process debates - only claiming that this is a legitimate use of an alternate account and that they aren't double-voting. My reading of the policy and history of discussion here is that it's good hand / bad hand and/or avoiding scrutiny, by definition.

To be fair I'm in a process dispute with the person, but that's usually how one discovers sockpuppetry. For the moment I'm not notifying or naming the IP here because I'm not 100% sure there is anything to be done and I don't want to cause any wikidrama - I'll do that shortly but only if people think it's a legitimate thing to be concerned about. Thanks, Wikidemo (talk) 17:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Note - this may turn out to be a hypothetical discussion. I think the editor is telling me they do not actually have a registered account in current use. They seem honest and I have no reason to assume bad faith - if they are sockpuppeting they're upfront about it and the question would go to proper use of alternate accounts, not a knowing violation of policy. Wikidemo (talk) 18:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Can new indefinitely banned users get "Clean start"??

This is not clear from that section or from WP:Block. It's clear that technically they are banned if no one unblocks them. But if someone just starts another account a few days after the first one blocked, before we know if they will be unblocked, is that sock puppetry or something else? The article should make that clearer. Carol Moore 16:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

If an editor has been blocked or banned under one account he or she may not return with a new account. This policy says, under Circumventing policy Sock puppets may not be used to circumvent any Arbitration Committee or community sanctions, including blocks, bans, and probations. and WP:BLOCK#Evasion of blocks says An administrator may reset the block of a user who intentionally evades a block, and may extend the duration of the block if the user engages in further blockable behaviour while evading the block. User accounts or IP addresses used to evade a block may also be blocked. Aren't those sufficiently clear? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

PS: Under Clean start under a new name this policy says, This option is also not available to banned users, who are prohibited from editing Wikipedia altogether, either anonymously or under any user name. Perhaps it should include blocked users. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:02, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Some times it takes a while for all the verbiage to sink in, and in this case it didn't til got to the one section that wasn't clear. Carol Moore 01:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Request for administrator assitance

User:Thunderstruck45 is supposed to be blocked by the ruling at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Crashingthewaves but is still editing. Can an administrator please assist. Thank you.Nrswanson (talk) 18:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Split personality accounts

I recently added the concept of split personality accounts to this article. However, I made the error of not getting consensus on the talk page first. The following is the text I added (which has since been removed), and I would like to discuss its inclusion within the article:

A split personality account operates under the presumption that an editor's contributions are made under an alias representing one person. Since split personalities are recognized in the medical field as diagnosable psychological disorders, it is reasonable for a person with such a disorder to create an alternate account for each of their personalities. Ace Trigonometry (talk) 22:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

If people wish to create multiple accounts then they need to follow the same rules regardless of their reason for doing so. If the people in question acknowledge the various accounts as belonging to the same person then there probably wouldn't be any problem. If they use the accounts disruptively, such as editing the same articles or otherwise distorting consensus, then that would be unacceptable no matter what the reason. Overall, this appears to be hypothetical as I'm not aware of any editor who has been identified as creating multiple accounts due to a diagnosed medical disorder. Until such time, I don't support writing instructions to cover them. WP:CREEP. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Dispute between WP:VANISH and WP:SOCK

Wikipedia:SOCK#Clean_start_under_a_new_name states that a user may start fresh under a new username if he discontinues the use of the other account, however, WP:VANISH states just the opposite: The "right to vanish" is not a "right to a fresh start" under a new identity. Vanishing means that the individual is vanishing, not just the account.. Which page would be the correct one to follow since obviously, they can't both be right.--Parthian Scribe 04:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The first sentence seems to explain it: The right to vanish is only available to users who are also exercising their right to leave. Carol Moore 16:01, 25 October 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

Arbitration Committee has ruled

The page currently says:

"For the purposes of dispute resolution, the Arbitration Committee has ruled that when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sock puppets, or several users acting as meatpuppets, they may be treated as one entity."

could someone please append "(see Arb com decision xyz)" to that sentence. --PBS (talk) 09:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Being just an ip

Is this sockpuppetry if the user account is blocked, ie edit history of an article showing the ip address. 90.197.27.85 (talk) 11:56, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

When a user account is blocked, is it sockpuppetry to edit as an ip, not voting on any votes, adding opinion on any talk pages, skewing consensus another way, etc. Just performing run of the mill tasks like updating statistics. 90.192.37.132 (talk) 01:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes. While blocks are meant to be preventative rather than punitive, in practice any editing while blocked is treated as abusive because to allow uncontroversial edits would be to set a precedent that evasion was okay. And what is and is not uncontroversial isn't always clear anyway. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:30, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Explicit numeric limits and controversial areas

This case on ANI concerned me, primarily because I found myself agreeing with Elonka. The checkuser was run, the puppetmaster was blocked, all is well, but there is a whiff of WP:IAR that bothers me. It's difficult to state the explicit reason that the checkuser was run, and, if it hadn't turned out to be a puppetmaster that is already banned, it would be hard to pinpoint why any of the edits were disruptive, and hard to justify why all ten accounts should have been blocked.

I think that we need to discuss a few possible additions to WP:SOCK that would make future repetitions of this kind of problem easier to deal with.

1. An explicit numeric limit on the number of alternate accounts. I can accept the need for two accounts in some limited cases. I'm even willing to accept that there may be a case that I can't think of that would justify three. I would be quite happy to make an explicit cutoff at four: that operating four or more alternate accounts, with the exception of bots explicitly tied to the owner, is prima facie abusive. Any time a checkuser identifies four or more accounts tied together, there should not be a need to demonstrate any specific abuse or carefully comb through the histories of the multiple accounts and debate whether they have colluded. The very existence of so many alternates in itself demonstrates an attempt to do something untoward.
2. The use of multiple alternates in controversial articles should be off-limits. I can understand the desire to use an alternate account to edit homeopathy articles, just in order to prevent the struggle from overflowing into your more mainstream edits. What I think is clearly off-base is using multiple alternate accounts. Using two alternates to both edit in the homeopathy area simultaneously seems motivated by a desire to obfuscate edit histories and create an illusion of additional support. Given the amount of trouble we have in the pseudoscience and nationalist controversies, I think making this an explicit prohibition will help.
3. Using an account to revert in any article that is under a 0RR or 1RR restriction should be sufficient to justify running a checkuser on an account.

—Kww(talk) 03:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

A good approach may be to identify areas of the encyclopedia where socking and disruption are excessive, and lower the threshold for Checkuser in those places. WMF privacy policy for Checkusers says that a check can be run for any reason necessary to prevent disruption. The English Wikipedia has traditionally held a higher standard,  CheckUser is not for fishing. In my view, fishing is when you see a suspicious account, and request a check having no idea who the puppetmaster or alternate accounts may be. Perhaps we need to allow for checking a single account to see if it is a sock when that account appears in a "hot zone" that has been subject to repeated attacks by socks and banned users. Simply showing up at waterboarding or cold fusion may be enough to justify checking a new account because a high percentage of new accounts in those places have already been found to be socks. Jehochman ^Talk 03:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, unless the Arbcom sanctions for those articles are written in such a way as to specifically exclude alternate accounts (like the Mantanmoreland case did), I think it would still be fishing. Better would be to gain consensus from the community to update WP:SOCK to exclude alternate accounts from articles and/or topic areas that are subject to Arbitration Committee sanctions. This would provide far more protection to the requestors and the CheckUsers, because such use of CheckUser, or expectation that alternate accounts not be used, was not discussed in the initial Arbcom decisions. Risker (talk) 04:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how germane this is. The account I blocked was a declared alternate account and it would be reasonable for a checkuser to run a check to confirm no abusive sockpuppetry was going on. Beyond that we don't need to spend time and energy fishing and I don't think we need to try and make it easier. I see this as a specific case and I'd be reluctant to allow the policy to be extended any further then it needs to to cover this. CUs are bright responsible people. I'm sure they already know where and when its appropriate to run a check. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

• Generally I don't feel comfortable supporting some upper limit number for accounts. I also don't like expanding the rationale for checkuser. However, I recognize that fringe/controversial areas of the encyclopedia bring out sock accounts that are used subtly (read: not in obvious, literal contravention of WP:SOCK). I think that we can solve a lot of these problems by getting consensus to rewrite policy to describe wikipedia as it grows up. If a SPA is used in a controversial area and it appears to be a sock of an established editor, WP:SOCK should give latitude to administrators to make blocks and editors to conduct checkusers. We shouldn't offer some numerical tripwire (>2 socks in controversial areas), just say that areas of the encyclopedia prone to POv pushing need to be protected. The easiest way to offer that protection is to let the community protect itself--long term editors edit on their main account. One talk page. One block log. One social identity. So I agree generally with this proposal but don't agree with the specific bright-line restrictions. Protonk (talk) 05:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
• Why are we making this difficult? How about a line or two somewhere as below. We don't want to make this too prescriptive. Simply spoken the only absolutely forbidden areas for socks are policy pages and I think there is a consensus that areas subject to general arbitration sanctions or probation also apply. Beyond that we need a discussion to agree whether the prohibition applies to that article or area. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

It is generally permitted to use an alternate account to edit a controversial topic in order to avoid the users main account being associated with that area of editing - for example editing sexuality related articles. There are specific areas where this is not permitted: the Arbitration Committee has stated that all users must use their main account to edit policy pages, and there is also consensus that areas subject to general arbitration sanctions may only be edited from user's main accounts. Outside this, guidance on whether a specific area is subject to this provision should be obtained by raising a thread at ANI prior to any administrative actions being taken.

I think this is a really, really slippery slope. Why not just block all WP:SPAs that edit articles under heavy dispute? We'd get rid of a lot of trolls, but we would also lose all claim to be an open project. If we put that language in there, it's license to block any SPA that anyone wants to block at any time; all they have to do is state a suspicion that the user has another main account. Mangojuice^talk 15:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

First, how do you define SPA? There are a lot of accounts that edit a narrow range of political articles, especially before elections. Do they have to edit articles on Pokemon, just so they don't appear to have a single interest? I don't think this is reasonable, and it's easy to game by a dedicated individual.

Second, some consideration needs to be given to the opposite scenario. Take for instance the recent case involving ChrisO and Tundrabuggy. The latter admittedly followed Chris after being solicited by a third party be email, and constantly opposed Chris on ancient Persian battles, just because he didn't like ChrisO's POV on the Israel-Palestine matter. Had Chris used two accounts this would not have been possible. Tundrabuggy's behavior was not sanctioned in any way. VG ☎ 16:09, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I understand the slipperiness factor here ... I'd be hard put to justify such a block without a checkuser confirmation. That's also why I really don't care much whether it is the main account that edits ... I'm more concerned that it is a consistent alternate. If a philatelist wants to talk about ghosts in their television set using two different accounts, I can't come up with a strong argument against it. I have a serious problem with using the stamp collecting account to edit WP:FRINGE to favor the actions of the alternate, and I really don't care which is the "main" and which is the "alternate".—Kww(talk) 18:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

To take 5 steps back, I actually don't see why this case warrants any change to our policies or operating procedures. It seems to me that the right thing happened. Editors raised concern over the presence of an obvious alternate account being used in a heavily-edited, controversial area as well as (clearly inappropriately) in projectspace. A checkuser was run which determined that the account was one of many ban-evading socks, falsely attempting to leverage WP:SOCK#LEGIT. In other words, the system worked. Let's just thank our hardworking checkusers and go back to work. MastCell ^Talk 18:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

First, I agree that the right thing happened. What I have a hard time stating is the portion of our checkuser and sockpuppet policies that justified Thatcher's use of the checkuser tool. I'd like to make that more explicit, so it's easier to do again.

I'll expand ... given the leeway to do so, I have a few dozen checkusers I would have run, and would expect to find that many of our most troublesome editors are socks of a few determined masters. Right now, I can't request the checkuser because they would be classed as fishing.—Kww(talk) 19:00, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad Kww brought this up, because I totally agree with him, both on the proposed prohibitions, and justifications for checkuser--but do relatively little work in this area and have not felt confident about suggesting it myself. I have always been unhappy with the use of undeclared alternate accounts at all because of the unlimited possibility for abuse. I accept that it might be necessary when on some controversial topics, but i think that even here it should be disclosed in advance to some neutral party who can vouch for it. The effect of the present system is to encourage and facilitate COI and POV editing, with the only limitation being that you must try not to get caught at it. As far as I am concerned, i would even support the automatic use of checkuser for certain articles; I think it would be much fairer & more objective than reliance on DUCK. DGG (talk) 02:19, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Template gives no guidance on how to agree someone is sockpuppet

The template at the top of User_talk:Ron_Paul...Ron_Paul... gives not guidance on what to do next except to link to something in this article that also gives no guidance. I don't know which is worse, sock puppets or trying to figure out how to stop them! Frustrating. Carol Moore 00:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

Joke accounts

There is some sentiment that "joke accounts" should be prohibited.[4] There are things to be said in favour of this, and things to be said against it. While I rather doubt they should be encouraged, I'd like to hear the rationale of why they should be flat-out not allowed; and more importantly, why if joke accounts are not allowed, we would permit any user under any circumstances to operate more than one account. Comments? Risker (talk) 23:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Permitted or prohibited, I don't see why this should be brought up on the page about sock puppetry. This sounds more like it has to do with Wikipedia's humor policies. Sock puppet accounts for the most part refer to accounts created to commit some form of fraudulent editing, such as distorting concensus or keeping vandalism out of one's edit history.Hellno2 (talk) 23:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

The main issues with the recent joke account were that it wasn't disclosed and that it was entered into the ArbCom election. I think it's reasonable to say that joke accounts should be disclosed, and that no undisclosed sock accounts should be nominated for any position of trust. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Seems to me that the logical position is: joke socks are fine, as long as they a) are disclosed, and b) don't attempt to do anything substantive (such as run for ArbCom, comment on RfA's, comment in anything other than an obviously joking manner on AN/I/3, etc) if not completely and explicitly disclosed as joke accounts. roux   13:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, Roux's proposal makes sense to me. I don't mind jokers not being connected with another "serious" account as long as they don't become disruptive. There's a fine line between humor and trolling. Pcap ping 14:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Where is Wikipedia's humor policy? Disclosing should be explicit though, and not of the "everybody knows" sort. Otherwise the humor can be prank-like and disruptive, even a breaching experiment. As with all humor (e.g. joke blocks, joke ANI threads) there's always room for some levity, but this isn't Punk'd.Wikidemon (talk) 17:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

It often comes down to a question of good taste. Policies tend to be lenient until one or more people exceed the limits of good taste, and then policies get amended to remedy those specific lapses. Wash, rinse, repeat until the policies become unreadable. What we ought to be asking is broader: what are the legitimate circumstances where multiple accounts are justifiable, and how should disclosures be handled? A few examples:

• Main account (default)
• Public computer account (for libraries and other nonsecure locations; should be openly disclosed).
• Bot account (should be openly disclosed).
• Work/home accounts. (preferably disclosed openly, but disclosure to ArbCom could be substituted).
• Other special circumstances, pending disclossure to ArbCom and their approval.

Durova^Charge! 02:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

As pointed out below, if we assume good faith, we should only need ask in what circumstances multiple accounts are unacceptable. It's a much shorter list than trying to second guess what possible special circumstances need to exist or how funny a joke needs to be in order to justify use of another account. And after all, not everybody trusts ArbCom to keep private information private. Yomangani^talk 02:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

The assumption of good faith has its limits, and the use of alternate accounts is such a powerful tool for distorting consensus and avoiding consequences for actions that it needs to be carefully monitored and controlled. I proposed above a series of restrictions that gained agreement, but not enough editors commented for me to feel comfortable that it represented consensus. The list of acceptable uses of undisclosed alternate accounts is trivially short, and the use of excessive (in my book, four or more accounts) should be treated as prima facie evidence of bad intent. Jokes would never make my list of acceptable uses.—Kww(talk) 02:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Kww that the list of acceptable uses would be shorter. Please link to the proposal you put forward earlier? Durova^Charge! 03:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Not far up at Wikipedia talk:Sock puppetry#Explicit numeric limits and controversial areas.—Kww(talk) 13:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

One idea that seemed to have some support in that thread is banning socks from articles that are controversial (we already have a list) and specifically from articles/topics under ArbCom sanction (probation or other restrictions). I'd agree with that. As for excessive socks, I agree with the principle but I think it has practical problems. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:16, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't quite understand what practical problem it imposes as phrased. I admit it would be tough to ferret out every such case, but what it says it that if excessive accounts are detected, no one needs to do a detailed analysis of each accounts edits to prove or disprove bad intent ... the accounts can be blocked solely on the basis of the checkuser result.—Kww(talk) 20:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Two issues I see right off the bat (there may be more) are that it would require finding all socks for an editor, even one whom no one claims is abusing his socks, and that it would require a judgment call was to whether a sock account is active or not. Since IP data is only kept for two months, that may not be an issue. But the other matter, banning socks from controversial or ArbCom-sanctioned articles, is relatively straightforward and already has support. Does anyone object to it? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:44, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't see it as a package deal. If you think there's enough consensus on the controversial and Arbcom-sanctioned articles, feel free to add it. I think you should add the part about reverting on 1RR articles being sufficient to justify a checkuser at the same time. As for your issues with the numeric limits, they frequently sweep all socks anyway. I've submitted CUs with two IDs and gotten back a list of 10 socks.—Kww(talk) 22:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

The idea of limiting sock accounts away from controversial and arbcom sanctioned articles sounds very good. I'd be more flexible about the allowable number. Could foresee problems there, such as a tendency to foster omnibus bots or the potential for additional hardships against an editor who gets harassed, changes accounts, gets outed and harassed again, etc. What seems preferable is a clear listing of the circumstances where socks are allowable and a disclosure requirement. Preferably using a standardized template on the main user or user talk page. Private disclosure to the Committee may be an alternative under special circumstances. Durova^Charge! 23:31, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I would also heartily support disallowing socks from sensitive articles... it can only help, IMO. IronDuke 23:35, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, as long as we define 'sensitive' to include 'substantive' (e.g. RfA, substantive posts at AN/ANI/AN3/etc, that sort of thing) as I posted above. //roux   23:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how this sock number limiting proposal works. Sock use for disruption or potential disruption is already forbidden. Unless you suspect a breach of policy you would not (or at least should not) be investigating, so you wouldn't be uncovering the "extra" socks of a supposedly non-disruptive editor. By demanding a limit on the number of socks and a declaration of the links you are "catching" only those users who abide by the policy anyway, and self-evidently they are no threat to the encyclopedia. Yomangani^talk 12:31, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

If you make reverting on a 1RR article a justification for running a checkuser, then there is the potential for discovering a large group of socks where it would be difficult to pinpoint abuse, although the existence of the large group of socks strongly suggests abusive intent.—Kww(talk) 12:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

While I agree that assuming good faith has its limits I don't think they are here in this assumption of abusive intent. If the editor has already made a revert using another account then they are in breach of the policy and should be blocked, and once the socks are uncovered further investigation would be the norm, but kneejerk blocks are what have landed many of our admins in hot water in the past. Imminent danger to the encyclopedia? I don't see it. Yomangani^talk 13:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I think a good rule in sockpupppet matters is that undeclared socks do not have an assumption of good faith. One can declare them explicitly , or to a trusted user or arb com, but otherwise the assumption will be that if challenged, you must justify them, and the presumption will be that you adopted them aware of the potential for misuse. (personally Id go a lot further and ban undeclared socks totally but so many people use them that I think they'd object to that.). DGG (talk) 08:29, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Changes since it became policy

Has this policy been changed since it became a Wikipedia policy? I find the comments regarding meatpuppets worrying. Surely a group of people with the same opinion aren't considered meatpuppets..? --Rebroad (talk) 16:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

It probably has changed. I remember writing a version of it that didn't use the derogatory term "meatpuppet" so often, actually, because my view is that "meatpuppetry" is a temporary phenomenon while calling a newbie a "meatpuppet" implies that they will never be anything else. That version apparently didn't stick around. Which part of this page implies that people are "meatpuppets" just for having the same opinion, though? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 17:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Question.

I have a question, and what better place for it to be answered than here.

I am interested in joining a WikiProject with many, many articles in it. And seeing as I have a couple hundred pages on my current watchlist (as I'm involved with other projects and tasks) may I create an account just to work with that on project? I would, of course, use a similar name as per the guidelines. But I wanted to ask here first before I broke policy. If I am not allowed, that is obviously fine, I just thought it may be easier. But, once again, if it against policy, I'l drop the subject. Thank you. --HELLØ ŦHERE 18:24, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

It wouldn't be against current policy. It would be best if you put an explicit statement on the two user pages that points to the other, so that it is clear that they are linked accounts. BTW, I have 4000 pages on my watchlist, so I'm not sure why you think having 200 mandates the creation of a second account.

I had just figured to make it easier on myself to not confuse edits, and, if I were to confuse my edits, it would upset other users. But thank you very much. --HELLØ ŦHERE 18:45, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Positive or negative test

Regarding my edit here undoing Jehochman, my impression has always been that the test is whether one has violated a proscription (specific or general), and not whether one makes a good case for using an alternate account. For a number of reasons, while we may find the latter rule desirable, I don't think it would be workable. It also seems somewhat inconsistent with the first sentence, stating that a sockpuppet is an alternate account used abusively; if it's just an alternate account that's been inadequately justified, then that sentence would likely need to be changed as well. Mackan79 (talk) 19:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)