Wikipedia talk:Sock puppetry

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] "It is suspected or confirmed..."

The terminology on that banner troubles me. Anyone with an axe to grind against a fellow Wikipedian may throw this label up on their Userpage, and everybody who visits the person sees the Scarlet Letter of "CONFIRMED" and discredits the person in their mind as well. I don't see why giving Joe Blow Wikigoofball the opportunity to call anyone he likes a "confirmed puppeteer" is a good thing. Shouldn't a 'confirmed" banner be solely available for Admins' use? Lambertman 13:58, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow. I just found out about this (someone mentioned on a talk page that some handle had been banned; so I clicked on the handle to see what would happen) and after looking at this and that, clicking on links, reading about it, I hit edit on the page to see how it was put together but only {{sockpuppeteer}} was on the page.
Any editor can do that? I could just click on some handle on whatever talk page, no handle I'd ever seen before (not that I recognize many), stick {{sockpuppeteer}} on the user page, dump everything else and then what? The user can't remove the tag?
If so, it's a valiant attempt to stop people from cheating in some ways but leaves everyone else open to calling you a sockputtet abuser -- which would be a very good way to eliminate all competing views in any debate, poll or anything else: which could be a sockpuppeteer itself; or two. --S-Ranger 02:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Any can, but it's incumbent on them to prove the accusation, at WP:RFCU (or elsewhere), or back off. Someone who just adds the tag without justification can be reverted. Mackensen (talk) 02:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
But wouldn't anyone doing it be "smart enough" to be a puppeteer? And can be reverted by whom? Sorry, it's probably explained in the other several million pages I have yet to read, but why not just solicit friends for support? Totally different ISP blocks, take out dial-up accounts for a whole $10/month and then who is puppetting whom? :-)
I guess the best way to put it, as the user above mentioned, is if the puppets have control of the strings/hands/whatever then they can simply call others puppeteer abusers and, as I would were I running such a scam, move around, don't focus on anything in particular and keep changing IP addresses and handles as often as possible -- to call others puppeteers to get away with worse than simple pupeteering.
And, sorry, but I mean that whatever the time delay is between simply slapping {{sockpuppeteer}} and "getting cleared" could be more than enough to "win" the poll, debate or whatever it ... was, before the puppeteers showed up to discredit the "ringleader"(s) of the major opposition.
And sorry for yet another edit, but wouldn't it be better if users could only report to "WP:RFCU (or elsewhere)" and have wiki ignore any, rather drastic changes to a user page, other than if an admin sticks the tag on the page, after actually confirming something? --S-Ranger 02:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I suppose the short answer is that puppeteers, by and large, aren't that smart. Furthermore, that kind of activity, in itself, would look suspicious. Mackensen (talk) 10:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to respond. I could go on but won't. :-) Other than regarding that neither the original poster nor the last paragraph of my last post was addressed. --S-Ranger 23:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I thought that I had addressed those points, but I'll explain further. This is a wiki and as such functions best when bottlenecks are avoided. The act of accusing someone of sockpuppetry carries major implications. In situations where someone challenges the characterization the burden of proof is on the accuser. It isn't uncommon for such matters to turn up on the Administrators' Noticeboard. Checkuser is reserved for serious situations. Restricting a template to an administrator, besides being unworkable, is unwise and unfair. There are only about a thousand administrators, and many are inactive. Many situations of sockpuppetry arise when admins aren't around. Furthermore, there's no real guarantee that an admin will be any more responsible than a user. I myself was wrongly accused of sockpuppetry by a (now former) administrator last winter. These things happen. Regarding tagging, from my experience tags are usually added well after investigation and statement of suspicion. Again, wrongful tags can be removed. I'm not aware of any situation in which an innocent editor was wrongly hounded by a mob because of a false accusation. We're not Puritans here. Mackensen (talk) 23:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

You still have addressed nothing regarding the original post, your confirmation that anyone can stick {{sockpuppeteer}} on any user page and that's that, "tagging" as you refer to it (as did I, even though it must refer to a template, which is all I was looking for; documentation of {{sockpuppeteer}} and the template/banner/whatever it's called source code and to look at it, not change it) that it was that simple and of course if it was what amounts to vandalism or worse, it would be "taken up eventually" but in the meantime, someone ends up with the results of that tag on their user page without a shred of proof about anything -- as you confirmed.

It's a coding issue as much as what the original poster stated, to have "confirmed" only show up if something is actually confirmed and if not, only suspected. It's what I got out of the original comment anyway and perhaps {{suspectsockpuppeteer}} should be created and used (and not display "confirmed" anything, but specifically state otherwise) until {{confirmedsockpuppeteer}} is put on a user page; after it's actually confirmed.

Then it becomes an issue of, "You had better have confirmation if you use {{confirmedsockpuppeteer}} or you may end up banned for vandalism yourself (which immediately tells anyone to use a puppet to do it, so accomplishes nothing). Until you are absolutely certain and have proof, use {{suspectedsockpuppeteer}} to enlist others to help you to confirm it or not." If that's the purpose. What is the purpose of it in its present form? Where is the documentation?

"Suspected" (only) could cause others to simply look at whatever handles are being accused of being the same person, to either get or not get a confirmation and even if it did show up on my (anyone's) user page who had done nothing wrong, confirmed would not show up on the user page:

It is suspected or confirmed that this user has used one or more sock puppets for abuse, libel, or ban evasion.
See block log, list of suspected puppets and list of confirmed puppets.
The use of abusive sockpuppets on Wikipedia is prohibited; use of sockpuppets
to evade bans results in the ban timer being reset and may further lengthen it.


Which is it? Suspected or confirmed? There should be two templates, IMO, and it seems rather logical given that wiki seems to operate out of a civilized country where innocence is presumed until guilt is proven. It's how my country (Toronto) works; or as usual, at least pretends to be impartial until something is actually proven, even if a steak goes missing off the barbecue, unless the dog has a burned mouth and is the only other, um, "person" around, then it probably didn't swipe the steak -- particularly if Uncle Bob is around and has been drinking a bit too much of his "special lemonade". Where are the {{terrorist}} and {{pedophile}} tags? It's not relevant to the "wiki foundation" that someone is suspected (or confirmed -- but not in parenthesis) of working with a terrorist organization? --S-Ranger 08:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

  • In brief, most legal organizations work as you describe. Wikipedia is not a legal organization. Personally, I wouldn't mind the existence of two templates, and I suspect the one you want is already floating around somewhere. Second, there are separate templates for sockpuppets, as opposed to sockpuppeteers, which are used frequently, and the use of the confirmed templates are restricted (by consensus) to those who know what they're talking about. Mackensen (talk) 11:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for listening and your time. It's just a suggestion and if it becomes of any use, great. --S-Ranger 20:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Possibe Sockpuppetry?

Would it be considered sockpuppetry for a user to stop editing using his created account and then to begin editing as an IP (that has been static for months now). Especially when said IP has been banned numerous times for vandalism and personal attacks?--Crossmr 20:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Previous vandalism with the IP is not important to it being sock puppetry. In practice, this is also the case with highly dynamic IPs, and sock puppetry is generally assumed. Note that I use the term "sock puppetry" as per my suggestion on WP:VPP, since the policy is not consistent. --Philosophus T 01:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Hopiakuta 01:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 'Role' accounts

Role accounts, accounts which are used by multiple people, are only officially sanctioned on en: Wikipedia in exceptional cases at this time. The one currently permitted role account on en: is User:Schwartz PR, the account for a public relations firm working closely with the Foundation. If you run an account with multiple users, it is likely to be blocked.

So,... If spouses, parents, children, share one home [house, trailer, apartment, condo-apartment,...], & share one machine,....?

If two coworkers share an office, & one machine,...?

Hopiakuta 01:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


In practice, role accounts do not get blocked, since they are very rare, and are generally either reasonable and professional or are bad enough that they get banned for other reasons. Hardly anyone knows about that part of policy, and having it in WP:SOCK doesn't make sense. However, all of those situations can be considered "role accounts" under the policy even though they are not necessarily used for one role, which doesn't make much sense. The terminology in this policy is really horrible. I just posted something to WP:VPP about one aspect of it, for example. --Philosophus T 01:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edits by PoolGuy

Looks like Zzuuzz and I tried to revert the recent edits by PoolGuy (or was it PooIGuy?) at the same time; only I reverted to this one and Zzuuzz reverted to this one. The only significant difference is whether edits by FT2 (bracketed by PoolGuy) are retained or not. I haven't been following policy discussions here very closely, so don't feel qualified to say whether FT2's edits reflect consensus or not; anyway, this is notification for the folks who do follow this page closely to do what they need to do. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

FT2 probably should have brought up the changes here first, since they do substantively change the meaning of those portions of the policy. I can see how the RFCU part is simplified, and it is probably a good change, but I don't like the wording, and the trawling bit would probably be distorted by some editors in order to remove "This user has only 1 edit and is probably a sock puppet" comments in AfD discussions. Unfortunately, such proposals, when put on this talk page, usually seem to just be ignored. --Philosophus T 03:25, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I have found that when reversions and sockpuppetry like this are going on it is better to stick to what we have, and discuss any changes. The last stable version was the main target of my reversion. Though I am usually inclined to let FT2 go about his or her business on this page without much examination, a second look does suggest these edits[1] are quite a change - from explicitly specifying the four circumstances a checkuser can be done, to allowing a checkuser given only reasonable cause. If it was a politician changing the law in such a manner, there would be justified complaint. The changes make the policy more vague - sometimes this is a good thing, sometimes not. I suppose it depends on one's level of trust in a higher authority on the subject. The additions about not fishing were good for me but perhaps there should be a bit more about what a checkuser is for. -- zzuuzz (talk) 03:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Quick comment -- the edits concerned shouldn't change it at all, they seemed small enough to not need talk page review unless someone felt strongly. In summary there's 3 short edits:

  1. Revert of Poolguy's edits that set strong limits on admin reverts [2]. Clearly designed to give grounds to argue against admins reverting edits by sockpuppets. A quick glance on the talk page suggests there may have an ulterior reason to wish for this as the editor concerned has apparently been accused of sockpuppetry. Either way it wasn't policy last time I checked, hence reverted.
  2. Revert similar limiting statement on RFCU that sounds like it was put in for sock benefit. RFCU policy as far as I last checked, doesn't state this list of things that it can and can't be used on. This section is mistaken, because if you read RFCU, it is not a prescriptive list, it's a list of acceptance criteria for RFCU for these 4 kinds of item. But many RFCU's are "general suspicion of sockpuppetry" without 3RR, vandalism, arbcom etc. So suggesting RFCU is limited this wa is a misreading of that policy. The list given suggested a much more restrictive limit than either RFCU policy or practice (compare before/after: [3]). Replaced it with what is factual according to accepted RFCU cases - serious cases, reasonable cause, evidence, no fishing. That seems the actual policy stated and used at RFCU.
  3. Remove a pointless run-on sentence that adds nothing, but just confuses the paragraph. [4]

I'm not expecting any of these to be particularly major, hence why no talk page request made. They seem to all be within the category of "obvious edits". FT2 (Talk | email) 03:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Does anyone have a problem with 2 edits?

I'm looking at the intro section, I'd like to check the sense of others on two edits:

  1. Move Jimbo's quote to the body of the article. Its important, but the purpose of the intro is to summarize policy and I think this quote, while important, doesn't quite need to be in the intro. Its just Jimbo confirming what the intro already says, so its a bit of a duplication.
  2. Add the following text into the body of the policy, because its so relevant to sock/meatpuppets (from WP:DP):
    "It's worth noting that the purpose of a discussion on Wikipedia is to bring out a sense of the valid policy-related points for or against each view. So polls and votes are not a "popular vote"; rather they are a way to take into account the policy-related points made by those contributing. Sockpuppets (multiple accounts) and meatpuppets (advertising or soliciting of desired views) usually don't raise much in the way of novel policy considerations. Often, where sock-puppetry is suspected, only editors with a significant history of contributions to Wikipedia will be counted in a rough consensus."

What this would do, if agreed, is add a new section above "Forbidden uses" called "Overview", which would contain the quote, and the above paragraph. FT2 (Talk | email) 20:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

No strong objections? FT2 (Talk | email) 09:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sudden vote appearance after long editing gap

Would a person who suddenly popped in to vote on a straw poll after nearly a year of no edits (and only a handful before then) qualify as an SPA? - Keith D. Tyler (AMA) 20:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I would say thats highly suspicious. I often wonder about accounts whom I see committing vandalism and their only other edits are months and months ago and there are very few of them.--Crossmr 06:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Special Sock case

Hello. I have an issue on sock puppetry that I have been desperately trying to find. It's that a user, User:OhmyΩ, not only posted bits of my personal information on my talk page, but also admitted that he/she had multiple accounts. I have observed that this user rarely contributed to Wikipedia, and used it mainly to harass me and to vandalise. I wanted to post this on Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets, but this requires the knowledge of a master account, which I havent yet found. Thanks. --Basawala 14:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

OhmyΩ (talk • contribs • block user • block log • checkuser) is blanking sections. I am getting ready to report as vandal.--Tbeatty 21:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The new section: "....to hide from public scrutiny."

  • I think that this new section (created around 1. Aug.) is a problem as stated now. The problem is: how do you determine "who may have a legitimate interest in tracking your contributions"? I would like an example of "legitimate interest in tracking your contributions". Can e.g. just anybody state that they have a "legitimate interest in tracking" the contributions of User:CuteLittleDoggie.. and therefore have that user blocked? Surely not?
  • Also: as of now: can´t this policy contradict the "Keeping heated issues in one small area" section?
  • Also; note that this policy was added just as User:Bergerons was blocked; see User talk:Bergerons for some interesting comments.

Regards, Huldra 05:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a pretty clear exposition of what the policy already said. The intro quotes Jimbo as saying that creating accounts to hide from public scrutiny is one of the problematic uses of sockpuppets; it follows from that that public scrutiny is regarded as legitimate. The section makes it clear that there are circumstances in which avoiding scrutiny might be legitimate too (e.g. creating an account to make edits in an area you're very knowledgeable in, so people can't ID you), but where the accounts are being used to deceive other editors, and where several are being used at once so that people can't discern patterns in your edits, it's a violation. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Multiple accounts should not be used as a way of avoiding the scrutiny of your fellow editors by ensuring you leave no audit trail. Using sock puppet accounts to split your contributions history means that other editors can't detect patterns in your contributions. While it may be legitimate to do this from time to time (for example, by creating a special account to make edits that might serve to identify you in real life), it is a violation of this policy to create multiple accounts in order to confuse or deceive editors who may have a legitimate interest in tracking your contributions.
Since it comes from "the God King" himself, I surely will not argue agains that public scrutiny is regarded as legitimate... ;-P. However, the post that is quoted from starts with: "I would say that multiple usernames are really only a problem if they are used as a method of troublemaking of some sort". I think that sounds very sensible. E.g.: using multiple usernames as a method against beeing wikistalked would be legitimate according to this (as I understand it), but is not legitimate according to the policy as it now stands (again: as far as I understand it.) And the main question remains unanswered: how do you determine "who may have a legitimate interest in tracking your contributions"? Also: why is it neccessarely bad that "people can't discern patterns in your edits"? Why should they? (If you are not banned/blocked, that is). Isn´t it exactly the goal of "Keeping heated issues in one small area" that other editors should not "be tempted" to wikistalk you, or "discern patterns in your edits"? It is simply not "troublemaking" per se for Wikipedia that some editors cannot detect patterns in your contributions. (Otherwise User:CuteLittleDoggie would be "troublemaking", since I cannot "discern patterns" in his/her edits, as I do not know what other accounts this user uses.) It has been stated a zillion times that it is not who you are, but what you contribute which matters on Wikipedia. This part of the policy seem to contradict that. Regards, Huldra 07:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
You're making these enquiries because Dervish Tsaddik or Homeontherange, and possibly both, have e-mailed you to ask you to make them, because both recently had a bunch of sockpuppets blocked. They were using multiple accounts to deceive. If someone is caught using another account to make good edits to, say, Physics, because they don't want people to know that they're a physicist in real life, no admin is going to block for that. But if an editor with, for example, a strong political POV has caused trouble on a set of articles, and then sets up five different accounts and starts posting to the same pages, or starts engaging editors he has had disputes with, without telling anyone that he is that same POV editor, then it starts to look like deception, and even trolling, and so the chances of a block are high. You're asking for an algorithm to show us when it's legit and when it isn't, but detecting disruption is not algorithmic. It boils down to common sense and the experience of the admin dealing with the case. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Ah, your reply here makes it very clear why the policy of leaving it "to common sense and the experience of the admin" is so troublesome; you see, your statement that I am making "these enquiries because Dervish Tsaddik or Homeontherange, and possibly both, have e-mailed you to ask you to make them" is simply false. (For the record: I´ve had very little to do with Homeontherange, never sent/received e-mail from him; I don´t think he even know of my existence. I did email with Dervish Tsaddik (like yourself) last year. I have had no contact with him this year.) So I would appreciate if you answer my questions instead of just dismissing them as somebody else´s. And as for "strong POV", that is also problematic: e.g. I think just about everybody (with 1-2 exceptions) who edits on Palestine/Israel issues would claim they only make NPOV edits.... So your "strong POV" is NPOV for somebody else. By default the policy now seems to say that you "may have a legitimate interest in tracking the contributions of a user with a different POV." And having a content dispute over an article is not the the same as "causing trouble" in my book. Regards, Huldra 06:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
But I did answer your question. Read the answer above. The problem you have is that you seem to think editors that you perceive as having a certain POV are not capable of making neutral, sensible decisions as an administrator. The next time someone is blocked under this provision, and you feel that the person was not a troublemaker, was not acting to deceive, and was not being disruptive — and the blocking admin isn't able to give any explanation as to why that person might be perceived as such — by all means let me know. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Linking to Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets

The current link to Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets under "Difficult to detect sockpuppets" is problematic for a couple of reasons.

The link, near the end of a sentence in a subsection, is not very prominent for such an important process. As well, the wording surrounding the link suggests that the Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets process should only be followed in cases of sockpuppetry which are extremely hard to detect, when in fact it should be followed in most cases. --Saforrest 12:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I have added a banner to the top of the page detailing WP:SSP. Iolakana|T 12:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Doppelganger section

I'm not sure what this section means, so I'm moving it here for discussion. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

To avoid vandals impersonating using a similar-looking username, one can pre-emptively create a doppleganger account and tag it with {{doppleganger}}.

I probably worded it poorly, but my intention was to tell the reader that this is a "legitimate use of multiple accounts" (though not sock puppetry). A new user had just used the "alternate account" clause from reading this page and did not now about the guideline on dopplegangers, and indeed WP:DOPP is not a well-known page. Maybe a See also link would suffice. —Quarl (talk) 2006-08-13 11:10Z

A link would probably be enough. I don't see how anyone could pre-emptively create all the variations on their name that a troll might want to create in order to mimic them, if that's what you meant. SlimVirgin (talk) 11:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
You might be surprised (see Category:Doppelganger accounts); anyway that's what the WP:DOPP page means, and I'll just link to it for now. —Quarl (talk) 2006-08-13 11:21Z
Oh, I see. Well, please go ahead and add it if you'd like to. I can only imagine all the variations I'd have to create. ;-D SlimVirgin (talk) 12:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] One person <==> one account

Given the considerable amount of time we waste in dealing with sock puppets and the lack of any compelling benefit to the project in permitting them, I propose that we change the policy. The new policy would be:

In general, each Wikipedia user is only permitted to contribute from one account. There are certain limited exceptions where the project is best served by additional accounts. The user name chosen for the additional account should make the association with the original user clear, and the account and its purpose should be identified on the original user page:

  1. Bots should generally operate from their own account in accordance with WP:BOT (e.g. User:Tawker and User:Tawkerbot)
  2. Accounts may be created to test technical features of the wiki provided they make no bona fide contributions
  3. Admins may create a non-admin account to prevent the password for their admin account from being compromised while editing from insecure locations (e.g. User:Taxman and User:Taxman in exile).
  4. Wikipedians who have permanently abandoned a former account (as when the password is inadvertently lost) may create another one.

Sometimes there are privacy concerns of sufficient magnitude that use of another account may be justified without a public association between the two accounts. Users doing so are advised to notify several trusted Wikipedians to ensure transparency in the event questions are raised later:

  1. Wikipedians in good standing who have a plausible concern about off-wiki harassment because of their editing are permitted to abandon an account and create another one to maintain anonymity.
  2. Wikipedians in good standing who edit in socially charged or highly controversial subject areas may have at most one additional account to maintain the anonymity of their edits in these areas.

Each account may only be used by one person.

Wikipedians who have multiple accounts not in compliance with this policy at the time of its adoption need not declare their excess accounts, but are expected to discontinue using them.

This is settled policy in many online communities, where it is an effective deterrent to abuse.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I would certainly support that. A lot of time is wasted because of users editing with multiple accounts, but then claiming when caught that they didn't really violate any policy, and so on. This change would cut through all that. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Sounds more than reasonable to me. Jayjg (talk) 16:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Sounds good to me.-- Kim van der Linde at venus 16:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure whether the second and third point are really distinct; I believe that the fourth point (maintaining a sock because of editing in charged or controversial areas) should declare that sock (e.g., to the arbcomm or Essjay). In addition, I think it would be reasonable to allow admitted socks (like Taxman's), once they are openly disclosed and a case is made for their use. Guettarda 16:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
The wording is perhaps not ideal. What I was trying to get across in the second point is that users generally ought not to drop an account and start another one without reason, since there is a not uncommon pattern of disruptive users changing user names frequently. I can see the point you're making on declaring the socks, and though I don't think it's strictly necessary, I would nonetheless support such a policy. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I think any sockpuppets, if being used for valid reasons, should be declared as such a priori, and the identity of the sockpuppeteer revealed to trusted editors in the way you've described. A posteriori claims that sockpuppets are legitimate, after they have been discovered, are, in my view, not legitimate. Jayjg (talk) 17:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
(I corrected a small spelling mistake in the proposed policy; I hope you don't mind. :) ) I don't quite understand why this has to be "have one account" and not "edit the encyclopedia from one account". The original wording would seem to miss an infinite number of legit uses for multiple accounts, such as my Celierra and Titoxd's EvilCat, both currently used to test our edit counter, Flcelloguy's Tool. I don't think one can list all the possible legit uses - listing the non-legit uses seems more possible. —AySz88\^-^ 18:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
(To avoid confusion, I originally registered Celierra because the name was so unique on the Internet and connected to me that if anyone registered the name there would be probable confusion between whoever registered it and me for anyone that knew me already.) —AySz88\^-^ 18:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
(To avoid confusion, the proposed policy was changed through this edit.) —AySz88\^-^ 21:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Support. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
(Here, UninvitedCompany changed the policy page in this edit.)
I see no reason to believe that the proposal is "current community sentiment" - an earlier attempt with much more exposure and discussion time caused big problems because there wasn't enough double-checking. (Check the old DRVs of the old userboxes for "puppets" and "puppet masters" which were named at a time when "sockpuppet" and "alternate account" were pretty much synonyms.) I still have my reservations at attempting to use a whitelist instead of a blacklist, but I won't revert right now, except there is one exception to the ban on role accounts: Schwartz PR, which I will go make a note of now. I hope you would reconsider putting this on the polciy page and try to find more feedback, though. —AySz88\^-^ 00:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I was going to change the bit on Schwartz PR until I saw your note; I've put it back in. That is part of a separate concern that I have with policy pages being too wordy in an attempt to be exhaustive. I don't believe there's a need to enumerate all the exceptions and special cases; besides which, I'm planning on asking Schwartz PR to stop editing that way since there is no reason they can't have individual accounts for each of their people. Either way, I'll address that after the dust settles on the larger and more important issue of what the policy should be.

I hope there will be more discussion but I think that the reality is that nearly all serious participants in the project take an increasingly dim view of socks or alternate accounts. The amount of time that is spent dealing with socks is considerable and in most of the more serious cases the perpetrator claims their use of socks is within policy because there's no proof of abuse. The fact is that very few editors legitimately edit from multiple accounts. While I understand your point about white vs. blacklists, the fact is that disruptive users are very creative in coming up with new ways to abuse sock puppets. I did review the userbox debate that you linked, and concluded that the debate there although lengthy was mainly on semantics and appropriateness of the userboxes themselves and not on the propriety of multiple accounts in general. The cases that were identified in the user box debate as appropriate uses of multiple accounts are also enumerated as such in the modified policy here, so I don't believe that what I've done contradicts any sentiment expressed in that debate. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I support the proposed change myself, but I would have liked to see it discussed for a little longer before making such a major change to the policy page. Arbitrary username 18:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
(reply to UninvitedCompany) I apologize if I was not clear - the link to the DRv was meant to be an example of how disruptive confusion can occur due to a lack of people seeing a proposed changed to a policy. I still hope you'll consider reverting to the old policy until the new one has more eyes (and ayes) on it. —AySz88\^-^ 19:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Weren't abusive sockpuppets banned under the old version of this policy anyway? I fail to see what is gained by this new policy. If I remember correctly, even Jimbo tentatively approved them with "good reason" which may not be covered by all exceptions in this policy. At the least, this should get quite a bit more exposure before it is officially changed. - Bootstoots 19:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo hasn't commented on the matter for two years, and a lot has changed. Most notably, there have been substantially more problems with socks because of the adoption of WP:3RR and the fact that the arbitration committee is operating. Both of these have led to more users being blocked, and guess what? More socks. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
However none of your policy proposal adress this problem and instead inconvience legit users. Banning all socks is not going to have much effect on abuseive socks since they are already outlawed (heh if socks are outlawed only outlaws will have socks).Geni 00:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

What about User:Genidealingwithfairuse? Or the use of secondarly accounts as a way to get multiple watchlists? What about all the accounts created to clean up the first page of special listuser?Geni 19:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The cleanup on the first page of listuser is a corner case, and those accounts don't contribute. Regarding the others, well, maybe it wouldn't be the end of the world if you quit using them. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I lose the ability to usefuly watchlist the images and talk pages I tag (my main watchlist has 2,774 pages on it) and I lose the ability to keep those contributions seperate.Geni 22:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I've reverted. I think we need some more discussion before we call this official, as the three previous messages (mine included) have asked. - Bootstoots 21:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Which is fine. I made the change because sometimes that's the best way to get the discussion going. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
The counter to that would be WP:POINTGeni 22:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • This seems like a good plan, can't wait until you tell everyone that their bots are all banned, since WP:BOT seems to make a point about you having to use a seperate account for bots--205.188.117.8 00:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that anyone who has access to multiple (physical) MAC Address and either more than one ISP or just an ISP that uses DHCP without MAC-binding can easily appear to be more than one entity on the Internet, and Wikipedia is not immune from this.--Allthenamesarealreadytaken 16:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nutshellism

I removed it because I think they should all be removed, and have so stated on the template talk page. The version that was just re-added doesn't match the rest of the text now. I believe this should be removed or at least fixed but I'm leaving it for now. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure you ARE referring to this page which is listed in Wikipedia:List of policies what you exactly SAID? -- ADNghiem501 23:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disambig

I have re-removed this. There is no reason to link to a disambiguation page in the main article namespace from a project page. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Why didn't you declare it earlier? -- ADNghiem501 23:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reconsider this part

"It is considered highly inappropriate or unacceptable to advertise Wikipedia articles that are being debated in order to attract users with known views and bias, in order to strengthen one side of a debate. It is also considered highly inappropriate to ask friends or family members to create accounts for the purpose of giving additional support. Advertising or soliciting meatpuppet activity is not an acceptable practice on Wikipedia. On-Wikipedia canvassing should be reverted if possible."

There is a real problem with articles being deleted where the "experts" in the field, often the people who wrote the article in the first place. This practice should not be more that a minor nuisance, at worst, since AfD is not a poll, and at best can bring more informed debate. See also my suggestion for a change to the AfD page template to emphasise the nature of AfD. Rich Farmbrough 11:52 19 August 2006 (GMT).

I disagree. Canvassing is highly inappropriate and disruptive, and the policy on meatpuppets should stay as it is. —Quarl (talk) 2006-08-19 18:34Z
Also I can't find your suggestion to change the AFD page template, could you please link to it? —Quarl (talk) 2006-08-19 18:41Z

[edit] puppeteers marked indefinitely

I want to be clear before I restore this for the third time, but a confirmed sockpuppeteer should have the {{sockpuppeteer}} tag placed on their userpage indefinitely even after the sock is blocked, right? -- nae'blis 14:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Yep, I think that you're right that confirmed Sockpuppet user should have {{Sockpuppeteer}}. Like If one user used Sockpuppet abusely. Usually, Sockpuppet user is blocked indefinitely(Permanently). Daniel's page ☎ 00:57, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Once the user ceases to engage in disruptive sockpuppetry, and sockpuppets are no longer attacking pages, what practical use does the template serve? Leaving someone labeled as a sockpuppeteer indefinitely only creates prejudice against them, and complicates their transition back to productive editing. Policy needs to be drafted to cover removal of the template. WhoMe? 14:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I could support that, but on the other hand between archiving and this idea, a person could create sleeper accounts that were never noticed, then bring them to bear in a future case without anyone having any indication that they should be looking for sockpuppetry. It also brings to mind the question of how to look for Category:Confirmed/Suspected sockpuppets of... on a user who has been good for some time. Tricky situation, either way... -- nae'blis 17:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nutshell tag

I'm new to wikipedia, and I'm still familiarizing myself with its interface and policies. (please be gentle) I would just like to say that the "(subject/policy) in a nutshell" part is really useful, and might serve well if it was in other articles as well. Lactam 13:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Meatpuppet or Friend?

Would it be considered meat puppetry if I got a friend to start editing Wikipedia and then later, when I was running for admin, asked him to support me? It's not like he's just doing this to support my RfA, but he doesn't seem like the kind of guy who would be an avid editor. So the point is, I just don't want my RfA to be scarred by inadvertant meat puppetry. Thanks, SoaP 16:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] none of the templates really fit great for one case

What would be the most appropriate template for sock puppets proven via checkuser which AREN'T blocked? I placed a suspected sockpuppet tag on a few confirmed sock puppets a while back and would like to have it organized appropriately so that I don't have to add a note saying the wrong part about the template... "actually, it's confirmed and not just suspected" or "actually, they weren't indefinitely blocked". --Atari2600tim (talk • contribs) 13:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion

I'm uncertain where to add the wording, but I'd like to suggest a change. We currently tag the sockpuppets of vandals. This strikes me as problematic (and yes, I've done it too). Vandals are categorized, more often than not, by behavior. Since they come from proxies we've often no way of knowing. Furthermore, it's meaningless. Vandals are vandals and they're all blocked anyway. Where tagging is useful is in dealing with content-dispute editors. The tags warn other editors and provide a useful history for dispute resolution. Mackensen (talk) 11:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppets versus IP blocking evasions

Calling an anonymous user who evades a block against his IP address by using a different IP address a "Sockpuppet" is inaccurate and creates silly anomalous posts such as this.

The admin who posted it was in fact referring to two separate accusations of a completely different nature. It may be against Wikipedia policy to evade an IP block by using a different IP address, but if it's an anonymous user using two separate IP addresses and not attempting to appear to be a separate person, the term "sockpuppet" simply does not fit.

I suggest a different term be used for this--and particularly, a different action taken--if such IP address blocking evasion is to be considered against policy. The current situation only creates compound confusion. 70.5.51.142 20:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

The above comments were left by me while I was connecting by phone. 206.124.31.24 23:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question about sock puppets:

If I were to get blocked, and I made a new username that is making constructive edits, would I still get blocked?Ollie the Magic Skater 23:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Depends on why you got blocked, and for how long. If you were banned by the community, then yes. Mackensen (talk) 00:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Long-term solutions to sock puppetry and related abuses

I just posted a short article on my web page related to sock puppetry (or "sybil attacks", the equivalent term used in the P2P community) that might be of somewhat more long-term interest here:

Sybil Parties: An Offline Foundation for Online Accountability

In short, the idea is to leverage once-a-year offline, in-person social occasions to provide the basis for privacy-preserving but *accountable* "premium" online identities. These "premium" accounts would (despite the name) cost nothing, but would strongly enforce a "one person, one premium account" rule among such accounts, providing better accountability, while still giving users the option of full anonymity/pseudonymity. If implemented, for example, Wikipedia users who use such an account could be made exempt from the IP address-based blocks, and thus would not be vulnerable to being accidentally blocked simply because they inherited a recent abuser's IP address from their ISP. And they would of course be exempt from being suspected or accused of sock puppetry (although meat puppetry would still be possible). Feedback or further ideas welcome. Brynosaurus 17:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Sounds interesting. Rehabilitation and repentance are always good. --Luigifan 11:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inocent

I have been blocked and have been accused of being a sock pupet of cutie 1 4 u but i am not wat should i do?????--Cutie fo eva 23:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)Please Reply!

In fact, the user is being accused of being a sockpuppet for Cutie 4 life. In actuality, the editor has admitted to being a sockpuppet for that account. It is that account that is being accused of being a sockpuppet for banned user, Cute 1 4 u. --Yamla 23:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] HELP PLEASE

TV Newser has some serious problems. He has accused me of being a vandal for cleaning up content that I removed because I was accused of being a link spammer in the first place. I infact removed an external links section and then pointed people to a section on the article in questions talk page Trading card by the way. He (and i don't actually know if it's a guy or a girl) keeps posting the same damn sockpuppet thing on my pages and calling me names. Someone please muzzle this guy.Tecmobowl 10:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: doppelganger

(Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Doppelganger accounts)

I had a fairly rough experience creating those accounts (ironically inspired by that text):

  • I logged out and tried to log-in as a couple of evidently similar usernames to mine.
  • Both the new account and my IP was immediately blocked by the system, disabling even my regular account!
  • I had to connect via a different IP (cell-phone) to be able to explain and get (thankfully immediately) unblocked.
  • I was told a little later that it would be preferable to not normally create those accounts, but rather go ahead logged-in with my regular username and post the {{doppelganger}} templates.

Maybe we should add a few words on that so that other users aren't faced with the same situation. So how about we add these sentences:

Users who create such doppelganger accounts by themselves, should preferably do so logged-in with their normal username, so as to avoid their IP being accidentally blocked automatically. In case such automatic block occurs, the user must find a way to log in with their normal account via a different IP and explain to the blocking user that it was them in the first place.

What do you think? Maybe the first sentence only would be sufficient. We could also add the second sentence as a footnote. Wikilink to the said automatic bot is welcome in the word 'automatic'. •NikoSilver• 13:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Well its not "automatic" per se, its a matter of someone like me spotting the similar name and blocking it as I did yours (dont you feel special!) So may want to clarify that. Though, is it something we want to start encouraging? Glen 14:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Additionally, if they log into their main account and just use {{unblock}} template that would fix it up pretty quick :) Glen 14:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Boy, how fast you were! (how?) But they can't log in to post the {{unblock}} template, unless they find a free IP! That's the point. I don't think the sentence adds anything that can be considered as "encouragement" (rather "disencouragement" due to complexity; the existing part is definitely encouraging -see me!) OTOH, I really wish I hadn't created those accounts in the first place. Now that I come to think of it, neither I will be able to rename to such accounts if I wish, unless they are deleted! I'll add {{db-author}}. •NikoSilver• 14:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

How about:

The practice is disencouraged, since most similar usernames are quickly spotted and blocked by admins. However, users who create such doppelganger accounts by themselves, should preferably do so logged-in with their normal username, so as to avoid their IP being accidentally blocked automatically. In case such automatic block occurs, the user must find a way to log in with their normal account via a different IP and explain to the blocking admin that it was them in the first place, or add the {{unblock}} template in their normal talk-pages.

Now that would be disencouraging! •NikoSilver• 14:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the practice should be discouraged. The right place to discuss that is Wikipedia talk:Doppelganger account. It is possible to alter the recommended approach to first add the {{doppelganger}} tag using your real account before creating the doppelganger. —Quarl (talk) 2006-10-20 18:35Z

Be my guest. •NikoSilver• 23:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sock Puppeteer who needs to be stopped

139.142.135.106, AKA Mroche repetitively vandalizes the page Template:Calgary science school. He needs to be stopped. He has been contacted and spoken to, also warned many times by Wikipedia to stop his repetitive vandalism, yet just today he changed the page, after I reverted it and gave him his third level 4 warning. Yes, 139.142.135.106 is registered to calgary science school, but blocking it from editing will go with the "greater good" as some call it.

[edit] What if two people use the same computer

I have one doubt. This may sound trivial, but in India, it is very common for more than one person use the same computer. How to differentiate that situation and a Sock Puppet. For example, if my wife browses Wikipedia and votes in few Rfa or AFD from this computer, how can I prove that it was another person who used my computer and not me. Another case is browsing centres - Many persons may be using the same computer (with same IP). How to prove that they are both different people.  Doctor Bruno  16:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

This happened to me and my brother. We use the same computer, but his account got blocked after an editor who has a vendetta against me accused his account of being a sock puppet of mine. TJ Spyke 05:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
TJ, we're just doing our job. Your brother was blocked for sufficient reasons, and you know it. It may not be true, but the evidence was against you. Nishkid64 22:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What if one persons uses different accounts

And coming to the next question. What if Mr.X uses one account in a computer at his home and another account in a computer at his office. How to prove that (with different IP).  Doctor Bruno  16:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC) The short answer to both the preceding two questions is: You can't know.

[edit] Different account for different devices (mobile)

I hope this isn't too superfluous of a question..

I currently use two accounts. One (this one) I use for all of my browsing and editing while on a computer. Another I use (nearly never for editing) on my Treo 650. The reason for this is that Blazer renders Wikipedia text as an unreadable single-character width column. The solution I found was to create a new account and save a custom css template under it (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Browser_notes#PDA_.26_cell_phone_browsershttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Browser_notes#PDA_.26_cell_phone_browsers). My Treo now logs into this account by default when viewing Wikipedia. Under no circumstances do I ever use the Treo account on a computer or vice versa.

Is this considered a legitimate reason to have a second account?

Mleinart 01:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Should the master Puppet be blocked

If Check User finds that Y is a sockpuppet of X, should both X and Y be blocked or only X or only Y. What is the policy  Doctor Bruno  02:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Picture?

I think it would bring some nice color and levity to this page if a picture of a sockpuppet were placed on it. Something like this, perhaps? [5] Or this? [6] Chubbles 23:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

We already have permission to use one of those; see Image:Carlb-sockpuppet-01.jpg. -- nae'blis 17:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Not Guilty

I am not a sock puppet and never was. I don't know how i have been selected but i have no connection with that hammersmith guy. Sorry.

[edit] wp:sp

When I type WP:SP into the "search" box, I get the "sock puppetry" article. When I click on a link to WP:SP, I get "subpages." Both pages say "WP:SP redirects here." I assume you have to be an administrator to fix this; maybe someone could take care of it? Thanks. Theleek 16:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Permitted meatpuppetry

Regarding the clause It is considered highly inappropriate or unacceptable to advertise Wikipedia articles that are being debated in order to attract users with known views and bias, in order to strengthen one side of a debate, aren't many noticeboards around Wikipedia in exact violation of this? I'm specifically thinking of Wikipedia:LGBT noticeboard and the various conspiracy theory noticeboards (1 2 3). I'm sure there are others. I know that it could be argued that these noticeboards allow people of whatever POV to know when articles, images, templates, categories, etc. related to the subject are up for discussion, or when policy discussion are underway, or whatever. But at Rhobite's watchlist is specifically to be for those interested in "a watchlist of [the targets the small but growing minority on Wikipedia determined to spread their opinion that the 9/11 attacks were perpetrated by a government conspiracy]." Anyways, just a question. Discuss it if you like. I'd be flattered. :) Cheers, Iamunknown 00:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I think a big part of it is that these are all going to be read by Wikipedians who are familiar with the "ground rules" and who act and think independently, who can by and large be relied upon to understand most of the core policies, and the ground of the debates/articles in question. So such people are not going to pile into a new debate or new edit war, pushing OR for example.
By contrast, if you post an advert amongst non-wiki-aware friends or on an off-site forum, to the effect "This article is awful! Make your feelings known!" then you're almost guaranteed people whose sole interest is that article, with limited viewpoints and lack of awareness of policies, balance, reasons why it's that way, and article history. That's a recipe for problems.
The issue with meatpuppets isn't so much that multiple people must not discuss topics with friends or join into debates they see their friends in. It's that debates of this kind need clear neutral thinking most, and advertizing for participants on partisan sites almost guarantees you get activists not policy-aware thinking. The sites you refer to by contrast probably don't get that problem as much. But I agree its a thin line, and there may well be other factors involved that others will highlight, why (or when) its undesirable.
My $0.02. Hope it helps. Someone else may have other comments. FT2 (Talk | email) 14:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/o/c/Wikipedia_talk%7ESock_puppetry_7de1.html"