Wikipedia talk:Sock puppetry

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is not the place to post notices of suspected sock puppetry.

Please follow Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets, and create a report there.
Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] Archive 4

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

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

Alternative accounts that are not disclosed publicly on Wikipedia must be disclosed privately by email to ArbCom, as described at Alternative account notification.

  • 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.

Aside from the above, 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)