![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
After some recent experience with it, I'm of the opinion that current practice among several admins makes some of the wording in the WP:SOCK#LEGIT section in need of updating, to reflect current practice. Please do not ask what that experience was, because ironically, my answer will apparently incriminate me enough to recieve an immediate block no questions asked as an obvious attempt to deviously and surrepticiously decieve everybody (infact, if this account survives to make a second edit based on the fact nobody would ever in good faith propose a policy change with their 1st edit, I'll be amazed). The only way I'll reveal the precise details to better inform people, is if an admin declares here that he will unblock me if anyone blocks me just for starting/participating in this discussion (and take any second blocker to arbitration for WP:WHEEL). That only leaves the prospect of someone just blanking this Rfc on some bad faith douche-baggery basis, which is a possibility. If that happens, well, what the hell. I guess that will have to stand as the public evidence of how the WP:SOCK policy really is reviewed on Wikipedia.
Anyway, should we get this far, then on the policy issue, I propose the following changes:
Alternative accounts have legitimate uses where real world privacy concerns exist. For example, long-term contributors using their real names may wish to use a pseudonymous account for contributions with which they do not want their real name to be associated.
, or long-term users might create a new account to experience how the community functions for new users.These accounts are not sockpuppets.If you use an alternative account, it is your responsibility to ensure that you do not violate this policy.Valid reasons are as listed below:include:
I think it is now beyond obvious on Wikipedia of 2011 that there's no situation where someone using what they think is a legit sock account for any reason other than real world privacy issues, they are immediately blocked (not least in part because the user of the sock will normally openly declare the account is a legit sock, rather than face tedious questions about how a new account is so familiar with policy etc).
Admins are now so distrustful, so full of bad faith, so poisoned by their regular work of dealing with trolls and vandals and real sock abusers, that they can no longer conceive any good faith reason why anyone would want to create a legit sock and keep their main account's identity hidden, if it's not for real world privacy reasons. At the very least, if they find a situation like this, even if the sock account is not at that time being used for disruption, or is not doing other automatically suspicious activities (ie voting in Afds), they will block on sight on the basis that this is simply not allowed, full stop, based on this very policy.
Before they will unblock, they will demand the real reason why the account was created. The 'perpetrator' then faces the choice of either explaining the reason for using a sock in enough salacious detail so as to make the use of the sock moot, or they must just walk away, because all other avenues will be treated as 'block evasion', no matter what is said or done. This is why the policy wording now needs to be tightened up, for the benefit of both the blocking admins and the chumps who try to create legit socks for non-real world reasons - no real world reason means no legit socks allowed, period.
There's no way, except for the real life reasons, that anyone who admits to using what they see as a legitimate sock, can explain why to suspicious admins, in a way that still maintains the purpose of the sock, to any degree, while not falling foul of the incredibly broad brush reasons why its explained in here why socks are bad, period. Given how vague the policy is on why socks are bad, such blocks can easily be justified post-event, given a little bad faith, and the 'guilty' behaviour of the person who would rather not make the purpose of the sock moot. That's why the clause about it being the sockmasters "responsibility to ensure that you do not violate this policy." needs to go, it's pointless in the current environment. The actual evident purpose of the edits made by the sock account has become irrelevant.
It's also become clear that rather than a list of non-exhaustive examples, the list given for "Valid reasons include", has rather become, to sock hunting admins, a list of the only reasons why legit socks will be tolerated. That's why that language needs to be tightened. There's no longer any situation where the example of someone creating an account to test out new users' experience, can be translated to something else equally beneficial to the project, that any admin is willing to simply take on trust. And I doubt anyone even still creates socks for this purpose either, given how the whole 'let's see how bitey the CSD patrollers are' saga went.
These changes are based on my sincere observations after an incident which has now involved at least 10 admins all reinforcing this interpretation, or at the very least taking the earlier admins actions on basic trust rather than actually figuring out if they can justify their blocks based on this policy combined with AGF and what they can actually see in the sock's edits, or not. Sure, plenty ordinary editors complained at my treatment, but application of WP:SOCK is a policy that is very much in the domain of admins alone.
If anyone wants to disagree with my view of how the WP:SOCK policy is now being viewed with regards non-privacy related legit socks on Wikipedia in 2011, then I'd be pleased to hear it. Obviously without compromising any current or former legit accounts, I'd be seriously interested in hearing of any actual cases which show that the changes would have a detrimental effect.
There's no reason that I can see why this policy should not reflect real world practice. In fact, that's what policies are supposed to do. JMK7759 ( talk) 15:45, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
I see no link between your discussion and the proposed change. I would prefer these guidelines to make it clear that only abusive socking is a problem, I'm pretty certain that was the default position. The early Wikipedians were defenders of freedom, insofar as it was compatible with building an encyclopaedia. I do agree with your diagnosis that we seem to be moving towards an environment of mistrust and retribution, fuelled not so much by paranoia as rules obsession and points scoring.
Rich
Farmbrough,
16:28, 6 December 2011 (UTC).
Leaning towards oppose, but want a tl:dr version of the complaint. People in completely good faith sometimes make socks that the community (through admins) don't think meet the current criteria for legitimate alternate accounts. The solution in those cases is to discuss civilly the reasons for the socking, and escalate through the currently available channels as needed. The solution is not to demand answers and rage and threaten and then create socks on top of socks to keep raging and demanding answers instead of just sticking with that first sock and discussing the issue. The wording seems reasonable. I don't see the benefit in the proposed change. -- Onorem ♠ Dil 19:39, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Let me see if I got this right.
So is that an accurate description of your comments above? 174.47.229.149 ( talk) 15:01, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
JMK7759, I think I have been lucky enough to see the incident that you are complaining about unfold, so I can comment intelligently on it while trying not to out you. If you then want to have a more detailed conversation without that constraint, you can contact me by email. I believe you that you felt what you were doing was a legitimate use of a sock, but only because your obvious irritation makes it relatively easy to assume good faith. I believe there are two key factors on which I and the admins and checkusers dealing with your case have a perspective fundamentally different from yours: (1) Whether it was reasonable to believe that under the circumstances someone with no previous involvement needed the protection of anonymity. (2) Whether it was likely that an obvious sock could achieve what you tried to achieve.
If you are unhappy with your bank, it's not a good idea to put on a fake moustache, a funny hat and a trenchcoat before going there and asking to see the manager. There might be a point if the manager has known homicidal tendencies or is known to give special attention to the accounts of unpopular customers. But not if the manager is merely known for being opinionated and outspoken. It's also not going to lead to anything beneficial, and whether you anticipate the police searching you for weapons as a result of your stunt or not, most people would say it's not a surprising outcome at all. You claim there was no prior involvement on your side and that you just tried to solve a problem. But you chose an eccentric and unsuitable way to do so that makes it very hard to believe these protestations.
As I am writing this, I must consider the possibility that you are an Arbcom candidate who felt that something needed to be done, but didn't want to risk polarising the community while the elections were ongoing. That's the only way I can think of in which your secrecy (assuming that I am thinking of the right incident, of course) would not have been grossly out of proportion. (Not that that would justify it, of course.) And the very possibility that you might be not just a bit weird but also on a power trip really made me think twice about whether to tell you my honest opinion or not. But I am not a coward who would create a sock in such a situation and in fact if I did, I would expect to be blocked for it because it would clearly not be legitimate. Hans Adler 17:26, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
It seems like one use of sock puppetry gets a user an automatic block. However, I would guess that many of the sock puppeteers are new users that didn't know it isn't allowed. Blocking them immediately means not assuming good faith. I think there could be one warning given, and then a block, which is still less than the normal 5-warning system used for vandalism. Please consider my suggestion and happy editing! pluma Ø 04:11, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi not sure if this should be asked here or not but. My brother will be making an account during the course of a class that he is taking next semester and as he lives with me and my wife he uses the same home network as me. How would I go about making sure his edits are not being mistaken as coming from me under another account. Please leave me a talk back on my talk page when answering.- Dch eagle 05:07, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Are all of the words after "sock" supposed to be italicized? It seems like a missing apostrophe but I didn't know if the punishment was italicized for emphasis. -- Pusillanimous 15:39, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello. My name is "bluerasberry". I just had someone suggest to me that I also take the name "blueraspberry" and have it redirect to my real account. The issue is that my account name looks a lot like a misspelled English word and when people think of it they often think of the correct spelling of "raspberry". I tried to make the account and then was disallowed because a user already exists with that name. I wonder if this is a response being triggered by the similarity, because I think there is no such user as "blueraspberry".
Is it legitimate for me to have two accounts with one directing to the other? Is that desirable? Can I just turn the userpage of that other account into a redirect? Is it preferable that I take no action? Please advise. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:06, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The section WP:ROLE says "The sole exceptions" which is an oxymoron, if it's sole then there can only be one exception. Please remove the word "sole". -- 62.254.139.60 ( talk) 11:38, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
On some networks, the use of a shared IP address by a larger group of people is common. I routed my internet access through my mobile phone yesterday when the power was out - I know if I access the internet through my mobile I get an IP address used by loads of people. I know the situation is similar for some CSPs in places in the world where they have fewer IP addresses to go around. Are such circumstances likely to result in false sock puppet identifications? -- 86.154.78.131 ( talk) 14:11, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Say if two people user the same IP for editing, say in an office computer, does it count as "piggybacking"? Just curious. DontClickMeName talk contributions 06:06, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
not their fault for being meat-puppets? I mean, if I was a consistent person who judges debates by the arguments and not people giving the arguments, why should it even make a difference how many people are on a side? Yes, votes are an exception, but you never see political parties care about whether a vote was given by a "meat-puppet." DontClickMeName talk contributions 06:18, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
I am have been contributing to Wikipedia on an off for about a year and a half under this account. But I also have my own website for academic research which I have maintained for about a decade under my real name. The topics on which I edit Wiki are completely different than the topic of my website. Many Wikipedians (not me) frequently use my website to gather materials for articles here. While that is not a problem most of the time, (they are often only used as reference links or to an external site), there are unfortunately numerous instances of copyright violations, when material is copied from my website wholesale without modification and pasted into Wikipedia articles. I would like to be able to track, warn and remove this material from Wikipedia, but not under my current account name as I don't want my current Wiki account associated with my website and real identity, and so was contemplating opening a separate account purely for the purpose of tracking the copyright violations. I wonder if this is considered legitimate use of alternate accounts? Also, I don't want to publicly advertise the association of the two accounts (that'd be defeating the purpose), so who do I have to alert to ensure that an admin will not ban me via an IP check or something like that? Walrasiad ( talk) 21:04, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
As a general principle, I believe that private information should not be stored without good need. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 13:02, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
When is a meat puppet not a meat puppet? (I should make clear right from the start that this is a general question and it has no connection whatever with any SPIs, allegations or editors)
Consider some hypothetical cases, I use the first person for simplicity only.
My wife starts editing WP, she has many similar view to me and tends to support my POV.
Another family member with similar views starts editing
A friend starts editing, in general he agrees with me.
What about member of my church, golf club etc
Is there a one POV, one editor policy? I have just read this Arbcom decision. 'For the purpose of dispute resolution when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar editing habits they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets'. So it looks to some degree as though that is true. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 12:25, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Does it matter if I ask my friend to start editing?
How could that be proved?
What if I ask an already active editor who I suspect will agree with me to have a look at a particular page?
Does it matter whether I contact then on or off wiki?
What about groups of active editors who meet at an article and just happen to hold the same views. Can they at any time become meat puppets.
It seems to me that we have a lot of difficult questions that might benefit from some policy discussion. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 12:03, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Strangely, this doesn't explicitly that suspicions can be informally reported to any administrator, who may block the sock of their own volition if the behaviour is obvious enough or blatant enough and that this is how the many socks are handled. Instead, it focuses on recommends the formal and slightly clunky SPI or raise with CheckUsers/ArbCom routes. Perhaps something on this should be added? Roger Davies talk 08:26, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
The last two weeks of the four week discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Muhammad images was seriously disrupted by a "new" SPA with deep understanding of policy. I, and several other participants in the discussion are profoundly pissed off by this one person's effective abortion of the process. We assume he's either a banned user, the sock of another participant, or the alternative account of someone who doesn't want to burn bridges. None of us is familiar enough with the appropriate use of checkuser. Can it be deployed in this case? There is a short discussion here. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 06:49, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Sometimes I log out, and then I forget that I logged out and then start editing (they are useful edits, though). Does that count as accidental sock puppetry? Please reply on my talk page so I remember to check it. (I forget a lot of things as you can probably see) Tboii99 ✉ 01:57, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
I recently saw an editor permanently blocked. The admin that did this said the editor made impermissible use of two accounts to edit the same "topic area." I scratched my head a moment because this had never been my conception of sockpuppeting. I thought, how is this meant, one makes some edits to "Sparrow," then registers a second account to edit "Bluejay?" This is a sockpuppet?
So I looked here and indeed it says in a single context only "Clean-start accounts should not return to old topic areas, editing patterns, or behavior previously identified as problematic." Okay, in my opinion, it'd be non-controversial to forbid clean-start accounts from editing articles edited by the old account. But the text as written is so amorphous as to give an admin carte blanche to ban based on almost anything done by a "clean- start" account. I mean really, "editing patterns?" Any comments? Anyone agree that the rule quoted above should be narrowed? Colton Cosmic ( talk) 13:28, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Hipocrite, WP:AGF and who are they? Colton Cosmic ( talk) 17:50, 11 May 2012 (UTC) PS: I disguised nothing, was straight-up about everything. Colton Cosmic ( talk) 15:44, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Six words, that's a good prosecutorial closing argument, if it's accurate. All, can we get some positions on the policy I critiqued, rather than the side show? Colton Cosmic ( talk) 17:50, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Colton, if someone does a CLEANSTART and edits in such a way that they are identified, they have not done a cleanstart. A cleanstart is used to completely dissociate an old account that is no longer used with a new account for whatever reason. If an editor does a cleanstart and they go back to the same topic (article), topic area (associated articles) with the same editing patterns or behavior then they have not made a good cleanstart. There should be no way that someone else can identify who an editor is if they make a valid cleanstart. GB fan 18:08, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Can I remove the sock puppet accusation from my user page OttomanJackson ( talk) 01:26, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
I've started a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive235#IPs tagged as (suspected) sockpuppets. Fram ( talk) 07:54, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
I do not think this policy is sufficiently clear about the following situation: an anonymous user was illegally outed on this site by others and would like to open another account. Can he do it and still has his basic editing rights, such as taking part in project discussions and votes? This is assuming that he keeps only one (new) account, has no editing restrictions and will not apply for admin. Perhaps this should be clarified in the policy? My very best wishes ( talk) 22:10, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
An anonymous user in a good standing who was outed can abandon his current account and open another account that should not be interpreted as an undisclosed alternative account.
However, such user may be required to disclose his original account if found in violation of any policies.
Here are some implicit implications:
If there are any objections, please tell. My very best wishes ( talk) 15:04, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Is this covered somewhere and is it acceptable:
Is this allowed or frowned upon, and where is this addressed in the policy/guideline? How do I address the user if it is against policy? Logging off for now, will check back tomorrow. Rgrds. (Dynamic IP, will change when I log off.) -- 64.85.220.237 ( talk) 16:31, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
( ←) Maybe you're right. It is only confusing if you check their contributions and don't see what you would expect to see. In this case, they edited under acct A until last year, but then decided to rename themselves (not through the normal channels, but by starting a new acct) and now edit under acct B, but they still use the talk page of acct A. I've not interacted with the editor, I only came across them at an ANI incident and they were one of the editors who helped resolve the situation. Maybe it would be out of order for me to butt in. Is this even covered anywhere in the policy? If not, should it be? Rgrds. (Dynamic IP, will change when I log off.) -- 64.85.221.157 ( talk) 12:39, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Reverted [3] per bureaucracy and instruction creep -- is there a specific account that is of concern?
I have a question. If I've noticed that a newbie account is being used by an editor who has repeatedly made POV edits to an article, and that this editor also has a more long-standing account with which he/she has racked up over 6,500 since 2009, how do I embark or encourage an investigation to double-check this, without making an outright accusation of which I am not certain, thereby violating WP:AGF? I just want someone to double-check this. What do I do? Nightscream ( talk) 19:40, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to bring back a post that was made here without response about a year ago: [4]. I am inclined to agree that the section on role accounts in the sockpuppetry policy seems out of place and redundant. It's currently part of a section that is intended to describe ways that multiple accounts can be used to deceive. But the dangers of role accounts, I think, have more to do with concerns over issues like personal accountability, undue promotion, conflicts of interest, etc. This has little to do with the concept of multiple accounts, which this policy covers, and more to do with our policy on singular account operation, WP:U. So, is there good reason to locate the full explanation of WP:ROLE here, or can we do a simple merge of the section with its natural partner, NOSHARE, in the username policy? That way, the section would be streamlined and still retain its policy status. For those concerned, a subheading about role accounts could even stay in SOCK - merely trimmed. Plus, we'd avoid scaring those newbies who are slapped with a link to WP:ROLE and redirected here, to a page that insinuates that they have committed sockpuppetry when they probably didn't. NTox · talk 06:58, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
A recent edit ( diff) changed "The community has tolerated humorous alternate accounts" to "The community accepts humorous alternate accounts". That change is dubious as it is going to give any passer by the idea that their idea of humor allows them to create silly usernames for unsatisfactory purposes (I suspect Nobody Ent is thinking of the same ongoing case I am). The reason the examples listed are tolerated/accepted is that they were created by very useful editors, and the humor was exceptionally good—both of those factors are out of the reach of the majority of editors, and I think some tweaking of the wording is in order. I agree that there is not much practical difference between "tolerating" and "accepting", but it would be desirable to avoid encouraging wikilawyers and time wasters. Johnuniq ( talk) 11:06, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
This discussion was closed without answering the fundamental question of what is required under the policy. (You don't have to read the whole thread, which gets myred in Arbcomm tangents.)
You have a new account. The editor admits to having previous accounts. The editor refuses to disclose the names of those accounts. The editor is not doing anything clearly wrong with the new account (some might disagree in the case at hand, but let's assume that because it makes disscussion here easier). The crux of the editor's reasoning is that although they've had "multiple accounts", they haven't had "alternative accounts", which means they aren't subject to the policy. A cute defense but it pretty much eviscerates the policy, putting the conclusion before the analysis.
User:TParis, who closed the discussion, said a couple of things. First, he assumed that checkusers have already looked at the issue and didn't see anything wrong. I don't know how we're supposed to know that without, uh, knowing that. Also, perhaps out of ignorance about how checkuser works, what would they be checking? They'd have the IP address(es) that this new account uses, but what would they be comparing those to? A comparison against a log of all the IP addresses used at Wikipedia? Second, TP apparently believes that if any of us suspect evil activity, we should file a SPI report. Again, perhaps out of ignorance as to the process, how would we do that? Who would be the sockmaster? We'd file a report with TBD (to be determined) in the sockmaster field? And why do we have to file a SPI report, anyway? The issue is not whether he should be blocked for sock pupppetry but whether he should be required to comply with the notify requirements.
So, maybe I'm all wet here, but at the risk of continuing a bad metaphor, I feel like I'm swimming in muddy waters. How is this supposed to work, or is transparency (end of metaphor) too much to ask?-- Bbb23 ( talk) 21:07, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't really want to get into the drama at ANI except as it relates to the issue here. I don't know how many previous accounts Cracker had. I don't know if Cracker has made one clean start or multiple clean starts. All I know is the policy apparently isn't clear enough as to when the notify requirements apply. For example, we use the terms "multiple accounts" and "alternative accounts" loosely throughout the policy. It would seem that Cracker has multiple accounts in the plain English sense of the term, i.e., he has started more than one account. Does he have alternative accounts (whatever that means)? Does that require that the accounts be used during the same time period? What's the time period? Does sock notify apply only to someone with alternative accounts, or does it apply to someone with multiple accounts? Note that in the notify section, both terms are used.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 22:12, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
I think accounts like this violate the "Avoiding scrutiny" clause, and "Legitimate uses" lists the valid defenses. Has Cracker92 ever claimed a use listed under "Legitimate uses"? I can't find one.— Kww( talk) 00:12, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
That's logical. Alright here's an idea. Judge a 'clean start' on their amount of useful edits on the old account. Of course that'll call for an Administrator's attention but it could be the thing that keeps a great source on Wikipedia. Think about it. CHCSPrefect ( talk) 11:07, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
I was a bit confused by this section:
Administrators with multiple accounts: Editors may not have more than one administrator account, except for bots with administrator privileges. If an administrator leaves, comes back under a new name and is nominated for adminship, he or she must give up the admin access of their old account. Foundation staff may operate more than one admin account, though they must make known who they are. For example, Bastique uses the account Cary Bass for Foundation purposes. |
I don't understand where this comes from - what sort of person its designed to catch. Grandiose ( me, talk, contribs) 19:20, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Shoildnt there be a reason for the lock on this page? There seem to be alot of defintions that are locked for no reaso, thought they are less popular than actual pages. 184.98.143.25 ( talk) 10:00, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
I wanted to direct an editor to a page which explained that he shouldn't be creating a whole handful of WP accounts. This seems the only one (or is there a better?) but I was struck by how incomprehensible the title is.
Could we have a note, very near the top, which explains the term "sock puppet"? It's scarcely obvious to me as a native English speaker, and must be totally mystifying for many editors. Something on the lines of:
Even perhaps include the image File:Totally Socks Donkey.png as in the article (or, if that looks too much like a glove puppet, how about File:Carlb-sockpuppet-02.jpg?). I'm now pretty confused about the difference between a sock puppet, a glove puppet, and a hand puppet but that's beside the point here!) Pam D 10:37, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
I have just initated an alternate acct @ User:Buster3.5. But, now the control bar across the top (my talk, my sandbox, my preferences, etc.) all bring me to B3.5's pages instead of where I want togo...Buster7's pages. I'm sure I did something wrong in setting up the alternat acct. Any Ideas on how to fix. Thanks in advance. ``` Buster3.5 ( talk) 15:46, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm wondering if we've ever run into this, and sock puppetry is the topic that first sprung to mind. Persona management software allows a single user to appear on the internet in up to 70 different personas. It is used in astroturfing and also apparently by the US Air Force. See [5] and [6] Any info appreciated. Smallbones( smalltalk) 03:27, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
I am new to Wikipedia and I'm keen to follow the policies here to the best of my abilities but I am unsure how to comply with the following:
Editors who use unlinked alternative accounts, or who edit as an IP address editor separate from their account, should carefully avoid any crossover on articles or topics, because even innocuous activities such as copy editing, wikifying, or linking might be considered sock puppetry in some cases and innocuous intentions will not usually serve as an excuse. |
One of the benefits of registering an account is not revealing your IP address and I wish to maintain this privacy on my account.
Will my new account therefore be subject to a lifetime ban on editing the articles I contributed to before registering? If so, that doesn't seem encouraging to new editors. Can this be clarified? 86.30.138.116 ( talk) 09:38, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
In 2010 a change was made to the paragraph about use of alternative accounts in project space after Wikipedia talk:Sock puppetry/Archive 7#Editing project space, to allow participation in deletion debates concerning content that the alternative account has contributed to. The change was supported by a few editors, but opposed by one editor, who undid it soon after, and "deletion debates" remains in the "inappropriate uses" section. The reasons for opposing the change (at the end of Wikipedia talk:Sock puppetry/Archive 7#Alternative accounts - not to use in policy or project space?) only really apply to policy discussions (not to discussions of specific content) or inappropriate avoidance of scrutiny (which would still be covered, by another paragraph), and the ArbCom case is about discussions internal to the project (and if AFD and FFD are, so are talk pages and BLP noticeboards). Maybe "closely connected", "content matter" and "broadly interpreted" are too vague, but discussions of pages where an alternative account is used, at least, should be from the alternative account, not from a user's main account that appears uninvolved. Peter James ( talk) 02:43, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
This thread relates to this edit, which I believe has changed the operation of this policy, for reasons stated below. On our user talk pages, Nyttend replied to my question as follows:
Hope this is clearer; I'm sorry I didn't make the original statement clear enough."
New discussion below ----
In my view, insertion of "typically" weakens the original meaning. The original text explained that clock-restart is inherent in the sockpuppet's choice to evade a block, such that the clock restarts in principle, regardless what the server thinks. In other words, the principles underlying this policy (trust) should restart the clock in principle, even before any admin pushes any buttons. Block evasion = broken trust = automatic restart (whether anyone is paying attention or not).
From WP:SOCK,
In my view, insertion of "typically" implies that maybe it does restart, maybe not, its hard to know, and harder to say exactly what formula will be used to ever make a decision, assuming anyone notices, anyone takes time to complain, and any admin does anything about it. I don't think that was the intent of your change, Nyttend.
ALTERNATIVE PROPOSAL I suggest instead tweaking the text as follows:
This revised text makes it clear that (A) auto restart is the default, (B) other or different things could happen, and (C) any editor may revert block evasion as such, even in cases when the server erroneously thinks the original block has expired.
Thoughts? NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 16:02, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
This policy change will encourage block-evading socks by (A) reducing ability of regular editors to combat block evasion thru reversions after the server says the clock runs out, and (B) block evading socks can hope they get away with it, before any admins take action. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 17:03, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Could you please clarify some question for me. If someone edits articles or writes to talks section as unregistered user with dynamically assigned IP address (and has such right as far as I understand) - is this sock puppetry? I mean that the same user may have different IPs at different notes. If not, please specify the rule which states this. Thanks a lot! GreanLeaf99 ( talk) 14:28, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Guys, explain me please as well what does "sock puppetry by an ip of Deonis_2012" mean? GreanLeaf99 ( talk) 15:35, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
If someone decided that some IP editor is in fact a sock puppet of some blocked editor, which actions should be taken? I'm wondering because in mentioned case editor's topic was striken out while the editor by himself/herself was not blocked (according to his/her next post from the same IP) GreanLeaf99 ( talk) 16:50, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Anyone but me inclined to invoke WP:DUCK in relation to this discussion?— Kww( talk) 17:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Is there really ever a reason to put credit or awards on a blocked sock puppet account? I say this because when we have these issues and it's nec. to block and the user decides to sock, yes they or the sock account created a good article but they did so under a cloud...wouldn't giving credit be a positive reinforcement for socking and a appropriate application of WP:DENY? I say this because I saw this at User:Spoildead a blocked sock of User:Okip. I understand the editor in good faith is giving credit where it's due but doesn't that make more issues for us in the long run? Maybe I'm off base here but didn't know where to raise the question other then here. Hell In A Bucket ( talk) 09:03, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Moved dyk to main account with Casliber's consent. NE Ent 15:03, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
What about those of us who prefer to edit without logging in, but maintain a user account to make edits that require a registered account? -- 198.137.20.243 ( talk) 17:03, 15 January 2013 (UTC) (In my judgment this is valid since multiple accounts are not being used or abused, rather the point is that since Wikipedia should be free to edit some editors like me prefer to do it that way but also recognize that some actions are legitimately off-limits to unregistered users.)
Therefore, use of a registered account would be including but not limited to the following:Contributors who have not created an account or logged in are identified by their IP address rather than a user name, and may read all Wikipedia pages (except restricted special pages), and edit pages that are not protected or semi-protected. They may create talk pages in any talk namespace but may need to ask for help to create pages in some parts of the wiki. They cannot upload files or images. They must answer a CAPTCHA if they wish to make an edit which involves the addition of one or more external links, and click a confirm link to purge pages. All users may also query the site API in 500-record batches.
What about using one account for noncontroversial edits and another account for legitimate but controversial edits? -- 198.137.20.243 ( talk) 17:03, 15 January 2013 (UTC) (In my judgment this is valid since WP editors are encouraged to be bold, but unfortunately there will be inevitable conflict when it comes to various opinions of what is appropriate in an article, and so the noncontroversial account should be recognized for the edits on it independent of the potentially controversial edits made by the other account.)
"inevitable conflict when it comes to various opinions of what is appropriate in an article"rather suggests that this would be likely to fall foul of WP:BADHAND. And, again, why? Bishonen | talk 17:16, 15 January 2013 (UTC).
But the 2nd account would not be for disruptive editing. In my scenario, account A would be for edits that would be accepted by, say, at least 65-70% of editors, while account B would be for legitimate edits, not violating policy whatsoever, that, say, only 40-60% of editors agree with. And in general they would not be to the same topic. -- 198.137.20.187 ( talk) 18:26, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
For example, account A might edit a sports record table to correct any errors, while account B might edit to include or exclude information from that same sports record table based on whether that information belongs on WP, in the judgment of that editor. -- 198.137.20.56 ( talk) 19:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Personally not a fan of having this image on the policy page. This goes against accepted practice for policy pages. As was pointed on in the very short 2009 discussion about this issue, most people are pointed to this page when they've been accused of violating the policy - I'm not against a bit of humour now and then, but it seems inappropriate in this context. The assertion that it might help non-native speakers understand the origin of the term is extremely dubious to me.
Mostly I just think it makes the page look stupid and people are less likely to take it seriously as a policy if we plaster joke-images over it. It does not add any value to the page.
Best, Spitfire Tally-ho! 17:33, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
I want to create some alternate accounts for doppelgänger (Impersonation protection/inactive) and security (keylogger etc. protection/active) reasons. is it able to keep the watchlists and such of the Main and Security Userspaces identical???
My1 xTreme 16:57, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Template:Doppelganger-other has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.. As this template is currently explicitly mentioned on this policy page people here may wish to comment.
Thryduulf (
talk)
21:27, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
This is just a query which I thought I'd throw out there as it has always baffled me. In my early days of editing I was once complained about for using multiple accounts, ie. that of DAFMM and another account two accounts, both of which I used for editing. What is the problem with the same individual using multiple accounts? I can understand it if there causing trouble, and using one while the other is blocked or using the other for support in arguments etc., but what about general, honest use? What if he publicised on the user pages that he edited under one user name for edits regarding one topic, and another for other topics? Is there a problem? Thanks. DAFMM ( talk) 11:53, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
This is phaedrx wikipedianoob. You guys might want to somehow artfully skillfully clarify or more prominently locate somewhere a new person can see it easily, and also this would be for the volunteer enforcement teams here. They should have on wikipedia, that is the users and readers worldwide now and in the future, mentioned that sockpuppeting can only be the apropo term if there is harmful intent. If a person is not intending to harm, that is, it is not sockpuppeting even if they do do harm. For example is my case which I hesitate to draw attention to but nonetheless: I worked a high pace job using WP as a ref. about geographic facts. I used to sign in to get the screen to look how I wanted etc. It never occurred to me there were real people in the background editing it. Seriously. I never looked into or knew anything about how it worked I just assumed they got it right those Wikipeople. I developed profiles for screen appearances and stayed logged in but something would happen at my computer at the office which wasn't mine, and I would lose the password if it was a while and I rotated them as I usually do and have to do a new one. I kept doing name variants and eventually just went 0j8cqu3aj9 or f39hf9h3 to get a page quick to find out about that province in Banton or Tuntin or wherever. So, by the time the editing thing happened, which was that I made it known and not hiding it that yes I was signing in under diff names, I had no idea there was even such a thing as sock-puppeting. So I could not possibly be doing a behavior that implicitly means harmful intent. I did inappropriate noob things here (who hasn't), but sockin' ain't ever been one. Perhaps the case I illustrated is just too narrow to make a change, a worldwide-awareness-of-sockpuppeting campaign I just started huh anyway, I didn't mean a big thing maybe just clarify that accidental sockpuppeting is real. what do you all think, is the important thing. -- Phaedrx ( talk) 20:32, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
As far as I have been able to tell, there are a few employees of the Wikimedia Foundation who have both a "Work" account which generally ends in (WMF) and a "civilian" account. I have no problem with this concept, but I don't think any of the current entries in the Legitimate Uses list cover it. Naraht ( talk) 16:20, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
The current policy page states:
The policy appears to have changed as a result of this edit, part of a copy edit by SlimVirgin, who intended " not to change anything, just to tighten the writing". An attempt to change it to something closer to what was originally intended [8] was undone because of "no consensus", also by SlimVirgin.
The current version seems reasonable, with the exception of deletion debates. An editor who uses an alternative account for specific topics finds a hoax article in that topic area, linked from articles already edited from the alternative account, and nominates it for deletion at AFD, or an editor finds that a file used in an article is nominated for deletion, and participates in the deletion discussion. These are not inappropriate; it would be more misleading to PROD the article, and remove the link, with an alternative account and AFD it with the main account. Maybe it should be changed to something that there is consensus for, or changed back and the bold, revert, discuss process followed? Peter James ( talk) 21:37, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Not seriously ☺ but [9] demonstrates interesting views of certain registered users, both current and former. Incnis Mrsi ( talk) 11:35, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the meatpuppetry section of this article, there is a passage quoting from this ArbCom decision. The passage in this article reads:
...the Arbitration Committee issued a decision in 2005 stating "whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar editing habits they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets"
However, this is the actual text of the decision:
For the purpose of dispute resolution when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar editing habits they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets.
(Emphasis mine). I think the quote as it appears in the article is misleading, as it drops the "when there is uncertainty" qualifier, which clearly changes the meaning. I request that the quote as it appears in this article be amended to include that qualifier, thus:
...the Arbitration Committee issued a decision in 2005 stating "when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar editing habits they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets"
130.95.77.97 ( talk) 03:41, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi, from jawp.
Could you tell me exact understanding of "main account" and "alternative account"?
Assume that real peason "A" using two account, "User:A1" and "User:A2" because of privacy. "A" create User:A1 first, then create User:A2. "A" don't connect A1 and A2, but "A" notice that "A2 is alternative account" on userpage of A2.
"Editing project space" in "Inappropriate uses of alternative accounts" section say "Undisclosed alternative accounts should not edit policies and other project pages". Can "A" edit RFD page as User:A2 under the condition that User:A1 is not involved both article and discussions ?
i.e. relationships of main account and alternative account is fixed? or relative?-- Ks aka 98 ( talk) 17:02, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Thank you just the same. Please continue discussion.
I understand that an user who use multiple account can't edit for discussions internal to the project, such as policy debates. Even though editing deletion debate by alternative account is also prohibitted on current policy, Peter insists that it would be harmful and policy should be changed. In peter's opinion, it seems that multiple account are not distinct as "main"/"sub". One of the multiple account which concerns an article can join delation debate of the article. -- Ks aka 98 ( talk) 18:45, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
I was recently warned by an admin not to create doppelgänger accounts for other users, specifically Jimbo Wales. If there is indeed consensus against this, shouldn't it be recorded somewhere in the Legitimate uses section to prevent relatively new users like me from making the same mistake? (I read the section before creating that account, and it said nothing about that, so I went ahead and did it, especially since Special:ListUsers shows that numerous accounts were created by other users for the same purpose.) -- SamX‧ ☎‧ ✎ 16:52, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Just for the record (this might be my last edit to WP) I was warned after I created the doppelgänger, not before. -- SamX‧ ☎‧ ✎ 22:06, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi there, I recently got into some trouble with an admin because I thought that "sock puppet" meant the same as "alternative account". He corrected me and said it meant "alternate account used improperly". I re-read the page and still didn't see where it said this. Today looking at it afresh I do see.
It is a reasonably assumption to make as the "sock puppet" analogy works equally well for alternative accounts. So I might not be the only one to make this mistake.
I must have read "The use of multiple Wikipedia user accounts for an improper purpose is called sock puppetry (often abbreviated in discussion as socking). Improper purposes include ...". as meaning something like:
"The use of multiple Wikipedia user accounts is called sock puppetry (often abbreviated in discussion as socking). Improper purposes include ..."
When a word is highlighted in bold there is a tendency to think it is the most important word in the sentence and treat previous words as less important. The brackets after the word also direct your attention away from the qualifications before it.
Obviously is a good idea to put the word in bold as you do, but I'd like to suggest it might help prevent others from making the same mistake as I did to put "for an improper purpose" also in bold:
"The use of multiple Wikipedia user accounts for an improper purpose is called sock puppetry (often abbreviated in discussion as socking). Improper purposes include ..."
Or if that is clumsy, something like:
Multiple Wikipedia user accounts can be used for an improper purpose. This is called sock puppetry (often abbreviated in discussion as socking). Improper purposes include ..."
would also work, where you explain that it is about improper purpose in a separate sentence. Probably only a few make this mistake but I did, and so suspect, at least a few other readers probably will do so. I am I think slightly dislexic, which may be part of the reason, but then others would be in the same situation. Robert Walker ( talk) 14:57, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Sock puppetry refers to the use of multiple wikipedia accounts for improper purposes. These include attempts to deceive or mislead other editors, disrupt discussions, distort consensus, avoid sanctions, or otherwise violate community standards and policies. The term comes from sock puppet, an object shaped roughly like a sock and used on the hand to create a character to entertain or inform. The term is in general use on the Internet for an online identity used for deception, and in discussions, is often abbreviated as socking)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
After some recent experience with it, I'm of the opinion that current practice among several admins makes some of the wording in the WP:SOCK#LEGIT section in need of updating, to reflect current practice. Please do not ask what that experience was, because ironically, my answer will apparently incriminate me enough to recieve an immediate block no questions asked as an obvious attempt to deviously and surrepticiously decieve everybody (infact, if this account survives to make a second edit based on the fact nobody would ever in good faith propose a policy change with their 1st edit, I'll be amazed). The only way I'll reveal the precise details to better inform people, is if an admin declares here that he will unblock me if anyone blocks me just for starting/participating in this discussion (and take any second blocker to arbitration for WP:WHEEL). That only leaves the prospect of someone just blanking this Rfc on some bad faith douche-baggery basis, which is a possibility. If that happens, well, what the hell. I guess that will have to stand as the public evidence of how the WP:SOCK policy really is reviewed on Wikipedia.
Anyway, should we get this far, then on the policy issue, I propose the following changes:
Alternative accounts have legitimate uses where real world privacy concerns exist. For example, long-term contributors using their real names may wish to use a pseudonymous account for contributions with which they do not want their real name to be associated.
, or long-term users might create a new account to experience how the community functions for new users.These accounts are not sockpuppets.If you use an alternative account, it is your responsibility to ensure that you do not violate this policy.Valid reasons are as listed below:include:
I think it is now beyond obvious on Wikipedia of 2011 that there's no situation where someone using what they think is a legit sock account for any reason other than real world privacy issues, they are immediately blocked (not least in part because the user of the sock will normally openly declare the account is a legit sock, rather than face tedious questions about how a new account is so familiar with policy etc).
Admins are now so distrustful, so full of bad faith, so poisoned by their regular work of dealing with trolls and vandals and real sock abusers, that they can no longer conceive any good faith reason why anyone would want to create a legit sock and keep their main account's identity hidden, if it's not for real world privacy reasons. At the very least, if they find a situation like this, even if the sock account is not at that time being used for disruption, or is not doing other automatically suspicious activities (ie voting in Afds), they will block on sight on the basis that this is simply not allowed, full stop, based on this very policy.
Before they will unblock, they will demand the real reason why the account was created. The 'perpetrator' then faces the choice of either explaining the reason for using a sock in enough salacious detail so as to make the use of the sock moot, or they must just walk away, because all other avenues will be treated as 'block evasion', no matter what is said or done. This is why the policy wording now needs to be tightened up, for the benefit of both the blocking admins and the chumps who try to create legit socks for non-real world reasons - no real world reason means no legit socks allowed, period.
There's no way, except for the real life reasons, that anyone who admits to using what they see as a legitimate sock, can explain why to suspicious admins, in a way that still maintains the purpose of the sock, to any degree, while not falling foul of the incredibly broad brush reasons why its explained in here why socks are bad, period. Given how vague the policy is on why socks are bad, such blocks can easily be justified post-event, given a little bad faith, and the 'guilty' behaviour of the person who would rather not make the purpose of the sock moot. That's why the clause about it being the sockmasters "responsibility to ensure that you do not violate this policy." needs to go, it's pointless in the current environment. The actual evident purpose of the edits made by the sock account has become irrelevant.
It's also become clear that rather than a list of non-exhaustive examples, the list given for "Valid reasons include", has rather become, to sock hunting admins, a list of the only reasons why legit socks will be tolerated. That's why that language needs to be tightened. There's no longer any situation where the example of someone creating an account to test out new users' experience, can be translated to something else equally beneficial to the project, that any admin is willing to simply take on trust. And I doubt anyone even still creates socks for this purpose either, given how the whole 'let's see how bitey the CSD patrollers are' saga went.
These changes are based on my sincere observations after an incident which has now involved at least 10 admins all reinforcing this interpretation, or at the very least taking the earlier admins actions on basic trust rather than actually figuring out if they can justify their blocks based on this policy combined with AGF and what they can actually see in the sock's edits, or not. Sure, plenty ordinary editors complained at my treatment, but application of WP:SOCK is a policy that is very much in the domain of admins alone.
If anyone wants to disagree with my view of how the WP:SOCK policy is now being viewed with regards non-privacy related legit socks on Wikipedia in 2011, then I'd be pleased to hear it. Obviously without compromising any current or former legit accounts, I'd be seriously interested in hearing of any actual cases which show that the changes would have a detrimental effect.
There's no reason that I can see why this policy should not reflect real world practice. In fact, that's what policies are supposed to do. JMK7759 ( talk) 15:45, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
I see no link between your discussion and the proposed change. I would prefer these guidelines to make it clear that only abusive socking is a problem, I'm pretty certain that was the default position. The early Wikipedians were defenders of freedom, insofar as it was compatible with building an encyclopaedia. I do agree with your diagnosis that we seem to be moving towards an environment of mistrust and retribution, fuelled not so much by paranoia as rules obsession and points scoring.
Rich
Farmbrough,
16:28, 6 December 2011 (UTC).
Leaning towards oppose, but want a tl:dr version of the complaint. People in completely good faith sometimes make socks that the community (through admins) don't think meet the current criteria for legitimate alternate accounts. The solution in those cases is to discuss civilly the reasons for the socking, and escalate through the currently available channels as needed. The solution is not to demand answers and rage and threaten and then create socks on top of socks to keep raging and demanding answers instead of just sticking with that first sock and discussing the issue. The wording seems reasonable. I don't see the benefit in the proposed change. -- Onorem ♠ Dil 19:39, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Let me see if I got this right.
So is that an accurate description of your comments above? 174.47.229.149 ( talk) 15:01, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
JMK7759, I think I have been lucky enough to see the incident that you are complaining about unfold, so I can comment intelligently on it while trying not to out you. If you then want to have a more detailed conversation without that constraint, you can contact me by email. I believe you that you felt what you were doing was a legitimate use of a sock, but only because your obvious irritation makes it relatively easy to assume good faith. I believe there are two key factors on which I and the admins and checkusers dealing with your case have a perspective fundamentally different from yours: (1) Whether it was reasonable to believe that under the circumstances someone with no previous involvement needed the protection of anonymity. (2) Whether it was likely that an obvious sock could achieve what you tried to achieve.
If you are unhappy with your bank, it's not a good idea to put on a fake moustache, a funny hat and a trenchcoat before going there and asking to see the manager. There might be a point if the manager has known homicidal tendencies or is known to give special attention to the accounts of unpopular customers. But not if the manager is merely known for being opinionated and outspoken. It's also not going to lead to anything beneficial, and whether you anticipate the police searching you for weapons as a result of your stunt or not, most people would say it's not a surprising outcome at all. You claim there was no prior involvement on your side and that you just tried to solve a problem. But you chose an eccentric and unsuitable way to do so that makes it very hard to believe these protestations.
As I am writing this, I must consider the possibility that you are an Arbcom candidate who felt that something needed to be done, but didn't want to risk polarising the community while the elections were ongoing. That's the only way I can think of in which your secrecy (assuming that I am thinking of the right incident, of course) would not have been grossly out of proportion. (Not that that would justify it, of course.) And the very possibility that you might be not just a bit weird but also on a power trip really made me think twice about whether to tell you my honest opinion or not. But I am not a coward who would create a sock in such a situation and in fact if I did, I would expect to be blocked for it because it would clearly not be legitimate. Hans Adler 17:26, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
It seems like one use of sock puppetry gets a user an automatic block. However, I would guess that many of the sock puppeteers are new users that didn't know it isn't allowed. Blocking them immediately means not assuming good faith. I think there could be one warning given, and then a block, which is still less than the normal 5-warning system used for vandalism. Please consider my suggestion and happy editing! pluma Ø 04:11, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi not sure if this should be asked here or not but. My brother will be making an account during the course of a class that he is taking next semester and as he lives with me and my wife he uses the same home network as me. How would I go about making sure his edits are not being mistaken as coming from me under another account. Please leave me a talk back on my talk page when answering.- Dch eagle 05:07, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Are all of the words after "sock" supposed to be italicized? It seems like a missing apostrophe but I didn't know if the punishment was italicized for emphasis. -- Pusillanimous 15:39, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello. My name is "bluerasberry". I just had someone suggest to me that I also take the name "blueraspberry" and have it redirect to my real account. The issue is that my account name looks a lot like a misspelled English word and when people think of it they often think of the correct spelling of "raspberry". I tried to make the account and then was disallowed because a user already exists with that name. I wonder if this is a response being triggered by the similarity, because I think there is no such user as "blueraspberry".
Is it legitimate for me to have two accounts with one directing to the other? Is that desirable? Can I just turn the userpage of that other account into a redirect? Is it preferable that I take no action? Please advise. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:06, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The section WP:ROLE says "The sole exceptions" which is an oxymoron, if it's sole then there can only be one exception. Please remove the word "sole". -- 62.254.139.60 ( talk) 11:38, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
On some networks, the use of a shared IP address by a larger group of people is common. I routed my internet access through my mobile phone yesterday when the power was out - I know if I access the internet through my mobile I get an IP address used by loads of people. I know the situation is similar for some CSPs in places in the world where they have fewer IP addresses to go around. Are such circumstances likely to result in false sock puppet identifications? -- 86.154.78.131 ( talk) 14:11, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Say if two people user the same IP for editing, say in an office computer, does it count as "piggybacking"? Just curious. DontClickMeName talk contributions 06:06, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
not their fault for being meat-puppets? I mean, if I was a consistent person who judges debates by the arguments and not people giving the arguments, why should it even make a difference how many people are on a side? Yes, votes are an exception, but you never see political parties care about whether a vote was given by a "meat-puppet." DontClickMeName talk contributions 06:18, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
I am have been contributing to Wikipedia on an off for about a year and a half under this account. But I also have my own website for academic research which I have maintained for about a decade under my real name. The topics on which I edit Wiki are completely different than the topic of my website. Many Wikipedians (not me) frequently use my website to gather materials for articles here. While that is not a problem most of the time, (they are often only used as reference links or to an external site), there are unfortunately numerous instances of copyright violations, when material is copied from my website wholesale without modification and pasted into Wikipedia articles. I would like to be able to track, warn and remove this material from Wikipedia, but not under my current account name as I don't want my current Wiki account associated with my website and real identity, and so was contemplating opening a separate account purely for the purpose of tracking the copyright violations. I wonder if this is considered legitimate use of alternate accounts? Also, I don't want to publicly advertise the association of the two accounts (that'd be defeating the purpose), so who do I have to alert to ensure that an admin will not ban me via an IP check or something like that? Walrasiad ( talk) 21:04, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
As a general principle, I believe that private information should not be stored without good need. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 13:02, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
When is a meat puppet not a meat puppet? (I should make clear right from the start that this is a general question and it has no connection whatever with any SPIs, allegations or editors)
Consider some hypothetical cases, I use the first person for simplicity only.
My wife starts editing WP, she has many similar view to me and tends to support my POV.
Another family member with similar views starts editing
A friend starts editing, in general he agrees with me.
What about member of my church, golf club etc
Is there a one POV, one editor policy? I have just read this Arbcom decision. 'For the purpose of dispute resolution when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar editing habits they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets'. So it looks to some degree as though that is true. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 12:25, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Does it matter if I ask my friend to start editing?
How could that be proved?
What if I ask an already active editor who I suspect will agree with me to have a look at a particular page?
Does it matter whether I contact then on or off wiki?
What about groups of active editors who meet at an article and just happen to hold the same views. Can they at any time become meat puppets.
It seems to me that we have a lot of difficult questions that might benefit from some policy discussion. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 12:03, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Strangely, this doesn't explicitly that suspicions can be informally reported to any administrator, who may block the sock of their own volition if the behaviour is obvious enough or blatant enough and that this is how the many socks are handled. Instead, it focuses on recommends the formal and slightly clunky SPI or raise with CheckUsers/ArbCom routes. Perhaps something on this should be added? Roger Davies talk 08:26, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
The last two weeks of the four week discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Muhammad images was seriously disrupted by a "new" SPA with deep understanding of policy. I, and several other participants in the discussion are profoundly pissed off by this one person's effective abortion of the process. We assume he's either a banned user, the sock of another participant, or the alternative account of someone who doesn't want to burn bridges. None of us is familiar enough with the appropriate use of checkuser. Can it be deployed in this case? There is a short discussion here. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 06:49, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Sometimes I log out, and then I forget that I logged out and then start editing (they are useful edits, though). Does that count as accidental sock puppetry? Please reply on my talk page so I remember to check it. (I forget a lot of things as you can probably see) Tboii99 ✉ 01:57, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
I recently saw an editor permanently blocked. The admin that did this said the editor made impermissible use of two accounts to edit the same "topic area." I scratched my head a moment because this had never been my conception of sockpuppeting. I thought, how is this meant, one makes some edits to "Sparrow," then registers a second account to edit "Bluejay?" This is a sockpuppet?
So I looked here and indeed it says in a single context only "Clean-start accounts should not return to old topic areas, editing patterns, or behavior previously identified as problematic." Okay, in my opinion, it'd be non-controversial to forbid clean-start accounts from editing articles edited by the old account. But the text as written is so amorphous as to give an admin carte blanche to ban based on almost anything done by a "clean- start" account. I mean really, "editing patterns?" Any comments? Anyone agree that the rule quoted above should be narrowed? Colton Cosmic ( talk) 13:28, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Hipocrite, WP:AGF and who are they? Colton Cosmic ( talk) 17:50, 11 May 2012 (UTC) PS: I disguised nothing, was straight-up about everything. Colton Cosmic ( talk) 15:44, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Six words, that's a good prosecutorial closing argument, if it's accurate. All, can we get some positions on the policy I critiqued, rather than the side show? Colton Cosmic ( talk) 17:50, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Colton, if someone does a CLEANSTART and edits in such a way that they are identified, they have not done a cleanstart. A cleanstart is used to completely dissociate an old account that is no longer used with a new account for whatever reason. If an editor does a cleanstart and they go back to the same topic (article), topic area (associated articles) with the same editing patterns or behavior then they have not made a good cleanstart. There should be no way that someone else can identify who an editor is if they make a valid cleanstart. GB fan 18:08, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Can I remove the sock puppet accusation from my user page OttomanJackson ( talk) 01:26, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
I've started a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive235#IPs tagged as (suspected) sockpuppets. Fram ( talk) 07:54, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
I do not think this policy is sufficiently clear about the following situation: an anonymous user was illegally outed on this site by others and would like to open another account. Can he do it and still has his basic editing rights, such as taking part in project discussions and votes? This is assuming that he keeps only one (new) account, has no editing restrictions and will not apply for admin. Perhaps this should be clarified in the policy? My very best wishes ( talk) 22:10, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
An anonymous user in a good standing who was outed can abandon his current account and open another account that should not be interpreted as an undisclosed alternative account.
However, such user may be required to disclose his original account if found in violation of any policies.
Here are some implicit implications:
If there are any objections, please tell. My very best wishes ( talk) 15:04, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Is this covered somewhere and is it acceptable:
Is this allowed or frowned upon, and where is this addressed in the policy/guideline? How do I address the user if it is against policy? Logging off for now, will check back tomorrow. Rgrds. (Dynamic IP, will change when I log off.) -- 64.85.220.237 ( talk) 16:31, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
( ←) Maybe you're right. It is only confusing if you check their contributions and don't see what you would expect to see. In this case, they edited under acct A until last year, but then decided to rename themselves (not through the normal channels, but by starting a new acct) and now edit under acct B, but they still use the talk page of acct A. I've not interacted with the editor, I only came across them at an ANI incident and they were one of the editors who helped resolve the situation. Maybe it would be out of order for me to butt in. Is this even covered anywhere in the policy? If not, should it be? Rgrds. (Dynamic IP, will change when I log off.) -- 64.85.221.157 ( talk) 12:39, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Reverted [3] per bureaucracy and instruction creep -- is there a specific account that is of concern?
I have a question. If I've noticed that a newbie account is being used by an editor who has repeatedly made POV edits to an article, and that this editor also has a more long-standing account with which he/she has racked up over 6,500 since 2009, how do I embark or encourage an investigation to double-check this, without making an outright accusation of which I am not certain, thereby violating WP:AGF? I just want someone to double-check this. What do I do? Nightscream ( talk) 19:40, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to bring back a post that was made here without response about a year ago: [4]. I am inclined to agree that the section on role accounts in the sockpuppetry policy seems out of place and redundant. It's currently part of a section that is intended to describe ways that multiple accounts can be used to deceive. But the dangers of role accounts, I think, have more to do with concerns over issues like personal accountability, undue promotion, conflicts of interest, etc. This has little to do with the concept of multiple accounts, which this policy covers, and more to do with our policy on singular account operation, WP:U. So, is there good reason to locate the full explanation of WP:ROLE here, or can we do a simple merge of the section with its natural partner, NOSHARE, in the username policy? That way, the section would be streamlined and still retain its policy status. For those concerned, a subheading about role accounts could even stay in SOCK - merely trimmed. Plus, we'd avoid scaring those newbies who are slapped with a link to WP:ROLE and redirected here, to a page that insinuates that they have committed sockpuppetry when they probably didn't. NTox · talk 06:58, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
A recent edit ( diff) changed "The community has tolerated humorous alternate accounts" to "The community accepts humorous alternate accounts". That change is dubious as it is going to give any passer by the idea that their idea of humor allows them to create silly usernames for unsatisfactory purposes (I suspect Nobody Ent is thinking of the same ongoing case I am). The reason the examples listed are tolerated/accepted is that they were created by very useful editors, and the humor was exceptionally good—both of those factors are out of the reach of the majority of editors, and I think some tweaking of the wording is in order. I agree that there is not much practical difference between "tolerating" and "accepting", but it would be desirable to avoid encouraging wikilawyers and time wasters. Johnuniq ( talk) 11:06, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
This discussion was closed without answering the fundamental question of what is required under the policy. (You don't have to read the whole thread, which gets myred in Arbcomm tangents.)
You have a new account. The editor admits to having previous accounts. The editor refuses to disclose the names of those accounts. The editor is not doing anything clearly wrong with the new account (some might disagree in the case at hand, but let's assume that because it makes disscussion here easier). The crux of the editor's reasoning is that although they've had "multiple accounts", they haven't had "alternative accounts", which means they aren't subject to the policy. A cute defense but it pretty much eviscerates the policy, putting the conclusion before the analysis.
User:TParis, who closed the discussion, said a couple of things. First, he assumed that checkusers have already looked at the issue and didn't see anything wrong. I don't know how we're supposed to know that without, uh, knowing that. Also, perhaps out of ignorance about how checkuser works, what would they be checking? They'd have the IP address(es) that this new account uses, but what would they be comparing those to? A comparison against a log of all the IP addresses used at Wikipedia? Second, TP apparently believes that if any of us suspect evil activity, we should file a SPI report. Again, perhaps out of ignorance as to the process, how would we do that? Who would be the sockmaster? We'd file a report with TBD (to be determined) in the sockmaster field? And why do we have to file a SPI report, anyway? The issue is not whether he should be blocked for sock pupppetry but whether he should be required to comply with the notify requirements.
So, maybe I'm all wet here, but at the risk of continuing a bad metaphor, I feel like I'm swimming in muddy waters. How is this supposed to work, or is transparency (end of metaphor) too much to ask?-- Bbb23 ( talk) 21:07, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't really want to get into the drama at ANI except as it relates to the issue here. I don't know how many previous accounts Cracker had. I don't know if Cracker has made one clean start or multiple clean starts. All I know is the policy apparently isn't clear enough as to when the notify requirements apply. For example, we use the terms "multiple accounts" and "alternative accounts" loosely throughout the policy. It would seem that Cracker has multiple accounts in the plain English sense of the term, i.e., he has started more than one account. Does he have alternative accounts (whatever that means)? Does that require that the accounts be used during the same time period? What's the time period? Does sock notify apply only to someone with alternative accounts, or does it apply to someone with multiple accounts? Note that in the notify section, both terms are used.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 22:12, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
I think accounts like this violate the "Avoiding scrutiny" clause, and "Legitimate uses" lists the valid defenses. Has Cracker92 ever claimed a use listed under "Legitimate uses"? I can't find one.— Kww( talk) 00:12, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
That's logical. Alright here's an idea. Judge a 'clean start' on their amount of useful edits on the old account. Of course that'll call for an Administrator's attention but it could be the thing that keeps a great source on Wikipedia. Think about it. CHCSPrefect ( talk) 11:07, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
I was a bit confused by this section:
Administrators with multiple accounts: Editors may not have more than one administrator account, except for bots with administrator privileges. If an administrator leaves, comes back under a new name and is nominated for adminship, he or she must give up the admin access of their old account. Foundation staff may operate more than one admin account, though they must make known who they are. For example, Bastique uses the account Cary Bass for Foundation purposes. |
I don't understand where this comes from - what sort of person its designed to catch. Grandiose ( me, talk, contribs) 19:20, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Shoildnt there be a reason for the lock on this page? There seem to be alot of defintions that are locked for no reaso, thought they are less popular than actual pages. 184.98.143.25 ( talk) 10:00, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
I wanted to direct an editor to a page which explained that he shouldn't be creating a whole handful of WP accounts. This seems the only one (or is there a better?) but I was struck by how incomprehensible the title is.
Could we have a note, very near the top, which explains the term "sock puppet"? It's scarcely obvious to me as a native English speaker, and must be totally mystifying for many editors. Something on the lines of:
Even perhaps include the image File:Totally Socks Donkey.png as in the article (or, if that looks too much like a glove puppet, how about File:Carlb-sockpuppet-02.jpg?). I'm now pretty confused about the difference between a sock puppet, a glove puppet, and a hand puppet but that's beside the point here!) Pam D 10:37, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
I have just initated an alternate acct @ User:Buster3.5. But, now the control bar across the top (my talk, my sandbox, my preferences, etc.) all bring me to B3.5's pages instead of where I want togo...Buster7's pages. I'm sure I did something wrong in setting up the alternat acct. Any Ideas on how to fix. Thanks in advance. ``` Buster3.5 ( talk) 15:46, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm wondering if we've ever run into this, and sock puppetry is the topic that first sprung to mind. Persona management software allows a single user to appear on the internet in up to 70 different personas. It is used in astroturfing and also apparently by the US Air Force. See [5] and [6] Any info appreciated. Smallbones( smalltalk) 03:27, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
I am new to Wikipedia and I'm keen to follow the policies here to the best of my abilities but I am unsure how to comply with the following:
Editors who use unlinked alternative accounts, or who edit as an IP address editor separate from their account, should carefully avoid any crossover on articles or topics, because even innocuous activities such as copy editing, wikifying, or linking might be considered sock puppetry in some cases and innocuous intentions will not usually serve as an excuse. |
One of the benefits of registering an account is not revealing your IP address and I wish to maintain this privacy on my account.
Will my new account therefore be subject to a lifetime ban on editing the articles I contributed to before registering? If so, that doesn't seem encouraging to new editors. Can this be clarified? 86.30.138.116 ( talk) 09:38, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
In 2010 a change was made to the paragraph about use of alternative accounts in project space after Wikipedia talk:Sock puppetry/Archive 7#Editing project space, to allow participation in deletion debates concerning content that the alternative account has contributed to. The change was supported by a few editors, but opposed by one editor, who undid it soon after, and "deletion debates" remains in the "inappropriate uses" section. The reasons for opposing the change (at the end of Wikipedia talk:Sock puppetry/Archive 7#Alternative accounts - not to use in policy or project space?) only really apply to policy discussions (not to discussions of specific content) or inappropriate avoidance of scrutiny (which would still be covered, by another paragraph), and the ArbCom case is about discussions internal to the project (and if AFD and FFD are, so are talk pages and BLP noticeboards). Maybe "closely connected", "content matter" and "broadly interpreted" are too vague, but discussions of pages where an alternative account is used, at least, should be from the alternative account, not from a user's main account that appears uninvolved. Peter James ( talk) 02:43, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
This thread relates to this edit, which I believe has changed the operation of this policy, for reasons stated below. On our user talk pages, Nyttend replied to my question as follows:
Hope this is clearer; I'm sorry I didn't make the original statement clear enough."
New discussion below ----
In my view, insertion of "typically" weakens the original meaning. The original text explained that clock-restart is inherent in the sockpuppet's choice to evade a block, such that the clock restarts in principle, regardless what the server thinks. In other words, the principles underlying this policy (trust) should restart the clock in principle, even before any admin pushes any buttons. Block evasion = broken trust = automatic restart (whether anyone is paying attention or not).
From WP:SOCK,
In my view, insertion of "typically" implies that maybe it does restart, maybe not, its hard to know, and harder to say exactly what formula will be used to ever make a decision, assuming anyone notices, anyone takes time to complain, and any admin does anything about it. I don't think that was the intent of your change, Nyttend.
ALTERNATIVE PROPOSAL I suggest instead tweaking the text as follows:
This revised text makes it clear that (A) auto restart is the default, (B) other or different things could happen, and (C) any editor may revert block evasion as such, even in cases when the server erroneously thinks the original block has expired.
Thoughts? NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 16:02, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
This policy change will encourage block-evading socks by (A) reducing ability of regular editors to combat block evasion thru reversions after the server says the clock runs out, and (B) block evading socks can hope they get away with it, before any admins take action. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 17:03, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Could you please clarify some question for me. If someone edits articles or writes to talks section as unregistered user with dynamically assigned IP address (and has such right as far as I understand) - is this sock puppetry? I mean that the same user may have different IPs at different notes. If not, please specify the rule which states this. Thanks a lot! GreanLeaf99 ( talk) 14:28, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Guys, explain me please as well what does "sock puppetry by an ip of Deonis_2012" mean? GreanLeaf99 ( talk) 15:35, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
If someone decided that some IP editor is in fact a sock puppet of some blocked editor, which actions should be taken? I'm wondering because in mentioned case editor's topic was striken out while the editor by himself/herself was not blocked (according to his/her next post from the same IP) GreanLeaf99 ( talk) 16:50, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Anyone but me inclined to invoke WP:DUCK in relation to this discussion?— Kww( talk) 17:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Is there really ever a reason to put credit or awards on a blocked sock puppet account? I say this because when we have these issues and it's nec. to block and the user decides to sock, yes they or the sock account created a good article but they did so under a cloud...wouldn't giving credit be a positive reinforcement for socking and a appropriate application of WP:DENY? I say this because I saw this at User:Spoildead a blocked sock of User:Okip. I understand the editor in good faith is giving credit where it's due but doesn't that make more issues for us in the long run? Maybe I'm off base here but didn't know where to raise the question other then here. Hell In A Bucket ( talk) 09:03, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Moved dyk to main account with Casliber's consent. NE Ent 15:03, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
What about those of us who prefer to edit without logging in, but maintain a user account to make edits that require a registered account? -- 198.137.20.243 ( talk) 17:03, 15 January 2013 (UTC) (In my judgment this is valid since multiple accounts are not being used or abused, rather the point is that since Wikipedia should be free to edit some editors like me prefer to do it that way but also recognize that some actions are legitimately off-limits to unregistered users.)
Therefore, use of a registered account would be including but not limited to the following:Contributors who have not created an account or logged in are identified by their IP address rather than a user name, and may read all Wikipedia pages (except restricted special pages), and edit pages that are not protected or semi-protected. They may create talk pages in any talk namespace but may need to ask for help to create pages in some parts of the wiki. They cannot upload files or images. They must answer a CAPTCHA if they wish to make an edit which involves the addition of one or more external links, and click a confirm link to purge pages. All users may also query the site API in 500-record batches.
What about using one account for noncontroversial edits and another account for legitimate but controversial edits? -- 198.137.20.243 ( talk) 17:03, 15 January 2013 (UTC) (In my judgment this is valid since WP editors are encouraged to be bold, but unfortunately there will be inevitable conflict when it comes to various opinions of what is appropriate in an article, and so the noncontroversial account should be recognized for the edits on it independent of the potentially controversial edits made by the other account.)
"inevitable conflict when it comes to various opinions of what is appropriate in an article"rather suggests that this would be likely to fall foul of WP:BADHAND. And, again, why? Bishonen | talk 17:16, 15 January 2013 (UTC).
But the 2nd account would not be for disruptive editing. In my scenario, account A would be for edits that would be accepted by, say, at least 65-70% of editors, while account B would be for legitimate edits, not violating policy whatsoever, that, say, only 40-60% of editors agree with. And in general they would not be to the same topic. -- 198.137.20.187 ( talk) 18:26, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
For example, account A might edit a sports record table to correct any errors, while account B might edit to include or exclude information from that same sports record table based on whether that information belongs on WP, in the judgment of that editor. -- 198.137.20.56 ( talk) 19:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Personally not a fan of having this image on the policy page. This goes against accepted practice for policy pages. As was pointed on in the very short 2009 discussion about this issue, most people are pointed to this page when they've been accused of violating the policy - I'm not against a bit of humour now and then, but it seems inappropriate in this context. The assertion that it might help non-native speakers understand the origin of the term is extremely dubious to me.
Mostly I just think it makes the page look stupid and people are less likely to take it seriously as a policy if we plaster joke-images over it. It does not add any value to the page.
Best, Spitfire Tally-ho! 17:33, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
I want to create some alternate accounts for doppelgänger (Impersonation protection/inactive) and security (keylogger etc. protection/active) reasons. is it able to keep the watchlists and such of the Main and Security Userspaces identical???
My1 xTreme 16:57, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Template:Doppelganger-other has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.. As this template is currently explicitly mentioned on this policy page people here may wish to comment.
Thryduulf (
talk)
21:27, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
This is just a query which I thought I'd throw out there as it has always baffled me. In my early days of editing I was once complained about for using multiple accounts, ie. that of DAFMM and another account two accounts, both of which I used for editing. What is the problem with the same individual using multiple accounts? I can understand it if there causing trouble, and using one while the other is blocked or using the other for support in arguments etc., but what about general, honest use? What if he publicised on the user pages that he edited under one user name for edits regarding one topic, and another for other topics? Is there a problem? Thanks. DAFMM ( talk) 11:53, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
This is phaedrx wikipedianoob. You guys might want to somehow artfully skillfully clarify or more prominently locate somewhere a new person can see it easily, and also this would be for the volunteer enforcement teams here. They should have on wikipedia, that is the users and readers worldwide now and in the future, mentioned that sockpuppeting can only be the apropo term if there is harmful intent. If a person is not intending to harm, that is, it is not sockpuppeting even if they do do harm. For example is my case which I hesitate to draw attention to but nonetheless: I worked a high pace job using WP as a ref. about geographic facts. I used to sign in to get the screen to look how I wanted etc. It never occurred to me there were real people in the background editing it. Seriously. I never looked into or knew anything about how it worked I just assumed they got it right those Wikipeople. I developed profiles for screen appearances and stayed logged in but something would happen at my computer at the office which wasn't mine, and I would lose the password if it was a while and I rotated them as I usually do and have to do a new one. I kept doing name variants and eventually just went 0j8cqu3aj9 or f39hf9h3 to get a page quick to find out about that province in Banton or Tuntin or wherever. So, by the time the editing thing happened, which was that I made it known and not hiding it that yes I was signing in under diff names, I had no idea there was even such a thing as sock-puppeting. So I could not possibly be doing a behavior that implicitly means harmful intent. I did inappropriate noob things here (who hasn't), but sockin' ain't ever been one. Perhaps the case I illustrated is just too narrow to make a change, a worldwide-awareness-of-sockpuppeting campaign I just started huh anyway, I didn't mean a big thing maybe just clarify that accidental sockpuppeting is real. what do you all think, is the important thing. -- Phaedrx ( talk) 20:32, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
As far as I have been able to tell, there are a few employees of the Wikimedia Foundation who have both a "Work" account which generally ends in (WMF) and a "civilian" account. I have no problem with this concept, but I don't think any of the current entries in the Legitimate Uses list cover it. Naraht ( talk) 16:20, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
The current policy page states:
The policy appears to have changed as a result of this edit, part of a copy edit by SlimVirgin, who intended " not to change anything, just to tighten the writing". An attempt to change it to something closer to what was originally intended [8] was undone because of "no consensus", also by SlimVirgin.
The current version seems reasonable, with the exception of deletion debates. An editor who uses an alternative account for specific topics finds a hoax article in that topic area, linked from articles already edited from the alternative account, and nominates it for deletion at AFD, or an editor finds that a file used in an article is nominated for deletion, and participates in the deletion discussion. These are not inappropriate; it would be more misleading to PROD the article, and remove the link, with an alternative account and AFD it with the main account. Maybe it should be changed to something that there is consensus for, or changed back and the bold, revert, discuss process followed? Peter James ( talk) 21:37, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Not seriously ☺ but [9] demonstrates interesting views of certain registered users, both current and former. Incnis Mrsi ( talk) 11:35, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the meatpuppetry section of this article, there is a passage quoting from this ArbCom decision. The passage in this article reads:
...the Arbitration Committee issued a decision in 2005 stating "whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar editing habits they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets"
However, this is the actual text of the decision:
For the purpose of dispute resolution when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar editing habits they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets.
(Emphasis mine). I think the quote as it appears in the article is misleading, as it drops the "when there is uncertainty" qualifier, which clearly changes the meaning. I request that the quote as it appears in this article be amended to include that qualifier, thus:
...the Arbitration Committee issued a decision in 2005 stating "when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar editing habits they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets"
130.95.77.97 ( talk) 03:41, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi, from jawp.
Could you tell me exact understanding of "main account" and "alternative account"?
Assume that real peason "A" using two account, "User:A1" and "User:A2" because of privacy. "A" create User:A1 first, then create User:A2. "A" don't connect A1 and A2, but "A" notice that "A2 is alternative account" on userpage of A2.
"Editing project space" in "Inappropriate uses of alternative accounts" section say "Undisclosed alternative accounts should not edit policies and other project pages". Can "A" edit RFD page as User:A2 under the condition that User:A1 is not involved both article and discussions ?
i.e. relationships of main account and alternative account is fixed? or relative?-- Ks aka 98 ( talk) 17:02, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Thank you just the same. Please continue discussion.
I understand that an user who use multiple account can't edit for discussions internal to the project, such as policy debates. Even though editing deletion debate by alternative account is also prohibitted on current policy, Peter insists that it would be harmful and policy should be changed. In peter's opinion, it seems that multiple account are not distinct as "main"/"sub". One of the multiple account which concerns an article can join delation debate of the article. -- Ks aka 98 ( talk) 18:45, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
I was recently warned by an admin not to create doppelgänger accounts for other users, specifically Jimbo Wales. If there is indeed consensus against this, shouldn't it be recorded somewhere in the Legitimate uses section to prevent relatively new users like me from making the same mistake? (I read the section before creating that account, and it said nothing about that, so I went ahead and did it, especially since Special:ListUsers shows that numerous accounts were created by other users for the same purpose.) -- SamX‧ ☎‧ ✎ 16:52, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Just for the record (this might be my last edit to WP) I was warned after I created the doppelgänger, not before. -- SamX‧ ☎‧ ✎ 22:06, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi there, I recently got into some trouble with an admin because I thought that "sock puppet" meant the same as "alternative account". He corrected me and said it meant "alternate account used improperly". I re-read the page and still didn't see where it said this. Today looking at it afresh I do see.
It is a reasonably assumption to make as the "sock puppet" analogy works equally well for alternative accounts. So I might not be the only one to make this mistake.
I must have read "The use of multiple Wikipedia user accounts for an improper purpose is called sock puppetry (often abbreviated in discussion as socking). Improper purposes include ...". as meaning something like:
"The use of multiple Wikipedia user accounts is called sock puppetry (often abbreviated in discussion as socking). Improper purposes include ..."
When a word is highlighted in bold there is a tendency to think it is the most important word in the sentence and treat previous words as less important. The brackets after the word also direct your attention away from the qualifications before it.
Obviously is a good idea to put the word in bold as you do, but I'd like to suggest it might help prevent others from making the same mistake as I did to put "for an improper purpose" also in bold:
"The use of multiple Wikipedia user accounts for an improper purpose is called sock puppetry (often abbreviated in discussion as socking). Improper purposes include ..."
Or if that is clumsy, something like:
Multiple Wikipedia user accounts can be used for an improper purpose. This is called sock puppetry (often abbreviated in discussion as socking). Improper purposes include ..."
would also work, where you explain that it is about improper purpose in a separate sentence. Probably only a few make this mistake but I did, and so suspect, at least a few other readers probably will do so. I am I think slightly dislexic, which may be part of the reason, but then others would be in the same situation. Robert Walker ( talk) 14:57, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Sock puppetry refers to the use of multiple wikipedia accounts for improper purposes. These include attempts to deceive or mislead other editors, disrupt discussions, distort consensus, avoid sanctions, or otherwise violate community standards and policies. The term comes from sock puppet, an object shaped roughly like a sock and used on the hand to create a character to entertain or inform. The term is in general use on the Internet for an online identity used for deception, and in discussions, is often abbreviated as socking)