![]() | 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 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | → | Archive 15 |
![]() | Some discussions archived to this page can now be found at Archive 11. |
I'd appreciate opinions on the best way to deal with this particular situation, since it doesn't seem to fall neatly into anything on the WP:SOCK policy.
There is a user ( 99.135.170.179 ( talk · contribs) at the moment) who has been editing some contentious articles, ranging over the last month from Roman Polanski to some Troubles (British/Ireland) articles ( list of IPs). S/he always edits anonymously, and has admitted that their IP changes every few days. [1] Normally this wouldn't be a problem, except that the user is frequently edit-warring, has racked up a couple blocks on previous IPs over the last month, and is about one revert away from a third block on the current IP. Frankly, if I would have been aware of the previous block history, I probably would have already blocked a third time, but since I didn't know their history, I was going by WP:BITE and WP:AGF.
Not all edits by the IP are bad, and they have made some good changes, but I'd say that the mix of positive contributions to disruptive is about 70/30 right now. Also, to their credit, they have never used the IP editing to get around a block, and their IPs never overlap. The main problem is simply that the user is not particularly forthcoming that they're on a new IP when the address changes, so each new IP starts with a blank talkpage, and the warnings start anew. Repeated requests to the user to edit while logged in, have been ignored.
Assuming that the pattern of borderline disruption is going to continue, on whatever the next IP address will be, is there a way that we can maintain centralized information, so that future administrators don't have to start over from scratch each time? I have been mulling possible ways to deal with the situation, such as:
I wasn't sure where exactly to ask about this, such as at WP:AN or WP:AE, but I figured I'd start here. So, any suggestions? -- El on ka 17:14, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
As a followup, this anonymous editor is now on 99.135.174.186 ( talk · contribs). I have left a note on their (current) talkpage with a link to the previous IPs, and have strongly encouraged them to respect the growing consensus here, that the editor should cease editing anonymously, and instead create an account. -- El on ka 22:11, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm in the camp that is in support of anonymous editing, and hold that those in favor of forced registering of editors are wrongdoers who themselves should be punished for harassing the IP editors. IP users have just as much right here to edit as anyone else and should be able to share equally, completely and totally with the registered account holders on here. User:Elonka User:GoodDay and User:BullRangifer are the kind of people who I feel are discriminatory against editors who disagree with them and hence this idea of forcing people to register to edit is a power play on their part. I propose action be taken to halt them from continuing to voice this position. Their intolerance of anonymous editing is totally discriminatory and shouldn't itself be tolerated on a free location like this anymore. Hate and prejudice has no place here or anywhere anymore. JourneyManTraveler ( talk) 01:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Two proposed corrections to "Inappropriate uses":
Project-space focused accounts: Users should not |
Concealing a non-neutral stance: Affecting to be a neutral party who feels (as an uninvolved user) that a given view has merit, when (were it known who the operator were) the account would be understood to be considerably non-neutral and their contribution perceived very differently.
Neutral uninvolved parties may have extra weight in some discussions and this should not be gamed by using an undisclosed second account to create the impression of a neutral party. |
FT2 ( Talk | email) 00:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Response:
Project-space focused accounts: Users should not |
Segregating contributions by project area seems perfectly reasonable to me, if the accounts are openly and clearly disclosed. An intuitive suffix to the username would be ideal, I would think. I do sometimes wish I had used another username for my deletion discussion contributions, because they swamp my policy/guildine/essay contributions. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 00:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
RE: "Concealing a non-neutral stance".
This is a very serious problem. On the other hand, it is said that no one lacks a particular point of view, and personal agenda, even if the person himself is unaware of it. It is the substance of the message that is important, and we should try to not assign importance based on the identity of the speaker. --
SmokeyJoe (
talk)
01:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Each month I'm going to pick a policy page that has seen a lot of recent changes and interview participants for the Signpost so that the readers can get some insight into the question: how does policy get made? The page that's changed the most this month is this page ( WP:SOCK), and I'm confused about what the changes mean. Anyone who wants to have their comments in the Signpost is welcome to respond ... I can't promise to use all of them, the column has to stay short, but I'll try to get in representative comments from anyone who wants to respond. So, I'll throw out a few questions, but feel free to bring up any subject relevant to this month's editing:
Responses by
FT2
|
---|
Sock policy is our core policy on editors abusing the ability to edit, in order to deceive other editors (hidden COI is the other main deception area). Historically the community has taken a tough line on it, it's got a very high level of support across the board, from everyday users to administrators to Arbcom. Almost the only time an actual proposed sanction will be disputed is when there's a question of sufficient proof; if the proof's there then abusers don't tend to get much support. As a major page and a major anti-abuse policy it gets a lot of use and attention. There's a need to be clear and succinct, yet cover all the stops, and be fair to all, which drives this page quite strongly. The changes reflect the community's feeling that it's due for a thorough reworking. That happens from time to time, the structure and wording can become a bit diffuse and patchy because of many separate contributions and people start to feel it's time for a thorough review. So to your questions:
|
Response by
Amorymeltzer
|
---|
I'd group the changes over the past month or so into three main categories. First, a lot of work has been done to make the policy clearer, especially where concerned with legitimate uses of multiple or alternate accounts. Secondly, a lot of changes reflect concerns as related to sysops. Whether or not this is a response to recent removals of adminship is largely irrelevant; the changes reflect a more absolute image of the community's views on admins with multiple accounts. For example, the text was changed to read "Editors must not operate more than one administrator account," and so on, which is a straightforward and direct interpretation of the generally assumed behaviors of sysops. This may be my own interpretation, but the closer we get to a bright-line rule here there better, as the removal of confounding process is always better. Finally, I think a much larger effort has been made to include WP:Assume Good Faith as a governing principle in these situations. In short, sockpuppets accusations can be easy to fling around, and even easier when the target is a new user, who may not have as full of an understanding of policy and the correct annals of process as the accuser. The current edition of the page not only makes a stronger effort to force AGF on the part of investigating editors, but also makes it clearer and easier to understand for new or investigated editors. Clearly, a lot of those topics group and blend together. A lot of the removed information was related to how to deal with suspected sockpuppets, which has been made more succinct and clearer to read in a step-wise fashion. Moreover, a lot of the particulars (such as those related to Checkuser and OTRS) aren't necessary or appropriate for this page, and only served to complicate an already confusing issue. The admin issues were a source of a lot of discussion on the talkpage, especially as concerned to releasing accounts at an RfA. While the concerned text was relatively minor (should normally versus usually) the implication was relatively large - implying that RfA candidates should as opposed to just do. That discussion essentially ended as beyond the scope of WT:SOCK (perhaps more ideal for WT:RFA) but also raised the issue of Checkusering all admin candidates. That oft-raised concept, perhaps following on the heels of the recent incidents, didn't gain much steam, mostly due to WP:AGF concerns. Essentially, a lot of loose ends have been tied up, but the entire page has been made much more readable. Not too much all-in-all has changed, as FT2 says, but pretty much every aspect has been tightened. There still remain a number of unclear issues, but a lot of those are going to have to be decided by a larger community consensus on topics with a broad applicability. ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 22:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC) |
Responses by
SmokeyJoe
|
---|
There have certainly been a lot of edits to the page, but it was mostly tidying, better expression, and very little change of substance. A difficulty with this policy is that there is very little information on existing non-abusive use of secret alternative accounts. A justification for the heavy editing has been the claim that this policy is ineffective with regard to the abusive use of secret alternative accounts. This has also provided impetus for what might be called “tough language”. The tough language may encourage stern reaction to discovered cases of abusive sock puppetry. The threat to block and publicly link abusive sock accounts is thought to be somewhat a deterrent. The long standing advice to email arbcom about the use of secret accounts is currently relegated to be something for users to "consider", for various contended reasons. These reasons include:
There seems to be general agreement on the replacement advice, which remains marked with the {{ Underdiscussion}} tag. There are still improvements to be made, but I sense that the edit rate to the page is going to be more normal from here on. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 06:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC) |
Responses by
User:Abductive
|
---|
I don't believe in written policies, I believe in the operational consensus, which in this case appears to be largely unchanged. There is a major difference between abusive sockpuppetry and using more than one account, whether serially or simultaneously. It seems to me that a certain laxness in enforcement in the last year or so has been reversed, or at least people hope so. On the other hand, I'm seeing a lot of new usernames in the last few days in AfD discussions, so who knows? Abductive ( reasoning) 06:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC) |
Responses by
User:Bwilkins
|
---|
I'm not sure that the key issues are in the new edits, but more importantly that the edits have taken place in the first place: in other words, it's not what was edited, it's that it was edited. Although invisible to the majority of users, the issue with a banned user getting a sock account and becoming an admin sent a chill throughout the project. Personally, I now ask a carefully-phrased question in all RFA's. Yes, someone can lie or decieve us in their answer, and honestly, I feel that if they are caught in that lie, then they could/should have the tools stripped - Adminship is not a big deal, but it is about trust. Socking is a core policy, and it needs detail. However, I'm still concerned that the current policy still suffers from a little WP:TLDNR, so I can see more shortening/forking to make it absolutely crystal clear to editors. I may add to this later ( talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC) |
Responses by
WereSpielChequers
|
---|
I think there were three things that drove lots of attention to this project and highlighted some areas where the community does and does not agree. The three things were:
The areas where I don't think that community is in agreement are:
Personally I'm in favour of renaming the policy, and of being more restrictive on admins having currently live undisclosed accounts. I think that disclosing secret accounts to Arbcom works well, and would be happy to restrict the exemption to "editors in totalitarian states, who run secret accounts for privacy and safety reasons". I don't see the case for changing Cleanstart. Ϣere SpielChequers 12:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
|
Responses by
next user
|
---|
Summary (see tomorrow's Signpost)
|
---|
Feel free to edit this summary. The deadline is roughly midnight Sunday night (UTC):
- Dank ( push to talk) 04:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC) Small tweak 14:12, 31 October 2009 (UTC). More edits 06:16 01 November 2009 (UTC) Small edits to FT2's good work, feel free to revert: minor tightening and copyediting, and also being a little more general about what WSC said ... is there a general push to change the name of the page? - Dank ( push to talk) 13:52, 1 November 2009 (UTC) |
After long thought I am about to create a sock account, for security purposes. As an Admin I am hesitant to log on to my main account where I do not have full control of the PC. I am surprised that I don't find a user box or template to declare cross sock relationships, nor do I find a list or category to assign my two accounts as declared socks. I would like to suggest the creation of some formal method for registering socks that are created with in established policy. If this exists and I have missed it some how please post it to WP:SOCK#LEGIT. Jeepday ( talk) 22:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
In case anyone hasn't noticed, there is an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Sockpuppet_investigations#Sock_template_cleanup (that was advertised at the Village Pump), just in case anyone hasn't noticed it and is interested. The templates we use are incorporated into policy and when and how to use them is under discussion in addition to a complete revamping of the templates themselves, so I'm posting here to make sure maximum interested editors are aware.-- Doug.( talk • contribs) 06:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Currently states, "This is permitted only if there are no bans or blocks in place against your old account, and so long as no active deception is involved, particularly on pages that the old account used to edit."
I'm concerned about this wording. We do want to bar people restarting to escape their controversial editing history only to resume it with a new name, but this risks preventing people with a legitimately reason from changing.
A second problem is "no active deception" - users who don't "actively deceive" but then resume contentious editing of "their" topic under a new name are a major problem too.
Proposed:
Clean start is only permitted for an editor who either has a completely clean past record (under any account used), or who will completely cease all past contentious or improper behaviors with their new account.
You may not use 'clean start' to resume a pattern of contentious behavior under a new name, or to hide a history of blocks and bans. Editors who have ever gained more than one block (across all accounts), any block that lasted over 24 hours, any ban, or who will continue editing in a similar contentious manner, may not 'clean start' without Arbcom approval. Any user in violation is likely to have the new and old accounts linked, blocks/bans/warnings of the old account noted under the new account, and one or both accounts blocked for evasion of scrutiny. |
Rationale:
Specific conditions, and wikilaywer fears, on whether a clean start is allowable misses the point that a clean start will be undisclosed, will be attempted with the best of intentions, and is thus under an honour system. I suggest offering advice:
And follow up with: If you fail at making a clean start, stop. You will be judged on your complete editing history, and it is unlikely that you will be allowed such leeway again. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 22:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
I think this is problematic. If editors who start over must "completely" stop any past contentious behavior, this should presumably be true for all editors regardless of their past. Heck, it should be true for all editors regardless of what accounts they've ever used. However, I would also question whether Wikipedia deals in "records," and other aspects of the proposal (if a record is a valid concept, and a good measure of contentiousness, I would like to see it defined). Generally, what's the motivation here? If editors are permanently tied to their accounts and any history they're seen to have, then I question why Wikipedia allows pseudonymous editing; it should require people to prove their singular identity in order to edit. It would start to have significantly greater obligations with regard to those editors. Telling some people they can't be "contentious," at all, based on one arbitrary factor, doesn't seem especially defensible. I think there is a point here: if for one example you are routinely sanctioned for incivility, and you start a new account with more of the same, and then again, and it's found that these are all your accounts, then you'll probably get the proverbial book thrown at you. But this isn't about zero tolerance, it's about people who continue to repeatedly engage in the same problematic behavior. The policy addresses this already, and maybe it could be highlighted, but I think the point is confused by absolutist language. Mackan79 ( talk) 23:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
I heard a term, "landovering", whereby a sockpuppet "goes native" from long exposure to "enemy" propaganda. Supposedly, this refers to a British spy, Agent(?) Landover, who went commie after a couple of decades being a spy in Russia. However, I can't find anything about "Agent Landover" on the web, and I've only seen the term used to refer to internet sockpuppets suffering from mission creep or doctrine pollution/reversal. Anyone know the origin of this term? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.208.70.96 ( talk) 14:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Why can't Meatpuppettry also refer to a negative alliance between two or more established users, or administrators, who work in tandem or as a group voicing the same opinion in multiple discussions? There seems to be a loophole in the definition. I propose the word "new" be removed from the section. - Stillwaterising ( talk) 15:18, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
We tend to distinguish canvassing and collaboration between existing editors, from going out and asking friends to get an account "just to vote on, or support, something". FT2 ( Talk | email) 01:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
I see the bold and all-caps in the lead seems to be expanding, and I don't disagree with all of it, but presumably there's an endpoint? In any case, I don't think this edit is helpful; to say it's a basic rule, with exceptions, but then put it in caps, I start to feel like I'm on a roller coaster. Of course, I'd welcome any explanation of what it adds. Mackan79 ( talk) 22:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Brangrifer, I wonder if you can clarify how this change would help to block IPs in an appropriate manner. Do abusive IP editors successfully argue that they should be unblocked under one IP because they were only disruptive under another, or are you suggesting that non-disruptive IP editors should be blocked simply where it is thought that they have used too many IPs? If IP editors are disruptive, then they would be blocked regardless of this policy. If they aren't, then with all due respect I don't see how it can be suggested that they should be blocked. Mackan79 ( talk) 04:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the response, I'll go by numbers if I may:
Mackan79 ( talk) 03:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to take this out, since it's new and, at least between Bull and myself, doesn't seem to have consensus. As noted immediately above, I did add something to address the issues with IPs and of course I'm open to other adjustments. Mackan79 ( talk) 05:58, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
<-- I have started an RfC below, so we should stop this thread and continue there. -- Brangifer ( talk) 19:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Suppose that I am an established Wikipedian and notice that an article has been created about a project or product that I am intimately connected with in some way, to the point that I am one of the leading figures on the subject area and highly likely to be cited as a primary source. However, when I read the article in question it is littered with factual errors, is poorly sourced and has other issues with it. Subject to the guidance at WP:COI I can point out these problems e.g. on the talk page, point out where sources for particular points may be found or possibly even make additional existing material available off-wiki that can then be cited for points not covered in publicly available references.
So far, not a problem, indeed that can only serve to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the area. However, what if I edit under a pseudonym, and do not wish to create in public an association between my Wikipedia account and my real identity? There may be legitimate reason to do this: I may be in a profession that requires a certain amount of gravitas and do not wish my work on more trivial or frivolous subject areas to be associated with me in a professional capacity.
The obvious solution would be to create a sock account with a username similar to my real identity. If this was used in a manner consistent with the existing policies on socks and COI that could be used exclusively for this purpose. It would also have the effect of highlighting the COI element if I edit using a name that would be recognised by people familiar with the subject. The problem is that you could not publicly acknowledge the relationship between the sock and the main account without rendering the exercise pointless. Yes, you could acknowledge on the sock account user page that it is a sock, but you could not say to whom. The main account by necessity could not address the issue at all.
I stress that this does not affect me and my present situation at all: it is pruely hypothetical. However, it seems like a significant gap in the present guidance. CrispMuncher ( talk) 22:58, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Should "one editing history" for the main account be stated explicitly rather than merely implicit? Currently it is implied: "The general rule is one editor, one account." -- Brangifer ( talk) 19:06, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Context: I made some edits which have been disputed by one editor. (One other editor made a comment, and I made an edit that fixed the matter. That was later reverted.) This is basically about preventing "avoiding the scrutiny of other editors".
This has nothing to do with legitimate uses of alternate accounts, legitimate reasons for changing accounts, nor about one account "forever". This only applies to the one main account clearly stated in "The general rule is one editor, one account". I have always understood that to clearly imply "one editing history", but when I tried to make it explicit, it became apparent from the ensuing discussion that the implication wasn't understood in the same manner. I believe policies should be very clear, especially for our newbies who can't be expected to notice implications. If experienced editors like myself (24,000+ edits) and Mackan79 (nearing 6,000 edits) can disagree on this, then it should be fixed.
I have been having a valuable and very civil discussion with this fine editor who has explained his reasoning in this section above:
Please read that discussion and the article history (starting on Nov. 8) before commenting. We don't want to repeat any misunderstandings here. (While some important points are made, and you would do well to read them, don't let the discussions about required registration distract. That's just my opinion and it doesn't affect this matter. I also provide some very simple suggestions that might solve about 80-90% of our vandalism problems. That's also another matter that doesn't impact, but motivates, the discussion.)
I admit that my first edit was probably overdriven with the use of allcaps. It was properly deleted and a discussion was started. I then proceeded to make three edits 1 2 3 to improve the situation. Note my edit summaries. Those edits were (after several intervening and unrelated edits) all deleted. We continued the discussion, but have come to an impasse. I don't want to edit war over this, and that's why I'm seeking more input from other editors through this RfC.
To aid readers see what is being discussed, here are the results of those three edits, IOW the changes I am proposing (underlined):
It is those three edits I wish to see reinstated. It is important to note that my edits survived for several days, and that this article is no doubt watched by many notable admins and ArbCom members. In spite of intervening edits which fixed vandalism, my edits were preserved. That says something. Only one editor objected and reverted by edits. Here is the before and after diff.
To summarize: Should it be explicit that one editing history is the norm for the main account? -- Brangifer ( talk) 19:06, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
This is a pretty long discussion (I'm the other main participant), but as to this text I think the problem is simple enough. I think you can say there is a presumption that people will edit with one account, as a way of introducing this topic. "One person, one account." It seems to say, "Hey there, welcome to the problems with multiple accounts. Let's start with a way to avoid this topic: use one account, end of story, problem solved." This is a reasonable way to introduce the topic, as it's simple, straight forward, respects the reader, and proceeds on to the actual rules that people need to know.
The issue with this text is a lesser form of the issue with the original all-caps, which is that you no longer have a simple, straight forward introduction. "One edit history," when added as a general requirement, is first of all imprecise; an edit history is generally a term for articles, not editors. It seems to have in mind "one contribution log." The apparent meaning is to say, "And, keep using that account as long as you want to edit." At least that's what I think it means, although I must say I am still not sure what Brangifer wants it to counsel against exactly, or what it is thought to accomplish (and I do not see where he explains this above). This gets to the problem, which is that the text is too specific for a general rule that has no teeth anyway, and dilutes a general rule with confusion. One person, one account is sometimes required. One edit history is never required, since it can't be. To stop editing with an account and start another is not a general problem; it is only a very specific problem in very specific situations that should not be generalized on all editors. The text improperly suggests that any editor who leaves behind an account has done something intriguing or questionable, and improperly suggests that editors have a general interest in being able to see every edit that a person has ever done. Neither of these are accurate. From reading Brangrifer, on the other hand, he does not intend the text to imply any of this, but then why are we adding it? In this regard I have suggested that if IP editing presents a specific problem, as he suggests it does, then we should seek a specific solution to that problem rather than broadening the policy with generalities that apply everywhere and nowhere.
Finally, I don't think that silence from important types indicates agreement. I suspect they recognize that "one edit history" is not a realistic expectation to carry around, but for whatever reason aren't pointing this out. I'll note that there is probably a systemic bias among the higher ups anyway, however, in that since they largely enforce these rules they are less concerned with them being written in an overly broad or ambiguous manner. Of course there are any number of reasons people would not comment, but sometimes that leaves us peons on our own. Mackan79 ( talk) 02:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
I have restored the following common sense change from:
Contributing to the same page with multiple accounts: Editors may not use more than one account to contribute to the same page or discussion.
to:
Contributing to the same page with multiple accounts: Editors may not use more than one account to contribute to the same page or discussion in a way to suggest that they are multiple people. Contributions to the same page with legitimate alternate accounts is not forbidden (e.g. editing the same page with your main and public computer account or editing a page using your main account that your bot account edited).
The spirit of the policy is not to prevent legitimate use of alternate accounts. It should be common sense that such edits are allowed, but there is no harm in making it explicit. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 02:29, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Contributing to the same page with multiple accounts: Editors may not use more than one account to contribute to the encyclopedia article or topic or discussion topic in a way to suggest that they are multiple people within a short period of time. Contributions to the same topic or discussion may be done in accordance with WP:Multiple Accounts, but editors who use multiple accounts in this way are particularly cautioned that they should not only follow the letter and spirit of this policy, they should make every effort to appear to be following the policy.
I see people getting away from the main point: people should not use more than one account in a way that violates other editors' reasonable expectations. Another way to say this is that editors should not give other editors a materially false impression regarding their use of different accounts (e.g., a false impression where that matters). If someone made uncontroversial edits to an article under one account back in the day, and then started another account that wants to make more uncontroversial edits to the article, it usually isn't going to be a problem. If they are pushing a view (very broadly construed), more so than they'd be able to do with just one account, then it is a problem. In real terms, the question is where the use of multiple accounts starts to impact the behavior of other editors. From that starting point, I don't see much problem with sticking to "Editors may not use more than one account to contribute to the same page or discussion in a way to suggest that they are multiple people." If I were clarifying I would say something like, "Significant overlaps in editing, especially involving points of controversy, can be seen as deceptive and should be avoided." Obviously non-deceptive editing, however, such as where the connection is publicly disclosed, does not "suggest that they are multiple people," and as such was not prohibited in the first place. Mackan79 ( talk) 09:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Funny images with funny captions are out of place in a policy page which users are mostly linked to on less-than-funny terms. -- 87.79.84.205 ( talk) 23:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Not terribly important, but consider: Category:Wikipedia conduct policies is about things any of us might do, and where to draw the lines; Category:Wikipedia enforcement policies contains WP:Vandalism, WP:Harassment, WP:BLOCK and WP:BAN ... what to do when things go really wrong. WP:SOCK could arguably fit in either category. - Dank ( push to talk) 16:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Autoarchive? I would, but I'll probably just mess things up. There is stuff here nearly a year old and it's 218K now. Maybe we should set it on, say, 60-day archiving? - Wikidemon ( talk) 05:07, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Regarding the Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Legitimate uses of alternate accounts section.. perhaps we need to add a point about those who create alternate accounts but don't actually use them? Seems a retired(?) editor User:AlexPlank created two other accounts, User:Sennheiser and User:Greenmountainboy, complete with userpage descriptions, talk page discussions, and even subpages but these accounts have no contribution history of their own.. just User:AlexPlank creating alternate personalities? I dunno maybe I'm missing something here. Just thought this was kind of odd and doesn't quite fit with anything written here but also nothing harmful was done so it seems like a legitimate use. <shrug> ~~ œ ™ 10:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
It seems like an awful lot of energy is spent discussing, investigating, and blocking sockpuppet accounts — and a lot of negative feelings (including false accusations) resulting. I really just don't see the point. We're supposed to be evaluating ideas based on their merits, not on the number of people supporting them, so I don't see why it matters if somebody uses a bunch of phony accounts to make it seem like there's a lot of people supporting one side or another. It's really just a lot of noise, and they could generate that with a single account as easily as with many. The only situation where extra accounts actually help bypass a rule is with regards to the three revert rule, and that one should just be modified to apply to a particular change rather than actions by individual editors. (A particular piece of text can only be added or removed three times — regardless who does it — before it should be considered "frozen" and further discussion is required.) The number of accounts should be irrelevant to any sort of disagreement, and if there's a rule where that doesn't work, then the rule should be changed. The sockpuppet policy is only required because of other flaws, and if those other flaws are fixed, then the "evils" of sockpuppets (and the motivation to create them) goes away. -- Lewis ( talk) 08:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
What about lost/forgotten passwords? I mean the situation when someone loses a password from an account in good standing and opens a new account to start editing under a new name. Shouldn't this situation be explicitly mentioned in WP:SOCK#LEGIT? Nsk92 ( talk) 14:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
I started this one because I haven't used the old one in probably three years. Does this fall acceptably under fresh start, and should I redirect the old one ( Razor Rozar7) to my new one once I make my user page? JJohnCooper ( talk) 21:41, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Arbcom's motion requiring that they are informed of changes of account name by restricted users is not mentioned on this policy page. I think we need to add it. See here for a situation that should have been avoided. John Vandenberg ( chat) 02:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Does this sound like a good idea?: When anyone goes to sign up for an account, there would be a clickable link that says "Have an account already? If so, please read our policy pertaining to use of multiple accounts." The link would either lead directly to this page (WP:SOCK) or another page that displays these guidelines in a simpler manner. Hellno2 ( talk) 18:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
This is minor, but since Doppelganger is linked to its page on wikipedia, I don't think the definition of the word is necessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.20.235.86 ( talk) 20:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Is it sockpuppetry to use an IP address to lodge a SP/I? The user in question knew enough about our processes to create the investigation in a sub page of a talk page and then ask for it to be moved to the appropriate location. Whilst he could be an experienced IP-only editor, it is more likely that he is an established editor who didn't want to be associated with pointing the finger at another user. Is this a LEGIT or ILLEGIT form of editing away from your main account? The-Pope ( talk) 13:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
At present the policy includes as forbidden, "Editing project space: Undisclosed alternative accounts should not edit policies, guidelines, or their talk pages; comment in Arbitration proceedings; or vote in requests for adminship, deletion debates, or elections."
The problem here is:
I would suggest an amended wording:
FT2 ( Talk | email) 10:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Further feedback? Or no objections? FT2 ( Talk | email) 13:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Okay, we've got a small problem with the monthly update, please see WT:Username_policy#WP:Update. - Dank ( push to talk) 14:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
I disagree with the change here for at least couple of reasons: 1.) Declaring yourself retired shouldn't be considered obligatory, since it's the kind of thing that forces someone to keep reading this policy over time and rehashing history so they won't be misunderstood, if that is even the right word. Plus no one should be encouraged to decide whether there is deception simply based on whether someone declared that they were retired or not. 2.) Declaring that you're retired when in fact you aren't retired seems to me deceptive in itself.
Looking back in the history, the original purpose of this seems to have been to clarify that you can't call it a "clean start" if you keep going back to the old account. Someone did this, and so it was clarified that a clean start means you are starting over and not going back and forth. But for that matter, the fact that you wanted a clean start doesn't mean that you're forbidden from ever using that account again. It's simply that the other account is no longer strictly a "clean start" (whatever that means; the phrase seems mostly rhetorical). The whole sentence should probably be removed for these reasons, but I think especially moving it up to the top of the section makes it seem like something it's not, or shouldn't be. Mackan79 ( talk) 22:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
WP:SOCK currently says that alternate accounts should not be used in project space. This is backed up by a footnote to a ruling in an arbitration, where Arbcom stated they should not be used for policy discussions. There is an awful lot of project space that is not policy discussion.
Could this be clarified, one way or another? -- Dweller ( talk) 16:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Why is it be a bad idea for an undisclosed alternative account to edit, say, AfDs, so long as they're not vote-stacking (which is covered elsewhere in the policy)? Elections I understand, as we'd want the highest standards of probity. Ditto for Arbcom. But AfDs? Tweaking a guideline? -- Dweller ( talk) 12:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Someone should include that keeping separate watchlists is another legitimate use of an alternate account. Sonic120 ( talk) 03:03, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
I believe WP:MEAT has outlived its usefulness (though it's debatable as to whether it ever was useful). It flies in the face of "Don't bite the newcomers" by directly antagonizing new users, and outside of rhetoric that encourages the malignment of new users, it doesn't provide anything that isn't already duplicated by other policies and guidelines. Fedbn ( talk) 08:03, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
As meatpuppets are by definition distinct from the person who recruited them, it's objectionable that they "may be subject to the remedies applied to the user whose behavior they are joining". If a user is being disruptive, they alone should be dealt with, regardless of whether they've been around for five years or were recently recruited into an AfD.
Punishing users for the actions of another who purportedly recruited them is wrong on several levels, and to my knowledge no other policies have spill-over where a peripherally-related user suffers the same punishments as the policy violator.
The policy is most commonly invoked in AfDs, which are explicitly debates, not votes. The only issue that a good-faith "meatpuppet" creates is a slight degradation in SNR. If a new user is disruptive, they can be dealt with by the same general policies as all the others.
Even the first sentence summarizing the policy is flawed: "Meatpuppetry is the recruitment of editors as proxies to sway consensus." If consensus is determined by an administrator carefully weighing each point, then the "meatpuppets" evidently made some logical points if they're altering the outcome.
In a canvassed debate, all WP:MEAT achieves is to create an insular environment where outside opinions aren't just ignored, they're forcibly ejected. Taking this to the extreme (which has surfaced recently) you end up with large numbers of innocent users blocked and semi-protected deletion "debates".
The only sane policy with regard to freshly-recruited users is to treat them with additional good faith. A new user who has registered to defend something is evidently passionate about it, and if you're empathetic towards them, they may reciprocate the good faith and attempt to find sources, and perhaps in time become regular editors. WP:MEAT permits that good faith to go out the window, replaced by insulting accusations and draconian reprimands that result in legitimate users becoming disaffected with the project. Fedbn ( talk) 09:26, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
While much of what Fedbn says true, I don't think there's a case to remove it. WP:MEAT belongs in WP:SOCK because the classic MEAT case is where a SOCK is claimed to not be a SOCK because it's a (non-wikipedian) a little brother, friend, or similar, who is pressing the keys, and it little more than a semantic avoidance of the WP:SOCK prohibitions. Genuine newcomers are clearly covered by WP:BITE. I don't think there are many WP:MEAT violations of WP:BITE except where WP:DUCK applies, and honest mistakes are easily rectified among reasonable people. If there is evidence of WP:MEAT being abused, please present it. If improvement of the text is possible, suggest it, or do it. "MEAT" is perhaps an offensive term to some, but it is an accepted term, and no honest person is properly ascribed "a meatpuppet". -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 08:24, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
I basically agree with SmokeyJoe. The point of this has been, largely, to keep the focus on behavior rather than on the ultimately unknowable question of who is behind a keyboard. WP:MEAT clarifies that the problem is not just with one person using multiple accounts, but with any situation where additional accounts are being created to stack discussions. It also prevents us from having to take a specific position that two accounts are the same person, which we are never really in a position to say, while still allowing us to target disruptive behavior. The main problem is that WP:SOCK (and generally WP:CANVASS) is technically impossible to prove. Whether it's a good name is another issue, and I think clarifying a non-bitey response to puppet-like behavior is a good thing. Mackan79 ( talk) 20:41, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
In my opinion the suggestion of removing this section, while made for excellent reasons, is mistaken. The essential point is that sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry are essentially the same in intention and in effect. If we removed the section then it would be less easy to deal with cases which are clearly one or the other but we could not prove which. JamesBWatson ( talk) 20:37, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
I think it is clear that the section will not be removed. However, could there be agreement to soften its effects? Is there ever a good reason to block a suspected meatpuppet in the first instance for more than 30 hours? Is blocking ever even necessary, for a true new wikipedian who has been asked to to come online and contribute to a discussion? Is it not enough to tag their contentious contributions? Ture meatpuppets are usually obvious, and of course, if their contributions are sudden, wide, and clever, then they are probably not new to wikipedia, and probably not well treated as meatpuppets. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 01:13, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
The word "alternate" was added to the intro this month. I don't know, but I've been told that the word sounds wrong to Brits, that they prefer "alternative" or some workaround. - Dank ( push to talk) 02:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Warning: The misuse of a second account is considered a serious breach of community trust, and is likely to lead to a block or a ban, the public linking of any other accounts or IPs you have used on Wikipedia and its sister projects, and (potentially) "public record" discussion by other editors of your "real-world" activities and other personal information relevant to your editing. Abuse of multiple accounts can seriously affect what employers, friends, peers, journalists and law enforcement may see when they look up your name or nickname online in the future. Do not sock.
I've noticed that Wikipedia:ROLE redirects to Wikipedia:Role account, which softly redirects to Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Role accounts. Should we change Wikipedia:ROLE so that instead, it redirects straight to Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Role accounts? Keyboard mouse ( talk) 03:20, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
On the talk page of an article, an editor has struck all the contributions of a confirmed sockpuppet. This strikes me as wrong, since just because we have a confirmed sockpuppet doesn't mean his words or ideas should be struck. Is there a policy on this? Stellarkid ( talk) 16:01, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
To me it is rather like a gate-crasher at a party, who comes in and strikes up a conversation with party-goers and the party-goers talk about their subjects among themselves. Then the gate-crasher gets evicted, and everyone has to pretend the conversation never happened. We censor people, not their ideas. Stellarkid ( talk) 16:07, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Yesterday I removed what I felt was a dubious statement in the WP:FAMILY section of this policy, specifically the one stating that closely related users may be considered a single person. In the spirit of WP:BRD, Spitfire ( talk · contribs) reverted me and kindly informed me on my talk page that it was added in conjunction with this ArbCom case. I still find it a bit odd, though, and honestly see no need to classify associated accounts as sockpuppets rather than, more accurately, meatpuppets. It just seems unnecessary, and not all ArbCom findings need to be codified as policy. Any thoughts? Thanks. – Juliancolton | Talk 13:39, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Please see:
Here is a suggestion: the creation of a bot that tags possible suspicious signs of sock puppetry that deserve a review. It'll look out to see if multiple signs from the Signs of sock puppetry are present, and alert editors, who can examine if a further review is warranted. For example, it'll monitor all those who comment in a common discussion, and examine if they have a history of editing a lot of other common articles or share a common editing chronology. It'll monitor new accounts commenting in Afds to determine if there could be any connections to others who commented in the same Afds. These are just to name a few. We already have tags hunting down vandalism. How about something similar for socks? Hellno2 ( talk) 13:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Because,Thousands of Wikipedians uses Mobile internet to edit articles.The IP address required to brows Internet is provided by the ISP like Docomo or Vodafone etc.{see GPRS}.So users of same ISP'll have same IP Resulting in confusion. For example,10 users edit articles using GPRS On Vodafone,they'll have deferent account but same IP So that Sock puppet investigators will consider them as same account and it'll be worst if they're interested in articles related to a particuller thing.
Coercorash Talk Contr. 06:14, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
![]() | 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 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | → | Archive 15 |
![]() | Some discussions archived to this page can now be found at Archive 11. |
I'd appreciate opinions on the best way to deal with this particular situation, since it doesn't seem to fall neatly into anything on the WP:SOCK policy.
There is a user ( 99.135.170.179 ( talk · contribs) at the moment) who has been editing some contentious articles, ranging over the last month from Roman Polanski to some Troubles (British/Ireland) articles ( list of IPs). S/he always edits anonymously, and has admitted that their IP changes every few days. [1] Normally this wouldn't be a problem, except that the user is frequently edit-warring, has racked up a couple blocks on previous IPs over the last month, and is about one revert away from a third block on the current IP. Frankly, if I would have been aware of the previous block history, I probably would have already blocked a third time, but since I didn't know their history, I was going by WP:BITE and WP:AGF.
Not all edits by the IP are bad, and they have made some good changes, but I'd say that the mix of positive contributions to disruptive is about 70/30 right now. Also, to their credit, they have never used the IP editing to get around a block, and their IPs never overlap. The main problem is simply that the user is not particularly forthcoming that they're on a new IP when the address changes, so each new IP starts with a blank talkpage, and the warnings start anew. Repeated requests to the user to edit while logged in, have been ignored.
Assuming that the pattern of borderline disruption is going to continue, on whatever the next IP address will be, is there a way that we can maintain centralized information, so that future administrators don't have to start over from scratch each time? I have been mulling possible ways to deal with the situation, such as:
I wasn't sure where exactly to ask about this, such as at WP:AN or WP:AE, but I figured I'd start here. So, any suggestions? -- El on ka 17:14, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
As a followup, this anonymous editor is now on 99.135.174.186 ( talk · contribs). I have left a note on their (current) talkpage with a link to the previous IPs, and have strongly encouraged them to respect the growing consensus here, that the editor should cease editing anonymously, and instead create an account. -- El on ka 22:11, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm in the camp that is in support of anonymous editing, and hold that those in favor of forced registering of editors are wrongdoers who themselves should be punished for harassing the IP editors. IP users have just as much right here to edit as anyone else and should be able to share equally, completely and totally with the registered account holders on here. User:Elonka User:GoodDay and User:BullRangifer are the kind of people who I feel are discriminatory against editors who disagree with them and hence this idea of forcing people to register to edit is a power play on their part. I propose action be taken to halt them from continuing to voice this position. Their intolerance of anonymous editing is totally discriminatory and shouldn't itself be tolerated on a free location like this anymore. Hate and prejudice has no place here or anywhere anymore. JourneyManTraveler ( talk) 01:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Two proposed corrections to "Inappropriate uses":
Project-space focused accounts: Users should not |
Concealing a non-neutral stance: Affecting to be a neutral party who feels (as an uninvolved user) that a given view has merit, when (were it known who the operator were) the account would be understood to be considerably non-neutral and their contribution perceived very differently.
Neutral uninvolved parties may have extra weight in some discussions and this should not be gamed by using an undisclosed second account to create the impression of a neutral party. |
FT2 ( Talk | email) 00:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Response:
Project-space focused accounts: Users should not |
Segregating contributions by project area seems perfectly reasonable to me, if the accounts are openly and clearly disclosed. An intuitive suffix to the username would be ideal, I would think. I do sometimes wish I had used another username for my deletion discussion contributions, because they swamp my policy/guildine/essay contributions. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 00:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
RE: "Concealing a non-neutral stance".
This is a very serious problem. On the other hand, it is said that no one lacks a particular point of view, and personal agenda, even if the person himself is unaware of it. It is the substance of the message that is important, and we should try to not assign importance based on the identity of the speaker. --
SmokeyJoe (
talk)
01:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Each month I'm going to pick a policy page that has seen a lot of recent changes and interview participants for the Signpost so that the readers can get some insight into the question: how does policy get made? The page that's changed the most this month is this page ( WP:SOCK), and I'm confused about what the changes mean. Anyone who wants to have their comments in the Signpost is welcome to respond ... I can't promise to use all of them, the column has to stay short, but I'll try to get in representative comments from anyone who wants to respond. So, I'll throw out a few questions, but feel free to bring up any subject relevant to this month's editing:
Responses by
FT2
|
---|
Sock policy is our core policy on editors abusing the ability to edit, in order to deceive other editors (hidden COI is the other main deception area). Historically the community has taken a tough line on it, it's got a very high level of support across the board, from everyday users to administrators to Arbcom. Almost the only time an actual proposed sanction will be disputed is when there's a question of sufficient proof; if the proof's there then abusers don't tend to get much support. As a major page and a major anti-abuse policy it gets a lot of use and attention. There's a need to be clear and succinct, yet cover all the stops, and be fair to all, which drives this page quite strongly. The changes reflect the community's feeling that it's due for a thorough reworking. That happens from time to time, the structure and wording can become a bit diffuse and patchy because of many separate contributions and people start to feel it's time for a thorough review. So to your questions:
|
Response by
Amorymeltzer
|
---|
I'd group the changes over the past month or so into three main categories. First, a lot of work has been done to make the policy clearer, especially where concerned with legitimate uses of multiple or alternate accounts. Secondly, a lot of changes reflect concerns as related to sysops. Whether or not this is a response to recent removals of adminship is largely irrelevant; the changes reflect a more absolute image of the community's views on admins with multiple accounts. For example, the text was changed to read "Editors must not operate more than one administrator account," and so on, which is a straightforward and direct interpretation of the generally assumed behaviors of sysops. This may be my own interpretation, but the closer we get to a bright-line rule here there better, as the removal of confounding process is always better. Finally, I think a much larger effort has been made to include WP:Assume Good Faith as a governing principle in these situations. In short, sockpuppets accusations can be easy to fling around, and even easier when the target is a new user, who may not have as full of an understanding of policy and the correct annals of process as the accuser. The current edition of the page not only makes a stronger effort to force AGF on the part of investigating editors, but also makes it clearer and easier to understand for new or investigated editors. Clearly, a lot of those topics group and blend together. A lot of the removed information was related to how to deal with suspected sockpuppets, which has been made more succinct and clearer to read in a step-wise fashion. Moreover, a lot of the particulars (such as those related to Checkuser and OTRS) aren't necessary or appropriate for this page, and only served to complicate an already confusing issue. The admin issues were a source of a lot of discussion on the talkpage, especially as concerned to releasing accounts at an RfA. While the concerned text was relatively minor (should normally versus usually) the implication was relatively large - implying that RfA candidates should as opposed to just do. That discussion essentially ended as beyond the scope of WT:SOCK (perhaps more ideal for WT:RFA) but also raised the issue of Checkusering all admin candidates. That oft-raised concept, perhaps following on the heels of the recent incidents, didn't gain much steam, mostly due to WP:AGF concerns. Essentially, a lot of loose ends have been tied up, but the entire page has been made much more readable. Not too much all-in-all has changed, as FT2 says, but pretty much every aspect has been tightened. There still remain a number of unclear issues, but a lot of those are going to have to be decided by a larger community consensus on topics with a broad applicability. ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 22:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC) |
Responses by
SmokeyJoe
|
---|
There have certainly been a lot of edits to the page, but it was mostly tidying, better expression, and very little change of substance. A difficulty with this policy is that there is very little information on existing non-abusive use of secret alternative accounts. A justification for the heavy editing has been the claim that this policy is ineffective with regard to the abusive use of secret alternative accounts. This has also provided impetus for what might be called “tough language”. The tough language may encourage stern reaction to discovered cases of abusive sock puppetry. The threat to block and publicly link abusive sock accounts is thought to be somewhat a deterrent. The long standing advice to email arbcom about the use of secret accounts is currently relegated to be something for users to "consider", for various contended reasons. These reasons include:
There seems to be general agreement on the replacement advice, which remains marked with the {{ Underdiscussion}} tag. There are still improvements to be made, but I sense that the edit rate to the page is going to be more normal from here on. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 06:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC) |
Responses by
User:Abductive
|
---|
I don't believe in written policies, I believe in the operational consensus, which in this case appears to be largely unchanged. There is a major difference between abusive sockpuppetry and using more than one account, whether serially or simultaneously. It seems to me that a certain laxness in enforcement in the last year or so has been reversed, or at least people hope so. On the other hand, I'm seeing a lot of new usernames in the last few days in AfD discussions, so who knows? Abductive ( reasoning) 06:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC) |
Responses by
User:Bwilkins
|
---|
I'm not sure that the key issues are in the new edits, but more importantly that the edits have taken place in the first place: in other words, it's not what was edited, it's that it was edited. Although invisible to the majority of users, the issue with a banned user getting a sock account and becoming an admin sent a chill throughout the project. Personally, I now ask a carefully-phrased question in all RFA's. Yes, someone can lie or decieve us in their answer, and honestly, I feel that if they are caught in that lie, then they could/should have the tools stripped - Adminship is not a big deal, but it is about trust. Socking is a core policy, and it needs detail. However, I'm still concerned that the current policy still suffers from a little WP:TLDNR, so I can see more shortening/forking to make it absolutely crystal clear to editors. I may add to this later ( talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC) |
Responses by
WereSpielChequers
|
---|
I think there were three things that drove lots of attention to this project and highlighted some areas where the community does and does not agree. The three things were:
The areas where I don't think that community is in agreement are:
Personally I'm in favour of renaming the policy, and of being more restrictive on admins having currently live undisclosed accounts. I think that disclosing secret accounts to Arbcom works well, and would be happy to restrict the exemption to "editors in totalitarian states, who run secret accounts for privacy and safety reasons". I don't see the case for changing Cleanstart. Ϣere SpielChequers 12:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
|
Responses by
next user
|
---|
Summary (see tomorrow's Signpost)
|
---|
Feel free to edit this summary. The deadline is roughly midnight Sunday night (UTC):
- Dank ( push to talk) 04:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC) Small tweak 14:12, 31 October 2009 (UTC). More edits 06:16 01 November 2009 (UTC) Small edits to FT2's good work, feel free to revert: minor tightening and copyediting, and also being a little more general about what WSC said ... is there a general push to change the name of the page? - Dank ( push to talk) 13:52, 1 November 2009 (UTC) |
After long thought I am about to create a sock account, for security purposes. As an Admin I am hesitant to log on to my main account where I do not have full control of the PC. I am surprised that I don't find a user box or template to declare cross sock relationships, nor do I find a list or category to assign my two accounts as declared socks. I would like to suggest the creation of some formal method for registering socks that are created with in established policy. If this exists and I have missed it some how please post it to WP:SOCK#LEGIT. Jeepday ( talk) 22:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
In case anyone hasn't noticed, there is an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Sockpuppet_investigations#Sock_template_cleanup (that was advertised at the Village Pump), just in case anyone hasn't noticed it and is interested. The templates we use are incorporated into policy and when and how to use them is under discussion in addition to a complete revamping of the templates themselves, so I'm posting here to make sure maximum interested editors are aware.-- Doug.( talk • contribs) 06:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Currently states, "This is permitted only if there are no bans or blocks in place against your old account, and so long as no active deception is involved, particularly on pages that the old account used to edit."
I'm concerned about this wording. We do want to bar people restarting to escape their controversial editing history only to resume it with a new name, but this risks preventing people with a legitimately reason from changing.
A second problem is "no active deception" - users who don't "actively deceive" but then resume contentious editing of "their" topic under a new name are a major problem too.
Proposed:
Clean start is only permitted for an editor who either has a completely clean past record (under any account used), or who will completely cease all past contentious or improper behaviors with their new account.
You may not use 'clean start' to resume a pattern of contentious behavior under a new name, or to hide a history of blocks and bans. Editors who have ever gained more than one block (across all accounts), any block that lasted over 24 hours, any ban, or who will continue editing in a similar contentious manner, may not 'clean start' without Arbcom approval. Any user in violation is likely to have the new and old accounts linked, blocks/bans/warnings of the old account noted under the new account, and one or both accounts blocked for evasion of scrutiny. |
Rationale:
Specific conditions, and wikilaywer fears, on whether a clean start is allowable misses the point that a clean start will be undisclosed, will be attempted with the best of intentions, and is thus under an honour system. I suggest offering advice:
And follow up with: If you fail at making a clean start, stop. You will be judged on your complete editing history, and it is unlikely that you will be allowed such leeway again. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 22:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
I think this is problematic. If editors who start over must "completely" stop any past contentious behavior, this should presumably be true for all editors regardless of their past. Heck, it should be true for all editors regardless of what accounts they've ever used. However, I would also question whether Wikipedia deals in "records," and other aspects of the proposal (if a record is a valid concept, and a good measure of contentiousness, I would like to see it defined). Generally, what's the motivation here? If editors are permanently tied to their accounts and any history they're seen to have, then I question why Wikipedia allows pseudonymous editing; it should require people to prove their singular identity in order to edit. It would start to have significantly greater obligations with regard to those editors. Telling some people they can't be "contentious," at all, based on one arbitrary factor, doesn't seem especially defensible. I think there is a point here: if for one example you are routinely sanctioned for incivility, and you start a new account with more of the same, and then again, and it's found that these are all your accounts, then you'll probably get the proverbial book thrown at you. But this isn't about zero tolerance, it's about people who continue to repeatedly engage in the same problematic behavior. The policy addresses this already, and maybe it could be highlighted, but I think the point is confused by absolutist language. Mackan79 ( talk) 23:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
I heard a term, "landovering", whereby a sockpuppet "goes native" from long exposure to "enemy" propaganda. Supposedly, this refers to a British spy, Agent(?) Landover, who went commie after a couple of decades being a spy in Russia. However, I can't find anything about "Agent Landover" on the web, and I've only seen the term used to refer to internet sockpuppets suffering from mission creep or doctrine pollution/reversal. Anyone know the origin of this term? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.208.70.96 ( talk) 14:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Why can't Meatpuppettry also refer to a negative alliance between two or more established users, or administrators, who work in tandem or as a group voicing the same opinion in multiple discussions? There seems to be a loophole in the definition. I propose the word "new" be removed from the section. - Stillwaterising ( talk) 15:18, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
We tend to distinguish canvassing and collaboration between existing editors, from going out and asking friends to get an account "just to vote on, or support, something". FT2 ( Talk | email) 01:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
I see the bold and all-caps in the lead seems to be expanding, and I don't disagree with all of it, but presumably there's an endpoint? In any case, I don't think this edit is helpful; to say it's a basic rule, with exceptions, but then put it in caps, I start to feel like I'm on a roller coaster. Of course, I'd welcome any explanation of what it adds. Mackan79 ( talk) 22:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Brangrifer, I wonder if you can clarify how this change would help to block IPs in an appropriate manner. Do abusive IP editors successfully argue that they should be unblocked under one IP because they were only disruptive under another, or are you suggesting that non-disruptive IP editors should be blocked simply where it is thought that they have used too many IPs? If IP editors are disruptive, then they would be blocked regardless of this policy. If they aren't, then with all due respect I don't see how it can be suggested that they should be blocked. Mackan79 ( talk) 04:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the response, I'll go by numbers if I may:
Mackan79 ( talk) 03:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to take this out, since it's new and, at least between Bull and myself, doesn't seem to have consensus. As noted immediately above, I did add something to address the issues with IPs and of course I'm open to other adjustments. Mackan79 ( talk) 05:58, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
<-- I have started an RfC below, so we should stop this thread and continue there. -- Brangifer ( talk) 19:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Suppose that I am an established Wikipedian and notice that an article has been created about a project or product that I am intimately connected with in some way, to the point that I am one of the leading figures on the subject area and highly likely to be cited as a primary source. However, when I read the article in question it is littered with factual errors, is poorly sourced and has other issues with it. Subject to the guidance at WP:COI I can point out these problems e.g. on the talk page, point out where sources for particular points may be found or possibly even make additional existing material available off-wiki that can then be cited for points not covered in publicly available references.
So far, not a problem, indeed that can only serve to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the area. However, what if I edit under a pseudonym, and do not wish to create in public an association between my Wikipedia account and my real identity? There may be legitimate reason to do this: I may be in a profession that requires a certain amount of gravitas and do not wish my work on more trivial or frivolous subject areas to be associated with me in a professional capacity.
The obvious solution would be to create a sock account with a username similar to my real identity. If this was used in a manner consistent with the existing policies on socks and COI that could be used exclusively for this purpose. It would also have the effect of highlighting the COI element if I edit using a name that would be recognised by people familiar with the subject. The problem is that you could not publicly acknowledge the relationship between the sock and the main account without rendering the exercise pointless. Yes, you could acknowledge on the sock account user page that it is a sock, but you could not say to whom. The main account by necessity could not address the issue at all.
I stress that this does not affect me and my present situation at all: it is pruely hypothetical. However, it seems like a significant gap in the present guidance. CrispMuncher ( talk) 22:58, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Should "one editing history" for the main account be stated explicitly rather than merely implicit? Currently it is implied: "The general rule is one editor, one account." -- Brangifer ( talk) 19:06, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Context: I made some edits which have been disputed by one editor. (One other editor made a comment, and I made an edit that fixed the matter. That was later reverted.) This is basically about preventing "avoiding the scrutiny of other editors".
This has nothing to do with legitimate uses of alternate accounts, legitimate reasons for changing accounts, nor about one account "forever". This only applies to the one main account clearly stated in "The general rule is one editor, one account". I have always understood that to clearly imply "one editing history", but when I tried to make it explicit, it became apparent from the ensuing discussion that the implication wasn't understood in the same manner. I believe policies should be very clear, especially for our newbies who can't be expected to notice implications. If experienced editors like myself (24,000+ edits) and Mackan79 (nearing 6,000 edits) can disagree on this, then it should be fixed.
I have been having a valuable and very civil discussion with this fine editor who has explained his reasoning in this section above:
Please read that discussion and the article history (starting on Nov. 8) before commenting. We don't want to repeat any misunderstandings here. (While some important points are made, and you would do well to read them, don't let the discussions about required registration distract. That's just my opinion and it doesn't affect this matter. I also provide some very simple suggestions that might solve about 80-90% of our vandalism problems. That's also another matter that doesn't impact, but motivates, the discussion.)
I admit that my first edit was probably overdriven with the use of allcaps. It was properly deleted and a discussion was started. I then proceeded to make three edits 1 2 3 to improve the situation. Note my edit summaries. Those edits were (after several intervening and unrelated edits) all deleted. We continued the discussion, but have come to an impasse. I don't want to edit war over this, and that's why I'm seeking more input from other editors through this RfC.
To aid readers see what is being discussed, here are the results of those three edits, IOW the changes I am proposing (underlined):
It is those three edits I wish to see reinstated. It is important to note that my edits survived for several days, and that this article is no doubt watched by many notable admins and ArbCom members. In spite of intervening edits which fixed vandalism, my edits were preserved. That says something. Only one editor objected and reverted by edits. Here is the before and after diff.
To summarize: Should it be explicit that one editing history is the norm for the main account? -- Brangifer ( talk) 19:06, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
This is a pretty long discussion (I'm the other main participant), but as to this text I think the problem is simple enough. I think you can say there is a presumption that people will edit with one account, as a way of introducing this topic. "One person, one account." It seems to say, "Hey there, welcome to the problems with multiple accounts. Let's start with a way to avoid this topic: use one account, end of story, problem solved." This is a reasonable way to introduce the topic, as it's simple, straight forward, respects the reader, and proceeds on to the actual rules that people need to know.
The issue with this text is a lesser form of the issue with the original all-caps, which is that you no longer have a simple, straight forward introduction. "One edit history," when added as a general requirement, is first of all imprecise; an edit history is generally a term for articles, not editors. It seems to have in mind "one contribution log." The apparent meaning is to say, "And, keep using that account as long as you want to edit." At least that's what I think it means, although I must say I am still not sure what Brangifer wants it to counsel against exactly, or what it is thought to accomplish (and I do not see where he explains this above). This gets to the problem, which is that the text is too specific for a general rule that has no teeth anyway, and dilutes a general rule with confusion. One person, one account is sometimes required. One edit history is never required, since it can't be. To stop editing with an account and start another is not a general problem; it is only a very specific problem in very specific situations that should not be generalized on all editors. The text improperly suggests that any editor who leaves behind an account has done something intriguing or questionable, and improperly suggests that editors have a general interest in being able to see every edit that a person has ever done. Neither of these are accurate. From reading Brangrifer, on the other hand, he does not intend the text to imply any of this, but then why are we adding it? In this regard I have suggested that if IP editing presents a specific problem, as he suggests it does, then we should seek a specific solution to that problem rather than broadening the policy with generalities that apply everywhere and nowhere.
Finally, I don't think that silence from important types indicates agreement. I suspect they recognize that "one edit history" is not a realistic expectation to carry around, but for whatever reason aren't pointing this out. I'll note that there is probably a systemic bias among the higher ups anyway, however, in that since they largely enforce these rules they are less concerned with them being written in an overly broad or ambiguous manner. Of course there are any number of reasons people would not comment, but sometimes that leaves us peons on our own. Mackan79 ( talk) 02:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
I have restored the following common sense change from:
Contributing to the same page with multiple accounts: Editors may not use more than one account to contribute to the same page or discussion.
to:
Contributing to the same page with multiple accounts: Editors may not use more than one account to contribute to the same page or discussion in a way to suggest that they are multiple people. Contributions to the same page with legitimate alternate accounts is not forbidden (e.g. editing the same page with your main and public computer account or editing a page using your main account that your bot account edited).
The spirit of the policy is not to prevent legitimate use of alternate accounts. It should be common sense that such edits are allowed, but there is no harm in making it explicit. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 02:29, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Contributing to the same page with multiple accounts: Editors may not use more than one account to contribute to the encyclopedia article or topic or discussion topic in a way to suggest that they are multiple people within a short period of time. Contributions to the same topic or discussion may be done in accordance with WP:Multiple Accounts, but editors who use multiple accounts in this way are particularly cautioned that they should not only follow the letter and spirit of this policy, they should make every effort to appear to be following the policy.
I see people getting away from the main point: people should not use more than one account in a way that violates other editors' reasonable expectations. Another way to say this is that editors should not give other editors a materially false impression regarding their use of different accounts (e.g., a false impression where that matters). If someone made uncontroversial edits to an article under one account back in the day, and then started another account that wants to make more uncontroversial edits to the article, it usually isn't going to be a problem. If they are pushing a view (very broadly construed), more so than they'd be able to do with just one account, then it is a problem. In real terms, the question is where the use of multiple accounts starts to impact the behavior of other editors. From that starting point, I don't see much problem with sticking to "Editors may not use more than one account to contribute to the same page or discussion in a way to suggest that they are multiple people." If I were clarifying I would say something like, "Significant overlaps in editing, especially involving points of controversy, can be seen as deceptive and should be avoided." Obviously non-deceptive editing, however, such as where the connection is publicly disclosed, does not "suggest that they are multiple people," and as such was not prohibited in the first place. Mackan79 ( talk) 09:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Funny images with funny captions are out of place in a policy page which users are mostly linked to on less-than-funny terms. -- 87.79.84.205 ( talk) 23:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Not terribly important, but consider: Category:Wikipedia conduct policies is about things any of us might do, and where to draw the lines; Category:Wikipedia enforcement policies contains WP:Vandalism, WP:Harassment, WP:BLOCK and WP:BAN ... what to do when things go really wrong. WP:SOCK could arguably fit in either category. - Dank ( push to talk) 16:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Autoarchive? I would, but I'll probably just mess things up. There is stuff here nearly a year old and it's 218K now. Maybe we should set it on, say, 60-day archiving? - Wikidemon ( talk) 05:07, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Regarding the Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Legitimate uses of alternate accounts section.. perhaps we need to add a point about those who create alternate accounts but don't actually use them? Seems a retired(?) editor User:AlexPlank created two other accounts, User:Sennheiser and User:Greenmountainboy, complete with userpage descriptions, talk page discussions, and even subpages but these accounts have no contribution history of their own.. just User:AlexPlank creating alternate personalities? I dunno maybe I'm missing something here. Just thought this was kind of odd and doesn't quite fit with anything written here but also nothing harmful was done so it seems like a legitimate use. <shrug> ~~ œ ™ 10:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
It seems like an awful lot of energy is spent discussing, investigating, and blocking sockpuppet accounts — and a lot of negative feelings (including false accusations) resulting. I really just don't see the point. We're supposed to be evaluating ideas based on their merits, not on the number of people supporting them, so I don't see why it matters if somebody uses a bunch of phony accounts to make it seem like there's a lot of people supporting one side or another. It's really just a lot of noise, and they could generate that with a single account as easily as with many. The only situation where extra accounts actually help bypass a rule is with regards to the three revert rule, and that one should just be modified to apply to a particular change rather than actions by individual editors. (A particular piece of text can only be added or removed three times — regardless who does it — before it should be considered "frozen" and further discussion is required.) The number of accounts should be irrelevant to any sort of disagreement, and if there's a rule where that doesn't work, then the rule should be changed. The sockpuppet policy is only required because of other flaws, and if those other flaws are fixed, then the "evils" of sockpuppets (and the motivation to create them) goes away. -- Lewis ( talk) 08:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
What about lost/forgotten passwords? I mean the situation when someone loses a password from an account in good standing and opens a new account to start editing under a new name. Shouldn't this situation be explicitly mentioned in WP:SOCK#LEGIT? Nsk92 ( talk) 14:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
I started this one because I haven't used the old one in probably three years. Does this fall acceptably under fresh start, and should I redirect the old one ( Razor Rozar7) to my new one once I make my user page? JJohnCooper ( talk) 21:41, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Arbcom's motion requiring that they are informed of changes of account name by restricted users is not mentioned on this policy page. I think we need to add it. See here for a situation that should have been avoided. John Vandenberg ( chat) 02:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Does this sound like a good idea?: When anyone goes to sign up for an account, there would be a clickable link that says "Have an account already? If so, please read our policy pertaining to use of multiple accounts." The link would either lead directly to this page (WP:SOCK) or another page that displays these guidelines in a simpler manner. Hellno2 ( talk) 18:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
This is minor, but since Doppelganger is linked to its page on wikipedia, I don't think the definition of the word is necessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.20.235.86 ( talk) 20:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Is it sockpuppetry to use an IP address to lodge a SP/I? The user in question knew enough about our processes to create the investigation in a sub page of a talk page and then ask for it to be moved to the appropriate location. Whilst he could be an experienced IP-only editor, it is more likely that he is an established editor who didn't want to be associated with pointing the finger at another user. Is this a LEGIT or ILLEGIT form of editing away from your main account? The-Pope ( talk) 13:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
At present the policy includes as forbidden, "Editing project space: Undisclosed alternative accounts should not edit policies, guidelines, or their talk pages; comment in Arbitration proceedings; or vote in requests for adminship, deletion debates, or elections."
The problem here is:
I would suggest an amended wording:
FT2 ( Talk | email) 10:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Further feedback? Or no objections? FT2 ( Talk | email) 13:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Okay, we've got a small problem with the monthly update, please see WT:Username_policy#WP:Update. - Dank ( push to talk) 14:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
I disagree with the change here for at least couple of reasons: 1.) Declaring yourself retired shouldn't be considered obligatory, since it's the kind of thing that forces someone to keep reading this policy over time and rehashing history so they won't be misunderstood, if that is even the right word. Plus no one should be encouraged to decide whether there is deception simply based on whether someone declared that they were retired or not. 2.) Declaring that you're retired when in fact you aren't retired seems to me deceptive in itself.
Looking back in the history, the original purpose of this seems to have been to clarify that you can't call it a "clean start" if you keep going back to the old account. Someone did this, and so it was clarified that a clean start means you are starting over and not going back and forth. But for that matter, the fact that you wanted a clean start doesn't mean that you're forbidden from ever using that account again. It's simply that the other account is no longer strictly a "clean start" (whatever that means; the phrase seems mostly rhetorical). The whole sentence should probably be removed for these reasons, but I think especially moving it up to the top of the section makes it seem like something it's not, or shouldn't be. Mackan79 ( talk) 22:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
WP:SOCK currently says that alternate accounts should not be used in project space. This is backed up by a footnote to a ruling in an arbitration, where Arbcom stated they should not be used for policy discussions. There is an awful lot of project space that is not policy discussion.
Could this be clarified, one way or another? -- Dweller ( talk) 16:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Why is it be a bad idea for an undisclosed alternative account to edit, say, AfDs, so long as they're not vote-stacking (which is covered elsewhere in the policy)? Elections I understand, as we'd want the highest standards of probity. Ditto for Arbcom. But AfDs? Tweaking a guideline? -- Dweller ( talk) 12:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Someone should include that keeping separate watchlists is another legitimate use of an alternate account. Sonic120 ( talk) 03:03, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
I believe WP:MEAT has outlived its usefulness (though it's debatable as to whether it ever was useful). It flies in the face of "Don't bite the newcomers" by directly antagonizing new users, and outside of rhetoric that encourages the malignment of new users, it doesn't provide anything that isn't already duplicated by other policies and guidelines. Fedbn ( talk) 08:03, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
As meatpuppets are by definition distinct from the person who recruited them, it's objectionable that they "may be subject to the remedies applied to the user whose behavior they are joining". If a user is being disruptive, they alone should be dealt with, regardless of whether they've been around for five years or were recently recruited into an AfD.
Punishing users for the actions of another who purportedly recruited them is wrong on several levels, and to my knowledge no other policies have spill-over where a peripherally-related user suffers the same punishments as the policy violator.
The policy is most commonly invoked in AfDs, which are explicitly debates, not votes. The only issue that a good-faith "meatpuppet" creates is a slight degradation in SNR. If a new user is disruptive, they can be dealt with by the same general policies as all the others.
Even the first sentence summarizing the policy is flawed: "Meatpuppetry is the recruitment of editors as proxies to sway consensus." If consensus is determined by an administrator carefully weighing each point, then the "meatpuppets" evidently made some logical points if they're altering the outcome.
In a canvassed debate, all WP:MEAT achieves is to create an insular environment where outside opinions aren't just ignored, they're forcibly ejected. Taking this to the extreme (which has surfaced recently) you end up with large numbers of innocent users blocked and semi-protected deletion "debates".
The only sane policy with regard to freshly-recruited users is to treat them with additional good faith. A new user who has registered to defend something is evidently passionate about it, and if you're empathetic towards them, they may reciprocate the good faith and attempt to find sources, and perhaps in time become regular editors. WP:MEAT permits that good faith to go out the window, replaced by insulting accusations and draconian reprimands that result in legitimate users becoming disaffected with the project. Fedbn ( talk) 09:26, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
While much of what Fedbn says true, I don't think there's a case to remove it. WP:MEAT belongs in WP:SOCK because the classic MEAT case is where a SOCK is claimed to not be a SOCK because it's a (non-wikipedian) a little brother, friend, or similar, who is pressing the keys, and it little more than a semantic avoidance of the WP:SOCK prohibitions. Genuine newcomers are clearly covered by WP:BITE. I don't think there are many WP:MEAT violations of WP:BITE except where WP:DUCK applies, and honest mistakes are easily rectified among reasonable people. If there is evidence of WP:MEAT being abused, please present it. If improvement of the text is possible, suggest it, or do it. "MEAT" is perhaps an offensive term to some, but it is an accepted term, and no honest person is properly ascribed "a meatpuppet". -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 08:24, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
I basically agree with SmokeyJoe. The point of this has been, largely, to keep the focus on behavior rather than on the ultimately unknowable question of who is behind a keyboard. WP:MEAT clarifies that the problem is not just with one person using multiple accounts, but with any situation where additional accounts are being created to stack discussions. It also prevents us from having to take a specific position that two accounts are the same person, which we are never really in a position to say, while still allowing us to target disruptive behavior. The main problem is that WP:SOCK (and generally WP:CANVASS) is technically impossible to prove. Whether it's a good name is another issue, and I think clarifying a non-bitey response to puppet-like behavior is a good thing. Mackan79 ( talk) 20:41, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
In my opinion the suggestion of removing this section, while made for excellent reasons, is mistaken. The essential point is that sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry are essentially the same in intention and in effect. If we removed the section then it would be less easy to deal with cases which are clearly one or the other but we could not prove which. JamesBWatson ( talk) 20:37, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
I think it is clear that the section will not be removed. However, could there be agreement to soften its effects? Is there ever a good reason to block a suspected meatpuppet in the first instance for more than 30 hours? Is blocking ever even necessary, for a true new wikipedian who has been asked to to come online and contribute to a discussion? Is it not enough to tag their contentious contributions? Ture meatpuppets are usually obvious, and of course, if their contributions are sudden, wide, and clever, then they are probably not new to wikipedia, and probably not well treated as meatpuppets. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 01:13, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
The word "alternate" was added to the intro this month. I don't know, but I've been told that the word sounds wrong to Brits, that they prefer "alternative" or some workaround. - Dank ( push to talk) 02:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Warning: The misuse of a second account is considered a serious breach of community trust, and is likely to lead to a block or a ban, the public linking of any other accounts or IPs you have used on Wikipedia and its sister projects, and (potentially) "public record" discussion by other editors of your "real-world" activities and other personal information relevant to your editing. Abuse of multiple accounts can seriously affect what employers, friends, peers, journalists and law enforcement may see when they look up your name or nickname online in the future. Do not sock.
I've noticed that Wikipedia:ROLE redirects to Wikipedia:Role account, which softly redirects to Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Role accounts. Should we change Wikipedia:ROLE so that instead, it redirects straight to Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Role accounts? Keyboard mouse ( talk) 03:20, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
On the talk page of an article, an editor has struck all the contributions of a confirmed sockpuppet. This strikes me as wrong, since just because we have a confirmed sockpuppet doesn't mean his words or ideas should be struck. Is there a policy on this? Stellarkid ( talk) 16:01, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
To me it is rather like a gate-crasher at a party, who comes in and strikes up a conversation with party-goers and the party-goers talk about their subjects among themselves. Then the gate-crasher gets evicted, and everyone has to pretend the conversation never happened. We censor people, not their ideas. Stellarkid ( talk) 16:07, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Yesterday I removed what I felt was a dubious statement in the WP:FAMILY section of this policy, specifically the one stating that closely related users may be considered a single person. In the spirit of WP:BRD, Spitfire ( talk · contribs) reverted me and kindly informed me on my talk page that it was added in conjunction with this ArbCom case. I still find it a bit odd, though, and honestly see no need to classify associated accounts as sockpuppets rather than, more accurately, meatpuppets. It just seems unnecessary, and not all ArbCom findings need to be codified as policy. Any thoughts? Thanks. – Juliancolton | Talk 13:39, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Please see:
Here is a suggestion: the creation of a bot that tags possible suspicious signs of sock puppetry that deserve a review. It'll look out to see if multiple signs from the Signs of sock puppetry are present, and alert editors, who can examine if a further review is warranted. For example, it'll monitor all those who comment in a common discussion, and examine if they have a history of editing a lot of other common articles or share a common editing chronology. It'll monitor new accounts commenting in Afds to determine if there could be any connections to others who commented in the same Afds. These are just to name a few. We already have tags hunting down vandalism. How about something similar for socks? Hellno2 ( talk) 13:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Because,Thousands of Wikipedians uses Mobile internet to edit articles.The IP address required to brows Internet is provided by the ISP like Docomo or Vodafone etc.{see GPRS}.So users of same ISP'll have same IP Resulting in confusion. For example,10 users edit articles using GPRS On Vodafone,they'll have deferent account but same IP So that Sock puppet investigators will consider them as same account and it'll be worst if they're interested in articles related to a particuller thing.
Coercorash Talk Contr. 06:14, 27 May 2010 (UTC)