User:Mangojuice/Sockpuppetry

As an experienced unblock request patroller, I can say that without a doubt, the requests that make the most trouble are requests to review a block of a sockpuppet. It has led me to the conclusion that we do not take enough care before calling someone a sockpuppet, and that blocks for sockpuppetry are often disproportionate to the offense that led to them.

Summary of the current process
Users are supposed to stick to one account. There are some exceptions to this -- "legitimate" uses of alternate accounts -- but by and large, that's the rule. When two accounts are suspected of belonging to the same person, one account is identified as the "puppet" and blocked indefinitely, and the other is identified as the "puppet master," and is often blocked but usually not indefinitely.

A typical situation: user A, having learned about the WP:3RR but not understanding its spirit (or not caring), reverts 3 times to their preferred version of an article, and then logs in as user A' to perform more reverts. If this is discovered, the A' account will be blocked indefinitely and the A account will be blocked for 3RR, probably a bit longer than a typical block because of the sockpuppetry.

Later when A or A' request unblocking, there are difficulties. If either A or A' committed actions that, on their own, would be considered abusive, things become easier, but this is not always the case. For instance, suppose that in the above example, A requests unblocking, saying that A' is someone else. Whether or not we believe this, A was still revert-warring, so things can sometimes be resolved without difficulty. However, if it is A' requesting unblocking, or if the block on A can only be justified by the sockpuppetry itself, we are left with a difficult situation. These difficult unblock requests are often answered very slowly because of their complexity, and when they are answered, every claim of the blocked user is taken as unreliable, and so these requests are understandably rarely granted. What this amounts to is that:


 * 1) Being blocked as a sockpuppet results in an indefinite block.
 * 2) Such blocks are rarely overturned, and are almost never overturned without a lot of angst.

The one tool that makes these situations possible to resolve in many situations is the checkuser tool. The checkuser tool allows a priveleged user to look at a username's connection history and what IPs it uses. This can establish links between users that are not obvious, and in some cases can make it quite clear there is something improper going on. However, a checkuser can never absolutely confirm that two accounts are operated by the same person. For instance, if two people in the same house both use Wikipedia, they will be as linked as checkuser can prove, and yet they are actually different people. And this excuse comes up quite often among such users, it's not hard to think of. Checkuser is, however, good at proving two users are unrelated.

It's important to remember that checkuser is just one piece of evidence, not the final say on whether or not two accounts are operated by the same user.

How we can do things better
Most important first point: be informative. Do NOT simply use the "Abusing multiple accounts" option from the block drop-down menu. Explain in your block summary which user you think is the puppetmaster and/or the puppet. Ideally, explain the abuse, e.g. "Abusing multiple accounts: Sockpupet of User:Jerk1887, used to evade block for 3RR and continue reverting."

Second point: try not to rely on sockpuppetry for a block when it isn't necessary. Focus on the abuse.

Third: consider longer but temporary blocks for suspected sockpuppets when the sockpuppetry isn't blatantly obvious or checkuser-confirmed. A block of a month, combined with watchlisting the user's talk page, will allow a "graceful exit" if you made a mistake, and you can watch to see if the user gets back in the same sort of trouble again.

Vandalism sockpuppetry
There is a world of difference between sockpuppets created for vandalism or bad-faith disruption, and the more typical cases of vote-stacking, block evasion, or agenda-driven disruption. There is no reason to change our approach to blocking sockpuppets of prolific vandals: after all, the purpose of those accounts is vandalism and it is perfectly reasonable to block vandals for long periods of time... however be sure to note that both the sockpuppetry and the vandalism is the reason for the block. If such a block is appealed, the reviewing admin may consider whether the user may be forgiven for their vandalism, and if so, whether there is reason to doubt the sockpuppetry conclusion.

However, absolute trolls, who seek nothing but negative attention on Wikipedia with no particular agenda otherwise, are actually pretty rare. Most actual sockpuppets are attempts to abuse Wikipedia in specific ways. Most particularly: canvassing or vote-stacking, POV pushing, and block evasion. I'll handle these one at a time.

Canvassing / Vote-stacking
These accounts are suspected of being sockpuppets or meatpuppets because they appear suspiciously in a debate or discussion in order to back a side that seems to need support. We actually handle this type of abuse well at AfD: such comments are noted as suspicious, and the accounts are not blocked. This is the right way to do things, no matter where the ballot-stuffing occurs: in a vote-like debate such as AfD (yes, these aren't votes, but these users obviously think they are), or in a plain discussion on the talk page. This makes it more important that users take the numbers on each side of an issue with a grain of salt, and look instead at the significance of the arguments. It isn't a good idea to block meatpuppets as if they were sockpuppets -- while minimally justifiable because sockpuppets and meatpuppets are so hard to distinguish -- it fundamentally gives out a long, almost unappealable block, for what is actually quite minor disruption that is best prevented by noting SPAs and a vote-stacking attempt.

POV pushing / Edit warring
This kind of sockpuppet exists to help the puppetmaster win an edit war or push their agenda on an article. These are hard to recognize, because there is a fine line between rightly identifying a POV-pushing sockpuppet and discriminating against one side of a dispute because of their opinions. Caution is warranted here: don't block sockpuppets without very clear confirmation, most likely from checkuser. However, do take a hard look at whether any users are POV pushing. Look for stonewalling, excessive cleanup tagging, edit warring, assumptions of bad faith, et cetera, and do the hard thing and step in and enforce these behavior rules. A user who creates sockpuppets to push their fringe point of view is rightly blockable for the sockpuppetry, but the block becomes much more solid if it is a block for POV pushing / disruption / edit warring / et cetera.

Block evasion
This kind of sockpuppet is created or used because the main account is blocked. These are actually the trickiest blocks, because in some cases the suspected sockpuppet may have done nothing they should be blocked for had it not been for the previous account. Once again, such a block is fine if it's correct, but these can be very bad if they are mistakes... and mistakes do happen. Blatantly obvious examples of block evasion are one thing, but these blocks are often issues with no more than a strong suspicion, which creates difficulty. I advocate the following algorithm:


 * 1) If it's really obvious, trust your instincts and block.
 * 2) If the original user is banned, indef block right away but also go to checkuser right away for confirmation.
 * 3) If the new sockpuppet isn't continuing the problematic behavior of the original user, don't block.
 * 4) If the new sockpuppet is continuing problematic behavior of the original user, issue a temporary block (for the bad behavior) but request a checkuser, and don't indefinitely block until the results are in.
 * 5) Only extend the initial user's block one time, and by a finite amount without explicit checkuser confirmation.

Block reviews
In reviewing a sockpuppetry block, be sure to check with the blocking admin so that you understand the full situation, and discuss with other admins as appropriate. This is given as a rule for all block reviews at WP:BLOCK but it is more important for this type of blocks than for other blocks.

Remember, you have several things to worry about:


 * 1) The relevance of the sockpuppetry allegation -- would the block be basically justified without sockpuppetry?
 * 2) The likelihood of sockpuppetry -- is the allegation probably true?
 * 3) The abuse -- how bad was the abuse?  Is the block still preventing abuse?

If someone questions your block, respond with as much detail as you can manage. Explain what makes you suspect sockpuppetry, and the degree to which you investigated. (Did you just confirm that the suspicion is reasonable? Or did you look through the entire edit histories of each account? Etc.)

Never undo a checkuser-confirmed block (or, to be safe, any block issued by a user with checkuser access) without consultation. If a checkuser has been done, do ask a checkuser to give you some detail: they are generally willing to do so, although they will leave out private specifics.