Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppetry/Archive 10

Question re Clean Start
The Clean Start section of this article currently asks that restarts identify themselves when reentering previous disputes. After reading this I filed an SPI Sockpuppet investigations/Logologist/Archive for a user whose behavior I felt strongly indicated a restart active in the same article and personal disputes. The SPI was archived with no action on the grounds that the original account had stopped editing in 2007.

The (alleged) restart account expressed dissatisfaction at the SPI with Clean Start as currently written, citing its recency, lack of discussion here, privacy issues, exposure as contrary to the spirit of a clean restart.

Has this part of the policy ever been enforced? Novickas (talk) 15:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The purpose of the Clean Start provision is to give editors a chance to start over, and it should take far more than returning to the same article years later to constitute abuse of this. For it to be abuse which is relevant to the content of an article, an editor would have to be using multiple accounts to falsely appear to bring more weight to one side of a debate, which is not the case if an old account is long inactive and specific discussion threads have faded into the talk archives.  It sounds like this was the case in the SPI you link.  Now using a new account to enter a still-active discussion thread and reply to oneself or to support one's own comments, that would not be a "Clean Start".  But merely returning significantly later to the same or a similar article should not constitute the violation of engaging in a still active dispute, even if a similar topic of disagreement eventually arises.  The reason is that if the old account is inactive, it no longer asserts additional influence, and thus each editor (person) only has one voice, which is the fundamental goal of this policy.  WavePart (talk) 11:28, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If I get it right, Novickas has suspected Nihil Novi, of being a sock puppet right from the start, when Logologist was still active and that he continued engaging in the same articles (and battle grounds), without refering to Logologist directly, after Logologist has stopped editing when he was accused using (other) sock puppets. I think, in this case, it wouldn't be a Clean Start. --Henrig (talk) 09:37, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, the restarting was clear early on. It's the policy here that's changed since then. (Altho it's been pretty stable since, random date, December 2009 ). Admin candidacies have been tanked by undisclosed restarts; so maybe adding a general 'YOU shouldn't' was a well-meaning extension of the adminship standards to editors in general. But if declaring a previous identity (by regular editors) when reentering the same disputes is not enforceable or enforced by sanctions, maybe the policy should be truncated to eliminate the material following "This is permitted only if there are no bans or blocks in place against your old account." Up till the part that goes 'You are not obliged to do this unless you are seeking some office...', since its last sentence, this may be poorly received by the WP community, can be supported with links here if necessary. Novickas (talk) 03:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This page has 367 watchers . None have responded to the concerns above wrt to whether Clean Start disclosure requirements apply to editors NOT running for positions in the WP bureaucracy. Therefore, in keeping with a modified version of WP:BRD - that is, first discuss, then be bold - I'm removing the sentences directed towards regular editors. Those interested in restoring them - pls show some examples of support actions; i.e. SPI workers investigating restarts that don't involve current multiple accounts, or non-voluntary applications of user page templates to the effect that 'this editor formerly operated sockpuppets', or other things of that ilk. The exhortations have been here for some time, it's true, but if they had real community support, you'd be able to cite examples here where some action was taken. Novickas (talk) 19:36, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * In the spirit of BRD, I'm going to revert that change. It's been there a long time. Returning to an old dispute with a new name is not condoned, and an editor who did that for privacy reasons has gotten a lot of grief on ANI just recently.   Will Beback    talk    21:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Link pls? This was not a blocked/banned user or one operating multiple simultaneous accounts? Novickas (talk) 00:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, found it. This was a rather complex one since the user was maybe formerly using their complete real-life name? So a case of Competing goods altho it seems in the end the connection between the accounts was made voluntarily. But since some thoughtful editors weighed in on it there and in a recent Arb case, shan't object to its restoration here. Novickas (talk) 17:59, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe that Novickas removed slightly too much text from "Sock puppetry," but I agree with his and WavePart's sentiments. CLEANSTART was always intended to allow an uncontroversial, good-faith editor to change his username and virtual identity (when, for example, he has felt that he has become a target of harassment and has wanted to simply disappear from a troll's radar, instead of engaging in a flame war or a lengthy, stressful dispute-resolution proceeding). What is the rationale for telling such an uncontroversial editor that he cannot return to subjects that he has previously edited? Such a prohibition seems to be designed only to satisfy some other editor's curiosity, and violates the first editor's privacy. In the real world, too, one has a right to change his name and is not required to wear a badge or ID stating that such a change has occurred (and if the government has a record of the change, that is all right — Wikipedia editors are not the government and have no right to delve as deeply into another editor's private life as the government does).

Consider, also, that the present policy opens the door to a potential multitude of SPI-swamping witch hunts: whenever two editors have edited the same article, one of the editors now being inactive, at present an SPI request can be filed for a CLEANSTART investigation. Crucially, one need not prove any wrongdoing on the part of an account — the wording supports opening an investigation simply if two accounts have ever crossed paths! That is absurd.

The purpose of an anti-socking policy is to prevent abuse of account-changing (and so I certainly support retaining the sentence: "Repeatedly switching accounts is seen as a way of avoiding scrutiny and is considered a breach of this policy."). The retained CLEANSTART wording covers most points of what is needed: "A clean start is permitted only if there are no bans, blocks or active sanctions in place against your old account." If an editor misuses CLEANSTART to escape sanctions or to abuse the system in other ways (such as voting multiple times, or immediately joining a discussion that his previous account had engaged in, and creating the impression that two editors support the same point of view), then the remaining CLEANSTART provisions are sufficient to cover all the points (and if one thinks that this is not clear, then such examples could be listed, of situations when CLEANSTART is abused and should be investigated).

To be on the safe side, I would support the requirement that an editor who seeks election to an electable role, disclose his past accounts (government should be transparent, and persons who wish to participate in governance likewise need to be more transparent). Finally, I would suggest adding a recommendation that an editor who makes a clean start, try to avoid taking part in discussions in which his previous account had participated, for about a month, in order to allow the situation to cool down and to let any pressure from his previous account activity to dissipate. Nihil novi (talk) 01:51, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I may not have made myself clear. My objection was based on the WP tradition that policy follow practice rather than lead it. It looked to me as tho this section was being overly forward. But this lengthy discussion from a few days ago shows community support for the principle that editors should declare their previous identities when re-entering disputes. Even when they're not running for office. If you follow the links in that thread you'll see that at least one of the editors has now posted their previous identity, voluntarily it seems.
 * So I was impressed by comments made by two of the editors at that thread. One is currently an arbitrator, and there's some feeling that arbs shouldn't work with policy while they're holding that office. But I'll post a link to this discussion at User:EdChem's page. Novickas (talk) 03:58, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Anon Edits
Is a good faith user, with only one account prohibited from making anon edits? The answer seems to be yes, as of November but it seems this policy change was made without consensus. -- 207.81.154.64 (talk) 19:48, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No, but you have to not be deceptive or disruptive. Note that you can be deceptive or disruptive even though acting in good faith.  Do not do such things lightly.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:37, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. I will take extra care in my editing -- 207.81.154.64 (talk) 17:42, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I would propose an example of being deceptive yet in good faith: editing from two different "accounts" (different IPs or combination user and IP) while participating in a given discussion without specifying that you are the same editor. It is important for consensus building that you not give the impression that your are two different editors arguing the same point. Spacexplosion[talk] 15:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Picture on the page
The picture shown here was inserted onto the project page. It may look really cute. But does it really belong here? The custom I have seen on Wikipedia is to allow these cutesy pictures on essays and other essay-like pages, but not on policy and guideline pages (unless they provide some type of instruction). Hellno2 (talk) 18:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, both pictures may detract from the serious nature of the page. – xeno talk 18:38, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think there is a general danger of people taking things too seriously. This is not to say that actually dealing with disruption is not serious, nor that socking is seriously disruptive, even hurtful at times.  However, the silly pictures serve a WP:DENY function in trivialising the efforts of committed sockers.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:44, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I've never liked the Wikipe-tan, as with any other Japanese cartoon character. I think it's a good idea to avoid the Wikipe-tan as much as possible. But, well, I guess that would be a WP:IDL.  Kayau  Voting  IS   evil 05:32, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Alternate account --> Alternative account?
Alternate is only used in America,  Kayau  Voting  IS   evil 13:17, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * – xeno talk 13:28, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Quoted from CALD: Alternate: US( UK alternative ) An alternate plan or method is one that you can use if you do not want to use another one.  Kayau  Voting   IS   evil 14:04, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * See WP:ENGVAR (in particular the WP:RETAIN section). – xeno talk 14:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * However, that is for articles not for Wikipedia itself. The word 'alternate' may be confusing to BrE speakers as the word has other meanings that both AmE and BrE include.  Kayau  Voting  IS   evil 14:11, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * In that you can have an alternate (alter-nit) account and alternate (alter-nate) between the accounts? – xeno talk 14:17, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Isn't that a bit confusing? :P I get what you mean, but it took a while...  Kayau  Voting  IS   evil 06:29, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yea, I was half-way making your point for you. However, I think typically the national variety of English isn't changed without a particularly strong rationale (yes, even outside article-space). I'm not sure that this one rises to the occasion, but I'm not particularly bothered one way or the other. – xeno talk 18:39, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * See also Wikipedia_talk:Sock_puppetry/Archive_7. I think that we should change alternate (alter-nit) to alternative, as "alternative" seems to be preferred in formal English.  I like to think that to alternate (alter-nate) the account you are using, much like a l t e r n a t i n g y o u r f o n t c o l o u r, is so silly there is not need to mention it.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:36, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I here "boldly" standardised on "alternative", on the rationale that it sounds more "formal". If this rationale is not strong enough, then we should standardise the other way.  I don't really think that anyone would be confused either way.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:55, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Clean start and prior blocks, in the same topic area
MickMacNee (talk) 18:05, 5 July 2010 (UTC) Right. After a totally pointless ANI section on a fools errand wasting hours of my time, based on what I belived the CLEAN START section meant, I now believe I have teased out from what little advice you do get there, some gems of wisdom, to find out that, contrary to what I had thought, the clean start wording of 'in place' blocks only refers to active blocks. This apparently means that editors can make clean starts even if they have previous blocks, as long as those have expired, and it apparently doesn't matter if the clean start editor is returning to editing in the areas where those blocks might have been accrued, and this is not classed as evading scrutiny. I think this is pretty stupid, but if it is the current practice, as some kind of super AGF, then I want the wording to be totally clear, because it was not to me during this frustrating 48 hour period.

Therefore, I have changed the policy wording from :

A clean start is permitted only if there are no bans, blocks or active sanctions in place against your old account.

To (bold indicates changes) : A clean start is permitted only if there are no existing bans, blocks or active sanctions in place against your old account. '''Editors are free to make a clean start as long as any previous blocks, bans or sanctions that may have been accrued have expired. Editors making a clean start are not required to avoid editing in areas the old account edited, but should be advised that returning to old patterns of behaviour increases the risk of your new and old accounts being connected.'''

MickMacNee (talk) 18:54, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Un-fucking believeable. Right. Fine. It appears I am a fucking moron then, and the current wording is apparently fine, and I was just wasting my time at ANI, and the wording is not open to confusion at all, and even though I stated my reasons here, people ar just ignorantly reverting the change, telling me it's not confusing at all. Thank you very much everybody. MickMacNee (talk) 15:41, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No need to lower the tone with expletives Mick. Mo ainm  ~Talk  15:44, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * And there's no need to come here and start provoking. You won, you have been allowed to hide your past history, and you have been allowed to keep this policy purposely vague so when people read your user page they might be conned into thinking you have no prior blocks, and you are not a returning editor to that area with a history of behaviour that saw you rack up several blocks. Apparently it is all down to me to track you every day, to ensure you don't return to previous behaviours, while you con and lie other people in those discussions about your past. Other people might be morons, and might not see your deliberate provocations for what they are, but I'm not. I'll give you your credit, you are playing the game extremely well, but without the advantage of knowing the history, others are hardly likely to have the first clue what you are up to. MickMacNee (talk) 15:51, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Mick you are welcome to stalk me all you want my friend, I have not breached any rules here on wikipedia and I have no intention of doing so. Also please be aware of WP:OUTING as this could lead to a block on you and i'm sure you don't want that. Now I won't comment here either anymore as I have no wish to interact with you but as you said you are going to stalk me i'm sure I will see you around. Mo ainm ~Talk  15:58, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh do shut up. You and I both know that your hiding behind the OUTING policy when it refers to a perfectly common first name, is as just as much a pathetic game of gloating and goading as your interference with the wording of this policy has been. You seem to take you cues from admins who apparently have no clue what's going on here, it's no coincidence that you seem to pick up new words and terms like a fourth grader, and you had mysteriously never heard of them before as you defended your 'fresh start' earlier. Please do not forget the fact that the evidence I have linking your old and new account is indisputable, it's beyond a coincidence now you've provided yet more evidence with these latest attempts at provocation gamery. The simple fact is I don't have to stalk you, I see you returning to all the areas you used to under your previous name, I noticed you months ago when you first registered. That's how false this 'fresh start' is. Don't think that this pathetic defence of outing will stop me from revealing your old user name when the inevitable happens, and you rack up the first block on this apparently validly whitewashed account, for returning to the exact same behaviour. I may even track down the arbs who had I thought made it pretty clear with their comments above that what you are doing is not a legitimate clean start, seeing as none of the admins or reverters here can be bothered to engage beyond ignorant reverts. MickMacNee (talk) 16:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If you would quit posting attacks and let others talk so edit conflicts don't happen you might get a quicker response.  GB fan  talk 16:34, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, we all are voluteers here, this isn't the only thing I am doing and I might not get right back to questions right away.  GB fan  talk 16:46, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought the wording was clear the way it is written, but reading back through it again I would recommend one little change to the wording. Move the word "active" from infront of "sanctions" to infront of "bans".  As long as someone is not currently blocked, banned or have active sanctions against them they should be able to have a clean start, no questions asked.  There isn't and shouldn't be a requirement to notify anyone of their old name.  If the new account is used in a constructive manner they should be able to edit without being harrassed.  If someone does a cleanstart and they go back to old ways people will figure it out but you need to treat the account as a new account and act accoringly.  Just my opinion.  Oh and I have to agree the language you are using here and on my talk page is not necessary.   GB fan  talk 16:28, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * My language reflect how I feel like I am having my chain yanked repeatedly in this whole sorry incident frankly. Firstly, I'm glad at least that someone is now open to the idea that what might read as obvious to them in the current wording, might not be obvious to others - 'in place' is not obvious to me as only referring to active sanctions, and seeing as people still actively blocked are auto-blocked anyway, and so cannot make a clean start without a new IP address, why would any normal person reading this polcy think that active blocks is the only situation it is supposed to preclude? And secondly, have you got any evidence, any evidence at all, that the practice of dumping and old account, registering a new one, and returning to an area where that editor was previously blocked, is not a case of evading scrutiny? I am happy for this to be allowed if it is allowed - but once again, the policy DOES NOT MAKE IT CLEAR that this IS allowed - and any normal person would see other principles like evading scrutiny, and would reasonable expect this not to be allowed, just because a user claims to have turned over a new leaf. There is an arbitrators opinion in [|this discussion] which suggests that this is not allowed either, although I've not read it fully MickMacNee (talk) 16:48, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "you need to treat the account as a new account and act accoringly": disagree, this would mean anyone can have amnesty for their previous blocks just by invoking CLEANSTART. – xeno talk 16:52, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * So do we treat someone that invokes WP:CLEANSTART like they have blocks without proof? There is no requirement to tell anyone anything about their old account.  How should we treat them or me?  (I guess thi isn't a good question for you since I believe you have the ability to see what my old account is)   GB fan  talk 17:03, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I vaguely recall that there should be some dummy entry in the block log for the blocks on the previous account(s). But perhaps my memory fails me here. In any case, if an administrator knows the previous identity, any block of the new account can take the prior history into account (imo). – xeno talk 17:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If an administrator knows the past history and they revert to their old habits fine. But what if no one knows the previous identity, then how do we treat that new identity.   GB fan  talk 17:12, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * A fair point, but I was mostly concerned your statement I quoted above and how it would extend. – xeno talk 17:15, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I've made the active part clearer anyway . The 'in place' wording was simply not clear, especially not to people who know about autoblocks, whatever some admins want to claim. MickMacNee (talk) 18:01, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * No need to collapse, as there has been useful discussion above. – xeno talk 18:11, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It's going nowhere, it's just a dejavu of the pointless ANI thread as far as I'm concerned. Better to restart in the below section. MickMacNee (talk) 19:00, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

On the warning about real-world consequences

 * 
 * 

How can employers trust the Internet these days where trolls are lurking around saying malicious information about others? There are other things to look at such as the résumé. Friends and peers as not all are “seriously affected”. It’s purely subjective and should not be included there. Abusing multiple accounts is not a crime BUT when doing it for antisocial or illegal purposes and in some cases could be dangerous to society is a crime. Please discuss why this is not valid reasons. ShadowReflection (talk) 20:19, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no need to warn people who don't know when to not tell people about their Wikipedia accounts. It's ridiculous. Do we need a warning telling us that if we don't eat we will starve to death? ShadowReflection (talk) 20:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * If you re-read what is written there, it says that abusive sockpuppetry could seriously affect not friends, peers, etc. but what they may see when they look you up. And there is no need to remove this advice. – xeno talk 20:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, what friends or peers think about is purely subjective. ShadowReflection (talk) 20:35, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It is not really the best advice coming from the opinions of others, now is it? ShadowReflection (talk) 20:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I follow. We're cautioning users against committing sockpuppetry because, if caught, records of the same will exist on Wikipedia and may be found by any number of folks which may temper their opinion of the sockmaster. What benefit will be had removing this advice? – xeno talk 20:41, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * So what about the users who have already committed sockpuppetry? Now it gives other editors the right to try to annoy them? The warning is like a threat to those who have already committed sockpuppetry that there are others who will annoy the sockmaster. And that won't help sockmasters to stop socking. It becomes an endless cycle. If you are trying to discourage people from socking, why threaten users who already committed sockpuppetry? They already did it. They can't change it. The warning is pointless to them which should be removed. ShadowReflection (talk) 21:00, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The warning is not for them, and I have no idea where you got the idea that it gives others the right to try to annoy them. – xeno talk  21:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If it's not for them, then the warning should be removed. The goal of the sockpuppetry policy is to discourage socking and prevent sockpuppetry abuse.  I don't think it's fair to punish sockmasters like that.  They have all their personal information revealed about them.  Some editors take pleasure in reporting their sockpuppets and revealing personal information regarding their editing. Personal information could be harmful not to the sockmaster but for other people who know them. ShadowReflection (talk) 21:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "The goal of the sockpuppetry policy is to discourage socking and prevent sockpuppetry abuse." Agree, which is why we've got that warning as to the real-world effects committing sockpuppetry could have that you're seeking to remove. The rest, I have no idea where you coming from, and am rather confused as to interest in this subject especially given that you "just started editing Wikipedia". – xeno talk 21:11, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Apparently, you don't understand what I am saying here. The warning only benefits those who never committed sockpuppetry.  ShadowReflection (talk) 21:16, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. – xeno talk 21:16, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * But what about those who did? I don't think it's fair for Wikipedia to punish them like that. They probably didn't know what socking was before. The warning should be removed if it only benefits one party. ShadowReflection (talk) 21:20, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia isn't punishing them. They caused Wikipedia to create records of their abusive sockpuppetry by engaging in it, they will have to take ownership for their own actions. – xeno talk  21:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Looking back at the archives, it appears it has already been discussed. See Wikipedia talk:Sock puppetry/Archive 7. There has already been consensus just no one was bold enough to remove the warning. ShadowReflection (talk) 21:12, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see any consensus one-way-or-the-other there. – xeno talk 21:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Camelbinky and the IP anon think that the warning should be removed. Isn't that not consensus? And I'm another editor so 3 people agree.  ShadowReflection (talk) 21:18, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * And about as many disagree... I think it's important to give this fair warning, as we do keep records of socks which are public - but you are free to initiate an RFC on the matter, or we can wait for more opinions... – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 21:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 3 editors already want the warning removed. Obviously the warning should be modified as a negotiation. So far no one has done that.  If no modification is done, then the entire warning gets removed by default. ShadowReflection (talk) 21:29, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

&larr; They didn't say they wanted the warning removed. They said it seemed harsh, etc. How's this for a compromise version? – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 21:46, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Law enforcement doesn’t care if you abuse multiple accounts, just like they don't care if you troll. Trolling is legal, apparently. Most people want people who troll to be in jail but that doesn't work in the criminal justice system. If the trolling becomes antisocial or illegal purposes and in some cases could be dangerous to society, then it is a concern to them. But other than that, no one really cares about trolling except for those who are stupid enough to feed the trolls.  The warning is pointless, now that I see it again. It's pointless. Someone could be using their name to abuse multiple accounts on Wikipedia.  I don't think it's fair for employers to take one look at their name on Wikipedia to see if they sockpuppet or not.  It could be some other troll who used their name to abuse multiple accounts for fun. There is no way that employers would care about your name being used for multiple accounts.  Wikipedia does not ask users to register with their real names so there is no way that any employer would know if the user is indeed the person who they are looking for.  ShadowReflection (talk) 22:06, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I removed the bit about law enforcement, for reasons that seem too obvious to elaborate further. It seems to me only prudent that people should be warned that getting banned, blocked, or getting other negative reactions on Wikipedia or other parts of the Internet can have a negative effect in real life. Whether you think it's fair or not it's a reality. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:09, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Zzuuzz just removed the law enforcement bit (though if you think that law enforcement doesn't use Wikipedia to look people up, just go talk to the guy who got delayed at the airport because his Wikipedia bio was vandalized to say he was a terrorist). As for the rest of it, you seem to think that our policy here will somehow dictate what an employer may or may not, should, or should not do. Obviously it won't, so we have the fair warning. – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 22:09, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I said that law enforcement cares if you are doing something antisocial or illegal which is why that guy got into trouble. ShadowReflection (talk) 22:13, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Please look at my reasons above. I have explained it already. ShadowReflection (talk) 22:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Your reasons still make no sense to me. I see you've removed the warning again . I'm not going to revert, but I expect someone else will shortly. – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 22:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Shadowreflection, Consensus isn't about numbers, its about talking things through and trying to understand each other and resolve our differences. In this case are you sure its the warning you want toned down or is it the consequences we are warning about? We could of course modify the former, but as the consequences are out of our control, would it be fair to downplay them?  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  22:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I've reverted it. Furthermore, I happen to know that there have been RL issues for a number of sockpuppeteers. Some of the stories are quite well-known - A l is o n  ❤ 04:56, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It is the consequences of socking. As Xeno has said, that it “obviously won’t” clearly we don’t need the warning.  We only warn people when there is obvious danger coming.  There is no need to stir more fire when there was never danger to begin with.  Just like the result of trolling can have, the victims can get upset and angry but in reality, law enforcement can’t do a thing about it.  And that is why people don’t feed the trolls because no one cares.  Same with people who abuse multiple accounts, no one cares in real life but Wikipedia editors and administrators. I’m sorry that Wikipedia folks feel upset when people sock but do you really think by threatening people to not sock will change anything? No. It’s childish and no one cares in real life.   Anyway, Wikipedia editors and administrators doesn’t warn editors about socking, so I don’t see why the policy here is making a big deal of it here.  If they can catch editors socking, then they will do whatever they can to catch them again and trip them over by not warning them and they we get blocked indefinitely. Bottom line is sockpuppetry is not something people get a warning on, and it is their responsibility to inform themselves of Wikipedia policies. I just don't see why the English Wikipedia has to provide a warning for sockpuppetry when other places don't.  i.e. Simple English Wikipedia ShadowReflection (talk) 13:16, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I said our policy obviously won't affect what they do. I didn't say they obviously won't do it. Please do try to read more carefully to avoid unintentionally misrepresenting the arguments being presented, and also consider deferring in this instance to users, administrators, and functionaries, who have been editing Wikipedia for more than a couple days. – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 13:22, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That's what I said. "It’s childish and no one cares in real life." Your reasons don't tell me why we need a warning. It's a policy, not to warn people. ShadowReflection (talk) 14:13, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Many of our policies carry warnings as to the potential consequences of failing to adhere. – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 14:17, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia should carry potential consequences that affects within the Wikipedia community, not RL. This is fine.  I have no disagreement with that.  But if it impacts in real life, then that becomes the user's business not Wikipedia.  This is just a potential consequence within the Wikipedia community: "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 activities and other information relevant to your editing." ShadowReflection (talk) 14:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not limited to pointing out potential consequences within its own limited walls. The warning is mostly useless, but I don't see a problem with including it. --Onorem♠Dil 14:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a policy, not to tell others what to do. Users are free to do whatever they please. I don't think a warning to their real life should be included. Other projects don't include a warning because it's a bit harsh to remind sockmasters about the damage they cause.  Some sockmasters have serious mental issues and to mock them by warning about their past misbehaviors doesn't seem to be humane.  ShadowReflection (talk) 14:38, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The warning only encourages editors on Wikipedia to be mean to the sockmasters. That's what I mean by the warning is inhumane to sockmasters. If we remove it, perhaps editors here that report socks of sockmasters could refrain from being rude or try to scare them. ShadowReflection (talk) 15:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I have undone the edit. I have explained my reasons here. ShadowReflection (talk) 16:12, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You have changed the meaning of the warning altogether . I disagree with the change, and don't think that you should be messing around with a core policy on only your second day of editing (especially when so many tenured editors are telling you why you are wrong), but will leave this to others to review since I'm already close or over 3RR. I would advise you to review our edit warring policy. – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 16:14, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * They said to not revert. They never said you can't undo an edit if you have discussed on the talk page and other editors that simply ignored you. Other people have agreed that the warning was harsh and should by default be removed.  An IP anon have said to remove the warning.  I have negotiated by modifying it.  What is wrong with this? You modified the warning by toning it down.  Toning it down doesn't do anything to tone the consequences of socking. ShadowReflection (talk) 16:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * In modifying it, you have changed entirely the meaning of the warning. – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 16:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * What I wrote wasn't inaccurate; this warning was just the opposite of your warning that states that those who abuse multiple accounts could have real-life harassment from people who look at their case. I think a warning that is about the user who abuses multiple accounts is more appropriate than one that  is about those who never abused multiple accounts.  ShadowReflection (talk) 16:26, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't say it was inaccurate, I said that you replaced one warning with another that had an entirely different meaning. – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 16:29, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * IMHO the current version is unacceptable. The fact that antisocial behavior has consequences is the fault of the sockpupeter. It should not be written in a way that makes it sound like these consequences are negative behavior on the rule abiding people.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Couldn't have said it better myself. – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 16:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

After consideration of their edit history, I have indefinitely blocked as an apparent sockpuppet of somebody.  Sandstein  16:39, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I've reverted the previous policy edit based both on this fact and the comment I made above. I believe it's the appropriate thing to do.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:42, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
Following this policy discussion, I honestly think we should eliminate all of Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets but before I go that far, we need a policy on when people can tag others as suspected sockpuppets. Recent conduct has indicated that editors (even some administrators) follow a very liberal policy of any editor can claim someone is a sock and then those challenging that designation have to prove a negative. Absurd requirement, especially when CheckUser evidence failed to determine the master (and no, we don't need rounds of "Checkuser isn't magic pixie dust" BS. See my full arguments at the policy discussion.  -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * At the very least, we need to start pruning the nonsense out of those categories. We would never allow someone to allege that other editors are sockpuppets without reporting it to SPI.  It's absurd to ask for less if they want to keep permanent tags on them. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree. If there is mere suspicion, the proper thing to do would be to ask the user on their talk page. This would be sufficient to bring out multiple suspicions, if they existed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:13, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * At SPI, we almost exclusively reserve tags for people who have been blocked. I don't think that anything more is proper. The category itself I think is acceptable as it is useful for accounts that have been blocked per WP:DUCK, but it should be limited to only those. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 12:29, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Doesn't mean admins (or editors even) are following that standard. I think I should just list the entire suspected category for deletion.  -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe the category should be listified and protected. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I've listed it for deletion. :/ I'm doubtful that will succeed (although the village pump was positive enough) but maybe we'll at least start to prune it.  Perhaps only the actual SPI reports should be there instead of the individual userpages (listified as you say)?  Yeah, I think that would eliminate a lot of the problems.  Well, let's see.  If it does get eliminated, I'll be glad to see Special:WantedCategories stop getting filled up with new ones and I think moving the focus away from "who is this person editing like" to "is this editor on its own be useful" will be helpful.  -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:58, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets nominated for deletion
Hello, this notification is to alert users that has recently been nominated for deletion by another user. Your input is welcome, and the discussion can be found here. Thank you. — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  05:26, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Revert Nuclearwarface's edits
It's inappropriate for admins to enact a flagarently wrong policy and then protect the page. There is NO requirement that suspected socks be blocked before they can be listed. The template itself has a parameter for being blocked and few of the accounts tagged have that one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.174.18.96 (talk • contribs)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: Please discuss this issue first. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:01, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Couple of items
This policy wording seems to totally ignore the concept of dynamic IP addresses, and the sharing of an address amongst potentially thousands of people, e.g when an internet provider has a block of IP addresses, and dynamically (temporarily) assigns them amongst their several thousand customer in the area. Wording to the effect of "if you share an IP address you must ......." is absurd in light of this.

Second, due to the above point and others, one can never be really certain of sockpuppetry. One can be "pretty sure", enough to justify blocking etc. But the threat of damaging someones real life based on "pretty sure" (without knowing for sure) is fear mongering threats, and out of line in a policy, and, if actually practiced, I would think would expose Wikipedia to huge lawsuits. North8000 (talk) 23:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * When I was getting started, I was blocked from opening an account due to a "range block" which said merely "sockpuppet investigation".  That block of IP addresses (dynamicaly assigned by the provider) means that WP blocked several thousand people for a sock puppet investigation on one person.  When I inquired about this in one of the "answer" sections they just wrote "tell your neighbors to stop vandalizing" which was a ridiculous answer on several levels, including  that there was no indication of vandalism, nor even of confirmed sockpuppetry.  Plus he wanted me to go confront and accuse several thousand neighbors on the off chance that one of them might be the person being investigated for sockpuppetry. (copied from above)  North8000 (talk) 01:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

WP's sock puppet policy should be changed
I believe Wikipedia's blocking policy regarding the creation of sock puppets is unfair. Users shouldn't be blocked simply for creating sock puppets, but rather for using sock puppets to vandalize. Those users who use sock puppets to make good faith edits should not be blocked.

A few years ago my account was unjustly blocked. I then created sock puppets to continue editing but they were blocked simply I had become a puppet master. I created several more and those were eventually blocked for the same reason. I recently changed ISPs, thus allowing me to change my IP address. I created a new account and I can now edit in peace but it shouldn’t have been this hard.

Also, this policy turns many admins into witch hunters who block accounts merely because they SUSPECT an account is a sock puppet. This practice resulted in blocks to two accounts that weren’t mine. One remains blocked to this day. The other was unblocked but only after several angry messages between the user and the blocking admin.

Given this situation, I'm sure there are countless editors in my situation that edit for the betterment of Wikipedia but who are considered abusive simply because they have blocked accounts in their past.

I suggest we change this policy to one where destructive and/or rude behavior is punished with a blocked account without blocking subsequent accounts created by the offending user as long as he/she edits in good faith.

By the way, don't bother using this message to trace me. I'm using an anonymous account at a public library. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.139.19.195 (talk) 20:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * If someone has been blocked for sockpuppetry, and would like to change, and resume editing under a single account, what should they do? I don't see such advice.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:37, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


 * No one will be accused of sockpuppetry unless their edits remind other editors of the kind of edits made by the blocked user. Once it is clear from behavior that there is an active sockpuppet, it should be blocked and reverted without bothering to read the contents of the edit. The block is sufficient proof that editors need not waste their time reading the edits, because they are unlikely to be of any value. Jc3s5h (talk) 22:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


 * To SmokeyJoe: People who have been blocked for violating any of Wikipedia's policies may appeal their blocks. In order to succeed, appeals usually require an admission of the violation and a sincere promise to avoid future problems. (Of course it's also possible to successfully appeal by proving the allegation was wrong.) A standard requirement in the case of socking is to go without socking for a period of time. Such advice doesn't really belong in this policy though,m as it's more relevant to the general appeal information already contained in WP:BLOCK and WP:APPEAL.   Will Beback    talk    22:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, the information is at WP:APPEAL, which is where it should be. Should this page have a link to there?  Or does a block user, when logging in, receive a message that points them to WP:APPEAL?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * MediaWiki:Blockedtext is shown when a blocked user trys to edit a page. It includes information on how to appeal a block. Regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 00:21, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Question - I got blocked for two weeks for sockpuppetry as a newby and before I even knew what a sockputtet was, and I acterd foolishly. I learned a hard lesson. I have since changed my username but that doesn't get rid of the past history. Since then I've been working hard to redeem myself on Wikipedia, and to be a constructive editor.  Is there a way to wipe the slate clean with my new username without having to create another new (third) Username?  I like the one I have now. <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #008080;padding:1px;"> Austex  •  Talk  16:35, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * As noted below, the wording here also ignores the reality of blocks of IP addresses. When I was getting started, I was blocked from opening an account due to a "range block" which said merely "sockpuppet investigation".   That block of IP addresses (dynamicaly assigned by the provider) means that WP blocked several thousand people for a sock puppet investigation on one person.  When I inquired about this in one of the "answer" sections they just wrote "tell your neighbors to stop vandalizing" which was a ridiculous answer on several levels, including  that there was no indication of vandalism, nor even of confirmed sockpuppetry.  Plus he wanted me to go confront and accuse several thousand neighbors on the off chance that one of them might be the person being investigated for sockpuppetry.  North8000 (talk) 01:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Clarity of CLEAN START and prior blocks
Question: Is it the intention of this policy page to allow any editor with a prior history of blocks in a specific topic area which have expired, to invoke WP:CLEANSTART and retire their old account, register a new account, and return to that area, without revealing their previous account name?

If so, does the wording of the current policy page make that as clear as possible, by giving the principles and reasons why this is allowed?

If not, does the wording of the current page make that as clear as possible, by giving the principles and reasons why this is not allowed?

MickMacNee (talk) 19:00, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Rationale
I do not believe the current policy is clear enough either way, and I have recently expended a lot of wasted time at ANI over a specific case, only to end up with not much more clarification, and effectively be flipped off by a few admins, who think there is nothing wrong with the current wording. Here is why I think the policy needs clarification :


 * Illegitimate uses - Circumventing policies or sanctions - this paragraph suggests that a block log applies to a person not a username, and therefore, use of a CLEAN START to effectively get rid of the evidence of a block log is surely not permissable? Many people are blocked indefinitely just for having received an nth block in their log - so there is a clear incentive here for someone to just invoke CLEANSTART, but not necessarily stop the behaviour that accrued those prior blocks. If the intention is to not allow that sort of abuse, it is not clear.


 * Illegitimate uses - Avoiding scrutiny. This paragraph suggests that alternate accounts should not be used to confuse or deceive editors who may have a legitimate interest in reviewing your contributions. It should be pretty obvious that someone who has accrued many blocks in a specific area is going to be someone that others wish to track. If the intention is to allow people to turn over a new leaf by not continuing behaviour that others would want to monitor, then the wording is not clear.


 * Legitimate uses - Clean start under a new name. This section, which is the part that actually allows clean starts, suggests they exist to allow people to "make a fresh start and do not wish to be connected to a previous account". Well, if you do make a clean start, yet return to the same topic areas and make the same edits, then even if you do not do anything blockable, it is almost certain you will eventually be discovered. If someone suspects a sock, then even a legitimate clean start cycle of retiring an old account and registering a new one afterwards, is easy to spot. So, if the point of allowing clean starts is to not be able to be connected with their old account, why does it not preclude returning to the same areas and behaviours which will almost cetainly lead to detection?


 * Legitimate uses - Clean start under a new name. The same section suggests that if you intend to seek out adminship, it will be considered deceptive if you don't then reveal any prior accounts you may have clean started. It is frankly not compatible with WP:NOBIGDEAL, becuase there should be no difference in your status as a normal editor, deception is deception.

Discussion
I'll start it off by stating the more obvious cases of CLEANSTART. For example, an account gets blocking for blatant juvenile vandalism or otherwise juvenile trolling and then comes back later under a new account and is not doing any of that stuff; that is fine. I think it's most of the stuff past that which is under dispute. –MuZemike 00:25, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It's worth noting that attempting to technically forbid CLEANSTART is almost certainly impossible - new accounts on new IPs that are carefully managed cannot be linked to prior accounts. However, supposing we had a magic crystal ball that could identify such accounts, it's pretty clear that there are some cases where an account's crimes are beyond the pale and their return should not be countenanced; examples: uploading images of child pornography, issuing credible threats of violence against other editors, and basically anything else that would get them arrested in real life. These editors present a serious and direct threat to the project.
 * Now here are some more ambiguous cases. I've seen some editors who have a history of subtly undermining the project by posting elaborate hoaxes, engaging in sneaky vandalism, posting large amounts of copyright violating material to many articles (see WP:CCI), uploading large amounts of copyvio images claiming that they are the copyright holder, and so on. Although many such users are repentant, some demonstrate an inability or lack of desire to learn and are eventually blocked. It'd be very stressful for our cleanup crew if they had to go through this same taxing process more than once with the same exact person - yet if such a person truly did learn the error of their ways we would welcome them back with open arms. In these cases, I think the best solution is to treat these users with less tolerance and patience than we would a "fresh" user - a sort of "half clean" start, if you will.
 * In short: if I had to choose a criterion to distinguish users who should receive a "clean" start from users who should receive a "half clean" one, it would be based primarily on the amount of time and effort the community has already expended on dealing with them. We can block the same blatant vandal over and over all day long, with less effort than it even requires to identify them as a sock account. It's the ones that cost us that should be shown less tolerance. Dcoetzee 05:30, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that there are 4 classes of users who shouldn't be allowed a clean start:
 * Blocked users - if your main account (or anything which ever was your main account) is blocked, you may not go for a clean start. (This obviously doesn't apply if the only reason for the block is the user name.)
 * If you've been blocked repeatedly, you may not go for a clean start for a significant period of time. (The precise amount of time should depend on the duration of the disruption, the severity, etc.)
 * If you're currently under any restriction which doesn't apply to all users (including ArbCom topic bans, conditional unblocks, etc), then you may not go for a clean start without permission from ArbCom.
 * If you have a history of sock puppetry blocks, you may not go for a clean start
 * עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think #1 and #3 above are already excluded by the current wording of WP:CLEANSTART. Adding wording along the lines of #2 would be a great addition to the criteria.  It is not a never but someone with a history of multiple blocks would have to prove that they have changed.  #4 is troublesome to me, it is saying to me that if they have a history of sockpuppeting they must carry that with them forever.  I think this could be rolled into #2 but the period of time would have to be very significant.   GB fan  talk 15:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Don't ask, don't tell is my own preference, based on carefully managing users as a MUD administrator. If the administration bans (same word, slightly different meaning, mud vs. wikipedia) you for misbehavior, you're never allowed back without appeal, and always allowed back if the administration can't figure out that you are who you were. Thus, a user "A" tries something spectacularly bad that forever ruins their reputation and no one will ever after take them seriously as a contributor.  If that user comes back later, now as user "B", and manages his or her behavior such that there is no way for any user to credibly suspect that "A" is "B", then no biggie: the user is interacting with the online environment in an acceptable manner.  But if there is ever cause--through behavioral similarities, associations, pet topics, etc.--that B used to be A, the full force of A's sanctions slams down on B once the association is admitted or proven to the administration's satisfaction.  It's pragmatic, in that it acknowledges the reality that we can't ever stop dedicated people from reappearing, yet just in that it enforces a death of personality on the prior account. Jclemens (talk) 05:23, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a good rule, in spirit. As a practical matter, if a previously problematic user now has a lengthy pattern of edits that shows he is repentant, then even if he is outed (e.g. on the 30,000th edit, he forgets to login and reveals his IP address), probably people will be willing to forgive and let bygones be bygones. Plus, users who don't misbehave tend to draw less scrutiny, which makes it less likely anyone will connect the dots. Lastly, those who take a long wikibreak are even less likely to be the subject of a sockpuppet investigation tying them to the banned users, because people forget about the old account, or assume the person left. All of these are good things.  Tisane  talk/stalk 06:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think as long as your blocks and editing restrictions have expired, a clean start is perfectly reasonable and helpful. If someone abuses it by doing the same things in the same area over and over again it will be really obvious.  If they keep being jerks in different areas, that's more tricky, but I'd think fairly rare and nearly impossible to catch anyways.  Hobit (talk) 03:07, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Hobit. A CleanStart should be allowed for anyone as long as they have no active blocks, bans or sanctions.  Unless they decide to tell someone and they keep clean it would be virtually impossible to know what their previous username was.  We should assume good faith that they have made a legitimate CleanStart.  Now this doesn't mean if they start editing in the same way as a previous editor with a history that we need to forget about the history at that point.  The Duck test should still apply and if they go back to old ways they should be treated like the old account because then it was not a Clean start.   GB fan  talk 07:42, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No, in practice editors who are blocked or banned for agenda-driven editing (POV-pushing, antagonizing editors perceived as enemies, COI problems, tendentiousness on a topic, etc) don't magically reform themselves when they start a new account. If the editor gets into any conflicts at all in the same territory where they were blocked or banned, the new account is almost by definition a good hand / bad hand problem.  We're here to create an encyclopedia, not as an exercise in freedom of expression.  The harm done to the project, and toll taken on the well behaved good faith editors, from letting problem editors return to their old ways is far too great.  - Wikidemon (talk) 07:51, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * And yet, Wikidemon, how are you going to catch such editors? And if you do catch one with a history of being clean(under their new name), what are you going to do with them? Ban them anyways? I see no reason to hold such an unenforceable, potentially detrimental rule. That being said, CleanStart certainly shouldn't apply to editors causing problems again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Loiathal (talk • contribs) 19:13, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the current clean start policy works moderately well and is a mostly sensible response to our current situation. That said we could change our current situation, our policies on retention of IP data and not doing fishing trips probably haven't changed in years. Diskspace and processing power are now much cheaper so we could keep IP data for longer. We could also have bots or edit filters that actively looked for signs of the return of serious miscreants. Also we need a couple of tweaks. currently we have two different bits about informing people. One to Arbcom and the other to the crats. My understanding is that the Arbs have to verify their identity with the office so they can handle confidential stuff like this, whilst crat chats are held in the open which would make it awkward if they had to evaluate something confidential. So unless anyone objects I'll standardise the policy to informing Arbcom. Also we need to be clearer as to whether former admins etc can take a clean start and not declare it at RFA. My view is that an outed and retired admin who doesn't want their real life identity linked to their return would be welcome to do a cleanstart without even telling arbcom they were back; But someone who was desysopped should not run at RFA without at least Arbcom agreeing they can exercise cleanstart.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  20:06, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Answer: my reading of the WP:CLEANSTART policy is that it is clearly permitted for somebody who has a prior history of blocks in a specific topic area which have expired to stop using their original username and start a new account, but the reasons and principles behind this are not elucidated explicitly.  Also, users are strongly encouraged to notify the arbitration committee if they wish to create a second username, as such notification is evidence of good faith.  And they should avoid engaging in the type of behavior that got them blocked in the first place, because if they do so then the community might just ignore the clean-start policy.  69.251.180.224 (talk) 22:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Answer - "You are not obliged to reveal previous accounts; however, it is strongly recommended that you inform the Arbitration Committee (in strictest confidence if you wish) of the existence of a previous account or accounts prior to seeking out adminship or similar functionary positions. Failure to do so may be considered deceptive, and as such be poorly received by the Wikipedia community." --GabeMc (talk) 22:25, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Simplicity The simple thing would be that anyone can come back for a clean start after 365 days if the new user is productive (and no hair splitting about the definition of the word productive). Sometimes tempers flare and then there is bad blood but after a year if someone comes back to write for Wikipedia, they should be allowed.  Many people who are really bad probably can't resist the temptation to be bad but if they have matured then who are we to have a grudge.  The key is that the new user is productive.  So it will be very simple....if you want a clean start and it is less than a year, you need to meet the criteria; if greater than a year and the new user is unquestionably productive, then it's probably ok.  Note that I am not advocating coming back but just trying to be sensible.  If someone is in a fight about climate change, if they decide to come back in a year and not get into climate change fights, let's leave the person alone. RIPGC (talk) 02:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * CLEANSTART is for people who are not currently blocked or banned. The Standard Offer is for people who are currently under sanctions.  The main difference is timing (if we've had to waste so much time evaluating your edits and imposing sanctions, then we deserve a break from you) and the non-anonymous nature:  You need to disclose your plans (to a small, confidential group) -- and if you don't, then you're WP:SOCKing and can be blocked when/if identified.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Additional inappropriate use to be noted: misusing pending changes review
Editing an article that is under pending changes protection with one account, then accepting the edit with another.

... seems uncontroversially analagous to Misusing new pages patrol. Any objections? Baileypalblue (talk) 12:27, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes is an experiment which will end I think in about 10 days. Hopefully it will die after that. Probably not premature to discuss this, but not make policy changes at this moment. North8000 (talk) 12:58, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I suspect it will be pushed through come hell or high water, but there's surely no harm in waiting to see how things are finalized, one way or another. Baileypalblue (talk) 20:04, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

How strong is the duty to disclose old account in an RfA?
In a mini-debate at RFA Talk, there's discussion about adding a new standard question. The current proposal is going down in flames, but mainly because of the IP aspect of the question. I thought it would make sense to consider asking solely about prior named accounts (not IP), and checked here to make sure I understood the existing policy.

I find the following phrases (red added by me):


 * 1) You  run for positions of community trust without disclosing the fact that you have previously edited under another account.
 * 2) When applying for adminship, it is  that you will disclose past accounts openly, or to the bureaucrats Arbitration Committee if the accounts must be kept private.
 * 3) RFA candidates  disclose all past significant accounts.
 * 4) You are  to reveal previous accounts; however, it is  that you inform the Arbitration Committee (in strictest confidence if you wish) of the existence of a previous account or accounts prior to seeking out adminship or similar functionary positions.

It is my opinion that the five phrases in red connote differing levels of obligation. At one extreme, the first phrase imposes such an obligation that there is no need to ask a question—affirmatively responded without prompting is required. The other phrases imply weaker obligations.

-- SPhilbrick  T  16:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Is there clarity what we want the policy to say, and we simply need to do some wordsmithing to bring these phrases into concurrence of meaning, or
 * Do we need to debate what we want the policy to say?
 * Well summarised. The current policy is self-contradictory. The fourth option makes most sense, though should be extended to current as well as former undeclared accounts. Also it is silly and timewasting to expect people to inform Arbcom of former accounts that are now openly declared and redirected to the current account.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  18:10, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * PS I'd already spotted the bit about informing the crats on the 15th, and as no-one objected to my note then, I've now fixed that anomaly  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  18:21, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * WereSpielChequers, I reverted with a modification. I didn't see the note on the 15th.  RFA is the province of the bureaucrats.  There is no case for expanding the role of Arb Com (from here) to supervise RFA.  The bureaucrats are a competent lot, and their judgment as to whether a multiple account declaration together with an RFA nomination warrants informing arb com I think is a sufficient check.  Also, I don't see that the "anomaly" is really an anomaly.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Depends on the reason for abandoning the prior account, SmokeyJoe; if there is a privacy element (e.g., real name or username that could easily be linked to a real name), people may well think twice about revealing that information to bureaucrats, who are not cleared for private information. (Caveat: Several 'crats are also functionaries, i.e., checkusers or oversighters, and *are* cleared for private information, but not in their role as a 'crat, so they would have to recuse from other RFA-related actions involving that user.) Risker (talk) 03:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I like the idea of treating these as two separate decisions. Can this user run without publicly revealing their past account, and judging from the RFA does the community have consensus to make this user an admin. If we put crats in charge of both decisions then it would put them in an extremely awkward position when having a crat chat re a borderline result. Do you expect them to try and disregard the things they know but the community doesn't, or would you prefer that they move crat chats to a private crat only forum? Also are you proposing that crats identify themselves to the office, or are you saying that its OK to have a policy telling people to disclose private and personal information to people who have not been cleared to receive that?  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  07:54, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * WereSpielChequers asks good questions. I am wondering what happens when a user who has made a disclosure, or who has has alternative but compliant accounts detected, makes misleading statements at RFA.  What if a privileged user is aware that the community consensus is dependent on a false assumption.  What is the role of a checkuser, or a bureaucrat, in such a position.  If the privileged user's hands are tied, what is the point of making a disclosure privately.  This sounds like a hairy problem for elected arbiters, but are the arbiters expected to follow all RFAs?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:31, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Interesting point by SmokeyJoe. We could ask for an Arb to give an opinion here, or alternatively add something along the lines of "Any user with secret alt accounts that they have declared to Arbcom, is expected to check with Arbcom before submitting an RFA or RFB". That would give Arbcom the opportunity to check the latest edits on those accounts and advise the potential candidate if there is anything egregious that should be declared. For example, a candidate who declared "I have a retired account which for Privacy reasons I'm not going to disclose other than to Arbcom, but they've said I should say at RFA that I had "one short block for incivility over 6 weeks ago" would be treated very differently by the RFA community than one who had to declare "one short block for incivility over 2 years ago" - though perhaps in the latter case Arbcom would simply treat the block as timeserved providing the candidate didn't make a big thing of having a pristine block record.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  09:04, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Largely agree (have no problem) with SPhilbrick, but disagree, as previously, with mandating the informing of Arb Com. The appropriate subgroup to inform is the checkusers.  Arbiters are explicitly not agents of the WMF, unlike the checkusers, and Arbiters are not necessarily bound by the privacy policy as are the checkusers.  I suspect that this is currently only an academic concern, but as a matter of principle I think this argument is sound.  Also, regarding RFA, the bureaucrats must not be left out of the loop regarding a current RFA nomination.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Umm...you're mistaken there, arbitrators are bound by the privacy policy. As well, all current arbitrators are either checkusers or oversighters. The Arbitration Committee maintains a list of users who advise us of alternate accounts, so that if the issue arises in the future, the disclosure can be verified. Risker (talk) 03:37, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Risker. you've said this to me before, but not backed it up.  I have little doubt that any arbiter would say that they abide by the privacy policy.  But the privacy policy applies to Wikipmedia Foundation, what it owns and what it is responsible for.  "Arbitrators are neither Wikimedia Foundation employees or agents, nor Wikipedia executives. They are volunteer users—usually..." reads to me to say that the arbiters are independent of the Wikimedia Foundation.  Am I misreading it, or is the text misleading?  I also understand (perhaps out of date) that arbiters are not necessarily positively identified to the Foundation.  Do arbiters legally commit to abide by the privacy policy?  If an arbiter violates that policy and causes me damage, do I have recourse through the Foundation?
 * Telling me about current arbiters is not entirely convincing. Don't future arbiters have access to private information supplied previously?
 * This is the first I have read of "a list of users who advise us of alternate accounts". What policy/guarantees are associated with this list.  Who can access it?  What can be done with it?  How long is it kept for?  Can entries be examined for mistakes and corrected?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:37, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * To answer a few of your questions (though clearly not all of them), the question is of access rather than necessarily being a member of Wikimedia staff. Users who have specific access to personally identifiable information specifically includes users who have OTRS/Checkuser/Oversight functions, users elected by project communities to serve as stewards or Arbitrators, Wikimedia Foundation staff (employees, agents, contractors, etc.), and developers and others with high levels of server access. See the relevant part of privacy policy. Any such user who has access to personally identifiable information (covered by privacy policy) should be personally and legally accountable by virtue of access to nonpublic data policy, but access to deleted revisions on a publicly editable project, such as that held by administrators, is not sufficient to require identification. The requirements I mentioned exist unless the Board of Trustees makes a resolution for an exception, though that, I imagine, would be rare given how much more trouble that would cause. There is absolutely no guarantee against unauthorized access, but where such information may have been provided to another user who does not have access or is not permitted access, let alone to the public, one would have recourse - not necessarily limited to the Foundation. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:25, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but all of that seems to be already documented or reasonably intuitive. I guess what I am really saying is that there should be a clear statement on what happens, and can happen, with information privately disclosed.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * When you say "can happen", are you talking about risks, or are you talking about the practical consequences for those who are obligated to maintain privacy? Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:20, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with SPhilbrick, those passages need to be cleaned up and made consistent throughout the policy. In the current version, it runs the whole spectrum from from no requirement to disclose to absolutely mandatory.  I think disclosure should be mandatory prior to accepting an RFA. Bureaucrats though do not need to know what old account(s) someone has to make a determination of community consensus.  The Arbitration Committee can determine if the disclosed account(s) are material to the RFA and pass that information to everyone involved in the RFA while keeping the actual username private.  There is no reason for both groups to know the information, because when you have information that you want to remain private, the more people you tell the better chance it will get out.  Just for full disclosure, I made a cleanstart and my old account is registered with the Arbitration Committee.   GB fan  talk 04:10, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * IMO we don't really want to follow a single, absolutist rule mindlessly. If you had a series of accounts several years ago, doing a few edits of nothing spectacular before forgetting the password, should you have to announce those unimportant accounts?  (What if you can't remember their names?)  On the other hand, if you had serious, ongoing problems, and you have deliberately attempted a WP:CLEANSTART, then an announcement of that fact is probably appropriate.  I think that a simple statement of fact might be more relevant:  Adminship (etc) is a position of trust, and if the community feels you deceived them, e.g., by failing to disclose past accounts, then you're very likely to lose that trust.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Two people.two accounts?
If there's two people on a computer ,can each person have their own account?--Danny(Monster2821) (talk) 08:53, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes they can and should have their own account. You both need to be careful though that you don't create the impression of Meat puppetry or Sock Puppetry.  If the two of you edit the same articles and support each other in disputes then someone may accuse you of deceptive editing and you both could be blocked.  You walk a fine line when you edit from the same computer.   GB fan  talk 09:10, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If these two accounts in such a case get accused of sock puppetry, that can always be a defense, and per WP:AGF, this defense must be believed until it can be proven otherwise. It is a strong possibility that two people sharing a household will share common interests, and may even talk to each other about Wikipedia articles they edit, not in order to be meatpuppets, but just because it is something they like to talk about. They may both edit articles about local geography or be fans of the same sports team out of their own independent interests. If this is the case, they should NOT have the requirement to be open about this, since editors have the right to personal privacy.


 * There are also some apartments that offer free wifi to all their tenants, and many people could share a common connection. Hellno2 (talk) 13:02, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Opinions please
"Abuse of multiple accounts can seriously affect what employers, friends, peers and journalists may see when they look up your name or nickname online in the future."

<comments by suspected sockpuppet of banned user removed. Per WP:BAN, all edits of banned users may be removed and reverted on sight regardless of content.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs 07:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)>
 * It isn't a threat, it's a warning. Taking away the warning won't make the consequences go away, think of it like the warning you get before reformatting your hard drive. There can be serious consequences to sockpuppetry and it would in my view be wrong not to warn people of them. As for combating sockpuppetry by restricting editing, there are various Encyclopaedia sites that have tried to emulate wikipedia but without the open editing, all have failed, to continue improving Wikipedia we need a large userbase. If we throw the bulk of that away Wikipedia will not improve as fast as it has done in the past, will get out of date and would be vulnerable to competition from an open editing rival.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  08:34, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * <comments by suspected sockpuppet of banned user removed. Per WP:BAN, all edits of banned users may be removed and reverted on sight regardless of content.—  Dæ  dαlus Contribs 07:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)>
 * Are you suggesting that we permit sockpuppetry, or are you suggesting that we don't warn people of the consequences of it? Either way I disagree with you.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  09:22, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This isn't coercion, no one is using the threat of, or actual, force or intimidation to get people to comply with this policy. This is a notice, warning if you prefer, of the possible consequences of failing to comply with the policy.  I am sure nothing is going to happen to most sockpuppets, but it is still the responsible thing to do to inform people of the possible consequences of their actions.   GB  fan  10:13, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I think that it is an implied threat to do something that shouldn't be done. Damaging people's personal lives because they had 2 accounts and broke a Wikipedia rule. It should go.  North8000 (talk) 12:44, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It's beyond our control what the wider world does - there's nothing we can do about it. If you're saying we shouldn't discuss/sanction/block/ban/tag someone who has broken the sockpuppetry rules you'll probably find some opposition, perhaps even from "Sabena Rani Gupta" who thinks everyone should have one unified identity. What other people might do with that identity is something we should warn people about, because there's nothing else we can do about it. -- zzuuzz (talk) 12:59, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be a good idea not to mention this theoretical possibility in the main policy page, but instead to write an essay about it. Hellno2 (talk) 13:05, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Why shouldn't we mention this possibility in the main policy page? I don't see any harm that it might do to have it on this page.  Moving it to some other page will only bury it and reduce the usefulness of the information.   GB  fan  13:51, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * What "possibility"? One posting back you were blending widely accepted inside-Wikipedia practices regarding potential sock puppets  (discuss/block/ban/tag) with a vague one "sanction" which means who know what.  And this is during a discussion about a phrase which implies doing totally different things which could damage people outside of Wikipedia (outing them etc.)
 * Finally, there is the relevant overlay that there is no such thing as a confirmed sock puppet (person). At best it can be a 99% sure guess. And, so what are you talking about doing to people based on being a probable sockpuppeter? North8000 (talk) 14:37, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The possibility I was talking about the theoretical possibility that Hellno2 mentioned in the post right above mine. I never blended anything about (discuss/block/ban/tag) with sanctions in any of my posts, zzuuzz did, but I did not.  I am not talking about doing anything to a suspected or probable sockpuppet.   GB  fan  15:01, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It wasn't a blend either - that's the range of things we do to sockpuppeteers (an example sanction is limiting someone to one account). We don't tell their employer, or journalists, or anyone else outside Wikipedia apart from this: when we link accounts together to prove who's doing the sockpuppetry, which account is the primary account, and which are the sockpuppets, this record is visible to people searching for employees, stories, etc. If someone has foolishly linked their real identity to their sockpuppets, their sockpuppets can be found by anyone searching for their real identity. -- zzuuzz (talk) 15:09, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * WP implies that it might simply "out" people; i.e. make publicly available confidential real world identity information from their account(s). If you you said is true, then you are doing a better communication job than Wikipedia is, and what you are saying is contrary to the impression the WP is giving. North8000 (talk) 17:02, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see where the policy page could be interpreted as saying that confidential real world identity information could be made public. The check user policy is very clear that the kind of information you are talking about would never be released.  If you can explain what is leading you to believe that is what this policy says we can try to rewrite it so it does not give that implication.   GB  fan  18:29, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * <comments by suspected sockpuppet of banned user removed. Per WP:BAN, all edits of banned users may be removed and reverted on sight regardless of content.—  Dæ  dαlus Contribs 07:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)>
 * So if I understand correctly, you believe we should not warn editors that people outside of Wikipedia could look into what they are doing because it might cause them anxiety? I do not understand the logic in that, people can do it whether we tell them or not, at least this way they have some idea it might happen.  I think it is an appropriate warning to have on the page.   GB  fan  18:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Most people would take the sentence that is the topic of this discussion to be implying that Wikipedia would leak their confidential real world identity information as punishment for probable sockpuppetry. Think about it.  Given that a typical Wikipedian  does not have their real world identity public in Wikipedia, by what method are those real world threats (employers etc.) going to come true. ? North8000 (talk) 19:52, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikimedia's privacy policy states that no technical information will be published about users. I have added a link to that page on the policy page to address your concerns.   GB  fan  03:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

You know you folks have been duped, right? That being said, don't let that stop you folks from engaging in a meaningful conversation started by a banned user. –MuZemike 04:33, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Edits of obvious WP:DUCK account(see their talk page) of banned user redacted, per WP:BAN. Banned editors are not allowed to edit wikipedia, and their edits are not allowed to remain.  I haven't archived the discussion, as aside from the trolling sockpuppet, there is actually a real discussion by real editors going on here; a discussion that has a chance of continuing..   So I see no need to archive it as Mu has said.  But don't re-add the edits of banned user Jessica Liao.—  Dæ  dαlus Contribs 07:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Just making note of this, I started a new essay called Consequences of sock puppetry, where this issue can be discussed.

Multiple anonymous IPs
I've observed one particular person (I believe it's most likely one person) who does genre warrioring through multiple anonymous IPs. Since this is not the place to report people, I do not want this to count as a complaint of sockpuppetry. I do have an curiosity about this practice, though. Is there a specific name for a person using exclusively anonymous IPs (for instance, say, 35+ accounts) to make mostly unwikipedian edits, or does that also fall under the term "sockpuppetry"? Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 23:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, sometimes it is not the person's fault that one's IP range is so dynamic because of how ISPs have their networks set up for their customers. That being said, genre-trolling is genre-trolling, and if it's surely disruptive, admins have tools to make (range)blocks and protect articles if need be. –MuZemike 23:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * As an aside, a range block is such situations is blocking thousands of people to block one sock puppet. North8000 (talk) 23:55, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You're certainly correct. Many times, we're fortunate that such IP ranges don't happen to be very busy that we can rangeblock long enough to stop the disruption; admins have tools in which to judge how busy a range is in order to determine whether or not to block and how long. –MuZemike 23:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess I'm a little jaded. When I just got started I couldn't get an account for the first two months due to a range block for "sock puppet investigation" which I'm guessing blocked thousands of people (all of the dynamically assigned addresses for an ISP) for two months. When I inquired in one of the question sections, the answer given was "tell your neighbors to stop vandalizing". —Preceding unsigned comment added by North8000 (talk • contribs) 01:31, 24 August 2010
 * It is unfortunate that was the response given to you. Whomever did that was completely wrong and should never have given that answer. They should have worked with you and helped you create an account so you could edit.   GB  fan  02:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that was an inappropriate response about telling the neighbors to stop. The IP range blocking is a foreign concept to me. It looks like it could be implemented if necessary. Where would be an appropriate page to report disruption from simiarly named IP ranges? Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 02:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Registered editor working with sock puppet
I just noticed an editor having a jolly discussion on his talk page of how to influence an article with an infamous sockpuppet who was editing at that moment under an AnonIp. He kept it up after another editor exposed the sock. I also commented on which sock he was. The other editor also mentioned their "alliance" on the talk page of the article in question. This article was so assaulted by that SockPuppet and AnonIps, that IPs were banned. And now there are newly registed editors with same POVs, trying to undermine a clear preference, even after an RfC, that the topic of the article remain broad and not the narrow topic they have been soapboxing for months about. Is this an ANI type activity? And should working with Socks be discouraged in the article? Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:15, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This should probably be brought up at WP:SPI. That is the appropriate place for sock puppet investigations.   GB  fan  03:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

How to deal with alleged meat puppetry?

 * Looking at his talk page again I see that he has boasted about bringing in a lot of new people who agree with him, i.e., meat puppets (the anon Ips/new registered users above, no doubt). Dealing with the sock is easy (though since it's a one day AnonIp, is it worth reporting him?). But this article says: Wikipedia has processes in place to mitigate the disruption caused by meatpuppetry: But what are the processes?? This article needs to make it clear. WP:SPI didn't seem to say either. Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk)
 * hi all it appears i am the source of this post. "I assume 114.73.173.184 is Banned User:Karmaisking?"  didn't know i was supposed to delete talk page comments based on this evidence. isnt there an more official way of knowing who is telling the truth?   "eventually enough libertarians will join this debate to drown out fringe theory on this page, i am working to achieve such at this very moment."  so by contributing to the talk page debate, i am now a meatpuppet?  does "drown out fringe=meatpuppet?  my intent was to improve the libertarian article as seen by my edits, which stand still.  Darkstar1st (talk) 16:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That doesn't answer the question of how to proceed. You can make defenses after all information is brought to appropriate venue, which is yet unidentified. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:49, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Per edit summary, added "(or meat puppets)" to "Sockpuppet investigations" section since archives of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations explicitly said the issue is handled handled there. If I'm wrong please make clear in this article where else meat puppets handled. Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:47, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Expanding the CLEANSTART section
I have taken the liberty of expanding the information provided to editors with respect to CLEANSTART. As someone who uses both oversight and checkuser permissions, I've become aware of multiple situations in which editors who legitimately used the clean start option had not considered the full ramifications of doing so. CLEANSTART is not a particularly effective method of protecting editor privacy if the editor returns to the same editing area (where xe will usually be recognized by others in the topic area, and possibly subjected to an SPI). If there is a genuine need to abandon an account for privacy reasons, a complete change in editing patterns and topics is required and, even then, it is not guaranteed. Risker (talk) 06:29, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Building on this, "clean start" now has its own page where it can be more accurately documented. It always did sit uneasily at WP:SOCK, because apart from noting that a clean start is a legit use of a 2nd account, the "when it's allowed" and "how to do it" and privacy issues are not really main sock policy issues. As it was before, the "clean start" text not only added to the sock policy length in an off-topic manner, but also in trying to keep it short, it reduced clarity for people who needed to have clean start spelled out in more detail so they could know what it was, and was not.


 * In turn this move allows a somewhat more direct and simple explanation of its sock related issues at WP:SOCK. which may reduce confusion there.


 * Hopefully this helps. (Crossposted to both talk pages) FT2 (Talk 11:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Project space discussion edits
I notice this wording in the lead paragraph:
 * Alternative accounts should not be used to...edit project discussions (e.g. policy debates and Arbitration proceedings)

I just noticed the wording while browsing the page. As it happens I often follow and contribute to project-space discussions using my telephone when I'm out and about, and I use a well known alternative account, User:Tasty monster, to do so. There are good technical reasons to do so, which I won't bore you with. In the signature there is a pointer to my main account and the user pages of both accounts confirm that it is my alternate account.

I also note that other editors in good standing do the same (for instance, see this edit by an alternative account of the administrator User:2over0). Is there a good reason for this blanket ban on editing project space from an alternate account? --TS 13:06, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That is a summary of line in the WP:ILLEGIT section that reads Undisclosed alternate accounts... – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 13:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the opening para could be clearer. I think the word "undisclosed" should be in there. --TS 13:44, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No objection here. – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 13:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I've drafted a new wording on the page:
 * Alternative accounts should not be used to avoid scrutiny; mislead or deceive other editors; make disruptive edits with one account and normal edits with another; distort consensus; stir up controversy; or circumvent sanctions or policy. Undisclosed alternative accounts should not be used to edit project discussions (e.g. policy debates and Arbitration proceedings). These same principles apply to editors who decide to cease editing under one account and restart under another.


 * Please revert or tweak as desired. --TS 13:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I spotted this a while back, this thread might give you some ideas. The current text has other issues - not least a user who legitimately segregates their editing due to social/family issues or a contentious topic, and the article their undisclosed alt is working on gets AFD'ed. Under current norms they can only respond at AFD using a disclosed alt. So this whole section has an issue. Try this rewrite for "project space editing":


 * {| style="border:black solid 1px" width="95%"


 * Users should not use an undisclosed alternate account for project space activity that could be seen as contentious or deserving scrutiny if fully disclosed. "Disclosed" means that the status of the account is clear to anyone participating in the debate, or is clear from the alternate accounts user page. It is the user's responsibility to comply with this policy for undisclosed alternates.
 * }


 * Examples would include:
 * Use of an undisclosed alternate account to segregate content and project space editing;
 * Use of an undisclosed alternate account to separate contentious behavior between accounts;
 * Involving a second undisclosed account of the same user in a project space editing or issue, where the same user is already involved under another account, or in a misleading manner.


 * The examples duplicate "Contributing to the same page or discussion with multiple accounts" and "Avoiding scrutiny" - are they needed?


 * FT2 (Talk 01:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposal - split MEATPUPPETRY onto a separate page
Proposal to split meat puppetry off from sock puppetry as a separate policy article. Main questions focus on whether a separate policy statement is needed. -- Ludwigs 2 00:14, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I like how someone recently split CLEANSTART onto a separate page.

Now, it is time to do the same for MEATPUPPETRY. Meatpuppetry, although similar, is an entirely different concept. While sock puppetry is committed all by a single person, meatpuppetry involves the use of multiple people to be disruptive. It is more akin to canvassing than to sockpuppetry.

Unless there is opposition, I am planning to split MEATPUPPETRY onto a separate page in within several days. Hellno2 (talk)


 * Since there was no opposition for several days, I just moved it. It'll take several edits to complete the move. Hellno2 (talk) 04:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The move has been done, and it is now in WP:Meat puppetry as a proposed guideline.  A discussion is underway at Wikipedia talk:Meat puppetry to decide if it should be ratified as a guideline.  Please provide any comments there.  --Noleander (talk) 03:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the former content of WP:SOCK dealing with meatpuppetry must be put back into WP:SOCK immediately and remain there for the time being. WP:SOCK is a long standing policy. As a result of a split, the part of it dealing with meatpuppetry suddenly lost ALL of its status (policy, guideline, whatever). There was certainly no consensus to do that. If we are to drop a long-standing section of WP:SOCK as a policy-level document, explicit consensus for doing that must be established first. That did not happen here and the current situation is unacceptable. Nsk92 (talk) 07:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I have restored the pre-split status quo situation: restored the meatpuppetry section of WP:SOCK and pointed all the relevant redirects back there. Nsk92 (talk) 07:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

There is a proposal to split-off the WP:Meat section of the Sock policy into its own, dedicated policy page. The purpose of the split would be the following: Initially, the split-off Meat page could just be a copy of the current WP:Meat section that is within the WP:Sock page. Over time, the Meat policy page may expand with additional details, guidance, and examples. A draft copy of the new Meat page is at Meat puppetry. Note that this draft page contains some examples and counter-examples that have not yet gone through consensus-approval process yet, so that additional detail may or may not be part of the initial version of the proposed Meat page, if the split is approved. --Noleander (talk) 14:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Provide a focused location for Meat-puppetry based policies
 * Avoid confusion that stems from mixing Meat-puppetry and Sock-puppetry in one article
 * There is a signifiant difference bewtween meat-puppetry and sock-puppetry: the former is several editors collaborating in an improper way; the latter is a single editor typically trying to avoid a block/ban.  They are quite distinct, and putting the Meat policy within the Sock policy page is confusing.
 * Provide a page to contain examples and exceptions that clarify the Meat policy
 * Some editors have reported confusion over what constitutes Meat puppetry, suggesting that additional detail and examples are needed
 * If we leave the Meat section in the WP:Sock page, it limits the amount of detail (examples, etc) that can be put into the Meat section
 * Recently, there have been an increased reports of Meat-puppetry incidents in WP, and it is useful to have a dedicated policy page to help editors find guidance on how to deal with such incidents
 * Support - For the reasons listed above in the proposal. I agree that we don't want a huge number of policy pages,  but on the other hand, the policy pages should provide clarity to editors seeking guidance.   Burying the Meat policy as a section within the Sock policy page makes it hard to understand the goals and details of the Meat policy.  My perception is that the incidence of reported meat-puppetry in WP is increasing, not decreasing, so theres is a strong need for detailed guidance on Meat puppetry.  --Noleander (talk) 14:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak support. I guess I would like to see first how much support there is in the community for the continued existence of WP:MEAT in any form, but basically I agree with Noleander's reasoning above. However, to begin with, if the split occurs, the initial version of the split-off page needs to be an exact copy of the current WP:MEAT section. Further details, such as examples etc need to be worked out later, after a discussion. Nsk92 (talk) 14:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I concur that any new Meat policy must start as an exact copy of current Meat section, and subsequent changes must be discussed. --Noleander (talk) 15:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Support - completely different meanings, deserves separate pages. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose - what's broken that needs fixing? MEAT is a crucially important part of our ability to deal with some of the worst process problems on the encyclopedia.  The actual policy on meatpuppetry is about proxy editing, bad faith stuff, not innocent canvassing, herd mentality, or cabals. People who oppose the policy or support the perennial proposal to move or abolish MEAT because they think it punishes people for being of like mind are missing the point, because that's not what it is.  That would be a misapplication of policy.  Note the statement that Arbcom has decided when there is uncertainty between meatpuppetry and socking, it's considered same thing.   The gist of MEAT is that when two different accounts are doing the same contentious things we don't need to prove one way or another whether it is a single individual with two logins, one individual telling another what to do, or two editing under a common scheme, it's all the same.  As such MEAT is a subset of SOCK, and it is closer to DUCK than CANVASS.  - Wikidemon (talk) 14:46, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand what you are saying, but isn't there a need for guidance to editors to explain the collaboration aspect of the issue? What kinds of collaboration are permitted?  Which are prohibited?  Why?  What are some examples of permitted or prohibited collaboration?  These are significant questions that are not yet clearly explained in a policy.  Burying the Meat section within the SOCK policy (which, by definition, involves only a single editor) is confusing.  On the other hand, I do agree that in many situations the symptoms are similar and hence the remedy is similar.  But that similarity is incidental, not essential.  --Noleander (talk) 14:58, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The proposed split does not seek to do away with WP:MEAT or to downgrade its status but rather to elaborate it. I think Noleander is correct that in a technical sense meatpuppetry is actually quite different from sockpuppetry. To quote from Noleander, "the former is several editors collaborating in an improper way; the latter is a single editor typically trying to avoid a block/ban". I also think Noleander is correct that expanding WP:MEAT by adding more examples and a more extended discussion of what does/does not constitute meatpuppetry would be beneficial. It is easier to do that if WP:MEAT is a separate page. Nsk92 (talk) 15:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose: At least for now. I don't think there's enough distinction between the meat-puppetry and sock-puppetry to warrant a separate page.  see the thread I'm starting below: . -- Ludwigs 2  16:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Cautious support. Because I would like to see MEAT get thought out some more, rather than just be treated as an afterthought to SOCK. I'm going to explain what I mean by that some more in the thread below. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Procedural note: I would suggest that one of the editors who were first in discussing this question post an RfC about it under policies/guidelines, to get more attention. (I found it from the Village Pump.) --Tryptofish (talk) 18:36, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- Ludwigs 2 00:15, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 00:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Support if... WP:MEAT would retain its "status" as a fully-fledged policy equivalent to what it is now, equally undesirable and enforceable. Given the fact which others have noted--that Wikipedia is seeing an increasing number of direct POV attacks by external forces (from the ongoing problems with JIDF, to the Daily Kos/Fox news brouhaha)--it seems like it would help us to more fully treat what constitutes Meat-puppetry and what does not in a separate page.  Obviously, we'll never be able to fully define what is meat-puppetry and what is close collaboration, but that's true whether this is one article or two.  This would also, I think, simplify WP:SOCK, since, as others pointed out above, we often (but not always) have more technical tools available at our disposal to identify socks.  As a caveat, one problem I can foresee is that, while I don't recall any cases specifically, I feel like there are times where we identify a set of editors as most likely being either Socks or Meat-puppets, although we can't actually distinguish which of the two it is, because the technical tools give ambiguous answers.   Qwyrxian (talk) 05:02, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose: far too many policies already. Rename this one "Sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry" if that would better reflect its scope. (But in fact we should be looking to merge policies, not split them - why not just have a single policy on right and wrong ways to reach Consensus? Having very similar material on separate pages inevitably leads to duplication at best, and contradiction at worst.)--Kotniski (talk) 09:17, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I could go along with re-naming to "Sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry" and including more detail (examples and counter-examples) in the Meat section.  (Oddly, re-naming seems like more of an uphill battle than creating a new policy page :-)  --Noleander (talk) 13:24, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose split. The two concepts are closely aligned. There are times when we can't tell whether we're dealing with sock- or meatpuppetry, and it often doesn't matter which it is. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 18:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Conditional leaning to support - A lot depends how it is done. I would be fine with a separate policy covering meatpuppetry/external recruitment or ditching the historic term "meat-puppetry" (No external soliciting?), provided both policies cross-referred to each other and made clear that meatpuppetry and other multiple accounts that cannot be distinguished from a single user or a recruited group may be treated as sock-puppetry for Wikipedia purposes and may be interpreted as thinly disguised sock-puppetry by users. My tentative support if done right is that the two are different and WP:MEAT might benefit from a bit of space and a single focus. My main objection is that WP:SOCK has such a tight involvement with it that I'm still unsure whether splitting it out will be beneficial. It's possibly beneficial, but I still have reservations and can't decide if they are for good reasons or purely habitual expectation. I'll think about it, and probably write up a quick draft to see what consensus says. FT2 (Talk 01:18, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * As you write your draft, you may want to refer to WP:Meat puppetry which is also a draft Meat policy that has been started - mostly by cloning the Meat section from the Sock policy, and adding some examples and counter-examples. --Noleander (talk) 01:32, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Like Slimvirgin, I think the concepts are closely related and it often doesn't make any practical difference. And like Kotniski, I think we should be trying to reduce the number of policy pages not making the tangled thicket more dense and inscrutable. older ≠ wiser 02:07, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Solution in search of a problem. Also encourages creation of pointless artificial distinctions between sock/meatpuppetry when they are treated exactly the same way, especially since it is often difficult to tell between the two. T. Canens (talk) 23:34, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I agree with SlimVirgin & T. Canens: sometimes no clear distinction can be made. Jarkeld (talk) 05:59, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Meat puppetry issue
Let me start by saying that I understand why meat puppetry is an issue on Wikipedia. It's pretty much the same issue I was involved with a while back on wp:tag team editing: It really sucks when it feels like a bunch of editors are teaming up on you in a nefarious way. That being said, though, we do need to see the real problem here, which has nothing to do with editors coordinating per se, but is about the way in which editors coordinate. consider the following cases: The first case is clearly noxious, the second may or may not be, the third is reasonable but can be abused, and the forth is entirely non-problematic (in fact, it's pretty much a part of cooperative editing). In fact, the problem is not that editors are coordinating, but rather that in the first case the coordination is disruptive, in the second the coordination is non-productive, and in the third case the coordinated goal may be prejudicial rather than reasoned.
 * 1) An editor or editors who cooperate to disrupt a talk page sufficiently so no forward action can be taken, or to try to elicit some kind of peremptory administrative action.
 * 2) An editor or editors who convinces a bunch of friends to come and comment or vote on some kind of discussion.
 * 3) A number of editors with a common goal who are working to ensure some point gets made on the project.
 * 4) A number of editors who happen to agree on a particular point, and happen to make the same kinds of points in discussion.

The focus on whether editors are cooperating nefariously just lends itself to paranoia, and will almost invariable incur bad feelings on both sides - I've never seen meat puppet accusations do anything except stir up ugly, fruitless commentary. But to my mind, the thing that distinguishes the acceptable types of cooperation from the unacceptable types in that the unacceptable types simply aim to increase the noise in the system: whipping up emotions, adding pointless comments, exaggerating minor disputes, being a wiki-narc to try to tangle things up administratively, making endless repetitions of the same material... If we work on policies that will cut the noise (thus increasing the signal-to-noise ratio on talk pages), cooperation between editors will no longer be something that we need to worry about. do you see what I mean? -- Ludwigs 2 17:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with most of what you say above. Could you clarify whether or not you proposing a specific modification to the existing Meat policy (that is within the Sock policy page)?   Do you want the Meat policy eliminated?  or changed?  Also, could you relate your  suggestion to the above proposal to split-off the Meat section into a dedicated article:  do you want the split proposal suspended until we get consensus on your delete/modify proposal?  Regardless of what your answers are to these questions (and yes, I still would like to see the answers :-)  I think that the issues you raise do argue in favor of a dedicated Meat policy page.  Because whatever we decide (in response to your concerns) it should be captured in a prominent place for future editors to refer to ... and what better place than a dedicated Meat policy page?  --Noleander (talk) 17:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the following (and I like lists, in case you hadn't noticed... ):
 * I think meat-puppetry should be restricted to the SOCK page, clearly distinguishing between the kinds of cases listed above.
 * I do not think there should be a separate meat-puppetry page (I'm not even sure anymore whether the wp:tag team page is useful).
 * I do think we should focus on the way we handle and moderate consensus discussions, so that we can remove the advantages that meat-puppetry might give. If no one can get the upper hand on a page by dragging in vocal outsiders, then no one except idiots will bother trying to do it.
 * My point is that meat-puppetry, like non-vandalistic sock-puppetry, is designed to subvert consensus. If we pay attention to consensus in its proper form so that it can't be subverted that way, then we will no longer have a problem.  let's not focus on an aggravating symptom and ignore the underlying disease.  -- Ludwigs 2  18:12, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Ludwigs2, I see what you mean, and I definitely agree that we need to be careful not to gin up more reasons for editors to be suspicious of one another. But I also am sensitive to another side of the issue that you didn't mention. There are, unfortunately, external websites that exist for the purpose of "wikigroaning" (see also: WP:Griefing), and they sometimes serve to recruit large numbers of meatpuppets to disrupt for a specific agenda. Not quite a year ago, I ended up being targeted for personal attacks by an external site that was hung up on, of all things, disliking references to anime at Wikipedia (because I had opposed deletion of an image at what is now Crucifixion in the arts). In a more grown-up, but also disruptive, example, there was quite recently the call at the Daily Kos for people to come to Wikipedia and argue that Fox News is not a reliable source. I can tell you from personal experience that having large numbers of single purpose accounts showing up all at once to push a coordinated agenda can effectively shut down any sort of thoughtful consensus building in processes such as RfCs. The problem is largely one of enforcement. With socks, we can run Checkuser, but there is nothing equivalent for meats. All we currently can do is count some !votes less than others. Taking this all together, I'd like to see MEAT improved, and I think that there is some value in treating it as something distinct from SOCK. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, I agree with you. I just happen to think the solution to the problem is to put some teeth into the consensus process, rather than trying to walk a tightrope on what is-and-is-not proper cooperation.  Large numbers of SPAs showing up to push an agenda is a disruption problem that needs shutting down, yes, but I think we should shut it down as redundant noise, not as illicit cooperation.  'redundant noise' is demonstrable and clear - it's obvious when someone is just parroting without improving the debate.  illicit cooperation is difficult to prove and subject to a whole lot of wikilawyering.  same result in the long run, but the former is a lot more firmly on the moral high-ground.  -- Ludwigs 2  00:09, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Ludwig: Maybe you could help some of us understand what you are specifically proposing (for instance, contrasted with the draft Meat policy at WP:Meat puppetry).  What specifically would you propose to "put some teeth into the consensus process"?  --Noleander (talk) 00:13, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Good, this discussion is moving in a good direction. I'm definitely interested in putting more "teeth" into this in some way, for the reasons I gave above. The question, to which I don't know the answer, is how to do that. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:33, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * This is something I've discussed in other places, and this is maybe not the best place for opening it again, so I'll give some brief commentary and we can move it someplace more appropriate if that seems useful. let me know what you think.


 * It boils down to this. Consensus discussion - ideally - are discussions geared towards giving convincing reasons for or against a particular change to an article.  One hopes that the various editors or sides involved will give clear reasons for why they think their perspective is the correct one, and that the other editors or sides will give clear counter-reasons, and that everyone involved will listen and work to reach some mutually acceptable position (which might mean that one side is convinced by the other or that both sides integrate their perspectives into some middle ground).  This actually works well in most cases, particularly where editors are somewhat detached from the topic and focused primarily on writing an encyclopedic article.  We are not concerned with cases where consensus discussions succeed, nor are we concerned with cases where consensus discussions fail in good faith (sometimes editors just can't manage to agree no mater how hard they try - that's what mediation is for).  What remains is cases where consensus discussions get fouled up by bad faith efforts of one sort or another.


 * Bad faith efforts always involve disruption of the communication process. This can have a lot of variations, but there are three basic forms of disruption:
 * emotional reasoning - using ad hominem arguments, personal attacks, stereotyping or labeling, loud proclamations of offense or insult, or any other technique designed to draw attention away from the topic under discussion and towards a discussion of the merits of the participants. it's impossible to have a reasoned conversation when someone is consistently indulging in name-calling and paranoid speculation about others' behavior.
 * tangential distraction - expostulating at length about numerous minor problem and quibbles, or simply venting at length about non- or semi- relevant material, so that the conversation is dominated by voluminous non-substantive chatter. Progress can never be made when constructive conversations are consistently being drowned out by kibble.
 * interminable repetition - consensus discussions need to build on previous points towards a future consensus. When one or more participants consistently regress to repeat a previous claim (thus forcing the entire conversation to regress and discuss that point again) the process becomes a non-productive nightmare.
 * Fixing the communication process itself is easy, technically-speaking, but difficult to do in practice since it basically means redacting counter-productive material liberally while leaving productive material intact. Effectively, some volunteer X needs to sit on the conversation and squelch disruptions to the communication process, but do so without actually disrupting or warping the communication in his own right.  for instance, if some editor makes a reasonable argument but peppers it liberally with mild incivilities or insinuations, X would redact the insinuations and incivilities and leave the reasonable argument in place.  If some editor starts flying off on a tangent, X would redact the tangent starting from where it goes off topic.  If some editor starts repeating a claim, X would redact it with a note that it was discussed in such-and-such a place, and comments should be added there, not here.


 * If this sounds draconian to you, you should consider that this happens normally in everyday conversation: usually non-verbally, where the sheer pressure of looking someone in the eye will keep you from mouthing off in serious discussions. The internet lacks that kind of interpersonal pressure, so people indulge in crapulence in online discussions they never would in face-to-face.  This system just sets up a surrogate to mimic natural social pressures.


 * Meat puppets might do any or all of the above, but generally speaking meat puppets don't say anything beyond what's redactable under this precept. A meat puppet will try to disrupt the communication process, but will get its posts redacted in their entirety, and then one of three things will happen: The MP will complain at someplace like ANI, and find itself having to explain why disruptive material shouldn't have been redacted - good luck with that. The MP will give it up as too difficult and not rewarding, and go do something else. Or (wonder of wonders) the MP will get stubborn and try to make a better argument - e.g. one that's on point enough that it can't be redacted - but then that's no longer a meat puppet, is it?  any way it goes, the sheer volume of kibble that gets added to the page is slashed by redactions, and what's left is the posts of people who are trying to make clear and effective communication.  Now (theoretically) the whole page dynamic will change because the disruptive tactics don't work; those uninterested in the article (those who were just there for the fight) will wander off, and those who are interested in the article will refocus on higher forms of discussion, because that's the only way they will be able to get their point across.


 * sorry, a bit longer than I like, and not presented quite as much in layman's terms as I might have hoped. Just be thankful I didn't start quoting Habermas  .  -- Ludwigs 2  03:27, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * While I like the idea in theory of being able to force a conversation to move forward, there are numerouss instance in which having the ability to redact like that would actually prevent consensus building discussions. As a really simple example, imagine an article that initially only has 3 or 4 editors, who come to a consensus on a given issue.  At some later time, imagine that the subject of the article suddenly becomes more widely interesting (maybe it's about a person/company/team who is now far more famous they previously were), and thus more editors are drawn to the article.  It would be highly unproductive for the 3-4 initial editors to be able to stop new discussions on any given topic just because the small "clique" had previously covered it before the dozen or more new editors arrived.  In general, it seems like a more productive approach to me is one we use now--acknowledge the new claim, but simply refute it by saying "we already discussed that; if you have new information, we'd be happy to re-discuss, but if you're just rehashing, let's move on." I know that we use this technique a lot at articles I watch about Japanese-Korean issues, which regularly have new people showing up saying "This whole article needs to be changed its all wrong everyone's knows it's a historical fact everyone who disagrees has been deceived by the enemy etc. etc. etc."  We just point out that consensus is pretty stable, so they're going to need to do some serious work to change that consensus.  Usually they just go away.  Furthermore, using your proposed technique of redaction seems really open to abuse; consider, for example Talk:Historicity of Jesus, and consider whether or not the various sides could possibly be trusted to use redaction properly.  Qwyrxian (talk) 04:52, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstood my point. This isn't giving everyone the power to redact anyone; this would need to be someone independent, whose only concern is maintaining the discussion against disruption.  It would be a decision made about particular pages to bring in someone specifically to deal with problematic argument styles, for the single purpose of giving the serious-minded editors the space they need to discuss the issues.  The best model, really, is an old-west town getting together and hiring a town sheriff, someone whose job it is to keep the peace without getting in the way: chilling out rowdies, keeping disputes from escalating, telling the kids to keep a civil tongue in their heads, occasionally giving someone who's seriously out of control a night in the pokey. Think John Wayne or Audie Murphy here, not Clint Eastwood, and you'll get the drift.  The point is to preserve consensus discussions in the face of efforts to disrupt them. if there is no disruption then there is no need for any of this: consensus will work just fine on its own.  -- Ludwigs 2  06:40, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Ludwig: I see where you are coming from, and I personally have often felt like WP needs a process that would let an independent editor intervene and force editors to be more civil and cooperative by the threat of punishment (sounds harsh, I know - but we are now in 2010 and the time has come to require civil, forward-moving dialog in Talk pages, no?). My question for you is: Shouldn't we be discussing this proposal at a higher level, up at WP:Consensus or WP:Dispute resolution? I have a lot more to say on the matter (mostly agreeing with you), but it doesn't seem appropriate here in the Sock Talk page. Also, this is kinda interfering with the above discussion about whether or not to move the Meat section (unchanged) into its own policy page. --Noleander (talk) 13:21, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I said as much above. but, I got asked the question here, and it called for a response.  if there's interest in pursuing the idea then we'll take it elsewhere.  but don't think it's that separate of a discussion - to my mnd this would obviate the need for a meat-puppetry article.  -- Ludwigs 2  14:59, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * And thanks for answering!
 * My take on it is that it is a separate issue from the one we are discussing here. You argue that getting discussion onto a better track would make the need for a MEAT policy moot. Perhaps it would. Perhaps it would make SOCK and a whole lot of other policies moot too. After all, if all discussions would move smoothly towards a sensible consensus, that would be that. But changing the discussion process in the way that you propose would involve all kinds of issues (perhaps the inevitably controversial creation of some new category of user rights) that go WAY beyond what has been proposed here, and would be very messy (if not impossible) to get consensus to implement.
 * My sense of "putting teeth" into this would take a different form. Something along the lines of treating evidence of meatpuppeting, based on links to external sites where the solicitation can be seen, as being evidence that could be used to discount !votes in a discussion, and perhaps, to issue blocks. But even that involves a lot of complications, which is why I would prefer to think-tank it before proposing anything formal. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:15, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * ah, me... the real problem with the meat puppet thing is that it almost requires sysops to engage in mind reading.  I mean, let's take an extreme case: some new editor X says (en claire) that he was on an internet forum for some hyper-polemic topic, some other editor there posted a call-to-arms message telling people to come dispute a wikipedia page, and so editor X made an account here and did that.  how can we tell whether editor X is just a dumb meat-puppet, or is actually concerned about and interested in the topic and decided to participate in good faith?  Either we turn on the psychic beams and try to intuit why editor X decided to follow that call to arms, or else we judge him by his behavior after he comes on project.  but if we do the latter, then the meat-puppet issue is irrelevant.  This isn't like sock-puppetry: if an editor uses two accounts to edit the same page it's obvious something nefarious is going on.  But as far as I can see this whole meat-puppet thing is an after-the-fact justification (e.g. new editor X is behaving badly, seems to be in contact with editor Y, therefore X must be Y's meat puppet).  is that really productive?  -- Ludwigs 2  02:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is, indeed, a problem. When I had that incident with the anime-haters, it seemed for a while like AN/I was paralyzed with indecision. (And I certainly realize that we can never know when someone has secretly e-mailed someone else to get them to meatpuppet.) My hope (and please understand that I'm thinking out loud here) is that, with further discussion, we may be able to work out a way of basing decisions on objectively observable conduct. Perhaps posting a "solicitation" at an external site, if clearly demonstrable, should be blockable, but responding to one should not be, for the reasons you just stated. However, we could make it very clear that when a flurry of new, single purpose accounts suddenly show up to push the same agenda after a verified posting on an external site, their !votes can be discounted and they can be scrutinized for their subsequent on-Wiki conduct. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * well, I may bring this idea up at the wp:Village pump (idea lab). better forum for it.  -- Ludwigs 2  02:26, 26 September 2010 (UTC)