Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppetry/Archive 15

"Account" referring only to registered editors?
On the 15th, McDutchie changed, "Wikipedia editors are generally expected to edit using only one (preferably registered) account." to "Wikipedia editors are generally expected to edit using only one account." McDutchie's argument is that "There is and can be no such thing as a non-registered account." On May 21, McDutchie changed "only" to "at most," arguing "since editing with an account is not actually obligatory."

I reverted since, in my experience, IPs have been called accounts as well. It's why we even qualify "account" with "registered account." It's why editors sometimes state "IP account." It's also why the policy was the way it was before McDutchie's edits. Thoughts? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:29, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I've addressed this above, as did McDutchie in the edit summary. Amongst other things, it is usually technically impossible to stick to one IP address. Users talking about 'IP accounts' usually aren't too 'technical'. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:33, 22 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, you've addressed it. And I await other opinions. I've seen very experienced editors state "IP account." But since IPs can change, I suppose the current wording should be changed back to McDutchie's wording. The original wording, however, is trying to state that socking as an IP is not allowed either, whether or not multiple IPs are used. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:38, 22 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't think the original wording did a good job of stating that, but I also don't think it needs to, as it is stated clearly and repeatedly elsewhere in the policy. In the summary: "Do not log out just to vandalize as an IP address editor". In the policy itself: "Sock puppetry can take on several different forms: [...] Logging out to make problematic edits as an IP address" and various other mentions. – McDutchie (talk) 00:37, 23 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I thought about that too. I've gone ahead and reverted myself. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:51, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

New shortcuts
Mr. Guye, how likely do you think it is that someone will use "WP:GÄNGER" as a shortcut? Your WP:DOPP one seems fine, though. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:58, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * GÄNGER and gänger are not useful - nobody is going to search for or type those - so I've removed them from the policy and deleted the redirect per WP:R3. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 19:32, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, those are what I was wondering about. I can understand someone typing "GANGER," if it became popular enough, but typing "GÄNGER" is far less likely unless they see it at this policy page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:02, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Even if useful for some, there is no reason to advertise in linkboxes on the policy. So many linkboxed shortcuts are clutter.  They should be only shortcuts already widely used, and should not be an explosion of jargon discouraging people from using English.  In any discussion between humans, the use of WP:GÄNGER is inferior to using Sock_puppetry.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:53, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, I agree somewhat, but it's still useful to have some of the shortcuts listed in policies. I often direct users to various policies, and when I'm typing my comment, I don't want to use relevant policy when I can use relevant policy. Since I can't always remember the shortcut to the section I want, it's very useful to have them listed in the policy. I'm sure that there are plenty of other editors who need to look them up on occasion as well. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 01:31, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Jargon is often useful, and it is often useful to have the jargon pasted on post-it notes around the rim of your monitor. That is kind of like the linkboxes are.  The policy currently has twenty six (26) linkbox advertised shortcuts, plus anther 82 incoming redirects.  Is that a good number to have?  Seems overkill to me.  Sock_puppetry has four ion its own.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:59, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Suggested addition to the "Legitimate uses" section
Given this situation, where a "legitimate sock", presumably created under the "Privacy" provision, has been indeffed for violating WP:ADVOCACY, I think it would be useful, and protective of the encyclopedia, to add something to that provision which says something on the order of:

"The use of the privacy provision to create a legitimate alternative account is voided if that sock is shown to have violated basic Wikipedia policies and been blocked for it, in which case the connection between the sock and the master account must be disclosed. If the editor involved refuses to do so, the master account can be disclosed by any editor who has been made aware of the connection in their official capacity as arbitrator, bureaucrat, checkuser, or administrator. If no one is aware of the connection between the master account and the blocked sock, CU may be utilized to determine it."

Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:51, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * This is all already covered, albeit less specifically than in your proposal. I'd oppose based on rule/witchhunt creep. Primergrey (talk) 20:34, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * If it's already covered, why is this "coverage" not being considered in the AN discussion I linked above? It would be helpful if you were to go there and explain how the main account's privacy is no longer a factor, and that the main account can be blocked.  That action is definitely not in play at the moment. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:48, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Please consider commenting here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:08, 5 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm not a fan of doing it this way. If someone is incivil, that shouldn't out them.  If they get in a edit war one time, that shouldn't out them.  One of the foundations of Wikipedia is being able to be anonymous.  I personally think this is best left alone and handled case by case.  Any CU or Arb that wants to already knows who it is.  I think that currently, if the offense is bad enough, the community already accepts that their right to privacy has been voided.  The real question is: Who gets to decide this.  Since privacy is the realm of Arb, that is who should handle it with at least a 3 person panel.  This is exactly what we elect them to do, deal with privacy issues that can't always be handled online. Even if they do screw up and break policy, there are sometimes real world consequences if they are connected, dangers even.  Sometimes it is better for Arb to just quietly Arb block the master.  If we want to officially assign this to them, then I would agree.  This is one of the things they actually do well.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 11:05, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Technically, I could file a John Doe Arb request, but I'm hoping to get them to just take it on without the request, as I think they should since the blocking admin has asked them to. We will see.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 11:08, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Obviously, I disagree -- I think having a "legitimate sock" for privacy reasons is a privilege and not a right, and when an editor violates basic policies, there should be repercussions above and beyond simply having the sock blocked. I would have no objection to more specifically spelling out what transgressions would qualify for losing the privilege of privacy -- simple incivility shouldn't be counted, since pretty much everyone on Wikipedia is uncivil at one time or another (given that the place and some of the people in it can drive you slightly batty), but advocacy and POV editing, continual copyvios, BLP violations, unreported paid editing, non-legit socking, stuff like that shouldn't simply be swept under the rug and have essentially no downside for the editor avoiding WP:SCRUTINY via a claim of privacy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:16, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * In theory I agree, but practice is very problematic. Only CUs have access to who the master account is.  Admin and regular editors do not, and CU might not even be able to link.  In the case that spawned this,  has told me that Arb is looking at the matter and to me, that is where it belongs.  They are elected specifically to deal with privacy issues and they aren't so busy that they can't look at a case or two a year in private and make the call for borderline cases.  For cases where someone claims privacy and uses the account to vandalize or do actual damage, I'm sure any CU is glad to link them at SPI because it is a privilege.  But sometimes, there are real world consequences which is why we need some cases reviewed in private.  Arb is the only body we have that can do that.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 23:14, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Good points. I simply think that it needs to be embodied in policy that misuse of the privacy privilege will (or is likely to) lead to losing it. As it stands now, that is far from clear, as indicated by the disparity of the opinions expressed in the AN thread. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:22, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * One of the advantages of a vague policy is that vagary gives us flexibility and the ability to apply WP:COMMONSENSE. I'm a fan of not pinning down too much detail in policy.  It makes it easier to wikilawyer, and slower to get handled quickly at AN.  If policy is too specific, some might have argued against my oddball block simply because some people love to play wikilawyer.  Overly specific rules eat into admin discretion. If I was going to add something, I would simply add "Using the privacy provision to create an account which abuses this right in any way may result in having the account publicly linked to your main account for sanctions.".  I don't think we need to spell out how we will do it.  It doesn't happen often, let us decide each circumstance as it comes.  Again, I don't think it is required, but if we must, lets keep it simple and open ended. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 23:43, 5 June 2017 (UTC)


 * In my view, the main issue in this specific case is that the main account is not known, so Dennis Brown couldn't block it. My sense is that Dennis Brown does believe that the main account should be blocked and the post to AN really had two purposes - to have that block reviewed and to get the attention of arbs so that they would look at it and block the main account.   And they should do.  The editor violated the policy  WP:NOTADVOCACY.   This policy is very clear that .   Dennis am I right that this is your view?


 * Where it seems that views depart is that once both accounts have been blocked under this policy, whether the two accounts should be publicly linked on each other's userpages. Dennis what I think I hear you saying, is that this should simply be left to Arbcom's judgement, and what I am hearing from BMK is assurance that Arbcom will do that.


 * I think that when the block is for a pattern of policy violation and not a one-off (e.g. not a block for violating 3RR once, or for losing your temper once) there should be a presumption that they will be linked. Arbcom needs a policy to follow but should be able to exercise judgement.  What if the policy I just quoted were changed as follows:

Using a second account to violate policy persistently will cause any penalties to be applied to your main account, and in the case of sanctions, bans, or blocks, evasion typically causes the timer to restart. See also WP:EVASION.

In cases where you were using an alternative account under the justification of privacy and penalties are applied to the alternative account, the following process will be followed. If the penalty was applied by an individual administrator, the administrator will post at WP:AN asking for their action to be reviewed. If the penalty is upheld, and in cases where the penalty was applied through community action, Arbcom will then identify the main account and block it. Arbcom should then post the standard alternative account disclosure notices on each accounts' Userpage; in rare cases and with a publicly posted justification, Arbcom may elect not to link the accounts.


 * Does that work for folks? It is a bit of legislating process (which I know is offensive to you Dennis), but this would provide guidance to everybody about expectations, including people who use alternative accounts under the privacy justification.  This will obviously need an RfC eventually.   Jytdog (talk) 23:54, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

No, no, no. This is the kind of stuff that makes me give up my admin bit every year. Making policy so specific that it hamstrings admin. This is why I tend to oppose most expansions of policy. Try being an admin for a day and enforcing policy with all these rules. We aren't stupid, or if we are, ask us to resign. It is frustrating to see people try to nail down every single detail in policy because it makes it harder to admin. Without ANY extra rules, I handled this block, the editing stopped, Arb is reviewing. We didn't need any more "rules" to do this. Why would you want to add more verbiage and guarantee that next time it will take more time? If you don't want admin to have any discretion, get bots to do our jobs. All this rules and outlines and process hurts enforcement. It's hard to understand unless you are an admin, but the KISS principle applies. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 00:02, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I very much understand where you are coming from. What I laid out there is exactly what you did (which was very clueful, as one would expect from you).   What it does it make expectations clear for everybody, including people using alt accounts. Would Franzboas be acting as they have and are, if they knew that their privacy would be removed if they did?  (This seems to be a case where somebody is using anonymity as a license to act badly - if their main account edits productively, they certainly are capable of socially acceptable behavior, right?)   And perhaps it has been so long since you were not an admin that you don't understand BMK's anxiety.   (?)  .... but in general I very much hear you about KISS.  Jytdog (talk) 00:08, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * This assumes they read the policy, which may not be the case. Also, if you added my very short suggestion, it would actually be more powerful because there is more "unknown".  They only know that if they screw up, they may get linked.  How I did it this time worked.  Next time, it may be better to put to the community.  I can't say with authority that my method will always be the best method.  It was, different, to say the least.  I think many admin would not have done what I did and have taken to a discussion.  Simplicity in policy is what empowers me to be bold.  Some policies are muddy enough that I simply won't enforce them, I just move on to other things.  If you want good adminship, then make it easy to get or lose the bit, and make it easy to be creative at solving problems with plenty of discretion.  If you want poor adminship, hamstring them with lots of strict rules to memorize, so no one wants to do the paperwork.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 00:14, 6 June 2017 (UTC)


 * OK I hear you, and I like your proposed more simple addition but please replace "right" (we get so many people confused that they have "rights" here) with something else like: "Using the privacy provision to create an account which abuses this right used abusively in any way may result in having the account publicly linked to your main account for sanctions.".. I would support that. Jytdog (talk) 00:23, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I think Dennis' point about vagueness and keeping flexibility alive for admins is a good one, and that his suggested addition (as amended): "Using the privacy provision to create an account which abuses this right privilege in any way may result in having the account publicly linked to your main account for sanctions." would largely accomplish what I set out to do without being overly specific, and gives admins and Arbs enough leeway to apply the principle appropriately given the specific circumstances. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:34, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that "right" isn't the right word. Trust me, being an admin and having to be the "expert" on policy is overrated.  If anything, we have way too much complexity as it is and I would imagine that is why many good, experienced editors don't want to be admin.  Many days, I don't want to be an admin.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 00:39, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The complexity is largely due to the nature of the beast: a mass consensus-based quasi-libertarian headless monster. Given that, it's no wonder our policies grow like Topsy - in fact, it's amazing that they aren't more complex than they are.  What we really need is the equivalent of a Blue Ribbon Commission of respected editors to take a year or so and rewrite policy from scratch (preferably in a smoke-filled backroom so we don't use up all the electrons in the observable universe discussing their revisions to death), which are then put to an up-or-down vote by subject matter, with those being voted down sending the commission (or a new commission, which only deals with the defeated measures) back to the drawing board. Never happen, of course. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:48, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I"ve also noticed a minority of editors that don't care about articles as much as forming policy, which means growing them to give them something to do. I think they mean well, but policies look different depending on whether you have to edit under them, administer them, or just create them.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 01:13, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

As the discussions continue on AN, I think it becomes clearer that something needs to be added to the policy, in order to insure that future manipulations of the privacy provision are dealt with in some manner. I say this because we already have an arbitrator talking about the special circumstances of the Franzboas situation, and about it possibly not serving as a precedent -- but, of course, the point of adding a specific warning to the provision is to guarantee that it does become a precedent by making it part of the policy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:35, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * So shall we just be bold and add ""Using the privacy provision to create an account which is used abusively in any way may result in having the account publicly linked to your main account for sanctions." or "Using the privacy provision to create an account which abuses this privilege in any way may result in having the account publicly linked to your main account for sanctions." to the policy, or do we need an RfC? This of course will not apply to Franzboaz but will help guide everyone in future cases... Jytdog (talk) 04:45, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I was just bold and did this, which makes the following change:

"Although a privacy-based alternative account s are is not publicly connected to your main account, they it should not be used in ways outlined in the inappropriate uses section of this page, and if it is, all sanctions explained in this policy may be applied to the alternative and main accounts, including linking them within Wikipedia. If you are considering using an alternative account under this provision, please read the notification section below."
 * Thoughts? Jytdog (talk) 16:59, 9 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I still say that if you have to add something, then add "Using the privacy provision to create an account which abuses this privilege in any way may result in having the account publicly linked to your main account for sanctions." Everything else is already covered under WP:COMMONSENSE.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 20:45, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * This goes past that in two ways - adding the (obvious) about all sanctions - it felt weird to address only the linking thing, but I hear you how that is excess and removed it. I mentioned the notification section because the suggestion there to inform arbcom if you intend to use the privacy provision, is not common sense but is a good suggestion. Jytdog (talk) 21:22, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think talking about sanctions is that important because sanctions are for the actions of the account, not for creating the account itself (except socking, but this isn't that section.) Simplicity and a concise message on how the private account CAN be linked if abused is all that is needed.  What we will do will depend on that circumstance.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 21:35, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * i already agreed, dennis... or maybe you were reacting to my error (fixed by BMK here) where i left out "may be". if so, my apologies for the error. Jytdog (talk) 21:41, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Is this right?
Is asking admins via talk pages to unblock blocked users sock puppetry? 64.237.233.96 (talk) 13:59, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * If you aren't using your regular logged in account, it is block evasion. We don't block the account, we block the person.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 14:11, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Blocked users should put an unblock requests on their talk page. If their talk page access has been revoked, they should send email to WP:UTRS. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:28, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Why asking other admins on their talk pages as an IP editor is block evasion? 64.237.233.96 (talk) 03:20, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Because when your account is blocked, you are not supposed to post on Wikiepdia at all, except on your talk page. This goes for making a new account, and it goes for using an IP, because it's not the account that was blocked, it was the human being behind the account.  When you post anywhere on Wikipedia (except your own talk page) during a block, you are automatically guilty of block evasion, and the new account, or the IP can be blocked, or the block on your first account can be extendedSo, you've asked your question, and you've asked it again and received the same (and only possible) answer. I assume you are blocked, so you had better not ask it a third time, unless you enjoy playing with the idea of having your block extended.  Use your talk page, or, if your talk page access has been cut off, use WP:UTRS. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:43, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Is there an essay on what to do if accused?
I vaguely remember reading one, but can't find it - closest thing is a one-liner at the guide to filing cases, which says "If accused, follow the same advice. Keep it calm, brief, and evidence-based". Banedon (talk) 21:46, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You're probably thinking of Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Guidance. Sro23 (talk) 23:16, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Banedon (talk) 23:23, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

"resign or give up the administrator access of their old account"
Oshwah, regarding this edit, how is "resign" being distinguished from "give up the administrator access of their old account"? Or did you simply mean "or" in a way that's stating that the two are the same thing? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:07, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Flyer22 Reborn - Ohhhh yeauppp, an "or" is definitely missing somewhere - I meant those descriptions to simply refer to the same thing as you said. I'll improve the description and resolve the confusion. Thanks :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   05:40, 28 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Oshwah, I wasn't stating that you should include an "or." I was querying why you included "or." I was wondering how you are distinguishing "resign" from "give up the administrator access of their old account." In other words, I was asking: "Don't they mean the same thing?" Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:45, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Flyer22 Reborn - I was joking ;-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   06:05, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oshwah, so is "resign" or "give up the administrator access of their old account" supposed to mean the same thing in the policy? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:12, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is correct.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   13:30, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

"Tipping off"
This may sound silly or petty, and I'll grant anyone that, but is there a way of "tipping off" about a potential SP without disclosing from whom the accusation came? Maybe even by using coded talk messages to SPI volunteers. I wouldn't say it's about snitching for the hell of it, but rather to avoid an incessant stream of talk page messages from, let's say, a user who can only articulate themselves via WP:BLUD/WP:NOTGETTINGIT across both user and article talk pages (often getting involved in several unrelated debates simultaneously). Just wanted to know if there's a way of doing that, without inviting a plethora of retaliatory yapping. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 20:34, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * We block sockpuppets, so they won't be able to bother you on your talk page.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  22:01, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Consider enabling email, that way you could email an admin completely off-wiki. Sro23 (talk) 23:53, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * In prefs, is there an option to ensure that an e-mail address is hidden from public, but can be used to contact admins/SPI clerks? I normally have no qualms about filing SPIs, but this one is a touchy case if my (strong) hunch about them using a sock isn't right after all. It involves a user with whom I've long had an extremely hard time dealing with, and our interactions would be insufferable if a failed SPI came from me. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 02:03, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I believe so. After you add an email address, uncheck the "Allow other users to email me" box. Sro23 (talk) 02:06, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * If it's a specific user you're worried about, you can mute. There's an option to "Prohibit these users from emailing me". Sro23 (talk) 02:08, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * OK. If I choose an admin from WP:SPI/C, will they accept diffs and such in an e-mail? The absence of wiki-linking may be a bit inconvenient, but I can figure something out. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 03:33, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Go for it. Sro23 (talk) 04:35, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Question about WP:SCRUTINY
it is a violation of this policy to create alternative accounts to confuse or deceive editors who may have a legitimate interest in reviewing your contributions

This appears to be slightly misleading, as it's technically also a violation of the policy to create alternate accounts specifically to confuse or deceive eidtors who definitely have only an illegitimate interest in reviewing your contribs.

I understand that this policy is subordinate to AGF and so we should be assuming that the hypothetical interested parties are all legitimate, but wouldn't saying "who may have an interest" be better?

Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 03:36, 16 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I believe the word "legitimate" is designed to make an exception for users who have been victims of harassment over their edits. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:43, 20 February 2018 (UTC)


 * One could technically say that about any editor and I don't believe WP:AGF applies to non-"trusted users" as I've been falsely accused of being a paid editor and even questioning the accusation got me threatened with a block on multiple projects, of course you can assume that someone is a paid editor but asking them to prove it is "abuse". And edits should be scrutinised on the edits themselves, if you as a patroller can only recognise bad edits if they're by one person then maybe you shouldn't be patrolling in the first place. --Donald Trung (No fake news) (Articles) Respect mobile users. 00:11, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 28 February 2018

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below, although in the future it may be worth reassessing to see whether a change to a more descriptive title is warranted. Dekimasu よ! 03:39, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sock puppetry → Multiple accounts – This is the policy which deals with all uses of multiple accounts on Wikipedia, some of which are legitimate. While the username policy has a small bit on it, this page is the actual policy. Titling the policy "sock puppetry" implies that all uses of multiple accounts are forbidden, which creates a confused view among some editors that any multiple account is a sock puppet, whereas the policy itself is already clear that only illegitimate uses are considered sock puppetry. I propose this change to eliminate the confusion. Note that the proposed title is already a redirect to Username policy; I am proposing overwriting the redirect. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:01, 28 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Support as proposer. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:01, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd support the move in principle, but I'm not sure that's the correct name. Would "Use of multiple accounts" be better? --Varnished user (talk) 15:10, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure, a variation on the proposed title would be fine. I was going for the simplest title I could think of, and following the patterns of other policies, i.e. Civility, Harassment, Open proxies, etc.; there are none that start with "use" or "using". Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:22, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * , speaking of users of multiple accounts, don't you find it a bit odd that someone who isn't even autoconfirmed is commenting on an RM about the sockpuppetry policy? TonyBallioni (talk) 15:37, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * More than a "bit odd". I've struck the vote.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:49, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Boy, what ever happened to people's sensayuma around here? :-) --Varnished user (talk) 15:58, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * For the record, this appears to be, who indeed seems to have a weird sense of humor. ansh 666 08:00, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, and I stand by the comment I made above. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:28, 2 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose - An editor can sock by logging out and hiding behind an IP. It happens.--John Cline (talk) 15:19, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is an illegitimate use of multiple accounts defined in the policy (IPs are considered accounts for this policy's purposes). See the "editing while logged out in order to mislead" bullet. On the other hand editing logged out accidentally is not sock puppetry, and that also happens. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:26, 28 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Support A more neutral title that better reflects the content of the page. -- Jayron 32 15:21, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I understand the reasoning, but I see nothing wrong with the name and the content. The fact there are exceptions to what constitutes "socking" doesn't mean the policy can't use the word. Also, I see no compelling reason to make a change to a core policy.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:25, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose mainly as not really needed and not worth the hassle and possible confusion that a move to a major policy page might create. Vandalism also documents things that are WP:NOT VANDALISM (a section that I desperately wish people would actually read every time I go to AIV...), but there isn't a need to change that policy name or to merge/move it to WP:DE, which would be more reflective of both parts of the policy. It is perfectly reasonable for a policy to list what are not violations of it while having a title primarily focused on what isn't allowed. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:35, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Bbb23. The current established and intuitive name for the policy doesn't seem to cause any confusion, so I don't see the need for hyper-correctness creep in the naming of it. On a side note, established users including admins tend to use the word "sock" quite loosely. E. g. Floquenbeam's User:Floquensock, which also doesn't seem to confuse anybody. (I haven't see any 'Excuse me, shouldn't that be User:Floquenalternativeaccount?'). Bishonen &#124; talk 17:16, 28 February 2018 (UTC).
 * Weak support. "Sock" is used quite loosely, so the title is not that problematic; see Category:Wikipedia alternative accounts for example which says Only legitimate sockpuppet accounts should go in this category or its subcategories. I understand the sentiment behind the proposal though and although the goal can probably also be achieved by redirecting the currect redirect to the WP:SOCK section, it won't actually hurt to rename the page to reflect the content more accurately. The WP:SOCK shortcut will still work after all. Regards SoWhy 17:26, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - change is proposed to "eliminate confusion", but the proposer hasn't provided any evidence that such confusion exists. And, not just a diff or two where a few editors may have questioned this, but evidence of ongoing, significant confusion, sufficient enough to warrant the change of such an established name of a set of policies and guidelines here. - the WOLF  child  17:31, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Additional note; has splitting off the "legitimate" use from the "illegitimate" use been considered instead? - the WOLF  child  17:33, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I noticed commenting among the posts here, perhaps I should've pinged him, but Ivan, I'm still curious if you have/had considered some kind of split, as I asked above? Thanks - the WOLF  child  13:44, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Considered, yes, but see my "nom comment" below. My preference is that all of the details regarding the use of multiple accounts is all in the same place: what you're allowed to do and how you should do it, what you're not allowed to do and the consequences, how to get help and report violations, and links to related material. It's more akin to the biographies of living persons policy, which describes best practices along with disallowed actions in one place (with supplemental essays), rather than say a BLP policy paired with a separate "violations of BLP" policy. And there's the issue that some of the things you can do with multiple accounts are only forbidden in certain circumstances. So overall no, I don't think this should be split. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:03, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the reply. It gives me a better understanding of your position. While I still (respectfully) oppose, I hope you find some kind of solution, if this doesn't go thru. Cheers - the WOLF  child  15:44, 1 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Support, but for different reasons. For key policies, I think it's beneficial to have a descriptive rather than a jargony title. For all the other conduct policies listed here, you can get a reasonable idea of what the policy is about simply by reading the title. Since most new Wikipedians aren't going to know what the phrase sock puppetry means in this context, a more descriptive title will make the policy easier to find. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:51, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose, first and foremost per TonyBallioni's objection, I would see this as policy creep. Despite what it looks like and what others may think, this policy doesn't and shouldn't regulate legitimate uses, it only concerns illegitimate uses of multiple accounts, or sockpuppetry as it's commonly known. A proper analogy is the Vandalism policy which doesn't regulate good faith normal editing, beyond giving examples of good faith editing for comparison. A rename to 'Abuse of multiple accounts' would address my primary objection, but my second is the objection provided by John Cline's oppose, and the fact that sockpuppetry doesn't necessarily involve accounts. It's just sockpuppetry. I therefore also agree with some of the other objections, in that I'm unpersuaded there's anything to be gained from a rename. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:10, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Basically per Bbb23, I can also see the reasoning, but I don't see any compelling necessity. Alex Shih (talk) 18:59, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Nom comment - this policy does regulate legitimate uses, though, and it's the only one we have which describes when the use of a second account is allowed, and when it is not. I don't really understand the "policy creep" arguments here: the proposal concerns only the title of the page, not any changes whatsoever to the content of the policy. The vandalism policy isn't a proper analogue, it's a "don't do this" policy; a better analogue is the username policy: it somewhat briefly describes what a user is allowed to do and offers guidance on related procedures (changing a username, unified login) and follows that with a fairly long list of examples of unacceptable usernames, yet we don't call it the "unacceptable usernames policy". This policy describes an extensive list of specific circumstances when the use of an alternate account is allowed and when it is not, and includes the accepted procedures for linking and disclosing valid alternates. I feel that that guidance shouldn't be under a title which presumes that all alternative accounts represent an illegal activity. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:01, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, technically what the meat of this policy says is, "If you use a legitimate alternative account, it is your responsibility to ensure that you do not use it in an illegitimate manner according to this policy." So we shall probably agree to disagree.-- zzuuzz (talk) 19:11, 28 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Bbb23, I get the logic behind it but personally I don't see any compelling reason to move, As noted above there's nothing to be gained from renaming this. – Davey 2010 Talk 21:21, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Much like Thewolfchild, the proposal is to eliminate confusion, but I'm not confused about anything. Also echoing Dave's comment above, there's no gain from this. Seems like rearranging deckchairs, even if we are still floating. ! dave  22:46, 28 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Semi-Support - I don’t disagree with the proposal, but if the policy title is changed, then we should keep “WP:Sock puppetry” as a shortcut pointer to those sections that deal directly with socks. Blueboar (talk) 11:15, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - The name has history here and everyone is familiar with it. Socking and having multiple accounts are two different things, with socking being the problematic subset.  This would cause a ripple of effects on the Wiki....do we now change the name of all sock related areas and policies?  No, there is no compelling reason to change and plenty to leave it alone.  And also per Bbb23.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 11:55, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Similar to what Sir Sputnik said, it's good to have policies like this labeled so that everyone can understand what they are just from the title. "Multiple accounts" is a descriptive term, whereas "Sockpuppet" is slang. Everyone here is already used to it and knows what it means, but of course the people here would know what it means. Newcomers probably won't, and that makes the very title of this policy one more thing to learn. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 11:32, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I understand the intent behind this proposal, but I don't think the reduced confusion from possibly making it slightly more accurate outweighs the increased confusion of changing a long-used term. This change would also take the English Wikipedia out of step with other projects, many of which use the term "sock puppet" or something close to it: French, German, and Dutch use "sockpuppet", Spanish uses "puppet user", and so on. Also, the terms "sock puppetry" and "use of multiple accounts" are close, but do quite have a congruent meaning. --Deskana (talk) 12:09, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't understand this comment and ones like it that are referring to follow-on changes to the policy, it's like you didn't read my proposal or you're reading something into it which isn't there. I'm proposing changing the title. That is the entire extent of the changes proposed, only the title. I'm not at all suggesting we change long-standing terminology, sock puppetry is still described here (a violation of this policy), links and references on-wiki to sock puppetry still refer to this page, all of the shortcuts remain the same excepting that they refer to Multiple accounts rather than Sock puppetry and that Multiple accounts itself no longer refers to a subsection of the username policy which refers back to this policy anyway, users are still investigated for sock puppetry at Sockpuppet investigations by sockpuppet investigations clerks and blocked if they are sock puppets violating this policy and have their user pages tagged with sockpuppet tags and get themselves listed in Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of, we still have a pervasive and immense problem with undisclosed paid editors creating new sock puppet accounts, all of this still described in this policy in which I am not proposing changing even a single letter or punctuation mark or white space. None of it changes. Only the title of the policy. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:09, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I did read your proposal, and I made no reference to follow-on changes, but I think see why you might think that. I wrote "the increased confusion of changing a long-used term" which I suppose could be construed as suggesting follow-on changes, but that definitely wasn't my intention. A more accurate wording would've been "the increased confusion of changing a long-standing policy title". Apologies if my inaccurate wording caused confusion. --Deskana (talk) 14:31, 2 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose - "Sock puppetry" describes the offence, what is and what is not, analogous to Murder listing generally accepted exclusions. Hey why not rename theft to picking up stuff? Batternut (talk) 10:18, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. I hate, hate, hate the term "sock puppetry", almost as much as I hate the ugly term "meat puppetry". It doesn't describe the offense, it does nothing to describe the problem, it's the sort of jargon that we should avoid; it's cultish and stupid. "Abusing multiple accounts" describes the offense precisely. --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106; &#x1D110;&#x1d107; 19:27, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support as per nom. The current title is too jargony, and over-emphasizes the negative aspects of the policy, which also defines the legitimate use of multiple accounts. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:10, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Bbb23, Bishonen and Zzuuzz. The focus of the policy isn't using multiple accounts but pretending to be more than one user, whether through multiple accounts or acting as someone else while logged out. This has come to be known as sockpuppetry. SarahSV (talk) 23:30, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Per cases like Cosmic Colton where multiple accounts were used but didn't pretend to be someone else, or Kumisback, Etc. Also note that this police does include examples of legitimate uses and "Meat puppetry", Etc. --Donald Trung (No fake news) (Articles) Respect mobile users. 00:07, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The policy includes legitimate use by way of contrast, but it's not about legitimate use. It's about sockpuppetry. The focus is "don't do x, and here's how we define x." SarahSV (talk) 01:09, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  00:13, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per SlimVirgin's comment. You're not abusing multiple accounts if you vandalise logged-out after your account's blocked for vandalism, but you are engaging in sockpuppetry; IPs are treated like accounts, but they aren't accounts.  And I agree with the "oppose" votes that are based on the difficulty: we shouldn't rename major project pages without the existing title having a big problem, a problem that's a good deal bigger than the issues raised by the supporters.  Nyttend (talk) 01:42, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose If it isn't broke, don't try to fix it. I don't see a problem that would be solved by the move.


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

question
- sorry, but I gotta ask; how is this better? 's version was;
 * Editors are generally expected to edit using only one account, which you changed to
 * Editors are generally expected to edit using at most one account (changes in both versions are underlined). If they're limited to one, we are basically saying "only", and to use "at most" is rather superfluous. It implies a choice that is non-existent. Just curious... - the WOLF  child  05:02, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * An IP (unregistered editor) may have zero accounts and "at most one" covers that. Johnuniq (talk) 05:58, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Why don't we just change it to "only one account or IP address"? That's more clear than this "at most one" business. E to the Pi times i  ( talk  |  contribs ) 06:41, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Most anonymous editors have little to no control of changes to the IP they appear under; it would not be reasonable to hold them to a single address. Some do remain stable for months, but others last only minutes to hours.—Odysseus 1 4 7  9  07:27, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * "an account is not required", ok, but this particular sentence is speaking to the limitation on registered accounts, so again, saying "using at most one" is grammatically clunky. One means one, and one only, so it should read "using only one", which is the correct way to phrase that. - the WOLF  child  09:36, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Let's move off the policy language. You are using two other accounts:
 * , which you describe as an "Old account, used for gnomish activities before I seriously started editing Wikipedia."
 * , which you describe as a "Bot, pending approval".

E^pi*i batch's second edit on the same day the account was created was to change the policy. As a CheckUser, that raised immediate red flags for me, and my knee-jerk reaction was to revert, even though I could see the change was innocuous. I didn't realize until later, at which point it was time for me to go off-wiki, that you had declared the accounts. Notwithstanding, E to the Pi times i reverted me. First, that was not the right thing to do for so many obvious reasons I won't spell them out. Second, if you're going to have three accounts ostensibly for three different purposes, you'd better keep them straight and not use two of the three to make the identical changes to a policy. Why is an account that is seeking bot approval making manual changes to a core policy? Why is an account that is seeking bot approval making a change to the bot policy page? Those are just a few of the items that cause me concern. I'd like to hear from other CUs on this issue because I am sometimes over-strict. Because it's the weekend, some may not be around until Monday or later. --Bbb23 (talk) 14:04, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry for making that change under an alternative account. I made the change because I was logged into that account for configuring the account. I will not make further non-bot edits using that account, since you have highlighted how this can be problematic. In regards to the revert, I will not do similar action in the future; I only did it in this case because I thought there may be a misunderstanding because of the account I made the edits on. I have also restored the edit to the other page; feel free to revert it again. As for the third issue, "you're going to have three accounts ostensibly for three different purposes": I have accounts I use, for  two intended purposes. If I could, I would merge  with my main account, ; however I do not believe that is possible. Donkey Kong Fanatic is an old account from a previous dead computer that I recently recovered the password to. If you look at its recent, you will note the only thing I have done with it is verify it as my own account.  E to the Pi times i  ( talk  |  contribs ) 14:21, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * As my opinion was sought, I hope [E to the Pi times i] has now appreciated the relevant important take away, as I'm reading above. I find these two usernames a little confusing, but you can do what you want with that. For what it's worth, separating batch edits isn't profitable, IMO, unless it's a full-blooded dedicated bot. Regarding the edits, I agree that the proposed change is sub-optimal for the reasons already outlined. There is enough confusion around IP addresses not being accounts, and IP addresses changing, and this being the lede of the policy that governs all things, it this needs to be crystal clear even if grammatically clunky. -- zzuuzz (talk) 15:48, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Grammatically clunky crystal clear. I didn't understand the meaning of "at most", and policies should be clear from the outset. Perhaps the change to "only" in isolation is not an appropriate change.  E to the Pi times i  ( talk  |  contribs ) 16:37, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I note that has re-added in the "only" phrasing. Reconsidering it, the lead already says Logging out to make problematic edits as an IP address is sock puppetry, so I don't think it needs to be overly broad in "at least" one account. "Only" is more clear, and "at least one" leads to more ambiguity.  E to the Pi times i  ( talk  |  contribs ) 16:59, 31 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I didn't see this discussion before I reverted, but "only" does appear to the better phrase, for reasons already pointed out. It is the more concise phrasing, and clarity is the goal. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 17:57, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I would like to "move back onto the policy language", if only for a brief moment, to thank Dennis Brown for restoring that edit (concise beats clunky, every time), and remind Bbb23 that I started this thread to specifically address that edit, not so you could just broom it aside with no response and then jump over to a completely different topic, addressed to a completely different user. There, that's all I had to say. Thanks. Carry on... - the WOLF  child  01:27, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry I contributed to derailing this thread (albeit indirectly). Fortunately (for me), it looks like SPI concerns are probably resolved now. I think we're one step closer to having more clear policies, and I thank you for defending my edit. E to the Pi times i  ( talk  |  contribs ) 16:41, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Possible redundancy in "Inappropriate uses of alternative accounts"
I was just casually reading the section when I noticed the bullet points "Creating an illusion of support" and "Contributing to the same page or discussion with multiple accounts" appear to be similar enough to be merged as part of the same idea. I plan to do further investigation, and I'm just posting here in case any experienced editors can offer insight on the matter. E to the Pi times i ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 15:18, 10 April 2018 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  03:27, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * No, they shouldn't be merged because, in any way, if someone creates an illusion of support or contributes to the same page or discussion with multiple accounts they will be blocked. An example would be that sock 1 gets into an incident with an editor. The editor reports to a noticeboard where sock 2 works to undermine the reporting editor. They didn't have to contribute to the same page or discussion to be socking.

Global locks
As written the current policy does not prohibit users who are globally locked by stewards for abuse from creating a new account on en.wiki if they are not blocked here. I was debating creating an RfC on this, but I'm not really sure we need it, since to me it seems adding it to "Evasion of Sanctions" would fall into policy documents practice. I know if there are a bunch of globally locked accounts that come up in CU, currently I'll block an account even if the other ones aren't blocked on en.wiki (or, I'll block them all), and I suspect other CUs do the same. If an RfC is needed, I can put one together, but I wanted to check here for thoughts first. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:29, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It sounds fully non-controversial that a globally banned user abusive user is banned from creating new account. Will saying so diminish the amount of teenage humour found at special:listusers?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:56, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * No, the humour is here to stay, I think . Technically globally locked users are not globally banned, and you will sometimes have accounts that will use that as a way to wikilawyer this. Updating this would basically be saying "If you've been disruptive enough to require a global lock, you need to deal with that on your main account before you edit en.wiki." We're basically just updating local policy so it can't be wikilawyered and so that it's clearer to admins they can block globally locked socks. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:03, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * On a related question: we often hear that this or that user has been banned for life. Does this mean they get unbanned after they die? Are they allowed to edit from beyond the grave? E<b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 06:55, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Only from hell. Editing from Wikipedia isn't allowed in heaven because it causes too much resentment towards one's fellow man. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:58, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That gives me an idea. There are certain editors I now realize may already be dead and Wikipedia is their hell. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 17:10, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yup, be sure to be clear that global locks are not global bans. Locks are not even blocks. Although many are LTAs which we won't hesitate blocking (even if they're only disruptive elsewhere), some locks are made for other reasons, such as a compromised account, and quite possibly some would not even be blocked here. I'd want to hear directly, and mainly, from some stewards. My own opinion is that the locking and unlocking procedures are so loose that we can't base local policy upon them. m:Global locks is one of the shortest policies around (does it even contain a policy?). If you don't mind I'll ping a couple of them who sometimes like to comment on enwiki things: -- zzuuzz (talk) 07:56, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I've had an additional thought, which is to wonder how a Fram-like situation might relate to such a proposal. Stewards are generally responsible and don't do stuff without reason, but I can't help wonder if there would ever be a situation like where a steward had locked Fram's account. There is a lot of talk about autonomy of communities, and such a proposal might run into complications in respect of that. -- zzuuzz (talk) 10:40, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * 99% of accounts locked are LTAs or spambots. However, there are some situations where we will lock sockpuppets but not the main account, or not lock a sock account that was created to appeal a lock on a main account. There is also the case of compromised accounts as you note. I think that the "evasion of sanctions" part of the existing policy is probably enough to cover the usual case where socks are being created to bypass a global lock for an LTA/spambot. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 12:41, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, this. There are very rare situations when it isn’t a for abuse, but even in the compromise situations there was at least one case where a user intentionally compromised his account in order to have a clean start. Crap like that isn’t okay. My reading of policy is the same as Ajraddatz that the principle of “evasion of sanctions” covers cross-wiki abusers, but I’d prefer it if we just added the phrase “global locks for abuse” to that bullet point so it’s clear. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:53, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * See m:User talk:Lojbanist and search enwiki AN archives with this name. &mdash; regards, <span style="color:green;font-family:Courier new, serif;font-variant:small-caps">Revi 19:35, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * In my own experiences, of all unlock appeals, I (personally) have seen only one account getting unlocked, and one more account got unlocked and then re-locked for repeating the actions that led to their first lock (massive socking). I'd say locks are more final on the matter given that we do not have a concept like Standard Offer so all locks are indefinite unless local community wants to take responsibility of them. Speaking of Fram, we prefer to just stay away from the hell (and no fire in the hole) so there is almost no chance we'd lock fram unless someone can provide a REALLY credible proof they qualify the reason to lock (and even so I'd hesitate because I can expect a wave of enwiki people yelling at me.) &mdash; regards, <span style="color:green;font-family:Courier new, serif;font-variant:small-caps">Revi 19:35, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Is there any way to tie together two IP addresses?
Recently an IP address that had never been previously used made an edit that was a serious WP:BLP violation. Now immediately prior, I'd been engaged in related articles with an editor who had evinced WP:BATTLEGROUND tactics, and who regularly edited article talk while logged out using several static ip addresses. Now I should note that this wasn't socking, the individual owned up to being a logged out editor and claimed not to know why their device was cycling IPs. They claimed that it was laptop power issues and I thought nothing more of it. However I geolocated the BLP violating IP and it came up in the same city as the logged out editor. It's a different ISP, but the previous two ISPs were not the same either.

Is there any way to identify a socking ip in relationship to another ip? I have a suspicion the answer is no but I thought I'd check.

(For reference here are the two IPs I know to be connected legitimately per WP:LOGOUT to the user  and here's the IP I have vague suspicions of socking  I don't intend to mention the name of the logged in account at this juncture because my suspicions are far too vague to start an SPI over as of yet, and I know checkuser will NOT correlate a username with an IP directly.) Simonm223 (talk) 19:13, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * There's nothing magical about this. All three IPs edit from Australia. If you find their behavior similar, they may be the same person.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:18, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'll keep an eye on the third IP. One edit is not sufficient to ascertain a behavioural pattern. Thank you for the advice. Simonm223 (talk) 19:19, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Checkusers won't make the connection but that doesn't mean you can't. If you have clear evidence that User:GoodAccount is logging out to make disruptive edits or stack discussions or whatever, we (clerks, not checkusers) will investigate that. But yeah, don't make allegations without good evidence. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:20, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Sock farming
I just made some new information pages. The one to which I would especially like to give notice is but see also the new pages for
 * Sock farming
 * Misconduct and
 * Automated moderation

Is anyone aware of any research publication which describes sock farming? Thanks.  Blue Rasberry  (talk)  14:42, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The sock farming page is (1) unnecessary as we describe sock puppetry sufficiently in the policy and other pages and (2) inaccurate and/or poorly worded in many respects (I'm not going to improve it as I don't think it should exist). Bluerasberry also created a new cat that he added to this and other policies about "misconduct". The cat is fatuous. We already have an established cat for conduct policies; we don't need one that is the obverse. I removed the cat, but Bluerasberry reverted me. I'm not good at cat deletion/discussions, but someone should probably nominate it for deletion.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:49, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I will not disagree with anything Bbb23 is saying, but I do have a practical challenge which I am trying to address. New technology is becoming increasingly accessible, variously called "artificial intelligence", "data science", and "machine learning". My research team just did an "automated moderation" project as described at meta:University of Virginia/Automatic Detection of Online Abuse.
 * I anticipate that many more universities will be coming to Wikipedia to do similar projects. To do this research it is necessary to have specific data about misconduct. For example, to do research on spam, the relevant data might be "list of all blocked accounts which say 'spam' in the user account log".
 * I also am unsure about having both "recommended conduct" and "bad conduct" categories, but for research needs, specific focus on bad conduct is helpful. I could say more. I do not want to disrupt policies intended for typical humans, but I do want to build out policies for people interested in supporting human moderation with automated tools. Can anyone recommend how I publish this limited-interest experimental content in a way that minimizes intrusion on the more relevant policies for general use? Thoughts?  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  15:05, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I think for one thing you should tag Sock farming as an essay, not an information page, since the information page is the Sock puppetry policy and there is no need (and may be confusing) to have a second page with the same information, or worse, information which conflicts with the policy. I don't necessarily think it should be deleted, though. As for categorizing your work, we already kind of have two types of conduct policy: the ones which describe good conduct and it's presumed to be misconduct if an editor behaves otherwise (WP:CIVIL, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:PAID, for example), and the ones which describe the bad conduct to be avoided (WP:NPA, WP:NLT, WP:VANDAL, WP:HARASSMENT, and so on). WP:SOCK is kind of a mix between the two: it spells out things you can and can't do with multiple accounts. I'm wary of creating a category for just writings on misconduct, because other than a very few bright-line rules (i.e. WP:3RR) we broadly recognize that acceptable conduct is a spectrum, and often depends largely on context. Could you think of a different way to describe your work? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:30, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Universities and other organizations are welcome to do whatever research they wish as long as they do not disrupt the project in doing so. Wikipedians should not be creating pages that contain material that contradicts existing policies, regardless of the intentions of the creator. We are here to serve Wikipedia, not outside entities. As for Category:Wikipedia misconduct, it should not have been created because it serves no legitimate purpose, and it should not be in this policy. It makes no sense for a policy to have the new cat alongside Category:Wikipedia conduct policies. I'm not going to edit-war over a cat, but I will ping the only cat "expert" I know for her opinion on the matter: ?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:46, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, I replaced Information page with Draft proposal. This template is not a perfect fit but it does say "The proposal must not be taken to represent consensus".
 * I think there is a misunderstanding. I am not aware of any disruption this research caused. Besides adding a category and trying to draft documentation on new pages, I did not change existing policies. I know that a lot of research in Wikimedia projects cause problems but in this case we minimized Wikipedia user interaction except for discussions like this on talk pages. I can talk anything through. I hope that to-the-point conversations like this are not seen as disruption. I am here looking for a compromise to do disclosure and not expecting to force anything.
 * Yes, Ivanvector, I can think of another way to categorize this. The situation is that we currently have conduct guidelines for humans, and they talk about a mix of good and bad conduct in a way that human readers have found useful. Since my target is really support for research, I could make a category for "machine detectable behavior" which only describes those things. Sock farming is fairly easy to detect because it takes a machine detecting another machine. Human sock puppetry, perhaps for political propaganda or for the subject of an article to sock as they edit their own article might be harder to detect because there is human sincerity and reasoning in that rather than only automated imitation of human activity. Instead of Category:Wikipedia misconduct, the category could be Category:Wikipedia conduct detection and contain documentation about how to research all sorts of behaviors, including positive behaviors like WikiLove or Help:Notifications/Thanks use. To what extent does that seem like a better direction?  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  15:53, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping, @Bbb23. I don't think that Category:Wikipedia misconduct is helpful, because it seems to me to be a duplicate of its parent Category:Wikipedia user conduct.  Wikipedia's documentation on user conduct is mostly about misconduct, so the sub-category doesn't group a distinctive subset.
 * @Bluerasberry's suggestion of a Category:Wikipedia conduct detection doesn't seem helpful, because the current set isn't primarily about detection, and I see no benefit in jumbling up misconduct issues with WikiLove or Help:Notifications/Thanks. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 16:50, 26 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I don’t think this is a big deal, but I also don’t think it adds any value. I think Bbb23 and I both get confused as to why people keep trying to make minor changes like this to a policy that is abundantly clear already. I think if I had to have a bolded vote it’d be “meh”. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:58, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * See also Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Misconduct. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 16:53, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * ... and Categories for discussion/Log/2019 July 26. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 17:03, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Guidance about whether to simply ask them
I went to the Project page (and also to WP:SPI) looking for guidance about what to do if I suspect a registered account is a sock: should I simply ask them, politely, on their User talk page? I checked here and in the Archive, and couldn't find anything. (Wording a search query for this is hard, so there might be something in the archive which I missed.) This came up in a RL situation, and I thought about it, and decided to go ahead and ask, based on analogy to a COI recommendation to "raise the issue in a civil manner on the editor's talk page" when a COI is suspected.

I'd like to see a similar statement added to section Handling suspected sock puppets. The COICOIN wording is fine, and vetted; why not just steal it, adapting as needed:"If you believe a user has an undisclosed alternate account or is using an alternate account inappropriately in violation of this guideline, raise the issue in a civil manner on the editor's talk page, which is the first step in resolving user-conduct issues, per the DR policy, citing this guideline. If for some reason that is not advisable, or if it fails to resolve the issue, the next step is to consider opening a sock puppet investigation."

Is this something we even want to recommend? Or, are there cases where it's better to go straight to SPI? Is there some kind of guidance that could be given, about how to decide what path is best, when someone suspects socking behavior? Mathglot (talk) 09:48, 6 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I recommend adding it. Unless there's some urgency, such as rapid disruption by a suspected sock, it's very proper to assume good faith and simply ask. (Disruptors can be blocked for disruption and then be asked.) There are people who haven't grasped the fact that if they're for instance blocked, or frightened by warnings, they're not allowed to create a new account and continue editing, and who need to be first asked and then told. After all, it's the encyclopedia anybody can edit, including those who are very young or otherwise naive. For my own experience: a few times it has happened that I've asked, and the account has then immediately been abandoned. That's as good as a "yes". Bishonen &#124; talk 11:03, 6 August 2019 (UTC).
 * I came here from seeing the mention at Bishonen's talk page, and I agree with what she just said. I would however suggest changing "raise the issue in a..." to "consider raising the issue in a...". It's always a matter of judgment about whether or not to do it (just as it's a matter of judgment whether or not to inform a user that an SPI has been opened about them), so I think it's better to treat it as something that should be considered, as opposed to something that should be routinely done. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:30, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It's a judgement call. I will often ask someone if they've had a previous account, sometimes knowing the answer sometimes not, but there are other cases I won't. It takes experience in determining which accounts are newbies unaware of policy and which are disruptive. I would pretty strongly oppose this, because as worded, it makes talk page discussion the first step before talking to a CU or filing an SPI, which depending on the circumstances, may not be appropriate. A lot of what those of us who work in this area do relies on discretion, and this would decrease that. I can't support making the socking policy and enforcement of it more mechanical. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:16, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I was thinking about the discretion piece. Suggesting email rather than talk page commentary might be more appropriate, though I suspect that would be an issue if you are emailing an LTA who might then have your email account. --Izno (talk) 19:34, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * As a counter-argument to email, I can see how that could get dangerously close to what got Jytdog indeffed. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:43, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I don’t think I’ve ever asked someone to disclose via email. I’ll offer to let them email me or ArbCom if it’s sensitive, but typically requests are best on-wiki so there’s a record. My thing is that the only thing I think adding this wording would do would give socks an excuse to WikiLawyer more. Asking can be appropriate, but we also generally trust the judgement of the people who work most frequently in this area, so this feels like instruction creep. I’m also going to ping the functionaries list about this (neutrally) since I suspect people there who don’t watch this page could have insights. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:07, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , I totally trust the judgement of the people who deal with this. It's because of my value for their time and judgment, that I hoped to spare them the bother of having to spend time dealing with it. If one in ten either "goes away" (per Bishonen), or shoots themself in the foot (as in this case), we've just saved them all that time. Right?  The way I see it, in this case (see below), it actually worked. That's why Tryptofish's "consider asking" is an important change; it preserves discretion. Mathglot (talk) 22:12, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * As a counter-argument to email, I can see how that could get dangerously close to what got Jytdog indeffed. I'm talking about Special:Emailuser/Possible Sock, not anything remotely similar to what he did in any way, shape, or form. But never mind email; I came up with a reason not to do it (possible future harassment of the established user asking the question) and Tony has transparency as a second reason (I think this is a conflicting requirement with interests of discretion, however, but he's smarter than I am in these matters). --Izno (talk) 22:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with Tony, and I agree that if you're going to ask someone about alternate accounts you should do it on-wiki. Keep in mind that there are legitimate reasons to use multiple accounts, and legitimate reasons why one might not want their separate accounts to be publicly linked, so you could be outing them by asking. If you're not sure your question will be taken in good faith or you're just not sure how to proceed, emailing a clerk is a good approach.
 * I also agree this should not be a required step in the policy. If you think someone is abusing multiple accounts, report them and let us handle it. We're pretty good at determining if talking to the user is worthwhile or whether they should just be blocked. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:24, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Based on the comments by Tony and Ivan, I'm updating my opinion to oppose. I originally thought it might work to say "consider raising" it, but I figure editors who work with SPI are capable of considering it without needing to be told, and I have to agree that there is a real danger of socks wikilawyering. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:19, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  11:50, 7 August 2019 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  17:04, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: – I appreciate all the comments, and am interested in feedback from some of the Oppose votes on the following question (not trying to get you to change your mind, just to understand): To what extent do the situations at SOCK and COI differ, such that "don't ask" is the right guideline here, and "ask" (or "consider asking") is the right guideline there?  (Or, do you think they have it wrong?) Also, just to be clear from Ivanvector's comment above: I also don't think it should be required either; the proposed wording was my attempt to change COI wording minimally, since it was already vetted. But what if we changed "raise the issue" to "consider raising the issue" per Tryptofish above&mdash;does that change anything? Mathglot (talk) 21:51, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: – I didn't link the real-world case at the top, because the case was still pending, and because the question here is about a guideline proposal and not about an individual sock suspect. That case isn't open anymore. If interested in the real-world case which prompted my question, see, and the related discussion at User talk:Bishonen. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 22:03, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: I ask them on their talk page. I've done it various times. I only ask when I'm certain that the editor is non-new. Yes, some have accused me of calling them a sock or not displaying WP:Good faith, but the vast majority of them have turned out to be socks. And I don't mean legit socks. When they state that they are not a sock or are not a legit sock when they actually are, this can be used against them. I think CheckUser Berean Hunter is also okay with an editor asking on another editor's talk page, but I'm pinging Berean Hunter in case they have some other view. I haven't asked any to disclose via email if they are non-new. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:04, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * To the extent this discussion was ever useful, it's run its course. The decision whether to ask a user if they have used other accounts is in the hands of the asker. Whether it should be made varies from case to case. Sometimes it's useful, and sometimes it's not. Doing it by e-mail is at best misguided. Making such a question required before an editor can file at SPI is preposterous. I know questions like this attract a lot of attention. Mostly they just irritate me, but then I freely admit I'm easily irritated. If anyone wants to know what I personally do, please e-mail me. I promise I won't respond.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:18, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that it is a judgement call to be handled on a case-by-case basis depending on how nefarious or benign the socking looks. Sometimes, we do ask SPI case filers to ask the editors, usually when it looks benign. Since Mathglot is looking for feedback, here are a few examples chosen because they are short:
 * Sockpuppet investigations/Mcapocci/Archive
 * Sockpuppet investigations/AKGould/Archive
 * Sockpuppet investigations/Engeledits/Archive
 * Sockpuppet investigations/Woodysee/Archive
 * Sockpuppet investigations/Thisisfamoe19877/Archive
 * How on earth do you find these things?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:32, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * He’s a genius. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:59, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I remembered asking before so I searched for permutations of the question in the archives like this and this and picked a few simple cases.
 * Whatever you say. I go with Tony's explanation.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:08, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

" Creating new accounts to avoid sanctions"
I added this to the summary in the lead for a case I just came across: A user who was tagged as a sockmaster despite a lack of any attempt at deception. If I'm wrong to add this, and a non-deceptive account is *not* sockpuppetry, then that should be made clear in the lead.

In this case, user with account [uniquename] created account [uniquename2] when blocked, with the same autobiographical material as on their first user page. That is, it was a duplicate account, and they might as well have said, "Hey, I'm back! I was blocked, so I created this duplicate account to get around it." Nothing deceptive about that -- does it still count as sockpuppetry? — kwami (talk) 01:49, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree this is prohibited by the policy, and I think making it clear in the lead doesn't hurt. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:51, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, per WP:BADSOCK#5: Adam9007 (talk) 01:54, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

I know block-evasion is a blockable offence, but I hadn't realized it's technically sockpuppetry. I thought a sock was by definition deceptive, and that block-evasion was a separate issue. (It doesn't fit the sockpuppet metaphor.) I added that to the lead so others wouldn't be mislead as I was, but wish to be sure I got it right, that deception is not required. — kwami (talk) 01:55, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * This policy is the policy that regulates all usage of multiple accounts. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:58, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Is this a really necessary addition directly below a bullet that reads "creating new accounts to avoid detection"? Seems redundantly redundant to me. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 02:37, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Good point. Might be worth combining into a bullet point and "avoid detection or sanctions" which I think is slightly clearer. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:39, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's fine. I just wanted others to avoid my confusion. — kwami (talk) 03:05, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Help - I need to validate my alternate account
I'm User:Alumnum and I created this separate account because, for personal reasons, I'm temporarily unable to access my main one. Can some admin please confirm I'm the same IP as User:Alumnum to avoid any future blocks? Once I obtain access to my main account back, I will abandon this one. - Munmula (talk) 01:38, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Socking IP vs just not logged in?
Let's say you've got a logged-in user and an IP who you're convinced at the same person. Any guidance on how to differentiate between socking (i.e. intentionally and deceptively using the IP) vs simply forgetting or not bothering to log in, which is completely innocent? I'm guessing the answer is, "human judgement", but I'm seeking additional wisdom. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:24, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The difference normally is what they're up to. If they're clearly the same person but they're just making clueless/innocent logging out errors or forgetting to log in, like "nobody would possibly be fooled into believing this is two people" sort of edits, maybe just ask them what they're doing, or remind them that we expect editors to stay logged in if they're going to create an account (we have uw-login for this, or refer them to WP:EWLO). If you suspect they're the same person because the account and the IP seem to be pretending to be different people, block them both (see WP:LOUTSOCK). If you're not sure you can always just collect evidence and file a report at WP:SPI and a clerk give you a second opinion. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:44, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Math-drafts
Just to be extra careful, but I have created an alternative account for the use of the draft page development (to move some of old drafts out of the draftspace). I have made it abundantly clear that it is an alternative account for the technical purpose. I want to be sure that this is a legitimate use (I cannot see how this is a sockpuppetry). —- Taku (talk) 06:02, 6 November 2019 (UTC)


 * The at the top of User:Math-drafts is very good.
 * Very good, you have at the bottom of User:TakuyaMurata.
 * Better again would be for this alternative account to have been called User:TakuyaMurata (Math-drafts). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:08, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * That was the part I was unsure. I can see it could be misleading/confusing if the user is editing or in particular participating in discussions under the different distinct names (even with the disclosure on alternative accounts). Since this account will not be used in actual editing or let alone takes part in discussion, I didn’t think it is important that the user name includes my name. It was a preferable but not a requirement, that’s my understanding. —- Taku (talk) 07:19, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I think there are very few hard restrictions on declared alternative accounts. I think that if no one is misled, it is OK.  There is definitely a logic to using alternative accounts (declared) for segregated editing purposes, and for separate watchlists.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:50, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Please note the alternative account itself makes no edits; so by design there cannot be a “sock-puppet” type behavior. Anyway, I’m satisfied as long as there is no compliance issue. Thanks! — Taku (talk)
 * Doing this on a policy talk page is avoiding scrutiny. I firmly assert that I was misled by the name (and had to chase down the user page) and therefore consider it a inappropriate behavior .  This should have been announced and discussed at AN where contemplation of sanctions for Taku are in process and could have avoided the perception of underhanded WP:FORUMSHOP. Hasteur (talk) 02:01, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I was asking a clarification on the policy on alternative accounts; so this is the right place for asking the question. I thought the purpose of the account was self-evident (look at the user name). I want to remind you to assume good faith. It is a good faith attempt to implement the rough consensus of moving old drafts outside the draftspace. —- Taku (talk) 02:08, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * There is no need to announce moving drafts outside the draft at AN; especially doing so is not against the emerging consensus. —- Taku (talk) 02:30, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Individual cases
If people want to bring individual cases to this talk page, that is evidence of lack of instruction on what to do with suspected individual cases. Better to document, than to be heavy handed eg with the talk page. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:50, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Summarily curating others’ talk page comments is rarely good practice anywhere. Why do certain people think it is ok here?  It comes across as heavy handed, and condescending.
 * This policy page is in my opinion the most convoluted, non-straightforward reading of them all. Why is that?  Why is it that those most empowered by the policy feel they WP:OWN even the talk page.
 * I think the answer to my question is HSOCK. If the answer is that simple, why do Wikipedians repeatedly not immediately see it? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:28, 15 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Well the post wasn't off topic. It just wasn't sure what it was asking for. Flyer wants to change the policy regarding meat puppetry, they just aren't sure what change to suggest. Although Flyer22 only wrote about Michael Jackson articles, there are 30 categories of Category:Michael Jackson containing over 700 pages.


 * This was a request for information and help. Bit difficult to condone deleting it without a response. As Joe says, if you were to respond to posts like this and note them, sort of like the reliable sources projects do, then you'd soon have a list of perennials with a bunch of links and just say, here read this. ~ R.T.G 11:26, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

"Proving you are not a sock" section
I propose removing the "Proving you are not a sock" section from this policy. It describes a process created in 2008 that supposedly allowed users who met up in real life to vouch for each other in the event of a sockpuppetry allegation—the link in the section is currently dead, but it looks like it is still being used by dewiki editors here. In the past several years I've been an administrator working at WP:SPI, I am not aware of a single time this process has been used to clear a suspected sockpuppet on enwiki, and due to the risk of harassment, I would never recommend to any editor that they disclose their real-life identity to a person accused of sockpuppetry. Mz7 (talk) 23:01, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I removed it. There might be reasonably be some discussion about if there should be a replacement somewhere, but I'm not sure if that's possible to work within your concerns. --Izno (talk) 16:48, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

is it ok to use a second account for a specific project?
I would like to contribute spoken audio content, and i would like to use an undisclosed separate account for privacy, is that acceptable? Also, how many people would be able to tell the accounts were are likely to be same person? Irtapil (talk) 04:12, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , Please see WP:SOCK for how this works. The gist is that yes, you're allowed to have an undisclosed account for privacy reasons, but you're strongly encouraged to notify arbcom or a checkuser to alert them ahead of time to what you're doing.  It's kind of like in American football; when a team is about to run some highly unusual or trick play, they often alert the referee ahead of time, to prevent an accidental penalty call.
 * how do i find a arbcom or a checkuser? Irtapil (talk) 22:49, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , Click this link to send mail to arbcom. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:41, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * To answer your second question, there's a few dozen people who have access to system logs which might tie your two accounts together. See CheckUser for the complete list. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:05, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * So the vast majority of users couldn't identify me? and nobody who wasn't logged in would be able to see? Irtapil (talk) 22:49, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , I'm not sure how to answer that, largely because I'm not sure what the motivation is behind that question. Only checkusers have access to confidential information like what IP address you connected from.  There's lots of other publicly accessible information which any user is free to use to try and figure out who you are.  As an extreme example, if a half dozen brand new users, whose accounts were all made within a few minutes of each other, show up to some discussion and all offer the same opinion, make the same typos, people figure out pretty quickly that they're really the same person.  If you accidentally edit while logged out, your IP address will be exposed for the world to see.
 * If you're going to post anything, you need to accept the risk that somebody will be able to trace it back to you somehow. We take reasonable precautions to protect your privacy, but that's not a promise.  Armed terrorists might storm the datacenter and get physical access to servers..  Or, a government hostile to you might be listening in on the data lines in or out of the data center.  More plausibly, the servers might be hacked.  A Wikimedia Foundation employee might just go rogue, or simply be careless.  Or a bug in the server software might accidentally leak your data.
 * Nobody can promise you that none of these things won't happen, and only you can make the judgement call as to the risk and consequences of exposure. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:58, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Nobody can promise you that none of these things won't happen, and only you can make the judgement call as to the risk and consequences of exposure. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:58, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Nobody can promise you that none of these things won't happen, and only you can make the judgement call as to the risk and consequences of exposure. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:58, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 9 July 2020
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: page moved. Mz7 (talk) 14:26, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sock puppetry → Sockpuppetry – Everyday usage of this phrase is as one word in discussion and its usage in other policies is one word. Jasper Deng (talk) 19:29, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:Sockpuppet investigations uses the single word but maybe that's partly because it has another word on the end.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 19:55, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support I see 17 uses of "sockpuppetry" and 5 uses of "sock puppetry" on this talk page, excluding headers and this RM. A quick scan of archives reveals the same. Clear common usage. -- <b style="color:red">King of ♥</b><b style="color:red"> ♦</b><b style="color:black"> ♣</b><b style="color:black"> ♠</b> 19:35, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support I use one word, and I usually find the split annoying when I’m copy editing. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:54, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support for consistency with the other pages  The creeper2007Talk!  Be well, stay safe 21:32, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - this isn't the title our policy on the use of multiple accounts, including uses which are not allowed, should be moved to. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 22:06, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * "My own move request failed so yours should as well" is not a valid reason to oppose a move request.--Jasper Deng (talk) 08:13, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * "This title does not reflect the page's content" is the reason for this oppose, but thank you for ascribing a childish revenge motive to my comment. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 11:35, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Reconsidering: I have generally viewed this policy as a conduct policy like Civility, which outlines the behaviour that is expected and acceptable, and then outlines behaviour that violates the policy and the consequences for those violations. But it is not, as currently formatted. It's more like Vandalism, which defines a specific form of abuse, and only later outlines some exceptions. That's not what we should be doing here: vandalism is always forbidden, but there are very legitimate uses for operating more than one account. By describing those uses in the "sock puppetry policy" we're implying that all alternate accounts are sock puppets, and they're not. I'm sure those of us who have been clerking for several years can remember many examples of users being implicated in sockpuppet investigations over uses clearly defined as legitimate, in some cases being outed unnecessarily, and having to carry the scarlet letter of the accusation around with them for the rest of time. I don't know what the solution to that is, but an idea I had suggested a few years ago (Jasper Deng linked to it) was to rearrange this policy to be more like the Username policy, describing the allowable uses of multiple accounts followed by abusive uses and consequences. Now I think it may be better to spin those instructions out as a separate multiple accounts guideline, i.e. sock puppetry is always forbidden, but some uses of multiple accounts are not sock puppetry. Anyway, this is all a different discussion, and won't be solved by just renaming things.
 * To the proposal at hand, I support being consistent. Our article that defines this activity is titled "sockpuppet" and appears to have been stable at that title for 14 years; our policy should follow it. Sock puppet refers to the children's toy. (Oddly, sockpuppet redirects to sock puppet, while sock puppetry redirects to sockpuppet (Internet); I'm going to stick a thread at WP:RFD about fixing those and see what happens). Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:06, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * As one of the original authors of d:Wikidata:Alternate accounts, I can say that I agree with you fundamentally that it should be named and outlined in a similar manner. However, in the meantime, while there's no consensus for such an overhaul in our community, we should at least be consistent.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:55, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed; see my revised !vote below. And for anyone who's interested, Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 11. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:01, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose It Is a sock puppet, not a sockpuppet. With that, all the other pages that use it wrong should be moved (leaving redirects). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beetstra (talk • contribs) 12:28, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support consistent with how the term is used elsewhere on the project and how most editors normally use it. OhKayeSierra (talk) 14:26, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per nom; "Sockpuppet" is the most commonly used term. ◊ <b style="color:#095">PRAHLAD</b> <sup style="color:#707">balaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 14:34, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per my comment above, and also propose renaming Template:Wikipedia sock puppetry to match, as well as any other Wikipedia page on this topic which uses "sock puppet" in the title, while maintaining those spaced titles as redirects for historical purposes. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:06, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. Common usage for this usage is clearly without a space. Thryduulf (talk) 15:48, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 02:00, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support I honestly didn't notice it had a space in the first place... – Frood (talk) 00:52, 17 July 2020 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Creating a doppelgänger account
Is it appropriate for me to create a doppelgänger account (e.g. Creating the account Svenb0t to prevent impersonation of him?) Or is it too early to do so? Gioguch (talk) 19:59, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * If User:Svenbot is not yours, you should NOT try to create similarly named accounts. Preemptive doppelgänger account creation to prevent creation by third parties, by third parties, is NOT a good idea. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:12, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , is this your main account. Using a non-main account in project space is a SOCK violation. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:15, 17 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Svenbot is mine. As Smokey says, it's bad form to create doppelgangers for someone else's account, because people could interpret it as an attempt at impersonation. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 22:18, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. Don't worry, I haven't and won't create any doppelganger accounts in the foreseeable future. Gioguch (talk) 22:22, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks! The Squirell Conspirecy (talk) 00:57, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Blocking
I would like to change this wording :

"If a person is found to be using a sockpuppet, the sockpuppet account(s) should be blocked indefinitely."

to

"If a person is found to be using a sockpuppet, the sockpuppet account(s) are usually blocked indefinitely."

I can think of some scenarios where using a different account may be done for good-faith purposes (eg: avoiding harassment and unfamiliarity with back-door policies), so this should be treated rather as a typical guideline that is appropriate most of the time, but not always (as implied by "should").

Here is a practical (and fictitious) example:

"Jenny Young is a 23-year old customer service advisor and former part-time model, who has created a user account under her own name. She is interested in fashion and food and drink and has started to improve Wikipedia's coverage in this area. Having had a positive reception on Facebook, she puts a couple of modelling selfies on her Wikipedia userpage. This sadly attracts the attention of two misogynistic trolls who harass her asking for unwanted attention. Still wanting to contribute to Wikipedia, she abandons the account and creates an anonymous-sounding account that gives no clues as to her gender. She doesn't notify Arbcom about the change or disclosures of the accounts simply because she doesn't know she has to and doesn't want to talk about it. Two weeks later, somebody spots the similarities in editing, and asks for a checkuser, which gives a positive match on the two accounts."


 * Pop quiz - do you block the second account indefinitely?

Thoughts? <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  12:06, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , that is not a true sock-puppet, that is a spoiled clean start (though the difference is subtle). There is no obligation there to disclose that (though it is wise).  It depends on the reason of the move to a new account (which here, seem completely genuine), and the actions on the second.  Here the proper action would be a discussion with the owner of the accounts to see which ones they want to use (if any), and I hope that administrators (and checkusers) on this site would handle it like that. Dirk Beetstra T  C 12:29, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Banned forever because of vandalism but wanting to edit again in good faith?
If someone is banned because he was accused of vandalism, either because he really was a vandal, or because there was a misunderstanding with the admins (which sadly happens a lot), will this count as sockpuppetry or clean start? 2A01:E0A:80B:7840:B06E:C565:FBAB:B8F8 (talk) 22:29, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Socking. Whether someone does something about it is probably a matter of some inevitability. Best to appeal the ban. --Izno (talk) 22:48, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

How do we know if we got it right?
At Sockpuppetry/Notes for the suspect we say: If you have not abused multiple accounts or IPs and have not breached the policy on meat-puppetry, then that will almost always be the finding. How do we know we almost always get it right? And what does almost always even mean? —valereee (talk) 17:51, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Almost always means what it sounds like, almost always. There's no surefire way to know whether or not a sockpuppetry find is accurate, we're dealing with anonymous users here. Obviously, mistakes are bound to happen occasionally, admins and clerks and checkusers are only human. But we require solid evidence (be it behavioral or technical) before blocking, so it can be reasonably assumed that the vast majority of sockpuppetry findings are accurate. We have a system of checks/balances, every SPI must have at least two different sets of eyes look at it before being archived, and I've heard CU's will often ask for second or third opinions before taking action. Sro23 (talk) 18:47, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Sro23, 'almost always' could mean 99.99% of the time or 90%, but more importantly, how do we know? I'm looking at the behavioral evidence in a current case, and the editor is blocked, they probably aren't getting unblocked unless they admit to the sockpuppetry, but some people are arguing the behavioral evidence isn't solid enough. I just feel like this is all very fuzzy. There's no way to prove you aren't a sockpuppet. I feel like behavioral evidence needs to be strong enough to convince basically everyone. —valereee (talk) 22:41, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Sometimes determining whether sockpuppetry exists is clear-cut, and sometimes it's extremely difficult. Admins just have to use their discretion with these complex cases. Making judgement calls and difficult blocks can be very hard, but someone has to do it. One of the reasons I became an SPI clerk is there once was an obviously unrelated user who got caught in a CU false positive on an SPI I initiated. I felt horrible, like I was partially responsible for their block (and this person didn't have a bunch of supportive friends to come to their defense either), and by that point they were so done with Wikipedia they didn't even bother with an unblock request. Mistakes and false positives are bound to happen, and the best thing we can do is post evidence to the contrary, or explain why the evidence the SPI was based on is flawed/weak. I've been accused as a sock before, both on and off SPI, so I get what it feels like. I've also unblocked users originally blocked as sockpuppets, so it is possible to prove you aren't a sock. Most often that comes in the form of showing why the evidence your block is based on is shoddy. And if you have private evidence, send it to arbcom. I know of many, many previously thought-to-have-been-socks later unblocked by arbcom. Sro23 (talk) 23:14, 31 January 2021 (UTC)


 * This is my soapbox to an extent, but at the end of the day it really doesn’t matter. If someone is acting in the exact same way as a user who has previously been blocked or banned, being disruptive in the same way, and there are technical reasons to connect the account, whether or not they’re the same person matters less than the fact that they’re acting exactly like someone who has previously been judged to be a net-negative to the community. That isn’t to say we should go around blocking people for socking without evidence, but this is a website, there’s no intrinsic right to edit it, and if you’re acting in a way that has convinced multiple experienced users that you’re likely the same person that’s previously been kicked out, you’re also probably being disruptive in a similar manner.To be clear, I don’t think any member of the CU team or SPI team goes around blocking without thinking people are actually the same. That’s not our mandate from the community and I don’t think it should be. I do think that sometimes we get wrapped up in the identities of bad actors to a point where it misses the big picture, however. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:29, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * But @TonyBallioni, what about the case -- and I think this is very important -- where the suspected sock isn't being disruptive? They're being productive. But their edit summaries are reeeeeeally similar to a sock, and they have the same political views as that sock, and their IP is in the same locale. But their edits -- their edits -- are productive. —valereee (talk) 03:33, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , that is reasonable doubt. But remember that if someone has shown problems in the past, even if they are productive, they will in the end end up being blocked.  There are now a number of editors who have been massively productive who in the end got restricted by ArbCom.  And that is for most of them without socking problems.  If you are banned, you are banned, not ‘meh, who cares, you are productive so we’ll keep an eye closed’. Dirk Beetstra T  C 04:16, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * But, @Beetstra, we aren't even actually positive they're a sock. CU isn't sure. We're looking at behavioral. Their edits are productive. Why are we giving the benefit of the doubt to the behavioral analysis instead of to the productive editor? —valereee (talk) 04:29, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Looking at the SPI, it seems quite a few people disagree with you that the sock isn't being disruptive. Sro23 (talk) 04:47, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Proposed: a massive automated invasion of privacy for the greater good
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pppery (talk • contribs) 17:19, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:MEAT
I have a concern that because I am using this account on two devices, if I sign in on them because I mistakenly entered the wrong password until I realized that that was not the password, and I know the actual password but I have a concern if people will mistakenly think I have muitiple users using the same account if I sign in to that device, is there any way to prevent that? —User3749 (talk • contribs) 11:10, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * using one account across multiple devices is expected and perfectly acceptable; I have used three different devices since this morning. Nobody can see which device you're using other than a very small number of trusted users (and they're not allowed to say) so as long as you're not giving anyone a reason to suspect you're sharing your account with others, there should be no reason for you to worry.
 * However, you may have a problem if you forget to sign in on one of your devices, as generally editing the same pages while logged in and while logged out is forbidden (see WP:EWLO and WP:LOUTSOCK), and also reveals your IP address which may be a security concern. There has also been an issue recently in which all users have been logged out by the system a few times, but as I understand it that's resolved. And also note that if you log out on one device then you will be logged out on all of them. It's up to you to make sure you're logged in and don't break that rule, we can't help you with that. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:17, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * If you accidentally edit while logged out, then don't worry just log in and (if the edit you've made is potentially controversial at all) just make a second edit noting that it was you. If you want your IP address hidden in this scenario just email the Oversight team (see Oversight) linking to the edit you made as an IP noting what happened. Thryduulf (talk) 20:24, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * If we take into account only Wikipedia users, Ivanvector is right that only the trusted checkusers can see your device. But if we take a broader perspective, your internet service provider's system administrators come into view, of course hackers from anywhere in the route of propagation of your contact to the Wikipedia's system, and a special agency ... (no, there is no such agency, i know). --Himbeerbläuling (talk) 06:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Suggested addition: Pseudonym on other language projects
Due to /  or anyone else who wishes to have a separate account to edit a sister project that uses a different script: -- Molandfreak  (talk,   contribs,  email) 13:21, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Although SUL no longer requires Wikimedians to register different accounts to edit different projects, users who wish to have a separate account to edit a sister project written in a different script may do so. The other account should be treated as a Doppelgänger on the English Wikipedia, and vice-versa.


 * This sounds reasonable. Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 16:37, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

A newbie's question
I am not involved in this, but i have read the article. I found the sentence "The term meatpuppet may be seen by some as derogatory and should be used with care, ... ". I am a native speaker of German, with limited abilities in English. Perhaps due to these limitations, i see the term "meatpuppet" as a breach of civil politeness. Are there Wikipedians who are of opposite opinion? --Himbeerbläuling (talk) 20:15, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not a great word is it? Meatpuppet is one of those terms, like vandal or sockpuppet, which are in common use and can be used in an appropriate manner. I would ask in return, are there better terms? -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:16, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * As a native speaker of german, i am not sure about better terms in English language. But: "sockpuppet" denotes a secondary account that is used for purposes of betraying the community (multiple votings, or producing a false majority in discussions). If the allegation "sockpuppet" is correct, then the term seems cute. The term "vandal" means a person who produces damage, not by accident but by intend. If the allegation "vandal" is correct, then the term seems appropriate(, only the ancient people might be humiliated). "meatpuppet" is different: If the allegation named by this term is correct, then the person is someone who comes to a field of controversy in order to help a friend. In some cases, this might be regarded (by general society) as wrongdoing, but in many cases the general public says this is correct behaviour. --Himbeerbläuling (talk) 17:54, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Make it clear students are allowed to create alternate accounts for their Wiki Ed courses
Right now WP:LEGITSOCK doesn't have a specific exemption for students wishing to create an alt for an educational course they're participating in. While the "privacy" rationale could be interpreted to allow that since participating in a Wiki Ed course effectively doxxes yourself, I think we should make it more clear that students are allowed to create an alternate account for the course they're in. My proposed wording would be changing:
 * Teaching: Teachers who incorporate Wikipedia into their classes may create an account for the purpose of supervising students. Use of the account should be limited to articles and other pages directly related to students and classwork.

to
 * Education: Educators and students may create a separate account that does not have to be linked to their main account for the purpose of managing or participating in student assignments. Use of the account should be limited to articles and other pages directly related to students and classwork. Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 21:58, 30 March 2021 (UTC)


 * The underlying documentation problem here is that Sockpuppetry does not distinguish clearly between disclosed and undisclosed alt accounts.
 * Disclosed alt accounts are almost always OK, often to be recommended such as for editing in an educational course unconnected to one's personal main account.
 * Legit undisclosed accounts is a much more complicated matter, and the language contains hints and nuances, and for some student or teacher looking for a simple answer, it makes it quite confusing.
 * I propose to make a clean split within WP:Sockpuppetry of disclosed and undisclosed alternative accounts. I propose that "disclosed" means that both/all userpages prominently link to each other, and to suggest the usual template for doing that.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:45, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * interestingly enough, some Wiki Ed courses are telling students to create an alternative account for the purposes of the course if they have an existing Wikipedia account to avoid it being tied to their real life identity. Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 19:04, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that the text proposed by Chess would make sense, make things better for students, and fit into existing policy. I'm not so sure about the split being proposed by SmokeyJoe - that might merit a separate discussion. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:09, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree the text by Chess is good. Zzuuzz, why not separate declared legit from undeclared legit?  What is the concern?  —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:17, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I would even change Chess’ “may” to “are encouraged”. Course editing means weird editing compared to one’s usual style, and it warrants a different main userpage to disclose and explain.  Course editing can very easily be an unexpected change to editor POV. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:20, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Added. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:25, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 06:17, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. My main concern is simply that I don't understand what changes you're proposing, or rather how. Where do you place doppelgängers, of which I have many which are unlabeled? I think I have another background concern that this policy can easily turn WP:CREEPY, and that isn't necessarily a good thing. -- zzuuzz (talk) 23:16, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Split the simple from the subtle

 * Hi zzuuzz. I've taken my time to think on your response.  I am proposing to improve the readability of this policy for newcomers.  I am not proposing any actual changes to any rule or practice.  My longstanding reading of this WP:SOCK policy is that it reads like a ball of twisted knotted string.  It used to be worse, and is not terrible, but it can still be improved.  I can see that different people read different things in it with different levels of ease, and that for something that has never concerned me before, eg a doppelgänger-prevention account, I may on a simple reading fail to see what others read easily.  I think that unravelling twisted string is prone to make it worse, which is your CREEPy point.  I think than the lede of the section WP:Sockpuppetry might be improved by noting that declared alternative accounts, and registered but non-editing accounts, are not SOCK violation issues.  Not ever?  Not likely?  The sentence on declared alt accounts should link easily to instructions on how to declare.  The section should only then continue to cover the increasingly complicated cases of legit, undeclared, editing-active accounts, but without going overboard.  On reading again now, "Alternative accounts should always be identified as such on their user pages, except where doing so would defeat the point of the account" strikes me as an example of convoluted instruction writing.  Imagine yourself wanting to do something, but wanting to check whether it is WP:SOCK-compliant, eg set up an account for doing Chess' class assignment.  The first decision is: "Is this to be declared or secret".  I think the policy reader looking for information should get that distinction early, not very late by an add-on clause alluding to it.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:30, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

RFC on "privacy alts"
See Village pump (policy). Beeblebrox (talk) 22:00, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Mobile and Public IP addresses
There should be additional detail to clarify all necessary information regarding mobile or public IP addresses (from sources such as hotel Wi-fi). May be helpful to create a template for these. Such IP addresses are more likely to be reused than private IP addresses. Holdonspirit (talk) 02:57, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Addition to PROJSOCK wording.
Given that the RFC close showed a rough consensus that alternate accounts participating in project space is allowed in limited circumstances, but didn't find a consensus for a specific wording, I propose adding the following to the end of PROJSOCK:"in most circumstances."Jackattack1597 (talk) 00:13, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

How different can alt names be if used to edit similar articles?
User:RudolphHitz uses his phone and his work computer to edit similar but not identical articles (although both accounts did post to an Admin's talk page. His other account name is User:Rodotype. He seems to switch back and forth with these during the day. I am NOT suggesting that this is done to confuse, but it could be confusing. It looks to me though as this is technically allowed. Is it and if so should it be? Doug Weller  talk 18:53, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * If they do not edit the same topics it is allowed, there are no rules for names of alternate accounts. It's not ideal but as you say, technically allowed. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:17, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * that's the problem. They aren't editing the same articles but are editing the same topics, eg Odisha and Indian history related articles. Doug Weller  talk 09:23, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , here, RudolphHitz edited Kingdom of Jeypore at 12:42, 12 June; here Rodotype edited the closely related article Jeypore at 13:12, 12 June, half an hour later. When Doug Weller brought up the issue on RudolphHitz's talkpage, the user did not give a relevant answer, but merely took it as an opportunity to speak disagreeably. I think they should be required to, at least, use an alt that is recognizable as being related to "RudolphHitz". I don't see how that can be a problem, unless they want to confuse. If they will neither comply nor explain, the Rodotype account should IMO be indeffed. This is supposed to be a collaborative project, after all. Bishonen &#124; tålk 14:00, 15 June 2021 (UTC).
 * I don't disagree, all I'm saying is that policy as written does not seem to support blocking the second account as a sock. I also don't see why one would need separate accounts for editing on separate devices, which is their given reason for this. That doesn't add up. I know we all just love ANI but I think proposing a formal one account restriction or something like that might be the solution here if they won't agree to something like that voluntarily. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:26, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Forgot password-Legitimate use?
Can a user make a new account/edit under an IP address because they use their account (for example i use Commons to upload photos, Wikipedia to edit and Wikidata to make easy taxonbars) on multiple Wikimedia projects, but forgot their passwords, but never remembers their passwords after a confirmation email?Leomk (Don't shout here, Shout here!)  01:42, 26 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes, if you forget your password and cannot recover your account, you may create a new account to continue editing. In such a case, you should clarify this situation in a note on the user pages of both accounts. Editing while logged out is also an option (see WP:LOGOUT), but I would always encourage you to edit with an account because your IP address may reveal private information about you. Mz7 (talk) 23:29, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Another reason to edit with an account is that people may notice that the edits you make while logged out are similar to those you made using your old account and misconstrue that as an attempt to avoid scrutiny. Making a new account (and disclosing your old one as Mz7 notes) is the best thing.  As for forgetting your password, you may find a password manager to be helpful. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:36, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Updated per RfC
Based on the RfC closure, I've gone ahead and updated the policy based on the things that were clear in the close. , I started this as a new section since I also added the bits about accounts being able to be connected and other things that the close had. Feedback and tweaks are welcome, but this was what I was able to draw from the close that seemed the most straightforward to implement. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:51, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I've made some wording changes, specifically so that it is clear this sentence allows an undisclosed alternative account to comment in project space in discussions which directly affect them instead of discussions being allowed to happen which affect them (which is one meaning I could read from the sentence). Also I tried to make it clear that only one of their accounts could be used in the discussion (either their main account or the undisclosed alternative account). Dreamy <i style="color:#d00">Jazz</i> talk to me &#124; my contributions 10:22, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The reason I tried to make it clear that only one account could be used is because "Contributing to the same page or discussion with multiple accounts" still seems to have consensus. Project space discussions are included in this and as such this sentence should clearly say that you can't have another undisclosed legitimate alternative account comment in the discussion and also if the alternative undisclosed account comments their "main" account cannot then be used to comment in the discussion. However, this does present a problem. If a discussion directly affects their main account and their undisclosed legitimate alternative account this wording does seem to be an issue. I'll try to make this clearer and in-line with the RfC close. Dreamy <i style="color:#d00">Jazz</i> talk to me &#124; my contributions 10:42, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the wording A legitimate undisclosed alternative account is permitted to contribute to project space discussions that directly affect the account. is good enough for me. I think it implies that if one or more accounts which are undisclosed legitimate accounts are directly affected by the discussion, they may both comment as separate people. This may not be what the community wants, but if this is not the case such a discussion mentioned before could then only have one of their accounts commenting and as such this seems to go against the RfC close. I also think the RfC close does not allow a "main" account to comment in the discussion, unless it is directly affected. My reading is that it does allow the main account to comment as well as their undisclosed legitimate accounts. One point is that this exemption only applies to legitimate alternative accounts. This was not mentioned in the RfC close linked to above. However, I am being WP:BOLD to say that this exemption should only apply to legitimate undisclosed accounts. Otherwise, the continued use of that account is an abusive use of multiple accounts. Dreamy <i style="color:#d00">Jazz</i> talk to me &#124; my contributions 10:52, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

We might want to provide a few examples of what "directly affect the account" means possibly in a footnote. "If the account is summoned to a noticeboard discussion about its editing, the account may respond. If the account has been editing an article, and the article is nominated for deletion, the account may participate in the deletion discussion as any editor would.  In contrast, an undisclosed alternative account should not participate in a Request for Adminship, nor in any noticeboard discussion in which it is not an involved party." Jehochman Talk 13:10, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I tweaked a bit further. I think that's a bit stronger than "discouraged", while also softening the language of the previous policy in line with the close. I also agree a footnote would be useful in lines with Jehochman. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:04, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I feel like the RfC softened the previous language and that's basically no change. Perhaps we should just use the "limited participation" of the RfC close. Something like, ? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:46, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * If you removed the first sentence altogether and tweaked it to Participation in project space should be limited to project space discussions that directly affect the account I think it'd work and would be consistent with the close. I'm struggling with the first sentence because the purpose of WP:ILLEGIT is to say when something is not allowed so people have clarity on what they shouldn't do, but I agree the RfC had a consensus to limited exceptions to the norm of not participating. Perhaps Undisclosed alternate accounts should normally not participate in discussions internal to the project. Limited participation in project space discussions that directly impact legitimate undisclosed alternative account is permitted.Basically we should be defining what isn't allowed and then pointing out that there are limited occasions when it is allowed so that the bullet point matches with the rest of the section. I think we can get wording right on this that is consistent with the RfC and works for everyone. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:29, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The RFC close stated "Retention of PROJSOCK as currently stated is also, therefore, a minority position on both numerical and strength of argument grounds" but also "Any agreement on the actual limits of such participation is more difficult to discern from the following conversations. The general principle that participation in specific conversations that directly affect the alternative identity but that policy-setting venues are out of bounds seems to underlay many of the statements below. What is not clear is that an enforceable consensus text can be extracted from this discussion to replace the current text. It is suboptimal for any close of a discussion as long (in both time and text dimensions) as this one to recommend further discussion but any mediated compromise text would stray too far into WP:SUPERVOTE to be tenable." So I'm not sure any changes to the text have consensus, meaning I'm not sure anyone can make any changes to PROJSOCK at this point and claim that it's "per" that RFC because it's not clear that "an enforceable consensus text can be extracted from this discussion" and further discussion is recommended. FWIW I'm contemplating launching the next RFC about changes to PROJSOCK after the ARCA closes unless someone else launches it first. I would probably !vote to delete it altogether. It may be more efficient to figure the replacement text (if any) out in an RFC rather than trying to BRD changes in the wake of an RFC close that kind of explicitly said there isn't consensus for any specific text change. Levivich 15:58, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

I have to admit I did not anticipate all the push-back on that ARCA request. I think at the very least the footnote seems to suggest that arbcom dictated this and it is therefore policy, so it should be removed regardless. It's a principle, not even a finding, and arbcom is not empowered to dictate policy, nor it seems did it intend to in this case, someone just added it in and it became de facto policy, which is certainly not how it is supposed to work. Removing the footnote removes the suggestion that this is an order from on high that cannot be altered, and in hindsight is probably the approach I should've taken instead of going to ARCA. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:02, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The alternate account policy is designed to protect editors who work in sensitive areas from being subject to harassment. Any project space editing should be in that spirit.  If people use an undisclosed alternate account to slag a perceived enemy at RFA, at a noticeboard, at arbitration (dumb move!) or anywhere else, that's not cricket. Jehochman Talk 16:12, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Wasn't the majority in that RfC to "scrap PROJSOCK", ie delete it entirely because editors believed it was redundant to the actual illegitimate uses in the policy? Some editors supported one of the proposer's 3 options, and some (most) editors supported "scrapping" it, but very few seemed to support modifying it. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:13, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * To add: I don't think the current wording of PROJSOCK reflects the consensus of that RfC. The current wording implies that editors may participate in discussions about them (eg if an ANI is filed against them), and that is the 'limited exception' to the rule. Really, the wording implemented, and the close to some degree, is a mix of the proposer's remedy #1 and #2, but all of the proposed remedies did not gain consensus (and were, for the most part, generally opposed). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:16, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Although I made some wording changes to what was added, I do think that most or nearly all abusive use of multiple accounts is covered under other points. I think I've only used it in sockpuppetry blocks once and even then it was only part of my reasoning. The RfC clearly says that PROJSOCK isn't fit for purpose, though the close does not seem to say it should be removed outright. In the closure, the line of where PROJSOCK should limit participation is unclear. If we need to have a further RfC about the exact wording used for PROJSOCK, I don't see why it needs to wait for the amendment request to close as the arbitrators seem to be pretty clear that as it's a principle the case doesn't need to be edited. Seemingly this is something which needs further input from other editors and another RfC which gives a few options of what this line is and then a remove it option may be useful to prevent any circular WP:BOLD editing. Dreamy <i style="color:#d00">Jazz</i> talk to me &#124; my contributions 22:05, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I think a wording RfC, with an option to scrap it, would be an appropriate next step. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:26, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Should we have an WP:RFCBEFORE discussion about the question? My initial clunky thought was something like "An RFC determined that the current wording of PROJSOCK doesn't have consensus. How should it be changed?" But I'm not sure if the first sentence is an uncontroversial summary of the last RFC, and if the question is perhaps too broad? (To DJ's point about waiting for the ARCA to close, the only reason I mentioned that is because I didn't want to be accused of gaming/forum shopping/whatever by starting an RFC while a related ARCA was still open. You know how Wikipedia can be sometimes. Other than that I also can think of no reason to wait.) Levivich 15:13, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I do get that people may see it as a shopping around and you are right waiting for a bit may be best to prevent accusations (even though the ARCA doesn't look like it will change in direction). I suspect the ARCA request won't take too long for an archive. Dreamy <i style="color:#d00">Jazz</i> talk to me &#124; my contributions 15:44, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * for me the question would be something closer to "An RFC determined that the current wording of PROJSOCK doesn't have consensus. Which of the following should replace it?" And give no more than 4 (but ideally 2) options plus a "remove it". Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:16, 16 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I support removing the footnote regardless of what wording we land on. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:09, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

BK (and everyone else), if we go with a multiple choice RFC, I'm presuming the old language is not going to be a choice per the last RFC. So one of the options would be remove it, and one of the options I presume would be what's on the page currently: Any other options? Levivich 19:41, 16 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I'll throw out my original version of but if others have ones they prefer that provides something between "generally may not" and having nothing that's fine by me. I would also be OK with offering the more limited (and thus closer to longstanding PROJSOCK) of  Either way when I'm saying up to 4 options (but ideally 2) I am not counting remove as one of them. So I expect we'll have 3-5 total options in the RfC. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:11, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Any feedback on any of this? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:47, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , that looks good to me. Dreamy <i style="color:#d00">Jazz</i> talk to me &#124; my contributions 20:20, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd like to see less options. 4/5 is too many I think and would lead to a split consensus, possibly just a no consensus outcome depending on who the closer ends up being and if they don't want to put in the work of splitting the discussion into specific points of debate. 3 options at most IMO: that would be complete removal, Barkeep's revision of the current, and then I guess one other option. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:21, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * If three options is desired I would want to see remove outright, Barkeep's version of the original and then Barkeep's version of the original changed to say "not to be used" instead of "discouraged from participating". My reasoning for the latter is that by only providing the exception in the second sentence, this is a more limited version but is less restrictive than the old PROJSOCK. This wording would also explicitly disallow the use of alternative accounts in other project space discussions (like policy based discussions as mentioned in the RfC close as being something which is out of bounds). Perhaps then having wording about policy based discussions is needed, but I don't want to see the proposed text getting over complicated so this may be undesirable. Dreamy <i style="color:#d00">Jazz</i> talk to me &#124; my contributions 23:24, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the concept of 'use but only for discussions that affect the account' can suffice with one option; whether that be Barkeep's modification, yours, or some other, whichever is most likely to be supported. In the RfC concluded, it was one group of editors who largely held this restrictive opinion, another large group for abolition, and really I'm not sure there was a third large group. I don't think there was anyone who disagreed with 'forbidden' but agreed with 'discouraged'. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:41, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with fewer options. I generally think the best way to approach this is with "pre-polling," meaning only present an option in the RFC if that option has multiple editors supporting it (enough to suggest that it may have a chance of gaining consensus); we shouldn't run an option if only one person supports it. So do we have multiple editors supporting different drafts? (Not a rhetorical question: I'm not sure where everyone stands on the various drafts.) Levivich 02:30, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Pre-polling
I'm creating this "pre-polling" section to gain the unambiguous support (or opposition) to proposals from above. This should just be seen as a tool to see which has support to be included in the RfC. I know it's like a poll, but it will be hard to track who supports what without a list of supports. Using semicolons to prevent too many section headers, but feel free to change them to section headers if you disagree with that. Please add your proposals here too. Dreamy <i style="color:#d00">Jazz</i> talk to me &#124; my contributions 09:44, 1 July 2021 (UTC) Remove PROJSOCK from the page.
 * 1. Remove outright
 * I'd support having this option. Dreamy <i style="color:#d00">Jazz</i> talk to me &#124; my contributions 09:44, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * ProcSock (talk) 10:41, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Levivich 21:14, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Keeping on the page
 * 2. Keep the what is there now.
 * I'd support having this option. Dreamy <i style="color:#d00">Jazz</i> talk to me &#124; my contributions 09:44, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Change PROJSOCK to
 * 3. Barkeep's modification of the original
 * I'd support having this option. Dreamy <i style="color:#d00">Jazz</i> talk to me &#124; my contributions 09:44, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Just to note, I would support what we have currently over this, so count this as a "second option". Dreamy <i style="color:#d00">Jazz</i> talk to me &#124; my contributions 11:43, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I oppose having both, because it’s cognitive anchoring, and I don’t see why we shouldn’t choose one or the other as this and the one above as roughly equal. ProcSock (talk) 10:41, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Change PROJSOCK to
 * 4. Barkeep's more restrictive modification of the original

So "remove" and "keep what's there now" (if I'm reading the above correctly)? Anyone else care to chime in? Levivich 14:04, 17 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I still don't think what's there now reflects the RfC. So I continue to suggest that the range of 4 provides the best choices: completely permissive (1), somewhat permissive (3), somewhat restrictive (2), more restrictive (4). Since this had gone stale and I had missed this discussion pinging the above @Dreamy Jazz@Levivich@ProcSock. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:00, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't have a strong opinion about how many options are run, just that the status quo version should be restored and an RFC should be launched before any changes are made to the text. So I'd support the 4-version option (but I'd also support the 3- or 2-version options). Levivich 17:38, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I do feel that 2 and 3 are basically the same, or at least will be in practice. I certainly can't really tell a distinction between them. I'd like to see 3 clear and broad enough options, and then of course people can qualify themselves in the full comment, and I feel like that will make for a more productive discussion. Something like:
 * But if others feel differently I won't stand in the way of a four options approach. Better that than this discussion dying out. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:46, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I think may not and discouraged are differences in kind but if I'm the only one who sees it... Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:53, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm happy with or without having four. I think the 3rd option wording is better in what you proposed compared to 4 above. Whether I'd like to see "may not" or "discouraged" is not as important to me, and what ever is preferred I would be happy with. Dreamy <i style="color:#d00">Jazz</i> talk to me &#124; my contributions 09:03, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * OK I was going to offer some compromises but in thinking about it further I think I've formed an opinion: I'm in favor of 3 options, per KISS principle: (1) nothing (remove), (2) permissive ("discouraged"), (3) restrictive ("is not permitted, except"). I think having a 4th option that is more/less permissive/restrictive than another option is overly-complicating it. Although I still think #2 and #3 should track the same language to make it clear what the difference is between them. Nobody is disagreeing with "A legitimate undisclosed alternative account is permitted to contribute to project space discussions that directly affect the account", so let's say that in the same way in both options #2 and #3, and then have the difference between the options be a difference of "discouraged" v. "prohibited". Thus may I suggest:
 * Remove PROJSOCK from the page
 * Permissive: "Legitimate undisclosed alternative accounts are discouraged from participating in discussions internal to the project that do not directly affect the account."
 * Restrictive: "Legitimate undisclosed alternative accounts are prohibited from participating in discussions internal to the project that do not directly affect the account."
 * What do we think of those three? Levivich 16:00, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:10, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Sounds great. I'd support having these as options in an RfC. Dreamy <i style="color:#d00">Jazz</i> talk to me &#124; my contributions 22:50, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't know if anyone is still watching this, but I'm inclined to launch the RFC with the three options immediately above. If anyone thinks an RFC shouldn't be launched at all or we need further discussion before an RFC is launched, please let me know. Levivich 18:32, 18 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Both the existing text and these proposals (except the first) are really poor. Rules must not be written using jargon which is just made up for the rule! There are at least two, and I'll argue three, phrases that are not properly defined:
 * "alternative account" — If someone has two accounts for legitimate reasons, which one is the alternative account?
 * "internal to the project" — Is that the opposite of "external to the project"? Does it include noticeboards like RSN, or just policy discussions? Or what?
 * "directly affect the account" — If I want to use a source and someone starts a RSN discussion to try to stop me, is that affecting my account? What about when someone reports me to ANI for disruptive editing? What about when I am accused of socking? Or when?
 * In all three cases, I am honestly not sure what the intention is, and I've been an admin for over 17 years. Perhaps that's because I'm not a policy gnome and I don't follow all the discussion from week to week. But rules should be written for typical editors, not for policy gnomes. Zerotalk 14:25, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you (or anyone) want to suggest alternative language to include in the RFC, or a different framing for the RFC? Levivich 03:35, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Where can I find a description of the problem that has to be solved? We all know three things not allowed: (1) we can't use one account to avoid a block or ban of the other, (2) we can't use more than one account at the same time to gain an advantage in a debate, (3) we can't use one account to appear to give an uninvolved opinion on a matter involving the other (for example, if one account is reported to ANI, the other account shouldn't be commenting there). I would have thought those were already covered; if not we should fix that. What additional problem is PROJSOCK intended to combat? Zerotalk 04:15, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Idk, I think it should be removed. Levivich 05:24, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Since the closer of the previous RfC wrote "Retention of PROJSOCK as currently stated is also, therefore, a minority position on both numerical and strength of argument grounds", why wasn't it removed and why is an additional RfC needed to remove it? Zerotalk 05:53, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it should be removed based on the prior RFC, and anyone wanting to write a new one should run a new RFC for that, but see the OP at the top of this thread. Levivich 06:03, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * In light of Zero's comments and the lack of anyone objecting, I've removed projsock as I think that's the consensus result per the last RFC. Levivich 19:42, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

The actual result of the RfC was That there should be some amount of limited participation in the WP: and WT: (internal Wikipedia and Wikipedia Talk) namespaces has a rough consensus. The minority position line was saying that keeping the former wording which was a bright-line rule and absolute prohibition was the minority position. Allowing people to run socks in policy RfCs or RfAs that they don't want associated with their main account wasn't a majority position either. Rather, the RfC was focused on people being able to participate in discussion that would affect the reason for the accounts existence (i.e. if you're using a valid alt to participate in a contentious area because your main account is under your real name, it makes sense that you should be able to participate in RfCs in that area.)I haven't kept up with the discussion above, but I think its possible to either modify what we have now in line with the RfC from last summer or run a new RfC. I think either is possible since what I put in there after the last RfC was meant to be an initial attempt at implementing, and that sort of stuff can easily be tweaked. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:04, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, let's try this on for size taking into account the feedback above and the results of the prior RfC: Legitimate alternative accounts may be used for discussions in Wikipedia or the Wikipedia talk namespace when those discussions are relevant to the main space content the alternative account edits or are related to a behavioural concern impacting the account. I think that's more clearly defined than what is currently there, probably more liberal as well, and is in line with the 2021 RfC. People could always start a new RfC to remove, but I think this takes us more towards what the 2021 result was from what was put in initially. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:16, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * @TonyBallioni: What do you think the RFC question should be? What do you think of the three-option RFC question I proposed in my comment above at *cough* 27 August 2021? Levivich 23:17, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Heh, I'd ignored this discussion in part because I don't think multiple RfCs on the same topic within the same year yield good results. That causes everyone except the extremes and policy wonks to not comment, and typically you don't get a result that's actually reflective of what the community wants because there's limited appetite outside of policy wonks and people with strong opinions on the subject to keep commenting.Had a much longer reply typed out, but I'll save you my pontificating. Essentially what I think would yield a more reflective policy is updating whatever is there to be in plain English and accurately reflect the liberalization of the prior RfC, and then if it is still creating practical problems, hold an RfC then after the dust has settled. Typically that yields better results than two RfCs within a year, in my experience (that's also my view when I'm the one arguing for a change, fwiw.) TonyBallioni (talk) 23:46, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think the discussion's outcome warrants outright removal, and I think Tony's proposal to give it some time and see if there are any remaining practical concerns come summertime is the most practical way forward. --Blablubbs (talk) 02:08, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Tony's proposal is a big improvement. I'll repeat it: Legitimate alternative accounts may be used for discussions in Wikipedia or the Wikipedia talk namespace when those discussions are relevant to the main space content the alternative account edits or are related to a behavioural concern impacting the account. But consider how this is broken by someone with accounts A and B. (1) B comments (talk page, AfD, etc) on a topic edited by A, (2) B comments on a behavioral issue concerning A. Aren't both of those already forbidden? What additional practices do we wish to prohibit that are not already prohibited and yet harmful to the encyclopedia? Zerotalk 02:44, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The two primary ones I can think of are picking fights with other editors one has history with in project space (i.e. at noticeboards or RfAs, and potentially harassment concerns) and trying to avoid scrutiny in RfCs where one's behaviour towards other editors could reasonably impact whether an account is in good standing. Socking in these areas creates distrust, which makes it harder for the necessary social components of the project to function.Arguably these are all covered under "avoiding scrutiny", which is somewhat of a catch-all for deceptive behaviour that is disruptive, but so are most of the other items on the list. The type of people to disruptively project sock in these ways also tend to be the type of people who are familiar with policy enough that having an explicit prohibition makes the enforcement component easier when someone is caught acting in a way most people would agree is disruptive. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:11, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Examples that I can think of (all hypothetical obviously):
 * Commenting/voting in a RfA discussion using account B or A. The account chosen may be chosen based on the context surrounding the account, including what conflicts it may have been in with regards to a certian editor at RfA.
 * Commenting/voting in a discussion about changing policy. For example account A being an administrator but choosing to use non-admin account B to comment on the proposals in the recent RFA2021. Dreamy <i style="color:#d00">Jazz</i> talk to me &#124; my contributions 03:17, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The first example of TB and the first of DJ are similar. If account A has had an issue with another user, then account B should not be in any type of dispute with that user. Agreed. If it isn't already clearly forbidden, it would be better to add something saying that it is forbidden than to leave it to be indirectly inferred. I don't understand TB's second example (unclear referents of "one's" and "account"). DJ's general statement "Commenting/voting in a discussion about changing policy" needs elucidation. Does DJ think that having two legitimate accounts should totally ban a person from participating in policy making? Or is DJ working with a model where a "main" account can participate and an "alternate" account cannot? Zerotalk 04:54, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry - to clarify, typically we expect people to behave themselves in policy discussions, not insult others, not make off the wall comments, not bludgeon the discussion, etc. The way people behave in RfCs and other policy discussions is something the community does take into account at venues such as ANI and RfA when considering either sanctions or considering adminship. How people behave in the more social areas of the project is something that the community has historically taken into consideration relatively heavily in both sanctions discussions and consideration of higher permissions. Bifurcating those in such a way as to make it difficult for the community to understand how a user interacts with others, especially if those interactions are heated, is one of the things the policy is trying to discourage because it leads to an erosion of trust.My read of 's second comment is saying that the historical reading has been that only main accounts and publicly declared alts should contribute to policy discussions. I agree with this, and I think their example is a good one: an admin using a non-admin sock to argue against changes to the admin policy would clearly be a breach of community trust in that they were hiding their identity and the impact the changes would have on them. Other examples would be someone proposing a pet policy change to a sourcing policy when they've historically had issues with following BLP, so there might be an underlying agenda, or something similar. Often in policy discussions the motive for the change is something the community does consider, and having two histories makes that much more difficult.Like I think I said above, I think the entire socking policy can be summed up in the avoidance of scrutiny point, and the policy itself makes it clear that what is blockable is disruption caused by using multiple accounts, and that the list is not exhaustive. The value of the list is that its easy to show people that there's consensus for certain behaviours being disruptive without having to make an exhaustive argument. I think the behaviours that DJ and I are describing would generally be considered disruptive by the community, which is why we have historically blocked for them. Since the list is not exhaustive, and couldn't possibly be, they've been lumped together under the category of "project socking" which is meant to discourage behaviour that tears at the social fabric of the internal project space. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:10, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I doubt that I would disagree with you on any particular example of disruptive behavior. I'm only concerned that the community standards are explained in a way that is clear to ordinary editors, doesn't allow things that we don't want, but also doesn't gratuitously exclude things that are not harmful. Your wording is much better than the previous attempts. Now consider this: a common case is an academic who edits in her professional specialty with one account, and in a hobby interest with another account (this can happen due to university pressure, not just from personal choice). Which of those accounts is the "alternative account"? It might not be obvious even to the editor, so I don't think that relying on the phrase "alternative account" is good. Suppose we write "Only one account can take part in discussions to change policy, which must be the administrator account if there is one."? The last part solves DJ's example, I think. Zerotalk 11:49, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * That wouldn't make sense. Suppose an editor has two accounts: one under their real name, and a second privacy account that they use to edit topics related to human sexuality. They shouldn't have to limit themselves to one account for policy discussions. If anything, for the transparency issues Tony raises, we want the sexuality-alt to be !voting on sexuality-related policy discussions, and the other account to be voting on non-sexuality-related policy discussions. Both accounts should be allowed to !vote in RFCs, RSNs, and policy changes... as long as they're not both voting in the same discussions. Levivich 17:03, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I was trying to compromise by separating noticeboard discussions like AfD, RSN, etc, from discussions where the likely outcome is a change of policy. I think every account should be able to participate in AfD, RSN, etc, in the subject area which that account edits, but that is allowed by Tony's proposed wording that I would want to keep. In regard to discussions to change policy, with respect to Tony and Dreamy I'm still not convinced there is a problem that demands a solution. We have the example of someone pretending to not be an administrator in a policy discussion about administrators, but how many times in the entire history of Wikipedia has it been advantageous to pretend to not be an administrator? Zerotalk 01:39, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Would guidelines changes count as "policy changes"? MOS, SNGs, etc. There's lots of policy changes that directly affect content, and some that are limited to specific subject areas. I think it's better to let the project sock participate in any and all discussions relevant to the subject area that the sock is for. I recognize there are some policy discussions that relate to no subject area (or all subject areas), in which case, there's the main/alternative problem you raise, and having the editor limit it to one account is the right thing to do. But, as you've pointed out, that's already written at WP:SOCK (no brigading discussions). The policy language telling admins not to use undisclosed non-admin alts in policy discussions related to adminship shouldn't be necessary because we vet admins for judgment and competency, but if it is necessary, should go in WP:ADMIN. Levivich 01:58, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Question about a role account
So, it says "Role account exceptions can be made for non-editing accounts approved to provide email access, ". Per this discussion I am interested in establishing one for UTRS appeals, similar to User:Arbitration Committee. What isn't clear to me is who does the approving or where to make such a request. I'm assuming that's because this is pretty darn rare? Beeblebrox (talk) 21:04, 16 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Be bold, I suppose. I don't see anything wrong with making a similar role account for UTRS appeals, as long as all the maintainers of UTRS are on board with the idea. If it becomes a problem, then we can always decommission the account. Mz7 (talk) 19:39, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Abandoning
A user has an earlier account, but doesn't want to be associated with it, for some reason. He created a new account with a new name. The earlier account made only 2 edits, one of them accidentally (in a discussion, not a vote) assuming he was logged-in with the new account. He would prefer deleting the earlier one, but since that is not possible, what is the next step? I understand he can add retired at the old one, and stop using it. The user page and talk page of the earlier account are redlinks currently. Is any disclosure necessary, either at the old or new accounts? Jay 💬 17:00, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It doesn't sound like that will be needed, just abandon it and forget about it. If the edits made somehow conflict with this policy, for example if they could be construed as consensus-stacking by both accounts, then make sure that's somehow sorted out, for example by retracting the comments by one of the editors. If that's all straight then there's probably no need to declare it. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:03, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

New IP editors who exclusively interact with my edits
Hi there. This is not a sockpuppetry report, but a query about sockpuppetry as it applies to a specific situation. I've noticed a new IP editor that popped up the other day, and whose only edits to date have been to immediately revert a minor stylistic error I corrected on a page, and to disagree with me on an RFC. This seems a bit sketchy to me, especially since there are several users who seem to watch my edit history and interact with all or almost all of my edits, but there's currently no way for me to demonstrate that the IP is tied to any one specific user. Is there any Wikipedia policy about this sort of situation? Or is the only way to proceed to assume that the IP editor is acting in good faith, that they coincidentally stumbled upon my activity in two different areas of Wikipedia, and that they felt so strongly about them that they decided to start editing Wikipedia for the first time? Would appreciate any links to relevant policy or previous discussions of similar situations. Thanks. Philomathes2357 (talk) 18:21, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I might refer you to WP:IPSPA. People come across edits through a multitude of circumstances. If someone sees an edit they disagree with then they might undo it. If it's reverted they might re-revert. That's not at all uncommon. It's also not uncommon for someone who reverts someone twice to see what else they're up to and have an opinion, especially if it's a similar theme, doubly so if it's political. If it carries on much, or if someone else is behaving in the same way, then there might be a problem worth looking into. What you've mentioned is not really enough for a checkuser to go fishing. It will probably remain a question without an answer. -- zzuuzz (talk) 23:58, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * That's a detailed and helpful answer. The IP did attack me as a bad-faith actor and expressed an intense dislike for me personally, but, while odd, that isn't necessarily evidence of prior familiarity with my activity. Thanks for clarifying! Philomathes2357 (talk) 00:06, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

"Circumventing policies" and "Good hand and bad hand accounts"
Should these two be merged? "Using one account for constructive contributions and the other one for disruptive editing or vandalism" is the same thing as "using a second account to violate policy". AKK 700  03:43, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I admit they're similar and could theoretically be merged. In my mind, however, the distinction is that a true "good-hand-bad-hand" situation involves accounts that appear to have nothing to do with each other. We have had some highly abusive editors in the past who have made "good hand" accounts that look totally on the straight and narrow, even to the point of sailing through RfA, while their bad hand accounts have caused much pain to the project and to the community. In this sense, I don't really see the example of using a second account to violate 3RR as a true good-hand-bad-hand—they would both be "bad hand" accounts in that situation. Mz7 (talk) 19:35, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @AKK-700 43.224.245.232 (talk) 23:36, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * "Good afternoon hand"? Schierbecker (talk) 05:58, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Just a vandalism. Now reverted.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  09:20, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Using a legitimate alternative account for Flickr uploads on the Commons?
Having read through the article a few times now, I was wondering whether the 'Legitimate Account' rationale could fall under starting up an alternative Commons account for the sole purpose of uploading another user's images from Flickr, so as to not clog up my own uploads with those? I have been waiting on another user to upload from Flickr to the Commons for over a month now and I am starting to consider taking the matter into my own hands, although I'm not hot on doing so on my main Commons account, as well as that I'm wondering whether beating another Commons user to the punch is considered good practice in the first place. Hullian111 (talk) 17:21, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I think a good general rule of thumb is that if an account is clearly declared then it's unlikely to fall foul of this policy. That's not definitive, there are limits, and other policies may apply. I'm not going to go into whether it's good etiquette. -- zzuuzz (talk) 10:59, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @Hullian111 I know this is a few months old, but may I suggest that asking your question of Commons would make more sense. Perhaps Commons:Commons:Help desk.  Commons has different rules than enwiki does.  In particular, my understanding is that their socking policies are significantly different than ours, so you really should be asking over there to get the right information. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:53, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Ouch, you have a point and you've raised a big oversight on my part. I'll chase it up there and have a look. Hullian111 (talk) 19:55, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Re-opening a case?
Hi, I was wondering if I could re-open this case. I very rarely file SPIs, so it may be that I just didn't know how to properly and concisely point out the reasons. Looking at the list, the core issue I wanted to highlight was WP:SCRUTINY. The closer focused on the "block evasion" aspect of my rationale, even though that wasn't the core issue (I knew that wouldn't have lead to action, because I said the account in question "almost blocked", not "blocked"). Can I somehow re-open the case by having WP:SCRUTINY specifically investigated as a potential violation? I can't find any stipulations about re-opening a case. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:00, 23 April 2023 (UTC)


 * The way you wrote it out is very difficult to read. One huge wall of text.  In any case, I should point out that nto applies here, so even if we figured out that these were the same person, it's unlikely we would do anything.  And, as pointed out in the SPI, you say there's block evasion, but neither account has ever been blocked.  So I don't see that any additional investigation would go anywhere. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:34, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @RoySmith yeah sorry, that has to do with me being inexperienced with SPIs, so I tried to explain everything hoping I'd hit the mark. I also shouldn't have said "to circumvent a block" because no block had formally been imposed. But a block was being threatened, and that's why he tried:
 * to erase the traces of past disputes/mistakes/misconduct to evade scrutiny (identified as problematic),
 * to change his name, open up a new account without showing that the old account is inactive, not disclosing that the new account is operated by the same user as the old account, seeking to erase the traces from his old account with his new account by deleting/blanking talk pages (previously identified as problematic) to evade scrutiny, and
 * to return to editing the same topics/topic areas (previously identified as problematic) with a new account to evade scrutiny,
 * I tried / am trying to identify this pattern as falling under WP:SCRUTINY:
 * Using alternative accounts that are not fully and openly disclosed to split your editing history means that other editors may not be able to detect patterns in your contributions. (...)
 * Misusing a clean start: Switching accounts or concealing a clean start in a way that avoids scrutiny is considered a breach of this policy (...)
 * Do not use your new account to return to topic areas, disputes, editing patterns, or behaviors previously identified as problematic, and you should be careful not to do anything that looks like an attempt to evade scrutiny. A clean start requires that you no longer use your old account(s), which should note on their user pages that they are inactive—for example, with the tag—to prevent the switch being seen as an attempt to sockpuppet.
 * I believe that the behaviour shown by the user in question aligns very closely with what is being described here as a violation of sockpuppetry policy. I have just been a bit clumsy in phrasing my SPI due to inexperience. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 03:26, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 May 2023
Change this:
 * "Good hand" and "bad hand" accounts: Using one account for constructive contributions and the other one for vandalism or other types of disruptive editing.

To this:


 * "Good hand" and "bad hand" accounts: Using one account for constructive contributions and the other one for vandalism or other types of disruptive editing.

Hubbycolipster391 (talk) 23:03, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Not an improvement, and OP is now blocked. Spicy (talk) 01:44, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 August 2023
Can you please expand this article? Are you going to add more details to this page? 205.155.225.253 (talk) 16:12, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. RudolfRed (talk) 17:01, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Closely connected contributors - restored longstanding version
I restored the long-standing version. This isn't only about consensus: ILLEGIT lists many other ways to abuse other accounts beyond commenting in the same discussion, and closely connected contributors could theoretically violate some of those as well. Additionally, having the sentence come first emphasizes what the policy actually is, rather than having it as an afterthought. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:12, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Alternative account notification: "Should or "Must"?
The para on Alternative account notification reads "Unless when doing so would defeat the purpose of having a legitimate alternative account, editors using alternative accounts should provide links between the accounts." On reading this Project Page, editors may get a wrong impression thay they are allowed to operate multiple accounts if their is no clear misuse. They would edit one particular area with one account and the other with another. This makes them secure from hounding, and also from scrutiny. Therefore, I propose this word should be replaced with must so that editors can get a clear message that alternative account notification is something they have to put if their purpose(s) for operating multiple accounts are not covered under "Legitimate uses". Dympies (talk) 03:47, 3 January 2024 (UTC)