Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppetry/Archive 3

"It is suspected or confirmed..."
The terminology on that banner troubles me. Anyone with an axe to grind against a fellow Wikipedian may throw this label up on their Userpage, and everybody who visits the person sees the Scarlet Letter of "CONFIRMED" and discredits the person in their mind as well. I don't see why giving Joe Blow Wikigoofball the opportunity to call anyone he likes a "confirmed puppeteer" is a good thing. Shouldn't a 'confirmed" banner be solely available for Admins' use? Lambertman 13:58, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Wow. I just found out about this (someone mentioned on a talk page that some handle had been banned; so I clicked on the handle to see what would happen) and after looking at this and that, clicking on links, reading about it, I hit edit on the page to see how it was put together but only  was on the page.


 * Any editor can do that? I could just click on some handle on whatever talk page, no handle I'd ever seen before (not that I recognize many), stick  on the user page, dump everything else and then what?  The user can't remove the tag?


 * If so, it's a valiant attempt to stop people from cheating in some ways but leaves everyone else open to calling you a sockputtet abuser -- which would be a very good way to eliminate all competing views in any debate, poll or anything else: which could be a sockpuppeteer itself; or two. --S-Ranger 02:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Any can, but it's incumbent on them to prove the accusation, at WP:RFCU (or elsewhere), or back off. Someone who just adds the tag without justification can be reverted. Mackensen (talk) 02:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * But wouldn't anyone doing it be "smart enough" to be a puppeteer? And can be reverted by whom?  Sorry, it's probably explained in the other several million pages I have yet to read, but why not just solicit friends for support?  Totally different ISP blocks, take out dial-up accounts for a whole $10/month and then who is puppetting whom? :-)


 * I guess the best way to put it, as the user above mentioned, is if the puppets have control of the strings/hands/whatever then they can simply call others puppeteer abusers and, as I would were I running such a scam, move around, don't focus on anything in particular and keep changing IP addresses and handles as often as possible -- to call others puppeteers to get away with worse than simple pupeteering.


 * And, sorry, but I mean that whatever the time delay is between simply slapping and "getting cleared" could be more than enough to "win" the poll, debate or whatever it ... was, before the puppeteers showed up to discredit the "ringleader"(s) of the major opposition.


 * And sorry for yet another edit, but wouldn't it be better if users could only report to "WP:RFCU (or elsewhere)" and have wiki ignore any, rather drastic changes to a user page, other than if an admin sticks the tag on the page, after actually confirming something? --S-Ranger 02:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I suppose the short answer is that puppeteers, by and large, aren't that smart. Furthermore, that kind of activity, in itself, would look suspicious. Mackensen (talk) 10:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking the time to respond. I could go on but won't. :-) Other than regarding that neither the original poster nor the last paragraph of my last post was addressed.  --S-Ranger 23:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I thought that I had addressed those points, but I'll explain further. This is a wiki and as such functions best when bottlenecks are avoided. The act of accusing someone of sockpuppetry carries major implications. In situations where someone challenges the characterization the burden of proof is on the accuser. It isn't uncommon for such matters to turn up on the Administrators' Noticeboard. Checkuser is reserved for serious situations. Restricting a template to an administrator, besides being unworkable, is unwise and unfair. There are only about a thousand administrators, and many are inactive. Many situations of sockpuppetry arise when admins aren't around. Furthermore, there's no real guarantee that an admin will be any more responsible than a user. I myself was wrongly accused of sockpuppetry by a (now former) administrator last winter. These things happen. Regarding tagging, from my experience tags are usually added well after investigation and statement of suspicion. Again, wrongful tags can be removed. I'm not aware of any situation in which an innocent editor was wrongly hounded by a mob because of a false accusation. We're not Puritans here. Mackensen (talk) 23:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

You still have addressed nothing regarding the original post, your confirmation that anyone can stick on any user page and that's that, "tagging" as you refer to it (as did I, even though it must refer to a template, which is all I was looking for; documentation of  and the template/banner/whatever it's called source code and to look at it, not change it) that it was that simple and of course if it was what amounts to vandalism or worse, it would be "taken up eventually" but in the meantime, someone ends up with the results of that tag on their user page without a shred of proof about anything -- as you confirmed.

It's a coding issue as much as what the original poster stated, to have "confirmed" only show up if something is actually confirmed and if not, only suspected. It's what I got out of the original comment anyway and perhaps should be created and used (and not display "confirmed" anything, but specifically state otherwise) until  is put on a user page; after it's actually confirmed.

Then it becomes an issue of, "You had better have confirmation if you use or you may end up banned for vandalism yourself (which immediately tells anyone to use a puppet to do it, so accomplishes nothing).  Until you are absolutely certain and have proof, use  to enlist others to help you to confirm it or not." If that's the purpose. What is the purpose of it in its present form? Where is the documentation?

"Suspected" (only) could cause others to simply look at whatever handles are being accused of being the same person, to either get or not get a confirmation and even if it did show up on my (anyone's) user page who had done nothing wrong, confirmed would not show up on the user page:

Which is it? Suspected or confirmed? There should be two templates, IMO, and it seems rather logical given that wiki seems to operate out of a civilized country where innocence is presumed until guilt is proven. It's how my country (Toronto) works; or as usual, at least pretends to be impartial until something is actually proven, even if a steak goes missing off the barbecue, unless the dog has a burned mouth and is the only other, um, "person" around, then it probably didn't swipe the steak -- particularly if Uncle Bob is around and has been drinking a bit too much of his "special lemonade". Where are the  and  tags? It's not relevant to the "wiki foundation" that someone is suspected (or confirmed -- but not in parenthesis) of working with a terrorist organization? --S-Ranger 08:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * In brief, most legal organizations work as you describe. Wikipedia is not a legal organization. Personally, I wouldn't mind the existence of two templates, and I suspect the one you want is already floating around somewhere. Second, there are separate templates for sockpuppets, as opposed to sockpuppeteers, which are used frequently, and the use of the confirmed templates are restricted (by consensus) to those who know what they're talking about. Mackensen (talk) 11:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for listening and your time. It's just a suggestion and if it becomes of any use, great. --S-Ranger 20:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Possibe Sockpuppetry?
Would it be considered sockpuppetry for a user to stop editing using his created account and then to begin editing as an IP (that has been static for months now). Especially when said IP has been banned numerous times for vandalism and personal attacks?--Crossmr 20:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes. Previous vandalism with the IP is not important to it being sock puppetry. In practice, this is also the case with highly dynamic IPs, and sock puppetry is generally assumed. Note that I use the term "sock puppetry" as per my suggestion on WP:VPP, since the policy is not consistent. --Philosophus T 01:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

'Role' accounts
Role accounts, accounts which are used by multiple people, are only officially sanctioned on en: Wikipedia in exceptional cases at this time. The one currently permitted role account on en: is User:Schwartz PR, the account for a public relations firm working closely with the Foundation. If you run an account with multiple users, it is likely to be blocked.

So,... If spouses, parents, children, share one home [house, trailer, apartment, condo-apartment,...], & share one machine,....?

If two coworkers share an office, & one machine,...?

Hopiakuta 01:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * In practice, role accounts do not get blocked, since they are very rare, and are generally either reasonable and professional or are bad enough that they get banned for other reasons. Hardly anyone knows about that part of policy, and having it in WP:SOCK doesn't make sense. However, all of those situations can be considered "role accounts" under the policy even though they are not necessarily used for one role, which doesn't make much sense. The terminology in this policy is really horrible. I just posted something to WP:VPP about one aspect of it, for example. --Philosophus T 01:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * My wife and I both use this one account to make edits. We don't like having separate accounts - we personally feel better sharing one account. We clearly state this on both our user and talk pages. Is this a problem we need to address? Sidatio 15:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Edits by PoolGuy
Looks like Zzuuzz and I tried to revert the recent edits by PoolGuy (or was it PooIGuy?) at the same time; only I reverted to this one and Zzuuzz reverted to this one. The only significant difference is whether edits by FT2 (bracketed by PoolGuy) are retained or not. I haven't been following policy discussions here very closely, so don't feel qualified to say whether FT2's edits reflect consensus or not; anyway, this is notification for the folks who do follow this page closely to do what they need to do. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * FT2 probably should have brought up the changes here first, since they do substantively change the meaning of those portions of the policy. I can see how the RFCU part is simplified, and it is probably a good change, but I don't like the wording, and the trawling bit would probably be distorted by some editors in order to remove "This user has only 1 edit and is probably a sock puppet" comments in AfD discussions. Unfortunately, such proposals, when put on this talk page, usually seem to just be ignored. --Philosophus T 03:25, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I have found that when reversions and sockpuppetry like this are going on it is better to stick to what we have, and discuss any changes. The last stable version was the main target of my reversion. Though I am usually inclined to let FT2 go about his or her business on this page without much examination, a second look does suggest these edits are quite a change - from explicitly specifying the four circumstances a checkuser can be done, to allowing a checkuser given only reasonable cause. If it was a politician changing the law in such a manner, there would be justified complaint. The changes make the policy more vague - sometimes this is a good thing, sometimes not. I suppose it depends on one's level of trust in a higher authority on the subject. The additions about not fishing were good for me but perhaps there should be a bit more about what a checkuser is for. -- zzuuzz (talk) 03:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Quick comment -- the edits concerned shouldn't change it at all, they seemed small enough to not need talk page review unless someone felt strongly. In summary there's 3 short edits: I'm not expecting any of these to be particularly major, hence why no talk page request made. They seem to all be within the category of "obvious edits". FT2 (Talk 03:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Revert of Poolguy's edits that set strong limits on admin reverts . Clearly designed to give grounds to argue against admins reverting edits by sockpuppets. A quick glance on the talk page suggests there may have an ulterior reason to wish for this as the editor concerned has apparently been accused of sockpuppetry. Either way it wasn't policy last time I checked, hence reverted.
 * 2) Revert similar limiting statement on RFCU that sounds like it was put in for sock benefit. RFCU policy as far as I last checked, doesn't state this list of things that it can and can't be used on. This section is mistaken, because if you read RFCU, it is not a prescriptive list, it's a list of acceptance criteria for RFCU for these 4 kinds of item. But many RFCU's are "general suspicion of sockpuppetry" without 3RR, vandalism, arbcom etc. So suggesting RFCU is limited this wa is a misreading of that policy. The list given suggested a much more restrictive limit than either RFCU policy or practice (compare before/after: ). Replaced it with what is factual according to accepted RFCU cases - serious cases, reasonable cause, evidence, no fishing. That seems the actual policy stated and used at RFCU.
 * 3) Remove a pointless run-on sentence that adds nothing, but just confuses the paragraph.

Does anyone have a problem with 2 edits?
I'm looking at the intro section, I'd like to check the sense of others on two edits: What this would do, if agreed, is add a new section above "Forbidden uses" called "Overview", which would contain the quote, and the above paragraph. FT2 (Talk 20:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Move Jimbo's quote to the body of the article. Its important, but the purpose of the intro is to summarize policy and I think this quote, while important, doesn't quite need to be in the intro. Its just Jimbo confirming what the intro already says, so its a bit of a duplication.
 * 2) Add the following text into the body of the policy, because its so relevant to sock/meatpuppets (from WP:DP):
 * "It's worth noting that the purpose of a discussion on Wikipedia is to bring out a sense of the valid policy-related points for or against each view. So polls and votes are not a "popular vote"; rather they are a way to take into account the policy-related points made by those contributing. Sockpuppets (multiple accounts) and meatpuppets (advertising or soliciting of desired views) usually don't raise much in the way of novel policy considerations. Often, where sock-puppetry is suspected, only editors with a significant history of contributions to Wikipedia will be counted in a rough consensus."


 * No strong objections? FT2 (Talk 09:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Sudden vote appearance after long editing gap
Would a person who suddenly popped in to vote on a straw poll after nearly a year of no edits (and only a handful before then) qualify as an SPA? - Keith D. Tyler &para; (AMA) 20:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I would say thats highly suspicious. I often wonder about accounts whom I see committing vandalism and their only other edits are months and months ago and there are very few of them.--Crossmr 06:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Special Sock case
Hello. I have an issue on sock puppetry that I have been desperately trying to find. It's that a user, User:OhmyΩ, not only posted bits of my personal information on my talk page, but also admitted that he/she had multiple accounts. I have observed that this user rarely contributed to Wikipedia, and used it mainly to harass me and to vandalise. I wanted to post this on Suspected sock puppets, but this requires the knowledge of a master account, which I havent yet found. Thanks. --Basawala 14:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * is blanking sections. I am getting ready to report as vandal.--Tbeatty 21:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

The new section: "....to hide from public scrutiny."
Regards, Huldra 05:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that this new section (created around 1. Aug.) is a problem as stated now. The problem is: how do you determine "who may have a legitimate interest in tracking your contributions"?  I would like an example of "legitimate interest in tracking your contributions". Can e.g. just anybody state that they have a  "legitimate interest in tracking" the contributions of User:CuteLittleDoggie.. and therefore have that user blocked? Surely not?
 * Also: as of now: can´t this policy contradict the "Keeping heated issues in one small area" section?
 * Also; note that this policy was added just as User:Bergerons was blocked; see User talk:Bergerons for some interesting comments.


 * I think it's a pretty clear exposition of what the policy already said. The intro quotes Jimbo as saying that creating accounts to hide from public scrutiny is one of the problematic uses of sockpuppets; it follows from that that public scrutiny is regarded as legitimate. The section makes it clear that there are circumstances in which avoiding scrutiny might be legitimate too (e.g. creating an account to make edits in an area you're very knowledgeable in, so people can't ID you), but where the accounts are being used to deceive other editors, and where several are being used at once so that people can't discern patterns in your edits, it's a violation. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Multiple accounts should not be used as a way of avoiding the scrutiny of your fellow editors by ensuring you leave no audit trail. Using sock puppet accounts to split your contributions history means that other editors can't detect patterns in your contributions. While it may be legitimate to do this from time to time (for example, by creating a special account to make edits that might serve to identify you in real life), it is a violation of this policy to create multiple accounts in order to confuse or deceive editors who may have a legitimate interest in tracking your contributions.
 * Since it comes from "the God King" himself, I surely will not argue agains that public scrutiny is regarded as legitimate... ;-P. However, the post that is quoted from starts with: "I would say that multiple usernames are really only a problem if they are used as a method of troublemaking of some sort". I think that sounds very sensible. E.g.: using multiple usernames as a method against beeing wikistalked would be legitimate according to this (as I understand it), but is not legitimate according to the policy as it now stands (again: as far as I understand it.) And the main question remains unanswered: how do you determine "who may have a legitimate interest in tracking your contributions"? Also: why is it neccessarely bad that  "people can't discern patterns in your edits"? Why should they? (If you are not banned/blocked, that is).  Isn´t it exactly the goal of "Keeping heated issues in one small area" that other editors should not "be tempted" to wikistalk you, or "discern patterns in your edits"?   It is simply not "troublemaking" per se for Wikipedia that some editors cannot detect patterns in your contributions. (Otherwise User:CuteLittleDoggie would be "troublemaking", since I cannot "discern patterns" in his/her edits, as I do not know what other accounts this user uses.) It has been stated a zillion times that it is not who you are, but what you contribute which matters on Wikipedia. This part of the policy seem to contradict that. Regards, Huldra 07:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You're making these enquiries because Dervish Tsaddik or HOTR, and possibly both, have e-mailed you to ask you to make them, because both recently had a bunch of sockpuppets blocked. They were using multiple accounts to deceive. If someone is caught using another account to make good edits to, say, Physics, because they don't want people to know that they're a physicist in real life, no admin is going to block for that. But if an editor with, for example, a strong political POV has caused trouble on a set of articles, and then sets up five different accounts and starts posting to the same pages, or starts engaging editors he has had disputes with, without telling anyone that he is that same POV editor, then it starts to look like deception, and even trolling, and so the chances of a block are high. You're asking for an algorithm to show us when it's legit and when it isn't, but detecting disruption is not algorithmic. It boils down to common sense and the experience of the admin dealing with the case. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah, your reply here makes it very clear why the policy of leaving it "to common sense and the experience of the admin" is so troublesome; you see, your statement that I am making "these enquiries because Dervish Tsaddik or HOTR, and possibly both, have e-mailed you to ask you to make them" is simply false. (For the record: I´ve had very little to do with HOTR, never sent/received e-mail from him; I don´t think he even know of my existence. I did email with Dervish Tsaddik (like yourself) last year. I have had no contact with him this year.) So I would appreciate if you answer my questions instead of just dismissing  them as somebody else´s. And as for "strong POV", that is also problematic: e.g. I think just about everybody (with 1-2 exceptions) who edits on Palestine/Israel issues would claim they only make NPOV edits.... So your "strong POV" is NPOV for somebody else. By default the policy now seems to say that you "may have a legitimate interest in tracking the contributions of a user with a different POV." And having a content dispute over an article is not the the same as "causing trouble" in my book. Regards, Huldra 06:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * But I did answer your question. Read the answer above. The problem you have is that you seem to think editors that you perceive as having a certain POV are not capable of making neutral, sensible decisions as an administrator. The next time someone is blocked under this provision, and you feel that the person was not a troublemaker, was not acting to deceive, and was not being disruptive &mdash; and the blocking admin isn't able to give any explanation as to why that person might be perceived as such &mdash; by all means let me know. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Linking to Suspected sockpuppets
The current link to Suspected sockpuppets under "Difficult to detect sockpuppets" is problematic for a couple of reasons.

The link, near the end of a sentence in a subsection, is not very prominent for such an important process. As well, the wording surrounding the link suggests that the Suspected sockpuppets process should only be followed in cases of sockpuppetry which are extremely hard to detect, when in fact it should be followed in most cases. --Saforrest 12:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I have added a banner to the top of the page detailing WP:SSP. Iola k ana |T  12:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Doppelganger section
I'm not sure what this section means, so I'm moving it here for discussion. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * To avoid vandals impersonating using a similar-looking username, one can pre-emptively create a doppleganger account and tag it with doppleganger.

I probably worded it poorly, but my intention was to tell the reader that this is a "legitimate use of multiple accounts" (though not sock puppetry). A new user had just used the "alternate account" clause from reading this page and did not now about the guideline on dopplegangers, and indeed WP:DOPP is not a well-known page. Maybe a See also link would suffice. —Quarl (talk) 2006-08-13 11:10Z 


 * A link would probably be enough. I don't see how anyone could pre-emptively create all the variations on their name that a troll might want to create in order to mimic them, if that's what you meant. SlimVirgin (talk) 11:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You might be surprised (see Category:Doppelganger accounts); anyway that's what the WP:DOPP page means, and I'll just link to it for now. —Quarl (talk) 2006-08-13 11:21Z 
 * Oh, I see. Well, please go ahead and add it if you'd like to. I can only imagine all the variations I'd have to create. ;-D SlimVirgin (talk) 12:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

One person <
> one account ==

Given the considerable amount of time we waste in dealing with sock puppets and the lack of any compelling benefit to the project in permitting them, I propose that we change the policy. The new policy would be:

This is settled policy in many online communities, where it is an effective deterrent to abuse.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I would certainly support that. A lot of time is wasted because of users editing with multiple accounts, but then claiming when caught that they didn't really violate any policy, and so on. This change would cut through all that. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds more than reasonable to me. Jayjg (talk) 16:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me.-- Kim van der Linde at venus 16:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure whether the second and third point are really distinct; I believe that the fourth point (maintaining a sock because of editing in charged or controversial areas) should declare that sock (e.g., to the arbcomm or Essjay). In addition, I think it would be reasonable to allow admitted socks (like Taxman's), once they are openly disclosed and a case is made for their use.  Guettarda 16:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The wording is perhaps not ideal. What I was trying to get across in the second point is that users generally ought not to drop an account and start another one without reason, since there is a not uncommon pattern of disruptive users changing user names frequently.  I can see the point you're making on declaring the socks, and though I don't think it's strictly necessary, I would nonetheless support such a policy.  The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I think any sockpuppets, if being used for valid reasons, should be declared as such a priori, and the identity of the sockpuppeteer revealed to trusted editors in the way you've described. A posteriori claims that sockpuppets are legitimate, after they have been discovered, are, in my view, not legitimate. Jayjg (talk) 17:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * (I corrected a small spelling mistake in the proposed policy; I hope you don't mind. :) ) I don't quite understand why this has to be "have one account" and not "edit the encyclopedia from one account".  The original wording would seem to miss an infinite number of legit uses for multiple accounts, such as my Celierra and Titoxd's EvilCat, both currently used to test our edit counter, Flcelloguy's Tool.  I don't think one can list all the possible legit uses - listing the non-legit uses seems more possible.  —AySz88\ ^ - ^  18:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * (To avoid confusion, I originally registered Celierra because the name was so unique on the Internet and connected to me that if anyone registered the name there would be probable confusion between whoever registered it and me for anyone that knew me already.) —AySz88\ ^ - ^ 18:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * (To avoid confusion, the proposed policy was changed through this edit.) —AySz88\ ^ - ^ 21:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Support. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 18:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * (Here, UninvitedCompany changed the policy page in this edit.)
 * I see no reason to believe that the proposal is "current community sentiment" - an earlier attempt with much more exposure and discussion time caused big problems because there wasn't enough double-checking. (Check the old DRVs of the old userboxes for "puppets" and "puppet masters" which were named at a time when "sockpuppet" and "alternate account" were pretty much synonyms.) I still have my reservations at attempting to use a whitelist instead of a blacklist, but I won't revert right now, except there is one exception to the ban on role accounts: Schwartz PR, which I will go make a note of now. I hope you would reconsider putting this on the polciy page and try to find more feedback, though.  —AySz88\ ^ - ^  00:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I was going to change the bit on Schwartz PR until I saw your note; I've put it back in. That is part of a separate concern that I have with policy pages being too wordy in an attempt to be exhaustive. I don't believe there's a need to enumerate all the exceptions and special cases; besides which, I'm planning on asking Schwartz PR to stop editing that way since there is no reason they can't have individual accounts for each of their people. Either way, I'll address that after the dust settles on the larger and more important issue of what the policy should be.

I hope there will be more discussion but I think that the reality is that nearly all serious participants in the project take an increasingly dim view of socks or alternate accounts. The amount of time that is spent dealing with socks is considerable and in most of the more serious cases the perpetrator claims their use of socks is within policy because there's no proof of abuse. The fact is that very few editors legitimately edit from multiple accounts. While I understand your point about white vs. blacklists, the fact is that disruptive users are very creative in coming up with new ways to abuse sock puppets. I did review the userbox debate that you linked, and concluded that the debate there although lengthy was mainly on semantics and appropriateness of the userboxes themselves and not on the propriety of multiple accounts in general. The cases that were identified in the user box debate as appropriate uses of multiple accounts are also enumerated as such in the modified policy here, so I don't believe that what I've done contradicts any sentiment expressed in that debate. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I support the proposed change myself, but I would have liked to see it discussed for a little longer before making such a major change to the policy page. Arbitrary username 18:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * (reply to UninvitedCompany) I apologize if I was not clear - the link to the DRv was meant to be an example of how disruptive confusion can occur due to a lack of people seeing a proposed changed to a policy. I still hope you'll consider reverting to the old policy until the new one has more eyes (and ayes) on it.  —AySz88\ ^ - ^  19:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Weren't abusive sockpuppets banned under the old version of this policy anyway? I fail to see what is gained by this new policy. If I remember correctly, even Jimbo tentatively approved them with "good reason" which may not be covered by all exceptions in this policy. At the least, this should get quite a bit more exposure before it is officially changed. - Bootstoots 19:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Jimbo hasn't commented on the matter for two years, and a lot has changed. Most notably, there have been substantially more problems with socks because of the adoption of WP:3RR and the fact that the arbitration committee is operating.  Both of these have led to more users being blocked, and guess what?  More socks. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * However none of your policy proposal adress this problem and instead inconvience legit users. Banning all socks is not going to have much effect on abuseive socks since they are already outlawed (heh if socks are outlawed only outlaws will have socks).Geni 00:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

What about User:Genidealingwithfairuse? Or the use of secondarly accounts as a way to get multiple watchlists? What about all the accounts created to clean up the first page of special listuser?Geni 19:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The cleanup on the first page of listuser is a corner case, and those accounts don't contribute. Regarding the others, well, maybe it wouldn't be the end of the world if you quit using them.  The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I lose the ability to usefuly watchlist the images and talk pages I tag (my main watchlist has 2,774 pages on it) and I lose the ability to keep those contributions seperate.Geni 22:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I've reverted. I think we need some more discussion before we call this official, as the three previous messages (mine included) have asked. - Bootstoots 21:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Which is fine. I made the change because sometimes that's the best way to get the discussion going.  The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The counter to that would be WP:POINTGeni 22:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * This seems like a good plan, can't wait until you tell everyone that their bots are all banned, since WP:BOT seems to make a point about you having to use a seperate account for bots--205.188.117.8 00:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that anyone who has access to multiple (physical) MAC Address and either more than one ISP or just an ISP that uses DHCP without MAC-binding can easily appear to be more than one entity on the Internet, and Wikipedia is not immune from this.--Allthenamesarealreadytaken 16:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Nutshellism
I removed it because I think they should all be removed, and have so stated on the template talk page. The version that was just re-added doesn't match the rest of the text now. I believe this should be removed or at least fixed but I'm leaving it for now. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Are you sure you ARE referring to this page which is listed in List of policies what you exactly SAID? -- ADNghiem501 23:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Disambig
I have re-removed this. There is no reason to link to a disambiguation page in the main article namespace from a project page. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Why didn't you declare it earlier? -- ADNghiem501 23:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Reconsider this part
"It is considered highly inappropriate or unacceptable to advertise Wikipedia articles that are being debated in order to attract users with known views and bias, in order to strengthen one side of a debate. It is also considered highly inappropriate to ask friends or family members to create accounts for the purpose of giving additional support. Advertising or soliciting meatpuppet activity is not an acceptable practice on Wikipedia. On-Wikipedia canvassing should be reverted if possible."

There is a real problem with articles being deleted where the "experts" in the field, often the people who wrote the article in the first place. This practice should not be more that a minor nuisance, at worst, since AfD is not a poll, and at best can bring more informed debate. See also my suggestion for a change to the AfD page template to emphasise the nature of AfD. Rich Farmbrough 11:52 19 August 2006 (GMT).


 * I disagree. Canvassing is highly inappropriate and disruptive, and the policy on meatpuppets should stay as it is. —Quarl (talk) 2006-08-19 18:34Z 
 * Also I can't find your suggestion to change the AFD page template, could you please link to it? —Quarl (talk) 2006-08-19 18:41Z 

puppeteers marked indefinitely
I want to be clear before I restore this for the third time, but a confirmed sockpuppeteer should have the sockpuppeteer tag placed on their userpage indefinitely even after the sock is blocked, right? -- nae'blis 14:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yep, I think that you're right that confirmed Sockpuppet user should have Sockpuppeteer. Like If one user used Sockpuppet abusely. Usually, Sockpuppet user is blocked indefinitely(Permanently). Daniel's page    ☎  00:57, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Once the user ceases to engage in disruptive sockpuppetry, and sockpuppets are no longer attacking pages, what practical use does the template serve? Leaving someone labeled as a sockpuppeteer indefinitely only creates prejudice against them, and complicates their transition back to productive editing. Policy needs to be drafted to cover removal of the template. WhoMe? 14:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I could support that, but on the other hand between archiving and this idea, a person could create sleeper accounts that were never noticed, then bring them to bear in a future case without anyone having any indication that they should be looking for sockpuppetry. It also brings to mind the question of how to look for Category:Confirmed/Suspected sockpuppets of... on a user who has been good for some time. Tricky situation, either way... -- nae'blis 17:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Nutshell tag
I'm new to wikipedia, and I'm still familiarizing myself with its interface and policies. (please be gentle) I would just like to say that the "(subject/policy) in a nutshell" part is really useful, and might serve well if it was in other articles as well. Lactam 13:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Meatpuppet or Friend?
Would it be considered meat puppetry if I got a friend to start editing Wikipedia and then later, when I was running for admin, asked him to support me? It's not like he's just doing this to support my RfA, but he doesn't seem like the kind of guy who would be an avid editor. So the point is, I just don't want my RfA to be scarred by inadvertant meat puppetry. Thanks, S  o  a  P  16:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

none of the templates really fit great for one case
What would be the most appropriate template for sock puppets proven via checkuser which AREN'T blocked? I placed a suspected sockpuppet tag on a few confirmed sock puppets a while back and would like to have it organized appropriately so that I don't have to add a note saying the wrong part about the template... "actually, it's confirmed and not just suspected" or "actually, they weren't indefinitely blocked". --Atari2600tim (talk • contribs) 13:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion
I'm uncertain where to add the wording, but I'd like to suggest a change. We currently tag the sockpuppets of vandals. This strikes me as problematic (and yes, I've done it too). Vandals are categorized, more often than not, by behavior. Since they come from proxies we've often no way of knowing. Furthermore, it's meaningless. Vandals are vandals and they're all blocked anyway. Where tagging is useful is in dealing with content-dispute editors. The tags warn other editors and provide a useful history for dispute resolution. Mackensen (talk) 11:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppets versus IP blocking evasions
Calling an anonymous user who evades a block against his IP address by using a different IP address a "Sockpuppet" is inaccurate and creates silly anomalous posts such as this.

The admin who posted it was in fact referring to two separate accusations of a completely different nature. It may be against Wikipedia policy to evade an IP block by using a different IP address, but if it's an anonymous user using two separate IP addresses and not attempting to appear to be a separate person, the term "sockpuppet" simply does not fit.

I suggest a different term be used for this--and particularly, a different action taken--if such IP address blocking evasion is to be considered against policy. The current situation only creates compound confusion. 70.5.51.142 20:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

The above comments were left by me while I was connecting by phone. 206.124.31.24 23:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Question about sock puppets:
If I were to get blocked, and I made a new username that is making constructive edits, would I still get blocked?Ollie the Magic Skater 23:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Depends on why you got blocked, and for how long. If you were banned by the community, then yes. Mackensen (talk) 00:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Long-term solutions to sock puppetry and related abuses
I just posted a short article on my web page related to sock puppetry (or "sybil attacks", the equivalent term used in the P2P community) that might be of somewhat more long-term interest here:

Sybil Parties: An Offline Foundation for Online Accountability

In short, the idea is to leverage once-a-year offline, in-person social occasions to provide the basis for privacy-preserving but *accountable* "premium" online identities. These "premium" accounts would (despite the name) cost nothing, but would strongly enforce a "one person, one premium account" rule among such accounts, providing better accountability, while still giving users the option of full anonymity/pseudonymity. If implemented, for example, Wikipedia users who use such an account could be made exempt from the IP address-based blocks, and thus would not be vulnerable to being accidentally blocked simply because they inherited a recent abuser's IP address from their ISP. And they would of course be exempt from being suspected or accused of sock puppetry (although meat puppetry would still be possible). Feedback or further ideas welcome. Brynosaurus 17:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Sounds interesting. Rehabilitation and repentance are always good.  --Luigifan 11:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Inocent
I have been blocked and have been accused of being a sock pupet of cutie 1 4 u but i am not wat should i do?????--Cutie fo eva 23:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)Please Reply!


 * In fact, the user is being accused of being a sockpuppet for Cutie 4 life. In actuality, the editor has admitted to being a sockpuppet for that account.  It is that account that is being accused of being a sockpuppet for banned user, Cute 1 4 u.  --Yamla 23:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

HELP PLEASE
TV Newser has some serious problems. He has accused me of being a vandal for cleaning up content that I removed because I was accused of being a link spammer in the first place. I infact removed an external links section and then pointed people to a section on the article in questions talk page Trading card by the way. He (and i don't actually know if it's a guy or a girl) keeps posting the same damn sockpuppet thing on my pages and calling me names. Someone please muzzle this guy.Tecmobowl 10:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: doppelganger
(Sock puppetry)

I had a fairly rough experience creating those accounts (ironically inspired by that text):


 * I logged out and tried to log-in as a couple of evidently similar usernames to mine.
 * Both the new account and my IP was immediately blocked by the system, disabling even my regular account!
 * I had to connect via a different IP (cell-phone) to be able to explain and get (thankfully immediately) unblocked.
 * I was told a little later that it would be preferable to not normally create those accounts, but rather go ahead logged-in with my regular username and post the doppelganger templates.

Maybe we should add a few words on that so that other users aren't faced with the same situation. So how about we add these sentences:


 * Users who create such doppelganger accounts by themselves, should preferably do so logged-in with their normal username, so as to avoid their IP being accidentally blocked automatically. In case such automatic block occurs, the user must find a way to log in with their normal account via a different IP and explain to the blocking user that it was them in the first place.

What do you think? Maybe the first sentence only would be sufficient. We could also add the second sentence as a footnote. Wikilink to the said automatic bot is welcome in the word 'automatic'. •N i k o S il v e r• 13:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Well its not "automatic" per se, its a matter of someone like me spotting the similar name and blocking it as I did yours (dont you feel special!) So may want to clarify that. Though, is it something we want to start encouraging? Gl e n 14:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Additionally, if they log into their main account and just use unblock template that would fix it up pretty quick :) Gl e n 14:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Boy, how fast you were! (how?) But they can't log in to post the unblock template, unless they find a free IP! That's the point. I don't think the sentence adds anything that can be considered as "encouragement" (rather "disencouragement" due to complexity; the existing part is definitely encouraging -see me!) OTOH, I really wish I hadn't created those accounts in the first place. Now that I come to think of it, neither I will be able to rename to such accounts if I wish, unless they are deleted! I'll add db-author. •N i k o S il v e r• 14:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

How about:


 * The practice is disencouraged, since most similar usernames are quickly spotted and blocked by admins. However, users who create such doppelganger accounts by themselves, should preferably do so logged-in with their normal username, so as to avoid their IP being accidentally blocked automatically. In case such automatic block occurs, the user must find a way to log in with their normal account via a different IP and explain to the blocking admin that it was them in the first place, or add the unblock template in their normal talk-pages.

Now that would be disencouraging! •N i k o S il v e r• 14:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think the practice should be discouraged. The right place to discuss that is Wikipedia talk:Doppelganger account.  It is possible to alter the recommended approach to first add the doppelganger tag using your real account before creating the doppelganger. —Quarl (talk) 2006-10-20 18:35Z 

Be my guest. •N i k o S il v e r• 23:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Sock Puppeteer who needs to be stopped
139.142.135.106, AKA Mroche repetitively vandalizes the page calgary science school. He needs to be stopped. He has been contacted and spoken to, also warned many times by Wikipedia to stop his repetitive vandalism, yet just today he changed the page, after I reverted it and gave him his third level 4 warning. Yes, 139.142.135.106 is registered to calgary science school, but blocking it from editing will go with the "greater good" as some call it.

The Caligari Science School template is gone as of 1/21/07 edit-randomguy


 * This is not the place to be reporting vandalism. If you ahve warned them and they continue, and you are sure what they're doing is vandalism, then report them at Administrator intervention against vandalism. Logoistic 10:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

What if two people use the same computer
I have one doubt. This may sound trivial, but in India, it is very common for more than one person use the same computer. How to differentiate that situation and a Sock Puppet. For example, if my wife browses Wikipedia and votes in few Rfa or AFD from this computer, how can I prove that it was another person who used my computer and not me. Another case is browsing centres - Many persons may be using the same computer (with same IP). How to prove that they are both different people.  Doctor Bruno   16:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * This happened to me and my brother. We use the same computer, but his account got blocked after an editor who has a vendetta against me accused his account of being a sock puppet of mine. TJ Spyke 05:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * TJ, we're just doing our job. Your brother was blocked for sufficient reasons, and you know it. It may not be true, but the evidence was against you.  Nish kid 64  22:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

What if one persons uses different accounts
And coming to the next question. What if Mr.X uses one account in a computer at his home and another account in a computer at his office. How to prove that (with different IP).  Doctor Bruno   16:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC) The short answer to both the preceding two questions is: You can't know.

Different account for different devices (mobile)
I hope this isn't too superfluous of a question..

I currently use two accounts. One (this one) I use for all of my browsing and editing while on a computer. Another I use (nearly never for editing) on my Treo 650. The reason for this is that Blazer renders Wikipedia text as an unreadable single-character width column. The solution I found was to create a new account and save a custom css template under it (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Browser_notes#PDA_.26_cell_phone_browsershttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Browser_notes#PDA_.26_cell_phone_browsers). My Treo now logs into this account by default when viewing Wikipedia. Under no circumstances do I ever use the Treo account on a computer or vice versa.

Is this considered a legitimate reason to have a second account?

Mleinart 01:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * While I am rather new here, and thus cannot give a definitive answer, judging from the pages on the subject, this would be considered legitimate. A legitimate use they already describe is a second account for use from computers other than your main computer to avoid keyloggers that might steal your password. I would suspect that using different display templates would also be a legitimate use.
 * However you should mark both accounts using the guidelines in Sock Puppetry under Alternate Accounts, to avoid confusion and possible accusations of sock puppetry. Filksinger 14:31, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Should the master Puppet be blocked
If Check User finds that Y is a sockpuppet of X, should both X and Y be blocked or only X or only Y. What is the policy   Doctor Bruno    02:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Picture?
I think it would bring some nice color and levity to this page if a picture of a sockpuppet were placed on it. Something like this, perhaps? Or this? Chubbles 23:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * We already have permission to use one of those; see Image:Carlb-sockpuppet-01.jpg. -- nae'blis 17:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Not Guilty
I am not a sock puppet and never was. I don't know how i have been selected but i have no connection with that hammersmith guy. Sorry. this does not go here Comperr 00:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC) ✅

wp:sp
When I type WP:SP into the "search" box, I get the "sock puppetry" article. When I click on a link to WP:SP, I get "subpages." Both pages say "WP:SP redirects here." I assume you have to be an administrator to fix this; maybe someone could take care of it? Thanks. Theleek 16:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Permitted meatpuppetry
Regarding the clause It is considered highly inappropriate or unacceptable to advertise Wikipedia articles that are being debated in order to attract users with known views and bias, in order to strengthen one side of a debate, aren't many noticeboards around Wikipedia in exact violation of this? I'm specifically thinking of LGBT noticeboard and the various conspiracy theory noticeboards (1 2 3). I'm sure there are others. I know that it could be argued that these noticeboards allow people of whatever POV to know when articles, images, templates, categories, etc. related to the subject are up for discussion, or when policy discussion are underway, or whatever. But at Rhobite's watchlist is specifically to be for those interested in "a watchlist of [the targets the small but growing minority on Wikipedia determined to spread their opinion that the 9/11 attacks were perpetrated by a government conspiracy]." Anyways, just a question. Discuss it if you like. I'd be flattered. :) Cheers, Iamunknown 00:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I think a big part of it is that these are all going to be read by Wikipedians who are familiar with the "ground rules" and who act and think independently, who can by and large be relied upon to understand most of the core policies, and the ground of the debates/articles in question. So such people are not going to pile into a new debate or new edit war, pushing OR for example.


 * By contrast, if you post an advert amongst non-wiki-aware friends or on an off-site forum, to the effect "This article is awful! Make your feelings known!" then you're almost guaranteed people whose sole interest is that article, with limited viewpoints and lack of awareness of policies, balance, reasons why it's that way, and article history. That's a recipe for problems.


 * The issue with meatpuppets isn't so much that multiple people must not discuss topics with friends or join into debates they see their friends in. It's that debates of this kind need clear neutral thinking most, and advertizing for participants on partisan sites almost guarantees you get activists not policy-aware thinking. The sites you refer to by contrast probably don't get that problem as much. But I agree its a thin line, and there may well be other factors involved that others will highlight, why (or when) its undesirable.


 * My $0.02. Hope it helps. Someone else may have other comments. FT2 (Talk 14:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Use of alternative names
A distinction should be made between "people using secondary names for malicious purposes" (vandalism etc) - which is where the problems arise - and "people using secondary names for reasonable purposes" (to mark areas of interest etc) which can have some justification. But - if someone has more than one account and behaves sensibly with each, it will be difficult to identify them (unless they use characteristic phrases).

If there is a policy change so that more than minimal editing/ discussion requires signing in, there is likely to be an increase in "alternative name usage."Jackiespeel 16:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposed edit to guidlines for legit sock puppets
PROPOSED ADDITION: [*] Using a separate account to edit controversial subjects and to remain anonymous is allowed.

Example of use: I want to edit something about the (non-existent) "USA-France" conflict which starts in 2099. I am an established editor and I am known by other wikipedians. I do not want people to know that it is me. I create a new account called "contra" and use that to edit that subject and do not touch it with my main account.

A)Is this allowed? B)If it is I think it should be added in some form or another to the list

edit to see actual proposed wording

PROPOSED ACTION: I also think we should have a list of "sock puppets" for those people that want their accounts to be connected (but not required). Comperr 00:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Continuing from my previous comment, we should distinguish between "sock puppets" ("being naughty") and the use of a nom-de-plume: setting up an official noms-de-plume mechanism would allow such divisions to be managed sensibly (see Eleanor Hibbert for use of such a practice in reality). Jackiespeel 18:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed about the name "sock puppet" having negative connotations. I lost my password so edited from unregistered IPs (of which I informed people who I was in the relevent discussions) yet one user is slapping "sock puppet" all over the table in an attempt to make me look bad. (Perfect example below) Logoistic 19:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Helpful Comment for Newbies
While reading through this page, I was struck by this comment: If you have been accused incorrectly of being a sock puppet, don't take it too personally. New users are unknown quantities. Stay around a while and make good edits, and your record will speak for itself. It seems likely that a new user who is upset and offended will not read far enough to see this comment, as it is near the bottom of a reasonably long article. If they do, they likely will be already overwhelmed, and the advice ignored. As accusations of sock puppetry are one of the top reasons a new user is likely to be simultaneously upset and confused, perhaps a piece of reassuring advice belongs near the top of the article, rather than near the bottom. Comments? Filksinger 14:12, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi - I think what's going on here is simply outrageous. I was slandered as a sock puppet and my page defiled by some idiot. Now, is there a due process of any sort or someone with powers of devinity (why? who?) can just brand other users with slanderous titles and place sock puppet tags on their pages? This seems incredibly offensive? I am using Roobit user name in English and Russian wikipedia and only English wikipedia has been affected. I am not a sock puppet of anyone, I never used proxy and I register and write from my own email address. What is taking place here is absolute disgrace. If someone dislikes your views, he can just brand you a sock puppet? Do you need a crowd of tame users who express identical opinions or have no opinions on their own? Who has the power to slander other users in this manner and what is the remedy against it/him? Roobit

I agree. the lack of due process is appalling. I was blocked on suspicion of being a sock puppet. There was no justification given for this belief. I even had a 100+ edit history on a range of different subjects, but this was ignored. I even had a different POV from the person I was supposed to be a sock puppet but again this didn't seem to get in the way of an arbitrary judgment. ex-Cwiki 150.101.184.35 04:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Please be sure to read the entire policy. You must have been blocked on suspicion of abusing a sock puppet, since sock puppets are not disallowed by the policy. In fact, I am a sock puppet, and every user who has a bot is a sock puppeteer. I've tried to change the terminology before, but the last attempt was derailed by a terribly insidious user and no one has been particularly concerned since then. --Philosophus T 04:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks for that. splitting hairs always makes me feel better. ex-Cwiki 150.101.184.35 04:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It certainly isn't splitting hairs - I quite dislike being derided as a sock puppet, since it is one of the few insults which is sanctioned by policy. But as for your situation, I'm looking into it now. --Philosophus T 05:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Suspected sock puppets policy overhaul
A new policy is needed here. The current format places far too much emphasis on admins having to deal with complex and unanswerable situations. In the end, administrators have no more ways of telling who is a sock pupept than anyone else. We've voted with our feet (so to speak) and no one is answering them anymore (I think the last response was in November 2006). This reflects badly on us as admins and on the Wikipedia community as a whole.

Quite simply, the system has totally collpased and our way of dealing with sockpuppets has to change. I want to base it upon the categories at Requests for checkuser.
 * Simple sock puppets could deal with the top two criteria. Easy reports and easy to deal with. Will allow quick and painless resolution of situations
 * Vote fraud could deal with sockpueppets or meatpuppets being used to throw AFD discussions or straw polls - this deals with the middle two criteria
 * Suspected sock puppets would still be needed for other disruptions of articles. I'd love it if someone could come up with a way that this could be improved. For now though, I propose that the current page is left as it is. Hopefully with the other cases gone, the number coming to this page would be more managible and though still tough to decide, would give admins longer. This page could be reviewed in a couple of months if it appears to be failing again.

Right now, I don't see how we can keep the current situation up. It has completly failed and needs overhauling.

I also propose an amnesty on all cases reported prior to the creation of any new way of dealing with things. Reporters could be notified of this and apologised to, and could re-report on the new format pages. At the moment, though, the reports there will simply never be looked at. --Robdurbar 09:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

No scarlet letter tagging
I've modified the section on the placement of sockpuppeteer tags to reflect a couple of discussions on WP:AN/I. These tags have been used to harass editors whose sockpuppets have been blocked but have not been blocked themselves. The two cases I refer to are: Mattisse and Vintagekits. Discussion shows that tags are intended for blocked users or temporarily while an investigation is pending. I hope I have expressed the conditions clearly... Jefferson Anderson 17:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * But there is a valid case for identifying sockpupeteers and tagging them as such, just as placing warning messages on vandals for the same reason. 'Scarlet letter' is a poor analogy as it implies that if they are 'branded' with such tags then this will somehow affect how they function in Wikipedia. It should not because editors should always be commenting on the content of a user, not on the perceived character, otherwise they'd be breaking policy on no personal attacks ( no personal attacks). The situation Jefferson Anderson describes would only apply if users decided to break personal attack policy. The benefits of the tags is twofold. Firstly, if the user breaks the policy again, then more strict action should be taken. This is much more easilly done if the tag is there - making it obvious to other users. Secondly, it makes users aware that this user has been disruptive in the past, so may well be so in the future. In reading the last point, please remember to remove any connotations you might be thinking with shame that 'scarlet letter' terminology suggests. In an analogy with vandalism, we have different levels of warnings for vandalism assuming that a user can see that the vandal has received earlier warnings (so he/she then gives a higher warning). If users could simply take them off all the time, people will always be assuming the user hasn't done it before unless they trawl through the history of edits (not fun). Thus they get away with vandalism all the time and Wikipedia becomes somewhat of an easy ride for them. Tags are the same. The tags were invented for a reason. Think of it like a criminal record in the real world rather than a scarlet letter - it isn't revealed in a way that could harm the user on Wikipedia, but allows further action to be taken in the future. Logoistic 00:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I have reverted the edits made by Jeferson. Can someone else please chime in on this? Logoistic 00:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that is worth putting something in the project page about this. In the case this relates to Requests for arbitration/Starwood, one high-contributing user had used sockpuppets in a long running situation (involving a large number of links to a particular page and website). This was months ago and the user has ceased running socks after intevention, and a stern warning not to do it again, from adminstrators. The sockpuppeter tag remained on the userpage for about a month and finally removed after discussion]. The use has now ceased to use sockpuppets, however other users have contuinually labeled anyone taking similar view as sockpuppets leading to one unconnected editor leaving and generally causing a great deal of grief.
 * It basically comes down to WP:AGF if a user has used sockpuppets in the past, been censured for it and has ceased to use puppets then leaving the banner on the userpage serves no purpose other than to cause future grief, and community disruption.
 * Some brief mention that wikipedia does not use scarlet letters I feel would be approiate, but we should not actually draw up a specific policy on this, such cases are always different and in the potential for wikilayering are great. --Salix alba (talk) 13:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well one user (Vintagekits) has just had a sockpuppet banned, yet has removed the sockpuppeteer tag continuously. Jefferson Anderson has supported this, and both claiming it was vandalism [| here] and [| here]. I've left a message on the admins noticeboard but have received no reply yet. Logoistic 19:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * To be fair, you were just trying to use the sockpuppet tag to blacken my name and because I had earlier caught you using sockpuppets!--Vintagekits 19:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Firstly, my "sockpuppets" were unregistered IPs that I used because I lost my password - I made it clear on our mediation discussions who I was. You have conistently referred to this as if it was illegitimate, and I have told you again and again the reason why. It is a personal atttack. Secondly, you have removed warning messages from your talk page and broken wikipedia policy fairly regularly, so as another user said - it is perfectly justifiable to let other users know that you have just had a sockpuppet banned. Logoistic 10:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The above interchange indicates the problem clearly and why sockpuppetry investigation and administration (and perhaps even some level of confidentiality) are all requirements. I can go accuse everyone contributing to this page of being a sockpuppet and those besmirched would remain in such a state for months. We already have the accusation itself, there's no need for more flags saying "person on trial." Nor, frankly, do we need a "convicted" flag (or "convicted within the last x days/weeks/months") as we will inevitably convict some of the innocent despite our best efforts. PROMPT ATTENTION by people DEDICATED to this issue will go a long way to eliminating leaving the schmutz simmering, with the inevitable and far too common result of permanent and endless accusation/defense/counter-accusation/defense... as demonstrated directly above.  &mdash; Pēters J. Vecrumba 14:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Your generalisation of our case is wrong. There is no "permanent and endless accusation/defense/counter-accusation/defense" to do with our case, other than that the user has been wrongly implying that I had illegitimate sockpuppets. That the user has been engaged in revert wars with other users, has broken policy several times in the recent past, I think it acceptable to place such a tag. What's the purpose of them otherwise??? Logoistic 18:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Sock Puppet
For some reason, I can't get to the SSP page. I want to post that I think Fighting for Justice and TripleH1976 are sockpuppets of each other. They ganged up to discredit an IP, and they continued a reapeated vandalism of him. Zbl 14:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

IP sockpuppets?
I've looked on the main page but couldn't find an answer for this. There's a disruptive user whom I suspects also edits (also disruptively) under 2 IP addresses, can I mark them as suspected sockpuppets? SteveLamacq43 13:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Personally, I don't think it's too much to ask for someone to have to register with a user name and password to make an edit. One does not have to divulge any personal information if they do not wish to. What's the purpose of keeping edit histories without having the trail easily identify edits made by the same individual? I also believe that user pages should have a little "Joined on..." flag with a date, not everyone rushes to edit their user page. (And long-standing members could get little anniversary flags to display on their user pages!)
 * I would also suggest that one way to disuade sockpuppetry would be to make the first two digits of the IP address of any contributor available, say in article edit history. Making the full address available would be nice but would lead to (unfortunately effective) denial of service attack abuses--even though ISPs assign IP addresses dynamically, more and more of those addresses are stable over long periods of time because of the longevity of broadband connections (and algorithms that also tend to reassign you your previous dynamic address if it has not been reassigned somewhere else). Two digits gives some reasonable amount of information without revealing too much (it's not very effective to try and launch a denial of service attack against the remaining 65,000+ possible IP adddresses).  &mdash;  Pēters J. Vecrumba 15:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I have more than one account on Wikipedia, and use all of them for editing. One of them is inextricably linked to my actual identity, whereas there are many (mostly banned) users who know me by Philosophus and despise me. Some of my fellow editors have received death threats (Fyslee) and had their employers harassed (SCZenz). I would prefer that there be as few resources as possible for linking this account to my real identity. --Philosophus T 11:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

New reason for sockpuppeting discovered

 * I felt that it would be more apropos to edit articles concerning sockpuppeteering and comment on them using a sock puppet, so this is why this edit isn't under the main account. I am not aiming to make a WP:POINT or any of that nonsense. Sockpuppet of Rickyrab 15:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I confirm that this account is a sockpuppet of mine. &mdash;  Rickyrab | Talk 15:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I have also not used that account to violate policy, nor do I intend to. &mdash;  Rickyrab | Talk 06:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Question
Isn't fairly easy for the technical personnel of wikipedia to detect sock puppets by checking same IP addresses? Wooyi 04:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's called CheckUser. It's not done without a good reason, though, since we need to abide by our privacy policy.  Besides, it can be easily fooled with some foresight, and can sometimes be unreliable even without deliberate misdirection: many people can and do share a single IP address legitimately.  —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Confusion
Why is "'Role' accounts" listed under "Legitimate uses of sockpuppets" when the explanation clearly states that "if you run an account with multiple users, it is likely to be blocked" and that they are allowed "only under exceptional circumstances" with two only currently sanctioned? 68.39.174.238 13:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Terminology
Doesn't the word sockpuppet imply that the account as a malicious throwaway account. I mean for all the legitimate uses, many people mistakenly believe since account creation is free multiple account are condoned, like on AOL or Yahoo. On eBay, however using shills -- as they would call multiple acocunts -- to raise feedback or bid on your own items is also forbidden. BuickCenturyDriver 12:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * While not condones, people can operate hundreds of unique accounts, provided they don't engage, on purpose or by accident, in the "forbidden" uses. As to the term, "sockpuppet" does sound malicious, but not "throwaway", to me at least. 68.39.174.238 23:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It does sound malicious, yes, and in some (limited) cases I consider it to be a policy-sanctioned personal attack method. Parts of the policy and related pages consider sock puppet to mean any alternate account, and other parts consider it to mean a forbidden account used for nefarious purposes, which seems to be the general feeling about the term. I've been trying to change it for over a year, but unfortunately, no one cares. I've posted questions about it multiple times both here and on WP:VPP, and have never received enough response for me to actually be justified in making changes. In short, yes, there is a problem, but I see no way to fix it at this time. --Philosophus T 11:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Philosophus, I agree that the terminology is inconsistent, but I'm not sure that it causes a significant problem. Alternative accounts that are used legitmately tend not to attract attention--it's things like vote-stacking, multiple accounts emphatically pushing the same POV, or serial personal attacks on the same target that make people think "aha! a sockpuppet!" --Akhilleus (talk) 17:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You are quite correct that the problem is not significant, and I must admit that my interest in the matter is at least partially self-centered. Due to the nature of my edits, I've had quite a few editors try to damage my reputation and impede my actions against pseudoscience by calling me a sock puppet, and unfortunately, due to the current policy, they are correct, even though I expect that most editors don't understand the reason. Of course, even then, most editors also know that I am legitimate, and probably ignore the accusation as just being another of the many insults directed at me. I will also admit that I am one of the very few editors who is affected by the subtle distinction, and I've found that nearly all other complainants have turned out to be abusive sock puppets, usually of banned editors. --Philosophus T 09:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppet of seemingly legit editor
I have a suspicion that a more-or-less legitimate editor may be using a sockpuppet (2, actually) to push his or her views on debates. Since I don't want to come out and make such an accusation if it then turns out to be false, is there any other procedure for gathering a little more evidence? DB (talk) 04:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Uses of alternate accounts
Does this need to be included here, for clarity?? --sunstar nettalk 09:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

role accounts
what about school projects (whose page I forget)? Those can be multi-sers on single-accounts. OverMyHead 16:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

This is a joke, Right?
Why did they call Wikipedia; Sock Puppetry?KanuT 00:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Irresponsible accusations
I was accused of being a sockpuppet with absolutely no foundation. In my view it was irresponsible behaviour. In fact my accuser stated in his apology to me on my talk page that "I requested the investigation into all the accounts involved at a quick glance".

Now the point I want to raise is this. The sock puppet policy guidance page seems to be very heavily weighted into explaining all the ins and outs of sock puppetry BUT it doesn't seem to deal at all adequately with the need to be very sure of evidence - and of the need to identify that evidence - before making an accusation. As such the policy page is unbalanced and does not provide ordinary wiki users with adequate protection from irresponsible accusations made with little or no evidence. (I note from comments above that I'm not an isolated case). The actual page where sock puppets are reported does make the point that any investigation requested without adequate evidence is likely to fail. But again - maybe more could be made of this?

I was totally unaware that I had been accused of being a sock puppet - I happened upon it purely by chance - a point which is explained in my defence against the accusation. My accuser made no effort to inform me. Again I believe this was irresponsible behaviour.

Finally, I now have a talk page which indicates I was accused of being a sock puppet. AnonEMouse who investigated the accusation was able to establish very easily that I was no such thing. By way of contrast my accuser has absolutely nothing on his talk page (unless he had removed it) to indicate any sort of reprimand or guidance re making accusations without due cause. Why not?

Surely part of this policy should include some form of policy and protocol for what should happen to people making false/irresponsible accusations - ie not acting in good faith? (NB Good faith for me involves taking the time to be sure of your facts before you accuse somebody of something.)  I'd like to see a more even-handed policy which actively deters irresponsible behaviour. Cosmopolitancats 03:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I requested this investigation. There was evidence of single purpose accounts, though this user was not amoungst them. I therefore apologied. Jhamez84 17:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Is anybody going to respond to the points I'm making - not addressed by the apology I received nor by extant policy? Cosmopolitancats 02:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

A horrible experiance
I have had an absolutely horrible experience with this policy and would welcome any help or advice to clear my name and put this behind me. I originally joined this site after reading about an Arbitration Committee Case on a newsgroup, bookmarked in a public computer lab. The case was well known to several Americans in my region of the world (I live in the Middle East) because we were all using the same computer facility and were all interested in what was happening to a fellow American. When someone asked how so many people knew about the case, I made the serious mistake of answering and was instantly called a sockpuppet of the case’s subject (User:Husnock) as was every edit coming out of the ip range associated with the computer lab in question. This was partly because he too lived in the region from which I was editing and also because, in my ignorance, I had linked some of his more frequented articles to my user page (I learned about these articles after reading Husnock’s edit contributions). I admit that was a very stupid thing to do as it labeled me as having “similar interests” to Husnock and, since I lived in the same area of the world as he, I was then rampantly called a sockpuppet by several people. IP addresses were then launched against me and people conducted investigations into information on my user page. I then made a second serious mistake and that was to start posting pictures of myself and my family. These were called copyright violation under the logic that they must be fake since I must be a sockpuppet and the pictures displayed were of people other than the person I was accused of being! I eventually removed these many photos but not before someone actually threatened me and said they had “friends who lived in my area” and that “they’d been in touch”. For that comment, I no longer edit Wikipedia from my home and only from public labs and offices, since I fear of getting traced and having some of these “friends” come and pay me a visit. The final bit that is truly amazing is that the person who I was accused of being a sockpuppet actually made a post from halfway around the world, stating that I was not him, and yet I was still accused of being him ! In such a circumstance, what can someone do? Is there any defense against weak or no evidence? I have tried to get these accusations to stop for over three months, yet they continue with one leveled against me just yesterday. I welcome and advice and assistance. I am not asking for any action taken against those who had these feelings or suspicions, and I definitely don’t want a fight with them, I just want some advice. Thanks. -Pahuskahey 01:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * My advice? 1) don't make up fake dead children which are quite easy to check don't exist 2) don't get caught out with your sockpuppets in such an obvious manner ? Why you are still pushing this line is beyond me, you were caught out Husnock, people agreed to let it go if you just got on with editing, but you cannot help yourself, you *have* to draw attention to yourself - I guess because you like the attention and like the wikidrama. My advice would be to get a new identity - make no reference to your husnock account (which you have), do not get involved in any discussion about your husnock account (which you do) and just let it go. --Fredrick day 10:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to bring my son back into this except to say that, without any information about him like his name or such other details, people appeared to have checked two internet sites and concluded that I must have been lieing about him. Well, I wasn't, but removed all info about him from this site since others had produced a virtual vendetta against the material about him.  That issue actually has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.  I am asking for what procedure there is if someone is rampantly called a sockpuppet of someone else and they protest and dispute this.  I was never "caught out" and I think there is actually very little evidence that I am that other user, espeically with the data about Husnock making a post from the United States in January.  And I have still to see any action what so ever against the user who said he had friends who were going to come and find me, if I said to another user, as a result of a dispute, "I have friends in your town/city and I've been in touch" I would probably be banned from this site.  I don't want fights here, I just want people to adhere to WP:CIV and WP:NPA.  Repeat charges of being a sockpuppet, after I've said over and over that I am not, seem to contradict these policies.  That's all I'm asking. -Pahuskahey 06:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * nobody says "they are going to come and get you" - that's a lie (it's also one of the multiple clues that you are husnock - he misrepresented people as well). All that is said is that contact has been made with friends who work at AUD (where you claim to work) and that it would be best to discuss the matter via email - it does not take a genius to work out what that conversation would have been, especially given this edit on your talkpage. --Fredrick day 10:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I never said I worked at AUD, only that this was where the computer lab was from which I made some of my posts. In fact, I refuse to confirm or deny where I work in order to maintain my safety against cyberstalkers.  And the comment that someone has "a friend of a friend" and they they've "been in touch" was clearly meant to intimidate, as was the petty comment from the ip address (which was reverted as vandalism by an administrator), which by the way came from an ip address in England.  Interesting whoever it was would have been so interested in me or have heard about me on a "veterans board".  More likely an intentional comment meant to provoke an uncivil response, much like your response that I am a liar (see WP:ABF).  I'm also curious why your account would be so interested in this case when you have, according to your user page, been on this site for less time than I have.  Or are you perhaps a second account of another user?  I will not accuse you as you have me, but it does seem probable.  In any event, there is no reason to continue to bash into eachother about this; I came here for neutral comments, not for someone to keep throwing the same accusations around. -Pahuskahey 19:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Stubacca - a frustrated editor whose actions should be examined closer
I would like to devote one ore two lines to Stubacca. An individual who has an axe to grind because he could not push his comments and views on some Wiki articles.

As a result he now accuses me of being a puppet of someone else. How sad. Rather than starting a proper dialogue supported by facts along proper Wiki etiquette lines, why my views differ from his; he prefers to accuse others of policy violations and ultimately puppeteering - what a frustrated civil servant this guy must be (Pot v. Kettle Policy, I know) Please note: that Stubacca already received a warning for his vandalism on the Cruyff page and those of other footballing greats. He justified his actions based on inconclusive evidence. His personal discussion page is littered with 'conflict' with others, although I leave it up to others to decide whether this is a trend in his online behaviour.

He acts like someone with a small mind (apologies again) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brasileiro1969 (talk • contribs) 14:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

sockpuppetry definitions
Hi, some months ago my li'l brother (User_talk:John Knife) was accused(awarded) of sockpuppetry, they might think I'm the sockpuppeter since I use the same computer he uses. How to deal with this? -- Emperor Walter Humala  · ( talk? ·  help! ) 20:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Dynamic policy
A lot of Wikipedia policies will probably tend to a consensus view over time, but I think this should not be one of them.

While the community's ideas on sock puppetry will probably not change, we ought to bear in mind that, as Wikipedia grows and becomes more authoritative, there will be an ever growing proportion of new users who only consider themselves sufficiently informed to write on one very narrow issue; so, our ways of detecting sock puppets should adapt to follow this trend.

190.40.130.44 17:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Using templates
I'm trying to use the IPsock template, but I can't get it to work. It appears in the pages in "untemplated form", just the text exactly as I typed it. Any ideas? Maury 21:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:SOCK#LEGIT
Hope no one minds, I added a shortcut to the 'legitimate uses of alternate accounts' section. I have to type it out a lot (via e-mail mostly, thanks to this and concerned Wikizens), and I'm sure others do as well, so I figure an easy to remember shortcut would be helpful. – Riana ऋ 08:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Cooler Name
I think for all intensive purposes to inspire fear into these "sock puppeteers" we need to create a cooler and more like rough name for them, just my two sense. O and I'm just putting this idea out there, don't like be all mean and do stuff to my account, I'm not sock pupeteering, we seriously need to make a different name. Possibly create a heavier penalty, we need to blow them off the wikiPlanet. O ya and a cooler picture. Thanks much love me James.Denholm 00:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe the idea is to make them feel embarased to be a sock puppeter. Also, do you think that you could sign next time? Thanks.

ragpuppets
They're real. SakotGrimshine 21:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe, but this is not a common term on Wikipedia, and there's no reason to clutter up the policy with neologisms. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I've never heard the term before. SakotGrimshine 21:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Possible adoptee problem
Another editor has said that my new adoptee is very likely to be the same person as a recently blocked user and that this is a breach of WP:SOCK. My adoptee is making constructive contributions, although mixed with occasional immature comments I admit, and does seem to be taking things more seriously (see his various messages on my talk-page for example). My initial reaction was to think that an editor who wanted to contribute positively should be allowed to do so, even though he had been blocked (NB not banned) in the past. Is this right, or must my new adoptee inevitably be blocked immediately for his past sins? Bencherlite 17:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * What if someone WP:ADOPTs a user and they end up adopting their own sock puppet? SakotGrimshine 18:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Moving discussion to the Suspected Sock noticeboard talk page, in case it's more visible there. Bencherlite 07:00, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Examples for education mock socks?
I've been trying to come up with ways to make the policies and guidelines easier to understand by providing examples of behavior that is consistent and inconsistent with them. I'd like to create a variety of example accounts to illustrate all the facets of Wikipedia:


 * 4 classes of 5 examples each.
 * Class 1: Editor A, Editor B, Editor C, Editor D, and Editor E represent regular editors.
 * Class 2: Editor F, Editor G, Editor H, Editor I, and Editor J represent administrators/bureaucrats and other types of empowered editors.
 * Class 3: E101.74.181.76, E210.69.207.98, etc. for anons and IPs.
 * Class 4: Sockpuppet 1, Sockpuppet 2, Sockpuppet 3, Meatpuppet 1, and Meatpuppet 2 represent what their names imply.

To be clear, each account would carry a tag to inform editors who happen upon them why for example, Editor B never seems to answer messages. If all goes well I'd like to invite other editors to help, they would need access to them of course and as a result would carry special edit summaries to record who was making the edit (for good faith editors) and be obvious and difficult to use for those who would hijack them. (I'm assuming it'd be hard to get a vote in an AFD taken seriously if made by Editor B who's edit history has many edit summaries that read something like: Multi-user training account, edit made by . This is not an actual User account. They'd need to make at least 500 edits to make it harder to tell what kind of account it is to fool editors who use that option. Anynobody 06:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Gotta be a better picture!
The image on this Wiki could use improvement. There are much better-looking sock puppets out there -- the one pictured looks like a sleeve, not a sock! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nycdi (talk • contribs).

Buddy editing
Should we add a section about buddy editing? Let's say an editor has a conflict of interest and doesn't want to edit a particular article. Can they privately suggest such edits to a wikifriend, who then posts them? I feel that we should clarify whether or not this is an acceptable practice. There's no need to discuss the particulars here, but somebody has alleged buddy editing by several editors. I don't think this would qualify as meat puppetry because these accounts are neither new, nor single purpose, but I am not sure whether this practice is allowable. Jehochman Hablar 15:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think I've read that this is called "proxying" and is considered disruptive, but I can't remember where I saw it. I'd look it up for you if I had the time; maybe you can search for it on your own, or ask for help at WP:AN in locating the exact policy which applies. -- Lisasmall | Talk 20:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Concern
My brother created a Wikipedia account, the username of which I do not know at the time. While I do advise him on proper Wikipedia etiquette, and he does seem to listen to me, sometimes he has his own mind and his opinions at time can be controversial. I don't think he made any edits on Wikipedia yet, but I just wanted to make sure that if for some reason he misbehaves on his account, my account won’t be accused of sock puppetry or blocked since we access Wikipedia using the same computer, and thus we have the same IP address! --AutoGyro 02:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Best thing to do is to make sure he behaves. If he gets blocked, inevitably you're going to be suspected as a sockpuppet. This may seem unfair, but we don't really have any good way of proving that you're two people rather than one. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite needed
I think this policy is getting fairly crufty, and a couple of sections of it need a rewrite.

100-edit rule
First of all, there's the "100-edit rule", saying it's okay to assume accounts with less than 100 edits are sock puppets. Or that it's okay to assume accounts with more than 100 edits aren't sock puppets. Or that you're a bad person for assuming either. It's kind of hard to tell.

I've never seen this rule applied in a long, long time, and I consider that a good thing. This kind of wankery about edit counts might be okay in an essay of some sort, but it doesn't belong in a policy. The places where sockpuppets really matter already have their own procedures for mitigating sockpuppetry. I'd recommend editing out references to the "100-edit rule".

Meatpuppets
Then, there's the section on "meatpuppets". It's inconsistent and rambling, and it conflates "meatpuppet" with the more relevant distinction of single purpose accounts. It suggests that you might consider blocking someone just for being a meatpuppet (but that you "need not"). It also contains a "citation needed" tag, an extremely odd thing to find in a policy. I guess someone just found it that hard to believe that someone who starts editing as a meatpuppet possibly turn into a productive editor. :P

I think the meatpuppet section should be rewritten. Here's my shot at it:


 * Some users begin editing on Wikipedia because another user has recruited them to push a certain agenda. Though such users are distinct people, it is difficult to tell them apart from sock puppets. These users are sometimes called meatpuppets, and are a kind of single purpose account.


 * Do not recruit meatpuppets. It is considered highly inappropriate to advertise Wikipedia articles to your friends, family members, or communities of people who agree with you, so that they come to Wikipedia and support your side of a debate.


 * Wikipedia has policies and processes to mitigate the disruption caused by meatpuppetry. In votes or vote-like discussions, new users tend to be disregarded, especially if there are many of them expressing the same opinion. For the purposes of dispute resolution, the Arbitration Committee has ruled that when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sock puppets, or several users acting as meatpuppets, they may be treated as one entity.


 * As opposed to sock puppets, meatpuppets are actual newbies, and it is important to not bite the newbies. Users who are recruited as meatpuppets have presumably never seen the editing side of Wikipedia before, and some of them may broaden their interests and turn into productive editors. If meat puppets are disrupting a discussion that you are involved in, it's better to disregard them than to get angry at them or call them "meatpuppets" to their face.

I hope none of this is too controversial. The first three paragraphs are intended to be a clearer, more concise version of what was there, and the last paragraph is summarized from WP:BITE.

 r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  23:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe your suggestions will improve the page. Thank you for taking action! As an aside, what do you call established editors who hold strong POVs/are disruptive and are asked by someone who shares their POV (via talk page or email) to participate/vote in an AFD or RFA? They aren't meatpuppets but their role is quite similar. Gizza<sup style="color:teal;">Discuss  <b style="color:teal;">&#169;</b> 00:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The person who asked them is guilty of canvassing. I don't think we need a particular name for the people who respond to the canvass.  r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  06:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I thought Meat Puppets was a band.....  Connör ( talk ) 20:03, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Accounts used legitimately or violate the sock puppetry policy
Will this policy imply to individuals whose previous accounts have inadvertently lost passwords? 72.211.233.128 02:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Malicious use of Sockpuppet accusations
I think we should incorporate the issue of 'malicious use of sockpuppet accusations' and afford the offence equal punishment as a sock puppet offence itself. In a sense it is more serious as it waste judicial administrative resources.

It would appear that the malicious or aggressive use of sockpuppetry is one of the easy and most successful ways of effect blocks on other editors and damage their credibility. It would appear to be used in order to take control of an topic, or have other contributors blocked and banned. It seems successful as it would seem there is very little surety in the process of conviction of offenders. Especially if one accepts that many articles are likely to bring together passionate proponents and polarize them. E.g. "anyone that does not agree with me must be a meatpuppet of the last person that did not".

It also gives an unfair advantage to such contributors that are willing, or merely able, to invest time and effort in the technical aspects of the Wikipedia, to their advantage, not necessarily the Encyclopedia's, rather than its content. I should imagine that it is fairly easy to distinguish which editors indulge in such tactics. I should imagine few genuine editors do. 83.67.27.185 22:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Established editor
Is there a correct term for an established Wikipedia editor who makes an edit at the request of another established editor? Dreadstar †  00:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Someone calling this "buddy editing" June 29 asked a similar question on this talk page. I think it may be called proxying. I'm going to add a new section to the talk page immediately below to expand on this. -- Lisasmall | Talk 21:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Request consensus re proxy puppets
As noted on this talk page by Dreadstar August 16 here and Jehochman June 29 here, WP:MEAT is presently written to apply only to newbies. Maybe a new designation is needed for established editors acting as meatpuppets to edit articles by proxy for someone who either cannot, or chooses not to, be open about their authorship in a particular article (e.g., cases of banned users, or someone wishing to appear their agenda for the article has support from disinterested editors).

There doesn't seem to be policy language explicitly addressing this. WP:PROXY leads you to a totally different technical issue, and WP:MEAT only addresses newbie meatpuppets. WP:CANVASS doesn't fit, either, because it refers only to editors solicited to sway a vote on a talk page, not editors solicited to make proxy edits. Maybe WP:MEAT needs to be edited a little to cover the possibility of a non-newbie meatpuppet, maybe something like this, with a new shortcut, WP:EBP (proposed changes in italics): Would that do? Or is this already dealt with elsewhere in some other policy? I ask for consensus comments or critiques, please. And I apologize if this has come up and failed consensus before. -- Lisasmall | Talk 21:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I like it, Lisasmall..! I don't know if it has come up before or if it's mentioned elsewhere, but it definitely should be mentioned in this article. If meatpuppet is too strong, perhaps "proxypuppet" would be a good choice.  Tough thing to prove though, but it would be good to have it mentioned as something that shouldn't be done, whether it's to vote, or edit around a block, or anything by proxy.  I was hoping something already existed...but if not, we can add it!  Dreadstar  †  21:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Dread, I like that so well I added "proxy puppet" to the box above, hoping this change is still close enough in time to the original to be kosher (and I think I'm okay on that, since you're the only comment so far and it's your suggestion). I left a space in it to match "straw puppet", but I'm not married to that.  Maybe some people use strawpuppet instead of straw puppet, as most use meatpuppet instead of meat puppet.  Also, you're right, proxying is hard to prove but not impossible, especially if identical word choices are made.  And even if hard to prove, just having the policy made explicit may help reduce violations.  Another issue:  should the policy be ...refers only to article edits or ...refers only to article and talkpage edits, not votes ? -- Lisasmall | Talk 22:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I posted to WP:AN to get more people to look at this. My comment was sitting here for more than a month, so I get the feeling that this page needs more eyes.  Thank you, Lisasmall, for your thoughts. - Jehochman  Talk 01:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

A comment about meatpuppetry
I recently did something that some might call recruiting a meatpuppet, but in the circumstances I thought it was appropriate. An article I felt should be turned into a redirect had gotten a "No consensus" on the first AfD, not because of an inability for people to agree, but because so few people even commented it was impossible to determine consensus. When a 2nd AfD was started, I mentioned it to a friend of mine I know in real life who occasionally edits Wikipedia, and who I was pretty sure would agree with my point of view.

It is interesting, because while I understand that AfDs are not "votes," in this case, having an additional voice on my side was quite important, because if not enough people even commented, surely the result would have again been "No consensus."

Neither AfD was unanimous, but the second one did attract a few more people to comment and a clear consensus emerged to redirect. Ironically, my friend never participated, so there wasn't really a meatpuppet issue to begin with... but to me, it sort of raised an interesting question.

I would never consider recruiting a meatpuppet to back me up in a contentious debate... but for a discussion that is simply too quiet to reach a consensus, it feels to me like it's not so bad to call in the troops. --Jaysweet 21:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * If this was part of the reason you invited him, then there might be an ethical issue: "who I was pretty sure would agree with my point of view".122.153.53.2 04:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Definition of Violation in PRACTICE
I recently made a SSP report, and was told there was no violation because there was no double-voting. The admin said shows of support don't count as violations. There seems to be a gap between what is actually defined in the policy as a violation and what is practiced by admins. Official definitions of violations: These actions were well-documented in the case, but there was no double-voting or fraud beyond shows of support. So the admin said there was no violation. Filing a SSP takes a lot of time. To do it properly, you have to compile diffs, links, make the case, etc. It is a waste of users' time to misrepresent the policy as it is practiced; I would not have bothered with the case if I had known that only double-voting would be considered a violation. Please change the written policy on this page to make it accurate. --Can I edit it??Bsharvy 22:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * "Accordingly, sock puppets may not be used to give the impression of more support for a viewpoint. This includes...using more than one account in discussions such as ... on talk pages."
 * "In addition to double-voting, sock puppets should not be used for the purpose of deception, distraction, or to create the illusion of broader support for a position than actually exists."


 * Perhaps you should have ran an IP trace first; also, accusing someone of fraud that you committed from an IP address where you live (on a different continent than the person you accused) is generally a bad start, and, if your posts are viewed as being possible harrassment and/or newbie biting you will generally be taken less seriously. Also mate, failure to "get your way" on discussion pages is also not generally considered a reason for harrassing people.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Allgoodnamesalreadytaken (talk • contribs) 00:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)