Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppetry/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Rfc: Tightening up LEGIT based on actual practice

After some recent experience with it, I'm of the opinion that current practice among several admins makes some of the wording in the WP:SOCK#LEGIT section in need of updating, to reflect current practice. Please do not ask what that experience was, because ironically, my answer will apparently incriminate me enough to recieve an immediate block no questions asked as an obvious attempt to deviously and surrepticiously decieve everybody (infact, if this account survives to make a second edit based on the fact nobody would ever in good faith propose a policy change with their 1st edit, I'll be amazed). The only way I'll reveal the precise details to better inform people, is if an admin declares here that he will unblock me if anyone blocks me just for starting/participating in this discussion (and take any second blocker to arbitration for WP:WHEEL). That only leaves the prospect of someone just blanking this Rfc on some bad faith douche-baggery basis, which is a possibility. If that happens, well, what the hell. I guess that will have to stand as the public evidence of how the WP:SOCK policy really is reviewed on Wikipedia.

Anyway, should we get this far, then on the policy issue, I propose the following changes:

Alternative accounts have legitimate uses where real world privacy concerns exist. For example, long-term contributors using their real names may wish to use a pseudonymous account for contributions with which they do not want their real name to be associated., or long-term users might create a new account to experience how the community functions for new users. These accounts are not sockpuppets. If you use an alternative account, it is your responsibility to ensure that you do not violate this policy. Valid reasons are as listed below:include:

I think it is now beyond obvious on Wikipedia of 2011 that there's no situation where someone using what they think is a legit sock account for any reason other than real world privacy issues, they are immediately blocked (not least in part because the user of the sock will normally openly declare the account is a legit sock, rather than face tedious questions about how a new account is so familiar with policy etc).

Admins are now so distrustful, so full of bad faith, so poisoned by their regular work of dealing with trolls and vandals and real sock abusers, that they can no longer conceive any good faith reason why anyone would want to create a legit sock and keep their main account's identity hidden, if it's not for real world privacy reasons. At the very least, if they find a situation like this, even if the sock account is not at that time being used for disruption, or is not doing other automatically suspicious activities (ie voting in Afds), they will block on sight on the basis that this is simply not allowed, full stop, based on this very policy.

Before they will unblock, they will demand the real reason why the account was created. The 'perpetrator' then faces the choice of either explaining the reason for using a sock in enough salacious detail so as to make the use of the sock moot, or they must just walk away, because all other avenues will be treated as 'block evasion', no matter what is said or done. This is why the policy wording now needs to be tightened up, for the benefit of both the blocking admins and the chumps who try to create legit socks for non-real world reasons - no real world reason means no legit socks allowed, period.

There's no way, except for the real life reasons, that anyone who admits to using what they see as a legitimate sock, can explain why to suspicious admins, in a way that still maintains the purpose of the sock, to any degree, while not falling foul of the incredibly broad brush reasons why its explained in here why socks are bad, period. Given how vague the policy is on why socks are bad, such blocks can easily be justified post-event, given a little bad faith, and the 'guilty' behaviour of the person who would rather not make the purpose of the sock moot. That's why the clause about it being the sockmasters "responsibility to ensure that you do not violate this policy." needs to go, it's pointless in the current environment. The actual evident purpose of the edits made by the sock account has become irrelevant.

It's also become clear that rather than a list of non-exhaustive examples, the list given for "Valid reasons include", has rather become, to sock hunting admins, a list of the only reasons why legit socks will be tolerated. That's why that language needs to be tightened. There's no longer any situation where the example of someone creating an account to test out new users' experience, can be translated to something else equally beneficial to the project, that any admin is willing to simply take on trust. And I doubt anyone even still creates socks for this purpose either, given how the whole 'let's see how bitey the CSD patrollers are' saga went.

These changes are based on my sincere observations after an incident which has now involved at least 10 admins all reinforcing this interpretation, or at the very least taking the earlier admins actions on basic trust rather than actually figuring out if they can justify their blocks based on this policy combined with AGF and what they can actually see in the sock's edits, or not. Sure, plenty ordinary editors complained at my treatment, but application of WP:SOCK is a policy that is very much in the domain of admins alone.

If anyone wants to disagree with my view of how the WP:SOCK policy is now being viewed with regards non-privacy related legit socks on Wikipedia in 2011, then I'd be pleased to hear it. Obviously without compromising any current or former legit accounts, I'd be seriously interested in hearing of any actual cases which show that the changes would have a detrimental effect.

There's no reason that I can see why this policy should not reflect real world practice. In fact, that's what policies are supposed to do. JMK7759 (talk) 15:45, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Oppose change

• Oppose. The wall-of-text here is definitely tl;dr, but I don't see any compelling reason to delete the words that are crossed out in the proposed change. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:06, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

  Try and create an openly declared sock for non-real world privacy reasons, and then you will see why the changes are necessary - this policy's wording on such things does not reflect current practice, that's the tl:dr version. If you've never tried to do it, then of course you won't see the need. JMK7759 (talk) 14:04, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

  I don't see a compelling reason for me to try and create one of those, either. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:04, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

  So, on what grounds are you actually opposing then? If you won't read the long version and won't try and disprove the short one, I can't see what's supposed to be so compelling about your oppose. Except maybe policy inertia. JMK7759 (talk) 00:17, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose As best I can tell, the complaint is that the proposer tried to use a sock to protect the identity of their main account, but did so only to protect the accounts identity, and not their real life identity. That is not one of the clearly defined acceptable purposes of a sock, the permissible uses they want to remove seem unrelated, and its not clear what steps if any where taken to assuage the concerns of the community that the sock was created for an illegitimate purpose. Popular ways of bolstering a claim regarding the legitimacy of a sock is to reveal the socks identity to either Arbcom, or to a respected Admin that the user trusts to not reveal the connection, but to whom any concerns can be referred. No explanation has been given for why the sock needs to be a complete secret from everyone. Monty₈₄₅ 02:51, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose As per above JDOG555 (talk) 03:59, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose abusive sockpuppetry is a problem, not least because we don't want one person casting multiple votes in a debate. But there are legit uses of socks, and if someone isn't using their multiple accounts to gain advantage what would be the problem? I see this proposal as narrowing the allowed uses of socks, and I don't see the case for doing that. If we need any clarification then maybe it should be to emphasise what sort of behaviour we wish to discourage. ϢereSpielChequers 19:01, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Not enough. "New Accounts," and "Clean Starts," should be prohibited from all controversial editing. Period. Hipocrite (talk) 17:24, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

I see no link between your discussion and the proposed change. I would prefer these guidelines to make it clear that only abusive socking is a problem, I'm pretty certain that was the default position. The early Wikipedians were defenders of freedom, insofar as it was compatible with building an encyclopaedia. I do agree with your diagnosis that we seem to be moving towards an environment of mistrust and retribution, fuelled not so much by paranoia as rules obsession and points scoring. Rich Farmbrough, 16:28, 6 December 2011 (UTC).

Leaning towards oppose, but want a tl:dr version of the complaint. People in completely good faith sometimes make socks that the community (through admins) don't think meet the current criteria for legitimate alternate accounts. The solution in those cases is to discuss civilly the reasons for the socking, and escalate through the currently available channels as needed. The solution is not to demand answers and rage and threaten and then create socks on top of socks to keep raging and demanding answers instead of just sticking with that first sock and discussing the issue. The wording seems reasonable. I don't see the benefit in the proposed change. --Onorem♠Dil 19:39, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The TL:DR version is that there's no way that nowadays, if it was ever even possible before, that anyone who creates an openly declared legit sock for non-real world privacy reasons (i.e. just to hide what their main Wikipedia identity is), will not simply be immediately ABF blocked for violating WP:SOCK. I will repeat, my sock was not engaged in any of the specified naughty behaviours, it was not vote stacking, it was not trolling, it was not doing anything more dodgy or deceptive than is comparable to the actual non-real world example given, i.e. fooling people into thinking you're a n00b when you're not. No amount of civil discourse changes the outcome once its been noticed, believe me. It was openly stated by the blocking admin that socks without real world justifications are banned, and he and subsequent reviewers repeatedly referred to the legit use examples list, as if it was a definitive allowable use list (or otherwise refused to define beyond simple hand waves to policies, what they saw as illegitimate about this particular sock based on its actual edits). The wording changes reflect how admins are acting right now as a collective (there were enough involved at different stages for this not to have been a mere slip of a rogue/incompetent/inexperienced one or two). If you don't believe me, or still don't see the need for change, then why don't you try it and see for yourself whether the current wording of the policy prevents that sort of bad faith reaction? JMK7759 (talk) 23:02, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Or to put it in an even shorter way based on their said vague block justifications - there's no use of a sock for non-real world privacy reasons that doesn't now fall into enough admin's personal definitions of misleading or deceiving the community to make the suggested pathway of civil discourse through the sock account anything but unproductive, regardless of what you might think this policy still reasonably allows.

I would heartily welcome you or anybody else proving me wrong with a practical example, but anything less isn't going to convince me. I've been there, I've done it. Theory is for class, policy is supposed to reflect practice. JMK7759 (talk) 23:18, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

If you use an undisclosed alternative account for privacy reasons, I think all conceivable reasons would involve minimal editing. And given that misleading or deceiving is forbidden, your multiple accounts should never cross paths. If they do, if your main account is crossing paths with your real-life associated private account, then either you are doing more than justifiable with the private account, or you main account is editing with an undisclosed COI, which is misleading, and you should stop. If you don’t do any of these things, and if you done otherwise quack, then no mere admin will ever suspect. (assuming you don’t have an obvious and peculiar writing style or similar) If one or more admins have already positively detected you, then you are no careful enough, not with our rules, and not with your own privacy, and you should consider not disclosing anything personal on a website. Possibly, a checkuser might discover your secret, but if there is no deception, misleading, or crossing of paths, then the most a checkuser will do in the first instance is contact you privately (ensure that you have enabled email).

If you have actual concerns, I suggest that you email the checkusers for advice. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:26, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I think you've got the wrong end of the stick. The sock's existence and purpose was openly declared both on its user page and through its edits. The main account's identity was withheld of course, because the sole purpose of it was to do a task while protecting the main account's privacy (but for non-real world reasons). The task didn't fall into any of the dodgy things you've described, it wasn't vote stacking, crossing over with the main account, or anything else rightly banned. The only reason it was blocked is because an admin decided that simply having a sock for non-real world privacy reasons, was de-facto evidence of an intent to mislead/deceive, and instantly blocked the account, even though its actual edits were not block worthy in any way. Checkusers were next to useless in assisting me, they seemingly share the blocking admin's view of WP:SOCK, and their only contribution was to go into automatic sock-hunting mode. That's why the policy needs to be changed, it's clearly out of date as regards what actually happens to openly declared socks created in this manner. They are defacto banned, due to the now massive levels of suspicion and bad faith amongst many admins. JMK7759 (talk) 14:19, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Let me see if I got this right.

You have a primary account and created a secondary account for some non-real world privacy concerns.

My guess is that you were doing something that you didn't want associated with your primary account.

You disclosed that it was a sock of some editor but did not tell anyone whom it was a sock of.

Your sockpuppet account was blocked for sockpuppetry that no one but you can say was not disruptive and no admin would unblock you without confirming that the edits were not disruptive.

Now you want to rewrite the policy to what you think is a description of current practice based on one example.

So is that an accurate description of your comments above? 174.47.229.149 (talk) 15:01, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Correct, except for the fact that the reason for blocking was not evident disruption on the part of the sock, it was the admin's belief that doing this sort of thing was a defacto WP:SOCK violation. And yes, I want to change the policy based on this one experience. Is that wrong? Is the policy still valid as long as the times it is ignored are few and far between? It is a Policy and not a Guideline after all. Given how many admins were involved in this case, I'd say my proposed wording is now the norm; I'd like people who disagree to actually prove otherwise, if they want to stand by the existing policy. JMK7759 (talk) 19:03, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

JMK7759, I think I have been lucky enough to see the incident that you are complaining about unfold, so I can comment intelligently on it while trying not to out you. If you then want to have a more detailed conversation without that constraint, you can contact me by email. I believe you that you felt what you were doing was a legitimate use of a sock, but only because your obvious irritation makes it relatively easy to assume good faith. I believe there are two key factors on which I and the admins and checkusers dealing with your case have a perspective fundamentally different from yours: (1) Whether it was reasonable to believe that under the circumstances someone with no previous involvement needed the protection of anonymity. (2) Whether it was likely that an obvious sock could achieve what you tried to achieve.

If you are unhappy with your bank, it's not a good idea to put on a fake moustache, a funny hat and a trenchcoat before going there and asking to see the manager. There might be a point if the manager has known homicidal tendencies or is known to give special attention to the accounts of unpopular customers. But not if the manager is merely known for being opinionated and outspoken. It's also not going to lead to anything beneficial, and whether you anticipate the police searching you for weapons as a result of your stunt or not, most people would say it's not a surprising outcome at all. You claim there was no prior involvement on your side and that you just tried to solve a problem. But you chose an eccentric and unsuitable way to do so that makes it very hard to believe these protestations.

As I am writing this, I must consider the possibility that you are an Arbcom candidate who felt that something needed to be done, but didn't want to risk polarising the community while the elections were ongoing. That's the only way I can think of in which your secrecy (assuming that I am thinking of the right incident, of course) would not have been grossly out of proportion. (Not that that would justify it, of course.) And the very possibility that you might be not just a bit weird but also on a power trip really made me think twice about whether to tell you my honest opinion or not. But I am not a coward who would create a sock in such a situation and in fact if I did, I would expect to be blocked for it because it would clearly not be legitimate. Hans Adler 17:26, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I think you probably did see it. Regarding 1), the only person in any position to judge that threat level is me, not admins who have nothing to risk, and as for 2), how is that judgement relevant to whether a block is in order? I doubt you'd take too kindly to being blocked every time a random admin decided a particular discussion thread you were participating in had no chance of success, because that's what it sounds like you're advocating. Whatever other people thought of either the need for privacy or the chance of success, the fact of the matter is that the task was no more misleading or deceiving than the example given about pretending to be a n00b, and WP:SOCK did not mandate an instant bad faith block. This was hardly the same as someone walking into a bank with a moustache on, it was more like someone acting as an anonymous shopper - not an arrestable offence in the real world. It still happened on Wikipedia though, which is why the wording needs to be changed to reflect that. I only undertook the task based on a careful re-reading of this page, which I already knew pretty well beforehand. Do you think I would have wasted my time if the wording here reflected what you actually observed? P.S. As I'm sure you appreciate, If someone creates socks to call people cowards, that would be a basic violation of policy, which WP:SOCK#LEGIT gives no protection for. What I attempted is in no way comparable. JMK7759 (talk) 19:03, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

You force me to become a bit more clear. When you sock, we only have your word that you are not doing what you are doing in order to settle a score. That is "we" as in both the people you are interacting with as a sock and any admins judging the situation. Socking is a borderline activity, and WP:SOCK#LEGIT, by giving an extensive example list of legitimate reasons, implicitly defines what legitimate reasons look like. You cannot use the last two items for this point: one comes with severe restrictions and warnings, and the other makes it clear that it is about what the community has traditionally tolerated and cannot be relied on. Now if you stick just to the first six items, what you did is significantly less clear as a legitimate activity even when assuming best faith. And in this situation it was compelling to assume bad faith. Hans Adler 20:49, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Couldn't disagree more. People's word is the only thing anyone has here for anything. How much about any random user's user page would you actually seriously believe? Are you really trusting the people you've interacted with here, just because you've interacted with them over a period of time? Why? And what actual threat is posed to you by someone you've never interacted with before? Without evidence of wrongdoing, such as Afd'ing one of your articles, this just strikes me as paranoia. Socks have many legitimate uses, too many to list, and treating the list as definitive, or even implicit of one, is a non-starter. The current wording is "include:" for that reason. And treating socking as a 'borderline activity' from the outset is also a non-starter on current wording and basic AGF - there's no way that someone creating a sock just to test out reactions to n00bs, is doing anything 'borderline' whatsoever. Quite the contrary, they're hopefully doing good work by finding the editors who might be damaging the project by biting newcomers. The compelling reasons you talk of were fantasies, the products of fertile imaginations, they were not good enough to assume bad faith from the outset (a good reason would for example be identifying shared traits with a rightly restricted/banned user for example). Nothing of the sort happened in my case. Forget WP:SOCK, just on general policy basis, if admins can't prove that someone is 'settling a score' or is up to some other dodgy activity, based on their actual edits or other real evidence like specific behavioural patterns, then they have no right to start using their suspicious minds as some sort of replacement to fill in the gaps, even if 90% of the cases they do deal with do turn out to be some form of chicanery. But you are right, this is how it's all working right now, this is where the jadedness of the admin base has got us after all these years (which is being passed on by example to new brooms daily), hence the change needs to be enacted. That's the point of the proposal, it's only fair to everybody to clarify how this policy now works as regards attempts to use legit socks. JMK7759 (talk) 00:17, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• And here's the response direct from Jimbo (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:23, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment on "Real Name Users": I do think there needs to be a provision for those who use their real names for whatever period of time to allow them to assume a new user name without identifying their new old one, assuming this isn't a way to get around with a series of blocks or banning. As I've found out, one get can get harassed and even threatened using ones own name. Not to mention job related concerns for college students and others looking for work who may not have had identity concerns before. To be decided on a case by case basis. While I'm not about to stop using my name for either reason, I can sympathize with those who might want to. CarolMooreDC 22:58, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Violation numbers

It seems like one use of sock puppetry gets a user an automatic block. However, I would guess that many of the sock puppeteers are new users that didn't know it isn't allowed. Blocking them immediately means not assuming good faith. I think there could be one warning given, and then a block, which is still less than the normal 5-warning system used for vandalism. Please consider my suggestion and happy editing! pluma Ø 04:11, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree somewhat, but there's already a warning template for good-faith sockers (uw-sock-agf or something) (unfortunately it's rarely used :( ).Jasper Deng (talk) 04:17, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Just because there are (as many as) five warning templates for many different types of disruptive editing does not mean that an individual is entitled to four or five warnings before a block can be issued. This is a popular misconception—but a misconception nevertheless. The different warning levels are intended to allow the person giving the warning to select a message with an appropriate tone; one does not have to start with level 0 or level 1 and work one's way up through all the steps. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:38, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Basically, sockpuppetry is the same as a 4im, or otherwise no warning at all.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:44, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Question

Hi not sure if this should be asked here or not but. My brother will be making an account during the course of a class that he is taking next semester and as he lives with me and my wife he uses the same home network as me. How would I go about making sure his edits are not being mistaken as coming from me under another account. Please leave me a talk back on my talk page when answering.-Dcheagle 05:07, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

My two cents is that there is no problem so long as you are editing different things. It could become a problem if, for example, each of your accounts took part in the same talk page discussion or the same poll, because someone might wonder if it were one person "double voting". Here, I figure that you and your wife will not be involved in your brother's class, so your accounts are unlikely to cross paths, much like two legitimate users who log in from computers in a single library. Optionally, you could each put a note on your user pages explaining the situation, but that's certainly not required. I hope that helps! --Tryptofish (talk) 16:04, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok that answers my question, we shouldn't cross paths, at least I don't think we will and I will put a note on both of our accounts once he gets started. Thank you for answering.--Dcheagle 23:21, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Italics in the lead

The misuse of multiple accounts is considered a serious breach of community trust. It is likely to lead to a block of all affected accounts, a ban of the user (the sockmaster or sockpuppeteer) behind the accounts (each of which is a sockpuppet or sock), and on-project exposure of all accounts and IP addresses used across Wikipedia and its sister projects, as well as the (potential) public exposure of any "real-world" activities or personal information deemed relevant to preventing future sock puppetry.^[1]

Are all of the words after "sock" supposed to be italicized? It seems like a missing apostrophe but I didn't know if the punishment was italicized for emphasis. --Pusillanimous 15:39, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I think you are right. It looks like a mistake to me too. Does anyone know of a reason for the extended italics? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:41, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Of course the apostrophes after sock were accidentally omitted. Happens to me all the time. If I didn't (sometimes) use Preview, my mistakenly italicized sentences would be dotted all over the wiki by now, so it has a familiar look. I've fixed it. Bishonen | talk 01:58, 4 March 2012 (UTC).

Thanks, and not to worry! Sounds like something I, too, might have done. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:02, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Alternate spelling account?

Hello. My name is "bluerasberry". I just had someone suggest to me that I also take the name "blueraspberry" and have it redirect to my real account. The issue is that my account name looks a lot like a misspelled English word and when people think of it they often think of the correct spelling of "raspberry". I tried to make the account and then was disallowed because a user already exists with that name. I wonder if this is a response being triggered by the similarity, because I think there is no such user as "blueraspberry".

Is it legitimate for me to have two accounts with one directing to the other? Is that desirable? Can I just turn the userpage of that other account into a redirect? Is it preferable that I take no action? Please advise. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:06, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• You can't have the other account, alternative or otherwise, because it is registered and has even edited, although not meaningfully. I have placed a {{hatnote}} on User:Blueraspberry and User talk:Blueraspberry. There are no problems with having a few different accounts that prominently and clearly point to each other. There are many good reasons to use declared alternative accounts. The problem is with the use of secret, or undeclared alternative accounts. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:57, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for setting up the notes and for showing me an example of a solution to this problem. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:06, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Sole

The section WP:ROLE says "The sole exceptions" which is an oxymoron, if it's sole then there can only be one exception. Please remove the word "sole". --62.254.139.60 (talk) 11:38, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

 Already done by SmokeyJoe (talk · contribs). Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 13:34, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Question: Shared IP address

On some networks, the use of a shared IP address by a larger group of people is common. I routed my internet access through my mobile phone yesterday when the power was out - I know if I access the internet through my mobile I get an IP address used by loads of people. I know the situation is similar for some CSPs in places in the world where they have fewer IP addresses to go around. Are such circumstances likely to result in false sock puppet identifications? --86.154.78.131 (talk) 14:11, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Possibly, yes. I hesitate to call it a "false accusation" - it's a "suspicion". There are ausually behavioural things that lead to suspicion of socking. However, full SPI investigations can tell everything from OS to Browser - a lot less likely to be "false" (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:26, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Multiple signs have to be considered, not just IP address. IP identification may work when attempting to identify edits made closely in succession. But IP addresses change like clouds in the sky. Really, the other signs listed under WP:SIGNS are far more telling than IP, and that's what has to be considered when making an identification. Hellno2 (talk) 02:13, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Say if two people user the same IP for editing, say in an office computer, does it count as "piggybacking"? Just curious. DontClickMeName _talk^{contributions} 06:06, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Isn't it my fault if I listen to meat-puppets,

not their fault for being meat-puppets? I mean, if I was a consistent person who judges debates by the arguments and not people giving the arguments, why should it even make a difference how many people are on a side? Yes, votes are an exception, but you never see political parties care about whether a vote was given by a "meat-puppet." DontClickMeName _talk^{contributions} 06:18, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Question on policy

I am have been contributing to Wikipedia on an off for about a year and a half under this account. But I also have my own website for academic research which I have maintained for about a decade under my real name. The topics on which I edit Wiki are completely different than the topic of my website. Many Wikipedians (not me) frequently use my website to gather materials for articles here. While that is not a problem most of the time, (they are often only used as reference links or to an external site), there are unfortunately numerous instances of copyright violations, when material is copied from my website wholesale without modification and pasted into Wikipedia articles. I would like to be able to track, warn and remove this material from Wikipedia, but not under my current account name as I don't want my current Wiki account associated with my website and real identity, and so was contemplating opening a separate account purely for the purpose of tracking the copyright violations. I wonder if this is considered legitimate use of alternate accounts? Also, I don't want to publicly advertise the association of the two accounts (that'd be defeating the purpose), so who do I have to alert to ensure that an admin will not ban me via an IP check or something like that? Walrasiad (talk) 21:04, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

• If you set up an account for the sole purpose of reporting copyright infringements of you own website, I don't think that anyone would be too unhappy about it. If you privacy is very important, I'd have not made your post here. I'd ask now for it to be rev deleted. Another optionis to change the licensing of you website so that copying and reuse is allowed, then then just make sure that correct attribution is made. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:47, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I second this advice. Blue Rasberry (talk) 02:21, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

• Arbcom maintain a list of such alternate accounts, so you could email an Arbitrator. If either of your accounts becomes an admin then you should notify Arbcom of the two accounts. One thing the community especially doesn't want is people having two accounts support each other in the same debate. My suggestion would be to make sure that one of your accounts never !votes, not in AFDs, RFAs, trustee elections or RFCs; Nor posts in the same talkpage threads as the other. ϢereSpielChequers 18:34, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I don't trust arbcom. I don't know who they are. I don't know who the new ones will be. They've leaked. They don't have a clear privacy policy. It is unclear what recourse you have should they fail your expectations. I don't know how they store their data.

As a general principle, I believe that private information should not be stored without good need. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:02, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

That's a somewhat understandable position, they have leaked in the past (but have promised to tighten up). Like many of us, many Arbs edit under pseudonyms and though they have to identify to the office they don't publicly identify themselves. If Walrasaid or anyone else doesn't want the Arbs to know the identities of their alt accounts then please just stick to one account..... ϢereSpielChequers 20:57, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

We expressed different views on this subject, such as at Wikipedia_talk:Sock_puppetry/Archive_7#Disclosure. However, I think my advice is much stricter on what he use the alternative account for. Of course he shouldn't use this account for voting, not in AFDs, RFAs, trustee elections or RFCs. I think he should only use the account for reporting copyright infringements of his own webpages. I believe that to do this, he need only use the account's email function. It may be useful to discuss details in the alternative account's talk page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:34, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Meat puppetry

When is a meat puppet not a meat puppet? (I should make clear right from the start that this is a general question and it has no connection whatever with any SPIs, allegations or editors)

Consider some hypothetical cases, I use the first person for simplicity only.

My wife starts editing WP, she has many similar view to me and tends to support my POV.

Another family member with similar views starts editing

A friend starts editing, in general he agrees with me.

What about member of my church, golf club etc

Is there a one POV, one editor policy? I have just read this Arbcom decision. 'For the purpose of dispute resolution when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar editing habits they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets'. So it looks to some degree as though that is true. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:25, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Does it matter if I ask my friend to start editing?

How could that be proved?

What if I ask an already active editor who I suspect will agree with me to have a look at a particular page?

Does it matter whether I contact then on or off wiki?

What about groups of active editors who meet at an article and just happen to hold the same views. Can they at any time become meat puppets.

It seems to me that we have a lot of difficult questions that might benefit from some policy discussion. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:03, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I think it is meatpuppetry if you:

• Discuss the subject off-wikipedia in the knowledge that the other person(s) also edits on that subject; or
• Encourage another to edit a specific subject when you have prior knowledge of their likely inclinations.

If you and your wife edit similar subjects, both of your userpages should declare a real life relationship with the other,

Other (close) family members: either ignore their contributions and never edit the same pages, or declare the relationship.

Friends, extended relations, community acquaintenances, declare a relationship if you ever discuss specific subjects that you both edit, or if you ever encourage the other to edit.

"Could it be proved?" We ask you to edit honestly. This whole project depends on trust amongst the community of editors.

"What if I ask an already active editor who I suspect will agree with me to have a look at a particular page?" You are crossing the meatpuppetry line. If he ever again edits on the subject you implicity refer, then you both should declare a real life relationship.

"Does it matter whether I contact then on or off wiki?" Keeping all correspondance on the subject on-wiki I think is good practice.

"What about groups of active editors who meet at an article and just happen to hold the same views. Can they at any time become meat puppets." That would be peculiar. If you were active editors before meeting, I don't think the term "meat puppetry" applies. However, Wikipedia:Tag teaming is what you should avoid. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 15:29, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Of Wikipedia collaboration is not necessarily meat puppetry, the hallmark of meat puppetry is an attempt to influence the outcome of an editing dispute by bringing in the support of the meat puppets. For example it would be meat puppetry if you made 3 reverts in a dispute, then when the 3 revert rule prevented you from making further reverts, you bring it your wifes attention and she begins reverting. Alternatively, coordinating to stack one side of a discussion on a talk page could also be meat puppetry, as would coordinating pages where you would both push a particular POV. If you do edit the same articles, you should avoid both trying to shift the POV of the article to be more in line with your shared POV. Try to stick to very uncontroversial tasks when coordinating. A disclosure on your userpages of your relationship is not strictly necessary, but would help to demonstrate good faith should an issue ever come up. Monty₈₄₅ 16:21, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

But it is very hard to know where the line should be drawn.

For example, in your 3RR example, would it be OK to bring the matter to the attention of another editor editor who had been active on the article?

I think the key issue of meat puppetry should be control. Is one person controlling another? Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:33, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I think another important part of it has to do with transparency. If the communication between these editors is done in a manner that disguises the communication from the other editors at a page, it is likely to be disruptive. On the other hand, if I contact you on your talk page, and also indicate on the talk page of the article that I've gotten in touch with you to ask for your input, no one is going to be deceived. Likewise, if you respond on the article talk page by including something like "I'm commenting here because Tryptofish asked me to", that makes it transparent. But absent those rather simple steps, there is likely to be at least the appearance of trying to "stack the deck". --Tryptofish (talk) 22:32, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Do you not think that editors with like opinions email one another all the time? Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:11, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I guess it depends on the editor. Personally, I don't enable my e-mail. But I'm pretty sure that others do coordinate in that way, and my personal opinion is that this can indeed be meatpuppetry or canvassing, albeit very difficult to detect. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:33, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

"Handling sock puppetry" section

Strangely, this doesn't explicitly that suspicions can be informally reported to any administrator, who may block the sock of their own volition if the behaviour is obvious enough or blatant enough and that this is how the many socks are handled. Instead, it focuses on recommends the formal and slightly clunky SPI or raise with CheckUsers/ArbCom routes. Perhaps something on this should be added?  Roger Davies ^talk 08:26, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations#Submitting_an_SPI_case seems to have a high hurdle for applicability. I guess that is because that process is usually backlogged. I guess that this is because it, as a checkuser request process, is the process to use for borderline or non-obvious or uncertain cases.

I don't know that advising the newcomers to tell an(y) adminstrator is best. Someone who might report suspects to an individual administrator is probably someone who already know that this adminstrator is receptive and responsive to such information. This someone doesn't need text in policy to tell them what to do what they do.

Wouldn't editors who don't know what to do be well advised to report obvious obuse at WP:ANI? Or is there a more relevant noticeboard?

Should the templates {{SPA}} and {{Sockpuppet}} be mentioned as possible tags to use to draw attention? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:04, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Advice?

The last two weeks of the four week discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Muhammad images was seriously disrupted by a "new" SPA with deep understanding of policy. I, and several other participants in the discussion are profoundly pissed off by this one person's effective abortion of the process. We assume he's either a banned user, the sock of another participant, or the alternative account of someone who doesn't want to burn bridges. None of us is familiar enough with the appropriate use of checkuser. Can it be deployed in this case? There is a short discussion here. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:49, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

My experience with SPI is that you are typically asked to enter the user name of the "sock master", ie, the account that preceded the one that you encountered. I doubt (but could be wrong, keeping in mind that I'm neither an administrator, a checkuser, nor an SPI clerk) that they would run the program against everyone, in the hopes of turning someone up. You may need to have some possible "candidate(s)" for the previous account in mind. I have a feeling that if you post at ANI or AN asking about this, you may draw the attention of whoever the person is, and they may make it harder to figure it out, so my advice is not to post too widely about it. Because the RfC is under the auspices of ArbCom, and because ArbCom also does checkuser investigations as well as being particularly familiar with past accounts that have been banned, my advice would be to e-mail your concerns to ArbCom and ask them to look into it. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:28, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, Tryptofish. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:34, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Does This Count?

Sometimes I log out, and then I forget that I logged out and then start editing (they are useful edits, though). Does that count as accidental sock puppetry? Please reply on my talk page so I remember to check it. (I forget a lot of things as you can probably see) Tboii99 ✉ 01:57, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Replied at your talk. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:01, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

"Topic area" sockpuppet permanently blocked

I recently saw an editor permanently blocked. The admin that did this said the editor made impermissible use of two accounts to edit the same "topic area." I scratched my head a moment because this had never been my conception of sockpuppeting. I thought, how is this meant, one makes some edits to "Sparrow," then registers a second account to edit "Bluejay?" This is a sockpuppet?

So I looked here and indeed it says in a single context only "Clean-start accounts should not return to old topic areas, editing patterns, or behavior previously identified as problematic." Okay, in my opinion, it'd be non-controversial to forbid clean-start accounts from editing articles edited by the old account. But the text as written is so amorphous as to give an admin carte blanche to ban based on almost anything done by a "clean- start" account. I mean really, "editing patterns?" Any comments? Anyone agree that the rule quoted above should be narrowed? Colton Cosmic (talk) 13:28, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I think it's fine myself. A person wouldn't be likely to find themselves blocked after making good faith edits to sparrow and bluejay with different accounts. That's a rather absurd scenario and a bit of a strawman. The idea is that a single person shouldn't use multiple accounts to 'strengthen' the appearance of their position in a topic area. What possible reason would someone have to use multiple accounts in one topic area? I understand the idea of someone wanting to distance themselves or their main account from sensitive areas, but I don't understand the point of this discussion. --Onorem♠Dil 13:57, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Onorem, thank you for commenting. I don't think Sparrow/Bluejay is a strawman at all. You want to give an example that is *not* a strawman in your view? When you say "wouldn't be likely" and "what possible reason" that's fair enough, but I also think we also can't really know that. And though I'm not really clear on the nuances of "multiple accounts" v. "clean-start accounts" I don't think those are the same thing. The policy I quoted refers to "clean-start accounts." Colton Cosmic (talk) 14:17, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to give an example, but I can't think of any reason other than losing login details for someone to use multiple accounts to edit related controversial topics. Can you give an example of why you think this would happen? There are differences between multiple accounts and clean start accounts...but none of them involve going back to a contentious topic and editing as if it was a new editor. Clean start accounts aren't supposed to go back and pretend like they are new. Someone using multiple accounts isn't supposed to go back to a discussion they've been part of and pretend like they are new. --Onorem♠Dil 14:42, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay, well now you're doing your own straw man. I made no particular reference to "controversial" topics, and neither does the policy text I quoted (and faulted); as well immediately above you twice left out the word "area." It doesn't serve any purpose for me to come up with some speculative example of something, respectfully, that is not even at issue here. The same thing with the rest of what you said. However, I'm not being quarrelsome and I appreciate your comment. If you left out the word "area" intentionally, how would you feel about leaving it out of the policy as well? Colton Cosmic (talk) 15:04, 11 May 2012 (UTC) PS: Hopefully humorously, I have *no doubt* that ornithologists amongst themselves have arguments and controversies like any other humans.

WP:CREEP. Every single scenario does not need to be specifically planned for. Is your intention here to get rid of the word 'area'? I guess I don't really see the difference between 'topic' and 'topic area' myself. For myself, the 'area' part is a bit redundant. If you think a sysop has behaved improperly, start a discussion at WP:AN/I. --Onorem♠Dil 15:10, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

That was not my specific intention, but you and I have reached agreement that the "area" part is a bit redundant. Colton Cosmic (talk) 15:16, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

You might not have made particular reference to 'controversial' topics. That's fair. Are you saying that someone made uncontroversial edits with multiple accounts to a 'topic area' and got blocked for it? If so, that doesn't sound right and you should give details so that the issue can be dealt with. I have a hard time believing that the issue is actually that simple though. I still can't imagine a reason for someone to use multiple accounts to edit a topic, and do think that if you want to change policy, you should be able to explain why it should be changed. What scenario is there that you think the current policy is not handling correctly? --Onorem♠Dil 15:19, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Onorem's position here. It would be helpful if you could provide an example of a real situation where the current wording of the policy has created a genuine problem; that would obviate any concerns about strawman arguments. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:40, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

TenOfAllTrades (cool moniker), thanks for commenting. The incident that called this matter to my attention was not necessarily admin abuse (the thing was I couldn't check where the blocked editor actually sockpuppeted because the purported original account doesn't seem to exist anymore). I don't want to make this policy critique about that really (but if you want to look it's my comments to Tnxman307 here [1] on his talkpage). My point is not that an admin was abusive, but rather that the text I quoted in the second paragraph of this discussion is, after the word "topic," amorphous, unnecessary, and sure an invitation for admin abuse. Colton Cosmic (talk) 16:03, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually the other account that Tnxman307 tells you about still exists (once an account is made it always exists). The two accounts edited the same topic, Phoenix Jones, just 3 days apart see Special:Contributions/CharlieInSeattle and Special:Contributions/CharlieMuk. GB fan 16:29, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah, okay GB fan. It's interesting to see that, but that wasn't the hyperlink provided by Tnxman307 and "edited the same topic" was not her or his permanent block rationale, which rather said "topic area." I'll note both those accounts comment their edits, and that at least some of their edits seem productive, and that I only see *one* instance by CharlieInSeattle of editing the same topic. But like I said, my policy critique is not about a specific incident, but rather about what I said above. Once WP:SOCK has forbidden a "clean-start account" from editing the same topic, what's your position on whether the rule is broadened for "topic areas, editing patterns, or behavior previously identified as problematic?" Colton Cosmic (talk) 17:02, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

(ec) So, what we have here is a case where CharlieInSeattle created a new account, CharlieMuk, solely to continue an edit war that he had been engaged in at Phoenix Jones. It looks like an unambiguously good block, entirely in keeping with the spirit of this policy. Given no indication of a problem with the way the policy is being applied, I'm very hesitant to encourage revising it over a lawyerly what-if scenario. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:08, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Ten, to say that the log shows CharlieinSeattle's single good faith edit constitutes "edit war" makes me wonder if you and I speak the same language or live on the same planet. Colton Cosmic (talk) 17:16, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Making a new account to edit war an edit that your old account made is so unambiguously wrong that any attempt to disguise it as anything else leads me to want to investigate more where red-link user "Colton Cosmic," comes into the equation here, especially given the John/Kristen Erickson connection. Hipocrite (talk) 17:29, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Hipocrite, WP:AGF and who are they? Colton Cosmic (talk) 17:50, 11 May 2012 (UTC) PS: I disguised nothing, was straight-up about everything. Colton Cosmic (talk) 15:44, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

An editor (admittedly a newish one) gets reverted and instead of discussing his addition on the talk page, he decides to come back a few days later and revert-war, using a sockpuppet and two IP addresses. First, the sockpuppet gets blocked 31 hours for disruptive editing (rightfully) and only after he continues the disruption, a CU reveals that the account is a sockpuppet of someone who previously edited the article. Nevertheless, the master account isn't blocked, only the sock is indef'ed (the IPs are blocked for 31 hours). If anything, he got off lightly! --Six words (talk) 17:38, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Six words, that's a good prosecutorial closing argument, if it's accurate. All, can we get some positions on the policy I critiqued, rather than the side show? Colton Cosmic (talk) 17:50, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I think to have a better opportunity to discuss your critique, you actually need to explain how this policy has failed. What change needs to be made? Why? I don't doubt for a second that bad blocks have been made with this policy as the justification used, but I don't understand what change you believe is needed and how it might help change anything. I see absolutely nothing wrong with the block in the example above. --Onorem♠Dil 18:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Dude or gal, I told you! The policy could type "green eggs and ham" four times after "topic," and I wouldn't be able to tell you how it has failed. The text I quoted in the second paragraph of this discussion is, after the word "topic," amorphous, unnecessary, and an invitation for admin abuse. Colton Cosmic (talk) 18:14, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Colton, if someone does a CLEANSTART and edits in such a way that they are identified, they have not done a cleanstart. A cleanstart is used to completely dissociate an old account that is no longer used with a new account for whatever reason. If an editor does a cleanstart and they go back to the same topic (article), topic area (associated articles) with the same editing patterns or behavior then they have not made a good cleanstart. There should be no way that someone else can identify who an editor is if they make a valid cleanstart. GB fan 18:08, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

GB fan, respectfully, you're getting in the weeds over there when I'm critiquing policy about the weeds over here. Colton Cosmic (talk) 18:14, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2)I was answering your question (pointing out that CharlieinSeattle made several edits to the article and that he wasn't even blocked, only his socks were), but whatever.
I'd keep the current wording. There's no reason to edit the same area with different accounts, but even if somebody (for whatever reason) does decide to do so, it's very unlikely that they'll “get caught” unless they abuse their second account. CUs don't go fishing. On the other hand, blocked users who return often start editing either the same articles or related ones, continuing their previous behaviour. --Six words (talk) 18:17, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Six, the account GB fan linked shows exactly one edit to Phoenix Jones, and I figure CUs fish about as much as firemen or anybody else. I guess I don't understand your support for "topic area" but thank you for the comment. Colton Cosmic (talk) 18:29, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Cosmic, if you don't want to discuss the accout, you should simply stop. But as you do: yes, the account only has one edit, but the person behind the account has several. The account with only one edit isn't blocked and never was, so what exactly is the problem here? After all, the blocking of his confirmed sock called your attention to the matter. --Six words (talk) 19:29, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Blargh, others kept asking me for the incident, I pointed to it, now it drowns out everything else. And you keep talking about it. I urge you, Six, to examine the accuracy some of the stuff you italicize immediately above. But to get back on-point, I call for the "Clean-start accounts should not return to old topic areas, editing patterns, or behavior previously identified as problematic" text in WP:SOCK to be replaced with "Clean-start accounts should not return to old topics," for the reasons I've repeatedly outlined above. Colton Cosmic (talk) 20:20, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I checked those things before I wrote the above (as much as I can - I don't have CU priviledges so I cannot redo the check and even if I could I don't think that would be a valid use of the priviledges, but I have zero reason to believe Tnxman307 lied about the CU result). Again, I don't think a returned user who edits the same area will ever be found out unless he falls back to his previous behaviour. You say you're not discussing clean starts, but really not editing the same “topic area” is only mentioned in that context. --Six words (talk) 20:46, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Cosmic, I thought we were discussing the same thing so I am not sure what weeds I am talking about that you are not talking about. I will make this very succinct. I believe someone who does a Wikipedia:CLEANSTART should avoid "topic areas, editing patterns, or behavior previously identified as problematic." Now after a reasonable period of time they should be able to come back as long as they stay away from "editing patterns, or behavior previously identified as problematic." They should also stay away forever from any conversations they took part in under the old name. And to be clear the Topic areas should stay otherwise someone will wikilawyer and say that they thought they only should stay away from the article as that was the "topic" GB fan 19:47, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

GB Fan, I was not discussing the detailed points of WP:CLEANSTART and really I have no idea if it even applies in the incident I was prompted to mention. I discussed some specific text in WP:SOCK. But okay, you are saying here that the use of the word "area" protects against "wikilawyering," because of the sockpuppets who edit, for example "Bluejay" after all of their sockmaster's disruptive editing on "Sparrow." And so you state that it is by no means enough to stop the clean start editor from editing articles he or she has edited in the past, rather he or she may never edit in the "topic area." I disagree, but I accept I have not persuaded you. Colton Cosmic (talk) 20:20, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Cosmic, I know you were discussing some very specific text in WP:SOCK. The term "topic areas" occurs one time on that page. It is under the Legitimate uses header in a paragraph entitled "Clean start under a new name". At the end of that paragraph it says: "See WP:CLEANSTART." That is why I thought you were talking about cleanstart. In the original post that started this thread you say "Clean-start accounts should not return to old topic areas, editing patterns, or behavior previously identified as problematic." It sure does appear you are talking about clean start that is why I have referencing it in all my responses. If you are not talking about cleanstart can you explain what you are talking about? GB fan 04:09, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

GB fan, it is accurate that I quoted and am criticizing that text, and that the text is a "clean-start" subsection of WP:SOCK, but it was never my intent to get into the details of what constitutes a "clean-start" account. I criticized the text on another basis. Colton Cosmic (talk) 10:58, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Reading this just made my eyes bleed. Perfect examples of WHY the policy says what it does were provided. What's the reason for continuing the discussion? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:23, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Bwilkins, you just continued it. GB fan asked me a question. Perhaps you could recap these "perfect examples" that support not only prohibiting editing the same topic, but further "topic areas, editing patterns, or behavior previously identified as problematic." I only saw some people opine it wasn't likely a problem, and GB fan who, to his or her credit, articulated the argument, paraphrasing, that the expansive wording gives admins the leeway to get rid of these socks without a bunch of wikilawyerly nonsense about whether the block was deserved, or whether the admin acted properly. Colton Cosmic (talk) 12:17, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd prefer to hear what speaks against forbidding (legitimate) sockpuppets to continue problematic behaviour. --Six words (talk) 12:23, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Six, I don't think anyone is in favor of allowing problematic behavior, though I guess people might differ as to what "problematic behavior" is. The text I quoted in the second paragraph of this discussion is, after the word "topic," amorphous, unnecessary, and an invitation for admin abuse. If BWilkins saw above some some perfect examples of why it says it that way, I'd like him or her to recap them briefly, because I didn't see that.

People, I don't think anyone in this conversation but GB fan has actually reasoned out a basis for the policy text I criticized, but it'd be foolish of me not to perceive the mass mood (and indeed I have perceived it, it's an interesting example of group behavior). So, if someone wants to throw a WP:CONSENSUS at me, I will be on my way. Colton Cosmic (talk) 12:52, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

The text after “topic” is what the community at large seems to find inappropriate for a returned editor, so blocking based on this (returning to old conflict areas, resuming problematic behaviour) is not abuse. You haven't provided a single example where an editor was inappropriately blocked based on this wording, couldn't it be that this is why proposal hasn't been supported by others? --Six words (talk) 13:08, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Quick Question

Can I remove the sock puppet accusation from my user page OttomanJackson (talk) 01:26, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:27, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Removal of tags from IP addresses

I've started a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive235#IPs tagged as (suspected) sockpuppets. Fram (talk) 07:54, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

New account by an outed user

I do not think this policy is sufficiently clear about the following situation: an anonymous user was illegally outed on this site by others and would like to open another account. Can he do it and still has his basic editing rights, such as taking part in project discussions and votes? This is assuming that he keeps only one (new) account, has no editing restrictions and will not apply for admin. Perhaps this should be clarified in the policy? My very best wishes (talk) 22:10, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll say absolutely (but I'm not in charge around here). If they're concerned they could do the notification of a checkuser suggested at WP:SOCK#NOTIFY. Nobody Ent 22:15, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Hypothetical questions always make me think twice - this one is no exception. Collect (talk) 23:07, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Stay clear of any specific discussion or !vote that your old account participated in. You should probably also avoid any particularly contentious areas for awhile lest anyone think your new account was created ditch negative history attached to an old one. Monty₈₄₅ 23:25, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

@Collect. Yes, I would like to propose a policy clarification because this is something related to my experience here, and I also think that official Wikimedia privacy policy must be respected.My very best wishes (talk) 15:04, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

It sounds like you are talking about WP:CLEANSTART. Without specific information, usually someone can abandon the old account, then create a new account and edit almost anywhere within this project. They can even become an admin if they wish under the new account name. GB fan 03:53, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

We can't give you a definitive answer because there is none. Wikipedia operates on a consensus model, not a deterministic legal model. If the outed user follow's Monty's advice, possibly declares to a checkuser as I mentioned above, they should be fine. Nobody Ent 09:56, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

• As clear from your initial responses, this is something undefined in the policy and probably needs clarification. I propose to add in the part legitimate uses -> privacy [2] the following:

An anonymous user in a good standing who was outed can abandon his current account and open another account that should not be interpreted as an undisclosed alternative account. However, such user may be required to disclose his original account if found in violation of any policies.

Here are some implicit implications:

1. It is assumed that he is using only one account
2. "Good standing" means that user has no editing restrictions
3. If he applies to administrative position, he must disclose his original account, as already described in the policy.
4. Ethical use rules still apply, as already described in the policy. For example, new account should not be used to create false impression of consensus. Obviously, such user should not participate in the same discussion as his original account (e.g. in article talk page). However, if he returns to articles he edited from his original account a year or two ago (or returns to editing something where his edits did not cause anyone's objections), that would be fine. This is not "fresh start account".
5. It is assumed that such user was indeed outed, meaning he did not disclose personal information himself, someone posted his real life name on-wiki, and the information was not immediately supervised, as evident from records on-wiki
6. The opening of the new account indeed breaks his editing history. This is not exactly his fault (someone else outed the user) but can create problems for administrators. Hence I propose the last phrase as an additional safeguard. However, the user is not required to disclose his identity if someone just filed an unsubstantiated complaint about him somewhere.
7. It is assumed that no one should bring SPI request about such user simply because editing by this new account looks like the old one. However, if such user was found in violation of any policies on other noticeboards, he may be asked to disclose his original account (probably by email to a responsible administrator), which of course does not exclude making an SPI on him.
8. "should not be interpreted as an undisclosed alternative account" means that such user can vote and participate in community discussions. My very best wishes (talk) 15:04, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

If there are any objections, please tell. My very best wishes (talk) 15:04, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify, that this is different from opening a WP:CLEANSTART account. In the case of CLEANSTART, it is assumed that user edits a completely different set of subjects and basically should not be recognizable as the same account. In this case he can because his intention is not to create a "fresh start" after having problems but simply remain an anonymous user. My very best wishes (talk) 15:30, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

This sounds just like CLEANSTART to me. That policy does not say that the new account must edit a completely different set of subjects. It says that it is best to avoid articles and subjects that they have edited before because someone might figure out who they are. You have added restrictions into this that are not in CLEANSTART such as requiring them to reveal their old account is certain circumstances, CLEANSTART doesn't require revealing of the old username even if they want to become an admin. I do not understand why CLEANSTART does not work in this situation. GB fan 16:17, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

CLEANSTART already covers this, as CLEANSTART is not just for problematic editors. The thing to remember is that you should leave topics "previously identified as problematic, and should be careful not to do anything that looks like an attempt to evade scrutiny." That means no double !voting - so if you Cleanstart after !voting in an RFA then you certainly can't !vote again with your new account. But if the same candidate runs four months later I see no reason why you can't !vote in the second RFA. ϢereSpielChequers 16:32, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, I removed last phrase from the proposed text. But it is precisely the point in editing or not editing certain topics. If user A outed user X, this usually means that user A wants to evict user X from a subject area he would like to own (such subjects can usually be called "problematic"). Following CLEANSTART in such cases means that harassers succeed. Making a clarification I suggested only means that user X can restore his anonymity. My very best wishes (talk) 17:22, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

How is this going to change that and how does following CLEANSTART mean that harassers succeed? GB fan 18:14, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

The bottom line here is very simple: to allow an outed user to restore his anonymity (one phrase). Whether or not he wants clean start is something different. I thought that was a reasonable suggestion. I personally do not care that much. If I open another account, anyone who would be really interested and knows my editing history can detect it in ten minutes. My very best wishes (talk) 19:21, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'd agree that outing is usually related to content disputes. My experience is that people who out editors aren't generally here adding content. Also remember it isn't the area that is problematic, it is the type of editing. But there is another reason why the policy doesn't need to be changed, as soon as you start having different rules for different types of cleanstarts you narrow down the number of possible editors that a particular cleanstart could be and make it easier to identify them. ϢereSpielChequers 13:03, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, I can see that my suggestion has no support as something already covered by the existing policies. But I must tell that CLEANSTART (as described in the policy) is completely unacceptable for someone who has significant expertise in certain areas and wants to continue editing in these areas. Unless no one else cares about his favorite subjects or he does a purely technical editing (but then he does not need a CLEANSTART at the first place).My very best wishes (talk) 19:20, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Using one acct as "home base" but editing under other acct

Is this covered somewhere and is it acceptable:

• User edits under acct named "BLUE1" and all contributions all credited to "BLUE1".
• However, the user page, user talk page, and signature all point to "RED2". "RED2" is used for the talk page and all appearances make you assume this is the actual user.
  • But there are no contributions for "RED2" -- all contributions all under "BLUE1", which the user and talk page for "BLUE1" redirect to "RED2".
• Note this is different from a doppelganger acct because they are are actually doing the editing under the acct that redirects rather than editing under the acct that is redirected to.
• This is misleading, especially if there are also a few edits actually done under "RED2".

Is this allowed or frowned upon, and where is this addressed in the policy/guideline? How do I address the user if it is against policy? Logging off for now, will check back tomorrow. Rgrds. (Dynamic IP, will change when I log off.) --64.85.220.237 (talk) 16:31, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• No, probably not allowed. I'm not an expert on sock puppetry—heck, I don't even have rollback rights—but this looks like a deceptive use of an alternate account (which is specifically prohibited), especially if the user is editing disruptively. Contact an administrator at the Administrators' noticeboard if you wouldn't mind a public discussion or email the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org if you would prefer a private discussion (definitely email ArbCom if you suspect administrator sockpuppetry). In either case, give full details along with evidence of sockpuppetry in order for your report to be accepted. Best wishes, ChromaNebula (talk) 15:43, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

• Before you go do that -- have you discussed with the editor? Nobody Ent 16:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, I don't think it is being done maliciously as it is rather obvious, and it definitely isn't socking, just a misuse of a doppleganger I guess, and they are a good editor and are not disruptive. I'll bring it up on their talk page soon and see what happens, otherwise I'll bring it back here. Rgrds. (Dynamic IP, will change when I log off.) --64.85.221.108 (talk) 03:07, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Unless they are doing something else wrong I don't see this as really being actionable. It is confusing, but unless there is an indication that they are using the confusion to harm wikipedia in some way I think it would be fine to let them continue, though obviously removing the confusion would be best. Monty₈₄₅ 04:23, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

(←) Maybe you're right. It is only confusing if you check their contributions and don't see what you would expect to see. In this case, they edited under acct A until last year, but then decided to rename themselves (not through the normal channels, but by starting a new acct) and now edit under acct B, but they still use the talk page of acct A. I've not interacted with the editor, I only came across them at an ANI incident and they were one of the editors who helped resolve the situation. Maybe it would be out of order for me to butt in. Is this even covered anywhere in the policy? If not, should it be? Rgrds. (Dynamic IP, will change when I log off.) --64.85.221.157 (talk) 12:39, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

It is; it's fine as long as it's not use for deception. Nobody Ent 12:43, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Reverted

Reverted [3] per bureaucracy and instruction creep -- is there a specific account that is of concern?

What do you mean by "of concern"? The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 19:03, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Question about double-checking for sockpuppetry without violating WP:AGF

I have a question. If I've noticed that a newbie account is being used by an editor who has repeatedly made POV edits to an article, and that this editor also has a more long-standing account with which he/she has racked up over 6,500 since 2009, how do I embark or encourage an investigation to double-check this, without making an outright accusation of which I am not certain, thereby violating WP:AGF? I just want someone to double-check this. What do I do? Nightscream (talk) 19:40, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Role accounts

I'd like to bring back a post that was made here without response about a year ago: [4]. I am inclined to agree that the section on role accounts in the sockpuppetry policy seems out of place and redundant. It's currently part of a section that is intended to describe ways that multiple accounts can be used to deceive. But the dangers of role accounts, I think, have more to do with concerns over issues like personal accountability, undue promotion, conflicts of interest, etc. This has little to do with the concept of multiple accounts, which this policy covers, and more to do with our policy on singular account operation, WP:U. So, is there good reason to locate the full explanation of WP:ROLE here, or can we do a simple merge of the section with its natural partner, NOSHARE, in the username policy? That way, the section would be streamlined and still retain its policy status. For those concerned, a subheading about role accounts could even stay in SOCK - merely trimmed. Plus, we'd avoid scaring those newbies who are slapped with a link to WP:ROLE and redirected here, to a page that insinuates that they have committed sockpuppetry when they probably didn't. NTox · talk 06:58, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Humor accounts

A recent edit (diff) changed "The community has tolerated humorous alternate accounts" to "The community accepts humorous alternate accounts". That change is dubious as it is going to give any passer by the idea that their idea of humor allows them to create silly usernames for unsatisfactory purposes (I suspect Nobody Ent is thinking of the same ongoing case I am). The reason the examples listed are tolerated/accepted is that they were created by very useful editors, and the humor was exceptionally good—both of those factors are out of the reach of the majority of editors, and I think some tweaking of the wording is in order. I agree that there is not much practical difference between "tolerating" and "accepting", but it would be desirable to avoid encouraging wikilawyers and time wasters. Johnuniq (talk) 11:06, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be better for the policy to be silent on humourous alt account. Better to keep the policy focused on misleading or deceptive conduct. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:54, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I added a "some" to perhaps emphasize that there is not a right to have (un?)funny alternate accounts. —Kusma (t·c) 17:29, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Apart from the subtle distinction between accept and tolerate, the policy surely should not state anything in the present tense (i. e. neither "accepts" nor "tolerates") about humorous alternative accounts. Policy can't prescribe the extent of community tolerance. The community has tolerated some accounts so far, though with some vocal — and probably a good deal more silent — dissent. That tolerance may be withdrawn at any time, and I wouldn't want to see a defense of playful accounts on the lines of "Yes, we do tolerate them, because policy says so!" IOW, I think there was much thought behind the original formulation "has tolerated" (by Jehochman, I think). I'm changing the tense back, while leaving the exact choice of words to abler pens. (And while also rather tempted to agree with SmokeyJoe. He makes good sense.) Bishonen | talk 21:05, 6 July 2012 (UTC).

User:Floquenbeam has, sadly, retired; is pleasing to at least see User:Floquenstein's monster still active! Have added monster to list, as encouragement. bishzilla _ROARR!! 21:31, 6 July 2012 (UTC).

What does WP:SOCK#NOTIFY mean?

ANI discussion

This discussion was closed without answering the fundamental question of what is required under the policy. (You don't have to read the whole thread, which gets myred in Arbcomm tangents.)

You have a new account. The editor admits to having previous accounts. The editor refuses to disclose the names of those accounts. The editor is not doing anything clearly wrong with the new account (some might disagree in the case at hand, but let's assume that because it makes disscussion here easier). The crux of the editor's reasoning is that although they've had "multiple accounts", they haven't had "alternative accounts", which means they aren't subject to the policy. A cute defense but it pretty much eviscerates the policy, putting the conclusion before the analysis.

User:TParis, who closed the discussion, said a couple of things. First, he assumed that checkusers have already looked at the issue and didn't see anything wrong. I don't know how we're supposed to know that without, uh, knowing that. Also, perhaps out of ignorance about how checkuser works, what would they be checking? They'd have the IP address(es) that this new account uses, but what would they be comparing those to? A comparison against a log of all the IP addresses used at Wikipedia? Second, TP apparently believes that if any of us suspect evil activity, we should file a SPI report. Again, perhaps out of ignorance as to the process, how would we do that? Who would be the sockmaster? We'd file a report with TBD (to be determined) in the sockmaster field? And why do we have to file a SPI report, anyway? The issue is not whether he should be blocked for sock pupppetry but whether he should be required to comply with the notify requirements.

So, maybe I'm all wet here, but at the risk of continuing a bad metaphor, I feel like I'm swimming in muddy waters. How is this supposed to work, or is transparency (end of metaphor) too much to ask?--Bbb23 (talk) 21:07, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

You invited me to discuss so I just wanted to point out a few things. Despite the user saying they won a victory, I closed the discussion because it was going in circles. "Tell us who you are!" NO "Tell us now or else" NO. It wasn't going anywhere. And there was no support or consensus that anyone's interpretation of WP:SOCK#NOTIFY compelled the user to identify their old accounts. I assume a checkuser has seen it because it's been on ANI for near 24 hours and I can't imagine no checkuser has skimmed over it; although ANI isn't a checkuser noticeboard which brings me to my next line. Real suspicions should be taken to WP:SPI. According to WP:CheckUser, "Checking an account where the alleged sockmaster is unknown, but there is reasonable suspicion of sockpuppetry is not fishing, and a suspected sock-puppet's operator is sometimes unknown until a CheckUser investigation is concluded." So my comment was: if someone has reasonable suspicion other than "well so many other people have done it abusively" then it should be taken to WP:SPI. If not, then there isn't a point to argue anymore.--v/r - TP 21:22, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for coming. First, I didn't know I could file a SPI report without putting something in the sockmaster field (would I put in "unknown"?). And even assuming I can file such a report, it's not clear to me the report is justifiable because I'm supposed to suspect abusive behavior, and I don't have any evidence of that. Second and related, as to the interpretation of sock#notify, that can still be hammered out here, can't it? Shouldn't there be some clarity as to what it requires and when? On its terms, it doesn't require abusive behavior.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:35, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Bugs wanted me blocked, others wanted me censored, and neither of these things happened, so I'm having a victory parade even if nobody else is! As for Bbb23's post, I really don't know what the confusion is - the policy is very clear. An alternate account is one that's being used at the same time as the main, and that's why they need to be openly linked, and are banned from commenting on process pages if not declared. A clean start involves retiring the main account and starting a new main one, which if it's done according to the rules, is not required to be declared, period. Doing so is a courtesy you might extend if someone asks nicely, but that's not what was occuring at that wife beater seminar of an ANI thread, so no, excuse me if I don't feel like telling people what my past account/s were under those circumstances. Nobody should be harassing clean start users just because of their bitter suspicions - they need credible evidence to bring to the table. Half the editor base here hate the special treatment Malleus gets, so that's clearly not a credible cause for suspiscion of abuse of a clean start, not when combined with what I actually said in the arbitration post. The sheer number of potential haters is I'm assuming what will scupper any potential SPI of me, if someone really wants to drag this corpse of a horse to that particular well. But if they do, a checkuser won't turn up anything I didn't already admit to at ANI - this is my one and only account, I have no concurrent alternates, and any others that the tool might find, will most certainly be stale, as I retired them. Cracker92 (talk) 21:59, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

"Clean start" only applies if you never, ever return to the same types of articles or become re-involved in arguments with people you were involved with before. Otherwise, it's either an alternate account and must be marked accordingly, OR it's being used to WP:EVADE a block if any of those previous accounts are currently blocked. Yes, in some case it's ethics that are more powerful than technical means - so if you're actually acting unethically, enjoy your little dance (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:14, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

For the first sentence: "if it's done according to the rules". The second is my thinking exactly. The third baffled me completely. Cracker92 (talk) 23:09, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't really want to get into the drama at ANI except as it relates to the issue here. I don't know how many previous accounts Cracker had. I don't know if Cracker has made one clean start or multiple clean starts. All I know is the policy apparently isn't clear enough as to when the notify requirements apply. For example, we use the terms "multiple accounts" and "alternative accounts" loosely throughout the policy. It would seem that Cracker has multiple accounts in the plain English sense of the term, i.e., he has started more than one account. Does he have alternative accounts (whatever that means)? Does that require that the accounts be used during the same time period? What's the time period? Does sock notify apply only to someone with alternative accounts, or does it apply to someone with multiple accounts? Note that in the notify section, both terms are used.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:12, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Clean start makes it unambiguous: An editor creating a new account consistent with the clean start policy need not reveal their old identity unless they want to be an admin. If you are unwilling to AGF that it is a legit clean start, file the SPI using the name of the sock, it can be amended if necessary. Monty₈₄₅ 22:19, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect (after all, you're trying to fix that template for me), I don't see it as unambiguous at all. What BWilkins talks about is right their in the policy, whereas the only mention of administrators in the policy is in the RfA section, which actually says it is "strongly recommended" that you reveal your previous account. It's also not clear to me that Cracker is clearly saying that he has complied with the clean start policy (he's anything but clear in general) or, instead, he just has multiple accounts, or even more complicated, he has a mixture of both. As an aside, is this sentence English: "If you want to become an admin without revealing your former account it is best to wait rather longer than if you had let people check your former account." This is exhausting me.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:52, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I've been as clear as I need to be in the environment in which I found myself in - dragged to ANI by a troll and being asked when I stopped beating my wife - for having done nothing more sinister or suspicious than comment on the Malleus situation, something every man and his dog is aware of. Cracker92 (talk) 23:09, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I wish you'd stop editing this discussion, even though I can't prevent you from doing so. You may be the trigger to my opening this topic here, but the issue for me isn't you but the policy itself.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:21, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Well that was rude :) Seriously, I'll make this my last post here if you think it will help, but only if you promise to let me know if anything occurs that I need to be aware of (because I'll unwatch the page). Cracker92 (talk) 23:25, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Here's the litmus test: have you ever, with any other account commented related to Malleus? If yes, then you have not made a clean start. Period. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 00:47, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I think accounts like this violate the "Avoiding scrutiny" clause, and "Legitimate uses" lists the valid defenses. Has Cracker92 ever claimed a use listed under "Legitimate uses"? I can't find one.—Kww(talk) 00:12, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I was hoping you'd come by. As I vaguely recall in a recent RfA, you are particularly interested in sock puppetry. BTW, not that it removes my focus in coming here, Cracker92 has been indeffed by User:Ched Davis for disruptive editing and WP:BATTLE.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:15, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Not withstanding the dispute over whether it was a legit clean start, clean start is a valid legitimate use, which it seems is the claim he made. Assuming arguendo that the clean start is untainted and has followed every clean start rule, do you still think that a clean start account needs to be declared under policy? If so we should definitely keep trying to resolve that question. Monty₈₄₅ 02:05, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Clean start only works if no one detects it. If I'm aware that multiple accounts have been used, it isn't a clean start.—Kww(talk) 03:24, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

If you suspect the person has had a previous account due to knowledge of policy, how to use tools/policies and other positive behavior, I think it is still a clean start. Its only the suspicion is because they end up in lots of disputes right off the bat undermining the clean start that its really a problem and becomes a failed clean start. Again, not applying it to the case that precipitated this discussion, but only talking generally. Monty₈₄₅ 03:31, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

That's logical. Alright here's an idea. Judge a 'clean start' on their amount of useful edits on the old account. Of course that'll call for an Administrator's attention but it could be the thing that keeps a great source on Wikipedia. Think about it. CHCSPrefect (talk) 11:07, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Illegitimate use: admins

I was a bit confused by this section:

Administrators with multiple accounts: Editors may not have more than one administrator account, except for bots with administrator privileges. If an administrator leaves, comes back under a new name and is nominated for adminship, he or she must give up the admin access of their old account. Foundation staff may operate more than one admin account, though they must make known who they are. For example, Bastique uses the account Cary Bass for Foundation purposes.

I don't understand where this comes from - what sort of person its designed to catch. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:20, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Not as confused as I am, I'm sure. Are Administrators allowed more or less latitude in the use of multiple ordinary accounts? Or does that depend on how they are used? I see from the archive that someone suggested a change to policy to say: "Admins may create a non-admin account to prevent the password for their admin account from being compromised while editing from insecure locations (e.g. User:Taxman and User:Taxman in exile)." But nothing seems to have come of this. A recent ANI case, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#An alternative account of an admin, suggested that the boundaries are unclear and may lead to misunderstandings. Perhaps it's all laid out quite claarly and I have just missed it? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:26, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Admins are allowed to have multiple accounts as long as they follow all the rules applicable to normal editors. Normal editors who create obvious sock accounts and refuse to link them to their main accounts often stir controversy and end up at AN/I, just like the admin in the above example. To avoid that, it is best practice to clearly link the accounts, and have the alternative account use an explanatory name, such as NAME (Public). The restriction on being an admin on multiple accounts is a separate issue; while intentional admin abuse is rare, it can be extremely disruptive, now imagine how much more disruptive it could be if the person had multiple admin accounts that weren't known to be the same person working in concert. Monty₈₄₅ 14:56, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Yes, I was also told by an Admin last year, that one "hidden" account was permissible (for genuine activity only) if the revealing of identity might be personally damaging or embarrassing - the examples given were an editor who wanted to edit certain articles but who did not want their gender and/or sexual preferences known, and someone who might be in a position of governmental responsibility. These cases would apply more, of course, if the editor concerned was already using an account which bore his or her real name. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:05, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

reason

Shoildnt there be a reason for the lock on this page? There seem to be alot of defintions that are locked for no reaso, thought they are less popular than actual pages.184.98.143.25 (talk) 10:00, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:RPP is the place to request unprotection. Nobody Ent 18:04, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Explanation of name

I wanted to direct an editor to a page which explained that he shouldn't be creating a whole handful of WP accounts. This seems the only one (or is there a better?) but I was struck by how incomprehensible the title is.

Could we have a note, very near the top, which explains the term "sock puppet"? It's scarcely obvious to me as a native English speaker, and must be totally mystifying for many editors. Something on the lines of:

(A sock puppet is an object shaped roughly like a sock and used on the hand to create a character to entertain or inform. In internet terminology it is an online identity used for deception.)

Even perhaps include the image File:Totally Socks Donkey.png as in the article (or, if that looks too much like a glove puppet, how about File:Carlb-sockpuppet-02.jpg?). I'm now pretty confused about the difference between a sock puppet, a glove puppet, and a hand puppet but that's beside the point here!) PamD 10:37, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

To pre-empt the reply "It's a common internet term": it's reasonable to expect our editors to understand common English terms, but "sock puppet" in the internet sense is not a common English term. It's internet jargon, and it's unreasonable to expect our editors to recognise or understand it. PamD 10:42, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I think that you raise a good point. Perhaps even just a blue link to Sock puppet within the existing wording, but as close as possible to the beginning, would serve to explain to readers what the term generally means. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:41, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Alternate acct

I have just initated an alternate acct @ User:Buster3.5. But, now the control bar across the top (my talk, my sandbox, my preferences, etc.) all bring me to B3.5's pages instead of where I want togo...Buster7's pages. I'm sure I did something wrong in setting up the alternat acct. Any Ideas on how to fix. Thanks in advance. ```Buster3.5 (talk) 15:46, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Everything I sign now says Buster3.5. Buster3.5 (talk) 15:48, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

You're logged in as Buster3.5. Log out and log back in as Buster7. Nobody Ent 16:37, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

this is proof positive that B3.5 is a half-wit. thanks nobody. i owe u a half-penny. Buster3.5 (talk) 03:24, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

This is proof positive that you're an honest user, i.e. innocent of the art of sock puppetry. Let User:Darwinbish teach you how. Bishonen | talk 03:46, 31 October 2012 (UTC).

persona management software

I'm wondering if we've ever run into this, and sock puppetry is the topic that first sprung to mind. Persona management software allows a single user to appear on the internet in up to 70 different personas. It is used in astroturfing and also apparently by the US Air Force. See [5] and [6] Any info appreciated. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:27, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I looked briefly at the two sources you provided, and something that strikes me as a particular cause of concern is that the software generates fictitious IP addresses. I would expect that this feature could confound Checkuser. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:28, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

But thinking of it from a technical standpoint, I don't think CheckUser would be that easily fooled, unless IP address spoofing is done on the transport layer, which I believe most major reputable ISPs disallow and actively guard against.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:12, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

That's good. That's a level of technicality beyond what I knew about. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:22, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Innocuous activities

I am new to Wikipedia and I'm keen to follow the policies here to the best of my abilities but I am unsure how to comply with the following:

Editors who use unlinked alternative accounts, or who edit as an IP address editor separate from their account, should carefully avoid any crossover on articles or topics, because even innocuous activities such as copy editing, wikifying, or linking might be considered sock puppetry in some cases and innocuous intentions will not usually serve as an excuse.

One of the benefits of registering an account is not revealing your IP address and I wish to maintain this privacy on my account.

Will my new account therefore be subject to a lifetime ban on editing the articles I contributed to before registering? If so, that doesn't seem encouraging to new editors. Can this be clarified? 86.30.138.116 (talk) 09:38, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

No, that's not the intent. As long as you let a period of time -- I'd say at least a week -- pass before jumping back into your old contribution areas, you should be okay. It wouldn't hurt to put a notice on the user page of your new account that you have previously edited as an IP. You'll need to consider that if you've been working on article(s) where you've been the only IP contributing it's possible folks will make the connection to your new account. NE Ent 12:28, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

That advice is for users with one account and either an alternative account or continuing to edit logged out in a different topic, it isn't intended to apply to editors registering for the first time. Peter James (talk) 01:55, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Alternative accounts and deletion debates

In 2010 a change was made to the paragraph about use of alternative accounts in project space after Wikipedia talk:Sock puppetry/Archive 7#Editing project space, to allow participation in deletion debates concerning content that the alternative account has contributed to. The change was supported by a few editors, but opposed by one editor, who undid it soon after, and "deletion debates" remains in the "inappropriate uses" section. The reasons for opposing the change (at the end of Wikipedia talk:Sock puppetry/Archive 7#Alternative accounts - not to use in policy or project space?) only really apply to policy discussions (not to discussions of specific content) or inappropriate avoidance of scrutiny (which would still be covered, by another paragraph), and the ArbCom case is about discussions internal to the project (and if AFD and FFD are, so are talk pages and BLP noticeboards). Maybe "closely connected", "content matter" and "broadly interpreted" are too vague, but discussions of pages where an alternative account is used, at least, should be from the alternative account, not from a user's main account that appears uninvolved. Peter James (talk) 02:43, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Policy - Socks and block evasion - Is block-clock restart inherent in the act itself, or does it only happen if an admin says so?

This thread relates to this edit, which I believe has changed the operation of this policy, for reasons stated below. On our user talk pages, Nyttend replied to my question as follows:

(me) "What problem were you trying to fix by inserting "typically" in the policy?"

(Nyttend) "Occasionally we don't completely restart the block length. Conversely, we sometimes reblock the sockmaster for a time longer than the original length. For example, let's say that you commit sockpuppetry for a sustained period of time and get caught multiple times, eventually resulting in a block of two years. After that, you get caught again. It's entirely possible that the consequences would be an indefinite block, rather than just a block for two years after you get caught.

Hope this is clearer; I'm sorry I didn't make the original statement clear enough."

---

New discussion below ----

In my view, insertion of "typically" weakens the original meaning. The original text explained that clock-restart is inherent in the sockpuppet's choice to evade a block, such that the clock restarts in principle, regardless what the server thinks. In other words, the principles underlying this policy (trust) should restart the clock in principle, even before any admin pushes any buttons. Block evasion = broken trust = automatic restart (whether anyone is paying attention or not).

From WP:SOCK,

Original = inherent result of the block-evading sock's choices

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

Modified = still more layers of procedural folderol.

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

In my view, insertion of "typically" implies that maybe it does restart, maybe not, its hard to know, and harder to say exactly what formula will be used to ever make a decision, assuming anyone notices, anyone takes time to complain, and any admin does anything about it. I don't think that was the intent of your change, Nyttend.

ALTERNATIVE PROPOSAL I suggest instead tweaking the text as follows:

Using a second account to violate policy will cause any penalties to be applied to your main account, and in the case of sanctions, bans, or blocks, evasion typicallyautomaticallycauses the timer to restart, and may incur additional or alternative sanctions. In lieu of other explicit sanction, whenever a block automatically restarts under this policy it will be treated as running from the restart time, even if the original block expires on the project's servers due to administrator oversight.

This revised text makes it clear that (A) auto restart is the default, (B) other or different things could happen, and (C) any editor may revert block evasion as such, even in cases when the server erroneously thinks the original block has expired.

Thoughts? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:02, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• Admins need discretion to handle this on a case by case basis, and adding typically leads the policy to more accurately reflect current practice. Consider the sock created to do something relatively innocent, where the sockmaster may not realize the action is prohibited, for instance using an obvious sock to request review of their main account's block at WP:AN. While the proper thing to do is to post to their blocked accounts talk page, and request the review, its not uncommon for such a mistake to happen. I don't think it would be just to reset the block duration in such a case. On the other end, particularly abusive sockpuppetry should result in an increased block duration, not merely a reset. Thus typically reset describes what a socking editor should expect to happen, but leaves room for case by case determination. Monty₈₄₅ 16:34, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
• Yep. What Monty845 said. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:55, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
• Rebuttal

1, admin discretion is a cornerstone of the alternative text, where it would say "incur additional or alternative sanctions".

2, The example you describe involves someone trying to toe the line so its unlikely they would be tripped up by this text.

3, You did not address my observation that the tweak alters the policy from auto-restart to (still another) layer of procedure; therefore if no admin acts in time, regular (non-admin) editors can no longer revert sockpuppet block evasion after the clock appears to run out on the server.

This policy change will encourage block-evading socks by (A) reducing ability of regular editors to combat block evasion thru reversions after the server says the clock runs out, and (B) block evading socks can hope they get away with it, before any admins take action. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:03, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Your proposed wording puts an obligation on admins to specifically say that they reviewed the situation and decided not to reset the block length if that is what they decided. The way it is currently is the best way, admins review and decide if anything should be done like resetting the block length. If they decide to do it, then they make the adjustment in the block, if not the block expires and the editor is allowed to edit again. GB fan 17:18, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

See WP:PPP — in general, policies follow procedure. We don't always reset the clock (the WP:AN request that Monty mentions is a good example), so this policy shouldn't say that we always do. If I'm reading things rightly, you're proposing substantially increased wording, which won't help comprehension: this page will become harder to understand. By the way, remember that blocks never automatically reset in the sense that the software does it for us. Unless you're indef blocked, your block will always expire precisely when the blocking admin told it to, except in cases when someone else came along and modified it. What we mean by "automatic" is that the first admin to notice it will typically extend the block without warning or discussion, which is appropriate here but not in most cases. Nyttend (talk) 17:32, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd go so far as to say that it's actually fairly rare for the timer to be reset anymore. That used to be normal, but normally I see the block modified to indefinite once the evasion continues.—Kww(talk) 17:38, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Even if it is true that the block will almost always be reset, admins hadling the situation do still have some room for IAR; therefore, it's not automatic. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:14, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Writing from different dynamic IPs

Could you please clarify some question for me. If someone edits articles or writes to talks section as unregistered user with dynamically assigned IP address (and has such right as far as I understand) - is this sock puppetry? I mean that the same user may have different IPs at different notes. If not, please specify the rule which states this. Thanks a lot! GreanLeaf99 (talk) 14:28, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

No. It's understood IP editors' addresses will change. The determining factor is whether the user is intentionally attempting to avoid scrutiny by using different ips. If there's a question you can simply ask them if a prior contribution on a different ip is theirs. That said, many editors do find switching ip addresses annoying and may accuse an ip of puppetry, which is one of many reasons using registered accounts is a good idea (but not required.) NE Ent 14:47, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

There's some fuzz. NE Ent has it pretty much right. However, if an IP being dynamic is causing trouble (edit warring that cannot be effectively stopped by blocking, widespread disputes that no one can talk to him about because he has no talk page, things like that), you will find that admins will sometimes semiprotect pages that he edits or block anonymous editing from his range in order to get him to use an account so that people can talk to him.—Kww(talk) 15:10, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

If someone writes at talk page using different IPs just because he/she receives it dynamically - is this by itself enough reason to finally strike his/her comments and to accuse him/her in sock puppetry? GreanLeaf99 (talk) 15:29, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Probably not. Can you point at an example of what you are asking about?—Kww(talk) 15:36, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Guys, explain me please as well what does "sock puppetry by an ip of Deonis_2012" mean? GreanLeaf99 (talk) 15:35, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Where are you seeing this?—Kww(talk) 15:36, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm wondering why here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Syrian_civil_war the topic "Suliman: 'Al Jazeera plays the piper, but Qatar calls the tune'" was striken out with such explanation? Such formulation is not clear for me. GreanLeaf99 (talk) 15:49, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Deonis 2012 (talk · contribs) is blocked, as such, the person behind the account may not use IPs to edit in violation of the block. The statement is an accusation that an IP editor is in fact a sock puppet of that blocked editor, which would not be permitted. If the IP is in fact not being used by the same person, then the accusation would be in error. Monty₈₄₅ 16:01, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. It's not very clear for me now how someone can understand that the some IP editor is in fact some other blocked editor? As I understand, some provements should be provided? And if someone was blocked by mistake, which actions should be taken? Thanks! GreanLeaf99 (talk) 16:12, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

It's an educated guess based on behavior. If there was a mistaken block the editor can post a {{unblock}} template on their talk page. NE Ent 16:31, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Will decision about unblocking be taken by the same person who maked blocking?GreanLeaf99 (talk) 16:46, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

No. It will have to be a different admin.—Kww(talk) 16:48, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Btw, is this explained somewhere in the rules - I mean this IP editors blocking according to "educated guess"?GreanLeaf99 (talk) 17:08, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Deonis_2012/Archive NE Ent 16:04, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

If someone decided that some IP editor is in fact a sock puppet of some blocked editor, which actions should be taken? I'm wondering because in mentioned case editor's topic was striken out while the editor by himself/herself was not blocked (according to his/her next post from the same IP) GreanLeaf99 (talk) 16:50, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Anyone but me inclined to invoke WP:DUCK in relation to this discussion?—Kww(talk) 17:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

That sounds strange. I'm trying to figure out why somebodies topics might be striken out whitout explanations. You find this desire to be strange? GreanLeaf99 (talk) 17:16, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Recognition and awards for socks

Is there really ever a reason to put credit or awards on a blocked sock puppet account? I say this because when we have these issues and it's nec. to block and the user decides to sock, yes they or the sock account created a good article but they did so under a cloud...wouldn't giving credit be a positive reinforcement for socking and a appropriate application of WP:DENY? I say this because I saw this at User:Spoildead a blocked sock of User:Okip. I understand the editor in good faith is giving credit where it's due but doesn't that make more issues for us in the long run? Maybe I'm off base here but didn't know where to raise the question other then here. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 09:03, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Casliber probably just didn't notice when he did it. It's not the kind of thing that it's very productive to raise a fuss about one way or the other.—Kww(talk) 14:52, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Nor is it productive to call other editor's concerns "a fuss" NE Ent 15:03, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

No insult or dismissiveness intended.—Kww(talk) 15:06, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Resolved

Moved dyk to main account with Casliber's consent. NE Ent 15:03, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Which still gives them credit for socking and evading their block... --Onorem♠Dil 15:38, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I've undone it. I presumed that Casliber's crediting the sock was unintentional, and thus not worthy of any controversy. Intentionally giving credit when it's known the edits were based on socking is problematic.—Kww(talk) 15:55, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think Caslibar did anything wrong per se, and if I gave that off I want to clear that up! I was raising the question is this normal is there anything we can do to make sure these things don't happen? Maybe full protection of socks after their block? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 01:29, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

question one

What about those of us who prefer to edit without logging in, but maintain a user account to make edits that require a registered account? --198.137.20.243 (talk) 17:03, 15 January 2013 (UTC) (In my judgment this is valid since multiple accounts are not being used or abused, rather the point is that since Wikipedia should be free to edit some editors like me prefer to do it that way but also recognize that some actions are legitimately off-limits to unregistered users.)

Would you share with us why you prefer it? In my opinion, other users have a legitimate interest in being able to click on the "user contributions" button and actually finding, you know, your contributions. Is this what you wish to avoid? Bishonen | talk 17:09, 15 January 2013 (UTC).

To evaluate the situation, I think we would need to know what sort of edit that requires an account you wish to make. There are very few things on wiki that really requires one. Monty₈₄₅ 17:23, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:IP says

Contributors who have not created an account or logged in are identified by their IP address rather than a user name, and may read all Wikipedia pages (except restricted special pages), and edit pages that are not protected or semi-protected. They may create talk pages in any talk namespace but may need to ask for help to create pages in some parts of the wiki. They cannot upload files or images. They must answer a CAPTCHA if they wish to make an edit which involves the addition of one or more external links, and click a confirm link to purge pages. All users may also query the site API in 500-record batches.

Therefore, use of a registered account would be including but not limited to the following:

• Editing semi-protected pages
• Creating pages
• Uploading files e.g. images
• Adding external links without the inconvenience of a CAPTCHA

--198.137.20.56 (talk) 19:24, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Honestly, if WP does not value the contributions of unregistered users then it should probably prohibit all editing by unregistered users. --198.137.20.56 (talk) 19:26, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

? Is that your reply to my queries "Would you share with us why you prefer it?" and "Is this what you wish to avoid?" If not, could you reply, please? Evasiveness and disinterest in dialogue can easily look like trolling. Bishonen | talk 20:34, 15 January 2013 (UTC).

See below.

Would you share with us why you prefer it? - Some of us believe that Wikipedia should adhere to being the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and therefore would prefer to improve the encyclopedia without going through the added steps of logging in.

Is this what you wish to avoid? - Absolutely not, I recognize the importance of attribution of edits. The point is that for whatever reason, if the 25th (or whatever) edit on a user account is an XfD nomination some people see that as suspicious. I don't know why, since people edit logged out all the time.

--198.137.20.130 (talk) 01:05, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit to add: In my opinion, edits should stand based on their legitimacy rather than who made them. The main purpose of the user-contributions function with respect to unregistered users is to quickly find potential vandalism in order to revert. That is not what I am suggesting the unregistered user would be doing - they would be making legitimate edits that do not require an account. --198.137.20.130 (talk) 01:21, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Here's an example: User:12.153.112.21 is attempting to solve the problem of incorrect linking from various articles to the AT&T article when the link is meant to go to AT&T Corporation. To do this, 12.--- must edit various pages including some articles that are semi-protected. It is way too much of a hassle to request edits to so many semi-protected pages when one can simply register an account for those. --198.137.20.130 (talk) 01:21, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

But once you have registered an account, there's no reason for you not to always use it. That's what you need to keep in mind: permitting anonymous editing isn't really something we do because we want to. It's because we have found, over time, that a great many editors just want to edit one article about one thing and go away. We depend on those editors, and can't afford to prevent them from making contributions. In this case, you are talking about an editor that wants to do a large number of edits and hang around for a long time, but doesn't want to be subject to our normal rules. That's extremely undesirable, and our polices are designed to discourage it.—Kww(talk) 01:29, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Who is this we? I want editors to do whatever they want to improve Wikipedia. What 198 is describing is possible but difficult to do correctly -- the editor would have to scrupulously keep track of which pages they've ip or registered edited and not mix them up. Although I support the ability of IPs to edit I can't recommend it due to the effective caste system in place on Wikipedia. NE Ent 02:41, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I wish contributions and edits were just edited on their own merits but, in practice, WP is a very political place once you move into the dispute resolution areas. NE Ent 02:41, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

question two

What about using one account for noncontroversial edits and another account for legitimate but controversial edits? --198.137.20.243 (talk) 17:03, 15 January 2013 (UTC) (In my judgment this is valid since WP editors are encouraged to be bold, but unfortunately there will be inevitable conflict when it comes to various opinions of what is appropriate in an article, and so the noncontroversial account should be recognized for the edits on it independent of the potentially controversial edits made by the other account.)

Editors are encouraged to be bold, but I don't know that they're encouraged to be "controversial". Too often the word is a euphemism for unconstructive editing, and indeed drawing a line between the two can be a rather subjective matter. Your phrasing "inevitable conflict when it comes to various opinions of what is appropriate in an article" rather suggests that this would be likely to fall foul of WP:BADHAND. And, again, why? Bishonen | talk 17:16, 15 January 2013 (UTC).

I agree an editor needs to be extremely careful to avoid a WP:BADHAND situation. While it is permitted to use an alternative account to edit a topic area which is "controversial" it is not permitted to use an alternative account to make a controversial edit in a topic area your other account is active in, or otherwise shield your main account from actions that you think will be controversial on wiki. For instance, if your account is publicly linked to your real world identity and you live in a country where you fear real life repercussions if you edit a topic area appropriately, its permissible to use an alternative account. That does not sound like what your planning to do though. Monty₈₄₅ 17:21, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

But the 2nd account would not be for disruptive editing. In my scenario, account A would be for edits that would be accepted by, say, at least 65-70% of editors, while account B would be for legitimate edits, not violating policy whatsoever, that, say, only 40-60% of editors agree with. And in general they would not be to the same topic. --198.137.20.187 (talk) 18:26, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

For example, account A might edit a sports record table to correct any errors, while account B might edit to include or exclude information from that same sports record table based on whether that information belongs on WP, in the judgment of that editor. --198.137.20.56 (talk) 19:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

That's sockpuppetry. No doubt. NE Ent 20:05, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't see why, since this is not done to "mislead, deceive, or disrupt; to create the illusion of greater support for a position; to stir up controversy; or to circumvent a block, ban, or sanction." To make this clear, both accounts are making legitimate edits, this is simply to avoid situations like trolls reverting non-controversial edits just because they were made by an editor they disagree with. --198.137.20.130 (talk) 01:10, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Because it is intentionally being done to prevent editors from linking the two edits together as having been performed by the same editor, which we call "avoiding scrutiny". Both accounts would be quickly blocked when the arrangement was discovered.—Kww(talk) 01:13, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Image

Identify the sockpuppets

Personally not a fan of having this image on the policy page. This goes against accepted practice for policy pages. As was pointed on in the very short 2009 discussion about this issue, most people are pointed to this page when they've been accused of violating the policy - I'm not against a bit of humour now and then, but it seems inappropriate in this context. The assertion that it might help non-native speakers understand the origin of the term is extremely dubious to me.

Mostly I just think it makes the page look stupid and people are less likely to take it seriously as a policy if we plaster joke-images over it. It does not add any value to the page.

Best, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 17:33, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I restored it after showing a non-wikipedian this page, where I knew there was an image which shows the concept very easily; except that it had been removed since last time I read the page. "Sockpuppet" is a non obvious word for non-English native speakers and has a special meaning in our own jargon. There used to be several more images, I hope one can be a bit informative without creating other problems.

That said, I leave it to your consideration but I'd like to see it discussed for a bit. If there's a guideline documenting the practice of not adding images, it would be very helpful of you to link it. I was never accused of sockpuppetry so maybe I'm overlooking how those users feel, but are they really ~6000 per month?[7] Finally, other Wikipedias use this second image, in case it's less problematic in your view. --Nemo 09:11, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Basically it sums up to what I said above, that I don't really think the image helps to show the concept, and it does strike me as more of a joke-image. I would not be opposed to an infographic of some sort which displays how one person can operate multiple accounts, if someone wants to make one. Happy to leave this here for a bit for others to input. Spitfire^Tally-ho! 11:18, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Replaced with a less insider cutesy image of actual toy puppets whose construction includes socks. NE Ent 11:51, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Watchlists of alternative users.

I want to create some alternate accounts for doppelgänger (Impersonation protection/inactive) and security (keylogger etc. protection/active) reasons. is it able to keep the watchlists and such of the Main and Security Userspaces identical???

My1^xTreme 16:57, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Doppelganger-other

Template:Doppelganger-other has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.. As this template is currently explicitly mentioned on this policy page people here may wish to comment. Thryduulf (talk) 21:27, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

What's the Problem with Multiple Accounts?

This is just a query which I thought I'd throw out there as it has always baffled me. In my early days of editing I was once complained about for using multiple accounts, ie. that of DAFMM and another account two accounts, both of which I used for editing. What is the problem with the same individual using multiple accounts? I can understand it if there causing trouble, and using one while the other is blocked or using the other for support in arguments etc., but what about general, honest use? What if he publicised on the user pages that he edited under one user name for edits regarding one topic, and another for other topics? Is there a problem? Thanks. DAFMM (talk) 11:53, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:SOCK#LEGIT says it all, doesn't it? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:07, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

You only have one pair of hands don't you? And you can log in twice using the same ID and password, then, having both windows on display at the same time you can switch easily between one and the other. The only reason anyone would need to have more than one account ID would be to give the impression that they were more than one person. If you are being honest why would you need two IDs? After all, would you like to be talking to someone in real life who changed their appearance and body language at will? It would drive me crazy. So I would say have only one account, stand up for your errors and move on, having gained by the experience. What is the point of having to continually re-invent yourself? You're not Madonna incognito are you? Jodosma (talk) 22:35, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Jodosma. Thanks for your notes on my talk page. As BWilkins points out above, there are many reasons a person might want to edit anonymously. I would say to you, just as you don't judge a person by the color of his skin in the real world, don't judge editors here by their username or IP address—judge them by the edits they make. --108.45.72.196 (talk) 02:21, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I must agree with the last point made by 108.45.72.196 and would personally consider that to be the overriding factor with regard to my judgement of an account. I suppose my statement could be considered hypothetical in some respects and I both appreciate and recognise the case made for the incredulity caused by multiple id accounts, although I'm sure many people may like the keep their edits on some articles (although perfectly legitimate contributions) seperate to their main account (eg. does someone who edits penis may be embarrassed when editing a seperate article such as Queen Elizabeth II and consequentially create two accounts - naturally, without admission by the editor himself, the two accounts would never seem interconnected). Thanks. DAFMM (talk) 14:29, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

This is phaedrx wikipedianoob. You guys might want to somehow artfully skillfully clarify or more prominently locate somewhere a new person can see it easily, and also this would be for the volunteer enforcement teams here. They should have on wikipedia, that is the users and readers worldwide now and in the future, mentioned that sockpuppeting can only be the apropo term if there is harmful intent. If a person is not intending to harm, that is, it is not sockpuppeting even if they do do harm. For example is my case which I hesitate to draw attention to but nonetheless: I worked a high pace job using WP as a ref. about geographic facts. I used to sign in to get the screen to look how I wanted etc. It never occurred to me there were real people in the background editing it. Seriously. I never looked into or knew anything about how it worked I just assumed they got it right those Wikipeople. I developed profiles for screen appearances and stayed logged in but something would happen at my computer at the office which wasn't mine, and I would lose the password if it was a while and I rotated them as I usually do and have to do a new one. I kept doing name variants and eventually just went 0j8cqu3aj9 or f39hf9h3 to get a page quick to find out about that province in Banton or Tuntin or wherever. So, by the time the editing thing happened, which was that I made it known and not hiding it that yes I was signing in under diff names, I had no idea there was even such a thing as sock-puppeting. So I could not possibly be doing a behavior that implicitly means harmful intent. I did inappropriate noob things here (who hasn't), but sockin' ain't ever been one. Perhaps the case I illustrated is just too narrow to make a change, a worldwide-awareness-of-sockpuppeting campaign I just started huh anyway, I didn't mean a big thing maybe just clarify that accidental sockpuppeting is real. what do you all think, is the important thing. --Phaedrx (talk) 20:32, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Add to Legitimate Uses?

As far as I have been able to tell, there are a few employees of the Wikimedia Foundation who have both a "Work" account which generally ends in (WMF) and a "civilian" account. I have no problem with this concept, but I don't think any of the current entries in the Legitimate Uses list cover it.Naraht (talk) 16:20, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Project space

The current policy page states:

• Editing project space: Undisclosed alternative accounts should not edit policies, guidelines, elections, or requests for adminship. They should advise the Arbitration Committee immediately upon becoming involved in any formal dispute resolution process. They should have minimal activity in deletion debates, and only in cases directly associated with their significant past contributions. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Privatemusings#Sockpuppetry.

The policy appears to have changed as a result of this edit, part of a copy edit by SlimVirgin, who intended "not to change anything, just to tighten the writing". An attempt to change it to something closer to what was originally intended[8] was undone because of "no consensus", also by SlimVirgin.

The current version seems reasonable, with the exception of deletion debates. An editor who uses an alternative account for specific topics finds a hoax article in that topic area, linked from articles already edited from the alternative account, and nominates it for deletion at AFD, or an editor finds that a file used in an article is nominated for deletion, and participates in the deletion discussion. These are not inappropriate; it would be more misleading to PROD the article, and remove the link, with an alternative account and AFD it with the main account. Maybe it should be changed to something that there is consensus for, or changed back and the bold, revert, discuss process followed? Peter James (talk) 21:37, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

IPs are exempted from suspect

Not seriously ☺ but [9] demonstrates interesting views of certain registered users, both current and former. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:35, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Possibly misleading quote from ArbCom decision

In the meatpuppetry section of this article, there is a passage quoting from this ArbCom decision. The passage in this article reads:

...the Arbitration Committee issued a decision in 2005 stating "whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar editing habits they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets"

However, this is the actual text of the decision:

For the purpose of dispute resolution when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar editing habits they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets.

(Emphasis mine). I think the quote as it appears in the article is misleading, as it drops the "when there is uncertainty" qualifier, which clearly changes the meaning. I request that the quote as it appears in this article be amended to include that qualifier, thus:

...the Arbitration Committee issued a decision in 2005 stating "when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar editing habits they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets"

130.95.77.97 (talk) 03:41, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

 Mostly done I've reworded the whole dot point to include the full text of the principle. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:53, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

main / alternative

Hi, from jawp.

Could you tell me exact understanding of "main account" and "alternative account"?

Assume that real peason "A" using two account, "User:A1" and "User:A2" because of privacy. "A" create User:A1 first, then create User:A2. "A" don't connect A1 and A2, but "A" notice that "A2 is alternative account" on userpage of A2.

"Editing project space" in "Inappropriate uses of alternative accounts" section say "Undisclosed alternative accounts should not edit policies and other project pages". Can "A" edit RFD page as User:A2 under the condition that User:A1 is not involved both article and discussions ?

i.e. relationships of main account and alternative account is fixed? or relative?--Ks aka 98 (talk) 17:02, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Neither account can edit project space without disclosing the identity of the alternate. One of the prices you pay for secrecy is that it limits your ability to participate.—Kww(talk) 17:06, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

"Project space" is a heading, but it doesn't refer to all project space. "Deletion debates" are listed under inappropriate uses, but this appears to have been added mistakenly during copy editing, as I've mentioned at #Project space. An arbitration case is cited, but only mentions discussions internal to the project; deletion discussions are often directly related to specific encyclopedic content. It may be harmful to the encyclopedia to keep "deletion discussions" in this section - for example if I were to use an alternative account to edit a specific topic area for privacy, and find an inappropriate article or redirect within that area requiring AFD or RFD discussion, obviously I would be unable to use my main account because of the overlap in topics, or my alternative account if I were to accept this as valid policy. Maybe I would just think "if policy prevents me dealing with this in the usual way, I'll just leave the article (or redirect) as it is". It doesn't affect me specifically, as I don't use other accounts, but it could affect other users less aware of the policy situation. I would notify a checkuser or arbitration committee member, as recommended, but not required by WP:SOCK#NOTIFY. Despite the risk of leaks - probably not as bad as finding that a checkuser has started a sockpuppet investigation without discussion or evidence, which would be more likely now. I would also check with the checkuser or arbitration committee member whether the intended use is acceptable. Peter James (talk) 22:16, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that was an inadvertent addition at all. Just as we have problems with people trying to stuff the ballot box at AFD, we have problems with people nominating articles for deletion with alternate accounts in an effort to hide a bias they might have.—Kww(talk) 00:13, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

These are already described as inappropriate: either creating an illusion of support, avoiding scrutiny or good hand/bad hand. Peter James (talk) 14:50, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you just the same. Please continue discussion.

I understand that an user who use multiple account can't edit for discussions internal to the project, such as policy debates. Even though editing deletion debate by alternative account is also prohibitted on current policy, Peter insists that it would be harmful and policy should be changed. In peter's opinion, it seems that multiple account are not distinct as "main"/"sub". One of the multiple account which concerns an article can join delation debate of the article. --Ks aka 98 (talk) 18:45, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

It's true that Peter believes that. The cost of not allowing alternates to edit policy debates is trivial, though, and the benefit of being able to block obvious alternates the moment they start editing project space without revealing who they are an alternate for is quite high.—Kww(talk) 19:23, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Doppelgangers

I was recently warned by an admin not to create doppelgänger accounts for other users, specifically Jimbo Wales. If there is indeed consensus against this, shouldn't it be recorded somewhere in the Legitimate uses section to prevent relatively new users like me from making the same mistake? (I read the section before creating that account, and it said nothing about that, so I went ahead and did it, especially since Special:ListUsers shows that numerous accounts were created by other users for the same purpose.) --SamX‧☎‧✎ 16:52, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

You most definitely should not be creating dopplegangers for others - it makes it look like you are attempting to impersonate the person. As well, you would in some cases need to create hundreds of ID's to eliminate all possible "false" accounts, whereas it's easier to deal with them as they come. You could also prevent, for example, someone whose real name is "Jim Wales" from creating a valid account. So yes, please stop impersonating others, even if you feel you're doing it for the right reasons (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:05, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I've already stopped, and I won't be doing so any more now that I know. Shouldn't that be recorded somewhere on this policy page, then? --SamX‧☎‧✎ 17:44, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

The policy page already talks about what a doppelgänger account is.

Doppelgänger accounts: A doppelgänger account is a second account created with a username similar to one's main account to prevent impersonation.

To be a doppelgänger the new username has to be similar to one's main account. Jimbo Wa!es is not at all similar to SamX. GB fan 17:56, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

It does not explicitly state, though, that creating doppelgangers for other users is bad practice. There are probably more idiots like me out there that may or may not do the same thing in the future, so I feel that that specific statement should be definitely be recorded somewhere on this project page. --SamX‧☎‧✎ 17:59, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

We don't normally create exhaustive lists of ways to misbehave: see WP:BEANS for details.—Kww(talk) 19:00, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Just for the record (this might be my last edit to WP) I was warned after I created the doppelgänger, not before. --SamX‧☎‧✎ 22:06, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

That's true. You were warned, you didn't do it again, and life is happy. I don't understand why you are upset. Pretty much every editor receives an occasional warning about something, even administrators. No one insulted you or said you were a bad person or anything of the kind.—Kww(talk) 22:12, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Whew! Looks like I seriously misinterpreted all that! Thanks for following up, and it looks like my "retirement" is over (I will be taking a wikibreak shortly, for unrelated reasons, though). --SamX‧☎‧✎ 22:16, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Emphasis of improper

Hi there, I recently got into some trouble with an admin because I thought that "sock puppet" meant the same as "alternative account". He corrected me and said it meant "alternate account used improperly". I re-read the page and still didn't see where it said this. Today looking at it afresh I do see.

It is a reasonably assumption to make as the "sock puppet" analogy works equally well for alternative accounts. So I might not be the only one to make this mistake.

I must have read "The use of multiple Wikipedia user accounts for an improper purpose is called sock puppetry (often abbreviated in discussion as socking). Improper purposes include ...". as meaning something like:

"The use of multiple Wikipedia user accounts is called sock puppetry (often abbreviated in discussion as socking). Improper purposes include ..."

When a word is highlighted in bold there is a tendency to think it is the most important word in the sentence and treat previous words as less important. The brackets after the word also direct your attention away from the qualifications before it.

Obviously is a good idea to put the word in bold as you do, but I'd like to suggest it might help prevent others from making the same mistake as I did to put "for an improper purpose" also in bold:

"The use of multiple Wikipedia user accounts for an improper purpose is called sock puppetry (often abbreviated in discussion as socking). Improper purposes include ..."

Or if that is clumsy, something like:

Multiple Wikipedia user accounts can be used for an improper purpose. This is called sock puppetry (often abbreviated in discussion as socking). Improper purposes include ..."

would also work, where you explain that it is about improper purpose in a separate sentence. Probably only a few make this mistake but I did, and so suspect, at least a few other readers probably will do so. I am I think slightly dislexic, which may be part of the reason, but then others would be in the same situation. Robert Walker (talk) 14:57, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

It's not seriously broken, but I agree it would be even more clear if it read

Sock puppetry refers to the use of multiple wikipedia accounts for an improper purpose, such as X, Y, and Z."

Yes that also works. It puts "improper" into a position of natural emphasis in the sentence, rather than its current location which is not, and the italics will also help draw attention to it. Robert Walker (talk) 15:28, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

How does this look to anyone? I hesitate to do a bold edit to such a prominent page in wikipedia, but suggest it for consideration:

Sock puppetry refers to the use of multiple wikipedia accounts for improper purposes. These include attempts to deceive or mislead other editors, disrupt discussions, distort consensus, avoid sanctions, or otherwise violate community standards and policies. The term comes from sock puppet, an object shaped roughly like a sock and used on the hand to create a character to entertain or inform. The term is in general use on the Internet for an online identity used for deception, and in discussions, is often abbreviated as socking)

Robert Walker (talk) 12:10, 15 July 2013 (UTC)