Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppetry/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 10

"Registered" instead of "approved"

Provided that the (possible/perceived) privacy issue with checkusers is resolved and that there is a mechanism in place to ensure that this information always remains confidential (unless the user's behaviour justifies a checkuser that would reveal this anyway), I'd be fine with this arrangement. I would suggest that the terminology needs clarification. I believe that the word registered should be used instead of approved, since what we are doing is registering the connection, not obtaining approval. Also, while most involved in this discussion might realise that "associated" means "declared on the relevant user pages", and hence "unassociated" means "not declared on the relevant user pages", I would suggest that something like publically undeclared be used instead of unassociated. --AliceJMarkham 06:09, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The reason I'm not that concerned about checkuser privacy implications of this is that the checkusers can already find out the information, in most cases. If there is a checkuser privacy issue, this won't change it much, except for giving the checkusers access to a list instead of requiring them to look at each account individually. There could, therefore, be an issue with an activist checkuser deciding to release the entire list as some sort of statement: we need to have safeguards against such behavior, especially since the effect would be so drastic. Does anyone else here remember the identical-password scandal? I'm not sure of the best way to deal with this possibility. Perhaps just explicitly stating somewhere that the list is absolutely not to be released (in the privacy policy, perhaps), or, more securely, making it more of a query system if possible. It should also be important to make sure that, if a sock identity needs to be released for legal reasons, that only the necessary release is made instead of the whole list. A list like this would be very valuable to some people, and appropriate safeguards need to be taken. Think of the blackmail potential: if it is to be a single, actual list, as opposed to something that can be queried, we need to ensure that the users who can access it are trusted enough that a few tens of thousands of dollars of bribery wouldn't secure the release of the list.
Terminology is also important here. Registered would probably be more accurate than approved, especially since approved might be taken to imply endorsement of the user's behavior. A distinction also needs to be made between 'declared' and 'associated'. I propose that 'declared' mean that the sockpuppet status be noted, while 'associated' mean that the identity of the other account is disclosed. Thus this proposal would be a list of publicly unassociated, but privately associated sockpuppets, which may or not be publically declared, but don't have to be. Publicly associated and declared accounts would remain unrestricted, while declared but completely unassociated accounts would only be allowable via ArbCom exception (if my addition is accepted), and completely undeclared sockpuppets would eventually be banned altogether. I think this covers all possibilities. --Philosophus T 06:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Here is a more rigorous wording of the policy, with my terminology, the ArbCom-exception addition, and also an addition so that associations won't be released when doing so would release the identity of a person:
If someone uses multiple accounts, it is recommended that he or she note the use of multiple accounts and provide links between them, so it is easy to determine that they are shared by one individual. If doing so is undesired for legitimate reasons, such as privacy concerns, then the links between the accounts must be provided to the Publicly Unassociated Sockpuppet list, which is only accessible to editors with CheckUser permissions, and is governed by the Wikipedia privacy policy. In this case, the editor is free to chose whether to publicly declare the use of multiple accounts. Listed sockpuppets are still forbidden from abusing the use of multiple accounts, but may otherwise edit normally. Abuse of the status can result in banning of the sockpuppet, sanctions against registering further publicly undeclared sockpuppets, and public release of the sockpuppet's associated accounts if doing so would not obviously and publicly link the account to the identity of an actual person. If extraordinary circumstances make both of these options to be undesirable, a user may contact ArbCom for separate arrangements, which could include such arrangements declaring sockpuppet status to CheckUser editors, while confiding the links only to trusted ArbCom members.
--Philosophus T 07:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


If and when Checkusers or Arbitrators violate someone's confidence, what happens then? Anything in particular, or do we just "try better next time" while the exposed editor is S.O.L.? Without a specific and guarateed answer to this question - for example, privacy violators lose their privileges and are desysoped, no ifs ands or buts - few will likely be willing to share this information. Can we presume that arbitrators and checkusers would be permitted to share this information with one another? For my part, there is a fairly long list of people on Wikipedia whom I'd trust, but I can't say that each and every one of the arbitrators and checkusers is among them, and I doubt too many others would feel differently. Are there any others who would be part of this inner circle among whom information was shared? Can we be certain that each and every one of them is trustworthy, regardless of whose case is under consideration, or that information won't be leaked outside of this circle - say, to certain well-known websites? If so, what then? Do they resign en masse?24.19.33.82 07:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I've commented on that previously, and note that we need an answer to it before this policy goes through. We could come up with a policy for this. For example, we could say that arbitrators should be able to share the information among themselves only, and checkusers should be able to share the information among themselves and with arbitrators, but neither group should ever release the links between Listed sockpuppets, with the likely penalty being loss of such privileges (could releasing that info incorrectly also expose them to legal liability if we worded this correctly?). If the checkusers decided that the account was being abused, they could ban it without releasing the info, and the banned user would have the option of releasing the information in a public debate or privately appealing to ArbCom. Unlisted sockpuppets wouldn't gain this protection. In that way, the identity of a Listed sockpuppet would never be released to the public unless the sockpuppet user chose to make the release.
I you really have problem with trusting all of the checkusers and arbitrators, then my proposal gives you the option of asking ArbCom for an exception. That exception could include a situation where you reveal your identity to an arbitrator (or arbitrators) that you trust, but not everyone, and then that information would only be held by those arbitrators and not shared. Or if there would be very grave consequences to the information being released, you could ask ArbCom to grant an exception where the links between your accounts aren't known to anyone, I can't think of many cases like this; especially since you would have to take technical measures to avoid linking by regular CheckUser, but maybe it would apply to the "editing about a cult with Fair Game-type doctrines" example I gave earlier). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philosophus (talk • contribs) 07:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Can I just say that I think this is a bad idea. It encourages people to believe that use of multiple accounts is officially encouraged. It isn't. People should not use an alternate account without a really good reason. One of the "good reasons" being systematically abused at the moment is to allow them to troll without comeback. We want to encourage people to use one account per editor, and to use that always unless they have a really compelling reason. Guy (Help!) 17:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
    • A registration as opposed to approved list is a bad idea for the reason you give. But the proposal for an approved list does not provide encouragement to create multiple accounts, it provides a needed and currently nonexistent verification that, to quote you, "they have a really compelling reason." WAS 4.250 20:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Exactly. And, as I've noted, simple registration wouldn't help much. But the approval would make it so that abusing the good reasons would be much more difficult; using a second account to troll would be dangerous, as the account could simply and easily be banned, and the master would be readily apparent to ArbCom and the CheckUsers. At the same time, it would make life far easier for those sockpuppets who do have good reasons: I wouldn't have to deal, for example, with the constant accusations of sockpuppetry on my part, because the links would already be known to trusted users. However, we will need some sort of criteria for approval. --Philosophus T 01:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
      • ONe issue that hasnt come up is time, both arbitrators and checkusers are volunteers like all volunteers they will move on or choose not to be involved with that area. If especially an arbitrator has a list of privately declared accounts, how does that list get passed on. What happens if an outside world event occurs that removes an arbitrator from our community without any prior opportunity to pass the information along. To me it needs to be a restricted access list with no private lists for it to be sufficiently open so as to prevent gaming from an off wiki event. Gnangarra 05:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
The only difference as far as I know between registration and approval is that registration implies an automatic rubber-stamp process, whereas approval implies that someone weights the request and decides yes or no. Although I am strongly against stockpuppets, those who do reasonably need them should not have to plead their case before a decision-making body. I would hate for people to have to say things like "I am a closeted gay person and I'm afraid my family will find out if...." or "I am being blackmailed by a former lover who...." Rather than evaluate the strength of the claims someone should be able to say simply, "For reasons of keeping my personal life private I wish to create an alternate account so that I may edit articles on sexuality" or something like that. If it is a rubber-stamp approval (provided people choose an allowable category) nobody even has to know unless there is a checkuser or some other dispute. Regarding who has the keys to the safe, I assume we could keep this information encrypted, hidden, or otherwise unavailable except to people with some privileged access, and then track who has the access, when they use it, and what they see.Wikidemo 10:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose, because of the implied eventual transition to mandatory retirement of all multiple accounts. There will always be people who want to edit one subject with one account, and another subject with another account, and they include some of our best editors. I spend maybe half my time in Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography, so I'm intimately familiar with the principle with the sexuality-connected subjects. I'm not Anon E. Mouse for nothing. Then there are the political and religious and new age mystical subjects, or merely the professional who is an expert on politics or science, but doesn't want to tell people that he might want to hire him eventually he's also an expert on kids' manga. Remember the Japanese government worker who had just that problem? --AnonEMouse (squeak) 00:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Reword to officially discourage multiple accounts

My 2 cents. Socks are bad for two reasons: evading a block of a first account and collusion that gives the socks a persuasive advantage in discussions. One person using a second account to engage in controversial (non-blockable) behavior to preserve the reputation of the main account is only a problem if evasion or collusion occurs. Also, there might be reasons to identify an account as a sockmaster account, but blocking them is not one of the reasons. Multiple accounts need to be officially discouraged. Wikipedia:Sock puppetry should be reworded to officially discourage multiple accounts without changing the policy. The language should be presented so that those who reach a level of editing maturity with Wikipedia will be able to judge for themselves whether they need an alternate account and those who have not reach a level of editing maturity with Wikipedia will be discouraged from creating multiple accounts. For example, the policy now states "Multiple accounts have legitimate uses." This could be rewritten as "Although not common, multiple accounts may have legitimate uses." This does not change the policy, but provides less encouragement to create an alternate account. The rest of the policy can likewise be reworded without changing the policy. Requiring regristration of multiple accounts is not a good idea because it is more important to encorage adding encyclopedia content than to operate the encyclopedia. -- Jreferee t/c 19:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The policy has been reworded as suggested. WAS 4.250 20:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Interesting ReWord - The policy reword has interesting consequences - seeming to really want to say that something is prohibited, but not actually being able to. The section which gave me the idea to create this account as a sock is Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Keeping_heated_issues_in_one_small_area, which I rather fear would still be the seed that led to my later actions, which the policy seems to be considering prohibiting now. Why not just say "Socks are banned from controversial policy discussion" - I disagree with that sentiment, but would rather be honest than mealy mouthed and confusing. Privatemusings 20:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Because discouraging socks is already policy, so we can say so right now, while "Socks are banned from controversial policy discussion" is not currently policy and to make it so would require obtaining a consensus to do so. That consensus to do so does not now exist, so we can not simply add it in. WAS 4.250 20:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Further - it's inappropriate to use the word 'may' in this policy in this way, I believe it can only cause further problems. Privatemusings 20:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Can you expand on that? Quote the passage? Provide an alternate? Identify the "further problem?" WAS 4.250 21:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
No worries.. "Although not common, there may be a few legitimate uses for multiple accounts" - to italicize 'may' in that way compounds the fact that the spirit of that sentence is that there probably aren't any legitimate uses. We must resolve that point in order to commit something usefully to policy in my opinion. The further problems would be cuased by, for example, my reading of the current policy which indicates that my sock use is a legitimate one, and other editors using the tone of the lead to be able to say categorically that I have breached policy, but without being able to state specifically why, or where. Privatemusings 21:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Since your sock usage was in the past, future changes to this policy won't affect you. I don't think anyone is suggesting changes to the policy that would make previous use of socks an offense. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:17, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I think the better wording here would be "Although not common, there are some situations where the use of multiple accounts would be legitimate." There have been a number of examples given on the talk page, so we don't want the policy to sound like there aren't any legitimate uses right now, and the policy allows them only for hypothetical legitimate uses. This wording change would make it clear that the legitimate uses aren't common, and also make it clear that not everyone needs multiple accounts: the current "there may be a few legitimate uses" makes it sound like anyone might want to use one and need one, whereas my wording implies that only some situations make them necessary, and they aren't legitimate in most cases. I'll be bold and make this change; feel free to revert me. --Philosophus T 01:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Anything to declare?

Have a read of this essay I wrote. It says pretty much what we've been discussing... feel free to leave opinions on the talk page! --Solumeiras talk 22:11, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

After the Essjay controversy, a discussion was initiated on proving up declared academic degrees. Perhaps that issue might fit into your essay on a broader topic of things that some people want disclosed but have not yet reached consensus. Nice photo. -- Jreferee t/c 07:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

No loopholes, please

Do we really need more loopholes? I do not think so. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Do loopholes even exist on Wikipedia? According to WP:WIARM, they don't. Aren't loopholes an artifact of a legalistic (i.e., incorrect) understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines? -GTBacchus(talk) 03:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Call then what you will, there doesn't seem to be a consensus to allow any additional uses of sockpuppets, and there's a growing consensus to limit their use. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Ok. I'm not arguing for the use of socks; I was jut objecting to the idea that Wikipedia has a legal system. -GTBacchus(talk) 04:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

There's a simple solution to this, although I leave it to admins who are bolder with the tools than myself: retain the current wording and be more proactive about using the good hand/bad hand provision. DurovaCharge! 04:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree; we just need to be bolder in enforcing the already-long-standing restrictions on good hand/bad hand accounts. --krimpet⟲ 05:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Durova is absolutely correct, I believe. Have we not learned that attempting major revisions of important policies based on a few experiences creates more drama than simply enforcing the policies we already have? There are no doubt hundreds of editors who are just quietly doing a good job and have never come to the attention of any administrator, but who have used socks to separate their user names (often well known outside of Wikipedia) when editing subjects that could have an adverse effect on their real life. Let's go back to the original, and evenly and consistently enforce it. Risker 05:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
You don't even need to go back that far away to find a great example of policy revision gone terribly wrong. I am sure that SlimVirgin remembers, as I do, the last time a group of editors tried to rewrite the Sockpuppetry policy (the change that indirectly resulted in SUSPSOCK). Banned sock users infiltrated the group and carefully suggested changes that resulted in considerable weakening of the policy, even though many involved thought they were strengthening it. There is much to be said for a strategy of stronger enforcement without changing the policy. We could even consider simplifying the policy. As others have commented, it currently violates BEANS terribly. Of course, this could cause the same sort of drama as making it more complex. --Philosophus T 06:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Segregation and security section - Substantial Shift

I think this diff represents a substantial shift. Can we talk about it a little? I actually support the idea of being able to create an account to deal with sensitive areas calmly (this is of course self evident!), and have a growing worry that we're trying harder and harder to nail jelly to the wall.

I'd prefer a straightforward 'no socks thanks' to the same effect through the back door. Privatemusings 07:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I would add that it seems to be a very longstanding section in this policy. Privatemusings 07:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

That provision seemed to actually encourage the use of socks, which I don't think is supported by consensus. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
There now are four examples of good sock puppet use under the Segregation and security section. Why do we even give examples of good sock puppet use? All uses of sock puppets that do not violate Forbidden uses of sock puppets are acceptable uses. In doing SSP work, we only determine whether sock puppet use is a bad/forbidden use; we don't determine whether it is a good use. I think that entire section can be written as follows: "Some editors use multiple accounts to segregate their contributions for various reasons. So long as such use does not go against the forbidden uses of sock puppets noted above, such use is acceptable." In addition to the removal of this example, the four remaining examples should go as well. They are instruction creep. Also, we need to assume good faith, not legislate it through policy. -- Jreferee t/c 07:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
No, it's just the opposite. We only allow a few exceptions, and other uses are prohibited. That's always the way ot's been. the nutshell is:
  • The general rule is: one editor, one account. Do not use multiple accounts to create the illusion of greater support for an issue, to mislead others, or to circumvent a block. Do not ask your friends to create accounts to support you or anyone else.
The use of sock puppets is strongly discouraged and that should continue. There may be a few reasons when they are necessary for the safety of editors, but we don't need to encourage the use, which is harmful to the community as a whole. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I have always considered the use of sock puppets to engage with each other in any way to be clearly harmful to the project. But I thought the 'heated issue' paragraph was quite sensible. Long before my indef. block (which still seems surreal) editors were throwing aggressive, unfounded accusations at me, and I can tell you with utter honesty that the safe harbour of my previous account was very beneficial to me personally. I am yet to fully understand what harm that solace caused anyone. Privatemusings 09:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm guessing it was the heated-issue provision that made you think it was okay to create separate accounts for separate issues, PM. But in fact, it has led to quite a bit of trouble and ill-feeling (for you, as well as for others), so I think it's important to take that provision out and find a way to reword it. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 09:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
You're spot on that the heated-issue provision is where I actually got the idea from, and there certainly has been trouble and ill feeling, but I'm not certain that it therefore needs to be reworded. I appreciate I'm in a small minority at the moment (well, really the smallest, loneliest minority!) - but I actually think the heated-issue provision is sensible, and that there has been a failing to assume good faith at the heart of the problem. I've half started a piece about the problems of pseudo anonymity, and the thorny, interesting issues that arise when humans both choose to relate to their avatars, and when policies are formed that cement that link. I really must finish it.
Additionally, the concept of one human, one account is in fundamental tension with an editor's right to change usernames. In my case, a 'heated-issue' sock was created both because I thought the idea was sensible, and because a previous avatar could be traced fairly easily to my identity. From my reading of current proposals, the action would be prohibited given one motivation, and approved given the other. Schrodinger's Sock anyone? Privatemusings 10:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Call it "one editor, one account at a time". There is one excellent reason for changing usernames: the costs of having a name identifiable with non-Wikipedia venues, including work and family, in the presence of obsessed editors who take project actions personally. I've changed username once just for that reason, though I didn't hide my earlier name. Multiple accounts aren't the answer. Time and time again their use has proven to be tremendously disruptive. If an old username is too identifiable then get a new one and start over. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
PM, it's not clear why you're calling it a sensible provision when it has caused so much trouble and ill-feeling. Your PM account was created to deal with a heated issue, as was one of your previous accounts, so that's at least twice you've done this. The heated issue is the appropriateness of adding external links that out or harass people. I hope you can see that it's arguably hypocritical of you to suggest that other editors should be exposed to outing and harassment if you feel it's in the interests of the encycylopedia, while you create sockpuppets accounts to make those arguments in order to protect your main account from scrutiny. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 00:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't believe there's any consensus for that large-scale revision. Will, you're simply incorrect that the heated-issue rule is what leads to disruption. You've made the statement time and again, but without any evidence, and flying in the face of the fact that the drama- and incivility-inducing individuals aren't usually socks. To remove a major policy point requires genuine consensus, and you don't have it here.Relata refero 11:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Consensus is need to retain items too. We're probably getting to the point of a strawpoll on this unless a new proposal comes along, and then we'll see if there's a consensus to retain a loophole for heated issues. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough, but please stop calling it a 'loophole' every time, as that's really begging the question. (Next time I will pretend to be annoyingly mystified.)Relata refero 23:15, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Will. If the prohibited uses results in allowing for only a few exceptions, why do we need to list those exceptions? SlimVirgin is correct. Listing allowable exceptions only encourages sockpuppet creation based on Wikilawyering interpretation of the allowable exceptions and Wikilawyering the differences between the prohibited uses and the allowable uses. We need to pick one or the other: Explain what is prohibited or explain what is allowed. -- Jreferee t/c 18:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
There are only a few exceptions now. While BEANS may suggest we don't specify the exceptions, if we don't say what they are then I think it would be more confusing for users. We already say that everything except what is permitted is strongly discouraged. All we're doing here is tinkering with the list of what's permitted, and under what circumstances. Just closing (or modifying) a loophole isn't a substantial shift. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
See above. This is still a substantial shift; policy as written makes clear that people's entire contrib history was actually essential only for admins and prospective admins. Let's not understate the changes people are arguing for. Relata refero 23:15, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
(Outdent) OK Will, I think I figured out the problem. We've tacitly been thinking of two different issues. I've been thinking of using the policy to block socks, but there also deletion process for alternate user accounts. So it appears the Forbidden uses of sock puppets section addresses blocking socks and Legitimate uses of multiple accounts addresses requesting deletion of someone else's additional sock account as not meeting one of the exceptions. Privatemusings alternate accounts (no offense) might not be reason to block, but there should be something in the policy that provides clear points for discussion at MfD on why the alternate account should be deleted. Not meeting one of the listed exceptions are clear MfD discussion points, but the Sock puppetry policy itself does not make this clear. I think we can revise the Sock puppetry policy without actually changing it to make this clear. OK, then I'm in favor of adding to the "Legitimate uses of multiple accounts" section something like "Alternate accounts that do not meet one of the above four (?) exceptions may be deleted at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion. In fact, the structure of the policy should be changed. Meatpuppets and forbidden uses are reasons to block an account, not delete an account, and should be together rather than separated by reasons to delete an account. The "Alternate accounts" section should be with "Legitimate uses of multiple accounts." The identification and handling of suspected sock puppets" section should go into handing blocking socks at SSP and Checkuser and handling deleting alternate accounts at MfD. Instead of getting mad at each other when someone uses an alternate account to stir up trouble that does not rise to a blocking level, we can send the matter to MfD and let consensus determine whether the alternate account is a legitimate use of an alternate account. We do the same for user page and user subpage content, I don't see alternate accounts as being much different. The MfD is reviewable at DRV, so everyone wins. -- Jreferee t/c 21:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Different perspective

I've read the above thought about changing the requirements and notices with SSP. Why not look at another part of the process and alter the circumstances under which a Checkuser can be performed. Change it so that all RfA/RfB nominations are subject to a check user, and that check user can be performed at any time on participants in RfA/RfB discussion. At any XfD, AN, ANI discussion a checkuser can also occur. ARBCOM can already request a checkuser so nothing would need to be changed there. The point being these are the critical places where discussions influence changes to policy or the application of policy. Gnangarra 09:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by "a checkuser can occur"? Surely you aren't proposing that any sock editing such pages is at risk of having account associations revealed to the public? On the other hand, allowing checkusers without a request could possibly be a good idea; I had thought that was already allowable, but my knowledge of checkuser policy is quite limited. Such a policy of constant checking could also make the life of a checkuser very exhausting. --Philosophus T 09:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Rather than a background investigation, why not simply ask RfA candidates for a pledge? That won't catch any, but if they are subsequently caught that will mean they lied on their RfA application and may thus be summarily de-sysopped. One could ask a related (but probably different) pledge of any party participating in an RfA, AfD, RAFR, Arbcom case, and so on. Perhaps a nice combination of assuming good faith, yet protecting against trouble. The pledge for these participants could read something like "I am not a sockpuppet or meatpuppet, and I am not participating on behalf of a banned user. I understand that giving a knowingly false pledge may result in some or all of my accounts being blocked, and my being banned from Wikipedia." - Wikidemo 10:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
More enforcement means more work. It's easier to discourage the use of unnecessary socks than to find them once they're created. But yes, I also think that admins et al, should have some kind of sock puppet review or pledge. However passing that requirement would just require a short abstention, given checkuser time limits, and may be the equivalent of staying clean for a drug test. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Maybe it would cause editors to change their usage, but that would also be a good result and the time period involved would either break the habit or the editor would just start the disruptive efforts from the account wanting RfA. With xfd etc its just a random event, with no need to release that any discussion was checked. Gnangarra 11:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Stop bloody edit warring over policy pages

You want to make controversial changes, stop trying to force them through by edit warring. I do realise that I have just protected a page I have recently edited, but I have intentionally protected it on the "wrong version" (what I consider to be the wrong version) so as to avoid COI calls. Stop warring and dicuss it. Now. ViridaeTalk 00:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I should clarify that I wasn't aware of the upgrade in page protection until after my most recent edit. CJCurrie 00:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Thats understandable. ViridaeTalk 00:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

"Create controversy"

Could somehow please explain how terms as vague as "cause controversy" and "stir up controversy" can possibly be declared actionable offenses for otherwise legitimate socks? CJCurrie 00:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Please also bear in mind that my block, made with this rationale, did not meet with community consensus. Privatemusings 00:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
This page is not designed to discuss your specific situation. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Unless you are editing a different Wikipedia than I am, I think that it pretty clear to what that means. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Disruption has always been one of the core reasons for blocking an account. Creating a sock puppet in order to advance controversial positions is disruptive because it is intended to create or extend controversy. And that's not inclusing the less well-intentioned uses that use exceptions as excuses for sock puppetry. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


Well I'll happily re-make the point in more abstract terms if you insist that it's otherwise unclear. Admin.s have been verifiably unable to correctly determine (ie. gauge community consensus) when someone is 'stirring up controversy' and therefore whether or not 'sock' use is appropriate. To the extent that policy should represent practice, the sentence probably shouldn't be included.
Further (and to reply somewhat to comments above) I absolutely don't advocate the legitimate use of sock accounts in order to prevent scrutiny - I just think it's a sensible position to take when intemperate, hurtful, and groundless accusations get thrown around as willingly as they have been of late. GTB's points seem to make the most sense to me - what on earth is wrong with banning people for behaving disruptively under the whole raft of existing policy which allows for this? I also utterly endorse the view that the best solutions to the issue like in making the system more mundane, dull and straightforward.
To reiterate my Schrodinger's Sock question in slightly different terms, what I now see emerging is that as long as I refrain from making edits as account x, then I'm free to create account y and contribute in any way I wish. Should account y be free to ignore questions concerning account x? I felt it was more honest to say "look, I did have account x, who isn't that exciting, but please just allow my points to stand or fall on their merits".
Some suggestions here don't hold water philosophically, logically or pragmatically for me, and am believing more and more that the core problem is one of 'AGF' more than one of Sockage. Privatemusings 01:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I quite agree, and as I told Jossi some distance up the page, if that's the case than parts of this discussion might be more fruitfully be on WT:AGF. Relata refero 12:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I cannot agree with the position put forward by Jossi and Will Beback. Words are very important when determining matters of policy, and I cannot accept that "controversial" behaviour is sufficient grounds for blocking an otherwise permitted account.

If the intent of this policy change is to punish editors for "disruptive" or "abusive" activity, then our wording should reflect that intent. By punishing "controversial" behaviour, we're opening the door to all sorts of possible interpretations ... and all sorts of possible misapplications.

Consider the following scenario: An established editor creates an alternate account to address a controversial subject (for instance, abortion, same-sex marriage, party politics). The editor in question holds views that are considered "unpopular" by friends, family or co-workers, and wants to prevent real-life consequences from resulting. While using the alternative account, the editor makes a number of "controversial" statements on article talk pages.

I think most of us would agree that this would not cross the line into "disruptive" or "abusive" activity ... and yet, it could be considered an actionable offense under the proposed change.

Some might object that the policy is unlikely to be used in this manner ... and they may be right. But to ensure that the policy is not abused, we should choose wording that accurately reflects its purpose. CJCurrie 05:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I certainly agree that the wording can be improved. While trying to avoid using the term, what I think Jossi is really getting at is that it's improper to use a sock for trolling. If editors are finding one controversy after another, and are consistently taking provocative positions that generate more discord, then that's disruptive. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
If that's the intent, then the wording we choose should reflect it. (Btw, I'd also recommend a small amendment to your own wording. "Taking provocative positions that generate more discord" isn't always a sign of bad behaviour; there are times when challenging an apparent "consensus view" is fully justifiable. I think you may have meant "taking provocative positions to generate more discord", which is another matter entirely.) CJCurrie 19:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I believe you're entirely right, however the ugly head of judging intent raises itself at this point, returning the problem to one of 'assuming good faith' once more. Privatemusings 20:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • While causing controversy may not actionable by blocking, it should be actionable by deleting the alternate user account at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion. Socks/meats may be blocked. Improper alternate user accounts should be deleted. Forbidden uses of sock puppets section addresses blocking socks and Legitimate uses of multiple accounts addresses requesting deletion of someone else's additional sock account as not meeting one of the exceptions. The "Legitimate uses of multiple accounts" section should say something like "Alternate accounts that do not meet one of the above four (?) exceptions may be deleted at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion. Also, the structure of the Sock puppetry policy should be changed. Meatpuppets and forbidden uses are reasons to block an account, not delete an account, and should be listed together in the Sock puppetry policy rather in separate sections. The "Alternate accounts" section should be with "Legitimate uses of multiple accounts." The identification and handling of suspected sock puppets" section should go into handing blocking socks at SSP and Checkuser and handling deleting alternate accounts at MfD. Instead of getting mad at each other when someone uses an alternate account to stir up trouble that does not rise to a blocking level, we can send the matter to MfD and let consensus determine whether the alternate account is a legitimate use of an alternate account. We do the same for user page and user subpage content, I don't see alternate accounts as being much different. The MfD is reviewable at DRV, so everyone wins. -- Jreferee t/c 19:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Jreferee: Makes sense... would you make these changes? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • As for Privatemusings' Schrodinger's Sock question, only one of Privatemusings' alternate accounts need be deleted at MfD. Once that is done, any further use of a newly created alternate account or an existing alternate account by Privatemusings would rise to the level of a blockable offense of the main and (now sock) account since such use would be evading consensus through a second user account. Privatemusings could use a main account to contribute to discussions, but could not create account y and contribute in any way he wished since that would be evading the MfD consensus. Questions concerning MfD deleted alternate account x would be irrelevant to alternate account y because alternate account y is elevated to blockable sockpuppet account y on the MfD deleted alternate account x. -- Jreferee t/c 20:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • The best part about this MfD system is that it relies on assuming good faith and is self actuating. With socks, new sock accounts are blocked only if discovered. With inappropriate alternate accounts, the holder will cease using them after a delete MfD because they are here to contributed to the encyclopedia and respect consensus, unlike socks. Assuming good faith allows us to shift the burden of enforcing the MfD onto the alternate account holder. So the scheme would have four types of user accounts: (1) Main account, (2) alternate account, (3) inappropriate alternate account, and (4) sock/meat puppet account. This will allow us to distinguish between editors who are here to improve the encyclopedia but overstep their bounds (inappropriate alternate account) and editors who are not here to improve the encyclopedia (sock/meat puppets). Here, we can save the "sock/meat puppet" accusations for those who really deserve it. -- Jreferee t/c 21:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
How about avoiding the question of intent with respect to "inappropriate" accounts and simply looking at results. Change "to" to "that" throughout the page, e.g. "Do not use multiple accounts to that create the illusion..." As long as we're simply deleting problematic accounts and not otherwise punishing the person who created them, we should act when they cause a problem, rather than when we deem that they were created in order to cause a problem.Wikidemo 21:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I think the idea of applying MfD to sock accounts is interesting, but by that logic, would it not also make sense to deal with all blocks in this way? Now you've really got me thinking....... (but right now I'm just thinking, not supporting yet!). Re. the answer to my question, I must clarify a specific point - (quote question..) "... as long as I refrain from making edits as account x, then I'm free to create account y and contribute in any way I wish. Should account y be free to ignore questions concerning account x? " - so account x has stopped editing. Presumably I would also be free to stop use of account y, and return to account x as long as no edits are simultaneous. This isn't specifically 'point'-ish behaviour, because the motivation would be to avoid aspersions and personal attacks which stress one out, not to disrupt. It has the unfortunately corollary of being both permissible in policy, but rejected as inappropriate by editors who are fundamentally dealing with good faith issues. Privatemusings 21:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Since account x is an alternate account, you would have a main account and there would be no reason to create alternate account y to that main account. If one of your alternate accounts is deleted at MfD, then the remaining alternate accounts effectively are no longer usable and creating new alternate accounts in view of the MfD would be a blockable offense. You still would be entitled to use your existing main account and would be free to contribute how you choose from that one main account. You could create account y by filing a Wikipedia:Changing username request to change your main account username. Admin blocks of sock accounts are more like speedy deletes of articles and issues regarding alternate accounts may need consensus to take action. -- Jreferee t/c 21:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
The substantial shift here is that we are therefore requiring an application to be made before real life people change pseudonymous identities. Presumably you're saying that an editor is no longer free to exercise a right to vanish, and return under a different username without an application to 'change of username'? Privatemusings 23:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Foks who return are not using their right to vanish. "Vanish" means leave, not to return with a new name. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
And therein lies the shift, I believe Jreferee is suggesting that any return post 'vanish' should be applied for through Wikipedia:Changing username - please note that many many editors have not followed this process, which does not represent current practice, and is therefore a 'substantial shift' - mind you, in all honesty that's one of the smallest issue the suggestion faces, I'm still considering it, but I have significant philosophical, and pragmatic concerns in addition.
There is always that possibility that I have not understood the proposal clearly though (and apologies if this this the case) - would I be correct in saying that we are removing the 'right' of any individual human to edit using two distinct wiki accounts, except through application to Wikipedia:Changing username? - Privatemusings 01:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
On re-reading I note that the exception to the principle above would be that a sock is permissible after a 'keep' consensus at MfD. I really like the aspect that this promotes sensible discussion, and don't want my criticisms to appear too strong, because I do think the seed of the idea could be really interesting, and valuable. Why not extend this approach to all indefinite blocks for example? - I'm not totally familiar with the 'community sanction noticeboard', but have a feeling that they tried this, and it failed. Some more research on my part is in order in the short term.... Privatemusings 01:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
This is an aside to the proposal, but editors have very few "rights". The right to vanish is one, but it depends on staying vanished. There is no recognized "right" to edit using two distinct wiki accounts. On the contrary, the recognized standard is one editor, one account. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
The right to vanish implies that the user and his behaviors are gone. If such a "vanished" editor chooses to come back, he must not indulge neither in previous behaviors, nor in same editing patterns as the "vanished" account. If he/she does, he will be found out and he will probably be indefblocked for disruption. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
This makes sense (and per Will re: rights; hence the use of apostrophes in the question) - so to be very clear (apologies for repetition)... would I be correct in saying any individual human wishing to edit using two distinct wiki accounts, must apply through Wikipedia:Changing username? (or gain approval through an MfD discussion, per below.....) - thanks, Privatemusings 03:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
And a further corollary question - should I (as an example) wish to create a legitimate sock (for example to develop a particular area, and associate that avatar with said area) must I disclose both accounts (kinda makes the legitimate use redundant) - or should I register an account, and head to MfD to gain a consensus not to delete? (ie. submit a proposal along the lines of 'BigOleBarry' is a sock account that I wish to use to edit baseball articles) - I think that's the proposal on the table at the mo.... Privatemusings 03:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Although my knowledge of baseball would likely hinder more than help unfortunately. The point stands. BigOleBarry 03:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • (outdent) There is no change in policy because we always have had the right to send a user account to MfD to have it deleted. There are some there right now. Regarding the right to vanish, you are talking about two situations. The firsts is the person with alternalte accounts where all were used in compliance with policy/guideline who vanishes then returns with a new account. The second is a person with alternate accounts where one alternate account was deleted at MfD and subsequently vanishes then returns with a new account. Both individuals have a main account which they can post whatever they want, so this really is not that big of deal. However, the second person cannot interleave posts - insert one post from account x between two posts from account y. As for creating a legitimate sock, there will no longer be legitimate "socks" because that term is going to be reserved for bad accounts. The term we will be using is "alternate account". Other than what already exists in the policy, there will be no requirement to disclose in advance that you have alternate accounts. However, not disclosing alternate accounts in advance of your actions can be take into account at MfD. In fact, I expect that to be part of the lead sentence in the MfD nominations: "This is an inappropriate account AND he failed to disclose a connection between the two accounts." If someone is misusing an alternate account and they make us discover the connection between the two accounts, that likely will not help their position at MfD. As for extending the MfD approach to approach to all indefinite blocks, WP:SSP deals with sock blocks which basically are for multiple account evasion and collusion actions. Indefinite blocks for single account vandalism and disruption are handled elsewhere. -- Jreferee t/c 13:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
With apologies for being dense, I'm going to have to ask a couple of similar / simpler questions in a clearer fashion;
  • If I wish to create a different account to focus contributions in a specific area, can I?
  • What must I do to ensure this is within policy?
  • If I wish to stop using one account, and begin with another, can I?
  • What must I do to ensure this is within policy?
I appreciate your patience - hopefully simple answers to these questions will continue to move us forward.... thanks. Privatemusings 23:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Privatemusings. I appreciate your comments because they do help me think about the potential impact of the policy.
Q. If I wish to create a different account to focus contributions in a specific area, can I?
A. The changes I made to the policy did not (or at least should not have) changed the Legitimate uses of alternate accounts.
Q. What must I do to ensure this is within policy?
A. Engage in a behavior that consensus would find meets Legitimate uses of alternate accounts.
Q. If I wish to stop using one account, and begin with another, can I?
A. I know what you are getting at - creating a series of accounts that do not overlap time wise: Use account A for a week, discard and use account B for a week, discard and use account C for a week. Other policies address single accounts. This policy is meant to address the use of two or more accounts. To Identification and handling of inappropriate alternate accounts, I added "Two accounts are considered alternate if they are operated by the same editor and contain interleave posts where one post from a second account is added anywhere in Wikipedia between two posts from a first account." However, the way consensus works is that consensus could consider accounts A, B, C, and/or D as alternate accounts even though they do not overlap in time. Without a time overlap, it probably will hinge on a causal connection between the accounts A, B, C, and/or D.
Q. What must I do to ensure this is within policy?
A. The key is consensus. To ensure your actions are within policy, you need only engage in a behavior that consensus would find meets Legitimate uses of alternate accounts.
-- Jreferee t/c 16:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
OK, I thought more about your query and posted What is an alternate account. If an editor creates account A, then discards account A for new account B, then discards account B for new account C, Account B could be an alternate account of account (A-C) if the editor uses account C to post something that would make account A and C a single account but for the different account names. Yea, it's a little complex, but consensus usually figures these things out fairly well. -- Jreferee t/c 16:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

An important question to ask, Privatemusings, is whether one's participation is helping the encyclopedia, or hurting it. I don't mean one's own opinion, no, I mean the consensus opinion of respectable Wikipedians. If an account is a net negative, sooner or later it will be blocked or deleted. If a person operating a set, or series, of accounts is a net negative, sooner or later that person will be banned. Policies and guidelines are written so we don't have to repeat ourselves, but they don't dictate what we do. One cannot point to rules and use them to justify a net negative. - Jehochman Talk 17:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Returning to "create controversy"

This is all fascinating, but I fear we're getting a bit off-topic. I'd like to see a bit more discussion on the following point:

I'm afraid that I cannot agree with the position put forward by Jossi and Will Beback. Words are very important when determining matters of policy, and I cannot accept that "controversial" behaviour is sufficient grounds for blocking an otherwise permitted account.
If the intent of this policy change is to punish editors for "disruptive" or "abusive" activity, then our wording should reflect that intent. By punishing "controversial" behaviour, we're opening the door to all sorts of possible interpretations ... and all sorts of possible misapplications.
Consider the following scenario: An established editor creates an alternate account to address a controversial subject (for instance, abortion, same-sex marriage, party politics). The editor in question holds views that are considered "unpopular" by friends, family or co-workers, and wants to prevent real-life consequences from resulting. While using the alternative account, the editor makes a number of "controversial" statements on article talk pages.
I think most of us would agree that this would not cross the line into "disruptive" or "abusive" activity ... and yet, it could be considered an actionable offense under the proposed change.
Some might object that the policy is unlikely to be used in this manner ... and they may be right. But to ensure that the policy is not abused, we should choose wording that accurately reflects its purpose.

CJCurrie (talk) 02:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I for one am uncomfortable permitting sockpuppets to stir up controversy. Controversy takes up peoples time, attention, and efforts. When you find that you've been wasting your time on a fake account, or someone who is not who they claim to be, it's really discouraging. You feel you've been punked. That lowers the credibility and integrity of the project. Editing subjects that are controversial off wikipedia is certainly not considered controversial behavior on wikipedia, nor is good faith participation in the BRD conesensus process, so that concern should not apply. But yes, a sockpuppet who goes to a same sex marriage page and declares that same sex marriage is a sin against god and nature, or who says that heterosexual marriages are disgusting, or who changes all the pronouns because the person thinks they should all be s-he, should not be allowed. We don't want people to set up a sock puppet just to keep these kinds of edits from appearing on the main account.Wikidemo (talk) 03:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree that those particular examples would constitute inappropriate behaviour, but I maintain that the constructive advancement of a controversial or unpopular position should not be considered "off limits" to a legitimate alternative-account.
I'll also reiterate that we should be very careful about the wording we choose, given the potential for abuse and misinterpretation. CJCurrie (talk) 05:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry if this has already been agreed, and I've missed it, but I don't agree with CJCurrie's change from "controversial" to "disruptive." [2] We can already block for disruption. The additional point some of us want to make (I believe) is that an alternate account that entirely or largely creates or sustains controversy is not allowed. In other words, if people want to be controversial, they should do it with their main account. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 07:19, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
For me, the fundamental problem is that either wording requires us to determine intent, and we have a very clear guideline showing us how to go about that. Privatemusings (talk) 07:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
A good part of WP:NPA is based on determining intent. For example, the recently adopted prohibition on "linking to external attacks or harassment for the purpose of attacking another editor." It is analogous to prohbit using sock puppets for the purpose of creating or sustaining controversy. While there is no guaranteed way of determining intent short of confession, it can be deduced reliably. For example, if an account is used in one dispute after another without making any positive contributions it will become clear that the intent is to use it in controversies alone. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:40, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
You're right about the analagy with NPA, and I suppose I didn't mean that this fundamental problem was neccesarily enough to wholly reject the proposals, just that it's - you know - something that is always going to be in tension with assuming good faith. It is very heartening to see you write "bad faith shouldn't be assumed without evidence)", and I acknowledge that you in particular have never given me cause to believe that you have ever felt or behaved otherwise. Perhaps some attention in this area will help balance the tension referred to previously better. More to consider. Privatemusings (talk) 21:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
I said this above somewhere, but I don't see why we need to consider intent at all. If the effect is to create controversy or disruption, the sockpuppet should go. We don't want controversial sockpuppets. If the puppetmaster sees his or her actions are controversial, they should tone it down. Continuing with something after knowing it is creating a controversy is an intentional act, after all.Wikidemo (talk) 09:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
That's a good point. It doesn't matter what the intent is, it only matters what the effect is. Even a well-intentioned editor who causes excessive disruption will be banned eventually. On the opposite extreme, an editor with bad intent who nonetheless helps the project significantly may be tolerated so long as their intent isn't acted upon. The allowance of using socks to edit difficult topics is not a pass to stir up controversy, regardless of whether the intent is bad or good. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
So what you are arguing for is the discretion to ban anyone who appears to have effectively "caused" disruption, even when it appears that they had no intent to, and in the absence of any indication as to who the puppetmaster is, or even if the user has a currently active other account? Does anyone else think that this sounds like a bit too much discretion? Relata refero (talk) 10:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
We already do that. Diagnosing behaviour as disruptive and issuing a sanction based on that is in no way incompatible with assuming good faith. Some people, acting in the very best of good faith, are nonetheless disruptive. Whether they are disruptive or not has nothing to do with intent, although intent will clearly exacerbate it, disruption is about effect. Guy (Help!) 10:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Leaving aside the larger issue of "intent" for the time being, I maintain that it makes no sense to prohibit legitimate alternative accounts from engaging in "controversial" behaviour, when the behaviour is not also disruptive. CJCurrie (talk) 03:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The community's patience and good faith aren't unlimited. There have been many cases when a ban was the result of a long series of moderate incidents, no single one of which was sufficient cause for a ban. If there's s presumption in the policy that users may create special accounts for creating or maintaining controversies then it would make it impossible deal with users who stop short of exhausting the community's patience and then switch to a new account, all while keeping yet a different account for making non-controversial edits. While there may be some rare cases that special accounts are necessary for safety when dealing with difficult issues, those should be the exceptions rather than the rule. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't this point be clarified on the policy page, then? CJCurrie (talk) 03:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
You're right, it should be. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Will people please note that this discussion remains open? Consensus has not shifted. Some are arguing that accounts that are controversial should be delegitimised, others that accounts that are created to be controversial should be delegitimised, others that accounts created to edit in controversial areas be delegitimised, and several that controversial means nothing at all. Please continue to discuss this crucial point, rather than introducing the wording to be discussed prematurely. Relata refero (talk) 08:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Edit war

There has been a slow-speed revert war (8 reverts in 5 days) over whether it is okay to have an alternate account that merely creates controversy, as opposed to disruption. There is a real difference, in that a lot of activities are (or are intended to be) controversial without being outright disruptive. This is a policy page, and it is the basis for blocks and ArbCom cases among other things, so the constant reverting is probably unhealthy. If we're trying to let users know what behavior is acceptable and when they can create a second or third account, we are sending mixed signals.

My own opinion, for reasons argued at length, is that a user should never hide behind a dummy secondary account to create controversy. That is simply provocative. It wastes people's time, it creates unnecessary frustration, and it degrades the integrity of the project. I don't think anyone has advanced a legitimate reason for doing so, and we should not encourage that behavior. People can create alternate accounts to edit controversial subjects, but that is not the same as creating controversy. Editing the most subject on Wikipedia is not a controversial act if done within the bounds of policy. Disruption, by contrast, is in the eye of the beholder. One could revert 300 trivia additions, or deletions, on the theory that it is not disruptive because it is merely enforcing policy. I also disagree with the good hand / bad hand wording that would prohibit only bad hand edits that create "artificial" controversy. The word "artificial" is unclear and too subject to interpretation. One could justify any contentious edit that stops short of disruption by saying that it is made in good faith, and any controversy that arises from others' disagreement is not artificial.

The days may be over when people can treat Wikipedia as a playground for secret games. Anyone who creates a sockpuppet account simply to spare their main account the taint of controversy is doing so at their own risk, and they should know that. There is a good chance we will ban such accounts outright, and view them harshly if exposed. The baseline rule is that sockpuppets are forbidden. Permitted sockpuppets are the exception, allowed only if there is ongoing consensus. Wikidemo (talk) 09:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for returning to this discussion! I've been waiting for a response for ages.
You believe "artificial" is too unclear. I believe "create controversy" leads to too much discretion. If a sock account is editing in a small, heated area, which then spills over to a few AN/I notices and a couple of unjustified blocks, lets say, is the original sock responsible? More than the other editors? I think there is no justification for that.
If you believe "artificial" is unclear, can you suggest a short phrase that makes the point that we do not wish people to use socks with the intent to lead to trouble that would not have happened if not for the sockpuppet feeding the fire?
As for your last paragraph, I suggest you don't make such broad, sweeping statements; they're not helpful, and so I will not respond to them other than to say that this entire page demonstrates that there is no such consensus as yet. Any attempts to claim that there is such a consensus will not decrease drama and controversy, but increase it. The wise course is to rewrite this policy conservatively. Relata refero (talk) 09:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

"Meatpuppet" bigotry

This somewhat ugly term is used within this sockpuppet article, and it causes a lot of guilt-by-association. Indeed, I've just been involved in an action in which a newbie name-user editor, who got into an edit war in which administrators were involved, was immediately accused of being a "sockpuppet" with a "single-purpose account" (something else that sounds on the face of it, like it's the worst thing in the world), then indefinitely-blocked. Not until I yelled about it on AN/I was anything done to deblock, and the admins involved are STILL defending their actions.

Now, all of that is prelude, since (as I well know) the section here contains injunctions not to do just what the administrators did. What I'm here to complain about, is the fact that the term "meatpuppet" is over-broad, and it seems to cover and deprecate things we really should not care about, or indeed, should encourage:

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

That's the language which needs to be qualified and clarified. I think it really should apply only to administrative matters. Clearly, a newbie would be totally inappropriate to solicit to join in an RfA (for example) or in any RfC reguarding some proposed change in arcane WikiPolicy. You need to have been around Wikipedia for a while, before you can reasonably comment on such matters. The current page has good language for reminding newbies of this, but the strong language (above) is presumably aimed at seasoned Wikipedians recruiting newbies for this sort of vote, when they (presumably) should know better.

However, I put the case that there are other areas of debate which it is totally appropriate to solicit new editors to join. These are areas of factual dispute, for which newbies may have just as much expertise, or more, as anybody "already" here. Why does anybody think that being a veterin of Wikipedia makes you smarter about the needed content of any given Wiki? So, are we to deliberately exclude newbies, and the recruiting of same, when they are needed? Upon what rational grounds? If you see an issue of mathematics or science or even religious observance being debated in which the debators are clearly clueless, and you know of a community of people who study the subject for a living, why should you not ask them to become Wikipedia editors and have a look at the area? That's the way a lot of us joined up, as this very article points out. Then, we branched out and found other interesting areas.

Now, here's the real problem: the line between factual content and wikipolicy can be blurry, just as (and for some of the same reasons) that an argue about factual matters can turn personal and angry and irrational. However, this by itself is not a reason not to bring others into the matter. Certainly, anybody bought in should declare conflicts of interested according to WP:COI ("Hello, I'm a professor of physics at user:JoeBlow's university, and I was asked by Joe to come here and give some textbook cites for ways of dealing with this type of heat transfer problem."). Is this a real thing to be considered highly inappropriate? I would say not. It's not a lot different from having some thesis advisers you choose present at your Ph.D defense. In areas of life where bias is unavoidable, we deal with it by lining up people with our views, and sending our manuscripts to Journal A, where they are known to be sympathetic to our views, instead of Journal B, where they certainly are not. What, are we going to AVOID doing this, knowing that it will certainly be done by anybody we're having some conflict with? That's a recipe for personal disaster, and it does not promote balance on Wikipedia. Instead, it converts Wikipedia into a place where "Old Hands" who know each other and already have cliques (they vote for each other's RfA's, and so on), get to rule.

In the case I was involved in (which I won't give details for because they detract from the argument-- feel free to ask if you're curious), 3 admins in a clique got into an edit war with a long-time editor (7,000 edits, 74 new articles), and first deleted his BIO for notability and accused him of self promotion (given as one reason for his later indefinite block), then (to add insult to injury) proceeded to go around and tag for notability-deletion and lack of citation, a number of BIOs and articles which the blocked editor had lately worked on. They also added permanent sprotects to these pages, with the explicit reason that not only had the editor been using "sock" ISPs to edit them (he'd been trying to add citations to clear the charges of lack of citation, the poor sucker), but also with the idea that he'd been recruiting "meatpuppets" to help his cause. The "cause" being the notability of the subjects and Bios that he'd been working on. It's pretty hard to defend yourself with factual evidence after you've been banned, and you've been enjoined not to get anybody else to newly edit, who shares your POV about the imporance of a given area of science. Apparently, only the POV of the admin clique who nailed this guy, is to "count." No protests from newbies to joggle our elbows. You see the problem.

In any case, I suggest we soften the language of the above passage. Wikipedia is a place where you can be temporarily blocked for replacing a page with something vulgar, but (oddly) you can be indefinately blocked after 7,000 good edits, for disagrement on a factual matter with two or more aministrators who cover each other's backs, and you have little support from anybody, because few people in your field are Wiki editors. That's basically what happened in this case. If I was a new editor here, I'd be blocked from fixing up the sprotected articles, too. Yeah, only for 4 or 5 days-- but it's the principle of the thing. And in any case, it's not the real issue. The real issue is how much we respect the opinions of new editors, in a encyclopedia in which (in theory) ANYBODY CAN EDIT. An edit IS an opinion. Just about ANY non-minor edit is an opinion and represents a POV. Perhaps that's what we haven't come to terms with, here. And so long as we're in denial of this, we'll simply leave all "say," in disputes, by default, to those who have been forming cliques here longer than anybody else, and who pretend to be impartial judges with NPOV. While all the while, behaving like a witch-hunting pack in full cry. SBHarris 23:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Can you tell us what case you're talking about? Hypotheticials or one-sided versions are not good bases for changing policy. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
It's the top of the AN/I board: "Newbie Casualty", about the blocking of user:StanPrimmer (see the TALK page). Full details there. The other blocked editor was the topic of the previous sections, now archived as the user:Ryoung122 case. SBHarris 23:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Major reports concerning Ryoung122:
So you're saying we should be more welcoming of an editor who Ryoung122 solicited to support his side of an editing dispute? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Please actually READ the article which talk page this is (the section is at WP:MEAT). It's not a blockable offense. And yes, according to the guidelines, you should be welcoming. Also, let me add that this wasn't really an editing dispute, but a factual dispute. These get turned into "editing disputes" by contentious Wikilawyers, so that they have an excuse to disregard the opinions of new editors. As I have explained, there is often no good logical or defensible reason to give a new editor's opinion less credit, so long as it doesn't involve knowledge of Wikipedia formalities. SBHarris 01:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree that we should be welcoming to new users who aren't causing problems. I don't think we should soften the language discouraging users from soliciting off-Wiki friends to join in order to support them in editing disputes. That's a form of canvassing. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
"Canvasing" suggests scraping up votes from people who agree with you. Since you've denied that disputes in Wikipedia are solved by democracy anyway, canvassing would appear a minor difficulty; you can't really have it both ways. The big problem with the word "puppet" in the term "meatpuppet", as I've pointed out below, is that the term itself suggests that meatpuppets have no free will, but are tools or creatures of somebody else, brainlessly parroting opinions. This is insulting and unbelievably egotistical, for it presumes that anybody who agrees with somebody who asked them to join an argument must be acting without any real original thought or original knowledge about the subject. Basically, you're suggesting that anybody who disagrees with you isn't thinking for themselves, which means they aren't thinking at all. This is not a view becoming of an adult. "Meatpuppet" is a highly derogatory and bigotted term for another human being who has a brain like yours, and who may well be smarter or better informed than you are, or both (you really don't know). The mere fact that he or she is NEW to the discussion, or was asked to join recently, means NOTHING about the quality of the opinion being offered. So why are you suggesting that it is? And why do we permit a term in Wikipedia which pretty much assumes that new editors solicited to give an opinion by somebody else, have nothing to say or add that is worth listening to?

If you're going to defend that point of view, I'm listening, and will be glad to debate it with you. Here's the place. And please don't bother with the wikirules argument. We've already agreed that newbies don't know as much about those, but most arguments don't involve those except peripherally. (Juries don't know the law, either, but this doesn't prevent their opinions from being sought). It could be an argument about general relativity or Jewish dietary law. Any needed help with wikirules can alway be provided by the many old hands always around in a given argument. SBHarris 19:35, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

How long has this last bit been in there about welcoming meatpuppets? I think that's a very bad idea. The vast majority of them just come and stir up trouble (even when they're right) and then disappear. I'd like to change that section, but welcome input before I do. IronDuke 02:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Like to come up with some evidence for your blanket opinion, there? Surely you can do better than "they're usually here only to cause trouble." Meaning to disagree with something you think? Gosh. SBHarris 19:35, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
If users are being recruited to win an edit war or to pipe in with "I agree" statements on talkpages, then there's no need to welcome them in any way. I have problems with the section as written, and hope that some clarity as to the intention with which recruitment takes place is made. I wouldn't want to exclude a situation in which people say "Oh, by the way, have a look at X article, its a mess" to a friend and then there's a giant series of blocks. There should be clear intent to gain some advantage through numbers. Relata refero 10:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
In this case, there was a very clear intent to gain advantage through numbers, and the new editor acknowledged that he had joined after reading Young's widely-circulated commentary in order to "to support his continued existence on wikipedia"[3]. Things have now moved on productively, but the initial suspicion of trouble seems well-founded.
In a discussion on my talk page (see User talk:BrownHairedGirl#Welcome_template), I suggested that we should have a specific welcome template for meatpuppets, making it clear that the welcome we extend does not include a welcome to engage in particular activities. The wording needs to be considered carefully, because it should not be hostile but it should also be clear about what isn't acceptable. Some of the language used in {{afdanons}} may be useful as an example of how to convey this. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I was thinking precisely the same thing, and indeed of the AfD example, which is the place where one generally comes across meatpuppets. Relata refero 11:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

(<-----outdent) BHG, that is a fantastic idea. Once implemented, the section in this article could just be modified to say "Leave the template" and then perhaps you could add any personal message you wanted (as consistent with all WP policies, of course). What about something like:


IronDuke 16:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

  • To SBHarris. Since Wikipedia content merely republishes existing reliable source material, Wikipedia generally does not need topic expert to assist in determining areas of factual dispute. There is no need to solicit an expert's opinion because the expertise is contained in the reliable source material, not in the Wikipedia looking to add original research or point of view content. Wikipedian's merely read what someone else wrote in a reliable source and summarize it in a Wikipedia article. You only need a sixth grade education for that. All sock puppet uses are forbidden and warrant aggressive approaches to protect the encyclopedia from their actions. Wikipedia does not distinguish between sock puppets and meat puppets and all meat puppet uses are forbidden. However, because meat puppets likely are saps lured into the sock puppet's conspiracy, a meat puppet's actions may not warrant aggressive approaches to protect the encyclopedia from their actions. -- Jreferee t/c 16:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
ANSWER Good god: "Wikipedian's merely read what someone else wrote in a reliable source and summarize it in a Wikipedia article. You only need a sixth grade education for that." You seem to be afflicted with a bad case of one of the conceits of journalism. Journalism is, as Linda Ellerbee reminds us, "…that profession whose business it is to explain that which it personally does not understand." Some journalists actually think they can do this remotely, by looking at references, and without any live consultation by people who actually do have command of the subject. Such journalists are so ignorant that they do not even know what they don't know. They are too common. They also populate Wikipedia, which is one reason it is held in such low regard by academia.

Hard example needed here. If it were really possible for any person with a sixth-grade education and a library to effectively edit any article, then it should be easy for you to demonstrate this. It would be helpful if you go to Dirac equation, and after adding some references (I can recommend Greiner's book on relativistic quantum mechanics, which is one I own [4]), then in the process you could perhaps fix up some problems we've been having there, in understanding the physical significance of the lower two components of the wavefunction spinor for a moving particle. Do these components *really* equal the upper ones, for particles with non-zero kinetic energy? I disagree with one editor on that point. Then, you can go to Rarita-Schwinger equation for high spin fermions, and add some badly needed expansion of one section, and some more references. Of course, you may be momentarily confused by a tag you'll soon encounter:

{{Expert-portal|Physics}}

But no problem. Just remove the tag, find whoever created it in the first place, and give them the "sixth-grade education lecture." Then, make them un-create it, as being contrary to the true spirit of Wikipedia, as you've been good enough to explain it to us here. I'll be following you along in your crusade, to see how you do.

As for your contention that meatpuppets are forbidden and equal to sockpuppets, FYI the WP:MEAT section does not say that. It says that it is considered "highly inappropriate" to recruit meatpuppets. However (and hence this discussion), it does not give adequate reasoning for this, and what it does give is either applicatory only to questions of wikipolicy, or else is unforgivably provincial:

Wikipedia has policies and processes to mitigate the disruption caused by meatpuppetry: 1. Consensus in many debates and discussions is not based upon number of votes, but upon policy-related points made by editors. Newcomers are unlikely to understand Wikipedia policies and practices, or to introduce any evidence that other users have not already mentioned.

If the last sentence is meant to refer to anything *other* than wikipolicy, I'd like somebody to defend it (good luck). And if not, then it gets us back to my original contention that newbies referred to as "meatpuppets" are really nothing more than expert second-opinions (which are expected to be backed up with references), sought by an editor who is having a difficicult time convincing other editors of the worth or truth of an argument. I cannot see why anything in particular should be wrong with that, since the attempt at persuation can only be made by appeal to reason.

Now, please contrast a meatpuppet opinion to the case where several editors follow another editor around, like dogs, making unfriendly or adversarial edits upholding the placement of unfriendly tags which have been placed on articles which the first editor didn't like. This kind of thing is not suation; it's simply enforcement of policy by means of force of numbers, without any need of explanation. It's only recognizable as a pattern. It really is highly inappropriate, for reasons which should be self-apparent. Such people may as well BE meatpuppets, except for a technicality that they weren't asked to join an argument or campaign, in any way which can be verified. But they might as well have been, for the impact they have. But there is no proscription against such group-action in this article. Or in Wiki guides at all, except perhaps for WP:DICK. Perhaps you can explain why? I'd be interested in your defense of this, also. Overall, you got some 'splainin' to do. SBHarris 01:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

This is getting a bit off topic, isn't it? And I really don't think there is any need for such hostility, is there? It can be said that in many areas, only "a sixth-grade education" (whatever that means) is necessary. Academic subjects, and especially the more complex areas of science, tend to be an exception. But as I said, this isn't really relevant to the discussion here. As for meatpuppets (I can't say I like the term either), in my experience, they are hardly ever experts. They usually come in order to espouse some particular and usually bad POV, and contribute essentially nothing to debates except for pointless arguments. They're quite common in pseudoscience articles, where supporters will recruit them to either repeat some opinion, criticize the other side, or write pages of gibberish explaining the 'theory'. Unfortunately, especially in high energy theory, a legitimate expert might recruit the help of other experts to help improve articles, and those experts might spend quite a bit of time writing what might seem like gibberish explaining the theories. It can be difficult for a layman to tell the two situations apart, and the former is far more common. We do need to work on making new users who come to help other editors more welcome, but we also need to remember that the vast majority of them will turn out to be POV-pushing SPAs, just as the majority of publicly undeclared or unassociated sockpuppets are probably used for abuse.
By the way: the Dirac equation article looks as though it would be rather easy to add references to. It probably doesn't have them because it's not a controversial subject and there are more pressing tasks to be done in the area. --Philosophus T 03:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Sure, there's a need for "hostility," if you mean strong disagreement with people doing harm to the work. It's really not directed at any particular editor, except as they represent a damaging viewpoint. I'd be the same with a spokeman for skinheads, but it's nothing personal. It's the viewpoint represented, that I dislike. I have a visceral dislike of the uneducated attitude that gives no respect for experts, from my time in as a doctor in an ER and a hospital, where I met with a river of narcisists who figured they were experts in driving or whatever stunt they'd last seen on TV, or just as much an expert in their own health as anybody else (wups, turned out they weren't, which was why they were in my hospital). In the larger world, I've watched the NASA bureaucrats fail to listen to their own engineering experts in launching shuttles on cold mornings (result: BANG), and our dear president Bush deciding to ignore all the "self-proclaimed experts" on climate change for 6 years, because he personally didn't like what they were saying. Especially Gore. Examples multiply, but yes, it pisses me off.

"We do need to work on making new users who come to help other editors more welcome, but we also need to remember that the vast majority of them will turn out to be POV-pushing SPAs, just as the majority of publicly undeclared or unassociated sockpuppets are probably used for abuse." Why don't you see if you can convince your fellow editors of this? I disagree with you about the last part (I don't think you can even DEFINE "abuse" when the subject is an ethical one and we can't even agree on who is an expert), but we're making progress.

As for the Dirac equation, it's badly in need of expert review, since it contains at least one inaccuracy (that spin comes out of the "marriage of relativity and quantum mechanics" --which can be seen to be false by taking the non-relativistic limit of Dirac and seeing that spin does not go away). And the second issue is the energy in the lower spinor indicies vs. the upper ones. I have one expert in print (Greiner) saying they are never equal for particles with kinetic energy, and I have an article editor (with no reference at all) claiming they are. Since I myself am certainly no an expert in the field, I'm myself in need of some real expertise and guidance in the matter, which I've asked for. That's how *I* work. But it doesn't seem to exist on wikipedia, which means I'd have to recruit it from a local physics department. So this really is topical. SBHarris 18:29, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Journalism is "…that profession whose business it is to explain that which it personally does not understand." A Wikipedia article need only accurately reflect what journalists and all other Wikipedia reliable sources say about a topic. Since Wikipedia does not get into whether that journalist "understood" the topic, Wikipedia has no need for expert meatpuppets. Hopefully, Citizendium will draw away from Wikipedia all the so-called "experts" to a place where they can use all the online dirty tricks to determine off Wikipedia who is the smartest and most importantest such that the winner of that battle may have their POV opinions published in Citizendium. -- Jreferee t/c 16:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Anybody who uses the term "so called experts" is usually somebody who doesn't believe there is such a thing as a true expert. That's fine, but I don't see you editing the Dirac equation article, as I suggested you do to prove your contention. What's the problem? Also, I'm curious as to what you do for a living? I should also remind you that it's not just Citizendium but also the Britannica which uses experts. Are you saying they are paying these guys to do something that 6th graders could do instead? Why would they do that? This is a very novel contention you have.

And by the way, you must know a group of people with 6th grade education which I don't. They can write good declarative sentences, structured topical paragraphs, and logically coherent essays? Hmmm. Doesn't ring a bell among the teachers I know. They should hire them to report for the New York Times! (Hmmm, that might explain some stuff). But anyway, please comment on why the world does things in ways you think are unnessary. SBHarris 18:03, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Suggested attention note for newbie meatpuppets

This is a little longer than the one above, but more complete and possibly more honest.

ATTENTION!

If you came to this page because someone asked you to, or because you saw a message on an online forum asking you to do so, please note that the Discussion Process is designed to determine the consensus of opinion of Wikipedia editors. Which in this context, doesn't really refer to you. This is not a vote, although you may wonder how consensus is to be determined without one. The answer is that consensus is whatever some administrator feels it is, after the administrator believes the argument has gone on for long enough. In the meantime, remember that you're not considered an editor due to the fact that you showed up only a short while ago. So, everyone is not really listening to anything you have to say, especially if they disagree with you. But don't take that as license to shout, or be rude, in order to be heard.

You are not barred from participating in the discussion, though the opinions of brand-new editors or anonymous IP addresses will not be given the same weight as those of established users (to say the least). This is because established users know more about everything than people who have recently arrived on Wikipedia. So, whether the discussion is about politics or science, sociology or theology or ethics, public figure notability or how an encyclopedia should be organized, you must realize that chances are excellent that whatever idea you come up with, will already have been thought of by an established editor. For this reason, the administrators (very special editors with police powers) have determined that, for simplicity, any number of new editors with the same opinion can be considered to be the same as just one person. Or less.

A gentle reminder about possible inconveniences: as a new editor, you may at first find yourself being blocked from any discussion, as a "sockpuppet." That means you have the same opinion as a disruptive editor who has previously been silenced, and thus have confused some administrator who thought that this opinion had been finally been removed. This is not their fault, but yours. If you can convince the community that you're a different person than the Blocked One, you may be unblocked, and then you may hear yourself referred to, as a "meatpuppet." This is a different term, but the "puppet" part of it is the same as in sockpuppet, and refers to the fact that you lost all of your free will when you were initially asked to come to Wikipedia to give your opinion. As a mere Tool, this puts you in the same category as (say) a child or a Republican or a Papist. Don't be dismayed, but realize that administrators, who are adults with the power to think independently, may act in concert to neutralize you, when you're disrupting the discussion process as an obvious puppet of any kind. You may thus notice that a number of administrators are acting in unison to revert your edits, or nominate your articles for deletion, or even adjust the situation so that only long-time editors or only just administrators can leave comments on a discussion page. Or, discussions may be moved to where they more difficult to locate, or else closed before you can give an idea you were thinking of. Don't take any of this personally, but see above for the likelihood that you had anything to add, anyway. The correct action against you is apparent from your behavior, and that's what makes it appear that lots of people have teamed up against you. But it's not so. Correct thinking always leads to the same correct action, and that is the real reason why there is the harmony you see.

Welcome to Wikipedia! SBHarris 03:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of accounts??

Surely this should be re-written, since according to the GFDL, accounts cannot be deleted, due to the GFDL requirements?? I would have thought changing it to blocked indefinitely was the correct thing. Any thoughts?? --Solumeiras talk 13:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Accounts can be deleted, but that may require more than compliance with the Sock puppetry policy. Plus it might be better to keep misused alternate accounts rather than delete them to allow for potential, future suspected alternate account / sock puppet determinations. I removed that portion from the policy. Also, I took out the send the matter to WP:MfD option since deletion of a user account at MfD because of its content and deletion of an alternate account for misuse seem different issues and might cause confusion at MfD (which mostly deals with content issues). -- Jreferee t/c 16:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Surely MfD is for deletion of the user page, not the account itself? As Solumeiras suggests, I'm rather certain that actually deleting any account that has non-reverted, significant edits would cause significant legal liability for the project. --Philosophus T 07:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

/Notes for the suspect policy

Is Wikipedia:Sock puppetry/Notes for the suspect policy? I assumed it was, since it's a sub-page of policy and it sure talks like policy ("you are not allowed to" etc.). So I put a "policy" tag on it. Then people complained about it (the page more than the policy tag) but didn't actually edit it, so I figured there wasn't consensus for it and removed the policy tag again. —Ashley Y 19:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Segregation and security

I think this wording sucks:

A person editing an article which is highly controversial within his/her family, social or professional circle may wish to use an alternate account so that readers unfamiliar with NPOV policy will not assume his/her information edits are statements of personal belief.

It opens the door for people to create a sock account to push a conflict of interest POV. I think it should say something more like:

A person whose real world identity is widely known and editing an article which may impact on their personal or professional reputation may use an alternate account for this purpose; they are recommended to inform the Arbitration Committee of this.

Everyone thinks their POV is NPOV, nobody can independently judge the neutrality of their own contributions. An example: the policy as written would explicitly allow THF to register a sock account to edit areas where his employer is actively lobbying, because knowing who he is will invite criticism of his editing the subjects. The ArbCom case on this closed early due to THF's retirement, but the proposed findings at closure clearly indicated that THF editing these articles was generally inappropriate, so encouraging the use of an alternate account in order to do so (as this wording currently does) is completely the wrong idea, to say nothing of WP:BEANS. Guy (Help!) 11:16, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

All OK except for "widely known" which is fuzzy. Alternatives? Relata refero (talk) 11:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
This does only make sense if your main account uses your real name. It needs to be reworded accordingly. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

A person whose main account is his real name, and editing an article which may impact on their personal or professional reputation may use an alternate account for this purpose; they are recommended to inform the Arbitration Committee of this.

A person's real-world identity could be discerned from their account by other means than the user name, or it might have been disclosed. Also, the harm could be wider than reputational. So how about this (and sorry for the clunky pronouns)?

Where editors' real-world identity is apparent from or has been associated with their primary account, they may use an alternate account to edit articles, if they reasonably fear harassment, harm to personal or professional reputation, or other unfair consequences should they be associated with the articles. It is recommended that they inform the Arbitration Committee of their actions.

Incidentally, some day we may want to recognize the right of people to protect an off-Wikipedia virtual identity, and not just a "real" identity. For example, a restaurant critic known as the "secret diner" might want to post here as such, but also edit articles on junk food.Wikidemo (talk) 20:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
I think that wording is a bit too permissive and broad. The basic criteria for allowing an alternate account should along these lines:
  • A user's main account clearly discloses their real-life identity. I agree with Guy that the real-life identity needs be widely-known for this to apply.
  • Alternate account is never used for editing articles that the main account edits. This should be obvious, but still needs to be explicitly stated.
  • Alternate account is limited to main namespace (including talk). There's a tradeoff between allowing alternate accounts and preventing them from being misused. This seems a sensible restriction that helps to ensure a net benefit to the project.
  • ArbCom should be informed of the alternate account. I'm going to go further that "recommend" and say that the ArbCom should be informed of alternate accounts in virtually all circumstances. If the user chooses not to inform the ArbCom and the alternate account is discovered, the user will need to provide an extremely good reason why it wasn't disclosed. Chaz Beckett 14:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
There's absolutely no consensus for that. Relata refero (talk) 20:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
OK...but I never implied there was consensus. I was just giving my opinion on how/when I think alternate accounts should be allowed. Chaz Beckett 20:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I know, I'm really sorry if I sounded snappish. Relata refero (talk) 21:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Ok, as a sock who uses this part of the current policy, I'll give my opinions:
  • The widely known requirement shouldn't be there. Apart from it being terribly subjective, there are many reasons why someone who isn't widely known would need to use multiple accounts in this way. For example, I'd really rather that my family not know the sorts of edits I make with this and my other non-real-name sock. Similarly, someone who has a desire to go into politics in the future probably doesn't want people to know about their NPOVing of pedophilia articles.
  • Accidents happen sometimes in the mainspace. I know I've had a few edits I've accidentally made with my sock in article space where my other account has also edited (Oversight wasn't around at the time, either). Also, large WP-space pages like 3RR, ANI, the Ref Desks, and other such places can present a need for editing with both accounts. Obviously, editing with both accounts on the same issue would be dishonest. But making the restriction entirely dependent on pages would mean that
  • As said before, limiting to article space only is entirely unacceptable. This has been explained repeatedly. Am I expected to pop up, with an account that's never edited articles on pseudoscience, and file a 3RR report on an pseudoscience article where my sockpuppet just happens to be mediating? The same issue arises in so many situations: warnings on user talk pages? Notes to other users? The sock's own user page? And what about policy that would only apply to the sockpuppet's interest? For example, I wouldn't discuss WP:FRINGE with my main account.
  • Informing ArbCom seems as if it might be acceptable, but if that's done, why do all the other restrictions need to be in place? Furthermore, if all of the other restrictions are there, aren't honest sock user who want to be effective Wikipedia editors doing themselves a disservice by essentially crippling their socks to the point of uselessness? Also, how will this list be protected? If there are 3000 editors with alternate accounts for privacy, I could spend, say, $30,000 on procuring a copy through dishonest means, and would only need to extort $1000 each from 1% of the editors in order to break even.
On the whole, I'm confused as to why you're making these suggestions here, when the exact same ones seem to have been made earlier on the page, and discussed to a great extent. I've made all of these responses before within the last week. We don't want this talk page to become an infinite loop... but unfortunately I'm just contributing to it... --Philosophus T 09:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, suggestions such as these have been discussed and probably will be continued to be discussed until there's some sort of consensus on how to proceed. People are of course free to respond to or ignore anything they wish.
  • By "widely-known" I meant (and I think Guy meant) that it is common knowledge that Wikipedia editor X is real-life person Y. Just knowing that Wikipedia editor X might have the initials JS or such wouldn't constititute a link to their real-life identity. I didn't mean that the real-life identity has to be famous or widely-known by the general public.
  • If the purpose of an alternate account is to edit articles that might have adverse consequences for the main account, wouldn't the main account avoid editing such articles? Sure, an accident might happen occasionally, but the important thing would be to adhere to the spirit of the rule, which to keep the edits segregated. There would only be cause for concern if "accidents" started becoming common behavior.
  • I think we're going to have to agree to disagree in general on the restriction to mainspace, but I should have included user and user talk as acceptable areas to edit. The point of this rule would be to keep the alternate account focused on its reason for existence, editing articles a user doesn't want associated with their main account. There's simply too much room for abuse and misuse if an alternate account is a free pass to edit in any namespace without connection to the main account.
  • I consider informing ArbCom of the alternate account to be a necessary, but not a sufficient condition. ArbCom doesn't have the time to constantly monitor every sockpuppet, so having other guidelines is still important. I have to say I find it extremely farfetched that a list of alternate accounts would be procured in order to blackmail users.
  • Again, these are just my opinions; I'm not making any assertion that these represent a consensus view. Chaz Beckett 13:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
"There's simply too much room for abuse and misuse if an alternate account is a free pass to edit in any namespace without connection to the main account." Could you substantiate? That seems a little woolly. Relata refero (talk) 19:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Sure. The whole point of a legitimate alternate account is to permit an editor to segregate edits to certain articles that he/she believes might negatively impact their real-life identity. If the editor starts editing outside of the mainspace, especially in policy-related areas, I'd consider this to be misuse of the account. If the editor is using the account for vote-stacking or otherwise assisting their main account, I would consider this to be abuse. I view alternate accounts as a trade-off between freedom and responsibility. An alternate account should be used for a specific purpose and should not be used simply as a second account. It should also be expected that when a user is granted the additional freedom to use such an account, they'll use it only to benefit the project. Chaz Beckett 21:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Naturally we agree with you about vote-stacking, but certain policy-related pages are closely related to certain article interests, aren't they? Someone interested in writing trivia sections for public access pornogaphy shows is likely to have a few things to say about policy about trivia and/or notability, isn't he? Naturally, all accounts should benefit the project. Relata refero (talk) 06:43, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Why would an alternate account be needed to edit a policy page on trivia? How would this type of editing possibly lead to real-life consequences? I don't see a compelling reason why the main account couldn't be used for this purpose. Chaz Beckett 08:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Err, public access pornography trivia, was the example I gave. It is obvious to most people why an alternate account would be used. Relata refero (talk) 08:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
The trivia policy page does not deal specifically with pornography. Sorry, I still don't find this type of editing would benefit Wikipedia. Chaz Beckett 09:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
No, it doesn't. But, firstly, it is obvious that you would want to use the account that edits trivia in articles to edit trivia policy, and secondly, using your main account instead to argue in favour of policy that would benefit your alternate account's interests is even more abusive. Relata refero (talk) 09:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Chaz, I gave specific examples of times when privacy-motivated socks need to edit outside of article and article talk space, such as 3RR, ANI, policy that only the sock would be interested in, and collaboration with other users on user talk pages. Could you please respond to these concerns? --Philosophus T 08:30, 21 November 2007
I mentioned above that user and user talk would be acceptable in my opinion. As for the other examples, I still see too much room for misuse. For example, reporting 3RR violations of users the main account has had conflicts with would be something I'd consider misuse. Again, I see a tradeoff here, with some restrictions placed on the alternate account in exchange for not being linked to the main account. It's unfortunate that sockpuppets have been widely misused (and often abused) in the past, but it's a reality we must take into account when considering policy. Chaz Beckett 08:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Of the only example you give, reporting a 3RR violation against a user your other account is in dispute with is already considered abusive. Hence we are back to Philosophus' examples, which you have not responded to, and mine. Relata refero (talk) 08:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I think a sockpuppet should focus solely on articles. There's very few instances where a user needs to edit outside mainspace and userspace. I think there's more benefit to Wikipedia if the alternate account is restricted to these namespaces. That's my opinion; you and others may (and obviously do) disagree. I don't think we're going to convince each other so this will be my last response on this point. Chaz Beckett 09:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I thought I would try asking it in a different way, that doesn't involve the disagreement: since this account is an alternate account, what should I do when an editor who edits the same pages starts going out of control, or an edit war starts in an article I'm involved in? --Philosophus T 06:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • This policy addresses the use of two or more accounts. Two accounts should not be used by one person in direct or indirect support of each other. "Support" is the key. There probably are ways an alternate account and a main account can edit the same article without consensus determining that they have done so in support of each other. We should not get into too many prohibitions when it comes to an alternate account. We're not talking about a sock. A person misusing an alternate account still receives the benefit of the assume good faith policy. -- Jreferee t/c 21:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • A sock is the same as an alternate account, though. Most of the time the term "sockpuppet" is used as shorthand for "abusive sockpuppet", but they're not one and the same. Chaz Beckett 21:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Looking at this talk page, it appears that when valid examples are cited, the people advocating the prevention of deliberately disconnected alternate accounts consistently ignore them and move on to a new section to reiterate their position without discussing the examples given. I'm still waiting for any response from the circumstances outlined at the bottom of #Undeclared sock puppets are mostly trouble. As long as both accounts obey the current rules, I don't believe that there is any justification for defining areas of wikipedia that the alternate accounts are not permitted to edit. --AliceJMarkham (talk) 00:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Unfortunately, I'm seeing this too, and it's making me rather dismayed by the whole discussion. However, considering that the discussion is just becoming a giant mess, it's not at all certain that any well-supported proposals are going to come out of it at all, so I'm not too concerned. Besides, it might be rather amusing to be blocked for reverting vandalism of a policy page, or reporting an legitimate incident to ANI... --Philosophus T 08:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I've just had to put in a reminder in at least one section above. Relata refero (talk) 08:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Up to a point. It's important to remember that use of alternate accounts is not (or should not be) widespread, and the major use is abusive. Of course there are valid examples, and there are valid examples in the text of the policy right now, but there is also gaming of the system. It's important to reinforce that there should be a clear benefit to the encyclopaedia form use of an alternate account. I am not alone in thinking that advancing a controversial policy agenda, for example, is not a clear benefit to the encyclopaedia, as (among other things) it unfairly penalises those who are willing to do so using their main Wikipedia identity. Guy (Help!) 10:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
    • The "sockpuppet" vs "abusive sockpuppet" vs "alternate account" distinction is rather disputed and inconsistent. The last time a major revision was made to SOCK (which was a disaster and was reverted because of infiltration), "sockpuppet" was used only for abusive uses, and "alternate account" was used for the general term. Unfortunately, the non-policy parts of that revision, like SUSPSOCK, stayed, and so now some pages use "sockpuppet" as the general term and some use it only for abusive accounts. Most editors seem to use it for both, but generally in a derogatory fashion. I've tried to make this consistent several times in the past, but my attempts have always been unsuccessful because few people are concerned about the matter. --Philosophus T 08:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the terminology should be consistent. We should choose one interpretation and stick with it. It makes the most sense to define sockpuppet as only the disallowed form of alternate account, which conforms to the common understanding of the term. The alternative, to define sockpuppet as alternative account, reserves two terms for the same thing without leaving a useful term for what it is we're trying to prohibit. "Abusive" is not a very good descriptor because we are prohibiting a wide range of things that are not strictly speaking abusive. Wikidemo (talk) 15:43, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Widely known

To focus some discussion on this specific issue, the risk to one's personal safety, reputation, and livelihood is not closely related to the extent to which one's real-world identity is widely known. If a wife leaves a husband because he edits articles on cross-dressing, the issue is not how many other people know. People also fear stalkers, harassers, jealous exes, bosses who may fire them, creditors and other litigants, co-workers planning sabotage and other editors seeking to expose and discredit. People in some positions (police, lawyers, physicians, schoolteachers, politicians) cannot afford to have anything scandalous come out because it could ruin their career, and if a single opponent finds out after dogged investigation, their career may be over. It's not whether the identity is already known but that it's knowable, a bona fide risk of discovery. Nor is it the number of people who know so much as the consequences of anybody knowing. This is a very real problem on the net and it happens regularly. But it's not something we want to get involved in investigating and passing judgment. We therefore have to assume good faith. If someone is ready to stand up and say, confidentially to ArbCom from their main account, "I honestly, truly fear that my good faith editing in area X would create an unacceptable risk to my real-world life" we should trust that. At most we can ask for them to provide a confidential explanation but not question them further. Wikidemo (talk) 00:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Encouraging leavers to come back with a new account

I noticed certain messages on the user talk pages of some "high standing" users who have sworn to leave Wikipedia permanently, which are along the lines of "So sorry to see you leave. I suggest you make a clean start by editing under a new account."

Why would those users want to leave such messages on their pages? Users like RickK and badlydrawnjeff come to mind.--Alasdair 11:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the point is that there are some users who, if they had to stop editing with their for certain reasons, might be able to edit perfectly well with another, unlinked account. I recall this suggestion being made to several of the very respected editors who had their identities revealed quite a while ago by Brandt, for example: while the attack might have made further editing with their former accounts impossible, creating new accounts and starting again was an option. The question here is how far we want to go with this. A year or two ago, it seemed that, if a respected editor was humiliated, disgraced, or attacked in some way that made remaining on Wikipedia socially difficult, but hadn't done anything to be banned, making a clean start with a new account was often considered perfectly respectable, and even encouraged. Now that same practice is believed by many to be dishonest and even forbidden, even when the editor in question hasn't been disgraced. Cultures are ever changing things. Both beliefs lead to situations that seem undesirable. I personally think that the real change isn't quite so drastic, but is unwritten: in the past, the practice was "acceptable," and abusers were banned when caught, while now, the practice is "not acceptable," and good editors are overlooked when caught. --Philosophus T 09:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Not quite, I think the assumption now is vaguely paranoid, that anyone who clearly was here before was banned earlier. It is frankly a rather silly way to operate an encyclopaedia edited mainly by anons. Relata refero (talk) 10:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
We ask them to come back because we benefit from their contributions. 1 != 2 09:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes. But this is not really a problem, since those people left in good standing, their original accounts are not blocked, and they are only using one account at a time, rather than using two or more accounts more or less contemporaneously. It would be good to turn down the paranoia a notch, and a good first step would be for those Wikipedians who are active on Wikipedia Review to persuade their friends there to stop sockpuppeting. It would also be useful if clearly-not-new editors would confirm their prior identity via a trusted third party (e.g. ArbCom). Guy (Help!) 08:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

this policy is being applied unevenly

People in favour are being allowed alternate accounts, but other people not so favoured are being banned or having their accounts blocked even if they've not been used disruptively, IMHO, or have been open about using them. When it suits, it's bad for an individual to have sockpuppets at all and could be a major part of the grounds for them being blocked, whereas others are allowed the (in my view, reasonable) interpretation of the policy, that sockpuppets are ok for various reasons or in various circumstances. Obviously I don't know all the ins and outs of each individual case, but that's what seems to be happening. There's a lot of banning and unbanning going on around this issue, a major way to create Fear, uncertainty, and doubt.Merkinsmum (talk) 01:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

  • It will depend on the use to which the account is put. If there is a clear benefit to the encyclopaedia form the use (such as people who want to work on the neutrality of articles on paedophilia or the far-right without exposing an account whose real world identity is known) then there should be no problem. People who register a second account just to advance contentious opinions on policy, they will have a problem, and rightly so. Can you give an example of someone you think is receiving this uneven treatment due to being out of favour? Guy (Help!) 08:46, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Well for a start User:Lindosland who commented on 25th september further up. If he had been one of the 'in-crowd' he would just have been allowed his sockpuppet which was in accordance with policy.Merkinsmum (talk) 14:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Why dies he need a second account? It's not obvious to me. Guy (Help!) 22:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  • An alternate account is a tool. Most editors do no use this obscure tool. If you misuse the alternate account tool, action may be taken to prevent further misuse. Assuming no other causes for concern, that editor would still have full editing rights from that editor's main account. Policies are applied per person, not per account. Since the person still has full editing rights from the main account and so few people use alternate accounts, taking action against an alternate account has minimal effect on that person and even less effect on Wikipedia as a whole. -- Jreferee t/c 17:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
How would you know whether a large number of users had or didn't have alternate accounts?Merkinsmum 01:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

An idea

Instead of telling people all the different types of bean they may not stuff up their noses, and listing the other places they may not stuff beans, why not get right back to brass tacks and just say that unless you have a really good reason that's of obvious benefit to the content of the encyclopaedia you should just stick with one account? Guy (Help!) 09:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I can see your point, but whether something is of benefit/not of benefit to the encyclopedia is a subjective judgement and as such is open to abuse. Unless an account is used solely for vandalism, vote stacking or reverting etc on something to which the user is a regular contributor, and so on, then it is making contributions to content. Some people don't feel able to comment on certain subjects under a screen name by which they might be known to family, friends etc. If having an alternate account means they make contributions they otherwise would not, then it is of use to the content of the encyclopedia.Merkinsmum (talk) 14:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Sure. Clear and obvious benefit to the project, no problem there. But you're right, the major problem always is and always will be gaming of the system. Guy (Help!) 14:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Adding username

A few comments. First, we might want to refer to an alternate account as being an "additional username" to be consistent with Wikipedia:Changing username. Two accounts can be use in an alternate manner (as "alternating accounts") or use in a serial manner (as a "disused account" (see Wikipedia:Changing username) and an "account"). Second, we have Wikipedia:Changing username, why can't we also have Wikipedia:Adding username. As Guy points out, an "additional username" is for legitimate purposes just like changing one's username to a "different username" is for legitimate purposes. Also, to effectively administer Wikipedia, contributions made by one person (including deleted contributions) need to be attributed to one person. All additional usernames not approved by Wikipedia:Adding username may treated as sock puppet accounts (and all uses of sock puppet accounts are forbidden). In addition to the reasons now contained in the sock puppetry policy, some of the reasoning at When changing usernames is probably appropriate applies to alternate accounts. Third, we should move the alternate account info out of this policy and make a Wikipedia:Adding username guideline and implementation scheme similar to Wikipedia:Changing username. Fourth WP:BEANS seems very appropriate. There are no other behavior policies that give such line-in-the-sand instructions that show disruptive users how to have one foot on the prohibited side and one foot on the allowed side so that when challenged by an admin they can point to their foot on the allowed side and claim to be doing nothing wrong. -- Jreferee t/c 17:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppets may not be used for policy debates

In the Privatemusings ArbCom case (closing soon), the committee has clarified that sockpuppets may not be "...used in discussions internal to the project, such as policy debates." Note that in this context, "sockpuppets" are referring to alternate accounts in general, as the next sentence explicitly refers to "abusive sockpuppets". What's the best way to integrate this restriction into the text of the policy? My opinion is that it would belong in the "Inappropriate Uses" section. Thoughts? Chaz Beckett 17:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think so. We should take pains not to report the ArbCom ruling more broadly than it was intended. If someone has an alternate account for a legitimate reason (say, they've been harassed for their participation on a subject) it's probably legitimate for them to use that account to discuss policy issues related to that subject. The ruling would seem to make no exception for this, but I'm guessing that ArbCom would not fault a user under that circumstance.Wikidemo (talk) 18:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I have to disagree here. The ruling is quite explicit and an additional clarification on the case's talk page reiterates that this is the ArbCom's "...interpretation of the spirit and intent of the policy." I would expect that a user would privately request that the ArbCom make an exception if their particular situation warranted it. Chaz Beckett 19:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Bollocks. ArbCom doesn't make policy, it interprets and clarifies it. The community, on policy talkpages, is not bound by ArbCom's interpretations of policy in any way. We are free to rewrite policy to clarify that ArbCom was mistaken, if necessary. Relata refero 08:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
And we are also free to agree with ArbCom :-) Creating an alternate account with no link to the mian account, and using it only for policy debate, is probably not that helpful. As we saw with Privatemusings, in fact. Guy (Help!) 10:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I think most people agree on that point. However, the ArbCom wording goes further than that, and could be construed as forbidding me from dealing with policy. Then again, I can just rely on IAR and (hopefully) not being disruptive, and I doubt any legitimate editor would try to have me banned for my policy edits. --Philosophus T 10:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not entirely clear on whether your Philosophus account is an alternate account or not, but I would definitely consider !voting in an RfA to be violate the spirit (and quite likely the letter) of the sockpuppet policy. Of course, if this account is your main account, there's no problem. Chaz Beckett 13:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The "Characteristics of sock puppet" paragraph

Would anyone say this paragraph could need a slight rewrite? Just because a user shows familiarity with Wikipedia and its editing processes doesn't mean the user is always a sockpuppet. The user themselves could be a friend of another editor (not a meatpuppet, although it's fair to say that some meatpuppets might also be trained in Wikipedia policy too, I assume).

Should we try and rewrite this so it's WP:AGF-friendly? I don't want to get into an edit war over this, just have some reasoned debate. Thanks, --Solumeiras talk 11:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The quoted section is really advice on how people can go on troll patrol, and maybe this is the wrong place to be giving that advice. It's true that a brand new single-purpose account member who knows a lot about Wikipedia and immediately jumps into an old edit war is setting off bells and alarms. But it's also true that a few people get falsely accused. Maybe we can concentrate on simply advising people what they can and can't do, and leave the advice to another page.Wikidemo (talk) 11:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • As it was, I speak from experience. A friend of mine taught me about Wikipedia in 2005, and I did some IP editing at odd points in the past, before getting this account. At my RfA under my previous username of SunStar_Net, people accused me of being a sock puppet, despite the fact another editor taught me about Wikipedia and suggested I edit here. I agree about the suggestion of leaving the advice to another page: what the page title should be is another matter. --Solumeiras talk 12:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Question (2)

Is it rude to create multiple accounts just to prevent vandals from creating them? TobytheTramEngine 17:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see. TobytheTramEngine 19:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Main vs alternate.

I have 2 accounts. One that is in my real name and is used within a range of subjects, and this one, which is used for a different range of subjects. This account has a smaller edit count, but this one has a higher profile because I'm more involved in WP: areas with this account. Is there anything to prevent me from declaring that this is my main account and that the other account is my alternate account? --AliceJMarkham 03:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet and meatpuppet confusion

Since there is ample evidence that Wikipedia uses the term "meatpuppet" in its own idiosyncratic way (just type in the word "meatpuppet" as a searchterm to see this), I was particularly interested that as a reference to back up the badness of meatpuppets in THIS policy article (WP:SOCK), an ArbCom ruling was actually misquoted, in order to make a ruling that actually involved and named "sockpuppets" appear to apply to "meatpuppets."

I'm actually still waiting to hear why "meatpuppets" (as they are here termed) are so inappropriate to all areas of argument on Wikipedia. I've suggested that what is actually being proposed, by those who deprecate "meatpuppetry," is that meatpuppets are to be viewed as actual zombies-- puppets on strings. That is, even though they are acknowledged as real people in the real world, what is being proposed (without really coming out with it, explicitly) is that these new editors on Wikipedia are to be treated here (in a formal way, complete with an idiosyncratic bigoted term which does NOT Assume Good Faith) as creatures with no free will. Which is to say, as creatures who are not to be considered adults, and thus with no way to act with a full measure of majority, in their own behalf, and in their own best interests. See "guardianship" or "conservatorship."

We would be highly incensed about this (especially if it involved voting), if somebody suggested it might be a standard to be applied to all members of a Republican family who were recruited after their patriarch voted for George W. Bush (say). Or applied to democrats recruited from whereever it is that voters in voting drives find democrats (spare me). But here on Wikipedia, it's just assumed that the basic idea of a recruited opinion being suspect, is correct, and par for the course.

Apparently, people who uphold it, are so embarrassed about it, that they fear having a debate about it. Perhaps for fear of being shown to be guilty of the assumption that those who disagree with them, and are ALSO new to a venue of discussion, must be brain-damaged. Or at least, not firing on all cylinders.

No? Okay, I'll Assume Good Faith. Tell me then please, therefore, what I'm missing. Let me have your best argument: 1) in favor of the term "meatpuppet," as Wikipedia idiosyncratically uses it (i.e., as applying to newly "recruited" real persons with their own opinions), and 2) after that, in favor of why the official policy on "meatpuppetry" (in the Wikipedia sense) is what it is. Something I'm having trouble ascertaining in and of itself, since as the policy stands, about all that the policy says is that it's considered "highly inappropriate" to "recruit" meatpuppets ("recruit being another highly loaded-word which I'd like you to defend, please). But the policy doesn't really say why it's so inappropriate, or who decided this.

I suppose we're all presumed to know why.

Well, I don't. It's not obvious to me, and I don't mind admitting it. I've already noted that I understand why its might be "adjusted for" so to speak, in terms of debate about Wikipedia policy which a newbie could not be expected to have full command of. But that's a simple thing, and even when it's being done, presumably it will be done transparently, no?

We gently explain to newbies why some proposed wikifix won't work. But for all other matters debated on Wikipedia (and there are many), perhaps somebody will take a bit of time here, and explain this "meatpuppet" policy to me. In little short words, as appropriate for a person of my limited understanding? Thank you. SBHarris 07:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello? This "official policy of Wikipedia" (which seems never to have been carefully thought out in the first place) has nobody willing and able to defend it? If nobody's willing to, I'm just going to be bold and change it. This here's the TALK page, where we're supposed to give warnings of that. If you'd rather have a full RfC or request for arbitration in the matter, I can do that. What say you? SBHarris 21:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


RfC: Should "meatpuppet" remain a term and policy?

I'm having difficulty getting anybody to defend the idea that new editors, if "recruited" for their opinions, should be treated as zombies or sockpuppet accounts. Do we really want this as policy? SBHarris 02:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Find something better. DurovaCharge! 02:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

  • If you mean come up with a better idea, my "idea" is just to let this MEAT policy go, and delete it. If we pretend that we're not "voting" in certain places in Wikipedia when we "really" are, and this kind of thing can be called "votestacking" and exposes it, then that's our problem for lying to ourselves. Don't claim something isn't a democracy (see WP:DEMOCRACY for the claim), then get outraged when somebody acts to "pervert" your democratic process! Either have it one way or the other, but tell yourself the truth first, before you go on to tell others. This is a great timesaver. (I don't mean you personally, Durova, I mean this "you" as an expostory "you" which applies just as well to me and to everybody).

    In places where we do have frank votes, plain sockpuppetry of the ordinary variety is cheating. I think we can agree to that. But that's about it. The rest of the stuff is just complaining that some group of foreign people is coming in with different opinions, here to "ruin the neighborhood." Well, my friends, welcome to society! It hardly matters if these people are newbies or if they've been here all along, now does it? If they're separate people and they outnumber you, and they don't have your tastes, then you're sort of stuck with them, yes? Are you going to try to lord it over them as a minority? This kind of complaining goes all ALL the time about Wikipedia content (Why is there so much crap about TV and sci-fi and Pokemon, blah, blah). Well, it's because you're outnumbered here on the internet by people who don't have your interests. And as you get older, it only gets worse! Get used to it! Grow up, now that you're getting old! Stop being (at worst) an OLD FART (say, where is WP:OLDFART when you need it)? This controversy will continue, but don't use policies like WP:MEAT to further your attempts to be "more classy" by having a poll tax or any exclusions at the poll, except aimed at people trying to vote twice. That way lies (as I said) bigotry. Since it's WP:NOT paper, there's enough room in Wikipedia for the interests of just about everybody of good will. Even if some of them want a page for every Pokemon or stupid member of the Royal Family of Buttcrackavia. Or person who made it to 110 years old. So WHAT? Have we not got better content-related things to argue about than RfD's on stuff we're not interested in? SBHarris 02:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

It's a knotty one. When web forums post links asking their members to come and save their vanity articles at AfD then we can simply ignore them, but Gastrich's meatpuppets were exactly that. I do think that "editing by proxy on behalf of..." although it is more wordy is less offensive. Guy (Help!) 23:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps a "proxy editor"? --Philosophus T 01:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
The rules about meatpuppetry have often been interpreted as "when newbies act in this certain way, disregard the fact that they are real people and treat them like sockpuppets instead". This is a bad perspective to take. Of course you should disregard their votes if someone has recruited them to vote stack, but that shouldn't be held against them in any other way. Many Wikipedians create accounts because they want to vote on some issue, but go on from there to discover the joy of watchlists and logged-in editing, and branch out to other areas of Wikipedia. (I'm an example.)
So, I've long believed that the term "meatpuppet" should be done away with, as it is an unnecessarily derogatory label for people who are ordinary newbies in almost all aspects. Recruiting people to support you is bad behavior, but it makes little sense to blame someone for being recruited. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 23:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
This is somewhat complex because some proxy editors can be turned into productive ones, and others can't. I once had a forum gather members solely to vandalize my user page and a particular article, and I doubt that those editors should have been treated as ordinary newbies. On the other hand, I have seen users that were convinced to edit particular articles for whatever reason, and ended up becoming good editors. As I suggested above, "proxy editor" might be a better term. As for treatment, it would probably be best to leave that up to individual circumstances. Misguided proxy editors can generally be distinguished from purely disruptive ones, and the disruptive ones can usually be blocked or banned regardless of SOCK. --Philosophus T 01:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi SBHarris, I'm all for democracy in real life and stuff... but when it come to Wikipedia, I think Fascism should be the new standard. When you login, I think new account should be forced to upload a picture of themselves... with a finger print, verified and signed by an international Wikipedia officer (Free of charge!). You must register! Papers! Papers! Plus, every editor should be segregated by ethnic, cultural, racial, and religious attributes to help us in pre-determining who will have some wild ideas on certain subjects... Oh wait! Aren't we already a type of Fascism with Jimmy at the helm! Never mind. B.t.w.: The article here on wiki about Fascism even states "Fascism universally dismissed the Marxist concept of "class struggle", replacing it instead with the concept of "class collaboration"." ... "Wikipedia... the class collaboration!" Now where have I seen that rule before? A form of collectivism? Or is it more Communism? We're all paid the same here right? You did get you Wikipedia Stamps in the mail? (lol). In short! If we're going to be Facist... (as what appears to be the Status Quo) then let's do it and segregate those (FLAME START) Evil no good Proxies (END FLAME). Otherwise I think we should (EXCUSE THE FLAME TERM) bend over and let them screw us!(END OF FLAME) --CyclePat (talk) 05:13, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure what that was all about, but there are some surprisingly strong feelings against a policy that's meant to counter real incidents that can be terribly disruptive to the encyclopedia and people working on it. One side effect of opening Wikipeida, or any website, up to public participation is that you get all kinds of mischief. Any site that totally ignores this issue will die. There is hardly a public institution on earth without some locks, rules, and security. So it is here, online. Wikidemo (talk) 16:19, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Alternate accounts in diplomacy

This is where I disagree with alternate accounts not being allowed to comment on some policy etc pages. Say you have a user on wiki who you regard as a sort of Wikifriend and colleague in your work on Wikipedia. You wish to retain your friendship/working relationship with them, but in certain completely unrelated articles or disputes etc in which you haven't been personally involved, you think that their conduct has been not so good. Using another account would enable you to give your opinions on any RfC, ANI or such in which they may be involved, whilst not risking jeopardising your friendship. I think women in particular might use an alternate account in this way as we tend to dislike risking our friendships, but on the other hand being wikipedians we often have a (hopefully valuable) opinion and point of view. As such, it encourages contributions which otherwise wouldn't be made.Merkinsmum 01:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

  • That's a terrible idea. Much better to email them privately. Guy (Help!) 13:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Any friendship that requires that amount of deception to maintain is pretty hollow. Reasonable people can disagree respectfully. DurovaCharge! 10:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • That's essentially using the account for deception, which seems like a rather odd argument for alternate accounts; actually, I'm not sure that use would have been allowed even when the policy was more lenient. There are other arguments for allowing alternate accounts to edit policy that have been explained previously on this talk page. However, even I will agree that most alternate accounts probably shouldn't under most circumstances, and certainly shouldn't do so with the intent to deceive. --Philosophus T 10:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Ahem, you've just gotten 3 opinions on the badness of anything but total integrity, by three people who edit Wikipedia under completely anonymous usernames, because they are evidently too chicken wisely cautious to use their real ones. Humor. Wikipedia, you will find, is not good at detecting irony or really much to do with self-inspection. "We want all this power without any connection to us in the real world! And it would be cheating if you got TWICE as much power without any connection to you in the real world!" SBHarris 02:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm perfectly aware of the irony in the discussion. After all, my account is an alternate account. --Philosophus T 04:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
    • I for one have a few accounts handy. My best of edits go to one account. Another one is used for just in case user:CyclePat2, like the few times I felt quite harassed and got blocked and need to get a message out to another administrator. I also keep my most vulgar of comments for this account. So, as I would say *Bad word*. Several accounts are awsome... and it keeps that pesky user... sometimes more often than not an administrator, away from stalking and reverting your every mood because he has built a systematic bias to revert your every action and requesting 4 hours of conversation (a pain in the ass) for every single addition you make. --CyclePat (talk) 22:20, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
  • A valid point about not wanting to offend someone you are on good terms with. Forgive those who don't have perfect friendships. There is no deception with honest remarks being made. Unlike the others, I don't think it's a terrible idea. Wikipedia respects anonymity a great deal, and some people wish to do so without showing their IP. -- Ned Scott 06:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Valid accounts are called alternate accounts, invalid accounts are called sock puppets

Will someone please change the wording of this: "An editor might use an openly declared sock to carry out maintenance tasks in order to simplify the organization of such tasks," to reflect that this is technically an "alternate account," and not a sock puppet? Fredsmith2 (talk) 01:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I changed it, but I don't think there would be any opposition to you doing so yourself; such edits aren't very controversial, to the best of my knowledge. The old terminology still lingers in the policy, and there are more places that need updating. There are also quite a few other pages that I suspect will need to be changed as well, (WP:SUSPSOCK?sorry, I had forgotten that SUSPSOCK system already uses this terminology, as it was created during the prior, failed rewrite), and the culture will take a while to migrate to it. --Philosophus T 03:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for making this change. I just make it a personal policy to make sure someone else reviews my suggested edits to policy pages, so I appreciate you making the change. Fredsmith2 (talk) 08:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Schwartz PR

The mention of this particular account has been in the policy for quite a while, but the actual account has only made 6 edits, with the last in March 2006. Would others support removing the sentence about it, and just noting the situation on the User page, since the policy already states that they are allowed in exceptional cases with approval? Is Schwartz still working with the Foundation? It would be nice to be able to simplify the policy by removing this. --Philosophus T 03:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

It does seem like an outdated example. It probably should be removed. -- Ned Scott 06:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

{{IPsock}} proposed for deletion

The template {{IPsock}}, mentioned on this page, has been proposed for deletion here as a violation of Meta policy. Opinions welcome. Videmus Omnia Talk 18:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Getting caught

How does someone commiting sock puppetry get caught? Footballfan190 (talk) 08:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Since sock-puppetry is generally only abusive if both accounts are editing the same articles (i.e. using their numbers to give the appearance of consensus for their side), it's often quite easy to notice similar writing styles or suspicious coincidences (such as one account being created just at the right moment to back up something the other account is saying, and seeming to have little interest in editing anywhere else). Besides that, a checkuser can settle things somewhat more certainly. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 08:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
But could you please explain that. I really do not understand what you just said. Footballfan190 (talk) 02:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I'll try to restate: in order for somebody to be got engaging in sock-puppetry, somebody has to notice something suspicious about them. For example, they both may make identical misspellings, they may edit the same articles even though those articles don't have much to do with each other (I remember one sock-puppeteer was caught partly because all of his identities were interested in Mike Gravel, Islam, and anal sex, which are pretty divergent subjects). It may just be that after an editor makes an argument, two or three new editors show up to agree (it's rare for newly-registered users' first efforts to be in policy or content disputes, and even rarer for them to do nothing but policy or content disputes). If you're curious about how socks are caught, you should read WP:SSP on occasion - you'll catch on. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

"Ripened sock"

Why is the term "ripened sock" (used quite a bit in discussion) not defined in this page? Badagnani (talk) 05:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Clean start under new name

This section had grown slightly misleading by editing, to the point Arbcom were getting emails from people under misconceptions. The original text was a deleted section from meta:Right to vanish, which had become mangled slightly, but enough to mislead. I've reinstated a version based on the original that should be more accurate.

diff

The main errors were that two paragraphs originally presented as "Will I be noticed" (Q&A's) were re-presented as "You will be noticed if". Users were also told that "If you don't use the old account, there is no reason a request would be made", which is inaccurate - users whose actions raise questions may be checkusered in appopriate circumstances even if they don't use their old accounts. And a major area people used to be mislead, believing this was the same as "right to vanish", was not made clear. FT2 (Talk | email) 19:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Nutshell summary doesn't seem right

As discussed above, the "nutshell" text seems contrary to the spirit of the policy. The policy tells people not to abuse extra accounts for an unfair say, whereas the "nutshell" discourages the practice altogether, even though the policy gives good reasons for having one. In fact the "nutshell" does not even accurately summarize itself, since it ends by saying you should not urge your friends to create accounts to support you, even though another editor should get another account according to the "one editor one account" logic.

I propose the "nutshell" should say:

Additionally, I think the policy should explicitly list an additional legitimate reason for having multiple accounts: Editors who open accounts under their own name are encouraged to open a second anonymous account if they wish to maintain personal privacy of some contributions. After all, it only seems fair that people who give up anonymity for one account should not be viewed with quite as much suspicion as those with multiple anonymous accounts. 70.15.116.59 (talk) 19:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC) / Wnt (talk) 20:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Security concerns

On consideration, I think that "inappropriate use of alternate accounts" should also include a section on security requirements or recommendations.

Security violations

Each alternate account opens a route for disruptive hackers to interfere with Wikipedia. Those creating multiple accounts may be inclined to give them easily remembered passwords, but the compromise of any one account may lead to blocks on all of them. Therefore editors are advised to use strong passwords (see WP:STRONG) on any alternate accounts they create.

Potentially this could say required...

Odd, I thought WP:STRONG existed - seems like it should. 70.15.116.59 (talk) 20:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

CU mailing list does not allow direct mailing...

... as it gets WAY too much spam and it has way too many members... So I've revised the wording of the Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Alternate account notification section relating to that. Here's the diff. Hopefully that is a non controversial change, it's merely correcting mechanics to advise users to ask a CU to forward on their behalf. ++Lar: t/c 21:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposal

I have suggested adding links to the user's Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets and Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets pages on the block log page. When checking if a user has been blocked, it is important to know if they operate any sock puppets and if those sock puppets have been blocked. See Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Block log change proposed. Jehochman Talk 22:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually it's probably better to list only the checkuser-confirmed socks that way, since anyone can suspect one editor of being a sockpuppet of another. It's possible to be mistaken about that... DurovaCharge! 22:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Confirmed / suspects

I think suspected socks (e.g. User:DukeofAntwerp) and confirmed socks (e.g. User:Lazydown) do not both appear on the same list on the puppetmaster's (in those cases User:Kingofmann) page. Is this the intention? CarbonLifeForm (talk) 18:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The template conflict is that the checkuser occured here Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Kingofmann, rather than Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Kingofmann. Which was why the templates on the other accounts[5] were improvised. CarbonLifeForm (talk) 18:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

A repost comment from WP:MEAT section

  1. Consensus in many debates and discussions is not based upon number of votes, but upon policy-related points made by editors. Newcomers are unlikely to understand Wikipedia policies and practices [COMMENT: a fact which is only relevant if the debate is about Wikipedia policies and practices, which many are not], or to introduce any evidence that other users have not already mentioned.[COMMENT: Completely unsupportable statement. Tell me, how did older users manage to become omniscient about any possible debate topic involving real-world subjects and knowledge? Which MANY Wikipedia debates often involve?].
  • COMMENTS to the present page are in bold, and been there for some time. I'd like some answers. This section writing needs to be heavily qualified, unless older users are actually claiming omniscience about all possible discussion topics. Rarely have I seen a more narcissistic statement on the face of how it is literally written. I'm sure you'll want to fix it, if it doesn't say what you mean. I intend to fix it, unless I get comments to the contrary. If you want to defend the way it's written now, which is pretty funny, here's your chance. SBHarris 16:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Rename the this to WP: Alternate account?

I have thought of the idea of renaming this page to WP:Alternate accounts or something similar. "Sock puppetry" is more of a slang term, and should this name change be made, the term would be mentioned early on in the initial paragraph. The term "sock puppet" also refers primarily to deception, whereas there are legitimate reasons to have an alternate account that are described on this page.Hellno2 (talk) 18:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Why not redirect? Mike0001 (talk) 16:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
My idea is that this page be called WP:Alternate accounts, with the current title redirecting to it. Such a title sounds more professional, and from the start, the text could describe legitimate versus illegitimate reasons.Hellno2 (talk) 20:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Need clarification on the rules for post-fact reporting

An editor is blocked for a year. During that year a number of very short lived accounts appear editing the same topics as the blocked editor and in the same style. After the block expires the originally blocked editor continues editing, in some cases making very very similar edits to those made by the suspected sock-puppets. Is it too late to now make an entry in "suspected sock puppets", in order to possibly have the original block extended if the evidence is considered enough for judgement? --Stor stark7 Talk 11:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

BRING BACK...

Vote Here!!!! Vegetationlife (talk) 08:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


Please stop adding ([6][7][8][9]) this image, its inapropriate. --Hu12 (talk) 17:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I really don't understand why you think it's inappropriate? You do know what thespian means don't you? I think the Sock puppetting.png is considerably more inappropriate and borders on offensive. A doe-eyed Manga fantasy girl in a maid's outfit? Vegetationlife (talk) 21:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Innapropriate handling of suspected sockpuppets?

I have been accused of sockpuppetry. Is it not permitted for the accuser to ask other users to provide evidence against the accusee? Please reply on my talkpage if you can, but right here is OK I guess. -- Ketchup Krew Heinz 57! 19:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Questions

I understand one user one account. I only have one account, some people have brothers or sisters. If my sister needs one she can't use my account, she needs her own.--Freewayguy (Webmail) 00:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Some admins misaccuse users when they didnt do suckpuppet. Some people have brothers and sisters. User:Artisol2345 have a sister is Yorkabes I thoght' thats his sister. One computer can be use by two person sometimes.--Freewayguy (Webmail) 19:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

User:YORKABE is User:Artisol2345's sister, sometimes IP can be share with roomate. My school's IP is share with many schools in Orange County. Sometimes user's have siblings so creating an account after the first one is not neccessairly sockpuppeting. The best way is users don't post message to each other or change ones user page. This makes people think they are actually sockpuppeting. I think if User:ALT2B hadnt been posting mesage on Artisol's tlk page, he wouldn't be recognize as a sockpuppet. Talking to a close relative on personal's talk page makes people tink they have been cheating with multiples of account. So for safety general rule, don't post message to your close freind, or family member or sibling, or cousin's talk page or modify from their user page. Think smart.--Freewayguy (Webmail) 01:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

disambig

This page could benefit from a link to a disambig at the top, or at least {{distinguish|sock puppet}}. --NEMT (talk) 21:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

more on good faith altenative accounts

I don't know enough about this to write it myself, but think there should be a section on the acceptable uses of alternative accounts. Isn't there a userpage template saying something like "This account is not my main one. If you have any concerns, please discuss them on my talk page before reporting it for sockpuppetry"? BetterBusinessBureau (talk) 22:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

That section is already there, unless you mean something else. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Recruitment outside Wikipedia

What is the feeling among editors who shaped this policy, regarding the following directive:

"Change the demographic of Wikipedia. Encourage friends and acquaintances that you know have interests that are not well-represented on Wikipedia to edit. If you are at a university, contact a professor in minority or women's studies, explain the problem, and ask if they would be willing to encourage students to write for Wikipedia."

— WP:BIAS, WikiProject: Countering Systemic Bias

Thank you for any response. Blackworm (talk) 22:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

"In particular" -> "In principle"

I oppose this edit. The point is weakened by beginning with "in principle," implying there is an exception. Voting twice in a poll or using two usernames to violate policy seem like pretty strong violations of policy in themselves. Blackworm (talk) 05:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Here are the definitions and the many ways it can be used:

1. an accepted or professed rule of action or conduct: a person of good moral principles. 2. a fundamental, primary, or general law or truth from which others are derived: the principles of modern physics. 3. a fundamental doctrine or tenet; a distinctive ruling opinion: the principles of the Stoics. 4. principles, a personal or specific basis of conduct or management: to adhere to one's principles; a kindergarten run on modern principles. 5. guiding sense of the requirements and obligations of right conduct: a person of principle. 6. an adopted rule or method for application in action: a working principle for general use. 7. a rule or law exemplified in natural phenomena, the construction or operation of a machine, the working of a system, or the like: the principle of capillary attraction. 8. the method of formation, operation, or procedure exhibited in a given case: a community organized on the patriarchal principle. 9. a determining characteristic of something; essential quality. 10. an originating or actuating agency or force: growth is the principle of life. 11. an actuating agency in the mind or character, as an instinct, faculty, or natural tendency: the principles of human behavior. 12. Chemistry. a constituent of a substance, esp. one giving to it some distinctive quality or effect. 13. Obsolete. beginning or commencement. —Idioms 14. in principle, in essence or substance; fundamentally: to accept a plan in principle. 15. on principle, a. according to personal rules for right conduct; as a matter of moral principle: He refused on principle to agree to the terms of the treaty. b. according to a fixed rule, method, or practice: He drank hot milk every night on principle.
I don't see how that implies an exception. Jrod2 (talk) 07:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

At best, I think the new sentence can be easily misread as implying such. I also think the intent of the sentence (to stress this particular behaviour as a grave violation) is lost; and the sentence is now confusing, as if further explanation is to follow as to why these two particular behaviours were singled out as examples of violating this policy's principles. Blackworm (talk) 08:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, I am not buying that explanation, yet and it's not a new sentence, it's just an elegant way of saying the same thing as "in particular". The sound of "in principle" does not diminish the sentence but in effect, it evokes on all who read it, a code of ethics. If you are concerned with the sentence not stressing this particular behavior as a grave violation, then change it to WARNING: Jrod2 (talk) 21:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
You would support such a change? Blackworm (talk) 05:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I think that would-be sock puppeteers should be more discouraged from opening multiple accounts to cheat the system. But, I am not sure if other users would agree with such extreme wording. Jrod2 (talk) 14:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
So, you want either no emphasis, or emphasis so "extreme" that you believe editors may oppose it? What is the reasoning behind this? Blackworm (talk) 15:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I mean that "Warning" is too extreme, but If I read it on a policy, I wouldn't feel that it was inappropriate, either. Anyway, the point is, I am not changing my view for that word, OK? Jrod2 (talk) 20:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Since you are unwilling to discuss your change, I will revert your edit, as it lacks consensus. Blackworm (talk) 21:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Glad we could agree in this discussion. I made the edit. Blackworm (talk) 05:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Tagging guideline question

What's the recommended way of dealing with such tags as {{CheckedPuppeteer}}, after a block expires? If a user is confirmed as a sockmaster via CheckUser, is blocked for it, but then resumes normal non-disruptive editing, are they still required to carry the tag on their userpage forever? What about Category:Wikipedia sockpuppeteers? Or can they be removed as long as the account is unblocked and active? Ditto with individual sock accounts: if they are being used non-disruptively, do they still have to carry the "badge of shame"? Should the tag be moved from the userpage to a talkpage, or just removed? --Elonka 11:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

question

okay, let me get this straight, you can have multiple accounts as long as you do not abuse your editing privledges with them? Respond back on my talk page please [LukeTheSpook] | [t c r] 18:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

So responded. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I have a question

I have edited wikipedia before as a unregistered IP user. When I registered and went back to my usual editing and discussion, I was accused by another editor of being a sockpuppet. I don't see the fairness in this. I registered so my votes could count and make a difference, so while I did post in some of the same places, it was simply under a new, now registered username. Is this person's allegations valid? If so, I will to try to make up for it, but I don't see the justice in this. Thank you. User: Saruman20 01:16 16 May 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 01:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

No, those allegations shouldn't be valid. All you did was register, and we thank you for doing so. Basketball110 My story/Tell me yours 01:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Sockpuppetry/Archive_5&oldid=1192277046"