Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppetry/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Terminology

• I would like to commend Dijxtra for being a man of his word. He said that he would take steps to fix the problem that caused the confusion at his RfA, and he has done exactly that. The confusion was caused because the editors of this article have redefined the term "sockpuppet." Because of this confusion, Dijxtra lost many votes, but Wikipedia's redefinition of the term has much broader implications. People associate "sockpuppet" with someone who is casting their vote in the same formal or informal poll more than once. Under that definition, used by pretty much everyone outside of Wikipedia, a checkuser should be performed and the login blocked. We don't need a lot of bureaucratic red tape to know definitively when a poll is being manipulated. Because voter fraud through multiple accounts has its own criteria and methods, it should have its own term in order to avoid confusion. The good new is that it already has a term: sockpuppetry. The bad news is that the editors of this article have expanded the term (against any interpretation of WP:NOR) to include a wide range of other problems, criteria, and even acceptable behavior involving multiple accounts. There are four distinct types of multiple accounts:
  1. Declared Multiple Accounts (entirely legal, but frowned upon)
  2. Undeclared Multiple Accounts (entirely legal, but frowned upon)
  3. Ban Evasion Multiple Accounts (illegal) - Uses criteria, methods, and punishment entirely different from sockpuppetry.
  4. Sockpuppet Multiple Accounts (illegal) - A sockpuppet account is defined exclusively as, an account used in a particular discussion or poll when another account of the same user has already contributed.
• As editors of an encyclopedia, it is in extremely bad form to redefine and thereby confuse the meaning of an existing term. --Dragon's Blood 14:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• Agreed. Redefining the term is likely to cause problems.

• Yes, but I think that that it would solve more problems that it would cause. We have wrong terminology here. And we must fix that. Fixing a sore tooth hurts you. But it's good for you, right? --Dijxtra 22:47, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• But it's such a clean and elegant distinction, that it's a very attractive proposal none the less. Could we call them "legal" and "illegal" sockpuppets, and start by saying "legal sockpuppets are used for <list#1>. Illegal sockpuppets are used for <list#2>. Wikipedia allows legal sockpuppets under certain limited conditions, the main one of which is that two sock puppets of a user are not engaged in supporting each other, or the same viewpoint, or both influencing discussion and opinion, within the same article." FT2 (Talk) 22:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• The problem here is that the term "sock puppet" does not have a solid meaning, and we are writing policy, which requires precise definitions, especially now that many users now argue over fine points of policy. For example, Meatball defines one as essentially as any alternate identity, but Jargon File defines it only as another identity used to support the original identity. I personally believe that the Jargon File definition is better and more correct. I believe that the new policy does a reasonably good job at following this more restricted definition which is what Dragon's Blood seems to be advocating.

However, the table has some issues which should be addressed. For one, "frowned upon" isn't really correct anymore. It isn't emphasised in the policy text, and in many cases, is incorrect (see Tawker, Danny, Curps, etc). No one, save for a few crackpots, seems to frown upon me. We need some way of saying that alternate accounts should only be used when necessary, but can always be legally used.

Second, it doesn't seem complete. The distinction between declared and undeclared alternate accounts is somewhat fuzzy. For two accounts, we can have declarations on either or both, and possibly linking between the two. I declare myself as an alternate account, but my main account doesn't declare anything. What does this make me? We need to have some way of sorting out this distinction without making everything too complicated. I would suggest that we either merge these two rows on the table into one, or we make the distinction based on linking. (Note: I've moved this to a separate section in order to make it easier to edit. I hope no one minds.) --Philosophus ^T 08:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• After some users brought up a few cases where the role account restriction would apply, I've decided that the name is probably bad, since it is not general enough for the definition given. Specifically, it prohibits the use of one account for a computer (in the case of a school, for example), and also the bequeathment of an account to one's child (this is silly, but is an lucid example). Perhaps we should rename this section "Accounts with multiple users"? --Philosophus ^T 08:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

New version of this page

• proposal for new version of this page
• proposal for Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets

Please feel free to edit this two drafts and discuss them. If the community supports them, I'll modfy this page and create Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets, so we can start with the new way of identifying socks. :-) --Dijxtra 15:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Where is it, now?--ComSpex 07:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Where's what? --Dijxtra 08:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Please check this person

Mr.User:Brian G. Crawford nominate several of articles for delete with only few actual article edit. In one of discussion, he slip out that he also use User:BrianGCrawfordMA as username. Could someone check if he's really a sockpuppet? L-Zwei 13:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Expiery period on sockpuppetry cases?

On Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets a case showed up suspecting a guy of sockpuppetry on basis of incidents which happened in January and first half of April. Now, I find it rather discouraging for the proces to allow submission of cases which happened more than some time ago. I therefore propose an expiry period for cases: after some time a case of sockpuppetry cannot be submitted. That way we will prevent cases of abuse which happened before quite a some time to show up now. I think that a limit of one week (possibly 10 days or maybe even a forthnight?) would be just fine. Oppinions? --Dijxtra 13:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

If there is no current basis for concern then its old. If there is a current basis for concern then even old evidence may substantiate it. FT2 (Talk) 05:17, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Links to match template?

The instructions on this page refer to

[[Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets...

Using the suggested template, I believe that should be

[[Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets...

--Cedders^tk 00:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, I've fixed the template. --Dijxtra 04:41, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Contradiction - to discuss and fix

In the section: "Tagging identified puppeteers" it states:

"Tagging known puppeteers with the following tag... Results in this template being added:"

But the tag narrative reads:

"It is suspected that this user is the puppet master of one or more abusive sock puppets..."

Is this section is about "known" pupeteers, "identified" pupeteers, or "suspected" puppeteers? FT2 (Talk) 05:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

That section is a remnant of the old version of this page. If you ask me, we should rewrite that too. Create brand new tags reflecting current situation. And, if you ask me, I'd take the "Characteristics of sock puppets" and "When questions arise" sections out. Maybe move it to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets. I mean, this is supposed to be a policy page, not a manual on recognising sock puppets, right? --Dijxtra 06:59, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Miscommunication

I've been reading through the history here and trying to piece together this odd situation:

When the rewrite replaced the old policy, the old method of tagging "legitimate sock puppets" - userboxes saying "This user is a sock puppet of X" - was apparently dropped. The problem is that many users were already using those userboxes, and those userboxes were never reworded from "sock puppet" to "alternate account", so the userboxes retained all those negative connotations associated with "sock puppet". Being a userbox with negative connotations, it was then speedily deleted. Now, I think the disappearance of the sections mentioning the old templates is reeking havoc at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Userbox debates, where the purpose of the old userboxes has been misunderstood as a "joke" and "useless", where it was actually a (useful) part of this policy. I hope someone involved here could help clear everything up.

Personally, I'd rather keep those templates as a option to be used (as opposed to getting everyone to switch over), but I added a mention of those as what others have possibly used to mark their own sock puppets. --AySz88^-^ 08:11, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Huh. Thanks for pointing the thing out... I'll adress the matter on the Deletion review page. --Dijxtra 12:09, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Duration of block for sock masters

OK, we block proven sock puppets indefinetly. That's nice. But, for how long to block proven sock masters? I blocked User:Diesel rhcp and User:KraMuc for a week. Is that to long? --Dijxtra 12:24, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Silly question, maybe, but how do you distinguish the sock master from the sock puppets? Maybe we should have a wheel of death or something to pick which account lives... Really though, is it necessary as a preventative measure against further sock puppetry? Doesn't the auto-IP-block (at least for now) put a temporary bar in the way of creating new sock puppet accounts (well, using the new accounts)? -Dan 23:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Legalese and wikipedia

One of the anoying elements in legalise is that it uses words in a way that is not part of sandard english. This problem appears to have turned up on this page. I suggest the policy be writen useing standard defintions of words rather than starting off by redefineing them.Geni 22:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

As I read it, the original problem was that there was no "standard definition", so they had to be expicitly defined at the beginning - as far as I can tell, the definitions of "sock puppet" etc. currently there are the most common uses of the terms. --AySz88^-^ 23:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppet simply means a secondary account. The other things such as if it is legit are normaly indicated by context.Geni 23:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

No, a sock puppet is a thing you put on your hand and pretend that it is another person. --Dijxtra 07:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Our article dissagrees.Geni 13:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Everything disagrees. The jargon file definition is completely different from the meatball definition. The definition that a regular person would know involves a piece of clothing and a hand. If we choose one definition as "standard", it will confuse everyone else, and since users frequently try to find loopholes and problems with this, I think defining like this is the best idea. Our sockpuppet definition agrees with the jargon file one. Besides, I personally don't like being called a sock puppet. --Philosophus ^T 00:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Multiple accounts to claim aliases

(A simplified explanation of the situation:) User:Celierra is one of the names I'm commonly known by in the context of the greater Internet, and I registered it to ensure nobody takes it in an attempt to impersonate me, as well as to allow people to find me if they look for me by the other name. Registering the account to just claim the name is not enumerated as a legit "use" of a multiple account, but does it even count as "use" and should it be listed in that section? (Of course, it would be a disclosed multiple account by the nature of the functions intended.) --AySz88^-^ 05:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Meat puppet term origin: Not the band

Meat puppets appear in various sci-fi works, notably William Gibson's Neuromancer, as human beings that willingly or unwillingly, consciously or unconsciously, cede control or privacy to another. Molly Millions was a prostitute whose sensory implants could allow a paying customer to experience her physical sensations during acts of sex. Another example of meat-puppetry includes "The Manchurian Candidate", in which a meat-puppet could be controlled to the point of carrying out assassination against his own will or awareness.

A meat-puppet carries out someone else's will, with a degree of selflessness enhanced beyond mere willingness via technological means.

The band "Meat Puppets" doesn't have anything to do with this usage of the term - their name came from literal puppetteering of their meat - an act quite unrelated to the Wikipedian or Internet concept of meat-puppetry. 198.49.180.40 21:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Meat Puppet means either a plain and simple whore, or a gay man who is recipient to anal fisting. AFAIK both terms have been around since the mid 20th century in American english slang.

Help at WP:SUSPSOCK

Hi there everybody. The WP:SUSPSOCK is now fully functional and it seems that I'm the only one reviewing the cases. I'd like to see some more admins participating so now I'm recruiting admins to give me a hand there :-) If anybody's interested, it'd be nice to put the page on your watchlist and to comment new cases as they appear. Concerning currently open cases, if you wish, you can take a look at this one as I'm having problems deciding what to do about it... Participation of non-admin users would be just fine too. Since non-admins cannot block, I invite them to comment, propose action or just give their view. --Dijxtra 16:34, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

removed post from banned user. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:11, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, you do have a point, but we sure have precedents in WP:ARBCOM and WP:RFC. Those too comment on user, not content. So, feel free to propose changes in Wikipedia customs, but until those (the changes) are accepted by the community, I think we should continue to go on as before... --Dijxtra 11:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Too tight

This is way too tight a definition: "an alternate account used to give the appearance that additional people support a particular vote or position (when in reality some of the accounts or IPs are controlled by the same person)." I've added inter alia to signal that there may be other uses. Bear in mind that this is a policy page. You can't write anything that would exclude certain illegitimate uses. The main criterion is that the multiple accounts are being used to be deceptive. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:58, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

We've discussed this at length for almost a month and have already taken your concern under advisement. We have consensus for the "sock puppet" not being used as a catch-all any more. The article already says that multiple accounts used for any type of deception are not allowed, but "sock puppet" has a specific meaning and it isn't "a deceptive multiple account." --Dragon's Blood 06:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Who is this "we" who have decided to completely re-write this policy? Is it two editors who have been editing Wikipedia for less than two months? Jayjg ^(talk) 06:36, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Dijxtra mostly, along with myself, and several others. I've been here for years (though not as long with this particular account), as a few users can verify. --Philosophus ^T 19:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I've move the following to the top of the article. I hope this addresses your concerns.

Alternate accounts (or multiple accounts) are additional usernames employed by a single editor. Wikipedia allows alternate accounts to exist when it is clear that they are not involved in any type of deception: sock puppetry, circumvention or impersonation.

--Dragon's Blood 06:20, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

For example, I blocked one tonight for having said he wasn't operating multiple accounts when he was, which has nothing to do with voting. The key is if any kind of deception is involved. If it is, the accounts are in violation of WP:SOCK, and should be blocked, so it's important to say that right up front. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:22, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Who says that "sock puppet as a specific meaning and it isn't a deceptive multiple account"? That's exactly what it is. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:26, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Be very careful not to change the policy when you tidy writing, Dragon's Blood. If you want to change policy, you need strong and wide consensus. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

And who came up with "circumventor" account? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:41, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted to the pre re-write version of the policy, as at least one of the accounts involved in the rewrite was a sock puppet of User:Zephram Stark. If any legitimate editors want the page to be rewritten, please continue discussing it on the talk page. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:46, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm briefly protecting the page against anyone reverting to Zephram Stark's edits. I'll put a note up about it on WP:AN/I. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why you appear to be dismissing this rewrite as being done by illegitimate editors. Dijxtra, who I certainly consider legitimate, was the one who spearheaded these changes, and they have been under discussion here for quite a while, with a variety of editors involved. You are essentially reverting changes made by another admin. If I recall correctly, such reversions are supposed to be discussed with the first admin before being made, are they not? --Philosophus ^T 19:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Philosophus, you're writing here and on my talk page, which means I'm having to repeat everything. Banned user Zephram Stark was involved in the rewrite, and it changed key parts of the policy. There seems to be no consensus for these changes outside the very small group of editors on this page, some of whom are very new, some of whom are sockpuppets. Therefore the changes are invalid. If you want to start a discussion about changing the policy, by all means go ahead. I'll unprotect the page shortly, after discussing how long to keep it protected on AN/I. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Philosophus, as it turned out, the page was essentially re-written by two sockpuppets of the same individual, in order to make it harder for admins to block sockpuppets of that individual in the future. If people want to make fundamental changes to existing policy, they're going to need much more "consensus" than one admin who has been blackmailed/bamboozled into agreement by two sockpuppets: see his interaction with User:Dragon's Blood, a sockpuppet of User:Zephram Stark, here. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... per SlimVirgin's last edit on AN/I, Dragon's Blood is not confirmed as an illegitimate sock puppet yet, but looking at his edit history, he is nearly certainly an alternate account of some sort, and a controversial one as well. If this indeed was played out as SlimVirgin has theorized, it is vandalism of great complexity, planning, brilliance, and malevolence - much more insidious than the sock puppetry I have been used to with crackpots. I find it amazing that she was able to uncover such a plot. I am curious as to how the original rewrite made it harder to block sockpuppets, besides adding process, but I can see now that the changes needed much more consensus - I had thought that the changes had been announced elsewhere, for example, but I can't find such an announcement now. I have written a revision of the pre-rewrite version which incorporates some of the minor stylistic changes from the rewrite, and await the unprotect to apply this. The sock puppet/alternate account split will likely need much more discussion, though I believe it can be implemented without rewriting the pre-rewrite policy or changing anything fundamental besides terminology. Where can such changes be proposed for discussion, since it seems that this page doesn't have much visibility? --Philosophus ^T 00:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The person behind the accounts was User:Zephram Stark, who has used over 100 accounts so far, I believe, and his accounts often do involve, as you say, a degree of cunning and complexity. See Category:Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets of Zephram Stark Obviously, it's in his interests to redefine sockpuppet and to distinguish legitimate from non-legitimate uses of accounts in ways that introduce more layers of process and the likelihood of wikilawyering, which he enjoys. As for how to get consensus for substantive policy changes: the best way is to write to the mailing list and to the village pump. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Guide

There should be a section about how vandals name different socks. Like WoW's multiple variations...or the even more dangerous WiC making legitimate users' names but with different character sets. Like User:FIameviper12. Which is User:Flameviper12. Am I confusing you? Or User:Flameνiper12, or User:Γlameviper12, or User:Flameivper12. Hahaha. Many socks. It's an interesting subject that should be expanded.

This shouldn't be in the policy itself, but should be a separate essay. --Philosophus ^T 20:57, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Deleted userboxes

The reverted version of this page refers to two deleted and protected userboxes in the Tagging Legitimate Sockpuppet Accounts section. There are two replacement boxes in the rewritten version. --Philosophus ^T 20:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I've removed them. Whether to include any new ones can be discussed here. The old ones may go to deletion review, but I have no idea about their current status. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Proposed revisions

I've put some revisions to this article at User:Philosophus/sandbox, awaiting the unprotection of this page. --Philosophus ^T 01:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I have now added these into the article. The only real policy change in my edit is the clarification of the Voting section. In practice, legitimate alternate accounts may vote, so long as the person is not voting multiple times. For example, a user using an alternate account to edit certain subjects would certainly use that account in votes involving that subject. --Philosophus ^T 01:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Reverting of this page

Please discuss your actions before making such radical changes as reverting what was a community consensus. Changes done to this policy page were:

1. proposed
2. discussed, and then
3. implemented.

That's the way we do things in civilised world. If you wish to revert back discuss it first. Thanks. --Dijxtra 13:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

A consensus between you and 2 sockpuppets of a banned user is not "consensus". Please get wide consensus for major policy changes before making them. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Please look at the archive of this page. While the consensus may not have been wide enough, it did not consist of only three users, and a wide variety of editors didn't seem to object with the change for weeks, as they did not revert this. --Philosophus ^T 21:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Changes may have simply gone unnoticed. I'd say a lot of Wikipedians don't check this page for recent edits very often, and I applaud SlimVirgin for noticing what was happening and moving to correct it. As far as I can see, she discussed it fully at WP:ANI. In any case, I would certainly have reverted changes to policy if I had known that they came from sockpuppets of banned users. AnnH ♫ 21:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

That is quite true. I am just noting that there were more than just Dixjtra "and 2 sockpuppets of a banned user" involved. --Philosophus ^T 22:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

If you bother to read the discussion, you will see that I started it on April 16 and executed it on May 1. That's more than 2 weeks waiting for anybody to object. Waiting for even the slightest sign that somebody doesn't like the proposal. I failed to notice your disaccord with the proposal. Would you be so kind and link it for me, so I can see which problems you have with the new version (I, regrettably, am still unskilled enough to find it myself)?

Moreover, these are the people who took part in discussion (apart from me):

1. User:FT2
2. User:Duja
3. User:Jim182
4. User:Philosophus
5. User:PoolGuy

Again, my enormous incompetence restrains me in finding any hints that any of this users are in fact sock puppets of banned user. Even User:PoolGuy, who himself engaged in sock puppetry, is not banned, only temporarily blocked. I urge you to aid me and pinpoint the CheckUser results, Requests for Arbitration or any other evidence that User:FT2, User:Duja, User:Jim182 and User:Philosophus are sock puppets, I will be most grateful to you if you do.

After you take the effort to support your statements, I would also kindly ask you to provide me with an advice. I would like to know how could I get wide concensus. Since putting a proposal on the talk page and waiting for 2 weeks is not wide enough, I'd like to hear what you have in mind. I will, again, be most grateful to you for your advice.

And, in the mean time, please leave the page as it was before you have a consensus that it should be changed. The action I take was throughly discussed during 2 weeks. No objections were made. Your action was not discussed before you took it. Now that we are discussing it, I object. Notice the difference:

• version I revert to: discussion: beforehand, objections: no
• version you revert to: discussion: after, objections: yes

Please, I beg you, follow the customs of Wikipedia. Obey the WP:CON and WP:FAITH. Discuss. Collaborate. Please... --Dijxtra 21:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

You are a new admin, who was bamboozled into this by User:Dragon's Blood (a sockpuppet of User:Zephram Stark) as part of becoming an admin. User:Jim182 has 20 edits, all in April. User:Philosophus is an admitted sockpuppet.

No, he is not. He has an alternative account, he never engaged in sock puppetry. --Dijxtra 22:27, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

There you go; an alternate account is a sockpuppet. Sockpuppets aren't banned, and they may be used for benign purposes, but they're still sockpuppets. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Someone who does not acknowledge or understand the distinction has no business rewriting the policy. FeloniousMonk 22:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that the rewritten version uses a different definition of sock puppet, which Dijxtra is using. Sock puppet is not clearly defined as a word - for an example, look at the definition in the Jargon File, and then the definition in Meatball. It would be helpful if everyone here recognized everyone else's terminology --Philosophus ^T 22:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

User:PoolGuy has been repeatedly blocked for incessant sockpuppeting. User:Dragon's Blood and User:Team Shocker were sockpuppets of the permanently banned User:Zephram Stark, an editor with well over 100 socks. User:Duja made one comment in support of a very broad overview of changes. Your "consensus" consists of two legitimate editors egged on by a bunch of sockpuppets/sockpuppeters. And finally, the idea for an "EVIDENCE" page has been roundly rejected by the Arbitration Committee as a bad example of WP:BEANS; what it would be best for is teaching sockpuppets how to get better at sockpuppeting. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:02, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Could you provide me with the link to the ArbCom ruling, please? --Dijxtra 22:27, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

It has been rejected on the Arbitration Committee mailing list; there are obviously no rulings on it, since it has just been invented. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe there is some confusion here about terminology. Dijxtra is going by his definitions, where I am an alternate account. FeloniousMonk is using the current definitions, where I am a legitimate sock puppet. I believe this issue was one of the problems that sparked the rewrite in the first place, though for some reason it went far beyond that. Also, I'm not sure who you mean by only "two legitimate editors". I've never had anyone besides a few cranks (Pgio, etc) claim that I am not legitimate - or are you not referring to me? That said, I really thought this had more support and had been announced elsewhere. If I had known that it had not, I would have announced it, and if I had known that there were the illegitimate sock puppet issues, I would have been much more wary of the edits. I just had no idea that there were such insidious users - most illegitimate sock puppets I've dealt with have been rather apparent. --Philosophus ^T 22:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Whoever took part in the discussion didn't do their homework. A well known nogoodnik, Zephram Stark, creates 2 sockpuppets and using them dupes an admin into "consensus" on a re-write of the Wikipedia:Sock puppetry policy page that makes it much harder to block sockpuppets and created new definitions for types of sockpuppets. LOL! This is just the sort of thing the revert function is for. Roll it back to a version prior to participation of Zephram's socks and start over with any proposals, otherwise there will always be a shadow of doubt hanging over this policy. FeloniousMonk 21:59, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

"Make a change, wait two weeks and if nobody objects then it's fine" also isn't the way to garner consensus for one of Wikipedia's policies. Particularly not when those changes were being made by sockpuppets of banned users. "Consensus" for policy pages is a much higher bar to pass than consensus on regular articles. Generally significant changes to policy pages, especially ones making changes as major as these, have to be submitted to the community, not just this page. I.e. posting to AN, An/I, the village pump, wikien-l, and a large campaign built up around them before they're considered adopted. · Katefan0 ^(scribble)/poll 22:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

NO, those changes were not made my sockpuppets of banned user. Those were done my me. I, Dijxtra, am an sentient being having it's own mind. I also have feelings and this is nth time today that I'm being called a sock puppet. Please bear that in mind.If you inspect the changes I made, you will see that changes were made in terminology and in methodology of cealing with sock puppets. The essence of the policy page didn't change. It was purely rewritten. But, if you insist, I will put the proposal on AN, AN/I, the village pump and wikien-l. But first I want this questio to be answered: what's wrong with my rewrite. --Dijxtra 22:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Djixtra, please don't insert comments directly into the middle of someone else's comments. I hope you don't take offense at this, but I am a bit baffled that someone has been voted into an adminship who doesn't understand this extremely basic piece of talk page etiquette. I've moved your comments down to be merged with the rest of your response. · Katefan0 ^(scribble)/poll 00:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Are you people suggesting that I am not able to judge on my own? OK, I beg you to answer me few simple questions:

1. First of all, what's wrong with new version of this page. Please. Somebody. Why, oh, why is it so bad to have distinction between alternative accounts and sock puppetry. Please.
2. Then, how am I supposed to create a consensus? Where do I go to discuss changes in policy? What would make you confident that changes had consensus?
3. Are you telling me that I took the effort of rewriting a policy page because a guy promised me a vote? Let me remind you, my RfA was closed with 66/4/0. If the guy voted oppose, it would have been 65/5/0. Are you teling me that I was so grateful to him for that one vote that I rewrote the whole policy page?
4. Which policy says that evidence collecting is bad?

I would like somebody to answer this questions for me, so then we can procede in resolving this rather awkward situation. Now I'm going to sleep and I hope that I'll ware up tomorrow and fid out this all is just a bad dream. --Dijxtra 22:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

We are not casting aspersions on your judgement. You are doing that. All we are saying is that the end result of the process involving you and Zephram Stark in various guises was rather unsatisfactory - it is not a mild disagreement that we have, but a violation of the major principles of how we work against socks and other nefarious behaviour.

James F. (talk) 22:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll give you a simple example of a change that was made specifically for the purpose of making it harder to block Zephram Stark. The policy originally said

If the evidence does suggest clear abuse, and it's clear that, on balance of probability, sock puppetry is taking place, administrators should block the sock-puppet account(s) indefinitely, and may block the main account at their discretion. In some cases, it may be sufficient to monitor the main account's contributions to watch for future problems.

Zephram changed this to

If there is clear evidence that sock puppetry is taking place, an administrator with no conflict of interest may block the sock puppet account(s) indefinitely, and may block the main account at his or her discretion. Administrators should recuse themselves, presenting evidence to a third party, when they are involved in an editing dispute with the alleged sock puppet. Because the likelihood of false positives is so high in these cases, the alleged sock puppet should be allowed to request one appeal on his or her talk page using an {{unblock}} template.

Note the differences? "on balance of probability" changed to "clear evidence", "should block" changed to "may block", and "no conflict of interest" and "because the likelihood of false positives is so high" added. Zephram was planning to use this to insist that admins who blocked him had a "conflict of interest", or lacked "clear evidence", or weren't obligated to block the sockpuppet, or that it was a case of a "false positive". Jayjg ^(talk) 22:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Nice. Why didn't you revert him? The emphasis being on him. Revert him. I have no objections. Why reverting the whole rewrite? --Dijxtra 22:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Because he's been making all sorts of changes throughout the policy, on many different dates, so that it's impossible to tease out the exact stuff he's added or changed. Moreover, the entire process of re-writing the policy has been influenced by his two sockpuppets, as well as a third admitted sockpuppet, a fourth editor who has been continuously banned for sockpuppeting, and a fifth editor who made two-dozen edits, all in April. The whole process is completely tainted at this point. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Ever try to un-butter toast? BTW, this heated defense of these discredited changes to the policy is becoming disruptive. FeloniousMonk 22:47, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Fine. I'm dropping it. Not that I see how discussing can be disruptive, but OK. I see that nobody supports my position. Which means I'm wrong. I terribly sorry for causing all this mess. I really acted in good faith. My "disruptive" defence of my actions is a sole result of me not being able to get some simple answers. Now that I got those, I appologise once again. --Dijxtra 22:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

If I gave you the impression I thought you were acting in bad faith, I must apologize. I'm sure you were acting in good faith. Zephram Stark was not. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

What was wrong with your new version? Among other things, that it made a key Wikipedia policy a lot more complex. Complex policies that spell out everything are full of holes; simple policies are easy to understand and lack provisions for rules-lawyering. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with all of the above. The changes made the policy unnecessarily complex and introduced unnecessary new terms like "circumventor" account, complete with a complex new table showing what was and what wasn't allowed. All people really need to know is: (a) multiple accounts are called sockpuppets; (b) don't use them for deception. The changes to the policy were instigated by Zephram Stark, one of Wikipedia's most notorious sockpuppeteers, by negotiating with Dijxtra during his/her adminship nom, and the changes were then carried out by a very small group of accounts, including two of Zephram's. That is not how policy is changed. Djxtra, if you want to introduce changes, please propose them here from scratch, telling us why you think the changes would be improvements. You now have a larger audience of people paying attention. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I concur with those above as well. (And now this page is on my watchlist!) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 00:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe that any value in the new version was outweighed by process changes incorporated into it that made it essentially impossible for admins to deal with socks. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I haven't had time to read most of the new page, but I do believe that the distinction between "sock puppets" (bad) and "multiple accounts" (legitimate unless used for illicit purposes) was a major improvement. "Sock puppet" intuitively comes across as a negative term, and it almost always is used in this context. This is has been the source of some unfortunate misunderstandings that could easily be avoided via this sensible change in terminology. —David Levy 23:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The distinction is already made: "Multiple accounts have legitimate uses. But you must refrain from using them in any way prohibited to sock puppets and from using one account to support the position of another, the standard definition of sock puppetry." This has been upheld by the AC before; go forth and cluebat anyone misusing the term, and if you'd like to make the language clearer without giving actual abusive socks a few nice holes, fine by me. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 00:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

As one of those who has worked on WP:SOCK prior to all this, wrote Wikipedia:single purpose account, and was involved in the discussion of the rewrite, I've held back and read the above. I hope that this will sound reasonable, it's how I feel about it:

First, some good did come out of the rewrite. There were poor structures to the policy, and lack of clarity, and we did achieve a sense how to write it better. The table created and tags designed, were good ones, for example, and the debate crystalized a lot of discussion of a positive nature.

That said... I also do agree that if it did turn out that a known sock puppeteer who has abused (or has been suspected by some editors of abusing) puppets before, was key to any of the actual wording changes, that's not OK. This is a crucial policy, and if for no other reason, people who might be seen as having a vested interest in a wording for personal benefit, should recuse themselves or at the least make it clear and be decision suggesters, not decision makers. That is also beyond question, from where I am. It doesn't mean the wording changes would be bad, but it means they would be open to question. As we see above, the wording changes have indeed been questioned and differences which soften their effect have been pointed out.

The compromise I'd like to suggest is, that rather than argue what was right, what was wrong, let's compare the version that this process ended up with, and take from it whatever has value in terms of structure, description, clarity, or style. Then, ensuring that we do not lose the intended impact of this policy, let's recast this policy into a better form, where one had been identified. For example, the use of a generic term "multiple accounts" I think was a good decision. The table was informative. And so on.

That's how I see it. Draw a line under this debate, draw a line under whether the users concerned were right or not to open up this policy for recasting into better form (and I do think it needs it)... and whatever's best of the material we have, it can be made useful. FT2 (Talk) 01:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi FT2, I agree we should draw a line under the Zephram situation and discuss the value of the changes. I disagree that the table was helpful, or the introduction of new terms. The policy needs to be as straightforward as possible, in my view. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Sock puppet and Alternate Account

As per David Levy in the previous section, I think that one of the real improvements that the rewrite offered was the change in usage for sock puppet. Sock puppet is a derogatory term (I am offended by it, at least), and is used negatively throughout the article, despite being defined as any alternate account. For example, look at the Identification and handling of suspected sock puppets section. The whole section refers to a sock puppet as an illegitimate account, with text like "Tagging identified sock puppets" and "This user is a sock puppet ... and has been blocked indefinitely". The only part that really consistently allows that an alternate account might be legitimate is the first section - even the Legitimate uses section uses "multiple accounts" instead of "sock puppets".

I believe this change can be made without changing the meaning of the policy at all, besides the obvious terminology changes. Instances of sock puppet that mean any alternate account can be replaced with "alternate account", "multiple accounts", an so on. It does not appear that Section 3, which most people care the most about, will need to be changed at all, since it apparently already assumes that any sock puppet is illegitimate.

The only problem will be that this will cause a change in terminology, which users may be opposed to. I can give the Jargon File definition of sock puppet as support for the change, and also appeal to the common sense that "sock puppet" is a derogatory term, and in my opinion, makes more sense as a term for abusive alternate accounts. What does everyone else think? --Philosophus ^T 01:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. We need a word for legit sock puppets. I'm using the "segregated sock puppet" from the article this way but I'd rather use something better. jbolden1517^Talk 03:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

How about "(legitimate) alter egos"? Or "doppelgangers"? David Oberst 04:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I just call my sockpupets sockpupets. It is after all what they are.Geni 02:28, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

funny

I think it is funny that so many people claim that they didn't see the discussion develop on this over weeks and then over a couple days lots of people came out to 'defend' the reverting. dixtra did a great job in coming up with a teriffic improvement to the policy. a blind revert was not helpful at all to discussing and modifying the page.

i think it would be great to actually put the page back up, and all of the users that were in the dark can work to improve it and improve the policy without starting over. the table was great and simple, and the base concepts are fabulus. Dixtra you did a great job, don't let the reverters get you down. it is not your sole responsibility to bring the policy to the Admin community. anyone could have posted to the admin page and broadened the discussion. it is just easier for some to just revert without actually contributing.

bring the changes back. they were great and are a great platform for improving a policy that so many don't really undrstand.65.215.159.18 03:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Bug in the templates

The templates under "SOCKPUPPETEER" are pointing to User:SOCKPUPPETEER. I'm assuming this isn't where we want it pointing but I don't where the correct place should be. Given all the recent activity if you want to ignore this while you handle the recent issue ok. Just wanted to log the bug. jbolden1517^Talk 14:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Contradiction??

Jimbo Wales said, "There's no specific policy against it..." but how come this is an official policy? SCHZMO ✍ 18:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

There's no policy against using sockpuppet accounts. There's a policy against misusing them, and this page defines what's meant by misuse. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I do not think that "Sock Puppet" should automatically be "Frowned upon" (a useless gesture anyway). The concept of "Sock Puppet" that is offensive is verb/action oriented -- that is BEHAVIOR. That someone uses more than one account should NOT be a bad thing -- except to them, in that their edits get diluted. But there is nothing intrinsically unethical about that -- or even keeping it hidden. (No, I am not a sock puppet -- I am simply an Anon). The policy should be clearer that the issue is the BEHAVIOR that is not permitted, not the fact that a person has more than one account. And that distinction is not clear and I have noticed that it may even lead to confusion. So the term should be changed. The term Sock Puppetry should refer to the malicious behavior that is being condemned but should NOT refer to multiple accounts.

72.13.168.149 02:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

matching of IP addresses ?

"Note that this should only be done if the account has been shown beyond reasonable doubt to be a sock puppet of the user by one of the following: * the user's own admission; * matching of IP addresses or similar strong technical evidence;"

IMHO that "Matching of IP Addresses" is not a too bullet-proof evidence either. sure chances are very slim nowadays with all the broadband/highspeed users; but there is still the chance that WikiUser (A), the "good guy" uses Dial-up of a major ISP, and WikiVandal (user [B] the bad guy] uses the same major ISP and both had the same dynamic IP-address at their respective time of action/event. Granted its a small chance, but i've seen "horses throwing up" (german expression) in my IT-INFOSEC consulting career *grin* and if you're really mean, you spoof the IP. Unless Wiki-servers have some special measures built-in to prevent that (i.e. some sort of IP# vs. rDNS-match checks or so) Archangel Michael 02:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The people with cheackuser know what they are doing.Geni 02:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

IP address spoofing has been dealt with; it is not possible to spoof IPs. As for checkuser, as we have tried to explain to people until we are blue in the face, checkuser is not just about matching the same two numbers; there is a full investigation by individuals who have the technical skill to recognize the evidence of sockpuppetry. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 03:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

"Sockpuppet"

A massive category name change just caused all Wikipedia "sock puppet" categories to become "sockpuppet" categories. Should we change all references on this page to match?--Mike Selinker 13:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The policy was originally highly inconsistent on that. We changed all of the occurances of sockpuppet to sock puppet a while ago, since sock puppet seemed most professional and was also the most prevalent. I would change the categories back - I don't know why they weren't discussed here first. --Philosophus ^T 10:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Why does the icon for 'sockpuppet' depict what appears to be a Southpark character with a marionette? A sockpuppet, as the name suggests is a puppet made from a sock.

Changed my user name

I recently changed my username, but now im being accused of using a sockpuppet Minun Rules the world ^(talk) 19:56, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

This user account was created following a block on his other account User:Iloveminun. Tony Sidaway blocked indef for block evasion. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 20:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Can this be considered sockpuppetry?

Hi,

I have a strong reason to believe that user:Purger, in order to avoid breaking WP:3RR, keeps logging in and out. His suspected IP addres is 64.18.16.251.

If this is all the same person, can this be considered as some kind of sock puppetry or a sneaky way to avoid breaking 3RR?

I don't know if I have a right to do this, but I asked those two (?!) users to be open and tell us are they one person or not. See User_talk:Purger#Breaking_3RR? and User_talk:64.18.16.251#Breaking_3RR?.

I feel that rules are somewhat undefined in this area. Can someone explain me rules in this case, please?

--Ante Perkovic 16:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

This isn't very unusual. It is sock puppetry if it is intentional, and it is certainly 3RR evasion if the users are the same. Asking the user in this case will nearly certainly result in no answer or denial. It would be best to put something on WP:AN/3RR, probably, and possibly WP:RFCU. --Philosophus ^T 18:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

removal of sock puppetry

how does one remove the sock puppetry from their user page?