Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppetry/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Dealing with a disruptive user on changing IPs

I'd appreciate opinions on the best way to deal with this particular situation, since it doesn't seem to fall neatly into anything on the WP:SOCK policy.

There is a user (99.135.170.179 (talk · contribs) at the moment) who has been editing some contentious articles, ranging over the last month from Roman Polanski to some Troubles (British/Ireland) articles (list of IPs). S/he always edits anonymously, and has admitted that their IP changes every few days.[1] Normally this wouldn't be a problem, except that the user is frequently edit-warring, has racked up a couple blocks on previous IPs over the last month, and is about one revert away from a third block on the current IP. Frankly, if I would have been aware of the previous block history, I probably would have already blocked a third time, but since I didn't know their history, I was going by WP:BITE and WP:AGF.

Not all edits by the IP are bad, and they have made some good changes, but I'd say that the mix of positive contributions to disruptive is about 70/30 right now. Also, to their credit, they have never used the IP editing to get around a block, and their IPs never overlap. The main problem is simply that the user is not particularly forthcoming that they're on a new IP when the address changes, so each new IP starts with a blank talkpage, and the warnings start anew. Repeated requests to the user to edit while logged in, have been ignored.

Assuming that the pattern of borderline disruption is going to continue, on whatever the next IP address will be, is there a way that we can maintain centralized information, so that future administrators don't have to start over from scratch each time? I have been mulling possible ways to deal with the situation, such as:

• Arbitrarily define one of the IPs as the "primary" IP, and require that the user put a link to it on the userpage of any new IPs that s/he uses.
• Under authority of an Arbitration Enforcement remedy, or perhaps a community discussion, require that the user only edit while logged in.
• Educate the other editors on the commonly visited articles of this IP, to report to an administrator each time they spot a new IP being used in a disruptive manner.
• Set up an WP:SPI report page, for collection of the IP information.

I wasn't sure where exactly to ask about this, such as at WP:AN or WP:AE, but I figured I'd start here. So, any suggestions? --Elonka 17:14, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Please note, User:Elonka and I are currently in disagreement[2] over an interpretation of a WP:RSN discussion[3] which itself was started, by me, but at the request of User:Elonka. I'm also not comfortable with the user baiting with leading questions editors engaged in a content dispute with me. [4] which interestingly may have produced this response[5] to my edit here:[6]. Further my participation on the page began recently when it was at this stage:[7] as a stub without references. This was my work:[8]. I don't believe that my edits are disruptive - and clearly disagree with the asserted fact that any string of 10 will contain 7 disruptive. I believe my contributions to be civil, well referenced and supported with clear, concise reasoning.99.135.170.179 (talk) 17:53, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Why does the IPs refuse to create an account & sign in? GoodDay (talk) 18:16, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

When I started here, before 9/11, I frequently found myself in front of multiple computers over the course of a day - it was also more the exception back then to have an account. Having never joined, or felt the need, I simply have not. No ideological opposition to it, just haven't. A longer discussion on the subject in which I expand slightly on the topic can be found in the archives of Jimbo's talk page. Fundamentally my contributions are driven by a sense of idealism and the free dissemination of knowledge. 99.135.170.179 (talk) 18:30, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

By refusing to create an account, rightly or wrongly you give the impression of being evasive & thus others may not trust you. Recommend you create an account & sign in. GoodDay (talk) 18:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

You are quite correct - the impact has been profound. As Wikipedia has, and continues, to evolve, the reception to IP editing has changed dramatically in the last 2 years. It may not honestly be possible much/any longer to contribute effectively without an account. Neither right nor wrong - just reality.99.135.170.179 (talk) 18:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Then again, you should create an account & sign in. There's no reason to refuse or delay. GoodDay (talk) 18:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually I'm also considering walking away, we may be at a stage where npov does not have the upper hand. That's not an opinion I hold - but I have considered the possibility. If so, I have no doubt a Renaissance would occur breathing life into the project in the near future. The project is too adaptable to harm long term. Philosophical musings aside, after this much time I wouldn't either walk or join up lightly.99.135.170.179 (talk) 18:50, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I still recommend you create an account & sign in. GoodDay (talk) 18:53, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I see you've not heeded my advice. It's too bad, you still 'refuse' to follow it. GoodDay (talk) 21:04, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• GENERAL COMMENT: (Noting I have previously been in contention with 99). I think it is fair to say that many of us are tempted to, um, push it, from time to time. Our having an account history tends to, uh, click the internalized restraint circuit breaker. A shifting ip, however well intentioned and generally reasonable, does not have such a feature installed—which places a burden on the community of dealing with an un-restrained participant whenever the participant chooses to operate with the freedom of a history-free dynamic ip. It is that (recurring) burden which strongly suggests that such a user relieve that burden (on the community) by creating an account. Proofreader77 (talk) 20:05, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
  • When an IP has been blocked and then dynamics away and yet continues editing in the same way, where I myself have given this dynamic a handful of warnings at different addresses, it would be easier on the community to have a history to assess what is going on, the IP was again at the 3RR board and I saw that no previous block history was available and was not offered by the IP, "as I am here at the 3RR board again I would like to declare that I have been blocked previously under another IP" is not going to happen is it? I also support this IP creating an account to allow edits to be reviewed. I would also say in the IPs favour that there has been no deliberate hiding of the fact that it is them, they have readily admitted it. The IP told me that they have thousands of edits over years? Off2riorob (talk) 13:37, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

IP hoping must be stopped, somehow, someway. GoodDay (talk) 19:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

You may wish to start with the WP:Five pillars, specifically our Founding Principle[9], "Anyone can edit". Note also that there exist a number of editors such as myself well known to the project:

"The step from not having an account to having an account is not, now, (and never really was) the dividing line that signals a metamorphosis from inexperienced novice to experienced editor. Indeed, Wikipedia has been around long enough for it to have well-known long-term editors, who have made a point of not creating accounts despite encouragement to do so, who have years-long edit histories.

Sorry for the concise response, it wasn't meant as a chastisement. -99.135.170.179 (talk) 21:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

It's regrettable that you prefer to be un-cooperative. GoodDay (talk) 21:13, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Just curious, but what exactly is your objection to an encyclopedia anyone can edit? --99.135.170.179 (talk) 21:21, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

When you've 'created an account' & 'signed in'? I'll have an answer for you. GoodDay (talk) 22:21, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

As a followup, this anonymous editor is now on 99.135.174.186 (talk · contribs). I have left a note on their (current) talkpage with a link to the previous IPs, and have strongly encouraged them to respect the growing consensus here, that the editor should cease editing anonymously, and instead create an account. --Elonka 22:11, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

99, you are just as much "anyone" as any registered user, so your quoting of "an encyclopedia anyone can edit" really bears no weight. That quote doesn't specify whether "anyone" is a registered user or an IP. "Anyone" can also register and edit as a registered user. Nothing is preventing you from registering, and you will still be editing, but now as a registered user who doesn't automatically raise suspicions.

I now "have 3,928 pages on your watchlist (excluding talk pages)." I follow the activities of IPs and by far most of them engage in dubious edits or outright vandalism. Considering that all of them could edit as registered users, and that those who are making good edits could also do it as registered users, there is no legitimate argument for editing as an anonymous IP. It creates suspicion and usually disruption, like it does now. Please register. I obviously belong to that group of editors who believe that only registered users should be able to edit. (I have never yet read a good argument for anonymous editing, since registered users can be more anonymous than IPs.) -- Brangifer (talk) 05:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Elonka, considering that the editor has been blocked before, and that their actions are now disruptive, they can be blocked on sight for being disruptive. In this case it would be the pattern, rather than individual violations of policy, that would justify a block. The basic policy is one account per person, and every IP is acting as an account. That must not be allowed. When a registered user edits from different locations and with different IPs, it causes no problem, since there is only one edit history for that registered account. This situation is intolerable and the editor should be blocked and the article(s) should be semi-protected. In fact, ALL articles should be semi-protected as a matter of default. That would limit the amount of damage that IPs could do. We're using far too much effort on fighting vandalism, and not enough on making it difficult for it to happen in the first place.

Some of the most damaging vandals work extremely fast and we need to slow them down. We could make semi-protection of articles standard, thus limiting their edits to talk pages. While not all IPs perform vandalism, nearly all vandalism is performed by IPs, so limiting the rights of IPs has no really serious downside.

We can slow them down by forcing IPs to "jump through a hoop" each time they edit. Every single time an IP attempts to edit, a screen (with polices and encouragement to register) will appear that forces them to click through before they can actually get to the real editing screen. This will slow them down, and the first screen will explain to them the advantages of registering and why editing as an IP will always be a cumbersome process for them.

Summarizing:

1. Slow them down by making them "jump through hoops" for each edit.
2. Make semi-protection of articles their default state.

Our goal should be aimed at preventing vandalism, not (just) making it easier to fight it after it happens. Too much time is wasted on mopping up vandalism considering the relatively few (as compared to vandalistic) good edits from IPs. Forcing all editors to register would make my two points above superfluous, as they are a compromise. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:49, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

There is also significant suspicion that an editor who "just shows up" and edits in a problematic area is related to existing users who are restricted from this area. Something to consider. SirFozzie (talk) 22:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Good point! I have filed an SPI report, under the name of the arbitration case, at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Troubles. --Elonka 22:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm in the camp that is in support of anonymous editing, and hold that those in favor of forced registering of editors are wrongdoers who themselves should be punished for harassing the IP editors. IP users have just as much right here to edit as anyone else and should be able to share equally, completely and totally with the registered account holders on here. User:Elonka User:GoodDay and User:BullRangifer are the kind of people who I feel are discriminatory against editors who disagree with them and hence this idea of forcing people to register to edit is a power play on their part. I propose action be taken to halt them from continuing to voice this position. Their intolerance of anonymous editing is totally discriminatory and shouldn't itself be tolerated on a free location like this anymore. Hate and prejudice has no place here or anywhere anymore. JourneyManTraveler (talk) 01:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello JourneyManTraveler (talk · contribs), thank you for joining the discussion as a logged-in account.  :) To address your comment, this is not about hate, it's about reducing disruption to the project. As is being shown at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Troubles, the anon in question, 99.1x, received many warnings and blocks on multiple IPs. This was a violation of the sockpuppetry policy as it meant that someone was using multiple accounts to "avoid scrutiny". --Elonka 02:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Elonka. This has nothing to do with POV, agreement, disagreement, etc. This has to do with disruption and avoiding the scrutiny of other editors, which is forbidden here. I suggest you learn not to violate our policy against personal attacks and follow the AGF policy. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:10, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Howdy JMT. If the anon-in-question, had continued to use the exact same IP-account? I wouldn't have been so frustrated. As for privacy stuff, one actually has more privacy by being a registered account. GoodDay (talk) 18:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

That's true as an IP number can be quickly localised.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:57, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• Would the IP consider a name like this user User:IP69.226.103.13 BigDunc 21:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Review of current wording

Two proposed corrections to "Inappropriate uses":

• "Editing project space" is untenable. Classic case, a good-faith user has an alt account that they use in topic area X. That account has to be able to post at (for example) RFAR about editing matters or disputes. Also the alternate account may become used in an entire area; their legitimate project input related to those areas will be naturally raised under that account's name. The alt account may have co-edited with the RFA candidate, a page the alternate account edits may be proposed for AFD, or a policy point that the alternate account's topic area relates to may come up for discussion. I think what's meant is:

Project-space focused accounts: Users should not create use an alternate account that is undisclosed to the wider community and other participants, to segregate their content and project editing, to avoid scrutiny of contentious behavior or other activities in project space, or as a means of making contentious contributions in project space without true accountability.

• "Posing as a neutral commentator" doesn't go far enough. I think this is more the point:

Concealing a non-neutral stance: Affecting to be a neutral party who feels (as an uninvolved user) that a given view has merit, when (were it known who the operator were) the account would be understood to be considerably non-neutral and their contribution perceived very differently. Neutral uninvolved parties may have extra weight in some discussions and this should not be gamed by using an undisclosed second account to create the impression of a neutral party.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Response:

Project-space focused accounts: Users should not create use an secret alternate account to segregate their content and project editing, to avoid scrutiny of contentious behavior or other activities in project space, or as a means of making contentious contributions in project space without true accountability.

Segregating contributions by project area seems perfectly reasonable to me, if the accounts are openly and clearly disclosed. An intuitive suffix to the username would be ideal, I would think. I do sometimes wish I had used another username for my deletion discussion contributions, because they swamp my policy/guildine/essay contributions. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Good edit, modified mine the same way. Also to prevent 'lawyering: "Secret" can be disputed. Whether it's disclosed to other participants and the community who might read the thread, is the important thing: Users should not use an alternate account that is undisclosed to the wider community and other participants, to.... FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 18:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

RE: "Concealing a non-neutral stance".
This is a very serious problem. On the other hand, it is said that no one lacks a particular point of view, and personal agenda, even if the person himself is unaware of it. It is the substance of the message that is important, and we should try to not assign importance based on the identity of the speaker. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the second point. The first puts a bit of a twist on what I think has been the conventional wisdom (mostly since the Privatemusings arbitration, if I recall), which is more specifically that "alternate accounts" shouldn't be used in relation to policy and project related discussions, at all. Considering that one explicitly can use an account just to work on content, however, I think your wording (FT2) is a little unclear (is this not in itself to "segregate... content and project editing"?). I'm not sure it has often been stated in these terms, but I think the important point is more simply that editors should never have more than one account editing on policy/project related issues (and should not retire one account to immediately jump in with another account who pushes the same issues), since this is almost always going to be deceptive. Perhaps there is a second point that editors should not have an account that edits only policy, but I think this actually comes down to whether anyone should edit just policy, alternate account or not. If I were stating the rule, it would be that no editor should at any point have more than one account active in project related discussions, except where the alternate account is publicly marked as such. I think this exception is part of the policy, even if it hasn't been stated, since I often see obvious alternate accounts comment on pages like this one without being blocked (as long as it's transparent, I don't know why the account would be). Mackan79 (talk) 03:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

That's starting to sound a bit creepy. I like to think that if a rule prevents me from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, I can ignore it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:42, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The loophole that gets exploited is this: Discussion X is going on. User Y is known to have a strong view on the topic (one side is their friend, or the topic is one they've advocated on frequently. So the community "tunes them out" a bit or recognizes when user Y inevitably post on discussion X, their stance is a well known one. A lot of users have well known stances and this segregation is deceptive.

In this example, user Y posts using an alt account not known to advocate or be partial to one side in the debate. Posting as "Y" they would be noted and not skew the entire debate. As Alt-Y they get a whole new lease of life by this trick; the community is deceived and treats the alt account as a genuine new "uninvolved-in-the-topic-area" neutral user... our advocative user has a whole new lease of life. If caught they claim "Well I wasn't stacking, I only used one account!" But the point is the community has been deceived. They believed this was a new user, new view, not a user they have already through long experience decided their view upon.

The essence of abusive socking is that the community should not be deceived to believe a debate has more views (or stronger/more independent views) on any given side, than is the case. This is a common way such debates are still skewed "within the rules". Worth blocking this loophole somehow. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Interview for Signpost

Each month I'm going to pick a policy page that has seen a lot of recent changes and interview participants for the Signpost so that the readers can get some insight into the question: how does policy get made? The page that's changed the most this month is this page (WP:SOCK), and I'm confused about what the changes mean. Anyone who wants to have their comments in the Signpost is welcome to respond ... I can't promise to use all of them, the column has to stay short, but I'll try to get in representative comments from anyone who wants to respond. So, I'll throw out a few questions, but feel free to bring up any subject relevant to this month's editing:

• What were the most important changes this month, and do you think the page is more stable in the current version than it was in previous months?
• I see the page got shorter; was everyone happy about this, or was there some compromise or negotiation involved?
• Some tough language was added. How confident are you that the restrictions on sock accounts will be effective? - Dank (push to talk) 17:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Responses by FT2

Sock policy is our core policy on editors abusing the ability to edit, in order to deceive other editors (hidden COI is the other main deception area). Historically the community has taken a tough line on it, it's got a very high level of support across the board, from everyday users to administrators to Arbcom. Almost the only time an actual proposed sanction will be disputed is when there's a question of sufficient proof; if the proof's there then abusers don't tend to get much support. As a major page and a major anti-abuse policy it gets a lot of use and attention. There's a need to be clear and succinct, yet cover all the stops, and be fair to all, which drives this page quite strongly. The changes reflect the community's feeling that it's due for a thorough reworking. That happens from time to time, the structure and wording can become a bit diffuse and patchy because of many separate contributions and people start to feel it's time for a thorough review. So to your questions: Important changes are to cogency and style. The draft update has adopted a more terse style, with clear easily understood explanations of forbidden uses, rather than a lengthy section for each one. (The "Handling suspected sock puppets" section is a good example.) The "things that can happen if you sock" are stated more bluntly. We don't want this as a hidden surprise, dealing with the ensuing issues detracts us from other editing matters. Everything's searchable and Wikipedia page histories are widely mirrored and effectively last forever. We don't want to see even abusers hurt, but we do want to raise awareness what can happen if they are called out on it. The other major rewrite area is best practice for tagging and handling, which can be a contentious area and it's good to see being reviewed this way. I wasn't involved this time around. What's there seems to follow the spirit of best practice and be well written; I picked out two points that I think need review (above); apart from that I'd have to look a lot closer to see if there's anything else. Whatever comes of it will have wide scrutiny, but it's really a cleanup and tightening up of policy wording rather than a major change, the sort of thing that's going on all the time. For example, the legitimate and forbidden uses aren't much changed at all. The community is historically quite "hard" on likely and confirmed socking anyway; if anything the trend is for that to continue. FT2 (Talk | email) 19:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Response by Amorymeltzer

I'd group the changes over the past month or so into three main categories. First, a lot of work has been done to make the policy clearer, especially where concerned with legitimate uses of multiple or alternate accounts. Secondly, a lot of changes reflect concerns as related to sysops. Whether or not this is a response to recent removals of adminship is largely irrelevant; the changes reflect a more absolute image of the community's views on admins with multiple accounts. For example, the text was changed to read "Editors must not operate more than one administrator account," and so on, which is a straightforward and direct interpretation of the generally assumed behaviors of sysops. This may be my own interpretation, but the closer we get to a bright-line rule here there better, as the removal of confounding process is always better. Finally, I think a much larger effort has been made to include WP:Assume Good Faith as a governing principle in these situations. In short, sockpuppets accusations can be easy to fling around, and even easier when the target is a new user, who may not have as full of an understanding of policy and the correct annals of process as the accuser. The current edition of the page not only makes a stronger effort to force AGF on the part of investigating editors, but also makes it clearer and easier to understand for new or investigated editors. Clearly, a lot of those topics group and blend together. A lot of the removed information was related to how to deal with suspected sockpuppets, which has been made more succinct and clearer to read in a step-wise fashion. Moreover, a lot of the particulars (such as those related to Checkuser and OTRS) aren't necessary or appropriate for this page, and only served to complicate an already confusing issue. The admin issues were a source of a lot of discussion on the talkpage, especially as concerned to releasing accounts at an RfA. While the concerned text was relatively minor (should normally versus usually) the implication was relatively large - implying that RfA candidates should as opposed to just do. That discussion essentially ended as beyond the scope of WT:SOCK (perhaps more ideal for WT:RFA) but also raised the issue of Checkusering all admin candidates. That oft-raised concept, perhaps following on the heels of the recent incidents, didn't gain much steam, mostly due to WP:AGF concerns. Essentially, a lot of loose ends have been tied up, but the entire page has been made much more readable. Not too much all-in-all has changed, as FT2 says, but pretty much every aspect has been tightened. There still remain a number of unclear issues, but a lot of those are going to have to be decided by a larger community consensus on topics with a broad applicability. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 22:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Responses by SmokeyJoe

There have certainly been a lot of edits to the page, but it was mostly tidying, better expression, and very little change of substance. A difficulty with this policy is that there is very little information on existing non-abusive use of secret alternative accounts. A justification for the heavy editing has been the claim that this policy is ineffective with regard to the abusive use of secret alternative accounts. This has also provided impetus for what might be called “tough language”. The tough language may encourage stern reaction to discovered cases of abusive sock puppetry. The threat to block and publicly link abusive sock accounts is thought to be somewhat a deterrent. The long standing advice to email arbcom about the use of secret accounts is currently relegated to be something for users to "consider", for various contended reasons. These reasons include: arbcom have not asked for this information; arbcom is not assigned the role of reviewing such information; information disclosed is not explicitly covered by a privacy policy; there is no policy on the use, storage and disclosure of such information; the means of transmission of such information, to and amongst the recipients, is not secure; the request for such disclosure only effects those who already respect this policy, and is easily ignored by all others. There seems to be general agreement on the replacement advice, which remains marked with the {{Underdiscussion}} tag. There are still improvements to be made, but I sense that the edit rate to the page is going to be more normal from here on. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Responses by User:Abductive

I don't believe in written policies, I believe in the operational consensus, which in this case appears to be largely unchanged. There is a major difference between abusive sockpuppetry and using more than one account, whether serially or simultaneously. It seems to me that a certain laxness in enforcement in the last year or so has been reversed, or at least people hope so. On the other hand, I'm seeing a lot of new usernames in the last few days in AfD discussions, so who knows? Abductive (reasoning) 06:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Responses by User:Bwilkins

I'm not sure that the key issues are in the new edits, but more importantly that the edits have taken place in the first place: in other words, it's not what was edited, it's that it was edited. Although invisible to the majority of users, the issue with a banned user getting a sock account and becoming an admin sent a chill throughout the project. Personally, I now ask a carefully-phrased question in all RFA's. Yes, someone can lie or decieve us in their answer, and honestly, I feel that if they are caught in that lie, then they could/should have the tools stripped - Adminship is not a big deal, but it is about trust. Socking is a core policy, and it needs detail. However, I'm still concerned that the current policy still suffers from a little WP:TLDNR, so I can see more shortening/forking to make it absolutely crystal clear to editors. I may add to this later (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Responses by WereSpielChequers

I think there were three things that drove lots of attention to this project and highlighted some areas where the community does and does not agree. The three things were: The desysopping of three admin accounts as a direct or indirect result of a breach of this policy. Oddly no-one disputes that the policy was broken or wants to change it to allow a user to open a new account whilst banned. But some people's reaction to a policy being broken is to review the policy. A little project I started to encourage established users to set up a new account and experience life as a newbie article creator Attempts at RFAs to identify candidates who have used wp:CLEANSTART and some people's concern about this. The areas where I don't think that community is in agreement are: Who should legitimate but secret alternate accounts be disclosed to? Policy says Arbcom and that's what I've done myself and have recommended in WP:NEWT after checking with Arbcom. But some RFa questions seem to prefer that crats or others be informed rather than Arbcom. Should admins be allowed to have secret undisclosed alternate or former accounts? Does WP:CLEANSTART need amending to say that admins and admin candidates are expected to declare all former accounts or at least have them vetted by a trusted third party? Should the whole policy be renamed Multiple accounts as former accounts, disclosed alternate accounts, legitimate secret alternate accounts and sockpuppets are all examples of multiple accounts. Personally I'm in favour of renaming the policy, and of being more restrictive on admins having currently live undisclosed accounts. I think that disclosing secret accounts to Arbcom works well, and would be happy to restrict the exemption to "editors in totalitarian states, who run secret accounts for privacy and safety reasons". I don't see the case for changing Cleanstart. ϢereSpielChequers 12:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Responses by next user

Summary (see tomorrow's Signpost)

Feel free to edit this summary. The deadline is roughly midnight Sunday night (UTC): Several contributors shared their thoughts about the many changes to our Sock puppetry policy page this month. FT2 describes it as a heavily used page whose wording had become "diffuse and patchy"; he sees this month's efforts as mainly tightening and improving clarity, more directness about the possible serious consequences of being caught operating sock-puppets, and improved guidance in areas such as sock handling. Amorymeltzer notes the new clearer wording on legitimate uses of multiple accounts, stricter standards for admins, and focus on WP:Assume Good Faith as a governing principle. SmokeyJoe believes the tough language, including the "threat to block and publicly link abusive sock accounts", is helpful, and thinks that the past month's changes have made the page more stable. Bwilkins points to the "chill" caused by the discovery earlier this month that an administrator was a sock of an admin blocked in 2008 (previous stories) as an impetus for increased activity on this page; he now routinely asks a question related to other accounts in individual requests for adminship. WereSpielChequers observes high levels of community disapproval over the kind of sock-puppetry that recently took place and over contentious uses of "clean start", but believes that the community has not yet reached agreement about who to disclose alternate accounts to, whether tougher rules should apply to admins, whether changes are needed to WP:CLEANSTART, and whether the page should be renamed to reflect the change in our jargon from sockpuppet meaning alternate account, to sockpuppet meaning alternate account used abusively. - Dank (push to talk) 04:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC) Small tweak 14:12, 31 October 2009 (UTC). More edits 06:16 01 November 2009 (UTC) Small edits to FT2's good work, feel free to revert: minor tightening and copyediting, and also being a little more general about what WSC said ... is there a general push to change the name of the page? - Dank (push to talk) 13:52, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Declaring Socks

After long thought I am about to create a sock account, for security purposes. As an Admin I am hesitant to log on to my main account where I do not have full control of the PC. I am surprised that I don't find a user box or template to declare cross sock relationships, nor do I find a list or category to assign my two accounts as declared socks. I would like to suggest the creation of some formal method for registering socks that are created with in established policy. If this exists and I have missed it some how please post it to WP:SOCK#LEGIT. Jeepday (talk) 22:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

See Template:User Alternate Acc or Template:User Alternate Acct Name. A simple text declaration on the userpages is usually enough though. NW (Talk) 22:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

And this wouldn't technically be a "sock" - as the first paragraph of the policy states, "When an alternate account is used in violation of this policy, it is known as a sock puppet." When an alternate account is used in accordance with policy it is simply a legitimate alternate account. Calling something a legitimate sock is confusing to new users and should be avoided.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 06:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, while many people choose to declare their alternate accounts, very few people declare their socks(At least not on purpose). Chillum 13:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of templates and tagging at WT:SPI

In case anyone hasn't noticed, there is an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Sockpuppet_investigations#Sock_template_cleanup (that was advertised at the Village Pump), just in case anyone hasn't noticed it and is interested. The templates we use are incorporated into policy and when and how to use them is under discussion in addition to a complete revamping of the templates themselves, so I'm posting here to make sure maximum interested editors are aware.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 06:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Clean Start

Currently states, "This is permitted only if there are no bans or blocks in place against your old account, and so long as no active deception is involved, particularly on pages that the old account used to edit."

I'm concerned about this wording. We do want to bar people restarting to escape their controversial editing history only to resume it with a new name, but this risks preventing people with a legitimately reason from changing.

A second problem is "no active deception" - users who don't "actively deceive" but then resume contentious editing of "their" topic under a new name are a major problem too.

Proposed:

Clean start is only permitted for an editor who either has a completely clean past record (under any account used), or who will completely cease all past contentious or improper behaviors with their new account. You may not use 'clean start' to resume a pattern of contentious behavior under a new name, or to hide a history of blocks and bans. Editors who have ever gained more than one block (across all accounts), any block that lasted over 24 hours, any ban, or who will continue editing in a similar contentious manner, may not 'clean start' without Arbcom approval. Any user in violation is likely to have the new and old accounts linked, blocks/bans/warnings of the old account noted under the new account, and one or both accounts blocked for evasion of scrutiny.

Rationale:

1. state what Clean Start may NOT be used for
2. allow a bit of leeway for genuine clean start
3. set a hard limit on that leeway (if alt accounts are disclosed to AC then so should problematic "clean starts"; from experience AC doesn't receive many of these and the email traffic implications are probably low)
4. specify realistic consequence of violation.

This is probably the more realistic way to clamp down on the abusive aspect. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 09:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I think you can take out "more than one block" and "24 hours" and replace them with "a small number of short blocks". Sometimes admins block for 31 hours rather than 24 hours. That should not suddenly invalidate the user's right to a clean start. You may want to add, "when in doubt, contact ArbCom". Jehochman ^Talk 13:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

It's a very tight exemption, otherwise it will get abused. (One block can be a mistake, but a "small number" could be 3 or 4, "short" could be 48 - 72 hrs, and "if in doubt" makes it discretionary to check).

A user who gets 24 + 24 + 48 + 48 hr blocks for edit warring has a record that's far from a "mistake". That's exactly what the other contributors' tightening of the clause is intended to catch. I'm suggesting widening from "zero blocks", to "one block of no more than 24 hours" (AGF, anyone can slip once) but you have to do a fair bit to get 2 blocks. At that point it needs to be checkable. More would drive a truck through the whole aim. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd consider "48 hours or longer" rather than "over 24 hours" if that's a concern, though. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm curious, do others here think that whether someone has been blocked for more than 24 hours is a good indicator of whether they are a contentious editor? My first question would be why this is listed, but not arbitration sanctions, RfC's, or anything else which may reflect far wider community input. I think it's actually a profoundly poor measure; I could explain why in detail, but many of the reasons are pretty clear on a surface level. Besides that, if an editor does a clean start, how is that abusive? Such strong assertions need to be explained, not emphasized. Mackan79 (talk) 23:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

A clean start should not be used willy nilly to leave behind editing history. What are the reasons for a user with a good editing history to leave his editing records? Off2riorob (talk) 21:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

One obvious reason is that their real name has been connected with their old account, either deliberately or accidentally, and they wish to edit anonymously. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:46, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Or they want to start editing on something connected to their real identity, or they don't feel like building up a long history of work for others to look through, or they don't like the attention they're getting from someone in particular or from people generally. It seems a bit absurd to me at least that an encyclopedia anyone can edit under an IP or pseudonym, no information required, no protection guaranteed, no way to prevent it, would claim to require permission to do this. Mackan79 (talk) 23:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Specific conditions, and wikilaywer fears, on whether a clean start is allowable misses the point that a clean start will be undisclosed, will be attempted with the best of intentions, and is thus under an honour system. I suggest offering advice:

1. Do not use resume a pattern of contentious behaviour.
2. Do not go back to editing the same pages where there was previous contention.
3. Do not draw attention to yourself.
4. Do not continue undisclosed if you find yourself again warned or blocked.

And follow up with: If you fail at making a clean start, stop. You will be judged on your complete editing history, and it is unlikely that you will be allowed such leeway again. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I think this is problematic. If editors who start over must "completely" stop any past contentious behavior, this should presumably be true for all editors regardless of their past. Heck, it should be true for all editors regardless of what accounts they've ever used. However, I would also question whether Wikipedia deals in "records," and other aspects of the proposal (if a record is a valid concept, and a good measure of contentiousness, I would like to see it defined). Generally, what's the motivation here? If editors are permanently tied to their accounts and any history they're seen to have, then I question why Wikipedia allows pseudonymous editing; it should require people to prove their singular identity in order to edit. It would start to have significantly greater obligations with regard to those editors. Telling some people they can't be "contentious," at all, based on one arbitrary factor, doesn't seem especially defensible. I think there is a point here: if for one example you are routinely sanctioned for incivility, and you start a new account with more of the same, and then again, and it's found that these are all your accounts, then you'll probably get the proverbial book thrown at you. But this isn't about zero tolerance, it's about people who continue to repeatedly engage in the same problematic behavior. The policy addresses this already, and maybe it could be highlighted, but I think the point is confused by absolutist language. Mackan79 (talk) 23:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Clean starts serve two different audiences, well, maybe 3:

• People who simply didn't have the hang of the wiki-way and want a fresh start, these are almost always relative newbies, but they may be long-term trolls who have seen the light.
• People whose old accounts are "compromised" in a way that hurts them off-wiki.
• Otherwise-responsible editors who party too hard one night and make a fool of themselves on Wikipedia and don't want that part of their wiki-history.

The current system helps those who are honest and who have never committed a blockable action. However, it does nothing to help those with minor or ancient blocks and who either want a fresh start or who need one for security reasons. It also does nothing to help trolls-turned-good-guys, but the long-standing "submit a good article or talk to arbcom to get your community ban lifted after 1 year" or "talk to arbcom to get your arbcom ban lifted" generally suffices assuming the ex-troll doesn't have a need to use a new account-name.

A more common-sense approach would be:

• if you qualify, clean start under the current rule.
• Community authorization for Arbcom to allow other clean starts on a case by case basis, with or without restrictions. Well, not like they need explicit authorization but a community consensus will guide their actions.
• Some community consensus or even a WP:GUIDELINE on what special self-restraint a person "returning from the dead" should practice, especially with respect to preventing accidental outing and not editing in a manner that would give a determined adversary grounds to suspect who you were. Make it clear that, even with deletable edits and WP:OVERSIGHT, Wikipedia cannot protect them from outing if an adversary is reading all of your edits as they are made and you slip up. Editors must protect themselves.

• Be careful editing articles, topics, or discussion areas you've edited before, be careful in discussions with people who might recognize your editing style, be careful repeating personal information tie-able to your previous account, etc. etc.

• Some community consensus on how long before wiki-forgiveness comes into play. If I was a rabid troll 5 years ago until I was community banned, was reinstated by ARBCOM 4 years ago and edited well since, and recently had my Wikipedia account tied to my real-life identity, should I be ineligible for a fresh start due to my previous ban? What if I just came back 2 months ago but am clearly reformed? What if my editing is too light to tell if I'm reformed or not?

• We need to get some idea of "okay, this time period is way to short to have earned community forgiveness given the nature of your past" and "that time period and strong clean edit history is clearly long enough to warrant a full pardon" to give arbcom some goalposts to measure clean-start requests by.

Having reviewed FT2's proposal, it has its plusses but isn't superior to the existing text. It would be far better to leave the short, succinct existing text in the policy and publish this as an essay with an eye toward promotion to a guideline. As an essay you can give actual guidance on how to do a fresh start if you don't automatically qualify, and give clear warnings of the likely consequences if you blow it or act in bad faith. Such a guideline can include suggestions like "talk to established editors and ask them to help you" and "what to expect in the way of sanctions your first few months back" etc., and other things that simply do not belong in a policy document due to content or length.

davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:07, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

"Landovered?"

I heard a term, "landovering", whereby a sockpuppet "goes native" from long exposure to "enemy" propaganda. Supposedly, this refers to a British spy, Agent(?) Landover, who went commie after a couple of decades being a spy in Russia. However, I can't find anything about "Agent Landover" on the web, and I've only seen the term used to refer to internet sockpuppets suffering from mission creep or doctrine pollution/reversal. Anyone know the origin of this term? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.208.70.96 (talk) 14:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Expanded Definition for Meatpupet

Why can't Meatpuppettry also refer to a negative alliance between two or more established users, or administrators, who work in tandem or as a group voicing the same opinion in multiple discussions? There seems to be a loophole in the definition. I propose the word "new" be removed from the section. -Stillwaterising (talk) 15:18, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Impossible to control and it's perfectly okay for editors to share opinions. Likeminded editors will often have many shared items on their watchlists and will respond in similar manners without that being wrong. Now if you're thinking of wikihounding or tag teaming, that's a different matter where bad faith is pretty obvious. If it's not obvious, one must AGF. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:06, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

We tend to distinguish canvassing and collaboration between existing editors, from going out and asking friends to get an account "just to vote on, or support, something". FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

It is also important to note something that is not canvassing to encourage meatpuppetry, but which can be interpreted as such by adversarial editors. When an editor gets excited about editing at Wikipedia and wants others to come and also become editors, they may invite them to register and become editors. That's fine and good. When the editor also includes instructions that new editors must abide by NPOV, not edit war, collaborate with editors who hold opposing POV, etc., it is improper for adversarial editors to accuse them of canvassing. They have not invited new editors to come and edit in a certain manner in a certain article, discussion, or thread. In such a case, accusations of canvassing are bad faith accusations. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

More caps in the lead

I see the bold and all-caps in the lead seems to be expanding, and I don't disagree with all of it, but presumably there's an endpoint? In any case, I don't think this edit is helpful; to say it's a basic rule, with exceptions, but then put it in caps, I start to feel like I'm on a roller coaster. Of course, I'd welcome any explanation of what it adds. Mackan79 (talk) 22:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I have taken a totally different approach and added only the most significant part that wasn't represented in the lead - "one editing history". It's mentioned in several different ways in the body. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:51, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Can you show where it occurs in the body? I am not familiar with the idea that every person should have one edit history. For one thing it's clearly inconsistent with IP editing, where you don't have one edit history, since you don't even register. Editors often change accounts, and this has never been disallowed; in fact it's explicitly allowed as a "clean start." As far as I'm aware this is simply incorrect, and probably goes against what I understand is a foundation requirement to allow IP editing. Mackan79 (talk) 05:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

It has to do with not "avoiding scrutiny". The use of multiple IPs should be avoided, and once an editor really starts editing, they should stick to one IP or register. If their IP is dynamic and changing, even more reason to register, since scattering/spreading ones edit history is disruptive and prevents other editors from easily seeing the patterns in ones editing. THAT is forbidden. Maybe this should be more clearly stated, since you apparently don't understand the concept.

From here on I diverge from the specific topic and deal with IP editing. We use far too much time dealing with IP disruption and hopping IPs, as well as IP socks. It has to stop, and making this policy more clear would give us better tools to do what we're already doing - blocking them. Anyone can edit Wikipedia, but "anyone" doesn't imply that it has to be as an IP. Any IP can register, and thus that "anyone" behind the IP can still edit. Registering also gives one more privacy. The only "privacy" IP editing provides is the type that is forbidden, privacy from scrutiny. There is no advantage to IP editing.

Note that I've been diverging from the original topic, and that my edit doesn't forbid IP editing, but only makes it clear that the basic rule is one presence on Wikipedia as proven by one editing history. Except in the few cases where multiple accounts are allowed, multiple edit histories is often evidence of socking. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:20, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Splitting editing across accounts is not forbidden; if it is I would ask you to show me any editor who has ever been sanctioned or admonished for doing so. This has explicitly been allowed for editors choosing to work on sensitive topics over an extended time. As far as IP editing, clearly you disagree with the policy, but the point is that you can edit Wikipedia wherever you are, without doing anything but making the edit. Whatever the purpose, one edit history is not by any means expected, nor are such editors required to eventually register. I believe there are IP editors known and respected for making many thousands of edits. In any case, you must see that the concept of a "clean start" is at odds with the suggestion that editors are expected to have a single edit history? The statement is inconsistent with the current policy. Mackan79 (talk) 07:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The obvious implication of the basic "one account" is one edit history. But you are right to some degree, and I haven't denied that. There are situations where multiple accounts are allowed, and that's when they perform separate tasks. That lots of IP hopping occurs is a well-known fact, and when it isn't done deceptively or disruptively, it usually doesn't get any attention, but when it is done disruptively, the "one editing history" comes into play and can and is enforced, often by blocking or banning. The basic rule is still the same, but there are exceptions. I have only been speaking about the basic rule all along, so don't muddy the waters by discussing the exceptions. Obvious slip-ups where a PC times out and such like are never a problem. We use common sense, and common sense allows for human error, but not for gaming the system. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:28, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

This focus on one account per person is confusing to the reader because that is simple not what the policy says later on. The body of the policy spells out under what conditions multiple accounts are allowed and under what conditions they are not allowed. I see no need to make strong claims in the introduction that are later contradicted in the body of the policy. Chillum 15:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

You have a point, and the solution is to mention in the LEAD that exceptions are allowed. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

That leaves the question of presumptions. Do you think it can be presumed that a divided edit history is abusive, such that a person has to prove they have a valid reason for doing so? If so, that would be the reason to write that more than one account is prohibited with certain exceptions. This has been discussed above, however, and it isn't presumed; a person is not sanctioned or blocked simply because they have used more than one account. I know some editors here are pushing for a presumption of abuse, or at least want to vaguely suggest it -- I think the view is extremely poorly considered -- but without broad support to adopt that position I don't believe that the policy should be written in this manner. Mackan79 (talk) 06:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

See my reply below, which addresses this issue. Splitting edit histories can encourage and enable abuse, and abuse can lead to blocks. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Brangrifer, I wonder if you can clarify how this change would help to block IPs in an appropriate manner. Do abusive IP editors successfully argue that they should be unblocked under one IP because they were only disruptive under another, or are you suggesting that non-disruptive IP editors should be blocked simply where it is thought that they have used too many IPs? If IP editors are disruptive, then they would be blocked regardless of this policy. If they aren't, then with all due respect I don't see how it can be suggested that they should be blocked. Mackan79 (talk) 04:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Blocking is only used for disruptive use of multiple IPs where editors hide their true editing history here by using several IPs. Sometimes the very fact that editing histories are spread enables and encourages abuse. There has just been a situation that deals with this issue. You might want to take a look at that thread to see what I've been talking about:

• http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive574#Join_or_be_banned.3F

Splitting edit histories can encourage and enable abuse, and abuse can lead to blocks. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I know it can enable abuse. Life enables abuse. The question I think we need to get at is whether you can be blocked without any abuse. Briefly perusing the conversation you link (thanks for providing it), I note Elonka's comment: "99.1x has been using dozens of accounts, has accumulated countless warnings, and been blocked several times." This seems clearly abusive, unless there is something I am missing. It gets back to the question of presumptions, however: unless an editor would be blocked without any abuse then it is not true that the standard rule is that you must have one edit history, with exceptions. In fact you are not required to have one edit history, with some exceptions where this may required (namely where there is abusive editing that makes it reasonable for it to be required). I think this is clearest in the concept of a "clean start"; they don't have to explain it, justify it, make you appreciate their reasons for doing so. It's just something they can do. That isn't fairly described as an exception, given that there are no requirements. Perhaps with IP editors abuse is more common than good faith editing, but certainly that isn't true with registered users whom I think are at least the equal focus of this policy. Mackan79 (talk) 08:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'm understanding all your points or concerns, so forgive me if I'm missing something. I'm really trying, and I know you are expressing legitimate concerns. My concerns right now are about IP editing. I don't think non-problematic edits by IPs editing different articles usually gets noticed and it doesn't lead to blocks. If the multiple IPs edit similar topic areas, that is problematic because other editors get the false impression they are dealing with several different people, and that mustn't happen. Whether the editor using those IPs intends it or not, they are effectively "avoiding the scrutiny of other editors". That's forbidden. If a user is going to use different accounts, they shouldn't allow them to edit the same topic areas. I think this is the type of multiple accounts (IP or registered) that are allowed. If one of those accounts is editing in a problematic or controversial manner (that judgment is made by other editors and the involved editors self-conception doesn't count), that creates a problem. Other editors aren't getting the total picture, because some editors are seeing only one face and not judging the editor by the total picture one would get if they had a combined and single editing history.

Confusion should be avoided. There are legitimate reasons for using multiple accounts, and those are the exceptions, but the basic rule is one account. That is not a new position, and is not of my creation. My interpretation (one editing history) is a natural consequence of the basic rule. This has nothing to do with allowed multiple accounts, which would obviously have their own editing histories. That's alright.

You ask "whether you can be blocked without any abuse". As the thread I linked shows, an editor was using multiple IP accounts. If not a single one of them had created any controversy, no one would have been concerned and blocking would never have been discussed. Once one, and then another (but probably a minority) of the IP accounts caused problems, the demand to "join or be banned" was made, and when it wasn't met, the user's IPs were blocked as best they could. So the answer to your question would be "no". That wouldn't happen, BUT I believe that if a user has no compelling reason to legitimately use multiple accounts, they should follow the basic rule. Deviations from that rule are limited, and so it should be. It should be a very rare exception. I'm in favor of formal registration (sometimes secretly) of all multiple accounts. There should be a process where a user notifies certain trusted admins or clerks of their wish to use multiple accounts, and that they must get permission to do so if they meet certain conditions. If it is found that a user has been using multiple accounts without permission (which would usually only happen if they got into trouble), that should be a blockable offense, because all non-registered multiple accounts are acting as socks.

In the end, I still haven't seen a legitimate reason for allowing IP editing. I have yet to read a good excuse from the many IPs I've discussed this with, or seen discussions with. Creating an account is easy and provides better privacy, and it doesn't prevent anyone from editing. It also gives more possibilities and privileges, and reduces the justified suspicion with which IP editors are met. There are no good reasons for not registering, and I'm one of those Wikipedians who believe all users should register. Maybe newbie IP editors should be allowed to edit a certain number of times (maybe 200 edits) before having to register. I think that might be a good idea. I also believe that all controversial articles should be semi-protected by default all the time. Those are two suggestions to limit 90% of the disruption caused by IPs. We waste far too much time fighting vandalism, and not enough time on preventing it. - Brangifer (talk) 04:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, I'll go by numbers if I may:

1. Are people really misled by multiple IPs of the same editor appearing to be more than one person? Personally I know I would never consider an IP's comment as evidence of the level of support for a position; I would only read them to see if there was something I missed. Even if others look at it differently, IP editors would certainly have to be willing to assert that they were not editing under any other IP in that discussion if they wanted to be "counted." Intentional deception is, of course, not allowed.
2. I can respect your view that editors should have to disclose alternate accounts to some body, but this has been discussed at length above, and there is not consensus for it. I think there are many extremely important reasons why this shouldn't be required, which I may lay out, but that is the fact (please see the above discussions if you haven't followed). But disclosure has still only been discussed for "alternate" accounts; I have not seen anyone suggest that a clean start must also be disclosed (it has been noted that editors may wish to do so as a protective measure). In any case, I think these factors strongly contradict the idea that editors are expected to have one edit history.
3. IP editing isn't something I deal with, and I'm not sure it's relevant to my points. Anyway, I think it has solely to do with getting the most participation possible. People often start with IP editing, and may not have started if this wasn't available. I know that's how I started. I don't know if I would have registered as a first step. I'm sure the high-ups are aware of the problems, but for that reason they put up with it.

Mackan79 (talk) 03:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

That's an interesting unindent! I haven't seen it before. I'll also reply by numbers to make it easier:

1. A. Yes, people can easily be misled by editors who use different IPs to participate in the same discussion or edit the same article. (Some are upfront and sign with their name, so that helps somewhat.) Fortunately on controversial articles there are usually enough people watching the articles that there are some who geolocate IPs and spot such things. They then raise the alarm that socking is occurring. B. Yes, IPs are often discounted and have little say. They don't have any status and they aren't taken as seriously. That's pretty much as it should be, and is also another good reason for registering. All serious editors should feel that they are taken seriously.
2. A. I haven't read the discussion above about disclosure. Which section links should I look at? B. As to a "clean start", I haven't been addressing that at all, and nothing I have written really contradicts that. I'm not suggesting that throughout a person's lifetime they will only have one editing history. There can be many reasons for why they may end up with more than one. I'm basically stating that the basic rule is one account, and one editing history "at a time", with some exceptions.
3. A. I currently "have 3,911 pages on your watchlist (excluding talk pages)." Many of them are controversial topics, and IP vandalism, edit warring, and sock puppetry are real problems. B. I think I address above what is acceptable to me, and that is to allow what newbies do anyway. They usually start as IP editors, but they should register after a certain number of edits. C. I also believe that all controversial articles should be semi-protected by default at all times. D. I know that higher ups are aware of the problems, but WE shouldn't have to put up with these problems. This is an area that seriously detracts from Wikipedia's reputation and makes editing here a pain. We and the higher ups should do more to prevent disruption and vandalism, instead of just devising ways to fight it once it occurs. My two suggestions would probably eliminate about 80% percent of our problems. E. Another 10% could be dealt with much more effectively by meaning what we say when we warn vandals. Currently we lie to them again and again, so they don't take us seriously. I have a subpage that proposes a better way of dealing with vandals in the form of fewer warning templates: User:BullRangifer/Vandalism templates. I would love to receive contructive criticism on the talk page.

Mackan79, I very much appreciate your responses and your willingness to explain your position, and also your patience with me. Such interchanges are always a great way to learn from each other and develop. Even when editors don't agree, if they can disagree agreeably, they at least learn to understand opposing positions and can edit alongside each other without assuming bad faith, etc.. All in all a good thing. Thanks again! -- Brangifer (talk) 06:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely, I feel the same way. One reason I try to discuss, incidentally, is because it often highlights ways that you can work around both people's concerns, as to which: I just added some material here to address specifically the issue of IPs. Does this address the issue to your satisfaction? With that said, I'd like to suggest that introductory statement about "one history" is unnecessary, particularly as it would seem that the editors who are causing the problems you mention are already going against the more basic concept of "one person, one account." The reason "one history" bothers me is, as I've suggested, unrelated, and because I think it suggests a presumption of abuse where it doesn't exist. Regards, Mackan79 (talk) 07:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to take this out, since it's new and, at least between Bull and myself, doesn't seem to have consensus. As noted immediately above, I did add something to address the issues with IPs and of course I'm open to other adjustments. Mackan79 (talk) 05:58, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for getting back to you so late. I'm surprised you took it out, since you are the only one who has objected, and this page is watched by huge numbers of admins and ArbCom members. I would think you would have waited for them to object. Their silence seemed to indicate tacit acceptance. (Chillum's objection was dealt with and fixed.) It is also worth noting that my edits stood for several days, and even when other edits needed to be reverted, my edits were preserved. That says something.

The previous version was unsatisfactory and it needed something to help deal with some problems which you admit you aren't familiar with (IP editing problems). I am familiar with them and was trying to improve this policy to help in that direction. Now we're back to no improvement. I'm rather disappointed. Why not let others object? If there are strong objections that I can't answer, then I'll concede the point. Brangifer (talk) 07:11, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm forced to disagree about the correct process. I happen to have looked at WP:POLICY today, and as it says: "Policies and guidelines can be edited like any other Wikipedia page, but edits that would imply a change to accepted practice, particularly such edits to a policy page, should be discussed in advance to ensure that the change reflects consensus." This would be a significant change, and as such the burden is on anyone who would like to make such a change to show consensus for it. I don't say this lightly; I oppose the change primarily because I think it would be a serious misstatement of general practice and expectations.

As far as the content, though, I think it's up to you to elaborate. I don't deal with IP editors, but you've added something to the summary here that would affect all editors which, respectfully, I think is all wrong. If editors are generally expected to have one edit history, I do not see the support for it. Personally I can't agree with stating something in policy that is not done. As a related matter I also don't see that editors should be made to feel inappropriate because they want to segregate a certain type of editing from their account, or because they started over as they are permitted to do, or that upon doing so they are at the mercy of anyone who feels like giving them a hard time. That is not how policy should be written, to suggest an extremely broad degree of inappropriate behavior simply so that it can be used wherever the need is seen to arise (and then still not used in the vast majority of cases).

I do think if we continue to disagree that we would need to request additional views. I can only suggest again that if the issue is IP editing then we should be able to address that without broadening our implications as wide as possible; such a specific problem should be able to find a more specific solution. Mackan79 (talk) 08:22, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to address your second paragraph. You still deal with my additions as if they somehow affect legitimate alternate accounts. They don't, nor do they forbid them. They are about the one main account all Wikipedians are expected to have. It's just that simple. Don't make it more complicated than that. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:55, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad that you say that, but the problem is that "one edit history" is actually much more confusing than the first two. One editor, one account, that's straight forward. "One edit history," what does that mean? Obviously our history is what it is. (Isn't there an old joke, something like how big was the world before Columbus discovered America? Just as big!) So, it must mean "one contributions log." But why say that? If that is the point, then we should be straight forward: "The general rule is one editor, one account, forever." If that isn't the point, well then we are wording it wrong. But since "one editor, one account" also already implies "one contribs log," as it implies one log of every sort, this is also why I'm saying it's really unnecessary for a basic standard (and for the same reason sounds like needless harping). At that point it's just clutter; we need to start saying what we mean, not keep repeating the generalization in different ways. The fact is we already have bold, underlines, warnings, all recently added with my support. It's only the unfocused repetition that I think is counterproductive, and we should avoid. Mackan79 (talk) 10:02, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe "forever" is appropriate, as there are legitimate reasons for changing accounts. I'm not addressing that. I'm simply making it clear, rather than simply implied. It isn't clear enough, otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation. If it had been obvious (which it always has been to me and now, you admit, to you when you write "already implies..."), then why this conversation? It should be so obvious that it can't be misunderstood, especially by newbies who already have a hard time figuring things out and can't always realize what is "implied". It isn't explicitly stated anywhere, and it should be. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:31, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

<-- I have started an RfC below, so we should stop this thread and continue there. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Legitimate sock? Interaction with WP:COI and WP:SPA

Suppose that I am an established Wikipedian and notice that an article has been created about a project or product that I am intimately connected with in some way, to the point that I am one of the leading figures on the subject area and highly likely to be cited as a primary source. However, when I read the article in question it is littered with factual errors, is poorly sourced and has other issues with it. Subject to the guidance at WP:COI I can point out these problems e.g. on the talk page, point out where sources for particular points may be found or possibly even make additional existing material available off-wiki that can then be cited for points not covered in publicly available references.

So far, not a problem, indeed that can only serve to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the area. However, what if I edit under a pseudonym, and do not wish to create in public an association between my Wikipedia account and my real identity? There may be legitimate reason to do this: I may be in a profession that requires a certain amount of gravitas and do not wish my work on more trivial or frivolous subject areas to be associated with me in a professional capacity.

The obvious solution would be to create a sock account with a username similar to my real identity. If this was used in a manner consistent with the existing policies on socks and COI that could be used exclusively for this purpose. It would also have the effect of highlighting the COI element if I edit using a name that would be recognised by people familiar with the subject. The problem is that you could not publicly acknowledge the relationship between the sock and the main account without rendering the exercise pointless. Yes, you could acknowledge on the sock account user page that it is a sock, but you could not say to whom. The main account by necessity could not address the issue at all.

I stress that this does not affect me and my present situation at all: it is pruely hypothetical. However, it seems like a significant gap in the present guidance. CrispMuncher (talk) 22:58, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

This may be a special case of IAR or more specifically, no finite set of rules can cover all circumstances. Perhaps it can be fixed by a catch-all "If you have a specific reason to have an alternate account not covered in the guidelines above, please consult with the arbitration committee." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it's just a matter of the guidance being general. Clearly this suggestion doesn't apply in all cases, and that's why it is just guidance. It is not a requirement, except where the use would otherwise violate some other part of the policy. Since a public notice would be nonsensical in the situation CrispMuncher mentions, and there is no deception, clearly the advice shouldn't be followed. Telling the arbitration committee is one option, but per the discussion above is also not required. Personally I'm not comfortable with making "IAR" the answer to foreseeable scenarios; if a rule is written in a way that we can see instances where it should be ignored, then the rule should be changed, or the rulemakers aren't doing their jobs. Suggesting that it is a rule, but that people should just ignore it, is irresponsible for anyone who can't ensure the person's security in doing so (as none of us, and probably nobody, can). Mackan79 (talk) 05:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Should "one editing history" for the main account be stated explicitly rather than merely implicit?

Should "one editing history" for the main account be stated explicitly rather than merely implicit? Currently it is implied: "The general rule is one editor, one account." -- Brangifer (talk) 19:06, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Context: I made some edits which have been disputed by one editor. (One other editor made a comment, and I made an edit that fixed the matter. That was later reverted.) This is basically about preventing "avoiding the scrutiny of other editors".

This has nothing to do with legitimate uses of alternate accounts, legitimate reasons for changing accounts, nor about one account "forever". This only applies to the one main account clearly stated in "The general rule is one editor, one account". I have always understood that to clearly imply "one editing history", but when I tried to make it explicit, it became apparent from the ensuing discussion that the implication wasn't understood in the same manner. I believe policies should be very clear, especially for our newbies who can't be expected to notice implications. If experienced editors like myself (24,000+ edits) and Mackan79 (nearing 6,000 edits) can disagree on this, then it should be fixed.

I have been having a valuable and very civil discussion with this fine editor who has explained his reasoning in this section above:

• More caps in the lead

Please read that discussion and the article history (starting on Nov. 8) before commenting. We don't want to repeat any misunderstandings here. (While some important points are made, and you would do well to read them, don't let the discussions about required registration distract. That's just my opinion and it doesn't affect this matter. I also provide some very simple suggestions that might solve about 80-90% of our vandalism problems. That's also another matter that doesn't impact, but motivates, the discussion.)

I admit that my first edit was probably overdriven with the use of allcaps. It was properly deleted and a discussion was started. I then proceeded to make three edits 1 2 3 to improve the situation. Note my edit summaries. Those edits were (after several intervening and unrelated edits) all deleted. We continued the discussion, but have come to an impasse. I don't want to edit war over this, and that's why I'm seeking more input from other editors through this RfC.

To aid readers see what is being discussed, here are the results of those three edits, IOW the changes I am proposing (underlined):

1. Nutshell: "The general rule is one editor, one account, one editing history, with some exceptions. Do not use multiple accounts to mislead, deceive, or disrupt; to create the illusion of greater support for a position; to stir up controversy; or to circumvent a block. Do not ask your friends to create accounts to support you."

2. "The default position on Wikipedia is that editors who register should edit using only one account, with a few allowed exceptions."

It is those three edits I wish to see reinstated. It is important to note that my edits survived for several days, and that this article is no doubt watched by many notable admins and ArbCom members. In spite of intervening edits which fixed vandalism, my edits were preserved. That says something. Only one editor objected and reverted by edits. Here is the before and after diff.

To summarize: Should it be explicit that one editing history is the norm for the main account? -- Brangifer (talk) 19:06, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Discussion...

This is a pretty long discussion (I'm the other main participant), but as to this text I think the problem is simple enough. I think you can say there is a presumption that people will edit with one account, as a way of introducing this topic. "One person, one account." It seems to say, "Hey there, welcome to the problems with multiple accounts. Let's start with a way to avoid this topic: use one account, end of story, problem solved." This is a reasonable way to introduce the topic, as it's simple, straight forward, respects the reader, and proceeds on to the actual rules that people need to know.

The issue with this text is a lesser form of the issue with the original all-caps, which is that you no longer have a simple, straight forward introduction. "One edit history," when added as a general requirement, is first of all imprecise; an edit history is generally a term for articles, not editors. It seems to have in mind "one contribution log." The apparent meaning is to say, "And, keep using that account as long as you want to edit." At least that's what I think it means, although I must say I am still not sure what Brangifer wants it to counsel against exactly, or what it is thought to accomplish (and I do not see where he explains this above). This gets to the problem, which is that the text is too specific for a general rule that has no teeth anyway, and dilutes a general rule with confusion. One person, one account is sometimes required. One edit history is never required, since it can't be. To stop editing with an account and start another is not a general problem; it is only a very specific problem in very specific situations that should not be generalized on all editors. The text improperly suggests that any editor who leaves behind an account has done something intriguing or questionable, and improperly suggests that editors have a general interest in being able to see every edit that a person has ever done. Neither of these are accurate. From reading Brangrifer, on the other hand, he does not intend the text to imply any of this, but then why are we adding it? In this regard I have suggested that if IP editing presents a specific problem, as he suggests it does, then we should seek a specific solution to that problem rather than broadening the policy with generalities that apply everywhere and nowhere.

Finally, I don't think that silence from important types indicates agreement. I suspect they recognize that "one edit history" is not a realistic expectation to carry around, but for whatever reason aren't pointing this out. I'll note that there is probably a systemic bias among the higher ups anyway, however, in that since they largely enforce these rules they are less concerned with them being written in an overly broad or ambiguous manner. Of course there are any number of reasons people would not comment, but sometimes that leaves us peons on our own. Mackan79 (talk) 02:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: When I write "editing history", I of course mean the same thing as "contribution history". Purely a semantic difference. As to the "leaving one account behind...", that applies to legitimate uses of alternate accounts and is another subject, as I have indicated above. None of this RfC relates to that subject, where there will obviously be separate editing histories dealing with unrelated subjects. Those are about the exceptions, while we are discussing the "general rule". Also, my addition of the words "one editing history" avoids overly broad or ambiguous wording. It is very specific, unambiguous, and very simple. It is also specifically implied in the existing wording of our "one editor, one account" general rule. This discussion has shown that the implication isn't understood clearly, and that shouldn't happen. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:52, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

• I don't understand how you say this text (or the RfC) doesn't relate to legitimate uses, when the text you are proposing is for a sentence that summarizes the entire policy. As far as ambiguity, if as you say the sentence doesn't just mean "forever," then unfortunately I also still don't know what it adds to "one person, one account." If it's just a truism, or a partial explanation (this way others can look at your contributions and see if you're violating policy) then presumably it should be stated as such in a sentence below. Mackan79 (talk) 03:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

• You left out "...of alternate accounts". This RfC isn't about a summarization of the "entire policy", but only about the "general rule" part mentioned in the summarization. The policy describes legitimate and illegitimate uses of alternate accounts, but that's another subject. If you think it should be explained more clearly than is already explained in the part dealing with "avoiding the scrutiny of other editors", then by all means improve it. That might be a good idea. You do have a point though...that summarization sentence doesn't adequately summarize the entire policy, because it doesn't clearly state that there are exceptions to the general rule. I did add a phrase which made it a complete summarization, but you deleted it. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:43, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

• I suppose my view is that the nutshell serves a broad purpose. By making it more specific, you aren't just summarizing the policy but competing with it. People are forced to ask, what does that mean (or more precisely, what does it do). The fact that I can't decipher what this does makes me uncomfortable with how it would be used. ("I blocked you because I couldn't see all your edits in one place, and I couldn't think of any reason not to.") You clearly want it to do something, specifically to make the policy more supportive of blocking people in more situations. I think the policy already allows blocking in the right situations, and needs to focus all energy on clarifying what those situations are, which I think is not done by casting generalized doubt. This isn't to attack your motives, of course; I think you've been clear that you think this makes the policy stronger against IP editors. But if it's stronger against them, it's stronger against everybody, and still in ways that I think are not sufficiently clear. I'll try to leave it there if you want to respond, or either way. Mackan79 (talk) 04:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

• An analysis of the nutshell is problematic because the current version happens to be faulty. It's an incomplete summarization because it doesn't state that alternate accounts are allowed under certain conditions, and yet it forbids their misuse. That's pretty odd. It should state (1) the general rule, (2) exceptions are allowed, and then that (3) misuse of those exceptions is forbidden. The middle step is left out. That needs fixing. I made an attempt to add that detail, but it was deleted.

• To the best of my knowledge, IP editors who use multiple IPs aren't blocked unless they are disruptive and/or deceptive, and in such cases a lack of a unified editing history is then used as evidence of deceptively "avoiding the scrutiny of other editors". With the exception of legitimate uses of alternate accounts (which should be done only on rare occasions), all editors, including IPs, should normally attempt to edit using one account. If an IP editor has changing IPs, they should register to avoid confusion. Confusion is disruptive and we should avoid it. Some IP editors resolve the problem by always manually signing their posts, but anyone could pretend to be them, so that's not an entirely satisfactory situation, but at least they're trying to be upfront about who they are. They aren't trying to appear as different people. If my changes are accepted, we would have a clearly worded policy to back up what is actually happening, the blocking of disruptive IP editors who use multiple IPs. Right now it's unclear, and thus a slower process. If the policy were clear, we could make short process of the matter.

• This policy should apply to all editors, not just registered ones. I tried to fix that, but it was reverted. This policy explicitly doesn't apply to IPs, per the current wording right below the nutshell:

"The default position on Wikipedia is that editors who register should edit using only one account."

• It should read:

"The default position on Wikipedia is that editors should edit using only one account, with a few allowed exceptions."

• Brangifer (talk) 07:33, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• I think this section -- Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Alternate_account_notification -- is highly relevant to this discussion. I'd like to see it tightened up to require public notification of all alternate accounts, except in the cases where legitimate alternate accounts are required for security reasons, and even then they should be registered with certain admins or clerks who have a responsibility for dealing with such things. Deviations from the general rule should not occur at the whim of editors, but based on a need, and they should notify of such use. The uncontrolled use of alternate accounts should be seen as an improper violation of the general rule and an attempt to avoid scrutiny. In essence those editors who use alternate accounts should be able to "produce a license" to own such accounts if necessary. If they don't have one, then they should be subjected to sock puppetry sanctions. Note that such revelations may need to be done very privately and in a secure manner, and that public revelation of such accounts by others may well be treated as outing. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

There was extensive discussion and a recent poll on this issue above, here. You could attempt to reopen the discussion, but it is pretty clear that there is not consensus for that position at this time. The discussion covers a great deal, which I can't recount here, but I will note that there are very many problems with requiring all editors to tell someone that they use another account for any purpose. As far as "scrutiny" I am not surprised that you are reading a great deal into the term, since it was delinked from its definition in SlimVirgin's recent shortening of the policy. But, the term has always referred to legitimate scrutiny of problematic editing, and not to baseless fishing for problems, or to invasive scrutiny that is legitimately avoided (where do you live). This should be clarified in the lead (perhaps with a relink), although the definition does acknowledge the point (direct link here). Mackan79 (talk) 05:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your previous post, I don't think we can say there is a general rule that IP editors register. With respect, I think that is a minority position. Editors are absolutely, fully entitled to edit solely from an IP; they may be treated differently than registered users, and like anyone else may face specific sanctions, but that isn't a requirement that they register. (I have no view on the rule itself, but it is a case where to allow IP editing in the software, and then say it's generally disallowed, is clearly the wrong approach). Mackan79 (talk) 06:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Common sense addition

I have restored the following common sense change from:

Contributing to the same page with multiple accounts: Editors may not use more than one account to contribute to the same page or discussion.

to:

Contributing to the same page with multiple accounts: Editors may not use more than one account to contribute to the same page or discussion in a way to suggest that they are multiple people. Contributions to the same page with legitimate alternate accounts is not forbidden (e.g. editing the same page with your main and public computer account or editing a page using your main account that your bot account edited).

The spirit of the policy is not to prevent legitimate use of alternate accounts. It should be common sense that such edits are allowed, but there is no harm in making it explicit. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:29, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

There is a very big difference between a bot and owner editing the same page and a user masquerading as a new user with one account and then later editing an article with their main account with no edit summary saying "I am such and such a user". One is an autonomous bot edit, the other is a deliberate conscious choice on the part of the user to edit an article with two different accounts. I completely disagree with this addition in a way to suggest that they are multiple people. Common sense should be that you shouldn't be using two directly controlled accounts to edit the same pages, especially when they are not explicitly identified as such.--Crossmr (talk) 02:49, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I have two accounts: ThaddeusB and ThaddeusB-public which I use when editing from the library in order to avoid the (small) risk of compromising my admin account. Do you honestly think that I shouldn't be allowed to edit the same article with both accounts? Surely that is not what the policy is intended to prevent. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:20, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the longer version. The purpose of the policy is to prevent people from avoiding scrutiny or giving the false impression of greater support. There is no need for a blanket prohibition against touching the same articles. ^Chillum 02:51, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I never said there was a blanket prohibition. I even listed an exception I agreed with. Another exception might be account names that are obviously related. For example Crossmrhome and Crossmrwork. But two different accounts with very different names which are identified neither in an edit summary or talk page of the article can be misleading. The onus needs to be on the user using the accounts to ensure no one confuses their use of two accounts. Of course those accounts must also be absolutely legitimate accounts.--Crossmr (talk) 02:56, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Accounts don't need to be linked to be legitimate. As long as someone is not attempting to misrepresent themselves or avoid scrutiny then I see no harm. For example one might create an alternate account to avoid negative repercussions with their job(ie for privacy), they should be welcome to continue to edit articles in a productive manner. ^Chillum 02:59, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

If the accounts aren't linked and they're editing the same article then they are giving the impression of greater support. That would clearly be misleading as no one would have any idea that those two accounts would be the same person. If they're editing different articles that is no problem. This discussion is specifically about one person owning two accounts and editing the same article. If they haven't identified that, it is 100% misleading.--Crossmr (talk) 03:05, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Not all editing is controversial. Much editing is simply improving the article in a way that everyone agrees with. We already have a prohibition in the policy against giving the appearance of giving greater support to a specific issue, but not all editing is going to violate that. ^Chillum 03:07, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I completely disagree. Anyone editing a page with more than one account absolutely needs to identify it regardless of whether or not their changes are controversial. If they're so worried about a public computer, spies, aliens, or their boss that they can't identify, they probably shouldn't be editing in that situation. The simple fact that I would think 2 different accounts are two people and they're not is misleading.--Crossmr (talk) 03:13, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I've thought about this more and I cannot think of a legitimate scenario where someone would want to edit the same article with 2 accounts but couldn't identify that the accounts are linked. This isn't a case of someone wanting to keep their edits to child pornography, or bestiality separate from their main account. Only in the event that someone was conducting a test, but in that case I think the test should be approved because it would be outside the normal usage. If someone is editing with one account from one location and one from another, and they're crossing articles, its not like they're trying to separate articles. There is no reason they shouldn't be linked.--Crossmr (talk) 07:23, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

What about someone who edits things like bestiality from their main account as well as many other things and when at work they want to edit the other things but certainly not be tied to the bestiality? Wouldn't they want to have a separate work account not tied to their main account then? But why should their main account not make those edits to the other things anymore, just because their work account did? Regards SoWhy 10:51, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Then they should consider just making an account to edit bestiality if they don't want it tied to the rest of their edits. Otherwise at some point there is possibly going to be a conflict or discussion on one of those pages that they edit and if anyone asks both accounts for their opinion as regular editors of the page, they're going to have to identify or violate the policy. It will put those accounts in a very difficult position. If they have two accounts they don't want to associate, I don't think they really have a good reason for editing the same pages with them.--Crossmr (talk) 21:38, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that there are some situations where it should be acceptable to edit the same articles with multiple accounts without publicly linking them. For example, where the edits to a page by one of the accounts is only rollback (or equivalents), uncontroversial minor edits, or situations such as adding articles in a list to the corresponding category. There are probably other situations that could be mentioned – would it be sockpuppetry to make unrelated edits to WP:AIV, WP:ANI or a reference desk page with multiple accounts? More substantial changes, particularly when the multiple accounts overlap in the page history, are likely to result in inappropriate use of multiple accounts. snigbrook (talk) 22:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

What possible reason could you have for keeping a rollback account completely separate and unlinked to your main account? That implies there is something about rollbacking that the user would not want to be known for.--Crossmr (talk) 00:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Crossmr is probably correct that the accounts used for WP:NEWT or similar experiments should be disclosed on the relevant user pages before the user edits the same article with their main account, however I assume good faith and as they are declared at WP:NEWT there will be users involved in the experiment who will be aware of the connections between the accounts. Something that maybe should be discussed is how to deal with multiple accounts, as there have been suggestions at WT:NEWT that some of the alternative accounts should have been blocked. This seems inappropriate, as blocks should only be used to prevent disruption, and if any of these accounts were actually new users they wouldn't have been blocked. snigbrook (talk) 22:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Were they new users no. But more than one user used their undisclosed accounts to create articles that were inappropriate for wikipedia. To me you can "experience being a new user" without making edits like that or intentionally introducing spelling errors or formatting problems. The page says you can experience the project as a new user, not as a vandal or disruptive user. I don't think anyone would agree that we should let someone create a sock and lobby a personal attack against someone just because they want to experience how that situation would look to a new account.--Crossmr (talk) 00:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Articles were being created, whether formatting errors were introduced was irrelevant in my opinion, as it's likely that during development of the articles, errors such as these would have had to be corrected, and will still have to be if/when the articles are expanded (although introduction of factual errors would be disruptive as it would be a form of vandalism). Maybe some of the articles were inappropriate (those that were not notable enough), and a question that is relevant is whether the editors who created them would have done the same with their main accounts. Obviously personal attacks would be disruptive, but WP:NEWT participants don't appear to have made any (unlike new users, who do sometimes react badly to the deletion of their articles, and are sometimes blocked as vandalism-only accounts as a result). Also none of the accounts known to be used in the experiment have been used for vandalism, and be suggesting it you are assuming bad faith, and appear to be misunderstanding the definition of vandalism. snigbrook (talk) 01:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The point of that example was to demonstrate that there are obviously limits on what "experiencing the site as a new user" entails, and as such those limits should be discussed and spelled out. I would argue that since the editors of NEWT were quite experienced its very unlikely they would have created those articles (especially since one of them already existed under a different name) nor introduced the types of errors they introduced on their regular accounts. They went above and beyond what would be necessary to experience the site as a new user.--Crossmr (talk) 10:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the longer version. If I were writing it from scratch, I would do something like:

Contributing to the same page with multiple accounts: Editors may not use more than one account to contribute to the encyclopedia article or topic or discussion topic in a way to suggest that they are multiple people within a short period of time. Contributions to the same topic or discussion may be done in accordance with WP:Multiple Accounts, but editors who use multiple accounts in this way are particularly cautioned that they should not only follow the letter and spirit of this policy, they should make every effort to appear to be following the policy.

The first sentence handles the case of someone editing with a fresh start making an edit several months after his last edit under a different account, or contributing to two completely unrelated discussions on WP:PUMP or any other multiple-topic discussion page. It also covers "bot" and other minor/mechanical/pro-forma edits by non-linked accounts as they are not "contributions" in the sense of sockpuppetry. Finally, it extends the prohibition to related articles: don't edit Falun Gong with one account and the article about its founder, Li Hongzhi, with another. The second sentence implies "if in doubt, don't," and cuts down on wiki-lawyering. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:56, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I still can't see a scenario where anyone should be editing the same article with undisclosed accounts except in the case a fresh start. If they want to keep topics separate because of work or something like that, then they should avoid any overlap at all, or else the accounts could end up being linked and defeat the purpose. To that end, I think anyone who edits an article with two accounts absolutely has to link them. Bot accounts are already linked, as would be work and home or public and private computer accounts.--Crossmr (talk) 01:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Fresh start is by far the most common case. Another is if you have topic-segregation but they overlap on a meta- or all-topics discussion page. For example, if you edit Monkeys and someone posts something on WP:PUMP about taxonomy, you will probably reply using the account you edit Monkeys with. If you edit Nazi with another account, and someone posts to WP:PUMP about how to handle articles about political parties, you will probably reply with the account you edit Nazi with. You may make these edits on the same day, but as the edits have absolutely nothing to do with each other, I don't see it as a problem, provided the other requirements of WP:SOCKS#LEGIT are met. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:08, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

That's fine to me. The problem I would have is if someone wants to topic segregate so they have an account to edit bestiality from home. The rest of the time they use a different account for the rest of the stuff. Then one day while logged into the bestiality account they start editing Widgets, but they already regularly edit widgets with their other account. I just can't see a good reason for that ever to occur, because now they have account over-lap. And if there was ever an issue on Widgets and edits from either account were questioned, or there was a big dispute and someone is looking at what various editors have done, they may not know that those accounts belong to the same person and if there was a discussion they may have to identify which would end up compromising the segregation. I don't think editors should ever put themselves in that position and its what I want to avoid.--Crossmr (talk) 07:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

They could simply choose to participate only with one account in such a discussion or not at all. After all, the situation you imagine would only be problematic if you could force people to participate in a discussion. Regards SoWhy 10:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Then could unless the accounts may have unwittingly been involved in a series of edits that may have looked fine at the time but caused issue later. Sorry, but if someone really wants to keep two accounts separate and unlinked, I don't see any justification for getting them involved in editing the same article. There just isn't any good reason for it all. Log out and use the account that normally edits that article.--Crossmr (talk) 13:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

This is analogous to participating in a discussion while accidentally not logged in and having your IP address be somehow problematic, either for you or for your edits. For example, if you are visiting your cousin at Rutgers, then you edit a page you've previously edited and somehow people think you are connected to Rutgers, your past and future edits of Rutgers may be called into question. Or, if you work for the ACME Universal Church, and you accidentally edit from work and someone makes the connection, and you've made edits under your regular account that run counter to church teachings and someone notifies the church, you may lose your job. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 13:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The "common sense addition" seems commonsensical enough to me. I don't use bots and I only have the one account, but I do sometimes forget to log in (or have my computer tell me I'm logged in, only to find the edit is listed as an IP), and before I had an account I'd show up as various IPs. But I can't really see how this would be a problem unless I was pretending to be two different editors to "put one over" on fellow editors. --Paularblaster (talk) 20:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

No, those are two different things. You can be identified from an IP. Only a checkuser could identify you from a second account. Any user could run a whois and a geolocation. So they're in a completely different league. The conscious decision to edit the same page with two different unlinked accounts doesn't make sense if you genuinely want to keep them unlinked.--Crossmr (talk) 00:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• Hopefully the minor addition that I have made is a reasonable compromise, keeping the new section whilst making the policy clear. Black Kite 01:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• I've reverted you, Black Kite. Your change would make it impossible for an editor with a legitimate reason for changing accounts to return to a previously edited page and make good contributions. We're supposed to be about the content, not the contributor here. Encyclopedia, not social website. This policy is turning into quite the coatrack. Risker (talk) 03:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with black kites version, except in the case of an obvious right to a fresh start. If someone has two active accounts and edits the same page, they need to link them.--Crossmr (talk) 06:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
• Yes, you're quite correct - it is turning into a coatrack - one where the policy is being changed unilaterally to achieve an end. Your example of an editor who has legitimately exercised RTV is utterly, utterly, irrelevant - the main issue here is talking about multiple (legitimate) account who are editing articles or policy pages at the same time but appearing to be multiple editors. I will consider a better way to word this, but I also think this needs wider viewing, possibly at WP:CENT. Black Kite 08:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I see people getting away from the main point: people should not use more than one account in a way that violates other editors' reasonable expectations. Another way to say this is that editors should not give other editors a materially false impression regarding their use of different accounts (e.g., a false impression where that matters). If someone made uncontroversial edits to an article under one account back in the day, and then started another account that wants to make more uncontroversial edits to the article, it usually isn't going to be a problem. If they are pushing a view (very broadly construed), more so than they'd be able to do with just one account, then it is a problem. In real terms, the question is where the use of multiple accounts starts to impact the behavior of other editors. From that starting point, I don't see much problem with sticking to "Editors may not use more than one account to contribute to the same page or discussion in a way to suggest that they are multiple people." If I were clarifying I would say something like, "Significant overlaps in editing, especially involving points of controversy, can be seen as deceptive and should be avoided." Obviously non-deceptive editing, however, such as where the connection is publicly disclosed, does not "suggest that they are multiple people," and as such was not prohibited in the first place. Mackan79 (talk) 09:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

O.K., different cases, but the principle is the same: if there's no disruption there's no problem. Something like "editors should try to avoid making even uncontroversial edits to the same page through different accounts" is fine, but instituting prohibitions that go further than they need is never desirable. --Paularblaster (talk) 11:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Problems may or may not be apparent immediately. So whether there is an intent to disrupt or not, is immaterial. There just isn't a good reason that someone who wants to keep two accounts unlinked can have (other than a fresh start) for editing the same page with 2 different accounts. If you want them unlinked then keep them away from each other. Otherwise declare them.--Crossmr (talk) 12:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't realise we were discussing undeclared multiple accounts. But "in a way to suggest that they are multiple people" seems to cover that anyway. On the Dutch encylopedia I made a new account because I forgot the password to the old one - do you mean that if I ever edit a page with the new account that I already edited with the old one, I should mention the fact in the edit summary? --Paularblaster (talk) 13:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

If you no longer use the old account, it would be a fresh start, and isn't really an issue. I'm talking about editing the same page with two accounts at the same time which are undeclared.--Crossmr (talk) 00:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

One problem is that the difference between an alternate account and a restart is not always clear, so what one person sees as two accounts editing at the same time may be seen differently by another. Along with this is the issue that the actual problem we are trying to avoid does not correlate exactly with the obvious metrics. For instance, you could say that accounts should not edit a "page or discussion" within the same month, but maybe sometimes it's still a problem after a month, and maybe sometimes it wasn't a problem before a month (fixing a couple of uncontroversial errors in an article). I think this is why it is better to stick to advice here, as in "avoid this, because if you raise questions your use of multiple accounts may not be protected, and if you have violated policy you may be sanctioned." Bear in mind also that alternate accounts are already prohibited from being used in policy and project-related discussions. Mackan79 (talk) 21:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Not really. If you have account A, and make account B and start editing, its a fresh start as long as you don't edit with account A again. Pretty simple. If you make an edit with B and make an edit with A, its no longer a fresh start. These are undeclared so it won't be immediately obvious to other editors that they're the same account unless you start using identifying language in edit summaries, or pushing a certain edit, etc. It would only come out in a check user or something like that if there was a serious dispute. The only time it would be a question would be if you stopped editing with account A on a page and got your fresh start and started pushing controversial edits on the same page with account B and a checkuser was run right away. It would show some close editing and it would be hard for them to make the claim of a fresh start. But if they're just continuing old edit wars with the new account it'd be hard for them to claim they were doing that for a fresh start anyway.--Crossmr (talk) 00:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

If it's no longer a fresh start, though, what does that mean? My point is that this is questionable policy making because it is both over and under inclusive, even if it excludes a "fresh start." It's under inclusive in that even where A never edits again, B should not be picking up A's banner in ways that mislead. It's over inclusive in that even if B made a couple of uncontroversial edits, or even several edits to an article some years ago, and for whatever reason the editor decides to go back to account A, a complete ban on any future overlap would be counter productive. The editor definitely takes a risk by doing it, because they don't know what checkusers will think. But strictly speaking the editor is very unlikely to be (won't be) sanctioned just for breaking the letter of such a rule with constructive editing. Well, unless they're bad at defending themselves or have significant detractors, but that's another story. Mackan79 (talk) 02:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Funny images with funny captions

SERIUS CAPTION GO HERE

Funny images with funny captions are out of place in a policy page which users are mostly linked to on less-than-funny terms. --87.79.84.205 (talk) 23:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

• Good point, however, sometimes a little obvious levity is a good thing. Disclaimer: I NO IZ ADMIN. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:14, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, and when someone gets angry about it, just hand out a cooldown block... --87.79.84.205 (talk) 03:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• I hope you said that in jest. The unofficial-official-unofficial rule is you don't issue cooldown blocks because history has shown them to be ineffective or would backfire. FWIW, my personal rule would be not to use them unless I knew the editor well enough to know that this editor would respond positively to it in the long run. In my wiki-career, I've met at least one or two such editors, but they are the vast minority. A canonical example would be an editor under involuntary mediation, where the editor specifically asked the mediator to block him if it looked like the editor was, say, editing while intoxicated. I've never seen this happen but it could. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• Yeah, it was in jest. Nevertheless, my original point still stands. I'd remove those funny images. If only because they have zero positive purpose (cracking up established editors does not count, they can have fun on any number of pages, not here). --87.79.84.205 (talk) 05:49, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• Funny images should be welcome, they support a collegial atmosphere, but pictures of cats lack originality. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Conduct vs. Enforcement

Not terribly important, but consider: Category:Wikipedia conduct policies is about things any of us might do, and where to draw the lines; Category:Wikipedia enforcement policies contains WP:Vandalism, WP:Harassment, WP:BLOCK and WP:BAN ... what to do when things go really wrong. WP:SOCK could arguably fit in either category. - Dank (push to talk) 16:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Autoarchive?

Autoarchive? I would, but I'll probably just mess things up. There is stuff here nearly a year old and it's 218K now. Maybe we should set it on, say, 60-day archiving? - Wikidemon (talk) 05:07, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Auto would be good. I'd have thought 60 days was too long. Some policies / style guides are on 7–14 days. Tony (talk) 07:24, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

60 days is good. 14 days is way too short. Policy is a slow moving beast. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:59, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

 Miszabot'd. –xeno^talk 15:46, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

This page does not seem to be autoarchiving? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Alter egos?

Regarding the Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Legitimate uses of alternate accounts section.. perhaps we need to add a point about those who create alternate accounts but don't actually use them? Seems a retired(?) editor User:AlexPlank created two other accounts, User:Sennheiser and User:Greenmountainboy, complete with userpage descriptions, talk page discussions, and even subpages but these accounts have no contribution history of their own.. just User:AlexPlank creating alternate personalities? I dunno maybe I'm missing something here. Just thought this was kind of odd and doesn't quite fit with anything written here but also nothing harmful was done so it seems like a legitimate use. <shrug> ~~ œ^™ 10:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

It may have been intended for future use then not used for whatever reason. Also, an account can be retired without the user being retired, either under fresh-start, doppleganger, a security-based alternate account that the editor simply forgot to mark as retired, or any number of other legitimate reasons already covered by WP:LEGIT. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Is this policy even useful?

It seems like an awful lot of energy is spent discussing, investigating, and blocking sockpuppet accounts — and a lot of negative feelings (including false accusations) resulting. I really just don't see the point. We're supposed to be evaluating ideas based on their merits, not on the number of people supporting them, so I don't see why it matters if somebody uses a bunch of phony accounts to make it seem like there's a lot of people supporting one side or another. It's really just a lot of noise, and they could generate that with a single account as easily as with many. The only situation where extra accounts actually help bypass a rule is with regards to the three revert rule, and that one should just be modified to apply to a particular change rather than actions by individual editors. (A particular piece of text can only be added or removed three times — regardless who does it — before it should be considered "frozen" and further discussion is required.) The number of accounts should be irrelevant to any sort of disagreement, and if there's a rule where that doesn't work, then the rule should be changed. The sockpuppet policy is only required because of other flaws, and if those other flaws are fixed, then the "evils" of sockpuppets (and the motivation to create them) goes away. --Lewis (talk) 08:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

"I don't see why it matters if somebody uses a bunch of phony accounts to make it seem like there's a lot of people supporting one side or another" - see WP:CONSENSUS then re-submit your case. Many a discussion has been closed where both sides have equally valid points but the number of people taking Side A or Side B determined the outcome, either because those on the "minority" side thought to themselves "okay, if that many people feel that way about it I'll stop pushing" or, if the question had to be decided absent a near-unanimous consensus, then the person who closed the discussion counted heads closed it as favoring the side that had a super-majority, or, if no side did, as "no consensus." But for the sockpuppet policy, the "winning" side or the side that successfully blocked the other side from "winning" could be one person successfully hiding behind several accounts. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:18, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

BTW, technically consensus is achieved when you reach a point where those who don't get their way won't fight it. You can technically have a minority opinion that becomes the consensus opinion, if those in the majority would rather accept that opinion than extend the discussion. See WP:WHINER and WP:APPEASE. Ok, make that wiktionary:whiner and wiktionary:appease. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

This really only requires a short answer. Yes, yes it is useful. ^Chillum 00:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Though I have written a lot of this policy myself, I do feel that it should not be super-strict. I feel sock puppetry should only be banned when it seriously disrupts articles from looking like they should, and not just for the sake of "getting people in trouble." Hellno2 (talk) 18:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Lost passwords?

What about lost/forgotten passwords? I mean the situation when someone loses a password from an account in good standing and opens a new account to start editing under a new name. Shouldn't this situation be explicitly mentioned in WP:SOCK#LEGIT? Nsk92 (talk) 14:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

This would be a special case of a doppleganger account. Ideally, the new editor would edit both talk pages claiming ownership. He would also ask for a checkuser verification and/or a block based on a claim that the password is lost/compromised. This has a low risk of fraud/prank, since all the pranked person has to do is log in and put up an unblock request.

There is also the ability to use a WP:Committed identity, but it's not widely used. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that the two situations are sufficiently different. A doppleganger account is created simply to reduce the risk of impersonation of the main account, while the main account is still active. The lost/forgotten password situation (such as that of the user below) is when the previous main account is no longer active or accessible and when the new username does not necessarily look similar to the old username. I think that having a separate discussion regarding lost/forgotten passwords, including guidance about disclosures in such cases, would be useful. Nsk92 (talk) 22:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I had an older account

I started this one because I haven't used the old one in probably three years. Does this fall acceptably under fresh start, and should I redirect the old one (Razor Rozar7) to my new one once I make my user page? JJohnCooper (talk) 21:41, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Fresh start generally means leaving the old identity behind. I guess you don't really want to do that. Since the other account isn't blocked, and has never been, you don't really need to do anything at all. Nathan ^T 22:22, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Redirect the old one to the current one. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Arbcom restricted users

Arbcom's motion requiring that they are informed of changes of account name by restricted users is not mentioned on this policy page. I think we need to add it. See here for a situation that should have been avoided. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• Their motion called for a discussion. The discussion placeholder (Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard/Archive_5#Changes_of_account_name_by_restricted_users) was archived with no one having commented. The Arbitration Committee doesn't make policy. This sounds a little bit like how courts can make rulings that are unenforceable and inconsequential unless the person appears again before the same court. It also sounds like a creep; a good idea for specific cases, but irrelevent for most of the community. Perhaps Arb Com should add this ruling to every judgement where it applies? The downside here is a little more bloat. Perhaps, John, we could live with this? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:03, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Warn of sock puppet policy when creating an account

Does this sound like a good idea?: When anyone goes to sign up for an account, there would be a clickable link that says "Have an account already? If so, please read our policy pertaining to use of multiple accounts." The link would either lead directly to this page (WP:SOCK) or another page that displays these guidelines in a simpler manner. Hellno2 (talk) 18:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. While at it, wherever this request goes, it would be good to point newly registered users to Special:ListUsers, to make it easier to find an unclaimed name. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Doppelganger section

This is minor, but since Doppelganger is linked to its page on wikipedia, I don't think the definition of the word is necessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.20.235.86 (talk) 20:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. –xeno^talk 20:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Is this sockpuppetry?

Is it sockpuppetry to use an IP address to lodge a SP/I? The user in question knew enough about our processes to create the investigation in a sub page of a talk page and then ask for it to be moved to the appropriate location. Whilst he could be an experienced IP-only editor, it is more likely that he is an established editor who didn't want to be associated with pointing the finger at another user. Is this a LEGIT or ILLEGIT form of editing away from your main account?The-Pope (talk) 13:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Is this investigation for the good of the project? Disclose this information. This is why we hope we have checkusers with a the gift of good judgment. As to whether your user is acting LEGIT or ILLEGIT, I don't think we will ever know, but I am pretty sure that it is not in the good interests of the project for there to be an open and rigorous test. If you really were the pope, I don't think I'd have to tell you this. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Should an anonymous IP or SPA be able to report things like this for the protection of their own reputation, or should you have to disclose who you are to make a report. So I clarify my question again: Is the act of hiding your established (wikipedia) identity to do a sockpuppetry report, legit or illegit sockpuppetry itself? Should it be considered/investigated by the checkuser as a manner of checking the possible hidden agendas of the reporting party? Should it be listed on the page that you can/can't use an IP/SPA to do the "bad hand" dobbing tasks that may be unpopular.

The case in question is this case which I was alerted to at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cricket#BlackJack. I've had not much to do with BlackJack in the past, only passing by on some cricket articles. I thought his contributions were for "the good interests of the project", but after the last weeks BLP shenanigans, I'm not sure what the good interests of the project are anymore.The-Pope (talk) 17:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I would think that anyone, anonymous or otherwise, should be able to make a report. Use of alternate accounts, or IPs, is only sockpuppetry if it is deceptive. If you think there is deception in the filing of a report, report it. The question of what to do is a problem for clerks and checkusers. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Editing project space

At present the policy includes as forbidden, "Editing project space: Undisclosed alternative accounts should not edit policies, guidelines, or their talk pages; comment in Arbitration proceedings; or vote in requests for adminship, deletion debates, or elections."

The problem here is:

1. Users may have legitimate "good faith" alternate accounts that edit content separate from their main account;
2. The articles edited by alternate accounts are likely at times to lead to deletion debates, or dispute resolution with other content editors on the article;
3. The user with the good faith 2nd account is wrongly prohibited from contributing in those discussions with that account. Under current wording he/she must either be silent or is forced to disclose their main account if they want to participate.

I would suggest an amended wording:

• Editing project space: Undisclosed alternative accounts should not be used to edit in project space ("Wikipedia:" pages) or project talk space, including any voting or dispute resolution, unless the discussion is closely connected to a content matter (broadly interpreted) and the alternate account already has a clear connection with the discussion due to its mainspace contributions. Users should so far as possible restrict their alternate accounts from project space, and take especial care in project space not to accidentally "avoid scrutiny".

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 10:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• Seems sensible. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Further feedback? Or no objections? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Seems no objections, done. Wording as posted is slightly strengthened to match the original approach, from above draft. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:41, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Small problem

Okay, we've got a small problem with the monthly update, please see WT:Username_policy#WP:Update. - Dank (push to talk) 14:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Should mark themselves as retired?

I disagree with the change here for at least couple of reasons: 1.) Declaring yourself retired shouldn't be considered obligatory, since it's the kind of thing that forces someone to keep reading this policy over time and rehashing history so they won't be misunderstood, if that is even the right word. Plus no one should be encouraged to decide whether there is deception simply based on whether someone declared that they were retired or not. 2.) Declaring that you're retired when in fact you aren't retired seems to me deceptive in itself.

Looking back in the history, the original purpose of this seems to have been to clarify that you can't call it a "clean start" if you keep going back to the old account. Someone did this, and so it was clarified that a clean start means you are starting over and not going back and forth. But for that matter, the fact that you wanted a clean start doesn't mean that you're forbidden from ever using that account again. It's simply that the other account is no longer strictly a "clean start" (whatever that means; the phrase seems mostly rhetorical). The whole sentence should probably be removed for these reasons, but I think especially moving it up to the top of the section makes it seem like something it's not, or shouldn't be. Mackan79 (talk) 22:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Alternative accounts - not to use in policy or project space?

WP:SOCK currently says that alternate accounts should not be used in project space. This is backed up by a footnote to a ruling in an arbitration, where Arbcom stated they should not be used for policy discussions. There is an awful lot of project space that is not policy discussion.

Could this be clarified, one way or another? --Dweller (talk) 16:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The ArbCom didn't just say policy debates, but offered them as an example. It said, "Sockpuppet accounts are not to be used in discussions internal to the project, such as policy debates." There's been agreement for a long time that alternate accounts in policy development, RfArs, AfDs, RfCs and the like is not a good thing. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 16:34, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Arb com doesn't set policy.

For the specifics of the wording, why do you revert FT2's well reasoned, sensible wording above? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:10, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Dweller, I think the text of 16:28, 16 March 2010 was clear. Alternate accounts (not the main account(how defined?)) are not welcomed to edit most of project space, much as SlimVirgin says. I think this is accepted. However, the reason for this is not the arb com ruling; the arb com ruling is just an example of the seriousness of the matter, and that is the reason for the "cf" = "compare with". Also, as a general principle, arb com doesn't set policy, we the community do. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:17, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

However, Dweller has a good point. Essays are in project space. The Help request pages are in project space. Why should a committed wikipedian be told he must not write an anonymous essay, or help out at a low level anonymously? What if the "main account" is link to the real name, and the person would like to make some contributions like this that are not connect to the real person? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:22, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The policy says: "*Editing project space: Undisclosed alternative accounts should not edit policies, guidelines, or their talk pages; comment in Arbitration proceedings; or vote in requests for adminship, deletion debates, or elections. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 10:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed it does. Did you read the thread two above? A logical reason for this to not apply absolutely to deletion debates or dispute resolution (eg arbitration proceedings concerning oneself) was presented and accepted without objection. You reverted the specific amendment without discussion or even a rationale! --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:57, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Why is it be a bad idea for an undisclosed alternative account to edit, say, AfDs, so long as they're not vote-stacking (which is covered elsewhere in the policy)? Elections I understand, as we'd want the highest standards of probity. Ditto for Arbcom. But AfDs? Tweaking a guideline? --Dweller (talk) 12:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

It's often not a question of tweaking a guideline, but of trying to make major changes to core policies, failing, then turning up a year later with another account to make them again. And again. This SOCK policy has been a particular attraction in that regard. :) SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 12:17, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Does that make a difference? I'm fairly sure people do that anyway using one continuous account. --Dweller (talk) 12:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

If they do it with one account, we can see that they've done it before. When they turn up with a different account, it looks as though others are agreeing. This matters more on core policies than on articles, because policy changes affect a lot of articles and so stability is important. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 13:23, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Forbidding the use of an alternate account from editing policy (core or otherwise), and elections, seems reasonable. For guidelines, quite arguable. However, it seems unreasonable to prohibit comment on deletion debates concerning articles that the account has contributed to, RFAs where deception does not occur and other caveats I can iimagine, or talk pages even of policy. I think FT2's edits were a good step forward, and where improvements can be made, they should be made on their merits. Reversion with no better explanation than "restored this to the previous text" (aka policy soft protection) is not a good thing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:57, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

There's been a consensus for a long time that alternative accounts are not a good thing in project space. That ArbCom decision reflected the consensus, it didn't create it, so we would need strong consensus to remove or weaken it. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 13:23, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

You're contradicting yourself. There's no consensus against editing project space - edits to the help desk, ref desks and essays are clearly fine. If people would like to ascertain whether AfDs might be regarded as another exception, it seems a useful discussion. --Dweller (talk) 14:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I meant to say there has been a consensus for a long time that editing in whatever the policy specifies is not a good idea: "Undisclosed alternative accounts should not edit policies, guidelines, or their talk pages; comment in Arbitration proceedings; or vote in requests for adminship, deletion debates, or elections." SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 19:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Where is the evidence of this past consensus, or the argument that it is a good idea, that an well behaved, good faith, alternate account cannot comment in the AfD on the article they wrote, or respond to a formal DR process initiated against them? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:46, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

• I've tried this edit as an attempt at a compromise solution. It breaks the Illegit listing style a little, and could be improved. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it's an improvement. --Dweller (talk) 11:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

At the risk of ABF-ing and pointing out the bleedin' obvious, SmokeyJoe has made only 254 edits to articles in four years, but 4,800 overall. :) So it seems to me that you might be one of the accounts we're talking about. You removed the prohibition against alternate accounts discussing policy and engaging in ArbCom proceedings. There's been a strong consensus against that for a long time because it causes people to be misled, wastes time, and at times has caused chaos, which is why the ArbCom made that ruling. That apart, when people object to a change in a policy, you don't just continue to push it through. Please gain consensus if you want to change it. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 19:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

What is "ABF-ing"? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• Does anyone else want to hear me defend my judgment on how I think I can best contribute to this project? SlimVirgin accuses, but is not interested in answers. Unlike SlimVirgin, I believe my points should stand or fall on their merits, not on the standing of the speaker.
• SlimVirgin has ignored my clearly pertinent question of 21:46, 17 March 2010, a few lines above, and reverted all development not written by her due to "there's no consensus for that change". Can we remind her of the wisdom behind Wikipedia:Don't revert due to "no consensus", point out a very simple picture at Wikipedia:Consensus, and chide her for attempting to WP:OWN Wikipedia policy. Granted, she wrote much of it, and understands it very well, but at this time she displays little appreciation for the issues of probable readership, or for small concerns that are not hers.
• But to restate the questions based on SV's latest contribution here:

1. Why should there be a prohibition against compliant accounts occassionly raising a point or question on the talk page of a policy?
2. Why should a compliant account be forbidden to responding to a arb com proceeding naming them? Granted, this should be the exception, not the rule; compliant, mature, trustworthy, non-admin, content building contributors do not tend to fall into these situations.
3. Why should a compliant account be forbidden from joining a discussion on an article they wrote? We should assume, in the absence of contrary information, that there is a good reason for the use of the undisclosed alternate account.
4. Is it OK for improvement to be blocked due to SlimVirgin's opposition if she fails to engage on the substance of the matter? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Longstanding policy is that sockpuppets are very strongly discouraged, and should only be used in the most limited and exceptional of circumstances. The goal here is not to posit possible theoretical exceptions to this, and then create loopholes to accomodate those rare and doubtful cases, but rather to discourage the use of sockpuppets. And accounts that have almost no experience actually editing articles, and that have very odd edit histories, shouldn't be trying to change this. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:22, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

So you are saying that the policy should be kept simple, and broadly discourage use of undisclosed alternative accounts, and not get convoluted with the very rare well justified use of an undisclosed alternative account that somehow needs to interact with policy pages? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:05, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I can't think of a situation in which a sock would have a legitimate reason to interact with policy pages. The thing about this policy is that it has a long sad history of being tweaked by sockpuppets in favour of—guess what. Indeed, one of our most prolific socks rewrote it once to redefine "sock" and make it harder to block him. :)

The thrust of the policy is that sockpuppetry is not allowed, because the community in general is fed up with it, so we really shouldn't be making edits that loosen the restrictions. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 08:10, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, that seems a reasonable response to the suggestion of 10:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

The 2 February suggestion was that it seems only fair, if someone is editing Cheese with an alternate account, that they be allowed to participate if Cheese comes to dispute resolution or AfD. And yes, on its face that seems reasonable. But if you think about it some more, it undercuts the reason for this policy, which is do not sock, by making socking less of an obstacle to interaction. It introduces the idea that it's okay to ask regular editors at AfDs, RfCs, policy talk pages, and the like to interact with editors they may have interacted with before, who are not telling us who they are. So we might find ourselves forced to repeat the same arguments to the same people over and over, which we wouldn't do if we knew who we were talking to. It's not fair to expect volunteer content contributors to waste that amount of time—to be tricked, essentially—just because some people want to keep switching names without telling us. So the thrust of the page is: if you want to help shape policy, and take part in AfDs and RfArs, don't sock. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 10:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Another Legitimate use of an Alternate Account

Someone should include that keeping separate watchlists is another legitimate use of an alternate account. Sonic120 (talk) 03:03, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Such accounts should be explicitly linked. This policy page is best kept concerned with the potentially abusive use of undisclosed alternative accounts, and not filled up with every variation of obviously acceptable open use of multiple usernames, such as: User:Sonic120; User:Sonic120_A and User:Sonic120_B. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:16, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Getting Rid of WP:MEAT

I believe WP:MEAT has outlived its usefulness (though it's debatable as to whether it ever was useful). It flies in the face of "Don't bite the newcomers" by directly antagonizing new users, and outside of rhetoric that encourages the malignment of new users, it doesn't provide anything that isn't already duplicated by other policies and guidelines. Fedbn (talk) 08:03, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

As meatpuppets are by definition distinct from the person who recruited them, it's objectionable that they "may be subject to the remedies applied to the user whose behavior they are joining". If a user is being disruptive, they alone should be dealt with, regardless of whether they've been around for five years or were recently recruited into an AfD.

Punishing users for the actions of another who purportedly recruited them is wrong on several levels, and to my knowledge no other policies have spill-over where a peripherally-related user suffers the same punishments as the policy violator.

The policy is most commonly invoked in AfDs, which are explicitly debates, not votes. The only issue that a good-faith "meatpuppet" creates is a slight degradation in SNR. If a new user is disruptive, they can be dealt with by the same general policies as all the others.

Even the first sentence summarizing the policy is flawed: "Meatpuppetry is the recruitment of editors as proxies to sway consensus." If consensus is determined by an administrator carefully weighing each point, then the "meatpuppets" evidently made some logical points if they're altering the outcome.

In a canvassed debate, all WP:MEAT achieves is to create an insular environment where outside opinions aren't just ignored, they're forcibly ejected. Taking this to the extreme (which has surfaced recently) you end up with large numbers of innocent users blocked and semi-protected deletion "debates".

The only sane policy with regard to freshly-recruited users is to treat them with additional good faith. A new user who has registered to defend something is evidently passionate about it, and if you're empathetic towards them, they may reciprocate the good faith and attempt to find sources, and perhaps in time become regular editors. WP:MEAT permits that good faith to go out the window, replaced by insulting accusations and draconian reprimands that result in legitimate users becoming disaffected with the project. Fedbn (talk) 09:26, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps this should be split onto a separate page, with a see also section linking between the two. Or maybe transfer it to canvassing, since it is more like canvassing than sock puppetry. Hellno2 (talk) 14:58, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The bit about recruiting people is what I was referring to when I mentioned that WP:MEAT duplicates existing policies and guidelines. The rest is all focused on discarding good faith and finding ways to disregard arguments made by new users, so I don't think it should exist in any form. Fedbn (talk) 02:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

While much of what Fedbn says true, I don't think there's a case to remove it. WP:MEAT belongs in WP:SOCK because the classic MEAT case is where a SOCK is claimed to not be a SOCK because it's a (non-wikipedian) a little brother, friend, or similar, who is pressing the keys, and it little more than a semantic avoidance of the WP:SOCK prohibitions. Genuine newcomers are clearly covered by WP:BITE. I don't think there are many WP:MEAT violations of WP:BITE except where WP:DUCK applies, and honest mistakes are easily rectified among reasonable people. If there is evidence of WP:MEAT being abused, please present it. If improvement of the text is possible, suggest it, or do it. "MEAT" is perhaps an offensive term to some, but it is an accepted term, and no honest person is properly ascribed "a meatpuppet". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:24, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't like that lots of policies are written for worst-case scenarios. The fact is that quite often policies are invoked blindly, so a policy designed to deal with worst-case behaviour is often used in places where common sense says it's too extreme. My evidence (and indeed, the catalyst for all this) is the handling of the dwm AfDs dwm AfDs (archived). While the damage is (mostly) undone, the fact remains that WP:MEAT was invoked to block nearly a dozen legitimate users, and it took substantial illumination (and around 20 days) to reverse the blocks. Note that the two users who requested unblocks on their own were denied because of WP:MEAT. Regardless of the conduct of those involved, I think that any policy that can be used in such a manner isn't useful to the project. Fedbn (talk) 08:55, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I think there could be reason here to add advice about being cautious about overreacting to perceived WP:MEAT disruption. I note that actually WP:MEAT disruptions, but true non-wikipedians, are pretty obvious, which means that strong reactions are not so necessary. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:02, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

What's the use in it, then? If you have a harsh policy that needs a warning stating that it probably shouldn't be employed against those it explicitly targets, then it's probably not a policy worth having. The recruiting of "meatpuppets" is covered by WP:CANVAS (an also-flawed policy), abusive editors are covered by WP:DE, WP:CIVIL, etc., so I see WP:MEAT as superfluous and destructive. Fedbn (talk) 16:34, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

• RfC Comment. I would not remove the section. I agree that it is problematic, in that it is difficult to enforce and unclear as to how to enforce, but I largely disagree with the arguments made here for its complete removal. I'm heavily influenced in this by my own experiences at Crucifixion and Crucifixion in the arts, where an incredibly disruptive bunch of meatpuppets (some of whom turned out to be socks) came from Something Awful (see also: WP:Griefing). The phenomenon is all too real, and all too disruptive. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:12, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Many policies are reactionary, written in response to something that existing policy failed to address. Evolving in this form yields increasingly draconian policies addressing edge cases. In my mind the only appropriate way to deal with exceptional circumstances is to go beyond policy and use common sense. Ultimately, aren't administrators appointed because the community believes their judgement to be sound? As I mentioned in an earlier reply, I believe other policies are much better at handling abusive users, in addition to not having the tendency to malign new users attempting to defend something they're passionate about. Keep in mind that WP:MEAT is solely prescribed for new users, though I suppose "new" without qualification is rather worthless. At any rate, I think that a healthy dose of common sense is better at removing individual disruptive users than maintaining a policy for every edge case. Fedbn (talk) 17:51, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I basically agree with SmokeyJoe. The point of this has been, largely, to keep the focus on behavior rather than on the ultimately unknowable question of who is behind a keyboard. WP:MEAT clarifies that the problem is not just with one person using multiple accounts, but with any situation where additional accounts are being created to stack discussions. It also prevents us from having to take a specific position that two accounts are the same person, which we are never really in a position to say, while still allowing us to target disruptive behavior. The main problem is that WP:SOCK (and generally WP:CANVASS) is technically impossible to prove. Whether it's a good name is another issue, and I think clarifying a non-bitey response to puppet-like behavior is a good thing. Mackan79 (talk) 20:41, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Proxy editing is a serious problem, and I would hesitate to do anything to weaken the tools we use to defend against it. WP:MEAT gets to the heart of this issue: fake accounts, buddies acting in concert, and similar deliberate gaming of the system, often to troll or manipulate coverage in a COI situation. These are some of the hardest, most disruptive problems we have. It is often difficult to detect and deal effectively with bad faith new accounts. In some cases they persist for months as editors try to give every benefit of doubt despite every indication that they are not here to edit constructively. In my opinion this is not a WP:BITE problem at all. If a new editor comes here with good intentions, is courteous and respectful, and generally behaves, they won't have any trouble. It's the ones who come here ready to do battle, seek out the editing hot-spots, ally themselves with other vociferous editors, and become instant wiki-lawyers, who raise suspicion. If a troublesome editor brings down unfounded suspicion of being a meatpuppet because they're acting like one, I don't see the problem. The bad faith ones (and the contrarians and drama hounds who get suckered into defending them) may cry WP:BITE, WP:NPA, WP:AGF, WP:OWN, and other things that cloud the issue, but the bottom line is that editors who behave that way need to stop. We're here to create an encyclopedia, not a community. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm in favour of its removal because it's too broad. There's a difference between a new user trying to defend a topic they're passionate about and a user who's persistently disruptive. If you throw the book at the former, they may well come back as the latter. WP:TRIFECTA and a large dose of common sense are really all that's needed, in my opinion. There are infinitely many ways to skirt existing policies in disruptive, bad-faith ways, and while they can be picked out quite easily, you'd also need to make the policies extremely draconian to deal with them. I don't see Wikipedia as needing policies analogous to laws, because such restrictions can be destructive to the goal of writing an encyclopedia. Regarding your last remark, writing an encyclopedia requires a community. Editing rates are down, as are article creation rates and successful RfAs. Usage certainly hasn't decreased, so certainly something is to blame for decreasing participation. Every time a policy is used to harshly reprimand a new user, the project loses a bit of momentum. I'd really rather see new users treated graciously, with only the true abusers singled out. WP:MEAT only singles out new users; If a user has been disruptive for months, it does not apply. So perhaps your issue has more to do with a failure in other policies, along with involved administrators being unwilling to go beyond policy. Fedbn (talk) 07:20, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

My comment has to do with the community's slow response to disruption from sockpuppets and meatpuppets. Wildly abusive editors too but that's a different page. Editors being passionate, even stubborn, comes with the territory. Single-purpose accounts that begin a campaign of advocacy and rule-gaming within their first few edits, that's another story. Speaking of which, who are you and why so much interest in administrative meta-matters in your account's first 20 edits to the project? - Wikidemon (talk) 08:19, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I've been an anonymous IP editor for some years, in the aftermath of the dwm mess I opted to involve myself in order to (hopefully) correct some things that I perceive to be damaging to the project as a whole, and to prevent similar recurrences. Fedbn (talk) 08:37, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation and welcome to the world of semi-anonymity! I was unaware of that mess and I'll have to qualify my statement that only bad-acting newbies get into trouble. However, I have seen plenty of good applications of WP:MEAT that wouldn't have been as easy to deal with solely as a matter of behavior. Gutting the entire policy as it relates to proxy editing would throw the baby out with the bathwater. Perhaps something could be done to prevent this specific kind of thing. Also, any policy has false positives and false negatives, and because administrators are only human and have their quirks, every policy will be misapplied sometimes. Innocent editors get sanctioned, and the best admins can do is apologize, learn from the mistake, and promise to be more careful in the future. The appeal / unblock process is a net that probably catches most of the mistakes, and admins can do a null or 1-second block to note that the previous block was erroneous so it isn't a bad mark on the record. So even a bad case like dwm can be undone, and doesn't cause as much disruption in the long run as a single farm of sock/meatpuppets can if undetected. One particular difficulty in dealing with the worst of the socks / meatpuppets are that they are being manipulative and dishonest, so they game any organized process we set up. For example, if we ask editors caught meatpuppeting to promise they are who they say they are, and not to collude in the future simply to stack votes or consensus decisions, some people will give lip service to that but keep doing it anyway. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:13, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion the suggestion of removing this section, while made for excellent reasons, is mistaken. The essential point is that sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry are essentially the same in intention and in effect. If we removed the section then it would be less easy to deal with cases which are clearly one or the other but we could not prove which. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:37, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose deletion of meatpuppetry. I've seen people that have never edited an article, nor discussed it on its talk page, vote and disappear. Nothing to do with newcomers. Also, this RfC was not written neutrally. -- Rico 23:53, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Keep the section, but advise softer enforcement in the first instance?

I think it is clear that the section will not be removed. However, could there be agreement to soften its effects? Is there ever a good reason to block a suspected meatpuppet in the first instance for more than 30 hours? Is blocking ever even necessary, for a true new wikipedian who has been asked to to come online and contribute to a discussion? Is it not enough to tag their contentious contributions? Ture meatpuppets are usually obvious, and of course, if their contributions are sudden, wide, and clever, then they are probably not new to wikipedia, and probably not well treated as meatpuppets. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:13, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. I actually have had experience with what common sense would say was meatpuppetry, but where it was not possible to identify a "smoking gun". Those experiences left me with the feeling that the shortcomings of the present version are not that it is too harsh, but that, conversely, it is too difficult to enforce. Generally, the best remedy is to simply strike or discount meat !votes from things like RfCs, and I would expect most administrators use their best judgments in determining the length of a block when a block is indicated. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

"Alternate"

The word "alternate" was added to the intro this month. I don't know, but I've been told that the word sounds wrong to Brits, that they prefer "alternative" or some workaround. - Dank (push to talk) 02:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

It is commonly held by older pedantic people of my acquaintance (I do not admit to being a pedant) that alternate is a verb, emphasis on the 2nd syllable, that means one, then the other, repeating sequentially, and that it should not be used as a noun for one of a choice of two or more where alternative is the proper word. Where alternate is a verb, it is one the options that alternate. However, this history of the words doesn't back this up. Both words have been used in the fully variety of nuances for hundreds of years. There is no proper pure English; our language is derived from an undisciplined patchwork of scraps taken from anywhere and everywhere by the illiterate before some rules began to hold when printing presses became important. (Before that the English scholars wrote in Latin or another European language). That said, admitting little good reason, I would prefer alternative to be the preferred noun. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:06, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Seriously? Sockpuppetry is a crime?!

Warning: The misuse of a second account is considered a serious breach of community trust, and is likely to lead to a block or a ban, the public linking of any other accounts or IPs you have used on Wikipedia and its sister projects, and (potentially) "public record" discussion by other editors of your "real-world" activities and other personal information relevant to your editing. Abuse of multiple accounts can seriously affect what employers, friends, peers, journalists and law enforcement may see when they look up your name or nickname online in the future. Do not sock.

That's awfully scary and harsh wording we got there in the policy... however should someone be accused and "convicted" of sockpuppetry, but actually be innocent here in Wikipedia and, for whatever reason, and then it really does affect what an employer, future employer, law enforcement, etc "see" when looking up that person's name that IS the very legal definition of libel and can and would in fact cause the Foundation to be legally responsible for damages. Is it really necessary to have "public record" discussions about an editors "real-world" activities and personal information all over sockpuppets?! Hmmm, what if I use a sockpuppet, you put out my real name and address, and I get a psycho who shoots me?! Will Wikipedia then hide behind a "policy" when sued? I'm not making legal threats, I'm simply pointing out the asininity (apparently a real word) of a policy that can hurt all of us legally. We should NEVER NEVER NEVER air someone's real identity for ANY purpose whatsoever. Wikipedia is not worth it. This is a hobby. As an aside- I'd love for a cop to tell me "I was going to give you a warning for speeding but since you sockpuppetted on Wikipedia I'm writing you a ticket instead." I know this wording is meant to scare people into not sockpuppetting but its ridiculous.Camelbinky (talk) 04:50, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

While I understand your concerns, my understanding is that the text is intended as a caution that any discussions may involve real-world information, as opposed to threatening that we will reveal them. Perhaps some tweaking is in order? --Ckatz^chat_spy 07:43, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

No editor worth their salt would ever violate the m:Privacy Policy, least of all a checkuser. What that section is trying to say is that if you sock it is likely there will be some discussion of your actions. If you use your real name or a common nickname, when your potential new employer goes to Google you, odds are you don't want them to see "Banned from Wikipedia." You might as well say roughly the same thing about plain ol' vandalism - who would hire someone that mature? That being said, all WP:SPI pages are NOINDEX, so they won't show up in Google at least. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:56, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that socking should not be such a serious WikiCrime. If you read the essay WP:PUNISH, you can see:

it is important to remember that these sanctions are intended to be preventative, not punitive.

There is also a picture on that page that says that the tiger is kept in a cage not as a punishment but to keep it from hurting people.

While socking is something that everyone should be made aware of and not to do oneself, no one should ever be threatened with the mightiest of sanctions for doing so.

If the sock puppeteer has any accounts, even multiple ones, that are being used to edit within guidelines, and they have been used only for good-faith edits throughout, these should be allowed to continue to operate without a block. Accounts that have been used primarily for violating policy in one way or another should be closed out.

And whatever the sock puppetry has been used for should be stopped. If someone used a sock to vandalize, the vandalism sock should be blocked permanently, and with his main account, he should be treated like a vandal. If someone is using socks to make multiple comments on AfDs, the extra "votes" should be discounted. It is as simple as that. Hellno2 (talk) 13:06, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The problem arises when it's not so simple. Those operating multiple accounts don't readily give a list of all of them, and will often vigorously deny using them. A lot of times discovery comes after the fact. Blocking only if an individual account has vandalized ignores the fact that if a vandal/vote-stacker/etc. (a human) has done it before s/he can do it again. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:56, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I came to this page after reading the one on welcoming new members. I felt pretty good about the wiki project until I read this threatening note. I don't think that anyone has ever lost a job or had a police investigation affected by accusations of sock puppet use. This whole threatening section should be removed, it is crazy.

Change redirect of WP:ROLE

I've noticed that Wikipedia:ROLE redirects to Wikipedia:Role account, which softly redirects to Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Role accounts. Should we change Wikipedia:ROLE so that instead, it redirects straight to Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Role accounts? Keyboard mouse (talk) 03:20, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Striking or deleting sockpuppet contributions

On the talk page of an article, an editor has struck all the contributions of a confirmed sockpuppet. This strikes me as wrong, since just because we have a confirmed sockpuppet doesn't mean his words or ideas should be struck. Is there a policy on this? Stellarkid (talk) 16:01, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

To me it is rather like a gate-crasher at a party, who comes in and strikes up a conversation with party-goers and the party-goers talk about their subjects among themselves. Then the gate-crasher gets evicted, and everyone has to pretend the conversation never happened. We censor people, not their ideas. Stellarkid (talk) 16:07, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there is clear policy on this. I think what to do about the comments depends on the comments. If the gatecrasher was previously banned and the conversation was disruptive, then the comments should be removed. If the comments were partly disruptive, but possibly of some constructive value, then you might strike them out, or put them in a collapsed box. If someone wants to comment on struck or hidden comments, they are free to quote the comments.

Given that someone has struck the sockpuppet’s comments, I don't think you should unstrike them. If you feel there is something of merit in the struck comments, start up a new thread on the matter of merit. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:47, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that makes sense to me. And indeed, some of the comments could be seen as personal attacks, although some had relevance to the article. I will follow your excellent advice, thanks. Stellarkid (talk) 04:03, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there is a policy either, but it's pretty common practice. It sends a clear signal that banned or blocked users have no right to edit or comment in any imaginable manner, and that their comments, even if correct, will not be allowed. We have no respect for such users. They have no right to be here. They have forfeited it. If a comment is pretty constructive, doesn't attack anyone or discuss the disruption, then a simple strike through still allows others to read and digest the comment. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:25, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

It's hard to say anything in the abstract because it depends on what the sockpuppeter was doing. However, socks are often used to troll, disrupt, plant disinformation, wikigame, harass, make accusations, create false impression of consensus, advance fringe notions, etc., so it's often best to just root them out even where the comment would be okay if it came from a legitimate account, or even has some supporters. - Wikidemon (talk) 09:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Dubious statement

Yesterday I removed what I felt was a dubious statement in the WP:FAMILY section of this policy, specifically the one stating that closely related users may be considered a single person. In the spirit of WP:BRD, Spitfire (talk · contribs) reverted me and kindly informed me on my talk page that it was added in conjunction with this ArbCom case. I still find it a bit odd, though, and honestly see no need to classify associated accounts as sockpuppets rather than, more accurately, meatpuppets. It just seems unnecessary, and not all ArbCom findings need to be codified as policy. Any thoughts? Thanks. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:39, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Well I think the policy is good as it is, as it prevents people from creating fake accounts for relatives, using them as true sockpuppets, and saying theyre innocent when checkusered because it's not really the same person. In the rare cases where there are legitimately two members in the same household editing Wikipedia under different accounts, and participating in the same discussions, I think it is a good idea for them to observe the policy as is, because they are likely to have significant influence over each other. So there are two distinct reasons why I support the current policy: technical restrictions of checkuser, and social considerations. But the change you made doesn't seem to be a very big change in the policy, since you left the sentence after it intact, and that sentence essentially restates the removed sentence in a weaker form ("should" rather than "must"). So I dont have any objection to the change if we agree that the current policy can still be enforced. —Soap— 13:58, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I certainly see the point that Julian is making, and his concerns are 100% valid. However, personally, as someone who is related to someone else on wikipedia (and thus who this part of policy could potentially apply to) I don't really see this is massively unfair; myself and Kingpin13 have always avoided supporting each other on wikipedia, and were we to do so then I wouldn't think it unfair if we were treated as a single entity as far as application of policy goes. Soap also brings up some good points in favour of the policy: I remember a SPI case were a user claimed that ~5 other people in their flat were editing wikipedia, all using the same connection, and, predictably, all with the same agenda, this part of the policy prevents the family/associate claim from being used abusively. All that said, I do see that the policy could probably be qualified slightly so that it puts the same point across, but in a more friendly manner. Thoughts? Spitfire^Tally-ho! 14:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppet discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (development)

Please see:

• Wikipedia:Village pump (development)#Limiting sockpuppet creation by requiring a verified email address during account creation --Timeshifter (talk) 04:08, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion: sock detection bot

Here is a suggestion: the creation of a bot that tags possible suspicious signs of sock puppetry that deserve a review. It'll look out to see if multiple signs from the Signs of sock puppetry are present, and alert editors, who can examine if a further review is warranted. For example, it'll monitor all those who comment in a common discussion, and examine if they have a history of editing a lot of other common articles or share a common editing chronology. It'll monitor new accounts commenting in Afds to determine if there could be any connections to others who commented in the same Afds. These are just to name a few. We already have tags hunting down vandalism. How about something similar for socks? Hellno2 (talk) 13:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

That seems very difficult to automate. How would you handle people who just edit similar articles at similar times because they are overlapping topics? You wouldn't want to flag a lot of people editing articles about France who all happen to get off of work at the same time in the French timezone. WavePart (talk) 01:51, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

IP Tracking Cant be reliable!

Because,Thousands of Wikipedians uses Mobile internet to edit articles.The IP address required to brows Internet is provided by the ISP like Docomo or Vodafone etc.{see GPRS}.So users of same ISP'll have same IP Resulting in confusion. For example,10 users edit articles using GPRS On Vodafone,they'll have deferent account but same IP So that Sock puppet investigators will consider them as same account and it'll be worst if they're interested in articles related to a particuller thing.

Coercorash^TalkContr. 06:14, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Checkusers would be able to see that the accounts were on a mobile network, and that would be considered before any blocks were made. Other technical data is also available via checkuser, and behavioral evidence is always taken into account alongside any technical evidence available. We don't just assume that if some accounts are on the same IP range then they must be related, there has to be substantial other evidence as well (the evidence from checkuser is considerd, but so are the behavioral patterns). Hope this helps, kindest regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 14:48, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you.It cleared my doubts.

Coercorash^TalkContr. 04:59, 24 June 2010 (UTC)