Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry

Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations for how to request CheckUser intervention. You may also be looking for Wikipedia:WikiProject Sociology.

The default position on Wikipedia is that editors who register should edit using one account only. The purpose of this policy is to forbid deceptive or misleading use of multiple accounts and to explain where editors may legitimately use a second (alternate) account. A second account used deceptively in violation of this policy is known as a sock puppet.

Examples of prohibited uses include to avoid scrutiny; mislead or deceive other editors; edit project discussions (eg policy debates and Arbitration proceedings); make disruptive edits with one account and normal edits with another; distort consensus; stir up controversy; or circumvent sanctions or policy. These same principles apply to editors who decide to cease editing under one account and restart under another (see WP:CLEANSTART).

• Do not sock.
• Do not bias discussions by asking for supporters from other places (meatpuppetry).
• Do not act as a meat puppet for somebody else.

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, and journalists may see when they look up your name or nickname online in future. Do not sock.

Editors who use more than one account are advised to provide links between them on the user pages (see below). Do not use undisclosed alternative accounts without very good reason. If you must, do so only with care. Note that if you are found to be behaving abusively and action is taken, privacy policy's data release criteria releases other Wikipedians from their obligation to protect your anonymity when addressing abuse. It is likely that all of your accounts will be blocked and publicly linked.

Inappropriate uses of alternate accounts

Editors must not use alternate accounts to mislead, deceive, disrupt, or undermine consensus. This includes, but is not limited to:

• Creating an illusion of support: Alternate accounts must not be used to give the impression of more support for a position than actually exists.

• Editing project space: Alternate accounts should not edit policies, guidelines, or their talk pages; comment in Arbitration proceedings; or vote in requests for adminship, deletion debates, or elections.

• Circumventing policies or sanctions: Policies apply per person, not per account. Policies such as the three-revert rule are for each person's edits. Using a second account to violate policy will cause any penalties to be applied to your main account, and in the case of sanctions, bans, or blocks, evasion causes the timer to restart.

• 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).

• Avoiding scrutiny: Using alternate accounts that are not fully and openly disclosed to split your editing history means that other editors cannot detect patterns in your contributions. While this is permitted in certain circumstances (see legitimate uses), it is a violation of this policy to create alternate accounts to confuse or deceive editors who may have a legitimate interest in reviewing your contributions.

• "Good hand, bad hand" accounts: Keeping one account "clean" while using another to engage in disruption.

• Role accounts: Because an account represents your edits as an individual, "role accounts" — accounts shared by multiple people—are as a rule forbidden and blocked. If you edit for an organization please see username policy guidance. The sole exceptions are non-editing accounts providing email access to major internal mailing lists and accounts approved by the Wikimedia Foundation (list below), and approved bots with multiple managers. See Username policy#Sharing accounts.

• Administrators with multiple accounts: Editors may not have more than one administrator account (excluding bots with administrator privileges). If an administrator leaves, comes back under a new name and is nominated for adminship, they must give up the admin access of their old account.

  Foundation staff may operate more than one admin account, though they must make known who they are. For example, Bastique uses the account Cary Bass for Foundation purposes.

  RFA candidates should normally disclose all past significant accounts. Adminship reflects the community's trust in an individual, not just in an account. Administrators who fail to disclose their past accounts risk being desysopped, particularly if knowledge of the past accounts would have influenced the outcome of past discussions about their adminship.

While real-life sockpuppets are a source of amusement, in Wikipedia, they can cause disruption.

• Posing as a neutral commentator: Using an alternate account in a discussion about another account operated by the same person.

• Voting more than once in polls.

• Misusing new pages patrol: Creating an article with one account, then marking it as patrolled with another.

• Strawman socks: Creating a separate account to argue one side of an issue in a deliberately irrational or offensive fashion, to sway opinion to another side.

• Misusing a clean start: Making a clean start with a new account, but then turning up at pages you used to edit with the old account, while denying any connection to it; this is particularly inappropriate if the article or edits are contentious. Repeatedly switching accounts is seen as a way of avoiding scrutiny and is considered a breach of this policy.

Note that editing under multiple IP addresses, without registering, can be treated the same as editing under multiple accounts where it is done deceptively or otherwise violates the above principles. Registered users who edit without logging in are treated the same as if the IP was an alternate account. (Where editors log out by mistake, they may wish to contact an administrator or an editor with oversight access in order to ensure that there is not a misunderstanding.)

Legitimate uses of alternate accounts

Alternate accounts have legitimate uses. For example, long-term contributors using their real names may wish to use a pseudonymous account for contributions they do not want their real name to be associated with, or longterm users might create a new account to experience how the community functions for new users. If you use an alternate account, it is your responsibility to ensure that you do not violate this policy.

Just as the Trojan Horse concealed a surprise, public computers can have password-stealing "trojan" programs.

• Security: Since public computers can have password-stealing trojans or keyloggers installed, users may register an alternate account to prevent the hijacking of their main accounts. Such accounts should be publicly connected to the main account or use an easily identified name. For example, User:Mickey might use User:Mickey (alt) or User:Mouse, and redirect that account's user and talk pages to their main account.

• Privacy: A person editing an article which is highly controversial within his/her family, social or professional circle, and whose Wikipedia identity is known within that circle, or traceable to their real-world identity, may wish to use an alternative account to avoid real-world consequences from their editing or other Wikipedia actions in that area.

• Maintenance: An editor might use an alternate account to carry out maintenance tasks. The second account should be clearly linked to the main account.

• Bots: A common special case of maintenance involves bots, or programs that edit automatically or semi-automatically. Editors who use bots are encouraged to create separate accounts, and ask that they be marked as bot accounts via Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval), so that the automated edits can be filtered out of recent changes; see Wikipedia:Bot policy.

• Doppelgänger accounts: Doppelgänger is a German word for a ghostly double of a living person. A doppelgänger account is a second account created with a username similar to one's main account to prevent impersonation. Such accounts should not be used for editing. Doppelgänger accounts may be marked with the {{doppelganger}} or {{doppelganger-other}} tag (or simply redirected to the main account's userpage).

• Clean start under a new name: If you decide to make a fresh start, and do not wish to be connected to a previous account, you can simply discontinue using the old account(s), and create a new one that becomes the only account you use. 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.

  That is, you should not transition from editing as User:A to continue the same editing pattern, this time as User:B, especially if denying any connection to User:A, if User:A had been a contentious editor, or if the edits of User:B are contentious.

  Discontinuing the old account means that it will not be used again. When an account is discontinued, it should note on its user page that it is inactive—for example, with the {{retired}} tag—to prevent the switch being seen as an attempt to sock puppet.

Alternate account notification

Except when doing so would defeat the purpose of having a legitimate alternate account, editors using alternate accounts should provide links between the accounts. To link an alternate account to a main account, tag the secondary accounts with {{User Alternate Acct|main account}}. The main accounts may be marked with {{User Alt Acct Master}}.

Editors who have multiple accounts for privacy reasons should consider notifying a checkuser or member of the arbitration committee if they believe editing will attract scrutiny. Editors who heavily edit controversial material, those who maintain single purpose accounts, as well as editors considering becoming an administrator are among the groups of editors who attract scrutiny even if their editing behavior itself is not problematic or only marginally so. Note that email is generally not considered a secure way of communication. Concerned editors may wish to log into Wikipedia's secure server then email the arbitration committee or any individual with checkuser rights through a secure connection to Wikipedia's computers.

Meatpuppets

Meatpuppetry is the recruitment of editors as proxies to sway consensus. While Wikipedia assumes good faith, especially for new users, the recruitment of new editors for this purpose is a violation of this policy. A new user who engages in the same behavior as another user in the same context, and who appears to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose, may be subject to the remedies applied to the user whose behavior they are joining. The term meatpuppet is derogatory and should be used with care. Wikipedia has processes in place to mitigate the disruption caused by meatpuppetry:

• Consensus in many debates and discussions should ideally not be based upon number of votes, but upon policy-related points made by editors.
• In votes or vote-like discussions, new users may be disregarded or given significantly less weight, especially if there are many of them expressing the same opinion.
• For the purposes of dispute resolution, the Arbitration Committee has decided that when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sock puppets, or several users acting as meatpuppets, they may be treated as one entity.

Sharing an IP address

If editors live or work together and share a computer or an internet connection, or use a public computer or shared network, their accounts may be linked by CheckUser. To avoid accusations of sock puppetry, users in that position should declare the connection on their user pages.

Closely connected users may be considered a single user for Wikipedia's purposes if they edit with the same objectives. When editing the same articles, participating in the same community discussion, or supporting each other in any sort of dispute, closely related accounts should disclose the connection and observe relevant policies such as edit warring as if they were a single account. If they do not wish to disclose the connection, they should avoid editing in the same areas, particularly on controversial topics.

Handling suspected sock puppets

Sockpuppet investigations

Wikipedia:Signs of sock puppetry lists some of the signs that an account may be a sock puppet. If you believe someone is using sock puppets, you should create a report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations.

Checkuser

Further information: Wikipedia:Checkuser

Editors with access to the Checkuser tool may consult the server log to see which IP addresses are linked to which accounts. Checkuser cannot confirm with certainty that two accounts are not connected; it can only show whether there is a technical link at the time of the check. To comply with the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy, checks are only conducted with reasonable cause, and results are given only in general terms. "Fishing"—the general checking of users without reason to suspect they are violating this policy—is not supported.

Blocking

Main page: Wikipedia:Blocking policy

If a person is found to be using a sock puppet, the sock puppet accounts should be blocked indefinitely. The main account may be blocked at the discretion of any uninvolved administrator. IP addresses used for sock puppetry may be blocked, but are subject to certain restrictions for indefinite blocks.

Tagging

To get involved in SPI patrolling, and how patrollers can help at SPI, see Helping at SPI.

See also: – Clerk and CheckUser SPI procedures here, opening or re-opening an SPI case here.

This page explains the most common procedures for administrators patrolling the sockpuppet investigations (SPI) pages. SPI is where users can bring concerns that an individual may be misusing accounts or IP editing in violation of Wikipedia's sock puppetry policy, for example to breach sanctions, blocks, or agreements, to bias content and discussions, to attack other users, or to disrupt, deliberately mislead, or vandalize.

SPI is a delicate area; patrollers should keep in mind that there are legitimate uses of multiple accounts, and that improbable things can happen by chance. Unfairly blocking someone as a sockpuppet is a harm not easily undone.

Getting involved in patrolling, and how patrollers can help

For details on what patrollers can do to help at SPI, and how to get involved, and background on how SPI works, see the clerks page, and more specifically the section of that page about patrolling and getting involved.

Decisions and case control at SPI are routinely managed by any admin. While Checkusers add evidence, and Checkusers and Clerks may take action, any admin can make decisions on cases and their management (as with any dispute) within the norms of SPI. With more administrators patrolling, SPI cases will have more watchers, be updated faster, and have a greater chance of being reviewed independently. Admin patrollers are warmly welcomed!

The easiest cases for admins new to the area are the ones in the beige-colored "Open" category. The green "CU completed" cases tend to be a bit more challenging, but that category also tends to need the most help.

Useful SPI scripts and tools

• "Strike out usernames that have been blocked" from Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets (formerly User:NuclearWarfare/Mark-blocked script.js), which indicates if an account has been blocked already, either for a set period of time or indefinitely.
• Editor Interaction Analyzer, which shows the common pages that two or more editors have both edited, sorted by minimum time between edits by the users.
• Interaction Timeline, primarily designed to combat harassment but potentially useful in other situations, too
• Intertwined Contributions
• Intersect Contribs, faster than the Editor Interaction Analyzer but without as much detailed information
• Special:CentralAuth, quick and easy way to determine edit count and cross-wiki footprint (much faster than XTools or the Global Contributions tool)
• User:GeneralNotability/spihelper, a script which is primarily for clerks, checkusers and patrolling administrators (but can be used by other users). It gives a menu of options which help those users deal with sockpuppet cases and case pages.

Opening or re-opening a case

To open an SPI case, please follow the instructions by opening the section "How to open an investigation" at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations, making sure you have read and understood the SPI case guidelines at the top of that page. For a quick CheckUser request, please follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations#Quick CheckUser requests, making sure you have read and understood when and when not to request CheckUser. CheckUser attention on other pages can be requested with {{Checkuser needed}}. Please use this judiciously, as it causes the Bat-Signal to go off.

Taking administrative action on open cases

Any uninvolved administrator at any time may block any account that has violated the sock puppetry policy based on behavioral and/or technical evidence. Behavioral evidence consists of editing behaviors and patterns from suspected sock puppets as well as having similar usernames or IP addresses. Technical evidence consists of evidence provided by CheckUsers, in which the details are not shown to the public per the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. Administrators are the primary people who hand out blocks in most SPI cases. Non-admin clerks may request that an administrator block an account or IP address. These cases will usually be labeled as "administrator attention requested". If the request seems reasonable, act on it.

Non-CheckUser cases

If the patrolling administrator (or any user) feels CheckUser is appropriate and necessary they may request it; see below.

Admins often apply what is colloquially called the duck test to determine if sockpuppetry is occurring.

In usual SPI cases, where CheckUser is not requested, admins should look carefully and neutrally at the evidence and determine whether the behavioral and other evidence shown makes it very likely that sock puppetry is occurring. In many cases, sock puppetry can be determined just by behavioral evidence and without the need for technical evidence. Many admins normally apply what is colloquially called the duck test – if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck.

When blocking accounts, follow the procedures under the Blocking and tagging section and make a note of the blocks under the "Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments" section of the SPI case page. If evidence has not shown that sock puppetry has occurred, likewise make a note of that in the same section. Notes can be prefaced using the {{Admin-note}} template. For example:

{{Admin-note}} Foo has been indefinitely blocked, 192.168.0.1 blocked for three weeks. ~~~~

In cases where there has been minimal disruption or which could have occurred as a result of a good-faith misunderstanding of policy, consider a warning.

CheckUser cases

Cases endorsed for CheckUser attention are identical in every way to non-CheckUser cases, except that a CheckUser will first add the results of their technical investigation to the case, and may have already taken some actions on the spot when abuse is found, before patrolling admins review the case.

CheckUsers will have posted their results under the "Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments" section. The possible templates they could use include but are not limited to in order of most likely the same editor to unlikely the same editor:

•  Confirmed
•  Likely
•  Possible
•  Unlikely
•  Unrelated
•  Inconclusive – in other words can't depend on the results

Once Checkuser results have been added, any admin may re-assess and decide the issue.

Patrolling admins should check that any CheckUser-confirmed accounts have been blocked and tagged. Those accounts that have been  confirmed by CheckUser are normally blocked, but they should be double-checked to make sure that they are. If they have not been blocked, follow the blocking procedures found in the Blocking and tagging section. For any accounts or IP addresses that have not been blocked, follow the same instructions for a non-CheckUser case, keeping in mind any evidence or advice posted by CheckUsers.

Requesting CheckUser

If CheckUser has not been requested, you can request CheckUser assistance by changing {{SPI case status}} on the top of the page to {{SPI case status|curequest}}.

This does not guarantee that a CheckUser will run a check, but it will alert the SPI clerks and CheckUsers that a request may be needed. Normally, an SPI clerk or CheckUser will either  endorse the case for CheckUser attention or  decline the case. Ultimately the decision is down to the responding CheckUser.

Any user can add this request to a case at any time, if appropriate. The most common reasons are:

• The behavioral evidence is not clear, and you cannot figure out all the socks
• There may be other hidden socks, or an unknown previous history of socking, and help is needed to find the sock-master or "sleepers"
• The underlying IP needs blocking, or more thorough investigation is required (eg in the case of an ongoing problem, confirming suspected block or ban evasion, suspected hidden problems, or serious repeated vandalism)

(Full list)

If the case is declined, then the patrolling administrator must make that determination as to whether sock puppetry is going on and subsequently block all violating accounts. If the case is endorsed, then a CheckUser will add technical evidence and notes to the case first; this may take a while.

Closing

If the case is complete, all accounts have been looked at and any issues dealt with, and the case has run its course with no further action needing to be taken, the clerks can be asked to review and archive the case. To request that the case be archived, change the parameter of the {{SPI case status}} template on the top of the page to close along with adding a note in the "Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admins" section, confirming the final resolution and that all accounts have been addressed. For example,

======<span style="font-size:150%"> Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments </span>======
{{Admin-note}} All accounts blocked and tagged. ~~~~

----

The tagging will alert the SPI clerks and CheckUsers, who will do a final review before archiving the case.

Blocking and tagging

Follow these instructions to block sockmasters and sockpuppets.

Sockmaster (if not already blocked)

If the sockmaster has not already been blocked and tagged, then do the following:

I.	Make a determination as to the length of the block – an administrator may determine the length of the block of the sockmaster, after considering the following circumstances: If not blocked – make a determination as to the length of the block. The length of the block may be temporary, or it may be indefinite, depending on how much socking and/or disruption has been done. If already on a temporary block when the sock puppetry has occurred – the sockmaster's block may be reset and/or be extended. If already indefinitely blocked – no action is needed.
II.	Block the sockmaster – Click on the "block user" link under the sockmaster's account on the SPI page. The length of the block should have been determined per Part I. If the information does not fill in, select "Abusing multiple accounts" or "Block evasion" and under additional reasons link the case page.
III.	Tag the sockmaster's user page – Unless otherwise directed, the sockmaster needs to be tagged, if it has not already been done. Tag the sockmaster's user page: If confirmed by CheckUser, on the sockmaster's user page, replace all content with {{sockpuppeteer|blocked|checked=yes|spipage=CASENAME}} If not confirmed by CheckUser, on the sockmaster's user page, replace all content with {{sockpuppeteer|blocked|spipage=CASENAME}} if the user has been indefinitely blocked. Do not make any change if the user has only been blocked for a limited amount of time.

Sock puppets (registered accounts)

If a registered account has been shown to be engaging in sock puppetry and is not the sockmaster, then perform the following tasks:

I.

Indefinitely block the account – click "block user" by the corresponding sock puppet's account on the SPI page and then block the user.

II.

Appropriately tag the sock puppet's user page – Unless otherwise directed to, the sock puppet needs to be tagged, if it has not already been done. If confirmed by CheckUser – Replace all content on the sock puppet's user page with {{sock|SOCKMASTER|confirmed}}. If it's a WP:DUCK or case where CU was not involved or was not confirmed – Replace all content on the sock puppet's user page with {{sock|SOCKMASTER|blocked}}.

Sock puppets (IP addresses)

If an IP address has been shown to be engaging in sock puppetry, then perform the following tasks:

I.	Determine whether a block is needed – sometimes, a block won't be necessary on an IP. In the following situations, a block should not be necessary: The sockmaster is known to be IP-hopping across dynamic IP addresses. We refer to the blocking of such IPs as playing "Whack-A-Mole". The IP address is part of an entire range of IP addresses that have already been blocked; we usually refer to this as a rangeblock.
II.	Block the IP if needed – Click "block user" by the corresponding IP account on the SPI case page. Account creation blocked should be set. The length of the block is up to admin discretion, but it should not be indefinite nor so long as to prevent other persons from using the IP in the future. Open proxies – if an IP is a suspected or discovered open proxy, they must be processed in accordance with the open proxies policy. Alternatively, patrolling admins may ask any CheckUser to confirm that the IP is an open proxy, or they may report it to Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies. Sensitive IP addresses – double-check to make sure that the IP being blocked is not on the list of sensitive IP addresses. If it is, immediately contact the Wikimedia Foundation Communications Committee.
III.	Tag only the sock puppet's user talk page – Unlike with registered accounts, we usually don't tag the user page since another person in the future may edit under that IP. On the bottom of the IP address's talk page, add {{subst:SockBlock|period=duration|sig=yes}}, replacing "duration" with the length of the block. For open proxies – On the bottom of the open proxy's talk page, add {{Blocked proxy|host=proxy.example.com (optional)}}.

List of role accounts

• Non-editing accounts that provide an easy way to contact internal email lists:

User:Oversight  · User:Bureaucrats  · User:Arbitration Committee  · User:Mediation Committee  · User:Wikipedia Information Team.

• Accounts approved by the Foundation:

User:Schwartz PR, a public relations firm.

See also

• Sockpuppet (Internet)
• Wikipedia:Don't be quick to assume that someone is a sockpuppet
• Wikipedia:Canvassing
• Wikipedia:On privacy, confidentiality and discretion
• Wikipedia:Signs of sock puppetry
• Wikipedia:Single purpose account
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations
• Wikipedia:Tag team

External links

• MeatBall:SockPuppet