Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppetry

This is not the place to post notices of suspected sock puppetry. Please follow Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets, and create a report there.

• Wikipedia talk:Sock puppetry/archive1
• Wikipedia talk:Sock puppetry/archive2
• Wikipedia talk:Sock puppetry/archive3

Archive 3

I have created archive 3, since the page was getting really long. Useight 02:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Circumventing policy

Two cases have come up recently where users under arbcom restrictions - one a topic ban and probation, the other a probation - used sockpuppets to edit in ways they were sanctioned for originally. One has argued he violated no policy in using this sockpuppet, and he seems to be right - no policy explicitly says you may not evade your probation using an alternate account. To avoid further confusion, I propose the #Circumventing policy section, which currently states:

Users who are banned or blocked from editing may not use sock puppets to circumvent this.

be changed to:

Users who are banned or blocked, or under any other Arbitration Committee or coummunity sanctions, may not use sock puppets to circumvent this.

Thoughts? Picaroon (t) 15:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I like it. How about a slightly different wording:

Sock puppets may not be used to circumvent any Arbitration Committee or community sanctions, including blocks and bans.

Chaz ^Beckett 15:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's an attempt to reword the circumvention section:

Policies apply per person, not per account. Policies such as 3RR are for each person's edits. Using a second account for policy violations will cause any penalties to be applied to your main account. Sock puppets may not be used to circumvent any Arbitration Committee or community sanctions, including blocks and bans. Evading sanctions will cause the timer to restart, and may lengthen the duration of the sanctions.

Chaz ^Beckett 15:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Since there are no objections, I'll go ahead and make the change based on your latest proposal, but will insert probations in there just for extra clarity. I once thought it didn't need to be explicitly stated; no more am I under that misconception. Picaroon (t) 01:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Definition of Sock puppet

The opening sentence of this article says that a sock-puppet is an additional username. Since additional user names are not banned, an accusation of sock-puppetry implies nothing bad.

Further on in the article I read,and from using one account to support the position of another, the standard definition of sock puppetry. This is a very different definition indeed, and implies a breach of the rules. Which is it to be?

Later, under 'handling' the article says "if you have been accused incorrectly of being a sock puppet, do not take it too personally'. This again assumes the bad meaning for the term, and makes no sense given that sock puppets, as defined in the first line, are just multiple accounts and clearly allowed. It may be that another article is needed here for 'multiple accounts' with this article clearly limited to wrong use of multiple accounts.

My account at user:memestream now bears a flag for all to see which says, this user is a sock-puppet. The flag remains despite extensive discussions in the talk page attempting to clear my name, where everyone, including several admins, has said clearly that I never used two names in a wrong way, such as to edit the same article. I am not guilty as charged, and yet I cannot seem to clear my name as everyone wants to debate whether I should use a second account, rather than just admit that the rules allow it (I use it for very good reasons as specifically permitted by the rules). Please help, and can we clear up the definition here? --Lindosland 12:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Problems of 'blowing cover'

I was wrongly suspected of using two accounts improperly, and was then notified of the suspicion and asked to respond. However, the notice was given on the 'open' account, one which gives my full name and links to my life history and business interests. As I had not logged in to this account for some time (I keep it for edits to articles specific to my business interest in which I am well known, while using the other account so as not to advertise all my other interests to colleagues) I did not see the message, and both accounts were blocked within less than 24 hours.

The consequence was to 'blow my cover' such that everyone knows of my other account now. This is surely wrong, and I suggest a rule that says notice must be given only on the anonymous account where such exists, in order to protect the annonymity specifically permitted by the rules. The fact that my 'trial' was conducted on my talk page makes everything worse, with reams of accusations laid out for all to see, and no clear 'not guilty' conclusion to counter these and put and end to the matter, even though it is accepted I broke no rules. An added complication is that once my account was blocked indefinitely no link to the reason for blocking remained at the page, which is flagged as a sockpuppet and as indefinitely blocked. This is terrible, because being a sockpuppet, in the sense of 'multiple user' is not an offence in itself (though it now stands incorrectly as the reason for blocking). A link to the 'evidence' remains, but this has been shown to be mistaken! --Lindosland 13:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet tags and proof

What sort of proof would one use for the {{SockpuppetProven}} tag, beyond the diff links that one should use when tagging suspects? (I'm not talking about checkuser results, which has its own tag.) The only other evidence I can think of might be an obvious mistake of the user blowing his own cover, or an outright confession. On the other hand, if diff links are sufficient to prove a sockpuppet, then I don't see the need for the suspected tags (i.e. {{Sockpuppet}}, {{IPsock}}) at all, as even those should be accompanied by that type of evidence. Thanks, -- Gyrofrog (talk) 21:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Picture

I just found this page and I have to say I love the picture. So many of these user policy pages are dull, but it is nice to have something to lighten this one up with. 69.130.169.99 18:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Old inactive accounts

I previously had an old account under a different name, but lately I changed it to this account as part of a name change that is not just wikipedia-related. The old account is now no longer active and will never be again. What I want to know is that will my new account be considered a sock puppet or not? Toad of Steel 03:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

You could just leave that account completely. As long as you're not using it to !vote with your main account, it's just an inactive account, not a sockpuppet. Useight 06:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. A sockpuppet is literally just an alternate account. So the Toad of Steel account is a sockpuppet, since it is a second account of someone who previously created an account. There is nothing wrong with that - his switch, based on his description, was perfectly acceptable. A secondary account does not have to be abusive to be a sockpuppet; a secondary account is a sockpuppet. They are synonymous. So to answer our ToS, yes, his new account is a sock, but it is not being used abusively, so he is in the clear. Picaroon (t) 16:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, that's a pretty broad definition of a sockpuppet. A sockpuppet is usually considered to be a secondary account, not merely a new account. If a user was alternating between two accounts (even for legitimate purposes), I'd consider the secondary account to be a sockpuppet. However, if the user abandoned the old account and created a new one, I'd argue that it isn't a secondary account. As an analogy, consider the difference between having a secondary job and getting a new job. In the latter, ties with the previous job would be severed, while in the former they wouldn't. Sicne ToS has stated he won't be using his old account any longer, I wouldn't consider his new account to be a sock. Chaz ^Beckett 16:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Avoiding scrutiny

This section no longer has the support of the community, and does not reflect actual practice. See User:Privatemusings, User:Semiprivatemusings, User:MOASPN, and others. The section should be removed, with maybe a few bits of its content integrated elsewhere. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I reverted your deletion because I felt we should discuss this first. Thanks for coming here. I think the section should remain, but perhaps it needs to be modified to reflect current practice. It seems like common sense that a user who does something wrong and gets a few warnings, and then switches to a new account where they get a few more warnings, and then another account, and so on, is just gaming the system. Why should we permit that sort of sockpuppetry? - Jehochman ^Talk 18:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

(general comment) It appears that this section was added a little over a year ago by SlimVirgin with little discussion, possibly due to concerns expressed by JimboW (see this version from July 30, 2006 with quote from JW, but no section titled 'avoiding public scrutiny'. From that version, over the next 2 days, the policy was changed by SV diff). As for my own thoughts, I'm not sure this section really fits in well as long as there is a legitimate use for puppets, because anytime a SP is created/used, scrutiny (by default) is avoided for the editor involved. R. Baley 18:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)