Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry

For other uses, see Sock puppet (disambiguation).

Alternate account (plural: multiple accounts) is an additional username used by a Wikipedian who edits under more than one name. Use of multiple accounts is discouraged in most cases; Jimbo Wales has said: "There's no specific policy against it, but it's generally considered uncool unless you have a good reason." Nonetheless, use of multiple accounts can be legitimate and is not forbidden as such.

A sock puppet is an alternate account used for disrupting of Wikipedia policy. The Wikipedian who uses a sock puppet may be called a sock puppeteer. Some people feel that alternate account should not be used at all; others feel it is harmless if the accounts are all behaving acceptably (that is, if alternate account is not used for sockpuppetry).

Also see this page for information on how this affects other online communities.

Multiple accounts have legitimate uses. But you must refrain from using them in any way prohibited to sock puppets and from using one account to support the position of another, the standard definition of sock puppetry. If someone uses multiple accounts, it is recommended (although not required) that he or she provides links between the accounts, or identify anonymous alternate accounts as such, so it is easy to determine that they are shared by one individual.

Legitimate uses of multiple accounts

Multiple accounts have legitimate uses. For example, prominent users might create a new account in order to experience how the community functions for new users. In particular, some have suggested that Jimbo should get, and edit from, an alternate account, and it is possible that he does so.

Segregation and security

Other users employ multiple accounts to segregate their contributions for various reasons. A user making substantial contributions to an area of interest in Wikipedia might register another account to be used solely in connection with developing that area.

Some users use alternate accounts for security reasons. Because public computers can have password-stealing trojans installed, users may feel that they put themselves at increased risk if they log in from a public computer using their main accounts.

Multiple accounts also serve to protect identity. This may be necessary or desirable in a variety of situations. For example:

• Someone who is known to the public or within a particular circle may be identifiable based on their interests and contributions; dividing these up between different accounts might help preserve the person's anonymity.
• Users with a recognized expertise in one field might not wish to associate their contributions to that field with contributions to articles about less weighty subjects.
• A person editing an article which is highly controversial within their family, social or professional circle may wish to use an alternate account so that readers unfamiliar with WP:NPOV policy will not assume their information edits are statements of personal belief.
• Users who are publicly identifiable may wish to use an anonymous alternate account to avoid real world or online harassment for editing controversial topics. This may be particularly important when dealing with critics of Wikipedia, such as Daniel Brandt or Wikitruth.

Keeping heated issues in one small area

Finally, others might use different accounts in talk pages to avoid conflicts about a particular area of interest turning into conflicts based upon user identity and personal attacks elsewhere. A person participating in a discussion of an article about abortion, for example, might not want to allow other participants an opportunity to extend that discussion or engage them in unrelated or philosophically motivated debate outside the context of that article.

'Role' accounts

Role accounts, accounts which are used by multiple users, are only officially sanctioned on en: Wikipedia in exceptional cases at this time. The only currently permitted role account on en: is User:Schwartz PR, the account for a public relations firm working closely with the Foundation. If you run an account with multiple users, it is likely to be blocked.

Bots

Editors who operate bots (programs that edit automatically or semi-automatically) are encouraged to create separate accounts (and request they be marked as bot accounts via m:requests for bot status), so the automated edits can be filtered out of recent changes. In addition, this allows administrators to block misbehaving bots without blocking the operator. (See Wikipedia:Bots for bot procedures and policies)

Tagging multiple accounts

Contributors who use multiple accounts may want to tag the "secondary" ones with {{User Alternate Acc|MAIN ACCOUNT}} which produces:

Contributors who wish to state only that the account is a alternate account but not to whom it belongs can tag it with {{User Alternate Acc Anon}} which produces:

Stating the reason for having the alternate account is also encouraged, especially in the case of an anonymous account, so that others understand the purpose of the account and will not mistakenly make accusations of sock puppetry.

Prohibited uses of multiple accounts (sock puppetry)

Voting

Wikipedia uses a "one person, one vote" principle for all votes and similar discussions where individual preferences are counted in any fashion. Accordingly, alternate accounts are not permitted to vote in any Wikipedia election, nor are they allowed to participate in any similar procedure, such as polls and surveys or the discussions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. An alternate account used to cast double votes is considered to be a sock puppet (proven sock puppets may be permanently blocked).

Deception and impersonation

In addition to double-voting, multiple accounts should not be used for purposes of deception, or to create the illusion of broader support for a position. This kind of behavior is disruptive and unnecessary for any potentially legitimate use of alternate. In particular, accounts that are used to maliciously impersonate another Wikipedian are considered to be a sock puppets and should be blocked permanently.

Circumventing policy

Policies apply per person, not per account. Policies such as 3RR are for each person's edits. Similarly, using an alternate account for policy violations will cause any penalties to also be applied to your main account.

Users who are banned from editing, temporarily subject to a legitimate block may not use alternate account to circumvent this. Evading a ban in this manner is considered to be sock puppetry and causes the timer on the ban to restart. Furthermore, alternate accounts may not be used to circumvent ArbCom decisions.

Multiple administrator accounts prohibited

The community has strongly rejected users having more than one username with admin powers. If you leave, come back under a new name and are nominated for admin, it is expected that you will give up admin powers on your old account (you may do this quietly with your old account and not have to show a link between accounts). Except in extraordinary cases, you should have only one account with powers greater than those of a regular editor. User:Dannyisme is currently the only legitimate alternate account with administrative powers.

Reporting a suspected sock puppet

Steps to take when you think someone is a sock puppet

1. Tag the user page of suspected sock puppet with {{Socksuspect|1=SOCKPUPPETEER}}, where "SOCKPUPPETEER" is user page of the master of the sock puppet.
2. Click on the red link in the template you just added and write down the evidence that user is a sock puppet, however obvious it might be. The evidence should state why is it obvious that a user is sock puppet. This must include not only evidence that that the account is an alternate account, but also the instances where the account has been used illegitimately, as an account which has been used legitimately is not a sock puppet. Keep in mind that users may sometimes make mistakes, and in cases where a usually legitimate alternate account seems to have been used as a sock pupet, it may be appropriate to ask the user before making accusations. The problem may have merely been caused by a mistaken login.
3. Add {{Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets/SOCKPUPPETEER}} here
4. When you think that your evidence shows clearly enough that the user is a sock puppet, put a requests for CheckUser quoting the page you assembled in step one. You should do that in no more than 7 days after you have initially tagged the user as a sock puppet.
5. If the CheckUser confirms the suspicion, then you should ask a admin to block the account, and take appropriate action against the owner of the sock puppet.

Steps to take when you are accused of being a sock puppet

"To be accused of being a sock puppet" means somebody has placed a {{Socksuspect}} on your user page.

1. If the accuser has not formed a proper evidence page, you are allowed to remove the template from your user page.
2. If the accuser has listed evidence against you, you are not allowed to remove the template from your page for 7 days. You are allowed to respond to each and every accusation on the evidence page but are not allowed to remove accusations.
3. If the accuser hasn't requested CheckUser for 7 days, you are allowed to remove the template from your page.

Identification of suspected sock puppets

Characteristics of sock puppets

Not surprisingly, sock puppet accounts usually show much greater familiarity with Wikipedia and its editing process than most newcomers. They are more likely to use edit summaries, immediately join in edit wars, or participate vocally in procedures like Articles for deletion or Requests for adminship as part of their first few edits. They are also more likely to be brand new or a single purpose account when looking at their contributions summary.

One type of sock puppet is sometimes referred to as a "straw man sock puppet." They are created by users with one point of view, but act as though they have an opposing point of view, in order to make that point of view look bad, or to act as an online agent provocateur. They will often make poor arguments which their "opponents" can then easily refute. This can allow them to essentially make straw man arguments. Such sock puppets thus become a personification of the straw man argument which their creators argue against. They often act unintelligent or uninformed, and may behave in an overtly bigoted manner. The effect is often to obfuscate the debate and prevent a serious discussion of the arguments from each side. Suspicion of such sock puppets is often harder to verify though, as there are often people who naturally behave in such a manner with the same effects.

When questions arise

In some cases it may not be completely clear whether an account is a sock puppet, as the purpose is usually to avoid detection. Similarities in interests and editing style can be noted, but not everyone may be familiar enough with the user to understand the evidence.

If it appears that sock puppets are being used as part of an edit war or to distort the outcome of a vote or survey, one possible rule of thumb is the so-called 100-edit rule. This suggests that any account which already has more than 100 edits across a range of other articles, or has been active more generally on Wikipedia, can often be presumed not to be a sock puppet. If there are unusually many accounts with few edits participating, you may want to check if they are sockpuppets, by looking at IP addresses or times that edits were made. However, simply having made few edits is not evidence of sockpuppetry on its own, and if you call a new user a sock puppet without justification, they will probably be insulted and get a negative impression of Wikipedia.

Keep in mind there can be multiple users who are driven to start participating in Wikipedia for the same reason, particularly in controversial areas such as articles about the conflict in the Middle East, cult figures, or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Some have suggested applying the 100-edit guideline more strongly in such cases, assuming that all accounts with fewer than 100 edits are sock puppets. Generally, such beliefs have been shown not to be well founded.

Where it is unclear whether or not sock puppetry is in progress, server log information can be consulted. To comply with Wikimedia Foundation privacy policy, this is only done in serious cases involving violation of an arbitration remedy, serious ongoing pattern vandalism, vote fraud actually affecting the outcome of a vote, or serious ongoing use of sock puppets to violate the three revert rule. Requests may be made at Request for CheckUser.

If you have been accused incorrectly of being a sock puppet, don't take it too personally. New users are unknown quantities. Stay around a while and make good edits, and your record will speak for itself.

Handling of identified sock puppets

Tagging identified sock puppets

If an account has been shown to be a sock puppet, then it should be identified as such, by adding Template:SockpuppetProven to the user page of the sock puppet account. The syntax is (replacing instances of "SOCKPUPPETEER" with the name of the sock puppeteer and "EVIDENCE" with something such as "Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/SOCKPUPPETEER/Evidence"):

{{SockpuppetProven|1=SOCKPUPPETEER|evidence=EVIDENCE}}

which will render as:

This user is a sock puppet of SOCKPUPPETEER, as established by EVIDENCE, and has been blocked indefinitely. See block log.

Note that this should only be done if the account has been shown beyond reasonable doubt to be a sock puppet of the user by one of the following:

• the user's own admission;
• matching of IP addresses or similar strong technical evidence;
• a ruling on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration.

The above template should not be added in the cases of accusations of sockpuppetry which have not been proven.

Tagging sock puppets identified via Checkuser

Sock puppets that have been identified via Checkuser can be tagged with {{SockpuppetCheckuser}}. Instead of linking to evidence, the tag states that the sockpuppet was identified via checkuser. The syntax is: {{SockpuppetCheckuser|SOCKPUPPETEER}}.

The tag renders as:

This user is a confirmed sock puppet of SOCKPUPPETEER, established by CheckUser, and has been blocked indefinitely. See contribs — page moves — all logs — block log

The above template should not be added in the cases of accusations of sock puppetry which have not been proven with checkuser, and abuse of the tag will result in warning and potentially blocking. The tag may be used by a checkuser after a check, or by another user based on a confirmed checkuser request. If in doubt, use {{SockpuppetProven}}.

Also, note that this tag should not be added in the case of an legitimate alternate account, especially where the user may wish to maintain anonymity.

Tagging Identified Puppeteers

Tagging known puppeteers with the following tag:

{{sockpuppeteer}}

Results in this template being added:

It is suspected that this user is the puppet master of one or more abusive sock puppets. See block log and list of puppets The use of abusive sockpuppets on Wikipedia is prohibited; use of sockpuppets to evade bans results in the ban timer being reset.

Accounts created by brand new users acting together ('meat puppets')

A related issue occurs when multiple individuals create brand new accounts specifically to participate in (or influence) one particular vote or area of discussion. This is especially common in deletion discussions or controversial articles. These newly created accounts (or anonymous edits) may be friends of another editor, may be related in some way to the subject of an article under discussion, or may be solicited by someone to support a specific 'angle' in an article debate.

When used to add force to the arguments of one side in a debate or article, such users and accounts are often described as "meat puppets", a name perhaps inspired by the band of the same name. Use of this term is generally not advised, since it can be perceived as highly uncivil, and is certainly likely to discourage new users from participating further.

These accounts are not actually sock puppets, but they are often difficult to distinguish from real sock puppets and are often treated similarly. Neither a sockpuppet nor a brand-new, single-purpose account holder is considered a member of the Wikipedia community in these circumstances. The reason behind this is that, for instance, an article about an online community should not be kept merely because all members of that community show up to vote for it. The Arbitration Committee has ruled that, for the purpose of dispute resolution, when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sock puppets or several users with similar editing habits they may be treated as one individual.

(Wikipedians also tend to call such user accounts 'single purpose accounts', because whereas committed Wikipedians are usually active on a range of articles, and their aim is to see a balanced growth in articles and in the encyclopedia as a whole even if contributing only in their specialist topic area, 'single purpose account' users very often come to Wikipedia with one set agenda or interest and a specific aspect or 'side' to promote by their edits and views within that interest. However, note that a single purpose account may also be a legitimate alternate account of a committed Wikipedian.)

Advertising and soliciting meat puppets

It is considered highly inappropriate or unacceptable to externally advertise Wikipedia articles that are being debated, or where one wishes to stir up debate, in order to attract users with likely known views and bias, in order to strengthen one side of a debate and influence consensus or discussion. It's also inappropriate to invite "all one's friends" to help argue an article. Advertising or soliciting meatpuppet activity is not an acceptable practice on Wikipedia.

The arrival of multiple newcomers, with limited Wikipedia background and predetermined viewpoints arriving in order to present those viewpoints, rarely helps achieve neutrality and most times actively damages it, no matter what one might think. Wikipedia is not a place for mixing fact and opinion, personal advocacy, or argument from emotion. Controversial articles often need more familiarity with policy to be well edited, not less. These users can also damage the credibility of their own view, especially in a voting or consensus gathering context - views mostly supported by meat puppets much more likely to be discounted.

If you feel that a debate is ignoring your voice, then the appropriate action is not to solicit others outside Wikipedia. Instead, avoid personal attacks, seek comments and involvement from other Wikipedians, or pursue dispute resolution. These are quite well tested processes, and are designed to avoid the problem of exchanging bias in one direction for bias in another.

See also

• Internet sock puppet