Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppetry

It's ugly

Meatpuppet is in my opinion a heinous expression. Cooperative editing by itself is not a WP crime. Couldn't WP agree on a something different to convey the same meaning? I suggest a neologism such as symdor (for "sympathetic editor"). When it comes to civility, words matter. 84.73.134.206 (talk) 13:40, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Meatpuppetting is an ugly thing to do. It is different from cooperative editing. Jytdog (talk) 18:44, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

• I agree, and think a new term should be used. "Real world associating people"? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:45, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
• If I read the Wikipedia article about the subject, it is what is commonly described by this term IRL. The behaviour is bad. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:55, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
• Undisclosed support of something, the support motivated people primarily by an off-site relationship, is the ugly behaviour. Editing Wikipedia in collaboration with other editors who you appen to know, even if they invited you here, is not ugly and is not meatpuppetry and for such editors an unexpected allegation using the word would be extremely rude. Care should be used before alleging meatpuppetry. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:22, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Opening an SPI because of suspicion of meatpuppetry?

(Hijiri88 (talk · contribs) here. I could log in, but it's extremely frustrating to do so at the moment. Safari update nonsense.)

If you believe someone is using [...] meat puppets, you should create a report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations.

Surely this is a mistake, no? SPIs are only good at catching one particular type of meat puppety (the type that are on the same device/network) and even then it's usually an accident of CU catching them as "sock puppets" when that's not technically the case. I would think that if one saw two accounts that appeared to he connected in some way off-wiki, but didn't seem like the same person, the proper venue to report them would be ANI.

I would open an SPI if I suspected someone of being a sock puppet but recognized the possibility of them being a meat puppet instead, but I would not open an SPI because I specifically suspected someone of being a meat puppet as opposed to a sock puppet.

182.251.141.102 (talk) 06:24, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

• If you suspect, you should start a conversation. Politely. WP:AGF. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:47, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
• sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry are very related. It is not only technical evidence, it is also behavior. The 'case' is made here, editors can help examine, it may not need the technical part of a CheckUser. You could start WP:MPI .. but it will only divert attention and even less gets done. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:54, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I did not post the above because I'm concerned about an imminent MEAT problem, so offering me advice on how to deal with such problems kind of misses the point to a certain degree. My concern is that, if I did encounter a MEAT problem, I don't think SPI would be the appropriate venue for it. Some time ago, to give an example, two Wikipedia editors who had clearly been in off-wiki contact before I encountered either of them, but who had arrived on Wikipedia independently of each other (thus not technically meeting the definition of MEAT presented here), started to tag-team me, and then when one was banned, the other started to post attacks on me that had clearly been fed to him off-wiki (the language looked like the other user had written it, and when pinged for a response he sometimes behaved like he hadn't even read his own earlier comments, as though they had been copy-pasted). But opening a "sockpuppet investigation" with the rationale that These two accounts are definitely not operated by the same person, and I don't even think they know each other in "real life", but they are clearly coordinating by email or some other method. seems like the kind of thing that would get me laughed at, even though what I would be reporting is meat puppetry as commonly interpreted on English Wikipedia (it was called that by multiple users at the time), even if not meeting the more narrow definition given on this page.

But even under said narrower definition, I don't see a lot of sockpuppet investogations that begin I don't think these two accounts are operated by the same person, but it seems like the older account is operated by someone who recruited his off-wiki friend, who then created the newer account. I have seen a fair few ANI threads like that, though, and no one ever said If you suspect someone of meatpuppetry and/or off-wiki canvassing, the proper place to report that is SPI.

To reiterate, I'm wondering about whether this recommendation is actually intended to be normative, and if not then maybe the wording should be tweaked to reflect its (questionable?) nature as descriptive (you can create a report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations).

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:07, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

...and I just realized, after someone had already responded, that my wording as proposed would create more problems than it solves, as telling users that they may open an SPI when they suspect someone of sockpuppetry (presumably with the alternative being to cry about it on ANI before even asking for CU) is worse than telling them that even under a very specific set of circumstances where SPI would be a bad idea they should go to SPI before ANI. I think we should remove "or meat puppets" from the advice I quoted up top, and maybe add a separate sentence at the end of the paragraph about how to deal with meat puppets. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:24, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: I see your point. I must say that I am not sure whether I would post meatpuppet-suspicions here either. I've seen some of the discussions (was involved in one of them lately) on AN/I. Maybe having WP:MPI would be an option afteall, as I do believe that some cases, which are less clear, need to be properly documented.

That being said, I am not always reporting socks here either, if the WP:DUCK is strong enough, I simply WP:RBI and WP:DENY. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 03:26, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

@Beetstra: WP:MPI would address my concern, but (forgive me if I'm oversimplifying) isn't the reason we maintain SPI as a separate process from general user conduct discussion noticeboards, where evidence is required and one is essentially asking for an account to be blocked, that (a) sockpuppetry can be confirmed with a specific type of technical evidence that only certain users have access to, and (b) keeping a record of one person's sockpuppets in one place is convenient? Neither of these really applies to meatpuppetry, so having a separate process to investigate suspected meatpuppets seems redundant. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:24, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I would consider that (b) does apply - having a record of people who were proven to have used meatpuppets in the past may be of interest. Though as for sockpuppets, the master may not repeat the behaviour ever (others don't seem to lose the habit ever). And do note that some meatpuppets do appear as socks - different editors editing from the same IP/computer (husband and wife, e.g.). I am sure some of the proven sockpuppets are actually meatpuppets, only differing slightly in their way of writing, but technically indistinguishable. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:28, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

One unregistered account

Regarding this revert. @Flyer22 Reborn: I'll bite - it makes no sense. The implication of the edit is that a user must stick to one IP address, which is usually technically impossible as well as not policy. It also suggests that accounts can be unregistered - these are known as IP addresses. I'm not sure where this text originated, but it is a nonsense. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:27, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I've replied below. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:30, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

"Account" referring only to registered editors?

On the 15th, McDutchie changed, "Wikipedia editors are generally expected to edit using only one (preferably registered) account." to "Wikipedia editors are generally expected to edit using only one account." McDutchie's argument is that "There is and can be no such thing as a non-registered account." On May 21, McDutchie changed "only" to "at most," arguing "since editing with an account is not actually obligatory."

I reverted since, in my experience, IPs have been called accounts as well. It's why we even qualify "account" with "registered account." It's why editors sometimes state "IP account." It's also why the policy was the way it was before McDutchie's edits. Thoughts? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:29, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I've addressed this above, as did McDutchie in the edit summary. Amongst other things, it is usually technically impossible to stick to one IP address. Users talking about 'IP accounts' usually aren't too 'technical'. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:33, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, you've addressed it. And I await other opinions. I've seen very experienced editors state "IP account." But since IPs can change, I suppose the current wording should be changed back to McDutchie's wording. The original wording, however, is trying to state that socking as an IP is not allowed either, whether or not multiple IPs are used. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:38, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't think the original wording did a good job of stating that, but I also don't think it needs to, as it is stated clearly and repeatedly elsewhere in the policy. In the summary: "Do not log out just to vandalize as an IP address editor". In the policy itself: "Sock puppetry can take on several different forms: [...] Logging out to make problematic edits as an IP address" and various other mentions. – McDutchie (talk) 00:37, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought about that too. I've gone ahead and reverted myself. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:51, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

New shortcuts

Mr. Guye, how likely do you think it is that someone will use "WP:GÄNGER" as a shortcut? Your WP:DOPP one seems fine, though. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:58, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

GÄNGER and gänger are not useful - nobody is going to search for or type those - so I've removed them from the policy and deleted the redirect per WP:R3. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 19:32, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, those are what I was wondering about. I can understand someone typing "GANGER," if it became popular enough, but typing "GÄNGER" is far less likely unless they see it at this policy page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:02, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Even if useful for some, there is no reason to advertise in linkboxes on the policy. So many linkboxed shortcuts are clutter. They should be only shortcuts already widely used, and should not be an explosion of jargon discouraging people from using English. In any discussion between humans, the use of WP:GÄNGER is inferior to using Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Doppelgänger accounts. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:53, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, yes, I agree somewhat, but it's still useful to have some of the shortcuts listed in policies. I often direct users to various policies, and when I'm typing my comment, I don't want to use [[Wikipedia:Whole policy name#And section|relevant policy]] when I can use [[WP:SHORTCUT|relevant policy]]. Since I can't always remember the shortcut to the section I want, it's very useful to have them listed in the policy. I'm sure that there are plenty of other editors who need to look them up on occasion as well. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 01:31, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Jargon is often useful, and it is often useful to have the jargon pasted on post-it notes around the rim of your monitor. That is kind of like the linkboxes are. The policy currently has twenty six (26) linkbox advertised shortcuts, plus anther 82 incoming redirects. Is that a good number to have? Seems overkill to me. Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Sharing_an_IP_address has four ion its own. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:59, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Suggested addition to the "Legitimate uses" section

Given this situation, where a "legitimate sock", presumably created under the "Privacy" provision, has been indeffed for violating WP:ADVOCACY, I think it would be useful, and protective of the encyclopedia, to add something to that provision which says something on the order of:

The use of the privacy provision to create a legitimate alternative account is voided if that sock is shown to have violated basic Wikipedia policies and been blocked for it, in which case the connection between the sock and the master account must be disclosed. If the editor involved refuses to do so, the master account can be disclosed by any editor who has been made aware of the connection in their official capacity as arbitrator, bureaucrat, checkuser, or administrator. If no one is aware of the connection between the master account and the blocked sock, CU may be utilized to determine it.

Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:51, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

This is all already covered, albeit less specifically than in your proposal. I'd oppose based on rule/witchhunt creep. Primergrey (talk) 20:34, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

If it's already covered, why is this "coverage" not being considered in the AN discussion I linked above? It would be helpful if you were to go there and explain how the main account's privacy is no longer a factor, and that the main account can be blocked. That action is definitely not in play at the moment. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:48, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

@Primergrey: Please consider commenting here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:08, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

• I'm not a fan of doing it this way. If someone is incivil, that shouldn't out them. If they get in a edit war one time, that shouldn't out them. One of the foundations of Wikipedia is being able to be anonymous. I personally think this is best left alone and handled case by case. Any CU or Arb that wants to already knows who it is. I think that currently, if the offense is bad enough, the community already accepts that their right to privacy has been voided. The real question is: Who gets to decide this. Since privacy is the realm of Arb, that is who should handle it with at least a 3 person panel. This is exactly what we elect them to do, deal with privacy issues that can't always be handled online. Even if they do screw up and break policy, there are sometimes real world consequences if they are connected, dangers even. Sometimes it is better for Arb to just quietly Arb block the master. If we want to officially assign this to them, then I would agree. This is one of the things they actually do well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:05, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Technically, I could file a John Doe Arb request, but I'm hoping to get them to just take it on without the request, as I think they should since the blocking admin has asked them to. We will see. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:08, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
    • Obviously, I disagree -- I think having a "legitimate sock" for privacy reasons is a privilege and not a right, and when an editor violates basic policies, there should be repercussions above and beyond simply having the sock blocked. I would have no objection to more specifically spelling out what transgressions would qualify for losing the privilege of privacy -- simple incivility shouldn't be counted, since pretty much everyone on Wikipedia is uncivil at one time or another (given that the place and some of the people in it can drive you slightly batty), but advocacy and POV editing, continual copyvios, BLP violations, unreported paid editing, non-legit socking, stuff like that shouldn't simply be swept under the rug and have essentially no downside for the editor avoiding WP:SCRUTINY via a claim of privacy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:16, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
      • In theory I agree, but practice is very problematic. Only CUs have access to who the master account is. Admin and regular editors do not, and CU might not even be able to link. In the case that spawned this, Newyorkbrad has told me that Arb is looking at the matter and to me, that is where it belongs. They are elected specifically to deal with privacy issues and they aren't so busy that they can't look at a case or two a year in private and make the call for borderline cases. For cases where someone claims privacy and uses the account to vandalize or do actual damage, I'm sure any CU is glad to link them at SPI because it is a privilege. But sometimes, there are real world consequences which is why we need some cases reviewed in private. Arb is the only body we have that can do that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:14, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
        • Good points. I simply think that it needs to be embodied in policy that misuse of the privacy privilege will (or is likely to) lead to losing it. As it stands now, that is far from clear, as indicated by the disparity of the opinions expressed in the AN thread. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:22, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
          • One of the advantages of a vague policy is that vagary gives us flexibility and the ability to apply WP:COMMONSENSE. I'm a fan of not pinning down too much detail in policy. It makes it easier to wikilawyer, and slower to get handled quickly at AN. If policy is too specific, some might have argued against my oddball block simply because some people love to play wikilawyer. Overly specific rules eat into admin discretion. If I was going to add something, I would simply add "Using the privacy provision to create an account which abuses this right in any way may result in having the account publicly linked to your main account for sanctions.". I don't think we need to spell out how we will do it. It doesn't happen often, let us decide each circumstance as it comes. Again, I don't think it is required, but if we must, lets keep it simple and open ended. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:43, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

• In my view, the main issue in this specific case is that the main account is not known, so Dennis Brown couldn't block it. My sense is that Dennis Brown does believe that the main account should be blocked and the post to AN really had two purposes - to have that block reviewed and to get the attention of arbs so that they would look at it and block the main account. And they should do. The editor violated the policy WP:NOTADVOCACY. This policy is very clear that {{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 typically causes the timer to restart. See also WP:EVASION}}. Dennis am I right that this is your view?

Where it seems that views depart is that once both accounts have been blocked under this policy, whether the two accounts should be publicly linked on each other's userpages. Dennis what I think I hear you saying, is that this should simply be left to Arbcom's judgement, and what I am hearing from BMK is assurance that Arbcom will do that.

I think that when the block is for a pattern of policy violation and not a one-off (e.g. not a block for violating 3RR once, or for losing your temper once) there should be a presumption that they will be linked. Arbcom needs a policy to follow but should be able to exercise judgement. What if the policy I just quoted were changed as follows:

Using a second account to violate policy persistently will cause any penalties to be applied to your main account, and in the case of sanctions, bans, or blocks, evasion typically causes the timer to restart. See also WP:EVASION.

In cases where you were using an alternative account under the justification of privacy and penalties are applied to the alternative account, the following process will be followed. If the penalty was applied by an individual administrator, the administrator will post at WP:AN asking for their action to be reviewed. If the penalty is upheld, and in cases where the penalty was applied through community action, Arbcom will then identify the main account and block it. Arbcom should then post the standard alternative account disclosure notices on each accounts' Userpage; in rare cases and with a publicly posted justification, Arbcom may elect not to link the accounts.

Does that work for folks? It is a bit of legislating process (which I know is offensive to you Dennis), but this would provide guidance to everybody about expectations, including people who use alternative accounts under the privacy justification. This will obviously need an RfC eventually. Jytdog (talk) 23:54, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

No, no, no. This is the kind of stuff that makes me give up my admin bit every year. Making policy so specific that it hamstrings admin. This is why I tend to oppose most expansions of policy. Try being an admin for a day and enforcing policy with all these rules. We aren't stupid, or if we are, ask us to resign. It is frustrating to see people try to nail down every single detail in policy because it makes it harder to admin. Without ANY extra rules, I handled this block, the editing stopped, Arb is reviewing. We didn't need any more "rules" to do this. Why would you want to add more verbiage and guarantee that next time it will take more time? If you don't want admin to have any discretion, get bots to do our jobs. All this rules and outlines and process hurts enforcement. It's hard to understand unless you are an admin, but the KISS principle applies. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:02, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I very much understand where you are coming from. What I laid out there is exactly what you did (which was very clueful, as one would expect from you). What it does it make expectations clear for everybody, including people using alt accounts. Would Franzboas be acting as they have and are, if they knew that their privacy would be removed if they did? (This seems to be a case where somebody is using anonymity as a license to act badly - if their main account edits productively, they certainly are capable of socially acceptable behavior, right?) And perhaps it has been so long since you were not an admin that you don't understand BMK's anxiety. (?) .... but in general I very much hear you about KISS. Jytdog (talk) 00:08, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

This assumes they read the policy, which may not be the case. Also, if you added my very short suggestion, it would actually be more powerful because there is more "unknown". They only know that if they screw up, they may get linked. How I did it this time worked. Next time, it may be better to put to the community. I can't say with authority that my method will always be the best method. It was, different, to say the least. I think many admin would not have done what I did and have taken to a discussion. Simplicity in policy is what empowers me to be bold. Some policies are muddy enough that I simply won't enforce them, I just move on to other things. If you want good adminship, then make it easy to get or lose the bit, and make it easy to be creative at solving problems with plenty of discretion. If you want poor adminship, hamstring them with lots of strict rules to memorize, so no one wants to do the paperwork. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:14, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

OK I hear you, and I like your proposed more simple addition but please replace "right" (we get so many people confused that they have "rights" here) with something else like: "Using the privacy provision to create an account which abuses this right used abusively in any way may result in having the account publicly linked to your main account for sanctions.".. I would support that. Jytdog (talk) 00:23, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I think Dennis' point about vagueness and keeping flexibility alive for admins is a good one, and that his suggested addition (as amended): "Using the privacy provision to create an account which abuses this right privilege in any way may result in having the account publicly linked to your main account for sanctions." would largely accomplish what I set out to do without being overly specific, and gives admins and Arbs enough leeway to apply the principle appropriately given the specific circumstances. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:34, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree that "right" isn't the right word. Trust me, being an admin and having to be the "expert" on policy is overrated. If anything, we have way too much complexity as it is and I would imagine that is why many good, experienced editors don't want to be admin. Many days, I don't want to be an admin. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:39, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

The complexity is largely due to the nature of the beast: a mass consensus-based quasi-libertarian headless monster. Given that, it's no wonder our policies grow like Topsy - in fact, it's amazing that they aren't more complex than they are. What we really need is the equivalent of a Blue Ribbon Commission of respected editors to take a year or so and rewrite policy from scratch (preferably in a smoke-filled backroom so we don't use up all the electrons in the observable universe discussing their revisions to death), which are then put to an up-or-down vote by subject matter, with those being voted down sending the commission (or a new commission, which only deals with the defeated measures) back to the drawing board. Never happen, of course. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:48, 6 June 2017 (UTC)