Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppetry

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)

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)

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)

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.