Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppetry

Is this sockpuppetry?

Is it sockpuppetry to use an IP address to lodge a SP/I? The user in question knew enough about our processes to create the investigation in a sub page of a talk page and then ask for it to be moved to the appropriate location. Whilst he could be an experienced IP-only editor, it is more likely that he is an established editor who didn't want to be associated with pointing the finger at another user. Is this a LEGIT or ILLEGIT form of editing away from your main account?The-Pope (talk) 13:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Is this investigation for the good of the project? Disclose this information. This is why we hope we have checkusers with a the gift of good judgment. As to whether your user is acting LEGIT or ILLEGIT, I don't think we will ever know, but I am pretty sure that it is not in the good interests of the project for there to be an open and rigorous test. If you really were the pope, I don't think I'd have to tell you this. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Should an anonymous IP or SPA be able to report things like this for the protection of their own reputation, or should you have to disclose who you are to make a report. So I clarify my question again: Is the act of hiding your established (wikipedia) identity to do a sockpuppetry report, legit or illegit sockpuppetry itself? Should it be considered/investigated by the checkuser as a manner of checking the possible hidden agendas of the reporting party? Should it be listed on the page that you can/can't use an IP/SPA to do the "bad hand" dobbing tasks that may be unpopular.

The case in question is this case which I was alerted to at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cricket#BlackJack. I've had not much to do with BlackJack in the past, only passing by on some cricket articles. I thought his contributions were for "the good interests of the project", but after the last weeks BLP shenanigans, I'm not sure what the good interests of the project are anymore.The-Pope (talk) 17:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I would think that anyone, anonymous or otherwise, should be able to make a report. Use of alternate accounts, or IPs, is only sockpuppetry if it is deceptive. If you think there is deception in the filing of a report, report it. The question of what to do is a problem for clerks and checkusers. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Editing project space

At present the policy includes as forbidden, "Editing project space: Undisclosed alternative accounts should not edit policies, guidelines, or their talk pages; comment in Arbitration proceedings; or vote in requests for adminship, deletion debates, or elections."

The problem here is:

1. Users may have legitimate "good faith" alternate accounts that edit content separate from their main account;
2. The articles edited by alternate accounts are likely at times to lead to deletion debates, or dispute resolution with other content editors on the article;
3. The user with the good faith 2nd account is wrongly prohibited from contributing in those discussions with that account. Under current wording he/she must either be silent or is forced to disclose their main account if they want to participate.

I would suggest an amended wording:

• Editing project space: Undisclosed alternative accounts should not be used to edit in project space ("Wikipedia:" pages) or project talk space, including any voting or dispute resolution, unless the discussion is closely connected to a content matter (broadly interpreted) and the alternate account already has a clear connection with the discussion due to its mainspace contributions. Users should so far as possible restrict their alternate accounts from project space, and take especial care in project space not to accidentally "avoid scrutiny".

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 10:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• Seems sensible. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Further feedback? Or no objections? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Seems no objections, done. Wording as posted is slightly strengthened to match the original approach, from above draft. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:41, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Small problem

Okay, we've got a small problem with the monthly update, please see WT:Username_policy#WP:Update. - Dank (push to talk) 14:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Should mark themselves as retired?

I disagree with the change here for at least couple of reasons: 1.) Declaring yourself retired shouldn't be considered obligatory, since it's the kind of thing that forces someone to keep reading this policy over time and rehashing history so they won't be misunderstood, if that is even the right word. Plus no one should be encouraged to decide whether there is deception simply based on whether someone declared that they were retired or not. 2.) Declaring that you're retired when in fact you aren't retired seems to me deceptive in itself.

Looking back in the history, the original purpose of this seems to have been to clarify that you can't call it a "clean start" if you keep going back to the old account. Someone did this, and so it was clarified that a clean start means you are starting over and not going back and forth. But for that matter, the fact that you wanted a clean start doesn't mean that you're forbidden from ever using that account again. It's simply that the other account is no longer strictly a "clean start" (whatever that means; the phrase seems mostly rhetorical). The whole sentence should probably be removed for these reasons, but I think especially moving it up to the top of the section makes it seem like something it's not, or shouldn't be. Mackan79 (talk) 22:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Alternative accounts - not to use in policy or project space?

WP:SOCK currently says that alternate accounts should not be used in project space. This is backed up by a footnote to a ruling in an arbitration, where Arbcom stated they should not be used for policy discussions. There is an awful lot of project space that is not policy discussion.

Could this be clarified, one way or another? --Dweller (talk) 16:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The ArbCom didn't just say policy debates, but offered them as an example. It said, "Sockpuppet accounts are not to be used in discussions internal to the project, such as policy debates." There's been agreement for a long time that alternate accounts in policy development, RfArs, AfDs, RfCs and the like is not a good thing. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 16:34, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Arb com doesn't set policy.

For the specifics of the wording, why do you revert FT2's well reasoned, sensible wording above? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:10, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Dweller, I think the text of 16:28, 16 March 2010 was clear. Alternate accounts (not the main account(how defined?)) are not welcomed to edit most of project space, much as SlimVirgin says. I think this is accepted. However, the reason for this is not the arb com ruling; the arb com ruling is just an example of the seriousness of the matter, and that is the reason for the "cf" = "compare with". Also, as a general principle, arb com doesn't set policy, we the community do. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:17, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

However, Dweller has a good point. Essays are in project space. The Help request pages are in project space. Why should a committed wikipedian be told he must not write an anonymous essay, or help out at a low level anonymously? What if the "main account" is link to the real name, and the person would like to make some contributions like this that are not connect to the real person? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:22, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The policy says: "*Editing project space: Undisclosed alternative accounts should not edit policies, guidelines, or their talk pages; comment in Arbitration proceedings; or vote in requests for adminship, deletion debates, or elections. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 10:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed it does. Did you read the thread two above? A logical reason for this to not apply absolutely to deletion debates or dispute resolution (eg arbitration proceedings concerning oneself) was presented and accepted without objection. You reverted the specific amendment without discussion or even a rationale! --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:57, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Why is it be a bad idea for an undisclosed alternative account to edit, say, AfDs, so long as they're not vote-stacking (which is covered elsewhere in the policy)? Elections I understand, as we'd want the highest standards of probity. Ditto for Arbcom. But AfDs? Tweaking a guideline? --Dweller (talk) 12:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

It's often not a question of tweaking a guideline, but of trying to make major changes to core policies, failing, then turning up a year later with another account to make them again. And again. This SOCK policy has been a particular attraction in that regard. :) SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 12:17, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Does that make a difference? I'm fairly sure people do that anyway using one continuous account. --Dweller (talk) 12:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

If they do it with one account, we can see that they've done it before. When they turn up with a different account, it looks as though others are agreeing. This matters more on core policies than on articles, because policy changes affect a lot of articles and so stability is important. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 13:23, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Forbidding the use of an alternate account from editing policy (core or otherwise), and elections, seems reasonable. For guidelines, quite arguable. However, it seems unreasonable to prohibit comment on deletion debates concerning articles that the account has contributed to, RFAs where deception does not occur and other caveats I can iimagine, or talk pages even of policy. I think FT2's edits were a good step forward, and where improvements can be made, they should be made on their merits. Reversion with no better explanation than "restored this to the previous text" (aka policy soft protection) is not a good thing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:57, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

There's been a consensus for a long time that alternative accounts are not a good thing in project space. That ArbCom decision reflected the consensus, it didn't create it, so we would need strong consensus to remove or weaken it. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 13:23, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

You're contradicting yourself. There's no consensus against editing project space - edits to the help desk, ref desks and essays are clearly fine. If people would like to ascertain whether AfDs might be regarded as another exception, it seems a useful discussion. --Dweller (talk) 14:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I meant to say there has been a consensus for a long time that editing in whatever the policy specifies is not a good idea: "Undisclosed alternative accounts should not edit policies, guidelines, or their talk pages; comment in Arbitration proceedings; or vote in requests for adminship, deletion debates, or elections." SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 19:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Where is the evidence of this past consensus, or the argument that it is a good idea, that an well behaved, good faith, alternate account cannot comment in the AfD on the article they wrote, or respond to a formal DR process initiated against them? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:46, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

• I've tried this edit as an attempt at a compromise solution. It breaks the Illegit listing style a little, and could be improved. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it's an improvement. --Dweller (talk) 11:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

At the risk of ABF-ing and pointing out the bleedin' obvious, SmokeyJoe has made only 254 edits to articles in four years, but 4,800 overall. :) So it seems to me that you might be one of the accounts we're talking about. You removed the prohibition against alternate accounts discussing policy and engaging in ArbCom proceedings. There's been a strong consensus against that for a long time because it causes people to be misled, wastes time, and at times has caused chaos, which is why the ArbCom made that ruling. That apart, when people object to a change in a policy, you don't just continue to push it through. Please gain consensus if you want to change it. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 19:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

What is "ABF-ing"? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• Does anyone else want to hear me defend my judgment on how I think I can best contribute to this project? SlimVirgin accuses, but is not interested in answers. Unlike SlimVirgin, I believe my points should stand or fall on their merits, not on the standing of the speaker.
• SlimVirgin has ignored my clearly pertinent question of 21:46, 17 March 2010, a few lines above, and reverted all development not written by her due to "there's no consensus for that change". Can we remind her of the wisdom behind Wikipedia:Don't revert due to "no consensus", point out a very simple picture at Wikipedia:Consensus, and chide her for attempting to WP:OWN Wikipedia policy. Granted, she wrote much of it, and understands it very well, but at this time she displays little appreciation for the issues of probable readership, or for small concerns that are not hers.
• But to restate the questions based on SV's latest contribution here:

1. Why should there be a prohibition against compliant accounts occassionly raising a point or question on the talk page of a policy?
2. Why should a compliant account be forbidden to responding to a arb com proceeding naming them? Granted, this should be the exception, not the rule; compliant, mature, trustworthy, non-admin, content building contributors do not tend to fall into these situations.
3. Why should a compliant account be forbidden from joining a discussion on an article they wrote? We should assume, in the absence of contrary information, that there is a good reason for the use of the undisclosed alternate account.
4. Is it OK for improvement to be blocked due to SlimVirgin's opposition if she fails to engage on the substance of the matter? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Longstanding policy is that sockpuppets are very strongly discouraged, and should only be used in the most limited and exceptional of circumstances. The goal here is not to posit possible theoretical exceptions to this, and then create loopholes to accomodate those rare and doubtful cases, but rather to discourage the use of sockpuppets. And accounts that have almost no experience actually editing articles, and that have very odd edit histories, shouldn't be trying to change this. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:22, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

So you are saying that the policy should be kept simple, and broadly discourage use of undisclosed alternative accounts, and not get convoluted with the very rare well justified use of an undisclosed alternative account that somehow needs to interact with policy pages? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:05, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I can't think of a situation in which a sock would have a legitimate reason to interact with policy pages. The thing about this policy is that it has a long sad history of being tweaked by sockpuppets in favour of—guess what. Indeed, one of our most prolific socks rewrote it once to redefine "sock" and make it harder to block him. :)

The thrust of the policy is that sockpuppetry is not allowed, because the community in general is fed up with it, so we really shouldn't be making edits that loosen the restrictions. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 08:10, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, that seems a reasonable response to the suggestion of 10:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

The 2 February suggestion was that it seems only fair, if someone is editing Cheese with an alternate account, that they be allowed to participate if Cheese comes to dispute resolution or AfD. And yes, on its face that seems reasonable. But if you think about it some more, it undercuts the reason for this policy, which is do not sock, by making socking less of an obstacle to interaction. It introduces the idea that it's okay to ask regular editors at AfDs, RfCs, policy talk pages, and the like to interact with editors they may have interacted with before, who are not telling us who they are. So we might find ourselves forced to repeat the same arguments to the same people over and over, which we wouldn't do if we knew who we were talking to. It's not fair to expect volunteer content contributors to waste that amount of time just because some people want to keep switching names without telling us. So the thrust of the page is: if you want to help shape policy, and take part in AfDs and RfArs, don't sock. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 10:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)