Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry

A sock puppet is an alternative account used deceptively. Some examples that clearly violate this policy would be using two usernames to vote more than once in a poll, or to circumvent other Wikipedia policies.

All Wikipedians may register a username or account from which they may edit. This account will, over time, build up an edit history and become that person's Wikipedia "identity", helping others to interact with the person and understand their interests and point of view.

Although not common, some Wikipedians also create alternative accounts. An alternative account is an additional username used by a Wikipedian who already has an account. In such cases the main account is normally assumed to be the one with the longest history and most edits.

There are limited acceptable uses for alternative accounts, and a number of uses which are explicitly forbidden - in particular, using an alternative account to avoid scrutiny, to mislead others by making disruptive edits with one account and normal ones with another, or otherwise artificially stir up controversy is not permitted. Misuse of an alternative account may result in being blocked from editing.

If someone uses alternative accounts, it is recommended that he or she provide links between the accounts in most cases to make it easy to determine that one individual shares them and to avoid any appearance or suspicion of sockpuppetry (see alternative account notification).

Sock puppet accounts

Wikipedians prize their use of consensus to determine issues and their assumption that most people are trying to help the project. Sock puppets are used to counter these prized features by creating the illusion of greater support for a viewpoint and evading sanctions.

All sock puppet uses are forbidden and warrant aggressive approaches to protect the encyclopedia from their actions. Use of sock puppets will normally lead to sanctions against the main account, usually blocking or in extreme cases being banned from Wikipedia.

Voting and other shows of support

Sock puppets might be used to give the impression of more support for a viewpoint than actually exists. Though typically it is the weight of arguments that wins the day, having multiple sock puppets argue with each other can still cause considerable confusion, so don't do that. This includes voting multiple times in any election, or using more than one account in discussions such as Wikipedia:Deletion debates, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship, or on talk pages.

In addition to double-voting, sock puppets might be used for the purpose of deception, distraction, or to create the illusion of broader support for a position than actually exists.

Circumventing policy

Policies apply per person, not per account. Policies such as the "three-revert rule" 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, bans, and probations. Evading sanctions will cause the timer to restart, and may lengthen the duration of the sanctions.

Meatpuppets

Meatpuppet is a Wikipedia term of art meaning one who edits on behalf of or as proxy for another editor. While Wikipedia assumes good faith especially for new users, the recruitment of new editors to Wikipedia for the purpose of influencing a survey, performing reverts, or otherwise attempting to give the appearance of consensus is strongly discouraged. A new user who engages in the same behavior as another user in the same context, and who appears to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose, shall be subject to the remedies applied to the user whose behavior they are joining. The term meatpuppet is derogatory and should be used only with care.

Do not recruit meatpuppets. It is considered highly inappropriate to advertise Wikipedia articles to your friends, family members, or communities of people who agree with you, so that they come to Wikipedia and support your side of a debate. If you feel that a debate is ignoring your voice, then the appropriate action is to avoid personal attacks, seek comments and involvement from other Wikipedians, or pursue dispute resolution. These are well-tested processes, designed to avoid the problem of exchanging bias in one direction for bias in another.

Wikipedia has policies and processes to mitigate the disruption caused by meatpuppetry:

1. Consensus in many debates and discussions is not based upon number of votes, but upon policy-related points made by editors. Newcomers are unlikely to understand Wikipedia policies and practices, or to introduce any evidence that other users have not already mentioned.
2. In votes or vote-like discussions, new users tend to be disregarded or given significantly less weight, especially if there are many of them expressing the same opinion.
3. For the purposes of dispute resolution, the Arbitration Committee has ruled that when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sock puppets, or several users acting as meatpuppets, they may be treated as one entity.

Roommates and sharing an IP address

If two users live or work together, their accounts may appear to be sock puppets, especially if they share a single computer or IP address. Checkusers cannot look through the wire to see who uses the computer at the other end. To avoid accusations of sock puppetry, such users may want to make an advance declaration on their user pages. Closely connected users may be considered a single user for Wikipedia's purposes if they edit towards the same objectives. When editing the same articles, participating in the same community discussion, or supporting each other in any sort of dispute, closely related accounts should disclose the connection and observe relevant policies such as the "three-revert rule" as if they were a single account. If they do not wish to disclose the connection, they should avoid editing in the same areas.

Administrative sock puppets

Main page: Wikipedia:Administrators

The community has strongly rejected users having more than one username with admin access. If an administrator leaves, comes back under a new name and is nominated for adminship, it is expected that they will give up the admin access of their old account (this may be done by the old account without showing a link between accounts). In general, only one account with access greater than that of a normal user account should be operated. There have been four users known to have legitimately used a secondary account with administrative powers, three appointed by WMF, one a bot appointed by RFA: - Danny used the account Dannyisme for Foundation work until his resignation in March 2007. Similarly, Bastique now uses the account Cary Bass for Foundation purposes and AlisonW, chair of Wikimedia UK, was given admin rights on that account in addition to keeping her existing Arbcom-disclosed account. WJBscribe's bot, RedirectCleanupBot, is currently the only approved bot with administrator rights. Administrators using a second account in a forbidden manner risk being summarily desysopped.

Alternative accounts

Inappropriate uses of alternative accounts

Avoiding scrutiny

Alternative accounts should not be used to edit in ways that would be considered improper if done by a single account. Using alternative puppet accounts to split your contributions history means that other editors cannot detect patterns in your contributions. While this may occasionally be legitimate (see below under legitimate uses), it is a violation of this policy to create alternative accounts in order to confuse or deceive editors who may have a legitimate interest in reviewing your contributions.

"Good hand, bad hand" accounts

The use of alternative accounts for deliberate policy violations or disruption specifically is proscribed:

• All users are proscribed from operating a "bad hand" account for the purpose of disruption or artificially stirring up controversy. It is never acceptable to keep one account "clean", while using another account to engage in disruptive behavior.
• Admins are also proscribed from operating a "bad hand" account for the purpose of engaging in editing disputes while at the same time appearing to be a neutral admin dealing with page protection or "three-revert rule" issues on the same articles.

Legitimate uses of alternative accounts

Alternative accounts have legitimate uses. For example, prominent users might create a new account to experience how the community functions for new users.

Segregation and security

Some editors use alternative accounts to segregate their contributions for various reasons:

1. 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.
2. Since public computers can have password-stealing trojans or keyloggers installed, users may register an alternative account to prevent the hijacking of their main accounts.
3. Users with a recognized expertise in one field might not wish to associate their contributions to that field with contributions to articles about subjects in which they do not have the same expert standing, or which they consider less weighty.
4. A person editing an article which is highly controversial within his/her family, social or professional circle, and whose Wikipedia identity is known within that circle, or traceable to their real-world identity, may wish to use an alternative account in order to avoid real-world consequences from their involvement in that area.
5. An editor might use an openly declared alternative account to carry out maintenance tasks in order to simplify the organization of such tasks.

Doppelgänger accounts

Doppelgänger is a German word for a ghostly double of a living person. In the context of a user account, a doppelgänger account is a second account created with a username similar to one's main account to preemptively prevent impersonation by vandals. Such accounts are permitted and should be marked with the {{doppelganger}} or {{doppelganger-other}} tag (or simply redirected to one's own userpage). Doppelgänger accounts should not be used for editing.

Clean start under a new name

If you have a negative track record and you have decided to make a genuine, clean, and honest, new start, and do not wish it to be tarnished by your prior conduct, you can simply discontinue using the old account(s), and create an unconnected new account which becomes the only account you then use, and is used in a good manner.

Discontinuing the old account means specifically that the old account is not used for editing ever again. If the old account is later used in addition to a new account after supposedly being discontinued, then it has not been discontinued and would fall under the policy for alternative accounts, above.

When an account is discontinued, it is recommended that the old account be noted on its user page as being inactive, in order to prevent the switch being interpreted as an attempt to abusively sock puppet.

Note that the "right to vanish" does not cover this, and repeated switching of accounts is usually seen as a way of avoiding scrutiny and considered as a breach of this policy. This option is also not available to banned users, who are prohibited from editing Wikipedia altogether, either anonymously or under any user name.

The most common two concerns and their usual answers are:

• I'll be noticed: If you change your behavior, and also the articles you work on, there is no reason for a connection to be made. If you continue on the same articles or your writing style is so distinctive it will quickly be noticed, or you return to problematic editing, then it is likely a connection will be made whether or not you change account, and any perceived concealment will probably be seen more negatively when discovered.
• I'll be identified by checkuser or accused of being a sock puppet later: Checkuser is used for suspected breaches of policy. If you don't use the old account or engage in problematic conduct, there is little reason a request would be made, and a request without good reason is likely to be declined for lack of cause.

(That said, if future usage does draw attention by concerned users or administrators, then it is likely the connection will be made. See alternative account notification for how to reduce the likelihood of problems.)

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 Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval), so the automated edits can be filtered out of recent changes. (See Wikipedia:Bot policy for bot procedures and policies)

'Role' accounts

Role accounts, accounts which are used by multiple people, are only officially sanctioned on Wikipedia in exceptional cases. If you run one account with multiple users, it is likely to be blocked.

However, the Wikimedia Foundation and Board of Trustees reserve the right to use role accounts where necessary.

Alternative account notification

If someone uses alternative accounts, it is recommended that he or she provide links between the accounts in most cases to make it easy to determine that one individual shares them, or at least disclose this information in confidence.

• Editors who wish to publicly display a link on an alternative account to their main or primary account may do so by tagging the "secondary" ones with {{User Alternate Acct|MAIN ACCOUNT}}
• Main or primary accounts may be marked with {{User Alt Acct Master}}

When the link between two accounts will not be publicly identified due to privacy or other concerns, users are encouraged to email the Arbitration Committee list (arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org) - which include current and former members of the committee - to disclose the main and alternate (or old and new) accounts, to reduce the chance of potential misunderstandings. The CheckUser list (checkUser-l@lists.wikimedia.org) should also be advised, but this list does not allow direct mailing by non members. Thus, the user should either ask a current checkuser to forward it on to the list on their behalf, or (recognising that the Arbitration Committee often includes current checkusers) it may be simplest to include a forwarding request in the email to the Arbitration Committee list.

Identification and handling of suspected sock puppets

Sock puppets typically are identified through requests posted at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets based on their visible edits and/or requests posted at requests for checkuser based on edit information that is accessible by the few Wikipedians who have checkuser privileges. Handling of a sock puppet account may include blocking the sock puppet account and tagging the blocked account user and user talk pages.

The Arbitration committee has ruled that evidence that a user is familiar with Wikipedia editing conventions (such as the use of Wikitext markup, edit summaries, and core policies) is, by itself, insufficient basis to treat the user as a sock puppet.

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 existing edit wars, or participate in procedures like Articles for deletion or Requests for adminship as part of their first few edits. They may edit on a selected article or a very narrow range of topics. They are also more likely to be brand new or a single purpose account when looking at their contributions summary.

Straw puppets

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, 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 unintelligently or appear 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.

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets

If you think that someone is using sockpuppets and wish to get further people's comments on the matter, you should create a report at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets and follow the instructions there.

Checkuser

Wikipedia operates a process known as Checkuser to identify some sock puppets in certain cases. 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 limited to a handful of users with checkuser privilege and only done in serious cases, with reasonable cause, to check if user A is the same as user B based upon some evidence. Any results will only be given in terms which comply with the privacy policy, in many cases precluding disclosure of detailed information.

Requests may be made at requests for checkuser. "Fishing" – or general trawling of users in a debate for possible sockpuppets – is not supported and requests for such checks are unlikely to be agreed to. Also, it is important to note that checkuser cannot ever confirm with certainty that two accounts are not connected. It can only confirm they are connected, or that at the time of checking there is no obvious machine-identifiable evidence of connection.

CheckUsers also routinely operate checks for other reasons, including cases received through OTRS or ArbCom. For such checks, often no public request record may exist.

You may wish to post a report at both requests for checkuser and Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets.

Administrators' noticeboard

In some cases, it may be appropriate to list a suspected sock puppet account at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism or Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Incorrect sock puppet accusation

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. 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 politics, religion, or articles for deletion.

If you have been accused incorrectly of being a sock puppet, do not take it too personally. New users are unknown quantities. Stay around a while and make good edits, and your record will speak for itself. That generally is the only real way to prove that you are not anyone's puppet; even CheckUser cannot give anything beyond a negative confirmation.

Blocking

If a person is found to be using a sock puppet, the sock puppet accounts may be blocked indefinitely. The main account also may be blocked at the discretion of any administrator. IP addresses used for sock puppetry may be blocked, but are subject to certain restrictions for indefinite blocks.

Tagging

Several templates are available for marking user pages and talk pages of sock puppet accounts to characterize different steps in the process. The templates serve as a convenient shorthand only and are not part of this policy.

Suspected tagging

• Username suspected - {{Sockpuppet|1=Username|evidence=[[EvidenceLink]]}}
• IP address suspected - {{IPsock|1=Username|evidence=[[EvidenceLink]]}}

Confirmed tagging

• User page tagged with general identified - {{SockpuppetProven|1=Username|evidence=[[EvidenceLink]]}}. "EvidenceLink" can be replaced with something such as "[[Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Username]]":
• User page tagged with Checkuser identified - {{SockpuppetCheckuser|Username|Optional name of CheckUser case (what is after Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/)}}
• User talk page tagged with block notice: {{sockblock}}
• Sockpuppeteer - The original or best-known account of a user that operates sockpuppets may be tagged with {{Sockpuppeteer}} if it is being blocked indefinitely. See also {{CheckedPuppeteer}}, and other templates are available in Category:Sockpuppet templates.

Identification and handling of inappropriate alternative accounts

Alternative accounts being used inconsistently with this policy or otherwise used inappropriately may be blocked as "an inappropriate alternative account" and tagged as such. Consensus may be used to identify an alternative account as an inappropriate alternative account. Blocking or other remedy for an inappropriate alternative account may be determined by consensus or determined at the discretion of an admin.

Obtaining consensus

There may be several ways to obtain a consensus. One way to obtain such a consensus may be to post a request at one of the administrator notice boards, such as Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. The consensus should last at least five days and be closed by an admin with top and bottom templates.

What constitutes an alternative account

Two accounts are considered alternative if they are operated by the same editor and contain interleave postings where one posting from a second account is added anywhere in Wikipedia between two postings from a first account. However, a situation may arise where an editor has a main account, closes that account, and opens a new main account.

A time overlap is only one way to determine whether two accounts are alternative accounts. Consensus may determine that two accounts are alternative accounts even though they do not overlap in time and that only one account is active. For example, there may be a usage connection between the two or more accounts that shows them in a constant state of succession as a line of alternative accounts. It is the actions of the editor, not the name of the account, that makes two or more accounts alternative accounts.

Treatment of the editor

There is a significant difference between an editor who inappropriately uses an alternative account and a person operating sock puppets. Thus, an editor who inappropriately uses an alternative account may still contribute to the encyclopedia through their main account. An inappropriate alternative account is not a sock puppet account and assumption of good faith still applies to the main account of that editor. Aggressive approaches applied to protect the encyclopedia from sock puppets ordinarily should not be applied to the main account of an editor in good standing who inappropriately used an alternative account.

Elevation of remaining alternative accounts to sock puppet account

Policies apply per person, not per account. Misuse of one alternative account will affect that person's ability to operate alternative accounts. If there is a consensus that a person is using one alternative account inappropriately, and community sanctions are imposed, then subsequent use of any other alternative account by that same person is considered to be evading community sanctions. All such alternative accounts are then considered as sock puppet accounts, and the matter may be addressed through the above Sock puppet account section and Identification and handling of suspected sock puppets section.

See also

• Sockpuppet (Internet)
• Wikipedia:Doppelganger account
• Wikipedia:Single purpose account
• Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets