Talk:Sock puppet account

Original research and POV issues

This article needs cleanup and a rewrite, as others have noted. Instead of adding more original research, to insert POV of opposite sign, let's start by looking at some other WP articles that had similar problems and overcame them. Internet troll is one article that comes to mind.

One editor seems unhappy that this article fails to discuss positive or neutral reasons an author might have for using more than one identity. Such a discussion might be a good addition to WP's article Online identity, but the term "sockpuppet" is never used for multiple identities except when one the added identity is used deceptively. Sockpuppet is a pejorative term for one specific misuse of multiple identity.

I'm giving this just a first whack, hope others will improve it. betsythedevine 16:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

For example, our sections here might include "Etymology" (origins and early uses of the term). "History" (examples of sockpuppet-type behavior in chronological order from earliest to most recent), "Accusations of sockpuppetry" (for techniques used to identify sockpuppets, and for professional sockpuppets' defenses against such techniques), "References", "See also" (for other Wikipedia articles with related content), and "External links" (for non-Wikipedia articles with useful content). Your suggestions, improvements? betsythedevine 01:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Add book review instances

Amazon reviews are no longer anonymous because of such "sock puppets". The NYTimes had a great article a few years back, when the policy was changed. It included several accounts of authors hyping up their own entries. Anyone with Lexis or NYTimes Select (though their search function is quite weak) and a bit of time should be able to dig it up. It's perfect for this article.

child nappers?

What about people who use the internet to trap children are they also not people pretending to be someone else.Maybe we can add that as well.Vmrgrsergr 03:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

That's not really the same kind of thing. Sockpuppetry isn't just about pretending to be someone else, its about what you do while pretending to be someone else. Sockpuppets often revolve around trying to convince an online community or group of individuals to sway to your cause/ideology, like in the case of people who use puppets during AfD, or to bolster support during an argument, or to try and push some political ideal/product. You'd be hard pressed to find anyone who refers to child predators as a sockpuppet I think.--Crossmr 20:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Concern trolls and sockpuppets

I think the section on concern trolls is in the wrong article. While a concern troll could potentially use sockpuppetry in the course of their actions, it's not an integral part of them. A concern troll is just another variety of troll; they don't need a second account to accomplish their goal.

-- Chronos Tachyon 06:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I think concern troll deserves a mention here--in many ways it is the mirror-image of the strawman sockpuppet. In most of the cases that have come to light, the concern troll was a paid employee for one politician masquerading online as a "concerned" supporter of their employer's opponent. That kind of misrepresentation is classic sockpuppetry. We did have an article on concern trolls once--it got Afd-ed, and redirected to this page--and it's still redirected to this page, which now contains no information about it. I'm restoring that info, feel free to add it also to internet troll if you haven't already. betsythedevine 11:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

No it isn't. The strawman sockpuppet by necessity requires a second person to go and rebut its claims; the concern troll can stand alone. One high-profile case doesn't really make a difference here. Chris Cunningham 11:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that concern troll deserves its own article, really. It's not a perfect fit here, and it's an even worse one at Internet troll. To my mind the essence of sockpuppetry isn't that you have someone speaking in two different voices, it is that you have someone speaking through the pseudonymous sock. You did a great job cleaning up this article--can you find a way to do something sensible with the concern troll info? I think it's important to have it in Wikipedia. betsythedevine 11:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The thing is, "concern troll" itself is a very recent neologism (it turned up on, what, Kos or Atrios a year ago or so) and the exact definition is still a little murky to a great deal of people (witness the recent post on Time's blog where Karen asked the commenters to give a definition; they gave about five contradictory ones). It may be best leaving it for a while until the term gets used more commonly. Though I disagree with your characterisation of sockpuppetry; the whole thing that separates it from mere anonymity is that you've got someone nearby pulling the strings, so it's almost always employed in reference either to the master himself or to the master's opinions. I could go use a made-up account to go troll some message board about how bananas give people cancer and turn them into Communists or whatever, but unless I myself am involved in said debate somehow it isn't sockpuppetry. Chris Cunningham 12:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a cute analogy, but it begs the question of whether being "involved in said debate" requires you to have posted in the same forum under a different identity. If you are the CEO of Whole Foods then you are "involved" in any debate that might boost or harm your company's stock. It's interesting that the NYT today describes exactly such a situation as "sock puppetry"--where the CEO used the fake sockpuppet identity "Rahodeb" both to concern troll his rivals and to praise himself. [1] betsythedevine 14:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Early versus recent uses of "sockpuppet"

Does sockpuppetry require dual postings in the same forum under two different names? This may have been true in the past, but an article in today's NY Times uses the term in a much more general and (IMO) more widely-understood way to include pseudonymous postings by someone who conceals a real identity because the true motivations of that real identity would be transparent to forum members.

For example, Republican political consulant Tad Furtado had not posted under his real identity to any Democratic blogs--but the false identity he claimed there (an independent NH voter leaning toward the Democratic candidate) was a sockpuppet, according to the NYT today. Similarly, when Whole Foods CEO John Mackey used the pseudonym "Rahodeb" to post praise of John Mackey and concern troll "concerns" about a company Whole Foods was thinking of buying, the NYT identifies that behavior as sockpuppetry, with no suggestion that Mackey had posted to the same forums under his own identity. [2]

The common thread, it seems to me, is that the puppeteer has a public identity that must be disguised--not that the source of that public identity must be previous postings in the same forum under a pseudonym different from the puppet's. betsythedevine 14:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

More cleanup work

I've gone through and addressed some points raised. The article should be a little cleaner now. In particular I've given a link to the origin (I'd love a less self-published-looking link, but can't find one right now; the everything2 link gives an excellent writeup, it's just, well, everything2), cut down the huge list of synonyms in the intro (most of which appear to have been made up on the spot) and removed a lot of OR. Chris Cunningham 10:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Usenet origin of term "sockpuppet"

It pretty much comes from these two old messages: AnonMoos 20:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC) http://groups.google.com/group/sci.skeptic/msg/608aa11d6ce6620f http://groups.google.com/group/sci.skeptic/msg/b0b09f69c08d9124

What to do

...when you find someone who is doing this sock-puppetry persistently on Wikipedia? ROxBo 13:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a page where you can report it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets

Notice near the top of the page where you can also see a list of places to get help with other kinds of disruption of Wikipedia, e.g. vandalism. Good luck! betsythedevine 13:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

John Mackey (businessman)

The link to John Mackey is a disambiguation page, the link should be [[John Mackey (businessman)|John Mackey]]. The page is protected, someone else needs to change the link.--68.14.251.102 23:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Whole Foods link

This link to Whole Foods does not go to the Wikipedia article for the company, which is what is intended. Someone needs to fix this because the page is protected, and I cannot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.208.12.212 (talk) 15:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

nl:Sokpop (internet)

Please joint nl:Sokpop (internet), because I can't. 80.126.25.66 19:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

First use of the term

I didn't want to change this without mentioning it here first; but if I recall correctly, Earl Curley wasn't active on usenet until the mid-90s. There's at least one use of the term that I know of dating back to 1993:

http://groups.google.com/group/bit.listserv.fnord-l/browse_thread/thread/ffc2583d617140d/d1b51c9c2d96469f?lnk=st&q=&rnum=4&hl=en#d1b51c9c2d96469f

Any Curley stuff before that?

Steambadger 19:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Meat Puppet

Alas, the only reference in this section actually refers to an article which talks about a fake personality created online which is not a real person. In other words, a sockpuppet. So the term "meat puppet" is used in the reference, but not in the way Wikipedia uses it, or as the meatpuppet section defines it. I cannot find any reference for Wikipedia's peculiar usage which doesn't ultimately refer back to Wikipedia. Which creates a linguistic problem.

A second problem with this term itself is that it is defined narrowly, but used widely. Here in this article, the term refers to a person recruited for an argument, who has no independent opinion of their own (and how does one tell THAT?). For persons without free-will, it may be appropriate, if we could only identify them. But political opinions always seem to fall across party lines. Are all these persons "meatpuppets"? I have generally seen the term used in Wikipedia as a biggotted term for somebody (anybody!) asked to join an argument, who doesn't agree with the wikians who know the term "meatpuppet," and are capable of using it as a weapon, rather like the "N" word. It suggests that ANY newbie recruited for his or her opinion, doesn't really HAVE an actual opinion, but is rather a machine, a puppet on strings, not a person worthy of respect in an argument. How's that again? This needs rethinking. I've posted a longer thread in the Wiki WP:SOCK page, but the problem of the biased word (using "puppet" for somebody new, whose opinion you don't happen to like) is just as applicable and debatable here. And I see that the biggotted language has crept in here, also. So let's see your cites for it. SBHarris 20:13, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I'm too lazy to create an ID and edit, but did want to share that Meat Puppet was used by William Gibson in the novel Neuromancer, to talk about someone who had an implant which allowed their actions to be controlled (specifically, a person who was a prostitute for those with very unusual tastes) . Here's a citation for that - http://www.technovelgy.com/ct/content.asp?Bnum=1439 74.167.47.235 (talk) 02:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, so. Very interesting. On Wikipedia, a meatpuppet is somebody with opinions and an edit history that the administrators don't like, but who they can't prove is a sockpuppet (i.e., the same person with a different account). So they've come up with this very creative word (borrowing it, no doubt), and sometimes use the ideas of sockpuppet and meatpuppet more or less interchangably (most notably when justifying an indefinite block against somebody they can't prove is a sock). I don't really know who came up with the word in Wikispeak. But it's a nasty one-- nearly as nasty as Gibson's. SBHarris 04:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Alternate Online Identities

I'm not sure if it is appropriate to post this here but as I understand the description of "Sockpuppet" here, I think the following is relevant and may need to be included: Although it wasn't called "sockpuppet", the act of sockpuppetry predates the Internet. I remember using multi-user (dialup) bulletin board systems, that had discussion forums on many subjects and it was determined that some of the users had posted points of view on some subjects then used an alternate ID to post agreements to their own points of view. Ceo255 (talk) 05:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the tactic has a long and arguably august history. In particular, the Federalist Papers were written under a pseudonym ("Publius") in part to advance pro-Federalist arguments that the authors, well known Federalists already, did not wish to acknowledge as being yet more of their own. I do not recall any instances of Publius praising their own contributions by name -- though I'm no Fed. Papers scholar. However, one purpose for Publius was clearly to provide an extra, seemingly independent voice on their side: Publius was, among many other attributes, a shill.

[My speculation: The tactic stems from anthropology, and thus may even predate writing. At a minimum, the Fed. Papers surely cannot have been the first use of this tactic. What we have in the internet age is a new label, not a new behavior.] Jmacwiki (talk) 22:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

A famous MTV "actress" has been outed as having an alternative online identity for the sole purpose of "pot stirring" and causing problems on her rival Weight Loss Site. Search for PixieDust. Her subsequent termination/leaving of her job as administrator at another "support" site shows that even others in the community viewed her actions as dispicable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by UglyAmy (talk • contribs) 20:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Somewhat ironic that an account would be created solely to post the previous comment; hmmmm. gohlkus (talk) 08:50, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

And while we're on the topic of weight-loss sites, the founder of a site related to bariatric eating (who also authored a not-so-best-selling book and made an appearance on the "Today Show") was called out for having created an alter-ego for the sole purpose of a. Promoting her not-so-best-selling book and, most aggregiously, b. Promoting her product line. How was she busted? Well, many were suspicious for quite some time and their suspicions were finally confirmed when she forgot to sign out of her sock-puppet before posting as her own self. Oops. Fortune favors the brave and the stupid shall be punished! Go to the most popular Weight-Loss Support site on the net and search for Jo. There are several, but this one in particular will stick out like a sore thumb. Pwgibbs (talk) 00:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)Paul

Same with this one! Only one contribution! These appear actually to be dueling sockpuppets on the "sockpuppets" talk page! It'd be funny if it weren't sad. gohlkus (talk) 08:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Did Jimmy Wales use a sockpuppet?

One would have to assume that Jimmy Wales himself is guilty of this during the incident in which he was caught editing his own Wiki entry. That would seem to a prime example to use in the article SteveCoppock (talk) 22:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Why would one "have to assume" that Wales is "guilty of" sockpuppetry? If Wales had in fact used a fake account to be deceptive, it is hard to see why his enthusiastic accusers don't bother to mention it. betsythedevine (talk) 07:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

He made the edits in his own name, it wasn't sockpuppetry, just very poor judgement. Nazlfrag (talk) 19:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Google search

{{editprotected}} Please delete the "reference" after Merciful Lee Dickens. If anyone wants to google the name they can do so without a link. Not appropriate for article space. 199.125.109.64 (talk) 19:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

In the section "Meatpuppet", change "When used as a Wikipedia term of art, it is used" to "It can often be used". I highly doubt that it is used in that context only on Wikipedia. 199.125.109.64 (talk) 20:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

 Done Happy‑melon 21:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

WP's Sophomoric Standards for Establishing Sockpuppetry

I was unfairly treated by WP administrators while he was defending my country in ground combat operations in Iraq. I was "punished" by being blocked from WP during which period I was wounded in action by enemy fire, ironically making use of WP impossible for me for some time. Said administrators used a sophomoric "IP search" to establish "sockpuppetry." I edited via a Department of the Navy IP (with tens of thousands of users) and a large, civilian ISP. Using such an unsophisticated method as an IP search to establish sockpuppetry in this case could yield no better than a one in 40,000 chance of proving such an accusation. Basing one's sole determination of such an accusation is juvenile at best.

I recommend prudence and a little less self-righteousness on the part of WP administrators in the future.

USMC Padre (talk) 17:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

You can recommend that all you like. You can recommend the tides to go out. Your post does get deserve to be entered in the Newbie/Plebe Smile-Comment Contest, however. No disrespect intended, as we're all newbies at something.

Here's the dope: Padre, if you think Wikipedia bears any resemblance to the Navy you know, please disabuse yourself of the idea. The people here are often anonymous. The ones who block new editors like yourself are just as often not accountable (defrocking of abusive administrators is about as rare as forcing admirals to resign). There are no formal courtmarshals, no JAGs, no due process, not even a Rules Code, as in the military. Everything instead, is done by "consensus" which isn't defined exactly, because nobody has been able to come up with a concensus on what % a consensus is. I kid you not.

So, if you have some idea of yourself as "personnel" here, entitled to the respect you get in the armed forces as a member of military, forget it. That may come if you get to be an administrator on Wikipedia. In the meantime, your status is much closer to some civilian who looks to be engaged in some suspicious activity, in a country in which the US is occupying. If somebody doesn't like the look of you, you may find yourself treated to the equivalent of Gitmo, with a Qur'an and a prayer rug on which to pray to Allah for the appeal which you probably won't see. SBHarris 17:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Mock Puppet

I was a personal victim of a "mock puppet"; until now I wasn't aware there was an official name for it. It says "citation needed". Is this for the fact that "the imposter account contains obscenity or leet in the name to make the mockery deliberately obvious", or the second bit? If it's the former, I can offer a citation link. CalebWilson (talk) 03:15, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

This seems to be a neologism (if it even exists) which has not showed up in Wiktionary, Urban Dictionary or even Encyclopedia Dramatica. Google turns up no encyclopedia-quality source either for this usage. Please offer a citation if you have one; Google didn't turn up anything in my brief search of it. betsythedevine (talk) 22:05, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't have citation for the existance of the term "mock puppet", I think you misunderstand me. CalebWilson (talk) 10:36, 9 November 2008 (UTC)