Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry

Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations for how to request CheckUser intervention.

The default position on Wikipedia is that each editor should have one account only. This policy explains when alternate accounts may and may not be used. When an alternate account is used in violation of this policy, it is known as a sock puppet.

In summary, alternate accounts must not be used to avoid scrutiny; mislead or deceive other editors; edit project-related discussions, such as policy debates or Arbitration Committee proceedings; make disruptive edits with one account and normal edits with another; distort consensus; stir up controversy; or circumvent policy. The misuse of an alternate account is likely to lead to a block or a ban.

Anyone using alternate accounts should generally provide links between them on the user pages (see below), or disclose the accounts privately to the Arbitration Committee.

Inappropriate uses of alternate accounts

Editors must not use alternate accounts to mislead or deceive. Where an editor is legitimately using alternate accounts, the account with the longest history is regarded as the main one.

Creating an illusion of support

Alternate accounts must not used to give the impression of more support for a viewpoint than actually exists.

Editing project space

Alternate accounts should not edit policies, guidelines, or their talk pages; comment in Arbitration proceedings; or vote in requests for adminship, deletion debates, or elections.

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. Alternative accounts 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.

Other prohibited uses

For example, they must not:

• Pose as a neutral commentator, using one alt account, in a policy discussion about another account of the same person.
• !Voting more than once in polls, such as WP:Articles for discussion polls.
• Using multiple accounts to violate our rules about edit warring
• Creating an article with one account, and then marking it as patrolled with another.
• Use of a separate account for disruption or vandalism, in the hope that, when it is blocked, the main account can continue with blameless editing.
• Creating an article with one account and proposing it for deletion with another, a WP:POINT violation
• Creating a separate account to argue one side of an issue in a deliberately irrational or offensive fashion, to sway opinion to another side.
• Making a clean start with a new account, but then turning up at pages you used to edit with the old account, while denying any connection to it; this is particularly inappropriate if the article or edits are contentious.

Crossing the streams

It is improper to use multiple accounts to do anything which cannot or should not be done with a single account. When using more than one account, it is therefore essential not to "cross the streams" of the different accounts. If more than one account controlled by the same user edits the same page or joins the same discussion, there may be a finding of sock puppetry. Editors who use multiple accounts may be sanctioned if they unintentionally, accidentally, or carelessly engage in sock puppetry.

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. In particular, sockpuppet accounts may not be used in internal project-related discussions, such as policy debates or Arbitration Committee proceedings.

"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.

'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.

Administrative sock puppets

Main page: Wikipedia:Administrators

1. The community has strongly rejected users having more than one username with admin access (excluding bots with administrative privileges). 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 3 users known to have legitimately used a secondary non-bot account with administrative powers appointed by WMF: 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. Alison Wheeler, then Chair of Wikimedia UK, was the third but her other account was de-admined at her choice in 2007.
2. Administrators discovered to be using a second account in an abusive or forbidden manner have been summarily desysopped.
3. Candidates for adminship should normally disclose any past accounts they have used. Adminship reflects the community's trust in an individual, not merely an account. Administrators who failed to disclose past accounts have usually lost their administrator access.

Legitimate uses of alternative accounts

Alternative accounts have legitimate uses. For example, long-term contributors using their real name may wish to use a pseudonymous account for contributions they do not want their real name to be associated with.

If you use an alternate account, it is your responsibility to ensure that you do not use it in a forbidden manner.

Segregation and security

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

1. 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. Such accounts should be publicly connected to the main account.
2. An editor might use an alternative account to carry out maintenance tasks 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 may be created but should not be used for editing. Doppelgänger accounts may be marked with the {{doppelganger}} or {{doppelganger-other}} tag (or simply redirected to one's own userpage).

Clean start under a new name

If you decide to make a fresh start, for whatever reason, and do not wish to be connected to a previous account, you can simply discontinue using the old account(s), and create a new one that becomes the only account you use. This is permitted only if there are no bans or blocks in place against your old account, and so long as no active deception is involved, particularly on pages that the old account used to edit. That is, you should not turn up on a page User:A used to edit to continue the same editing pattern, this time as User:B, while denying any connection to User:A, particularly if the edits are contentious.

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, it has not been discontinued. When an account is discontinued, the old account should note on its user page that it is inactive, in order to prevent the switch being viewed as an attempt to abusively sock puppet. The {{retired}} tag can be used.

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

The two most common concerns 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.

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 that the automated edits can be filtered out of recent changes. (See Wikipedia:Bot policy for bot procedures and policies)

Meatpuppets

Meatpuppetry, as used by Wikipedia editors, refers to the recruitment of (typically, new) editors to join a discussion on behalf of or as proxy for another editor, usually with the aim of swaying consensus in that discussion.

Meatpuppetry gives a misleading impression of participation in the discussion, and of the support and opposition to different views expressed. 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, may 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.

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

1. Consensus in many debates and discussions should ideally not be 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 may 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 decided 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.

Sharing of an IP address

If two or more users dwell or work together, thereby sharing a computer or an internet connection, or else use a public computer or shared network, such as those found in offices, schools, libraries, hotels, or hot spots, their accounts may appear via a CheckUser inquiry to be sock puppets. Additionally, such people, who often closely know one another and have face-to-face contact may share common interests and writing styles, and may even teach each other about Wikipedia and its techniques and inform each other about its ongoings (though WP:COI and WP:CANVASS policies do apply in these situations). 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 edit warring as if they were a single account. If they do not wish to disclose the connection, they should avoid editing in the same areas, particularly on controversial topics.

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 should contact a current checkuser in advance to obtain permission for operating multiple, unlinked accounts. The local functionaries email list (functionaries-enlists.wikimedia.uk) can also be advised if desired; this is non-public and functions as a local checkuser list.

Identification and handling of suspected sock puppets

Wikipedia:Signs of sock puppetry lists possible – but not definitive – signs that an account may be a sock puppet. The only definitive proof that an account is a sock puppet is an actual admission. Since such admissions are unusual, most determinations of sockpuppetry are based on various combinations of circumstantial evidence.

Sock puppets typically are identified through requests posted at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations based on their visible edits and may also be tagged for getting evidence 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.

While precocious editing skills may give the appearance of sock puppetry, 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, an insufficient basis to treat the user as a sock puppet. Such users might be visitors from a non-English Wikipedia. They may be familiar with our software, though they have not contributed here before.

Characteristics of sock puppets

Main page: Wikipedia:Signs of sock puppetry

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:Sockpuppet investigations

If you think that someone is using sock puppets and wish to get other people's comments on the matter, you should create a report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations 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 Sockpuppet investigations. "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 Sockpuppet investigations.

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. Additionally, editors may learn from and be influenced by the styles of other editors, thereby making writing and editing styles appear similar.

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

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

Confirmed

• User page tagged with general identified – {{SockpuppetProven|1=Username|evidence=[[EvidenceLink]]}}. "EvidenceLink" can be replaced with something such as "[[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/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.

See also

• Sockpuppet (Internet)
• Wikipedia:Don't be quick to assume that someone is a sockpuppet
• Wikipedia:Canvassing
• Wikipedia:On privacy, confidentiality and discretion
• Wikipedia:Signs of sock puppetry
• Wikipedia:Single purpose account
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations
• Wikipedia:Tag team

External links

• MeatBall:SockPuppet