Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppetry

guessed password -- huh??

Per "Compromised accounts":

If you have lost the password to an existing Wikipedia account, or you know or fear that someone else has obtained or guessed the password, you may well want to create a new account with a clean password. [Emph added]

That makes no sense. If you haven't lost your password but you think someone else may have guessed it, then change it, don't start a new account. That provision should be removed. The other part (about compromised accounts) doesn't really belong in sock policy. The part about dealing with possible account compromise belongs in another page, not in sock policy, so that should be removed too. In any case, opening a new account under such circumstances should require disclosure. 69.111.192.233 (talk) 12:04, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Paranoia vs. legitimate concerns

I've noticed somethings lately. It started with User:Songofsirenswhose first and only edits have been to revert. I've noticed the same thing with November10's contributions. In the case of Songofsirens, the user seems to have a lot of knowledge. For example, he cited WP:CLAIM on one of his first edits,[1] a policy I didn't even know existed (though I have been editing for a long time).

Am I being paranoid or should I be concerned of sockpuppetry?VR _talk 04:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Just because the two accounts have knowledge of Wikipedia and its policies, that does not make them socks. They aren't editing the same articles so even if it is one person they are not doing it disruptively. They both could be editors who made clean starts. No notification of that is required and as long as they aren't disruptive they are fine. If I was the one concerned I wouldn't do anything at this point. ~~ GB fan ~~ 05:30, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I didn't mean to say they are sock puppets of each other, just that they appear to be single purpose accounts who have been around longer than their edit history suggests.VR _talk 22:57, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I would have never thought of any of these techniques; I am glad to now have at my disposal an arsenal of disruptive measures with which to create alternative histories that exist solely in my own mind. Thanks, Wikipedia!

Reporting sockpuppet

Registered user jaspel has resorted to using an IP address to undo my edits, this can be gaged from the fact that the IP begining with 180 is mainly undoing those of my edits that jaspel used to undo using his registerd account, or he has invited someone else to do this for him, I dont know the wiki term for this, but read about it somewhere on wikipedia, which is against wiki rules too, please take note.116.71.5.86 (talk) 14:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposal for discussion : Village Scribe

Proposal for discussion and approval: new subcategory in WP:SOCK#LEGIT:

• Village scribe: An alternative account may be opened and used faithfully and exclusively for another person challenged such as by age, dexterity or other mobility functions, visual ability, language, literacy or computer literacy.

If this finds approval then the head paragraph might benefit by some slight adjustment. Salisian (talk) 10:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Could you explain this better? If I understand it correctly, person A creates an account, user:A, in order to physically make edits proposed by person B, who does not have an account. This is, I assume, instead of having a user:B account that is actually edited by person A. If it were a situation where person B is paralyzed and dictates the content then B is still the ultimate editor. However, if B is not literate and person A has to interpret their suggestions then A is largely responsible for the end product.

This seems kind of complicated to implement without a good reason. Have there been cases where this has been an issue?   Will Beback  talk  10:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes you have it exactly. Take an extreme case. Suppose you have a friend with multiple sclerosis. This person cannot now use a keyboard fluently but can use a mouse and enjoys browsing Wikipedia. S/he has an alert mind and sees an area where s/he can make useful contributions to the knowledge. So s/he asks the carer to open an account. But the carer already has an account, and the computer is shared. So the carer acts as the village scribe has done over the centuries - as an amanuensis. For further references and precedents see Eric Fenby and Tertius. The first wrote for a blind but gifted musician and the second wrote for a highly intelligent and qualified lawyer - no reason is given for the use of a scribe in the second case but it might have been a first-century equivalent to computer literacy? Salisian (talk) 11:37, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The physical typist issue is not a problem, as I see it. But the age, language, and literacy isues are different. What scenarios require in those categories require a policy change?   Will Beback  talk  12:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Let's take computer literacy as an example (it may answer all). Wikipedia is intended for universal access. Yet it is not at present accessible unless you are computer literate. Without a village scribe that off-line person is as inhibited as a blind person; but at present (as I understand) for another person to open another account for the benefit of that otherwise inhibited person would break the rule of sockpuppetry, and cause offence. So a village scribe, acting as amanuensis, brings accessibility to those who would otherwise be inhibited - and we would all benefit in consequence. Actual occurrence? Yes. Salisian (talk) 13:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Problem with this is it's a bit of a can of worms in terms of encouraging illegitimate socking, if this exemption is added. "Ooh, this alternate account which CU will confirm as linked isn't me, it's my blind housemate who shares my views and interests. Honest." Rd232 ^talk 17:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I hear that, but I think we must WP:AGF. I'm not sure it's consistent with our guidelines to refuse an exception solely due to the potential for abuse. --Bsherr (talk) 18:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that an explicit exemption is required. Edits are made by the decision-maker, not the typist. We can allow people to help others with their editing, as long as the responsibility lies elsewhere; if socking accusations are made, that's no different than evaluating any other case of different people editing from the same location. Specifying the exemption is unnecessary for legitimate use and liable to encourage illegitimate use. Rd232 ^talk 18:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Does the policy say that, though? --Bsherr (talk) 18:29, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Have there been any actual cases where this has been an issue? I don't think we should make policies based on hypotheticals. We've had millions of editors making millions of edits, so if it hasn't come up before then maybe it's not really a problem that needs a policy solution.   Will Beback  talk  22:14, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, his own, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ian Salisbury. But yes, it's not a real problem.Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:25, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for that background. A trout slap to Salisbury for not mentioning his motivation for proposng the change. It sounds like this isn't about editing, in the narrow sense of adding or changing uncontroversial material, but about how to handle these accounts in a dispute to avoid meatpuppetry issues. In that regard, the situation is similar to a husband and wife taking the same side in disputes with other editors.   Will Beback  talk  02:39, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations#Some method to allow anons to report new suspected sockpuppets

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations#Some method to allow anons to report new suspected sockpuppets. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:53, 14 December 2010 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}}) עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:53, 14 December 2010 (UTC)