Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry

A sock puppet is an additional username used by a Wikipedian who edits under more than one name. The Wikipedian who uses a sock puppet may be called a sock puppeteer. Use of sock puppets is discouraged in most cases; Jimbo Wales has said, "There's no specific policy against it, but it's generally considered uncool unless you have a good reason."

The reason for discouraging sock puppets is to prevent abuses such as a person voting more than once in a poll, or using multiple accounts to circumvent Wikipedia policies. Some people feel that second accounts should not be used at all; others feel it is harmless if the accounts are all behaving acceptably.

Also see this page for information on how this affects other online communities.

Multiple accounts have legitimate uses. But you must refrain from using them in any way prohibited to sock puppets and from using one account to support the position of another, the standard definition of sock puppetry. If someone uses multiple accounts, it is recommended that he or she provides links between the accounts, so it is easy to determine that they are shared by one individual.

Prohibited uses of sock puppets

Voting

Wikipedia uses a "one person, one vote" principle for all votes and similar discussions where individual preferences are counted in any fashion. Accordingly, sock puppets are not permitted to vote in any Wikipedia election, nor are they allowed to participate in any similar procedure, such as polls and surveys or the discussions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. Proven sock puppets may be permanently blocked if used to cast double votes.

Deception and impersonation

In addition to double-voting, sock puppets should not be used for purposes of deception, or to create the illusion of broader support for a position. This kind of behavior is disruptive and unnecessary for any potentially legitimate use of sock puppets. In particular, accounts that are used to maliciously impersonate another Wikipedian should be blocked permanently.

Circumventing policy

Policies apply per person, not per account. Policies such as 3RR are for each person's edits. Similarly, using a second account for policy violations will cause any penalties to also be applied to your main account.

Users who are banned from editing or temporarily subject to a legitimate block may not use sock puppets to circumvent this. Evading a ban in this manner causes the timer on the ban to restart.

Administrative sock puppets prohibited

The community has strongly rejected users having more than one username with admin powers. If you leave, come back under a new name and are nominated for admin, it is expected that you will give up admin powers on your old account. (You may do this quietly.) Only one account should have powers greater than those of a regular editor.

Legitimate uses of sock puppets

Multiple accounts have legitimate uses. For example, prominent users might create a new account in order to experience how the community functions for new users. In particular, some have suggested that Jimbo should get, and edit from, a sock puppet account. Perhaps he does.

Segregation and security

Other users employ multiple accounts to segregate their contributions for various reasons. 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.

Some users use alternate accounts for security reasons. Because public computers often have password-stealing trojans installed, users put themselves at risk if they log in on public computers using their main accounts.

Multiple accounts also serve to protect identity. Someone who is known to the public or within a particular circle may be identifiable based on their interests and contributions; dividing these up between different accounts might help preserve the person's anonymity. Users with a recognized expertise in one field, for example, might not wish to associate their contributions to that field with contributions to articles about less weighty subjects. A person editing an article which is highly controversial within their social circle may wish to use a sock puppet so that readers unfamiliar with WP:NPOV policy will not assume their information edits are statements of personal belief.

Keeping heated issues in one small area

Others might use different accounts in talk pages to avoid extending conflicts about a particular area of interest into conflicts based upon user identity. A person participating in a discussion of an article about abortion, for example, might not want to allow other participants an opportunity to extend that discussion or engage them in unrelated or philosophically motivated debate outside the context of that article.

'Role' accounts and bots

Role accounts have been used on the French Wikipedia without any opposition, but their use is not officially sanctioned at this time.

Note: Wikipedians who operate bots are encouraged to create separate accounts (and request they be marked as bot accounts via m:requests for bot status), so the automated edits can be filtered out of recent changes. (See Wikipedia:Bots for bot procedures and policies)

Tagging legitimate sockpuppet accounts

Contributors who use multiple accounts may tag the "secondary" ones with {{User Sock Puppet|SOCKPUPPETEER}} which produces:

The "main" accounts can similarly be marked with {{User Puppet Master}}, which gives:

Identification and handling of suspected sock puppets

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 edit wars, or participate vocally in procedures like Articles for deletion or Requests for adminship as part of their first few edits.

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, in order 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 unintelligent or 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.

When questions arise

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.

If it appears that sock puppets are being used as part of an edit war or to distort the outcome of a vote or survey, one possible rule of thumb is the so-called 100-edit rule. This suggests that any account which already has more than 100 edits across a range of other articles, or has been active more generally on Wikipedia, can often be presumed not to be a sock puppet. If there are unusually many accounts with few edits participating, you may want to check if they are sockpuppets, by looking at IP addresses (or asking an admin to do so) or times that edits were made. However, simply having made few edits is not evidence of sockpuppetry on its own, and if you call a new user a sockpuppet without justification, they will probably be insulted and get a negative impression of Wikipedia.

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 the conflict in the Middle East, cult figures, or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Some have suggested applying the 100-edit guideline more strongly in such cases, assuming that all accounts with fewer than 100 edits are sock puppets. Generally, such beliefs have been shown not to be well founded.

If there is doubt, a developer or checkuser user can check to see whether accounts are related. Experience has shown that on article talk pages, including polls, the linkage is usually not supported by the information available to developers, so self-restraint in making such accusations is usually the right course.

If you have been accused incorrectly of being a sock puppet, don't take it too personally. New users are unknown quantities. Stay around a while and make good edits, and your record will speak for itself.

Tagging identified sock puppets

If an account has been shown to be a sock puppet used for policy violations, then it should be identified as such, by adding Template:SockpuppetProven to the user page of the sock puppet account. The syntax is (replacing instances of "SOCKPUPPETEER" with the name of the sock puppeteer and "EVIDENCE" with something such as "Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/SOCKPUPPETEER/Evidence"):

{{SockpuppetProven|1=SOCKPUPPETEER|evidence=EVIDENCE}}

which will render as:

This user is a sock puppet of SOCKPUPPETEER, as established by EVIDENCE, and has been blocked indefinitely. See block log.

Note that this should only be done if the account has been shown beyond reasonable doubt to be a sock puppet of the user by one of the following:

• the user's own admission;
• matching of IP addresses or similar strong technical evidence;
• a ruling on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration.

The above template should not be added in the cases of accusations of sockpuppetry which have not been proven. Instead, add Template:Sockpuppet to the page:

{{Sockpuppet|1=SOCKPUPPETEER|evidence=[[EVIDENCE]]}}

It is suspected that this user may be a sock puppet or impersonator of SOCKPUPPETEER. Please refer to EVIDENCE for evidence. See block log

Accounts created by brand new users acting together ('meatpuppets')

A related issue occurs when multiple individuals create brand new accounts specifically to participate in (or influence) one particular vote or area of discussion. This is especially common in deletion discussions or controversial articles. These newly created accounts (or anonymous edits) may be friends of another editor, may be related in some way to the subject of an article under discussion, or may be solicited by someone to support a specific 'angle' in an article debate.

When used to add force to the arguments of one side in a debate or article, such users and accounts are often described as "meatpuppets", a name perhaps inspired by the band of the same name.

These accounts are not actually sockpuppets, but they are often difficult to distinguish from real sockpuppets and are often treated similarly. Neither a sockpuppet nor a brand-new, single-purpose account holder is considered a member of the Wikipedia community in these circumstances. The reason behind this is that, for instance, an article about an online community should not be kept merely because all members of that community show up to vote for it. The Arbitration Committee has ruled that, for the purpose of dispute resolution, when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar editing habits they may be treated as one individual.

(Wikipedians also tend to call such user accounts 'single purpose accounts', because whereas committed Wikipedians are usually active on a range of articles, and their aim is to see a balanced growth in articles and in the encyclopedia as a whole, 'single purpose account' users very often come to Wikipedia with one set agenda or interest and a specific aspect or 'side' to promote by their edits and views within that interest)

Use of this term is generally not advised, since it can be perceived as highly uncivil, and is certainly likely to discourage a new user from participating further.

Advertising and soliciting meatpuppets

It is considered highly inappropriate or unacceptable to externally advertise Wikipedia articles that are being debated, or where one wishes to stir up debate, in order to attract users with likely known views and bias, in order to strengthen one side of a debate and influence consensus or discussion. It's also inappropriate to invite "all one's friends" to help argue an article. Advertising or soliciting meatpuppet activity is not an acceptable practice on Wikipedia.

The arrival of multiple newcomers, with limited Wikipedia background and predetermined viewpoints arriving in order to present those viewpoints, rarely helps achieve neutrality and most times actively damages it, no matter what one might think. Wikipedia is neither a place for mixing fact and opinion, personal advocacy, or argument from emotion. Controversial articles often need more familiarity with policy to be well edited, not less.

If you feel that a debate is ignoring your voice, then the appropriate action is not to solicit others outside Wikipedia. Instead, avoid personal attacks, seek comments and involvement from other Wikipedians, or pursue dispute resolution. These are quite well tested processes, and are designed to avoid the problem of exchanging bias in one direction for bias in another.

See also

• Internet sock puppet