Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppetry

Possible sock/meat puppetry

Not sure where to post this so I figured I'd here. If this is the wrong place, then a push in the right direction would be most appreciated. This recent post made to Talk:Another Language Performing Arts Company has me a bit concerned, so I'm wondering if someone else might take a look. Two of the primary contributors to the article seem to have a conflict of interest, and yesterday and today two new accounts, which seem like SPAs, started editing the page. Not sure if these are socks, meat puppets, or just a "loose association of academic and secular persons who are marginally aware of the group", but the notability of the organization in question is iffy and a post I two months ago made at WT:UTA#Another Language Performing Arts Company got no traction, so this new bit of activity seems a little surprising. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:47, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Correct place is to open an investigation at WP:SPI (see the box titled "How to open an investigation"). Vanjagenije (talk) 09:26, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Actually, I opened the investigation: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jhmiklavcic. Vanjagenije (talk) 09:32, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for checking Vanjagenije. I was aware of SPI, but I wasn't sure if there was enough of a duck to warrant one. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:17, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

@Marchjuly:If you have a good reason for suspecting it, open a case; whether or not there is need for CheckUser, that's the place to go - if it's DUCK, the users will be blocked; if it's borderline, CheckUser may be asked to look at it. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:22, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Editing while logged out

About the section: Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Editing_while_logged_out which I will copy here for convenience

There is no policy against editing while logged out. This happens for many reasons, including not noticing that the login session had expired, changing computers, going to a Wikipedia page directly from a link, and forgetting passwords. Editors who are not logged in must not actively try to deceive other editors, such as by directly saying that they do not have an account or by using the session for the inappropriate uses of alternate accounts listed earlier in this policy. To protect their privacy, editors who are editing while logged out are never required to disclose their usernames on-wiki.

I noticed that this was added by WhatamIdoing who noted the addition here on talk, in this section. For clarity, what is the concern behind the sentence "To protect their privacy, editors who are editing while logged out are never required to disclose their usernames on-wiki." and how is this meant to play out in real life on a Talk page, especially related to the sentence just before it?

Example: UserX does a lot of editing and talking on page A, and an IP editor shows up whose edits are very similar. UserY notices this similarity, and .... what? In light of that last sentence, which i just quoted, what is it OK for UserY to ask the IP, and what is the IP obligated to reply if they are UserX?

Thanks Jytdog (talk) 19:44, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

The editor (neither as the IP, nor while logged in later) is never obligated to tell anyone that the username is associated with a now-public IP address. It would be morally preferable to ignore the question rather than lying, but seriously: never means never. Some people edit from fixed IP addresses, and disclosing their location means handing out their home or work addresses to every crazy person on the internet. We've had editors stalked from this kind of information, and some of it's pretty scary (like a telephone call that "just happens" to mention the names of the editor's kids and which schools they attend).

There is no formal prohibition on asking once. Such a request should never misrepresent policies, e.g., by claiming that the IP is required to answer such a question. Repeating the request or insisting upon an answer may constitute harassment.

However, my recommendation is that you don't even ask (on wiki). The typical motivation for doing so is to discredit the IP's comments, which generally isn't helpful, much less necessary. Most experienced editors will recognize that situation for what it is even if nobody says a word. If you've got someone skating on the edge of topic ban issues (or similar), then you should quietly send an e-mail message to a checkuser instead. Otherwise, it can be ignored.

A middle ground might be a friendly note to tell the IP that if s/he's accidentally logged out and doesn't want the IP address exposed, then Wikipedia:Requests for oversight is available. For greater safety, if the logged-in editor has e-mail enabled, you could e-mail that friendly note instead of posting it on wiki. WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:11, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I hear that. So, if you suspect that an IP editor is a person with an account who is actually socking (e.g avoiding scrutiny or attemping to multiply their voice), what is the best thing to do? Just not ask at all (which seems to be what you are saying is best) but rather go right to SPI and present the diffs that show why you think that? I generally do prefer to talk things out with editors who are acting in a problematic way on their talk page but based on what you are saying that is really suboptimal here. Emailing checkusers and the like seems complicated and too personal. I think it would be useful to add a practical advice section here, especially due to the sensitivity. Jytdog (talk) 08:28, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Sending an e-mail message to checkusers (or a relevant admin, if one is already involved) is the recommended procedure whenever IP issues crop up. SPI won't accept public requests to connect an IP to a username anyway, so private requests are the only way to do it.

As tempting as it is to talk it out in public, that can (sometimes) be a significant problem. For "avoiding scrutiny" issues, I'd recommend contacting CU or admins privately; for "multiplying voice" problems, I'd either leave it alone (most of us will assume that the IP is the same editor), or if it looks like a potential problem (e.g., an inexperienced NAC is closing an RFC), then contacting others involved might be appropriate. To the extent that it's feasible, please try to keep it either private or low-key. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:21, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. But you wrote "SPI won't accept public requests to connect an IP to a username anyway, so private requests are the only way to do it" and this appears to be untrue - many of the cases there a) are still in the record and b) ended with blocks. So I don't understand where you are coming from with regard to actual practice at SPI. My question remains very open and I am looking for an answer that makes sense in light of privacy concerns and what we actually do here. Jytdog (talk) 17:34, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing do you have anything further to say on this? If not, I will try to elicit responses from more folks, maybe over at the harassment Talk page... Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 13:06, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

OK, I will open a discussion at talk:Harassment about this. Jytdog (talk) 20:11, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

done, here. Jytdog (talk) 21:24, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

@Jytdog: I'm guessing WhatamIdoing meant that public requests for a CheckUser to connect an IP and an account are not accepted. Behavioural evidence alone can be assessed and blocks made. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:24, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Callanecc. That completely makes sense. What is your advice about the scenario I posed above? Go to SPI or ask the person directly? Jytdog (talk) 02:28, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

If it's obvious go straight to SPI. Otherwise leave the IP a message reminding them about the policy (for example Template:Uw-login). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:47, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I think it would be useful to add, then: "If you have concerns that an IP editor is actually a user with an account who is editing while logged out in a way that is an inappropriate use of alternate accounts listed earlier in this policy, you should give the IP editor notice of this policy, and if the behavior continues, you should present a case at WP:SPI" How is that? Jytdog (talk) 02:57, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Hows this, pretty much the same but with a few little changes: "If you have concerns that an IP editor is actually a user with an account who is editing while logged out in a way that is an inappropriate use of alternate accounts listed earlier in this policy, you should give the IP editor notice of this policy (templated notice), and if the behavior continues, you should present a case at WP:SPI (without requesting CheckUser evidence")? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:22, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Way way better. I am good with that. Shall we let this sit a bit and see if others have ideas or are OK with it? Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 03:24, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I closed the discussion I opened at WT:OUTING and directed folks back here. Jytdog (talk) 03:30, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry I've just seen this. I'd actually prefer editors contact a checkuser directly privately first. This allows for 1) The checkuser to investigate if it's a sock, instead of a legitimate user 2) It saves the person from feeling presured to identify themselves at the SPI, or be identified if a block comes in 3) Checkusers can leave public warnings about logged out editing without revealing the IP, or even outright block them. Please exucse me if this doesn't make sense, I am a little tired right now. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 05:00, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

• Is there anyway we could reword the first sentence? It seems over inclusive as there are some prohibited forms of logged out editing. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 05:00, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

How's this:

1. Change There is no policy against editing while logged out. to Editing logged out of one's account is permitted as the IP address(es) is not used inappropriately. Logged out editing happens for many reasons ...
2. Add as a paragraph after the current one in the Editing while logged out section: If you have concerns that an IP editor is actually a user with an account who is editing while logged out in a way that is inappropriate, you can give the IP editor notice of this policy (templated notice), and if the behavior continues, you should contact a CheckUser privately and present evidence to them.

@DeltaQuad and Jytdog:? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:45, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I didn't know there is a list of checkusers at WP:CheckUser. Shows what you I know.  :) Maybe a note that there is actually a list, and that CUs are OK with being emailed or something, although I guess if policy says it, it must be OK. Hm. I just avoid burdening people with burdensome jobs with more stuff when i can. Anyway it seems the two of you have this well in hand and I will bow to your judgement. Thanks so much for your attention to this. This issue came up three times for me recently and one of them was a big ugly mess. it will be great to have clarity on this. Jytdog (talk) 05:52, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

The link to contacting a CU should help. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:27, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes perfect. I am good waiting a bit to see if there is more input but if you want to implement have at it, of course. thanks again. Jytdog (talk) 06:39, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I came here from the discussion at WT:HA. Please let me suggest two more things about the revisions:

1. I think it would be clearer if the last sentence of the existing paragraph were changed from: To protect their privacy, editors who are editing while logged out are never required to disclose their usernames on-wiki. to: To protect their privacy, editors who have edited while logged out are never required to connect their usernames to their IP addresses on-wiki. I think that's what it really means, and after all, the right does not go away after one has stopped editing while logged out, which is what "editors who are editing logged out" sounds like.
2. Just a minor nitpick with Callanecc's #1: Editing while logged out of one's account is permitted as long as the IP address(es) is not used inappropriately. Logged out editing happens for many reasons....

In addition, I have a question about the Uw-login template (which I just learned about here, in fact). I noticed that Callanecc's language was quite precise about using the template to notify the IP user, which makes sense, because that way one does not link the IP to a username. But my question is whether there is any policy or guidance about whether or not to send the template notice to the registered account instead (and if not, should there be)? Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:04, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I really like Tryptofish's first suggestion.

My main concern with "as long as the IP address is not used inappropriately" is that we have a few editors that will probably interpret all edits by people who are accidentally logged out (and not agreeing with said editors) as "inappropriate". AGF might be a guideline, but if you accidentally get logged out, then you're "Creating an illusion of support" and "Contributing to the same page or discussion with multiple accounts" and probably even "Editing logged out to mislead" – and if the dispute isn't on an article's talk page, then I can charge you with "Editing project space", too. Consequently, I think it's helpful to make a stronger statement, much closer to "There is no policy against editing while logged out." There is a policy against editing while logged out and doing something that is prohibited if you were logged into a different account, but there is no actual policy against (simply) editing while logged out. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:13, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. And about the main point you made, you put your finger on something that was making me uncomfortable as well, but that I didn't quite identify until now. Given that there is no policy against it, overall, but there is a violation under certain circumstances, and those circumstances are explained two sentences later, how about: There is no policy against editing while logged out per se., with "per se" added at the end? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:24, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I think that per se would be an important clarification. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:54, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! And two questions to everyone: Are we pretty much in agreement about the revisions at this point? And again, I'm interested in an answer to my earlier question, about the Uw-login template. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:07, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

i'm good. this was very helpful to me at least. thanks everyone. Jytdog (talk) 21:15, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I've implemented it on the page. Other editors may want to double-check my edit. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:18, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

yes you did. thanks again, all. Jytdog (talk) 01:20, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Clarification of WP:FAMILY?

There was a use of WP:FAMILY over at ANI recently that raises some concerns re: institutional sexism. Namely, the implication that if Editor X and Editor Y happen to be married, Editor Y's opinion in the same discussion might be discounted. While I'm not sure that was the intent of the use of WP:FAMILY at ANI, the way the section is written, it could reasonably give rise to such an interpretation. I would suggest that we clarify how WP:FAMILY works. Namely, I think its main application is to short-circuit the argument by a sockpuppeteer that an account that was identified as a sock was just that editor's "little brother" (or something else non-credible). I think it's pretty clear that this policy isn't intended to discount the opinion of one of a pair of established editors whose living arrangements just so happen to mean that they might communicate off-wiki very often. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:54, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree, the situation there has been raised for a few other users, basically that if they happen to be significant others, then they are meatpuppets at best and virtually the same user at worst. We would not have this situation for, as an example, adult siblings living at opposite ends of the country. Specifically, the remark, Obviously consensus can change, but two to three folks and a spouse aren't very much of a consensus. was not appropriate. Here, the language Closely connected users may be considered a single user for Wikipedia's purposes if they edit with the same objectives. is problematic. We need to acknowledge that spouses and other people who might share an IP (such as college dorm roomates or co-workers) need to be treated as equal users... if they tag-team or violate policy, people who can talk across a room are no different from people who organize privately on an off-wiki system. I'd suggest just asking that people with shared IPs add a simple tag, not unlike that used for SOCKLEGIT or doppleganger accounts. Montanabw^(talk) 03:06, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, absolutely. Like I suggested above, the likely reason for this policy was to prevent a CU-caught sock from just claiming to be a relative to avoid a block. That's a very different situation from established editors who have openly stated they have a connection. As much as drawing distinctions in policy for established editors annoys me, this is a situation where editor reputation and credibility must play a role. In any event, I think the short-term answer is to edit WP:FAMILY to clarify that treating two editors as the same person is intended only as a way not to give a caught sock the benefit of the doubt when he or she claims just to be someone related, and is not an argument to be thrown at declared relatives/spouses/roommates. This policy flat out wasn't designed to address suspicions of meatpuppetry or offline "canvassing" of one's spouse/relatives/friends. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:58, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Let's put up some proposed wording. Montanabw^(talk) 05:30, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

What about editors who often edit in contentious areas or get into arguments or engage in edit warring, and decide that having an extra account to help them in such arguments would be a good idea? I think this gives them the right to 6RR if they create an extra account and declare it to be their spouse or significant other or some other relation. MPS1992 (talk) 20:55, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

That's the "my little brother did it" argument, and obvious creation of a new extra account raises sockpullet flags, that's not the point here. The point is that REAL users are being treated like dirt if they edit from the same IP address and in particular, this policy was used to dismiss and belittle a long-time editor. Montanabw^(talk) 04:37, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Sexist, discriminatory language in WP:FAMILY

• "Closely connected users may be considered a single user" Wow. I mean just Wow. This is the 21st century, or it's supposed to be, anyhow. Wikipedia is also struggling with gender bias in coverage, etc. And you want such sexist, discriminatory language – here on a WP:POLICY page, no less? Are you saying that married female editors are less than one editor? That their husband's voices are heard and counted, but their voice and their thoughts are just tamped down into silence? I do hope this is merely an awkward misphrasing. Did you mean to write, perhaps, "Closely connected users may appear to be a single user in some contexts, or something similar? I mean, the remainder of the section is about declaring one's connections... In its current state, I am genuinely troubled by this sexist language.   Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 19:58, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

• If the family in question consists of two males married to each other, and one male child, and all three edit Wikipedia, how is this sexist? Does the page mention gender at all? MPS1992 (talk) 20:50, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

• Nice try.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 20:52, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

• Does the page mention gender at all? What is sexist about it, as written? MPS1992 (talk) 20:56, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

• Because our community is largely male, and men have dominated the community for longer, the current language is privileging the editors that are likely to have arrived first: white, highly educated males. In that sense its reinforcing privelage, which is very likely to be in favor of men and harm women. Sadads (talk) 12:58, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

• Thank you, I do not have much background knowledge in these theories of privilege and, as you put it in your edit summary, "power structures beyond the literal". Do you think, though, that in terms of writing an encyclopedia, supporting and retaining -- and even favouring -- "highly educated" individuals as editors might not be an entirely bad thing? MPS1992 (talk) 13:21, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, highly educated (and privileged to some extent) is probably our "ideal" contributor. But I know featured article writers who don't have bachelors degrees -- so we don't want to unintentionally create language or barriers where individuals are unintentionally marginalized or will self elect from participation -- after all this is the encyclopedia anyone can edit and we ought to be judging the accounts on contributions not their social connections to others. This is a Intersectional identities further complicate this conversation: historically marginalized communities, like women and African Americans may have qualifications but don't fit the ideal "model" for participation, further complicate our ability to recruit all levels of education from these groups because they don't have the same type socialization in the "be bold" culture that comes with white educated, male privilege -- so frequently will not defend themselves as is normal in combative educated/masculine communities or when they do, get called out for being too aggressive (think Gamergate type "aggressive bitch" comments, but in all ranges of overt to passive criticism). If we want the people that are qualified from those communities, we have to be careful not to unintentionally create policies which either work against their own confidence, or can be accidentally used against them in policy debates -- every micro aggression creates self doubt, which will often catalyze exit or marginalization within the community. I am going to do the tweak mentioned by Lingzhi, and a couple other language tweaks in light of that. In general, the best thing to do when someone gets angry about "sexism" or "racism" is to listen, and try to figure out what the root of that concern is so that you can help find a solution, Sadads (talk) 16:05, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

• Sadads, I'm sure you didn't intend this, but your post above makes it sound as though white men = highly educated; women and African Americans = probably less so. In fact, highly educated men on Wikipedia tend to be among the less aggressive, so the link between white men and education is misleading, as is the link between education and aggression. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:10, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

• @Slimvirgin: -- Oops, that was totally not my intention -- tweaked to better reflect what I mean to focus on -- that was not intentional by any means, Sadads (talk) 12:54, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, that is what I am trying to do. I am grateful that you took the time to answer my questions and helped me to gain a little more understanding of the reasons for the rather surprising comments above. MPS1992 (talk) 16:19, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

• Awesome MPS1992: I think what your initial questions in this conversation did was suggest you were trying to disprove the case of Lingzhi, rather than demonstrating that you were listening. Inquiries to better understand a perceived bias, should start with some type of acknowledgement that the author has a valid personal opinion -- so that you communicate that you are trying to be empathetic (for example, "I am sorry that you feel that way, but I am not sure if I understand what you mean by sexism. Can you explain...." ). Frequently counterfactual questions like the one you started with are used to attack marginalized people when they question the status quo, rather than to understand the position of those people. Bringing yourself into the conversation and acknowledging their opinion as valid, helps soften the challenge of communicating about marginalized communities (something that is particularly hard to do in written communications). Keep asking questions and opening conversations! Sadads (talk) 16:33, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

• I am certainly NOT here "to attack marginalized people". Maybe you should be "listening" better, rather than trying to marginalize me! Counterfactual assertions like the ones used by the OP here, and likewise their dismissive reply to my first question, do not help the situation in any way, and I have only so much patience for passive aggressive attacks on me for daring to challenge them. The treatment I've received in this thread is the exact opposite of anything that would encourage me to "keep asking questions and opening conversations". I think you owe me an apology, first, and if you can bring yourself to do that, then please explain what "the case of Lingzhi" is. MPS1992 (talk) 20:42, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

• @MPS1992:When I first read your response to Lingzi, I read it as an aggressive attack. I know why Lingzi responded that way they did, and part of me wanted to: its the kind of attack used throughout the internet to reduce the complaints of marginalized voices. I did not mean to imply you were attacking: I engaged with you in this conversation, because I WP:Assumed good faith and hope to mentor you in positive communication -- that both allows you to explore this issue and doesn't mirror the kinds of passive aggressive language and communication found throughout the rest of the internet. I apologize that intention wasn't clear in my feedback (like I said communicating about marginalized communities in written spaces is hard (see my mistake that SlimVirgin identified above)). Because we make mistakes in communicating around these issues, we need to be open to "you used a bad tactic, please consider trying a different strategy". I hope you keep engaging: these are really hard conversations to have with nuance, Sadads (talk) 13:04, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Interesting. When I first read MPS1992's reply, I thought it was a decent reply to someone who appeared to be trying to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point by reading gender discrimination into something that clearly had nothing to do with gender. Anomie⚔ 19:30, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

• @Lingzhi: Does this this edit help with your concerns? If not, let us know what else we could do to make sure that the language isn't erasing the individuals as individuals. Sadads (talk) 16:15, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Tweaking the policy

• I reverted the edit made by Sadads. First of all, the policy change needs broader discussion and consensus. Second, the edit is not helpful. I think that you two do not understand the meaning of this policy (the whole sockpuppet issue is overly technical, I know). This policy is intended to prevent people from abusing the system. It is intended to prevent a group of people who are personally connected (in any way: friends, family, co-workers, ...) to team up in discussions and try to push their POV by outnumbering the opposition. This policy is purely technical: you are not allowed to recruit friends and family to join discussion and help you to "win". It has nothing to do with gender or anything similar. It seams to me, from Lingzhi's comments above that they understand this policy aims to prevent women to have their own opinion by considering them a single user with their husband/boyfriend/whatever. But, that is not the meaning of this policy. Two people who are personally connected may freely edit Wikipedia, and express they own opinions as long as they do not try to abuse the system by teaming up to appear as two separate people having the same opinion separately of each other. So, the policy actually has a meaning that is opposite to what Lingzhi said. This policy actually encourages a woman (or any other person) to have their own opinion, and not to join discussion on the side of their friends/family just to help them to push their view. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:40, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

(←) }@Vanjagenije: What you said all sounds nice and all, really it does, but unfortunately what you said is not what the policy says. All this pleasant discussion has led to exactly zero action, and only action will correct the wrong. Revise the wording to make it crystal clear that WP:FAMILY can NOT be used in debate as a big eraser to cancel out anyone's voice. Period. Ever. Two voices are TWO voices, not ONE. Always. And everywhere. Is that reasonably clear?  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 23:05, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Could you be a little clearer, please? What wrong has occurred? MPS1992 (talk) 23:16, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)What I wrote is exactly what the policy says. If you do not understand it (or do not want to understand), that is your problem. We should not be changing the text of the policy every time somebody does not understand it. The policy clearly says that "connected users may be considered a single user [...] if they edit with the same objectives. "Same objectives" means that there aren't "two voices", but one voice. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:18, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

• Then it's discrimination, prima facie, cut and dried. I agree that the section doesn't need to be revised. DELETE. RFC, or just talk page? Whatever is necessary.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:14, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

• Vanjangenije, that "one voice" comment is precisely the problem. That is absolute discrimination. In fact, such a statement may violate US Federal Law. A husband and wife, or parent and child should NOT be invalidated simply for sharing a household. They should disclose if they are editing from the same IP to avoid being labeled sockpuppets, and their connection may go to the weight of their argument, (and this is true of lot of other people who tagteam) but not their right to make it. Montanabw^(talk) 04:44, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

This policy is not targeting any gender or group. It does not prevent two people in the same household from editing, it certainly does not favour white males. This whole interpretation seems to involve reading something into the policy that is just not there. HighInBC 05:37, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

• • With all the best intentions, this policy discriminates against married couples, explicitly, openly, and in fact deliberately. I will open an RfC if I can find time....— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lingzhi (talk • contribs) 05:43, 3 April 2016‎ (UTC)
    • I disagree with your interpretation. This policy discriminates on the basis of shared Internet access—nothing more. It doesn't care about what relationship may or may not exist: cohabiting spouses are in the same position as cohabiting unmarried couples, friends sharing housing, or college roommates randomly assigned the same room. I think you're way off base in saying this policy deliberately discriminates against marriage couples when it doesn't discriminate based on marriage at all. Also, this is not an arbitrary policy: it's guided by very serious evidentiary issues. If the language were removed, what's to stop me from abusively socking and, when confronted, claiming that my sock account is actually a spouse, roommate, or child?  Rebbing  06:06, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
      • You folks can disagree all you want, the reality is that this policy is used to discriminate against married people, and dismisses a "spouse" as "one voice" in an editing discussion. Three long-term editors are seriously thinking about quitting wikipedia over this issue. At the very least, the phrasing needs to reflect that the issue is only intended to stop socking and not to tell people in the same house that they are "one voice" in an article debate. That, my friends, is wrong. Montanabw^(talk) 01:05, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
        • ^What Montanabw said: it doesn't matter what the intention of the policy see, if it can be used (largely without knowledge of the initial writers's intention) to attack a spouse, and allide them into a singular voice. What we are asking for here is a preemptive tweaking of language, to not remove the stopping power of the policy, but to limit its application so it doesn't become a weapon in future conversations. Sadads (talk) 13:15, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Lingzhi - what do you suggest as a replacement? The problem the policy is here to solve us obvious: one person writing "I live in a house with my six brothers who all think the same way", and making six sock puppet accounts that happen to edit alike, and can't be distinguished by CheckUser. What do you propose to replace this?--GRuban (talk) 01:13, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

• GRuban We might want to close this thread. It's a little redundant, because I started an RfC lower down on this same page to delete or revise that section of the policy.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:23, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Would using an alternate account to edit more sensitive subjects be considered sock puppetry?

I know it is considered sock puppetry if you create multiple accounts to do activities against Wikipedia's rules (such as advocacy, vandalism, etc.). Is it considered sock puppetry if one creates an alternate account to edit more sensitive subjects (ex. abortion, religion, war, etc.) without violating any of Wikipedia's rules? An example of what I am talking about is a user who wants to discuss and edit articles about some current ongoing heated scandal but fears his edits will be taken the wrong way and his internet reputation gets ruined. Would that be against WP:SOCK?45.58.219.100 (talk) 07:41, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

See WP:VALIDALT, point no. 2: Privacy: 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 to avoid real-world consequences from their editing or other Wikipedia actions in that area. Vanjagenije (talk) 09:58, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

As long as you only use one of your accounts to edit content and discussions of any specific topic, you are clearly not violating SOCK, even if you make reasonable effort to prevent these accounts from being associated with each other; unless you engage in behavior which, if were done by a single account, would be likely to get this account blocked on-wiki. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:23, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Should WP:FAMILY be deleted from WP:SOCK?

Does the WP:FAMILY section of this page (WP:SOCK) contribute significantly to Wikipedia, in light of existing alternatives? Does it create any harm? If both, does either outweigh the other? Should WP:FAMILY be deleted from this page?  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 06:05, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

• With all the best intentions, WP:FAMILY openly and in fact deliberately discriminates against family units (in particular, married couples). I contend that there is real unintended harm here, which outweighs any perceived or imagined benefits:

1. In the typical case, we are talking about erasing/discounting only one !vote from a discussion. If the discussion is close enough or small enough that only one vote alters consensus, then the vote is also close is enough that it should be reasonably moved to another level of content dispute anyhow, rendering WP:FAMILY unnecessary.
2. Does Wikipedia REALLY want to openly discriminate based on demography? Is this practice conceptually in line with the environment WP that wants to create, live within, and expose within our WP:POLICY interface to the non-wiki world? Only if absolutely necessary, I would suggest. And given that multiple alternative means of resolving any cases of Gaming of the system via family voting can be found, is FAMILY both redundant and ideologically toxic?
3. I would conclude with the observation that ALTERING the section to remove its discriminatory effect would be impossible, since its stated goal (with all best intentions) is to discriminate. It can only be deleted OR left intact.

• As a final note, I would anticipate that early !voters in this RfC would be policy page watchers, who might have a generally stare decisis attitude toward deletion of existing section, so the RfC should be publicized, and should be held open for a reasonably extended period of time.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 06:06, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Comment: I don't think that WP:FAMILY "openly" or "deliberately discriminates" against family units, but I do agree that the current wording is problematic, primarily because it seems to contravene WP:AGF. WP:FAMILY seems to be assuming meatpuppetry or sock puppetry, just because two people who (for example) co-habitate also share common ideas on a topic. We can reasonably expect two people living together might share some common opinions, but that is not puppetry and does not mean we should ignore one of them. Imagine if the electoral commission decided that if both you and your spouse/partner voted for the same candidate or political party, only one of the votes would count! I do recognize that sock/meat puppetry is a real problem, but I think AGF should carry more weight. I suggest that WP:FAMILY should be reworded, something like:

If two or more registered editors use the same computer or network connection, their accounts may be linked by a CheckUser. Editors in this position are advised to may declare such connections on their user pages to avoid accusations of sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry. There are userboxes available for this; see {{User shared IP address}}.

Closely connected users may be considered a single user for Wikipedia's purposes if they edit with the same objectives. This is particularly the case 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.

(And probably then move the "userboxes" sentence to the end.)

Mitch Ames (talk) 07:12, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

As somebody openly married to an editor with large cross over in views and interests (thats why we married!), I dont have a problem with the wording of the policy, which is necessary when fakery is involved, but its *application* by a very few when fakery is not. However, wanton misapplication is rare, and we cant leglislate for foolish probably deliberate misreadings. Ceoil (talk) 11:36, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I find the current wording proscriptive and a little patronising. I would be happy with Mitch Ames amendment. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:58, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose Are you reading the whole section? It says "Closely connected users may be considered a single user for Wikipedia's purposes if they edit with the same objectives.". Emphasis added by me. Any two users, family or not who work together outside of Wikipeida who work with the same objectives are engaging in meat puppetry. Notice it says may, as in if it makes sense to do so. Two family members living in the same place who edit with their own objectives are not in violation of this policy. If someone told you otherwise they were flat out wrong. There is no discrimination against family units here, it is a rule against meat puppetry. The recommendation for disclosure is to avoid mistaken blocks. We can reword it to make it more clear but I oppose changing its intended meaning. HighInBC 14:15, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I believe the language as it stands allows for selective discrimination, by which I mean that an established editor's marital status may be used against them without warning. I try hard to stay away from any policy discussions or !votes in which my husband is involved. That said, I edited here for several years before my marriage, and I do not allow that it changes my voice here. I note that no one has seen fit to chastise the man involved here, only the woman, not that I think it is deserved in either case. But I also think that the idea that I ought to be silenced as a "spouse" is faulty. I have declared our relationship from the start. If I hadn't, would I still be subject to censure and silencing? I think not. But feel free to converse on IRC about it. Kafka Liz (talk) 16:42, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, yes, in this specific instance, but in broader terms, no. HighInBC is wrong in on many footings, even not withstanding the massive assumptions of bad faith. For eg I'm not sure how *their own objectives* can ever be defined or policed. It reads like licence for cowboy admins. Ceoil (talk) 16:54, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

What assumption of bad faith? What objectives? Not sure what you mean. HighInBC 17:21, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

It is really hard to respond to that without knowing what you are referring too. Who chastised you? What were the circumstances? The wording of the policy does not target any group. It does not even mention the word family, that is just a shortcut link name. It is about shared IP addresses and nothing more. It is advice about disclosure to avoid accidental blocks, it is a way to avoid people using their little brother as an excuse. I would like to see the circumstances of the situation you complain about because I think this may be more to do with someone misinterpreting the policy than a problem with the policy itself. HighInBC 16:51, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

[1] Note that we are narrowly focused on 15 c art, hardly the realm of meatpupperty. Ceoil (talk) 16:57, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Well I don't think we should change policy because one person gave some bad advice. Suffice to say I disagree with NE Ent's interpretation of policy in that diff, and I seriously doubt any admin would act on their opinion. It would be better to correct NE Ent's interpretation of the policy than it would be to throw the policy away. HighInBC 17:23, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

That's also my POV, if you had read further back, with out both fists barreled. Ceoil (talk) 17:24, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I realized that but I see how my comment could be seen as directed at you. My point was that the situation linked to does not seem to justify the action being proposed here, and I have not seem much more supporting the idea. HighInBC 17:40, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

But the question here is: does the presence of this section of the policy serve any useful purpose, at all, ever, and if so, does it do so in a manner that cannot be duplicated by other policies or practices? In other words, please defend your keep with something other than "I disagree"  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 17:33, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I have. I have said "It is advice about disclosure to avoid accidental blocks, it is a way to avoid people using their little brother as an excuse." I should think the purpose is clear. It was created in response to people getting accidentally seen as sock puppets due to using the same IP as a family member, it was created because people would sock puppet and then blame their little brother. It needs to be applied with sense, and if misapplied then the community can deal with that. It has served us well for a long time.

I am happy to entertain alternate wording that gets the same point across while reducing the chance of the misunderstanding that you experienced. But simply removing the section is a non-starter for me. HighInBC 17:38, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Me also. A tighter reign on admins and wanna be admins would be preferable, but outside scope. We have trout, but its not very often effective. People predisposed to dramaboards should not just police those dragged there, but each other from time to time. Ent, like Bugs before him, and may others before that are allowed to roam wantonly, with retarded advice, that people who are not predisposed take as rule, with dastardly results. Ceoil (talk) 17:43, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

(←) But what User:HighInBC is saying it does is not even vaguely similar to what it says it does. The section is not a warm friendly lotsa love little helper to prevent confusion; it's a stern and explicit statement that "we can discount your voice; we can consider you as one user with a family member." And the word "may" does precisely nothing to soften that. In fact, the word "may" is being applied to an activity and an attitude that should never be countenanced. If you want to keep anything in the section, feel free to keep the title. Everything else needs to be scrapped and rewritten so that says what you say it should say.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 17:54, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

That is not what it says though. It is a warning about what may happen if two people edit from the same IP. It says " accounts may be linked by a CheckUser", this is a technical fact, if two people edit from the same IP then their accounts indeed may be linked. It gives friendly advice to declare such connections on ones user pages to avoid accusations of sockpuppetry. As for "Closely connected users may be considered a single user for Wikipedia's purposes if they edit with the same objectives.", this just seems like a restatement of our meat puppetry policy.

It is fairly clear we disagree on this. How about we step back and wait for more opinions to come other people? No sense in going around in circles. HighInBC 18:05, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

@HighInBC:, in response to your "Any two users, family or not who work together outside of Wikipeida who work with the same objectives are engaging in meat puppetry." — I strongly disagree with this, because "edit/work with the same objectives" is far too vague. Ultimately don't we all have the same WP:OBJECTIVE - to build/improve an encyclopaedia. Likewise "work together outside of Wikipedia" is too vague. What constitutes "outside of Wikipedia"? Is an offline WP:MEETUP "inside" or "outside"? The Perth editors (including me) regularly meet to socialise and discuss things Wikipedian? Is this meat puppetry? Sometimes we discuss specific topics that we are all working on, eg Toodyaypedia; most recently we discussed creating and improving articles for Category:Cathedral Square, Perth - by your definition that would be meat-puppetry. Perhaps a documented WP:MEETUP counts as "inside" Wikipedia, but what if one of us phone another to discuss some detail? Is that puppetry? Where do you draw the line? Mitch Ames (talk) 09:59, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

All of our policies are vague. Unlike a set of laws that tries to cover every little possibility we allow common sense to be applied which lets us keep our rules relatively simple. It is the spirit of the rule that we enforce, and if the spirit is unclear we should be more specific. If you have wording that alleviates your concerns I am happy to hear it, but I don't think this policy is being misinterpreted like that very often, really I have only seen the one example. HighInBC 15:51, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I included my proposed changes in a comment fairly early in this RFC: [2]. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:46, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. This part of the policy is absolutely necessary to prevent possible abuses. Without that, a person would be able to do everything WP:ILLEGIT without punishment because they can always claim the other account(s) belong to their family. And there is no way to check that out. So, this is purely technical policy that closes the loophole that would otherwise make the whole WP:SOCK policy unenforceable. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:11, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
  • @Vanjagenije: Can you accept the revision of Mitch Ames, which at least removes the more blatantly offensive wording?  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:27, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
    • No. First, I don't see anything offensive, let alone "blatantly offensive", in the current wording. Second, I don't support Mitch Ames' proposal because it changes the very substance of this policy. The proposal only says that two people sharing the same IP and same POV may declare the connection in order to be accused of sockpuppetry. But, two people sharing the same IP and same POV have to declare connection because that is sockpuppetry. Vanjagenije (talk) 07:30, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

"two people sharing the same IP and same POV ... is sockpuppetry." — No. WP:SOCK defines sockpuppetry as "The use of multiple Wikipedia user accounts for an improper purpose" (my emphasis). Two people sharing the same IP and and point of view does not automatically mean "improper purpose". I agree it may raise reasonable suspicions, but that's not the same as automatically presuming guilt. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:20, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support the suggestions of Mitch Ames. This policy has been misused, and it has been used in a manner that, frankly, probably constitutes a violation of U.S. Federal law against discrimination based on sex of marital status. And everyone, please! It's a tighter REIN, not "reign" (**headdesk**) "Closely connected users may be considered a single user for Wikipedia's purposes if they edit with the same objectives" is language that has to go. I would suggest that if people are worried about socking and meatpuppetry (which is a legitimate worry), we could add something like "This section only applies to issues of sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry, it is not a policy or guideline to be cited in editing discussions involving users known to be separate people with a shared IP. Users with established independent accounts and a verifiable editing history as separate users are not to be deemed a "single user" under this section." I know that phrasing is a bit complicated, but I hope my point is clear. Montanabw^(talk) 01:13, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose As per Vanjagenijie. Required due to the technical inability to differentiate between two (or more) people editing from the same property/computer in many cases of sockpuppetry, and checkuser is completely ineffective against meatpuppetry. Montanabw's 'probably constitutes a violation of federal law blah blah' argument is a load of ignorant rubbish. Its gender-neutral, since it doesnt matter if the related people are male/female/transgender, and as for relationships, it can (and has in the past) been equally applied to house-sharers, casual relationships, people in UNI halls and so on. So claiming its discriminating because of gender (really, what one?) or to married couples is frankly ludicrous. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:35, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
• Remove completely. This is absolute tripe. If you believe somebody's lying about having a brother or sister, that falls under 'lying'; you don't need a separate clause for it. Sharing an IP or even having a close relationship with someone should not be incriminating, nor should it strip you of your individuality. 31.153.64.211 (talk) 10:09, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support Mitch Ames's revision - as I tried to do with my edit the other day: see this diff, we are dealing with poor language can be used as a weapon against unwitting couples with similar interests (well duh they have similar interests, thats why they are a couple). Sadads (talk) 13:10, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

It is, by design to prevent meatpuppetry, intended to be used against *anyone* in a close enough relationship that when editing in the same area they speak as one voice. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:13, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

@Only in death: Okay so it was designed with good intentions, but now it has become a weapon that catches a particular class of people. It doesn't matter what the intention of the policy was if it can be used (largely without knowledge of the initial writers's intention) to attack a spouse, and alide them into a singular voice. What we are asking for here is a preemptive tweaking of language, to not remove the stopping power of the policy, but to limit its application so it doesn't become a weapon in future conversations. We have at least one case of it being used as a weapon, if we don't change the policy: we are allowing future arguments to use this policy as a weapon, and displacing the issue to future conflicts, rather to what could be a small congenial revisions right here and now. We are basically creating future discrimination and conflict, by not listening to what has already happened, Sadads (talk) 13:22, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

The only class of people it catches are people who live together. That is by design. No gender, relationship or other discrimination applies. And last I checked 'living arrangements' are not a protected group. People who live in the same house and edit in the same area and hold the same opinions are one voice. It is impossible to technically tell them apart these days given the amount of devices one can access the internet with, PC's, phones, games consoles, tablets. This provision is designed to prevent meatpuppetry which is not provable by technical means. AGF goes so far as to assume that people editing from a shared IP are not the same person. It does not go so far as to allow them to sway discussions because the result of that would be my nine brothers independantly deciding to vote the same way. It is precisely a weapon to be used against meatpuppetry. You talk about not listening to what has already happened, you clearly have not listened to what already happened to *require* this provision. There are plenty of meatpupptry cases, 'My brother/sister/housemate/girlfriend/boyfriend/husband/wife is the other editor'. The end result of removing this provision is *more* arguments not less because in any future discussion where known related users start voting the same way, it will devolve into accusations (that cannot be disproved) of canvassing and meatpuppetry. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:38, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps if you were to think of "vote" discussions as an opportunity for fellow human beings to work through their differences, it would help to see where the minority are coming from. If you keep treating each other like professional children around here, there's very little hope. 31.153.17.162 (talk) 14:08, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Well given the reaction of 2 editors is to threaten to take their ball and go home if they dont get their way, perhaps if people didnt want to be treated like children they shouldnt act like them. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:22, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

It might help if they weren't treated like children in the first place. Just a thought. You may care to note that the editors involved have for the most part returned. Kafka Liz (talk) 14:37, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

There's nothing childish about not wanting to fraternise with people who seem to question your humanity. Besides, if they're in a relationship, wouldn't that be a child, singular? 31.153.17.162 (talk) 19:47, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Is it improper to ask for examples where this has obviously been applied to a couple (of any make up) who have been negatively affected by the wording since I have seen SPI etc. where the attempt to claim innocent connections has been made but I haven't seen people being bullied by the incorrect suggestion using this..(Note, I'm NOT saying it isn't happening - but so far people are saying it has affected people but giving no examples). The wording reads fine to me, it is as precise as it needs to be IMHO but if I am missing a large group of people who are being discriminated against as a result of the wording I would like to know. ☕ Antiqueight ^haver 01:16, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose removal - otherwise, users will sock from their own home, and blame their family members for it; the policy doesn't say that they are considered a single user and must be treated as such, only that they may be if they have the same agenda here. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:54, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose per Vanjagenijie. NE Ent 23:26, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

No change in wording is necessary. I'm reasonably confident -- no, make that extremely confident -- that were an editor to misinterpret the policy in an inappropriate context the magnitude of community feedback would be such that they will never, ever make that particular mistake twice. NE Ent 23:01, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

What is the one true interpretation of this policy then? Only in death above appears to think that anyone in a 'close enough relationship' is a meat puppet. Actually, can we stop calling people 'meat puppets'? It's beginning to miff me. What sort of misanthrope comes up with this crap anyway? 31.153.17.162 (talk) 23:22, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

See Wikipedia's policy and explanation on meatpuppetry. It is a problem, and reports of this are legitimate if correct. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:26, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't disagree that actual 'meat puppetry' is a problem. (I disagree with how it's handled, beginning with using the term 'meat puppet'.) 31.153.17.162 (talk) 23:30, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• Revise or remove. Like many aspects of the sockpuppetry policy, this has been subject to significant scope creep. Intended as a way to say "Yeah, sure, you think we haven't heard that one before?" to obvious liars, it was then extended to mean "if we really can't tell if your friend is real or imaginary, we'll treat them as the latter" - which is a pretty clear example of the technical tail wagging the social dog. But then it's been further extended as "if we know damn well you are two separate people, both with long editing histories, we are nevertheless going to assume that you're colluding with each other whenever the possibility arises". That's not only a plain assumption of bad faith, but it relies on a model of real-life human relationships that is, at best, not generalizable. While the issue has been sorted out in the particular instance that gave rise to this discussion, the purpose of changing the policy is to spare the community the need to provide the same feedback repeatedly, and to spare individuals receiving that feedback. It's actually quite interesting to see how willing people are to dismiss a problem that's been demonstrated to exist on the ground of hypothetical scenarios. Do you really think "little brother" lies will become more believable if there's no WP:OMGWTFBBQ about it? Will checkusers start accepting obvious lies without a wikipolicy telling them not to?

  Given the demographics of the project, it's hardly surprising that the context in which this has come up, and the most likely ongoing effect of such an unreasonably expansive reading, is unnecessarily dismissing the contributions of women whose male partners are also active editors. A superficially gender-neutral policy that has disproportionate effects on one gender is sexist, even if the policy's advocates aren't.

  And as long as we're here, I agree with 31 above that we need to rethink how we talk about this issue. The Wikipedia usage of the term "meat puppet" may have once been a bit of a joke, but come on now. We keep talking about "professionalism" about much more trivial stuff like Anglo-Saxonisms in the Signpost. This project already has a reputation for a male-nerd-dominated internal culture; when people unironically discuss the specific circumstances under which we can call a woman a "meat puppet", it only reinforces that impression. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:32, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support removal: It's an old-fashioned policy for a bygone era, back when people didn't legitimately have multiple people in the same family editing, and when disputes were less frequent. Its recent misuse, even if unintentional, only highlights how serious a problem this policy poses. Really, this is pure instruction creep that has just remained well-hidden until now. Just remove it. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:14, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support changing to reflect reality...Modernist (talk) 02:20, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose, per Vanjagenijie. The proposed change isn't needed. APerson (talk!) 16:31, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose generally, fine with proposed rewording by Mitch Ames above. Given the general inability to identify single users on networks and shared IPs, there is a need for statements like FAMILY/ROOMMATE. This is a technological limitation. I find arguments about discrimination unpersuasive given any actual evidence of harm as well as unspoorted claims that this would affect married people more than, say, college roommates, coworkers, or cohabiters. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:08, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose removing to the extent that this means disregarding common IP address as evidence of socking. If this simply removes the suggestion of self-identification in favor of some other way to avoid being incorrectly identified as a sock, fine, whatever works. Socking is a major, pernicious problem on Wikipedia that has a very negative impact on the articles and the editing environment. The last thing we need to do is to give another tool to sock operators. Rationales #1 and #2 stated in the RfC are not valid. First, the balance of many RfC and other !votes, editing disputes, and process wars, can indeed be tipped by a single editor, particularly a very determined one. Second, if there is a discrimination it is one based on reality, that multiple people are sharing a single IP address. It is not that we are going out of our way to inconvenience multiple family members, roommates, employees, internet cafe patrons, etc., based on their affinity, but rather that they have done something that is convenient to themselves (saving money by sharing a single online connection), but has its limitations. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:15, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose removal per Vanjagenijie, it is necessary to prevent abuse. I'm ambivalent, leaning oppose on the rewording too. ansh666 01:37, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
• To the questions asked: yes, yes, yes, and no (oppose both deletion and the proposed edit). The number of genuine people editing from a single address is much less than the number of imaginary people that are created. I sympathize with the people who think that their "vote" is not worth as much since their roommate/spouse/sibling/whatever is also an editor, but note that actual counting of good faith votes is rare in Wikipedia. Much more often it is the perception of being outnumbered, edit warring, and so forth, where numbers matter - in other words, numbers mostly matter to bad actors, much less so to good faith participants. If someone can propose a way that would allow a genuine roommate to "count" but yet allow detection of sockpuppets, I would be all for that, but so far I have not seen such a proposal. When I asked Lingzhi, just above, they pointedly avoiding answering. --GRuban (talk) 01:46, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
  • @GRuban: Sorry slow to reply. I don't know a perfect answer. Perhaps rather than finding a way to perfectly cover the "I have six brothers, yeah, that's the ticket" case, the focus should be instead on providing better wording that better handles the "we're married and we tend naturally to agree a lot" case. The section as it stands is aggressive, offensive because it does not WP:AGF.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 22:17, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose both removing and continuing this nonsense. The original thread is strong with WP:CIR and weak on WP:COMMONSENSE resulting in some faux outrage to justify using WP policy as a way to WP:RGWs. The fact that people here are making WP:LEGALTHREATs about gender relating to a policy that has nothing to do with gender is just icing on the cake. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 18:48, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose removal. Support rewording as Mitch Ames and Montanabw suggest. Anomie⚔ 19:30, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose any change to policy or its wording. The change requested, as has only slowly become clear, was a reaction to a foolish comment made by one editor in one place citing this policy; this was seen as a "wrong" against which action must be taken. The change was needed because "only action will correct the wrong" (wording used above). Meanwhile, absolutely no-one supported the foolish comment as being a legitimate interpretation of this policy, and even further, the editor that made the foolish comment has now apologised unreservedly to the people involved, and mentioned their realisation in this thread. As one of the targets of the foolish comment has sensibly said already, it was the application, not the policy, that was the problem. The policy is fine, and is necessary. MPS1992 (talk) 20:51, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
• Meh. I think a lot of things could be merged under WP:DEJAMOO and this is probably one of them. Guy (Help!) 22:29, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
• Not removed, but wording can always be improved. Different editors sharing the same IP and/or computer can easily be misidentified as a single person pretending to be different people. Explaining the situation on the user's userpage is good advice. Regular IP editors should be more strongly advised to register an account. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:18, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support removal of the WP:FAMILY shortcut from the linkbox. It is not helpful. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:20, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose removal or rewording. Removing this policy would make it harder to deal with WP:TAGTEAM cases. In addition, I cannot see where exactly the "gender discrimination" lies in this policy itself and hence, I don't feel there is a need to reword it. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:10, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
• Weak Support for removal - The section that family members may be sockpuppets is comparable to the provision about meatpuppetry in general, which is ambiguous, and, because it is ambiguous, is contentious. The FAMILY section and the MEATPUPPET section should be blown up and started over. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:47, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
• Revise or remove - mostly per Opabinia regalis who nails it. To expand a little - I've looked at the history, going back seven years and found that in March 2009, the wording was somewhat different. But - even then it mentions editing with the same objective and that's problematic, in my view. In the case that sparked this discussion, two editors who edited from separate IP addresses for many years now share an IP. For years their objective has been to write content and bring it to FA quality. According to the policy, as written, that's a single objective and now that they share an IP only one of the two can, for instance, claim credit for work done when one their articles gains a star. This is only a single example, but somehow the wording should reflect that they are a family and not here to do harm. Victoria (tk) 20:05, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• Er - what? Where is there anything in the rules about claiming credit for work done on an article? --GRuban (talk) 22:45, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• Well gosh - try reading WP:UCS when editors work really hard and really long on articles and they know where true credit belongs...someone comes along and well............then we read WP:IAR because sometimes the rools just aren't enough for every circumstance...Modernist (talk) 22:54, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• Read them all. Still puzzled. Where does any rule say only one account in a family can claim credit for work done on an article? --GRuban (talk) 23:32, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• I guess I'm agreeing with you there...If 2 people are related and are also capable and first rate editors regarding similar sublects then it should not matter if they have related ip numbers...Modernist (talk) 01:17, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

• On some level we're all agreeing. The example I used is absurd, intentionally so, but a close read of the wording seems to support it. Hence a call for revision. Victoria (tk) 23:57, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

* No, sorry. Not agreeing. Even reading closely, still don't see any language that says "only one of the two can claim credit for work done". In fact, I've never seen any rule at all limiting claims of credit. Please, point it out. --GRuban (talk) 04:04, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

• This discussion arose specifically due to someone who used WP:FAMILY in a content dispute with the remark, "two to three folks and a spouse aren't very much of a consensus." followed by other statements like "why [redacted] made the distinction of noting one was a spouse - as it has specific relevance in close-consensus discussions." The discussion then blew up across multiple user and project talk pages before landing here. I can't recall if the WP:FAMILY cite was at the ANI or on one of the talk pages, but it clearly WAS used as a "spouses are only one entity" argument. Montanabw^(talk) 17:53, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose removal and rewording - If two users are linked via a checkuser because it can be shown they have engaged in behavior similar to that of sockpuppetry, even though it isn't sockpuppetry, the same penalties should apply (basically it is a form of meatpuppetry). It can be hard to prove they are not the same user, especially if they edit anonymously. I suggest we add wording encouraging closely connected users to maintain a Chinese wall when it comes to collaboration especially in disputes and policy discussions.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 20:24, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose removal. This is clearly a net benefit. Without this, any user could successfully claim that they're two people when questioned on it. The problem here is an overly broad interpretation of what's written, not the writing itself. I especially like the existing wording about treating your accounts as if they are one. This assists editors who are co-located in avoiding ever running into situations where people question them on their connection in the first place, which is ideal. ~ Rob^Talk 03:08, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
• Strong support - for all the reasons already stated in support of a rewrite. It reeks of bleed-over from WP:COI, WP:SPA and WP:ADVOCACY for all the wrong reasons, and we are failing to WP:AGF which places us dangerously close to throwing the baby out with the bathwater in a very discriminatory manner. Like-mindedness is not a bad thing for WP unless we're talking about noncompliance with WP:PAG which requires a common sense approach if a dispute arises, not an investigation into the private lives of our editors. Family or not, the focus needs to be on patterned behavior and obvious purpose of the account which is easy enough to assimilate by reviewing user contributions. ^{Atsme📞📧} 13:02, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Claims of Sock-Puppetry

Maybe I am looking right at it and not seeing it. I am aware that the idle allegation of sock-puppetry is a personal attack. Where is that written? I don't see it in this policy, and I don't see it in the personal attacks policy. Am I overlooking it in plain sight? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:41, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Also, is the statement that there is substantial evidence of sock-puppetry, but not accompanied by the filing of a sock-puppet investigation, permitted, or is an SPI required in order to continue to claim sock-puppetry in talk page discussions? (I am aware that statement is a little non-neutral. If someone wants to reply to a more neutral version of it, they may provide the question and the answer.) Robert McClenon (talk) 17:41, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't see it either, and as one of the people who has been blasted for some sort of vindictiveness (*cough* by Rationalobserver *cough*) when I attempted to determine sockpuppetry prior to filing an SPI; I don't think that it is an AGF violation to raise the question. Actually, I would think that NOT filing an SPI shows more good faith because one does not subject a user to the stigma of having been the subject of a SPI, which, much like an arrest for which someone is later acquitted, is nonetheless a part of a permanent record that never goes away. Montanabw^(talk) 17:47, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I think that I disagree. I think that there should be a statement that a baseless claim of sockpuppetry, like a baseless claim of vandalism, is a personal attack. I agree that filing an SPI isn't consistent with assuming good faith, but neither is questioning in a talk page discussion whether another editor is a sockpuppet. In other words, leave the question of sockpuppetry completely alone until bad faith is clear and until there is enough evidence to file an SPI. I am aware that some editors like to yell "Sockpuppet!" to "win" a content dispute. I just don't think that the question should even be asked unless you are reasonably sure that it will stand up under either the duck test or Checkuser. I think that it should say somewhere that sockpuppetry is a serious allegation, a personal attack on the integrity of the other editor, and should not be made idly. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:41, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Should this be added to this policy or to the personal attack policy, or what? Do we maybe need an RFC to add to a policy that one should not yell "Sockpuppet!" without justification? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:41, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

It would apply to WP:Harrassment and WP:Casting aspersions which, like NPA, are behavior issues (conduct policies). ^{Atsme📞📧} 13:09, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

That said, I think it depends on context. Inquiring if someone might be a sockpuppet may be a better faith approach than filing an SPI. I think saying, "could be viewed as a personal attack," might be reasonable, but I am concerned that making it an open and shut case is going to cause problems at SPI because a lot more borderline cases could wind up being filed. Montanabw^(talk) 23:12, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

I say no. There is, in my view, never a time to ask someone whether they are a sockpuppet. If they are a sockpuppet, they will lie, and deny it. So why ask? If they are not a sockpuppet, you have poisoned the dialogue. So don't ask. My own opinion is that, unless you are ready to file the SPI, just leave the issue of sockpuppetry in the background. That is my opinon. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:52, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

It's an essay Lynn (SLW) (talk) 23:39, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

I think it is fine to ask someone if they are a sock puppet, if there is a strong reason to think so. Yes they may lie, but a lot of people have very poor lying skills. HighInBC 17:00, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

If there is "a strong reason to think so" file the SPI. Otherwise, I agree with Robert Mclenon. Unfortunately, for some "strong reason" is simply that they are in conflict with the other editor, and are using the accusation of sock puppetry as a weapon. After my experience, I would encourage anyone who is accused of sockpuppetry to take it to ANI, as a conduct issue of the other editor. At that point it should go to SPI, and if the accusing editor cannot provide valid rationale for making the accusation, there should be some repercussion on the accusing editor. Like a topic ban on the article where the conflict occurred.

Honest Question

Would it be reasonable to have an alternate account that would used for a separate watchlist, but not making edits? Cards84664 (talk) 15:24, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

@Cards84664: Yes, as long as you make no edits, it is perfectly fine. Vanjagenije (talk) 15:46, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

So a reasonable name would be "Cards84664-alt"? Cards84664 (talk) 15:51, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Also, would I be able to edit the user page to give a redirect or a message? Cards84664 (talk) 15:54, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

• @Cards84664: Well, we generally tolerate everything that is not explicitly listed as WP:ILLEGIT. If you want to be sure noone accuses you of sockpuppetry, you can tag the userpage with the {{Alternate account}} template. Vanjagenije (talk) 16:16, 17 April 2016 (UTC)