Wikipedia talk:Sock puppetry

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

How to handle potentially sock puppetry[edit]

Hi, since years I'm mainly editing/contributing, hence, not experienced in topics like sock puppetry... Honestly, I don't want to offend/harass any Wikimedians as sock puppeteer, as some of the related edits seem to be in good faith, but I feel 'trolled' since about July 2016 by various 'one-day' user-accounts of whom I suppose the same personality from Switzerland:

  1. account always used one single day;
  2. similar edits and themes edited;
  3. not really edit-warring, but not far from;
  4. not really trolling but 'insisting' on its edits, by p.e. changing from IP to a new account;
  5. rather minor edits, but always several edits within short time;
  6. edits always without any comment, although I pointed to at a wiki's talk page three days ago, again.
  7. A 'signmark': sometimes replacing {reflist|30em} by {reflist|500px}, usually in Swiss-related wikis started by me.

As that behavoir massively increases, and I start to feel harassed - four times within the past three days - what may I do? Starting a request, although i'm not sure what account used was the first one? Thank you for any suggestions, kindly regards, Roland zh (talk) 18:08, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

 Comment: started request as two further 'incidents' occured, Roland zh (talk) 18:29, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi @Roland zh: I was surprised to see your name here, as I know you normally stick to content and away from the so-called wiki-Dramah-boards. Since you say you started a request would you tell me where I can read about it. Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 00:35, 26 December 2016 (UTC)please ping me

Tandem editing by classmates[edit]

I've recently come across a situation where numerous new editors associated with a class project tag-team edited an article to remove a quoted opinion they did not like from the article. It's not technically WP:MEAT since they are here for purposes of their class. However the 3 editors editing in tandem clearly collaborated off-wiki. While this is more or less covered as stealth canvassing, perhaps it would be useful to mention in this page as well. Toddst1 (talk) 13:42, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't see how it being for the purposes of their class has any relevance to WP policies and guidelines. Does their class have some special exemption from normal WP policies? To me, that just escalates it from being a casual conspiracy into an organised conspiracy. Murph9000 (talk) 14:58, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
WP:BITE: We have a high confidence that these are editors here in good faith because they are working on their education. --Izno (talk) 15:07, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Sure, but that does not give them a free pass. A conspiracy to subvert normal consensus is still a serious problem. Murph9000 (talk) 15:19, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
I did not suggest that they get a free pass. Regarding "conspiracy", I doubt that word can be (review your definitions), or should be, used to describe these activities. Just treat them like people, inform them of our content-WP:PAG, and move on. --Izno (talk) 16:09, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
wikt:conspiracy: The act of two or more persons, called conspirators, working secretly to obtain some goal, usually understood with negative connotations. The word is applicable across the spectrum, from extremely serious crimes to relatively minor breaches of policy. Murph9000 (talk) 16:23, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
I didn't want to actually drag out the definitions here--but even your preferred definition (and it's not the first definition in most of the dictionaries online, certainly) acknowledges that conspirators must be working in secret. If their involvement is in-fact documented on-wiki, calling it secret would at-best be amusing and at-worst bad-faith; I'll let you decide where you lie :^). Better just to call them classmates and let others conclude what that means, while taking into account our other WP:PAG. --Izno (talk) 16:51, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Oh, if it's already clearly documented on-wiki, that does put it in a different light. I won't claim Wiktionary as my preferred reference, just a convenient reference. I've recently run into several cases of problematic sock/meat puppets who may well have been classmates (that last part is mostly conjecture, based on the behaviour), which does color my initial interpretation of the scenario here. That's a common problem with hypotheticals, I see the examples that I've seen more frequently / recently, you see a quite different scenario. I'd quite happily label the revised scenario "external collaboration", or something like that. It could still become MEAT, depending on the detail of the scenario, but an existing open declaration / documentation of the connection makes it much easier to find a benign interpretation. Murph9000 (talk) 21:16, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 December 11#Template:Encouragment[edit]

A relevant template is at TFD. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:46, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

The recently added "Team puppet" section[edit]

With this edit, ManosHacker added a section called "Team puppet." Additions like this should be discussed before they are added to the policy page. Thoughts? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:18, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Agree. Also, it's a confusing combination of policies. The core topic of the described scenario is violation of no shared account policy. Only a secondary sidebar qualifier ("of registered users") makes it a sockpuppet. North8000 (talk) 02:01, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
A type of sockpuppetry is the usage of a shared account by a group of registered users, established on a remote location and controlled via remote control or desktop sharing software (i.e. Teamviewer), used for editing as a single account that appears unrelated to other accounts. A team puppet, used as a special purpose account, is hard to be tracked down or recognized via its edit patterns.

A shared account is being described as used to represent. This is different than an account used to apply restless pressure by a few experienced users, having a purpose or a mission. Does this fit somewhere in the existing policy?--ManosHacker (talk) 23:07, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

No, shared accounts are already prohibited by policy, plus, what you describe is something I've never encountered in years of sockpuppet investigations. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 23:16, 16 January 2017 (UTC)