Wikipedia talk:Sock puppetry

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Peacedove.svg The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Wikipedia. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review policy editing recommendations before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to keep cool when editing, and don't panic.

WP:ArbCom-banned Leucosticte's articles[edit]

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#WP:ArbCom-banned Leucosticte's articles. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:51, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

It seems that opinions are not needed - the issue of content worth was resolved via nuking: G5speedy - (talk) 01:10, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Opinions were needed at the time, and the Discussion section shows why the matter was resolved; it was not resolved because of WP:G5. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:44, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Requests for doppleganger?[edit]

How do you request for a doppleganger? If a user had a previous block for socking or block evasion, what could he/she do to have a doppleganger without letting them misuse the doppleganger? An example is my own requesting of doppleganger for QwertyXP2000, even though I am actually Qwertyxp2000. I did have a previous block for a minor case of socking and block evasion. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 03:23, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

@Qwertyxp2000: I don't understand what exactly you want. According to WP:DOPPELGÄNGER, A doppelgänger account is a second account created with a username similar to one's main account to prevent impersonation. You don't need to request anything. You can create another account with a similar name and mark it with {{Doppelganger}} tag. Doppelganger must not be used for editing. So, any user can create a doppelganger account as long as it is properly marked and not used for editing (except those user that are explicitly forbidden to have more than one account by the ArbCom, or similar). Vanjagenije (talk) 11:51, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
@Vanjagenije: Ah okay. I can make any doppleganger as long as I tag the doppelganger with {{Doppelganger}} and don't use it for editing of any sort, and if I am not explicitly forbidden from ArbCom or similar. Okay. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 23:44, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
By the way, QwertyXP2000 is not useable. So I made a doppelganger called Qwetyxp2000, in case vandals impersonate me. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 23:49, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
@Vanjagenije: But I think the part about having multiple accounts for good use should be clarified with the fact that anyone can create a proper doppelganger unless explicitly forbidden to have more than one account. Consensus? Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 20:20, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
@Qwertyxp2000: I don't see what is to be clarified. It is clear from the text that anybody is free to use multiple accounts for legitimate uses. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:57, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
I think what needs clarification is different sets of rules, one for declared alternative accounts, the other for undeclared alternative accounts. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:33, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Absolutely agree with you SmokeyJoe, but what shall we improve on? Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 23:37, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I was thinking about a Level 3 section below the "legitimite uses" section that says "exceptions" and mention the fact that any user regardless of minor sockpuppet violations may create alternate accounts if not explicitly said by ArbCom or similar.

By the way, my block log mentions socking in the case of a minor case of vote-socking, where I was blocked for a week, and that was about 9 months ago. I remembered block evading half-way through the 1-week block but then had realised why I was blocked, which then I had learned a lesson (to not sock or block-evade). From then on, I did not receive any sock or block warnings since May 2015. Last month I was wanting a doppelganger for legitimate uses but was scared to make one out of fear of my block log, which is why I was asking about "requests for doppelganger" in the first place. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 23:54, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't agree with this proposal. First of all, those are not "exceptions". Also, it is clear from the text of the policy that everybody is free to create multiple acounts as long as they are WP:VALIDALT. I don't see any need for clarification. Vanjagenije (talk) 16:52, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Okay. But the policies page should be so clear that every user can understand the policy. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 22:04, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Wait a sec, "If you use an alternative account, it is your responsibility to ensure that you do not violate this policy". Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 22:06, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
And also "...if there are no active bans, blocks, or sanctions in place...". By the way, Vanjagenije, I would recommend quoting the sentences that are already clear enough (as in those quotes I did from this indent and the indent before) to make it clear for the user if he/she is not sure about unclarity. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 22:08, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
I totally do not understand what are you talking about. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:13, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
What you could've said beforehand to me was this: "The section on legitimate uses already is clear enough. 'If you use an alternative account, it is your responsibility to ensure that you do not violate this policy' explains that you are free to create alternate accounts with your responsibility. '...if there are no active bans, blocks, or sanctions in place...' explains the fact about having no restrictions as long as there are no active bans, blocks, or sanctions in place." Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 09:37, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
@Vanjagenije: By the way, can I add a section nutshell to that WP:SOCK#LEGIT section? Proposing nutshell to say "Users may create multiple accounts under their responsibility unless they have any active blocks, bans or sanctions" or similar. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 09:01, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
@Qwertyxp2000: I don't think it's a good idea to encourage people to create multiple accounts. Multiple accounts should be used minimally. Vanjagenije (talk) 15:54, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @Vanjagenije: Then just shorten the nutshell to "Users with Multiple accounts are used created under their the user's responsibility, unless they have any active blocks, bans or sanctions". Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 20:15, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Or "All alternate accounts may be used for legitimate uses, unless the user has any active blocks, bans or sanctions in place". Just thought of that yesterday, which I feel may be a better nutshell. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 06:51, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Possible sock/meat puppetry[edit]

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)