Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppetry/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

Meatpuppetry discussions (term used and policy location)

Several discussions have been started concerning 1/ whether to change the term "meatpuppetry" in policy, and 2/ whether to move the section to a different policy location.

Rename of Meatpuppetry

Proposal

RFC on gracefully retiring the terms "meatpuppet" and "meatpuppetry" in Wikipedia policy, and using the term "external soliciting" instead. Forbidding "meatpuppetry" is obscure to non-editors, sounds pejorative and offensive, focuses attention on the label not the behavior, and comes over as disparaging or attacking newcomers who may not be aware they have done anything wrong. Forbidding "external soliciting" is precise, non-accusatory and easily understood. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 03:44, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Background to proposal and more info

I suggested above, and User:SmokeyJoe supported and raised elsewhere, the suggestion that the term "Meatpuppetry" should mainly be called "external soliciting" in policy pages. (my comment  SmokeyJoe's follow-up). The same reasons apply whichever policy page it ends up on. Meatpuppetry is a historic wiki term and internet term for external soliciting/recruitment. To those "not in the know" it sounds offensive and pejorative, can come over as an attack, and unnecessarily inflames discussions. Meatpuppet is a poor choice of term to address a newcomer even if solicited. (WP:AGF - a person who is solicited may not actually know they are doing anything wrong) An accusation of "meatpuppetry" would be very obscure to most people. Obviously if changed, the traditional term would still be known and sometimes used but overall it will probably be more understandable, more factual, less ad hominem, and more easily understood, if "Meatpuppetry" were changed to "External soliciting" in WP:SOCK and general use on-wiki. The policy (whatever page it's on) would then say "External soliciting is forbidden" rather than "Meatpuppetry is forbidden" which is easier to understand. This would place the focus on the behavior not the label. FT2  (Talk | email) 03:45, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support. I think this will be less confusing and misleading over all. However, I'd suggest we use external recruiting or just plain recruiting to avoid the slightly skanky sense attacked to the word 'soliciting'. --Ludwigs2 07:08, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Recruiting suggests literal "recruitment" and is likely to be more, not less, confusing. Arguments over "I wasn't recruited" are more likely because it suggests a state of mind more than an action. "They/You were solicited by him to visit Wikipedia" seems a lot less contentious than "They/You were recruited by him to visit Wikipedia". FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 08:35, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, sounds a logical proposal. We shouldn't be using obscure wikijargon in a context where, by definition, the parties involved are likely to be outsiders to Wikipedia.--Kotniski (talk) 09:03, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
• Well, anyone accusing new users of any-puppetry should probably be a bit more explanatory anyway, but I support the concept behind this RfC. Changing it in policy seems fine; just don't expect everyone to type out "external soliciting" all the time. "Meatpuppetry" isn't the nicest term, but it's still usable in some regards. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 12:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

The proposal is to change the policy term more than anything. If the term in the policy is changed that will affect common usage and the preferred shortcut and remove a lot of the "bite", even if the old term is occasionally used by some users in discussion. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:15, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• No more or less easily understood IMO; both should be linked to an appropriate explanation when used so this change would appear to generate busywork. Stifle (talk) 14:29, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Jargon is never a good thing, and sometimes veterans are so used to it they get fond of it. I'm not suggesting that veteran editors would want to keep the jargon around since it gives them an edge over new editors, but clear wording is always a good thing. I do not understand the comment by Stifle above: "No more or less easily understood IMO". "External soliciting" is far more understandable than "Meatpuppetry". --Noleander (talk) 15:31, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support Meatpuppet has a very offensive sound to those of us who tend to take language literally.Steve Dufour (talk) 16:11, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Clearly, more professional-sounding, as befits a serious encyclopedia. This is Wikipedia acting like grown-up people. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:33, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
• Agreed. "Meatpuppetry" just sounds freaky to, well, normal people.  Sandstein  17:35, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support - It's a confusing term and conflates campaigning with the creation of fraudulent accounts — which are very different offenses. Carrite (talk) 18:44, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. Meatpuppet is succinct, to-the-point, and a great band. --Wasabi Attack (talk) 21:24, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support for all the reasons given above. I've always thought calling people Meatpuppets was a little, uh, unsettling. A more professional and self-explanatory term would be beneficial. --LordPistachio ^talk 22:03, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose silly quasi-politically-correct absurdity, given the fact that nobody actually seems to be offended by the original term anyway. Besides, "external soliciting" sounds like something a nudist hooker would get arrested for. Even if such a goofy term was actually used on policy pages it would never get used in actual discussion, leading to inconsistency/confusion. What's next, trying to get people to call sockpuppets "existence-challenged persons of imaginary status"? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:02, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

You'll often find an argument over "X called me a meatpuppet!" or "X is Y's meatpuppet!" in meat-related accusations and disputes. It encourages a change in the dispute from "someone commented on behaviors and actions" to "someone called me a name" and inevitably provoke more heated responses as a result, which escalates the matter. What we aim to do where editors are accusing each other is to reduce the heat and the potential for bad feelings, which frequently comes from the words they use.

The change here is intended to encourage a style of wording that "X was solicited to edit by Y", which describes behaviors rather than labeling people. That's not "quasi-PC" at all, it's exactly what we should be doing. As several people comment, "meatpuppet" is a charge used primarily to non-editors who may not have edited before or may not know anything is wrong. Far too often the term is wikijargon that seems to escalate disputes that aren't needed, or is taken as offensive to the person it's accusing. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

(It's worth noting that sock-puppetry is almost always a deceptive act by someone who knows or can guess that their action is wrong;  joining a discussion at someone's request may well be done in good faith by a solicited non-editor who agreed to help and thought it was "the done thing", even if suspiciously similar newcomers do get handled the same as sock-puppets for Wikipedia purposes. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:33, 24 September 2010 (UTC))

• Strong support—this would be a very good change from a label that is often found offensive and confusing to those accused of it, to a term that is far clearer in intent and far less offensive. –Grondemar 01:14, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. "Meatpuppetry" has been in use a long time, and no matter what we call it here Wikipedians will still call it meatpuppetry anyway. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:52, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

• Strong support. The term is indeed confusing to newcomers, and has an inaccurate connotation. This isn't a matter of "politically correct," it's more a case of "If you don't say what you mean, you can never mean what you say." Meatpuppet doesn't really say what it means; it's just a nerdy pun on the term sockpuppet. People are familiar with real-world sockpuppets, and can readily understand the term's wikijargon connotation by analogy therefrom. Few people would instantly understand that a meatpuppet is not a hand-operated figurine made from beef. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 03:02, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. This seems overly silly and bureaucratic. Starblind (talk · contribs) is correct, we might just as well change "sockpuppet" to "users with the same behavior pattern who edit from the same computer" in all instances, which would be pointless, confusing, and a waste of time. -- Cirt (talk) 03:07, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
• Strong support. Yes, as FT2 says, people have and will go on taking offense. Even if they're not conversant with the word's slang origins and usage [1], they sense its inherently disrespectful nature - calling a human being 'meat.' Yes, people will go on using it here along with all kinds of other pejoratives, but that doesn't mean it should be an approved use in a policy. It looks to me as tho all the other WP policies take pains to use neutral and respectful language. Let's do the same for this one. Novickas (talk) 04:19, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support. I was mystified by this term when I first confronted it here (did it have something to do with the excellent SST post-punk band?), and I still find it unclear.--Arxiloxos (talk) 06:08, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
• Comment Policy issues aside, it seems like the semantics are off. 'External soliciting' is off-wiki canvassing. 'Meatpuppetry' is the result of that once editors come back on-wiki and cause trouble. We currently have WP:SOCK, which covers artificial inflation of views, and WP:CANVASS which covers solicitation. Meatpuppetry is kind of just a cross-section of the two–socking but with other people and canvassing but off-wiki. It's a bit convoluted as is, but I'm not sure this RfC's suggestion is the way to fix it. Ocaasi (talk) 11:32, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:SOCK tells people that external soliciation is prohibited whether or not successful. If people then come on-wiki because of it they may get blocked, but the policy first and foremost targets the act of externally soliciting people to do so. Your comment identified a weakness of using the term "meatpuppetry" - WP:SOCK focuses on and forbids external soliciting whether or not successful, but the term "meatpuppetry" excludes this. So the wording change would actually improve a flawed point caused by use of the term "meatpuppetry"; it makes it clear that attempts to solicit others to come to Wikipedia and "support your cause" are not allowed. A "meatpuppet" is then a person who came to Wikipedia because of that external solicitation, which is much more understandable, and less likely to be taken as an attack or a pejorative. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:56, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I think we agree on most of this. My main point is not that meatpuppetry is a good term (it's not), but that 'external solicitation' is not necessary because we can just call it off-wiki canvassing, which is less technical and already in the jargon. Is there a difference between them? Ocaasi 23:43, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - Would agree that the term is somewhat "obscure to non-editors", but it strikes me that "external soliciting" would be as well. Re "pejorative and offensive" - Frankly, actual meatpuppetry is pretty despicable, and it would seem appropriate that it have a "pejorative and offensive" term as a label. NickCT (talk) 14:34, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support but not "soliciting": that's a word related to prostitution in Europe! Try "recruiting". "Meatpuppetry" is far too slangy and pejorative. Fences&Windows 18:58, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Meatpuppet is unnecessarily offensive. We don't want to do that to people who don't have any idea they're doing something wrong. --GRuban (talk) 20:08, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support. As a vegetarian I don't like the word "meatpuppet", in addition to the reasons above. (I suppose it would be inopportune to invite mah meatpuppets - who are not anictually meatpuppets at all, mark you, but independent-minded thinkers - to contribute to this discussion? Joke, joke!)--greenrd (talk) 00:21, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - Though it is jargon, it is easy for a new editor to learn the definition and the negativity of the term makes it crystal clear that the behavior is not allowed. The proposed alternatives sound wishy-washy to me. As a fairly new editor (15 months), terms like this seem like a genuine part of Wikipedia culture, and I like them. Cullen328 (talk) 00:43, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Wikipedia is explicitly the encyclopedia which anyone can edit. The proposal seeks to make it a crime to encourage people to edit Wikipedia. This seems quite contrary to our fundamental principles. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:02, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't think you realise what the proposal is about, so your comment makes no sense in this discussion. This is just a change of terminology, not policy. We already don't allow what we called "meatpuppetry", which is recruiting people specifically to swing debates in your direction. Fences&Windows 21:51, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

• I understand the proposal just fine. The proposed wordings of external soliciting or external recruiting have a very wide scope which is as I describe. It's no good burying some qualifications or limitations in the fine print because we see all the time that people don't read or understand them. Policies and guidelines such as WP:NOTE, WP:TRIVIA, WP:DICDEF, WP:BLP1E are commonly extended beyond their original scope by people who just read the headline but not the detail. The meatpuppet term isn't perfect either but it is better in that it conveys the point that it is a variation of sockpuppeting and that the issue is one of puppetry, i.e. using a stooge or false front. If the language were changed to forbid external recruiting per se, then the scope for misunderstanding and abuse would be much greater. Colonel Warden (talk)

• Oppose It's a matter here of trying to replace a misunderstood turn of phrase with an awkward and incorrect one - meatpuppetry can apply to a range of circumstances which may include internal soliciting. I agree that "meatpuppetry" is confusing but I would only be able to support a proposal which improves on what we already have. I find myself in agreement with Starblind. Orderinchaos 22:00, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. Pointless solution for a non-existent problem that will not stop people from using that term. Per Starblind et al. T. Canens (talk) 23:31, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support a change. Prefer and new terms of off-wiki recruitment and recruited puppet. —UncleDouggie (talk) 00:57, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. As Cullen328 mentioned: easily picked-up jargon that has been in use for ages. As T. Canens says it won't stop most people from using the term. Jarkeld (talk) 06:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - Off2riorob (talk) 06:08, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support canvass - Any attempt to reduce an entire policy definition to one word is going to be perjorative, but it is convenient. A replacement would ideally be a single word neologism with word forms for the concept ("y"), its employer ("er"), and its object ("ee"). Canvass fulfills that convenience. Canvassing, canvassor, canvassee. --Bsherr (talk) 17:38, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Just because it's dear to old timers, it doesn't mean it's a good idea to keep. I had no idea what this word meant. Making policies use less wiki jargon is a good idea. Tijfo098 (talk) 02:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support, with some pedantry - I would be happy to see a name change away from "meatpuppetry" to something more descriptive, perhaps which doesn't sound quite so much like an insult; perhaps something along the lines of "soliciting" or "canvassing". However, I don't think it's helpful to spend too much time worrying that the existing name is "disparaging or attacking newcomers"; because this is a label used for Bad Stuff (that may often be done by newcomers). With a different name, it will still be a label for Bad Stuff (that may often be done by newcomers). You can't get away from accusatory overtones by changing the label. You could rename it as the Super Happy Fun Joy policy if you wanted, but WP:SHFJ would swiftly acquire the same negative overtones, because you mention the policy when you suspect somebody has done Bad Stuff. Changing the label for a bad thing because the old label itself came to be seen as bad is pretty much a step onto the euphemism treadmill. bobrayner (talk) 12:01, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
• Opppose this is a good idea but I can't support it in its current proposal The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 18:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Agree with Tijfo098, we need less WP:WTF. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 13:27, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose We should avoid jargon and write policy pages to be understood by all, in particular new comers. We therefore should not assume that anyone reading a policy page understands these terms. However, that is very different from arguing that a term should be "retired" (which is itself quite an obscure way of saying "no longer used"). All activities involve jargon of some sort. These words form the fabric of the culture of that activity. Once explained, "meat puppet" is no more mysterious than "revert", "!vote", "good faith", "straw poll", "pipe link", "canvasing" or any of the other terms we use. Also, if we change "meat puppet" to "external soliciting" (which itself no more immediately understandable as a term), what would we change "sock puppet" to? "Self soliciting"? :-) --RA (talk) 18:52, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth (maybe not much!), I notice from your comment how much this is in the eye of the beholder. To me, "revert", "good faith", and "straw poll" are terms that are immediately familiar from everyday use, whereas "meatpuppet" sounds unfamiliar, un-intuitive, and ugly. As others have pointed out, "sockpuppet" refers to an actual kind of puppet that exists in real life, but to fashion a puppet by inserting one's hand into some meat, yuck! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

It's from "meatspace", referring to the off-line world as opposed to the on-line world. A "meat puppet" is thus akin to a "sock puppet" but employing a real (as opposed to a virtual) "puppet".

Example definition; and another in a slightly different context (see definition 2). --RA (talk) 23:55, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I understand. But, in fact, "meatspace" is just as unfamiliar, un-intuitive, and ugly, at least to me. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

• Also, a sockpuppet is always a deceptive account and a genuine "puppet". But a meatpuppet account may be set up in good faith by someone who did not realise anything was wrong by responding to a request to help. Calling a third party a label such as a "puppet" when they will almost always see themselves as acting in good faith based on their own views (although unwittingly against wiki policies) is unnecessarily provocative and offensive. It would be better from a policy viewpoint, to describe the action of external solicitation as improper and not merely call the unwitting newcomer a provocative name. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 08:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Per everyone who opposed. wiooiw (talk) 21:41, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support as it is confusing and can be offensive to anyone who doesn't understand it. NLinpublic (talk) 14:42, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
• Neutral leaning oppose. Both sound like jargon to me, so I don't think that it makes much of a difference between which one you choose. If a person doesn't know what a "meatpuppet" is, he can simply enter the words into a search engine and find out within a few seconds. I also don't think that it sounds very offensive. --Slon02 (talk) 01:57, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. "External soliciting" sanitizes an act that is obviously immoral, even to a person who does not know the Wikipedia rules. A meatpuppeteer is marshaling ideological allies, not "asking for help"; Wikipedia provides many prominent venues for people innocently seeking assistance or a third opinion. Quigley (talk) 06:55, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

But the user asked "can you visit and state your view" may not know this. They cannot be expected to know it nor to know about other venues or processes in any way. WP:BITE and the people who visit in good faith is the issue here. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 09:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support changing to shill. It's more concise, less jargony, and the definition can be found in any English dictionary. See this version. Jehochman ^Talk 14:08, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose- I just don't see the point. The word we are using now does the job. Why fix what isn't broken? Reyk _YO! 04:15, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. Ignorantia juris non excusat. --Lamalamadingdong (talk) 18:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it should eb rechanged, as meatpuppet reminds me of blood and gore, but I'm not sure to what. Buggie111 (talk) 03:09, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. Being more than just a bit of a wikilawyer, I'm the first to ordinarily support clear and unambiguous terminology and policy statements, but I'm also a member of the Department of Fun. I remember being slightly shocked when I first encountered the term, but then taking it in the same spirit as some of the humorous illustrations used to illustrate some of our more serious topics. Frankly, the term sockpuppet is more obscure than meatpuppet and once one understands the meaning of sockpuppet the meaning of meatpuppet is implicitly clear. The policy statement is clear enough to eliminate any lingering doubt. Let's not make WP a more colorless place to work by eliminating all the fun stuff. What's next, eliminating the use of mop symbols for administrators? Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 13:53, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
• Weak support I'm always in favor of depreciating the use of jargon, such as the use of "BLP" as shorthand to refer to some ill-defined dicta we should all follow. However, "meat puppet" would be hardly the most offensive but accurate term to apply to them, as would, for example, "mother fucking God-forsaken scumbags". I feel that there are more objectionable problems which need addressing; but any improvement, no matter how small, is a good thing. -- llywrch (talk) 20:32, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - the existing term seems clear enough to me, and it has the added advantages of being both colourful and concise. Gatoclass (talk) 01:06, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose "Soliciting" sounds like seeking sexual favors. Forget the political correctness of creating a euphemism for a useful term of art. Edison (talk) 01:20, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support though I would also support some of the other name suggestions. CRGreathouse (t | c) 03:33, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support "external soliciting" or any other term that avoids the problem. In the past we have had problems when unintentional external soliciting happened in open source developer communities, i.e. in one of the areas where we are most likely to find dedicated new editors. Although the policy is very clear that following such soliciting is not the problem and the people who do so are not at fault, in at least one case they were blocked en masse. (This was undone much later, when the damage had already been done, and the admin who did this had to apologise.) That's just the tip of the iceberg. I think part of the problem is the confusion between sockpuppets (guilty) and meatpuppets (often innocent and not to be made responsible for the problems associated with their existence) that stems from the similar terms and the principle that in many, but not all, respects we can treat the two as equivalent. Just changing the official terminology to make it less bitey and less confusing is a good step in the right direction. Hans Adler 08:08, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. Argument to rename not convincing. --Tagtool (talk) 19:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support Meatpuppet has no use outside of Wikipedia, and quite frankly the term makes no sense to me. I'm not thoroughly sold on the alternatives presented though. Instead of going for legalese with "soliciting" or "recruiting," why not posse-editing or gang-editing? They express the same sentiment in less technical terms. DC T•C 05:32, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. Meatpuppetry is very much related to sockpuppetry, so the analogy is clear.--Puppies dressed as cats (talk) 13:11, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Discussion was summarized and continued below at this point and a proposal added. Please post further comments below, not here. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:38, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Dipping into the thesaurus

As the discussion in the RfC above is going along, it is becoming clear that some editors are bothered by the word "soliciting" (but presumably they are not solicitors: joke!). Some prefer "recruiting"; others have pointed out problems with that. I've been looking for other synonyms, without much success. But what does occur to me is: "canvassing". WP:CANVASS#Stealth canvassing makes very brief mention of something that superficially resembles what we are discussing here, but CANVASS is primarily about canvassing on-Wiki. Here, we are primarily concerned with what is really canvassing off-Wiki, in forms that are not stealthy. (In other words, posts on external websites that canvass whoever views the post; these can also be seen by administrators and others here, and so are potentially enforceable, in contrast to stealthy e-mails.) How about "external canvassing"? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the proposed name may not be ideal. I think the essence of Meatpuppetry is that (1) it is secret; and (2) Two or more editors are involved. The WP "Canvassing" policy deals with non-secret solicitation. The term "external canvassing" would cause lots of confusion with the WP Canvassing policy; plus it would blur the distinction between secret (meat) and non-secret (canvassing). Just for kicks, here is a list of some random phrases, to get some ideas:

• External soliciting
• External canvassing
• Secret soliciting
• External recruitment
• Secret recruitment
• Secret canvassing
• Improper collaboration
• Secret collaboration
• Non-transparent collaboration
• Improper recruitment
• Improper solicitation

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that Meat puppetry could be internal or external. It is the secrecy that is the distinguishing factor, so maybe "Secrecy" (or a synonym such as "non-transparent") should be in the new name? Of the above, "Improper collaboration" seems to jump out at me as the most understandable, although the drawback to that is that it may exclude the situation where a solicitation was made, but never responded to, so maybe improper recruitment or non-transparent recruitment is better. --Noleander (talk) 20:46, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I raised this (kidding!). I think "improper collaboration" includes other things besides meatpuppetry (WP:BATTLEFIELD comes to mind). I don't have a problem with "improper recruitment", although other editors have already raised problems with "external recruitment" (see near the top of the RfC). I don't buy the argument that there would be confusion with the canvassing policy. The purpose here is not to define something completely distinct from other policies, but to flesh out something that is, in fact, related. And that brings us to the secrecy issue. Looking at the current MEAT section, it actually does not mention secrecy. And, if something is really secret, we can't enforce it. (For socking, we have CheckUser, but there is nothing equivalent for off-site secrecy, unless someone voluntarily confesses or turns someone else in.) What I've been trying to draw attention to in this discussion has been postings that are not secret, on external websites. I think those are canvassing, but canvassing off-Wiki, but I'm open to other word choices. I just haven't found any good ones yet, and I've been looking. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:12, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, heck. why don't we just go straight for the jugular here and work on a policy against engaging in guerilla warfare - this whole thing smacks of a counter-insurgency effort anyway... --Ludwigs2 22:10, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Canvassing also means seeking opinions or conducting a survey (which are permitted), although on Wikipedia we do tend to use it specifically in the sense of seeking supporters. "No external canvassing for support" would be unambiguous but wordy. Secrecy is not an issue, whether open or secret it's not appropriate ("recruitment" is very often via open links on forums hence not "secret"). Improper is a bit pointless, there isn't "proper" external solicitation/recruitment to contrast it to. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 08:28, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

The technical term is 'demagoguery', if that helps any. --Ludwigs2 20:08, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we want to go here, especially with the high tensions over pending changes right now. —UncleDouggie (talk) 00:55, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The best terms to me are External recruitment or Off-wiki recruitment. The definition of meatpuppet includes the word recruitment, so any replacement term should include this word. More importantly, we need a replacement for the term meatpuppet, which refers to the recruited user, not the act of recruitment. External recruit seems a bit odd. External recruitment victim is unwieldy. How about recruited puppet? This would distinguish it from sockpuppet since you can't recruit yourself. —UncleDouggie (talk) 00:55, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly about which term we use, but "recruited puppet" makes very good sense to me. Thanks for thinking of it. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:36, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm imagining being a non-wikipedian who sees a note on some forum "please come and make your view heard on X debate at Wikipedia". When I do that, someone calls me a "puppet", and my instant reaction is to disagree strongly and feel attacked ("I'm no 'puppet'!"). It doesn't matter whether I would be in a Wikipedia sense, what's important is that the choice of words itself causes an argument of some intensity and immediately caused people to focus on personalities and not actions, and to adopt an attack/defense style rather than focusing on the issue, which was avoidable by not using such words. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 12:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

"External soliciting" doesn't sound like the right word choice to me. "Offwiki canvassing" might be more easily understood. Also, the relationship to tag-team behaviors might need to be clarified. If I secretly ask you through another website to join a discussion, that's meatpuppet -- but if I secretly ask you through Wikipedia's e-mail function, is that meatpuppeting, too? If so, then neither "external" nor "offwiki" are the right words. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:11, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slon02 (talk • contribs) 01:57, 2 October 2010

Shill

The most accurate word I can think of is shill. Somebody who engages in meatpuppetry is recruiting one or more shills to advance their point of view. Jehochman ^Talk 14:03, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

That sounds OK to me. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:52, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't work, although well intended and not as bad idea. The main problem is that the first thing that happened when I clicked on "shill" is a page that starts "A shill is a person who is paid to help another person or organization to sell goods or services". The users this refers to are almost never being paid. Anyone who gets a link to a prospective WP:SHILL would then see as the very first thing, a definition that clearly and unambiguously cannot and does not apply to them.

I've therefore reverted; whatever wording might be used this isn't going to work. It was a reasonable WP:BB though. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:53, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Our article shill is somewhat wrong. The person does not need to be paid; that's not essential, and it's not referenced either. I suggest we fix the article to match common usage. If that's done, perhaps this works. Jehochman ^Talk 20:20, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The term that seems to work best at WP:CANVASS is Inappropriate canvassing. So for this, this might be Inappropriate external canvassing. However, what I get from meatpupetry, is that it isn't just the canvassing, it's also the doing. !Voting for (or against) something your friend would like you to vote for (or against). The key words in that sentence being for (or against). Anyway, AFAIK, asking a friend to !vote isn't meatpuppetry, it's asking a friend to !vote in a particular way. And by corollary, !voting in a particular way to support however your friend !voted, or you think your friend would like you to !vote. (Though in all of this, I don't know how this can be proven.) So it seems to me that we have 2 things under the same heading: Inappropriate external canvassing, and the act of !voting as such a canvassee. The latter is defined as a meatpuppet. And I have no idea what term (that we wouldn't ourselves be creating as a neologism) that could best describe that. (Though shill would seem to be the closest I suppose. So: shillery? I dunno...) - jc37 20:28, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I did have one other thought. I was wondering about incorporating it into WP:CANVASS, which already has short sections covering most other forms of canvassing. As meatpuppetry is quite simple to define it doesn't add much wordage to that page and could then be known as "external canvassing" (which some prefer) and sensibly covered with other canvassing. I've put a draft how this could work at User:FT2/Canvassing. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I like this idea, and your draft, a lot. Neutral, plain language, mentions the word meatpuppetry for WP historic context. Novickas (talk) 16:17, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

• Shill works for me. The dictionary definitions and actual usage fits. Jehochman is right in his edit to the mainspace article, a shill is not necessarily paid, although in practice a committed shill needs some inducement for his disingenuous contributions. Canvass, on the other hand, doesn't fit. Canvassing is about spreading information openly, albeit slanted information to a biased audience. You don't normally canvass anyone to have them pretend to have a disingenuous interest and view. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The people we would classify under meatpuppetry are not paid, but nor are they "pretending" anything or being "disingenuous". The most common scenario for meatpuppetry is a person who advertises a debate or issue to friends and allies, or in a favorable forum, and says "please visit this page on Wikipedia to make your views known". The people who respond may be very partisan but they are usually not pretending or faking, they aren't being disingenuous, they are simply people who have very strong views on an issue and were told of a debate that would be important to someone who held a strong view on the matter. Their responses may be improper for Wikipedia but a genuine meatpuppet may well be responding in good faith and in their own right based on their own views (and not as a mere shill), even though unacceptably. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 09:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Meatpuppets, as I image them, are pretending to have an interest in a wikipedia debate. They are disengenuous in that they are putting forward an opinion suggested by the meatpuppeteer which is not their own opinion.

To the extent that these meatpuppets have been recruited to influence a mainspace article on the basis of their pre-existing belief/knowledge/opinion, they are not in violation of WP:SOCK, but are genuine newcomers who should be welcomed, and their opinions given full consideration. I disagree that their responses are in any way improper. There is no prescribed method for becoming a Wikipedian. Most begin by fixing something obscure or trivial. If some begin through being invited to a contended debated, then good. The more the merrier, and the better for the project.

Meatpuppets who are not pretending nor acting disingenuously should be welcomed and valued for their contributions. They should not be considered meatpuppets. They would not be considered shills according to the external definition. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:16, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

• • Strong support. I suggest shill recruitment for the act. —UncleDouggie (talk) 05:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

In common usage shill also means somebody who comments without independent thinking or critical review. They are simply saying what somebody else told them to say. I believe this is synonymous with mouthpiece or meatpuppet. Shill has several advantages: it is brief, precise, and can be found in any dictionary. We ought to avoid creating neologisms that make it hard for a newcomer to understand our processes. I am open to using a different word, but it should meet these requirements. Jehochman ^Talk 12:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

On Wikipedia a meatpuppet may well have independent thinking and critical review. The problem isn't that they aren't autonomous, it's that they were asked to visit Wikipedia to make their views known on a specific issue, by someone who advertized the debate externally (to allies or on a forum or list). But those who respond just don't meet the definition of shills any more than members of a protest group are shills for the person who started the group. A shill implies a lot more in terms of "working on behalf of" - it's closer to our term "proxying for".

Meatpuppetry is not the same as proxying. Meatpuppets tend to be independent, self-motivated, and speaking for themselves. It's the fact they were recruited or solicited externally, and that their views were usually sought to influence the debate, that's the issue. The term still WP:BITEs newcomers who may have acted in good faith. The discussion on meatpuppetry is about the fact users are here due to external soliciting/recruitment, not about accusing them of being shills, mouthpieces, proxies, puppets, etc. That's crucial. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

It sounds like your definition of meatpuppetry has only a fine line between it and votestacking. And, as an aside, whether right or wrong, it's apparently ok to say you've been canvassed for vote stacking, so that then you're in the clear of being accused of meatpuppetry. (I just imagined a potentially huge, though ridiculous scenario in my head that I'll stuff with some WP:BEANS.) I think the main thing that needs to happen when deciding on a term, is to remember the difference between meatpuppetry (meat puppeteer) and merely being a meat puppet. Meat puppetry sounds like votestacking, and being a meatpuppet is then a shill, if I understand everyone here. Or did I miss something? - jc37 22:08, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

@Jc37 - meatpuppetry is in effect a form of votestacking. The elements of meatpuppetry are someone encouraging attendance to the discussion by non-wikipedians, usually but not always by linking to the debate on an external website or email list, and usually it's also a forum or list whose members will have a predictable view on the debate and where the poster seems to be implying they should come to Wikipedia to make their views know. That is "meatpuppetry". A "meatpuppet" is then someone who has no prior connection with Wikipedia, but attends primarily to make their view known as a result of that encouragement by the user.

The key problem is the people who visit need to know their attendance is inappropriate or to adopt our norms... but equally they should not be "bitten" or described disparagingly even if their attendance is inappropriate, because they may not know anything's wrong, nor know our norms. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:54, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

FT2: WP:MEAT states: "Meatpuppetry is the use of editors as proxies to sway consensus. While Wikipedia assumes good faith, especially for new users, the recruitment of new editors for this purpose is prohibited." WP:PROXYING is performing edits on behalf of banned users. I agree with others that shill is the best replacement for the current definition of meatpuppet. I did not understand this RfC to encompass redefining meatpuppet. It seems that we have lost momentum. As there is not consensus for a change to "external soliciting", I recommend that you close this RfC and open a new one to try and achieve consensus on "shill" and either "shill recruitment" or "recruiting shills". —UncleDouggie (talk) 06:55, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

@UncleDouggie - no, it is not intended to "redefine" or change the norms in any way. Just to find a word that does not bite those responding to meatpuppetry (as opposed to merely calling them "meatpuppets"). No other change was intended except to switch the policy to a wording that describes the forbidden action rather than labeling the potentially good-faith (but inappropriate) respondents. My focus is removing a source of problems, rather than the specific term moved to. Ideally the better term would not be one that labels, but one that describes the action, and should not come across as an epithet to possible good faith posters even if their posting is inappropriate. What the RFC seems to show is two things: 1/ there is consensus to change the term, and 2/ "shill" is a possible strong contender for a replacement term. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:54, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

• Strong support for "shill" as a replacement for "meatpuppet", and I wish I'd thought of it first. It's an accurate, proper-English term with a good pedigree and an appropriate connotation. Most people are familiar with it, whereas you have to be into cyberpunk to get "meatpuppet" without a glossary. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 17:12, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Posse-editing

I think "posse-editing" is the best way to describe the situation. I think it works better than "shill" because it's a more common term. And it's a good metaphor to the Wild West, when a guy would get his friends to team up and fight someone. DC T•C 05:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

• At this point, I'm open to any number of possibilities, and not terribly attached to any one over others. This one might be OK, in that it does have a certain amount of lucidity to it. Higher in this talk, you also mentioned "gang editing". I think I might like that one slightly better, in that the language is slightly more familiar and accessible. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:00, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Scrap the Two Word Definitions, Go for the long but clear

I don't see why everyone is stuck on two word labels for the practice known as meatpuppetry. Clearly going upwards of 20 would be bad, but I see no problem with "Gathering Single Purpose Accounts to Sway a Discussion." The definition is significantly more complicated than any of the two word definitions I have seen to date, which might be why the jargon word exists. We should focus on creating a clear one line definition we can all agree on instead. Any two word definition we settle on will be so unclear that it itself will soon become jargon.

Proposal Go for a longer but completely unambiguous definition, and use that instead of the term meatpuppetry and the two word terms being discussed above. Sven Manguard _Talk 18:06, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. It will be shortened no matter your good intentions and I can't deal with the thought of WP:GSPAtSaD. —UncleDouggie (talk) 04:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Though WP:SAD might seem like appropriate commentary on people who engage in this practice :P Orderinchaos 03:19, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Half of these are mis-firing

Half of these terms are insulting the wrong person. The person that is (presumably) knowingly violating the guideline is the person who did the recruiting. People that end up getting called "meatpuppets" are generally IP's & brand-new accounts. What they are doing is beyond fine in the real world......someone asks the to get involved on an issue and they do. Then, when they think they are doing something good on their first visit to Wikipedia, they are greeted by being called a "meatpuppet". That's ridiculous. Any pejorative term term should refer to the canvasser or the act of canvassing.

• For the recruited person: Improperly recruited participant
• For the act of external recruiting: Improper recruiting
• For the person who did the recruiting Improper recruiter

North8000 (talk) 18:35, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Q re: meatpuppetry

If we had two editors, one who had an attorney-client relationship with the first, does this policy permit the attorney to defend their client on-wiki? If so, should reverts of the client and the attorney be counted as one entity for the purposes of 3rr? Should the relationship be disclosed? Hipocrite (talk) 12:11, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Has the situation come up yet, or is this purely hypothetical? It seems unlikely that a person would need legal representation in actually editing a wiki. When people ask their legal representative to help them, it's usually to either clarify their viewpoint (without legal threats) or to contact OTRS. Someone who clearly acts as a spokesperson or aide for the editor and does not engage the debate by jointly edit warring but tries to help resolve it by making the person's view clearer or acting as a mediator/intermediary, would be unlikely to have a problem. Someone who co-edits with them probably would have a problem. But without a specific example it's hard to be too exact on a reply. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 12:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The situation is currently active and involves joint edit warring and multi-voting. The initial relationship is not related to the editing of the wiki, but both the client and the attorney are actively editing. Given that the evidence includes the non-public identies of both editors, I'll submit the details to arbcom in private. Hipocrite (talk) 12:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Curious question, because if there was any actual legal matter involved, (defamation, libel, slander, harassment, etc) it would be grounds for WMF involvement and basically in the Godwin-inhabited world of WP:THREATs. So in that case it wouldn't be permitted. And in all other cases--of mere representation of views, neutrality, BLP guidelines, promotion, etc. normal policies apply, first among them WP:COI. So, I can't think of a situation where your example would actually happen without triggering either red-alarm legal issues or clear policy violations. As for meatpuppetry, well, it kind of is a hired representative of you, so yeah, it's meatpuppetry. But by the time it was revealed that the meatpuppet was your lawyer I think other issues would immediately take precedence. Ocaasi 18:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Not least a sanity check if anyone's genuinely paying a lawyer $150 - 800 an hour to edit war on Wikipedia rather than email OTRS..... FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:30, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

New, separate page for meat puppetry

About a week ago, I made a separate page for Meat puppetry here. I did not actually change the guideline. I just copied and pasted the same text from the sock puppetry page there, reworded it so it made more sense on its own page, and added a list of signs. I did it after I brought up the idea of doing this, and got no opposition for several days. I was inspired to do this after someone did the same for Clean start recently.

I do feel that meat puppetry, while similar, is distinct enough from sock puppetry that it does belong on its own page. Just like reliable sources, verifiability, and citing sources are similar, but distinct enough to have their own pages. While sock puppetry is a one-man show, meat puppetry is deception involving the use of multiple people. Some difference.

My idea is to immediately start off the new MEAT page exactly as the policy is currently written on the SOCK page (with only minor wording changes as needed), and discuss any changes accordingly. I don't see why anyone should be opposed. Hellno2 (talk) 18:09, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose It is our policy that we are not here to create rules. All the proposal does is to fork the existing policy page, adding no value and multiplying the number of rules pages beyond necessity. See also Parkinson's Law. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:14, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. Move the meat section here to WP:Canvassing, redirect all the meat-y stuff there, and discuss it there. Sockpuppetry is about a single person's actions and is provable. 'Meatpuppetry' is not provable. It amounts to a judgement that some editor is completely under the control of another. Can we agree this can't be said with certainty short of showing a gun pointed at someone's temple while they write? Sure, anyone who's been here awhile sees editors swarming discussions with nothing to add besides 'Yeah, what he said' and has gotten frustrated and angry about it. Some editors post that kind of stuff after being canvassed at other venues. But WP:Consensus addresses the problem, as hard as its implementation may be. And we are free to point out that 'this user has made few or no edits apart from this discussion' at AFDs and RFAs and we have the template that goes 'If you came here because...' And Canvassing already talks about external recruitment. Novickas (talk) 20:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, what CW said about policy proliferation. The page isn't terribly long or hard to navigate. Novickas (talk) 16:04, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

• • Why use the word "oppose" in your title. It is clear you support something, just something a little different. I agree that meatpuppetry is more like canvassing than sock puppetry. Hellno2 (talk) 13:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Another, more temperate, way of putting it would be, oppose because it's too early to talk of splitting it off, when you see the lively discussion about its wording above. Hiving off Clean Start - not sure why that needed to be done, but its content and wording weren't contentious. I'm glad we seem to agree about its closer relation to canvassing; kind of dusty here now to be proposing moving it to that page, but maybe later sometime. Novickas (talk) 16:00, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. No need for a separate policy; this is closely connected to sockpuppetry, and sometimes the same for our purposes. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:23, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. there isn't any pressing reason to have a separate policy on meat puppetry, and meat puppetry is a questionable idea in any case. best to leave it in wp:SOCK where it is at least properly contextualized. --Ludwigs2 16:14, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
• Strong Support For editors that do not regularly handle policy, this page is an excellent guide. If might serve better if it were renamed as an essay "What exactly is meatpuppetry." Either way, I believe having a separate page that explains without distraction, and happens to explain well, what Meatpuppetry actually constitutes is valuable to the project. Sven Manguard _Talk 17:58, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose, per SlimVirgin (talk · contribs). -- Cirt (talk) 18:58, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
• False dichotomy. Meat puppetry (renamed preferably) belongs in WP:SOCK, because (1) editors expect it to be covered by this long standing policy; and (2) because in terms of appearances, crude sock/meat puppetry can be indistinguishable. However, a separate essay could help, especially in cases when a genuine good faith newcomers finds himself accused. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:00, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. If weakly. However, meatpuppetry might be better defined, say in a separate essay. Nucleophilic (talk) 19:28, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. As said better by others already, meat-puppetry is usually indistinguishable from sock-puppetry so it makes sense to treat them together. To the extent that off-Wiki canvassing is separate from meat-puppetry, it's already covered in WP:CANVASS.   Will Beback  talk  20:47, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't think they're that unrelated for this to matter. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 17:52, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose unless and until someone can find a better way to differentiate between sockpuppets and meatpuppets we need a combined policy that we can point transgressors to. At the moment we don't know or care whether someone is a sockpuppet or a meatpuppet, all this change would lead to is endless arguments along the lines of "no I'm not the same person and we will both email the office to prove it". ϢereSpielChequers 09:59, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Summary so far and updated proposal

The above threads on the term "meatpuppetry" seem to have reached two sets of initial conclusions. A modified proposal and two quick questions follow. The updated proposal is to cover all forms of canvassing on one page, ie merge WP:MEAT into WP:CANVASS. CANVASS would then cover the community's view on all canvassing activity (both internal and external), regardless of origin and type. Should CANVASS be merged with MEAT? Should CANVASS then be promoted as an official policy? 16:54, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Recap of discussion to date

Matter posed	Tentative conclusion so far
Q: Creating a new page for WP:MEAT failed to gain consensus	Failed to gain consensus. A first thread gained no consensus (7 views each way); a second thread gained fewer responses but close to unanimous opposition. The opposes are mainly based on the view that meatpuppetry and sockpuppetry issues can be (or are) very closely linked in practice.
Q: Renaming meatpuppetry to a different term in policy more than 50% support in a straw poll	There is some support for this (I make a quick count of views = 29 support, 21 oppose, although it's well known polls are evil). The term that might be preferred is not clear yet. Reasons advanced for retiring the term: - clarity/jargon/obscurity, avoiding BITing newcomers who may not know they have done anything wrong (unlike sock-users who usually do know), reducing a route for escalation where an offensive term is thrown at new users, better to focus on behavior not a label. Policy should be "cleaner" worded even if some users would continue to use the older term. If changed in policy then most (even if not all) users would probably change the term they used over time as well. Opposition was mainly around traditional term use, easily picked up wiki-term, and perception as political correctness. No clear consensus has yet formed on what wording would be preferable. Suggested terms include "external soliciting", "external canvassing", and "shilling" (the latter gaining strong support in its own section). (For completeness, "external recruitment" was also proposed but may have issues since people replying to a website link would probably not feel they were "recruited" in any usual sense of the word, a recipe for bad faith accusations.)

Updated proposal

An updated proposal is to cover all forms of canvassing on one page, ie merge WP:MEAT into WP:CANVASS. CANVASS already handles a range of inappropriate types of internal canvassing. MEAT is very short and fits in well.

CANVASS would then cover the community's view on all canvassing activity (internal and external), regardless of origin and type. The draft keeps the existing norms and wording related to meatpuppetry, continues to make clear that users may be treated as socks if unclear, and as a bonus implicitly resolves the naming issue ("external canvassing", which a number of people proposed) and clarifies treatment of meatpuppeteers and (possibly good faith) users who respond.

Draft at User:FT2/Canvassing based on current WP:CANVASS (please edit to improve it)

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:54, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Quick poll #1 - Acceptable names for "meatpuppetry"

The community has shown some support for gracefully retiring the term "meatpuppetry" in favor of a better and less "bitey" or provocative term, but no clear consensus exists on what terms are better. Suggestions include "external soliciting", "external canvassing", "external recruitment" (possibly problematic), and "shill/shilling".

• I like meatpuppetry, but external canvassing sounds fine. "Soliciting" and "recruitment" don't convey the right meaning across (there's nothing wrong with recruiting new editors!), and "shill" isn't as obvious to some people. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 17:51, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
• I dislike "meatpuppetry", and would prefer pretty much any of the proposed alternatives. External canvassing would be a good choice, as would shill and gang editing. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:19, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. The above characterization of consensus from the prior poll is inaccurate. There is not consensus at this time supporting "retirement" of the term meatpuppetry. -- Cirt (talk) 20:46, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

... hence accurately described as "some consensus" not "clear consensus", with numbers stated for transparency. There is more support than not to look at a better term if one exists with about 60% of views supporting a change to some better term. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 04:56, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Not really familiar with anywhere on Wikipedia where a 58% outcome is considered "consensus" to change something significant like these sorts of WP:Guideline pages. -- Cirt (talk) 09:27, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. Please stop the polls. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:50, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
• Meatpuppetry is acceptable name for meatpuppetry.--Unskinny Bop (talk) 12:24, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose meatpuppetry is just a Wikipedia-term, which I think is not "bitey". Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 01:13, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support There's no reason that two such completely different things should have similar names. Also, keep in mind that the process of soliciting support / involvement is very common and acceptable outside of Wikipedia, and the folks who respond are the ones who are willing to spend some time to "get involved". So, a newbie so recruited, who thinks they are doing something good is welcomed to Wikipedia by being called the pejorative and insulting term "meatpuppet". And they're not even the one who committed the recruitment offense. North8000 (talk) 11:55, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Support. I find the original proposal's phrasing very compelling: "obscure to non-editors, sounds pejorative and offensive, focuses attention on the label not the behavior, and comes over as disparaging or attacking newcomers who may not be aware they have done anything wrong…" I also think it's important that the resulting policy should make it clear that there is no problem with having purposeful discussion in multiple venues, but that explicit attempts to "stack votes" cross a line. I should point out that I have not thoroughly absorbed all the nuances of the various !votes above, so it's possible I've missed refinements to the original proposal. But I support it, at least, in its general approach. -Pete (talk) 06:24, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. "Obscure to non-editors"? This is a rule for English Wikipedia editors. Non-editors have no business with Wikipedia rules. --Velcro Christmas Tree (talk) 14:58, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose this was silly a month ago and it's still silly now. "Politically correct" style idiocy which tries to solve an imaginary problem about a supposedly confusing word by changing it to a monumentally more confusing phrase. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
• support for shill. I think we've talked about this way too much, though. I'm tempted to just edit in a hybrid form such as shilling (sometimes called meatpuppetry). seems easier than arguing endlessly over the decision. --Ludwigs2 16:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. Meatpuppetry is the most appropriate and descriptive term. The others are confusing. --Koramil (talk) 19:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Quick poll #2 - updated proposal

Views on merging WP:MEAT into WP:CANVASS, covering all types of canvassing on one page (see current draft at User:FT2/Canvassing)? Also if supported should the community promote CANVASS to policy?

• I don't mind if the two are merged (I think it covers the main issue in greater detail), nor do I think that it should not be policy, but if accepted, the page should undergo greater scrutiny and discussion before becoming policy. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 17:55, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
• I gave the userspace version a quick read, and I think that it addresses the !meat aspect very well. I note that a significant number of editors who opposed a separate page for meat, did so saying that they feel it is very similar to socking, and thus, they presumably would also oppose a move to canvass. Personally, I don't see it that way, and wouldn't object to incorporating it into canvass, but I also do not think that doing so is particularly important or necessary. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:23, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. The two should not be merged. They are significantly different concepts that should remain separate. They have stood along successfully for quite some time. -- Cirt (talk) 20:45, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. Guys, these polls are getting a bit out of hand, and it's reached the point that people aren't quite sure what's being proposed, or why, and others are wandering off. The policy is fine as it is. Meatpuppetry and sockpuppetry are often part of the same issue, in that we regularly can't tell which is which, so they need to be dealt with on one page. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:49, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I suppose it really is true that people are getting confused about what's being proposed, because the proposal IS for dealing with the two on one page. At least that's my reading. 216.70.228.54 (talk) 21:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

• I think the proposal is still to move something to a different page. But I think we need a break from polls about it, at least for a while. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 06:41, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what's going on here - most people seemed to want to stop talking about "meatpuppetry" (and for very good reason), but then we had this equally obscure term "shill" coming in instead - none of these terms have any business being used in contexts that involve outsiders, since outsiders by definition don't know the insider jargon. Clearly meatpuppetry is not sockpuppetry - it has much more to do with canvassing - so if we can't be persuaded to put all these things together on one clear and comprehensive page (and when I see arguments saying "it's been this way for a long time" I'm normally pretty sure that there aren't any real arguments for doing it that way), then meatpuppetry needs to be renamed to something like "external canvassing" that ordinary people have at least half a chance of understanding, and it be moved to the cavassing page, with cross-links between that page and this to make clear that sometimes the results of external canvassing look so much like sockpuppetry that we tend to treat them as such.--Kotniski (talk) 10:18, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support I actually believe MEAT should be on a policy page of its own. There is one huge difference between sock and meat puppetry, and that is the number of people involved. Sock puppetry is a one-man show. Meat puppetry involves multiple people. With all the similarities they may have (including 'puppetry' in their name, that's all), the behaviors are very different. If meat puppetry cannot be on its own page, at the very least, it is more akin to canvassing. Hellno2 (talk) 23:41, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

Is meatpuppetry really a serious problem? Isn't genuine meatpuppetry involving newcomers blatantly obvious to everyone but the newcomers? And aren't we usually nice to these newcomers, at least the ones who hang around long enough to reply? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:18, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

In an AfD of an article about an almost notable free software project (notable enough for the German Wikipedia) most of the newcomers who had been attracted by a mailing list post were blocked indefinitely even though they made no attempt to hide tha off-wiki canvassing. This included the founder of the project, who had created a real-name account in order to say in the AfD: That he had been canvassed and therefore found it improper to vote. That personally he didn't care for the article. But that he didn't agree with the technical reasons for the deletion. He engaged in very intelligent discussion and very quickly learned to understand the nuances of WP:GNG interpretation. He provided a few pointers to articles in low-circulation IT magazines. Then he was blocked indefinitely as a meatpuppet, along with the others. Nobody seems to have noticed the blocks at the time. A week or so later this came to light in an ANI thread, and the users were unblocked. What was really amazing is that the admin initially claimed that blocking a meatpuppet per WP:MEAT was totally proper and perfectly standard.

That is the problem with the word "meatpuppet". Hans Adler 14:16, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether this is a discussion about the word, or about the policy. But to the extent that it's about the policy, I could not disagree more with the assertion that this kind of conduct is not a problem. Take a look at the history of Crucifixion and Crucifixion in the arts and their associated talk pages, circa December 2009, if you don't believe me. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:58, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I remember the incident Hans refers to. I think it was agreed that it was the wrong thing to do. Apologies to the blocked were made. That sort of blocking is not continuing is it?

Trypofish, the question (not assertion) is about whether meatpuppety problems rise to the level of sockpuppety problems. When I look st the pages you mention, I don't see a huge problem, nor do I see action applied prescribed by this policy, nor do I see practice according as described. It is not surprising to hear of editor and editing difficulties where we touch onto religious beliefs. In the the real world, some people singularly obsess about points of religion.

At XfD and DRV, where I have seen apparent meatpuppety, I would characterise the bahaviours as newcomer SPAs. They are obviously recognised, their common argument is given the weight it deserves regardless of the typer, and there is no impact on outcomes due to meatpuppetry.

I think that, for example, Cold fusion could benefit from the invitation of an active, and gainfully and reputably employed academic nuclear physicist to comment on reference use there. Would this be forbidden as meatpuppetry? I believe that this sort of thing is done, to very good ultimate effect, on medicine-related articles. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Two things: About the crucifixion pages, maybe you missed what I was talking about. It wasn't, on the whole, religious at all. Rather, an external site dedicated to isn't Wikipedia evil!! that sent large numbers of meatpuppets to overwhelm an RfC with claims that editors here all have Asperger's syndrome and the like, while also demanding that content be deleted. The website included very specific (albeit mostly incorrect) instructions about how to evade blocks. At the time, it was nothing like a content dispute about sensitive religious material, but it came close to causing reliably sourced content to be deleted (along with death threats on my talk), and was temporarily very disruptive. It's not my intention to get into a contest of whether meat or sock behavior is the more disruptive, only to point out that they both are. Meatpuppeting isn't always just a benign case of not feeding the trolls and they go away.

About external sites that attract experts to, for example, science and medicine articles, this is something that I know a lot about. I've worked with the Society for Neuroscience with regard to one such site [2], which is clearly constructive and not meatpuppetry at all. The issue of what is constructive and what is meatpuppetry came up very explicitly in the just-closed ArbCom case about climate change. In the course of it, an external site (I won't link to it for obvious reasons) was pointed out that was giving advice about how to open accounts here and make edits to promote a particular point of view. In contrast, one of the arbs (Risker) pointed out another external link that gives excellent, NPOV, advice to scientists about how to become editors here [3]. The difference in each of these cases is that it's not meatpuppeting if the site simply helps good faith contributors find their way around Wikipedia, but it's disruptive when the site either encourages disruption, or encourages the pushing of a particular POV. The fact that you and I are discussing these distinctions makes me think it could be worthwhile to flesh out this page to make these sorts of things clearer. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:43, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

"Large numbers of meatpuppets to overwhelm an RfC with claims that editors here all have Asperger's syndrome"? I guess I skimmed too quickly.

I would like to see fleshed out something covering a distinction between meatpuppetry and inviting expert involvement. The two sites you link seem to be encouraging academics to join without pointing them to specific subjects requiring assistance. Where's the dividing line? Is it meatpuppetry to encourage a scientist to correct a specific piece of erroneous pseudoscience (I think it is erroneous pseudoscience, but the details are beyond me). Can you link to the relevant part of the "just-closed ArbCom case about climate change"? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:51, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with SmokeyJoe. Canvassed external involvement, where the canvassing is disclosed and open, and the intent isn't to deceive, really isn't meatpuppetry. Our canvassing guideline offers a nice nuanced spectrum of gray areas regarding the level of secrecy, the intended level of deception, and the bias of the canvassed crowd. I think it's a vastly superior to the section where WP:MEAT currently lands. I don't really care about changing the vocabulary, but I think that merging the actual policy with the policy on canvassing shouldn't be dismissed out of hand. Gigs (talk) 01:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

There is a difference between asking for uninvolved persons to review a matter (ie asking in a way and location likely to get neutral help) and asking for someone to support a specific position, or in a way likely to get someone to do so. A simple solution would be: While seeking expert review is permitted, external experts should not be asked to visit and engage in editorial disputes, but only to state an opinion on the quality of writing, sources, coverage, and the like. But this is still very problematic. How will the expert's identity be attested (that the new writer is who they claim). Does this cause editorial discussions to devolve into "find the best expert willing to state a case on-wiki"? Does this ask editors to give weight to WP:OR by weighting a post on a wiki by an expert as more weighty than the view of experts in published reliable sources? Does this open the door to a parallel problem to "civil POV warring" ("I'm not canvassing/swaying consensus, I'm just asking experts to visit Wikipedia").

While I can see the attraction in inviting external but agreed experts to review or assists in difficult topics, I would be very wary of the effect of stating an explicit "right to do so" as an exception to policies on canvassing, due to the likelihood that much of the time it will be WP:COATRACKed and used for bias and edit warring. If there is a dispute then the arrival of an "expert" summoned by one side will surely detract from dispute resolution more often than help it. Any useful exception for experts asked to look at articles is more likely to relate to expert review by consensus or in non-dispute situations, in which case it probably wouldn't be the subject of an canvassing accusation anyhow. Policy does not always need to state everything. This could be an issue where it's better overall to be silent, as at present. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 03:18, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

SmokeyJoe asked me for a link to the ArbCom discussion, which is here: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Proposed decision/Archive 6#Something for everyone to read. I agree with Joe and Gigs that it would be good to clarify that distinction. I also agree with FT2 about the things to be careful of, and I would suggest, in general, that some of the solution would lie in spelling out what is not permitted, in contrast to specifying something additional that is permitted. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Another valid alternate account

As people may or may not be aware, you can create an RSS feed for your watchlist. My watchlist is long, and an RSS feed of it currently would be... less than valuable.

I created User:Hipocrite-Watchlist to watchlist a few lesser-watched BLP articles and use an RSS reader to track that watchlist. This is not currently a listed acceptable use of alternate accounts. It should be, as long as the watchlist-user is linked back to the main username. Thoughts? Hipocrite (talk) 14:43, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

The list of "legitimate uses" isn't a closed list, it's a list of examples. I don't think every use of an alt account needs to be explicitly listed. Provided the use isn't intended or used to deceive or disrupt it's fine. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:01, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Coverage of openly declared secondary accounts like that is not the main intent of this page. Such accounts are obviously OK. I suggest adding {{doppelganger|User:Hipocrite|to watchlist a few lesser-watched BLP articles and use an RSS reader to track that watchlist}} to the User and User_Talk pages.

On this policy, I think it would be improved if focused strictly on undeclared secondary accounts. Several of the legitimate uses, including doppelgangers, are red herrings, aka bloat, with respect to the purpose of the policy. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:15, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Case in point. Apparently there is some disconnect and vagueness in this policy that is currently causing heartburn. If this policy prohibits all undisclosed accounts, we need to make it say that more clearly. Gigs (talk) 01:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure this policy is aimed at noxious uses of alternate accounts, not all uses. per standard wikipedia laissez faire attitudes, no one cares unless it's a problem. --Ludwigs2 02:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

What about cases in which a user is being harassed or Wikihounded? Can an alternate account be created to help alleviate some of that stress, yet continue to edit from ones main account?--Jojhutton (talk) 20:48, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Ditching "Legitimate uses"

I think we should just get rid of the whole "legitimate uses" section. Two of the above discussions are kind of pointing toward that conclusion. It's too easy for people to get the impression that if an undisclosed alternate account is not one of the listed legitimate uses, then it isn't allowed. I think the inappropriate uses section covers all the stuff we really care about, the things that most people consider socking. Gigs (talk) 02:49, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Are you proposing disallowing legit uses, simply being silent on them, or replacing the detailed list by a more generic text that outlined the conditions any use must meet instead? Legit use can be summed up in one paragraph (given some copy-editing):

"Use of more than one account is discouraged and may be forbidden to an individual in case of past misuse. A few exceptions exist for good reasons, which are usually related to real-world privacy (for example editing on topics that would be controversial in ones work, profession or social circles), security (using accounts with tool access on insecure computers), or segregation of edits undertaken in very distinct roles (bot operation, WMF staff role vs. editor role, and so on). It is a courtesy granted by the community, not a right, may be forbidden if misused, and is conditional upon being used in good faith and not to deceive or conceal matters that are relevant to editorial discussions. Users operating multiple accounts are advised to link or tag them on their user pages or signatures, or notify ArbCom, to avoid misunderstanding and confusion. Users who do not openly tag such accounts must take extra care to avoid the appearance of misuse and are warned that it is up to them to ensure no adverse perception is likely, as the community is likely to take such behavior very seriously even if not intended."

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 12:11, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

FT2 - I think even that might be overstating it. My own sense is that alternate accounts are fine (if discouraged) so long as they are not overtly problematic. All we need to say is (1) we prefer people use one account, (2) we allow people to use multiple accounts at their discretion, but suggest that it be open and transparent, and (3) we get annoyed when people use multiple accounts for scurrilous activities. There's really no need to spell out (2) at all (though we should probably give a couple of examples). --Ludwigs2 14:39, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Can I go back to editing through IP?

I'd like to cancel my user account Inspector123 since another registered user apparently with OCD (obsessive-compulsive disorder) is making a pest of himself accusing me of sock puppetry, as I mostly edited anonymously with IP address which keeps changing by the way, not that I intended to con anyone into believing I'm different people, its just that my shared IP has various addresses and uses whichever is most efficient at any given time so its keeps changing, I only created the account to be able to edit blocked/secure articles with valid information when available, my IP mostly is 116 and 119 but can also be anything else from 115 to 203.116.71.5.220 (talk) 17:49, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

In simple terms: No.

Your reasons for not using a single ID have ranged from “I don’t want to pretend to be an administrator” to “I forget” to “I’m too lazy to log in” and "eff off". None of these are acceptable reasons, per Wikipedia policy on user IDs. You have been made aware of all of this, on numerous occasions, yet choose to continue ignoring advice given to you by several editors and administrators.

To add to that, your user ID as well as several of your IPs have been blocked on numerous occasions. This amounts to sockpuppetry. Marry the two together and it is not too much of a stretch to believe that the reason for your editing practice is to escape accountability and to evade blocks. Note that blocks are directed towards an editor, regardless of the ID/IP that editor may use.

An occasional edit without logging in is one thing. But thousands upon thousands of edits, using hundreds of different IPs is a whole matter entirely. The use of an account isn't simply for the user's convenience and for edit access to locked articles.

If you wanted to, you could simply use your registered ID to make edits that follow established procedure and prescribed guidelines, and there would be no problem at all, would there?

This is just my take on and interpretation of the fairly simple rules we have on the topic; someone with more expertise on the use of registered accounts and sockpuppetry may have a different view.

And this question should have been asked of the community using your registered account (that's what it is about after all). jasepl (talk) 18:08, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok all this is the weirdo I was referring to, anyways just to let you know I will be editing through IP from now on, so the accusation of sock puppettry dosent stand anymore, you can cancel my user account Inspector123, thanks.119.155.32.85 (talk) 06:45, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

So it looks like the only answer was from the involved person. Whether this is one-way or two way situation, my recommendation would be a 2-way disengagement. And, if you're going to edit, to have and always use an account. Although I do NOT NOT know whether such is or is not the case here, wiki-savvy harassment (which you seem to be implying) though harder to rein in, can be addressed. North8000 (talk) 12:27, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I forfeit my Inspector123 user account.119.155.44.9 (talk) 12:10, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to (sort of) lose you! North8000 (talk) 20:30, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

That guy is still harassing me, insisting I use my account, or will be reported as sockpuppet, guess he dosent know what forfeit means, he has created some sort of talk page on Inspector123 as well, happy posting I say to him. 116.71.3.7 (talk) 23:33, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

jasepl, I would suggest that you drop this matter. Inspector has said that they are not going to use the account any longer and I have never read in any policy that once you create an account you must continue to use that account. In my review of the edits I have not seen any disruptive editing from Inspector or their IPs. Sanctions under this policy are only available if the editor is evading a block or ban or being disruptive. Since no evidence of either of these has been presented your messages to Inspector and IP about action are empty. ~~ GB fan ~~ 03:07, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

guessed password -- huh??

Per "Compromised accounts":

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

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

Reporting sockpuppet

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

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/Archives/Archive9#Some method to allow anons to report new suspected sockpuppets

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/Archives/Archive9#Some method to allow anons to report new suspected sockpuppets. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:53, 14 December 2010 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}}) עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:53, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Paranoia vs. legitimate concerns

I've noticed somethings lately. It started with User:Songofsirenswhose first and only edits have been to revert. I've noticed the same thing with November10's contributions. In the case of Songofsirens, the user seems to have a lot of knowledge. For example, he cited WP:CLAIM on one of his first edits,[4] a policy I didn't even know existed (though I have been editing for a long time).

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

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

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

I would have never thought of any of these techniques; I am glad to now have at my disposal an arsenal of disruptive measures with which to create alternative histories that exist solely in my own mind. Thanks, Wikipedia! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.201.118.157 (talk) 15:31, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh my God your going to destroy the world!!!!! Nvm your just going to waste your time making admins feel good and superior when they ban you over and over (Why else would anyone become an admin?).173.180.214.13 (talk) 02:29, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposal for discussion : Village Scribe

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All of Wikipedia's sock puppets

I predict the admin and crat puppeteers might argue fiercely against my statement[Special:Contributions/173.180.214.13|173.180.214.13] ([User talk:173.180.214.13|talk]) 02:24, 9 January 2011 (UTC)Hi,

I've noticed that all of Wikipedia's sock puppeteers seem extremely absurd and dumb, people who are very bad liars and make comments like "Im no stockpocket i jus thik u r wong becuz u dizagee wit User:Bob and User:ImNotstockpocket whom is alway rights." This could mean that we are only catching the stupid ones, and probably the more advanced sock puppeteers are getting away with it, perhaps possibly becoming admins or crats with all their support. 173.180.214.13 (talk) 02:13, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

If you're suspicious of anyone, ask the CheckUsers.Jasper Deng (talk) 07:02, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, it's happened before that a sockpuppet of a banned user has become an admin. But then, a single admin doesn't have that much power to undermine Wikipedia. If someone makes thousands of helpful contributions so that they can make a few malicious ones later, the malicious ones tend to be corrected and Wikipedia benefits in the end. If you look at it this way, it's kind of more important that we catch the stupid and blatantly malicious sock puppeteers, because they make more bad contributions. rspεεr (talk) 02:36, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposed change to shorten policy and finally stop bickering about pejoritives

• (1) A man referring to a woman as MEAT is sexist. If you are a man and you don't understand, ask the first woman you run into what she thinks,or if you are more daring, call her that and see what happens to you.
• (2) A "marionette" is slang for "whilst getting head from a chick, pull out of her mouth and cum in her hair. now grab the sticky hair between your fingers and pull up, thus imitating a puppeteer!"[5].

Propose

• (1) Change word "Meatpuppet' to "Agent"
• (2) Keep WP:MEAT shortcut, but dont mention it in the policy, so no one new learns it, and the old shortcut will still work for old timers and those who want to use it
• (3) Make new WP:AGT shortcut.
• (4) We don't have to discuss "derogatory' or "pejoritive" any more in policy, so this shortens the policy. PPdd (talk) 06:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Observations (a) Urban Dictionary is not a reliable source (b) The definition you quote has a very low rating on the site (c) WP's term is "meatpuppet", not "meatmarionette", so drawing any relation is tenuous at best (d) "Agent" is an extremely general term, surely there must be a better one. --Cybercobra (talk) 07:14, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone have a suggestion for a word to replace the sexist word "MEAT", or the very derogatory word "puppet"? PPdd (talk) 14:15, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

As I already said, there have perennially been other words suggested, and none has achieved consensus. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:07, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Block for MP?

I was just the victim of a SP and MP attack[6] on an alternative medicine article. It turns out that a "professor" at an alt med university did not like all the facts and “professional” dress code violations he saw at WP and a face book page was used to get his students or colleagues or etc. to massively come to WP to POV edit the Traditional Chinese medicine article to have it “look good” for their profession, rather than be NPOV based on RS. I am about to poison my own well, since this gang is going to be practically impossible to deal with, and I just made a jillion NPOV RS and MEDRS edits all about to be POV tampered with at TCM, but I am OK with that, and I think MP is a wrong policy if used to permanently block. SP is a good policy, MP is impossible to objectively enforce, and is a kind of violation of others' free speech. PPdd (talk) 22:48, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

While Wikipedia is not censored, nor is it free-speech either. Those users can be autoblocked for POV or the page can be protected.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:01, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Everyone has a point of view. If you blocked everyone with a point of view, there would be nobody left. If you block people for having a particular point of view, that's pretty much the textbook definition of censorship. You probably meant "blocked for introducing POV material into articles", which would be a much better justification than the utterly subjective "blocked for meatpuppetry". rspεεr (talk) 00:58, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

They were blocked for SP/MP. PPdd (talk) 01:12, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

That's pretty unclear, but were they blocked for presumed sock puppetry, which is often indistinguishable from meat puppetry? In this world of imperfect information, that's actually acceptable and supported by the sock policy. But I agree that it's very important to avoid the appearance of censorship. It should be clear that they're being blocked for their actions and not for their opinions. rspεεr (talk) 01:58, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

And what is the criteria for meatpuppetry? Surely there are other people who share either my and your points of view - how can you justify calling anyone a meatpuppet when they are just logging in to edit to the best of their understanding of a subject? It is not right to block because you think someone is collaborating with someone else. In fact, wouldn't a group like the skeptics group be considered meatpuppets?Herbxue (talk) 04:33, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I should be more specific- My intent is to complain that the assertion that multiple people who tried to edit similar problems on a page at the same time are labeled as SP/MP which implies willful wrongdoing when they were really editing in good faith to improve an article badly in need of help. Therefore it was inappropriate to block.Herbxue (talk) 04:42, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you there. I think the "meatpuppet = sockpuppet" clause should only come into play when multiple accounts are acting indistinguishably from one person with multiple accounts. If they are different people, they're allowed -- a bunch of people want to edit Wikipedia; anyone can edit Wikipedia; therefore they may edit Wikipedia. If a dispute arises, we just take their possible motives into account. Blocking someone "for meatpuppetry" is a really, really bad idea that goes against what Wikipedia stands for. rspεεr (talk) 05:20, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

The matter of meatpuppetry is only discovered and problematic when they support, defend, or perpetuate disruptive actions of various kinds that have usually been made by some disruptive editor who may be blocked or banned. If they aren't causing any problems, there is no problem and no one ever notices. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:56, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

And there are websites that have, verifiably, posted calls for people to come to Wikipedia to do various things that are out-of-policy. Blocks aren't always the most appropriate solution, but sometimes !votes need to be discounted in RfCs, for example. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:28, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I would say, blocks are never an appropriate solution in those cases. If these are different people coming to express their individual opinions, the canvassing that drew them may be wrong, and !votes may be discounted, but those new contributors are always welcome. –SJ+ 21:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Restoring the instruction to not call people "meatpuppets"

(brought up first on WP:VPP)

This policy page has become more wishy-washy over time about the fact that "meatpuppet" is an insult that is frequently unnecessarily directed at newbies. Sure, it currently says that it "may be considered derogatory", but that's weak.

It used to say, for one thing, that it is derogatory (example). "May be" is silly. There is no situation where "meatpuppet" will not be perceived as a derogatory term. Established Wikipedians know that it's derogatory, and newbies know it's derogatory too.

It also used to say not to call people meatpuppets to their face, because it accomplishes nothing except to bite newbies. This was removed by JzG in late 2007 with the comment "shorten slightly". He also changed the caption on the link to WP:CIVIL to say "used only with care", and unfortunately he's not around anymore for me to ask him what the heck he meant by that. Is there a careful, civil way to call someone a meatpuppet?

Recent events have shown that even long-established admins can lose track of the fact that they shouldn't be saying "meatpuppet, meatpuppet, meatpuppet" to every new user who shows up on an AfD. (AfDs are theoretically decided on the merits of the arguments, so ad hominem attacks should be worthless.) Would there be any objections to restoring similar language to WP:MEAT to what used to be there? rspεεr (talk) 00:47, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Its much worse than just "derogatory". Its very sexist for a man to refer to a woman that way. The expression should be deleted from SP and another one used to replace it. PPdd (talk) 02:04, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

How is sexism related to this?Jasper Deng (talk) 02:24, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I think PPdd's saying it sounds like a sexist term (even though that's not what we mean by it). Newbies may not necessarily know what the term means but they know it's bad. I even remember a horde of incoming vegans who were (amusingly in retrospect) quite mortally offended by it.

But I don't think we can actually change the word Wikipedians use for the situation (I see a not-very-successful proposal to do so in the recent past). But we can restrain ourselves to only using the term "meatpuppet" when discussing policy, as in here, not as an accusation against a particular person. Newbies shouldn't have to guess what in particular we're calling them, and we shouldn't find some other name to call them; we should just stop calling them names at all and let arguments rely on policy. rspεεr (talk) 02:42, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Meat-puppetry accusations can also be made for harassment, as a possibility for abuse, so I think there should be a policy on this.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:49, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd say "meat puppet" is no more derogatory than "sock puppet." (And I have no earthly idea where PPdd gets the idea that it's a sexist term.) At best, remind people not to throw accusations of sock-puppetry or meat-puppetry carelessly. The terms "may be" considered derogatory, but they also "may be" accurate. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:44, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with The Hand about that. Also, please be aware that this is a perennial complaint. Some of the more recent times: Wikipedia talk:Sock puppetry/Archive 7#Terminology: replace "meat puppetry" with "collusion", Wikipedia talk:Sock puppetry/Archive 7#Getting Rid of WP:MEAT, Wikipedia talk:Sock puppetry/Archive 7#Meatpuppetry discussions (term used and policy location), and all of Wikipedia talk:Sock puppetry/Archive 8. The upshot is that there really are instances when people are recruited off-Wiki, often at other websites, to be disruptive, and the community has tried before to come up with an alternative name for it, but never agreed on what an alternative name would be. It's insulting to say that someone is any sort of disruptive editor when they aren't, but it's the truth when they are. And WP:NPA already has that covered. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

The perennial complaint you are referring to is different, and something I already said I'm not proposing. If you changed the word, the new word would be an attack too. My proposal was to restore the language telling people not to direct this attack at particular users.
It seems unrealistic to think that everyone would know that NPA means not to call new users meatpuppets. The common response is "That wasn't an attack! It's just a Wikipedia term, see, it's right here in the policy!" (The other common response is "Fuck off, why are you helping disruptive trolls?")
Also, you may be talking about a different situation than me, but most of the people I see called "meatpuppets" aren't themselves doing anything malicious. The person who recruited them may be malicious or misguided, but it's not wrong to state your opinion in a Wikipedia discussion. And lots of people (like me) start editing because they're recruited for some silly dispute, then find out they like editing and stay here. If you're talking about intentionally disruptive meatpuppets, then you're talking about intentionally disruptive users, and you probably have better recourses than to call them names anyway. rspεεr (talk) 05:14, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, this is getting to be a bit of complex discussion for what I think should be a simple edit. I've made a bold edit that makes the policy about a sentence longer. [7] Is there anything anyone objects to in it? rspεεr (talk) 05:24, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I think your edit is an improvement. I've tweaked the wording a bit, and hopefully that won't be an issue. My thinking is that we don't want to create a reason for really disruptive meatpuppets to wikilawyer over what someone might have called them. And your experience points out (to me at least!) how past experience can influence this discussion. In my case, people recruited at a website spent months making death threats and the like to me—quite a different experience than yours! And sorry if you thought I was calling your revision a perennial. As you can see from the thread just below, a couple of different proposals got mixed together in this talk. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:19, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• (1) A man referring to a woman as MEAT is sexist. If you are a man and you don't understand, ask the first woman you run into what she thinks,or if you are more daring, call her that and see what happens to you.
• (2) A "marionette" is slang for "whilst getting head from a chick, pull out of her mouth and cum in her hair. now grab the sticky hair between your fingers and pull up, thus imitating a puppeteer!"[8]. Why not just change the term to MTPPT, add a shortcut WP:MTPT, and not mention the shortcut WP:MEAT, and those old timers can still use the sexist term it if they want to, and no one new will learn to call women MEAT? No "derogatory" or "pejoritive" description then needs to be in the policy. PPdd (talk) 06:09, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Did we really need the above quote, PPdd? In any case, I see this as extension to wp:DFTT or wp:Do not insult the vandals. Better, though, that we should simply address the edits rather than the editors. If we need a new collective noun for the surrogate editors, I'd propose wp:ALDEN, as in John Alden, linking to a simple instruction to "'speak for yourself', never for others." LeadSongDog come howl! 22:07, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Punishing Meatpuppets?

North8000 makes a good point in the section above. Since a meatpuppet is by defiintion clueless about WP policies and guidelines, how can it be reasonable to ever punish them. It's the puppet master who is at fault for any behavior violations, not their puppets. On the other hand, not punishing them with a block violates the idea of one-editor/one-account. PPdd (talk) 20:49, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I think an awful lot of what we are discussing here is a lot of fuss over things that are not really problems. By punish, I assume you mean block. Is there an example of what you would consider to have been a bad block? Largely, the policy as written simply calls for discounting comments in discussion, which does not really amount to punishment. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:21, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I also have seen bad blocks; they are not all that rare. If a group of newbies, attracted to Wikipedia because of what they see as an injustice in the sharing or censoring of knowledge, gets into an argument online, a bunch of them ganging up on one side of an argument can look like sockpuppets. Unfortunately, they are often treated as such, even though the AGF approach would be to assume they are all wiki-novices who share an interest in a topic being declaimed as non-notable or unencyclopedic. On occasion some such people become angry, are offensive, and are blocked. Again -- not the best way to be introduced to the project, but not necessarily a great reason for a block. –SJ+ 21:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

P.S.: Somewhere above, I mentioned an incident some time ago when users who really were meatpuppets were being disruptive on an article talk page, and made personal attacks, including some death threats, against me. At the time, administrators actually were quite reluctant to block anyone for showing up on the talk page, but very appropriately blocked those who made threats. Looking back, it seems to me that they (the administrators, not the meatpuppets) largely got it right, and if anything, were a little slow to take action. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:27, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

An admin once (last year, I believe) blocked a large number of editors indefinitely as meatpuppets for participating in an AfD on an open source project. After the AfD had been mentioned on a mailing list related to the project, a lot of normally not very active editors participated in it, and some made new accounts. This included the project leader, who was very reasonable and provided information but did not !vote. He only learned that he had been blocked when I notified him by email. When this story came up on ANI, the admin got away with a slap on the wrist. He nearly got away even without that, merely because none of the established editors involved had noticed what he had done.

I am not being more specific because I don't remember the name of the article or the admin, but I could dig this up if relevant. (More likely someone else will remember.) Hans Adler 22:33, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

As a brief opening note, Tryptofish, I have to respectfully disagree with your ("there's no problem"...[please forgive my oversimplification]) opening statement. Not sure if you've yet had a chance to read the headlined Wikimedia communique, and related mission statement and studies. The number of editors is declining, the retention of new editors is in a nosedive, and the results of the survey of those newbies who left said they got beat up in WP and WP was a miserable experience. And I've seen particular examples of the vicious treatment encouraged by the current wording of this guideline. I once saw a nationally prominent individual (probably asked by someone to comment, and they indirectly but deliberately outed themselves with their comments) weigh in on something in a very articulate and detailed manner, who was then verbally assaulted and accused of being a "meat puppet" along with other mean-spirited insults. (supported and encouraged by this policy) and they have not commented or edited since. So let's say someone's first visit/edit is when someone asked them to weigh in on something. A common and accepted practice in the real world, and they don't know that things are different in our alternate universe here. And so they are met by people (encouraged by the wording in this guideline) saying that what they did is evil, beating them up for it and saying that they are a "meat puppet". What a vicious and rude place this policy encourages!

The structural result of this guideline (discounting their comments in the debate) is minor in comparison to the above vicious and rude treatment encouraged by this guideline, and not the issue. We should drop the whole scarlet letter/ tar and feather thing, include an explanation that Wikipedia is different regarding this (and the specifics) encourage full disclosure of how they got there, and discount or weigh their views accordingly. Without all of the viciousness, drama and wp:npa and wp:civil violations which are encouraged by the current wording of this guideline. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:25, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

@Tryptofish. Yes, there was a bad block I know of. A caltech doctoral student came in under an editor and edited in the style he showed her. He was accused of SP. This was disproved and the woman was called MEAT and blocked. She could not even log in as an anonymous, since she used a shared IP and it was blocked, so she could not even defend herself. When she complained about being called MEAT and its sexism, she was derided as being "too sensative" for WP. During the time between the issue arising and her next login a few days later, she was permanently blocked, including her talk page. The five or so days from her first log in to her next was considered to be "too long for her not to respond". Senior editors seem to have forgotten that editing even once a week is a lot for most people, especially newbies. Bad start for a newbie. She never came back. She couldn't even if she wanted to. PPdd (talk) 23:41, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Fiddling with names will not stop occasional blunders. I understand that drawing attention to contentious cases is not always helpful, but since you say the editor is not returning, I suggest you identify the user because if the case is really as you describe, the attacking editors need to be warned. I find it hard to believe that someone's talk page access was removed for any reason other than a complete misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works on the part of the user. Johnuniq (talk) 01:11, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The point is it only happened because she got so mad at being called MEAT, because she did not know racist/sexist slurs are considered appropriate at WP. It was two years ago. The blocking admin outed her mentor, and another blocked his talk page so he could not even report it. They were Sarah Palin WP warriors. I don't want to go near there. PPdd (talk) 01:26, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The issue here is that the current wording of the guideline supported enabled and encouraged those behaviors. North8000 (talk) 01:31, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate the replies to what I said. It sounds to me like what we need is to word the policy in such a way that people who conduct themselves in the way that I experienced (large numbers of single purpose accounts making extreme personal attacks) can be properly recognized for what they are, but people who come in good faith, try to make helpful contributions, and are needlessly maligned after they innocently mention how they became aware of whatever Wikipedia page they are commenting on, are instead treated respectfully. (I'll add that, in between, people who see an external website that says go to Wikipedia and vote en masse to push a POV can severely disrupt the consensus process.) It does not seem to me that the problem lies in the term "meatpuppet", but rather in the way editors communicate more broadly with such users. One thing that stands out to me is that the examples of good-faith users who were mistreated appear to be cases of a single person being called a meatpuppet, whereas the examples I have given, of genuinely disruptive conduct, have involved large coordinated groups of users. Do we need to bring that point across better? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:14, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The above unsupported allegationsanecdotes that PPdd levels need to be backed up by wp:DIFFs or deleted.LeadSongDog come howl! 02:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit conflict, responding to Tryptofish: Well said. This is a bit complicated and takes some careful thought to say "what next?". Taking the worst case that you describe, it DOES disrupt the process, and based on the WP norms, "cheat". But even then, the worst offender is the recruiter, and the posse might be well intentioned people who don't know the WP rules, Out of all of the WP rules, I can think of only two where behavior which is considered acceptable in the RW is considered to be really bad here, and both of them are in this guideline, and this is one of them. Just brainstorming, a few thoughts come to mind:

• Attack the behavior, not the person. Don't just ditch "meatpuppet", ditch the concept of branding of the PERSON.
• Explain in areas that newly recruited newbies will see. What comes to mind on these is AFD's (which does this a bit) and topics that are contentious in the RW. Maybe an explanatory template to drop into these when needed
• Focus more anger and nasty words on the behavior of the recruiter rather then the recruitee. We could even say that they might have been hoodwinked into bad behavior by the recruiter.
• Ask for full disclosure, and say that such is ethically required. This will allow discounting or partially discounting.

Again just brainstorming. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:51, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

LeadSongDog, looks like those are not allegations, no names or identities were given, so nobody was accused. North8000 (talk) 02:54, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Fine, then, call them anecdotes. They still need to be backed up or there's no point to the discussion.LeadSongDog come howl! 12:16, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

As for diffs, I'm willing to go without them based on WP:AGF, so long as we are, indeed, just brainstorming here. This discussion isn't dispute resolution, and no administrators have been pointed out for criticism by name.

Continuing that brainstorming, I think the recent edits to the guideline already address the issue of not using the label gratuitously. I'm inclined to agree that, for cases with a single putative "meatpuppet", but not for cases with coordinated multiple such users, the focus should be on the recruiter. It comes down to anything that would violate WP:CANVAS if it were on-site should be considered meatpuppet recruitment if it occurs off-site. Single individuals recruited that way should be judged on their conduct here, whereas coordinated multiple users should, at a minimum, be subject to discounting of their !votes. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I would love to see the 'meatpuppet' term disappear, since I don't think it is generally used appropriately, and since it is a much vaguer concept than 'sockpuppet'. The latter clearly involves an intention to decieve; the former is often a bad-faith description of one of the natural ways for newbies to discover Wikipedia: they hear about something happening on it that concerns them, and come to share their perspective. "Agent of another user" is a much more descriptive term in two ways: You cannot be a 'meatpuppet' in a vacuum; it is only in relation to someone else. And the explicit mention of 'agency' highlights the problem: you are acting under direction, rather than on your own initiative and using your own judgement. –SJ+ 21:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Editors who have been following this discussion may find it interesting to read WP:AN#Astrology bannings. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:17, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Redirect WP:ROLE to Wikipedia:Username_policy#Sharing_accounts, not here

The section on role accounts seems out of place here. And it is being used to attack good-faith contributors using role-accounts, as though they had anything in common with sockpuppets.

The username policy page has a good description of how accounts can and cannot be shared; it doesn't need to be repeated here. And I don't see a reason for the shortcut to direct here, a page that assumes bad faith participation. –SJ+ 21:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Multiple users, single account

{

Resolved

• Sometimes, like in a middle school or high school class, a group edits under one group name. Is this SP?
• What should a student in such a class do if they have their own WP account, but are assigned to do something as a group?
• Should there be an instruction about this in the policy, so a young student does not get permanentaly banned just for doing their homework? PPdd (talk) 17:33, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Username policy says

User accounts can only represent individuals. Sharing an account – or the password to an account – with others is not permitted, and doing so will result in the account being blocked. Exceptions to this rule are limited to accounts that directly represent the Wikimedia Foundation or internal Wikipedia committees, and bot accounts that are maintained by more than one contributor, provided the existence of such an arrangement is made clear and has consensus.

Quigley (talk) 17:42, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

See WP:SUP. If it is required, students can create a username just for that one project and later abandon it, even if they already have another username (as long as they're not editing the same articles or the same range of topics with both accounts). Usually accounts won't get blocked indefinitely the first time they misbehave, so if someone (or a group) unknowingly creates a group acccount all that happens is somebody tells them what they're doing is “wrong” (ideally also why) and suggests they get individual accounts. If they continue to edit as a group under one name, they may get blocked, but they'll still be able to request an individual account. --Six words (talk) 18:52, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Six. I observed it happening (actually I just heard about it from a kid) and didn't say anything, figuring it had already been resolved and was OK. PPdd (talk) 19:03, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Shkafishkafnjak, 4 April 2011

Ljubichasit Mesec

Shkafishkafnjak (talk) 02:22, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

 Not done Please be more specific what you would like to see changed. – Ajl^talk 05:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposal: Change very insulting word "MeatPuppet" to word with same meaning "NonGoodFaithAgent"

Change “MeatPuppet” to "NonGoodFaithAgent" which has the same meaning, but is not so obnoxiously insulting.

Calling a woman MEAT is sexist and insulting in a way that it is not for men. Calling anyone a "puppet" is not civil. Any word is an improvement over "MeatPuppet". "NonGoodFaithAgent" accurately describes MeatPuppet. The MEAT redirect will still work for old-timers who do not want to change, but new editors reading this policy need not learn to call women, or anyone, MEAT.

• PROPOSAL - Change "Meatpuppet" to "NonGoodFaithAgent", and redirect with shortcut WP:NGFA. PPdd (talk) 21:28, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Support

• Support - Calling a woman MEAT is sexist and insulting in a way that it is not for men and any word is an improvement. PPdd (talk) 21:28, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

• This is more of a comment than a !vote, really. The proposed wording seems awfully clumsy and bureaucratic to me. And do, please, read the archived links that I provided above. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) And, similarly, although I don't object strongly to the new MTPPT shortcut, it seems like alphabet soup to me (and maybe sounds a bit like someone sneezing). --Tryptofish (talk) 21:40, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I will read them. Why is it not a proposal? PPdd (talk) 21:36, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are asking. I didn't say it wasn't a proposal. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:40, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

My error - "proposal" -> "vote". Also, I just checked and the Archive 8 doesn't have a name change proposal that I saw. PPdd (talk) 21:45, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Not a vote because (a) WP:VOTE, and (b) I'm trying not to be too harsh. But please feel free to consider me an "oppose". --Tryptofish (talk) 21:48, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose the use of the word "Faith" could be offensive both to the very religious, and to athiests.--Cube lurker (talk) 21:42, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose we don't want MeatPuppets any more than we want Vandals, so if the term was pejorative that would be a positive thing. I'm not convinced that MeatPuppet is as negative a term as vandal - but unlike the proposed alternative it is clear and self explanatory. ϢereSpielChequers 21:57, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose - This is an extreme solution for a made up problem. Making up a new etymology for Meat-Puppet doesn't make the term sexist. Yes, calling a woman (or a man) "Meat" would probably be offensive. Fortunately, that's not what is happening here. I'm guessing almost any combination of words could be described as offensive if we went to urban dictionary to see what potential definitions we could get hold of. --Onorem♠Dil 01:23, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose There seems to be a misunderstanding—when someone is described as a "meatpuppet", there is no suggestion that the person is "meat" in the insulting sense occasionally directed at women as mentioned in the nomination. The word "meat" (like many other words) can be misused, but people are generally clever enough to discern the intended meaning (and any misunderstanding is removed by a glance at WP:MEAT). Johnuniq (talk) 03:50, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - In a different context "Meat" and "Meatpuppet" are derogatory sexual terms. When someone is called a Meatpuppet here on wikipedia the context of the conversation should show that the word is not being used in a sexual way. The conversation should always be linked back to WP:MEAT and if there is any confusion that should clear up the confusion. GB fan (talk) 14:09, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

The word "gyped" is also often not know to be racist in origin, so if it was adopted then widely used at WP for a long time, whould it then be OK, too? Which sexist or racist words are OK, and how long to they have to be used at WP to become so? PPdd (talk) 17:29, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose We need to able to insult newbies and drive them away, while at the same time pretending we're not uncivil. Having this wikijaron in the policy allows us to do just that. Tijfo098 (talk) 01:55, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose drama-mongering and language refactoring. sf: My Year of Meat (by a woman;). Barong 02:23, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

• Comment - NonGoodFaithAgent accurately describes what a meatpuppet is, without being obnoxious.
• Comment - The WP:MEAT redirect will still work for old-timers who do not want to change, but new editors reading this policy need not learn to call women, or anyone, MEAT.
• Comment - The policy does not need to conatain words that are so insulting that the policy has to go into an explanation not to use the word in the policy. That is a pretty good indication that almost any rewording is an improvement.
• Comment - This will also shorten the policy since there will be not be a need to explain not to mention words in the policy as they are highly insulting and inherently violate WP:CIVIL. PPdd (talk) 21:28, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Couldn't we just propose a simpler word? Abettor, accomplice, accessory or even plant would be an easier term to define and use than NGFA. I kind of like plant, but either way the term needs to be one that makes it obvious to the uninitiated that they have been duped into participating in something nefarious. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 21:40, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - Another proposal is "WP:IllegitAgent". PPdd (talk) 21:49, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Highly offensive to those born out of wedlock.--Cube lurker (talk) 21:52, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I was so born. Do we still have people born in wedlock? :) PPdd (talk) 22:03, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - Another proposal is "NonWikiAgent", or "NonWikiProxy", which exactly describes what is going on, since they are not real Wikipedians, just agents/proxies of the person they are working for. PPdd (talk) 22:09, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

How are they NonWiki if they're acting on Wiki?--Cube lurker (talk) 23:02, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I cannot tell if you are serious or not with your objections, so I will respond as if you were. They are "non-legitimate members of the Wiki community" -> "NonWiki", but only came in for the purpose of being agents/proxies of the person who brought them in. Your objection is along the lines of objecting to MEAT because the people have bones and so are not all meat. :) PPdd (talk) 23:56, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The NonWiki comment was 100% sincere. To me NonWiki doesn't call to mind the sentence "non-legitimate members of the Wiki community". If I think NonWiki I think of reliable sources, ie we want to make sure our cited sources are NonWiki.--Cube lurker (talk) 00:20, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I suspect PPdd intended to use wiki as an abbreviation for Wikipedia instead of meaning wiki. It is quite a common mistake to do that, but as we were reminded by the wikileaks controversy, we have good reason not to use wiki as an abbreviation for wikipedia. Meatpuppet by contrast is unambiguous, though we do need to be cautious about accusing newbies of being meatpuppets. Remember the offence is recruiting the meatpuppet, the meatpuppets themselves could become good editors if handled appropriately. ϢereSpielChequers 17:23, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, "WP:nonWPAgent". (The reason I put the RfC tag here is because this seems to have been discussed for years, ridiculously arguing about instructions as to how to not use an insulting word in the instructions to use it! Lets get a crowd here and fix it so this policy page can stop flashing on our watch lists.) PPdd (talk) 01:16, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

You need to convey two things in this name, that people have been recruited by someone else and that they have come from real life not elsewhere in Wikipedia "Puppet" conveys one of those things and "Meat" conveys the other. I understand why you want to replace "Meat", but you have given no reason to replace "Puppet". "Puppet" has the advantage of being widely understood and fits in with the term "SockPuppet". Taking "nonWP" as a potential replacement for "Meat", I prefer "Meat" as "nonwp" is an abbreviation and simply jargon to outsiders. "NonWikipediaPuppet" would work, but "MeatPuppet" is shorter, clearer and probably less offensive. "NonWikipedia" implies that we as Wikipedia are rejecting that individual, which is a somewhat stronger message than I would like us to use. ϢereSpielChequers 12:05, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I thought others had previously objected to "puppet", but I agree it is accurate. I am male so never really thought about "meat" until a grad student friend at caltech was accused of being a "meatpuppet" for editing on a subect close to the editor who brought her in to edit (she also did unrelated edits). She complained that both MEAT and MeatPuppet were highly insensitive sexist terms, and a bunch of wikipedians jumped on her for being "too sensitive", and she never came back. PPdd (talk) 14:26, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Years ago on the Wiki-en mailing list I suggested the term "posse" be used. Just as a sheriff can recruit people who are not normally law enforcement officers and deputize them for a particular function, someone who wants an AFDd article kept might go to an off-wiki forum and "deputize" people who are not normally WP editors to flood the debate with "keeps". Another possible term is "jumper". Someone showed up in their forum, said "frog", and they "jumped". (the latter might also be useful for describing 4chan attacks) --Ron Ritzman (talk) 17:50, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment The term "meatpuppet" and it's use here has three very serious problems:

1. It is a very offensive and derogatory term
2. It attacks, pillories and and labels the individual rather than the behavior. Doing so is a direct violation of wp:npa, wo:civil, and the proper and effective way to deal with such issues and with fellow human beings.
3. It's a complete mis-fire. The behavioral issue addressed is by the person doing the recruiting, not the person who got recruited, and this insults and labels the person who got recruited. And when the recruitee is a relative newcomer, keep in mind that out in the real world, lending a voice when asked is not only perfectly acceptable, it is generally lauded as fulfilling a civic duty. They do not understand that if they jump down the rabbit hole into our alternate Wikipedia universe here, what is "civic duty" in the real world gets them labeled as a villain and "meat puppet" here.

Getting rid of the word "meat puppet" should be just the start; other changes are needed. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:44, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - I also support finding another name to use instead of "meatpuppet", which I think is derogatory to everyone, not just women. It is also abused terribly; I've seen editors brand new to a highly popular topic being accused of being "meatpuppets" of some mysterious person they've never heard of, expressing very common thoughts about a topic. Especially for those with limited or narrow internet experience, the expression makes no sense, even when it is wiki-linked. It is one of the more common reasons that people email arbcom asking for unblock. (For that matter, "sockpuppet" makes little sense too.) Risker (talk) 02:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
• Comment I'm not in love with the term, but I think it should be made clear how unwelcome it is. As a victim of meatpuppetry, I would prefer we err on the side of stronger language. IronDuke 02:24, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Recruiting other editors

It's a good point. I just came here to point out the policy to a new editor who (in good faith, I believe) asked their classmates to add comments to a page. But it's hard add a link to WP:MEAT when the policy says calling someone that is incivil!. How about Recruiting other editors, which is fairly descriptive? WP:ROE seems to be available -- admittedly it's reminiscent of fish eggs or a (US) abortion legal case, but life (and WP) ain't perfect. (WP:RO is the Romania project, and WP:RE redirects to -- WP:REDIRECT). Gerardw (talk) 20:43, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Using Multiple Signatures - Sock Puppetry?

I've seen some users using multiple signatures in the same discussion, apparently aimed at misleading editors into believing various persons share the signatory's views. These might change the way their name is styled and/or spelled. Would that be considering sock puppetry? The only way you would know, in some cases, is to click on the signatory's name. Shkafishkafnjak (talk), for example, might become Fish'n Jak (talk). The user would be using letters within the same name, but it becomes so different looking that it could mislead other editors. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 22:39, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I've just witnessed this happening in a heated debate I was involved in at the Wikiproject Comics talk page (I wouldn't waste you're time actually reading it. It's extraordinarily long and ends acrimoniously).

The user TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} at one point took on the signature Walter Kovacs ^{to be, or not to be} . Is this sock puppetry? It seems to stem from the same motivation. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 05:00, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

PRL's text (moved here for review)

PRL42 added the following text earlier today:

"Editors should be aware that a persistent login only lasts a month and it is quite possible to make edits before realising that you are editing with an IP address rather than your account name. This is particularly easy if you access an article from a Google search and make a copy edit."

No prejudice intended to the copy, but it wasn't immediately apparent that this was suitable for the opening paragraphs. Therefore, I've moved it to the talk page for review. Thoughts?? --Ckatz^chat_spy 06:55, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I think it should definitely be in there somewhere. If it were a lot shorter, I don't think it would be inappropriate in the opening paragraphs. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 07:59, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry if it was in the wrong place. I was reading the text and when I saw 'innocuous intentions will not usually serve as an excuse' I was reminded of an occasion when I was caught out by auto logout (even though in that case it was unintentional rather than innocuous) and thought a warning would be appropriate. PRL42 (talk) 08:39, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll reiterate what I said on PRL's talk page, for clarity: the move is purely for review, given that this is a policy page, and not in any way a rejection of the text. I'd agree that a trimming and possible repositioning would help. (To me, it felt perhaps a bit too specific for the more general introductory paragraphs.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 08:56, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure why, as a warning, it particularly needs emphasis here (it's more on topic for a help page on creating an account). I would add it as a new bullet point under "Legitimate uses", something like: Editing while accidentally logged out. If you edit without realizing that you are not curently logged in, your edits and comments will appear to be associated with your IP address, giving the impression that they came from a different user. In most cases there is no need to worry about this, but in a situation where it might give the impression of sock puppetry, it is advisable to clarify the situation (e.g. by signing the IP comments with your own username, or noting on the talk page or in later edit summaries that the IP edits were in fact made by you). Or at least some of that. (Although I now notice there already is a similar item under "Illegitimate uses", so maybe the addition is not necessary.)--Kotniski (talk) 15:44, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Wording

Which one is better, sockpuppeteer, socker, or sockmaster?Jasper Deng (talk) 23:28, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Does it matter? If it's clear to the readers, there's no reason why there couldn't be many homonyms (but does anyone actually use "socker"?). CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 23:50, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

As for "socker", that's only here in the US. Everyone else calls it football. :-) --Tryptofish (talk) 17:17, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't want my old account anymore

My old account is called Philip1992 but I don't want to use it as its my real name, I left a notice on my old account about the change Superlightoftruth (talk) 14:50, 5 June 2011 (UTC)superlightoftruth

Quarterly update

It would be helpful if, sometime in the first week of July, someone would add the changes to this page from April 1 to July 1 to WP:Update/1/Enforcement policy changes, 2011, which is transcluded at WP:Update. - Dank (push to talk) 19:31, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Question about new language

"should use provide links"? - Dank (push to talk) 05:07, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

linking alternate accounts?

Okay, so let's say that we have an Chinese person, an Iranian, a transgendered person in the small town or conservative neighbourhood, and a person who simply likes his/her privacy. They have alternate accounts. The former two do lots of edits on the politics and/or religions of their respective countries. The third does a lot of edits on alt sexuality. Wikipedia grudgingly allows their alternate accounts provided those accounts are linked to each other. What an intelligent and consenses-fostering idea !!  :-/  205.189.194.208 (talk) 21:39, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

You should read through WP:SOCK more carefully. Unlinked alternative accounts are clearly acceptable in some cases. The scenario you are describing fits under "Privacy" in WP:Multiple Accounts. -Thibbs (talk) 12:04, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

so if I'm going to hide, I should do it in places like this public library IP address

I can make edits, legitimate, or even illegitimate, and as it's mixed in with all the other edits, tracing is difficult. Way to go Wikipedia. It's like a jet plane burning tonnes of jet fuel to cart your body accross the country, but not being allowed to smoke a few grams of tobacco while it's doing it.205.189.194.208 (talk) 21:39, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it sounds like there's a lot about Wikipedia that you don't really understand. Take your time and get familiar with how things really work, and you will have no reason to try to hide. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:43, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm no expert, but I'm been here several hundred hours. Wikipedia will bar those who openly admit to having a number of alternate accounts, even if they don't engage in the bad stuff, while WP has difficulty catching those who would not divulge their socks and engage in vandalism. (Gotta go, library will soon close.Bye now.  :-D  205.189.194.208 (talk) 21:54, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Was there a point being made here? I'm not sure what this user was getting at. A proxy services does the same thing. Whoop-dee-do! (Reminds me of using Wikipedia way back when it started.) Apple8800 (talk) 06:01, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Should mention that notification of SPIs is not required?

The SPI page contains the guidance "Notification is not mandatory, and may, in some instances, lead to further disruption or provide a sockpuppeteer with guidance on how to avoid detection." Should that be repeated on this project page, so that key fact is more prominent? I ask because I've seen confusion about that a few times over the past couple of years. --Noleander (talk) 01:53, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

No. The wording should be changed to spell out why. It is contradictory to all other open practices seen on Wikipedia. Cptnono (talk) 03:08, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't it already explain why: may, in some instances, lead to further disruption or provide a sockpuppeteer with guidance on how to avoid detection? Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:11, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think that Volunteer Marek is correct about that. As for whether we need to repeat it here, I'm not sure. It's more like pointing something out as a practical matter when it is needed during the reporting process. I'm not sure that policies necessarily have to spell out what is not required. By the way, I'm hard pressed to think of any instance in which notifying a suspected sock of an investigation would be a good idea. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:13, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess that sounds okay: The more places an instruction is duplicated, the more likely the two versions are going to get out of sync. --Noleander (talk) 19:02, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: I suppose it does say why but it isn't very clear and I would like to know why it was actually implemented. It is still against general practices. Notifying a vandal that you are reporting them may cause disruption but it is done. And a sock can see the report after being blocked so we aren't keeping any tactics secret. I think notification should be required and the line sucks.Cptnono (talk) 20:27, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

The SPI "no notification" rule is contrary to other WP processes, such as ANIs or Arbitration. I suppose the SPI exception was created so that the investigation could be conducted in secret, so the suspect wouldn't have an opportunity to cover their tracks. But CPtnono is correct: after a block is put in place, it links to the SPI investigation, so it not a secret at that point. --Noleander (talk) 21:09, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Does editing by a registered editor without logging amount to Sock puppetry.

Does editing by a registered editor without logging amount to Sock puppetry. No violating any block or ban, no giving an impression that the contributions are from two people, if someone wants a little peace and the comfort of anonymity. This request was put up on Talk:Sock puppetry by mistake earlier. 117.195.71.191 (talk) 23:30, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

• No. Per paragraph 1. If the user account / IP editor does not "deceive or mislead other editors, disrupt discussions, distort consensus, avoid sanctions, or otherwise violate community standards" it is not forbidden. But why does the user not log in? Has he abandoned his user account? Does he choose to no log in except on his personal computer? Does he just forget sometimes? In the interest of upfront transparency, consider linking the account to the IP addresses, or are the IP addresses not stable? Note that anonymity is better achieved by using a logged in account and being careful to never disclose personal information. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:46, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

• An editor may be unwilling to type his/her password into a computer not under his/her control. An editor away from his/her customary computer could still contribute to matters separate from the matters he/she contributed to before and after the use of the IP address. Jc3s5h (talk) 00:06, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

No as I said as a policy to buy peace, clarification: Should a person not edit articles as anon, that he edits as a registered user at all?117.195.71.191 (talk) 01:36, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

If it is a long time between edits, it doesn’t matter. If we are talking completely non-contentious updates and corrections and other improvements, it doesn’t matter. If there is any contention, if this is a long running issue, then related accounts need to be declared, or the casual observer may be deceived. An easy way to declare is to add your registered username in the edit summary, and on the talk page to add the username to the IP signature. Is there a real problem here? Does someone need advice, or does WP:SOCK need more simple and explicit statements? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:18, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

IMO if a registered user wants a little peace and wants to edit as an anon, he should stay away from the pages he has visited as a registered user. 117.195.78.139 (talk) 12:05, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

But to be practical, most active editors are likely to make some IP edits, if only because of the security feature that logs you out. Since accidental IP edits are out of the editor's control one can't really expect them to avoid them happening whilst they are editing the pages they are active on. Which is another reason to focus the policy on preventing the abusive types of sockpuppetry. ϢereSpielChequers 07:57, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

• Out of curiosity, any reason why 117.195.71.191 created an RfC on this topic at both Talk:Sock puppetry and Wikipedia talk:Sock puppetry? --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 07:40, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the OP on this page they say, "This request was put up on Talk:Sock puppetry by mistake earlier" GB fan please review my editing 10:53, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

And I hatted the other one to remove the confusion. GB fan please review my editing 10:56, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Possibly, but not automatically. It's not a yes/no question for all situations. A little peace and the comfort of anonymity shouldn't be any problem if the person isn't taking part in the same discussion both logged in and out, or one on the same topic that very recently was finished. If there is anything at all controversial about the edits, a person should not edit as both anon and registered without disclosing it. (whether it's up front because they don't want to log in from whatever random computer they're at, or after the fact if they notice that they forgot to log in...) Based on your contributions, it appears that you'd be better off having an RFC on content instead of policy. It seems like the best case scenario with this discussion is to have the log updated to change the reason for why the article was protected. --Onorem♠Dil 19:16, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

• A registered user editing the same article as an IP may be sockpuppetry if it is disruptive. Each incident would need to be looked at individually to determine if it is disruptive. There is no way to give a straight yes/no answer to a generic question such as this. GB fan please review my editing 19:38, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
• No, as per SmokeyJoe. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:25, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Is it uncivil to make unproven accusations of meatpuppetry?

Recently, after being accused of incivility for making an unproven charge of meatpuppetry, Off2riorob altered this policy. Old version:

• The term meatpuppet is derogatory and should be used with care, in keeping with Wikipedia's civility policy. Because of the processes above, it may be counterproductive to directly accuse someone of being a "meatpuppet", and doing so will often only inflame the dispute.

Offf2riorob's new version:

• The term meatpuppet can be interpreted as derogatory and should be used with care, accusing someone of being a "meatpuppet" may only inflame the dispute.[9]

Is there any situation in which calling someone a "meatpuppet" is not derogatory? Is it civil to make an accusation like that without offering any evidence? How is the new version an improvement?   Will Beback  talk  07:35, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Sure there is, a meatpuppet comment is sometimes no more serious that a tagteam claim. Off2riorob (talk) 07:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Being part of a tag team is not a policy violation (too bad). Being a meatpuppet is a policy violation. Accusing people of violating an important behavioral policy, without any effort to prove it, is always uncivil. For example, if I started to refer to you as a sockpuppet or a meatpuppet would you not find that bothersome and uncivil?   Will Beback  talk  07:43, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I suggested a simpler formulation. There is, moreover, a difference between calling someone specifically a "meatpuppet" (which may simply represent a statistically unlikely confluence of opinions between two or more editors, one or more of whom has very few edits), and saying that something was an edit which a meatpuppet would do (that is, a tag team where one editor has few edits). Generally they are found a lot in !votes in various XfD and other WP discussions, and frequesntly are by the famed "IP." Cheers, and I trust this answers some issues raised. Collect (talk) 07:45, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Interesting, but it doesn't touch on the issue of whether calling editors "meatpuppets" is civil. Unless anyone can provide a convincing argument that it is ever civil, I'll restore the language that says it's uncivil.   Will Beback  talk  07:53, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

That sort of edit might belong in WP:CIVIL but only serves to make the issue on this page muddy. In addition, if WP:CIVIL is out of sync, then we have the classic recursion dilemma. Cheers - WP:CIVIL does not belong here. Collect (talk) 07:58, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

So do you think that calling people "meatpuppets" is civil or not?   Will Beback  talk  08:02, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I think it is up to WP:CIVIL to state what is civil or not. Heck, I might think calling a person a "Gnarphist" is uncivil - but unless and until WP:CIVIL says something, my concerns would not fly. Meanwhile, looking at WP:CIVIL, the term would appear to fall far short of what it gives as types of incivility. O2RR might apologize in the case at hand, but I would not think this is worth more than a cup of tea. Cheers. Collect (talk) 08:14, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The material in question has been discussed extensively, so just making changes without any prior discussion, and in response to an accusation, is unhelpful. and a form of "gaming the system". Collect seems to think that we can only refer to each policy on its own page. That's inconsistent with practice and the custom of interlocking policies. But to address his concern I've left out a link tot he civility policy and just added back "derogatory". See Wikipedia_talk:Sock_puppetry/archive5#Meatpuppet_is_a_derogatory_term.   Will Beback  talk  08:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The description of the term as derogatory has been in the policy since November 2007.[10] If we want to follow a standard of "currently under discussion - please avoid such reverts in the meantime" then we should go back to the stable version until we have a new consensus that overturns four years of acceptance of this description.   Will Beback  talk  08:30, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

• If the cap fits squarely, it is not derogatory. If a word does not fit, it is not helpful to use it. Editors involved at Wikipedia:Ani#Stephanie_Adams_-_Off2riorob probably should leave the the meatpuppetry section alone for a while. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:58, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Good reason to put it back to where it was before the ANI kerfuffle. The fit of caps (and shoes) needs to be proven, not just asserted.   Will Beback  talk  11:16, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Will (which is a rare occasion) regarding the policy change. And strongly agree. The recent changes take it even farther in the wrong direction that it is already in. North8000 (talk) 11:23, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I also agree with the restoration of the earlier version. It isn't WP:Civil's job to list every uncivil term; sometimes we can use common sense. Novickas (talk) 14:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

There's no need to specifically list every word or phrase which might be considered uncivil in WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. It really ought to be superfluous to explicitly note even within this policy that calling someone a 'meatpuppet' or 'sockpuppet' without carefully substantiating one's remarks is rude. Accusing someone of violating any important Wikipedia policy without carefully supporting that accusation is something that just should not be done as a matter of basic common sense. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:44, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Agree - WP:CIVIL stands on its own. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:20, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

• I'm with SmokeyJoe, above. The policy statement is incorrect in either form. A good faith accusation of misbehavior is not a civility violation, if that were the case it would undercut all of our behavioral policies. On the other hand, any accusation may be made in an uncivil way, in bad faith, vindictively, manipulatively, or without any basis. A common refrain of trolls, sockpuppets, and vandals is that their accusers are violating one policy or another. Whether that's a simple manipulative ploy, or it's playing on their real but mistplaced sense of persecution and victimization, we shouldn't facilitate that kind of gaming the system. "Meatpuppet" is a strange word, no more derogatory than any other noun that describes a policy violator. But if someone is indeed meatpuppeting, the question isn't whether saying so is a civility violation or not, it's whether they are or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidemon (talk • contribs) 17:07, 24 August 2011

Is using multiple accounts constructively blockable, or just warnable?

What if an editor is found to have multiple accounts that "look" like different editors, but are not abused (no revert warring, vote stacking, do not participate in the same discussion threads, etc.)? My gut feeling would be to warn the editor that this is unhelpful, and ask him to use only one account, with a threat of blocking all but one, but (again, assuming no abuse has taken place), the editor should not blocked. Reviewing current policies, the only part of problematic editing that would happen would be "Avoiding scrutiny", but if the edits themselves are not disruptive, I don't think this is a blockable offense (provided that the editor in question agrees to abandon other accounts and edit with a single one from now on). What do you think? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 16:02, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Another form of sock puppetry

Another possible form of sock puppetry that is not covered in this policy is when one editor temporarily lets another editor use his account, either directly or through relaying off-Wikipedia messages. A variation of this is the creation of an account that is used by multiple editors in different locations. In this way, evidence of sockpuppetry from the timing pattern of edits would be much more difficult to obtain. Additionally, there is software that would allow the computer of the sockpuppet account to be remotely accessed so that there wouldn't be IP address evidence of the puppeteer. --Bob K31416 (talk) 05:25, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Such accounts would be considered to be compromised, and accordingly also blocked indefinitely. Wikipedia does not allow role accounts (accounts used by multiple people). One example of such a violation is User:MyPasswordIsHello. Remote connections are also detected by CheckUser through the fact that the NAT ports would be radically different.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:31, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Logging out

I've decided to stay logged out because I don't like the way many confrontational editors use contribution histories to try to intimidate, coerce, and gain the upper hand in various disputes. I don't particularly want to disclose my old account name every time my dynamic IP changes. Am I supposed to tell an admin; if so, what am I supposed to say? 67.6.144.87 (talk) 19:37, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm so sorry you feel that way, but here is my understanding. As long as you aren't using your old account along with your IP editing in a disruptive way, such as voting or commenting twice in a process, you really don't need to disclose anything to an admin in this case. The key thing is that you entirely abandon your old registered account. Editors have the right to abandon old accounts. It only violates this policy if someone is using more than one account (including a registered account and editing not-logged-in) during overlapping times, in which case it is appropriate to disclose to an admin. Likewise, you shouldn't use the dynamic nature of your IP address to double-vote or comment or edit war, of course. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:18, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request

Include redirect WP:DG in "Poloicy shortcuts" box at WP:DOPPELGANGER. 71.146.20.62 (talk) 04:25, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

• Done, thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 16:04, 28 November 2011 (UTC)