Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppetry/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Explicitly forbidden

In particular, some forbidden uses include, but are not limited to.... Where would one find the other forbidden uses if not here? I'm curious as there seem to be all sorts of claims as to which uses are explicitly forbidden being made in the recently opened David Gerard Arbcom case, very few of which I see here. Yomangani^talk 00:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I think this edit[1] goes the wrong direction. In general, the premise should be that alternate accounts are not permissible, except for enumerated legitimate reasons. There should be (and in practice, is) a presumption that alternate accounts are not good. Wikidemon (talk) 17:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The immediate problem with that approach is the existence of many alternate accounts that do not breach the current rules but which would find themselves placed in the "implicitly forbidden" category by the change. I don't have a problem with it per se, but the list of allowed uses would need to be worked on beforehand. Yomangani^talk 18:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Individuals might have their own personal reasons for having an alternate account, not understood by others. For example, I have a friend who has 3 accounts that have all been active for several years, all have at least 1000 edits, and have all been used for good causes. No two of these accounts have ever edited the same article. Given that good faith must be assumed, unless it is clear that an account is being used for some blatant policy violation of other disruptive form of editing, the use should not be forbidden. Hellno2 (talk) 01:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

good uses can either be declared, or, in special cases, be disclosed to a trusted member of the community. One can also say that is the sock of some other user without mentioning whom, and specifying who knows the equivalence. We should absolutely prohibit all totally undisclosed socks--I question whether there is any good reason for such. (though of course we must give amnesty from those who already have them ,if they are in good faith, until they have a chance to declare). Permitting them is like not locking the door on the assumption all passers-by will be honest. True, most of them will be, but doing so is not considered an insult to the general public in most communities. 17:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

May not vs should not for evasion

Per the couple edits here. The AC was unanimous about this not being allowed, and IAR isn't valid when it comes to AC decisions at this time. Discuss? rootology (C)(T) 22:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

But they "can" be used ("may" be used), though they shouldn't be. –xeno ^talk 19:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Editing under an IP address

I just have a question - I try to edit WP with my registered account, but on occasions (especially recently), I've edited under my IP address. I've mentioned on my user page that this is the case, but should I place alternative account notification tags on both my registered account and ip address? I only ask cos I have a dynamic IP from my provider and I'm not clear on guidance/precedence of this. Hope that made sense. londonsista ^Prod 00:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that when you discover that you have edited under an IP, check the IP contributions, find your own, and fix by using a null edit, or a note on the talk page, or fixing the auto-signature if the edit was signed. You don’t want to claim all edits from a dynamic IP if it is used by other editors. If you continually find that you forget to log in, consider using your account preferences to give wikipedia a different look when you are logged in. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

If you're contributing to a discussion while logged out, just sign with something like: [[User:X|X (signed out)]] ~~~~~(5 tildes) As long as you're not trying to convey that the IP is a separate user when it is you there shouldn't be any problems. §hep^Talk 00:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that signing this way is any kind of solution, and is indeed ripe for abuse. As I understand it, the only valid reason for editing under an IP address instead of your username is because you've not realized that you are not logged in. Why would you ever consciously edit under an IP address if you have a username? cojoco (talk) 22:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

You could be at a public place and not have a secondary account. §hep^Talk 04:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Is this some concern about sneaky people stealing your WP login details if you use a public terminal? It sounds low-risk to me. cojoco (talk) 20:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Many people don't like to use their strong passwords on public computers, they can easily be captured, by software or video capture. If you fear this (maybe you should!), create a linked alternate account. User:Taxman in exile is such an example. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The point I was trying to get across is. If you do it pretty rarely no one's going to come hunt you down (just state who you are if you've already contributed to the discussion). We don't force users to log in to edit in the first place. §hep^Talk 22:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

That's fair enough, but there's a big difference between an accidental editing when you're not logged in, and a conscious decision to edit from an IP address. The second case should I think be discouraged, except in a few rare circumstances. We don't want to give the impression that it is a normal thing to do. cojoco (talk) 02:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

• Avoidance of wiki-stalking by IP editing: Definitely log-out and use an IP address, to edit the next article, if you sense wiki-stalking. Much like clogging Wikipedia user accounts with 70,000 two-week sockpuppet names, wiki-stalking causes numerous problems:

• makes the stalked user begin to hate/avoid editing;
• feeds a growing anger in the stalker, who might be fiending as a rageaholic;
• clogs wikipedia with many hack-edits + reverts;
• can escalate into requests for arbitration and other follow-on problems.

Simply using IP-address edits, to break a line of wiki-stalking, might save thousands of page-revisions and hundreds of hours of everyone consumed by the edit-war and arbitration battles that would result. One arbitration involved daily stalk-edits that had persisted for months. Because people cannot be easily stalked by switching to an IP address, all that waste could be avoided. Similarly, if sockpuppets didn't work, then people wouldn't create 70,000 fake user-names to argue AfD or edit-wars all the time. -Wikid77 (talk) 14:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Alternative alternative acount identification

Much apologies if this has ever been covered before but here goes:

The essential problem of sockpuppetry is deception - and this is usually where an admin needs to get involved. Creating the illusion of consensus, avoiding accountability, stuff like that. What do people think of having legitimate alternate accounts be identified by a deleted edit in the user page history? Would save admins the trouble of having to run to a CheckUser only to find out there are legitimate alternate accounts.--Tznkai (talk) 10:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. Personally I hate the idea of undisclosed alternate accounts, but seeing as the community allows them, too bad for me. A deleted edit on a user subpage (to avoid popping up on watchlists) would handle disclosure nicely. //roux   17:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

A good first step in the progress towards the prohibition of unidentified alternative accounts. But both this and the total prohibition needs to have way of handling of the occasional need for one with hidden identification, accessible only to checkusers. DGG (talk) 22:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Alternative accounts for protection

This account is an alternative account which I have created to counteract disruptive edits made by a problem editor. The reason why I have this account is because my real name is on my main account, and the editor in question is someone who I feel will harass me off-Wiki should he find out my real identity. I do not use this account to edit the same articles as the main account, nor to give the illusion of more support for controversial issues. I do not think I am violating any policies on this page, but am wondering if this is something allowed. Just to clarify (talk) 18:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I've been doing this for years. It's one of the major reasons for using alternate accounts that aren't linked to each other. --Philosophus ^T 11:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

wp:sock#Alternative account notification recommends that if you do this you notify arbcom. ϢereSpielChequers 13:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• I strongly urge people to drop your named account immediately: OMG, please understand that Wikipedia spans a vast ocean of all kinds of troublemakers: All creatures great and small-minded. We're not allowed to offer medical advice to all the disturbed people, but please understand, there is a vast herd in the wackopedia group: people raised in fascist countries (or by fascist parents) where dissent is punishable by death: "I'd rather my child died than did that..." After the Mexican drug cartel, people are shot for merely talking about their kidnapped children. There are nearly 10 million Wikipedia accounts, and even allowing for 900,000 sockpuppet names, you're facing thousands of others who might kill people for what they write. Imagine if they knew how you spent your money, or what you allowed your children to do. -Wikid77 (talk) 14:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

As someone who has experienced Wikipedia based harassment at my place of work on two unrelated occasions I can recommend to everyone to not reveal your identity on Wikipedia. Some of these people are fucking crazy. Chillum 15:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

An historic opinion found on a forgotten page

On 14 August 2006 User:Kitia (now blocked for sockpuppetry) posted the following opinion at Wikipedia:Witchhunts. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

In real life, a witchhunt is the hunting of a witch. In the Wikipedia, a witchhunt is the hunting of a sockpuppet. Unless the sock is causing any real damage (eg vandalism), it should not be blocked. WP:AFD, WP:RFA, and WP:FAC are more controversial. Remember they are not votes, but a discussion. You yourself should probably try not to hunt, and an important thing to keep in mind is that everyone is innocent until proven guilty.

Needs updated

I've tagged the section about CU with {{outdated}} as that has been merged with SPI. I'll drop over to WT:SPI and see if they can help update that section. Hope that's okay, §hep^Talk 20:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I moved this tag to the head of the section, because there are references to the checkuser page at the head of the section, which I found very confusing. cojoco (talk) 02:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

How is the section now? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Perplexity

This article first says that there can be no definitive proof of sockpuppetry unless there is a confession, and then it says what to do with sockpuppets. This seems rather strange because if there is (almost) never an actual proof then nobody (almost) ever know if there is actually a sock puppet or not, so the rules about what to do with sockpuppets seems to be (almost) useless, unless it is allowed to apply these rules also to suspect sockpuppets (even without definitive proofs), but in this case the article should have said how to sanction suspect sockpuppets, not sockpuppets. What do you think?--pokipsy76 (talk) 11:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Proof is not a big deal. You don't need proof in a civil court to gain redress, and you don't need proof here. Balance of probabilities is what it is all about. cojoco (talk) 21:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't discussing whether a proof is or should be needed, I was speaking about the language of the article which I find misleading for the reason given above. It pretend to say what to do with "sokpuppets" but it is actually speaking of "suspect sockpuppets" which have been considered to be sockpuppets by some "official" organism, but it is not even clear who has to express this "guilty sentence". Reading the article an admin could think that he can arbitrarily decide that you are the same person as me and sanction us accordingly, and if it is actually allowed then I think the article should say it more explicitly.--pokipsy76 (talk) 18:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Proof is for alcohol and mathematics. All else deals in probabilities. I don't see any issue with reasonable conclusions that something is likely or not. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The article already spells out that it is not necessary to have absolute proof before imposing sanctions. We'd be better off distinguishing between "definite sockpuppets" and "sockpuppets", as it would be simpler. I would also disagree with the fact that a confession constitutes definite proof of sockpuppetry, as I don't see that a confession amounts to a better form of evidence than anything else: people falsely confess things all the time, for a variety of reasons. cojoco (talk) 23:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so given that the sanctions are for people who have been recognized as sockpuppets in some way, the article is not clear about how this process of decision works. Is it the individual administrator that have to "judge" and sanction the alleged sockpuppet? If it is so I suppose the article should say it explicitly.--pokipsy76 (talk) 14:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Generally whoever takes the SPI case will suggest blocking periods and generally do the blocks. Others have to be taken to AN after a case so that an uninvolved admin can administer the blocks. §hep^Talk 15:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Confession of sockpuppetry is no proof. If Hamish Ross were to say that one of his sockpuppets is pokipsy76, it would mean nothing to me. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Usage of templates

While I understand that the sock puppetry policy explicitly states that the sock templates are not part of policy, I am curious as to whether there is a consensus as to how they are to be used. I ask because I'm involved in a minor dispute regarding the use of {{IPsock}} where an editor included said template on each IP to point to each confirmed sock puppet of a particular editor. I'd like to ask that any interested editors take a look at WT:SPI#Question over tagging sock IPs and comment if possible. While it's my understanding that there isn't a codified policy or guideline on this, I believe there is an established procedure that isn't being respected. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Reguarding school blocks

If a school I.P. is blocked, and you need to secure a login on that I.P., would you get accused of sock puppetry?--Tomballguy (talk) 20:51, 19 May 2009 (UTC)Chris

Erm , you mean if your school's IP is blocked and you log in from there? No , probably not. –xeno ^talk 20:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Blocking of main accounts for IP sockpuppetry

In the Blocking section, we currently have this wording:

• "If a person is found to be using a sock puppet, the sock puppet accounts may be blocked indefinitely. The main account also may be blocked at the discretion of any administrator. IP addresses used for sock puppetry may be blocked, but are subject to certain restrictions for indefinite blocks." [Emphasis added]

I'll have to admit that the second sentence doesn't make sense when one thinks of accountability and justice. We're talking about the same person, and yet giving a short block to their main account, thus letting the one responsible off very easy. The main account should feel the full brunt of the block, IOW they should be blocked no matter which other username or IP they edit from. It is the owner of the main account who has done the misdeed, and the main account should be blocked more severely. Sockpuppetry is a serious matter that undermines the confidence and trust that should exist in what's supposed to be a collaborative editing environment. The main account should always be blocked more severely than the sock or IP. Right now the main account "may" be blocked. That's absurd. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:44, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

You're missing the point of blocking the sock accounts. If someone is sock puppeting abusively, their sock puppet accounts are almost always blocked indefinitely because they lose the right to have legitimate sock accounts, and so they must be blocked so they can't use them. Blocking the sock puppet accounts is not a matter of punishing the sock puppeteer, it's a matter of stopping the sock puppetry. As for whether or not the main account is blocked: Administrators use their discretion and block or not block accordingly, because that's their job. Remember, blocks are preventative, not punitive, and are issued to prevent further damage to the encyclopedia, not to punish the people involved. The main account of a sock puppeteer is blocked at the discretion of the administrator(s) involved and depending on circumstances. An indefinite block for a single act of abusive sock puppetry without warning (which seems to be what you're suggesting) would be rather over the top.--Dycedarg ж 23:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Editor intersection tool

I seem to recall seeing a tool which would take as input two user names and would produce a list of all pages which had been edited by both users. I expected to find a link to it at WP:Signs of sock puppetry#Editing identical articles but didn't. Does anybody know if this tool is still around, and, if so, where I can find it? Thanks. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 00:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I found it: http://toolserver.org/~pietrodn/intersectContribs.php MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 01:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

It is probably impossible to eliminate sock-puppetry/alternative account usage without changing the nature of WP entirely (by having people submit proof of identity etc). If (useful member) corrects a typo without signing in (on the IP address) no harm arises, or chooses to use pen-names/alternative accounts in totally different fields, with care over timing/computer use/choice of language terms their multiple personalities may remain undiscovered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.132.41 (talk) 09:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

The Eleanor Hibbert syndrome.

ANI thread with implications for the interpretation of WP:SOCK#LEGIT

WP:ANI#Disruptive SPA? Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 22:00, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Ground rules for the use of Checkuser and documenting proven cases

I've opened a thread over at Wikipedia_talk:CheckUser#Documenting_sockpuppet_investigations.2C_particularly_conclusive_cases, and a subthread over at Wikipedia_talk:CheckUser#Ground_rules. If people want to move the discussion here for a broader viewing, I'm open to that. There's also some discussion over at User_talk:Jossi#Documentation_of_sockpuppet_investigation_-_where.27s_the_evidence.3F. II | (t - c) 19:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Debretts

User:Debrettsonline was blocked on 8 June 2009, see User talk:Debrettsonline. User:Debretts09 (talk, contributions) appears to be in the same business of promoting Debretts. I am not at all clear about wikipedia policy on suspected sockpuppets and what to do about them, but perhaps someone who is will read this. Thank you, Ian Spackman (talk) 16:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

A new account for my friend

I cannot find the answer anywhere. To help a friend get started I created an account for her User:Suzoot. I did this from my home. She will use the account from her home. I will not edit using her account. Is this okay or will I be accused of sockpuppeteering? Thank you for any advice you can give.--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Nope, that's the sort of helpfulness that's a good thing around here.→ ROUX ₪ 04:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the speedy and helpful reply.--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

"Escaping bullies or pressure"

I've reverted this recent addition. I don't see discussion of it anywhere (though please correct me if I've missed it). More to the point, I'm concerned that it doesn't reflect current nor best practices, nor is it particularly sound advice.

• If one's employer has "spotted a nickname", or has concerns about one's use of Wikipedia on work time, then the right answer is not "create a sockpuppet!" That's not advice we should be giving or encouraging.
• "If a wikiuser feels they are being patrolled in a bullying manner by another wikiuser, they may also decide to silently drop their current username and adopt a new one." Well, maybe. But as written this is full of loopholes, and it's wikilawyer bait (and this policy is one of most heavily wikilawyered to begin with). The line between evading reasonable scrutiny and "escaping bullying" is going to be highly subjective. If someone feels they're being bullied on Wikipedia, then we should be encouraging them to pursue dispute resolution, not to silently create a sockpuppet.

I'm open to ideas or thoughts... MastCell ^Talk 19:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Your first point I don't have an answer for, but as to the second point, tell me how we should handle these four situations under your ideal vision, assuming the reason for the second account is the reason given in the policy for point two (being followed around). MBisanz ^talk 19:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

• User:U is an admin used an undisclosed account to edit war past 3RR a year ago, someone made the connection today between the two accounts.
• User:G is a user who used an undisclosed alt account to run for arbcom, but the connection was made before voting began.
• User:N is a crat who used an undisclosed alt account to create articles for hire from for-profit companies.
• User:A is an admin who acquired a second admin account from a Foundation employee and used it to vote on an AFD about herself.

Oh my. None of those situations would arise in my ideal vision. :) And they all seem more or less inappropriate, at least as presented. Have these things really happened? Is one of them me? I guess I don't see how these situations relate directly to a need to create a second account to avoid "bullying". I'm sympathetic - I guess I would consider that I've been "bullied" on Wikipedia once or twice - but I don't see how that would authorize me to run for ArbCom with an alternate account, or borrow someone else's admin account for an AfD about myself. I must not be understanding the question. MastCell ^Talk 20:01, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

My question is that if we tightened the policy as you proposed with regard to people who created alternate accounts for the reasons of avoiding being followed, and then did the action I describe above, what do you think should be done in each case. Yes, all of them are real situations that have happened in the last year and are more or less publicly known. MBisanz ^talk 20:07, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Let's make it clear that alternate accounts cannot be used for abuse. When this abuse happens, the connection between the two accounts must be posted, with both blocked indefinitely. How's that for a deterrent? —harej (talk) (cool!) 00:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

harej for the motherfucking win. I would support that proposal hard, and so would my socks. (Note: I have only one, so not much help there. → ROUX ₪ 02:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Connecting a secret account with another account linked to a real identity could be a very serious deterrent, but would that policy have problematic conflict with WP:OUTING? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

How much dignity must we give to people who use their circumstances to abuse our trust? —harej (talk) (cool!) 00:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's my question. Do we have to respect layered privacy of someone abusing wikipedia? If no, who makes that decision? Confirmed scokpupettry involves checkuser, and brings into play m:Privacy policy. If we go down this path, seeking a legal opinion may be a good idea. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:24, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Clarifications... The "pressure" issue is not about being on work time. The point is, some people use a nickname when contributing to Wikipedia because they don't want their boss/brother/husband/teacher/friends/children to know what they write about (for reasons of politics, sexuality, religion, etc.). If they think that their anonymity has been compromised, what should they do? The only solution I see is to silently dump their current nicknamed account and continue with a new one.

As for using WP:DR to solve bullying, that's like solving it at schools with "Just tell the teacher!" Most people don't like to talk about being bullied. Further, a WP:DR procedure is only fine for those who have the time and the knowledge of procedures (I did two years ago, but I don't now). Here too, silently moving to a new account seems the logical action. It'd harmless and shouldn't lead to accusations of sockpuppetry. Gronky (talk) 00:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there's no problem with dropping one account and starting anew with another. The issue is using them at the same time and treating them like two different "identities" so you can use them for deception. —harej (talk) (cool!) 01:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for clarifying that. Reading the policy again, I concur. Gronky (talk) 01:24, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Errr, yes. That's precisely what Wikipedia needs. Less accountability. Gronky's use of his soapbox to actively canvas editors who were obvious socks (of each other, not Gronky) into personally attacking me makes me less than fine with additions to policy which essentially say that socking is okay so long as one has an alibi. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:33, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been ill for some time. All four of the cases Matthew Bisantz cites above seem like excellent reasons for making the default policy "no alt accounts". I propose that we determine two things:

1. a tighter rewording of the reasons under which an alt account may be operated;
2. who should run the secure list of those who have permission to operate an alt account. Tony (talk) 15:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Parallel discussion of acceptable conditions

In view of Slim's and Cla's points above, I'd like to work through the text of the policy, removing the residual wording that seems to heark back to the looser attitudes of former times. Here is the lead, for example, with my suggested changes (omissions are struck through; insertions are underlined). Feedback would be much appreciated.

A sock puppet is an alternative account used for fraudulent, disruptive, or otherwise deceptive purposes that violate or circumvent the enforcement of Wikipedia policies.

All Wikipedians may register a username or account from which they may edit. Over time, this account will accumulate an edit history and become that person's Wikipedia "identity", helping others to interact with the person and understand their interests and point of view. As a general rule, each Wikipedian is allowed only one account.

For a variety of reasons, some Wikipedians also create one or more alternative accounts. An alternative account is an additional username used by a Wikipedian who already has an account. Some uses for alternate accounts are explicitly forbidden: using an alternative account to avoid scrutiny, misleading others by making disruptive edits with one account and normal ones with another, distorting consensus or artificially stirring up controversy, or otherwise circumventing Wikipedia policies. The misuse of an alternative account may result in a block from editing.

It is recommended that they expected that users who operate alternate accounts provide links between the accounts in most cases to make it easy to determine that one individual shares them and to avoid any appearance or suspicion of sockpuppetry (see alternative account notification). Exceptions are unusual cases such as the (i) the technical requirement for separate, approved bot or maintenance accounts; (ii) the need to avoid the problem of password stealing on public computers, and (iii) the need to avoid likely real-world consequences arising from their involvement in any particular area of WP. If someone uses alternative accounts, the account with the longest history and the most edits is normally assumed to be the main account.¹

I'm still unconvinced of the need for avoidance behaviour No. (iii). My solution is: if you're likely to encounter resistance or embarrassment among family, friends or work from the areas you choose to edit in, don't disclose your original username. It seems like a no-brainer, and we need to encourage caution in this respect. Why have usernames that aren't our real names if we sacrifice the anonymity by telling our RL associates the codename?

¹I've moved this clause from the previous para, where it seemed to stray from the point.

Tony (talk) 04:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Your proposed changes seem fine to me. I agree with you about #3. Cla68 (talk) 06:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the need to avoid password stealing on public computers, would that be a reason not to link the accounts? If I don't want to edit as SV on a public computer, I can still say that User:A, which I've just created, is SV, without fear of SV's password being stolen as a result. Or have I missed the point? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 07:35, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

• I can see no reason for accounts existing per (i) or (ii) would be exceptions for the general rule of providing links between the accounts. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

iii will apply for users whose RL personal information or actual identities have been outed or otherwise compromised. I'd also caution against linking policy to talk page sections, primarily because of linkrot, but also because it smacks of us not being sure how to define something. --Dweller (talk) 13:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

He used section links in the for of [[#Section]] instead of [[Pagename#Section]], it is a relative link, not absolute. MBisanz ^talk 13:41, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Explain again? I'm not getting much sleep at the moment and I'm even more stupid than usual. --Dweller (talk) 14:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

There are two ways you can link to a section on a page.

[[#FluffyBunnies]] says "Find a section named "FluffyBunnies" on this page.

[[Jungle#WildGiraffes]] says "Find a section named "WildGiraffes" on page "Jungle".

Does that make more sense? MBisanz ^talk 14:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Not really... won't both options fail when the talk page is archived? Also, linking policy to talk page discussions doesn't seem overly authoritative. --Dweller (talk) 15:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

• This proposal is a definite improvement over the pointless meddlesomeness above; I am still not convinced that the change, insofar as it is not purely verbal, serves any purpose. The change in emphasis involved in the verbal changes is mostly harmless, and will probably help deter abusive socks.
• My account already reveals much of my real world identity. I can live with this, for now; it was an error at account creation time - for many websites your login name doesn't matter if your sig is uninformative. But if I ever wished to change, including a link to this account would defeat the purpose.

Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:14, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

• • If you stop using one account before starting the other account then there's no problem and disclosure wouldn't be needed.   Will Beback  talk  21:36, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Suggest there be a specification of where and how to disclose. Otherwise we could end up with perfunctory disclosures that satisfy the letter but not the spirit of the policy. That's been a problem in the past with the conflict of interest guideline. If the average editor wonders 'Is there something I ought to know about this account?' and checks the main user page and user talk, it ought to be reasonably visible, as with this instance. Two related questions arise from that:

1. Should that also be delcared from the main account's primary user pages? (In this case it isn't, but would gladly swim with the tide for the good of the site).
2. Should there be a provision for disclosure to ArbCom instead of to the community under special circumstances not anticipated by policy? (Probably yes: we can't anticipate every justifiable situation).

Durova²⁸⁸ 17:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Parallel discussion on UNacceptable reasons

As I had mentioned in an earlier discusion, there are five (5) uses of a second account that are truly harmful. These include:

1. One person using two or more accounts to pose as multiple people and participate in a discussion, especially one on deletion. For example, if an article is put up for deletion, and one person comes by with two or more accounts arguing it should be kept, this distorts the "voting" process. Or even if there is just a discussion that has been formed on whether or not to include something within an article, consensus can be distorted this way.
2. One person using multiple accounts to engage in an edit war. The 3RR guideline states that the 3 edits is limited to each person, not each account. When a hot edit war is in place, accusations of sock puppetry do sometimes fly.
3. Creating articles with one account then marking them as patrolled with another
4. Use of a separate account specifically for disruptive editing, such as vandalism. Some well-established editors may create accounts to experimentally vandalize, commit planned vandalism (such as waiting for a new account to become autoconfirmed, then moving a page), or to engage in POV editing. The same people may be hiding this from a well-respected account they have.
5. Creating an article with one account, then proposing it for deletion with another, just to watch how an AfD on the topic will turn out (see WP:POINT).

Putting these aside, there may be plenty of people out there who have their own personal reasons for having multiple accounts that we have not addressed, but that are not hurting in any way. Provided that one is editing in good faith, there should be no rule against what they are doing. Hellno2 (talk) 19:36, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

• Aren't all of these (except for Flagged Protection, which should be added when it is implemented) already in the policy? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:08, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

AGF, forgive my natural cynicism: perhaps you've never had to deal with ID duplicity. When you say, "there may be plenty of people out there who have their own personal reasons for having multiple accounts that we have not addressed, but that are not hurting in any way", is there any reason such people shouldn't have to register securely if they don't want to disclose the double operation? Otherwise, it's all too messy. The idea that someone is forbidden to operate both accounts on the same page is itself far messier, harder to police, and prone to intentional or unintentional slip-ups than a strict procedure. Tony (talk) 11:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

This is an assumption of bad faith. There's no reason to make such a requirement, and no examples whatever where it will do any good. (Instances where an alt account has been abused and caught are not instances; the present precautions have been enough in those cases. Strongly oppose any such meddling until the advantage - other than to the will to power of the advocates - is shown. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:35, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

AGF doesn't work structurally throughout the wiki: otherwise, some of the pillars, policies and guidelines could be binned straight away. In terms of individual interactions, AGF is more workable, but on the societal level, a more realistic, social construction is often better for the good of the project and of individuals. This "we're civilised and don't need Teacher to tell us what to do" argument is all too simplistic, and—pardon me—extremely righwing in its implications. (I'm not gonna pay tax. I'm not gonna wear a seatbelt. I don't want restrictions on serving alcohol to kids in public places.) Tony (talk) 03:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I congratulate Tony on combining "interactions", "societal level" and "social construction" into the same unhappy sentence; fortunately he writes better in article space. I refer him to that well-known right-wing </irony> tract Politics and the English Language on the uses of jargon in concealing evil-doing from the public - and from the writer himself. I do not pardon his insult, nor do I care for the politics which drive this unspeakable proposal. Wikipedia is not a government; it is not governed by statute, and rules are not the purpose of the community. That is policy. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

This is another Wikipedia witch-hunt. We've seen them before; somebody notices that an aspect of Wikipedia (usually one he does not use himself) can be abused - and calls a Crusade:

• Userboxes are evil; ban all userboxes.
• Admins can be abusive; desysop all admins.
• Anon accounts vandalize; semi-protect all articles.
• Editors can be nitwits; protect all articles.

We've seen all of these; the last usually in some modified form , because even our Crusaders do sometimes edit articles.

These Crusades have a number of common features:

• A declaration the sky is falling
• An utter absence of evidence that our normal procedures aren't dealing with the abuses.
• The EVIL practice X is usually something which makes no substantive difference to article space, but which some editors find useful.
• Reasoning of the form: "I don't do X (use userboxes/edit anonymously...); why should you have the right to do X? After all, it can be abused."
  • In my part of the world, this rhetoric is characteristic of the lunatic right talking about gay marriage/school-teaching/military service - and about immigration; is it different in Australia? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

After six months or so, either it doesn't pass, and somehow the sky manages not to fall; or it does pass, some established editors are harassed, a large number of newbies are driven away, and we watch our expansion slow further - but there's never any great improvement to the encyclopedia.

Let's stop this particular Crusade now, please. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Adminsock policy

According to Arbcom's Motion 3.2 against Geogre [2], "Administrators using a second account in a forbidden manner will be summarily de-sysopped, per the "Administrative sock puppets" section of the sock puppetry policy." Adminsock had previously said exactly that. Recently, Xeno changed it to read "Administrators discovered using a second account in a forbidden manner may be summarily de-sysopped." The reference used is the motion. I Undid that tonight. and Jehochman Undid my undo. Rather than get in an edit war over two words, can we discuss this here and come to a consensus? Firestorm ^Talk 04:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for requesting discussion to help avoid needless reverting. I don't really mind what wording is used, but I do mind citing policy to an ArbCom decision. We make the rules, not them. Jehochman ^Talk 04:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Of course, it is understandable to be wary of citing Arbcom decisions. However, the arbcom decision actually cited this page, i.e. the previous version that used "will." The original version was "will." The "may" version is actually a change of policy, which should now be discussed. If a sysop is using a second account in a forbidden manner, like Geogre was, I think there's a consensus stating that they should be desysopped, just like he was. Of course, there are extenuating circumstances on very rare occasions, but it should be clear to Arbcom that the community's wish is for abusive admins to be removed from power if they abuse sockpuppets.

A potential ramification of changing it to "may" is that they, or a future arbcom, would have more leverage to say "well, what you did was clearly wrong and abusive, but since policy doesn't say that we're required to remove the bit, you can keep it." We should think carefully if we really want them to have that kind of veto power over the community's interests. Anyway, it is late here, so hopefully I'm coherent enough to get my point across. Firestorm ^Talk 05:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• Precisely; and because ArbCom does not engage in the Wiki process, they often go with the first wording that comes to hand, if it's not bad enough to protest or vote down.
• On the substance, how about are likely to be? It's not certain; he may get to ArbCom before he actually loses the bit. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Policy is descriptive, not normative. I agree with that wording. We should leave room open because each situation needs to be judged on its merits. Jehochman ^Talk 05:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

For at least a year the text was:

• Administrators using a second account in a forbidden manner risk being summarily desysopped.

That was changed only in the last few days. I don't see any discussion here. "Risk" is neither as definite as "will", but perhaps slightly more assertive than "may", especially since since the ArbCom has said it will desysop any adminsock user it finds. Shall we just restore the old text?   Will Beback  talk  05:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• Done. Let's discuss on that basis. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:32, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

It had an ArbCom statement attached that was far stronger. Are you tampering with ArbCom's declaration? Tony (talk) 07:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

No, ArbCom does not, and should not, set policy; you know this. Having observed ArbCom at close quarters, one reason for this has become clearer to me than usual: ArbCom does not polish their statements through the Wiki process; the wording of the first Arb, especially in matters like this which do not affect the actual remedies, is likely to survive, unless it is so bad that other Arbs protest. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 08:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The community and the ArbCom make and interpret policy together. In this matter we could write that the ArbCom has said it will block such violations, which would be treating the matter with the NPOV. Just because the ArbCom says it will to do something doesn't mean they actually will in every or any future case. Since desysopping is mostly done by the ArbCom, they effectively set the standards. If they desysop a couple more admin socks in a row (without community uproar) then we can make the language stronger to reflect that. These cases don't come along very often (thank goodness), so it may take a year.   Will Beback  talk  10:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, if not, we might have to remove half of the WP:ADMIN policy, which relies significantly on "case law" from ArbCom over the years. Tony (talk) 10:49, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Would it be accurate to say that the ArbCom has repeatedly desysoped admins who have violated this policy? If so maybe we should add that.   Will Beback  talk  11:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

We are on much firmer ground if what is written on policy pages reflects what is actually done, rather than what we, or ArbCom, or even Jimbo, feels ought to be done. It follows that we are better to rely on ArbCom's actions, rather than their words, when documenting any given policy. --RexxS (talk) 12:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Giving my opinion as an editor here. I believe changing the wording from 'risking' to 'will' or 'may' is moot. The important point here is '...in a forbidden manner'. There sock policy is less relevant since any administrator who would act 'in a forbidden manner' will be desysoped -regardless of being caught socking in a 'forbidden manner', abusing their tools or acting in a 'forbidden manner'. I believe the community should better focus on what are the things that are 'forbidden' although -in this case- that is clear after reading 'this page in a nutshell' and the first paragraph.. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 15:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

It's an honor system after all

We've had some very long discussions in the past several weeks regarding what is an acceptable use for a second account and what is not. We have debated whether or not it should be allowed for various reasons, and how to enforce it. But since there is really no hard way to know, it all comes down to being an honor system.

Yes, there are existing signs that someone may be deceptively operating multiple accounts. But there is seldom any clear evidence. After all, it is a matter of trust. Hellno2 (talk) 17:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

How to prohibit abuses

I adhere to the simple position that the way to ban abuses is to ban the abuses. There is, I think, consensus that Hellno's list of bad practices and Yellow Monkey's instance are all bad things; I therefore propose to include them, since what follows is consensus:

It is unacceptable to use alt accounts to disrupt Wikipedia or to misrepresent yourself or your contributions. For example:

1. Posing as a neutral commentator, using one alt account, in a policy discussion about another account of the same person.
2. !Voting more than once in polls, such as WP:Articles for discussion polls.
3. Using multiple accounts to violate our rules about edit warring
4. Creating an article with one account, and then marking it as patrolled
5. Use of a separate account for disruption or vandalism, in the hope that, when it is blocked, the main account can continue with blameless editing.
6. Creating an article with one account and proposing it for deletion with another, a WP:POINT violation
7. Creating a separate account to argue one side of an issue in a deliberately irrational or offensive fashion, to sway opinion to another side.

It is improper to use multiple accounts to do anything which cannot or should not be done with a single account.

Notes:

• If inserted, these should probably be bullet points or paragraphs. I number them for convenience in discussing them here.
• These include some bad practices already condemned in the page, such as the section on Straw Puppets and "Good hand, bad hand" accounts. These should be linked or consolidated; I don't really care which.
• YM's point is #1, Hellno's #2-#6.
• The last sentence recasts Alternative accounts should not be used to edit in ways that would be considered improper if done by a single account, which is already policy. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

This might be appropriate to include, but I think it should be combined with a stricter line on the operation of alt accounts in the first place. Address the problem at two links in the chain, not one. Thus far, it hasn't worked. Tony (talk) 08:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Your proposed stricter line doesn't address the problem; it's unenforceable and therefore ineffective. Rephrasing, as you suggest above, insofar as that is a change of emphasis to say that single accounts are normal, would be a second attack on the problem. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

If you provided an example of the present policy not working, you would be much more persuasive. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:18, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

What, you mean ... like ... the use of socks to breach ArbCom remedies? Tony (talk) 07:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

As with the use of multiple accounts used in sequence (and therefore not alts) to evade a record of date warring, this is an example of the policy being enforced - and therefore working. Expecting policies to work automatically, without enforcement, is the legislation of Utopia, and a Utopia more clueless than More or Wells. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Added, on the grounds that there is consensus that these are bad things. I leave the question of whether to link to the separate mentions or to condense for later. If anybody disagrees with any of these, please explain here. Whether this is all we need to do is a separate question. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:34, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

If anyone has an opinion on the question of consolidation, please comment. I'm leaning towards consolidation (e.g. mentioning strawpuppets in point 7, and getting rid of the section) but would be glad to have other thoughts. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

There's the matter of moral pressure, too. It's not all about what can be easily policed, but of establishing a policy context that minimises the moral temptation to misuse. Tony (talk) 02:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Which is not done by minimizing the ability to use; that "logic," which I would hope Tony does not mean to endorse, belongs to a handful of Puritan extremists, who fear that "someone somewhere may be having fun". Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)