Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppetry/Archive 13

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16

Legitimate uses needs correction

I believe another legitimate use should be added - multiple accounts that appeared as a result of Single User Login. With a condition to make the association clear by placing the appropriate userboxes on both (or more) pages. BadaBoom (talk) 08:13, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Example

Should this account be mentioned in the sock-puppetry policy? —rybec 18:36, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Illogical wording

In the subsection Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Sockpuppet_investigations, we have the following wording:

This is illogical, because how can one be tagged as a "suspected" sock if one is already "proven" to BE a "blocked account"? Blocked accounts are no longer "suspects". This makes the category meaningless. We have always used the category to keep track of "suspected" socks, IOW those who have been connected to blocked editors, registered or not, by the "duck" test, combined with various tells and/or location. The category is often used when many socks begin to appear, and it would be too time consuming (and frankly a disruptive waste of CU's time) to go to SPI with each one. Some disruptive editors can quickly rack up huge sock farms of IPs, even in the hundreds. Taking IPs to CU is often fruitless anyway since CUs are not allowed to connect IPs to registered accounts, but IPs can obviously be disruptive and used by blocked users, and thus are sock puppets by any definition. The only thing left to do is to add them to the "suspected" category.

I suggest we reword the sentence to be more accurate, to be logical, and to be in harmony with traditional usage:

  • "Only registered and unregistered accounts which are strongly suspected to be connected to blocked accounts by sufficient evidence that would stand up to scrutiny should be included in Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets. Such evidence might be the "duck" test, combined with various tells and/or location."

Strictly speaking, various tells could be considered part of "duck", so other suggestions are welcomed. Regarding tells, they should usually not be discussed openly, but revealed to admins and other sock hunting editors as necessary, because revealing them openly enables the disruptive editor to better disguise their identity. A recent Wasaga Beach/Collingwood editor has a certain tell which connects a number of their IPs' edits, but I have never discussed it openly. This knowledge has made their denials of being the same person rather humorous, in the sense that small children's obvious lies are humorous to adults. In the face of such lies, I have told them that their tells "are for us to know and for you to find out." Being an experienced editor does have its advantages.... . -- Brangifer (talk) 02:51, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I have stricken my first wording above since the thread has been hijacked with tangential matters which don't directly relate. I'll make a new proposal with better wording to avoid any misunderstandings. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:06, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Tangential discussion not directly related to the above suggestion

There's nothing illogical about the policy wording. Based on the ANI discussion, you seem to have exhibit a serious lack of comprehension in this area. First you must file a WP:SPI; if the result is that the IPs are check-user and/or behaviorally connected and are blocked as a result of the SPI, then you can tag their user pages as sockpuppets, not before. "Sockpuppet" is basically a tag for a subcategory of bad editing behavior. You cannot simply apply it to good-faith alternate accounts or to all dynamic IPs, which are very common. Being an "experienced editor" does not make you a one-man sooper sekrit court that can decide entirely by himself who is a sockpuppet and who isn't. If you want to be that, apply for Wikipedia:CheckUser rights. Even then, your decision are subject to audit. Someone not using his real name (talk) 06:31, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
This issue isn't directly related to the ANI discussion, but to the lack of logic in the wording here. Please don't conflate the two. If you can't do that, please don't interfere here, because we need only those who can stay on topic in this discussion. I am not proposing anything new here. There is no proposal to change the actual meaning or actual practice. We just need to write what we mean and mean what we write.
I'm trying to get this fixed. One cannot be a "suspect" after one has been "blocked". One is then a confirmed sock, and no longer just a "suspect". That's how English works. I'm actually just proposing what has actually been meant by the category all along. I'm not proposing anything new. The category has ALWAYS been used for including "suspects", IOW unblocked accounts which were strongly suspected of being the blocked editor. That the category has ALSO included blocked accounts, both registered and unregistered, is another matter, and actually inline with the purpose of the category. It gives admins a place to look for new socks to block, and that's what they have done. Many socks have been blocked because they were found on such categories, their edits examined by admins, and yes, they were indeed worthy of being blocked, and that then happened. This happens because CUs are often not allowed to connect IPs with blocked registered accounts, so admins block the IPs based on duck. They deserve to be blocked, and this is the way to do it outside of SPIs which are powerless to do so.
This is simply about how the wording and actual practice are not in harmony, and how the wording is internally inconsistent with the English language. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:55, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes I am the IP that is ruining Wikipedia (sarc) mentioned in your constant attacks everywhere but let me ask you a question based on a hypothetical scenario.
Let's suppose I were a blocked, named account. Now I change IP addresses, as you constantly complain about, and we now flag, block or whatever to identify me as an IP sockpuppet. This seems a fair enough to protect Wikipedia from certain damages. Now what if I change IP addresses (we have already established people can) and register for another named, geolocate hidden account and perform the same perceived damaging edits? Is it open season on the named account also or does this only apply to IP sockpuppets that are easily geolocate identifiable? What if I would change IP addresses many times and open many named and anonymous accounts? I know of one that has done just that and uses them very cleverly to support content disputes. Now prove that one! Just some food for thought. Now watch my talk page! :) 174.118.141.197 (talk) 13:29, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
That's hardly a hypothetical scenario, and we both know it. It happens all the time. When such a person creates a new, registered account, if they don't (unlike your example) engage in controversial behavior, disruption, and attacking the editors who have exposed them before, all of which draws attention to themselves, they could probably edit for years and make an excellent contribution to Wikipedia. That would be great. Unfortunately "a leopard cannot change its spots." Immaturity and/or mental health problems manifest themselves. They usually start engaging in the same types of things that got them in trouble, editors recognize a pattern, and they get brought to SPI where it is discovered they are yet another sock of a blocked user.
It always ends up coming back to behavior, not just named or IP accounts and geolocation. It's their behavior that gets them in trouble. If they really want a clean start, they need to ignore whatever happens with their old IPs, and stay away from the old subject areas and other editors. They should studiously never deal with them or mention them. Period. That would work and they'd be able to really do some good around here, because many blocked users are extremely intelligent people, but that's not enough to work here. One must also be able to work collaboratively. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:31, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
That was a hypothetical scenario because I stated it was and you know it. I doubt you have a reading problem with your years of living in a text medium. Are you still implying I am a sockpuppet for a blocked user or just avoiding your opinion of the scenario? With your insulting tone it would appear now you have switched (below) to implying IP editors don't work collaboratively. Then you have the be nerve to throw in just enough standard I AGF clauses. Man you got some trouble here with Wikipedia and it looks more and more that it needs some radical action to resolve this Teflon problem. On top of it all your comments just displayed more prejudice against IP editors, again. You have this stuck in your craw that IPs disrupt and named editors don't and you can't seem to differentiate. I am just trying to help you understand how to become a better editor by not biting the newbies in order to improve the project feel for all. 174.118.141.197 (talk) 01:17, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Please don't split my comment. I moved yours from the middle of my comment to immediately above this one.
No, I totally disagree with your false characterization of my opinions because there are plenty of IP editors who edit very collaboratively. Only those who don't don't. Those are the ones I've been talking about, and the ones who get tagged. The old adage here still applies: While not all IPs are vandals, most vandals are IPs. That unfortunately smudges off on good IP editors who do plenty of good work and enjoy my respect. I NEVER bother them. Only those IPs who are disruptive, just like disruptive registered editors, get some resistance from my side, as they do from all other good editors.
My prejudice is against any editors, registered or IPs, who are disruptive. Those who collaborate are great partners here, even when we don't agree. On this I am in agreement with every editor commenting here. We all enjoy working with registered and IP editors. Only those who deliberately refuse to follow policy give any serious problems. Beginner difficulties, misunderstandings, etc., those we can all work out, if there is a spirit of learning. It's all about having a positive learning curve. This one is such an occasion for me. I hope the same for you, because I know that you are capable of very good work. That's one of the tragedies of Wikipedia. Many potentially great editors refuse to work in a collaborative environment. They get nasty when crossed and reverted. Then it goes downhill from there and they end up as IPs. Very few can resist the temptation to keep it clean from then on. Instead of letting things get that bad, they should be willing to discuss, learn from more experienced editors, and work within this pretty amazing framework we have here. BTW, your shrill tone is getting more and more like that of the blocked editor in question. SPI won't act on that because that's not enough to start an SPI or to block, but it's enough to raise the suspicions of those who are familiar with the blocked IP's MO. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:51, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
"engaging in the same types of things that got them in trouble, editors recognize a pattern, and they get brought to SPI " is exactly what the policy says, and I think everyone agrees that it an acceptable way to deal with suspected socks. It's been my understanding BullRangifer wanst license to continue to not address suspected that way. NE Ent 17:35, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
I agree and wish that always worked. Unfortunately I have often encountered or observed dismissive behavior from CUs. I AGF that they are indeed following the rules that bind their actions, but it's frustrating when an IP is brought to SPI and they refuse to CU it. If the behavior is VERY disruptive, they still won't run CU, but they can block the IP based on behavior alone, but often still without any certainty it's the same person behind the blocked account AND the IP, even though the behavior is very similar and the geolocation is identical. If the behavior is borderline, they won't even block, so the blocked editor becomes impervious to blocking as long as they keep the disruption at a low level. Sometimes other admins who are familiar with the pattern of these editors will step in and block them as socks. That helps a bit. It's irritating, but we live with it, and that's why I sometimes take them to SPI, and sometimes not. It's also very time consuming. Just tagging them to keep an eye on evidence of any worse disruption down the line serves a purpose. That's all. There is no harassment, but these editors really do wish to violate the socking policy by "evading the scrutiny of other editors" by not having that tag on their user page. This reveals an uncollegial spirit. If they wish to make a clean start, that option is available, but they can't resist returning to old behaviors, so they end up getting caught again and again. That's why many of the IPs I have tagged are blocked. You're welcome to ask the blocking admins why they were blocked. I AGF that they did the right thing, and I think you should too. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:13, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Comment - super-secret evidence that we can't share with anyone, which proves socking... Seems I've heard that before. Oh yeah, at Arbcom. You know, the Durova case, where an admin lost their bit for, uh, secret evidence and bad blocks of a sock (who wasn't). Or the false Scibaby positives - once at over 20% false positives.

Even the WikiMedia founding principles ("The ability of almost anyone to edit (most) articles without registration.") cover the fact we welcome IP editors. GregJackP Boomer! 18:07, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

The reason that accounts are tagged as being "suspected" rather than "proven" is because  CheckUser is not magic pixie dust. Checkuser is sometimes wrong. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:46, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
That's true. That's why the "suspects" category exists. I have used it to keep an eye on possible disruptive behavior. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:06, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
@GregJackP: As you should know from my comments elsewhere, I welcome IP editors. They are not required to register, even though it has great advantages. If you exercised some due diligence and checked out the block log and contribution history of the main IP in Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of 99.251.114.120, you might be a bit more quiet in your attacks on a good faith experienced editor like myself. It wouldn't hurt to check out the block logs of many of the blocked IPs in that category, and if that didn't satisfy you, ask the admins who blocked them why they were blocked.
I'm not an admin, so don't blame me for the multiple IPs' disruptions and the consequences they suffered. How about checking out the connection between the current IP who started the AN/I attack on me and the banned editor User:KBlott? (Even his current incarnation admits that KBlott is involved.) Some admins in that thread believe that KBlott is the same person behind the IPs, and by extension the starter of the thread. So essentially we are allowing a banned editor to run an AN/I attack on a faithful and experienced editor, in revenge for keeping an eye on his banned activities here, and you're taking his side in the case. Lovely! -- Brangifer (talk) 23:06, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
A "faithful and experienced editor" who has stated publicly that he believes registration should be required to edit, and then tells an IP information that is completely against policy? And has "secret" information? Sorry, having been falsely accused in the past, my good faith doesn't take me that far. If you have evidence, then present it at SPI. Don't misstate policy. Perform these actions in an aboveboard, open manner. Then I'll support you - but not at present, not with the problems I see, and the fact that you don't see a problem at all. GregJackP Boomer! 23:44, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
How many times do I have to state that "I welcome IP editors. They are not required to register, even though it has great advantages." Please AGF that my ideal belief does not affect how I treat IPs. It doesn't. I would "like" that to be the case, but I don't believe that IPs (currently) have to register to edit. I'm one of many who would like registration to be required, but it's not, and I'm okay with that. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:54, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
And this explains why my good faith doesn't travel that far - [1] and [2]. It easy to look reasonable when you change your own comments after someone has responded to the original comments. GregJackP Boomer! 00:03, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry I misread your comment the first time. Before anything else was written by anyone I noticed that you meant something slightly different and I started to edit my comment. See the edit summary, which was apparently written while you were preparing your comment above. I did not realize you were responding to my original proposal, since no one else has done so either. Everyone has been responding to what has been written at AN/I, and has ignored my proposal, hence the subheading. I thought you were responding to my comment immediately above yours. My bad, but a logical mistake.
There has been a huge edit conflict here, but I missed part of it. The only EC I experienced was the reversion of my changed proposal. It is only now that I have seen this comment, because I have been working on cleaning up my original proposition (which was reverted, so I had to keep working on it for the next section below) which contained wording that could give editors an opportunity to not take the proposal seriously. I have boiled it down to my actual intent. See below. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:40, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Clarification About Shared IP Addresses

I would like to clarify a matter about the use of shared IP addresses. In the case of a range of IP addresses that are known to be an institutional block, the use of the same IP address, identified by the CheckUser admins, from time to time by two or more registered accounts should not be considered evidence of sock-puppetry. Only the duck test identifies whether two registered accounts do the same type of quacking. Is that correct? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:46, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

If you're looking for answers, you've come to the wrong place. Though more than 500 users watch the page on their watchlists. No admin is willing to address this question from over a month ago? Doc talk 09:22, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Illogical wording 2

In the subsection Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Sockpuppet_investigations, we have the following wording:

This is illogical, because how can one be tagged as a "suspected" sock if one is already "proven" to BE a "blocked account"? We already have other categories for them. Blocked accounts are no longer "suspects". We have always used the "suspects" category to keep track of "suspected" socks, not proven socks, and the category for suspects has usually become a subcategory of the main category for proven socks.

I suggest we reword the sentence to be more accurate, to be logical, and to be in harmony with traditional usage:

1. "Only accounts and IPs which are strongly suspected to be connected to blocked accounts and IPs by sufficient evidence that would stand up to scrutiny should be included in Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets."

That version is a very long sentence, so another version with two sentences could be used:

2. "Only accounts and IPs which are strongly suspected to be connected to blocked accounts and IPs should be included in Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets. There must be sufficient evidence that would stand up to scrutiny.

We could add more qualifications:

3. "If "scrutiny" includes demands to see the evidence, it must be produced publicly. In some cases this should be done privately to the CUs and interested admins, since there are good reasons why certain types of evidence cannot be made public."

We could add optional wording which describes actual current practice. These include the following and possibly more:

4. "Such evidence might be the "duck" test, various tells, and/or location."

The key word is "suspects". Please refer to the numbers when commenting. I'm sure this can be improved, but something needs to be done. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:28, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

An explanation of how Template:IPsock works is needed because a number of comments reveal a lack of knowledge about how this template has ALWAYS been used:

  • First, take a good look at the template itself and notice the wording: "Please refer to contributions or the sockpuppet investigation of the sockpuppeteer for evidence." Notice the "or"? Anyone looking at the template can look at the contribution history and try to figure out what's been happening. If they are really concerned, they can always ask the editor who placed the tag. IF there is an SPI, the part after the "or" comes into play. This is basic English 101.
  • Then, take at look at the bottom version of the template. The tagging works like this: (1) tag a suspect; (2) if later confirmed by SPI, then modify the tag; (3) if then blocked, modify the tag again: "If the user believed/confirmed to be using the IP is blocked, you can add the "blocked=yes" parameter." That such modification doesn't always happen is just a simple fact of life. The confirmation and blocking don't automatically appear in the watchlist of the editor who placed the tag. It may happen some time later. No harm done. Only a guilty party will be blocked anyway, and if it's an IP, it's a very short block. If it's a dynamic IP, the editor won't even know their page was tagged and that they were blocked! They will usually have moved on and don't even know which IPs they have used.

Solution? Fix the nonsensical Hsock wording! Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:04, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Suggestions for improvement
  • Oppose any change - proposed wording allows for the harassment and blocking with less evidence than currently required, and we already get too many false positives. Witch-hunts are no longer fashionable. GregJackP Boomer! 02:14, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
  • You misunderstand. This is not a vote situation. Neither oppose nor agree. Instead try to improve the currently inconsistent wording, or don't you see the inconsistency? I'm sure you can come up with some alternate wording that works better than mine. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:28, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
  • No, I don't think that you understand. The policy is fine. It does not need to be changed. What needs to change is your behavior. GregJackP Boomer! 10:59, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
  • And I will always bring my behavior into line with policy, but the problem here is that relatively newer wording has been added which is confusing and goes against established practice. That needs to be clarified so I don't inadvertently violate policy, because that is not my intention. I wasn't even aware that the last phrase had been added until the current AN/I witch hunt by a banned user. I'm only seeking to make the wording describe how that category has always been used, not to change the policy. Do you see the difference? We already have other categories for blocked users. This one is for "suspects" and is a subcategory of the sockpuppetry categories. How can they be the same? Answer that question. I'd like to see you use some logic here.
    The consequence of your interpretation means we eliminate this category and all the tags which place users in that category, and there are several. BTW, have you exercised due diligence yet and studied the links I have provided? -- Brangifer (talk) 15:52, 23 September 2013 (UTC) Comment redacted to avoid unnecessary offense. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:32, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose any change in 1,2,3 or 4 - as per GregJacP above and the initiator has a COI to change this policy, previously violated to harass IPs, as per ANI, at this time. 174.118.141.197 (talk) 07:16, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Again a misunderstanding, this time by an IP who has a huge COI. The proposed change cannot make misuse any easier. All it would do is to bring the wording into harmony with practice, and you know that the practice, without any involvement from me, has always been to add accounts and IPs suspected of being a blocked or banned editor to the "suspects" category. That's what it is for. There are OTHER categories for blocked editors. This one is for suspects.
    Are you proposing that the category be eliminated? -- Brangifer (talk) 07:33, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
I would like to point out that you have just as big as a COI as 174 does. Konveyor Belt express your horror at my edits 16:25, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Neutral. Irrespective of the motives of this thread's initiator, BullRangifer is right that the wording makes it hard to determine what's the purpose of Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets. If only blocked accounts and IPs can be added, it's unclear how it's different from Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets. Given that Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets has the potential to be abused for harassing innocent IP editors, I'd be OK with simply deleting it and require that only confirmed sockpuppets are categorized, under Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets. Diego (talk) 17:42, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for being the first one to actually take this matter seriously and examine the logic here. There is an illogical element in the current wording in the policy. The "suspects" category has always been used for suspects, and is a subcategory of the categories for proven socks.
Your suggestion to drop the category is another way to deal with the situation, but would seriously hamper efforts to discover and stop disruptive editors who evade blocks by misusing IPs. That is the only legitimate use for that category according to the current policy. It hasn't always been that way.
As you will notice in the comments at the Village pump, nearly all the comments discuss the numerous disadvantages of editing with IPs. They note that IPs will have to live with a certain degree of distrust and will have to put up with well-meaning editors who encourage them to register an account. They also note that there are no good reasons for not registering an account. Not a single one. I've edited here for nearly ten years (and registered in 2005), and for many years have asked ArbCom members, admins, and editors, and no one has ever come up with a single good reason for not registering. Not a single time! All are agreed that registering an account is by far the best thing to do. Read all the comments. The only ones (two right now) who don't do that are those who have commented at AN/I and are interpreting everything in that light. Note the attack on me there was started by an IP who is closely allied with the banned editor KBlott. Those two who commented are influenced by that IP and have no objective ability at the moment, just like those who have commented above, to really examine the issue without it being interpreted in light of events elsewhere, and by the thoughts placed in their heads by a banned editor. You have not done that and are thus able to immediately see the lack of logic in the current wording.
Maybe you can help to get some change effected here, because something needs to be done. I welcome other suggested changes to the existing wording. This is not an RfC, and there was no intention for any type of vote, only for suggested improvements. Instead certain editors have an intention to just shut this down and leave the illogical wording in place. That's not right. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:12, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
The only thing that needs to improve is your behavior. Someone not using his real name (talk) 21:19, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Concur. This needs to stop, now. I don't know how else to put it to you. I've begun to look at past conduct as regards socks, and unfortunately was not surprised at the number of false positives I've found connected to your reports. GregJackP Boomer! 02:21, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Both of you seem to have missed my message. There is no longer an issue. That we may have differing opinions on some points is how life is, but should not be an excuse for continued attacks. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:01, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Change It's clearly inconsistent wording. Either we delete Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets (everything which, according to the above misrepresentation[notes 1] of the policy, should be in the category should be in Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets) and the templates which generate it, or we clarify the policy to allow suspected sockpuppets to be properly tagged. Whether Brangifer should be prohibited from tagging suspected sockpuppets is another question, which has not obtained consensus. Furthermore, checkusers are prohibited from announcing that IPs are sockpuppets of accounts, per WP:OUTING. General users are not, as the WP:DUCK test could apply. Arthur Rubin 07:04, September 30, 2013‎ (UTC)
  • There is no attempt to "improve the policy", but to fix it after it got screwed up. Tagging the IPs of suspected block evading editors and other block evading accounts is not a witch-hunt. That's what the tag is for. BTW, your comment is a clear exercise of bad faith. There is clearly a problem with the logic. We need to fix it. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:04, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
How is calling a bad faith nomination a bad faith nomination acting with malice? Konveyor Belt express your horror at my edits 23:25, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Absolutely not. If you don't have enough evidence to block the account or IP, you should never tag that account or IP. Doing so violates the policy on no personal attacks, since calling somebody a sockpuppet without sufficient proof is a personal attack. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:08, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Your opinion flies in the face of how things have always been done here by numerous admins and editors. You really need to tone down the rhetoric and check your facts. A CU should know better. We use the category to keep track of the IPs of suspected block evading editors and other block evading accounts. Block evading accounts are easier to bring to SPI and get a CU performed, while IPs are another story. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:04, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
  • I would like to add that there needs to be some way to note that an IP is a sock, and that all of his edits may be removed, without blocking, as blocking an IP which only good for a few hours is counter-productive after the time is expired. If not Category:Suspected sock puppets, then something else. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:54, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
  • There is, and it's called a pencil and a piece of paper. That is, unless you want other editors to see it and join in on a "witchhunt" then you need a really large banner where other editors can use your OR as a springboard to launch nastier actions against the editor. Quite useful in content disputes, for certain editors. 174.118.141.197 (talk) 12:39, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Original Research, in the article content sense, does not apply to researching accounts to determine whether or not they are socks. You're way over your head here. Keep swimming if you like, but unless you want to learn you're just treading water. Doc talk 13:05, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Strongest Possible Oppose This is designed to serve one person's agenda, not improve the policy. Agree; clearly bad faith and a witch-hunt. --Drmargi (talk) 17:32, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
  • There is no attempt to "improve the policy", but to fix it after it got screwed up. Tagging the IPs of suspected block evading editors and other block evading accounts is not a witch-hunt. That's what the tag is for. BTW, your comment is a clear exercise of bad faith. There is clearly a problem with the logic. We need to fix it. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:04, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Actually, your comment is the one in bad faith, his comment perfectly states the situation. GregJackP Boomer! 12:20, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Whether or not BullRangifer's comment is in good faith, your comments are clearly not both accurate and in good faith. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:54, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment What is the purpose of only tagging blocked accounts? Here's a scenario: IP-hopping vandal is reported to AIV with rock-solid proof of who it is. IP gets blocked for, say, a week. Tag goes up. New editors come along and use the IP. Since that account was blocked, the tag can stay, right? Yet the dozen or so IPs they've moved on to in the meantime can't be tagged because a formal block request was not initiated on each and every one of them? Same range, same solid evidence, but it's so ducky that it's pointless to list. What does the block have to do with much of anything, really? Doc talk 01:44, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
If the tag wasn't already being abused so frequently we wouldn't be here discussing this over and over. 174.118.141.197 (talk) 03:09, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
That sheds no light on why only blocked accounts can be tagged. Doc talk 03:52, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Simple... existing policies. 174.118.141.197 (talk) 11:27, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Fortunately, policies are fluid. They change over time. Nothing is written in stone here quite yet. Doc talk 11:52, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
  • This is ridiculous. Requiring an account to be blocked before we tag it as suspected of being a possible sockpuupet makes no sense at all. Requiring evidence that will stand up to investigation is reasonable, but saying that we can't state that we have such evidence until the account has been blocked is a completely different matter. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:41, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
It would appear the policy is stating that only SPI personnel should place tags and, even then, the editor's account is only "suspected". In short, self-appointed and random volunteers are not to be labeling other editors from their own OR at all. 174.118.141.197 (talk) 11:54, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
We're all self-appointed and random volunteers here, just so you know. Do you know the pay grade for an admin? It's mighty low. Doc talk 11:58, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Apparently all these numerous admins and editors (@JamesBWatson:, @Arthur Rubin:, @Doc9871:, @MarnetteD:, @Cardamon:, @Toddy1:, @SpacemanSpiff:, @PC-XT:, @Dr.K.:, @Nyttend:, @GiantSnowman:, and @SuperMarioMan: (see Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_September_29#Template:IPsock)) believe it would be detrimental to the project to delete this template (and category, since they are tied together). I suspect they all see the lack of logic in the current wording. I hope one of the sysops just changes it and the rest will back him/her up. My suggestion still stands, but I would welcome a real discussion of better wording, just as long as the current wording is fixed. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:50, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
You do realize that the admin that changes it, in the face of consensus against it (running at just about 2:1 against any change), would immediately be hauled in front of AN/ANI to explain their action, right? I doubt very seriously that any admin is that stupid. GregJackP Boomer! 03:58, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Maybe they'd even get desysopped for it, right? Doc talk 04:50, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
I thought you were brighter than that. :p They would not lose their mop over that, but it would be overturned if against consensus. GregJackP Boomer! 05:13, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Consensus can, and does, change. Doc talk 05:34, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Nope. Once it is going my way, we lock it in. It only can change when it helps my side. Did I not make that clear earlier? Geez, Doc, read the memos... GregJackP Boomer! 05:49, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Notes

  1. ^ WP:HSOCK only applies to accounts, not to IPs.

WP:HSOCK policy verbatim

For reference WP:HSOCK policy has been copied here verbatim:

Handling suspected sock puppets

Shortcut
Sockpuppet investigations
Wikipedia:Signs of sock puppetry lists some of the signs that an account may be a sock puppet. If you believe someone is using sock puppets (or meat puppets), you should create a report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. Only blocked accounts should be tagged as Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets and only upon sufficient evidence that would stand up to scrutiny.
It's time to change the language of that policy. Doc talk 12:13, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
I agree. That policy (even if it were policy; it was edited without consensus) is absurd. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:47, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Of course it needs to be fixed. The current wording makes no sense, regardless of how Template:IPsock (and thus Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets) has EVER been used, and in the context of how it has ALWAYS been used it makes even less sense. A refusal to see this involves incompetence, lack of understanding of basic English, lack of understanding basic logic, and a refusal to actually look at the template itself:
  • First, take a good look at the template itself and notice the wording: "Please refer to contributions or the sockpuppet investigation of the sockpuppeteer for evidence." Notice the "or"? Anyone looking at the template can look at the contribution history and try to figure out what's been happening. If they are really concerned, they can always ask the editor who placed the tag. IF there is an SPI, the part after the "or" comes into play. This is basic English 101. An SPI is NOT a requirement for placing the tag.
  • Then, take at look at the bottom version of the template. The tagging works like this: (1) tag a suspect; (2) if later confirmed by SPI, then modify the tag; (3) if it then gets blocked, modify the tag again: "If the user believed/confirmed to be using the IP is blocked, you can add the "blocked=yes" parameter." That such modification doesn't always happen is just a simple fact of life. The confirmation and blocking don't automatically appear in the watchlist of the editor who placed the tag. It may happen some time later. No harm done. Only a guilty party will be blocked anyway, and if it's an IP, it's a very short block. If it's a dynamic IP, the editor won't even know their page was tagged and that they were blocked! They will usually have moved on and don't even know which IPs they have used.
Solution? Fix the nonsensical Hsock wording! Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
After it has been fixed, the question of whether or not only admins should do this can be addressed. That wording has existed, but is not currently policy. I never even knew that someone had added it at some point in time, and then it disappeared, also without my knowledge. Apparently many others didn't know either, because many editors have continued to use the template according to its original intention. I don't care one way or the other, but either way, editors and/or admins need to work with logical wording. Right now it's a mess because it contradicts the template itself. The two need to be in harmony. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:29, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Yup, let's fix that, then we can block all of the dynamic IPs who are automatically violating the socking policy and who should all be required to register an account so we can tag the registered accounts too, especially when we disagree with their edits and we don't really have a good reason except for the super-secret, can't tell you, type of evidence that has been used by lynch mobs for decades.
Or we can follow what the policy says and not subject editors to such abuse without evidence that would stand up to scrutiny. GregJackP Boomer! 03:35, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
  • I disagree. The policy is fine the way it reads and prevents abuse by false positives. Second, if AR's contention is correct and it should not have been policy, then the previous language would still be policy. That language was that "Only administrators should tag individuals as Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets and only upon sufficient evidence that would be stand up to scrutiny." (emphasis added). That means that while you could tag them, most of the others could not. GregJackP Boomer! 02:06, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
The language will change again. It needs to be changed. Admins are not superhumans capable of all things your other riff-raff editors cannot even hope to grasp. And it makes no sense to tag an IP only if they receive a block. Doc talk 02:14, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
I doubt that it will change, based on the consensus above. And what most of those opposing are concerned with are witch hunts. GregJackP Boomer! 03:26, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
That's a serious problem. Perhaps we (admins) should just block all IPs which are socks, regardless of other policies on blocking, such as WP:BLOCK#NOTPUNITIVE#4, if the IP hasn't been editing for a few hours and is obviously part of a pool so that the problematic editor will not be using that IP for a while. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:15, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Witch hunts are no problem for the initiators. "It's for the good of the project", despite failing membership counts. If the hunted disagrees with your tag just have an admin block them. They can't take you to ANI to dispute it anyway. It counts as another notch in your macho belt and if it does get contested some how you have fellow witch hunters indicating you didn't stand alone. A giant chest puffing edit count with over 4 billion (10^12 :)keystrokes that signify you are justified in your 30 second time elapse since your last edit. Like squashing an animal without vocal cords... "if a tree falls in the forest and nobody...". The best one yet is the posts at WP:WER stating "the solution is to AGF and block more editors". I can see clearly from my side. Unsanctioned harassment of new editors is not the answer, it's bullying. 174.118.141.197 (talk) 12:51, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Although I wholly agree with your stance, exactly where at WP:WER are you seeing this? Konveyor Belt express your horror at my edits 17:59, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
  • I disagree with rewriting the policy. Opening the wording means we would have to write in that IP editors may place suspected sockpuppet tags on named editors in order to treat all editors with the same respect. This is a basic pillar of the Wikipedia policies. If the tags are victim removed they could be subject to bans or further labelled as disruptive. This has been the practice by many editors for a long time. 174.118.141.197 (talk) 04:32, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
    Nonsense. There are many cases in which IPs are not permitted to take actions which named editors, autoconfirmed editors, or admins may take. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:15, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
    Then there should be many in favor of correcting all of that prejudice if the policy needs rewriting. Why go half way, stopping at some personally preferred level? There are many actions which regular named accounts are not permitted to take but admins may take, also. Suspected sockpuppet tag determination being one. 174.118.141.197 (talk) 11:39, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
    I haven't blocked you for clear violation of WP:NOTHERE. Doesn't that refute your premise? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:19, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
That's a bit disingenuous. You also know you're constrained from blocking as an involved administrator. --Drmargi (talk) 15:29, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure. My actions against him consist of warning him of improprieties, not actual editing content. But I still haven't blocked him, although I have now blocked 108.73.112.218 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), as he did return after an hour break. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:35, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Looks like you have been busy with that one. Your tag was quite polite (on the last one) and doesn't appear to be a suspected sockpuppet tag. I would say you have a whole Univ. class harassing you from various cities at home. Frustrating, I am sure. 174.118.141.197 (talk) 16:49, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
  • You haven't blocked me for WP:NOTHERE but after reading that essay I see no actual violation of any points listed that would even apply to my editing. The very intimidating mention, here, speaks volumes. Sure editors don't like to be contradicted or have their assumptions disproven etc. but that is why WP has fairly strict policies to stop flaring tempers from influencing our actions. Exactly why some can see how the sockpuppet tags are abused and what we are doing here, attempting to hash this out using accepted Wikipedia discussion methods. 174.118.141.197 (talk) 16:30, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Speaking as someone who has used IPs that were tagged, I actually would rather have the tags, so I can have some idea of the history that may be associated with edits I am about to make. A comment on the talk page would suffice, as well. I'm not sure how popular that view is. I haven't been around, recently, but I see the WP:HSOCK policy is still illogical. I agree that it should either be cleaned up, or the policy changed. -PC-XT+ 04:18, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

"Avoiding scrutiny" vs. "Privacy"

"Privacy" seems to only concern people "whose Wikipedia identity is known... or traceable to their real-world identity"

Personally, I don't edit Wikipedia much, and I have done so by (dynamic; home ISP) ip address only. The first time I tried to edit an article, years ago, my edits were quickly reverted. I ended up consulting an online acquaintance. I only knew him by his user name on a different site, but he was experienced in Wikipedia editing and gave me some useful advice ("Wikipedia is best when it simply collates what others have said"). Anyway, he also mentioned that perhaps my edits were not being taken seriously because I edited by IP address, and the only way I could hide my IP address was by registering a user name, whose IP would be visible only to admins. He described his use of multiple accounts: "For example, I use one account to edit the article on [I forget], and another to edit the article on masturbation." "Just don't use different user names to edit the same article, because that is considered sock puppetry, and you will be banned," he said. Given Wikipedia's reliance on consensus, I can understand why you don't want people pretending to be multitudes saying "see, we're all against you"

Whenever I post on Reddit, I use a different user name each time (or at least never use the same one for more than a day). Basically a "clean start" every time. I do this to maintain anonymity, to avoid "patterns in my contributions" that would make my online identity traceable to my real-world identity. (edit: and also to avoid building up an "identity" on this site in general, even if it isn't linked to my "real" identity...) This is not a concern of mine on Wikipedia, but apparently using multiple user names so that one name's contributions will not be associated with the contributions of another is not allowed? Would using a different user name for each article be allowed?

Which "editors" "may have a legitimate interest in reviewing your contributions"? And what interests are considered "legitimate"? I am not talking about abusing Wikipedia with "vandalism" (and in the case of bad behavior, admins can see IP history to tie accounts together anyway, right?) nor "Creating an illusion of support" nor "Circumventing policies or sanction" nor "Contributing to the same page or discussion with multiple accounts" but I think multiple logins should be allowed to protect illegitimate interests in patterns in our contributions. What if I want my contribution to stand on its own merit? Do you really want edits to be reverted because of what someone thinks about the editor, not the edit itself? (edit: does another editor really need to be able to see my entire history of editing Wikipedia to be able to judge my next edit?) Because "an account represents your edits as an individual" is it not possible to edit anonymously? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.248.73.127 (talk) 11:12, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I currently only have one account, but I see reasons for multiple accounts, or renaming them, for instance, to make a new start. I also see reasons to stay with one account. I think both should be acceptable, though there may be red tape in renaming/multiple accounts due to the added complexity. -PC-XT+ 04:18, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Editing while logged out

I've just WP:BOLDly added a couple of sentences to clarify this policy:

There is no policy against editing while logged out. This happens for many reasons, including not noticing that the login session had expired, changing computers, and forgetting passwords. Editors who are not logged in must not actively try to deceive other editors, such as by directly saying that they do not have an account. To protect their privacy, editors who are editing while logged out are never required to disclose their usernames on wiki.

My hope is that this will help some of our newer, enthusiastic editors better understand the long-standing rules, and thereby reduce the load on SPI. If anyone has ideas about how to improve this, please feel free.

If you've been around for forever, then you "just know" this, but unwritten rules don't help the many newer editors, and IMO there's no good reason not to just tell them the facts upfront instead of making the CUs tell each one of them individually over at SPI. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:13, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Good idea....much needed. North8000 (talk) 22:36, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Concur. Good move. GregJackP Boomer! 22:44, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Nicely done —PC-XT+ 04:11, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Merging a couple of examples in WP:ILLEGIT

See this change, which I self-reverted because I obviously hadn't gotten consensus for the change. Is there any opposition to merging these two very-similar examples? Nyttend (talk) 21:46, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that the change is an improvement. I do not think that the two points do mean the same thing and you are introducing a defence of "Ok I used two accounts but if was not in support of "a controversial position or user". The current wording ("Alternative accounts must not be used to give the impression of more support for a position than actually exists.") is unequivocal. -- PBS (talk) 22:17, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

New account not acknowledging old thrice blocked one

I've run into an account which had 3 blocks for edit warring and was abandoned at the end August and a new one started 3 weeks later - they are obviously the same editor. The new account has been warned for edit warring and I posted to their talk page saying "Are you aware about our policy on multiple accounts? Although they are allowed (see WP:SOCK#LEGIT), we normally ask that these be identified - see WP:SOCK#NOTIFY. This is particularly important if an earlier account does not have a clean block record." Their response was to delete it. Is there anything else I can do? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 10:46, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:AN discussion regarding the information in the SPI header

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive258#Notifying users of a sockpuppet discussion. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:02, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Template for sockmaster talk page

Please see Template talk:SockmasterProven - I cannot get it to work. – Fayenatic London 21:11, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

2005 Arbitration on Meatpuppets goes to WP:ANI or WP:AE?

Can anyone clarify if the following means take cases to WP:ANI or WP:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: A 2005 Arbitration Committee decision established that "for the purpose of dispute resolution when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar editing habits they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets." (Of course, it also can be brought up in any Mediation or Arbitration.)

I assume all four - and actually any administrative noticeboard and would like to put that in. Also would like to put in that in three cases, one can ask for is that those individuals no longer be permitted to work on the same articles or even that they be topic banned. Do I need to do an RfC? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:25, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:SOCK#LEGIT Request

To whom it may concern,

I am writing this comment to make a request relating to legitimate use of what would be seen as sock accounts. My situation doesn't appear to fit, but I will not be able to edit this site properly (with an account) without this arrangement.

I have created 9 accounts - six three days ago and the remaining three just now. I have not edited on the other 8 yet and this is the first edit on this account. I will not be editing with any account until such time as this arrangement is accepted. The other accounts are Real Footy V9, Mister Q101, Velocity 00, BritainD, ASD Activist, ATDM Truly, Super Spy V1 and Serial Pest 6. Each of these accounts have single interest streams or functions and will not edit outside these areas. Now more importantly, each of the interest streams will have watchlists and each watchlist will be cumbersome by themselves. I can not handle all of them at once through a single account. The interest streams are (in order of the user names) Australian Football, Professional Wrestling, Australian Rail Transport/Travel, Politics, material relating to Autism and Asterix/Tintin/Doctor Who/M*A*S*H (the only combined interest stream). This applies to six of the nine accounts.

The other three accounts have specific functions that I can't mix up with any of the others. This account (Spearhead Z) will be used to monitor recent changes only, as well as reacting to general issues affecting me on Wikipedia. Any recent change edits will be outside the interest streams depicted, and will under normal circumstances concentrate on obvious vandalism. Any ongoing vandalism (which goes on a lot) will end up creating a large and exponential watchlist. Super Spy is for the purpose of watching the actions of editors (this will also create a large and exponential watchlist) who appear to have a history of vandalism. But there will be NO actions against any vandalism from this account. That will be done within the interest streams, or if it's outside the interest streams on my main account. Serial Pest is my email contact account. This is a security measure (which is definitely within legitimate use) designed to protect my other accounts. This way any hacking issues with other accounts have an account to go through that is seperate and uncompromised.

I don't have watchlist numbers yet of the six interest accounts, and I will be creating them shortly. But I expect each of them to be over 100, especially Australian Football and Pro Wrestling. I'll confirm those numbers once I develop the watchlists on each account. Once this arrangement is confirmed I'll label each account accordingly on the User Page with the full explanation (including watchlist numbers at the time) on the User Page of this account. Spearhead Z (talk) 03:13, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

  • If these declared alternative accounts are clearly linked on each user and Usertalk page, then it would be within policy. You appear to be wanting to workaround the limitation of one Watchlist per account. Why, is not clear to me. You will be making things very complicated for yourself for a newcomer. Have you ever edited before? Why not use more obviously connected account names, such as Spearhead Z1, Spearhead Z2, Spearhead Z3. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:54, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
    • No problem. The original plan was to just link them from this account, but if they have to be noted on all of them in some way then okay. The reason for the different watchlists is because of the interest streams creating a base routine - which I need as an Autistic person. Mixing up the interests on one watchlist would be too confusing and the one watchlist would be huge as indicated. It would take too long to go through them on one account. Now by dividing them up I can leave the Australian football account alone pretty much during the off season as an example. Likewise I could concentrate on catching vandals during WWE and TNA pay per views in pro wrestling - easier to do with a specific interest watchlist whereas a mixed watchlist would catch a lot more and interfere. I don't think it's complicated, although if you see it as complicated I guess it's because you're able to handle the one watchlist and so on and are used to it. Yes I have edited before as IP's, but not with an account. Also I prefer different names that are related to the interest streams - it makes them easier to remember and not mix them up as may well happen if I took your advice, and in the process break my guarantee of sticking to a single purpose on each account and fall foul of the rules of WP:SOCK - especially if I'm voting on an AfD for instance. Hope that explains things and if it's all fine I'll get to work doing those links for all the accounts (I've already done the one for this one in Notepad, so I'll do the same for the others). Please let me know. Spearhead Z (talk) 07:26, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
You'll find that your reasoning - being able to watch for vandalism - is actually reversed. I currently have 1400+ pages (plus talkpages) on my watchlist. I sure as heck would not want to logout and login on another account to catch vandals, especially considering how quickly vandalism occurs. 6 separate accounts is unmanageable for vandalism-checking purposes ES&L 08:43, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm not splitting accounts for seeking out vandals. The watching vandals account (and I'm talking about established vandals) is one account (Super Spy V1). This account only grabs the hit and run vandals (almost always IP's) via recent changes. Besides, obvious vandalism is usually picked up by bots so the time factor isn't as harsh as you think it might be. If there's a cross issue, I'll cover for it by taking notes in Notepad and do the follow ups that way. It's more controlled - and not only that it gives me a chance to think and not react with my gut alone. If I react with my guts that will lead to mistakes, which I am obviously keen to avoid. Spearhead Z (talk) 09:16, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
As has been pointed out above, if you are linking them on your userpages then there is no problem holding multiple publicly declared accounts. The issues of legit sock accounts really kick in for people who don't want to declare such alternate accounts. However I would suggest making a decision as to which account you will use when !voting and stick to that one, and for transparency 6 similar names and 6 similar signatures should reduce misunderstandings. As for vandalism, providing you are planning to deal with it when it appears on a watchlist then I'd agree there is little urgency, though in my experience not a lot gets past the bots and patrollers these days. ϢereSpielChequers 13:56, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't agree with the voting proposal, because the interest streams will be distinct. I believe that as long as two of my accounts or more don't vote on the same thing there shouldn't be an issue anyway. That I do guarantee - it will only be one and never any more than that. Similar named accounts as mentioned will confuse me leading to mistakes that could violate WP:SOCK rules. Transparency will be taken care of with the linking of accounts. If things work out the way I hope no one who hasn't seen this page or viewed my user pages once they are up and running will even suspect the multiple account arrangement. The edits will be that distinct when it comes to the interest streams.
One more question before I go ahead with this seeing as it would appear that I have a consensus on proceding - would I need to put a multiple account note on the user talk pages as well as the user pages? Or will the user pages suffice? Spearhead Z (talk) 22:35, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Although Policy is unclear on this, I say declare on both, on all main User pages, and at the top of the main User_Talk pages, especially if different accounts might ever edit in Project space (such as at AfD). People don't necessarily check both. The declaration needn't be lengthy. Would you like for me to show you what I mean? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:31, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the offer, but I've already done the declaration in Notepad. On this account it will be substantive, but not overly so. On the other user pages it will be brief and mention the detail on this account's user page. I'll just decide on which user box to use on the talk pages, and then I'll put them all up so you can see what I've done. Spearhead Z (talk) 00:12, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Done! I'll probably do some more cosmetic tweaking on the name spaces before starting to edit. And get those watchlist numbers posted on the interest stream accounts. Spearhead Z (talk) 00:41, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:HSOCK again

I can't find it. Could someone locate where

Only blocked accounts should be tagged as Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets

was added, and whether there was any consensus to do so. I have no objection to requirement that evidence exist, although it need not be reported publically, per WP:BEANS. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:32, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

It was first added here per this discussion. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 05:30, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
It's a bullshit bit of instruction. I completely ignore it. I will tag 'em up whenever I see 'em, as a non-admin. Doc talk 06:41, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't have a problem reverting those tags as a violation of policy. GregJackP Boomer! 06:42, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
I wouldn't have much of a problem reverting your reversion, per WP:COMMONSENSE. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:16, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
What tags are you speaking of? I will never believe that only admins know how to deal with tagging socks. Ever. And tagging only blocked socks is totally stupid for many reasons. Doc talk 08:46, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
I think adding that instruction was premature at best.—Kww(talk) 11:50, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
I have to agree. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 18:46, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Computers aren't humans

What if one computer is used by 15 people and each one creates an account. 166.137.208.34 (talk) 21:06, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

If each of the 15 humans has a registered account, then each of them will have their own edit history and will be separate. If they forget to log in, or edit while logged out, they will show up as the same IP address (if the computer has a static IP address). Robert McClenon (talk) 16:47, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Use of IP with Signature of Blocked User

In looking at the policy, it isn't obvious to me what provision of it explicitly prohibits a blocked user from editing with their IP address and signing their post with their user name. It is clear to me just from common sense that that is sock puppetry, but maybe I don't see exactly where in the policy it says that that is sock puppetry. It is block evasion, and block evasion is improper. (The blocked user insists it isn't sock puppetry because there is no deception involved.) What am I missing in reading the policy, or is that specific use of an IP address missing from the policy? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:59, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

In the Inappropriate uses of alternative accounts section, it talks about Circumventing policies or sanctions. Colton Cosmic is circumventing a sanction, so it falls under the sock puppetry policy. GB fan 18:10, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Also, I have explained this to Colton before. He takes a definition that is not in line with this policy and claims he has never used sock puppets because he isn't using them IPs to deceive anyone. GB fan 18:15, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
(I didn't say I was asking about Colton, but any reasonable Wikipedian could figure out what blocked user I was talking about. In the near future, it might be Colton or Kumioko.) I also see, on further reading, that the policy refers to "Logging out to make problematic edits as an IP address". The edits are problematic because they are block evasion. Colton is wikilawyering because the Wikipedia article on Sock puppet (Internet) refers to deception. "I wasn't wearing a mask, so I wasn't committing a crime." Our Wikipedia policy is broader. Thank you for answering my question. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:20, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Attribution requirements and role accounts

Hi. The legal team was requested at ANI recently to talk about attribution requirements and their intersection with role accounts. You can find their statement on the matter here: meta:Wikilegal/Attribution requirements and role accounts. For convenience, I'm also reproducing the text below.

Extended content

Content and edits to content on Wikipedia are most often licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (“CC BY-SA”) and/or the GNU Free Documentation License 1.3 (“GFDL”). The CC BY-SA license has a flexible attribution requirement which generally requires individuals who use or adapt a work to keep all copyright notices for the work intact. The CC BY-SA license also requires individuals who use or adapt a work to provide the name of the “original author,” and/or “another party or parties” that the original author and/or licensor designates for attribution. For literary or artistic works, Section 1(f) defines “Original Author” as “the individual, individuals, entity or entities who created the Work or if no individual or entity can be identified, the publisher.” Section 4(e) of the CC-BY-SA license explicitly identifies a sponsor institute, a publishing entity, or a journal as proper designees for attribution.

Likewise, the GFDL requires attribution to “preserve[] for an original author and publisher a way to get credit for their work.” There is no definition for “Original Author” in the GFDL, but Section 4 states that, for modifications to existing works, the authors are the “persons or entities responsible for authorship of the modifications.” This language implies that authorship under the GFDL is not restricted to individuals, and further, that institutional accounts can receive and give proper attribution under the GFDL.

Role accounts (accounts meant to represent multiple people), including institutional accounts, are prohibited on English Wikipedia, subject to certain exceptions. The policy prohibiting such accounts reflects the community's widely-accepted standards for transparent editing. However, as we see it, the policy was not adopted to meet any attribution requirement under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License or the GNU Free Documentation License 1.3.

I hope you will find this useful. This has also been reported at Wikipedia talk:Username policy#Attribution requirements and role accounts. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 15:13, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Consult

I blocked a new user's second account, because he was edit warring something he had been editing with Unicornwhite. He is claiming the policy doesn't exclude content focused accounts, but that seems like trying to thread between the grey areas of the policy. I normally don't handle user blocks, and would appreciate a consult at the alternative account's talk page User talk:Sharoetry. Both User:GrahamColm and myself perceived it as malicious and against community standard codes of practice. Would anyone mind chiming in, so that I don't go too far down the rabbit whole of paring words. Thanks much, Sadads (talk) 14:21, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I would propose to add another line of unacceptable uses for alt. accounts for topic focused editing, other than that which might represent efforts supporting a particular cooperating organization such as GLAMs or the WMF. Anyone watchlisting this conversation or do I need to inquire about this elsewhere? Sadads (talk) 15:23, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Obviously a WP:VPP discussion waiting to happen :-) the panda ɛˢˡ” 16:06, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Sadads I agree with EatsShootsAndLeaves that this should go to the village pump. This is not well discussed in any context. When Unicornwhite/Sharoetry proposes to have multiple accounts for personal preference I see nothing in the rules that prevents it, but I have never heard of anyone ever wanting to do this before except for people with conflict of interest. In the CoI space where the WMF and GLAMs are there is more controversy and not much policy set about this. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:08, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
That was my sense too. I started a conversation for anyone interested at Wikipedia talk:Sock puppetry (which Bluerasberry and EatsShootsAndLeaves have commented on). I also responded again at User talk:Sharoetry with a clearer comment on the communities general practice of "no tolerance" for alternative accounts without demonstration of good faith in community goals and a strong reason justifying those accounts. Sadads (talk) 16:30, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia talk:Sock puppetry! Multiple accounts, even undeclared multiple accounts, are allowed. The abusive use of multiple accounts however is not. Using a second account to continue an edit war secretly is abusive, to do it openly is just stupid, and invites blocking on the basis that the user should not be edit warring, apart from raising other questions of competence and intent. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:06, 16 May 2014 (UTC).

Arbitration Committee review of procedures (CU & OS)

By resolution of the committee, our rules and internal procedures are currently being reviewed with the community. You are very welcome to participate at WT:AC/PRR. Information on the review is at WP:AC/PRR. The current phase of the review is examining the committee's procedures concerning advanced permissions (and the appointment and regulation of permissions holders). AGK [•] 11:22, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Participate in this review

Wording in "Meatpuppetry"

The wording here is a little strange and grammatically incorrect: "Do not recruit ... for the purpose of coming to Wikipedia and supporting ...". Better wording would be: "... for the purpose of bringing them to Wikipedia to support your side of the debate". --P123ct1 (talk) 13:49, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

reference to WP:OUTING?

In the handling Socks section, there is no warning about not running afoul of WP:OUTING. That surprised me. I searched the archive and found no real discussion, so I am feeling like I must be misunderstanding something. If I am, I would appreciate being corrected. But it seems to me that the "Sockpuppet investigations" subsection, could be usefully edited as follows:

  • Wikipedia:Signs of sock puppetry lists some of the signs that an account may be a sock puppet. If you believe someone is using sock puppets or meat puppets, you should create a report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. Editors should not conduct report research conducted outside of Wikipedia in the course of considering whether to file at filing an SPI or otherwise discussing suspected socks; this is a violation of WP:OUTING. There are bureaucrats at SPI who are authorized to conduct research outside Wikipedia (see below). Only blocked accounts should be tagged as Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets and only upon sufficient evidence that would stand up to scrutiny.

And possibly add OUTING to the list in "See also". Thoughts? Jytdog (talk) 01:40, 24 August 2014 (UTC) (edit draft per remark below Jytdog (talk) 03:35, 24 August 2014 (UTC))

Change "should not conduct research outside of Wikipedia" to "should not report research conducted outside of Wikipedia". What we do in our spare time is not Wikipedia's business until we write about it here. Otherwise this idea is worthy of discussion. Zerotalk 02:49, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
that's very helpful. change made. Jytdog (talk) 03:35, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Although I agree there is a need for something, I'm not sure this wording is the best approach. I'll give two reasons. (1) "Research outside Wikipedia" could involve an observation not related to OUTing. For example, an anonymous forum posting by someone boasting of operating particular socks can be mentioned, I think. (2) Some people have an account in their real name as well as an anonymous account. This can be completely legitimate if the accounts are not abused (say a professional person who edits in their area of expertise as well as in a totally different hobby interest). Using SPI to expose the connection between the accounts would be a violation of OUTING that is not mentioned anywhere.
For these reasons I'd like to see a more generic statement. I propose this be added to the "Handling suspected sock puppets" section: In reporting suspected sock puppetry, you must obey the rules of WP:OUTING with regard to disclosure of personal or identifying information. (Or words to that effect; improvements welcome.) Zerotalk 11:08, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
I am totally fine with that. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 18:29, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 Done Jytdog (talk) 01:47, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Jytdog, the only thing I worry about regarding the new addition is the discussion of IP addresses with regard to WP:OUTING; it's often the case that it is needed to mention an IP address with regard to WP:Sockpuppeting. Often, an IP address is suspected of being a WP:Sockpuppet and/or is called one based on WP:Duck. Flyer22 (talk) 02:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
I am not nearly as confident of that as you are; I am more with WAID on that. The language added is silent on the issue, so there is ambiguity that allows for your approach as well as others, right? If you want to resolve that ambiguity by explicitly saying that it is OK to search IP addresses, it would be interesting to see what happens.Jytdog (talk) 03:18, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm confident on it, because, as noted in that discussion, it is allowed all the time, including at WP:ANI. In some cases, noting a person's IP address can be a form of WP:OUTING, I suppose, but I'm simply stating that there is significant wiggle room regarding WP:Sockpuppet matters and IP addresses. It's not much of a "search IP addresses" matter (except for WP:CheckUsers who obviously commonly search IP addresses in WP:Sockpuppet investigations), and I'm not looking for any explicit comment on the matter on the policy page. I was simply noting something that might be a concern in the future. Flyer22 (talk) 04:10, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
gotcha! i hope, for your sake, that you are correct.  :) Jytdog (talk) 04:46, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

So, I have see a user edit history that looks suspicious. What do I do?

So, I have see a user edit history that looks suspicious. What do I do? -DePiep (talk)

Presumably, your asking hypothetically or on behalf of someone else? Options:

  • Explain on your user page
  • Offer to explain privately on your userpage
  • Confess to a checkuser or arb
  • Take a six month break and come back with a fresh account, never to revisit past problem areas.
  • Commit to ongoing impeccable behaviour
--SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:56, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Changed: 'see' not 'have'. Clarifies my original post - I hope. -DePiep (talk) 23:08, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
@DePiep: You should file an WP:SPI (see instructions on that page). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:45, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  • DePiep, I remember one experienced editor saying that in the first instance, he would ask the editor privately, by email. I presume that this would allow the person to privately give a reason, whether it is private or just silly, and that it could lead to a productive conversation without any public revelation or shaming. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:24, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

How many advertised shortcuts to the policy page?

User:Bbb23, that[3] is multiply nonsense.

There are 29 redirects to this page (generally, not counting redirects targeted to sections). These are listed below. It is nonsense to insist that these must be either listed at the top of the policy or deleted. Redirects are cheap, and these redirects don't appear to do any harm. Their existence is not the problem. The problem is (1) the crowding of the above-the-fold space on the policy, and (2) the message that policy-readers who will go one to refer elsewhere to this policy are encouraged to pick and choose any of the listed shortcuts on their own whim. On (2), when these editors write to others using chosen shortcut, is it going to be helpful to their readers, as opposed to the use of the very well used, dominant shortcut?

You replaced four shortcuts in the highly prominent box at the top. These are WP:SOC, WP:SOCKS, WP:PUPPET and WP:SOCKING. The number of pages these link from, respectively, are: 186, 144, 73 and 9.

In contrast, WP:SOCK, I stopped counting the number of pages linking at 35000.

Of these five, one is clearly dominant. For new readers of this policy, for a shortcut, they should be encouraged to use the standard WP:SOCK, and not any other. If they use another, presumably they have a reason, and one should wonder what that reason is.

Only having one seems extreme? This opinion is a malady pervading project space, but it seems especially obtuse here. WP:SOCK is about having one account per person. One person using multiple accounts generates all sorts of problems, genreally through misinformation and confusion. It is much the same with shortcuts. If people are to refer to the one policy by a multiple names, it creates the impression that there are multiple policy pages. For the audience not familiar with all of the shortcuts, this is misinformation and confusion.

KISS. How many shortcuts do editors need to be encouraged to use for the one page?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by SmokeyJoe (talk • contribs) 13:15, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

For reference, the 29 untargeted incoming redirects found are:

--SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:00, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

It appears the people are trying to insist that these things be created in pairs: a redirect, and a listing here advertising the redirect. That can make sense when there are different semantics to the redirects. When it's simply a case of some people liking to use hyphens, I can't see any justification. There may be a value to selecting one verb, one noun, and one adjective to advertise, but there's no need to have a laundry list of every redirect that's been created over the years.—Kww(talk) 14:36, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
My own practice, FWIW, is that when I want to link to a particular WP page, say in a post on someone's talk page, I'll go to the page and then use one of the anchors, which are usually shorter than the direct link. I almost always see more than one anchor. Thus, I found your reduction to one anchor atypical. So, I reverted to the status quo. That doesn't mean that I'm wed to as many anchors as there are on this page or even the anchors that were picked, but I just figured it needed some discussion before doing something that I thought was out of the ordinary.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:23, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
  • WP:2SHORTCUTS is enough. –xenotalk 22:30, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
    Xeno, does that mean you think there should be one or two?--Bbb23 (talk) 02:05, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
    It clearly says "one or two". One or two is not four of five. Should there be one, or two? Well, a factor is how often the shortcut is used. The first towers above all others. Is that one shortcut enough? By counting actual uses, it looks to be. And this is without considering the 20 additional shortcuts advertised for specific sections. Do these blue bold shortcuts all over the policy help the intended audience? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:13, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Showing multiple shortcuts creates confusion for inexperienced editors: Is there a difference between WP:SOCK and WP:PUPPET? Which one should I use? In this case I see no reason to display more than WP:SOCK. Johnuniq (talk) 01:51, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Soapamalkanmaime sockfarm

This user has operated numerous socks, and they are popping up at the rate of three of four a month at the moment. However, the editor makes a habitual set of changes which are fairly easy to spot once the account is identified (changing "References" to "Notes and references" and {{reflist}} to {{reflist|2}}) and has an obsession with portals. I wondered whether there was any way for these types of edits to trigger some kind of alert that they have returned under yet another username? Number 57 21:55, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

See here, User:Sireachn Dreadniss, for the latest Soapamalkanmaime account. I brought Number 57's attention to the matter by commenting on User:Sireachn Dreadniss's talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 22:26, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Another one popped up today (which I only spotted as they reverted my revert of a previous sock). Is this possible? Number 57 16:32, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
@Number 57 and Flyer22: You can try an edit filter request at Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:58, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! Number 57 21:38, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Proposal: Add a new section specific to WMF staff to acknowledge that they may have separate volunteer and work-related accounts

WP:BOLDly implimented by User:NE Ent. --Mdann52talk to me! 07:44, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

In light of a recent statements by Lila Tretikov[4] and Philippe Beaudette[5], respectively the Executive Director and the Director, Community Advocacy for the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF), all WMF staff posting on Wikimedia projects in their work roles will have their work-related accounts identified in a specific manner that clearly differentiates from a volunteer account and clearly identifies the editor as a WMF employee. This policy will have full force as of September 15, 2014.

I propose that, effective immediately, all WMF staff may have both an account specific to their work for the WMF, identifiable in accord with WMF policy; and a separate volunteer account that does not include any WMF staff identifiers in the username. Risker (talk) 23:53, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

  • In practice, this is already done and already extended to situations like Wikimedian-in-Residence posts. If there is a desire to make this explicit in the policy, I would suggest making it broader than simply WMF, to reflect this practice. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:16, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
    • I realise that it's reflecting current practice; however, now that the WMF is making it official policy for their staff, many of whom have been volunteer editors for years (including several admins on this project), I think it important that whatever change is made clearly includes this as policy. I have no objection to expanding this practice to other known wikimedians who have a separate work-related account. Care to draft up some wording, Nikkimaria? Risker (talk) 00:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
      • We may want to include it as an exception to WP:ROLE, which is really the only part of the policy that can be read as being contrary to the current practice. Actually, I'd be in favor of revising it to focus entirely on shared "role" accounts, and explicitly permit role accounts that are individuals self identifying their role with an organization. Monty845 00:40, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
        • I hadn't read any suggestion of exception to WP:ROLE. I understood that every WMF employee would have their own WMF branded work account, one per person. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:09, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
              • As a point of clarification, what you say there (one employee per account) is broadly true. There are, however, two role accounts used by the WMF as well - User:WMFOffice, which is controlled by me and my team, and User:WMF Legal, which is controlled by the legal team. Those accounts are seldom used, but are an important tool for circumstances where they are necessary. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 06:25, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
          • Also don't see this as part of ROLE - if we were seeing accounts like User:Engineering (WMF), sure, but the standard User:Name (WMF) would not appear to be covered by that provision even as it is now. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:11, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Proposed bullet, to be added to the list of Legitimate uses:

  • Position: Editors who hold positions that involve editing Wikipedia, such as a job with the Wikimedia Foundation or a post as a Wikimedian-in-Residence, may have a separate account dedicated to that role. The connection between the two accounts should be clearly indicated. Such accounts must also adhere to the username policy.

I'm not particularly happy with the bolded name - any suggestions? Other comments? The bit about the username policy is in place to prevent this from becoming a ROLE issue, though I'm personally not sure it's needed. I also considered adding a link to WP:COI, which I would consider very relevant to the WiR role, but I know this has been a point of contention in some quarters in relation to WMF-affiliated editors. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:11, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

    • What about "Wikimedia-related employment"? It's a bit long, but it doesn't specify WMF, so it should cover the WiR role as well. Risker (talk) 03:18, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
      • True, but I'm pretty sure there are still unpaid WiRs. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:47, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Support

  1. One of the few times I'll make my opinion known from my staff username. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 23:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  2. I don't think we even need a formal !vote on this, updating a policy to reflect a widely accepted practice shouldn't require much discussion, other than on what the specific language change should be. Monty845 00:44, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support, and support stronger language. "WMF staff must not edit Wikipedia in a personal capacity using a WMF branded account". Should there be an easy link to WMF policy on WMF staff edits to the project? I have long been concerned about the mixing of personal "(WMF)" accounts and personal accounts, with the apparent proliferation of WMF staff. It has always been the case that anyone may set up and use prominently disclosed alternative accounts, including for example User:Example (WMF) and User:Example. I suppose there should be a username restriction, that no user may include "WMF" in their username unless they are on a particular WMF list, and that old such accounts must be blocked. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:06, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
    Hi SmokeyJoe, I don't know for certain but suspect that this would be an internal WMF staff policy and may not necessarily be published on any accessible project. I think having it posted in some place that users (readers and editors) can access might be a good idea, though. The Foundation wiki usually only has stuff that requires approval from the Board (this staff policy wouldn't and it also wouldn't apply to board members because they are not employees), but perhaps there is somewhere that it can be publicly viewable. Risker (talk) 02:06, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
    The Foundation globally locked some past staff accounts, but I don't believe this happens every time. This is just from memory based on some controversy I remember on Meta when the wrong account was locked, maybe Philippe can let us know if there is a policy? There have also been a few times that Phillippe (including at least one from me) has been asked if an account is really an employee and it's been blocked as it wasn't. Also, thanks for proposing the two RfCs Risker. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:46, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
    We have an offboarding procedure that is followed on employee termination. As one step in that procedure, someone from our Office IT group will globally lock the staff account belonging to the employee, and - if there are advanced privileges assigned to that account - forward it to my team to have those privileges removed. Occasionally we manage to remember to put {{FormerStaff}} on the user page, but realistically, that becomes a game of "whack a mole" in trying to find every user page and update it, so we don't always do that. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 06:21, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
    I suspect that all of this has been practice for quite a while; as far as I know nobody's ever threatened to block either part of a staff/volunteer account pair simply because the other account existed. But definitely non-staff accounts using "WMF" in their name have been routinely globally locked for several years. I'm glad to see this now being formalized into a policy that applies to everyone. I do hope people extend some kindness and understanding to people who've been longtime volunteers as well as (current) staff because I'm sure there will be occasions when people unintentionally forget to change accounts. Risker (talk) 03:01, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support, with the caveat that the link between the two is disclosed on both userpages (as it is now). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:02, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  5. I have no reason to oppose. This seems to be a common sense update to address changing rules and standards. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:29, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
  6. Support, this use is already accepted but this specifies it as legitimate rather than there just being no policy against it. Peter James (talk) 09:48, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Snow closed and edited

This doesn't require an RFC. I've made an edit -- anyone is free to reuse, edit or redistribute it, of course. (which of course includes reverting) NE Ent 13:14, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with NE Ent. An RfC is overkill here (I had initially thought it might be helpful, but have changed my mind). This has been standard practice for a long time. The edit NE Ent made is fine, possibly with some additions. It currently says:

Designated roles: Editors with specific roles, such as Wikipedian in residence or Wikimedia Foundation employees, may have specific accounts for those roles.

The term 'specific role' is a catch-all. There is no real need to have an exhaustive list of examples, but other ones that I'm aware of are accounts relating to the Wiki Education Foundation (an example is User:Sage (Wiki Ed)) and possibly accounts relating to work with Wikimedia chapters (though I don't know of any examples of this offhand). Carcharoth (talk) 15:41, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure this was really necessary since it probably falls under the existing "Maintenance" provision (specifically "to segregate functions"). But it doesn't hurt either, and it might come in helpful (for non-WMF people too) with respect to WP:PAY and the TOU requirement to identify paid contributions.
The only change I would make would be to reiterate that the account being described is a personal account for a specific person acting in one of their roles, not an account for the role itself, just to avoid any possible ambiguity. Anomie⚔ 00:56, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Seeing no objection, I went ahead and added that clarification. Anomie⚔ 17:13, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

What to do with suspicious sock puppet?

What should I do if I think that same person create and using many accounts as sock puppet to promote their own opinion? can I request to check user IP? *Annas* 07:45, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? Is it like multiple editors making similar edits or votes somewhere? And no, only specific users have the right to check IP address, but you can make a request for them to check on it at WP:SPI. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:46, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Soft sock warning

There should be a friendly user talk page template that informs an editor of our sockpuppetry policy. Unfortunately all of the templates I could find assume that an SPI has already been opened. I am currently dealing with a set of newbie accounts that are almost certainly socking. However, I would not be surprised if the individual behind the accounts is acting in good faith and, if appropriately warned, would stop this behavior. Opening an SPI seems unduly aggressive and unnecessary.

Of course I will custom-write my own warning but I'd imagine this comes up frequently enough that it merits a template. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:54, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Legitimate alternates for technical reasons

With the upcoming WP:SUL merge/migration/Great Revolution™, I think we're going to see a lot more users whose accounts use complex characters, e.g., Chinese characters and other things that go beyond the occasional diacritic.

Problem (other than the occasional English-only monoglots complaining that the correct spelling of your name is awkward): It's hard to use these characters on many public computers, while traveling, on mobile devices, etc. There was a complaint recently at WP:AN about this.

Could we add an item to WP:SOCK#LEGIT to address this? It would say something like "Technical reasons: If your normal username is hard to type on some keyboards, then you may have a second account with a name that is easier to type." This seems like an extension of the "security" item to me (and if my normal username had complex characters, then I think my 'security' account would use only simple ones), and it might want the same type of system for linking the userpages together, so I would place it near that, but the order is fairly unimportant to me.

Do you think that adding something like this would be useful? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:16, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Editing project space: Undisclosed alternative accounts are not to be used in discussions internal to the project.

I can see no reason for this rule. I suggest we strike it. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:36, 28 January 2015 (UTC).

If everyone agrees that it is redundant to "Contributing to the same page or discussion with multiple accounts...", "Avoiding scrutiny..." and "Creating an illusion of support..." then I might be convinced. My concern with removing it is that it makes it a harder to investigate brand new accounts which edit the project space with a knowledge of Wikipedia, as this is a provision which can be used to demonstrate a suspected breach without needing to know what the other account is. Given that I am hesitant to support removing it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:33, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
It's an important rule, which permits us to immediately block and ban people that are attempting to influence policy while avoiding scrutiny without having to precisely identify which party is avoiding scrutiny. If you want to influence the project direction, you need to have the context for your argument available when doing so.—Kww(talk) 14:50, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

More on wording

Is there or is there not a policy on editing while logged out? The wording on this is misleading. First it is implied that there is a policy, and then later it is said that there is no policy.

To start with, in section 1, "Inappropriate uses of alternative accounts", it says that "Editing logged out to mislead" is impermissible, which is clear enough and suggests there is a policy, although there is nothing about editing when logged out generally. The next reference to editing while logged out is in section 2.1, Editing while logged out, where it then bluntly and rather confusingly says, in the very first sentence, "There is no policy against editing while logged out". (Though it does go on to say when it is unacceptable.)

To make the policy (if that is what it is) on editing while logged out clearer, I think the text should be adjusted in the following ways: (a) add to the end of section 1's "Editing logged out to mislead" the words "(See also "Editing while logged out" below)", and (b) rearrange the sentences in paragraph 2.1. Currently that paragraph reads:

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

For the sake of clarity, especially on where editing while logged out is impermissible, the paragraph would read better in this way, I think:

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

Would these edits be acceptable? I am thinking of the uninformed reader who wants to be absolutely clear on this policy. ~ P-123 (talk) 14:17, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to have the second section at all. The "to mislead" qualifier is sufficient to narrow the scope of WP:ILLEGIT. The second section just provides a spot for people misbehaving to point and say "Look! I'm allowed to edit while logged out!".—Kww(talk) 14:48, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Kww: Do you mean by the "to mislead" qualifier the Editing logged out to mislead in section 1? If you were to say section 2.1 is not needed because some of it just repeats that qualifier, I would agree. That leaves the rest of section 2.1. From that it is very unclear whether editing when logged out is overlooked/not sanctionable in the other circumstances it mentions there. Is it or is it not? As you say, 2.1 looks at first glance like a get-out clause for those wanting to deceive. ~ P-123 (talk) 16:43, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
The way 2.1 is worded now, there is a nice loophole for someone who wanted to argue that they had accidentally used an IP, when it fact they intended to deceive. ~ P-123 (talk)
Editing while logged out is certainly permissible so long as one is not using the logged-out state as a de facto second account. I don't think we need to have a paragraph stating that in this policy at all.—Kww(talk) 19:48, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Wording

Paragraph 4 in the lede has an important but long and unwieldy sentence which is quite hard to digest:

"It is likely to lead to a block of all affected accounts, a ban of the user (the sockmaster or sockpuppeteer) behind the accounts (each of which is a sockpuppet or sock), and on-project exposure of all accounts and IP addresses used across Wikipedia and its sister projects, as well as the (potential) public exposure of any "real-world" activities or personal information deemed relevant to preventing future sock puppetry or certain other abuses."

To make it easier to follow, I suggest it be broken up in this way:

"It is likely to lead to: (a) a block of all affected accounts; (b) a ban of the user (the sockmaster or sockpuppeteer) behind the accounts (each of which is a sockpuppet or sock); (c) on-project exposure of all accounts and IP addresses used across Wikipedia and its sister projects; (d) the (potential) public exposure of any "real-world" activities or personal information deemed relevant to preventing future sock puppetry or certain other abuses."

Or better still in this way:

"It is likely to lead to:
  • a block of all affected accounts
  • a ban of the user (the sockmaster or sockpuppeteer) behind the accounts (each of which is a sockpuppet or sock)
  • on-project exposure of all accounts and IP addresses used across Wikipedia and its sister projects
  • the (potential) public exposure of any "real-world" activities or personal information deemed relevant to preventing future sock puppetry or certain other abuses"

Would one of these edits be acceptable? ~ P-123 (talk) 11:13, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I have edited the passage to follow the second layout above. None of the wording has been changed. ~ P-123 (talk) 23:06, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Inappropriate uses of multiple accounts

Should "promotion" be added, as people might abuse multiple accounts for the sole purpose of promoting themselves? Just wondering. TheCoffeeAddict talk|contribs 12:54, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

This seems to me to be unnecessary - and probably too BEANSy. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:01, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Feeding Time

There's a new term at ANI [6] (at least for me) for folks that fan this stuff. "Shock Puppet" Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 04:53, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

New accounts to complain about someone

I see fairly often that someone makes a brand new account or logs out in order to hide their identity so that they can make some sort of report about someone else or just say something negative about them.

Pretty much universally the community complains how doing so evades scrutiny and hides if there may be an ulterior motive or bias in the user, often it is pointed out that this is a cowardly action.

I propose that we add the following to Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Inappropriate_uses_of_alternative_accounts:

  • Making reports on another user or criticizing them: All users are welcome to draw attention to the negative behaviour of other users. On Wikipedia when someone makes a report their behaviour is also scrutinized, and if frivolous reports are made as part of an ongoing pattern this can be disruptive. Logging out or using an alternate account to make such reports evades that scrutiny and is not an acceptable use of an alternate account.

In my opinion this addition to the policy would be descriptive of our already existing practices and not constitute a change in enforcement, but rather describe what we already do better.

Note like all of our "alternate account" provisions this will not effect users who are simply new or edit as an IP unless there is an indication that it is an alternate account.

I am happy to have the wording improved. I am also open the comments, suggestions, criticisms, or clever jokes. Chillum 22:40, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I rather doubt making a report is possible without editing project space, which is prohibited for undisclosed alternate accounts already. Huon (talk) 22:42, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
I have gotten clearly alternate accounts in my user talk page asking for admin action against users for this and that on several occasions. Chillum 22:45, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
@Chillum: Isn't that already covered with WP:SCRUTINY? I don't think we need separate rule for every simple kind of scrutiny avoiding. Vanjagenije (talk) 08:42, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
I felt it would better serve users if our current practice was better documented. A lot of people who log out to make a report are under the impression that this is okay, the reality is they are more often blocked for as you say evading scrutiny. The problem is not that we don't have a rule to enforce, we do. The problem is that many people read this policy and seem to think that this is okay. I think the policy should be more descriptive of our current practices.
That said I am sensitive to concerns about policy creep. Chillum 15:16, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
@Chillum: Then, maybe it should be added to WP:SCRUTINY to make it clear, and not as a separate rule? Vanjagenije (talk) 21:08, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
This makes sense. Something like "Logging out or using an alternate account to make a complaint against another editor can be seen as evading scrutiny"? This is a good idea because rather than making a new "rule" it describes a current practice based on long standing rules. Chillum 21:39, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
I agree with this last proposal. Vanjagenije (talk) 14:59, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Or "will likely be seen as evading scrutiny.", just a bit stronger but I think more accurate. Either is fine. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:19, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
I don't see how people could read the existing "Avoiding scrutiny" and "Editing logged out to mislead" bullet points and think that "log[ging] out in order to hide their identity so that they can make some sort of report about someone else or just say something negative about them" is okay. They surely know it's inappropriate if they read those bullet points. That is, unless they think that the complaint part is permitted by WP:SOCK#LEGIT in some way. Flyer22 (talk) 02:26, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
See what the Privacy part of WP:SOCK#LEGIT states; the editor might be complaining about someone disruptively editing an area that the editor doesn't want tied to their main account. Flyer22 (talk) 02:33, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

declaring alternative accounts

A long-standing use for alternate accounts is "long-term users might create a new account to experience how the community functions for new users". Requiring alt accounts to be declared isn't consistent with this goal. NE Ent 00:31, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

A bit of context here I think: [7]. HighInBC (was Chillum) 00:41, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
I am not sure what is being argued by NE Ent, however I agree with the revert. The change was too sweeping. HighInBC (was Chillum) 00:43, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm saying if you create a new account to see how what it's like to be a brand new account, you won't get the actual experience if users know it's an alternative account. NE Ent 00:45, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay, that makes sense. The fact that this was in any way contested was not clear, which is why I posted the diff. HighInBC (was Chillum) 00:49, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

  • There are other reasons for not declaring an alt account as well, or not declaring it publicly and instead notifying Arb that you are using the account, so I would agree with Ent on this. Sometimes disclosing defeats the purpose, and this is covered in the policy already. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:16, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I have memory of "long-term users might create a new account to experience how the community functions for new users" or similar, but don't remembering it disappearing. It is, however, a single example of an undeclared legitimate alternative account, and it's presence/absence has nothing to do with my recent edits. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:56, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Ah, sorry. It is in the preamble of LEGIT, and the edits confused it, as it would belong in the undeclared section. I suggest that it is not clear writing to have examples in a preamble separate to the listing of examples. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:04, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Alternative accounts

I have a question about the use of alternative accounts and I hope it's OK to ask it here. Suppose I were to create a second account named "RugbyFan" for the sole purpose of editing articles related to Rugby football, and use my "Marchjuly" account to edit all other articles. I would add {{user alternative account}} to both user pages and wouldn't use either account in an improper way at all. It would basically just be because I feel "RugbyFan" fits rugby-related articles better than "Marchjuly". Would this kind of "genre-account" be considered acceptable per WP:VALIDALT? Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 14:09, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

In my view, no. It doesn't fit into any of the categories of valid alternative accounts. The closest is the Maintenance category, but your main basis is that you don't think your real username is a good fit for Rugby articles, which is not at all the same as segregating media files and having a Talk page devoted to that subject matter. And putting policy aside, I think RugbyFan is a poor choice for editing Rugby articles. For many other editors, it might raise a red flag of partisanship.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:38, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi Bbb23. Thanks for responding to my question. My question is actually about another editor. I used myself as an example because I wasn't exactly sure if what they are doing was an acceptable use of multiple accounts. I realized, however, I had earlier named the other editor on another user's talk page, so the whole "using myself an an example" to avoid naming them was rather pointless. I was going to go back and change my post, but you responded before I could. So, I sincelrely apologize if I misled anyone.
FWIW, I have discussed this with the other editor on their user talk and I really don't believe it is their intention to deceive anyone or use these accounts inappropriately. At the same time, it does seem as if they see no problem with doing such a thing and have no intention of stopping. I wasn't sure where to discuss such concerns. Another user did advise me to try ANI, but I wasn't sure how appropriate it would be for me to drag someone to ANI who actually might not be doing anything wrong. That is why I tried here instead. Is ANI the place to more formally discuss this kind of thing or is there some other place that is more suitable? Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 15:25, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
One possibility is to point the other editor to this discussion. I've seen editors do this with no problem, principally because no one challenges it and at least superficially the editing from both accounts is not intertwined or disruptive. However, it can cause problems for editors if others believe they are avoiding scrutiny. Another thing that sometimes happens is they forget which account they are logged into and confuse the "roles" of the two accounts. Based on what you've told me, my strong recommendation is don't do it.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:11, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
If both accoounts are disclosed clearly (such as with, as proposed, alt-account userpage templates), I don't see how there would be any suspicion of "avoiding scrutiny". I agree with Bbb23 that the reason for this alt-account makes it seems useless and unfounded with regards to the usually accepted "legitimate" justifications for alt-accounts, but as far as the sockpuppetry policy is concerned, I doubt anyone would consider it a violation, as clearly disclosed accounts are by definition not sockpuppets. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:20, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Actually, the policy, many aspects with which I disagree, doesn't even require disclosure. Even if this proposed account doesn't violate policy, based on my experience with alternative accounts, both as an SPI clerk and as a CheckUser, it's a bad idea. Why do something where there's a risk of problems if the reason for doing it is so weak?--Bbb23 (talk) 19:00, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Yea, definitely unadvisable and unecessary! But I can't think of a situation where disclosed alternate accounts would run afoul of sockpuppetry policy. And of courde undisclosed alts can be used in accordance with policy under some strict circumstances. But as you say, just because the letter of the rules don't forbid doing something doesn't mean it's not a bad idea anyways. ;) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:17, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
One sock puppet was using something like eight disclosed accounts, each for a different subject area. It ended up being a tipoff to me, and after an investigation, I discovered that the accounts had a master. When I see multiple accounts with no apparent basis other than "I wanna", I get suspicious. In the case I mentioned, the subjects were all areas of interest to the master, permitting me, even without a CU, to make a connection.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:38, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Bbb23 and Salvadrim! for all the input. Per Bbb23's suggestion I have informed the other editor of this discussion and encouraged them to comment directly. Once again, I don't believe they are intending to do anything inappropriate. They have stated on their user talk that they are just interested in certain issues and accounts are not intended to be just "Humor accounts". - Marchjuly (talk) 22:22, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm planning to start a third account and discontinue these two. Fighting Poverty, also Eating Nicely (talk) 09:19, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
@Eating Nicely: Perhaps you could explain why you created the Fighting Poverty account, what would be the name of the third account, and why do you want to create it? (I've reviewed some of your history, and I have my own thoughts as to what you've done to date, but I'd rather not put words into your mouth.) Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:16, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for replying here Eating Nicely. I'm not sure if creating yet another account is the right way to resolve this issue. Creating a third account might seem like a good idea on the surface, but your "Eating Nicely" and "Fighting Poverty" accounts will not be deleted just because you're no longer using them. Their respective editing histories will remain available for all to see and even possibly connect to your new account and any new edits you make using it. Why not just pick one of the two you've already created and stick to using that for all your edits? I believe you can do this without any problem and you might even be able to request a username change. Perhaps Bbb23 or Salvidrim! can provide more specific information about this. - Marchjuly (talk) 10:09, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
I’m thinking of keeping Fighting Poverty and changing the name to Nuggets of Knowledge. That suggests the Gold nuggets poor people sometimes dream of possessing. It further suggests Chicken nuggets or vegetarian alternative nuggets which can be eaten. But it can cover general topics as well. Till this is settled I’ll keep to using both accounts but mention the second account frequently in edit summaries. Is there a problem with carrying on both accounts if I mention the second account regularly? Eating Nicely (talk) 12:41, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
  • There is very little limit on openly declared alternative accounts. A desire to maintain separate watchlists is sufficient reason. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:13, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

You asked me to stick to one account on this page. I was going to wait a few days for things to settle but today material appeared on the BBC news page that will improve Wikipedia. I added it with the Fighting Poverty account. I have thought of a way to develop my Fighting Poverty userpage if the name is changed to Nuggets of Knowledge. I will ask for a name change and for the moment I plan to stop using Eating Nicely once the name is changed. Eating Nicely (talk) 09:12, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I haven't been able to request the change without an email address. Please advise. Eating Nicely (talk) 09:24, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I believe an email address is only required for requests for global user name changes, but is not required for simple name change requests. Which do you wish to do? If you want to do a global name change, then you will need to have an email account. You can use one of your existing email accounts or you can create a new one specifically for Wikipedia matters using a free email provider like Gmail, etc. and just add it to the account you want to keep. The address will be on record, but you can set your preferences so that you are unable to receive emails from other editors if you like. It also will not be visible on your user page unless you want to be. One benefit of providing an email address is that it makes it possible to retrieve forgotten passwords since it is near impossible to do so otherwise.
If you do not want to provide an email address, then you can try to request a simple name change and see what the response is. I don't believe there will be any problem as long as nobody else is using "Nuggets of Knowledge" on any other Wikipedia projects. Typically, a renamer or bot vets all such requests to make sure there are no problems with the "new" name. There's no guarantee your request will be approved, but it might be worth a shot. - Marchjuly (talk) 01:00, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Clarify the rule about socking in project space

UNSUCCESSFUL
Consensus is strongly against both adding legitimacy to some forms of sockpuppetry and this proposal. Esquivalience t 14:22, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The rule on using alternative accounts in project space currently says [u]ndisclosed alternative accounts are not to be used in discussions internal to the project. I'd like to insert the word "disruptively" to clarify the sort of use that isn't allowed, so that the full rule would say that [u]ndisclosed alternative accounts are not to be used disruptively in discussions internal to the project. The arbcom case that this bullet point cites specifically mentions sockpuppets instead of "undisclosed alternative accounts", although the latter wording was introduced a while ago to remove a circular definition. This change would make the policy inapplicable to a situation in which an editor uses a legitimate undisclosed alternative account (say, one made for privacy reasons) to participate in an internal discussion. APerson (talk!) 02:04, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

  • Support as proposer. APerson (talk!) 02:04, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose, as the current language works fine. GregJackP Boomer! 03:35, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
  • The cited arbitration case appears to use the word "sockpuppet" to refer to alternative accounts in general, legitimate or otherwise, i.e. "The use of sockpuppet accounts, while not generally forbidden, is discouraged." They go on to clarify that it is the abuse of "sockpuppet accounts" that is prohibited. This makes me inclined to think that the 2007 Arbitration Committee originally meant that undisclosed alternative accounts, regardless of legitimacy, really should be prohibited from participating in internal discussions. Note that the restriction as it currently stands only applies to discussions that are about Wikipedia. The privacy clause in WP:SOCK#LEGIT regards the need for privacy in controversial article topics. Has there been a demonstrated need for a privacy or other undisclosed alt account in discussions exclusively about Wikipedia? Mz7 (talk) 03:46, 20 September 2015 (UTC), revised 05:35, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support.  I don't see any problem in allowing an editor to use an anternative account (disclosed or undisclosed) to participate in a discussion, including discussions exclusively about Wikipedia.  To be extra thorough, perhaps instead of inserting just the word "disruptively," we could insert the words "disruptively and/or deceptively."  I think that would cover all illegitimate uses while allowing legitimate uses (including any not yet anticipated).
    Richard27182 (talk) 05:11, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose, per Mz7. Any editor refusing to use their main account (the one they are usually recognized by) to comment in a WP:ArbCom case or similar, and instead insists on being unrecognizable, really shouldn't be commenting in that WP:ArbCom case or similar. It certainly annoys me when I see "new editors" popping up at an WP:ArbCom case, and clearly non-WP:Newbies commenting as IPs on the talk pages of WP:ArbCom cases. I am not stating that I am against WP:SOCK#LEGIT; like Mz7 notes, that's a different matter. Flyer22 (talk) 07:44, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support The current wording may be used to harass legitimate encyclopedic activity, contrary to WP:AGF and WP:BURO. Andrew D. (talk) 07:51, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I would support "disruptively or deceptively", per Richard27182, to make clear that sockish votestacking is not allowed.  Sandstein  08:55, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I would prefer to know who has been influencing policies and guidelines, even if it's just through one's usual wiki-identity. Per Flyer22, if you're not willing to be recognised and stand by your comments, then don't comment. Your comment is not required. -- zzuuzz (talk) 09:25, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. First of all, if we add "disruptively" to the sentence, than we should remove the sentence altogether. Using multiple accounts disruptively is prohibited in all discussions, not just those "internal to the project", so by adding "disruptively", the sentence becomes redundant. But I don't think we should add "disruptively" or remove the sentence. That sentence has a specific purpose: internal discussions are very important for the functioning of Wikipedia, so we should know who is commenting. Actually, I don't see APerson giving any reason to add the word "disruptively". He presents the current situation as being a mistake or inconsistency, but I don't think so. I think the current wording has a specific intended meaning, and I see no rationale for changing it. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:45, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Vanjagenije. Inserting "disruptively" would effectively make the sentence redundant, as disruptive abuse of multiple accounts is already prohibited everywhere. I am all for undisclosed privacy accounts when it is necessary for editors to contribute positively in controversial article topics, but discussions which are solely about Wikipedia and its administration—such as proposals to change policies/procedures (like this one), proposals for new features, and user conduct disputes—do require transparency. I will acknowledge that user conduct disputes in particular do have the potential to require privacy (such as in cases of severe harassment/outing), but in such cases, undisclosed alternative accounts are not the appropriate solution—we have the Arbitration Committee exactly for this purpose. Mz7 (talk) 01:57, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose If someone has a legitimate privacy concern, or is productively engaging in a conversation about an article topic they’d prefer not to be linked to a main account, then that’s fine. However, I really do not think we should give editors carte blanche range to create secret throwaway accounts so their main accounts don’t undergo scrutiny (which is exactly what is going to happen if this policy change passes). If you want to engage in a conversation about Wikipedia policy, you should do so openly without the façade of a false account. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:43, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose largely per Vanjagenije and Mz7. This looks like change for the sake of change; what is the actual benefit of this proposal? How is Wikipedia improved by allowing anonymous discussion of its policies? Until there's a clear and satisfactory answer to these questions, I see no reason to amend the wording. Yunshui 雲水 11:54, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose We have no way of telling if a person is being disruptive if they are evading scrutiny. They may be evading a ban, they may be double voting, they may be acting as a straw man to discredit an opposing point of view. As long as they are hiding their identity we cannot tell. The policy works well as written, if anything it should be more strict. HighInBC (was Chillum) 15:08, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per Andrew D. As written this excludes a lot of innocuous things that probably happen anyway, depending on how narrowly you define "internal to the project". For example, if you don't want to tell the world where you live and create a sock for local-interest topics, a strict reading of the policy suggests you can't join Wikiproject Nowheresville, vote in related AfDs, discuss relevant special notability criteria, nominate the Nowheresville article for FAC, or support an RfA for a frequent collaborator on Nowheresville articles under the name they know you by. Very strictly, it even seems to prohibit established pseudonymous users from creating unlinked real-name accounts for tasks related to their real-life activities, like educational projects. That kind of constraint obviously gives no benefit to the encyclopedia and encourages amateur internet detectives to harass people doing productive work. Calling someone a sock is really toxic if you're wrong and potentially dangerous if you're right but there was a good reason for it. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:21, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
My reading of the policy, and what I believe is the spirit of the policy, is that "internal discussions" refers to discussions which solely deal with Wikipedia's internal administration (i.e. its policies and procedures). The spirit of the policy, in other words, does not apply to discussions directly involving article content. Deletion discussions, WikiProjects, FAC, DYK, GAN—these all directly deal with article content and thus aren't "internal" discussions; they're content discussions. The current title of the clause, "Editing project space", is admittedly misleading, as not everything in project space deals solely with things "internal to the project". I would support a change to the title to perhaps "Internal discussions" and potentially a clarification of what "internal discussions" consists of, but adding "disruptively", as Vanjagenije notes, would effectively repeal the policy. Mz7 (talk) 21:40, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I know the "intent" is for more administrative discussions, but that's not a robust or stable or consistent distinction, nor does it really exist in any other policy, so you have to consider the full range of potential applications. All of Wikipedia's internal administration is ultimately about content, even when there are many layers of abstraction in between. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:46, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'm against creating a privacy loophole for socking. Chris Troutman (talk) 11:56, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Chris troutman, because of your oppose vote, I'm interested to know what you think of the privacy exception noted at WP:SOCK#LEGIT. Flyer22 (talk) 08:37, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure any of those exceptions necessitate the use of an undisclosed sockpuppet. I'd be curious to hear a hypothetical situation in which one would be necessary. Note that the given example for privacy refers to editing in the mainspace. Mww113 (talk) 05:11, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
@Flyer22: I accept the policy is what it is. That said, I don't agree that privacy should be a reason for a sockpuppet account. Any hypothetical I can think of involves an editor who has a conflict of interest and uses the alternate account to hide this fact. What academic or professional has no problem editing some articles but can't be seen editing other articles? Should a Wikipedian who made their name at WP:MILHIST use a sock to hide their interest in Cat Fancy? You've already well made the case about "new editors at ARBCOM" which is why I oppose any exception for internal discussions. I can't see a legitimate case for this exception. I edit under my real name and I've been publicly accessible at both edit-a-thons, wikinics, and WEF campus events wearing my blue Wikipedia polo. I therefore have little tolerance for those editing from the shadows although I understand policy allows them, sometimes reasonably, to do so. Chris Troutman (talk) 12:13, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply, Chris troutman. Flyer22 (talk) 20:06, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Instead, explain to the arbs that they got that wrong. All 8 out of 8 of them. Have them read the first line of this policy. "The use of multiple Wikipedia user accounts for an improper purpose is called sock puppetry". Undisclosed alternative accounts, while not generally forbidden, is discouraged. Undisclosed alternative accounts, not sockpuppets. Sockpuppet carries the connotation of improper use. Improper use is forbidden. The arbs are wrong. Arbs must not be allowed to rewrite policy. Especially not something so straightforward and culturally historical and entrenched. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:46, 23 September 2015 (UTC) OK, the arb mis-statement was 2007! Let it go. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:48, 23 September 2015 (UTC) Further, the proposal invites wikilawyering. Show me three people agreeing on what is and is not "disruptive". Only the main account is allowed in Project Space. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:50, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - We need to ban alternative accounts, not to normalize their use, as this proposal tends to do. Carrite (talk) 12:39, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Vanjagenije and Mz7 sum it up very well. Mike V • Talk 22:33, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support if someone makes a valid report at WP:AIV it shouldn't matter if they are doing so from an alt account or even an IP address. ϢereSpielChequers 23:03, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
    This is an excellent point, which is suitably qualified in the arb case being cited here, "Sockpuppet accounts are not to be used in discussions internal to the project, such as policy debates". I don't think normal AIV reports about normal vandalism would be considered to be discussions, however, the way it is styled on the page, as Editing project space is over-general and misses some of the subtleties involved. This proposal is perhaps also too broad, as it would permit - even encourage - discussions in policy debates. -- zzuuzz (talk) 12:25, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support if I understand correctly, alternative accounts should be allowed to participate in discussions internal to the project to improve it. I'll disclose that I have another account under samb338, but forgot the password. I think alternative accounts can be used to participate in discussions, but they shall not be used to double-vote and be disruptive. 173.79.196.199 (talk) 03:52, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Like Carrite, I favor strengthening the policy against alternative accounts, although I wouldn't ban them altogether. As for this particular proposal, one that appears to be retrospectively self-serving, the rationale for the current policy is sound, and the kind of transparency I generally favor would be lost if the policy were diluted.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:07, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose – I don't see any good coming of this. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:20, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose – I really cannot conceive of a situation in which an undisclosed sockpuppet would be needed for internal discussion. WP:SOCK#LEGIT cites privacy concerns, but the example given refers to editing the mainspace under an alter-ego to avoid real-life persecution. For the vast majority of people who use sockpuppets, that situation does not apply. I agree with all previous commenters about voting and comments needing to be tied to your username. If you have an opinion about policy or an ArbCom case or an RfA/RfD, whatever it may be, you should have to reveal your true on-wiki identity in order to participate in these discussions. Using an undisclosed account to participate in such discussions would be disruptive in just about every definition of the word I can conceive of. Furthermore, simply adding the word "disruptive" to such a core policy seems like risky business to me. The sockpuppetry policy is not one in which we want to use vague language. What does "disruptive" even mean? It could be defined in many ways by many different individuals. I fear that by relaxing the definition of what constitutes a sockpuppet, we may be opening ourselves to people who wish to exploit the wording of the policy rather than its intent. Mww113 (talk) 05:11, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
    Your personal limitations of imagination should really not be the determining factor. There is no such thing as a "true" identity anyway.
    As a general comment (here for simplicity but not just directed at you, Mww): the conversation around the concept of "sockpuppetry" is one of the places on Wikipedia where the dominant first-world-white-hetero-maleness of the culture really shows through.* People commenting here are very concerned about "disruption" to the internal processes of running a website. Meanwhile there is strikingly little concern, and in fact multiple dismissive comments, about the legitimate interests in privacy and personal safety our contributors may have. People with those concerns are, furthermore, relatively more likely to be interested in and knowledgeable about topics subject to our well-known systemic bias in coverage, and the work necessary to improve those topics is not limited to mainspace. This discussion has a strong flavor of "somebody else's problem" on those issues. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:31, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
    *I'm talking about culture and discourse; we all know what the demographics look like. The personal identities of specific participants in the conversation are not relevant.
@Opabinia regalis As much as I don't appreciate the "lack of personal imagination" remark, I will assume good faith and proceed under the assumption that you have a legitimate interest in protecting the privacy and safety of Wikipedia contributors. I can appreciate that there are circumstances in which an editor may need to use an alternate account to protect their personal safety. But as has been discussed, WP:LEGIT already pretty clearly states that alternative accounts are permitted in extreme situations where there's a risk to personal safety. I'm not sure what "first-world-white-hetero-maleness" has to do with anything, but as far as I can tell, you haven't explained how the particular change in wording proposed here would provide marginalized and oppressed people with a way to maintain their safety that was not already available to them. In summary, I agree with what you're saying. I think everyone agrees that we need to protect editors regardless of their demographics. I disagree however that this proposed change is a productive means to that end. I'm open to changing my opinion if you can argue that this particular policy change would advance the cause of editor protection. But from my perspective, you have not done so. Best, Mww113 (talk) 04:43, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
As a side note, I do not identify as a "first-world, white, hetero, male" and do not appreciate assumptions being made about my identity that seem to have no relevance to the present discussion. Mww113 (talk) 04:45, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
See my earlier comment in this discussion - wanting to participate in a separate content area without identifying your main account is a legitimate use of an alternate account, and wanting to fully participate in project areas and internal discussions related to that content is perfectly consistent with that. The options are to a) change this policy so that it refers to conduct that's actually a problem ("disruptive") or b) invent out of whole cloth a distinction between which internal discussions are "really" about content and which are "purely" administrative. This project is about content, full stop; that distinction doesn't exist. Opabinia regalis (talk) 17:46, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
I think we just have a fundamental disagreement then. I'm not convinced that you should need to make an alternate account to obfuscate your main identity in order to participate in a separate content area. Unless there are major privacy/safety concerns, I don't see why you editing an article or participating in a project about a particular place equates to announcing "I live in a particular place". I appreciate your good intentions, however I respectfully disagree. I think we've taken up enough space now. Mww113 (talk) 23:04, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Apparently the small text should have been large text; this is about how the discourse environment works, not any individual's personal identity. Opabinia regalis (talk) 17:46, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Again I don't appreciate your tone. It seems I misunderstood you earlier. You could have explained that without being rude. Mww113 (talk) 23:04, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Vanjagenije, Mz7 and Carrite - The current wording is absolutely fine & doesn't need messing around with. –Davey2010Talk 20:18, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Snowpose per (nearly) all the above. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:48, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Seems to create more problems than it potentially tries to address. — Cirt (talk) 05:52, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support 'disruptively or deceptively' per Richard27182. Most people already edit anonymously. Commenting anonymously also prevents bias or (worse) retributive acts - for the same reason, peer review is typically anonymous. It forces a comment to stand on what it says, not on who makes the statement. If we say "any user who wants to comment on internal policies should also be courageous enough to use their main accounts", why don't we also say "any user who wants to comment on internal policies should also be courageous enough to use their real names"? Banedon (talk) 00:46, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The proposal opens the door to the use of multiple accounts to stack a discussion, which if done tactfully, would not appear disruptive to the typical observer. Such "Creating an illusion of support" is a basic reason to oppose sockpuppetry in the first place. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 02:19, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  • 'Oppose Posting anonymously does not by itself prevent bias or retributive acts. I also agree that the current wording is fine and does not need to be changed.Jurisdicta (talk) 03:04, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Oppose - while I can understand a user wanting to keep the public from knowing that specific accounts are related due to legitimate privacy issues, there is no reason the user can't keep the two accounts from participating in a single discussion. And any such use is likely to make it look like there's a stringer consensus for this user's opinion than there actually is. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:22, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Separate sublists, declared & undeclared, under LEGIT

I made edits [8], User:NE Ent reverted for discussion:

Reverted to revision 682080533 by Bbb23 (talk): Significant policy change ... requries discussion

I think these are good edits, separating separate things, mostly for clarity:

  • It is not a significant policy change, or even a small policy change, just an improvement in presentation.
  • The mixing of examples of declared and undeclared legitimate alternative accounts is to mix very different things, and it confuses.
  • There is very little restriction on declared alternative accounts, and multiple reasons to do it. Most are listed, and they are quite uncontroversial. I did modify a couple or words, clarifying that a declared alternative account must, in fact, be declared. "recommended" --> "required". On examination, this looks to be obvious.
  • The two examples of legitimate undeclared alternative accounts are much much more delicate, and the delicacy was quite obscured by burying them amongst examples for declared cases. Further, these two cases might require some review, review not easily done with them burying among dissimilar cases. "Privacy", for example, means an account that probably should be used with restrictions, as being discussed above, such as no use in Project Space. "Clean Start" similarly involves delicacies and restrictions, and should be more easily found and linkable in this policy.
--SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:20, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Oppose I don't think it's necessary to say declared alternative accounts when, as you've just pointed out, there are at least 2 situations in which it is permitted to not declare such accounts. (Or to do so privately to Arbcom.) I think adding in that language creates a contradictory tone which would be best to avoid in policy pages. I appreciate your good intentions, though I just don't agree with this implementation of them. Mww113 (talk) 08:08, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Oppose There are many reasons for undeclared. Personal safety is one, as not everyone lives in a Western democracy. Job safety, as some people might be fired if their boss knew they edited certain topics. The policy is vague on purpose. We don't care about what is used in good faith, we care about what is used to evade scrutiny, to avoid a block/ban or for other abuse. Any use that isn't abuse of some kind is probably ok. It isn't our job to determine if their life is really in danger and if they really live in China or Iran, etc. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 08:45, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Mww, Dennis,
I really don't see any logic in your objection. You object to separating declared vs undeclared examples on the basis that there are some unlisted undeclared examples? You object to requiring declared alternative accounts being declared? What I see is that by separating declared vs undeclared legit examples, it becomes obvious that there is inadequate consideration of what makes an undeclared alt account legit. Can you please speak more clearly: Why should declared at accounts not be declared? Personal safety? Why is that not a subset of "privacy"? If it it is not a subset, why is it better to keep a confusingly mixed list instead of adding to the list of legit undeclared account examples? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:27, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Clearly put: the purpose of policy is not to define every possible legitimate use for declared or undeclared alternate accounts, it is to provide guidance as to what is and isn't acceptable, and provide common examples. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:39, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Definitely true. But how does it help to mix the trivially obvious acceptable multiple examples of declared alternative accounts with inadequate examples of the very different undeclared alternative accounts? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:47, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
The real question is: How does it hurt? The more detailed the policy, the more likely it will be wikilawyered. WP:COMMONSENSE still trumps all policy, we just need a good overview, nothing more. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:12, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
It hurts because this policy is really about undeclared alternative accounts, and yet the examples sections waffles lengthily with unarguable examples of reasons for declared alternative accounts. Burying the key examples amongsts trivially acceptable examples is just really bad organisation of the material. And had been for a long time. It confuses discussion at least here on this talk page, seen yet again currently at Wikipedia_talk:Sock_puppetry#RfC:_Clarify_the_rule_about_socking_in_project_space where there are occasional failures of clarity that deception and disruption involves undeclared alternative accounts, and does not involve any form of properly declared alternative accounts. The offensive "sock" or "sockpuppet" never applies to a properly declared alternative accounts.
"The more detailed the policy, the more likely it will be wikilawyered." No. The more convoluted the wording, the more likely it will be wikilawyered. But more importantly, the more convoluted the wording, the less likely that it will be read. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:26, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
No, as someone who has done 1500 sock blocks, making the verbiage narrow will cause more problems, not less. Right now, the main complaint about dealing with socks isn't "I wish the wording was different", so I don't see a basis for the change. But hey, we've hogged enough space. Lets let others opine, we don't need to WP:BLUDGEON the discussion. - Dennis Brown 2¢ 16:53, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
There is no intention to narrow any language, or to change the meaning or nuance of anything. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:17, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

So User:Bbb23 objects [9] even to a change or order that makes no word changes. Why this insistence on burying the delicate "privacy" and "clean start" points amongst unarguable fluff? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:10, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I concur with Dennis Brown on the above. You don't need to reply to every opposer. Sometimes people will disagree with you, stirring the pot and trying to debate everyone with a different opinion is not going to win people over to your side. Mww113 (talk) 05:02, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I have to comment that more wording in a policy will result in wikilawyering. That is an interesting view. Simple wording leads to ambiguity. There is a reason laws and policies are wordy. It is done in an attempt to address the boundaries. Though I believe in concise guidelines, simply throwing out a "wordy" policy is a bit short sighted as some guidelines and policies need to be wordy to accomplish the purpose of the policy.Jurisdicta (talk) 02:43, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

What is proposed is an improvement in the logical sequence of presentation of Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Legitimate_uses. No increase or decrease of words.
At the moment, the preamble contains a reference to privacy, and testing the new user experience. The first is repeated in the list, the second is not.
The list of examples then contains 11 bold examples. 9 of 11 are examples of declared alternative accounts. 2 of 11 are examples of undeclared legitimate alternative accounts.
The 9 declared alternative account examples are all trivially and obviously OK, many even recommended. The 2 undeclared alternative account examples are nuanced with conditions. My point is that this section would be much easier reading if the 2 undeclared were not intermixed withthe 9 declared.
At the end of the section, there is a note "It is recommended that multiple accounts be identified ...". This would apply obviously to all 9 example declared alternative accounts, and probably does not apply at all to the example undeclared legitimate alternative accounts. It would be purposed-defeating to do this to the "testing the new user experience" account mentioned in the preamble.
User:Mww113's oppose refers to an error in the initial edit.
User:Dennis_Brown appears to be making the point that there are more reasons, such as safety, for legitimate undeclared accounts. I agree with his words, but don't see what it has to do with the proposal. Dennis' 1500 blocks are probably irrelvant to this, because blocked socks are deliberate disruptors, not users confused by the rules for privacy accounts.
User:Jurisdicta, there is no suggestion for additional wording here, except maybe by Dennis. Neither is there a suggestion to simplify wording, other than to sort existing wording logically. Look specifically at the last reverted edit. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:33, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
The 1500 blocks is not as important as the people I didn't block. It doesn't make me an expert by any means, it just means I have enough experience to know there is a lot more nuance than meets the eye, a lot more reasons, including good ones for not getting overly specific about the wording, and instead leave it general enough to allow flexibility. What I see here in your proposal is an answer to a question that no one is asking, a solution without a problem. This can actually make things worse in ways I don't think you understand. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:40, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
There is nuance in randomly mixing the examples? The problem I answered you above, but I'll try again more briefly: A Wikipedian wishes to create a private account within the rules. Where is the guidance? Is it easily found and clear to read? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:23, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm trying to take a Wikibreak, just dealing with stuff that I already started, but I would remind that you that when you are the only person taking a particular position, everyone else disagrees, and you continue to reply to every comment, you are indeed WP:BLUDGEONing. I tried to hint to this gently above, but at some point you have to just take the hint to drop the stick. You keep explaining it as if I lack the intellectual capacity to understand your point, when that isn't the problem. Your intentions may be good, but the change is just a bad idea. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:40, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
It is true, I cannot see any intellectual basis for your responses. You have not spoken to anything relevant, and what you did raise (eg SOCK blocks) is irrelevant to the edits. It is as if you are responding off the cuff. Maybe after your wikibreak you will deign to engage on the substance. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:37, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

It seems kind of messed up to me

It seems messed up to me that if someone is banned (probably for a good reason, but maybe not) and they make another account to talk to someone about why they were banned and try to resolve it, that they can then get perma-banned basically for wanting to resolve the supposed issue because they made another account. Basically, "BAM! you are now banned, and if you try to find out why or talk to someone about it, you are perma-banned, so there!" 32.212.104.223 (talk) 04:27, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

WP:Block is not the same thing as WP:Ban. Flyer22 (talk) 05:07, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
@32.212.104.223: If somebody is banned/blocked, he may still request to be unblocked on his/her user talk page, or he can send an e-mail to the Wikipedia:Unblock Ticket Request System. There is no reason to create another account. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:09, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree, there should be no reason to create a second account for any reason. Allowing the creation of a second account serves no valid purpose.Jurisdicta (talk) 02:55, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

 I respectfully disagree with Jurisdicta.   There are perfectly valid reasons for having multiple accounts. Please see: Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Legitimate uses (ie, legitimate uses of multiple accounts).
 However I do think it's a bad idea to have a second account just for the sake of having it. (I myself have only one account, and I only plan on having one account.) Having only one account minimizes the possibility of false accusations of "sockpuppetry."
Richard27182 (talk) 09:40, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:ArbCom-banned Leucosticte's articles

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

It seems that opinions are not needed - the issue of content worth was resolved via nuking: G5speedy - 50.82.34.254 (talk) 01:10, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Opinions were needed at the time, and the Discussion section shows why the matter was resolved; it was not resolved because of WP:G5. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:44, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Requests for doppleganger?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Possible sock/meat puppetry

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

@Marchjuly: Correct place is to open an investigation at WP:SPI (see the box titled "How to open an investigation"). Vanjagenije (talk) 09:26, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
@Marchjuly: Actually, I opened the investigation: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jhmiklavcic. Vanjagenije (talk) 09:32, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for checking Vanjagenije. I was aware of SPI, but I wasn't sure if there was enough of a duck to warrant one. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:17, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
@Marchjuly:If you have a good reason for suspecting it, open a case; whether or not there is need for CheckUser, that's the place to go - if it's DUCK, the users will be blocked; if it's borderline, CheckUser may be asked to look at it. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:22, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Honest Question

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

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

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

Yep, as long as you are forthright with the account there shouldn't any concern. Mike V • Talk 17:32, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you both for clarifying, this is my last edit outside of my alt userpage. Cards84664-alt (talk) 19:36, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

You can also create fully disclosed accounts, so long as you don't use them abusively. See WP:SOCKLEGIT. Montanabw(talk) 00:38, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
@Cards84664: you might find the WP:Related changes feature more suitable if all you want is watchlist-like functionality. If you put the articles of concern in a page in your userspace, you can do a related changes view on it, approximating the effect of a second account with its own watchlist. - Brianhe (talk) 08:32, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

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

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

See WP:VALIDALT, point no. 2: Privacy: A person editing an article which is highly controversial within his/her family, social or professional circle, and whose Wikipedia identity is known within that circle, or traceable to their real-world identity, may wish to use an alternative account to avoid real-world consequences from their editing or other Wikipedia actions in that area. Vanjagenije (talk) 09:58, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
As long as you only use one of your accounts to edit content and discussions of any specific topic, you are clearly not violating SOCK, even if you make reasonable effort to prevent these accounts from being associated with each other; unless you engage in behavior which, if were done by a single account, would be likely to get this account blocked on-wiki. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:23, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Sockpuppetry/Archive_13&oldid=1139687770"