Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:01, 20 March 2013

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sockpuppetry page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16Auto-archiving period: 30 days

The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Misplaced Pages. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review policy editing recommendations before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to keep cool when editing, and don't panic.

This is not the page to report suspected sock puppetry. Please instead create a report at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sockpuppetry page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Recognition and awards for socks

Is there really ever a reason to put credit or awards on a blocked sock puppet account? I say this because when we have these issues and it's nec. to block and the user decides to sock, yes they or the sock account created a good article but they did so under a cloud...wouldn't giving credit be a positive reinforcement for socking and a appropriate application of WP:DENY? I say this because I saw this at User:Spoildead a blocked sock of User:Okip. I understand the editor in good faith is giving credit where it's due but doesn't that make more issues for us in the long run? Maybe I'm off base here but didn't know where to raise the question other then here. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 09:03, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Casliber probably just didn't notice when he did it. It's not the kind of thing that it's very productive to raise a fuss about one way or the other.—Kww(talk) 14:52, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Nor is it productive to call other editor's concerns "a fuss" NE Ent 15:03, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

No insult or dismissiveness intended.—Kww(talk) 15:06, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Moved dyk to main account with Casliber's consent. NE Ent 15:03, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Which still gives them credit for socking and evading their block... --Onorem♠Dil 15:38, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I've undone it. I presumed that Casliber's crediting the sock was unintentional, and thus not worthy of any controversy. Intentionally giving credit when it's known the edits were based on socking is problematic.—Kww(talk) 15:55, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think Caslibar did anything wrong per se, and if I gave that off I want to clear that up! I was raising the question is this normal is there anything we can do to make sure these things don't happen? Maybe full protection of socks after their block? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 01:29, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

question one

What about those of us who prefer to edit without logging in, but maintain a user account to make edits that require a registered account? --198.137.20.243 (talk) 17:03, 15 January 2013 (UTC) (In my judgment this is valid since multiple accounts are not being used or abused, rather the point is that since Misplaced Pages should be free to edit some editors like me prefer to do it that way but also recognize that some actions are legitimately off-limits to unregistered users.)

Would you share with us why you prefer it? In my opinion, other users have a legitimate interest in being able to click on the "user contributions" button and actually finding, you know, your contributions. Is this what you wish to avoid? Bishonen | talk 17:09, 15 January 2013 (UTC).

To evaluate the situation, I think we would need to know what sort of edit that requires an account you wish to make. There are very few things on wiki that really requires one. Monty₈₄₅ 17:23, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:IP says

Contributors who have not created an account or logged in are identified by their IP address rather than a user name, and may read all Misplaced Pages pages (except restricted special pages), and edit pages that are not protected or semi-protected. They may create talk pages in any talk namespace but may need to ask for help to create pages in some parts of the wiki. They cannot upload files or images. They must answer a CAPTCHA if they wish to make an edit which involves the addition of one or more external links, and click a confirm link to purge pages. All users may also query the site API in 500-record batches.

Therefore, use of a registered account would be including but not limited to the following:

• Editing semi-protected pages
• Creating pages
• Uploading files e.g. images
• Adding external links without the inconvenience of a CAPTCHA

--198.137.20.56 (talk) 19:24, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Honestly, if WP does not value the contributions of unregistered users then it should probably prohibit all editing by unregistered users. --198.137.20.56 (talk) 19:26, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

? Is that your reply to my queries "Would you share with us why you prefer it?" and "Is this what you wish to avoid?" If not, could you reply, please? Evasiveness and disinterest in dialogue can easily look like trolling. Bishonen | talk 20:34, 15 January 2013 (UTC).

See below.

Would you share with us why you prefer it? - Some of us believe that Misplaced Pages should adhere to being the 💕 that anyone can edit, and therefore would prefer to improve the encyclopedia without going through the added steps of logging in.

Is this what you wish to avoid? - Absolutely not, I recognize the importance of attribution of edits. The point is that for whatever reason, if the 25th (or whatever) edit on a user account is an XfD nomination some people see that as suspicious. I don't know why, since people edit logged out all the time.

--198.137.20.130 (talk) 01:05, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit to add: In my opinion, edits should stand based on their legitimacy rather than who made them. The main purpose of the user-contributions function with respect to unregistered users is to quickly find potential vandalism in order to revert. That is not what I am suggesting the unregistered user would be doing - they would be making legitimate edits that do not require an account. --198.137.20.130 (talk) 01:21, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Here's an example: User:12.153.112.21 is attempting to solve the problem of incorrect linking from various articles to the AT&T article when the link is meant to go to AT&T Corporation. To do this, 12.--- must edit various pages including some articles that are semi-protected. It is way too much of a hassle to request edits to so many semi-protected pages when one can simply register an account for those. --198.137.20.130 (talk) 01:21, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

But once you have registered an account, there's no reason for you not to always use it. That's what you need to keep in mind: permitting anonymous editing isn't really something we do because we want to. It's because we have found, over time, that a great many editors just want to edit one article about one thing and go away. We depend on those editors, and can't afford to prevent them from making contributions. In this case, you are talking about an editor that wants to do a large number of edits and hang around for a long time, but doesn't want to be subject to our normal rules. That's extremely undesirable, and our polices are designed to discourage it.—Kww(talk) 01:29, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Who is this we? I want editors to do whatever they want to improve Misplaced Pages. What 198 is describing is possible but difficult to do correctly -- the editor would have to scrupulously keep track of which pages they've ip or registered edited and not mix them up. Although I support the ability of IPs to edit I can't recommend it due to the effective caste system in place on Misplaced Pages. NE Ent 02:41, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I wish contributions and edits were just edited on their own merits but, in practice, WP is a very political place once you move into the dispute resolution areas. NE Ent 02:41, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

question two

What about using one account for noncontroversial edits and another account for legitimate but controversial edits? --198.137.20.243 (talk) 17:03, 15 January 2013 (UTC) (In my judgment this is valid since WP editors are encouraged to be bold, but unfortunately there will be inevitable conflict when it comes to various opinions of what is appropriate in an article, and so the noncontroversial account should be recognized for the edits on it independent of the potentially controversial edits made by the other account.)

Editors are encouraged to be bold, but I don't know that they're encouraged to be "controversial". Too often the word is a euphemism for unconstructive editing, and indeed drawing a line between the two can be a rather subjective matter. Your phrasing "inevitable conflict when it comes to various opinions of what is appropriate in an article" rather suggests that this would be likely to fall foul of WP:BADHAND. And, again, why? Bishonen | talk 17:16, 15 January 2013 (UTC).

I agree an editor needs to be extremely careful to avoid a WP:BADHAND situation. While it is permitted to use an alternative account to edit a topic area which is "controversial" it is not permitted to use an alternative account to make a controversial edit in a topic area your other account is active in, or otherwise shield your main account from actions that you think will be controversial on wiki. For instance, if your account is publicly linked to your real world identity and you live in a country where you fear real life repercussions if you edit a topic area appropriately, its permissible to use an alternative account. That does not sound like what your planning to do though. Monty₈₄₅ 17:21, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

But the 2nd account would not be for disruptive editing. In my scenario, account A would be for edits that would be accepted by, say, at least 65-70% of editors, while account B would be for legitimate edits, not violating policy whatsoever, that, say, only 40-60% of editors agree with. And in general they would not be to the same topic. --198.137.20.187 (talk) 18:26, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

For example, account A might edit a sports record table to correct any errors, while account B might edit to include or exclude information from that same sports record table based on whether that information belongs on WP, in the judgment of that editor. --198.137.20.56 (talk) 19:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

That's sockpuppetry. No doubt. NE Ent 20:05, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't see why, since this is not done to "mislead, deceive, or disrupt; to create the illusion of greater support for a position; to stir up controversy; or to circumvent a block, ban, or sanction." To make this clear, both accounts are making legitimate edits, this is simply to avoid situations like trolls reverting non-controversial edits just because they were made by an editor they disagree with. --198.137.20.130 (talk) 01:10, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Because it is intentionally being done to prevent editors from linking the two edits together as having been performed by the same editor, which we call "avoiding scrutiny". Both accounts would be quickly blocked when the arrangement was discovered.—Kww(talk) 01:13, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposal: Move all Non-Deceptive Multiple Account Abuse to WP:DISRUPT

Everybody knows what a sock is. It's an undisclosed alternate account used to fool people. There is an element of deception.If there is no intended deception there is no sock. This policy as written attempts to differentiate a "Misplaced Pages sock" from the long-held and common Internet definition of a sock, by throwing any sort of impropriety in there. It makes it "more than one account" plus "any form of impropriety" equals "sock." For instance if an editor "Ken1" has a second account "Ken2", both fully disclosed on his userpage, but then he gets upset and calls another editor an "idiot" with Ken2, WP:SOCK should not regard Ken2 as a "sock." As written it does: "The use of multiple Misplaced Pages user accounts for an improper purpose is called sock puppetry." To me, I think the policy would be better just to remove the "improper" criteria that does not include the element of deception. I'd toss it out, because it should be possible to handle that stuff with other policy. But it could be moved over to WP:DISRUPT, that's the catch-all policy, for now. Thoughts? This is Colton Cosmic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.227.5.213 (talk) 22:29, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Image

Personally not a fan of having this image on the policy page. This goes against accepted practice for policy pages. As was pointed on in the very short 2009 discussion about this issue, most people are pointed to this page when they've been accused of violating the policy - I'm not against a bit of humour now and then, but it seems inappropriate in this context. The assertion that it might help non-native speakers understand the origin of the term is extremely dubious to me.

Mostly I just think it makes the page look stupid and people are less likely to take it seriously as a policy if we plaster joke-images over it. It does not add any value to the page.

Best, Spitfire 17:33, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I restored it after showing a non-wikipedian this page, where I knew there was an image which shows the concept very easily; except that it had been removed since last time I read the page. "Sockpuppet" is a non obvious word for non-English native speakers and has a special meaning in our own jargon. There used to be several more images, I hope one can be a bit informative without creating other problems.

That said, I leave it to your consideration but I'd like to see it discussed for a bit. If there's a guideline documenting the practice of not adding images, it would be very helpful of you to link it. I was never accused of sockpuppetry so maybe I'm overlooking how those users feel, but are they really ~6000 per month? Finally, other Wikipedias use this second image, in case it's less problematic in your view. --Nemo 09:11, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Basically it sums up to what I said above, that I don't really think the image helps to show the concept, and it does strike me as more of a joke-image. I would not be opposed to an infographic of some sort which displays how one person can operate multiple accounts, if someone wants to make one. Happy to leave this here for a bit for others to input. Spitfire 11:18, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Replaced with a less insider cutesy image of actual toy puppets whose construction includes socks. NE Ent 11:51, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if that's correct that non-English speakers won't understand "sock puppet." I see no reason to suspect other cultures don't make actual sock puppets for children and the lake. I think the first image was much better at conveying the idea, and was not really frivolous. The second one you have to look at for a bit. The first is not really frivolous and in my view should be included, but one could also validly argue that policy pages are too serious for such. This is Colton Cosmic.

Please un-semi-lock the page

I'm prepared to improve the policy in accordance with my suggestion above that received no argument, but someone needs to un-semi-lock the page that an IP may edit it. This is Colton Cosmic. PS: Would be grateful if someone considers my unsolicited unblock requests for ArkRe (just didn't do it) and Youreallycan (target of hounding, blocked by widely-criticized admin).