| Revision as of 00:07, 6 March 2018 editDonald Trung (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users47,507 edits →Requested move 28 February 2018← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 21:10, 25 December 2024 edit undoSynorem (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers7,854 editsm Rollback edit(s) by 2600:6C64:5800:E93:9C5A:82FE:FEFF:8A62 (talk): Vandalism (UV 0.1.6)Tags: Ultraviolet Rollback | ||
| (605 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{skip to talk}} | {{skip to talk}} | ||
| {{Talk header| |
{{Talk header|wp=yes}} | ||
| {{WikiProject banner shell| | |||
| {{Counter-Vandalism Unit}} | |||
| }} | |||
| {{Policy talk}} | {{Policy talk}} | ||
| {{tmbox | {{tmbox | ||
| | type = notice | | type = notice | ||
| | text = <big>This is '''not''' the page to report suspected sock puppetry.</big> |
| text = <big>This is '''not''' the page to report suspected sock puppetry.</big> Please instead create a report at ]. | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| | algo = old(60d) | |||
| |archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} | |||
| | archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Sockpuppetry/Archive %(counter)d | |||
| |maxarchivesize = 200K | |||
| |counter = |
| counter = 16 | ||
| | maxarchivesize = 200K | |||
| |minthreadsleft = 3 | |||
| | archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}} | |||
| |algo = old(60d) | |||
| | minthreadstoarchive = 1 | |||
| |archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Sock puppetry/Archive %(counter)d | |||
| | minthreadsleft = 4 | |||
| }} | }} | ||
| == Update to ] == | |||
| == "resign or give up the administrator access of their old account" == | |||
| ], regarding , how is "resign" being distinguished from "give up the administrator access of their old account"? Or did you simply mean "or" in a way that's stating that the two are the same thing? ] (]) 04:07, 28 October 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :] - Ohhhh yeauppp, an ''"or"'' is definitely missing somewhere - I meant those descriptions to simply refer to the same thing as you said. I'll improve the description and resolve the confusion. Thanks :-) ]<sup><small><b>] ]</b></small></sup> 05:40, 28 October 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ::], I wasn't stating that you should include an "or." I was querying why you included "or." I was wondering how you are distinguishing "resign" from "give up the administrator access of their old account." In other words, I was asking: "Don't they mean the same thing?" ] (]) 05:45, 28 October 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :::] - I was joking ;-) ]<sup><small><b>] ]</b></small></sup> 06:05, 28 October 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ::::], so is "resign" or "give up the administrator access of their old account" supposed to mean the same thing in the policy? ] (]) 01:12, 29 October 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Yes, that is correct. ]<sup><small><b>] ]</b></small></sup> 13:30, 30 October 2017 (UTC) | |||
| == "Tipping off" == | |||
| This may sound silly or petty, and I'll grant anyone that, but is there a way of "tipping off" about a potential SP without disclosing from whom the accusation came? Maybe even by using coded talk messages to SPI volunteers. I wouldn't say it's about snitching for the hell of it, but rather to avoid an incessant stream of talk page messages from, let's say, a user who can only articulate themselves via ]/] across both user and article talk pages (often getting involved in several unrelated debates simultaneously). Just wanted to know if there's a way of doing that, without inviting a plethora of retaliatory yapping. ] (]) 20:34, 23 December 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :{{ping|Mac Dreamstate}} We block sockpuppets, so they won't be able to bother you on your talk page. '''] ]''' 22:01, 23 December 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :{{U|Mac Dreamstate}} Consider enabling email, that way you could email an admin completely off-wiki. ] (]) 23:53, 23 December 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ::In prefs, is there an option to ensure that an e-mail address is hidden from public, but can be used to contact admins/SPI clerks? I normally have no qualms about filing SPIs, but this one is a touchy case if my (strong) hunch about them using a sock isn't right after all. It involves a user with whom I've long had an extremely hard time dealing with, and our interactions would be insufferable if a failed SPI came from me. ] (]) 02:03, 24 December 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :::I believe so. After you add an email address, uncheck the "Allow other users to email me" box. ] (]) 02:06, 24 December 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :::If it's a specific user you're worried about, you can mute. There's an option to "Prohibit these users from emailing me". ] (]) 02:08, 24 December 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ::::OK. If I choose an admin from ], will they accept diffs and such in an e-mail? The absence of wiki-linking may be a bit inconvenient, but I can figure something out. ] (]) 03:33, 24 December 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Go for it. ] (]) 04:35, 24 December 2017 (UTC) | |||
| == Question about WP:SCRUTINY == | |||
| I assume this is non-controversial, but I've been surprised by that before so noting it here first (and already discussed briefly off-wiki with some other functionaries), I'm going to add to the end of the first paragraph of ]: | |||
| {{tq|''it is a violation of this policy to create alternative accounts to confuse or deceive editors who may have a legitimate interest in reviewing your contributions''}} | |||
| {{tq|Alternatively, a user could declare (in confidence) this connection by emailing the Arbitration Committee. See {{section link|WP:AC|Contacting the Committee}} for contact details. If you take this option, a non-specific note on your user page to the effect of "I share an IP with another editor, please contact ArbCom for more information" might be a good idea. Also note that none of this is carte blanche to sock, nor does it guarantee that inquisitive editors (or even checkusers) won't make connections on their own.}} ] ] 17:51, 27 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| This appears to be slightly misleading, as it's technically also a violation of the policy to create alternate accounts specifically to confuse or deceive eidtors who definitely have only an illegitimate interest in reviewing your contribs. | |||
| :], I ''dislike'' this addition, because it is not policy but advice, aka bloat. ] (]) 00:02, 29 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| I understand that this policy is subordinate to AGF and so we should be assuming that the hypothetical interested parties are all legitimate, but wouldn't saying "who may have an interest" be better? | |||
| ::@] I suppose that's true, but then so is what was there before. This started when I was asked off-wiki by an editor who was sharing an IP what they should do to make sure they weren't accused of socking, and didn't want to publicly declare their relationship to the other editor. I knew about the "email arbcom" thing, but couldn't find where that was documented so I discussed it on the functionaries mailing list and this is what we came up with. I have no objection if you want to find a better place to put this information. ] ] 00:26, 29 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yes. The whole section is advice for IP editors who want to avoid being accused of socking. It is not policy that IP editors should do any of this. The whole section amounts to advice for a concern. It’s fair advice, but not advice I would give. | |||
| :::I think it is far better advice to register an account. Emailing personal information to ArbCom, out of fear of discovery of that personal information, feels to me to be really bad advice. ArbCom email is a proven security risk. Email is a terrible security risk. If you have realised that you are sharing an IP with someone you know, and you don’t want this known, you should register and never edit with that IP address logged out again. | |||
| :::- ] (]) 00:53, 29 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I'll leave it to other funcs to chime in if they want, but you are correct that this is an imperfect process (and that's orthogonal to the question of whether this page is the right place for it to be documented). If there are two people on a single IP (as a real example, my wife and I) and for whatever reason a check gets done on that IP, they will look like socks to the checkuser who performed the check. The theory is that if there's a declaration on one or both user pages, that will alert the checkuser to not be so hasty with the sockhammer. Of course, there's no guarantee that the checkuser will read the user pages before blocking. | |||
| ::::If the user(s) have registered their relationship with arbcom but not put any notification on their user pages at all, it's almost certain that the checkuser will have no clue, but at least if one or the other user appeals the block to arbcom, they'll have a record of the disclosure and the user will get unblocked. Far from perfect, but better than nothing. | |||
| ::::BTW, {{phab|T373764}} covers a similar situation. If that were ever implemented, the same mechanism couldn't be used in these cases. It would be a far more useful process than emailing arbcom who then squirrels away the information someplace where it probably won't ever get looked at until it's too late. ] ] 01:16, 29 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::On further thought, I think it is broadly bad advice and should be removed. If a checkuser is prone to discover the connection, noting that they don’t discover by fishing but by there being a reason to look, then others too are prone to discover interesting edit patterns by the single IP, and if the others are to do anything, it is to publicly ask about the suspected connection. If the IP editors think they have some protection from public discovery by having sent an email, they are badly mistaken. | |||
| :::::If two people would prefer to not be discovered as connected, they should register and never again edit logged out. They should each register an email address so that they can be asked privately should a checkuser or anyone else want to ask a question. ] (]) 02:53, 29 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::@] to clarify, seems maybe unclear, this came up because 2 users with accounts live in the same residence/use the same wifi. I don't think anyone in that house was editing logged out. | |||
| ::::::n.b. I also dislike email and dislike email big list. --] (]) 17:10, 29 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::As Joe says, if they are not tag-teaming articles and are editing in different spheres, there really shouldn't even be a ''need'' to check, let alone actually having the connection be made. Even making a disclosure to ArbCom does not prevent a pair of people from being connected if it's obvious to the point where a CU is looking at them in the first place. ] (]) 19:20, 29 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Editor interaction tool == | |||
| ] (<small>]]</small>) 03:36, 16 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| I believe we have a tool for checking the editing overlap of two accounts, which anyone (not just checkusers) may use. It doesn't seem to be mentioned on this page. | |||
| :I believe the word "legitimate" is designed to make an exception for users who have been victims of ] over their edits. ] ] 12:43, 20 February 2018 (UTC) | |||
| Where is it, please? <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 12:15, 4 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Requested move 28 February 2018 == | |||
| :Here you go. ] (]) 14:12, 4 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{requested move/dated|Misplaced Pages:Multiple accounts}} | |||
| ::Thank you. I've added a link to the page, under "See also". <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 14:33, 4 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Semi-protected edit request on 21 December 2024 Reply Spelling/grammar/punctuation/typographical correction Suggestion == | |||
| ] → {{no redirect|Misplaced Pages:Multiple accounts}} – This is the policy which deals with ''all'' uses of multiple accounts on Misplaced Pages, some of which are ]. While the ] has a ] on it, this page is the actual policy. Titling the policy "sock puppetry" implies that all uses of multiple accounts are forbidden, which creates a confused view among some editors that ''any'' multiple account is a sock puppet, whereas the policy itself is already clear that only ] uses are considered sock puppetry. I propose this change to eliminate the confusion. Note that the proposed title is already a redirect to ]; I am proposing overwriting the redirect. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 15:01, 28 February 2018 (UTC) | |||
| {{Edit semi-protected|Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppetry|answered=yes}} | |||
| *'''Support''' as proposer. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 15:01, 28 February 2018 (UTC) | |||
| Add this: | |||
| *I'd '''support''' the move in principle, but I'm not sure that's the correct name. Would "Use of multiple accounts" be better? --] (]) 15:10, 28 February 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::Sure, a variation on the proposed title would be fine. I was going for the simplest title I could think of, and following the patterns of other policies, i.e. ], ], ], etc.; there are none that start with "use" or "using". ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 15:22, 28 February 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{u|Ivanvector}}, speaking of users of multiple accounts, don't you find it a bit odd that someone who isn't even autoconfirmed is commenting on an RM about the sockpuppetry policy? ] (]) 15:37, 28 February 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::::More than a "bit odd". I've struck the vote.--] (]) 15:49, 28 February 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Boy, what ever happened to people's sensayuma around here? :-) --] (]) 15:58, 28 February 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::<small>For the record, this appears to be {{noping|SarekOfVulcan}}, who indeed seems to have a weird sense of humor. ]] 08:00, 2 March 2018 (UTC)</small> | |||
| :::::::Yes, and I stand by the comment I made above. --] 14:28, 2 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' - An editor can sock by logging out and hiding behind an IP. It happens.--] (]) 15:19, 28 February 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yes, that is an illegitimate use of multiple accounts defined in the policy (IPs are considered accounts for this policy's purposes). See the "editing while logged out in order to mislead" bullet. On the other hand editing logged out ''accidentally'' is not sock puppetry, and that also happens. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 15:26, 28 February 2018 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' A more neutral title that better reflects the ''content'' of the page. --]] 15:21, 28 February 2018 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose'''. I understand the reasoning, but I see nothing wrong with the name and the content. The fact there are exceptions to what constitutes "socking" doesn't mean the policy can't use the word. Also, I see no compelling reason to make a change to a core policy.--] (]) 15:25, 28 February 2018 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' mainly as not really needed and not worth the hassle and possible confusion that a move to a major policy page might create. ] also documents things that are ] (a section that I desperately wish people would actually read every time I go to AIV...), but there isn't a need to change that policy name or to merge/move it to ], which would be more reflective of both parts of the policy. It is perfectly reasonable for a policy to list what are not violations of it while having a title primarily focused on what isn't allowed. ] (]) 15:35, 28 February 2018 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' per Bbb23. The current established and intuitive name for the policy doesn't seem to cause any confusion, so I don't see the need for hyper-correctness creep in the naming of it. On a side note, established users including admins tend to use the word "sock" quite loosely. E. g. ]'s ], which also doesn't seem to confuse anybody. (I haven't see any 'Excuse me, shouldn't that be ]?'). ] | ] 17:16, 28 February 2018 (UTC). | |||
| *'''Weak support'''. "Sock" is used quite loosely, so the title is not ''that'' problematic; see ] for example which says {{xt|Only legitimate sockpuppet accounts should go in this category or its subcategories}}. I understand the sentiment behind the proposal though and although the goal can probably also be achieved by redirecting the currect redirect to the ] section, it won't actually hurt to rename the page to reflect the content more accurately. The ] shortcut will still work after all. Regards ]] 17:26, 28 February 2018 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' - change is proposed to "eliminate confusion", but the proposer hasn't provided any evidence that such confusion exists. And, not just a diff or two where a few editors may have questioned this, but evidence of ongoing, significant confusion, sufficient enough to warrant the change of such an established name of a set of policies and guidelines here. - <span style="text-shadow:#E05FFF 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">'']''</span> 17:31, 28 February 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::Additional note; has splitting off the "legitimate" use from the "illegitimate" use been considered instead? - <span style="text-shadow:#E05FFF 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">'']''</span> 17:33, 28 February 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :::I noticed {{u|Ivanvector}} commenting among the posts here, perhaps I should've pinged him, but Ivan, I'm still curious if you have/had considered some kind of split, as I asked above? Thanks - <span style="text-shadow:#E05FFF 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">'']''</span> 13:44, 1 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Considered, yes, but see my "nom comment" below. My preference is that all of the details regarding the use of multiple accounts is all in the same place: what you're allowed to do and how you should do it, what you're not allowed to do and the consequences, how to get help and report violations, and links to related material. It's more akin to the ] policy, which describes best practices along with disallowed actions in one place (with supplemental essays), rather than say a BLP policy paired with a separate "violations of BLP" policy. And there's the issue that some of the things you can do with multiple accounts are only forbidden in certain circumstances. So overall no, I don't think this should be split. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 14:03, 1 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Thank you for the reply. It gives me a better understanding of your position. While I still (respectfully) oppose, I hope you find some kind of solution, if this doesn't go thru. Cheers - <span style="text-shadow:#E05FFF 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">'']''</span> 15:44, 1 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''', but for different reasons. For key policies, I think it's beneficial to have a descriptive rather than a jargony title. For all the other conduct policies listed ], you can get a reasonable idea of what the policy is about simply by reading the title. Since most new Wikipedians aren't going to know what the phrase sock puppetry means in this context, a more descriptive title will make the policy easier to find. ] (]) 17:51, 28 February 2018 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''', first and foremost per TonyBallioni's objection, I would see this as policy creep. Despite what it looks like and what others may think, this policy doesn't and shouldn't regulate legitimate uses, it only concerns illegitimate uses of multiple accounts, or sockpuppetry as it's commonly known. A proper analogy is the Vandalism policy which doesn't regulate good faith normal editing, beyond giving examples of good faith editing for comparison. A rename to 'Abuse of multiple accounts' would address my primary objection, but my second is the objection provided by John Cline's oppose, and the fact that sockpuppetry doesn't necessarily involve accounts. It's just sockpuppetry. I therefore also agree with some of the other objections, in that I'm unpersuaded there's anything to be gained from a rename. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 18:10, 28 February 2018 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''': Basically per Bbb23, I can also see the reasoning, but I don't see any compelling necessity. ] (]) 18:59, 28 February 2018 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Nom comment''' - this policy ''does'' regulate legitimate uses, though, and it's the only one we have which describes when the use of a second account is allowed, and when it is not. I don't really understand the "policy creep" arguments here: the proposal concerns ''only'' the title of the page, not any changes whatsoever to the content of the policy. The vandalism policy isn't a proper analogue, it's a "don't do this" policy; a better analogue is the ]: it somewhat briefly describes what a user is allowed to do and offers guidance on related procedures (changing a username, unified login) and follows that with a fairly long list of examples of unacceptable usernames, yet we don't call it the "unacceptable usernames policy". ''This'' policy describes an extensive list of specific circumstances when the use of an alternate account is allowed and when it is not, and includes the accepted procedures for linking and disclosing valid alternates. I feel that that guidance shouldn't be under a title which presumes that all alternative accounts represent an illegal activity. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 19:01, 28 February 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :*Well, technically what the meat of this policy says is, "If you use a legitimate alternative account, it is your responsibility to ensure that you do not use it in an illegitimate manner according to this policy." So we shall probably agree to disagree.-- ] <sup>]</sup> 19:11, 28 February 2018 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' per Bbb23, I get the logic behind it but personally I don't see any compelling reason to move, As noted above there's nothing to be gained from renaming this. –]<sup>]</sup> 21:21, 28 February 2018 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' Much like Thewolfchild, the proposal is to eliminate confusion, but I'm not confused about anything. Also echoing Dave's comment above, there's no gain from this. Seems like rearranging deckchairs, even if we are still floating. ] 22:46, 28 February 2018 (UTC) | |||
| '''Admin and Ban Accounts:''' This is when someone is admin, created another account, and does bad stuff on the other account and '''undoes''' the change after a bit, for the purpose of malicious intents, but on wikis it will stay there and they wont hide the change. They may also ban the other account without IP banning. It is usually easy to detect this. ] (]) 04:05, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *Semi-Support - I don’t disagree with the proposal, but if the policy title is changed, then we should keep “WP:Sock puppetry” as a shortcut pointer to those sections that deal directly with socks. ] (]) 11:15, 1 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :{{not done}}:<!-- Template:ESp --> no idea what this is supposed to mean - admins are also subject to the sockpuppetry policy, and malicious edits are reverted regardless of the user. <span style="white-space:nowrap"><span style="font-family:monospace">'''<nowiki>''']<nowiki>]]'''</nowiki>'''</span> (] • ])</span> 11:11, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' - The name has history here and everyone is familiar with it. Socking and having multiple accounts are two different things, with socking being the problematic subset. This would cause a ripple of effects on the Wiki....do we now change the name of all sock related areas and policies? No, there is no compelling reason to change and plenty to leave it alone. And also per Bbb23. ] - ] 11:55, 1 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' Similar to what Sir Sputnik said, it's good to have policies like this labeled so that everyone can understand what they are just from the title. "Multiple accounts" is a descriptive term, whereas "Sockpuppet" is slang. Everyone here is already used to it and knows what it means, but of course the people here would know what it means. Newcomers probably won't, and that makes the very title of this policy one more thing to learn. ] (]) 11:32, 2 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Oppose'''. I understand the intent behind this proposal, but I don't think the reduced confusion from possibly making it slightly more accurate outweighs the increased confusion of changing a long-used term. This change would also take the English Misplaced Pages out of step with other projects, many of which use the term "sock puppet" or something close to it: French, German, and Dutch use "sockpuppet", Spanish uses "puppet user", and so on. Also, the terms "sock puppetry" and "use of multiple accounts" are close, but do quite have a congruent meaning. --] (]) 12:09, 2 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::I don't understand this comment and ones like it that are referring to follow-on changes to the policy, it's like you didn't read my proposal or you're reading something into it which isn't there. I'm proposing changing the title. That is the entire extent of the changes proposed, only the title. I'm not at all suggesting we change long-standing terminology, sock puppetry is still described here (a violation of this policy), links and references on-wiki to sock puppetry still refer to this page, all of the shortcuts remain the same excepting that they refer to ] rather than ] and that ] itself no longer refers to a subsection of the username policy which refers back to this policy anyway, users are still investigated for sock puppetry at ] by sockpuppet investigations clerks and blocked if they are sock puppets violating this policy and have their user pages tagged with {{tl|sockpuppet}} tags and get themselves listed in ], we still have a pervasive and immense problem with undisclosed paid editors creating new sock puppet accounts, all of this still described in this policy in which I am not proposing changing even a single letter or punctuation mark or white space. None of it changes. Only the title of the policy. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 14:09, 2 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :::I did read your proposal, and I made no reference to follow-on changes, but I think see why you might think that. I wrote "the increased confusion of changing a long-used term" which I suppose could be construed as suggesting follow-on changes, but that definitely wasn't my intention. A more accurate wording would've been "the increased confusion of changing a long-standing policy title". Apologies if my inaccurate wording caused confusion. --] (]) 14:31, 2 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Oppose''' - "Sock puppetry" describes the offence, what is and what is not, analogous to ] listing generally accepted exclusions. Hey why not rename ] to ]? ] (]) 10:18, 4 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support'''. I hate, hate, hate the term "sock puppetry", almost as much as I hate the ugly term "meat puppetry". It doesn't describe the offense, it does nothing to describe the problem, it's the sort of jargon that we should avoid; it's cultish and stupid. "Abusing multiple accounts" describes the offense precisely. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 19:27, 4 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' as per nom. The current title is too jargony, and over-emphasizes the negative aspects of the policy, which also defines the legitimate use of multiple accounts. ] ]] 23:10, 5 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' per Bbb23, Bishonen and Zzuuzz. The focus of the policy isn't using multiple accounts but pretending to be more than one user, whether through multiple accounts or acting as someone else while logged out. This has come to be known as sockpuppetry. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 23:30, 5 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' Per cases like Cosmic Colton where multiple accounts were used but didn't pretend to be someone else, or Kumisback, Etc. Also note that this police ''does'' include examples of legitimate uses and "Meat puppetry", Etc. --] ] (] <abbr title="Sarcastic" style="border-bottom: none;">]</abbr>) (] <abbr title="Awesome face" style="border-bottom: none;">]</abbr>) Respect mobile users. ] 00:07, 6 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 21:10, 25 December 2024
| Skip to table of contents |
| This is the talk page for discussing Sockpuppetry and anything related to its purposes and tasks. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16Auto-archiving period: 2 months  |
 | This project page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
 | 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. |
Update to WP:FAMILY
I assume this is non-controversial, but I've been surprised by that before so noting it here first (and already discussed briefly off-wiki with some other functionaries), I'm going to add to the end of the first paragraph of WP:FAMILY:
Alternatively, a user could declare (in confidence) this connection by emailing the Arbitration Committee. See WP:AC § Contacting the Committee for contact details. If you take this option, a non-specific note on your user page to the effect of "I share an IP with another editor, please contact ArbCom for more information" might be a good idea. Also note that none of this is carte blanche to sock, nor does it guarantee that inquisitive editors (or even checkusers) won't make connections on their own.
RoySmith (talk) 17:51, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
- User:RoySmith, I dislike this addition, because it is not policy but advice, aka bloat. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:02, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
- @SmokeyJoe I suppose that's true, but then so is what was there before. This started when I was asked off-wiki by an editor who was sharing an IP what they should do to make sure they weren't accused of socking, and didn't want to publicly declare their relationship to the other editor. I knew about the "email arbcom" thing, but couldn't find where that was documented so I discussed it on the functionaries mailing list and this is what we came up with. I have no objection if you want to find a better place to put this information. RoySmith (talk) 00:26, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
- Yes. The whole section is advice for IP editors who want to avoid being accused of socking. It is not policy that IP editors should do any of this. The whole section amounts to advice for a concern. It’s fair advice, but not advice I would give.
- I think it is far better advice to register an account. Emailing personal information to ArbCom, out of fear of discovery of that personal information, feels to me to be really bad advice. ArbCom email is a proven security risk. Email is a terrible security risk. If you have realised that you are sharing an IP with someone you know, and you don’t want this known, you should register and never edit with that IP address logged out again.
- - SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:53, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
- I'll leave it to other funcs to chime in if they want, but you are correct that this is an imperfect process (and that's orthogonal to the question of whether this page is the right place for it to be documented). If there are two people on a single IP (as a real example, my wife and I) and for whatever reason a check gets done on that IP, they will look like socks to the checkuser who performed the check. The theory is that if there's a declaration on one or both user pages, that will alert the checkuser to not be so hasty with the sockhammer. Of course, there's no guarantee that the checkuser will read the user pages before blocking.
- If the user(s) have registered their relationship with arbcom but not put any notification on their user pages at all, it's almost certain that the checkuser will have no clue, but at least if one or the other user appeals the block to arbcom, they'll have a record of the disclosure and the user will get unblocked. Far from perfect, but better than nothing.
- BTW, T373764 covers a similar situation. If that were ever implemented, the same mechanism couldn't be used in these cases. It would be a far more useful process than emailing arbcom who then squirrels away the information someplace where it probably won't ever get looked at until it's too late. RoySmith (talk) 01:16, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
- On further thought, I think it is broadly bad advice and should be removed. If a checkuser is prone to discover the connection, noting that they don’t discover by fishing but by there being a reason to look, then others too are prone to discover interesting edit patterns by the single IP, and if the others are to do anything, it is to publicly ask about the suspected connection. If the IP editors think they have some protection from public discovery by having sent an email, they are badly mistaken.
- If two people would prefer to not be discovered as connected, they should register and never again edit logged out. They should each register an email address so that they can be asked privately should a checkuser or anyone else want to ask a question. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:53, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
- @SmokeyJoe to clarify, seems maybe unclear, this came up because 2 users with accounts live in the same residence/use the same wifi. I don't think anyone in that house was editing logged out.
- n.b. I also dislike email and dislike email big list. --Jeremyb (talk) 17:10, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
- As Joe says, if they are not tag-teaming articles and are editing in different spheres, there really shouldn't even be a need to check, let alone actually having the connection be made. Even making a disclosure to ArbCom does not prevent a pair of people from being connected if it's obvious to the point where a CU is looking at them in the first place. Primefac (talk) 19:20, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
- @SmokeyJoe I suppose that's true, but then so is what was there before. This started when I was asked off-wiki by an editor who was sharing an IP what they should do to make sure they weren't accused of socking, and didn't want to publicly declare their relationship to the other editor. I knew about the "email arbcom" thing, but couldn't find where that was documented so I discussed it on the functionaries mailing list and this is what we came up with. I have no objection if you want to find a better place to put this information. RoySmith (talk) 00:26, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
Editor interaction tool
I believe we have a tool for checking the editing overlap of two accounts, which anyone (not just checkusers) may use. It doesn't seem to be mentioned on this page.
Where is it, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:15, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
- Here you go. Simonm223 (talk) 14:12, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you. I've added a link to the page, under "See also". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:33, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 21 December 2024 Reply Spelling/grammar/punctuation/typographical correction Suggestion
 | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add this:
Admin and Ban Accounts: This is when someone is admin, created another account, and does bad stuff on the other account and undoes the change after a bit, for the purpose of malicious intents, but on wikis it will stay there and they wont hide the change. They may also ban the other account without IP banning. It is usually easy to detect this. Wikan Boy 123 (talk) 04:05, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
Not done: no idea what this is supposed to mean - admins are also subject to the sockpuppetry policy, and malicious edits are reverted regardless of the user. ''']''' (talk • contribs) 11:11, 21 December 2024 (UTC)