Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:54, 6 March 2018

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: 2 months

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: 2 months

"resign or give up the administrator access of their old account"

Oshwah, regarding this edit, 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? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:07, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn - 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 :-) ~Oshwah~ 05:40, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Oshwah, 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?" Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:45, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn - I was joking ;-) ~Oshwah~ 06:05, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Oshwah, so is "resign" or "give up the administrator access of their old account" supposed to mean the same thing in the policy? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:12, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that is correct. ~Oshwah~ 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 WP:BLUD/WP:NOTGETTINGIT 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. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 20:34, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

@Mac Dreamstate: We block sockpuppets, so they won't be able to bother you on your talk page. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:01, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Mac Dreamstate Consider enabling email, that way you could email an admin completely off-wiki. Sro23 (talk) 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. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 02:03, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

I believe so. After you add an email address, uncheck the "Allow other users to email me" box. Sro23 (talk) 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". Sro23 (talk) 02:08, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

OK. If I choose an admin from WP:SPI/C, 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. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 03:33, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Go for it. Sro23 (talk) 04:35, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Question about WP:SCRUTINY

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

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 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?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:36, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I believe the word "legitimate" is designed to make an exception for users who have been victims of harassment over their edits. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:43, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

One could technically say that about any editor and I don't believe WP:AGF applies to non-"trusted users" as I've been falsely accused of being a paid editor and even questioning the accusation got me threatened with a block on multiple projects, of course you can assume that someone is a paid editor but asking them to prove it is "abuse". And edits should be scrutinised on the edits themselves, if you as a patroller can only recognise bad edits if they're by one person then maybe you shouldn't be patrolling in the first place. --Donald Trung (No fake news) (Articles) Respect mobile users. 00:11, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 28 February 2018

It has been proposed in this section that Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppetry be renamed and moved to Misplaced Pages:Multiple accounts. A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil. Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. Links: current log • target log • direct move

Misplaced Pages:Sock puppetry → Misplaced Pages:Multiple accounts – This is the policy which deals with all uses of multiple accounts on Misplaced Pages, some of which are legitimate. While the username policy has a small bit 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 illegitimate uses are considered sock puppetry. I propose this change to eliminate the confusion. Note that the proposed title is already a redirect to Misplaced Pages:Username policy#Using multiple accounts; I am proposing overwriting the redirect. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 15:01, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 15:01, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
• I'd support the move in principle, but I'm not sure that's the correct name. Would "Use of multiple accounts" be better? --Varnished user (talk) 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. Misplaced Pages:Civility, Misplaced Pages:Harassment, Misplaced Pages:Open proxies, etc.; there are none that start with "use" or "using". Ivanvector (/_Edits) 15:22, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

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? TonyBallioni (talk) 15:37, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

More than a "bit odd". I've struck the vote.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:49, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Boy, what ever happened to people's sensayuma around here? :-) --Varnished user (talk) 15:58, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

For the record, this appears to be SarekOfVulcan, who indeed seems to have a weird sense of humor. ansh666 08:00, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, and I stand by the comment I made above. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:28, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - An editor can sock by logging out and hiding behind an IP. It happens.--John Cline (talk) 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. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 15:26, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support A more neutral title that better reflects the content of the page. --Jayron32 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.--Bbb23 (talk) 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. Misplaced Pages:Vandalism also documents things that are WP:NOT VANDALISM (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 WP:DE, 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 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. Floquenbeam's User:Floquensock, which also doesn't seem to confuse anybody. (I haven't see any 'Excuse me, shouldn't that be User:Floquenalternativeaccount?'). Bishonen | talk 17:16, 28 February 2018 (UTC).
• Weak support. "Sock" is used quite loosely, so the title is not that problematic; see Category:Misplaced Pages alternative accounts for example which says 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 WP:SOCK#LEGIT section, it won't actually hurt to rename the page to reflect the content more accurately. The WP:SOCK shortcut will still work after all. Regards SoWhy 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. - WOLFchild 17:31, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Additional note; has splitting off the "legitimate" use from the "illegitimate" use been considered instead? - WOLFchild 17:33, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I noticed 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 - WOLFchild 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 biographies of living persons 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. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 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 - WOLFchild 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 here, 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. Sir Sputnik (talk) 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. -- zzuuzz 18:10, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose: Basically per Bbb23, I can also see the reasoning, but I don't see any compelling necessity. Alex Shih (talk) 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 username policy: 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. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 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.-- zzuuzz 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. –Davey2010 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. !dave 22:46, 28 February 2018 (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. Blueboar (talk) 11:15, 1 March 2018 (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. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 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. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 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. --Deskana (talk) 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 Misplaced Pages:Multiple accounts#subsection rather than Misplaced Pages:Sock puppetry#subsection and that Misplaced Pages:Multiple accounts 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 Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations by sockpuppet investigations clerks and blocked if they are sock puppets violating this policy and have their user pages tagged with {{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. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 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. --Deskana (talk) 14:31, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - "Sock puppetry" describes the offence, what is and what is not, analogous to Murder listing generally accepted exclusions. Hey why not rename theft to picking up stuff? Batternut (talk) 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. --jpgordon 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. DES _{DESiegel Contribs} 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. SarahSV 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. --Donald Trung (No fake news) (Articles) Respect mobile users. 00:07, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

• Requested moves