Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:12, 3 July 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

What's the Problem with Multiple Accounts?

This is just a query which I thought I'd throw out there as it has always baffled me. In my early days of editing I was once complained about for using multiple accounts, ie. that of DAFMM and another account two accounts, both of which I used for editing. What is the problem with the same individual using multiple accounts? I can understand it if there causing trouble, and using one while the other is blocked or using the other for support in arguments etc., but what about general, honest use? What if he publicised on the user pages that he edited under one user name for edits regarding one topic, and another for other topics? Is there a problem? Thanks. DAFMM (talk) 11:53, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:SOCK#LEGIT says it all, doesn't it? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:07, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

You only have one pair of hands don't you? And you can log in twice using the same ID and password, then, having both windows on display at the same time you can switch easily between one and the other. The only reason anyone would need to have more than one account ID would be to give the impression that they were more than one person. If you are being honest why would you need two IDs? After all, would you like to be talking to someone in real life who changed their appearance and body language at will? It would drive me crazy. So I would say have only one account, stand up for your errors and move on, having gained by the experience. What is the point of having to continually re-invent yourself? You're not Madonna incognito are you? Jodosma (talk) 22:35, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Jodosma. Thanks for your notes on my talk page. As BWilkins points out above, there are many reasons a person might want to edit anonymously. I would say to you, just as you don't judge a person by the color of his skin in the real world, don't judge editors here by their username or IP address—judge them by the edits they make. --108.45.72.196 (talk) 02:21, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I must agree with the last point made by 108.45.72.196 and would personally consider that to be the overriding factor with regard to my judgement of an account. I suppose my statement could be considered hypothetical in some respects and I both appreciate and recognise the case made for the incredulity caused by multiple id accounts, although I'm sure many people may like the keep their edits on some articles (although perfectly legitimate contributions) seperate to their main account (eg. does someone who edits penis may be embarrassed when editing a seperate article such as Queen Elizabeth II and consequentially create two accounts - naturally, without admission by the editor himself, the two accounts would never seem interconnected). Thanks. DAFMM (talk) 14:29, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

This is phaedrx wikipedianoob. You guys might want to somehow artfully skillfully clarify or more prominently locate somewhere a new person can see it easily, and also this would be for the volunteer enforcement teams here. They should have on wikipedia, that is the users and readers worldwide now and in the future, mentioned that sockpuppeting can only be the apropo term if there is harmful intent. If a person is not intending to harm, that is, it is not sockpuppeting even if they do do harm. For example is my case which I hesitate to draw attention to but nonetheless: I worked a high pace job using WP as a ref. about geographic facts. I used to sign in to get the screen to look how I wanted etc. It never occurred to me there were real people in the background editing it. Seriously. I never looked into or knew anything about how it worked I just assumed they got it right those Wikipeople. I developed profiles for screen appearances and stayed logged in but something would happen at my computer at the office which wasn't mine, and I would lose the password if it was a while and I rotated them as I usually do and have to do a new one. I kept doing name variants and eventually just went 0j8cqu3aj9 or f39hf9h3 to get a page quick to find out about that province in Banton or Tuntin or wherever. So, by the time the editing thing happened, which was that I made it known and not hiding it that yes I was signing in under diff names, I had no idea there was even such a thing as sock-puppeting. So I could not possibly be doing a behavior that implicitly means harmful intent. I did inappropriate noob things here (who hasn't), but sockin' ain't ever been one. Perhaps the case I illustrated is just too narrow to make a change, a worldwide-awareness-of-sockpuppeting campaign I just started huh anyway, I didn't mean a big thing maybe just clarify that accidental sockpuppeting is real. what do you all think, is the important thing. --Phaedrx (talk) 20:32, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Add to Legitimate Uses?

As far as I have been able to tell, there are a few employees of the Wikimedia Foundation who have both a "Work" account which generally ends in (WMF) and a "civilian" account. I have no problem with this concept, but I don't think any of the current entries in the Legitimate Uses list cover it.Naraht (talk) 16:20, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Project space

The current policy page states:

• Editing project space: Undisclosed alternative accounts should not edit policies, guidelines, elections, or requests for adminship. They should advise the Arbitration Committee immediately upon becoming involved in any formal dispute resolution process. They should have minimal activity in deletion debates, and only in cases directly associated with their significant past contributions. See Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Privatemusings#Sockpuppetry.

The policy appears to have changed as a result of this edit, part of a copy edit by SlimVirgin, who intended "not to change anything, just to tighten the writing". An attempt to change it to something closer to what was originally intended was undone because of "no consensus", also by SlimVirgin.

The current version seems reasonable, with the exception of deletion debates. An editor who uses an alternative account for specific topics finds a hoax article in that topic area, linked from articles already edited from the alternative account, and nominates it for deletion at AFD, or an editor finds that a file used in an article is nominated for deletion, and participates in the deletion discussion. These are not inappropriate; it would be more misleading to PROD the article, and remove the link, with an alternative account and AFD it with the main account. Maybe it should be changed to something that there is consensus for, or changed back and the bold, revert, discuss process followed? Peter James (talk) 21:37, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

IPs are exempted from suspect

Not seriously ☺ but demonstrates interesting views of certain registered users, both current and former. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:35, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Possibly misleading quote from ArbCom decision

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the meatpuppetry section of this article, there is a passage quoting from this ArbCom decision. The passage in this article reads:

...the Arbitration Committee issued a decision in 2005 stating "whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar editing habits they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets"

However, this is the actual text of the decision:

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.

(Emphasis mine). I think the quote as it appears in the article is misleading, as it drops the "when there is uncertainty" qualifier, which clearly changes the meaning. I request that the quote as it appears in this article be amended to include that qualifier, thus:

...the Arbitration Committee issued a decision in 2005 stating "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"

130.95.77.97 (talk) 03:41, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

 Mostly done I've reworded the whole dot point to include the full text of the principle. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:53, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

main / alternative

Hi, from jawp.

Could you tell me exact understanding of "main account" and "alternative account"?

Assume that real peason "A" using two account, "User:A1" and "User:A2" because of privacy. "A" create User:A1 first, then create User:A2. "A" don't connect A1 and A2, but "A" notice that "A2 is alternative account" on userpage of A2.

"Editing project space" in "Inappropriate uses of alternative accounts" section say "Undisclosed alternative accounts should not edit policies and other project pages". Can "A" edit RFD page as User:A2 under the condition that User:A1 is not involved both article and discussions ?

i.e. relationships of main account and alternative account is fixed? or relative?--Ks aka 98 (talk) 17:02, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Neither account can edit project space without disclosing the identity of the alternate. One of the prices you pay for secrecy is that it limits your ability to participate.—Kww(talk) 17:06, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

"Project space" is a heading, but it doesn't refer to all project space. "Deletion debates" are listed under inappropriate uses, but this appears to have been added mistakenly during copy editing, as I've mentioned at #Project space. An arbitration case is cited, but only mentions discussions internal to the project; deletion discussions are often directly related to specific encyclopedic content. It may be harmful to the encyclopedia to keep "deletion discussions" in this section - for example if I were to use an alternative account to edit a specific topic area for privacy, and find an inappropriate article or redirect within that area requiring AFD or RFD discussion, obviously I would be unable to use my main account because of the overlap in topics, or my alternative account if I were to accept this as valid policy. Maybe I would just think "if policy prevents me dealing with this in the usual way, I'll just leave the article (or redirect) as it is". It doesn't affect me specifically, as I don't use other accounts, but it could affect other users less aware of the policy situation. I would notify a checkuser or arbitration committee member, as recommended, but not required by WP:SOCK#NOTIFY. Despite the risk of leaks - probably not as bad as finding that a checkuser has started a sockpuppet investigation without discussion or evidence, which would be more likely now. I would also check with the checkuser or arbitration committee member whether the intended use is acceptable. Peter James (talk) 22:16, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that was an inadvertent addition at all. Just as we have problems with people trying to stuff the ballot box at AFD, we have problems with people nominating articles for deletion with alternate accounts in an effort to hide a bias they might have.—Kww(talk) 00:13, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

These are already described as inappropriate: either creating an illusion of support, avoiding scrutiny or good hand/bad hand. Peter James (talk) 14:50, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you just the same. Please continue discussion.

I understand that an user who use multiple account can't edit for discussions internal to the project, such as policy debates. Even though editing deletion debate by alternative account is also prohibitted on current policy, Peter insists that it would be harmful and policy should be changed. In peter's opinion, it seems that multiple account are not distinct as "main"/"sub". One of the multiple account which concerns an article can join delation debate of the article. --Ks aka 98 (talk) 18:45, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

It's true that Peter believes that. The cost of not allowing alternates to edit policy debates is trivial, though, and the benefit of being able to block obvious alternates the moment they start editing project space without revealing who they are an alternate for is quite high.—Kww(talk) 19:23, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Doppelgangers

I was recently warned by an admin not to create doppelgänger accounts for other users, specifically Jimbo Wales. If there is indeed consensus against this, shouldn't it be recorded somewhere in the Legitimate uses section to prevent relatively new users like me from making the same mistake? (I read the section before creating that account, and it said nothing about that, so I went ahead and did it, especially since Special:ListUsers shows that numerous accounts were created by other users for the same purpose.) --SamX‧☎‧✎ 16:52, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

You most definitely should not be creating dopplegangers for others - it makes it look like you are attempting to impersonate the person. As well, you would in some cases need to create hundreds of ID's to eliminate all possible "false" accounts, whereas it's easier to deal with them as they come. You could also prevent, for example, someone whose real name is "Jim Wales" from creating a valid account. So yes, please stop impersonating others, even if you feel you're doing it for the right reasons (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:05, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I've already stopped, and I won't be doing so any more now that I know. Shouldn't that be recorded somewhere on this policy page, then? --SamX‧☎‧✎ 17:44, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

The policy page already talks about what a doppelgänger account is.

Doppelgänger accounts: A doppelgänger account is a second account created with a username similar to one's main account to prevent impersonation.

To be a doppelgänger the new username has to be similar to one's main account. Jimbo Wa!es is not at all similar to SamX. GB fan 17:56, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

It does not explicitly state, though, that creating doppelgangers for other users is bad practice. There are probably more idiots like me out there that may or may not do the same thing in the future, so I feel that that specific statement should be definitely be recorded somewhere on this project page. --SamX‧☎‧✎ 17:59, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

We don't normally create exhaustive lists of ways to misbehave: see WP:BEANS for details.—Kww(talk) 19:00, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Just for the record (this might be my last edit to WP) I was warned after I created the doppelgänger, not before. --SamX‧☎‧✎ 22:06, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

That's true. You were warned, you didn't do it again, and life is happy. I don't understand why you are upset. Pretty much every editor receives an occasional warning about something, even administrators. No one insulted you or said you were a bad person or anything of the kind.—Kww(talk) 22:12, 3 July 2013 (UTC)