Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:10, 14 July 2009

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 place to post notices of suspected sock puppetry. Please follow Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations, and create a report there.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Explicitly forbidden

In particular, some forbidden uses include, but are not limited to.... Where would one find the other forbidden uses if not here? I'm curious as there seem to be all sorts of claims as to which uses are explicitly forbidden being made in the recently opened David Gerard Arbcom case, very few of which I see here. Yomangani 00:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I think this edit goes the wrong direction. In general, the premise should be that alternate accounts are not permissible, except for enumerated legitimate reasons. There should be (and in practice, is) a presumption that alternate accounts are not good. Wikidemon (talk) 17:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The immediate problem with that approach is the existence of many alternate accounts that do not breach the current rules but which would find themselves placed in the "implicitly forbidden" category by the change. I don't have a problem with it per se, but the list of allowed uses would need to be worked on beforehand. Yomangani 18:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Individuals might have their own personal reasons for having an alternate account, not understood by others. For example, I have a friend who has 3 accounts that have all been active for several years, all have at least 1000 edits, and have all been used for good causes. No two of these accounts have ever edited the same article. Given that good faith must be assumed, unless it is clear that an account is being used for some blatant policy violation of other disruptive form of editing, the use should not be forbidden. Hellno2 (talk) 01:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

good uses can either be declared, or, in special cases, be disclosed to a trusted member of the community. One can also say that is the sock of some other user without mentioning whom, and specifying who knows the equivalence. We should absolutely prohibit all totally undisclosed socks--I question whether there is any good reason for such. (though of course we must give amnesty from those who already have them ,if they are in good faith, until they have a chance to declare). Permitting them is like not locking the door on the assumption all passers-by will be honest. True, most of them will be, but doing so is not considered an insult to the general public in most communities. 17:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

May not vs should not for evasion

Per the couple edits here. The AC was unanimous about this not being allowed, and IAR isn't valid when it comes to AC decisions at this time. Discuss? rootology (C)(T) 22:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

But they "can" be used ("may" be used), though they shouldn't be. –xeno 19:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Editing under an IP address

I just have a question - I try to edit WP with my registered account, but on occasions (especially recently), I've edited under my IP address. I've mentioned on my user page that this is the case, but should I place alternative account notification tags on both my registered account and ip address? I only ask cos I have a dynamic IP from my provider and I'm not clear on guidance/precedence of this. Hope that made sense. londonsista 00:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that when you discover that you have edited under an IP, check the IP contributions, find your own, and fix by using a null edit, or a note on the talk page, or fixing the auto-signature if the edit was signed. You don’t want to claim all edits from a dynamic IP if it is used by other editors. If you continually find that you forget to log in, consider using your account preferences to give wikipedia a different look when you are logged in. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

If you're contributing to a discussion while logged out, just sign with something like: ] ~~~~~(5 tildes) As long as you're not trying to convey that the IP is a separate user when it is you there shouldn't be any problems. §hep 00:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that signing this way is any kind of solution, and is indeed ripe for abuse. As I understand it, the only valid reason for editing under an IP address instead of your username is because you've not realized that you are not logged in. Why would you ever consciously edit under an IP address if you have a username? cojoco (talk) 22:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

You could be at a public place and not have a secondary account. §hep 04:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Is this some concern about sneaky people stealing your WP login details if you use a public terminal? It sounds low-risk to me. cojoco (talk) 20:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Many people don't like to use their strong passwords on public computers, they can easily be captured, by software or video capture. If you fear this (maybe you should!), create a linked alternate account. User:Taxman in exile is such an example. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The point I was trying to get across is. If you do it pretty rarely no one's going to come hunt you down (just state who you are if you've already contributed to the discussion). We don't force users to log in to edit in the first place. §hep 22:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

That's fair enough, but there's a big difference between an accidental editing when you're not logged in, and a conscious decision to edit from an IP address. The second case should I think be discouraged, except in a few rare circumstances. We don't want to give the impression that it is a normal thing to do. cojoco (talk) 02:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

• Avoidance of wiki-stalking by IP editing: Definitely log-out and use an IP address, to edit the next article, if you sense wiki-stalking. Much like clogging Misplaced Pages user accounts with 70,000 two-week sockpuppet names, wiki-stalking causes numerous problems:

• makes the stalked user begin to hate/avoid editing;
• feeds a growing anger in the stalker, who might be fiending as a rageaholic;
• clogs wikipedia with many hack-edits + reverts;
• can escalate into requests for arbitration and other follow-on problems.

Simply using IP-address edits, to break a line of wiki-stalking, might save thousands of page-revisions and hundreds of hours of everyone consumed by the edit-war and arbitration battles that would result. One arbitration involved daily stalk-edits that had persisted for months. Because people cannot be easily stalked by switching to an IP address, all that waste could be avoided. Similarly, if sockpuppets didn't work, then people wouldn't create 70,000 fake user-names to argue AfD or edit-wars all the time. -Wikid77 (talk) 14:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Alternative alternative acount identification

Much apologies if this has ever been covered before but here goes:

The essential problem of sockpuppetry is deception - and this is usually where an admin needs to get involved. Creating the illusion of consensus, avoiding accountability, stuff like that. What do people think of having legitimate alternate accounts be identified by a deleted edit in the user page history? Would save admins the trouble of having to run to a CheckUser only to find out there are legitimate alternate accounts.--Tznkai (talk) 10:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. Personally I hate the idea of undisclosed alternate accounts, but seeing as the community allows them, too bad for me. A deleted edit on a user subpage (to avoid popping up on watchlists) would handle disclosure nicely. //roux   17:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

A good first step in the progress towards the prohibition of unidentified alternative accounts. But both this and the total prohibition needs to have way of handling of the occasional need for one with hidden identification, accessible only to checkusers. DGG (talk) 22:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Alternative accounts for protection

This account is an alternative account which I have created to counteract disruptive edits made by a problem editor. The reason why I have this account is because my real name is on my main account, and the editor in question is someone who I feel will harass me off-Wiki should he find out my real identity. I do not use this account to edit the same articles as the main account, nor to give the illusion of more support for controversial issues. I do not think I am violating any policies on this page, but am wondering if this is something allowed. Just to clarify (talk) 18:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I've been doing this for years. It's one of the major reasons for using alternate accounts that aren't linked to each other. --Philosophus 11:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

wp:sock#Alternative account notification recommends that if you do this you notify arbcom. ϢereSpielChequers 13:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• I strongly urge people to drop your named account immediately: OMG, please understand that Misplaced Pages spans a vast ocean of all kinds of troublemakers: All creatures great and small-minded. We're not allowed to offer medical advice to all the disturbed people, but please understand, there is a vast herd in the wackopedia group: people raised in fascist countries (or by fascist parents) where dissent is punishable by death: "I'd rather my child died than did that..." After the Mexican drug cartel, people are shot for merely talking about their kidnapped children. There are nearly 10 million Misplaced Pages accounts, and even allowing for 900,000 sockpuppet names, you're facing thousands of others who might kill people for what they write. Imagine if they knew how you spent your money, or what you allowed your children to do. -Wikid77 (talk) 14:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

As someone who has experienced Misplaced Pages based harassment at my place of work on two unrelated occasions I can recommend to everyone to not reveal your identity on Misplaced Pages. Some of these people are fucking crazy. Chillum 15:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

An historic opinion found on a forgotten page

On 14 August 2006 User:Kitia (now blocked for sockpuppetry) posted the following opinion at Misplaced Pages:Witchhunts. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

In real life, a witchhunt is the hunting of a witch. In the Misplaced Pages, a witchhunt is the hunting of a sockpuppet. Unless the sock is causing any real damage (eg vandalism), it should not be blocked. WP:AFD, WP:RFA, and WP:FAC are more controversial. Remember they are not votes, but a discussion. You yourself should probably try not to hunt, and an important thing to keep in mind is that everyone is innocent until proven guilty.

Needs updated

I've tagged the section about CU with {{outdated}} as that has been merged with SPI. I'll drop over to WT:SPI and see if they can help update that section. Hope that's okay, §hep 20:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I moved this tag to the head of the section, because there are references to the checkuser page at the head of the section, which I found very confusing. cojoco (talk) 02:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

How is the section now? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Perplexity

This article first says that there can be no definitive proof of sockpuppetry unless there is a confession, and then it says what to do with sockpuppets. This seems rather strange because if there is (almost) never an actual proof then nobody (almost) ever know if there is actually a sock puppet or not, so the rules about what to do with sockpuppets seems to be (almost) useless, unless it is allowed to apply these rules also to suspect sockpuppets (even without definitive proofs), but in this case the article should have said how to sanction suspect sockpuppets, not sockpuppets. What do you think?--pokipsy76 (talk) 11:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Proof is not a big deal. You don't need proof in a civil court to gain redress, and you don't need proof here. Balance of probabilities is what it is all about. cojoco (talk) 21:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't discussing whether a proof is or should be needed, I was speaking about the language of the article which I find misleading for the reason given above. It pretend to say what to do with "sokpuppets" but it is actually speaking of "suspect sockpuppets" which have been considered to be sockpuppets by some "official" organism, but it is not even clear who has to express this "guilty sentence". Reading the article an admin could think that he can arbitrarily decide that you are the same person as me and sanction us accordingly, and if it is actually allowed then I think the article should say it more explicitly.--pokipsy76 (talk) 18:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Proof is for alcohol and mathematics. All else deals in probabilities. I don't see any issue with reasonable conclusions that something is likely or not. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The article already spells out that it is not necessary to have absolute proof before imposing sanctions. We'd be better off distinguishing between "definite sockpuppets" and "sockpuppets", as it would be simpler. I would also disagree with the fact that a confession constitutes definite proof of sockpuppetry, as I don't see that a confession amounts to a better form of evidence than anything else: people falsely confess things all the time, for a variety of reasons. cojoco (talk) 23:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so given that the sanctions are for people who have been recognized as sockpuppets in some way, the article is not clear about how this process of decision works. Is it the individual administrator that have to "judge" and sanction the alleged sockpuppet? If it is so I suppose the article should say it explicitly.--pokipsy76 (talk) 14:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Generally whoever takes the SPI case will suggest blocking periods and generally do the blocks. Others have to be taken to AN after a case so that an uninvolved admin can administer the blocks. §hep 15:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Confession of sockpuppetry is no proof. If Hamish Ross were to say that one of his sockpuppets is pokipsy76, it would mean nothing to me. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Inform new users to create only one account?

I think we should, either MediaWiki:Fancycaptcha-createaccount or MediaWiki:Signupend, inform users to create only one account and/or link to WP:SOCK. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Usage of templates

While I understand that the sock puppetry policy explicitly states that the sock templates are not part of policy, I am curious as to whether there is a consensus as to how they are to be used. I ask because I'm involved in a minor dispute regarding the use of {{IPsock}} where an editor included said template on each IP to point to each confirmed sock puppet of a particular editor. I'd like to ask that any interested editors take a look at WT:SPI#Question over tagging sock IPs and comment if possible. While it's my understanding that there isn't a codified policy or guideline on this, I believe there is an established procedure that isn't being respected. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 19:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Reguarding school blocks

If a school I.P. is blocked, and you need to secure a login on that I.P., would you get accused of sock puppetry?--Tomballguy (talk) 20:51, 19 May 2009 (UTC)Chris

Erm , you mean if your school's IP is blocked and you log in from there? No , probably not. –xeno 20:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Blocking of main accounts for IP sockpuppetry

In the Blocking section, we currently have this wording:

• "If a person is found to be using a sock puppet, the sock puppet accounts may be blocked indefinitely. The main account also may be blocked at the discretion of any administrator. IP addresses used for sock puppetry may be blocked, but are subject to certain restrictions for indefinite blocks."

I'll have to admit that the second sentence doesn't make sense when one thinks of accountability and justice. We're talking about the same person, and yet giving a short block to their main account, thus letting the one responsible off very easy. The main account should feel the full brunt of the block, IOW they should be blocked no matter which other username or IP they edit from. It is the owner of the main account who has done the misdeed, and the main account should be blocked more severely. Sockpuppetry is a serious matter that undermines the confidence and trust that should exist in what's supposed to be a collaborative editing environment. The main account should always be blocked more severely than the sock or IP. Right now the main account "may" be blocked. That's absurd. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:44, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

You're missing the point of blocking the sock accounts. If someone is sock puppeting abusively, their sock puppet accounts are almost always blocked indefinitely because they lose the right to have legitimate sock accounts, and so they must be blocked so they can't use them. Blocking the sock puppet accounts is not a matter of punishing the sock puppeteer, it's a matter of stopping the sock puppetry. As for whether or not the main account is blocked: Administrators use their discretion and block or not block accordingly, because that's their job. Remember, blocks are preventative, not punitive, and are issued to prevent further damage to the encyclopedia, not to punish the people involved. The main account of a sock puppeteer is blocked at the discretion of the administrator(s) involved and depending on circumstances. An indefinite block for a single act of abusive sock puppetry without warning (which seems to be what you're suggesting) would be rather over the top.--Dycedarg ж 23:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Editor intersection tool

I seem to recall seeing a tool which would take as input two user names and would produce a list of all pages which had been edited by both users. I expected to find a link to it at WP:Signs of sock puppetry#Editing identical articles but didn't. Does anybody know if this tool is still around, and, if so, where I can find it? Thanks. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 00:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I found it: http://toolserver.org/~pietrodn/intersectContribs.php MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 01:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

It is probably impossible to eliminate sock-puppetry/alternative account usage without changing the nature of WP entirely (by having people submit proof of identity etc). If (useful member) corrects a typo without signing in (on the IP address) no harm arises, or chooses to use pen-names/altertnative accounts in totally different fields, with care over timing/computer use/choice of language terms their multiple personalities may remain undiscovered.

ANI thread with implications for the interpretation of WP:SOCK#LEGIT

WP:ANI#Disruptive SPA? Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 22:00, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Ground rules for the use of Checkuser and documenting proven cases

I've opened a thread over at Wikipedia_talk:CheckUser#Documenting_sockpuppet_investigations.2C_particularly_conclusive_cases, and a subthread over at Wikipedia_talk:CheckUser#Ground_rules. If people want to move the discussion here for a broader viewing, I'm open to that. There's also some discussion over at User_talk:Jossi#Documentation_of_sockpuppet_investigation_-_where.27s_the_evidence.3F. II | (t - c) 19:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Debretts

User:Debrettsonline was blocked on 8 June 2009, see User talk:Debrettsonline. User:Debretts09 (talk, contributions) appears to be in the same business of promoting Debretts. I am not at all clear about wikipedia policy on suspected sockpuppets and what to do about them, but perhaps someone who is will read this. Thank you, Ian Spackman (talk) 16:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

A new account for my friend

I cannot find the answer anywhere. To help a friend get started I created an account for her User:Suzoot. I did this from my home. She will use the account from her home. I will not edit using her account. Is this okay or will I be accused of sockpuppeteering? Thank you for any advice you can give.--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Nope, that's the sort of helpfulness that's a good thing around here.→ ROUX ₪ 04:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the speedy and helpful reply.--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Highly restrictive policy on second accounts?

"The general rule is: one editor, one account."

But no, it doesn't appear to be the general rule at all. Given the amount of mistrust caused by sock puppetry, and the amount of time and effort that goes into policing the current loose approach to multiple accounts, can someone tell me why WP should not institute a much stricter policy on multiple accounts? Why, for example, is it not highly exceptional to have more than one account? Why should there not be a requirement to seek permission from a CU or Oversight person to operate a second account, for one of a narrow set of reasons?

Most of the so-called legitimate reasons given in the policy are laughable. Why is this privileged by being in the lead: "For example, prominent users might create a new account to experience how the community functions for new users." Forgive my cynicism, but how often does this occur?

Does Reason No. 1 still pertain?

Is Reason No.2 really justifiable? If a user "with a recognized expertise in one field" can't cope with the association of their contributions in another field, well ... that's just too bad, I say.

Reason No. 3: Don't let people know your WP ID in the first place.

Reason no. 4: I don't understand it. Tony (talk) 13:23, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

You are correct that the current policy is written somewhat speculatively. It should probably focus more on what alternate accounts are NOT to be used for than what they CAN be used for. It's a mistake to try to write an exhaustive list of the permitted uses of alternate accounts, since the permitted uses are never the ones that cause trouble. As long as alternative accounts aren't used abusively, who's going to care? Somebody could have 12 different accounts for twelve different areas of the wiki if they wanted to, but as long as they were all used to contribute civilly and productively, and never contributed to the same discussions, nobody would bother to CheckUser them. It's the abusive sockpuppets that are the problem, and that's what this policy should be aimed at. I personally have an openly declared alternative account, which I have used in the past when logging on from internet cafes, WiFi spots, or other locations I don't feel are secure. We don't need to restrict people from having multiple accounts, we need to restrict them from ABUSING those multiple accounts.--Aervanath (talk) 16:58, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

• I find myself in the somewhat astonishing position of agreeing with Tony. Yesterday Giano, today Tony.. *peers out window, notices lack of horsemen*. Anyway, we do need to be a lot more strict about one person-one account. I could see an IAR exception for particularly prominent Wikipedians (Arbcom e.g.) who would like to be able to edit in peace; note the usual brief flurries of interest whenever Jimbo actually touches mainspace. Beyond that? No, there's really no excuse for alternate accounts (or indeed creating a new account to get away from a populated block log, for example); all users should stand by their reputations. → ROUX ₪ 17:12, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm assuming that you're aiming at non-declared alternate accounts here; if the accounts are publicly linked, there shouldn't be a problem.--Aervanath (talk) 17:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Indeed, as some may have accounts for huggling, for AWB'ing, etc. –xeno 17:31, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Aye, I should have been more clear. I mean, I have one of those (though don't use it anymore, because people got their knickers in a twist about it for some bizarre reason). → ROUX ₪ 17:46, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

There are really just a small number of reasons in which multiple accounts may be problematic. These include:

1. One person using two or more accounts to pose as multiple people and participate in a discussion, especially one on deletion. For example, if an article is put up for deletion, and one person comes by with two or more accounts arguing it should be kept, this distorts the "voting" process. Or even if there is just a discussion that has been formed on whether or not to include something within an article, consensus can be distorted this way.
2. One person using multiple accounts to engage in an edit war. The 3RR guideline states that the 3 edits is limited to each person, not each account. When a hot edit war is in place, accusations of sock puppetry do sometimes fly.
3. Creating articles with one account then marking them as patrolled with another
4. Use of a separate account specifically for disruptive editing, such as vandalism. Some well-established editors may create accounts to experimentally vandalize, commit planned vandalism (such as waiting for a new account to become autoconfirmed, then moving a page), or to engage in POV editing. The same people may be hiding this from a well-respected account they have.
5. Creating an article with one account, then proposing it for deletion with another, just to watch how an AfD on the topic will turn out (see WP:POINT).

People may have their own reasons for having multiple accounts, not addressed at all. Provided that one is editing in good faith, there should be no rule against what they are doing. Hellno2 (talk) 18:36, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I see no reason to list all of the reasons using multiple account would be acceptable. Why not just agree on those reasons that it would not be acceptable? Chillum 18:45, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

That's exactly what the above 5 are - unacceptable reasons. If one has 100 separate accounts all used for editing in good faith, Misplaced Pages has not been harmed, and taking action against this would not be helpful. This policy is basically one not against having multiple accounts. It is against disruptive behavior. Hellno2 (talk) 18:54, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I could not agree with you more Hellno2. Chillum 19:22, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh and Tony, I have created a new account to experience how the community functions for new users. It was very enlightening, I suggest you try it out sometime. Chillum 19:24, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oh, Mr Chillum, that was such a brave action. Are you per chance one of the Cheshire Chillums (we may be related)? Please do try to understand that people like myself enjoy a little harmless joie de vivre now and then. Now, do excuse me I must find Monsieur Roux, I'm sure he was once the sous-pastry chef at Scrotum Towers in the happy days before the war. Lady Catherine de Burgh (the Late) (talk) 21:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I do not believe that operating a second account should be regarded as an automatic right, given the amount of trouble caused by improper use. The current system is an invitation to skullduggery. Is there any reason that CU/Oversight application should not have to be made to start one? And is there not scope to tighten up the wording of this policy so that it's not quite so inviting? Tony (talk) 05:58, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The current policy is much stricter than prior iterations, which among other things, allowed people to have multiple undeclared admin accounts. We've put a stop to most of that, but I'm not sure how much tighter the wording can get now, without negatively impacting people who have relied on the prior versions. Also, given the rampant leaks from the Arb-l mailing list, many people would not accept filing with a mailing list as a requirement. Otherwise, yes sockpuppetry is a pervasive problem that we barely have any control over. MBisanz 09:00, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not so sure that people should be allowed to rely on prior versions. There is no need for undeclared socking except in truly exigent circumstances. The very concept of 'sanctioned' socking runs entirely counter to the ideals of openness, transparency, and trust that are needed in any project like this. → ROUX ₪ 09:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Roux. Response to Matthew: very strict, please. We should all be sick of ID deception: it weakens the fabric of the community, and allows some people to gain significantly unfair advantage. We don't need to suck up the time of admins, to endure resignations from ArbCom and, recently, of a crat. We lurch from scandal to scadnal.

At the minor expense of ruling out frivolous or trivial uses (sorry to be a fun-spoiler), there is much to be gained by restricting multiple accounts to those that are explicity justified by users, applied for by email to a CU/Oversight, and put on a secure list. I think the time has come to bite the bullet on this: the RFCs where people double vote? Hello? If we have strict rules about behaviour, about voting, about canvassing, about 3RR, and have decided that blocks are permanently recorded for a user, why do we incite people to game the system via multiple accounts? Give me a block record, and I'll start a new account (it's countenanced!); whether block records should be permanent is another issue; I object to the official encouragement to start a new account to gain advantage over others. The balance of proof should be firmly shifted onto the user who wants to apply for a second account—not the current loose imprimatur I see overleaf. Make admins' jobs simpler, please. Make all our jobs simpler. Tony (talk) 14:39, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but how would you handle things like User_talk:Utgard_Loki and User talk:Catherine de Burgh, both of which were undeclared alt accounts whose blocking led to epic amounts of drama. I'm probably the most supportive person of strict enforcement, I've blocked more socks than most admins and taken on high profile cases like this, where the community felt that blocking people for socking was wrong. If the community isn't 100% against blocking abusive alt accounts, I don't see how the policy can be tightened. It would just be setting more admins up for failure who block per policy and then get lashed to the pole at ANI. MBisanz 15:10, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the community is solidly against questionable alt accounts and the entitlement to have them, unless you count the sock operators who are gaming the system anyway. Most of that lashing comes from a small group who are just being contrary, stirring up drama, or bringing up grudges against specific admins, if not operating entirely in bad faith. There are certainly some legitimate reasons to want alt accounts, but even there actually sanctioning them is not necessarily the solution. Separating a real world private life from one or more online presences in forums where reputation and continuity are important is a pressing issue everywhere on the net, and having unfettered disposable identities is not a good way to solve it. You'll never find 100% approval for anything anywhere in the world. If you let the vocal minority prevail on this one it just guarantees trouble for the rest of us.Wikidemon (talk) 15:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

• I'm going against the wishes of a few people I know who have used an alt account for fun or otherwise and would regard me as a perverse party-pooper—but that doesn't bother me. It's time to sacrifice the vast majority of undisclosed alt accounts by securely registering the remainder on the basis of a narrow set of purposes that would be set out in this policy, shifting the burden of justification onto the user. If the solid community disapproval weren't contradicted in the first place by the policy overleaf, we'd have been saved what Matthew refers to as "epic amounts of drama". We spend huge resources policing this social problem at the wrong point, after the horse has bolted. A more significant issue would arise upon a change to the policy: compliance by existing operators of covert alt accounts. But that should not be seen as an incontrovertible barrier, I think. Tony (talk) 18:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

• Tony, I'm going to lay out four prior actual cases that I consider "tough" and I'd like to see how you think they should ideally be handled (feel free to inline). MBisanz 18:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

• User:U is an admin used an undisclosed account to edit war past 3RR a year ago, someone made the connection today between the two accounts.
• User:G is a user who used an undisclosed alt account to run for arbcom, but the connection was made before voting began.
• User:N is a crat who used an undisclosed alt account to create articles for hire from for-profit companies.
• User:A is an admin who acquired a second admin account from a Foundation employee and used it to vote on an AFD about herself.

• Another issue that would have to be addressed is how can you really tell if a newly registered account belongs to someone who already has one? Increased policing would require a checkuser inquiry to be performed on all new accounts, which would then be compared with all previous ones. And besides, there would be no way to determine if someone whose IP address matches is the same person or just another person who uses the same computer or hotspot. Even if asked, there is no way of knowing if the person is telling the truth. Other signs of sock puppetry are also quite subtle; a total stranger could theoretically have an edit history that gives the appearance of being the same person. Hellno2 (talk) 19:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)