| Revision as of 01:51, 11 June 2010 editWavePart (talk | contribs)188 edits →Suggestion: sock detection bot← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 21:10, 25 December 2024 edit undoSynorem (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers8,093 editsm Rollback edit(s) by 2600:6C64:5800:E93:9C5A:82FE:FEFF:8A62 (talk): Vandalism (UV 0.1.6)Tags: Ultraviolet Rollback | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{ |
{{skip to talk}} | ||
| {{Talk header|wp=yes}} | |||
| {{talkpage}} | |||
| {{WikiProject banner shell| | |||
| {{Counter-Vandalism Unit}} | |||
| }} | |||
| {{Policy talk}} | |||
| {{tmbox | {{tmbox | ||
| | type = notice | | type = notice | ||
| | text = |
| text = <big>This is '''not''' the page to report suspected sock puppetry.</big> Please instead create a report at ]. | ||
| }} | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| |archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} | |||
| ⚫ | | algo = old(60d) | ||
| ⚫ | |counter = |
||
| ⚫ | | archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Sockpuppetry/Archive %(counter)d | ||
| ⚫ | |minthreadsleft = |
||
| ⚫ | | counter = 16 | ||
| ⚫ | |algo = old( |
||
| | maxarchivesize = 200K | |||
| ⚫ | |archive = Misplaced Pages talk: |
||
| | archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}} | |||
| | minthreadstoarchive = 1 | |||
| ⚫ | | minthreadsleft = 4 | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{archivebox|search=yes|auto=yes}} | |||
| == Striking or deleting sockpuppet contributions == | |||
| On the talk page of an article, an editor has struck all the contributions of a confirmed sockpuppet. This strikes me as wrong, since just because we have a confirmed sockpuppet doesn't mean his words or ideas should be struck. Is there a policy on this? ] (]) 16:01, 2 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| To me it is rather like a gate-crasher at a party, who comes in and strikes up a conversation with party-goers and the party-goers talk about their subjects among themselves. Then the gate-crasher gets evicted, and everyone has to pretend the conversation never happened. We censor people, not their ideas. ] (]) 16:07, 2 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't think there is clear policy on this. I think what to do about the comments depends on the comments. If the gatecrasher was previously banned and the conversation was disruptive, then the comments should be removed. If the comments were partly disruptive, but possibly of some constructive value, then you might strike them out, or put them in a collapsed box. If someone wants to comment on struck or hidden comments, they are free to quote the comments. | |||
| :Given that someone has struck the sockpuppet’s comments, I don't think you should unstrike them. If you feel there is something of merit in the struck comments, start up a new thread on the matter of merit. --] (]) 23:47, 2 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks, that makes sense to me. And indeed, ''some'' of the comments could be seen as personal attacks, although some had relevance to the article. I will follow your excellent advice, thanks. ] (]) 04:03, 3 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::: I don't think there is a policy either, but it's pretty common practice. It sends a clear signal that banned or blocked users have no right to edit or comment in any imaginable manner, and that their comments, even if correct, will not be allowed. We have no respect for such users. They have no right to be here. They have forfeited it. If a comment is pretty constructive, doesn't attack anyone or discuss the disruption, then a simple strike through still allows others to read and digest the comment. -- ] (]) 04:25, 3 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::It's hard to say anything in the abstract because it depends on what the sockpuppeter was doing. However, socks are often used to troll, disrupt, plant disinformation, wikigame, harass, make accusations, create false impression of consensus, advance fringe notions, etc., so it's often best to just root them out even where the comment would be okay if it came from a legitimate account, or even has some supporters. - ] (]) 09:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Dubious statement == | |||
| Yesterday I removed what I felt was a dubious statement in the ] section of this policy, specifically the one stating that closely related users may be considered a single person. In the spirit of ], {{user|Spitfire}} reverted me and kindly informed me on my talk page that it was added in conjunction with ArbCom case. I still find it a bit odd, though, and honestly see no need to classify associated accounts as sockpuppets rather than, more accurately, meatpuppets. It just seems unnecessary, and not all ArbCom findings need to be codified as policy. Any thoughts? Thanks. –''']''' | ] 13:39, 6 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :Well I think the policy is good as it is, as it prevents people from creating fake accounts for relatives, using them as true sockpuppets, and saying theyre innocent when checkusered because it's not really the same person. In the rare cases where there are legitimately two members in the same household editing Misplaced Pages under different accounts, and participating in the same discussions, I think it is a good idea for them to observe the policy as is, because they are likely to have significant influence over each other. So there are two distinct reasons why I support the current policy: technical restrictions of checkuser, and social considerations. But the change you made doesn't seem to be a very big change in the policy, since you left the sentence after it intact, and that sentence essentially restates the removed sentence in a weaker form ("should" rather than "must"). So I dont have any objection to the change if we agree that the current policy can still be enforced. ''']]]''' 13:58, 6 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::Hmm, I certainly see the point that Julian is making, and his concerns are 100% valid. However, personally, as someone who is related to ] (and thus who this part of policy could potentially apply to) I don't really see this is massively unfair; myself and Kingpin13 have always avoided supporting each other on wikipedia, and were we to do so then I wouldn't think it unfair if we were treated as a single entity as far as application of policy goes. Soap also brings up some good points in favour of the policy: I remember a SPI case were a user claimed that ~5 other people in their flat were editing wikipedia, all using the same connection, and, predictably, all with the same agenda, this part of the policy prevents the family/associate claim from being used abusively. All that said, I do see that the policy could probably be qualified slightly so that it puts the same point across, but in a more friendly manner. Thoughts? ]<sup>]</sup> 14:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Sockpuppet discussion at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (development) == | |||
| Please see: | |||
| *] --] (]) 04:08, 17 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Update to ] == | |||
| == ] Tracking Cant be reliable! == | |||
| 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 ]: | |||
| Because,Thousands of ] uses ] to edit articles.The ] required to brows ] is provided by the ] like ] or ] etc.{see ]}.So users of same ISP'll have same IP Resulting in confusion. | |||
| For example,10 users edit articles using ] On Vodafone,they'll have deferent account but same IP So that ] investigators will consider them as same account and it'll be worst if they're interested in articles related to a particuller thing. | |||
| {{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) | |||
| ''']'''<sup>]<sup>]</sup> </sup> 06:14, 27 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :Checkusers would be able to see that the accounts were on a mobile network, and that would be considered before any blocks were made. Other technical data is also available via checkuser, and behavioral evidence is always taken into account alongside any technical evidence available. We don't just assume that if some accounts are on the same IP range then they most be related, there has to be substantial other evidence as well (some of it comes from checkuser, some of it from behavioral patterns). Hope this helps, kindest regards, ]<sup>]</sup> 14:48, 27 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :], I ''dislike'' this addition, because it is not policy but advice, aka bloat. ] (]) 00:02, 29 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Question re Clean Start == | |||
| ::@] 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 == | |||
| The Clean Start section of this article currently asks that restarts identify themselves when reentering previous disputes. After reading this I filed an SPI ] for a user whose behavior I felt strongly indicated a restart active in the same article and personal disputes. The SPI was archived with no action on the grounds that the original account had stopped editing in 2007. | |||
| 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. | |||
| The (alleged) restart account expressed dissatisfaction at the SPI with Clean Start as currently written, citing its recency, lack of discussion here, privacy issues, exposure as contrary to the spirit of a clean restart. | |||
| Where is it, please? <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 12:15, 4 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Has this part of the policy ever been enforced? ] (]) 15:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :Here you go. ] (]) 14:12, 4 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :The purpose of the Clean Start provision is to give editors a chance to start over, and it should take far more than returning to the same article years later to constitute abuse of this. For it to be abuse which is relevant to the content of an article, an editor would have to be using multiple accounts to falsely appear to bring more weight to one side of a debate, which is not the case if an old account is long inactive and specific discussion threads have faded into the talk archives. It sounds like this was the case in the SPI you link. Now using a new account to enter a still-active discussion thread and reply to oneself or to support one's own comments, that would not be a "Clean Start". But merely returning significantly later to the same or a similar article should not constitute the violation of engaging in a still active dispute, even if a similar topic of disagreement eventually arises. The reason is that if the old account is inactive, it no longer asserts additional influence, and thus each editor (person) only has one voice, which is the fundamental goal of this policy. ] (]) 11:28, 5 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::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) | |||
| ::If I get it right, Novickas has suspected Nihil Novi, of being a sock puppet right from the start, when Logologist was still active and that he continued engaging in the same articles (and battle grounds), without refering to Logologist directly, after Logologist has stopped editing when he was accused using (other) sock puppets. I think, in this case, it wouldn't be a Clean Start. --] (]) 09:37, 6 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yes, the restarting was clear early on. It's the policy here that's changed since then. (Altho it's been pretty stable since, random date, December 2009 ). Admin candidacies have been tanked by undisclosed restarts; so maybe adding a general 'YOU shouldn't' was a well-meaning extension of the adminship standards to editors in general. But if declaring a previous identity (by regular editors) when reentering the same disputes is not enforceable or enforced by sanctions, maybe the policy should be truncated to eliminate the material following "This is permitted only if there are no bans or blocks in place against your old account." Up till the part that goes 'You are not obliged to do this unless you are seeking some office...', since its last sentence, this may be poorly received by the WP community, can be supported with links here if necessary. ] (]) 03:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::This page has 367 watchers . None have responded to the concerns above wrt to whether Clean Start disclosure requirements apply to editors NOT running for positions in the WP bureaucracy. Therefore, in keeping with a modified version of ] - that is, first discuss, then be bold - I'm removing the sentences directed towards regular editors. Those interested in restoring them - pls show some examples of support actions; i.e. SPI workers investigating restarts that don't involve current multiple accounts, or non-voluntary applications of user page templates to the effect that 'this editor formerly operated sockpuppets', or other things of that ilk. The exhortations have been here for some time, it's true, but if they had real community support, you'd be able to cite examples here where some action was taken. ] (]) 19:36, 8 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::In the spirit of BRD, I'm going to revert that change. It's been there a long time. Returning to an old dispute with a new name is not condoned, and an editor who did that for privacy reasons has gotten a lot of grief on ANI just recently. <b>] ] </b> 21:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Link pls? This was not a blocked/banned user or one operating multiple simultaneous accounts? ] (]) 00:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Semi-protected edit request on 21 December 2024 Reply Spelling/grammar/punctuation/typographical correction Suggestion == | |||
| == Suggestion: sock detection bot == | |||
| {{Edit semi-protected|Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppetry|answered=yes}} | |||
| Here is a suggestion: the creation of a bot that tags possible suspicious signs of sock puppetry that deserve a review. It'll look out to see if multiple signs from the ] are present, and alert editors, who can examine if a further review is warranted. For example, it'll monitor all those who comment in a common discussion, and examine if they have a history of editing a lot of other common articles or share a common editing chronology. It'll monitor new accounts commenting in Afds to determine if there could be any connections to others who commented in the same Afds. These are just to name a few. We already have tags hunting down vandalism. How about something similar for socks? ] (]) 13:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
| 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. ] (]) 04:05, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :That seems very difficult to automate. How would you handle people who just edit similar articles at similar times because they are overlapping topics? You wouldn't want to flag a lot of people editing articles about France who all happen to get off of work at the same time in the French timezone. ] (]) 01:51, 11 June 2010 (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) | |||
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)