Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:51, 11 June 2010

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 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

This is not the place to post notices of suspected sock puppetry. Please follow Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations, and create a report there.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

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? Stellarkid (talk) 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. Stellarkid (talk) 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. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 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. Stellarkid (talk) 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. -- Brangifer (talk) 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. - Wikidemon (talk) 09:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Dubious statement

Yesterday I removed what I felt was a dubious statement in the WP:FAMILY section of this policy, specifically the one stating that closely related users may be considered a single person. In the spirit of WP:BRD, Spitfire (talk · contribs) reverted me and kindly informed me on my talk page that it was added in conjunction with this 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. –Juliancolton |  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. —Soap— 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 someone else on wikipedia (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? Spitfire 14:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppet discussion at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (development)

Please see:

• Misplaced Pages:Village pump (development)#Limiting sockpuppet creation by requiring a verified email address during account creation --Timeshifter (talk) 04:08, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

IP Tracking Cant be reliable!

Because,Thousands of Wikipedians uses Mobile internet to edit articles.The IP address required to brows Internet is provided by the ISP like Docomo or Vodafone etc.{see GPRS}.So users of same ISP'll have same IP Resulting in confusion. For example,10 users edit articles using GPRS On Vodafone,they'll have deferent account but same IP So that Sock puppet investigators will consider them as same account and it'll be worst if they're interested in articles related to a particuller thing.

Coercorash 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, Spitfire 14:48, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Question re Clean Start

The Clean Start section of this article currently asks that restarts identify themselves when reentering previous disputes. After reading this I filed an SPI Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Logologist/Archive 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.

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.

Has this part of the policy ever been enforced? Novickas (talk) 15:01, 2 June 2010 (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. WavePart (talk) 11:28, 5 June 2010 (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. --Henrig (talk) 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. Novickas (talk) 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 WP:BRD - 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. Novickas (talk) 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.   Will Beback  talk  21:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Link pls? This was not a blocked/banned user or one operating multiple simultaneous accounts? Novickas (talk) 00:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion: sock detection bot

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 Signs of sock puppetry 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? Hellno2 (talk) 13:12, 10 June 2010 (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. WavePart (talk) 01:51, 11 June 2010 (UTC)