Wikipedia talk:Sock puppetry/Archive 6

src: bakerbloch.files.wordpress.com

Video Wikipedia talk:Sock puppetry/Archive 6

Explicitly prohibited

In particular, some illicit uses include, but are not limited to... . Where will people find other illicit uses if not here? I'm curious because it seems that there are all kinds of claims about which usage is explicitly forbidden in the newly opened David Gerard Arbcom case, very little that I see here. Yomangani ^talk 00:49, November 19, 2008 (UTC)

I think this edits [1] are heading in the wrong direction. In general, the premise is that alternative accounts are not allowed, except for the legitimate reasons mentioned. There must be (and in practice, is) the assumption that alternative accounts are not good. Wikidemon (talk) 17:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The immediate problem with that approach is that there are many alternative accounts that do not break the current rules but that will put themselves in the "implicitly forbidden" category by change. I have no problem with it myself, but the list of allowed uses needs to be done before. Yomangani ^talk 18:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Individuals may have their own personal reasons for having an alternative account, not understood by others. For example, I have a friend who has 3 accounts all of which have been active for several years, all with at least 1,000 edits, and all have been used for a good cause. No two accounts have ever edited the same article. Bearing in mind that good faith should be assumed, unless it is clear that an account is used for some prominent policy violations of other annoying editing forms, its use should not be prohibited. Hellno2 (talk) 01:52, November 20, 2008 (UTC)

good use may be expressed, or, in special cases, disclosed to members of a trustworthy community. One can also say that it is socks from some other users without mentioning who, and determines who knows the equality. We must completely ban all disclosed socks - I question whether there is a compelling reason for that. (though of course we must grant amnesty from those who already have it, if they are in good faith, until they have a chance to declare). Allowing them is like not locking the door assuming everyone passing by will be honest. True, most of them will, but it is not regarded as an affront to the general public in most communities. 17:22, January 5, 2009 (UTC)

Maps Wikipedia talk:Sock puppetry/Archive 6

Probably not vs should not be for avoidance

Per some edits here. AC agree on this is not allowed, and IAR is invalid when it comes to AC decisions on this this time. Discuss? akarologi ( T ) 22:53, January 2, 2009 (UTC)

But they "can" be used ("maybe" used), though they should not. - xeno ^talk 19:33, May 11, 2009 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Edit under IP address

I only have a question - I tried editing WP with my registered account, but on occasion (especially recently), I have edited it under my IP address. I mentioned on my user page that this is the case, but should I place an alternative account notification tag on my registered ip account and address? I'm just asking because I have a dynamic IP from my provider and I'm not clear about this guide/priority. Hope it makes sense. londonsista ^Prod 00:15, January 3, 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that when you find that you have edited it under IP, check the IP contribution, find it yourself, and fix it using zero edits, or notes on the talk page, or fix auto-signature if edits are signed. You do not want to claim all edits from dynamic IPs if used by other editors. If you constantly find that you forgot to sign in, consider using your account preferences to give wikipedia a different look when you sign in. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:38, March 2, 2009 (UTC)

If you contributed in the discussion on exit, just sign in with something like: [[User: X | X (out)]] ~~~~~ (5 tildes) As long as you are not trying to convey that IP is a separate user when you should not have any problems. Ã,§hep ^Talk 00:44, March 2, 2009 (UTC)

I do not think that signing in this way is any solution, and it is ready to be abused. As I understand it, the only valid reason for editing under IP addresses instead of your username is because you do not realize you're not logged in. Why have you ever consciously edited under an IP address if you have a username? cojoco (talk) 22:33, March 2, 2009 (UTC)

You can be in a public place and do not have a secondary account. Ã,§hep ^Talk 04:25, March 3, 2009 (UTC)

Is this a concern about sneaky people stealing your WP login information if you're using a public terminal? Sounds low-risk to me. cojoco (talk) 20:31, March 3, 2009 (UTC)

Many people do not like to use strong passwords on public computers, they can be easily captured, by software or video capture. If you're afraid of this (maybe you should!), Create a linked alternative account. User: Taxman in exile is an example. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:41, March 3, 2009 (UTC)

The point is I'm trying to get across. If you do it very rarely, no one will come after you (just state who you are if you have contributed to the discussion). We do not force users to sign in to edit in the first place. Ã,§hep ^Talk 22:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

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

• Wiki-stalk avoidance with IP editing: Definitely logout and use IP address, to edit next article, if you feel stalking wiki. Just like clogging a Wikipedia user account with 70,000 sockpuppet names two weeks, wiki stoppage causes a lot of trouble:

• makes a retarded user start hating/avoiding editing;
• feeds the growing anger on the stalker, who may be raging as a rageaholic;
• wikipedia clogs with lots of reverts editing;
• may increase to requests for arbitration and other advanced issues.

Simply use IP address editing, to break the wiki stalking line, perhaps saving thousands of page revisions and hundreds of hours each person consumed by the edit wars and arbitrage battles that will result. One arbitration involves editing of a daily stem that has been going on for months. Because people can not easily be redirected by switching to IP addresses, all that waste can be avoided. Similarly, if sockpuppets does not work, then people will not make 70,000 fake user names to argue with AfD or edit-war at any time. -Wikid77 (talk) 14:03, June 22, 2009 (UTC)

src: bakerbloch.files.wordpress.com

Identify alternate alternative alternatives

Many apologies if this has been discussed before, but this:

The underlying problem of sockpuppetry is fraud - and this is usually where an admin needs to get involved. Create the illusion of consensus, avoid accountability, things like that. What do people think about owning a legitimate alternative account identified by edits that were deleted in the user page history? It will save the difficulty admin having to run into CheckUser just to find out there is a valid alternative account.-- Tznkai (talk) 10:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. Personally I hate the idea of ​​an undisclosed alternative account, but seeing the community allows them, is too bad for me. Deleted edits on the user's sub-pages (not appearing in the watchlist) will handle disclosure well.// roux Ã, 17:30, January 16, 2009 (UTC)

A good first step in progress towards banning unnamed alternative accounts. But neither this nor the total ban must have a way of handling occasional needs for one with a hidden identification, which is accessible only to the examiner. DGG (talk) 22:59, January 25, 2009 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Alternate account for protection

This account is an alternate account I created to counteract the annoying editing done by the problem editor. The reason I have this account is because my real name is in my main account, and the editor in question is someone I think will harass me from-Wiki if he knows my real identity. I do not use this account to edit the same article as the main account, or give the illusion of more support for controversial issues. I do not think I am violating any policies on this page, but I am wondering if this is something that is allowed. Just to clarify (talk) 18:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I've been doing this for years. This is one of the main reasons for using alternative accounts that are not related to each other. --Philosophus ^T 11:32, March 1, 2009 (UTC)

wp: sock # Alternate account notification recommends that if you do this you are notifying arbcom. ? ere Spiel Checkers 13:45, June 10, 2009 (UTC)

• I strongly urge people to immediately drop your account named: OMG, please understand that Wikipedia covers a vast ocean of all troublemakers: All great and narrow-minded creatures . We are not allowed to offer medical advice to everyone who is disturbed, but please understand, there are many groups in the wackopedia group: people raised in fascist countries (or by fascist parents) where the difference of opinion is put to death: "I prefer my son to die than that..." After the Mexican drug cartel, people were shot for talking only about their kidnapped children. There are nearly 10 million Wikipedia accounts, and even allow for 900,000 sockpuppet names, you face thousands of other people who might kill people for what they write. Imagine if they know how you spend your money, or what you allow your child to do. -Wikid77 (talk) 14:52, June 22, 2009 (UTC)

As someone who has experienced Wikipedia-based harassment at my workplace on two unrelated occasions, I can recommend to everyone not to disclose your identity on Wikipedia. Some of these guys are really crazy. Chillum 15:07, June 22, 2009 (UTC)

src: www.asist.org

The historic opinion found on forgotten pages

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

In real life, a magician is a witch hunt. On Wikipedia, a wizard is the hunt for a sockpuppet. Unless socks cause real damage (eg vandalism), it should not be blocked. WP: AFD, WP: RFA, and WP: FAC is more controversial. Remember they are not sounds, but discussions. You yourself may have to try not to hunt, and the important thing to remember is that everyone is innocent until proven guilty.

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Needs updated

I have marked the section about CU with {{outdated}} since it has been merged with SPI. I'll stop by WT: SPI and see if they can help update that section. Hope it does not matter, Ã,§hep ^Talk 20:57, March 1, 2009 (UTC)

I moved this tag to the section head, because there is a reference to the checker page in the head, which I find very confusing. cojoco (talk) 02:21, March 5, 2009 (UTC)

How is the part now? ??? ARE ????? OdÃ, Mishehu 06:48, March 12, 2009 (UTC)

src: i0.wp.com

Perplexity

This article first says that there can be no definitive proof of sockpuppetry unless there is recognition, and then says what to do with sockpuppets. This is a bit strange because if there is (almost) no real proof then no one (almost) ever knows if there is actually a sock puppet or not, so the rules on what to do with sockpuppets seem (almost) useless, unless allowed to apply this rule also to suspicious sockpuppets (even without definitive proof), but in this case the article should say how to sanction suspicious sockpuppets instead of sockpuppets . What do you think? - pokipsy76 (talk) 11:55, March 8, 2009 (UTC)

Evidence is not a big deal. You do not need proof in civil courts to get compensation, and you do not need proof here. The balance of probabilities is everything. cojoco (talk) 21:09, March 8, 2009 (UTC)

I'm not discussing whether a proof is necessary or not, I'm talking about the language of the article that I find misleading for the reasons given above. It pretends to say what to do with "sokpuppets" but actually talks about "suspect sockpuppets" which have been regarded as sockpuppets by some "official" organism, but it is unclear who should express this "guilty sentence".. Reading the article, an admin can think that he can arbitrarily decide that you are the same person as me and give us sanctions, and if it is really allowed then I think the article should say it more explicitly.-- pokipsy76 (talk) 18: 13, March 9, 2009 (UTC)

The evidence is for alcohol and mathematics. All others deal with probabilities. I do not see any problem with the plausible conclusion that something is possible or not. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:25, March 9, 2009 (UTC)

The article already mentioned that there is no need to have absolute proof before imposing sanctions. We would be better off distinguishing between "definite sockpuppets" and "sockpuppets", as it would be easier. I also disagree with the fact that confession is a definite proof of sockpuppetry, because I do not see that a confession is a better proof than another: people mistakenly admit it over time, for various reasons. cojoco (talk) 23:43, March 9, 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so given that sanctions are for people who have been recognized as sockpuppets in some way, the article is not clear on how this decision process works. Are individual administrators who have to "assess" and approve of sockpuppet allegations? If yes, I think the article should say it explicitly.-- pokipsy76 (talk) 14:37, March 10, 2009 (UTC)

Generally anyone who takes the SPI case will suggest a blocking period and generally blocks. Others have to be taken to AN after the case so the uninvolved admin can manage the block. Ã,§hep ^Talk 15:28, March 10, 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry recognition is no evidence. If Hamish Ross says that one of his sockpuppets is pokipsy76, it will not matter to me. ??? ARE ????? OdÃ, Mishehu 06:40, March 12, 2009 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Template usage

Although I understand that sock puppet policy explicitly states that the socks template is not part of the policy, I want to know if there is a consensus like how they will be used. I asked because I was involved in a minor dispute over the use of {{IPsock}} where the editor includes the template on each IP to point to every confirmed sock puppet from a particular editor. I would like to inquire if any editor is interested to see WT: SPI # Question about giving taging IP jerseys and comments if possible. While my understanding is that there is no codified policy or guidance on this subject, I believe there is an established procedure that is not respected. -/ M endaliv / ^{2Ã, Â ¢} / _? /19:25, May 11, 2009 (UTC)

src: thescreamingrayven.files.wordpress.com

Reorder the school block

If school I.P. blocked, and you need to secure login on I.P. that, are you going to be accused of stuffed puppets? - Tomballguy (talk) 20:51, May 19, 2009 (UTC) Chris

Erm, you mean if your school IP is blocked and you're signed in from there? No, maybe not. - xeno ^talk 20:55, May 19, 2009 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Main account blocking for IP sockpuppetry

In the Block section, we currently have these words:

• "If someone is found using a sock puppet, the sock puppet account may be blocked indefinitely. The main account may also be blocked at the discretion of any administrator. The IP address used to dolls can be blocked, but subject to certain restrictions for unlimited blocking. " [Emphasis added]

I have to admit that the second sentence does not make sense when people think of accountability and justice. We talk about people who are same , but give short blocks to their main accounts, thus allowing people in charge very easily. The main account must feel the full burden of the block, their TKI should be blocked no matter which user name or other IP they edit. This is the master account owner who has made a mistake, and the main account must be blocked more seriously. Sockpuppetry is a serious problem that undermines the trust and trust that should exist in what should be a collaborative editing environment. The main account should always be blocked worse than socks or IP. Currently the main account "may" is blocked. That does not make sense. - Brangifer (talk) 04:44, May 23, 2009 (UTC)

You lost the blocking point of the sock account. If someone rains puppets roughly, their sock doll account is almost always blocked indefinitely because they lose the right to have a legitimate sock account, so they must be blocked so they can not use it. Blocking socks doll accounts is not a matter of punishing puppets, it is a matter of stopping puppet dolls. As to whether the main account is blocked: The administrator uses his discretion and blocks or does not block it, because that's what they do. Remember, blocks are preventative, do not punish, and are issued to prevent further damage to the encyclopedia, not to punish the people involved. The puppet master puppet's main account is blocked at the discretion of the administrator (s) involved and depending on the circumstances. An unlimited block for a single rough doll action without warning (which seems to be what you suggest) would be over.-- Dycedarg ? 23:50, May 23, 2009 (UTC)

src: digitalnewsroom.org

Editor's junction tool

I seem to recall seeing a tool that takes input two user names and will generate a list of all pages that have been edited by the user. I hope to find links in WP: Dolls doll's signature # Editing the same article but not. Does anyone know if this tool still exists, and, if so, where can I find it? thanks. M AN d ARAX Ã, o à , XA? A b ? A M 00:46, June 9, 2009 (UTC)

I found it: http://toolserver.org/~pietrodn/intersectContribs.php M AN d ARAX o Ã, XA? A b ? A M 01:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

It may not be possible to eliminate the use of puppet/alternative accounts without changing the nature of the WP as a whole (by asking people to send proof of identity etc). If (a useful member) corrects a typo error without logging in (on IP address), no hazards arise, or choose to use alternative pen/account names in a very different field, taking into account computer time/usage/language choices, some personalities may still not be found. - No previous signed comments were added by 83.104.132.41 (talk) 09:19, June 24, 2009 (UTC)

Sindrom Eleanor Hibbert.

ANI thread dengan implikasi untuk interpretasi WP: SOCK # LEGIT

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

Basic rules for using Checkuser and documenting proven cases

I have opened the thread in Wikipedia_talk: CheckUser # Documenting_sockpuppet_investigations.2C_particularly_conclusive_cases, and subthread to Wikipedia_talk: CheckUser # Ground_rules. If people want to move the discussion here to see more broadly, I am open to it. There is also some discussion in User_talk: Jossi # Documentation_of_sockpuppet_investigation _-_ where.27s_the_evidence.3F. II | (t - c) 19:09, June 29, 2009 (UTC)

Debretts

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

New account for my friend

I can not find the answer anywhere. To help friends get started, I created an account for the Users: Suzoot. I do this from my home. He will use the account from his home. I will not edit using his account. Is this okay or will I be accused of sockpuppeteering? Thank you for any suggestions you can give.-- Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

No, that's kind of good help here.-> ROUX Ã, ? 04:14, July 3, 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for a quick and helpful answer.-- Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

"Escape from bully or pressure"

I have refunded additional recently. I do not see any discussion about it anywhere (although please fix me if I miss it). More importantly, I am concerned that it does not reflect current practice or best practices, nor is it a very good suggestion.

• If a person's employer has "seen a nickname", or has a concern about using Wikipedia by someone at work, then the correct answer is not "making sockpuppet!" That's not a suggestion we should give or encourage.
• "If a wikiuser feels they're being patrolled by oppression by another wikiuser, they may also decide to secretly remove their current username and adopt a new one." Yes, maybe. But as written it is full of loopholes, and this is a wikilawyer bait (and this policy is one of the most wikilawyered to start). The boundary between avoiding a reasonable check and "escape from intimidation" would be very subjective. If someone feels oppressed on Wikipedia, then we should encourage them to pursue a dispute resolution, not by secretly making a sockpuppet.

Sorry, I've been sick for some time. The four cases of Matthew Bisantz quoted above seem like a good reason to make the default policy "no alt accounts". I propose that we determine two things:

1. a more rigorous recording of the reasons under which the alt account can be operated;
2. who should run the secure list of those who have permission to operate the alt account. Tony (talk) 15:05, July 23, 2009 (UTC)

Parallel discussion about acceptable conditions

Given the Slim and Cla points above, I want to work through policy text, removing leftover words that seem to be listening back to a more loose attitude in the past. Here are the instructions, for example, with the changes I suggested (omissions omitted; insertions underlined). Feedback will be greatly appreciated.

sock puppets are alternative accounts used for deceptive, intrusive or deceptive purposes that violate or circumvent the enforcement of Wikipedia policies.

All Wikipedians can register their usernames or accounts from which they can edit. Over time, this account will collect the editing history and become the person's "identity" Wikipedia, helping others to interact with that person and understand their interests and point of view. As a general rule, each Wikipedian is only allowed one account.

For various reasons, some Wikipedians also created one or more alternative accounts. Alternate accounts are additional usernames used by Wikipedians who already have accounts. Some uses for alternative accounts are explicitly prohibited: using alternate accounts to avoid checking, misleading others by making disruptive edits with one account and normal accounts with other consensus, distorting or artificially sparking controversy, or otherwise bypassing Wikipedia policies. Misuse of an alternative account may cause blocking.

It is suggested that they expect that users who operate alternative accounts provide links between accounts in most cases to make it easy to specify that one person shares it and to avoid appearing or alleged sockpuppetry (see alternative account notification) . Exceptions are unusual cases such as (i) technical requirements for bots or separate and approved maintenance accounts; (ii) the need to avoid theft of passwords on public computers, and (iii) the need to avoid possible real-world consequences arising from their involvement in certain areas of WP. If someone is using an alternate account, the account with the longest history and most edits is usually considered the main account. ¹

I am still unsure of the need to avoid No behavior. (iii). My solution is: if you tend to face rejection or embarrassment among family, friends or work from the area you choose to edit, do not reveal your real username . There seems to be no brain, and we need to encourage caution in this regard. Why have usernames that are not our real names if we sacrifice anonymity by notifying our RL co-codename?

¹ I have moved this clause from the previous one, which seems to deviate from the point.

Tony (talk) 04:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The changes you suggested look good to me. I agree with you about # 3. Cla68 (talk) 06:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the need to avoid password theft on public computers, is that a reason not to link accounts? If I do not want to edit as SV on a public computer, I can still say that User: A, which I just created, is SV, without fear of SV password being stolen as a result. Or am I missing the point? SlimVirgin ^{talk | contribs} 07:35, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

• I see no reason for an existing account per (i) or (ii) to be an exception to the general rule of providing links between accounts. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

iii will apply to users whose personal RL information or real identity has been sidelined or compromised. I also warned against linking policies to the pages of talks, mainly because of linksrot, but also because we are not sure how to define something. --Dweller (talk) 13:13, July 31, 2009 (UTC)

He uses inner links for [[#Section]] instead of [[Pagename # Section]], it is a relative, not absolute link. MBisanz ^talk 13:41, July 31, 2009 (UTC)

Explain again? I do not sleep much right now and I'm even more stupid than usual. --Dweller (talk) 14:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

There are two ways you can link to sections on a page.

[[# FluffyBunnies]] says "Find the section named" FluffyBunnies "on this page.

[[Jungle # WildGiraffes]] says "Find the section named" WildGiraffes "on the" Jungle "page.

Does that make more sense? MBisanz ^talk 14:33, July 31, 2009 (UTC)

Not really... do not both options fail when the talk page is archived? Also, linking policies to discussion talks does not seem too authoritative. --Dweller (talk) 15:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

• This proposal is a definite improvement on things that are of no use at the top; I am still not convinced that the change, in so far as it is not purely verbal, serves any purpose. Changes in the emphasis involved in verbal changes are mostly harmless, and will probably help prevent rough socks.
• My account has revealed much of my real world identity. I can live with this, for now; it was a mistake at the time of account creation - because many websites, your login name does not matter if your sig is not informative. But if I want to change, including links to this account will defeat its purpose.

Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:14, July 31, 2009 (UTC)

• • If you stop using one account before starting another account then there is no problem and disclosure is not required. Will Beback Ã, talk Ã, 21:36, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Suggest there is a place specification and how to express it. Otherwise, we can end up with a perfunctory disclosure that fills the letter but not the policy spirit. That has been a problem in the past with conflict of interest guidelines. If the average editor is wondering 'Is there anything I should know about this account?' and check the user's main page and user talk, it should be obvious, as in this example. Two related questions arise from it:

1. Should it also be crossed out of the main account user's home page? (In this case not, but will gladly swim with the flow for the good of the site).
2. Should there be a provision for disclosure to ArbCom rather than to the community in special circumstances not anticipated by the policy? (Probably yes: we can not anticipate any justifiable situation).

Durova ²⁸⁸ 17:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Parallel discussion with unacceptable reason

As I mentioned at the beginning of the discussion, there are five (5) the use of the second account is really dangerous. These include:

1. One person uses two or more accounts to confess as many people and participate in discussions, especially one on deletion. For example, if an article is prepared to be removed, and one person arrives with two or more contending accounts to be stored, this changes the voting process. Or even if only a discussion has been established on whether or not to include something in an article, the consensus can be distorted in this way.
2. One person uses multiple accounts to engage in edit wars. The 3RR Guide states that 3 edits are limited to each person, not each account. When a hot edit war is in place, the doll doll accusations sometimes fly.
3. Create an article with one account and then mark it as a patrol with another
4. Use of separate accounts specifically for annoying editing, such as vandalism. Some established editors can create accounts for experimental vandalization, perform planned destructions (such as waiting for new accounts to be automatically confirmed, then moving pages), or to engage in POV edits. The same person may hide this from the highly respected accounts they have.
5. Create an article with one account, then propose it to be deleted with others, just to see how AfD on the topic will change (see WP: POINT).

By putting this aside, there may be many people out there who have their own personal reasons for having many accounts that we have not dealt with, but that does not hurt in any way. As long as it is editing in good faith, there should be no rules against what they do. Hellno2 (talk) 19:36, July 31, 2009 (UTC)

• Is not all of this (except for Marked Protection, which must be added when applied) already in the policy? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:08, July 31, 2009 (UTC)

AGF, excuse my natural cynicism: maybe you have never dealt with duplicate IDs. When you say, "there may be a lot of people out there who have their own personal reasons to have some accounts that we have not dealt with, but that does not hurt in any way", is there any reason why such people do not need to register with safe if they do not want to disclose double operation? Otherwise, everything is too messy. The idea that someone is forbidden to operate both accounts on the same page itself is much more messy, more difficult for the police, and prone to deliberate or intentional mistakes rather than strict procedures. Tony (talk) 11:00, August 1, 2009 (UTC)

This is an assumption of bad faith. There is no reason to make such a requirement, and no example wherever it will be useful. (Example where alt's account has been abused and caught is not an event: the current precautions are sufficient in the case. Strongly oppose such intervention to profit - other than the will to power of supporters - displayed Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:35, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

AGF does not work structurally across the wiki: otherwise, some pillars, policies, and guidelines can be directly binated. In terms of individual interaction, AGF is more applicable, but at a more realistic, societal level, social construction is often better for project and individual good. It's "we are civilized and do not need Master to tell us what to do" the argument is too simple, and - forgive me - is very worrying in its implications. (I will not pay taxes I will not wear a seat belt I do not want restrictions to present alcohol to children in public places.) Tony (talk) 03:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I congratulate Tony in combining "interaction", "social level" and "social construction" into unhappy sentences; luckily he wrote better in the article space. I refer him to the famous right wing & lt;/irony & gt; Political and English Channels on the use of jargon in concealing crimes from the public - and from the author himself. I do not condone his humiliation, nor do I care about the politics that drive these unsaid proposals. Wikipedia is not a government; it is not regulated by law, and regulations are not community goals. That is policy. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

This is another Wikipedia witch hunt. We have seen them before; one notices that an aspect of Wikipedia (usually it does not use itself) can be abused - and calls the Crusades:

• Bad Userbox; cancel all userbox.
• Admin may be crude; desysop all the admin.
• Anon account is destructive; semi-protect all articles.
• Editor can nitwits; protect all articles.

We have seen all this; the latter usually in some modified form, because even our Crusaders sometimes edit the article.

The Crusade has a number of common features:

• The sky declaration falls
• There is no evidence that our normal procedure does not deal with violations.
• X's practice is usually something that does not make a substantive difference to the article space, but some editors find it useful.
• Form reasoning: "I did not do X (using userbox/edit anonymously...); why you should have the right to do X? Anyway, it can be misused."
  • In my world, this rhetoric is characteristic of crazy rights talking about gay marriage/school-teaching/military service - and about immigration; is it different in Australia? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

After six months or so, it did not pass, and somehow the sky did not fall; or indeed graduated, some established editors were harassed, a large number of newbies were expelled, and we saw our expansion slower - but there was never a major increase in the encyclopedia.

Let's stop this particular Crusade now. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:14, August 2, 2009 (UTC)

Adminsock Policies

According to Arbcom's Motion 3.2 against Geogre [2], "Administrators who use the second account in a forbidden manner will be briefly dismissed, according to the" administrative doll "section of the sock puppet policy." Adminsock had earlier said that. Recently, Xeno changed it to read "The administrator found using a second account in a forbidden manner may can immediately delete it." The reference used is movement. I am Undid tonight. and Jehochman Undid my undo. Rather than entering a two-word editing war, can we discuss this here and reach consensus? Firestorm ^Talk 4:29, August 2, 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for asking for a discussion to help avoid unnecessary repetition. I do not really mind what words are used, but I object to quoting ArbCom's decision policy. We make rules, not them. Jehochman ^Talk 04:44, August 2, 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Of course, it is understandable to carefully cite Arbcom's decision. However, arbcom's decision actually cites this page, ie the previous version that uses "will." The original version is "will." The "maybe" version is actually a policy change, which should now be discussed. If a sysop uses a second account in a forbidden way, like Geogre, I think there is a consensus that says they should go down, just like him. Of course, there are special circumstances on very rare occasions, but it must be clear to Arbcom that the community's desire is that the rough admin must be discharged from power if they misuse the sockpuppets.

Potential potential to turn it into "possible" is that they, or future arbcom, will have more influence to say "well, what you do is obviously wrong and rude, but because the policy does not say we're back > needed to delete a bit, you can save it. "We have to think carefully if we really want them to have such a veto over the interests of the community. Anyhow, it's late here, so hopefully I'm coherent enough to express my opinion. Firestorm ^Talk 05:09, August 2, 2009 (UTC)

• Exactly; and since ArbCom is not involved in the Wiki process, they often leave with the first words that come to hand, if that's not bad enough to protest or vote down.
• On substance, how does tend ? That's uncertain; he might get to ArbCom before he actually loses a bit. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Policy is descriptive, not normative. I agree with those words. We must leave the room open because every situation needs to be judged on the merits. Jehochman ^Talk 05:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

At least for a year the text is:

• Administrators using a second account in a forbidden way risk being written off suddenly.

It was changed only in the last few days. I do not see any discussion here. "Risk" is uncertain like "will", but may be a bit firmer than "possible", especially since since ArbCom says it will remove the adminsock users it finds. Should we restore the old text? Will Beback Ã, talk Ã, 05:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• Done . Let us discuss on that basis. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:32, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

There is a much stronger ArbCom statement. Did you damage the ArbCom declaration? Tony (talk) 07:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

No, ArbCom does, and should not, set policy; You know this. After observing ArbCom in close proximity, one reason for this became clearer to me than usual: ArbCom did not polish their statements through the Wiki process; the words of the first Arb, especially in things like these that do not affect the real solution, are likely to persist, unless it is so bad that other Arbs protests. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 08:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The Community and ArbCom create and interpret shared policies. In this case we can write that ArbCom has said it will block the violation, which will treat the problem with NPOV. Just because ArbCom says it will do something does not mean they will actually be in any or all cases in the future. Since removal was largely done by ArbCom, they effectively set the standard. If they cancel some admin socks in sequence (no public noise) then we can make the language stronger to reflect that. These cases do not come often (thankfully), so it might take a year. Will Beback Ã, talk Ã, 10:08, August 2, 2009 (UTC)

Yes, otherwise we may have to remove half of the WP: ADMIN policy, which relies heavily on ArbCom's "law of case" for years. Tony (talk) 10:49, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Is it accurate to say that ArbCom has repeatedly rejected admins who have violated this policy? If so maybe we should add it. Will Beback Ã, talk Ã, 11:08, August 2, 2009 (UTC)

We're in a stronger place if what's on the policy page reflects what's actually done, than what we, or ArbCom, or even Jimbo, feel should be done. Therefore, we should rely on ArbCom's actions, rather than their words, when documenting whatever policy is given. --RexxS (talk) 12:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Give me my opinion as an editor here. I believe changing the words from 'staking' to 'will' or 'maybe' is moot. The important thing here is '... by forbidden'. There is a less relevant sock policy because administrators who will act 'by forbidden' will be persecuted â € "regardless of being caught punching them by 'forbidden manner', misusing their tools or acting in 'forbidden 'way'. I believe the community should be more focused on what things are 'forbidden' though - in this case - that is clear after reading 'this page briefly' and the first paragraph.. - FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up Ã,®} 15:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

This is a homage system after all

We have done some very long discussions in recent weeks on what is an acceptable use for the second account and what does not. We argued whether it should be allowed for various reasons, and how to enforce it. But since there really is no hard way to know, it all comes down to being a system of honor.

Yes, there are signs that someone might fool some accounts deceptively. But there is rarely any clear evidence. After all, it is a matter of trust. Hellno2 (talk) 17:45, August 5, 2009 (UTC)

How to prevent violations

I adhere to the simple position that the way to prohibit violations is to prohibit violations . There is, I think, the consensus that Hellno's list of bad practices and examples of Yellow Monkey are all bad things; Therefore I propose to include them, because what follows is consensus:

Unacceptable to use alt accounts to interrupt Wikipedia or misrepresent yourself or your contribution. For example:

1. Posing as a neutral commentator, using an alt account, in a policy discussion about another account from the same person.
2. ! Voting more than once in polls, such as WP: Articles for polls.
3. Uses multiple accounts to violate our rules about editing the war
4. Create an article with one account, and then mark it as a patrol
5. Use of separate accounts for annoyance or vandalism, in the hope that, when blocked, the primary account may proceed with flawless editing.
6. Create an article with one account and propose to be removed with another, WP violation: POINT
7. Create a separate account to refute one side of the problem in a way that is intentionally irrational or offensive, to transfer opinion to the other party.

It is inappropriate to use multiple accounts to do anything you can or can not do with a single account.

Note:

• If entered, this should probably be a point or a paragraph. I am their number for convenience in discussing it here.
• This includes some bad practices that have been cursed on the page, such as the section on Straw Dolls and the account "Hands are good, bad hands". It must be linked or consolidated; I really do not care which one.
• The YM point is # 1, Hellno's # 2- # 6.
• The last sentence forming an Alternate account should not be used to edit in a way that is deemed inappropriate by one account , which is already policy. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:24, August 6, 2009 (UTC)

It may be appropriate to include, but I think it should be combined with a tight line on alt account operations in the first place. Pass the problem on two links in the chain, not one. So far, it did not work. Tony (talk) 08:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The hardline you suggested did not resolve the issue; it is unworkable and therefore ineffective. Retrieval , as you suggested above, to the extent it is an emphasis change to say that a single account is normal, will be the second attack on the issue. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

If you give the example of the current policy not working , you will be much more persuasive. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:18, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

What, you mean... like... the use of socks to break the ArbCom solution? Tony (talk) 07:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

As with the use of multiple accounts that are used in sequence (and therefore not alts) to avoid date dispute records, this is an example of an enforced policy and hence work. Expecting the policy to work automatically, without law enforcement, is a Utopia law, and Utopia is more clueless than More or Wells. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:21, August 7, 2009 (UTC)

Added, on the grounds that there is consensus that these are bad things. I leave a question whether to link to a separate title or condense for later. If anyone does not agree with this, please explain here. Is this all we need to do is separate question. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:34, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

If anyone has an opinion on the consolidation issue, please comment. I am leaning towards consolidation ( for example. mentions strawpuppets on point 7, and removes that part) but would love to have other thoughts. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:34, August 9, 2009 (UTC)

There is a problem of moral pressure as well. This is not all about what can be easily monitored, but setting policy context that minimizes moral temptation to be abused. Tony (talk) 02:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Which is not done by minimizing the ability to use; "logic," which I hope Tony does not intend to support, including a handful of Puritan extremists, who fear that "somebody somewhere might have fun". Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:40, August 12, 2009 (UTC)

Source of the article : Wikipedia