Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppetry/Archive 2

message: * proposal for new version of this page
* proposal for Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets
Please feel free to edit this two drafts and discuss them. If the community supports them, I'll modfy this page and create Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets, so we can start with the new way of identifying socks. :-) --Dijxtra 15:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where is it, now?--ComSpex 07:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Where's what? --Dijxtra 08:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New version of this page 

message: Mr.User:Brian G. Crawford nominate several of articles for delete with only few actual article edit. In one of discussion, he slip out that he also use User:BrianGCrawfordMA as username. Could someone check if he's really a sockpuppet? L-Zwei 13:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please check this person 

message: On Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets a case showed up suspecting a guy of sockpuppetry on basis of incidents which happened in January and first half of April. Now, I find it rather discouraging for the proces to allow submission of cases which happened more than some time ago. I therefore propose an expiry period for cases: after some time a case of sockpuppetry cannot be submitted. That way we will prevent cases of abuse which happened before quite a some time to show up now. I think that a limit of one week (possibly 10 days or maybe even a forthnight?) would be just fine. Oppinions? --Dijxtra 13:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If there is no current basis for concern then its old. If there is a current basis for concern then even old evidence may substantiate it. FT2 (Talk) 05:17, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expiery period on sockpuppetry cases? 

message: The instructions on this page refer to 
 [[Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets...
Using the suggested template, I believe that should be
 [[Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets...
--Cedderstk 00:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the input, I've fixed the template. --Dijxtra 04:41, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links to match template? 

message: In the section: "Tagging identified puppeteers" it states:
:"Tagging known puppeteers with the following tag... Results in this template being added:"
But the tag narrative reads:
:"It is suspected that this user is the puppet master of one or more abusive sock puppets..."
Is this section is about "known" pupeteers, "identified" pupeteers, or "suspected" puppeteers? FT2 (Talk) 05:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That section is a remnant of the old version of this page. If you ask me, we should rewrite that too. Create brand new tags reflecting current situation. And, if you ask me, I'd take the "Characteristics of sock puppets" and "When questions arise" sections out. Maybe move it to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets. I mean, this is supposed to be a policy page, not a manual on recognising sock puppets, right? --Dijxtra 06:59, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction - to discuss and fix 

message: I've been reading through the history here and trying to piece together this odd situation:
When the rewrite replaced the old policy, the old method of tagging "legitimate sock puppets" - userboxes saying "This user is a sock puppet of X" - was apparently dropped.  The problem is that many users were already using those userboxes, and those userboxes were never reworded from "sock puppet" to "alternate account", so the userboxes retained all those negative connotations associated with "sock puppet".  Being a userbox with negative connotations, it was then speedily deleted.  Now, I think the disappearance of the sections mentioning the old templates is reeking havoc at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Userbox debates, where the purpose of the old userboxes has been misunderstood as a "joke" and "useless", where it was actually a (useful) part of this policy.  I hope someone involved here could help clear everything up. 
Personally, I'd rather keep those templates as a option to be used (as opposed to getting everyone to switch over), but I added a mention of those as what others have possibly used to mark their own sock puppets. --AySz88^-^ 08:11, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh. Thanks for pointing the thing out... I'll adress the matter on the Deletion review page. --Dijxtra 12:09, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Miscommunication 

message: OK, we block proven sock puppets indefinetly. That's nice. But, for how long to block proven sock masters? I blocked User:Diesel rhcp and User:KraMuc for a week. Is that to long? --Dijxtra 12:24, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Silly question, maybe, but how do you distinguish the sock master from the sock puppets? Maybe we should have a wheel of death or something to pick which account lives... Really though, is it necessary as a preventative measure against further sock puppetry? Doesn't the auto-IP-block (at least for now) put a temporary bar in the way of creating new sock puppet accounts (well, using the new accounts)? -Dan 23:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duration of block for sock masters 

message: One of the anoying elements in legalise is that it uses words in a way that is not part of sandard english. This problem appears to have turned up on this page. I suggest the policy be writen useing standard defintions of words rather than starting off by redefineing them.Geni 22:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I read it, the original problem was that there was no "standard definition", so they had to be expicitly defined at the beginning - as far as I can tell, the definitions of "sock puppet" etc. currently there are the most common uses of the terms. --AySz88^-^ 23:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sockpuppet simply means a secondary account. The other things such as if it is legit are normaly indicated by context.Geni 23:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, a sock puppet is a thing you put on your hand and pretend that it is another person. --Dijxtra 07:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Our article dissagrees.Geni 13:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Everything disagrees. The jargon file definition is completely different from the meatball definition. The definition that a regular person would know involves a piece of clothing and a hand. If we choose one definition as "standard", it will confuse everyone else, and since users frequently try to find loopholes and problems with this, I think defining like this is the best idea. Our sockpuppet definition agrees with the jargon file one. Besides, I personally don't like being called a sock puppet. --Philosophus T 00:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Legalese and wikipedia

message: (A simplified explanation of the situation:) User:Celierra is one of the names I'm commonly known by in the context of the greater Internet, and I registered it to ensure nobody takes it in an attempt to impersonate me, as well as to allow people to find me if they look for me by the other name.   Registering the account to just claim the name is not enumerated as a legit "use" of a multiple account, but does it even count as "use" and should it be listed in that section?  (Of course, it would be a disclosed multiple account by the nature of the functions intended.) --AySz88^-^ 05:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multiple accounts to claim aliases 

message: Hi there everybody. The WP:SUSPSOCK is now fully functional and it seems that I'm the only one reviewing the cases. I'd like to see some more admins participating so now I'm recruiting admins to give me a hand there :-) If anybody's interested, it'd be nice to put the page on your watchlist and to comment new cases as they appear. Concerning currently open cases, if you wish, you can take a look at this one as I'm having problems deciding what to do about it... Participation of non-admin users would be just fine too. Since non-admins cannot block, I invite them to comment, propose action or just give their view. --Dijxtra 16:34, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: removed post from banned user. SlimVirgin (talk) 11:11, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, you do have a point, but we sure have precedents in WP:ARBCOM and WP:RFC. Those too comment on user, not content. So, feel free to propose changes in Wikipedia customs, but until those (the changes) are accepted by the community, I think we should continue to go on as before... --Dijxtra 11:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help at [[WP:SUSPSOCK]] 

message: There should be a section about how vandals name different socks. Like WoW's multiple variations...or the even more dangerous WiC making legitimate users' names but with different character sets. Like User:FIameviper12. Which is User:Flameviper12. Am I confusing you? Or User:Flameνiper12, or User:Γlameviper12, or User:Flameivper12. Hahaha. Many socks. It's an interesting subject that should be expanded.
:This shouldn't be in the policy itself, but should be a separate essay. --Philosophus T 20:57, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Guide

message: The reverted version of this page refers to two deleted and protected userboxes in the Tagging Legitimate Sockpuppet Accounts section. There are two replacement boxes in the rewritten version. --Philosophus T 20:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed them. Whether to include any new ones can be discussed here. The old ones may go to deletion review, but I  have no idea about their current status. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted userboxes 

message: I've put some revisions to this article at User:Philosophus/sandbox, awaiting the unprotection of this page. --Philosophus T 01:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed revisions 

message: As per David Levy in the previous section, I think that one of the real improvements that the rewrite offered was the change in usage for sock puppet. Sock puppet is a derogatory term (I am offended by it, at least), and is used negatively throughout the article, despite being defined as any alternate account. For example, look at the Identification and handling of suspected sock puppets section. The whole section refers to a sock puppet as an illegitimate account, with text like "Tagging identified sock puppets" and "This user is a sock puppet ... and has been blocked indefinitely". The only part that really consistently allows that an alternate account might be legitimate is the first section - even the Legitimate uses section uses "multiple accounts" instead of "sock puppets".
I believe this change can be made without changing the meaning of the policy at all, besides the obvious terminology changes. Instances of sock puppet that mean any alternate account can be replaced with "alternate account", "multiple accounts", an so on. It does not appear that Section 3, which most people care the most about, will need to be changed at all, since it apparently already assumes that any sock puppet is illegitimate. 
The only problem will be that this will cause a change in terminology, which users may be opposed to. I can give the Jargon File definition of sock puppet as support for the change, and also appeal to the common sense that "sock puppet" is a derogatory term, and in my opinion, makes more sense as a term for abusive alternate accounts. What does everyone else think? --Philosophus T 01:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  We need a word for legit sock puppets.  I'm using the "segregated sock puppet" from the article this way but I'd rather use something better. jbolden1517Talk 03:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about "(legitimate) alter egos"? Or "doppelgangers"? David Oberst 04:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just call my sockpupets sockpupets. It is after all what they are.Geni 02:28, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sock puppet and Alternate Account 

message: I think it is funny that so many people claim that they didn't see the discussion develop on this over weeks and then over a couple days lots of people came out to 'defend' the reverting.  dixtra did a great job in coming up with a teriffic improvement to the policy.  a blind revert was not helpful at all to discussing and modifying the page.
i think it would be great to actually put the page back up, and all of the users that were in the dark can work to improve it and improve the policy without starting over. the table was great and simple, and the base concepts are fabulus. Dixtra you did a great job, don't let the reverters get you down.  it is not your sole responsibility to bring the policy to the Admin community. anyone could have posted to the admin page and broadened the discussion.  it is just easier for some to just revert without actually contributing.
bring the changes back. they were great and are a great platform for improving a policy that so many don't really undrstand.65.215.159.18 03:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: funny

message: The templates under "SOCKPUPPETEER" are pointing to User:SOCKPUPPETEER.  I'm assuming this isn't where we want it pointing but I don't where the correct place should be.  Given all the recent activity if you want to ignore this while you handle the recent issue ok.  Just wanted to log the bug.  jbolden1517Talk 14:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bug in the templates 

message: Jimbo Wales said, "There's no specific policy against it..." but how come this is an official policy? SCHZMO ✍ 18:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no policy against using sockpuppet accounts. There's a policy against misusing them, and this page defines what's meant by misuse. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction?? 

message: "Note that this should only be done if the account has been shown beyond reasonable doubt to be a sock puppet of the user by one of the following:
    * the user's own admission;
    * matching of IP addresses or similar strong technical evidence;"
IMHO that "Matching of IP Addresses" is not a too bullet-proof evidence either. sure chances are very slim nowadays with all the broadband/highspeed users; but there is still the chance that WikiUser (A), the "good guy" uses Dial-up of a major ISP, and WikiVandal (user [B] the bad guy] uses the same major ISP and both had the same dynamic IP-address at their respective time of action/event. Granted its a small chance, but i've seen "horses throwing up" (german expression) in my IT-INFOSEC consulting career *grin* and if you're really mean, you spoof the IP. Unless Wiki-servers have some special measures built-in to prevent that (i.e. some sort of IP# vs. rDNS-match checks or so) Archangel Michael 02:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The people with cheackuser know what they are doing.Geni 02:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

text: IP address spoofing has been dealt with; it is not possible to spoof IPs. As for checkuser, as we have tried to explain to people until we are blue in the face, checkuser is not just about matching the same two numbers; there is a full investigation by individuals who have the technical skill to recognize the evidence of sockpuppetry. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 03:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  matching of IP addresses ? 

message: A massive category name change just caused all Wikipedia "sock puppet" categories to become "sockpuppet" categories. Should we change all references on this page to match?--Mike Selinker 13:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The policy was originally highly inconsistent on that. We changed all of the occurances of sockpuppet to sock puppet a while ago, since sock puppet seemed most professional and was also the most prevalent. I would change the categories back - I don't know why they weren't discussed here first. --Philosophus T 10:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Sockpuppet" 

message: I recently changed my username, but now im being accused of using a sockpuppet Minun Rules the world (talk) 19:56, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This user account was created following a block on his other account User:Iloveminun. Tony Sidaway blocked indef for block evasion. --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of the Sith 20:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changed my user name 

message: Hi,
I have a strong reason to believe that user:Purger, in order to avoid breaking WP:3RR, keeps logging in and out. His suspected IP addres is 64.18.16.251.
If this is all the same person, can this be considered as some kind of sock puppetry or a sneaky way to avoid breaking 3RR?
I don't know if I have a right to do this, but I asked those two (?!) users to be open and tell us are they one person or not. See User_talk:Purger#Breaking_3RR? and User_talk:64.18.16.251#Breaking_3RR?.
I feel that rules are somewhat undefined in this area. Can someone explain me rules in this case, please?
--Ante Perkovic 16:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't very unusual. It is sock puppetry if it is intentional, and it is certainly 3RR evasion if the users are the same. Asking the user in this case will nearly certainly result in no answer or denial. It would be best to put something on WP:AN/3RR, probably, and possibly WP:RFCU. --Philosophus T 18:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can this be considered sockpuppetry?