→Illogical wording: clean up so disruptive commentary doesn't get attached to this part of the thread |
|||
Line 80: | Line 80: | ||
* "Only blocked accounts should be tagged as [[:Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets]] and only upon sufficient evidence that would stand up to scrutiny." |
* "Only blocked accounts should be tagged as [[:Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets]] and only upon sufficient evidence that would stand up to scrutiny." |
||
This is illogical, because how can one be tagged as a "suspected" sock if one is already "proven" to BE a "blocked account"? Blocked accounts are no longer "suspects". This makes the category meaningless. We have always used the category to keep track of "suspected" socks, |
This is illogical, because how can one be tagged as a "suspected" sock if one is already "proven" to BE a "blocked account"? Blocked accounts are no longer "suspects". This makes the category meaningless. We have always used the category to keep track of "suspected" socks, not proven socks. |
||
I suggest we reword the sentence to be more accurate, to be logical, and to be in harmony with traditional usage: |
I suggest we reword the sentence to be more accurate, to be logical, and to be in harmony with traditional usage: |
||
Line 86: | Line 86: | ||
* "Only registered and unregistered accounts which are strongly suspected to be connected to blocked accounts by sufficient evidence that would stand up to scrutiny should be included in [[:Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets]]. Such evidence might be [[WP:DUCK|the "duck" test]], combined with various [[tell (poker)|tells]] and/or location." |
* "Only registered and unregistered accounts which are strongly suspected to be connected to blocked accounts by sufficient evidence that would stand up to scrutiny should be included in [[:Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets]]. Such evidence might be [[WP:DUCK|the "duck" test]], combined with various [[tell (poker)|tells]] and/or location." |
||
-- [[User:BullRangifer|Brangifer]] ([[User talk:BullRangifer|talk]]) 02:51, 21 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
Strictly speaking, various tells could be considered part of "duck", so other suggestions are welcomed. Regarding tells, they should usually not be discussed openly, but revealed to admins and other sock hunting editors as necessary, because revealing them openly enables the disruptive editor to better disguise their identity. A recent Wasaga Beach/Collingwood editor has a certain tell which connects a number of their IPs' edits, but I have never discussed it openly. This knowledge has made their denials of being the same person rather humorous, in the sense that small children's obvious lies are humorous to adults. In the face of such lies, I have told them that their tells "are for us to know and for you to find out." Being an experienced editor does have its advantages.... {{;)}}. -- [[User:BullRangifer|Brangifer]] ([[User talk:BullRangifer|talk]]) 02:51, 21 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
=== Tangential discussion not directly related to the above suggestion === |
=== Tangential discussion not directly related to the above suggestion === |
Revision as of 23:52, 22 September 2013
Doppelgangers
I was recently warned by an admin not to create doppelgänger accounts for other users, specifically Jimbo Wales. If there is indeed consensus against this, shouldn't it be recorded somewhere in the Legitimate uses section to prevent relatively new users like me from making the same mistake? (I read the section before creating that account, and it said nothing about that, so I went ahead and did it, especially since Special:ListUsers shows that numerous accounts were created by other users for the same purpose.) --SamX‧☎‧✎ 16:52, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
- You most definitely should not be creating dopplegangers for others - it makes it look like you are attempting to impersonate the person. As well, you would in some cases need to create hundreds of ID's to eliminate all possible "false" accounts, whereas it's easier to deal with them as they come. You could also prevent, for example, someone whose real name is "Jim Wales" from creating a valid account. So yes, please stop impersonating others, even if you feel you're doing it for the right reasons (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:05, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
- I've already stopped, and I won't be doing so any more now that I know. Shouldn't that be recorded somewhere on this policy page, then? --SamX‧☎‧✎ 17:44, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
- The policy page already talks about what a doppelgänger account is.
- Doppelgänger accounts: A doppelgänger account is a second account created with a username similar to one's main account to prevent impersonation.
- To be a doppelgänger the new username has to be similar to one's main account. Jimbo Wa!es is not at all similar to SamX. GB fan 17:56, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
- It does not explicitly state, though, that creating doppelgangers for other users is bad practice. There are probably more idiots like me out there that may or may not do the same thing in the future, so I feel that that specific statement should be definitely be recorded somewhere on this project page. --SamX‧☎‧✎ 17:59, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
- The policy page already talks about what a doppelgänger account is.
- I've already stopped, and I won't be doing so any more now that I know. Shouldn't that be recorded somewhere on this policy page, then? --SamX‧☎‧✎ 17:44, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Just for the record (this might be my last edit to WP) I was warned after I created the doppelgänger, not before. --SamX‧☎‧✎ 22:06, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
- That's true. You were warned, you didn't do it again, and life is happy. I don't understand why you are upset. Pretty much every editor receives an occasional warning about something, even administrators. No one insulted you or said you were a bad person or anything of the kind.—Kww(talk) 22:12, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Emphasis of improper
Hi there, I recently got into some trouble with an admin because I thought that "sock puppet" meant the same as "alternative account". He corrected me and said it meant "alternate account used improperly". I re-read the page and still didn't see where it said this. Today looking at it afresh I do see.
It is a reasonably assumption to make as the "sock puppet" analogy works equally well for alternative accounts. So I might not be the only one to make this mistake.
I must have read "The use of multiple Wikipedia user accounts for an improper purpose is called sock puppetry (often abbreviated in discussion as socking). Improper purposes include ...". as meaning something like:
"The use of multiple Wikipedia user accounts is called sock puppetry (often abbreviated in discussion as socking). Improper purposes include ..."
When a word is highlighted in bold there is a tendency to think it is the most important word in the sentence and treat previous words as less important. The brackets after the word also direct your attention away from the qualifications before it.
Obviously is a good idea to put the word in bold as you do, but I'd like to suggest it might help prevent others from making the same mistake as I did to put "for an improper purpose" also in bold:
"The use of multiple Wikipedia user accounts for an improper purpose is called sock puppetry (often abbreviated in discussion as socking). Improper purposes include ..."
Or if that is clumsy, something like:
Multiple Wikipedia user accounts can be used for an improper purpose. This is called sock puppetry (often abbreviated in discussion as socking). Improper purposes include ..."
would also work, where you explain that it is about improper purpose in a separate sentence. Probably only a few make this mistake but I did, and so suspect, at least a few other readers probably will do so. I am I think slightly dislexic, which may be part of the reason, but then others would be in the same situation. Robert Walker (talk) 14:57, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- It's not seriously broken, but I agree it would be even more clear if it read
- Sock puppetry refers to the use of multiple wikipedia accounts for an improper purpose, such as X, Y, and Z."
- Yes that also works. It puts "improper" into a position of natural emphasis in the sentence, rather than its current location which is not, and the italics will also help draw attention to it. Robert Walker (talk) 15:28, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- How does this look to anyone? I hesitate to do a bold edit to such a prominent page in wikipedia, but suggest it for consideration:
Sock puppetry refers to the use of multiple wikipedia accounts for improper purposes. These include attempts to deceive or mislead other editors, disrupt discussions, distort consensus, avoid sanctions, or otherwise violate community standards and policies. The term comes from sock puppet, an object shaped roughly like a sock and used on the hand to create a character to entertain or inform. The term is in general use on the Internet for an online identity used for deception, and in discussions, is often abbreviated as socking)
- Robert Walker (talk) 12:10, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Legitimate uses needs correction
I believe another legitimate use should be added - multiple accounts that appeared as a result of Single User Login. With a condition to make the association clear by placing the appropriate userboxes on both (or more) pages. BadaBoom (talk) 08:13, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
I would like to clarify a matter about the use of shared IP addresses. In the case of a range of IP addresses that are known to be an institutional block, the use of the same IP address, identified by the CheckUser admins, from time to time by two or more registered accounts should not be considered evidence of sock-puppetry. Only the duck test identifies whether two registered accounts do the same type of quacking. Is that correct? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:46, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Should this account be mentioned in the sock-puppetry policy? —rybec 18:36, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Illogical wording
In the subsection Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Sockpuppet_investigations, we have the following wording:
- "Only blocked accounts should be tagged as Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets and only upon sufficient evidence that would stand up to scrutiny."
This is illogical, because how can one be tagged as a "suspected" sock if one is already "proven" to BE a "blocked account"? Blocked accounts are no longer "suspects". This makes the category meaningless. We have always used the category to keep track of "suspected" socks, not proven socks.
I suggest we reword the sentence to be more accurate, to be logical, and to be in harmony with traditional usage:
- "Only registered and unregistered accounts which are strongly suspected to be connected to blocked accounts by sufficient evidence that would stand up to scrutiny should be included in Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets. Such evidence might be the "duck" test, combined with various tells and/or location."
-- Brangifer (talk) 02:51, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
- There's nothing illogical about the policy wording. Based on the ANI discussion, you seem to have exhibit a serious lack of comprehension in this area. First you must file a WP:SPI; if the result is that the IPs are check-user and/or behaviorally connected and are blocked as a result of the SPI, then you can tag their user pages as sockpuppets, not before. "Sockpuppet" is basically a tag for a subcategory of bad editing behavior. You cannot simply apply it to good-faith alternate accounts or to all dynamic IPs, which are very common. Being an "experienced editor" does not make you a one-man sooper sekrit court that can decide entirely by himself who is a sockpuppet and who isn't. If you want to be that, apply for Wikipedia:CheckUser rights. Even then, your decision are subject to audit. Someone not using his real name (talk) 06:31, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
- This issue isn't directly related to the ANI discussion, but to the lack of logic in the wording here. Please don't conflate the two. If you can't do that, please don't interfere here, because we need only those who can stay on topic in this discussion. I am not proposing anything new here. There is no proposal to change the actual meaning or actual practice. We just need to write what we mean and mean what we write.
- I'm trying to get this fixed. One cannot be a "suspect" after one has been "blocked". One is then a confirmed sock, and no longer just a "suspect". That's how English works. I'm actually just proposing what has actually been meant by the category all along. I'm not proposing anything new. The category has ALWAYS been used for including "suspects", IOW unblocked accounts which were strongly suspected of being the blocked editor. That the category has ALSO included blocked accounts, both registered and unregistered, is another matter, and actually inline with the purpose of the category. It gives admins a place to look for new socks to block, and that's what they have done. Many socks have been blocked because they were found on such categories, their edits examined by admins, and yes, they were indeed worthy of being blocked, and that then happened. This happens because CUs are often not allowed to connect IPs with blocked registered accounts, so admins block the IPs based on duck. They deserve to be blocked, and this is the way to do it outside of SPIs which are powerless to do so.
- Yes I am the IP that is ruining Wikipedia (sarc) mentioned in your constant attacks everywhere but let me ask you a question based on a hypothetical scenario.
- Let's suppose I were a blocked, named account. Now I change IP addresses, as you constantly complain about, and we now flag, block or whatever to identify me as an IP sockpuppet. This seems a fair enough to protect Wikipedia from certain damages. Now what if I change IP addresses (we have already established people can) and register for another named, geolocate hidden account and perform the same perceived damaging edits? Is it open season on the named account also or does this only apply to IP sockpuppets that are easily geolocate identifiable? What if I would change IP addresses many times and open many named and anonymous accounts? I know of one that has done just that and uses them very cleverly to support content disputes. Now prove that one! Just some food for thought. Now watch my talk page! :) 174.118.141.197 (talk) 13:29, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
- That's hardly a hypothetical scenario, and we both know it. It happens all the time. When such a person creates a new, registered account, if they don't (unlike your example) engage in controversial behavior, disruption, and attacking the editors who have exposed them before, all of which draws attention to themselves, they could probably edit for years and make an excellent contribution to Wikipedia. That would be great. Unfortunately "a leopard cannot change its spots." Immaturity and/or mental health problems manifest themselves. They usually start engaging in the same types of things that got them in trouble, editors recognize a pattern, and they get brought to SPI where it is discovered they are yet another sock of a blocked user.
- It always ends up coming back to behavior, not just named or IP accounts and geolocation. It's their behavior that gets them in trouble. If they really want a clean start, they need to ignore whatever happens with their old IPs, and stay away from the old subject areas and other editors. They should studiously never deal with them or mention them. Period. That would work and they'd be able to really do some good around here, because many blocked users are extremely intelligent people, but that's not enough to work here. One must also be able to work collaboratively. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:31, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
- "engaging in the same types of things that got them in trouble, editors recognize a pattern, and they get brought to SPI " is exactly what the policy says, and I think everyone agrees that it an acceptable way to deal with suspected socks. It's been my understanding BullRangifer wanst license to continue to not address suspected that way. NE Ent 17:35, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
- I agree and wish that always worked. Unfortunately I have often encountered or observed dismissive behavior from CUs. I AGF that they are indeed following the rules that bind their actions, but it's frustrating when an IP is brought to SPI and they refuse to CU it. If the behavior is VERY disruptive, they still won't run CU, but they can block the IP based on behavior alone, but often still without any certainty it's the same person behind the blocked account AND the IP, even though the behavior is very similar and the geolocation is identical. If the behavior is borderline, they won't even block, so the blocked editor becomes impervious to blocking as long as they keep the disruption at a low level. Sometimes other admins who are familiar with the pattern of these editors will step in and block them as socks. That helps a bit. It's irritating, but we live with it, and that's why I sometimes take them to SPI, and sometimes not. It's also very time consuming. Just tagging them to keep an eye on evidence of any worse disruption down the line serves a purpose. That's all. There is no harassment, but these editors really do wish to violate the socking policy by "evading the scrutiny of other editors" by not having that tag on their user page. This reveals an uncollegial spirit. If they wish to make a clean start, that option is available, but they can't resist returning to old behaviors, so they end up getting caught again and again. That's why many of the IPs I have tagged are blocked. You're welcome to ask the blocking admins why they were blocked. I AGF that they did the right thing, and I think you should too. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:13, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Comment - super-secret evidence that we can't share with anyone, which proves socking... Seems I've heard that before. Oh yeah, at Arbcom. You know, the Durova case, where an admin lost their bit for, uh, secret evidence and bad blocks of a sock (who wasn't). Or the false Scibaby positives - once at over 20% false positives.
Even the WikiMedia founding principles ("The ability of almost anyone to edit (most) articles without registration.") cover the fact we welcome IP editors. GregJackP Boomer! 18:07, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
- The reason that accounts are tagged as being "suspected" rather than "proven" is because CheckUser is not magic pixie dust. Checkuser is sometimes wrong. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:46, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
- @GregJackP: As you should know from my comments elsewhere, I welcome IP editors. They are not required to register, even though it has great advantages. If you exercised some due diligence and checked out the block log and contribution history of the main IP in Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of 99.251.114.120, you might be a bit more quiet in your attacks on a good faith experienced editor like myself. It wouldn't hurt to check out the block logs of many of the blocked IPs in that category, and if that didn't satisfy you, ask the admins who blocked them why they were blocked.
- I'm not an admin, so don't blame me for the multiple IPs' disruptions and the consequences they suffered. How about checking out the connection between the current IP who started the AN/I attack on me and the banned editor User:KBlott? (Even his current incarnation admits that KBlott is involved.) Some admins in that thread believe that KBlott is the same person behind the IPs, and by extension the starter of the thread. So essentially we are allowing a banned editor to run an AN/I attack on a faithful and experienced editor, in revenge for keeping an eye on his banned activities here, and you're taking his side in the case. Lovely! -- Brangifer (talk) 23:06, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
- A "faithful and experienced editor" who has stated publicly that he believes registration should be required to edit, and then tells an IP information that is completely against policy? And has "secret" information? Sorry, having been falsely accused in the past, my good faith doesn't take me that far. If you have evidence, then present it at SPI. Don't misstate policy. Perform these actions in an aboveboard, open manner. Then I'll support you - but not at present, not with the problems I see, and the fact that you don't see a problem at all. GregJackP Boomer! 23:44, 22 September 2013 (UTC)