Wikidata:Requests for comment/Sock puppetry

An editor has requested the community to provide input on "Sock puppetry" via the Requests for comment (RFC) process. This is the discussion page regarding the issue.

If you have an opinion regarding this issue, feel free to comment below. Thank you!

THIS RFC IS CLOSED. Please do NOT vote nor add comments.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

No consensus, and the policy will need to be rewritten according to the opposers. --Rs chen 7754 00:56, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Starting an RFC on whether or not to adapt the proposed policy of sockpuppetry, posted at Wikidata:Sock puppetry. After an incident of User:Leemon2010 sockpuppeting, detailed at Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard#CheckUser request. It is essential as a newer community of a wiki that we establish policies similar to others so that similar tactics of disruption and it's resulting consequences are detailed and agreed upon so there is no "unwritten rule." Here is the core of policy:

Using multiple accounts on Wikidata is generally disallowed except for the following exceptions:
- Legitimate bots are excluded from this policy because they are used to mark automatically made edits. The bot should be either approved or doing test runs; bots should not be used for illegitimate purposes.
- Legitimate alternate accounts are allowed if there are notices on the user pages declaring the connection(s). Such accounts can be used for editing from non secure places like Internet cafés. They must not be used for disruptive purposes and are not permitted to be used for vote-stacking in requests for adminship or any other polls.
Sockpuppetry includes, but is not limited to, using multiple accounts and/or IP addresses to evade a block or other sanction, to vote-stack in voting or vote-like processes (such as requests for permissions), and the use of an account owned by someone else. In general, the use of sockpuppet accounts to create a false impression of multiple users out of a single user is not allowed.
Confirmed sockpuppets may be blocked indefinitely.
Suspected sockpuppets may be blocked if there is strong behavioral evidence.
Suspected sockpuppetry may be reported and investigated at Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard with CheckUser requests going to m:Steward requests/Checkuser.

Regards, — Moe Epsilon 00:43, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, adapt Wikidata:Sock puppetry in its current form as policy:

Support as a major contributor to the page in its current state.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:55, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support, no problem with the proposal. Jakob ^{Megaphone, Telescope} 18:20, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mabdul (talk) 21:05, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~~~
~~~~

No, the following change(s) need to be made:

Against in the current form, not about the intent nor the ability for admins to respond to harmful sock puppets. My reasons are expressed at Wikidata talk:Requests for comment/Sock puppetry. This approach leads to wikilawyering … "what is legitimate?" … and distractions and time wasting (IM NSHO and experience). Instead requirements in a positive sense about what is allowed, and then put the above statements into your block policy. Keep it clean, keep it nice, keep it simple. (unsigned by Billinghurst at 01:26, 25 March 2013‎ (UTC))[reply]
Against in the current form, etc. — Jeblad 07:19, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Against Some points aren't developed that good, yet. In the current form the policy would e. g. forbid to stop using an account due to ongoing harassment and to start editing again with a new account, which has no connection to the old one ("In general, the use of sockpuppet accounts to create a false impression of multiple users out of a single user is not allowed"). Clarifying this point seems really important to me before approving this policy. Furthermore, I like billinghurst's and Jeblad's suggestions on the talk page. Regards, Vogone talk 00:42, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Against: should be “generally allowed, except”, not “generally disallowed, except”. Best regards — Arkanosis ^✉ 17:56, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested change #1

I would broaden the language in a few ways. E.g. explicitly forbid using sockpuppets for these purposes:

to create "an illusion of support" (including formal voting/!voting but is broader)
for a strawman argument (this is mentioned explicitly on English Wikipedia's policy)
to "mislead, deceive, disrupt, or undermine consensus" (useful catchall from English Wikipedia)

It may be worth further consulting the policies on established projects.

Superm401 (talk) 05:40, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Which was pretty much what I expressed on the talk page about positive/expected use of an account. English Wikisource that way s:en:Wikisource:Alternate accounts — billinghurst sDrewth 10:10, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested change #2

~~~~
~~~~
~~~~

Suggested change #3

~~~~
~~~~
~~~~

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.