Wikidata

Wikidata:Requests for comment/Sockpuppetry guidelines

< Wikidata:Requests for comment

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.

There is clear support for the proposed guideline, with three of the four "addenda" failing and other passing.

To enumerate:

  1. The overview section passes. It is unclear to me if there might be opposers to Legoktm's amendment, but as there are only supporters for the amendment, his amendment also passes. Editors whom disagree with it should consider a talk page discussion on the to-be-created sockpuppetry guidelines page.
  2. The legitimate uses section passes. I will note Michaeldsuarez's unanswered question at 00:55, 28 June 2013 (UTC); further discussion should be elicited on the talk page of the to-be-created sockpuppetry guidelines page. Ajradditz also has a suggestion that might be taken into account for a future discussion.
  3. The illegitimate uses section passes. I will note multiple of Hazard-SJ's questions which have gone unanswered; again, further discussion should be elicited on the talk page of the to-be-created sockpuppetry guidelines page.
  4. The enforcement section passes, with notably weak support. Discussion of the scope of this section should be continued on the talk page of the to-be-created sockpuppetry guidelines page.
  5. Addenda 1, 2, and 3 all fail, with broad opposition.
  6. The addendum 4 passes. As with the enforcement section, addendum 4 has questionable support and so discussion should be elicited on the talk page of the to-be-created sockpuppetry talk page.

On a side note, it is unclear to me whether this should be a guideline or a policy, given the inconsistency in the naming of the RFC and the introduction by Sven Manguard. My personal feeling is that most such items should be guidelines, but that's just me. Cheers. --Izno (talk) 23:21, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has requested the community to provide input on "Sockpuppetry guidelines" 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.

We've reached the point in the project's lifespan where it makes more sense to develop a policy on sockpuppetry than it does not to have one. A recent discussion in the #wikidata-admin IRC channel about how to handle a known sockpuppeteer who has waded over to Wikidata from his/her home Wikipedia has reveled that the admins aren't of consensus right now as to what is socking and how best to handle it. This RfC is being conducted to rectify the issue.

The way that this RfC is going to work is that I'm going going to propose a policy in several sections, and at the bottom I'm going to open it up for comments separated by section.

If everyone likes everything, we can make it policy. If people have issues with specific points, I'd like to fix them before this gets put to a straight up or down vote.

Cheers, Sven Manguard Wha? 03:19, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Overview edit

The use of multiple Wikidata user accounts for an improper purpose is called sock puppetry (often abbreviated in discussion as "socking"). Improper purposes include attempts to deceive or mislead other editors, disrupt discussions, distort consensus, avoid sanctions, or otherwise violate community standards and policies.

Editors are expected to edit primarily from a single account, used by a single person. There are a number of circumstances, listed below, where having alternate accounts is considered acceptable. Alternate accounts may have names that do not make it immediate obvious that they are alternate accounts, and may have names that do not make it immediately obvious to which main account they are related, but they must prominently link to the main account on their userpages, and all alternate accounts must be declared if the main account is running for any position that requires a community discussion (translation administrator, bot, administrator, bureaucrat, checkuser, or oversighter).

It is important to note that neither the list of legitimate uses nor the list of illegitimate uses presented below are full and complete lists.

Addendum 2 edit

This section was added for consideration after the RfC began. If approved, it would be placed in between the second and third paragraphs of the "Overview" section.

Editors may choose to edit without creating an account (in which case they will appear in edit histories as the IP address they are using), however editors that are not using accounts should be aware that while participating in any type of discussion as an IP is perfectly acceptable, they cannot vote (make a comment beginning with "support" or "oppose") in those discussions, and are prohibited from using multiple IP addresses to perform any of the actions listed in the "Illegitimate uses of alternate accounts" section. If an editor contributes to a single discussion using multiple IP addresses (which can happen if the discussion takes place over several days and the editor's IP address is not static), it is strongly recommended that the editor note at the end of their comment the previous IP addresses used in that discussion (i.e. "I am the same person as 75.75.75.75 from yesterday").

Addendum 3 edit

This section was added for consideration after the RfC began. If approved, it would be placed immediately after the last period of the second paragraph of the "Overview" section.

With the exception of the confirmed, IP block exempt, bot, flooder, autopatroller, and rollbacker user rights, editors may only have user rights and advanced permissions on their main account. If an editor is discovered to have user rights or advanced permissions such as translation administrator, administrator, bureaucrat, checkuser, or oversighter on more than one account that they control, it is grounds for immediate removal of those rights on all accounts that the editor controls.

Addendum 4 edit

This section was added for consideration after the RfC began. If approved, it would be placed immediately after the last period of the second paragraph of the "Overview" section. Additional text as compared to addendum 3 is in italics.

With the exception of the confirmed, IP block exempt, bot, flooder, autopatroller, property creator, and rollbacker user rights, editors may only have user rights and advanced permissions on their main account. If an editor is discovered to have user rights or advanced permissions such as translation administrator, administrator, bureaucrat, checkuser, or oversighter on more than one account that they control, it is grounds for immediate removal of those rights on all accounts that the editor controls. An administrator may operate an "adminbot" with the sysop flag on an alternate account after approval from the community according to the bot policy. Also, Wikimedia and WMDE staff accounts are not included in this section for the purposes of multiple accounts with advanced permissions.

Legitimate uses of alternate accounts edit

  • Security: Since public computers can have password-stealing trojans or keyloggers installed, users may register an alternative account to prevent the hijacking of their main accounts.
  • Testing and training: Users who use a lot of scripts and other tools may wish to keep a second, "vanilla" account, for testing how things appear to others; or for demonstrating Wikidata's default appearance when training new users.
  • Doppelgänger accounts: A doppelgänger account is a second account created with a username similar to one's main account to prevent impersonation. Such accounts should not be used for editing.
  • Flooders: Users that undertake high volume manual or semi-automatic edits, and are frequent use of the flooder flag, may wish to create a second account for those tasks for organizational reasons.
  • Bots: Users that operate bots, or automatic edit scripts, are required to run their bots off of alternate accounts.

Alternate accounts must be publicly declared, and the userpages of the alternate accounts must link back to the main account in an obvious fashion. Common ways of doing this include redirecting the user and talk pages of the alternate to the user and talk pages of the main account, using a template such as {{Bot}} that specifies the master account, or leaving a linked message in text at the top of the user page. If alternate accounts do not link to the main account, they are not considered legitimate alternate accounts.

Illegitimate uses of alternate accounts edit

  • Manipulating discussions: Attempting to sway the outcome of a discussion through the use of multiple accounts is, regardless of intent, never acceptable. Examples of using alternate accounts to manipulate discussions include using multiple accounts to stack votes, using an account to make straw man arguments, or using an alternate account to appear as a neutral third-party or neutral observer.
  • Circumventing sanctions or blocks: Alternate accounts, even legitimate alternate accounts, may not be used to circumvent a block or editing restriction. Unless otherwise stated by the admin placing the block or restriction, a block or editing restriction placed on the main account applies to the user behind the account, regardless of which one they use. It should go without saying that creating an account ahead of time to commit vandalism or harassment, or otherwise improperly or maliciously edit, in the hopes that the burn account will not be traced back to the original user is unacceptable.
  • Accounts that do not serve a productive purpose: With the exception of doppelgänger accounts, the expectation is that alternate accounts will be used to constructively edit the project. Creating an account just to joke around with, or just to have an alternate account, while not as serious as the above two points, is still considered an illegitimate use of alternate accounts.

It should also be noted that simply logging out or otherwise using an IP address instead of an account to do any of these things will also be treated as an illegitimate use.

Addendum 1 edit

This idea may be controversial and therefore is being proposed in a seperate section so that it can be commented on separately below.
The addendum would go immediately below the third bullet point in the section "Illegitimate uses of alternate accounts"

  • Multiple main accounts: Wikidata users are expected to have only one main account (as opposed to legitimate alternate accounts), and if they ever stop using that main account and have to create a new main account (for example in the case of a compromised or lost password), are expected not to resume using the old main account. Editing from multiple main accounts at the same time, even if all of the edits are constructive, is prohibited.

Enforcement edit

In the absence of local checkusers and a local checkuser policy, Wikidata will rely on the stewards as needed and file requests for checkuser at meta. Administrators can also rely on publicized results of checkusers run on other projects, such as sockpuppet investigations, and behavioral evidence, in determining whether or not multiple accounts are being operated by the same person.

Illegitimate alternate accounts are almost always indefinitely blocked. IPs used in socking are generally blocked for a period of between a few weeks and a year, as indefinitely blocking an IP address is discouraged.

Depending on the individual circumstances, including what actions were taken by the illegitimate alternate accounts and whether or not it is a first offense, Wikidata administrators can choose to warn a sockmaster (operator of illegitimate accounts), block the main account for a defined period of time, or block the main account indefinitely, in addition to the indefinite blocks of the alternate accounts.

Comments edit

...on the Overview section edit

...on the Legitimate uses of alternate accounts section edit

...on the Illegitimate uses of alternate accounts section edit

...on the Enforcement section edit

...on Addendum 1 edit

...on Addendum 2 edit

  •  Weak oppose - I don't think noting previous IPs should be a requirement, it should be obvious enough. I'd also like to see a prohibition against deliberately logging out to sock (i.e. you can't use IPs to sock if you have an account, while it currently implies that only if you only edit from IPs will using multiple IPs illegitimately be considered socking).--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:33, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not a requirement, it's strongly advised. As for the second point, that's addressed in "It should also be noted that simply logging out or otherwise using an IP address instead of an account to do any of these things will also be treated as an illegitimate use." in the illegitimate use section. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:35, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hhm. I don't exactly like the recommendation, and otherwise think this is redundant with the part you mention in that comment. However, the prohibition of IPs from voting probably doesn't belong in this policy.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:40, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral I have same opinion seven manguard. But, I'm not sure to sup or oppose--DangSunM (talk) 19:17, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Weak oppose as it should be common sense. IPs are a de facto alternate account and should fall under illegitimate uses of a second account as already specified. Just specify IPs count towards alternate accounts. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 06:15, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral We shouldn't make this necessary (not everyone's IP address changes often, and if they change, it might not be far different from the former), though it might be useful in special cases (where a user's IP changes often and greatly, and this would only be useful in some cases). Also, as for voting, I don't think we should disallow anonymous votes if they have good reasoning that haven't been mentioned before to back it.  Hazard-SJ  ✈  01:50, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Per Moe, common sense and covered elsewhere. Ajraddatz (Talk)
  •  Oppose – I've seen anons treated poorly on other projects. An anon's opinion should be considered. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 22:58, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dunno what this has to do with sock puppets. We cannot forbid unregistered edits, anyway. For the rest; WD:UCS Vogone talk 20:25, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

...on Addendum 3 edit

...on Addendum 4 edit

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Requests_for_comment/Sockpuppetry_guidelines&oldid=598957596"