An editor creates a sockpuppet account to have discussion on a hot topic. The editor does not want this discussion associated with the main account. Checkusers are run, and the two accounts are reconciled.
Here's the rub: when I do a sockpuppet investigation and develop strong suspicions (or even locate a smoking gun, which sometimes happens) the editor who violated policy often invents some specious claim to pretend his or her actions were legitimate. So sure, there are legitimate reasons to operate sockpuppets. Perhaps the noblest is to blow the whistle on sneaky abuse without becoming a target for disgruntled editors on one's main account. More often the "discussion" the editor wanted to join was an AFD where they'd already dropped by to say "keep".
******
OK, but how is that even possible. If neither the main account nor the sockpuppet are breaking policy, then a CU wouldn't reveal a correlation in the first place. (I guess it's possible if a completely different user happened to have used the same IP address, but otherwise?)
"And in general, the editing pattern of two separate people on an IP looks like the editing pattern of one editor keeping their accounts thoroughly separate, and I generally presume it to be the former case."
I disagree. Two different people will have different prose styles and different interests. As the total quantity of edits increases they become easier to distinguish. In some cases I've spotted a sockpuppet instantly, months after having investigated the sockmaster. I'll do follow up research to confirm or reject the suspicion, of course, but tigers don't change their stripes easily.
-Durova
On 14/08/07, Durova nadezhda.durova@gmail.com wrote:
"And in general, the editing pattern of two separate people on an IP looks like the editing pattern of one editor keeping their accounts thoroughly separate, and I generally presume it to be the former case."
I disagree. Two different people will have different prose styles and different interests. As the total quantity of edits increases they become easier to distinguish. In some cases I've spotted a sockpuppet instantly, months after having investigated the sockmaster.
Depends if they're being a dick (WP:SOCK is all special case examples of "don't be a dick"). If they are, they lose all claims to legitimacy.
I'll do follow up research to confirm or reject the suspicion, of course, but tigers don't change their stripes easily.
Oh yeah. That's one reason it's a bad idea in general - running multiple accounts is eyebrow-raising at the least.
That said, there are legitimate reasons to. But before doing so, one should be clueful enough not to be a dick about it. That being the real rule.
- d.
On 8/13/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
That said, there are legitimate reasons to. But before doing so, one should be clueful enough not to be a dick about it. That being the real rule.
Sockpuppeting is bad because of the importance of "consensus". An editor who is using socks to support himself in XFDs, RFAs or is using them to fabricate a consensus to preserve a preferred state of an article (turning WP:OWN into consensus) is not acting in good faith. Consensus only works if "one human, one (non)vote" is preserved.
If someone is using multiple accounts for reasons other then to fabricate a false consensus then it might be overlooked because nobody suspects sockpuppets unless they are supporting one another.
On 14/08/07, Durova nadezhda.durova@gmail.com wrote:
Two different people will have different prose styles and different interests. As the total quantity of edits increases they become easier to distinguish. In some cases I've spotted a sockpuppet instantly, months after having investigated the sockmaster.
That means that you're clever enough to spot not just the obvious, but the reasonably subtle. The ones who are really good at it are the ones you won't catch. or do you assume that nobody is that good?
On 8/13/07, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
That means that you're clever enough to spot not just the obvious, but the reasonably subtle. The ones who are really good at it are the ones you won't catch. or do you assume that nobody is that good?
We don't have to make it impossible, just difficult.
This is helped by the fact that most obsessive enough to disrupt Wikipedia to that extent are not stable, sensible individuals.
-Matt
On 8/13/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/13/07, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
That means that you're clever enough to spot not just the obvious, but the reasonably subtle. The ones who are really good at it are the ones you won't catch. or do you assume that nobody is that good?
We don't have to make it impossible, just difficult.
This is helped by the fact that most obsessive enough to disrupt Wikipedia to that extent are not stable, sensible individuals.
As with the spam problem, the far greater long term danger is the ones who have some motivation to do it in a calm and professional manner, rather than being raving loons who are self-evident on close inspection.
This is one reason to be very wary of those selling "Wikipedia Marketing" services...
Most of the ones so far are not really all that subtle. A natural selection filter will remove the dumb ones, and someone who can do it subtly will remain.
Cannot this problem be solved by simply tightening up signing up criteria as well as banning anonymous IPs altogether?
Meg
On 14/08/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/13/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/13/07, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
That means that you're clever enough to spot not just the obvious, but the reasonably subtle. The ones who are really good at it are the ones you won't catch. or do you assume that nobody is that good?
We don't have to make it impossible, just difficult.
This is helped by the fact that most obsessive enough to disrupt Wikipedia to that extent are not stable, sensible individuals.
As with the spam problem, the far greater long term danger is the ones who have some motivation to do it in a calm and professional manner, rather than being raving loons who are self-evident on close inspection.
This is one reason to be very wary of those selling "Wikipedia Marketing" services...
Most of the ones so far are not really all that subtle. A natural selection filter will remove the dumb ones, and someone who can do it subtly will remain.
-- -george william herbert george.herbert@gmail.com
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 8/14/07, Meg Ireland megireland99@gmail.com wrote:
Cannot this problem be solved by simply tightening up signing up criteria as well as banning anonymous IPs altogether?
Indeed - however, we have been historically averse to this.
In practise, we prefer vandals, spammers etc. to have anonymous IPs - it makes tracking them easier.
-Matt