GuildWiki talk:Sock puppetry/Archive

Where do we go from here?
Ok, in the aftermath of this soap opera. Where do we want to go with this? I have a few questions that I think we should answer. I have not thought about this since yesterday. So, I am going to ask these questions now, and then perhaps later, some of them will not seem as important. I would appreciate rational thought and logical discourse. Posts telling us Stabber is the devil and should be banned for life do not help the dicussion. So, let's try and think through this objectively. --Karlos 21:00, 18 June 2006 (CDT)
 * 1) Do we CARE about sockpuppetry? i.e. Do we want to know if a user has sockpuppet accounts?
 * 2) What is our stand on sockpuppetry? i.e. is it a punishable offense or is it just something to mark down to fight fraud?
 * 3) How do we discover sockpuppetry? It's obviously discoverable given a long enough stalking and paying attention to details. Are we going to start stalking each other? Stalking people who support each other in arguments? Is there a "sane" way to do this?
 * 4) Do we want to do anything about Stabber?


 * In my opinion, yes. Using sockpuppets is not contributing in good faith. WP:SOCK should be adopted here.
 * It should be punishable if provable, and provably used to sway consensus in discussions and votes. Again, I think the remedies in WP:SOCK are worth examining.
 * Install the CheckUser extension (link to source code is towards the end). Gravewit can then effortlessly determine which users have used what IPs, and also all users a given IP has used. Note: I do not recommend giving CheckUser access to anyone but those who already have access to the server logs, viz. Gravewit and Nunix.
 * Only if he/she returns. I would recommend a permanent ban placed on his/her confirmed sockpuppets, but leave one identity alone.
 * These are just my opinions. If you don't like them, I have others... Arrowsmith 21:19, 18 June 2006 (CDT)


 * My thoughts:
 * The major issues of sockpupptry are causing drama and affecting votes. I think looking for sockpuppets, hunting them down, and squash them cause far more drama than its worth.  By completely scrapping the voting idea, we'll overall be better off with not caring about who is a sockpuppet of who.
 * I'm not overly concerned with DK's last words "I wish this wiki the worse". I consider it immature hotheaded remarks as a strong rebound reaction to a (conceived) overly heavyhanded action.  The only "vandalism" that follows from that was a bitter edit on Community expectations regarding admin powers.  While it doesn't hurt to be careful, being overly concerned over it will simply cause unnecessary paranoia/drama.
 * For anything that is deemed "administrative edits", mark it clearly (adn mark it in the actual page, not just in the edit summary). Do not assume because you have teh status of an admin, adn you issued an order, that other users will preceive it as an administrative edit.  It turned out I was actually wrong when I said something that implied none of my edits were "administrative edits".  The one "administrative edit" I made was with respect to either a delete or ban request that I removed but got slapped back.  In order to avoid a revert war on that, I "subst:" the delete/ban template, then manually edit the contents to say there was a request that was rejected by the admin PanSola for reasons blah blah blah.  That was the type of edit that only an admin can make, and should not be reverted.  -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 22:00, 18 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I've been trying to stay out of this because I'm disgusted with how most of this stuff has panned out, but I feel the need to comment here:
 * Since we have votes and a voting population of about 10-20, sock puppets are a big deal. Stabber, for example, seemed to use sockpuppets to do controversial things without getting flack for it, which is also a big deal. Sockpuppets do nothing to enhance anonymity and a lot to undermine Guildwiki's creative process.
 * As a result of the above, sock puppets should be purged mercilessly. Their puppeteers should, at the very least, receive a strong reprimand. Doing something bad with a sock puppet should be considered a greater offense than just doing something bad, as the puppetry indicates that you know you're doing something wrong and that you want to hide it.
 * Other people's suggested technical solutions could work. While I generally don't want Guildwiki to be Wikipedia or to copy most of its policies, definitely look at how they do it. If we opt to add some kind of IP logger, only the site owners and maybe one particularly trusted active admin should have access to it.
 * I think neither Stabber (clarification added later: or whoever the hell DK is... I don't know anymore, and I don't really want to) nor FG have the capacity to meaningfully contribute to the wiki anymore. Both have done much to damage the community. This isn't about exiling people we don't like, however. Thus, as stated above, all sock puppets should be burned with fire; FG definitely deserves a reprimand for how he carried out his crusade, but I don't think it quite approaches the level of a permanently bannable offense; I have no strong feelings about whether Stabber should or shouldn't be perma-banned.
 * &mdash; 130.58 (talk) ( 22:21, 18 June 2006 (CDT) ), ammended 00:38, 19 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I feel that I should post here as it seems that I'm the person who "discovered" this issue (not the first person to raise it, just the first to post proof of it). I dislike people who use multiple accounts with the intent to deceive.  The very first online game I played had a very simple rule, multiple accounts were not allowed unless sanctioned by the "Wizards" (essentially the admins in charge of the coding/monitoring of the MUD).  This may be part of where my distaste for this comes from, the rest is probably just part of basic human nature in that we don't like to be fooled.
 * I think we should define specifically what we consider to be "Sockpuppetry" and what is to be done about it. I'd imagine something like the following:
 * If you create another account because of a technical problem with your current account (like the CSS stylesheet issue that affected PanSola and 161.88.x.x a while back) and are sufficently upfront about it (PanSola's new account was SolaPan and 161.88.x.x's was I am 161.88) then there is no problem. If/When the account problem is cleared up, one account should be chosen and the other abandoned.
 * If at some point you come clean about having used multiple accounts, before you are discovered, then temporary blocks should be done. The length of the block should depend on the severity of what was done with the accounts.  We should create clear  guidelines for block times in these situations and they should be followed. (note: if this is implemented retroactively, it may affect Tetris L/Fisherman's Friend)
 * If someone else discovers and submits proof that you have been using multiple accounts and rules 1 and 2 don't apply, you should be blocked for a long term/permanent basis. Again, I think we should create clear guidelines for this.
 * I also agree that TOR IPs should probably be blocked as there is a considerable possiblity for abuse. Those are my thoughts on the matter.  Some/many people may disagree with me.  --Rainith 00:16, 19 June 2006 (CDT)
 * There should be no issue with #1, any more than there is an issue with putting "IP X is my account" on you user page. I also think that any form of maintaining multiple accounts openly should be okay: Karlos talked about "hats", for example, and I wouldn't have a problem with an admin making separate "as user" and "as admin" accounts to separate his personal opinions from his administrivial edits, if that was what he wanted to do. As long as you link all your accounts together prominently on their respective user pages, really, there should be no problem with mulptiple accounts, regardless of why you made them. &mdash; 130.58 (talk) ( 00:25, 19 June 2006 (CDT) )


 * 1. Yes, sockpuppetry implies you have a second account for nefarious purposes such as starting arguments with yourself for some good ol' drama, vote rigging, doing something 'naughty' but not have your 'main' account banned, et al. However, linking your accounts together specifically so you can be traced should be acceptable, there are a number of good reasons to have a second account, so long that it is traceable back to your 'main' account.


 * 2. Punishable by flogging. Sadly with no ability to do such actions, some passe bans will have to do, preferably on the 'main' account. Banning the sockpuppet is largely meaningless, as someone who is using them is simply going to make another.


 * 3. Ugh. Witchhunts are never fun and simply cause hysteria amongst the population. For the time being it seems like we have just one prolific sockpuppet user, lets deal with that issue before grabbing the pitchforks and setting forth to burn the heathen.


 * 4. Ahh Stabber, our little drama queen/king. His/her dubious gender aside, pretty much all the recent drama has come about through some sort of interaction with him/her, be it a revert war, the recent witchhunt, or simple rumourmongering. This is not entirely his/her fault, but he/she has been caught in a number of lies and has a history of childish 'well I'm taking my toys and going home' actions. I'm not sure punishment is the best approach to be honest, if he/she wants to continue to contribute it must be under the knowledge that sockpuppetry and suchlike will not be tollerated. Ok he/she has done a good lot of work for the wiki, but the ridiculous drama which seems to follow him/her like the plague is just getting too much.


 * As an aside, I'm concerned with the 'White Knight' effect that has caught a few people. By this I mean they see a 'girl' on the internet, and immediately feel honourbound to leap to her defense regardless of anything else, through some misplaced sense of duty. Sure I'll open doors for women, allow them to sit down before I do, and so forth, but on the internet where everyone is a balding fat man in his 40s until proven otherwise, simply stating 'btw, I'm a girl' can get you preferrential treatment regardless of any actual proof. I've seen this a number of times in the recent past, and on a number of messageboards, games and so on. Please, for the sake of actual productive interactions, don't try and jump in the pants of everyone who claims to be female or feel honourbound to defend them :( GregPalo 05:31, 19 June 2006 (CDT)

Warning: Stabber appears to have responded in User talk:Stabber. In my opinion, his/her rebuttal is not convincing. Others may feel differently. I still propose permanent bans on his/her confirmed sockpuppets, viz. User:Deldda Kcarc and User:Koyashi. Arrowsmith 00:58, 19 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Yes. Socketpuppetry (if done hidden) breaks good faith and conjures up a huge host of problems: Voting, community consensus, revert/delete rules, appropriate credit/blame for actions. Especially I do not believe that we can stop having votes. In the end each form of decision making is a vote, unless it is done autocratically by one leader (not workable here since Gravewit is not participating in day-to-day issues, and neither my preferece) or by unanimity (which leads to extremely long discussion and worse, might not be achievable). Lets say I and some other user argue that socketpuppets should be banned, while 10 people say they dont care. Even though this is not a vote, I would back down and we would have established a new policy. Now if those 10 people where actually 1 person, they would have influenced the wiki, even though there was no vote and regardless of how good their arguments were.
 * If someone OPENLY (by adding a note to each userpage) uses multiple accounts, nothing should be done, since there are legitimate reasons to have more then one account. Multiple accounts without such a note should be a bannable offense.
 * Note1: Ban on both accounts
 * Note2: The length of the ban should be handled by the admins
 * Note3: This punishment should not be used retroactively, since we had no clear policy on this before
 * Imho, there is not really a sane way, except by chance. But sooner or later the puppetmaster will trip up and someone will notice. I would not recommend actively searching for socketpuppets (but of course noone can stop users from doing so).
 * As I said in 3., no. Punishments should not be used retroactively. However I feel Stabber will have a hard time to be a normal contributer here after all the drama. --Xeeron 05:55, 19 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Seems all the good points have been said. I will second the complete and total block of TOR and any other anonymous internet communication systems. No current user or potential user should feel the need to "hide" while contributing. --Gares Redstorm 12:57, 19 June 2006 (CDT)

Call for votes (veterans only)
No article exists here yet (though see User:Arrowsmith/Sock puppetry), but that shouldn't stop us from having a vote on what to do about sock puppetry. Enough discussion has happened in GuildWiki talk:Community Portal, so it is time to coalesce the various opinions into policy. Please cast your votes in the abstract, with no reference to the specifics of the recent war on the wiki.

Note: this vote is only open to verified and long-standing contributors to the wiki, to minimize the chances of it itself being swayed by sockpuppets. You may only vote here if you have had over 500 edits in your account name or have had your first registered edit over 100 days before. Furthermore, you may not vote here if you are currently under suspicion of sockpuppetry. (Interestingly, this disqualifies me, the writer of this call for votes, from voting.)

Item 1: Should covert sock puppetry be tolerated?

 * Covert sock puppetry : when one editor uses two or more account names to edit the wiki without clearly stating the link between the two accounts.

Assume, for the purposes of this item, that the sock puppetry, although covert, is not malicious. This means that the multiple accounts have not been used to vandalize, stage disputes, or sway consensus or votes.

Yes, benign sock puppetry is harmless. No, there is never a good reason for covert sock puppetry
 * 1)  As long as the accounts are not used maliciously --KittySoft 01:01, 20 June 2006 (CDT).
 * 2) I agree &mdash;Shady Guy  [[Image:Sigm@Oo.gif|19px]] 14:54, 21 June 2007 (CDT)
 * 1) --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]]  I think that another user name should only be used with a good reason, (eg. a guildwiki bug) and there is no need to hide the use of a new user name in any case. Even when it really doesn't matter, having a note/redirect on the user pages in question is necessary for the other contributors.
 * 2) I am, however, fine with openly-linked accounts. &mdash; 130.58 (talk) ( 16:57, 19 June 2006 (CDT) )
 * 3) It is fine to use more than one account and state it openly, but there is no reason to do it covertly. --Xeeron 07:45, 20 June 2006 (CDT)
 * 4) There should be a way to tell users to mark their alternate accounts as related. That's important for wiki-newbies like myself. ~ Nilles (chat) 05:58, 24 June 2006 (CDT)

Item 2: Discovery of sock puppets
The nature of a wiki makes it very hard to detect sock puppets. There are easy ways of changing one's IPs through open proxies on the Internet. IP-based checks can never disprove sock puppetry, but can often be used to confirm or give a strong indication for suspected sock puppetry.

I have proposed that Help:CheckUser be installed on the GuildWiki. This extension allows querying the recent changes table in the database to find out
 * Which IPs were used by an account name.
 * Which account names were used by an IP.

There are several opinions to be had on this proposal; vote support or oppose for all relevant points.

Add this extension to the GuildWiki.
 * 1) Support --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]]  (This will make some people happy)
 * 2) &mdash; 130.58 (talk) ( 16:57, 19 June 2006 (CDT) )
 * 3) Why not? --KittySoft 01:01, 20 June 2006 (CDT)
 * 4) Oppose, IP checking is reletively worthless to determining if a user is a sockpuppet or just accessing guildwiki from a dynamic IP range or library/friends PC. Puppetmasters will usually slip up in talk pages etc. --Draygo Korvan 09:20, 20 June 2006 (CDT)
 * 5) Support. ~ Nilles (chat) 05:58, 24 June 2006 (CDT)

Allow anyone to request a CheckUser for suspected sock puppets.
 * 1) Support, but not without good reasons --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]]
 * 2) Support, see above. --KittySoft 01:01, 20 June 2006 (CDT)

Allow only sysops to request a CheckUser for suspected sock puppets.
 * 1) Support, but not without reasons --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]]
 * 2) Sysops not currently directly involved in a dispute with said user, ideally. &mdash; 130.58 (talk) ( 16:57, 19 June 2006 (CDT) )
 * 3) Support ~ Nilles (chat) 05:58, 24 June 2006 (CDT)

Allow all sysops to perform a CheckUser themselves.
 * 1) Oppose --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]]
 * 2) I would be okay with adding a designated CheckUser admin in addition to the site owners, but it should not be a perk of sysop-hood by default. &mdash; 130.58 (talk) ( 16:57, 19 June 2006 (CDT) )

Other:
 * 1) I believe that only an overwhelming amount of evidence (including, but not limited to IP checks) is sufficient to base any anti-socketpuppet action on. For the vote above, I agree with 130.58. --Xeeron 07:45, 20 June 2006 (CDT)

Item 3: Should malicious sock puppets be blocked?
If an account is found to have a sock puppet in violation of the policy on multiple accounts, what should be the remedy. Assume for the purposes of this item that the sock puppets have been used to stage fights or sway consensus, but, save for the fact that they are controlled by one master, they have not otherwise violated the policies of the GuildWiki.

This list of possibilities is not complete, so feel free to add others and vote for all choices you approve of.

Only warning -- no bans
 * 1) (your vote here)

Block the sockpuppets but leave the "puppetmaster" account untouched Block both master and puppet accounts
 * 1) --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]]
 * 2) --Draygo Korvan 09:21, 20 June 2006 (CDT)
 * 1) &mdash; 130.58 (talk) ( 16:57, 19 June 2006 (CDT) )
 * 2) --KittySoft 01:01, 20 June 2006 (CDT)
 * 3) Xeeron 07:45, 20 June 2006 (CDT)
 * 4) Who guarantees that the master won't create other accounts in the same fashion? ~ Nilles (chat) 05:58, 24 June 2006 (CDT)

Item 4: Rigor of the penalties
Assuming the consensus is that some blocks have to be used for sock puppets, the question then is how sever to make the blocks. This list is not complete. Feel free to add your own suggestions.

Temporary block: 1 month
 * 1) Purge sock puppets with fire, ban puppetmasters for a short period of time, and magnify any penalties for actions done via puppets (i.e. vandalism with puppets should be more punishable than vandalising the regular way). &mdash; 130.58 (talk) ( 16:57, 19 June 2006 (CDT) )

Temporary block: 6 months
 * 1) (your vote here)

Temporary block: 1 year
 * 1) (your vote here)

Permanent block
 * 1) --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]]  If we are blocking a user name for being a sockpuppet, what reason would there not to put a permanent ban. The situation doesn't change in 6 months, the user name is still a sockpuppet, it can't turn into a real contributor in some magical way.
 * 2) What Gem said above. --KittySoft 01:01, 20 June 2006 (CDT)
 * 3) ~ Nilles (chat) 05:58, 24 June 2006 (CDT)

Other:
 * 1) Socketpuppet account forever, main account at discretion of admins and in line with the graveness of things done while using 2 accounts. --Xeeron 07:45, 20 June 2006 (CDT)

Hello there
I think it would make sense if, instead of simply banning for sock puppetry, someone would have to carry out harmful actions in order to be banned. This would include:


 * Swaying votes
 * Garnering false support
 * Harassment from multiple accounts

I'm sure there are more that you can think of.

I will be voting on the various points, but I just wanted to make my stance clear, because I feel that at present the points are a little too black and white.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 12:42, 20 June 2006 (CDT)

Closing this
Nothing new here for ages. Unless someone objects I'll close this vote and count the issue as unresolved. --Xeeron 10:06, 15 September 2006 (CDT)

non-vote comments
i'm borderline, with 453 edits over the last 96 days, so i won't vote here. however, i will register a comment. --Honorable Sarah 16:48, 19 June 2006 (CDT)
 * 1) i don't see a problem with a person maintaining two accounts. it's idealologically wrong, and outside the spirit of the wiki, but as long as they are not pretending to be two people, or otherwise causing harm, that's fine.
 * 2) the posibilities of benign collisions are ludicris, how many people use AOL on this wiki? this should be sugguestive, but not definitive proof, of puppetry. further evidence is required.
 * 3) & 4. if anyone is found to be using a second account for malicous intent, perm-ban on the puppet account (or accounts?) for first offence, perm ban all accounts on second offence


 * I agree with Sarah's assessment of 2. Without even a proposal of the process on how to resolve an accusation of sockpuppetry, I refuse to support punishment of any kind directed at sockpuppetry.  IP check is unsufficient. -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 10:59, 20 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Then join me in opposing #2. --Draygo Korvan 11:03, 20 June 2006 (CDT)

My Pledge of Alligence
I, , pledge the following:
 * 1) I will never ever permit another person to use my computer to edit GuildWiki.  This will distort the IP trail and make some people think that I'm undeniably the other person.
 * 2) I will never ever use another person's computer to edit GuildWiki.  Even if that other person doesn't play GuildWars or know anything about GuildWiki, that person may have other friends who do, and borrow that person's computer to log into GuildWiki.
 * 3) I will never ever use a publicly accessable computer to edit GuildWiki.
 * 4) I wlll never ever edit GuildWiki while on a dynamic IP.  Other contributors might be using the same ISP and even live in my neighborhood and we might end up using the same IP at different times.
 * 5) I will never ever edit GuildWiki from a university dorm internet connection.  Next year a super immagure kid might move in to the room I live in, and happens to be contribute to GuildWiki.
 * 6) I will never ever change my internet service provider.  Such a change may let another GuildWiki contributor gain access to my old IP, or have my new IP become that of another GuildWiki contributor.

This pledge should take effect once sockpuppetry is decided as being disallowed, at which time I'll temporarily disappear from the edit scene until I have a static IP to edit from.

-Signed  &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by PanSola (talk • contribs).


 * I don't think that anyone will be accused of sockpuppetry for 2 users using the same IP. This is sarcasm, I hope. If your serious PanSola, tell me and I'll do anything to make sockpuppetry legal. :D --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] 17:23, 19 June 2006 (CDT)
 * It is indeed sarcasm, but it reflects a genuine concern. Someone has stated that "If it is found that User:Stabber and User:F G, who are completely antagonistic personas, have used the same IPs to access the wiki, then it is a clear indication of sockpuppetry. It's not proof that will fly in a courtroom, but we don't require such exacting standards", and if the rest of the community decides to accept this as a standard, that will deeply worry me.  This is especially considering under item 2, "Discovery of Sockpuppets", the only method being proposed IS through IP check.   -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 17:27, 19 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I still don't think that any IP checks will be asked for users unless they seem to act like sockpuppets. And that's not going to happen often. Isn't this the first time ever that something like this happened? --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] 04:27, 20 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Well, I don't even think there are people who seemed to act like sockpuppets in recent scenarios... -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 04:31, 20 June 2006 (CDT)


 * That's why no one did anything before. Then we got F G who started to stalk. This is further proof that F G could be Stabber. No one could have noticed all those users and minor things linking them to Stabber. I think I'll provide proof of me having sockpuppets on User:Gem/Trash. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] 04:35, 20 June 2006 (CDT)


 * You can't prove A could be B. You either prove A IS B, or you have evidence suggesting A could be B. -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 10:55, 20 June 2006 (CDT)


 * It's a lot of crap really. You can't prove very much using IPs really. I am opposed to those people who say that we don't require conclusive proof.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 12:49, 20 June 2006 (CDT)


 * That sentence is making my scientific soul cry. Not only is it very possible to prove that A could be B (by proving it is not impossible that A is B), most scientic work (math apart) works exactly that way. You can never prove a theory, you can only prove that a theory is false. Therefore theories are never proven. They merely stick around without ever being disproven while the evidence mounts that they could indeed be true. --Xeeron 16:06, 20 June 2006 (CDT)


 * ip comparations are only sugguestive of a sockpuppet. i don't know of any test that is conclusive of a sockpuppet. not even compairing the password hashes from the user list is a complete assurance of sockpuppet accounts. perhaps login/logout records when compaired to ip checks, but even that is not "beyond a shadow of a doubt". all evidence so far considered is simply sugguestive. --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 14:01, 20 June 2006 (CDT)
 * You need alot more than simply suggestive evidence that a user is a sockpuppet if you are going to talk about perm bans. IP wouldnt be the best way to discover a sockpuppet, it still doesnt even begin to address issues of two different people sharing the same static IP (brothers for instance). Much more significant evidence is the puppetmaster when refering to the other account by saying I. Like I changed x 2 days ago on the actual article when s/he really did it with the sockpuppet account. --Draygo Korvan 14:07, 20 June 2006 (CDT)

I think this debate is looking at the wrong question. The question isn't whether A is or isn't a puppet of B. The question is what to do about the activities of A and B that are strongly indicative of puppetry with malice. I think we can look to Wikipedia for a clue here. They say that they are not an experiment in democracy. GuildWiki shouldn't be a grand expriment in democracy either. It is a game documentation project. If two people are being disruptive to the project&mdash;and puppetry with malice (or what appears to be it) is ipso facto disruptive&mdash;they should both be blocked. It doesn't have to be proven beyond reasonable doubt– we are not a court of law and a strong suspicion should be good enough. They can always return under different name(s) and have a chance at redemption. Or simply leave never to return. When it comes to disruptive behaviour, losing the disrupters is not a loss to the project. Consider this comment an amicus curiae filing, as I don't have a dog in the fight. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 149.9.0.21 (talk • contribs) 14:30, 20 June 2006 (CDT).


 * well, anon has a point. sockpuppetry is not distruptive on it's own, but once any user becomes distruptive, a ban is in order. --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 15:03, 20 June 2006 (CDT)
 * And thus, sockpuppetry is a rather moot point. - Greven 15:27, 20 June 2006 (CDT)
 * But alas, I am the secret sock puppet of PanSola! <-- If this were true, would I be banned, and if so, why? --roofle 11:27, 14 August 2006 (CDT)


 * I wouldn't ban you. There is no sock puppetry policy.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 11:49, 14 August 2006 (CDT)

Long Diatribe
I think PanSola's Pledge is in jest, and I think the implication of it is that he is trying to say there is no way to absolutely know that this guy is that guy. I mean even if you pin the two guys to the same machine in the same house, they can always claim to be roommates.

This, however, IS the wrong discussion. And I think it's distracting from the right discussion too. We do not want to know "beyond a reasonable doubt" that X IS a sockpuppet of Y. Look at Kiyoshi vs stabber or Stabber vs Deldda. I don't care if in real life Deldda gave his account to his buddy Esan who then gave it to his chum Stabber. What I want to know is, has this been used to dodge consquences.

I will use Stabber's case as an example: It's very suspicious and a very shady way of operating. If you couple it with the history of the three IDs (Stabber, Deldda and the anonymous IP of Stabber) they combine to show VERY shady things. Here, take a look: This constitutes enough evidence to me, that Stabber and Deldda are the same user or that Stabber is not being upfront about what exactly is her connection with this Deldda person. Even after conceding in her last comments that he MIGHT be someone she knows. Does anyone here believe that it's by sheer coincidence that she came on as soon as he left (for good) and he came on as soon as she left (for good)?
 * Deldda shows in in mid November, contributes very decisively, gets mad, leaves: watch the history here
 * Stabber arrives 5 days after Deldda leaves: watch the first entry here
 * The anonymous IP used by Stabber on numerous occassions is used earlier by Deldda (calling himself Deldda) in this conversation this was in January, long after Stabber joined. Who says in her defense that she did not know Deldda existed. So, Deldda uses the IP of her department, and comments on the build and she does not know he is in the wiki? Even though he signed his anonymous comment as "Deldda Kcarc"?

It is within our power (and wise, in my opinion) to protect the wiki from such disruptive behavior. It does not have to be a legal crime to be opposed by our rules. When the NBA bans players for entering the stands, there is no law in the US that says a player can't enter the stands, nor is there any reason to assume that a player will only do "malice" if they enter the stands. However, the NBA heavily penalizes it, because it can open up a whole can of worms.

Wikipedia's summary of their policy is dead on: Do not use multiple accounts to create the illusion of greater support for an issue, to mislead others, or to circumvent a block; nor ask your friends to create accounts to support you or anyone. Mislead others here being very key. Stabber logging in as Stabber after Deldda left with a storm, allows Stabber to lose that legacy of previous work. Now when she has a tantrum for the first time, people are "It's ok, we all have a rough day." Instead of "Oh, there goes Deldda again." This is deception. It can alter an admin's view of a certain action and how punchable it is.

I do not think it is accpetable for a user play such games with us. Especially if one of the characters proceeds to: We should close the oulets (TOR and what not), and then set a policy that handles the issue on multiple levels. I think it's better if the whole "Judge and jury" role is left to admins. If fear of admin abuse is present, we can make it a committee of admins (i.e. 2 of 3 admins should decide that the evidence presented is enough). I think we can look at a combination of things in this debate as good metrics. i.e.: Overall, I think we should adopt Wikpedia's policy, It's very informative and instructive. I also think Arrowsmith is a sockpuppet himself. :) --Karlos 17:59, 20 June 2006 (CDT)
 * 1) Dodge bans and openly challenge an admin, like any 14 year old vandal would (no offense Skuld).
 * 2) Vandalize pages with cynical comments about the wiki's policy.
 * 3) Escape consequences of actions and words (even if it's not punishment). i.e. Get on and act like a jerk, tell people off with one personality, then get on with another personality, act like a weak hapless duckling.
 * When was this user on and when was that user on?
 * Did this user seem to post as that user by mistak?
 * IP trail
 * Posting style, editing style
 * IGNs


 * Sorry, Karlos, your evidence is not convincing to me. I don't know what I'm supposed to be looking at in the user page histories. To repeat points several people have made, going by IPs is risky, especially in a university setting. If what Stabber claims about it being a proxy is true, then there is considerable room for doubt that they are the same person. Assuming they are different people (and I'm not saying they are), why is it imperative for one to have noticed the other? You are implicitly assuming that Stabber monitors every edit in the wiki, when, from her contributions around that time, I see that she wasn't even here in January (again, assuming by AGF, that they are separate people). Between 4 Dec and 17 Feb, there are no contributions by her. By the way, you might be interested in this edit by Deldda Kcarc made at a time when Stabber was very much active here (see), in fact in the middle of some kind of mini crusade following a game update. If the argument is they are the same person using the same IP and presumably the same computer, then why would modifying the user script on one identity matter for the other account? There weren't even any votes or consensus building in progress at that time that Stabber participated in. What was there to deceive? Here's how I read it: Deldda was planning a return to the wiki then, and the first thing he did was to turn off the ads. Seems plausible. I hates them ads too.


 * One more thing I should point out. There is an inconsistency in the accusation itself. Which is it?
 * Stabber and Deldda Kcarc each show up when the other isn't here (ie. no collusion)
 * OR
 * Stabber and Deldda Kcarc are here at the same time (ie. possible collusion)
 * They can't both be true simultaneously.


 * Lastly, on the matter of deception. I find it curious that both of Deldda's flameouts were wars with you. Stabber's last flameout was also a war with you. If I think back to the big wars on the wiki, they have nearly all involved you in some way (Tetris/Karlos, Rezyk/Karlos, Nunix and Gravewit/Karlos, nearly veryone/Karlos and so on). Heck, you have used the same device that you accuse Stabber of overusing: leaving the wiki in a huff in one case, threatening to leave in others, Now that you have entered this debate (you should have recused yourself), I am forced to comment that I find your actions on Deldda's user page apalling (you should resign). At the time you were drunk on your own power, you were definitely not aware or suspicious that these two users were the same person. You are using the accusation of sock puppetry to retroactively justify your bad behavior with Deldda. Side remark, I find Gem's comment on Deldda's talk page odd also. He goes in and accuses Deldda of appearing stupid. What the hell was that all about?


 * Now let me ask: what precise deception have Stabber and Deldda Kcarc together engineered on this wiki? Where have they colluded to give the impression of greater support than truly present? Where have they staged debates? Deldda's bitter edit to the community expectations page was unwise, but I can't really find fault with it. You were actually doing precisely what he said, asserting editorial control on another user's pages. You have yet to prove how Deldda's request to keep it off his talk page counts as damaging to the wiki. I personally don't see it. We have a long precedent here that users may do whatever they want in their talk pages. The Stabber/F G arbitration was entirely predicated on the premise that a user has the power to do essentially anything legal to his user space.


 * Now I know what you'll say. You'll say "who are you to come in here and write this?" I'll give you the answer you want to hear: another of Stabber's sockpuppets. How easy it is to simply brush anyone off now by accusing them of being sock puppets! It has no resemblance to the truth, but you of course will know better, with your years of experience in that chat forum where you had to suffer the cruelty of another sock puppet user.


 * I am still split on whether Stabber/Deldda Kcarc are the same or not (her story strains plausibility), and if Stabber has truly left it's all moot, but what I worry about is the wiki has collectively done an injustice to someone. Thanks for reading. 149.9.0.21 19:04, 20 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Hmmm, another mysterious stranger who's been around since the beginning and knows everyone but no one knows him. Fine, I'll get down to the details:
 * My point is that one gets active when the other slows down, not that they were never editing pages at the same time. When Deldda was active, Stabber was not there, he storms out, she comes in and starts editing left and right, she storms out, he pops back in, then vanishes, she's back in February, working hard, he's gone. She leaves in June, he's back in business. It's very blatant.
 * My point about him making edits in her presence is to counter her claim she did not know that there was a Deldda account in the wiki. The two claims aere not contradictory, I never said one dos not seem to be on when the other is on.
 * Your jabs about me and my "troubled history" in the wiki are a different topic. There exists a thread on the Community Portal talk page about my demotion, you can go there and add your issues. I have never actively sought this position, I have tried my best to do it, I have stunk up at times and done pretty well at others. I'll not turn this thread about me, because it is not. I have discussed my actions in that incident in other threads too, so I will not re-open it here.
 * As for what was wrong with the deception, well, that's what making policy is for. Is the deception itself a crime, is escaping penalties the crime? Is duping votes? --Karlos 00:49, 21 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Heh. I could have predicted your response down to the last letter. I am not setting foot in that demotion thread. I am well aware of the futility of locking horns with Karlos in this wiki. It is the primary reason I gave up my identity to become a faceless anon. When it comes to any debates here, it's Karlos's way or the highway, and I pick the highway. I see the latest news is that Stabber is leaving the game itself. Can't really fault her. The game is in just as sorry a state as this wiki. Every town I've been in in the last month has been all but deserted. Good luck forming groups in any missions except The Deep (which has become Cantha's farming central). PvP is now beyond pathetic. I haven't had a single HA match worth remembering in months. This game is now a lost cause, and so is this wiki. Enjoy your time in the big chair, you're still a sad little king of a sad little hill. 149.9.0.21 01:44, 23 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Karlos is heavyhanded at times, and argues strongly for things when he has taken a side, but he by no means insists on getting his way. -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 03:47, 23 June 2006 (CDT)

Observations
GuildWiki is the first time I've ever been on a wiki as a contributor (except for a brief thing using Confluence). I'm relatively new to the game and the wiki (2 months I think) and I didn't even know about this "war" going on until i saw Stabber's user page (I was checking out everyone's user page to.. uh... get "inspiration" for mine :P). As someone who only recently found out what sockpuppeting means, I, out of curiosity, followed quite a bit of the arguments. I got the impression that a few people took things a bit too seriously and became really harsh with their actions and statements. Since I'm not eligible for voting, I'll just put my 2 cents worth here. I fail to see the harm in sockpuppeting unless it was for misleading the community; which in effect sort of means I don't see what this Stabber and this Delda did wrong to warrant all the hostility, since GuildWiki doesn't have any rules saying you can't have multiple accounts (at least not that I'm aware of...). But since this policy is put up to vote, I'll be standing on the side where multiple accounts are disallowed and, when discovered, all accounts to be banned permanently (probably no one cares what I think...). It's just cleaner and simpler than all the future suspicions and mistrust that warnings would surely cause. Ab.Er.Rant 03:03, 21 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Just so you know the history of this war: It is not really easy to say if the users accused of sockpuppetry have done anything wrong. This is a conflict of people with different opinnions (some might be sockpuppets too :D ). Stabber was held as a great contributor by everyone excpet User:F G in the previous fight, but this time most people seem to think that Stabber has caused more harm than good. Karlos is also getting a lot of dirt thrown at him because he has very strong opinnions which often are not the same as the opinnions of other people. Therefor he often gets into fights, which then later are used against him by people like the anonymous poster above. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] 14:11, 21 June 2006 (CDT)

On a side note
I followed the whole issue quietly without commenting so far, since I have not yet formed an opinion. What I wanted to say is that the vote is actually lacking a closing date. Hey, Sarah is eligible as of tomorrow, right? Not that I object, but the longer this discussion lasts, the more people will be allowed to vote... --Nilles 18:36, 21 June 2006 (CDT)
 * The whole 500/100 edits/time in days thing seems a little flawed to me, I mean it's hard to say who are our regular, respected contributors. What of the person who created a GuildWiki account ages ago and basically uses it to keep track of the thing they've unlocked, ie they make scores of edits but only to their user page. I mean this isn't a problem (provided they mark minor edits accordingly) but are they really the most qualified to comment of major policy? Perhaps everyone with a registered account should be able to vote, or anybody anon or not. I'm just throwing it out there, the 500/100 system may be as good as any. --Xasxas256 21:02, 23 June 2006 (CDT)
 * I can see why the system is in place. Would a contributor of the kind you mentioned even be interested in this discussion, let a alone notice it? I'm not sure. Even though I'm online regularily, I still miss a lot of what's going on. ~ Nilles (chat) 05:58, 24 June 2006 (CDT)

how is the revolving door effect indicative of sockpuppetry?
It is of my opinion that any sockpuppeteer of minimal wit would try to make sure the puppet and the master are on the wiki at the same time. It is naturally more suspicious when Superman walks out and Clark Kent walks in, as opposed to seeing Superman saving the city while Clark Kent is being lectured by his boss. -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 21:00, 20 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Also, for the record, I have an account acquired from someone else, and there is a ranger by the name of Pukis something something (can't remember the second part). I am not familiar with the person I acquired the account from, and it is very possible that the individual may create an account using that character name in the future (or perhaps already did).  Because I do not have a ranger character on my main account, if I ever need a picture of ranger stuff (quest or armor), I might use that Pukis character to take screen shots and post them on GuildWiki.  I did not invent this story just now to create a parallelism with the Stabber / KD situation.  You can check the edit of my user page on November 20th and see it. -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 21:06, 20 June 2006 (CDT)


 * If you have the character listed on your user page (and I advise you to keep ti there), then you have nothing to hide. Then if user Pukis comes by one day, you (and others) will notice this and address the issue. However, if use Pukis registers one day, lurks around and does nothing. Then when you leave the wiki because of problems with other users, user Pukis starts contributing, then he vanishes after a fight, shortly after you come back with renewed vigor to contribute. Then we discover user Pukis is actually contributing from the SAME lab as you. Then yes, I would believe you are into sockpuppetry too. It's not a revolving door effect because when Stabber storms out and Deldda comes in, we don't really know that Stabber stormed out and that Deldda came in. Deldda could have been viewing pages every day, reviewing every edit. We have no idea. Like wise, when Stabber swears she will never touch the wiki again, then comes back a week later, I have not found that she has been "unaware" of what has been going on in here absence. In fact, she always seemed to coem back when an issue intriguing to her came up and she felt she had to come back ain contribute to it. That always told me she is reading the wiki, just not editing it. --Karlos 01:43, 21 June 2006 (CDT)

Interesting article on online deception
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/issue/50/22

Some here might find it highly relevant to a recently concluded local spectacle.


 * The spectacle hasn't really been concluded with no decisions made and no policies drawn. I do find it interesting that the person who posted this used a TOR node. Zzzzz. --Karlos 12:54, 25 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Pattern repeating itself, maybe? -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|||My Talk]]  04:05, 27 June 2006 (CDT)

If you have a couple hours to spare, here's another great article

Possible solution?
This may sound stupid or harsh or extreamly complicated but i was thinking. Since this wiki is "supported by Anet"(listed on the GW website), would it be possible to contact the Arenanet staff and make it possible to create an account connected to your GW account and have only these types of accounts? I know that would make us very different from a conventional wiki but it seems like a solution to me. Admins would still e able to give accounts under special sircumstances(such as pansola had). I know thats really extreme though..... --Coloneh RIP 00:18, 30 November 2006 (CST)
 * No. --Fyren 00:21, 30 November 2006 (CST)
 * How would having a wiki account linked to GW accounts resolve sock puppetry? It's not like we're only allowed one GW account each. Not to mention the security and privacy issues associated with something like that. -- Ab.Er.Rant (msg Aberrant80) 01:10, 30 November 2006 (CST)
 * I really shouldnt post things when im tired.....--Coloneh RIP[[Image:Coloneh.png]] 18:54, 30 November 2006 (CST)