GuildWiki talk:Sock puppetry

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.
 * 1)  As long as the accounts are not used maliciously --KittySoft 01:01, 20 June 2006 (CDT).

No, there is never a good reason for covert sock puppetry
 * 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)

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)

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) )

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)

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)

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)

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. - 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 &bull; 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.   - 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... - 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. - 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 &bull; 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 mute point. - Greven 15:27, 20 June 2006 (CDT)