Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry/Proposal
 | This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference. Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump. |
Sock responsibility[edit]
- if an account is indefinitely blocked, by existing blocking policy,
- and there is good reason by its behavior to suspect this account belongs to an existing user,
- then verification of the account's origin may be requested, from those few users authorized to do such checks,
- which presently means User:Tim Starling and User:David Gerard
- and note that the verifiers are not obliged to comply with the request if they deem it spurious
- and if confirmed, the existing user will be held responsible, and may be admonished or temporarily blocked depending on the severity, per existing policy on blocking and vandalism.
- in those cases where sockpuppetry cannot be confirmed beyond reasonable doubt, in the opinion of the verfifiers, the user will be considered innocent
Sock puppet theatre[edit]
Wikipedia has an ongoing problem with sockpuppets. While there are some legitimate reasons for which a user may have multiple accounts, a small number of users abuse an alternate account to anonymously disrupt Wikipedia, or to impersonate or harrass another user. A quick glance over Special:ipblocklist reveals quite a large number of them.
Usually they are spotted rather quickly and blocked by the admins, usually for vandalism or impersonation. However, this is a cure for the symptoms, and does not address the cause. A solution would be to hold users, rather than accounts, responsible for their actions. Thus a user could be admonished for disruptive actions even if they were performed from a secondary account.
Recent sockpuppets[edit]
| Anonymous disruption | |
|---|---|
| Impersonation | |
| Petty revenge | |
| Personal attacks | |
| Edit warring | |
| Ballot stuffing | |
| Strawman |
Discussion[edit]
Has been moved to the talk page. Everyone who has responded thinks it's a good idea in principle; some people think it'd make a good policy, others think it's already policy. I'd be tempted to just list it as a guideline, but I'm going to refer the matter to Tim Starling and David Gerard first. Radiant_* 11:15, May 30, 2005 (UTC)