Guild Wars Wiki talk:Sockpuppets

Other points to consider

1. Right to fade and start again.
2. People who share an IP address but are not socks, such as Yasmin and Adrin.
3. People like me who don't want a user page having to have one because of the existence of User:Miserysock.
4. Name redirect socks such as User:Wyn and User:Why.
5. How to handle existing socks, which may or may not be used any longer.

Misery 14:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

1. I am not sure whether this fits, since in that case, no 2 accounts would ever be active at the same time.
2. Obviously such cases need to be distinguished from sockpuppets. If you feel it important enough, add it to the draft. I guess my current stance is not to mention it and simply leave it to the admins enforcing the policy to decide who is a puppet and who a legitimate account using the same IP.
3. Troublemaker, lol. Would using commented out text work for you? Or we could make a Lex Misery to allow declaration somewhere else.
4. I don't see any problem with redirect socks, as these already have the link to the main page, so are declared by definition.
5. We simply give the policy, then admins can decide whether to enforce. If a sock is clearly not in use anymore, I doubt anyone would bother to hunt it down, but if someone is willing to spend the time, why not? --Xeeron 14:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Taking some views from w:WP:SOCK..

1. I like Wikipedia's clause for that of "no blocks, bans, or sanctions, nor active deception". I might make a point about trying not to do things that would associate you with a previous account.
2. It might be best to treat these situations like socks aka declaring it ahead of time.
3. It'd be preferable if both the user and the user talk redirect to the main account, but only one of them would be ok enough.
4. Ditto Xeeron
5. Admin discretion. Like, some people have declared that they have enough socks that they've forgotten the password for many of them. --JonTheMon 14:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Going back to the Miserysock example, as I feel others have been addressed sufficiently, except perhaps right to fade which just needs a minor clarification added that it is not actually socking. I'm not HUGELY opposed to making a user page for User:Miserysock, but I don't want to make a user page for User:Misery, I would rather abandon the sock than that. Considering Miserysock is only used for technical testing of socking, that would be a detriment to the wiki. More important point, I AM opposed to redirecting the sock's talk page to my talk page. Any inquiries regarding the actions of my sock should be directed to the sock, not to me. Perhaps a reword to "A list of all a user's sock accounts must be kept in an accessible place" rather than restricting it to the main user page would be more appropriate. Then I could have User:Misery/Socks, which I would be fine with and would actually be easier than finding socks and trying to back-associate them and would be much better for people like Grinch who have a gajillion and probably don't want to clutter their user page with such a list. Misery 15:46, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be way easier to make a template pretty much like {{Static IP}} to declare socks from the sock's talk page? I don't really see the need of declaring socks from one's main account user page/space, as long as there is a nice notice on the sock's page. — Why 16:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but I think a list associated with the main account is more useful than a declaration on each individual sock. Misery 16:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

That would make carrying out admin action easier, too - for example, if we needed to block a user and his sockpuppets, a central page makes it simple to know all of them. Alternatively, have a category for each main account - it would then be quick to browse via a root cat (e.g. Category:Sockpuppets → Category:Pling's sockpuppets, or just an entry in the former category leading to a central page with a list). Or is that overcomplicating things? *shrug* -- pling 16:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

So what happens if a user is caught with an undeclared sockpuppet? elix Omni 20:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Couldn't we do something like checking usage of the undeclared sockpuppet?... and see if it matches our acceptable use policy of a sock puppet. If it's a violation, ban them if not inform them that they need to declare them on their main account. --Lania Elderfire 20:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

That would require checkusering every new account that's created- unless we only do it for relatively new accounts that are being disruptive/trolly. elix Omni 20:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Yeah. It would be going on good faith for users to declare their sockpuppets in the first place. Only with enough reasonable doubt should CheckUser be considered. Basically, I can see it as one of two main situations. A) User has made an honest mistake and has no malicious edits. It's brought to their attention and is then declared. B) User is caught with an und'd sock that's used for vandalism/trolling. The main is banned. — Gares 20:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Is the ban the same as the one against the sock, or raised 1 step? --JonTheMon 20:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

So maybe something should be added to the policy about acceptable use of a sockpuppet to make a more clear guideline if someone has committed a violation or not? Right now it only lists bot accounts as a an acceptable use of a sock. --Lania Elderfire 20:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

This draft is actually pretty lenient on sockpuppets: All you need to do is declare them and not break any of the other policies of the wiki (which would also get a non-socking user into trouble) and you are fine. Maybe the example sentence needs to be reworked to make clear that botting is not the only allowed sock usage. --Xeeron 00:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Slightly off topic, but isn't it sad that you have to deal with any wiki drama in the first place? Perhaps if everybody had 0% troll in them and just came here to add information. Previously Unsigned 16:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that would be pretty sweet. elix Omni 20:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Unless we are robots that'll never happen. Since a wiki is a human community, albeit a virtual one, there will always be trolls; just like in real life :-) --Lania Elderfire 20:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

What does this fix?

This policy doesn't address "the Auron issue". Auron socked under his normal IP address, which can't be declared as a sockpuppet for the usual reasons (possibly dynamic, plus we would have to make every user declare their IP address). This raises the question of socking from IP addresses and, of course, proxy IPs.

Now, "the Wynthyst issue". If someone makes a throwaway account like that one for trolling, chances are they won't declare it. Even if it isn't throwaway, there's nothing apart from the policy to make someone declare what their main account is.

What the draft mostly does is codify how blocks are dealt concerning socks (and, rather implicitly, how checkuser should be used). Without using checkuser either on every suspected sockpuppet or every user suspected of having sockpuppets, this policy won't be very effective. The policy-abiding people will declare their sockpuppets (because they're policy-abiding and are probably using their socks without disruption, which is usually acceptable), and the non-policy-abiding people aren't likely to. There's been consensus to only use checkuser when absolutely necessary (as opposed to weak speculation or suspicion), and I think this draft unnecessarily is in disagreement with that. -- pling 23:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the aim is to give some kind of recourse against people attempting to troll anonymously by socking. If you have a better solution of how to try and force people to not do that, that would be useful. Misery 23:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't know. Is it even possible to prevent such a thing? My method would be to just block the sock, maybe block the user, depending on the severity of the contributions. I think that's what we're aiming for, but we're adding a fair amount of ... (random buzzword incoming) bureaucracy to it which doesn't really solve the crux of the issue.

If I'm going to troll with a sockpuppet, I need to remember to declare it. In which case, I shall not troll, because I don't want to declare such a thing. [...] Or I can just sock-troll and not tell anyone. -- pling 23:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

But at the moment, if you do that and don't cross a line, nothing happens. I know I'm plenty good at trolling without crossing a line, but I do it on this account and everyone knows I am an asshole. Misery 23:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

This policy would help in the second case by making it clear that the one off account for trolling is not allowed. That sends a clear signal ex-ante (which might prevent some trolling) and gives us a simple way to deal with the ex-post if it happens (without having to go to arbcom every time).

Regarding the IP, that is a hard case. However, if the IP is used repeatedly and the edits can consistently be attributed to one user, I would treat the IP account like a non-IP user. --Xeeron 00:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

In regards of CheckUser: If user A is blocked, isn't "checking any posible account asociated to user A" a necesary action to be taken to ensure the block is meet and that the account in question isn't just one created solely for disruption? When it was implemented i thought this was one of the uses the function was supposed to fulfill. I think the restriction was meant so we didn't have "Admin B" checking if, let's say, Lindsey, Regina and Gaile are all the same person, just for the lulz.

If the fear of abuse of CheckUser is still out there (no clue why), probably the best way to apply a policy like this would be to check for undeclared socks only in case of breaches to another policy. That way even if someone has "undeclared socks", as long as they play by the rules with all their accounts they could keep his alleged privacy.

All in all, i still think "1 user, 1 account" was a great idea. Sad that they told me to stfu XD.--Fighterdoken 02:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't really think that was the sort of thing checkuser was originally intended for on this wiki. Using checkuser to make sure a suspect IP isn't someone evading a block, yes; prematively checking for other IPs/accounts sounds like it would pull too much baww from the community. -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 02:46, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not like the community can see the checkuser log anyway. Vili 点 03:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't make people less paranoid. -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 03:41, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't make them paranoid in the first place if they weren't or trying to do something bad wouldn't it? :) Also with the IP issue, if during a discussion an IP user tries to sway consensus, doesn't a IP user's opinions have less weight since they typically haven't been with the wiki for a long time? I think socks with active multiple accounts, with multiple fully decked out user pages with different names, and profiles are a lot more damaging to the community. But anyway I'm not sure how checkuser abuse would be damaging... I probably just don't get it ^_^;; --Lania Elderfire 04:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The IP's opinions are worth as much any user. More so if he's persuasive. elix Omni 04:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

People are paranoid that admins will use checkuser to list their IPs, which can then be used to hack them or something. (As far as I understand it, it doesn't actually matter as long as you have a good firewall, which you should anyway.) Also, who brings up an idea has nothing to do with how valid it is, so IPs/socks (should) suffer no disadvantage in debates. -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 04:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I know as policy everyone's opinions are worth the same and just as valid, but when casual anonymous user posts something rather inconsequential, tangential, or doesn't contribute much to the discussion then it's hard to take that person seriously IMO. However if a ipuser is not just someone new to the wiki and discusses something is great detail using wiki lingo, and is pushing a certain adgenda, the possibility of a sock increases. So maybe it's the other way around that ip socks might be more damaging than account socks, since ip addy's are memorable but names are... and if the same or similar (within domain) ip pops up frequently pushing the same issue, then people are less likely to make a connection than an actual name. I think i'm talking in circles here... ^_^;; --Lania Elderfire 04:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, well, I'm not strongly (or even weakly) opposed to this draft, but I'm still wondering if it'll be successful. If people want this implemented, go ahead. -- pling 12:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Right to fade

I would like to see something similar to this added:

In the case that someone wishes to abandon their old account and only make contributions from a new account, this does not have to be disclosed. As long as the user involved was not banned at the time of the creation of the new account and no further edits are made from the original account, no declaration must be made and the results of any checkusers should not be made public. For anyone wishing to start again it should be noted that behaving in exactly the same manner, associating with the same people and working on the same projects as before switching accounts will often lead to people realizing who you are without the use of checkuser and should be avoided if the new identity is not being disclosed.

We don't explicitly have a right to fade at the moment, but this policy would specifically disallow it as it is currently written. Misery 13:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Your text reminds me of the wikipedia one (which I personally find, like almost all of their policies, long winded. Have you ever read a full wikipedia policy? It is a pain...). And it does not get around the main problem: We'd have to have a list somewhere, so admins know where to look to find out whether the checkuser results should be made public or not. How about a much simpler version:

Users can "retire" accounts by stating the retirement on the account's user or user talk page and not conducting further edits from that account. Retired accounts are not considered sockpuppets.

That way, you retire the old account, make a new one (without the need to declare), done. --Xeeron 15:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The time, energy and effort wasted on a project that doesn't solve anything must be worth it. Pika Fan 15:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Add something about not switching your old account's birthday with your new one. elix Omni 16:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

That was a humorous statement you made just then Felix. I chuckled. Also, I am long-winded. Misery 17:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Above: Shortest long-winded reply ever. --Xeeron 17:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Soo, was your above comment an "your version is fine", an "I insist on my version" or an "I don't care, more fun this way"? --Xeeron 17:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand why we need this

All this does is say, "disruptive socking is baed." We all ready know this. Heck, I'd hope that every sysop (even Auron) knows this. And can you show me where "Undeclared sockpuppets [have been] used to wrongly convey consensus, [and] to sway votes..."? Bonus points if you can show where these socks were successful; because, outside of bcrat elections, faking a consensus by socking does absolutely dick in actually getting consensus. Usually, the "political group" (i.e. people who are well aware of the policies and often get into argument concerning policy) of this wiki have enough sense to know that if User:JoeRandom's first edit was approving and pushing for something that I posted, then something is wrong.
Why do we need another GWW:RandomMcPolicy? If someone is socking undisruptively, you don't need to worry about what they're doing until they become disruptive (read: how we normally treat users on the wiki). I'd rather not create a policy that neither helps normal users, nor deters problem users. --RIDDLE 16:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

See my answer above: This policy would help by making it clear that the one off account for trolling is not allowed. That sends a clear signal ex-ante (which might prevent some trolling) and gives us a simple way to deal with the ex-post if it happens (without having to go to arbcom every time).

Additionally, I can't point out any example for voting, but that does not prove they don't exist. In any case, the last part of that sentence "to break wiki rules while escaping punishment on the main account" is by far the most important (and of that, there are examples). --Xeeron 16:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

In terms of voting and discussion, sockpuppeting was actually a large and frequent problem in the original guildwiki's build section to build concensus. PvX wiki implemented measures against it to limit that. Trolling using socks and as xeeron said, escaping punishment by using socks occur relatively frequently and we don't have a clearcut policy about such behavior.--Lania Elderfire 17:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Xeeron, punishment for evading or dodging a ban is all ready covered by Common Sense^TM. The people who do "escape punishment" are all ready aware that they run the risk of getting a ban extension. That doesn't stop them anyhow. So forcing the normal wiki users to declare socks doesn't do anything to halt the (what I believe to be barely existent) sock problem, since problem users are still not going to tie their socks to main accounts. Heck, they would probably get more lulz by tying their socks to innocent users.

On top of that, we all ready deal with disruptive socks in a simple manner: we ban them. Of the Twenty-three arbcom cases (to date), we've only had one where socking was the actual issue, one where an incident of socking was used as evidence of a larger issue, and one where we're not even sure if we were dealing with sockpuppets or meatpuppets. There are loads more cases where sysops just banned the sock in question and extended the ban on the main account.

Lania, people will still escape punishment if this policy is implemented. People will escape punishment no matter how many policies you implement against escaping punishment, save a policy where people get shot for escaping punishment. And to reiterate: I've yet to see an incident on GWW in which socks successfully swayed consensus to their favor. I want you to show me an incident where it has happened on GWW. --RIDDLE 18:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

And another thing: there's even been a case in which a declared sock has only caused more drama, even though the purpose of the sock was relatively harmless. --RIDDLE 18:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

"Heck, they would probably get more lulz by tying their socks to innocent users." That's a fine idea chap. Thanks! NuVII 19:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I've done some google searches on GWW website and found only 273 hits on the keyword "sock puppet". Most seem to be either jokes, or from the guild called the "traveling sock puppet theater". Some more serious ones with an older user Raptors and other major cases occurred before checkuser was installed. After more searching I have to now agree with you that other than relatively low level disruptions, I can't find any major disruptions caused by sock puppet other than the recent one involving an former sysop. About the more major ones that were recent were Uchiha which was resolved at the sysop level using existing policies and didn't need an arbcomm. Now I'm starting to doubt the utility of this policy :-/ --Lania Elderfire 19:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree that this is just adding extraneous bureaucracy. In the almost 3 years I have been here, I have never seen sock puppest disrupt an election (other than some extra nominations which were not successful anyway). Trying to regulate socks with more policy is just bad imo. This is leading down a road to turning GWW into a police state, rather than a community. -- Wyn talk 19:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe that at the most, socks might merit a sort of "guide" (like the "sysop guide") detailing how they are generally supposed to be dealt with based on historic precedent and current consensus...but not an entire policy unto themselves. As has been repeated many times above, they are just not that big of an issue to be worth codifying. (And the current efforts to that effect don't seem to solve anything anyway.) Vili 点 19:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

A guide seems like a good idea since i doubt that new sysops that never sysoped before has a detailed knowledge of historical precedent on some vague issues like sock/meat puppeting. If not even that, it'll generate a level of consistency with how they are dealt with. --Lania Elderfire 20:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

"they are just not that big of an issue to be worth codifying" I agree, we should create a guideline for sysops. In fact, we should create a guideline for bureucrats too, while we're at it. But where is the editor guideline? We have so much work to do, so little time. Well, better get started. Lania, why don't you take a crack at it? We'll support you when you finish. Thanks! NuVII 20:20, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Nuclear: That will obviously not work, since to "tie" them, those innocent users would have to link back. Was that a mistake while reading the policy page, or a weak attempts at trolling this discussion? (no need to answer)

Riddle, you are counting the wrong numbers. There were 23 requests (most of which were jokes), but only 8 actual cases. If my memory serves correctly, socking was part of the underlying issue in 5 of them (Pling, Wyn, Raptors, Mgrinshpon, Kougar), which is more than 50%. What is more, make your personal top 5 of the "biggest wiki drama's". How many cases with socks do you count? For my list, quit a lot. So it is simply not true that sockpuppets are not a problem. They have consistently been involved in the most heavy cases of wiki drama.

Wyn: "police state"?, "extraneous bureaucracy" (all that is required is adding 2 links...)? Forgive me if I see those comments as rather self-serving rethoric ...

This policy is simple, easy to implement, and definitely *not* a road towards a police state. It also does create a lot less work than the other suggestions so far. --Xeeron 20:46, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Er, where was there sockpuppeting in my case? -- pling 20:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Not done by you of course, but it certainly happened on the side of the user you banned (and the case arose out of that ban). --Xeeron 20:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

And yet they were all dealt with without the presence of a policy. Take Grinch's Arbcom, for example. Do you really think that a "declare your socks pls or we ban you" policy would've helped? Grinch never cared about policy to begin with, if he had, he wouldn't have gotten arbcomed in the first place. Now, if you want to create an anti-sock policy, be my guest, but it will not influence anything by any degree. I won't register my 20+ sock accounts. Why should I? As far as I'm concerned, they don't exist.

I agree that a majority of those 8 cases involved socking, but this proposal does nothing to alleviate that problem. Thanks! NuVII 21:46, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Two things.

1. Socks have not been a big issue on this site to date, because we have been unable to detect them. I guarantee you they have existed, have been used for disruption and the main users have gotten away untouched. In some cases the socks were not even punished, whereas if you knew who was behind the sock, bans would have almost certainly been enacted. Certain actions are excusable for new users, but you know if an established user is making such edits that they are just trolling. The Chris Malone trolling incident was not a one off.
2. Socks have been used in the past to try and derail elections, they have been to date unsuccessful. This is actually less of an issue because voting on socks is already discounted, all that would be required is a checkuser of any suspicious voters.

I do enjoy all the random speculation and comments that are largely irrelevant to what has been proposed here though. Misery 22:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

This "policy" is just a knee jerk reaction to something that is part of GWW culture. I think that after almost 4 years of not having an anti-sock policy to add one now is just something to create more drama. I do agree that getting people to "declare" their socks is destined to fail. Personally, I don't see you having/gaining consensus on this anytime soon. -- Wyn talk 22:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

We didn't have checkuser for 3-4 years either. Misery 22:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Since I'm not used to GWW much, most of my experience was with guildwiki back when all the builds was there, I was surprised to learn how much less sock based trolling occurs here based on my short search through GWW. Most of the time if a sock was detected being disruptive it was an automatic ban from a sysop, and only a handful to arbcomm. preventing disruptive socking is probably impossible without some major and similarly disruptive policy changes and enactments, and this proposal really doesn't do anything against disruptive socking. We probably shouldn't dewll on socking in GWW much as it really doesn't seem to be a major issue here; in the least no where as much of an issue as I previously thought. Unless a more effective policy is proposed, I don't think there is much more to do here.--Lania Elderfire 22:46, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with Riddle; this policy will not help at all. Those who are using sockpuppets for malicious reasons already know that they actually shouldn't do that, and those will also most likely violate a different, already known policy. Those that are using sockpuppets for good actions (whatever that is) won't disrupt the wiki, and as such there is really no reason to stop them.

Wiki accounts exist mainly for two reasons: centralized contributions/attribution and anonymity. By requiring users to specify exactly who they are, we basically prevent the latter and most important part, and I really don't want to support that.

This also makes the given "arguments" on the policy page quite irrelevant. We don't need and we don't want to identify people. Everybody, whoever it is, is allowed to freely edit the wiki (that is the basic principle of a public wiki!); we won't ever have a problem with wrong consensus, because - as you all know - consensus is neither based on people's name, nor on the number of supporters. The only thing that counts is the argument, and when there are X users (=1 user + X-1 sockpuppets) saying the same, that argument won't count more. And the only place where numbers count (elections) never had problems with sockpuppets before.

So the only valid argument left from the policy is to prevent sockpuppets from evading bans (because breaking wiki rules will result in some research/ban anyway), and a policy won't be able to prevent this, ever. poke | talk 00:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Poke, you say "Those that are using sockpuppets for good actions (whatever that is) won't disrupt the wiki, and as such there is really no reason to stop them." Since the policy is not anti-all-socks policy (it only targets undisclosed socks), can you give me an example of what you consider "using sockpuppets for good actions" where the sock puppet is not disclosed and the requirement to disclose it would stop the "good action"? I am really looking for any argument in favor of undisclosed sock puppets that shows real benefit to the wiki of having them. So far I don't see any.

Even your main account is anonymous (unless you choice to out yourself by stating your real name), so not having undisclosed socks isn't any less anonymous.

Two further points: In an utopic wiki, your reasoning about that the "argument won't count more" might be true. But look around. If you see any talk page were 2 accounts say one thing and 5 accounts say a second thing, the second thing is implemented. Why? Because those 2 people are bound to be reasonable editors, who will stop putting forward their point of view if a majority is against them (if they persist, they might be targeted by a Gordon Ecker-style witch hunt). Now, if those 5 accounts are just 1 person with 4 socks, the result is clear: A user can manipulate the wiki by abusing the fact that most reasonable editors will bow to a majority eventually.

Finally, you are not the first one to argue that "Those who are using sockpuppets for malicious reasons already know that they actually shouldn't do that". Please go back to that IRC transcript that was posted in Wyn's case and re-read it. Are you really suggesting that those people in IRC all knew that policy was broken and deliberately broke it? That they all perfectly knew that policy was broken and chose not to comment on it? Sorry, I don't buy this. In my mind, all those actions have been in a "grey" zone. Sysops engaged in it because they could tell themselves that it is not "really against policy", is "not that bad". And I believe that all those people who did not comment on it, who didn't react, acted with the same background: They were not only held back by the fact that the offender was a sysop (I trust everyone would stop a user who went on a page blanking spree, sysop or not), but also by the fact that there was that moral leeway of it not being clearly wrong to use those socks the way they were used. --Xeeron 17:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I can provide an example of a benign sock: User:Rumour Kontrol. That's actually my sock, and I'll get around to logging-in, if anyone wants to CheckUser that. Rumour Kontrol came about because I was bored one night and wanted to see how well I could mimic User:Silver Edge. Sadly, RL stuff happened and I didn't have a lot of time to dedicate to developing Rumour Kontrol. I might as well GWW:RUM for Rumour Kontrol, now that I've forfeited that account's anonymity.--RIDDLE 18:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

My sig isn't quite as huge. --Rumour Kontrol 18:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I still don't really understand the motivation behind these anonymous benign socks. :-/ --Lania Elderfire 19:31, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

On top of that, I should point out that GWW:RUM kinda shats on the "disclose your benign sock" clause. --RIDDLE 02:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

a)GWW:RUM is not a policy. b)GWW:RUM is 100% compatible with this policy. So I don't see what you mean with "shats on". --Xeeron 12:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't see the benign effects of the sock. Exactly which of the socks edits could you not have done on your main account? And since you already redirected the sock's talk page, I don't see any negative impact this policy would have on the sock either. --Xeeron 12:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Your policy removes the anonymity for benign/harmless (if you refuse to acknowledge non-disruptive socks as "benign", but know that they aren't malignant) socks. At this point, you may as well just use GWW:RUM and mash the contribs from both accounts together, since it's pointless to edit from two accounts if everyone knows one person is behind both of them. Effectively, harmless socking (read: not harming the wiki in any way) becomes punishable.

Now let's see what happens to disruptive socks:

ABSOLUTELY DICK

They're still not going to tie their socks to their main accounts, unless it would cause more lulz to be a martyr. And that's why your proposed policy is bad. It makes socking, even harmless socking, punishable, unless you say "hey guys, this is my sock." At which point, the anonymity is removed, and then you're just contributing from two accounts. --RIDDLE 22:18, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

You know, I think I can somewhat see some of the benign motivations for anonymous socks... and here are some reasons that I have comeup with that people might use. 1). They want to separate different types of contribs ie. administrative contrib to cleanup type contrib. 2). They don't want to appear like they have no life so they separate the contribs to multiple accounts. 3). Their spouse or significant other complain that they use the wiki too much so they use a sock to circumvent their spouse finding out. This assumes that the spouse knows how to check user contribs. 4). Don't want their big name to influence the discussion too much. 5). A co-worker is remotely checking another employee's user contribs and is using a sock so they can contrib during work. 6). the list keeps going; I mean really there can be tons of reasons... ^_^ --Lania Elderfire 22:30, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

None of those ever actually happen, though, so it's a moot point. -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 03:20, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) As far as preventing disruptive socking goes, i think the only way of doing it would be giving a harsh enough punishment for doing it that the only ones who would ever consider it would be professional proxy-using trolls. Maybe something along the lines of "Users found violating the rules of the site under a non-declared sock account will have the editing priviligees for all his asociated accounts revoked permanently, their &action=credits info posted on the Hall of Shame, their dogs killed, and will have random objects inserted through any available hole"... well, maybe just the first one, but you catch the idea.--Fighterdoken 00:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

There is no "effective" policy that will stop disruptive socking and the policy you suggest is by it self quite disruptive IMO. I think wyn's case is unique and it's something that is unlike anything that has ever happened here on GWW. Creating a policy just for that might not have the effect it needs to have to curb future socking by sysops. Other than some isolated incidents that was effectively stopped by sysops, I just can't find (via google and bing domain searches) any major consensus disruptions caused by socking so please show me some specific examples so that I understand what you are talking about. If the goal of this policy is to stop disruptive socking then it won't work; and maybe it should just stay in the scope of trying to declare any socks people have w/o trying to stop disruptive socking at all. --Lania Elderfire 18:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Xeeron, the simple answer to your question is yes, we all knew. And there was more than one sysop in IRC that night, and more than likely more than one sysop socking, I'm the only one who has actually stood up and said so. -- Wyn talk 18:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

zomg corruption

On a slightly more serious note, the arguments against undisclosed socks look remarkably similar to the arguments for the no profanity policy we dealt with a while ago.

-- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 22:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Which also look simmilar to any proposal regarding community regulation; it goes like this:

• User A: We need to stop doing X and document the game.
• User B: Oh Noes. Freedom of Speech!
• User A: Stfu.
• User B: No U.
• User C: LoL.
• User D: I like turtles.
• Discussion dies until next winter.

Either way, as i said earlier, the only way a "declaration of intention" like this would serve any purpose is if people were willing to enforce it harshly. People that willingly disrupts the wiki shouldn't have the right to complain about it, nor should be able to participate on discussion about regulations that will affect them.--Fighterdoken 02:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Thx for stating that Wyn. Now, the important follow up question is: If so many people knowningly (ab)used socks, do you and those people still feel it is correct to act in that way? And if not, what do you propose to do against it?

@Armond: I kind of agree. However, there are very good, known, reasons to have freedom of speach. I can't say that for "freedom to have unidentified socks". --Xeeron 12:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Damn yeah I love turtles! -Cursed Angel 13:17, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

So, wait, the arguments mean different things even though they suck majorly in both cases? -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 02:18, 19 February 2010 (UTC)