UDWiki talk:Moderation/Policy Discussion/Adopt Wikipedia's Sockpuppeteering Policy

This is a big policy. Please comment on specific sections in the appropriate area. This discussion is for Revison 1. -- Bubba^T 06:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

General Comments

This is a human problem, and all solutions will generate the responses generate the effects that humans have evolved. Note that even Wikipedia runs into bad blood, power games, and general politics over its sockpuppet strategies.

Forbidden uses of sock puppets

Voting and other shows of support

I am for the idea Riccars 07:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Legitimate uses of multiple accounts

Multiple user accounts

Perhaps multiple sockpuppets should be listed on a separate page, showing the master account with its subordinates? --_Ducis ^Dux_Sloth^Talk 06:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Meatpuppets

These accounts are often described as "meatpuppets", a name perhaps inspired by the band of the same name. Let's drop the band reference? I mean is an erudite grunge namecheck really necessary? Hope I'm posting these in the right spot.--The Envoy 06:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Eliminated band reference. -- Bubba^T 17:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Advertising and soliciting meatpuppets

It is considered highly inappropriate or unacceptable to advertise UDWiki articles that are being debated in order to attract users with known views and bias, in order to strengthen one side of a debate. It is also considered highly inappropriate to ask friends or family members to create accounts for the purpose of giving additional support. Advertising or soliciting meatpuppet activity is not an acceptable practice on UDWiki. Such canvassing activity should be reverted if possible.

I completely agree with the second sentence. However, I don't think it's appropriate to discourage participation on the wiki via canvassing or lobbying. It's also vague. By "users" do we mean people on the UDwiki? If so, why shouldn't they be apprised of discussions within the wiki that may affect them? If we're talking about UD players not involved with the wiki, why do we want to discourage new involvement with the wiki? I understand the desire to protect the wiki from demagoguery and shameless self-promotion, but if you want a closed system to keep tabs on the game, a wiki ain't the way to go.--The Envoy 06:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite - It is considered highly inappropriate to ask friends or family members to create accounts for the purpose of giving additional support. There is a difference between encouraging others to become involved in the UDWiki community and soliciting meatpuppet activity. Encouraging others to create accounts just to support your position on a single issue should be avoided. -- Bubba^T 23:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

DISCUSSION ON FIRST DRAFT

Sooooo.... no zerging on the wiki? --Ron Burgundy 07:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I think this is OK. The policies that were voted down lost because the previous policies didn't allow (or codify clearly) the use of in-character alts used to report from different groups or suburbs. The proposed policy states that A user making substantial contributions to an area of interest in Wikipedia might register another account to be used solely in connection with developing that area. which is exactly the concept of an in-character alt. The important features of this policy is that it prohibits alts used purely for policy violations and enforces "one man, one vote". I think it can work (but need to change references to wikipedia and few other wordsmithing chores). -- Bubba^T 08:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

After looking over the wiki policy it sounds good. Although some sections will need re-wording to suit the UD wiki. Pillsy ^FT 16:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes and no, Ron, and someone correct me (Espcially Xoid) if I'm reading this wrong. This would allow alts to exist, but simply place down in stone common-sense restrictions on their actions. However, I don't think we can just blindly adopt the Wikipedia Sockuppeteering Policy blindly. We CAN however, edit it for our uses. I suggest that we do that here, and perhaps update the Policy with a rough draft before heading into the voting area? In particular, we'll have to examine the WAY Wikipedia handles sockpuppets. See their current method for dealing with this. I'd like to clarify the HOWS of executing this sort of policy as well as the whats, whick Wiki has pretty much established vaugely there. --MorthBabid 18:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

As I said earlier it needs some wordsmithing. Who's going to do the redraft? -- Bubba^T 20:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Can we copy and paste the original article into the talk without making a big copyright issue outta it? We could then make changes to the original article as a group, maybe marking the changes in bold? --MorthBabid 18:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain that since everything is under an open-source-like sort of license that there are no problems with copying it. I'll copy and paste it now. –Xoid ^M•T•FU! 04:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

"Hey if you can't win with the first suggestion, dress it up and submit it again!" this seems like a dupe suggestion--Rogue 07:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

How so? I haven't seen anyone post the idea of using Wikipedias format for dealing with alts before. Same TOPIC, yes, but different way of dealing with it. --MorthBabid 18:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

You could've just said "tl;dr, is this the same policy but 'dressed differently'?" and you wouldn't have looked like an idiot, Rogue; Wikipedia's policy is vastly different to the policy Gage suggested. –Xoid ^M•T•FU! 04:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't really care about your opinion. --Rogue 21:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Too bad Xoid is probably the most respected member of the wiki. You may not care, but everyone else cares what he thinks.--Gage 22:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

After reading the Wikipedia policy, I'd support adopting a similar one here. I do use what could be called a "sockpuppet" account for legitimate reasons -- namely to keep a user page completely dedicated to my in-game character and separate from my main wiki account. (In fact, all edits I've made to the wiki -- including those to the character's userpage -- are made from my main account.) If I understand it correctly, this type of use would not be considered a violation. Therefore, I'm in support.

(You see, Xoid, I can be reasonable...) --Phoenixshade ^TJ!•T•UD 16:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

It depends, really. If you're using it as a roleplaying alt, then feel free. On the other hand, if you're only having the second account just to "own" the user space, then I'd really prefer you'd not. A second account that isn't used at all still takes up a database entry, requires that we keep tabs on who "owns" it (so they don't get warned/banned for touching "someone else's" user space) — even if we do that, new users will still file needless reports, etc, etc. It wouldn't be criminalised, per se, but I really, really dislike having to tell a new user that something they've reported isn't vandalism and being morally obligated to not say why (else giving up the identity of the alt's owner, though smart users would've already pieced that together from the circumstances). –Xoid ^M•T•FU! 02:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps out of ignorance and innocence, I really do not believe many people would "sock puppet" on Urban Dead Wiki. Regardless, this policy should have been adopted long ago. I think Xoid deserves applause, and the rest of us deserve condemnation for not suggesting this earlier. --Wikidead 09:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Re-Write: Take One

• Here's a brief list of what I personally think would need to be altered or clarified first. Most of it isn't the content, really, but the manner in which its presented:

1. Dealing with violations -- I think this should be altered to pretty much reflect the Signature Policy being voted on as of 11/5/06, and which currently goes unapposed. Also, see my comments below on RP accounts.
2. Identification and handling of suspected sock puppets -- This should be moved up in our altered version of the policy, because its even more important than DEALING with them. I feel users should first be exposed to how to properly IDENTIFY a sockpuppet first, and then learn how they are dealth with. Perhaps Dealing With and Identification can actually be combined?
3. Legitimate uses of multiple accounts -- This should probably come before EITHER Dealing With or Identification Of, as well. The "Roleplay" concept will also have to be expanded upon.
4. Tagging identified sock puppets -- We'll have to develop one, most likely, for identifying roleplay-only accounts.

On the matter of Roleplay Alts , I'd like to say a few words. We should institute a 'Roleplay Registration' section. This would be a place where a freshly created WikiUser could register themselves as a Roleplay Alts WITHOUT having to reveal who their main user is.

This would prevent them from any issue involving voting, engaging in deletion discussions or articles of policy. This would not ban them from discussion in controversal issues; I accept the fact that your 'roleplay' character can have another opinion than your own. For example, while you wouldn't be able to vote on a Suggestion, you could still voice your opinion in the Talk for that suggestion. Your characters VOTE would be invalid, and excepting public vote-related issues, your opinions in the TALK sections wouldn't be invalid. They WOULD, however, be privy to the same rules and regulations regarding conduct as all other users have. For example, if your comments in the Talk were simply strings of bannable behavior, you would be dealt with as any non-RP sockpuppet individual would. The Roleplay Registration would simply be a way for people to create roleplay alts that allow them to maintain their anonyimity as a RP sockpuppet at the sacrifice as their rights as a single valid vote or policy representitive of the Wiki.

This would also add to the 'Dealing with violations; If a sockpuppet is found after the above listed identification, the user of the sockpuppet will be warned once and asked to either register under the 'Roleplay Registration' act to preserve their own anonyimity and the fairness of the Wiki system, cease the use of the account, or be forced to wear the identified sock puppet template from then on untill one of the previous two choices are made.

I think thats all I could possibily contribute, regardless of how valid or invalid said contributions are. :) What do you all think? --MorthBabid 20:13, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion

Since this policy is complex may I suggest you handle this like the guidelines rehash. Post each section for discussion. Let some moderators, like xoid, collect the responses and assimilate where appropriate, then we wind up with a policy that is tailored for this wiki. -- Bubba^T 05:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Will do, once I come back to this. If anyone else wants to take over until I'm done with the Guidelines Rehashed policy, feel free. *hint hint* –Xoid ^M•T•FU! 02:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I took a stab at it. -- Bubba^T 06:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow! I will have to read it several times but I think that is a great first draft. Thank you for your time and effort in putting it together. I'm sure I'll have more comments as I already noted one area that needs clarification but this is a very good interpration of the original boiled down to better suit our needs. Wow! --Max Grivas ^{JG / M.F.T.} 07:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

It's a great start, but I still think it doesn't address roleplay accounts directly enough. See my above comments for more detail. --MorthBabid 02:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Can you give me some specific suggestions in the sections above. The identification method is there. I brought over the templates from wikipedia which will create category pages listing the sockpuppets of users. -- Bubba^T 00:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, literally, under "Legitimate uses of multiple accounts"? We basically should add "Roleplay Accounts", and perhaps debate one of the suggestions for having a registration of such accounts, or a way to conferm them. I think Thari kinda made something with the Orly owl tag on it during the last debate of alt accounts? I made a crack about it being akin to the Star of David the Nazis used at the time, but perhaps it'd still be a workable solution...yaknow, with less eugenic purges and racism and such. :) --MorthBabid 19:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Our opinion

In general, the newer policy is better than the old one. But still not good enough for us.

The idea of tagging a deliberate alt is a good one, but not neccesarily appropriate in the recommended fashion. Some alts (who could we possibly be refering to?!?) are created blatantly for singular purposes to represent whole groups in one way or another, and are done so deliberately so as to represent whole groups, rather than individuals, so as to not result in inappropriate griefing in in-game situations. We therefore recommend that alts may be identified as such without reference to any specific primary core account, which may be misleading. Also, this policy still limits wiki participation by those with multiple unconnected characters, much like the last recommended 'anti-wiki zerg' policy, which may then result in inhibition of editors who operate characters with differing POV (i.e. proper roleplayers!) in a game sadly beset with shoulder-chipped players incapable of realising this is all but a game.

We recommend, as an initial move, that you move for a general 'alt' tag, not refering to other usernames which usually refer to specific characters, to refuse multiple account voting, the most important issue, and take it from there -- Crabappleslegalteam 03:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I thought I made that clear in my above suggestion...the only case where we'd have to use a alt tag that DID point to the users name/IP is as a form of 'punishment'; If someone makes an alt, fails to registers it after a few accepted upon amount of requests to do so on their user talk (3 over a set period perhaps), the mods would be forced to use a tag that'd identify it. This would punish a few to protect the whole imho. --MorthBabid 19:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

No one but Kevan can assess IP information, am I not correct? --Wikidead 09:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Not correct; the sysops have access to Checkuser data. -- Atticus Rex ^{mfu pif} Δ 17:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'm not too comfortable with the idea that people other than Kevan himself have user data, but I guess I'll have to live with that. And after all, it would be difficult for mods to do their jobs without having exclusive information... --Wikidead 22:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)