Wikipedians prize their use of consensus to determine issues and their assumption that most people are trying to help the project. Sock puppets are used to counter these prized features by creating the illusion of greater support for a viewpoint and evading sanctions.
All sock puppet uses are forbidden and warrant aggressive approaches to protect the encyclopedia from their actions. Use of sock puppets will normally lead to sanctions against the main account, usually blocking or in extreme cases being banned from Wikipedia.
Sock puppets may be used to give the impression of more support for a viewpoint than actually exists. Though typically it is the weight of arguments that wins the day, having multiple sock puppets argue with each other can still cause considerable confusion, so don't do that. This includes voting multiple times in any election, or using more than one account in discussions such as Wikipedia:Deletion debates, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship, or on talk pages.
In addition to double-voting, sock puppets may be used for the purpose of deception, distraction, or to create the illusion of broader support for a position than actually exists.
Policies apply per person, not per account. Policies such as 3RR are for each person's edits. Using a second account for policy violations will cause any penalties to be applied to your main account. Sock puppets may not be used to circumvent any Arbitration Committee or community sanctions, including blocks, bans, and probations. Evading sanctions will cause the timer to restart, and may lengthen the duration of the sanctions.
The community has strongly rejected users having more than one username with admin access. If an administrator leaves, comes back under a new name and is nominated for adminship, it is expected that they will give up the admin access of their old account (this may be done by the old account without showing a link between accounts). In general, only one account with access greater than that of a normal user account should be operated. There have been four users known to have legitimately used a secondary account with administrative powers, three appointed by WMF, one a bot appointed by RFA: - Danny used the account Dannyisme for Foundation work until his resignation in March 2007. Similarly, Bastique now uses the account Cary Bass for Foundation purposes and AlisonW, chair of Wikimedia UK, was given admin rights on that account in addition to keeping her existing Arbcom-disclosed account. WJBscribe's bot, RedirectCleanupBot, is currently the only approved bot with administrator rights. Administrators using a second account in a forbidden manner risk being summarily desysopped.
襪公仔要用到幾個戶口做嘅，用一個戶口都做到。Using alternative襪公仔to split your contributions history means that other editors cannot detect patterns in your contributions. While this may occasionally be legitimate (see below under legitimate uses), it is a violation of this policy to create alternative accounts — or to edit anonymously without logging in to your account — in order to confuse or deceive editors who may have a legitimate interest in reviewing your contributions.
The use of alternative accounts for deliberate policy violations or disruption specifically is proscribed:
All users are proscribed from operating a "bad hand" account for the purpose of disruption or artificially stirring up controversy. It is never acceptable to keep one account "clean", while using another account to engage in disruptive behavior.
Admins are also proscribed from operating a "bad hand" account for the purpose of engaging in editing disputes while at the same time appearing to be a neutral admin dealing with page protection or three-revert rule issues on the same articles.
Alternative accounts have legitimate uses. For example, prominent users might create a new account to experience how the community functions for new users.
Some editors use alternative accounts to segregate their contributions for various reasons:
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.
Since public computers can have password-stealing trojans or keyloggers installed, users may register an alternative account to prevent the hijacking of their main accounts.
Users with a recognized expertise in one field might not wish to associate their contributions to that field with contributions to articles about subjects in which they do not have the same expert standing, or which they consider less weighty.
A person editing an article which is highly controversial within his/her family, social or professional circle, and whose Wikipedia identity is known within that circle, or traceable to their real-world identity, may wish to use an alternative account in order to avoid real-world consequences from their involvement in that area.
An editor might use an openly declared alternative account to carry out maintenance tasks in order to simplify the organization of such tasks.
Doppelgänger係個德文字for a ghostly double of a living person. In the context of a user account, a doppelganger account is a second account created with a username similar to one's main account to preemptively prevent impersonation by vandals. Such accounts are permitted and should be marked with the {{doppelganger}} or {{doppelganger-other}} tag (or simply redirected to one's own userpage). Doppelganger accounts should not be used for editing.
如果你have a negative track record and you have decided to make a genuine, clean, and honest, new start, and do not wish it to be tarnished by your prior conduct, you can simply discontinue using the old account(s), and create an unconnected new account which becomes the only account you then use, and is used in a good manner. By "discontinue", it is suggested that the old account is noted as being inactive, in order to prevent the switch being interpreted as an attempt to abusively sock puppet.
Note that the "right to vanish" does not cover this, and repeated switching of accounts is usually seen as improper.
The most common two concerns and their usual answers are:
I'll be noticed: If you change your behavior, and also the articles you work on, there is no reason for a connection to be made. If you continue on the same articles or your writing style is so distinctive it will quickly be noticed, or you return to problematic editing, then it is likely a connection will be made whether or not you change account, and any perceived concealment will probably be seen more negatively when discovered.
I'll be identified by checkuser or accused of being a sock puppet later: Checkuser is used for suspected breaches of policy. If you don't use the old account or engage in problematic conduct, there is little reason a request would be made, and a request without good reason is likely to be declined for lack of cause.
(That said, if future usage does draw attention by concerned users or administrators, then it is likely the connection will be made. See alternative account notification for how to reduce the likelihood of problems.)
Role accounts, accounts which are used by multiple people, are only officially sanctioned on Wikipedia in exceptional cases. If you run one account with multiple users, it is likely to be blocked.
如果someone uses alternative accounts, it is recommended that he or she provide links between the accounts in most cases to make it easy to determine that one individual shares them, or at least disclose this information in confidence.
Editors who wish to publicly display a link on an alternative account to their main or primary account may do so by tagging the "secondary" ones with {{User Alternate Acct | MAIN ACCOUNT}}
When the link between two accounts will not be publicly identified due to privacy or other concerns, users are encouraged to email the Arbitration Committee list ([email protected]) - which include current and former members of the committee - to disclose the main and alternate (or old and new) accounts, to reduce the chance of potential misunderstandings. The CheckUser list ([email protected]) should also be advised, but this list does not allow direct mailing by non members. Thus, the user should either ask a current checkuser to forward
it on to the list on their behalf, or (recognising that the Arbitration Committee often includes current checkusers) it may be simplest to include a forwarding request in the email to the Arbitration Committee list.
The Arbitration committee has ruled that evidence that a user is familiar with Wikipedia editing conventions (such as the use of Wikitext markup, edit summaries, and core policies) is, by itself, insufficient basis to treat the user as a sock puppet.
Not surprisingly, sock puppet accounts usually show much greater familiarity with Wikipedia and its editing process than most newcomers. They are more likely to use edit summaries, immediately join in existing edit wars, or participate vocally in procedures like Articles for deletion or Requests for adminship as part of their first few edits. They are also more likely to be brand new or a single purpose account when looking at their contributions summary.
One type of sock puppet is sometimes referred to as a "straw man sock puppet." They are created by users with one point of view, but act as though they have an opposing point of view, to make that point of view look bad, or to act as an online agent provocateur. They will often make poor arguments which their "opponents" can then easily refute. This can allow them to essentially make straw man arguments. Such sock puppets thus become a personification of the straw man argument which their creators argue against. They often act unintelligently or appear uninformed, and may behave in an overtly bigoted manner. The effect is often to obfuscate the debate and prevent a serious discussion of the arguments from each side. Suspicion of such sock puppets is often harder to verify though, as there are often people who naturally behave in such a manner with the same effects.
If you think that someone is using sockpuppets and wish to get further people's comments on the matter, you should create a report at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets and follow the instructions there.
維基百科operates a process known as Checkuser to identify some sock puppets in certain cases. Where it is unclear whether or not sock puppetry is in progress, server log information can be consulted. To comply with Wikimedia Foundation privacy policy, this is limited to a handful of users with checkuser privilege and only done in serious cases, with reasonable cause, to check if user A is the same as user B based upon some evidence. Any results will only be given in terms which comply with the privacy policy, in many cases precluding disclosure of detailed information.
Requests may be made at requests for checkuser. "Fishing" – or general trawling of users in a debate for possible sockpuppets – is not supported and requests for such checks are unlikely to be agreed to. Also, it is important to note that checkuser cannot ever confirm with certainty that two accounts are not connected. It can only confirm they are connected, or that at the time of checking there is no obvious machine-identifiable evidence of connection.
CheckUsers also routinely operate checks for other reasons, including cases received through OTRS or ArbCom. For such checks, often no public request record may exist.
In some cases it may not be completely clear whether an account is a sock puppet, as the purpose is usually to avoid detection. Similarities in interests and editing style can be noted, but not everyone may be familiar enough with the user to understand the evidence. Keep in mind there can be multiple users who are driven to start participating in Wikipedia for the same reason, particularly in controversial areas such as articles about politics, religion, or articles for deletion.
If you have been accused incorrectly of being a sock puppet, do not take it too personally. New users are unknown quantities. Stay around a while and make good edits, and your record will speak for itself. That generally is the only real way to prove that you are not anyone's puppet; even CheckUser cannot give anything beyond a negative confirmation.
If a person is found to be using a sock puppet, the sock puppet accounts may be blocked indefinitely. The main account also may be blocked at the discretion of any administrator. IP addresses used for sock puppetry may be blocked, but are subject to certain restrictions for indefinite blocks.
Several templates are available for marking user pages and talk pages of sock puppet accounts to characterize different steps in the process. The templates serve as a convenient shorthand only and are not part of this policy.
User page tagged with general identified - {{SockpuppetProven|1=Username|evidence=[[EvidenceLink]]}}. "EvidenceLink" can be replaced with something such as "[[Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Username]]":
User page tagged with Checkuser identified - {{SockpuppetCheckuser|Username|Optional name of CheckUser case (what is after Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/)}}
User talk page tagged with block notice: {{sockblock}}
Sockpuppeteer – The original or best-known account of a user that operates sockpuppets may be tagged with {{Sockpuppeteer}} if it is being blocked indefinitely. See also {{CheckedPuppeteer}}, and other templates are available in Category:Sockpuppet templates.
Alternative accounts being used inconsistently with this policy or otherwise used inappropriately may be blocked as "an inappropriate alternative account" and tagged as such. Consensus may be used to identify an alternative account as an inappropriate alternative account. Blocking or other remedy for an inappropriate alternative account may be determined by consensus or determined at the discretion of an admin.
There may be several ways to obtain a consensus. One way to obtain such a consensus may be to post a request at one of the administrator notice boards, such as Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. The consensus should last at least five days and be closed by an admin with top and bottom templates.
Two accounts are considered alternative if they are operated by the same editor and contain interleave postings where one posting from a second account is added anywhere in Wikipedia between two postings from a first account. However, a situation may arise where an editor has a main account, closes that account, and opens a new main account.
A time overlap is only one way to determine whether two accounts are alternative accounts. Consensus may determine that two accounts are alternative accounts even though they do not overlap in time and that only one account is active. For example, there may be a usage connection between the two or more accounts that shows them in a constant state of succession as a line of alternative accounts. It is the actions of the editor, not the name of the account, that makes two or more accounts alternative accounts.
There is a significant difference between an editor who inappropriately uses an alternative account and a person operating sock puppets. Thus, an editor who inappropriately uses an alternative account may still contribute to the encyclopedia through their main account. An inappropriate alternative account is not a sock puppet account and assumption of good faith still applies to the main account of that editor. Aggressive approaches applied to protect the encyclopedia from sock puppets ordinarily should not be applied to the main account of an editor in good standing who inappropriately used an alternative account.
Policies apply per person, not per account. Misuse of one alternative account will affect that person's ability to operate alternative accounts. If there is a consensus that a person is using one alternative account inappropriately, and community sanctions are imposed, then subsequent use of any other alternative account by that same person is considered to be evading community sanctions. All such alternative accounts are then considered as sock puppet accounts, and the matter may be addressed through the above Sock puppet account section and Identification and handling of suspected sock puppets section.
