| abstract
| - Ok, in the aftermath of this soap opera. Where do we want to go with this? I have a few questions that I think we should answer. I have not thought about this since yesterday. So, I am going to ask these questions now, and then perhaps later, some of them will not seem as important. 1.
* Do we CARE about sockpuppetry? i.e. Do we want to know if a user has sockpuppet accounts? 2.
* What is our stand on sockpuppetry? i.e. is it a punishable offense or is it just something to mark down to fight fraud? 3.
* How do we discover sockpuppetry? It's obviously discoverable given a long enough stalking and paying attention to details. Are we going to start stalking each other? Stalking people who support each other in arguments? Is there a "sane" way to do this? 4.
* Do we want to do anything about Stabber? I would appreciate rational thought and logical discourse. Posts telling us Stabber is the devil and should be banned for life do not help the dicussion. So, let's try and think through this objectively. --Karlos 21:00, 18 June 2006 (CDT) 1.
* In my opinion, yes. Using sockpuppets is not contributing in good faith. WP:SOCK should be adopted here. 2.
* It should be punishable if provable, and provably used to sway consensus in discussions and votes. Again, I think the remedies in WP:SOCK are worth examining. 3.
* Install the CheckUser extension (link to source code is towards the end). Gravewit can then effortlessly determine which users have used what IPs, and also all users a given IP has used. Note: I do not recommend giving CheckUser access to anyone but those who already have access to the server logs, viz. Gravewit and Nunix. 4.
* Only if he/she returns. I would recommend a permanent ban placed on his/her confirmed sockpuppets, but leave one identity alone. These are just my opinions. If you don't like them, I have others... Arrowsmith 21:19, 18 June 2006 (CDT) My thoughts:
* The major issues of sockpupptry are causing drama and affecting votes. I think looking for sockpuppets, hunting them down, and squash them cause far more drama than its worth. By completely scrapping the voting idea, we'll overall be better off with not caring about who is a sockpuppet of who.
* I'm not overly concerned with DK's last words "I wish this wiki the worse". I consider it immature hotheaded remarks as a strong rebound reaction to a (conceived) overly heavyhanded action. The only "vandalism" that follows from that was a bitter edit on Community expectations regarding admin powers. While it doesn't hurt to be careful, being overly concerned over it will simply cause unnecessary paranoia/drama.
* For anything that is deemed "administrative edits", mark it clearly (adn mark it in the actual page, not just in the edit summary). Do not assume because you have teh status of an admin, adn you issued an order, that other users will preceive it as an administrative edit. It turned out I was actually wrong when I said something that implied none of my edits were "administrative edits". The one "administrative edit" I made was with respect to either a delete or ban request that I removed but got slapped back. In order to avoid a revert war on that, I "subst:" the delete/ban template, then manually edit the contents to say there was a request that was rejected by the admin PanSola for reasons blah blah blah. That was the type of edit that only an admin can make, and should not be reverted. -User:PanSola (talk to the Image:Follower of Lyssa.png) 22:00, 18 June 2006 (CDT) I've been trying to stay out of this because I'm disgusted with how most of this stuff has panned out, but I feel the need to comment here: 1.
* Since we have votes and a voting population of about 10-20, sock puppets are a big deal. Stabber, for example, seemed to use sockpuppets to do controversial things without getting flack for it, which is also a big deal. Sockpuppets do nothing to enhance anonymity and a lot to undermine Guildwiki's creative process. 2.
* As a result of the above, sock puppets should be purged mercilessly. Their puppeteers should, at the very least, receive a strong reprimand. Doing something bad with a sock puppet should be considered a greater offense than just doing something bad, as the puppetry indicates that you know you're doing something wrong and that you want to hide it. 3.
* Other people's suggested technical solutions could work. While I generally don't want Guildwiki to be Wikipedia or to copy most of its policies, definitely look at how they do it. If we opt to add some kind of IP logger, only the site owners and maybe one particularly trusted active admin should have access to it. 4.
* I think neither Stabber (clarification added later: or whoever the hell DK is... I don't know anymore, and I don't really want to) nor FG have the capacity to meaningfully contribute to the wiki anymore. Both have done much to damage the community. This isn't about exiling people we don't like, however. Thus, as stated above, all sock puppets should be burned with fire; FG definitely deserves a reprimand for how he carried out his crusade, but I don't think it quite approaches the level of a permanently bannable offense; I have no strong feelings about whether Stabber should or shouldn't be perma-banned. — 130.58 (talk) (22:21, 18 June 2006 (CDT)), ammended 00:38, 19 June 2006 (CDT) I feel that I should post here as it seems that I'm the person who "discovered" this issue (not the first person to raise it, just the first to post proof of it). I dislike people who use multiple accounts with the intent to deceive. The very first online game I played had a very simple rule, multiple accounts were not allowed unless sanctioned by the "Wizards" (essentially the admins in charge of the coding/monitoring of the MUD). This may be part of where my distaste for this comes from, the rest is probably just part of basic human nature in that we don't like to be fooled. I think we should define specifically what we consider to be "Sockpuppetry" and what is to be done about it. I'd imagine something like the following: 1.
* If you create another account because of a technical problem with your current account (like the CSS stylesheet issue that affected PanSola and 161.88.x.x a while back) and are sufficently upfront about it (PanSola's new account was SolaPan and 161.88.x.x's was I am 161.88) then there is no problem. If/When the account problem is cleared up, one account should be chosen and the other abandoned. 2.
* If at some point you come clean about having used multiple accounts, before you are discovered, then temporary blocks should be done. The length of the block should depend on the severity of what was done with the accounts. We should create clear guidelines for block times in these situations and they should be followed. (note: if this is implemented retroactively, it may affect Tetris L/Fisherman's Friend) 3.
* If someone else discovers and submits proof that you have been using multiple accounts and rules 1 and 2 don't apply, you should be blocked for a long term/permanent basis. Again, I think we should create clear guidelines for this. I also agree that TOR IPs should probably be blocked as there is a considerable possiblity for abuse. Those are my thoughts on the matter. Some/many people may disagree with me. --Rainith 00:16, 19 June 2006 (CDT) There should be no issue with #1, any more than there is an issue with putting "IP X is my account" on you user page. I also think that any form of maintaining multiple accounts openly should be okay: Karlos talked about "hats", for example, and I wouldn't have a problem with an admin making separate "as user" and "as admin" accounts to separate his personal opinions from his administrivial edits, if that was what he wanted to do. As long as you link all your accounts together prominently on their respective user pages, really, there should be no problem with mulptiple accounts, regardless of why you made them. — 130.58 (talk) (00:25, 19 June 2006 (CDT)) 1. Yes, sockpuppetry implies you have a second account for nefarious purposes such as starting arguments with yourself for some good ol' drama, vote rigging, doing something 'naughty' but not have your 'main' account banned, et al. However, linking your accounts together specifically so you can be traced should be acceptable, there are a number of good reasons to have a second account, so long that it is traceable back to your 'main' account. 2. Punishable by flogging. Sadly with no ability to do such actions, some passe bans will have to do, preferably on the 'main' account. Banning the sockpuppet is largely meaningless, as someone who is using them is simply going to make another. 3. Ugh. Witchhunts are never fun and simply cause hysteria amongst the population. For the time being it seems like we have just one prolific sockpuppet user, lets deal with that issue before grabbing the pitchforks and setting forth to burn the heathen. 4. Ahh Stabber, our little drama queen/king. His/her dubious gender aside, pretty much all the recent drama has come about through some sort of interaction with him/her, be it a revert war, the recent witchhunt, or simple rumourmongering. This is not entirely his/her fault, but he/she has been caught in a number of lies and has a history of childish 'well I'm taking my toys and going home' actions. I'm not sure punishment is the best approach to be honest, if he/she wants to continue to contribute it must be under the knowledge that sockpuppetry and suchlike will not be tollerated. Ok he/she has done a good lot of work for the wiki, but the ridiculous drama which seems to follow him/her like the plague is just getting too much. As an aside, I'm concerned with the 'White Knight' effect that has caught a few people. By this I mean they see a 'girl' on the internet, and immediately feel honourbound to leap to her defense regardless of anything else, through some misplaced sense of duty. Sure I'll open doors for women, allow them to sit down before I do, and so forth, but on the internet where everyone is a balding fat man in his 40s until proven otherwise, simply stating 'btw, I'm a girl' can get you preferrential treatment regardless of any actual proof. I've seen this a number of times in the recent past, and on a number of messageboards, games and so on. Please, for the sake of actual productive interactions, don't try and jump in the pants of everyone who claims to be female or feel honourbound to defend them :( GregPalo 05:31, 19 June 2006 (CDT) Warning: Stabber appears to have responded in User talk:Stabber#Oh man. In my opinion, his/her rebuttal is not convincing. Others may feel differently. I still propose permanent bans on his/her confirmed sockpuppets, viz. User:Deldda Kcarc and User:Koyashi. Arrowsmith 00:58, 19 June 2006 (CDT) 1.
* Yes. Socketpuppetry (if done hidden) breaks good faith and conjures up a huge host of problems: Voting, community consensus, revert/delete rules, appropriate credit/blame for actions. Especially I do not believe that we can stop having votes. In the end each form of decision making is a vote, unless it is done autocratically by one leader (not workable here since Gravewit is not participating in day-to-day issues, and neither my preferece) or by unanimity (which leads to extremely long discussion and worse, might not be achievable). Lets say I and some other user argue that socketpuppets should be banned, while 10 people say they dont care. Even though this is not a vote, I would back down and we would have established a new policy. Now if those 10 people where actually 1 person, they would have influenced the wiki, even though there was no vote and regardless of how good their arguments were. 2.
* If someone OPENLY (by adding a note to each userpage) uses multiple accounts, nothing should be done, since there are legitimate reasons to have more then one account. Multiple accounts without such a note should be a bannable offense. Note1: Ban on both accounts Note2: The length of the ban should be handled by the admins Note3: This punishment should not be used retroactively, since we had no clear policy on this before 1.
* Imho, there is not really a sane way, except by chance. But sooner or later the puppetmaster will trip up and someone will notice. I would not recommend actively searching for socketpuppets (but of course noone can stop users from doing so). 2.
* As I said in 3., no. Punishments should not be used retroactively. However I feel Stabber will have a hard time to be a normal contributer here after all the drama. --Xeeron 05:55, 19 June 2006 (CDT) Seems all the good points have been said. I will second the complete and total block of TOR and any other anonymous internet communication systems. No current user or potential user should feel the need to "hide" while contributing. --Gares Redstorm 12:57, 19 June 2006 (CDT)
|
![[RDF Data]](/fct/images/sw-rdf-blue.png)