SmashWiki talk:Sockpuppets

"Fresh start" sock puppets should be allowed, though strict rules have to be placed on it. Mr. Anontalk 13:24, 28 October 2012 (EDT)

Although Wikipedia's policies have no jurisdiction here, I think this has a really good list of legitimate and illegitimate uses of sockpuppets, most of which apply here. Mr. Anontalk 13:27, 28 October 2012 (EDT)

Most of these don't even apply to SmashWiki and can't apply to Smashwiki. I see no reason to give Users a "second chance" account. Think about what would have happened to the wiki if the first round of kids, basically all having been banned at some point, had made "second chance" accounts. Nothing would have changed, and it would have taken an obnoxious amount of effort to track their identities down and administer proper punishment. If a user wants a second chance, we've given them plenty. Just ask BNK, who was permabanned and for legitimate reason. He got a second chance, and he's done fine, but he didn't necessarily deserve one. The point is, second chances are the community's to grant. If you say that people deserve a second chance sock, you're saying that it is their right to have their record erased and get a second chance, and that's not how things should be done. Semicolon (talk) 14:00, 28 October 2012 (EDT)

You acknowledge that users may be allowed a second chance in certain scenarios. All a "fresh start" account does is allow the user to let go of their messy history. Obviously such a case requires admin permission and the user will be kept on a tight lease. You misrepresent my proposal as saying that users will "deserve" a second chance. That's not the case. A user has to contact an administrator and outline their case. The ultimate say still goes to the administration of the wiki. Mr. Anontalk 14:41, 28 October 2012 (EDT)

Also, if you don't think the wikipedia list applies to SmashWiki, give specific examples. Even in cases where this wiki has not had many cases of the example doesn't mean it won't in the future (especially since we are expecting a massive surge of users with SSB 4). Mr. Anontalk 14:43, 28 October 2012 (EDT)

Not even. Your proposal said we ought to let people make second chance socks, under regulations. The purpose of a sock is that it's identity is not known to the rest of the community. If somebody asks permission to make a sock and reports its identity to the administration, then those admins are complicit in hiding information from the rest of the community. That violates the purpose of SW:SIG in the sense that people are supposed to be able to identify the person who has made those comments. By allowing people to make their own socks dependent on mod permission, you are hiding important information from the community, and violating the purpose of another Wiki policy. By allowing people to make their own "second chance" sock independent of mod permission, you are effectively saying that users deserve second chances which is the prerogative of the community.

You want specific examples? Okay, how about privacy, humor accounts, and security, and basically all the rest can be have cases made for them. The only legitimate use of a sock on this wiki is for administrators to test tools, in which case the identity of the sock will be obvious. For example, if chawk needs to test some administrator tool, he will give that tool to a sock he named chawksock or some such so people know it's a legitimate admin sock. These things just don't overlap. Semicolon (talk) 14:56, 28 October 2012 (EDT)

"If someone asks permission to make a sock and reports its identity to the administration, then those admins are complicit in hiding information from the rest of the community."

Correct. Administrators are trusted with handling certain sensitive information. This is why they have the ability to view deleted pages, and hide certain edits. Not to mention the checkuser power.

"That violates the purpose of SW:SIG in the sense that people are supposed to be able to identify the person who has made those comments."

Not correct. By this logic, transitioning from an IP to a username is also a violation of that policy, as is changing your username. Other users are still able to identify you as whatever you have chosen to name your new account. SW:SIG has a place on this wiki, but it is not here.

"You want specific examples? Okay, how about privacy, humor accounts, and security, and basically all the rest can be have cases made for them."

You give examples, but you do not explain why these do not apply. For privacy, there has been at least one case (Ivy101) where the concern applied. I concede that humor accounts would be disruptive on this wiki, but that is hardly an important example on the list. And I see no reason why the security example does not apply here (at least one user has reported hijacking attempts on their account through keyloggers).

You also claim that the only cases where alternative accounts are necessary is administrator tests. This ignores bots and the proposed example of password resets, the former of which definitely applies on this wiki (not a major criticism of your argument, but additional examples to consider). Mr. Anontalk 15:39, 28 October 2012 (EDT)

I hate to break it to you but admins don’t really handle sensitive information. The worst we deal with is people putting racist crap into pages that we delete.

No, it’s not. Your signature and username is your constant ID. If you have a variable IP then obviously your Up doesn’t have a 1-to-1 correlation with your identity, which is precisely ‘’why’’ we use usernames and accounts. In general, changing your username doesn’t happen for precisely that reason, but the fact is you can only change your username in your signature. In the RCs your ID remains the same, so it’s not the same. SW:SIG is meant to make identification constant; this proposal does not do this.

They don’t apply because it’s inherently obvious. You are arbitrarily valuing some things over others; on what basis is “humor” less important than privacy? If even one of these doesn’t apply, your invocation of any of these is invalid. We aren’t Wikipedia, and I think that’s actually written into SmashWiki policy somewhere.

The fact stands that there is ‘’’no’’’ reason to apply this caveat. Why do we even want to let people get second identities? If people are crappy contributors, then they should be held accountable for these. They can change their perceptions by changing the way they edit. Giving them a blank slate doesn’t incentivize a change in behavior. You can say that mods should screen this, but I don’t see why that should be the job of the administration more than it should be the responsibility of a person to improve their behavior if they’ve been a shitty contributor.Semicolon (talk) 16:33, 28 October 2012 (EDT)

"I hate to break it to you but admins don’t really handle sensitive information. The worst we deal with is people putting racist crap into pages that we delete."

I did not say we deal with it often, but admins are still trusted with more sensitive information than the rest of the community. Why else would the checkuser power be exclusive to admins? And why else would the ability to hide edits be trusted with admins.

"In general, changing your username doesn’t happen for precisely that reason, but the fact is you can only change your username in your signature."

That's news to me. I suppose Bandit, Dots, and Blindcolours have all just changed their signatures. We have signatures in order for users to know who to respond to. If a user makes a clean start, they still have to have a username, talk page, and signature. Your argument implies that other users need to know your full history if they want to identify you.

"They don’t apply because it’s inherently obvious. You are arbitrarily valuing some things over others; on what basis is “humor” less important than privacy?"

Obviously some reasons are less important to the spirit of the policy than others. The humor example does not apply here because that kind of humor would not be nearly as disruptive to Wikipedia as a smaller wiki like SmashWiki. Things like privacy or security, on the other hand, hold universally around the internet.

"If even one of these doesn’t apply, your invocation of any of these is invalid. We aren’t Wikipedia, and I think that’s actually written into SmashWiki policy somewhere."

How is that supposed to follow? I'm not directly proposing that we follow Wikipedia's list. Toomai (the one proposing the sockpuppetry policy) has the discretion to choose which ideas end up in his proposal. All I'm doing is laying out a list of ideas to possibly incorporate into it.

If a user fucks up and says something on the wiki that compromises their privacy or security, they get to request that it be hidden from the majority of the viewerbase. If a user has fucked up enough that SW:YAV is practically ignored, and they are unable to have their opinions and edits viewed objectively, they should be allowed to request a start from the beginning, where their history is laid behind them and they can have a real shot at redeeming themselves. Mr. Anontalk 18:26, 28 October 2012 (EDT)

Meatpuppetry

The above debate aside, this policy should mention Meatpuppetry. Meatpuppetry is the practice of getting users from off-site to back you up in a debate in order to achieve consensus. While the guideline of SW:YAV is supposed to be followed, it is undeniable that many users, especially newer ones, can be swayed by the appearance of consensus. Mr. Anontalk 15:44, 28 October 2012 (EDT)

As long as we continue to adhere to the substance of the arguments, and remember quality > quantity (these meatpuppets will invariably be +1ing or just rehashing what the person they're supporting said), this is really just an annoyance rather than being a legitimate concern we have to address. Omega Tyrant 16:03, 28 October 2012 (EDT)