Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppetry

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

"Wikipedia:LOGOUT" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect Wikipedia:LOGOUT has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 September 11 § Logging out until a consensus is reached. 1234qwer1234qwer4 02:17, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Joe jobs

[edit]

I discovered today that WP:JOEJOB nor WP:Joe job nor WP:JOE JOB exist and was wondering where the best place to document "someone faking as someone else in an attempt to embarrass the someone else or earn the someone else blocks etc." would be, having had need to reference it for at least one user who I could not trivially say was up to speed in sockpuppet hunting. Any suggestions or reading (this page or elsewhere) that I might have missed for this concept? Izno (talk) 18:58, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps WP:IMPERSONATOR (at the usernames policy) comes closer than socking does. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:09, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If I understand both of you correctly we shouldn't conclude those two are same things. WP:IMPERSONATOR covers usernames (ie. user Izn0) while Izno is pointing at a different problem (ie. me faking his actions so he gets blocked) which is common for (especially crosswiki) long term abusers and many SPI cases out there. IMHO needs proper care being explained in clear and concise terms and I do not see them equal whatsoever. A09|(talk) 19:15, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I misunderstand something here. Is there a way for someone to "fake his actions" without also faking his account? I suppose someone creating an Izn0 account might do so as an innocent coincidence, but if they create such an account, it is more likely to be for intentional impersonation.
Or is this about where someone creates a sock account, in order to create the appearance of being a sock of a good-faith user? Like a different username, but with WP:DUCK behavior combined with some sort of disruption? If it's that, then I agree it's a sock issue rather than a username issue. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:03, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's the second case. Like, someone opens a poor ANI report and asks for an editor to be cbanned and four socks show up saying "this report is so true and great. SUPPORT ban!!" -- asilvering (talk) 20:38, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for explaining. But. What you just described is standard-issue socking, not a Joe job. If the ANI report is about bad conduct by another member of the same sockfarm, then that's a Joe job, but the ANI report is about an impersonation. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:51, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's a joe-job if there is an inference that the socks belong to an innocent user. In this example, if the person who started the thread is accused of stacking the vote with socks, which they didn't, then that's a joe-job. There are many variations, but it's all about getting an innocent user sanctioned. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:25, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It appears, alas, that I'm getting old. I'm pretty sure that I can remember[citation needed] when Joe job was used more-or-less interchangeably with false flag, but I see from our page on it that this is not current usage. So, after setting aside my confusion, it sounds to me now like this is like regular socking (because most socks, aside from bad-hands, are designed to look innocent), but with a specific kind of agenda. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:06, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I typically link to joe job (check the NS4 backlinks). The proper definition is not a direct match, but the article probably has some room for tweaks. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:19, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I didn't like the explanation offered there of what Joe job apparently means in the rest of the world in the context of how it's used here -- false flag that Trypto surfaced above actually does a much better job immediately of offering a definition that makes sense in our context. Izno (talk) 16:36, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'm relieved that I'm not totally off my rocker. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:19, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Guess you're going to have to write it yourself! -- asilvering (talk) 20:02, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it could be another point added to WP:BADSOCK. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:25, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it was less a question of whether we should have Something discussing it and more about the best place for where. Not all Joe jobs are necessarily socks but I would guess the vast majority are of some aggrieved party in opposition to the targeted person. Which I suppose suggests WP:Harassment as well, perhaps of the hounding flavor. Izno (talk) 16:39, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Given that there are partial matches here, at harrass, and at usernames, the glossary solution below might be the easiest path to take. One could note there, the various things it relates to. I'm inclined to think that we don't need to change any policies to specify that this is considered a policy violation, because that's already self-evident. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:19, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is indeed already a policy violation, but as we like to say but not follow as often as the early days, such are descriptive, and we would be describing that this is already something people must not do. But either way, I stopped by here because this page has a dozen definitions of illegitimate socking, which kind of squinting looked like the right kind of way to acknowledge the practice of Joe jobbing. I'm fine with putting it at the glossary, but then surfacing the glossary item in the relevant pages under which one might issue a block for something so obviously wrong...? Izno (talk) 00:46, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, there's nothing wrong with doing all of the above. I don't think we need to update policies, but I'm not opposed to doing it, just more work. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:49, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I took a shot at a really brief version at WP:Harass with this edit. I guess that version doesn't really cover the case of On Wheels imitators (and other vandalistic imitators) who also sometimes earn the Joe job nomenclature, so maybe harass is indeed the wrong place for this to live. Izno (talk) 18:56, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I like that addition. Perhaps there should be something like it at other places; I'm not sure. Depending on what we collectively think about that, we could consider creating a WP:JOEJOB and/or WP:FALSEFLAG redirect/shortcut. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:10, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've made a second change here. I definitely don't think it makes sense to place anything substantial at User names, that looks the way it should (at most a reference needed from there to here). The redirect IMPERSONATOR pointing there makes me tweak a bit, since that's the name I guess we all could be using in this regard and it wouldn't have any of the pain of using English idioms to sort around the fact that there's a much deeper core issue of impersonation here (not just by name but also in activity).
Not certain I know where WP: redirects should point here. I suppose the glossary just ultimately points to the uses here and at harassment if we add a reference there, but I've already defined something twice-ish and I don't really want to define it a third time on a totally separate and probably much-less-observed page. Izno (talk) 22:00, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you about the Glossary, although I guess someone else might want to add it sometime. As for WP:IMPERSONATOR, I just created a see also that I think works. I'm kind of thinking that the WP:JOEJOB and WP:FALSEFLAG redirects could both go to the paragraph at WP:HOUND. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:20, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's good enough for me. Izno (talk) 23:47, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If we don't want to write a whole essay, we could add it to Wikipedia:Glossary and point WP:JOEJOB to that. Mz7 (talk) 06:36, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, this is a good spot. Then we don't need to worry about what page it fits on best. -- asilvering (talk) 17:04, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can sock good edits be returned?

[edit]

Hi can the sock puppet [good] edits be reverted? In the I Wayan Koster article because it has better quality more info good grammar and more views than the former edits since it displays wrong information and lots of typos for example Koster was not born in Singaraja but Sembiran (there is a source in the section) and it says Koster was the 10th governor but the template states he was the 9th governor when in fact he was the 8th of governor, if this is not fixed, it will confuse readers and the returnees don't seem to care about these mistakes, and that is why article views have been decreasing recently, and that's sad, can someone tell me how to revert the edits? or request an appeal to be returned? 2400:9800:9B3:DE0B:A6F2:D14D:3659:DB51 (talk) 01:06, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In principle yes, but in that case the editor who returns the text is responsible for it, including being responsible for checking that the sources are reliable and support the text. Zerotalk 04:06, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes in the previous edit the source was reliable only the grammar might be considered inappropriate here as it is a translation from Indonesian wiki because the returner returned everything by saying "poorly written content" instead of improving the written content, so could you please revert it for me and fix the bad written? And please talk to the returner about this 🙏. 2400:9800:7C1:D7D0:BFEA:9C3D:ADD5:3180 (talk) 05:48, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sir please reply and help me, both the reverters of the edits are not willing to respond to me 140.213.56.218 (talk) 15:13, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't said who you think the sockpuppet is or which editors are introducing mistakes and which are removing them (I see multiple sets of reversions have been going on), though I do see you were blocked for 31 hours a couple of days ago on account of your edits there. If someone editing the article is a blocked user, that user should be reported, with evidence, and blocked. Beyond that, you should all be discussing your disagreement at Talk:I Wayan Koster and trying to get it resolved rather than fighting it out directly in the article through edit warring and rather than expecting anyone on this talk page to figure out what's going on. Largoplazo (talk) 16:16, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Indonesianinfo2 and Karuna Agoeng and several anonymous accounts that support them are considered sockpupets here, I have spoken to the person who brought back the revision but they don't want to listen and delete my message, please help me talk to them and restore the sockpupet edits well because it can still be fixed and sourced + more info + more views, not typos and miss information like the current revision, i am sad to see her views dropping drastically because of this, please help. 2400:9800:7C2:FFA2:3768:3FC1:6BCF:9780 (talk) 05:52, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Indonesiainfo2 was blocked over three months ago, while Karuna Agoeng made only one edit to this article before being checkuser-blocked. The only edit by an anonymous user since the end of August other than your own (I assume all the 2400:9800:* edits are yours) is this small one on October 5. You may have tried to talk to them on their own talk pages, but there's no discussion of this on the article's talk page, so I don't know which users you've been talking to or what you've been saying to them. As far as I can tell from the article's history, @Juxlos and @ScottishFinnishRadish are the two people who've been doing major clean-up of questionable edits. Maybe they can clarify what you're trying to explain to us? Largoplazo (talk) 12:51, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is the same sockpuppeteer evading their block. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:06, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is the sockpuppet user. I would recommend admins not take their words in good faith - they have demonstrated in previous occasions that they either do not commit to promises, or just pasted text from generative AI without understanding what it means. Refer to the latest report in the YilevBot SPI. Juxlos (talk) 14:21, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 5 November 2025

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. It's snowing in here. It's pretty clear this RM won't be going anywhere towards a move any time soon. (closed by non-admin page mover) EggRoll97 (talk) 17:24, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry → Wikipedia:No Sockpuppetry – keep it consistent with other articles such as Wikipedia:Do not create hoaxes or Wikipedia:No Original Research. Protoeus (talk) 01:35, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • SNOW Close To be blunt, this idea is stupid.
Tankishguy 15:41, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oshwah we may want your opinion. Tankishguy 15:51, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
or closure tbh Tankishguy 15:52, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Tankishguy - I could be wrong, but discussions like this usually have to stick around for at least seven days first. I wouldn't lose sleep over whether or not this discussion stays open for this long; I think the consensus is quite loud and clear. ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 16:43, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This policy page discusses sock puppetry in a general sense (including a section that details legitimate reasons for doing so). I think there's something that needs to be said, which is this: the naming convention of Wikipedia's different policy and guideline pages and how they're titled are of course "inconsistent"; that's because there is no naming convention. Policy and guideline pages are titled in order to reflect the information that it covers and what the page is mainly about, and they're titled in order to make the most sense to the common reader and the new user, and nothing more. Period. They're not titled to have some hidden meaning or to state that what it covers is something that is or isn't allowed. Anyone who would try to argue in their unblock request or at ANI that "well, since this policy page is called 'vandalism' instead of 'no vandalism' or 'do not engage in vandalism', that means that vandalism is acceptable!" would be absolutely laughed at and cast aside as a troll. Let's not make things more difficult than they need to be, and lets not attempt to add a hidden meaning to page titles that doesn't exist and that never has. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 16:33, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.