Talk:Sock puppet account/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

graphic

Why is the sock puppet graphic on this page? Does it serve any purpose at all?

I find it funny. (Not the one who put it up)

Me too! (Not the one who put it up...either.) It's soo cute! <3/Teentitans! 22:32, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

I would rather it stayed; articles with even the most tangentally related illustration tend to be easier on the eye than those with none. However, I'll discuss here before reverting removal! — ciphergoth 18:34, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

I'm with ciphergoth. It makes the article look more complete, having an image there, and at any rate this isn't the Take Everything in a Mortally Serious Manneripedia. I thought ol' Socky was charming. Lord Bob 20:36, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

I'm the one who removed the picture (on the basis of the whole 'be bold' thing) because it has no relevance to the article in question. The article is not about literal sock puppets (there is a separate article on that, where the picture is appropriate) but instead about metaphorical sock puppets. I would not expect the article on the Internet Worm to have a cute picture of a worm, or an article on network switches having a picture of a light switch, or an article on Internet gateways having a picture of a gate. If it makes the article look more complete, it is an illusion. However, I'm not interested in having an edit war; if the consensus is that the picture adds to the article, then put it back. I just think it's rather silly and detracts from rather than adds to the article. TTFN. --Huppybanny 07:12, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

I note that the sock puppet graphic is back. While it is a funny picture, I still think it is not terribly appropriate for this article. --Huppybanny 00:25, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

what would a serious picture of a sock puppet look like? perhaps a blueprint diagram? Bwithh 00:32, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't know, but is a picture really necessary? Is our policy to be "we can't find an appropriate picture, so let's put an inappropriate picture instead - at least it's funny"? --Huppybanny 08:16, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I think the picture is a nice touch to the article. As said by ciphergoth, articles with pictures are easier on the eyes, and this picture seems to suit the article IMHO. --Murray-Mint 20:09, 03 November 2005 (UTC)

We should certainly lose the picture. A photo of a "toy" sock puppet is irrelevant to this article on Internet sock puppet. ("Funny" is also irrelevant to the purpose of this article.) ("Easier on the eyes" is also pretty irrelevant. If we wanted everything on Wikipedia to be "easy on the eyes", we'd put photos of beach babes and baby animals on every page.) Note also that the photo is visible at Sock puppet -- and more appropriately! -- for those who wish to enjoy it there. - 21 November 2005

Please keep it. I believe the picture aids in immediate comprehension for newbies as the accessibility of the metaphor greatly increases comprehension and the non-threatening picture reassures someone that they understand the concept, because it is simple and non-threatening. A picture of a light switch may not explain a network switch very simply, but I've used the metaphor of a railroad switch to explain how a KVM box works (when otherwise it just looks like any other electronic box) and there is a fair amount of literature in technical communicatons which supports the "some pictures are better than no pictures" argument, as illustrated in practice by various low-threat computer books such as IDG's "For Dummies" series. Being able to understand the metaphor instantly and anchor it to previous experience definitely aids understanding, more than technically (or rhetorically) gifted users may appreciate. - Not-Bob (aka Rorybowman 14:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC))

There is just no justification for putting up the picture. It ought to be removed, cause it does not serve any purpose for the article. Its cuteness does not qualify it for staying on this page. I will request the admins to look into this matter. Even after continous reverts by Admins like Sean Black this image is being continously put up on this article again and again.

Maybe a change in the caption, could sort out somethings for the fate of this image.

Possibly the caption has been changed since this post - but caption and image illustrate well the "talk to the hand" metaphor of the name "sockpuppet". I think image and caption contribute to comprehension and content, and should stay. Fast Rita 05:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

- Anirudh 1140 hrs 21 February 2006 (IST)

The picture does too serve as a use, it shows very clearly where the term sockpuppet comes from in this sense. Because a sockpuppet in the other sense is some kind of fake deception controlled by somebody else, which is the same general sense as what this article is about. Mathmo 23:59, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

While I fully understand those who think the picture should be removed on account of its irrelvance, I have to say that it's actually quite an apt picture to have up. The metaphor of a person using their hand to mimic a seperate entity is an entirely accurate way of describing sockpuppetry on the internet.

First, the fact that a sockpuppet isn't going to fool anyone who gives it a hard look applies to both actual and internet sockpuppetry. Second, the fact that the user in question is using his hand to create the illusion applies to the internet case as well, as they type their mendatious comments on a keyboard. -- Chris 01:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

To the ones against the picture: please remember wikipedia is read in many countries -- including the ones where english is not a first language. The picture helps the understanding considerably, especially for objects not common in other cultures. Making puppets out of socks is not as popular around the world as you may think.

A more appropriate image might be the cartoon that was in funnytimes at some point of an office scene in which the boss was conversing with a cubicled employee with a sock on his hand, saying something like "all time-off requests have to go through Miss Fuzzy" or something like that Minitrue 16:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Bogdanoff discussion

There seems no reason for the Bogdanoff affair to be given prominence over the many other examples of sock puppet allegations. Please discuss those reasons here before re-introducing your changes. Also, when your edits are disputed it's useful to have a Wikipedia account, which is easy to create. — ciphergoth 20:59, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

It's not allegations, it has been proved, and the Brothers themselves acknowledge it. it's not a matter of prominence for me, it's just a simple and relevant example. But if you don't want it, i won't fight with you. I just find it rude to erase my work,without a single word. Maybe it's "the way it is" here.

Puppetry

Whatever you say, I'm for it. :) Wahkeenah 12:01, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Whatever you say, I'm against it. >:( Wahkeenah 12:02, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

One advantage to being openly schizophrenic is that you can be your own sock puppet, and thus avoid the time and trouble of multiple registrations. :) Wahkeenah 12:03, 9 October 2005 (UTC) >:( Oh, yeh? Wahkeenah 12:04, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, you probably would say that, if you existed... The Real Walrus 23:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Sock Puppet = Limiting Term

My wiki Dual_troll was merged here. I'm not really complaining, except this merge is limiting. A dual is both a sock puppet used for trolling and a secondary account used to circumvent a ban. A sockpuppet is not used to circumvent a ban and therefore unless anyone objects, I'll be unmerging Dual_troll shortly Borgs8472 02:39, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps it might be better if you added a section to this article beginning "A somewhat different use for a secondary account is..."? (subscribers to the Mergist philosophy would approve...) Thomas Ash 11:43, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

yes, SPs are used to circumvent bans. Minitrue 16:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Origins

What is the origin of the term sock puppet? If I may conjecture, might the "sock" part originate from the term socket?

This is very unlikely. While a lot of words share similar parts with "sock puppet" (internet), only "sock puppet" (the original definition) has a very close meaning. --24.86.70.170 02:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it refers to the fact that a puppeteer using sockpuppets could control more than one puppet at a time. -- 70.140.219.246 02:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Origin of the Term

Most likely the origin of the term "Sock Puppet" reflects what a real sock puppet is: a fake personality operated by an actual personality. Perhaps this should be noted in the actual article?

I think that the origin of the term is important to the encyclopedia entry. Even if we don't (yet) know why the author coined the term, we could say that the original meaning is lost to antiquity. I, for one, would like to understand why it is a "sock" puppet rather than simply a puppet or a hand puppet or a Muppet or a marionette, etc. Maybe a sock puppet is just funnier than any other type of puppet the author could think of. Why else would we have a picture of a sock puppet on the entry? It's funny!--Jcoman 20:50, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I was going to ask about the origins too, so I'm taking the above two comments and adding them to the article. Rlevse 13:18, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

"Muppets", marionettes, etc. are carefully crafted and detailed works of art. They take time and skill to make. A nickname like that would give too much credit. A sock puppet can be made with a sock and a magic marker (and even the marker is optional) on the spur of the moment. It implies an identity quickly tossed together - simple and completely disposable. Kafziel 14:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Should NOT be a candidate for Wiktionary

Recently, the "Move to Wiktionary" template was added, and I disagree strongly. The article not only explains what the term means, but also describes its applications and examples. While I think it would be nice for there to be a little more "meat" to this article, I definitely think there's too much to move it all to Wiktionary, and I'd rather have it here in its entirety than carved up for a dictionary entry. I'll wait for potential feedback before removing the template though. -- Hinotori 07:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Didn't hear back from anyone, so I decided to go ahead and take it back out. If this is disputed, feel free to address it here. Cheers.

-- Hinotori 10:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I strongly concur, Hinotori - Sock puppet is indeed a very valid and relevant topic. By the way, I added two paragraphs dealing with the difficult of combatting sock puppetry. Dr1819 21:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Image

Erm, huh? The image is completely irrelevant to this article. Looking at the section at the top, I see people claiming it should stay because "it's funny". That's not an argument. Unless you give me some reason it should stay (an actual, relevant to the encyclopedia reason), I'm removing it again.--Sean Black ^(talk) 23:59, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

It's a metaphore, rendered as a sock puppet going to jail, i.e. a sock puppet that have done something illegal. _→AzaToth 01:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

...so? How does that make it encyclopediac?--Sean Black ^(talk) 02:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it should stay. Yes, it's not encyclopedic in the paper sense, but then again, what paper encyclopedia would even HAVE an article on sock puppets? Let it live, man. --Rob ^T 14:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think a little tongue-in-cheek humor is inherently opposed to an article's encyclopedic nature. I don't see any harm in including the image. As for the benefits, several users have already suggested that it is helpful aesthetically, and seeing as how internet-related subjects are hard to illustrate, a metaphor is actually about the closest one can come to a relevant illustration. I'm in favor of keeping it as well. -- Hinotori^{(talk)|(ctrb)} 03:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Sure, let's have this argument again. Why not? I don't think it takes anything off the table and it's a light touch to a non-serious article; therefore, I think it should stay. Lord Bob 03:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, short essay:

I found those soch-puppet on commons, and thought, this might be nice to work with. After an amounth of time, I had came up with Mugshot Puppet S.png.

I thought, the image might go the the pages arguing with sock puppets, so Wikipedia:Sock puppet and here. I didn't think so myck of the relevancy at that time.

But now when I reading this article, I feel that thte image gives me an metaphor that no text could give me, because the probmel we have here is that: What is an sock puppet, what does he look like?, perhaps stupid question you might think, but we here have personifed a sentence, but there is nothing concrete to grab.

My metafor is that, we have one sock puppet, standing in a pose, as in a mugshot. This might give readers the image that a sockpuppet is someone that have a high probability to do something wrong and bad.

— _→AzaToth 03:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep the image - it's a visual representation of the actual origen of the term "sock puppet."

I highly disagree, these images make the page look silly and appear as if it was never meant to be taken seriously in the first place. Maybe the image at the top could stay, but the rest make this article look like Wikipedia's the next Uncyclopedia. That's most definetely not what we're trying to achieve, now is it?—♦♦ SʘʘTHING^(Я) 10:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

For whatever it's worth, all the images currently on the page, with the exception of the pair of mugshots at the top, were posted by an indefinitely blocked abusive editor who created several socks in an attempt to get around the block. - Tapir Terrific 15:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

That appears to be true. So, in this case, I see no further reason for keeping these images. I've taken them off the article.—♦♦ SʘʘTHING^(Я) 12:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Reference to eBay

In the first paragraph of the article, a sock puppet is claimed to be one who bids on his own auctions. Frankly, I have never heard it used in this context. One who bids on his own auctions is usually called a "Shill." eBay does indeed have a policy against it here.

If I'm wrong about the common usage of the term, then I'd recommend that a link be provided to the more common term: shill If I'm right, then I would recommend that the reference be removed.--gargoyle888 01:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Psuedonyms and Sockpuppets

Anonymous Ponders: Is there any precedent for Sockpuppets being used simply to allow for a user to be able to make a statement without fear of reprisal on their main account? 128.113.148.32 03:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I am sure this is done all the time. Would you want a system where everyone is required to give their full identity to make a comment? Steve Dufour 20:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Meatpuppets

The text "Wikipedians (and others) should remember however that the use of such terms may be perceived as highly offensive to the people involved. By definition the first contribution of a new user will be to a particular area, and they may start by expressing a view on what should happen on a particular before they subsequently add material of their own. Only if there is very strong evidence should such a term be used in relation to an account created by real person. Note also that "JDoe is a meatpuppet" can only mean "the account called JDoe is a meatpuppet" and to avoid offence the longer form is preferable" has been deleted. What do people think? NBeale 14:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I am now confused. I had the impression that a "meat puppet" was a real person, a friend of the main poster, who was asked to come in and lend support on an issue. The article seems to be saying that it is another kind of false identity. Which is right? On the other issue, I agree that calling someone one could be offensive. Although a person could play this role from time to time, I don't think that makes him one. Steve Dufour 16:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Humour

Minor silliness:

"I am not a sock puppet - I am a free foot."

(Not self-referential of course)

Jackiespeel 16:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Original research?

The majority of this article is a big pile of original research. The references are really only citing specific cases and incidents, they're not sourcing the rest of the article.--Crossmr 00:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, it's an essay from start to finish. This will need a lot of work. Chris Cunningham 09:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Question

Do people creating accounts on the basis of simply wanting to display a different user name at different situation essentially creating sock puppets? (even though they admit all of those are from the same person?) MythSearcher^talk 05:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The term "sockpuppet" is really meant only for situations where somebody who already has a username makes an attempt to deceive people by creating a second account and posting from that account as if a brand-new person had joined the discussion. There are plenty of legitimate reasons for people to use pseudonyms on the web. You can also find quite a lot of cases where people throw around the word "sockpuppet" as an insult to try to delegitimize opinions they disagree with by suggesting that their opponents are using dishonest means to make the opinions look more popular than they are. betsythedevine 22:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Original research and POV issues

This article needs cleanup and a rewrite, as others have noted. Instead of adding more original research, to insert POV of opposite sign, let's start by looking at some other WP articles that had similar problems and overcame them. Internet troll is one article that comes to mind.

One editor seems unhappy that this article fails to discuss positive or neutral reasons an author might have for using more than one identity. Such a discussion might be a good addition to WP's article Online identity, but the term "sockpuppet" is never used for multiple identities except when one the added identity is used deceptively. Sockpuppet is a pejorative term for one specific misuse of multiple identity.

I'm giving this just a first whack, hope others will improve it. betsythedevine 16:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

For example, our sections here might include "Etymology" (origins and early uses of the term). "History" (examples of sockpuppet-type behavior in chronological order from earliest to most recent), "Accusations of sockpuppetry" (for techniques used to identify sockpuppets, and for professional sockpuppets' defenses against such techniques), "References", "See also" (for other Wikipedia articles with related content), and "External links" (for non-Wikipedia articles with useful content). Your suggestions, improvements? betsythedevine 01:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Add book review instances

Amazon reviews are no longer anonymous because of such "sock puppets". The NYTimes had a great article a few years back, when the policy was changed. It included several accounts of authors hyping up their own entries. Anyone with Lexis or NYTimes Select (though their search function is quite weak) and a bit of time should be able to dig it up. It's perfect for this article.

child nappers?

What about people who use the internet to trap children are they also not people pretending to be someone else.Maybe we can add that as well.Vmrgrsergr 03:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

That's not really the same kind of thing. Sockpuppetry isn't just about pretending to be someone else, its about what you do while pretending to be someone else. Sockpuppets often revolve around trying to convince an online community or group of individuals to sway to your cause/ideology, like in the case of people who use puppets during AfD, or to bolster support during an argument, or to try and push some political ideal/product. You'd be hard pressed to find anyone who refers to child predators as a sockpuppet I think.--Crossmr 20:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Concern trolls and sockpuppets

I think the section on concern trolls is in the wrong article. While a concern troll could potentially use sockpuppetry in the course of their actions, it's not an integral part of them. A concern troll is just another variety of troll; they don't need a second account to accomplish their goal.

-- Chronos Tachyon 06:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I think concern troll deserves a mention here--in many ways it is the mirror-image of the strawman sockpuppet. In most of the cases that have come to light, the concern troll was a paid employee for one politician masquerading online as a "concerned" supporter of their employer's opponent. That kind of misrepresentation is classic sockpuppetry. We did have an article on concern trolls once--it got Afd-ed, and redirected to this page--and it's still redirected to this page, which now contains no information about it. I'm restoring that info, feel free to add it also to internet troll if you haven't already. betsythedevine 11:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

No it isn't. The strawman sockpuppet by necessity requires a second person to go and rebut its claims; the concern troll can stand alone. One high-profile case doesn't really make a difference here. Chris Cunningham 11:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that concern troll deserves its own article, really. It's not a perfect fit here, and it's an even worse one at Internet troll. To my mind the essence of sockpuppetry isn't that you have someone speaking in two different voices, it is that you have someone speaking through the pseudonymous sock. You did a great job cleaning up this article--can you find a way to do something sensible with the concern troll info? I think it's important to have it in Wikipedia. betsythedevine 11:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The thing is, "concern troll" itself is a very recent neologism (it turned up on, what, Kos or Atrios a year ago or so) and the exact definition is still a little murky to a great deal of people (witness the recent post on Time's blog where Karen asked the commenters to give a definition; they gave about five contradictory ones). It may be best leaving it for a while until the term gets used more commonly. Though I disagree with your characterisation of sockpuppetry; the whole thing that separates it from mere anonymity is that you've got someone nearby pulling the strings, so it's almost always employed in reference either to the master himself or to the master's opinions. I could go use a made-up account to go troll some message board about how bananas give people cancer and turn them into Communists or whatever, but unless I myself am involved in said debate somehow it isn't sockpuppetry. Chris Cunningham 12:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a cute analogy, but it begs the question of whether being "involved in said debate" requires you to have posted in the same forum under a different identity. If you are the CEO of Whole Foods then you are "involved" in any debate that might boost or harm your company's stock. It's interesting that the NYT today describes exactly such a situation as "sock puppetry"--where the CEO used the fake sockpuppet identity "Rahodeb" both to concern troll his rivals and to praise himself. [1] betsythedevine 14:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Early versus recent uses of "sockpuppet"

Does sockpuppetry require dual postings in the same forum under two different names? This may have been true in the past, but an article in today's NY Times uses the term in a much more general and (IMO) more widely-understood way to include pseudonymous postings by someone who conceals a real identity because the true motivations of that real identity would be transparent to forum members.

For example, Republican political consulant Tad Furtado had not posted under his real identity to any Democratic blogs--but the false identity he claimed there (an independent NH voter leaning toward the Democratic candidate) was a sockpuppet, according to the NYT today. Similarly, when Whole Foods CEO John Mackey used the pseudonym "Rahodeb" to post praise of John Mackey and concern troll "concerns" about a company Whole Foods was thinking of buying, the NYT identifies that behavior as sockpuppetry, with no suggestion that Mackey had posted to the same forums under his own identity. [2]

The common thread, it seems to me, is that the puppeteer has a public identity that must be disguised--not that the source of that public identity must be previous postings in the same forum under a pseudonym different from the puppet's. betsythedevine 14:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

More cleanup work

I've gone through and addressed some points raised. The article should be a little cleaner now. In particular I've given a link to the origin (I'd love a less self-published-looking link, but can't find one right now; the everything2 link gives an excellent writeup, it's just, well, everything2), cut down the huge list of synonyms in the intro (most of which appear to have been made up on the spot) and removed a lot of OR. Chris Cunningham 10:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Usenet origin of term "sockpuppet"

It pretty much comes from these two old messages: AnonMoos 20:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC) http://groups.google.com/group/sci.skeptic/msg/608aa11d6ce6620f http://groups.google.com/group/sci.skeptic/msg/b0b09f69c08d9124

What to do

...when you find someone who is doing this sock-puppetry persistently on Wikipedia? ROxBo 13:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a page where you can report it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets

Notice near the top of the page where you can also see a list of places to get help with other kinds of disruption of Wikipedia, e.g. vandalism. Good luck! betsythedevine 13:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

John Mackey (businessman)

The link to John Mackey is a disambiguation page, the link should be [[John Mackey (businessman)|John Mackey]]. The page is protected, someone else needs to change the link.--68.14.251.102 23:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Whole Foods link

This link to Whole Foods does not go to the Wikipedia article for the company, which is what is intended. Someone needs to fix this because the page is protected, and I cannot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.208.12.212 (talk) 15:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

nl:Sokpop (internet)

Please joint nl:Sokpop (internet), because I can't. 80.126.25.66 19:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

First use of the term

I didn't want to change this without mentioning it here first; but if I recall correctly, Earl Curley wasn't active on usenet until the mid-90s. There's at least one use of the term that I know of dating back to 1993:

http://groups.google.com/group/bit.listserv.fnord-l/browse_thread/thread/ffc2583d617140d/d1b51c9c2d96469f?lnk=st&q=&rnum=4&hl=en#d1b51c9c2d96469f

Any Curley stuff before that?

Steambadger 19:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Meat Puppet

Alas, the only reference in this section actually refers to an article which talks about a fake personality created online which is not a real person. In other words, a sockpuppet. So the term "meat puppet" is used in the reference, but not in the way Wikipedia uses it, or as the meatpuppet section defines it. I cannot find any reference for Wikipedia's peculiar usage which doesn't ultimately refer back to Wikipedia. Which creates a linguistic problem.

A second problem with this term itself is that it is defined narrowly, but used widely. Here in this article, the term refers to a person recruited for an argument, who has no independent opinion of their own (and how does one tell THAT?). For persons without free-will, it may be appropriate, if we could only identify them. But political opinions always seem to fall across party lines. Are all these persons "meatpuppets"? I have generally seen the term used in Wikipedia as a biggotted term for somebody (anybody!) asked to join an argument, who doesn't agree with the wikians who know the term "meatpuppet," and are capable of using it as a weapon, rather like the "N" word. It suggests that ANY newbie recruited for his or her opinion, doesn't really HAVE an actual opinion, but is rather a machine, a puppet on strings, not a person worthy of respect in an argument. How's that again? This needs rethinking. I've posted a longer thread in the Wiki WP:SOCK page, but the problem of the biased word (using "puppet" for somebody new, whose opinion you don't happen to like) is just as applicable and debatable here. And I see that the biggotted language has crept in here, also. So let's see your cites for it. SBHarris 20:13, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I'm too lazy to create an ID and edit, but did want to share that Meat Puppet was used by William Gibson in the novel Neuromancer, to talk about someone who had an implant which allowed their actions to be controlled (specifically, a person who was a prostitute for those with very unusual tastes) . Here's a citation for that - http://www.technovelgy.com/ct/content.asp?Bnum=1439 74.167.47.235 (talk) 02:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, so. Very interesting. On Wikipedia, a meatpuppet is somebody with opinions and an edit history that the administrators don't like, but who they can't prove is a sockpuppet (i.e., the same person with a different account). So they've come up with this very creative word (borrowing it, no doubt), and sometimes use the ideas of sockpuppet and meatpuppet more or less interchangably (most notably when justifying an indefinite block against somebody they can't prove is a sock). I don't really know who came up with the word in Wikispeak. But it's a nasty one-- nearly as nasty as Gibson's. SBHarris 04:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Why can't Meatpuppettry also refer to a negative alliance between two or more established users, or administrators, who work in tandem or as a group voicing the same opinion in multiple discussions? -Stillwaterising (talk) 15:09, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Alternate Online Identities

I'm not sure if it is appropriate to post this here but as I understand the description of "Sockpuppet" here, I think the following is relevant and may need to be included: Although it wasn't called "sockpuppet", the act of sockpuppetry predates the Internet. I remember using multi-user (dialup) bulletin board systems, that had discussion forums on many subjects and it was determined that some of the users had posted points of view on some subjects then used an alternate ID to post agreements to their own points of view. Ceo255 (talk) 05:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the tactic has a long and arguably august history. In particular, the Federalist Papers were written under a pseudonym ("Publius") in part to advance pro-Federalist arguments that the authors, well known Federalists already, did not wish to acknowledge as being yet more of their own. I do not recall any instances of Publius praising their own contributions by name -- though I'm no Fed. Papers scholar. However, one purpose for Publius was clearly to provide an extra, seemingly independent voice on their side: Publius was, among many other attributes, a shill.

[My speculation: The tactic stems from anthropology, and thus may even predate writing. At a minimum, the Fed. Papers surely cannot have been the first use of this tactic. What we have in the internet age is a new label, not a new behavior.] Jmacwiki (talk) 22:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

A famous MTV "actress" has been outed as having an alternative online identity for the sole purpose of "pot stirring" and causing problems on her rival Weight Loss Site. Search for PixieDust. Her subsequent termination/leaving of her job as administrator at another "support" site shows that even others in the community viewed her actions as dispicable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by UglyAmy (talk • contribs) 20:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Somewhat ironic that an account would be created solely to post the previous comment; hmmmm. gohlkus (talk) 08:50, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

And while we're on the topic of weight-loss sites, the founder of a site related to bariatric eating (who also authored a not-so-best-selling book and made an appearance on the "Today Show") was called out for having created an alter-ego for the sole purpose of a. Promoting her not-so-best-selling book and, most aggregiously, b. Promoting her product line. How was she busted? Well, many were suspicious for quite some time and their suspicions were finally confirmed when she forgot to sign out of her sock-puppet before posting as her own self. Oops. Fortune favors the brave and the stupid shall be punished! Go to the most popular Weight-Loss Support site on the net and search for Jo. There are several, but this one in particular will stick out like a sore thumb. Pwgibbs (talk) 00:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)Paul

Same with this one! Only one contribution! These appear actually to be dueling sockpuppets on the "sockpuppets" talk page! It'd be funny if it weren't sad. gohlkus (talk) 08:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Did Jimmy Wales use a sockpuppet?

One would have to assume that Jimmy Wales himself is guilty of this during the incident in which he was caught editing his own Wiki entry. That would seem to a prime example to use in the article SteveCoppock (talk) 22:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Why would one "have to assume" that Wales is "guilty of" sockpuppetry? If Wales had in fact used a fake account to be deceptive, it is hard to see why his enthusiastic accusers don't bother to mention it. betsythedevine (talk) 07:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

He made the edits in his own name, it wasn't sockpuppetry, just very poor judgement. Nazlfrag (talk) 19:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Google search

{{editprotected}} Please delete the "reference" after Merciful Lee Dickens. If anyone wants to google the name they can do so without a link. Not appropriate for article space. 199.125.109.64 (talk) 19:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

In the section "Meatpuppet", change "When used as a Wikipedia term of art, it is used" to "It can often be used". I highly doubt that it is used in that context only on Wikipedia. 199.125.109.64 (talk) 20:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

 Done Happy‑melon 21:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

WP's Sophomoric Standards for Establishing Sockpuppetry

I was unfairly treated by WP administrators while he was defending my country in ground combat operations in Iraq. I was "punished" by being blocked from WP during which period I was wounded in action by enemy fire, ironically making use of WP impossible for me for some time. Said administrators used a sophomoric "IP search" to establish "sockpuppetry." I edited via a Department of the Navy IP (with tens of thousands of users) and a large, civilian ISP. Using such an unsophisticated method as an IP search to establish sockpuppetry in this case could yield no better than a one in 40,000 chance of proving such an accusation. Basing one's sole determination of such an accusation is juvenile at best.

I recommend prudence and a little less self-righteousness on the part of WP administrators in the future.

USMC Padre (talk) 17:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

You can recommend that all you like. You can recommend the tides to go out. Your post does get deserve to be entered in the Newbie/Plebe Smile-Comment Contest, however. No disrespect intended, as we're all newbies at something.

Here's the dope: Padre, if you think Wikipedia bears any resemblance to the Navy you know, please disabuse yourself of the idea. The people here are often anonymous. The ones who block new editors like yourself are just as often not accountable (defrocking of abusive administrators is about as rare as forcing admirals to resign). There are no formal courtmarshals, no JAGs, no due process, not even a Rules Code, as in the military. Everything instead, is done by "consensus" which isn't defined exactly, because nobody has been able to come up with a concensus on what % a consensus is. I kid you not.

So, if you have some idea of yourself as "personnel" here, entitled to the respect you get in the armed forces as a member of military, forget it. That may come if you get to be an administrator on Wikipedia. In the meantime, your status is much closer to some civilian who looks to be engaged in some suspicious activity, in a country in which the US is occupying. If somebody doesn't like the look of you, you may find yourself treated to the equivalent of Gitmo, with a Qur'an and a prayer rug on which to pray to Allah for the appeal which you probably won't see. SBHarris 17:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Mock Puppet

I was a personal victim of a "mock puppet"; until now I wasn't aware there was an official name for it. It says "citation needed". Is this for the fact that "the imposter account contains obscenity or leet in the name to make the mockery deliberately obvious", or the second bit? If it's the former, I can offer a citation link. CalebWilson (talk) 03:15, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

This seems to be a neologism (if it even exists) which has not showed up in Wiktionary, Urban Dictionary or even Encyclopedia Dramatica. Google turns up no encyclopedia-quality source either for this usage. Please offer a citation if you have one; Google didn't turn up anything in my brief search of it. betsythedevine (talk) 22:05, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't have citation for the existance of the term "mock puppet", I think you misunderstand me. CalebWilson (talk) 10:36, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Most of the sources for the existance of the variant ""Mock Puppet"" are in discussion forums like the ones at Mike Reed's ""Flamewarriors"" website, as well as actual existing examples. If Betsythedevine really wants to see hundreds of actual examples of this kind of behavior on a Wiki page, which would clutter it to a ridiculous degree, I'm sure half the users on the Internet have seen at least one example (One user on the Flamewarriors website says he discussed them somewhere in 1999, though the forum he did it on was apparently password protected, so you can't google it.) Here is just ONE example that is currently active: "The Original Account". "The Mock Puppet Account". "The Mock Puppet Account pretends to be the original account". "And Again..." "And Again..." "And Again..." This is only a SMALL sampling of this PARTICULAR Mock Puppet's activities...Note his use of Vote-stacking using multiple accounts to upgrade his own comments while downgrading those of the original account. And that account replaced ANOTHER one of the same user's accounts that got banned called "RedHerringTheElf" - Just because a term doesn't exist in the Wictionary doesn't mean it isn't in common use in some circles. It just means that no one has, as of yet, gone over to the Wictionary and put it there. Redwood Elf (talk) 15:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Let's discuss this issue in terms of Wikipedia policy. It is not a question of what "Betsythedevine" wants, so please don't personalize this discussion. I willingly believe you that there are people who use the term "mock puppet" as a description of behavior that does exist on the internet. But Wikpedia has a policy against citing primary rather than secondary sources. In other words, to get into Wikipedia a new word has to be mentioned in mainstream media or books or other authoritative media. There was a similar debate about concern troll , which was very widely used in blogs for a long time before Ana Marie Cox finally wrote about the term in Newsweek so that we could include it in a Wikipedia article. As soon as Wired or Newsweek or somebody like that defines "mock puppet", it can go right into Wikipedia. It seems like a good word, so I wouldn't be surprised if that happens soon. betsythedevine (talk) 17:06, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Image

I've found an image. While I think that it's engaging and illustrates the article well, perhaps the caption isn't ideal. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 07:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the troll-with-female-sockpuppet image illustrates deceptive identity, although it would be nice to see an Internet tie-in, e.g. a mouse or a keyboard. I think the caption is now also fine. betsythedevine (talk) 16:10, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Benjamin Franklin?

Wondering if we can place sockpuppetry into a larger framework of assumed identities. I recall that Ben Franklin invented a number of personalities throughout his life that he used as foils, for example contributors to the letters to the editor section of his family's newspaper. Wikidemon (talk) 19:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Dating/Adult/Personals Websites

Wouldn't a mention of site that uses fake accounts to attract customers fit under the notion of a sockpuppet? 128.194.21.133 (talk) 02:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Is there a reliable source such as a newspaper article providing evidence of sockpuppet behavior in such a case? From just the little I have heard of such cases, it sounds different from a typical sockpuppet -- more like a deceptive marketing effort by the companies behind the sites rather than an individual deception by the person creating a fake account. betsythedevine (talk) 10:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Robert Stanek

Perhaps Robert Stanek should be added to the list of notable public examples - take a look here and here for some documentation on a fairly extensive career of sock puppetry. --130.118.41.130 (talk) 23:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Multinicking

Is it a synonym, should it be mentioned? I am far more familiar with this term outside of wikipedia. 74.70.204.170 (talk) 05:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)