Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by FT2 (talk | contribs) at 15:09, 15 October 2010 (→Rename of Meatpuppetry: move a comment to the better thread, in chronological order). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Misplaced Pages. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review policy editing recommendations before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to keep cool when editing, and don't panic.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sockpuppetry page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16Auto-archiving period: 30 days

This is not the place to post notices of suspected sock puppetry. Please follow Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations, and create a report there.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Registered editor working with sock puppet

I just noticed an editor having a jolly discussion on his talk page of how to influence an article with an infamous sockpuppet who was editing at that moment under an AnonIp. He kept it up after another editor exposed the sock. I also commented on which sock he was. The other editor also mentioned their "alliance" on the talk page of the article in question. This article was so assaulted by that SockPuppet and AnonIps, that IPs were banned. And now there are newly registed editors with same POVs, trying to undermine a clear preference, even after an RfC, that the topic of the article remain broad and not the narrow topic they have been soapboxing for months about. Is this an ANI type activity? And should working with Socks be discouraged in the article? Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:15, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

This should probably be brought up at WP:SPI. That is the appropriate place for sock puppet investigations. ~~ GB fan ~~ 03:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

How to deal with alleged meat puppetry?

Looking at his talk page again I see that he has boasted about bringing in a lot of new people who agree with him, i.e., meat puppets (the anon Ips/new registered users above, no doubt). Dealing with the sock is easy (though since it's a one day AnonIp, is it worth reporting him?). But this article says: Misplaced Pages has processes in place to mitigate the disruption caused by meatpuppetry: But what are the processes?? This article needs to make it clear. WP:SPI didn't seem to say either. Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk)

hi all it appears i am the source of this post. "I assume 114.73.173.184 is Banned User:Karmaisking?" didn't know i was supposed to delete talk page comments based on this evidence. isnt there an more official way of knowing who is telling the truth? "eventually enough libertarians will join this debate to drown out fringe theory on this page, i am working to achieve such at this very moment." so by contributing to the talk page debate, i am now a meatpuppet? does "drown out fringe=meatpuppet? my intent was to improve the libertarian article as seen by my edits, which stand still. Darkstar1st (talk) 16:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't answer the question of how to proceed. You can make defenses after all information is brought to appropriate venue, which is yet unidentified. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:49, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Per edit summary, added "(or meat puppets)" to "Sockpuppet investigations" section since archives of Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations explicitly said the issue is handled handled there. If I'm wrong please make clear in this article where else meat puppets handled. Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:47, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Expanding the CLEANSTART section

I have taken the liberty of expanding the information provided to editors with respect to CLEANSTART. As someone who uses both oversight and checkuser permissions, I've become aware of multiple situations in which editors who legitimately used the clean start option had not considered the full ramifications of doing so. CLEANSTART is not a particularly effective method of protecting editor privacy if the editor returns to the same editing area (where xe will usually be recognized by others in the topic area, and possibly subjected to an SPI). If there is a genuine need to abandon an account for privacy reasons, a complete change in editing patterns and topics is required and, even then, it is not guaranteed. Risker (talk) 06:29, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Building on this, "clean start" now has its own page where it can be more accurately documented. It always did sit uneasily at WP:SOCK, because apart from noting that a clean start is a legit use of a 2nd account, the "when it's allowed" and "how to do it" and privacy issues are not really main sock policy issues. As it was before, the "clean start" text not only added to the sock policy length in an off-topic manner, but also in trying to keep it short, it reduced clarity for people who needed to have clean start spelled out in more detail so they could know what it was, and was not.

In turn this move allows a somewhat more direct and simple explanation of its sock related issues at WP:SOCK. which may reduce confusion there.

Hopefully this helps. (Crossposted to both talk pages) FT2  11:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Project space discussion edits

I notice this wording in the lead paragraph:

Alternative accounts should not be used to...edit project discussions (e.g. policy debates and Arbitration proceedings)

I just noticed the wording while browsing the page. As it happens I often follow and contribute to project-space discussions using my telephone when I'm out and about, and I use a well known alternative account, User:Tasty monster, to do so. There are good technical reasons to do so, which I won't bore you with. In the signature there is a pointer to my main account and the user pages of both accounts confirm that it is my alternate account.

I also note that other editors in good standing do the same (for instance, see this edit by an alternative account of the administrator User:2over0). Is there a good reason for this blanket ban on editing project space from an alternate account? --TS 13:06, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

That is a summary of line in the WP:ILLEGIT section that reads Undisclosed alternate accounts... –xeno 13:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the opening para could be clearer. I think the word "undisclosed" should be in there. --TS 13:44, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

No objection here. –xeno 13:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I've drafted a new wording on the page:

Alternative accounts should not be used to avoid scrutiny; mislead or deceive other editors; make disruptive edits with one account and normal edits with another; distort consensus; stir up controversy; or circumvent sanctions or policy. Undisclosed alternative accounts should not be used to edit project discussions (e.g. policy debates and Arbitration proceedings). These same principles apply to editors who decide to cease editing under one account and restart under another.

Please revert or tweak as desired. --TS 13:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I spotted this a while back, this thread might give you some ideas. The current text has other issues - not least a user who legitimately segregates their editing due to social/family issues or a contentious topic, and the article their undisclosed alt is working on gets AFD'ed. Under current norms they can only respond at AFD using a disclosed alt. So this whole section has an issue. Try this rewrite for "project space editing":

Users should not use an undisclosed alternate account for project space activity that could be seen as contentious or deserving scrutiny if fully disclosed. "Disclosed" means that the status of the account is clear to anyone participating in the debate, or is clear from the alternate accounts user page. It is the user's responsibility to comply with this policy for undisclosed alternates.

Examples would include:

• Use of an undisclosed alternate account to segregate content and project space editing;
• Use of an undisclosed alternate account to separate contentious behavior between accounts;
• Involving a second undisclosed account of the same user in a project space editing or issue, where the same user is already involved under another account, or in a misleading manner.

The examples duplicate "Contributing to the same page or discussion with multiple accounts" and "Avoiding scrutiny" - are they needed?

FT2  01:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Meatpuppetry discussions (term used and policy location)

Several discussions have been started concerning 1/ whether to change the term "meatpuppetry" in policy, and 2/ whether to move the section to a different policy location.

Proposal - split MEATPUPPETRY onto a separate page

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. Within 24 hours, this page will be added to the following list: Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Proposal to split meat puppetry off from sock puppetry as a separate policy article. Main questions focus on whether a separate policy statement is needed. --Ludwigs2 00:14, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I like how someone recently split CLEANSTART onto a separate page.

Now, it is time to do the same for MEATPUPPETRY. Meatpuppetry, although similar, is an entirely different concept. While sock puppetry is committed all by a single person, meatpuppetry involves the use of multiple people to be disruptive. It is more akin to canvassing than to sockpuppetry.

Unless there is opposition, I am planning to split MEATPUPPETRY onto a separate page in within several days. Hellno2 (talk)

Since there was no opposition for several days, I just moved it. It'll take several edits to complete the move. Hellno2 (talk) 04:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The move has been done, and it is now in WP:Meat puppetry as a proposed guideline. A discussion is underway at Misplaced Pages talk:Meat puppetry to decide if it should be ratified as a guideline. Please provide any comments there. --Noleander (talk) 03:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the former content of WP:SOCK dealing with meatpuppetry must be put back into WP:SOCK immediately and remain there for the time being. WP:SOCK is a long standing policy. As a result of a split, the part of it dealing with meatpuppetry suddenly lost ALL of its status (policy, guideline, whatever). There was certainly no consensus to do that. If we are to drop a long-standing section of WP:SOCK as a policy-level document, explicit consensus for doing that must be established first. That did not happen here and the current situation is unacceptable. Nsk92 (talk) 07:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I have restored the pre-split status quo situation: restored the meatpuppetry section of WP:SOCK and pointed all the relevant redirects back there. Nsk92 (talk) 07:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

There is a proposal to split-off the WP:Meat section of the Sock policy into its own, dedicated policy page. The purpose of the split would be the following:

• Provide a focused location for Meat-puppetry based policies
• Avoid confusion that stems from mixing Meat-puppetry and Sock-puppetry in one article
• There is a signifiant difference bewtween meat-puppetry and sock-puppetry: the former is several editors collaborating in an improper way; the latter is a single editor typically trying to avoid a block/ban. They are quite distinct, and putting the Meat policy within the Sock policy page is confusing.
• Provide a page to contain examples and exceptions that clarify the Meat policy
• Some editors have reported confusion over what constitutes Meat puppetry, suggesting that additional detail and examples are needed
• If we leave the Meat section in the WP:Sock page, it limits the amount of detail (examples, etc) that can be put into the Meat section
• Recently, there have been an increased reports of Meat-puppetry incidents in WP, and it is useful to have a dedicated policy page to help editors find guidance on how to deal with such incidents

Initially, the split-off Meat page could just be a copy of the current WP:Meat section that is within the WP:Sock page. Over time, the Meat policy page may expand with additional details, guidance, and examples. A draft copy of the new Meat page is at Misplaced Pages:Meat puppetry. Note that this draft page contains some examples and counter-examples that have not yet gone through consensus-approval process yet, so that additional detail may or may not be part of the initial version of the proposed Meat page, if the split is approved. --Noleander (talk) 14:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support - For the reasons listed above in the proposal. I agree that we don't want a huge number of policy pages, but on the other hand, the policy pages should provide clarity to editors seeking guidance. Burying the Meat policy as a section within the Sock policy page makes it hard to understand the goals and details of the Meat policy. My perception is that the incidence of reported meat-puppetry in WP is increasing, not decreasing, so theres is a strong need for detailed guidance on Meat puppetry. --Noleander (talk) 14:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
• Weak support. I guess I would like to see first how much support there is in the community for the continued existence of WP:MEAT in any form, but basically I agree with Noleander's reasoning above. However, to begin with, if the split occurs, the initial version of the split-off page needs to be an exact copy of the current WP:MEAT section. Further details, such as examples etc need to be worked out later, after a discussion. Nsk92 (talk) 14:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I concur that any new Meat policy must start as an exact copy of current Meat section, and subsequent changes must be discussed. --Noleander (talk) 15:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support - completely different meanings, deserves separate pages. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - what's broken that needs fixing? MEAT is a crucially important part of our ability to deal with some of the worst process problems on the encyclopedia. The actual policy on meatpuppetry is about proxy editing, bad faith stuff, not innocent canvassing, herd mentality, or cabals. People who oppose the policy or support the perennial proposal to move or abolish MEAT because they think it punishes people for being of like mind are missing the point, because that's not what it is. That would be a misapplication of policy. Note the statement that Arbcom has decided when there is uncertainty between meatpuppetry and socking, it's considered same thing. The gist of MEAT is that when two different accounts are doing the same contentious things we don't need to prove one way or another whether it is a single individual with two logins, one individual telling another what to do, or two editing under a common scheme, it's all the same. As such MEAT is a subset of SOCK, and it is closer to DUCK than CANVASS. - Wikidemon (talk) 14:46, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying, but isn't there a need for guidance to editors to explain the collaboration aspect of the issue? What kinds of collaboration are permitted? Which are prohibited? Why? What are some examples of permitted or prohibited collaboration? These are significant questions that are not yet clearly explained in a policy. Burying the Meat section within the SOCK policy (which, by definition, involves only a single editor) is confusing. On the other hand, I do agree that in many situations the symptoms are similar and hence the remedy is similar. But that similarity is incidental, not essential. --Noleander (talk) 14:58, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The proposed split does not seek to do away with WP:MEAT or to downgrade its status but rather to elaborate it. I think Noleander is correct that in a technical sense meatpuppetry is actually quite different from sockpuppetry. To quote from Noleander, "the former is several editors collaborating in an improper way; the latter is a single editor typically trying to avoid a block/ban". I also think Noleander is correct that expanding WP:MEAT by adding more examples and a more extended discussion of what does/does not constitute meatpuppetry would be beneficial. It is easier to do that if WP:MEAT is a separate page. Nsk92 (talk) 15:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose: At least for now. I don't think there's enough distinction between the meat-puppetry and sock-puppetry to warrant a separate page. see the thread I'm starting below: #Meat puppetry issue. --Ludwigs2 16:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
• Cautious support. Because I would like to see MEAT get thought out some more, rather than just be treated as an afterthought to SOCK. I'm going to explain what I mean by that some more in the thread below. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
• Procedural note: I would suggest that one of the editors who were first in discussing this question post an RfC about it under policies/guidelines, to get more attention. (I found it from the Village Pump.) --Tryptofish (talk) 18:36, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Done --Ludwigs2 00:15, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 00:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support if... WP:MEAT would retain its "status" as a fully-fledged policy equivalent to what it is now, equally undesirable and enforceable. Given the fact which others have noted--that Misplaced Pages is seeing an increasing number of direct POV attacks by external forces (from the ongoing problems with JIDF, to the Daily Kos/Fox news brouhaha)--it seems like it would help us to more fully treat what constitutes Meat-puppetry and what does not in a separate page. Obviously, we'll never be able to fully define what is meat-puppetry and what is close collaboration, but that's true whether this is one article or two. This would also, I think, simplify WP:SOCK, since, as others pointed out above, we often (but not always) have more technical tools available at our disposal to identify socks. As a caveat, one problem I can foresee is that, while I don't recall any cases specifically, I feel like there are times where we identify a set of editors as most likely being either Socks or Meat-puppets, although we can't actually distinguish which of the two it is, because the technical tools give ambiguous answers. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:02, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose: far too many policies already. Rename this one "Sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry" if that would better reflect its scope. (But in fact we should be looking to merge policies, not split them - why not just have a single policy on right and wrong ways to reach Consensus? Having very similar material on separate pages inevitably leads to duplication at best, and contradiction at worst.)--Kotniski (talk) 09:17, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I could go along with re-naming to "Sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry" and including more detail (examples and counter-examples) in the Meat section. (Oddly, re-naming seems like more of an uphill battle than creating a new policy page :-) --Noleander (talk) 13:24, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose split. The two concepts are closely aligned. There are times when we can't tell whether we're dealing with sock- or meatpuppetry, and it often doesn't matter which it is. SlimVirgin 18:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

• Conditional leaning to support - A lot depends how it is done. I would be fine with a separate policy covering meatpuppetry/external recruitment or ditching the historic term "meat-puppetry" (Misplaced Pages:No external soliciting?), provided both policies cross-referred to each other and made clear that meatpuppetry and other multiple accounts that cannot be distinguished from a single user or a recruited group may be treated as sock-puppetry for Misplaced Pages purposes and may be interpreted as thinly disguised sock-puppetry by users. My tentative support if done right is that the two are different and WP:MEAT might benefit from a bit of space and a single focus. My main objection is that WP:SOCK has such a tight involvement with it that I'm still unsure whether splitting it out will be beneficial. It's possibly beneficial, but I still have reservations and can't decide if they are for good reasons or purely habitual expectation. I'll think about it, and probably write up a quick draft to see what consensus says. FT2  01:18, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

As you write your draft, you may want to refer to WP:Meat puppetry which is also a draft Meat policy that has been started - mostly by cloning the Meat section from the Sock policy, and adding some examples and counter-examples. --Noleander (talk) 01:32, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. Like Slimvirgin, I think the concepts are closely related and it often doesn't make any practical difference. And like Kotniski, I think we should be trying to reduce the number of policy pages not making the tangled thicket more dense and inscrutable. older ≠ wiser 02:07, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. Solution in search of a problem. Also encourages creation of pointless artificial distinctions between sock/meatpuppetry when they are treated exactly the same way, especially since it is often difficult to tell between the two. T. Canens (talk) 23:34, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. I agree with SlimVirgin & T. Canens: sometimes no clear distinction can be made. Jarkeld (talk) 05:59, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Meat puppetry issue

Let me start by saying that I understand why meat puppetry is an issue on Misplaced Pages. It's pretty much the same issue I was involved with a while back on wp:tag team editing: It really sucks when it feels like a bunch of editors are teaming up on you in a nefarious way. That being said, though, we do need to see the real problem here, which has nothing to do with editors coordinating per se, but is about the way in which editors coordinate. consider the following cases:

1. An editor or editors who cooperate to disrupt a talk page sufficiently so no forward action can be taken, or to try to elicit some kind of peremptory administrative action.
2. An editor or editors who convinces a bunch of friends to come and comment or vote on some kind of discussion.
3. A number of editors with a common goal who are working to ensure some point gets made on the project.
4. A number of editors who happen to agree on a particular point, and happen to make the same kinds of points in discussion.

The first case is clearly noxious, the second may or may not be, the third is reasonable but can be abused, and the forth is entirely non-problematic (in fact, it's pretty much a part of cooperative editing). In fact, the problem is not that editors are coordinating, but rather that in the first case the coordination is disruptive, in the second the coordination is non-productive, and in the third case the coordinated goal may be prejudicial rather than reasoned.

The focus on whether editors are cooperating nefariously just lends itself to paranoia, and will almost invariable incur bad feelings on both sides - I've never seen meat puppet accusations do anything except stir up ugly, fruitless commentary. But to my mind, the thing that distinguishes the acceptable types of cooperation from the unacceptable types in that the unacceptable types simply aim to increase the noise in the system: whipping up emotions, adding pointless comments, exaggerating minor disputes, being a wiki-narc to try to tangle things up administratively, making endless repetitions of the same material... If we work on policies that will cut the noise (thus increasing the signal-to-noise ratio on talk pages), cooperation between editors will no longer be something that we need to worry about. do you see what I mean? --Ludwigs2 17:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with most of what you say above. Could you clarify whether or not you proposing a specific modification to the existing Meat policy (that is within the Sock policy page)? Do you want the Meat policy eliminated? or changed? Also, could you relate your suggestion to the above proposal to split-off the Meat section into a dedicated article: do you want the split proposal suspended until we get consensus on your delete/modify proposal? Regardless of what your answers are to these questions (and yes, I still would like to see the answers :-) I think that the issues you raise do argue in favor of a dedicated Meat policy page. Because whatever we decide (in response to your concerns) it should be captured in a prominent place for future editors to refer to ... and what better place than a dedicated Meat policy page? --Noleander (talk) 17:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the following (and I like lists, in case you hadn't noticed... ):

• I think meat-puppetry should be restricted to the SOCK page, clearly distinguishing between the kinds of cases listed above.
• I do not think there should be a separate meat-puppetry page (I'm not even sure anymore whether the wp:tag team page is useful).
• I do think we should focus on the way we handle and moderate consensus discussions, so that we can remove the advantages that meat-puppetry might give. If no one can get the upper hand on a page by dragging in vocal outsiders, then no one except idiots will bother trying to do it.

My point is that meat-puppetry, like non-vandalistic sock-puppetry, is designed to subvert consensus. If we pay attention to consensus in its proper form so that it can't be subverted that way, then we will no longer have a problem. let's not focus on an aggravating symptom and ignore the underlying disease. --Ludwigs2 18:12, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Ludwigs2, I see what you mean, and I definitely agree that we need to be careful not to gin up more reasons for editors to be suspicious of one another. But I also am sensitive to another side of the issue that you didn't mention. There are, unfortunately, external websites that exist for the purpose of "wikigroaning" (see also: WP:Griefing), and they sometimes serve to recruit large numbers of meatpuppets to disrupt for a specific agenda. Not quite a year ago, I ended up being targeted for personal attacks by an external site that was hung up on, of all things, disliking references to anime at Misplaced Pages (because I had opposed deletion of an image at what is now Crucifixion in the arts). In a more grown-up, but also disruptive, example, there was quite recently the call at the Daily Kos for people to come to Misplaced Pages and argue that Fox News is not a reliable source. I can tell you from personal experience that having large numbers of single purpose accounts showing up all at once to push a coordinated agenda can effectively shut down any sort of thoughtful consensus building in processes such as RfCs. The problem is largely one of enforcement. With socks, we can run Checkuser, but there is nothing equivalent for meats. All we currently can do is count some !votes less than others. Taking this all together, I'd like to see MEAT improved, and I think that there is some value in treating it as something distinct from SOCK. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I agree with you. I just happen to think the solution to the problem is to put some teeth into the consensus process, rather than trying to walk a tightrope on what is-and-is-not proper cooperation. Large numbers of SPAs showing up to push an agenda is a disruption problem that needs shutting down, yes, but I think we should shut it down as redundant noise, not as illicit cooperation. 'redundant noise' is demonstrable and clear - it's obvious when someone is just parroting without improving the debate. illicit cooperation is difficult to prove and subject to a whole lot of wikilawyering. same result in the long run, but the former is a lot more firmly on the moral high-ground. --Ludwigs2 00:09, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Ludwig: Maybe you could help some of us understand what you are specifically proposing (for instance, contrasted with the draft Meat policy at WP:Meat puppetry). What specifically would you propose to "put some teeth into the consensus process"? --Noleander (talk) 00:13, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Good, this discussion is moving in a good direction. I'm definitely interested in putting more "teeth" into this in some way, for the reasons I gave above. The question, to which I don't know the answer, is how to do that. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:33, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

This is something I've discussed in other places, and this is maybe not the best place for opening it again, so I'll give some brief commentary and we can move it someplace more appropriate if that seems useful. let me know what you think.

It boils down to this. Consensus discussion - ideally - are discussions geared towards giving convincing reasons for or against a particular change to an article. One hopes that the various editors or sides involved will give clear reasons for why they think their perspective is the correct one, and that the other editors or sides will give clear counter-reasons, and that everyone involved will listen and work to reach some mutually acceptable position (which might mean that one side is convinced by the other or that both sides integrate their perspectives into some middle ground). This actually works well in most cases, particularly where editors are somewhat detached from the topic and focused primarily on writing an encyclopedic article. We are not concerned with cases where consensus discussions succeed, nor are we concerned with cases where consensus discussions fail in good faith (sometimes editors just can't manage to agree no mater how hard they try - that's what mediation is for). What remains is cases where consensus discussions get fouled up by bad faith efforts of one sort or another.

Bad faith efforts always involve disruption of the communication process. This can have a lot of variations, but there are three basic forms of disruption:

• emotional reasoning - using ad hominem arguments, personal attacks, stereotyping or labeling, loud proclamations of offense or insult, or any other technique designed to draw attention away from the topic under discussion and towards a discussion of the merits of the participants. it's impossible to have a reasoned conversation when someone is consistently indulging in name-calling and paranoid speculation about others' behavior.
• tangential distraction - expostulating at length about numerous minor problem and quibbles, or simply venting at length about non- or semi- relevant material, so that the conversation is dominated by voluminous non-substantive chatter. Progress can never be made when constructive conversations are consistently being drowned out by kibble.
• interminable repetition - consensus discussions need to build on previous points towards a future consensus. When one or more participants consistently regress to repeat a previous claim (thus forcing the entire conversation to regress and discuss that point again) the process becomes a non-productive nightmare.

Fixing the communication process itself is easy, technically-speaking, but difficult to do in practice since it basically means redacting counter-productive material liberally while leaving productive material intact. Effectively, some volunteer X needs to sit on the conversation and squelch disruptions to the communication process, but do so without actually disrupting or warping the communication in his own right. for instance, if some editor makes a reasonable argument but peppers it liberally with mild incivilities or insinuations, X would redact the insinuations and incivilities and leave the reasonable argument in place. If some editor starts flying off on a tangent, X would redact the tangent starting from where it goes off topic. If some editor starts repeating a claim, X would redact it with a note that it was discussed in such-and-such a place, and comments should be added there, not here.

If this sounds draconian to you, you should consider that this happens normally in everyday conversation: usually non-verbally, where the sheer pressure of looking someone in the eye will keep you from mouthing off in serious discussions. The internet lacks that kind of interpersonal pressure, so people indulge in crapulence in online discussions they never would in face-to-face. This system just sets up a surrogate to mimic natural social pressures.

Meat puppets might do any or all of the above, but generally speaking meat puppets don't say anything beyond what's redactable under this precept. A meat puppet will try to disrupt the communication process, but will get its posts redacted in their entirety, and then one of three things will happen: The MP will complain at someplace like ANI, and find itself having to explain why disruptive material shouldn't have been redacted - good luck with that. The MP will give it up as too difficult and not rewarding, and go do something else. Or (wonder of wonders) the MP will get stubborn and try to make a better argument - e.g. one that's on point enough that it can't be redacted - but then that's no longer a meat puppet, is it? any way it goes, the sheer volume of kibble that gets added to the page is slashed by redactions, and what's left is the posts of people who are trying to make clear and effective communication. Now (theoretically) the whole page dynamic will change because the disruptive tactics don't work; those uninterested in the article (those who were just there for the fight) will wander off, and those who are interested in the article will refocus on higher forms of discussion, because that's the only way they will be able to get their point across.

sorry, a bit longer than I like, and not presented quite as much in layman's terms as I might have hoped. Just be thankful I didn't start quoting Habermas . --Ludwigs2 03:27, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

While I like the idea in theory of being able to force a conversation to move forward, there are numerouss instance in which having the ability to redact like that would actually prevent consensus building discussions. As a really simple example, imagine an article that initially only has 3 or 4 editors, who come to a consensus on a given issue. At some later time, imagine that the subject of the article suddenly becomes more widely interesting (maybe it's about a person/company/team who is now far more famous they previously were), and thus more editors are drawn to the article. It would be highly unproductive for the 3-4 initial editors to be able to stop new discussions on any given topic just because the small "clique" had previously covered it before the dozen or more new editors arrived. In general, it seems like a more productive approach to me is one we use now--acknowledge the new claim, but simply refute it by saying "we already discussed that; if you have new information, we'd be happy to re-discuss, but if you're just rehashing, let's move on." I know that we use this technique a lot at articles I watch about Japanese-Korean issues, which regularly have new people showing up saying "This whole article needs to be changed its all wrong everyone's knows it's a historical fact everyone who disagrees has been deceived by the enemy etc. etc. etc." We just point out that consensus is pretty stable, so they're going to need to do some serious work to change that consensus. Usually they just go away. Furthermore, using your proposed technique of redaction seems really open to abuse; consider, for example Talk:Historicity of Jesus, and consider whether or not the various sides could possibly be trusted to use redaction properly. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:52, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood my point. This isn't giving everyone the power to redact anyone; this would need to be someone independent, whose only concern is maintaining the discussion against disruption. It would be a decision made about particular pages to bring in someone specifically to deal with problematic argument styles, for the single purpose of giving the serious-minded editors the space they need to discuss the issues. The best model, really, is an old-west town getting together and hiring a town sheriff, someone whose job it is to keep the peace without getting in the way: chilling out rowdies, keeping disputes from escalating, telling the kids to keep a civil tongue in their heads, occasionally giving someone who's seriously out of control a night in the pokey. Think John Wayne or Audie Murphy here, not Clint Eastwood, and you'll get the drift. The point is to preserve consensus discussions in the face of efforts to disrupt them. if there is no disruption then there is no need for any of this: consensus will work just fine on its own. --Ludwigs2 06:40, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Ludwig: I see where you are coming from, and I personally have often felt like WP needs a process that would let an independent editor intervene and force editors to be more civil and cooperative by the threat of punishment (sounds harsh, I know - but we are now in 2010 and the time has come to require civil, forward-moving dialog in Talk pages, no?). My question for you is: Shouldn't we be discussing this proposal at a higher level, up at WP:Consensus or WP:Dispute resolution? I have a lot more to say on the matter (mostly agreeing with you), but it doesn't seem appropriate here in the Sock Talk page. Also, this is kinda interfering with the above discussion about whether or not to move the Meat section (unchanged) into its own policy page. --Noleander (talk) 13:21, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I said as much above. but, I got asked the question here, and it called for a response. if there's interest in pursuing the idea then we'll take it elsewhere. but don't think it's that separate of a discussion - to my mnd this would obviate the need for a meat-puppetry article. --Ludwigs2 14:59, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

And thanks for answering!

My take on it is that it is a separate issue from the one we are discussing here. You argue that getting discussion onto a better track would make the need for a MEAT policy moot. Perhaps it would. Perhaps it would make SOCK and a whole lot of other policies moot too. After all, if all discussions would move smoothly towards a sensible consensus, that would be that. But changing the discussion process in the way that you propose would involve all kinds of issues (perhaps the inevitably controversial creation of some new category of user rights) that go WAY beyond what has been proposed here, and would be very messy (if not impossible) to get consensus to implement.

My sense of "putting teeth" into this would take a different form. Something along the lines of treating evidence of meatpuppeting, based on links to external sites where the solicitation can be seen, as being evidence that could be used to discount !votes in a discussion, and perhaps, to issue blocks. But even that involves a lot of complications, which is why I would prefer to think-tank it before proposing anything formal. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:15, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

ah, me... the real problem with the meat puppet thing is that it almost requires sysops to engage in mind reading. I mean, let's take an extreme case: some new editor X says (en claire) that he was on an internet forum for some hyper-polemic topic, some other editor there posted a call-to-arms message telling people to come dispute a wikipedia page, and so editor X made an account here and did that. how can we tell whether editor X is just a dumb meat-puppet, or is actually concerned about and interested in the topic and decided to participate in good faith? Either we turn on the psychic beams and try to intuit why editor X decided to follow that call to arms, or else we judge him by his behavior after he comes on project. but if we do the latter, then the meat-puppet issue is irrelevant. This isn't like sock-puppetry: if an editor uses two accounts to edit the same page it's obvious something nefarious is going on. But as far as I can see this whole meat-puppet thing is an after-the-fact justification (e.g. new editor X is behaving badly, seems to be in contact with editor Y, therefore X must be Y's meat puppet). is that really productive? --Ludwigs2 02:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is, indeed, a problem. When I had that incident with the anime-haters, it seemed for a while like AN/I was paralyzed with indecision. (And I certainly realize that we can never know when someone has secretly e-mailed someone else to get them to meatpuppet.) My hope (and please understand that I'm thinking out loud here) is that, with further discussion, we may be able to work out a way of basing decisions on objectively observable conduct. Perhaps posting a "solicitation" at an external site, if clearly demonstrable, should be blockable, but responding to one should not be, for the reasons you just stated. However, we could make it very clear that when a flurry of new, single purpose accounts suddenly show up to push the same agenda after a verified posting on an external site, their !votes can be discounted and they can be scrutinized for their subsequent on-Wiki conduct. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

well, I may bring this idea up at the wp:Village pump (idea lab). better forum for it. --Ludwigs2 02:26, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Rename of Meatpuppetry

Proposal

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. Within 24 hours, this page will be added to the following list: Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

RFC on gracefully retiring the terms "meatpuppet" and "meatpuppetry" in Misplaced Pages policy, and using the term "external soliciting" instead. Forbidding "meatpuppetry" is obscure to non-editors, sounds pejorative and offensive, focuses attention on the label not the behavior, and comes over as disparaging or attacking newcomers who may not be aware they have done anything wrong. Forbidding "external soliciting" is precise, non-accusatory and easily understood. FT2  03:44, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support. I think this will be less confusing and misleading over all. However, I'd suggest we use external recruiting or just plain recruiting to avoid the slightly skanky sense attacked to the word 'soliciting'. --Ludwigs2 07:08, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Recruiting suggests literal "recruitment" and is likely to be more, not less, confusing. Arguments over "I wasn't recruited" are more likely because it suggests a state of mind more than an action. "They/You were solicited by him to visit Misplaced Pages" seems a lot less contentious than "They/You were recruited by him to visit Misplaced Pages". FT2  08:35, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, sounds a logical proposal. We shouldn't be using obscure wikijargon in a context where, by definition, the parties involved are likely to be outsiders to Misplaced Pages.--Kotniski (talk) 09:03, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
• Well, anyone accusing new users of any-puppetry should probably be a bit more explanatory anyway, but I support the concept behind this RfC. Changing it in policy seems fine; just don't expect everyone to type out "external soliciting" all the time. "Meatpuppetry" isn't the nicest term, but it's still usable in some regards. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 12:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

The proposal is to change the policy term more than anything. If the term in the policy is changed that will affect common usage and the preferred shortcut and remove a lot of the "bite", even if the old term is occasionally used by some users in discussion. FT2  15:15, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• No more or less easily understood IMO; both should be linked to an appropriate explanation when used so this change would appear to generate busywork. Stifle (talk) 14:29, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Jargon is never a good thing, and sometimes veterans are so used to it they get fond of it. I'm not suggesting that veteran editors would want to keep the jargon around since it gives them an edge over new editors, but clear wording is always a good thing. I do not understand the comment by Stifle above: "No more or less easily understood IMO". "External soliciting" is far more understandable than "Meatpuppetry". --Noleander (talk) 15:31, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support Meatpuppet has a very offensive sound to those of us who tend to take language literally.Steve Dufour (talk) 16:11, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Clearly, more professional-sounding, as befits a serious encyclopedia. This is Misplaced Pages acting like grown-up people. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:33, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
• Agreed. "Meatpuppetry" just sounds freaky to, well, normal people.  Sandstein  17:35, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support - It's a confusing term and conflates campaigning with the creation of fraudulent accounts — which are very different offenses. Carrite (talk) 18:44, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. Meatpuppet is succinct, to-the-point, and a great band. --Wasabi Attack (talk) 21:24, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support for all the reasons given above. I've always thought calling people Meatpuppets was a little, uh, unsettling. A more professional and self-explanatory term would be beneficial. --LordPistachio 22:03, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose silly quasi-politically-correct absurdity, given the fact that nobody actually seems to be offended by the original term anyway. Besides, "external soliciting" sounds like something a nudist hooker would get arrested for. Even if such a goofy term was actually used on policy pages it would never get used in actual discussion, leading to inconsistency/confusion. What's next, trying to get people to call sockpuppets "existence-challenged persons of imaginary status"? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:02, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

You'll often find an argument over "X called me a meatpuppet!" or "X is Y's meatpuppet!" in meat-related accusations and disputes. It encourages a change in the dispute from "someone commented on behaviors and actions" to "someone called me a name" and inevitably provoke more heated responses as a result, which escalates the matter. What we aim to do where editors are accusing each other is to reduce the heat and the potential for bad feelings, which frequently comes from the words they use.

The change here is intended to encourage a style of wording that "X was solicited to edit by Y", which describes behaviors rather than labeling people. That's not "quasi-PC" at all, it's exactly what we should be doing. As several people comment, "meatpuppet" is a charge used primarily to non-editors who may not have edited before or may not know anything is wrong. Far too often the term is wikijargon that seems to escalate disputes that aren't needed, or is taken as offensive to the person it's accusing. FT2  00:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

(It's worth noting that sock-puppetry is almost always a deceptive act by someone who knows or can guess that their action is wrong;  joining a discussion at someone's request may well be done in good faith by a solicited non-editor who agreed to help and thought it was "the done thing", even if suspiciously similar newcomers do get handled the same as sock-puppets for Misplaced Pages purposes. FT2  01:33, 24 September 2010 (UTC))

• Strong support—this would be a very good change from a label that is often found offensive and confusing to those accused of it, to a term that is far clearer in intent and far less offensive. –Grondemar 01:14, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. "Meatpuppetry" has been in use a long time, and no matter what we call it here Wikipedians will still call it meatpuppetry anyway. SlimVirgin 02:52, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

• Strong support. The term is indeed confusing to newcomers, and has an inaccurate connotation. This isn't a matter of "politically correct," it's more a case of "If you don't say what you mean, you can never mean what you say." Meatpuppet doesn't really say what it means; it's just a nerdy pun on the term sockpuppet. People are familiar with real-world sockpuppets, and can readily understand the term's wikijargon connotation by analogy therefrom. Few people would instantly understand that a meatpuppet is not a hand-operated figurine made from beef. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 03:02, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. This seems overly silly and bureaucratic. Starblind (talk · contribs) is correct, we might just as well change "sockpuppet" to "users with the same behavior pattern who edit from the same computer" in all instances, which would be pointless, confusing, and a waste of time. -- Cirt (talk) 03:07, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
• Strong support. Yes, as FT2 says, people have and will go on taking offense. Even if they're not conversant with the word's slang origins and usage , they sense its inherently disrespectful nature - calling a human being 'meat.' Yes, people will go on using it here along with all kinds of other pejoratives, but that doesn't mean it should be an approved use in a policy. It looks to me as tho all the other WP policies take pains to use neutral and respectful language. Let's do the same for this one. Novickas (talk) 04:19, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support. I was mystified by this term when I first confronted it here (did it have something to do with the excellent SST post-punk band?), and I still find it unclear.--Arxiloxos (talk) 06:08, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
• Comment Policy issues aside, it seems like the semantics are off. 'External soliciting' is off-wiki canvassing. 'Meatpuppetry' is the result of that once editors come back on-wiki and cause trouble. We currently have WP:SOCK, which covers artificial inflation of views, and WP:CANVASS which covers solicitation. Meatpuppetry is kind of just a cross-section of the two–socking but with other people and canvassing but off-wiki. It's a bit convoluted as is, but I'm not sure this RfC's suggestion is the way to fix it. Ocaasi (talk) 11:32, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:SOCK tells people that external soliciation is prohibited whether or not successful. If people then come on-wiki because of it they may get blocked, but the policy first and foremost targets the act of externally soliciting people to do so. Your comment identified a weakness of using the term "meatpuppetry" - WP:SOCK focuses on and forbids external soliciting whether or not successful, but the term "meatpuppetry" excludes this. So the wording change would actually improve a flawed point caused by use of the term "meatpuppetry"; it makes it clear that attempts to solicit others to come to Misplaced Pages and "support your cause" are not allowed. A "meatpuppet" is then a person who came to Misplaced Pages because of that external solicitation, which is much more understandable, and less likely to be taken as an attack or a pejorative. FT2  11:56, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I think we agree on most of this. My main point is not that meatpuppetry is a good term (it's not), but that 'external solicitation' is not necessary because we can just call it off-wiki canvassing, which is less technical and already in the jargon. Is there a difference between them? Ocaasi 23:43, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - Would agree that the term is somewhat "obscure to non-editors", but it strikes me that "external soliciting" would be as well. Re "pejorative and offensive" - Frankly, actual meatpuppetry is pretty despicable, and it would seem appropriate that it have a "pejorative and offensive" term as a label. NickCT (talk) 14:34, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support but not "soliciting": that's a word related to prostitution in Europe! Try "recruiting". "Meatpuppetry" is far too slangy and pejorative. Fences&Windows 18:58, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Meatpuppet is unnecessarily offensive. We don't want to do that to people who don't have any idea they're doing something wrong. --GRuban (talk) 20:08, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support. As a vegetarian I don't like the word "meatpuppet", in addition to the reasons above. (I suppose it would be inopportune to invite mah meatpuppets - who are not anictually meatpuppets at all, mark you, but independent-minded thinkers - to contribute to this discussion? Joke, joke!)--greenrd (talk) 00:21, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - Though it is jargon, it is easy for a new editor to learn the definition and the negativity of the term makes it crystal clear that the behavior is not allowed. The proposed alternatives sound wishy-washy to me. As a fairly new editor (15 months), terms like this seem like a genuine part of Misplaced Pages culture, and I like them. Cullen328 (talk) 00:43, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Misplaced Pages is explicitly the encyclopedia which anyone can edit. The proposal seeks to make it a crime to encourage people to edit Misplaced Pages. This seems quite contrary to our fundamental principles. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:02, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't think you realise what the proposal is about, so your comment makes no sense in this discussion. This is just a change of terminology, not policy. We already don't allow what we called "meatpuppetry", which is recruiting people specifically to swing debates in your direction. Fences&Windows 21:51, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

• I understand the proposal just fine. The proposed wordings of external soliciting or external recruiting have a very wide scope which is as I describe. It's no good burying some qualifications or limitations in the fine print because we see all the time that people don't read or understand them. Policies and guidelines such as WP:NOTE, WP:TRIVIA, WP:DICDEF, WP:BLP1E are commonly extended beyond their original scope by people who just read the headline but not the detail. The meatpuppet term isn't perfect either but it is better in that it conveys the point that it is a variation of sockpuppeting and that the issue is one of puppetry, i.e. using a stooge or false front. If the language were changed to forbid external recruiting per se, then the scope for misunderstanding and abuse would be much greater. Colonel Warden (talk)

• Oppose It's a matter here of trying to replace a misunderstood turn of phrase with an awkward and incorrect one - meatpuppetry can apply to a range of circumstances which may include internal soliciting. I agree that "meatpuppetry" is confusing but I would only be able to support a proposal which improves on what we already have. I find myself in agreement with Starblind. Orderinchaos 22:00, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. Pointless solution for a non-existent problem that will not stop people from using that term. Per Starblind et al. T. Canens (talk) 23:31, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support a change. Prefer and new terms of off-wiki recruitment and recruited puppet. —UncleDouggie (talk) 00:57, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. As Cullen328 mentioned: easily picked-up jargon that has been in use for ages. As T. Canens says it won't stop most people from using the term. Jarkeld (talk) 06:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - Off2riorob (talk) 06:08, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support canvass - Any attempt to reduce an entire policy definition to one word is going to be perjorative, but it is convenient. A replacement would ideally be a single word neologism with word forms for the concept ("y"), its employer ("er"), and its object ("ee"). Canvass fulfills that convenience. Canvassing, canvassor, canvassee. --Bsherr (talk) 17:38, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Just because it's dear to old timers, it doesn't mean it's a good idea to keep. I had no idea what this word meant. Making policies use less wiki jargon is a good idea. Tijfo098 (talk) 02:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support, with some pedantry - I would be happy to see a name change away from "meatpuppetry" to something more descriptive, perhaps which doesn't sound quite so much like an insult; perhaps something along the lines of "soliciting" or "canvassing". However, I don't think it's helpful to spend too much time worrying that the existing name is "disparaging or attacking newcomers"; because this is a label used for Bad Stuff (that may often be done by newcomers). With a different name, it will still be a label for Bad Stuff (that may often be done by newcomers). You can't get away from accusatory overtones by changing the label. You could rename it as the Super Happy Fun Joy policy if you wanted, but WP:SHFJ would swiftly acquire the same negative overtones, because you mention the policy when you suspect somebody has done Bad Stuff. Changing the label for a bad thing because the old label itself came to be seen as bad is pretty much a step onto the euphemism treadmill. bobrayner (talk) 12:01, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
• Opppose this is a good idea but I can't support it in its current proposal The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 18:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Agree with Tijfo098, we need less WP:WTF. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 13:27, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose We should avoid jargon and write policy pages to be understood by all, in particular new comers. We therefore should not assume that anyone reading a policy page understands these terms. However, that is very different from arguing that a term should be "retired" (which is itself quite an obscure way of saying "no longer used"). All activities involve jargon of some sort. These words form the fabric of the culture of that activity. Once explained, "meat puppet" is no more mysterious than "revert", "!vote", "good faith", "straw poll", "pipe link", "canvasing" or any of the other terms we use. Also, if we change "meat puppet" to "external soliciting" (which itself no more immediately understandable as a term), what would we change "sock puppet" to? "Self soliciting"? :-) --RA (talk) 18:52, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth (maybe not much!), I notice from your comment how much this is in the eye of the beholder. To me, "revert", "good faith", and "straw poll" are terms that are immediately familiar from everyday use, whereas "meatpuppet" sounds unfamiliar, un-intuitive, and ugly. As others have pointed out, "sockpuppet" refers to an actual kind of puppet that exists in real life, but to fashion a puppet by inserting one's hand into some meat, yuck! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

It's from "meatspace", referring to the off-line world as opposed to the on-line world. A "meat puppet" is thus akin to a "sock puppet" but employing a real (as opposed to a virtual) "puppet".

Example definition; and another in a slightly different context (see definition 2). --RA (talk) 23:55, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I understand. But, in fact, "meatspace" is just as unfamiliar, un-intuitive, and ugly, at least to me. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

• Also, a sockpuppet is always a deceptive account and a genuine "puppet". But a meatpuppet account may be set up in good faith by someone who did not realise anything was wrong by responding to a request to help. Calling a third party a label such as a "puppet" when they will almost always see themselves as acting in good faith based on their own views (although unwittingly against wiki policies) is unnecessarily provocative and offensive. It would be better from a policy viewpoint, to describe the action of external solicitation as improper and not merely call the unwitting newcomer a provocative name. FT2  08:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Per everyone who opposed. wiooiw (talk) 21:41, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support as it is confusing and can be offensive to anyone who doesn't understand it. NLinpublic (talk) 14:42, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
• Neutral leaning oppose. Both sound like jargon to me, so I don't think that it makes much of a difference between which one you choose. If a person doesn't know what a "meatpuppet" is, he can simply enter the words into a search engine and find out within a few seconds. I also don't think that it sounds very offensive. --Slon02 (talk) 01:57, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. "External soliciting" sanitizes an act that is obviously immoral, even to a person who does not know the Misplaced Pages rules. A meatpuppeteer is marshaling ideological allies, not "asking for help"; Misplaced Pages provides many prominent venues for people innocently seeking assistance or a third opinion. Quigley (talk) 06:55, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

But the user asked "can you visit and state your view" may not know this. They cannot be expected to know it nor to know about other venues or processes in any way. WP:BITE and the people who visit in good faith is the issue here. FT2  09:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support changing to shill. It's more concise, less jargony, and the definition can be found in any English dictionary. See this version. Jehochman 14:08, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose- I just don't see the point. The word we are using now does the job. Why fix what isn't broken? Reyk _YO! 04:15, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. Ignorantia juris non excusat. --Lamalamadingdong (talk) 18:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it should eb rechanged, as meatpuppet reminds me of blood and gore, but I'm not sure to what. Buggie111 (talk) 03:09, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. Being more than just a bit of a wikilawyer, I'm the first to ordinarily support clear and unambiguous terminology and policy statements, but I'm also a member of the Department of Fun. I remember being slightly shocked when I first encountered the term, but then taking it in the same spirit as some of the humorous illustrations used to illustrate some of our more serious topics. Frankly, the term sockpuppet is more obscure than meatpuppet and once one understands the meaning of sockpuppet the meaning of meatpuppet is implicitly clear. The policy statement is clear enough to eliminate any lingering doubt. Let's not make WP a more colorless place to work by eliminating all the fun stuff. What's next, eliminating the use of mop symbols for administrators? Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 13:53, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
• Weak support I'm always in favor of depreciating the use of jargon, such as the use of "BLP" as shorthand to refer to some ill-defined dicta we should all follow. However, "meat puppet" would be hardly the most offensive but accurate term to apply to them, as would, for example, "mother fucking God-forsaken scumbags". I feel that there are more objectionable problems which need addressing; but any improvement, no matter how small, is a good thing. -- llywrch (talk) 20:32, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - the existing term seems clear enough to me, and it has the added advantages of being both colourful and concise. Gatoclass (talk) 01:06, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose "Soliciting" sounds like seeking sexual favors. Forget the political correctness of creating a euphemism for a useful term of art. Edison (talk) 01:20, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support though I would also support some of the other name suggestions. CRGreathouse (t | c) 03:33, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support "external soliciting" or any other term that avoids the problem. In the past we have had problems when unintentional external soliciting happened in open source developer communities, i.e. in one of the areas where we are most likely to find dedicated new editors. Although the policy is very clear that following such soliciting is not the problem and the people who do so are not at fault, in at least one case they were blocked en masse. (This was undone much later, when the damage had already been done, and the admin who did this had to apologise.) That's just the tip of the iceberg. I think part of the problem is the confusion between sockpuppets (guilty) and meatpuppets (often innocent and not to be made responsible for the problems associated with their existence) that stems from the similar terms and the principle that in many, but not all, respects we can treat the two as equivalent. Just changing the official terminology to make it less bitey and less confusing is a good step in the right direction. Hans Adler 08:08, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. Argument to rename not convincing. --Tagtool (talk) 19:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support Meatpuppet has no use outside of Misplaced Pages, and quite frankly the term makes no sense to me. I'm not thoroughly sold on the alternatives presented though. Instead of going for legalese with "soliciting" or "recruiting," why not posse-editing or gang-editing? They express the same sentiment in less technical terms. DC T•C 05:32, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Dipping into the thesaurus

As the discussion in the RfC above is going along, it is becoming clear that some editors are bothered by the word "soliciting" (but presumably they are not solicitors: joke!). Some prefer "recruiting"; others have pointed out problems with that. I've been looking for other synonyms, without much success. But what does occur to me is: "canvassing". WP:CANVASS#Stealth canvassing makes very brief mention of something that superficially resembles what we are discussing here, but CANVASS is primarily about canvassing on-Wiki. Here, we are primarily concerned with what is really canvassing off-Wiki, in forms that are not stealthy. (In other words, posts on external websites that canvass whoever views the post; these can also be seen by administrators and others here, and so are potentially enforceable, in contrast to stealthy e-mails.) How about "external canvassing"? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the proposed name may not be ideal. I think the essence of Meatpuppetry is that (1) it is secret; and (2) Two or more editors are involved. The WP "Canvassing" policy deals with non-secret solicitation. The term "external canvassing" would cause lots of confusion with the WP Canvassing policy; plus it would blur the distinction between secret (meat) and non-secret (canvassing). Just for kicks, here is a list of some random phrases, to get some ideas:

• External soliciting
• External canvassing
• Secret soliciting
• External recruitment
• Secret recruitment
• Secret canvassing
• Improper collaboration
• Secret collaboration
• Non-transparent collaboration
• Improper recruitment
• Improper solicitation

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that Meat puppetry could be internal or external. It is the secrecy that is the distinguishing factor, so maybe "Secrecy" (or a synonym such as "non-transparent") should be in the new name? Of the above, "Improper collaboration" seems to jump out at me as the most understandable, although the drawback to that is that it may exclude the situation where a solicitation was made, but never responded to, so maybe improper recruitment or non-transparent recruitment is better. --Noleander (talk) 20:46, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I raised this (kidding!). I think "improper collaboration" includes other things besides meatpuppetry (WP:BATTLEFIELD comes to mind). I don't have a problem with "improper recruitment", although other editors have already raised problems with "external recruitment" (see near the top of the RfC). I don't buy the argument that there would be confusion with the canvassing policy. The purpose here is not to define something completely distinct from other policies, but to flesh out something that is, in fact, related. And that brings us to the secrecy issue. Looking at the current MEAT section, it actually does not mention secrecy. And, if something is really secret, we can't enforce it. (For socking, we have CheckUser, but there is nothing equivalent for off-site secrecy, unless someone voluntarily confesses or turns someone else in.) What I've been trying to draw attention to in this discussion has been postings that are not secret, on external websites. I think those are canvassing, but canvassing off-Wiki, but I'm open to other word choices. I just haven't found any good ones yet, and I've been looking. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:12, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, heck. why don't we just go straight for the jugular here and work on a policy against engaging in guerilla warfare - this whole thing smacks of a counter-insurgency effort anyway... --Ludwigs2 22:10, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Canvassing also means seeking opinions or conducting a survey (which are permitted), although on Misplaced Pages we do tend to use it specifically in the sense of seeking supporters. "No external canvassing for support" would be unambiguous but wordy. Secrecy is not an issue, whether open or secret it's not appropriate ("recruitment" is very often via open links on forums hence not "secret"). Improper is a bit pointless, there isn't "proper" external solicitation/recruitment to contrast it to. FT2  08:28, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

The technical term is 'demagoguery', if that helps any. --Ludwigs2 20:08, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we want to go here, especially with the high tensions over pending changes right now. —UncleDouggie (talk) 00:55, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The best terms to me are External recruitment or Off-wiki recruitment. The definition of meatpuppet includes the word recruitment, so any replacement term should include this word. More importantly, we need a replacement for the term meatpuppet, which refers to the recruited user, not the act of recruitment. External recruit seems a bit odd. External recruitment victim is unwieldy. How about recruited puppet? This would distinguish it from sockpuppet since you can't recruit yourself. —UncleDouggie (talk) 00:55, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly about which term we use, but "recruited puppet" makes very good sense to me. Thanks for thinking of it. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:36, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm imagining being a non-wikipedian who sees a note on some forum "please come and make your view heard on X debate at Misplaced Pages". When I do that, someone calls me a "puppet", and my instant reaction is to disagree strongly and feel attacked ("I'm no 'puppet'!"). It doesn't matter whether I would be in a Misplaced Pages sense, what's important is that the choice of words itself causes an argument of some intensity and immediately caused people to focus on personalities and not actions, and to adopt an attack/defense style rather than focusing on the issue, which was avoidable by not using such words. FT2  12:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

"External soliciting" doesn't sound like the right word choice to me. "Offwiki canvassing" might be more easily understood. Also, the relationship to tag-team behaviors might need to be clarified. If I secretly ask you through another website to join a discussion, that's meatpuppet -- but if I secretly ask you through Misplaced Pages's e-mail function, is that meatpuppeting, too? If so, then neither "external" nor "offwiki" are the right words. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:11, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slon02 (talk • contribs) 01:57, 2 October 2010

Shill

The most accurate word I can think of is shill. Somebody who engages in meatpuppetry is recruiting one or more shills to advance their point of view. Jehochman 14:03, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

That sounds OK to me. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:52, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't work, although well intended and not as bad idea. The main problem is that the first thing that happened when I clicked on "shill" is a page that starts "A shill is a person who is paid to help another person or organization to sell goods or services". The users this refers to are almost never being paid. Anyone who gets a link to a prospective WP:SHILL would then see as the very first thing, a definition that clearly and unambiguously cannot and does not apply to them.

I've therefore reverted; whatever wording might be used this isn't going to work. It was a reasonable WP:BB though. FT2  19:53, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Our article shill is somewhat wrong. The person does not need to be paid; that's not essential, and it's not referenced either. I suggest we fix the article to match common usage. If that's done, perhaps this works. Jehochman 20:20, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The term that seems to work best at WP:CANVASS is Inappropriate canvassing. So for this, this might be Inappropriate external canvassing. However, what I get from meatpupetry, is that it isn't just the canvassing, it's also the doing. !Voting for (or against) something your friend would like you to vote for (or against). The key words in that sentence being for (or against). Anyway, AFAIK, asking a friend to !vote isn't meatpuppetry, it's asking a friend to !vote in a particular way. And by corollary, !voting in a particular way to support however your friend !voted, or you think your friend would like you to !vote. (Though in all of this, I don't know how this can be proven.) So it seems to me that we have 2 things under the same heading: Inappropriate external canvassing, and the act of !voting as such a canvassee. The latter is defined as a meatpuppet. And I have no idea what term (that we wouldn't ourselves be creating as a neologism) that could best describe that. (Though shill would seem to be the closest I suppose. So: shillery? I dunno...) - jc37 20:28, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I did have one other thought. I was wondering about incorporating it into WP:CANVASS, which already has short sections covering most other forms of canvassing. As meatpuppetry is quite simple to define it doesn't add much wordage to that page and could then be known as "external canvassing" (which some prefer) and sensibly covered with other canvassing. I've put a draft how this could work at User:FT2/Canvassing. FT2  00:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I like this idea, and your draft, a lot. Neutral, plain language, mentions the word meatpuppetry for WP historic context. Novickas (talk) 16:17, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

• Shill works for me. The dictionary definitions and actual usage fits. Jehochman is right in his edit to the mainspace article, a shill is not necessarily paid, although in practice a committed shill needs some inducement for his disingenuous contributions. Canvass, on the other hand, doesn't fit. Canvassing is about spreading information openly, albeit slanted information to a biased audience. You don't normally canvass anyone to have them pretend to have a disingenuous interest and view. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The people we would classify under meatpuppetry are not paid, but nor are they "pretending" anything or being "disingenuous". The most common scenario for meatpuppetry is a person who advertises a debate or issue to friends and allies, or in a favorable forum, and says "please visit this page on Misplaced Pages to make your views known". The people who respond may be very partisan but they are usually not pretending or faking, they aren't being disingenuous, they are simply people who have very strong views on an issue and were told of a debate that would be important to someone who held a strong view on the matter. Their responses may be improper for Misplaced Pages but a genuine meatpuppet may well be responding in good faith and in their own right based on their own views (and not as a mere shill), even though unacceptably. FT2  09:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Meatpuppets, as I image them, are pretending to have an interest in a wikipedia debate. They are disengenuous in that they are putting forward an opinion suggested by the meatpuppeteer which is not their own opinion.

To the extent that these meatpuppets have been recruited to influence a mainspace article on the basis of their pre-existing belief/knowledge/opinion, they are not in violation of WP:SOCK, but are genuine newcomers who should be welcomed, and their opinions given full consideration. I disagree that their responses are in any way improper. There is no prescribed method for becoming a Wikipedian. Most begin by fixing something obscure or trivial. If some begin through being invited to a contended debated, then good. The more the merrier, and the better for the project.

Meatpuppets who are not pretending nor acting disingenuously should be welcomed and valued for their contributions. They should not be considered meatpuppets. They would not be considered shills according to the external definition. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:16, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

• • Strong support. I suggest shill recruitment for the act. —UncleDouggie (talk) 05:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

In common usage shill also means somebody who comments without independent thinking or critical review. They are simply saying what somebody else told them to say. I believe this is synonymous with mouthpiece or meatpuppet. Shill has several advantages: it is brief, precise, and can be found in any dictionary. We ought to avoid creating neologisms that make it hard for a newcomer to understand our processes. I am open to using a different word, but it should meet these requirements. Jehochman 12:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

On Misplaced Pages a meatpuppet may well have independent thinking and critical review. The problem isn't that they aren't autonomous, it's that they were asked to visit Misplaced Pages to make their views known on a specific issue, by someone who advertized the debate externally (to allies or on a forum or list). But those who respond just don't meet the definition of shills any more than members of a protest group are shills for the person who started the group. A shill implies a lot more in terms of "working on behalf of" - it's closer to our term "proxying for".

Meatpuppetry is not the same as proxying. Meatpuppets tend to be independent, self-motivated, and speaking for themselves. It's the fact they were recruited or solicited externally, and that their views were usually sought to influence the debate, that's the issue. The term still WP:BITEs newcomers who may have acted in good faith. The discussion on meatpuppetry is about the fact users are here due to external soliciting/recruitment, not about accusing them of being shills, mouthpieces, proxies, puppets, etc. That's crucial. FT2  15:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

It sounds like your definition of meatpuppetry has only a fine line between it and votestacking. And, as an aside, whether right or wrong, it's apparently ok to say you've been canvassed for vote stacking, so that then you're in the clear of being accused of meatpuppetry. (I just imagined a potentially huge, though ridiculous scenario in my head that I'll stuff with some WP:BEANS.) I think the main thing that needs to happen when deciding on a term, is to remember the difference between meatpuppetry (meat puppeteer) and merely being a meat puppet. Meat puppetry sounds like votestacking, and being a meatpuppet is then a shill, if I understand everyone here. Or did I miss something? - jc37 22:08, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

@Jc37 - meatpuppetry is in effect a form of votestacking. The elements of meatpuppetry are someone encouraging attendance to the discussion by non-wikipedians, usually but not always by linking to the debate on an external website or email list, and usually it's also a forum or list whose members will have a predictable view on the debate and where the poster seems to be implying they should come to Misplaced Pages to make their views know. That is "meatpuppetry". A "meatpuppet" is then someone who has no prior connection with Misplaced Pages, but attends primarily to make their view known as a result of that encouragement by the user.

The key problem is the people who visit need to know their attendance is inappropriate or to adopt our norms... but equally they should not be "bitten" or described disparagingly even if their attendance is inappropriate, because they may not know anything's wrong, nor know our norms. FT2  00:54, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

FT2: WP:MEAT states: "Meatpuppetry is the use of editors as proxies to sway consensus. While Misplaced Pages assumes good faith, especially for new users, the recruitment of new editors for this purpose is prohibited." WP:PROXYING is performing edits on behalf of banned users. I agree with others that shill is the best replacement for the current definition of meatpuppet. I did not understand this RfC to encompass redefining meatpuppet. It seems that we have lost momentum. As there is not consensus for a change to "external soliciting", I recommend that you close this RfC and open a new one to try and achieve consensus on "shill" and either "shill recruitment" or "recruiting shills". —UncleDouggie (talk) 06:55, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

@UncleDouggie - no, it is not intended to "redefine" or change the norms in any way. Just to find a word that does not bite those responding to meatpuppetry (as opposed to merely calling them "meatpuppets"). No other change was intended except to switch the policy to a wording that describes the forbidden action rather than labeling the potentially good-faith (but inappropriate) respondents. My focus is removing a source of problems, rather than the specific term moved to. Ideally the better term would not be one that labels, but one that describes the action, and should not come across as an epithet to possible good faith posters even if their posting is inappropriate. What the RFC seems to show is two things: 1/ there is consensus to change the term, and 2/ "shill" is a possible strong contender for a replacement term. FT2  00:54, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

• Strong support for "shill" as a replacement for "meatpuppet", and I wish I'd thought of it first. It's an accurate, proper-English term with a good pedigree and an appropriate connotation. Most people are familiar with it, whereas you have to be into cyberpunk to get "meatpuppet" without a glossary. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 17:12, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Posse-editing

I think "posse-editing" is the best way to describe the situation. I think it works better than "shill" because it's a more common term. And it's a good metaphor to the Wild West, when a guy would get his friends to team up and fight someone. DC T•C 05:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

• At this point, I'm open to any number of possibilities, and not terribly attached to any one over others. This one might be OK, in that it does have a certain amount of lucidity to it. Higher in this talk, you also mentioned "gang editing". I think I might like that one slightly better, in that the language is slightly more familiar and accessible. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:00, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Scrap the Two Word Definitions, Go for the long but clear

I don't see why everyone is stuck on two word labels for the practice known as meatpuppetry. Clearly going upwards of 20 would be bad, but I see no problem with "Gathering Single Purpose Accounts to Sway a Discussion." The definition is significantly more complicated than any of the two word definitions I have seen to date, which might be why the jargon word exists. We should focus on creating a clear one line definition we can all agree on instead. Any two word definition we settle on will be so unclear that it itself will soon become jargon.

Proposal Go for a longer but completely unambiguous definition, and use that instead of the term meatpuppetry and the two word terms being discussed above. Sven Manguard _Talk 18:06, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. It will be shortened no matter your good intentions and I can't deal with the thought of WP:GSPAtSaD. —UncleDouggie (talk) 04:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Though WP:SAD might seem like appropriate commentary on people who engage in this practice :P Orderinchaos 03:19, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Q re: meatpuppetry

If we had two editors, one who had an attorney-client relationship with the first, does this policy permit the attorney to defend their client on-wiki? If so, should reverts of the client and the attorney be counted as one entity for the purposes of 3rr? Should the relationship be disclosed? Hipocrite (talk) 12:11, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Has the situation come up yet, or is this purely hypothetical? It seems unlikely that a person would need legal representation in actually editing a wiki. When people ask their legal representative to help them, it's usually to either clarify their viewpoint (without legal threats) or to contact OTRS. Someone who clearly acts as a spokesperson or aide for the editor and does not engage the debate by jointly edit warring but tries to help resolve it by making the person's view clearer or acting as a mediator/intermediary, would be unlikely to have a problem. Someone who co-edits with them probably would have a problem. But without a specific example it's hard to be too exact on a reply. FT2  12:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The situation is currently active and involves joint edit warring and multi-voting. The initial relationship is not related to the editing of the wiki, but both the client and the attorney are actively editing. Given that the evidence includes the non-public identies of both editors, I'll submit the details to arbcom in private. Hipocrite (talk) 12:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Curious question, because if there was any actual legal matter involved, (defamation, libel, slander, harassment, etc) it would be grounds for WMF involvement and basically in the Godwin-inhabited world of WP:THREATs. So in that case it wouldn't be permitted. And in all other cases--of mere representation of views, neutrality, BLP guidelines, promotion, etc. normal policies apply, first among them WP:COI. So, I can't think of a situation where your example would actually happen without triggering either red-alarm legal issues or clear policy violations. As for meatpuppetry, well, it kind of is a hired representative of you, so yeah, it's meatpuppetry. But by the time it was revealed that the meatpuppet was your lawyer I think other issues would immediately take precedence. Ocaasi 18:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Not least a sanity check if anyone's genuinely paying a lawyer $150 - 800 an hour to edit war on Misplaced Pages rather than email OTRS..... FT2  14:30, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

New, separate page for meat puppetry

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. Within 24 hours, this page will be added to the following list: Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

About a week ago, I made a separate page for Meat puppetry here. I did not actually change the guideline. I just copied and pasted the same text from the sock puppetry page there, reworded it so it made more sense on its own page, and added a list of signs. I did it after I brought up the idea of doing this, and got no opposition for several days. I was inspired to do this after someone did the same for Clean start recently.

I do feel that meat puppetry, while similar, is distinct enough from sock puppetry that it does belong on its own page. Just like reliable sources, verifiability, and citing sources are similar, but distinct enough to have their own pages. While sock puppetry is a one-man show, meat puppetry is deception involving the use of multiple people. Some difference.

My idea is to immediately start off the new MEAT page exactly as the policy is currently written on the SOCK page (with only minor wording changes as needed), and discuss any changes accordingly. I don't see why anyone should be opposed. Hellno2 (talk) 18:09, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose It is our policy that we are not here to create rules. All the proposal does is to fork the existing policy page, adding no value and multiplying the number of rules pages beyond necessity. See also Parkinson's Law. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:14, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. Move the meat section here to WP:Canvassing, redirect all the meat-y stuff there, and discuss it there. Sockpuppetry is about a single person's actions and is provable. 'Meatpuppetry' is not provable. It amounts to a judgement that some editor is completely under the control of another. Can we agree this can't be said with certainty short of showing a gun pointed at someone's temple while they write? Sure, anyone who's been here awhile sees editors swarming discussions with nothing to add besides 'Yeah, what he said' and has gotten frustrated and angry about it. Some editors post that kind of stuff after being canvassed at other venues. But WP:Consensus addresses the problem, as hard as its implementation may be. And we are free to point out that 'this user has made few or no edits apart from this discussion' at AFDs and RFAs and we have the template that goes 'If you came here because...' And Canvassing already talks about external recruitment. Novickas (talk) 20:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, what CW said about policy proliferation. The page isn't terribly long or hard to navigate. Novickas (talk) 16:04, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

• • Why use the word "oppose" in your title. It is clear you support something, just something a little different. I agree that meatpuppetry is more like canvassing than sock puppetry. Hellno2 (talk) 13:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Another, more temperate, way of putting it would be, oppose because it's too early to talk of splitting it off, when you see the lively discussion about its wording above. Hiving off Clean Start - not sure why that needed to be done, but its content and wording weren't contentious. I'm glad we seem to agree about its closer relation to canvassing; kind of dusty here now to be proposing moving it to that page, but maybe later sometime. Novickas (talk) 16:00, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. No need for a separate policy; this is closely connected to sockpuppetry, and sometimes the same for our purposes. SlimVirgin 05:23, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. there isn't any pressing reason to have a separate policy on meat puppetry, and meat puppetry is a questionable idea in any case. best to leave it in wp:SOCK where it is at least properly contextualized. --Ludwigs2 16:14, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
• Strong Support For editors that do not regularly handle policy, this page is an excellent guide. If might serve better if it were renamed as an essay "What exactly is meatpuppetry." Either way, I believe having a separate page that explains without distraction, and happens to explain well, what Meatpuppetry actually constitutes is valuable to the project. Sven Manguard _Talk 17:58, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose, per SlimVirgin (talk · contribs). -- Cirt (talk) 18:58, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
• False dichotomy. Meat puppetry (renamed preferably) belongs in WP:SOCK, because (1) editors expect it to be covered by this long standing policy; and (2) because in terms of appearances, crude sock/meat puppetry can be indistinguishable. However, a separate essay could help, especially in cases when a genuine good faith newcomers finds himself accused. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:00, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. If weakly. However, meatpuppetry might be better defined, say in a separate essay. Nucleophilic (talk) 19:28, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. As said better by others already, meat-puppetry is usually indistinguishable from sock-puppetry so it makes sense to treat them together. To the extent that off-Wiki canvassing is separate from meat-puppetry, it's already covered in WP:CANVASS.   Will Beback  talk  20:47, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Another valid alternate account

As people may or may not be aware, you can create an RSS feed for your watchlist. My watchlist is long, and an RSS feed of it currently would be... less than valuable.

I created User:Hipocrite-Watchlist to watchlist a few lesser-watched BLP articles and use an RSS reader to track that watchlist. This is not currently a listed acceptable use of alternate accounts. It should be, as long as the watchlist-user is linked back to the main username. Thoughts? Hipocrite (talk) 14:43, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

The list of "legitimate uses" isn't a closed list, it's a list of examples. I don't think every use of an alt account needs to be explicitly listed. Provided the use isn't intended or used to deceive or disrupt it's fine. FT2  17:01, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Coverage of openly declared secondary accounts like that is not the main intent of this page. Such accounts are obviously OK. I suggest adding {{doppelganger|User:Hipocrite|to watchlist a few lesser-watched BLP articles and use an RSS reader to track that watchlist}} to the User and User_Talk pages.

On this policy, I think it would be improved if focused strictly on undeclared secondary accounts. Several of the legitimate uses, including doppelgangers, are red herrings, aka bloat, with respect to the purpose of the policy. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:15, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages requests for comment