Talk:Sock puppet account

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sock puppet account article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3: 90 days

Internet Mid‑importance

	Internet portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Business Mid‑importance

	Business portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Internet culture Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Internet culture To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : View all requested internet culture articles
Expand : Pick an article from here or here
Photo : Category:Internet culture articles needing images
Stubs : All stubs are located here
Other : Category:Internet self-classification codes (!?); Try to get YouTube to FA; Tag all articles you find with {{WikiProject Internet culture}}
- See also Category:Internet culture articles needing attention

Wikipedia Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's encyclopedic coverage of itself. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. Please remember to avoid self-references and maintain a neutral point of view, even on topics relating to Wikipedia.WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject WikipediaWikipedia articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

Nicholson Baker (Thursday 10 April 2008). "How I fell in love with Wikipedia [1]". The Guardian. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

On 19 October 2013, Sock puppet account was linked from Motherboard, which was in turn linked to from Slashdot, a high-traffic website. (Traffic)

All prior and subsequent edits to the article are noted in its revision history.

On 30 July 2020, it was proposed that this article be moved from Sockpuppet (Internet) to Sockpuppet (internet). The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Do many organizations, business or otherwise, employ sock puppets?[edit]

Or do any? I can see this as a very easy way to sway public opinion for or against something, and i would like to know how prevalent it is. Of course most never get exposed, and its not illegal in most cases... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.81.199.45 (talk) 09:52, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can we compare it to fake accounts used for recommendations on booking websites ? Can we consider them as sockpuppets ? Ines MERAOUMIA TPT (talk) 10:45, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See here https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/albertonardelli/facebook-twitter-google-manipulation-nato-stratcom Zezen (talk) 10:28, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Should Wikipedia sockpuppet issues be included[edit]

An editor has recently removed several WP:RS referenced sentences about socking on wikipedia. It is my position that sourcing is sufficient to include this information, and that sockpuppeting on wikipedia is of high enough historical importance to be included in the history section of this article. The article Orangemoody editing of Wikipedia has numerous WP:RS refs covering socking on wikipedia.Dialectric (talk) 14:39, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant policy here is WP:BALASP, which says "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic."

This Wikipedia-related content currently represents more than a third of the History section, which is vastly out of proportion to its importance in the history of sockpuppet accounts. It may be of additional interest to Wikipedia editors, but they aren't Wikipedia's target audience. Dan Bloch (talk) 15:19, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I should also mention, this information already appears in an article linked from this page. Dan Bloch (talk) 15:50, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Given the extensive coverage of wikipedia socking in RS sources, wikipedia socking is of interest to an audience beyond just wikipedia editors. Two cited sentences about this activity is a reasonable inclusion in a history of sockpuppeting. The issue I see is that the history section needs to be expanded. Wikipedia should not be the only example of online socking in the section. There should be examples from pre-world wide web online activity, examples from the early days of the web, and some of the examples in the 'Examples of sockpuppetry' section may be relevant to a history section.Dialectric (talk) 16:18, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the history section could be expanded, and if it were the Wikipedia entry would be appropriate, but until this happens the WP:BALASP argument stands. This section has two pre-internet observations, then leaps forward to a very specific example from Wikipedia. This is jarring to read and shouldn't be there. If you want to move this to the Examples of sockpuppetry section, I'd be okay with that. Dan Bloch (talk) 00:38, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since there is no consensus, I'll be removing this text tomorrow per WP:ONUS. Dan Bloch (talk) 21:14, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is an WP:EDITCONSENSUS, backed up by 4 years+ of different editors working on this article, to include mention of wikipedia socking in the history section. One editor disagreeing does not undo this.Dialectric (talk) 15:38, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, WP:EDITCONSENSUS shows that there was a consensus. This discussion shows that there no longer is. But rather than continue this debate, I've made a minor addition which should satisfy everyone. Carry on. Dan Bloch (talk) 17:03, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Linking MySpace[edit]

Should the hyperlink for MySpace be added? I'm not bold for this article. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 04:56, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What if one has reason to believe they may have fallen victim to active subject matter[edit]

In relation to the context in this article? Whom may I speak with about such? That specific talk page is moderated by a ghost and am unable to identify whom to seek resolution as such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.83.100.13 (talk) 20:33, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why 'sockpuppet' and not just 'puppet'?[edit]

Does anyone know why (whoever) called these accounts "sockpuppet" originally and not just 'puppet' accounts? "Sockpuppets" reference something cute, and these "puppet" accounts aren't cute. Thank you 2600:1700:B9C0:DCA0:F174:D3FC:B508:7564 (talk) 15:34, 16 January 2023 (UTC) E.S.[reply]

Because there is both sockpuppets and meatpuppets. Qwer2025 (talk) 08:37, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Socking" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

The redirect Socking has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 14 § Socking until a consensus is reached. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 16:29, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]