Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppetry

Ambiguities of MEAT?

Hi WP:MEAT states: "actively recruiting new accounts or users on Wikipedia, or recruiting people (either on-wiki or off-wiki) to create an account or edit anonymously in order to influence decisions on Wikipedia, is prohibited." But new is very ambiguous.

• So does this mean new accounts globally, or new is considered separately in each wiki-Language?
• What does new mean (auto-confirmed, etc.)?

I'm asking this because innocent users could easily fall into this, while they have no way of proving that this was the case.

Consider two users which are friends irl, one of them being the new editor (joined 6 months, done several edits on other languages etc.), decides to take part in an AfD vote held by the other one, so even though they were not invited or recruited for doing so, it seems that they were recruited by the older user, though in reality they've done so on their own accord.

Plus while these two users are friends irl, they might not feel stating this out loud, for privacy reasons etc.. So in this scenario blocking them could be harmful to both of these users, while seasoned editors definitely know how to handle such circumstances, innocent users might fall into it.

(An ideal solution to this problem might be, putting in participation requirements (say 50 edits, or 3 months) for AfDs, or other similar votes) Xpander (talk) 03:45, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Maybe others will disagree, but my reaction is that this is all a very obvious matter of common sense, and should not need clarification. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:37, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Aye. We don't need to regulate this any further because we have a ledger of all on-wiki activity, and patterns of chronic dishonesty or instrumentalization tend to reveal themselves quickly—though the survivorship bias here does keep me up at night, I admit. Remsense ‥ 论 19:01, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

The problem is that users get blocked even before they get a chance to explain or getting introduced to the policy which worsens things up. Xpander (talk) 20:59, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

They don't. If they somehow do, then those are situations that the unblock process is for. Remsense ‥ 论 21:02, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Is this so? Does the rule allow for some leeway? This actually happened to me once, despite explaining in the unblock process. Xpander (talk) 12:24, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

I think the standards most admins have for blocking are typically pretty high, so even if a brand-new account comes up and joins in an AfD, that in and of itself wouldn't be enough evidence of meatpuppetry to block. There would need to be a pattern of multiple instances where two accounts are editing with similar interests/behaviors to support a block. I don't know the specifics of your case (I looked at your block log and could not find any meatpuppetry-related blocks—was that on a past account?), but I'm with Trytofish that common sense should prevail in these kinds of situations, and there isn't a need to spell out exactly what "new" means. Mz7 (talk) 23:40, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

It happened on another wiki. But the policy is translated from here verbatim, and it doesn't mention anything about a "pattern" of behavior, it's totally incumbent upon an administrator's good faith, but it seems in principle the block can be done if it happens once. Xpander (talk) 08:14, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Why would we change the policy for this wiki based on what another does? That's categorically not our problem. Remsense ‥ 论 12:08, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

If we agree something bad in principle can happen then it's irrelevant where it might happen. If there is any line or provision that precludes this from happening here, please point that out, since I'm not at all clear on why it could be different here. @Remsense Xpander (talk) 11:58, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

If we agree something bad in principle can happen then it's irrelevant where it might happen.

No, that's clearly nonsense. Apologies. Guidelines reflect existing consensus and practices. If there's no problem to resolve, then there's no problem to resolve. Remsense ‥ 论 11:58, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

You're suggesting Guidelines should be reactive instead of preventative? It's like saying we need a car accident for better traffic rules. As for the AfD participation requirement suggested above, that was only a suggestion. But as I mentioned the policy does not suggest that perhaps warn the user first, or anything like that. Xpander (talk) 16:29, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

I have bad news about how we all got seat belts. In any case, yes, our guidelines are intended to reflect actual practice informed by actual knowledge of what works and what doesn't, as opposed to shadowboxing theoretical problems by generating arcane bureaucracy and red tape, liable just to distract us from encyclopedia-building. Remsense ‥ 论 16:44, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

RFC on extended confirmed

Please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Extended confirmed definition. It is a proposal to change WP:XC from 500 edits + 30 days to 500 edits + 90 days. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:17, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Mentorship

I've recently enrolled as a mentor and was wondering if I could create an alternative account (named User:Balsam Cottonwood (mentee) or something) and claim it as a mentee, just for testing mentorship features. I opted out of mentorship when I was new, so I don't really have a clue what it looks like from the mentee's point of view. 🌳 Balsam Cottonwood (talk) ✝ 17:38, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Sounds perfectly fine to me. See WP:SOCKLEGIT for more details. RoySmith (talk) 18:26, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. 🌳 Balsam Cottonwood (talk) ✝ 19:48, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Sockpuppeteers category discussion

See here. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:42, 1 August 2025 (UTC)