Forum:Sockpuppetry policy revision


 * Due to the support of 9 out of 12 voters (three-fourths), it was decided that Odysseas-spartan-53 should be unblocked.

What's this? A policy proposal from Star Wars Fanon's most infamous and lacking of Star Wars Fanon:Administrators. Even if you dislike me, something of grave importance has come to my attention. Odysseas-spartan-53, formerly known as Spartan-53, has recently been banned by Darth tom for Sockpuppetry. All Spartan-53 wanted to do was to rename his account; however, renaming an account on Wikia is impossible for us at this moment.

Does this make Odysseas-spartan-53 a sockpuppet? According to the present Sockpuppet policy, Sockpuppetry is the creation of an alternative account to make it look like another user. Odysseas-spartan-53 never wanted to look like another user. In fact, he told me about it on my my talk page. This to this, his second account doesn't follow the Sockpuppet policy's definition of sockpuppetry. Also, Odysseas-spartan-53's old account was blocked by Drewton in order to ensure that it could never be used as a sockpuppet. As a result, Odysseas-spartan-53 never had the ability to practice sockpuppetry, so he was blocked for something he could not do. Due to this, I suggest this:
 * 1) We unblock Odysseas-spartan-53 since he isn't a sockpuppet according to the current policy's own words. Odysseas-spartan-53 is now unblocked.
 * 2) We should adopt the new sockpuppetry policy that I wrote. This also includes a new section on users wishing to rename their accounts.

If you wish to suggest changes of your own, feel free to do so on the "Comments" section of the page or at User talk:Michaeldsuarez/Sockpuppetry policy. Due to the Voting policy, you must have 100 mainspace edits in order to vote, but anyone wishing to leave comments may do so. The voting for the new policy will last until until September 30th. If there's overwhelming support for the proposals, then ending the voting early will be considered.


 * Please note that the new sockpuppetry policy has been revised due to the wishes of Brandon Rhea and various other users. Please check out proposal often to check for changes.

Support

 * 1) As proposer. -- Michaeldsuarez [[Image:Sabersmilygreend.jpg|20px]] ( Talk ) ( Deeds ) 20:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) *I agree. It's never made sense that we can't create alternative accounts here simply to change our username because of a disliking of the previous one. -- Joe Butler (Obi Maul12)  (Chow) 20:30, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * But, if someone wants to make a new account, we shouldn't let him keep the mainspace edit points from the old account for voting. That way, there's incentive to NOT make a million different accounts upon every whim, and there's a way of making sure of users not abusing their multiple accounts during elections and votes. I could've sworn some forum we had a couple years ago made a point like this, but somehow it wasn't applied to the project page. --C3PO the Dragon Slayer 6,000,000 forms of communication 21:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) After some careful though, I must say yes. Per above. -- Knowledge the Article Writer talk 22:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) I'm going to say yes based on two things: first, the changes that have been made to the proposal. Those changes would be allowing a name change once without any questions asked, and any further desires for a name change would have to have a legitimate reason behind it or else the Administrator would not allow it, etc. The second reason is that I spoke with Sannse on Wikia staff about what the Wikia opinion is on this. They have no formal opinion, but it seems to me based on what she told me she has suggested to people that the general consensus is "they simply make a new account and leave a note on their old user page to explain". She told me that she does not "consider this "sockpuppeting" if they do the change openly and without any intent to deceive other users". I would agree with that. Therefore, based mostly on the changes that have been made to the proposal, I am inclined to support it. It's a hesitant support, as I want to see how this goes if it's adopted, but I think it's closed the loophole. - Brandon Rhea (talk) (contribs) 18:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) I honestly can't decide. Both sides' arguments strike my vote right down the middle. -MPK (MPK's Talk Page)|undefined 01:31, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, Tom has made some very good points, but I don't see anything that bad about making an alternate account. That is, if the account isn't used for any vandalism.Mattkenn3 <sup(Talk) 03:07, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Can't decide. Unit 8311 (Talk) 17:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) I've decided that I can't decide either right now. No pun intended. There are good arguments on both sides. Drewton  [[Image:Era-old.png|20px]] ( Drewton's Holocron ) 18:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) This isn't Facebook or MySpace, MSN or Y!M, where you can change your name on sporadic impulse. We're a Wiki, and, as such, we should maintain a degree of pride and professionalism in what we do. This new allowing to 'change accounts' would be so open to abuse it's untrue, and there's absolutely no need to 'change accounts' either. Why do we need to do this? We most definitely do not. This isn't a social networking site, and your 'account name' isn't important, and so you shouldn't be allowed to mess it around. Next thing you know, we'll have 'Social userpages' and a 'point system' like Halopedia. That's something I'll leave before I allow to happen here, and so I'm in complete opposition of this, as there's no need, it's open to abuse, and turns this Wiki into little more than a social networking site in the username respect. --[[Image:Darthtomsig.png|163px]] (talk) (contributions) 20:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) You can just change it in your signature so it says something else. Simple as that.
 * 3) Per Darth tom. There is no reason to go about changing your username at a whim. &mdash;  JM ' 76 ' Ask Archives [[Image:Sabersmilyjm76.jpg|18px]] 21:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) I would have to oppose this policy. If I hated my long name, I would change my sig to Arav (Talk) (Contributions). This bit is a bit off topic: I think with Spartan, he should of notified someone about his change, and they told him not to and why. Spartan-54 is a kind and friendly user, he just wanted to change his name. He would never want another account to vandalise or to evade bans (my opinion because I am assuming good faith). --Arav the Undersith (Contact Me ) (My contributions ) 23:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) *I struck some of my comments above because I have read some users talk pages, I fully get it now and it is off topic. Sorry about that. --Arav the Undersith (Contact Me ) (My contributions ) 23:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Per Tom.  Drewton  [[Image:Era-old.png|20px]] ( Drewton's Holocron ) 03:12, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) Absolutely not. As a former sockpuppeteer, I realize the trouble I caused the Administration here changing my account name every two weeks. Make a name, make sure you want it, and stick with it. Since this isn't a forum, it would be hard to keep track of who is who.  Wing   msg 15:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) --Victortalk 20:59, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 9) The hell we need a policy revision. -MPK (MPK's Talk Page)|undefined 18:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 10) *Just because I'm curious, I would like to know how did you went from whatever/indifference to a decision. What happened over this period of time? Did I do something? -- Michaeldsuarez [[Image:Sabersmilygreend.jpg|20px]] ( Talk ) ( Deeds ) 18:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 11) **No, I only just recently actually bothered to read the discussion, which led to me taking a side. -MPK (MPK's Talk Page)|undefined 18:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 12) ***Okay. Sorry. I'll make sure the text attracts all eyes to it next time. -- Michaeldsuarez [[Image:Sabersmilygreend.jpg|20px]] ( Talk ) ( Deeds ) 19:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments
Joe, I'm assuming you meant to vote, but put that "*", since that doesn't count as a vote, I changed it for you. If that was wrong, Moderators can change it back.-- Nightmare975 21:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC) JM76: He did it because he wanted a new name. See this.--Arav the Undersith <font color=Blue>(<font color=#C3B091>Contact Me ) <font color=#00416A>(<font color=#C3B091>My contributions ) 23:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, Joe did it because he can't vote, per the voting policy. I changed it back. --[[Image:Darthtomsig.png|163px]] <font color="#1A2BBB">(talk) <font color="#1A2BBB">(contributions) 21:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, okay, sorry about that. *looks at unsigned comment* NOT AGAIN!-- Nightmare975 22:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * So, did he create the sockpuppet because he wanted a new name, or because he forgot the password to his old one? &mdash;  JM ' 76 ' Ask Archives [[Image:Sabersmilyjm76.jpg|18px]] 21:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If you really want to change your name, you can just change it in the signature, unless fully changing it is against rules. If so, the sig was just an example, although I'm thinking of keeping it.-- Lord Bender 00:07, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

There needs to be more in here than what's already there. First, I believe that there should be a limit of one new account creation for the purpose of having a new name per user without any questions asked. If they want to do it a second time, they need to provide a legitimate reason other than "well I want a new name". Also, please specify whether or not we're using the current Blocking Policy way of blocking people who fail to follow those procedures or whether or a new set of guidelines for blocking need to be established in terms of this policy. Finally, you need to include a part in the policy that says what to do in the event that a user has lost their password, and I believe that needs to be as follows: Once this all is sorted out, I will support this unless I think of something else. - <font color="#1A2BBB">Brandon Rhea <font color="#1A2BBB">(talk) <font color="#1A2BBB">(contribs) 02:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Use the "Forgot password" feature on the log-in screen. This will email your password to you.
 * 2) If the email does not reach you, or if you did not provide an email address upon registration, you must contact Wikia staff and see if they can help you.
 * 3) If Wikia staff is unable to help you or you are unable to contact them, register a new account and them immediately contact an Administrator to let them know about the situation. They will block your old account and allow you to remain on your newly created one.
 * Brandon, the changes that you wanted have been made. Please check out the the new version. -- Michaeldsuarez [[Image:Sabersmilygreend.jpg|20px]] ( Talk ) ( Deeds ) 19:45, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't exactly call Mike "infamous", that "honor" probably goes to me. Most people know what I'm talking about.--  CurrentBigThing  ( Speak ) 19:49, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Tom, I have to ask why you're in such opposition of this proposal. Michael has addressed the fact that this may be open to abuse in the proposal; A) You can only change your username once, whereas on social networking sites you can change it as many times as you want. And B) If a person wants to change their username, they have to not only tell but ask an administrator to switch usernames. So I don't see how this proposal would be so open to abuse, like you're saying. I look at it as a courtesy to users of this site; I myself would change my username from Obi maul12 to Joe Butler, since I would prefer to be called by my real name. I don't see how I would be abusing anything by simply changing my username once. -- Joe Butler (Obi Maul12)  (Chow) 21:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC) On a personal note, I don't think our policies should be based on fear. Any fan of Star Wars knows the harm that fear can cause. Anyway, our Clan policy already prevents groups made solely for social networking purposes from forming. In addition, a name or nickname (username in this case) is important in forming one's individual identity and it helps others to identity them, so yes, usernames are indeed important. Also, I don't write policy poposals carelessly. I have considered the very unlikely, apocalyptic situation you have been fearing. I believe that I made the policy as safe as posible. -- Michaeldsuarez  ( Talk ) ( Deeds ) 18:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * How did I know you'd do that, changing your username? I'm in utter opposition because it's not needed. You think I like my Username? Hell no. But this isn't a social networking site, and I don't wish to see anything even close to social networking. It starts with something small, like this, and then grows until we end up like a social networking site, which we are not. I don't care how many times you change it, it's not Wikia style, and it's not Star Wars Fanon. Even changing it once is basically social networking. Your username isn't important, and doesn't need to be changed. --[[Image:Darthtomsig.png|163px]] <font color="#1A2BBB">(talk) <font color="#1A2BBB">(contributions) 18:07, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Right now, I have to put "Obi maul12" in my name, and it's a drag. Also, I trust Michael that he's put thought into this proposal. I understand why you're fearful of social networking on Wikia, Tom, but that's not what Michael is proposing. If someone made a more rash proposal (e.g. changing username infinite times, bring back clans, etc.) then the users of this site could (and probably would) oppose it. Believe me, though, I see where you're coming from; I wouldn't want Star Wars fanon to turn into a social networking site. -- Joe Butler (Obi Maul12)  (Chow) 21:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and one other thing, regarding this comment: "This isn't Facebook or MySpace, MSN or Y!M, where you can change your name on sporadic impulse." That's true; but Michael isn't proposing the ability to change your name on sporadic impulse. The proposal states that a person can change their username only once and only after they ask an administrator. -- Joe Butler (Obi Maul12)  (Chow) 21:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC) I know Project Cruentus is very production, and I like it very much. I just saying Darth tom is wrong for making a furthest thing from statement. By saying that, he literatally says let's takes this is the extreme other side. If this wiki was to go to the extreme other side from a social network, then everything will be boring and there won't be any community spirit. -- Michaeldsuarez  ( Talk ) ( Deeds ) 17:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * And? I'm never going to support anything that's even vaguely leaning towards those aspects. The farther from being a social networking site this is, the better. --[[Image:Darthtomsig.png|163px]] <font color="#1A2BBB">(talk) <font color="#1A2BBB">(contributions) 16:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The funny thing is most of the opposition to this proposal is coming from the creator of Project Cruentus. Isn't one of its major functions is to Build relationships between users. If you want this wiki to be the farther from being a social networking site, then shouldn't you fight against Project Cruentus? I'm sorry to say this, but becoming an administrator may have changed you from a supporter of of things such as Project Cruentus to an user without any interest in community development. -- Michaeldsuarez [[Image:Sabersmilygreend.jpg|20px]] ( Talk ) ( Deeds ) 17:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I have to interject here. Project Cruentus produces constructive content; anything similar to a social networking site would likely produce zilch. I could blab on, but that's basically a summary of the point I'm trying to make. Unit 8311 (Talk) 17:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I also have to interject: Project Cruentus is not social networking. It is socializing, as we are doing right now (definition of socializing: interact with others) but it is definitely not the social networking we see on MySpace (groups/clans, applications, etc.) or Halopedia (point systems? clans? c'mon now, that's not what a Wiki is for). Therefore that argument should not (and doesn't in my opinion) have anything to stand on. Giving other users permission to change their names, even once, is bad enough considering they should have considered their name in the first place. Not something they knew they wouldn't stick by. Their user name isn't all that important anyway – signatures can help change that or establish a similar yet different nickname (for example, from "Squishy Vic" to "Vic" or "Victor"), or asking to be referred by your real name (even just first name, such as "Victor" or "Victor, Sr.") are alternatives. Anyway, Cruentus obviously has some form of community spirit, and just because we have rules it doesn't take that away. What does take it away is having to bear looking at garbage articles (messy, jokes, or otherwise) and weak, unorganized and unprofessional Wikia. --Victortalk 17:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC) "I also have to interject: Project Cruentus is not social networking. It is socializing, as we are doing right now (definition of socializing: interact with others) but it is definitely not the social networking we see on MySpace (groups/clans, applications, etc.) or Halopedia (point systems? clans? c'mon now, that's not what a Wiki is for). Therefore that argument should not (and doesn't in my opinion) have anything to stand on. Giving other users permission to change their names, even once, is bad enough considering they should have considered their name in the first place. Not something they knew they wouldn't stick by. Their user name isn't all that important anyway – signatures can help change that or establish a similar yet different nickname (for example, from "Squishy Vic" to "Vic" or "Victor"), or asking to be referred by your real name (even just first name, such as "Victor" or "Victor, Sr.") are alternatives. Anyway, Cruentus obviously has some form of community spirit, and just because we have rules it doesn't take that away. What does take it away is having to bear looking at garbage articles (messy, jokes, or otherwise) and weak, unorganized and unprofessional Wikia."
 * Why is everyone connecting name changes to disorder? I think I'm proposing a orderly process for changing names. How in the world is changing names without creating a vandal sockpuppet going to create disorder? The quality of articles doesn't rely on names. How this proposal completely bothers everyone is totally out of my reach. The world won't end because someone chooses to change their name. I think everyone is over-reacting. -- Michaeldsuarez [[Image:Sabersmilygreend.jpg|20px]] ( Talk ) ( Deeds ) 17:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

- Victor Dorantes

Someone's got in my head and read my thoughts. How you can call Project Cruentus 'Social Networking' is beyond me. It's a collaborative Project that causes work. The focus isn't on name changing, avatars or pure socialization, but on creating articles. Becoming an administrator hasn't changed my views at all; if this proposal had have come before I was made an admin, my views would have been the same. -- <font color="#1A2BBB">(talk) <font color="#1A2BBB">(contributions) 17:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC) Well, I think comparing social networking to communism is taking it a little too far. I'm not trying to create social networking or community on this wiki. I already know how bad communism is from being part Cuban and part Chinese. Maybe we should start to consider the users that do want to change their names. Perphap they choose their name carelessly, and want something totally different. As a result, changing their signature to something entirely different would break Signature policy. We still got to remember that some users aren't as experienced as we are, and they may not realize that their username sticks with them for their entire editing career. If they hate their username, then they won't felt happy when they log on to edit. Shouldn't there be a healthy, happy environment for users. Workers have a right to a safe, healthy workspace (according to OSHA). Why should editors should treated differnently from them? -- Michaeldsuarez  ( Talk ) ( Deeds ) 18:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, and building relationships between users is a very important issue; we do need to build relations between users, but social networking ideals is definitely not the way to go about doing this. We can improve relationships with other users over the IRC or social networking sites (if you choose to divulge such information) and there's many users here I feel I've built up good relations with, without the use of social networking. Social aspects I don't have a problem with. Social networking is a different level. It's like communism and socialism; communism is taking one idea and making it far more radical (as social networking does) and socialism is a more mild sort, in this case social activities that benefit the Wiki, such as collaborations. In my view, this allowing of name changing, even once, doesn't benefit the wiki at all, and so is pure socialising, or social networking. --[[Image:Darthtomsig.png|163px]] <font color="#1A2BBB">(talk) <font color="#1A2BBB">(contributions) 17:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. It's disorder for a simple reason: It causes needless work. For example:


 * "My name is Auron. *creates Articles by Auron* No wait, I want it to be Al-Dur! *has others clean up mess while creating Articles by Al-Dur* Actually, you know what, I rather be Captain Antilles! *same as the previous time, instead creating Articles by Captain Antilles* Nah, I don't like any of those names, and despite all the changes, I'll change it again! Henceforth refer to me as Kane Whitesun! Muahaha! *same as the previous time, again, instead creating Articles by Kane Whitesun* OK, I'm done now, I promise. *creates Jango Fett…*"

That's why, basically, it's disorder. For varying reasons – we have no idea what to call the user, we are getting into discussions with this one user under these different user names, and the administrators (came to be me at some point) has to clean up after his mess; deleting his articles, his categories, his unused images, etc. Everything is just left in shambles by multiple accounts, while instead you could say "My name is Squishy Vic. But please call me one of the following: Squishy, Vic, Victor, Victor Sr., Victor Dorantes, or plain and simple Squishy Vic!" Everyone would know that all those nicks lead back to Squishy Vic. Note that the little Auron sockpuppet thing above may not be in order, I just have those sockpuppets imbedded in my memory forever. Thanks Wing. :P But seriously, in response to what Brandon brought up about Sannse, just because Wikia Staff supports something doesn't mean we have to. We refused to change our name to "Star Wars Fan Fiction Wiki" even though Wikia thinks its definition of "Fanon" is absolutely and unchallengeably correct, because that is the sort of power we "people" have. --Victor talk 18:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I never said anyone had to follow their opinion. I'm simply saying that it helped me come to a decision as I did not know which side I wanted to support. Also, you're grossly exaggerating here. That example you used is ridiculous because users are only allowed to change their names once without any questions asked. Anything further needs a legitimate reason, and legitimate reasons aren't "well, I don't like this name" or "I'm getting tired of this name" or whatever. By saying you need a legitimate reason, it's basically the polite way of saying "it ain't gonna happen". - <font color="#1A2BBB">Brandon Rhea <font color="#1A2BBB">(talk) <font color="#1A2BBB">(contribs) 18:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Then why not take that out? Simply state that you can only change your name once and that's it. That would actually lead to my support of this, to be honest. Plus, I'm not exaggerating - the Auron thing truly happened. --Victor talk 18:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)