Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by North8000 (talk | contribs) at 11:58, 29 October 2010 (→Proposal). 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.

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.

Rename of Meatpuppetry

Proposal

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)
• Oppose. Meatpuppetry is very much related to sockpuppetry, so the analogy is clear.--Puppies dressed as cats (talk) 13:11, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support There's no reason that two such completely different things should have similar names. Also, keep in mind that the process of soliciting support / involvement is very common and acceptable outside of Misplaced Pages, and the folks who respond are the ones who are willing to spend some time to "get involved". So, a newbie so recruited, who thinks they are doing something good is welcomed to Misplaced Pages by being called the pejorative and insulting term "meatpuppet". And they're not even the one who committed the recruitment offense. North8000 (talk) 11:55, 29 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

Support. I find the original proposal's phrasing very compelling: "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…" I also think it's important that the resulting policy should make it clear that there is no problem with having purposeful discussion in multiple venues, but that explicit attempts to "stack votes" cross a line. I should point out that I have not thoroughly absorbed all the nuances of the various !votes above, so it's possible I've missed refinements to the original proposal. But I support it, at least, in its general approach. -Pete (talk) 06:24, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

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[REDACTED] 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

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)
• Oppose I don't think they're that unrelated for this to matter. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 17:52, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose unless and until someone can find a better way to differentiate between sockpuppets and meatpuppets we need a combined policy that we can point transgressors to. At the moment we don't know or care whether someone is a sockpuppet or a meatpuppet, all this change would lead to is endless arguments along the lines of "no I'm not the same person and we will both email the office to prove it". ϢereSpielChequers 09:59, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Summary so far and updated proposal

The above threads on the term "meatpuppetry" seem to have reached two sets of initial conclusions. A modified proposal and two quick questions follow. The updated proposal is to cover all forms of canvassing on one page, ie merge WP:MEAT into WP:CANVASS. CANVASS would then cover the community's view on all canvassing activity (both internal and external), regardless of origin and type. Should CANVASS be merged with MEAT? Should CANVASS then be promoted as an official policy? 16:54, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Recap of discussion to date

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.

Matter posed	Tentative conclusion so far
Q: Creating a new page for WP:MEAT failed to gain consensus	Failed to gain consensus. A first thread gained no consensus (7 views each way); a second thread gained fewer responses but close to unanimous opposition. The opposes are mainly based on the view that meatpuppetry and sockpuppetry issues can be (or are) very closely linked in practice.
Q: Renaming meatpuppetry to a different term in policy more than 50% support in a straw poll	There is some support for this (I make a quick count of views = 29 support, 21 oppose, although it's well known polls are evil). The term that might be preferred is not clear yet. Reasons advanced for retiring the term: - clarity/jargon/obscurity, avoiding BITing newcomers who may not know they have done anything wrong (unlike sock-users who usually do know), reducing a route for escalation where an offensive term is thrown at new users, better to focus on behavior not a label. Policy should be "cleaner" worded even if some users would continue to use the older term. If changed in policy then most (even if not all) users would probably change the term they used over time as well. Opposition was mainly around traditional term use, easily picked up wiki-term, and perception as political correctness. No clear consensus has yet formed on what wording would be preferable. Suggested terms include "external soliciting", "external canvassing", and "shilling" (the latter gaining strong support in its own section). (For completeness, "external recruitment" was also proposed but may have issues since people replying to a website link would probably not feel they were "recruited" in any usual sense of the word, a recipe for bad faith accusations.)

Updated proposal

An updated proposal is to cover all forms of canvassing on one page, ie merge WP:MEAT into WP:CANVASS. CANVASS already handles a range of inappropriate types of internal canvassing. MEAT is very short and fits in well.

CANVASS would then cover the community's view on all canvassing activity (internal and external), regardless of origin and type. The draft keeps the existing norms and wording related to meatpuppetry, continues to make clear that users may be treated as socks if unclear, and as a bonus implicitly resolves the naming issue ("external canvassing", which a number of people proposed) and clarifies treatment of meatpuppeteers and (possibly good faith) users who respond.

Draft at User:FT2/Canvassing based on current WP:CANVASS (please edit to improve it)

FT2  16:54, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Quick poll #1 - Acceptable names for "meatpuppetry"

The community has shown some support for gracefully retiring the term "meatpuppetry" in favor of a better and less "bitey" or provocative term, but no clear consensus exists on what terms are better. Suggestions include "external soliciting", "external canvassing", "external recruitment" (possibly problematic), and "shill/shilling".

• I like meatpuppetry, but external canvassing sounds fine. "Soliciting" and "recruitment" don't convey the right meaning across (there's nothing wrong with recruiting new editors!), and "shill" isn't as obvious to some people. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 17:51, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
• I dislike "meatpuppetry", and would prefer pretty much any of the proposed alternatives. External canvassing would be a good choice, as would shill and gang editing. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:19, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. The above characterization of consensus from the prior poll is inaccurate. There is not consensus at this time supporting "retirement" of the term meatpuppetry. -- Cirt (talk) 20:46, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

... hence accurately described as "some consensus" not "clear consensus", with numbers stated for transparency. There is more support than not to look at a better term if one exists with about 60% of views supporting a change to some better term. FT2  04:56, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Not really familiar with anywhere on Misplaced Pages where a 58% outcome is considered "consensus" to change something significant like these sorts of WP:Guideline pages. -- Cirt (talk) 09:27, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. Please stop the polls. :) SlimVirgin 20:50, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
• Meatpuppetry is acceptable name for meatpuppetry.--Unskinny Bop (talk) 12:24, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose meatpuppetry is just a Misplaced Pages-term, which I think is not "bitey". Armbrust _Contribs 01:13, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Quick poll #2 - updated proposal

Views on merging WP:MEAT into WP:CANVASS, covering all types of canvassing on one page (see current draft at User:FT2/Canvassing)? Also if supported should the community promote CANVASS to policy?

• I don't mind if the two are merged (I think it covers the main issue in greater detail), nor do I think that it should not be policy, but if accepted, the page should undergo greater scrutiny and discussion before becoming policy. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 17:55, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
• I gave the userspace version a quick read, and I think that it addresses the !meat aspect very well. I note that a significant number of editors who opposed a separate page for meat, did so saying that they feel it is very similar to socking, and thus, they presumably would also oppose a move to canvass. Personally, I don't see it that way, and wouldn't object to incorporating it into canvass, but I also do not think that doing so is particularly important or necessary. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:23, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. The two should not be merged. They are significantly different concepts that should remain separate. They have stood along successfully for quite some time. -- Cirt (talk) 20:45, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. Guys, these polls are getting a bit out of hand, and it's reached the point that people aren't quite sure what's being proposed, or why, and others are wandering off. The policy is fine as it is. Meatpuppetry and sockpuppetry are often part of the same issue, in that we regularly can't tell which is which, so they need to be dealt with on one page. SlimVirgin 20:49, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I suppose it really is true that people are getting confused about what's being proposed, because the proposal IS for dealing with the two on one page. At least that's my reading. 216.70.228.54 (talk) 21:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

• I think the proposal is still to move something to a different page. But I think we need a break from polls about it, at least for a while. SlimVirgin 06:41, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what's going on here - most people seemed to want to stop talking about "meatpuppetry" (and for very good reason), but then we had this equally obscure term "shill" coming in instead - none of these terms have any business being used in contexts that involve outsiders, since outsiders by definition don't know the insider jargon. Clearly meatpuppetry is not sockpuppetry - it has much more to do with canvassing - so if we can't be persuaded to put all these things together on one clear and comprehensive page (and when I see arguments saying "it's been this way for a long time" I'm normally pretty sure that there aren't any real arguments for doing it that way), then meatpuppetry needs to be renamed to something like "external canvassing" that ordinary people have at least half a chance of understanding, and it be moved to the cavassing page, with cross-links between that page and this to make clear that sometimes the results of external canvassing look so much like sockpuppetry that we tend to treat them as such.--Kotniski (talk) 10:18, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support I actually believe MEAT should be on a policy page of its own. There is one huge difference between sock and meat puppetry, and that is the number of people involved. Sock puppetry is a one-man show. Meat puppetry involves multiple people. With all the similarities they may have (including 'puppetry' in their name, that's all), the behaviors are very different. If meat puppetry cannot be on its own page, at the very least, it is more akin to canvassing. Hellno2 (talk) 23:41, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

Is meatpuppetry really a serious problem? Isn't genuine meatpuppetry involving newcomers blatantly obvious to everyone but the newcomers? And aren't we usually nice to these newcomers, at least the ones who hang around long enough to reply? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:18, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

In an AfD of an article about an almost notable free software project (notable enough for the German Misplaced Pages) most of the newcomers who had been attracted by a mailing list post were blocked indefinitely even though they made no attempt to hide tha off-wiki canvassing. This included the founder of the project, who had created a real-name account in order to say in the AfD: That he had been canvassed and therefore found it improper to vote. That personally he didn't care for the article. But that he didn't agree with the technical reasons for the deletion. He engaged in very intelligent discussion and very quickly learned to understand the nuances of WP:GNG interpretation. He provided a few pointers to articles in low-circulation IT magazines. Then he was blocked indefinitely as a meatpuppet, along with the others. Nobody seems to have noticed the blocks at the time. A week or so later this came to light in an ANI thread, and the users were unblocked. What was really amazing is that the admin initially claimed that blocking a meatpuppet per WP:MEAT was totally proper and perfectly standard.

That is the problem with the word "meatpuppet". Hans Adler 14:16, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether this is a discussion about the word, or about the policy. But to the extent that it's about the policy, I could not disagree more with the assertion that this kind of conduct is not a problem. Take a look at the history of Crucifixion and Crucifixion in the arts and their associated talk pages, circa December 2009, if you don't believe me. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:58, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I remember the incident Hans refers to. I think it was agreed that it was the wrong thing to do. Apologies to the blocked were made. That sort of blocking is not continuing is it?

Trypofish, the question (not assertion) is about whether meatpuppety problems rise to the level of sockpuppety problems. When I look st the pages you mention, I don't see a huge problem, nor do I see action applied prescribed by this policy, nor do I see practice according as described. It is not surprising to hear of editor and editing difficulties where we touch onto religious beliefs. In the the real world, some people singularly obsess about points of religion.

At XfD and DRV, where I have seen apparent meatpuppety, I would characterise the bahaviours as newcomer SPAs. They are obviously recognised, their common argument is given the weight it deserves regardless of the typer, and there is no impact on outcomes due to meatpuppetry.

I think that, for example, Cold fusion could benefit from the invitation of an active, and gainfully and reputably employed academic nuclear physicist to comment on reference use there. Would this be forbidden as meatpuppetry? I believe that this sort of thing is done, to very good ultimate effect, on medicine-related articles. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Two things: About the crucifixion pages, maybe you missed what I was talking about. It wasn't, on the whole, religious at all. Rather, an external site dedicated to isn't Misplaced Pages evil!! that sent large numbers of meatpuppets to overwhelm an RfC with claims that editors here all have Asperger's syndrome and the like, while also demanding that content be deleted. The website included very specific (albeit mostly incorrect) instructions about how to evade blocks. At the time, it was nothing like a content dispute about sensitive religious material, but it came close to causing reliably sourced content to be deleted (along with death threats on my talk), and was temporarily very disruptive. It's not my intention to get into a contest of whether meat or sock behavior is the more disruptive, only to point out that they both are. Meatpuppeting isn't always just a benign case of not feeding the trolls and they go away.

About external sites that attract experts to, for example, science and medicine articles, this is something that I know a lot about. I've worked with the Society for Neuroscience with regard to one such site , which is clearly constructive and not meatpuppetry at all. The issue of what is constructive and what is meatpuppetry came up very explicitly in the just-closed ArbCom case about climate change. In the course of it, an external site (I won't link to it for obvious reasons) was pointed out that was giving advice about how to open accounts here and make edits to promote a particular point of view. In contrast, one of the arbs (Risker) pointed out another external link that gives excellent, NPOV, advice to scientists about how to become editors here . The difference in each of these cases is that it's not meatpuppeting if the site simply helps good faith contributors find their way around Misplaced Pages, but it's disruptive when the site either encourages disruption, or encourages the pushing of a particular POV. The fact that you and I are discussing these distinctions makes me think it could be worthwhile to flesh out this page to make these sorts of things clearer. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:43, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

"Large numbers of meatpuppets to overwhelm an RfC with claims that editors here all have Asperger's syndrome"? I guess I skimmed too quickly.

I would like to see fleshed out something covering a distinction between meatpuppetry and inviting expert involvement. The two sites you link seem to be encouraging academics to join without pointing them to specific subjects requiring assistance. Where's the dividing line? Is it meatpuppetry to encourage a scientist to correct a specific piece of erroneous pseudoscience (I think it is erroneous pseudoscience, but the details are beyond me). Can you link to the relevant part of the "just-closed ArbCom case about climate change"? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:51, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with SmokeyJoe. Canvassed external involvement, where the canvassing is disclosed and open, and the intent isn't to deceive, really isn't meatpuppetry. Our canvassing guideline offers a nice nuanced spectrum of gray areas regarding the level of secrecy, the intended level of deception, and the bias of the canvassed crowd. I think it's a vastly superior to the section where WP:MEAT currently lands. I don't really care about changing the vocabulary, but I think that merging the actual policy with the policy on canvassing shouldn't be dismissed out of hand. Gigs (talk) 01:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

There is a difference between asking for uninvolved persons to review a matter (ie asking in a way and location likely to get neutral help) and asking for someone to support a specific position, or in a way likely to get someone to do so. A simple solution would be: While seeking expert review is permitted, external experts should not be asked to visit and engage in editorial disputes, but only to state an opinion on the quality of writing, sources, coverage, and the like. But this is still very problematic. How will the expert's identity be attested (that the new writer is who they claim). Does this cause editorial discussions to devolve into "find the best expert willing to state a case on-wiki"? Does this ask editors to give weight to WP:OR by weighting a post on a wiki by an expert as more weighty than the view of experts in published reliable sources? Does this open the door to a parallel problem to "civil POV warring" ("I'm not canvassing/swaying consensus, I'm just asking experts to visit Misplaced Pages").

While I can see the attraction in inviting external but agreed experts to review or assists in difficult topics, I would be very wary of the effect of stating an explicit "right to do so" as an exception to policies on canvassing, due to the likelihood that much of the time it will be WP:COATRACKed and used for bias and edit warring. If there is a dispute then the arrival of an "expert" summoned by one side will surely detract from dispute resolution more often than help it. Any useful exception for experts asked to look at articles is more likely to relate to expert review by consensus or in non-dispute situations, in which case it probably wouldn't be the subject of an canvassing accusation anyhow. Policy does not always need to state everything. This could be an issue where it's better overall to be silent, as at present. FT2  03:18, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

SmokeyJoe asked me for a link to the ArbCom discussion, which is here: Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Proposed decision/Archive 6#Something for everyone to read. I agree with Joe and Gigs that it would be good to clarify that distinction. I also agree with FT2 about the things to be careful of, and I would suggest, in general, that some of the solution would lie in spelling out what is not permitted, in contrast to specifying something additional that is permitted. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:01, 19 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)

Case in point. Apparently there is some disconnect and vagueness in this policy that is currently causing heartburn. If this policy prohibits all undisclosed accounts, we need to make it say that more clearly. Gigs (talk) 01:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure this policy is aimed at noxious uses of alternate accounts, not all uses. per standard[REDACTED] laissez faire attitudes, no one cares unless it's a problem. --Ludwigs2 02:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Ditching "Legitimate uses"

I think we should just get rid of the whole "legitimate uses" section. Two of the above discussions are kind of pointing toward that conclusion. It's too easy for people to get the impression that if an undisclosed alternate account is not one of the listed legitimate uses, then it isn't allowed. I think the inappropriate uses section covers all the stuff we really care about, the things that most people consider socking. Gigs (talk) 02:49, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages requests for comment