Wikipedia talk:Doppelganger account/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

This is an archival of the discussion on the main talk page before the vote. During the voting process, all were posted on a page Wikipedia_talk:Doppelganger_account/Discussion and subsequently appended to the end of this archive. See the thread "Voting starts Monday" for where it begins. The history of the page Wikipedia_talk:Doppelganger_account/Discussion is at Wikipedia talk:Doppelganger account/Archive 1/history.

Two points

Two points about this policy proposal

"...a particularly bold vandal" should perhaps be swapped with "...a particularly disingenuous vandal", considering that being bold has positive meanings on Wikipedia.
"Administrators may block any Doppelganger account without notice and at their discretion." True, if the doppelganger somehow gets hacked and starts causing trouble. But perhaps there should be a note that blocking doppelganger accounts just because they are doppelganger accounts should be avoided. The autoblock might cause some trouble which is not needed if the "real" user has control of the doppelganger.

Apart from that, most of the proposal looks quite sound. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:37, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My thoughts: I didn't particularly like the language about blocking on sight, and I thought about revising it when I made my changes. I didn't because I was concerned that some Doppelganger would get out of control, and the automatic response would be "I'm sorry, I can't block the DG of Jimbo who is going around giving free spots on the Board of Trustees to Wikipedia's most notorious vandals because the policy doesn't say "Out of control DG's can be blocked on sight." I added all the text in that section after "at thier discretion" in the hope that there wouldn't be a mass blocking of DGs. Most of the discussion I've seen of the phenomenon are users asking that their DG be unblocked, although I really don't understand why it matters, since the idea is to never use the account.

I have changed the text to read:

Administrators may immediately block any Doppelganger account that appears to have been breached; the administrator responsible for the block must leave a note on the "real" user's page to let them know that thier Doppelganger appears to have been breached and has been blocked. As many editors do not want thier Doppelganger accounts blocked and since properly functioning Doppelgangers pose no threat to the wiki, Doppelganger accounts that appear to be operating normally should not be blocked without consulting the "owner". If your Doppelganger is blocked, request that the block be removed by the administrator who placed it. Using the Doppelganger template is essential to preventing your properly functioning Doppelganger from being blocked!

This way, any account exhibiting "conduct unbecoming of a Doppelganger" can be stopped immediately, but innocent DGs will not be assaulted. I do think there needs to be a discussion here of what constitutes "properly functioning;" my initial reaction would be that a properly functioning DG is one that has no changes associated with it, since they aren't supposed to be used. Other thoughts?

Honestly, considering the source of "Doppelganger," (the "evil twin," not the Doppelganger vandal) I'm laughing myself silly having visions of a shadowy Doppelganger overpowering the "real" user and stealing his/her identity; I suppose I wouldn't find it so funny if I had been one of the users who had been attacked by the Doppelganger vandal.

As for "bold vandal," I agree, and I changed the language: I used "daring" instead of "disingenuous" because I think all vandals are disingenuous (taking disingenuous to mean "insincere"); if they were sincere about editing the Wiki, they wouldn't be vandals! I think the basic idea behind "bold" was to suggest that you'd have to be pretty ballsy to think you could get away with impersonating the Grand High Wikipedian, and I think "daring" mantains that context. Essjay · talk 07:24, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Why not immediately block the doppelganger accounts?

After creation of the account, and adding the proposed template to the user and talk pages, why shouldn't the creator of the doppelganger account request that it be blocked from editing immediately?

I know there's an extremely strong and valuable predisposition here on Wikipedia not to block users unless necessary, but the very purpose of a doppelganger account is to block vandals. Blocking the account by default prevents trouble without cost, because doppelganger accounts would only be created to prevent others from using those specific account names anyway. Blocking would also add another layer of protection in addition to the account password.

Is there something I'm missing? Is this a software, or server performance issue? Or does someone foresee a legitimate use for these accounts? --Un focused 05:29, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think there is something called "autoblock", which blocks the IP of a user as well, and this can cause trouble when there is a shared IP. I'm unfortunately not too well read up on it, but to make a long story short: Blocking users can affect innocents. It is for such a reason that administrators are not allowed to block themselves to force themselves to take a holiday for instance. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:59, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I too am not well versed enough to speak to the technical implications, but by my limited understanding is that Sjakkalle is correct about the "autoblock." Beyond blocking innocent users, if you have a static IP and you register your DG and your real account from the same IP, your "real" account would be blocked by the "autoblock," right? Isn't that how we keep vandals from creating a new account after we've blocked them?

Beyond the technical implications, I think one important thing to consider is the amount of unnecessary work blocking these accounts would create: They have a valid purpose, but if they create a significant amount of work for the admins (imagine the hours that could be spent blocking DG's if the trend catches on!?!), then the next policy we are likely to see is "Users are prohibited from creating so-called Doppelganger accounts."

If the accounts are secure from hacking, and they should be, there is no need to block them, and I think "assume good faith" applies: believe the users that they will use thier DG's for good, not evil. (Not to suggest that automatically blocking DG's is assuming bad faith; I can see the logic in Unfocused's arguement) Really, what value do they have to the "real" user for editing: They're horrible sockpuppets, since they are intended to look like the user. Who would use an account designed to look like their "real" name as a sockpuppet? If they have no use to "real" editors, and they aren't available to vandals, then unblocked DG's would be the most benign accounts: No extra work for the admins one way or the other.

Beyond the technical implications and the extra work necessary to block DG's (and remember, some users will have several: There are dozens of "fake Jimbo" accounts on the blocklist) is this: in most of the discussions I've seen about DG's, whether on Village Pump, Vandalism in Progress, or user talk between "owners" and admins, the "owners" have overwhelmingly been asking that their DG's be unblocked. Apparently, there is some reason that these users don't want their DG blocked, and I can only think of two: 1) the autoblock rationale fromm Sjakkalle, which makes sense to me, or 2) the "owners" don't want accounts that look identical to thier names on the blocklist. Taking into account the "extra work" argument, the "don't block that which you don't have to" argument, and the trend for users to ask for their DG's to be unblocked, I made the change from "block on sight" to "do not block."

Could a user who has a DG and has requested it be unblocked please tell us why they want it unblocked? I know of one such user, and I'll ask why they requested the unblock. Essjay · talk 08:52, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

I occasionally wish to have a bit of harmless fun; have a look at its contributions. If someone were to block it, and I were to log in and try to edit with it, my IP would be autoblocked. --SPUI (talk) 11:00, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hmm...I'd say that the reason above is precisely the wrong one to unblock an account. If the fun is genuinely harmless, then do it in your own name, with your own account, and be prepared to be held accountable. I can come up with no sound reason to ever edit from a DG account, so there shouldn't be a problem with blocking a DG account on sight should it ever edit.

For the reasons described by Essjay and Sjakkalle above, there's also no obvious reason to preemptively block DG accounts; it's just extra work for admins and introduces a host of unpleasant problems. Admins should feel comfortable blocking such accounts at the first whiff of trouble, however. --TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:56, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Is the autoblock of the IP that comes with blocking a named user account a "feature" that can be turned off? Could we ask the developers for that in the next version? --Un focused 19:29, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think SPUI has brought up an important point: If the DG accounts are blocked, and a "real" editor logs in for any reason (even to do a password change) the IP would be blocked. I think that's a strong argument not to block unless absolutely necessary. Essjay · talk 06:21, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

If a DG is set up only to prevent vandals from using the account, then there is no reason why the real editor should log in after the account is set and blocked. If the password is cracked, the account is already blocked anyway. A password would only be a formality if these were blocked shortly after creation. --Un focused 01:40, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I still think "instablocking" it has potential for problems; yes, we all know we shouldn't sign in, but if we do, then there's a problem that has to be solved. I see it as a "better safe than sorry" situation. Not to mention, there's still the problem of creating oodles of extra work for admins. (I suppose we could appoint an admin that just goes around blocking DG's. TenOfAllTrades is going to be an admin in a couple of days; would you like to volunteer?) Seriously, though, as I've said before, I don't think we should create any extra work for our already overworked admins. -- Essjay · Talk 01:49, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

List

(Copied from The Village Pump)

Of course all hell would break loose if a doppelganger found the list in question... - Mgm|^(talk) 09:01, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

I'm confused...Why would all hell break loose (the accounts have passwords only known to thier creator, the "real user") and what list do you mean? Essjay · talk 09:28, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Somewhat wryly, I concede Mgm's point (at least, my interpretation of it—correct me if I'm mistaken). By checking what links here for the Doppelganger template list, or by looking in the Doppelganger category, a potential vandal can see which users are most concerned about being impersonated. Further, a category provides a convenient list of which Doppelganger names are taken, and which are still available. Hm. Perhaps if users of the Doppelganger template only subst: it, such that what links here won't pull the whole list of accounts...? --TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:07, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I see now...I wasn't thinking of "what links here" (at this point, I'm not supporting a category). Really, though, I don't think it would be of much use. So what, they know what names are taken: they would have found that out when they tried to register one and couldn't, and they still can't use it. So what, they know what names aren't taken: they would have found that out when they tried to register one and were successful. Also, there wouldn't really be a list of "available" names, because only unavailable names would show up in "what links."

I think we all know that we can never stop impersonators, but we can deter them by making sure the most obvious methods are unavailable. The "daring vandals" are going to find ways to work around us, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't use this tool if it makes the Wiki a better, and less impersonated, place. Essjay · talk 22:39, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Need a software solution

These Doppelganger accounts are somewhat helpful, but they require manual effort to create. The real solution is a software change which will do a software check at registration time to prevent registration of doppelgangers. This really isn't that hard to do, and may reject some legitimate user names, but that's okay. It's hard to ask our devs to add yet another feature, especially a nontrivial one like this, but I think it's the only good solution to the problem. Deco 23:00, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The developers could probably write some program, say, with Perl scripts to filter out Doppleganger accounts. However, I think that would not be a solution to the problem. The real problem I perceive is poor intent on the part of a fraction of individuals who choose to deliberately engage in behaviour that is non-productive, and non-conducive to Wikipedia's goals. This intent is external to Wikipedia, and certainly something Wikipedia does not have full control over. These users will choose to circumvent any safeguards Wikipedia has set up to protect its content.

At least with Doppleganger accounts, administrators and trusted users have some idea of which account names might be used for vandalism/abuse, and "pre-emptively" take care of them. It might not be possible to catch all of them, but might be good enough that Wikipedians can handle the vandalism that gets through resulting from them.

The are other logistical difficulties with filtering out doppleganger-like accounts - to have a system work as ideal as we'd all like, quite a bit of program complexity would be required. For comparison, just think how difficult it is to get rid of spam - even with all sorts of sophisticated software available. However, I agree - if this sort of vandalism with doppleganger accounts dramatically increases and becomes sustained, we'd very likely need some sort of filtering to keep these accounts out of Wikipedia. Moreover, we'd probably need a change in policy for defining what a "legitimate" user is, but I honestly hope Wikipedia doesn't ever need to go there. --HappyCamper 09:31, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think a software solution would help a lot. Simply forbidding nonstandard characters in user names would be a great start (since you can hardly catch all possible doppelgangers anyway if people can use accented letters). R adiant _>|< 15:38, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Oh* is this what the "software solution" is referring to? Ah yes, if it would filter out say, all those extended ASCII characters, then yes, I'd agree - that is something very feasible. I was thinking of something much, much, much more sophisticated, where the semantics of the user name would be taken into account. --HappyCamper 16:25, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that, and also checking for similar existing usernames (using, for example, the Levenshtein distance) and seeing whether a deceptive substitution was made, such as I for l or 0 for O, etc. I imagine this sort of technology already exists in the spam filtering world for detecting deceptive substitutions or insertions in prime keywords like "viagra". Deco 19:36, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

DG the standard abbreviation doppelganger accounts?

I think DG would be the intuitive abbreviation (maybe even WP:DG), but I worry that this page would not be known to a sufficient number of people who would find this information useful. After all, the word "doppelganger" is in my mind a fitting, but somewhat esoteric term. (For me, I only found this page fortuitously.) Would this page be something that the administrators would need to be aware of when it becomes community consensus that this would be one of many acceptable approaches to handling vandalism on Wikipedia? --HappyCamper 16:34, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I was really only thinking of DG as an abbreviation for this talk page; in what could (and has, thankfully) become extended debate, typing the full word gets old very fast. Ten & I went with "Doppelganger" because that was the name given to the impersonator vandal who caused a lot of users to register DG accounts, and the accounts took on that name at the Village Pump.

Certainly, the admins will need to be notified if the policy gains consensus, and I think it might be appropriate to consider possible aliases for the policy. You're absolutely right about the name Doppelganger; it's appropriate, but only if you know what it means. Anyone have any ideas for other names? (We can always redirect aliases to this page.) -- Essjay · Talk 05:00, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Why not just Wikipedia:Impersonation? But I admit, I like the word doppelganger anyway. The former is sort of dry, whereas the latter is witty, smart, and shows that Wikipedians are creative - even when it comes to dealing with vandalism! --HappyCamper 11:46, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, I decided to be WikiBold and I made a redirect page from WP:DG to the project page. --HappyCamper 8 July 2005 16:51 (UTC)

Where to go from here

Discussion on this policy seems to have dropped off, and there haven't been any changes to the proposal in over a week. My question is, where do we go from here? Do we have to have a vote or what? What qualifies as due diligence and due process? -- Essjay · Talk July 3, 2005 09:44 (UTC)

If you like, write a summary of any consensus that you think has been developed, and/or a list of issues that you think are still undecided. The response to that should help reveal what the next step is. Or simply wait, to see if the guideline is adopted by people using it. --Un focused 3 July 2005 16:29 (UTC)

As it stands, the proposal seems clear enough - in fact, the proposal as it stands is the consensus. Granted, it does not cover all potential uses and abuses of it, but I think the general sentiment that is conveyed is clear. Why not try a vote instead? If Wikipedians have objections, I would suggest that they place them in a separate section, so as to not interleave the voting with discussion. --HappyCamper 3 July 2005 16:38 (UTC)

I'm for starting a vote; does anybody have suggestions on how we do that, and what constitutes adoption? -- Essjay · Talk July 7, 2005 19:23 (UTC)

Let's arbitrarily say that we require 75% + 1 vote for support. The vote will last for 30 days, so that there is enough time to get the word out that the voting is taking place. No sockpuppets allowed, no anonymous IP addresses. During the voting, users will refrain from commenting why they voted in a particular way inline. If there is a need for discussion, it will be done on a separate section of the talk page. This way, we can have a "non-cluttered" vote. If it does not pass, then all the concerns with which Wikipedians have with the policy can be discussed and revised for a second round of voting. This will be done for a maximum of 3 times, after which the threshold for support will have to be lowered to say, 60% + 1 votes and repeated again. If it fails again, then I think it is quite indicative that Wikipedia currently does not need such a policy on Doppleganger accounts. Does this sound reasonable? We can revise this; it is only a suggestion - I don't mind at all if we adopt a completely different voting scheme. It's just an idea at the moment. --HappyCamper 7 July 2005 21:40 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable; can we get the policy locked from editing before voting starts, so we don't have arguments like the one at the CSD expansion vote? -- Essjay · Talk July 7, 2005 22:04 (UTC)

Sure, sounds like a good plan. I don't know how to "lock" it though. Could you look into that? --HappyCamper 7 July 2005 22:14 (UTC)

We'd need an admin to protect it. If that's something we want to do, I'll ask Ten to do it, he's a coauthor. -- Essjay · Talk July 7, 2005 23:19 (UTC)

You're too modest. It was just created on my temp page. :-) I'm inclined to avoid using page protection for now, though. If someone signs the top of the page with a statement that voting is in progress and modifications are verboten, hopefully that will be sufficient. Perhaps make an announcement that you're going to open voting at such-and-such a time (a few days from now), and people should get their tweaks and edits in now. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 8 July 2005 03:36 (UTC)

Alright, I made lots of edits to the main page. If everyone's happy, then I guess we can start spreading the word, and start voting on Monday! --HappyCamper 8 July 2005 17:15 (UTC)

This page contains the discussions related to the current vote of the Doppelganger account policy.

Voting starts Monday

Since no objections have been raised at this point, it seems that our voting will begin Monday! --HappyCamper 07:38, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I shifted the vote early by 6 hours with this edit [1] as requested in Zscout370's edit summary so that his/her vote becomes valid. Vote time will not be changed anymore, since this was the first vote. In the future, maybe it's a good idea to make a Wikipedia vote start the same time that the first open vote that has been cast. But this is for a different time and place to discuss. Also, what's really strange is that in the edit summary, although the time is 7-something UTC, the history indicates that it's 3-something UTC! Maybe this is another WikiBug? Anyway, the vote has begun, so let's get the word out and start voting! --HappyCamper 13:04, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I mainly voted since I thought it has begun when I did. I found out about the voting through the Signpost article released yesterday. But if you wished for me to rm my vote, then put it back, I would have happy to have done that. Thanks anyways. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 22:41, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Voting instructions

These were the voting instructions used during the first vote:

Comments, suggestions, discussion should be relegated to the archive page here. The archive page will serve as a discussion board for the vote while it is ongoing. The intention is to ensure that the voting is as transparent as possible. As such, all inline comments will be removed if any are added.

The voting will proceed in a series of cycles until either it is accepted or rejected by the Wikipedia community. The vote will be open for 30 days so that enough awareness of this vote can be generated. In summary:

A 75% + 1 vote for support is required for the policy to become official.
The voting period begins Monday July 11, 2005 - UTC 7:00 and ends Tuesday August 9, 2005 - UTC 7:00
Votes by sockpuppets or from IP addresses will be deemed null and void
Only votes posted between these times inclusive and signed with 4 tildes (~~~~) will be declared valid.
Votes outside of this voting period will be deemed null and void.
A minimum of 10 voters is needed to declare consensus.

If the vote does not pass in the first attempt, all concerns voiced during the voting period will be addressed, and subsequently the policy can be discussed and revised for a second round of voting. There will be a maximum of 3 rounds of voting. If the policy fails to pass at this point, the threshold for support will be lowered to 60% + 1 votes and repeated again for another 3 rounds. If the policy fails to pass by this point, it is very likely that the policy is not required in Wikipedia at the moment, but may be resurrected and modified to suit the needs of Wikipedia as time progresses. (Although the voting rules allow for multiple rounds of voting, it is anticipated that it will be highly unlikely that it will be necessary to go through all the rounds of voting.)

Please add and sign your name to one of the sections below:

Instruction creep

This is instruction creep. Why not just redirect your doppelganger user page to your normal one, using your normal account so that people know it's you? I don't see any need for a template or a complicated policy on this. Angela . 19:08, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

I should clarify that I am not the author of the original proposal, and so I speak only for myself. I interpret the sentiment of the proposal as an option that one can choose to follow. If it becomes sanctioned as "official policy", I would feel much more comfortable dealing with doppelganger accounts than if the policy were absent. Although it should be obvious to any well meaning Wikipedian that one should not create nor edit from a doppelganger account, I think that Wikipedia has grown enough that it warrants an explicit annotation of these unspoken expectations and behaviours.

I also do not think the proposal itself is intended to be a definitive means to prevent doppelganger accounts from being made. Nevertheless, it is an idea that has resonated well with a few Wikipedians, and I suspect it has at minimum to do with the appearance of the template as being discouraging to potential doppelganger account creators. A redirect does not nearly have as striking of an effect as the template because the redirecting behaviour is much more passive. --HappyCamper 21:39, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Summary of reasons for object votes to date

From [2]:

Instruction creep
Proposal already covered by existing policy

I object to the bizarre manner this vote is being conducted

It is standard on Wikipedia votes to add the reason for your vote together with your vote. In fact, the reasoning can be more important than the vote itself. Then why:

Remove the comments from the votes
Place them in a separate page
In a different form
Losing the important links
Needing to vote 6 times so it won't pass, but only 1 time if it passes

This voting goes so much against the way it's usually done, people will cry foul if this policy ends up being adopted. It looks too much like an attempt to silence the ones saying it's instruction creep, of which we had three already before the comments were moved. --cesarb 21:18, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, the voting "rules" themselves are already instances of instruction creep. We already have a common way of doing votes, which is probably why nobody is paying attention to the bizarre way it's being conducted. --cesarb 21:22, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Removing all comments from the voting section and having the discussion scattered about between so many pages (main page, talk, this page, and other recent discussion) is not making it easy for people to participate or to see what has already been discussed. Angela . 21:46, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

I was not aware of a "correct" way in which votes are to be conducted on Wikipedia. If this page initially had more traffic, perhaps the vote would appear much more legitmate. This is the first time that I've been "WikiBold" enough to try and volunteer to do such a thing, and it would be nice if I had some help. The only reason why the comments were removed and reformatted in the discussion page is so that counting the votes do not look cluttered, and that each point raised could be addressed as they were added. As the page was hardly active a month ago, I did not expect the voting to be quite so frequent. I was anticipating at most a vote a week, which would have given me enough time to try and respond to everything. I doubt the original intention was to ferment instruction creep, nor overcomplicate the existing policies. It was intended to supplement them. As for the voting procedure, it was arbitrarily decided, and hence can be arbitrarily changed. If the voting procedure is not to your liking, would you consider changing it so it better suits Wikipedia's needs? I cannot do this all on my own.

At the rate this is proceeding, it is obvious to me that the general sentiment is overwhelming opposition to this policy. Hence, I feel it is best to shelve it, perhaps at a time when Wikipedia might require such a policy. I wish the originators of the initial policy were here to help me respond, as I do not know what their opinions are. Nevertheless, I do believe that they would agree with me if they saw the progression of changes to these pages. --HappyCamper 22:01, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Restoring the comments back to the votes, and letting people comment in the middle of the vote (see for instance how it's done on WP:RFA) is a start. Also, I believe none of the voting rules, except the start and end time, is really needed; for instance, ignoring sockpuppets is always done, setting exact percentages is only done on controversial votes which get too near the dividing line, unsigned votes are always ignored, et cetera. Most proposals get by with a simple start and end date (some do not even have that!), a support section, and an oppose section (and often a comments section). Some voters add their own sections (some serious, some not); let them do that. The point is not the voting itself; see meta:Don't vote on everything and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a majoritarian democracy.

Finally, making people vote again, again, and again, will only tend to annoy people; better do a vote, and if the comments show the cause of the opposition is some problem on the proposal, fix the problems and start another vote (some people might even have done "conditional votes", like "support if problem x is fixed" — another reason for allowing comments and creating new sections). However, if (as it seems to be the case now) the opposition is against the proposal itself, mark the proposal as rejected and move on. --cesarb 22:45, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

The votes in their original, unaltered form

Support

Zscout370 (Sound Off) 07:53, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
HappyCamper 13:05, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Object

Angela 19:08, July 11, 2005 (UTC) (seems like needless instruction creep)
Instruction creep. There's nothing useful on this proposal that isn't policy already. --cesarb 19:16, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
ral 315 19:32, July 11, 2005 (UTC) Instruction creep is to be avoided, and this is it.
Object Stewart Adcock 20:00, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
m:Instruction creep. JYolkowski // talk 21:14, 11 July 2005 (UTC)