From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Index > Village Dump > Sockpuppets
Note: This topic has been unedited for 4163 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

Despite our insistence to the opposite, some people have engaged in sockpuppetry. Quite a few, actually. And while we generally have a one account per personality policy, it's become a little weird/ridiculous.

This would initiate a lot of "conversation," and "comments," and '"arbitration" on en.wp, so I think it's perfectly acceptable for us here at Uncyc to take the immature approach.

Creating parody socks is a humorous way to deal with the issue. It's all in good fun. Let us laugh at ourselves and not get caught up in the drama of... whatever it is we're doing.

And if you disagree, suck it. --KATIE!! 18:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree to a certain extent, please don't hurt me. Tompkinssig Smallturtle t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 18:51, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Because we all know that I hate fun, I'm going to have to disagree and say that even though we're cool with zany antics, we shouldn't be letting people abuse the system. Also, since we don't really try to be as nice, balanced and reasonable as wikipedia, we might as well just be draconian about the matter and start handing out bans to people who sock-puppet. --Sir gwax (talk) Signuke 21:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I guess you can start with Chron then, seeing as he has three.  :) (kidding) (about the banning, not the sockpuppets). ~ T. (talk) 01:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
As i've commented before, the idea is that there is no policy that says autoban to sockpuppet, but rather only if you abuse the privilege. It's a liberal sentiment. --Chronarion 23:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Nonetheless, it would be useful to be aware of existing sockpuppets, so that it is clear when one steps out of line. Should perhaps a protected list be established for reference purposes? --Senator_Kelly Algorithm (talk) 00:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Sure! We can start with GOD!, one of the sock puppets Keitei (and other admins) certain individuals have used in their attacks on me. Hysterically funny, weren't they! Boy, am I ever glad I experienced that! Whoopie!  c • > • cunwapquc? 00:28, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Okay, finally some honesty. Thank you for that; I take back what I said about you. And who knows, we may actually be making some progress here.  c • > • cunwapquc? 01:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Sockpuppets are fine, until they are abused to pretend to be another existing user. Then you have character assasination with the sockpuppets pretending to be the original person, but saying they are pedophiles, gay, nazis, etc. Then it ceases to be funny and it is harassment and I do not see it as any differently than vandalizing someone else's user page. It tries to get around the vandalization by creating a dupe of the original user's page with fake information on it. Now sockpuppets that do not pretend to be another user, and are a different personality, I can see. Like someone with an Oscar Wilde account, a Superman account, and a Spock account that writes articles from the point of view of those characters. Now then someone spoofing Todd Lyons and making a Tod Lyons or Todd Lions account and then making user pages saying hurtful and untrue things about him, would seem to be harassment by my point of view. Most ISPs and web sites have TOS violations on accounts created that pretend to be another existing person anyway. Someone who creates a different personality sockpuppet account that criticises articles and a different one to write articles would be an acceptable use, as long as they didn't pretned to be some other user who already exists. Just my two cents and suggestions. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 02:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
So creating pedophile gay nazi sockpuppets and using them to vote to delete Israel repeatedly is fine, just so long as no existing user has been impersonated in the writing of this text? Cool... --Pedophile gay nazi sockpuppet 16:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Uh the Vote for Deletion Page says that using multiple sockpuppet accounts to vote is a bannable offense. You might want to rethink that. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 02:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Awkward... ALLAH! 04:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
If I may so humbly interject... I know I'm basically just a n00b here at Uncyclopedia, but I think that the concern should be placed on sockpuppet usage... specifically on a case-by-case basis. I mean, the humor inherent in creating a sockpuppet to vandalize oneself could be overwhelming. (I've not done this only because I have no desire to get banned.) I think that sockpuppetry has a definitive potential for fanning the flames of wackiness, and that is Uncyclopediatric, my friends. Still others may use their sockpuppets for evil purposes, spreading chaos, misery, and hurt feelings. Much the same as an AK74... It's not the rifle that's causing problems, it's the Muslim towelhead shooting the rifle at me. -- On the subject of Bannable offences: -- The fact that Sockpuppets is a bannable offence does not mean banning is mandatory, it means that sockpuppetry could result in a ban. As written, it is stated not as a guarantee, but more a severe warning. TD Complain here MUN (Insert Funny Quote Here) 19:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
"Muslim Towelhead"? I'd appreciate it if you'd refrain from that kind of "joke" (and indeed, I am assuming that you're using the term with ironic intent to illustrate your point - the alternative doesn't bear thinking about) on Uncyclopedia in future. I'm all for subversion and irony with regards to all religions, but that kind of thing is: a) ugly and unpleasant and b) manifestly ignorant (the vast majority of turban wearers are actually Sikh, not Muslim). Please, don't do it again. -- Sir Codeine K·H·P·B·M·N·C·U·Bu. · (Harangue) 17:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I think that this whole issue has gotten way out of hand. I think some cute raccoon (and I'm sorry if I misquote! :)) once said that the reason we're here should be to have fun, and if Uncyclopedia ever ceases to be fun for us, then we've failed to do what we set out to do. Now, I realize that some people will always equate "fun" with disruptive/asanine behavior. That's ok. We have bans for those turd-brains, and we should not hesitate to dispense them without remorse or relent. But seriously, come on! "Character assassination?" On an anonymous website where you can claim to be anyone/anything you want? (Criminy, I hope no one here really thinks I'm a trashcan with a plunger, or the avatar of Hastur! Hastur! Hastur! *ACK!*) The idea of real personal attacks on intrinsically fake identities is more than a little absurd. Almost equally absurd to me is what I've read lately about this ongoing "sockpuppet debacle." It tells a sad story of real feelings being hurt, real emotion being vented, and real people getting bent out of shape and having their real lives negatively impacted by unreal online shenanigans. The problem, to me at least, lies in us taking this entire endeavor/website way too seriously. Sure we like it. A lot. But Uncyclopedia is not life. It is not that serious. So I think we can do without the paranoia and the resentment, because we're all just words on a screen here. Really, any fuckwit can change us with the click of a mouse, and we can changed right back with another. It's happened to all of us, probably. Hell, insignificant on this site as I am, I've been accused of being a puppet for this guy by some sore loser on VFD because we frequently voted the same way. Big fat hairy deal. I suppose my point is, if you're no longer having fun, if this website is causing you grief instead of providing you with mirth, then it's time to take a break. I think we should all let go of this angst over whether or not an account is a sockpuppet for a particular user, and just focus on having fun again... oh, and banning the ever-loving crap outta those "users" that are acting like disruptive, hyperactive, infantile assholes. Then again, what do I know? I'm a trashcan with a plunger. Seriously. --The King In Yellow (Talk to the Dalek.) 18:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Kingy, I agree with some of what you're saying, but you're missing a few things. First of all, humor is hard work. With all due respect, I've done the work, and you mostly haven't - your main purpose here seems to be to seek out crap and get it deleted, which is certainly an important and laudable goal/purpose/what-have-you, and we all appreciate it, but it's not as much of a creative endeavor. (Sorry to have to say it, and I did like the anagrams, but hey, there it is.) People take pride in their creative endeavors, and I've built up a fairly substantial portfolio here. In fact, if I were really all the people I'm accused of being, I'd probably have one of the five largest contribution lists on the whole website, and for the last 4-5 months probably the largest. For me to have the 20 percent or so that I did post suddenly jerked out from under me and assigned to some pissant college student 170 miles away, who calls himself a "communist," says despicable things about our military, and probably smells bad to boot, just beause he posts from the same state via the same ISP (and apparently uses a spell checker occasionally) is extremely disconcerting. Moreover, I haven't been shown the actual evidence that links me to this person; and since it can't possibly do so, I suspect I probably never will. I'd ask you to put yourself in my position, look at it from my perspective, but I don't think very many people have that much imagination. These aren't "unreal online shenanigans," Kingy, this is real people attacking a real person with a real body of work here that is now probably considered utterly devalued and qualitatively suspect as a result. Aside from that, I'm from a generation that takes concepts like reputation and slander very seriously. Words can hurt, they can be more precious than jewels, more soothing than music, and more awful than death, as someone you should be familiar with once wrote. The main reason I don't identify myself is because I'm in a fairly respectable profession, and the knowledge that I've written a bunch of potentially offensive articles about things like "Walkentology" and fake God quotes could easily be used against me, or even my company, which could theoretically even affect the livelihood of the people I work with. Admittedly, that's an extremely far-fetched scenario, but if there's even an infinitesimal chance of that happening, then absolutely none of this is worth it. Not even close.  c • > • cunwapquc? 01:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Heyaz, S.U.! I'm honestly glad to see you! I acknowledge what you're saying. And while I may take some slight (very slight) umbrage at your implication that I might lack the imagination to put myself in the perspective of a victim, or that my "contributions" do not constitute any appreciable "creative endeavor," I won't deny that at least part of your assertions are correct. You are officially half-right. Creation of new material has not been my purpose here, at least so far. (Much of my creative output has been sucked into a 267-page novella-turned-novel that's supposed to be my MFA thesis (finally!), and hopefully my third published work. It's left me kinda drained, and short on free time!) Of course, once May has come and gone, perhaps the rules that have governed my behavior here will no longer apply, and I'll be able to turn some of the ideas I've had over the course of my "activity" (if I can call it that) on this site into actual contributions (that will probably get huffed in a day! Ha! Sorry, the whole editing process for my book is getting me down.) Certainly, if your work has been ganked, you have a right to be angry. God knows I would be murderous if some asshat even attempted to steal something from my real portfolio. (It's happened once before, and I pressed charges.) But then again, the portfolio you are referring to does exist on a free site that any dimwit poseur can edit. That, unfortunately, is the nature of this particular beast. It's frighteningly easy to claim that you wrote something on here -- all you have to do is just adopt the style of your mark in your own contributions, and perhaps tweak your profile just enough to make it resemble your targets. The natural paranoia that comes from the inherrent falseness of an online community will do the rest, even without coinciding ISPs. (Some folks know how to screw with those, ya know.) We're all so faceless here. Yes, words can hurt, especially when you're inhabiting a "world" where words are all we have to go on (that, and the odd photoshopped picture.) But then again, like I said below, how close we, the real people behind the words, allow ourselves to get to this world of pretense and lies is entirely a matter of personal choice. I can't presume to speak for anyone else, but I would never even dream of letting anything that I had a real emotional attachment to loose online. It's like releasing a trained messenger pigeon during a hurricane -- it'll be battered, broken, and ultimately swept away from you. As far as "incriminating" yourself through your online contributions, I'm glad you mentioned that. Only a few weeks ago, I read something about some prospective student having a scholarship revoked based on some disparraging comments he'd made on a blog about the university to which he'd been accepted. Another student (what is it with students these days? Mine are nuts!) was expelled from a Christian college for his musings on MySpace about his homosexual relationships. Are these scenarios wrong? Absolutely! Criminally, unconstitutionally so, in my opinion. But the point stands: these individuals ultimately brought their suffering on themselves. They failed to realize that it's dangerous to post online, as you never know who's looking. My solution to this: Never post anything that I would not want coming back to me. Caveat scriptor is something I try to live by. I know that in light of some things I've written on here, that may be hard to believe, but it's true. I'd gladly own up to anything I've said on here if you were to stop me in the street today and confront me with a printout and an ISP address. I'm not sure if I can speak for the rest of my generation (which may or may not be yours; I don't know,) but I also take my reputation seriously, and if someone sets out to slander/libel/villify me in some way, I take action against it. But then again, it's hard for your "enemies" to attack you if you provide them no ammunition. Someone could create an account on here today with a slightly modified version of my username and make all sorts of ridiculous and offensive assertions. I'd honestly laugh at the absurdity and ultimate futility of the gesture, because I am not my online profile. Anyone would be a fool to think so. I could claim to be Salman Rushdie, for all anyone here knows. Or even "that bastard Stephen Colbert!" (Ha!) Wow, I'm rambling again. I guess I'm trying to say that I like this site -- I like to contribute and make my "voice" "heard." But I'm not attached to it, and I'm certainly not ashamed of it. I think you're a good guy (assuming you're a "guy!" O_o) S.U.. You're smart, funny as hell, and in my opinion, an asset to this site. I don't care who you are (or who you might be) beyond the words on this screen. I think none of us should. Your actions/words speak your identity, and believe me, despite being on a site like this, that is never in danger of being taken from you. So please, try to... just... laugh. It's why were here. I hope you'll stick around. It'd be a shame to see you go over something that is so... common. --The King In Yellow (Talk to the Dalek.) 14:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

The big problem for me is when people confuse the sockpuppets created to pretend to be me with the real me and think that the sockpuppet is the truth. Esp when they not only make sockpuppets in my handle, but in my real name as well. Any employer that wants to Google me or the handle I use, will find those things and mistake them for the real thing. Many spelled Orion Blastar as Orion Blaster, a common mispelling of my handle which many people make. Most of them weren't even funny and were downright mean, like the one that TD above referenced some Muslims in an offensive way. Are you a trashcan with a plunger, certainly not, you just pretend to be one, you are not any more than I am a space pirate ninja from 4096AD as I pretend to be. Yet really we are human beings who have feelings and when people do mean things to us or say mean things to us, some of us humans get hurt. I have a history of former employers harassing, abusing, and threatening me, and I had people do that to me online as well. It is hard for me to just ignore it, or take it as a joke, because I have mental illnesses and sometimes it drives me to suicidal thoughts. I have gotten so sick mentally and physically that I am no longer able to work for a living, that is how serious it has gotten for me. It may be just words for you, but for some of us it hurts. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 19:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
A valid point, and you do have my sympathies. There are exceptions to every "rule," to be certain. But then again, how close we let this get to the real us is a matter of personal choice and/or preference. As for myself, I prize my anonymity, and I wouldn't hesitate to drop a handle if it became "hot." I also balk at giving out too much of my real information or putting too much of myself into an online moniker (Kind of like the movie Heat - never have anything in your internet life that you can't walk away from in 30 seconds if you smell the ass-haXX0rz around the corner.) I've done that twice before, and both times ended badly -- one with me getting stuck with a phonebill of $1400 from a hacked account (in the "Golden Age" of AOL dial-up,) and the other with me in campus security's office at 4:23 AM on the phone with campus police from a university halfway across the US trying to stop a "girlfriend" from jumping out a window. Not a pretty place to be. I'm sorry that those options of retaining privacy have been closed for you, Orion, and I see how this sort of sockpuppet quandary would be detrimental to someone in the position you've described. If ever you need a friendly plunger to speak into, I'm your bot. (Don't know how much good it would do, though, as it's my manipulatory appendage, not my auditory receiver. :D) --The King In Yellow (Talk to the Dalek.) 20:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Not like I have a choice when someone can look up my IP address and trace me back to my ISP to learn what account I am using and get my personal info from that, or web sites that I created that are registered in my real name and address. Others pressured me into giving my real name or threatened to delete me from forums because of strict policies they have with handles. Only to have it bite me in the butt later when they, or people who got the info from them, chose to do things to me online. I am trying to leave the past and the trauma the past has caused for me behind. I just do not want anyone else going through the sorts of things that I and others have gone through. Thanks for the offer for help, but I have professionals that I pay to listen to me. I tried having others help me online, those not qualified to help me, only to have it get worse. I mean, no offense, I am sure I can have a good conversation with you, just that I have been offered and then burned in the past. We can talk about other things, no problem. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 21:41, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Understood, O.B. I'm under no illusions -- I know if someone wanted to (and knew how,) they could trace me via ISP too. Granted, I think they'd be pretty bored with the end results, as I tend to operate within very tight and uninteresting circles (to most.) Still, though, you might not want to be quite so forthcoming with personal information like the above. Give your detractors as little ammo as possible, I say! My offer still stands -- feel free to drop me a line, if ya want. I don't judge on preconceptions, just current, observable actions. (Either that, or I just think everyone's an ass until they prove otherwise! Ha! I joke!) You take care, now. And don't forget to laugh. --The King In Yellow (Talk to the Dalek.) 14:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
I removed some personal info from my last comment. I guess I should not give out examples that can be used against me later on by people like that. I am glad that Uncyclopedia has policies against those sort of things now. I feel better protected. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 19:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
This here's a little heavy for the likes of me but I would like to chime in that if internet anonymity is an issue for you, there are tools out there that'll help. A good one, that even the EFF likes is TOR ( Have yourself a look at it; it might help deal with some of your troubles. --Sir gwax (talk) Signuke 18:27, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

If anybody cares. --KATIE!! 19:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Personal tools