Memory Alpha talk:Sign your posts on talk pages

question

 * moved from User talk:Archduk3...

Hey Duke, you are an admin so I figured I contact you about this. I dont wanna accuse anyone falsely so this is just to see how one should approach this. As an admin you have tools available to you that I dont. Anyway, So I have noticed that user: Nero210 and his edits (especially when there are disputes) are closely followed by this anon ip 70.176.184.44. It caught my attention when another admin, Cleanse I think, asked "Nero" to sign in when the anon ip "70.176.184.44" made a comment on the Ben Sisko Feat article removal page. I checked out the edits of the anon and Nero and it is just a little strange. The anon also chimed in on the Dominion War and just right now the Cardassian War article etc. - making the exact same changes Nero had done. Now again, without proof I dont wanna accuse anyone of "sockpuppetting", but I know it is against the rules and I am not sure how to check that or confirm that. Maybe Im totally off and I dont want anyone to get thr wrong idea. Like I said, as an admin you have tools available to you that regular users dont. So if you could check. Thanks so much

Edit: well here you go: they are the same user, supporting "each other" in debates, such as the Ben Sisko FA removal page etc. Check this out: []. Unless I Missed something. ... – Distantlycharmed 17:55, November 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * Not signing in isn't sockpuppeting per se if you use a static IP and there's some indication that the IP address and account are linked. That said, while he should sign in before posting, it isn't required, and since he wasn't trying to be someone else, which is the whole point of a sockpuppet, the sockpuppet rule doesn't apply. - 20:03, November 1, 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me? He wasnt trying to be someone else? The man uses two accounts - one registered, one unregistered - and he uses them to support his edits in case of dispute, not revealing that he is the same person, thus giving the impression that it is two people. I also do not see any indication that the IP addresses are linked - as they are two completely separate accounts with different contribution histories. That cannot be right. I am surprised at you not finding anything wrong with that. – Distantlycharmed 20:32, November 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * All we have to do is request a check user from wikia and we'll know with a degree of certainty whether or not you're correct, charmed. The check user will compare ips used by the account before and a specific range to determine the possibility. Now, innocent sockpuppetry, not knowing you were logged out, is ok...I've done it several times before and didn't bother to fix it after the fact because I felt it was pointless. The example you site, however, shows a bit of intent so it might be worth doing a check user... &mdash; Morder (talk) 23:20, November 1, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Well, it is confusing and misleading if nothing at all. All this time i thought that this IP was a different user and so 2 different people supporting the same claim. Turns out, they arent. I mean it's right here. And unintentional or not (which granted can happen - I once made an edit at a friend's place and didnt feel like signing in, so it was anon, until I corrected it later). But on a regular basis? I dont know if they go by IP that was used to create account or IP that is currently being used, because locations can change. – Distantlycharmed 23:44, November 1, 2010 (UTC)


 * In this case the IP doesn't change, Nero has been using that one since before he signed up, and he doesn't always sign in so I've come to recognize it. There also is, or was (if there isn't now), a note on the IP talk page about his user name, so it wasn't like he was hiding it, and the comment in question wasn't worded as a different person supporting the idea, so I didn't see any intentional effort to fool someone into thinking a different person was behind the edit (he even used the same indent). As for my general policy, we don't have any rule saying that you have to be signed in to talk, just that you shouldn't use multiple accounts to appear to be more than one person, and since that isn't what happened here, I'm not going to go scold someone over it. - 01:23, November 2, 2010 (UTC)

I didnt see a note on the talk page or userpage of either indicating the identity. And I dont care if it is called sockpuppeting, ballot stuffing, deceiving, misleading or confusing the hell out of everyone by using two accounts to edit and support "each other" in your edits. The truth is that posting as two different people all the time gives the wrong impression and is misleading - regardless of intent. Up until now i believed that the anon was a different user and obviously I wasnt the only person under the impression, as another user also was confused and asked Nero to sign in, if it is really him. The point is that this "practice" of his was enough to raise questions and confuse people as to the identity of the contributor, so it needs to be addressed. I cannot memorize everyone's IP address and neither should that be expected of everyone else. That is why we register.

Now I understand that sometimes people forget to sign in, but posting both with a username and anonymously for 2 years on a regular basis - on controversial edits on top of that? I mean we had to look twice to see that the anon = Nero210. Most people wouldnt have seen that. They simply look at the page and see that hey two different people are supporting the puppeteer's views in an argument - which is what sockpupetting is - intentional or not. Anyway, if it has not been intentional and is just a matter of oversight then why not make the user aware of that, telling them that as a regular contributor, it is only common courtesy and part of MA etiquette that you sign your posts and dont create two accounts you use interchangeably (or neglect to sign in...). The reason I am suspicious to begin with is because Nero has exhibited such kind of "hiding my stuff" behavior before by immediately archiving his talk page (within the hour sometimes). – Distantlycharmed 02:11, November 2, 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, I'd like to put in my two cents here real quick, since this appears to be about me and I feel I have a right to comment for that reason. I'm not trying to pose as two separate people, nor have I made any attempt to ever. That IP address has a link to my profile that people can find. I'm human, I forget to log on occasionally, and most of the time I just read MA and not edit (my edit count isn't even in the thousands yet). If I see something minor I don't bother logging in because if its something like a typo or something its not worth the effort. DC, I seriously think your letting some sort of personal anger/dislike towards me influence this little thing you've started here, because nobody with even somewhat of a life would care this much to write five paragraphs about an issue that doesn't concern them (much less over something over the Internet)... --Nero210 03:34, November 2, 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. Since you got nothing to hide, I am sure you dont mind signing in to avoid such misunderstandings and possible accusations. I just investigated what another user pointed out actually (about signing in onto your account on the Sisko page) and the anon IP happened to lead to you. I would have said the same thing had it been user XYZ. Also, note that I said that doing such things gives the wrong impression. Any other user would have been like "sorry, my bad, I will sign in" but you have to get all poisonous and mean about it - like someone who has something to hide. Anyway, I am sorry you dont see how this could possibly ever be suspicious and misread. BTW, I dont see where on your profile there is something linking the two accounts. – Distantlycharmed 04:11, November 2, 2010 (UTC)

Edit: well, you just added the "box" indicating that anon IP on your profile page right now, and thus after the fact. So dont say it has always been there. Misleading again. – Distantlycharmed 04:16, November 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Regarding adding the box with the IP, I never was going to act like it had always been there, and have no intent (nor ever have attempted) to mislead anyone as to my identity on this account or that IP (I actually thought the IP would be a cool, albeit unfunny joke). Question for an admin, does DC's comments here and on my talk page qualify as some sort of personal attack? Because it seems like that's what this is to me... --Nero210 04:23, November 2, 2010 (UTC)

Dude you just said in your previous post "That IP address has a link to my profile that people can find" and I said I cant find it!! Now you say you never said that. My god. Also, since when is asking you to sign in to avoid confusion of any kind a personal attack? Read the definition of personal attack. If you recall, you are the one personally attacking by suggesting I have "no life" and that is why I am posting here. – Distantlycharmed 04:30, November 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Not playing your little game, DC...EDIT: DC, regarding your inability to see a link to the IP and my account, please see the IP's talk page and look at the conversation titled "edits." It just might help you out a little... --Nero210 04:35, November 2, 2010 (UTC)


 * Personally, I think you're both out of line, for posting here on Archduk3's talk page when Archduk3 has little to do with this discussion. I suggest you both follow one of the MA guidelines - namely, take a cooling-off period! --Defiant 06:57, November 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Frankly I'm tired of seeing the two of you clash swords whenever you disagree about something, which is just about all the time- and the long rants that come with each argument.  I also suggest that the two of you take some cool-off time and think about finding a way to be able to work together while being civil(if not agreeable), or just staying out of each other's way.--31dot 08:31, November 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry I kind of did let my frustration with DC influence some of my words. Its just when DC comes on my talk page trying to act like an admin by telling that I need to log in, and then going on five paragraph long rants here (before I even chimed in) about how I'm supposedly "sockpuppeting," when I clearly haven't (as Archduk was kind enough to show evidence), and DC's refusal to accept that evidence, well wouldn't that piss any of you off too? So although I stand by my meaning behind my conversations with DC on this matter, I acknowledge I probably could have been more "diplomatic" when dealing with her. Anyways I'm all for avoiding her, I'm sick of this crap too. --Nero210 14:23, November 2, 2010 (UTC)

Look i dont care if you are offended about someone telling you to sign in when you post so as to avoid creating confusion and being suspected of sockpupetting. The rules and guidelines are pretty clear. Cleanse asked you to sign in and clearly Morder believed that something seemed weird too. Stop being manipulative and acting like I was sort of pulling this out of my ass and there is no way anyone could have possibly gotten the wrong impression. It's not my fault you dont adhere to MA guidelines and fail to sign in or otherwise create a situation that even warrants such a discussion. And let that be clear for everybody here: you did not have the box on your registered talk page (or any page for that matter, even the anon) indicating that the two of you are the same. You added it later, after I told you, as your edit history will undoubtedly show. Having to go to your anon talk page and read all your discussions to find out the two of you are the same defeats the whole purpose. You need to make it clear that it is you. Finally, since you do edit here so much, it is only understood that you sign in to your account. Period. Why even (unintentionally or not) sockpuppet?? I can see how some people just might see that as "oh Nero and DC just arguing again" blah blah blah, but look at the facts. Most other people would have just signed in or at the least acknowledged that such conduct could be misread and gotten in over it. But you have to argue and question and act all paranoid about it and then whine that it is all really unfair..."aww mom"... Dang. – Distantlycharmed 16:10, November 2, 2010 (UTC)


 * Just to clear one thing up here: Sockpuppeting is not what happened here.  A sockpuppet is when you have multiple registered users supporting yourself.  That's it.
 * Now back to your regular novel-length responses. -- sulfur 16:13, November 2, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that's why the word unintentional was thrown in (not by me only) a few times as well as such things as giving the wrong impression - if you actually read this and knew what the debate was really about (given the wrong title it received) – Distantlycharmed 16:26, November 2, 2010 (UTC)


 * I read it. This was the most appropriate place, since it all has to do with how you sign talk pages.
 * You said "unintentional" once twice, and since then you have been outright accusing Nero210 of sockpuppeting. I simply pointed out that there was no sockpuppeting done.  At all.  None.
 * Edit: Note that you also accused first, then suggested (after 2-3 initial responses trying to calm you down and explain things) that "oh, it might be unintentional".
 * Oh, and next time you're going to move a talk page, stop and think first. Don't disrupt to prove a point. -- sulfur 16:33, November 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * @ Sulfur - I replied to DC's latest accusation on her talk page, since you were fixing this page from DC's disruption and it was locked (at the time I thought permanently). If you want to move it here its your call. --Nero210 16:37, November 2, 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, someone read what I wrote about long rants. I see it as "Oh Nero and DC arguing again" because that's what it is. One of you has stated a willingess to step back- perhaps the other should as well. The level of discussion should be proportional to the seriousness of the issue, and in this case there is way too much discussion.--31dot 16:42, November 2, 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry about that Nero210. Was trying to fix stuff.  Here's the original note (below mine). -- sulfur 16:43, November 2, 2010 (UTC)


 * "And let that be clear for everybody here: you did not have the box on your registered talk page (or any page for that matter, even the anon) indicating that the two of you are the same. You added it later, after I told you, as your edit history will undoubtedly show." DC don't even play that card. Show me where I ever attempted to imply that that box was there the whole time linking my IP and my account. I fully acknowledge that it was not there before this started. Like I told you in the replys on Archduk's page, I never was going to pretend it was there the whole time. Think out your case before you make it, or before falsely making accusations.
 * "Having to go to your anon talk page and read all your discussions to find out the two of you are the same defeats the whole purpose." Well I'm sorry its a hassle for you to actually read (I should know better at this point you have issues in that category), but the fact of the matter is I still identified myself on that page, and make no attempt to hide my identity when I comment logged out.
 * And finally, why are you acting like this? Is it just because you're pissed off that we've disagreed on a number of articles since that whole Voyager thing and am now opposing your attempt to remove Sisko's article from FA status? The way you've pursued this matter really makes me think you're doing this out of some kind of malice towards me. Get over it, it's the effing Internet for Christ's sake. --Nero210 16:31, November 2, 2010 (UTC)

Sulfur, please try to understand, this debate was not about signing in to your talk pages. It was signing into your MA account when you make edits in articles, which - as you know - are not talk pages. Forgive me when I find it hard to believe that you actually got my point or read any of this when you cant even get the simple title page this discussion is about right. That's not to prove a point, that's simply correcting the title to reflect what the debate is about. When I posted on Nero's talk page I asked him to please sign in so as to avoid things being misunderstood and/or misread or perceived as sockpuppeteering. There was confusion about the anon's identity and that's enough to raise questions and ask someone to sign in. The bottom line of this debate is "sign into your account when you regularly edit - especially when you come back editing with two different accounts in articles where there is an edit dispute or voting process going on". Anyway, that's it on my part. Read all the above if it is still unclear. – Distantlycharmed 16:58, November 2, 2010 (UTC)