Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppetry

This section conflates two distinct use cases:

• using temporary accounts, perhaps because you don't have any (registered) accounts
• editing while logged out (that is, having an account but not using it to edit)

Trying to untangle. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 18:51, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

I have renamed (renamed back?) the section for logged-out editing, and refocused the section named "Editing from temporary accounts" to not assume a user has any registered accounts, instead focusing instead on circumstances regarding temporary accounts. I strongly suspect there are more items to list - I started the section but feel free to add to it. Regards CapnZapp (talk) 18:58, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

I feel a shortcut to direct people to specifically what gives regarding multiple temporary accounts would be greatly useful - when a user mistakes using two TAs for sockpuppeteering for example having a shortcut would be great, but I thought to let you guys decide specifics. (This shortcut, to Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry#Editing from temporary accounts of course, should not distract the user with details regarding multiple registered accounts whether logged in or logged out.) CapnZapp (talk) 19:03, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

• I have reverted your latest changes. It seems that you are making edits to the policy in a rush and not checking that what you're adding makes sense, nor that there is consensus for your changes. Several people have already suggested that you should slow down, but you seem to be going in the opposite direction. In the last bit of the section above and this section you appear to be replying to someone or some earlier comment but it's not clear what, and it makes it quite difficult to make sense of what you're trying to do. Please take a break if you need time to form your thoughts, nothing here is urgent. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:02, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

  I agree 100% with Ivanvector's revert, and with everything Ivanvector said here. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:47, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

If you need more time to ponder my arguments, Ivanvector, you will definitely have it. The reason I'm making bold edits is that it seems that just talking leads nowhere. Your action is a good example that making changes is what triggers discussion, hopefully of the constructive kind. Plus, showing my example is much easier than trying to get my point across using talk arguments. You know, BRD, basically. I definitely do not intend to change policy, and any such changes are unintentional. I welcome your analysis and your own suggestions on how to proceed. You do imply you can't make sense of my additions, so hopefully you will ask questions - I'm more than willing to explain why I made each part of the edit. This goes for you too Tryptofish. I'm not starting edit wars, and I anticipate your discussion and how you think we should proceed; it's not like the status quo is the desired end state. CapnZapp (talk) 10:47, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Specifically, you reverted each and every one of the following edits, and I would like to learn what you feel is wrong with them, Ivanvector:

1. An editor using several registered accounts (a.k.a. multiaccounting) - without this, the definition of "multiaccounting" is only made in the nutshell of all places; that doesn't seem correct. Are you certain that is a good idea? Using several temporary accounts isn't considered multiaccounting for this purpose. Just a clarification. I intend zero changes to An editor multiaccounting for valid reasons should... except, of course, it cannot and should not apply to multiple temporary accounts.
2. You reverted my split of the section concerning temporary accounts/editing while logged out. I don't understand why. Having a single section conflating general use of several temporary accounts with just the use case where you're using one despite having a registered account seems confusing for no good reason. If you made the revert because you feel I inadvertently changed some policy, I of course welcome your clarification. As for the "new" section on temporary accounts I fully realize it isn't fully baked, and if you intend to first complete it before you enter it on the page, that's fine. Just tell me you're working on it, so I'm not waiting for something that isn't happening.

Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 10:58, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

It's been a week. Hopefully everybody has had a great time. Now, this page still suffers from the same deficiencies as before. If you (as in y'all) disagree with my proposed improvements, I welcome a discussion where you tell me how and why you think so. Especially if you constructively help me improve them, as opposed to just abandon them. If you think I'm still moving too quickly, do suggest a pace agreeable to you. However, if I am met with continued silence, I will assume silent consensus and reapply my changes. Best regards, CapnZapp (talk) 16:26, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

I haven't responded because as I've been doing things this week I'm learning more about how temporary accounts actually work (from a technical perspective, and how they register with checkuser) and how the community is actually handling them. On Wikipedia policy follows practice (Wikipedia has no rules, our policies are meant to reflect what is actually happening, not what we would like to happen), and the practice is still developing here so I'm taking a "step back and observe" approach. I also think that the entire policy could do with a refresh; to be blunt, it's ugly. I would not recommend that you assume you have consensus for your edits that were already reverted, several people here have already told you they object. I'll put together some thoughts on the editing logged out/editing from a temporary account thing when I have a bit more free time but today is not that day. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:57, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

comment: Just to clarify one crucial bit - I would not recommend that you assume you have consensus for your edits that were already reverted, several people here have already told you they object. I'm not assuming that. I am asking that you (as in y'all, not necessarily you Ivanvector) don't just "object", but engage in discussion what you object to, and ideally, how to constructively proceed. (Some kind of constructive process appears to now be moving, whether thanks to my not-just-giving-up or not, so of course, I have no reason to hurry or preempt it, i.e. let's see where this discussion leads and how much it touches on the subject for this section, the conflation of two distinct use cases) Regards CapnZapp (talk) 15:34, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

• What I think is missing from this policy, and specifically from WP:SOCKLEGIT but would weave in WP:LOGOUT, is the legitimate use of undisclosed alternative accounts, including the legitimate use of editing while logged out. SOCKLEGIT intermingles disclosed and undisclosed alternative accounts, which makes it unclear on a simple reading.

I propose a clear and simply worded rule: The use of undisclosed alternative accounts, or editing while logged out, is forbidden in all namespaces except mainspace.

The intent of the proposals goes particularly to ProjectSpace, including XfD, policy pages, and policy talk pages. Editing in these areas while evading accountability is not a good thing, and it is very hard to come up with a justification. There are a few justifications for mainspace editing, but these do not carry over to projectspace, or any other namespace. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:50, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

That wouldn't work if we were talking about a user who doesn't have a named account but I'm assuming your only referring to people with named accounts as people may end up using different TAs when they haven't chosen to. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:54, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

I hope we can take this slow, and not assume any silent consent. I'm interested to see what Ivan comes up with, and there's no rush. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:20, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

If you have a named account, you should use it whenever editing in projectspace. If you have multiple accounts, you should use your main account.

Separately, people without accounts who want to repeatedly get involved in backroom discussions should be expected to register. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:46, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

I have no objections to the meaning of Ivanvector's proposal (and again, I have never intended any change to the meaning of this policy, only its wording). However, once more (sigh), I feel compelled to remind everybody that with the introduction of temporary accounts, we simply can't keep using terminology like "alternative accounts" or "while logged out" the way we're currently doing. Ordinary people will not understand that by "alternative accounts" we exclude temporary accounts. Ordinary people will not understand that you are "logged out" when you are making edits using a temporary account. Since this feature is named what it is, "accounts" must mean all accounts, whether registered or temporary, and nobody cares about the nuance that you're technically not "logged in" when you are using a TA (you don't "log out", you "exit" the "session"). We could, of course, as I have already suggested, start the policy by explaining our usage of the term "accounts" only includes registered ones except when we specifically mention TAs... but I remain fully convinced it is better, simpler and more directly understandable to abandon the convenience and accept that we need to spell out "registered accounts" everywhere where we mean just that. Is it really that painful to rephrase to something like "The use of undisclosed alternative registered accounts, or using temporary accounts to edit when you already have a registered account, is forbidden in all namespaces except mainspace"? (Now, I intend zero change in meaning, but could of course have overlooked some nuance. Please don't react with "you're stealth-changing Ivanvector's proposal". I assure you no such thing is intended. I am ONLY here to discuss wording. Feel completely free to strikeout or completely butcher parts of this post if you feel that would help calm discourse!) Btw, I am relieved I am no longer alone in seeing this, so thank you, User:Crouch, Swale. CapnZapp (talk) 15:59, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Personally I'm not sure we need to have a rule that it is forbidden in all namespaces except mainspace to use multiple undisclosed registered accounts or registered accounts and TAs. Obviously when it comes down to an AFD or another similar discussion this is in general forbidden but it seems a bit much to make this the case for all cases except mainspace. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:28, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

I think that a discussion about whether or not using undisclosed alts in project discussions is forbidden should probably be done at a village pump. For the purposes of this discussion, WP:PROJSOCK already says that it's not allowed if the alts are not clearly linked to your main account. I personally avoid using PEIsquirrel in project space because I don't think it's clearly linked enough, and accountability is important. I think that just to keep this discussion from scope creep, we should be talking about how PROJSOCK may need to be reworded to accommodate the new temporary accounts, not whether or not PROJSOCK should be a rule in the first place. Likewise, whether or not TAs should be allowed to edit in project space at all isn't something that can be decided here, so let's not dwell on it. (But for the record I'm strongly leaning "no") Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:21, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

I think if you were to participate in an AFD or other discussion with multiple accounts (including TAs) you would need to disclose this in the discussion, it would not be enough to have the alternative account noted on the user page, the Polish Wikipedia policy seems to say this (of which pre dates TAs). Similarly if your TA (or previously IP) changed even if you didn't intend it to you would still need to state that you are the same as the previous TA (or IP). Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:59, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

That’s way too complicated to have explained to casual editor.

I propose what is already the rule to be written clearly: To participate in an XfD, you must log in with your main account.

If you don’t have a main account, your posts won’t carry as much weight. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:46, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

ultimately sock puppetry depends on what you are trying to do. If you have a legitimate use (eg. privacy, lost or don't have your device, or you have a source from a different device and it is convenient then it is okay) (if you are trying to minipulate discussions or win edit wars [𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘰𝘬𝘢𝘺] ~2025-41856-78 (talk) 01:09, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

• I don't want anyone to think that I'm trying to privilege my own comments here or trying to direct the discussion. I've been around SPI in some capacity for 12 years and a checkuser for 7, and maybe I have some insight from experience that others might not, but that doesn't make my comments or opinions any more or less valid than anyone else's here. CapnZapp wrote above pretty much what I was already thinking, we've maybe just been talking past each other. The cards we've been dealt here are that "logged-out editing" as we know it and as we describe in the policy are no longer things; logged-out editing has been replaced by the regrettably-named temporary accounts. There is no logged out editing now, you either edit from a registered account, or a temporary account is created for you when you edit. Everywhere that the policy refers to logged-out editing is now nonsense, and we need to fix it.

Similarly, I agree that the naming of temporary accounts has made the definition of an account ambiguous, but that's not for us to solve here. We shouldn't be inventing our own convenient terminology, we should adapt to what is already in use, even if it's stupid. Fortunately, many of the things already in the policy where we say you can or can't do this with multiple accounts also apply to temporary accounts, so outside of the "logged-out editing" issue above, I really do think there's actually not that much to do.

And as for cosmetic changes, I just don't like the way that the "inappropriate uses" and "legitimate uses" sections look, with all the indented bullets and shortcuts to individual bullet points that flow into each other. I can't say for other skins but on old Vector it looks terrible. Of course we can deal with the language issues first and come back to this. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:47, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Temporary accounts are not real accounts. They have no long term accountability.

I strongly agree that the cosmetics are terrible. Terrible cosmetics hurt comprehension. I support fixing the cosmetics first, staring with the logical flow of the now seemingly random flow of points. I guess the flow is chronologically of when they were added. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:50, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Untangling

• using temporary accounts, perhaps because you don't have any (registered) accounts
• editing while logged out (that is, having an account but not using it to edit)

is definitely a good idea.

The 2nd was always forbidden in projectspace. Now written WP:PROJSOCK. “Internal discussions”, “Undisclosed alternative accounts generally may not be used in discussions internal to the project outside of limited circumstances”.

- SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:15, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

The occasional use of the [article] Talk namespace by an unregistered editor is good, but if they become an enduring advocate, they should register. “Internal discussions” should be broadly construed, to largely include every namespace except mainspace. “You can edit right now”, without logging in, is a fundamental to be held. Ongoing advocacy in the backrooms is not what is meant by “edit”. -SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:20, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

This should be a “rule” to which occasional exceptions are to be expected. The answer is definitely not the semiprotection of most namespaces. The unregistered editor who starts to engage should be welcomed and gently encouraged to register. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:24, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Temporary accounts are not real accounts. That ship has sailed. In its infinite wisdom WMF decided to call formerly logged-out editing something with "accounts" in the name. Please don't try to even attempt to explain to regular people that "temporary accounts" aren't accounts. Please just accept that we cannot speak of "accounts" without assuming temporary ones are included, and that any time we only mean registered accounts, we say so. "Accounts" needs to mean all accounts, temporary as well as "permanent" ones. CapnZapp (talk) 20:35, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

I think that statements “Temporary accounts are not real accounts” and “Temporary accounts have no long term accountability” are fair and reasonable.

What is currently written at Wikipedia:User groups?

Users are divided into “Unregistered users” and “Registered user accounts” (slight mismatch in style there)

“Unregistered users” are divided into Wikipedia:Temporary accounts and Wikipedia:IP users (another slight style mismatch).

So, there are terms, “user”, “account” and “editor”. Reader accounts exist, They allow you to select a skin, and to see a lot less WMF advertisements.

I suggest terminology of Unregistered Users, and Registered Users. Both may have multiple accounts. As a regular unregistered user, it will be natural to have a different Temporary Account for every device.

I maintain that a IP user, or now a Temporary Account, that is repeatedly active outside mainspace, is be suspected of being an editor logged out, liable to have some long term baggage, and are to be especially suspect when nominating at AfD and MfD (which they can’t do without assistance) or engaging in contentious policy discussion. Once or twice is perfectly ok. They may have been an IP editor for many years, and there are arguments that IP editing is more healthy, and we know that IP editors add most of the new information to articles. But when they become regular backroom activists, they are doing so without long term accountability, and it either violates WP:SOCK, or they “should be encouraged to WP:Register”.

- SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:55, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps the misunderstanding remains. I fully understand how a technically knowledgeable editor would consider temporary accounts to not be real accounts. I am not disputing the technical and administrative differences. I am talking about something completely different: we cannot and should not expect any reader to understand that Wikipedia uses the term "accounts" for two vastly different things. Should WMF not have named the ip edit replacement "something accounts"? That might be true, but it is also far too late to discuss something that's likely already set in stone. If we are discussing accounts, PLEASE acknowledge the average reader will assume you are talking about all accounts, including temporary ones, and that if you are not, you simply must qualify your statements. So again, in no way am I trying to gaslight you into thinking your statements are false...! 🤡 But I am arguing we cannot blithely assume readers of our policies and guidelines have that context. The statements can be one thousand percent true, but saying so just creates confusion and needlessly so, since it would be so much easier and user-friendly to simply talk about "registered accounts" each and every time... we're talking about registered accounts! Thank you CapnZapp (talk) 13:11, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

I suggest terminology of Unregistered Users, and Registered Users. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:18, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

What terminology for accounts do you suggest? Remember, now the reason someone might use multiple accounts might be as simple and innocuous as them not even being aware Wikipedia changed their temporary account for them. Before there really wasn't a case where you could credibly argue you used multiple accounts without meaning to or even being aware you used more than one. Now there definitely is. Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 16:51, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Personally I'm much less concerned about terminology and more about CapnZapp's edits that have, accidentally or intentionally, tried to change the actual policy. For example, using multiple IPs to give the impression of more than one person wasn't allowed before, and using multiple temp accounts in the same way isn't allowed now. But in his zeal for differentiating registered accounts from temp accounts and for noting that temp account users may unintentionally use multiple accounts, CapnZapp has attempted to introduce language that would exempt temp accounts from requirements of disclosure that multiple accounts participating in a discussion are the same person and exempt them from sanctions if disallowed use of multiple accounts is discovered. Anomie⚔ 15:32, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Please do not suggest I am trying to change policy intentionally, Anomie. If you had read the discussion you would have seen I have been extremely clear on this. If there is anything you feel changes policy, feel free to simply revert instead of throw shade. Better yet, if you claim to understand my motivations, how about you being the first to actually take constructive steps forward - I would welcome any suggestions for phrasing that accomplishes the goal of avoiding language that blithely assumes readers magically understand when and where "accounts" mean registered ones only. Without changing policy, of course. Best regards, CapnZapp (talk) 16:36, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

I clearly and specifically remained neutral on whether it was accidental or intentional. Anomie⚔ 16:43, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Unless you somehow feel there is value in keeping open the possibility I am acting in bad faith, can I ask you to consider not remaining neutral? Either way, you are of course completely free to entertain the notion I'm only here to vandalize or whatever, but can I at least ask you to take your implications to another talk section, so we can keep this one focused on the subject at hand? Thank you kindly CapnZapp (talk) 17:02, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

You're the one making a big deal over it, not me. 🤷 Anomie⚔ 17:38, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Well, this went in exactly the direction I said that I hoped it would not. Once again, we are not changing the intent of the policy here. If you would like to propose new restrictions on what unregistered or logged-out editors are allowed to edit, start a centralized discussion at a village pump. "Anyone can edit" has been a foundational principle of Wikipedia for 25 years, it will not change because of a discussion among four editors on a policy talk page. SmokeyJoe makes a good point above about the distinction between logging out of your account to edit as a TA vs. editing as a TA because you don't have an account. I hadn't considered it, but I still think that the distinction is moot with regard to the policy.

Consensus for years has been that you're allowed to use multiple accounts, as long as you don't do certain antisocial things with them. But the policy language has moved away from that: the "nutshell" saying "one person, one account" is wrong, that's never been a consensus view. The policy now reads like "don't use multiple accounts unless..." and that does not follow consensus. It should be "you can use multiple accounts, here's how you do it responsibly, here are some things you should never do". The long laundry lists of specific examples just cause confusion, and/or encourage malicious users to try to wikilawyer their way around the policy ("I did this thing that's obviously wrong but the policy doesn't specifically say that I couldn't"). I see a policy reflecting consensus looking roughly like this, as an outline:

• Intro: You should generally only use one account. You're allowed to use multiple accounts but you are responsible for using them appropriately.
  • Here is a short list of examples of why you might want to use more than one account. (i.e. using an unprivileged account for security or testing; you lost your password and can't recover it; etc.)
  • You should always disclose if you're using multiple accounts; here are instructions.
  • If disclosing your alternate account would defeat the purpose of having it (i.e. clean starts, privacy alts) you should still tell the Arbitration Committee.
• Don't use multiple accounts to pretend to be more than one person for any reason, or to avoid scrutiny or evade sanctions. That is sockpuppetry and you will be blocked.
  • Policies apply to the person, not the account. Things that would be against the rules if you did them with one account are still against the rules if you do them with multiple accounts, or if you log out of your account and use a temporary account.
  • You are not allowed to use an undisclosed alt or to log out of your account and use a temporary account to participate in project discussions.
  • Here is a short list of examples of inappropriate use. (stacking discussions, block evasion, good hand-bad hand accounts, etc.)
• Recruiting other people to do things that wouldn't be allowed if you did them yourself is meatpuppetry, and you will all be blocked.
• Temporary accounts are created when someone edits while not logged into a registered account.
  • A temporary account looks like <example>, and an unregistered user's temporary account changes from time to time for technical reasons.
  • Because they change, you can use multiple temporary accounts to edit an article or participate in a discussion. Be honest if you are asked about it.
  • Using multiple temporary accounts for deceptive purposes, such as pretending that your temporary accounts are different people, is sockpuppetry.
• Here are some special cases (designated role accounts, doppelgangers, shared IPs, 2FA alts, etc.)
• Here is what to do if you suspect sockpuppetry, etc.

I may sandbox something along these lines and propose it back here for discussion. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:07, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

That looks to me like a good start. I'm not seeing any red flags. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:06, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

It looks like the same old confusion. “You should generally” means what follows is nearly meaningless, as everybody’s personal situation will be a reasonable exception to them.

Distinguishing between logging out of your account to edit as a TA vs. editing as a TA because you don't have an account because these are two very different groups, two very different audiences.

Distinguishing between disclosed and undisclosed alternative accounts is central to fixing the missing clarity. And for undisclosed alternative accounts, address directly the issue where the intent or practice is to edit projectspace, the example of editing sensitive topics in mainspace is clear. SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:08, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

I am afraid I am dismayed I feel I have to point out - for the third time - that sentences such as You should always disclose if you're using multiple accounts; here are instructions. just can't remain as they were written before the introduction of temporary accounts. Please pretty please stop assuming the general reader understands you are in your mind only thinking of multiple registered accounts here, and accept that "all accounts are much the same" is the prevailing non-technical viewpoint, whether you like it or not. Our users definitely must be able to use multiple temporary accounts without having to disclose this - they might even not be aware they're using more than one! Every time we discuss multiple accounts and really mean multiple registered accounts, we need to say so. Likewise, every time we mention "alternative accounts", if we only have alternative registered accounts in mind -- which obviously is what we do, since there was no other kind of alternative accounts before -- this needs to be spelled out. We should only say "multiple accounts" when we really do include temporary accounts - for instance saying it is improper to use multiple accounts to deceive or mislead other editors, disrupt discussions, distort consensus... is obviously fine since it doesn't matter what type of account you're using if you're vandalizing, it's still bad. CapnZapp (talk) 00:42, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Do the two of you, SmokeyJoe and CapnZapp, know what an outline is? Or did you really honestly think that the point-form list I wrote out above was intended to be the literal policy, in its entirety? Did you really, honestly, believe that I was proposing to literally replace the entire policy with exactly the short-form wording in the summary points I wrote above? Is this the level of discourse editors expect in policy discussions now? Did I do something to make either of you believe that I would actually suggest something so mind-bogglingly stupid, as a policy?

CapnZapp, I don't know why you seem to think I have a personal problem with you, or maybe I am misinterpreting your post on my talk page. I don't. I have been trying to work with you, in case you haven't noticed. I will say though that it is exhausting trying to work collaboratively with an editor who seems intent on taking every reply and every comment and every damn bit of feedback as a personal attack. I am an old fart and I am not subtle about my opinions - if I had a problem with you, I promise you there would be no doubt.

We seem to be at an impasse here, so I'm going to go away and fully draft out changes to the policy according to the outline I suggested. CapnZapp, can I suggest that you do the same, perhaps focusing on the distinctions that need to be made for temporary accounts? If we both do the work and then compare notes I think we'll find that we're a lot closer together than you think, but this bickering isn't helping us get anywhere. But I also made quite a mess of my payroll today and I'm going to be busy for a day or two fixing it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 02:56, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

I know about outlines. Here is my suggested outline:

• General principle, including one person one account
• Legitimate uses of
  • disclosed multiple accounts (many). Define “main account”.
  • undisclosed multiple accounts (some)
• Unacceptable uses of
  • disclosed multiple accounts (if any?)
  • undisclosed multiple accounts (where SOCK has bite)
• Editing while logged out.
  • Mainspace (several)
  • Projectspace (contention)
  • Other namespaces.
• Editing projectspace, never having registered.
• Abandoned accounts. Versus sleeper accounts
• Cleanstart, and the standard offer.
• Other stuff for completeness. Reader accounts. Global accounts. Imposter accounts outside WMF.

SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:06, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

I went ahead and listed every instance where multiple accounts are mentioned or discussed by the lead:

Sockpuppetry or socking is the misuse of multiple Wikipedia accounts. Whether those accounts are temporary or registered doesn't matter.

While there are some valid reasons for maintaining multiple accounts ? While true, the preceding sentence makes you think this sentence was written with registered accounts in mind. Are we saying you might "maintain" multiple temporary accounts? This probably could be clarified so we make it crystal clear we're saying there are valid reasons to have more than one registered account, and of course, that it's natural to use many temporary accounts.

it is improper to use multiple accounts to deceive or mislead... Same for all/both type of account

Logging out to create a temporary account[a] to disrupt Wikipedia Already rewritten to my satisfaction

Creating new accounts or rapidly changing temporary accounts Already rewritten to my satisfaction

Using another person's account (piggybacking) I would prefer us to be clear and say that using another person's registered account is known as piggybacking. Using another person's temporary account is frowned upon too, but is this really what was meant when "piggybacking" became a term?

Misuse of multiple accounts is a serious breach of community trust. Basically because misuse of any account and any misuse whatsoever is a serious breach. The type of the multiple accounts doesn't change anything.

An editor multiaccounting for valid reasons should, on each account's user page, list all the other accounts with an explanation of their purpose (see below). THIS is where the current policy still falls short. Needs to make explicitly clear we're only discussing multiple registered accounts. You should never be forced to connect any temporary account to any other account. We are quite clear about this elsewhere, so the multiaccounting bits needs to take into account that there noew exists other accounts than registered ones!

CapnZapp (talk) 13:23, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

I brought up this issue over a month ago (see earlier talk) and the problems have still not been addressed. The policy still says things like (paraphrasing) "if you use multiple accounts you should disclose this and link them together". This was reasonable back when "account" could only mean "registered account".

That is no longer the case, and editors can't be expected to understand when you "obviously" are discussing all accounts or exclude what was known as ip editing. This has been super sloppy for well over a month.

Now just reverting to status quo will no longer serve as a valid excuse. Time goes by and nobody else will make the effort. People have said they would look at it, but they have not. The time has come to boldly fixing the issues to the best of my ability. If you think I have changed policy, please note this is not intentional. If you think it is, then you are wrong. Please FIX these issues without reverting back in the other problems, the ones my edits do fix. Reverting is not the solution. Constructively helping me to fix the issues while not inadvertently changing any aspect or nuance of policy is.

CapnZapp (talk) 15:31, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Question: what if you do not want to disclose you live in proximity with some other user?

I understand the purpose of WP:SHARE but can't believe sharing the same cable automatically opts you out of all other privacy protections Wikipedia affords its users?

For example: you're the non-notable spouse of a controversial politician (celebrity etc). They have chosen to use their public name as their username. This policy appears to say that you should disclose that you share cables with this person, meaning that people you know might deduce you live with this person. Alternatively to email ArbCom.

But what if you're just editing Wikipedia the "new normal way", i.e. without logging in, using a temporary account? I find it hard to believe we expect casual users to email some fancy-sounding "Arbitration Committee". And asking them to edit their user page is all kinds of unreasonable, not least because this action would have to be repeated every three months...

Please expand the section to help users in this situation. CapnZapp (talk) 16:12, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Well, what better system would you recommend? Wikipedia uses a variety of technical tools to detect sockpuppetry. Some of these tools can give false positives in situations like two wikipedians sharing the same network connection and/or devices. There's no requirement that you disclose this, either publicly or privately to arbcom, but if you elect not to, there's a chance the tools will inadvertently identify you and your spouse as possible socks. If you have a better idea, I'm sure people would be happy to hear it. RoySmith (talk) 16:22, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Well, what better system would you recommend? Not sure how to answer that. I don't presume to tell y'all how to run things - I don't want to change stuff. I just want the article text to directly address users in this situation. I'm simply asking the text is updated to not uncritically suggest users acknowledge their living situation on their talk page, since now, chances are they're using a temporary account. And as you know, writing stuff on the talk page of temporary accounts will be "disassociated" from your editing in three months (possibly much much sooner). Whatever you find is appropriate to tell them is likely alright by me too. Cheers, CapnZapp (talk) 16:11, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm actually a little confused by WP:SHARE. Since the persistence and ultimate expiration of temporary accounts are cookie-based, should this be a problem for two users if they aren't using the same computer on the same login on the same browser using the same browser profile? And, in that case, maybe we should recommend creating separate browser profiles as a solution. Largoplazo (talk) 16:56, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Let's see if this helps: Two users sharing the same internet connection likely share the same underlying IP address. Which computers or devices they use doesn't matter. As long as they all connect to the Internet using the same connection, they likely have the same public IP address. Two accounts (whether registered or temporary) sharing the same IP can easily become suspects in a sockpuppet investigation. So yes, even though their use of different computers or browsers ensure they get assigned different temporary accounts, they can still be suspected of sockpuppetry - they still likely share the same IP, just like how a sockpuppet that registered a new account when the old one gets banned will likely still retain the same IP address.

My issue with the policy is that previously all accounts were registered accounts. Asking someone to declare a connection on a registered account's talk page might violate privacy but at least it was technically straight-forward. Now with temporary accounts, it's outright unreasonable to ask you to declare anything on your talk page, since your very next edit could be made using a different temporary account. CapnZapp (talk) 20:34, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

I've made my best attempt at having the section address the circumstance. Do remember: I don't want to change stuff. I just want the article text to directly address users in this situation. CapnZapp (talk) 19:32, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

As a heads up, I advertised my edit just now at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Anonymity. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 18:01, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi! I am writing from here on a Chromebook. My usual account is Wikipedian12512. I have restricted access both to this chromebook (which I would prefer to form a primary account on, but can't), and my iPad, which I can only use at certain times. I occasionally have access to both. Is it sockpuppetry to use one when I cannot access another? Is it sockpuppetry to use one when I have access to both? I generally edit source code on this, and most other stuff on my iPad. ~2026-16708-34 (talk) 23:35, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

As long as you aren't trying to conceal it, it's not a problem. If possible, you should try to log in using your named account on both devices. If that doesn't work for you, perhaps because of shared use of one device or for other security-related reasons, you could use your existing account name on one device, and create an account like "Wikipedian12512alt" or something similar, on the other device. Whether or not you do any of those things, I would strongly recommend using Template:Alternative account on the user pages of all of your accounts, including each temporary account. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:11, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

I use a school computer, and a teacher did a demonstration and blocked everyone on the IP address. The computer is connected through the school, and so I can’t log in or create an account. Wikipedian12512 (talk) 00:15, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Oh, and I haven’t made a user page yet. Wikipedian12512 (talk) 00:16, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Gotcha. Welcome to Wikipedia, and thanks for being careful to check about these issues! It's a good idea to create your user page, and that template will help you avoid any hassles. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:33, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! Wikipedian12512 (talk) 01:37, 23 March 2026 (UTC)