Wikipedia:No soliciting of cliques
 | This is an essay on civility. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
 | This page in a nutshell: Soliciting for unethical activities is wrong – so don't do it. |
Wikipedia gets hundreds of new users every day, and sometimes they have been solicited to participate in debates (e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Game (game)) or to vandalize articles. Meatpuppet is a Wikipedia term meaning one who edits on behalf of or as proxy for another editor especially in supporting disruptive edits and intimidating activities.
While Wikipedia assumes good faith especially for new users, the recruitment of new/experienced editors to Wikipedia for the purpose of influencing a survey, performing reverts, to illustrate a point or otherwise attempting to give the appearance of consensus is strongly discouraged. A user who engages in the same behavior as another user in the same context, or accounts which appears to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose, shall be subject to the remedies applied to the user whose behavior they are joining.[1] The term meatpuppet is considered to be derogatory and should be used only with care.
If a new user knows about Wikipedia markup or Wikipedia policy and culture, it does not mean they are a sockpuppet. It is more likely they could have introduced their friend to the site, taught them everything they need to know. Many newly registered accounts are those of editors who have been around for months or longer as anonymous IP-address editor. Don't be a jerk and demeaningly accuse a user is a sock puppet.
Do not recruit for creating a class consciousness or to instigate herd mentality
[edit]It is considered highly inappropriate to recruit your friends, family members, or communities of people who agree with you, so that they can support your side of a debate in Wikipedia or to instigate group support in a disruptive manner, circumvent usage of a user crossing three-revert rule (3RR) for misusing technical loophole to gain blocks for personal reasons, this might also stem from the user's culture which may lack ethical predisposition in interpersonal communication and the user is individually impulsive than to conform to Wikipedia policies, this could potentially promote an anti-Wikipedia spirit.
If you feel that a debate is ignoring your voice, then the appropriate action is to avoid personal attacks, seek comments and involvement from experienced Wikipedians, or pursue dispute resolution. These are tested processes which are designed to avoid the problem of exchanging bias in one direction for bias in another.
Meatpuppetry
[edit]Wikipedia has policies and processes to mitigate the disruption caused by meatpuppetry:
- Consensus in many debates and discussions is not based upon number of votes, but upon policy-related points made by editors. Newcomers are unlikely to behave knowing the range of Wikipedia policies and practices, or to introduce any non-verifiable evidences that other users have failed to support.
- In votes or vote-like discussions, new users tend to be disregard policies and are given significantly less weight, especially if there is an observable repetitive behavior of violation and disdaining guidelines given.
- For the purposes of dispute resolution, the Arbitration Committee has ruled that when there is inconsistencies and disregard of guidelines provided in absence of knowledge or well versed understanding with long-term standing in community activities, a party could be considered as one user with sock puppets, or several users acting as meatpuppets, they may be treated as one entity. However, just because a new user shows up with knowledge of Wikipedia's workings, does not mean they are a sock puppet – remember that in situations like schools/colleges/universities or corporate terminals, someone probably edits Wikipedia and knows about its workings – they may or may not be a friend of that editor and it doesn't mean presence of experienced editors are meatpuppetry, a discerning factor would be unbiased, open and policy based participation. It is also better to not template the regulars or report them at noticeboards without clarification of their activities, but be bold if activities that isn't ethical with the standards is happening or you are aware, without falling for bystander effect.
Finding a new friend from Wikipedia is unobjectionable, it increases spirit of collegiality and satisfying ethical experiences but soliciting for and with cliques for actions that aren't valued in Wikipedia isn't allowed and might be accounted (behavioral evidence) in any future disputes involving the user.