Identifying sock puppets

[_Euthyphro]

This is a very interesting board in a number of ways. For one, preserving one's anonymity can be very important. To be outed as a doubter or apostate would have serious real-world consequences. For another, new members are scrutinized carefully in whatever way people can in order to correlate their behavior with known opponents in the forum. It has been interesting to see how people use the sock puppet accusation as device in the conversation, but it's also tiresome especially where it derails an otherwise fun topic.

Did you know that even if your public IP address is assigned to you and "leased" for a time, you are likely to keep it for months? Did you also know this forum's software logs your IP addresses with the account you use? Together these two facts make it possible for an admin with log access to identify at least some sock puppet accounts. It's easy to imagine cases where this mapping method wouldn't work in a cut-and-dry fashion. People might be using browsers in different places or from different devices, your IP address might change, etc. However, given enough time and patience and running one's account mapping activities unbeknownst to the user base, an admin's efforts would certainly identify all the most frequent puppeteers.

Is there ever a time when something like this is called for, say, when a user breaks the rules and gets the boot, but you want to get their other accounts too?

[_ludwigm]

I have dynamic IP.

It is not my choice. It is about the internet provider I am paying.

Other stupid question?

[_SteelHead]

The truly savy will use a different proxy for each account. I used to pay for a proxy vpn connection to the Netherlands...... But not for activity on this board.

[_MCB]

There is no need to identify puppets when they are in fun, which most are. It is the malicious puppets, rarer, that they CAN generally track down.

[_Drifting]

One can identify a William Schryver sock puppet by the fact they will be the only poster writing in support of William Schryver.

[_MCB]

One can identify a William Schryver sock puppet by the fact they will be the only poster writing in support of William Schryver.

Not necessarily. It might be a satire of WS, which our more obtuse members might miss.

[_Euthyphro]

I have dynamic IP.

Doesn't matter.

The truly savy will use a different proxy for each account.

Yeah, but savvy gives way to lazy all the time.

There is no need to identify puppets when they are in fun, which most are.

So you're talking about the FAIR meltdown and suddenly everything's on hold while you all go back and forth over which accounts are sock puppets of whom? You'd really rather have it that way? I think sock puppet accusations say more about the accuser than the puppet masters. Without real evidence all you're putting out there is your hunch.

It seems to me like the prevailing attitude about sock puppets is that they are instruments of cowardice and villainy. If that's true why not make a rule about them and then back it up with the means to identify and punish account abusers? What is certainly true is the trust issues surrounding the fact that anyone can make as many accounts as they want on this board has tainted it.

[_MCB]

I think sock puppet accusations say more about the accuser than the puppet masters.

Like I said, I am generally not worried about puppets. I agree. Unless they are previously banned over-the-top malicious.

[_Dr. Shades]

Personally, I very much dislike sock puppets for the simple fact that they artificially inflate our membership numbers.

[_Drifting]

Personally, I very much dislike sock puppets for the simple fact that they artificially inflate our membership numbers.

Perhaps we should wait till the poster is 110 years old and then remove them from the membership numbers...