 | This is anessay onsockpuppetry. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one ofWikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not beenthoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
 | This page in a nutshell: Administrators may take action againstsockpuppetry ormeatpuppetry if there are obvious correlations in behavior. |
Theduck test—"If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, thenit probably is a duck"—suggests that something can be identified by its habitual characteristics.
The duck test does not apply to non-obvious cases. Unless there is evidence which proves otherwise beyond a reasonable doubt, editors mustassume good faith from others.
The "duck test" is meant to be used for internal processes within Wikipedia. For example, consider that "User:Example1" is engaged in aheated dispute with someone else, and gets blocked because of it. Immediately after, a "User:Example2" registers on Wikipedia and continues the dispute right away, saying the same things and in the same tone. The duck test allows us to consider itan obvioussock-puppet, and act in consequence. If "User:Example3" then registers and continues the dispute, it is appropriate to escalate sanctions, because the matching behavior is sufficiently obvious to deal with it as sock-puppetry again.
A variation of the duck test in conversations can be found in community discussions where consensus is required, most obviouslyArticles for deletion. Ifconsensus appears to be approaching one direction, aside from a handful of accounts that are using the samebad arguments (often "I like it" or "It's just not notable"), it might be reasonable to conclude that, even if direct sockpuppetry is not occurring, the accounts may have stillganged up together.
The duck test may alsoapply tocopyright violations. If there is an image that is clearly a movie or TV screenshot, or magazine or CD cover, licensed as an own work by the author, the duck test would allow us to treat it as a copyright violation, even if the specific source of the image remains unknown. For example,theoretically the actual owner of the movie/CD/whatever copyrightmight be re-licensing the imageGFDL andCC BY-SA to Wikipedia... but the image should bespeedily deleted as a copyright violation despite this slim possibility, because there is no need to provebeyond a reasonable doubt that the uploader wasnot in fact the copyright holder... if so, they can try again via theOpen Ticket Request System.
The duck testdoes not apply to article content, and does not trump, or even stand aside, policies such asno original research,verifiability, andneutral point of view. If there isan animal that "looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck", but zoologists agree that it does not belong in the familyAnatidae, then it is not a duck,period. (That being said, some editors believe thatyou don't need to cite that the sky is blue.)
Looks like a duck to me