Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Friday January 25 2019, @01:00PM   Printer-friendly
from the getting-along-with-others dept.

[Update 20190127_200249 UTC: corrected number of downmods to qualify for mod bomb from 4 to 5. Clarified that no mod bans have been handed out in a long while. --martyb]

Our primary goal at SoylentNews is to provide a forum for the community; In as much as is reasonably possible, we try to take a hands-off approach.

The infrastructure provides a means by which the community can (among other things) vote on polls, publish journal articles, submit comments, and perform moderations.

There are, however, some things that require an active role by the admins.

One of these is dealing with moderation abuse, something which can come in different forms. See the FAQ for some background. Addressed there are "mod bombs" and "spam mods". A mod bomb is deemed to have happened when one user (user1) has performed 4 5 or more downmods against comments by another user (user2). Upon review, if a mod bomb has been found to occur, then the moderator (user1) gets a 1-month mod ban on the first occasion; 6 months on the second and subsequent times. Mod bans have not been issued in a LONG while; extra mods are reversed.

Sockpuppets: And now we come to the focus of this article: there is another form of moderation abuse: sockpuppet accounts. Wikipedia has a suitable description:

A sockpuppet is an online identity used for purposes of deception. The term, a reference to the manipulation of a simple hand puppet made from a sock, originally referred to a false identity assumed by a member of an Internet community who spoke to, or about, themselves while pretending to be another person.[1]

The term now includes other misleading uses of online identities, such as those created to praise, defend or support a person or organization,[2] to manipulate public opinion,[3] or to circumvent a suspension or ban from a website. A significant difference between the use of a pseudonym[4] and the creation of a sockpuppet is that the sockpuppet poses as an independent third-party unaffiliated with the puppeteer. Sockpuppets are unwelcome in many online communities and may be blocked.

Right here I'll admit that I was sorely tempted to take unilateral action. Name names. Apply mod bans. And... you get the idea. Instead, I'm trying to take the high road. So, instead, I chose to present what I found to the community, solicit input, and then see what, if anything, needs to be done.

There may well be other cases, but the one I have discovered shows this history of upmods. Out of the 100 most recent moderations performed by "user1", 80 of those have been upmods of the same user "user2". And of these, there have been 10 upmods on January 21, 10 more on January 22, and yet 10 more on January 23. (For those keeping score that is 30 points in 3 days).

I cannot imagine in any way that 30 upmods in three days by "user1" on "user2" is reasonable or desirable.

This would be purely academic except that comment moderation affects a user's karma. All registered users start with a karma of 0. Submitting a story that is accepted on the site earns 3 points. Each upmod to a comment of yours earns a point. Similarly, each downmod deducts a point from your karma. Get enough karma and when posting a comment you can give it extra visibility so that it starts at a score of 2 instead of at 1. (Comments posted anonymously or by ACs start at 0.) Get a low enough karma and you earn a "timeout" against posting comments for a month.

Inasmuch as "user1" was able to perform 80 upmods of "user2" in 19 days ("user2" had hovered near the karma cap of 50 when this all started), that means that "user2" received approximately 80 downmods from the community. Excluding the actions of our sockpuppet ("user1"), "user2" should have been in negative karma and thus in a month-long "timeout".

What I see is that the community has spoken (the comments posted by "user2" are not of the kind the community wants to see on the site) and that has been intentionally countered by the sockpuppet activity of "user1".

Rather than the admins taking a unilateral action, I am asking the community what should be done in this case (and any others like it that may come up)?

I offer a proposal that is analogous to our handling of a "mod bomb."

What is a mod bomb? Four (4) or more downmods in 24 hours by "user1" against comments posted by "user2". qualifies as a mod bomb and earns "user1" a 1-month moderation ban (initially; subsequent mod bombs earn a 6-month mod ban) It's been a long time since mod bans have been issued..

Proposed: Four (4) or more upmods in 24 hours should also be considered a mod bomb (sock bomb?) and should receive the same treatment.

The point of moderation is not to bestow karma points, it is to help improve the visibility of well-written comments and reduce the visibility of the lesser ones. The karma is simply an incentive to actually perform the moderations.

I've toyed with various values for number of upmods per unit of time (4 per day? 20 per week?) I keep coming back to the same metric we use for our existing "mod bomb" definition: 4 down mods in one 24-hour span that commences when mod points are handed out at 00:10 UTC.

So, now it's your turn. I'd appreciate your feedback and thoughts on this. If we should choose to implement it, it would probably have a soft launch with any "violations" being met with a warning.

Ultimately, it's your site. How do you want us to deal with sockpuppets?


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday January 25 2019, @05:40PM (4 children)

    by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Friday January 25 2019, @05:40PM (#791897) Journal

    The SHA2 hashes for IP addresses will prove it. I need no sock puppets; I fight this battle alone. Always have, always will.

    --
    I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Insightful=2, Underrated=1, Total=3
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 26 2019, @07:36AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 26 2019, @07:36AM (#792248)

    Omfg they know which stories I have posted!!
    *runs*

    Perhaps I should just post from an account :(

  • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday January 26 2019, @03:01PM

    by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Saturday January 26 2019, @03:01PM (#792313) Homepage Journal

    Confirmed. As currently does everyone on the site except one asshat.

    --
    My rights don't end where your fear begins.
  • (Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Saturday January 26 2019, @03:50PM (1 child)

    by hendrikboom (1125) Subscriber Badge on Saturday January 26 2019, @03:50PM (#792331) Homepage Journal

    SHA2 hashes of IP numbers? Isn't it easy to use a rainbow table on them?

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday January 26 2019, @06:44PM

      by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Saturday January 26 2019, @06:44PM (#792387) Homepage Journal

      For IPv4, yes. Utterly impossible for IPv6. We'd have to wipe our backup server to hold the IPv4 table on account of it not being possible to fit on any of our servers except that one but it's technically doable. It'd be easier to just put a line or two of code in to dump the uid/address combos to a new db table. You're not anonymous to us staff folks because of any code, you're anonymous to us because we do not want to know. What we don't know, we can't be made to tell anyone. Even with a $5 wrench.

      --
      My rights don't end where your fear begins.