"A sockpuppet is an online identity used for purposes of deception within an online community. In its earliest usage, a sockpuppet was a false identity through which a member of an Internet community speaks with or about himself or herself, pretending to be a different person, [1] like a ventriloquist manipulating a hand puppet. In current usage, the perception of the term has been extended beyond second identities of people who already post in a forum to include other uses of misleading online identities. For example, a NY Times article claims that "sock-puppeting" is defined as "the act of creating a fake online identity to praise, defend or create the illusion of support for one’s self, allies or company. [2] The key difference between a sockpuppet and a regular pseudonym (sometimes termed an "alt" which is short for alternate, as in alternate identity) is the pretense that the puppet is a third party who is not affiliated with the puppeteer or acting under their control for their benefit."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_sock_puppet

"Definition of: sock puppet A phony name made up by a user in order to masquerade as someone else on the Internet. Sock puppets can make controversial comments or vote for or against a cause without revealing their identity. They may respond to their own Usenet or blog posts praising the articles they wrote themselves or disagree with comments criticizing them on other sites."
http://www.pcmag.com/encyclopedia_term/0,2542,t=sock+puppet&i=57353,00.asp

Squares are rectangles, but rectangles aren't squares. One person using multiple aliases on a forum is sockpuppetry, but the primary definition is broader; see above, and Jon's britannica link. Having different user names on different forums is not necessarily evidence of sockpuppetry; if someone were doing that to praise their self in the real world, or their user name elsewhere, then it would be- especially if they implicitly or overtly represent themselves as not being that person. In addition, after having been banned at a forum, regaining access by using a new user name is inherently deceitful; sockpuppetry. And denying one is the banned person after being confronted, asked and even presented with evidence, is sockpuppetry. This is what Adam Syed recently did at truthaction.org - see the thread starting here: http://truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=35603#35603

A 911blogger user, david.watts, was discovered using 2 user names at 911blogger (aka Jodie Mudd) to promote Steve Alten's book. He would've been banned, but after publicly apologizing in a blog post, he was put on permanent moderation: http://www.911blogger.com/node/14783

In my own case, i'm loose nuke here and a few other places i don't visit much (dailykos for instance), i'm rancho truth at truthaction.org, better world order at opednews.com and nornnxx65 at truthmove.org. I often make up a new name at every site i register at, but if a site has fields for the info, my bio has my given name, Erik Larson. At truthaction.org and opednews.com, my avatar is my photo. I am not 'anonymous', as I've chosen to make my name and photo public. In addition, I've commented at various times that these are my user names at these sites.

There is nothing inherently wrong with anonymity, though sometimes people intent on disruption will hide behind anonymous identities, including using sockpuppets. There's usually no easy way to tell if someone is a professional provocateur, or simply deluded and/or badly behaved. It's far simpler to identify problematic behavior; for instance, using sockpuppets in itelf is considered bad form by most people, and those that do it are discredited by having done it, if they're exposed. In addition, what someone has done while using a sockpuppet will also reflect on their reputation, once exposed. Our credibility at truth activists at 911blogger, on the internet and in the carbon world, is enhanced or degraded by the evidence, arguments and behavior we exhibit. We all make mistakes, and that can reflect poorly on our reputation, but not as badly as insisting we're right when it's obvious that we're wrong.

__________________________
http://911reports.com
http://www.historycommons.org

One of the things that leads to tempers boiling which can result in negative personal things being said, is the inability to agree to disagree.

When people disagree to disagree, nothing productive ensues.

When people agree to disagree, things can move forward.

The fact that I have an account at WTCD does NOT mean I endorse or support everything that's posted there. But other people have posted some good stuff there. It was there, for example, that I found out about Rodriguez' story of seeing one of the hijackers in the WTC months before the attacks, which I suspect might be ground work for the fall back of "al Qaeda planted the explosives."

Incidentally, Paul Tassopulos e-mailed me the link to the Roberts - Gold interview a few nights ago before it was posted here, and I have listened to the whole thing.

In principle, I absolutely agree with you that "bad info" should not be promoted. Where we have so far "disagreed to disagree" is on what we consider bad info. Because you're so positive in your own mind that CIT is "disinfo" and that anyone defending them should be automatically suspect, which would include me, this has led to tensions. You have accused my defense of CIT's work as "tacking on years to this cause." It is of course your right to believe this and my right to disagree.

Once again, agreeing to disagree is a good thing and absolutely necessary when working within a large movement which is bound to have many different points of view and differences of opinion.

After all, anyone who watched Jesse Ventura's final episode last night knows that all of us only have 2 more years to live anyway. ;-)

the term "wingman" is more apt, as it sounds more pathetic