![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
I sometimes read This user may be an abusive sockpuppet of [X]; see {{{evidence}}} for evidence, even where this template has recently been applied. (Or recently reapplied. There are, of course, lengthy edit wars over provision of these templates.) Well, where's the evidence? If there is evidence, specify it; if there isn't, don't apply the template. -- Hoary 11:11, 2005 May 28 (UTC)
The administrators should meet privately, not have a whole public post to humiliate people. This is exactly like the Salem Witch Trials. -- Max 15:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Regarding the current edit war on Enviroknot's user page, I feel that this template is inherently a personal attack. I read the TfD debate, and I feel that several users agreed with my sentiments. I think that "evidence" should be restricted to very clear evidence for each user. This would often constitute a link to a mailing list archive where the users with the checkuser function have confirmed sockpuppetry. If there is a reasonable dispute, and no incontrovertible evidence, the template should probably be removed, as it would ignore WP:FAITH. smoddy 09:20, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
(after edit conflict) If a user has been banned, or is inactive, there surely isn't any need for the warning. I suppose that we need to ask two questions:
My answer to the first is that it's there to inform other editors (and especially admins), who might not be aware of what's going on. My answer to the second is that there should be reasonable grounds for the suspicion. The corrollary to my first answer is that the image is inappropriate. The template should be noticeable but formal; it should merely inform the reader that there's a possible problem with this editor's behaviour, and leave it at that. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 10:51, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Would anyone mind if I cut this down and removed the image? The object could be done in a far less disruptive and antagonistic fashion. smoddy 10:31, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
![]() |
It is believed that this user may be an abusive sockpuppet of [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]]; see {{{evidence}}} for evidence.}} |
[[Category:Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets of {{{1}}}|Sockpuppet/Archive 1]]
![]() |
It is believed that this user may be an abusive sockpuppet of [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]]; see {{{evidence}}} for evidence.}} |
[[Category:Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets of {{{1}}}|Sockpuppet/Archive 1]]
Even apart from the glitch in the first, I prefer the second. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 13:25, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I think that this looks much better — more professional, less like a personal attack. Whether it makes any difference to those people to whose User pages it's applied is another matter, of course... Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 13:57, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
{{sockpuppet|Sock-mastername|[[WP:RFAR]]}}
{{sockpuppet|Sock-mastername|[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RFAr]}}
Mirv added an evidence variable without any prior discussion that broke 90% of the pages using this template. Somebody either fixes every broken page, or the evidence variable must be removed. — Cantus… ☎ 05:23, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
I see no problem with having the general category, but it seems there are just a lot of red links, because it puts the username in each category name. Hardly no one uses it that way, I suggest just using Category:Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets, as it seems the majority of them go there anyway. ∞ Who ?¿? 07:20, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure what I think of the idea behind this template in general. One immediate concern I have is that the apps_important icon is usually used to indicate a serious system problem. The icon carries negative connotations. Since this template is applied to a user who is only suspected of being a SP, and since there is no standard (AFAIK) for applying the template, I'd like to try a "softer" icon. I'll go ahead and change it to a different one that seems to apply. Most of the ones that would be suitable can be found here. This is just suggested as a trial change, I'm certainly not tied to it. - O^O 18:30, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Has the category changed for sock puppets? If so we should update the template. - Will Beback 07:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
What/where are the guidelines for the usage of this template? Can any user place it, once a determination has come back from Checkuser? Or should it only be placed by admins? What should happen if it is properly placed, but then the user persists in removing it, even though checkuser confirms the status.? -- Elonka 15:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm planning to replace the existing template with the newer template. Here's the template:
Do you support or oppose? I support for this template. -- Bigtop ( customer service - thank you for your cooperation.) 06:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Please change a redirect from Wikipedia:Sock puppet to Wikipedia:Sock puppetry on the main protected template page. Also please replace:
<small>See [{{SERVER}}/wiki/Special:Log/block?page=User:{{PAGENAMEE}} block log]</small>
by
<small><span class="plainlinks">[{{fullurl:Special:Log/block|page=User:{{PAGENAMEE}}}} block log.]</span></small>
so that the arrow in superscript after "block log" will not appear visibly. -- ADNghiem501 06:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Why is User:BetacommandBot subst:ing all uses of this template? — Quarl ( talk) 2006-07-29 17:40Z
I have subst'ed per WP:SUBST but i have also seen some other pages that say that certien templates should be subst'ed {some are not on WP:SUBST} there must have been a error. at the time i was collecting a list of template that should be subst'ed. I believe there was an error, I apllogise for that mistake and have fixed the error in my bot. if at any time anyone has questions about my bot please leave a comment on its talk page. i have a failsafe in plase so that when there is a comment it stops working untill i review the message. Betacommand 04:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Could someone change See block log. to See ( current autoblocks block log) or something like that?-- 205.188.116.12 03:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
sysops, please add interlang to ja:Template:Sockpuppet.-- 端くれの錬金術師 08:19, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
sysops,please change interlang for cs: from cs:Šablona:Sockpuppet to cs:Šablona:Loutkový účet. It has been moved. -- hashikure( talk) 18:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Image:Puppeter_template.gif would be a more appropriate icon. See {{ SockpuppetProven}} for example. — SMcCandlish [ talk] [ contrib ツ 23:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
What cat should this template be in? Rich Farmbrough, 11:30 12 December 2006 (GMT).
Like we have on {{ Sockpuppeteer}}, could someone add the following code to the start of the template message?
{{#ifeq:{{{2|}}}|blocked|This user has been [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked indefinitely]] because it|It}} is suspected that {{#ifeq:{{{2|}}}|blocked|he/she|this user}} might be a [[Wikipedia:Sock puppetry|sock puppet]] or impersonator of [[User:{{ucfirst:{{{1}}}}}|{{ucfirst:{{{1}}}}}]]'''.
-- AAA! ( AAAA) 03:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, this is a pretty useless request, but could someone just add a full stop at the end of the bolded sentence? -- AAA! ( AAAA) 03:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
{{editprotected}} Isn't "sockpuppet" one word? If so, could you change it? -- AAA! ( AAAA) 12:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
We can't be sure that we're dealing with sockpuppetry rather than meatpuppetry or mimicry, especially with the "suspected" template rather than the confirmed one, so it's important to make that clear. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Hello. Users tagged with this template are tagged because they may be sockpuppets, not because they may be impersonators. If they are impersonators, the tagging is simply incorrect. Using impersonators as a catch-all is like saying "This user is blocked because they are vandals or misunderstood". ;) —{ admin} Pathoschild 06:56:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Why is {{{evidence}}} linked? This means you can't (at least not without hacking the template) put links inside. If it wasn't linked, you could put one or more. Superm401 - Talk 06:46, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Sunfazer changed the image used from SVG to PNG without explanation; Lbmixpro reverted. This seems right because image policy says SVG should generally be used for icons. If something's wrong with the SVG, please explain here. Superm401 - Talk 20:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
This template categorizes users into [[Category:Wikipedia:Sock puppets of {{{1}}}|{{PAGENAME}}]], whereas {{ SockpuppetCheckuser}} categorizes users into [[Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of {{{1}}}|{{PAGENAME}}]] (the difference is one colon, one space, and the capitalization on the S). I would be bold and make this consistent, but I'm not sure which one should take precedence, or which one is in more common use. -- Ais523 12:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I've reverted the image additions to the template; my intent in creating this specific derivative of the {{ sockpuppet}} template was to have a template that followed the uniform sockpuppet style, but eliminated the evidence link in favor of the specific notation that the determination was made by checkuser. I think it's probably best to leave the basic format in the standard socktag format; I think the only big difference is the width, which I shortened because there was less text involved, and perhaps the addition of the log links at the bottom (which make checking block status on a dozen sockpuppets much quicker). Essjay ( Talk • Connect) 06:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Take a look at User:100% Christian, where this template is used. You'll notice that the bottom part says "Christian all logs" instead of "all logs", and the link points to User:100%. There's some kind of problem with accounts with special characters. Can it be fixed? Grand master ka 04:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
In the case of an abusive sockpuppet which has been confirmed, but is not blocked, which template should be used? -- El on ka 17:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}} If you've seen this edit I made to {{ SockpuppetProven}}, you'll see that I reverted Pathochild's edit, because I preferred the old message than the one we have now. But then I saw that the templates have merged into this template, so I reverted myself afterwards. But I really liked the old message (and I'm sure others did to), so I took the code and fiddled around it on this page I made. I've now changed the code around so it will produce the following:
{{User:AAA!/Sockpuppet|example}}
{{User:AAA!/Sockpuppet|example|blocked}}
{{User:AAA!/Sockpuppet|example|confirmed}}
You can see that I've changed the message on the "confirmed" function to the one I preferred. I've also tested the parameters, which you can see here: [1] [2] [3]. But there is also a glitch in it: If you don't add the user name parameter, the template will produce the following:
But since I know you usually have to add a user parameter, I added <noinclude> and <inludeonly> tags so the other parameters will be unnaffected by this problem [4]. But the only way I know to overcome this problem is to always use a user parameter.
Anyway, if that glitch can be fixed so I don't have to use the <noinclude> and <inludeonly> tags, I was wondering if an admin could replace the current code on the template with the code I made ( here it is, by the way). Thanks. -- AAA! ( AAAA) 05:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Former | This user has been blocked indefinitely because the user is a sock puppet of Pathoschild. |
---|---|
Proposed | This user is a sock puppet of Pathoschild, and has been blocked indefinitely. |
{{ editprotected}} Can someone fix the Sockpuppet templates category by adding |Sockpuppet at the end ([[Category:Sockpuppet templates]] → [[Category:Sockpuppet templates|Sockpuppet]])? Thanks, Clyde (a.k.a Mystytopia) 13:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
Please replace this .png image:
to this .svg version:
68.5.224.107
20:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
How it should look like:
I added a switch so that confirmed and blocked now keys this category too, as both imply indefblocked. -- Avi 16:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}}
Please could someone change the design so it looks similar to this:
The background colour is taken from
it:w:Template:Sockpuppet. The above design is from a copy in my userspace for testing.
The text doesn't need changing, just the background design. -- SunStar Net talk 16:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}}
Shouldn't this template just be redirected to {{ Blockedsockpuppet}} because they are identical. The sunder king 15:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
A user who had all his socks blocked wasn't logged in and removed all the sock tags from his socks' userpages. He'd like to know why, if the sock has been blocked (or "dead" as he calls it), why he can't remove the tags. I had reverted the anon changes as unexplained, besides which it looks like he's trying to cover his tracks, but there's no provision in the guidelines for the permanence or removal of such tags, is there? I think the tags should stay, but there seems to be no guideline regarding this that I can show him. Any help appreciated, thanks! Katr67 ( talk) 17:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
The question still stands.[User:Richprentice|Richprentice]] ( talk) 03:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Why is a sock puppet illustrated by a picture of a marionette? AlmostReadytoFly ( talk) 18:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello, fellow editors ... I recently had occasion to apply this template to the Talk page of a user whose User page was redlinked ... I think that instead of
this user may be a sock puppet of Stephanie biddle.
it should appear as
this user may be a sock puppet of Stephanie biddle ( talk · contribs).
i.e., instead of
[[User:Example|Example]]
use
{{User|Example}}
I would do it myself, but the page is currently protected. :-)
Happy Editing! — 151.200.237.53 ( talk · contribs) 09:53, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
At present, the template links to the word “this” thus
I ask that the link be to “this policy subsection” instead.
Two reasons:
— SlamDiego ←T 23:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Lady_Aleena made changes to this template in the last day, and now it appears that it's no longer possible to pass a third parameter to link the template to another page. However, Template:SockpuppetCheckuser (which uses Template:Sockpuppet) needs that third parameter to link in a RFCU page. Am I misunderstanding how this works, or will this be fixed?
(Also asked at Lady_Aleena's talk page)
Dori ( Talk • Contribs) 03:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
{{#if:{{{case|}}}|{{#ifeq:{{{case}}}|auto|{{#ifexist:Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/{{{1}}}|Please see [[Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/{{{1}}}]] for evidence.|{{#ifexist:Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/{{{1}}}|Please see [[Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/{{{1}}}]] for evidence and discussion.|Please refer to editing habits and [[Special:Contributions/{{PAGENAME}}|contributions]]; [[WP:SOCK#Identification and handling of inappropriate alternative accounts|this]] policy subsection may also be helpful.}}}}|{{#ifexist:Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/{{{case}}}|Please see [[Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/{{{case}}}]] for evidence.|{{#ifexist:Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/{{{case}}}|Please see [[Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/{{{case}}}]] for evidence and discussion.|Please refer to editing habits and [[Special:Contributions/{{PAGENAME}}|contributions]]; [[WP:SOCK#Identification and handling of inappropriate alternative accounts|this]] policy subsection may also be helpful.}}}}}}|Please refer to editing habits and [[Special:Contributions/{{PAGENAME}}|contributions]]; [[WP:SOCK#Identification and handling of inappropriate alternative accounts|this]] policy subsection may also be helpful.}}
{{#ifexist:Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/{{{case|{{{1}}}}}}|Please see [[Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/{{{case|{{{1}}}}}}]] for evidence.|{{#ifexist:Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/{{{case|{{{1}}}}}}|Please see [[Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/{{{case|{{{1}}}}}}]] for evidence and discussion.|Please refer to editing habits and [[Special:Contributions/{{PAGENAME}}|contributions]]; [[WP:SOCK#Identification and handling of inappropriate alternative accounts|this]] policy subsection may also be helpful.}}}}}}|Please refer to editing habits and [[Special:Contributions/{{PAGENAME}}|contributions]]; [[WP:SOCK#Identification and handling of inappropriate alternative accounts|this]] policy subsection may also be helpful.}}
case
variable to specify a different RFCU), but the only way to get the standard message to show up is to pass it a case name that doesn't--and won't ever--exist. This means that while it is relatively easy to fix going forward, it still has the same effect on the already-placed templates.auto
switch, although I agree that the implementation is a little ungainly. Any thoughts on an elegant way to implement this? --
jonny-
m
t
08:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure if it was a result of this edit, but exactly 300 sockpuppet categories became empty within the last day or 2 and are now listed at Special:Unusedcategories. These will all be elligible for speedy deletion in 4 days if they remain empty, so if they should not be empty, and it was a result of this edit, then something needs to be fixed. VegaDark ( talk) 17:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I haven't forgotten this template, I have just been doing a rethink. When I am fully sure how I would like to see this proceed, I will either bring it back here or to the Sockpuppet page. - LA @ 23:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
It should say "this account", not "this user". After all, aren't sockpuppets usually used by just one user?
Les Games (
talk)
02:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}} Still not done. It also has to be done on the "blocked" and "confirmed" versions. Les Games ( talk) 07:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}} Can you deleted the sock puppet suspect now please?
I imagine its from an IP tag - but no real details given
Sorry - was a terribly worded request.
Somehow my user ID - User:Hutch1970 got flagged as a suspected Sock Puppet. However, I have been able to edit since, and while I haven't contributed much, I believe that I've shown that I'm my own user :)
So - could you please remove the suspected sock puppet code from my user page please? Hutch1970 ( talk) 16:29, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}} Can an administrator add a "suspected sockpuppets" and a "confirmed sockpuppets" link next to "Account information:"? -- IRP ☎ 16:53, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Similar to the combining of the Checked and non-checked Sockpuppeteer templates, we are seriously considering updating this template to be the sole sockpuppet template with appropriate options for handling proven, confirmed, blocked, checked, evidence, etc. Unlike the puppeteer template, however, this is more complicated as various unnamed parser functions were mapped to different variables in the puppet templates. As such, I have built a brand-new sockpuppet template, which can be seen at
User:Avraham/Sandbox/SPOM and the performance of the template with its various options can be seen at
User:Avraham/Sandbox/SPOMTest. We have had many discussions on
WT:SPI about this, and we are relatively happy with the new template. All that is needed is for me to write out a complete mapping from all the old options to the new options (a subset can be seen here
WT:SPI#New combined sockpuppet template) and for nix-eagle's but to get approval to go and change the 15,000 or so instances of the existing template. If there is anyone with a specific problem with the planned overhaul and collapse of the various templates into one, please speak up or forever hold your peace
Thank you. --
Avi (
talk)
18:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
{{ucfirst}}
. The one that was required for category normalization was given a workaround so it doesn't start with a formatting character when the parameter does (per
bugzilla:12974). --
Splarka (
rant)
05:12, 10 September 2009 (UTC)<br />[[WP:SOCK#Identification and handling of inappropriate alternative accounts|This]] policy subsection may also be helpful.}}
Since the section linked to no longer exists, the link just takes readers to the TOP of WP:SOCK. Either this sentence should be deleted or a different and extant section of WP:SOCK linked to, right?
—
Paine's
Climax
09:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
Please replace the live version with the
sandbox version of this template. The only change is the sentence that reads, "[[Wikipedia:SOCK#Handling suspected sock puppets|This]] policy subsection may also be helpful." The live version's "This" link is a dead link to a non-existing section of WP:SOCK. So I have replaced it with "#Handling suspected sock puppets" section from the WP:SOCK policy. Thank you very much!— Ellsworth's Climax 04:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Could this: "and/or any sockpuppetry investigations..." be fixed to "or the sockpuppet investigation of the sockpuppeteer..." I know that the suggestion might not work, but adding a link to the SP/I of the suspected sockpuppeteer would be useful to anyone who would be looking for adding the user to the casepage. Kevin Rutherford ( talk) 20:41, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
So apparently that edit did work, for a few days, but I've noticed that this doesn't link to the SPI of the master. Also, does anyone think that having the main sockpuppet category is rather redundant as there is already a subcategory that will show up? I would support removing it as it will likely clean out most of the category of repeat listings. Kevin Rutherford ( talk) 22:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
{{
sockpuppet|Example2}}
gives
![]() | An editor has expressed a concern that this account may be a
sockpuppet of
Example2 (
talk ·
contribs ·
logs). Please refer to editing habits or contributions of the sockpuppet for evidence. This policy subsection may be helpful. Account information: block log – contribs – logs – abuse log – CentralAuth |
Cirt brought up a good point on my talk page and it gave me an idea. I know that we have a parameter in the confirmed sock template for a block that is a certain length. I have recently observed a time period block on a suspected sock which later ended up being confirmed and I was wondering if a parameter could be added to this one that would allow a block length to be acknowledged on the template since the only block acknowledgement here is an indefinite block. Kevin Rutherford ( talk) 01:22, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
|length=
parameter. For example {{sockpuppet|Example2|blocked|length=2 months}} produces:
![]() | This account is a suspected
sockpuppet of
Example2 (
talk ·
contribs ·
logs) and has been
blocked for 2 months. Please refer to editing habits or contributions of the sockpuppet for evidence. This policy subsection may be helpful. Account information: block log – contribs – logs – abuse log – CentralAuth |
![]() |
![]() | This account is a suspected
sockpuppet of
Example2 (
talk ·
contribs ·
logs) and has been
blocked for until June 13, 2011. Please refer to editing habits or contributions of the sockpuppet for evidence. This policy subsection may be helpful. Account information: block log – contribs – logs – abuse log – CentralAuth |
![]() |
This message is to inform people monitoring this talk page that there is an "editprotected" request involving this and several other templates at Template talk:! cymru.lass (hit me up)⁄ (background check) 20:46, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello! If a sockpuppet's username starts with a wiki syntax (such as *, #, :, etc), the links to the account's block log, contributions and log are messed up. Is there a way to fix this problem? Hey Mid ( contribs) 15:09, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
{{
editrequested}}
1: Change the link from the expired "eagle" autoblock finder to http://toolserver.org/~nakon/autoblockfinder.php?u=
2: Also, perform this edit, which fixes links for usernames that start with an asterisk (*). Hey Mid ( contribs) 16:47, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
For the confirmed option, the text should be changed to:
This account has been blocked indefinitely because CheckUser confirms it is a sock puppet of {{{2}}}.
It's more in line with {{ sockpuppeteer}}. — Kudu ~I/O~ 17:36, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Is this okay to replace from
"This account is a sock puppet of Example and has been blocked indefinitely." to "This account is a confirmed sock puppet of Example and has been blocked indefinitely." Katarighe ( talk) 00:58, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
{{
edit protected}}
template.
Anomie
⚔
23:51, 9 November 2011 (UTC)![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Question; all pages in the user namespace are noindex by default - that is they are marked as not suitable for search engines to index and so won't normally show up in Google/Baidu/yahoo etc. Currently, this template explicit sets pages to be noindex. The intent of this could be taken to be that, were the site-wide setting for userpages be changed, user-pages including this template would continue to be hidden from search engines. If it's not simple an oversight, this seems to be a slightly off-policy sweeping of our dirt under the carpet.
Suggest that we remove the offending clause? - TB ( talk) 10:06, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
'enwiki' => array( NS_USER_TALK => 'noindex,follow', ),
I see what appear to be some possible problems in the template source code.
I would also like to see the "Suspected" sock category group split in two — so that "suspected but not yet blocked/confirmed" socks can be easily distinguished from "blocked on behavioural evidence" socks. Possibly categorize the first (not yet investigated) group as "Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets" or "Possible Wikipedia sockpuppets", and the second group as "Presumed Wikipedia sockpuppets". I believe this would make it easier to identify sock tags that are new and which should be looked into ASAP — whether for blocking (per behavioural or checkuser evidence), or to have the tag removed if the sock suspicion turns out to be groundless. Comments? — Rich wales 06:22, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
![]() | consensus in all these discussions clearly favors the "puppeteer" graphic that has long been in use. Beeblebrox ( talk) 18:43, 6 May 2013 (UTC) |
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The good ol' File:Puppeter template.svg has been replaced with a blue info circle. I disagree with this, and left a message here: User talk:Reaper Eternal/Archive 21#Sockpuppet templates. Cheers, theFace 19:05, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
|image = [[File:{{#ifeq:{{{2}}}|confirmed|Puppeter template|System-users}}.svg|45px]]
–
theFace
19:17, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
A few days ago, User:Reaper Eternal altered Template:Sockpuppet and among other things removed the puppeteer picture, which causes the template to display the default blue dot image. I think this is rather ugly, so me and another user asked him to put it back ( now archived). After getting no response I summoned an admin to do it, who refused. Meanwhile, I discovered that Reaper Eternal also changed Template:Sockpuppeteer, [6] as well as Template:Banned user [7] and Template:Blocked user [8] last December.
I know this isn't exactly the most important RfC ever, and I'm wondering if we can't just restore the image and forget about this. Then again, the Sockpuppet and Sockpuppeteer templates are used on ten-thousands of pages. Blocked and Banned user are also frequently applied. So if someone happens to disagree with the new designs... go ahead and say. Cheers, theFace 10:58, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
|image=[[File:{{#switch:{{{2}}}|case=blocked|result=Stop x nuvola|case=confirmed|result=Sock block|Information icon4}}.svg|45px]]
. This will show the blue info dot for suspected sockpuppets, for unconfirmed but blocked accounts there would be
File:Stop x nuvola.svg and confirmed sockpuppets should be tagged with
File:Sock block.svg. That way the problem would quickly become obvious for the visiting admins. And after all, I don't think that the old sockmaster icon was purporting anything evil or negative as Reaper argued in his edit summaries.
De728631 (
talk)
17:02, 30 March 2013 (UTC)![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Regarding the RFC it seems to me that we have a consensus to revert the changes to the icons made by Reaper Eternal. I therefore request that this version of the template be restored, but please add __NOINDEX__ too (see discussion above). I could do that myself but I feel too WP:INVOLVED. De728631 ( talk) 14:53, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Done
King of
♥
♦
♣ ♠
09:28, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
I find it extremely odd that a template change with site-wide effects was decided with a grand total of, if I'm counting right, nine participants. Perhaps that was a side effect of it being listed as a "style" issue. Either way, it was poorly-advertised. I'm relisting it as a policy RfC (seeing as it derives from implementation of policy) and adding it to {{ centralized discussion}}. Since I'm doing that I'll not state any opinion on the matter. — Scott • talk 11:22, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
{{ rfc}}
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Can the link to WP:CU please be changed to WP:CHECKUSER ( WP:CU is apparently a dab page for various things that could be used for "CU"). The protection of this template should also be changed so template-editors may fix things as needed. — Locke Cole • t • c 11:10, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Is there any difference between "editing habits" and "contributions"? Toccata quarta ( talk) 18:24, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
The template is currently broken, apparently due to an invalid second parameter to {{ user3}}. See User:Courcellez2. - Mike Rosoft ( talk) 19:15, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
The message says "the sockpuppet investigation of the sockpuppeteer for evidence", where the underlined text would be linked either to the SPI of the sockpuppeteer (if an SPI case page for it exists) or else to WP:SPI itself (if no existing case page). The linked phrase only sounds like it's talking about the idea of SPI, not the specific of this one. I think it would be more correctly self-descriptive to make the link include that detail: "the sockpuppet investigation of the sockpuppeteer for evidence" if such a page exists. If no such page, then a link to the page about the process still makes sense (to help someone file it). But it would be clearer in that case if it somehow noted that one is being instructed to see a page that doesn't (yet) exist. I can make the change, but wanted to see if anyone had thoughts against it before boldly editing such a heavily used template. DMacks ( talk) 20:38, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
How do I indicate that checkuser has confirmed a sock but the sock is not blocked? (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Majogomezsz) -- Auric talk 10:29, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello, alternate accounts are allowed, Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Legitimate uses and there are templates that illustrate this exception. I suggest we add this entry to Template:Sockpuppet/doc
Allowed sockpuppet | {{User Alternate Acct|username}}
|
|
Thewhitebox ( talk) 10:30, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Template:Sockpuppet has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There is a grammar mistake. When I use the blocked or confirmed parameter, it says "Please refer to sockpuppet investigation". It should say, "Please refer to the sockpuppet investigation". Gparyani ( talk) 17:16, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
{{
edit template-protected}}
template. They are both grammatically correct and smaller template size is preferred. — {{U|
Technical 13}} (
e •
t •
c)
13:03, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
{{
edit template-protected}}
template. Except there could be multiple investigations so using a definitive would be inappropriate and you'll need to establish a consensus or offer replacement code in the sandbox that addresses the multi-investigation issue with using "the". — {{U|
Technical 13}} (
e •
t •
c)
03:16, 5 May 2015 (UTC) Already done by Salvidrim!.
Gparyani (
talk)
03:51, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Template:Sockpuppet has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I noticed that the word "user" in CheckUser is not properly capitalized, it appears as Checkuser instead of CheckUser. Could you fix this please? -- TL22 ( talk) 01:36, 27 April 2015 (UTC) TL22 ( talk) 01:36, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
{{
edit template-protected}}
template. Yeah, Checkuser seems correct to me too here. — {{U|
Technical 13}} (
e •
t •
c)
02:49, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Template:Sockpuppet has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The term "sock puppet" is incorrect. Common usage is "sockpuppet". Please change that. TL22 ( talk) 14:50, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Template:Sockpuppet has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add the spanish interwiki. It is [[es:Plantilla:Títere]]
.
TL22 (
talk)
20:58, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
I sometimes read This user may be an abusive sockpuppet of [X]; see {{{evidence}}} for evidence, even where this template has recently been applied. (Or recently reapplied. There are, of course, lengthy edit wars over provision of these templates.) Well, where's the evidence? If there is evidence, specify it; if there isn't, don't apply the template. -- Hoary 11:11, 2005 May 28 (UTC)
The administrators should meet privately, not have a whole public post to humiliate people. This is exactly like the Salem Witch Trials. -- Max 15:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Regarding the current edit war on Enviroknot's user page, I feel that this template is inherently a personal attack. I read the TfD debate, and I feel that several users agreed with my sentiments. I think that "evidence" should be restricted to very clear evidence for each user. This would often constitute a link to a mailing list archive where the users with the checkuser function have confirmed sockpuppetry. If there is a reasonable dispute, and no incontrovertible evidence, the template should probably be removed, as it would ignore WP:FAITH. smoddy 09:20, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
(after edit conflict) If a user has been banned, or is inactive, there surely isn't any need for the warning. I suppose that we need to ask two questions:
My answer to the first is that it's there to inform other editors (and especially admins), who might not be aware of what's going on. My answer to the second is that there should be reasonable grounds for the suspicion. The corrollary to my first answer is that the image is inappropriate. The template should be noticeable but formal; it should merely inform the reader that there's a possible problem with this editor's behaviour, and leave it at that. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 10:51, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Would anyone mind if I cut this down and removed the image? The object could be done in a far less disruptive and antagonistic fashion. smoddy 10:31, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
![]() |
It is believed that this user may be an abusive sockpuppet of [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]]; see {{{evidence}}} for evidence.}} |
[[Category:Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets of {{{1}}}|Sockpuppet/Archive 1]]
![]() |
It is believed that this user may be an abusive sockpuppet of [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]]; see {{{evidence}}} for evidence.}} |
[[Category:Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets of {{{1}}}|Sockpuppet/Archive 1]]
Even apart from the glitch in the first, I prefer the second. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 13:25, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I think that this looks much better — more professional, less like a personal attack. Whether it makes any difference to those people to whose User pages it's applied is another matter, of course... Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 13:57, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
{{sockpuppet|Sock-mastername|[[WP:RFAR]]}}
{{sockpuppet|Sock-mastername|[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RFAr]}}
Mirv added an evidence variable without any prior discussion that broke 90% of the pages using this template. Somebody either fixes every broken page, or the evidence variable must be removed. — Cantus… ☎ 05:23, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
I see no problem with having the general category, but it seems there are just a lot of red links, because it puts the username in each category name. Hardly no one uses it that way, I suggest just using Category:Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets, as it seems the majority of them go there anyway. ∞ Who ?¿? 07:20, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure what I think of the idea behind this template in general. One immediate concern I have is that the apps_important icon is usually used to indicate a serious system problem. The icon carries negative connotations. Since this template is applied to a user who is only suspected of being a SP, and since there is no standard (AFAIK) for applying the template, I'd like to try a "softer" icon. I'll go ahead and change it to a different one that seems to apply. Most of the ones that would be suitable can be found here. This is just suggested as a trial change, I'm certainly not tied to it. - O^O 18:30, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Has the category changed for sock puppets? If so we should update the template. - Will Beback 07:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
What/where are the guidelines for the usage of this template? Can any user place it, once a determination has come back from Checkuser? Or should it only be placed by admins? What should happen if it is properly placed, but then the user persists in removing it, even though checkuser confirms the status.? -- Elonka 15:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm planning to replace the existing template with the newer template. Here's the template:
Do you support or oppose? I support for this template. -- Bigtop ( customer service - thank you for your cooperation.) 06:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Please change a redirect from Wikipedia:Sock puppet to Wikipedia:Sock puppetry on the main protected template page. Also please replace:
<small>See [{{SERVER}}/wiki/Special:Log/block?page=User:{{PAGENAMEE}} block log]</small>
by
<small><span class="plainlinks">[{{fullurl:Special:Log/block|page=User:{{PAGENAMEE}}}} block log.]</span></small>
so that the arrow in superscript after "block log" will not appear visibly. -- ADNghiem501 06:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Why is User:BetacommandBot subst:ing all uses of this template? — Quarl ( talk) 2006-07-29 17:40Z
I have subst'ed per WP:SUBST but i have also seen some other pages that say that certien templates should be subst'ed {some are not on WP:SUBST} there must have been a error. at the time i was collecting a list of template that should be subst'ed. I believe there was an error, I apllogise for that mistake and have fixed the error in my bot. if at any time anyone has questions about my bot please leave a comment on its talk page. i have a failsafe in plase so that when there is a comment it stops working untill i review the message. Betacommand 04:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Could someone change See block log. to See ( current autoblocks block log) or something like that?-- 205.188.116.12 03:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
sysops, please add interlang to ja:Template:Sockpuppet.-- 端くれの錬金術師 08:19, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
sysops,please change interlang for cs: from cs:Šablona:Sockpuppet to cs:Šablona:Loutkový účet. It has been moved. -- hashikure( talk) 18:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Image:Puppeter_template.gif would be a more appropriate icon. See {{ SockpuppetProven}} for example. — SMcCandlish [ talk] [ contrib ツ 23:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
What cat should this template be in? Rich Farmbrough, 11:30 12 December 2006 (GMT).
Like we have on {{ Sockpuppeteer}}, could someone add the following code to the start of the template message?
{{#ifeq:{{{2|}}}|blocked|This user has been [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked indefinitely]] because it|It}} is suspected that {{#ifeq:{{{2|}}}|blocked|he/she|this user}} might be a [[Wikipedia:Sock puppetry|sock puppet]] or impersonator of [[User:{{ucfirst:{{{1}}}}}|{{ucfirst:{{{1}}}}}]]'''.
-- AAA! ( AAAA) 03:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, this is a pretty useless request, but could someone just add a full stop at the end of the bolded sentence? -- AAA! ( AAAA) 03:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
{{editprotected}} Isn't "sockpuppet" one word? If so, could you change it? -- AAA! ( AAAA) 12:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
We can't be sure that we're dealing with sockpuppetry rather than meatpuppetry or mimicry, especially with the "suspected" template rather than the confirmed one, so it's important to make that clear. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Hello. Users tagged with this template are tagged because they may be sockpuppets, not because they may be impersonators. If they are impersonators, the tagging is simply incorrect. Using impersonators as a catch-all is like saying "This user is blocked because they are vandals or misunderstood". ;) —{ admin} Pathoschild 06:56:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Why is {{{evidence}}} linked? This means you can't (at least not without hacking the template) put links inside. If it wasn't linked, you could put one or more. Superm401 - Talk 06:46, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Sunfazer changed the image used from SVG to PNG without explanation; Lbmixpro reverted. This seems right because image policy says SVG should generally be used for icons. If something's wrong with the SVG, please explain here. Superm401 - Talk 20:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
This template categorizes users into [[Category:Wikipedia:Sock puppets of {{{1}}}|{{PAGENAME}}]], whereas {{ SockpuppetCheckuser}} categorizes users into [[Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of {{{1}}}|{{PAGENAME}}]] (the difference is one colon, one space, and the capitalization on the S). I would be bold and make this consistent, but I'm not sure which one should take precedence, or which one is in more common use. -- Ais523 12:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I've reverted the image additions to the template; my intent in creating this specific derivative of the {{ sockpuppet}} template was to have a template that followed the uniform sockpuppet style, but eliminated the evidence link in favor of the specific notation that the determination was made by checkuser. I think it's probably best to leave the basic format in the standard socktag format; I think the only big difference is the width, which I shortened because there was less text involved, and perhaps the addition of the log links at the bottom (which make checking block status on a dozen sockpuppets much quicker). Essjay ( Talk • Connect) 06:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Take a look at User:100% Christian, where this template is used. You'll notice that the bottom part says "Christian all logs" instead of "all logs", and the link points to User:100%. There's some kind of problem with accounts with special characters. Can it be fixed? Grand master ka 04:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
In the case of an abusive sockpuppet which has been confirmed, but is not blocked, which template should be used? -- El on ka 17:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}} If you've seen this edit I made to {{ SockpuppetProven}}, you'll see that I reverted Pathochild's edit, because I preferred the old message than the one we have now. But then I saw that the templates have merged into this template, so I reverted myself afterwards. But I really liked the old message (and I'm sure others did to), so I took the code and fiddled around it on this page I made. I've now changed the code around so it will produce the following:
{{User:AAA!/Sockpuppet|example}}
{{User:AAA!/Sockpuppet|example|blocked}}
{{User:AAA!/Sockpuppet|example|confirmed}}
You can see that I've changed the message on the "confirmed" function to the one I preferred. I've also tested the parameters, which you can see here: [1] [2] [3]. But there is also a glitch in it: If you don't add the user name parameter, the template will produce the following:
But since I know you usually have to add a user parameter, I added <noinclude> and <inludeonly> tags so the other parameters will be unnaffected by this problem [4]. But the only way I know to overcome this problem is to always use a user parameter.
Anyway, if that glitch can be fixed so I don't have to use the <noinclude> and <inludeonly> tags, I was wondering if an admin could replace the current code on the template with the code I made ( here it is, by the way). Thanks. -- AAA! ( AAAA) 05:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Former | This user has been blocked indefinitely because the user is a sock puppet of Pathoschild. |
---|---|
Proposed | This user is a sock puppet of Pathoschild, and has been blocked indefinitely. |
{{ editprotected}} Can someone fix the Sockpuppet templates category by adding |Sockpuppet at the end ([[Category:Sockpuppet templates]] → [[Category:Sockpuppet templates|Sockpuppet]])? Thanks, Clyde (a.k.a Mystytopia) 13:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
Please replace this .png image:
to this .svg version:
68.5.224.107
20:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
How it should look like:
I added a switch so that confirmed and blocked now keys this category too, as both imply indefblocked. -- Avi 16:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}}
Please could someone change the design so it looks similar to this:
The background colour is taken from
it:w:Template:Sockpuppet. The above design is from a copy in my userspace for testing.
The text doesn't need changing, just the background design. -- SunStar Net talk 16:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}}
Shouldn't this template just be redirected to {{ Blockedsockpuppet}} because they are identical. The sunder king 15:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
A user who had all his socks blocked wasn't logged in and removed all the sock tags from his socks' userpages. He'd like to know why, if the sock has been blocked (or "dead" as he calls it), why he can't remove the tags. I had reverted the anon changes as unexplained, besides which it looks like he's trying to cover his tracks, but there's no provision in the guidelines for the permanence or removal of such tags, is there? I think the tags should stay, but there seems to be no guideline regarding this that I can show him. Any help appreciated, thanks! Katr67 ( talk) 17:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
The question still stands.[User:Richprentice|Richprentice]] ( talk) 03:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Why is a sock puppet illustrated by a picture of a marionette? AlmostReadytoFly ( talk) 18:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello, fellow editors ... I recently had occasion to apply this template to the Talk page of a user whose User page was redlinked ... I think that instead of
this user may be a sock puppet of Stephanie biddle.
it should appear as
this user may be a sock puppet of Stephanie biddle ( talk · contribs).
i.e., instead of
[[User:Example|Example]]
use
{{User|Example}}
I would do it myself, but the page is currently protected. :-)
Happy Editing! — 151.200.237.53 ( talk · contribs) 09:53, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
At present, the template links to the word “this” thus
I ask that the link be to “this policy subsection” instead.
Two reasons:
— SlamDiego ←T 23:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Lady_Aleena made changes to this template in the last day, and now it appears that it's no longer possible to pass a third parameter to link the template to another page. However, Template:SockpuppetCheckuser (which uses Template:Sockpuppet) needs that third parameter to link in a RFCU page. Am I misunderstanding how this works, or will this be fixed?
(Also asked at Lady_Aleena's talk page)
Dori ( Talk • Contribs) 03:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
{{#if:{{{case|}}}|{{#ifeq:{{{case}}}|auto|{{#ifexist:Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/{{{1}}}|Please see [[Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/{{{1}}}]] for evidence.|{{#ifexist:Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/{{{1}}}|Please see [[Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/{{{1}}}]] for evidence and discussion.|Please refer to editing habits and [[Special:Contributions/{{PAGENAME}}|contributions]]; [[WP:SOCK#Identification and handling of inappropriate alternative accounts|this]] policy subsection may also be helpful.}}}}|{{#ifexist:Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/{{{case}}}|Please see [[Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/{{{case}}}]] for evidence.|{{#ifexist:Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/{{{case}}}|Please see [[Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/{{{case}}}]] for evidence and discussion.|Please refer to editing habits and [[Special:Contributions/{{PAGENAME}}|contributions]]; [[WP:SOCK#Identification and handling of inappropriate alternative accounts|this]] policy subsection may also be helpful.}}}}}}|Please refer to editing habits and [[Special:Contributions/{{PAGENAME}}|contributions]]; [[WP:SOCK#Identification and handling of inappropriate alternative accounts|this]] policy subsection may also be helpful.}}
{{#ifexist:Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/{{{case|{{{1}}}}}}|Please see [[Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/{{{case|{{{1}}}}}}]] for evidence.|{{#ifexist:Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/{{{case|{{{1}}}}}}|Please see [[Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/{{{case|{{{1}}}}}}]] for evidence and discussion.|Please refer to editing habits and [[Special:Contributions/{{PAGENAME}}|contributions]]; [[WP:SOCK#Identification and handling of inappropriate alternative accounts|this]] policy subsection may also be helpful.}}}}}}|Please refer to editing habits and [[Special:Contributions/{{PAGENAME}}|contributions]]; [[WP:SOCK#Identification and handling of inappropriate alternative accounts|this]] policy subsection may also be helpful.}}
case
variable to specify a different RFCU), but the only way to get the standard message to show up is to pass it a case name that doesn't--and won't ever--exist. This means that while it is relatively easy to fix going forward, it still has the same effect on the already-placed templates.auto
switch, although I agree that the implementation is a little ungainly. Any thoughts on an elegant way to implement this? --
jonny-
m
t
08:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure if it was a result of this edit, but exactly 300 sockpuppet categories became empty within the last day or 2 and are now listed at Special:Unusedcategories. These will all be elligible for speedy deletion in 4 days if they remain empty, so if they should not be empty, and it was a result of this edit, then something needs to be fixed. VegaDark ( talk) 17:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I haven't forgotten this template, I have just been doing a rethink. When I am fully sure how I would like to see this proceed, I will either bring it back here or to the Sockpuppet page. - LA @ 23:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
It should say "this account", not "this user". After all, aren't sockpuppets usually used by just one user?
Les Games (
talk)
02:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}} Still not done. It also has to be done on the "blocked" and "confirmed" versions. Les Games ( talk) 07:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}} Can you deleted the sock puppet suspect now please?
I imagine its from an IP tag - but no real details given
Sorry - was a terribly worded request.
Somehow my user ID - User:Hutch1970 got flagged as a suspected Sock Puppet. However, I have been able to edit since, and while I haven't contributed much, I believe that I've shown that I'm my own user :)
So - could you please remove the suspected sock puppet code from my user page please? Hutch1970 ( talk) 16:29, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}} Can an administrator add a "suspected sockpuppets" and a "confirmed sockpuppets" link next to "Account information:"? -- IRP ☎ 16:53, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Similar to the combining of the Checked and non-checked Sockpuppeteer templates, we are seriously considering updating this template to be the sole sockpuppet template with appropriate options for handling proven, confirmed, blocked, checked, evidence, etc. Unlike the puppeteer template, however, this is more complicated as various unnamed parser functions were mapped to different variables in the puppet templates. As such, I have built a brand-new sockpuppet template, which can be seen at
User:Avraham/Sandbox/SPOM and the performance of the template with its various options can be seen at
User:Avraham/Sandbox/SPOMTest. We have had many discussions on
WT:SPI about this, and we are relatively happy with the new template. All that is needed is for me to write out a complete mapping from all the old options to the new options (a subset can be seen here
WT:SPI#New combined sockpuppet template) and for nix-eagle's but to get approval to go and change the 15,000 or so instances of the existing template. If there is anyone with a specific problem with the planned overhaul and collapse of the various templates into one, please speak up or forever hold your peace
Thank you. --
Avi (
talk)
18:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
{{ucfirst}}
. The one that was required for category normalization was given a workaround so it doesn't start with a formatting character when the parameter does (per
bugzilla:12974). --
Splarka (
rant)
05:12, 10 September 2009 (UTC)<br />[[WP:SOCK#Identification and handling of inappropriate alternative accounts|This]] policy subsection may also be helpful.}}
Since the section linked to no longer exists, the link just takes readers to the TOP of WP:SOCK. Either this sentence should be deleted or a different and extant section of WP:SOCK linked to, right?
—
Paine's
Climax
09:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
Please replace the live version with the
sandbox version of this template. The only change is the sentence that reads, "[[Wikipedia:SOCK#Handling suspected sock puppets|This]] policy subsection may also be helpful." The live version's "This" link is a dead link to a non-existing section of WP:SOCK. So I have replaced it with "#Handling suspected sock puppets" section from the WP:SOCK policy. Thank you very much!— Ellsworth's Climax 04:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Could this: "and/or any sockpuppetry investigations..." be fixed to "or the sockpuppet investigation of the sockpuppeteer..." I know that the suggestion might not work, but adding a link to the SP/I of the suspected sockpuppeteer would be useful to anyone who would be looking for adding the user to the casepage. Kevin Rutherford ( talk) 20:41, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
So apparently that edit did work, for a few days, but I've noticed that this doesn't link to the SPI of the master. Also, does anyone think that having the main sockpuppet category is rather redundant as there is already a subcategory that will show up? I would support removing it as it will likely clean out most of the category of repeat listings. Kevin Rutherford ( talk) 22:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
{{
sockpuppet|Example2}}
gives
![]() | An editor has expressed a concern that this account may be a
sockpuppet of
Example2 (
talk ·
contribs ·
logs). Please refer to editing habits or contributions of the sockpuppet for evidence. This policy subsection may be helpful. Account information: block log – contribs – logs – abuse log – CentralAuth |
Cirt brought up a good point on my talk page and it gave me an idea. I know that we have a parameter in the confirmed sock template for a block that is a certain length. I have recently observed a time period block on a suspected sock which later ended up being confirmed and I was wondering if a parameter could be added to this one that would allow a block length to be acknowledged on the template since the only block acknowledgement here is an indefinite block. Kevin Rutherford ( talk) 01:22, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
|length=
parameter. For example {{sockpuppet|Example2|blocked|length=2 months}} produces:
![]() | This account is a suspected
sockpuppet of
Example2 (
talk ·
contribs ·
logs) and has been
blocked for 2 months. Please refer to editing habits or contributions of the sockpuppet for evidence. This policy subsection may be helpful. Account information: block log – contribs – logs – abuse log – CentralAuth |
![]() |
![]() | This account is a suspected
sockpuppet of
Example2 (
talk ·
contribs ·
logs) and has been
blocked for until June 13, 2011. Please refer to editing habits or contributions of the sockpuppet for evidence. This policy subsection may be helpful. Account information: block log – contribs – logs – abuse log – CentralAuth |
![]() |
This message is to inform people monitoring this talk page that there is an "editprotected" request involving this and several other templates at Template talk:! cymru.lass (hit me up)⁄ (background check) 20:46, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello! If a sockpuppet's username starts with a wiki syntax (such as *, #, :, etc), the links to the account's block log, contributions and log are messed up. Is there a way to fix this problem? Hey Mid ( contribs) 15:09, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
{{
editrequested}}
1: Change the link from the expired "eagle" autoblock finder to http://toolserver.org/~nakon/autoblockfinder.php?u=
2: Also, perform this edit, which fixes links for usernames that start with an asterisk (*). Hey Mid ( contribs) 16:47, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
For the confirmed option, the text should be changed to:
This account has been blocked indefinitely because CheckUser confirms it is a sock puppet of {{{2}}}.
It's more in line with {{ sockpuppeteer}}. — Kudu ~I/O~ 17:36, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Is this okay to replace from
"This account is a sock puppet of Example and has been blocked indefinitely." to "This account is a confirmed sock puppet of Example and has been blocked indefinitely." Katarighe ( talk) 00:58, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
{{
edit protected}}
template.
Anomie
⚔
23:51, 9 November 2011 (UTC)![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Question; all pages in the user namespace are noindex by default - that is they are marked as not suitable for search engines to index and so won't normally show up in Google/Baidu/yahoo etc. Currently, this template explicit sets pages to be noindex. The intent of this could be taken to be that, were the site-wide setting for userpages be changed, user-pages including this template would continue to be hidden from search engines. If it's not simple an oversight, this seems to be a slightly off-policy sweeping of our dirt under the carpet.
Suggest that we remove the offending clause? - TB ( talk) 10:06, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
'enwiki' => array( NS_USER_TALK => 'noindex,follow', ),
I see what appear to be some possible problems in the template source code.
I would also like to see the "Suspected" sock category group split in two — so that "suspected but not yet blocked/confirmed" socks can be easily distinguished from "blocked on behavioural evidence" socks. Possibly categorize the first (not yet investigated) group as "Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets" or "Possible Wikipedia sockpuppets", and the second group as "Presumed Wikipedia sockpuppets". I believe this would make it easier to identify sock tags that are new and which should be looked into ASAP — whether for blocking (per behavioural or checkuser evidence), or to have the tag removed if the sock suspicion turns out to be groundless. Comments? — Rich wales 06:22, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
![]() | consensus in all these discussions clearly favors the "puppeteer" graphic that has long been in use. Beeblebrox ( talk) 18:43, 6 May 2013 (UTC) |
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The good ol' File:Puppeter template.svg has been replaced with a blue info circle. I disagree with this, and left a message here: User talk:Reaper Eternal/Archive 21#Sockpuppet templates. Cheers, theFace 19:05, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
|image = [[File:{{#ifeq:{{{2}}}|confirmed|Puppeter template|System-users}}.svg|45px]]
–
theFace
19:17, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
A few days ago, User:Reaper Eternal altered Template:Sockpuppet and among other things removed the puppeteer picture, which causes the template to display the default blue dot image. I think this is rather ugly, so me and another user asked him to put it back ( now archived). After getting no response I summoned an admin to do it, who refused. Meanwhile, I discovered that Reaper Eternal also changed Template:Sockpuppeteer, [6] as well as Template:Banned user [7] and Template:Blocked user [8] last December.
I know this isn't exactly the most important RfC ever, and I'm wondering if we can't just restore the image and forget about this. Then again, the Sockpuppet and Sockpuppeteer templates are used on ten-thousands of pages. Blocked and Banned user are also frequently applied. So if someone happens to disagree with the new designs... go ahead and say. Cheers, theFace 10:58, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
|image=[[File:{{#switch:{{{2}}}|case=blocked|result=Stop x nuvola|case=confirmed|result=Sock block|Information icon4}}.svg|45px]]
. This will show the blue info dot for suspected sockpuppets, for unconfirmed but blocked accounts there would be
File:Stop x nuvola.svg and confirmed sockpuppets should be tagged with
File:Sock block.svg. That way the problem would quickly become obvious for the visiting admins. And after all, I don't think that the old sockmaster icon was purporting anything evil or negative as Reaper argued in his edit summaries.
De728631 (
talk)
17:02, 30 March 2013 (UTC)![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Regarding the RFC it seems to me that we have a consensus to revert the changes to the icons made by Reaper Eternal. I therefore request that this version of the template be restored, but please add __NOINDEX__ too (see discussion above). I could do that myself but I feel too WP:INVOLVED. De728631 ( talk) 14:53, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Done
King of
♥
♦
♣ ♠
09:28, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
I find it extremely odd that a template change with site-wide effects was decided with a grand total of, if I'm counting right, nine participants. Perhaps that was a side effect of it being listed as a "style" issue. Either way, it was poorly-advertised. I'm relisting it as a policy RfC (seeing as it derives from implementation of policy) and adding it to {{ centralized discussion}}. Since I'm doing that I'll not state any opinion on the matter. — Scott • talk 11:22, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
{{ rfc}}
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Can the link to WP:CU please be changed to WP:CHECKUSER ( WP:CU is apparently a dab page for various things that could be used for "CU"). The protection of this template should also be changed so template-editors may fix things as needed. — Locke Cole • t • c 11:10, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Is there any difference between "editing habits" and "contributions"? Toccata quarta ( talk) 18:24, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
The template is currently broken, apparently due to an invalid second parameter to {{ user3}}. See User:Courcellez2. - Mike Rosoft ( talk) 19:15, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
The message says "the sockpuppet investigation of the sockpuppeteer for evidence", where the underlined text would be linked either to the SPI of the sockpuppeteer (if an SPI case page for it exists) or else to WP:SPI itself (if no existing case page). The linked phrase only sounds like it's talking about the idea of SPI, not the specific of this one. I think it would be more correctly self-descriptive to make the link include that detail: "the sockpuppet investigation of the sockpuppeteer for evidence" if such a page exists. If no such page, then a link to the page about the process still makes sense (to help someone file it). But it would be clearer in that case if it somehow noted that one is being instructed to see a page that doesn't (yet) exist. I can make the change, but wanted to see if anyone had thoughts against it before boldly editing such a heavily used template. DMacks ( talk) 20:38, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
How do I indicate that checkuser has confirmed a sock but the sock is not blocked? (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Majogomezsz) -- Auric talk 10:29, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello, alternate accounts are allowed, Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Legitimate uses and there are templates that illustrate this exception. I suggest we add this entry to Template:Sockpuppet/doc
Allowed sockpuppet | {{User Alternate Acct|username}}
|
|
Thewhitebox ( talk) 10:30, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Template:Sockpuppet has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There is a grammar mistake. When I use the blocked or confirmed parameter, it says "Please refer to sockpuppet investigation". It should say, "Please refer to the sockpuppet investigation". Gparyani ( talk) 17:16, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
{{
edit template-protected}}
template. They are both grammatically correct and smaller template size is preferred. — {{U|
Technical 13}} (
e •
t •
c)
13:03, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
{{
edit template-protected}}
template. Except there could be multiple investigations so using a definitive would be inappropriate and you'll need to establish a consensus or offer replacement code in the sandbox that addresses the multi-investigation issue with using "the". — {{U|
Technical 13}} (
e •
t •
c)
03:16, 5 May 2015 (UTC) Already done by Salvidrim!.
Gparyani (
talk)
03:51, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Template:Sockpuppet has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I noticed that the word "user" in CheckUser is not properly capitalized, it appears as Checkuser instead of CheckUser. Could you fix this please? -- TL22 ( talk) 01:36, 27 April 2015 (UTC) TL22 ( talk) 01:36, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
{{
edit template-protected}}
template. Yeah, Checkuser seems correct to me too here. — {{U|
Technical 13}} (
e •
t •
c)
02:49, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Template:Sockpuppet has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The term "sock puppet" is incorrect. Common usage is "sockpuppet". Please change that. TL22 ( talk) 14:50, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Template:Sockpuppet has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add the spanish interwiki. It is [[es:Plantilla:Títere]]
.
TL22 (
talk)
20:58, 22 June 2015 (UTC)