Template:Sockpuppeteer is permanently
protected from editing because it is a
heavily used or highly visible template. Substantial changes should first be proposed and discussed here on this page. If the proposal is uncontroversial or has been discussed and is supported by
consensus, editors may use {{
edit template-protected}} to notify an administrator or template editor to make the requested edit. Usually, any contributor may edit the template's
documentation to add usage notes or
categories.
Any contributor may edit the template's sandbox. Functionality of the template can be checked using test cases. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Sockpuppeteer template. |
|
This is a really nice looking warning box, but I'm concerned that the "puppet master" language might glorify sock-puppeting in the minds of the offenders. I'd like to suggest consideration for changing the language to something dismissive, basically to make it so that someone who has the {{sockpuppeteer}} tag on their page won't want to show it off to the rest of his friends in middleschool. Something along the lines of "This user is suspected or confirmed as using sock-puppets to evade bans/blocks" or some other defanged text. - CHAIRBOY ( ☎) 14:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Changed the wording in line with Chairboy's comment. Ashi b aka tock 06:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be easier just to say "to violate policy" rather then try and give a laundry list of things you can do with puppets? 68.39.174.238 23:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
The character sequence </br>
lacks any syntactical and semantical meaning. It should definitely be removed from ...sock puppets</br>to evade...
and changed to <br>
, <br />
or two real line breaks at ...puppets]].</small></br>''The use...
Anyway, you are free to use the toolbar above the editing box which has a button like this:
regards,
Torzsmokus 20:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
"Abuse, libel or ban evasion" - these are very different wiki crimes to be covered by such a broad brush. Avoiding 3rr or protectionist editing is not the same as abusive or libelous behaviour and I think having this catch all template lump these together could be libelous itself - remember some people do edit under their own names. Sophia 21:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I think you should add a contribution link somewhere, maybe before or after block log link. Code: [[Special:Contributions/{{PAGENAME}}]]
--
AAA! (
AAAA) 03:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I made an SVG version of the image used on this template. Perhaps it should be used? Improvement suggestions welcome. -- Midnightcomm 04:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I have added it. Thank you for creating it. Essjay (Talk) 03:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
{{
sockpuppeteerproven}}
Just a suggestion, but shouldn't that top sentence It is suspected that this user has used... be changed to It is suspected or confirmed that this user has used... I really think that adding "confirmed" would make the template sound more efficient and accurate because of two reasons:
See what I mean? Power level (Dragon Ball) 04:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Please change. "It is suspected that this user has used one or more accounts abusively" to "It is suspected or confirmed that this user has used one or more accounts abusively." Retiono Virginian 16:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
The {{sockpuppeteer|banned}} template now gives this line: This user has been blocked indefinitely because it is suspected that they have used one or more accounts abusively. - if you want in singular, you have to add "this user has" like {{sockpuppeteer|this user has|banned}}. Can it be done, that the singular form comes first? (without the need of adding "this user has") What is the reason for having a plural wording, anyway? -- Vince hey, yo! :-) 00:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Maybe change "It is suspected that..." to "It is supected or confirmed that..." -- AAA! ( AAAA) 08:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Setting confirmed or blocked says indef block.
Should we allow for a version that doesn't say indef blocked. Mayalld ( talk) 12:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
This user has been blocked indefinitely because it is suspected that this user has used one or more accounts abusively. ==> This user has been blocked indefinitely due to the suspicion that one or more accounts were used abusively.
This user has been blocked indefinitely because this user has used one or more accounts abusively. ==> This user has been blocked indefinitely due to the use of one or more accounts abusively.
-- IRP ☎ 22:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
For the second one, how about: This user has been blocked indefinitely because this user has used one or more accounts abusively. ==> This user has been blocked indefinitely due to their use of one or more accounts abusively.
{{ editprotected}} The wording "due to his or her use of one or more accounts abusively" which is used in the lower two alternatives ("proven" and "blocked with evidence") of this template sounds weird and is bad English. This should be changed to "due to his or her abusive use of one or more accounts". Is he back? ( talk) 14:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
Could someone please update the template from
Template:Sockpuppeteer/sandbox? The sandbox changes the SPI casepage link to 'Sockpuppet investigations case page' and if a casepage already exists for the sockpuppeteer, it makes it appear automagically in the links.
Foxy Loxy
Pounce! 11:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
Could the template please be updated with the contents of {{
Sockpuppeteer/sandbox}}? This makes it use {{
Mbox}}, instead of the deprecated messagebox
class. TIA. —
Ms2ger (
talk) 12:20, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm wondering if we can add a category that seperates suspected sockpuppeteers from confirmed sockpuppeteers. I just took a look at the category and I didn't know who was a sockpuppeteer and who was not. Maybe we can clarify this a bit? Taylor Karras ( talk) 07:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}}
Change abusively used "one or more accounts" to "multiple accounts". Abusing one account is not sockpuppetry. Triplestop x3 20:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
The wording is correct. This template is not to be used in cases when just a single account has been used. It is to be used when multiple accounts have been used, and at least one of the accounts has been used abusively. — RockMFR 03:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
The Category appears to be incorrect due to the renaming of cats from "Wikipedia confirmed sockpuppets . . ." to "Confirmed Wikipedia sockpuppets . . ." I'll try to work this myself when I get a moment. Also, the template seems to only work for newer sockpuppets as the evidence won't link to the older form of "Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/username".
When I made the emendations to this template a while back, the idea was to have it be the single puppeteer template. In that vein, I've expanded the examples in the documentation to show the specific CU and non-CU versions, and I'm slowly going through the {{ CheckedPuppeteer}}'s converting them. Any help would be appreciated :) -- Avi ( talk) 05:48, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
This should say ""account has been blocked indefinately" rather than user. Pages using this often have a "user has been banned" message too, I would say the account is blocked becasue the user is banned. Making the change, please let me know if you think it's wrong. Rich Farmbrough, 14:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC).
I have a suggestion: how about changing the wording of the templates that involve CheckUser to "CheckUser has confirmed that....". The reason being that AFAIK CheckUser is a one-time process that checks the offending/suspected accounts' IPs against another account/confirmed offender. When it's finished, the report appears on the appropriate page and that's it. It isn't like admins with CU rights can/do perform such checks any time at will, is it? :P CoolKoon ( talk) 21:02, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
{{Sockpuppeteer|timeblocked}} gives the following text: "This account has been blocked for a period of time due the operator's abusive use of one or more accounts." I believe "due" needs to be changed to "due to" in order for this sentence to convey the intended meaning using proper English. Any comments? If no one objects, I'll make this change. — Rich wales 15:45, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
I think it would be helpful if the account this template is used on has the option to include the account in "Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of foo" or "Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of" to automatically list the master account. The master acocunt could be given the name * to distinguish it (ie [[Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Foo|*]]). -- A Certain White Cat chi? 12:23, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I want to add the word 'the' in the {{
sockpuppeteer|timeblocked}}
section of the template the sentence currently doesn't make any sense.
Hto9950 ( talk | contribs) 07:13, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Per the discussion at Template talk:Sockpuppet#Tiny RfC, I think we should restore the sockmaster icon over here as well. It's neither evil nor threatening, and the blue dot is outright non-informative. De728631 ( talk) 15:01, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"Abusively using one or more accounts" is confusing. This could potentially be construed to mean that the user is abusively using his/her own account. I think that this should be changed to "abusively using two or more accounts" so that it is clear that it means that the user has been accused of socking specifically. Gparyani ( talk) 16:22, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Where is the template for allowed sockpuppets? Why isn't this included on this page in the see also section, or in the category? Thank you. Thewhitebox ( talk) 09:57, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Something is wrong in the following text: {{#if:|for {{{time}}}|}}}
; it has one closing curly bracket too many.
Eye
snore (
pc) 00:17, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Shouldnt this variety be reworded to say the account has actually been blocked not that it may need to be? 146.200.40.99 ( talk) 11:00, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
|proven
variety may serve to alert administrators that blocking is still required.
De728631 (
talk) 12:08, 28 February 2015 (UTC)This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
On the {{ sockpuppet}} template, when "checkuser" is used on the first parameter, a CheckUser image is added on the right. However, {{ sockpuppeteer}} does not do this. Please add the following markup inside the {{ Mbox}} thing:
|imageright={{#ifeq:{{{checked}}}|yes|[[File:Wikipedia Checkuser.svg|50px|alt=A CheckUser has confirmed that the operator of this account abusively used multiple accounts]]|}}
TL22 ( talk) 22:15, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
The sockpuppeteer template has one major issue: It don't have any options to tell that the puppeteer is both proven and blocked. How can we implement it? NasssaNser ( talk/ edits) 12:21, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Putting this here as a request because I don't really know what I'm doing with templates and don't want to screw things up. It'd be nice if the template would include a link to the sockmaster's SPI, in more cases than it currently does. Since this template is meant only to appear on the sockmaster's user page, and in theory if there is an SPI it'll be under the sockmaster's name (or redirected to the sockmaster's name) I think that it should be easy enough to implement. I just don't know how to do it. Cheers. Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 13:58, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
|spipage=
parameter but, it isn't automatically included because there are cases where the name of the established sockpuppeteer and the SPI page are different. I think though it should be possible to implement a default check in this template to search for an SPI page of the same name. If it exists, it should be linked, if the name is different, the parameter value could be added manually.
De728631 (
talk) 14:38, 14 April 2017 (UTC)The wording This account has been blocked indefinitely because...
kinda bothers me. See
User:JoshuSasori -- that account was blocked for issuing off-wiki threats, then multiple non-CU-able SPIs found that he was evading his block via IPs, then a single sock account was found, CU was requested and initially endorsed, but not performed because the account admitted to being the same person. Then CheckUser was performed two days later and found a couple of sleepers. Later that week the user was site-banned for reasons unrelated to his sockpuppetry. I kinda feel like the majority of users who are blocked for some reason, then evade their blocks, are CUed, and tagged, are in this same situation, only perhaps a little less serious because their main post-block misbehaviour was the act of evading their block in-and-of itself rather than (in the JS case) continuing their off-wiki harassment.
Wouldn't a parameter being added to say CheckUser evidence confirms that the owner of this account has abusively used multiple accounts, and the account has been blocked
be a good idea?
Or, honestly, changing the "Usage" from "Not blocked" to "Not blocked, or blocked for reasons unrelated to sockpuppetry"?
Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 23:48, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Can we have an option here related to WP:3STRIKES, alerting admins that this editor should not be lightly unblocked? -- Dirk Beetstra T C 18:48, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I would like to transfer the contents of {{ Sockpuppeteer/sandbox}} to {{ Sockpuppeteer}}; there is a new parameter in the sandbox for linking to long-term abuse reports. Phil roc (c) 12:58, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
| lta=y
unnecessary.
Cabayi (
talk) 13:16, 13 October 2018 (UTC)This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I'd like to modify the centralauth link to point to meta.wikimedia (since that's where most CentralAuth operations/logging happens). Please see this diff for the proposed changes (adding meta: in front of the Special:CentralAuth link). Regards Sau226 ( talk) 08:44, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
{{
edit template-protected}}
template.
Cabayi (
talk) 12:53, 28 October 2018 (UTC)This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Implement a few extra parameters from its sister template, {{
Sockpuppet}}
. See sandbox for proposed changes and
WT:SPI for discussion relating to this.
qedk (
t 桜
c) 18:12, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I noticed the |imageright=
parameter fails if both |1=
and |checked=
are given, resulting in a sort of "blockedconfirmed" parameter which fails every switch case. Just a minor change to switch it only if |checked=
is missing. See
here for suggested changes. Pinging
JJMC89 who made the last change.
qedk (
t 桜
c) 05:50, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "because the account owner" to "because its owner" and change "because CheckUser evidence confirms that the operator" to"because CheckUser evidence confirms that its owner" for brevity and harmonization. ミラ P 01:32, 26 February 2020 (UTC) ミラ P 01:32, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I have a
version with a "globally locked" parameter as a replacement for {{
locked global account}}
. To enable the "globally locked" message, set parameter locked
to anything that's not blank. –
User
45
65
41 18:09, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Description of suggested change: Would it be possibleto have a date appear once the template is applied, I realise it's not a big difference, but it saves having to go to page history everytime I want to see when action was taken with regard to the account. Regards, Goldsztajn ( talk) 04:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
{{
Edit template-protected}}
template. There is no way for a template to know when it was added to a page, so this would require a new parameter to be used by editors. I find it unlikely that it would be used. —
JJMC89 (
T·
C) 22:02, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
{{
date}}
? On consensus - happy to hear views why this would not be a good idea (although this is moot if there's a technical limitation I don't understand). Regards,
Goldsztajn (
talk) 05:55, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Template:Sockpuppeteer is permanently
protected from editing because it is a
heavily used or highly visible template. Substantial changes should first be proposed and discussed here on this page. If the proposal is uncontroversial or has been discussed and is supported by
consensus, editors may use {{
edit template-protected}} to notify an administrator or template editor to make the requested edit. Usually, any contributor may edit the template's
documentation to add usage notes or
categories.
Any contributor may edit the template's sandbox. Functionality of the template can be checked using test cases. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Sockpuppeteer template. |
|
This is a really nice looking warning box, but I'm concerned that the "puppet master" language might glorify sock-puppeting in the minds of the offenders. I'd like to suggest consideration for changing the language to something dismissive, basically to make it so that someone who has the {{sockpuppeteer}} tag on their page won't want to show it off to the rest of his friends in middleschool. Something along the lines of "This user is suspected or confirmed as using sock-puppets to evade bans/blocks" or some other defanged text. - CHAIRBOY ( ☎) 14:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Changed the wording in line with Chairboy's comment. Ashi b aka tock 06:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be easier just to say "to violate policy" rather then try and give a laundry list of things you can do with puppets? 68.39.174.238 23:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
The character sequence </br>
lacks any syntactical and semantical meaning. It should definitely be removed from ...sock puppets</br>to evade...
and changed to <br>
, <br />
or two real line breaks at ...puppets]].</small></br>''The use...
Anyway, you are free to use the toolbar above the editing box which has a button like this:
regards,
Torzsmokus 20:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
"Abuse, libel or ban evasion" - these are very different wiki crimes to be covered by such a broad brush. Avoiding 3rr or protectionist editing is not the same as abusive or libelous behaviour and I think having this catch all template lump these together could be libelous itself - remember some people do edit under their own names. Sophia 21:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I think you should add a contribution link somewhere, maybe before or after block log link. Code: [[Special:Contributions/{{PAGENAME}}]]
--
AAA! (
AAAA) 03:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I made an SVG version of the image used on this template. Perhaps it should be used? Improvement suggestions welcome. -- Midnightcomm 04:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I have added it. Thank you for creating it. Essjay (Talk) 03:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
{{
sockpuppeteerproven}}
Just a suggestion, but shouldn't that top sentence It is suspected that this user has used... be changed to It is suspected or confirmed that this user has used... I really think that adding "confirmed" would make the template sound more efficient and accurate because of two reasons:
See what I mean? Power level (Dragon Ball) 04:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Please change. "It is suspected that this user has used one or more accounts abusively" to "It is suspected or confirmed that this user has used one or more accounts abusively." Retiono Virginian 16:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
The {{sockpuppeteer|banned}} template now gives this line: This user has been blocked indefinitely because it is suspected that they have used one or more accounts abusively. - if you want in singular, you have to add "this user has" like {{sockpuppeteer|this user has|banned}}. Can it be done, that the singular form comes first? (without the need of adding "this user has") What is the reason for having a plural wording, anyway? -- Vince hey, yo! :-) 00:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Maybe change "It is suspected that..." to "It is supected or confirmed that..." -- AAA! ( AAAA) 08:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Setting confirmed or blocked says indef block.
Should we allow for a version that doesn't say indef blocked. Mayalld ( talk) 12:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
This user has been blocked indefinitely because it is suspected that this user has used one or more accounts abusively. ==> This user has been blocked indefinitely due to the suspicion that one or more accounts were used abusively.
This user has been blocked indefinitely because this user has used one or more accounts abusively. ==> This user has been blocked indefinitely due to the use of one or more accounts abusively.
-- IRP ☎ 22:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
For the second one, how about: This user has been blocked indefinitely because this user has used one or more accounts abusively. ==> This user has been blocked indefinitely due to their use of one or more accounts abusively.
{{ editprotected}} The wording "due to his or her use of one or more accounts abusively" which is used in the lower two alternatives ("proven" and "blocked with evidence") of this template sounds weird and is bad English. This should be changed to "due to his or her abusive use of one or more accounts". Is he back? ( talk) 14:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
Could someone please update the template from
Template:Sockpuppeteer/sandbox? The sandbox changes the SPI casepage link to 'Sockpuppet investigations case page' and if a casepage already exists for the sockpuppeteer, it makes it appear automagically in the links.
Foxy Loxy
Pounce! 11:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
Could the template please be updated with the contents of {{
Sockpuppeteer/sandbox}}? This makes it use {{
Mbox}}, instead of the deprecated messagebox
class. TIA. —
Ms2ger (
talk) 12:20, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm wondering if we can add a category that seperates suspected sockpuppeteers from confirmed sockpuppeteers. I just took a look at the category and I didn't know who was a sockpuppeteer and who was not. Maybe we can clarify this a bit? Taylor Karras ( talk) 07:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}}
Change abusively used "one or more accounts" to "multiple accounts". Abusing one account is not sockpuppetry. Triplestop x3 20:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
The wording is correct. This template is not to be used in cases when just a single account has been used. It is to be used when multiple accounts have been used, and at least one of the accounts has been used abusively. — RockMFR 03:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
The Category appears to be incorrect due to the renaming of cats from "Wikipedia confirmed sockpuppets . . ." to "Confirmed Wikipedia sockpuppets . . ." I'll try to work this myself when I get a moment. Also, the template seems to only work for newer sockpuppets as the evidence won't link to the older form of "Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/username".
When I made the emendations to this template a while back, the idea was to have it be the single puppeteer template. In that vein, I've expanded the examples in the documentation to show the specific CU and non-CU versions, and I'm slowly going through the {{ CheckedPuppeteer}}'s converting them. Any help would be appreciated :) -- Avi ( talk) 05:48, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
This should say ""account has been blocked indefinately" rather than user. Pages using this often have a "user has been banned" message too, I would say the account is blocked becasue the user is banned. Making the change, please let me know if you think it's wrong. Rich Farmbrough, 14:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC).
I have a suggestion: how about changing the wording of the templates that involve CheckUser to "CheckUser has confirmed that....". The reason being that AFAIK CheckUser is a one-time process that checks the offending/suspected accounts' IPs against another account/confirmed offender. When it's finished, the report appears on the appropriate page and that's it. It isn't like admins with CU rights can/do perform such checks any time at will, is it? :P CoolKoon ( talk) 21:02, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
{{Sockpuppeteer|timeblocked}} gives the following text: "This account has been blocked for a period of time due the operator's abusive use of one or more accounts." I believe "due" needs to be changed to "due to" in order for this sentence to convey the intended meaning using proper English. Any comments? If no one objects, I'll make this change. — Rich wales 15:45, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
I think it would be helpful if the account this template is used on has the option to include the account in "Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of foo" or "Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of" to automatically list the master account. The master acocunt could be given the name * to distinguish it (ie [[Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Foo|*]]). -- A Certain White Cat chi? 12:23, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I want to add the word 'the' in the {{
sockpuppeteer|timeblocked}}
section of the template the sentence currently doesn't make any sense.
Hto9950 ( talk | contribs) 07:13, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Per the discussion at Template talk:Sockpuppet#Tiny RfC, I think we should restore the sockmaster icon over here as well. It's neither evil nor threatening, and the blue dot is outright non-informative. De728631 ( talk) 15:01, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"Abusively using one or more accounts" is confusing. This could potentially be construed to mean that the user is abusively using his/her own account. I think that this should be changed to "abusively using two or more accounts" so that it is clear that it means that the user has been accused of socking specifically. Gparyani ( talk) 16:22, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Where is the template for allowed sockpuppets? Why isn't this included on this page in the see also section, or in the category? Thank you. Thewhitebox ( talk) 09:57, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Something is wrong in the following text: {{#if:|for {{{time}}}|}}}
; it has one closing curly bracket too many.
Eye
snore (
pc) 00:17, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Shouldnt this variety be reworded to say the account has actually been blocked not that it may need to be? 146.200.40.99 ( talk) 11:00, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
|proven
variety may serve to alert administrators that blocking is still required.
De728631 (
talk) 12:08, 28 February 2015 (UTC)This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
On the {{ sockpuppet}} template, when "checkuser" is used on the first parameter, a CheckUser image is added on the right. However, {{ sockpuppeteer}} does not do this. Please add the following markup inside the {{ Mbox}} thing:
|imageright={{#ifeq:{{{checked}}}|yes|[[File:Wikipedia Checkuser.svg|50px|alt=A CheckUser has confirmed that the operator of this account abusively used multiple accounts]]|}}
TL22 ( talk) 22:15, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
The sockpuppeteer template has one major issue: It don't have any options to tell that the puppeteer is both proven and blocked. How can we implement it? NasssaNser ( talk/ edits) 12:21, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Putting this here as a request because I don't really know what I'm doing with templates and don't want to screw things up. It'd be nice if the template would include a link to the sockmaster's SPI, in more cases than it currently does. Since this template is meant only to appear on the sockmaster's user page, and in theory if there is an SPI it'll be under the sockmaster's name (or redirected to the sockmaster's name) I think that it should be easy enough to implement. I just don't know how to do it. Cheers. Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 13:58, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
|spipage=
parameter but, it isn't automatically included because there are cases where the name of the established sockpuppeteer and the SPI page are different. I think though it should be possible to implement a default check in this template to search for an SPI page of the same name. If it exists, it should be linked, if the name is different, the parameter value could be added manually.
De728631 (
talk) 14:38, 14 April 2017 (UTC)The wording This account has been blocked indefinitely because...
kinda bothers me. See
User:JoshuSasori -- that account was blocked for issuing off-wiki threats, then multiple non-CU-able SPIs found that he was evading his block via IPs, then a single sock account was found, CU was requested and initially endorsed, but not performed because the account admitted to being the same person. Then CheckUser was performed two days later and found a couple of sleepers. Later that week the user was site-banned for reasons unrelated to his sockpuppetry. I kinda feel like the majority of users who are blocked for some reason, then evade their blocks, are CUed, and tagged, are in this same situation, only perhaps a little less serious because their main post-block misbehaviour was the act of evading their block in-and-of itself rather than (in the JS case) continuing their off-wiki harassment.
Wouldn't a parameter being added to say CheckUser evidence confirms that the owner of this account has abusively used multiple accounts, and the account has been blocked
be a good idea?
Or, honestly, changing the "Usage" from "Not blocked" to "Not blocked, or blocked for reasons unrelated to sockpuppetry"?
Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 23:48, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Can we have an option here related to WP:3STRIKES, alerting admins that this editor should not be lightly unblocked? -- Dirk Beetstra T C 18:48, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I would like to transfer the contents of {{ Sockpuppeteer/sandbox}} to {{ Sockpuppeteer}}; there is a new parameter in the sandbox for linking to long-term abuse reports. Phil roc (c) 12:58, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
| lta=y
unnecessary.
Cabayi (
talk) 13:16, 13 October 2018 (UTC)This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I'd like to modify the centralauth link to point to meta.wikimedia (since that's where most CentralAuth operations/logging happens). Please see this diff for the proposed changes (adding meta: in front of the Special:CentralAuth link). Regards Sau226 ( talk) 08:44, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
{{
edit template-protected}}
template.
Cabayi (
talk) 12:53, 28 October 2018 (UTC)This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Implement a few extra parameters from its sister template, {{
Sockpuppet}}
. See sandbox for proposed changes and
WT:SPI for discussion relating to this.
qedk (
t 桜
c) 18:12, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I noticed the |imageright=
parameter fails if both |1=
and |checked=
are given, resulting in a sort of "blockedconfirmed" parameter which fails every switch case. Just a minor change to switch it only if |checked=
is missing. See
here for suggested changes. Pinging
JJMC89 who made the last change.
qedk (
t 桜
c) 05:50, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "because the account owner" to "because its owner" and change "because CheckUser evidence confirms that the operator" to"because CheckUser evidence confirms that its owner" for brevity and harmonization. ミラ P 01:32, 26 February 2020 (UTC) ミラ P 01:32, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I have a
version with a "globally locked" parameter as a replacement for {{
locked global account}}
. To enable the "globally locked" message, set parameter locked
to anything that's not blank. –
User
45
65
41 18:09, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Description of suggested change: Would it be possibleto have a date appear once the template is applied, I realise it's not a big difference, but it saves having to go to page history everytime I want to see when action was taken with regard to the account. Regards, Goldsztajn ( talk) 04:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
{{
Edit template-protected}}
template. There is no way for a template to know when it was added to a page, so this would require a new parameter to be used by editors. I find it unlikely that it would be used. —
JJMC89 (
T·
C) 22:02, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
{{
date}}
? On consensus - happy to hear views why this would not be a good idea (although this is moot if there's a technical limitation I don't understand). Regards,
Goldsztajn (
talk) 05:55, 9 April 2024 (UTC)