This is an archive of past discussions about Template:Sockpuppet. 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.
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)
Frankly, it's exremely difficult to see how to include the link to evidence. I've just been struggling with it, trying different methods, and I've completely failed. Do you have any advice? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης)11:07, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
The administrators should meet privately, not have a whole public post to humiliate people. This is exactly like the Salem Witch Trials. --Max15:59, 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)
I think that the demand for absolute proof is too strong; when one user makes the same sorts of edit in the same sort of style on the same articles as another user, that's pretty good grounds for suspecting sockpuppetry — when they edit each other's User pages and have IP addresses in the same city, or even the same institution, then the evidence is as strong as you're likely to get. After all, the template text says that they're suspected of being sockpuppets.
I agree, though, that the standard shouldn't be set too low; there has to be some good ground for the suspicion, and some consensus among a set of editors is probably desirable (it's certainly true that the template can be used as a personal attack).
By the way, can you label a diagram of a synovial joint? Of the human digestive system? You only have three hours... Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:13, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
For those wondering, Mel is referring to my biology GCSE. My answer to him is, of course, do you really think we still need to? This is the twenty-first century examination system! We don't need to do anything!
Back on topic, I simply think that this template is overly disruptive to a user who is not blocked permanently or banned indefinitely by the ArbComm. I have no problem with it if the user is inactive, but it is really over the top to apply it to a user who is actively editing. smoddy 10:34, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It's also odd to apply it when the evidence is feeble. The evidence here seems to be that they all have bizarre political views, cooperate with each other, and are in Houston. But notoriously places like Houston are bristling with cronies pushing bizarre political views.
On the other hand, if an admin is certain that the sockpuppet template is justified, why doesn't he just stick it there and lock the page? (Conceivably, in order that the accused puppet can argue against it or supplement it -- but it's hard to imagine that happening.) -- Hoary 10:46, 2005 Jun 6 (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:
What is the purpose of the template?
What standard of evidence is rquired for its use?
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)
In response to Hoary's question: there are strict guidelines for protecting pages, and I don't think that this sort of case meets them. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:52, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Redesign
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]]
Which do you prefer? smoddy 12:43, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Even apart from the glitch in the first, I prefer the second. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:25, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'll swap it for the second, then. The first one is fixed, by the way. smoddy 13:33, 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)
All sorted. When using the template, place it in with the URL of the evidence in square brackets to give a numbered external link, or use normal Wiki linking syntax. i.e.:
This ensures the design works correctly. smoddy 14:01, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Evidence
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)
Or it could stay there and draw attention to the lack of support for some accusations of sockpuppetry. The template's format still works, doesn't it? —Charles P. (Mirv)16:49, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
Couldn't the template use one of those hinky conditional-inclusion tricks to not print the meaningless-looking "Please refer to {{{evidence}}} for evidence" clause if the evidence variable is not set? —Steve Summit (talk) 13:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Category
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^O18:30, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
I don't see one. It's pretty subjective to pick the "best" icon for this situation. Someone else can feel free to change it, the one currently posted is my best suggestion. -O^O19:17, 3 October 2005 (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.? --Elonka15:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm planning to replace the existing template with the newer template. Here's the template:
It is suspected that this user might be a sock puppet or impersonator of [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]]. Please refer to contributions for evidence. See block log
oppose i don't believe in the term "sockpuppet". A sockpuppet is an alias account and most of the time they're harmless. Imagine if this happened on EBay. Could you imagine if everyone knew what accounts you use to bid? Axiomm04:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Note that the policy does not forbid editing harmlessly under multiple usernames. It forbids using multiple accounts in ways that are harmful, such as deceiving other users into thinking there is more support for a proposal or point of view than there actually is.--Srleffler22:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Get rid of the barnstar image; barnstars are associated with rewarding users here, not punishing them.
Tweak the wording to read "a malicious sockpuppet of [username here]; as Axiomn pointed out, some sockpuppets are good-faith aliases used to edit different kinds of article.
Oops! Please add Seewith a space before "block log". after <span class="plainlinks">. I missed one. -- ADNghiem501 22:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC) Also, please change the position of a dot after a ], not before. Just a little mistake. -- ADNghiem50111:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
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. Betacommand04:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
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}}}}}]]'''.
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)
You don't think that including the words "suspected" and "might" is sufficient?
Your changes imply that this tag should intentionally be added to the user pages of impostors and people who register accounts specifically to support the positions of others (friends, relatives, et cetera). The latter is particularly distressing, as that act often is carried out in good faith by well-meaning newcomers who are unfamiliar with our standards. The "meat puppet" designation is applicable only to the specific discussion(s) that bring them here, not to all future participation. Such individuals are potential contributors who should be welcomed to Wikipedia and advised of our policies, not branded with this template. —David Levy08:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Meatpuppet accounts are accounts where it isn't possible to tell whether you're dealing with a sockpuppet or not. The ArbCom has ruled that, for the purposes of enforcing policy, they don't distinguish between the two. So if someone's friend registered only to support that person's edits, and was editing from the same IP address, that would indeed give rise to a suspicion of sock/meatpuppetry. Bear in mind that these tags are only added when an account has acted in a way that attracts a block, and that tends only to happen after several warnings to the main account. SlimVirgin(talk)08:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
While the acts of sock puppetry and meat puppetry can be equivalent in effect, the long-term ramifications are not the same. A sock puppet account can never be anything more than that. Meat puppetry, conversely, is a potentially short-term act (and not necessarily a bad-faith one).
Even someone temporarily blocked for vandalism (an inherently bad-faith act) doesn't have a tag identifying him/her as a "vandal" placed on his/her user page. We hope that such individuals will see the error of their ways and decide to become productive contributors (just as we do with meat puppets).
I understand your concern, but the aforementioned "suspected"/"might" wording already allows for the possibility that the suspicions are incorrect (whether the person is a meat puppet or is completely innocent). Your changes obfuscate the template's intended purpose. —David Levy09:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Okay, fair enough. I was trying to cover more than one eventuality. And I can't see anyone who is blocked for being a meatpuppet wanting to come back with the same single-issue account when they likely have a very small number of edits. All they'd have to do is open another one. But if you want to remove it, that's fine. I think we should retain impersonator though. SlimVirgin(talk)09:30, 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)
From Template_talk:SockpuppetProven
Linked Evidence
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 - Talk06:46, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Image Type
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 - Talk20:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Incompatibility between SockpuppetProven and SockpuppetCheckuser
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. --Ais52312:30, 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)
Error
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? Grandmasterka04:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
In the case of an abusive sockpuppet which has been confirmed, but is not blocked, which template should be used? --Elonka17:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
You should contact an administrator to have the account blocked, then tag it as confirmed and blocked. :) —{admin} Pathoschild 23:25:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
New proposal
{{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:
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)
You should be able to test whether the first parameter is defined or not using ifeq (see m:ParserFunctions. I'll let you make those changes. Put up another edit request when they're done and I'll copy your source over. CMummert · talk13:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Is that correct? —{admin} Pathoschild 00:56:32, 04 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that's correct. I just made this proposal seem so big because changing the confirmed message just like that might mess up the ParserFunctions; so I tried to find a way around that. --AAA!(AAAA)06:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I fixed it. It looks like a weird glitch with ParserFunctions containing links containing ParserFunctions. —{admin} Pathoschild 03:41:04, 08 May 2007 (UTC)
Requested edit
{{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)
I added a switch so that confirmed and blocked now keys this category too, as both imply indefblocked. -- Avi16:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
You'll have to change this back; users marked as sockpuppets should not go in CAT:TEMP. CAT:TEMP is for old user and user talk pages of indefinitley blocked vandals (not sockpuppets) that should be deleted; sockpuppets get removed from that category, not added it to. It says this in the category. Acalamari17:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Sockpuppets aren't meant to be tagged with "indefblockeduser" at all; they're supposed to be tagged with whichever sock template fits them. If removing the automatic marking you are referring to prevents socks from being placed in CAT:TEMP, then yes, it should be removed. Acalamari00:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
There is absolutely no need for this change, and I think that it's going to be controversial, so I'm disabling the tag. Melsaran (talk) 20:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
No, because this allows for multiple options, as shown on the document page. If anything {{Blockedsockpuppet}} should be redirected to {{sockpuppet|username|confirmed}} if that is possible. See the doc page there as well. -- Avi15:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
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)
IMHO, there's a perfectly good policy governing this: common sense. Of course he is free to remove the tags; you are free to replace them. If this goes to WP:3RR, I know where my money is about who gets blocked first. Of course, he's welcome to assert a reason for removing the tags, but "there's no policy against it" does not qualify as a reason. -Pete (talk) 00:21, 18 January 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
At present, the template links to the word “this” thus
[[Wikipedia:SOCK#Identification and handling of inappropriate alternative_accounts|this]] policy subsection may also be helpful.
I ask that the link be to “this policy subsection” instead.
[[Wikipedia:SOCK#Identification and handling of inappropriate alternative_accounts|this policy subsection]] may also be helpful.
Two reasons:
Linking to words and phrases such as “this”, “here”, and “click here” makes webpages difficult to navigate for the visually impaired. To get some sense of how browsers work for them, imagine that a page were separated into two parts, the principal content, stripped of links, and then a column of links containing only the text to which the link were anchored. One then has to guess whether a given “this”, “here”, or “click here” amongst the links is corresponds to another in the content. Granted that “this policy subsection” isn't perfectly distinct from what one might find elsewhere on a page, but it is an improvement on “this”.
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?
Only if the checkuser case existed, would it bring it up. It would then look for the SSP case. If there are no cases, it would bring up a generic message. The change I made fixed the problem and made the other template obsolete. - LA @ 17:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
I've reverted Jonny-mt's change as Lady Aleena included the {{#ifexist:}} parser function, so the basis of "not all sockpuppets are noted at checkuser cases" is more or less moot in my eyes. Best, —Animum (talk) 18:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
There are a couple issues with this, though. First, the ultimate puppetmaster is typically the oldest account, although the checkusercase is typically filed under the name of the most active account (e.g. User:SuperSuperBoi is a sock of User:Qrc2006, although the RFCU was filed under the original request at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Boomgaylove, because the first noticed sock was User:Boomgaylove, who is now User:Renamed user 12), and not all socks with checkuser cases require checkuser (e.g. User:Thamareh is an obvious sock of User:Thamarih, itself an RFCU-confirmed sock of User:SecretChiefs3; since there was no need to checkuser, looking at the RFCU would not be helpful). In other words, we need a bit of flexibility to properly document these socks, which the current version (which technically very nice) does not provide. --jonny-mt23:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
If the checkuser case does not exist, then it will check for a suspected sock puppet case, if that does not exist a general message will be used. I can understand that there are times where a case may not match the ultimate puppetmaster, but my suggestion is to use the nifty little tab above called "move" and rename the case to the appropriate puppetmaster. - LA @ 06:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, the problem with your suggestion are that the sheer volume of tags that would need to be checked to see what RFCUs need to be moved as well as the fact that not all confirmed puppets require a checkuser as noted above. I'm not opposed to enabling some kind of automatic linking to an RFCU or SSP report, but I'm not a fan of the fact that there are hundreds or thousands of sock accounts out there pointing to a checkuser where they're not even mentioned as evidence that they're a sock.
I get that you're trying to essentially unify an often-confusing group of templates into one, but you need to do it in a way that doesn't adversely affect the large number of existing transclusions. So as a compromise, what about simply adding a third parameter that allows the autolinking to be turned on and off? Say, something like the following:
{{#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.}}
Unless I missed a brackets close somewhere, this means that an optional third parameter named "case" can be passed. If it says "auto", then your autolinking function kicks in using the first parameter--if it says something else, then your autolinking function tries with whatever else is passed. It's not particularly elegant to look at, but I think that's the tradeoff for folding another template into this one. --jonny-mt08:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
jonny-mt, you doubled the size without need. I can add a case parameter without too much of an increase in size. Let's try the following without having to have anything called auto.
{{#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.}}
I've found a few minor problems (e.g., superfluous pipes and no closing "}}"), which I corrected in this very edit. Best, —Animum (talk) 17:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Also just a note that I asked Lady Aleena to help me combine many of our user warning related templates, and did unprotect the page for her to make the edits, so while the code is hers, the person responsible for the change (and any messups from it) is me. MBisanztalk19:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Not at all--I think it's a good idea and will make admin and maintenance tasks that much easier. The only thing I'm trying to do is make sure that the transition is as seamless as possible.
To that end, I'm not sure that LA's code is quite there yet, although it's certainly an improvement. Unless I'm reading it wrong, this still leaves in the autolinking (although it also allows for the use of a 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.
I guess what I'm trying to get at is that we need to require a way to turn the functionality on rather than require a way to turn it off. This was the thought behind introducing the auto switch, although I agree that the implementation is a little ungainly. Any thoughts on an elegant way to implement this? --jonny-mt08:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for the delayed response, but as I explained above, it is possible to block obvious sockpuppets of a checkusered puppeteer without requesting a checkuser. In fact, WP:RFCU states specifically that obvious socks will not be checked--it's the first item on the table marked "Unacceptable requests". If we don't provide a way for the autolink to be switched on and off, a huge number of socks will be linked to checkuser cases that they are not even mentioned in, only serving to confuse anyone who might be looking at their userpage or reexamining their case. --jonny-mt05:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
jonny-mt, I am going to say this one more time. The way the code is written; if there is no case, there will be no link. So, if there is NO checkuser case, there will be NO checkuser link. It will then look for a suspected sock puppet (ssp) case. If there is NO ssp case, there will be NO ssp link. At this point there will be a general message if there are NO checkuser or ssp cases. Understand? - LA @ 07:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I've tried (multiple times) to explain this as clearly as I possibly can, but apparently I've failed to explain my point. So let's try a hypothetical situation.
User:Foo starts an edit war on, say, the article about cats. Halfway through the edit war, User:Bar shoes up to support User:Foo's position and lob a few personal attacks at other editors, calling them "dog-loving fascists".
After examining the situation, an admin decides that the case warrants a checkuser, and so they file a request at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Foo. The case comes back positive, and the admin blocks both User:Foo and User:Bar indefinitely for edit warring, personal attacks, and abusive sock puppetry.
About a week later, User:Snafu shows up and starts stirring the pot in the same article, reinstating the edits made by User:Foo and reverting anyone who challenges him with the edit summary "rv vandalism by dog-loving fascists". The same admin, who has watchlisted the article, immediately blocks User:Snafu as an obvious sock of User:Foo and places this template on their user page for future reference.
In this situation, although linking to the checkuser case at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Foo for User:Bar would be helpful, there would be no reason to do so for User:Snafu, as they were blocked as an obvious sock and did not require a checkuser. Any admin with their salt would check out the situation before considering an unblock for User:Snafu, but putting a link to a checkuser case in which they are not mentioned on their user page can only serve to confuse the situation and waste their time. I think you can imagine how much hassle this creates in more complicated cases. --jonny-mt13:23, 9 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)
It seems this template does not process the variables in {{Blockedsockpuppet}} correctly, so it and all redirects to it were broken. I've gone back and reverted them for the time being and the categories appear to be refilling. Could you let me know if any don't refill? MBisanztalk06:53, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
This template currently does not link to an RFCU page, even if one exists. Obviously this seriously breaks {{SockpuppetCheckuser}}. I have reverted to the version before Lady Aleena's edits so that there is a working template until the issues are all ironed out. Sam Korn(smoddy)22:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Haven't forgotten, just rethinking
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)
Hmm. I agree with you, but I'll leave this up in case it's a deliberate wordchoice. It might be a kind of AGF: saying that the account may or may not be the same user. Cool HandLuke15:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
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 :)
The template adds any page it is transcluded on to categories that do pretty much the same thing you are asking. I don't know if it is necessary to add links to theses categories on the template itself? J.delanoygabsadds20:26, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm talking about a "suspected sockpuppets" link that links to [[Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets\{{PAGENAME}}]]. -- IRP☎21:07, 26 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)
Per bugzilla:20574 I've requested MZMcBride to remove the unnecessary instances of {{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)
The work-around appears to have broken the ucfirst. See User:Tirid Tirid for an example. If this change was made just to fix User:Ldjnfglkk, then it should probably be reverted and that one userpage will simply be broken until the bugfix is integrated, rather than breaking all the rest. --Pascal66600:51, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
A parserfunction's output (such as ucfirst) cannot start with a line-formatting character like * or ; (and some other characters, which are not allowed in usernames), the specific broken example given was: {{sockpuppet|1=;sfdjngkjfnd}}. The previous behavior was very broken for usernames starting with a semicolon or asterisk, introducing a <dl><dt> or <ul><li> set, along with linefeeds, inside the link and category tags. I am not sure of a perfect solution, unfortunately. However, one can simply enter the case correctly, no? --Splarka (rant) 04:11, 20 September 2009 (UTC)watching page, no talkback needed
Nice, you changed your comment after I posted. The page given, as well as any usernames starting with such formatting characters, cannot be used at all in the older version, the current version can be used (in theory) with all usernames, if the case is just given properly. But hey, do what you want, I was just trying to suggest and implement a fix. --Splarka (rant) 04:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
That was weird, it didn't give me an edit conflict. Since the work-around did not work, the ucfirst should probably be removed entirely unless you have a better idea. I agree passing the template the correct username would be ideal, unfortunately that often does not happen. The only reason I found your fix was because it moved so many pages into non-existing categories. I wonder if there is a fast way (using AWB or something) of fixing them all. I've included below the list of those that need to be fixed. Looks like about 150 or so. --Pascal66605:09, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I should clarify that. The above list is only of pages that were in a valid category before the template changes, and are now not. It is not a complete list of every page that calls the template with a lowercase username. --Pascal66623:41, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
That last sentence
<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'sClimax09:33, 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!
They are usually archived into the system after they are closed, so the archive thing would lead to many dead links. I assume you could write it to automatically link to the SPI while writing in the username once. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:04, 16 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)
Could you show me an example where it's not working?
Well when you click on a user page, it used to link to the SPI of the master, but now it seems to just go to the SPI page. Yes I am proposing to stop populating it as just tagging a user with a category and not knowing who controls them seems a bit silly. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:13, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
I've removed that category. Again, please can you give me a specific page where it is not working correctly? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Unless something is off on my end, I can't directly link to the SPI of the user in question. If you can do it, then I'll drop it, but it's a bit weird. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:01, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Again, I asked for an example of where it wasn't working. Typing {{sockpuppet|Example2}} gives
Hmm, works now. Maybe I'm just going crazy. I might as well suggest this here while I can. Is there any way to fix "the [[sockpuppet investigation... to [[the sockpuppet investigation?" It makes more sense and implies that it is linking to a specific incident, not the general page. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:51, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Block length
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)
I have added a |length= parameter. For example {{sockpuppet|Example2|blocked|length=2 months}} produces:
Let me know what you think. If that's okay, would you mind adding it to the documentation? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:30, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
That definitely works. I was thinking of more of something which stated that they were just blocked for a determined length of time but that works much better. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:56, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Actually, it won't work will it? It will be instantly out of date. The only way to do it would be to add an expiry date. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:15, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
The instantly out of date thing could just say that they are blocked for X amount of time, something which would indicate that they aren't blocked for a week or 20 years. We could always try this. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:44, 13 June 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? HeyMid (contribs) 15:09, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
For Special:Contributions, urlencoding caused spaces in a username to become plus signs, thus breaking the link. I've removed it, as spaces in usernames are far more common than usernames beginning with asterisks. If there is a better solution, please suggest it. Thanks —DoRD (talk) 03:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Edit request from KuduIO, 17 September 2011
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:
Not done for now:. Could you make your proposed changes on the /sandbox and fully test it? It seems to be {{{1}}} not {{{2}}}. Also, there is a length parameter which should probably be preserved. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:44, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Edit request from , 4 November 2011
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)
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.
There being a general lack of interest and a specific lack of objection, I've gone ahead and made this change. - TB (talk) 22:10, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
I see what appear to be some possible problems in the template source code.
The documentation talks about a suspected parameter (supposed to be equivalent to spi), but I don't see anything in the template that actually handles suspected — it appears, in fact, to be treated by default as if the second positional parameter were not specified.
There seem to be problems with the categorization code. Anything other than confirmed is being categorized by default in Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets ... — including parameter values like proven or nbconfirmed. See, for example, User:Dacarodjos, which has been checkuser-confirmed (nbconfirmed) but is currently categorized by the template as Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Gluvmal.
I'm confused by the use of ucfirst in the following part of the code: Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of{{ucfirst: {{{1}}}}} Is this still necessary? Or is it left over from an apparent workaround attempt in 2009 (see "Template overhaul planned" section above)?
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? — Richwales06:22, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Almost 4 months later, and I'm still seeing this problem with the "nbconfirmed" parameter -- it incorrectly places the sock into the "suspected sockpuppets of" category rather than the "sockpuppets of" category, which is where a checkuser-confirmed sock belongs. That looks like a simple coding error; I would recode it, but I don't know how.
Also, I agree that it would be desirable to have slightly different treatment for several additional subtypes of socks. I see the following subtypes:
Suspected but not blocked
Suspected and blocked
Blocked and considered confirmed based on behavioral evidence
Blocked based on checkuser confirmation
For the record, I consider "confirmed based on behavioral evidence" to be a valid characterization because I have identified (and blocked) some socks after they created new pages that were identical to previously deleted pages created by earlier sockpuppets. I consider that to be confirmatory evidence. --Orlady (talk) 18:38, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Seems like the problem still exists. "Proven" adds a user to category "Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of ...", but "confirmed" adds he or she to category "Wikipedia sockpuppets of ...". « Ryūkotsusei »05:08, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
The user doesn't answer, and I can't edit this page myself. So I guess I'll try an edit request. The image in question can be brought back by inserting this: |image = [[File:{{#ifeq:{{{2}}}|confirmed|Puppeter template|System-users}}.svg|45px]] – theFace19:17, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Not done: I imagine Reaper has a good reason for his edit, and I think we should probably discuss that reason before doing anything else. I would wait a bit longer for a reply on his talk page - it's only been a day, after all - and if that doesn't provide any closure then I recommend opening up the debate to outside editors. Perhaps an RfC here would be the best way to do that, but I'll leave that part up to you. Best — Mr. Stradivarius♪ talk ♪02:13, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
That would be a pretty awkward thing to do, but if you insist. I wonder if someone bothers to respond... - theFace10:58, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
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, theFace10:58, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
I commented on this at Reaper's user talk page but for the record I'm going to repeat my suggestion over here. Even if the old icon is undesired for some reason, I still think we should have a quick visual identification for the three stages "suspect", "blocked", and "confirmed". So I suggest we add a switch like |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)
He, thanks! Good suggestion about those pictures, but I'm afraid I don't agree with it. I don't think the blue dot should be used. My idea: File:System-users.svg = suspected, File:Puppeter template.svg = confirmed. I do agree with you that none of the pictures insinuate something 'evil' or anything. They're whimsy drawings, meant for easy identification. Cheers, theFace17:44, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
For this purpose, I definitely prefer the "sockpuppet" icons over the "i for information" icon. The purpose of these images is to quickly communicate, but the "i" icon is used in so many places that it isn't effective for quickly communicating that a particular user has a sockpuppetry issue. I agree with Face regarding the choice of pictures. --Orlady (talk) 19:36, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
I just wanted to come back and say that Mr. Stradivarius for having us gain consensus before reverting Reapers' edit. It's the best way to have the edit "stick". I dream of horses (T) @ 22:53, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
@I dream of horses: Assuming that with 'Des' you meant User:De728631, his compromis is as follows: suspected = File:Imbox notice.png, blocked = File:Stop x nuvola.svg, and confirmed = File:Sock block.svg. I think this system is unlogical because sockpuppets are almost always blocked, even if dormant or suspected, as the majority of socks are used to troll/vandalize. There are of course also socks who try to come over as the good user. If Checkuser or other Wikipedians can't find evidence against them, technical or behavioural, the template can't be used anyway, as the sock won't allow such a tag to be put on their userpage. Furthermore, I think File:Stop x nuvola.svg and File:Imbox notice.png are uninformative in this situation and not appropriate. Cheers, theFace09:14, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Sockpuppets are not blocked unless an admin is convinced that this need to be done. So for the simple tagging of suspected sockpuppets by a random editor, we could really use the info circle since the template message is really just a piece of information at this stage. And this is also useful for tagging IPs that will be unblocked after a short time anyway. De728631 (talk) 21:32, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Uh, what? Per policy, socking is likely to lead to a block of all affected accounts. I edit in topic areas rife with sockpuppetry, and I can attest to the fact that even throwaway accounts that make one or two edits before being abandoned are blocked all the same. So no, "sockpuppets are not blocked unless an admin is convinced this needs to be done" is not a realistic statement.
"Simple tagging" of accounts by "random" editors is not a normative practice here by any means. The policy page explicitly directs users who would like suspected sockpuppetry to be investigated to go to WP:SPI. Accounts are generally tagged only after being linked by investigation. In fact, dumping such a tag on a userpage before the conclusion of such an investigation would likely be considered a serious civility breach and assumption of bad faith. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:31, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Support puppeteer graphic I have no comment about reforming the template, but in the case of any user who has been through community process and been found to be a sock, I support the use of the puppeteer graphic in their notice box and am against the use of the blue dot. This should be changed back immediately unless there is some consensus to change this. Blue Rasberry (talk)20:49, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
So at this stage we all seem to agree that the current design using only the blue dot is inferior to the previous version. Regardless of any step-wise escalation of icons, I agree with BR that the recent image changes by Reaper Eternal should be undone as a first step. We can then still discuss whether a switch is useful for this template and related ones. De728631 (talk) 21:10, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
That may not be necessary. I think the current design is actually better than the previous. It's more concise, and it fits with {{Sockpuppeteer}} and {{Banned user}}, often used in conjunction. But it was the choice of images I disagreed upon. - theFace09:19, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
By 'design' I was also referring to the image. I think the current text is alright and doesn't need to be changed, but we should get rid of the blue dot as the only icon. De728631 (talk) 16:21, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Support puppeteer graphic. The blue dot is dumbed down to the point of meaninglessness. I recall similar discussions in which it was proposed that we replace the nuvola-stop-sign icon in the {{banned}} template with the same milquetoast-y icon because a stop sign is "too threatening"—what, do you soil yourself every time you come to a road intersection? Silly. When an account is conclusively found to be involved in sockpuppetry, we should make that plain and clear. Pussyfooting around it is of as much help as placing flashing lights and blaring sirens on it. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:58, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Lol, can't say I disagree with that. Speaking of Template:Banned user, Reaper Eternal also changed the picture on that one, making it very small, apparently to lessen its 'impact'. I think the size should be restored to how it was. Same goes for Template:Blocked user. Cheers, theFace13:39, 11 April 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)
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•talk11:22, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Question: Should the sockpuppet templates use the puppeteer graphic, another graphic, or no graphic?
Puppeteer graphic per the previous consensus. I don't understand why this issue is significant enough to be listed on centralised discussion.—S MarshallT/C12:13, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Why does the graphic matter? Surely the wording is more important. And on that subject, this revert at {{Sockpuppeteer}} restores the "abusively used" wording, from the softer "inappropriately used", even though the discussion was (AFAIK) solely about the graphic. Rd232talk14:09, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
I did not notice that change when I made the revert. If others think this is a good idea, then I can change "abusive" to "inappropriate" again. -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 19:44, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Actually there has been no net change at all since the previous RFC restored the long-standing template versions before the unilaterally imposed change by Reaper Eternal. If at all, an RFC should have been held before he made his changes. That said, I don't see any need either to have this at centralised discussions. And I'm all for keeping the current graphics. Carrite, what you see above is File:System-users.svg, while the puppeteer looks like this: . As you can see from the template documentation there is a distinction between suspected and proven socks. Only the proven accounts will get the puppeteer icon with the sock puppet on a string. De728631 (talk) 15:53, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Another graphic I think the wording of the sock-puppeteer tag is the more central issue, but it should be noted that an arbitrator seemed to have no issue with the image change either. When all that exists on the userpage is a tag with a statement there is no compelling need for a specific image. The current graphic does have certain negative connotations to it. No need exists for using it and just because someone has engaged in sock-puppetry does not mean that person should be shamed forever on Wikipedia.--The Devil's Advocatetlk.cntrb.19:46, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
The purpose of the image is not to make the owner of an account be ashamed. Instead it should serve the purpose of quickly identifying the reason for having been tagged or even blocked. A descriptive icon will be much more informative than a simple information dot. With an icon lock the sockpuppeteer or the "user group" you don't have to read the text to know that there's a serious issue with this account. That's what icons are meant to be used for. Otherwise we even use a text-only tag. But these arguments have already been made above. De728631 (talk) 21:16, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Restore Reaper Eternal's versions, using exclamation mark and softer wording. (By the way – please keep this at Cent, because this is where I just saw it.) AndreasJN46601:46, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Puppeteer graphic; I don't see a compelling reason to change. The badge of shame argument does not persuade me as there is no argument as to why the other icon is any less "shameful", nor as to why the labels "sockpuppet" and "sockpuppeteer" themselves are not the issue. Considering particularly that the puppeteer graphic is not used unless the account is marked as confirmed, I cannot see a problem here. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 06:44, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Puppeteer graphic -- arguments about shame are not persuasive, given use of the template only when confirmed. The graphic performs a useful function. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:34, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Do the following:
Revert Template:Sockpuppet and Template:Sockpuppeteer to Reaper Eternal's versions, which I prefer over the old ones. However, both should not use the awkward blue dot icon, but File:System-users.svg and File:Puppeter template.svg. This is what I originally wanted when I opened the first RfC. I agree with King of Hearts that "inappropriately used" from Reaper Eternal's version is a much more civil wording than "abusively used".
Keep Reaper Eternal versions of Template:Banned user and Template:Blocked user, but tweak in such a way that they resemble each other and the Sockpuppet and Sockpuppeteer tags. In particular, they should have a similar layout and the File:Stop x nuvola.svg icon should be slightly bigger.
In short: I support the versions of Reaper Eternal, support Puppeteer graphic, and the tweaking of the Blocked and Banned tags. I'm glad that this discussion has some more input now. Perhaps I should have put it at CENT in the first place, but I initially considered it too insignificant. Cheers, theFace12:45, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Puppeteer graphic. As De728631 says, the point of having this is to make the template understandable at a glance. We should use the same icon or group of icons for all templates that are meant to be placed on userpages in reference to abusive sockpuppetry, whether as uncertain as "This user might be a sock" or as certain as "Checkusers have confirmed that this is a sock". I like the longstanding image simply because it's longstanding, as a change will mean that it takes a little longer to figure out what's meant, but I'll not outright oppose proposals like NebY makes. Nyttend (talk) 23:34, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Puppeteer graphic I don't see why a choice of graphic here should necessitate an RfC. The puppeteer graphic looks better. That will be all. — TORTOISEWRATH16:20, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Puppeteer graphic As a former SPI trainee, I see no compelling reason for the change, and it makes it very easy to identify socks when looking at blocked accounts on the fly. Sven ManguardWha?22:38, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
I honestly don't care too much what graphic is used. (Personally, I'd prefer no text and no image—just a simple hidden category—but I understand that some people need a visual reminder of why somebody was blocked.) The troll sockpuppeteers want big, flashy banners to show off their "score", hence the reason for WP:DENY. Others, who maybe just got frustrated with Wikipedia's policies and made a sock, don't want the rather blatant public shaming that the now-current version of tag gives and would rather get on with their lives.
However, the term "abuse" should only be applies to the troll sockpuppeteers. While many of the sockmasters are trolls, this is unfair to those who did things more like evading a ban to make constructive edits. Thus, I support the milder wording of "inappropriate use" of multiple accounts.
He must've missed my explicit request to add the noindex tag [9]. That said, I'm fine with rewording the template as long as we keep using indicative icons. De728631 (talk) 15:27, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
The Godfather Logo -- I mean Puppeteer graphic. It makes it clear very quickly that the user is a confirmed sock. I'm all for keeping the system-users for the suspected sock as well. Valley2city‽21:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Graphics of any kind are entirely unnecessary; if we are to have an icon in the template, let it be a neutral informational icon. These templates are sometimes used on userpages for accounts associated with people's real names, and we should therefore take care to make the template as neutral as possible (even sockers have reputations that can be damaged). I do not exaggerate when I say that this scarlet letter template has caused sockers to believe they have been libelled, and to complain to functionaries and the Foundation accordingly. I would ask that we not make trouble over something so silly yet with such a capacity to damage people's reputations. The arguments for a sockmaster icon (that it is more immediately noticeable, that it "looks better", and that it's always been that way) seem entirely unconvincing to me. AGK[•]00:19, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Puppeteer graphic - To keep the template distinctive, which I find very useful when quickly viewing userpages for sock tags. I don't see any pressing reasons for a change. CT Cooper ·talk21:07, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Checkuser link
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
I'd say every user's contributions are made up of their individual edits. And the way they perform these edits and related summaries may constitute a habit. De728631 (talk) 22:23, 15 November 2013 (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)
You don't. It's not your place to tag users based on an SPI report. Let the clerk or one of the administrators involved in the report do what is appropriate. As far as I can tell at a glance, the thing isn't over yet. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:52, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Template-protected edit request on 22 February 2015
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)
@Technical 13: Um, no. Per what I've been taught in my English classes and per English articles#Definite article, a determinate must precede a noun in most cases, and this case does not fall under the exceptions listed at that article. Therefore, the text "Please refer to sockpuppet investigation" is not correct, while "Please refer to the sock-puppet investigation" is correct. If you can point me to some other resource that says that the former is in fact correct, I'll stand corrected, but for now, this is the correct way of stating it. Gparyani (talk) 02:55, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{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)
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)
IMO, CamelCase is used in common speech but is not correct usage -- it mostly reflects the capitalization of the abbreviation "CU". Policy pages aren't at CheckUser, but Checkuser. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉01:48, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Damn, I appear to be 100% in the wrong then! Per the titles of the local and global CheckUser policy page, I'll implement the fix. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉03:48, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 23:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
68.5.224.107 20:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Done - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Not done: I don't understand the request. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:45, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Fixed, user appears to have accidently transcluded the user page of a blocked sock (He typed{{User:En}} instead of {{User English}}). Nothing required here. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 20:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 18:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Done King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:28, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
. As you can see from the template documentation there is a distinction between suspected and proven socks. Only the proven accounts will get the puppeteer icon with the sock puppet on a string. De728631 (talk) 15:53, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Already done by Salvidrim!. Gparyani (talk) 03:51, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Not done per Vanjagenije. Neither term is incorrect. Huon (talk) 19:59, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
