Template talk:Sockpuppet

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 {{Sockpuppet}} is protected at the moment. Use {{Editprotected}} on this page to propose an edit.  


Usage: {{sockpuppet|User|evidence=[[Evidence page]]}}

Contents

[edit] TFD Discussion

  • This template was listed for deletion on April 22, 2005. Consensus was to Keep. See discussion.
  • The 2nd nominination of this template was listed for deletion on July 6, 2006. The result of the debate was kept. See discussion.

[edit] Where's the beef?

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. --Max 15:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The format to use is:
{{sockpuppet|[[User:User|User]]|evidence=[[Evidence page]]}}
It works similarly to how Template:Copyvio works. Thryduulf 11:58, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Inherently personal attack?

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:

  1. What is the purpose of the template?
  2. 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)

[edit] 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)

I'd support that. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:22, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Options


Comment 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]]

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]]

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.:
{{sockpuppet|Sock-mastername|[[WP:RFAR]]}}
or
{{sockpuppet|Sock-mastername|[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RFAr]}}
This ensures the design works correctly. smoddy 14:01, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Icon

I'm not sure what I think of the idea behind this template in general. One immediate concern I have is that the apps_important icon is usually used to indicate a serious system problem. The icon carries negative connotations. Since this template is applied to a user who is only suspected of being a SP, and since there is no standard (AFAIK) for applying the template, I'd like to try a "softer" icon. I'll go ahead and change it to a different one that seems to apply. Most of the ones that would be suitable can be found here. This is just suggested as a trial change, I'm certainly not tied to it. -O^O 18:30, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I think it's ok, but is there a non-gender specific version? ∞Who?¿? 19:28, 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^O 19:17, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
I think that Image:Nuvola apps kdmconfig.png would be a better call, since it depicts 2 users. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 10:02, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Category change?

Has the category changed for sock puppets? If so we should update the template. -Will Beback 07:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Usage

What/where are the guidelines for the usage of this template? Can any user place it, once a determination has come back from Checkuser? Or should it only be placed by admins? What should happen if it is properly placed, but then the user persists in removing it, even though checkuser confirms the status.? --Elonka 15:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

To answer the question of what happens if a checkuser confirms sockpuppetry, {{SockpuppetCheckuser}}. Also see {{SockpuppetProven}} Kevin_b_er 03:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] proposal for newer sockpuppet template

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

Do you support or oppose? I support for this template. --Bigtop (customer service - thank you for your cooperation.) 06:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

support looks cool Minun (talk) 18:52, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
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? Axiomm 04:36, 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.--Srleffler 22:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
oppose. Not big on the sockpuppet barnstar.--Srleffler 22:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Support with the following reservations.
  1. Get rid of the barnstar image; barnstars are associated with rewarding users here, not punishing them.
  2. 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.
--Ingeborg S. Nordén 15:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Avoiding redirect / replacing URL block log link

Please change a redirect from Wikipedia:Sock puppet to Wikipedia:Sock puppetry on the main protected template page. Also please replace:

<small>See [{{SERVER}}/wiki/Special:Log/block?page=User:{{PAGENAMEE}} block log]</small>

by

<small><span class="plainlinks">[{{fullurl:Special:Log/block|page=User:{{PAGENAMEE}}}} block log.]</span></small>

so that the arrow in superscript after "block log" will not appear visibly. -- ADNghiem501 06:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Done. the wub "?!" 18:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Oops! Please add See with 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. -- ADNghiem501 11:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Done. Kimchi.sg 17:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:BetacommandBot substing

Why is User:BetacommandBot subst:ing all uses of this template? —Quarl (talk) 2006-07-29 17:40Z

I think it's according to Wikipedia:Template substitution that the bot is working on. Please leave a message to User talk:BetacommandBot instead; the owner of this bot will respond to you on your talk page. -- ADNghiem501 23:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Template:Sockpuppet is not listed in WP:SUBST. Please don't encourage talk page fragmentation; this is the right place to discuss it. —Quarl (talk) 2006-07-30 00:01Z
I don't see the bot is listed there either. -- ADNghiem501 00:08, 30 July 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 beleive there was an error, I apllogise for that mistake and have fixed the error in my bot. if at any time anyone has questions about my bot please leave a comment on its talk page. i have a failsafe in plase so that when there is a comment it stops working untill i review the message. Betacommand 04:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Small change..

Could someone change See block log. to See (current autoblocks block log) or something like that?--205.188.116.12 03:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Done. --CBD 20:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ja:

sysops, please add interlang to ja:Template:Sockpuppet.--端くれの錬金術師 08:19, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Done. Kusma (討論) 11:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thx!--端くれの錬金術師 04:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] cs:

sysops,please change interlang for cs: from cs:Šablona:Sockpuppet to cs:Šablona:Loutkový účet. It has been moved.--端くれの錬金術師 09:17, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image

Image:Puppeter_template.gif would be a more appropriate icon. See {{SockpuppetProven}} for example. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template category

What cat should this template be in? Rich Farmbrough, 11:30 12 December 2006 (GMT).

OK, Created cat, What cat should that be in? Rich Farmbrough, 12:06 12 December 2006 (GMT).
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/o/c/Template_talk%7ESockpuppet_2e3c.html"