Template talk:Sockpuppet

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Template:Sockpuppet is permanently protected from editing, as it is a heavily used or visible template.

Substantial changes should be proposed here, and made by administrators if the proposal is uncontroversial, or has been discussed and is supported by consensus. Use {{editprotected}} to attract the attention of an administrator in such cases.
Any contributor may edit the template's documentation to add usage notes, categories or interwiki links.
Articles for deletion
This page was previously nominated for deletion. Please see prior discussion(s) before considering re-nomination:

Contents

[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)
Image:Nuvola apps kdmconfig.png
Image:Nuvola apps kdmconfig.png
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 believe there was an error, I apllogise for that mistake and have fixed the error in my bot. if at any time anyone has questions about my bot please leave a comment on its talk page. i have a failsafe in plase so that when there is a comment it stops working untill i review the message. Betacommand 04:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[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. --hashikure(talk) 18:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Done. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 04:46, 3 February 2007 (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, Category:Sockpuppet templates What cat should that be in? Rich Farmbrough, 12:06 12 December 2006 (GMT).

[edit] Edit request

Like we have on {{Sockpuppeteer}}, could someone add the following code to the start of the template message?

{{#ifeq:{{{2|}}}|blocked|This user has been [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked indefinitely]] because it|It}} is suspected that {{#ifeq:{{{2|}}}|blocked|he/she|this user}} might be a [[Wikipedia:Sock puppetry|sock puppet]] or impersonator of [[User:{{ucfirst:{{{1}}}}}|{{ucfirst:{{{1}}}}}]]'''.

--AAA! (AAAA) 03:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

  • The parameters seem to be mixing up. Anyone here more experienced with coding this in?¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 19:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Alright, I experimented with the new parameters a bit more and it seems to function just fine now.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 19:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Looks good at first glance, easy enough mistakes to make. One thought, would it be easier to use "blocked=yes"? – Luna Santin (talk) 19:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Go ahead and key it in if it works better. I'm no wiz with templates as you can tell :P.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 19:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Full stop

Yes, this is a pretty useless request, but could someone just add a full stop at the end of the bolded sentence? --AAA! (AAAA) 03:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Banne-- I mean done. Good catch. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Banne? --AAA! (AAAA) 05:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] One word?

{{editprotected}} Isn't "sockpuppet" one word? If so, could you change it? --AAA! (AAAA) 12:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Per usage on Wikipedia:Sock puppetry, it's two words. What exactly would you like to be changed? Sandstein 21:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
"If so, could you change it?" But since it's not, disregard this. --AAA! (AAAA) 00:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wording

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 Levy 08:29, 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 Levy 09:25, 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)
Thank you. I have no strong opinion about the "impersonator" wording. —David Levy 09:42, 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)

[edit] From Template_talk:SockpuppetProven

[edit] 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 - Talk 06:46, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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 - Talk 20:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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. --Ais523 12:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

It was fixed. Iolakana•T 17:36, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] From Template_talk:SockpuppetCheckuser

[edit] Reverted image addition

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)

[edit] 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? Grandmasterka 04:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it doesn't like anything after the first space... See User:Ali Hamed El Bastawisi. Could somebody with more template know-how fix this? Grandmasterka 02:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alternate templates

In the case of an abusive sockpuppet which has been confirmed, but is not blocked, which template should be used? --Elonka 17:34, 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)

[edit] 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:

{{User:AAA!/Sockpuppet|example}}

It is suspected that this user might be a sock puppet of Example.
Please refer to contributions for evidence. See block log and current autoblocks.

{{User:AAA!/Sockpuppet|example|blocked}}

This user has been blocked indefinitely because it is suspected that the user is a sock puppet of Example.
Please refer to contributions for evidence. See block log and current autoblocks.

{{User:AAA!/Sockpuppet|example|confirmed}}

This user is a sock puppet of Example, and has been blocked indefinitely.
Please refer to contributions for evidence. See block log and current autoblocks.

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:

It is suspected that this user might be a sock puppet of [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]].
Please refer to contributions for evidence. See block log and current autoblocks.

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 · talk 13:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, I don't really know what to do. Can you do it for me? --AAA! (AAAA) 22:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
If I understand correctly, you want the 'confirmed' toggle to change the message as such:
Former This user has been blocked indefinitely because the user is a sock puppet of Pathoschild.
Proposed This user is a sock puppet of Pathoschild, and has been blocked indefinitely.
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)
Done. —{admin} Pathoschild 05:17:03, 06 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. But unfortunately, it has also messed up {{Blockedsockpuppet}}. I don't know what's wrong. --AAA! (AAAA) 04:01, 7 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)

[edit] 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)

Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 23:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please replace all .png images to .svg version

{{editprotected}} Please replace this .png image: to this .svg version: 68.5.224.107 20:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

How it should look like:

It is suspected that this user is a sock puppet of [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]].
Please refer to contributions for evidence. See block log and current autoblocks.
Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 01:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages

I added a switch so that confirmed and blocked now keys this category too, as both imply indefblocked. -- Avi 16:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

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. Acalamari 17:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
No prob. But then we need to delete the automatic marking from {{indefblockeduser}} since puppets are often tageed that way too, no? -- Avi 21:31, 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. Acalamari 00:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template design

{{editprotected}}

Please could someone change the design so it looks similar to this:

It is suspected that this user may be a sock puppet of [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]].
Please refer to contributions for evidence. See block log


The background colour is taken from it:w:Template:Sockpuppet. The above design is from a copy in my userspace for testing.

The text doesn't need changing, just the background design. --SunStar Net talk 16:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Why change the color on this one? The same background color is used on all of these templates. --- RockMFR 16:45, 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)

[edit] Blocked

{{editprotected}}

Shouldn't this template just be redirected to {{Blockedsockpuppet}} because they are identical. The sunder king 15:00, 19 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. -- Avi 15:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I edited the wrong talkpage! doh!!!! I meant {{Sockpuppetconfirmed}} to be redirected to {{blockedsockpuppet}}. my mistake sorry. The sunder king 18:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
That's okay, because Template talk:SockpuppetProven actually redirects here. So just say which template you want changed on this page. --AAA! (AAAA) 06:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

The templates {{Blockedsockpuppet}} amd {{Sockpuppetconfirmed}} are exactly the same. Shouldn't one be redirected to the other or one altered, because they even say the same thing!. --The sunder king 08:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
All redirects should now point to Template:Blockedsockpuppet. Cheers. --MZMcBride 02:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Length of time for application of template

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)
Scientizzle reverted him again. Since he's an admin, I'll take that as common sense indeed. Katr67 (talk) 00:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The question still stands.[User:Richprentice|Richprentice]] (talk) 03:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Puppets

Why is a sock puppet illustrated by a picture of a marionette? AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 18:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)