Template talk:Sockpuppeteer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a really nice looking warning box, but I'm concerned that the "puppet master" language might glorify sock-puppeting in the minds of the offenders. I'd like to suggest consideration for changing the language to something dismissive, basically to make it so that someone who has the {{sockpuppeteer}} tag on their page won't want to show it off to the rest of his friends in middleschool. Something along the lines of "This user is suspected or confirmed as using sock-puppets to evade bans/blocks" or some other defanged text. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

That's a good point, Chairboy, I agree. I put up an edit request template for you. I also wonder why the "list" links appear red, even when the categories are not empty, but that's no big deal. — coelacan talk — 04:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Categories are weird: They can be populated, but unless you create them (Same as a page), they appear as red links. 68.39.174.238 11:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Changed the wording in line with Chairboy's comment. Ashibaka tock 06:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Change suggestion

Wouldn't it be easier just to say "to violate policy" rather then try and give a laundry list of things you can do with puppets? 68.39.174.238 23:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] </br>!?

The character sequence </br> lacks any syntactical and semantical meaning. It should definitely be removed from ...sock puppets</br>to evade... and changed to <br>, <br /> or two real line breaks at ...puppets]].</small></br>''The use... Anyway, you are free to use the toolbar above the editing box which has a button like this: regards, Torzsmokus 20:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wording of template

"Abuse, libel or ban evasion" - these are very different wiki crimes to be covered by such a broad brush. Avoiding 3rr or protectionist editing is not the same as abusive or libelous behaviour and I think having this catch all template lump these together could be libelous itself - remember some people do edit under their own names. Sophia 21:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit

I think you should add a contribution link somewhere, maybe before or after block log link. Code: [[Special:Contributions/{{PAGENAME}}]] --AAA! (AAAA) 03:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Seeing as this is designed for userpages, which have a contribs link in the toolbox, this probably isn't necessary. --ais523 18:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Hm. Good-faith request, I'm glad to see. :) Not sure, either, myself -- to add to what ais523 mentioned, I rarely see this template used alone; it's usually supplemented with {{indefblocked}} or something similar, which itself includes a contribs link IIRC. Luna Santin 08:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Replacment Image

I made an SVG version of the image used on this template. Perhaps it should be used? Improvement suggestions welcome. --Midnightcomm 04:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. --AAA! (AAAA) 03:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I have added it. Thank you for creating it. Essjay (Talk) 03:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suspected or confirmed?

This user is the operator of one or more abusive or block/ban-evading sock puppets. This is contrary to Wikipedia policy: the use of abusive sock puppets is prohibited, and the use of sock puppets to evade bans will result in the ban being reset, and may further lengthen it.

(Links for this account: block log • confirmed sock puppets • suspected socks).

Just a suggestion, but shouldn't that top sentence It is suspected that this user has used... be changed to It is suspected or confirmed that this user has used... I really think that adding "confirmed" would make the template sound more efficient and accurate because of two reasons:

  1. More likely it has been confirmed that the sockpuppeteer is an abusive sock master if WP:RCU confirmed the user's sock activities
  2. This template should really be for confirmed puppetmasters instead of suspected puppetmasters

See what I mean? Power level (Dragon Ball) 04:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Why not add or confirmed after where it says: It is suspected...? That's how it was before. I don't get why it was changed. Power level (Dragon Ball) 06:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
My main objection to this is that it is awkward and redundant. There are few or no confirmed sockpuppets, only varying degrees of probability. One can rarely be objectively sure that a user is a sockpuppet, even with a CheckUser search. Given that, 'suspected' covers CheckUser-confirmed cases anyway; they're just much more strongly suspected. —{admin} Pathoschild 08:01:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Please change. "It is suspected that this user has used one or more accounts abusively" to "It is suspected or confirmed that this user has used one or more accounts abusively." Retiono Virginian 16:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] plural, singular

The {{sockpuppeteer|banned}} template now gives this line: This user has been blocked indefinitely because it is suspected that they have used one or more accounts abusively. - if you want in singular, you have to add "this user has" like {{sockpuppeteer|this user has|banned}}. Can it be done, that the singular form comes first? (without the need of adding "this user has") What is the reason for having a plural wording, anyway? --Vince hey, yo! :-) 00:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Seems to be an application of the Singular they. Essjay (Talk) 01:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Yep, although it is technically epicene they. Using a gender-neutral pronoun is less awkward than, say, "this user has been blocked because this user has..." or "this user has been blocked because he/she/it has...". :) —{admin} Pathoschild 01:32:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] About first sentence

Maybe change "It is suspected that..." to "It is supected or confirmed that..." --AAA! (AAAA) 08:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I've restored the older version of {{Sockpuppeteerproven}} which has confirmed, since this one does not. I think it better to have the two separate templates. -- Avi 18:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)