Template talk:Sockpuppeteer

message: 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  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Language idea

message: 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)
thread_title:  Change suggestion 

message: The character sequence </br> lacks any syntactical and semantical meaning. It should definitely be removed from ...sock puppets</br>to evade... and changed to ,  or two real line breaks at ...puppets]].</small>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)
thread_title:  &lt;/br&gt;!? 

message: "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)
thread_title: Wording of template

message: I think you should add a contribution link somewhere, maybe before or after block log link. Code: Special:Contributions/ --AAA! (AAAA) 03:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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  or something similar, which itself includes a contribs link IIRC. Luna Santin 08:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit

message: 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)
replies: text: I agree. --AAA! (AAAA) 03:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Replacment Image 

message: 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:
# More likely it has been confirmed that the sockpuppeteer is an abusive sock master if WP:RCU confirmed the user's sock activities
# 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Suspected or confirmed?

message: The  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 . 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)
replies: text: Seems to be an application of the Singular they. Essjay (Talk) 01:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  plural, singular 

message: Maybe change "It is suspected that..." to "It is supected or confirmed that..." --AAA! (AAAA) 08:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've restored the older version of  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)
thread_title: About first sentence

message: Setting confirmed or blocked says indef block.
Should we allow for a version that doesn't say indef blocked.Mayalld (talk) 12:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  confirmed/blocked 

message: This user has been blocked indefinitely because it is suspected that this user has used one or more accounts abusively. ==> This user has been blocked indefinitely due to the suspicion that one or more accounts were used abusively.
::Disagree. It doesn't say that this user was the abuser, but it does imply it.  — Rlevse • Talk •  22:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Disagree. It doesn't say that this user was the abuser, but it does imply it.  — Rlevse • Talk •  22:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

text: — Rlevse • Talk •  22:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Disagree, "their" means more than one person. So how about his or her? -- IRP ☎ 22:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. I'll get good template admin to do it as these are rather intertwined.  — Rlevse • Talk •  01:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If somethings not broken, why fix it? - Oppose any change without reason   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»   (talk) 14:14, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested changes 

message: The wording "due to his or her use of one or more accounts abusively" which is used in the lower two alternatives ("proven" and "blocked with evidence") of this template sounds weird and is bad English. This should be changed to "due to his or her abusive use of one or more accounts". Is he back? (talk) 14:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: * I think your second alternative sounds best. Is he back? (talk) 00:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: * Done I've changed the language similarly for all of the alternatives, as I would've had to restructure the template entirely otherwise.--Aervanath (talk) 15:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Language correction 

message: Could someone please update the template from Template:Sockpuppeteer/sandbox? The sandbox changes the SPI casepage link to 'Sockpuppet investigations case page' and if a casepage already exists for the sockpuppeteer, it makes it appear automagically in the links. Foxy Loxy Pounce! 11:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: The code doesn't look right to me. You could end up with two links to the same page if the page exists. Please check your code. I'm not sure what the advantage of this is - if the page doesn't exist yet then it might well be convenient to have the redlink to help create it. Or maybe I'm missing something. Martinmsgj 14:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The parameter and the automatic one are nested, so that one overrides the other, so that is not a problem (it has already been tested) and because of the specific format required at a SPI page, we don't want users just creating case pages, because they wont have the required content and format. Foxy Loxy Pounce! 22:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

text: The template also now has a timeblocked param for sockpuppeteers who were blocked, but not indef. Foxy Loxy Pounce! 07:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 07:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editprotected 

message: Could the template please be updated with the contents of ? This makes it use , instead of the deprecated messagebox class. TIA. —Ms2ger (talk) 12:20, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 16:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mbox 

message: I'm wondering if we can add a category that seperates suspected sockpuppeteers from confirmed sockpuppeteers. I just took a look at the category and I didn't know who was a sockpuppeteer and who was not. Maybe we can clarify this a bit? Taylor Karras (talk) 07:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes?

message:  
Change abusively used "one or more accounts" to "multiple accounts". Abusing one account is not sockpuppetry. Triplestop x3 20:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I would do it, but all of the templates use the same wording.  Are you going to propose those be changed also? - Rjd0060 (talk) 22:28, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

text: Not sure your wording solves the problem. In the case of good hand/bad hand accounts, the operator is a sockpuppeteer, though only one account is abused.  Skomorokh  22:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Having one good account and abusing another account should count as abusing multiple accounts. And yes, I am proposing everything be changed. "abusively used one or more accounts" implies that using one account is sockpuppetry, when in cases like straightforward vandalism that is not the case. Triplestop x3 22:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit protected 

message: The Category appears to be incorrect due to the renaming of cats from "Wikipedia confirmed sockpuppets . . ." to "Confirmed Wikipedia sockpuppets . . ."  I'll try to work this myself when I get a moment.  Also, the template seems to only work for newer sockpuppets as the evidence won't link to the older form of "Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/username".
:use the following tag |evidence=Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/XXXXXX for those cases. -- Avi (talk) 05:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: actually, I think I built in functionality to just add |casename=XXXX where XXXX is the name used for the RFCU. -- Avi (talk) 16:14, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem with the cats and links to evidence 

message: When I made the emendations to this template a while back, the idea was to have it be the single puppeteer template. In that vein, I've expanded the examples in the documentation to show the specific CU and non-CU versions, and I'm slowly going through the 's converting them. Any help would be appreciated :) -- Avi (talk) 05:48, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Converting {{tl|checkedpuppeteer}} to this template 

message: This should say ""account has been blocked indefinately" rather than user.  Pages using this often have a "user has been banned" message too, I would say the account is blocked becasue the user is banned. Making the change, please let me know if you think it's wrong. Rich Farmbrough, 14:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: User to account

message: I have a suggestion: how about changing the wording of the templates that involve CheckUser to "CheckUser has confirmed that....". The reason being that AFAIK CheckUser is a one-time process that checks the offending/suspected accounts' IPs against another account/confirmed offender. When it's finished, the report appears on the appropriate page and that's it. It isn't like admins with CU rights can/do perform such checks any time at will, is it? :P CoolKoon (talk) 21:02, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Present perfect for checkuser 

message:  gives the following text:  "This account has been blocked for a period of time due the operator's abusive use of one or more accounts."  I believe "due" needs to be changed to "due to" in order for this sentence to convey the intended meaning using proper English.  Any comments?  If no one objects, I'll make this change.  — Richwales 15:45, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Typo in "timeblocked" option 

message: I think it would be helpful if the account this template is used on has the option to include the account in "Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of foo" or "Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of" to automatically list the master account. The master acocunt could be given the name * to distinguish it (ie *). -- A Certain White Cat chi? 12:23, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Include the category 

message: I want to add the word 'the' in the  section of the template the sentence currently doesn't make any sense. 
Hto9950 (talk | contribs) 07:13, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that you mean ;  Done. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:37, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request on 22 December 2012 

message: Per the discussion at Template talk:Sockpuppet#Tiny RfC, I think we should restore the sockmaster icon over here as well. It's neither evil nor threatening, and the blue dot is outright non-informative. De728631 (talk) 15:01, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Icon 

message: "Abusively using one or more accounts" is confusing. This could potentially be construed to mean that the user is abusively using his/her own account. I think that this should be changed to "abusively using two or more accounts" so that it is clear that it means that the user has been accused of socking specifically.
Gparyani (talk) 16:22, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Question: , how about "Abusively using multiple accounts"?  I'll change it to that, and if you don't think that works, then I'll revert and we can discuss some more. :) —  (e • t • c) 16:50, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Technical 13: Yes, I think that that works. Thanks! Gparyani (talk) 17:03, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

text: Done Great!  Then this is done. :)  —  (e • t • c) 17:09, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template-protected edit request on 10 June 2014 

message: Where is the template for allowed sockpuppets?  Why isn't this included on this page in the see also section, or in the category?  Thank you.  Thewhitebox (talk) 09:57, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: where is the template for okay sockpuppets?

message: Something is wrong in the following text: ; it has one closing curly bracket too many. Eyesnore (pc) 00:17, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: — xaosflux Talk 00:56, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template-protected edit request on 23 September 2014 

message: Shouldnt this variety be reworded to say the account has actually been blocked not that it may need to be? 146.200.40.99 (talk) 11:00, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's fine as it is. Some sockpuppeteers openly admit to their wrongdoing or their editing pattern is so obvious that we don't need an SPI. But at that stage they may not yet be blocked, so the |proven variety may serve to alert administrators that blocking is still required. De728631 (talk) 12:08, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  <nowiki>{{sockpuppeteer|proven}}</nowiki> 

message: On the  template, when "checkuser" is used on the first parameter, a CheckUser image is added on the right. However,  does not do this. Please add the following markup inside the  thing:
|imageright=
TL22 (talk) 22:15, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay,  — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:24, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template-protected edit request on 12 June 2015 

message: The sockpuppeteer template has one major issue: It don't have any options to tell that the puppeteer is both proven and blocked. How can we implement it? NasssaNser (talk/edits) 12:21, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proven and blocked 

message: Putting this here as a request because I don't really know what I'm doing with templates and don't want to screw things up. It'd be nice if the template would include a link to the sockmaster's SPI, in more cases than it currently does. Since this template is meant only to appear on the sockmaster's user page, and in theory if there is an SPI it'll be under the sockmaster's name (or redirected to the sockmaster's name) I think that it should be easy enough to implement. I just don't know how to do it. Cheers. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:58, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: There is already the  parameter but, it isn't automatically included because there are cases where the name of the established sockpuppeteer and the SPI page are different. I think though it should be possible to implement a default check in this template to search for an SPI page of the same name. If it exists, it should be linked, if the name is different, the parameter value could be added manually. De728631 (talk) 14:38, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to SPI 

message: Can we have an option here related to WP:3STRIKES, alerting admins that this editor should not be lightly unblocked?  --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:48, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  3STRIKES 

message: Implement a few extra parameters from its sister template, . See sandbox for proposed changes and WT:SPI for discussion relating to this. qedk (t 桜 c) 18:12, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Done — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:31, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template-protected edit request on 9 May 2019 

message: I noticed the  parameter fails if both  and  are given, resulting in a sort of "blockedconfirmed" parameter which fails every switch case. Just a minor change to switch it only if  is missing. See here for suggested changes. Pinging  who made the last change. qedk (t 桜 c) 05:50, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: this seems fairly straight forward, but can you demonstrate the current issue on the /testcases? Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 05:57, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Done. The current template fails the last case. --qedk (t 桜 c) 06:02, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

text: Done DannyS712 (talk) 06:07, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template-protected edit request on 27 May 2019 

message: Change "because the account owner" to "because its owner" and change "because CheckUser evidence confirms that the operator" to"because CheckUser evidence confirms that its owner" for brevity and harmonization. ミラP 01:32, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the first edit, but the second one should probably be the account's owner because "it" could be referring to the evidence. --Ahecht (TALKPAGE) 18:13, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

text: Done Izno (talk) 23:01, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template-protected edit request on 26 February 2020 

message: I have a version with a "globally locked" parameter as a replacement for . To enable the "globally locked" message, set parameter locked to anything that's not blank. –User456541 18:09, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this really necessary? * Pppery * it has begun... 03:59, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:   This doesn't quite answer your question, but Template:Sockpuppet has it. --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 21:14, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

text: Done Primefac (talk) 14:48, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit request on July 25, 2020

message: Description of suggested change: Would it be possibleto have a date appear once the template is applied, I realise it's not a big difference, but it saves having to go to page history everytime I want to see when action was taken with regard to the account. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 04:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the  template. There is no way for a template to know when it was added to a page, so this would require a new parameter to be used by editors. I find it unlikely that it would be used. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:02, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: @JJMC89 - there's two different issues, consensus and technical. On the second, I'm requesting the inclusion of a timestamp; why would editors need to do anything? Could this not be done through the addition of ~~~~ or ? On consensus - happy to hear views why this would not be a good idea (although this is moot if there's a technical limitation I don't understand). Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 05:55, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  Adding a parameter for a user-specified date is technically trivial; however, I doubt that CUs, admins, and SPI clerks would use it. (I would only use it if the SPI script did it for me and not for any manual tagging I do.) — JJMC89 (T·C) 17:50, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request 26 March 2024