Template talk:Sockpuppet/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Documentation

I was under the impression that conventionally we would not expect this template to be used without a report being filed at WP:SPI. It seems common sense, but are there any notable exceptions? If not, would it be a good idea to mention that convention in the documentation of this template? Thanks --RexxS (talk) 16:45, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit request on 30 April 2013

In the image and imageright parameters of the ombox template, remove the link parameter where the files are listed so that it links to the file to comply with attribution requirement of some of the files. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 16:42, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Does this apply to all five images? File:Puppeter template.svg File:System-users.svg File:Wikipedia Checkuser.svg File:Stop_x_nuvola.svg File:Stop_x_nuvola_with_clock.svg --Redrose64 (talk) 17:30, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I think so. But... we're in the middle of a discussion regarding the template. This edit request is a bit premature. Cheers, theFace 17:42, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

It wouldn't be required for File:System-users.svg because it is in the public domain, however, I am unfamiliar with how to change it for individual images. If you know how to feel free to, however, it wouldn't be a bad thing to link to it for attribution. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 17:43, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, File:System-users.svg is PD. File:Puppeter template.svg is not, however. (Those are the two icons I would like to have in the new version; see my comment in the discussion above.) - theFace 17:54, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Done I removed the |link= from all. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:00, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and added alt text to all of the images per this section of the alt text guideline, which affects me as a screen reader user. Graham87 09:02, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Proposed changes

Based on discussion at User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise/Archive 30#Sock template I propose the following changes to the template. I'm happy to implement in the sandbox once there is some agreement here so that someone can review the changes. (Thanks to Fut.Perf. for the table below, which I've modified):

Template	Displays	Image All have File:System-users.svg on left)	Category	Instructions in template doc
{{sockpuppet}} {{sockpuppet|suspected}} {{sockpuppet|spi}}	"An editor has expressed concern..." (current wording)	[none]	Suspected	Account is not yet blocked but is under investigation
{{sockpuppet|blocked}}	"...is a suspected sock puppet ... has been blocked ..." (current wording)	File:Stop x nuvola.svg (for indef) or File:Stop x nuvola with clock.svg (with expiry)	Suspected	The account has been blocked on WP:DUCK evidence or behavioural evidence combined a with a possible or likely CU result (but it isn't certain). Modified 02:59, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
{{sockpuppet|proven}} {{Blocked sockpuppet}} (depreciated)	"...is a sock puppet..." (current wording)	File:Puppeter template.svg	[Full sock category]	Behaviour is beyond reasonable doubt (e.g. an admission) but there is no CU  Confirmed result (CU may have given another result). Modified 02:59, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
{{sockpuppet|confirmed}} {{sockpuppet|cuconfirmed}} {{sockpuppet|nbconfirmed}} {{Checked sockpuppet}} (depreciated)	"A Checkuser has confirmed..." (current wording)	File:Wikipedia Checkuser.svg	[Full sock category]	A CU has  Confirmed that the accounts are related

I don't image that these changes will adversely affect the previous usage as they fit with how it's been used in the past. (added after Bbb23's comment) With the exception of the proven parameter (see current doc details).

Question for everyone - do we want the right hand image to be replaced with File:Meta-Wiki Steward-2000px.png if |locked=yes has been set, it will also add "and has been locked globally" to the end of the bold statement (slightly different to current behaviour)?

There are currently two versions of links to the blocked user (normal User:Example link and {{user3}} Example (talk · contribs · logs) template) which is the preferred method?

Pinging some people who are involved/might want to comment @Future Perfect at Sunrise, Bbb23, Ponyo, DeltaQuad, Salvidrim!, Mike V, and Rschen7754: @King of Hearts, Richwales, Yunshui, and Timotheus Canens:. Anyone else, please feel free to comment. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:36, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, yes, and yes to the clarifications! Much needed update and standardization! I'll also humbly request that the SPI Helper script be updated accordingly. Perhaps we can take this opportunity to also look at master tags, I dunno how there are? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 01:42, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

• Also, for the user-linking I prefer {{user3}}, and we should add the text when globally locked, byt I'm not sure the proposed meta icon really conveys the concept ideally? Minor nitpick, though. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 01:55, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks Salv. My intention is to update (which will simplify) the helper script the same time as the template, but thanks for mentioning it! Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:53, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

• I guess I'm a bit confused. There are two broad categories of SPI tags, one for masters (sockpuppeteers), and one for sock puppets. Within those two categories, a tag can read that it's confirmed or checked by a CU or that it's suspected. In the table all I see are templates for puppets, and in some instances I don't see the name of the master within the template (I'm supposed to assume it maybe?). Also, the language in the rightmost column seems problematic, particularly based on the inconsistency of tagging practices by different editors. For example, the stuff about "possible-likely". Different taggers draw the line at different places as to whether a particular CU finding should translate into confirmed. Then, there's the problem of apparently marking someone as a sock (not suspected) if the "behavior is beyond a reasonable doubt". Is that going to be based on the discretion of the tagger? If so, it'll leave a lot of room for different results.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:02, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

• This will only change this template which is for sockpuppets (Template:sockpuppeteer is a different matter all together, which might be worth looking at later).

Regarding the name of the master - it will be included in all of them, the wording won't be changed from the current versions (I've added some ellipses to demonstrate this) so I was just quoting bits to show which they would be.

I think there's always going to be inconsistencies (as we as a project use the discretion of admins to decide things), short of having one version for CU confirmation and another for non-CU cases which I don't think is really the best option. And the tagger (and blocking admin/one who considers the unblock) always needs to consider how highly to weigh the CU evidence and the behavioural evidence. I would see the beyond reasonable doubt as they only way you'll be unblocked is if you own up to it, whereas for the suspected one the sock might be able to produce evidence to show that they aren't. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:54, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanations, Callan.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:37, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

• Hallelujah, Hallelujah...Hallelujah, Hallelujah, Hallelujah! Thank you Future Perfect at Sunrise & Callanecc for getting this ball rolling! It's time to clarify these up for sure. Since it's past midnight, i'm going to leave this to my better judgement tomorrow or some point, but yes, I will stop by and comment. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 05:27, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

• I haven't forgotten, just slipped my mind. It's now in my bookmarks bar so I respond tonight hopefully. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 18:12, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

• @DeltaQuad: :P. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:06, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

• That ping didn't work :( Anyway @Callanecc: I have an issue with "This account is a suspected sock puppet", and it being blocked at the same time. How about "This account is has been determined to be a sock puppet of... [master details] ... by the evidence presented at [SPI]" or something along those lines? Also, i'm not sure we need separate tags for admissions...is there any other case that template could be used? Also what kind of case are we looking to post "|blocked|notblocked=yes" for? Otherwise, I like it :D. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 07:36, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

• @DeltaQuad: I'm trying to create a difference between there is enough evidence to block and I'm absolutely certain it's the same person (which we sort of do now, but not really). Consider, for example, the Jajadelera accounts which are painfully obvious with Xoloa500s which isn't as certain. Plus my other objective was to depart from the current wording as little as possible. I guess we could go with "This account has been determined to be a sock puppet of [master] and has..." but it seems a bit long and convoluted compared to the "is a suspected sock" and "is a sock" templates. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:55, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

• @Callanecc: Looking at this with fresh eyes, it seems fine. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 18:26, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Regarding notblocked, probably not that case, that's just the one I picked, it works with all of the templates which say blocked indef by default. I guess it's probably more for proven but where there is no necessity to block the account (e.g. it's definitely a sock but hasn't edited for a while and isn't likely to). Given that they say blocked I just wanted to give the option for them not to. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:55, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

• I don't see how you can determine that a sockpuppet is suspected vs not, and editor just makes a claim. It seems self-contradictory. The first template in the test cases seems to cover things sufficiently. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 18:26, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

• @DeltaQuad: The inclusion of both proven (definitely is) and blocked (suspected that it is) Fut.Perf's comment at the top of this section. Also consider when the behaviour is so obvious there is no need for CU is seems strange to decline CU but only tag them as suspected, and actually creates a reason for not declining CU even when it's blatantly obvious.Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:45, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

• @DeltaQuad: Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:49, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

• Alright, given that there has been some support I've deployed the new code in the sandbox. The testcases page now displays the version discussed above. I needed to make some changes as I wrote it (mainly grammatical), plus the spi/sockpuppet/default version doesn't include instructions to the "accused" (can be added back, just need to massage the English if we do). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:17, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

• I made some copy edits to testcases.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:34, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Given there's been no comments for a month or so, I've implemented the change. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:01, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

"An editor has expressed a concern..."

The following discussion 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.

---

Of what value is it to have language in the template that reads "An editor has expressed a concern that this account may be a sock puppet of Example"? I have never found it useful in any way, as a run-of-the-mill editor, to tag an account as a sockpuppet, as it only tips them off so they can go on one last vandalism binge or hop to a new account. Or they become indignant ("How da'st you accuse me!") and become an insufferable moron that takes up more of your time. This language encourages editors to use this template when there is no requirement to notify socks. It's pointless and I'm not the only one active in SPIs who thinks so. SPI clerk Vanjagenije has asked another user specifically not to use this template.[1] SNUGGUMS has expressed a reluctance to use this template too.[2]. We know where I am on the matter. Any chance we could rejigger this template to get rid of the default "An editor has expressed a concern" language? This is the sort of template that is best used by admins, although I can see where other users might need it for sock maintenance. Thanx. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:05, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: My opinion is that this template is useful only to tag accounts that are already indefinitely blocked, but for reasons other than sockuppetry. Vanjagenije (talk) 17:10, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I can dig that. In that case, {{sockpuppet}} {{sockpuppet|suspected}} and {{sockpuppet|spi}} should be retired. Well maybe not the base template—that should be turned into something else—and the template docs would need to be updated. (Obviously...) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:12, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

For some socks, they don't really care. They know they'll be spotted quickly and will just create new ones, so throwing the tag on them is a warning to others. For a couple of socks that I'm watching, they know that I know that they are socks, but for various reasons I haven't filed a SPI on them. In both current cases, they are generally productive editors in a fairly underserved area, give generally good references for their edits and are a net positive for Wikipedia. So long as they don't revert to what caused issues in the past, it's helpful for them to remain. That, and they've shown no inclination of caring about being blocked so I'd rather know what account they currently use. The tag is there so they know others know who they are. Ravensfire (talk) 17:54, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Cyphoidbomb, if the editor is highly likely a WP:Sockpuppet, I don't see much of a problem with the "An editor has expressed a concern..." tag. That tag is added in WP:Duck cases, for example, where editors have agreed in a WP:Sockpuppet investigation that the account is a WP:Sockpuppet but where the WP:CheckUser evidence is not there for whatever reason. As anyone who watches my user page/talk page knows, I'm usually certain that an editor is a WP:Sockpuppet before I call them one. All a WP:CheckUser does for me in those cases is provide "hard" data to support me, if the "hard" data is there. Flyer22 (talk) 22:25, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

And the only reason I stated "usually certain" is because, in a few cases, the editor might simply be an editor returning via WP:Clean start. As far as I know, I have not had any of the editors I suspected of WP:Sockpuppetry actually be a WP:Clean start matter, though. Flyer22 (talk) 22:29, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Proposal

@Bbb23, Salvidrim!, Mike V, Ponyo, Reaper Eternal, and Callanecc: Do we have a consensus to restrict the usage of this template (and similar) only to admins and SPI Clerks? If we do have a consensus, we should edit the template documentation to explicitly say that the template should only be used by admins and clerks. This template is very often misused by users. Some users tag other users' pages with this just because they suspect them being sockpuppets, before any investigation is concluded. THe wording of the template does encourage them, I know ("An editor has expressed a concern"). But, it is a very bad way to express your concern. First of all, it is WP:UNCIVIL to alter other user's page with such a strong accusation without first discussing it at WP:SPI. And, second, even if the user is a sockpuppet, it is often not useful to tag him per WP:DENY. So, I think we should make a consensus and alter the documentation so to explicitly say that this template should only be used by admins and clerks, and to say it right at the top (currently, the documentation says that the tag is placed "usually by patrolling administrators at SPI" low in the body of the text). Vanjagenije (talk) 16:13, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I have a strong bias against anyone using the sock templates other than the SPI team and administrators, but I find that heavy going sometimes. With respect to this issue, the template should not be used by anyone (that includes administrators) unless they've at least opened an SPI, and even then. As a former clerk or a checkuser, I never use this template. I see no purpose to it. If I determine that someone is a sock, I use the appropriate template after I've made that finding and it would not be this one.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:39, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Bbb23 what other template? {{Sockpuppet}} is the only sock-tagging template. Stuff like confirmed/suspected/etc. is passed with parameters. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:48, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

You're right. I never use that parameter.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:51, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

TBPH I never use any of them directly, the Helper Script does all the hard work for me. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:58, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

• I think admins and the SPI team (clerks and CUs) yes, for the reasons Vanjagenije has stated. However we'd need a fairly broad consensus to be able to enforce that so hopefully the RFC tag does that job. Given there is the option for the evidence parameter (and how obvious it can be sometimes) I disagree with Bbb23 regarding a submitted SPI being a requirement (though I'd state that's best practice). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:23, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose/Sort of neutral: Given what has been stated in the #"An editor has expressed a concern..." section above, I see no need to limit this tag to the SPI team (clerks and CUs). And it's fine if anyone tags an account as a WP:Sock when that account has been confirmed as a WP:Sock. Furthermore, even though I am not officially a part of the SPI team (though I've considered joining it), I commonly work on WP:Sockpuppet investigations (as noted my user page) and consider myself a part of the team. While some editors might disagree with one or more of my methods for catching WP:Socks, those methods usually work. I've also disagreed with Vanjagenije on an identifying a WP:Sockpuppet aspect. And regarding what Vanjagenije stated above, I disagree that "it is a very bad way to express your concern. First of all, it is WP:UNCIVIL to alter other user's page with such a strong accusation without first discussing it at WP:SPI. And, second, even if the user is a sockpuppet, it is often not useful to tag him per WP:DENY." My experience with these cases prove otherwise. I am not concerned with supposedly being uncivil to a WP:Sock by noting that they are a WP:Sock or questioning if they are one, when that WP:Sock shouldn't be editing Wikipedia to begin with. Asking an editor if they are a WP:Sock is, in my opinion/experience, commonly acceptable and/or helpful, as Spartaz and I discussed. In that discussion, it is easy to see that implying that a person is WP:Sock, or outright accusing them of being a WP:Sock, when you are certain or highly certain that WP:Sockpuppetry is occurring can be beneficial. It is beneficial to gauge the reaction, especially when identifying certain patterns of behavior (the way the editor types, signs their username, etc.). That stated (and this is where my neutral feelings come in), people who are not very certain that a person is a WP:Sock shouldn't tag an account as a WP:Sock, and they should be prepared to prove the WP:Sockpuppetry if they add the tag. They also should not restore it once it's been removed, except for in a confirmed case. I usually don't add these tags anyway. Flyer22 (talk) 02:15, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

• I wouldn't necessarily have a problem if someone was tagging after the account had been blocked, but then they might not have been tagged by an admin/CU/clerk for good reason. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:27, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

• No. Reaper Eternal (talk) 04:53, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

  Some reasoning might be helpful here — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:05, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

• Question. Could someone please clarify what "no" and "oppose" mean? I'm not quite sure what the proposal is.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:22, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

• @Bbb23: See my post above, especially the last sentence. Vanjagenije (talk) 10:00, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

• @Vanjagenije: With all due respect, I would prefer a clearer statement of the proposal, which is apparently a two-parter anyway. For those of us who are commenting and explaining what we think, although it may not be focused, at least we hopefully give enough context to what we think is appropriate and why, but for those who just insert a vote, it's not so clear. That said, I have a few more thoughts. Let's assume we permit any editor to tag a userpage with "expressed a concern", regardless of whether there's been a formal finding of sock puppetry. Assuming the tagged user is not blocked, the user can simply remove the template. It's their userpage, and there's no reason why they have to put up with such a tag. It's no different from making an allegation of sock puppetry on their Talk page, which they can also remove. And if the user happens to be blocked for reasons other than sock puppetry, they can remove it when their block expires or they're unblocked. So, I'd prefer a more radical approach. Edit the template so "expressed a concern" is no longer even an option. That will leave suspected, "proven", and CU evidence, and those tags would normally be placed after a block based on sock puppetry.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:27, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

• @Bbb23: I like your proposal. Expressing concern on the userpage is useless anyway. Just makes confusion. We should alter the template so that it's clear it should be used only after the SPI finding. And then, it can be used by all users. By the way, I think my original proposal is clear enough: "we should make a consensus and alter the documentation so to explicitly say that this template should only be used by admins and clerks". I don't really see how can it be more clear. But, anyway, I like your new proposal more. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:33, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

• @Vanjagenije: My proposal went further than what you stated above. I want to change the template so "expressed a concern" is no longer a possibility. As I explained, I see no purpose served by that language even after a sock finding. The other options are all that is needed.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:49, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

• Like I said, I totally agree. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:51, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

• I thought about doing this on the last change but there really isn't a feasible way to do it given the sheer number (124000) times the template has been used. However, thinking about it somemore, we could change the "expressed a concern" message to something with practically the same meaning, like the wording to what |2=blocked is without the bit about it being blocked for example: This account is a suspected sock puppet of Example (talk · contribs · logs). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:45, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks for reminding me that changing a template has a rippling effect. That said, I don't see how the difference in language addresses my concerns. It still has the same problems I've highlighted, just with different words. If there really is no way to eliminate the parameter, then second best solution would be to restrict its use to the SPI team. Because I don't believe anyone on the team ever uses that flavor of the template, it would have the effect of eliminating it - assuming editors read and heed the instructions.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:13, 24 July 2015 (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.

Template-protected edit request on 23 December 2015

I noticed that, with the basic parameters of this template "blocked", "proven" and "confirmed", the template reads "This account is a....". However, when used with no parameters other than the sockmaster name, the template reads "An editor has expressed a concern.....". Could this prehaps be changed so that the template with only the sockmaster parameter reads the same as it does when using the "blocked", "proven" and "confirmed" parameters? Thanks. 166.197.104.34 (talk) 00:45, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

The "expressed a concern" version is used by some eidtors when they suspect user x of sock puppetry but there's not yet been a finding that user x is a sock puppet. Frankly, I've never liked it and would like to do away with it altogether, but it's fairly entrenched.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:27, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

The only time I would consider using such a "suspected-notblocked" tag would be on visibly ancient and abandoned accounts (where blocking is useless) who are suspected to have been used by a certain sockpuppeteer. I would never use it for active accounts -- either there are enough suspicions/evidence to block, or there are not enough to tag at all. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉` —Preceding undated comment added 02:39, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm late to the discussion, but I agree that the "expressed a concern" language isn't useful and shouldn't be used in the future. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 01:23, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

As just a normal non-admin editor, am I supposed to use this template or not? If not, maybe the wording should be changed to "an administrator has expressed"? In any case the doc could be clearer. Kendall-K1 (talk) 17:04, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't recommend that any non-administrators or non-SPI clerks use this template, although I agree that the doc and the parameters need work. Don't look at me, though, to tackle that thankless task.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:26, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Categories when not included

This template is being included in categories such as Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Example2 when it shouldn't be unless transcluded. I imagine it's just a case of a noinclude tag somewhere, but I can't see where it happens. Could someone sort this? I only came across it because it's started appearing in Wikipedia:Database reports/Red-linked categories with incoming links which I'm trying to clear. Le Deluge (talk) 09:51, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Specify "en.wikipedia.org" as a project

Replace [https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/autoblock/?user={{PAGENAMEE}} current autoblocks] with [https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/autoblock/?user={{PAGENAMEE}}&project=en.wikipedia.org current autoblocks], in order not to show the message "No wiki or project specified - default project set to: en.wikipedia". --Francisco (talk) 22:23, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Done Izno (talk) 22:38, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

"As" vs. "To be"

A somewhat minor issue, but I've always found this template a little awkward when it reads, "This account has been confirmed by a CheckUser as a sockpuppet of Example (talk · contribs)..." (emphasis mine). I think the issue is the dangling modifier "by a CheckUser". If it had read, "This account has been confirmed as a sockpuppet of Example (talk · contribs) by a CheckUser", it would be clearer, but as of now, the "as a sockpuppet" modifies the word "CheckUser", as though the CheckUser were the sockpuppet.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but for the best clarity, I think the template should instead read, "This account has been confirmed by a CheckUser to be a sockpuppet of Example (talk · contribs)...". Naturally, common sense allows for the meaning of this template to be clear despite this, and that's why I've hesitated to say anything about it until now, but for what it's worth I've sandboxed a change that might help at Template:Sockpuppet/sandbox, see diff. Mz7 (talk) 05:16, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Sockpuppet categories

Every user page which is tagged as a sock or suspected sock is categorised by the sockmaster as "Wikipedia sockpuppets of [usernname]" or "Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of [usernname]".

These categories don't exist, so they appear as redlinks. Per WP:REDNOT, red-linked cats are always an error, which need to be fixed by either creating the category page or removing the category.

So unless the category pages are created, they appear in cleanup lists such as Special:WantedCategories, where someone has to create them. They seem show there at a rate of on average five to fifteen per day, creating an extra task for the small number of editors like me who work on that ongoing cleanup of the 50–150 entries added to Special:WantedCategories every day.

Over the last 2 years, I have created about 15,000 of these categories, initially clearing a backlog at Special:WantedCategories, then keeping up with the daily flow. Creating one is easy – just add {{Sockpuppet category}} and save — but it seems that a significant proportion of editors who tag users as socks are not doing so. Filling in the gaps repeatedly gets tedious.

I reckoned there has to be a better way of doing this, so yesterday I developed a sub-template of {{Sockpuppet}}, viz {{Sockpuppet/categorise}}, which I deployed in {{Sockpuppet}} [3]. It simply notes whether the category exists, and if not, it displays a warning box with link to create a preloaded version of the page.

This was working fine, and was used twice by User:Ponyo[4][5]

However, only 24 hours after I deployed[6] this, it was reverted[7] by User:Bbb23 with the edit summary if this was discussed somewhere, please let me know where; this is not something, though, we (SPI team) wants.

I am puzzled. Why would the SPI team not want this?

If it doesn't want to categorise all sockpuppets, then please just disable the automatic categorisation. But so long as all sockpuppets are auto-categorised, why not welcome a simple tool which help you to create the categories?

The SPI project does invaluable work, but this is one little area where the project avoidably leaves a steady stream of cleanup for others. Rather than reproach, i tried to provide a solution. Please reinstate it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:21, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

PS checking edit histories, I see that @Bbb23's revert of this template was his next edit after tagging[8] User:Suhas Rane as a sockpuppet. That leaves Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Nitinule as a redlink which someone will have to fill, in order to remove the entry from the cleanup lists.

Why disable the easy solution? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:34, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Is there a way to run a bot that creates the categories needed daily? I don’t think this would be a big deal for manual tagging, but see how it could be annoying with the script, where we’re used to tagging 10+ accounts with the click of a button. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:37, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

TonyBallioni was just going to comment that this looks very bottable. BrownHairedGirl do you foresee any issues with a bot that went through Special:WantedCategories, say every 12 hours (how often does wantedcategories update?), and automatically created these categories? Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:43, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

@Galobtter, sadly yes: Special:WantedCategories is updated only every 3 days or so. To keep on top of the backlog, I use a quarry query a few times per day to allow me to do a little at a time. So a bot could get a worklist from SWC only every 3+ days, unless it ran and scraped Quarry.

But this doesn't need to be an either/or issue. Why not have both a bot and reinstate the 2-click creation link?

I really do not understand what harm BBB23 thought it did. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:52, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Cool, I can use that query; mainly I'd guess the issue Bbb23 had is how large the notice is (if it were much smaller, i.e, merely providing a convenience link, I don't think there'd be much issue). Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:00, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Timotheus Canens's script tags the userpages per the script user's "instructions". I don't generally look at the userpages after I run the script, but I sometimes do, as in this case, when I'm tagging based on a different master from the SPI report; I just want to verify that I did it right before doing something else. When I did, I saw that really ugly red box telling "me" what to do to save the redlinked cat. I realize it wouldn't have been hard for me just to save it, but if I hadn't checked, it would have remained that way and would be an extra step for someone to do when using the script, or even when I tag socks outside of SPI, which I do with some frequency. Redlinked cats have been created like this for as long as I can remember. It also serves another purpose, which is sometimes we end up removing the tags, and if the cat exists, that means we have to delete it, whereas otherwise it just, uh, vanishes on its own.

At the same time, I understand BHG's problem with the cleanup that others have to do because of our tagging. I'm not good at the technical end of this crap, but a couple of concepts - don't know if they're feasible - occur to me: (1) Tim could change the script to create the cat or (2) whatever brings these cats up for cleanup could be altered to skip sockpuppet cats in its search.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:10, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

@Bbb23 and Galobtter: A couple of points there:

1. Sure, the box could be made less prominent. I made it big because I assumed that this was something which the SPI team would want to fix. But that's a stylistic issue, not a reason to remove it.
2. Redlinked cats have been created like this for as long as I can remember. Grr! A little history here: until late 2016, Special:WantedCategories was massively backlogged, to the tune of may 35,000 categories. Clearing that backlog in early 2017, took 3 or 4 editors working nearly full-time at it. A very large proportion of that backlog was sockpuppet categories: for weeks on end, I was taking the whole list of 5,000 entries in SWC (which is the max it will display at any one time) and running scripts to creates the sock cats. There were often over 1,000 entries in each batch, every 3 or 4 days. Since then, there are dozens of them every week.
   So "we've always done it this way" is a bit like an unrepentant-polluters' logic. Now that you are aware that you are dumping work into other editor's workflow rather than into the ether, please can you find ways to desist?
3. No, these cats cannot be removed from SWC. It's a discussion I've had many times before, so excuse me if I sound a bit exasperated at repeating an explanation I have posted hundreds of times; SWC is part of the mediawiki software, outside the control of editors. So it sucks up all redlinked categories, including all the silly user categories which some editors thought it was fun to create. A cleanup list needs to be capable of being cleaned, not cluttered with permanent entries, and any exceptions become permanent clutter.
4. I don't understand your concerns about an extra step, which is only two clicks.
   If you don't create the category, the warning box helps someone else to do so. It's only an "extra step" if you intend to leave someone else to clean up after the sock-tagging, which seems like a poor approach — and I know that wasn't your intention so far, but it has been the effect of it. I just checked; in the last week I have created 40 sock categories, and 22 suspected sock categories. Please don't build your plan on an assumption that others are willing to do this indefinitely, and be aware that if they don't, it rapidly starts to impede other maintenance work.

So I have taken on board Galobtter's suggestion about a less prominent notice, and will reinstate it with the font size cut down from 120% to 95%. If that's still too prominent let's look at other suggestions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:12, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: I wish you hadn't decided to reinstate your edit without further discussion to see if there's a solution that would satisfy us both. It's been the way it is for a long time. Another whatever longer (it is the weekend) wouldn't be the end of the world. I'm too busy right now to deal with this, both on-wiki and in real life. Hopefully later I will leave a notice at SPI about this discussion to get more people involved.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:18, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

@Bbb23, I was acting on Galobtter's suggestion that it would be less intrusive if smaller, and reinstatement was the easiest way to test and demonstrate that.

Sure, there may be other solutions. I look fwd to hearing them, and will consider them with an open mind (tho pls do bear in mind that the reconfigure-SWC path would require WMF devs, so seems unlikely). Take your time. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:25, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I've done a little bit of tinkering with Tim's SPI-helper script in the past. Having it create the categories automatically seems eminently doable. It'll probably take me a few days, but I'll see what I can figure out. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:27, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

A suggestion. If the SPI team do not want all socks to be automatically categorised, then it would be easy to tweak {{Sockpuppet/categorise}} using a {{#ifexist: Category:X|Category:X}} so that users were placed in "Wikipedia sockpuppets of [username]" only if that category exists. With a link on the user page to allow creation of the category, it would then be easy to crrate the category if and when it was wanted. The uncategorised socks could be automatically placed in a tracking category, named something like Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets uncategorised by sockmaster.

One downside of this is that owing to bug T33628 the other socks of the same master would not appear in the category until the pages were purged. So this would need User:Joe's Null Bot to do routine purging of the contents of the tracking category.

There may be other downsides from a workflow perspective, but I don't know enough of the workflow to comment. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:30, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

• I’m still failing to see the issue with the bot suggestion. I am grateful the the thankless task you do in categories (basically by yourself, and people really should be more appreciative of it), but I also don’t get why waiting 3 days for it to populate Special:WantedCategories is a bad thing. This really does seem to me like the perfect example of something that should be handled by bot rather than having people manually do it, even if it isn’t that much more effort. I’ll sometimes do it by hand when I remember, but honestly it just feels like an extra step that shouldn’t need to be done by hand, and that since you and others AWB run it, I just let it populate the wanted category since it’s quicker for you to do than me to do. If you’re saying you don’t want to do that anymore, that’s fine, but let’s have a computer program do it so clerks and CUs don’t have to spend more time doing this when it should be easy for a bot to do. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:51, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, @TonyBallioni.

In general, I like both-and solutions rather than either/or. So why not have some sort of link on the page to allow 2-click manual creation, and a bot?

That way, SPI team or passers-by can easily create the cats if they want to, and a bot will collect the stragglers.

(As an aside, part of my reason for looking for a news solution was that the AWB route has a lot of overhead. When I analysed my workflow, I realised that despite tweaking the process it was actually slower than manual unless there are a few dozen categories in the batch. Then I started doing more manually, and reckoned that end of things could be improved.)

--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:24, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I have no problem with both-ands. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:53, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

To follow up on my comment above, the SPI helper script has now been updated to automatically create categories. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:22, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Sir Sputnik. I noticed that I'm automatically creating the cats from the script.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:15, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks, Sir Sputnik, and everyone else.

I have already seen a steep decline in the number of redlinked sock cats at Special:WantedCategories and https://quarry.wmflabs.org/query/30916. -- Problem solved. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:33, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Is the spipage parameter broken, or am I doing it wrong?

I've tried various combinations of parameters, but I can't get the spipage parameter to work. Unfortunately, my template syntax knowledge is a bit rusty. Is the parameter broken, or am I doing something wrong?

I added the following to Revival938 which I hoped would add a link to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/UA85:

{{sockpuppet|1=Revival932|2=blocked|spipage=UA85}}

--kingboyk (talk) 19:08, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

There's no need to use the spipage parameter. I fixed it for you: {{sockpuppet|UA85|blocked}}.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:37, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Procedure to revert tagging

Who can add {{sockpuppet|Example}} with no evidence, and who can revert it? I have been asked to look at an old case (from 2010, discussed in this March 2020 archive) where two editors were in a dispute with neither blocked and no SPI. One of them made this category and tagged a dozen IPs. The IPs appear to have edited inappropriately but I don't think any of them were blocked. This is ancient history but the accused editor's request to have the category deleted and the tags removed seems reasonable to me. What is standard procedure? Johnuniq (talk) 04:10, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

After more reading, it seems I had to nominate the category for deletion, done here. Johnuniq (talk) 04:05, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Ampersands -> pipes?

@AGK:, I'm confused by this edit of yours. Did you intend it should read:

{{Sockpuppet  &  sockmaster  &  blank/blocked/proven/confirmed }}

or

{{Sockpuppet  |  sockmaster  |  blank/blocked/proven/confirmed }}

the later makes more sense to me. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:58, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Broken link

Hi. Unless there are any objections or suggestions for another target, I intend to remove the "current autoblocks" link, which does not work (removed from XTools in 2017, as far as I can tell) tomorrow. Best, --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 21:28, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done. --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 17:52, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 15 August 2020

I've created a slightly different version here. When both |locked= and |notblocked= are set to yes, then it will no longer say "as well as being locked globally", because there is no local block, and "as well as" would be meaningless. The new version will just say "and it has been locked globally". This is mostly useful for keeping the record of globally locked LTAs (in مگان رمزی's case, for instance). Ahmad^talk 04:08, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 14:44, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Grammar

I notice that when the second parameter of this template is not blank, it dispays the following text:

Please refer to the sockpuppet investigation of the sockpuppeteer, and editing habits or contributions of the sockpuppet for evidence.

The comma in this sentence is not grammatical. The two noun phrases (the sockpuppet investigation of the sockpuppeteer and editing habits or contributions of the sockpuppet) form a compound object of the preposition "to" (from "refer to"). A straightforward fix could read:

Please refer to the sockpuppet investigation of the sockpuppeteer and to editing habits or contributions of the sockpuppet for evidence.

Can a fix like this be implemented? Armadillopteryx 12:55, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Edit request to complete TfD nomination

Template:Sockpuppet has been listed at Templates for discussion (nomination), but was protected so could not be tagged. Please add:

{{subst:tfm|help=off|1=Puppet}}

to the top of the page to complete the nomination. Thank you. Train of Knowledge (Talk) 23:22, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

To editor Train of Knowledge:  done, and thank you very much! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 23:47, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

"Template:Ssock" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Template:Ssock. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 21#Template:Ssock until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:30, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Mis-handling whitespace in puppet-master's name

The template automatically displays an SPI link when an SPI page exists, and the puppet-master's name is documented to be passed as the first un-named parameter. The #ifexist and link use Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Example based on {{Sockpuppet|Example}}. Bug: leading whitespace isn't stripped by the template, and leading whitespace is preserved by the parser because it's a positional (not named) parameter. As a result, {{Sockpuppet| Example}} breaks the SPI-page handler. I added an example to the test-cases page. [9] is the easy fix. Any objections? DMacks (talk) 19:22, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry DMacks, I had to use the sandbox for another draft; feel free to re-introduce the proposal (and, since it's been over a month without objections, perhaps implement it) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:23, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

No worries. I had actually forgotten about this request, so "thanks for the ping!". I implemented it. DMacks (talk) 04:40, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Remove "it" in "it has been"

To me, this is awkward and unnecessary. I even prefer the old wording without "it" nor the comma.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:18, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Removed the "it" DannyS712 (talk) 02:44, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 1 May 2021

{{subst:trim|1=

Remove "An editor has expressed a concern" in "An editor has expressed a concern that this account may be a sockpuppet of" Sindelar1986 (talk) 16:41, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. There is a related discussion ongoing above. Spicy (talk) 17:49, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Sockpuppet status

The only thing that can be the same double status is "proven", see this: {{sockpuppet|Example|proven|altmaster=Example2|altmaster-status=proven}}, which provides

{{sockpuppet|Example|blocked|altmaster=Example2|altmaster-status=suspected}} and {{sockpuppet|Example|confirmed|altmaster=Example2|altmaster-status=confirmed}} do not provide

Instead, using the same altmaster-status, except for "proven", would provide different results. Can we try improving the sockpuppet template to get these results in faster ways instead of doing these manually? Seventyfiveyears (talk) 18:39, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't see the need for either of those, really. If someone is tagged as suspected to some master and as suspected to another, then everyone could be retagged to just state that they're all suspected sockpuppets of the oldest account. The same goes when two accounts are confirmed to one another and one of them is also confirmed to a third account. The altmaster parameter is mostly useful when we have strong evidence linking account A to account B (e.g. CU confirmation), and suspect that there is an older master C, but we only have behavioural evidence for that one. --Blablubbs|talk 19:02, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

The account that is suspected to be a sockpuppet of both accounts should be referred as three of those accounts were blocked based on the same behavioural evidence. The sockpuppet investigations, Special:Contributions, and/or Special:Log can be useful for that. If CheckUser evidence confirms that the sockpuppet account is confirmed to be a sockpuppet of two accounts, he/she must have proved that the accounts were related and used for same contributions, if they were used illegitimately based on the behavioural evidence and contributions. Also, the evidence can also be shown in Special:Log if you click on the "All public logs" and change it to "User creation log". Seventyfiveyears (talk) 14:27, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@Seventyfiveyears, the thing is that altmasters only make sense if you have a sock that is strongly connected to a recent account, and also has a weaker connection to an older master.

Imagine three users, Alice (created two weeks ago), Bob (created three years ago and blocked two years ago), and Charles (created a day ago), and a CheckUser (or behavioural evidence) proves that Alice is technically indistinguishable from Charles, but can't determine the connection to Bob because he is stale for CU purposes. However, behavioural evidence indicates that both Alice and Charles are the same person as Bob. Upon discovery, I would tag as CU-confirmed to Alice and suspected to Charles ({{sockpuppet|Alice|confirmed|altmaster=Bob|altmaster-status=suspected}}). If my level of confidence is equal (no CU was run and I suspect that Alice and Bob are connected, and I suspect that Alice and Charles are connected), then I would tag everyone as suspected to the oldest account ({{sockpuppet|Bob|blocked}}). The double status thing for the "proven" template has no practical use (I suspect it exists for technical reasons and not because it was deliberately implemented) – if Alice is proven to Bob and Charles, then Charles is inherently also connected to the original master and we can tag both Alice and Charles as proven sockpuppets of Bob. --Blablubbs|talk 15:21, 27 May 2021 (UTC)