Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Paine Ellsworth (talk | contribs) at 10:50, 22 July 2023 (→Simplify language for both blocked and locked: respond). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Sockpuppet is permanently protected from editing because it is a heavily used or highly visible template. Substantial changes should first be proposed and discussed here on this page. If the proposal is uncontroversial or has been discussed and is supported by consensus, editors may use {{edit template-protected}} to notify an administrator or template editor to make the requested edit. Usually, any contributor may edit the template's documentation to add usage notes or categories. Any contributor may edit the template's sandbox. Functionality of the template can be checked using test cases.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sockpuppet template.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 4 months

This template was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination: Keep, 6 July 2006, see TfD. Keep, 22 April 2005, see TfD. Keep, 11 February 2005, see TfD.

Deprecation of "an editor has expressed a concern" version

Currently, invocation of this template without parameters except the master ({{sockpuppet|Example}}) or with the "suspected" parameter ({{sockpuppet|Example|suspected}}) produces the following:

An editor has expressed a concern that this account may be a sockpuppet of Example (talk · contribs · logs). Please refer to the sockpuppet investigation of the sockpuppeteer, and editing habits or contributions of the sockpuppet for evidence. This policy subsection may be helpful. Account information: block log – contribs – logs – abuse log – CentralAuth

I think this is rather suboptimal, because it leads to erroneous tagging (it would seem more intuitive that the template without parameter or a suspected parameter marks the editor as a blocked suspected sockpuppet), and because I believe that we shouldn't be tagging people as socks if they haven't been clearly identified as such and blocked. ToBeFree removed () these two parameters from the documentation a few months ago (something I obviously agree with), but the code of the template has not changed. I'm not a template wizard, so I'm not sure how feasible it is, but I'm wondering if we can remove these parameters (and instead have them redirect to what is currently produced by {{sockpuppet|Example|blocked}}). The technical issue I see is that the template is currently in use on userpages of actual blocked socks, so outright removal would lead to correct sock tags being removed and messing up categories. Hence, I basically have two questions:

1. Is this actually an issue? That is, should we remove or retarget this use of the template?
2. If yes, how can we do that, and is it worth the effort?

An AWB run to remove all current uses of this version would untag socks that should be tagged, subst:ing would (as far as I know) uncategorise the socks and render the template useless, and simple retargeting would tag people who aren't blocked as blocked sockpuppets. One potential solution I can think of would be to query the database for uses of this version of the template on pages of users that blocked or globally locked, selectively remove them from those pages, and then retarget the parameters. Blablubbs|talk 16:37, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping :) Regarding 1: No idea, but I guess the issue is more than just a purely theoretical one. I agree with changing the default to "blocked", as I see no legitimate use for the current default (it doesn't comply with WP:HSOCK). Regarding 2: Using any scripting language of your choice, perhaps Python, you can alternatively make API calls to the Query API, property "linkshere" https://www.mediawiki.org/w/api.php?action=help&modules=query%2Blinkshere , to retrieve a list of transclusions into an array. You can then use that array to make API calls to Userinfo, "blockinfo" https://www.mediawiki.org/API:Userinfo , to fetch the information without running a complicated SQL query. It's surely not the most technically efficient way, but one that might provide less human frustration in reaching the goal. I can't do this, however; I lack scripting experience and time to dedicate towards that project. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:09, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Acutally, I just realised I might(?) have been mistaken about subst:ing breaking the categories, so this may actually be easier than I initially thought. Blablubbs|talk 12:10, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

This is technically possible, as ToBeFree said. I see 3 practical steps:

1. Remove the template from every non-blocked user.
2. Remove the "suspected" parameter.
3. Make "blocked" the default.

If there is consensus to make this change, I can help with it. MarioGom (talk) 05:45, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

I did quick exploration of usages and I think we have not enough information about historic usage of the template. I would suggest a first step before going forward. We can create two categories: one for all usages of this template without status parameter. Another for suspected/spi parameter. Then we can spend some time going through these accounts and figuring out the conversion rules, just in case there is more than one possible case. What do you think? MarioGom (talk) 12:31, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Definitely agree we should set up some tracking cats; when I deprecated {{blocked sockpuppet}} there were a few dozen pages that had no master listed, so we now have Category:Users tagged as sockpuppets with no listed master. Let me know what we need to track and I'll set it up. Primefac (talk) 15:53, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

As an interim step, I've removed the parameters that don't comply with policy from the docs, see . --Blablubbs|talk 17:37, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm looking at different classes of sockpuppet tags without second parameter. Some seem to need manual review and fix, and others might be quickly removed. A low hanging fruit are the 264 unblocked IPs that have this tag, and can probably all removed with very quick review (AWB maybe?). See the list here: https://public.paws.wmcloud.org/User:MarioGom/fix_sockpuppet_templates.ipynb#Unblocked-IPs-without-second-parameter I can assist with the removal if there is consensus, or a SPI clerk or admin might want to do it instead? MarioGom (talk) 11:09, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 1 May 2021

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

{{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

This account is a sockpuppet of Example (talk · contribs · logs) and is also a sockpuppet of Example2 (talk · contribs · logs), and has been blocked indefinitely. Please refer to the sockpuppet investigation of the sockpuppeteer, and editing habits or contributions of the sockpuppet for evidence. This policy subsection may be helpful. Account information: block log – contribs – logs – abuse log – CentralAuth

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

This account is a suspected sockpuppet of ] (] · ] · ]) and is also a suspected sockpuppet of ] (] · ] · ]), and has been blocked indefinitely.

This account has been confirmed by a CheckUser as a sockpuppet of ] (] · ] · ])  and has also been confirmed by CheckUser as a sockpuppet of ] (] · ] · ]), and has been blocked indefinitely.

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)

Simplify language for both blocked and locked

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

"as well as being" is needlessly awkward and grammatically incorrect (inconsistency of tense). Please replace it with a simple "and".--Jasper Deng (talk) 10:42, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit template-protected}} template. Let's allow for a bit of discussion, if needed. It might help to put the desired changes in the sandbox and demonstrate them on the testcases page, since the code has a bunch of if statements that are not trivial to parse. – Jonesey95 (talk) 07:04, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: This change is very trivial. It only requires finding “as well as being” and replacing it with “and”. I’m familiar enough with template syntax to verify this. Since I can’t find evidence of an objection there is a WP:SILENTCONSENSUS for this change. Requiring discussion is needlessly bureaucratic; WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. It would make sense for a more substantial change but not a simple grammar fix.—Jasper Deng (talk) 07:50, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Well, I agree with both of you. Since you brought this up, Jasper Deng, I looked at the example with this verbage and have to agree that it sounds a bit off. Was thinking tho' that just changing to the word "and" isn't enough, so just get rid of the word "being" to read, "and has been blocked indefinitely as well as locked globally." Now that's the ticket. Definitely needs improvement. Good catch! P.I. Ellsworth , ed.  10:50, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

• Suspected Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Example