→Proposal: re Callanecc |
Removing expired RFC template. |
||
Line 125: | Line 125: | ||
===Proposal=== |
===Proposal=== |
||
{{rfc|policy|rfcid=FB2E3AD}} |
|||
{{ping|Bbb23|Salvidrim!|Mike V|Ponyo|Reaper Eternal|Callanecc}} Do we have a consensus to restrict the usage of this template (and similar) only to admins and [[WP:SPI Clerk|SPI Clerk]]s? 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). '''[[User:Vanjagenije|<font color="008B8B">Vanjagenije</font>]] [[User talk:Vanjagenije|<font color="F4A460">(talk)</font>]]''' 16:13, 22 July 2015 (UTC) |
{{ping|Bbb23|Salvidrim!|Mike V|Ponyo|Reaper Eternal|Callanecc}} Do we have a consensus to restrict the usage of this template (and similar) only to admins and [[WP:SPI Clerk|SPI Clerk]]s? 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). '''[[User:Vanjagenije|<font color="008B8B">Vanjagenije</font>]] [[User talk:Vanjagenije|<font color="F4A460">(talk)</font>]]''' 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.--[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 21:39, 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.--[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 21:39, 22 July 2015 (UTC) |
Revision as of 17:00, 21 August 2015
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)
- Done I removed the
- 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)
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}}
|
"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}}
|
"...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}}
|
"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)
- 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)
- 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)
-
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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..."
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- You're right. I never use that parameter.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:51, 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)
- 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)
- No. Reaper Eternal (talk) 04:53, 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)
- 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