Lothar von Richthofen (talk | contribs) →Tiny RfC: not even close |
→Tiny RfC: seems like we have a consensus here |
||
Line 281: | Line 281: | ||
*'''Support puppeteer graphic'''. The blue dot is dumbed down to the point of meaninglessness. I recall similar discussions in which it was proposed that we replace the nuvola-stop-sign icon in the {{tl|banned}} template with the same milquetoast-y icon because a stop sign is "too threatening"—what, do you soil yourself every time you come to a road intersection? Silly. When an account is conclusively found to be involved in sockpuppetry, we should make that plain and clear. Pussyfooting around it is of as much help as placing flashing lights and blaring sirens on it. ~~ [[User:Lothar von Richthofen|Lothar von Richthofen]] ([[User talk:Lothar von Richthofen|talk]]) 16:58, 10 April 2013 (UTC) |
*'''Support puppeteer graphic'''. The blue dot is dumbed down to the point of meaninglessness. I recall similar discussions in which it was proposed that we replace the nuvola-stop-sign icon in the {{tl|banned}} template with the same milquetoast-y icon because a stop sign is "too threatening"—what, do you soil yourself every time you come to a road intersection? Silly. When an account is conclusively found to be involved in sockpuppetry, we should make that plain and clear. Pussyfooting around it is of as much help as placing flashing lights and blaring sirens on it. ~~ [[User:Lothar von Richthofen|Lothar von Richthofen]] ([[User talk:Lothar von Richthofen|talk]]) 16:58, 10 April 2013 (UTC) |
||
**Lol, can't say I disagree with that. Speaking of [[Template:Banned user]], Reaper Eternal also changed the picture on that one, making it very small, apparently to lessen its 'impact'. I think the size should be restored to how it was. Same goes for [[Template:Blocked user]]. Cheers, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">[[User:Face|theFace]]</span> 13:39, 11 April 2013 (UTC) |
**Lol, can't say I disagree with that. Speaking of [[Template:Banned user]], Reaper Eternal also changed the picture on that one, making it very small, apparently to lessen its 'impact'. I think the size should be restored to how it was. Same goes for [[Template:Blocked user]]. Cheers, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">[[User:Face|theFace]]</span> 13:39, 11 April 2013 (UTC) |
||
{{edit protected}} |
|||
Regarding the RFC it seems to me that we have a consensus to revert the changes to the icons made by Reaper Eternal. I therefore request that [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Sockpuppet&oldid=543072595 this version] of the template be restored, but please add <nowiki>__NOINDEX__</nowiki> too (see discussion above). I could do that myself but I feel too [[WP:INVOLVED]]. [[User:De728631|De728631]] ([[User talk:De728631|talk]]) 14:53, 20 April 2013 (UTC) |
Revision as of 14:53, 20 April 2013
Template overhaul planned
Similar to the combining of the Checked and non-checked Sockpuppeteer templates, we are seriously considering updating this template to be the sole sockpuppet template with appropriate options for handling proven, confirmed, blocked, checked, evidence, etc. Unlike the puppeteer template, however, this is more complicated as various unnamed parser functions were mapped to different variables in the puppet templates. As such, I have built a brand-new sockpuppet template, which can be seen at User:Avraham/Sandbox/SPOM and the performance of the template with its various options can be seen at User:Avraham/Sandbox/SPOMTest. We have had many discussions on WT:SPI about this, and we are relatively happy with the new template. All that is needed is for me to write out a complete mapping from all the old options to the new options (a subset can be seen here WT:SPI#New combined sockpuppet template) and for nix-eagle's but to get approval to go and change the 15,000 or so instances of the existing template. If there is anyone with a specific problem with the planned overhaul and collapse of the various templates into one, please speak up or forever hold your peace Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 18:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- Per bugzilla:20574 I've requested MZMcBride to remove the unnecessary instances of
{{ucfirst}}
. The one that was required for category normalization was given a workaround so it doesn't start with a formatting character when the parameter does (per bugzilla:12974). --Splarka (rant) 05:12, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
- The work-around appears to have broken the ucfirst. See User:Tirid Tirid for an example. If this change was made just to fix User:Ldjnfglkk, then it should probably be reverted and that one userpage will simply be broken until the bugfix is integrated, rather than breaking all the rest. --Pascal666 00:51, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- A parserfunction's output (such as ucfirst) cannot start with a line-formatting character like * or ; (and some other characters, which are not allowed in usernames), the specific broken example given was: . The previous behavior was very broken for usernames starting with a semicolon or asterisk, introducing a <dl><dt> or <ul><li> set, along with linefeeds, inside the link and category tags. I am not sure of a perfect solution, unfortunately. However, one can simply enter the case correctly, no? --Splarka (rant) 04:11, 20 September 2009 (UTC) watching page, no talkback needed
- Nice, you changed your comment after I posted. The page given, as well as any usernames starting with such formatting characters, cannot be used at all in the older version, the current version can be used (in theory) with all usernames, if the case is just given properly. But hey, do what you want, I was just trying to suggest and implement a fix. --Splarka (rant) 04:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- That was weird, it didn't give me an edit conflict. Since the work-around did not work, the ucfirst should probably be removed entirely unless you have a better idea. I agree passing the template the correct username would be ideal, unfortunately that often does not happen. The only reason I found your fix was because it moved so many pages into non-existing categories. I wonder if there is a fast way (using AWB or something) of fixing them all. I've included below the list of those that need to be fixed. Looks like about 150 or so. --Pascal666 05:09, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
That last sentence
<br />[[WP:SOCK#Identification and handling of inappropriate alternative accounts|This]] policy subsection may also be helpful.}}
Since the section linked to no longer exists, the link just takes readers to the TOP of WP:SOCK. Either this sentence should be deleted or a different and extant section of WP:SOCK linked to, right?
— Paine's Climax 09:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
{{editprotected}}
Please replace the live version with the sandbox version of this template. The only change is the sentence that reads, "[[Wikipedia:SOCK#Handling suspected sock puppets|This]] policy subsection may also be helpful." The live version's "This" link is a dead link to a non-existing section of WP:SOCK. So I have replaced it with "#Handling suspected sock puppets" section from the WP:SOCK policy. Thank you very much!
— Ellsworth's Climax 04:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- Once again, thank you very much, Martin! and HAPPY HOLIDAYS!
- — Ellsworth's Climax 20:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
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)
Request
Could this: "and/or any sockpuppetry investigations..." be fixed to "or the sockpuppet investigation of the sockpuppeteer..." I know that the suggestion might not work, but adding a link to the SP/I of the suspected sockpuppeteer would be useful to anyone who would be looking for adding the user to the casepage. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:41, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
- I've changed the wording as you requested. A link to the SPI could probabily be implemented. What is the format of this page? Is it always Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/USERNAME/Archive? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:32, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
- They are usually archived into the system after they are closed, so the archive thing would lead to many dead links. I assume you could write it to automatically link to the SPI while writing in the username once. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
- So you mean we should link to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/USERNAME? I could add a check for whether this page exists or not. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:35, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, because it would provide a quick link to the SPI page, without having to do some clicking. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:15, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
- Can you check if it's working correctly? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:26, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
- It works swell. Thanks for the help there. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
- Can you check if it's working correctly? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:26, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, because it would provide a quick link to the SPI page, without having to do some clicking. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:15, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
- So you mean we should link to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/USERNAME? I could add a check for whether this page exists or not. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:35, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
- They are usually archived into the system after they are closed, so the archive thing would lead to many dead links. I assume you could write it to automatically link to the SPI while writing in the username once. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
So apparently that edit did work, for a few days, but I've noticed that this doesn't link to the SPI of the master. Also, does anyone think that having the main sockpuppet category is rather redundant as there is already a subcategory that will show up? I would support removing it as it will likely clean out most of the category of repeat listings. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- Could you show me an example where it's not working?
- Just to clarify: are you proposing to stop populating Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets?
- — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:59, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
- Well when you click on a user page, it used to link to the SPI of the master, but now it seems to just go to the SPI page. Yes I am proposing to stop populating it as just tagging a user with a category and not knowing who controls them seems a bit silly. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:13, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
- I've removed that category. Again, please can you give me a specific page where it is not working correctly? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks. Unless something is off on my end, I can't directly link to the SPI of the user in question. If you can do it, then I'll drop it, but it's a bit weird. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:01, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- Again, I asked for an example of where it wasn't working. Typing
{{sockpuppet|Xtinadbest}}
gives
- Again, I asked for an example of where it wasn't working. Typing
- Thanks. Unless something is off on my end, I can't directly link to the SPI of the user in question. If you can do it, then I'll drop it, but it's a bit weird. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:01, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- I've removed that category. Again, please can you give me a specific page where it is not working correctly? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
- Well when you click on a user page, it used to link to the SPI of the master, but now it seems to just go to the SPI page. Yes I am proposing to stop populating it as just tagging a user with a category and not knowing who controls them seems a bit silly. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:13, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
- which does seem to link to the SPI. (I've got this page watchlisted so you don't need to keep using {{editprotected}}.) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:18, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- Hmm, works now. Maybe I'm just going crazy. I might as well suggest this here while I can. Is there any way to fix "the [[sockpuppet investigation... to [[the sockpuppet investigation?" It makes more sense and implies that it is linking to a specific incident, not the general page. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:51, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- which does seem to link to the SPI. (I've got this page watchlisted so you don't need to keep using {{editprotected}}.) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:18, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Block length
Cirt brought up a good point on my talk page and it gave me an idea. I know that we have a parameter in the confirmed sock template for a block that is a certain length. I have recently observed a time period block on a suspected sock which later ended up being confirmed and I was wondering if a parameter could be added to this one that would allow a block length to be acknowledged on the template since the only block acknowledgement here is an indefinite block. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:22, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- I have added a
|length=
parameter. For example {{sockpuppet|Grawp|blocked|length=2 months}} produces:
Please
(The page will be pre-loaded. All you need to do is save it)
- Let me know what you think. If that's okay, would you mind adding it to the documentation? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:30, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- That definitely works. I was thinking of more of something which stated that they were just blocked for a determined length of time but that works much better. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:56, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, it won't work will it? It will be instantly out of date. The only way to do it would be to add an expiry date. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:15, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- The instantly out of date thing could just say that they are blocked for X amount of time, something which would indicate that they aren't blocked for a week or 20 years. We could always try this. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:44, 13 June 2010 (UTC):
- Actually, it won't work will it? It will be instantly out of date. The only way to do it would be to add an expiry date. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:15, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- That definitely works. I was thinking of more of something which stated that they were just blocked for a determined length of time but that works much better. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:56, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Please
(The page will be pre-loaded. All you need to do is save it)
- Also, you might want to add the length parameter to the documentation page. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:36, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Editprotected request involving this template
This message is to inform people monitoring this talk page that there is an "editprotected" request involving this and several other templates at Template talk:! cymru.lass (hit me up)⁄(background check) 20:46, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Issue
Hello! If a sockpuppet's username starts with a wiki syntax (such as *, #, :, etc), the links to the account's block log, contributions and log are messed up. Is there a way to fix this problem? HeyMid (contribs) 15:09, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Edit requests
{{editrequested}}
1: Change the link from the expired "eagle" autoblock finder to http://toolserver.org/~nakon/autoblockfinder.php?u=
2: Also, perform this edit, which fixes links for usernames that start with an asterisk (*). HeyMid (contribs) 16:47, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
- Done — Tivedshambo (t/c) 17:35, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
- For Special:Contributions, urlencoding caused spaces in a username to become plus signs, thus breaking the link. I've removed it, as spaces in usernames are far more common than usernames beginning with asterisks. If there is a better solution, please suggest it. Thanks —DoRD (talk) 03:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- Done — Tivedshambo (t/c) 17:35, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Edit request from KuduIO, 17 September 2011
For the confirmed option, the text should be changed to:
This account has been blocked indefinitely because CheckUser confirms it is a sock puppet of {{{2}}}.
It's more in line with {{sockpuppeteer}}. — Kudu ~I/O~ 17:36, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
- Not done for now:. Could you make your proposed changes on the /sandbox and fully test it? It seems to be {{{1}}} not {{{2}}}. Also, there is a length parameter which should probably be preserved. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:44, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Edit request from , 4 November 2011
Is this okay to replace from
"This account is a sock puppet of Example and has been blocked indefinitely." to "This account is a confirmed sock puppet of Example and has been blocked indefinitely." Katarighe (talk) 00:58, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
- Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the
{{Edit protected}}
template. Anomie⚔ 23:51, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Explicit noindex
Question; all pages in the user namespace are noindex by default - that is they are marked as not suitable for search engines to index and so won't normally show up in Google/Baidu/yahoo etc. Currently, this template explicit sets pages to be noindex. The intent of this could be taken to be that, were the site-wide setting for userpages be changed, user-pages including this template would continue to be hidden from search engines. If it's not simple an oversight, this seems to be a slightly off-policy sweeping of our dirt under the carpet.
Suggest that we remove the offending clause? - TB (talk) 10:06, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- There being a general lack of interest and a specific lack of objection, I've gone ahead and made this change. - TB (talk) 22:10, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- Please reinsert the NOINDEX; McCrory added it for privacy reasons. -- 92.13.59.67 (talk) 10:08, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- The intention behind Fran McCrory's addition of the __NOINDEX__ tag to this template was to request that search-engines not report pages containing it. As all pages in the user and user talk namespaces have this property by default (see [1]), it serves no purpose. - TB (talk) 11:55, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- I am restoring the __NOINDEX__ flag since all pages in userspace (but not user talk space) are indexed by default. Note the lines where it says:
- The intention behind Fran McCrory's addition of the __NOINDEX__ tag to this template was to request that search-engines not report pages containing it. As all pages in the user and user talk namespaces have this property by default (see [1]), it serves no purpose. - TB (talk) 11:55, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
'enwiki' => array( NS_USER_TALK => 'noindex,follow', ),
- Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:00, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Problems in the template
I see what appear to be some possible problems in the template source code.
- The documentation talks about a suspected parameter (supposed to be equivalent to spi), but I don't see anything in the template that actually handles suspected — it appears, in fact, to be treated by default as if the second positional parameter were not specified.
- There seem to be problems with the categorization code. Anything other than confirmed is being categorized by default in Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets ... — including parameter values like proven or nbconfirmed. See, for example, User:Dacarodjos, which has been checkuser-confirmed (nbconfirmed) but is currently categorized by the template as Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Gluvmal.
- I'm confused by the use of ucfirst in the following part of the code: Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of{{ucfirst: {{{1}}}}} Is this still necessary? Or is it left over from an apparent workaround attempt in 2009 (see "Template overhaul planned" section above)?
I would also like to see the "Suspected" sock category group split in two — so that "suspected but not yet blocked/confirmed" socks can be easily distinguished from "blocked on behavioural evidence" socks. Possibly categorize the first (not yet investigated) group as "Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets" or "Possible Wikipedia sockpuppets", and the second group as "Presumed Wikipedia sockpuppets". I believe this would make it easier to identify sock tags that are new and which should be looked into ASAP — whether for blocking (per behavioural or checkuser evidence), or to have the tag removed if the sock suspicion turns out to be groundless. Comments? — Richwales 06:22, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
- Almost 4 months later, and I'm still seeing this problem with the "nbconfirmed" parameter -- it incorrectly places the sock into the "suspected sockpuppets of" category rather than the "sockpuppets of" category, which is where a checkuser-confirmed sock belongs. That looks like a simple coding error; I would recode it, but I don't know how.
- Also, I agree that it would be desirable to have slightly different treatment for several additional subtypes of socks. I see the following subtypes:
- Suspected but not blocked
- Suspected and blocked
- Blocked and considered confirmed based on behavioral evidence
- Blocked based on checkuser confirmation
- For the record, I consider "confirmed based on behavioral evidence" to be a valid characterization because I have identified (and blocked) some socks after they created new pages that were identical to previously deleted pages created by earlier sockpuppets. I consider that to be confirmatory evidence. --Orlady (talk) 18:38, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Attribution
- Note: Moved to Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/Archives/Archive12#Attribution —DoRD (talk) 13:20, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Image used in template
The good ol' File:Puppeter template.svg has been replaced with a blue info circle. I disagree with this, and left a message here: User talk:Reaper Eternal/Archive 21#Sockpuppet templates. Cheers, theFace 19:05, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
- The user doesn't answer, and I can't edit this page myself. So I guess I'll try an edit request. The image in question can be brought back by inserting this:
|image = [[File:{{#ifeq:{{{2}}}|confirmed|Puppeter template|System-users}}.svg|45px]]
– theFace 19:17, 26 March 2013 (UTC)- Not done: I imagine Reaper has a good reason for his edit, and I think we should probably discuss that reason before doing anything else. I would wait a bit longer for a reply on his talk page - it's only been a day, after all - and if that doesn't provide any closure then I recommend opening up the debate to outside editors. Perhaps an RfC here would be the best way to do that, but I'll leave that part up to you. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 02:13, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
- That would be a pretty awkward thing to do, but if you insist. I wonder if someone bothers to respond... - theFace 10:58, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
- Not done: I imagine Reaper has a good reason for his edit, and I think we should probably discuss that reason before doing anything else. I would wait a bit longer for a reply on his talk page - it's only been a day, after all - and if that doesn't provide any closure then I recommend opening up the debate to outside editors. Perhaps an RfC here would be the best way to do that, but I'll leave that part up to you. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 02:13, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Tiny RfC
A few days ago, User:Reaper Eternal altered Template:Sockpuppet and among other things removed the puppeteer picture, which causes the template to display the default blue dot image. I think this is rather ugly, so me and another user asked him to put it back (now archived). After getting no response I summoned an admin to do it, who refused. Meanwhile, I discovered that Reaper Eternal also changed Template:Sockpuppeteer,[2] as well as Template:Banned user[3] and Template:Blocked user[4] last December.
I know this isn't exactly the most important RfC ever, and I'm wondering if we can't just restore the image and forget about this. Then again, the Sockpuppet and Sockpuppeteer templates are used on ten-thousands of pages. Blocked and Banned user are also frequently applied. So if someone happens to disagree with the new designs... go ahead and say. Cheers, theFace 10:58, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
- I commented on this at Reaper's user talk page but for the record I'm going to repeat my suggestion over here. Even if the old icon is undesired for some reason, I still think we should have a quick visual identification for the three stages "suspect", "blocked", and "confirmed". So I suggest we add a switch like
|image=[[File:{{#switch:{{{2}}}|case=blocked|result=Stop x nuvola|case=confirmed|result=Sock block|Information icon4}}.svg|45px]]
. This will show the blue info dot for suspected sockpuppets, for unconfirmed but blocked accounts there would be File:Stop x nuvola.svg and confirmed sockpuppets should be tagged with File:Sock block.svg. That way the problem would quickly become obvious for the visiting admins. And after all, I don't think that the old sockmaster icon was purporting anything evil or negative as Reaper argued in his edit summaries. De728631 (talk) 17:02, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
- He, thanks! Good suggestion about those pictures, but I'm afraid I don't agree with it. I don't think the blue dot should be used. My idea: File:System-users.svg = suspected, File:Puppeter template.svg = confirmed.
I do agree with you that none of the pictures insinuate something 'evil' or anything. They're whimsy drawings, meant for easy identification. Cheers, theFace 17:44, 30 March 2013 (UTC)- For this purpose, I definitely prefer the "sockpuppet" icons over the "i for information" icon. The purpose of these images is to quickly communicate, but the "i" icon is used in so many places that it isn't effective for quickly communicating that a particular user has a sockpuppetry issue. I agree with Face regarding the choice of pictures. --Orlady (talk) 19:36, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
- RfC bot invited me, so I don't know a lot about this issue. However, I agree with Des' compromise. I dream of horses (T) @ 22:49, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- I just wanted to come back and say that Mr. Stradivarius for having us gain consensus before reverting Reapers' edit. It's the best way to have the edit "stick". I dream of horses (T) @ 22:53, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- @I dream of horses: Assuming that with 'Des' you meant User:De728631, his compromis is as follows:
suspected = File:Imbox notice.png, blocked = File:Stop x nuvola.svg, and confirmed = File:Sock block.svg.
I think this system is unlogical because sockpuppets are almost always blocked, even if dormant or suspected, as the majority of socks are used to troll/vandalize. There are of course also socks who try to come over as the good user. If Checkuser or other Wikipedians can't find evidence against them, technical or behavioural, the template can't be used anyway, as the sock won't allow such a tag to be put on their userpage. Furthermore, I think File:Stop x nuvola.svg and File:Imbox notice.png are uninformative in this situation and not appropriate. Cheers, theFace 09:14, 3 April 2013 (UTC)- Sockpuppets are not blocked unless an admin is convinced that this need to be done. So for the simple tagging of suspected sockpuppets by a random editor, we could really use the info circle since the template message is really just a piece of information at this stage. And this is also useful for tagging IPs that will be unblocked after a short time anyway. De728631 (talk) 21:32, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
- Uh, what? Per policy, socking is likely to lead to a block of all affected accounts. I edit in topic areas rife with sockpuppetry, and I can attest to the fact that even throwaway accounts that make one or two edits before being abandoned are blocked all the same. So no, "sockpuppets are not blocked unless an admin is convinced this needs to be done" is not a realistic statement.
- "Simple tagging" of accounts by "random" editors is not a normative practice here by any means. The policy page explicitly directs users who would like suspected sockpuppetry to be investigated to go to WP:SPI. Accounts are generally tagged only after being linked by investigation. In fact, dumping such a tag on a userpage before the conclusion of such an investigation would likely be considered a serious civility breach and assumption of bad faith. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:31, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
- Sockpuppets are not blocked unless an admin is convinced that this need to be done. So for the simple tagging of suspected sockpuppets by a random editor, we could really use the info circle since the template message is really just a piece of information at this stage. And this is also useful for tagging IPs that will be unblocked after a short time anyway. De728631 (talk) 21:32, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
- @I dream of horses: Assuming that with 'Des' you meant User:De728631, his compromis is as follows:
- For this purpose, I definitely prefer the "sockpuppet" icons over the "i for information" icon. The purpose of these images is to quickly communicate, but the "i" icon is used in so many places that it isn't effective for quickly communicating that a particular user has a sockpuppetry issue. I agree with Face regarding the choice of pictures. --Orlady (talk) 19:36, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
- He, thanks! Good suggestion about those pictures, but I'm afraid I don't agree with it. I don't think the blue dot should be used. My idea: File:System-users.svg = suspected, File:Puppeter template.svg = confirmed.
- Support puppeteer graphic I have no comment about reforming the template, but in the case of any user who has been through community process and been found to be a sock, I support the use of the puppeteer graphic in their notice box and am against the use of the blue dot. This should be changed back immediately unless there is some consensus to change this. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:49, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
- So at this stage we all seem to agree that the current design using only the blue dot is inferior to the previous version. Regardless of any step-wise escalation of icons, I agree with BR that the recent image changes by Reaper Eternal should be undone as a first step. We can then still discuss whether a switch is useful for this template and related ones. De728631 (talk) 21:10, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
- That may not be necessary. I think the current design is actually better than the previous. It's more concise, and it fits with {{Sockpuppeteer}} and {{Banned user}}, often used in conjunction. But it was the choice of images I disagreed upon. - theFace 09:19, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
- So at this stage we all seem to agree that the current design using only the blue dot is inferior to the previous version. Regardless of any step-wise escalation of icons, I agree with BR that the recent image changes by Reaper Eternal should be undone as a first step. We can then still discuss whether a switch is useful for this template and related ones. De728631 (talk) 21:10, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
- Support puppeteer graphic. The blue dot is dumbed down to the point of meaninglessness. I recall similar discussions in which it was proposed that we replace the nuvola-stop-sign icon in the {{banned}} template with the same milquetoast-y icon because a stop sign is "too threatening"—what, do you soil yourself every time you come to a road intersection? Silly. When an account is conclusively found to be involved in sockpuppetry, we should make that plain and clear. Pussyfooting around it is of as much help as placing flashing lights and blaring sirens on it. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:58, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
- Lol, can't say I disagree with that. Speaking of Template:Banned user, Reaper Eternal also changed the picture on that one, making it very small, apparently to lessen its 'impact'. I think the size should be restored to how it was. Same goes for Template:Blocked user. Cheers, theFace 13:39, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Regarding the RFC it seems to me that we have a consensus to revert the changes to the icons made by Reaper Eternal. I therefore request that this version of the template be restored, but please add __NOINDEX__ too (see discussion above). I could do that myself but I feel too WP:INVOLVED. De728631 (talk) 14:53, 20 April 2013 (UTC)