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.
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:
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 ([1][2]) 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:
Is this actually an issue? That is, should we remove or retarget this use of the template?
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|talk16:37, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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/wiki/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)[reply]
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|talk12:10, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is technically possible, as ToBeFree said. I see 3 practical steps:
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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.put'er there10:50, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Edit request
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
