Sockpuppet

User:AngryParsley_hereby_award_you_with_the_sockpuppet_star._Because_dude.._sockpuppetism!">Image:SockPuppet Star.gif|frame|left|I, User:AngryParsley hereby award you with the sockpuppet star. Because dude.. sockpuppetism! I am a sockpuppet username for a sysop (User:Cimon avaro) who wants a nonsysop username to use when demonstrating the system. There should be very few edits made outside the sandbox by this user (except perhaps editing from a public terminal when away from home).

Sockpuppet

Don't bother welcoming me. I am a sockpuppet username for a sysop (User:Cimon avaro) who wants a nonsysop username to use when demonstrating the system. There should be very few edits made outside the sandbox by this user (except perhaps editing from a public terminal when away from home). --User:SPUI (User talk:SPUI) 22:52, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC) Thanks for the warm welcome. -- User:Cimon avaro 12:24, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

#redirect Wikipedia:Sock puppet

Sockpuppet

#redirect: Sock puppet

Sockpuppet

{| class="Talk-Notice" style="padding:5px; width:40%; text-align:left;" |align="center"| || width="100%"|It is believed that this user may be a Wikipedia:Sock puppet of User:{}; see {} for evidence. |}Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets of {}

Sockpuppet

Based on my look at the history it seems there is a revert war going on. I've protected the template, until the parties come to an agreement. User:MacGyverMagic|User talk:MacGyverMagic 12:27, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC) ==TFD Discussion== *This template was listed for deletion on April 22, 2005. Consensus was to Keep. See Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/Not deleted/April 2005#Template:Sockpuppet. ==Where's the beef?== I sometimes read ''This user may be an abusive sockpuppet of ''[X]''; see {} for evidence'', even where this template has ''recently'' been applied. (Or recently reapplied. There are, of course, lengthy edit wars over provision of these templates.) Well, where's the evidence? If there is evidence, specify it; if there isn't, don't apply the template. -- User:Hoary 11:11, 2005 May 28 (UTC) :Frankly, it's exremely difficult to see how to include the link to evidence. I've just been struggling with it, trying different methods, and I've completely failed. Do you have any advice? User:Mel Etitis (Μελ_Ετητης)">User talk:Mel Etitis 11:07, 29 May 2005 (UTC) ::The format to use is: :: ::It works similarly to how Template:Copyvio works. User:Thryduulf 11:58, 29 May 2005 (UTC) == Inherently personal attack? == Regarding the current edit war on User:Enviroknot's user page, I feel that this template is inherently a personal attack. I read the TfD debate, and I feel that several users agreed with my sentiments. I think that "evidence" should be restricted to very clear evidence ''for each user''. This would often constitute a link to a mailing list archive where the users with the checkuser function have confirmed sockpuppetry. If there is a reasonable dispute, and no incontrovertible evidence, the template should probably be removed, as it would ignore WP:FAITH. User:smoddy 09:20, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC) :I think that the demand for absolute proof is too strong; when one user makes the same sorts of edit in the same sort of style on the same articles as another user, that's pretty good grounds for suspecting sockpuppetry — when they edit each other's User pages and have IP addresses in the same city, or even the same institution, then the evidence is as strong as you're likely to get. After all, the template text says that they're ''suspected'' of being sockpuppets. :I agree, though, that the standard shouldn't be set too low; there has to be some good ground for the suspicion, and some consensus among a set of editors is probably desirable (it's certainly true that the template ''can'' be used as a personal attack). :By the way, can you label a diagram of a synovial joint? Of the human digestive system? You only have three hours... User:Mel Etitis (Μελ_Ετητης)">User talk:Mel Etitis 10:13, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::For those wondering, Mel is referring to my biology GCSE. My answer to him is, of course, do you really think we still need to? This is the twenty-first century examination system! We don't need to do anything! ::Back on topic, I simply think that this template is overly disruptive to a user who is not blocked permanently or banned indefinitely by the ArbComm. I have no problem with it if the user is inactive, but it is really over the top to apply it to a user who is actively editing. User:smoddy 10:34, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::It's also odd to apply it when the evidence is feeble. The evidence here seems to be that they all have bizarre political views, cooperate with each other, and are in Houston. But notoriously places like Houston are bristling with cronies pushing bizarre political views. :::On the other hand, if an admin is certain that the sockpuppet template is justified, why doesn't he just stick it there and lock the page? (Conceivably, in order that the accused puppet can argue against it or supplement it -- but it's hard to imagine that happening.) -- User:Hoary 10:46, 2005 Jun 6 (UTC) (after edit conflict) If a user has been banned, or is inactive, there surely isn't any need for the warning. I suppose that we need to ask two questions: #What is the purpose of the template? #What standard of evidence is rquired for its use? My answer to the first is that it's there to inform other editors (and especially admins), who might not be aware of what's going on. My answer to the second is that there should be reasonable grounds for the suspicion. The corrollary to my first answer is that the image is inappropriate. The template should be noticeable but formal; it should merely inform the reader that there's a possible problem with this editor's behaviour, and leave it at that. User:Mel Etitis (Μελ_Ετητης)">User talk:Mel Etitis 10:51, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC) :In response to Hoary's question: there are strict guidelines for protecting pages, and I don't think that this sort of case meets them. User:Mel Etitis (Μελ_Ετητης)">User talk:Mel Etitis 10:52, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC) ==Redesign== Would anyone mind if I cut this down and removed the image? The object could be done in a far less disruptive and antagonistic fashion. User:smoddy 10:31, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC) :I'd support that. User:Mel Etitis (Μελ_Ετητης)">User talk:Mel Etitis 11:22, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC) ;Options {| class="Talk-Notice" |- |align="center"| |width="100%"|It is believed that this user may be an abusive Wikipedia:Sock puppet of User:{}; see {} for evidence.}} |}Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets of {} {| class="Talk-Notice" style="padding:5px; width:40%; text-align:left; height:60px" |align="center"| || width="100%"|It is believed that this user may be an abusive Wikipedia:Sock puppet of User:{}; see {} for evidence.}} |}Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets of {} :Which do you prefer? User:smoddy 12:43, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC) Even apart from the glitch in the first, I prefer the second. User:Mel Etitis (Μελ_Ετητης)">User talk:Mel Etitis 13:25, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC) :I'll swap it for the second, then. The first one is fixed, by the way. User:smoddy 13:33, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC) I think that this looks much better — more professional, less like a personal attack. Whether it makes any difference to those people to whose User pages it's applied is another matter, of course... User:Mel Etitis (Μελ_Ετητης)">User talk:Mel Etitis 13:57, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC) :All sorted. When using the template, place it in with the URL of the evidence in square brackets to give a numbered external link, or use normal Wiki linking syntax. i.e.:

:or

:This ensures the design works correctly. User:smoddy 14:01, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

See other meanings of words starting from letter:

S

SB | SC | SD | SE | SF | SG | SH | SI | SJ | SK | SL | SM | SN | SO | SP | SR | SS | ST | SU | SW | SX | SY | SZ |

Words begining with Sockpuppet:

Sockpuppet
Sockpuppet
Sockpuppet
Sockpuppet
Sockpuppet
Sockpuppet
Sockpuppet01
Sockpuppet56
Sockpuppetcity
SockpuppetRevertEr
Sockpuppets
Sockpuppets
Sockpuppet_for_work