Template talk:Sockpuppet

here's the proivided wikitext: (see the source code)

78.208.194.179 07:52, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Done. ––– Aed8814 (C | T) 17:17, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

thanks, that was me 👁 Image
Dazzle 👁 Image
17:24, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

The text of this messagebox seems needlessly hostile. "Evidence" and "editing habits" are unnecessarily strong. Plus, the whole template is just restating information that would already be present on the user's page if they are blocked. 👁 Image
GameCatastrophe (talk) 17:32, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

I think the template was adapted from one of the ones on Wikipedia. As a banner, it needs to be concise. Perhaps remove "evidence" and substitute "contribution history" in place of "editing habits"? ~Anachronist (talk) 17:36, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

yeah i got this from the english wikipedia, see w:Template:Sockpuppet 👁 Image
Dazzle 👁 Image
17:38, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

maybe "Please refer to the user's past edits or contributions of the sockpuppet for similarities." would work? 👁 Image
amethyst_hhh👁 Image
17:38, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

I changed it to "See the sockpuppet's contributions or block log for more information", with links to the user's contributions and block log respectively. Is this good enough? -- 👁 Image
Mitsos [ talk | edits ] 17:40, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

yeah that sounds a lot better to me, hopefully others agree 👁 Image
amethyst_hhh👁 Image
17:42, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:43, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

i chamged it to "See the user's editing habits, their contributions or CheckUser data for evidence.", is that good or do i need to change it a bit? 👁 Image
Dazzle 👁 Image
17:47, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

We don't have a jury so we don't need evidence, and "see the user's habits" makes us look more like a Creepo Depot 👁 Image
GameCatastrophe (talk) 17:48, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

No-one except for check users has access to the CheckUser data, so in my opinion, there is no need to put it here. Also, it would be helpful to have a link to the block log, like my version has. And, as described above, the term "editing habits" is unnecessarily strong. -- 👁 Image
Mitsos [ talk | edits ] 17:48, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

i changed it so it doesnt have "editing habita" 👁 Image
Dazzle 👁 Image
17:50, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

I've reverted back to Mitsos's version. That was better. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:52, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

i added the {{{3}}} parameter, look at the source code 👁 Image
Dazzle 👁 Image
18:45, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Let's discuss about what we should make the icon. 👁 Image
Dazzle 👁 Image
17:58, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

I mean, since this replaces the other block message box and is essentially conveying the same message, they should have the same icon. 👁 Image
GameCatastrophe (talk) 18:00, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

not just a block icon, im talking about an icon for a sockpuppeet 👁 Image
Dazzle 👁 Image
18:14, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Read my response again. 👁 Image
GameCatastrophe (talk) 18:16, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

? 2001:4454:7C4:3900:6CEA:53D2:C583:BE62 07:28, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Personally, I don't understand what benefits this change would have, nor do I understand why should a sockpuppet have their own category. Redz (talk) 20:12, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

It would only serve to make the Wiki feel more hostile and boost vandals' egos and promote vandalism for recognition. That seems to be the point of this whole template, really. 👁 Image
GameCatastrophe (talk) 20:59, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

I agree, I also think vandals and sockpuppets' user pages should be deleted after they are blocked (only infinite blocks), instead of keeping them. –LauraFi - talk 21:08, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

I imagine there's some reason to preserve edit history but yeah 👁 Image
GameCatastrophe (talk) 21:14, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

how does deleting prevent clutter in minecraft wiki maintenance? Liyz7928 (talk) 21:16, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

In my opinion, there is no reason to preserve the edit history of user pages of sockpuppets of blocked users, as those user pages were created by the banned user in violation of their ban. They should be deleted right away, as they were created in violation of the wiki rules. –Mitsos ^{[ talk | edits ]} 21:21, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

If Dazzle fails to write an reply to this discussion, then this user should reconsider their actions about what matters to the Wiki and what does not. Redz (talk) 21:20, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

This template is practically useless in basically every possible way. All it does is restate information from the block log, which is automatically shown on user pages unless the viewer manually and intentionally disables it in their preferences, and adding information into this template that is not specified in the block log is explicitly disallowed, making it even more unnecessary. In its original state, the template was made as a form of gravedancing. In its current state, the only purpose it serves is to communicate to the end user why the page that they're looking at is now empty, which is the entire purpose of {{Banned user}}, making this a completely unnecessary and irrelevant template that breaks several rules in its own existence, not to mention how it can even encourage vandalism by promoting becoming a recognizable socker, which is already a big enough problem given the way people talk about vandals such as Teh Epik Duck. It should just be made into a template shortcut for the Banned User template. 👁 Image
GameCatastrophe (talk) 21:07, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

I 👁 Image
 Agree, those template are just almost the same, except the word sockpuppet. Also add option to the banned user template to say sockpuppet. Liyz7928 (talk) 21:09, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Agree, I don't find the categorization of ban templates to be constructive, as either way it's still a banned user, which {{Banned user}} could be applied just fine. Redz (talk) 21:20, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Agree. –LauraFi - talk 21:22, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support, and I think that user pages of sockpuppets should be deleted immediately instead of having a ban template added to them (see my message above). –Mitsos ^{[ talk | edits ]} 21:25, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

why not replace Liyz7928 (talk) 21:25, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Because those user pages were created in violation of the wiki rules, as they were created by banned users in violation of their ban. As such, there is no reason to preserve the edit history of rule-violating pages.

This practice also serves to deny recognition to sockmasters and vandals. –Mitsos ^{[ talk | edits ]} 21:32, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

but what happen if I copy content from banned user, probably some people want the violated content back to their userpage? Liyz7928 (talk) 21:36, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Why would you want to do that? –Mitsos ^{[ talk | edits ]} 21:37, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

to learn from the banned user edits. Liyz7928 (talk) 21:39, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

also if they appeal a ban what would they do if the page was deleted. will they undelete it Liyz7928 (talk) 21:39, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

chances of an indeffed user successfully appealing a block is very, very low. Although it is not zero, and in that case, yes, it would just be undeleted. 👁 Image
amethyst_hhh👁 Image
21:41, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

like user:Aed8814 unbanned from other wiki Liyz7928 (talk) 21:42, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Technically, this is possible. The pages are not permanently deleted from the database, they're just hidden from public view. They can be restored by an administrator at any time.

But as the above comment says, the likelihood of this happening is extremely low. –Mitsos ^{[ talk | edits ]} 21:42, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

ok. Liyz7928 (talk) 21:45, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

👁 Image
. It's not gravedancing; this term keeps being meaninglessly thrown around. It's not encouraging being a sock either. It's useful to keep track of the accounts.  Nixinova  T ⁄ C  00:47, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

I didn't say that it was, I said that the original version was made for that purpose. It is useful to keep track of the accounts that are sockpuppets, except for the fact that adding information on which account the user is a sockpuppet of isn't allowed unless it is specified in the block log which is automatically added to user pages above the message box anyways. But what about talk pages where the block log doesn't automatically appear? Well, in that case, it is specifically stated in the template's documentation that you are not supposed to add the template anyways. And it doesn't really keep track of accounts anyways since it only replaces user pages that are made by the socks themselves who don't usually make userpages and thus don't usually get the template and thus any list would be incomplete, save for just checking the block log. And adding this template to new user pages just to mark them on a list is, once again, explicitly not allowed according to the documentation and would be more certainly gravedancing than anything else. This template wasn't made for keeping track of sockpuppets, it was made at the request of an IP editor. Apologies for the long reply 👁 Image
GameCatastrophe (talk) 01:33, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Have we made any decisions on this? 👁 Image
GameCatastrophe (talk) 14:51, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Here is a merged version: User:KirillVT/Ban template KirillVT (talk) 15:28, 8 December 2025 (UTC)