Template talk:SockBlock/Sockblock archive

Subst'ing
OK, took me a few times to figure this out, but it's important: If you don't subst this template, your signature will not show up in the template. You'll just get the four tildes instead. | Mr. Darcy talk 22:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Edit Protected by 24.136.230.38
I would like to request an administrators attention to the category this thing adds:

May I suggest that the category be changed to:

OR, have the blocking admin specify the original user the sock belongs to and:

I want this change because the template states "as a sock" rather than "as a suspected sock." Please consider. --24.136.230.38 00:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Rejected: That's what this template's for, sockpuppets, not suspected sockpuppets, and changing that would break the format of about a zillion categories. Luigi30 (Ta&lambda;k) 13:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Requested edit
editprotected

Can someone fix the Sockpuppet templates category by adding |Sockblock at the end ( →  )? Thanks,  Clyde (a.k.a  Mystytopia )  13:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Yes check.svg|20px]] Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 23:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Signature
Please remove the automatic signature from this template. It is transcluded onto numerous pages, and the signature doesn't show up there. There is a wide consensus that user talk messages shouldn't have an automatic signature, because users are used to adding a signature by themselves and because these templates aren't always subst'ed (although they are supposed to be).  Melsaran  (talk) 17:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Yes check.svg|20px]] Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 00:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Wording of this template - blocked does not equal banned.
I have a problem with how this template is worded. There is a difference between someone who is "blocked" and someone who is "banned". Someone who has been blocked (even indef-blocked) is still, in theory, entitled to edit and should not necessarily be reverted (unlike a banned user, which these things do apply to). May I suggest something like the following: "The use of sockpuppets to evade a block or ban is against Wikipedia policy. In addition, banned users are not entitled to edit the encyclopedia, and if you are banned, your edits have been reverted." --UsaSatsui (talk) 21:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed reword
Stumbled across this on a sock's talk page, and the wording struck me as a bit righteous and needlessly Wikipedia aggrandizing. Rather than the current "As a blocked or banned user you are not entitled to edit Wikipedia" how about a more neutral "Blocked or banned users are not allowed to edit Wikipedia". I'm not convinced that anyone should feel "entitled" to edit Wikipedia in the first place, and the current form at least to me smacks a bit of "you are not worthy to sit at our exalted table" which is needlessly self-important on Wikipedia's part. Basically, the community or some of its authorized representatives have decided that this individual should not edit, and this applies to this account, full stop. Martinp (talk) 14:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * . Request admin make the change, since no objection here for more than 24 hours. As an additional point, I don't fully agree with the point above my comment by UsaSatsui regarding reversion, but same admin might want to consider it. Martinp (talk) 22:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ I also made a few other tweaks. Happy‑melon 12:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Sock category
editprotectedIt should be removed, as most of the time, when a sock is blocked, the template for a blocked sock(not this one, but sockpuppet) is used, putting the userpage in the appropriate category. Since this template is used as well, both the talk page and userpage are in the category. This makes the number of socks rather false, and there is no reason to have the user page, and the user talk page, in the same category.. Quite simply, it is pointless and makes more work for everyone. It should be removed.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  02:39, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I support the removal of it, as it's redundant to have both a user page and user talk page categorized, especially since we tag userpages. Just the userpages is sufficient enough. MuZemike 01:22, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ ⇌ Jake   Wartenberg  03:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

template change
can you change to ? --68.236.212.209 (talk) 18:48, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Merge
editprotected Please could someone remove the mergeinto template and instead add. Thanks. Mhiji (talk) 21:46, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ - Krakatoa  Katie  03:07, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The consensus of the TFD discussion is to merge the SockBlock template and this template together, so now I've done so on the SockBlock template, so please redirect this template to Template:SockBlock. Thanks in advance. Hey Mid  (contribs) 12:15, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Please wait for the TfD to be closed! Thanks &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:44, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Please remove the tfm template, since the TFD has been closed. Hey Mid  (contribs) 15:11, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅. Are we redirecting this template then? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:04, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think so. Hey  Mid  (contribs) 17:11, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well I lowered the protection. So once you work out what's happening you can do it yourself! &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:21, 13 January 2011 (UTC)