Template talk:Unrelated

Misnomer
"Unrelated" is a misnomer that is often used by sockmasters to play games. Checkuser cannot prove that accounts are "unrelated". It can merely show that there is a lack of technical evidence. This result template should thus say "No evidence", not "Unrelated". I've made this change. If you disagree, please revert and discuss. Jehochman Talk 22:53, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * CUs use unrelated in a lot of different ways, often with wording to accompany it when clarification is needed. I don't like my choice of wording being changed by you.  CUers often need to be very careful about the wording they use.  CUers often make decisions during their investigation, and when they say 'Unrelated', they should mean 'At best I can tell with the information I have available, this account is unrelated.'
 * A 'no evidence' template could be useful (in addition to 'unrelated'), and it might become more used by CUers as it means we can be lazy and noncommittal. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:59, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Lazy and non-committal would be a great improvement in some situations. Administrators have often been roadblocked from performing necessary actions because the disruptive user waves around an "unrelated" finding.  How about not using any template if you have something nuanced to say, and just type a custom message?  Checkuser cannot prove two accounts are "unrelated".  This message is always bad and misleading.  The logically proper message is "No evidence" or "No information to connect these accounts". Jehochman Talk 00:39, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * A checkuser can so know that two users are unrelated. They might use this template when they are less certain, but their decisions would be closer to the mark (on average) than the great reams of accounts which are blocked by admins as 'confirmed socks'. John Vandenberg (chat) 05:16, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you have a magical capability to look through the wires? Tell me, how can you identify whether a user is using a VPN or remote desktop? (Answer: you have no way to tell this, because that info is not conveyed in the HTTP request.) I wish Checkusers would stop overstating the capability of their tools. The strongest assertion you can make is "the technical evidence does not connect these users". Jehochman Talk 08:51, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Checkusers sometimes use their brain in addition to the tool. Of course the majority of results arn't going to lead to a 100% accurate decision, either way.  confirmed has the same problems. John Vandenberg (chat) 21:28, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * How do we stop Checkusers from misusing this template to suggest something that they cannot possibly know? What should the new template be called? Jehochman Talk 00:46, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Here: is correct.  Feel free to rename it whatever makes sense.  Jehochman Talk 00:47, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 8 July 2020
Change  to   per this request. Naypta ☺ &#124; ✉ talk page &#124; 08:57, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅.  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 10:24, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You even got to updating the documentation before I did! Cheers Naypta ☺ &#124; ✉ talk page &#124; 10:26, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * pleasure to be of help. Good of you to aid editor DL6443 on the other talk page!  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 10:35, 8 July 2020 (UTC)