Test Wiki:Community portal: Difference between revisions

From Test Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m (→‎Support: + Template)
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
(14 intermediate revisions by 8 users not shown)
Line 260: Line 260:
== Add <code>(interwiki)</code> user right to Bureaucrat ==
== Add <code>(interwiki)</code> user right to Bureaucrat ==


Right now, bureaucrats do not have the <code>(interwiki)</code> user right (which allows you to edit [[Special:Interwiki]]) but they can grant (and remove) themselves and others an extra user right group (Interwiki admin) to get around this restriction. This is obviously inconvenient, so I suggest we  '''bundle this user right into bureaucrat'''. [[User:PorkchopGMX|PorkchopGMX]] ([[User talk:PorkchopGMX|talk]]) 01:54, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
Right now, bureaucrats do not have the <code>(interwiki)</code> user right (which allows you to edit [[Special:Interwiki]]) but they can grant (and remove) themselves and others an extra user right group (Interwiki admin) to get around this restriction. This is obviously inconvenient, so I suggest we  '''bundle the <code>(interwiki)</code> user right into bureaucrat, and remove it from steward'''. [[User:PorkchopGMX|PorkchopGMX]] ([[User talk:PorkchopGMX|talk]]) 01:54, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
=== Support ===
=== Support ===
*'''Support''' as proposer. [[User:PorkchopGMX|PorkchopGMX]] ([[User talk:PorkchopGMX|talk]]) 01:54, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
*{{Support}} as proposer. [[User:PorkchopGMX|PorkchopGMX]] ([[User talk:PorkchopGMX|talk]]) 01:54, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
*{{Support}} It's a good idea! [[User:AlPaD|AlPaD]] ([[User talk:AlPaD|talk]]) 12:46, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
*{{support}} for now. However, some edits to special pages still need to be carefully checked.[[User:Pavlov2|Pavlov2]] ([[User talk:Pavlov2|talk]]) 18:26, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
*{{Support}} It would be great! [[User:C1K98V|<b style="color:#FF0000">''C1K98V''</b>]] <sup>([[User talk:C1K98V|💬]] [[Special:Contribs/C1K98V|✒️]] [[Special:ListFiles/C1K98V|📂]])</sup> 06:08, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 
=== Oppose ===
=== Oppose ===
* {{Oppose}} –[[User:CrazyFisherman|CrazyFisherman]] ([[User talk:CrazyFisherman|talk]]) 20:24, 16 December 2021 (UTC) Granting rights is exactly the purpose of the bureaucrat flag; too many rights directly for bureaucrats aren't necessary
**That is true, however crats (indirectly) already have access to Interwiki through the interwiki admin user right. This proposal eliminates the need for crats to grant '''themselves''' a right to edit interwikis. [[User:PorkchopGMX (on the go)|PorkchopGMX (on the go)]] ([[User talk:PorkchopGMX (on the go)|talk]]) 20:47, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
* '''Weak''' {{Oppose}}, as it's not really suited to bureaucrats. I suppose this could be added to the <code>sysop</code> toolkit. On the other hand, we may desire users have some higher level of competency. Not really sure what the best approach is here. On the one hand, this would reduce multiple hats being collected. On the other, I'm not certain adding to <code>sysop</code> is the best idea. One other idea might be to have only Stewards grant interwiki administrator? [[User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk:Dmehus|talk]]) 22:27, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
*:I don't think interwiki needs to be restricted to stewards. Interwiki rights are much less important than import, delete, block, etc. rights. I proposed the right be moved into bureaucrat because that was technically the status quo and therefore it would be the least controversial move. [[User:PorkchopGMX|PorkchopGMX]] ([[User talk:PorkchopGMX|talk]]) 18:27, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
*::[[User:PorkchopGMX|PorkchopGMX]], it's not really related to the <code>bureaucrat</code> role, ''at all'', though. ''That'''s why I don't support it. For context, the reason why it's restricted to Stewards on Miraheze is because of the potential to have malicious sites bypass the Content Security Policy. So, it's not a completely innocuous right. In this respect, the <code>block</code> and <code>delete</code> user rights are much more innocuous than the <code>interwiki</code> user right; importing ''can'' have potential issues, so I'd probably say this would be on par with ''that'', or maybe slightly ''above'' even. Above it would be interface administrator. My preference would be to delete a lot of the unneeded user groups that are below the <code>sysop</code> group, and just have one <code>testgroup</code> and maybe <code>autopatrolled</code> and <code>confirmed</code>. The rest could probably be turfed. [[User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk:Dmehus|talk]]) 01:25, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
=== Neutral/Abstain ===
=== Neutral/Abstain ===
: i remain neutral for now| however crats can grant themselves interwiki flag so i don't think it's neccessary; what do you mean by "removing it from steward"?. [[User:Sakura emad|🌸 Sakura emad 💖]] ([[User talk:Sakura emad|talk]]) 13:15, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
::The <code>(interwiki)</code> user right is already included with steward, this proposal would add that right to bureaucrat and remove it from steward (as redundant). [[User:PorkchopGMX|PorkchopGMX]] ([[User talk:PorkchopGMX|talk]]) 18:27, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
=== General comments ===
=== General comments ===
== Requesting for import of templates Sockpuppet and Sockpuppeter ==
Recently some users were blocked due to their abusively using multiple accounts. To avoid these users being unblocked by other users who have sysop right wrongly, I'd like to import these two templates from Enwiki and come here to look for some advice
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Sockpuppet][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Sockpuppeteer].
The test page was created on my own sandbox, [[user:pavlov2/sandbox]], but seemed they didn't work correctly.
[[User:Pavlov2|Pavlov2]] ([[User talk:Pavlov2|talk]]) 13:30, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:05, 16 January 2022

The community portal is Test Wiki's all-in-one help, proposal, and on-wiki action request venue.

Archives: 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09


Oversight role?

@MacFan4000 and Void: Do you think it'd be possible to get an oversight role? Seemplez (talk) 14:15, 4 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Seemplez: I'm just gonna bump in here, but there's no need for it right now. From what I've seen, everything is fine, and the CheckUser right isn't really needed either, the only use for the Steward permission is that it can revoke bureaucrat permissions from a user. BlackWidowMovie0 (talk) 17:29, 4 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think we already have both kinds of oversight on this wiki, from google I saw https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/oversight which is revision deletion you should already be able to do the admin kind of revision deletion, there is also the suppress kind, which was done to a few entries a long time ago by MacFan4000, but for that you need to be in the suppress user group and only the stewards can assign that. Fast - ZoomZoom (talk) 18:14, 4 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If a steward thinks you should have it, and assigns it to you, or you become a steward, then yes. Otherwise, no. Justarandomamerican (talk) 23:09, 4 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Fast, Justarandomamerican, and BlackWidowMovie0: Thanks. Seemplez (talk) 11:29, 7 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

CheckUser testing

User:CptViraj

Please delete my userpage, Thanks! -- CptViraj (talk) 05:45, 25 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Spam abuse filters

I'd like to propose that we enable automatic blocking on our anti-spam abuse filters, as they have a rare false positive rate (and we can just unblock if there is a false positive). Justarandomamerican (talk) 17:51, 26 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Support I Do think we could use filter for that. --Cocopuff2018 (talk) 18:51, 26 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good idea, I had considered proposing this for a while but had never got around to it. Blocking is a restricted action though, so this will need to be closed by a stewards. Naleksuh (talk) 23:28, 26 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We also need it because there is no way in hell I am doing this again. Naleksuh (talk) 00:10, 27 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Geez, I normally mop up the mess the spambots make, and never have I had to give myself the bot flag, nor flood the log like that. Justarandomamerican (talk) 01:49, 27 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agree, and prompt autoblocks will also prevent the spambots from creating new accounts on the same IP for 24 hours reducing the hit rate and making it easier to find any false positives. We can always tweak the filters that result in immediate blocks if problems occur. It may be advisable to limit blocks only to registered accounts for now since they are so far responsible for nearly all edits that trip the filter. Fast - ZoomZoom (talk) 23:15, 27 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It looks like we had another Hell load of Bot accounts today and don't worry Nalekshu I can always do mass blocking if you need me to or want me to do it just Message me and I'll do it 🙂 --Cocopuff2018 (talk) 04:43, 27 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done MacFan4000 (Talk Contribs) 12:59, 29 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Help, abuse filter blocked me

Hi, this is administrator User:PorkchopGMX editing under a VPN, a different browser, and a new account. I was editing one of my subpages, planning to delete it and use my test account to see what it would look like with the “researcher” user group, when the abuse filter thought I was spamming and blocked me indefinitely with autoblock. The only thing I can do right now (besides having to use a VPN) is to email somebody. I don’t know who I should email, so I’m doing this instead. If anybody is skeptical that this is really me, I do have access to my account and can email somebody if they need proof. PorkchopGMX’s throwaway account that will only be used once (talk) 16:15, 7 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello i already unblocked your main account please Do not use a Vpn i will GO ahead and Unblock your ip aswell so you can edit --Cocopuff2018 (talk) 16:22, 7 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you Cocopuff2018, I’m unblocked now. PorkchopGMX (talk) 16:43, 7 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposal : Remove SocialProfile

"High chance of spam" filters and false positives

The spam filters have recently falsely blocked two users (User:PorkchopGMX and User:Dmehus) as spammers that were not. As a temporary solution User:MacFan4000 has set them to just disallow again, but they clearly need to block provided we can remove false positives.

I suggest requiring 0 edits for block. Generally spambots trip this filter on their first edit, so anyone who has made any successful edits is likely not a spambot. Any other ideas? Naleksuh (talk) 23:41, 9 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The filter should also require the creation of a new page. It already does for one of the filters, but it should for the other too. Naleksuh (talk) 23:43, 9 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm a bit confused, perhaps. Wouldn't requiring 0 edits to block increase the false positive blocks? Administrators are active here, and can revert spam quickly. I'd suggest just setting it to either warn or disallow permanently, with anyone with autopatrol in their user_rights exempted from the filter. Dmehus (talk) 23:46, 9 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think so. Most administrators have more than 1 edit. I support requiring 0 edits. Justarandomamerican (talk) 23:59, 9 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Dmehus: How would narrowing when blocks are placed increase false positives? Naleksuh (talk) 00:00, 10 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, in my case, I only had one edit, and maybe I'm not understanding the central idea idea, but wouldn't reducing the edit requirement mean I would've been blocked when I made my permission request? Note that I never tried to add an external link—it was just an interwiki link. Dmehus (talk) 00:06, 10 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, because your permissions request didn’t contain anything that would trip the filter. Also, I just tested that change, and it doesn’t work because most spambots are seeming to first make a change to their SocialProfile, which I guess counts as an edit. Or at least & user_editcount == 0 nothing trips the filter when I test it. MacFan4000 (Talk Contribs) 13:35, 10 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, okay, well, I suppose it doesn't hurt to try it then, since you've tested the filter against recent edits. Plus, yeah, spam only accounts do tend add spammy links into their social profiles. Having said that, on some wikis on Miraheze what we do is simply add the SocialProfile-related rights to autoconfirmed, and that stops the spam only accounts cold, with minimal impacts on legitimate users. Also, if the above community proposal passes, this may end up being moot. Dmehus (talk) 15:57, 10 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If the above community proposal fails, I support moving updateprofile into autoconfirmed. Justarandomamerican (talk) 16:34, 10 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Justarandomamerican request for stewardship (2)

Proposal: No open proxies policy

Proposal: Bureaucrat rights only for trusted users

Rename request

Could a steward please rename me into CrazyFisherman? Thanks. --Morneo06 (talk) 23:36, 25 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Morneo06 Do you intend to use the username CrazyFisherman for the long-term, and is this part of a synchronization of your username across other wiki farms/wikis? Dmehus (talk) 21:35, 27 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I entend to use it for a long term but it is not part of any synchronization. --Morneo06 (talk) 07:37, 28 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, sounds good. I'll ping MacFan4000. Dmehus (talk) 21:12, 2 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Done MacFan4000 (Talk Contribs) 22:00, 2 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question

Hi, I have a question. Templates like this are necessary? They are not used on any page, as this is not Wikipedia. It seems to me that the appropriate thing would be to delete these types of templates. What do you think? LOCO 🔥 07:48, 2 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

They are orphaned, if nobody opposes, feel free to delete the templates. ~ Ronja (utc) 10:08, 2 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can my name be changed please?

I'd like my name here to be changed to Seiyena please. Thank you! Fiona (talk) 01:55, 3 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can this be done? I like the name Seiyena more than Fiona because it seems more unique. Fiona (talk) 20:08, 5 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done MacFan4000 (Talk Contribs) 17:15, 7 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Adding Archive Header to Test Wiki:Request permissions

Hello all, Currently i added an Archive Header for all archived Pages Current Version of /header, Posted to just let you know for censuses. Thank you 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 11:52, 26 September 2021 (UTC) just need some help with Main Page button cuz it does not work properlyReply[reply]

and i can't fix it for now thank you 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 12:21, 26 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Done NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh (talk) 17:21, 2 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Restriction of Administrator rights

Hello everyone I want to explain something important to the community, it's about verification and Users who should or shouldn't have the right of admin, as for testing we already know this is a Test wiki where you can Test administrator actions, I would like to ask should we recklessly give Admin and bureaucrat right to anyone without confirming if they're Known users on Wikipedia?, I think we should ask them to confirm their account on Meta to know whether they get to benefit from using MediaWiki Tools or just for Fun. what do you think?

Thanks 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 17:26, 27 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Comment:This issue may be against of privacy, while I'd like to say some of them may not be really well-famed Wikipedia users.Pavlov2 (talk)
 Reply i am not saying we should not give i am saying we just have to install the verification level to know about the Person we give those Rights, Because we don't know if the User is Vandal or Constructive, my Request is nothing but installing a level of verifiably that shows user's Account on Meta or other websites account. 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 14:35, 28 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Reply Even though they may be LTAs on metawiki or cross-wiki, you couldn't said they aren't come here for learning how to build castles in sandboxs as students. And some of them really don't want other known their account on Meta, for several reasons.Pavlov2 (talk) 00:09, 29 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Reply ok let's hear other's opinion about that, thank you for the interest 😊 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 01:33, 29 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think it is necessary or has any advantages to ask for meta confirmation. There was a proposal about restricting bureaucrat rights some months ago which wasn't successful. –CrazyFisherman (talk) 22:05, 29 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@千村狐免:,please take a look of this change.
@千村狐免:,please take a look of this change.

Pavlov2 (talk) 10:35, 2 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Pavlov2:What?--狐免 msg 12:27, 2 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Comment:I don't think the administrator's authority should be restricted, even if it is the long-term abuse of meta-wiki or cross-wiki.--狐免 msg 12:40, 2 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
discussion closed i withdraw.🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 12:22, 11 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request Desysopped for Kapol1234 and a checkuser for sockpuppets

USER:Kapol1234 misused his administrator tools and blocked me wrongly said I'm using sockpuppets. But I can make a promise that these account such as Pavlov3 and MCC214 is definitely not controlled by me. Thus I came here to request for a desysopped for Kapol1234 and a check user between This account, Pavlov3, MCC214 and Kapol1234 himself.@MacFan4000: Pavlov2 (talk) 08:35, 11 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@MacFan4000:, In addition, I will be appreciate if you or other Steward could take a look of Kapol1234's log of using administrator tools. Much thanks.Pavlov2 (talk) 08:36, 11 October 2021 (UTC) @Sakura emad:Pavlov2 (talk) 08:44, 11 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

These sockpuppets is not controlled by me , and l think it is controlled by Pavlov2 , because he had using sockpuppets before in Uncyclopedia , lf you check the sockpuppets and my account , please check Pavlov2 same.Kapol1234 (talk) 09:38, 11 October 2021 (UTC)@Sakura emad:@MacFan4000: – Preceding unsigned comment added by a logged out user. Reply[reply]

i have no technical abilities to check any user's information. 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 13:01, 11 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Kapol1234:You should participate in the steward election to obtain Check user rights.--狐免 msg 12:38, 12 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This discussion is closed,because the proposal is invalid.--狐免 msg 12:46, 12 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@千村狐免:,perhaps not as you said. The Check user rights may be held by Kapol1234 but without check user and said they are my sockpuppets and blocked me may seem as a misuse of administrator tools. For example, a sockpuppet User:MCC214 leaves an attack message even on my talk page.Pavlov2 (talk) 00:11, 13 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Kapol1234:@Pavlov2:,Because I think this kind of proposal is disruptive, so I want to close this proposal,And I Think Those Sock puppets Can Duck. --狐免 msg 04:26, 13 October 2021 (UTC) @Pavlov2:@千村狐免:I repeat again, this sockpuppet is not held my me.Kapol1234 (talk) 10:26, 13 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@千村狐免:Where can participate in the steward election to obtain Check user rights?Kapol1234 (talk) 10:35, 13 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Kapol1234: The CheckUser and Oversight permissions here can only be authorized by Stewards and the system administrator, so the proposal you want to be Checkuser is invalid.--狐免 msg 09:27, 14 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Confirmed sockpuppets are blocked. MacFan4000 (Talk Contribs) 15:49, 14 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, @MacFan4000: Pavlov3 and MCC214 are confirmed sockpuppets of Kapol1234? Thank you! AlPaD (talk) 17:37, 14 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes CheckUser has confirmed that they are sockpuppets. MacFan4000 (Talk Contribs) 19:29, 15 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you! AlPaD (talk) 05:13, 17 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

CheckUser request

User:Seiyena is suspected sockpuppet of User:Bugambilia([1] Special:Diff/19566), thanks! AlPaD (talk) 10:34, 22 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

CheckUser shows no connection to other accounts. MacFan4000 (Talk Contribs) 01:47, 24 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, thank you! AlPaD (talk) 18:48, 24 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Critical: Phabricator is down

@MacFan4000: It appears as if Phabricator has stopped working. Trying to load it causes this error message to appear:

PorkchopGMX (on the go) (talk) 15:04, 1 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes I’m aware. It’s not compatible with PHP 8.1. I reported the issue and will likely revert to PHP 8.0 at some point. MacFan4000 (Talk Contribs) 19:08, 1 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rename request

Hi. Please change my username to Magogre. Thanks! Mazzaz (talk) 13:58, 7 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

pinging @MacFan4000: to complete the request. 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 20:59, 9 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Done MacFan4000 (Talk Contribs) 23:31, 11 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Add (interwiki) user right to Bureaucrat

Right now, bureaucrats do not have the (interwiki) user right (which allows you to edit Special:Interwiki) but they can grant (and remove) themselves and others an extra user right group (Interwiki admin) to get around this restriction. This is obviously inconvenient, so I suggest we bundle the (interwiki) user right into bureaucrat, and remove it from steward. PorkchopGMX (talk) 01:54, 16 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support

Oppose

  •  OpposeCrazyFisherman (talk) 20:24, 16 December 2021 (UTC) Granting rights is exactly the purpose of the bureaucrat flag; too many rights directly for bureaucrats aren't necessaryReply[reply]
  • Weak  Oppose, as it's not really suited to bureaucrats. I suppose this could be added to the sysop toolkit. On the other hand, we may desire users have some higher level of competency. Not really sure what the best approach is here. On the one hand, this would reduce multiple hats being collected. On the other, I'm not certain adding to sysop is the best idea. One other idea might be to have only Stewards grant interwiki administrator? Dmehus (talk) 22:27, 26 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I don't think interwiki needs to be restricted to stewards. Interwiki rights are much less important than import, delete, block, etc. rights. I proposed the right be moved into bureaucrat because that was technically the status quo and therefore it would be the least controversial move. PorkchopGMX (talk) 18:27, 28 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    PorkchopGMX, it's not really related to the bureaucrat role, at all, though. That's why I don't support it. For context, the reason why it's restricted to Stewards on Miraheze is because of the potential to have malicious sites bypass the Content Security Policy. So, it's not a completely innocuous right. In this respect, the block and delete user rights are much more innocuous than the interwiki user right; importing can have potential issues, so I'd probably say this would be on par with that, or maybe slightly above even. Above it would be interface administrator. My preference would be to delete a lot of the unneeded user groups that are below the sysop group, and just have one testgroup and maybe autopatrolled and confirmed. The rest could probably be turfed. Dmehus (talk) 01:25, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Neutral/Abstain

i remain neutral for now| however crats can grant themselves interwiki flag so i don't think it's neccessary; what do you mean by "removing it from steward"?. 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 13:15, 25 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The (interwiki) user right is already included with steward, this proposal would add that right to bureaucrat and remove it from steward (as redundant). PorkchopGMX (talk) 18:27, 28 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

General comments

Requesting for import of templates Sockpuppet and Sockpuppeter

Recently some users were blocked due to their abusively using multiple accounts. To avoid these users being unblocked by other users who have sysop right wrongly, I'd like to import these two templates from Enwiki and come here to look for some advice [2][3].

The test page was created on my own sandbox, user:pavlov2/sandbox, but seemed they didn't work correctly. Pavlov2 (talk) 13:30, 8 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]