Template talk:User-uaa

spamblock

I have changed this to a soft block because we usually don't hard block people for having a promotional username. _(1 == 2)^Until 14:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see now that it is for users who have spammed as well as have a promotional username. I don't see spamming outside the username a username issue which is why I was a little confused. _(1 == 2)^Until 15:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, but it's something that can come up in the course of investigating a report to UAA. --Random832 (contribs) 15:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More than that, it's the typical situation in my experience. If a user has a promotional username but hasn't used it, we could block or not and the block would normally be a softblock. But most of the time, if a user registers a promotional username they immediately start advertising whether it be in user space or elsewhere. Plus, my reversal is based on my experience as an unblock reviewer: whenever one of these spam accounts requests unblocking, it is declined if they don't promise not to continue advertising. That suggests to me that we would not be happy with a situation where the user simply registers a new account without addressing the issue. Mango juice^talk 17:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest removing the default autoblock (while leaving account creation block checked); that would be consistent with the instructions to admins in the WP:UAA header ("(however, it is not appropriate to enable the autoblocker)"). Autoblock creates collateral damage and should be reserved for cases of persistent spammers who attempt to evade the block. --MCB (talk) 21:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing no objections, I have gone ahead and made that change. Spamblock now enables account creation block by default, but disables autoblock. --MCB (talk) 21:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for not noticing your note earlier. The note in the header of UAA makes no sense and doesn't match standard practice. {{spamusername}} blocks are not username blocks: they are indefinite blocks for spam-only accounts where the username is also promotional. (If the note would apply to anything, it would apply to the "hardblock" option, but even there I disagree. Mango juice^talk 16:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mangojuice, what exactly are you disagreeing with,? The only change I proposed, and then implemented, was disabling default autoblock for spamblock because it creates undesirable collateral damage. Are you arguing that is incorrect, and if so, why? Thanks, MCB (talk) 19:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I disagree with that. It's a standard block, not a username block, and autoblocking should be used. Imagine a situation where a user creates a personal account, and then soon after creates an account to mirror their organization's name and starts spamming for it. We wouldn't want that person returning to the other account. As for the reason from the WP:UAA header, it was added without discussion and doesn't make sense anyway. Mango juice^talk 04:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Documentation needs updated

The doc for this template seems outdated. The current version of the template used at Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention is called with a named parameter (it's {{user-uaa|1=username}}) and the "reason" parameter didn't seem to work when I used it there in my recent report (although I can't figure out why, as when I checked the syntax for this version of the template it did have {{{reason}}} in there). Any comments? —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 03:52, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I came here because "reason=" didn't work for me either. This documentation should be updated, or the "reason" parameter fixed. -kotra (talk) 00:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After some investigating, it looks like the "reason" parameter is designed to be passed along to the blocking form. It's not a feature I find terribly useful, but I guess others might. When reporting a name, it's probably best to just ignore the "reason" option, and put your reasoning after the template. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite understand; I'm guessing from your explanation that the reason isn't actually supposed to show up when one reports the user, but is used somewhere farther along the process? If so, it might be good to have the documentation explain that more clearly. In any case, thanks for your investigation. -kotra (talk) 03:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I kind of left out that part, but that's what I meant—it's not designed to actually display the reason on the UAA page, as far as I can tell. --Bongwarrior (talk) 06:16, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A little more express for admins

Example (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · edit filter log • hardblock · softblock · softerblock · spamblock)

Before: Current link softblock just adds the {{usernameblock}}.
After: A new link softblock will add {{usernameblock}} while softerblock will add {{softerblock}}. Hopefully a long-term timesaver.
mechamind 9 0 06:08, 30 June 2010 (UTC) {{request edit}} See above. While the code probably won't look like the source here, you probably will know how to make it look like this. I don't even know where to change the code, but is there a better template than this to recommended someone who knows to do the edit?[reply]

By the way, this edit can be made with or without bold text (I just wanted to make sure admins don't click the wrong button by accident). mechamind 9 0 04:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have made the change in this edit. If you feel you need to revert, please explain why below. Thanks! — Jeff G. ツ 21:51, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Google

I've added a link to google for promotional names as it'll be easier to find promotional names that way. --Addi hockey 10^e-mail 22:46, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've capitalized it in the template. It's a proper noun and a trademark. We are on safer legal ground keeping it capitalized, as in Google rather than google. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 16:40, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Noping

In case anyone's curious, it's to mitigate this kind of thing. Jackmcbarn (talk) 00:11, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The ability to hide offensive names

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I saw that in SRG, some of the usernames aren't publicly visible because they're inappropriate. Maybe that's a very good idea to have the option to hide usernames. If the username is hidden it's gonna look like this.

username hidden (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal) 2607:FB90:5E9C:EF13:94A7:6E59:5AFB:F649 (talk) 20:51, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the template {{User-uaa}}. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:28, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@NotTheFakeJTP: This is actually an edit request for the template. 2607:FB90:5E8E:9BCD:3DCC:263E:3975:6357 (talk) 03:34, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I thought this was a different template from the name. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:35, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. I would think that the admins reviewing UAA would want to actually see the usernames they're considering. In any case, this should probably be discussed at WT:UAA instead, since the requested change would most likely affect patrollers of that page. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:34, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Red links need to be seen

Why does this template style red-linked user pages so that they appear blue? Can this be undone? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:47, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Example: Red link example (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal) vs. User:Red link example. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:32, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]