Wikipedia talk:Template index/User talk namespace/Archive 14: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 11:35, 30 September 2020

Revision as of 16:12, 12 August 2021

Line 8:

*Also agree, we should reword the template when the <tt>anon=yes</tt> parameter is passed to make it clear the offending user is not allowed to edit, account or not (at least until the block expires?). I think the wording should still be made clear that uninvolved registered users can continue to edit. <span style="font-family:sans-serif">&mdash; <span style="font-weight:bold">[[User:MusikAnimal|<span style="color:black; font-style:italic">MusikAnimal</span>]] ^{[[User talk:MusikAnimal|<span style="color:green">talk</span>]]}</span></span> 17:48, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

*:To clarify my point, the block message should not read "You have been blocked for..." as this is reserved for accounts, or for when you as the admin have established the IP as static and used by a single user. In the latter case, you should perform a [[WP:HARDBLOCK|hard block]] ("Prevent logged-in users from editing from this IP address") which when using Twinkle the <tt>anon=yes</tt> parameter will be omitted. If we are performing a soft block the template wording should not imply otherwise. Obviously the idea is to let uninvolved editors who have accounts know that they can continue to edit. This could even be done like we do with the warnings, where there is italicized text below the template that would read something like ''"If this is shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in"''. Also, mind you with default options account creation will be disabled for up to 24 hours when blocking IPs, as a measure to prevent block evasion. <span style="font-family:sans-serif">&mdash; <span style="font-weight:bold">[[User:MusikAnimal|<span style="color:black; font-style:italic">MusikAnimal</span>]] ^{[[User talk:MusikAnimal|<span style="color:green">talk</span>]]}</span></span> 18:02, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

:Can I bring up a different but related concern? I see <nowiki>{{ uw-ublock }}</nowiki> on talk pages and one of the recommendations offered to blocked editors is to create a new account with a different, appropriate username. I can't locate a diff right now but I've seen at least one editor with this notice create a new account and then get accused of block evasion because their previous account was blocked. Because it was a new editor, they aren't going to complain, they will just stop editing. I would think that admins would recognize when it is a username block so that new accounts, which are suggested, aren't mistaken for socks or for block evasion. [[User:Liz|<fontspan facestyle="font-family:Papyrus"; font-size="4":large; color=":#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</fontspan>]] ^{<font facestyle="font-family:Times New Roman" color="#006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''<b style="color:#006400;">''Read!'''''</b>]] [[User talk:Liz|'''<b style="color:#006400;">''Talk!''''']]</fontb>]]} 19:57, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

::Who was doing the accusing? If I'm looking at a block evasion accusation I always check what the original block was for. If it was a soft username block then I tell the accuser the new account is kosher. If it was for username+editing, then I look to see if the new account has the same type of edits. --[[User:NeilN|<b style="color:navy">Neil<span style="color:red">N</span></b>]] ^{[[User talk:NeilN|<i style="color:blue">talk to me</i>]]} 20:24, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

:::Well, [[User:NeilN|NeilN]], I think that action is what most admins would do. If I see it again though, I'll bring it up with either the admin who imposed the block or bring it to your attention. I remember only noticing it because the instructions in the template directly tell the editor that they should create a new account which is unusual advice to give a blocked editor. [[User:Liz|<fontspan facestyle="font-family:Papyrus"; font-size="4":large; color=":#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</fontspan>]] ^{<font facestyle="font-family:Times New Roman" color="#006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''<b style="color:#006400;">''Read!'''''</b>]] [[User talk:Liz|'''<b style="color:#006400;">''Talk!''''']]</fontb>]]} 21:57, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

::::{{ping|Liz}} The softblock username block messages all contain similar instructions to create a new account. --[[User:NeilN|<b style="color:navy">Neil<span style="color:red">N</span></b>]] ^{[[User talk:NeilN|<i style="color:blue">talk to me</i>]]} 23:15, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

:::::...because the default assumption is that they created the account not knowing the policy, and they are not being disruptive. If they are then some other type of block (and message) is obviously required. <span style="color:red; font-size: smaller; font-weight: bold;">§[[User:FreeRangeFrog|<span style="color:#00CA00">FreeRangeFrog</span>]]</span>^{[[User talk:FreeRangeFrog|croak]]} 02:29, 27 July 2015 (UTC)