This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Anomie(talk | contribs) at 01:41, 22 May 2008(Archive various uw-* talk pages so they can be redirected to WT:UTM). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.Revision as of 01:41, 22 May 2008 by Anomie(talk | contribs)(Archive various uw-* talk pages so they can be redirected to WT:UTM)
The following discussion is archived from Template talk:Uw-birthday. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Latest comment: 17 years ago10 comments6 people in discussion
Yes, this is something of a joke, but I have already used it twice in the couple of days since I created it. "Birthday" vandalism is so common that I once made a request on WP:AN to semiprotect all date articles such as February 15 because of excessive vandalism. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 21:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)Reply
The following discussion is archived from Template talk:Uw-adminabuse. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Moved to Uw (User warning)? I thought the whole point was that this was a post-modern ironic comment on not using user warning templates? :-) Carcharoth01:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
Several of the "user warning" templates are friendly advice as well. Not things that will lead to a direct block, but things that a user may not have realised, or didn't understand well. (That includes things like signing posts, substituting warning templates, and reporting non-obvious vandalism to AIV.) Confusing Manifestation23:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
Hmmm ... don't know about bringing it to WikiProject standards though. I'll just point out that my edit summary in the move was meant to be a joke, and I promise not to cry abuse if someone decides it needs moving back :) Confusing Manifestation23:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
The following discussion is archived from Template talk:Uw-spamublock. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Graphic
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
The following discussion is archived from Template talk:Uw-ublock. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
General template?
Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
It says that this is a general template, however, I don't think there is a more specific template for this than this one, is there? In any case, there are no more specific templates on the page that the message points to. --JoanneB13:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
Non-latin characters?
Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
This seems like a borderline guideline for usernames, and inappropriate as a reason for blocking someone or as a potential reason given in this message. Can we remove that section? If it suggests anywhere that having non-latin chars is a reason for blocking a username, we should change that. +sj +04:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
Why should characters like ∠ or ♣ be permitted in usernames? Usernames must consist of characters that may be typed on an English keyboard or, in allowance of multi-wiki users or single-user login, on some keyboard. Someone should not need to copy and paste a username or find a Unicode character reference to refer to a user. —Centrx→talk • 07:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
See the Username policy, which states the following. If you wish to remove the clause, you should discuss on the policy talk page instead.
Names with non-Latin characters: Unfortunately, most of your fellow editors will be unable to read a name written in Cyrillic, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, or other scripts. Many of them will also be additionally burdened, as such names may be displayed for them only as question marks ("??? ??"), squares ("□□□ □□"), replacement characters ("??? ??") or worse, nonsense or mojibake ("Ã!%ôs*"). If your name is usually written in a non-Latin script, please consider transliterating it to avoid confusion, and allow easier access to your talk page by typing your name in the search field or URL bar.
This is an advice, and I have just deprecated it on that page. This might only be appropriate for new usernames made specifically for editing on en.wikipedia.
Note that people who have accounts on multiple wikimedia projects might have a non-latin username from that other project. These people will often have a proven track-record, and should not be blocked.
Once (when.. in some forseeable future) single user login is implemented, en.wikipedia will allow a huge number of non-latin-character usernames to log in, whether you want to or not. Unilaterally blocking people from other wikis is definately not going to be the answer!
Blocking people from other wikis is *simply not fair*. What if wikis in other character sets started blocking latin1 people? That would be stupid. Who can do transwiki and translation work (VERY IMPORTANT!) after that?
Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Following a discussion over at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Acceptable username policy I took a look at the template used for blocking new users whose names are inappropriate (too similar to another user's name, contain improper characters, etc) and it seemed to me that the current template is pretty harsh, and may scare well-meaning new users away. So, I tried to put myself in the shoes of a new user (not so tough, as in many ways I still am one) and redesigned the template to address this issue. My proposed template, along with a copy of the original template, can be seen at User:Badger151/templates. Please stop by and leave your thoughts on that page's talk page. Thanks --Badger15123:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
Although the message could be more cordial, your proposal is far too soft (particularly the emoticon). I've softened the wording to a lesser degree at User:Pathoschild/Sandbox2. What do you think of that one? —[admin] Pathoschild 02:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Optional parameter in the "usernameblock" ("unb") template
Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
What isn't documented at {{usernameblock}}, and should be (but I can't edit it to do so, it's protected), is that the template takes an optional parameter. {{usernameblock|reason for block}}, or even {{unb|reason for block}}, will replace the rest of the sentence following "blocked indefinitely because", up to the parenthetical "(see our blocking and username policies for more information)", with your own specific reason for the block.
That is, the boilerplate text -- ..."it may be rude or inflammatory, unnecessarily long/confusing, too similar to an existing user, contains the name of an organization or website, or is otherwise inappropriate"... -- goes away and is replaced by your own text.
If you enter: {{unb|"Charles Prince of Wales" too closely resembles the existing username "The Outlaw Josey Wales"}} you get:
Your username has been blocked indefinitely because "Charles Prince of Wales" too closely resembles the existing username "The Outlaw Josey Wales" (see our blocking and username policies for more information).
(and the rest of the template stays the same)
Please pass the word. For blocking admins to consistently use that feature would certainly cut down on our head-scratching at WP:RFCN over "Why was this name blocked?" -- Ben05:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Adding link to WP:RFCN archive
If the username was blocked following a discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names, you may wish to link to the archive of that discussion, for instance:
{{unb|1="1337 H4XZ0R" falls under [[WP:USERNAME#Trouble|"usernames that... give the impression that you intend to cause trouble here, such as by alluding to hacking"]], and was disallowed by [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WP:RFCN&oldid=119514027#1337_H4XZ0R_.28talk_.E2.80.A2_contribs.29 a discussion at WP:RFCN]}}
Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Khukri of the user-warnings project had suggested:"Just my tuppence worth but maybe trying to group them with the prefix rfc, and all the templates titles should be in lowerecase." Okay. The long forms now also have lowercased shortcuts. Since the longstanding {{UsernameBlocked}} already had shortcut {{unb}}, I gave the others similar shortcuts (as close as I could get, since {{ucr}} and {{unc}} were already taken), and then also rfc-prefix forms with just three letters after the dash:
I have noticed that redirect errors like that, spelling mistakes, capitalization errors, etc. are haven't been looked to be a big deal at Wikipedia, so I understand on the other hand if the request is declinded. I still thought it could possibly be helpful as far as minor edits go to consider it.--Wikipedier (talk • contribs) 20:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
I read the above comments and one of the things that has not been documented in the template directions is that you can use "{{usernameblock|reason for block}}" to specify a specific reason why the name was blocked. This should be added. - Hdt83 | Talk20:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Not done There is no good place to put that and most administrators know or can figure it out already. (and most administrator's wouldn't fill that paramater out even if they knew it was there) Cbrown1023talk21:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
{{editprotected}}
I would like to change it so it says Your account has been blocked indefinitely as a result of your inappropriate username instead of Your username has been blocked indefinitely as the actual account is blocked and not just the username, this to avoid confusion.Tellyaddict14:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
Yes, the text seems to confuse "username" with "account". It would be simpler if it just used the word "username" everywhere (because there is no account apart from the associated username). But I rephrased it just a little to make the first sentence match the rest of the text. CMummert · talk11:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
"Blocked Indefinitely"
Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
{{tl|editprotected} The words "Blocked indefinitely" in the UsernameBlocked template should be bold faced again
I don't think that's biting, but just bolding the main information of the template, which can be useful to locate it on a sometimes non-empty talkpage. -- lucasbfrtalk02:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
I agree with Lucasbfr - the bold makes it easy to get the point quickly while scanning the page. — Carl (CBM · talk) 05:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
Block for "Wikipedia"
Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
{{editprotected}}
The prohibition on "Wikipedia" no longer appears in WP:U. It now reads, "... Usernames that confusingly refer to a Wikipedia process, namespace, or toolbar item."
Wording should be changed to reflect this: Change: "...contains the word Wikipedia or the name of any other Wikimedia Foundation project..." to: "... refers to a Wikipedia or Wikimedia Foundation process or namespace...". Just a suggestion. Flyguy649talkcontribs05:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
This template is no longer fully protected, since all the other UW templates are semi protected. I am not sure whether or not many people watch this page, but if you want information about the WP:UW templates, please leave a note at WT:UW. Thanks! -- lucasbfrtalk12:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
Category
Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
When used on a user talk page (surely the most common form of usage) this page puts the page into Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages which in turn suggests that the page be deleted. This seems like a poor idea to me, part of the reason for such a msg is to form a lasting record of the blockage and its reason. Why is this category used, and would anyone object to removing it from this template? DES(talk)17:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
Hell no, keep that one! Apparently these pages are deleted after a month, keep in mind that the block message is still viewable when the user tries to edit. That's an easy way to delete the (unused) talk pages of blocked users when they left. -- lucasbfrtalk15:00, 11 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
Color
Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
I really don't like the new color/layout of the template. This one isn't a "get lost" template ... it should be more informational, not have a scare color. This template is for someone who made a disallowed username in good faith - we don't want a big yellow get lost message on the page. Would anyone have any severe heartburn with changing it back? It really does look hideous. --B22:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
If I'm correct, without the color the templates appears with a pink background in the "You're blocked" interface, not the best either. The orange is just the same color than the other uw-block templates, and the div class can be used if you tweak your monobook. -- lucasbfrtalk14:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
Proposed changes
Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
This is the current design:
Your account with this username has been blocked indefinitely because the username may be rude or inflammatory, be unnecessarily long/confusing, be too similar to an existing user, contain the name of an organization or website, refer to a Wikipedia or Wikimedia Foundation process or namespace, or be otherwise inappropriate (see our blocking and username policies for more information).
You are encouraged to create a new account and contribute to Wikipedia under an appropriate username.Wikipedia:Username policy provides guidance on selecting your username. You may also edit Wikipedia without creating an account.
Due to Wikipedia's mechanism for enforcing name changes, your IP address may be temporarily blocked. Unless you have also been engaging in vandalism or impersonation of another user, we will remove that block as soon as possible.
If you want to keep the contributions from your old account for your new username, please follow these directions:
Add {{unblock-un|your new username here}} on your user talk page. This is possible because even when you are blocked, you can still edit your own talk page.
At an administrator's discretion, you may be unblocked.
You will have 24 hours after the unblock to file a request on Wikipedia:Changing username before you may be re-blocked. Note that this can only be done before you create the new one. For more information, please visit Wikipedia:Changing username. In many cases (especially if your account has few or no edits), it is much easier to create a new account.
If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} on your user talk page or emailing the administrator who blocked you.
but I feel it should be like this:
Your account with this username has been blocked indefinitely because the username may be rude or inflammatory, be unnecessarily long/confusing, be too similar to an existing user, contain the name of an organization or website, refer to a Wikipedia or Wikimedia Foundation process or namespace, or be otherwise inappropriate (please see our blocking and username policies for more information).
You are encouraged to create a new account and contribute to Wikipedia under an appropriate username.Wikipedia:Username policy provides guidance on selecting your username. You may also edit Wikipedia without creating an account.
Due to Wikipedia's mechanism for enforcing name changes, your IP address may be temporarily blocked. Unless you have also been engaging in vandalism or impersonation of another user, we will remove that block as soon as possible.
If you want to keep the contributions from your old account for your new username, please follow these directions:
Add {{unblock-un|your new username here}} on your user talk page. This is possible because even when you are blocked, you still have the ability to edit your own talk page.
You will have 24 hours after the unblock to file a request on Wikipedia:Changing username before you may be re-blocked. Note that this can only be done before you create the new one. For more information, please visit Wikipedia:Changing username. In many cases (especially if your account has few or no edits), it is much easier to create a new account.
If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} on your user talk page or emailing the administrator who blocked you.
I have made some small changes to the template above here - before I change this high-use template, I would like to gain consensus first.
I'm not sure the border looks right for this template: it may do so for others, but for this one, it looks ugly.
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I've updated the wording, which was unnecessarily lengthy, and a bit BITEy. The main audience for this message is especially, users who have never edited before, or are creating new accounts, so it matters above average not to deter or even accidentally, BITE. FT2(Talk | email)02:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)Reply
The following discussion is archived from Template talk:Uw-uhblock. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Requested edit
Latest comment: 18 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion
I have removed the edit protected request for now. (Please readd it if there is a consensus on this issue.) I think the wording is better as it is, though I have no strong opinions either way. The most important thing, in my view, is that this template not promise to unblock the user if they say they want to change their name or anything like that - this template is for users who are making obviously trolling names and should never be used for someone who is acting in good faith. --BigΔT19:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 18 years ago13 comments6 people in discussion
I'd like to suggest consideration for removing this template, but I'd like to chat about it here before taking to TfD. A username block should be just that, a username block. Blocking a person because of an inappropriate username (no matter how trollish) goes against the grain of Wikipedia, nowhere else do we essentially BAN people from the project for a single poor decision. Just because someone makes an extraordinarily bad username doesn't mean they're going to be a troll or disruptor, plenty of folks make outrageous names or statements casually without intention to disrupt, and we are not equipped with crystal balls. Thoughts? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
To clarify, I'm not talking about username blocking in general, it's the hard blocking that I object to (Account creation disabled, autoblock enabled, etc). - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
If a new user with a nice inoffensive name like Mary Jones (I haven't checked to see if there is such a user) immediately begins to post your real name and phone number all over Wikipedia, we block Mary Jones with account creation disabled. If someone registers an account called User:Chairboy's real name is X and his phone number is 1234567, we also block with account creation disabled. Really offensive usernames are not made by people who are going to want to make useful edits tomorrow. And if the usernames are deliberate, stalkerish privacy violations, then the editor is certainly not a newcomer who is unfamiliar with Wikipedia. In any case, as far as I know, blocking the IP does not mean that the user can never create a new account — just that they have to wait a few days. ElinorD(talk)16:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
A note, my IP address stays the same for months at a time, and it's a dynamic IP, so the penalty we're talking about here can be pretty dang big for the transgression, and for many users amounts to a lifetime ban from Wikipedia. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
There are times when hardblocking based on usernames in necessary and appropriate. We're talking usernames that make it clear in themselves that the user is her to cause trouble. I would give the following as appropriate cases for immediate username hardblocks:
Those are all good username blocks, but a lifetime ban from the project is pretty heavy medicine, and there's the assumption that these people can never ever contribute constructively to the project. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
Yes, I believe it does - we can't indefintely prevent the creation of accounts from a given IP without blocking the IP itself... WjBscribe17:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
The original reason I created this template is that we need something that doesn't invite the user to create a new account. If someone is repeatedly creating accounts attacking random admins, using {{unb}} as the block message doesn't make sense. --B00:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
The following discussion is archived from Template talk:Uw-voablock. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Unpropper
Latest comment: 19 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I don't think the text further action may be taken against you. to be proper in this context. As we all knwon, threads only encourage vandals. Mariano(t/c) 08:17, 28 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
I removed the text
Please do not create further accounts for the purpose of vandalism; if you do so, further action may be taken against you.
because it basically amounts to WP:BEANS - that is, we're telling them that if they want to vandalise further, they just have to create another account. "Further action may be taken against you" is an obviously hollow threat. --Sam Blanning(talk)13:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
Edit to template
Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Could an admin add {{TestTemplatesNotice}} to the template (obviously in a <noinclude> section)? Test0-Test2 have them, and it'd be nice to have this sort of standardized (though this is a lot less of an issue for admin-only templates, as they probably know to subst it). EVula17:39, 29 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
This template has been used, in a number of cases, after a single edit. Granted, in those cases the edit in question was obvious vandalism on an article that receives a great deal of vandal attention. However, the text of the template implies a decision has been reached, based on a pattern of activity. When used on the talk page of a user who has only ever edited Wikipedia once it doesn't make a lot of sense. Either a new template should be used in such cases, or the language in this template should be changed. Example: [1] -Harmil22:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
Template restored after change
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
A change was made to this template on 17 Dec, without discussion. I only discovered this after using the template for blocking of a vandalism-only account. When it rendered after subst, it did not say provide the words that I expected, nor completely give the editor the reason for the block. "Vandalism only" is a slightly different reason than "persistent vandalism"; and in fact, in the blocking page, "vandalism" and "vandalism-only" are separate choices in the drop down reason. For that reason, I'm restoring it to the previous version. Please discuss any changes here as this change potential affects many admins. — ERcheck (talk) 13:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)Reply
Not done There is no good place to put that and most administrators know or can figure it out already. (and most administrator's wouldn't fill that paramater out even if they knew it was there) Cbrown1023 talk 21:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Done. -Mysekurity 11:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
