Template talk:UAA-no edits

This template was considered for deletion on 2018 July 23. The result of the discussion was "no consensus".

A couple thoughts[edit]

Thanks to Beeblebrox and Primefac for working on this template. As I look at it two things come to mind. First the statement Do not report a user that hasn't edited unless they are clearly a vandal is a little confusing. How can someone "clearly be a vandal" if they have not made any edits? Next, would it be possible to give an example of how the template should be used. I am not sure where I would put it in a report. Now if this is only to be used by admins then this is a "never mind" situation. MarnetteD|Talk 19:10, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MarnetteD, this is a notice that would be placed on a user's talk page when then submitted a name to WP:UAA that had no edits. Primefac (talk) 19:21, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info and the update to the template Primefac. That helps a bunch :-) MarnetteD|Talk 19:26, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

parameter for user[edit]

It seems to me that there should be an optional parameter for the name of the edit-less user who was reported. Would anyone object to such a thing? DES ^(talk) 00:22, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that's super useful, but I wouldn't really object to it so long as it does not ping said user. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:31, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In practice, I think this message is typically only used for repeat offenders who haven't gotten the hint after numerous declined UAA reports, making it unnecessary/useless to single out individual reports. For a "first offense", the standard UAA administrative notes should still suffice in explaining why no action is required. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:48, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was plannign to start using it for most reports that I decline with a no-edits indicator. For that purpose, I want to be able to specify the user name involved. If people object to doing that here, i can easily create a modified copy, perhaps in my user space, and use that instead. DES ^(talk) 01:03, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Juliancolton that this should be used for repeat offenders since it is going to be a WP:DTTR situation. I also just noticed that my first point above has not been addressed so I will ask again "How can someone who hasn't yet edited - clearly be a vandal" the wording is going to be, at best, confusing. I just think that this should be addressed before using this template. MarnetteD|Talk 01:30, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have never agreed with WP:DTTR. In fact, I currently host User:DESiegel/Template the regulars, although I'm thinking of moving it back to project space. DES ^(talk) 02:01, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's just quoting WP:UAAI. For me, it's one of those "you'll know it when you see it" things. It's hard to be absolutely certain whether a user will turn out to be constructive or mischievous, but things like flagrant profanity, attacks against famous people or other editors, and self-admissions of malicious intent (eg. User:I'm the wiki vandal-troll!!!) would be good indicators of "clearly a vandal" even without any edits. It's really a judgement call, and while the exemption could stand to be presented in clearer terms, it's good to leave some room for interpretation IMO. The whole point of {{UAA-no edits}} is to reduce unnecessary workload on admins and UAA patrollers, but we don't want to discourage people from reporting in good-faith usernames which they genuinely find disruptive. Borderline names should always be dealt with on a by-case basis. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:49, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DES, I can add in a {{noping}} pretty easily. It would be an optional param, obviously. Primefac (talk) 01:58, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

remove auto-signing?[edit]

I’m now using this as a custom warning with Twinkle, and because this has an embedded auto-sig and Twinkle signs things for you, it’s getting signed twice. Would anyone object to removing the auto signing? Also, could someone actually do it, previewed a couple test edits and apparently my template-fu is not up to the task. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:15, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Beeblebrox, you think it would be better to make the auto-signing an opt-in? Currently it only signs if |sig=no, but I could easily switch it to sign when |sig=yes. Primefac (talk) 19:17, 17 March 2018 (UTC) (please do not ping on reply)[reply]

Works for me. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:18, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Primefac (talk) 19:20, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:22, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! Primefac (talk) 19:24, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]