Template talk:Blatantvandal

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Documentation 1.1 Usage 2 Intent 3 TfD debate 4 May -> Will 5 List format? 6 Worse than useless 7 Weak 8 Name change proposal 9 Hard work? 10 Recent rewording 11 "unconstructive edits are considered vandalism"? 12 Changes 13 Amusing, but possibly useful idea

[edit] Documentation

Generic Test: {{test0}}, {{test}}, {{test2}}, {{test3}}, {{test4}}, {{test5}}, {{test6}}

Specialized Test: {{test-self}}, {{test2b}}, {{test4a}}, {{test4im}}

Removing Content: {{test1a}}, {{test2del}}, {{test2a}}

Clear Vandalism: {{vw}}, {{bv}}

Spam Links: {{spam0}}, {{spam}}, {{spam2}}, {{spam3}}, {{spam4}}

These templates should pretty much always be used with the "subst:" keyword, as strongly suggested on Wikipedia:template substitution. They are shown without subst here to reduce the display space occupied by this table, not to encourage their use without subst. For example, type {{subst:test}}, not {{test}} to warn common first-time vandals.

For a full list of warning and test templates, see Template:TestTemplates. For a list of all userspace templates with explanations, see Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace.

[edit] Usage

Usage	Output
{{subst:Blatantvandal}}	Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you.
{{subst:Blatantvandal|Article}}	Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits, such as those you made to Article, are considered vandalism. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you.

[edit] Intent

This is intended for use where vandalism is extreme or obscene and not for newby tests and general silliness. It may be followed either by a block or by test4, depending on the level of subsequent vandalism. --Doc (?) 20:12, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] TfD debate

This template survived a debate at TfD. The discussion can be found here. -Splash^talk 05:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] May -> Will

Hmm, it seems this template is harsh enough to warrant putting "will be blocked..." instead of "may."  – Jrdioko (Talk) 22:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

No, may is deliberate. it leaves the next admin scope to issue a test 4 or block, depending on the severity of the next vandalism, or the time before. If we say will it either narrows down the options for the next admin, or makes us look like we are issuing threats we don't keep --Doc ^ask? 23:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List format?

Um, why is this now in list format? It looks really silly to have a "1." before this warning. --Angr (tɔk) 08:31, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Reverted, since it was unexplained at this time. --Doc ^ask? 09:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Particularly in the case of blatant vandals, warnings are most often used in lists, whether or not list syntax is used: there are several warnings one after another in chronological order until the user stops or is blocked. Most Wikipedians who use warning templates are either unaware of the list syntax or don't care about warning organisation, such that every of the several hundred pages where the list organisation is now used must be periodically formatted. Implementing the list syntax into the template simplifies organisation of talk pages, particularly those with many warnings. For an example of the list form, see 202.6.138.34's talk page; particularly, compare the ease with which an administrator can overview the intervention process to the difficulty in doing so without the list organisation (oldid 30781449). // Pathoschild 09:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

These changes have been applied to a large number of templates; if you would like to comment further, please see my talk page. // Pathoschild 09:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Worse than useless

oooh, scary! that's really going to worry a vandal, that they might be blocked. this won't do anything more than encourage vandalism.

in contrast {{test}}, appeals to vandals at a human level. that says "we just _know_ you're a good guy, and were just fooling around. glad you're here, help us out." this says, "hey asshole, quit vandalizing."

now which is more likely to get a positive response? basic psychology. consider that there's no real punishment and no real way to stop most folks on temporary home ip's.

a big old "stop sign" may feel good, but so would cussing out the cop who pulled you over for going 70 in a 65 on an old desert highway with no traffic for literally miles which, unbelievably, just happened to me. super-politeness got me off with a warning.

please if you want do stop vandalism, think twice before applying this template. Derex 18:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

p.s. you don't have to go test ... test4, that's not a good argument for this. just block the jerk after a 'test' if they keep on, and are blatant. the real point is just to let them know someone is watching. and hopefully, someone they feel bad about annoying, because we've just been so darn nice. Derex 18:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I reverted the wording to that of an older revision. As said above, we should be nice to the vandals. The friendly "Welcome to Wikipedia" is more likely to encourage vandals to stop vandalizing, provided that they are not repeat vandals. Also, the phrase "Wikipedia encyclopedia" just sounds strange. --Ixfd64 19:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I totally disagree with that. If I was a vandal and I saw a message that actually welcomed me I would laugh and think what a gullible bunch of naive sissies Wikipedia was and would then continue to vandalize. I really do not see that saying welcome is doing any good at all. Arniep 21:35, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

If you don't like the template, don't use it, it's a matter of preference. For me, it is the second-most used warning template after {{test2}}. — Feb. 19, '06 [22:25] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

I do like it, I just cannot see why we have to say welcome. Arniep 23:43, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't really matter. We give people the benefit of the doubt once. If they're genuinely just messing around and have their heads screwed on, they'll take it in the spirit it was intended; "You're welcome to edit Wikipedia, but not in that way". The consequences are clear, we're being polite once.

If this "welcome" encourages people to blatantly vandalise again, then they'll be blocked next time round.

The only issue is whether I give a ---- whether some vandal might think I'm a "sissy", and I can tell you right now that personally I really don't give a ---- what they think of me or anyone else at Wikipedia. Fourohfour 12:18, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I rarely use this now, usually only in cases of multiple vandalism or offensive language/slander. I prefer to use {{verror2}} for deliberate false info, or {{test2}} for nonsense. Arniep 13:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Weak

This template is extremely weak. I don't know when the last time was that you actually talked to the type of people that vandalize, but appeals to their "sociable" or "humane" side do nothing but evoke laughter (as recognized above.) "Welcome to Wikipedia"? "please"? What kind of weak crap is that? It's bad enough that Wikipedia's 10+ strike policy is pathetic as hell, but to make the blatant vandal warnings so pathetic? The bottom line, you have to send a proper message. Already the entire process is undermined when the vandal sees their discussion page with a myriad of watered down warnings begging them to stop. As such, given the fact that this shared [school] IP has already been warned about 7 times for blatant vandalism, I'm going to change the warning to be sterner, not weaker. 64.213.196.4 21:14, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, as you might know, apparently I can't. But were I able to, I'd have it say the following:

Unconstructive edits are considered vandalism, and if you continue in this manner
you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider
improving rather than damaging the hard work of others. Thanks.

64.213.196.4 21:20, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Name change proposal

I propose that this template's name be changed to {{testblatant}} so that its name will be more similar to those of the other vandal warning templates. - Conrad Devonshire 03:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it is fine as it is - and as that's what it has become known as, a change would confuse. However, if you want to create a redirect from another name, then go right ahead. --Doc ^ask? 17:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hard work?

"Damaging the hard work of others" seems rather whiny and might be just what they're out for. Wouldn't "work of others" suffice? Femto 14:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Well saying "welcome" to them would probably also make them rub their hands with glee but I already tried to get that removed without success. Arniep 13:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I put "hard" in there for several reasons. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 06:04, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent rewording

See here.
I personally think the older wording was better. This template is used in response to serious vandalism where a user has just replaced the article's text with "SUCH AND SUCH IS A COCK SUCKER". It may be just me, but I don't think that phrases like "...I sincerely hope that you will do so." is really suitable for this purpose. Also, "Should you have any questions relating to Wikipedia editing, please do let me know." encourages personal attacks and talk/userpage vandalism. I know we're not supposed to bite vandals, but that doesn't mean that we have so be so polite to them that we make it look like vandalism is OK. In the case of blatant vandalism, we do need to be firm. -- Steel 21:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Serious vandalism, serious warning. Femto 10:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "unconstructive edits are considered vandalism"?

Can we PLEASE remove this false statement from the template? We already have a hard enough time with users who think they're entitled to slap a label of "vandalism" on any change they don't themselves approve of. The wording of this template just encourages that. "Hey! You created an article reflecting a POV that I think is incorrect! That's an unconstructive edit and according to this template, that's vandalism!" -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

That makes sense. How you suggest to reword? Femto 11:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

How about "edits which attempt to compromise the integrity and reliability of the encyclopedia"? That hews pretty close to the actual text of Wikipedia:Vandalism... -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:57, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Changes

I've made some minor changes to reflect the above consensus. Comments or more changes/reverts invited. Rich Farmbrough, 21:54 1 October 2006 (GMT).

OK, Sir Nick reverted.

Currently

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism, and if you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you.

Proposed

Wikipedia welcomes all who contribute constructively to our encyclopedia (see the welcome page to learn more). However destructive edits are considered vandalism, and if you continue you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you.

Rich Farmbrough, 10:42 2 October 2006 (GMT).

I don't see much of a difference. All that's changed is the phrasing, and the former is more grammatically correct. Sorry, but I side with Sir Nick unless you make a real difference - try! :) Nihiltres 02:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Amusing, but possibly useful idea

This idea just occurred to me as I passed through after adding this template to some recent vandal user's talk page - since many of the vandals that we send messages like this to are doing it out of boredom, why not give them links to an internet game or something? I must note that I haven't thought this idea through at all, and there are probably a dozen good reasons not to do it, but I figured I'd suggest it anyway. Either that, or a link to Uncyclopedia - there vandals might find what they're looking for - a playground of un-content! Interesting idea? Nihiltres 02:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)