Wikipedia talk:WikiProject on user warning layout standardisation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This talk page will be used for suggested Guidelines for our Wikiproject.

Contents 1 Suggested Guidelines 2 Guideline Discussion 2.1 Categorized by month 3 Templates 4 Guidelines proposal 5 Follow up 6 AOL warnings 7 Project directory 8 Why are you expunging talk page warnings after 90 days? 9 Keeping old warnings makes some clean up easier 10 WP:UW

[edit] Suggested Guidelines

Mew!

[edit] Guideline Discussion

[edit] Categorized by month

• I feel that all messages on IP Talk Pages should be categorized by month, in the format == January 2006 ==. Although, after how many months should these headings be archived? For high traffic IP's like AOL ones, they could have been editing on wikipedia for months and months. Is 6 months too many that should be placed on a talk page? --lightdarkness 19:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

• I just wanted to show an example of a page that will benefit greatly from our project. 195.93.21.97. There are many warnings given, notices that it's an AOL IP, responses from legit AOL users, and some gibberish inbetween. The headings are inconsistant, and just overall messy.

  That is a perfect example of the type of page we can help! The quicker we can get users to join our project, and come up with some guidelines to go by, the quicker we can be helping the editors of wikipedia! --lightdarkness 19:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

  • I also think that they should be categorized by month, but perhaps subcategorizing them by day might be helpful sometimes. If it's an IP that constantly vandalizes, it would probably be easier to read that way. If someone has a warning under a header with the Article title, it should be moved to a month header instead.

    It would also be nice if we made a section for IPs comments, but how this would be "enforced," I don't know.--Shanel 20:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

    • I guess archiving depends on the amount of vandalism. How about each time the talk page reaches a certain size, we archive?--Shanel 20:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
      • No headers just to announce a block either--Shanel 20:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
        • I say we should suppress the TOC on talk pages too. It's annoying and makes it longer than the page has to be.--Shanel 04:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
          • I disagree; if the warning list causes an annoyingly long TOC, then it's long past time to clear older warnings. The TOC should be a matter of the individual user's choice (particularly those who 'own' the talk page in question). I could edit your stylesheet to hide TOC's on user talk pages, if you wish. // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 04:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I concur with Shanel above - organizing warnings by month, then by day (if more than one day sub-heading is present) seems to make sense, particularly for high-edit anon IPs, that may edit many, many times in one month. Another thought to consider is that using all of these headers without much content beneath will probably detract more than it will add. So I would propose (albeit as a non-member of the project ;) that headers like ==December 2005== and ===December 5, 2005=== only be used if they're needed. Meaning, if you're adding the first warning on Dec. 5, there's no need to make two headings, one each for the month and day; just stick in the December 5, 2005 heading. I think a "bottom up" organization like this makes the most sense. --PeruvianLlama^(spit) 03:10, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
      • • • • I kinda disagree one some of your suggestions. I think adding a sub heading of ====December 5, 2005==== is a bit extranious. Yea sure some IP's get tons of warnings, but those are probably AOL IP's, and the warnings should be deleted after 1 or two months. I don't think we should let the pages get to that length, but I'm very open to discussion :-) --lightdarkness ^(talk) 03:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Templates

• What do you guys think about templates? Should we possibly make one that says "This talk page should be cleaned up to be more readable by users and admins alike, see WikiProject IP Talk Pages for more information"? Or is that just too cheezy and in the way of the real purpose of a talk page? --lightdarkness 22:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Reorganising a talk page takes very little time; if a user can add a template, I think they can organise the page themselves. // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 00:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Guidelines proposal

I've been working to standardise user warnings layout for a while, and developed a set of unwritten guidelines which were improved over time. I've been meaning to codify these guidelines through my WikiProject on user warnings, but this WikiProject would be better suited towards that goal. (On an unrelated note, the WikiProject name is a bit too specific; are we uninterested in registered vandal talk pages? How about the WikiProject on user warning layout standardisation? :D)

• Done! --lightdarkness 02:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

• Warnings should be placed under == Warnings ==, seperate from comments.
• Below the header {{s/wnote}} should be subst'd; this template gives quick access to information and tools useful to both admin and non-admin during the administrator intervention process.
• The warnings should be grouped under dated headers in the format === January 2006 ===.
• User warnings should be placed in numerical list form without line breaks.
• Block messages should be placed in bulleted list form without line breaks.
• In the case of unregistered vandals, messages should be removed without archival after two months (or less depending on the number of warnings).
• In the case of registered vandals, that's up to them (so long as recent warnings aren't removed).

Example:

 == Warnings == 
{{subst:s/wnote}}

=== January 2005 ===
# {{test}}
# {{test4}}
* {{s/block}}
# {{test4}}
# {{test4}}

The guidelines above call for the use of list syntax. Due to a "feature" in MediaWiki's parsing, line breaks and newlines break list format; all templates are modified to fix this problem as of December 2005. Older warnings will break the list format. // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 00:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

As has been said elsewhere, I am not sure putting {{s/wnote}} on the User talk page is a good idea in general; it is like branding. On IP portal pages like AOL, or a particular school, that would be better; as it does not seem as if it is picking on one particular person. However, a registered vandal or a singular IP should not get this, IMO. -- Avi 03:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I semi-agree. I don't think we should limit it to just AOl or schools, but to any shared IP, where it is clear by the whois lookup that it is an AOL/school/or ISP that clearly shares the address amongst many users. --lightdarkness ^(talk) 03:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Follow up

Now that we've got a pretty good list of guidelines to follow, should we update the main page with "This is exactly what you should do", and throw a "Suggested Guideline" on the page? I'm just wondering what you all think the next step is. --lightdarkness ^(talk) 03:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Sounds about right, substituting "what you should do" with "what we suggest you do". // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 01:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AOL warnings

I regularly remove AOL warnings older than a few days. I would like to add this to the guidelines (under an "AOL" subheading), along with the following explanation.

AOL rapidly rotates IP addresses assigned to its users, so that a message addressed to one user is often recieved by a different user. AOL users are typically assigned a new talk page at intervals of less than fifteen minutes. The result of this problem is that legitimate users may check their talk page and be confused or aggravated by a large number of warnings that they had nothing to do with. This is the subject of many complaints emailed to the Foundation, and has a noticeably negative effect on the opinions of legitimate users operating from AOL.

Any thoughts ? // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 23:50, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I fully support this :D --lightdarkness ^(talk) 00:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Disagree, maybe more like a month or two. I've seen AOL users keep their IP for several days, sometimes a couple weeks. --Rory096 04:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

It's still an AOL IP though, and it is shared amongst many users. --lightdarkness ^(talk) 04:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not shared, it's randomly reassigned. Until it's reassigned, it's the same person, and there's no telling how fast it will change. --Rory096 04:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Could someone dig up a paper on the net outlining the specifics of AOL IP rotation? Many could benefit if this information is made widely available. ~ PseudoSudo 01:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Proxy Info Hope that helps :D --lightdarkness ^(talk) 01:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Nice (definitely just doubled my knowledge on the subject); though, important facts on the rotation timing still remain unknown: how many users on average are on the same proxy IP at one time; what's the average rotation length; is it completely useless to leave warnings on proxy IP talk pages, et cetera. ~ PseudoSudo 01:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with this. It encourages vandalism by AOL users. If they want to be worthwhile contributors, they can get an account, and even all out blocks don't affect their ability to read articles. --M@rēino 15:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Blocking an AOL IP address for any length of time is completely counterproductive; it's like roadblocking an entire highway to stop a single car after they've passed. AOL IP addresses simply shift too rapidly to make IP addresses reliable IDs until AOL fulfills its recent promise to send XFF headers. // [admin] Pathoschild (^talk/_map) 00:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to have to agree with Mareino and rory on this one. There are reasons why we block AOL vandals for short lengths of time; to stop vandalism. If we didn't do this, the amount of vandalism would be nearly unbearable. At this point with the "new" blokcing system, and as far as I am concerned, legimate AOL users will register an account if they want to contribute constructively (and not be affected by blocks!). Otherwise, the vandals will continue to use the IP addresses to their advantage unless we take the appropriate action. I don't see weekly removal warnings helping here (monthly, sure). We have Wikipedia:Advice_to_AOL_users for a reason. If AOL really cared about its customers none of this would be happening right now... // Pilotguy (Have your say) 00:08, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

America Online IP ranges are blocked, not individual IP addresses (or, at least, the latter are not normally effective). Dynamic addresses can be kept by a single user during an entire session, but proxy addresses shift so rapidly that a user attempting to answer a comment on his IP talk page will usually do so as a different IP. Feel free to block ranges or dynamic addresses, but blocking individual proxy IPs wastes both your time and that of the legitimate users who use it. For the same reasons, keeping old warnings on a proxy IP page wastes both the time of the affected legitimate users and that of the email response team that must allay their concerns. // [admin] Pathoschild (^talk/_map) 03:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

IMHO I don't think we should bother leaving any warning messages on AOL talk pages. Generally speaking, an AOL user's IP changes too fast for them to receive the message. It makes little sense to leave them a message they won't ever see but someone else (who is likely innocent) will see. Accidental warning of innocent users discourages good faith edits or confuses them unnecessarily, thereby decreasing their interest in Wikipedia. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 ^{(T | C | @)} 01:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Some AOL users are subscribing via Time warner cable modems. It's possible that those are the accounts you're seeing with IP addresses that don't change over multiple weeks. In general though, when I look at the access logs for my own website, AOL users' IP addresses change just about every time they go to another page on my site -- i.e., often within a few seconds. For this reason, I think blocking and warning AOL vandals is futile; either live with AOL vandalism (heaven forbid) or else just block anonymous editing by AOL users. (An exception would be the IP addresses associated with cable modem accounts). I see no in-between approach as it stands now. --A. B. 03:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Project directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 14:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why are you expunging talk page warnings after 90 days?

Wikipedia already seems mighty soft on vandalism; why this push to expunge records of vandalism after 90 days? What problem is it solving? --A. B. 03:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

We remove warnings because said warnings are placed on shared IP discussion pages, which are used by a large number of users; the messages are then read by many legitimate users, several of which will be quite offended by the unfounded accusations and write to the Foundation to tell us all about it. Further, other users tend to block or revert based on warnings on the IP talk page, which is misleading because the last vandalism is several days old, the vandal is now on a different IP address, and the user just reverted a legitimate edit and blocked many legitimate users. A select few reverted or blocked users apparently choose to email random administrators or post to random discussion pages about the evil censorship that runs rampant on Wikipedia, which is annoying if nothing else. —[admin] Pathoschild 16:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

A side note to this issue - how is keeping the warnings going to work given the current ambivalence over whether or not its kosher to randomly remove things from you talk page? Or is this meant to be a more sane way to track IP vandalism? Shell ^babelfish 08:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Keeping old warnings makes some clean up easier

I'm triggered to look at vandals when they hit one of the articles on my watchlist. Being familiar with the topics, it's clear what's vandalism. Then I start looking at all their edits to other articles. I see that a bot has reversed their edit, but often bots just revert to another anon's edit, often vandalistic.

If I look at that anon's edit and it's changing a date from 1924 to 1928, is that vandalistic? Should it be edited out if subsequent editors haven't spotted it? Being an unfamiliar topic, the answer's unclear to me. A quick way to deal with question is to look at the anon's talk page -- if it's full of warnings, I'll edit it out the new date with a comment to the article's other editors to check the date, either in my edit summary [1] or on the talk page. Otherwise, I assume good faith and move on. Some accounts are virtually vandalism only, but the edits are of a low enough frequency that there may be only one warning or puzzled comment ("why did you do that?") in the last 90 days. Likewise, a talk page full of discussions with other editors about articles quickly shows this is probably a good faith editor.

Questions of this sort crop up several times a week when I'm reversing vandalism. It's nice to have the full history.

Subtle, uncaught vandalism such as a slight date or location changes are ultimately worse for Wikipedia's reliablility than the "JOEY is Gay!!!" kind -- at least readers are not unknowing absorbing deliberate misinformation since they just tune out the Joey stuff. --A. B. 16:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

That's a good reason to remove warnings. Judging users based on warnings issued to others with the same shared IP address is hardly fair to them. A more accurate way to check is through references. If the reference doesn't support the change (or they don't use an edit summary), revert and encourage them to use edit summaries and reliable sources. —[admin] Pathoschild 16:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Pathoschild, procedurally you are absolutely right, however ... as I write this, I'm working my way through 212.219.94.65's latest spree and encountering just these sorts of questions [2]. I've got 23 edits to check from yesterday and today, some to pages heavily edited by other anons. Now I've got to do encyclopedic research on each when questions arise? Ask these additional anons to use edit summaries? Does any editor always do this in these situations? I think I'm plenty conscientious as it is -- from what I can see, most editors (including admins) don't seem to go through vandals' other recent editors, let alone agonize over how far to revert. If we now have to do even more, I think even fewer folks will engage in this sort of action. --A. B. 17:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Back to my Wikibreak/day job; I'll let others finish cleaning up after this guy today. --A. B. 17:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, one final example from 212.219.94.65's November edits Start with his first edit to Mona the Vampire and step through the following 13 edits by him and others. Knowing nothing about Mona, try sorting this article out. Some other edits are likely vandalism but others are less clear. [3] --A. B. 17:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

At the very least, perhaps when warnings are removed, a blurb could be added to the top of the page indicating that the warnings were trimmed, and that the removed message can be found in the history? --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 23:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I like it! --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 02:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:UW

Hi, Pathos I know you are involved heavily in both projects. I'm having a look round at your mandate here, and the mandate of the revitalised User Warnings Project and there is alot of synergy and think we can pool our resources. Any thoughts on a merge of projects and resources? Regards Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 17:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm confused on what the difference is between the two projects. -- nae'blis 21:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)