Wikipedia talk:WikiProject user warnings/Archives/2006

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Undesirability of Stock Responses Between Humans

I discovered the existence of this category of warnings in a template deletion vote, and realized that I object to them on principle. These messages are apparently designed to be placed on user talk pages—which to my mind is somewhat the equivalent of email—a place where one person is writing another person. It's my sense that automating these messages is going to lead to a mechanistic and alienating experience for those who receive them.

The cases being specifically discussed in TFD were related to regal styles, a la Template:Styles3. The scenario I found in my head was: "An enthusiast of British royalty makes several well-intentioned edits to an article, one of which was to add the honorific styles". I think the existence of a boilerplate response encourages a dehumanizing attitude in dealing with such a person which might overlook the positive changes he has made. It would likely make those posting the warning to not feel the need to browse the person's user page in order to preface their remarks with a friendly and contextually-appropriate greeting.

Right now wiki is a very uniform medium, and there is no question that getting more structure and standardization to information is good. Yet I really think the user-to-user communication is a different endeavor from the rest of the encyclopedia, and different rules should apply. We have the power to link and reference, which is an excellent tool that can be employed in giving someone a useful heads-up to policy. But I'm concerned that in the sensitive domain of "warning" people that a wall-of-templates isn't healthy. It's sort of like "talk to the hand" (metaphorically, if not literally using the graphic). Metaeducation 22:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

• I disagree. The templates provide several different kinds of flexibility (content, level) for doing the same repetitive task. In the course of a normal week I'm probably dealing with vandalism a few hundred times and using templates a good portion of those out of sheer necessity for time. No one complains that the {{welcome}} templates are too impersonal. I'm less likely to be even nicer to those who are being disruptive. Wikibofh_(talk) 23:08, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

• I understand that administrating wikipedia is a complex and time-consuming process. Yet though no one complains about the welcome templates, does anyone particularly praise them? Are there metrics to support that these are bringing people in the fold, relative to what a personal response might do? I'm sure these warnings "work" at some level, to the perception of those who employ them—from intimidation if nothing else. And surely the types of people who would be reading policy pages (such as this one) will carry bias to say they must therefore be good. Which is why I'm trying to suggest a broader perspective on the issue, based at least a bit on principle (one other than "let's save time"). Metaeducation 23:25, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

• I don't do a lot of welcome, and I have had at least one person be very thankful. Those on the welcoming committee might know better. I'm not sure how we would go about generating metrics. The warnings "work" in that they provide a process/audit trail to allow everyone to see that those thare are the most accountable (administrators, and yes I generally believe that) are being fair at trying to let people know what behaviour is expected. Also, my concern isn't "let's save time" but more, "let's use time effeciently". I spend more time on vandalism duty than "positive contributions" (and in all fairness, that is a personal choice) but, wikihours are a finite resource, we should try to choose wisely how we want them spent. As an aside, I welcome the broader perspective and philosphical/principle questions. Thanks for bringing them here. Wikibofh_(talk) 00:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• Glad you appreciate the merit of the question, thanks for saying so. I realize that vandalism is a separate issue, and in fact the vote on TFD (link) is about that precise distinction—someone putting in full royal titles does not count as a vandal and might deserve the greater caution/courtesy I describe. As this arose in the voting on this particular set of templates, it doubtless will arise again. Maybe there should be some stated guidance to curb the tendency to make a large number of these template user warnings, or to tag them with enough information so the affected users can feel they are less...automatic? Metaeducation 00:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• How about an optional field for free text that will show up inside boxes? For instance when I did this block with test5-n, I went back to personalize it, and there seemed to be a positive impact. I think the templates are too important and useful not to use, but now that optional parameters are possible, perhaps we could set that up to personalize them a little? Wikibofh_(talk) 17:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• You're welcome to discuss that here, and we'll join in with interest if you do. However, serious community input to the effect of abolishing user warning templates would be best found at the Wikipedia:Village pump. Wikipedia policy is discussed there, and there is a very large audience there to join into such discussions. The audience here is much smaller, and the scope of the WikiProject extends only as far as standardising and organising user warning templates.
  Such personalisation as described by Wikibofh above is already one of the WikiProject's goals and is already present in the standardised templates. A good example is the now-completed series of block templates. The reason for the block is highly customisable; you can have entire paragraphs of explanatory text if you so wish. Further, there's a parameter for the user's signature that also serves as a place for free text added after the block message. Very high personalisation is an important goal of the WikiProject; feel free to point out ways to extend it. // Pathoschild 23:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] creation of a new template

Hi, I had been following this project for some time as it is on my watchlist. Today, I had to create a new template, namely, Template:Test0-n as I increasingly see the need for it on my RC patrol. As my particpation is limited in this project, I request you to review the template, standardise it and its talk page. TIA, --Gurubrahma 14:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image source/license warnings

So currently there is {{no source}} and {{no license}} and I found {{Image no source last warning}}}} which realy doesnt do much, there needs to be one for repeat violators of no source/license images... --Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 21:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] S/Wnote

Regarding the proto-template {{s/wnote}}: This template is a bad idea. Messages left on user talk pages should be messages to that user (or from him/her). This template is a reminder to other editors, which is likely to be confusing to the owner of the talk page who may think (legitimately) that it is a message for him/her. Also, this template sends the wrong message, contrary to the ideals of WP:BITE and Wikipedia:Do not insult the vandals. This template sends the message that "We know you are a vandal, and will never be anything but a vandal, so we've added this permanent control panel to your talk page to make it easier to punish you." This will not encourage people to give up vandalism. Comments appreciated. TfD forthcoming otherwise.--Srleffler 00:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

The template doesn't send the wrong message, since it's used when warnings have become numerous enough to be placed in a numerical list. The template is much less of a problem under Please do not bite the newcomers than the user warnings themselves are. Regarding Do not insult the vandals, I fail to see how it applies to a talk page filled with numerous user warnings. If the user becomes a positive contributor, the template would be removed or archived along with the warnings. // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 08:52, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adding to list

I couldn't find this project on the Wikipedia:List of WikiProjects.... Did I miss it somewhere? --AySz88^-^ 21:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I added the WikiProject to the list. It seems I forgot to do that; thanks for pointing it out. // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 08:56, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Who Can Use These?

Is there any limitation on who can use these, and which ones they can use? [...] Are there no safeguards against abuse of these warnings? Or can anybody use them to harrass anybody?

Davidkevin 07:21, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

No, there is no restriction on who can use them. It does not look to me as if you are not being harrassed, you are merely part of an edit war. This is not personal. Others are now looking at the situation, and it will eventually be resolved by consensus, in the usual way. I removed the personal attack from the above. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 10:51, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sectioning.

How about non warnings like template:test1-n sectioned under the name of the article used as example, the use of non -n templates depreciated, the adding of numbered lists prefix # to warning and blocked templates and put under a single user talk page section "Warnings"?:

-- Jeandré, 2006-02-27t06:42z

The 'non-warnings' belong with the rest of the warnings in my opinion, since they're low-level warnings. The addition of list syntax to templates was rejected by several users when it was attempted (see my archive), but is regularly formatted manually on talk pages. Deprecating the *-n templates and codifying the 'warnings' section are both already on my unwritten to-do list. :) // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 08:41, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

The "non-n" templates are still sometimes useful. If a user has vandalized multiple pages I will typically revert each and leave a single "non-n" warning. The user knows what he has done, and doesn't need a separate warning for each.--Srleffler 02:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Note that the WikiProject has partnered with the WikiProject on user warning layout standardisation for organisation of talk pages. This would be best discussed there. // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 05:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Header" template

Hi there, I was just surfing about and just found your excellent little wikiproject. I've long thought that we need to standardize the templates and figure out a better way to keep track of vandals and their prior histories. The latter can be a bit hard to do in the heat of RC patrol, and I daresay your {{S/wnote}} makes this a little easier (since it has all those links within easy reach) and reminds other patrollers to subst. I have made one change to the template which I hope was not being entirely too bold :). I changed the link from kate's wonderful tool to interiot's even more wonderful tool: interiot's provides easy links to different areas of contribs, which presumably is the main reason anyone on RC patrol would want to use an editcount tool. Are there any violent objections? :) If no, all's well then. ENCEPHALON 05:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is {TestTemplatesNotice} needed in all user warning templates?

{{TestTemplatesNotice}} has good information, but I find it too much to have it transcluded in every user warning template (of which there is a huge number).

See for example the page of {{Spam2}}. The text of {Spam2} is very short, but look at how much stuff there is around it. I understand that it is not included when subst'ed, but nevertheless, does it really belong there?

How about incuding {{TestTemplatesNotice}} only in Category: User warning templates, at the very top, instead of each and every template in that category? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 21:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Those notices weren't placed by this WikiProject, though it'd be a good idea to place those only on the user warning category page and/or the index of test templates. Feel free to discuss with the user or users placing them, or I'll do so sometime. // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 21:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I placed those templates; I apologize for not discussing first - I didn't realize it would be controversial. I agree that the boxes are overshadowing the warnings themselves - something smaller might be better. Basically, for a while I did not know about WP:WARN and would struggle to find the right warnings to use. I started to create navigation templates like Template:spam-nav but when I got to Template:test-nav, there were so many inter-related warnings that I figured a giant navigation box like that would be more controversial than a link to WP:WARN :) —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-08 22:51Z

[edit] {{UsernameBlock-impostor}}

This is a new template I just made. It is used to notify users who are blocked because their usernames are too similar to existing users. Please let me what you think. --Ixfd64 18:43, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Looks fine; however, contacting an admin does not help because the username is any way unacceptable and at best the user can request a WP:CHU from a bureaucrat. So, it should probly ask the user to contact a bureaucrat. --Gurubrahma 06:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] new template - {{block-appeal}}

This template notifies users that their accounts have been blocked indefinitely for vandalism. However, this template also provides instructions on how to appeal a block. --Ixfd64 04:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be best to add instructions on appealing blocks to the standardised templates instead of creating a new one. I'll do so later. // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 10:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Upgrading all block templates?

I recently worked on a new block template - you can see it here - and I added a bunch of new features that I think are very useful. It allows you to say how long the block will last for as well as the page that was vandalized that caused the block. It also signs your name and time automatically and provides a link to the block log so the user or other admins can easily see the block log of that user. I see no reason why all of the block templates shouldn't have at least these last two features as they are very useful. The auto-signing feature only works when the template is subst'ed; luckily, that's how they're supposed to be used. Check it out and tell me what you think. --Cyde Weys 00:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure it is a good idea to leave a link to the block log. The message on talkpage is intended for the user of that IP - messages to other admins etc. via link to block log would be very confusing. Block log can be easily accessed by admins by going to the user contribs page. Btw, you may want to add instructions for usage at the talkpage of the template. --Gurubrahma 13:08, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Why isn't a good idea for a user to see their own block log? Most anonymous vandals/newbies don't know how to check it themselves. And having to go to user contributions (a button in the toolbox) before being able to see the block log is kind of inconvenient. --Cyde Weys 21:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] So where's standardization?

May I ask: what happened to the idea of standardizing these things? It's been months, and the user warning templates are still wildly inconsistent.

I would suggest something like this. We would have a number of warn categories (remove, blank, nonsense, false, libel, move-nonsense, move-uncommon, pov, censor, civil, attack, remove-warn, remove-dispute, legal, spam, 3rr, nn), and for each one, there would be a set of templates. These templates could universally follow the progression {{warn warntype #|optional page name}}, with 0 being a welcome message (à la Template:Welcomenpov) and 3 being a final warning. It would take me (or anyone else) probably a day or two to write up all the hundred or so templates for examination, discussion, and consensus-building, and we could have a much more consistent template system within a few weeks.

Is there some reason this hasn't happened? Should I just make the templates and put them up for discussion? Are there any objections to this standardization? One need only look at Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace#Grid of warnings to see what a mess this currently is, with rampant redundancy, omissions, and confusion. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 05:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

There was a brief attempt to standardise the current templates themselves, which was opposed as it slightly modified usage. The current strategy is to create a parallel system of standardised warnings which follow the template coding standards. It hasn't happened yet because I was more or less the single active member of the WikiProject, and I temporarily focused on other tasks. I'll eventually create the parallel system; feel free to do so yourself if you wish. // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 10:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] proposed template

Hi, I just created {{userify}}. It looks like this:

• Hello! pagenamehere is not the appropriate place to post information about yourself, because it is in the part of Wikipedia that encyclopaedic articles are written. User:WikiProject user warnings/Archives/2006, however, is available for personal information about yourself. Please see Wikipedia:Introduction and Wikipedia:User page for more information.

I hope it can prove useful to the WikiProject.--M@rēino 00:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Why does it say User:currentpagename? Shouldn't it say User:username or User:username/pagenamehere instead? –T_if_eg_o^(t) _{00:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)}

[edit] Links in warnings

I'm just wondering what the logic is behind the links within the warning templates to the article the user has either vandalised or created in error (on purpose or otherwise). Is it really wise to create an easy path back to these things for a frequent vandal or vanity bio creator? I may be missing a major point, and if so please point it out. BTW, the links to the Sandbox and explanations of policy are great, just not to articles which have been vandalised, in my opinion. Thoughts? Makemi 03:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

It help for IPs that also have good edits and for innocents who'll see that they never even read the vandalized articles mentioned. -- Jeandré, 2006-04-03t18:32z

I don't know that putting the link there is going to increase vandalism in any way. I'd assume it's there so they know what edit is being talked about? As a result of notifying a bunch of users a day about proposed deletions, I get a lot of messages on my talk page regarding particular articles, and much appreciate it if it's linked, so I can right click and open in a new window to remember what's going on.

I mean, even supposedly blantant vandalism isn't always malicious, but intended as harmless fun. I think leaving the link is helpful to good faith and experimentational contributors to take a closer look, and not that big a difference to the potential of a malicious vandal. NickelShoe (Talk) 07:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] new template for blocked users needing verification

I've noticed that some administrators will block suspicious accounts with summaries like "please contact an administrator for verification purposes" and such. I've made the template {{unverified user}} that would hopefully be some help. --Ixfd64 01:16, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Last warning

Granted I'm not a fan of these in the first place, but I object to "This is your last warning... if... you will be blocked..." for slightly different reasons: it is sometimes not followed up, and if it is, it is with a temporary block. This usually results in several "last" warnings. It is a lame ultimatum with little credibility. I'm not advocating remedying this by making blocks permanent, of course. -Dan 17:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] new template - {{tpv}}

Sometimes, we would see an anonymous user editing a user page. Often, due to the nature of the edits, it is hard to tell whether the user is vandalizing or editing their own user page while not logged in. I made this template for asking users to log in before editing their user page. --Ixfd64 23:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template proposal (copyvio)

I've been playing with a little template for a specific kind of copyright violation I've seen several instances of: the addition of song lyrics to an article about a band/musician/song/etc. They most often seem to be a good-faith attempt to improve the article, made without a proper understanding of copyright and Wikipedia's policies. Therefore, I first wrote a little blurb (intended to be friendly) for my own use, notifying the editor in question that the lyrics have been removed and pointing them to pages that would help explain why. What I'm wondering now is if this would be something useful for other editors.

As a Wiki-newbie, I defer to those with more wisdom and experience.  :) Is this something "worth" a template? And if it is, any input on wording, links, etc., is more than welcome.

The (very beta) version of the template can be found at User:PaperTruths/copyvio-lyrics, and the implementation can be found at User:PaperTruths/White_space#Templates. Thanks for your time! —PaperTruths (Talk) 08:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:CDamage

Hi. I've just created this template in response to a recent collateral damage incident with User:202.6.138.34. I haven't created a template before so I'd appreciate any input, including whether we already have a template for this. Thanks TigerShark 14:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Article Template

Hi, I have just created this template to warn new users away from creating nonsense articles. If there is consensus here that it will be useful, I will move it to a permanent template. --Richard0612 15:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I will gradually be creating a progressive series of these [see my templates page] [in accordance with your documentation], any help would be appreciated [I'm rather new to this!] --Richard0612 16:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] {{test4alt}} - alternative version of {{test4}}

I've made an alternative version of test4. The original test4 could be misleading, as it does not guarantee that the warned vandal will be blocked. This is especially true when no administrators are online. --Ixfd64 21:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks good, I have been wondering about the accuracy of {{test4}} for a while. For people who like the test-n templates[such as myself], I have created {{test4alt-n}}. Good work on the template! ><Richard0612 ^{UW 16:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)}

I am now working on similar versions for other final/only warning templates, you are welcome to lend a hand. Note: all such templates should have -alt added to them for clarity. ><Richard0612 ^{UW 16:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)}

I expanded it to be even more explicit. Just zis Guy you know? 16:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ParserFunctions

I know of a way to eliminate the -n warnings while still allowing users to optionally put the page in. It is based on "ParserFunctions." These use system templates for if and other operations, see WP:PF. The code for test will then be:

If you will put in the page that was reverted in the parameter, it will display the text, otherwise, it won't. The function will still be displayed in edit mode when it is subst'ed on the page, but it will still work. While it is wikicode, it is inside the warning, so it is not harmful (the warning itself should not be edited anyway). The templates will continue to work as before, but there will be no reason to remember the -n series (which will be converted to redirects), so putting warnings on user talk pages will be easier. Any comments? Polonium 17:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I think a discussion about this is starting up here: Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace#-n.2C_Again
The problems I've cited are the fact that most CV tools exclusively use the named templates and that this change would create more code bloat on the site. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 06:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] OK that was a waste of effort

Hi,

I'd been looking around for quite a while, for a policy on User page templates. Having not found one, I'd done a few edits of my own to the templates to try and bring some harmonisation. In the last couple of weeks I'd created this here with a view to bringing everything together. I'd got to the next part of getting ideas and someone pointed me in your direction. Well anyway, is there anyway I can help? Regards Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 14:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My current approach

I am happy to see that we have different groups beginning discussion on cleaning up the warning system. Right now, I am using this system and find it useful:
==Editing Concerns==
#{{subst:test1}} ~~~~
#{{subst:test2}} ~~~~
#{{subst:test3}} ~~~~
#{{subst:test4}} ~~~~

This is how it looks in action: [1]. I particularly like to make it clear to other users in the edit summary which test we are at, i.e. "test 1", "test 2" and so forth. I think it would be great if whatever system develops does something along these lines. It is especially helpful when we run into users who try to blank their warnings. Thanks to y'all for taking initiative in this. -Kukini 15:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I also occasionally leave a suggestion to others who revert vandalism but forget, or don't know about their ability to warn vandals. My current message is here:
{{subst:User:Kukini/pleasewarnvandals}} -- ~~~~

It looks like this now:

[edit] Please consider also warning vandals

Thank you for reverting vandalism on Wikipedia. Could you also please consider using our vandal warning system [2]? First offenses get a "test1," then a "test2," followed by a "test3" and "test4." At the end of this, if the vandal persists, he or she merits blocking for a period of time. If you do this, it will greatly help us in decreasing vandalism on Wikipedia. Much thanks, -- Kukini 15:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm all for this, as long as I don't start to get spammed by it every time I give first offenses a warnings freebie.
Also, I'd say the work you did in your userspace was not a waste – your ideas deserve further mention here. Regarding unifying templates, I hope it won't sound like advertising to invite you to weigh in on the idea of combining the named and "unnamed" warning templates at the link I provided above. I think this would combat discrepancies between wording on said templates. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 17:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I use this rarely, and never with people who seem to do some sort of warning (well, not on purpose, anyway). Kukini 22:45, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I know I am not the only non-admin editor who cleans up a lot of vandalism and spam, posts warnings, goes through the whole 0-1-2-3-4 sequence, reports people at WP:AIV, then sees admins decline to block about 1/3 of the time. And that's after I've met the check-off list at WP:AIV to the last t. So I just go back to cleaning up more vandalism. Often the next day, I spend 5 to 10 minutes cleaning up new stuff from the same vandal I couldn't get blocked the day before. If cleanup people such as myself now get ding'ed with template reminders to follow some new warning scheme, well .... I don't think they'll be enthusiastic. I encourage you to consider the issue of "buy-in" by Wikipedia's rank-and-file, non-admin editors. Maybe if there's a shorter countdown; presently the block starts maybe after the 6th round.--A. B. 03:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I think Kukini's idea of numbering the warnings is a good idea, but, and it's a big but. I don't usually start with test1 warnings. To give a test1 warning for blatant vandalism, is a waste of time IMHO, whereas the wording of test2 and mentioning that it is nonsense is more apt. I do give test1 when it's obviously a mess around, but when it's a serious vandal if they vandalise within 5 mins of a test2 then it's straight to test4. I see vandals all the time ignore no matter how many warning you throw at them, and it's just how fast you can get them to AIV. Omni, having had a couple of hours since I found you lot exist, and a nice bottle of Languedoc, what I might do is continue with my template ideas keep them all on my template pages, and once you see the finalised versions you (the collective you) may take them if you wish. I'm not talking drastic changes for the sake of changes just I would like to see everything along the same lines. Cheers Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 18:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

My experience: if you are not an admin and you try to short circuit the whole 0-1-2-3-4 process, you're not going to get a block after 4. It's hard enough as it is to get a block after 4. You almost have to catch the person in the act. I don't know why the system is tilted that way, but I guess that's just the way it is. From what I've seen, I'd say the typical vandal commits about 25 vandalistic edits that people have to clean up over several different days before someone finally blocks him/her. It's such a hassle, it's almost not worth it. For vandals using a school account, that number goes up even further, notwithstanding the fact that in many cases, perhaps 97% of all the edits in any 6 month period are pure vandalism.

It may be different for RC patroller types working closely with WP:AIV admins and are watching the latest changes. They can report the stuff they catch within minutes to WP:AIV and the admins there know them well. There are others of us that just have big watchlists of lots of articles we edit and maintain; we don't always catch vandals in the act or a few minutes afterwards; instead it's several hours later. I suspect that at least half the vandalism hitting the articles I watch slip by the PC patrollers and are caught by people like me later.

If theres a way to skip over some of the 0-1-2-3-4 stuff in the face of blatant vandalism, I'm all for it. If some new scheme just enforces it all the more rigorously, then I'll be less likely to fool with the hassles of cleanign up and warning. --A. B. 04:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the standardised levels are not meant to be used in strict numerical order. The template coding guidelines state: "Every series has a family of four templates of increasing severity, designating a tone ranging from kindly to stern. Note that these don't necessarily designate a chronological order; a user may simply use a level of his choice based on the severity desired". —[admin] Pathoschild 20:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Khukri and AB here - I recommend using {{blatantvandal}} instead of test1, test2, test3 etc. for blatant vandalism. -- Chuq 07:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Plan

I've spent the last couple of hours trying to work out a way of doing a before and after page for the existing templates, but it'd be helluva alot of work. I certainly don't wish to step on anyones toes here, but I'd certainly be willing to take an active part in this program, and still use my pages I've created to help this program. When a modification is done to the pages what is the protocol here? Alot of the changes I'm seeing are just on syntax. i.e. test2: do not add nonsense whereas test2-n: refrain from adding nonsense. It's a simple example but alot of the changes I'd like to carry out are along these lines. Some of the ideas I have, such as removing the behave template and incorporating it into joke how would I go about these? Cheers for any feedback Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 21:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I do hope that we incorporate a system for the less blatant users and a separate system for more blatant users. I am very pleased to see this work happening here. Kukini 22:45, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I think this should be done in a threefold method. First of all we identify all the warnings and messages in existance, as I have done on my template pages. I don't mind copying them here and making my work part of this project (which I would prefer). Secondly we take what we have now and bring them up to scratch. I intend to start this in the next couple of days. I've listed a load of rough note ideas on my page. I will take a couple of days to list all my ideas, to correctly word them and put them on the project page. I'm then going to start going through them. Working on the glaring problems and then refining it as I go along creating all warning levels. I've read here that there is only 4 levels 0 - 3 before blocks? for now I'm going along with all 7 levels 0 - 6. Then I think we should change this project into a policy unit and start looking at Kukini's ideas, and other directions we wish to take with the warnings, etc.

There has been very little feedback from members of the project up until now, and I have been trying to garner support from well know RC patrollers and people who actively use these templates. To speed this process up, I suggest we create an AfD style system here whereby any major changes i.e. my plan for using this for all level 3 warnings, see here. Is put to consensus and after 3 - 5 days it's either implemented straight away or rejected. I know this adds a level of bureaucracy, but it's in keeping with the wiki philosophy. So over the next couple of days I will start listing my plans and ideas, and hopefully we can inject some fresh impetus into the project and have it looking good over the next couple of months. Over n out, Oberstleutnant Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 08:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I oppose the creation of new levels. We should use levels 0–3 recommended by the General design guidelines. This maintains simplicity and ensures that abusive users are not given too much leeway while allowing a flexible range of tones and severity. Most blocks should be handled with {{s/block}}, {{s/block2}}, and {{s/block3}}. I apologize for not responding sooner; I'm rather active on Wiktionary and Wikisource at the moment. —[admin] Pathoschild 16:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad you did reply as you are one of the main editors I'm glad to have onboard with this project. I'll respond to most of your salient points here, to try and initiate discussion with other editors.

Having thought about it I have removed them to the talk page to keep in context, and not to fragment discussions. K

Anyway to finish thank you very much for taking the time to repond, and hope you will continue to do so over the coming weeks. I would like to have the bones of this project if not most of the flesh in place within the two to three months, so hopefully won't take up too much of your time. Regards Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 21:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] non-latin username blocking

Apparently some users think that usernames with non-latin chars in their names can be blocked for this without discussion. The only evidence I have of this is the relevant clause in Template:Usernameblocked. I left a note on the talk page there, and hope that clause can be removed. +sj + 04:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

See the Username policy, which states:

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.

—[admin] Pathoschild 16:59, 24 October 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] New template

See User_talk:193.201.135.244; at the footer of the page is a new idea for a template encouraging anons to create accounts. I would be interested to hear your opinions. --SunStar Net 11:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I personally would be wary of mixed message templates and would most probably use two different templates. Start with a welcome template to act as a header, and then give a good faith warning message. Then see where they go from that. Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 14:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Userbox

I just whipped up a userbox for participants; see {{User Warning Project}}.

I swear I'll make actual contributions to the project, but that was a pretty quick and easy thing to do. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk page usage

Please use this talk page for any alarm harmonisation ideas. Regards Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 12:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

sounds good, I like the standard image Idea. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 13:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Warning numbering

I am happy to see that we have different groups beginning discussion on cleaning up the warning system, although I am not sure I like the idea of warnings being removed. What does that mean? Also, right now, I am using this system and like it:
==Editing Concerns==
#{{subst:test1}} ~~~~
#{{subst:test2}} ~~~~
#{{subst:test3}} ~~~~
#{{subst:test4}} ~~~~

One of the reasons I like it is that it makes warning count easy and thus makes it clear when someone has vandalized enough to merit a block. Let me find an example of how I am doing this in action: [3] What do you think? -Kukini 15:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I have to say, I think it's a very good idea. I'm hoping one of the guys from the policy unit will get back to me soon. But it's certainly something that's easily adoptable. Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 16:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah...I do my best to put "test 1", "test 2", etc. in the edit summary as well, to make it easy to track warnings with users who blank their warnings as well. I think the wording and look of the above warnings could all be improved, but have not felt so bold as to work on them, to date. Kukini 16:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

How about making all templates into <div>s or wikitables? This solution has two added values:

1. templates do not clog up, with images overflowing from one test to another
2. we could add some fancy colors that would make the templates more eye-attracting

Misza13 10:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I just carried out a test here for Kukini's idea and not sure if the numbering can be included into the template.

I'm certainly up for creating div's and that will hopefully mean the warnings will be separated no matter what the browser, add it to the idea's on the project page.

As for different colours, I'm not sure. I'd envisaged using the images to give a clear indications, and as we have repeating offenders and if we'd use different colours, as you scroll down a page, it could look like joseph's dream coat or enough to make you sea sick;). I'd only forseen to use colours on permanent header messages, like the AOL or shared IP messages and for blocks. But hey this isn't just my ideas here, everyone step in please, or I'm just worried I'm going to start ploughing in next week and then someone will come out of the woodwork saying they don't like it. Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 11:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The WikiProject on user warning standardisation already recommends a numbered warning format. —[admin] Pathoschild 19:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What an undertaking! :)

What a lot of effort you've put into this!!!!

It looks great; I have to say that I wholeheartedly support your ideas.

Before your date with the wine, I'd suggest that you make the others working on this problem aware of your ideas. I especially like the use of images (and I favor yours to any others I've seen suggested); that will make the warnings seem more serious, and as people are visual learners, after all.

Anyway, let me know if you need me for anything else! :) Srose (talk) 17:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Structure Vote

Before we can get any further with hammering out the details listed below, I believe we should obtain some form of concensus, as to the templates structure. Currently there are two ideas on the board

• We leave the templates as is i.e there are levels 0 - 4 of increasing strength warnings, followed by level 5 - 6 for the block. With this we identify those that are blockable and make sure they have correctly worded 0 - 6 warnings, and if they are not blockable then 0 - 3 levels only.
• The other option as per the guidelines is to have a level 0 - 3 warning for blockable offences followed by a generic block warning. This is on the premise that having 1 less level of warning removes some of the ambiguity, and that it is not necessary to have a block for each type of warning. This is because any editor being blocked will have already had previous warnings, and will have been informed of his/her offences. For non blockable offences there will only be warnings level 0-2

Note: I use the word warnings alot which I realise does not instantly AGF, but for the purposes of this project warnings / messages are interchangeable. Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 09:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Standardised levels

Levels 0 - 3 & then use S-blocks As per guidelines

1. I prefer levels 0–3 recommended by the template coding documentation. This maintains simplicity and ensures that abusive users are not given too much leeway while allowing a flexible range of tones and severity. All blocks should be handled with {{s/block}}, {{s/block2}}, and {{s/block3}}. —[admin] Pathoschild 16:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
2. Mild support (assuming that I actually understand the issue!). I wouldn't fight strongly for this, but my feeling is that for obvious vandals there has got to be some shortcut towards blocking. Pascal.Tesson 17:06, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
3. Support: As per above. ><Richard0612 ^{UW 19:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)}

Levels 0 - 6 As per tradition

1. Most certainly - there'd be too much of a change, and that would mean we'd need to go via a centralised discussion to gain concensus, then... yuck. Stick with 0-6, however remove levels 4-6 (if any) for non-blockable things (ie. AGF, WR etc.). Daniel.Bryant 10:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

   The change would be minimal if we redirect the deprecated templates to the nearest standardised message. The worst case scenario is that users may get the same messages twice for a while (from two old templates that got merged to the same level), but that happens frequently anyway. —[admin] Pathoschild 16:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. I can see reasons for both sides, I would lean toward 0 - 3 as that would remove some ambiguity. But for the sake of this project, I'm neutral so long as whatever is implemented is implemented across the board. Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 09:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

[edit] Syntax

Standardise template name syntax

no capitals

no spaces

all templates requiring additional info get the -n suffix, currently missing in a large amount.

• or remove the -n and add to all templates {{#if:{{{1|}}}|, as you did to [[:{{{1}}}]]}} Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 11:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• The ParserFunction method is better, since it reduces duplication. As long as it's kept as simple as possible, the resulting code when substituted is minimal. —[admin] Pathoschild 16:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

  We are in total agreement, everything else gets phased out.Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 21:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

  Indeed. Dissolve the -n templates by using #if:. Daniel.Bryant 12:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

  I've just merged all -n derivatives into their parent templates. If you see one left, please leave me a message. —[admin] Pathoschild 17:44, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Content syntax

All templates must have same look and feel, if bold text highlights a word in one template, bold in all. Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 11:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• This is not desireable. Bolding is used to emphasise words or sentences that are particularly important to the message of the template. Words which are important to the message of one are not necessarily important to that of another. —[admin] Pathoschild 16:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

  I think Look and feel will be a natural progression as we harmonise. Some templates have nearly the whole first line in bold, which IMHO is unnecessary. As you say bolding should only be to impart the importance of certain words within a warning. For me messages of similar levels will have similar wording and I'm almost certain similar stresses, so will resolve itself naturally as we continue. Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 21:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re-enforce levels of warning from 0 - 6

Number of warning categories only have for example warnings 2 - 3. Create the spectrum of warnings adhering to content syntax. Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 11:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• Level 3 should be the one that starts warning about blocks per WP:AIV. Also, this allows templates for ostensibly non-blockable offenses (AGF) to be made for levels 0, 1, and 2 while keeping the same structure. -- Avi 13:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

  I prefer levels 0–3 recommended by the template coding documentation. This maintains simplicity and ensures that abusive users are not given too much leeway while allowing a flexible range of tones and severity. All blocks should be handled with {{s/block}}, {{s/block2}}, and {{s/block3}}. —[admin] Pathoschild 16:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

  Regarding warnings 0 - 3 then s-blocks or warnings0 - 6, Personally I'm not worried which system we use so long as it's the same through out. For 0-3 as you say it removes leeway, ambiguity and makes differentiation much easy. IMHO there are too many levels of test warnings. Example the difference between a test 0 and test 1 could be wider, apart from a nuance they are almost identical. Against 0-3, first of all, even though well written, the document you reference is only a guideline, and I would like to see the results of this harmonisation become a policy of sorts. Secondly we have tradition, I am all for removing the importance of the test warnings as the generic catch all but removing test4 from the wikipedia psyche will be difficult, redirects maybe? Buy in from AmiDaniel and the other vandal software guys? I'll be happy with 0-3 but if it's applied to all. Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 21:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

  The guidelines are the main documentation applied by the wikiproject, although they're subject to change. They're not policy—nor should they be—but they do have some import. I think redirecting templates to the nearest standardised level will do nicely. Attracting more participants to the project would definitely be good; a quick check shows only four active participants, one of which not recently. —[admin] Pathoschild 10:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Images

Only pre-approved images to be used, and all to be similar size.

Level 0, 1 & 2 warnings and attention templates

Level 3 warnings

Level 4 warning

Level 5 & 6 block

Level 5 block timed

Exceptions? Shared educational IP Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 11:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• Shered educational IP is not a user warning, it is a notice to other editors (same as the AOL etc.) and may not be in the scope of what you are suggesting here. -- Avi 13:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

  I'm not limiting myself to just warnings, but they make a huge part of it, but also to userpage clerical and admin headers. Cheers Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 15:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• I disagree. Making icons ubiquitous removes their impact in higher-level warnings, and adds an unnecessary level of clutter and unprofessionality. Icons should be reserved for blocks—making them easy to pick out of the list of warnings—, high-level warnings, and headers. If they can be removed from high-level warnings, all the better. —[admin] Pathoschild 16:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

  If I understand you correctly, if you want to only only have icons for blocks IMHO this will not have any more impact due to the fact you have already differentiated the blocks by putting it in the coloured box. Why unprofessionality? We focus too much on the warning aspect of what we are doing here and not the message content for the lower level messages/warnings. I myself some months back received a message for forgetting to put an edit summary, with the info symbol it stood out amongst the normal chats of a normal editor. I would prefer to see a simple visual aspect of an icon, and if all the template format are well structured and planned we can avoid the clutter problem. Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 21:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

  Although setting warnings apart from normal discussion is good, the icons are too ostentatious in my opinion. Perhaps we can think of a more subtle emphasis; a warning prefix, for example, or a lightly coloured box. —[admin] Pathoschild 11:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

  I've seen a bit of support for this one. If it's a question of ergonomics then I'm sure we can hammer out the details before we really start next week. Lets spend the rest of this week publicising what we are doing here, and try and get comments from other longtime editors/admins. This should then give us greater consensus as opposed to what you & I would like. I'll contact the vandal proof / sniper mob. Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 11:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

  is what I personally prefer for level 2 warnings. Daniel.Bryant 12:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

  to recap with Pathos's 0-3 levels it would look something like
  Level 0, 1
  or Level 2 warnings
  Level 3 warning or S-blocks
  S-block3
  not used

  OK I know Pathos is against the images, but I'm sure he/she can be persuaded ;). Also Pathos just an aesthetic question, would you mind if the border on s-bock three was the same as the other s-blocks. you've got a nice big cross symbol there, room for discussion? I'll trade you one image from above for the red border ;) —unsigned by Khukri 15:11, October 26, 2006.

  I have no problem removing the border, since the emphasis is rather overdone. Feel free to remove the image for level zero and one, if you'd like. ;) —[admin] Pathoschild 01:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

  Bugga..... OK then, but I like the icons ;) no problems unless we have an avalanche of support for icons, pink elephants, or some such. Leave the mods till we start next week. I'm starting to look at when we start and how do we keep track of it. I think we use the new structure template, add another column to it. When we start on a series of warnings we just add our name to the end column, that way we don't step on each other toes. I also suggest that we have one person doing the mods as per what we have suggested here, and two others to verify it? I realised last night, I'm going away for just over a week from 5th Nov, do you want to postpone the start till I'm back, or shall we just rely on the snowball effect of once we start, it'll gain it's own momentum. As per my suggestion on the talk page I'm going to get all the RC patrollers who have offered support, to start spamming other RC patrollers with the message on the upcoming changes. Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 08:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

  Here are the specifics of what I think should happen:
  Level 0 & 1 warnings and attention templates
  Level 2 warnings
  Level 3 warnings
  Level 4 warning
  Level 5 & 6 block
  make defunct. Daniel.Bryant 09:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• Will start a vote above at the top of this page. Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 09:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ov or vand

Create Obvious vandalism either ov0 - 6 or vand0 - 6 templates to replace vw and blatant vandal etc. Test warning are exactly for as the name suggests for people carrying out persistant tests, not for deliberate vandalism. Vandalism is vandalism and should be named thus. Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 11:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• That's a good idea, although the template name should be more intuitive. Ideally, one should be able to guess a template name and get it correctly. For example, we might be able to recycle {{vandalism}} if the redirect is unused. We could redirect the names you suggested as shortcuts for the more experienced users, as long as there are only one or two. —[admin] Pathoschild 16:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

  Looking at the overview page I created above, I put in the vandalism tag as an example. But for level 0 can we assume good faith, and then slap someone with a template called vandalism, no matter what the content? Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 12:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

  The Policy on vandalism defines it as a edit definitely intended to damage Wikipedia, but the templates—given the standardised levels—can take a more liberal view of it. The current test series is geared towards vandalism (edits that damage articles), good faith or not. A progression from assumption of good faith (test) to neutral warning (test3) to assumption of bad faith (blatantvandal) is quite possible within the same series, and is exactly what the levels are intended to do. —[admin] Pathoschild 03:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

  Responding to your comments in joke, I think we should still keep the test warnings, which will be for as it says people doing tests, usually of the 'sssddddfffffggsssssss' type. But only upto level2 and not blockable. Because by it's very nature if someone is doing a test, they 99.999% of the time will stop when they realise that that form of testing is unacceptable and the sandbox is available. Anyone that continues more than once should almost certainly revert to vandalism warnings. Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 07:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

  That's exactly what level zero of any warning is for. The guidelines describe level zero as "Assumes good faith; welcome with polite pointer to sandbox and/or to relevant help and policy pages." —[admin] Pathoschild 01:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

  Am I being overly sensitive here? Isn't it a bit hypocritcal to assume good faith and yet slap someone with a warning called vandalism? At least if we hid it behind a mnemonic it doesn't look so bad? Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 08:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

  The same could be said for level zero of any warning, really. There's nothing wrong with template redirects, so we could use {{test}} redirecting to {{vandalism0}}, for example. —[admin] Pathoschild 16:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Joke

Behave warning becomes joke0 and joke --> joke1, funnybut --> joke2, Seriously --> Joke3, create joke 4,5 & 6 then tidied. Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 11:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• That's good. Deletion doesn't seem to be an option, given past discussions, so I suppose we can at least standardise the name. I oppose the creation of joke4–6 per the General design guidelines. —[admin] Pathoschild 16:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

  If deletion doesn't seem to be an option, we can create a page along the lines of WP:TT which lists the recommended templates available to editors. If we continually promote this page, getting buy in of major RC patrollers and the vandal software guys. Then over time naturally the other templates should fall out of favour as newer editors come onto Wikipedia. Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 21:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

  That's a very good idea. I'll set one up later today, unless you do it first. —[admin] Pathoschild 11:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

  OK if we're agreed we are going ahead with everything including tests 0-3, as per guidleines, and then we have generic blocks afterwards then I think it maybe an idea to highlight those which go only 0-2 i.e. agf and those that can get the full monty i.e. vandalism. I'm also looking at a recategorisation of the messages, clerical and process can be grouped. We then have a list of behavioural or I would prefer the use of conduct messages, i.e. how one comports oneself whilst using wikipedia, agf, lang, date, (0-2messages). Then we have a list of policing warnings tests, vandalism, npa, (0 - block), whaddya think?, I've created the overview (copy of WP:TT page which we can re-write and hopefully use to replace WP:TT, linked above. Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 11:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

  I've tweaked what we have so far to merge the obvious vandalism and test series into 'vandalism', which should cover both nuances: 0 (test edit), 1 (problematic edit), 2 (vandalism), and 3 (final warning). I've also added the current block templates. What do you think? —[admin] Pathoschild 03:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocks

All block templates to be the same colour and format with maybe exceptions of the icon(see above), along the lines of vblock Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 11:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• I propose merging most block templates into {{s/block1}}–{{s/block3}} and renaming these to block#. Where syntax is different, we can deprecate and use double-transclusion. —[admin] Pathoschild 16:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• Good for me, makes my life easier. Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 07:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] missing warnings

3rr, mos, lang, date, wr, spam, npa, threat need all the levels 0 - 6 including -n's

Civil 1 and 2 should be within npa, maybe npa 0 & 1?

Differentiate between threat and npa, threatban is re-directed to npa6.

Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 11:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• I oppose this. We should use levels 0–3 recommended by the General design guidelines. This maintains simplicity and ensures that abusive users are not given too much leeway while allowing a flexible range of tones and severity. All blocks should be handled with {{s/block}}, {{s/block2}}, and {{s/block3}}. —[admin] Pathoschild 16:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright

Create copyright level 0 - 6, and remove different names for same offence as per joke and ov. Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 11:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• I oppose the creation of new levels (although standardising the names sounds good). We should use levels 0–3 recommended by the General design guidelines. This maintains simplicity and ensures that abusive users are not given too much leeway while allowing a flexible range of tones and severity. All blocks should be handled with {{s/block}}, {{s/block2}}, and {{s/block3}}. —[admin] Pathoschild 16:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Title

Some warnings include ==Title==, this should either apply to all or a type of warning, i.e. level 4, or to none at all. Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 11:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• They should be used in none at all. Headers in unsubstituted templates cause users to post further comments on the template itself when section editing, rather than below the message on the talk page. Even when the user notices this, they are unnecessarily confused by the unintuitive behaviour. Additionally, headers in templates makes them unuseable in lists or within other discussions, as recommended by the Template coding guidelines (compatibility with lists). —[admin] Pathoschild 16:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• An initial phrase in bold would great, if it flows with the English. But otherwise, I suggest no titles (section headings) in any templates, or some way to set the level of the title. But simplest is no titles in any templates. The problem with section headers is that they are often at the wrong level, necessitating a second edit, which kind of defeats the usefulness of a template. Hu 16:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Auto signature

Warnings which include ~~~~ should be removed Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 11:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• I Agree. Automated signature is unintuitive and makes usage vary unnecessarily from one template to another. —[admin] Pathoschild 16:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• I think these will be one of the first ideas we will be starting on next week, as with titles above. Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 21:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• Agreed, I always sign manually after using one, making it look like I signed twice. --Mr. Lefty (talk) 21:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• Ditto. Unnecessary waste of time in figuring out whether you've signed twice. Time spent fixing signatures is time better spent actually fighting vandals. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 ^{(T | C | @)} 01:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Def

Defban and defwarning -> def0 - 6 Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 11:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• I suggest a more untuitive name, such as {{defamatory}}, with a redirect from def as a shortcut. —[admin] Pathoschild 16:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• I don't know how much people are aware of this but someone recently created {{attackwarn}}. I'm not sure I like that wording but I believe it surves a purpose that neither {{attack}} or {{defwarn}} adresses properly. Basically, I see 4 types of "attack" problems that should be dealt with using distinct warnings:

• Personnal attacks on other editors,

dealt with {{npa}};

• Edits to existing pages which speak negatively of someone/something but not strictly speaking defamatory ("This guy is also pretty stupid"),

dealt with {{attack}};

• Pages created or edited as particularly vicious attacks, often of non-notable people ("Jane Doe is a fat *** in grade 12" and the like) or of the type "blacks are also more likely to steal" and the like),

to be dealt with using some form of {{attack-warn}} and to be added to the template {{db-attack}};

• Edits or article creations that add defamatory statements, most often on (semi-)notable people. Note that defamation implies that the accusation is credible. Saying "Steve Jobs eats babies for breakfast" is not defamatory, whereas "Steve Jobs abused his position to steal millions" is.

The very strongly worded {{defwarn}} should be used only for these circumstances.

I think the 3rd type needs to be adressed so that it is made clearer that in the case of the creation of attack-pages, bad faith is automatically assumed. There should be zero-tolerance for these, even if we keep the last template for particularly serious offenses. In the case of the first two, we can assume good faith or carelessness for a first offense. Pascal.Tesson 17:38, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AGF

AGF is it blockable? If not reword agf3 -> agf2 if so create all agf's Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 11:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• I do not believe a lack of WP:AGF is blockable in and of itself, so perhaps stick with max level 2. -- Avi 13:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• A lack of good-faith assumption is not in itself blockable, although the often consequent harassment, personal attacks, trolling, borderline vandalism, and revert-warring is. {{agf2}} doesn't seem to exist, so rename 3 to 2. —[admin] Pathoschild 16:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• And if we stick to 0-3 level warning create agf0. Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 07:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• Generally it would seem that by the time someone's breaking assumption of good faith to a serious level, they're probably also breaching civility (ex. cursing at another user for editing the "wrong" way.) Also, would it be possible for a link to AGF to be merged into the lower-level civility templates, example text that might work for 0:

Thank you for providing your input on Article. Unfortunately, the way you chose to phrase this criticism may be interpreted by other editors as an attack. Please remember to maintain civility and assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Remember that Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and attacks on those you may disagree with may be harmful to the community and to your own reputation within it.

Anyway, just a thought. Seraphimblade 18:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Looks pretty good to me Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 18:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template comment

Add this comment to all templates, to make sure they remain harmonised long after we're finished. <!-- Please do not make any modifications to this template, prior to discussing any changes at the Wikipedia:WikiProject user warnings or WP:UW --> Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 11:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• I strongly oppose this. The WikiProject is a collaboration, not the authority on user warning templates. We should not require everyone to consult us before editing. At most, I'd suggest this comment: <!-- This template is carefully designed based on [[Wikipedia:WikiProject user warnings/Documentation]]. -->. This lets the user know that there are guidelines in place and points them to the page to consult, but allows them to make improvements of their own free will. As long as project members are watchlisting those templates, there is no need for consultation. —[admin] Pathoschild 16:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

  This is a bit of a paradox, you say We should not require everyone to consult us before editing. and yet we block a large percentage of them off so only admins can edit them. I think it's the Spam4 template where the image is twice the size of the others. This was because an editor, in good faith I might add, thought it would stress it's importance by being bigger, but it is completely out of sync now with similar warnings. If we can agree to include a template message, we can finalise the text over this week. I would be more inclined to a message that does suggest one discusses changes before blindly going in, much the same way that we suggest to editors to be fully aware of all sides before editing a controversial article. Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 21:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

  Advising users to be careful in editing the templates and to be aware of the guidelines is fine; requiring that they consult us is unwiki in that it requires that they obtain a form of editorial permission. For example, users should not be required to consult WikiProject Biography before editing George W. Bush, no matter how contentious the article content is. Since all standardised templates are presumably watched by a few project members, they can step in and correct any edit that is problematic. —[admin] Pathoschild 11:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On no. of templates...

It is a good idea to harmonise the templates. I also like the ideas of images. However having templates 0 to 6 for lesser used templates like agf may be a bit of overkill. --Gurubrahma 10:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

My rationale behind enforcing the full spectrum of warnings, is that when one identifies an infraction, it may be apparent that this isn't a simple newbie having an experiment but someone who knows what they are doing. I regularly give a test2 then a test4 then seek a block. This should be straight to a vandalism warning i.e. the propsed vand 1-6, but test meets the criteria currently. But once editors get used to the 1 - 6 as most are with the test series, then it makes life easier to gauge which warning to give for any given infraction. With the end result hopefully that people know that they have the agf warnings and that they have the full range available, even if they aren't used often.

My only issue with the agf warnings is like wr is it blockable, I haven't found anything to say otherwise, and find it difficult to comprehend an agf4. wouldn't that be civil4? or maybe npa4 depending on the context? Ideas please. Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 11:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow, this is excellent. Let me know if I can help - and AGF is not blockable. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Testing

I've created Template:WPUW just for testing purposes, to save having loads of test templates

and now a sandbox, access from the project page.

Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 11:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Two systems

Cheers Avi for the info, looking at what we have then I would think it's very easy to have what we could call guidance messages level 0 - 2, and then for want of a better word rebuking messages 3 - 4, and then the blocks 5 - 6. I'm going to create a new WP:TT page here in the next week, which we can keep track of who's done what and our overall status. Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 15:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Note to willing admins

As I can't edit alot of the pages, what I will do is create a page linked to the project page (upload) which will list the text to be cut n pasted and the name of the destination template. Also I would maybe like to s-prot all templates once finished. But is it necessary to have some of the templates fully protected, and others not at all. If we are protecting blocking templates then they should all be protected, but I and many others will have all these templates eventually in our watch lists, and can revert any vandalism on sight. Cheers Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 15:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RC patrollers

• Pathos and any others who are lurking at the moment. We have quite a few people who have expressed a willingness to help, and alot of them most probably want direction. I have an idea how we can use them until we actually get some consensus and start editing early next week. What we could do is ask them to sit on the recent changes page keeping an eye on anyone doing reverts, or leaving messages. and leave a message on their page along the lines of below.
• P. Just change the text below as you see fit or let me know if it's OK and I'll get everyone on it.
• I'm going to see if I can get this spammed out through the Signpost, and I'll hit some of the IRC channels later as well.

Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 18:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

==Upcoming template changes==

Hi, I've just noticed that you recently left a templated userpage message. I'm just bringing to your attention that the format and context of these templates will be shortly changing. It is recommended that you visit [[WP:UW|WikiProject user warnings]] and harmonisation discussion [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_user_warnings/templates|pages]] to find out how these changes could affect the templates you use. We also would appreciate any insights or thoughts you may have on the subject. Thanks for your understanding. Best regards ~~~~