Template talk:Wdefcon/Archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 semi-protect 2 Size 2.1 Proposal 1 2.2 Proposal 2 2.3 Proposal 3 2.4 Proposal 4 2.5 Proposal 5 3 sorry for the rollback 4 Uhm 5 Poorly written defcon level discriptions 6 Gone? 7 Restored 8 New Defcon 9 Why doesn't Sockpuppets link to the Internet version? 10 Levels 10.1 Summary of proposal 11 Migration done 12 Probably won't ever be needed (I hope!) 13 Proposal 13.1 Draft Proposal

[edit] semi-protect

Could we semi-protect this Template? I think that anonymous editers shouldn't change the level on Wikipedia's gauge of vandalism.

Lee S. Svoboda tɑk 21:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Size

One of the frequent complaints about this template is that it is too big. Since I don't know how many people actually read this page, if no one complains, I'll shrink the template by a third. Is that all right? Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 02:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• Thats alright with me as long as you also raise it to dc3. Theres Penises Everywhere!!!--mitrebox 05:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

During it's TFD discussin, shrink was brought up a few times. I wouldn't mind this being massively shrunk to only show the current level e.g.:

1:HIGH comments

instead of all the level as it is now:

1:

2:

3:

4:

5:

peniseseses!

GOTTA LOVE MY ASCII DRAWINGS TOO =) xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 05:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. This shouldn't be too difficult. Simply crop the five dc levels and reupload them. Problem fixed! Zsinj^Talk 15:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal 1

Well, does it really have to show all digits at all times? How about something like this:

Pros:

1. Smaller, won't attract vandals (at least not that many).
2. Looks like a userbox (actually it's derived from one) - can be hidden among others on a user page.

Cons:

1. Looks like a userbox. ;-)

I could design the other ones as well if you like it. Anyway, now waiting for your comments... *ducks for cover* Misza13 ^(Talk) 10:49, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Kinda cool... 68.39.174.238 22:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Conditional Support. Remove the comment and add a title and i'll be happy. Davidpk212 20:09, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment. I made a no-comment version (proposal 5) +Hexagon1 _contrib ^talk 11:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal 2

Needs some photoshop work to flip numbers. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 21:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Now this talk page can't complain about high traffic... Anyway, my design is ready, lying in my sandbox, just waiting for a green light to be implemented. Misza13 ^(Talk) 20:20, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal 3

Similar in size to Misza13's, the main differenc is it uses a graphic, and the generic description of the DefCon level is omitted (you probably know basically what each level represents, and anyway there's a one-word summary in the graphic). This is good to go and I'll place it on the template page. Herostratus 06:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. The graphic looks a bit rubbish. If the colours were static and matched... Davidpk212 20:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal 4

Why does it have to feature an image, or be a userbox, or whatever? So, straight from the Usability Department...

WikiDefcon 1 2 3 4 5

WikiDefcon 3 Significantly elevated levels of vandalism from shared IPs and experimenting users. Comment: Delays in watchlists and contributions pages. Watch RC! Cquan (talk, AMA Desk) 23:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC) ([edit])

Not ready to go entirely, but will be ready by the end of today, wiki time. Inspired by the pH meter on this page. Includes comments on how to set the WikiDefcon. -- Davidpk212 17:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Now ready to roll! Use {{Wdefcon|prefix=User:Davidpk212/}}} to insert on a page. Davidpk212 17:37, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment

• Nice design, maybe change the font colours to increase readability? --Grand Edgemaster _Talk 20:17, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Good idea, but when the other WikiDefcons are active, you can read them fine. The 5 is lit up now because that's where we are; when it's 4, the green will be darker and the blue lighter. We don't need to read it if it ain't relevant! Davidpk212 20:43, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I link this probably the best of all (Not by much, but still, gotta love simple stuff)... 68.39.174.238 00:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• I'm working on a smaller version to fit at the side of a page easily as we edit... Davidpk212 09:59, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal 5

This is identical to Misza13's, except it removes the comment. You can use it through this syntax: {{Wdefcon|prefix=User:Hexagon1/}} +Hexagon1 _contrib ^talk 11:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

3 WikiDefcon 3 Significantly elevated levels of vandalism from shared IPs and experimenting users.

Support. Being so unbiased and all... +Hexagon1 _contrib ^talk 11:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] sorry for the rollback

Apologies to Misza13 for the rollback. I was in automatic revert mode for everything with a Squidward edit summary and unfortunately Misza13's was right in the middle of a block of them on RC. Sorry again, BanyanTree 17:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

It's ok. People seem too alergic to "SQUIDWARD" in the edit summary though - relax, people. While horrific at first sight, this vandal seems pretty easy to deal with and clean up after... BTW, Banyan, it was not so automatic since I (not deliberately) made a typo in both the summary and the edit: [1] --Misza13 ^{T C} 17:52, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Uhm

Anyone know why the template isn't showing up right now? T K E 18:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Poorly written defcon level discriptions

Some of the defcon level discriptions are poorly written. I tried to figure out how to change them, but was unable to. How can I do this? - Conrad Devonshire 04:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

It is the section under the part at the top where the custom message is entered. However, I would not edit them without first seeking out community consensus on this page. --Zsinj^Talk 07:17, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I tried editing them from there, but even after I changed the messages, they were the same as before on the Defcon meter. The changes that I wanted to make were just slight grammatical corrections and rewording. - Conrad Devonshire 00:10, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Never mind. I was able to take care of it. - Conrad Devonshire 07:43, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gone?

Or is it just me? - Glen ^T _C 01:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Seems to be....—GH 02:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Restored

This page has been speedily restored. This action was noted on WP:DRV. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

This template is very unstable. It keeps going and restoring. What will we do to stop this trend? Funnybunny 03:08, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

This tempalte was only deleted once then restored. It is very heavily used though, and the cache servers may not have cuaght up with the restoral. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

• This happened again when Coolcat G7'd the userspace content. It has been restored to my userspace. --Zsinj^Talk 15:41, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

• Someone is impersonating me and vandaliving pages or people are falsely accusing me on purpose!-Sabertiger^Talk-20:37 21 April 2006-Notify me if you see them!!!

• Sorry, I made a mistake! I'm not thinking right, I just got up!!!!!-Sabertiger-12:02 22 April 2006

[edit] New Defcon

Gangsta-Easter-Bunny 01:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)-I found it on the Commons. I like it and want to make it useable on userpages. How do you add the comment and all that yadda-yadda?-Gangsta-Easter-Bunny 01:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

No offence, but that looks awful. (BTW, I made it a bit smaller so it doesn't screw up the page as much) And making it userpage worthy is no easy task, I don't know how you plan to add the comment to a picture. +Hexagon1 (talk) 08:00, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Didn't make it.--Gangsta-Easter-Bunny 16:59, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why doesn't Sockpuppets link to the Internet version?

It should link to Sock puppet (Internet) but it links to Sockpuppet instead. --Ssj4android 04:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I tried to fix that.--Gangsta-Easter-Bunny 13:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Levels

I hate how only level 5 can be used, rarely does anyone even let it stay at 4. Saying "5" all the time is very useless, its like giving a logrythmic scale for something that only needs a linear one, so you always get rounded of to the same number almost no matter what. There must be a better way to categorize the intensity, so that 5-3 can be used. That would still leave 1 and 2 as ridiculously serious.Voice-of-All^Talk 17:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

How about this:

• 1 - Overwhelming degree of vandalism or extremely dangerous incitement. Wikipedia's stability currently in peril. Drastic measures (e.g. database lockdown) recommended.
• 2 - Immediate and currently occurring threat to Wikipedia's normal operation or Wikipedia itself (e.g. vandalbot or other rapid vandal attack)
• 3 - Multi-page vandalism of similar nature by a number of sockpuppets (i.e. WoW vandalism)
• 4 - Day time; normal level of vandalism from shared IPs and experimenting users.
• 5 - Night-time; few isolated cases of vandalism from different timezone IPs.
• 0 - Wikipedia currently out of operation or editing on Wikipedia temporarily disabled

Not much change, but is that what you have in mind? Also, do we need WDefcon 0? As how will you update it to that if you can't edit Wikipedia? >_> Master of Puppets ^{That's hot.} 17:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, stretching the lower defcon (i.e. higher numbers) does seem like a good idea. As of 0, the explanation above is a bit misleading. It's supposed to be used when there are problems with the recent changes - most notably a netsplit which renders all the IRC-based measures of monitoring useless. Misza13 ^{T C} 17:46, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

If 5-3 where more reasoble (likely to occur) I would use this too go on RC patrol if it is in 3-1, like I did one time. But it is just impossible for most of the levels to get used unless it is the Wiki-Doomsday.Voice-of-All^Talk 04:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I would lump 1 and 2 together as 1 (doomsday), 2 becomes heavy, 3 becomes medium, 4 becomes light and 5 is peace. So, daytime now is either 3 or 4, at nights, it can be crazy as well, and when there is really only ordinary editing to do, well that is 5. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 05:02, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Here you see that Wikipedia must not have anglo-american focus, I beelive it applies for Euro-american too. The world is round, and when it is night at home it is day abroad, so I think Kim's proposal is very good.

Does anyone expect to have a defcon 1? —Argentino (talk/cont.) 20:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I guess not, but you need it in case. I agree with the original poster that the numbers are skewed wrong, and Kim's proposal to merge 1 and 2 (never used anyway) into DefCon 1 and spread the former 5,4,3 among 5,4,3,2. Herostratus 05:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, if there is a consensus to change it I will change the description in the little window on my graphic if people want (It is currently 1=QUIET, 2=NORMAL, 3=ELEVATED, 4=THREAT, 5=SCRAMBLE, 0=(blank). It could maybe be changed to 1=QUIET 2=LIGHT 3=ACTIVE 4=ELEVATED 5=SCRAMBLE, or whatever.) Herostratus

I agree. Do it. —Argentino (talk/cont.) 22:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I second that motion!--digital_me^(t/c) 03:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, but they should actually be reversed (i.e. lower numbers usualy mean higher danger in DEFCONs alike). I have created Template:Wdefcon/descriptions with MoP's text as the core. Feel free to adjust it. Now all the existing user templates should be adjusted to use them (i.e. {{Wdefcon/descriptions|level=X}}). Finally, since we have proper ParserFunctions, they could actually be reduced to single templates (not six as it is now) with a #switch:, but that's more of an effort. Misza13 ^{T C} 15:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it wasn't that hard. Take a look at the demo on User:Misza13/Wdefcon. Misza13 ^{T C} 15:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Looks very nice. I like it.--digital_me^(t/c) 17:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Oops, right, had it backward. Should be 5=QUIET 4=LIGHT 3=ACTIVE 2=ELEVATED 1=SCRAMBLE. I'll change the graphic in the next couple of days or so. Herostratus 17:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, changed the graphics. Herostratus 04:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Summary of proposal

So, basically, all existing incarnations (6 at the moment) can now be migrated with the following scheme:

User:Misza13/Wdefcon 0...5 => User:Misza13/Wdefcon

Check out my new defcon for an example usage of the {{#switch:...}} code. Basically, put them under one "/Wdefcon" subpage and redesign to use two parameters: {{{level}}} and {{{info}}}. {{{level}}} wil control the style. {{{info}}} is the user-supplied description. The "site-wide" descriptions are available at Template:Wdefcon/descriptions - to show the current one, you just write {{Wdefcon/descriptions|{{{level}}}}}. If anyone needs help with migrating their defcon to the new system, just ask below. Misza13 ^{T C} 10:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

A start into merging your templates would be putting something like this into your Wdefcon:

{{#switch:{{{level}}}
|1 = {{subst:User:Misza13/Wdefcon 1|info={{{info}}}}}
|2 = {{subst:User:Misza13/Wdefcon 2|info={{{info}}}}}
|3 = {{subst:User:Misza13/Wdefcon 3|info={{{info}}}}}
|4 = {{subst:User:Misza13/Wdefcon 4|info={{{info}}}}}
|5 = {{subst:User:Misza13/Wdefcon 5|info={{{info}}}}}
| {{subst:User:Misza13/Wdefcon 0|info={{{info}}}}}
}}

Obviously, change "Misza13" to your username. Then you can proceed to tweaking it (for example, removing duplicate HTML code) and replacing general descriptions with {{Wdefcon/descriptions|{{{level}}}}}. When done, we'll smothly switch to this scheme on the main template:

{{{{{prefix|User:Zsinj/}}}Wdefcon
|level=2
|info=We're getting [[pwn]]ed! --~~~~
}}

and {{db-owner}} our unused subpages. Misza13 ^{T C} 11:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Looks really nice! When will you implement this into your userbox wdefcon?--digital_me^(t/c) 19:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

My defcon is ready. But there are a total 6 (including mine):

• User:Zsinj/Wdefcon Done --Misza13 ^{T C} 09:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• User:Misza13/Wdefcon --ready!
• User:Herostratus/Wdefcon Done --Misza13 ^{T C} 10:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• User:Davidpk212/Wdefcon --so far only a redirect to User:Davidpk212/Wdefcon 5 Done --Misza13 ^{T C} 09:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• User:Hexagon1/Wdefcon ok --Misza13 ^{T C} 10:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• User talk:ILovePlankton/Wdefcon Migrated. Actually it was not of less height as it claimed - just full width. Misza13 ^{T C} 10:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

If I find some time, I might do the migration myself... Misza13 ^{T C} 09:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Misxal3. I don't actually understand all this, but I'm sure its an improvement. I don't have do anything, right? Herostratus 04:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Migration done

Big news! I have applied the new scheme. All developers can now safely delete the current (i.e. the six 0...5 numbered) pages (or tag with {{db-owner}}, if you're not an admin) - just make sure I didn't mess it up, i.e. that they are no longer transcluded. All user styles are now managed with one subpage (i.e. every one of the six of us has one subpage) located at /Wdefcon (except for ILovePlankton, who has it in his talk space). Misza13 ^{T C} 10:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I have noticed that the old templates are still shown as included via Whatlinkshere. I guess the servers need time to update... Misza13 ^{T C} 10:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Wait a minute, I strongly object to day/night time classifications according to USA time. This isn't an American wiki, this is an English one. There's millions of us who aren't in the USA, and the number of countries speaking Commonwealth/UK English far outnumbers 1 (the USA). I'm switching my Wdefcon to the old descriptions. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 11:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, Template:Wdefcon/descriptions is still open for discussion - I have only put a draft suggested by MoP there. I also don't like the day/night descriptions (I'm from Poland), but I understand they came from the fact that, as I believe, the majority of vandalism comes from the US. I'm still thinking of better wording on the descriptions. Misza13 ^{T C} 11:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

And one more thing - we have decided above that the levels should be rescaled (old 1-3 becomes new 1-2 and old 4-5 stretches to 3-5), so the old descriptions you use now are a bit inadequate. Misza13 ^{T C} 12:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'll use a modified version of the desriptions removing time references. It's available here if anyone wants to use it. But I still object to the time references. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 15:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Just remove the day-time and night time, because at the moment, it is a 5, but it is day time. If there are no objection, I will do that for the moment, until the remaioning discussion is solved. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 16:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

How about something like this? Obviously, the descriptions need fleshing out.

• 1 - Apocalypse
• 2 - Blitz
• 3 - Wartime
• 4 - Semi-Peacetime
• 5 - Peacetime --Xyrael ^T 16:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

that's what we had before, and that is part of the problem. It was set on 5 most the time, because none-mild vandals is considered normal, hence peacetime. The new system looks like it will be more indicative. Only time will tell. Danl 00:55, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I suggest using my system here. It's identical to the new system, except I removed the time reference for 4, and retained the old 5 description, as the new one was very US-time-centric. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 03:32, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm well OK. The thing is, most people using the DefCon template don't need a lengthy description of each level, I don't think. They probably pretty much know what the levels mean, at least after using the template awhile. That's the theory behind the graphics I made -- Just the level number, a one-word description of the level, and the extra info that the person setting the level has added. I changed the one-word description per above discussion (I could change it to other words per any consensus or send the Photoshop source to anyone who wants it).

• 5 = QUIET. I envision this to be used not that often, only when there is virtually no vandalism occuring.
• 4 = LIGHT. I expect the levels will most often fluctuate between 4 and 3. 4 is for pretty normal but a bit on the low side, and...
• 3 = ACTIVE is for pretty normal but a bit on the high side.
• 2 = ELEVATED will occur now and then, when there is an unusual amount of vandalism, a squidward-type attack(s) or just bunches of vandals coming out of the woodwork. It pretty much says to me that you should switch to vandal-fighting from whatever you are doing, if you're up for it.
• 1 = SCRAMBLE may be used rarely or never. I envisioned this as meaning "something really bad is happening, drop what you are doing right now and go find out what's going on and help fight it".

The thing is, at least for people using these graphics, the person setting the level kinda sorta has to more or less go along with the above description, or the graphic won't jibe with the detailed description. This is just a side-effect of the fact that my graphics include (one word of) text, not trying to force anything and I will certainly change the words in the graphic to meet any other consensus. Or people can just not use the graphic or whatever, just that if you're setting the level and are sticking to the old method anyone who is using the graphic will be getting contradictory info, sort of. Herostratus 05:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

This probably makes more sense, actually, because then we might get to 2 more often. --Xyrael ^T 06:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Well for people who are familiar with the system, we don't need any description at all, the level will do. But the descriptions are there to assist users who may be unaware of the system. If I just saw Quiet somewhere, it doesn't tell me anything about the vandalism level. What criteria is used to judge quiet? The latin wikipedia quiet may be one vandal article a year, the english wikipedia quiet may be anything from 1 vandal article an hour to several thousand per hour, or even more if someone isn't very familiar with the statistics, I've heard opinions that normal vandalism on en:Wiki is thousands of vandal articles a second! "Quiet" is not helpful at all. +Hexagon1 ^(t) |*̥̲̅ ̲̅†̲̅| |>̲̅-̲̅| 14:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Right, good points, so that's why it's optional, the default and other versions have the complete descriptions. I guess, for me, the DefCon tells me if I need to jump in... I sort of see it as something like 1=no need for anyone except hard-core vandal fighters, 2 and 3= regular vandals fighters would be welcome, 4 and 5= anyone capable of vandal fighting should jump in. The level is subjective, I guess, and based on the English Wikipedia as far as I know. I'm nowhere near experienced enough to answer that, but maybe someone else can. Herostratus 06:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Plus, you have again reversed the 5-1 scale. ;-) Misza13 ^{T C} 06:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Dang. Well at the least the graphics have it right. Herostratus 18:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Probably won't ever be needed (I hope!)

DefCon X: Building housing the servers is under concentrated mortar or artillery fire from very determined vandals. Herostratus 18:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's another . Does that one explain itself? GangstaEB EA 19:58, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal

OK, it's time to fish or cut bait, in my opinion. I think we should make a proposal. Something along these lines... edit or comment as you wish... when we (the people involved in this proposal, plus anyone else) have something that seems agreeable, maybe we could put a message on the talk pages of people who have used the template in the last few weeks or so, asking them to comment on the proposal to adopt or reject, and if adopted, make people aware of the new standard.

[edit] Draft Proposal

This proposal is to change the meaning of the WikiDefCon levels, by changin the default text and asking editors to use the new levels. Basically the proposal is to fold levels 1 and 2 (which are never used) into a single level one, and spread the other three levels into four levels. This proposal addresses the current situation where only levels 1 and 2 of the five levels are much used (occasionaly level 3), which is a waste of levels.

EXISTING TEXT:

• 1 = Overwhelming degree of vandalism or extremely dangerous incitement. Wikipedia's stability currently in peril. Drastic measures (e.g. database lockdown) recommended.
• 2 = Immediate and currently occurring threat to Wikipedia's normal operation or Wikipedia itself (e.g. vandalbot or other rapid vandal attack)
• 3 = Multi-page vandalism of similar nature by a number of sockpuppets (i.e. WoW vandalism)
• 4 = Normal level of vandalism from shared IPs and experimenting users.
• 5 = Peace-time, few isolated cases of vandalism.
• 0 =Wikipedia currently out of operation or editing on Wikipedia temporarily disabled

PROPOSED NEW TEXT (obviously, edit or suggest changes as desired):

• 1 = Overwhelming degree of vandalism or extremely dangerous incitement, or immediate and currently occurring threat to Wikipedia's normal operation or Wikipedia itself
• 2 = Multi-page vandalism of similar nature by a number of sockpuppets (i.e. WoW vandalism)
• 3 = Somewhat elevated level of vandalism from shared IPs and experimenting users.
• 4 = Low-to-normal level of vandalism from shared IPs and experimenting users.
• 5 = Unusually low levels of vandalism.
• 0 = Wikipedia currently out of operation or editing on Wikipedia temporarily disabled

Herostratus 18:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

As metnioned before, level 0 is never attainable, as you wouldn't be able to set it, it IS used when rcp or irc feeds are down or malfunctioning, best to put it in non-beany terms though. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Right, of course... If Wikipedia is down or uneditable you can't set the DefCon... I missed that. Well, it could be set to 0 it editing was going to be suspended, if you set it beforehand... but that would probably never happen anyway. So for the 0... non-beany... would it be enough to spell it out? Like this: 0 =Internet Relay Chat and (whatever RPC stands for) are down? Herostratus 04:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

The system is complex. Users include something like {{Wdefcon|prefix=User:Bob/}}. This lauches the Wdefcon template, which calls Bob's Wdefcon template and feeds it the level. If no level has been fed to the template, level 0 fires up due to a {{#switch:}} in Bob's Wdefcon template. If you go to my template, for example, it will show as level 0. Same for everyone else's. But it's safe to assume that templates would fail before #switches do. And I like the scale, strong support. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 05:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Support with two add-ins:

1. The level 1 description is too long for the userbox versions (actually, it's about twice as long as the regular ones) and it bloats them unnecessarily (see my template for a showcase).
2. On level 0 - yes, obviously no Wikipedia==no Wdefcon, but when the IRC RC feed is down for some reason then it's way harder to determine the current vandalism level - that's what it's for. That said, I propose 0 - Vandalism level unknown. IRC monitoring down due to netsplit or other reasons/RC inaccessible.

Misza13 ^{T C} 12:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe something like "Vandalism level unknown due to system failure.", or something like that. Telling the vandals we can't monitor them is stuffing WP:BEANS up our noses. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 03:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

So perhaps just Vandalism level unknown will suffice? Misza13 ^{T C} 09:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that sounds good. Support! +Hexagon1 ^(t) 05:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

So be it. I have done a rewrite of the descriptions, merging bits and pieces from both the original and the proposal. Feel free to trim it if it feels to long/still to beany. Misza13 ^{T C} 09:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Looks all-right. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 12:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

How about something like "OH MY GOD WE'RE ALL GONNA DIIIIIEEEE!" for level 0. I mean if we're all screwed let's go out with a bang. :) +Hexagon1 ^(t) |*̥̲̅ ̲̅†̲̅| |>̲̅-̲̅| 03:19, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Mmm.... I second that!--digital_me^{(TalkˑContribs)} 03:28, 24 June 2006 (UTC)