Wikipedia talk:WikiProject user warnings/Archives/2006/01

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a discussion archive created in 2006, though the comments contained may not have been posted on this date. Please do not post any new comments on this page. See current discussion, or the archives index.

[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 where encyclopaedic articles are written. A "userpage" at User:WikiProject user warnings/Archives/2006/01, however, is available for personal information about yourself. When adding personal information please remember that Wikipedia is not MySpace. Your userpage is for anything that is compatible with the Wikipedia project. It is a mistake to think of it as a homepage: Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, or social networking site. 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 ~~~~

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

[edit] Merged from WP:UWLS Categorized by month

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Merged from WP:UWLS Templates

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

[edit] Merged from WP:UWLS Guidelines proposal

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

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

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

Example:

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Merged from WP:UWLS Follow up

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

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

[edit] Merged from WP:UWLS AOL warnings

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Merged from WP:UWLS 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] Merged from WP:UWLS Why are you expunging talk page warnings after 90 days?

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

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

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

[edit] Merged from WP:UWLS -- Keeping old warnings makes some clean up easier

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

If I look at that anon's edit and it's changing a date from 1924 to 1928, is that vandalistic? Should it be edited out if subsequent editors haven't spotted it? Being an unfamiliar topic, the answer's unclear to me. A quick way to deal with question is to look at the anon's talk page -- if it's full of warnings, I'll edit it out the new date with a comment to the article's other editors to check the date, either in my edit summary [4] or on the talk page. Otherwise, I assume good faith and move on. Some accounts are virtually vandalism only, but the edits are of a low enough frequency that there may be only one warning or puzzled comment ("why did you do that?") in the last 90 days. Likewise, a talk page full of discussions with other editors about articles quickly shows this is probably a good faith editor.

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

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

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

Pathoschild, procedurally you are absolutely right, however ... as I write this, I'm working my way through 212.219.94.65's latest spree and encountering just these sorts of questions [5]. I've got 23 edits to check from yesterday and today, some to pages heavily edited by other anons. Now I've got to do encyclopedic research on each when questions arise? Ask these additional anons to use edit summaries? Does any editor always do this in these situations? I think I'm plenty conscientious as it is -- from what I can see, most editors (including admins) don't seem to go through vandals' other recent editors, let alone agonize over how far to revert. If we now have to do even more, I think even fewer folks will engage in this sort of action. --A. B. 17:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

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

OK, one final example from 212.219.94.65's November edits Start with his first edit to Mona the Vampire and step through the following 13 edits by him and others. Knowing nothing about Mona, try sorting this article out. Some other edits are likely vandalism but others are less clear. [6] --A. B. 17:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] Wikibreak

Hi everyone, Sorry I've been a bit quiet the last couple of days, but I'm just planning a trip back to the UK. So I'll be incommunicado, for the next week or so and I'll re-start this around 10th Nov. cheers Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 10:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm back after driving 1100km in 12 hours, gimme a couple of days, and I'll start back up. Now it's bedtime! Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 23:55, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merged from WP:UWLS -- Keeping old warnings makes some clean up easier

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

If I look at that anon's edit and it's changing a date from 1924 to 1928, is that vandalistic? Should it be edited out if subsequent editors haven't spotted it? Being an unfamiliar topic, the answer's unclear to me. A quick way to deal with question is to look at the anon's talk page -- if it's full of warnings, I'll edit it out the new date with a comment to the article's other editors to check the date, either in my edit summary [7] or on the talk page. Otherwise, I assume good faith and move on. Some accounts are virtually vandalism only, but the edits are of a low enough frequency that there may be only one warning or puzzled comment ("why did you do that?") in the last 90 days. Likewise, a talk page full of discussions with other editors about articles quickly shows this is probably a good faith editor.

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

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

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

Pathoschild, procedurally you are absolutely right, however ... as I write this, I'm working my way through 212.219.94.65's latest spree and encountering just these sorts of questions [8]. I've got 23 edits to check from yesterday and today, some to pages heavily edited by other anons. Now I've got to do encyclopedic research on each when questions arise? Ask these additional anons to use edit summaries? Does any editor always do this in these situations? I think I'm plenty conscientious as it is -- from what I can see, most editors (including admins) don't seem to go through vandals' other recent editors, let alone agonize over how far to revert. If we now have to do even more, I think even fewer folks will engage in this sort of action. --A. B. 17:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

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

OK, one final example from 212.219.94.65's November edits Start with his first edit to Mona the Vampire and step through the following 13 edits by him and others. Knowing nothing about Mona, try sorting this article out. Some other edits are likely vandalism but others are less clear. [9] --A. B. 17:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] Overview table

OK I've had a first pass at adding all the warnings to the above that we will cover. I've highlighted warnings because I think after we have done this we should look at the other talk page templates i.e welcome, shared IP, etc. This is only a first pass, have a look through and make any mods you see fit. I think we should look to start this next Monday? I've already assigned myself three sets of warnings, take the others as you see fit. Cheers Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 13:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bots

Does anyone know a good bot writer? I think it may come in handy that as soon as someone uses an old template even with the redirect, it comes in behind, tidies it then send the user a polite message with a link to the new overview table? I'll have a look round but would appreciate any volunteers Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 13:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pop in at wikipedia-spam

You guys should sound off some of this stuff or just talk to the folks at irc://irc.freenode.net/wikipedia-spam-t, the wikipedia-spam talk channel. It's full of RC patrollers/vandal fighters, bot builders and seasoned admins all of whom are looking to squash vandals + spam. Being one of them, I drop a ton of user_talk warnings all over the place, and anyone there could have some good insight into this project. Take Thadius856's many unencyclopedic external link warning templates - we've been trying out template stuff too. JoeSmack ^Talk 19:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Done, left a couple of messages on IRC, and want to get hold of Thadius who has done some of your template work. I think we can incorporate your needs into our templates, which allows a more concerted approach to user page messages. Just need to know what you require out of your warnings, and we can try and find our common ground. Cheers Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 22:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

How has this been going? If nothing, keep trying! :) JoeSmack ^Talk 02:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Left a message on Thadius's talk page, but no response. Cheers Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 08:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is anybody out there?

It's helluva quiet with all these names that keep getting added. C'mon get stuck in pleeaassssseee! Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 14:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm here, but rather busy on Meta at the moment. I'll be able to concentrate on this WikiProject more when I mostly finish up there. :) —{admin} Pathoschild 19:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John Reaves' grid

Just a couple of days ago I ran upon User:John_Reaves/grid - which seems to be a user's individual way of tracking names of warning messages - a similar thing to what we are doing here. It could come in very handy! -- Chuq 07:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

That's the template that started this whole review, it's almost an exact copy of WP:TT. We will be creating an newer version, using the first table on the overview page. Even though it's not complete yet, looks much neater don't you think ;). If you're interested in some work let me know. Cheers Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 08:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Oops, I just got a reply from John R about this, saying he didn't write it :) the page he said it was from was Wikipedia:Template_messages/User_talk_namespace! -- Chuq 08:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy delete, etc (21 Nov)

Reword delete 0 - 2 to reflect as well as text removal or page blanking, it's to cover deletion of any procedural messages on a page, covers speedy delete, AFD, etc. Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 15:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recreate (21 Nov)

Recreation warning 0 - 2 covers spam-warning and recreated Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 15:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Have any been created

Has anybody here created any of the new templates, such as on a temporary page? I would like to help out, and it would be useful to see some of what we are going for. -- kenb215 talk 03:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm starting here, will finish a first pass for {{test}}, {{delete}} and {{vandalism}} over the next couple of days. Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 13:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll probably create a few as well over the next couple of days. // I c e d K o l a ^(Contribs) 18:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd recommend that we're all happy with the template before we go any further, I'll leave it where it is for now, but mod it as you see fit. Cheers Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 19:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Just so I can get a better idea, should the level 2 warning be similar to the one I created for personal use? User:Iced Kola/T2? Than the level 3 warning should be similar to test4? Also, I'll take up the job of Userpage and talk page vandalism templates, and the creating inappropiate pages templates if there's no objections to that. // I c e d K o l a ^(Contribs) 20:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the long reply, and if you already know this stuff. First off, trust me there are no objections for people looking for work. I don't know if you seen them yet but there is an overview page that lists all the new templates, along the same lines as WP:TT. More importantly below that is a list of all the old templates, and this is so we can get the redirects in place, but it also acts as a check list to make sure, all the templates are included in some form with the new system. I've still to do groups 5 & 6 but should have that done in the next day or so. The reason I'm saying this is that I/we might identify old templates that could be incorporated into a new one so I don't really want us to get ahead of ourselves. If you look here it's basically the guidelines written by User:Pathoschild and myself and I'd started doing the deletes, and then realised I could add the speedy delete stuff into it as well. Your T2 warning would be fine as a T1, but there will not be a test3 warning anymore, it will be re-directed to {{vandalism3}} as it's a bit ludicrous to be telling someone we're going to be blocking them for carrying out a test, where as we all know it for what it is, it's vandalism. We would like the test warnings to be for literally when people are carrying out tests, anymore than that it's vandalism. Help your self to the {{tpvX}} and {{creationX}} warnings, just added your names to the overview page as responsible for those warnings. Just do them on a page like my template page we'll get a few pages knocked together, see if there's anything amiss and then we can do them in short order after that. Thanks Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 22:12, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Delete

I'm adding somemore redirects to the overview page, and concerning my deletion proposal on the templates page, about adding the 'deletion of templates' warning to the delete template, I've had no repsonses so tomorrow I'll add them as re-directs. Cheers Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 15:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

OK Ladies and Gentlemen, I think we've waited long enough to garner support for this project, lets get it on!!!! I've had no comments to my delete proposals so I will carry out first versions of the new delete and vandalism warnings, as well as re-doing the test warnings.

Take a copy of my template page here and then create subpages of this project as I have done above. Then post a message saying your done, with the link, and give it a couple of days for other project members to just double check it. Once that's past bad-a-bing, do the redirects and put them into action. The only editors actually doing any new templates so far are myself, User:Pathoschild, and User:Iced Kola.

I've also created the Template:Templatesnotice to put at the bottom of all templates (included in my template page), edit as you see fit. Anyway we've been waiting a couple of months to get here, and I thank you (including the lurkers who have an interest) for your patience.

Right let's see what mess we can make of things. Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 09:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Added myself as "active"

Hi, I just added myself as "active" (by accident). I then realized there was also an "interested" section. While I haven't done anything yet, I want to be more involved than "interested" and if I can, enough to be considered "active", so I left myself there. What is there that I can start on? I've had some experience with reorganizing the templates, as I added the {{spam0}} template, reorganized the spam template nav box, as well as some stuff with getting rid of the -n templates. I just didn't know their was a WikiProject! Let me know what I can do. -- Renesis (talk) 21:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

First of all welcome onboard. If you are familiar with the spam warnings then you are more than welcome to start with them. Start by taking a copy of this template page here and then create this page copy & pasting the template in. Add your name to the overview page with a link to your new page, and then review the redirects, the existing warnings, and try and making everything fit into the new structure. If you can see any redirects I've not done, that could be incorporated into spam, please add them. As I've said to some of the other editors, feel free, we've put some guidelines in place on the harmonisation page, but the rest is upto you, and you can play to your hearts content ;). Cheers Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 23:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

{{spam-warn}} {{spam-notice}} might fit somewhere into your templates. See section 6 Cheers Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 14:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template

I've moded the base template to move the image away from the text and to make it look tidier. I've also added a standard text which looking through the overview can be modified to fit most of our new templates. Here's the base template and I've modified the {{delete}} and {{vandalism}} from templates to follow it. This is only an example so any ideas please feel free I won't be offended, edit away. Anyway I'm off skiing for a long weekend so my work here is done...... for now. P.S. Renesis, Iced Kola & Pathoschild, you've gone quiet, I need you guys to put these in place, Cheers. Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 20:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Block template for IPs of banned users?

Is there any interest for something like this? Banned users' IPs cannot be blocked indefinitely unless they are on static IPs. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 17:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Certainly, there's always interest. With a mind of trying to harmonise the warnings, it could be included in the level 2 block but it wouldn't have exactly the wording. It's Pathoschild domain the blocks and he's on a wikibreak at the mo. Cheers Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 21:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] headers

I was a bit confused by this edit: [10], especially since I can't seem to find the consensus on this talk page, Wikipedia:WikiProject user warnings/Help:Everything or the project page for not including headers in warnings. They seem useful for organizational purposes, and save time we'd have to spend typing a unique header each time we use a warning when only a generic one is really needed. --W.marsh 18:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The guys over at WP:UWLS have discussed this at some length, but for us it's a question of standardisation. For example if we take a standard vandal who works through the warnings very quickly we would end up with a page of headers and when a large proportion of the warnings are only one or two lines long we will end up with more headings than warnings. Where a warning template is given to a good editor with a managed talk page, it would be the issuing editor who would add the header, and in this case one warning would/should suffice. But unfortunately the majority of warnings issued do not stop with one warning, and for the same infraction having a warning header automatically each time is unnecessary, and would only fill up a talk page. Regards Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 21:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject_user_warnings/Creation

I created the article creation warning templates, and I would appreciate if anyone can review them and make any improvements they think would be good. As for the tpv templates, I should get to them on friday or a bit earlier. // I c e d K o l a 22:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Fine for me, I think though we can reword slightly to add the re-creation of article/pages as well. What do you think? Cheers Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 13:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good work!

I stumbled into this page by accident more or less. I think the outlines on the template page are very good. They are clearer than many of the current templates. I've been frequently frustrated with the number of times a vandal can strike before a ban is put in place. On the pages I watch, most are vandalized by anonymous users with a long history of vandalism. I look forward to being able to use this template structure, which will result in faster bans for blatant vandals in my opinion. Keep up the good work. Thanks, Dan Slotman 22:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, it's nice to know there are some poeple out there anticipating our work. Regards Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 15:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] One warning then you're out

Looking at the remaining warnings on the overview page, the warning for releasing another editors personal info and legal threats. IMHO these are warnings that one cannot assume good faith with, they are done with intention and usually for malicious reasons. My idea is that we create a nuclear level of warnings, of a one warning and then a blocked. Whaddya think? Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 08:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree fully. For personal info and legal threats, there should only be a strict level 3 warning. If a user really feels that it was out of good faith one way or another, they can just use {{vandalism}}. // I c e d K o l a 17:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Legal threats are frequently malicious, but not always. I suggest having a level 2 warning while starting at level 3 when appropriate. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-19 01:02Z

[edit] IMPORTANT: Signatures

A quick look through Wikipedia:WikiProject user warnings/Overview made me discover we're not including auto-inserting signatures into the warnings. Since they are mostly made as <div>s or wikitables, a signature dangling below it won't look good. So, maybe we should embed them inside the table/div? Миша13 10:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

mmmmm, bugga just done a few tests and see what you mean. I, and others (see archives), don't like the idea of auto including signatures in templates, as that would change how things are done with other templates possibly. Is there anyother way we can do this then, wikitables?, same as below I only created the template just to get things started, any ideas? Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 17:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

divs and wikitables are practically the same thing. And they're generally a good idea, since unwrapped warnings with images tend to stack ugly on the talk pages. But in case we use divs, we must also embed signatures inside, because there's no other way (except parameters, which is basically same thing) - a sig appended after a table won't magically "hop" into the box. Миша13 20:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Having signatures embedded, and I suppose the whole div/table thing, makes the warnings very brittle. There should be a way to add more text, at least an extra parameter. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-19 01:00Z

---

OK, we need to think carefully about this, I'm willing to wait until we have all the templates for review before we take a decision on this one. I understand the problem but the main reason I took on the work here was to see harmony amongst all templates. For continuing my plans of world domination, after this project I'm most probably going to start looking at all other templates, i.e welcome messages, edit summary, etc and whatever we put into place here I feel should be extended to all templates.

So anyone else working here, roll up roll up, all ideas accepted. Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 11:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Symbols

I think all level 2 should have the "!" in the triangle symbol and all level 3 to have the stop hand symbol. Someone just scrolling through a talk page will be alerted to the warning if they see a symbol like that. TeckWiz^TalkContribs_@ 16:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I concur. Levels 0 & 1 are mild notices/reminders, but levels 2 & 3 usually mention the possibility of a block, which is where things get dead serious. Миша13 16:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

0 & 1 are information notice that assume good faith or doesn't assume anything about the editors actions hence only the information symbol. level 2 is where we start saying watch it, we have our eye on you hence and then level three is OK you've been warned now you have no other chances and taken this way seem logical to me. My only point for Teck is, you say scrolling through a talk page, for the offending editor with this system he should have had one if not two warnings/messages prior to getting the red image so it shouldn't come out of the blue or as a surprise. Misza, please I implore you change the images on the jokes templates ;) Anyway these are only suggestions I have been here doing this for a couple of months now so I may have become entrenched in my ideas, so if I seem hestiant let me know and the same for any new ideas, and thanks for your participation. Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 17:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

It is exactly the "good faith" reason for which I left the original smiley idea on 0 & 1 level joke templates. They're supposed to be used in cases when the editor giving the warning also thinks that the edit was funny, but would like to point out it may not be appropriate. :) For the sake of standarisation, however, I concur that 2 & 3 should have the triangle and hand images as TeckWiz suggested. Миша13 20:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Incase anyone didn't see them this is where we looked at the images. I don't want to re-initiate the whole discussion at this late stage, but am sure we can quickly look at any other ideas, if they're mentioned quickly. Otherwise we'll always be stuck in the same place, as new editors come onboard. Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 08:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] level3 warnings

I don't see the discussion about level 3, I probably missed it. Sorry if I bring a point that has already been discussed.

I have some concerns about the wording of the level3 template: "The next time you vandalise Wikipedia, you will be blocked.". An editor that gets the level3 template is most probably a vandal and might see it as a challenge "you don't dare doing that again". Most of RC changes patrollers however don't have admin tools and can't issue blocks. I think a better wording would be that the next time the user will be reported to an admin for measures. a bit like "The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, you will be reported to the administrative group and may be blocked". -- lucasbfr ^talk 17:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Certainly doesn't sound unreasonable to me, I only put the template together just to get the ball rolling. Maybe wait till all of the templates on the overview are on review and then unless anyone complains change the incorrect ones at the same time, and do the template now. Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 17:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, in my templates I left the original sentence, for consistency. Let's wait until all are created to see. -- lucasbfr ^talk 00:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it should say "the next time you will be reported to an admin", because sometimes the person giving the warning is an admin. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-17 19:59Z

In that case, maybe do like {{test4}} and {{test4alt}}? but I would prefer the "reported to an admin" to be the default behavior (I think most patrollers are not admins) and the create a {{xxx3admin}}? Or maybe add an admin argument to the templates? (for example {{xxx3|Test}} would put the "reported to admins" one and {{xxx3|Test|admin=y}} the admin version? -- lucasbfr ^talk 00:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I still prefer no "will report you to admins" at all, it sounds too much like the childish "I'm going to tell on you" tattletale threat. I believe there was a past discussion on this, not sure where though. Vandals needing to be blocked should be reported at WP:AIAV and should get a firm "you will be blocked" message as their last warning. "You may be blocked" is too weak (only reasonably experienced Wikipedians should be using warning templates anyway, so just say it strongly). —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-19 00:57Z

[edit] Copied from TeckWiz talk page for further concensus.

Thanks for taking on the npa warnings. Just a question why do you consider it's not possible to have a npa0 & 1 warning. IMHO it is possible to give a warning for personal attacks AND assume good faith at the same time. Example, is a new editor not familiar with how editors talk to each other who calls someone an idiot in a minor disagreement the same as an editor calling another an 'effin' loser. The guidelines recommends have warnings 0 - 3 for blockable and 0 - 2 for not blockable, and if we don't try to keep to that we will end up with exactly the same system we have now, bits of warning here and there and no consistency. Just my thoughts whaddya reckon? Cheers again Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 17:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I guess a npa1 can be used. but 0 is definitely too light. If someone for example, brings up on an article talk page how "some idiot" keeps removing one of his details, but also explains why, he's just losing a little of his cool. I guess that that could be an npa1. But, something like capitalizing on the user's talk page "YOU IDIOT!", should definitely deserve a npa2 or 3. Also, anything that would be considered vandalism, except for the fact that it's an attack, like blanking someones userpage with "You (any profanity)!!!" should be considered npa3. TeckWiz^TalkContribs_@ 21:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I would just like to gain some concensus on this matter from the other project members please. Guidelines call for 0 - 3 level warning, and if we start picking and choosing which levels of warning to create then we are IMHO replacing one system of mismatched warnings for another. Looking through WP:NPA I think there is lot of scope for assuming good faith with as another example an editor who has a long and distinguished editing history, who has just got heated under the collar, I would prefer to see all four levels of warning created, and let the issuing editor decide on the level of infraction and the severity of the warning to be issued. Thoughts please. Cheers Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 08:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Khukri, it is possible for a good faith editor to get flustered and say things he doesn't really mean. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-19 01:07Z

[edit] Unsourced

Seem to also cover NOR - suggest we rename those to nor0, nor1, as opposed to unsourced0, unsourced1 etc. Easier to remember and faster to type. Thoughts? KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• Let's keep both names. "Unsourced" may be easier to remember for some people. Either one is fine as the primary name. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-19 01:13Z

[edit] CSD warnings

Hi guys, sorry did not even know this Wikiproject existed.

I thought I would tell you guys three things that I am doing at the moment with CSD warning templates, and see you have any comments or issues.

1. Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace#CSD deletion templates creating a new set of CSD deletion templates to be used instead of CSD warning templates, when an Admin deletes article.
2. Merging of redundant CSD templates Template:nn-notice into Template:nn-warn and Template:spam-notice into Template:spam-warn, as well as any other redundant ones I can find - appropriate process used see talk pages.
3. The heading issue with CSD warning templates has been raised here Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#CSD templates and solution is here Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#CSD templates - HEADINGS. The solution allows for headers if so desired.

I suppose there might be some big issues with the final point, considering one of the Goals on this project is to have NO HEADINGS. But maybe you might want to consider the solution mentioned above - allow best of both worlds. Cheers Lethaniol 15:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi there, doesn't look like there is any problems for us with what you are doing with CSD's even with the headers, as one off messages such as CSD, welcomes, etc, are different from warnings which tend to be used more frequently on the user page. However, as you demonstrated by not knowing we existed, it shows how fragmented the generation of templates is on Wikipedia. I and a couple of other editors have ideas in the near future to bring all message templates under the roof of one project, with an idea to harmonise the format of everything. If you have a look at our redirects page some of the templates you mentioned are on there. It's a large ask, and editors like yourself with experience in certain areas, would be an asset. If you're interested let me know, but it will not get into full flow until the new year until the work slows up here. Regards Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 15:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay will get to it, also would like to help out, will add my name to the list, and help out in new year cheers Lethaniol 16:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New template features

Using some fancy template syntax, I have managed to enrich some existing projects with the following features:

• Optional text, as requested above, carried in the second parameter {{{2}}} - this will be embedded within the message box right after the standard text.
• Optional signatures - embedded signatures are on by default, but if you pass an extra parameter {{...|sig=n}}, it will not be inserted.

All this is done with this piece of code:

{{{2|}}} {{subst:<includeonly></includeonly>#ifeq:{{{sig}}}|n| |~~<includeonly></includeonly>~~}}

Also, we're switching the design from <div>s to wikitables. This has few advantages, including that the images will not "spill" out of the message boxes if the text is very short. Few existing projects have already been converted to the new scheme. You can see a demo on User:Khukri/templates - when creating new templates series, please copy that code (in edit-mode, not by subst:'ing). Thank you, Миша13 17:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Update: all existing templates made so far by people have been updated to the new scheme. Миша13 19:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

And examples now added on discussion pages. Thanks to Misza for all time taken. Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 20:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Excellent. Is this going to add a lot of markup when substituted? (I guess it's really a missing feature in MediaWiki that you can't "fully transclude and remove all template markup".) —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-19 22:36Z

[edit] Removing warning templates

Hi. I've read that it's okay to remove warnings from your own talk page, but have re-discovered what I thought to be the rule, so my question is, when should a template like Template:Removewarn (is there any other like it?) be used, if at all? THanks. Xiner (talk, email) 22:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no policy against removing warnings without archiving them, however it is generally frowned upon. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-19 22:34Z

[edit] Edit summaries

I was just bitten for the first time for leaving an edit summaries reminder on a fellow Wikipedian. Can't say I'm surprised, for I knew something like this would happen. I should've listened more to my gut feelings; the current template may look like a warning to some, even though it should never rise to that level, and while I understand it's guidelines and believe it should be done etc, some people just don't see the point, and until they do, no amount of pleading will change their perspective. I don't know what the solution is. Xiner (talk, email) 22:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Your message to him seemed friendly. I note this user has been blocked before for incivility, personal attacks, and edit warring, so I would just move on. I think the template is fine. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-19 22:43Z

Okay. Thanks. Xiner (talk, email) 23:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Test template redirecting

I don't think {{test}} should redirect to {{test0}} like it says in the table, it should go to test1, there'll be less confusion among editors. --WikiSlasher 02:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this. -- Renesis (talk) 04:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Your wish is my command, done! Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 07:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. The wording for test1 is the old test2 wording, i.e. second warning. Most people using {{test}} probably mean it to be the first warning. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-20 09:36Z

I haven't looked at the exact wording for reference, but I was under the impression that both test0 and test1 were first warnings. (In other words, you start with one or the other.) Is this not the case? -- Renesis (talk) 01:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe this system should work in that every new offending user has to have a level0 warning on their talk page as the start point without question. From then on in if they come back in a week a month time then the start point will be level 1. And to me even if it is blatant vandalism, then it shows we have taken the moral high ground, and not just jumped down someones throat. I've seen alot of posts flying around in other areas of wikipedia, about how quickly one can get to a block. But this is where the discretion of an editor comes into play.

This isn't directed at you Ren but just some rambling thoughts for others passing through to read. If you have an empty talk page and you bosh out straight away a {{uw-vandalism3}} then you'll have no chance of getting a block. But if the editor has received a 0, 2, 3 been blocked then a 1, 2, 3 then I'm sure there are very few admins who will ignore you if the next time you come in straight away with a 3 to a repeating offender/institution. So in the long term it's better to dish out the warnings in the correct order to speed the process up in the long term. Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 09:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The next step

There are only 5 more templates to be taken, so if you have a spare 20 mins please help yourselves.

The next step, once all of the template pages are completed, we will leave the pages on review for a couple of weeks, putting a banner ad on the project page announcing they are for review and any comments are to be left on the talk page and we will do any modifications. I suggest what with Chrimbo and new year, we leave the review period until the 2nd week of January, thoughts please?

After that will be to set an implementation day, we are lucky enough to have a number of admins on the interested and active list. A fair few of our templates are fully protected, so I suggest the day before implementation you (the admins amongst us) change all templates from fully to semi protected so editors like myself can do some of the work. Then we change over all in the quickest possible time including the redirects. Also I recommend that all of us involved meet up on an IRC channel prior to put everything into place to hammer out any details. So when do we go for it? I'm ok most days and I suggest a morning UTC so we can get all of the European and American editors in the same place at the same time at a reasonable hour, and any date except the 21st Jan as it my birthday, and I will be drinking at a rugby match somewhere! Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 09:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Good. Discussion for the change should be widely announced: on {{cent}}, WP:AN, WP:VP. Aaron Breneman has already been preemptively unprotecting warning templates, the subject of a current dispute. I agree that the holiday season should be avoided. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-20 09:34Z

I've done a fair amount of spamming for this over the last couple of months, what with signpost and all that. Hopefully those that haven't heard will start realising somethings a miss when their warnings change on them, and it doesn't have the same meaning as before, which is bound to happen. The only thing I'm not looking forward to is people coming in and saying why weren't they informed, a small group hidden away somewhere, and that they find it all unacceptable. But anyway, in the mean time one thing UW members can do is sit on the recent changes page, and spam any warning issuing editor with the message that can be found here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Khukri (talk • contribs) 10:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC) That is I think the first time I've done that!!!! Bugga there goes my next RfA out of the window ;) Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 13:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. --WikiSlasher 13:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I might also suggest dropping a link on the 'Notices' section of the Community bulletin board as well, perhaps with some sort of laymen's education or quick summary of what has/is going down on a separate link sos people can catch up. Put in a quick talk into the IRC for #wikipedia, #en-wikipedia, #vandalproof (these templates might fuck up their program? talk to User:AmiDaniel), #wikipedia-spam-t and #vandalism-en-wp. Finally, let the "wikipedia news world" know - Signpost tipline, Wikizine (aka Walter's meta talkpage) and WikipediaWeekly - sos they can let their readers in on it. JoeSmack ^Talk 15:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I've done

• Signpost
• Village pump
• Admin notice board
• couple of IRC channels
• The VP mob, via the VP page and the IRC channel.
• Indiscriminate spam attacks on RC patrollers.
• Admins I know of the top of my head involved in RC patrol

So if someone else can do the others please, and add them to this list. Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 11:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Recently? Considering this is all coming to a head, it might be worth it to get some current updates to these places (signpost, VP etc) JoeSmack ^Talk 20:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merging of projects

There's another project looking at the layout of warnings, who as far as I can see have a similar remit to us. I left a message with them a couple of weeks back with no responses, but I can see no reason why we don't merge their project into ours. Any thought please? Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 11:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

OK spoken to Pathoschild and he's for it am now leaving messages with the members. So unless I get any response against it, within the next couple of days I will merge and redirect the Wikipedia:WikiProject on user warning layout standardisation to this project. As I've stated before it is in Wikipedia's best interest that there is one sole project looking after templates. So if anyone knows of any other fringe (I mean that with respect) projects let me know and I will look to the synergies and merging of project. In the end I would like to see this project here to help and become the driving force behind WP:UTM and have UTM as the only project looking after templates. Cheers Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 10:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Last chance, will merge them this evening. Cheers Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 08:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Please do, there's barely enough critical mass of active participants to operate one WikiProject. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-27 12:24Z

Done and dusted, see below. What's next? Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 18:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merged from WP:UWLS--WP:UW

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

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

All members have been informed, if there are no further responses by 27th December, this project will be merged with WP:UW. Regards Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 12:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not thoroughly convinced of a merge because even though both projects are about warning templates, they seem to me to be very different things. By that, I mean WP:UW seems to be about standardising the look and wording of the templates that are posted to user talk pages. While WP:UWLS seems to be about making a standard layout of templates that are posted to user talk pages; the monthly headers and bullets and so on. --Geniac 17:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

As you mentioned both project are about warning templates, and with the amount of work we have recently taken on, to add the headers and bullets, etc would not be a huge amount of work. Also if the members here were willing to come over with the work then I can see no difference on how the work is being carried out, but just where it is being done. Eventually I would like to create a one stop shop for all templates, so new editors don't bounce around from pillar to post if they have any questions and all templates are managed from one central location. Once we have done the leveled warnings, hopefully finished mid-end Jan, we will be starting on welcome templates, sharedip and all other single issue templates, and I think it would be good if we are all singing off the same hymn sheet instead of one group doing the borders, another doing the text, and another deciding what size we should do the images. Cheers Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 21:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I understand the preference for a one stop shop; I was just concerned that merging projects with different goals would mean that one or the other would be lost in the shuffle. I assume you mean for everything user talk namespace template related, not all templates (navboxes, infoboxes, etc)? --Geniac 01:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Yep, only userspace. Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 09:06, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm OK with the merge now and happy with the answers to my questions. --Geniac 13:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page move templates

I noticed on the overview page that the page move templates are listed with question marks at the bottom of the first redirect table. Is there a reason that they haven't been moved to the main section? It seems as if it could be included easily, by adding this line to the end:

Page moves	{{move0}}	{{move1}}	{{move2}}	{{move3}}	Yes	Unassigned	Not started

-- kenb215 talk 23:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Add away, I think I only questioned marked it as I wasn't sure at the time if I could merge it with something else. Cheers Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 11:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Added. -- kenb215 talk 04:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Modifying/adding parameter to {{subst:UE}}

Hi. I'm really not sure where to ask this question, but here goes. I'm involved with Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English, which lists and evaluates non-English pages before they are PROD'ed, speedied, or put up for AfD. As part of that work, we warn the posters of the non-English content, using {{subst:UE}}. Now, that template already has one optional parameter, to list the name of the article posted. But I would really like there to be another such parameter, where we could specify the language edition Wikipedia of the content. That could produce a message encouraging the user to contribute to that specific language Wikipedia. Basically, I'm thinking something like {{subst:UE|Article|ru.wikipedia.org}}. At PNT, users are already identifying language-of-content, and I really think this modification could be helpful. How/where do I propose this template modification? Thanks for the assistance. --Fsotrain⁰⁹ 20:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I think you might have the wrong place. I'd try Wikipedia:Help desk or Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance) with this exact same post. Good luck! JoeSmack ^Talk 21:04, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Transfering

When should we start transferring the templates on the subpages to their new pages? TeckWiz^TalkContribs_@ 17:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

As alot of the template names are already used, we can't roll them out piecemeal until they are all finished, as we will end up with a hotchpotch of warnings and levels. When all of the templates are finished and have a successful review period, then we'll start implementing, but lets get them all finished first. I think third/fourth week in Jan will be a likely time for roll out. If you want something to do in the meantime, as well as the outstanding templates, Joesmack had mentioned [[[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_user_warnings#The_next_step|here]] about re-doing some of the notify alls, if you want to help out. Cheers Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 18:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Block Templates

Okay-I'm not that good at parser functions, but from looking at the template, I was able to remove one function that was in the template twice. However, the article function doesn't seem to working the way that the usage stated, and the way it should be if you look at which function number it is. Help is needed. TeckWiz^TalkContribs_@ 17:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Not a problem ;) Pathoschild is on a wikibreak at the moment working in wikimedia, so his template isn't up for review yet. I'll leave it a week or so and then I'll leave him a message, as round here there's a couple who can do the funstions pretty good, Misza et al, if he doesn't come back in time. Cheers Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 18:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Usage Notices

It seems that the usage template, which is not included in transclusioning, can sometimes differ from the actual usage, like the block templates. So, I think that the actual usage template should be subst'd on the template page, and then fixed to conform with the template it's talking about. TeckWiz^TalkContribs_@ 18:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Where to redirect

On the overview page, when it lists where to redirect, what do the new sections with the number 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 mean? TeckWiz^TalkContribs_@ 18:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

They're just arbitrary page breaks otherwise you're editing one monster page. Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 18:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism Templates for WP:UW

Hope you don't mind TeckWiz, but I copied your post over from my talk page, as it's quite a pertinant discussion, and needs the whole projects input.

Since we have separated test templates and vandalism templates, I don't see why we should have a vandalism level 0. If you can't give it above a 0, it's really a test, not vandalism, as current guidelines state to start at level 2 for nonsense and such. I personally don't even think there should be a vand1, but other users do so it should stay. I think there should be no level 0 for other types of vandalism also, like blanking. TeckWiz^TalkContribs_@ 18:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

The reason (in my opinion) that we have level 0 with the new system for all templates is that we have to assume good faith with first time editors. I know it's contradictory to AGF with someone who has just left "I love Doris" on a page. But if we at first have concilatory tones try to educate someone about their expected composure whilst editing, then we might just get another good editor out it. I know it's a pain in the proverbial after a night of RCP'ing where one just assumes the worst in every editor. We have to take the moral high ground, and be always reasonable to new editors. But as soon as someone has one level0 warning on their page, that's it, they've been told and it's open season if they choose to vandalise again. I also believe it's important that you add this for the npa warnings, because as soon as we deviate from the new layout then we are just negatiing the reason for having a new system and are just recreating the old, with a varied system of warnings. Would appreciate other members thoughts here please. Cheers Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 18:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deal-killing issue

All of this work is admirable, but there is something that is going to cause massive problems when this is implemented, and may even cause all of these templates to be rolled back: The proposed list has the {{test0}}, {{test1}}, {{test2}}, {{test3}} and {{block}} scale, but it eliminates the {{test4}} level, making it equal to a current {{test5}}. Administrators who don't RC patrol, vandal patrollers coming back from wikibreaks, or even well-informed users already know that {{test4}} means final warning. Any attempts to change that are going to go against a deeply engraved grain, and may meet considerable resistance. It would be much easier to just keep {{test4}} and have the rest of the changes adjust to having one more level. Titoxd^(?!?) 22:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Test 4 will redirect to the new test3. See Wikipedia:WikiProject user warnings/Overview#Redirect overview --TeckWiz^TalkContribs_@ 22:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Then you are eliminating test2, which is equally as bad. Titoxd^(?!?) 22:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

No you aren't. {{test3}} is going to be re-written to the new template, and {{test4}} is going to redirect to {{test3}} to stop any problems. {{test2}} is going to be re-written into the new test2. Iced Kola 03:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

But you're still eliminating a level. That is not a good idea, as most users are already used to the 1->4 scale. Titoxd^(?!?) 22:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

In two and a half months your the first editor who I've come across who wants to keep all the levels. Reducing the number down removes ambiguity, most users are blocked after three warnings so long as they are given the final warning beit test4 or in future vandalism3, why have five, 0 - 4? I think with the new ideas of Quarl mentioned below and the redirects I think have almost every angle covered. If some people might not like it, because its a change to their routine, this is not a valid reason for stopping the project now. If however it's people might not like it because <<insert reason here>> then we will have a look but I'll say up until this point we seemed to have some form of consensus. Change isn't necessarily a bad thing, but the more we can make users aware and the reasons behind the project then the less painful the change will be. Cheers Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 23:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

That I'm the only one who has seen this does not make the complaint less valid. Backwards compatibility is a proper reason to not change things. I haven't seen one rationale why removing a level is desirable, much less needed. Titoxd^(?!?) 23:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I just gave one removing ambiguity. Look here WP:UTM levels 0, 1, & 2, why have a good faith edit, and a general note and then a could be seen as ..... Have a look at AIV, at the different combinations of warnings that vandals receive before they are reported. If someone doesn't assume good faith, should all 5 levels of warning be applied? I think if you read through all the talk pages, speak to Pathoschild etc, you'll find more than enough rationale for the change. What is your argument for keeping 5 levels of warning? Are you speaking from personal concern, where do you see the holes? Backwards compatibilty is covered anyhoo, as I said before with the naming convention and the redirects, that was our first concern. I certainly haven't seen a deal killing issue as of yet. Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 00:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see several issues. Let's tackle them one by one:

1 First, the way I see test0 applied is when an RC patroller is either not sure about the vandalistic nature of an edit, or believes that the edit is innocuous enough to not receive a test1. Rarely, if ever, a vandal goes from test0 to test5, because test0 is reserved for edits that can be stretched as non-vandalistic.

Hence we have a good faith level of warning, if a warning/message is to be issued and the editor is unsure a good faith warning level0 would be given, this has not changed. Also test warnings will not be blockable it will be purely be for editing tests, so if you see someone righting ssdfdddfffgggggg you can give test warnings instead of vandalism. K

2 When a vandal is blocked, it is usually considered proper to skip test1 and begin with test2. In the new list, you would only have two warnings before a block, and that is not enough.

Wrong where you start has just changed. All new talk pages will commence with a level 0 warning. If they are a returning vandal you start straight away at 1 and go from there with three other warning levels to give. K

3 The current system is properly documented, and in fact, is known by most users, whether they RC patrol or not. A change of this magnitude would require rewriting all of Wikipedia's anti-vandalism documentation, which I truly don't see the benefit of.

and documentation can be changed, mindsets can be changed, as I said before because people might not like change it is not a valid reason. K

4 Whether many vandals are blocked after three warnings is irrelevant - many others (I argue most) are blocked after four, and it is the admin's prerogative to determine whether the warnings were applied fairly or not. Hence, reports at WP:AIV are summarily dismissed from time to time due to improper warnings.

Why is it irrelevant, because blocks are sometimes applied incrrectly is not a reason. If a vandal or an insulter is given three warning will a fourth make any difference if they are given in the correct order. 1) this is unacceptable behaviour, 2) Please do not continue, 3) this is your last warning. WP:VAND only states that warnings do no not need to be applied in the correct order before a block, is given not how many. K

5 Personally, I think the labels at the top of WP:UTM are misleading - test1 is not a general warning, and test2 is not a possible violation. They're levels of severity, and many other admins see them as such. I've seen {{bv}} misused a lot because only the latter columns have a header that indicates a clear problem is occuring. I can't buy the ambiguity reason because of this.

Hence the reason to get rid of these anachronistic templates, and create a well structured system, where every warning fits into a table, so people know exactly the severity of every warning. K

Finally, I knew about this project when Pathoschild began it, as he invited me to join. I declined the offer at the time, but I was curious to see what was going on and I ran into this. I do not believe that the issues here are visible enough to support a change of this magnitude if challenged. Titoxd^(?!?) 00:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

What magnitude? It is not that big an issue. I'm trying to answer every single one of your questions reasonably, but most of this has been discussed through all the talk pages. And I get the feeling you will not be swayed and most of the arguments are from a personal wish not to see change. So we can get to some form of concensus.

1. Will the redirects cover your backward compatibility issue, you never responded, if not why and how do you see that we can correct this?
2. If we make a best attempt to make sure the documentation is in order explaining rationale, basically what we have discussed here, will this cover the some users might not like it argument.
3. Can you show me the documentation that lists the order of how warnings are given so we can change them in the future.

It's very clear your position and I personally don't think what ever I demonstrate or say here will change your opinion. So we are at an impass, do we continue or not, where do we go from here, what do we need to do to assuage your concerns? Comme tu veux ol son. Cheers Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 09:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Certainly, continue. I really like the progress this project is making; the current template list is disorganized as a result of growing organically for so long, and it becomes really frustrating when one is looking for something similar to test3 for adding unsourced material and finding it doesn't exist. The idea Physicq210 brings up would be an adequate compromise, IMO. Titoxd^(?!?) 01:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Just double checked the overview table was correct with only test warnings level 0 - 2, but I'd messed the redirects table up. test4 will redirect to vandalism3 as the final warning, and test3 will move to vandalism2 as the severe warning. The test warnings aren't blockable.

Yes I'm sure there are going to be problems with people issuing warnings when it doesn't read the same as they thought it would. Eliminating anything isn't bad, it's just involves a change of mindset and an understanding of why this is being done. Once implemented, I'm sure there will be people suddenly coming in here suggesting we should have done things differently. I've contacted as many groups/projects and publicised this as much as I could, and if anyone else would like to do some more please feel free. But if we hang around trying to make sure that everyone is happy, we will never get this off the ground and there has to come a time where we have to just go for broke and put a system in place that can last a long time.

I personally suspect the changeover will be quite short, look at all of you when you first started RC Patrolling it didn't take long to find out about warnings and the such. And I think the changeover will be the same, people will get curious why something is different they will go to the template page, or it's talk page and we'll leave notices everywhere. Change doesn't have to be difficult, and I've already seen on quite a few talk pages, members letting other groups know that there are changes afoot.

My only real major concern, is the vandal tools guys. I've told the VP lot but I think once we enter the review period on all the templates, then we can analyse all the impacts and we'll have a couple of weeks to hopefully redress the issues. And on that note there are only 5 templates not assigned, I've done 4 already, Lucas and a couple of others have done their fair share so please, someone finish them off, so we can get to the review phase. Cheers Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 10:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Alternatively, we can just shift all the levels up one; for example the current test0 is test1, test1 is test2, test2 is test3, etc. I'm only suggesting, as a 1 -> 4 system is easier to remember than a 0 -> 3 system (at least to me). -²¹⁰physicq (c) 00:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New names for templates

The problem of level changing (agreeing with Tixtoxd that changing from the levels we're all used to will create mistakes and have huge pushback), plus the difficult implementation problems, are solved if the new templates are all installed at new names. That way the old ones can be slowly deprecated over time, as the migration process may take months, given number of people, not to mention programs, used to them. Redirecting existing testN templates to other existing testN templates is asking for trouble. We might use creativity to come up with new pithy names, or use a new common prefix, such as "uw-". —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-29 23:03Z

I like Quarl's idea of "uw". This will help separate it from non user warning templates, as there are probably templates to put on article pages like POV, which could be under the same current names proposed know for the POV warning. It also fixes that "I didn't know they got changed" problem. --TeckWiz^TalkContribs_@ 03:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The only template this will effect with an huge consequence is the test templates, and to a lesser degree the spam, agf's, etc and if you look at the template table, most of the new templates are redlinks. I don't mind adding uw if other members think it'll be worth while, but I've already made my thoughts clear on this talk page on the changeover period. Yes it'll be turbulent, but certainly not insurmountable. We are getting to the point where there are enough of us keen to do the work to hopefully see this thing sail through. Look at this talk page now, someone asks a question, and instantly there's a couple of you at hand to jump on the subject. Whereas before weeks would go by here, without a response to a question, so thankyou all. The only other thing with the uw tag is it might be a mnemonic that can identify which project is responsible for the template at a glance, but that's already included in this {{Templatesnotice}}, so comme tu veux (up to you). Cheers Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 10:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I do like the uw prefix as a mnemonic, making it much easier to find templates, and for namespacing, to prevent collisions like the POV example TeckWiz pointed out. Also I think you may underestimate the amount of controversy a relatively small change can generate, see examples at WP:LAME, current controversy in WP:NC-TV. The scope of this project is susceptible to the bikeshed problem. On Wikipedia, where there is no authority (with exceptions) to declare consensus in the typical debate, a small minority can effectively filibuster any en masse change. I really think this turbulence should be avoided if at all possible, and new names will make this go much smoother. In-place renaming would require a huge coordination (for example, how do you simulatenously also change all users' userscripts?). I can pretty much guarantee that if we change for example test3 => test2 that there will be complaints for months, but more likely the changes would be rolled back before then or even vetoed from the start. On the other hand if we create uw-test2 then we can leisurely deprecate test3 towards uw-test2 at some point in the future. As for the recent incoming commentators, it might be because of the I put a notice on {{cent}}, or somewhere else someone has announced recently. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-30 11:18Z

I am for Khukri's solution as to not worry about the bikeshed problem and let people deal with it, but I'm leaning more towards Quarl's uw- incorporation; there's no good reason why having both is a bad idea (at least for a time) before the old is phased out for the new. JoeSmack ^Talk 17:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)