Template talk:Blatantvandal

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Template:Blatantvandal is permanently protected from editing, as it is a heavily used or visible template.

Substantial changes should be proposed here, and made by administrators if the proposal is uncontroversial, or has been discussed and is supported by consensus. Use {{editprotected}} to attract the attention of an administrator in such cases.
Any contributor may edit the template's documentation to add usage notes, categories or interwiki links.

Contents

[edit] Intent

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

[edit] TfD debate

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

[edit] May -> Will

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

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

[edit] List format?

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

Reverted, since it was unexplained at this time. --Doc ask? 09:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Particularly in the case of blatant vandals, warnings are most often used in lists, whether or not list syntax is used: there are several warnings one after another in chronological order until the user stops or is blocked. Most Wikipedians who use warning templates are either unaware of the list syntax or don't care about warning organisation, such that every of the several hundred pages where the list organisation is now used must be periodically formatted. Implementing the list syntax into the template simplifies organisation of talk pages, particularly those with many warnings. For an example of the list form, see 202.6.138.34's talk page; particularly, compare the ease with which an administrator can overview the intervention process to the difficulty in doing so without the list organisation (oldid 30781449). // Pathoschild 09:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
These changes have been applied to a large number of templates; if you would like to comment further, please see my talk page. // Pathoschild 09:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Worse than useless

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

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

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

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

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

p.s. you don't have to go test ... test4, that's not a good argument for this. just block the jerk after a 'test' if they keep on, and are blatant. the real point is just to let them know someone is watching. and hopefully, someone they feel bad about annoying, because we've just been so darn nice. Derex 18:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
I reverted the wording to that of an older revision. As said above, we should be nice to the vandals. The friendly "Welcome to Wikipedia" is more likely to encourage vandals to stop vandalizing, provided that they are not repeat vandals. Also, the phrase "Wikipedia encyclopedia" just sounds strange. --Ixfd64 19:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
I totally disagree with that. If I was a vandal and I saw a message that actually welcomed me I would laugh and think what a gullible bunch of naive sissies Wikipedia was and would then continue to vandalize. I really do not see that saying welcome is doing any good at all. Arniep 21:35, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

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

I do like it, I just cannot see why we have to say welcome. Arniep 23:43, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Doesn't really matter. We give people the benefit of the doubt once. If they're genuinely just messing around and have their heads screwed on, they'll take it in the spirit it was intended; "You're welcome to edit Wikipedia, but not in that way". The consequences are clear, we're being polite once.
If this "welcome" encourages people to blatantly vandalise again, then they'll be blocked next time round.
The only issue is whether I give a ---- whether some vandal might think I'm a "sissy", and I can tell you right now that personally I really don't give a ---- what they think of me or anyone else at Wikipedia. Fourohfour 12:18, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
I rarely use this now, usually only in cases of multiple vandalism or offensive language/slander. I prefer to use {{verror2}} for deliberate false info, or {{test2}} for nonsense. Arniep 13:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Weak

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

Well, as you might know, apparently I can't. But were I able to, I'd have it say the following:
Unconstructive edits are considered vandalism, and if you continue in this manner
you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider
improving rather than damaging the hard work of others. Thanks.
64.213.196.4 21:20, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Name change proposal

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

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

When someone deliberately alters an article for disruptive expressive (incl. POINT) or plainly destructive ends, that's not a test, it's vandalism. {{Blatantvandal}} is an appropriate name IMO. - Keith D. Tyler 19:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hard work?

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

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

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

[edit] Recent rewording

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

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

[edit] "unconstructive edits are considered vandalism"?

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

That makes sense. How you suggest to reword? Femto 11:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
How about "edits which attempt to compromise the integrity and reliability of the encyclopedia"? That hews pretty close to the actual text of Wikipedia:Vandalism... -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:57, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Changes

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


OK, Sir Nick reverted.

Currently

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

Proposed

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

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

I don't see much of a difference. All that's changed is the phrasing, and the former is more grammatically correct. Sorry, but I side with Sir Nick unless you make a real difference - try! :) Nihiltres 02:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
It would seem that "intentional defacing of article pages" instead of "unconstructive edits" would be more appropriate to the circumstances.--I already forgot 21:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Amusing, but possibly useful idea

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

Err...I don't think that is a good idea. I doubt vandals would care. — Seadog_MS 05:31, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christ...

People should stop misusing this template. I saw some guy give an IP this warning because he/she added an obscenity to the sandbox. oTHErONE (Contribs) 14:23, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moved documentation

Hi, I've moved the documentation from this Talk page to the Template:Blatantvandal/doc subpage, as recommended in Wikipedia:Template doc page pattern. Please edit the template to:

[[Image:Stop hand.svg|left|30px]] Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the [[Wikipedia:Introduction|welcome page]] if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits{{#if:{{{1|}}}|, such as those you made to [[:{{{1}}}]],}} are considered [[Wikipedia:Vandalism|vandalism]] and immediately reverted. If you continue in this manner you may be '''[[Wikipedia:blocking policy|blocked]] from editing without further warning'''. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you. <!-- Template:Blatantvandal (serious warning) --><noinclude>
{{protected template}}
{{{{FULLPAGENAME}}/doc}}
<!-- Add cats and interwikis to the /doc subpage, not here! -->
</noinclude>

Thanks. +mwtoews 04:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. Luna Santin 05:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Usage

I find this warning template to be misused by a lot of editors. When it says "Welcome to Wikipedia", doesn't that imply that this is to be used as an initial warning only? I find editors continuing to use this template on talk pages of IPs that have been blocked repeatedly. I don't think that a vandal-only user needs to be welcomed again. I've even seen this immediately following a test4 warning issued hours earlier!

If you come across an incident of particularly egregious vandalism from a repeat offender, go straight to test4. --Sable232 13:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] image

I would like to replace the stop hand image currently there with Image:Stop.png as Template:indefblock was recently changed to show a better image. Tellyaddict 17:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Will that be consistent with the other vandal templates? CMummert · talk 17:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, I just thought that since the {{indefblock}} template had been changed to a better and higher quality image that it would like better if this one too was replaced.Tellyaddict 18:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
{{uw-vandalism4}} and its kin have the same image as this one. It's convenient to have the same image represent the same "level" of warning (since you don't have to read the text as closely when scanning the talk page for warnings). There are lots of parallel templates here that all use this image. I would suggest making a proposal on Wikipedia:Template_messages/User_talk_namespace. I'm going to remove the {{editprotected}} for now; feel free to add it again if there is consensus to change the icon. CMummert · talk 19:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I would like the word "are" placed in between the words "and" and "immediately". I think this would make the sentence grammatically correct. -- P.B. Pilhet 22:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for pointing that out. ShadowHalo 23:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
No problem :-) -- P.B. Pilhet 21:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit req.

{{editprotected}} I realised just recently that one of my above edit requests was decliend and I said to use a totally different image which I didn't mean to say, so I would like an admin to add Image:Stop hand nuvola.svg to it as most user warnings are being converted to this and other nuvola svg files. Thank you. Tellyaddict 14:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll leave this up a while before making the change. Sometimes such changes to images in templates prove to be unexpectedly contentious, so I just want to make sure it doesn't attract any opposition first. --ais523 15:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I please beg you not to change the image. The new proposed image is inferior to the current one as it contains a pointless, but I guess "cool" glare. I work from multiple workstations and the added "glare" to the nuvola makes the image less obvious and somewhat annoying on some monitors (set for other user’s personal pref). What is the point of adding a glare to an image anyway? I think we need to come up with a svg file that is less cool and more to the point (like the current one). Don’t get me wrong, cool is good, but I think function should come first as some of us use this tag on a regular basis. -- I already forgot  talk  21:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Like Ais523, I will not make this change until there is consensus for it. This is reaffirmed by the above 'oppose'. Daniel Bryant 01:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
This template agrees with {{test4}}, and dates back to that era, so I think it is very likely that if the image is changed it will only lead to a long discussion and a revert by the people who still use the old templates. Until there is consensus to change all the user warning templates to be consistent, changing them one at a time is more trouble than it's worth. I'm going to disable the editprotected tag. CMummert · talk 02:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
The Proposed image is more concistent with all the other templates as they all use Image:Stop hand nuvola.svg. Why is it ok for all the other templates to use Image:Stop hand nuvola.svg but this template uses Image:Stop hand.svg? --Andrew Hampe Talk 03:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Uh...Sorry for the debate here. I have to admit I’m a bit of a twit for completely forgetting about being color blind. The colors I have a problem with are RED and green. I see colours fine, but I see them with less clarity than most so that's my problem, not the nuvola pic. I apologize for getting into the discussion. -- I already forgot  talk  08:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually, it would be good to have someone who doesn't distinguish read and green to look through a lot of the templates and report on which images are too similar. According to color blindness this trait is shared by 7 to 10 percent of men, so it is something we should take into consideration when making images for templates. CMummert · talk 11:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm in favour of changing the image... It has been superseded by the nuvola version! Chrisch 00:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)