Template talk:Vblock

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Signatures and "By Wikipedia"

What about changing this template so 1 is blocking admin and 2 is duration? Wikibofh 19:06, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Apparently that is not technically possible. Putting signatures in templates causes a lot of problems. They are never put in. people sign after templates, not in them. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 19:11, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't want a sig, I just want the admin name. So it would be something like
{{subst:vblock|[[User:Wikibofh|Wikibofh]]|3.1415 hours}}
Right now it says "by Wikipedia" which seems awkward at best, and incorrect at worst. Wikibofh 19:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Templates do not use signatures in them. It is that simple. Apparently they cause major technical problems and are not to be used. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 19:20, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I'll take your word for it. How about we get rid of the "by Wikipedia" text. I don't think it adds anything. Wikibofh 19:25, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Admins are banning and blocking people on behalf of Wikipedia, not by themselves and for that reason templates say it. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 19:36, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
But the wikipedia isn't an entitity capable of action. I can see being banned from it, but not by it or on behalf of it. Regardless, I don't feel strongly enough about it to make it a big issue.  :) Wikibofh 19:50, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Some templates do have a signature embedding feature. Take a look at Template:Test5-n; it takes "~~~~" as the second parameter, and produces a nice, signed notice with an embedded signature. However, I prefer to follow my notices with a sig outside the box, so I'll leave this one without an embedded sig. However, as per apparent consensus here, I'll remove the "by Wikipedia" from the notice. I'll also restore the courier font for the {{unblock}} quote; this is how instructions are usually given for verbatim source-code and such. Owen× ☎ 20:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Formatting

Removed courier. It is not necessary and is only useful if it is intended to make the user physically throw up. It is absolutely hideous and out of scale with everything around it. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 20:34, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I've changed it from forcing a font to using the <code> attribute, which should work ok on most browsers. Please take a look and let me know if this still makes you physically throw up... Thanks! Owen× ☎ 22:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Makes it white inside the orange box from Firefox. I didn't mind either way. Wikibofh 23:02, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Much much better. That is fine. Imagine that about three times the size and s p r e a d out and you have an idea what it was showing as. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 23:46, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Redesign

I've redesigned the template quite a bit, so I'll present the changes in list form:

  • The template now uses a CSS div box instead of an HTML table, so that it no longer breaks formatted lists of warnings.
  • The classes have been changed from "notice noprint" to the more appropriate "messagebox standard-talk". These classes also virtually eliminate the need for the extra inline CSS.
  • The value for time now has the default value "a short period of time", which will be displayed if you forget to fill in the parameter.
  • Following on previous discussions on this page, there's now an optional parameter for signatures. If you don't specify a value (ie, {{vblock|seven seconds}}), it will default to blank.
  • Various aspects of the template have been changed a little to make the template slightly less massive.
  • The template has been add to Category:User warning templates.

I think that just about covers everything. Any critiques, complaints, suggestions, or questions? // Pathoschild 21:27, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I have removed the short from "short period of time". The block may on occasion be for a long period if the user has been repeatedly blocked (eg, 1 week, 1 month, etc). Saying "short" in those cases would be misleading. All they need to know is that it is for a specific period of time. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 22:21, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User space

I think we should remove the part that removing the warning is considered vandalism. The warning is to be placed in one's user space, so that person should have the right to remove it.

FLaRN2005 16:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually no, a user does not have the right to remove a block notice. It is necessary that it be on view so that other users are aware of it in case that user tries to sneak back as a sockpuppet. Users have reappeared as sockpuppets to remove notices to hide the fact of the ban. Other users have then been unaware of it. It is vital that people know a person has been blocked. A block notice has to stay in place. I'm reverting the change. It was well meaning but impractical with a block notice. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 00:37, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

  • See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Removing_warnings_from_user_talk_pages_.3D_vandalism.; you and Radiant appear to disagree about this. If we are going to describe this as vandalism we should probably at least have agreement that it is not okay. Also, if we are going to keep this warning it should reflect that the notice can be removed when the block expires. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Hm, interesting. Actually I agree with Fear that it's bad form to remove block notices et al, at least for a reasonable time (no sense in keeping them on for months as a 'mark of shame'). On the other hand some people regularly blank their talk page period (granted, many of those users border on the trollish), many people support the right for people to do as they please within userspace (though I strongly contest that in cases of disruption or attacks). Ultimately, I believe an official rule against removing templates from your talk page would be unenforceable. The solution, therefore, would be to provide clear edit summaries whenever adding one, so that a potentially-blocking admin can pick them out of the history. Radiant_>|< 01:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
A user's talk page is his own living room - it's up to him whether he chooses to remove comments, including warnings. We really should try to interfere as little as possible with a user's own space. This really shouldn't be a problem. When adding a warning to a user's talk page, make sure the edit summary says it is a warning and briefly what it is for. Then anyone seeing the history of the talk page knows that the warning was made, jguk 20:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
You obviously haven't been dealing much with vandals. What invariably happens with anon IP vandals is that within a minute of posting this tag on their talk page, they wipe it clean, confusing the next admin that comes along. It's unreasonable to expect every admin or RC patroller to check the history and the block log of every anonymous vandal they encounter; our job is already hard enough as it is.
An anon IP talk page is not his own living room. It is a page used to communicate with him and anyone else using that IP, as well as with other people who are trying to fight vandalism from that source. Blanking warnings immediately after they are issued is a clear act of vandalism (see WP:VAND under "Talk page vandalism"!), and they deserve to be informed that this is the case. With all due respect, I am reverting back to Jtdirl's 19:38, 29 December 2005 version. Jtdirl and I, along with other RC-patrol admins, use this template every day; I'd appreciate it if you let us do our job. If you want to amend the notice to allow for removal once the block expires, be my guest. Owen× ☎ 21:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

It's not unreasonable to check the history of a page you want to know the history of. Userspace very much is the user's domain - I see no pressing need to change this principle, jguk 21:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. It is a long-standing policy that a user may do what they want with their own userspace (subject to using it for personal attacks/advertising), and ArbCom has confirmed this policy in a number of cases. Trying to force a message to stay in a user's userspace despite that user clearly demonstrating that they don't want it there is considered disruptive and abusive. This policy is so long-standing that it is inappropriate to seek to over-ride it via a discussion on one proposed template's talk page.

Combatting vandalism is important - but that does not mean we should take measures that interfere with the normal operation of Wikipedia to do so. If someone's vandalising - block them. Put a message on their talk page and leave a clear edit summary for all to see.

My take on this is the opposite. I have seen too many very inexperienced admins come in and over-react to situations - labelling people as vandals who are not, misunderstanding fundamental policies, and all sorts of other mistakes. I really don't see it as appropriate to give those admins so powerful a hand that they can insist that their musings remain evermore on a user's talkpage.

Also, many, many people remove warnings of various sorts from their talkpages on a daily basis. Insisting on keeping those warnings on talkpages, when it has happened, has only exacerbated and increased the dispute. It would be foolish to go down the route of suggesting that anyone who removes a warning from their userpage should be blocked. I oppose the idea wholeheartedly, jguk 22:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with removing that text - seems pointlessly aggressive. violet/riga (t) 22:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another thought

Surely you'd have to look at a user's edit history to see that it was that user that removed the template that has the warning on anyway? Given you'd have to do this anyway, what's wrong with my initial suggestion of changing the template so that it does not have the "do not remove or else" and relying on edit summaries in the history? jguk 22:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

  • I would invite you to peruse this and tell me how you would propose we effectively determine what warnings/actions have taken place if the user is blanking the page. Or even better, for a registered user, check out User_talk:Gimmiet with the associated history. Of course I tend to use Template:Repeat vandal a lot for the IP based, but what if they keep removing that? History is a good thing. Wikibofh(talk) 22:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

If those making warnings and blocks always put the word "warning" or "block" as appropriate in the edit summary, then they can easily be found by searching for those words in the edit history. Besides, could you answer my point as to how you'd know that a warning message had been removed without checking the edit history anyway? I agree we need zero-tolerance on those who aren't here to help the encyclopaedia, but I don't think this proposal is the way to do it, jguk 22:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

  • I don't routinely check the history because I will rollback those changes to the user's talk and I expect other admins do the same. In other words, I expect the page to be a reasonable approximation of the past and if the user tries to hide that, I think it's simple vandalism. Wikibofh(talk) 15:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
It sounds like your beef is with the policy rather than with the template. Currently, removing other's warnings from a talk page is considered vandalism, and most admins would act on that. I think it is only fair to warn a vandal of this policy rather than just surprise him with an extention of the block. However, if the current wording comes across as too hostile, I'd be happy to find a more pleasant version, as long as the basic message is there. Vandals—especially anonymous ones—do not have the right to blank their talk page and hide warnings issued against them in the midst of their vandalism spree. Owen× ☎ 23:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit to template

Could an admin add {{TestTemplatesNotice}} to the template (obviously in a <noinclude> section)? Test0-Test2 have them, and it'd be nice to have this sort of standardized (though this is a lot less of an issue for admin-only templates, as they probably know to subst it). EVula 17:39, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure, me! I'll be happy to do that for you... er, me.. er.. crap. EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
LOL --WikiSlasher 07:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed issue

I agree with User:OwenX that the wording "Please do not erase warnings on this page. Doing so may be considered disruptive" does belong on this template. The blanking of warning on user talk pages is quite problematic among serial vandals. Such a message lets them know that this behavior will not be helpful if they desire to return to editing in short order. --Kukini 21:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you really reblock them for longer if they erase the warnings while blocked? Or what do you mean? Kusma (討論) 21:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
The thing is, there is no consensus that removing warnings is a blockable offense. Therefore, no official-looking template should pretend otherwise. Kusma (討論) 21:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
It isn't a matter of "reblocking" so much as a matter of reminding users, often new users, that the warnings on their talk pages are not to be blanked in response to getting them, but instead responded to and eventually archived. At least that is my current understanding on this. --Kukini 22:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't normally extend a block for removing warnings, unless it is accompanied by a personal attack, threats, etc. I do, however, see the removal of warnings as evidence of bad faith, and will consider that when deciding on subsequent requests for unblock made by the same editor.
One notable exception are "serial blankers"--vandals who go around blanking anything they can. If, after they've been warned, then blocked, they continue to blank the only page they still can--their User Talk page--it is often an indication that a block longer than the standard 3-hour "time out" may be needed. Owen× ☎ 20:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
First off, blanking one's userpage is actually allowed. But even worse, this seems to be a perfect example of WP:BEANS - many probably won't even know they can get away with it, or won't think of it until they see that warning. It absolutely should go. Patstuarttalk·edits 22:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Firstly, most vandals are unregistered using a dynamic IP, which means it's not really their talk page to blank. Secondly, I don't know where you get your information to claim that "many probably won't even know they can get away with it". I've been patrolling vandalism for two years, and I can tell you that your WP:BEANS reference makes as much sense as claiming that those "SHOPLIFTERS WILL BE PROSECUTED" signs in stores put the idea of shoplifting into the mind of law-abiding citizens. Owen× ☎ 22:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Owens, I'm sorry if you feel strongly about this, but I've done quite my share of vandal patrolling too, and I'm not sure it's a good idea to tell them this. In all honesty, do you really think that someone who just added "Al Gore likes buttsex" is going to read "please don't remove the warnings", and that's going to stop this person? It's not the end of the world either way, I just don't think it's a bright idea. Patstuarttalk·edits 23:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
You are right, this warning will rarely stop them from blanking the page, but when we subsequently s-protect their talk page and/or block them, they will not feel unjustly wronged. Even vandals should be treated fairly, and warning before imposing sanctions is a key element of a fair and consistent policy. Owen× ☎ 01:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Er, why are we treating a blocked IP's talk page as a useful record for anything? If you want to check for prior incidents, it's best to check talk history and block log -- they're generally more accurate and reliable, anyway. The onus to check for history is on the admin reviewing any unblock requests, and I should surely hope they're smart enough to check. As much as it does stroke my ego if every vandal I've ever warned carefully keeps my warnings in pristine condition, I'm really not sure why we care? – Luna Santin (talk) 21:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] docs wrong?

The documentation says to use "{{subst:Vandalblock}}". Shouldn't that be "{{subst:Vblock}}"? -- RoySmith (talk) 17:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. --Geniac 17:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)