Wikipedia talk:Template index/User talk namespace/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

Inclusion of the word "vandalism"

Hello everyone. I was thinking that the word "vandalism" should not be in the level 2 template because it violates point 3, which states "avoid the word vandal." The reason why I say it should not be in the level 2 template because it considered a "caution" template, which assumes no faith. I suspect many times when a user is hit with a level 2 template they are simply insisting on their original edit, which may be done in poor informed, but good faith. But for level 3 and 4/im, which assume bad faith, i think the word would be acceptable. Thanks, Tommy2010 23:35, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Level 2 says the actions "appear to constitute vandalism" (emphasis added), although assuming no faith (lvl 2) still "might have been made in good faith" (emphasis added), so while there's arguably a mismatch, I'm inclined to think the template is correct and point #3 needs tweaked if it really bothers enough people. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:18, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. The level two template language was a compromise between those who wanted a more explicit reference to vandalism (like the Huggle 2 warning) and those who wanted something softer. I think it strikes about the right balance.--Kubigula (talk) 03:58, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Template:uw-selfrevert: improper English

When used with Article at level 1, it says: Thank you for reverting your recent experiment with the page XXX.
Shouldn't it be: ...with the XXX page.? Seems to me that would be proper grammar. -- Alexf^(talk) 20:50, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's a grammatical issue, but I think your version reads better.--Kubigula (talk) 04:03, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Template for IPsocks of banned users

Currently I often see this template in use for IP vandals:

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

The problem with its use for the IPs of banned users is the invitation to "make constructive contributions". They are banned, often for long time periods, and need to seek reinstatement by other means. They are not allowed to touch the "edit this page" tab under any guise.

We need a different template. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:57, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Not entirely correct. They are blocked, not banned, and they normally are allowed to edit their Talk page so they can ask for an unblock, unless they vandalize the Talk page too, or they mock the unblock process. -- Alexf^(talk) 19:04, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Joke Edits Template

Would it be OK to add Template:Silly to the list of single-level templates? This template is intended as a friendly notice to new users who try to be funny in their edits to Wikipedia articles. CosmicJake (talk) 22:32, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

There's any existing series of templates for joke edits - {{uw-joke1}} etc.--Kubigula (talk) 03:30, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: Uw-test1

Template:Uw-test1 currently begins with the words "Welcome and thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia." I guess this probably isn't that important, but is it really appropriate for us to thank people for doing something we don't want them to do? 70.152.70.38 (talk) 14:24, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

If they're doing just that - testing - it means that in no time they'll be contributing constructively, and we simply need to show them a place where they can do additional testing with no harm done. If "testing" is not what they have in mind, then it's only a matter of time before the thanks are withdrawn with a higher-level template. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 14:59, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Update formatting

I think it will be good to update the formatting of some of the templates. Since we not got the magic word safesubst: and {{Linked}}, several new options are there. See for example my recent edits to the uw-npov templates to see what's possible. {{Linked}} is able to determine if a colon is necessary within the warning (which often isn't) and safesubst: can remove unnecessary coding which tends to confuse newbiew from the source. --The Evil IP address (talk) 20:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Assume good faith on uw-3rr

The uw-3rr template assumes a little bit of bad faith because it says:Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing.

The new version of the template should look like this:

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If this continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

Where the bad faith in the template is more mild. --71.94.158.203 (talk) 22:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'd categorize it as bad faith in the template, but I think you are right that the last sentence could be a little less harsh. My only concern with your version is that it's not totally clear about what "this" is. I changed the last sentence of uw-3RR to, "If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice". How's that?--Kubigula (talk) 03:11, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

blocked2

Shouldn't the word "repeatedly" in uw-block2 be bold to emphasize the distinction with uw-block1 ? Abisharan (talk) 21:28, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Uw-botun

I believe there should be a new username concern template, Uw-botun, specifically for usernames that end in bot.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your username, Template index/User talk namespace, may not meet Wikipedia's username policy because it contains the suffix "bot", which is generally reserved for authorized bot accounts. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. As an alternative, you may file for a change of username, or you may simply create a new account and use that for editing. Thank you. ~~~~

There's an individual bot username template for blocks, anyway. mechamind90 03:56, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

uw-1rr

Some articles are under a 1rr restriction. However, there doesn't seem to be a templated warning to use in the case that an editor has broken 1rr. As it is generally notified that these articles are under 1rr, all we really need is a uw-1rr4im to give an absolute final warning as an alternative to blocking for breach of 1rr. Mjroots (talk) 04:57, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Two new proposed templates for similar usernames (hard and soft)

Template:Uw-uhimpersonation (Hard Block)

Your account has been blocked indefinitely because it appears to impersonate (1: Username goes here) (Else: another wikipedia user). Users are not allowed to edit with inappropriate usernames, and trolling or other disruptive behavior is not tolerated. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.~~~~

Template:Uw-uidentical (Soft Block)

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia because your username, Template index/User talk namespace, appears to be too similar to the username of (1: Username goes here) (Else: another wikipedia user). You are welcome to create a new account with a username that is easily distinguishable. If you feel that you were blocked in error, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Thank you. ~~~~

Thank you, impersonators or Orange Mike, for unintentionally sparking the idea in me. mechamind90 21:41, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea to me. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Template:Uw-copyright

In April 2010, this template was changed from the long-standing:

will be blocked from editing.

to

may be blocked from editing.

I disagreed with the wording changed, and restored the status quo. Several days later, it was changed again to

will be blocked from editing.

Somebody else disagreed. I proposed a compromise, bolding both will and blocked from editing here:

will be blocked from editing.

The bolding on will has just been removed again, and I have restored it pending some conversation.

I agree with this edit summary: "i disagree w/ change in emphasis - many warnings are may, copyvio = will". I think that the bolding on will emphasizes the seriousness of the warning. I see no value for changing the status quo and worry about a possible weakening of the message. Unlike with many warning templates, with this one you only get one. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:28, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

The idea of you-only-get-one follows for any of the 4im templates, and there we placed all the emphasis on the "blocked" part. With the strong emphasis on "will", I've never been quite sure who we're trying to convince - the violator or other editors. It almost seems that that kind of emphasis is for others who may have to deal with that editor later, to say, "really block this guy". But that's unnecessary. The key phrase is "blocked from editing", and that needs to be the thrust. "Will" can and should be not bolded, in order to keep the emphasis entirely on the block. SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:46, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe that bolding "will" does anything to diminish the bold on blocking or is likely to lead to any confusion; I think it emphasizes the seriousness of the message. I guess we'll have to see how others feel on the subject. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:48, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

It really doesn't. It just makes the message come off as angry, like we're yelling at the person, rather than treating them civilly. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:19, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Since I'm the one who made the statement MRG quoted above, I think it's pretty clear that my views are close to hers on this matter. Further, as someone who has reported people before to admins for repeated gross violations of our copyright policy and seen them not be blocked until I reported them to someone who works in the copyvio area, I think that the emphasis for the admins, to tell them to "really block this guy", is a necessity. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:25, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I think we have a delicate balance here. SchuminWeb, you mention other 4im by comparison. They are rather more stern: {{Uw-biog4im}}, {{Uw-advert4im}}, {{Uw-create4im}} and {{Uw-nor4}} all say

you may be blocked from editing without further notice

Probably others do, too; I kind of stopped looking at that point. The main difference is that each of those is a second-person sentence: "you". {{Uw-copyvio}} is not. It says, "Persistent violators...." It seems to me as written to do a pretty good job between balancing civility ("appears to have") with the requisite strong warning. I think the third person address makes it less yelling at them than cautioning: see what happens to persistent violators? But I think the strength of the caution is essential. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:33, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Unnecessary complication?

I suggest we remove This is particularly important when adding or changing any facts or figures and helps maintain our policy of verifiability. and replace it with This helps maintain our policy of verifiability.

References are not just for 'facts or figures', and suggesting they are only really important for those is a bit misleading, and I think it might muddy the water of what should be a nice, clear message to new users.

I'm not quite sure enough of myself for making the change per WP:BRD, so am seeking opinions and comments here. Chzz  ►  00:02, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Much better and more general wording. Jared Preston (talk) 00:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Seeing no objection here, I've changed it, per WP:BRD. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  13:42, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Uw-uhblock and Uw-vaublock should probably be reworded.

Before:

or suggests that your intention is not to contribute to the encyclopedia

After:

or suggests that your intention is unconstructive to the encyclopedia

Reason:

Although it doesn't have to be what I specify in the after, not to contribute is unclear. mechamind90 06:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't like "unconstructive".

How about, suggests you do not intend to edit constructively

Just a thought.  Chzz  ►  00:59, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

New proposed templates

As a very active member of the musical projects on wikipedia I believe there is a strong position for a specific charts related warning. Below is an example of what the new warning might look like:

Notice, Some chart positions that you added to "Song" has been reverted or removed because they could not be verified with a reliable source or the source provided does not support the information input. Please double check details before inputting new chart positions and always provide a specific WP:reliable source.

I also think there's scope to make this a full four/five-scale template. It would certainly come in useful as the existing templates don't really cover this kind of issue. Lil-unique1 (talk) 22:52, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Addition of poorly sourced material is not by itself grounds for a block unless such an addition becomes disruptive. So I would leave it as a single-level template, with usage of the existing standard multi-level templates if push comes to shove. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 16:00, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

is there significant grounds for the creation of such template? Lil-unique1 (talk) 16:03, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

It's a good thought, but Template:Uw-unsourced2 ought to suffice. There aren't any warnings that are quite that specific to one use. Having a different unsourced warning for every table type in Wikipedia would quickly become unmanageable. The guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject user warnings explain that flexibility of the standardized templates is the goal. But you may indeed add additional text using the parser function of the template to further explain. Bsherr (talk) 01:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

And a proposed Uw-agf4 and Uw-agf4im

This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive comments.
The next time you comment critically on an editor without assuming good faith, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

This is the only warning you will receive regarding your disruptive comments.
The next time you comment critically on an editor without assuming good faith, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

• Because I do believe this is different from a personal attack. mechamind90 06:29, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Here's why there's no 4th level. Incivility (including not assuming good faith) is not a blockable offense. Only when it rises to disruption, personal attack, harassment, or outing is blocking a remedy. See WP:CIVIL. And there are existing templates or other immediate recourses to use for all of those, correct? If not, you may be on to something, but we need to figure out precisely what's missing. Cheers. Bsherr (talk) 02:24, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Wrong template

There is not a version to include the article name of the page and the REASON' (this is fundamental) why the edits are considered vandalic. --Hamiltha (talk) 12:35, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Which template? All of the ones I know include a parameter for article name and an additional optional comment. For instance: {{subst:uw-vandalism1|Article|Additional text}} seems to cover what you're wanting. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:57, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Many people miss the parser functions. Click on a template to see the iterations with additional detail via the parser functions (the placeholders following the vertical bars). Bsherr (talk) 02:07, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Old messages

There does not seem to be any mention of {{Old IP warnings top}}/{{Old IP warnings bottom}}, nor what other methods are available for hiding old messages on other users' talk pages. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:10, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Done. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 03:45, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

New template: {{uw-salt}}

A single-level user warning has just been created to warn editors who recreate, under a slightly different title, pages that have been salted. Usage of that template is suggested on the new template {{salt}}, which is listed among speedy deletion templates. The template contains a thinly veiled threat of blocking. This is intentional, as I believe if a warning must be issued under such circumstances there is already enough disruption going on to overcome an assumption of good faith. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 23:42, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

As of this writing, however, I haven't written a documentation file for that template. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 23:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Adding "page=?"

After testing some templates with success, it's probably worth my attempt to expand block templates to {{subst:Uw-EXAMPLE|indef=?|time=?|reason=?|page=?}}. An inputted "page" variable will automatically convert into an output link, such as "page=Example" = "to the page Example". An empty "page" will mean no output from the individual variable and the template will remain what we usually see.

Anything to shorten each admin task to 2 seconds. mechamind90 22:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

uw-spam4

This template issues a marginally incivil warning, calling the editor a spammer rather than calling their edits spamming. This is not consistent with, for example, uw-vandal4. I'd suggest that calling editors names is less likely to improve behaviour than educating them. LeadSongDog come howl! 20:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I see no problem with the current text. A spammer is one who spams (just as a vandal is one who vandalises) and if an editor has spammed enough to receive a level 4 warning this term is applicable. This is in contrast to level 1 and 2 warnings that avoid this terminology and the level three warning which lets the editor know that this behaviour is considered spamming but avoids labelling the editor. By the time an editor gets to the last chance warning he should know why he would be blocked if he continued. ThemFromSpace 20:33, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:NPA, comment on content, not on the contributor. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:35, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Point to where it calls the editor seeing the template a spammer, please. Protonk (talk) 20:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

While WP:NPA offers generally sound advice, an editor's motivations are a key factor in determining the validity of his edits and dealing with an editor's motivations means we necessarily have to deal with the editor himself, not just his contributions. Our policy that Wikipedia is not a tool for personal promotion as well as our conflict of interest guidelines are two important tools for stopping disruptive editors and both of them deal with the underlying motivations behind a user's edits. Nearly all spam falls into at least one of those two policies, and as such it is always necessary to evaluate the motivations behind an editor that places dubious links in articles. ThemFromSpace 20:52, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Protonk: {{uw-spam4}} Persistent spammers may ... --Redrose64 (talk) 20:57, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Compare {{uw-vandalism4}}: "This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice." It does not label the recipient but rather labels the edits. I'd suggest "If you insert spam again" is more consistent for uw-spam4. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

And spam-4 doesn't label the editor as a spammer. It says that persistent spammers may have their sites placed on the blacklist. It doesn't say "you are a persistent spammer". The sentence which includes the word "spammer" is informative. Replacing it with "if you spam again" is inaccurate. If they spam again, they will be blocked. Not every spam block adds an entry to the blacklist. Protonk (talk) 21:37, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Lighthearted Warnings

The WikiFun Police have started developing a set of more lighthearted warnings here. Would it be appropriate to link those on this page? EW_ikist^Talk 17:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so. I don't think they should be used in the regular course of editing. Though they may be appropriate for fun between contributors who know one another, I don't think they have an appropriate tone of professionalism for the task of "guid[ing] good-faith testers and dissuad[ing] bad-faith vandals." --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

While true that they do not convey a "professional" tone, I think many vandals will take them more seriously if they have humorous feel to them, and they're not just an authoritative voice reprimanding them. A fair point was made here about this subject (this page was also the inspiration for the lighthearted warning project). EW_ikist^Talk 21:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't agree with that essay. I think entertaining vandals may be akin to feeding them. :) I'm of the opinion that a boring form letter followed with routine block is the best way to go. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:29, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I guess it could go either way. I'll keep the link off the page if that's what makes you happy :) EW_ikist^Talk 00:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm not the only one here. :) Others may agree with you. Let's wait and see. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I guess these templates may be used if they are directed at good-faith new editors, but when level 3 is reached, it means the assumption of good faith has been overcome, and the "lighthearted" level-3 templates should not be used. In any case, they should not be listed on this page, except perhaps collectively in a see also section. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:46, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Linking here would be an endorsement. It just wouldn't be appropriate, especially since the page self-identifies as humor. Like many of us here, I do have a sense of humor, but, like many of us, I believe in keeping it separate from the business of building the encyclopedia. I'm wary to link to it especially because user warning is already often a sensitive subject, and I have concerns about trivializing it. But thank you for asking. --Bsherr (talk) 02:00, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Conflict of interest questions (coiq)

So, err...under what heading would Template:Coiq go under? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:30, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi. We only link to templates the meet the design requirements of the User Warnings Project. But also, it seems this template is combining separate issues. And we do have two templates that deal with each of these. {{uw-coi}} and {{uw-softerblock}}. Could you say a bit more about why the existing templates may not be adequate? Thanks. --Bsherr (talk) 13:53, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

As you can see, the template has a significantly different usage: indeed, it's not a warning at all. When someone has been blocked for spam username, they often simply make an unblock request with no good reasons behind them. This template has successfully been used to ask those users a few useful questions that can then likely lead to an unblock, if responded to accordingly (originally it was a user template, and then based on common usage it was created in template-space). So, it's not a warning, nor is it a block notice - it's a set of common questions that are asked daily to such blocked editors. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:58, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Put it under Miscellanea - there are several templates there that aren't really user warning templates.--Kubigula (talk) 17:47, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done Cheers! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:00, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm concerned about the statement "You are currently blocked because your username appears directly related to a subject that you are trying to create an article about, contrary to the username policy." I've compared the statement to the username policy, and I don't see that this is a contravention of the policy. Could you explain? --Bsherr (talk) 17:58, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

It's a rephrasing/synth ... primarily of WP:CORPNAME (and I have been watching this page for months, so feel free to ask Q's here without notifying me) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:33, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I thought perhaps that's what you were referring to, but the statement in the template is much broader in that it's not restricted to corporate names. Do you see what I mean? I'm concerned it misstates the policy. Thanks. --Bsherr (talk) 15:28, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Uw-sandbox

Template:Uw-sandbox has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Bsherr (talk) 18:05, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Sig = function not working

Just today, I left a few block templates, specifically {{spamusername}} and {{UsernameHardBlocked}}, and the sig= parameter is leaving ~~~~ rather than my actual signature when I write sig = ~~~~. Just checking to see if something got broken. It used to work correctly. --Jayron32 05:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

It seems that transcluding a template containing <includeonly>~~</includeonly>~~ does not result in a signature, while substing it does. The relevant bit of code for {{UsernameHardBlocked}} doesn't seem to have been changed since November 2007, so if anything really did change to break it I would have to guess it was something in MediaWiki. Anomie⚔ 11:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

That was it. I forgot to subst it. Thanks for reminding me. --Jayron32 03:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Foreign language-ish

What template would one place on the talk page of a user who uses non-English references (which is allowed), but seems to copy the machine translations of pages verbatim onto articles, resulting often in mistranslated, confusing, ambiguous, and weak English? Yvesnimmo (talk) 01:23, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Text of {{Uw-image1 to 4}}

Hi! Using Twinkle I'm not happy with the standard text of all four templates because only adding images is mentioned. Quite often images are exchanged or deleted – which is image-related vandalism as well. IMHO templates' text should be modified. What do you think? →Alfie±Talk 21:20, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The template was developed for a very specific kind of vandalsim (which is mostly stopped by the edit filter and the bad image list now) whereby a user would insert a pornographic or otherwise offensive image out of context into a high traffic article or template. Other, more pernicious tactics were used, but those usually didn't result in a warning, just a block of the account. Removing images, if it is vandalism, can probably just be dealt with using the standard vandalism warning. Protonk (talk) 22:48, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe as an admin you can see the full history. The image was replaced – nothing was added. I feel that it would be better to leave an image-related message by means of the template (which would also show up in the edit line) instead of an unspecific vandalism-template. Alfie↑↓© 23:32, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, the image of the vagina was added. An image replacement would be removing one image of a subject or idea and replacing it with another image of the same subject or idea. In this case, someone just removed an appropriate image and added an inappropriate image. The response should be no different than if they added the image to the top of the page. I don't think we need another template or different wording in order to match this case, especially because with blatant image vandalism, template semantic precision is at best a second order concern. Protonk (talk) 23:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Vulva, not vagina. ;-) OK, I'm not a native speaker, but I'm not happy by using a template which states <nitpicking>you added...</nitpicking>, where an image was either replaced or deleted. Anyhow, I will not use one of the image-templates for such a case in the future. Alfie↑↓© 20:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Protection level changes.

• I do not believe that low transclusion count is a valid reason to full-protect {{Uw-spamublock}}.
• I also do not believe that {{Uw-uhblock}} is any easier to find than other templates. If users just search for "UsernameHardBlocked" on Wikipedia, they won't find it unless they know how to access templates, and will probably end up with the "Bad title" page.
• On the other hand, I do believe that {{Uw-voablock}} is the most visible indefinite block template to registered users.

mechamind90 00:55, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

The unwritten practice has been that user warning templates should be semiprotected. Is that still the consensus? I would agree with it. If so, I'd be pleased to document it so it can be used as a reference going forward. --Bsherr (talk) 01:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I'm saying. I just have a little more concern about "Vandalism-Only Account", but the concern is probably not necessary since the templates are not immediately obvious. mechamind90 04:36, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Bear in mind that they're not likely to vandalize the template after they've been blocked, are they? :-) --Bsherr (talk) 21:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Fix transclusion of redirect

{{editprotected}} Replace {{Blocksnotice}} transclusion with {{Documentation|Template:uw-block/doc}} transclusion in Template:Uw-uhblock and Template:Uw-spamublock. --Bsherr (talk) 22:05, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Done. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:47, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

An idea about improper transclusions?

This is an idea that just came to me, I'm not sure if it has merit/would actually work (which is why I'm putting it here instead of being bold and making the changes to the templates). I know that warning templates are supposed to be subst'ed, and I'm usually pretty good about subst'ing them. Of course there are those occasions where I'm in a hurry, or I'm tired or I just plain forget. I know I'm not the only one out there. What I'm proposing is that the warning templates have a line of code added to them that will put them into a category (such as Category:Pages with incorrectly transcluded templates), so that it's easier to find them and subst them. That said, I don't know if it's possible.

I got the idea when I was updating Simple Wikipedia's Template:Copyedit with some code from this Wikipedia's version of the template. If someone subst's that template (which is supposed to be transcluded) onto a page, there's a line of code in the template that will add that page to Category:Pages with incorrectly substituted templates. The code is as follows (I think I got all of it):

{{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|{{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>NAMESPACE}}|<includeonly>[[Category:Pages with incorrectly substituted templates|{{PAGENAME}}]]</includeonly>|}}

Is there any way one could add code to, say, Template:Uw-vandal, that would do the reverse? That is to say, if the template were transcluded, it would be automatically added to a category of pages containing incorrectly transcluded pages? I know one could just use Special:WhatLinksHere and look for incorrect transclusions page by page, but wouldn't it be nice to have a single category that would include all incorrect transclusions? Then again, this may not be possible. If so, please excuse the newbie :) --- cymru lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 22:27, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I like the idea, but I support the built-in warning mechanism, such as in Template:Uw-upincat, over the cat method. I know the counterarguments that the templates should be easy, but I think most users actually prefer to be reminded when they've left out the subst. --Bsherr (talk) 22:53, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

It is indeed possible; the code

{{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|{{ <includeonly>safesubst:</includeonly> NAMESPACE}}|output if not substituted}}

will work, possibly with slight modifications for your purposes. I remember seeing a template that performed this very function; I thought it was {{substcheck}}, but apparently not. Intelligentsium 23:35, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Like I said, Template:Uw-upincat has it implemented very effectively. --Bsherr (talk) 23:38, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

The templates are {{subst check top}} and {{substcheckbottom}}. Intelligentsium 23:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Wait, isn't {{Uw-upincat}} for users whose pages are put in categories like Category:Actors, not for pages that have incorrectly transcluded templates. I'm confused... --- cymru lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 00:00, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Up-incat uses the incorrect transclusion features, but you are right that it is not the main function. Intelligentsium 00:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'm suggesting it as an example of a template that uses a feature to notify the user when the user has not substituted. (Not as a template that actually performs that function.) --Bsherr (talk) 00:25, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for finding those, Intel. If the decision here is to implement, I'll be sure to modify upincat. --Bsherr (talk) 00:27, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Time for another random question (I'm full of them). How do the templates {{subst check top}} and {{substcheckbottom}} work? Oh, and if they're going to be added to the warning templates, someone'll have to notify Twinkle. And if they're going to be added to welcome templates (a good idea, in my opinion), someone'll have to notify Friendly. I can do that, if the templates are going to be added. Thanks for understanding what I've been trying to say :) --- cymru lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 13:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

There is no thank you in this template

And there shouldn't be, however the instuctions regarding additional text read:

• adds text onto the end of the message instead of "Thank you"

It should read:

• adds text onto the end of the message

This also so for uw-vandalism3 and uw-vandalism4. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 20:18, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposal for a small change on all uw-****1 templates

Here's my suggestion: Replace the "Welcome to Wikipedia." in these templates with "Welcome to Wikipedia!" This is to that the templates feel more personal and less robotic. Anyone agree with me? Access Denied ^{[FATAL ERROR]} 06:06, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

"Cut out all those exclamation points. An exclamation point is like laughing at your own jokes." —F. Scott Fitzgerald --Bsherr (talk) 06:09, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Uw-causeblock

Template:Uw-causeblock has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Bsherr (talk) 19:25, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Warnings

Can we change the warnings for example {{uw-vandalism4}} to you will be blocked? May sounds too soft to me for vandals, and only sounds like an idle threat. CTJF83 chat 20:54, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

We discussed this a while back, and the change to "may" because blocking doesn't always happen, especially if a warning becomes stale. Basically, if we post a Level 4, a few months go by, and then John Q. Vandal vandalizes again, many users will start over with a Level 1 warning. Thus it sends a message that we don't mean what we say about blocking. Thus the current wording leaves the option open to take other action while not making us look like we don't keep our word if we don't choose to block. Thus I would oppose changing that part of the wording. SchuminWeb (Talk) 22:44, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I suppose...but during current vandalizing, telling someone they may be blocked doesn't have the stopping impact of will be blocked. CTJF83 chat 23:13, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing anywhere that says that if they vandalize again that we can't still block them. In fact, if they do cross the line we draw, we just block 'em and rest easier knowing that their editing access has been cut off. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:16, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I suppose, I just like will cause it is firmer...I'll await other comments. CTJF83 chat 23:22, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

May is fine. I'll add another comment. Nobody really cares about the boilerplate on these templates apart from wikipedians, who are by their nature interested in this sort of thing. I doubt that some random person is going to be dissuaded by a 4-im which says "you will be blocked" and not dissuaded by a 4-im which says "you may be blocked". Protonk (talk) 23:49, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

How about "can"? May suggests possibility, will suggests inevitability, can just suggests ability. Compromise? --Bsherr (talk) 23:59, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

People can be blocked even before that. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 00:10, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, people can be blocked before a final warning, but I believe the concern was with the connotation of the word, not the operational accuracy. --Bsherr (talk) 00:15, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm cool with can. CTJF83 chat 00:13, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

"Can", which indicates that we lack the ability to block ahead of a final warning. That would give the idea that a vandal is guaranteed four vandalism incidents before being blocked. No way should we ever go with that wording. No way. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:15, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

You could claim any affirmative statement at level 4 implies a lack thereof at a lower level; "may" implies "may not" and "will" implies "will not". You can claim it, but it's logically fallacious. Regardless, it's no different than the status quo. I think if you consider it, Schumin, you'll realize the error. --Bsherr (talk) 06:40, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

So no point in changing things, then. SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:42, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

But that doesn't address Ctjf83's point about the current language. --Bsherr (talk) 16:43, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Logoutblock inconsistent with guidelines?

I can't find any guidelines for the type of block indicated by Template:Uw-logoutblock, and I therefore can't tell whether it's consistent with guidelines and practice. Does anyone have any information for how this situation would ordinarily be handled? --Bsherr (talk) 20:21, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

• It looks like a template warning a user that they have been "socking" (that term used very loosely here) on an IP. Doesn't seem to match a specific guideline and I don't know how often it is used. If the account is blocked and the IP (not covered under an autoblock) is continuing to disrupt the project, the block would just be one for block evasion. Maybe send it to TfD? Protonk (talk) 19:19, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I've never seen that one before, and I don't think most admins are aware of it. As far as I can tell it is not being used at all [1] and we could probably do without it. I've just nominated it at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 October 6. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:38, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, it would be substituted, so what links here wouldn't be accurate. Mechamind created it back in August along with others to fill gaps. But I defer to Protonk's assessment of its usefulness, which seems reasonable to me. --Bsherr (talk) 19:49, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I thought it would have no transclusions because of the substing, but pages it was subst'ed on would still show links. That's not the case? Beeblebrox (talk) 19:52, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Nope. Links only shows pages that have a [[ ]] to the page. Some substituted templates use a Z number for tracking for this reason. --Bsherr (talk) 20:34, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Bscherr is right. User warnings will not show up as transclusions (though simple links will give an indication of how many users or project pages discuss the templates). However I have never seen this template in the wild and I suspect it is not widely used. Protonk (talk) 19:54, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

This kind of coding stuff gives me a headache. Anyway, the creator of the template slapped a WP:CSD#G7 on it with the cryptic edit summary of "your opinion" and it has been speedy deleted. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:27, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Rewrite of Template:Uw-sandbox after recent TfD

To be brief: I TfD'd Template:Uw-sandbox recently as I thought it was fairly useless in principle, and the result was no consensus, although many leaned toward a rewrite of the current template. So I am proposing two things here:

• Rename the template so it doesn't use the "uw-" prefix, because there should not be a user warning about accidentally removing some code in the sandbox (the sandbox, for heaven's sake).
• Reword the template to

Welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for making editing tests in the Wikipedia sandbox, and not on other pages. While you are free to make test edits in the sandbox, please do not post copyrighted, offensive, slanderous, or libelous content in it. Thank you.

Longer explanation:

At the TfD, there were several comments about not worrying if a new user removes the sandbox header. If the bot that resets the sandbox has issues, we fix the bot, not warn new users over what is probably an unintentional mistake. If one was trying to update a table, for example, to an article, and accidentally removed some of the code without realizing, would one expect to get a warning notice saying "Hi, thanks for trying to update this table, but you should not remove all this other stuff because it's important"? Absolutely not. If the header is such a big deal, we can just copy it into the editnotice and not have to worry about it being removed. This needs to actually be a useful "warning", not a "Hey noob, don't remove that next time" notice. That would just scare users off from testing again, in case they accidentally removed the header without realizing and thought that maybe them editing the thing at all was the issue, right? We need to reword it to be meaningful to a new user.

/ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:43, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Fetchcomms and Chzzz both believe that users should not be warned for removing the sandbox header. They tried to simply delete the template at TfD, but there was no consensus there. Now, they attempt to effectively accomplish the same by deleting the contents of the template. It's a proxy for the same discussion.

During the TfD, it was pointed out that there are existing, better, user warning templates for vandalism, copyright violations, and defamation, even when the conduct occurs in the sandbox. So, that text was struck from the template, with no opposition at TfD. Now, since they cannot delete the template, Fetchcomms and Chzzz want to delete the remaining, relevant text in the template about the sandbox header. But if they do so, there won't be any text left in the template, so they wish to restore the old language about vandalism, copyright violations, and defamation.

Fetchcomms and Chzzz want to rename the template to remove the "uw" prefix. However, the template is a user warning, its documentation is the user warning documentation, it was designed and is maintained by WikiProject User Warnings following its standards, and it is listed on WP:UTM as a warning.

Users are not supposed to remove the sandbox header template. That's why the name of the sandbox header template is "Please leave this line alone (sandbox header)". If Fetchcomms and Chzzz want to make it permissible for users to remove the sandbox header, they should pursue that first at the sandbox talk pages. I have never personally warned a user for removing the sandbox header, but while removing the header remains something users are not supposed to do, it's in each user's discretion to warn, and it's not appropriate to delete (whether by TfD or by proxy) a user warning template that generally complies with the policies and guidelines.

The reason the sandbox header exists is because, in its absence, a novice user has nothing indentifying that this is the place for test edits, nor any directions on its use. An edit notice does not overcome this problem, nor does the bot.

Fetchcomms and Chzzz misunderstand user warnings. They are not punitive, nor is the conduct preceding them always a blockable offense. They are supposed to be instructive and helpful, and this one is. To use Fetchcomms's example, if I ever accidentally removed content from Wikipedia, indeed I would like to be notified, so I can learn from my mistake. That's why we have these templates. This template is a second reminder for users that miss the passive instruction not to remove the template.

I would certainly welcome discussion on ways to improve this uw template, but not to damage it. --Bsherr (talk) 03:23, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I also don't see how Fetchcomms's two proposals are consistent. Fetchcomms proposes to remove the text about removing the sandbox header, but then proposes removing the "uw" prefix because the template has that text, though it wouldn't. --Bsherr (talk) 04:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I guess the TfD decided it shoudn't be deleted, my opinion that this template is kinda worthless stands. I'll agree with Fetch. Protonk (talk) 03:44, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Let's see, Bsherr... I am trying to propose a rewording to the template because you yourself stated that was needed in the TfD. How would you reword it? I haven't seen you propose anything. Oh, and Chzz (not Chzzz) didn't start this discussion, I did. And Chzz, not I, first changed the template wording. So please don't say "they" in cases when "they" does not apply.

Well, why should it be a user warning? It should not, per concerns I raised above. It should no stay a user warning, then. Just because it is currently listed somewhere does not mean that it is a suitable warning, and it may be delisted.

My issue is not with users removing the header (they should not), but warning them for doing such a harmless, unintentional act. As I said above, if you accidentally removed some code in an article, how would you like to be warned?

You welcome discussion to improve this template. Please input discussion accordingly, not try to hinder discussion started in good faith on improving this. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 18:16, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I did acknowledge in the TfD that the template needed rewording, and on August 20, I did make changes. Those changes, and a few small ones that followed, were the extent of what I myself meant by that.

I never said Chzz (I am sorry for the misspelling) started this discussion, and I never said you first changed the template wording. I used "they" because it seems you're both pursuing this, but if I'm wrong, pardon me.

Fetchcomms, I just want to direct you to the right forum for arguing your position. Deleting this standardized template will not stop users from warning other users for removing the template header. It only removes the standardized means of doing so. If you truly want to prevent this, you should discuss it on the sandbox talk page, where it can be made into a guideline. That's the only thing that will accomplish your stated aim.

To respond to you a second time, if I accidentally removed some code in an article, I would like to be warned! Warnings are not designed to be punitive, but to be informative. This particular warning is classified as a notice, because it's supposed to be informative. We have notices for not completely reverting vandalism, for not warning vandals, and for other good faith edits that prompt a little guidance. That's what this is. Might you be caught up in a very negative connotation of the word "warning"? --Bsherr (talk) 18:32, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that the view "deleting the template won't stop warning of users" is completely correct. While obviously vandal fighters and other editors watching pages with semi-automated tools will warn where they feel is necessary, we both enable warnings for certain proscribed actions and suggest their use with standardized templates. There is an interaction between template language and use (or frequency of use). Protonk (talk) 18:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it makes it less convenient to do so, but it results in users using their own userfied templates or macros, or creating new, duplicative templates--all worse outcomes than a standardized template. And they'll have every right to, because warning users for removing the sandbox header isn't against any guidelines. If one wants to stop warning users for this, why not do it the direct way and make it a guideline? I don't oppose that discussion from taking place. But why is undermining the uw template preferable to having an upfront discussion about the practice itself? --Bsherr (talk) 18:51, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, some of the response will be to create template or leave non-standard warnings, but we aren't going to solve that without outlawing warning over this particular issue (which is a non-optimal way to go about things). But I think this template is exceedingly specific, not well worded in proportion to the problem it addresses and generally unhelpful. A slightly more broad template which say "hey don't use the sandbox for proscribed stuff" is better. Protonk (talk) 19:13, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Could you explain why putting in the guidelines that users should not warn over is issue is nonoptimal? --Bsherr (talk) 19:36, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Because any solution that adds rules has an uphill climb to optimality. So lets assume we say that users can't warn people about removing headers in the sandbox. Now we have to find some appropriate umbrella rule, add it, find users issuing this warning, warn them not to do so, then basically hope that we find all the users who are doing the warning and that they listen to our new rule. Much easier just to give a slight structural hint that warning over sandbox header edits isn't a productive use of time. It will migrate out to twinkle and huggle in due time and the the users who make their own templates to get around the structural change are basically the same set of people who would ignore a warning not to do so. Protonk (talk) 20:03, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Put it on WP:About the sandbox. Discuss it on that talk page first. If the consensus there is that no warning should be issued, once the guidance is included, TfD this template, and I'll even support it. Don't be underhanded about it just because it's easier. --Bsherr (talk) 20:18, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

It's not being underhanded. more rules aren't the answer. If we can architect outcomes without adding new rules, that is better. Protonk (talk) 20:20, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Bsherr, I understand now where you're coming from. But I'm still confused over calling this a warning, if it is a notice. While some uw- templates are notices, the fact that we are "warning" users who accidentally remove the header is distressing to me. Yes, you might like to be "warned"/notified upon accidentally removing some code (although a non-boilerplate message would be better in that case, I think), new users are often extremely confused and even afraid on Wikipedia. I know because I've interacted with them on the #wikipedia-en-help IRC help chat, as well as at Articles for creation. If a new user was notified of something they did accidentally, they may misconstrue it as a warning not to use the sandbox at all. I mean, "However, when you use the sandbox, please do not remove the sandbox header" is quite ambiguous to a new user—what is the "sandbox header", exactly, if you do not understand how templates work? I would prefer to remove that line altogether, but I would at least want that to be reworded to be more clear on what the header is, and that it isn't actually a big deal. Maybe something like:

However, please be sure not to remove the line that says

{{Please leave this line alone (sandbox heading)}}

This line produces this message on the sandbox page, and provides directions for other users using the sandbox.

Incidentally, I was looking at the sandbox just now, and I saw this. That needs a "warning", although it wasn't the worst thing they could have done. But the reason why most users remove the heading, I think, is when there is a whole lot of code in there from some other user, and they just blank the whole thing to put their own stuff in there, without noticing that small bit of code. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 21:23, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Sure, we can certainly work on making the text of the warning friendlier and easier to understand. I didn't choose the word "warning", but that's what Wikiedia uses to describe essentially all substituted user talk templates that aren't welcomes. Maybe having a link in the warning to a screen shot to point out that line, and suggesting creating a user subpage sandbox if they need an entirely blank page? --Bsherr (talk) 00:14, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I will not regurgitate the comments from the TfD, which quite comprehensively explain just why the warning is absolutely unnecessary. I will keep this brief, because it is all such an unnecessary waste of time.

The warning is not needed. By the time they get it, a bot has already fixed the header. (Try it. Go ahead, remove it. Wait a few mins)

warning users for removing the sandbox header isn't against any guidelines - this is a very weak argument indeed. There is no guideline saying Do not warn users for archiving their talk page, Do not warn user for not warning users who vandalize (and carry that on, please, ad infinitum), Do not warn users in Swahili^{unless you specifically know they speak Swahili, and then subject to rule 987 subsection a) paragraph 42 and any amendments} - This problem is well know, as WP:CREEP.

There is, however, one clear guideline that applies: Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers.

I have tried my very best to explain, that a standard template warning message makes it all too easy and seemingly appropriate to chastise new users for doing something so utterly trivial. I've tried, in TfD, and other discussions, to stop this nonsense way of biting newcomers; to make Wikipedia just a little tiny bit more friendly. At this point, I'm finished trying; I will take no further part in the discussions, and I leave it to others. Do as you will. I feel consensus is clear, it should go, but after all, that is my humble opinion. I'm out of this debate. Thank you for reading.  Chzz  ►  04:49, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I can't believe it's impossible to come up with a warning that doesn't bite newcomers. We've got a whole language at our disposal, and I give Fetchcomms a lot of credit for acknowledging that possibility. As for the bot, I wouldn't rely on it so heavily. See Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/TannerBot, for example. --Bsherr (talk) 05:56, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not so much an issue of possibility but of resource utilization and prodding. Writing a templated warning for an activity which isn't problematic is not an improvement to having no templated warning at all. For instance, it is perfectly acceptable for a user to archive warnings on their talk page. Nonetheless many editors feel this behavior is disruptive and have warned (and even blocked) users in the past for doing so. Writing a "soft" warning template for a permitted activity would not push those editors who are upset by the practice into leaving gentler messages but would serve as a colossal waste of time due to the semantic gymnastics involved in crafting the template. Is the status quo a bad equilibrium, with editors making their own pseudo-templates (in the case of talk page archiving)? Maybe, but it would not be improved by an attempt to standardize this non-warning. Protonk (talk) 19:24, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Any warning or block that is inconsistent with policy should be dealt with. Archiving a user's own user talk page is expressly permitted by policy. Removing the sandbox template is expressly prohibited. --Bsherr (talk) 20:59, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

We should not have templates warnings for actions which are permitted under policies, but we should not necessarily have warnings for all actions which are not permitted under policy. More strongly, parsimony is a virtue. Templates serve as force multipliers (especially when they have been included in semi-automated tools), we should prune the set of templates available to editors in order to nudge them toward using a nuanced personal comment or leaving no comment at all. In this case we have a template which has a limited applicability, targets new users who are not necessarily acting in bad faith and gives a confusing message. Perhaps the whole issue would be better served by making the sandbox a subpage of a protect space which does not allow header editing, but that discussion is probably beyond the scope. Regardless, the narrow focus on a murky issue leads me to believe that the template should be repurposed or rewritten. Protonk (talk) 21:49, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

You don't want to prohibit users warning for this issue, you just want to otherwise compel their choices and actions by undermining the standardized template, correct? --Bsherr (talk) 22:00, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Templates are already constraints on actions, especially templates in the wikipedia namespace. The whole point of this page (and the project on user warnings more generally) is to guide template usage toward helpful ends. Articulating where the boundaries of those constraints should be is part of that process. Protonk (talk) 18:49, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

But you don't want to articulate those boundaries in textual guidance, right? --Bsherr (talk) 19:26, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Not sure I understand the comment. Protonk (talk) 19:31, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I mean, you don't want to articulate those boundaries in writing, right? --Bsherr (talk) 14:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Notice for editing archived talk pages

There should be a notice for users who edit talk namespace archives, letting them know what archives are and explaining that archives are for finished conversations only. I can create it if noone else objects. --- cymru lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 23:59, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

That's okay, but the main point of the templated message should be that few if any people read archives, and so any new message posted there is not likely to be heard. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 15:55, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I've started some work on such a template at User:Cymru.lass/archive notice. --- cymru lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 01:07, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Whenever I create an archive page I put {{talkarchivenav}} at the top and {{archive}} at the bottom. These are templates that should really be used whenever archives are created, as they serve both to aid in navigation and to inform the reader that they are viewing closed discussions. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:44, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a good start. It'll have to be standardized, and I think it can be made more concise, but I think it's got the right information. Let me know when you're ready for that work, and I'd be pleased to make the edits. --Bsherr (talk) 04:48, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Need a warning for awareness of the existence of "edit summary"

I've recently been involved in repeatedly reverting IPs who don't understand why certain routes and destinations cannot be included in airports' and airlines' articles. The problem is not only that they don't leave an edit summary, it is that they don't know there is such a thing as edit summary or edit history. Unintended or not, adding something that has been repeatedly reverted is a serious disruption. There is a need to bring these wiki features to their attention. HkCaGu (talk) 01:55, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Have you tried {{subst:uw-summary}}? Yves (talk) 03:16, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm not talking about an IP who should leave an edit summary. I'm talking about IPs who need to know there's such a thing as history and such a thing as summary and he should read those before doing an edit that has been rejected multiple times. HkCaGu (talk) 04:08, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmmmm I see what you mean. Well there's welcome templates like {{subst:w-graphical}}, which mention the edit summary, but I'm not sure if there's one about histories... Yves (talk) 04:12, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm skeptical that we can introduce a concept like "histories" and edit summaries in a short templated message. the issue is that these editors don't understand that every wiki page has two parts, the current revision and the log of all previous revisions. It's not uncommon (nor is it limited to technically naive individuals). I suppose we could write one saying "hey I reverted your change, but it hasn't been deleted, it is still visible here in the history" with a link to their revision. That might have too many parameters to be useful. Dunno. Protonk (talk) 04:16, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

This may be a situation in which a personal message is best. There would likely be specific information about the conflict one would want to discuss with the user, i.e. look at the edit summaries because..., right? --Bsherr (talk) 14:21, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

This is a situation where it would be simpler and more efficient to simply repeat what was in said edit summary, rather than simply pointing to its existence. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 15:57, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree with those last three remarks. This is a situation that calls for a personal explanation rather than a templated warning. There's no need to WP:BITE someone just because they don't yet understand the concept of edit histories and summaries. If it is a recurring problem with multiple ips or editors on the same page or group of pages, an edit notice for those pages may be helpful. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:48, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Redesigned block templates table

At User:Bsherr/sandbox2 is my proposed redesign for the block templates table. Some may recall the table once represented the three-level blocks, which were aborted. Since the rollout of the meta template for blocks, the table has shown columns for definite and indefinite, with the indefinite column showing the same as the defintie column but with the addition of the indef=yes parameter. However, I don't think this is the best use for the table, since distinction between def and indef never varies by template (except in those in which it's disabled or enabled by design). The new table separates the generic templates, reformats "only-account" as a column instead of separate rows, groups the username block templates and shows columns for soft and hard block templates, and (mostly) alphabetizes. From these efficiencies, the table is shorter by three rows. The only element I can't get working is the rowspan code in two places, and if someone could help with that, I'd be very grateful. Any feedback? --Bsherr (talk) 19:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd change the word definite for temporary. Also, there should be something for indefinite blocks due to long-term abuse, but that's a different matter: we don't have the templates to be listed. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to that, they're synonymous. Proceeding. --Bsherr (talk) 17:27, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Uw-number1

Template:Uw-number1 has been nominated for merging with Template:Uw-unsourced1. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. --Bsherr (talk) 13:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Uw-number2

Template:Uw-number2 has been nominated for merging with Template:Uw-unsourced2. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. --Bsherr (talk) 13:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Uw-number3

Template:Uw-number3 has been nominated for merging with Template:Uw-unsourced3. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. --Bsherr (talk) 13:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Time elapsed before a warning is considered stale

Maybe I've missed it, but I can't see where in WP it says how many days pass (n), before a warning is considered stale. By that, I mean that after n, whatever the level of the previous warning, one resumes again at Level 1. Another editor and I had different perceptions of 'n'. Is n written down anywhere? And how, if at all, should procedure differ for an IP user? Trafford09 (talk) 09:39, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

There is really no such idea that is generally applied, nor can there be. If user A is an absolute WP:DICK, and somehow he's only given up to a level 2 warning, disappears for 2 weeks (or a month) and is an absolute WP:DICK immediately upon their return, I'm not returning to level 1 due to staleness. IP's are more of a "pattern" as well, in that what you're looking for is a pattern of behaviour, and some patterns are easier to recognize than others. Just as blocks are escalating in nature, so are warnings. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Remember also that level 1 is intended for good faith, level 2 for no faith assumption, and level 3 for bad faith. If, at any time, you have credible reason to rebut WP:AGF, start at whatever the requisite level. --Bsherr (talk) 15:02, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

In hindsight, numbering them and calling them "levels" was probably the worst thing to do. Gigs (talk) 01:27, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, there is a certain convenience to numbering them. We could definitely do more to promote this on the project page. --Bsherr (talk) 20:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Final warning templates

Shouldn't each final warning template on Wikipedia be changed back to last warning? Wayne Olajuwon chat 20:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Should they? Why's that? --Bsherr (talk) 20:38, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Because Wikipedians should change the name of the level 4 warning templates back to last warning because that makes Wikipedia warning templates look classical. Wayne Olajuwon chat 20:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh. What do you mean by classical? --Bsherr (talk) 20:53, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I mean by classical by its older reversion such as this. Wayne Olajuwon chat 20:59, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Classical? If it ain't baroque, don't fix it :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:44, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Is there a reason we should prefer "last" over "final" besides that it used to read "last"? --Bsherr (talk) 21:31, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Animated GIF on uw-4

The animated GIF introduced on uw-4 that I've reverted includes as a frame the symbol we've adopted for indefinite block templates, which I propose would cause unnecessary confusion. --Bsherr (talk) 21:44, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

• Concur wholeheartedly. Protonk (talk) 22:03, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
• That wasn't the only template he did that to. Someone may want to check the rest of his contributions. Anomie⚔ 22:29, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

uw-ublock

Seems to me that Template:Uw-ublock isn't being used properly. The big text on it says Your username is the only reason for this block. You are welcome to choose a new username (see below). I'm biased, of course, because I hang around CAT:RFU a lot, but fully half the time I see it, it's from an account like User talk:Outsourcing HR, and even a brief perusal of the user talk page, not to mention the contributions, would make it immediately obvious that the main problem with this user isn't the username; the immediate result is an unblock-un request, and then of course the admin handling it has to explain that the message isn't correct, and that the username is NOT the only reason for the block. Waste of time and energy for all concerned. We've even got a template {{coiq}} to keep it from boring us too much, but it's still confusing to the users. I wonder how we could improve this? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 00:24, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Template:Uw-spamublock doesn't cover the situation? If not, could you explain what the concern besides the username is? --Bsherr (talk) 00:32, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

My first sentence should explain. How can we either reduce the misuse of the template or reduce the impact of the misuse of the template? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 00:44, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

When you say it's being misused, is it that uw-ublock is being used when uw-spamublock should be used? --Bsherr (talk) 00:57, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely. Frankly there are one or two admins who chronically use it when there is an obvious conflict of interest as well. It puts admins reviewing unblock requests in a very awkward position in that they usually feel the need to explain that in fact there is another problem, and a bigger one at that. It's unfair to both the blocked user and the admin reviewing the block. I tried to bring attention to this some time ago but nothing really happened, let me see if I can dig up that old thread. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:51, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually the old conversation is still live at Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy#Problem with the way username-only blocks on promotional accounts are being handled. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:55, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, there you go. (Ugh, personally, I hate the username policy... I think it occludes the real issue, COI.) As a practical matter, I think the course of action is to alert admins that misuse it by leaving a message on their talk pages. --Bsherr (talk) 02:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I would contend that Template:Uw-spamublock is worthless. I've seen enough situations where this template was used on people who were blocked as spam-only and username together, where they were unblocked, renamed, and then went right back to spamming and were quickly re-blocked to know to stay clear of this template, since it's too permissive and makes spammers think that if they rename themselves, they can keep on going. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:16, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I think it assumes more good faith than that for which a given situation may call. (As to whether the template is clear: to quote the template, "Am I allowed to make these edits if I change my username? Probably not. ..." But maybe that is too weak.) In situations when the account is truly spam only, there is Template:Uw-soablock, but that doesn't address the username issue. Should this template be hardened? If it is hardened, is there anything that fills the void left by the absence of the template in its softer form, or is there a void left? Any suggestions for how to harden it? --Bsherr (talk) 03:49, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Let me refine that. Are there actually three categories warranted: (1) username violation with no prohibited conduct, (2) username violation with good-faith or no-faith-assumption prohibited conduct, and (3) username violation with bad-faith conduct? Softerblock is cat. 1, but it's unclear whether Uw-spamublock falls into category 2 or 3, and I'm inclined to agree with Schumin that it's more of a cat. 2 template. --Bsherr (talk) 03:54, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't even go that far. If the username is promotional and the user is engaged in prohibited conduct related to that username, then they're straight to soa-block. Spamublock belongs at TFD, honestly, since it attempts (badly) to join two things that shouldn't be joined. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:36, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

The issue would be that, in that situation, if the user successfully appealed the block, there would be no notice of the username problem. --Bsherr (talk) 06:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I thought uw-softblock was supposed to be the "please change your name, nothing personal" block template? And I also don't like the username policy. Protonk (talk) 02:34, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Indeed it is. But there are instances where it is just the username, and a good-faith warning is contraindicated. --Bsherr (talk) 19:39, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

The problem we often face at WP:UAA is that many users see it as the "one stop block shop" and they report all sorts of things there, some of which have nothing whatsoever to do with usernames. I suspect that this use of username-only blocks is intended to be a push-back against that trend, but it is not really helpful in the long run as the spamming is really the more serious issue. UAA has a reputation as the forum that will result in fast blocking, so users tend to go there when they should really be going to WP:COIN or some other page. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:24, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah-ha! That makes sense. (I also think the username policy has got some problems.) --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 04:22, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

• A few months ago I noticed some admins were using a boilerplate response to attempt to clarify these types of situations, I have made it into a template:

{{3questions}} This may be of some help to block reviewers who find these types of cases. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:50, 10 November 2010 (UTC) Here are a few key questions:

• Do you understand that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not a business directory?
• Do you understand conflict of interest?
• Do you understand that to be considered for an encyclopedia article, the subject must be notable?

You are currently blocked because your username appears directly related to a company, group or product that you have been promoting, contrary to the username policy. Changing the username will not allow you to violate the three important principles above.

...has been used for months :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 00:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh. It doesn't look like a template, I thought it was just something admins were copy/pasting because this happens so often. The other thing is the use of "break" which I replaced with "disregard" because you can't really "break" a question. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:05, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, so I didn't make {{coiq}} pretty :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 00:28, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Lovely. How about merging them now? --Bsherr (talk) 01:09, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Redesign block templates

The unblock templates have all been updated with a crisper and more modern design (see Template talk:Unblock); should we do the same with the block templates, which currently are ugly, dull, and don't stand out from the background? Access Denied – talk to me 04:56, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the recipients are too concerned with their attractiveness, but I always welcome suggestions. What exactly do you have in mind? --Bsherr (talk) 05:07, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Well first of all, the nuvola iconset is starting to look very outdated and we need to be pulling from newer iconsets. We also needbrighter colors so we can tell them apart more easily. When they're all off shades of gray it's hard to tell them apart if you're quickly scrolling through a long template filled page. I will be experimenting in my sandbox. Access Denied – talk to me 05:36, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

And please keep in mind not to use overly flamboyant/bright colors like you did here; as I said earlier, it's hard on the eyes. Thanks, Goodvac (talk) 06:14, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Sure. I'm pleased to consider new symbols. Be aware, however, that I've run into users who dislike the UW templates because they think the current icons are too stylized. I've been trying to work on merging in the TestTemplates, and it would be unfortunate to have this become a point of contention. I'd suggest keeping them simple. --Bsherr (talk) 17:42, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I like the current cream of the uw-block set. In fact, it's what I based the current desing of the unblock templates on. I wonder which templates you say are ugly and dull. — Edokter • Talk • 12:57, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Mostly the uw-blocknotalk series. Black on salmon is murder on my eyes. I also feel like a few images could be updated. Access Denied – talk to me 02:24, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Is there a list or category of those templates? — Edokter • Talk • 02:28, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

It's a parameter of the metatemplate Template:Uw-block. I'm still skeptical of the very concept of it because it's a very rare situation that it's permissible to block talk page access contemporaneous with the initial block. Talk page access is restricted if a user abuses the talk page subsequent to a block. And given that it's their talk page, silly vandalism doen't usually count. It has to be refactoring, or abusing the unblock templates. So, for a contemporaneous talk page block, it would have to be because the conduct resulting in the block involved abuse of the user talk page, which is not so common. As I mentioned to Mechamind when he created it, I'm concerned it could lead admins to think that it's an option within their discretion in any case. So you can propose changes to the appearance of this parameter, but bear in mind that it is, and should be, very rarely employed. --Bsherr (talk) 17:42, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Was that a reply to me, or meant for something else? — Edokter • Talk • 17:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Pardon me, it was a reply to both you and Access Denied. To you that there is no list and no separate templates except Template:Uw-blocknotalk, just the parameter "notalk=yes" on any block template. The rest to Access Denied and any others considering revising the appearance of the notalk parameter. --Bsherr (talk) 17:59, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

@Bsherr, I wouldn't worry too much about what these templates might make admins think they can do. It's hard to say this without sounding condescending, for which I apologise (my intent is to inform, not patronise), but, until you've actually been an admin, it's difficult to know the ins and outs of what admins see. Of course, one would hope that anybody the community entrusts with adminship would know the blocking policy, but the blocking interface also has a selection of options, one of which is to disable talk page access and there's a note next to it that says "disable only for users known to abuse own talk page" (italics mine), so changing a template probably wouldn't make an admin think that disabling TP access is as casual as blocking account creation or enabling autoblocking. While I'm here, I agree that the block templates could do with a bit of modernising, but, considering their purpose and that hundreds of editors dole these out every day, I don't think we should be doing anything too drastic. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:13, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. Indeed, I don't have any way of knowing about the administrator interface. As you've explained it, I am more assured that the new parameter isn't likely to be misused. --Bsherr (talk) 17:04, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

You'd have to work quite hard not to see that, but, obviously, you;d only see it if you were an admin (or you could get admin tools on the test wiki). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:08, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Can we please not worry about how the block template looks and just get on with writing an encyclopedia? If someone is blocked, they have bigger issues than complain about the outdated look of the Nuvola icon set. Seriously, getting consensus for such a change is really just a waste of time on meaningless aesthetic work. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 20:56, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Put skulls on them. C'mon man, it'd be cool. HalfShadow 21:19, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Yeah... — Edokter • Talk • 21:38, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd prefer it if the skull were on fire. Also, some barrels of oozing toxic waste should be added in the case of block evasion. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:27, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I couldn't find images of burning skulls on Commons. — Edokter • Talk • 23:47, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

It also needs to play this HalfShadow 00:24, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Merge uw-block templates for edit warring and 3RR

I redirected Template:Uw-3block to Template:Uw-ewblock, but it was reverted, thus this discussion. I propose that Uw-3block is redundant with Uw-ewblock. Wikipedia:Edit warring illustrates this. 3RR is described solely within the edit warring policy. In fact, Wikipedia:Three-revert rule redirects to Wikipedia:Edit warring. 3RR is a rule used to identify edit warring, not conduct distinct from edit warring. Distinguishing 3RR edit warring from other edit warring provides no useful benefits in the block template. Indeed, as evidence, the template message in Template:Uw-3block is different from Template:Uw-ewblock only in that it states "and violation of the three-revert rule". Should the revert of the redirect be undone? (I've begun discussion here instead of at TfD to share perspectives preliminarily and determine whether TfD is needed.) Thanks all. --Bsherr (talk) 01:50, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I see you've redirected it again. I had hoped we'd get more input here, but I will say that I find uw-3block useful as an admin who occasionally has to block editors for edit warring or 3RR violations. The two are distinct (EW can take place over a long period and one doesn't have to step over the bright line to be edit warring, while 3RR has a specific set of very narrow criteria), which is also the reason the two were recently separated on MediaWiki:Ipbreason-dropdown. The two templates are both useful and, as these are block notices rather than articles, there's no good reason not to keep them distinct in my opinion. I would also point out that the very slight change in wording is nothing unique in block templates. For example, {{uw-bioblock}} differs from {{uw-block}} only in that "abuse of editing privileges" is substituted for "contravening Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy" and indeed, ewblock varies from the default only in that "abuse of editing privs" becomes "edit warring" (along with some advice on DR). As such, I am reverting the redirect and would request that it be allowed to stay that way unless a consensus is reached that it shouldn't. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:27, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

My concerns are more for the sake of simplicity. The two are not distinct. All 3RR violations are edit warring. 3RR is merely a specific indicator of edit warring. Right now, one could correctly use EW to describe any conduct covered by 3RR. EW uses the description "for edit warring" and 3RR uses the description "for edit warring and violating the three-revet rule". In both, "edit warring" is a link to WP:Edit warring. In 3RR, "three-revert rule" is a link to exactly the same page, WP:Edit warring, though to the 3RR section. Is there value in maintaining two templates for such a small distinction? (Yes, the words differing between block and bioblock are small, but the meaning is completely different. Here, the meaning is almost the same, too.) 3RR isn't a type of abusive editing, it's just the rule used to determine if a user is edit warring. We don't have separate template for other types of edit warring (slow, 1RR violation, bad faith failure to discuss, tag team edit warring...). Is it useful to identify just this particular type of edit warring, and if so, why? --Bsherr (talk) 17:32, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Because one doesn't have to violate the 3RR to be edit warring and it's useful (especially when it comes to unblock requests) to differentiate between the two to avoid wikilawyering ("I didn't violate 3RR so I wasn't EW") and to draw a distinction between a violation of a bright-line rule and an admin's judgement. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:57, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand the wikilawyering example. Won't that type of argument be made regardless of whether 3RR is separate or not? --Bsherr (talk) 18:02, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Blocks for 3RR violation and edit-warring blocks have different associations. I think it's useful to have a separate block template. The above statement by Bsherr, "3RR is a rule used to identify edit warring, not conduct distinct from edit warring" gets into matters of 3RR philosophy which it's unnecessary to resolve here. The admins who prefer the language of uw-3block should be allowed to continue using it. If I were an unblock reviewer when a uw-3block had been placed, I would expect to see four reverts, and if I didn't find them, I would query the admin. If instead it was a uw-ewblock the analysis would be different. EdJohnston (talk) 22:04, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. While all 3RR blocks are for edit warring, not all edit warring blocks are for 3RR. Since we have a stand-alone noticeboard just for dealing with 3RR reports it is appropriate to continue to have a separate template for that specific situation. Nothing is gained by merging the two templates, nothing is lost or damaged by keeping them. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:24, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

The noticeboard for reporting 3RR is called Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring, isn't it? It's a noticeboard for all edit warring. What's intended to be gained is some simplicity in the selection of block templates. --Bsherr (talk) 14:21, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

It isn't wikilawyering. The three revert rule is just a heuristic for edit warring. It's a clear indicator of when an editing dispute has gone too far. However it is much more popular (both within and without wikipedia) than the EW policy for which it was meant to act as a trigger. As a result of some unfortunate metonymy, most people are under the impression that 3rr=ew. This has never strictly been the case and the distinction between the two has been more clear over the past year. the two templates and their warnings should remain separate. Protonk (talk) 06:45, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm just going by the policy. "While any edit warring may lead to sanctions, there is a bright-line rule called the "three-revert rule", the violation of which often leads to a block." That seems to mean it's a rule for identifying or defining edit warring. --Bsherr (talk) 14:21, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

that's true, but take note what we are saying. 3rr is a mechanism to quickly identify an article which is subject to an edit war and is itself a "rule" in the EW policy, but it no more encompasses the EW policy as the COI username section of the username policy encompasses that policy wholly. Imagine this. If we merged the 3rr and ew templates, what template would I use if I blocked someone for a slow edit war over a week long period? What template would I use to block someone who did 10 reverts in the span of 20 minutes? These are two very different kinds of blocks even though they appeal to the same policy. Protonk (talk) 19:09, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

But the block template is for notifying the user (in contrast with the block log, which is for notifying other administrators). Why need the notification be different? --Bsherr (talk) 20:46, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Because communication with the blocked editor (especially for edit warring blocks which are the most likely to be temporary) is just as important. The block notice should clearly articulate the reason for the block. In this case, the two reasons (3rr or ew) are distinct. Protonk (talk) 17:12, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Reverted Uw-lblock conditionality of indef parameter

Heymid, blocks for legal threats are always indefinite, so there's no need for conditionality of the indef parameter. --Bsherr (talk) 15:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I think you should've written this at my talk page and not here. Also, the documentation mentions the time parameter, but as you have removed that parameter now, I have removed it also from the documentation. But I think it's still worth having the time parameter in the {{uw-lblock}} template, as IPs should generally never be blocked indefinitely (except if they are open proxies), and it might be worth using this template when blocking an IP address for making legal threats or taking legal action. HeyMid (contribs) 15:43, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I try to use this page (the talk page for uw-lblock redirects here) for template matters, as user talk pages aren't watched by others, since I believe the community arrives at better solutions than individuals. That's an interesting point about IP addresses. Indeed, that would be an exception. I'll revert my edits. --Bsherr (talk) 16:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

OK. However, my personal preference is that by default, the {{uw-lblock}} template should be set to indef. HeyMid (contribs) 16:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

It would be the only block template to do that. I'm not sure the documentation adequately covers it. What do you think? --Bsherr (talk) 16:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I think we should go after what the admins expect. Do they expect that it's by default indef? (A legal threat block.) Are such blocks most of the time indef? HeyMid (contribs) 17:09, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

What is wrong with the default saying "temporarily"? All blocks are temporary, given some broad interpretation of the word temporary. Ideally the block template should inherit settings from the blocking interface, but that is very unlikely to happen (and I have no idea if it is possible), but barring that the default should strive to be accurate rather than precise. Protonk (talk) 22:23, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

If it's possible it would be best if it is set to indef unless a time parameter is added by the blocking admin. IPs may be an exemption, but most WP:NLT blocks are upheld until such time as the legal threat is rescinded. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with having it set on indef by default. However, I'm not sure whether TW can specify a time length or not. If it can, at least the template should allow that. It should be possible for the admins to do so; IPs are sometimes an exception (apart from static IPs). HeyMid (contribs) 14:18, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Uw-anonvandal gone?

Is the anonymous vandal warning no longer in existence? Thanks. --AW (talk) 21:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Don't see any evidence a template by that name ever existed, and not sure why we would need separate warning templates for anon users anyway. We do have a blocking template Template:Uw-ablock. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:05, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:Anonvandal was deleted July 2009 as deprecated. As Beeblebrox suggests for blocking, instead use {{uw-vblock|anon=yes}}. For warnings, just use the Uw-vandalismX series. --Bsherr (talk) 16:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

That's too bad, I thought it was useful, since it was for a specific purpose, and suggested they get a username --AW (talk) 17:52, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking of Template:Anon vandal --AW (talk) 17:54, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

We could add an anon parameter to the user warning templates. What would you think of that as a solution? --Bsherr (talk) 21:14, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Although suggesting to an anonymous user who vandalizes that he or she get an account seems a bad idea. --Bsherr (talk) 21:15, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Animated gifs

Where the hell do these keep coming from? I just blocked an IP, User talk:173.164.248.153 who had a 4im warning dated from today with one of those annoying animated gifs, but I can't find where it was added. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:03, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Just added manually by User:Tbhotch while posting the warning, I guess. — Edokter • Talk • 21:07, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

That seems most likely. What do you think about removing the image parameter? I'm not a fan because it makes the image seem like it's part of the official template, like in this instance. The template still carries the comment tag "uw-vandalism4im". --Bsherr (talk) 21:12, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I would support its removal. There's no need for one warning to look different from all the others and the flashy gifs are just annoying. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:35, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Advertising/promotion of charities

I've just had occasion to add {{Uw-advert1}} to a user's talkpage for adding what's a distinct advert for a charity to their userpage. Might it be desirable for the uw-advert templates to stress that "promotion" and "advertising" apply equally to nonprofit/charity promotion as they do to commercial advertising? I've had wrangles with charities before (up to and including nastygram emails from them) along the lines of "This isn't advertising, we're trying to help the sick/disadvantaged/downtrodden; who are you to deny them our help?" Possibly something along the lines of "This applies equally to commercial and non-commercial promotion". Tonywalton ^Talk 01:07, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

First should be amending WP:ADVERT, which seems unfortunately wedded to the word "company". --Bsherr (talk) 02:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, we're not here to be advertised on, even if it's for a good cause. HalfShadow 03:00, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

This blocking template might be of some help, trim out the part about the username and you're left with "it appears your account is intended to be used for the purpose of telling the world about an organization or cause that you consider worthwhile. Unfortunately, many charitable causes and social service organizations are not sufficiently notable for their own Wikipedia article, and all users are discouraged from editing in any area where they have an inherent conflict of interest.". Beeblebrox (talk) 07:08, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Anon vandal

Template:Anon vandal has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Bsherr (talk) 20:07, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

{{uw-username}} wording change - your thoughts?

Hi all,
I've boldly made a change to the {{uw-username}} template, as a result of this Village pump discussion. The relevant Village pump archive the discussion will be included is Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 82. Copy+paste of the rationale:

The current {{subst:uw-username}} template generates

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your username (foo) may not meet Wikipedia's username policy. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. As an alternative, you may file for a change of username, or you may simply create a new account and use that for editing. Thank you.

To my ear, "you may file for a change of username" sounds like legalese, like there's some sort of legal process involved: pleadings, documents in triplicate "indorsed" and served, subpoenas and prolly lots more. Just one simple change would ameliorate all this. How about

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your username (foo) may not meet Wikipedia's username policy. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. As an alternative, you may ask for a change of username, or you may simply create a new account and use that for editing. Thank you.

Hope this is an improvement. I think it most certainly is.--Shirt58 (talk) 11:39, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

TFD notice on template MOS3

FYI that template {{uw-mos3}} has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:Uw-mos3--Kubigula (talk) 15:30, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Creating malicious redirects

The description for the uw-redirect series might read better as "Creating disruptive redirects", since "malicious" isn't really compatible with the good faith assumption of the level 1 template. Feezo (Talk) 08:02, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd concur with that. Feel free to make the change. --Bsherr (talk) 08:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me as well. — Kralizec! (talk) 13:59, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Unblock-hard

Template:Unblock-hard has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Bsherr (talk) 18:03, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:After-block

Template:After-block has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Bsherr (talk) 18:07, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Which warning should I use?

What is the proper warning template for somebody who appears to be misusing templates? The two edits in question are here and here. I mainly ask because the editor in question seems to have had issues with vandalism in the past. 98.103.186.3 (talk) 16:49, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

If the user is placing templates that are obviously incorrect (and based on the edits shown, that would appear to be the case), I'd just lay down a vandalism tag. SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:52, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

But, explain in your edit summary. Because the vandalism is subtle, it’s not readily apparent to a blocking admin reviewing the miscreant’s edits that the templates were purposely, incorrectly applied. So, when you apply the warning template to the vandal’s talk page, explain in your edit summary the nature of the vandalism. — SpikeToronto 00:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Image-related warnings

Why don't the image-related warnings (uw-imagen ) link to WP:IMAGE? --Ronz (talk) 22:34, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not all that common an issue anymore, since most files are uploaded to Commons. For files that are speedily deleted, the speedy deletion notice is the warning. For more complicated issues, it's difficult to develop a broadly applicable template. But, by all means, go for it. --Bsherr (talk) 17:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Template:Uw-block - removal of talk page access

Regarding {{uw-block}}, if an admin also revoked talk page access, I'm wondering whether we really should point the blocked user to ArbCom. There is also the unblock mailing list, which I believe comes before ArbCom, especially for temporary blocks. I don't know, should we keep pointing the blocked users to ArbCom if their talk page access has been revoked? Or should they be pointed to the unblock mailing list? HeyMid (contribs) 20:30, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

It should be whatever is instructed at Wikipedia:Appealing a block, which presently is the status quo. I say this without prejudice to a change. --Bsherr (talk) 03:46, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Uw-adblock

Heymid, could you please explain the removal of the contents of adblock that categorizes the user pages upon which the template is used? Thanks. --Bsherr (talk) 00:43, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

A new set of templates aimed at disruptive editing

I have created a new set of templates aimed at disruptive editing that is not vandalism. I would like to put them to the community to see if others think they should be included as official template warning messages. These templates are designed to make it easier to warn users who edit disruptively but are not quite guilty of vandalism. Disruptive editing can result in a user being blocked, so it seems to make sense that we have some solid, specific, warning templates to that end. Allow me to explain how their design works, and how they are relevant:

I have designed 4 levels of template, there is no 'immediate/only' template because such a thing is clearly not appropriate and would be open to abuse. These templates are designed for editors to advise and then warn others who appear to be engaged in disruptive editing as defined by the WP:Disruptive editing behavioral guideline. They have been primarily designed to be issued by editors who are not 'involved' in the dispute, this is reflected in their wording.

The templates can be viewed 'as displayed' at User:Pol430/Sandbox. Please do not change these templates in my userspace, but feel free to discuss, and suggest changes on this page.

L1 and L2 templates

Are designed to be issued in limited circumstances where more specific templates (failing to cite sources, MOS, NPOV etc) are not appropriate. An example would be a recent issue that occurred when an editor tried to insert external links into a disambiguation page (which is against policy) details can be found at Wikipedia:ANI#Block review:User talk:Skysong263. This case is not an isolated incident. As a vandal fighter I have previously found myself reverting disruptive edits, but been without a suitable warning template to issue.

L3 and L4 templates

Are designed (firstly) to escalate the advice of the previous two levels to warnings. This would be appropriate in cases where editors are continuing to engage in obvious disruptive editing that is not properly defined as vandalism. Also in cases where editors engaged in content disputes refuse to engage in reaching consensus before making further disruptive edits. Secondly I propose that the L4 template replaces the current {{uw-generic4}} template. This template would be a more appropriate L4 warning for most other templates that do not have their own L4 templates. Pol430 talk to me 18:45, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Comments

I expect the reason we don't have templates for this type of disruptive editing is that it is not vandalism. Levels one through three would be fine (and we already have the uw-mos series for manual of style issues), but one cannot really threaten a block enforceable by WP:AIV. This type of disruption goes through WP:AN/I, unless it's an edit war, in which case it goes through that process, and we have 3RR warning templates. Consider also that the level four template of uw-mos was just deleted in TfD for this reason. --Bsherr (talk) 20:25, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not sure these sort of templates are all that useful. While I appreciate having a set which doesn't mislabel non-vandalistic disruption as vandalism, I think we should be discouraging templated warnings as a practice, except perhaps for driveby type vandalism. We should encourage dialogue, and templated warnings aren't dialogue. If someone is being disruptive, you should just be able to tell them how they are being disruptive. If they've been told to stop, even by ordinary, non-substed, non-templated, plain old typing like I am doing now, and they do not, they should be blocked. Period. The templates, I suppose, are better than the ones that overuse the term "vandalism", but no template is better than a personalize message. --Jayron32 04:36, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments and feedback so far, @Bsherr: If consensus is that an L4 template is not needed for disruption that is reported through ANI, and that L4 templates should only be used for what is properly defined as WP:VANDAL, then the L4 template can be left out. If this is to be the case; there are a few other L4 templates that need to be removed; the NPOV L4 template for example, NPOV breaches are not vandalism according to policy, but can be disruptive. Perhaps a major tidy up of template messages is needed? @Jayron, I absolutely agree with you. We should encourage dialogue. These templates are designed to attempt to get an disruptive editor to engage in dialogue. Not all of them will be interested though, if an editor will not respond to 3 template messages, will they respond to one/two/three personalized messages? I suppose template messages can be considered a lazy option, but I do feel they are helpful tools, they ensure a consistent message is being sent to any user who disrupts Wikipedia. Pol430 talk to me 12:38, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

You might be right about cleaning up the L4 templates. It's something we need to discuss here. --Bsherr (talk) 18:50, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

• According to policy at WP:VANDAL there are defined types of edits which can be considered vandalism (WP:VANDTYPES). There are also types of edits that are not considered vandalism but can become vandalism if an editor repeatedly engages in them (WP:NOTVAND). The blocking policy makes provision for vandals to be blocked, but also makes provision for persistent WP:Disruptive editing to result in a block. Whilst true vandalism is reported through AIV, disruptive editing needs to be reported though ANI or other forums per WP:Dispute resolution. My thoughts for the current system of warning templates are -
• Any warning templates that refer to an editing act that is blatantly vandalism should have a series of 4 progressive warning levels plus an Immediate/only template for use in extreme cases.
• Any warning templates that refer to editing acts that do not immediately constitute vandalism but can, if repeated enough, be classed as vandalism. Should have a series of 4 progressive warning levels but no immediate/only template.
• Any warning templates that refer to editing acts that are not vandalism at all, but can be considered disruptive, per WP:Disruptive editing should have only a series of 3 progressive warnings. Any editor that persists in disruptive editing and does not engage in the spirit of consensus after the 3rd warning could be reported to ANI or other appropriate venue per WP:Dispute resolution.
• Any existing templates (if there are any) than can not be considered vandalism or disruptive editing should be proposed for deletion at TfD.
• As we have a series of general 'vandalism' templates for clear cut vandalism, I suggest the implementation of a general disruptive editing template (see above) levels 1-3 aimed at edits not categorised by more specific templates.

Retaining L4 warnings for what can be considered vandalism ensures continued compatibility with the AIV process, whilst limiting disruptive editing to 3 warnings should help to ensure that what is not vandalism is not reported to AIV. 3 warnings is enough to show an editor has been given 'fair warning' at ANI. Finally, I think all warning templates listed in the tables at WP:WARN should have a content review, to ensure that wording is accurate and in order that editors are not likely to be mislabeled vandals where they are not, and to ensure that that policy and guidance is not being misrepresented. Pol430 talk to me 01:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Your Level 4 template at User:Pol430/Sandbox might be salvagable merely by removing the words, without further notice. Since an editor being templated with the proposed series of templates is most likely going to end up at ANI — which requires notification to the offender — they will be notified before being blocked. But, the kind of disruptive behaviour for which they would have received four warnings will most likely result in a block of some sort, so the remaining language is accurate. Plus, one would be able to present at ANI a history of four warnings to the miscreant. — SpikeToronto 17:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Pol430, I think your summary is right on. I'd support that as our approach. If there's agreement here, it would probably be valuable to write it up somewhere too. --Bsherr (talk) 18:25, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

When you say write it up, do you mean as a policy/behavioral guideline? Also I think Spikes's comment about using 4 warnings has validity. Pol430 talk to me 19:23, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Pol430, what about adding wording to the Level 4 template along the lines of

Further disruptive editing will result in a report being filed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, which may result in a suspension of your editing privileges.

Thank you for adding the Levels 1 through 3 template to WP:UTM. — SpikeToronto 20:59, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Indeed I do mean a guideline, a design guideline for user warning templates. WikiProject User Warnings developed guidelines, but they really do need to be updated to current practice, and as that project winds down, its contents ought to be migrated out of the project and into WIkipedia guidelines. And I do think Spike's comment should be incorporated; I agree with it. --Bsherr (talk) 21:03, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I have never written an essay/policy/guideline draft before, but I will give it a go in my sandbox, and will invite both of you and others to comment on it. My only concern about using an L4 template for disruptive edits are that we have recently deleted some L4 templates via TfD, on the basis that they were not required for disruption reported via ANI. E.g. Template:Uw-mos4 which was deleted in December 2010 also Template:Uw-unsourced4 which was deleted in September 2010. Pol430 talk to me 21:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Maybe wording such as that I proposed above would also provide a route for rehabiliting those Level 4 templates that were deleted. If they were modified such they inform the miscreant that he has received his last warnining for disruptive behaviour, ignoring the MoS, adding egregiously unsourced material, etc., and that a further instance of such will result in a report being filed at ANI and the possible suspension of his editing privileges, then I can see no reason why these could not have a full four levels much as the defamatory and biog series do. Those two examples promise blocking, yet they are, nonetheless, types of unsourced edits. So, restoring unsourced4, with new wording referring to ANI instead of blocking, would make that unsourced series consistent with the other unsourced series, inasmuch as it too would have a Level 4 template. Thoughts? — SpikeToronto 22:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that disruption/complex abuse that can not go through AIV should only have 3 levels of template, in order to illustrate the distinction between disruption and vandalsim. The fact a person has been warned or notified on 3 occasions, is enough to illustrate their is a problem, but only having 3 level will not incline an otherwise good faith editor to break WP:3rr, whilst trying to combat what they perceive to be disruption/abuse. They simply report the editor to ANI or other appropriate venue after they have reverted and waned up to level 3. In the case of vandalism that can be dealt with by AIV then 4 warnings has several advantages.

1. It gives even more 'fair warning' that an (potentially inexperienced) editors actions are inappropriate and continuing them is likely to result in a block.
2. It illustrates the above point to the AIV administrator.
3. It maintains compliance/compatability with existing semi automated tools, such as Huggle. Pol430 talk to me 17:38, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Changes to lede section

Hi Bsherr, I assume you are referring to the changes I made to the lede section? I'm a bit confused, because I didn't add the wording that implied all the templates are for warning. I quite agree with your edit summary in that, the templates cover much more than warnings, but that notion was already in the lede prior to my edits. diff Pol430 talk to me 22:10, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

You may not have noticed it. The previous text was "These templates are placed on users' talk pages to warn a user against actions which disrupt Wikipedia, to convey a standardized message, or to place a standard boilerplate note at the top of a page." Your revision was "These templates are placed on users' talk pages to warn a user against actions which disrupt Wikipedia. They are designed to convey a standardized message, or to place a standard boilerplate note at the top of a page." Do you see how the meaning changes? --Bsherr (talk) 22:15, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Ahhh, yes, I see what you mean now. The implication didn't occur to me, but thanks for spotting it. As discussed previously, I am working on writing up some up to date guidance on user templates, their design and usage. I am trying to do it in a way that:

1. Brings together the guidance of Wikipedia:WikiProject user warnings.
2. Illustrates how they should be used (making the distinction between vandalism and disruptive editing)
3. Incorporates the table currently found at WP:WARN and the detailed views at Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace/Multi-level templates etc
4. Fits in with the current page names
5. Is easier to navigate

It's very early days, but my preliminary progress can be found at User:Pol430/Sandbox (follow the redirect) if you are interested Pol430 talk to me 22:31, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Do we need a specific edit war template

The 3rr template is currently the template we use for edit wars. However it doesn't cover slow motion edit wars very well where although there is clearly an edit war there is no possibility of any user breaking 3RR. Obviously slow motion edit wars are still edit wars and can, and do, still result in blocks but the emphasis of this template is so much on 3RR that it barely covers slower edit wars. So, do we need a more general edit war template as well. (I can't believe this hasn't been discussed before but I couldn't find any previous discussion in the archives). Dpmuk (talk) 00:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

At the moment, we do not have any template that covers slow-motion edit warring. The 3rr template does state the policy on edit warring in general, but it puts the emphasis on 3rr even in situations where that rule doesn't apply. So I think the creation of a template to specifically cover slo-mo edit warring is in order. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:32, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

• I have created a series for disruptive editing which can be found in the table at WP:WARN. They are designed to be a general disruptive editing template, but they focus on content disputes, which is essentially what a slow-mo edit war is. Pol430 talk to me 22:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Template:Uw-softerblock

What makes this template any different than Template:Uw-ublock? HeyMid (contribs) 19:07, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Softerblock is just for WP:ORGNAME contraventions. Ublock is for any contravention of the user name policy. --Bsherr (talk) 21:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

warning levels for Template:Uw-coi?

Template:Uw-coi right now is a welcome paired with a warning, which is good for a new user who has not been alerted to WP:COI before. It doesn't seem as appropriate for an older user who has been warned about COI before. Is there perhaps a Uw-coi2, Uw-coi3, Uw-coi4-type template I'm overlooking, or if there is not one, might this be something that would be a useful addition? Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 15:42, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

It's intended as a single-level template. COI edits, without more, are always good-faith edits. The user may be ignoring COI rules in bad faith, though. Because COI issues are complicated, and not "per se" evident from the edit alone, successive and progressive warnings are probably not helpful. It would be better, after a warning, to start a thread at WP:COI/N right away to resolve the issue, I'd expect. Do you think differently? --Bsherr (talk) 17:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I think Uw-coi could at a minimum stand to have an alternate version which doesn't include a welcome for use with editors who have already received a welcome. For the other levels, I was thinking they would be appropriate for cases where the COI is accompanied by breach of policies or guidelines, particularly NPOV. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 20:59, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Conflicts of interest do not preclude an editor from editing those articles in which they have the conflict. The editor with the conflict ought to declare it. But, even if they do not, what is required of them is to be extra vigilant in ensuring that their edits are neutral and balanced. Thus, I agree with Bsherr that an escalating version of {{uw-coi}} is not necessary. If the person’s edits are violating WP:NPOV, then the escalating series that begins with {{uw-npov1}} should be applied thereafter. An Administrator reviewing their editing behaviour would see not only the COI warning, but the subsequent NPOV, etc., warnings as well. You may, as Bsherr mentions, report such an editor at the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard (shortcut → WP:COIN). — SpikeToronto 21:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't intend to downplay the problem COI poses. I agree that a "Welcome to Wikipedia" message for COI on a user editing with bias is inappropriate. But NPOV is usually more easily proved and more serious to the integrity of our content than COI, so if you've got an NPOV issue with COI, pursue the progressive warnings with NPOV (COI is the "lesser included offense" when you've got a bias problem). If the bias stops but there's still a COI problem, then "Welcome to Wikipedia" may actually be productively conciliatory. If this seems like a good approach, we can document it somewhere.

If the other issue is not bias, the user may actually be deserving of a good-faith assumption regarding the COI, even if the user has earned a bad-faith assumption regarding the other conduct. It wouldn't be appropriate to assume a user is intentionally disregarding COI just because they're intentionally contravening another guideline. That may seem a trivial nuance when dealing with vandalizing edits, but since warnings firstly are to be corrective, this approach of assuming good faith compartmentally is more productive to winning users back if possible.

What do you think? --Bsherr (talk) 16:45, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I think Bsherr has put it well. Conflicts of interest do not necessarily mean that one edits in a non-neutral way. Also, so often the editors who appear to have a conflict of interest are brand new Wikipedians. Thus, we need to balance not wanting to bite the newbies with informing them of our polices regarding conflicts of interest and neutrality. We do not want to drive away someone who otherwise might prove to be an asset to the project. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 21:13, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Most of the COI I seem to come across is from professional corporate spammers, the agents of political candidates, and the publicits of upcoming new authors. There is no way these SPA are going to become regular Wikipedians. A warm welcome is displaced, and I usually go straight to L2 or write my own warning. I think it should be possible to have two L1 warnings: one without a welcome for the obvious spammers, and one for the newbies who just don't yet understand the policies. There is over-emphasis here at Wikipedia that every new page creator is a potential new, regular Wikipedian. Kudpung (talk) 11:20, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

And how is it that your radar is so finely tuned that you can tell the difference between, for example, a political staffer and a political fan? I, and, I hazard to guess, the rest of us, are not possessed of such fine instruments. Wikipedia does not prevent, for example, fans of certain musical groups from creating articles about the object of their enthusiasm, nor would it prevent fans of certain politicians/writers/companies/etc. from creating pages about the object of their enthusiasm. All that is asked of any of them is that, on balance, the article be written from a neutral point of view and that it not promote the politician/writer/company/etc. about which they are writing. — SpikeToronto 19:13, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

P.S.  I do, however, think — and I may be burned at the stake as a heterodox for saying this — that you may have a point with your last comment: “There is over-emphasis … regular Wikipedian.” — SpikeToronto 19:13, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Kudpung, the levels in user warning series don't refer to first warning, second warning, etc. Rather, they correspond to the assumption of faith. A level one warning is only for good faith editors. See WP:WARN. But the question becomes whether, for the bad-faith editors you describe, using a different warning, like npov or advert or spam, would simply be better and more efficient. Would you use a COI warning instead of any of the former? --Bsherr (talk) 19:23, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Possible warning level changes

Here are my proposed user warning changes:

L1-L4: See the first topic. BlockWL1: Used for the first warning after a user has come off a block. BlockWL2: See above. BlockWL3: See above. BlockWLFinal: Used for a final warning.

Eventually after 3 times of having to use the BlockWL templates, dust place something like this on the user's talk page:

This user is a repeat vandal. Please be hyper vigilant of this user's edits. To have the ruling reversed, please contact the Arbitration Committee.

GrammarSpellingWatch (talk) 19:26, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

The whole thing seems too heavy-handed at the end with the "repeat vandal" flag (and who is to prevent the repeat vandal from removing it themselves?), and additionally, if someone continues to vandalize after coming off of a block, I just re-block them without warning, since if they haven't gotten the point after 3+ warnings and a previous block, I don't know what else to do for them to get them to understand it other than telling them that perhaps they should contribute elsewhere on the Internet for a while. SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

It just adds another layer of bureaucracy. And we try to WP:Avoid the word "vandal" and unnecessarily stigmatizing users with templates. When a user comes off a block, it's a new opportunity to edit in good faith. If the user fails to do so, the remedy, better than a template, is a progressively longer or perhaps indefinite block. --Bsherr (talk) 22:00, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

On the subject of this I am currently in the process of writing a draft that aims to bring the subject of user warning's under one umbrella (mostly taken from this project and the user warnings project). With the aim of addressing issues such as:

• Not labeling disruptive editing as vandalism.
• Bringing in a recognised behavioral guideline on the design of user warning templates.
• Ensuring that abusive editing that is not halted by warnings, is reported to the correct venue.

Preliminary work can be seen at User:Pol430/Sandbox/WikiProject user warnings. I invite comments and suggestions on changes. Either here or on my talk page Pol430 talk to me 09:54, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Template:Uw-patrolled

I would never use this template. Maybe it's Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars talking, but when I see an editor taking on the tedious and often thankless task of new page patrolling, I always do them the courtesy of a personalized note. It hardly takes more time and is much friendlier, which may encourage them in their patrolling activities. Using a 'warning' template on someone who is correctly exercising standard deletion policy while disregarding a relatively new feature seems unduly harsh to me. Feezo (Talk) 07:45, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I totally agree. However, it is absolutely necessary to remind many NP patrollers to mark pages they look at and tag or pass as 'patrolled'. However, this template text is grossly impolite, and may even discourage users from continuing to carry out this fundamentally important task. It needs rewording, and the 'warning' style level 2 header taking off it. We shouldn't be serving up official, filter alerting warninsg to editors who are basically just doing what they are supposed to do. How about:

Hi {{pagename}}. Thanks for all your help patroling new pages - a fundamental system of first-line defence against unwanted pages, and for tagging new articles desperately in need of attention. However, do please remember to click the ''''mark this page as patrolled'''' link to prevent the page from continuing to be listed. Not doing so can cause problems for bots that are also doing various clean ups and indexing. Thanks again for volunteering your time at NPP, check up on exactly what NPP is all about at the [[WP:NPP|New Page Patrol project]], and happy editing! ~~~~

Kudpung (talk) 15:29, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

While that would be a nice personal message, elements of personal style should be left out of uw templates. I'd expect someone receiving this warning wouldn't need a description of new page patrolling either. I agree with changing the tone of the template. Perhaps make it more concise? --Bsherr (talk) 15:34, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect, I am suggesting that this should not be considered a warning at all, even if it is served up by Twinkle automation. A fundamental policy at Wikipedia is that we should not frighten people away from wanting to be of help, particularly in some urgent areas of quasi administrative work. The above is an example of the type of personalised messages I use anyway. As per User:Feezo, I always do them the courtesy of a personalized note - because of this accusatory template. And that, if you don't wish to change it, makes this uncivil 'warning' redundant. Ironically, (because I've done the research) most New Page patrollers have never bothered to read the instructions at WP:NPP at all, and many of them are very new to Wikipedia and think they have to begin by doing some admin`style tasks. That's why we have so many problems with it and why I have instigated the new, additional system that is now up and running at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol#Back of the unpatrolled backlog. Kudpung (talk) 16:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC) BTW, we recently have some editors suggesting that it is not necessary at all to have a set of guidelines for NPP - it beggars belief!

I think you might be confused by the terminology. If it is a template used on a user talk page to deliver a message about the user's activity, for Wikipedia purposes, it's a warning. Warning doesn't mean bad faith or bad conduct. Or are you suggesting the template be deleted? --Bsherr (talk) 17:25, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Several good points here. I like Kudpung's version better than what we have, though Bsherr's points are well taken too. How about:

Hi {{pagename}}. Thank you for your help with patroling new pages. However, do please remember to click the ''''mark this page as patrolled'''' link to prevent the page from continuing to be listed. This saves time and work by informing fellow patrollers of your review of the page so that they do not duplicate efforts. Thanks again for volunteering your time at the [[WP:NPP|New Page Patrol project]].~~~~

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kubigula (talk) 20:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think I'm confused, neither am I suggesting the template be deleted. It's currently a warning, but IMO it needs very strongly rewording as a friendly request. The point is that we have here two editors who are stating that the template is unfriendly, and they won't use it. I can't understand why there is suddenly so much resistance to wanting to be friendly. Please point me to the policy that says we can't use elements of personal style and be friendly and encouraging, most especially when it concerns our volunteers at NPP. Kudpung (talk) 21:54, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Kubigula's wording seems fine to me, a vast improvement on the tone of the current template. Pol430 talk to me 21:57, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

(To Kudpung)- I think we have consensus here that the existing wording is too harsh, and I don't think there is resistance to making it more friendly. That being said, we want templates to be as broadly useful as possible so I thought the language ought to be a bit more general. That is, neither assuming the person had been doing a lot of NPP (thanking them for "all their help") nor that they were unfamiliar with the purpose of NPP.--Kubigula (talk) 23:11, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Ugggg. I created this template back in April 208 but its message has been bowdlerized in subsequent edits. It was far more friendly as I drafted it, and most critically, I attempted to design it so that those who didn't do the things necessary to mark a page as patrolled, wouldn't feel it was asking them to mark a page as patrolled even if they hadn't taken on those tasks, or if they didn't have the knowledge to patrol a page fully. Its current message that "all articles that you have looked at should be marked patrolled" is awful; exactly what we shouldn't be asking. This language is qualifiedn subsequent language but it will give the wrong idea to many. The template as I left it said:

Hello. I noticed that you are doing a good deal of newpages patrolling but are not marking the majority of pages you visit as patrolled. Though this is not mandatory in any way, and should not be done for all newpages, where appropriate it keeps your fellow patrollers from wasting time reviewing the same page multiple times. In any event, keep up the good work! Thanks.

I would tweak this today in various ways, including being far more explicit about not marking pages as patrolled if the necessary tasks had not been done or if they weren't yet experienced to know what tasks need to be done. The fact that it has "uw" in its name in irrelevant to whether it is truly a "warning" or not. That comes from the content, which not incidentally, starts with an information icon, not a warning icon. I agree, though, that it now reads as far more of a warning than it did. As for not templating the regulars, most of those to whom this template will be applicable will not be regulars. Brand new users doing NPP is nothing new or unusual.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:15, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

• Back in my non-admin days I did old-school RC patrol, just loading recent changes and looking for anything suspect. Somebody dropped this template on me once and I explained to them that I didn't consider myself a new page patroller and had never even looke dinto the whole "official" patrolling thing. Despite what is suggested by the template it is actually not required to work within the formal patrol structure. I'm not knocking it, I just never did it myself and users are free to not do it by the formula if they want to. The template language should be softened to reflect that. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Recap:

1. There are no Wikipedia policies that clearly state that reminder templates of this kind should have snarky wording, and none that state that reminders like these can't be worded in a more friendly manner.
2. NPP is a fundamental first-line defence against unwanted pages, and a system for flagging new pages in need of much/urgent attention.
3. NPP is done by a lot of new/inexperienced editors
4. NP patrollers have rarely read any instructions at all
5. NP patrollers are often not aware of the WP:NPP project and its GL.(the cat of users wearing a NPP ubox is not identical with the list of registered participants at WP:NPP, many users have simply copied the ubox from other editors' user pages.
6. Too many new pages are not being patrolled at all. Up to 350 pages per day slip into the Wikipedia unnoticed. They are all in poor condition because the NP patrollers didn't know what to do with them.
7. NPP is only worth doing if it is done reasonably well - we experienced users are not supposed to be double checking the work of the patrollers. (well, theoretically not, but I do, and I detect about 10% error rate in the tagging, and a much higher rate of tagging without clicking the 'patrolled' button.)
8. There is no point in tagging if the 'click this page as patrolled' is not clicked, because it means that we have to do the work for them again.
9. Given that NPP is done by many young editors and newbies, we should encourage rather than WP:BITE them.
10. Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol#Back of the unpatrolled backlog is a new feature that has been approved partly because of the imperfections in the new Page patrolling.
11. We should be encouraging users not only to take part in the NPP process, but if they are going to do it at all, to do it reasonably intelligently like they would (we hope) take part in any other semi-administrative task. We should not be scaring them away with insensitive warnings.

Kudpung (talk) 13:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there's much disagreement here. Warnings can be phrased as requests. (Definitionally, if it's not a warning, it doesn't belong in WP:WARN, though. That's why I thought you might be confusing the terminology.) The level one warning in a user warning template series often is. It's not a matter of policy that user warning templates don't have elements of personal style, it's a matter of practicality. Standardization means that the template has to be phrased generally enough to be acceptable for everyone. So we tend to leave out "howdy" and "cheerio" and "happy editing" in favor of simple "please and "thank you". That's all. It doesn't mean the template can't be phrased politely; indeed, we strive to do so. What do you think of Kubigula's proposed revision? --Bsherr (talk) 22:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Part of the reason that this is such a sticky topic is there are several messages we have to be able to convey. First, someone might not be aware of the patrol featured at all, or, as Beeblebrox experienced, they might not consider themselves to be newpage patrolling at all. The second problem is that incorrect use of the patrol feature is counterproductive, and proper use has some subtleties. All this has to be conveyed in a template for someone who is otherwise doing a good job. I think the key is to present it "thanks for the work you've been doing, now here's a way to help out even more", rather than "thanks your work, by the way you're not finishing the job". We should also add something like "if you'd rather not use this feature, please disregard this message". Apart from these details, Kubigula's version looks fine. Feezo (Talk) 06:45, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I beg to differ, Bsherr. Even the Copyvio (a serious Wiki crime) warning ends with 'Happy editing!' Twinkle even puts a smarmy welcome before many of the L1 warnings, such as vandalism (although there is a lobby to drop that idiosyncrasy), so I have to insert my vandalism warnings manually. It's a fallacy to believe that the writers of blatant vandalism of the most crude kind will ever become a net benefit to the Wikipedia. You should try working on the thousands of schools pages, where vandalim is a constant battle! I think my suggestion is best, but that's natural, I'm currently running the new NPP 30-day system, and trying to revive the totally dead NPP project page;) NPP is broken (consensus), and some of us are trying our best to repair it, and we feel that we should encourage NPPers to read the GL and do the task more thoroughly. My version:

• Doesn't reprimand
• Thanks them for their work
• Explains why it's necessary
• Encourages them to continue
• Uses a familiar tone that may appeal to 12 year olds, while not shocking the 60 year olds like me.

I'll just mention incentives here too. Part of the problem is that the original creator of the NPP system way back in 2006 allowed it to be done by any autoconfirmed editors (4 days & 10 edits). We could address this problem by tightening up the baisc editor requirements. However, I feel that it's not a totally bad idea to offer youngsters and newbies an area of quasi-admin work where they can operate that will help them feel more part of the Wikipedia project. It's difficult to offer other incentives such as barnstars as we do for other backlog projects such as uBLP and GOCE, because it would simply encourage the youngsters to start their drive-by tagging contests again. Therefore this reminder template is one step in the right direction.

I'd probably settle for:

Hi {{pagename}}. Thanks for patrolling new pages. If you have tagged a page for attention or deletion, or if you feel it basically meets [[WP:NPP#Improving new pages|our requirements]] without further ado, please click the ''''mark this page as patrolled'''' link to prevent the page from being listed by bots and duplicating the efforts of the others. Happy editing! ~~~~

Short and sweet, it covers all the points I have made above.Kudpung (talk) 06:41, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I tried to find the copyright violation template you mentioned with the colloquial message, but couldn't. Template:Uw-copyright doesn't appear to be the one. Could you identify it by name? --Bsherr (talk) 00:30, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Is it Template:Nothanks-drm? That's a deprecated "TestTemplate". I've redirected it. --Bsherr (talk) 00:33, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

No, it's on the one that automatically blanks the page and notifies the WP:COPYVIO center: {{subst:copyvio | url=insert URL here}}, on it the message template to copy and paste to the user's tp: {{subst:Nothanks-web|pg=|url=insert URL here}}. Kudpung (talk) 04:10, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

You must mean {{Copyvio}} then. — SpikeToronto 07:02, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

BTW: I've always felt that there a re two camps at Wikipedia (and it comes from my participation in various policy development): One that wants everything to read like an official notice on the wall of the immigration department, and one that wants to make everything oily sweet and smarmy. IMHO, every single uw template needs systematically revising to achieve the correct degree and balance of language for each level of reminder, warning, and kind of warning. We're too soft on L1 and L2 warnings for incorrigible vandals, and regularly uncivil and/or disruptive editors - just for example, and too harsh with reminders for totally innocuous forgetfulness, or innocent ignorance of the rules.Kudpung (talk) 04:20, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Kudpung, I cannot figure out how to give effect to your L1/L2 suggestion without having two of each: L1harsh/L2harsh and L1soft/L2soft. As I read most of the warning templates that I apply, the L1 templates — because they assume good faith — are softer and more welcoming than the L2 templates. The L2 templates — because they do not assume good faith — are not so welcoming. So, if one thinks that a vandal is incorrigible regularly uncivil, and/or disruptive, start your warning at Level 2. As Bsherr said above:

…the levels in user warning series don't refer to first warning, second warning, etc. Rather, they correspond to the assumption of faith. A level one warning is only for good faith editors. See WP:WARN.[2]

Otherwise, perhaps I misunderstood, but how can we have a L1 or L2 template that is both less harsh for some and less soft for others unless we have two series for each? My fear would be that such a template would end up saying nothing trying so to balance the two. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 07:02, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

In relation to the patrolled template, and at risk of rebuke, I have amended the template text, to a version similar to User:Kubigula's version (with a slight copy edit) Pol430 talk to me 09:42, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, the reminder about the use of uw template levels was another example of remonstrating with people who already know their job ;) The whole point of this discussion - which seems to have got lost - was that this is not about a warning at all. It's a gentle reminder to do something better that the editor is probably not doing too badly already.

Pol430, With all due respect, I think we should have waited until the discussion had progressed a bit further - consensus building is a core Wikipedia policy.

Obviously if we can't close ranks on this I'll just continue to use my own custom messages even if it takes more time than Twinkle. My concern is that we keep the people we've got on NPP that has already reached such a worrying level of disfunctionality that I've instigated a new bot process to work around it temporarily. I don't want us to lose those people through thoughtless application of a scowl and a wagging finger, but they do have to be directed towards the guidelines that they haven't bothered to read yet. And I certainly don't want this to end up in an edit war over the text of a template. Kudpung (talk) 13:58, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I think Pol430 did the right thing. We seem to be in a bit of a circular discussion here, while the old version of the template - which we all seem to agree was unsatisfactory - remained in use. Certainly nobody should edit war over the language, but anyone can edit it until we reach a consensus version - that's the wiki way.--Kubigula (talk) 16:51, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

So I will also be doing the right thing when I now revert Pol's unilateral edit. Do we really want the Wikipedia to be filled up with crap new pages because we are not prepared to give NPP a fresh kick start in the right direction? We need to understand what that template is for, whom it addresses, and the long term implications. We need something friendly and encouraging, and if it can't be handled here, we can take it to Central Discussions and we might get a decision in 2 years. Kudpung (talk) 17:46, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

It would only be the right thing to revert Pol if you strongly felt the previous version of the template was much better - which is obviously not the case. The new version is clearly more friendly and encouraging than what we had before, and it's really not very different than what you proposed. With respect, I think you may be making this a bigger deal than it is.--Kubigula (talk) 18:18, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

IMHO, I consider his action an affront to all the preceding discussion which he had obviously not read, and totally counter-productive to the Wikipedia collaborative spirit where several possible versions have already been suggested, including your own which was already vastly superior. Kudpung (talk) 04:08, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

@Kudpung, I think you are taking this somewhat out of context. Firstly I have read this discussion from beginning to end, and noted tacit agreement for Kugibula's version. If you would care to do the same you will see some support for Kubigula's version from me, Feezo, Bsheer, and of course Kubigula. You mention that Kubigula's version was "vastly superior". However, my edit was a copy and paste of that version, which I then tweaked very slightly. Please indicate how my actions rendered it "vastly inferior". You accuse me of not collaborating and flying in the face of consensus when the opposite is true. I'm not surprised that you do not support my edit, but I could see no measure of support for your proposed version. Furthermore, I don't particularly care if you revert my edit, but the template has been improved since that edit by User:Fuhghettaboutit. This discussion had become rather circular (as Kubigula has already mentioned) that's why I made the change. Pol430 talk to me 10:46, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not bothered in the slightest that there was no support for my suggestion. It was deliberately a little OTT to allow a margin for scale back to something that would still be acceptable. What I'm more concerned about is that the template architects take a moment to look at the bigger picture. You template text is only a small cog in a big wheel at NPP, but nevertheless an important one. It's a template that's probably only ever been used twenty times in it's entire history, but in the coming weeks and months, it (or more probably one like it) is going to be used almost every time a patroller fails to click the 'patrolled' link, and that's most of the time. IT just won't work in Twinkle, that's all.--Kudpung (talk) 13:24, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Template:Attack

I'd like to propose conversion of Template:Attack to a user warning template. Besides renaming and listing, any suggestions for improvements? --Bsherr (talk) 20:27, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

• no additional ideas. Seems like a simple enough one level warning. When you do move it over be sure to change (or just note here and I'll change) Wikipedia:Attack page which currently points people to the npa series of templates for user warnings. Protonk (talk) 20:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I've made the change now. Thanks. --Bsherr (talk) 21:18, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Bsherr, you say that you’ve made the change, but doesn’t converting Template:Attack to a warning template also require it to be renamed something akin to Template:Uw-attackpage, or some such? Thanks! — SpikeToronto 23:04, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

He means he made the change I suggested on Wikipedia:Attack page. Protonk (talk) 23:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah! Gotcha. If, then, Bsherr, you’re awaiting consensus, I agree that the template should be brought under the UTM umbrella and made a warning template. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 03:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Spike. I'll give it a day further for discussion here. --Bsherr (talk) 05:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm a bit late into the mix, but I too agree that Attack should be brought under the UTM umbrella. Pol430 talk to me 23:27, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I've added the single notice documentation and requested the move. --Bsherr (talk) 23:04, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Move completed. --Bsherr (talk) 23:31, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Major redo -- where is there consensus for such a disruptive redo?

This edit [3] removed several templates which are frequently used by editors. (At least I use them regularly.) The result -- difficult to find appropriate and/or familiar templates. Seems to me (as a fairly inexperienced editor) that this change itself is disruptive. Comments (and revision) are invited. --S. Rich (talk) 23:03, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted these changes. As far as I can see there has been no discussion of this (the short edit log of the user that made the changes show no sign of a discussion) and so there doesn't appear to be a consensus for such a major change and I like the editor above question it's usefulness. Per WP:BRD, I've reverted and contributed to this discussion. Dpmuk (talk) 23:36, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any reason not to assume good faith. Could editors with concerns please state explicitly what they are? --Bsherr (talk) 02:38, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

It is not a question of good faith -- rather of a perhaps unintentional disruption. The edit was described as a major redo. If that is so, what is the basis for the redo? In fact, the edit removed a frequently used template (perhaps the most frequently used) from the top of the list. Why? If the proponent of the deletion has good reason, I'd certainly like to know what it is. (Also, I thank Dpmuk for the reversion. The significance and mechanics of particular templating is beyond me -- I simply seek to use the vandalism template as appropriate and I'm glad it is back!)--S. Rich (talk) 04:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I did assume good faith, and I can certainly see why the changes were made, but I have several concerns:

1. Unilaterally introducing new templates like this means a fragmented approach to these templates. Some people are likely to still use the old ones - especially those using automated tools (that won't have been updated) while others will start using the new ones. This is likely to cause confusions both to those being warned and those doing the warning.
2. I'm not sure of the utility of having four levels of 3rr warning. 3rr is a red line you break it you can get blocked (as long as you've been warned), there is no escalation like many other warnings. It appears that 3rr4 would be used after they broke the 3rr rule. This is at odds with our other level 4 templates which are effectively "last chance" templates while 3rr4 seems to be a "too late" template as at that point they should have been blocked. The proposed level 3 template appears to be for use when the user has done 3 reverts so effectively is the same as the current single template. Working back from there I can only assume that the level 2 template is for use after 2 reverts and level 1 after 1 revert. This effectively makes the level 1 template pointless as unless the revert is vandalism or similar (in which case there are other templates) there would be no point in warning after one revert as reverting is perfectly allowable. Hence I think the idea of multiple level 3rr templates is fundementally flawed.
3. uw-lang was a information template while the new ones are warning templates. As well as this being a significant change I'm not sure an escalating series of templates is really appropriate for this although I can see arguments both way. People are unlikely to realise that we have, and why we have, this policy so I'm not sure using the warning levels is appropriate in the first place - especially when the current level one template doesn't explain it very well. In short I'd like more discussion of this series of new templates.

For these reasons I reverted the changes as at a minimum I think they need more discussion. Dpmuk (talk) 11:13, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I think Dpmuk's revert was correct, I note that User:Aerosprite made the same edit agin without discussion on this page and has been reverted again. As far as I'm aware the multi level 3rr templates were replaced in favor of the single issue 3rr warning (multiple warnings about 3rr are not conducive to the message of WP:3rr). In the same vein, switching between different varieties of english is already covered by Template:uw-lang which is mentioned at WP:ENGVAR. I don't believe there is any justification for multi templates for this issue. Any blocks made for repeatedly switching between styles are likely to be for disruption/3rr reasons, for which, other templates already exist. Pol430 talk to me 23:22, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I understand the reversion, but thought it rather inconsistent with assuming good faith to call it disruptive, or to revert without giving specific objections. Thank you for rectifying that. I want to make sure we proceed consistently. Inclusion or exclusion of templates here at UTM shouldn't become a proxy for TfD. Given that, perhaps someone would be interested in nominating a template for discussion? --Bsherr (talk) 19:30, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Uw-Lang1

Template:Uw-Lang1 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. I have also nominated Uw-Lang2 and Uw-Lang3 Pol430 talk to me 10:43, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Uw-hoax2

Template:Uw-hoax2 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Pol430 talk to me 10:55, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Warning templates from may to will

Why can't the warning templates and other templates be changed from may back to will? WayneSlam 20:33, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

The use of "may" recognizes that a level 4 warning is not necessarily always followed by a block. Usually this is the case when a warning has gone stale. This also avoids tying admins' hands when it comes to blocks. In practice, it has been the case many times where users have been warned up to a level 4 warning, and then the warning goes stale (even with not that long of a gap), and then a user is given a level 1 warning, effectively restarting the process without a block, even though a block was promised earlier. It makes us look somewhat foolish if we don't deliver the promised block, and leaves room for discretion on the part of admins. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:13, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I've noticed that even adding a second L4 doesn't always trigger the filter. Perhaps we need a level 5, and a bot to impose an automatic block. --Kudpung (talk) 07:44, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Trust me when I say that I would be the first one to block a block-bot, since actions that will deny someone else the ability to edit Wikipedia should always be executed by a real person with a real finger on the button. I have enough trouble sometimes explaining the nutty stuff that goes on around here without having to explain why someone got bot-blocked. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:14, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I think the semantic differences between "may" and "will" on warning templates are of primary interest to the users of the templates and near minimal interest to everyone else. The question of forcefulness versus accuracy in expectation is just not an interesting one in practice. Protonk (talk) 23:18, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Forcefulness is meaningless if not carried out to the letter, as it often isn't. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:14, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Template:Uw-hoax2

Should Template:Uw-hoax2 be a Level2 template, or a Level4 template? Also, if there is another hoax level template, then is it appropriate in the single-level section? Finally, could not the Level 1 hoax template be moved back from Template:Uw-hoax1 to Template:Uw-hoax — where it was — and simply re-worded to cover both eventualities? Sorry this is all so Socratic … but these questions arise as a result of the unilateral actions of another editor who, it seems, is unwilling to participate in these discussions. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 22:46, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I was also going to bring this up. I think uw-hoax makes a fine single level notice. I'd propose that successive user warnings instead be accomplished with the uw-create series of templates, which are for "inappropriate" pages. I think it probably unnecessary to identify the the created page as a hoax in successive warnings. Thoughts? --Bsherr (talk) 23:03, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I suggest changing the first sentence of Template:Uw-hoax1 from

Do not add hoaxes to Wikipedia

to the following:

Do not create, add, or restore hoaxes to Wikipedia.

Then, move it back to Template:Uw-hoax as a single-level template. Finally, use PROD to delete Template:Uw-hoax2. What do you think? — SpikeToronto 03:05, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. The create series are perfectly adequate to cover anything beyond the first warning; no need for a separate series for every type of innappropriate page.--Kubigula (talk) 03:27, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

  Partly Done:  I have moved Template:uw-hoax1 back to Template:uw-hoax. I reverted it back to what it had been prior, including the graphic, and then added the new wording. Moreover, I have added a speedy delete tag to the no longer necessary Template:uw-hoax1 page, which became a redirect after the move. Finally, I reverted the addition of the Level 2 template to the WP:UTM page.

However, I have not done anything about Template:uw-hoax2. As I understand WP:PROD, one cannot use that process for templates. I gather, then, that one must create a TfD entry for Template:uw-hoax2. As I have never launched a XfD process, I am a little leary of doing it on my own the first time, unless some one of you would like to walk me through it. Otherwise, please feel free to create a TfD entry for Template:uw-hoax2, unless it would be possible to massage a speedy delete criterion to fit Template:uw-hoax2. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 08:10, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Spike, I was nominating another template at TfD so thought I would do Template:uw-hoax2 at the same time. It was my first TfD nominations too, I just followed the step by step advice at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion. Pol430 talk to me 10:59, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Pol430! Next time, I shall gird my loins (i.e., “man up”) and do it myself. I’ve got to learn sometime! — SpikeToronto 22:51, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

If it's just a single nomination, Twinkle does quite a good job of creating a TfD entry. Multi templates are a bit more fiddly though. (I had to use the preview button quite a lot) Pol430 talk to me 13:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah, alas, a Twinkler I cannot be. I run Internet Explorer on a PC, which I understand to not be compatible with TW. Archaic I know … (P.S. I’m almost willing to bet that I press the preview button more than any other Wikipedian! ) — SpikeToronto 23:00, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

removal of whois tags

Users are not allowed to remove whois tags from their talk page but they can remove all other warnings, correct? I'm trying to locate this so I can cite it when informing the user of this.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 14:37, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Found answer: WP:BLANKING
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 15:43, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Uw-agf3

I AGF reverted this edit because It dosen't seem to keep up with the tone of most Uw templates. If you have a problem with this please revert me. cheers --Guerillero | My Talk 01:13, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

If you agree with me edit the same user made a similar one here cheers --Guerillero | My Talk 01:18, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree, and have reverted the second edit. The link to WP:CIVIL seems needlessly inflammatory, plus the addition doesn't specify which actions are meant by 'These'. Feezo (Talk) 02:27, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Seems sound enough to me. On the reverted version, I would take issue to the line, "If you continue to engage in this behavior, editors may leave Wikipedia." When someone is being really WP:BITEy like that, it is sometimes the case that they are trying to drive someone off, and so we don't need to confirm that. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:15, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

This is the second time User:Aerosprite's edits has been discussed here. I agree with User:Feezo that not only was the link potentially inflammatory but erroneous. Assuming good faith and Civility are not the same thing. I have sent them a message. Pol430 talk to me 12:02, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposed changes to WP:UW

I have started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject user warnings concerning changes to the layout of that wikiproject; these changes affect WP:UTM also. In the interest of centralized discussion please post any replies to the UW project talk page. Pol430 talk to me 00:20, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Uw-upincat template page has major errors

The Template:Uw-upincat page shows these incorrect versions of the template: {{subst:Uw-upincatsubst:uw-upincat|user page}} and {{subst:Uw-upincatsubst:uw-upincat|user page|additional text}}. Can that page be edited without messing up the actual template? Thanks, Aristophanes68 (talk) 05:30, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll be honest and say I have no idea what you mean :S Pol430 talk to me 22:40, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I tried to use the template, so I copied and pasted {{subst:Uw-upincatsubst:uw-upincat|user page}} and {{subst:Uw-upincatsubst:uw-upincat|user page|additional text}} (from the "usage" section of the Template:Uw-upincat page) onto the relevant user's page, but the templates didn't work until I deleted the duplicate "subst:Uw-upincat"s. I tried to edit the Template page to correct the problem, but I can't find the templates in the page code. Aristophanes68 (talk) 03:47, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

No idea why it's done that way, but  Fixed. Anomie⚔ 14:33, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Aristophanes68 (talk) 20:57, 23 February 2011 (UTC)