Wikipedia talk:WikiProject User warnings/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

For shared IP addresses, vandalism warnings appear to be unenforceable

The issuing of any vandalism warnings to shared IP addresses appears to be an utter waste of time, and make the person doing the warning look foolish. Such warnings appear to be unenforceable.

The shared IP address User talk:138.23.89.187 is registered to University of California, Riverside. The shared IP address User_talk:204.69.4.82 is registered to Riverside Community College District. Both Riverside California addresses have repeatedly vandalized Garrison Keillor‎, Lake Wobegon, A Prairie Home Companion‎, and A Prairie Home Companion (film).

After reverting the vandalism and posting unheeded escalating warnings, I requested IAV. That request was rejected. After follow-up discussion at User_talk:King_of_Hearts#vand_from_a_school, I have learned never again to waste my time issuing vandalism warnings to shared IP addresses. And because such warnings are unenforceable, I have also retracted some of my so-called "final warnings" from User_talk:204.69.4.82#March_2008. I feel utterly stupid issuing a "final warning" that can be repeatedly violated with impunity.

I'll continue reverting vandalism, and continue issuing vandalism warnings to non-shared IP addresses. Just not to shared IP addresses. I'm through seeing several of my own so-called "final warnings" go unenforced despite my best efforts. --Art Smart (talk) 11:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Should be brought up at WT:AIV, as your complaint is with the blocking system not the templates themselves. ^Khukri 12:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem with the "templates themselves" is that since only admins can enforce a final vandalism warning, then only admins should be allowed to use those templates in the first place. Any non-admin issuing a final warning to a shared IP address will only look foolish when that final warning goes unenforced. --Art Smart (talk) 13:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

You might want to read our previous discussion on this subject (here and here). As I indicated in one of the two archived threads, those who issue level four warnings may not be the admins levying the blocks, but they are the people initiating the investigation that leads to a block via their reports to AIV. --Kralizec! (talk) 14:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Kralizec!, for providing the archives of previous discussions on this issue. Very helpful. I would definitely support the proposed wording changes for v3 and v4 from "you will be blocked from editing" to "steps will be taken to block you from editing". As a non-admin, I won't be issuing any more v3 or v4 warnings unless the circumstances give me overwhelming confidence that such warnings will be enforced. If in the future, the v3 and v4 wording gets changed so that I'm not hanging out on a limb by issuing such a warning, then I'll issue more warnings. I can't tell someone "you will be blocked" if I have no such authority. It costs both Wikipedia and me some of our credibility. --Art Smart (talk) 14:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not an admin, but I have issued plenty of warnings, including "final warnings," to shared IPs that ended up being blocked, typically with a soft school block. (I've also been frustrated by occasions when shared-IP vandals did not get blocked, but some can and do get blocked.) --Orlady (talk) 16:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Ambiguity of process leads to decline of blocks

In the past couple of days I have been forced to decline several block requests on WP:AIV because the reporting editor issued a bunch a warnings simultaneously. That is, they gave escalating levels of warnings for each case of vandalism reverted, regardless of the fact that the IP address stopped editing hours before.

Here is an example situation:

at 13:21 an IP vandalizes foo

at 13:22 the IP vandalizes bar

at 13:23 the IP vandalizes SNAFU

at 13:25 the IP vandalizes FUBAR

at 13:26 the IP vandalizes pre-teen

then at 13:27 study hall is over and the kid goes to his next class

at 15:50 editor VandalVigilante checks his watchlist and sees a change to pre-teen

at 15:51 VandalVigilante reverts pre-teen and issues a {{uw-vandalism1}} warning to the IP

at 15:52 VandalVigilante reverts foo and issues a {{uw-vandalism2}} warning to the IP

at 15:52 VandalVigilante reverts bar and issues a {{uw-vandalism3}} warning to the IP

at 15:53 VandalVigilante reverts SNAFU and issues a {{uw-vandalism4}} warning to the IP

at 15:53 VandalVigilante reverts FUBAR and reports the IP to WP:AIV

While it is possible that I missed something, in reviewing WP:UTM I do not see any explicit statement that escalated levels of warning should only be used if the vandal ignores a previous warning and persists in vandalizing after receiving that warning message. Does anyone have an idea for ways to cleverly phrase this? Everything I think up sounds like I am pandering to the lowest common denominator. --Kralizec! (talk) 23:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it's part and parcel of a number of problems with the warning system which I've brought up in the past at AIV i.e. What determines recent, when to issue only a 4im, sequencing of warnings etc. There should be a guide to issuing warnings at either WP:VAND or AIV that explains the purpose of the warnings, not for punishment etc, and a few case studies on how they could be applied.

UW might not be the best place for it as we are out of the way, and personally I'd like to see this whole project now moved over to UTM to bring it all under one roof.

For your issue you could write, having explained about warnings and incrementing, something along the lines of "Once the first warning has been issued, then subsequent elevated warnings are issued for each continued transgression, until a final warning is issued whereby the editor should be reported to WP:AIV. The warning level cannot be elevated retrospectively for each offence that is prior to the initial warning, and can only be increased for subsequent offences." ^Khukri 08:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Or perhaps, "The purpose of user warnings is to guide good-faith testers and dissuade bad-faith vandals. Issuing more than one warning level simultaneously serves no purpose, since they did not get the first warning before you escalated to the next resort. Furthermore, user blocks serve to prevent further vandalism rather than to punish bad users. If the user stopped vandalizing some time ago, and their edit histories don't suggest a pattern of chronic vandalism, there's no need to warn or block them at all (although a welcome template might help future visits). Likewise, if a user is in the midst of an obviously bad-faith vandalism spree, there's no need to warn them before temporarily blocking them." —{admin} Pathoschild 19:15:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion to make {{uw-uncen2}} more informative

I suggest adding the following text to the templates {{uw-uncen1}} and {{uw-uncen2}}:

"If you personally find content objectionable, Wikipedia can be personalised to adhere to your cultural norms. Details are explained here."

or

"Wikipedia can be personalised to ahere to your cultural norms."

or

"You may have removed a picture because it violates your cultural norms. Wikipedia does not endorse unilateral enforcement of cultural norms. It can, however be personalised to your needs."

I feel that many users are geniunely concerned about their children seeing certain articles, and that most a not aware of the above option, which is why they resort to deleting info. I am afraid that such users will stop using wikipedia altogether if they are fobbed off with a "zero censorship" warning. Informing them about the self-censorship option will make them feel more in control, and they will be more likely to stay. Cambrasa (talk) 13:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that's a pretty good idea, except that I would avoid the phrase "cultural norms". Seems to me that there are many reasons why someone could be offended, and it's better to not speculate on motive.--Kubigula (talk) 03:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

How about "Wikipedia can be personalised to hide content" Cambrasa (talk) 15:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Another silly question - standardization

Here are four templates and the results they give:

{{subst:vandal1}}

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

- - - - - -

{{subst:vandal2}}

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appeared to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.

- - - - - -

{{subst:vandal3}}

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing.

- - - - - -

{{subst:vandal4}}

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing.

- - - - - -

Note that number 4 doesn't work. It works if "vandal4" is changed to "uw-vandal4".

{{subst:uw-vandal4}}

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing.

- - - - - -

Is there any good reason why 4 is different? (other than it was coded differently.)

I'm asking this because it would be a bit simpler if they were uniform. Wanderer57 (talk) 23:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The standard templates are {{uw-vandalism1}}, {{uw-vandalism2}}, {{uw-vandalism3}}, and {{uw-vandalism4}}; the templates without the "uw-" prefix are part of the legacy set of templates, which are not completely standardized. —{admin} Pathoschild 23:14:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Also answered at Wikipedia:Help desk. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 03:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't use subst for a bunch of welcomes, what should I do?

I used {{welcome}} on a bunch of new editor talk pages. I didn't use {{subst:W-basic}}. (Sorry.) What should I do? Should I go back over my edits and change them? Or should I leave it to a bot? Thanks. and I checked the FAQ Dan Beale-Cocks 10:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about it, you could spend your time on something more productive/fun - the bot's normally pretty good at catching these. Papa November (talk) 12:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

new template for directing users to Wikia

One of the nice things about Wikia are the specialized wikis, many of which allow content that is otherwise inappropriate for Wikipedia, such as game guides or articles on minor fictional characters. I have created a new template ({{nn-wikia}}) for telling users that the content they added is more appropriate for Wikia.

What do you guys think? --Ixfd64 (talk) 08:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Only just seen this, but first it's not really a user warning, so here isn't the best place to answer that, and secondly, I'm not really sure of the etiquette of saying "It's not suitable for here, but try there". I think there a whole heap of implications, and I would suggest either the Village pump or overall templates group to rbing this up before you started using it. ^Khukri 12:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

What about this?

Do we need unique warnings for those who make politically-motivated edits? Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 10:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Depends on the exact edit content, but just trying to bias an article to one view or another you could use {{uw-npov1}} -> {{uw-npov4}}, but in my opinion it would have to blatant, ignoring all efforts to start a discussion, typing editing. Normally if there is a discussion ongoing about the edits and it was a disagreement then I would suggest dispute resolution before even thinking about let alone issuing a templated warnings. If you can give me a more detailed example, then I/we can answer specifics. Cheers ^Khukri 12:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I've found this one. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 11:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't need anything special, it's vandalism pure and simple, just use the vandalism warnings. ^Khukri 11:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

A new template

Hey people, yesterday i brought up an issue at the LGBT wikiproject. Im not a member myself but i thought this was quite important. I noticed that wikipedia has a template aimed at fighting racist edits yet there is no such template for edits against sexual orientation. As both are just as bad as one another and since discrimination does (unfortunately) occure on wikipedia we need a template that is used in the same manner as the racism template. The consensus was that a template is needed and there seems to be an agreement that no harm can come of it. I would like you to read the following link and help impliment a new template that will hopefully be taken as seriously as the racism template. This is the link. Cheers. --Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 16:35, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow - I hadn't even noticed that the racism template had cropped up again. We used to have both racism and homophobia templates, but there was pretty clear consensus against having these kind of specialized warning templates. You can view the previous TfD discussions at Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_May_8#Template:uw-racism and Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_May_8#Template:uw-homophobia. Consensus can change, but I personally still agree with the sentiments in those TfD discussion. Hate speech of any kind is vandalism and should be dealt with aggressively as such. I believe these kind of speciality templates can be counterproductive in that they suggest to the vandal that they are getting to us. IMO, it's better to deny any kind of recognition for this kind of garbage.--Kubigula (talk) 17:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec)As discussed over at WT:LGBT, there is a fair amount of homophobic vandalism, and it would be nice to have a specific specific warning template to use on the pages of editors who perpetrate such. Aleta ^Sing 17:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree, i believe admins take discrimination templates more seriously and therefore the editer gets fewer warnings. I would not be in favour of removing the racism template and would support a LGBT template. Maybe its time for a new consensus discussion. Either we have both or none. I would rather both though lol. Besides that was exactly a year ago right, maybe its time to see if views have changed. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 17:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we just create a general discrimination/hate speech template per the views of some of those editers in the links you provided. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 17:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to copy this discussion to WT:UTM, as that is the main warning template discussion page. This Wikiproject page is not very active anymore as its work is pretty much done.--Kubigula (talk) 18:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

OK , no problem. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 18:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Question

What is the difference between the template {{uw-v4}} and {{uw-bv}}? They both seem similar since both of them could function as final warnings. Could these two templates be merged together? I asked something similar to this elsewhere but nobody could come up with an answer. Cheers. _{Trance addict - Tiesto - Above and Beyond} 06:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

{{uw-v4}} is intended to be used after {{uw-v3}} (which should come after {{uw-v2}}, which should often come after {{uw-v1}}). {{uw-v4im}} could come after they've already had a block for vandalism. {{uw-bv}} is for cases where you would normally use {{uw-v1/2}}, but the person is being so bleeding obvious that that would be dumb. The threshold for this is in general up to the editor leaving the warning, and for WP:BITE reasons is often quite high. Anomie⚔ 10:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Speaking as an admin who pulls WP:AIV duty every day, the 4im warnings are used incorrectly or inappropriately so often, we have a special {{AIV}} template for it:

User has been inappropriately warned. 4im warnings are appropriate for severe vandalism and defamation only.

So my best suggestion is to only use a 4im warning in the most egregious cases. --Kralizec! (talk) 12:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Cheers. _{Trance addict - Tiesto - Above and Beyond} 03:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Level 4 warnings

I started a thread here describing what I think might be a good modification for level 4 warnings, but thus far the proposal has not received any attention. So I figured I's mention it here. Please comment over there if so inclined. Yilloslime (t) 00:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Layout warning {{uw-layout}}

Since a lot of people arent following the warning layout, I made a layout template @ uw-layout. Now we can encourage ppl to use the layout. Stupid2 (talk) 01:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Since when is that layout mandated? IIRC, it was added to this page only because some wanted to see if more people would use the recommendation if it were displayed more prominently. Anomie⚔ 01:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, having just received one of Stupid2's "warnings" I have to say its spectacularly ill-conceived. Apart from the obvious misnomer of "mandated", I think this approach is entirely the wrong way around. If you look at how user warnings are actually used, its obvious that almost no-one uses the layout proposed by the WikiProject. The layout clearly doesn't work - the de facto consensus is to interleave warnings with other messages on talk page. I have yet to see an example of a separate warnings section. I very occasionally see the use of numbered lists, but even then that is the tiny majority of the use. The standardized user warnings are very useful, but the layout guidelines are not. The project would be much better served if it rewrote its layout guidelines to reflect actual usage instead of trying to beat the dead horse of the current guidelines. Best, Gwernol 01:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

<edit conflict>No, it's not mandated... and evidently higher exposure hasn't succeeded in getting more people to use it. I myself have mostly abandoned it since I started using tools like Twinkle and Huggle which are non-compliant with it. It would really make things neater and easier if the layout were to be more widely used. The only other thing I can think of would be to invite the input of the creators of the various anti-vandalism tools and bots about whether they could implement the layout into their code. I'd be happy to undertake such an invitation if no-one objects. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 02:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, bad word choice. Can someone make it asound more natural and less forceful? Making the bots and tool automatically follow the layout will make more people adopt it so lets do it. Stupid2 (talk) 03:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Truth be told, I can't think of any way to salvage the template. WP:UW can't make arbitrary guidelines for all editors to follow all across Wikipedia, so even a template saying "please follow the suggested layout" would really be pointless. Getting bots and tools to use it would help increase usage, but it still wouldn't make it a guideline. You could write up a proposal at WP:VPR to try to get a real guideline made, but I rather doubt it would pass. Until then IMO the best thing would be for you to {{db-user}} the template. Sorry. Anomie⚔ 11:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to say this, but I can only see this template annoying alot of editors. The layout is a guideline, we cannot enforce how anyone leaves messages on talk pages and if you look through the archives there have been alot of previous discussion on this subject, and it always draws the same conclusions in the end, it's the individual editors choice. This template has not been discussed, and usually before a template goes ahead with the uw- prefix means it has been sanctioned (for want of a better word) either here or by UT:UTM before it goes live. May I suggest you don't use this again until other editors have had their input please? ^Khukri 05:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The bigger issue is why do the vast majority of editors ignore the suggested layout? Its because the layout doesn't work in practice. I have never seen a separate Warnings section on a talk page. I'm sure we could find some examples out there but I don't recall ever having seen one, and bear in mind I have more than 30,000 edits to user talk pages.

I do occasionally see numbered warnings. In almost every instance there have been one or two warnings left with numbers and the rest without. Numbering makes little sense to me. It is visually unattractive and implies to the user that their warnings reset on the first of the month. It makes it very hard for users to respond to the warnings without breaking the numbering. Most importantly, what is the positive benefit of numbering warnings? I can't see any reason to do it, and it adds complexity and clutter to the recipient's page.

Wikipedia rules are generally descriptive rather than prescriptive. It would be much better to rewrite the guidelines to reflect the common usage, rather than trying to enforce a guideline that almost no-one uses. Gwernol 10:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Wording on {{uw-v4}}

The second sentence Any further vandalism will result in your being blocked from editing Wikipedia. seems a bit awkward and grammatically incorrect, especially the part your being blocked (or you being blocked if it is a typo). This sentence should be reworded to something like Any further vandalism will result in a block from editing Wikipedia or Any further vandalism will result in a revocation of editing privileges. Cheers. _{Trance addict - Tiesto - Above and Beyond} 00:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

That is odd. I've copied the wording from {{uw-v4im}}, how does that sound? Anomie⚔ 01:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The change was proposed in WT:UTM#Proposed changes to level three and level four templates, based on several earlier comments. The main idea was to try to switch to "vandalism" instead of "vandalize", because the latter is jarring to our colleagues who use British English spellings. That being said, I can't say I disagree that the wording was a bit awkward--Kubigula (talk) 03:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you think we should still try to use "vandalism" in uw-v4 now that the template uses the word "vandalize" again? I'm ok with the way it is right now, but I think some editors might want the results of the discussion incorporated into uw-v4. Cheers. _{Trance addict - Tiesto - Above and Beyond} 05:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Request for Consensus

I am trying to determine if consensus exists to TFD some uw templates. Please comment at Wikipedia talk:UTM#Requests for Consensus. Thanks. Anomie⚔ 21:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

current Tfd's

• Spam1MrB
• Newvoterip

is anybody still using those templates? Agathoclea (talk) 11:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Stale warnings

With the rather large number of rollbackers and huggle users that are reverting and dolling out warnings, I'm starting to worry about all the old stale warnings being left on IP talk pages. It's more than likely they are driving away some potential editors/readers, but it'd be impossible to judge how many "some" is. Simple scenario, anon goes to the Wiki to read up on some subject, sees they got a message, reads it and the threatened blocking for something they didn't do 3 months ago. After that they usually either then go to the warner and/or leave the project. No matter how well the editor explains to him, they're prolly gonna end up with a sour taste of the Wiki. It'd probably be too impractical to remove all the old warnings now, but what about the possibility of amending the current warnings to say something along the lines of "after X months this warning can be considered invalid/stale" or whatever warning would be appropriate. This little bit wouldn't be applicable for recurring vandals, just those that get 1/2 message and leave. Anyone else's thoughts? --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk - Contribs) 23:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I rather doubt it's that big of a problem. Every IP user talk page has a notice at the bottom stating that it may be shared by others and that you an avoid it by creating an account. If such a message would be implemented on the templates, you would first have to figure out some parserfunction to make it only appear on an IP's talk page and not on a registered user's talk page to have a hope of getting a consensus for it. If anything, you might have better luck either getting a similar automatic notice added to the top of the IP user's talk page (ask at WP:VP/T) or designing a template to put such a thing there manually (if there isn't one already). Anomie⚔ 00:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Uw-canvass

Discussion is ongoing on a rewrite of {{uw-canvass}} at Template talk:Uw-canvass#Uw-canvass. tgies (talk) 05:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Overlinking warning

Please create a template to warn users about excessive internal links--Ainlina--Speak to me--Ask a question--Praise and criticism 18:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Did you miss {{uw-linking}}? Anomie⚔ 23:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Readding removed fair-use image

I recently came across an edit that readded an image that had been removed (as there was no fair-use rationale for its inclusion in that article). I looked at WP:WARN to warn the user but I found no template relevant to the issue (the only ones I could find relate to uploading images). I sought help at WP:Media_copyright_questions but they didn't know of a template either. Could one possibly be created by someone familiar in the user-warning-template field? Thanks ~ Ameliorate _{U T C} @ 21:39, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

arbitration enforcement warnings

Looking at Category:Wikipedia Arbitration enforcement templates, I see that level 1 warnings like {{uw-balkans}} are listed there but they are not listed on Category:Standardised user warning templates, but their equivalent leve 2 warning like {{uw-balkans2}} are the other way around.

Should I go and list all of them on both categories? Or was this done on purpose? --Enric Naval (talk) 19:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I think {{uw-balkans}} and {{uw-9/11}} should be deleted. IMO, we don't need templates to bite anyone who makes any edit to pages in a certain area; instead, we can use {{uw-sanctions}} once someone actually starts to misbehave. A bit of history, BTW: When {{uw-balkans}} was first created, we discussed it and decided it should be TFDed, which was done. During the TFD, it was rewritten into what is now at {{uw-balkans2}} and that was kept. Shortly afterwards, someone came along and moved the rewritten template to {{uw-balkans2}} and restored the original bitey version to {{uw-balkans}}, and no one seemed to notice.

OTOH, if consensus is that everyone editing pages in certain areas should be preemptively warned, then we should just hand a list of pages to a bot and have the bot impartially warn everyone who edits those pages instead of relying on each side's POV pushers to "warn" anyone who makes an edit that disagrees with their POV.

But when I've tried to raise discussion about this to determine what anyone else thinks, I've received no responses. So I've tried to stop worrying about it. Anomie⚔ 19:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I see that the Arbcom decisions say that editors must be warned of the Arbcom decision before being sanctioned under them, see homeopathy discretionary sanctions, for example.

I guess that admins just want to preemtively warn every editor editing those pages, so that, when they actualy do something bad, they can be sanctioned right away :P --Enric Naval (talk) 20:50, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Assuming that anyone who edits those articles is going to cause problems doesn't seem compatible with Wikipedia:Assume good faith. We don't warn every new editor "Don't vandalize, don't add nonsense, don't post spam, etc, etc, etc", why the exception for these articles? Anomie⚔ 21:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I normally only give those warnings to people that has started arguing on the talk pages to made "risky" edits on the articles. That's it, people that is probably going to get into trobule when they start making WP:BOLD edits as if they were editing a non-controversial article. That protects them from stepping right into the probation landmines. --Enric Naval (talk) 05:21, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

User warnings corresponding to Notability and Unreferenced tags.

I would like to propose the creation of {{Uw-notability}} and {{Uw-unreferenced}} tags that could be added to a user talk page when an editor tags an article with {{Notability}} or {{Unreferenced}}. The point of these user warnings would be to get the user to do something (add references or demonstrate notability) rather than to stop doing something, which is the case with most user warning messages. If I see a problem article which is potentially notable but doesn't really demonstrate it, I would much rather tag it for notability and ask the article's creator to improve it than tag it for speedy deletion and warn the creator that the article might be deleted. {{Uw-notability}} and {{Uw-unreferenced}} would be less biting than a speedy deletion warning and might get a better response from the creators of weak articles. --Eastmain (talk) 04:17, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

What would be the difference between your {{uw-unreferenced}} and {{uw-unsourced}}? Anomie⚔ 14:38, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

{{uw-unreferenced}} could redirect to {{uw-unsourced}}, but I like the idea that the user warning template would have a name of uw- plus the name of the tag. --Eastmain (talk) 16:58, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Uw-unsourced is, I believe, primarily designed for situations where someone has added unsourced (and usually dubious) content to an existing article. It doesn't work so well when someone has created a new article with notability or sourcing issues. So, I see a bit of a gap. However, I think the article templates are pretty informative. If someone who created a new article doesn't check back and see the templates, then I don't think a talk page template would be much better at getting the message to them.--Kubigula (talk) 03:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Image copy-vio

How about warnings for uploading images in a pattern of long-term abuse (obviously, we don't look to bite people, but I think we make licensing in-your-face clear when uploading as it is)? Like addition of files for "Wikipedia only" repeatedly and the like. Ian¹³/t 22:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Are {{uw-upload1/2/3/4/4im}} not good enough? Anomie⚔ 14:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Link to WP:GAB in block templates

I've added a link to that guide to {{Uw-block1}}, as has already been done in {{unblock}}, in MediaWiki:Blockedtext and elsewhere. Are there any objections? If not, I'll make the same addition to the other uw-block templates.  Sandstein  16:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Categories

• to tell users not to add text about an article to a category, but to add the category to the article?  Andreas  ^(T) 01:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Does that happen often enough to be worth having a templated warning about it instead of just nicely telling the newbie how to do things the right way? Anomie⚔ 01:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Dispute over phrasing of {{COI}}

Your input is needed here. Thanks, ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 22:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Warning section

This page says Warnings should be grouped by date under the heading "Warnings" but that does not appear to be current practice. What I am seeing (and doing) is putting the warnings in a month and year section. Should I change? Eeekster (talk) 03:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe you are right that a simple month and year section is the prevailing practice. No particular need for you to change what you are doing. In fact, creating a "warnings" section is probably a bit bitey unless the person has accumulated several months worth of warnings. At that point, grouping them into a warnings section is a good way to organize the messages.--Kubigula (talk) 03:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks you very much. I'll continue my current practice. Perhaps the page should be change to reflect the way things are done? Eeekster (talk) 06:56, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Generally speaking, I usually put the first warning (and occasionally the second too) in a generically titled section such as "your test worked" or "your edits to article foo" ([1], [2], [3]). However cases of blatant vandalism ([4]) get the standard month/year section heading ([5]) as do repeat offenders ([6]). --Kralizec! (talk) 14:28, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Village Pump discussion relating to user warnings

Please comment at WP:VPR#Non-english warning. Thanks. Anomie⚔ 14:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

{{schoolblock}}

Would it be possible to get a version of the schoolblock made that could be used in place of it and added to TW? For more details, see here. Regards, لennavecia 15:13, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Warning etiquette questions

In the past, if I've seen an edit reverted by another editor, but that editor failed to add a warning template to the IP's talk page after a substantial period of time, I went ahead and added the warning template myself. Is this okay?

More specifically, if an IP edits unconstructively, but then he reverts his own edit, is it kosher to leave a warning template ({{uw-test1}} comes to mind) on their talk page? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Both of those sound fine to me. Also, consider {{uw-selfrevert}}. Anomie⚔ 22:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I hadn't noticed that one! Very helpful indeed. Thanks! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:06, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Shortcut

For historical reasons, this project has the shortcut WP:UW, while the actual template overview, which should have much more traffic, has only more complicated shortcuts, such as WP:UWT. Are there any objections against using WP:UW for the overview? — Sebastian 02:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Cut down on mention of "vandal"

I would like to reduce the mention of "vandal" for three reasons:

1. WP:BEANS
2. It limits the applicability of our templates by being overly specific (example).
3. The point of a user warning is to (1) help them improve and (2) help us identify bad apples. Neither requires name calling.

For these reasons, I would like to remove the mention of "vandal" from all templates that are not explicitly for vandals. — Sebastian 22:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Which templates specifically are you proposing changing? Anomie⚔ 00:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I felt that "explicitly for vandals" was pretty specific: I would understand that to mean those that either have "vandal" in the title or in the description. Templates that are not explicitly for vandals are e.g. the uw-error* and uw-test* series.

If you're asking for a list of individual templates, then it would take some time to collect an overview of which templates actually use that term. I would be happy to spend time for that and for any other activities related to this initiative if the community feels it is worthwhile. This is not about me. Since I already received a barnstar for helping here two year's ago, there's no need for me to impose myself here anymore.  ;-)

So, do fellow participants here see a reason to keep mention of "vandal" in templates that are not explicitly for vandals? — Sebastian 02:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

While perhaps politically incorrect, the term "vandal" appears to pass the WP:DUCK test. Presumably editors using the warnings at WP:UTM take care to use the correct warning for a particular situation. That is using {{uw-delete1}} for page blanking vandalism, {{uw-test1}} for test edits, {{uw-error1}} for sneaky vandalism, etc. --Kralizec! (talk) 04:16, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

If you really did only help here to get a barnstar, that would be sad. I can easily enough provide a list of all the templates using the word "vandal". Anomie⚔ 12:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I said that in jest - please note the ";-)", which is meant to express a wink. — Sebastian 20:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Starting with level 2, many (perhaps most) of the UTM templates are really vandalism template variations. There are many different ways to vandalize Wikipedia - deliberately introducing errors, removing content, adding attack content etc - and editors like having specific templates to address the specific behavior.--Kubigula (talk) 04:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your replies. I still would prefer this change for the reasons I gave. For me the question is not so much if one can see these things as vandalism (which I arguably did myself, in my example above, by using rollback), but rather if this added text really helps Wikipedia and outweighs the loss of applicability (#2 above). But I am grateful for and respect your continued commitment to this project and won't pursue this any further for now. Please notify me if there are any changes relevant for this issue. — Sebastian 05:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Here is a list of templates using the word "vandal", minus those like {{uw-aiv}}:

List

• {{Uw-controversial2}}
• {{Uw-error2}}
• {{Uw-error3}}
• {{Uw-fuir}}
• {{Uw-image2}}
• {{Uw-joke3}}
• {{Uw-joke4}}
• {{Uw-notcensored3}}
• {{Uw-redirect2}}
• {{Uw-tdel3}}
• {{Uw-test2}}
• {{Uw-test3}}
• {{Uw-tpv2}}
• {{Uw-tpv3}}
• {{Uw-upload2}}

(Those below are likely considered "explicitly for vandals")

• {{Uw-avb1}}
• {{Uw-avb2}}
• {{Uw-avb3}}
• {{Uw-avb4}}
• {{Uw-bv}}
• {{Uw-longterm}}
• {{Uw-multipleIPs}}
• {{Uw-recentblockwarn}}
• {{Uw-upv}}
• {{Uw-vandalism1}}
• {{Uw-vandalism2}}
• {{Uw-vandalism3}}
• {{Uw-vandalism4}}
• {{Uw-vandalism4im}}

This should make it easier to discuss exactly which templates are proposed to be changed. Anomie⚔ 12:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for providing this list, which makes it indeed easier. However, I've come to realize that the inflation of the term "vandalism" is not just a problem with the templates. As with so many of our policies which are heavily pounded by constant wikilawyering, the definition of vandalism has in the last five years (at least since this version) become so ambiguous that it serves everybody's and nobody's purpose. As much as I deplore this, it's just not something I think is worth my time when I'm the only person feeling this way. — Sebastian 20:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)    (I may not be watching this page anymore. If you would like to continue the conversation, please do so here and let me know.)

New template

I have noticed a trend of users creating multiple accounts, especially new users, I and wanted to make a template to ask them what they are up to. The template is Template:uw-multiple-accts. Looking for some feedback on the template, if people like it, I'll try to get aza to add it to twinkle under uw-username. --Terrillja _talk 21:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

lang1 harsh

It seems to me that {{Lang1}} comes across very harsh

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to the other, even if you don't normally use the version the article is written in. Respect other people's versions of English.

for someone who doesn't realize they're making a English variety change. For example in a recent change a brand new user changed "civilisation" to "civilization" but left all the other British English spellings (e.g. honour) intact. So it seems they were just fixing what they saw as a error. Slapping a Respect other people's warning on a newbie who's decided to WP:BOLD is not encouraging. Gerardw (talk) 12:13, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I frequently have to warn users about changing British to American English on predominately British articles (the Tomb Raider pages are a prime example of this). However, it would be useful to have a scale of warnings like editing tests, deleting content etc. Newbies could get a "welcome but please don't", leading up to "please stop" if they continue. ~~ [ジャム]^[t - c] 12:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

question

So I'm wondering how I got downgraded to "interested" after all the work I put in? When did this happen, and why? KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:15, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

New warning idea against using own userspace to attack

I've noticed that there really is not a good warning for someone using either their OWN user page or OWN talk page in order to attack someone. The closest thing I found is {{subst:uw-defam1}}, but that doesn't seem right. {{subst:uw-attack}} is obviously not appropriate because it only refers to other editors. I think we should have one that says something to the affect of "Please do not use your userspace to attack others". Any ideas? Valley2city^‽ 19:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with npa1, one presumes they are attacking others and not themselves. The template has no distinction of where the attacks occur. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:37, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Including diffs when substituting warning templates

Hello. Sorry if this is the wrong place to ask, but I was wondering if there was a way that I could include diffs of what a user did that was disruptive or uncivil when using these templates. For example, if someone vandalizes a page, how do I include the diff that shows the vandalism in the warning? Do I need Twinkle or Huggle to do this?--DisturbedNerd999 04:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Parent Project Proposal

As a member of the CVU,I would like to make a proposal that this project be made as an independand child project with the CVU as its parent. I believe that user warnings are an important part of countervandalism on wikipedia and therefore the CVU should be the parent project. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ipatrol (talk • contribs) 23:12, 19 February 2009

Why? How would either project benefit from this change? --Kralizec! (talk) 05:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

1. Coordination
2. Condensation of projects (see wikiproject reform)
3. Ability to use CVU pages as a central discussion point (see the think tank discussion on 4im warnings)
4. Orgaization

--Ipatrol (talk) 02:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

It would be best listed as a related project, if anything. CVU isn't the general antivandalism club on Wikipedia; it's just an organization dedicated to countering it. UW is a relatively static standardization-related project, not a tool on the paramilitary front of eradicating the ills of vandalism from Wikipedia (or whatever CVU does nowadays). If you'd like to plan a change to a 4im template, this is definitely the place; otherwise, discussing its usage is great for WT:UTM or wherever you want. Gracenotes^T § 03:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I and the other editors at the CVU are working on recasting the CVU, in addition to its traditional role, as a projectspace wikiproject to work through pages related to antivandalism. This process began with a discussion at WT:CVU and the creation of {{CVU}}. So that is why I saked for the project parenting, so we may begin that process.--Ipatrol (talk) 00:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Gracenotes sums it all up pretty well for me. While I can support CVU and UW being listed as "related projects," I do not see either as being a parent or child project of the other. --Kralizec! (talk) 17:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Reverting legitimate edits without explanation

I created {{uw-legitrevert}} in my userspace because I'm not sure if this is correct, but I believe that it is a breach of the policies and guidelines to revert legitimate edits without explanation. This is why an administrator can revoke rollback permissions for users who abuse the rollback feature, but I believe it is almost as bad to abuse the undo feature because it may deter newcomers who are wondering why their legitimate edits are being reverted, which is why abusing a revert feature of any kind is very disruptive. Comments? -- IRP ☎ 19:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know of any actual policy/guideline against reverts in general; reverting is actually an essential component of the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. When it gets to the point of edit warring, disruption, "ownership", or incivility is when it's a problem. As written, IMO your proposal does not accurately represent Wikipedia's guidelines; if you tone it down to the level of the other single-level notices and link to WP:REVEXP it might have a place. But even then I'm not sure; we already have {{uw-editsummary}}, after all. Anomie⚔ 17:59, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I have made a couple of changes to the template. The template was not designed for explained reverts. The reverts of the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle are explained. The template was designed for edits such as this one. It happens often enough to create a uw template for it. Other times I've seen it happen incude: [7] [8] [9] -- IRP ☎ 18:28, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that BRD reverts needed explanation, although as always it's good etiquette to use an edit summary. I note all your examples are IP users; IMO, the only cases where issuing your template wouldn't violate WP:BITE would be better served by 3RR, spam, or other existing warnings. And in all cases, note that it's "bold, revert, discuss", not "bold, revert, threaten to have them blocked". Anomie⚔ 18:43, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

This is the purpose of the only warning. The users who do such things in good faith will know that they made a major mistake and won't do it again. The users who do it in bad faith will be blocked from editing. Even though using this template may violate Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers, this may have to be an exception to the behavioral guideline because doing such a thing may deter other newcomers and make a bad impression about editors. -- IRP ☎ 18:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC), modified 18:57, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I guess it's time to wait for others to comment, as we're clearly opposed here on whether WP:BITE is more important than scaring people into using edit summaries. Anomie⚔ 19:28, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I think there is a major flaw with this template. It threatens an editor who may be impolite but not necessarily breaking any policy with an almost immediate block.
Even if we agree we want to make such a threat needs to be supported; hence the template should direct to the relevant policy actually making such an edit summary obligatory. Now it points to general policies; a section where it states not making edit summary is NOT vandalism; and a section about explaining reverts. None of these policies come close to stating that this is a blocking offense. Maing threats you cannot uphold is not a good idea (I would even say that such practice is very very bad practice)
Secondly, while only the most blatant vandalisms get an only warning template, this much much milder offense (if it is a violation of a rule at all) would get a single warning approach. That seems way over the top.
My suggestion, this template shoud be much, much, much more modest in its tone. Arnoutf (talk) 21:10, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not against policy in the way that is described. Yes, rollbackers who do it have their rollback removed, but they don't get blocked. This warning appears to completely fail to assume good faith. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 21:13, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. For someone like a rollbacker, it fails WP:AGF and runs afoul of WP:DTTR, for a new user, its just WP:BITE-y. In cases like this, we should generally try to be communicating, not escalating. Mr.Z-man 22:55, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

For a rollbacker, {{subst:uw-rollbackremoved}} is issued instead of an only warning. I believe if the user continues to be disruptive by abusing the undo feature, then the user is blocked. And most editors don't seem to get that WP:DTTR is an essay! Most editors seem to treat it as a policy. -- IRP ☎ 23:29, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:DTTR might only be an essay, but its still common courtesy, which shouldn't have to be enforced by policy for people care about it. Rollback removals don't happen that often, just type a message yourself, rather than leaving a big ominous template (which is even worse than the uw-legitrevert one IMO). Mr.Z-man 23:54, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I've actually received a barnstar for the {{subst:uw-rollbackremoved}} template. See User:IRP/Awards. -- IRP ☎ 00:16, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

For what could be a simple error, which could be resolved with a personal message this template is a nuclear approach "This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits" is equally presumptuous and potentially as bad faith as the initial revert. This template is heavy handed, and certainly isn't a first step in a misunderstanding over what could be a poor intentioned rollback/revert. Only after dialogue had failed or it had been repeated would one reach for this. No from me. ^Khukri 23:42, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

The ONLY WARNING language is far too harsh. Assume good faith, and start with a friendly warning. 1 revert can't be a pattern of bad behavior, and we shouldn't treat it as such. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 05:23, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with much of the above above the harshness of this template as proposd. I think this should be re-written as a "single issue notice". –xeno (talk) 14:42, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
  • How about a general note and then a final warning for new users? -- IRP ☎ 15:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
    • A single issue friendly notice and then either stepping or an only warning would be ok I suppose. The question is: are you going to find admins willing to actually carry out these blocks? –xeno (talk) 15:21, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict) I for one still say no, as there is still no policy that calls for blocking just because a revert has no summary. Once it gets to the point of edit warring or the like that is blockable, then use the appropriate warning for that. Anomie⚔ 15:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
      • I agree with Anomie, without a policy for blocking the warning for blocking is not a good idea. If 3RR, or edit War, or other uncivil and blockable actions are taken, the user should be warned; and blocked for those actions. (Although I realise this may be close to making a point), in my opinion this template has the same backing of Wiki policies as this message. Arnoutf (talk) 15:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
        • I'll have to remember that template in about 360 days. ;) Anomie⚔ 19:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I have done some work on the template. It now has a notice and a warning.

• Click here to see the notice
• Click here to see the warning

-- IRP ☎ 20:23, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

By the way {{uw-rollbackremoved}} has been nominated for deletion. -- IRP ☎ 20:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

• There's no policy that says one warning, then block. There should be a second warning that points to 3rr guidelines, advises how to resolve edit disputes, and says edit warring will lead to blocks. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

The notification now states "Although it is not required to provide an edit summary in most cases, when reverting, it is". However the referred to policy does not state that. Please provide a pointer to a policy which exactly states that edit summary is obligatory in revert (if such a policy exists at all, otherwise the template is not useful at all). Arnoutf (talk) 20:39, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Its marginally better that it doesn't immediately assume bad faith, but as others have pointed out, it still appears to misrepresent policy. Though I have to agree with Anomie as well, that this is mostly redundant to the existing edit warring warning templates, except that it would involve asking for a block before 3RR is violated, since there's only 2 warnings. Mr.Z-man 21:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

There must be some policy that causes rollback to be removed when people abuse it. There is a reason why rollback is removed when it is abused. It would make sense to assume that abusing the undo feature is almost as bad. It is the same thing except it is just somewhat slower. The only way to disable that is to block the user. -- IRP ☎ 21:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

If there "must be" such a policy, perhaps you should go to WP:VPP and propose one. Anomie⚔ 22:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Not every policy has to have a series of warning templates for it to be enforced. Mr.Z-man 22:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

A discussion has been initiated at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Reverting legitimate edits without explanation. -- IRP ☎ 22:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Reverting edits that are sourced without discussion is disruptive, so sayeth arbcom here. I happen to agree, I think in practice what sometimes happens is that people are discouraged from editing because owning editors will revert without proper explanation, then stonewall, and then wait for the 3rr hammer per WP:CIRCUS. The behavior is listed as a sign of tendentious editing. Unomi (talk) 23:30, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

• violates WP policy. Especially the second version. We do not block routinely and automatically for 3 reverts. We do not even block routines for 3 reverts in 24 hours. Sometimes we do, but it depends on the circumstances. A last warning after a second revert is over-reaction and inappropriate and bitey. It is likely to make edit warring much worse, rather than diminish it. Templates of this sort are as often placed by involved parties as by uninvolved editors. We will find it used in cases where the person placing the warning is at fault. What constitutes sourced content is not always that obvious. If someone puts controversial material in a BLP with a blog as the source, it is going to get reverted as many times as it takes. After the first time or two, I can see people leaving out the explanation in impatience. What constitutes an explanation is also a little unclear: is "wrong again" an explanation? Even the first version is inappropriate. The extent to which reverting without an explanation is disruption varies. It is not a good idea when issuing a first notice to say "not necessarily vandalism" people see the word vandalism and go no further. Unfounded charges of vandalism are a staple of edit warring, This notice will be mainly effective in increasing the workload at WQA and AN/I.DGG (talk) 12:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure if you understand exactly what edits this template is to be used for. I created it for edits like: [1] [2] [3] [4], when a user reverts perfectly legitimate edits and marks them as vandalism. -- IRP ☎ 21:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Well there's the problem. You're assuming everyone shares the exact same interpretation of the guidelines as you. You're assuming that an anon who may have never made an edit before knows that reverting without a summary is typically reserved for vandalism. This is why WP:AGF and WP:BITE exist. Mr.Z-man 01:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
      • What you are missing though is that the notice (general note) comes first, then the warning. A general note is just to inform new users about policies. Once the user has received the note, and the user continues to do it, then the user is knowingly violating the policy, so the user then has to be informed that persistent violators of the Wikipedia policy who know they are violating the policy are blocked from editing. -- IRP ☎ 21:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
        • Again, you're misrepresenting policy. There is no policy that states reverting non-vandalism without a summary is a blockable offense. Mr.Z-man 22:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

response and analysis

I'm sure you yourself intend this to be used discreetly, but having the template available ,especially on scripts, is a sure way to have it used wrongly also. And I don;t all think the examples you gave are actually correct uses

for the first one, on Cartoon network, it could just as easily have been a mistake as vandalism. I disagree with the message you left on the page, which is a misuse of "final warning" -- final warning is what one does before someone is to be blocked, not just when someone is to be reported to an administrator. Lots of people are reported to me, but mostly they don;t get blocked, but have things explained to them. When I issue a final warning, i mean that I am quite sure that if it is repeated I or another admin will block. That was the first edit ever from that account; even if it were repeated, I would not give more than a first or second level warning. Any admin who would block in those circumstances should be reminded quietly about WP:BLOCK. I number some rather some trigger-happy admins among my friends here, and not even they would block in the circumstances.

The second is another matter. Two different IPs repeatedly adding the same bad external links. Based on WHOIS, the accounts may well be the same person. We already have a warning template for the purpose. In the circumstances, I'd use a level 3 for both IPs. You left a level 4. Dreamguy left a semicustom warning, at level 2. He did it right.

The third problem (DeathNote) is a different type of problem. The IP was restoring what I consider possibly acceptable content. it wasnt content sourced to a reliable secondary source,but primary sources are acceptable and often preferred. for the description of plot and characters in fiction. Adding 2+2 is not SYN, and this might not be either. Similar cases have been debated, and sometimes accepted. The question should be taken to the OR noticeboard, where take my view, and people who oppose it, will give their opinion , and hopefully a consensus decision will be made. GeoffB was out of line, in my opinion, for removing it repeatedly without explicit consensus on the article talk page or a noticeboard. Neither party is a vandal in any sense--when there is this much doubt you should instead have discussed it.

In the 4th instance, the IP was indeed inserting unsourced material that clearly amounted to opinion and synthesis. He did it twice. A level 2 warning would have been sufficient.In my experience as an admin, a second polite warning is normally enough to stop this, and if not, a level three rarely fails,especially if some customized language is used to indicate that they are not being dealt with by a machine.

Let me encourage you to try doing what we really need here--rewording many of our notices to make them more gentle, and somewhat more concise, so the key part gets clearly communicated without our losing a potential editor. DGG (talk) 05:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposal

I propose that warning templates only approved by this wikiproject through consensus be used and that we discourage the use of warning templates constructed by individual users on their own and not discussed here and "adopted" as official. I believe it is potentially harmful for users to change the templates and potentially, I'm sure in good faith, change the language subtly that may perhaps be more offensive or taken the wrong way. Only through consensus here can we be sure templates are being stated with the appropriate harshness/sensitivity. I think creating new ones in sandboxes and user pages and all that is good, but the actual implementation of new ones without first bringing them here is dangerous. I bring this up due to the first comment on this talk page (as the talk page stood on May 3), of the editor who created warning templates and has had good results using them. Perhaps treating new warning templates like drug companies treat new drugs would be a good way to find new ones. Let people create and improvise but then bring them here and let the community decide whether or not they should be used on a "trial basis" and then after an arbitrary time of use that editor comes back here with the results and the community decides whether or not to keep the new template. What does everyone think?Camelbinky (talk) 22:21, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

While I can understand the idea behind this, it would not appear to jive well with Wikipedia being "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." — Kralizec! (talk) 01:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

It jives just fine, because user warnings aren't articles, which is what "anyone can edit" applies to (and we have exceptions to that - eg semi-protection and blocking). Also it jives fine with WP:NOTANARCHY. Perhaps less so with WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. Conclusion: we should judge the proposal on its merits. As to those, I agree with it: templates look official (especially to newbies) and it is better for users not to create templates that appear official when they don't have the weight of established consensus behind them. As to the bureaucracy aspect; asking users to bring new templates here doesn't seem overly complicated or bureaucratic, it's not like creating a new procedure, just requiring prior community agreement. Rd232 ^talk 02:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Historically, however, it seems there has been a fair resistance to doing such a thing even limited to just warning templates beginning with "uw-". People seem to fear this project in particular becoming overly bureaucratic for some reason.

That said, anyone wanting to monitor new "uw-*" templates and changes to existing "uw-*" templates should feel free to periodically check this page. It'll stay up to date as long as AnomieBOT keeps running, no matter how busy I personally become. Anomie⚔ 02:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Well that page is certainly useful - can you link it from the FAQ and the top of this page? But " People seem to fear this project in particular becoming overly bureaucratic for some reason." I can't see why. Bureaucracy requires procedure and authority; I can't see how this would involve any - apart from the minimal "get consensus here first". Which for a thing of this type would be just polite, I think. Anyway, it could initially just be a recommendation (guideline, not policy). If it's widely ignored then never mind. By the by I'm not sure where exactly such a recommendation would go, if not merely on this page! Rd232 ^talk 05:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposed policies and guideslines typically originate from Village Pump - Policy. However you should be aware that avoid instruction creep might as well be the motto of most folks there. — Kralizec! (talk) 12:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

These templates are a tool that editors can chose whether they use or don't use. There is nothing stopping an editor creating their own set of templates so long as they don't fall foul off the usual policies of not biting, personal attack, etc. We created the UW warnings as a standard set of tools, but once released the community or any single editor could modify them as they see fit, though consensus keeps them from splintering off into various colours and wordings etc. Though these pages are titled wikiproject, it doesn't give them an authority over the templates but is just a focal point for those who are/were interested in templated warnings to express their views and makes some changes. To try and install a level of bureaucracy here without any authority to do by the community at large would fail very very quickly. All this project has the remit to do is give it's thoughts as a focal point but ultimately we cannot decide which templates survive and which go and that can only be done by TfD. ^Khukri 08:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that the community at large would ignore a guideline of such magnitude as "please bring your template proposal to the wikiproject for discussion BEFORE using it on other editors as a courtesy to the community at large" or if this wikiproject tried to "enforce" politely by making a template of its own to put on editors who did make their own templates and went around using them simply to suggest they MAY want to bring their templates here, or to a page we create off the wikiproject page, without "yelling" at them or being rude about it. There is precendant for such a thing, the wikiproject stub sorting has pretty much made themselves the gods of stub template creation and deciding which ones are to be eliminated based on whether they conform to what the wikiproject has decided they want make stub templates for. I've disagreed with that, but admins have told me that they have that right to police stub templates and come up with "standards" the rest of us MUST live with and conform to. So if they do, there shouldnt be a problem with us doing it with warning templates which are much more likely to be abused or in good faith be misused by accident than stub templates.Camelbinky (talk) 00:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

History says otherwise, while creating these templates we saw quite a few heated discussions about them and their format from those outside this project. Also I know of a number of admins who have a different philosophy on templates and warnings to myself and the guys who created them and who are vehemently opposed to these warnings. Stub sorting cannot be compared to the issuing of warnings and their creation, only in extreme cases does stubbing a page create wikidrama, where as these templates and their incorrect usage create it all the time. If you wish to try and gain autonomy for this wikiproject, who would be responsible? Any editor who wishes or do we start an RfA style vote for editors of good standing who know what they are talking about, or do we have a CHU or bot approval style group who give oversight? I believe the best control of these templates isn't done here by some undetermined level of bureaucracy but by those who keep an eye on them and their day to day use at WP:UTM this system has worked for over 2 years since I launched these templates, with a number of editors like Anomie, Krazilec!, Lucasbr, Pathoschild and a few others who hide in the wings and help when necessary. But this project has had very little input to them in the last two years and their management has been done by WP:UTM, in short if it ain't broke, don't fix it. To finish, even by giving this project some form of bureaucracy it would have ZERO authority on templates created in user space and how editors wish to use them, the only place for that is MfD, and the only place to control 'rogue' templates is TfD. ^Khukri 07:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

A good illustration of what Khukri is talk about would be the drama over {{uw-bv}} last October. That drama quickly spawned an ANI thread (see The template police strike again) from this thread, where well respected editors and admins alike expressed their utter contempt for this project and its work. However, since those strong feelings of dislike were expressed for the current low-key, non-official, zero-authority version of the project, I have little doubt that any proposal to increase the project's authority and/or official standing would go over like a lead balloon. — Kralizec! (talk) 12:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Certainly. While there has been done good work by this project making it a bureaucratic hurdle would be going against the spirit of wiki. Agathoclea (talk) 14:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I understand and respect the points and opinions stated above, but please answer me this- when did I, the one who came up with this proposal, or the people who agreed with me, EVER say anything about adding a level of bureaucracy? I dont believe having a page where anyone, in or outside of the project, would be allowed to comment on proposed warning templates constitutes added bureaucracy or undue and overbearing oversight on the wikipedia community. If Kralizec! and Agothoclea would like to work with me in just TRYING out the building of a page where we "encouraged" and did not "demand" people bring their warning templates and see how it goes, maybe for a three month period, we can see how the community reacts, if there isnt a big deal over it and people agree they like having a place where others can comment on their work, good, we can go from there and yes, increase our power over warning templates. If the community resents this small step then no real harm done if we back off. While I agree there is a big difference between stub templates and warning templates, I think the fact that warning templates CAN cause drama means there should be MORE oversight over them, not less just because people resent the oversight. Wikipedia is supposed to be the one place where everyone is equal, but when we have some regular editors making their own warning templates and slapping them on others whom they disagree with, then they make themselves out to be more important, this gives a bad impression to newbies and can upset established old time users who resent users who have taken it upon themselves to be the "vandalism patrollers" or "reliable source protectors", etc etc and go from article to article to article on things they know nothing about. Which isnt too bad (though I disagree with that kind of patrolling) if everyone is using standardized templates vetted by the community at large. When they start doing so and slapping their OWN templates on editors, these templates make it seem like they have an authority they dont have, its like giving a mall security guard using his "badge" outside of the mall and issuing speeding tickets making people think he/she has that right. If there ever comes a time that I get slapped with a warning template (thankfully I havent ever) it better be by an admin that can do something real to me, because otherwise I'll laugh at the editor and tell him just where he can post his home-made template. Which I have found tends to be the thought of a lot of the older Wikipedians who have edited on here for a couple years or more and realize we are all equal, which some of the newbies think there is a heirarchy and these people who appoint themselves are something to be feared.Camelbinky (talk) 19:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

You're proposing adding extra process to creating warning templates, which is equivalent to adding bureaucracy no matter how unobtrusive you try to make it. IMO, an unobtrusive process is unlikely to last: either people will ignore it and it will die out, or it will become more obtrusive as time goes on.

If I could magically create whatever sort of situation I wanted on this issue, I'd make it so that warning templates beginning with "uw-" were protected by an active community (probably at WT:UTM) that would work together to determine consensus and make sure it was actually followed (including taking useless templates to TFD when they come up). The current situation is that no one seems to really care all that much, and anyone with a modicum of community standing determined to buck the consensus (no matter how strong) will find ample support from enough admins that they could get away with just about anything they want. Which is why I've more or less given up on it myself, besides occasionally pointing out some particularly odd new template or answering an occasional question.

BTW, while the ideal of Wikipedia is that everyone is basically equal, in actual fact there really is a hierarchy. If someone has been around for years, been active in the "right" areas, and has friends among others in similar circumstances (and probably a good number of these people are admins), they can get away with all sorts of crap that a relatively new editor would be quickly blocked for. Just like how admin tools are supposed to be "no big deal", but God forbid anyone suggest they be removed from anyone who has them (AFAICT it only happens, rarely, after huge amounts of bureaucracy). Anomie⚔ 21:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so if I understand this correctly, and please tell me if anyone disagree, most of the people here who have commented actually WISH there was something similar to what I'm suggesting but think that it wont work because the rest of the community will ignore it or some will get away with ignoring it because of their "standing" in the community. I think that's sad. Come on, if you agree that something needs to be done about these people who make their own templates and go around slapping them on people, stand up, be strong, I think you'll find we are actually in the majority, we wont be outnumbered I promise. Warning templates are something that can be misused or abused so quickly and it is extremely dangerous to have them out there without some sort of oversight. Anomie, I support your "magically created" situtation, lets find others who do and make it happen. I understand your points, and totally agree about a heirarchy has been created (IMO it has been a detriment to Wikipedia) and about how admins talk about "the tools arent a big deal, no one really needs them" (especially when voting against accepting a new admin) but jeez suggest to an admin that he/she is a stuck-up prick with an attitude and should have his admin status removed because they're the rudest wiki-vampire (an editor who violates wp:BITE) in all of wikipedia and they suddenly start talking like being an admin makes them a god on wikipedia and your a knat. But that's off-topic and actually that's only one admin I had a problem with, about 2 years ago, and that admin is still here and still the rudest prick. Hmmm, I should make my own warning template and stick it on them...maybe if a bunch of us started making our own warningt templates and threw them on admins that had attitudes THEN warning templates would some how become standardized and protected! Non-admins of Wikipedia rise up and unite! Ok, I'm seriously drunk, so probably we shouldnt.Camelbinky (talk) 07:03, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, don't WP:POINT even when drunk! Also, this is really the wrong place to try and get widespread support for the idea. Try WP:VPP and maybe crosspost to WT:UTM. Rd232 ^talk 13:13, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I was never being serious about putting self-made warning templates on rude admins (I hope). I'll bring this to the attention of the Village Pump, that's a good idea, we can then get a wide range of views across a vast spectrum of regular Wikipedians on this idea and not just the views of us in the wikiproject. I hope anyone who really does wish that there was some sort of insight comment there to show some support and that they arent afraid to say so, dont be afraid that the community will be upset and fight back. If you think, like me, that warning templates can be dangerous and something the community as a whole should standardize, that there shouldnt be self-made ones that havent been approved floating out there then I guess I'll see everybody over at WP:VPP.Camelbinky (talk) 19:48, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

This proposal is not feasible, primarily because it is based on a misunderstanding of what warning templates are. When a user commits a "warnable" offense, another user who chooses to warn them is permitted to use whatever language and formatting they wish to, so long as it falls within the various policies that govern speech in all areas of Wikipedia. If you choose to use a template to get your message across, you have merely used that template's language and formatting as a substitute for your own. Using a template instead of your own language does not by any stretch of the imagination imbue your message with any more authority than it would have had otherwise. Furthermore, the fact that you substituted a template and which template you substituted is irrelevant because all substituting the template does is transfer the block of text from the template page to the page you substituted it on, no link or indication that it was a template is left (except for comments in some cases). Therefore talkpage comments that are a result of template substitutions should be subject to no more constrictive rules than comments that do not, because in the end they are still just comments.

Warning templates are primarily a tool of convenience; they allow people to post talkpage warnings in a fraction of the time it would take to type out a personalized warning. That they serve to standardize language is a byproduct of this. The closest thing to authority that the community approved templates have is that a lot of people think that their contents is appropriate language to use when warning a vandal. No one is obligated to use any template in any warning because we can not dictate what people say, should they choose to use one which template they use is governed by nothing more than what they want to say.

What I think you're really objecting to are comments enclosed in fancy boxes with icons. Sticking a message in a box and putting an icon next to it give messages the appearance of authority because various standard warning templates that carry the threat of blocking use this format. There are policies that should serve to prevent people from pretending to have authority when they do not. If people are violating these policies through the use of talkpage messages, whether such messages result from template substitution or not, then they need to be reprimanded. Request that they stop on their talkpage, open an RFC, open an ANI thread (not recommended), whatever your preferred WP:DR method of choice is. If you feel that the beheavior of some users is abusive but there is no specific policy prohibiting their actions, feel free to propose a policy that would.

As for templates in particular: Templates in template space must fulfill some basic requirements. In particular, they must be useful, and they must be used. If one of these requirements is lacking, take the template to WP:TFD. If someone has created a template in template space and is the only one using it, encourage them to userfy it. Templates with abusive messages on them are subject to XFD like any other page. In conclusion, you need to change your focus. If people are misrepresenting their own authority, they need to be corrected. If templates that are useless or not being used exist in template space, they need to be deleted. But you can't force people to restrain what they say in their warnings except via the standard policies that control speech on Wikipedia; if they choose to standardize their warnings in a manner different from the way that you have chosen, then that is their right. After all, anyone can copy and past the fancy box/icon code into any message they want and it would be given the same vestige of pretend authority as a substituted template message would, you are not solving the problem you think you're solving.--Dycedarg ж 02:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

That was a very well-thought out and profound message Dycedarg and I thank you for that. You have given me alot to think about, I just wanted to respond right away to thank you though, and tell you that you had alot of good points and probably did hit the nail on the head with what is going on in my heard. You are right that what is bothering me is the "air of authority" that these little boxes with icons give off, and I can understand how that can be intimidating or scary to newbies and in some cases even violate BITE, and for the older more established its annoying, condescending, and in some cases ridiculous to the point of hilarity. Well, I should probably read your post another time or two, let it sink in and decide what I the best course of action (or inaction) I should do (or not do) now. I do like to stick up for the little guy and fight against any potential instances of BITE (which in my personal belief can happen not just against newbies but can occur against experienced users as well). Thank you and I hope I can come to your talk page some time in the future with any other questions on policy some time.Camelbinky (talk) 03:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that using those kinds of messages to bully people is something that we need to deal with very seriously. New and potential editors are our greatest resource, the more hostile our community is towards them the worse off we'll all be. However, I think this problem is best dealt with on an individual basis. We already have policies for this sort of thing, what we need to do is find the people who violate that policy and deal with them. In any case, I am happy that I was able to be of assistance, and feel free to ask any questions you wish on my talk page.--Dycedarg ж 05:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

"Warnings" is a bad heading

How can I assume good faith if I slam up a template under a big Warnings (!) heading? I think it should be called something friendlier and more neutral. Someone who's better at english than I am can probably come up with a better title, but calling it notices would be better at the very least.
—Apis (talk) 01:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Most of the warning templates don't even post a heading. Can you point to a specific template? -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

None of the standardized warnings (those named beginning "uw-") should be including a heading at all by default; some few have an optional parameter to include one for backwards compatibility with older templates. But I think Apis was referring to the "Layout" suggested at the top of WT:UTM, that many people tend to ignore. Anomie⚔ 02:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes Anomie is right, sorry, probably should have made that clearer. (And I also suspect that might be one of the reasons it's being ignored but one can't really know for sure of course.)
—Apis (talk) 05:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Most people seam to either use no heading at all, or a heading like "your test worked" / "your edit to X" for level one and two template messages. Personally, I do not add the "warnings" heading and the {{s/wnote}} unless it is blatant vandalism and/or the editor is receiving a third level template. — Kralizec! (talk) 12:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Twinkle and Huggle both post headings, but they usually do so as "May 2009", not "Vandalism Warning" or what-not. Protonk (talk) 06:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

So, maybe it's ok to remove the layout section? or at least change 'warning' to 'notices'?
—Apis (talk) 22:46, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Recreating Deleted Pages Warnings

The other day I nominated a page for speedy deletion under A7: Unremarkable band. The page was deleted quickly. When I checked the page later, the page was still there meaning the author had recreated the page. I looked in the User Warnings for a warning about Recreating speedily deleted articles. There was only the {{subst:uw-repost|Article}} warning for Recreating deleted articles previously deleted at AfD.

I was therefore wondering, I would like to request a warning about Recreating speedily deleted articles? Also could the warnings not be a single-level but multi-level? Therefore if the user continues to recreate a speedily deleted article, they can eventually be reported at WP:AIAV. {{uw-create}} just doesn't cut it for me. I feel we need warnings that are more direct. Neu_tralle 09:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi there, {{uw-repost}} will suffice as deletion discussions does include the speedy deletion process. Though the template could be re-worded from deletion discussion to a deletion process to make it clearer. Also we have to look at was it the same editor who re-created the article, did he know it was deleted, does he really understand Wikipedia's policy on re-creation, did he think it just disappeared? Having issued the repost warning and stated clearly what page was being discussed, if it was repeated you could reach for the {{uw-create3}} or {{uw-create4}} templates. Unless anyone objects I'll tweak the wording later. Cheers ^Khukri 09:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. A deletion process seems better... then it can include AfD discussions and Speedy deletions. I shall warn this way if it happens again. I didn't really look at the latter {{uw-create}} templates. Thanks Neu_tralle 10:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done ^Khukri 06:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Abbreviations that can be mis-interpreted (in other languages)

On Template messages/User talk namespace some user made the remark that the abbreviation Uw is confusing for some (Dutch) users as Uw means Your (in the formal meaning for adults). Please follow the (short) discussion starting here and consider the (general) proposition to use ALL capitals for abbeviations that uses all first letters of the words. As far as I know there aren't many (if any) languages where words use capitals other then the 1st character, unless ALL letters are capitals, but that is not the case in any of the UserWarnings. To prevent double discussions I suggest one should only react there or we should stop the discussion there and move it over to another place (or an existing place if this matter is already discussed elsewhere). Many tks, JanT (talk) 14:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

We already use all-lowercase for the prefix; the capitalization of the first letter is just an artifact of MediaWiki with $wgCapitalLinks set true. Changing things to be "UW-" would just require redirects from every existing "uw-" name anyway, and the latter are likely what people would continue to use.

IMO, Dutch-speaking users reading the English Wikipedia should just consider it a false friend. Anomie⚔ 21:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The proposal I made isn't specifically related to the Uw/UW/uw problem but to any possibly offending lettercombinations as explained here. Regards, JanT (talk) 03:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Bold text in {{uw-ublock}}

In an attempt to reduce the possibility of {{uw-ublock}} being perceived as WP:BITEy, I've bolded the sentence "This block is only regarding your username—it is not a judgment of either you personally or your contributions." within that template, so that this stands out better in the large block of text within that template. -- The Anome (talk) 12:34, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Style Warning

After over a year, and 1600 edits, roughly 95% of which have been anti-vandal(Huggle), IMO we need user warning templates for style. Clearly, I mean unprofessional, informal and unencyclopedic style. There are just so many contributors who edit with little or no thought to the relevance, coherence and tone of their edits. However, I feel that 99% of these editors do so in good faith. Can't really just give them a vandal warning.. Now, I'd be downright happy to warn them, but as far as I can tell, there are no appropriate templates (I'd like to see the 4-level system ideally). There certainly are article templates that deal with style / tone issues, and user warning templates for creating nonsense / joke / incoherent articles, but none for a pattern of (personal opinion) simply awful editing on existing articles. I don't really consider myself competent to make the templates I'd like to have, and I haven't the foggiest clue what anyone else would think of them if I did. Is it even a good idea? It would be so much easier (and possibly less degrading) than hand warning them, and so much more effective than simply reverting these edits. If there aren't any replies to this after a couple days, I'll repost somewhere else. This is really bugging me. My two cents, I guess..

-𝕭𝖗𝔦𝔞𝔫𝕶𝔫𝔢𝔷 ^talk 22:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, this goes against everything Wikipedia stand for, WP:5, WP:BOLD & WP:IMPERFECT. There are thousands of editors and bots running around cleaning up, stubbing and tidying up, templating someone because they want to contribute, but may not have the aesthetic eye of you or I, is not a reasoning to drop a user warning template on them. You already mentioned 90% are in good faith, we don't warn editors for that, we point them in the right direction. Cheers ^Khukri 05:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The idea might be more palatable if there was a really good how-to-guide to editing in a good, encyclopedic/Wikipedic style, which describes these things in a way which is understandable for newbies. I'm specifically not meaning the Manual of Style, which is impenetrable. A single-level kind notice pointing people to such a guide would be fine, and the guide could be linked from many places too. Whilst there are a number of editing guides, I don't think any covers this territory very well. Do you want to have a crack at it, after checking what's out there? PS I think good and bad examples would be very helpful, perhaps some copies of articles before and after cleanup could be saved as subpages of the guide. Rd232 ^talk 09:48, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed (especially about MOS) ^Khukri 16:03, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I made a template: Image help

I just made the user notification Template:Uw-imghelp, as I often came across people trying futilely to add an image that was externally or even locally hosted. Maybe integrate it with Twinkle? Here's what it looks like.

Hello. In case you didn't know, you cannot add externally or locally hosted images to Wikipedia pages. You can only add images that have been uploaded to Wikipedia's servers. See how to upload images, but make sure you have read and understood our image use policy before uploading any images. Thank you.

Comments and assistance welcome. BlazerKnight (talk) 00:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Tag to notify creator of an unreferenced article

It would be nice to have a user warning template that would say (in effect):

I have added an {{Unreferenced}} tag to [name of article], an article you have created or worked on. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add content (particularly if you change facts and figures) please cite a reliable source for the content you're adding or changing. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. Take a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources for information about how to cite sources and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.

The tag would use ingredients from {{uw-unsourced1}} and {{AFDNote}} so that Twinkle could offer the option of adding it to the creator's user talk page when adding an {{Unreferenced}} tag to an article. I realize that I can use {{uw-unsourced1}}, but it doesn't say quite what I want to say to the creator of an article that needs references added to it. That is, I want to say "Please add references" rather than "Don't add unreferenced material". -- Eastmain (talk) 05:04, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

96 edits to UW templates by blocked sock

Team1525 (talk · contribs) was just blocked for being a self-admitted sock of an indefinitely blocked editor. However in the past 36 hours, he appears to have made 96 edits to various templates under the purview of this project. Most of the edits replaced shortcuts with the full Wikipedia title page, which is generally pretty harmless. Unfortunately some of those shortcuts went to specific sections, while his replacements did not. Examples include this where WP:NOTMYSPACE was improperly replaced with Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, and this where WP:BLANKING was incorrectly replaced with Wikipedia:User page.

Additionally, the following new templates were all created:

{{uw-moablock}}

{{uw-paoablock}}

{{uw-toablock}}

{{uw-spoablock}}

{{uw-poablock}}

{{uw-doablock}}

{{uw-hoablock}}

{{uw-mpoablock}}

{{uw-spablock}}

Any help others could provide in wading through this mess would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, — Kralizec! (talk) 23:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Suicide response template

Could you people standardize Template:Suicide response and add it to WP:UTM?? We need something to deal with those disturbed enough to threaten suicide. This template seems to be a good start. I was notified about a recent suicide threat being discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive757#Threat of Suicide that I accidentally got involved in by blocking a vandal. Jesse Viviano (talk) 20:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

New Template:Uw-bizlist

People keep adding their business listings in the hopes of drawing customers, and we keep telling them not to do it here. {{uw-bizlist}} suggests they take it to Wikia's Yellowikis instead. Maybe with someplace to actually go, fewer will keep trying to sneak under the gate here.

This can of course be used in conjunction with the Uw-advert* templates; its purpose is slightly different, that's all. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 05:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Uw-rikrolblock

Template:Uw-rikrolblock 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. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 07:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

New user warning set

I'd appreciate any input on a set of user warning templates I've created after an issue that came across #wikipedia-en-help today. I created 3 warnings in a series and redirected the level 4 warning to {{uw-generic4}}. The following are what I created:

• {{uw-consensus1}}
• {{uw-consensus2}}
• {{uw-consensus3}}
• {{uw-consensus4}} (redirect to {{uw-generic4}})

Thanks for any insight! --Shirik (talk) 20:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Idea for new warning template based on WP:POINT.

Let me firstly say that if this isn't the place for proposing a new user warning template, I apologise, and if someone could direct me to the right place that would be great.

Every now and then when patrolling recent changes I stumble upon edits where someone has done something like this: [10], or an edit adding content along the lines of "Wikipedia is crap, I just proved that anyone can edit it, so you can't trust it." etc. I usually template these edits with the NPOV warning or the generic vandalism warning. However, I always feel like what would really be appropriate is a template that gets across the policy of not disrupting Wikipedia to make a point (as in WP:POINT). Does anyone feel like there's room for a set of warnings with this in mind? If so, I might have a go at making such a set. I've never made a template before, but I'd be willing to if someone might volunteer to help. Thanks. -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 11:12, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Can we skip warnings?

I was just wondering, if a vandalism edit such as this one occurs, can we skip the first "assume good faith" vandalism template and use the second one instead? Thanks. Sorafune +1 01:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

New set of notices

A few days ago I made a set of notices for CSD. Basically they're all about the incorrect tags for speedy deletion. They're in my sandbox at the moment, (Which have been removed, but still there in the history). I would be interested if someone can take a look. Minimac (talk) 09:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Change the soft block template to automatically convert the code to the name itself.

Verify if "subst:BASEPAGENAME" remains this way in the following template:

This account, WikiProject user warnings, has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia, because your username does not meet our username policy.

Your username is the only reason for this block. You are welcome to choose a new username (see below).

A username should not be promotional, related to a "real-world" group or organization, misleading, offensive, or disruptive. Also, usernames may not end in the word "bot" unless the account is an approved bot account.

Please choose a new account name that meets our policy guidelines. However, do not create a new account if you wish to credit your existing contributions to a new name through a username change. To request a username change:

1. Add {{unblock-un|your new username here}} on your user talk page. You should be able to edit this talk page even though you are blocked. If not, you may wish to contact the blocking administrator by clicking on "E-mail this user" on their talk page.
2. At an administrator's discretion, you may be unblocked for 24 hours to file a request.
3. Please note that you may only request a name that is not already in use, so please check here for a list of names that have already been taken. For more information, please see Wikipedia:Changing username.

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.

Unfortunately, the current format will say that a user is still blocked on the talk page even though they have changed their name. That's why this should be updated. mechamind90 00:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Blatant vandalism warning

I recently noticed that the blatant vandalism warning had disappeared from the Twinkle, and am concerned that a vandal has been tampering with this template. Immunize (talk) 23:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

It was deleted as per Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 March 13#Template:Uw-bv. — Kralizec! (talk) 23:30, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Why was that? It seemed to a be a useful warning to me.

Which bit of the clearly-linked discussion did you find confusing? ╟─TreasuryTag►Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster─╢ 17:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I did not phrase that well. It is not so much that I did not understand why it was deleted as much as it is that I disagree strongly with it's deletion. Immunize (talk) 23:32, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

New notice suggestion

I have made a new user talk notice template idea here. Please let me know what you think. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Template:uw-myspace

Just made this a couple of minutes ago. Can CSD if redundant. Kayau Voting IS evil 11:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Is it meant to be supplemental to {{uw-socialnetwork}}? — Kralizec! (talk) 23:56, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Didn't know that it exists. However, I think it's a bit too extreme. A more AGF-like one may do. Also, things like guestbooks may seem 'off-topic' but are not deleted immediately, especially since even Jimbo has one. Kayau Voting IS evil 12:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Template Series uw-idt

Hi all. I've started a thread on a proposed set of warning templates at WP:AN#Template Series uw-idt. Any additional input or comments are welcome. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:47, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposed

I have a simple mod to the current final warning, with the image being more clear. If anyone wants to modify it or make it a template, PLEASE do so and post it here, because I'm not very good at coding with temps and converting things. Here's the message, a small mod from twinkles, so it'd be nice if this was included in it in an update:

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. Old Al (talk) 21:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.'

• The time and my user name are from a recent use.

Old Al (talk) 21:40, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, which particular template warning are you talking about? In order to keep all of the warning templates harmonized, all of the individual template talk pages are redirected to the master talk page for Wikipedia:WikiProject user warnings. — Kralizec! (talk) 02:57, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I mean the final warning in twinkle, as I believe it is not as obvious as this, to subtle.Old Al (Talk) 05:21, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

There is a pretty solid consensus for the existing images used in the warning schema, so it's probably not a good idea to go changing them at this point. — Satori Son 15:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Alright Old Al (Talk) 16:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Another proposed

This:

Many of your recent edits have been obvious vandalism, and most have been reverted. Please do NOT continue your streak. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.'

With the signature going in the blank space when you view the source, could be used for users or IP's who have a history of many warnings, but not many blocks (Or none), possibly to warn them that they may be indef blocked. This would possibly go well with non-final warnings. This obviously would not apply to schools, libraries, etc... If anyone has any mods, please do so, and if anyone wants to template it, please do so, soon if you can. Old Al (Talk) 05:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:92.235.13.168 is a very recent example of it working, as no block (at the time this was posted) is needed. It may have prevented disruption for some time. Old Al (Talk) 15:33, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure we need a new template. Wouldn't {{Uw-vandalism4im}} work fine for such cases? — Satori Son 15:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

• I'm just saying that this would be good for users who don't blank pages and such, but will add things like "Jay Leno sucks dick lulz" every once in a while, this could tell them that they are very close to being indef blocked.

Also, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/70.91.194.173 all the edits by this user stopped after the message, and I added the second one later to make sure. This is only an idea, but if anyone else has a problems/support, please say so. Old Al (Talk) 16:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

A warning for adding non-notable entries to stand-alone lists?

Kayau Voting IS evil 12:29, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Personally I use {{uw-unsourced1}}. That way the onus is on them to prove the notability of the subject in question. — Kralizec! (talk) 17:48, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Many IP users and newbies add entries with reliable refs, but they fail to see that the entry is a redlink which means it fails the stand-alone list's notability guidelines. At least, that is the case at the List of vegetarians and List of vegans. Kayau Voting IS evil 02:11, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

There is also: {{Uw-badlistentry}}, I tend to use it when red-linked names get added to "notable people or alumni", etc. --Funandtrvl (talk) 20:37, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Kayau Voting IS evil 00:18, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Removal of vandalism warnings?

Not sure this is the right place, but what's the guidelines on users removing vandalism warnings from their own pages? I gave somebody a uw-v1 and he took it down. Thanks. --AW (talk) 18:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Permitted by WP:BLANKING. –xeno^talk 18:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks --AW (talk) 19:00, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Custom Warning Templates

Occasionally I use my own custom warning templates. However, it has become clear that many scripts are not compatible with the various scripts used to combat vandalism. Is there any simple way to make them compatible? --khfan93 03:40, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Time to wrap up this WikiProject?

It seems to me that this WikiProject has met its goal of creating a complete, standardised set of user warning templates, which are now largely accepted and used by the community. Any future refinements or issues can be handled perfectly well at WT:UTM, where most discussion is now occuring anyway. Can we mark this as succesfull or historical?--Kubigula (talk) 14:27, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I think there's more to do in merging/redirecting older templates into the new ones (progress has been slow, but there's been some recently). But I agree that most of the collaboration and discussion now occurs on WT:UTM. --Bsherr (talk) 15:58, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

New: uw userpage-in-cat

Created Template:Uw-upincat(edit talk links history). Might need an eye from one of the involved people here. Does one need to ask for standardization somewhere, i.e. to start some vetting & improving process? -DePiep (talk) 11:19, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Is the presumption that the mistaken categorization has been corrected by the warning editor? I think when I notice this I always take action to mitigate it. --Bsherr (talk) 14:59, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

No, the notifying editor is not to change a userpage, is my line of thinking. Should the text be more clear on this? Your second sentence I don't get. -DePiep (talk) 12:49, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, let me clarify. I'm saying that I do indeed usually edit a user page to remove an unintentional categorization per WP:USERNOCAT, or when the categorization is a clear error. (Interesting, that you wouldn't, yes?) I agree that a uw-template would be helpful; I'm wondering what tense it should be written in. --Bsherr (talk) 14:11, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, such an edit is allowed (even in user mainpage too?). It's the notification at UserTalk that made me typetired. Now if you think the wording could be better -- go ahead. If you think it should possible to write "I have edited" or "Could you please edit" - dunno about good uw-practice. I surely would like to have the non-edit option available. Notifier can just use their own aftertext (before signature)? Or maybe as a second level, as 2nd template. -DePiep (talk) 14:24, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Let's do a parser function. I'll work on it. --Bsherr (talk) 15:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

OK. Btw, I think the current text It is suggested that you edit the userpage is quite clear re who does the edit (I only reread it just now). This is a bit clearer than your first post here suggested, innit?

I understand you use the parser function to switch between the two options for the notifying editor. I'll wait & see. -DePiep (talk) 16:35, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, take a look now. I've made the first two parameteres user page and additional text, to match the other uw templates. Then, there are two additional parameters. Cat adds the category name, and defer=yes changes the template to ask the user to mitigate the problem. I've also updated the documentation. What do you think? --Bsherr (talk) 17:36, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Apart from true standardization aspect, no improvement.

1. Why the cat-name only in param #3? It's factual, expect it at #2.
2. "defer=no" by default preposes an uninvited action on a Userpage as standard action. This should not be in a level 1 warning.
3. Text is unnecessarily circumventing. "mitigate"? (probably incorrect for a yes/no option at all) is difficult, why not write "edit"? "for you" - weasel for "I did it". "please review WP:CAT" is too generic (the precize section has disappeared), and not helpful at all when you have deleted the cat already.
4. Final text "Thank you" (by default) may be common in the USA, but to me it's extremely not-friendly. To have that written on my talk page when you come unsollicited to my Userspace, edit my userpage, and start writing this on my Talk. Anyway, as we are expected to sign manually, why not leave it to the editor to post-write such a thing?
5. The changes are not in the documentation.
6. In general, the template is rude, unclear and not leaving much to the user who'se page we are invading. I expect it a much more friendly & AGF & unbiting uw. -DePiep (talk) 12:10, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Some hours later, my approach earned me a nice note. (f: added outdent above) -DePiep (talk) 14:35, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the numbered format of this reply, which I know reads coldly, but it's the more convenient way of referencing your above comments.

1. Cat is actually not param 3, it's a named parameter. I agree that it would logically be the second unnamed parameter, but this would make it inconsistent with the standardized user warning templates, which provide that additional imformation is always unnamed parameter 2. It would have to be discussed further if this template is to vary from the standardization.
2. I don't mind setting the default for the defer switch to whatever the consensus is as to what the most frequent remedy would be. However, this template is not a level-1 warning. Rather, it's a single-level warning. The difference is that single-level templates are expected to be appropriate no matter the faith of the user. If you want to make it into a series warning, we can.
3. I'm not wedded to "mitigate". Maybe it's the wrong word. Usually, the action I take, unless it looks like it's a missing colon situation, is to "comment out" the categorization. I think "edit" makes it seem much more invasive and content-based than it really is. Perhaps "corrected", or "adjusted"? Whatever the language, it cannot be in the first person ("I did it"), because the template has to apply regardless of whether the warning user was the user who corrected the problem (the case of "another user fixed it and I'm just warning you"). On the other matter, I've made the link more specific; does that resolve that concern?
4. "Thank you" is part of the standardized user warning, and that's the only reason I put it there. If the warning user does not want to use "Thank you", the standardization does indeed leave it to that user to replace it with something else, using param 2.
5. I thought I updated the documentation completely. Could you let me know what I missed? --Bsherr (talk) 15:35, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
6. We can certainly work on the language. Remember, because this is a single-level warning template, it has to apply regardless of faith. If you want to make it a series template, we can do that, and then you'll have level 1 for good faith and level 2 for no faith (and onward, if needed).

I hope perhaps this resolves some of the concerns? We should certainly keep working on it. --Bsherr (talk) 15:35, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

re Sorry for the numbered format of this reply, - what is that supposed to mean? Are you pissed off because of well pointed and numbered comments? Come on. There is nothing new in there. I wrote it before to you. -DePiep (talk) 22:06, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. I was apologizing for responding with a list instead of in paragraph form. --Bsherr (talk) 22:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

When I write a numbered list of remarks, why would you ever say "sorry" for responding by number? What could you do wrong by doing so? Why are you saying "sorry" to anyone or about something? This is what I don't get. To me you are backtracking way too much. Really, it doesn't sound sympathic to me. (I try again: because it doesn't say what you did do wrong, nor what I am supposed to see you did wrong, nor whether something was wrong at all). Secundary, it read to be cynical, re the content, say, how do we write a friendly automated note. But maybe I am getting to harsh on you, misunderstanding you being friendly all over. (All serious here). Learning, I promise to read your contributions that positive way, and I will be back to admit any mistake in this. I struck the offensive line above. -DePiep (talk) 23:09, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh. I didn't mean it that way. Some people find exchange of numbered lists to be overly formal. That was all I meant. I'm glad you weren't put off by it. Anyway, may we get back to discussing the template? --Bsherr (talk) 23:22, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, my talking points are above. Numbered 1-6 ;-) I'll read here (btw, not move to the T:-talkpage?) -DePiep (talk) 23:50, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

-) We can stay here. It'll be easier to refer to our previous exchanges. I'll watch for your reply! --Bsherr (talk) 00:27, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Here I found another good description about which cats are/are not suitable for Userpages. It is: Content cats (no) vs. Project cats (yes). We might use that in the /documentation. -DePiep (talk) 12:15, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Like I said above, I've already changed the link, and indeed it's to that section of the page. Take a look. --Bsherr (talk) 14:31, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, they're two different pages: Wikipedia:USERNOCAT#Categorizing_user_pages (re userpages), and Wikipedia:Category#Non-article_and_maintenance_categories (re where OK and not OK). The first one is in the template, and good for the User (all right), the second could be added to the /doc, to inform the uw-using editor on when (not) to use it. Maybe there are more doc places for these templates, like in TW? We don't want to end up with this mistake again ;-).-DePiep (talk)

The user warning template documentation right now doesn't include policy references. But if there's another way you want to modify the template, let me know. (By the way, the Jimmy Wales user page you used as an example was put into that category because it contains the template {{historical}}. There's no way to decat it without removing the template, but I don't think removing the template is correct there--it may actually belong in that category.) --Bsherr (talk) 15:37, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I took an extra look at the other uw-s, and the standardization is great. No programming requests left. Maybe I'll extend the /doc, but not today. It's OK this way. -DePiep (talk) 16:11, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Closing: after all my misunderstanding, Bsherr thank you for improving this one into standard and TW-grade. -DePiep (talk) 16:39, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

It's my pleasure. Thanks for bringing forward a great idea for a template. I'm going to add it to WP:UTM now. --Bsherr (talk) 19:59, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Wow, and so there's another sphere there above :-) -DePiep (talk) 20:32, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

New: uw-plagiarism

I've created a template here to advise contributors of Wikipedia:Plagiarism and request compliance. Tried to follow your basic principles, but I would appreciate review. :) If it is well received, I'll add it to the various uw compendia. (Speaking of plagiarism, I have shamelessly stolen the format of the above listing header. :)) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:04, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Format and style look perfect, and the prose is good. However, in true Wiki spirit, I couldn't resist making a few tweaks to the prose.--Kubigula (talk) 04:28, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Looks good to me. I've added it to WP:WARN. --Bsherr (talk) 02:25, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

RfC on user-page deletion-nomination-notification icons

An RfC has been initiated regarding the user-page-notification icons used when an editor's work is tagged for deletion: Template talk:AfD-notice#Request for Comment.

The section above the RfC contains the discussion that preceded the RfC. Herostratus (talk) 17:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Easy of use of the template

Maybe I'm a bis slow today, but I just wanted to put a second warning to this IP address (I know a bit pointless, anyway). I'm not an administrator and don't post warnings everyday. I just thought that I read something about a second and third tier of warnings for vandalism here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:205.122.3.16 but after 20 minutes search I'm giving up because I just cannot understand which template should I use. I think would make things easier to have a table with examples as there is for some other templates. Just an idea.--Dia^ (talk) 19:23, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

A table like this one? Pol430 talk to me 16:43, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I was looking for! But with such a title ("Template messages/User talk namespace") I probably come across it and never read it because I thought hat nothing to do with "warning possible vandals" --Dia^ (talk) 18:42, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Changes to the layout of this project

I have been working on a draft in my sandbox, of revised pages for this project, with the aim of making it easier to navigate. The draft can be found at User:Pol430/Sandbox/WikiProject user warnings. When this project was founded it sought to create a standardized set of uw- templates, this has been largely achieved. I feel the focus of the project should now move towards maintaining that uw- template set. Additionally I would like to see the project work on a design guideline or policy to ensure any new templates maintain the standardization of the current series. In order to keep things simple I will bullet point the proposed changes.

I propose that:

• The main page of my drafts replaces the current content of Wikipedia:WikiProject user warnings
• Create new sub pages of Wikipedia:WikiProject user warnings/Usage and layout and Wikipedia:WikiProject user warnings/Design guidelines to accommodate the relevant tabs in my sandbox.
• Bring Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace and its sub-pages under the stewardship of Wikipedia:WikiProject user warnings.
• Delete any sub-pages of Wikipedia:WikiProject user warnings that are rendered entirely obsolete by the above proposed changes.
• Redirect all talk pages (including this one) to Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace, which seems to be the preferred venue for discussion on uw- templates and is where the templates talk pages redirect to.

I have posted a pointer to this discussion at WT:UTM. Please discuss... Pol430 talk to me 00:16, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

That's great!! Well done!

I particularly like the idea to order all the info in tags! And absolutely useful are the "Table of templates" and "Table of templates". Great work!!--Dia^ (talk) 18:46, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Statute of limitations on user warnings

I just added a level 3 warning to an IP's talk page, because they had two previous warnings about two weeks ago. Is there a preferred time limit to escalating warnings? Like, should I have just repeated a level 2 warning, or started over at level 1? I haven't been able to find anything in the documentation that makes this clear. Thanks. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 19:28, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

User warnings represent a faith assumption rather than a rigid pattern of escalation. It is perfectly acceptable to start warning a user with a level 3 warning if the edit they made was clearly a bad faith one. There is no defined time period in which warnings on an IP talk page become irrelevant; bear in mind that IP address assignment changes very frequently. Pol430 talk to me 12:10, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Archiving old IP warnings

I see on the project page that we still suggest archiving old warnings "to the page history". However, since the {{old IP warnings top}} and {{old IP warnings bottom}} templates were developed and added to WP:UTM, do we want to stick with that? Should we choose one or the other or leave both options open? —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 05:37, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, yes you make a very good point. I have been working on a draft in my userspace to replace/update this project's pages and make this project, and WP:UTM easier to navigate. The draft can be seen at User:Pol430/Sandbox/WikiProject user warnings. See the post above Pol430 talk to me 12:17, 13 March 2011 (UTC)