The quoted text was moved from User_Talk:Pathoschild on 21:33, 20 October 2005 (UTC):
I like the idea of standardizing, I'm just not sure I like your standard. :) I find it visually cluttering with the continuous indentation, especially since the stop hand seems to interfere. I had started going with a section for warnings, and a section for blocks, where you could see the new ones on the bottom, but I'm interested in your thoughts. We also should try to involve a wide audience to get a consensus. Thanks again for working on this. Let me know what you think. Wikibofh 21:06, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
I was rather surprised to see that the page had been organised; I had assumed I was the only one working towards a standard organisation of warnings. I've just rewritten the formatting guide to make it more human-readable by seperating explanation from example. I welcome new contributors; I suggest we use the formatting guide talk page for it's discussion. I copied the discussion so far there. // Pathoschild 21:33, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
I disagree with seperating blocks from the warnings. I can see how it may be useful for finding previous blocks for precedent, it becomes difficult to know if a series of warnings is ongoing or recently resulted in a block. It also becomes difficult to judge if past warnings resulted in punishment, particularly since the sections may not be archived with careful attention to synchronisation.
I do agree that there is some visual clutter, but I think the current version is a big improvement over the clutter of a disorganised page. If you can think of a way to lessen clutter further, you're welcome to try. ^_^ // Pathoschild 21:33, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
The problem I run into when I go to block someone is whether or not they have already been blocked, if so when, and does it relate to the current vandalism (which is the majority of these blocks). Having all of the blocks in one place makes it easier for me to see the history of blocks (provided the admins actually note them). I agree it would be nice to see blocks and warnings together, but in practice they seem to be ALL over the place on the individual pages. Some people make separate sections for months, some for articles, some not at all, some above the TOC, etc... My thought was to keep them in simple groups on the hope that people would see the sections as obvious. It could be that your templates will reduce this chaos. As for the visual clutter, how about a 3 level max. First warning, all subsequent warnings indented one level, block on a 3rd level. Wikibofh 21:54, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
That works quite well. One doesn't have to glance at the end of every series for a block, one just has to slide down along the second-level line. I updated the page to reflect the new version as stated above. As for the general user following the guide, it might be a good idea to place a small but visible note somewhere pointing out that there's a standardised format in use. However, even if some users don't strictly follow the template, I've found that they unerringly do post their warnings under the appropriate heading. The difference between an unformatted and formatted warning is thus relatively small and easily integrated; I have 158 user talk pages on my guide watch list for that reason. // Pathoschild 22:14, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
PS: One way to make conformance to the guide easy would be to have tags specific to the guide. In this way, {{guide5}} (or similarly named) will automatically be a third-level warning, et cetera. The only problem is that users often start a series with {{test2}}, which makes it impossible to format it in advance. // Pathoschild 22:19, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
I think that format looks MUCH better. Thanks for being flexible. Tonight or tomorrow I'll post something to the Village Pump to see if we can maybe move this towards being an official standard. :) I agree that using a guide or something similar would be a good way to go. Wikibofh 22:20, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
One user's pet project straight to proposed official standard in one day. °-°'
On a related note, if every warning is first-level and every block second-level, it becomes much easier to distinguish between series, find block notices, and even create standardised template tags that automatically apply the guide. // Pathoschild 22:24, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
I've come up with a possible model for the above idea of guide template warnings. What thinkest thou? // Pathoschild 07:26, 22 October 2005 (UTC)}}
One of the problems I see with the current templates is that some have both named and unnamed warnings, but others don't; those that do accomplish this with two versions of each warning. I'm using {{if}} in the guide templates to make them all optionally named or unnamed, but I run into a problem in doing so.
If we aren't concerned with server load, I can simply use {{if}} as-is without problem. However, templates on talk pages should ideally be entirely subst'd to reduce server load. Unfortunately, there is no auto-subst that I'm aware of and, in fact, {{if}} cannot be subst'd without adding the page to the template's category. One possible solution is to convert {{if}} into the programming code it refers to in each template. I'm going to be experimenting a bit, but I probably lack the technical knowledge to do so. More contributors would be helpful indeed. // Pathoschild 23:12, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject User warnings, for the period November 2005 (index). Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Its always great to have boilerplates when dealing with sticky situations -- promotes equalness of response and easier tracking later should the issue by disputed. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish14:49, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
Notoriety
This looks very interesting. I wish I could contribute, but in the near future I can't. Still, one oddity caught my eye: Intent: warns against adding information about subjects judged insufficiently notorious to merit an encyclopedic entry. Er, come again? I understand that Adolf Hitler (most extreme) to Mariah Carey's worst ever album (far from the most extreme) are notorious enough to deserve articles, but when I look at what happens to be on the main page right now I see Felice Beato, [Black Tree Fern]], etc.: where's the notoriety? (Do you mean renown, perhaps?) -- Hoary14:42, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Feel free to take initiative. I've updated the Tasks list and added a Misc. Help section; those may give you some ideas for contributing. // Pathoschild20:42, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Howdy! I'd like to suggest that since the vast majority of warning templates are used on ip addresses, the majority of which are dynamic, that organizing them by by month/year is unnecessary. In some cases, where the last warning on an IP talk page is more than a month old, I'll just clear the other warnings because there's no reason to believe they apply to the same person now as they did before. That brings up another subject regarding user warning procedures I'd like to suggest, basically that, in the interests of clarity, a common agreement be reached for when it's appropriate to clear old warnings from an IP talk page. Regards, - CHAIRBOY (☎) 02:57, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
I prefer to archive older warnings, though I can see how clearing can be justified. We should seek more voices before making any such guideline. Chronological ordering is intended to organise warnings over a somewhat short period of time, perhaps 3 months or less. Since some IPs are more vandal-prone than others, a month or two of warning history is useful for admins. For example, User_talk:169.244.143.115 has borne many vandals and is rapidly blocked because of its history. // Pathoschild03:11, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
I've come to partially agree with one of Chairboy's comments above, although I think a good age before clearing (without archival) is two or three months. This period of time provides a good view of recent negative contributions, and helps administrators decide if the vandalism is the result of many new users' test or the dedicated work of a single vandal. // Pathoschild18:15, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Testers
Often on my patrol, I find that some of the anon IPs add some nonsense and immediately remove it - just as a test to see if they can really edit. Most of the patrollers (incl. me) do not warn them either because they have reverted their mistake or because we believe in atching hold of & warning more serious vandals or more importantly, because none of the warning messages are suitable. It would be great if a friendly warning template is created to let them know that they can test in the sandbox. --Gurubrahma07:16, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion, though that idea is already proposed in the section just above. ;) All templates are proposed to have a level 0 severity (test0, blanking0, etc) that "Assumes good faith; very polite pointer to sandbox or relevant page." If you're interested, you're welcome to stay and help craft these level 0 templates (or any other part of the WikiProject). // Pathoschild07:20, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
I hadn't thought of having warnings for page moves; thanks. For the WikiProject, I think it'd be best (under the current goals) to use a different series of templates for vandal moves, using the same system of severity above. Ideally, every warning template should be mnemonic ("vmove" is easily associated with vandal moves, "test2m" less so). This also has the added feature of customisable tone (for example, a move from Bob to Bobby results in a move0, but Bob to A_stupid_fucking_whore!!!_>:( results in a move2 or move3).
Feel free to stay and help develop the templates, the guidelines (such as the severity levels), or any other part of the WikiProject. ;) // Pathoschild07:47, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Template guidelines
Severity levels
Personally I don't see much need for 2. I generally use 0 for first time offenders, 1 for the second and then it's pretty fast to 3 then 4. I'd also like to see improved templates for blocking. I like {{subst:vblock}} but think it could use some tweaking. I also like test6 more than 5 because of the indication of increasing blocks. If we've gotten to that point I don't generally see a lot of hope. Wikibofh19:10, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree. How's this appropriately adjusted list?
0. = Assumes good faith; very polite pointer to sandbox or relevant page.
1. = No faith assumption; polite request to stop and mention of consequences.
2. = Assumes bad faith; stern cease and desist.
3. = Assumes bad faith; strong cease and desist, last warning.
4. = Assumes bad faith; strong cease and desist, only warning. use increased block lengths.
Well, right now on the Test templates we have 1,2,3 and 4. 5 is block. If you look, test0 is actually worse that test/test1 (those are the same). I would argue for (in your numbering scheme, the one true number scheme for computer work ;) that we should have 0,1,3 and then 5 (ie a block). We need something akin to 6 for when we've run multiple 5's. To summarize:
0 = Assumes good faith; very polite pointer to sandbox or relevant page.
1 = No faith assumption; polite request to stop and mention of consequences.
2 = Assumes bad faith; strong cease and desist, last warning.
3 = Assumes bad faith. You have been blocked. Please come back and contribute constructively when the block expires.
4 = Assumes on going non-reformable vandal. You have been blocked, and the blocks will get longer if it continues.
That treads into the territory of the block templates, though. I much prefer the idea of a flexible series of block templates, instead of the patchwork of specific and general block templates that exist now. it's not even particularly useful to specify what type of vandalism the block aims to prevent; that tends to be obvious from the half-dozen warnings typically preceding. ;) Further, the new block templates are quite flexible; you can be as general as {block} or {block|repeated vandalism}, or as specific as {block|repeated page blanking, notably diff1 and diff2 on Article}. For example, a very conservative admin might go in this order: {test1} {test2} {test3} {test4} {block1}.
It's not at all necessary to emulate the current set of templates; the idea is to start on a clean slate with good guidelines. Every template will have simple, comprehensive documentation attached. // Pathoschild05:43, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Ok, so let's boil it down to 0,1,2,3. Still one less, and then we move to blocks. I'd change the above to have 0 be more of a welcome. And then 1,2 and 3. When we see a newbie with an innocuous test, they would get 0. Obnoxious 1, and then escalate from there. My standard path for someone who has never been seen before would either be (using Pathos numbers above, not mine, but with my new 0): 0,1,3 and for someone doing offensive things it would probably be 1,2,3. I still don't think we need 5 levels. Of course, you could be right that I'm more aggressive on this, but I think most people end up there if they've done vandalism patrol for any length of time. Wikibofh17:55, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree. The fourth level is simply a third level for repeat vandals, and would be too similar to justify creating dozens of such templates. Level 0 is indeed intended as something of a welcome. What do you think of the below, then?
0. = Assumes good faith; very polite pointer to sandbox or relevant page.
1. = No faith assumption; polite request to stop and mention of consequences.
2. = Assumes bad faith; stern cease and desist.
3. = Assumes bad faith; strong cease and desist, last warning.
I suppose you can add me. :) I like those, my only idea would be that 0 should have some sort of welcoming feel. Something like "We noticed your test over there. Thanks for coming by and trying it out. We sure hope you'll stay and contribute. You can create accounts...." In other words, less of a warning and pointer and more of a welcome and pointer. Make sense? That was we can use it for the innocent tests and it might get some contributors, and use 1 for those that don't seem so innocent. Wow, now I'm rambling. That means that 1 need to mention the sandbox. Wikibofh18:58, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
0. = Assumes good faith; welcome with polite pointer to sandbox and/or to relevant help and policy pages.
1. = No faith assumption; pointer to sandbox with polite request to stop and mention of consequences.
One of the most desired improvements, from what I've read, is to make block templates stand out from the surrounding warnings. With certain minor precautions, this can be accomplished in two ways using CSS. First, we can apply formatting directly to each template with inline CSS; this will define the appearance visible on all but ancient browsers. Second, we can allow individual users to fully customise what the templates look like to them when logged in by adding a class such as "user-block" (see user stylesheet).
Below is a proposed appearance, subject to improvement. Note that if this idea receives wide support, we can add the style declaration to the Wikipedia stylesheet (as the class user-block) and omit it completely in the template.
I like it, but I prefer the look of the test5-n template. The clock stands out vs the stop signs and hands, and I prefer the paler color. All personal preference on the colors.
You have been blocked from editing for vandalism of Wikipedia. The block is for a period of 1 million years. If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to come back after the block expires. Wikibofh03:04, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
I suggest that we divide Category:User warning templates into standard and custom warnings; that way we can keep it simple for the average user while the more experienced can explore the custom warnings. On a side-note, which template is that? I'll convert it to a CSS box so it achieves the same effect without breaking lists.
That is {{test5-n|time|~~~~}}. I would rather see the templates work with optional parameters. You are far better with templates than I am, so I think you might have a better idea what is possible there. We might be able to word them in such a way that the lack of optional parameters doesn't make the result be nonsensical. It would keep the number of templates down by a factor of 2. Wikibofh14:25, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
I changed the template into a formatted div box in edit 30726711. If you want to see it with a border, take a look at edit 30726390. The current version as of now is the one without a border.
All the WikiProject templates have optional parameters for certain logical variables (such as block time), and are left quite flexible enough to use for purposes other than their intent (such as lists of diff links). If left blank, these will all default to generic wording. Is that what you refer to, or do you mean allowing optional customising of the styles, images, et cetera? // Pathoschild12:53, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
(resetting indent) just things like time, article, signature and diffs. I don't see a lot of need to customize style/images. People who want to do that probably wouldn't like our versions anyway. :) Wikibofh(talk)19:37, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Yep, those are already part of the standard templates. I removed the list from the front page since we don't have any guidelines to follow yet, but they can still be reached from the category. For example, in the box below are the same template (blanking1) with the one parameter specified and with none specified. The bold has been added to show the parameter.
Specified: This message concerns your recent blanking of Wikipedia:Wikiproject user warnings (see diff). Please stop. Blank pages are harmful to Wikipedia because they have a tendency to confuse readers. If you feel that the page should be deleted, please see the deletion policy for how to proceed. Alternatively, you can redirect to a different article (if duplicate), revert to the last legitimate version (if vandalised), or edit (if you feel it needs improvement). We welcome your future contributions to Wikipedia.
Unspecified: This message concerns your recent blanking of Wikipedia pages. Please stop. Blank pages are harmful to Wikipedia because they have a tendency to confuse readers. If you feel that the page should be deleted, please see the deletion policy for how to proceed. Alternatively, you can redirect to a different article (if duplicate), revert to the last legitimate version (if vandalised), or edit (if you feel it needs improvement). We welcome your future contributions to Wikipedia.
I've added three proposed block templates to the main page. Any suggestions? I think the order of parameters should be signature-time-reason, since admin will probably want to omit them in the reverse order. // Pathoschild05:42, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Add block log...
Can people think of what would be a good way to add the blocklog to some of templates? I think that perhaps sharedip would benefit, but perhaps some of the others as well, just to see what has happened with this IP in the past. Wikibofh17:21, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
The structure I generally use is blockquoted below. We could perhaps replace the subst template with a new template that would include information relevant to user warnings, as well as the reminder to subst.
Based on the subst template, I suggest the below template which would be inserted under the "Warnings" header on talk pages. This gives quick access to all the useful tools I could think of as well as giving information to new users. What do you think?
I've only been vandal fighting for about a month, but I definitely see the value in this. Are we trying out templates on here and then moving them to the project page? How is this working? Asking because each Wikiproject is a bit different. --Woohookitty(cat scratches)15:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
That's pretty much it. Following the template creation guidelines (see /Documentation), we create and discuss templates here and move it to the Project page when we get consensus. Welcome to the WikiProject. :) // Pathoschild09:25, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
I've created preliminary versions of the {{s/test}} series, aimed at general or unspecified vandalism. They're in much need of improvement, though. Further, I don't know if "test" is a very good name for them (since they stopping assuming it was a test after test0). Any thoughts? // Pathoschild11:43, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Isn't 'nonsense' overly strong? I'm guessing that this warning might be sent to someone who is having genuine repeated difficulties getting a grip with Wikipedia. Even if not, 'nonsense' might come across as provocative. Crosbie12:39, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
This probably should be moved to the above page, as the de facto standard form has a capital "P" in "project" and the first word after the word "WikiProject" capitalized. Not that it's paticularly important, but I figured I'd mention it. Blackcap(talk)07:41, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
I've made that a redirect to the WikiProject. Moving would involve moving all the subpages, so it's not really worth the trouble. Thanks for pointing that out. // Pathoschild13:55, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Icon to use for block messages
IMO, this icon () is associated with an action the user takes, and should only be used in warnings, while this icon () denotes an action taken against the user, and should be used in block messages. This is what I have been advocating with the legacy templates recently. FWIW, I created the second icon. -- Denelson8309:05, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
I saw you changing that in the legacy templates, but I don't think the same reasons apply to changing the symbol in the standardised templates. For one, blocks are almost always temporary; the stop hand applies just as well in this context as it does as a road sign. The symbol succintly summmarises the point of the block, which is to stop vandalism; the octagon warning symbol instead focuses on the fact of the block itself. For another, the standardised messages may not use the stop hand symbol on warnings (such as {{test4-n}} does), since repeated stop hands across a talk page without a block erodes trust in the administrator intervention process. I can see the need to distinguish standardised block messages from legacy templates filled with stop hand symbols; however, I think the colourful box surrounding the block notices does that quite well. // Pathoschild15:50, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
) is associated with an action the user takes, and should only be used in warnings, while this icon (
) denotes an action taken against the user, and should be used in block messages. This is what I have been advocating with the legacy templates recently. FWIW, I created the second icon. -- Denelson83 09:05, 30 December 2005 (UTC)