Wikipedia talk:WikiProject User warnings

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 21 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

If you have a query, please see some frequently asked questions to see if it is answered there. Thank you!

I have recently noticed vandals, especially sockpuppets, like to place {{block}} on unblocked users, including users that don't have a single warning and do RC patrol. It seems like the vandal wants to scare users by putting that template on the user or user talk page. I think there should be a warning or at least a notice to users who intentionally misuse the template in such a manner. Hydrogen Iodide 04:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People who do that most of the time of are trolls. If we go with a template I think it should be single level warning them about doing that and if they continue report them to AIV, cause trolls just want a reaction from others. Oysterguitarist 04:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correct me if I'm wrong, only admins are allowed to use {{block}} and any other variations of {{block}}, right? Hydrogen Iodide 17:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hypothetically, if an admin forgot to put a block template on a user they blocked, then a non-admin should be able to put up the template for them. I don't see this as a particularly common occurance, though. Most non-admin placements of block templates I have seen have been by novice users who think that putting the template on the page actually blocks the user. I've also seen novice users try the same thing with article (semi)protection templates. I think that in the case of good faith placement of these templates by new editors, a personal note about how only admins can do such actions with a link to the appropriate forum (e.g. WP:AIV or WP:RFPP) would be most appropriate. In the case of bad faith placement then I think that the {{uw-upv}} or simply the {{uw-vandalism1}} series would work just fine. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 18:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any ideas what the should be included in the message? Oysterguitarist 02:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably the information icon, a stop hand would probably be biting. Hydrogen Iodide 02:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I have started a template here it still needs work, feel free to make changes to it. Oysterguitarist 22:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should it be a single template or a series? Oysterguitarist 21:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was leaning towards agreeing with Elipongo that a new template was not really necessary. However, I have to admit that the proposed template could be useful as it's broad enough to cover misuse of any warning template, not just the block. If we do go forward with the template, I think a single template is sufficient; escalation can be dealt with by the regular vandalism templates.--Kubigula (talk) 22:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I made a bold revision of the template - feel free to revert if you don't like it. I think it should be flexible enough to be a first or subsequent warning, so I removed the "welcome" and tried to strike a balance between a level one and a level two. The prior version was more of a mix between a level one and a level three. As I said, feel free to revert or edit mercilessly.--Kubigula (talk) 23:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the template so far (no change):

A recent edit that you made has been reverted or removed because it was a misuse of a warning template. Please note that inappropriate use of warning templates may appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.

Hydrogen Iodide 02:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For a single-issue template, it really, really fails to assume good faith. This leaves it open to abuse and accustions-of-malicious-templating flamewars. Gracenotes^T § 02:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Gracenotes--if there is a problem, this will make it worse. Better to write a very tactful message. 02:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Could you offer some suggestions? Oysterguitarist 02:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it's bad-faith vandalism, call it bad-faith vandalism. Gracenotes^T § 03:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gracenotes and DGG make good points. The potential misuse of a warning template will either come from: (1) a new well-meaning user, who should get a true WP:AGF level one template; (2) a vandal, who can be addressed with regular vandalism templates; or (3) a "regular", who should receive a personalized note in this situation. If we can't tell if the editor is a well-meaning user or a vandal, then we need to AGF. So, we can either drop back and make this a true level one template, or simply declare this a situation that requires a personalized message. It seems like it could be a useful template, but I have to say that I can't personally recall a situation where I wished I had this template available.--Kubigula (talk) 03:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go here and check this user's first three or four contributions. This is probably an example where this template could be used. Hydrogen Iodide 17:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

heres where it could be used. Oysterguitarist 14:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And here (last two 8/5/2007 edits). Hydrogen Iodide 17:41, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And here. Cheers, Lights 19:14, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably could have used it here. Oysterguitarist 04:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe here. --_Hdt83 ^Chat 04:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK - you guys have made your point. I think several of the above could have been handled with the regular vandalism templates, but there does seem to be some demand for a template misuse template. Unless there are additional insights, I will modify it to a true level one template. Template misuse beyond that should, IMO, be dealt with as regular vandalism or with a personal message.--Kubigula (talk) 04:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hrm. I see no reason why the {{uw-v}} series won't cover this. If it's vandalism, it's vandalism. Simple as that. Gracenotes^T § 19:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it's usually vandalism, but it can be a novice not understanding how templates are supposed to be used. Even if it is vandalism, we have many templates that are really just more specific versions of the vandalism warnings - i.e. vandalism warnings tailored to the specific conduct (delete, joke, upv etc). So, the question is whether it's worth having another template geared towards this specific conduct. As there are a number of editors above who seem to want such a template, I think it's probably worth having.--Kubigula (talk) 13:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The template so far (about 2/3 month later):

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit that you made has been reverted or removed because it was a misuse of a blocking or warning template. Please use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. Thank you.

Hydrogen Iodide 21:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this template moving forward? It seems stalled. Hydrogen Iodide 23:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm planning to follow up on two proposed templates at WT:UTM - which I think has a bit wider audience. I'll try to get to it tomorrow and cross post it here.--Kubigula (talk) 02:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have created Template:Uw-recentblockwarn because often I see users who are blocked for vandalism of Wikipedia come back almost immediately after being blocked. Often, they vandalize the same article in a similar fashion before the block which indicates a persistent vandal. This template was designed for IP addresses where vandalism often comes back after a block and AGF is out of the question as it is obviously the same user (most IPs cant be indef blocked). What do you think of it? --_{Hdt83 Chat} 05:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I havent any real objection, but a regular uw-4 with a special message added would seem to do as well. DGG (talk) 07:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think getting rid of the linebreak will make the template look a bit nicer visually. Hydrogen Iodide 22:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I've worked with most of you for a while and respect your opinions (even though I've made myself absent from here) I thought I get some input from you lot. I came across this whilst blocking someone today, and I know we've refused all templates of this sort in the past. Is this an MfD case or the fact it's in so call user space give it any protection User:Ratiocinate/admin-report. Thoughts please? Cheers as ever ^Khukri 15:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would first try just explaining to Ratiocinate the reasons we avoid templates like that and asking them to {{db-user}} it; if the username is an indication of character they will probably do so. If they refuse, then an MFD might be appropriate. Anomie 16:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorted, very amiable chap. ^Khukri 14:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Messages should be removed without archival after three months or less, depending on the number of warnings. In the case of registered vandals, archiving is up to them so long as recent warnings aren't removed."

• It seems to me that the 3 month rule is a little short. For example, take this user. If everything after 3 months is deleted, then it appears to the casual warner that he's only had 1 warning. Perhaps 1 year or 10 warnings (or some sort of combination) might be a better cut-off? Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the block log helps to keep track of that kind of stuff. Personally I wash IP talk pages when I issue a long block (ie more than a month). The next admin will see the log before blocking. -- lucasbfr ^talk 23:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I proposed the addition of two templates to UTM on the UTM talk page. I'm not certain which of these talk pages is more appropriate for the proposal, which follows up on various conversations here and there, so I am cross posting here. Feel free to comment.--Kubigula (talk) 19:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've found myself having to explain quite a bit lately why FU images are not acceptable on BLPs, I just made a template for it at {{User:Lucid/blpi}}. {{uw-blpi}} would be a more convineant link, as well as having the link available through TW, but mainly I think the project might benefit from it. --lucid 00:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[Just fixed your template link. -- intgr [talk] 10:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)][reply]

Saying that the edits are "vandalism" is clearly unfounded; vandalism is strictly defined as deliberate damage to Wikipedia. Merely stating that the edit has been reverted is enough. -- intgr [talk] 11:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're free to change it, I just lifted one of the other uw templates and changed the text around some. --lucid 11:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]