Wikipedia talk:Template index/User talk namespace/Archive 12: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 11:00, 7 October 2021

Revision as of 12:22, 16 February 2022

Line 817:

That seems to more accurately match the statements at the policy page. I would also like to add the statement:

#You may still be blocked for [[WP:EDITWAR|edit warring]] even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates you intend to continue to revert repeatedly.

These two proposed changes can be considered seperately for discussion if you all prefer. Any thoughts or ideas? --[[User:Jayron32|<fontspan style="color:#000099;">Jayron</fontspan>]]'''''[[User talk:Jayron32|<fontspan style="color:#009900;">32</fontspan>]]''''' 03:35, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

:I think there's a lot we can take from {{tlx|uw-ew}}.[[User:Jasper Deng|Jasper Deng]] [[User talk:Jasper Deng|(talk)]] 03:38, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

::I personally wouldn't mind merging the two templates; I have never actually used the 3RR template and never reference it ever when warning a user or blocking a user for edit warring; but I do recognize that many people do use the template and reference the policy page; I just feel that since we do have the template, the text should more accurately reflect the policy page it references. --[[User:Jayron32|<fontspan style="color:#000099;">Jayron</fontspan>]]'''''[[User talk:Jayron32|<fontspan style="color:#009900;">32</fontspan>]]''''' 03:46, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

:::I've had to use both templates on different occasions. Anyway, the proposed changes look good, but why remove "almost always"? ''[[User:Swarm|<span style='color:black'><font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm</font></span>]]'' ^{[[User talk:Swarm|<span style="color:blue;"><font face="old english text mt">X</font></span>]]} 08:06, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

::::Language which indicates a programmatic response to behavior (action A results in consequence B) gives the false impression that blocks are programmed "punishments" metted out for specific "offenses", and implies that humans are not necessary to read and interpret a situation and make good judgements about when to issue a block and when not to. While, absent any of the standard exceptions, 3RR usually results in a short block, there are too many variables involved to say "always" or "almost always" (in such a case, the qualifier "almost" is a useless word; most people read that as "always"). I am uncomfortable giving the impression that blocks are punishments, and the current wording gives an impression that 3RR is some "crime" for which a block is a semi-automatic "punishment", rather than giving the correct description, which is 3RR is an indication of potential disruption to the proper working of the encyclopedia, which an administrator may be asked to investigate to see if a block is an appropriate response to stop said disruption to return the encyclopedia to good working order. That many, or even most, 3RR events result in blocks is for me irrelevent in a ''warning''. Ideally, if someone has been warned, they should not be then blocked instantly if they have not committed a further violation (i.e. all users should be given the chance to heed a warning). The 3RR text, as it reads now, implies that the warning is a precursor to the coming block, and that such an event is inevitable. We should, instead, always give the warned user a chance to self-correct, and by changing the wording from the stern "almost always grounds for an immediate block" to "may result in a block", the less-stern wording gives the warned user the correct impression, which is that the block is not necessarily forthcoming if the user instead changes their behavior. --[[User:Jayron32|<fontspan style="color:#000099;">Jayron</fontspan>]]'''''[[User talk:Jayron32|<fontspan style="color:#009900;">32</fontspan>]]''''' 15:30, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

:::::Well said! Blocking exists to prevent further disruption. We're not out to "get" someone or "get rid of" someone with blocking. The revised template doesn't give the impression that anyone's hands are tied regarding a specific course of action, and likewise, it indicates that there is discretion in the process. [[User:SchuminWeb|SchuminWeb]] ([[User talk:SchuminWeb|Talk]]) 02:46, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

::::::I agree, the current wording gives a very "automated" impression, and could be taken to mean that Wikipedia's server automatically blocks any user that makes more than three reversions within 24 hours, when this is obviously not the case. I would suggest that "may result in a block" be changed to "will very likely result in a block" or something along those lines, to make it more clear that if they do not heed the warning and continue to make reversions past 3RR or continue to do so without discussion, that a block is likely, not just possible. - [[User:SudoGhost|Sudo]][[User_talk:SudoGhost#top|Ghost]] 02:54, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

:::::::I still don't like "will very likely". The idea behind a word like "may" is that it is value neutral; it doesn't predict likelyhoods. The warning template doesn't need to indicate the odds of a block coming, it just needs to let the user know that their behavior is disruptive and what action may be taken to stop the disruption (for the record, a template isn't even needed for this, but that's a discussion for another day). That's why I specifically chose a word like "may" (a word like "could" might also be a good alternative, but it doesn't seem to be much of a difference). --[[User:Jayron32|<fontspan style="color:#000099;">Jayron</fontspan>]]'''''[[User talk:Jayron32|<fontspan style="color:#009900;">32</fontspan>]]''''' 03:00, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

::::::::Agreed with Jayron32 again - this is the same reason we changed the level 4 and 4im warnings to say "you will be blocked from editing" to "you may be blocked from editing". It doesn't prescribe an automatic course of action that will then make us potentially look bad if the allegedly automatic action is not taken. [[User:SchuminWeb|SchuminWeb]] ([[User talk:SchuminWeb|Talk]]) 04:21, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

{{od}}

Line 830:

:I think that's why I proposed the second addition, reminding people that they may still be blocked for edit warring (as an aside, your description of people believing in an entitlement to 3 reverts per day is '''exactly''' why, for years, I have never mentioned the 3RR situation in any warning or block. Since 3RR is a subset of edit warring behavior, and edit warring is itself enough to merit a block, then I don't find any use of mentioning 3RR. But that's neither here nor there). What about rewording the template completely, something like this:

:*"Your recent editing history shows that you are in danger of breaking the [[WP:3RR|three-revert rule]], or that you may have already broken it. '''Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a [[WP:BLOCK|block]].''' If you wish to avoid being blocked, please go back and undo your own last revert, and instead of reverting, use the article's [[WP:TALK|talk page]] to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] among editors. You can post a request for help at an [[Wikipedia:Noticeboards|appropriate noticeboard]] or seek [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution|dispute resolution]]. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary [[Wikipedia:Protection policy|page protection]]. You may still be blocked for [[WP:EDITWAR|edit warring]] even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates you intend to continue to revert repeatedly."

:This captures the essense of 3RR, allows editors an "out" where if the undo their own last revert and immediately go to discuss, they can avoid a block (as recommended at [[WP:3RR]] and reminds them that they may still be blocked even if they do not technically violate 3RR. Ideas? Comments? Tweaks? --[[User:Jayron32|<fontspan style="color:#000099;">Jayron</fontspan>]]'''''[[User talk:Jayron32|<fontspan style="color:#009900;">32</fontspan>]]''''' 14:50, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

::I'm very tired, so I'll come back to respond to it when I'm more awake to respond, but while I was thinking about it I wanted to suggest that perhaps the part of 3RR, where it says "''Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert.''" should be mentioned in some form on the template, because I can't count how many discussions at [[WP:3RRNB]] have been something along the lines of "well I didn't violate 3RR because I was only reverting part of it". I think if that is mentioned in the template it would maybe cause less edit warring, because confusion about that part seems common. - [[User:SudoGhost|Sudo]][[User_talk:SudoGhost#top|Ghost]] 15:11, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

:::Instructing someone to undo their own revision, no matter how well-intentioned, feels like we're treating our editors like children. Refer them to the discussion page and request that they discontinue the behavior - fine. Explicitly tell them to undo their own last revert - no. We're not in elementary school, folks, and there are no "teachers" in this group. Besides, it will still be [[meta:The Wrong Version|The Wrong Version]] for someone. Better for all parties to just put down their weapons and stop editing the article altogether and head to the talk page. As long as the edit warring has stopped and all are sitting around the table discussing, then there's no need for a block of anyone, after all. [[User:SchuminWeb|SchuminWeb]] ([[User talk:SchuminWeb|Talk]]) 16:29, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Alrighty, let's try this on for size:

*"Your recent editing history shows that you are in danger of breaking the [[WP:3RR|three-revert rule]], or that you may have already broken it. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. '''Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a [[WP:BLOCK|block]].''' If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's [[WP:TALK|talk page]] to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] among editors. You can post a request for help at an [[Wikipedia:Noticeboards|appropriate noticeboard]] or seek [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution|dispute resolution]]. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary [[Wikipedia:Protection policy|page protection]]. You may still be blocked for [[WP:EDITWAR|edit warring]] even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates you intend to continue to revert repeatedly."

Made both of your suggestions. How's this one look? --[[User:Jayron32|<fontspan style="color:#000099;">Jayron</fontspan>]]'''''[[User talk:Jayron32|<fontspan style="color:#009900;">32</fontspan>]]''''' 16:58, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

:I like! A couple more copyedits and I think we've got it:

Line 851:

::::That looks great, I can't find any fault with it. - [[User:SudoGhost|Sudo]][[User_talk:SudoGhost#top|Ghost]] 03:15, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

:::::Excellent. I've changed the template, and am going to notify Twinkle's userbase. [[User:SchuminWeb|SchuminWeb]] ([[User talk:SchuminWeb|Talk]]) 16:15, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

{{Thumbs up|Dig it!}}. Excellent job to everyone involved. This is how collaboration is supposed to work. --[[User:Jayron32|<fontspan style="color:#000099;">Jayron</fontspan>]]'''''[[User talk:Jayron32|<fontspan style="color:#009900;">32</fontspan>]]''''' 20:31, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

=== Section break for post-change discussion ([[Template:Uw-3rr]]) ===