Wikipedia talk:Template index/User talk namespace/Archive 8: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
WOSlinkerBot (talk | contribs) m Fix misnested tag lint errors |
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12) |
||
Line 141:
:::::Editors who purposefully use (incorrect) warnings to intimidate other users, or who never learn how to use them with any accuracy may be subjected to [[WP:CSN|community sanctions]] banning them from using warnings. However, with only 1,347 admins, and tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of vandals disallowing regular users from issuing level 3 and 4 warnings is simply not an option. Keep in mind that your situation is the exception, not the rule. Users are discouraged from skipping 2 or more warnings except in extreme circumstances. '''[[Special:Contributions/The Hybrid|<font color="Steel blue">The</font>]] [[User:The Hybrid|<font color="Maroon">Hyb</font>]][[User talk:The Hybrid|<font color="Green">rid</font>]]''' 05:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
::::::(e/c)So you're suggesting because some one does not have the technical ability to enforce policy besides giving warnings, they should not even be able to tell blatant vandals what the result of their continued actions will be? Policy says: You vandalize, you get blocked. Why can non-admins not say what policy is? Wikipedia only has ~1300 admins, not all are active and many do not do vandalism patrol. I don't even know where to start to tell all of the problems this could cause. <
:::::::Mr Z, not sure if you read all what I wrote. I clearly wrote that in this case the editor who issued the warning was doing so entirely baselessly. He was unhappy with our edits (which were in no way vandalism) but immediately issued a level 3 vandalism warning. Naturally, this is frustrating and brings up a whole host of questions and issues which I present above. Again- the warning was used in an attempt to get myself and another editor to not edit an article, '''not''' because there was actual vandalism occurring. [[User:Bstone|Bstone]] 06:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
::::::::No editor, admin or not is supposed to give incorrect warnings. But people make mistakes and we [[WP:AGF|assume good faith]], we're all human, nobody is perfect. Forbidding non-admins from issuing level 3 or 4 warnings is not going to help anything, it'll just make a ton of other problems a lot worse. I'm not saying you are a blatant vandal, but your suggestion would not allow warnings to be given to even the most blatant vandals, if the warning editor is not an admin. <
::::::::Like I said before, if individual users abuse the warnings, then they can be dealt with individually. However, what all of us are trying to say is that banning non-admins from issuing warnings entirely is impractical. '''[[Special:Contributions/The Hybrid|<font color="Steel blue">The</font>]] [[User:The Hybrid|<font color="Maroon">Hyb</font>]][[User talk:The Hybrid|<font color="Green">rid</font>]]''' 06:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Line 156:
::::::::Never for a moment do I suggest that there should be no method for editors to issue warnings, but in my opinion they must be different from those that admins can issue. There should be a softer or different tone, different wording, etc. Otherwise it can (and has) been exploited by people who are looking for just another tool to solidify their edits and scare other editors away. [[User:Bstone|Bstone]] 06:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::If someone goes around replacing page text with pictures of genitalia, we should not be replying to that with soft toned warnings. Especially if tey do it multiple times after receiving those soft toned warnings. The warning templates are designed to escalate. "''it can (and has) been exploited by people who are looking for just another tool to solidify their edits and scare other editors away.''" - Just because 0.1% of the time the warnings are misused (if that) is not a reason to abandon the current system. Deal with the user, don't try to change the whole system. If after working fine for years your car doesn't start, do you go out immediately and buy a new car? No, you deal with the specific problem. <
::::::::::Ok, I can accept that. I hope that this specific problem is dealt with very quickly. Thank you. [[User:Bstone|Bstone]] 07:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Line 179:
:I didn't really like it at first, but it's growing on me. It does offer more guidance, which is not a bad idea for a level one template. I would, however, suggest switching the order of the two bullet points.--<span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype">[[User:Kubigula|Kubigula]] ''([[User talk:Kubigula|talk]])''</span> 16:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
:I have to say, as someone who uses this template rather a lot, I'm not a fan of the bullet point style. Whilst I would not be against a rewording, I would suggest that this is made into the same format as the rest of the user warnings. It currently looks rather messy and out of place when on talk pages (in my opinion at least). [[User_talk:Wimt|Will]] <small><font color="red">(aka [[User:Wimt|<font color="red">Wimt</font>]])</font></small> 17:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
::No!!! I appreciate the intent and the effect in its own little world, but looking at the bigger picture it makes it impossible to turn an [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:207.197.77.194&oldid=162529976 unorganized mess] of a talk page into [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:207.197.77.194&oldid=163618764 something useable] to those who are trying to determine a user's history at a glance. Please find a better way! --[[User:Kbh3rd|Kbh3<sup>rd</sup>]][[User_talk:Kbh3rd|<
Based on the concerns above, I have changed it back to a single paragraph warning, while preserving most of h2g2bob's language. Any other concerns or comments?--<span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype">[[User:Kubigula|Kubigula]] ''([[User talk:Kubigula|talk]])''</span> 03:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
:Thanks! ♥ It's a nice improvement from before ''h2g2bob'' started on it, and it should work well in this form. --[[User:Kbh3rd|Kbh3<sup>rd</sup>]][[User_talk:Kbh3rd|<
:: I agree with Kubigula's edit - nicely done :) --[[user:h2g2bob|h2g2bob]] ([[user talk:h2g2bob|talk]]) 22:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Line 234:
::::Talk softly and carry a big stick. Diplomacy is the art of saying, "nice doggy" while searching for a rock to throw. And so on. You can still sound nice while not feeling it. Think of [[Dolores Umbridge]], smiling and sweetly saying, "Welcome to Wikipedia..." with her ice-cold heart. My point being, it doesn't hurt to keep first contact, especially, soft. As a "fer example", yesterday I used a <nowiki>{{uw-vand1}}</nowiki> on someone who had made 5 serial unconstructive edits, and today I received this reply:
:::::''Oops - I was wondering how things worked on wikipedia. I did not intend for it to be a bad thing. I meant to undo it but I forgot. I'm sorry and I will not do it again. Sorry to bother you'''
:::: A nice resonse, so I'm glad I didn't [[WP:BITE|bite the newcomer]]. For those who ''really'' deserve it, you can start with uw-vand2 or greater. (This from someone who finds himself more and more curmudgeonly from vandal fighting.) --[[User:Kbh3rd|Kbh3<sup>rd</sup>]][[User_talk:Kbh3rd|<
:::<i>"It's quite possible they didn't realize the software would really allow them to replace the article with the word fuck [repeated 200 times]."</i> LOL, I suppose you're right, people can be [[Hanlon's razor|that dumb]]. I personally don't understand why someone would even ''try'' that in good faith, instead of "Will this work?" or something inoffensive. [[User:Anomie|Anomie]] 11:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Line 789:
Why does the death threat block message {{tl|uw-tblock}} say that it's a temporary block, while the legal threat block message {{tl|uw-lblock}} say it's indefinite? If you ask me, making a death threat is far more objectionable than making a legal threat, though both are uncalled for. Why would anyone who made death threats be allowed to return? - [[User:Chardish|Chardish]] ([[User talk:Chardish|talk]]) 08:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
:A better question is why we even have that template. Death threats come up so infrequently, in the time it would take to look it up and copy and paste it you could just write out a quick block message. <
== Question about which template ==
Line 823:
[[User:Angel David]] recently made [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AUw-vandalism1&diff=183090867&oldid=183046911 a change] to this template. The difference is that this version would explicitely identify the target's conduct as vandalism. I personally don't like this change as I think it is sufficient for the level one [[WP:AGF]] template to describe the conduct as unconstructive. If there is clear or blatant vandalism, you can always skip to the level two warning or go straight to {{tl|Uw-vandalism4im}} or {{tl|uw-bv}}. I like having a softer version available, and the change also deprecates the level 2 warning. Any other opinions on this?--<span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype">[[User:Kubigula|Kubigula]] ''([[User talk:Kubigula|talk]])''</span> 02:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
: I agree, that edit is not assuming good faith. Revert it. [[User:Anomie|Anomie]][[User talk:Anomie|⚔]] 03:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
::I would also agree it should not say vandalism. Though I have wondered why need both test1 and vandalism1 when their usages are about the same. <
::::I use test1 if it's an inoffensive edit ("Josh is the coolest") and vandalism1 if it's more offensive ("Australians are a bunch of dumbass fuckheads"), but can still possibly be described as someone experimenting with whether they really can edit this thing.--<span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype">[[User:Kubigula|Kubigula]] ''([[User talk:Kubigula|talk]])''</span> 03:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
:::I reverted it. Damn, I already placed this template a few times with that language and I was not intending to label a newbie as a "vandal". This template is supposed to AGF, so it should have polite language. If you want to label a user as a "vandal", then use level 2 or 3. That is the point of "levels". Regards.--'''[[User:12 Noon|<font color="8b0000">12 N</font><font color="a9a9a9">oo</font><font color="8b0000">n</font>]][[User talk:12 Noon| <sup>2¢</sup>]]''' 03:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
:Should such a high use template be fully protected? A change for a few minutes could affect many uses. There really isn't much of a need for it (or similar templates) to be edited. <
:::I think we need both vandalism1 and test1, if nothing else, for consistency. Say a new user goes to the help desk or uses {{tl|helpme}} and asks how do I deal with some edit and is referred to the chart and escalating warnings are explained (or simply makes it here themselves and figures it out). If they are addressing a series of vandalism edits, they should be presented with the commensurate escalating, consistently named series, each starting with vandalism, and not have to figure out that test1 is illogically followed by vandalism2. Course the chart could remain unchanged with a simple redirect from one to the other, but it still would leave an incongruity.--[[User:Fuhghettaboutit|Fuhghettaboutit]] ([[User talk:Fuhghettaboutit|talk]]) 03:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
:Seeing that there are even tools that automatically post these templates on user talk pages, they should all be fully and indefinitely protected to ensure that they are not changed without discussion. - [[User:I do not exist|<span style="color:teal">∅</span>]] ([[User talk:I do not exist|<span style="color: gold; font-weight: bold;">∅</span>]]), 11:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
| |||