Wikipedia talk:Template index/User talk namespace/Archive 16: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 04:29, 20 May 2019

Revision as of 03:53, 3 June 2019

Line 283:

Hello, I was sudden saw [[Template:Uw-Violence]] says in serious case report to law enforcement.<br>Is that real? are they call the cops is this threat get serious?<br> I don’t think they know editors home address and police won’t investigate. [[User:Scout MLG|Scout MLG]] ([[User talk:Scout MLG|talk]]) 17:50, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

:See [[WP:EMERGENCY]]. Serious threats of violence are handled by the [[Wikimedia Foundation]] Trust and Safety Team, who can and will contact appropriate authorities if the situation warrants it. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 18:19, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

== Wording of the Uw-disruptive templates ==

I have a problem with the wording of [[Template:Uw-disruptive2]] and [[Template:Uw-disruptive3]]. Instead of focusing on disruptive editing, it seems to focus on edit warring; it has two bullet-point paragraphs about how to handle content disputes. I propose removing those two items so that the template just warns against disruption. (About related templates: [[Template:Uw-disruptive1]] is very mild and general, like most level 1 warnings. [[Template:Uw-disruptive4]] redirects to [[Template:uw-generic4]] which warns about disruptive editing. And for those who want to warn against edit warring, we already have multiple templates for that, as pointed out in the “Too bitey?” discussion above.) Anyone agree with removing the content-dispute language from templates 2 and 3? -- [[User:MelanieN|MelanieN]] ([[User talk:MelanieN|talk]]) 22:00, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

:{{re|MelanieN}} I see what you mean; although edit warring is a type of disruptive editing, the Uw-disruptive templates should focus on disruptive editing in general. It might make more sense if one was to compare {{t|Uw-disruptive3}} with {{t|Uw-vandalism3}}: both begin with {{tquote|Please stop your disruptive editing.}}, but disruptive3 then goes on about content disputes/edit warring, which is a specific type of disruption, like how vandalism3 goes on about vandalism (another type, but here it's to be expected of course). Also worth noting in my opinion is the similarity between {{t|Uw-disruptive1}} and {{t|Uw-vandalism1}}; the disruptive template is like a milder version of the vandalism one with only slightly different wording. [[User:Adam9007|Adam9007]] ([[User talk:Adam9007|talk]]) 22:32, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

::I do think there is value in having separate templates for vandalism and disruptive editing, at least at the advanced levels. They are somewhat different animals, in part having to do with the motivation. Vandalism is DELIBERATE bad editing to harm the encyclopedia, by somebody who knows they are doing it; disruption may have many causes including persistent incompetence, promotion, a desire to RIGHTGREATWRONGS, a combative attitude, etc. But it is not the same as edit warring, and when I use one of those templates, I post it and then immediately delete the irrelevant EW stuff. -- [[User:MelanieN|MelanieN]] ([[User talk:MelanieN|talk]]) 23:19, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

:::{{u|MelanieN}}, disruptive1 is almost a subset of vandalism1 assuming good faith, but even vandalism1 seems to assume good faith to an extent (which contradicts our definition of vandalism...). As for the other uw-disruptive templates, should the edit warring text be replaced with anything? Or should we simply use the wording from their vandalism counterparts (but with the word 'disrupt(ive/ion)' instead of 'vandalism/vandalise' of course)? [[User:Adam9007|Adam9007]] ([[User talk:Adam9007|talk]]) 23:29, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

::::I would simply remove the stuff about edit warring. For Uw-disruptive2 that would leave

:::::Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you.

::::For Uw-disruptive3 it would leave

:::::Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing.

::::Similar to the vandalism pages except doesn't call it vandalism. (And in looking at it more carefully, it should say continued, not continual. I'm tempted to just go change that, it's the wrong word.) -- [[User:MelanieN|MelanieN]] ([[User talk:MelanieN|talk]]) 23:43, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

:::::{{u|MelanieN}}, Well, that pretty much is using the same wording as the vandalism templates :). And yes, I think that given the context of the warning, 'continual' is the wrong word there (of course continual disruption will result in a block, but the warning is trying to say that you could be blocked if you continue to disrupt despite the warning). [[User:Adam9007|Adam9007]] ([[User talk:Adam9007|talk]]) 00:11, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

::::::I changed it. -- [[User:MelanieN|MelanieN]] ([[User talk:MelanieN|talk]]) 00:24, 4 May 2019 (UTC)