Wikipedia talk:WikiProject user warnings/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. 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.

Contents

For shared IP addresses, vandalism warnings appear to be unenforceable

The issuing of any vandalism warnings to shared IP addresses appears to be an utter waste of time, and make the person doing the warning look foolish. Such warnings appear to be unenforceable.

The shared IP address User talk:138.23.89.187 is registered to University of California, Riverside. The shared IP address User_talk:204.69.4.82 is registered to Riverside Community College District. Both Riverside California addresses have repeatedly vandalized Garrison Keillor‎, Lake Wobegon, A Prairie Home Companion‎, and A Prairie Home Companion (film).

After reverting the vandalism and posting unheeded escalating warnings, I requested IAV. That request was rejected. After follow-up discussion at User_talk:King_of_Hearts#vand_from_a_school, I have learned never again to waste my time issuing vandalism warnings to shared IP addresses. And because such warnings are unenforceable, I have also retracted some of my so-called "final warnings" from User_talk:204.69.4.82#March_2008. I feel utterly stupid issuing a "final warning" that can be repeatedly violated with impunity.

I'll continue reverting vandalism, and continue issuing vandalism warnings to non-shared IP addresses. Just not to shared IP addresses. I'm through seeing several of my own so-called "final warnings" go unenforced despite my best efforts. --Art Smart (talk) 11:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Should be brought up at WT:AIV, as your complaint is with the blocking system not the templates themselves. Khukri 12:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
The problem with the "templates themselves" is that since only admins can enforce a final vandalism warning, then only admins should be allowed to use those templates in the first place. Any non-admin issuing a final warning to a shared IP address will only look foolish when that final warning goes unenforced. --Art Smart (talk) 13:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
You might want to read our previous discussion on this subject (here and here). As I indicated in one of the two archived threads, those who issue level four warnings may not be the admins levying the blocks, but they are the people initiating the investigation that leads to a block via their reports to AIV. --Kralizec! (talk) 14:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks very much, Kralizec!, for providing the archives of previous discussions on this issue. Very helpful. I would definitely support the proposed wording changes for v3 and v4 from "you will be blocked from editing" to "steps will be taken to block you from editing". As a non-admin, I won't be issuing any more v3 or v4 warnings unless the circumstances give me overwhelming confidence that such warnings will be enforced. If in the future, the v3 and v4 wording gets changed so that I'm not hanging out on a limb by issuing such a warning, then I'll issue more warnings. I can't tell someone "you will be blocked" if I have no such authority. It costs both Wikipedia and me some of our credibility. --Art Smart (talk) 14:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I am not an admin, but I have issued plenty of warnings, including "final warnings," to shared IPs that ended up being blocked, typically with a soft school block. (I've also been frustrated by occasions when shared-IP vandals did not get blocked, but some can and do get blocked.) --Orlady (talk) 16:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Ambiguity of process leads to decline of blocks

In the past couple of days I have been forced to decline several block requests on WP:AIV because the reporting editor issued a bunch a warnings simultaneously. That is, they gave escalating levels of warnings for each case of vandalism reverted, regardless of the fact that the IP address stopped editing hours before.

Here is an example situation:

at 13:21 an IP vandalizes foo
at 13:22 the IP vandalizes bar
at 13:23 the IP vandalizes SNAFU
at 13:25 the IP vandalizes FUBAR
at 13:26 the IP vandalizes pre-teen
then at 13:27 study hall is over and the kid goes to his next class
at 15:50 editor VandalVigilante checks his watchlist and sees a change to pre-teen
at 15:51 VandalVigilante reverts pre-teen and issues a {{uw-vandalism1}} warning to the IP
at 15:52 VandalVigilante reverts foo and issues a {{uw-vandalism2}} warning to the IP
at 15:52 VandalVigilante reverts bar and issues a {{uw-vandalism3}} warning to the IP
at 15:53 VandalVigilante reverts SNAFU and issues a {{uw-vandalism4}} warning to the IP
at 15:53 VandalVigilante reverts FUBAR and reports the IP to WP:AIV

While it is possible that I missed something, in reviewing WP:UTM I do not see any explicit statement that escalated levels of warning should only be used if the vandal ignores a previous warning and persists in vandalizing after receiving that warning message. Does anyone have an idea for ways to cleverly phrase this? Everything I think up sounds like I am pandering to the lowest common denominator. --Kralizec! (talk) 23:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it's part and parcel of a number of problems with the warning system which I've brought up in the past at AIV i.e. What determines recent, when to issue only a 4im, sequencing of warnings etc. There should be a guide to issuing warnings at either WP:VAND or AIV that explains the purpose of the warnings, not for punishment etc, and a few case studies on how they could be applied.
UW might not be the best place for it as we are out of the way, and personally I'd like to see this whole project now moved over to UTM to bring it all under one roof.
For your issue you could write, having explained about warnings and incrementing, something along the lines of "Once the first warning has been issued, then subsequent elevated warnings are issued for each continued transgression, until a final warning is issued whereby the editor should be reported to WP:AIV. The warning level cannot be elevated retrospectively for each offence that is prior to the initial warning, and can only be increased for subsequent offences." Khukri 08:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Or perhaps, "The purpose of user warnings is to guide good-faith testers and dissuade bad-faith vandals. Issuing more than one warning level simultaneously serves no purpose, since they did not get the first warning before you escalated to the next resort. Furthermore, user blocks serve to prevent further vandalism rather than to punish bad users. If the user stopped vandalizing some time ago, and their edit histories don't suggest a pattern of chronic vandalism, there's no need to warn or block them at all (although a welcome template might help future visits). Likewise, if a user is in the midst of an obviously bad-faith vandalism spree, there's no need to warn them before temporarily blocking them." —{admin} Pathoschild 19:15:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion to make {{uw-uncen2}} more informative

I suggest adding the following text to the templates {{uw-uncen1}} and {{uw-uncen2}}:

"If you personally find content objectionable, Wikipedia can be personalised to adhere to your cultural norms. Details are explained here."

or

"Wikipedia can be personalised to ahere to your cultural norms."

or

"You may have removed a picture because it violates your cultural norms. Wikipedia does not endorse unilateral enforcement of cultural norms. It can, however be personalised to your needs."


I feel that many users are geniunely concerned about their children seeing certain articles, and that most a not aware of the above option, which is why they resort to deleting info. I am afraid that such users will stop using wikipedia altogether if they are fobbed off with a "zero censorship" warning. Informing them about the self-censorship option will make them feel more in control, and they will be more likely to stay. Cambrasa (talk) 13:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that's a pretty good idea, except that I would avoid the phrase "cultural norms". Seems to me that there are many reasons why someone could be offended, and it's better to not speculate on motive.--Kubigula (talk) 03:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
How about "Wikipedia can be personalised to hide content" Cambrasa (talk) 15:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Another silly question - standardization

Here are four templates and the results they give:

{{subst:vandal1}}

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

- - - - - -

{{subst:vandal2}}

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appeared to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.

- - - - - -

{{subst:vandal3}}

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing.

- - - - - -

{{subst:vandal4}}

{{subst:vandal4}}

- - - - - -

Note that number 4 doesn't work. It works if "vandal4" is changed to "uw-vandal4".

{{subst:uw-vandal4}}

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing.

- - - - - -

Is there any good reason why 4 is different? (other than it was coded differently.)

I'm asking this because it would be a bit simpler if they were uniform. Wanderer57 (talk) 23:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The standard templates are {{uw-vandalism1}}, {{uw-vandalism2}}, {{uw-vandalism3}}, and {{uw-vandalism4}}; the templates without the "uw-" prefix are part of the legacy set of templates, which are not completely standardized. —{admin} Pathoschild 23:14:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Also answered at Wikipedia:Help desk. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 03:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't use subst for a bunch of welcomes, what should I do?

I used {{welcome}} on a bunch of new editor talk pages. I didn't use {{subst:W-basic}}. (Sorry.) What should I do? Should I go back over my edits and change them? Or should I leave it to a bot? Thanks. and I checked the FAQ Dan Beale-Cocks 10:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about it, you could spend your time on something more productive/fun - the bot's normally pretty good at catching these. Papa November (talk) 12:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

new template for directing users to Wikia

One of the nice things about Wikia are the specialized wikis, many of which allow content that is otherwise inappropriate for Wikipedia, such as game guides or articles on minor fictional characters. I have created a new template ({{nn-wikia}}) for telling users that the content they added is more appropriate for Wikia.

What do you guys think? --Ixfd64 (talk) 08:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Only just seen this, but first it's not really a user warning, so here isn't the best place to answer that, and secondly, I'm not really sure of the etiquette of saying "It's not suitable for here, but try there". I think there a whole heap of implications, and I would suggest either the Village pump or overall templates group to rbing this up before you started using it. Khukri 12:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

What about this?

Do we need unique warnings for those who make politically-motivated edits? Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 10:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Depends on the exact edit content, but just trying to bias an article to one view or another you could use {{uw-npov1}} -> {{uw-npov4}}, but in my opinion it would have to blatant, ignoring all efforts to start a discussion, typing editing. Normally if there is a discussion ongoing about the edits and it was a disagreement then I would suggest dispute resolution before even thinking about let alone issuing a templated warnings. If you can give me a more detailed example, then I/we can answer specifics. Cheers Khukri 12:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I've found this one. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 11:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Doesn't need anything special, it's vandalism pure and simple, just use the vandalism warnings. Khukri 11:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

A new template

Hey people, yesterday i brought up an issue at the LGBT wikiproject. Im not a member myself but i thought this was quite important. I noticed that wikipedia has a template aimed at fighting racist edits yet there is no such template for edits against sexual orientation. As both are just as bad as one another and since discrimination does (unfortunately) occure on wikipedia we need a template that is used in the same manner as the racism template. The consensus was that a template is needed and there seems to be an agreement that no harm can come of it. I would like you to read the following link and help impliment a new template that will hopefully be taken as seriously as the racism template. This is the link. Cheers. --Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 16:35, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow - I hadn't even noticed that the racism template had cropped up again. We used to have both racism and homophobia templates, but there was pretty clear consensus against having these kind of specialized warning templates. You can view the previous TfD discussions at Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_May_8#Template:uw-racism and Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_May_8#Template:uw-homophobia. Consensus can change, but I personally still agree with the sentiments in those TfD discussion. Hate speech of any kind is vandalism and should be dealt with aggressively as such. I believe these kind of speciality templates can be counterproductive in that they suggest to the vandal that they are getting to us. IMO, it's better to deny any kind of recognition for this kind of garbage.--Kubigula (talk) 17:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
(ec)As discussed over at WT:LGBT, there is a fair amount of homophobic vandalism, and it would be nice to have a specific specific warning template to use on the pages of editors who perpetrate such. Aleta Sing 17:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Agree, i believe admins take discrimination templates more seriously and therefore the editer gets fewer warnings. I would not be in favour of removing the racism template and would support a LGBT template. Maybe its time for a new consensus discussion. Either we have both or none. I would rather both though lol. Besides that was exactly a year ago right, maybe its time to see if views have changed. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 17:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Maybe we just create a general discrimination/hate speech template per the views of some of those editers in the links you provided. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 17:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to copy this discussion to WT:UTM, as that is the main warning template discussion page. This Wikiproject page is not very active anymore as its work is pretty much done.--Kubigula (talk) 18:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

OK , no problem. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 18:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Question

What is the difference between the template {{uw-v4}} and {{uw-bv}}? They both seem similar since both of them could function as final warnings. Could these two templates be merged together? I asked something similar to this elsewhere but nobody could come up with an answer. Cheers. Trance addict - Tiesto - Above and Beyond 06:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

{{uw-v4}} is intended to be used after {{uw-v3}} (which should come after {{uw-v2}}, which should often come after {{uw-v1}}). {{uw-v4im}} could come after they've already had a block for vandalism. {{uw-bv}} is for cases where you would normally use {{uw-v1/2}}, but the person is being so bleeding obvious that that would be dumb. The threshold for this is in general up to the editor leaving the warning, and for WP:BITE reasons is often quite high. Anomie⚔ 10:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Speaking as an admin who pulls WP:AIV duty every day, the 4im warnings are used incorrectly or inappropriately so often, we have a special {{AIV}} template for it:
User has been inappropriately warned. 4im warnings are appropriate for severe vandalism and defamation only.
So my best suggestion is to only use a 4im warning in the most egregious cases. --Kralizec! (talk) 12:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Cheers. Trance addict - Tiesto - Above and Beyond 03:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Level 4 warnings

I started a thread here describing what I think might be a good modification for level 4 warnings, but thus far the proposal has not received any attention. So I figured I's mention it here. Please comment over there if so inclined. Yilloslime (t) 00:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)