Hello everyone. I was thinking that the word "vandalism" should not be in the level 2 template because it violates point 3, which states "avoid the word vandal." The reason why I say it should not be in the level 2 template because it considered a "caution" template, which assumes no faith. I suspect many times when a user is hit with a level 2 template they are simply insisting on their original edit, which may be done in poor informed, but good faith. But for level 3 and 4/im, which assume bad faith, i think the word would be acceptable. Thanks, Tommy201023:35, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Level 2 says the actions "appear to constitute vandalism" (emphasis added), although assuming no faith (lvl 2) still "might have been made in good faith" (emphasis added), so while there's arguably a mismatch, I'm inclined to think the template is correct and point #3 needs tweaked if it really bothers enough people. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:18, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. The level two template language was a compromise between those who wanted a more explicit reference to vandalism (like the Huggle 2 warning) and those who wanted something softer. I think it strikes about the right balance.--Kubigula(talk)03:58, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Template:uw-selfrevert: improper English
When used with Article at level 1, it says: Thank you for reverting your recent experiment with the page XXX. Shouldn't it be: ...with the XXX page.? Seems to me that would be proper grammar. -- Alexf(talk)20:50, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
The problem with its use for the IPs of banned users is the invitation to "make constructive contributions". They are banned, often for long time periods, and need to seek reinstatement by other means. They are not allowed to touch the "edit this page" tab under any guise.
Not entirely correct. They are blocked, not banned, and they normally are allowed to edit their Talk page so they can ask for an unblock, unless they vandalize the Talk page too, or they mock the unblock process. -- Alexf(talk)19:04, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Joke Edits Template
Would it be OK to add Template:Silly to the list of single-level templates? This template is intended as a friendly notice to new users who try to be funny in their edits to Wikipedia articles. CosmicJake (talk) 22:32, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Template:Uw-test1 currently begins with the words "Welcome and thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia." I guess this probably isn't that important, but is it really appropriate for us to thank people for doing something we don't want them to do? 70.152.70.38 (talk) 14:24, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
If they're doing just that - testing - it means that in no time they'll be contributing constructively, and we simply need to show them a place where they can do additional testing with no harm done. If "testing" is not what they have in mind, then it's only a matter of time before the thanks are withdrawn with a higher-level template. -- Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 14:59, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Update formatting
I think it will be good to update the formatting of some of the templates. Since we not got the magic word safesubst: and {{Linked}}, several new options are there. See for example my recent edits to the uw-npov templates to see what's possible. {{Linked}} is able to determine if a colon is necessary within the warning (which often isn't) and safesubst: can remove unnecessary coding which tends to confuse newbiew from the source. --The Evil IP address (talk) 20:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Assume good faith on uw-3rr
The uw-3rr template assumes a little bit of bad faith because it says:Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing.
The new version of the template should look like this:
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If this continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.
I'm not sure I'd categorize it as bad faith in the template, but I think you are right that the last sentence could be a little less harsh. My only concern with your version is that it's not totally clear about what "this" is. I changed the last sentence of uw-3RR to, "If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice". How's that?--Kubigula(talk)03:11, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
I believe there should be a new username concern template, Uw-botun, specifically for usernames that end in bot.
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your username, Template index/User talk namespace, may not meet Wikipedia's username policy because it contains the suffix "bot", which is generally reserved for authorized bot accounts. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. As an alternative, you may file for a change of username, or you may simply create a new account and use that for editing. Thank you. ~~~~
Some articles are under a 1rr restriction. However, there doesn't seem to be a templated warning to use in the case that an editor has broken 1rr. As it is generally notified that these articles are under 1rr, all we really need is a uw-1rr4im to give an absolute final warning as an alternative to blocking for breach of 1rr. Mjroots (talk) 04:57, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Two new proposed templates for similar usernames (hard and soft)
Your account has been blocked indefinitely because it appears to impersonate (1: Username goes here) (Else: another wikipedia user). Users are not allowed to edit with inappropriate usernames, and trolling or other disruptive behavior is not tolerated. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.~~~~
This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia because your username, Template index/User talk namespace, appears to be too similar to the username of (1: Username goes here) (Else: another wikipedia user). You are welcome to create a new account with a username that is easily distinguishable. If you feel that you were blocked in error, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Thank you. ~~~~
The bolding on will has just been removed again, and I have restored it pending some conversation.
I agree with this edit summary: "i disagree w/ change in emphasis - many warnings are may, copyvio = will". I think that the bolding on will emphasizes the seriousness of the warning. I see no value for changing the status quo and worry about a possible weakening of the message. Unlike with many warning templates, with this one you only get one. --Moonriddengirl(talk)16:28, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
The idea of you-only-get-one follows for any of the 4im templates, and there we placed all the emphasis on the "blocked" part. With the strong emphasis on "will", I've never been quite sure who we're trying to convince - the violator or other editors. It almost seems that that kind of emphasis is for others who may have to deal with that editor later, to say, "really block this guy". But that's unnecessary. The key phrase is "blocked from editing", and that needs to be the thrust. "Will" can and should be not bolded, in order to keep the emphasis entirely on the block. SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:46, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't believe that bolding "will" does anything to diminish the bold on blocking or is likely to lead to any confusion; I think it emphasizes the seriousness of the message. I guess we'll have to see how others feel on the subject. --Moonriddengirl(talk)17:48, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
It really doesn't. It just makes the message come off as angry, like we're yelling at the person, rather than treating them civilly. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:19, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Since I'm the one who made the statement MRG quoted above, I think it's pretty clear that my views are close to hers on this matter. Further, as someone who has reported people before to admins for repeated gross violations of our copyright policy and seen them not be blocked until I reported them to someone who works in the copyvio area, I think that the emphasis for the admins, to tell them to "really block this guy", is a necessity. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:25, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Probably others do, too; I kind of stopped looking at that point. The main difference is that each of those is a second-person sentence: "you". {{Uw-copyvio}} is not. It says, "Persistent violators...." It seems to me as written to do a pretty good job between balancing civility ("appears to have") with the requisite strong warning. I think the third person address makes it less yelling at them than cautioning: see what happens to persistent violators? But I think the strength of the caution is essential. --Moonriddengirl(talk)19:33, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Unnecessary complication?
I suggest we remove This is particularly important when adding or changing any facts or figures and helps maintain our policy of verifiability. and replace it with This helps maintain our policy of verifiability.
References are not just for 'facts or figures', and suggesting they are only really important for those is a bit misleading, and I think it might muddy the water of what should be a nice, clear message to new users.
As a very active member of the musical projects on wikipedia I believe there is a strong position for a specific charts related warning. Below is an example of what the new warning might look like:
Notice, Some chart positions that you added to "Song" has been reverted or removed because they could not be verified with a reliable source or the source provided does not support the information input. Please double check details before inputting new chart positions and always provide a specific WP:reliable source.
I also think there's scope to make this a full four/five-scale template. It would certainly come in useful as the existing templates don't really cover this kind of issue. Lil-unique1 (talk) 22:52, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Addition of poorly sourced material is not by itself grounds for a block unless such an addition becomes disruptive. So I would leave it as a single-level template, with usage of the existing standard multi-level templates if push comes to shove. -- Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 16:00, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
It's a good thought, but Template:Uw-unsourced2 ought to suffice. There aren't any warnings that are quite that specific to one use. Having a different unsourced warning for every table type in Wikipedia would quickly become unmanageable. The guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject user warnings explain that flexibility of the standardized templates is the goal. But you may indeed add additional text using the parser function of the template to further explain. Bsherr (talk) 01:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive comments. The next time you comment critically on an editor without assuming good faith, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.
This is the only warning you will receive regarding your disruptive comments. The next time you comment critically on an editor without assuming good faith, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.
Here's why there's no 4th level. Incivility (including not assuming good faith) is not a blockable offense. Only when it rises to disruption, personal attack, harassment, or outing is blocking a remedy. See WP:CIVIL. And there are existing templates or other immediate recourses to use for all of those, correct? If not, you may be on to something, but we need to figure out precisely what's missing. Cheers. Bsherr (talk) 02:24, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Wrong template
There is not a version to include the article name of the page and the REASON' (this is fundamental) why the edits are considered vandalic. --Hamiltha (talk) 12:35, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Which template? All of the ones I know include a parameter for article name and an additional optional comment. For instance: {{subst:uw-vandalism1|Article|Additional text}} seems to cover what you're wanting. --Moonriddengirl(talk)13:57, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Exactly. Many people miss the parser functions. Click on a template to see the iterations with additional detail via the parser functions (the placeholders following the vertical bars). Bsherr (talk) 02:07, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
A single-level user warning has just been created to warn editors who recreate, under a slightly different title, pages that have been salted. Usage of that template is suggested on the new template {{salt}}, which is listed among speedy deletion templates. The template contains a thinly veiled threat of blocking. This is intentional, as I believe if a warning must be issued under such circumstances there is already enough disruption going on to overcome an assumption of good faith. -- Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 23:42, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
After testing some templates with success, it's probably worth my attempt to expand block templates to {{subst:Uw-EXAMPLE|indef=?|time=?|reason=?|page=?}}. An inputted "page" variable will automatically convert into an output link, such as "page=Example" = "to the page Example". An empty "page" will mean no output from the individual variable and the template will remain what we usually see.
This template issues a marginally incivil warning, calling the editor a spammer rather than calling their edits spamming. This is not consistent with, for example, uw-vandal4. I'd suggest that calling editors names is less likely to improve behaviour than educating them. LeadSongDogcome howl!20:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
I see no problem with the current text. A spammer is one who spams (just as a vandal is one who vandalises) and if an editor has spammed enough to receive a level 4 warning this term is applicable. This is in contrast to level 1 and 2 warnings that avoid this terminology and the level three warning which lets the editor know that this behaviour is considered spamming but avoids labelling the editor. By the time an editor gets to the last chance warning he should know why he would be blocked if he continued. ThemFromSpace20:33, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
While WP:NPA offers generally sound advice, an editor's motivations are a key factor in determining the validity of his edits and dealing with an editor's motivations means we necessarily have to deal with the editor himself, not just his contributions. Our policy that Wikipedia is not a tool for personal promotion as well as our conflict of interest guidelines are two important tools for stopping disruptive editors and both of them deal with the underlying motivations behind a user's edits. Nearly all spam falls into at least one of those two policies, and as such it is always necessary to evaluate the motivations behind an editor that places dubious links in articles. ThemFromSpace20:52, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Compare {{uw-vandalism4}}: "This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice." It does not label the recipient but rather labels the edits. I'd suggest "If you insert spam again" is more consistent for uw-spam4. LeadSongDogcome howl!21:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
And spam-4 doesn't label the editor as a spammer. It says that persistent spammers may have their sites placed on the blacklist. It doesn't say "you are a persistent spammer". The sentence which includes the word "spammer" is informative. Replacing it with "if you spam again" is inaccurate. If they spam again, they will be blocked. Not every spam block adds an entry to the blacklist. Protonk (talk) 21:37, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't think so. I don't think they should be used in the regular course of editing. Though they may be appropriate for fun between contributors who know one another, I don't think they have an appropriate tone of professionalism for the task of "guid[ing] good-faith testers and dissuad[ing] bad-faith vandals." --Moonriddengirl(talk)17:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
While true that they do not convey a "professional" tone, I think many vandals will take them more seriously if they have humorous feel to them, and they're not just an authoritative voice reprimanding them. A fair point was made here about this subject (this page was also the inspiration for the lighthearted warning project). EWikistTalk21:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm afraid I don't agree with that essay. I think entertaining vandals may be akin to feeding them. :) I'm of the opinion that a boring form letter followed with routine block is the best way to go. --Moonriddengirl(talk)00:29, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
I guess these templates may be used if they are directed at good-faith new editors, but when level 3 is reached, it means the assumption of good faith has been overcome, and the "lighthearted" level-3 templates should not be used. In any case, they should not be listed on this page, except perhaps collectively in a see also section. -- Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 01:46, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Linking here would be an endorsement. It just wouldn't be appropriate, especially since the page self-identifies as humor. Like many of us here, I do have a sense of humor, but, like many of us, I believe in keeping it separate from the business of building the encyclopedia. I'm wary to link to it especially because user warning is already often a sensitive subject, and I have concerns about trivializing it. But thank you for asking. --Bsherr (talk) 02:00, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi. We only link to templates the meet the design requirements of the User Warnings Project. But also, it seems this template is combining separate issues. And we do have two templates that deal with each of these. {{uw-coi}} and {{uw-softerblock}}. Could you say a bit more about why the existing templates may not be adequate? Thanks. --Bsherr (talk) 13:53, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
As you can see, the template has a significantly different usage: indeed, it's not a warning at all. When someone has been blocked for spam username, they often simply make an unblock request with no good reasons behind them. This template has successfully been used to ask those users a few useful questions that can then likely lead to an unblock, if responded to accordingly (originally it was a user template, and then based on common usage it was created in template-space). So, it's not a warning, nor is it a block notice - it's a set of common questions that are asked daily to such blocked editors. (talk→BWilkins←track) 13:58, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm concerned about the statement "You are currently blocked because your username appears directly related to a subject that you are trying to create an article about, contrary to the username policy." I've compared the statement to the username policy, and I don't see that this is a contravention of the policy. Could you explain? --Bsherr (talk) 17:58, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
I thought perhaps that's what you were referring to, but the statement in the template is much broader in that it's not restricted to corporate names. Do you see what I mean? I'm concerned it misstates the policy. Thanks. --Bsherr (talk) 15:28, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Just today, I left a few block templates, specifically {{spamusername}} and {{UsernameHardBlocked}}, and the sig= parameter is leaving ~~~~ rather than my actual signature when I write sig = ~~~~. Just checking to see if something got broken. It used to work correctly. --Jayron3205:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
It seems that transcluding a template containing <includeonly>~~</includeonly>~~ does not result in a signature, while substing it does. The relevant bit of code for {{UsernameHardBlocked}} doesn't seem to have been changed since November 2007, so if anything really did change to break it I would have to guess it was something in MediaWiki. Anomie⚔11:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi! Using Twinkle I'm not happy with the standard text of all four templates because only adding images is mentioned. Quite often images are exchanged or deleted – which is image-related vandalism as well. IMHO templates' text should be modified. What do you think? →Alfie±Talk21:20, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
The template was developed for a very specific kind of vandalsim (which is mostly stopped by the edit filter and the bad image list now) whereby a user would insert a pornographic or otherwise offensive image out of context into a high traffic article or template. Other, more pernicious tactics were used, but those usually didn't result in a warning, just a block of the account. Removing images, if it is vandalism, can probably just be dealt with using the standard vandalism warning. Protonk (talk) 22:48, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, the image of the vagina was added. An image replacement would be removing one image of a subject or idea and replacing it with another image of the same subject or idea. In this case, someone just removed an appropriate image and added an inappropriate image. The response should be no different than if they added the image to the top of the page. I don't think we need another template or different wording in order to match this case, especially because with blatant image vandalism, template semantic precision is at best a second order concern. Protonk (talk) 23:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
I do not believe that low transclusion count is a valid reason to full-protect {{Uw-spamublock}}.
I also do not believe that {{Uw-uhblock}} is any easier to find than other templates. If users just search for "UsernameHardBlocked" on Wikipedia, they won't find it unless they know how to access templates, and will probably end up with the "Bad title" page.
On the other hand, I do believe that {{Uw-voablock}} is the most visible indefinite block template to registered users.
The unwritten practice has been that user warning templates should be semiprotected. Is that still the consensus? I would agree with it. If so, I'd be pleased to document it so it can be used as a reference going forward. --Bsherr (talk) 01:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that's what I'm saying. I just have a little more concern about "Vandalism-Only Account", but the concern is probably not necessary since the templates are not immediately obvious. mechamind9004:36, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
This is an idea that just came to me, I'm not sure if it has merit/would actually work (which is why I'm putting it here instead of being bold and making the changes to the templates). I know that warning templates are supposed to be subst'ed, and I'm usually pretty good about subst'ing them. Of course there are those occasions where I'm in a hurry, or I'm tired or I just plain forget. I know I'm not the only one out there. What I'm proposing is that the warning templates have a line of code added to them that will put them into a category (such as Category:Pages with incorrectly transcluded templates), so that it's easier to find them and subst them. That said, I don't know if it's possible.
{{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|{{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>NAMESPACE}}|<includeonly>[[Category:Pages with incorrectly substituted templates|{{PAGENAME}}]]</includeonly>|}}
Is there any way one could add code to, say, Template:Uw-vandal, that would do the reverse? That is to say, if the template were transcluded, it would be automatically added to a category of pages containing incorrectly transcluded pages? I know one could just use Special:WhatLinksHere and look for incorrect transclusions page by page, but wouldn't it be nice to have a single category that would include all incorrect transclusions? Then again, this may not be possible. If so, please excuse the newbie :) --- cymru lass(hit me up)⁄(background check)22:27, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
I like the idea, but I support the built-in warning mechanism, such as in Template:Uw-upincat, over the cat method. I know the counterarguments that the templates should be easy, but I think most users actually prefer to be reminded when they've left out the subst. --Bsherr (talk) 22:53, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
It is indeed possible; the code
{{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|{{ <includeonly>safesubst:</includeonly> NAMESPACE}}|output if not substituted}}
will work, possibly with slight modifications for your purposes. I remember seeing a template that performed this very function; I thought it was {{substcheck}}, but apparently not. Intelligentsium23:35, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I'm suggesting it as an example of a template that uses a feature to notify the user when the user has not substituted. (Not as a template that actually performs that function.) --Bsherr (talk) 00:25, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Time for another random question (I'm full of them). How do the templates {{subst check top}} and {{substcheckbottom}}work? Oh, and if they're going to be added to the warning templates, someone'll have to notify Twinkle. And if they're going to be added to welcome templates (a good idea, in my opinion), someone'll have to notify Friendly. I can do that, if the templates are going to be added. Thanks for understanding what I've been trying to say :) --- cymru lass(hit me up)⁄(background check)13:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
There is no thank you in this template
And there shouldn't be, however the instuctions regarding additional text read:
adds text onto the end of the message instead of "Thank you"
Proposal for a small change on all uw-****1 templates
Here's my suggestion: Replace the "Welcome to Wikipedia." in these templates with "Welcome to Wikipedia!" This is to that the templates feel more personal and less robotic. Anyone agree with me? Access Denied[FATAL ERROR]06:06, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
"Cut out all those exclamation points. An exclamation point is like laughing at your own jokes." —F. Scott Fitzgerald --Bsherr (talk) 06:09, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
We discussed this a while back, and the change to "may" because blocking doesn't always happen, especially if a warning becomes stale. Basically, if we post a Level 4, a few months go by, and then John Q. Vandal vandalizes again, many users will start over with a Level 1 warning. Thus it sends a message that we don't mean what we say about blocking. Thus the current wording leaves the option open to take other action while not making us look like we don't keep our word if we don't choose to block. Thus I would oppose changing that part of the wording. SchuminWeb (Talk) 22:44, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
I suppose...but during current vandalizing, telling someone they may be blocked doesn't have the stopping impact of will be blocked. CTJF83chat23:13, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
There is nothing anywhere that says that if they vandalize again that we can't still block them. In fact, if they do cross the line we draw, we just block 'em and rest easier knowing that their editing access has been cut off. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:16, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
May is fine. I'll add another comment. Nobody really cares about the boilerplate on these templates apart from wikipedians, who are by their nature interested in this sort of thing. I doubt that some random person is going to be dissuaded by a 4-im which says "you will be blocked" and not dissuaded by a 4-im which says "you may be blocked". Protonk (talk) 23:49, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
How about "can"? May suggests possibility, will suggests inevitability, can just suggests ability. Compromise? --Bsherr (talk) 23:59, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, people can be blocked before a final warning, but I believe the concern was with the connotation of the word, not the operational accuracy. --Bsherr (talk) 00:15, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
"Can", which indicates that we lack the ability to block ahead of a final warning. That would give the idea that a vandal is guaranteed four vandalism incidents before being blocked. No way should we ever go with that wording. No way. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:15, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
You could claim any affirmative statement at level 4 implies a lack thereof at a lower level; "may" implies "may not" and "will" implies "will not". You can claim it, but it's logically fallacious. Regardless, it's no different than the status quo. I think if you consider it, Schumin, you'll realize the error. --Bsherr (talk) 06:40, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
I can't find any guidelines for the type of block indicated by Template:Uw-logoutblock, and I therefore can't tell whether it's consistent with guidelines and practice. Does anyone have any information for how this situation would ordinarily be handled? --Bsherr (talk) 20:21, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
It looks like a template warning a user that they have been "socking" (that term used very loosely here) on an IP. Doesn't seem to match a specific guideline and I don't know how often it is used. If the account is blocked and the IP (not covered under an autoblock) is continuing to disrupt the project, the block would just be one for block evasion. Maybe send it to TfD? Protonk (talk) 19:19, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, it would be substituted, so what links here wouldn't be accurate. Mechamind created it back in August along with others to fill gaps. But I defer to Protonk's assessment of its usefulness, which seems reasonable to me. --Bsherr (talk) 19:49, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
I thought it would have no transclusions because of the substing, but pages it was subst'ed on would still show links. That's not the case? Beeblebrox (talk) 19:52, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Bscherr is right. User warnings will not show up as transclusions (though simple links will give an indication of how many users or project pages discuss the templates). However I have never seen this template in the wild and I suspect it is not widely used. Protonk (talk) 19:54, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
This kind of coding stuff gives me a headache. Anyway, the creator of the template slapped a WP:CSD#G7 on it with the cryptic edit summary of "your opinion" and it has been speedy deleted. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:27, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
To be brief: I TfD'd Template:Uw-sandbox recently as I thought it was fairly useless in principle, and the result was no consensus, although many leaned toward a rewrite of the current template. So I am proposing two things here:
Rename the template so it doesn't use the "uw-" prefix, because there should not be a user warning about accidentally removing some code in the sandbox (the sandbox, for heaven's sake).
Reword the template to
Welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for making editing tests in the Wikipedia sandbox, and not on other pages. While you are free to make test edits in the sandbox, please do not post copyrighted, offensive, slanderous, or libelous content in it. Thank you.
Longer explanation:
At the TfD, there were several comments about not worrying if a new user removes the sandbox header. If the bot that resets the sandbox has issues, we fix the bot, not warn new users over what is probably an unintentional mistake. If one was trying to update a table, for example, to an article, and accidentally removed some of the code without realizing, would one expect to get a warning notice saying "Hi, thanks for trying to update this table, but you should not remove all this other stuff because it's important"? Absolutely not. If the header is such a big deal, we can just copy it into the editnotice and not have to worry about it being removed. This needs to actually be a useful "warning", not a "Hey noob, don't remove that next time" notice. That would just scare users off from testing again, in case they accidentally removed the header without realizing and thought that maybe them editing the thing at all was the issue, right? We need to reword it to be meaningful to a new user.
Fetchcomms and Chzzz both believe that users should not be warned for removing the sandbox header. They tried to simply delete the template at TfD, but there was no consensus there. Now, they attempt to effectively accomplish the same by deleting the contents of the template. It's a proxy for the same discussion.
During the TfD, it was pointed out that there are existing, better, user warning templates for vandalism, copyright violations, and defamation, even when the conduct occurs in the sandbox. So, that text was struck from the template, with no opposition at TfD. Now, since they cannot delete the template, Fetchcomms and Chzzz want to delete the remaining, relevant text in the template about the sandbox header. But if they do so, there won't be any text left in the template, so they wish to restore the old language about vandalism, copyright violations, and defamation.
Fetchcomms and Chzzz want to rename the template to remove the "uw" prefix. However, the template is a user warning, its documentation is the user warning documentation, it was designed and is maintained by WikiProject User Warnings following its standards, and it is listed on WP:UTM as a warning.
Users are not supposed to remove the sandbox header template. That's why the name of the sandbox header template is "Please leave this line alone (sandbox header)". If Fetchcomms and Chzzz want to make it permissible for users to remove the sandbox header, they should pursue that first at the sandbox talk pages. I have never personally warned a user for removing the sandbox header, but while removing the header remains something users are not supposed to do, it's in each user's discretion to warn, and it's not appropriate to delete (whether by TfD or by proxy) a user warning template that generally complies with the policies and guidelines.
The reason the sandbox header exists is because, in its absence, a novice user has nothing indentifying that this is the place for test edits, nor any directions on its use. An edit notice does not overcome this problem, nor does the bot.
Fetchcomms and Chzzz misunderstand user warnings. They are not punitive, nor is the conduct preceding them always a blockable offense. They are supposed to be instructive and helpful, and this one is. To use Fetchcomms's example, if I ever accidentally removed content from Wikipedia, indeed I would like to be notified, so I can learn from my mistake. That's why we have these templates. This template is a second reminder for users that miss the passive instruction not to remove the template.
I also don't see how Fetchcomms's two proposals are consistent. Fetchcomms proposes to remove the text about removing the sandbox header, but then proposes removing the "uw" prefix because the template has that text, though it wouldn't. --Bsherr (talk) 04:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
I guess the TfD decided it shoudn't be deleted, my opinion that this template is kinda worthless stands. I'll agree with Fetch. Protonk (talk) 03:44, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Let's see, Bsherr... I am trying to propose a rewording to the template because you yourself stated that was needed in the TfD. How would you reword it? I haven't seen you propose anything. Oh, and Chzz (not Chzzz) didn't start this discussion, I did. And Chzz, not I, first changed the template wording. So please don't say "they" in cases when "they" does not apply.
Well, why should it be a user warning? It should not, per concerns I raised above. It should no stay a user warning, then. Just because it is currently listed somewhere does not mean that it is a suitable warning, and it may be delisted.
My issue is not with users removing the header (they should not), but warning them for doing such a harmless, unintentional act. As I said above, if you accidentally removed some code in an article, how would you like to be warned?
You welcome discussion to improve this template. Please input discussion accordingly, not try to hinder discussion started in good faith on improving this. /ƒETCHCOMMS/18:16, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
I did acknowledge in the TfD that the template needed rewording, and on August 20, I did make changes. Those changes, and a few small ones that followed, were the extent of what I myself meant by that.
I never said Chzz (I am sorry for the misspelling) started this discussion, and I never said you first changed the template wording. I used "they" because it seems you're both pursuing this, but if I'm wrong, pardon me.
Fetchcomms, I just want to direct you to the right forum for arguing your position. Deleting this standardized template will not stop users from warning other users for removing the template header. It only removes the standardized means of doing so. If you truly want to prevent this, you should discuss it on the sandbox talk page, where it can be made into a guideline. That's the only thing that will accomplish your stated aim.
To respond to you a second time, if I accidentally removed some code in an article, I would like to be warned! Warnings are not designed to be punitive, but to be informative. This particular warning is classified as a notice, because it's supposed to be informative. We have notices for not completely reverting vandalism, for not warning vandals, and for other good faith edits that prompt a little guidance. That's what this is. Might you be caught up in a very negative connotation of the word "warning"? --Bsherr (talk) 18:32, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't think that the view "deleting the template won't stop warning of users" is completely correct. While obviously vandal fighters and other editors watching pages with semi-automated tools will warn where they feel is necessary, we both enable warnings for certain proscribed actions and suggest their use with standardized templates. There is an interaction between template language and use (or frequency of use). Protonk (talk) 18:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it makes it less convenient to do so, but it results in users using their own userfied templates or macros, or creating new, duplicative templates--all worse outcomes than a standardized template. And they'll have every right to, because warning users for removing the sandbox header isn't against any guidelines. If one wants to stop warning users for this, why not do it the direct way and make it a guideline? I don't oppose that discussion from taking place. But why is undermining the uw template preferable to having an upfront discussion about the practice itself? --Bsherr (talk) 18:51, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, some of the response will be to create template or leave non-standard warnings, but we aren't going to solve that without outlawing warning over this particular issue (which is a non-optimal way to go about things). But I think this template is exceedingly specific, not well worded in proportion to the problem it addresses and generally unhelpful. A slightly more broad template which say "hey don't use the sandbox for proscribed stuff" is better. Protonk (talk) 19:13, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Because any solution that adds rules has an uphill climb to optimality. So lets assume we say that users can't warn people about removing headers in the sandbox. Now we have to find some appropriate umbrella rule, add it, find users issuing this warning, warn them not to do so, then basically hope that we find all the users who are doing the warning and that they listen to our new rule. Much easier just to give a slight structural hint that warning over sandbox header edits isn't a productive use of time. It will migrate out to twinkle and huggle in due time and the the users who make their own templates to get around the structural change are basically the same set of people who would ignore a warning not to do so. Protonk (talk) 20:03, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Put it on WP:About the sandbox. Discuss it on that talk page first. If the consensus there is that no warning should be issued, once the guidance is included, TfD this template, and I'll even support it. Don't be underhanded about it just because it's easier. --Bsherr (talk) 20:18, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Bsherr, I understand now where you're coming from. But I'm still confused over calling this a warning, if it is a notice. While some uw- templates are notices, the fact that we are "warning" users who accidentally remove the header is distressing to me. Yes, you might like to be "warned"/notified upon accidentally removing some code (although a non-boilerplate message would be better in that case, I think), new users are often extremely confused and even afraid on Wikipedia. I know because I've interacted with them on the #wikipedia-en-help IRC help chat, as well as at Articles for creation. If a new user was notified of something they did accidentally, they may misconstrue it as a warning not to use the sandbox at all. I mean, "However, when you use the sandbox, please do not remove the sandbox header" is quite ambiguous to a new user—what is the "sandbox header", exactly, if you do not understand how templates work? I would prefer to remove that line altogether, but I would at least want that to be reworded to be more clear on what the header is, and that it isn't actually a big deal. Maybe something like:
However, please be sure not to remove the line that says
{{Please leave this line alone (sandbox heading)}}
This line produces this message on the sandbox page, and provides directions for other users using the sandbox.
Incidentally, I was looking at the sandbox just now, and I saw this. That needs a "warning", although it wasn't the worst thing they could have done. But the reason why most users remove the heading, I think, is when there is a whole lot of code in there from some other user, and they just blank the whole thing to put their own stuff in there, without noticing that small bit of code. /ƒETCHCOMMS/21:23, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Sure, we can certainly work on making the text of the warning friendlier and easier to understand. I didn't choose the word "warning", but that's what Wikiedia uses to describe essentially all substituted user talk templates that aren't welcomes. Maybe having a link in the warning to a screen shot to point out that line, and suggesting creating a user subpage sandbox if they need an entirely blank page? --Bsherr (talk) 00:14, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
I will not regurgitate the comments from the TfD, which quite comprehensively explain just why the warning is absolutely unnecessary. I will keep this brief, because it is all such an unnecessary waste of time.
The warning is not needed. By the time they get it, a bot has already fixed the header. (Try it. Go ahead, remove it. Wait a few mins)
warning users for removing the sandbox header isn't against any guidelines - this is a very weak argument indeed. There is no guideline saying Do not warn users for archiving their talk page, Do not warn user for not warning users who vandalize (and carry that on, please, ad infinitum), Do not warn users in Swahiliunless you specifically know they speak Swahili, and then subject to rule 987 subsection a) paragraph 42 and any amendments - This problem is well know, as WP:CREEP.
I have tried my very best to explain, that a standard template warning message makes it all too easy and seemingly appropriate to chastise new users for doing something so utterly trivial. I've tried, in TfD, and other discussions, to stop this nonsense way of biting newcomers; to make Wikipedia just a little tiny bit more friendly. At this point, I'm finished trying; I will take no further part in the discussions, and I leave it to others. Do as you will. I feel consensus is clear, it should go, but after all, that is my humble opinion. I'm out of this debate. Thank you for reading. Chzz ► 04:49, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
I can't believe it's impossible to come up with a warning that doesn't bite newcomers. We've got a whole language at our disposal, and I give Fetchcomms a lot of credit for acknowledging that possibility. As for the bot, I wouldn't rely on it so heavily. See Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/TannerBot, for example. --Bsherr (talk) 05:56, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
It's not so much an issue of possibility but of resource utilization and prodding. Writing a templated warning for an activity which isn't problematic is not an improvement to having no templated warning at all. For instance, it is perfectly acceptable for a user to archive warnings on their talk page. Nonetheless many editors feel this behavior is disruptive and have warned (and even blocked) users in the past for doing so. Writing a "soft" warning template for a permitted activity would not push those editors who are upset by the practice into leaving gentler messages but would serve as a colossal waste of time due to the semantic gymnastics involved in crafting the template. Is the status quo a bad equilibrium, with editors making their own pseudo-templates (in the case of talk page archiving)? Maybe, but it would not be improved by an attempt to standardize this non-warning. Protonk (talk) 19:24, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Any warning or block that is inconsistent with policy should be dealt with. Archiving a user's own user talk page is expressly permitted by policy. Removing the sandbox template is expressly prohibited. --Bsherr (talk) 20:59, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
We should not have templates warnings for actions which are permitted under policies, but we should not necessarily have warnings for all actions which are not permitted under policy. More strongly, parsimony is a virtue. Templates serve as force multipliers (especially when they have been included in semi-automated tools), we should prune the set of templates available to editors in order to nudge them toward using a nuanced personal comment or leaving no comment at all. In this case we have a template which has a limited applicability, targets new users who are not necessarily acting in bad faith and gives a confusing message. Perhaps the whole issue would be better served by making the sandbox a subpage of a protect space which does not allow header editing, but that discussion is probably beyond the scope. Regardless, the narrow focus on a murky issue leads me to believe that the template should be repurposed or rewritten. Protonk (talk) 21:49, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
You don't want to prohibit users warning for this issue, you just want to otherwise compel their choices and actions by undermining the standardized template, correct? --Bsherr (talk) 22:00, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Templates are already constraints on actions, especially templates in the wikipedia namespace. The whole point of this page (and the project on user warnings more generally) is to guide template usage toward helpful ends. Articulating where the boundaries of those constraints should be is part of that process. Protonk (talk) 18:49, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
There should be a notice for users who edit talk namespace archives, letting them know what archives are and explaining that archives are for finished conversations only. I can create it if noone else objects. --- cymru lass(hit me up)⁄(background check)23:59, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
That's okay, but the main point of the templated message should be that few if any people read archives, and so any new message posted there is not likely to be heard. -- Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 15:55, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Whenever I create an archive page I put {{talkarchivenav}} at the top and {{archive}} at the bottom. These are templates that should really be used whenever archives are created, as they serve both to aid in navigation and to inform the reader that they are viewing closed discussions. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:44, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Looks like a good start. It'll have to be standardized, and I think it can be made more concise, but I think it's got the right information. Let me know when you're ready for that work, and I'd be pleased to make the edits. --Bsherr (talk) 04:48, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Need a warning for awareness of the existence of "edit summary"
I've recently been involved in repeatedly reverting IPs who don't understand why certain routes and destinations cannot be included in airports' and airlines' articles. The problem is not only that they don't leave an edit summary, it is that they don't know there is such a thing as edit summary or edit history. Unintended or not, adding something that has been repeatedly reverted is a serious disruption. There is a need to bring these wiki features to their attention. HkCaGu (talk) 01:55, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
No, I'm not talking about an IP who should leave an edit summary. I'm talking about IPs who need to know there's such a thing as history and such a thing as summary and he should read those before doing an edit that has been rejected multiple times. HkCaGu (talk) 04:08, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Hmmmm I see what you mean. Well there's welcome templates like {{subst:w-graphical}}, which mention the edit summary, but I'm not sure if there's one about histories... Yves (talk) 04:12, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm skeptical that we can introduce a concept like "histories" and edit summaries in a short templated message. the issue is that these editors don't understand that every wiki page has two parts, the current revision and the log of all previous revisions. It's not uncommon (nor is it limited to technically naive individuals). I suppose we could write one saying "hey I reverted your change, but it hasn't been deleted, it is still visible here in the history" with a link to their revision. That might have too many parameters to be useful. Dunno. Protonk (talk) 04:16, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
This may be a situation in which a personal message is best. There would likely be specific information about the conflict one would want to discuss with the user, i.e. look at the edit summaries because..., right? --Bsherr (talk) 14:21, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
This is a situation where it would be simpler and more efficient to simply repeat what was in said edit summary, rather than simply pointing to its existence. -- Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 15:57, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Agree with those last three remarks. This is a situation that calls for a personal explanation rather than a templated warning. There's no need to WP:BITE someone just because they don't yet understand the concept of edit histories and summaries. If it is a recurring problem with multiple ips or editors on the same page or group of pages, an edit notice for those pages may be helpful. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:48, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Redesigned block templates table
At User:Bsherr/sandbox2 is my proposed redesign for the block templates table. Some may recall the table once represented the three-level blocks, which were aborted. Since the rollout of the meta template for blocks, the table has shown columns for definite and indefinite, with the indefinite column showing the same as the defintie column but with the addition of the indef=yes parameter. However, I don't think this is the best use for the table, since distinction between def and indef never varies by template (except in those in which it's disabled or enabled by design). The new table separates the generic templates, reformats "only-account" as a column instead of separate rows, groups the username block templates and shows columns for soft and hard block templates, and (mostly) alphabetizes. From these efficiencies, the table is shorter by three rows. The only element I can't get working is the rowspan code in two places, and if someone could help with that, I'd be very grateful. Any feedback? --Bsherr (talk) 19:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
I'd change the word definite for temporary. Also, there should be something for indefinite blocks due to long-term abuse, but that's a different matter: we don't have the templates to be listed. -- Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 01:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Maybe I've missed it, but I can't see where in WP it says how many days pass (n), before a warning is considered stale. By that, I mean that after n, whatever the level of the previous warning, one resumes again at Level 1. Another editor and I had different perceptions of 'n'. Is n written down anywhere? And how, if at all, should procedure differ for an IP user? Trafford09 (talk) 09:39, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
There is really no such idea that is generally applied, nor can there be. If user A is an absolute WP:DICK, and somehow he's only given up to a level 2 warning, disappears for 2 weeks (or a month) and is an absolute WP:DICK immediately upon their return, I'm not returning to level 1 due to staleness. IP's are more of a "pattern" as well, in that what you're looking for is a pattern of behaviour, and some patterns are easier to recognize than others. Just as blocks are escalating in nature, so are warnings. (talk→BWilkins←track) 11:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Remember also that level 1 is intended for good faith, level 2 for no faith assumption, and level 3 for bad faith. If, at any time, you have credible reason to rebut WP:AGF, start at whatever the requisite level. --Bsherr (talk) 15:02, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, there is a certain convenience to numbering them. We could definitely do more to promote this on the project page. --Bsherr (talk) 20:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Because Wikipedians should change the name of the level 4 warning templates back to last warning because that makes Wikipedia warning templates look classical. Wayne Olajuwonchat20:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
The animated GIF introduced on uw-4 that I've reverted includes as a frame the symbol we've adopted for indefinite block templates, which I propose would cause unnecessary confusion. --Bsherr (talk) 21:44, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Seems to me that Template:Uw-ublock isn't being used properly. The big text on it says Your username is the only reason for this block. You are welcome to choose a new username (see below). I'm biased, of course, because I hang around CAT:RFU a lot, but fully half the time I see it, it's from an account like User talk:Outsourcing HR, and even a brief perusal of the user talk page, not to mention the contributions, would make it immediately obvious that the main problem with this user isn't the username; the immediate result is an unblock-un request, and then of course the admin handling it has to explain that the message isn't correct, and that the username is NOT the only reason for the block. Waste of time and energy for all concerned. We've even got a template {{coiq}} to keep it from boring us too much, but it's still confusing to the users. I wonder how we could improve this? --jpgordon::==( o )00:24, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
My first sentence should explain. How can we either reduce the misuse of the template or reduce the impact of the misuse of the template? --jpgordon::==( o )00:44, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Absolutely. Frankly there are one or two admins who chronically use it when there is an obvious conflict of interest as well. It puts admins reviewing unblock requests in a very awkward position in that they usually feel the need to explain that in fact there is another problem, and a bigger one at that. It's unfair to both the blocked user and the admin reviewing the block. I tried to bring attention to this some time ago but nothing really happened, let me see if I can dig up that old thread. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:51, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, there you go. (Ugh, personally, I hate the username policy... I think it occludes the real issue, COI.) As a practical matter, I think the course of action is to alert admins that misuse it by leaving a message on their talk pages. --Bsherr (talk) 02:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
I would contend that Template:Uw-spamublock is worthless. I've seen enough situations where this template was used on people who were blocked as spam-only and username together, where they were unblocked, renamed, and then went right back to spamming and were quickly re-blocked to know to stay clear of this template, since it's too permissive and makes spammers think that if they rename themselves, they can keep on going. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:16, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
I think it assumes more good faith than that for which a given situation may call. (As to whether the template is clear: to quote the template, "Am I allowed to make these edits if I change my username? Probably not. ..." But maybe that is too weak.) In situations when the account is truly spam only, there is Template:Uw-soablock, but that doesn't address the username issue. Should this template be hardened? If it is hardened, is there anything that fills the void left by the absence of the template in its softer form, or is there a void left? Any suggestions for how to harden it? --Bsherr (talk) 03:49, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Let me refine that. Are there actually three categories warranted: (1) username violation with no prohibited conduct, (2) username violation with good-faith or no-faith-assumption prohibited conduct, and (3) username violation with bad-faith conduct? Softerblock is cat. 1, but it's unclear whether Uw-spamublock falls into category 2 or 3, and I'm inclined to agree with Schumin that it's more of a cat. 2 template. --Bsherr (talk) 03:54, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't even go that far. If the username is promotional and the user is engaged in prohibited conduct related to that username, then they're straight to soa-block. Spamublock belongs at TFD, honestly, since it attempts (badly) to join two things that shouldn't be joined. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:36, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
The issue would be that, in that situation, if the user successfully appealed the block, there would be no notice of the username problem. --Bsherr (talk) 06:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
I thought uw-softblock was supposed to be the "please change your name, nothing personal" block template? And I also don't like the username policy. Protonk (talk) 02:34, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Indeed it is. But there are instances where it is just the username, and a good-faith warning is contraindicated. --Bsherr (talk) 19:39, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
The problem we often face at WP:UAA is that many users see it as the "one stop block shop" and they report all sorts of things there, some of which have nothing whatsoever to do with usernames. I suspect that this use of username-only blocks is intended to be a push-back against that trend, but it is not really helpful in the long run as the spamming is really the more serious issue. UAA has a reputation as the forum that will result in fast blocking, so users tend to go there when they should really be going to WP:COIN or some other page. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:24, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
A few months ago I noticed some admins were using a boilerplate response to attempt to clarify these types of situations, I have made it into a template:
Oh. It doesn't look like a template, I thought it was just something admins were copy/pasting because this happens so often. The other thing is the use of "break" which I replaced with "disregard" because you can't really "break" a question. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:05, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't think the recipients are too concerned with their attractiveness, but I always welcome suggestions. What exactly do you have in mind? --Bsherr (talk) 05:07, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Well first of all, the nuvola iconset is starting to look very outdated and we need to be pulling from newer iconsets. We also needbrighter colors so we can tell them apart more easily. When they're all off shades of gray it's hard to tell them apart if you're quickly scrolling through a long template filled page. I will be experimenting in my sandbox. Access Denied – talk to me05:36, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
And please keep in mind not to use overly flamboyant/bright colors like you did here; as I said earlier, it's hard on the eyes. Thanks, Goodvac (talk) 06:14, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Sure. I'm pleased to consider new symbols. Be aware, however, that I've run into users who dislike the UW templates because they think the current icons are too stylized. I've been trying to work on merging in the TestTemplates, and it would be unfortunate to have this become a point of contention. I'd suggest keeping them simple. --Bsherr (talk) 17:42, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
It's a parameter of the metatemplate Template:Uw-block. I'm still skeptical of the very concept of it because it's a very rare situation that it's permissible to block talk page access contemporaneous with the initial block. Talk page access is restricted if a user abuses the talk page subsequent to a block. And given that it's their talk page, silly vandalism doen't usually count. It has to be refactoring, or abusing the unblock templates. So, for a contemporaneous talk page block, it would have to be because the conduct resulting in the block involved abuse of the user talk page, which is not so common. As I mentioned to Mechamind when he created it, I'm concerned it could lead admins to think that it's an option within their discretion in any case. So you can propose changes to the appearance of this parameter, but bear in mind that it is, and should be, very rarely employed. --Bsherr (talk) 17:42, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Pardon me, it was a reply to both you and Access Denied. To you that there is no list and no separate templates except Template:Uw-blocknotalk, just the parameter "notalk=yes" on any block template. The rest to Access Denied and any others considering revising the appearance of the notalk parameter. --Bsherr (talk) 17:59, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
@Bsherr, I wouldn't worry too much about what these templates might make admins think they can do. It's hard to say this without sounding condescending, for which I apologise (my intent is to inform, not patronise), but, until you've actually been an admin, it's difficult to know the ins and outs of what admins see. Of course, one would hope that anybody the community entrusts with adminship would know the blocking policy, but the blocking interface also has a selection of options, one of which is to disable talk page access and there's a note next to it that says "disable only for users known to abuse own talk page" (italics mine), so changing a template probably wouldn't make an admin think that disabling TP access is as casual as blocking account creation or enabling autoblocking. While I'm here, I agree that the block templates could do with a bit of modernising, but, considering their purpose and that hundreds of editors dole these out every day, I don't think we should be doing anything too drastic. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:13, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the information. Indeed, I don't have any way of knowing about the administrator interface. As you've explained it, I am more assured that the new parameter isn't likely to be misused. --Bsherr (talk) 17:04, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Can we please not worry about how the block template looks and just get on with writing an encyclopedia? If someone is blocked, they have bigger issues than complain about the outdated look of the Nuvola icon set. Seriously, getting consensus for such a change is really just a waste of time on meaningless aesthetic work. /ƒETCHCOMMS/20:56, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
I'd prefer it if the skull were on fire. Also, some barrels of oozing toxic waste should be added in the case of block evasion. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:27, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
I redirected Template:Uw-3block to Template:Uw-ewblock, but it was reverted, thus this discussion. I propose that Uw-3block is redundant with Uw-ewblock. Wikipedia:Edit warring illustrates this. 3RR is described solely within the edit warring policy. In fact, Wikipedia:Three-revert rule redirects to Wikipedia:Edit warring. 3RR is a rule used to identify edit warring, not conduct distinct from edit warring. Distinguishing 3RR edit warring from other edit warring provides no useful benefits in the block template. Indeed, as evidence, the template message in Template:Uw-3block is different from Template:Uw-ewblock only in that it states "and violation of the three-revert rule". Should the revert of the redirect be undone? (I've begun discussion here instead of at TfD to share perspectives preliminarily and determine whether TfD is needed.) Thanks all. --Bsherr (talk) 01:50, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
I see you've redirected it again. I had hoped we'd get more input here, but I will say that I find uw-3block useful as an admin who occasionally has to block editors for edit warring or 3RR violations. The two are distinct (EW can take place over a long period and one doesn't have to step over the bright line to be edit warring, while 3RR has a specific set of very narrow criteria), which is also the reason the two were recently separated on MediaWiki:Ipbreason-dropdown. The two templates are both useful and, as these are block notices rather than articles, there's no good reason not to keep them distinct in my opinion. I would also point out that the very slight change in wording is nothing unique in block templates. For example, {{uw-bioblock}} differs from {{uw-block}} only in that "abuse of editing privileges" is substituted for "contravening Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy" and indeed, ewblock varies from the default only in that "abuse of editing privs" becomes "edit warring" (along with some advice on DR). As such, I am reverting the redirect and would request that it be allowed to stay that way unless a consensus is reached that it shouldn't. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:27, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
My concerns are more for the sake of simplicity. The two are not distinct. All 3RR violations are edit warring. 3RR is merely a specific indicator of edit warring. Right now, one could correctly use EW to describe any conduct covered by 3RR. EW uses the description "for edit warring" and 3RR uses the description "for edit warring and violating the three-revet rule". In both, "edit warring" is a link to WP:Edit warring. In 3RR, "three-revert rule" is a link to exactly the same page, WP:Edit warring, though to the 3RR section. Is there value in maintaining two templates for such a small distinction? (Yes, the words differing between block and bioblock are small, but the meaning is completely different. Here, the meaning is almost the same, too.) 3RR isn't a type of abusive editing, it's just the rule used to determine if a user is edit warring. We don't have separate template for other types of edit warring (slow, 1RR violation, bad faith failure to discuss, tag team edit warring...). Is it useful to identify just this particular type of edit warring, and if so, why? --Bsherr (talk) 17:32, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Because one doesn't have to violate the 3RR to be edit warring and it's useful (especially when it comes to unblock requests) to differentiate between the two to avoid wikilawyering ("I didn't violate 3RR so I wasn't EW") and to draw a distinction between a violation of a bright-line rule and an admin's judgement. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:57, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand the wikilawyering example. Won't that type of argument be made regardless of whether 3RR is separate or not? --Bsherr (talk) 18:02, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Blocks for 3RR violation and edit-warring blocks have different associations. I think it's useful to have a separate block template. The above statement by Bsherr, "3RR is a rule used to identify edit warring, not conduct distinct from edit warring" gets into matters of 3RR philosophy which it's unnecessary to resolve here. The admins who prefer the language of uw-3block should be allowed to continue using it. If I were an unblock reviewer when a uw-3block had been placed, I would expect to see four reverts, and if I didn't find them, I would query the admin. If instead it was a uw-ewblock the analysis would be different. EdJohnston (talk) 22:04, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. While all 3RR blocks are for edit warring, not all edit warring blocks are for 3RR. Since we have a stand-alone noticeboard just for dealing with 3RR reports it is appropriate to continue to have a separate template for that specific situation. Nothing is gained by merging the two templates, nothing is lost or damaged by keeping them. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:24, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
It isn't wikilawyering. The three revert rule is just a heuristic for edit warring. It's a clear indicator of when an editing dispute has gone too far. However it is much more popular (both within and without wikipedia) than the EW policy for which it was meant to act as a trigger. As a result of some unfortunate metonymy, most people are under the impression that 3rr=ew. This has never strictly been the case and the distinction between the two has been more clear over the past year. the two templates and their warnings should remain separate. Protonk (talk) 06:45, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm just going by the policy. "While any edit warring may lead to sanctions, there is a bright-line rule called the "three-revert rule", the violation of which often leads to a block." That seems to mean it's a rule for identifying or defining edit warring. --Bsherr (talk) 14:21, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
that's true, but take note what we are saying. 3rr is a mechanism to quickly identify an article which is subject to an edit war and is itself a "rule" in the EW policy, but it no more encompasses the EW policy as the COI username section of the username policy encompasses that policy wholly. Imagine this. If we merged the 3rr and ew templates, what template would I use if I blocked someone for a slow edit war over a week long period? What template would I use to block someone who did 10 reverts in the span of 20 minutes? These are two very different kinds of blocks even though they appeal to the same policy. Protonk (talk) 19:09, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
But the block template is for notifying the user (in contrast with the block log, which is for notifying other administrators). Why need the notification be different? --Bsherr (talk) 20:46, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Because communication with the blocked editor (especially for edit warring blocks which are the most likely to be temporary) is just as important. The block notice should clearly articulate the reason for the block. In this case, the two reasons (3rr or ew) are distinct. Protonk (talk) 17:12, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Reverted Uw-lblock conditionality of indef parameter
Heymid, blocks for legal threats are always indefinite, so there's no need for conditionality of the indef parameter. --Bsherr (talk) 15:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
I think you should've written this at my talk page and not here. Also, the documentation mentions the time parameter, but as you have removed that parameter now, I have removed it also from the documentation. But I think it's still worth having the time parameter in the {{uw-lblock}} template, as IPs should generally never be blocked indefinitely (except if they are open proxies), and it might be worth using this template when blocking an IP address for making legal threats or taking legal action. HeyMid (contribs) 15:43, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
I try to use this page (the talk page for uw-lblock redirects here) for template matters, as user talk pages aren't watched by others, since I believe the community arrives at better solutions than individuals. That's an interesting point about IP addresses. Indeed, that would be an exception. I'll revert my edits. --Bsherr (talk) 16:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
It would be the only block template to do that. I'm not sure the documentation adequately covers it. What do you think? --Bsherr (talk) 16:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
I think we should go after what the admins expect. Do they expect that it's by default indef? (A legal threat block.) Are such blocks most of the time indef? HeyMid (contribs) 17:09, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
What is wrong with the default saying "temporarily"? All blocks are temporary, given some broad interpretation of the word temporary. Ideally the block template should inherit settings from the blocking interface, but that is very unlikely to happen (and I have no idea if it is possible), but barring that the default should strive to be accurate rather than precise. Protonk (talk) 22:23, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
If it's possible it would be best if it is set to indef unless a time parameter is added by the blocking admin. IPs may be an exemption, but most WP:NLT blocks are upheld until such time as the legal threat is rescinded. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
I agree with having it set on indef by default. However, I'm not sure whether TW can specify a time length or not. If it can, at least the template should allow that. It should be possible for the admins to do so; IPs are sometimes an exception (apart from static IPs). HeyMid (contribs) 14:18, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
That's too bad, I thought it was useful, since it was for a specific purpose, and suggested they get a username --AW (talk) 17:52, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
That seems most likely. What do you think about removing the image parameter? I'm not a fan because it makes the image seem like it's part of the official template, like in this instance. The template still carries the comment tag "uw-vandalism4im". --Bsherr (talk) 21:12, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
I've just had occasion to add {{Uw-advert1}} to a user's talkpage for adding what's a distinct advert for a charity to their userpage. Might it be desirable for the uw-advert templates to stress that "promotion" and "advertising" apply equally to nonprofit/charity promotion as they do to commercial advertising? I've had wrangles with charities before (up to and including nastygram emails from them) along the lines of "This isn't advertising, we're trying to help the sick/disadvantaged/downtrodden; who are you to deny them our help?" Possibly something along the lines of "This applies equally to commercial and non-commercial promotion". TonywaltonTalk01:07, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
This blocking template might be of some help, trim out the part about the username and you're left with "it appears your account is intended to be used for the purpose of telling the world about an organization or cause that you consider worthwhile. Unfortunately, many charitable causes and social service organizations are not sufficiently notable for their own Wikipedia article, and all users are discouraged from editing in any area where they have an inherent conflict of interest.". Beeblebrox (talk) 07:08, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi all,
I've boldly made a change to the {{uw-username}} template, as a result of this Village pump discussion. The relevant Village pump archive the discussion will be included is Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 82. Copy+paste of the rationale:
The current {{subst:uw-username}} template generates
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your username (foo) may not meet Wikipedia's username policy. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. As an alternative, you may file for a change of username, or you may simply create a new account and use that for editing. Thank you.
To my ear, "you may file for a change of username" sounds like legalese, like there's some sort of legal process involved: pleadings, documents in triplicate "indorsed" and served, subpoenas and prolly lots more. Just one simple change would ameliorate all this. How about
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your username (foo) may not meet Wikipedia's username policy. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. As an alternative, you may ask for a change of username, or you may simply create a new account and use that for editing. Thank you.
The description for the uw-redirect series might read better as "Creating disruptive redirects", since "malicious" isn't really compatible with the good faith assumption of the level 1 template. Feezo(Talk)08:02, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
What is the proper warning template for somebody who appears to be misusing templates? The two edits in question are here and here. I mainly ask because the editor in question seems to have had issues with vandalism in the past. 98.103.186.3 (talk) 16:49, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
If the user is placing templates that are obviously incorrect (and based on the edits shown, that would appear to be the case), I'd just lay down a vandalism tag. SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:52, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
But, explain in your edit summary. Because the vandalism is subtle, it’s not readily apparent to a blocking admin reviewing the miscreant’s edits that the templates were purposely, incorrectly applied. So, when you apply the warning template to the vandal’s talk page, explain in your edit summary the nature of the vandalism. — SpikeToronto00:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
It's not all that common an issue anymore, since most files are uploaded to Commons. For files that are speedily deleted, the speedy deletion notice is the warning. For more complicated issues, it's difficult to develop a broadly applicable template. But, by all means, go for it. --Bsherr (talk) 17:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Regarding {{uw-block}}, if an admin also revoked talk page access, I'm wondering whether we really should point the blocked user to ArbCom. There is also the unblock mailing list, which I believe comes before ArbCom, especially for temporary blocks. I don't know, should we keep pointing the blocked users to ArbCom if their talk page access has been revoked? Or should they be pointed to the unblock mailing list? HeyMid (contribs) 20:30, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Heymid, could you please explain the removal of the contents of adblock that categorizes the user pages upon which the template is used? Thanks. --Bsherr (talk) 00:43, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Template index/User talk namespace/Archive 11
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If this continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your username, Template index/User talk namespace, may not meet Wikipedia's username policy because it contains the suffix "bot", which is generally reserved for authorized bot accounts. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. As an alternative, you may file for a change of username, or you may simply create a new account and use that for editing. Thank you. ~~~~
This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive comments. 
Done Cheers! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:00, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Template:Uw-sandbox has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Bsherr (talk) 18:05, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
I do not believe that low transclusion count is a valid reason to full-protect 
On the other hand, I do believe that 
Template:Uw-number1 has been nominated for merging with Template:Uw-unsourced1. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. --Bsherr (talk) 13:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Template:Unblock-hard has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Bsherr (talk) 18:03, 10 January 2011 (UTC)