Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Level one user warnings

Overly first-person warnings vs a modicum of passive voice

The overly-first-person voicing of the level 1 warnings causes a problem - it takes away a common use case. It is not usable when I am warning due to another editor's removal, which is a very common use case. The following suggested change to the wording of {{uw-error1}} suits both 1st-person and 3rd-person use cases, is still friendly, and still takes responsibility (desired changes are bolded):

Hello, I'm Lexein. Your recent edit to the page Jamie Lee Curtis appears to have added incorrect information, so it was removed for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks,

I would like the main discussion reopened, or at least for this version to be still available as a mod to the current voicing for all level 1 warnings. Please don't un-assist editors!

Is this intended to discourage 3rd-party warning?
I can always just start with level 2, because it's inefficient to edit the template output to restore the intended, and usable, meaning.
Will prior versions be retained, renamed?
Or shall I just create a new suite of level 1 warnings, named {{uw-error1-u}}, with -u standing for "universal use case"

So, if this is the wrong place, where is the best place to widely discuss this for all level 1 warnings? --Lexein (talk) 01:54, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the new current wording of level 1 warnings are absolutely terrible to be honest. Ever since i discovered the change i never ever use it, if i revert vandalism then i will simply use a level two warning instead now. As you rightly point out the current wording prevents 3rd parties issuing the warning if someone else reverts, not to mention the fact it basically encourages the person being warned to head to the editors talkpage. Id support a change that fixes it to be less first person. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:52, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! This page turned up on my watchlist, I suppose because I was following the original but alas, now closed first discussion, where I had commented entirely negatively. I too refuse to use any of the amended level one warnings. I have several of my own wording that I use for more friendly welcoming warnings. Otherwise I use a level 0 vandalism warning ({{uw-vandalism0}} or jump straight to a 2. The zero one is worded perfectly for much of what I revert (junk text, test edits or silly vandalism). For the serious stuff, no matter the category, I now use two's or higher. Thanks for the space to comment. Fylbecatulous talk 19:41, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh! just used a level warning one and noticed the change, sorry I dont like it all a bit to friendly for use against clear vandals. Can we have a note on the uw-vandalism page to say if you dont want to be very nice then go straight to Uw-vandalism2. MilborneOne (talk) 22:09, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for mentioning ({{uw-vandalism0}} - excellent. --Lexein (talk) 23:36, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The whole spectrum of warnings is listed at WP:UTN (User Talk namespace). I see outliers like -0 are not included. I wonder if it makes sense to fill out the entire -0 series? And can I get an amen or boo to my wording suggested above? --Lexein (talk) 23:36, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've not yet warned an editor that was reverted by another; I'm not sure I've noticed an occasion but will watch for this to utilize from now on. I would be entirely comfortable with using your wording with amendments for the reason I was reverting (blanking, tests, vandalism...) except I shy away from inviting unknowns to my talk page. I do so in my personal notices or explanations of why I reverted, if I think they could possibly be mystified. So an "amen" Fylbecatulous talk 14:16, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have. I warned someone who was reverted by another, then had to edit their talkpage a second time to specify it was not me who reverted them. Caught me by surprise, for at the time i didn't know the new system had been implemented :P benzband (talk) 14:20, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've just noticed the new wording of the Uw-vandalism1 template and strongly dislike it, to the point where I'm currently unwilling to use it. Does this mean I'm giving up issuing vandalism warnings for first-time offenders? Quite possibly, because I'm unsure how to conveniently work around it. Ugh. zazpot (talk) 13:15, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Use {{uw-vandalism0}} or skip to {{uw-vandalism2}}. It'll be ok. --Lexein (talk) 14:42, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

{Steven Walling responds. This is copied from my talk page, where the discussion properly belongs here)--Lexein (talk) 00:25, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uw-vandalism0 and the RFC

Hey, I wanted to give you a quick direct note on two points:

I don't really think re-opening the month long RFC is either necessary or appropriate. All these people coming around saying they didn't care enough to pay attention to the talk pages related to these warnings, and see the 30 day long discussion, but want to rough road over the consensus reached by the 50 people who did put in the effort are just plain disrespectful of the months of work put into this. It's extremely unusual to reopen an RFC that was closed already.
I made bold edits to Uw-vandalism0, because while I agree that we have to have a template that doesn't say "I reverted you", the things like "Welcome to Wikipedia" and the excess links to the Sandbox and Welcome page were removed for very specific reasons based on months of testing. They really distract from the main message of the warning, which is that these people did something wrong and were reverted.

Anyway, that all sounds a bit crabby, but I also want to say thanks for posting about this where you have, and trying to improve things for everyone. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 20:54, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Steven, thank you for finally responding. However, you seem to have chosen NOT to answer my foundational objection: the excessive FIRST-PERSON nature of the modifications to the -1 warnings, and now your prominent THIRD-PERSON modification to the -0 warning. You seem to have missed that I literally don't care about any of the other -1 changes: only that part which makes it useless for third-party warnings. So I've partially reverted your bold edit to the -0 warning, so that it does not blame any editor for the target reversion, but does take responsibility for questions. --Lexein (talk) 00:25, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]