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 responded on my Talk page. This is moved from there. --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]

(Also moved from my Talk page. The discussion properly belongs here.--Lexein (talk) 00:28, 29 August 2012 (UTC) )[reply]

(talk page stalker) Well, that won't work for me now, since I've not been making second-hand notification. I was using the Uw-vandalism0 for my own reverts in many cases of mild 1st level notes. ...sigh. ...(and I did follow and comment in the original RFC). However, I'm not going to whine and moan over this; it's done. I'm just going to place those of my own personal wording more often now for level ones and use templates for the more severe infractions. Thanks from me as well. Fylbecatulous talk 00:23, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What does "second-hand" mean? --Lexein (talk) 00:42, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, sorry for unclear wording! I am not warning due to another editor's removal (after the fact, second hand). I revert and I warn. When I last looked at the template, it stated roughly "your edit has been reverted by another editor". Flat out, the end. But I just peeked again, and I'm loving your revision. I can so use this, I'll even invite anyone and everyone to my talk page to interrogate me. Fylbecatulous talk 02:05, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cool - all I wanted was party neutral language about the revert itself. Glad it works. --Lexein (talk) 02:44, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, sorry if my edit made it more confused. I think the current version is very good, and many thanks for editing further Lexein and Isarra. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 07:37, 29 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]

Also, Steven, I did not specifically request re-opening the RfC. How many years have the existing warnings existed? Was 30 days really long enough for wide consensus? As for your crabbiness, I have to say, the WMF should talk to Wikipedia editors more, and more often so these sorts of minor-mistakes-in-the-midst-of-mostly-improvements can be resolved smoothly, instead of jaggedly. You are aware, I have to assume, about the general level of unhappiness about WMF when responding to WP ideas and initiatives? This incident is simply fuel for that. I have a serious academic question - was the phrase "I have reverted it" specifically tested in isolation against "it was reverted?" I do not think it was, and therefore it does not necessarily hold that that specific change was absolutely justified by the research results. --Lexein (talk) 00:42, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The first person narrative voice in the templates was one of the key elements tested, which is why I've been pushing back so hard on any move to change it. It was actually the one difference retained in several versions that were tried by WP:UWTEST. Whether the versions were very short, quite long, included images or not, etc., the use of first person voice was the consistent element that stayed in the templates. In all cases, except where the warning editor was in fact a bot, first person voice showed a significantly better ability to warn away really terrible vandals and encourage new registered editors. It's really important that warnings, which are often the first or second message to someone, are clearly coming from another individual, and aren't some kind of totally automated system message. Now, the clear other exception that has come up is the case I think uw-vandalism0 should serve, which is where you warn someone you didn't revert. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 08:05, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify from a rhetorical perspective, the crucial change here is in voice, specifically from passive to active. This was the one consistently successful change we made across the dozens of tests we ran. It did not increase vandalism or retaliatory attacks from the revertee. It significantly increased the productivity of good-faith new editors. Steven and I wouldn't fight so strongly for the change if those two conditions hadn't been met. Why would we? We're both Wikipedians, too. We don't want to see vandalfighters get flamed or crappy new editors run amok any more than you do.

Frankly, I'm not convinced that the edge-case some are pointing out here about issuing a warning for another editor's revert is actually so common that we need to bend a more general template structure around it. As Wikipedians, we're really good at finding edge-cases, but also really bad at recognizing that they're the product of our own particular cognitive biases toward specificity for its own sake (take a look at the lengths to which editors have tried over time to address every single edge-case possible in the deletion notice system, and how utterly incomprehensible to non-Wikipedians it has become as a result).

But if it's really so onerous to use a different template or just write a personal note in those cases, I'm not opposed to changing the language as long as it remains clearly active in tone. Wikipedia's policies and guidelines do not revert or warn anyone; humans do. Maryana (WMF) (talk) 09:09, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I agree with the simplification and I agree with first-person everywhere except in the case that I didn't do the revert. So for some reason, it just occurred to me that the voice could be selected by a parameter: defaulting to "I reverted it", but with ~~by=other~~any 3rd parameter it says "another editor reverted it". This produces a previewable, adjustable template, and eliminates the need for any alternate templates, such as -0. --Lexein (talk) 11:08, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point. I hesitate to throw in extra parameters because it adds complexity to a process that's supposed to be simple and easy, and because parser functions generally introduce all manner of breakage and chaos into the system. But if that's the simplest solution that makes (almost) everybody happy and preserves the spirit of the test templates, I'd be receptive to it. Just let's not rehash the whole RfC all over again, please ;) Maryana (WMF) (talk) 11:56, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, the extra parameter is just there for us third-party template adders, it will be invisible to the "I reverted it" main audience of users. I'll toy with it in sandbox. --Lexein (talk) 13:41, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Followup: I've prototyped it, and created testcases in Uw-vandalism0/testcases. With no 3rd parameter, it selects "I reverted it" - this is the default. With any 3rd parameter, it selects "it was reverted." This addresses the case of an automatic process or another editor reverting. Steven, Maryana - thoughts? --Lexein (talk) 15:48, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, couple thoughts:

We should probably standardize on a name for the third variable, just to make it easier on people.
I'm not sure the "ask me on my talk" is the best thing. It might be our only real option, but it's also sort of strange to get a message about a revert you didn't do.

Otherwise that seems fine to me. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 00:13, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

3rd parameter suggestion:

"3rd party notice: if parameter 3 contains any text, the default statement I reverted it is replaced by it was reverted. This can be used if you did not do the revert."

I left "ask me" in place because it's a friendly way to keep the communication channel open. Not a great reason, but there it is.--Lexein (talk) 00:50, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, uh, what?

What has happened here? Even after reading over the many comments left on this page I still fail to understand why you guys want to overturn the RfC decision and/or implement a new level of warnings? If you are warning a vandal that won't even read the notices, what difference does it make? </rant> Thanks, Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 14:42, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody wants anything overturned. I was openly asking serious questions about the three words "I reverted it", which reduce the utility of all level 1 warnings for those editors who warn after somebody else reverted-but-didn't-warn. So I sandboxed and testcased adding a 3rd parameter to optionally emit "it was reverted" instead.

If that is unopposed, the question remains whether to even think about adding this 3rd parameter code to the level 1's. Let alone sandbox, testcase, and release. So to answer your question, nothing has happened. --Lexein (talk) 15:35, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That makes a lot of since to me, who does that a lot. I wonder what's the problem... --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 03:01, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion is leisurely. There's no proper hurry here, at least not from me. --Lexein (talk) 06:16, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]