Wikipedia talk:Template index/User talk namespace

A new set of templates aimed at disruptive editing

I have created a new set of templates aimed at disruptive editing that is not vandalism. I would like to put them to the community to see if others think they should be included as official template warning messages. These templates are designed to make it easier to warn users who edit disruptively but are not quite guilty of vandalism. Disruptive editing can result in a user being blocked, so it seems to make sense that we have some solid, specific, warning templates to that end. Allow me to explain how their design works, and how they are relevant:

I have designed 4 levels of template, there is no 'immediate/only' template because such a thing is clearly not appropriate and would be open to abuse. These templates are designed for editors to advise and then warn others who appear to be engaged in disruptive editing as defined by the WP:Disruptive editing behavioral guideline. They have been primarily designed to be issued by editors who are not 'involved' in the dispute, this is reflected in their wording.

The templates can be viewed 'as displayed' at User:Pol430/Sandbox. Please do not change these templates in my userspace, but feel free to discuss, and suggest changes on this page.

L1 and L2 templates

Are designed to be issued in limited circumstances where more specific templates (failing to cite sources, MOS, NPOV etc) are not appropriate. An example would be a recent issue that occurred when an editor tried to insert external links into a disambiguation page (which is against policy) details can be found at Wikipedia:ANI#Block review:User talk:Skysong263. This case is not an isolated incident. As a vandal fighter I have previously found myself reverting disruptive edits, but been without a suitable warning template to issue.

L3 and L4 templates

Are designed (firstly) to escalate the advice of the previous two levels to warnings. This would be appropriate in cases where editors are continuing to engage in obvious disruptive editing that is not properly defined as vandalism. Also in cases where editors engaged in content disputes refuse to engage in reaching consensus before making further disruptive edits. Secondly I propose that the L4 template replaces the current {{uw-generic4}} template. This template would be a more appropriate L4 warning for most other templates that do not have their own L4 templates. Pol430 talk to me 18:45, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Comments

I expect the reason we don't have templates for this type of disruptive editing is that it is not vandalism. Levels one through three would be fine (and we already have the uw-mos series for manual of style issues), but one cannot really threaten a block enforceable by WP:AIV. This type of disruption goes through WP:AN/I, unless it's an edit war, in which case it goes through that process, and we have 3RR warning templates. Consider also that the level four template of uw-mos was just deleted in TfD for this reason. --Bsherr (talk) 20:25, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not sure these sort of templates are all that useful. While I appreciate having a set which doesn't mislabel non-vandalistic disruption as vandalism, I think we should be discouraging templated warnings as a practice, except perhaps for driveby type vandalism. We should encourage dialogue, and templated warnings aren't dialogue. If someone is being disruptive, you should just be able to tell them how they are being disruptive. If they've been told to stop, even by ordinary, non-substed, non-templated, plain old typing like I am doing now, and they do not, they should be blocked. Period. The templates, I suppose, are better than the ones that overuse the term "vandalism", but no template is better than a personalize message. --Jayron32 04:36, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments and feedback so far, @Bsherr: If consensus is that an L4 template is not needed for disruption that is reported through ANI, and that L4 templates should only be used for what is properly defined as WP:VANDAL, then the L4 template can be left out. If this is to be the case; there are a few other L4 templates that need to be removed; the NPOV L4 template for example, NPOV breaches are not vandalism according to policy, but can be disruptive. Perhaps a major tidy up of template messages is needed? @Jayron, I absolutely agree with you. We should encourage dialogue. These templates are designed to attempt to get an disruptive editor to engage in dialogue. Not all of them will be interested though, if an editor will not respond to 3 template messages, will they respond to one/two/three personalized messages? I suppose template messages can be considered a lazy option, but I do feel they are helpful tools, they ensure a consistent message is being sent to any user who disrupts Wikipedia. Pol430 talk to me 12:38, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

You might be right about cleaning up the L4 templates. It's something we need to discuss here. --Bsherr (talk) 18:50, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

• According to policy at WP:VANDAL there are defined types of edits which can be considered vandalism (WP:VANDTYPES). There are also types of edits that are not considered vandalism but can become vandalism if an editor repeatedly engages in them (WP:NOTVAND). The blocking policy makes provision for vandals to be blocked, but also makes provision for persistent WP:Disruptive editing to result in a block. Whilst true vandalism is reported through AIV, disruptive editing needs to be reported though ANI or other forums per WP:Dispute resolution. My thoughts for the current system of warning templates are -
• Any warning templates that refer to an editing act that is blatantly vandalism should have a series of 4 progressive warning levels plus an Immediate/only template for use in extreme cases.
• Any warning templates that refer to editing acts that do not immediately constitute vandalism but can, if repeated enough, be classed as vandalism. Should have a series of 4 progressive warning levels but no immediate/only template.
• Any warning templates that refer to editing acts that are not vandalism at all, but can be considered disruptive, per WP:Disruptive editing should have only a series of 3 progressive warnings. Any editor that persists in disruptive editing and does not engage in the spirit of consensus after the 3rd warning could be reported to ANI or other appropriate venue per WP:Dispute resolution.
• Any existing templates (if there are any) than can not be considered vandalism or disruptive editing should be proposed for deletion at TfD.
• As we have a series of general 'vandalism' templates for clear cut vandalism, I suggest the implementation of a general disruptive editing template (see above) levels 1-3 aimed at edits not categorised by more specific templates.

Retaining L4 warnings for what can be considered vandalism ensures continued compatibility with the AIV process, whilst limiting disruptive editing to 3 warnings should help to ensure that what is not vandalism is not reported to AIV. 3 warnings is enough to show an editor has been given 'fair warning' at ANI. Finally, I think all warning templates listed in the tables at WP:WARN should have a content review, to ensure that wording is accurate and in order that editors are not likely to be mislabeled vandals where they are not, and to ensure that that policy and guidance is not being misrepresented. Pol430 talk to me 01:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Your Level 4 template at User:Pol430/Sandbox might be salvagable merely by removing the words, without further notice. Since an editor being templated with the proposed series of templates is most likely going to end up at ANI — which requires notification to the offender — they will be notified before being blocked. But, the kind of disruptive behaviour for which they would have received four warnings will most likely result in a block of some sort, so the remaining language is accurate. Plus, one would be able to present at ANI a history of four warnings to the miscreant. — SpikeToronto 17:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Pol430, I think your summary is right on. I'd support that as our approach. If there's agreement here, it would probably be valuable to write it up somewhere too. --Bsherr (talk) 18:25, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

When you say write it up, do you mean as a policy/behavioral guideline? Also I think Spikes's comment about using 4 warnings has validity. Pol430 talk to me 19:23, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Pol430, what about adding wording to the Level 4 template along the lines of

Further disruptive editing will result in a report being filed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, which may result in a suspension of your editing privileges.

Thank you for adding the Levels 1 through 3 template to WP:UTM. — SpikeToronto 20:59, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Indeed I do mean a guideline, a design guideline for user warning templates. WikiProject User Warnings developed guidelines, but they really do need to be updated to current practice, and as that project winds down, its contents ought to be migrated out of the project and into WIkipedia guidelines. And I do think Spike's comment should be incorporated; I agree with it. --Bsherr (talk) 21:03, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I have never written an essay/policy/guideline draft before, but I will give it a go in my sandbox, and will invite both of you and others to comment on it. My only concern about using an L4 template for disruptive edits are that we have recently deleted some L4 templates via TfD, on the basis that they were not required for disruption reported via ANI. E.g. Template:Uw-mos4 which was deleted in December 2010 also Template:Uw-unsourced4 which was deleted in September 2010. Pol430 talk to me 21:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Maybe wording such as that I proposed above would also provide a route for rehabiliting those Level 4 templates that were deleted. If they were modified such they inform the miscreant that he has received his last warnining for disruptive behaviour, ignoring the MoS, adding egregiously unsourced material, etc., and that a further instance of such will result in a report being filed at ANI and the possible suspension of his editing privileges, then I can see no reason why these could not have a full four levels much as the defamatory and biog series do. Those two examples promise blocking, yet they are, nonetheless, types of unsourced edits. So, restoring unsourced4, with new wording referring to ANI instead of blocking, would make that unsourced series consistent with the other unsourced series, inasmuch as it too would have a Level 4 template. Thoughts? — SpikeToronto 22:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that disruption/complex abuse that can not go through AIV should only have 3 levels of template, in order to illustrate the distinction between disruption and vandalsim. The fact a person has been warned or notified on 3 occasions, is enough to illustrate their is a problem, but only having 3 level will not incline an otherwise good faith editor to break WP:3rr, whilst trying to combat what they perceive to be disruption/abuse. They simply report the editor to ANI or other appropriate venue after they have reverted and waned up to level 3. In the case of vandalism that can be dealt with by AIV then 4 warnings has several advantages.

1. It gives even more 'fair warning' that an (potentially inexperienced) editors actions are inappropriate and continuing them is likely to result in a block.
2. It illustrates the above point to the AIV administrator.
3. It maintains compliance/compatability with existing semi automated tools, such as Huggle. Pol430 talk to me 17:38, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Unblock-hard

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)

Nomination for deletion of Template:After-block

Template:After-block 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) 18:07, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Which warning should I use?

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. — SpikeToronto 00:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Image-related warnings

Why don't the image-related warnings (uw-imagen ) link to WP:IMAGE? --Ronz (talk) 22:34, 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)

Template:Uw-block - removal of talk page access

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)

It should be whatever is instructed at Wikipedia:Appealing a block, which presently is the status quo. I say this without prejudice to a change. --Bsherr (talk) 03:46, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Uw-adblock

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)

Changes to lede section

Hi Bsherr, I assume you are referring to the changes I made to the lede section? I'm a bit confused, because I didn't add the wording that implied all the templates are for warning. I quite agree with your edit summary in that, the templates cover much more than warnings, but that notion was already in the lede prior to my edits. diff Pol430 talk to me 22:10, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

You may not have noticed it. The previous text was "These templates are placed on users' talk pages to warn a user against actions which disrupt Wikipedia, to convey a standardized message, or to place a standard boilerplate note at the top of a page." Your revision was "These templates are placed on users' talk pages to warn a user against actions which disrupt Wikipedia. They are designed to convey a standardized message, or to place a standard boilerplate note at the top of a page." Do you see how the meaning changes? --Bsherr (talk) 22:15, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Ahhh, yes, I see what you mean now. The implication didn't occur to me, but thanks for spotting it. As discussed previously, I am working on writing up some up to date guidance on user templates, their design and usage. I am trying to do it in a way that:

1. Brings together the guidance of Wikipedia:WikiProject user warnings.
2. Illustrates how they should be used (making the distinction between vandalism and disruptive editing)
3. Incorporates the table currently found at WP:WARN and the detailed views at Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace/Multi-level templates etc
4. Fits in with the current page names
5. Is easier to navigate

It's very early days, but my preliminary progress can be found at User:Pol430/Sandbox (follow the redirect) if you are interested Pol430 talk to me 22:31, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Do we need a specific edit war template

The 3rr template is currently the template we use for edit wars. However it doesn't cover slow motion edit wars very well where although there is clearly an edit war there is no possibility of any user breaking 3RR. Obviously slow motion edit wars are still edit wars and can, and do, still result in blocks but the emphasis of this template is so much on 3RR that it barely covers slower edit wars. So, do we need a more general edit war template as well. (I can't believe this hasn't been discussed before but I couldn't find any previous discussion in the archives). Dpmuk (talk) 00:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

At the moment, we do not have any template that covers slow-motion edit warring. The 3rr template does state the policy on edit warring in general, but it puts the emphasis on 3rr even in situations where that rule doesn't apply. So I think the creation of a template to specifically cover slo-mo edit warring is in order. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:32, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

• I have created a series for disruptive editing which can be found in the table at WP:WARN. They are designed to be a general disruptive editing template, but they focus on content disputes, which is essentially what a slow-mo edit war is. Pol430 talk to me 22:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

warning levels for Template:Uw-coi?

Template:Uw-coi right now is a welcome paired with a warning, which is good for a new user who has not been alerted to WP:COI before. It doesn't seem as appropriate for an older user who has been warned about COI before. Is there perhaps a Uw-coi2, Uw-coi3, Uw-coi4-type template I'm overlooking, or if there is not one, might this be something that would be a useful addition? Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 15:42, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

It's intended as a single-level template. COI edits, without more, are always good-faith edits. The user may be ignoring COI rules in bad faith, though. Because COI issues are complicated, and not "per se" evident from the edit alone, successive and progressive warnings are probably not helpful. It would be better, after a warning, to start a thread at WP:COI/N right away to resolve the issue, I'd expect. Do you think differently? --Bsherr (talk) 17:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I think Uw-coi could at a minimum stand to have an alternate version which doesn't include a welcome for use with editors who have already received a welcome. For the other levels, I was thinking they would be appropriate for cases where the COI is accompanied by breach of policies or guidelines, particularly NPOV. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 20:59, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Conflicts of interest do not preclude an editor from editing those articles in which they have the conflict. The editor with the conflict ought to declare it. But, even if they do not, what is required of them is to be extra vigilant in ensuring that their edits are neutral and balanced. Thus, I agree with Bsherr that an escalating version of {{uw-coi}} is not necessary. If the person’s edits are violating WP:NPOV, then the escalating series that begins with {{uw-npov1}} should be applied thereafter. An Administrator reviewing their editing behaviour would see not only the COI warning, but the subsequent NPOV, etc., warnings as well. You may, as Bsherr mentions, report such an editor at the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard (shortcut → WP:COIN). — SpikeToronto 21:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't intend to downplay the problem COI poses. I agree that a "Welcome to Wikipedia" message for COI on a user editing with bias is inappropriate. But NPOV is usually more easily proved and more serious to the integrity of our content than COI, so if you've got an NPOV issue with COI, pursue the progressive warnings with NPOV (COI is the "lesser included offense" when you've got a bias problem). If the bias stops but there's still a COI problem, then "Welcome to Wikipedia" may actually be productively conciliatory. If this seems like a good approach, we can document it somewhere.

If the other issue is not bias, the user may actually be deserving of a good-faith assumption regarding the COI, even if the user has earned a bad-faith assumption regarding the other conduct. It wouldn't be appropriate to assume a user is intentionally disregarding COI just because they're intentionally contravening another guideline. That may seem a trivial nuance when dealing with vandalizing edits, but since warnings firstly are to be corrective, this approach of assuming good faith compartmentally is more productive to winning users back if possible.

What do you think? --Bsherr (talk) 16:45, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I think Bsherr has put it well. Conflicts of interest do not necessarily mean that one edits in a non-neutral way. Also, so often the editors who appear to have a conflict of interest are brand new Wikipedians. Thus, we need to balance not wanting to bite the newbies with informing them of our polices regarding conflicts of interest and neutrality. We do not want to drive away someone who otherwise might prove to be an asset to the project. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 21:13, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Most of the COI I seem to come across is from professional corporate spammers, the agents of political candidates, and the publicits of upcoming new authors. There is no way these SPA are going to become regular Wikipedians. A warm welcome is displaced, and I usually go straight to L2 or write my own warning. I think it should be possible to have two L1 warnings: one without a welcome for the obvious spammers, and one for the newbies who just don't yet understand the policies. There is over-emphasis here at Wikipedia that every new page creator is a potential new, regular Wikipedian. Kudpung (talk) 11:20, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

And how is it that your radar is so finely tuned that you can tell the difference between, for example, a political staffer and a political fan? I, and, I hazard to guess, the rest of us, are not possessed of such fine instruments. Wikipedia does not prevent, for example, fans of certain musical groups from creating articles about the object of their enthusiasm, nor would it prevent fans of certain politicians/writers/companies/etc. from creating pages about the object of their enthusiasm. All that is asked of any of them is that, on balance, the article be written from a neutral point of view and that it not promote the politician/writer/company/etc. about which they are writing. — SpikeToronto 19:13, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

P.S.  I do, however, think — and I may be burned at the stake as a heterodox for saying this — that you may have a point with your last comment: “There is over-emphasis … regular Wikipedian.” — SpikeToronto 19:13, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Kudpung, the levels in user warning series don't refer to first warning, second warning, etc. Rather, they correspond to the assumption of faith. A level one warning is only for good faith editors. See WP:WARN. But the question becomes whether, for the bad-faith editors you describe, using a different warning, like npov or advert or spam, would simply be better and more efficient. Would you use a COI warning instead of any of the former? --Bsherr (talk) 19:23, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Template:Uw-softerblock

What makes this template any different than Template:Uw-ublock? HeyMid (contribs) 19:07, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Softerblock is just for WP:ORGNAME contraventions. Ublock is for any contravention of the user name policy. --Bsherr (talk) 21:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Template:Uw-patrolled

I would never use this template. Maybe it's Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars talking, but when I see an editor taking on the tedious and often thankless task of new page patrolling, I always do them the courtesy of a personalized note. It hardly takes more time and is much friendlier, which may encourage them in their patrolling activities. Using a 'warning' template on someone who is correctly exercising standard deletion policy while disregarding a relatively new feature seems unduly harsh to me. Feezo (Talk) 07:45, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I totally agree. However, it is absolutely necessary to remind many NP patrollers to mark pages they look at and tag or pass as 'patrolled'. However, this template text is grossly impolite, and may even discourage users from continuing to carry out this fundamentally important task. It needs rewording, and the 'warning' style level 2 header taking off it. We shouldn't be serving up official, filter alerting warninsg to editors who are basically just doing what they are supposed to do. How about:

Hi {{pagename}}. Thanks for all your help patroling new pages - a fundamental system of first-line defence against unwanted pages, and for tagging new articles desperately in need of attention. However, do please remember to click the ''''mark this page as patrolled'''' link to prevent the page from continuing to be listed. Not doing so can cause problems for bots that are also doing various clean ups and indexing. Thanks again for volunteering your time at NPP, check up on exactly what NPP is all about at the [[WP:NPP|New Page Patrol project]], and happy editing! ~~~~

Kudpung (talk) 15:29, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

While that would be a nice personal message, elements of personal style should be left out of uw templates. I'd expect someone receiving this warning wouldn't need a description of new page patrolling either. I agree with changing the tone of the template. Perhaps make it more concise? --Bsherr (talk) 15:34, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect, I am suggesting that this should not be considered a warning at all, even if it is served up by Twinkle automation. A fundamental policy at Wikipedia is that we should not frighten people away from wanting to be of help, particularly in some urgent areas of quasi administrative work. The above is an example of the type of personalised messages I use anyway. As per User:Feezo, I always do them the courtesy of a personalized note - because of this accusatory template. And that, if you don't wish to change it, makes this uncivil 'warning' redundant. Ironically, (because I've done the research) most New Page patrollers have never bothered to read the instructions at WP:NPP at all, and many of them are very new to Wikipedia and think they have to begin by doing some admin`style tasks. That's why we have so many problems with it and why I have instigated the new, additional system that is now up and running at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol#Back of the unpatrolled backlog. Kudpung (talk) 16:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC) BTW, we recently have some editors suggesting that it is not necessary at all to have a set of guidelines for NPP - it beggars belief!

I think you might be confused by the terminology. If it is a template used on a user talk page to deliver a message about the user's activity, for Wikipedia purposes, it's a warning. Warning doesn't mean bad faith or bad conduct. Or are you suggesting the template be deleted? --Bsherr (talk) 17:25, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Several good points here. I like Kudpung's version better than what we have, though Bsherr's points are well taken too. How about:

Hi {{pagename}}. Thank you for your help with patroling new pages. However, do please remember to click the ''''mark this page as patrolled'''' link to prevent the page from continuing to be listed. This saves time and work by informing fellow patrollers of your review of the page so that they do not duplicate efforts. Thanks again for volunteering your time at the [[WP:NPP|New Page Patrol project]].~~~~

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kubigula (talk) 20:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think I'm confused, neither am I suggesting the template be deleted. It's currently a warning, but IMO it needs very strongly rewording as a friendly request. The point is that we have here two editors who are stating that the template is unfriendly, and they won't use it. I can't understand why there is suddenly so much resistance to wanting to be friendly. Please point me to the policy that says we can't use elements of personal style and be friendly and encouraging, most especially when it concerns our volunteers at NPP. Kudpung (talk) 21:54, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Kubigula's wording seems fine to me, a vast improvement on the tone of the current template. Pol430 talk to me 21:57, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

(To Kudpung)- I think we have consensus here that the existing wording is too harsh, and I don't think there is resistance to making it more friendly. That being said, we want templates to be as broadly useful as possible so I thought the language ought to be a bit more general. That is, neither assuming the person had been doing a lot of NPP (thanking them for "all their help") nor that they were unfamiliar with the purpose of NPP.--Kubigula (talk) 23:11, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Ugggg. I created this template back in April 208 but its message has been bowdlerized in subsequent edits. It was far more friendly as I drafted it, and most critically, I attempted to design it so that those who didn't do the things necessary to mark a page as patrolled, wouldn't feel it was asking them to mark a page as patrolled even if they hadn't taken on those tasks, or if they didn't have the knowledge to patrol a page fully. Its current message that "all articles that you have looked at should be marked patrolled" is awful; exactly what we shouldn't be asking. This language is qualifiedn subsequent language but it will give the wrong idea to many. The template as I left it said:

Hello. I noticed that you are doing a good deal of newpages patrolling but are not marking the majority of pages you visit as patrolled. Though this is not mandatory in any way, and should not be done for all newpages, where appropriate it keeps your fellow patrollers from wasting time reviewing the same page multiple times. In any event, keep up the good work! Thanks.

I would tweak this today in various ways, including being far more explicit about not marking pages as patrolled if the necessary tasks had not been done or if they weren't yet experienced to know what tasks need to be done. The fact that it has "uw" in its name in irrelevant to whether it is truly a "warning" or not. That comes from the content, which not incidentally, starts with an information icon, not a warning icon. I agree, though, that it now reads as far more of a warning than it did. As for not templating the regulars, most of those to whom this template will be applicable will not be regulars. Brand new users doing NPP is nothing new or unusual.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:15, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

• Back in my non-admin days I did old-school RC patrol, just loading recent changes and looking for anything suspect. Somebody dropped this template on me once and I explained to them that I didn't consider myself a new page patroller and had never even looke dinto the whole "official" patrolling thing. Despite what is suggested by the template it is actually not required to work within the formal patrol structure. I'm not knocking it, I just never did it myself and users are free to not do it by the formula if they want to. The template language should be softened to reflect that. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Recap:

1. There are no Wikipedia policies that clearly state that reminder templates of this kind should have snarky wording, and none that state that reminders like these can't be worded in a more friendly manner.
2. NPP is a fundamental first-line defence against unwanted pages, and a system for flagging new pages in need of much/urgent attention.
3. NPP is done by a lot of new/inexperienced editors
4. NP patrollers have rarely read any instructions at all
5. NP patrollers are often not aware of the WP:NPP project and its GL.(the cat of users wearing a NPP ubox is not identical with the list of registered participants at WP:NPP, many users have simply copied the ubox from other editors' user pages.
6. Too many new pages are not being patrolled at all. Up to 350 pages per day slip into the Wikipedia unnoticed. They are all in poor condition because the NP patrollers didn't know what to do with them.
7. NPP is only worth doing if it is done reasonably well - we experienced users are not supposed to be double checking the work of the patrollers. (well, theoretically not, but I do, and I detect about 10% error rate in the tagging, and a much higher rate of tagging without clicking the 'patrolled' button.)
8. There is no point in tagging if the 'click this page as patrolled' is not clicked, because it means that we have to do the work for them again.
9. Given that NPP is done by many young editors and newbies, we should encourage rather than WP:BITE them.
10. Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol#Back of the unpatrolled backlog is a new feature that has been approved partly because of the imperfections in the new Page patrolling.
11. We should be encouraging users not only to take part in the NPP process, but if they are going to do it at all, to do it reasonably intelligently like they would (we hope) take part in any other semi-administrative task. We should not be scaring them away with insensitive warnings.

Kudpung (talk) 13:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there's much disagreement here. Warnings can be phrased as requests. (Definitionally, if it's not a warning, it doesn't belong in WP:WARN, though. That's why I thought you might be confusing the terminology.) The level one warning in a user warning template series often is. It's not a matter of policy that user warning templates don't have elements of personal style, it's a matter of practicality. Standardization means that the template has to be phrased generally enough to be acceptable for everyone. So we tend to leave out "howdy" and "cheerio" and "happy editing" in favor of simple "please and "thank you". That's all. It doesn't mean the template can't be phrased politely; indeed, we strive to do so. What do you think of Kubigula's proposed revision? --Bsherr (talk) 22:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Part of the reason that this is such a sticky topic is there are several messages we have to be able to convey. First, someone might not be aware of the patrol featured at all, or, as Beeblebrox experienced, they might not consider themselves to be newpage patrolling at all. The second problem is that incorrect use of the patrol feature is counterproductive, and proper use has some subtleties. All this has to be conveyed in a template for someone who is otherwise doing a good job. I think the key is to present it "thanks for the work you've been doing, now here's a way to help out even more", rather than "thanks your work, by the way you're not finishing the job". We should also add something like "if you'd rather not use this feature, please disregard this message". Apart from these details, Kubigula's version looks fine. Feezo (Talk) 06:45, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I beg to differ, Bsherr. Even the Copyvio (a serious Wiki crime) warning ends with 'Happy editing!' Twinkle even puts a smarmy welcome before many of the L1 warnings, such as vandalism (although there is a lobby to drop that idiosyncrasy), so I have to insert my vandalism warnings manually. It's a fallacy to believe that the writers of blatant vandalism of the most crude kind will ever become a net benefit to the Wikipedia. You should try working on the thousands of schools pages, where vandalim is a constant battle! I think my suggestion is best, but that's natural, I'm currently running the new NPP 30-day system, and trying to revive the totally dead NPP project page;) NPP is broken (consensus), and some of us are trying our best to repair it, and we feel that we should encourage NPPers to read the GL and do the task more thoroughly. My version:

• Doesn't reprimand
• Thanks them for their work
• Explains why it's necessary
• Encourages them to continue
• Uses a familiar tone that may appeal to 12 year olds, while not shocking the 60 year olds like me.

I'll just mention incentives here too. Part of the problem is that the original creator of the NPP system way back in 2006 allowed it to be done by any autoconfirmed editors (4 days & 10 edits). We could address this problem by tightening up the baisc editor requirements. However, I feel that it's not a totally bad idea to offer youngsters and newbies an area of quasi-admin work where they can operate that will help them feel more part of the Wikipedia project. It's difficult to offer other incentives such as barnstars as we do for other backlog projects such as uBLP and GOCE, because it would simply encourage the youngsters to start their drive-by tagging contests again. Therefore this reminder template is one step in the right direction.

I'd probably settle for:

Hi {{pagename}}. Thanks for patrolling new pages. If you have tagged a page for attention or deletion, or if you feel it basically meets [[WP:NPP#Improving new pages|our requirements]] without further ado, please click the ''''mark this page as patrolled'''' link to prevent the page from being listed by bots and duplicating the efforts of the others. Happy editing! ~~~~

Short and sweet, it covers all the points I have made above.Kudpung (talk) 06:41, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I tried to find the copyright violation template you mentioned with the colloquial message, but couldn't. Template:Uw-copyright doesn't appear to be the one. Could you identify it by name? --Bsherr (talk) 00:30, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Is it Template:Nothanks-drm? That's a deprecated "TestTemplate". I've redirected it. --Bsherr (talk) 00:33, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

No, it's on the one that automatically blanks the page and notifies the WP:COPYVIO center: {{subst:copyvio | url=insert URL here}}, on it the message template to copy and paste to the user's tp: {{subst:Nothanks-web|pg=|url=insert URL here}}. Kudpung (talk) 04:10, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

You must mean {{Copyvio}} then. — SpikeToronto 07:02, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

BTW: I've always felt that there a re two camps at Wikipedia (and it comes from my participation in various policy development): One that wants everything to read like an official notice on the wall of the immigration department, and one that wants to make everything oily sweet and smarmy. IMHO, every single uw template needs systematically revising to achieve the correct degree and balance of language for each level of reminder, warning, and kind of warning. We're too soft on L1 and L2 warnings for incorrigible vandals, and regularly uncivil and/or disruptive editors - just for example, and too harsh with reminders for totally innocuous forgetfulness, or innocent ignorance of the rules.Kudpung (talk) 04:20, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Kudpung, I cannot figure out how to give effect to your L1/L2 suggestion without having two of each: L1harsh/L2harsh and L1soft/L2soft. As I read most of the warning templates that I apply, the L1 templates — because they assume good faith — are softer and more welcoming than the L2 templates. The L2 templates — because they do not assume good faith — are not so welcoming. So, if one thinks that a vandal is incorrigible regularly uncivil, and/or disruptive, start your warning at Level 2. As Bsherr said above:

…the levels in user warning series don't refer to first warning, second warning, etc. Rather, they correspond to the assumption of faith. A level one warning is only for good faith editors. See WP:WARN.[1]

Otherwise, perhaps I misunderstood, but how can we have a L1 or L2 template that is both less harsh for some and less soft for others unless we have two series for each? My fear would be that such a template would end up saying nothing trying so to balance the two. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 07:02, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

In relation to the patrolled template, and at risk of rebuke, I have amended the template text, to a version similar to User:Kubigula's version (with a slight copy edit) Pol430 talk to me 09:42, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, the reminder about the use of uw template levels was another example of remonstrating with people who already know their job ;) The whole point of this discussion - which seems to have got lost - was that this is not about a warning at all. It's a gentle reminder to do something better that the editor is probably not doing too badly already.

Pol430, With all due respect, I think we should have waited until the discussion had progressed a bit further - consensus building is a core Wikipedia policy.

Obviously if we can't close ranks on this I'll just continue to use my own custom messages even if it takes more time than Twinkle. My concern is that we keep the people we've got on NPP that has already reached such a worrying level of disfunctionality that I've instigated a new bot process to work around it temporarily. I don't want us to lose those people through thoughtless application of a scowl and a wagging finger, but they do have to be directed towards the guidelines that they haven't bothered to read yet. And I certainly don't want this to end up in an edit war over the text of a template. Kudpung (talk) 13:58, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I think Pol430 did the right thing. We seem to be in a bit of a circular discussion here, while the old version of the template - which we all seem to agree was unsatisfactory - remained in use. Certainly nobody should edit war over the language, but anyone can edit it until we reach a consensus version - that's the wiki way.--Kubigula (talk) 16:51, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

So I will also be doing the right thing when I now revert Pol's unilateral edit. Do we really want the Wikipedia to be filled up with crap new pages because we are not prepared to give NPP a fresh kick start in the right direction? We need to understand what that template is for, whom it addresses, and the long term implications. We need something friendly and encouraging, and if it can't be handled here, we can take it to Central Discussions and we might get a decision in 2 years. Kudpung (talk) 17:46, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

It would only be the right thing to revert Pol if you strongly felt the previous version of the template was much better - which is obviously not the case. The new version is clearly more friendly and encouraging than what we had before, and it's really not very different than what you proposed. With respect, I think you may be making this a bigger deal than it is.--Kubigula (talk) 18:18, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

IMHO, I consider his action an affront to all the preceding discussion which he had obviously not read, and totally counter-productive to the Wikipedia collaborative spirit where several possible versions have already been suggested, including your own which was already vastly superior. Kudpung (talk) 04:08, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

@Kudpung, I think you are taking this somewhat out of context. Firstly I have read this discussion from beginning to end, and noted tacit agreement for Kugibula's version. If you would care to do the same you will see some support for Kubigula's version from me, Feezo, Bsheer, and of course Kubigula. You mention that Kubigula's version was "vastly superior". However, my edit was a copy and paste of that version, which I then tweaked very slightly. Please indicate how my actions rendered it "vastly inferior". You accuse me of not collaborating and flying in the face of consensus when the opposite is true. I'm not surprised that you do not support my edit, but I could see no measure of support for your proposed version. Furthermore, I don't particularly care if you revert my edit, but the template has been improved since that edit by User:Fuhghettaboutit. This discussion had become rather circular (as Kubigula has already mentioned) that's why I made the change. Pol430 talk to me 10:46, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not bothered in the slightest that there was no support for my suggestion. It was deliberately a little OTT to allow a margin for scale back to something that would still be acceptable. What I'm more concerned about is that the template architects take a moment to look at the bigger picture. You template text is only a small cog in a big wheel at NPP, but nevertheless an important one. It's a template that's probably only ever been used twenty times in it's entire history, but in the coming weeks and months, it (or more probably one like it) is going to be used almost every time a patroller fails to click the 'patrolled' link, and that's most of the time. IT just won't work in Twinkle, that's all.--Kudpung (talk) 13:24, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Possible warning level changes

Here are my proposed user warning changes:

L1-L4: See the first topic. BlockWL1: Used for the first warning after a user has come off a block. BlockWL2: See above. BlockWL3: See above. BlockWLFinal: Used for a final warning.

Eventually after 3 times of having to use the BlockWL templates, dust place something like this on the user's talk page:

This user is a repeat vandal. Please be hyper vigilant of this user's edits. To have the ruling reversed, please contact the Arbitration Committee.

GrammarSpellingWatch (talk) 19:26, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

The whole thing seems too heavy-handed at the end with the "repeat vandal" flag (and who is to prevent the repeat vandal from removing it themselves?), and additionally, if someone continues to vandalize after coming off of a block, I just re-block them without warning, since if they haven't gotten the point after 3+ warnings and a previous block, I don't know what else to do for them to get them to understand it other than telling them that perhaps they should contribute elsewhere on the Internet for a while. SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

It just adds another layer of bureaucracy. And we try to WP:Avoid the word "vandal" and unnecessarily stigmatizing users with templates. When a user comes off a block, it's a new opportunity to edit in good faith. If the user fails to do so, the remedy, better than a template, is a progressively longer or perhaps indefinite block. --Bsherr (talk) 22:00, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

On the subject of this I am currently in the process of writing a draft that aims to bring the subject of user warning's under one umbrella (mostly taken from this project and the user warnings project). With the aim of addressing issues such as:

• Not labeling disruptive editing as vandalism.
• Bringing in a recognised behavioral guideline on the design of user warning templates.
• Ensuring that abusive editing that is not halted by warnings, is reported to the correct venue.

Preliminary work can be seen at User:Pol430/Sandbox/User talk namespace. I invite comments and suggestions on changes. Either here or on my talk page Pol430 talk to me 09:54, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Warning templates from may to will

Why can't the warning templates and other templates be changed from may back to will? WayneSlam 20:33, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

The use of "may" recognizes that a level 4 warning is not necessarily always followed by a block. Usually this is the case when a warning has gone stale. This also avoids tying admins' hands when it comes to blocks. In practice, it has been the case many times where users have been warned up to a level 4 warning, and then the warning goes stale (even with not that long of a gap), and then a user is given a level 1 warning, effectively restarting the process without a block, even though a block was promised earlier. It makes us look somewhat foolish if we don't deliver the promised block, and leaves room for discretion on the part of admins. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:13, 28 January 2011 (UTC)