Wikipedia talk:WikiProject User warnings

Older comments have been archived. See December 2005 archive or the Archives main page.

Joining the group

I've only been vandal fighting for about a month, but I definitely see the value in this. Are we trying out templates on here and then moving them to the project page? How is this working? Asking because each Wikiproject is a bit different. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 15:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's pretty much it. Following the template creation guidelines (see /Documentation), we create and discuss templates here and move it to the Project page when we get consensus. Welcome to the WikiProject. :) // Pathoschild 09:25, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. This is my 328th WikiProject. Not really. :) But close! :) --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 09:37, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template creation

{{s/test}} series

I've created preliminary versions of the {{s/test}} series, aimed at general or unspecified vandalism. They're in much need of improvement, though. Further, I don't know if "test" is a very good name for them (since they stopping assuming it was a test after test0). Any thoughts? // Pathoschild 11:43, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't 'nonsense' overly strong? I'm guessing that this warning might be sent to someone who is having genuine repeated difficulties getting a grip with Wikipedia. Even if not, 'nonsense' might come across as provocative. Crosbie 12:39, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Above comment moved from Wikipedia talk:Wikiproject user warnings/test2. Yep, it is. If you look at the new proposals in the sandbox, you'll see they're very differently worded, such that users can choose between tones for each individual case. // Pathoschild 13:36, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Wikipedia:WikiProject User warnings

This probably should be moved to the above page, as the de facto standard form has a capital "P" in "project" and the first word after the word "WikiProject" capitalized. Not that it's paticularly important, but I figured I'd mention it. Blackcap (talk) 07:41, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've made that a redirect to the WikiProject. Moving would involve moving all the subpages, so it's not really worth the trouble. Thanks for pointing that out. // Pathoschild 13:55, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Icon to use for block messages

IMO, this icon () is associated with an action the user takes, and should only be used in warnings, while this icon () denotes an action taken against the user, and should be used in block messages. This is what I have been advocating with the legacy templates recently. FWIW, I created the second icon. -- Denelson 83 09:05, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you changing that in the legacy templates, but I don't think the same reasons apply to changing the symbol in the standardised templates. For one, blocks are almost always temporary; the stop hand applies just as well in this context as it does as a road sign. The symbol succintly summmarises the point of the block, which is to stop vandalism; the octagon warning symbol instead focuses on the fact of the block itself. For another, the standardised messages may not use the stop hand symbol on warnings (such as {{test4-n}} does), since repeated stop hands across a talk page without a block erodes trust in the administrator intervention process. I can see the need to distinguish standardised block messages from legacy templates filled with stop hand symbols; however, I think the colourful box surrounding the block notices does that quite well. // Pathoschild 15:50, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Undesirability of Stock Responses Between Humans

I discovered the existence of this category of warnings in a template deletion vote, and realized that I object to them on principle. These messages are apparently designed to be placed on user talk pages—which to my mind is somewhat the equivalent of email—a place where one person is writing another person. It's my sense that automating these messages is going to lead to a mechanistic and alienating experience for those who receive them.

The cases being specifically discussed in TFD were related to regal styles, a la Template:Styles3. The scenario I found in my head was: "An enthusiast of British royalty makes several well-intentioned edits to an article, one of which was to add the honorific styles". I think the existence of a boilerplate response encourages a dehumanizing attitude in dealing with such a person which might overlook the positive changes he has made. It would likely make those posting the warning to not feel the need to browse the person's user page in order to preface their remarks with a friendly and contextually-appropriate greeting.

Right now wiki is a very uniform medium, and there is no question that getting more structure and standardization to information is good. Yet I really think the user-to-user communication is a different endeavor from the rest of the encyclopedia, and different rules should apply. We have the power to link and reference, which is an excellent tool that can be employed in giving someone a useful heads-up to policy. But I'm concerned that in the sensitive domain of "warning" people that a wall-of-templates isn't healthy. It's sort of like "talk to the hand" (metaphorically, if not literally using the graphic). Metaeducation 22:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The templates provide several different kinds of flexibility (content, level) for doing the same repetitive task. In the course of a normal week I'm probably dealing with vandalism a few hundred times and using templates a good portion of those out of sheer necessity for time. No one complains that the {{welcome}} templates are too impersonal. I'm less likely to be even nicer to those who are being disruptive. Wikibofh_(talk) 23:08, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that administrating wikipedia is a complex and time-consuming process. Yet though no one complains about the welcome templates, does anyone particularly praise them? Are there metrics to support that these are bringing people in the fold, relative to what a personal response might do? I'm sure these warnings "work" at some level, to the perception of those who employ them—from intimidation if nothing else. And surely the types of people who would be reading policy pages (such as this one) will carry bias to say they must therefore be good. Which is why I'm trying to suggest a broader perspective on the issue, based at least a bit on principle (one other than "let's save time"). Metaeducation 23:25, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't do a lot of welcome, and I have had at least one person be very thankful. Those on the welcoming committee might know better. I'm not sure how we would go about generating metrics. The warnings "work" in that they provide a process/audit trail to allow everyone to see that those thare are the most accountable (administrators, and yes I generally believe that) are being fair at trying to let people know what behaviour is expected. Also, my concern isn't "let's save time" but more, "let's use time effeciently". I spend more time on vandalism duty than "positive contributions" (and in all fairness, that is a personal choice) but, wikihours are a finite resource, we should try to choose wisely how we want them spent. As an aside, I welcome the broader perspective and philosphical/principle questions. Thanks for bringing them here. Wikibofh_(talk) 00:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you appreciate the merit of the question, thanks for saying so. I realize that vandalism is a separate issue, and in fact the vote on TFD (link) is about that precise distinction—someone putting in full royal titles does not count as a vandal and might deserve the greater caution/courtesy I describe. As this arose in the voting on this particular set of templates, it doubtless will arise again. Maybe there should be some stated guidance to curb the tendency to make a large number of these template user warnings, or to tag them with enough information so the affected users can feel they are less...automatic? Metaeducation 00:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about an optional field for free text that will show up inside boxes? For instance when I did this block with test5-n, I went back to personalize it, and there seemed to be a positive impact. I think the templates are too important and useful not to use, but now that optional parameters are possible, perhaps we could set that up to personalize them a little? Wikibofh_(talk) 17:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to discuss that here, and we'll join in with interest if you do. However, serious community input to the effect of abolishing user warning templates would be best found at the Wikipedia:Village pump. Wikipedia policy is discussed there, and there is a very large audience there to join into such discussions. The audience here is much smaller, and the scope of the WikiProject extends only as far as standardising and organising user warning templates.
Such personalisation as described by Wikibofh above is already one of the WikiProject's goals and is already present in the standardised templates. A good example is the now-completed series of block templates. The reason for the block is highly customisable; you can have entire paragraphs of explanatory text if you so wish. Further, there's a parameter for the user's signature that also serves as a place for free text added after the block message. Very high personalisation is an important goal of the WikiProject; feel free to point out ways to extend it. // Pathoschild 23:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]