FANDOM


(Allow non-admins to issue warnings?)
(Allow non-admins to issue warnings?)
Line 55: Line 55:
   
 
::I for one support allowing non-admins to administer warning. In my tenure as a non-admin, too many times I saw a need for a warning, although I haven't given it out to the offenders as I was not an admin, instead settling for a note reminding the user. [[User:Mathetesalexandrou|<span style="color:#00CC33">MILK FOR THE UNYUUFEX, </span><span style="color:#00AADD">FLAT CHEST FOR THE CUTENESS THRONE, </span><span style="color:#88AAAA">SKULLS FOR THE SKULL PROBES </span>]] ([[user talk:Mathetesalexandrou]]) 19:43, October 29, 2013 (UTC)
 
::I for one support allowing non-admins to administer warning. In my tenure as a non-admin, too many times I saw a need for a warning, although I haven't given it out to the offenders as I was not an admin, instead settling for a note reminding the user. [[User:Mathetesalexandrou|<span style="color:#00CC33">MILK FOR THE UNYUUFEX, </span><span style="color:#00AADD">FLAT CHEST FOR THE CUTENESS THRONE, </span><span style="color:#88AAAA">SKULLS FOR THE SKULL PROBES </span>]] ([[user talk:Mathetesalexandrou]]) 19:43, October 29, 2013 (UTC)
  +
  +
::: I personally feel similar to most admins here. I think that it should be fair that users who aren't admins can still give warnings to other users although it does have its downsides. Users may take this tool for granted and overuse it on users who've barely done anything wrong. Other that that I think that it would be handy for users to show off their quick eye to spot things. {{JasonSignature}}
   
 
==Split warning templates into separate templates==
 
==Split warning templates into separate templates==

Revision as of 11:00, October 30, 2013

Replacement filing cabinet
Archives

Resolved discussions by year
2010 · 2011 · 2012 · 2013


Mr.Conductor

Mr.Conductor (talk · contribs · editcount · block · modify rights · logs · block log) hasn't shown any interest in being a constructive user, having gotten banned from chat and blocked in very short order. What should we do if he comes back after his block and does the same things? Also, do you think his userpage is inappropriate, aside from being gibberish? Dharden (talk) 15:13, October 6, 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps we could wait for another or two last chances with extended blocks if he starts to vandalize again after his block expires. As for his userpage, I say we should blank it. Nikel Talk Vote! 12:19, October 7, 2013 (UTC)
I agree with blanking his userpage, but didn't want to do it unilaterally, especially since he was starting to get on my nerves. Dharden (talk) 12:57, October 7, 2013 (UTC)
Userpage is blanked. Dharden (talk) 13:51, October 7, 2013 (UTC)

Unblocking User:Carman39?

Ten months ago, Carman39 (talk · contribs · editcount · block · modify rights · logs · block log) was blocked as he claimed to be underage. Recently, he left a message on my talk page claiming he's not really underage. He said it was his brother's doing, and now he asked if he could be unblocked. I don't understand why he made the claim 10 months after the incident, while he's been active at Simpsons Fanon wiki. He has been blocked twice before due to his behavior, and if those two blocks were caused by his brother as well, he's got an issue where his brother could interfere at any time and we can't tell who's behind the account. Otherwise, we could put that aside.

There's no other clue to hint his age either, other than the claim. He's been in several wikis, but he never hinted his age. I'm not sure what to decide with this one. Nikel Talk Vote! 03:54, October 8, 2013 (UTC)

Not to put too fine a point on it, we have an anon who says he is the real Carman39. The Carman39 account has been active recently enough that info on the IP address(es) it uses should still be available to Wikia. So I think a checkuser is in order, to see if it's likely that 86.133.150.73 and Carman39 could be the same person. Also, as noted, even if all that he said is true, we can't be sure that only he has control of the account. Dharden (talk) 12:31, October 8, 2013 (UTC)
Ah, I clearly overlooked that part, Dharden. I jumped to conclusions too soon, I suppose. If checkuser is required, then so be it. Nikel Talk Vote! 15:53, October 8, 2013 (UTC)
Wikia typically won't do checkusers between a user and a known IP address (because that could confirm the users' IP). Back to the user... he claims that his brother has taken control of his account, thus indicating that he does not have and cannot maintain control over it. That's a serious issue and I think he should remain blocked. -- LostInRiverview talk ~ blog 16:04, October 8, 2013 (UTC)
I didn't know that. Under the circumstances, "is the anon who he says he is?" seemed a reasonable question. Dharden (talk) 16:50, October 8, 2013 (UTC)
We haven't made a conclusion yet, but I feel like we'be been running in circles... How do we know if the anon and the user are the same person? What will we do if they are the same person? For what reason should we unblock the user? Should we just trust the anon's words regarding the user's age in case they're the same person? Nikel Talk Vote! 12:46, October 9, 2013 (UTC)

User:JenniferJLyons, User:DannyREmersons and User:PatrickKBrooks

These accounts have done nothing in this wiki other than spamming external links to each of their userpages. The links are also very similar (in fact, they are pointed to one page called "Green Works Propane") which we can easily conclude that they're sockpuppets. Other important thing is that the three accounts have similar username patterns (*First name**Caps Middle initial**Last name*). A few days back, Nikel had taken a first step in blocking the second account, and notified the first one (which was never responded). A few moments back, I caught the third account posted another similar link to his/her userpage. What I want to discuss is, do we need to block the first account? Because so far they haven't caused any damage to this wiki (other than spamming links). --Frostwalker Talk to me! 08:04, October 14, 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure the user is just here to spam. They didn't do it just in this wiki, but also in other wikis. I think it's pretty obvious that they're the same person. If their purpose is to spam, I wouldn't hesitate to give JenniferJLyons a permanent block, as they don't seem to have good intention here. Nikel Talk Vote! 08:38, October 14, 2013 (UTC)
That's the point. If their intentions were only to post spam links, I'd rather end this now before they even have the chance to create another account. --Frostwalker Talk to me! 14:48, October 14, 2013 (UTC)
JenniferJLyons is permanently blocked. Dharden (talk) 16:03, October 14, 2013 (UTC)

Allow non-admins to issue warnings?

I've been wondering if we should loosen or eliminate our prohibition against non-admins using the {{Warning}} template.

We ask non-admins to participate in anti-spam and anti-vandalism actions, especially our rollbackers (so much so, in fact, that having anti-vandalism history is a qualification for applying). However, we don't give them any tools to correct those behaviors, aside from contacting an administrator or leaving a non-templated warning. Ultimately, I worry that having a restriction against non-admin use of the Warning template serves to discourage non-admins from addressing problem users, when instead we should be encouraging this (in a reasonable sense, of course).

So, I'm proposing that we strip out the rule that only administrators can use the Warning template. I can understand some hesitation to this idea, especially as it concerns possible abuse of the template. However, I'm sure that we will be able to handle any problem users that choose to abuse it.

If nothing else, I strongly support extending the right to issue warnings to Rollbackers at least; if we entrust them with an anti-vandalism tool, why shouldn't we be able to trust them to issue warnings? I want to emphasize that I support extending this right to all users, not just rollbackers. However, I can understand there may be trepidation involved in doing so. -- LostInRiverview talk ~ blog 20:53, October 25, 2013 (UTC)

I'm okay with this. I've noticed there are different levels of warnings (like vandal1, vandal2 etc.) in the template. I do feel however that the level 4 warning (which essentially says you will be blocked if you do this again) should be restricted to administrators whilst encouraging non-admins to report vandalism should it get to that point and then an admin can act appropriately. This is mainly to discourage users immediately handing out "do this again and you'll be blocked" warnings unnecessarily. We'll probably have to reword some stuff anyway so I'm open to a compromise. Lost Labyrinth Flag united kingdom england (c)(b) 23:19, October 25, 2013 (UTC)
The basic low-level warning just mentions edits having been reverted. I think rollbackers should be able to use that. The you-will-be-blocked levels should be administrators-only. I'm not sure about the middle levels that warn that a block is possible, but don't say that it will happen. Dharden (talk) 23:49, October 25, 2013 (UTC)
I'll have no problem with this, since warnings are normally not just a few words that should be passed by administrators only. Allowing every users to be able to use this template seems a fine idea, but I'd suggest that we extend this ability to rollbacker first and see how effective this would be before handing this right to regular users as well. It's just a necessary precaution to avoid of abusing this. --Frostwalker Talk to me! 00:43, October 26, 2013 (UTC)
I'm a little concerned with the possibility of abuse, but I suppose giving the rollbackers the ability to warn will be worth it. They could use the level 1 warning as the standard usage of the template. It's just that the warning template has the "Notice from the Administrator" header. Perhaps it could be reworded. Nikel Talk Vote! 07:40, October 27, 2013 (UTC)
I've gone into the template and changed the wording a little bit to fix this problem. I've also mass-messaged all the (active) administrators who haven't entered this discussion yet, so we can come to a conclusion. -- LostInRiverview talk ~ blog 01:52, October 29, 2013 (UTC)
I'm feeling neutral towards the idea, leaning towards support. I share the same concerns with Nikel23 but I'm sure the rollbackers will be able to handle this. However, personally, I feel that it should only be extended to rollbackers as they have been issued with a tool, trusted by the community. We don't want non-rollbacker users causing havoc by misusing the template. Apart from that, I say I'm leaning towards support. Beds (parlare - da leggere) 09:38, October 29, 2013 (UTC)
I agree that we should give this ability only to rollbacks and, as Nikel said, they could use the level 1 warning as the standard usage of the template. I think there shouldn't be any problems, but if rollbackers would abuse it, they can also be punished if needed. Life just wouldn't be the same without the Sims! Talk 12:35, October 29, 2013 (UTC)

Ok, it seems evident that there is support for extending the use of the warning template to rollbackers. It seems most people don't want the rollbackers to use upper-level warnings (i.e. warnings which say that a user will be blocked if they continue), but what about the Level 2 warnings? These are a middle ground between the level 1 warning - which threatens no serious actions, and level 3, which threatens immediate action. The general tone of Level 2 warnings is that, a user is performing bad-faith edits which do not warrant a block right now, but which could if they continue.

I don't personally have an issue with allowing rollbackers to issue these warnings as well. As Beds said, these users have all been approved through an RfR process, so it's clear that they should be able to handle the responsibility of the warning template. As long as they don't explicitly threaten a block - which Level 2 does not - I don't see why they should be stopped from using it, as the situation warrants it.

One final note; I understand the caution towards extending these rights to non-admins, and I can agree with the limitations that have been discussed so far. But I want to stress that I think the risk of abuse of the warnings is pretty low, and easily correctable if it does occur. As it was stated, these users have already been vetted, so it seems like a good time to Assume Good Faith and trust that they'll be able to act responsibly. -- LostInRiverview talk ~ blog 12:54, October 29, 2013 (UTC)

Per LiR's explanation above, I think I'll agree about assuming good faith and trusting them in using this ability. Besides, there's nothing harm can come from using a simple warning (or notice) template in order to remind users of what their purpose is in here. --Frostwalker Talk to me! 15:01, October 29, 2013 (UTC)
I for one support allowing non-admins to administer warning. In my tenure as a non-admin, too many times I saw a need for a warning, although I haven't given it out to the offenders as I was not an admin, instead settling for a note reminding the user. MILK FOR THE UNYUUFEX, FLAT CHEST FOR THE CUTENESS THRONE, SKULLS FOR THE SKULL PROBES (user talk:Mathetesalexandrou) 19:43, October 29, 2013 (UTC)
I personally feel similar to most admins here. I think that it should be fair that users who aren't admins can still give warnings to other users although it does have its downsides. Users may take this tool for granted and overuse it on users who've barely done anything wrong. Other that that I think that it would be handy for users to show off their quick eye to spot things. Jason (Talk) {{{1}}}

Split warning templates into separate templates

When the {{Warning}} template was overhauled, it included a feature wherein a "standard" warning message and image are displayed if a certain parameter is entered into the <type> parameter. Admittedly, this system is somewhat complicated, since an administrator needs to know the various "magic words" that work within the parameters, or else needs to look them up, in order to use the template. On top of this, if we end up extending the use of Warnings to non-admins (as is being discussed in the section above this one), we'll be expecting these users to use the template, including the difficult <type> parameter.

For all these reasons, I think we would be better served in splitting the warnings up into multiple templates. In my mind, it would work like this:

The central {{Warning}} template would be a meta-template (similar to {{Metabox}} or {{Parthenon}}), in that it would contain a text entry and subject entry parameter - similar, in fact, to the old Warning style. The plain Warning could be placed on a user's talk page, and it would essentially serve as a custom warning if none of the standard warnings apply. As for the standard warnings, we could word them simply, based on the current type parameter keywords; {{Warning vandal}}, {{Warn vandal}} or {{Wrn vandal}} for example. The text for that specific type of warning would be pre-loaded into the new templates, and would have a non-mandatory unlabeled parameter used to identify the severity of the warning: {{Template name|2}} would have the template produce the level 2 wording for that template, for example. We would have a default wording set up for each of these templates if the severity parameter is incorrect or missing, just as we do now.

This change would result in the creation of at least a half-dozen new templates, but each of the templates would be based on the core structure of the main Warning template (since the Warning template itself would be a meta-template). I think this structure would ultimately be simpler and easier to use than the current "one template - many parameters" system we have. Thoughts? -- LostInRiverview talk ~ blog 05:52, October 26, 2013 (UTC)

I am unsure how to voice my opinion in this, but as long as on how to use it becomes easier than the current one, I'll just stick with LiR's idea. --Frostwalker Talk to me! 06:10, October 26, 2013 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.