|100px||The Admin's Barnstar|
|Happy your back! Aaqib Hola! 21:51, 22 June 2013 (UTC)|
When you leave warnings on users' talk pages, please do not start with final warnings. Start with the level one warnings, then increase by one level each time a new warning is left. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:17, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
- I follow procedures that administrators set forth years before you even started editing here. I review the user's previous changes, check for cross-wiki vandalism and blocks, and proceed from there. In the specific case you reverted, I issued a level 3 warning, in which I assumed bad faith of the user. This is due to the fact that 1. The user had a history of vandalism 2. The user has a long term vandalism block on our English companion 3. This school's IPs have received extended blocks and have an extensive history of vandalism on both Wikipedias and 4. the user's change for which he/she was warned for indicated an awareness of how Wikipedia worked, and in turn, an understanding of what acceptable and unacceptable behavior is here. Unless it is clear that the user was innocently testing, I always start my warnings with a level 2 (or with history, level 3). Griffinofwales (talk) 09:21, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
- I follow up to noticing that you deleted a page I created with a vandalism warning. That user was a clear VOA and I provided an appropriate warning to cease and desist the behavior indicated. If you disagree with my warning, that is one thing, but to delete it entirely, instead of replacing it with a more (in your opinion) appropriate message is the incorrect action. Griffinofwales (talk) 09:23, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
- When the user is an IP user, it is even more important to start with the lower-level warnings because we can't be sure it's always the same person doing the editing. As far as I know, even when a user has vandalized elsewhere, we give them the benefit of the doubt here to start with. The changes I reverted were for users who had only one recent bad change here.
- As for the page I deleted, a page creation can't be reverted like a change to an existing page, so I deleted the page instead. I do plan to replace it with a lower-level warning, as I plan to do with the other warnings that I reverted. I just haven't gotten to that yet because I wanted to reply to you here first.
- I will ask the other admins to comment on this discussion so they can enlighten me as needed on procedures. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:40, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
- Again, I stand by my warnings to the new account holder. I give users the benefit of the doubt until they do something wrong. In this case, users who had gone through the system at en came here and continued the pattern of vandalism. AGF ...policy does not require editors to continue to assume good faith when there is evidence that they have bad faith. I believe that a level 2 or 3 warning was appropriate, and completely at my discretion. This project is well known for taking bad apples from other projects and working with them. However, we are very strict with them (I recall a one strike rule). I tend to adopt the same line. If a user/IP with a long term block and begins vandalising, I will immediately make clear that this project will not tolerate such actions. I think we both can agree on the policies, I just have a slightly more liberal approach when it comes to assuming bad faith on the part of the vandaliser. Griffinofwales (talk) 09:51, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
- Just a note to any arriving administrators: I pop into SimpleWP from time to time and I certainly don't have the time or desire to engage in a major discussion regarding this issue. So, I may ignore this issue entirely until the next time I decide to emerge again (weeks, months, years). However, based on my years editing here, and my relationships and extensive discussions with the administrators (on and off wiki dating back to when I first joined SimpleWP), it has always been understood that discretion is given to the warning user. My reasoning is stated on my TP (where this discussion should stay unless elevated to ST/AN) as to why I issued the warnings I did. Do what you will with it, Griffinofwales (talk) 10:09, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Another view on the details
I'll just say in passing that these editors are amongst our most experienced and valued contributors, so a difference of opinion between them is potentially significant. I went through all four cases, as follows:
Jamesmcleish2000: I think the text of his changes are vandalism, that does rule out "assume good faith". On that basis I would have used a level 2 warning (Griffin level 3? was it?); Aunt level 1. It wouldn't have occurred to me to delete the page.
22.214.171.124: blanked a page and replaced text with a comment which conclusively proves it was no accident. Therefore level 1 is not appropriate. Griffin level 3, Aunt level 1, and I would give level 2.
126.96.36.199: two level ones given last month, and a history of making bad pages. I would give it a level 2 (again!). Griffin gave level 3, Aunt level 1.
188.8.131.52: here a gap of six months does justify a level 1. (Griffin 3, Aunt 1).
I don't have any feeling that my answers are necessarily "right", and I don't think either of the other evaluations are far out of line. There will be differences in how editors see a particular instance, and we can live with that. Macdonald-ross (talk) 12:51, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
- Excellent analysis and thank you for weighing in. I agree with you on your assessment, however with the long history of vandalism and active longterm blocks on enWP I took a harsher approach. Again, we all have different approaches to how we approach this, and I really don't mind how Auntof6 chooses to warn users. However, what I do take issue with is when my warnings are deleted without advance notice and without a complete understanding of the reasoning behind them. I would hope a little more deference would be shown to other editors. This does me for the night/morning. Griffinofwales (talk) 13:00, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
- tl;dr the above, however, I also just block without any warning as needed (and at the currently rare occasions I'm around). All depending on the kind of vandalism and everything ofc. I did it that way for the last 5+(?) years I'm an admin here. Sometimes warnings are good and sometimes warnings are just waste of time. I never really look if everyone I blocked received 4 templates they ignored anyway ;-). But you know, I'm a rouge admin and so I see no problems to block vandals right away I see them. -Barras talk 15:02, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
- I generally always start at 2 unless its not clear that it was intended as vandalism which is pretty rare. If there are other warnings from the past on a named account I might start at 3 or 4 depending on what and how recent. But on IPs where they could be different people I generally start at 2 and work my way up. I only ever jump to final warning immediately when it concerns something that was oversightable or a specific attack of some sort. -DJSasso (talk) 18:25, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately, Quebec is still shown as a country that .... If you know how to fix it, why don't you change the map? Otherwise, we should ask for help from an administrator. Kdammers (talk) 15:03, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
- This survey is primarily meant to get feedback on the Wikimedia Foundation's current work, not long-term strategy.
- Legal stuff: No purchase necessary. Must be the age of majority to participate. Sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation located at 149 New Montgomery, San Francisco, CA, USA, 94105. Ends January 31, 2017. Void where prohibited. Click here for contest rules.
Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey
(Sorry to write in English)