Forum:Does Wikia have standard vandal warning templates?

When I saw that User:Жаль Biana, Жизни Duappy vandalized your user page but had a redlinked talk page, I manually warned the user. However, I would prefer something like the list at Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace. Will (Talk - contribs) 02:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Do you really believe in such templates? Personally, I'm not. Imho Central Wikia contributors are:
 * experienced users, staffs, sysops and major contributors from other wiki,
 * n00bs,
 * vandals who just want to vandalize, know that they will get blocked for vandalism and wants to be blocked.
 * If I'm not wrong, this make no sense to make that templates. However, you can start topic on forum. I wonder what will people say. :) Szoferka 02:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Topic started. Despite what Szoferka wrote, the admins at Wikipedia found reasons for this type of template. Will (Talk - contribs) 01:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * well... if it get's a list of people on watch.  but I think that those template's on Wikipedia are just... useless.  I guess in cases of simple misbehavior, this might be worth using.  otherwise...  what's the point?  Ban and revert: ~ 01:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I have found that many users don't know about sandboxes. So they create a page or modify existing pages in a test type of manner. Others don't know or didn't know it mattered that they uploaded a copyright image or entered copyrighted text.

Such users should not be banned immediately. I say wait until you know it's a chronic problem. However, you don't know it's chronic until they have been warned a few times. Users like me (not an admin on WP) can warn without admin help. However, we have to tell an admin that a user needs banned.

A group of templates on the page listed above count as "final warning" templates. Once those have been on a page for several hours and the user is still vandalizing pages (or whatever), I can add them to Wikipedia:WP:AIV. Once there, the user will be blocked shortly.

The way you keep track of the current warning level for an user is a comment at the end of the template (which always gets substed). This comment includes something like Test2. If you see that, you know to use Test3 rather than a lower warning. Will (Talk - contribs) 04:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that many users don't exactly know what wikis are and are testing the software - they put something on the page just to see if the software will accept the changes immediately. So these users should not be banned. I know that it's hard to find if the user is trying the system or is trying to vandalize, but we all should assume good faith. But placing templates on the vandals' talk pages is useless, because the ones who comes here to vandalize will continue with or without warnings, templates etc. --DCLXVI 16:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The good faith users won't know to stop without some sort of message. You sound like a hypocrite. FIrst you tell us to assume good faith, but then you say they arem mostly vandals and will ignore the warnings. Will (Talk - contribs) 02:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * We should send the users that test the system short messages, which point to the sandbox. But a note, not a template. Written welcome messages look always different and are more friendly to the newcomers. The templates are full with links, that point to many and different pages that users should read before they start or continue editing. Wikis can be edited with or without knowledge of editing and formatting. Everyone can later fix the mistakes. But you know that. And... if you write a message or a template on a vandal's talkpage, he's not going to stop vandalizing. He's not coming to read any messages, but to try to destroy the wiki. Which is hopefully, as we know, imposible. So users who welcome the newcomers should watch their edits to know if they are a newcoming users or a newcoming vandals. --DCLXVI 02:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

If you find that you are giving the same warning or request repeatedly, then feel free to create templates. Because the traffic on each Wikia is smaller than Wikipedia, there are many times when we don't need as much bureaucracy. And new users make mistakes, but the response will be different depending on what kind of mistake... they create personal pages instead of using their user page, they accidentally erase content, they put things in the wrong places, etc. and we try to encourage them to continue contributing, but at the same time explain how their contributions can be more effective. On this Central Wikia, we have some templates for the more common problems -- see Template:I and its language varients. You are welcome to copy and tailor those (or Wikipedia's with credit, since they are GFDL) for another wiki, but generally we haven't felt it was necessary. As DCLXVI says, the vandals won't listen, and, I think, the people who don't know better are accidentally very creative in making new and unique mistakes, so a personalized note is often more appropriate. By the way, I don't think it was necessary for you to say DCLXVI sounds like a hypocrite. Name calling really isn't productive, and you both have good points. --CocoaZen 05:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You have all made good points. Anyone who wants to ignore our time-saving templates may do so. But a template can look just like a personal message while being much quicker to insert; Template:Test and Template:Welc are examples of that. And we can have as many as we like, to deal with the various degrees of vandalism - from careless curiosity (which a friendly note on a user's talk page will probably fix - and it may produce a keen good contributor) through mischief-making (which calls for a warning) up to serious disruption (which calls for blocking or banning). Robin Patterson 10:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)