- Template:uw-mos4 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Has been deletion with a very short discussion that did not notify the WP:UW WikiProject. I think the reasons for deletion are only valid at first glance. Yes, WP:MOS is "only" a guideline but still, constantly deliberately violating without being willing to talk about it will sooner or later be disruptive and, despite the arguments at the TFD, deliberately disrupting Wikipedia in any way, even by persistently breaking WP:MOS is a reason for a block per WP:BLOCK. There is one user that comes to mind (who I don't want to name though) who persists on adding credentials to articles, like "Dr.", "Mr.", "MP" etc., in violation of WP:CREDENTIAL. It became so bad that now whole pages of page revisions consist of their edits to change this and several users reverting them. They have been warned using {{uw-mos1}} to {{uw-mos3}} but they have neither tried to discuss their edits nor reacted in any other way. I think if a user acts in this way, they should be blocked sooner or later because of disruption. But instead of adding a {{uw-vandalism4}} warning, I think the correct way to inform them of their soon-to-be-applied block should be the template that directly tells them what disruptive behavior is not tolerated. {{uw-mos4}} fulfills this purpose in such cases. Regards SoWhy 23:08, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As much as a relist for wider input seems entirely reasonable, do you really think a uw-mos4 template is necessary? It seems to me that any time that a user could be blocked for violations of the MOS, they will have gone far beyond a simple 4-warnings-then-block sort of system and a less general final warning should be given. The circumstance you describe, for instance, is a much wider pattern than only four instances of MOS violation and the user would benefit more from a personalized note than a templated one. Cheers. lifebaka++ 03:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- By the same argument, do we really need most of the level 4 warnings? {{uw-generic4}} would cover most such circumstances, wouldn't it? The point is that if a user is bent on disrupting Wikipedia by messing up the layout again and again while probably not acting in bad faith (other than ignoring the warnings and tries to talk to them), then it would be good if the final warning reflected the reason for the block that may happen and didn't just say "stop being disruptive" (but "stop being disruptive by doing..."). Sure, more personal notes are preferable but in the case I used as an example, they didn't help, so I think a big red warning sign saying clearly "you will be blocked" may be helpful as well. Most user warnings can be personalized after all but I like to think that combining it with a templated message may be more effective. Regards SoWhy 09:45, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough. Relist it and plaster some notifications around to solicit wider input. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm a bit ambivalent about this. On the one hand, I question whether it's ever really appropriate to block anyone purely for violations of the MOS. I can imagine circumstances in which they could be blocked for repeatedly and disruptively violating the MOS, but in that case, the reason for the block is their tendentious behaviour, not the MOS violations per se. I note that this view was unanimous in the discussion, and I see that Tim Song implemented it.
On the other hand, I can see where SoWhy is coming from. Although the procedure used was the TfD process, in fact what's proposed is more than just an adjustment of our templates—it's effectively a revision to the blocking rules. Quite a small revision, all things considered, but still, I don't feel 100% comfortable about blocking guidelines being determined by a consensus of three editors at a TfD. I'm going to endorse Tim Song's closure but then recommend that the template is temporarily undeleted while SoWhy raises a better-attended discussion in the venue of his choice (RFC, AN, or whatever).—S Marshall T/C 12:22, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The point was that disruptive behavior is usually the reason for a block in such circumstances. Still we have a number of different level 4 warnings that all say "you may be blocked without further warning for being disruptive by doing XXX...". So yeah, the reason for blocking wouldn't be the violations but the constant violations without being willing to talk about the edits or even acknowledging them in any way. That's the disruption in this case and I would propose that the template reflects this if undeleted (e.g. "your constant violations of WP:MOS without being willing to talk about it..."). Regards SoWhy 12:32, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
