Establishing a level system - Right now some of our templates seem to try and resemble a level system (ex. {{test1}} {{test2}} ). These seems like a good idea that didn't get carried through with all our templates. The problem with our current templates right now, they either instantly assume bad faith, cause the same warning to be used twice (as if for a secondary warning) or the same "first-level" warning to be given because they don't know the past instances. It's a very unorganized system. A new system that'd I like to introduce can be seen as levels. So for each "topic" of vandalism (DEU, Charm log, NPOV, etc.), an appropriate-level warning can be given. This allows templates, no matter what the cause, to be appropriately given (meaning: A user who just was given a level-2 no editing userpages warning, can be easily given a level-3 NPOV warning). There would be 4 levels to this system:
- Level 1 – A notice. This is assuming good faith; that the user is unaware of the policies (for use with small vandalism)
- Level 2 – Caution – No faith assumption, just a note. (for use with vandalism with the intention of disruption)
- Level 3 – Warning – Assumes bad faith of the user. Generally includes "Please stop". (a warning was already given, user being told to stop)
- Level 4 – Final Warning – Assumes bad faith, last warning. ([usually] last warning before block)
This system would require templates to be refurbished/renamed and blocks dealt with differently (making sure the user was warned). Of course that this new system wouldn't mean "this has to be done for a user to be blocked", common sense should always.
Based off of WikiProject user warnings on wikipedia; Also see here if I didn't explain this well/for examples: wikipedia:Wikipedia:Template_messages/User_talk_namespace
Discussion
Support - As nominator. Perhaps RuneScape:Counter-Vandalism Unit/Templates or some type of subpage can be created too resembling the Template messages linked above. Hair 06:44, November 24, 2012 (UTC)
Oppose - Overly-bureaucratic much? How would you enforce something like this? Warn a user if they warn incorrectly? People UCS when they warn people, and I don't see many instances of people doing it wrongly. If someone isn't assuming good faith, we leave them a note to let them know. Why change it so drastically? User:Urbancowgurl777/Signature 06:55, November 24, 2012 (UTC)
- This isn't meant to make things complicated. The levels just show a user a notice, caution, etc. with the templates arranged something like {[1-npov}} {{2-charm}} {{3-deu}}. In the end, it's supposed to make it easier for other users. So, I don't understand how someone could warn incorrectly without completely messing up, putting the template down. This isn't going to be necessarily enforced either; you don't see any enforcement as it is, but it's an expectation. Changing the templates are enough an enforcement as it is. And this isn't some type of required order that has to be gone in either, but rather a guideline to follow (using common sense of course). "Why change it so drastically?" - I personally think it's a good way to tell someone to stop vandalism, in a proper order (rather than unorganized notice templates), so I'd like to see change.. and I don't think it can't be done in a slow fashion. Hair 07:27, November 24, 2012 (UTC)
Comment - I'd say 4 templates is too many. Vandalise once, get one warning, do it again, get blocked. I would support 1 "You did it wrong"-style, 1 "Stop or you will be blocked next time" and 1 "You have just been banhammered" template and no change to the way administrators block vandals. It works perfectly right now, except the templates are slightly muddled. 222 talk 08:22, November 24, 2012 (UTC)
- Agree with 222. I think 4 warnings are just too much, but the intention of reworking the templates is good. The templates are quite messy now, they need to be reworked (like test2 and error2 are quite similar.
TIMMMO 
++Discuss Sign 09:59, November 24, 2012 (UTC)
Comment - I try not to use the templates unless it's blatant vandalism in which case I would usually use {{Warn2}}. They just seem a little impersonal to me and we all make mistakes. Policies aren't the most interesting thing to look at as one of your first stops to the wiki so I can understand why some of them can be missed. Policies like RS:PT I was completely unaware of until recently. I notmally follow status quo, which will get you a fair way here, but for someone new how will they know what the staus quo is? A personal touch doesn't go amiss every now and then. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cåm (talk) on 11:01, November 24, 2012.
Support/comment - Not sure exactly what this is but it sounds like a great idea. Support! Bren 15:57, November 24, 2012 (UTC)
- If you have no complete idea on what the thread is about, then why have you commented on it? For all you know, the thread could be about blocking all anons for vandalizing once. Please, understand the thread completely before you state your opinion for it. Haidro (talk) 20:23, November 24, 2012 (UTC)
Support with amendments - Right now, people usually start with level 2 warnings, or Test1 if it's not that bad. If it is bad, though, such as adding loads of curse words to a page, on Wikipedia this would be a level 4 to start. Additionally, what confuses me on the RuneScape Wiki is that not all warning types have the same number of levels (Template:Pov3 doesn't exist, but {{Pov2}} does), and sometimes even level 2 sounds harsh like it assumes bad faith. So I'd support this with 3 levels instead of 4 for all warning types, adding missing levels to Pov etc., and some editing for the templates to have the right tone for the levels.
20:07, November 25, 2012 (UTC)
Oppose - Per Fergie. bad_fetustalk 00:55, November 27, 2012 (UTC)