Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:A930913/vandwarn

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was Delete. -- Cirt (talk) 05:09, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

User:A930913/vandwarn
Telling users how long it took to revert their edits would likely just feed them to do it more, also bite-y. Pilif12p : Yo  21:46, 16 October 2010 (UTC) Just did some research you might like to know. From my most recent contributions, I took 40 of these warnings, 30 huggle level 1 warnings and 40 huggle warnings of any level. My warning is statistically infinitely better than huggles warning. 930913 (Congratulate/Complaints) 14:17, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Bitey and we shouldn't feed the trolls. ANowlin  talk 21:49, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Since I only use this for vandalism that has just be submitted, the idea is to demoralise any vandal from submitting further vandalism. If someone got a warning like this, simple sums show that for every minute of their time, they get ~10s in return. This is enough to deter further vandalism, as the very low reoffending rates show. 930913 (Congratulate/Complaints) 23:44, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete counterproductive. Even if it did work, it's arrogant and condescending sounding. Gigs (talk) 03:55, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - cool idea, perhaps reword, but I like the point. I apoligize for making this even more I-likey, You-hatey, but whatever. THENEW M O NO  ™ 04:12, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete-I understand the idea, but the result is a very confrontational tone, which isn't helpful. Do not insult the vandals.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 17:04, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete If you dislike the standard vandalism template, go write an article instead. These sorts of messages are the exact opposite of what we should be telling users. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  20:26, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Rather dickish in tone, honestly. We have appropriately escalating vandalism templates already that should be used, there's no need for custom ones at all, confrontational or otherwise. Tarc (talk) 13:48, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per Anowlin. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 14:02, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * A9, your statistics are based on a pretty small sample, biased by whatever criteria you used to choose when to leave the dickish template vs huggle. But the bigger picture that you are missing is that we don't want vandals to go away forever, we want them to start contributing constructively. Your template is simply not how we do things around here. Gigs (talk) 15:26, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * My template gives the offer for them to contact me so I can help them contribute constructively; as such, I have had an infinite amount more people warned replying to the 40 warnings, than to many a hundred huggle warnings. 930913 (Congratulate/Complaints) 15:41, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep As valid for a user to have in userspace. Unless the wording is actionable if the person were to type it out each time, the template is not "worse" than that.  I would, moreover, suggest that the author consider WP:BITE in making any reasonable edits to it. Collect (talk) 10:53, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:BITE would be an argument for deletion. :| TelCo  NaSp  Ve :|  11:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Just use the uw-vandalism1 template. No need for a rude variation on it.  This template just goads on vandals, and encourages them to occupy more 5-second intervals of your life.  Your "statistics" only represent about 2 seconds worth of edits to Wikipedia, and therefore they "infinitely" don't prove anything.  Snotty Wong   soliloquize 23:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep for now This is interesting and creative. But I base my opinion on whether or not this actually does cut down on vandalism as shown by the limited statistics. If this is actually creating less work for everyone, then I would definitely support it. So, there needs to be a larger sample size for the controlled study.  EdEColbert  Let me know 07:24, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Reword
If you like the idea but think the words (thought up in less than a minute on the spot) need refining, please feel free to suggest and vote on a reword. 930913 (Congratulate/Complaints) 17:25, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I perfer the wording at Uw-vandalism1, personally.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 19:57, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.