Wikipedia talk:Don't template the regulars

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Initial discussion 2 Scope - Restricted to warning templates? 3 I can see this being horribly misused. 4 Conflict with procedure 5 Moved reference to WP:DICK

[edit] Initial discussion

If you want to add it to a "see also" section or some other reference, WP:CIVIL has a clause cautioning editors not to use canned templates for experienced editors. I added it a while ago during a dispute between Giano and Cyde Weys about canned templates, and it seems to have stuck. TheronJ 19:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

While this essay is well-intentioned, the templates should be properly worded and documented so their use is acceptable. --Ronz 20:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. I don't think it's the wording of the templates that's the issue; it's that canned, pre-written, generalized text is being applied to a situation that it likely doesn't apply to. If an experienced editor is being warned, then the situation and underlying facts are almost guaranteed to far more complex than most of the situations that templates are written and intended for. —bbatsell ¿? 22:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

For example: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_articles_related_to_quackery - Lots of experienced editors. Lots of incivility, assumption of bad faith, even some personal attacks. Yes, there's lots of complex issues going on, but the behavior is inexcusable. I really don't care why or how it got so bad. I think templates should be appropriate since these editors should know better. --Ronz 22:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Ironically, I've seen many experienced editors express that templates shouldn't be used on "noobs" either... --Ronz 22:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea, and the essay is short and to the point. I hope the points made will be adopted as part of the standard Wiki infrastructure, even as I hope that it isn't needed THAT often.  :D Hey, maybe it can be made into a template form for transclusion into the page of experienced editors that are templating others... I kid, i kid... - CHAIRBOY (☎) 22:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

This is an excellent essay! Might I also add that adding a "customized" note with the heading "WP:CIV", "WP:WORLD" or "WP:POINT" also comes across as rather curt, cold and unhelpful? Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be helpful to point out that when you WP:POINT there are three fingers pointing right back at you. —Malber (talk • contribs) 14:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Any chance your comment is somehow related to the fact that you're currently under scrutiny for repeated WP:POINT disruption, Malber? At first glance, yorus appears to be a bit of a loaded statement. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I suggest practicing a little bit more WP:AGF and WP:CIV. But I don't need a template to tell you that. —Malber (talk • contribs) 15:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Whoa, simmer down now. If you were offended by my question, I apologize for the confusion. I don't believe it is incivil or a failure of good faith to ask whether your statement above is connected to the WP:POINT discussion about some of your RfA questions. I believe you have a strong opinion on the matter, and my question was whether or not it was connected with the aforementioned scrutiny/discussion. In regards to your link to the parent document of this discussion, have I templated you? I don't recall doing so, but if I have, please let me know. Thanks! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

It was intended as a joke based on the old adage. But I am annoyed when someone parrots "WP:POINT" every time someone does something they don't agree with. I generally frown when I see someone quoting whatever WP:ALPHABET without actually reading the policy. —Malber (talk • contribs) 17:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Looking at this from a total outsider perspective, I will spare you the details on how I got here, this template just radiates elitism. From my point of view as a casual visitor of Wikipedia the template basically tells me that on Wikipedia your opinion doesn't count unless you have a zillion edits to your name and you are one of the "in" crowd. Said "in" crowd is protected from being treated like any other vistor or editor by a "don't warn them they know better than you" template. Very dissapointing. 82.171.188.144 14:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

That's not what it says. Obviously, given your user of the word "edits," you are not a total outsider. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I suppose we could add something to the effect that (1) the templates were written with new users in mind, and (2) editors should consider whether customising their warnings even to new users may be helpful. (I certainly tweak the language in almost every warning I leave). TheronJ 14:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scope - Restricted to warning templates?

The essay's scope is limited to the use of warning templates. I've just experienced a case where i've been threatened to be reported to an admin by a new user who fights vandalism. Please give me your opinion about this case and if it is possible to enlarge the scope of this essay? Cheers -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 09:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I can see this being horribly misused.

Now obviously, giving someone with 12,000 edits a {{test}} isn't going to be helpful in any way, and I support the sentiment of this essay in most cases. However, I can also see it being abused by wikilawyering regulars. Let's say the 12,000+ edit user actually does deserve a civility warning because they've been participating in a large flamewar onwiki, and you give them one. However, because you used the formal template rather than saying "Woah there my good lad, you're not behaving in the most gentlemanly of fashions on Talk:Example article, eh wot?", they claim the warning didn't count because it was in violation of WP:DTTR and against policy, or worse still try to get you in trouble for it.

So while an excellent sentiment, I believe this should not become any form of policy or guideline as it gives wikilawyers more to work with, and violates WP:CREEP because, while it would be nice if everyone hand addressed and mailed their warnings, it is in no way necessary. --tjstrf talk 10:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I read both Ronz's comments above and yours as well and try to make a parallel. My suggestion is that only admins can have the right to tag experienced users. If a relatively new user encounters/experiences a incivility case from an experienced user she only can report that to WP:PAIN and wait for an admin intervention. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 11:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

That would be not only even more WP:CREEP violation than before, but also further inflate the adminship's controversial role as civility police. It would also result in even more ill feelings, because now rather than being able to fromally warn other users prior to taking defensive actions, you'd have to just go summon a block out of nowhere. --tjstrf talk 12:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this intended to be a policy or guideline, or even a proposal for one. It is an essay, intended to give good advice to editors on what things will and what things won't work, and to provoke a bit of thought. It's a bit like WP:DENY. We don't say "WP:DENY says it is against policy to talk about vandals", because it is not always wrong to talk about vandals and how to fight them. Rather we use it as a way of saying "Don't get too worked up about this nitwit who is vandalising your article, and don't fall for the temptation of making pages documenting his misdeeds, see WP:DENY for the reasons". As with most essays, the thoughts and advice are merely meant to hold true in a great many situations. There may at times be situations where the advice in this essay does not apply. The thing is an essay not an attempt at making more rules. It is here for you to read. And think about it. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC) I now see that someone has proposed making it WP:DENY policy. Pity, it was such a good example of a fine use for Wikipedia essays. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

DENY was originally supposed to be a policy proposal, but then a bunch of us went and complained about it because it was essentially being used in combination with WP:IAR as a CSD criteria. It was only then that they refactored it into an essay. And I am aware that it is an essay and will probably be right 7/10 times, but the principles expressed are for the forbiddal of actions, which can only be enforced via elevation to policy or guideline status. Essentially, I'm trying to pre-empt any move to have it made a rule.

Also, why on earth is WP:JERRYSPRINGER a redirect here? --tjstrf talk 12:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:JERRYSPRINGER redirects here because someone reacted to a joke I made on WP:ANI to describe the ridiculous witch hunt on Guy. So although I invented the term I assume no responsibility for the redirect. It was not my intention that someone should make that redirect. But while I am here I would like to say that what sparked both that joke as well as this essay was an example of what happens when you template an experienced user rather than talk eye to eye with him. Not only does it usually result in nothing more than insults, it also results in a drama that is unworthy of an encyclopedia. Allowing experienced editors to template each other is like having a group of lawyers sue each other. The drama and disruption to Wikipedia is something we could do without. MartinDK 15:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be an emerging opinion that templating established users is offensive, see this recent kerfuffle between Giano and CydeWeys for an example. I don't personally have a dog in the hunt; if people want to template me, I don't care. However, we probably should document the issue if it's going to lead to more "how dare you template me?" brawls. I don't have a strong opinion about whether we should document that (1) editors should not use canned templates for regulars; (2) editors should consider using personal text instead of canned templates for regulars; (3) there's a disagreement about whether to used canned templates for regulars; or (4) using canned templates is fine and often the best course, even for regulars. Thoughts? TheronJ 14:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I am interested in your particular point about using personal test for established users. I must add that one of the main causes of conflicts re this issue is the use of templates. They can be really offensive sometimes. I can't imagine myself using a template to warn TheronJ for whatever they might do. A personal (peer-to-peer) message would be more civil imo. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 14:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Most of those templates have an explanatory nature, and it could easily sound condescending to explain the 3RR to a long-term editor since obviously he's well aware of that. It depends really on what you consider the point of the templates. If it's to educate, there's no need to use them on regulars. If it's meant as a "black mark" against someone, well, I suppose you'd need a cup of WP:TEA. If the intent is to get the "offender" blocked, it's unlikely to be effective - such messages are usually given by the other side in a dispute, and admins are unlikely to just block one side of the dispute over a technical violation of something. People shouldn't go around telling a user that "he's likely to get blocked" because of something, if they aren't sure that that's actually the case. >Radiant< 15:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Conflict with procedure

These warnings are part of standard procedure as mentioned on WP:AIV. --Random832(tc) 18:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Regular users should never fall afoul of WP:AIV. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Your opinion as to how regular users should behave is noted, unfortunately, the reality is sometimes different. --Random832(tc) 20:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

But reality is a com... [Gracenotes blinks.] As I was saying, if a regular user vandalized for some odd reason, what do you think would stop him or her -- an expected template, stock full of explanations of policy that they already know... or something like "What's going on? I'm worried about your edit to Page; if anything's not right, please leave a note on my talk page"? It's always good to be preventative, not just with blocks, so slapping warning templates onto talk pages of fellow experienced editors with the idea of latently blocking them in mind strikes me as impolite. No need to take prevention to a destructive level when it could be resolved without any sort of admin intervention. Of course, WP:TEMPLAR is not even a guideline; it's an essay, so it's prone to many, many more exceptions. Gracenotes^T § 21:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

And if it does end up needing admin intervention, surely you guys at AIV don't care whether the users were warned with templates or not, as long as the idea was the same? -Amarkov moo! 01:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• Procedures are not supposed to be bureaucratic. The reason we like prior warnings for, say, vandalism or 3RR, is that new users tend to be unaware of our policies. On the other hand, regular users can be expected to be generally familiar. It's quite possible that a regular user does something bad or loses his temper, but the best way to deal with that is not to point out "hey, maybe you didn't know it, but we have a policy against that". It sounds condescending and quite possibly aggravates the problem. That's why it's better to write some sort of personal message. Rather than using a vandalism template, you could say something like "I found your edits <there> rather disturbing. Could you please explain yourself?" or somesuch. >Radiant< 12:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moved reference to WP:DICK

I have boldly moved the reference to Wikipedia:Don't be a dick down to the "See also" section. I think its emphasis in the text itself is unnecessarily harsh, and it detracts from the potential of this otherwise excellent essay. If someone strongly disagrees and reverts, let's please discuss here. Thanks, Satori Son 13:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)