User:ArielGold/Etiquette

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archiving for posterity since page is up for AfD.

This is an essay; it contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. It is not a policy or guideline, and editors are not obliged to follow it.

[edit] My personal viewpoint

I've read both the "Don't: template, and "Template" editorials, and I'd just like to offer my personal reasons for handling things the way I do. (Apologies for the length)

On RC/Vandalism patrol, it is immediately obvious when something is a deliberate act of outright, intentional vandalism, or worse, hate speech. (Just a note: in my experience, this is nearly always IP users, and not "regulars" or "registered" members.) Anyone who places profane images, covers the page in profanity, uses racial hate speech, or deliberately and negatively vandalizes someone's user talk page, it is worth using a template for two main reasons. First, the chances are high that this won't be their only act. Unlike "speaking without thinking", the act of vandalism takes the time to type it, and the knowledge that hitting the "submit" button will do what you are planning. To me, that constitutes premeditation. Thus, when/if they are reported for repeated vandalism, the administrator reviewing will immediately know how many of what level warnings they've received, and thus, be able to determine if it is appropriate to block them temporarily. Second, such acts convey no chance of "good faith" assumption, because calling someone the N word or using the F word all over a page, cannot be seen as a "mistake".

However, I do tend to look at the user page, and if they've received at least three template warnings, and are still vandalizing, I drop one of my "Seriously, stop" boxes:

Seriously, Template the regulars, please stop vandalizing articles. You have been warned several times now. More unconstructive edits from your account, will probably get you blocked from editing. Seriously! - Ariel♥Gold 14:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


What I hope this does is, first, still allow the administrators to see that the user has already received 3+ warnings, but also with my slightly personal touch, (the image that conveys it is unacceptable behavior, ) perhaps there are a few people who may stop, and decide what they are doing is wrong, and who knows, they may end up becoming contributing members! (That is my hope, at least).

For all other issues, here is how I go about it:

For users with no warnings and no activity (i.e. "create new page):

Blanking pages/sections: I try to always assume good faith. I assume the person did not realize it, and since no warnings were previously issued, I will drop yet another warning of my own, that has a smiling face with glasses, and it is my hope that is both informative, and friendly, as it also includes a welcome message and links to help pages and the sandbox.

For vandalisms that aren't outright horrible, like "hi! My name is sam!", I have another box, with welcome/help/sandbox links. For copyright issues, I have a box with a folder that has a lock on it, along with links to the copyright policy, welcome, etc. Ditto for user page vandalisms.

For first time offenders, I almost always use something personalized, helpful, and friendly so that it conveys less "authority" and more "ooops!" subtext, with a dash of friendliness. It is my hope that the combination of those psychological cues will stop the person, make them think, and again possibly become helpful contributors to the community in the future. In fact, there have been several instances where I've dropped such a warning, and the user has come to me for help, and I've managed to answer their questions, or point them to the place they can find the answers. If I had used a canned template, I wonder if those users would have felt comfortable coming to me, or even felt welcome at all.

When a user does the above actions but has received a template warning (or more than one), I take it individually, I go through all of their contributions, and see if any were worse than the one I took on good faith. Depending on the outcome, I may still decide to use a personalized message, or I may see 10+ vandalisms, with 2 warnings, and in that case I'll drop a level 3, and if they do any additional violations, report.

For users on shared IPs, I again look over the warnings given, the dates they were given, and the type of offense. Some are always the same article/subject, always the same violation, and result in many blocks. For those, I don't feel it is worthwhile to take the time it takes me to do the custom warnings, and in those cases, it only muddies up the page, and admins need to verify violations, so I'll use templates. For others, it seems to be a mix, there may be warnings, but also may be genuine contributions, so I'll use the custom warning, again hoping it isn't taken badly.

For users who are registered, and have activity on the talk page, (not warnings,) I don't recall that I've ever issued a warning, and in fact I'll normally let those slide without comment, believing they had reasons for their actions, even if they weren't put in the summary boxes. However, if there are warnings interspersed, I'll evaluate it and sometimes drop one of my personalized boxes, or a short written note explaining my actions.

I tend to believe the "warning issue" is never cut and dried, and so one "rule" can't be applied to every single violator. I'd like to think there are some vandals who can be turned around, and I also think there are some repeat offenders who most likely cannot be turned around. While this is of course, my own personal philosophy, I thought perhaps I'd share it here. I hope with a combination of good faith, and good judgment, I can help the community effectively and efficiently while I'm on RC/Vandal patrol. Ariel♥Gold 14:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Nice! Would you like to write this up as Wikipedia:Template message etiquette? :-) Carcharoth 00:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Interesting. Do note that "template messages" include rather more than "anti-vandalism warnings" however. DES (talk) 05:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but in the interests of broadening the discussion, could you elaborate on that. What are these other uses for "template messages", and what should be considered when delivering them? Carcharoth 09:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I would personally consider copyright violations a "non-vandal" template message, as I would count the various image tag templates, and also the advertisement notices. All of those events I'd consider with 100% good faith, using no warnings, at the very least the first time. Obviously, some people do constantly upload images that are copyrighted or have other issues, and other users do tend to use the site as an advertisement venue, etc. so again, an evaluation into the past is what I'd do before using a template.
Other things I personally think don't fall under "vandalism" (and I could be wrong, but again I just tend to WP:AGF more often than not) would be things such as personal attacks, removing CSD or AFD tags, (at least the first time) adding defamatory/controversial information without proper citations/references, overzealous "wiki-links" (i.e. every other common word is blue linked), and there are actually a whole host of other things that have standard template messages, that I have never used. I'd prefer to simply type a hand-written (finger-written? lol) note, explaining with my own brand of humor. There are actually lots of templates, from "don't use the minor edit checkbox" to "fill in your edit summary" to "sign your posts". I've never used those. Why? Because chances are, the person is going to learn in time. If someone is repeatedly not signing their posts, even after others are using the {unsigned|IP} tag to identify them, and they still don't seem to get it, I will simply either casually remind them in a reply, or drop a note on their talk pages explaining how to do it (maybe they want to but don't know how). It takes all of 30 seconds, why be impersonal and use templates in those cases? Now, this by no means should be taken as me advocating the removal of all of those templates, remember, this is simply my personal (and probably a little less formal) opinion. I'm sure there may be instances where those templates can come in handy, or where they may be useful, I just have never run into that yet. I'm not anti-template, and I'm not exclusively pro-custom warnings. I believe the two can exist peacefully and benefit each other.
I realize that this particular article had/has a lot of controversy around it, and is up for AfD, but I felt that I would just like to explain how in some cases, templates can be useful, faster, and more helpful to administrators, and while I personally believe it is better to not use them. I would not say they should never be used. There are some registered users, who have done nothing but disruptive edits, some with very long pasts, and many blocks. In that case, yes, when someone has been repeatedly on a vendetta against this great site, I'm not wasting my "cuteness" on them, lol. As in life, the words "always" and "never" should be used with extreme caution, and as with everything else, I tend to take things on a case-by-case basis prior to deciding. This may make me "slower on the draw", and I may not be super-speedy with reverts, but I hope that in the long run, it keeps me from seeming rude, or worse, driving potentially helpful editors away, simply because they don't understand the Wiki-stuff. To me, that's more important than "getting" them. Perhaps I have too much faith in people, or I am too naive, and if so, that's alright, because again, if I can turn one person around out of 100, it is worth it for me to take my time when dishing out warnings.
Cacharoth, I'd be willing to consider your request, however, simply seeing how much controversy this article caused, I am a little hesitant about putting up such a page. Would it be an appropriate title to take to AfC? I most definitely do appreciate that you think it is worth reading for people who may be new at RC/Vandal patrol, and I've tutored a few of those folks as well, so I think it could be helpful. I've noticed a very disturbing trend of the use of "level 3" warnings for first offenses, and I'd like to see that happen less (if never), as it seems too WP:BITE-y to me. I realize that I'm a nobody, and my opinion probably doesn't matter, but I've been observing the policies and procedures for over 2 years now, even if I have not contributed a ton in the past, (I'm a lurker everywhere until I'm more comfortable) I do know what it is like to feel like you're not welcome. As a side note, I've been an author of columns and guides at IGN for 3 years, so writing something like an etiquette guide would be right up my alley, lol. Ariel♥Gold 12:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] See also

WP:BITE WP:AGF