User talk:DESiegel/Template the regulars

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Essay is now out of date

WP:WARN has recently been updated. Previously it said:

"You are responsible for ensuring that the template's text is appropriate to the violation: if the template's tone isn't appropriate, don't use the template. They are not a formal system that you have to use: they are a shortcut to typing, nothing more. If you cannot find a template that says what you want to say then go ahead and say it normally."

This has now been strengthened with the additions:

"In particular, the use of a template to inform established users of policies which they can be expected to know is considered patronising and should be avoided. See Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars."

and:

"avoid using templates to warn established users of policies with which they are familiar; they are likely to find this insulting."

The rule of thumb is not to justify using templates if someone suggests you shouldn't, but to always prefer a human conversation over a template warning. If you are unsure, don't template but write instead. It takes a few extra seconds to write "subst:", hit preview, and personalise your message. I'm going to update this essay accordingly. Carcharoth 09:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

That wording has been removed again as not having sonsensus. DES ^(talk) 21:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rewriting is difficult

I was trying to rewrite this, but it is difficult. I don't think this essay can co-exist with Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars. I would like to suggest a merge, or a joint MfD nomination to sort this out quickly. Carcharoth 10:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia talk:Don't template the regulars#Merge proposal. Carcharoth 11:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• Well, I don't think a merge is likely, but if you'd like to discuss rewriting it, either here, or somewhere else, let me know. FrozenPurpleCube 21:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Explaining the obvious

I have added the section "Explaining the obvious" to the essay. I think it helps make the esay celarer, more helpful, and less confrontational. If anyone disagrees, we can discuss it, or you can revert. DES ^(talk) 15:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[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. Is there somewhere perhaps it should be taken for approval or something... AfC doesn't seem appropriate, but just wondering if there is a place that one goes to request approval prior to putting up essay/editorial or "guideline" type articles? 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)

I can agree with much of the above. There are also template messages that are not even warnings of allgedly improper behavior, which most of your examples above are. For instance, the message that says "an article you created (or contributed to) has been palced on AfD, you might want to comment" or "an article you created has bene tagged for speedy deletion" or "a deletion you performed has been challanged on Deletion reveiw" or. my favorate "i have removed a speedy delete tag you placed on article X". I patrol the candidates for spedy deletion a lot, and I not infrequently remove speedy tags that seem to me ill-judged or invalidly placed. I normally notifyn the users who placed such tags, and i use a tempalte to do so, one that includes a required "reason" parameter that is individually written each time. One editor was very upset at this, citing WP:DTTR. Most have had not problem. Obviously this is pretty much always aimed at experienced editors --- newbies rarely if ever tag articles for speedy deletion. DES ^(talk) 15:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Ariel, I would strongly encourage you to develop what you have written above into an essay. The best place to do this is in your user space (create a subpage to your user page and write it there). Label it as an essay. Then ask for opinions. If enough people like it, it can be moved into Wikipedia namespace. If lots of people adopt your practices, it may even become a guideline. Good luck! Carcharoth 23:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the continued support, Carcharoth. If not for your initial invitation, I may not have decided to do what I think has a real potential to help Wikipedians who may be new to using templates. (Or even those who are familiar, but new to warnings.) I've responded on your talk page, and look forward to your participation, as I'm sure DES and DGG will be as well. Thanks again! ^Ariel♥Gold 00:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] That's true, very true

New topic for ease of editing.

DES you are absolutely correct. And there are really many others we didn't mention. I personally always thought that the reason the CSD removal message was there for those new users who removed the tag without understanding what it meant. I'd never revert a CSD tag that was removed by an established user. However, I'd also note that most established users will put in the edit summary the reason it was removed. For my personal reasons for writing the above, and for the essay, if there is interest, it is mainly focused upon vandal/recent changes patrol, and not really on the other end, where I think AfD, CSD, and various other aspects that newcomers normally aren't even aware of. I would go so far as to say that I'd probably never use those standardized templates if I was inviting someone to read the AfD notice of one of their articles. I'd rather just type it up, but again, that's me.

After looking over some pages this morning, (WP:TIGER, WP:NCR, and WP:BEANS) and after reading the "Tutorial Drive" page, I've decided to go ahead with writing the Etiquette guide, but I'm going slowly, and I'd prefer to have individuals look at it prior to actually putting it up public, to get ideas on improvements, assistance with possible trouble spots, and proofreading. (Even the best, most awesome editor, should not proof their own work!)

So, if anyone would like to volunteer for that, please drop me a note on my talk page. I'd also like to get the opinions of a few administrators who are well respected, and can give feedback on the essay. And in closing, I want to thank all of you who have replied, because you all gave me even more to think about than I'd originally planned on, and I believe it will make the essay more effective. So thank you. ^Ariel♥Gold 16:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm curious about something, though. When you say "the CSD removal message" are you referring to {{uw-speedy2}} and similar templates, that warn an article creator, often a relative newcomer, not to remove a CSD notice, or to {{Speedy-Warn}} that informs a tagger (normally an editor who is at least somewhat experienced) that a tag has been removed, and suggests very gently that it not be replaced? As to using the standardized templates, i first wrote individual messages. But I found that I was writing essentially the same message over and over, and creating a template version would save work and avoid typos. Then I found standard messages by others such as {{AFDWarning}}, {{AFDNote}}, {{DRVNote}}. These have been worked on and improved by many editors, and their selection of wording and links helps ensure that vital information is not omitted from a notification. I think that using such standardized messages can be a significant plus, often combined with a supplementary, more personalized note. DES ^(talk) 16:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Improving this page

So, apparently this got nominated for deletion because somebody thought it encouraged people to be uncivil. I don't really see how, but I do feel this could be worked on. I think the most important thing this page should do is describe the point of templates. It starts off with something about vandalizing Wikipedia, which I don't think is always appropriate to the use of a warning template. I'm going to rewrite that a bit, tell me how you like it. FrozenPurpleCube 17:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• Wikipedia has many editors, of a varying level of participation and experience. Some of the editors are clearly not here for the benefit of Wikipedia, but that's not true for most. Still, even the best editor can have a bad day and do something they shouldn't have. So we need to communicate with each other. Sometimes this is best done on the personal level, one to one, but I think everybody agrees that there are some repetitive actions like welcoming users or notifying folks that a page is up for deletion that merit helpful templates to give folks a bit of a break in their typing.

• None of those actions should actions should merit significant concern for anybody, they're helpful. While the {{tilde}} which tells folks to sign their posts could possibly be offensive if it was somebody who just accidentally forgot to sign (which happens, and that's why we have {{unsigned)}), there isn't anything really offensive about using it. Anybody who takes offense is probably just being irritable, which is their problem.

• Where the offense comes in, though, is usually the warning templates. The things that tell somebody they did something wrong. Which is a problem, since folks do occasionally do things they shouldn't. Is it inappropriate to use warning templates on anybody? Obviously not, they wouldn't exist if so. Are warning templates restricted to a particular class of user? No, because the inappropriate conduct can be done by a variety of users. Yes, there are some templates that are written in ways that aren't appropriate for everybody, but in that case, they're probably not the one you want to use. That doesn't mean one shouldn't be used.

[edit] Proposal: Merge to DTTR

I think this essay should be merged with the opposing essay/guideline. --Ronz 16:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Before considering that, have a look at User:ArielGold/Etiquette2, a much more comprehensive guide to what I would call template etiquette. Carcharoth 00:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Excellent essay. Once it's out of user space, then another merger discussion will be worthwhile. --Ronz 00:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Merge with DTTR makes no sense. Merge would give an meaningless, contradictory essay. Otto (talk) 16:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)