Wikipedia talk:Don't template the regulars

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Miscellany for deletion This page was nominated for deletion on 30 July 2007. The result of the discussion was snowball keep.


Contents

[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)
Much depends on the particular template involved, and the particular use being made of it. In any case, IMO if a msg is proper to send in a "personalized" way, it is exactly as proper to send as a template, and contrawise, if a template does not express what you mean, don't use it and try to hide behind 'but that's what the template said, I didn't choose the words". Templates are tools, people are moral agents. Whether a msg is uncivil or improper depends on the content and the context, not on whether it was generated via a template or not. DES (talk) 20:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
This point about not over-generalizing is very important. In that sense both essays miss the point by focussing on an unhelpful dichotomy between experienced and new editors. Experienced editors can pass on the wisdom of their experience, and new editors can bring fresh ideas and both sides should benefit. I do think that Wikipedia:Avoid generalizations might help, and would address more than just templates. Carcharoth 20:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree that Wikipedia:Avoid generalizations might be a useful essay, although of course it would to some extent violate its own dictates, being itself a generalization <snark> I am also thinking of writing Wikipedia:Don't hide behind templates. I also note that the essay refers specifically to "canned warning templates" but I have had it cited at me for the use of templates that are, IMO rather more notifications than warnings, and that also require significant individual components filled in via parameters. I am thinking specifically of {{Speedy-Warn}}, which i use fairly frequently, and almost always on the talk pages of people who are more or less regulars -- complete newcomers rattly tag pages for speedy deletion. For the matter of that, consider templates like {{AFDWarning}}, which is explicitly aimed at non-new users (unlike {{AFDWarningNew}}) but could still be considered a "canned warning template". DES (talk) 21:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Just the title Wikipedia:Avoid generalizations, as a red-link, might be enough to get this ironic point across, maybe? :-) Carcharoth 21:12, 30 July 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. GracenotesT § 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)

[edit] Bad idea

This page is a bad idea, and I agree with the comments above criticizing it. The fact is, warning templates offer a neutral way to say "What you did was wrong" and since for some people a custom-message may be too hard to do adequately, it's good to have a boiler-plate. A person who receives a behavior warning is probably going to be upset anyway, worrying over whether it's perceived as condescending because it's a boilerplate is just foolish. And while I suppose a specific warning message could be adapted for experienced users, that might actually be worse, since that could end up sounding like "You should know better" . And the fact is, many times I've tried gently and directly explaining to a person that they should be more civil or avoid commenting on the contributor instead of the content. But how often does anyone listen anyway? That's the real problem. People reject the idea that they have done wrong a lot easier than they listen to criticism. And that even includes me. FrozenPurpleCube 14:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

And yes, somebody did try to use this against me. I ignored it since I don't believe in this essay, and I felt I should express that further here. FrozenPurpleCube 14:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The "regulars" should know better, so they shouldn't be transgressing policy in the first place, and they should certainly understand if they get tagged for doing so. --Butseriouslyfolks 03:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
The problem is, the situation described is not always the case. For instance, if someone told me I was putting biased material into an article, I wouldn't be offended, I would just discuss it with them. But if that person told me about it with a template that assumes I do not know there was a rule against biased material, I would be offended. -Amarkov moo! 03:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Sounds like a reason to improve the template in that case. Or make a new one, though as I said, it'd be important not to say it in an even more offensive manner. FrozenPurpleCube 17:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't this be "Don't use behavioral template in a content dispute" or "Don't template those who don't need it"? If a regular does not know the rule, forgot the rule, or is ignoring the rule then a template is a great way of saying something. This essay gives no reason not to template the regulars other than "Established editors will be aware of the policies the templates address", well if that would be nice if true, but it is just not always so.
For example I have seen admins forget about the NPA policy, and then when reminded they seem to have forgotten how it works. I think a template is perfect for such a forgetful person. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 12:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I think the essay is reasonably clear that it's about "us[ing] canned warning templates, such as {{npa3}} or {{3rr}}, to attack experienced editors with whom they are in conflict." If you are not in conflict with the individual, or your are not using the template to attack, the essay is not designed to address that. Could you provide an example where templating a regular with an NPA warning has served to diffuse a situation? Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Templating anyone is bad - the regulars find it insulting (even if it's right and they're wrong) and the newbies feel bureaucratically processed. If you have the same thing to say to people over and over again, write it in your own words and cut'n'paste - David Gerard 13:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
In the same way that sending a greeting card is bad compared to writing a personal letter instead. --Ronz 18:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this page is not so super. Its definitely not a guideline. Templates can save a lot of time and make the point very clearly, when used properly. As with any tool, they can be abused.—Gaff ταλκ 19:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I wish I had come across this discussion earlier... Don't template experienced users? Boilerplate them with ruddy rivets to their foreheads! If an experienced editor well versed in policy/rules/guidelines is damaging WP with their (knowing) actions then their sensitivity is not going to be my highest priority. A vandal/troll is a vandal/troll is a vandal/troll! How many edits they have or how long they have been contributing previously to the violation should be irrelevant, IMO. Good, glad I got that off my chest... I will of course abide by accepted practice. LessHeard vanU 21:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge proposal

I have propose that this essay and Wikipedia:Template the regulars be merged. Please discuss below. Carcharoth 10:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - they are arguments for two different positions and should best be kept separate each with a link to reference the other. IPSOS (talk) 13:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The positions are contradictory and need to be reconciled. Keeping them separate is not really an option. I think it is possible to integrate the two, as there are changes that should be made to both. Both, I think, need to be renamed, as the titles are the most obvious point of disagreement. Can anyone think of a new title to merge them under? Carcharoth 14:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
(This is not a vote count, but supposedly a discussion, so you'll have to figger out whether I support or oppose Carcharoth's suggestion.) Edit conflict... and, in other words, IPSOS, "Template the regulars" is a POV fork of "Don't template the regulars", and... uh... therefore they should be kept separate? You and others might like to take a look at the guideline Content forking for some discussion of related matters and principles. As I wrote at the author's RFA yesterday, I think his userspace, or (very cautiously) merged with "DTTR," or on the talkpage of "DTTR," would all be better places for TTR than a solo appearance in Wikipedia space is. Though, seeing how very little valid content TTR would bring to the merge, I'm coming round to the opinion that miscellany for deletion would be a still better place for it. Bishonen | talk 14:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC).
I believe the same for Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars. You can see from this page that there is hardly a consensus that this essay is a good idea either. Perhaps they should both be put up for deletion. IPSOS (talk) 15:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
It seems logical to merge the two, to avoid confusion. --John 16:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I can't imagine how merging the two would make this page better. If the other page is unsustainable a better option would be to delete it. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't believe that this page is sustainable either. IPSOS (talk) 18:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

How about we merge both into Wikipedia:Don't make broad generalizations about what to do with templates? Seriously though the merge proposed here seems to be unproductive. Until(1 == 2) 17:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like a much more appropriate title. :-) IPSOS (talk) 18:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I strongly oppose such a merge. They are simply two quite opposed views on proper conduct in this area, and neither has consensus. That is an excellent situation for conflicting essays, neither of which claims to be a policy or guideline. To make the status clearer, each should include a link to the other. But each should be able to make the strongest possible case for its position without needing to live in the same page with its polar opposite. I would even more strongly oppose deletion, but if one is deleted, than both should surely be deleted. DES (talk) 20:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, so far we have four options: (1) keep both as they are; (2) and (3) delete one and keep the other; (4) merge to a better title. I wonder where's the best place to go from here? I think keep discussing for a few more days, and see if a consensus emerges one way or the other. I forgot the fifth option - delete both. Carcharoth 21:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that the issue of POV forking is a red herring. That's correct for article space, and even for actual policies and guidelines, but not for opinion essays in Wikipedia space. If there are conflicting opinions, each should be developed by people who hold them, and not interfered with by opposing parties. They are, after all, statements of opinion. IPSOS (talk) 21:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I quite agree. A rejointer or response to an essay isn't a fork, and calling something a "POV fork" implies that the original adhered to NPOV, but eassys almost by definition do not ahve a neutral PoV. DES (talk) 21:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Can you give other examples of conflicting essays? How common is it really to have conflicting essays? Carcharoth 21:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Essays are just opinion pieces. I'm sure there are other conflicting ones, you could browse Category:Wikipedia essays if you like. Here's one called A treatise on essays. IPSOS (talk) 21:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Consider Wikipedia:Practical process, Wikipedia:Process is important, and Wikipedia:Product, process, policy for one set of examples. DES (talk) 21:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm in favour of deleting TTR. Obviously, the consensus is that it's not a step forward, and as Bishonen said it isn't really producing any arguments. So it's been tagged with {{db-self}}. Thanks, Giggy UCP 22:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I have restored it, on the ground that multiple editors have contributed to it, as shown by the history. If there is a copnsensu tha tthis shouldn't live in the wikipedia namespace, I'll move it to my userspace. DES (talk) 03:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
As it looks like the other essay (ie. this essay) will be kept at MfD, userfying that essay (the one that you've just restored) might be the best option all round. I agree that the other essay this one) needs modifying to take into account some of the points raised here, possibly renaming to avoid referencing "regulars" in the title. I liked "Only use templates appropriately", though the title should make clear that these are warning/notice templates being put on user talk pages. The key points are: (1) If you are experienced enough to realise that someone else is experienced, don't insult them with templates designed for new editors or for vandals; (2) Always stop and think what message is being sent by using a template instead of a handwritten message. So maybe a title like Wikipedia:Use template messages with caution? Carcharoth 09:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. The MfD makes it clear that all opinions are welcome in Wikipedia space essays. If one is userfied, so should the other. It is not correct for one group of editors who hold one opinion to suppress or marginalize the other, regardless of which group is in the majority. There are other conflicting essays. The same reasoning dictates that the articles should not be merged. I am removing the merge suggestions. IPSOS (talk) 13:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Not all opinions. You will find that if an essay really annoys the community, it will end up deleted at MfD pretty quickly. Userfying is a way to incubate essays until the community is ready for them. Admittedly, some of the current essays are a joke, but there are some long-standing essays out there that have a lot of support. The MfD showed that this is one of them. Carcharoth 16:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge won't work. There's a pair of opinions here. All putting them on the same page would do is well, put them on the same page. No sense in that, they work just as well on two pages, and that way you don't need to worry about which gets listed first or anything. I think one is at least partially mistaken, but I don't see any reason to remove it, since it's just an essay, therefore I'll disregard it when it's used inappropriately. I'm sure there are cases where some people mis-use warning templates, but that's an individual case problem, not an over-all one. As long as this essay doesn't get traction in other pages, I don't much care. If you want to try to establish an overall opinion, then you'll have to do some work like setting up some RFCs, maybe some straw polls, and otherwise reach a large base of WP editors. FrozenPurpleCube 21:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I oppose a merge with TTR. Merging would give a meaningless, contradictory essay. DTTR is good as it is. Otto (talk) 16:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal: Merge with WP:TTR

I think TTR should be merged into this article. Both have good points. Especially important I think is that TTR attempts to address the assumption here that it's fine to treat templates as a bad faith action, which is absolute and total nonsense and goes against WP:CIVIL. --Ronz 16:27, 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. When will it be ready to move from user space? --Ronz 00:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
See Merge proposal above. Otto (talk) 16:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nom for deletion

I've nominated both Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars and Wikipedia:Dont slap the regulars with policy for deletion. In the process I was surprised to discover that both the original authors have left Wikipedia and both requested that their accounts be indef blocked as they were leaving. That's rather odd, I think IPSOS (talk) 22:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rename

Would anyone object to this essay being renamed to Wikipedia:Use template messages with caution? There are about three redirects that would need renaming. This rename would allow a more general treatment of template usage etiquette. Hmm. Wikipedia:Template message etiquette has a nice ring as well. What do people think? Carcharoth 16:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

IMO, Wikipedia:Use template messages with caution or perhaps better Wikipedia:Template message etiquette really should be a different esaay, that starts fdrom scratch, and references both this and WP:TTR, and tries to indicate what there is consensus for, and what ther isn't. If well done, such a page might well attain consensus as a guideline, which this page or any page significantly derived from it, is IMO unlikely to do. I think i am going to write Wikipedia:Don't hide behind tempaltes, whcih might possibly wind up linked to or merged into a future Wikipedia:Template message etiquette. DES (talk) 19:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree, any essay with those titles should significantly differ from this one, a fresh start that reflects consensus would be better. Or we can just leave things where they are with 2 opposing essays, that is okay to have. Until(1 == 2) 19:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Why make things more complicated? Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars is clear and to the point. WP:TTR is just a series of arguments against this essay, it is little more than venting and hypothetical counterexamples. Lets keep the message focused. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 21:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I think that such an essay might be a valid attempt to reach a valid position between the two, but you would probably be better served from starting from scratch. FrozenPurpleCube 21:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I posted my thoughts over on the Template the regulars talk page, if anyone is interested in my personal philosophy (which is both this one, and that one, lol). . Ariel♥Gold 14:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Explaining the red-links above

For the record, the red links above resulted from the userfication of the essay. For ease of reference, to avoid digging through page logs, the essay red-linked above was userfied to User:DESiegel/Template the regulars. Carcharoth 13:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Guideline or essay?

This is not a bad essay, but I am not sure if this gained enough consensus and recognition to become a guideline.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  05:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree. Templates are there for a reason. If this is a guideline, maybe all the template warnings should be listed for deletion? — Alex(U|C|E) 06:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
This is really somewhat of difficult thing to plug as a behavioral guideline. Enforcing this in such way can create some bad bite episodes. An essay is really a better way to strongly encourage such a belief so as not to push it too much when it comes to enforcement. Similar to WP:DENY.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 07:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, we have some pretty mean or controversial essays and not all of them get nuked or userfied. Also, note that the tag says that

it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception.

So, if people are reasonable, we won't be talking "enforcement". And if people are unreasonable, there is probably a need to take an action anyway. I forsee the objection that this being a guideline may be used for wikilawyering. That may well be true but so is any guideline, policy or even essay.

Point is that the community seems to agree that templating the regulars brings more harm than good. As many guidelines are sometimes broken in case when such is warranted, so would be this one. --Irpen 07:45, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I don't mind being templated. Anyway, back to the discussion. After having to deal with lots of controversies that deal with guidelines and looking this "guideline" over, I think it would be better for this guideline to go back to being classified as an "essay". Even though guidelines are not set in stone, as Irpen stated, people tend to treat them like they are. And there are plenty of examples of essays or unofficial guidelines which are used throughout Wikipedia as though they were official. I just feel that this essay being classified as a guideline might stir up controversy in the future. — Alex(U|C|E) 08:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I share Persian Poet Gal's qualms about this. I personally don't like the rising barrier of entry to Wikipedia, and fear that this will merely make it worse. Additionally, we have essays that are widely supported by the community -- WP:DENY comes to mind. Yet those aren't guidelines, because not everything is suitable to be a guideline. This document as a guideline is kind of an the edge of suitability IMO. It is indeed a behavioral issue, but is more prescriptive than proscriptive. At any rate, while I agree that templating the regulars often generates unnecessary drama, I would prefer this remain as an essay. Just my two cents --Iamunknown 08:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment: since when do we enforce guidelines? We enforce policy. Guidelines are for, well, guidance. It seems to me there is some fundamental misunderstanding about what a guideline is, and this is making more clear to me why I see people on talk pages trying to argue a policy vs. a guideline. I cannot count the number of times I've typed "Policy trumps guideline" or a variation thereof. KillerChihuahua?!? 10:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
On the basis of KillerChihuahua's comments my reservations regarding it becoming a guideline are muted somewhat. I would prefer it to remain a (good) essay, but I would not object to it being accorded guideline status should that be the consensus. LessHeard vanU 15:29, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm a little surprised at the objections here, it's pretty clear that the idea has at least rough consensus judging by the reaction whenever it's brought up over the last 6 months or so on various talk pages. It's already commonly frowned upon so at least descriptively it's already accepted as an ideal. And as a general behavioral issue, templating the regulars never helps...and is generally seen as condescending and/or passive aggressive. This is nothing new, and as a descriptive ideal already carries the force of a behavioral guideline. All it does (from WP:POL) is it recommends, or recommends against, an action to be taken by editors. Nothing controversial at all. RxS 14:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Colour me as another person who feels that while DTTR makes a nice essay, it falls short of having the concensus needed for guideline status. --Kralizec! (talk) 17:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Chihuahua hits it right on the head - guidelines aren't enforced, and "essays that are widely supported" is the very definition of guidelines. Whether people "like" this page is irrelevant; guidelines aren't made through majority vote. What matters is whether the content of the page is accurate. >Radiant< 08:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I dissent!

I see no evidence that this has the consensus of the community. It is a fine essay, but not all fine essays should be made guidelines. I would hate to see someone accused of "violating" this in a dispute. Sure templates are impersonal, but they are strongly encouraged -- even mandated -- by existing policies and references to those policies, which do not discern between regulars (and who defines regulars?) and noobs. Making templates illegal in special cases that editors will not know about unless they read this is exactly the worst kind of instruction creep. I get ticked off when people template me, but I strongly defend their right to do so. Maybe they are in a hurry. Maybe they haven't read this. I don't want action taken against them.

A cursory glance at the comments on this talk page strongly suggest that far from there being a consensus, a majority might in fact be opposed.

For those reasons I ask that this be returned to essay status, please. ←BenB4 08:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

See the discussion above. :-) — Alex(U|C|E) 09:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Given the comments above, I think somebody should be bold and demote it to an essay-level. Again, I will say it's a fine essay - it needs to be brought more often in discussions, and I would not be suprised if it would indeed become a policy one day. But this day is not today, it seems.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  16:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I feel that the "concerns" raised above came from Irpen's stalkers who generally follow his edits with the aim of opposing everything he says or does. I bow to his ability to keep editing under such pressure. --Ghirla-трёп- 18:49, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Excuse me? Are you saying that I stalk Irpen? — Alex 00:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

LOL, I am used to it. I always said that it only amuses me and fills my sole with pity and sorrow. Especially amusing was Piotrus invoking the claim of his being stalked. --Irpen 19:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the concerns above. In theory, policies/guidelines/essays are completely different, but in the end all of them have similar validity in an argument. Think about it - how many times have you seen WP:IDONTLIKEIT cited in an AFD? It's only an essay yet many people take it to heart. There does not seem to be a consensus to make this a guideline, and it's not a big issue (as I just pointed out), so leaving it as an essay is probably the best course of action. And personally, I disagree with the essay itself. Either way it should not be made into a guideline. ugen64 05:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
This is an essay, it is opinion and does not share the consensus needed to be a guideline. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 05:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Return to essay status. There's no good definition of what a regular is, and no consensus for making this into a guideline. Videmus Omnia Talk 17:03, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • As above, "consensus to make this a guideline" is a fallacy. You don't "make" things into guidelines. If the page is accurate, it is by definition already one. If not, then voting won't make it so either. See also the ongoing thread on WP:AN where a number of people point out that, despite some people disliking this page, it is certainly accurate. >Radiant< 08:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I've returned it to essay status. I see more exceptions to this guideline than I see times when it should be followed. --Ronz 04:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Such as? >Radiant< 09:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Making this a guideline would be a really bad idea. A guideline saying "it's usually a bad idea to do X to the regulars" looks a lot like "don't annoy members of the cabal" to a newbie. -Amarkov moo! 05:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
    • But the point is that it is usually a bad idea to do X to the regulars. Most of the warning templates are phrased like "perhaps you didn't know, but we have this-and-that policy", which sounds rather condescending towards anyone who did already know that. The effect is then to aggravate a dispute rather than calm it down. Perhaps this page needs some rewording to make that clearer, but many people misunderstand the purpose of these templates. >Radiant< 09:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Added a nutshell, that may help. The point is not that templating regulars is forbidden; the point is that personal messages have been seen to be more effective. If you're communicating with someone, being effective wouldn't hurt, now would it. >Radiant< 09:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I think that resolves most of my concerns. --Ronz 15:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Rename?

I still oppose the upgrade of making this a guideline but there is the possibility that it can remain a guideline with a more appropriate name. The topic above points to Ariel's page on etiquette. Why not rename this page to something like "Wikipedia:Template etiquette" or something a little less direct than blatantly saying don't template the regulars. As much of a common courtesy as leaving a personal message for a regular is, we got to leave a little more room for unique circumstances. The good thing is though, that the language of the page has been greatly improved and does reflect understanding of using common sense.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 18:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia talk:Don't template the regulars#Rename above. Carcharoth 00:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
How about Wikipedia:Don't make sweeping generalizations about the appropriateness of how templates are used on who? ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 00:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
That would be an inflammatory essay that would not gain much support and will likely end up deleted or userfied at XfD. You are welcome to try. --Irpen 03:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Inflammatory? I don't see how. XfD'd? I don't see under what justification. Frankly I think the title is good advice. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 02:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I like the idea of a template etiquette behavioral guideline that would capture more of the nuances of using templates, without having the baggage that this page's name has generated.--Kubigula (talk) 04:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
While I understand that this document is a guideline, I am somewhat disappointed that the community thinks thus. That said, I think a rename would not be appropriate. This page is here because the community thoroughly dislikes when regulars are templated, it causes tons of drama, people are blocked or threatened with blocks, etc. ... I think it should have a forceful title because of this very real background. (Oh, I like the copyedits too. Thx Radiant :-)) --Iamunknown 06:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Don’t template blatant vandals?!

I don’t get it. Does this mean we should not template blatant vandals? 209.112.189.130, for example, clearly knows he is a troll. What are we supposed to do? Write a personal message like “Pretty please don’t vandalize again”? It’s not worth the trouble. The only purpose of leaving any message is to prevent an admin at WP:AIV from dismissing a report. It’s not worth any extra trouble or thought. --teb728 07:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

No, this essay is not speaking to vandals; as is clear in both the title and text, it is talking specifically about regular editors, who presumably are already familiar with Wikipedia's rules and guidelines and thus do not need boilerplate text. They may need some direction if they are making mistakes, but it is much more civil (not to mention helpful) to be specific to such editors. Secondarily, the purpose of leaving warnings for vandals is not so that admins won't dismiss reports, it's to (gasp) warn vandals! I've warned plenty of anonymous editors who committed what appeared to be vandalism, but after our first gentle templated warning, came to my talk page to apologize for not understanding what Wikipedia was. Warnings likely won't stop "vandals" who come solely to terrorize, but they will stop those who aren't committed or who don't understand what they're doing. Regards, —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 00:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
IMHO it is not clear in either the title or the text that “this essay is not speaking to vandals.” So far as the text is concerned, it explicitly cites {{uw-vandalism3}} as a template which should be used carefully. As for the title: the troll I mentioned is a kind of “regular”: He knows what the vandalism templates say, and he knows how to game the system by laying off for a couple of days after he gets a “final” warning. He doesn’t need a warning, but it seems some admins do. (Fortunately the AIV report on him today didn’t go to a lienent admin; so we won’t see him for a while.)
On the essay more generally, it seems to me that templates are more appropriate to regulars than to newbies. If I accidentally violated 3RR or AGF or whatever, probably the template would be just the right reminder; for a newbie, an explanation of our rules would probably be more helpful.--teb728 01:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, the templates are supposed to explain it, or at least link to an explanation. Perhaps the really important rule is "Read what the templates you're using actually say." As for blatant repeat vandals, I'd say they shouldn't be templated: if they've already been warned and know the rules, just block them. We even have a "template to end all templates" for this purpose: {{repeatvandal}}. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't template anyone. I actually tell a vandal to behave themselves in plain English. (then warn them up to 3 times :-P ). This is better, if only because I can never remember which template is which anyway. Also, it's personal. People listen more carefully when you leave them a personal message. --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Consensus to be a guideline

There is plenty of objection, and a lack of consensus to make this a guideline. I have returned it to an essay. Please gain a clear consensus before making it a guideline. This essay has a long history of being controversial. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 02:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The page accurately describes the common practice. If the page is accurate, it is by definition already a guideline as pointed by Radiant. "[D]espite some people disliking this page, it is certainly accurate." --Irpen 02:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I see that Irpen, the same person who made it a guideline to begin with, has restored it to being a guideline. So, what are other people's interpretation of consensus? ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 02:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Essay - The fact that it has fluxed between essay and guideline at least a half dozen times since it was boldly promoted tends to tell me that consensus has not been reached. --Kralizec! (talk) 02:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Is there anyone here saying that templating the regulars is actually a good idea? --Irpen 02:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
That depends. Have we actually defined what a "regular" is? --Kralizec! (talk) 02:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Essay: I am unaware of this as a “common practice.” And I see nothing wrong with templating “regulars” (whatever that means). I would be more in favor of saying “Don’t template the newbies.” --teb728 03:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Right, it clearly belongs as an essay, at least for now. In its current state it implies "editors that[sic] have been around for a while" are "regulars." This is nonsense: can anyone show that the regularity of an editors contributions is in any way related to the amount of time since that editor's first contribution? The essay is loaded with these kinds of implications ... and they would be inherently damaging if they were included in a page given "guideline" status. (sdsds - talk) 04:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Essay. As much as I wish this wasn't the case, "guideline" tends to be interpreted as "basically policy." I loosely agree with the thesis of this essay, but I wouldn't say it reflects a consensus; not a strong one, anyway. It's an issue that can be reasonably argued both ways and I'd favor giving editors greater freedom to do as they please (not that guidelines strictly limit freedom, but the effect is similar). The point isn't just to let editors feel superficially autonomous -- this essay understandably makes some moderate generalizations, so I think the issue is best decided on a case-by-case basis, given no compelling reason to enforce one side. — xDanielx T/C 05:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Essay - I agree with the concept in principle but I think formalizing as a guideline is a mistake. There is simply too mugh grey-area. We can't create guidelines to dictate common sense. Perhaps we can sum this up in a paragraph and add it to WP:CIVIL? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 06:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Essay - I disagree with it
My opinion:
Bad points:
  1. Admins often only agree to block after a "final warning"
  2. Warning templates give a clear message: stop or be blocked, sometimes the only way of getting through to people
  3. Forcing users to write a personal message, will only cause them to do it in an inappropriate tone, and make threats of blocking, instead of just a notice
  4. I am totally against creating "groups" of users based on anything other than their technical rights
  5. Deciding whether a user is well established is too subjective, and may lead to arguments such as: "You think I'm a noob ? Look at yourself first, all you ever do is move templates with AWB".
  6. Could be used as a snide way of getting at betacommandbot for example, or because someone "templated " Jimbo the other day
  7. I don't want to see uw-template:

This is your last warning.
The next time you leave a warning template on an established user's talk page, you will be blocked from editing.

Good points:
  1. Would help to keep things calm, and avoid pointless arguments, over what is obviously not vandalism, but a misunderstanding for example.
  2. Would force people to look into the problem and seek a solution, rather than simply revert + warn Jackaranga 07:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Essay. Templating the regulars may in many cases not be the best way of communicating, but it is certainly not so bad that it should be discouraged by a guideline. As has been said here, there is no definition of who is a regular either, and I wouldn't like to make separate user classes. Fram 08:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Essay - let's avoid instruction creep where possible. We don't need to formalise common sense. Neil ム 10:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your responses folks. I though for a second I had forgotten how to judge consensus, or a lack there of. Nice to see myself pass a sanity check. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 15:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Essay. The criteria aren't remotely clear enough for this to be anything else, nor is the proposal a good idea. 泥紅蓮凸凹箱 19:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Obviously it should be a guideline on Mondays, Wednesdays, Fridays and alternate Sundays, and should be an essay the rest of the time. Then we can stop warring about it, and anyone who is dissatisfied with the current status can merely wait 24 or 48 hours. :) Xtifr tälk 00:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Essay. It's too ridiculous to be a guideline. LaraLove 04:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Essay - what Jackaranga said and this. Acalamari 00:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Essay as per xDanielx. --SmokeyJoe 03:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


This page is either Policy or Supplement (of 3 revert rule and user pages), as you can get blocked for violating this rule 3 times. --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you please explain? Are you saying someone can be blocked for giving three warning templates to someone, or perhaps reverting a removed template? --Ronz (talk) 21:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
You can be blocked for reverting a removed template 3 times. --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining. While true, it's not very relevant as it's not specific to just templates, nor to any type of editors, regulars or not. --Ronz (talk) 00:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Either that or this guidance is actually more general in scope than the title suggests. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 11:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Seeking advice

I built and started using this template today, after I got frustrated finding out I was the only one warning repeat vandals. (My frustration came from the fact that it appeared I had my gunsights on specific offenders completely.) As these other editors did the actual reversion, I thought it would be helpful if they 'finished the play,' so-to-speak. However, and I understand this, these regulars have responded less than positively, and one referred me here. I really don't want to write out a statement for each editor, nor do I want to give up asking for help. Would simply paring down the words, losing the image and box suffice? Thanks. --LeyteWolfer 02:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Speaking from experience earned the hard way, "regulars" always respond better to personalized messages. Slapping a quick template message on a "regular" will get you indifference and mild irritation at best, with outright hostility and righteous indignation being the most common response. In general, the standardized WP:UTM template messages work best as educational tools for newer editors, so on the rare occasion I see a newer editor revert vandalism without issuing a warning (perhaps because they are so new they do not know about the standardized warnings), I use the {{uw-warn}} template. --Kralizec! (talk) 02:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Using a template on regulars is perfectly fine if the words of the template truly reflect what you mean to say. There is no consensus that you should not template the regulars, that is why this page is an essay and not policy. You can tell that to the folks pointing you here. That is a fine template, and I encourage its use, I may use it myself sometime. 1 != 2 19:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for both POVs. I've tempered my use a bit by taking a second look at the editor. --LeyteWolfer (talk) 21:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Copying and using template wording is fine, as long as it is not patronising in tone. Using the icons and decoration of a template is probably best avoided. Those are good for newer editors, but experienced editors will get the message without the need for pretty icons. Carcharoth (talk) 14:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Templating of regulars should be reverted on sight. Good idea? Bad idea? Discuss.

See here. Mike R (talk) 15:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

While I wholeheartedly agree that "regulars" always respond better to a personalized message rather than a template, updating DTTR to suggest reverting on sight sounds like an invitation for disaster. Especially since DTTR is, you know, just an essay. --Kralizec! (talk) 19:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not asking whether it's a good idea to update this essay. I'm asking whether it's a good idea to remove a templated message from another user's talkpage for the sole* reason of DTTR. Mike R (talk) 19:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
*though cited as such, DTTR might not be the sole reason for removal in the example I linked.
When editors subst templates, they take full responsibility for the words thus generated. That's the way it should be done, and those words, added by that editor through substing a template, should be treated with respect by other editors just as if they were hand-crafted. (sdsds - talk) 21:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Respect or dis-respect, as may be appropriate? ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why should anyone be templated?

Newbies can be insulted/dismayed by templates just as much as regulars. Obviously, they're not going to write essays about it, but basic politeness suggests that personal notes are generally the best policy. john k (talk) 22:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Templates are good for responding to newbie experiments. The welcome template is very useful. The various templates advising against bad behaviour make the job much less onerous for those trying to maintain the peace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Whether personal notes are the best policy, they take many multiples longer time to write when you know the template you want to use, and deliver the same bottom-line message. Elfits FOR GREAT JUSTICE (klat) 14:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Agree with 'John Kenney' here, newbies can also be just as dismayed by templates. As newbies don't realise it's a template, but think it's some sort of automatic robot, quite inhuman and normally inappropriate. SunCreator (talk) 19:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The question is not "should it be", The correct question is "is it"?

The question asked by Until 1==2 above does not convince me at all, as it just asks "should this be a guideline". Frankly, that question is irrelevant.

The only question worth asking is if this is actually applied on the wiki. Well, it is. If you template regulars too often, you get blocked, it's that simple. No questions asked.

In short, this is a guideline or policy, however you want to put it. If you've seen people get away with templating regulars more than 3 times in 24 hours, please tell me about it. :-)

--Kim Bruning (talk) 15:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

If you template regulars too often, you get blocked, it's that simple. No questions asked. Since when? I'm all for the advice this page has, but I've never seen someone get blocked for using template messages. Rather, they get blocked for harassing another editor, which happens regardless of how the message is generated. -- Ned Scott 00:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Kim, we determine these things by consensus, not your interpretation. I assume you are talking about 3RR. The fact that templating a regular is not an exemption from 3RR proves nothing. We don't block people for giving appropriate templates to users who are "regulars", do you have any links to such blocks? If you do I suspect the real reason for the block was disruption, sock puppetry, or 3RR. (1 == 2)Until 00:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree completely with Until(1 == 2), and have to add that "talk page vote not convincing :-P" [1] is one of the oddest reasons I have seen yet on Wikipedia for totally ignoring consensus, especially when that consensus was virtually unanimous (Wikipedia talk:Don't template the regulars#Consensus to be a guideline) about this being an essay. Likewise elevating WP:TEMPLAR to supplement status strikes me as being rather superfluous as editors are actually blocked for 3RR violations on the talk pages of others, regardless of if the text in dispute was a template or custom made. As noted in WP:USER, editors -both registered and anonymous- may remove messages at will from their own talk pages … who cares if that text was a template or hand-crafted? --Kralizec! (talk) 12:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

On procedures:

You can "elevate" things? HUH? Even if I can make sense of that... "elevate from essay to... essay giving supplemental information about foo"? WTF? No, that still doesn't make sense... Alright, I give up, what on earth are you talking about?

On your 2nd procedural point I think there's also consensus that the sky should be blue, but I'm not sure what that has to do with describing best practices on wikipedia.

I think we're living in different universes here or something. Let's move right along.

On the actual subject at hand:

Yes, people may remove whatever text from their own talk pages. That definitely has consensus, and if you edit war over it, the person with the user page always wins. :-) That also has general (if not unanimous) consensus, I believe?

Let's cut to the chase: Are we in agreement and do we have consensus on the actual subject at hand, yes or no?

--Kim Bruning (talk) 13:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

You don't have to understand Kim. It is enough that everyone else understands. All we ask is that you don't edit the page contrary to consensus. The fact that people are allowed to remove stuff from their talk page does not prevent the use of templates towards that user. Once again your conclusion does not follow from its premises. (1 == 2)Until 14:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I have left a note on Kim's talk page about editing and consensus, but Kim does not seem to believe me. (1 == 2)Until 14:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, I don't recall drawing any conclusions yet.
But we do agree that it's a fact that people may remove things from their talk page, and that edit warring with them about it is bad. That's good.
Do others also agree with that much?
--Kim Bruning (talk) 14:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
You don't remember drawing a conclusion? Okay, here is a reminder. it looks like you both came to a conclusion then acted on it. (1 == 2)Until 14:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but that was before people objected in the first place. I am now gathering information to base a new conclusion on, so that I may correctly act within consensus. Alright? --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
It seems you are trying to change the question because you don't like the answer. The thread title says it all. (1 == 2)Until 15:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Stop trying to read my mind. You're not very good at it :-P. Concentrate on what I'm actually saying or asking.
Getting back on track: @Kralizec, Ned Scott: Do you agree that it's a fact that people may remove things from their talk page, and that edit warring with them about it is bad? If so case, directly linking to the relevant policies using the supplemental essay tag would probably be all we need to do, I figure.
--Kim Bruning (talk) 16:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Agreement is superfluous; the WP:USER guideline clearly states that "policy does not prohibit users...from removing comments from their own talk pages." What more needs to be said? --Kralizec! (talk) 16:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Right! :-) So this page basically describes the consequences where several other policies and guidelines come together. On the one hand, people shouldn't be ignoring this page without thinking (because they'll get into trouble), but on the other hand marking every single derivative page {{guideline}} isn't all that either (see even the badly conducted poll above for comments on that, IIRC) .
There are several pages in the same boat. Is there a clear way to set them apart that you can think of? ({{supplement}} goes some of the way, but apparently people misread that too ...) --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Kim, the page makes it clear that its message is that you should not template the regulars. This is not a rule, and there are no consequences for doing this other than perhaps annoying someone who thinks they are above being templated. You keep saying people who template the regulars get in trouble, I don't think that is true. Can you demonstrate when this has happened? If it has happened then it was wrong because the community decided that this is not a rule. (1 == 2)Until 17:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
We already passed that point and reached agreement, didn't we? Didn't you admit that people could get into trouble for edit warring if they persisted in templating a particular editor, or did we miss a step? --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
If you persist in any edit then you get in trouble for edit warring. It means nothing to this debate. You do not get in trouble for templating a regular, it is neither policy nor practice. (1 == 2)Until 18:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, think the consequences through. For example, the whole {{uw-vandalism1}} {{uw-vandalism2}} {{uw-vandalism3}} {{uw-vandalism4}} goes to basically 4 reversions right there (on a 3 per day limit). --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
It does not follow. Perhaps somebody other than me will get your point, lets wait and see. (1 == 2)Until 19:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
What does not follow from what? Does templating 4 times not get you blocked? --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
No, it does not. I have templated regulars at least 5 times, and never have been blocked. If you mean reverting the removal of your template 4 times in 24 hours I will answer that by saying that reverting any edit 4 times in 24 hours will get you blocked. That fact that reverting something 4 times in 24 hours gets you blocked does not make one wit of difference to the validity of this essay. That, is why it does not follow.
Now, once again, I would love to wait a see what other people think of your theories before I dispute them further, perhaps I can't make sense of your logic because I lack clarity. Waiting and seeing what others think will be a good check on that. (1 == 2)Until 19:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
There's no 3RR on reverting in your own userspace. Interesting that you got away with templating 5 times once. I guess simply no-one reported you? --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I meant about 5 times total. Geez. (1 == 2)Until 23:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Until(1 == 2) said "perhaps somebody other than me will get your point." My reply: do not look at me, as I have absolutely no clue what Kim is talking about. Kim, can you give us an example -either made up, or preferably a real-life example with diffs- of someone templating a regular and getting blocked for it? --Kralizec! (talk) 22:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
It'd be amazing if you got my point, I haven't made it yet I don't think. Until 1==2 has been going off on assumed wild tangents, so I've basically been working on staying focussed.
Examples? I've got to have real world examples in my history somewhere, but I make a lot of edits. And it could be that we've managed to convince people to stop short of actually getting blocked IRL :-). I'll use some examples derived from what I remember then.
Imagine someone feels that a regular has been making odd edits, and decides to use one of those fine escalating warning template sets (like uw-vandalism1 through 4).
And say that that someone has the (common) misconception that it's ok to revertwar over warning templates in userspace...
That might get the templater blocked fairly quickly as they accumulate reverts at an amazing rate. I'm sure I've seen this scenario happen a couple of times, though typically I would've intervened, so I'm not sure it ever went on to the bitter end.
If a regular actually points out DTTR and starts reverting those same uw-vandalism templates off of their user talk page as they come in, you can easily argue at AN3RR that the templater is in violation of WP:3RR, since their edits only vary by one character each time :-P
Once again, it would be fairly easy to get the templater blocked. This is the scenario that I typically tell people about, to get them to be careful about indiscriminate templating.
Does that make sense so far?
--Kim Bruning (talk) 00:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


Good, sanity check 30% complete. (1 == 2)Until 23:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
100%... you've been going off on wild tangents all day. There wasn't a final point yet. Does that help? :-P --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
The essay does not say anything about not edit warring with templates. It says "Don't template the regulars". What is more, people will get blocked if they keet putting the template on the page of someone who was not a regular, and they would get blocked if it was a carefully custom written note that they kept reverting back. Was that your point or have you yet to make it? It is hard to tell. (1 == 2)Until 00:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

To me it seemed like Kim was just being bold with the tag, and was willing to go to discussion when others disagreed. I'm kind of confused about the above exchange.. Am I being oblivious to something? -- Ned Scott 06:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I would not call making an edit one knows to be against consensus "bold", more "stubborn". But regardless I am willing to discuss the matter, as long as I can make sense of the arguments. Or if I can't, then other people have to. (1 == 2)Until 14:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm trying to get things bolted down. Briefly, you can indirectly get into trouble by templating regulars, but there's no direct way to get into trouble, apparently (aka, you can get told off or even blocked based on one of several other policies, but there's no unique DTTR reason to get told off).
Because of that, the rules-lawering thing to do is to say that naturally DTTR is not a guideline or policy ;-)
But still, you can get into trouble indirectly if you violate DTTR, so I'm trying to figure a compromise. --Kim Bruning (talk) 09:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
By your logic you can get in trouble by making spelling corrections or rewording paragraphs. You are basically saying if you template the regulars in a manner that is disruptive or violates 3RR you will get in trouble. If you do anything in a manner that is disruptive or violates 3RR you get in trouble, that does not mean the underlying action was forbidden in any way. (1 == 2)Until 14:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template?

Do we have a template made up for this yet? xenocidic (talk) 20:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

{{IRONY}} (1 == 2)Until 20:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Since October 2007[2] ;-) Fram (talk) 06:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
My mind boggles at the irony. --Kralizec! (talk) 10:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, the only time I (or hopefully anyone) used it was months later on a WP:AN/I discussion. To put this on a newbie page would be rather elitist Fram (talk) 10:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What's a "Regular?"

The argument for this policy would be more persuasive to me if it clearly defined the meaning of "regular" and if a "regular" were easily identifiable. --Danorton 22:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)