User:ArielGold/Etiquette2/archive

{| style="width: 100%; background-color: #ffffff; border: 3px solid #cedff2; margin-bottom: 8px; vertical-align: top;"
 * colspan=3 style="vertical-align:top" |

Last archived: August 19, 2007

=August 2007=

Initial thoughts
An interesting essay. I agree with much of it. I note that it is pretty much exclusively from the PoV of an RC/NP patroller, and I think that should be made more explicit in a few cases.

I also note that a well made template, even one intended for use by more than one editor, can "feel" personal, particularly to a newcomer. Many of the standard uw series templates don't do this, of course, but that is all in how they are written, not in that they are templates.

You write several times of "Editing other members' talk pages" Do you mostly mean editing other editors' user pages? After all, one edits someone else's talk page every time one leaves an on-wiki message for that user. Or do you mean more extensive editing, such as User A removing user B's comments from User C's talk page? Or just what do you mean? this wasn't quite clear to me.

You write of the standard level1 warning message, and point out "Moving on, it says the edit was not constructive, but it doesn't say what edit, maybe the person has made more than one." You should know that that template, and pretty much all the uw templates, take an article name parameter. IMO no RC patroller should ever use one of these templates without filling in that parameter, for that very reason. This template and most other uw templates also take an additional text parameter, which can supply a bit of personalization. Thus that same template could almost as easily say:

I also note that your personalized "level 1" template warns/threatens blocking. In general few or none of the standard level 1 templates mentions the possibility of a block -- this is often perceived as a threat and has bad effects.

The paragraph that starts "It is often (and I think rightly) frowned upon to put any kind of "template" on a regular user's page." might well be appropriate is discussing "warning" templates, such as those in the various uw series. I don't think it is appropriate at all to other sorts of template messages, particularly "notification" templates such as AFDNote, nn-warn, DRVNote, or Speedy-Warn. i understand that templates such as those were not the sort of thing you were addressing, but you say "any kind" and essays such as this can be and IME are quoted in contexts that the original author might well not have approved.

However, i think this essay expresses to very good thoughts, and generally does so quite well. Please do finish it. If every RC patroller read it, i think things would be better.

Would you be interested in a section on being too quick on the trigger with speedy delete tags? I have seen a LOT of this. DES (talk) 20:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay
I'm going to grab some tea, and settle in to read this, and I'd like to just thank you (if you're still around) for taking the time to read what I'd put up so far, and for your great help, just glancing at it, you're right in the things I've read. I've changed my initial "vandal" warning (Note that I have different notices for "vandals" and for "unintentional errors".) to be the following:

Dear ArielGold, welcome to Wikipedia! We appreciate people coming here to contribute, however your recent edits were unhelpful, and have now been removed. I have a great idea: Instead, why not help improve Wikipedia by editing constructively? If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Have a great day! - Ariel ♥ Gold 20:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, know that the time I use that, is for pretty severe infractions, like F word, gay slurs, etc. (I look through and if the person either is new, or has not done anything egregious to warrant assumption of repeat offender, I use my other box.) I don't use it for any good faith mistakes, or blanking.

I'll have a response up here within the hour for the rest, and I look forward to your continued help making this something useful for the whole community, not just for VP/RC folks! Ariel ♥ Gold 20:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I am on now, but won't bne on an hour from now. I had assumed, sicn yuou compared your custom warnining to uw-vand1, that you used it in situatios for wi=hich uw-vand1 would be appropriate. If ypou use it mmostly in cases where others might skip straight to uw-vand2, that is a rather different matter. i look forward to reading your furhter comments. DES (talk) 21:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Reply
Alright, let me address the comments as presented.

First, you're right, I did present it with a slant towards RC/Vandal patrol. So I'll happily take your suggestions to expand it to cover other areas, but I've also not completed it and some of the issues you previously brought up on the other talk page I have yet to write.

I also wholeheartedly agree that templates can be personal. All of the notices I've given as examples of my own work I've made templates, and are used with the subst: tag, with the optional area for article name. (Well, I don't know if that technically makes them templates by the strict definition of the term, but that's how I tend to view the word.)

When I say "editing other members' talk pages", what I am referring to are the cases I've run into when I see someone removing information from someone's talk page. For instance, an IP user editing my talk page to remove the entire section where our discussion took place. That, in my opinion, is the same as editing my user page. It is altering negatively my talk page, and if it wasn't for archiving purposes, I see no reason to do so. However, as mentioned, I've also noticed in some cases, that the talk page was nearly always edited (adding or removing information) from an IP user, the same person, and going through the history made it fairly clear to me that it was the person who owned the username, and thus I left it alone. However, I can clarify that further in my essay, as well as differentiating between user pages, and talk pages.

As for the template using the |article substring (if that's the correct term), yes, they do, and Twinkle uses them, but I've seen many new patrollers not use the string, and that leaves it open as to what event they are referring to. With the movement towards twinkle and other programs, this hasn't become such a big issue. And I fully agree, that parameter should always be included. However there is no way to enforce this. I'd also like to see people use the additional information more, but I have to admit, that when I use twinkle to drop in the standard template notices, I don't always fill in the information in the "additional information" box. Of course, in my case, the use of those standard notices are almost always with people who know very well what they've done, and that it was wrong.

As for my level 1 template (the one I use for new, obvious vandals, i.e. swearing, insults or slurs that aren't horrible in my opinion to warrant "bad faith" assumption,) having the block notice, you're right, and I've removed that from the template.

For the sentence regarding templates on regular user's pages, again you're right, I should clarify I mean warnings. And you're correct, IMO, it is very appropriate for AfD, since that is quite a bit of information. I will admit that I've stayed away (for now) from many CSD, and page deletion issues, simply because I don't want to dive into too much too soon, and I'm taking the time to watch and learn. After looking those other three over, I would say that personally, I'd feel a bit awkward using any of them on a regular user's page, and I'd probably hand-type a note instead. However, since this essay will hopefully be read by many people, I will include those in the area I have yet to complete. I will also further clarify myself with regards to saying I'd never use "any" kind of template for a regular.

Please clarify the following:

"...essays such as this can be and IME are quoted in contexts that the original author might well not have approved."

I've looked up IME in google and here, and I'm afraid I don't know what that means, lol. I'm sorry. And I'm not clear what you're telling me there, so I'd be interested in a paraphrase for dummies, (me lol).

I haven't gotten to the CSD tags, or the tags for items such as edit summary, signing posts, etc. I plan on going through the entire list, and while I'm certainly not going to list every one (the essay is already way longer than I'd planned!) I'm going to try to cover the major ones that people would encounter daily.

I agree, CSD tags are tossed out often, and again, I haven't delved into that area much (some, but not much, however all the tags I've placed, were justified and the article removed). I can explain how I go about it, which is to first do a google search of the information, not only to check for copyvio, but also to see if this is something notable I've just never heard of. Then I look at the tone, is it an advertisement or endorsement? I also look at the person who posted it. Sometimes the name gives it away, (such as user with a "dotcom" name) and I look at their history. Is that the only article they've created? If so, that doesn't automatically make it invalid, but it does help with my decision. Finally, I ask myself if that article could be expanded, and formatted, would it benefit Wikipedia? Even all of those things probably don't cover all the various reasons to choose to keep or toss a page, so normally I bug Chris or DerHexer and ask them what they think, lol. After that, I make my choice, and so far I've been right. *cross fingers*

I've seen cases of CSD notices placed on "infant" pages that an established, registered user created, and I've often wondered why they were placed there. The person who created the article had sufficient experience editing that I'd assume they know what is and isn't a CSD candidate, so in those cases, I've stayed out of it, and done nothing.

Not that I advocate sticking your head in the sand for issues that you don't want to deal with, but I do think that I'm not someone who should make decisions like that, and I also think there are times it is better to stay out of a situation, rather than make it worse.

I'd be interested in your non-content thoughts, such as the layout of the essay itself, the placement of images, (size, etc.) and any other thoughts, do you think it is just going to end up being too long and people will not read it? I realize I type fast, talk fast, so things end up being long with me because of it, so I'd be open to areas that could be trimmed down.

Also, I'd love it if you knew of any other administrators you could think of who would be helpful in reviewing it, or have any additional input or ideas. Feel free to point them here.

Finally, I'm wondering where it would go. Will it stay in my user space, or would it be appropriate to move it to a Wikipedia:Page? I've been thinking of titles for it, but I'm very open to suggestions on that, as well. "Template Messages Etiquette Guide" seems too verbose for my tastes, lol.

Alright, I hope that covers everything, I'm going to return to it and try to get it as complete as I can tonight. Ariel ♥ Gold 21:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

IME
Sorry, "IME" means "in my experience", a parallel to IMO "in my opnion". This is a hasty response just before logging off, i'll respond at greater length later or tomorrow. DES (talk) 22:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Smacks head. I considered that you'd meant IMO but the O wasn't near the E, so I rejected my thought, lol. Silly me.


 * Alright so the sentence becomes:


 * "essays such as this can be and in my experience are, quoted in contexts that the original author might well not have approved."


 * I still am not 100% sure what that means, and I'd like to avoid any negative reception, so any assistance in clearing up problem sentences is appreciated.Ariel ♥ Gold 22:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I mean simply that such essays can easily be quote to support positions that are quite different than the position that the essay as a whole supports, or that the original author of the essay would not have approved, and that this does, in practice, occur. in short that such essays can be and are quoted out of context and misleadingly. Therefore, a sentence, and even more a paragraph that says "All X" when it really means "All X in context Y" is dangerous. It may be that by reading the whole essay the "context Y" is obvious, but when a sentence or paragraph is quoted it may not be. In this case "all template messages" is significantly different that "template messages used as vandalism warnings" or "template messages likely to be used on RC patrol", and the limited context, while reasonably clear from the Essy as a whole, was not clear in the passage I was commenting on. DES (talk) 15:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Overall rejoinder
You wrote "So I'll happily take your suggestions to expand it to cover other areas". Feel free to do so, but not obliged. an essay focused on "proper use of templates for an RC Patroller" could be a fine thing, but if that is what this essay is to be, it should say so, so that the reader understands the context, and that you aren't appearing to cover areas you didn't intend to cover.

I agree that removing info from a user talk page, with the exception of reverting obvious vandalism or possibly personal attacks, should only be done by the user whose account that page is associated with (carefully avoiding the word "owns"). Being not logged in is an all too easy error, and is simply an error once it is clear that is what is going on. You might want to speak off "removing info" or "changing existing comments" rather than "editing" to make your intent clear.

On always using the "article name" parameter in uw warnings you write: "And I fully agree, that parameter should always be included. However there is no way to enforce this." actually there is, but we have chosen not to do it. Those templates go to considerable extra work to make the parameter optional. it would be easy to re-write them so that if the parameter were not supplied, the templates would obviously break. Then no one would do that. But the template designers/maintainers have chosen to offer the option. One could discuss this at WikiProject user warnings.

You write "After looking those other three over, I would say that personally, I'd feel a bit awkward using any of them on a regular user's page, and I'd probably hand-type a note instead." I predict that after you hand type that note the 50th time, with minimal changes, you would feel differently, but there is nothing wrong with hand-typing such notes, it may be somewhat better in any given case.

You write: "I can explain how I go about it, which is to first do a google search of the information, not only to check for copyvio, but also to see if this is something notable I've just never heard of. Then I look at the tone, is it an advertisement or endorsement? I also look at the person who posted it. Sometimes the name gives it away, (such as user with a "dotcom" name) and I look at their history. Is that the only article they've created? If so, that doesn't automatically make it invalid, but it does help with my decision. Finally, I ask myself if that article could be expanded, and formatted, would it benefit Wikipedia? Even all of those things probably don't cover all the various reasons to choose to keep or toss a page, so normally I bug Chris or DerHexer and ask them what they think, lol. After that, I make my choice, and so far I've been right. *cross fingers*. That is an excellent procedure, IMO, but it is considerably more work than most taggers appear to go through. Indeed it is more than i usually go through, and i am more persnickety than average, i think. You wrote: "I've seen cases of CSD notices placed on "infant" pages that an established, registered user created, and I've often wondered why they were placed there. The person who created the article had sufficient experience editing that I'd assume they know what is and isn't a CSD candidate, so in those cases, I've stayed out of it, and done nothing." I have found it amazing the pages an apparently experienced editor, who surely ought to know better, will create. That said, if there is any doubt in my mind on the issue, i will use prod, or perhaps a tag like notability or Unreferenced and wait to see if improvements are made, rather than an instant CSD tag.

Oh: in the newly revised (and further improved) essay, you write: "If you find a user repeatedly removing the CSD tags from obvious pages that don't belong" and advise the use of uw-speedy1. Please note that uw-speedy1 is strictly and exclusively for the case where the tag is removed by the editor who created the article. Any other editor is free to remove a db tag at any time, and if you disagree, you can either simply revert, or better discuss the matter on the talk page of the editor involved. but this is NOT a case for a standardized template, IMO, or if it is, that template is not uw-speedy1.

You ask about the layout of the essay, its use of pictures, and its length. I think that the layout and use of pictures is fine. The length is ok IMO - I tend to write at length myself, as you may have noted -- but it probably shouldn't get too much longer, and an attempt to write "Miss Manners' Complete Guide to Template Use"  would probably result in an essay of excessive length. Write, or find, other related essays, and link to them.

As to others to look at the essay, I would suggest User:DGG, who is also an admin. I may suggest others, later. You might post about the draft on the talk pages of WP:DTTR, WP:TTR, Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace and perhaps the RC patrol project, when you are ready for wider reading.

When you feel this page is beyond a draft, i would move it into Wikipedia space, but if you want it to remain a strictly personal essay (and the extent to which it uses I may indicate that such is you wish) you can leave it in your userspace and link to it in Wikipedia space, several essays do that already.

I hope these comments are helpful. DES (talk) 16:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Reply
Again I'll reply to each item as presented, for ease of reading.

I would be open to your ideas, or anyone else's thoughts, on the focus of this essay, if you feel it is trying to cover too much, if it should be focused exclusively on "RC/Vand patrol", etc. I guess at the outset of my initial post on the TTR talk page, I had formulated much of my thought around those issues, since that is what I've been doing the majority of lately, but I have also used the various other templates at times, and I've seen problems with their use as well, so if it is possible, I'd like the essay to cover, but not delve deeply into, more than just vandal/RC messages.

I will reword the section about user talk pages again to clarify I mean "removal" and not "editing". Thank you for pointing that out.

The parameter for article name issue, I'd be open to any improvements in wording you or others can think of to get the information across. Perhaps simply stating the parameter is there for your use, and offers the person receiving the notice additional information?

I giggled at the realization that you're probably correct, after hand typing something 50 times I'd probably start using that template. I guess my initial reaction was that up to this point, I'd personally had no reason to use them, so I wouldn't remember the usage, lol. And, I type pretty fast (100wpm) so hand typing stuff isn't a huge deal to me. (But I'm old, so remembering 100 template message strings is! lol)

Regarding the work I personally go through prior to any CSD tagging. Yes, I agree, because normally, by the time I have done all the items I listed, and thoroughly checked the histories, etc, there is already a tag placed on the page. All that being said, and after discussing the issue with Chris last night, I'm not happy with the section on CSD tags. I think the CSD issue should get its own essay, because there seem to be no hard and fast rules. There seems to be no "general rule" that can be used for either adding, or removing articles. I agree, some experienced editors have created pretty questionable articles, perhaps from mere lack of time/organization, etc, but it is just difficult to come to any consensus for the purposes of this essay, so I would most definitely be open to ways in which I could reduce, simplify, or clarify that section, or any "trigger" issues you see that may cause problems.

That would go for the next issue as well, the removal of CSD tags. I freely admit this is an area I've tended to stay away from until I'm more familiar, because it seems to be a hotly debated issue, and my experience with it is not sufficient for me to make judgments, IMO. So again rewording of the sentense regarding the user of uw-speedy1, etc. would be helpful to me.

The issue with the length, I would tend to be in agreement, it should most certainly not get any longer, while I do tend to be verbose, I also fully realize that if something is really long, the chance it will keeping a reader until the end is slim. I'd be inclined to shorten it somewhat, however it is seen fit to do so. (Perhaps in the CSD area? LOL)

I would be appreciative of any assistance you can give me as far as moving the article into an appropriate Wikipedia space, as I've never moved anything yet (another area I stay away from because I don't feel I have sufficient knowledge). I'm not immediately clear on what it means to leave it in user space and link it to Wikipedia space, if I could see an example of that it may help clear it up.

I've invited the two people from DTTR who participated in the discussions there, and seemed interested in the project, (I just got around to reading the DTTR talk page, and I find it ironic that you had actually suggested this project before I wrote my initial comment on TTR, I didn't know that until today lol) User:IPSOS and User:Until(1 == 2). I will post the same request to DGG at your suggestion, and I look forward to their additional comments and assistance.

And yes, DES, your comments are always helpful! Your continued assistance is welcomed with open arms. Ariel ♥ Gold 17:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Revisions done
I have changed the wording in the introduction to note that it is primarily focused more on RC/Vandal patrol issues, but I also note that it touches on a variety of other useful templates.

I have added the words original creator of the article to the lead-in to the use.

The paragraph explaining how I personally go about placing CSD tags was here, so if you feel that information would be useful in the essay itself, let me know and I can add it.

I clarified/reworded the information regarding the use of the article parameter underneath the box.

I've clarified the issue of editing talk pages and user pages, removing the word "owner" and replacing it with your suggested wording. I've further clarified it is referring to removal/changing of another's comments from someone's talk page.

I've added a note about forgetting to log in, so IP edits to user/talk pages may not always need reverting.

I have added a footnote to a bureaucrat's page that gives guidelines for the use of warnings that threaten to block people. (On a relevant note, the use of uw-vand3 and uw-vand4 upon first offense is out of hand, I've seen it all over, and it seems to me, this is WP:BITE in the extreme!) Ariel <font color="FF0000">♥ <font color="0066CC">Gold 18:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

In the process of
I'm in the progress now of removing first person viewpoints, as you suggested. (I think, I've done, etc.). After reading it through, while I tend to be informal, it did come across too much in that direction, and if this is going to be a valid project, those comments should probably be removed. <font color="CC66FF">Ariel <font color="FF0000">♥ <font color="0066CC">Gold 19:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Alright I think I've removed them all. If you spot one, please let me know. <font color="CC66FF">Ariel <font color="FF0000">♥ <font color="0066CC">Gold 19:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

initial thoughts
DGG's original comments in black. Ariel's replies/thoughts/comments in Navy

Congratulations on doing this, and I hope it will make a difference. Once it's out there as an essay, the next point will be implementing it.


 * I'd like to clear up that I originally just wrote a (long) comment on the TTR talk page, just to illustrate how a "balance of both worlds" was how I handled things, and then was asked if I'd ever consider doing that as an essay on its own.


 * I wasn't trying to set out to change any policies, and I admit that at this point, if that's what is desired, I would probably not be the right person to do that. I don't have a complete enough grasp of the policy system. I've not yet run into any policy that I felt was horribly unfair, and I just wanted an essay that could be read by (new/moderately experienced) people who might want to get into Vandalism patrol or RC patrol. If I gave the impression that I intended any of this to become policy, my deepest regrets. If something that is in the essay does happen to be an item that people would like to see implemented, then that is absolutely great, but it was never my intention, nor my expectation.


 * 1) Organization. Seems a little repetitive and circular. This is only an essay, but it would help to have it organized so the specific recommendations can be seen clearly, with the information in one place. This will take some thought, and I think it might go better off-line, in MS word or some program that lets you see outline structure.

I'd suggest you think of it as I./ General principles  II/ rationale, in general, III/ Individual cases. Please dont make this public until its clearer. Looking above, we've all had some problems reading it. A good reorganization should result it making it shorter, which would very much help.
 * 1) Examples. Some more specific good/bad examples are needed. DES has some good ones on the pages he's been commenting on.


 * I actually don't think (for me) that doing it in MS Word would help. I don't visualize how it will look there, and I'm a visual person. I'm previewing nearly every line I write, lol. However, I agree perhaps the organization could be better, I tried my best to organize it by the steps taken during VP/RC patrol, based on my own experience, and knowing the struggles I had.


 * I would like to keep the 'tone' of it a bit lighter, while it is a serious subject at times, I am a lighthearted person, and I enjoy writing essays that are fun to read, and not "dry" and pure information. I also tried to make the headers such that it would be possible to know exactly what I was talking about by looking at the TOC. So someone could skip right down to "When to report" or to "How to use warnings" etc, whereas if the sections were titled "General rationale" I'm not sure that would be immediately clear. Again perhaps this is due to the fact that I hadn't written this with any "official" purpose in mind, but merely as an Etiquette guide for general users. I think that administrators and advanced editors would really not have much cause to read it. However, if you'd like to work up a Table of contents that could combine the organization I am lacking, (to avoid repetition) and still keep the sections so they're easy to know what is discussed, that would be great. I'll think about it as well, and perhaps play in my sandbox with ideas. It helps me if I have a completed TOC to look at first.


 * For examples, perhaps DES will be helpful with giving some, since I have much less experience in the matters as all of you do. I'm looking forward to the two others who were active in the TTR/DTTR discussions to comment as well.


 * As for making it public, definitely I won't until I've gotten approval from those who have helped read and improve it, and then some. No worries.


 * 1) .Your comments. It might help if you could put your comments on our points next to the points we've raised--I had considerable difficulty keeping it straight.


 * My sincere apologies, I could not think of an efficient way to do it, so I tried to at least do them in order. Does doing it this way help?


 * 1) General considerations that you either did not mention or didnt emphasize -- or that I missed.
 * 2) Children -- there has to be a gentle way or replying to children, and if a newbie's article doesnt make it clear that its a child, the user page should be checked as well--I think we will need a series of special templates for at least the first two levels--but personally I never use a template when its clear that it's a young child (except of course the ones who know perfectly well at the age of 10 that they're making trouble).  I always just write a line or two, such as  "you have to become famous first, and then you should have a WP page." I try to keep it light. They will understand quickly enough.  There's no real need for details.


 * 1) very young or immature authors or excessive self disclosure. Here I blank first, but i am very very careful in what I say-- I had yesterday an article from a developmentally disabled 16 year old, proud to have made it into high school, and who said as much. I congratulated him on high school, wished him well, and said it was not really suitable here, and i was sure he'd understand. I think he will. I didn't however, want to even embarrass him about it, let alone blame him. Two days ago there was a mother, posted a bio article about her baby, in relief and joy at having finally gotten him home from intensive care. How can anyone use a form notice for something like this? (I'm getting experienced at this and I'll help in a similar case, and there should perhaps be a way of letting WPedians who might not feel comfortable know there are people to intercede instead. )
 * When its a matter of a child giving personal details, I explain about that specifically. When the child seems too immature to understand, I suggest that he check with a parent--and leave enough explanation on the page that at least the parent will understand. We all have an obligation to protect anyone we encounter on the net who is in danger, WP or elsewhere.


 * Excellent points all. While I do mention briefly that kids use Wikipedia, I don't delve into it, or into the possibilities of children needing a separate template notice (or handwritten note).


 * This raises the issue of how do you know when a child is a child, except in those cases as you've illustrated where it was written on the page. I've seen a lot of "edits/reverted as vandals" that were of such a low level of spelling and grammar that it could very well be a child writing it, but I've also seen that kind of writing in people whose native language is not English, or adults who don't spell check first.


 * However, for obvious pages created by children, or comments that are written by someone who is young, I can make a note of that, and mention the need for tact, delicacy and a hand-written note instead of a template.


 * 1) Need to notify. This should be emphasized. But I am going to post this weekend proposing that notification be required. It should be automatic as a backup, but the advantage of doing it in person is that you can see the user page and know if there is something special to say. Newpage patrol has to be done carefully, and anyone going at more than one a minute, even bot assisted, is going too fast. (Personally, I will not use a bot for notices--I want time to think)


 * Perhaps it is simply a matter of vernacular, but what do you mean by "notify"? Are you referring to using standard template notices/warnings, or to any notice placed on the user's page after an incident. If it is the latter, I'd have to agree, that would be useful to require. Every day while on RC/Vandal patrol, I'll find a vandal has been repeatedly doing destructive edits, that have all been reverted by one or more people, and yet not a single notice was placed on the user's page. Naturally I cannot start with a level 3 warning, even if it may have been his 10th event. So requiring those who do RC/Vand patrol to warn offenders would be helpful. (However, I don't see how one could truly "enforce" that, since one does not need to be an admin to help with vandalism.) But at the same time, there are a few regular patrol editors that are using level 3 and 4 warnings for first notices, and that really bugs me.


 * 1) forms vs personal. Even for vandals, its hard to say what will work best. A form notice can give the effect of mechanical operation and I've seen people who clearly assume its an automatic function of the system and can be ignored. I've sometimes after a series of forms, posted a personal sentence--"hey, I am really a person and I am going to personally block you if you ever do this again", and gotten the response,"OK, sorry, I'll stop. " Even with no response, I have almost never seen someone resume after a note like that--and I do check back--& if they do continue, it removes all doubt about what to do next.
 * or a corporate spanner, ignoring form warnings--a note offering to help do what is right has sometimes gotten cooperation and useful contributions.
 * But I agree about the usefulness of a form as a first approach for vandals and nonsense, the virtue of speed in response is important--the sooner the notice goes up the more effective it usually is -- it should ideally go up while the guy is still at the terminal.


 * I agree, it is hard to know what will be effective. But what works for me, another editor may not feel comfortable doing. I'm a lighthearted, upbeat personality, and less professional than some editors here, so they may not feel comfortable with the types of templates I use. However, I don't have any ideas on how to change this, other than this essay giving people ideas on how they can make their own, and still use standard ones when they are more efficient (as in the case of the spammer, etc.)


 * 1) forms being inadequate. I've been coming across an increasing number of cases where people use an inadequate routine notice, just going through and using it for everything. The ones that concern me is where db-attack should have been used instead of just db-nn -- db attacks get removing immediately, the deleting admin will see to warn, and will see to not leave a revelatory delete summary that includes the attack.


 * Again, I'll freely admit my limited knowledge. I honestly don't know what db-nn is, unless I go to the list of templates page, and look it up. I am not someone who is good at memorization, and I know what template messages are from seeing them, but not from their 'tags',. As for making people use certain ones in certain situations, well again I don't think I'm the person who should be writing about that. I guess I'm guilty of using the wrong tags, I've not used any special "personal attacks not allowed" templates, I usually drop my own custom one that says "your comments were not helpful". But it does not give a link to the personal attack policy, so... Of course, I've also not found personal attacks to be that numerous during vandal patrol, except on a spamming vandal who is mad at the person who warned them, and goes to their page to deface it. Whatever suggestions you have in this area would be appreciated. I do cover personal attacks in the essay, and give the correct string to use for them, but it is just a small section under "other offenses".


 * 1) forms overstating policy. many of our forms do, including some personalized ones. An example here was the removing speedy one.


 * I'm sorry, while I've been a member for 2 years, and learning, I guess I don't have a good enough grasp of what the common vernacular is for stuff, and the policies relating to forms. (form=template?) I'm sorry if I am being repetitious and stupid. I'm not sure what the above covers, or what you'd like to see in the essay.


 * 1) length-- forms always grow to long, and need cutting back every once in a while. Even the copyright forms can be shortened by referral to WP:Copyright for the details.
 * 2) forms making conflict worse. I am not really happy about DES's forms for telling eds they are over-speedying. I think they can antagonize people and make things worse.  I thought they were a good idea to make it clear that it wasnt personal and that there was a policy,   but I'm not so sure.


 * I think I would have to again say that the above two issues are out of the scope of my knowledge/experience, and out of the scope of the intent of the essay. I believe the entire CSD issue needs its own "guideline essay", for a number of reasons. I also don't think this essay is a good place to talk about current policy of the length of templates vs. shorter ones, etc. I realize there are people who devote their time to policy, but as of right now, I'm just not that person. I can most certainly make a note that sometimes forms can be too much, and maybe it is easier to just write a short note? Any way you can think of to fit that in, without making it seem as though the essay is challenging policy, would be appreciated.


 * 1) experienced editors. I know I shouldnt bother feeling insulted at a form asking me to learn how to contribute usefully, but i do. But then it alerts me to someone who may need help in tagging.
 * 2) added comments--the templates need modifying to make it clear that there is the opportunity to say something extra. Even just the "|" at the end will remind at least those who recognize what it means.

I will take another look later this weekend. Ariel, if you don't want to do the outline/reorg yourself, ask me.

And where to put it: in user space first. there are things here which involve a change in practice & guidelines. Then as an essay. and the individual changes should be proposed one by one in the appropriate places. First the talk pages for the policy or the template. (But if it is actually a change in policy or guidelines, dont try to do it by changing the template without discussing on the relevant policy page.And dont try to make policy changes at TfD. It gets people angry.


 * If you can think of a way for me to make it more clear that it is in no way intended to replace or augment policy, but just an opinion, and some helpful guidelines and tips on how to use templates more effectively and kindly. I really don't expect this to bring about any changes, I would honestly be happy if it helped a few people not struggle as much as I did (I am). lol.

and it would be a very good idea to invite one of the people who sometimes favors a more drastic & imprersonal approach to look at this. DGG (talk) 22:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I would not know who those people are. As I said, I'm a nobody. I know very few people here, I can count them on one hand, and even those, I'd only count one person as someone I could consider "close" (i.e. I can go to them with any issue, any time without feeling bad for bothering them.)


 * I'll post this now, and then read DES's comments and reply to those. But I'd like to state again, DGG, I completely and totally appreciate you coming here, taking the time it took to read not only the article, but this page (as disjointed as it was, sorry!), and write up your extremely helpful and valuable comments. I look forward to any suggestions on improving the table of contents, and on items that can be moved/removed because of repetition. Thank you!

<font color="CC66FF">Ariel <font color="FF0000">♥ <font color="0066CC">Gold 00:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

further comments
 Ariel's replies in navy  As to the use of the article name parameter, while the templates could be changed to essentially require it, i don't think this will get consensus. What i think could happen is that essays like this, and page like the RC instruction page could strongly urge people to always fill this in, and in general promote it as a best practice. It will never be the case that everyone does this, but perhaps it can be made more the common style. I could wish that your essay more strongly urged people to sue this, perhaps showing an example of the template with and without the article name parameter specified. I could wish that your example of the copyright warning showed the message with the article name specified.


 * DES, if you think I should make it more clear that the "Article" parameter should be used in templates, I'd be happy to do that.

I think you are probably right that an advice to CSD taggers should be its own essay, probably linked from this one. Ditto on advice on removal of CSD tags.


 * Honestly, I've found CSD to be a highly charged, emotional issue for many people, on both sides. I do believe that there should be a complete CSD essay, that goes through the various issues, and I am definitely at this point, not the person who should write that. There are some who remove tags too easily, others who place tags too easily, people who remove others' tags, etc., and it (from what I've seen) can get very heated.

On moving the essay, when and if you choose to: moving is easy, even trivial, just click the move tab and follow the prompts. See WP:MOVE for more instructions. What title to use is more of a judgment call. As to linking to assays in user space, it's done all the time: look at User:Pathoschild/Double-standard fallacy, User:Charles Matthews/Conflict of interest, User:Bcasterline/Credentials are harmless, or User:Finlay McWalter/Gently handling newbie autobiographies just to cite a few. See Category:Wikipedia essays for lots more.


 * Once we decide on a name, and finish it, perhaps you could do the honors.[[Image:Face-grin.svg|20px]] I've read the MOVE policy, and I'll look at those pages you link, but I'd still probably feel more comfortable if an administrator did the move.

I did not mean to imply that you ought to remove all the first-person stuff, merely that if you chose to leave it in, in might be more appropriate to stay in user space to indicate who the "I" was. That is a style choice.


 * Well, if it goes on the mainspace, you were right, it would be confusing. Aside from removing some of my anecdotes, it was not too painful, lol.

I agree with DGG that some good/bad examples might be helpful. I'll try to provide some if you want them. (BTW I'm sorry to hear that he thinks my speedy removal notification template may be a bad idea, i hope he will suggest a better idea if he has one.)


 * That would be great if you can provide some useful examples. And as mentioned, it may be that the short comment about editors that created articles removing the tags, is the biggest issue an RC/Vandal patrol person would run across, so hopefully for this essay, that's sufficient.

I am not sure that I agree that this essay is proposing any changes in policy, rather it is suggesting taking one of several alternatives now permitted but not required under current policy. it may be suggesting a change in best practice. I agree with DGG about proposing changes before trying to enforce them, and not proposing policy changes via TfD (or MfD). DES (talk) 23:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed. As I mentioned in reply to him, it wasn't my intention, or expectation, that this would change any policy, but merely that it may help users see things differently, and change to be more welcoming, and less bite-y.


 * If there is one issue I would like to see enforced, it is the issue of using a level 3, or even 4, notice on a first time offender (i.e. absolutely no talk page activity, ever), regardless of the offense. I've seen obvious innocent errors get warned with "Please stop or you'll get blocked" or "This is your only warning" notices. That's unacceptable in my personal opinion. I would have absolutely no idea how to go about getting that enforced, or even indeed, if it is a policy. (It should be, IMHO). Thank you again DES, for your continued support and assistance! <font color="CC66FF">Ariel <font color="FF0000">♥ <font color="0066CC">Gold 01:11, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Example
I just an hour ago encountered a person who opened an account, posted an article with the title "Niggers who ####" (my ### s)", adding links from the articles of 6 or 8 prominent figures. Someone immediately speedy tagged it., He then opened another account to a/ remove the speedy, b/place an afd on the article.  I of course deleted the article and the afd, and also blocked the new account indefinitely. Had I not been an admin, I certainly would have placed a "this is your only notice" tag.  Would you really have done differently? At the moment, enforcement of excessively hasty tagging is at AIV, where requests to block are routinely rejected if the full series of warnings have not been given. DGG (talk) 08:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You know, this is the area where "policy" and "common sense" rules are obviously at odds. Would I personally tag that page for CSD? Absolutely! But if I immediately were to put the person on AIV report, it would come back as "Has not received proper warnings", as happens quite often. Do I personally think someone who does that kind of action deserves four strikes? Nope. But in the end, the great majority of the time, AIV will back up four strikes, regardless of the offense. So, how I would handle it would be to warn for page creation/inappropriate content, (1) then revert his removal of CSD tag and warn, (2) and hope he does it two more times. I'd report after the third warning. However, you have to realize that you being an Administrator gives you much more freedom. You can go ahead and delete the page, and block him for an amount of time. I don't have that luxury. I must stand by policy, because even if common sense says to ignore policy, AIV will inevitably tell me I must adhere to it.


 * Is this frustrating? Absolutely. But I guess in a way, it also makes sense. I mean, is there really a fair way to way to make a "hard and fast" rule about what constitutes a "First warning is only warning" violation, without getting specific and graphic and nit picky? Would it even be possible to cover every single eventuality that could constitute needing a block after first offense? The thing is, some things are more offensive to some people than other things. One person who is highly offended by graphic images, may not consider racial or hate slurs as bad, while the reverse can be said for other people. Without having a page that specifically states what is not allowed, word for word, situation specific, I don't really see an immediate solution for getting AIV to see that the four strike rule isn't always deserved. But again, this relates to policy, and certainly nothing I'm out to change.


 * But yes, for those of us who are not admins, sometimes seeing a heinous, egregious offense is just frustrating, because we know we truly can't put "last warning" as a first warning, since we have no way to enforce it. <font color="CC66FF">Ariel <font color="FF0000">♥ <font color="0066CC">Gold 17:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Looking good!
Great stuff here. Even a tiny bit about those 'regulars' :-) Glad to see you went ahead with writing this, and thanks for inviting me to have a look. I haven't mentioned this essay at the DRV, though I did mention your posts on the talk page as a perfect example of valid talk page discussion that shouldn't have been deleted. If anyone from the deletion review drops by my talk page though, they may see the link. If you don't feel itis ready yet, fine, but I was wondering if you thought it would be worth linking this directly from that deletion review? Carcharoth 00:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for looking it over, Carcharoth! It isn't like someone who wants to find it can't, (find subpages) but just that I'm not at the point where it should be linked, discussed on that DRV, or moved quite yet. DES and DGG are still helping me, I'm waiting to hear back from DGG about a possible reorganization of the TOC, and waiting for a couple of examples of issues from DES. After we get those done, I think we'll maybe ask a couple other people who have polar views on the subject to take a look, and get input from the ends of both sides. As for the "regulars", it certainly is not advocating, or denying that templates are helpful, but simply explaining different situations in which they can be used, and when it may be best to use caution.


 * When DES feels it is ready, I've asked him to take care of the move, but we still need a name :) <font color="CC66FF">Ariel <font color="FF0000">♥ <font color="0066CC">Gold 00:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Ariel's golden guide to template messages? :-) If Template message etiquette is not broad enough, how about Using template messages or How to use template messages? I thought of Template messages, but that already exists, and is a fascinating list of template message types. Obviously I don't get out enough into other areas of Wikipedia! I just found WP:GRIEF! Carcharoth 00:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Replying here rather than my talk page:

Technically, it is an essay. DGG's suggestions are more in thinking of portions of the essay perhaps eventually becoming a guideline, but that is most certainly not why I originally wrote it. I'd like it, ideally, to be somewhere that new RC/NP/Vandal patrol people can go to read a fun, interesting, and informative essay that will help them be more effective, sensitive, and resilient. The thing that bothers me most about new people jumping into vandal patrol is the use of level 3 and even 4 (last warning!) templates on brand new users, first offense, that isn't even something horrible, and is possibly a simple mistake made by a new user of Wikipedia. This is disturbing to me, it really is, and that's a very big motivation behind the writing of the reply on the original talk page, and this essay's formulation. However, once I started to write the essay, it took on a life of its own, lol. But, in doing so, I hope, it is much easier to read, easier to skip to areas of interest to specific situations (such as how many warnings should be given before reporting, how do I report, etc.), visually appealing, and presented in a way that is neither admonishing, or encouraging someone to do something specific regarding templates, but presenting options, including personalization. Let me know if you have any suggestions, as you can see if you read the talk page, I've taken almost all of the suggestions so far! I'm eager to get it out there, but I'm not going to do so before it is ready, either.

As for the name, we're thinking of moving it to mainspace, and trying to keep a very simple name. Perhaps Template Guide (TG), or the one I lean towards liking the best, Template Etiquette (TE). The problems the names you suggest present is they intimate a "complete" list of templates and their use, which this isn't. Most especially, the CSD template issue needs its own essay.

But that's getting ahead of myself a bit, we'd have to see if those shortcuts are taken first. Best to get it so it is not controversial first, and well-balanced. I think DES and DGG are busy, but I'm hoping this week can get some additions in! Thanks again Carch!<font color="CC66FF">Ariel <font color="FF0000">♥ <font color="0066CC">Gold 00:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, and best wishes for finishing it off. I'll try and suggest something, but it looks pretty good at the moment. Carcharoth 00:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Carch (do you mind if I shorten your name? Lol it gives my fingers fits typing it) if you think of anything, feel free to add it in here! Seriously, I've added nearly every suggestion, and I'm in no way adverse to change or to criticism, the goal for me in doing this is to help others, so any way you can think of to improve on that, you just speak right up! :) <font color="CC66FF">Ariel <font color="FF0000">♥ <font color="0066CC">Gold 00:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Others who may be good in input
I was wondering what everyone thought of inviting Giggy to take a look at this. I know she's very hurt and bothered by the outcome of her RfA and the response to the original TTR, so I was thinking she may want to come see what the incarnation of her ideas, and merging with DTTR can be. Anyone think that's a bad idea? And, does anyone have any other people they can think of, ideally those on both extreme ends, to give input on this? <font color="CC66FF">Ariel <font color="FF0000">♥ <font color="0066CC">Gold 00:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Giggy certainly. Try User:Bishonen for 'don't template the regulars'. I'm suggesting Bishonen because I believe it was an encounter between Giggy and Bishonen that indirectly led to all this. Carcharoth 00:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you think it is too soon to request them to look at it? I kind of wanted DES to give me the go-ahead to invite others, prior to doing it, and I'd like DGG's thoughts on my reply to his initial evaluation. However, they are both administrators, so I realize they have a lot of people asking for their time, and I don't want to seem pushy. I'm honestly pretty excited about this, though, and I hope it is received with as much enthusiasm as I had writing it. <font color="CC66FF">Ariel <font color="FF0000">♥ <font color="0066CC">Gold 00:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay I looked at Bishonen, and as an administrator, I think it would be okay to request his/her involvement, so I've invited comments, and I'm hoping that will help, given the fact that they were involved with the whole TTR disaster. I'll hold off on asking Giggy until I hear what others think of that idea. <font color="CC66FF">Ariel <font color="FF0000">♥ <font color="0066CC">Gold 01:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * OK. As you might have seen, I'm mentioning the DRV to a few people as well, so they might end up here eventually (well, those who are interested will follow up on my cryptic comments). Don't worry too much about too much input - it will all come out in the wash. Anyway, must check on some other pages now. Thanks for talking. Carcharoth 01:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I noticed, and it isn't a problem. I'd love to get the ball going on this! <font color="CC66FF">Ariel <font color="FF0000">♥ <font color="0066CC">Gold 01:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

CVU disbandment, makes me think
CVU is in up for disbandment, renaming, or removal entirely and "historical" placed on the page. As I remarked there, that is fine, but I feel more and more, each day since I started this project, that there needs to be a "Tutorial" for these new people who are jumping in to the vandalism front with little to no knowledge of policy and procedures. More and more I'm wondering if perhaps the earlier version of this should be retained, and re-formulated as a "Tutorial" for vandalism fighting. A place where someone can come to read through policies, procedures, guidelines, and do so prior to fighting vandalism, thus being much less hasty in the dropping of warnings on regular's pages, or dropping of level 3-4 warnings on new users who really made mild mistakes. This entire thing has me concerned, the last few days especially, I could name a few names, although I'd prefer to not single anyone out. If you watch RfA you probably have an idea of what I'm talking about.

I'd appreciate thoughts, ideas, input. <font color="CC66FF">Ariel <font color="FF0000">♥ <font color="0066CC">Gold 03:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I asked Durova to look it over, and here are her suggestions:
 * Thanks for showing me the link. You certainly put a lot of work into that.  Good job!  I'd like to suggest an addition.  Have a look at these edits and the associated IP histories.  Ideological and profit motivated vandalism is a serious issue.  Both of those BLP violations slipped by the RC patrollers and both of those edits made the news.  Please give the heads up to your readers with referrals to WP:COIN, etc.  Durova Charge! 06:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * As I let her know, those were great ideas, so I'll be adding those things in. <font color="CC66FF">Ariel <font color="FF0000">♥ <font color="0066CC">Gold 07:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)