User:Xiner/Editor conflicts

If you read no other essay, read VestedContributor.

Resolution
First, consider whether you may be wrong, and see if you can understand where the other editor is coming from. If there is indeed a conflict, place a message on the article talk page, so other editors can understand the situation. Place a message on the other editor's talk page, so they know something is happening. Finally, if the person did something wrong, place a template on his or her talk page that explains as nicely as possible what rule the person should read up on.

You should always tell a user when he/she is reverted. If they're good people, they'll learn from their mistake, or they may let you know you have made one. Otherwise, they'll get a warning that may help justify a block later. For a first-time vandal, put  on their talk page, replacing pagename with the name of the page affected. WP:TT lists other templates you can use -- just replace "uw-vandalism1" with the name of the other template. You should always include the "subst:" part. When the user may be just playing around with Wikipedia, use the test1-test3 (also known as testx) sequence instead.

*4im warnings
I've used uw-vandalism3 many times, but never uw-vandalism4im. 4im's limit my and other editors' options the next time the person misbehaves. I don't want to report someone to AIV just because someone else placed a 4im tag on a talk page. In the case of spambots or past vandalism that is not warned, the level-3 warnings say pretty much the same thing, except for the "only warning" reference. Given that the current 4im's don't mention the "multiple edits" nature of the crime, I think all these templates deliver the same results, except that other people who see the 4im's may wonder if the warning was too harsh.

My anti-vandal policy
I always post warning templates, even if the edits in question have been reverted, and usually start at level 1 unless the user talk page is full of recent warnings.

It's best to be gentle while carrying a big stick. As a sysop, I'd try hard to avoid blocks, which are among the most drastic measures. Graded warnings or templates should be posted in succession on the vandal's talk page before contemplating a block. It is helpful to post as mild a warning as possible at first, to assume good faith and to avoid escalating the situation. Once the person has exhausted the goodwill of the community, however, I will have no compunction about using the stick on future infractions in order to safeguard the encyclopedia.

This works, because many of the vandals I've encountered seemed to have stopped after a few defacements. Perhaps when they see that their "work" is so promptly reversed, they don't find it as much fun to continue. Obviously, I'll have to adjust my strategy if it proves ineffective. Anyone has an opinion on the subject, please feel free to let me know what you think.

Addendum
Each time a disruptive edit is made to a page on my watchlist, I try to copyedit the article. This way, each act of vandalism leads to an improvement in the article.

I've also read that vandalism counts on your user page encourage more vandalism to your page. That is why I don't have such a userbox.

Leaving Wikipedia
I have learned something from my April Fool's prank. If I were ever to leave Wikipedia, I would do so quietly, without telling anyone (hold me up to the bargain if I should forget). It'd be wrong otherwise.