User talk:DESiegel/Template the regulars

Essay is now out of date

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

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

This has now been strengthened with the additions:

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

and:

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

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

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

Rewriting is difficult

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

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

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

Explaining the obvious

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

My personal viewpoint

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nice! Would you like to write this up as Wikipedia:Template message etiquette? :-) Carcharoth 00:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. Do note that "template messages" include rather more than "anti-vandalism warnings" however. DES ^(talk) 05:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but in the interests of broadening the discussion, could you elaborate on that. What are these other uses for "template messages", and what should be considered when delivering them? Carcharoth 09:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I would personally consider copyright violations a "non-vandal" template message, as I would count the various image tag templates, and also the advertisement notices. All of those events I'd consider with 100% good faith, using no warnings, at the very least the first time. Obviously, some people do constantly upload images that are copyrighted or have other issues, and other users do tend to use the site as an advertisement venue, etc. so again, an evaluation into the past is what I'd do before using a template.

Other things I personally think don't fall under "vandalism" (and I could be wrong, but again I just tend to WP:AGF more often than not) would be things such as personal attacks, removing CSD or AFD tags, (at least the first time) adding defamatory/controversial information without proper citations/references, overzealous "wiki-links" (i.e. every other common word is blue linked), and there are actually a whole host of other things that have standard template messages, that I have never used. I'd prefer to simply type a hand-written (finger-written? lol) note, explaining with my own brand of humor. There are actually lots of templates, from "don't use the minor edit checkbox" to "fill in your edit summary" to "sign your posts". I've never used those. Why? Because chances are, the person is going to learn in time. If someone is repeatedly not signing their posts, even after others are using the {unsigned|IP} tag to identify them, and they still don't seem to get it, I will simply either casually remind them in a reply, or drop a note on their talk pages explaining how to do it (maybe they want to but don't know how). It takes all of 30 seconds, why be impersonal and use templates in those cases? Now, this by no means should be taken as me advocating the removal of all of those templates, remember, this is simply my personal (and probably a little less formal) opinion. I'm sure there may be instances where those templates can come in handy, or where they may be useful, I just have never run into that yet. I'm not anti-template, and I'm not exclusively pro-custom warnings. I believe the two can exist peacefully and benefit each other.

I realize that this particular article had/has a lot of controversy around it, and is up for AfD, but I felt that I would just like to explain how in some cases, templates can be useful, faster, and more helpful to administrators, and while I personally believe it is better to not use them. I would not say they should never be used. There are some registered users, who have done nothing but disruptive edits, some with very long pasts, and many blocks. In that case, yes, when someone has been repeatedly on a vendetta against this great site, I'm not wasting my "cuteness" on them, lol. As in life, the words "always" and "never" should be used with extreme caution, and as with everything else, I tend to take things on a case-by-case basis prior to deciding. This may make me "slower on the draw", and I may not be super-speedy with reverts, but I hope that in the long run, it keeps me from seeming rude, or worse, driving potentially helpful editors away, simply because they don't understand the Wiki-stuff. To me, that's more important than "getting" them. Perhaps I have too much faith in people, or I am too naive, and if so, that's alright, because again, if I can turn one person around out of 100, it is worth it for me to take my time when dishing out warnings.

Cacharoth, I'd be willing to consider your request, however, simply seeing how much controversy this article caused, I am a little hesitant about putting up such a page. Is there somewhere perhaps it should be taken for approval or something... AfC doesn't seem appropriate, but just wondering if there is a place that one goes to request approval prior to putting up essay/editorial or "guideline" type articles? I most definitely do appreciate that you think it is worth reading for people who may be new at RC/Vandal patrol, (and I've tutored a few of those folks as well,) so I think it could be helpful. I've noticed a very disturbing trend of the use of "level 3" warnings for first offenses, and I'd like to see that happen less (if never), as it seems too WP:BITE-y to me. I realize that I'm a nobody, and my opinion probably doesn't matter, but I've been observing the policies and procedures for over 2 years now, even if I have not contributed a ton in the past, (I'm a lurker everywhere until I'm more comfortable) I do know what it is like to feel like you're not welcome. As a side note, I've been an author of columns and guides at IGN for 3 years, so writing something like an etiquette guide would be right up my alley, lol. ^Ariel♥Gold 12:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

That's true, very true

New topic for ease of editing.

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

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

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

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

Improving this page

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

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

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

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

Proposal: Merge to DTTR

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

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

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

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

pointless

why is there a version of this essay here, in user space, and another version at Wikipedia:Do template the regulars? Moreover, the latter one is basically empty and points back here.

Anyone is free to keep confused essays within their user space, but Wikipedia: space is another matter, and you'll have to live with your stuff being modified. So, which will it be? Leave this essay here in userspace, never mind it doesn't make sense? Or move it to WP: space and actually talk about it?

I have never been templated except as a "veiled" attack. Templating regular editors doesn't serve any purpose except trying to annoy them. If an experienced user has done 3 reverts, and you wish to alert them of the fact, just drop them a note saying "mind 3rr please" or similar. Slapping {{uw-3rr}} on their page amounts to saying "I won't talk to you".

So, yes, it isn't "illegal" to template the regulars. As this page points out, it's you signing it with your name, so unless the template says what you want to say, don't use it. Now what conceivable situation would make you want to tell a veteran editor to If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you? Telling an experienced user "your edits are bs, but hey, maybe you really meant to experiment, so please use the sandbox" is patently in bad faith. But it's up to you. If you come to my talkpage telling me that note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period or if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox I will interpret to the effect that you are really saying "asshole". --dab (𒁳) 12:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

ok, I've turned Wikipedia:Do template the regulars into a redirect, and Wikipedia:Template the regulars into a soft redirect. I found the existence of such calls to be a WP:DICK in WP: namespace rather disturbing, but as long as this is considered just an user essay I guess it's no problem. --dab (𒁳) 12:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Very poorly written

This essay is very poorly written; rather than attempting to bring people around to one way of thinking, it seems to ridicule them in a condescending manner for believing something else. Almost the entire prose is made up of rhetorical questions with hardly any properly formed statements. I shall not comment further on the mean-spirited and supercilious tone with which this essay is written.--193.120.116.186 (talk) 22:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Uh, it's a writing style, designed to force the reader to think by making them questions. I don't see the mean-spirited tone anywhere, altough I can agree that it goes out quite patronizing. --Enric Naval (talk) 05:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

hm, it's a writing style that pretends to be presenting a case, in spite of the perfect incoherence of what it is actually saying. Complete ignoratio elenchi topped with a perfect non sequitur. The argument goes, even established users misbehave, so it's ok to warn them. Well duh, that's not under dispute in the first place. This is epitomized in the concluding "do your best to remind them of their old, good habits: template them!" Nobody (nobody!) would object to do your best to remind them of their old, good habits. But the essay leaves it perfectly unclear why this should translate to template them. "Templating" people is a curt, efficient way of dealing with recurring situations. It is the very opposite of "do your best". Nowhere does this "essay" make any attempt to explain why templates should be used. --dab (𒁳) 11:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Lol, ok, that's a much more solid critic. You are totally right that it misses the important information of "why you should use a template on the first place". --Enric Naval (talk) 22:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I thought this essay made a good point, but this criticism also makes a good point. It got me thinking that templating is akin to sending form letters—deeply impersonal and showing a minimum of effort. No one likes receiving form letters. So now I think I’m leaning toward WP:Don't template anyone (when you can reasonably assume good faith). —67.14.236.50 (talk) 17:35, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

The essay either entirely ignores or seeks to empower editors who (usually who are curating an article and have WP:OWN issues) are far too prone to accuse other editors with vandalism, when what's going on is a poorly-communicated but honest content dispute.

Years ago, I made changes to the text of an article which I found enlightening but no one else did. Messages from some of the curating editors asking me to stop making more changes crossed changes I'd made at the same time in what circumstantially appeared to be a WP:3RR situation, when it was not my intent to edit-war with the editor who placed a template in my user page threatening sanctions. I went to AN/I alleging WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL violations (not just for the templating, but describing my contributions with scatology and insults in the article talk page). I had enough "Boomerang" votes that the writing on the wall was about to be in my own blood. I withdrew my complaint, thanked everyone for their contributions, took a lengthy break from wikipedia, then got over myself.

My point was that a content dispute wasn't vandalism, but the other editor seemed to treat it as though it was, was abusive about it in the article talk page, and seemed to escalate a content dispute into a WP:3RR incident and templated me (her view of matters doubtless differs, in fairness). While my number of edits is pitifully small for the period of time I've been editing wikipedia, the public slapping-around I got when all I wanted to do was add what I thought was helpful content to an article I felt enthusiastic about really soured me on the project.

It took some soul-searching before I brought myself around to the view that this was an exceptional incident, not a typical one, even for the editor whose hostile remarks and templating reflexes made me angry. Everyone has a bad day, and that was a bad day for both of us. I didn't help things by rushing off to AN/I (where I got it served up to me), and being angry when well-intentioned editors gave me what turned out to be good advice regarding the edits I'd made. But I did learn to spend more time researching, less time editing articles.

So, template the regulars? Not unless they're really persisting in WP:NOT of whatever nature. And let's not group losers in content disputes together with real, no-kidding vandals to the extent you use the same sorts of templates for both groups. loupgarous (talk) 18:29, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

WP:BITE

I think it's definitely cute how you try to stuff every policy you can think of and connect them somehow to your point to spam people but WP:BITE is about biting newbies, not incivility in general unless the "template delivery boy" is assumed always to be a newbie. Pzrmd (talk) 17:56, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Analogy

If a car does something that it shouldn't of done, someone will honk. Not see the records to see if its a newcomer or a regular. If he/she know that the motorist was a regular, will he/she go to the car and talk. Isn't a honk part of the car, not a personalized. A honk is like a template. ~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 19:28, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Great analogy. Too many drivers think the car's horn ought to be used whenever you're upset with what another motorist does, instead of driving defensively and lending all your attention to keeping another driver's mistakes and your own reactions to them from blossoming into a collision or a road rage incident. I've used my horn perhaps once a year on average. It's more important to take responsibility for what you're doing behind the wheel, and when you've taken care of that, you can think about using the horn. Another way a honk is like a template. loupgarous (talk) 18:49, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Leaving

I was templated today and I'm kind of upset actually. I am going to take an indefinite break from editing. I don't like my userpage tarnished, so I might as well not be part of Wikipedia anymore. Imperi (talk) 17:37, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Some points (for anyone else who, like Imperi, is contemplating leaving, since Imperi obviously did, six years ago):

You don't have to leave a template on your talk page, but

For your own sake learn what, specifically, got you templated. You don't have to agree with why it did, but you probably shouldn't do it again.

A break after being templated is always a good idea. Whatever you do next, you're not on a deadline, so cool off for your own sake.

Avoid the article you were templated for editing, and all other articles where the editor(s) who templated you are active until you've calmed down. Even assuming you were in the right on the dispute, you can't win a dispute like that - the template will be seen as self-validating evidence against you. Not fair, but templates are Scarlet Letters - very few editors care to unravel the history of a template on someone else's talk page to see if it was well-founded or perhaps done inappropriately. loupgarous (talk) 19:18, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

This is a one-sided essay

You don't consider that the warning might be...wrong! Or extreme. I was accused of not providing enough sources (when I was referring to information that was already contained in the article) and threatened with being banned. And, with this editor/admin, all first time "offenders" are threatened with being blocked.

Now, I'm not pissed because I'm a "regular". I'm angry because I've been corrected by well-intentioned editors in the past and was able to come to some agreement (or, more frequently, I got tired of debating). But I've never been threatened with being blocked before from another user I have never encountered before.

According to your piece, the problem is over-sensitive regulars who take offense at being criticized. But what of the conduct of the "corrector" handing out threats (templates)? Who holds them to any accountability?

I should just add that I went into this editor's User Talk Page Archives and saw a lot of upset editors, responding in a similar manner, bewildered at the criticism and blocking threats. And, unfortunately, almost all of them were now red-links, meaning that those editors deactivated or deleted their accounts. So, if Wikipedia is interested in driving editors away, by all means throw those blocking templates on any body's page you have a disagreement with and soon there will just be a small group of editors who are reduced to threatening each other. 69.125.134.86 (talk) 19:08, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

You know, you should really leave well enough alone. You had these edits explained to you at the WP:Help Desk and why they were wrong. You also had editors notice that you have had several other warnings before, at least two in the past week before this incident. It is standard procedure for us to use escalating warning templates when someone repeatedly goes against policy. I prefer to use templates because they are neutrally worded and show other observers clearly what happened. And you should pay closer attention to whom you have encountered before, because last week I gave you a warning about this edit and I didn't threaten you at all. Now please I would ask you to comment on content, not contributors and keep your arguments out of the ad hominem gutter. Thanks. Elizium23 (talk) 05:34, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

What about the actual opposite?

On occasion, I've found myself holding the view that it is established users who should actually be templated more - that is, the actual opposite of WP:DTTR. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 13:45, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I think that is the point. Endercase (talk) 03:14, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Missing the important caveat "if they were really vandalizing or otherwise guilty of WP:NOT". The focus in this essay on vandalism implies all editors who get a template on their talk page are guilty of vandalism. Several times in the essay, there are phrases like "A caution message on a user’s talk page isn’t the end of the world. If it was, we wouldn’t have reformed vandals." That's not true on two scores - not everyone who gets templated is a vandal, and people who are vandalizing because they honestly don't care whether or not their images are in the public domain or copyrighted just as honestly won't care about the template, either. loupgarous (talk) 19:26, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Nice logic

I am also under the opinion that a new user is not somehow less special than an established one. They both need to know and follow the same rules and if the behave like they don't know about a rule then a template is appropriate.

I find the culture that one should treat established users better than new users to be a bit contrary to my philosophy that people should be treated based on their actions. Chillum 22:13, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Chillum, asking that one not template a regular is not about thinking that the regular is more special/better; it's about the fact that regular editors, or many of them at least, know the rules. So why, in those cases, do we need to be "informed" of the rules? Very experienced editors such as myself know the rules like we know the back of our hands, and we certainly don't need a condescending template reminding us of those rules. If you don't think that it's condescending for a very experienced editor to template another very experienced editor, then, except for in cases that involve a block template or some other clearly appropriate template, we disagree. Such templating is usually a matter of condescension, not WP:Good faith editing. And playing dumb about that matter is not productive in the least. Flyer22 (talk) 22:33, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Established users tend to forget the rules or think it does not apply to them. There is nothing inherently insulting or condescending using a pre-made message. I would not give a template to anyone unless their behavior indicated they either don't know the rules or don't care to follow them.

Templates don't just inform about the rules, they explain consequences and can serve as a final warning. Using the carefully chosen wording in the template can avoid wikilawyering. Regardless if you post and sign a template you are responsible for its wording, it must be done with care. Chillum 22:41, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Very experienced Wikipedians know the rules; they usually don't need to be reminded of them, no matter if they have violated one of the rules, which is common with, for example, WP:Edit warring. They also don't need to be told that the rules apply to them and that there may be consequences for not following the rules. The vast majority of editors would not template a WP:Administrator, unless it's an appropriate template (meaning one that is sure not to insult that WP:Administrator); the same should apply to an otherwise very experienced Wikipedian. When someone templates me, unless it's an appropriate template, that template will usually be reverted on the spot...with a message letting them know how silly it is to template me/how much I am obviously annoyed by it. I don't need that condescension; that condescension is inherently insulting, in my opinion. Flyer22 (talk) 22:52, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I do not template regulars, not because it is a bad idea but because it causes a negative reaction. You seem to be personalizing this saying that you don't need the condescension so I am not sure if this has happened to you or not. Regardless I think we can agree to disagree. Chillum 23:10, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Not wanting to get templated is more about common sense than it is about personalizing the matter; my "[w]hen someone templates me" commentary above should make it clear that I've been absurdly templated, and that it annoyed me. Yes, we clearly disagree on this topic. Enough said. Flyer22 (talk) 23:21, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

support

I support the premises expressed on this page and here is why: (this is all my POV)

If the regulars can't be reminded of policy, the only alternative is to immediately block upon any infraction. But, that really comes down to how you define "template". Is linking to a page that contains community consensus "templating"? I'm pretty sure that is one of the major uses of that word here. How about the friendly "an article you created (or contributed to) has been palced on AfD, you might want to comment" and such?

If you explain what the link is, is it even more offensive to a "regular"? Is explaining why their behavior is not acceptable in your own words too personal and maybe considered harassment if you do it more than once? Maybe you aren't so good at words but you still want to get across the point that you think they should read this thing you linked to, like really read it. Quite often "regulars" never had mentors or anyone to make sure they truly understood consensus, why not talk to them about it? If you aren't a "regular" maybe the use of a template can be a teaching moment for the more experienced editor, and they can explain why that essay/policy/whatever doesn't really apply here, and how their actions are actually more beneficial to the encyclopedia than whatever you think they should be doing. The point that there is no possible way to know if the user in question is a "true regular" is an important one. By templating a user you are assuming good faith, because you are assuming that the thing they are doing that caused you to template them was caused by ignorance and not done intentionally to harm the community. Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism suggest that the use of warning templates on users suspected of vandalism (compromising the integrity of Wikipedia) is the first step to a peaceful end to the harmful practices, this is true no matter how much "experience" the user has. The idea that one user's experience trumps policy (consensus) is ludicrous.

On a calming note it is important to take into consideration the implications of WP:Broke on templating others particularly when you aren't already engaged in discussion. Which is to say, you must determine is this user really being a problem before you drop that template down on them. Have they harmed the community, have they removed cited information, have they been willfully pushing a POV in an article, have they been suppressing other points of view, have they caused helpful users to leave the community, have they belittled a fellow editor, have they done anything else that is actually harmful? While you are asking yourself if you should template them maybe you should ask a more experienced user for input, maybe you should read User:ArielGold/Etiquette2, maybe you should just leave them alone and continue adding to the community in other ways. In the end I think you should do whatever you think benefits the community the most.

Remember, the things you write here are probably going to be around longer than you will. Endercase (talk) 03:26, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

You might be interested in the thread I just opened on DTTR

Wikipedia_talk:Don't_template_the_regulars#This_essay_is_pure_compost Edaham (talk) 06:37, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Linking from opposing view?

Wikipedia talk:Don't template the regulars#Linking to opposing view?. Apokrif (talk) 23:12, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Just my personal experience, why I don't agree with your opinion

I made a number of spelling corrections, e.g. replacing "contraversial" with "controversial", but in this case I pressed the wrong key thus replacing it by "contrüversial". I must admit I was somewhat annoyed getting a template "Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines" etc. (Only my contribution to the discussion, not a serious problem.) --Cyfal (talk) 15:02, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:TR" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Wikipedia:TR. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 August 14#Wikipedia:TR until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Mdewman6 (talk) 20:21, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

I like this essay

Too many regulars regard themselves as privileged over the noobs and in a position of some authority over them. This can be especially pernicious among groups of likeminded admins. They forget that theirs is a burden not a privilege, they forget what it is like to be templated. They need constant reminders that they are not specially privileged, that they deserve templating no more and no less than anybody else - especially the noobs they template so readily.

The regular who is less full of themselves minds far less about being templated; we appreciate the convenience to a templater who, in truth, would much rather be getting on with improving the encyclopedia.

It is in fact the noobs whom one should be most wary of templating, as they are most likely to be confused and upset by boilerplate aggression that does not quite match what they thought they were doing. WP:BITE is highly relevant here.

Keep up the good work. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:21, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Editing or moving this essay?

It is apparent that DESiegel has taken their leave of WP, and while this essay still extremely valid, valuable and useful - it certainly requires some cleanup and updating, as exemplified by recent edits. In a scenario such as this - as the essay is in a user's namespace and is referenced by WP links - would it be proper for Wikipedians to conduct edits here in the original location, or for a user to move it to their own namespace and create redirects, and conduct the necessary edits? Or perhaps create a new essay entirely and redirect the WP link? Just want to make sure protocol is followed and that this very useful reference is maintained. Happy to do it all on my own as well - but would hate to see the same situation repeat itself if/when I should exit WP also. Picard's Facepalm (talk) 22:08, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I'd like to see this essay promoted to mainspace. Even if I didn't agree with it, a well-thought out and vetted rebuttal essay to another mainspace essay should be on mainspace.

If you want to ask specifically how one should go about doing the move, when the original editor is not active, you can ask at the WP:Village pump (proposals). SamuelRiv (talk) 18:43, 28 January 2024 (UTC)