Wikipedia talk:Don't template the regulars/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

What about the regulars ...?

What about the regular vandals like me? 117.197.64.77 (talk) 22:13, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Deletions

This regards this recent addition by Rich Farmbrough. My understanding is that speedy deletion is meant not to be caught up in discussions with page creators, as there is pre-established consensus for such deletions and the pages in question should be removed from the encyclopedia as soon as possible. Special consideration for pages that may be further improved is already discussed at WP:CSD. As for proposed deletions and AfD, I think it is good practice to have a preliminary discussion on the article talk page before opening the formal process. That said, the templates involved are in a different class from warning templates: they are not an impersonal, bureaucratic slap on the wrist, but a courtesy to the page creator, to ensure they have some warning beyond the template on the article and the subsequent notification from their watchlist. Ibadibam (talk) 21:33, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. However there are a huge number of speedy deletions, and, dare I say it, they often have been not the clear cut cases that should be speedied. For example "A page is only eligible for speedy deletion if all of its revisions are also eligible." I wonder how many people check that? Moreover it is as easy to say "Can I speedy this page?" as to template the page and the user. Certainly if an established (and active) user has created the page its a worthwhile step. Notifying the creator and major contributors for a speedy is a "should". There's a reason for this: there may be aspects of the page that they would be aware of, or content that can be reused in another context. going the "speedy first, ask questions after" route makes this moot.

Please feel free to improve the wording on the section to reflect that in this case templates are a good thing, once the process is commenced.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:11, 16 July 2015 (UTC).

My experience

My complaint, based on my Wikipedia experience is:

1. Some users are quick to template other users whose edits they simply disagree with or have reverted.
2. Some users think any no IP account could be a regular (not true!).
3. Some users who place a template on another user's Talk Page are equally guilty of the behavior they accuse others of (e.g., accusing another editor of "disruptive edits" when both parties are involved in an edit war)
4. It is insulting for a template, especially when given by someone who is party to a conflict of opinion, to threaten another user with an immediate block/ban.
5. Only Admins should be able to place templates threatening blocks/bans and they should be given for a consistent pattern of behavior, not just a difference of opinion regarding ONE edit.

69.125.134.86 (talk) 11:33, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I have come across a similar experience, in some of the pages I'm editing several users have banded together (and even admitted to talking to each other outside of Wikipedia regularly) and implement their views on certain subjects, and would even insult users on a regular basis but they were somehow exempt from the rules because they are the only "regular" editors. And they even have "a cheat" to get around the 3 revert rule, they band together. Imagine you make an edit and they keep reverting it and while you only have 1 account to revert it with they simply let someone else do it after one of their clique has already reverted it twice and then insult the user and send them a template stating that they will be blocked from editing/banned if they would continue.

Welcome to Wikipedia.

Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 11:09, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Relevant: Wikipedia:IPs are human too, but also Wikipedia:Why create an account?. Ibadibam (talk) 17:09, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Comment

I have serious doubts about what this essay proposes.

I think that it is unreasonable for someone to get upset because they receive a template message, merely because it is a template message. I think that that is disproportionate. I do appreciate that there are some people who are genuinely hypersensitive but ... James500 (talk) 03:27, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

@James500: I agree, it's ridiculous. Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 21:49, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

That's why there's an essay supporting the alternative viewpoint at Wikipedia:Do template the regulars. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:21, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Just a random opinion from me: I wonder if it's rude to template, period. I have done it some, myself. But it is not clear to me that it's a very human and welcoming thing to do. Indeed, I might go so far as to say that templating regulars is less rude than templating newbies. I mean, we all know what is going on, we often communicate through shorthand acronyms. Templates designed for old timers could be concise. But for newbies, it's probably better to say hello and explain something in a human way!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:23, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

@Jimbo Wales: Hello. First of all I take the opportunity to thank you for this marvelous invention called WP, although my long hours in front of the computer screen make my wife suspect I have an on-line love affair... :-) As a "newbie" I agree totally with your comment. As newcomers here we are more often than frequently welcomed by the experienced users attacking us with lots of acronyms telling us what we should or should not do in every imaginable situation and now I learn that there is also a principle about not templating the regulars! So while we newbies are trying to learn and fit in are subject to be scared -and at times scolded- by the oldies while they are immune to be templated; nice life... --E4024 (talk) 21:14, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

P.D. I took the liberty to correct a typo in another user's talk; let me see who will throw the first template on this sinner. --E4024 (talk) 21:14, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Another essay

In this same spirit as this essay, I wrote Wikipedia:Don't just cite a page of rules; cite the relevant part of the rule and explain how it applies to the specific situation. St. claires fire (talk) 14:31, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

This essay is pure compost

Editors who know me hopefully know I very rarely call flat out bullshit without a bit of discussion first, but this essay, which I saw deployed on someone's talk page in reply to a DS announcement, is just that. The only way in which this essay can be used in its current title and format is to send a veiled "get lost" to a well-meaning editor who leaves a template on someone's talk page. It might have some application if it were titled, "Using Templates on Talk pages", and included some advice on intercommunication between experienced editors, but in its present form this usage is impossible. There's no line between experienced and non-experienced editors, nor is there a line between who might and who might not be offended if they are the recipient of a templated message. The idea espoused in the essay, that "templates are often out of date", begs the question, why didn't the authors of this mess spend their time modernizing the templates? Rather than go on, as I could, about the rest of the essay, here are some things which templates are good for, and which should be included in this essay, when it is hopefully renamed.

• Templates serve to
  • Give information to the recipient in the form of
    • Information about the page they are working on
    • Information on pending or impending administrative actions
    • Links to policies, and parts of policies, which apply to the edits they are making, of which they may need reminding
  • Give information to other editors looking at the talk page in the form of
    • Quick viewing of what's been going on in that editor's recent history. Templates are visually recognizable and noticing them on a talk page is quicker than reading every word in black on white text.
    • They provide cues for editors looking to mediate potential content disputes as well as quick viewing of the pages that editor has been active on.

In summary the usage of templates is not just as a way of communicating to an individual editor and if someone's edit results in them receiving one, it should be treated not necessarily as a warning, but as an indication that the person who left it there wants to more formally notify the community of an action, incident or process, which is taking place. If people don't want to "feel like they are being bureaucratically processed", they can respond to a template message by levelly assessing the reason for it being there, not by chucking this essay's short cut link at the sender. Re-write this, rename it or edit it, but don't leave it as it is, because in its current state it is laughing in the face of established processes of dispute mediation and the application of policy. I find it potentially harmful to the project at large that there exists an essay (which while in its disclaimer reminds people that it is not accepted policy, might be seen as authoritative information), which can be thrown back at users issuing user-talk message items. Edaham (talk) 04:44, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

At the least, I'd like to think of a renaming strategy, which addresses the above and if anyone felt I came on a bit strong up there, do feel free to template my talk page, because I fully support their use Edaham (talk) 04:57, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Sure, and this essay pairs well with User:DESiegel/Template the regulars. At the same time, so many Wikipedia editors are so driven by egotism, selfishness and petty grudgekeeping that thry view any suggestion they have done something wrong as a personal insult. When I received the backlash of a butthurt templatee, this essay was a helpful way for me to understand their perspective and make an attempt to diffuse the situation. I'm game for renaming and reorganizing this essay, but we have to account for the anti-templaters of Wikipedia and not assume that our pro-templating preference is the One True Way. Ibadibam (talk) 05:31, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your ballanced reply. Take note, that I didn't advocate, or re-nominate this page for deletion, nor do I want the wholesale removal of its contents. What I would like is for it not to recommend against the use of template messages, but to acknowledge their potential impact, improve the understanding of their use, and make it completely useless to anyone who wants to fire it back at someone who just left them a DS notice or the like. Edaham (talk) 05:49, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

This is one of the most important essays on Wikipedia. Anything that can be communicated with a template can be communicated with a sentence. A template is a robotic, impersonal response, when a warmer approach would nearly always be better. It's the same reason people hate phone trees. Templating someone you were just engaged in conversation with is like responding to someone you've met recently with "press 1 if you agree with me, press 2 if you disagree, press 3 to speak with an operator..." Its degrading and not how humans should talk to other humans.

If you give other editors potentially anti-social tools like templates, you should at least give them some guidance about how to use them thoughtfully and politely if they choose to use them. - Scarpy (talk) 06:48, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

"This is one of the most important essays on Wikipedia". - No. It isn't.

Nor should any effort to improve this pale impression of instructional guidance be erroneously construed as an argument against natural human interaction.

Personal communication is one of the most important things on Wikipedia. The fact that this is the case doesn't mean that formal communication doesn't play an important role, or that such communication should dismissed with a built in "template rebuttal tool", which is what this essay does - and is. It's not giving guidance, it's confusing people as to the role of formal communication as evidenced above by an editor's employing of it in a casual dismissal of a discretionary sanctions warning which is a mandatory precursor to any kind of formal intervention into disruptive behavior. It needs to be re-written.

There's a discretionary sanctions notification on my talk page, which was issued almost perfectly within the scope of the intent of the template and the role it plays in editing practices. This notification was accompanied by a personalized message, explaining why the template was necessary in this situation. For the record - I did disagree with it, and even continued to challenge the content on the page in question, but that in no way detracts from the purpose of its issuance by the administrator in question, which was to formally intervene in (possibly unintended) disruptive behavior. Nor does the fact that I was already aware of the policies, and my mild indignation undermine my support for the role formal notifications play in maintaining decorum. Nowhere does this essay so much as touch on the idea of issuing both a template and a worded message, which would be very sound advice. The thread I linked to on my talk page is a case in point. Edaham (talk) 07:06, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

@Edaham:} My experience from being on Wikipedia for a decade is that it burns out most editors (to be fair I left for several years before coming active again). Behavior like the drive-by templating is bad for editor retention. I'll agree that this article could better articulate the point you made, about templating + explanation. Either way, the people seeking to remove it because they see other editors complaining because of their "fragile egos" I just seem like they either (a) most not really have experience with content disputes or (b) are most involved in Wikipedia administratively. I have never seen a warning template on a talk page help resolve an issue with an article, in all of the edits I've made on Wikipedia. At best they just don't make things work, and most of the time they just make things worse. - Scarpy (talk) 07:06, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

• fwiw i find this essay.... pitiful, really. As was noted above, an expression of frail egos and i will add that to me there is a kind of icky sense of privilege/entitlement behind it, of "i'm too good for that".

but some people really find templates offensive, and they will post here and say how un-Wikipedian/de-humanizing templates are. There have been many, many, many discussions about that. i have no empathy with that but i understand that other people feel it, and strongly. life in community means we make room for each other.

but the incident that provoked this posting was an invalid use of this essay that i don't think anybody will/can defend and like other inappropriate uses of something, is kind of a poor launching point for discussions and shouldn't be brought up further. Jytdog (talk) 15:09, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have to agree that essay is mostly abused. A regular ideally should not need to be templated because a regular is expected to know and follow policies, etc. That makes more of a case for the templates for a regular when they are acting disruptive than a newbie honestly (similar to the "act like a child, expect to be treated like one" saying). In my experience, editors who cite this essay tend to be disruptive regulars that do not want to hear about their behavior problems. Customized responses tend to only inflame them more, so a straightforward template laying out the expectations as a reminder is exactly what the template is for.

As mentioned above, there are other essays basically saying do template the editors to consider a sort of merged essay. As this is an essay and not in userspace, we can modify this essay to balance it out to remove the instructional aspect of don't template the regulars, add more about why they should be templated (basically WP:UNDUE as currently omitted), reactions to being templated, and make it more of an overall outline of what happens/expectations when regulars are templated. I'm not really up for drafting an essentially merged essay at the moment, but I do think it's problematic that the DTTR link goes to an echo chamber with next to no caution against it in text aside from the last line of WP:DTTR#AGF. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:22, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

If you edit like a newbie, you get templated like one. - FlightTime (open channel) 15:32, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Right, jolly good. That seems to have accrued enough discussion. I think it best from this point to simply present a side by side comparison (as was recommended to me) of specific changes (rather than thrash out and re-air the contents of this talk page's archives) beginning with (most importantly) the title. Fortunately WP:DEADLINE so I'll get a bit of work out of the way first, and thanks for the input so far. jytdog I wouldn't call my reasons for discovering this essay a trigger for my reaction to it. I would be just as dumbfounded as to the reasons for its bizarre title, had it been accidentally mailed to me or been discovered floating in my toilet. Edaham (talk) 01:58, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

• If I may briefly speak in defense of this essay (and I'll ping Jytdog, whose logic from another issue I'm somewhat borrowing for this). Whether or not DTTR should be treated like policy it is treated by many and it is an emotional response that most people are having here, and failing to follow its advice will not win you many friends on Wikipedia: it doesn't matter if its right or wrong or if it should be that way, it is simply a fact. This, combined with the fact that Wikipedia is a collaborative project, makes it a bad idea to use templates with most regular users: if the point of templates is to decrease disruption to the project, templating someone who will likely be offended actually often does the exact opposite of that, and should be avoided as a matter of practicality.
  That being said, there are certain circumstances where templates are needed: discretionary sanctions alerts require them, and edit warring de facto does in terms of how ANEW often works (or rather, how Twinkle processes ANEW reports). In both of these cases, I always try to add a personalized message, because again, the point of them is to decrease disruption to the project.
  There are also cases where as an administrator or experienced user it might be a good idea to use a template to make a point: templates are so rarely used on established users that when a final warning template is issued by an admin, it stands out and likely will have the affect of decreasing the disruption to the project. The question to always ask in any situation involve conflict with other users is Do I think this action will make Wikipedia better either in terms of content or increasing collaboration and decreasing disruption? If the answer is no, then it shouldn't be taken. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:24, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree with that 99%. The only place I don't is that this essay is not even close to policy. There are plenty of people who are very offended by being templated and cite this to "justify" it, but i don't think anybody has ever been blocked for "violating" DTTR and if somebody opened an ANI thread about being templated against their wishes, they would ~probably~ be trouted. But the rest -- about thinking about what will be the best route to calm things -- dead on good by me. Jytdog (talk) 04:34, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Everyone supporting this essay is making really really good points. Those points aren't coming across in the essay. That's why it needs fixing, that and the line it draws between "regulars" and who ever else isn't what ever a "regular" is. People do need to follow the advice herein and that's why It shouldn't be called Don't template the regulars and should make more of an effort to describe how to correctly deploy templates. It should also mention two important things:

1. templates are not just intended to convey messages between the recipient and the person who received it. They are for mediation and administrative purposes which involve third parties who need to know that a template has been issued.
2. this essay should never for the love of god, be sent to a person who deployed a template as if it is some kind of rebuttal.

Texts such as, Sometimes Wikipedia has multiple policies which are contradictory should be rewritten - the above example is what really made me cringe. You can't have statements in here which seem to deliberately weaken wikipedia's policies. Policies don't contradict each other because they aren't written properly. They're written like that to ensure different points of view and approaches get looked at in the course of a debate. Edaham (talk) 05:24, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

at the least, this should be moved to a more all encompassing title, leaving DTTR and the current title as a redirect to a page which addresses the general use of templates and etiquette with the potential effects on regular users as a subsection.

For new users a, "help I received a template - what do I do?" style essay wouldn't be a bad idea either. There's no reason why the advice included in this essay couldn't be included in such a document. Edaham (talk) 05:26, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Jytdog, yes, we agree that this isn't close to policy in any meaningful sense, but many people look at it as such or at least as one of the most important essays on wiki-manners. Compare it to the behavioral equivalent of OUTCOMES

Edaham, the only real thing I want to address in your response is the idea that Wikipedia's policies and guidelines aren't contradictory: of course they are. We're a collaborative crowdsourced project where consensus develops locally and then bubbles up (you will never get a policy RfC to pass any other way). The kinder, gentler way of saying this is that Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are often in tension. That is okay and normal: Wikipedia has no firm rules, and operates off of a set of principles and consensus. It is entirely possible for two editors to be working based off of the principles of Wikipedia and in line with what they believe to be consensus based on the documentation in project space, and be in complete disagreement with each other (this happens to me all the time). The point the essay is trying to make is that its normally better to ask a user why they did something than assume they didn't know about POLICYX. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:00, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

• I would like to see some examples of what people are talking about here. What I typically see with templates are users involved in a dispute, and then instead of talking about the issue like adults on an article talk page and coming to some understanding, one throws a user warning template on the other's talk page and then maybe the other does the same thing. The mere existence of templates that can be used in this way is counter-productive. Those of you that are talking about "frail egos" are kind of missing the point. The most common use of templates I see works against everything Wikipedia is supposed to be about in that it discourages useful discussion. Now, if I was an admin and my day-to-day life on Wikipedia was templating new users for minor trangressions... I might have a different point of view, but even then it looks a bit like a capricious intervention from an ivory tower to people who don't understand the context, and could benefit from a higher touch approach. - Scarpy (talk) 07:18, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

TonyBallioni I don't think there are no contradictory policies. There are. I'm planning my reply in my head and realizing that it's been covered in part or indirectly by what I've already stated and rather than come up with different ways to keep making similar points, I think I'm going to take Scarpy's advice, dig for real examples and put together a proposal for alterations to this page. Edaham (talk) 07:43, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: The essay is fine as is. I agree with the supporters. A regular (not a newbie or someone who pretty much classifies as a newbie) templating another regular is too often done with the intent to annoy, threaten and/or belittle. There is barely any reason that an editor who has been here for eight years and who has much knowledge of the site's ins and outs, for example, will need to be templated. Any time I have seen such templating, it's been to annoy, threaten and/or belittle the editor, and it has been done to me. Do not template me unless it is about a WP:ArbCom matter that I might not know about. Even then, it is preferable to leave me a note, not something that acts as a warning as though I am a newbie that needs to behave. And for anyone who wants to reply to me on this, there is no need to ping me to this page since it's on my watchlist. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:48, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

  Yes, I can see, from a quick scan of your talk page history, that you have been templated several times, perhaps injudiciously. I fully understand why you'd feel that way. However, my problem isn't with the opposition to templating regulars, it's that this page seems to maintain the idea that the misuse (or issues with proper use) of templates can be solved simply by not sending them to those such as yourself. Edaham (talk) 06:38, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

  (Additional) I've searched through some essays and found WP:BASH. This is a much less cited and more understated essay, which addresses a lot of the reasons this essay was created in a more general way, without undue focus on "regulars". There are points made in both essays, which are useful and they clearly deal with overlapping issues. Still thinking... Edaham (talk) 07:20, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Case study of why you don't

I found a talk page that was a redirect to a different talk page. After changing the article redirect to a different kind of page, naturally I deleted the talk page redirect, since it's rather confusing clicking the talk page and being led to a talk page for a completely different article.

In response to that this happened: User talk:Oiyarbepsy/2018A#April 2018. That's right, an article-blanking template. There is pretty much nothing in the posted template that has anything whatsoever to do with the proper action that I took. One of the worst things about templating, well, anyone, is lazy people who post templates that are completely irrelevant. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 00:16, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Linking to opposing view?

Should we link in the "see also" section or somewhere else to User:DESiegel/Template the regulars? My main hesitation is that that essay is in a userspace, not Wikipedia space, and I'm fuzzy on what the guidelines are for wikilinking between those two. - Sdkb (talk) 23:07, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Sdkb, huh? It's already linked in the See also section. Has been for years. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:17, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Oh oops lol I'm not sure how I missed that. Sdkb (talk) 02:57, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Patronizing has a link to the definition of patronizing

In the page there is a link to the definition of patronizing. I want whoever who did that to know that I appreciate the irony. Nithin^talk 19:26, 4 May 2020 (UTC)