User:ArielGold/Etiquette2/archive
August 2007Initial thoughtsAn 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) OkayI'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:  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)
ReplyAlright, 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) IMESorry, "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)
Overall rejoinderYou 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 Wikipedia: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) ReplyAgain 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 doneI 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 {{uw-speedy1}} 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 {{uw-vand1}} 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♥Gold 18:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC) In the process ofI'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. Ariel♥Gold 19:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
initial thoughtsDGG's original comments in black. 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 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.
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.
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)
Ariel♥Gold 00:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC) further commentsAriel's replies in navy
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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)
ExampleI 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)
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)
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!Ariel♥Gold 00:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Others who may be good in inputI 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? Ariel♥Gold 00:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
I noticed, and it isn't a problem. I'd love to get the ball going on this! Ariel♥Gold 01:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC) CVU disbandment, makes me thinkCVU 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. Ariel♥Gold 03:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
