User:DESiegel/Template the regulars: Difference between revisions
AnonEMouse (talk | contribs) |
rv, this is a response; opposing opinions belong in Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
Wikipedia gets vandalised a lot. We all know it, we all admit it. That’s why there are [[WP:WARN|user warning templates]] available. Take a look at the pages that contain those warning templates. Take a really close look. Does it say anywhere who those templates are designed for? More specifically, does it say anywhere who they shouldn’t be used on? No, it doesn’t, so why should we discriminate who we use them against? Why shouldn’t we template the regulars? |
Wikipedia gets vandalised a lot. We all know it, we all admit it. That’s why there are [[WP:WARN|user warning templates]] available. Take a look at the pages that contain those warning templates. Take a really close look. Does it say anywhere who those templates are designed for? More specifically, does it say anywhere who they shouldn’t be used on? No, it doesn’t, so why should we discriminate who we use them against? Why shouldn’t we template the regulars? |
||
==Reasons for not templating the regulars |
==<nowiki>"</nowiki>Reasons<nowiki>"</nowiki> for not templating the regulars== |
||
It is a poor idea to inflame conflicts by [[WP:TROLL|trolling]], flaming, and [[harassment]]. Posting [[newbie]] templates on experienced contributors does all three, especially if the templates contain phrases like "Welcome to Wikipedia" and "Take a look at the [[Wikipedia:Welcome|welcome page]] to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia", as low-level warning templates usually do. These phrases, directed at people who do know how to contribute, make it impossible to [[WP:AGF|assume good faith]] on the part of the person posting the template. But if you want to make yourself look like a [[WP:DICK|dick]], '''do template the regulars'''! Then, if anybody complains, you can tell them they're only doing it for one or more of the [[straw man|strawman reasons]] offered below, which you then easily go on to refute by quoting this essay. Congratulations, people's respect for you just took a dive! |
|||
==Strawman "reasons" for not templating the regulars== |
|||
Few people are likely to take the reasons listed below seriously, but they're still useful in an argument, in that they're so easy to refute. That's what [[Straw man|strawman argument]] means. |
|||
===Uncivil reactions?=== |
===Uncivil reactions?=== |
||
| Line 27: | Line 23: | ||
Will a template reminding an admin not to remove anonymous votes from an RfA result in massive amounts of admin recall requests? Will a template reminding a user that a user must have vandalised past his final warning before being AIV reported cause this user to fail any, and all, subsequent RfAs? Will a template reminding “a regular” to not use personal attacks, or to assume good faith, result in them doing the opposite, or do we trust them to react to templates maturely, like a true “regular” would? |
Will a template reminding an admin not to remove anonymous votes from an RfA result in massive amounts of admin recall requests? Will a template reminding a user that a user must have vandalised past his final warning before being AIV reported cause this user to fail any, and all, subsequent RfAs? Will a template reminding “a regular” to not use personal attacks, or to assume good faith, result in them doing the opposite, or do we trust them to react to templates maturely, like a true “regular” would? |
||
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. We wouldn’t have massive amounts of [[GFDL]] photography that users went and captured to overcome fair use issues. We wouldn’t have many of the great things we have on Wikipedia because someone steered a user in the right direction back when it counted; when they were new, and when they made mistakes. They weren’t “a regular” then, but because of the good advice they received, they became “a regular.” If they ever forget it, do your best to remind them of their old, good habits; template them! |
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. We wouldn’t have massive amounts of [[GFDL]] photography that users went and captured to overcome fair use issues. We wouldn’t have many of the great things we have on Wikipedia because someone steered a user in the right direction back when it counted; when they were new, and when they made mistakes. They weren’t “a regular” then, but because of the good advice they received, they became “a regular.” If they ever forget it, do your best to remind them of their old, good habits; template them! |
||
==See also== |
==See also== |
||
Revision as of 15:31, 29 July 2007
 | This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
This is a response to Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars
Wikipedia gets vandalised a lot. We all know it, we all admit it. That’s why there are user warning templates available. Take a look at the pages that contain those warning templates. Take a really close look. Does it say anywhere who those templates are designed for? More specifically, does it say anywhere who they shouldn’t be used on? No, it doesn’t, so why should we discriminate who we use them against? Why shouldn’t we template the regulars?
"Reasons" for not templating the regulars
Uncivil reactions?
Apparently, templating the regulars might make them a bit angry. It might make them bite the template delivery boy. But who do you think is more likely to be civil in such a dispute; a regular, or a vandal? If we don’t template users because we’re scared of an angry reaction, then why do we template vandals? Sure, some “regulars” react angrily, but why? Do they think they’re better then any other user? They obviously aren’t, since they received that same template which can be used for any user. Rather then not templating them at fear of their reaction, you should be bold and remind them not to bite the template delivery boy, and to not do whatever they are receiving the template for.
Assuming bad faith?
Apparently, if you template a regular, they might think you’re acting in bad faith. Again, who’s more likely to assume good faith, a regular or a vandal? Someone who had some knowledge of how Wikipedia, and specifically, how vandal fighting, works - “a regular” - would be much more likely to know that most vandal fighters act in good faith, and send out templates to help make the encyclopaedia better. Not all vandals would have realised that yet, so should we not template them until they learn?
Too influential to get templated?
If you enter any admin coaching session, you’re sure to find a question along the lines of “If influential user x is accused of sockpuppeting, what do you do?” You almost always find an answer along the lines of “It doesn’t matter how influential they are, I request a checkuser.” These answers aren’t frowned upon, they’re considered correct. According to the admin coach, and whoever else happens to encounter this sort of thing, it doesn’t matter how influential or popular someone is around here; they still receive the same punishments. Why should this exclude templating? Why should they be above a template, if they aren’t above anything else?
What damage will templating a regular do?
Will a template reminding an admin not to remove anonymous votes from an RfA result in massive amounts of admin recall requests? Will a template reminding a user that a user must have vandalised past his final warning before being AIV reported cause this user to fail any, and all, subsequent RfAs? Will a template reminding “a regular” to not use personal attacks, or to assume good faith, result in them doing the opposite, or do we trust them to react to templates maturely, like a true “regular” would?
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. We wouldn’t have massive amounts of GFDL photography that users went and captured to overcome fair use issues. We wouldn’t have many of the great things we have on Wikipedia because someone steered a user in the right direction back when it counted; when they were new, and when they made mistakes. They weren’t “a regular” then, but because of the good advice they received, they became “a regular.” If they ever forget it, do your best to remind them of their old, good habits; template them!