Carcharoth wrote:
Agree 100% with David (DGG) here. On the other hand, a careful combination of templates with personalised messages can also work. See this essay here for more on this type of approach:
I totally agree with this; it's an excellent exposition of behaviour; however, it is always difficult to distinguish between those new editors who are in tune with the "mission", for want of a better word, and those who are not. I count myself, perhaps optimistically, as an experienced Admin, with a nose for the extent to which constructive advice is to be balanced against damage limitation. In most cases, it's apparently an open and shut case, and I base judgement on the tone of the edits. For a new account to run the gamut of warnings and then be blocked, to me shows a deliberate refusal to accept standards. Also, I am alive to the possibility that I may not be dealing with a native speaker of the English language, and deal accordingly.
But: there are those whose activity is wholly or mainly dealing with vandalism. It's a tiresome and mostly unrewarding occupation, and I see many editors who have been doing this over months, but don't seek to use that to seek RfA. more strength to them.
I think it boils down to a gut feeling as to whether an edit is good-faith or not, and whether an editor is here to contribute positively or not. In some cases, one edit may swing it for that account, but I will explain why I've blocked it; if that person wants to start over, without the stain of a block to their name, I don't have a problem with that. Sometimes lessons are hard.