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:
>
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ArielGold/Etiquette2
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.