In message 4493629A.5020100@student.canberra.edu.au, Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher-oe7qfRrRQfc+7vVa2Y8Ptdf8k/1jCSAM@public.gmane.org writes
On 6/16/06, *Ryan Delaney* <ryan.delaney-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org mailto:ryan.delaney-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:
Frankly, I can't believe you are getting so worked up over this. Life would probably be a lot less stressful for you if you didn't take this personally. They think they are doing the right thing, after all.
By the way, I think that admins block users way too fast and should use warning templates a lot more than they already do. I would say that at least half of the time I use them, the user stops vandalizing before a block is required.
I agree that admins block users too fast, and should use *warnings* more than they do. The templates can be a means to that end --- a help in warning people. But they shouldn't be considered synonymous with the word "warning". Sometimes they're appropriate, often they're not. Usually speaking in your own words and addressing the situation directly will get you further than following the {{test}} series ever did.
I have to differ. I think admins are often far *too* lenient with repetitive vandals - I long ago lost count of the number of times I've gone to a vandal's talk page to issue a warning and found up to a dozen consecutive "final" warnings; in that case I will block immediately without any hesitation, and the worse record the vandal has, the longer I will block for.
The practice of repeatedly issuing "final warnings" has to stop - you can just see the vandals laughing at you (sometimes literally) when nothing ever happens. Issue warnings, then a final warning, and if they don't improve their behaviour, block them.