http://www.webhostingreport.net/blog/archives/2007/07/08/wikipediaorg-on-its...
It's from a search engine spammer, but the point stands. Templating is not only insulting to the regulars, it's insulting to all recipients.
How about some RFA opposes: "Too much templating, no conversation." That should get the goldfarmers off the templating kick.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
http://www.webhostingreport.net/blog/archives/2007/07/08/wikipediaorg-on-its...
It's from a search engine spammer, but the point stands. Templating is not only insulting to the regulars, it's insulting to all recipients.
How about some RFA opposes: "Too much templating, no conversation." That should get the goldfarmers off the templating kick.
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
A spammer (who indicated in that post an intent to spam some more) feels insulted by getting told to knock it off? Terrible thing, terrible thing. Most websites block linkspammers on sight without notice or appeal. Warning linkspammers and vandals at all is nicer treatment then they'd get most anywhere.
On 09/07/07, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
http://www.webhostingreport.net/blog/archives/2007/07/08/wikipediaorg-on-its... It's from a search engine spammer, but the point stands. Templating is not only insulting to the regulars, it's insulting to all recipients. How about some RFA opposes: "Too much templating, no conversation." That should get the goldfarmers off the templating kick.
A spammer (who indicated in that post an intent to spam some more) feels insulted by getting told to knock it off? Terrible thing, terrible thing. Most websites block linkspammers on sight without notice or appeal. Warning linkspammers and vandals at all is nicer treatment then they'd get most anywhere.
As I noted :-) However, templated responses when you could, um, type some text are indeed insulting to all. And, more to the point, ineffective - no spammer thinks *they* could be spamming.
- d.
On 7/9/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
http://www.webhostingreport.net/blog/archives/2007/07/08/wikipediaorg-on-its...
It's from a search engine spammer, but the point stands. Templating is not only insulting to the regulars, it's insulting to all recipients.
How about some RFA opposes: "Too much templating, no conversation." That should get the goldfarmers off the templating kick.
- d.
God, please don't. RfA is broken enough without having even more people opposing to make a point about something they want people to do more. How about you convince current admins on AIV not to demand 4 template warnings before a block, or nom some CSD warning templates for deletion?
Todd Allen wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
http://www.webhostingreport.net/blog/archives/2007/07/08/wikipediaorg-on-its...
It's from a search engine spammer, but the point stands. Templating is not only insulting to the regulars, it's insulting to all recipients.
How about some RFA opposes: "Too much templating, no conversation." That should get the goldfarmers off the templating kick.
A spammer (who indicated in that post an intent to spam some more) feels insulted by getting told to knock it off? Terrible thing, terrible thing. Most websites block linkspammers on sight without notice or appeal. Warning linkspammers and vandals at all is nicer treatment then they'd get most anywhere.
Sounds like you don't get it. Perhaps, over time, this guy would get into trouble anyway. For now he's just an example of how people are treated - not just him but others who rund afoul of someone's pet rule. When you talk to people with templates and threats, or prejudge that a person is a spammer or some kind of other offender, your behaviour is no better than what you allege this peron to be doing. Using templated threats as a first line of approach works only to keep away thin skinned people who might otherwise become good editors if they had half a chance. This will also drive away experts who have something to add to their areas of expertise, but who haven't the time to be talked down to by clueless admins.
Ec
On 7/9/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
http://www.webhostingreport.net/blog/archives/2007/07/08/wikipediaorg-on-its...
It's from a search engine spammer, but the point stands. Templating is not only insulting to the regulars, it's insulting to all recipients.
How about some RFA opposes: "Too much templating, no conversation." That should get the goldfarmers off the templating kick.
- d.
It depends on the situation. If someone has uploaded a copyvio despite multiple warning notices I will throw {{subst:nsd}} at them if only becuase it is more polite than what I would write. If however it looks like someone just forgot to list themselves as a sorce or whatever it will generaly avoid a template if only because the responce rate is higher (perhaps because it makes people think genisock2 is a real person or whatever).
So templates do have their uses in some cases but are less use for regular communication.
Untill I see more detials of this case it is hard to say which applies.
On Mon, 9 Jul 2007 08:04:12 +0100, "David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
http://www.webhostingreport.net/blog/archives/2007/07/08/wikipediaorg-on-its... It's from a search engine spammer, but the point stands. Templating is not only insulting to the regulars, it's insulting to all recipients.
Spammer feels hurt at being called on his spamming. Pictures at eleven.
This message was brought to you by the office of "nothing to see here, move along now".
Guy (JzG)
David Gerard-2 wrote:
http://www.webhostingreport.net/blog/archives/2007/07/08/wikipediaorg-on-its...
It's from a search engine spammer, but the point stands. Templating is not only insulting to the regulars, it's insulting to all recipients.
How about some RFA opposes: "Too much templating, no conversation." That should get the goldfarmers off the templating kick.
Oh, please. Would you listen to someone caught speeding who suggested that having a standard form was insulting, and that they should receive a hand-written letter detailing their idiocy in beautiful copper-plate?
On 09/07/07, Phil Boswell phil.boswell@gmail.com wrote:
Oh, please. Would you listen to someone caught speeding who suggested that having a standard form was insulting, and that they should receive a hand-written letter detailing their idiocy in beautiful copper-plate?
*cough* OK, I probably didn't pick the best example to hang the topic on ...
- d.
David Gerard-2 wrote:
On 09/07/07, Phil Boswell phil.boswell@gmail.com wrote:
Oh, please. Would you listen to someone caught speeding who suggested that having a standard form was insulting, and that they should receive a hand-written letter detailing their idiocy in beautiful copper-plate?
*cough* OK, I probably didn't pick the best example to hang the topic on ...
On a slightly more serious note, there does seem to be more of an atmosphere recently of "tie the admins up with red tape".
This business of "blocks shall be preventative rather than punitive", for example. Quite apart from the distinct echoes of Monty Python [1], who are you going to block in a preventative manner other than some clown who has been acting the goat, and how is that not punitive?
There seems to be a gang of people willing to jump into a thread on WP:ANI cudgelling any admin who makes themself available, and I don't like it.
HTH HANFD
On 7/9/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 09/07/07, Phil Boswell phil.boswell@gmail.com wrote:
Oh, please. Would you listen to someone caught speeding who suggested that having a standard form was insulting, and that they should receive a hand-written letter detailing their idiocy in beautiful copper-plate?
*cough* OK, I probably didn't pick the best example to hang the topic on ...
Beyond the example issue...
I think that not using templates would be a problem. The templates are there for a reason - to make at least part of the response standardized, in a goes-on-the-record-and-reviewable manner.
It's one thing to say "Don't *just* template, explain also". Saying "Don't template" breaks a whole lot of how we do stuff now.
On 09/07/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
I think that not using templates would be a problem. The templates are there for a reason - to make at least part of the response standardized, in a goes-on-the-record-and-reviewable manner.
What you're describing there is bureaucratic arse-covering, not human communication.
It's one thing to say "Don't *just* template, explain also". Saying "Don't template" breaks a whole lot of how we do stuff now.
That doesn't make it somehow not bureaucracy replacing communication. Because a template only communicates "you have been processed." There's clearly not a human behind it, or there's a human pretending to be a machine.
- d.
On 7/9/07, Phil Boswell phil.boswell@gmail.com wrote:
On a slightly more serious note, there does seem to be more of an atmosphere recently of "tie the admins up with red tape".
Not remotely. Admins have gained significantly increased powers over the last two years.
This business of "blocks shall be preventative rather than punitive", for example.
Eh old school. Dates from the days when admins were more meant to be enforcers of what the community decided (and the community understanding the potential for abuse of power decided to limited what admins could do to a fairly narrow set of conditions) rather than doing whatever their "common sense" told them to do.
Quite apart from the distinct echoes of Monty Python [1], who are you going to block in a preventative manner other than some clown who has been acting the goat, and how is that not punitive?
There seems to be a gang of people willing to jump into a thread on WP:ANI cudgelling any admin who makes themself available, and I don't like it.
There appear to be a bunch of admins who have forgotten where power in the project is meant to come from and I don't like that.
Don't template anyone? Dear god, what are we coming too. Then again, I'm a bit biased on this, see [[WP:TTR]] - G1ggy
On 7/10/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/9/07, Phil Boswell phil.boswell@gmail.com wrote:
On a slightly more serious note, there does seem to be more of an
atmosphere
recently of "tie the admins up with red tape".
Not remotely. Admins have gained significantly increased powers over the last two years.
This business of "blocks shall be preventative rather than punitive",
for
example.
Eh old school. Dates from the days when admins were more meant to be enforcers of what the community decided (and the community understanding the potential for abuse of power decided to limited what admins could do to a fairly narrow set of conditions) rather than doing whatever their "common sense" told them to do.
Quite apart from the distinct echoes of Monty Python [1], who are you going to block in a preventative manner other than some clown who
has
been acting the goat, and how is that not punitive?
There seems to be a gang of people willing to jump into a thread on
WP:ANI
cudgelling any admin who makes themself available, and I don't like it.
There appear to be a bunch of admins who have forgotten where power in the project is meant to come from and I don't like that.
-- geni
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
When you talk to people with templates and threats, or prejudge that a person is a spammer or some kind of other offender, your behaviour is no better than what you allege this peron to be doing.
Nonsense. For a start, seeing someone spam and concluding that the person is a spammer is not prejudging, it's just judging. You don't like threats? Should we not tell people that what they're doing will get them blocked and just block them without warning? Or perhaps you think blocking them is somehow unfair and we should just accept whatever people do?
Templates are used for convenience. It is much quicker to type {{subst:test}} than a couple of lines explaining why we want them to stop. If you make vandal fighting harder you will reduce the number of vandal fighters which will increase the length of time it takes for vandalism to be found and fixed and increase the amount of vandalism that gets missed completely. Not being very friendly to spammers and vandals is a small price to pay to get vandalism fixed promptly.
I love getting all philosophical about how much DMoz sucks and how Wikipedia shouldn't be like it but in a case like this it's best to avoid labels ("spammers" vs. "self-proclaimed super editors") and just look at the actual case history.
Here's the complainant's account: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Nsusa
Most of his contributions were not spammy: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Restless_legs_syndrome&diff=pr... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Castle_Rock%2C_Colorado&diff=p... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Highlands_Ranch_Mansion&diff=p...
This one probably merited rollback: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Web_hosting_service&diff=prev&...
If he had included his external links as <ref>s instead of in the External links section, noone would have cared.
I don't care about the namecalling on either side. There's tons of assumptions of bad faith on both sides here.
P.S. Okay, he was cut-and-pasting. I've amended my remarks on his user page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nsusa)
On 7/9/07, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
I love getting all philosophical about how much DMoz sucks and how Wikipedia shouldn't be like it but in a case like this it's best to avoid labels ("spammers" vs. "self-proclaimed super editors") and just look at the actual case history.
Here's the complainant's account: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Nsusa
Most of his contributions were not spammy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Restless_legs_syndrome&diff=pr... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Castle_Rock%2C_Colorado&diff=p...
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Highlands_Ranch_Mansion&diff=p...
This one probably merited rollback: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Web_hosting_service&diff=prev&...
If he had included his external links as <ref>s instead of in the External links section, noone would have cared.
I don't care about the namecalling on either side. There's tons of assumptions of bad faith on both sides here.
On 7/9/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 09/07/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
I think that not using templates would be a problem. The templates are there for a reason - to make at least part of the response standardized, in a goes-on-the-record-and-reviewable manner.
What you're describing there is bureaucratic arse-covering, not human communication.
It's one thing to say "Don't *just* template, explain also". Saying "Don't template" breaks a whole lot of how we do stuff now.
That doesn't make it somehow not bureaucracy replacing communication. Because a template only communicates "you have been processed." There's clearly not a human behind it, or there's a human pretending to be a machine.
Bureaucracy has its purpose and point in the world.
Among other things, a templated list of warnings makes it easy for an uninvolved admin to look and see "Was this troublemaking user warned enough that they were in violation of policy? Have they continued past the clear warnings? Should I block them now, or warn again?"
AGF covers a lot. It could cover being very nice, polite, and personal with everyone who replaces page after page with "P00p!", or more topically who ads clear spam to dozens of WP pages.
In practice, right now, the vandal fighters on en are being more abrupt than that in many cases.
Query: does AGF require us to always be personal (as opposed to impersonal, template-only) with clear abusers? Do clear abusers deserve that?
Query: do those fighting vandalism regularly have enough time to do so, and keep up with the flood?
Thomas Dalton wrote:
For a start, seeing someone spam and concluding that the person is a spammer is not prejudging, it's just judging.
I don't think that's quite correct. Everybody acts foolishly now and then, but immediately judging them a fool is indeed prejudicial.
I've been a rabid anti-spammer since before the web existed, so these days I have a pretty short fuse on the topic. But I still try hard to keep in mind that the first time somebody spams, they rarely know that it's bad.
I have talked to a shockingly large number of well-meaning small business owners who believed the promotional flyer for the bulk mail package they bought. Until they have done it repeatedly or after warning, I don't think of them as spammers so much as people who have spammed. They were just trying to promote their business in a way that seemed reasonable given their lack of knowledge.
You don't like threats? Should we not tell people that what they're doing will get them blocked and just block them without warning?
I don't like threats. I do like explanations. I think the difference is Wikipedia's secret sauce: the assumption of good faith.
Not being very friendly to spammers and vandals is a small price to pay to get vandalism fixed promptly.
It depends on how you count the costs.
I think being actively unfriendly can get somebody's dander up. Some of those people will become more persistent, or more sneaky. Some will decide to get even. Many, because they still don't understand quite what the problem is, will tell people how horrible Wikipedia is. Or just take it out on their dogs.
On the other hand, people who feel they have been fairly treated (that is, not as fools but as people who have unintentionally done something foolish) have less incentive to take revenge. Perhaps now that they've edited, they'll add something. Maybe they'll tell colleagues why they shouldn't try to market themselves via Wikipedia. And it could they'll even join us in tidying things up.
William
William Pietri wrote:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
For a start, seeing someone spam and concluding that the person is a spammer is not prejudging, it's just judging.
I don't think that's quite correct. Everybody acts foolishly now and then, but immediately judging them a fool is indeed prejudicial.
I've been a rabid anti-spammer since before the web existed, so these days I have a pretty short fuse on the topic. But I still try hard to keep in mind that the first time somebody spams, they rarely know that it's bad.
I have talked to a shockingly large number of well-meaning small business owners who believed the promotional flyer for the bulk mail package they bought. Until they have done it repeatedly or after warning, I don't think of them as spammers so much as people who have spammed. They were just trying to promote their business in a way that seemed reasonable given their lack of knowledge.
You don't like threats? Should we not tell people that what they're doing will get them blocked and just block them without warning?
I don't like threats. I do like explanations. I think the difference is Wikipedia's secret sauce: the assumption of good faith.
Not being very friendly to spammers and vandals is a small price to pay to get vandalism fixed promptly.
It depends on how you count the costs.
I think being actively unfriendly can get somebody's dander up. Some of those people will become more persistent, or more sneaky. Some will decide to get even. Many, because they still don't understand quite what the problem is, will tell people how horrible Wikipedia is. Or just take it out on their dogs.
On the other hand, people who feel they have been fairly treated (that is, not as fools but as people who have unintentionally done something foolish) have less incentive to take revenge. Perhaps now that they've edited, they'll add something. Maybe they'll tell colleagues why they shouldn't try to market themselves via Wikipedia. And it could they'll even join us in tidying things up.
William
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
That could be, but really, I think the templates serve that purpose fine if used properly. Here's spam1:
Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did in Article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_directory nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links and spam policies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Spam for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Welcome%2C_newcomers to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you.
That seems me to convey a clear message that we don't want spam, but also serves to educate. Its tone certainly looks to me more like "Hey, we don't allow this here, please don't do that" then "Knock it off you ($%*(#ing moron!"
There is a problem with people skipping directly to 3 or 4 level warnings too quickly, which are much harsher in tone and are intended for people who have ignored gentler warnings, and intended to convey "Hey, we asked nicely, now stop it or out comes the banhammer." I'll only give a 3 or 4 immediately in extreme, egregious cases. Often, a test1, spam1, or whatever, is all it takes to get someone to stop.
4im is a big problem here, because the criteria for it is certainly lowering. You see people dishing out 4im for even very minor things these days, which isn't nice for the receiver.
So, to start off another topic, what are other people's criteria for dishing out a 4im? ~Giggy
On 7/10/07, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
William Pietri wrote:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
For a start, seeing someone spam and concluding that the person is a spammer is not prejudging, it's just judging.
I don't think that's quite correct. Everybody acts foolishly now and then, but immediately judging them a fool is indeed prejudicial.
I've been a rabid anti-spammer since before the web existed, so these days I have a pretty short fuse on the topic. But I still try hard to keep in mind that the first time somebody spams, they rarely know that it's bad.
I have talked to a shockingly large number of well-meaning small business owners who believed the promotional flyer for the bulk mail package they bought. Until they have done it repeatedly or after warning, I don't think of them as spammers so much as people who have spammed. They were just trying to promote their business in a way that seemed reasonable given their lack of knowledge.
You don't like threats? Should we not tell people that what they're doing will get them blocked and just block them without warning?
I don't like threats. I do like explanations. I think the difference is Wikipedia's secret sauce: the assumption of good faith.
Not being very friendly to spammers and vandals is a small price to pay to get vandalism fixed promptly.
It depends on how you count the costs.
I think being actively unfriendly can get somebody's dander up. Some of those people will become more persistent, or more sneaky. Some will decide to get even. Many, because they still don't understand quite what the problem is, will tell people how horrible Wikipedia is. Or just take it out on their dogs.
On the other hand, people who feel they have been fairly treated (that is, not as fools but as people who have unintentionally done something foolish) have less incentive to take revenge. Perhaps now that they've edited, they'll add something. Maybe they'll tell colleagues why they shouldn't try to market themselves via Wikipedia. And it could they'll even join us in tidying things up.
William
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
That could be, but really, I think the templates serve that purpose fine if used properly. Here's spam1:
Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did in Article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_no...
nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links and spam policies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Spam for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Welcome%2C_newcomers to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you.
That seems me to convey a clear message that we don't want spam, but also serves to educate. Its tone certainly looks to me more like "Hey, we don't allow this here, please don't do that" then "Knock it off you ($%*(#ing moron!"
There is a problem with people skipping directly to 3 or 4 level warnings too quickly, which are much harsher in tone and are intended for people who have ignored gentler warnings, and intended to convey "Hey, we asked nicely, now stop it or out comes the banhammer." I'll only give a 3 or 4 immediately in extreme, egregious cases. Often, a test1, spam1, or whatever, is all it takes to get someone to stop.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Todd Allen wrote:
That could be, but really, I think the templates serve that purpose fine if used properly.
Sorry I didn't say so explicitly, but I think the cookie-cutter warnings can be fine if used with care and consideration. I tend to reserve them for situations I'm pretty sure that people know what they're doing is wrong. Editors who are clearly trying I like to customize the message or just leave a personal note.
I was just arguing that treating first-time offenders as serious criminals can have long-term costs that are less obvious than the short-term wins. I suspect we agree on that.
There is a problem with people skipping directly to 3 or 4 level warnings too quickly, which are much harsher in tone and are intended for people who have ignored gentler warnings, and intended to convey "Hey, we asked nicely, now stop it or out comes the banhammer." I'll only give a 3 or 4 immediately in extreme, egregious cases. Often, a test1, spam1, or whatever, is all it takes to get someone to stop.
I agree completely.
William
Phil Boswell wrote:
David Gerard-2 wrote:
It's from a search engine spammer, but the point stands. Templating is not only insulting to the regulars, it's insulting to all recipients.
How about some RFA opposes: "Too much templating, no conversation." That should get the goldfarmers off the templating kick.
Oh, please. Would you listen to someone caught speeding who suggested that having a standard form was insulting, and that they should receive a hand-written letter detailing their idiocy in beautiful copper-plate?
No, I wouldn't.
However,on the rare occasions when I have been pulled over for something or other, I've only taken it seriously when the cop and I came to the shared understanding that what I was doing was actually bad, rather than just violating some arbitrary bureaucratic norm.
When I was, long ago, a new driver, a couple of officers made a big difference by taking a few extra minutes to help me understand why they were pulling me over, and why it mattered. After that I took safe driving much more seriously.
On the other hand, three or four years ago I was pulled over and ticketed while going at traffic speed. The cop, with a little chagrin, explained that there was some sort of state-wide safe driving campaign, and so they were trying to bring down the average speed of the freeway. That had no effect on me other than to erode my respect for the law a little, and the road is still just as fast as it ever was.
It's not always possible to have that first kind of interaction -- some are not inclined to listen, and we don't always have the time. But where we can, I think we should. It will save us trouble in the long run.
William
A followup--I just want to say that Nsusa's blog post is probably 95% social engineering -- the sites and Wikipedia contributions seem useful, but upon more serious review, they're cut-and-paste chunks of text with much less informational value than appears at first blush.
I admit to being taken in by some of his anti-DMoz bluster but I now doubt he has much good intent (i.e. he is probably a professional spammer).
David Gerard-2 wrote:
On 09/07/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
I think that not using templates would be a problem. The templates are there for a reason - to make at least part of the response standardized, in a goes-on-the-record-and-reviewable manner.
[snip] That doesn't make it somehow not bureaucracy replacing communication. Because a template only communicates "you have been processed." There's clearly not a human behind it, or there's a human pretending to be a machine.
On the other hand, using templates does take the personal sting out of it: "you broke the rules, here's your ticket, nothing personal, just doing my job".
Making up the text from scratch gives it the edge which can lead to personal grudges.
Some people are better at communicating than others: are we to stop people who are very good at catching vandalism because their prose style isn't quite up to the mark for warning the abuser in a sufficiently stylish manner?
On 10/07/07, Giggy g1ggyman@gmail.com wrote:
4im is a big problem here, because the criteria for it is certainly lowering. You see people dishing out 4im for even very minor things these days, which isn't nice for the receiver. So, to start off another topic, what are other people's criteria for dishing out a 4im? ~Giggy
What on earth is a "4im"?
- d.
On 12/07/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/07/07, Giggy g1ggyman@gmail.com wrote:
4im is a big problem here, because the criteria for it is certainly lowering. You see people dishing out 4im for even very minor things these days, which isn't nice for the receiver. So, to start off another topic, what are other people's criteria for dishing out a 4im? ~Giggy
What on earth is a "4im"?
[[Wikipedia:Template_messages/User_talk_namespace#Multi_level_templates]]
"Level 4im - Assumes bad faith; strong cease and desist, first and only warning"
What on earth is a "4im"?
I would guess "level 4 immediate warning" (ie. jumping straight to final warning), although it's not an abbrev. I've come across before.
Personally, I generally only use it if the vandal has received other warnings previously, but not recently enough to count as the same session of vandalism.
G'day G1ggy,
Don't template anyone? Dear god, what are we coming too. Then again, I'm a bit biased on this, see [[WP:TTR]]
<reads [[WP:TTR]] />
Good grief, man, did that hurt? It certainly looks like something you should only admit to having written after accepting what I believe is referred to in the patois of the streets as "a severe beat-down".
Boilerplate warning templates are a necessary evil. They are necessary for two reasons:
1) Not everyone wants to expend the energy required to constantly rewrite the same message to new users they don't yet care about.
2) Many --- *many* --- CVUers, RC patrollers, etc. are utterly lacking in the social graces. Indeed, some even have trouble forming coherent sentences without reference to 'net zp34k or the word "fuck", and thus boilerplate templates could be seen as infinitely better than the alternative. This is one reason why the rise of the Anti-Vandal Admin should be viewed with alarm.
I try to explain what I mean in plain English[0] whenever possible. Generally, I get better results than with templates (occasionally, my results are no better than they would have been; they are never worse, because I do not belong in category '2' above). I often find that there is no template that properly expresses what I need to say; the CVU approach is to use the templates anyway[2], mine is to sit down and damn well *say* it.
There are times when I will use the templates. This is when the template is good enough, and I don't really care enough about the user in question to bother using my own words; or when the template really does say best exactly what I intend (rare, but has occurred).
In what way is this approach illegitimate, or even inferior to "template 'em until they glow"?
[0] For a certain value of "plain". I am, after all, Aussie[1].
[1] Well, I pretend to be. Really I'm an old granny in a council flat in Essex ...
[2] And to say that saying something in one's own words is somehow illegitimate. There was a case last year --- April? --- of an RfA candidate being opposed because he didn't always use {{test-n}} templates to warn people, but sometimes spoke to them on a human-to-human level. I can only imagine that things have gotten stupider since, in accordance with the Second Coming Law of Thermodynamics.