User talk:Fastily

This is Fastily's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 5 days

Hey, thank you for evaluating my rollback application, but I'm puzzled: I understand edit summaries are not equivalent to talk page messages, but I use UV's "good faith" option whenever I see edits are in good faith, and I try to always attach an edit summary as to why I reverted. The case cited where I didn't, the edit was identical to a previous one from another IP, but it's still my bad I suppose. The point being, I feel like I understand when and how users should be notified about their edits being reverted.
The guideline as stated seems like it would require many talk page messages for what are ultimately very minor reverts of edits that nevertheless do make the article worse, e.g. "Hey, you swapped out a word for a slightly less precise one in a way that makes the article less clear" or "You put scare quotes on a term", which doesn't really seem proportional. Please tell me if I'm off base but: writing the edit summary (which is very important) is already more work than the original edit necessarily took, and additionally leaving a talk page message may even double that, which seems to totally stack the deck against the invested maintainers of an article.
Plus, if I got a talk page message each time someone reverted my edit for a reason like the above, it would really stress me out—I would quickly become overwhelmed and afraid to edit, even. I would just prefer it be reverted with an edit summary and be done with it. Is that just a me thing?
P.S. I know it's a stock template, but I already spend a considerable amount of time every day patrolling my watchlist, are you saying I need to spend time patrolling RC as well if I want to apply again? I would be pretty discouraged by that, because that would mean allowing the articles in my watchlist to suffer considerable attrition because I have to devote time to RC instead.
Thanks in advance. Remsense留 21:40, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this doesn't come off as obsessive, but just to sanity check, I've looked closer at numerous experienced editors with rollbacker using it as popping up in my watchlist, and they seem to have identical behavior: often, small perfunctory reverts do not come with a talk page post. Remsense留 02:04, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) (edit conflict) Usual disclaimer that I am not an admin, but an experienced editor who mainly volunteers in the field of anti-vandalism. Do you use Twinkle? If you make a revert with that, it'll take you to the user's talk page where you can leave a template explaining precisely why you reverted the edit - it's really quick and easy to do so, too. You mention a few examples where you haven't left a notice, but there are many different templates for notifying users as to precisely why their edits were reverted, including wikilinks to the relevant policies (and therefore much more information than you can fit in a short edit summary!). You should be ensuring that you notify (or warn) users every time, as not only does it help them to understand our policies and guidelines better, but it also serves as a point of reference for admins should they need to step in (disruption after four warnings will result in a block, but if a user hasn't been sufficiently warned, then it's more than likely an admin will not feel comfortable blocking, given that blocks are supposed to be preventative, and if somebody isn't actually aware of what they've done wrong, it would be harsh to block them, and would effectively be more of a punishment than a preventative measure). I hope this is clear - feel free to ask me any further questions, too. Patient Zero^talk 02:18, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I use templates through both Twinkle and UV, I've become much more familiar with their usage in the past couple months. The concern seems to have been regarding good-faith reverts. Remsense留 02:19, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) You should still notify users as to why you have made the revert, Remsense, but in the case of good-faith edits it is often wise to go for one of the level 1 notices (or even, if you have the time, a more personal message linking to the relevant policies). That way, they can learn from their mistake and contribute positively, and no good-faith newcomers have been bitten in the process. However, should the disruption continue, then admins (and editors who volunteer in counter-vandalism) have a track record to look at. For me, personally, I look at the amount of warnings issued so that I can decide whether or not to make an WP:AIV report. Patient Zero^talk 02:24, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to draw something out on someone else's talk page, but to be totally clear: a pattern of reverts like this without accompanying talk page posts disqualifies one from having rollback? I have seen analogous reverts lacking talk page posts from most people with the permission that I've checked so far. I just really feel like I'm missing something, and it's stressing me out a bit, I apologize. Remsense留 02:29, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that minor disaster. Yes, I think it's the pattern that is indeed the issue; also I note that you didn't wikilink to the relevant policy in your edit summary. A templated notice would've covered the policies and guidelines that this user needs to read in order to edit constructively. Patient Zero^talk 02:36, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you: two related questions, then:

• If the edit summary instead wikilinked to WP:SCAREQUOTES, would that be acceptable, still lacking a talk page post? I have learned a lot of the shortcodes, but my knowledge is not yet complete, unfortunately.
• If there's not a clear guideline that's being contravened (or rather, just linking to one that says "write clear prose" or something equally general), would a revert of that type (good faith explicated; no talk page post) be acceptable? Because those are ubiquitous.

Remsense留 02:39, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst using wikilinks in an edit summary isn't a requirement (as long as you adequately explain the reasoning behind your reverts), I would both link to WP:SCAREQUOTES in the edit summary and leave a message on the user's talk page (this part is required). Clear prose is covered by WP:MOS and WP:USEPROSE, so in the event that you see an edit which falls short of these, you should link to those in your edit summary and use the MOS template notice on the user's talk page. I use much faster automated software which does this for me, but with Twinkle you'll need to do this manually. You'd be surprised at just how many things are covered by the templates we have; just take a look at WP:Template index/User talk namespace for a full list! Patient Zero^talk 02:56, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I haven't actually tried Huggle: I'll give that a shot. Thank you again. (And sorry again, Fastily!) Remsense留 02:57, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned about this denial because there's no policy that states that only vandalism may be reverted. Also, neither WP:REVERT nor WP:BITE requires leaving user talk page notices for reverts of good faith edits and the edit summary notices for the reverts you've linked seem reasonable. Neither page even recommends this practice. Yes, it's a good idea to leave a user talk page notice in certain situations and I'm sure there are rollback applicants that are actually being bitey in their revert edit summaries (which certainly would be a reason to deny a request), but it seems like multiple policies are being conjured out of thin air here. "Here's an unwritten policy, go back and grind RC for a month." is a really discouraging message to be sending to an experienced, civil, and helpful editor.

Even if this is written down somewhere that I've forgotten about, given the very low frequency that people leave a talk page notice in these instances, why isn't there widespread concern from everyone not receiving these notices any time they are reverted for a good faith edit? Daniel Quinlan (talk) 03:01, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear: I'm relatively new here, and I'm fine if the message is "a longer track record of competence would be nice to see", but I was really troubled because it was not clear to me exactly where the baseline is. Remsense留 03:03, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Quinlan, I suppose, from my perspective, the issue with not warning users is that if the disruption reaches a level where a block is warranted, yet there have been insufficient warnings, any blocks issued would be more punitive than preventative, as the user may not actually know that they have contravened one of our policies. PS Remsense: I completely forgot to mention, but you'll need the Rollback right on enwiki before you use Huggle! It's a very fast tool, and so there are restrictions on who can use it. Patient Zero^talk 03:09, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Patient Zero, none of the examples used in the denial should have resulted in a warning. Remsense has left warnings when it's necessary as part of a revert. For example, see this edit. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 03:21, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Your previous ping worked Daniel Quinlan, although I've fixed the one you just sent. :-) These are merely my personal thoughts here, but there's a difference between a warning and a notice; that being said, if misbehaviour occurs after a notice then these can escalate into warnings. And so that's why it's important to start from level 1 and, if necessary, work our way up, when notifying editors of any policy violations. So I'd argue that leaving level 1 notices to begin with is necessary and means that new editors are given a fair chance to improve. For me, also, it helps to have a track record of sorts in the event that I do need to make a report. Patient Zero^talk 03:28, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(I already fixed the typo, but thanks.) Remsense has surely left notices too. There are many circumstances when it's appropriate to jump straight to a higher warning level or even a block. If you want to require starting with level 1 notices, you're going to need to post an RfC and get consensus from the community.

If you want to require user talk page notices for any revert short of vandalism, that too should be proposed as a policy and then it would need to be reflected on the pages I linked above and several others. Personally, I would be annoyed if I received user talk page notices any time I was reverted. As it seems to be being applied on WP:PERM/R, this is a standard that I'm afraid many of our best administrators would fail to meet. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 03:54, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to clarify that when I highlighted the importance of level 1 notices, I was referring specifically to good-faith edits. I can recount quite a few instances where I have jumped straight to higher-level warnings, and am aware that this is something that often needs to be done. Furthermore, I am not suggesting that templated notices become a requirement, especially when it comes to long-term editors who may dislike being templated, however I do think a message of some sort is necessary if a full revert is required. I appreciate that this isn't explicitly documented as policy, but we do have behavioural guidelines around good communication with other editors (which, in my view, includes explaining your reverts), and many admins at AIV won't block vandals or disruptive users without sufficient warnings, so ensuring that they are issued in the first place resolves this issue nicely. Also, this request is worth looking at, given that it was denied for similar reasons (minus the fact that this editor went on to be quite disruptive in their responses, whereas Remsense certainly hasn't done this!). I note this quote in particular from admin Swarm which states if you’re not leaving a templated message, you must leave a handwritten message. Strictly speaking it is not something that is mandated on editors, but it is a basic expectation that recent changes patrollers, and certainly Rollbackers, are working under and upholding our longstanding standardized system without fail. This is required to satisfy the communication requirements mandated by policy. Patient Zero^talk 04:10, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The administrators at AIV are just following the blocking policy. Many blocks require prior warnings, but some do not. It seems like you're extrapolating policy based on observations. It's easier and clearer to read the policy and then, in the vast majority of cases, it should be pretty clear why a specific action has been taken.

Looking at the other request you've linked, I am troubled by the edit summaries in a way that I wasn't troubled by Remsense's. Three of them lack any kind of explanation for the edit and one is just a shortcut link. That being said, the examples are from October 2022 so I would want to check more recent edits before commenting further. Regardless, the edit summaries for the examples cited for Remsense are consistent with the guidance in Help:Edit summary and not violating any of the relevant policies that I've linked above. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 05:16, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given that you're an admin, I'm highly concerned to learn you think a talk page notification following the revert of good faith edit should be optional. Let's say a new user makes a good faith edit which isn't adequately sourced or maybe doesn't follow MOS. If you revert that person's edit without telling them why, then congratulations, you've created an awful user experience and that new user is never coming back. However, if you leave a friendly talk page message explaining why and offer to help that person improve/let them ask you questions, then there's a chance they might just stay. Everyone loves to lament about how Wikipedia is losing editors despite how obvious a BIG part of the solution is: be nice to newbies. So yes, to answer your original point, it is incredibly BITEy to silently revert newbie edits, and if it isn't obvious why, then it's time to rethink your approach to Wikipedia -Fastily 09:37, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you feel this in essence functions as a unilateral extension of site policy on your part, based on your personal perception of the new user experience? I've presented my own perception of the new user experience:above surely, they are just as valid as each other in a vacuum. This should either be reflected explicitly in the relevant policy, or rollback should be otherwise given based on what policy explicitly says. I'm uncomfortable speaking this way to someone who statistically knows much better than me, but I cannot help but feel that this is your policy, not the site's. An RFC is required to make it site policy. — Remsense留 09:54, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. With Twinkle/UV (which I see you use), it takes 2 clicks and a few seconds to leave a friendly message to a good faith contributor. Why are you so strongly opposed to doing something incredibly easy that objectively improves the experience for newbies? Note that I'm specifically talking about RC patrol which is the main use case for rollback. -Fastily 17:55, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Starting and ending your response with personal jabs isn't really a good way for us to come to consensus.

First and foremost, I believe that WP:BITE is an important guideline. I agree with that guideline where it says that If a newcomer seems to have made a small mistake, e.g. forgot to put a book title in italics, correct it yourself but do not slam the newcomer. A gentle note on their user page explaining the Wikipedia standard and how to achieve it in the future may prove helpful, as they may be unfamiliar with the norm or merely how to achieve it. As you can see, the guideline allows some discretion about when to leave a note. I think that's a good thing as leaving a user talk page notice for every reversion of a good faith edit would be somewhat onerous and tedious on all of our talk pages. (Bitey edit summaries are a much bigger problem in general.)

My other concern here is that applying for permissions like rollback is a common stepping stone for someone interested in taking on additional and more complex tasks which includes interest in becoming an administrator. All of our guidelines and policies are written to be transparent about the kind of behaviors Wikipedia expects. If we're throwing up red tape denials based on personal preference and unwritten "standards", that seems like a very discouraging event for helpful and civil contributors we should be encouraging.

If you believe user talk page notices should be a requirement for every single non-vandalism revert, it should be reflected in a policy that has been discussed and accepted by the community. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 19:06, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

┌──────────────────────────────┘
The policy page says something very different from what you are saying; this seems incontrovertible to me. But I've already said that, and I do not want to be antagonistic—I apologize if I've been rude at any point so far, I am trying my best. While we disagree on this point, I respect your work a lot. If you'll humor me, I'm going to try to reel this in and address our difference in perspective.
Your concerns are for the general user experience of new editors. We are both concerned about this. I think yours is a very important point to be aware of: the way the site is presently set up, push notifications of reversions with edit summaries are less good at directly signalling information, especially for new users unfamiliar with the interface. However, based on my comparatively recent personal experience as a new editor, as well as from talking to other editors—I submit that there is a considerable variety in the dispositions of new editors, such that it shouldn't be taken as an axiom that they are better served by a message posted on their talk page for every revert.
As I touched upon in my initial post, personality-wise I'm probably towards the nervous, "not wanting to bother people" end of the spectrum. I remain a little afraid to WP:BEBOLD when I edit. When I was getting started editing, I had even less confidence, and I am being completely serious when I say that if I got a talk page message every time one of my early edits was reverted, it would have made me so anxious that I would have stopped editing. Not everyone is like me, but I think enough people are like me that the flexibility presently reflected in the policy should be maintained and respected. For me, the edit summaries, while imperfect, were a comfortable balance that gave me enough space to learn while making mistakes, and because people were staying on the page, not feeling the need to "come to me" specifically, I wasn't having an anxiety attack about it.
Now that I am more experienced, I would not want to make new editors potentially feel this way, unless there is a significant amount of work that is being reverted or a specific policy is being contravened, in which case it is obviously important for their sake for me to ensure they are getting help. It is a compromise, like all human communication is to me. I am trying to play things by ear, threading the needle as to let people know things as much as possible, but not overwhelming them or make them feel singled out (which is a difference from how an edit summary feels versus a talk page message), or like their every move is being watched, or like they are making a lot of work for others to undo.
We are both concerned about WP:BITEing. What I am trying to say is: in the spirit of the policy, different people feel different things as "bites" (in the broad sense) for different reasons. I didn't want to diagram this out when I first posted because I don't want to make my particular mental health profile an explicit talking point, but I really do feel like this is something that should be considered in policy about how editors should be treated categorically. The policy should be flexible for different personality types and communication styles within reason. I really hope I've explained things well, and that it doesn't just sound like a "me problem", because I wouldn't be making an issue like this if I thought that might be the case. Thank you. Remsense留 18:19, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is actually real I figured it out after reading the Inside True Crime library by Matthew B. Cox 2two2twenty2two (talk) 20:37, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. Remsense留 20:47, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You recently G7'ed this, but it appears the author re-created the page at Thanawat Rattanakitpaisan in a cut&paste move. Could you check and see if there's anything in the history that needs restoring for attribution? --Paul_012 (talk) 10:09, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Paul 012. No, the only significant contributor the page is Sanoyed -Fastily 23:48, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This was deleted as a G8. The associated page was moved to User:KingArti/List of working titles in the Marvel Cinematic Universe at its author's request; could you restore the talk page and move it to User talk:KingArti/List of working titles in the Marvel Cinematic Universe? Thanks! InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:29, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi InfiniteNexus. Sure,  Done -Fastily 08:44, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fastily, hope you're doing well. I believe the above page may have been deleted in error? It contained the documentation for editing the watchlist notice, and so now MediaWiki:Watchlist-messages has no documentation (the [create] link leads to the deleted page). If you could take a second look, that would be great. Thanks! DanCherek (talk) 03:21, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DanCherek. Ah yes you are correct, that shouldn't have been deleted, thanks for letting me know! Regards, Fastily 10:07, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]