User:AKidFromBethany/I will template you anyways

This is an essay.

It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article or a Wikipedia policy, as it has not been reviewed by the community.

Shortcuts

This page in a nutshell: Wikipedia policies apply equally to all editors. Templates provide clear warnings that protect both the warned user and the community. Experience does not exempt anyone from receiving standardized policy notifications.

"Don't template the regulars" has got to be the stupidest thing I have ever read.

There. I said it. And I mean it. Don't template the regulars is a fundamentally broken essay that creates a two-tiered system of accountability, undermines equal application of policy, and exists solely to protect the egos of editors who think their experience makes them special. It doesn't. You violated a policy? You get the template. I don't care if you've been here ten years or ten days. I don't care if you have a hundred barnstars or you're a steward. I don't care if you think it's "patronizing" or "uncivil."

You broke the rule, you get the warning, end of story. That's how rules work. That's how equal enforcement works.

The fundamental problem with DTTR

It creates aristocracy

DTTR establishes a privileged class of "regulars" who are somehow above receiving the same standardized communications as other editors. This is fundamentally incompatible with Wikipedia's egalitarian principles. When we decide that certain users are too important, too experienced, or too influential to receive templates, we create exactly the kind of hierarchical structure that Wikipedia was designed to avoid.

The entire premise rests on the assumption that experienced editors deserve special treatment, that their feelings about receiving a template matter more than clear communication. This is a double standard that has no place in a collaborative encyclopedia built on equal participation.

It prioritizes feelings over documentation

DTTR argues that templates might hurt the feelings of experienced users, who may find them "patronizing." This completely misses the point of templates. Templates exist not primarily as educational tools, but as **documented records of policy violations and warnings**.

When an experienced user violates the three-revert rule, they don't need to be "educated" about the policy, they need to be formally notified that their violation has been observed and recorded. A personal note, no matter how carefully worded, lacks the standardization and clarity that makes templates valuable for future reference.

If the issue later escalates to AN/I or arbitration, which evidence is more credible: "I sent them a friendly personal message suggesting they maybe shouldn't do that" or "I issued a standard {{uw-3rr}} warning on [date] at [time]"? Templates provide a clear paper trail that protects everyone involved.

It assumes good intentions in selective enforcement

DTTR proponents argue that personal messages are more effective because they can be tailored to the situation. In practice, this creates an environment where:

Popular users receive friendly, understanding personal messages, or nothing at all
Unpopular users receive templates or harsh personal messages
New users receive the full weight of templated warnings

The discretion DTTR advocates for inevitably becomes discriminatory discretion. Templates remove this bias by ensuring everyone receives the same communication for the same violation.

Why templates are superior, and why I will template you

Clarity and unambiguity

Personal messages, no matter how well-intentioned, introduce ambiguity. Was that a warning or a suggestion? Was the sender serious or just making conversation? Should I change my behavior or is this just one editor's opinion?

Templates eliminate this ambiguity. {{uw-3rr}} means exactly one thing. There's no wondering whether the sender was serious, no debating what they really meant, no room for misinterpretation. The message is clear: you violated this policy, this is your warning level, here's what happens next.

Every editor who violates no personal attacks should receive the same {{uw-npa}} template, whether they've been editing for ten days or ten years.

For neurodivergent editors, editors for whom English is not a first language, and editors who struggle with reading social cues in text, this clarity is essential. Personal messages full of diplomatic hedging and careful wording can be nearly impossible to parse. Templates communicate directly and unambiguously.

Accountability and records

Templates create permanent, timestamped records of:

What policy was allegedly violated
When the warning was issued
What warning level was given
Who issued the warning

This documentation protects everyone. It protects the warned user by making clear exactly what they're accused of. It protects the warning user by providing evidence they followed proper procedure. It protects administrators who may need to act later by giving them clear evidence of escalation.

Personal messages provide none of this. They can be vague about which policy was violated, unclear about severity, and difficult to reference in future discussions.

Efficiency and sustainability

Wikipedia is maintained by volunteers with limited time. Writing individualized personal messages for every policy violation is simply not sustainable, particularly for editors who patrol recent changes.

Templates allow volunteers to efficiently address policy violations while staying consistent. The time saved by using templates can be redirected to actual content improvement or handling cases that genuinely require personal attention.

DTTR's insistence on personal messages for "regulars" effectively tells volunteers: "Spend extra time and emotional labor on experienced users who should already know better, while new users get impersonal templates." This is backwards.

Addressing DTTR arguments

On patronization

DTTR claims templates are "patronizing" to experienced users. This reflects a fundamental misunderstanding. Templates are neutral. They are no more patronizing than a stop sign is patronizing to an experienced driver.

If an experienced editor finds a policy reminder patronizing, the problem isn't the template, it's their attitude. Experienced editors should model the humility to accept that they, like everyone else, sometimes need reminders and are subject to the same rules.

Moreover, templates like {{uw-3rr}} or {{uw-npa}} which I previously mentioned don't assume someone is ignorant, they simply state that a violation occurred and provide the relevant policy link. There's nothing patronizing about documenting a policy violation.

On effectiveness

DTTR argues personal messages are "more effective" with experienced users. This is asserted without evidence and contradicted by practice.

Experienced users who receive personal messages often:

Argue about policy interpretation rather than addressing their behavior
Question the sender's motives or qualifications
Treat the message as opening negotiations rather than a clear warning
Dismiss it as "just one editor's opinion"

Templates, by contrast, invoke community consensus. They represent not one editor's view but established community standards. An experienced user may dismiss your personal opinion, but dismissing {{uw-3rr}} means dismissing community policy.

On dialogue

DTTR suggests personal messages open dialogue that templates prevent. This is false. Nothing prevents dialogue after a template is issued. The template can be followed by discussion if needed. But the template establishes the baseline: a violation occurred, it has been documented, here's the relevant policy.

Starting with a personal message instead of a template often means the violation itself gets lost in extended discussion about policy interpretation, context, and intentions. The template keeps things focused: this happened, here's the warning, let's move forward.

When personal messages are appropriate

This essay does not argue that personal messages never have a place. They are appropriate for:

Complex situations requiring detailed explanation beyond policy violation
Follow-up after a template to discuss specific circumstances
Collaborative discussion about content disputes (not policy violations)
Genuine questions about an editor's intentions or reasoning

But these are supplements to templates, not replacements. If a policy violation occurred, template it. Then discuss if needed.

The slippery slope of selective enforcement

Once we accept that "regulars" deserve different treatment, where does it end?

Do administrators get templated?
Do bureaucrats?
What about editors with 100,000 edits? 50,000? 10,000? 1,000?
Do subject matter experts in specific areas get special treatment in those areas? If I have a Ph.D. in biology, do I get personal messages for 3RR in WP:BIOL and templates in WP:CHEM?

DTTR provides no clear line, just vague appeals to "experience" and "being around for a while." This vagueness guarantees inconsistent application and opens the door to favoritism.

The only clear, defensible standard is universal: Everyone gets templated for policy violations, regardless of experience.

Conclusion

Templates are not insults. They are not attacks. They are not signs of bad faith. They are **neutral tools** for documenting policy violations and ensuring equal application of community standards.

I will template regulars because:

Policies apply equally to everyone
Documentation protects all parties
Clarity serves everyone, especially those who struggle with ambiguous communication
Experience does not grant immunity from accountability
The community deserves consistent enforcement

If you've been editing Wikipedia for ten years and you violate the three-revert rule, you get {{uw-3rr}}, same as someone who's been editing for ten days. If you don't like it, don't violate the policy.

That's equality.