Copyright templates
After casual discussion offwiki with other copyright editors and my own frustration, I am here with a proposal to create leveled warnings for the copyright templates. These include:
- {{uw-copyright-new}} - editors who have not been warned about copyright before and are under AC (or EC for some), currently a single warning
- {{uw-copyright}} - standard template used, currently a single warning
- {{uw-copying}} - currently a notice, used to remind people to attribute for copying within Wikipedia
- {{uw-cpmove}} - currently a notice, used to remind people to not make cut paste moves or to attribute them
- {{uw-copyright-link}} - used for WP:LINKVIO, currently a single warning.
I propose that these all be converted to multi-level warnings (barring copyright-new, which would serve as a level 1 warning). Copyvio on Wikipedia is not a counter that resets like other warning templates. When someone shows that they have made repeated copyvio currently (we go by 5), they can expect a block and some form of review of their contributions. I believe that the current warnings do not adequately describe how copyright works on Wikipedia, but that also comes with Wikipedia copyright information being highly decentralized in the first place. However, having some of these (especially cpmove and copying) be reminders means that people ignore them more than they do the others. Thoughts? Sennecaster (Chat) 12:22, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
- I'd support the conversion of those templates to leveled warnings but not really for {{uw-c&pmove}}. Cut-and-paste moves are usually made due to editor dissent to an existing discussion (because in that case, a G6 cannot be performed due to a lack of consensus), so the succeeding levels should really be part of the {{uw-disruptive}} series. Chlod (say hi!) 03:07, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Chlod: Cut paste moves I'm iffy on merging to the disruptive series compared to the rest. I feel that as of today, there are no widespread cutpaste moves that need to be corrected, but a chronic cut-paste move problem can indicate problems with WP licensing. I think that one would be best to stay as a single-level notice out of them all. Apologies for the slow response. Sennecaster (Chat) 02:09, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
uw-mos[n]: do we really expect anyone to read the entire MOS to work out why they are being denounced?
Is there a way to improve this template set so that they requires the notifier to specify which specific contravention of the MOS is the reason for its use? It is entirely unhelpful to new or recent editors to be told that their edit contravenes the MOS, but be given no clue about which of its many rules they have contravened. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:15, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
- Good point. I'd even support getting rid of them to encourage specific messages like you're saying. Do people use these? Enterprisey (talk!) 22:43, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
- 'Fraid so. See User talk:Faarlvatar Veldtamid#November 2021, which is what made me raise this. Ironically, the bad practice complained of is not even in the MOS! Getting rid is probably the most practical solution, tbh, as I doubt they get much use anyway. This was the first time I've ever seen one in the wild. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:36, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
- I do use them occasionally, and often add the specific guideline in the comments box on Twinkle. I do think they should be improved, but oppose dumping them without having something better to replace them. BilCat (talk) 00:15, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
- @BilCat, I think the "something better" is "writing a custom message that explains the specific problem". Waving at the MOS is not generally helpful. Imagine if you wrote your first paper for university, and your prof wrote "Please follow The Chicago Manual of Style" on the first page and gave you a failing grade. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:51, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- I do use them occasionally, and often add the specific guideline in the comments box on Twinkle. I do think they should be improved, but oppose dumping them without having something better to replace them. BilCat (talk) 00:15, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
- @WhatamIdoing: Which is why I said
"...and often add the specific guideline in the comments box on Twinkle."
BilCat (talk) 19:47, 16 November 2021 (UTC)- I feel like this template is a "well, I can't find a specific user warning to send but this one is failsafe because it mentions the MOS"
- If consensus is for improvement, I think it should warn when not providing an explanation (like the big red text messages). – The Grid (talk) 23:23, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- Exactly. BilCat says that they recognise a need to supplement the template with some additional text. In that case, why bother to have it at all? Why not just do the text and skip the harrumph NOW HEAR THIS! NOW HEAR THIS! intro.
- In my view, there are only be one or other of two reasonable outcomes from this discusssion:
- the template continues to exist but is updated require an explicit MOS shortcut (like, for example, ITALIC) and the template transcludes that part of the MOS
- (easiest solution) the template is deleted, which requires editors to write an explanation rather than hide behind some useless and uninformative boilerplate.
- I suggest a better defence of the status quo is needed than has been presented thus far. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:51, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- I prefer the easier solution.
- Another option, which might be equally effective, is to get the generic MOS warnings removed from Twinkle. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:45, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
- @WhatamIdoing: Which is why I said
Template-protected edit request on 13 November 2021
On Template:Uw-npa1, please...
Add |hatnote = {{redirect|Template:NPA|a removed personal attack|Template:RPA}}
Within {{Templatesnotice}}. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 20:57, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
- Is this really necessary? I'm not seeing the potential for confusion, as "removed" does not start with N. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:26, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}}template. Elli (talk | contribs) 18:19, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
BRD is optional
Both Template:Uw-1rr and Template:Uw-3rr say this:
"The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done."
Problem: That page (BRD) doesn't actually tell people how to do this. It never has. Not only that, the first thing that it says is that BRD is an optional process for experienced editors. I hope that experienced editors aren't regularly receiving boilerplate messages about edit warring. People who recommend BRD to newcomers are people who have never read the page (which, granted, appears to be a fairly large proportion of editors).
I think we should remove the sentence about BRD entirely, and instead link to a simple page, suitable for newcomers, that explains how to start a discussion on a talk page. What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:56, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- I agree that a simple version that covers most basic edit-warring issues would be sensible but I don't agree with removing references to BRD as it is a very valuable policy (and I don't think it should really be optional. Anyone who goes to ANI to complain about an edit war should be – and usually is – sent away with the message "use the BRD procedure first" ringing in their ears.) But maybe the info about it [as the formal policy statement] could go in the 'simple' version you propose rather than in any {{uw-editwar}} boiler-plate. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:38, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- @John Maynard Friedman, I wonder if you could summarize for me, without looking at BRD and in your own words, what you think BRD says. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:20, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
- @WhatamIdoing:, how about
Wikipedia invites you to just go ahead and add material that you believe improves the article. If it is written "encyclopedially", is neutral and is supported by citation, it is likely to be accepted. However, on controversial topics, others may disagree and revert your change. This is a key principle of Wikipedia: the content of articles must reflect the consensus view of editors (subject always to the neutrality principle); the existing text must stand until there is a consensus to change it. The counterpoint to this 'right of anyone to edit' is the right of others to oppose and reject that edit pending consensus. So, tempting as it may be to counter-revert and insist that you are right (even if you are, indeed especially if you are), you must resist that temptation and go to article talk page. There is where you may explain your edit: it could simply be that your phrasing has been misinterpreted and just needs a little adjustment. Or it may be that you have to show that the preponderance of reliable third party sources support your position.
- How is that for a start? Feel free to BRD! :-) --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:56, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
- Good start, but that doesn't mean we can't do both. Keep the mention of BRD as a pointer to more information. Since violating BRD is often edit warring (a brute force attempt to change content over objections), it's important to not downplay BRD as "optional", which will nearly always be interpreted as meaningless. No, it's not meaningless as it's often the only way to prove who started an edit war and it is a shortcut way to cut to the chase. Edit summaries do not substitute for discussion. We can't always write all of this in the edit summary:
- "Editor XXX, no editor has a right to impose their version when other editors have raised objections. View that REVERSION of your BOLD change as an objection. Now start a DISCUSSION of the issues and reach a consensus before changing the status quo version. Please follow BRD."
- It's still good to not just say "follow BRD". We should accompany it with a few words voicing the core of the disagreement, but the edit summary isn't for long discussions. It should just provide a clue about what to expect at the talk page. -- Valjean (talk) 18:38, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
- Maybe it's also worth pointing out the prominence that BRD has in policy, namely as a "Further information" link at Wikipedia:Consensus#Through discussion. I agree that BRD is often cited incorrectly without proper context, but as others have said, some general form of BRD is usually required to show that editors are following good practices in achieving consensus.Perhaps append that statement to say: "See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for an example of how this is done." And personally, I would change "how this is done" to "how this can be accomplished", or something along those lines. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:57, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
- That's the problem. "Some general form of BRD" is not what's wanted. What's wanted is "some general form of talking to other editors" is what's actually wanted. BRD is a very specific, one-on-one negotiation tactic. If you want general forms, then you want something that is not BRD.
- For example: BRD says "Talk with one or at most two partners at once" (emphasis in the original). Does that sound like generally applicable advice that will be useful in all edit-warring situations? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:39, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
- Guess I haven't explored it that deeply before. This is interesting. Yes, by the time an EW warning is levied against one or more parties, we are well beyond the bold and revert steps of BRD. The only remaining step is to discuss or seek other forms of dispute resolution (which, in essence, is just another form of discussion). So on the surface, it would seem rather odd to direct an offender to BRD. Why not instead, direct them to a page that focuses solely on discussion as you suggest? I think I see where you're coming from, and it makes sense to question this logic.On the other hand, BRD outlines principles that can help avoid edit warring including: maintain civility, listen carefully, avoid re-reverting, seek compromise, or simply walk away. It even emphasizes dispute resolution and other alternatives to BRD, which cover situations that involve more than a few editors. The questions, "How did I get here?", "What did I do wrong?", "What could I have done differently?", are likely going to be answered if the editor bothers reading the page. In that sense, the BRD page (and not so much the BRD cycle) can be a useful link to give to editors that find themselves entangled in an edit war. --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:52, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
- I think it would be better to direct editors to a page that meets their actual needs. Right now, we're sending them to a page that gives some applicable advice mixed up with some inapplicable advice, and hoping that they'll be able to figure out which parts are which. We can do better than that.
- If we want to tell people how to start a discussion, then Help:Introduction to talk pages/1 is one of the best options, because it is short enough that people might read it.
- If we want to tell people that it's time for discussion to replace reverting, then we could just say that, and not link to anything. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:05, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
- I actually do like the idea of linking to a shorter page. If the only reason is because they'll be more likely to read and understand it, then that's reason enough! However, it may still be beneficial to link to BRD within a more applicable statement. Change this:
- "Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done." (word count: 41)
- To this:
- "Instead of reverting, the best practice at this stage is to seek consensus through discussion, not edit-war. See Help:Introduction to talk pages for how to begin a new discussion. To avoid future edit wars, consider using the bold, revert, discuss cycle." (word count: 42)
- Just an idea. If we end up dropping BRD altogether, it's not a deal-breaker in my eyes. --GoneIn60 (talk) 07:52, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
- And actually, we would probably want to place "To avoid future edit wars..." at the end of the 1st paragraph (if we were to use that example). --GoneIn60 (talk) 07:59, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
- We could point to Wikipedia:Edit warring#How experienced editors avoid becoming involved in edit wars, which in turn points to Wikipedia:Editing policy#Talking and editing. Both of these are policies. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:21, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
- (Disclaimer: The responses below came before this comment) Yes, that would be an acceptable substitute for BRD. Much more concise and has the backing of policy. --GoneIn60 (talk) 00:27, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
- Maybe change that sentence to read "The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See Wikipedia:Editing policy#Talking and editing for more information."?
- It could even be more direct: "Please follow the Editing policy about talking to other editors instead of reverting." WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:45, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
- The more direct option sounds appealing. Also, if there's still a way to incorporate Help:Introduction to talk pages without creating an overlink concern, might be worth considering. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:04, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
- (Disclaimer: The responses below came before this comment) Yes, that would be an acceptable substitute for BRD. Much more concise and has the backing of policy. --GoneIn60 (talk) 00:27, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
- We could point to Wikipedia:Edit warring#How experienced editors avoid becoming involved in edit wars, which in turn points to Wikipedia:Editing policy#Talking and editing. Both of these are policies. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:21, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
- I actually do like the idea of linking to a shorter page. If the only reason is because they'll be more likely to read and understand it, then that's reason enough! However, it may still be beneficial to link to BRD within a more applicable statement. Change this:
- Guess I haven't explored it that deeply before. This is interesting. Yes, by the time an EW warning is levied against one or more parties, we are well beyond the bold and revert steps of BRD. The only remaining step is to discuss or seek other forms of dispute resolution (which, in essence, is just another form of discussion). So on the surface, it would seem rather odd to direct an offender to BRD. Why not instead, direct them to a page that focuses solely on discussion as you suggest? I think I see where you're coming from, and it makes sense to question this logic.On the other hand, BRD outlines principles that can help avoid edit warring including: maintain civility, listen carefully, avoid re-reverting, seek compromise, or simply walk away. It even emphasizes dispute resolution and other alternatives to BRD, which cover situations that involve more than a few editors. The questions, "How did I get here?", "What did I do wrong?", "What could I have done differently?", are likely going to be answered if the editor bothers reading the page. In that sense, the BRD page (and not so much the BRD cycle) can be a useful link to give to editors that find themselves entangled in an edit war. --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:52, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
- Maybe it's also worth pointing out the prominence that BRD has in policy, namely as a "Further information" link at Wikipedia:Consensus#Through discussion. I agree that BRD is often cited incorrectly without proper context, but as others have said, some general form of BRD is usually required to show that editors are following good practices in achieving consensus.Perhaps append that statement to say: "See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for an example of how this is done." And personally, I would change "how this is done" to "how this can be accomplished", or something along those lines. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:57, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
- Good start, but that doesn't mean we can't do both. Keep the mention of BRD as a pointer to more information. Since violating BRD is often edit warring (a brute force attempt to change content over objections), it's important to not downplay BRD as "optional", which will nearly always be interpreted as meaningless. No, it's not meaningless as it's often the only way to prove who started an edit war and it is a shortcut way to cut to the chase. Edit summaries do not substitute for discussion. We can't always write all of this in the edit summary:
- @John Maynard Friedman, I wonder if you could summarize for me, without looking at BRD and in your own words, what you think BRD says. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:20, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
That reads well to me, or at least it would if Help:Introduction to talk pages/1 were a suitable target but it isn't. Help:Introduction to talk pages/All is better but not much. Would it help to add a subsection to the /All version called "Dispute resolution" that reads something like Article talk pages are the place where we work out how best to improve articles. Sometimes editors disagree at first sight how best to do this: the talk page is used to resolve these differences and try to reach consensus on what changes should be made. (See Wikipedia's bold, revert, discuss cycle if you need a fuller explanation.)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by John Maynard Friedman (talk • contribs) 12:14, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
- @John Maynard Friedman, are you trying to tell the recipient of this template how to resolve a dispute, or how to start a discussion on the talk page? When you've made tens of thousands of edits, like all of us in the discussion have, then it's very easy to forget that newcomers don't even realize that talk pages exist. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:20, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
- @WhatamIdoing:First an apology: my response was GoneIn60, somehow I failed completely to spot your response to it.
- No, what I am saying (to GoneIn60) is that the suggested text of the template is fine and should make sense to inexperienced users as a 'first response'. Sending them to the help: page about talk pages is a good idea and avoids bogging down the template in explanations about how to use talk pages. The problem I identify is that, when they go to the help: page, there is nothing there to guide them further. So my proposal was in addition to GoneIn60's, not instead of it.
- Turning to your contribution of 17:21, 18 November 2021 (UTC), yes I support that idea. The only question is whether it belongs in the edit-war template or the help:talk pages. Although I think the latter more appropriate, pragmatism [as in we can resolve it here] favours your latest suggestion. The links would need to be wrapped nicely, of course, but that's a detail. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:53, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing wrote:
- "That's the problem. "Some general form of BRD" is not what's wanted. What's wanted is "some general form of talking to other editors" is what's actually wanted. BRD is a very specific, one-on-one negotiation tactic."
There is no reason we can't do both. Unfortunately, there are two discussions in different places, this one and this one. In response to the latter discussion, I have gathered ideas from that discussion and written a short essay, "Short BRD", that focuses on using BRD as a method to enforce discussion and collaboration to avoid edit warring. Take a look at the essay and feel free to use the talk page there. -- Valjean (talk) 20:31, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
- The longer and more complicated the instructions are, the less likely anyone will read and follow them.
- Your "short" page is not short. It's more than a thousand words. It also isn't BRD (as actually written, not as guessed by people who have never read past the title). I'm also not convinced that it's a better option than the policy at Wikipedia:Editing policy#Talking and editing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:38, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
- WhatamIdoing, it's a whole lot shorter than the complicated page here, and it also focuses on what you point out as the most important thing, which is talking/discussion. It is how BRD functions in practice and how I've always used it. The current page suffers from rule creep, so that makes it confusing, hence the objections we're seeing in this discussion. I tried to boil it down to the essence of what's important, and we agree on what that is as described in the Nutshell: BRD is a method to enforce discussion and collaboration to avoid edit warring. -- Valjean (talk) 17:22, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
- (I just cut it to a third of its initial length; see the discussion at WT:BRD about this.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:27, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
- WhatamIdoing, it's a whole lot shorter than the complicated page here, and it also focuses on what you point out as the most important thing, which is talking/discussion. It is how BRD functions in practice and how I've always used it. The current page suffers from rule creep, so that makes it confusing, hence the objections we're seeing in this discussion. I tried to boil it down to the essence of what's important, and we agree on what that is as described in the Nutshell: BRD is a method to enforce discussion and collaboration to avoid edit warring. -- Valjean (talk) 17:22, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Even ArbCom relies on BRD, so it shouldn't be downplayed as optional. It is a de facto policy. See the top of this talk page: Talk:Donald Trump. The DS sanction is a 24-hr BRD restriction. -- Valjean (talk) 01:11, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
- ArbCom did not impose BRD on that page. @Awilley did. You might be interested in reading User:Awilley/Enforced BRD FAQ. He's not talking about the normal BRD, which has advice about only talking to the editor who reverted you (or at most one other editor), so you can build consensus one editor at a time. He's only talking about requiring discussion before re-reverting. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:28, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
{{Uw-please indent}}
Hi all, I recently stumbled upon this warning template (not created by me), could someone please add it to the index of single-level templates as I am not entirely familiar with the guidelines of WP:UW? Thanks! InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:40, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Softening Template:Uw-ewsoft
I recently tried drafting a softer alternative to Template:Uw-ew before realizing that Template:Uw-ewsoft already exists. It's not particularly differentiated from Uw-ew, though, which I think is probably part of why it's underutilized. The other part is that it has a lot of trappings that make it suitable only for beginners, whereas I think the more common use case is where a semi-experienced editor has gotten drawn into an edit war with a newcomer trying to do something problematic because they don't know where to seek help. I think that my version helps address these things; would others approve of adopting it? (I have a separate technical question about headers, which I'll open in a new thread below to keep separate discussion separate). {{u|Sdkb}} talk 23:32, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Customizing warning headers for Twinkle
When designing a soft version of a user warning template recently (see above), one of the things I'd like to do is to replace the standard [Month][Year] header with a different default ("Reverting at [Page]"). My reasoning is that, despite being theoretically neutral, many editors (rightly or wrongly) learn to recognize [Month][Year] appearances in a user talk ToC as a proxy for "this is a potentially problematic user getting warned all the time", and many users therefore resent having [Month][Year] talk page sections opened on their page. This, in turn, sometimes dissuades patrollers from using some of the softer warnings on other experienced editors.
Does Twinkle have the ability to use a different default header if one is defined for a user warning template? If not, would that be desirable and/or feasible? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 23:32, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
- I think this is a good idea, it would be nice to assign a custom header. Also, your rational on "
this is a potentially problematic user getting warned all the time
" is true, but sometimes it a good thing
- FlightTime (open channel) 21:04, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
- This could potentially involve changing code in several anti vandalism tools such as Twinkle, Huggle, RedWarn. I wonder if the payoff worth the effort here. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:04, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Template:Uw-coi-username
I've added some text to {{Uw-coi-username/sandbox}} to clarify that role names are not acceptable per WP:ROLE. I hope it'll reduce the number of rename requests rejected. Any objections to putting it live? Cabayi (talk) 12:51, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
Done