AnilSerifoglu (talk) 14:47, 13 May 2024 (UTC)EDIT: Forum:CT:User conduct policy IS NOW OPEN FOR VOTING OOM 224 (he/him) 13:01, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
This might be a bit radical, and probably what we need. I (OOM) have been speaking with various people about how Wook policies are notoriously hard to navigate, so I've drafted what essentially is a super-merger of the WP:BOLD, WP:VANDAL, WP:3RR, WP:DR, WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and WP:POINT pages since many of their points overlap and they are very much tied to each other. User conduct policy proposal linked here.
Of the listed pages, Dispute resolution and Don't disrupt Wookieepedia to prove a point are confusingly classified as "guidelines" rather than official policies, but I hope that the new User conduct policy consolidates existing rules while also being a good reference point for handling disagreements. I've been keeping things concise but it's slightly long, so I've kept with some of the current pages' tradition of using a few images to break up the text. Here's a summary of the proposal that I linked above, as short as I could make it :P
The introduction lays out the responsibilities of admins in regards to moderating user conduct, linking to relevant resources on page protection, blocking, deleting, as well as contacting admins and what to do in case of administrator abuse. (I think Wookieepedia:Administrators could also use some cleaning up and expanding on tasks and issues that aren't currently addressed on the page, but that's another matter.)
I think it's best to start off the main body with an encouraging section, "Be bold." The current Be bold in updating pages is a bit of a back-and-forth about when to "be bold" and when to exercise caution, so I've rewritten it in my proposal for concision. I also introduce Discord, Discussions, and talk pages as ways to ask others for help.
Next, vandalism. Again, I've tried to summarise the lists in three short paragraphs, including the relevant warning template and specifying that vandals should be blocked according to the severity of their actions. As for what isn't vandalism, I've simplified it to clarify that just because something violates a policy doesn't mean it's vandalism and specify that adding fanon isn't vandalism; it just breaks the WP:FANON policy. (It is currently in WP:NOT, but I suggest that it be moved to WP:ATT as part of another effort to cut down on WP:NOT and merge the disclaimer-style contents with Wookieepedia:Policies and move them to a more positively phrased Wookieepedia:About page.)
Thirdly, the Three-revert rule. The current page is largely taken from Wikipedia and keeps repeating the same points. In the context of a wider User conduct policy, it just needs to explain the rule itself and give basic conflict resolution points. Wookieepedia Help:Edit summary and Wookieepedia:Rollback make similar points about edit summaries, which I have included here, along with the the relevant warning template again.
Dispute resolution: I've tried to make a more succinct step-by-step guide, basically codifying common sense with our experiences of defusing debates. This is for general disagreements. I have placed a separate guide to handling policy violating behavior under the "Handling offenses" subsection of the "Civility" section, since it's more relevant there.
Civility and No personal attacks go hand-in-hand, with NPA being for more severe cases of incivility. The first subsection gives a run-down of good principles and practices to keep in mind when interacting with other folks. The following "Unacceptable behavior" subsection gives a cleaned-up list of what not to do, plus a short paragraph referencing the Fandom anti-discrimination policy. Relevant warning templates are also provided, with an emphasis on assuming good faith and that repeated patterns of behavior should lead to administrative action. The "Handling offenses" subsection is about what to do when users are violating civility/NPA rules and should be a useful guide when mediating a conflict.
Don't disrupt Wookieepedia to prove a point and Wookieepedia is not a battleground again are summarised in more concise and modern language, though I also mention the oldtime wiki term "wikilawyering" for reference. As part of the effort to switch from "Don't/is not" wording to positive phrasing, the section is also titled "Spirit of collaboration" to emphasise abiding by the spirit and values of the policy. The example mainly reinforces the Three-revert rule mentioned above. The last paragraph would codify the Discord/Discussions rule that politics and/or religion should be avoided, and that if someone is uncomfortable with a particular conversation, it should be dropped. One particularly important thing is that it would also emphasise that disrupting Wookieepedia could be done off-site too—basically, don't try to abuse the policy elsewhere, as long as you're interacting your fellow Wookieepedians, your actions affect the community.
All feedback welcome! OOM 224 (he/him) 18:37, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Discuss
- Might it make sense to have the vandalism section be the lowermost one? Since all the others are talking about things that are instead applicable to people who edit in good faith/toward a constructive goal. Imperators II(Talk) 18:43, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
- I might be the only one to dissent here, but as a bit of a traditionalist-minded person I'd argue continuing the separation of editing policies-3RR and Vandalism-from general conduct, such as NPA and whatnot, makes sense. I would agree with merging NPA, Civility, POINT, etc. etc. into a User Conduct Policy, but my personal opinion is that 3RR and similar are still different enough and should remain separate pages. Remember, one big wall of text policy page can be just as confusing for some people as multiple distinct pages dedicated to specific policies. Fan26 (Talk) 21:45, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
- Adding on to this, I would note that an important function of policy pages are something that is cited when an offender is being sanctioned. I would argue that, in my opinion, it is better in some cases-though I will concede not necessarily all-for an admin to be able to point to a specific page for the policy that has been violated rather than link to a broad conduct page, especially for newer users completely unfamiliar with Wookieepedia policy. Fan26 (Talk) 22:12, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
- Individual sections can be linked with [[Pagename#section]], and each section of the proposed policy also has it's own shortcut, so that's really not an issue. NanoLuukeCloning Facility 01:21, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
- Since 3RR is to do with edit-warring, I think it's really quite tied with Dispute resolution. Better to just have potential issues with reverting someone's edits/the guidance on what to do if a dispute arises placed back-to-back, I think. And yeah, section linking should ensure that current link uses that point directly to the relevant policy section are kept. OOM 224 (he/him) 22:29, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
- Individual sections can be linked with [[Pagename#section]], and each section of the proposed policy also has it's own shortcut, so that's really not an issue. NanoLuukeCloning Facility 01:21, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
- Adding on to this, I would note that an important function of policy pages are something that is cited when an offender is being sanctioned. I would argue that, in my opinion, it is better in some cases-though I will concede not necessarily all-for an admin to be able to point to a specific page for the policy that has been violated rather than link to a broad conduct page, especially for newer users completely unfamiliar with Wookieepedia policy. Fan26 (Talk) 22:12, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
- I remember what it felt like to have to read 10-20 policy pages when joining. It kinda sucked; it'd be amazing to have a policy that we can say "this is how to behave." Of course, the redirects can still point to individual sections but otherwise very fond of this.—spookywillowwtalk 22:18, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
- Again, solid work, OOM. Less is more ^^! The {{Main}} template on Vandalism seems inappropriate, as it differs from the intended use of the template, and I can see it being replaced by a sentence instead. How about mentioning in "Dispute resolution" the uses of {{Disputed}}, {{Fanon}}, {{argument}} and {{NPOV}} (with an explanation those need to be used along with a talk page message) to help editors engage in problem identification? NanoLuukeCloning Facility 01:21, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
- Great points. I've tucked WP:VIP in a line alongside the Contact page and added the use of the templates to the Dispute resolution guidance. OOM 224 (he/him) 22:29, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. Just one more thing (with my best Columbo impersonation), does {{Npa1}}, {{Npa2}}, and {{Npa3}} see much use in recent years versus editors relying on the administration to handle NPA? NanoLuukeCloning Facility 11:46, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
- Hmm, not that I can see, actually. And when one does warn another user about NPA, the message is best adapted for the situation rather than just template responses like those… Maybe they need not be mentioned in the policy page at all? Or perhaps the templates be consolidated into a more simple message that points to the policy? OOM 224 (he/him) 12:47, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- I think they should go, yes, (TCed even), since NPA requires a more hand-on approach than any other issues, and is best when handled by an administrator at any rate. NanoLuukeCloning Facility 17:52, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- Nods. Took them out of the proposal and created Forum:TC:Template:Npa. OOM 224 (he/him) 18:22, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- I think they should go, yes, (TCed even), since NPA requires a more hand-on approach than any other issues, and is best when handled by an administrator at any rate. NanoLuukeCloning Facility 17:52, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- Hmm, not that I can see, actually. And when one does warn another user about NPA, the message is best adapted for the situation rather than just template responses like those… Maybe they need not be mentioned in the policy page at all? Or perhaps the templates be consolidated into a more simple message that points to the policy? OOM 224 (he/him) 12:47, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. Just one more thing (with my best Columbo impersonation), does {{Npa1}}, {{Npa2}}, and {{Npa3}} see much use in recent years versus editors relying on the administration to handle NPA? NanoLuukeCloning Facility 11:46, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
- Great points. I've tucked WP:VIP in a line alongside the Contact page and added the use of the templates to the Dispute resolution guidance. OOM 224 (he/him) 22:29, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
- Some further misc. points after taking the time to review. I think that {{Argument}} seems very ancient (the template's edit history lmao) and I've never once seen it used. Do we really need it in the modern era? Feels very 2000s era edit-warring vibes.
- 3RR and dispute resolution have just a touch of duplicate wording regarding bringing edits to standard rather than flat rewording. Since they're back to back sections, is there a way to trim it in one?
- In the sentence discussing major changes, I think it prudent to mention that infobox images for major characters are often decided with {{ImageVote}} etc. That's one type of major change (alongside page moves and templates) that we see some dispute over often because people aren't aware.
- Unsure where, but is it worth sticking in somewhere a one liner about how Wookieepedia:Discussions has its additional set of user conduct guidelines/rules? Seeing the politics line here remindede of it. Since it is a part of the site and all.
- Regarding reporting vandalism, I think it'd be nice if it was added jist directly stating that #admin-help in the Discord is an option. I know the Contact page does kinda say that to be an option, but many vandal reports are often brought directly there nowadays.—spookywillowwtalk 05:17, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- Excellent points. All addressed. Since improving edits and reverting them are more immediately relevant to 3RR, I've removed the first "Avoidance" point from Dispute resolution, making the section more focused on handling a dispute that has already broken out and moving the rollback information to 3RR as well. I've also mentioned the Discussions rules alongside Discord and placed the text in the intro. OOM 224 (he/him) 09:50, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
