Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 June 8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Fuhghettaboutit (talk | contribs) at 17:09, 8 June 2021 (Template:Uw-paid4: keep). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This template is unnecessary. Accusations of paid editing should be addressed immediately through the reporting process detailed in the Paid-contribution disclosure policy. I think one non-escalating warning should be enough. And even then, I'm not sure if a templated warning is ideal. Serious allegations should be substantiated with evidence, not boilerplate text.

Another problem with this template is that it misrepresents policy. The template states, "You may be blocked from editing without further warning if you make any further edits without responding to the inquiry you received regarding undisclosed paid editing." As far as I'm aware, there is no requirement that editors disavow claims of paid editing, and the arbitrary demand that editors cease all editing to address allegations of paid editing is not supported by policy either. Schierbecker (talk) 08:34, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Schierbecker, why have you not nominated the level 2 and 3 templates, as well? ― Tartan357 Talk 09:09, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This TfD is kind of my trial balloon for the others in the series. I would like to hear some others' opinions before I proceed with any more. Schierbecker (talk) 09:12, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Schierbecker, I suggest you add the level 2 and 3 since or perhaps level one since they are pretty much the same as Uw-paid4. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:34, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. For many years all we had was the milquetoast language at WP:COI "strongly" recommending editors with a COI disclose their conflict of interest (notwithstanding the fact that many editors have taken to treating its recommendations as mandatory). Finally, when the Terms of Use were updated to require mandatory paid editing disclosure, we actually had a policy mandate (and added WP:COIDISCLOSEPAY to WP:COI)

    Great! Those with a financial connection in their edits must disclose that connection. Now what? We have some non-self-executing words, somewhere (that are to this day ignored by the vast majority of paid editors – thousands of non-conforming edits every day).

    This template series is essentially the only pragmatic enforcement mechanism we have. Users must disclose; many don't; they make edits that only an insider ever would; we ask them to respond to an inquiry as to whether they have a financial connection (editors are expected to be reasonably cooperative and to respond to good-faith questions); we explain that it's mandatory; point them to the TOU and Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure; and give explicit, spoonfed instructions on how to disclose so they can actually comply easily—telling them about {{paid}} and its parameters, and where it can be posted. They ignore it and continue making edits, so we ask them to respond again, and escalate just like any warning series.

    There is no other way to enforce mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements which, by its very nature, requires we ask based on behavior, and act accordingly. I have never seen and can think of no alternative to this template series to give the policy its due. Or shall we just leave it as an inoperative footnote?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:09, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note - use of this template is tracked using {{z162}} Oiyarbepsy (talk) 16:44, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not updating access dates isn't the type of behavior that should lead to a block. Template:Uw-accessdate1 should be a single-issue notice. Schierbecker (talk) 07:17, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • According to this template's documentation, Level 3 escalates to {{uw-vandalism4}}, which does mention a block. A user who persists in not updating access dates should be steered towards mentoring. Further problematic behavior should be noted at WP:ANI. WP:AIV is an inappropriate venue for good-faith edits. Schierbecker (talk) 07:33, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If they continue to partake in disruptive editing even after being warned, then they clearly need escalating warnings. If you took a look at "this template's documentation", you would see it has no documentation, and instead uses the default behaviour of {{Templatesnotice}}, which automatically adds the vandalism template. If you want to fix that, since the "vandalism" template seems to be the only substantive issue raised here, do so yourself. -- /Alex/21 08:22, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(Redacted)
^Sock? Schierbecker (talk) 09:00, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Engaging with Alex is to wade through toxic waters. DonaldTheDoctor (talk) 13:18, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]