Template talk:Uw-agf3

Edit request[change source]

Please change "If you keep doing what you did, editors may leave Wikipedia. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia" to "Please assume that editors are there to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. If you keep doing what you did, users may leave Wikipedia, and that is not good for Wikipedia. This kind of behavior is disruptive and you could get blocked." Qwertyxp2000 (talk | changes) 03:45, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This change will result in the template having two consecutive sentences starting with "Please". Is there an alternative wording? Chenzw Talk 16:14, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chenzw, do you have any ideas on how to reword it so that the message includes how disruptive it is when editors leaving Wikipedia is, and also including about being blocked? At the moment it seems that "If you keep doing what you did, editors may leave Wikipedia" seems to make the user think "What is the whole point if users leave Wikipedia? That doesn't disturb me so why should I bother with assuming good faith?". Qwertyxp2000 (talk | changes) 08:35, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How about this?

“

Please assume good faith when talking with other editors. If you keep doing what you did, it creates a bad experience for other editors and they may leave Wikipedia. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia.

”

If you ask me, though, this kind of message might be better suited for the level 2 template (which is quite short, compared to other level 2 templates). The level 3 template should probably be including some mention of a block already (eg. "editors who remain unconstructive by assuming bad faith will be blocked from changing pages on Wikipedia.") --Chenzw Talk 14:38, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, good idea with that level-2 thing. My thinking of level 3 is "Please stop assuming bad faith with other users. Not assuming good faith makes other users leave, which is disruptive behavior. If you continue assuming bad faith, you may get blocked." Qwertyxp2000 (talk | changes) 21:47, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Improve on it? Qwertyxp2000 (talk | changes) 21:48, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How about "Please stop assuming bad faith with other editors. Not assuming good faith may make other editors leave, which is disruptive behavior. If you continue assuming bad faith, you may be blocked." (changes in bold)?

I am a bit hesitant with implying that assuming bad faith will automatically make other users leave. Another alternative is to say:

"Not assuming good faith discourages other editors from editing"

The other changes (users -> editors; may get -> may be) are for consistency with the other AGF, and level 3 warnings. Chenzw Talk 04:10, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, perhaps "Please stop assuming bad faith with other editors. Not assuming good faith discourages other editors from editing. If you continue assuming bad faith, you may be blocked.", although some templates show "changing" as a replacement of "editing". Qwertyxp2000 (talk | changes) 00:30, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of Level-2 template of agf, I have made an edit request about that uw-agf2 template. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | changes) 00:34, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Or maybe "Please stop assuming bad faith with other editors. Not assuming good faith discourages other editors from editing, which could make them leave Wikipedia. If you continue assuming bad faith, you may be blocked." Changes to my previous statement are italicised. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | changes) 00:38, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abitrary section break[change source]

Sorry for the delay, here's an overview of the proposed template changes so far:

For this template: "Please stop assuming bad faith with other editors. Not assuming good faith discourages other editors from editing, which could make them leave Wikipedia. If you continue assuming bad faith, you may be blocked."

For {{uw-agf2}} (discussion brought over here): "Please assume good faith when talking with other editors. Assuming bad faith creates a bad experience for other editors, which might make them leave Wikipedia. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. Thank you."

Now that I have seen the proposed changes to the level 2 template, can we swap some of the changes around? (changes italicised below)

For this template: "Please stop assuming bad faith with other editors. Assuming bad faith discourages other editors from editing, which could make them leave Wikipedia. If you continue assuming bad faith, you may be blocked."

For {{uw-agf2}}: "Please assume good faith when talking with other editors. Not assuming good faith creates a bad experience for other editors, which might make them leave Wikipedia. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. Thank you."

Also, while I am not sure about this, is it really okay to word the consequences of not AGF differently across both templates? The level 3 template suggests "discourages other editors from editing", while the level 2 template suggests "creates a bad experience". Chenzw Talk 03:29, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, level 2 is one sentence. I bet I could just hand-type it faster. We should explain the problem, and make it a general level 2 "feel" (might sound weird, but I'm not sure how to phrase it). I agree with the proposed changes to both. Computer Fizz (talk) 05:29, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When you want to change someone's behaviour you need to tell them what to do, not what not to do. The current templates do this nicely. To change it to Please stop... puts the emphasis on the negative, not the positive behaviour. I do not agree with the proposed changes as expressed so far.Peterdownunder (talk) 07:31, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The second versions (with Level 2 for "Not assuming good faith" and Level 3 for "Assuming bad faith" descriptions) are better. As well as this, how should we make sure that the users to be warned assume good faith without the warners themselves assuming bad faith, and at the same time the warners warn about how serious the assumption of bad faith is? Qwertyxp2000 (talk | changes) 09:06, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like either the current wording or the proposed change. Blaming an editor for another editor leaving Wikipedia is not at all helpful. I agree with Chenzw's suggestion (Not assuming good faith discourages other editors from editing) or "may discourage other editors from editing." Level 1 and 2 are OK as-is. User:Rus793 (talk) 13:38, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Rus793. I do not think we should have any statement suggesting actions of one editor might cause another to leave or have a bad experience. (I would tag the expression "bad experience" as weasel wording: what does this mean exactly?) Even the English Wikipedia version of this mentions only the actions; not hinting at a possible consequence: "Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia." Level two wording (theirs and ours) is practically meaningless. It explains nor expects nothing. Unless one adds additional text, a en:WP:Minnows (the diet small one) comes across better. Fylbecatulous talk 16:51, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above suggestions that reference should not be made to putative effects on other editors. Fylbecatulous offers "Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia." as level 1. That is good, and also possible is just to use the first sentence: "Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors".
Perhaps only two levels are needed (it is not a commonly used flag). Level two should repeat the previous sentence (or two), and add another, along the lines of "If you do not respect other editors good faith, then you may be temporarily blocked from editing. Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:03, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with the above. If there is a need to mention consequences—and I don't really think there is—make them positive consequences: "So that Simple English Wikipedia continues to be a positive, constructive, community..." or the like. StevenJ81 (talk) 12:47, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

With all this, I still reckon that there could be three levels. Level 1 should state how it is at the moment, Level 2 with a repeat of Level 1 except with slightly more detail of a bit of concern of not assuming good faith, and Level 3 telling about how serious assuming bad faith may be. StevenJ81 has the point of "So that Simple English Wikipedia continues to be a positive, constructive, community..." idea, so perhaps use that for that Level 3 statement. Level 2 could state about "Assuming bad faith creates a bad experience for other editors, which might make them leave Wikipedia. Assume that they are there to help Wikipedia." or something like that. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | changes) 01:00, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with that. The more you say, the less they will be influenced. We want them to stop behaving in a certain way. Let's say it simply and move on. Macdonald-ross (talk) 14:18, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]