Template:Archive box collapsible

As for all templates, I have noticed that all templates of levels 3 and 5 use a conditional clause which says "If you [do this again], you may be blocked from editing.". I feel that it is incorrect because these sentences are conditional, so we need to use the past tense form of might instead, rather than may. This in a conditional clause "would" (not will) actually be more correct if we had done that upon agreeing this. Gamingforfun365 (talk) 08:18, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is similar to legal language where possible (but not guaranteed) penalties are set. E.g. "Persons who commit the crime of XYZ may be imprisoned for a term not to exceed..." etc. A quick online search of several dictionaries each indicate that the word "may" is sometimes used to indicate possibility, and the word "might" is given as a synonym for this usage. In other words, I'm not sure this is needed, but I'm neutral to the idea.  Etamni | ✉  06:57, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with Etamni. Neither usage is wrong, and there are other contextually synonymous constructions ("might be", "could be", etc.). I oppose changing this, because "may" is the most concise possible way to say it, and it's adequate. There is nothing ambiguous about the construction (though there can be for some other uses of "may": "You may laugh" means both "it is permissible for you to laugh" and "you could end up laughing").  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:27, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Might is the past tense of may, and it can also be used conditionally, but, if both of you be neutral about it, I might as well just do it to see what happens. Gamingforfun³⁶⁵ (talk) 05:54, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia_talk:Blocking_policy#Ambiguous_phrasing. Why are we encouraging blocked editors to essentially sock? Example: "If you have a registered Wikipedia username, you may log in and continue to edit" --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:47, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed. That message directly contradicts our blocking policy, which has always been understood to mean that the block is on the person behind the edits, regardless of what identity they use. This needs to be rectified. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:18, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Also agree, we should reword the template when the anon=yes parameter is passed to make it clear the offending user is not allowed to edit, account or not (at least until the block expires?). I think the wording should still be made clear that uninvolved registered users can continue to edit. — MusikAnimal ^talk 17:48, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  To clarify my point, the block message should not read "You have been blocked for..." as this is reserved for accounts, or for when you as the admin have established the IP as static and used by a single user. In the latter case, you should perform a hard block ("Prevent logged-in users from editing from this IP address") which when using Twinkle the anon=yes parameter will be omitted. If we are performing a soft block the template wording should not imply otherwise. Obviously the idea is to let uninvolved editors who have accounts know that they can continue to edit. This could even be done like we do with the warnings, where there is italicized text below the template that would read something like "If this is shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in". Also, mind you with default options account creation will be disabled for up to 24 hours when blocking IPs, as a measure to prevent block evasion. — MusikAnimal ^talk 18:02, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can I bring up a different but related concern? I see {{ uw-ublock }} on talk pages and one of the recommendations offered to blocked editors is to create a new account with a different, appropriate username. I can't locate a diff right now but I've seen at least one editor with this notice create a new account and then get accused of block evasion because their previous account was blocked. Because it was a new editor, they aren't going to complain, they will just stop editing. I would think that admins would recognize when it is a username block so that new accounts, which are suggested, aren't mistaken for socks or for block evasion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:57, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Who was doing the accusing? If I'm looking at a block evasion accusation I always check what the original block was for. If it was a soft username block then I tell the accuser the new account is kosher. If it was for username+editing, then I look to see if the new account has the same type of edits. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:24, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, NeilN, I think that action is what most admins would do. If I see it again though, I'll bring it up with either the admin who imposed the block or bring it to your attention. I remember only noticing it because the instructions in the template directly tell the editor that they should create a new account which is unusual advice to give a blocked editor. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:57, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: The softblock username block messages all contain similar instructions to create a new account. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:15, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

...because the default assumption is that they created the account not knowing the policy, and they are not being disruptive. If they are then some other type of block (and message) is obviously required. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:29, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed I came here explicitly because of {{uw-ewblock}} and was surprised to find that language being used: it's basically a welcome mat to sock and isn't at all reflective of the various flags being used in blocking scenarios. Templates used for anon blocks where the implication is that the user can freely edit if they have an account can be counted on one hand (e.g., {{schoolblock}}, {{anonblock}}, and in rare instances {{uw-vblock}}). While it's true most of our blocks of IPs are anon-only by default, we typically don't explicitly advertise the fact. --slakr^\ talk / 02:51, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  It's still unclear to me what we're trying to change. When you say "we don't typically advertise" that it's anon-only, I'm lead to believe that that's simply because the old Twinkle Warn module didn't use the anon=yes parameter. When I built the Twinkle block module, I passed in this param to the block templates for anon-only blocks, as it appears that is how the templates were designed and intended to be used. Obviously, it was not well thought out that the If you have a registered Wikipedia username, you may log in and continue to edit wording could have an adverse effect. So the question remains, are we okay with just removing that bit and keeping the "Anonymous users have been blocked" (as opposed to "You have been blocked")? — MusikAnimal ^talk 16:22, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Can we get this fixed? I've had to go back and modify two block notices int he last few hours because it was still telling them to go ahead and evade the block if they had a named account. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:04, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• What it really should be saying is that if this is collateral damage, that is if the user is not the person blocked, but now has the IP because it is dynamic, then that person could and should log in and thus avoid an improper block. But I'm not sure how that should be worded concisely yet learly enoguh for a uw message. DES ^(talk) 21:33, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• @Beeblebrox, DESiegel, NeilN, Liz, and Slakr: I'm going to bring back up my proposal, which you can view at Template:uw-block/sandbox. Feel free to modify. I think the idea is that for soft blocks, state that only anonymous users are affected, but that uninvolved editors can still edit using a registered account. This proposed modification I think addresses these concerns, and is inline with our friendly suite of warning messages that have a similar fine print message below them. If we are happy with this I can sit down and spend a painstaking 15-20 minutes deciphering the parser functions of {{uw-block}} to get rid of that now unneeded if-else statement for the anon-only copy. — MusikAnimal ^talk 21:57, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's certainly better than what we have now. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:32, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It looks good to me. The net change is "If you have a registered Wikipedia username, you may log in and continue to edit." → "If this is shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in." The new phrasing can be included inside the block message or appended in italics below as MusikAnimal did. I have coded a revised version of the template for both cases and will replace the current template upon request. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:25, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@JJMC89: If you are able to get this implemented that'd be great. I see looking at the code there's an if-else check on whether to show the copy "Otherwise, once the block has expired...". We can remove that if-else and just keep the else part, which checks for an indef param and if not preset will show "Once the block has expired, you are welcome to...". Too many curly braces and brackets, it makes my head spin! You said you have this implemented somewhere, perhaps in your userspace? We should do some thorough testing before updating {{uw-block}}. Thanks! — MusikAnimal ^talk 14:16, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MusikAnimal: I coded it off wiki. I can replace the sandbox with a coded version this evening (EDT). Do you want the new version to keep all the text in the block message or place it below like in your version? Also, should {{{legal}}} suppress the new text? Currently {{uw-lblock}} uses it to suppress the parts of the message, including the "If you have a registered Wikipedia username, you may log in and continue to edit." part. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 16:52, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I say let's put the new message below the template like in my example, but again only when {{{anon}}} is set. We should retain all other existing functionality, so if the {{uw-lblock}} template wants to hide that message than I think we should too. — MusikAnimal ^talk 18:38, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:uw-block/sandbox has been updated to a working template for testing. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 23:16, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Going to test this out with Twinkle tonight (EDT). Thanks JJMC89! — MusikAnimal ^talk 21:52, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@JJMC89: Little late getting to this, but I tried out various scenarios on testwiki and it looks OK! Would you like to do the honours? — MusikAnimal ^talk 00:13, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @MusikAnimal, Beeblebrox, DESiegel, NeilN, Liz, and Slakr: {{uw-block}} has been updated with the revised language. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 00:26, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As for Template:Uw-copyright, what if I have said "possibly plagiarized"? Would that be better? Also, the reason why I did that was because I have argued that it would be plagiarism if one were to treat another's work as if one's own by using it over and over despite giving credit to another, which makes it sound as if one were just using it as an "excuse" of doing so and not really being honest about giving such credit, stealing his work therefore. That is my point of view, and that is why I have done it. Is there something which I need to know? Gamingforfun³⁶⁵ (talk) 05:41, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I know that material does not have to be copyrighted in order to be plagiarized. I am sorry for having sounded ambiguous, but I was refering to the copyrighted for the whole time. Gamingforfun³⁶⁵ (talk) 05:58, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, because that makes the sentence factually incorrect. Currently it reads

For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license.

and you attempted to change it to

For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept plagiarized material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license.

In general there is no legal bar to our using plagiarized material, since material can be plagiarized from sources which are in the public domain or released under free content licences which do not require attribution. And conversely, it is possible to properly credit the source of text or images (thus avoiding plagiarism) while still violating copyright.

The problem this template addresses is copyright violation and not plagiarism. Please do not conflate the two. —Psychonaut (talk) 08:10, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, Psychonaut: copyright infringement is a legal problem, plagiarism is not, and they shouldn't be confused. Both are against policy here. Just to clarify, although some free sources may not themselves require attribution, using content from them in Wikipedia always does: "Proper attribution to the author or source of a work, even if it is in the public domain, is still required in order to comply with relevant policies."

It would be good to have a different, separate user warning template for plagiarism too (unless we already do?). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:34, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about that. How often do you encounter users plagiarizing public-domain or CC-0-licensed material? I've been monitoring copyright problems here for about ten years and can't recall discovering a single instance where that's happened. If I'm wrong and this is a demonstrably common problem, by all means create a template; otherwise we can do without the clutter. —Psychonaut (talk) 09:45, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then, I am probably just delusional. I still stick to my old statement delusionally, but forget it. Gamingforfun³⁶⁵ (talk) 00:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry for being a vandal just for adhering to my point of view, and I have always known that plagiarism is not as bad/illegal as copyright infringement. I just unintentionally vandalized by still currently accusing my original statement of being true. Gamingforfun³⁶⁵ (talk) 05:43, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I only accused it of being plagiarism not because both it and copyright infringement had been synonymous, but because authors do not really give credit to works' true authors because they treat them as if they were their own, thus lying about really giving such credit and therefore plagiarizing, but I apologize for vandalizing Wikipedia. Gamingforfun³⁶⁵ (talk) 06:15, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gamingforfun365, you haven't vandalized anything as far as I can see. You just made a good-faith attempt to improve the project, and it turned out that your contributions were deemed unnecessary by the community. It happens all the time here; it's how we work. Nobody's upset, and I hope this experience doesn't dissuade you from sticking around. Just take it as a learning experience. —Psychonaut (talk) 07:38, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The disclosure sentence currently reads like this

• Note that Wikipedia's terms of use require disclosure of your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation.

I am sometimes asked how to disclose, either because the editor skimmed over the TOU and missed the disclosure part or they are focused on the bolded text and did not read the TOU at all. I'd like to copy the Paid contributions without disclosure section of the TOU to an en-wiki page and link requires disclosure to that. Thoughts? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:01, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is already Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:10, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Made the change. [1] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:46, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nice. I've encountered similar situations, where none of us knew WP:PCD existed. --Ronz (talk) 17:18, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is it just me or does the current text of {{uw-npa1}} give off a really creepy cultish vibe? I realise it's trying for "friendly and helpful" (but then so do hegemonizing cults!), but at least to me it just comes across as creepy. Possibly that's because it is a warning, but it's trying to hide behind happy friendly language, so it gives the overall effect of a drone programmed to be friendly and polite so it can murder you in your sleep. It's not even "the iron fist in the silk glove"; it's "Norman Bates moves to Stepford"!
No? Just me? Ok then. --Xover (talk) 04:42, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]