| This proposal is in part a rework of a few ideas I proposed at Nookipedia talk:Policy in January of 2022, but also includes a few additional policies which aim to a) clarify some gray areas surrounding user talk pages and b) establish policy regarding backseat moderation.
Additions to existing policy (in bold):
User page content
4. Other than for necessary basic maintenance edits and reverting vandalism, editing or reverting changes to another user's user page is not allowed, even when censoring or correcting spelling or grammar. Concerns about user page content should be directed to Nookipedia Administrators or Bureaucrats.
Community interaction
5. Do not remove other users' messages or revert edits to their talk page, except in clear cases of vandalism, personal attacks, being off-topic, or maintenance (removing duplicate messages, moving to correct talk page, etc.).
- As an exception, welcome messages and mass invites (e.g. "Invitation to Summer of Edits...") posted to one's own user talk page may be removed by the talk page owner.
6. Talk page messages older than 1 month may be moved by the talk page owner to an archive page, so long as a link to the archive is clearly provided on the user's talk page. Official warnings or messages from staff members concerning a user's edits or behavior may be archived after 6 months.
7. Do not interpret Nookipedia policy or enforce policy violations on behalf of staff members.
- With the exception of blatant spam or vandalism, which can be reverted by any user, all other potential policy violations should be posted to the Staff noticeboard or to the official Discord server (ping @staff) so that a staff member can take appropriate action.
- Editors should not speak with a tone of authority in comments or edit summaries in regard to potential policy violations. Doing so is considered backseat moderating and may result in a warning.
 (talk) 23:59, July 21, 2024 (EDT)
|
| Comments:
|
- I think changes to 4 and 5 are fine. Addition 6 concerns me slightly as I think it somewhat encourages a more constant stream of archival which is not useful. It seems pointedly addressing a single user case over the span of recent years and I don't think it's helpful for any party. I would just have the site suggest to archive after "significant time has passed" and after some significant size, whether thats bytes or headers. I'm also pretty iffy about point 7, because it effectively removes the ability for editors to enforce already defined policies. The line in particular causing concern is
Editors should not speak with a tone of authority in comments or edit summaries in regard to potential policy violations. (although most of it is in the same realm). For an example, if a user is overtly violating the Nookipedia:Upload policy through the first bulled point When uploading the file, be sure to give it a meaningful name which describes its content., I'm not permitted to inform that user via talk page or edit summary that they are not following the policy (even though it is clearly defined via page)—or at least, that's how this policy change is conveyed. I think it's an overreach to stop users from micromanaging which more often then not needs to be a more direct intervention than a blanket fix. Because of my support for only half of the proposed changes, and distaste for the other half, I find it impossible to vote on this proposal at all and simply leave my commentary behind for reference. Trig Jegman - 00:55, July 22, 2024 (EDT)
- I appreciate your feedback, although I am a bit confused by what you mean by "It seems pointedly addressing a single user case over the span of recent years and I don't think it's helpful for any party." Could you be a bit more specific about the user case you're referring to and how this policy would be unhelpful? This policy was meant to address the grey area established by the existing point #5: "Do not remove other users' messages...". As it stands, archives of user talk pages are not explicitly permitted by the existing policy. This addition simply provides a framework for when it's acceptable to move talk page messages and warnings. The original time frame that I proposed internally to staff members when I was seeking feedback on this proposal was 1 year. This time period makes sense to me, as generally user talk pages do not receive a high level of activity, however this didn't take into account factors like site or user activity; a user who is very active or involved in the community, or who is active during periods of high site activity (like around the time of a new game release), would benefit from a shorter archive threshold as it would make their talk page more manageable/easier to navigate. While I appreciate the flexibility that language like "significant time has passed" allows for, I feel like it's not particularly helpful as it makes the policy unenforceable; what may be "significant" for one user may not be for another. Lastly, I just wanted to clarify here that an additional reason for this policy addition is that we've recently had issues surrounding user talk pages (including removal of user messages and warnings) by disruptive users, and so this policy change is also aimed at making it very clear the acceptable and unacceptable ways to go about this.
- As for point #7, these were my same concerns with this policy addition, and I would be interested in your suggestions on how to achieve the right balance here. The goal of this policy is not to require users to defer to staff to address comparatively minor issues like upload policy violations. Its goal is to make clear that users who are not staff should not be taking actions to remedy their own perceived policy violations, or mimicking staff behavior. As with #6 it was also created in an attempt to address recent disruptive behavior where the user in question was trying to act like a staff member by moderating edits and users. There is a difference between bringing something to another user's attention versus telling someone they are wrong or reverting edits based off perceived policy violations, which in this case were incorrect. In short, it's one thing to be correctly enforcing the policy, and another to be enforcing it wrong because you don't know it or don't understand it, and so this policy addition tries to make it clear that those who are not in a position to properly enforce the policy should not be doing so. Again, if you have any suggestions on how to improve the language so that it strikes the right balance I'd appreciate your suggestions. (talk) 02:54, July 22, 2024 (EDT)
- Hi, I really like this. It sounds good.
 Support. I just have one question. What do you mean by an ‘authoritative tone’? I think that there should be a list of identifying things specifying what is authoritative and what is not. Just because I don’t really get what it means, and other people might not too. Thanks, --SunsetBay (Talk)  14:32, July 25, 2024 (EDT)
- I'm not sunmarsh, but I think I can answer this. In this case, "authoritative tone" means acting in a way that could make an uninformed user believe you are a staff member. There's no way to neatly define exactly what behavior constitutes that in a way that covers all possible cases while also not having false positives, so it's best to leave the interpretation of it up to the staff members on a case-by-case basis. This reason is also part of why point #7 is so important; policy is sometimes vague and up to interpretation, and in cases like that, non-staff should not be the ones to interpret it. ~ AlexBot2004 (Talk) 02:26, July 28, 2024 (EDT)
- Unfortunately I'm going to have to oppose this proposal in its current form. I agree with most of the changes, but point #7 suggests that editors won't be able to remove anything from articles that violates a policy, and I think editors should have more freedom to remove things from articles that don't belong. On most open-editing wikis like ours, content can be added, removed and edited by anyone and I don't want to interfere with that. I also think that leaving a friendly message on a user talk page to point out that their edits may be inappropriate is acceptable too, as long as they're not being authoritative, but I do think comments that threaten disciplinary action (e.g. "Further changes like these may result in an official warning or block") should be left to the staff. Since a proposal can't receive major changes after voting starts, I'm opposing for now. Drago (talk)
 10:42, July 28, 2024 (EDT)
- I'm in support of this proposal in its current form. If changes need to be done to address what has been stated by others above, that's okay. But I have always been opposed to users trying to skirt around warnings, changes to userspaces thaat are not their own, and trying to pose as staff. The latter can be especially confusing for new editors as they wouldn't know who is and isn't on the team, so they in good faith trust their judgement. Anything to prevent this is good in my book, but I'm open to see what changes take place if this proposal was to be revised and brought back later on. ~PoizonMushro0m
 16:44, July 28, 2024 (EDT)
|
Oppose 
