Template talk:Contentious topics/Archive 1

Archive 1

Alert/first header

Would it be possible to make the header for the first alert template more descriptive? At present it reads Introduction to contentious topics, which while it informs the target reader about the concept of contentious topics, does not inform future alerters at a glance as to which contentious topics the target has been alerted. For example, if I were to issue a contentious topic alert for gender and sexuality, could the header automatically become Introduction to contentious topics - gender and sexuality? Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:54, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely. Also, if you add a second, of course it has the same header, which looks a bit silly, you only need one introduction. @Sideswipe9th: thanks for bringing this up. I came here for the same purpose. Doug Weller talk 14:40, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

One of my bugbears from the older template, which didn't have a prescribed header as part of the substitution, was that everyone titled the section containing the alert differently. Some folks would make it descriptive, saying what alert(s) they were issuing, and others would use something super generic like "Standard ArbCom alert". The folks who did the former made it much easier to see at a glance from the filter log which alerts had been issued. Because the new alert has a defined header, it seems like we should make it as informative as possible, not just for the person alerted but also those of us who wind up issuing the alerts.

Yeah I definitely agree on the multiple headers problem when issuing multiple alerts at the same time. Overlap between contentious topics is not uncommon. What I've taken to doing over the last couple of days for multiple simultaneous alerts is to use {{Contentious topics/alert/first}} for the first alert only, and then {{Contentious topics/alert}} for any subsequent alert in the same message. This helps by cutting down on the boilerplate text somewhat, as a most of the content in alert/first is applicable to all alerts. The other alternative would be to modify alert/first to allow for multiple topic codes to be used in the same template. Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:21, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th some good suggestions. As an aside, I seem to have a competence issue as I keep getting nowiki added when I use it. Doug Weller talk 09:05, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Ah, it's the visual editor that gave me the problem. Source editor works fine. Doug Weller talk 09:42, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

“Other circumstances”

The notice on Template:Contentious topics/alert gives three options: one to be used “for the first time an editor is alerted”, one for not the first time, and the third for use “in any other circumstances.” What other circumstances can there possibly exist other than first and non-first notification? —Michael Z. 23:52, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Also, the third option says “(this template),” but links to Template:Alert which looks very different. Confusing. —Michael Z. 23:54, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

"In any other circumstances" really means "in all other circumstances" (where the two above aren't required). {{alert}} is a shortcut for {{Contentious topics/alert}}. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:20, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

It says the second one is not required, so now I am now even more confused. There seems to be a decision tree implicit to determine what to use, but it is not clear what the options are at each branch.

Do circumstances other than alerting an editor exist, when the third one is appropriate? Can you give an example of when one would choose the second or third? Should I just always use the first option to be safe? What are the consequences of using the wrong one?  —Michael Z. 02:33, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have been clearer: {{Contentious topics/alert/first}} must be used the first time an editor is alerted that contentious topics (CT) exist. {{Contentious topics/alert/DS}} may be used when alerting an editor to CT who has previously been alerted to discretionary sanctions, {{Contentious topics/alert}} may be used any other time, or a custom written alert may be used. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:06, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Okay, so the possible case are:

1. Alerting an editor, who HAS NOT been alerted.

2. Alerting an editor, who HAS been alerted.

The binary condition of alerted vs. not alerted appears to me to encompass 100% of the possible editor alert states: all circumstances. I cannot conceive what could be meant by:

3. “any OTHER circumstances . . .” Some use other than alerting an editor? Alerting an editor who has been half-way alerted?

Can you give an example of another circumstance?

Sorry. I swear I’m not trying to be difficult.  —Michael Z. 03:57, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Many CTs have overlaps and it is useful in those circumstances to issue multiple alerts simultaneously, for example BLP and AP2. At present alert/first only supports a single topic in its notification and a mandatory pre-determined header in its output. So in order not to spam two or more new sections when alerting a single editor of multiple applicable CTs, I've found it best to use alert/first for the first notification, and in the same message use alert for every subsequent notification. For example, in your message you'd put {{subst:alert/first|topic=blp}} [new line] {{subst:alert|topic=ap}} ~~~~

alert/DS seems as though it's the oddball of the three, in that it's only useful for alerting editors who were previously considered aware under the DS system of the changeover to CT. Sideswipe9th (talk) 05:10, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

As Sideswipe9th said alert/DS is really the oddball. The binary is as you had it: alert/first if the editor has never been alerted to contentious topics (or discretionary sanctions) in any subject area before and alert (or a custom-written one) if they've previously been notified of contentious topics in one subject area but you're notifying them of a different subject area, possibly giving them a reminder of the original subject area or, as Sideswipe9th mentioned, multiple areas at the same time. The oddball, alert/DS, has the same use case as alert but may be used if the editor has previously has a DS alert just to make it easier for them to make the connection that it's a similar thing with a different name. I imagine ArbCom's longer-term plan is to remove alert/DS after a while since its optional use case won't be relevant any longer. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:41, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

I've also, hopefully, clarified the use case in the notice. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:50, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Okay, multiple alerts. That makes sense. Thank you both.  —Michael Z. 08:52, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Are edit notices required if the talk page notice makes no restrictions?

And if no restrictions does the page have to be logged? I hope the answer to both is no because if it’s yes I imagine fewer people will want to add talk page CT notices. Doug Weller talk 21:32, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

No, only sanctions need to be logged. Just adding {{Contentious topics/editnotice}} or {{Contentious topics/page restriction editnotice}} to let editors know that the contentious topics system applies to the page isn't a sanction so doesn't need to be logged. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:14, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Doug Weller talk 09:41, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 21 January 2023

At the end of the lines for 1RR and 0RR restrictions, please add: (except in [[WP:NOT3RR|limited circumstances]]) to alert people of the revert restriction exceptions. Thanks, echidnaLives - talk - edits 14:45, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

 Completed. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 17:12, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Alert/DS redirects

Just to note, I've created two redirects Template:Contentious topics/alert/ds‎ and Template:Alert/ds. These are for ease of use/convenience when issuing {{Contentious topics/alert/DS}} as they will allow you to type the all lower case {{subst:alert/ds|topic=...}}, instead of having to remember to upper case just the /DS part. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:45, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Crypto

Hi, there is WP:GS/Crypto Should it get added to this list? Or is GS not the level to get put on this list Wikipedia:General sanctions? I was trying to add the opt out on my talk page, but couldnt find the code for that. (now I cant even find the list of codes again, but that is a different matter, duh!) Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:46, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 17 January 2023

Suggest the removal of "in" from "gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them" in the description of the gender and sexuality topic (codes gg, ggtf, gap, gas, and pa). It's ungrammatical and doesn't align with the wording authorized by ArbCom in the February 2021 WP:GENSEX motion. Conifer (talk) 15:50, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

It would also be nice to replace the underscores with spaces in links to arbitration cases throughout the template for visual consistency. Conifer (talk) 15:55, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

 Partly done: I removed the "in" from the sentence as made it a bit tricky to read, but I don't see any underscores in visible text? And replacing underscores in piped links isn't worth the effort. Terasail^[✉️] 07:39, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Ping: User:Conifer, since only partially completed. Terasail^[✉️] 07:41, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

@Terasail: There are visible underscores in the links to the arbitration cases for Horn of Africa and Iranian politics – check out Template:Contentious topics/table. They should be editable under codes "horn" and "irp"/"iranpol" on Template:Contentious topics/list. Conifer (talk) 02:04, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Reopening edit request to address visible underscores in list of contentious topics. Conifer (talk) 21:37, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

 Done Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:38, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Edit request for minor formatting

Proposed edits

I suggest that two changes be made to the first line of the {{alert/first}} output: The explanation of the affected topic should be given in bold, so that it stands out more, and; A comma should be inserted between the affected topic and the text "which has been designated a contentious topic". This would result in the line appearing as: You have recently been editing climate change, which has been designated a contentious topic. Thanks. XAM2175 (T) 16:11, 23 February 2023 (UTC) I support these straightforward improvements. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:29, 23 February 2023 (UTC) Done number 2. Will wait for further feedback regarding number 1. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 18:21, 23 February 2023 (UTC) Comparison for a long description: You have recently been editing governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues, which has been designated a contentious topic. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project. Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and: adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia; comply with all applicable policies and guidelines; follow editorial and behavioural best practice; comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and refrain from gaming the system. Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template. You have recently been editing governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues, which has been designated a contentious topic. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project. Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and: adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia; comply with all applicable policies and guidelines; follow editorial and behavioural best practice; comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and refrain from gaming the system. Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template. You have recently been editing governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues, which has been designated a contentious topic. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project. Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and: adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia; comply with all applicable policies and guidelines; follow editorial and behavioural best practice; comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and refrain from gaming the system. Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:27, 23 February 2023 (UTC) I prefer having any formatting to distinguish the individual parameter-based description from the rest of the text, and I'm personally fine with that being bold. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:28, 23 February 2023 (UTC) Thanks for those examples. I had considered italics, but these confirm my impression that the bold face would be more effective. XAM2175 (T) 18:37, 23 February 2023 (UTC) My vote would be for italic, but I don't feel strongly against bolding either — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:06, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

 Completed – Decided to go ahead and complete the original proposal, as it does not affect the functionality of this template to a point where ArbCom's consent would be needed (and it's removed from the backlog). Also, keep in mind that substituted templates only show changes in future applications of those templates. More time may be necessary to continue discussion in regard to the ensuing ideas that accompany this proposal. I am subscribed to this section and will continue to monitor. Thank you for your time and edits! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 10:20, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

I think a larger rewording should be considered, since as it currently reads, it says that the editor has been recently editing topic area, which isn't quite accurate. The editor has been editing a page related to the topic area in question. I'm not sure on bolding the topic area, which encourages skipping over other text to focus on the bold text. This can be handy for writing skimmable text, but in this particular case, I think it's better not to encourage skimming. Recall that the alert is intended for someone who has no previous knowledge of the contentious topic system. Italicizing the topic area might be another option. (On a side note, it would be nice if the testcases page were updated, so it's easy to see what the alert looks like in use, and of course to facilitate testing changes.) isaacl (talk) 18:35, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

I can see you point about accuracy – perhaps if it began You have recently edited one or more articles about [topic]...? I do still think there's value in having the topic description stand out; we want the precise definition of the topic to be clear to the user, and for it to stand out as a prescribed definition. It might also be an improvement as part of that if the bold-faced use of "contentious topics" was removed from the second para and instead applied in the first (giving ... which has been designated a contentious topic ... and ... which are referred to as contentious topics respectively). XAM2175 ^(T) 18:46, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

For conciseness, I suggest "... edited a page about topic". Although I'm a fan of the traditional typography approach of using emphasis sparingly, in this case since "contentious topic" is a specific term of art, I agree with making the first mention in the first paragraph bold, which is linked to its explanatory page. I still think the topic itself is better set in italics than boldface. Now that we have the topic-specific subpages (as listed in Template:Contentious topics/table), it would be nice to link the topic text to the appropriate subpage. isaacl (talk) 21:44, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Topic should definitely bolded as in the old template. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 23:32, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

• We definitely need to change the first sentence. "You have recently been editing the September 11 attacks, which has been designated a contentious topic" is oddly phrased. "You have recently been editing articles related to the September 11 attacks, a topic area which has been designated as a contentious topic area" or something along those lines would be more appropriate.--RegentsPark (comment) 01:22, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

  I suggested "page" because edits to other types of pages than articles can be a basis for a notification. isaacl (talk) 02:02, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

  I'm fine with this, or isaacl's option, or XAM2175's. All are improvements over the status quo. I like isaacl's slightly more than the others, since someone could theoretically just have been involved in non-mainspace editing. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:03, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

• Right now, the alert starts with (using AmPol as an example): You have recently been editing post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated a contentious topic. Can we change "recently been editing" to "recently edited a page related to", so that the alert says "You have recently edited a page related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated a contentious topic.? I know there are a few options on the table, and I'd love to see us agree on one and move forward. The status quo is worse than all of them. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:21, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

  I prefer this but as you said, anything is better than the current wording. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 17:22, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Might add that, for instance in this case you mention, the singular "has been designated" as well as "a contentious topic" seem like they should be "have been designated" and "contentious topics". Or am I being too nits-picky? P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 17:31, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

No, let's pick those nits! Though it adds wordiness, maybe ""You have recently edited a page related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, and area which has been designated a contentious topic.? This is essentially a hybrid of isaacl and RegentsPark's proposals (with tweaks). Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:44, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

The sentence is in essence eliding "have recently edited a page related to the topic of X, which has been designated a contentious topic" by removing "the topic of". They're kind of filler words, so from that point of view it's reasonable to drop them, though I appreciate it may make the grammar a bit trickier to parse. isaacl (talk) 17:45, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

suggested:

"You have recently been editing (topic), which has been designated a contentious topic."⁽¹⁾

"You have recently edited a page related to (topic), a topic designated as contentious." P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 12:58, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

This works for me, though I would echo my earlier remark this this use of contentious should be in bold face, while the subsequent use ("A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics") should be plain. XAM2175 ^(T) 13:01, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Agree, and "contentious" has been changed to boldface type above. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 13:24, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

This works for me. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:00, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Been about a week and no objections have been filed, so it's been  edited. We'll see how it flies. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 11:04, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Semantic markup

In {{Contentious topics/alert}}, {{Contentious topics/alert/first}}, and {{Contentious topics/alert/DS}}, in does not imply that there are any issues with your editing, '' should be replaced with <em> and ''' with <strong> for proper semantics. The same goes for carefully and constructively in alert/first. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 09:01, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Don't understand, editor Madeline. Always thought that use of tags over WM was just a personal choice, because the WikiMarkup does the same thing as the tags. what does "semantics" have to do with it? Is there a policy or guideline that can help with this? P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 17:08, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for the nonspecificity. The differencd is that em and strong convey meaning (emphasis), while i and b, which the wikitext renders to, do not. Web browsers generally render them the same, but the distinction can be important for e. g. screenreaders. See also MOS:TEXT. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 17:22, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Okay, makes sense, and  edited. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 17:36, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Taking the generated HTML for {{Contentious topics/alert/first}} as an example, it appears like this: and <i>does <b>not</b> imply that there are any issues with your editing.</i> Using the <em> (emphasis) and <strong> elements allows clients such as screen readers to signal to users that the text in question has been flagged as having additional importance. It won't do this for text that has been marked up as italic, for example, as it could be for other typographical purposes (such as indicating a book title). isaacl (talk) 17:29, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, editor isaacl, for the detail! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 17:39, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Blue background

Hello. Was just curious why Template:Contentious topics/alert no longer has a blue background. Is it a good idea to make some CT alerts have a blue background and others not have it? Seems a bit non-standardized. Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:02, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

A bit verbose?

Template:Contentious topics/alert/first seems a bit verbose. The list of bullets in particular seem too general. If I tell someone to adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia, especially a newer editor, is it clear what I am talking about? What changes to their behavior would they make after receiving that advice? If I tell someone not to [game] the system, would they stop doing some behavior? Could they even think of an example of what a gaming behavior would be?

Anyway, I'd be in favor of moving that template away from general tips and towards specific tips. An example of a specific tip might be "if your edit is reverted, you should use the article talk page to discuss". Thoughts? –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:56, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Personally, I think it may be better to trim away all the tips. They basically amount to "You know how you're supposed to behave on every page? Keep doing that on these specially designated pages." isaacl (talk) 21:11, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Subcategorizing topics

Per my post at WP:VPPR, and on Category talk:Wikipedia pages about contentious topics: With nearly ten-thousand articles in this category, I wonder if perhaps we can divide out some subcategories for specific large groups of contentious topics, such as those falling under American politics or COVID-19 editing restrictions. Right now this massive category has precisely one subcategory, Category:Pseudoscience articles under contentious topics procedure. My intent is to create additional subcategories for a dozen or so major areas of contentious topics, and subcategorize the contents accordingly. It has been suggested to me that the best way to do this would be to modify this template so that specific template calls such as {{Ds/talk notice|ipa}} (which produces the line, "The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, which has been designated as a contentious topic") would also subcategorize the page in question into a Category:Wikipedia pages about contentious topics relating to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, with comparable subcategories created for other well-populated groups of contentious topics. BD2412 T 21:00, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

I think this is a great idea but I wonder whether extending it to every contentious topics area (that is, a subcategory for every area) might be useful. A quick example of when: if CTOP is ended for a topic area there is an easy list of pages to remove the template from. It could potentially be implemented by adding a parameter to Template:Contentious topics/list that includes the relevant category. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:13, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

@Callanecc: There is currently a list of 35 topic identifiers at Template:Ds/topics.json. I expect that if we subcategorize those, that will encompass a substantial majority of all categorized contentious pages, since those are the ones for which we bother to have an identifier. BD2412 T 17:41, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

In fact all contentious topics have an identifier, since they have to be specifically designated as such by ArbCom. So all the pages can be subcategorized (there's an up to date list at Template:Contentious topics/table). Galobtter (talk) 00:36, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Before this is done there will probably need to be a new "name" given to each contentious topic that is suitable for the category name in Template:Contentious topics/list. The "scope" text is probably too lengthy to be used for some contentious topics (such as gun control), the name of the case doesn't usually provide enough context and the topic-specific subpage name may not be suitable either. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 08:50, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Suppose we start with the largest groups of topics. Is there a way to see which topics are the most numerous based on the tags currently in use? BD2412 T 02:42, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

I note that Category:Standardised Wikipedia arbitration enforcement templates already contains several standardized templates for some of these specific topics:

Template:American politics AE

Template:ArbCom Arab-Israeli editnotice, Template:ArbCom Arab-Israeli enforcement, Template:Contentious topics/Arab-Israeli editnotice, and Template:Contentious topics/Arab-Israeli talk notice (these seem largely duplicative)

Template:Contentious topics/The Troubles editnotice and Template:Contentious topics/The Troubles talk notice

Template:COVID-19 AE, Template:COVID-19 AE/Edit notice, and Template:COVID19 CT editnotice

Template:IPA AE, Template:IPA AE/Edit notice

For these, the category call would just need to be changed for the existing templates. BD2412 T 04:14, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Gaming the system

This message includes the statement:

• refrain from gaming the system.

Gaming the system is an English idiom that means abusing the rules or processes to produce an unintended effect. Its meaning may be unclear to people who are not native English speakers.

I think we should replace this with either of these options:

• do not abuse the rules or processes in an effort to circumvent Wikipedia's overall goals.
• follow the spirit of the rules, not just the exact requirements.

Alternatively, we could just remove it, since Wikipedia:Gaming the system is a guideline and thus already incorporated into the list. What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:30, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

What about the third option. Keep the same wording but wikilink it to WP:GAME? That way we're explicitly linking the relevant guideline to anyone unfamiliar with the idiom. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:38, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

I thought about that, but none of the others have links, so I assumed that there was a desire to minimize links (=only have links for the most important things). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:58, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

There are links in the version at Wikipedia:Contentious topics, which is linked in the template message; the version at WP:CTOP is the reason why the language here is as it is, rather than using a simpler form of the phrase I would guess.

I don't know if that makes you prefer links here or otherwise. Izno (talk) 20:41, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

To clarify, I presume you are referring to {{Contentious topics/alert/first}}? (This talk page is a redirect target from multiple places.) If so, I agree with the first proposed option. I feel it is sufficiently concise and reflective of the meaning of the idiom, and I agree with avoiding an idiomatic phrase for this message. isaacl (talk) 21:00, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I saw this on the /first message. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:02, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

My thoughts on DS/CT alerts

Howdy! I have some feedback and also some questions about DS/CT alerts.

1. I notice there are three alert templates now. I think it'd be good to consolidate these into one template, like it used to be before, to reduce complexity.
2. I notice the template {{Contentious topics/alert/DS}} does not have a blue box. I think it'd be good to re-add the blue box, since this makes it easy to scan talk pages for alert templates and figure out which areas have been alerted.
3. There is an edit filter that warns you not to place too many alert templates on a user talk page. It appears to be Special:AbuseFilter/602. I'd be in favor of turning that off or changing it to log, instead of warn. I think the chances of an editor double-notifying is low enough that it is not worth the extra clicks for everyone when placing these.
4. Do user talk alerts still expire after one year for each subject area? I couldn't find this at WP:CTOP. Might be worth adding or making more prominent, even if the answer is "they used to, but not anymore".
5. The alert templates don't support things like {{subst:Contentious topics/alert|abortion}}. Instead the code "ab" must be used, which is an extra step to go look up the code in a table. Consider supporting full names of the topic areas in these alerts.
6. The bulleted list of tips in {{Contentious topics/alert/first}} seem a bit vague. These could possibly be removed, or replaced with more practical tips. Telling a new editor to "adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia" isn't likely to get them to change any behavior, but telling them that "edit warring will not be tolerated; use the talk page instead" might plant a seed for a specific behavior they could change.

Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:49, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

What do you mean by new templates not having a blue box? I almost always use the first one, {{Contentious topics/alert/first}}, and it has the blue box. Do you may be mean smth else? Ymblanter (talk) 15:16, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

And, indeed, the alerts expire after one year for each subject area, which I personally find stupid. Ymblanter (talk) 15:17, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Contentious topics#Awareness of contentious topics Once alerted to a specific contentious topic, editors are presumed to remain aware but may attempt to refute this presumption on appeal. It also reads as if they only ever need one templated CTOP alert, and after that you can just tell them, "Just so you know, X is a contentious topic, so be on your best behavior." ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:23, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Why are we checking them that they did not get an alert in the past year? Ymblanter (talk) 16:30, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm assuming so someone doesn't keep getting notifications if they're removing them from their talk page. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:38, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Alerts do not expire after a year any more. Instead there is a presumption that someone remains aware of the CT expectations after being alerted the first time, but a person may claim otherwise in a sanction discussion. This is covered at the DS/CT comparison which is, for me, the right place for that; I don't think our current procedures are well-served by mentioning old procedures. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:45, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Regarding multiple notifications: I think it can easily happen that a different editor may try to notify an editor again, at some point in the future. isaacl (talk) 17:30, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Regarding three alert templates: {{alert/first}} is the only one that must be used to perform the first notification. For any subsequent notification in any designated area, editors can just write a message conveying the desired info, if they wish. isaacl (talk) 17:53, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I tried to use these today, and I have another round of questions.

1. {{subst:Alert/first|ab}} {{subst:Alert/first|topic=ab}} {{subst:Alert|ab}} {{subst:Alert|topic=ab}} {{subst:Alert/DS|ab}} {{subst:Alert/DS|topic=ab}} These all work, but the documentation for Alert/first and Alert/DS has examples not using |topic=, and the documentation for Alert has examples using |topic=. Can we change the documentation for Alert to have examples not using |topic=? Would be shorter.
2. {{subst:Alert/first|rusukr}} {{subst:Alert/DS|rusukr}} appears to be broken, but {{subst:Alert|rusukr}} works. Consider adding this topic code.
3. The fact that rusukr code exists for Alert but not Alert/first and Alert/DS suggests they get their data from two different places. Perhaps these three templates should be refactored to pull their data from the same JSON file.
4. None of the templates throw a user readable error for non-existent topic code. Consider adding some big red text or something, or at least no having a blank spot/bad syntax showing.
5. If a user has been alerted under the old discretionary sanctions, should they get a first template or a regular template or no template for contentious topics? In other words, do the old DS alerts "count" as CT alerts?
6. I see some hints in the documentation that after the first CT alert, topic area alerts are no longer mandatory for taking someone to AE. So someone could give a first alert for COVID and then take them to AE for American politics. Is this correct?

Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:09, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Answering only for myself (official answers could/should be gotten at WP:ARCA):

5. The old DS alerts count but I think dropping {{alert/ds}} is the right thing to do

6. An editor still needs to know (AWARE in the parlance of CTOP) that a given topic is a designated CT. That doesn't have to be through formal template but it needs to be demonstrable in some way, and giving a templated message is one obvious way of making that apparent to the editor and others who might want to know if someone is aware.

As for your other stuff around specific template changes, L235 really wanted to make things more adaptable but I can't find where that was made official (beyond the transition). Hopefully when he has some wiki time next week he can clarify where things stand there. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:20, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Note the Russo-Ukrainian war is a topic area that is under community-authorized general sanctions (sanctions that apply to all editors working in a particular topic area, as per Wikipedia:General sanctions), rather than an arbitration committee sanction. The {{alert}} template was originally created to provide alerts for topic areas under community-authorized general sanctions, and then later extended to be a wrapper for arbitration committee-authorized discretionary sanctions. The community has not formally converted its earlier authorizations of discretionary sanctions for specific topic areas to designating these areas as contentious topics. Thus neither {{alert/first}} nor {{alert/DS}} technically apply and so haven't been implemented to support the topic codes for community-authorized general sanctions. Another wrinkle regarding the Russo-Ukranian war is that as far as I can see from Wikipedia:General sanctions/Russo-Ukrainian War and the corresponding discussion at the incidents' noticeboard, the only authorization is for extended-confirmed protection, not for discretionary sanctions. Thus {{alert/first}} and {{alert/DS}} don't apply in this case. isaacl (talk) 01:49, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

On 5. The only time I use {{alert/ds}} is when I'm alerting an editor who previously received at least one old DS alert from any contentious topic area. Otherwise I use {{alert/first}} for the first alert, and {{alert}} for any subsequent alert. If I'm issuing two or more alerts at the same time, the second one on will almost always be {{alert}}, with the first one being either {{alert/first}} or {{alert/ds}} as relevant.

On 6, Barkeep's said my understanding. I prefer using the templates however, as those are less ambiguous than leaving a message saying something like Just so you know [topic] is considered a contentious topic. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:56, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, me again. I notice {{Alert/first}} has a level 2 header included with it, and {{Alert}} and {{Alert/ds}} do not. I'd suggest standardizing. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:05, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 14 July 2023

The addition of Horn of Africa-related topics is now apparently permanent. Can someone remove the part about it being temporary? - Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 23:53, 14 July 2023 (UTC) - Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 23:53, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Cherrell410^{(t · c)} 17:49, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

To editor Cherrell410: at first glance that's true (of {{Contentious topics}}); however, the page that needs to be edited is {{Contentious topics/list}}, which is template-protected. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 18:44, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 20:30, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 19 August 2023

Change:

−

specially-designated

+

specially designated

Per MOS:HYPHEN "Avoid using a hyphen after a standard -ly adverb". Hyphenation Expert (talk) 02:32, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:48, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

“Type an appropriate subject line, then save the page”

When I follow this guidance given for Template:Contentious topics/alert/first, I end up with two headings added and have to edit again to delete one. Docs ought to be updated to reflect the way all variations of the alert template work.  —Michael Z. 15:47, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Move snafu

I messed up while moving the {{ct}} template, and some of the subpages of this template ended up getting moved around. To make it worse, while fixing it I ended up moving some redirect targets accidentally and then moved them back to the Template:Template: namespace. Long story short, I think everything should finally be back where it belongs now, but if you see any broken redirects or template calls, let me know. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:21, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Edit request (CTopics/alert/first): briefer is better

Please make the following change:

−

This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

+

This [message] is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

Point 1: Why "designed as"? Did it fail to achieve the goal of being an introduction? It is an introduction. (Well, a brief one.) This is somewhat parallel to the point of WP:REFERS, with respect to WP:LEADSENTENCE. Just is is enough here.

Point 2: What's a "standard message"? Possibly standardized could go here—or uniform—but I don't like any adjective in this position. I think I know why the word standard is in there, but it's opaque to a user getting this message for the first time. I think standard here is intended to mean: "This message is a piece of boilerplate and is something that everybody gets in this situation; you aren't being targeted so don't worry." but that's way too much meaning to pack into a single adjective. As to the "don't worry" part, that is already covered by existing text, with the "and does not mean..." clause. I think the best alternative is no adjective here; it's a "message". Maybe even better, is drop message, too, so we'd have "This is a brief introduction...".

Point 3: "Brief" introduction is better.

Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 22:49, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Yep. It's also overall less officious sounding, too.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:57, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

I like brief. "Standard message" has come out of feedback that people feel like it's an attack and is an attempt to say "don't worry unnecessarily". If people don't feel like it's serving that purpose I'm not opposed to just saying message. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:33, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Or "This brief introduction ... does not imply that"? KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:35, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Ok. Fair point. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:36, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

(The discussion that led to the current wording is at Wikipedia:Contentious topics/2021-22 review/Proposed decision § Awareness; it's copied from the "Draft template language" box there.)

Looks good to me personally. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:39, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

 Done changed to "This is a brief introduction ..." — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:52, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

ECR missing.

This template has all right references, apart from the one it actually needs for users to understand: WP:ECR.

It reads like a misplaced WP:ECP warning, there's not even a single mention of extended confirmed restriction.

Please fix. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 18:44, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Edit request (alert, alert/first, alert/ds): Add Wikilink for ECR

Could you please make the following change to the special case for the Arab-Israeli CTOP alert in the alert, and alert/ds templates:

−

Additionally editors must be logged-in have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert on the same page within 24 hours for pages within this topic.

+

Additionally editors must be logged-in have [[WP:ECR|500 edits and an account age of 30 days]], and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert on the same page within 24 hours for pages within this topic.

Additionally please make the following change to the special case for the Arab-Israeli CTOP alert in the alert/first template:

−

Additionally you must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic.

+

Additionally you must be logged-in, have [[WP:ECR|500 edits and an account age of 30 days]] and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic.

Basically, what this does is insert a Wikilink to WP:ECR, for the text about the extended-confirmed restriction. This is a result of a brief conversation on a user talk page, where a recently alerted editor expressed some confusion about how the restriction is handled in practice. Only the Arab-Israeli special text needs modifying, as no other CTOP has a topic wide ECR. There's two diff changes here, because alert/first uses slightly different text than alert and alert/ds. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:49, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

 Done Also adjusted the grammar. SWinxy (talk) 19:17, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks :) Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:35, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Respectfully, please ping the clerks using {{@ArbComClerks}} to implement edit requests going forward. See Template:Editnotices/Group/Template:Contentious topics and Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Enforcement_templates_and_procedural_documents (making clerks responsible for CTOP template changes). Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:40, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. That had completely slipped my mind. Will do going forward. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:42, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

how do i label a wiki article as belonging to a contentious topic

Is there a thing i need to add to am article to name it clearly labelled as being pay off that topic? Irtapil (talk) 05:02, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

@Irtapil: at the associated talk page, add Template:Contentious topics/talk notice, with all the necessary parameters. WP:TALKORDER has guidance on where to place the template. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 05:05, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Edit filter noticeboard § Turn off "give the user a warning" for this filter?

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Edit filter noticeboard § Turn off "give the user a warning" for this filter?. –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:53, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Edit- request: link-text in first sentence of Template:Contentious topics

At {{Contentious topics}}:

−

{{'''Contentious topics'''}} is a family of templates used as part of the [[Wikipedia:Contentious topics|contentious topics]] system. Contentious topics are specially designated topics that have attracted more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project.

+

{{'''Contentious topics'''}} is a family of templates used as part of the [[Wikipedia:Contentious topics|contentious topics system]]. Contentious topics are specially designated topics that have attracted more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project.

The target is about the system, not the topics themselves. That is, the current wording suggests to me that the target would be the list of topics. The actual list of topics is not prominently linked here, which is another thing that could be improved, maybe as a link in some part of that second sentence, but not sure exactly which words. </nowiki>DMacks (talk) 18:56, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

The use of 'nowiki' wrapping for the open-braces and no protection for the close-braces is annoying! DMacks (talk) 19:00, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

 Note: Template is not protected. Just be BOLD — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:55, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

 Done I'm usually extra cautious at templates that are fundamental parts of AE/CU or other systems whose hats I don't wear. DMacks (talk) 13:00, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Not suitable for newbies

The wording of this template, and of Wikipedia:Contentious topics, the page to which it directs people, are poor, and most certainly not suitable for presentation to new editors. Is anyone interested in working on a plain language version? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:09, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

@Andy: can you be specific about what about {{alert/first}} is poor and not suitable to new editors? Because that template was written with that audience in mind and if there are ways to make it better, great. The Contentious topics page was much harder to do that with for a number of reasons and so only the part before "Contentious topic restrictions" was written at a basic level. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:25, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Like {{welcome-arbpia}}? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:39, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it's suitable for experienced editors either. See this discussion on my talk page. It says it's not a warning, but it looks like a warning. It reads like a warning. It feels like a warning. I made a constructive, helpful edit to a page that apparently fell within the scope of one of these broad topics, and I got a warning template with no link to that edit and no real explanation of what I might have done to trigger the warning.

I recommend that the template require a link to the edit in question, and that it be delivered only to editors who make substantive edits to article content, not gnomish minor edits like fixing of typos. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:27, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree that despite saying does not imply that there are any issues with your editing, CTOP alert templates do imply issues with one's editing. Since they are the first step in getting someone topic banned at WP:AE, to an experienced editor, they carry all the negative connotations of starting that process. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:18, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Editors can be disruptive in lots of ways including correcting "typos" (ex: Kyiv vs Kiev) rather than typos or by being disruptive on talk pages. For me what is important is to 1) Stop disruption and 2) Not to unfairly penalize editors, including those who haven't had a fair chance to realize that they are making edits in a topic where Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project. Getting an unjustified warning causes hurt feelings, getting a sanction you had no idea you could get feels like an injustice. We've tried to mitigate the hurt feelings piece by saying that only UNINVOLVED people may place the template. But I'm not prepared to say that we're only going to give the template to people who have done something wrong. Because then we shift the argument to whether the edit justified the warning from the current status quo of whether edits justify a sanction because there is no stigma to having been told CTOP exists. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:26, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

getting a sanction you had no idea you could get feels like an injustice To that, I'd ordinarily respond with ignorantia juris non excusat. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. On the one hand, I do think it is commendable that we require awareness before an admin can make an arbitration enforcement action, but on the other it can also be limiting. I non-specifically recall (I'd need to go digging to find the exact cases) there being a couple of times where I was either involved with or witnessed an AE filing fail in part, because the actions that would have lead to some sort of sanction occurred prior to the editor being considered aware.

Because awareness is required for sanctions under these provisions, it can create an opportunity for someone to be disruptive up to the point where they become aware, and then they just stop. While that may on the surface seem fine, because hey, the immediate disruption has stopped, we know from experience that there are CTOPs that have prolific socking issues. Yes you can argue that awareness is issued on the editor, not the account, but to confirm that user A is the same person as user B often requires a CU, and by that point it's more expedient to just CU block for socking.

Ultimately in the examples I can remember it didn't overly matter, because the editor eventually continued their disruptive behaviour, and was sanctioned for that instead. But the idea of awareness being required for sanctions is still something that is somewhat open to abuse.

I'm not prepared to say that we're only going to give the template to people who have done something wrong. Because then we shift the argument to whether the edit justified the warning from the current status quo of whether edits justify a sanction because there is no stigma to having been told CTOP exists. That makes sense to me. And to be honest, if we do get to the point where we only issue the template to editors who have done something wrong, it then becomes a question of why even have the template? If we're at that point, it would be more straightforward to just take the problematic editor straight to AE. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:15, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

The key trickiness is that there are no new rules to follow for areas identified as contentious topics. There are just more options that a single administrator can exercise on their own initiative. So arguably it's not important that a truly new editor be introduced to the contentious topic system. The audience for which a first alert might make a difference are those who are aware of the usual limits on administrator actions, and who would become willing to rein in their behaviour if these limits were changed for specific areas. It might be better for everyone to just get notified once about how to find a list of identified contentious topics, with a link to more details on the implications. (I had previously proposed something like this in the 2021 review.) This can be safely ignored by the vast majority of editors who aren't pushing any boundaries on reasonable behaviour, while still providing a prompt for those who could benefit from understanding the additional options available to admins for contentious topics. isaacl (talk) 22:51, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I think this is true except for topics with blanket 1RR/ECP, where there really are special rules. But I kind of agree that for a truly new user, the fact that admins have certain extra powers is not particularly relevant (in fact most users will probably assume that admins have unlimited powers to e.g. unilaterally topic ban people). Galobtter (talk) 23:09, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Pages with enacted restrictions (including those enacted by a single administrator from the expanded list of options made available for contentious topics) must have associated notices in order for editors to be aware of them. The alert system, though, is solely about letting editors know that a topic area has been designated as a contentious topic. isaacl (talk) 23:23, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm willing. Sympathetic to the WP:DTTR pleas, but on the other hand, there are 32 topics, and the wording is arbcom-approved, and it's not a bad idea to equalize the wording for everyone (or at least, if there's different wording for different seniority levels, a small number of agreed upon wordings) so will be interesting to see how that shakes out. Also, even if I have a dozen topics in my "aware" list, that still leaves more than a dozen more, and even most regulars can't be expected to know every last one, or keep in mind deprecations and new additions. Finally, before we get into working on a new version, is it your idea that the end result would be a joint proposal to ArbCom to use the new wording, or something else? Because I don't think even a consensus result here would override the current wording if ArbCom didn't accept it, but then I'm not quite up to speed on how that would work, or even if it's well-defined or not. Mathglot (talk) 07:33, 29 January 2024 (UTC)