Template talk:Ds/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

lc fix

Please apply {{lc:...}} around all instances of {{{topic|{{{t|{{{1}}} }}} }}}, so that if you do {{Ds/alert|AP}} it will work instead of leaving an invalid notice. This should have been fixed years ago. (I would just go do it, but I'm leery of editing this template directly due to all the administrative drama surrounding it.) We call these cases by shortcuts like ARBAP, ARBAP2, etc., not ARBap. We should match editor expectations.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:08, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: I am not sure if I understand what is being requested here; would you mind making a change to Template:Ds/alert/sandbox if you prefer not to edit the template directly? Alex Shih (talk) 03:30, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Done, but there's some issue. Someone with better eyesight and more coffee will need to look at it. I wrapped every mention of this parameter input within {{lc: ... }} markup, in both Template:Ds/alert/sandbox and Template:Ds/topics/sandbox, and told the former to call the latter. Bizarrely, at Template:Ds/alert/testcases (see last entry there), it's still parsing the "AP" in {{Ds/alert|AP}} as "AP" despite it passing through two layers of {{lc:...}} to force it lowercase. I'm not even sure how that's possible. I'm going to chalk it up to eye strain and see if someone else knows what the issue is. Pppery can usually spot this stuff as if operating with a top-secret, computer-augmented brain.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:10, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

PS: The apparent HTML coding errors in the thread above make me wonder, but I doubt they'd have an effect on "magic word" parsing.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:11, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

This not working seems to be beyond even me in this case, although I did fix one thing: you almost never want to pass unsubstituted parser functions as arguments to substituted ones. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 12:01, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

 Done in {{Ds/topics}} — JJMC89 (T·C) 07:28, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Thankee, JJMC89 and Pppery. I'll try to remember the subst thing with regard to magicwords. I can confirm that the template it working properly with |A-A, etc.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:30, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Protection

The editprotected request made me notice that this highly-visible template was not actually protected. Is now. Fish+Karate 11:46, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

@Fish and karate: What? Transclusion count shows 0 for this template ([1]); not sure if it qualifies as "highly visible"; {{Ds}} is not really a template itself but an explanation page. We are talking about making change to {{Ds/alert}} here. Alex Shih (talk) 07:27, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

@Fish and karate: I'm guessing this protection was an accident? The actual Template:Ds page is never transcluded and never substituted. This talk page just happens to be where the {{Ds/alert}} template's talk page redirects, which is already protected. Template:Ds needs no protection unless I'm missing something. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 22:18, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Alt. codes

Would be nice if the code matched the case shortcuts better. E.g., replace |a-a with |aa to match WP:ARBAA, and so on. (Let the weird ones like |a-a continue to work, too, of course).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:30, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Note about Ds/editnotices in mobile view

There is an imposed DS on Sarah Jeong and if one is editing on desktop, the Template:Editnotices/Page/Sarah_Jeong is very easy to see.

We just had someone blow right past that, which led me to wonder if it is visible on mobile. So i looked at the page in mobile view on my iphone, and the notice does not appear.

You can also see this on desktop if you go to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Jeong and try to edit in mobile view.

I just want to call folks attention to this here. Will post about this at WP:VPT. Jytdog (talk) 17:53, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Just posted there, in this diff. Jytdog (talk) 17:59, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

• @Jytdog: This is a known issue and why "Editors using mobile devices may not see edit notices. Administrators should consider whether an editor was aware of the page restriction before sanctioning them" was added to WP:AC/DS. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:02, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks for that; I should have noticed that. Jytdog (talk) 14:07, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
    • No worries. When we added that bit to AC/DS I think someone during the discussion mentioned that it was only a short-term issue and a patch was being developed to at least give a link to editnotices but that seems not to have happened. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:48, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Recent change

Hi all, per a clerks-l discussion, I have adjusted the wording on Ds/alert (diff) and Ds/topics (diff). Essentially, previously, the topics list and the templates didn't always fit together grammatically (e.g. "The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people" (emphasis added)), so these edits stripped the "all edits about, and all pages related to" and "any page relating to or any edit about:" wording from ds/topics and replaced "pages regarding" with "edits and pages regarding" in ds/alerts. For the Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 22:23, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I think something gets lost in "edits and pages regarding", because "and" makes it sound like there are DS for edits and other DS for pages. But in fact there is no such thing as a DS that applies to anything other than an edit. I strongly suggest changing it to either "edits to pages regarding" or "edits of pages regarding". --Tryptofish (talk) 19:36, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Good catch. I would favor "to", since edits are effects editors apply to a page, not inherent properties of a page.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:16, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, the thing is, when DS is authorized for topic Foo, it applies to (a) edits related to Foo, even if the article is not primarily about Foo, and (b) pages primarily related to Foo, even if the edit does not specifically touch on information related to Foo. I don't know how to convey that more concisely, and the suggested wordings ignore (a). Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 16:59, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

(An example: All of the article Donald Trump falls under WP:ARBAP2 DS, even those parts that relate to his life before politics. And similarly, for example, National Park Service would not generally fall under ARBAP2 DS, but the section on its budget and any other politically-related sections would.) Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 17:06, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Good point. Would just "edits related to Foo" cover it, then?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:30, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

• The only grammatical problem I'm seeing is that "pages regarding all edits about" is not syntactically meaningful. I think the text should read:

"The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for all edits about, and all pages related to Foo."

ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:08, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Kevin, you made a good point that I hadn't thought of. One solution is the wording that MPants just suggested. Another solution is to just go with "edits regarding foo", leaving out the word "pages" entirely. And yet another is simply to punt for now, because if ArbCom goes with what is discussed in the talk thread above, there will be entirely different wording. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:45, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

The corresponding wording being proposed in the suggested new alert text is "edits related to the topic". Perhaps Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Guidance for editors can be updated to explain this includes pages primarily related to the topic, and sections of other pages under the scope of the topic area. isaacl (talk) 19:53, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Regardless what wording is used, it will also need some kind of triggerable variance, by case code. For example, the scope of WP:ARBATC has been strictly limited to changes to [or discussions about changes to] MOS, AT, and related pages (e.g. DAB, naming conventions), and their talk pages. The DS under that case no longer apply to RM discussions, user talk venting, etc. So a case like that will need to emit custom wording.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:34, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: You're right. The wording doesn't work everywhere. More broadly, I hate how we've done Ds/topics and other ArbCom templates (such as Template:Casenav/data – we've opted to create single sprawling data templates instead of linking to more subpages, which must've seemed like the efficient idea at the time but just causes constant headaches for the clerks now – like, it's really annoying to try to add parameters to Ds/topics at the moment). @Tryptofish: I'll bring it to the clerk team tomorrow, but I do like MjolnirPants's suggested wording and I'm guessing that's what we'll go with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 17:30, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: I think that the the vast majority of DS areas could use the "edits about or pages related to" wording. For sure, this template could be edited such that the wording depends on the particular DS area. So if the topic area parameter is "at" (the code used for that area), the "edits about or pages related to" wording could be replaced with "pages related to" or even "the following pages:..." ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:54, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I'm suggesting (though "mos" also works as a code for the same case, in addition to "at").  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:18, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Has this been resolved? I've been away for a few months, and am playing catch-up.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:30, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Any way to merge the two paragraphs in ds/editnotice?

Currently the template has 2 paragraphs of boilerplate following the restriction at the top. Here is what it currently says, with redundant text highlighted:

An administrator has applied the restriction above to this page. This is due to [Link to arbitration decision] which authorised discretionary sanctions for edits and pages relating to [topic area]. If you breach the restriction on this page, you may be blocked or otherwise sanctioned. Please edit carefully. Discretionary sanctions have been used by an administrator to place restrictions on all edits to this page. Discretionary sanctions can also be used against individual editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any Wikipedia policy and editorial norm.

Could we perhaps merge these two paragraphs into a single paragraph like this?

An administrator has applied this restriction for all edits to this page. If you breach the restriction, you may be blocked from editing or otherwise sanctioned. This is due to [Link to arbitration decision] which authorized discretionary sanctions for edits and pages relating to [topic area]. Discretionary sanctions can also be used against individual editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any Wikipedia policy and editorial norm. Please edit carefully.

~Awilley (talk) 03:28, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Since this is a merged talk page for all DS templates, please identify the one you're referring to when posting here. I think it is only {{Ds/editnotice}} in this case, but I didn't check all of them.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:59, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Concision would be nice. And it can go further: virtually any time verbiage like "this is due to" appears, it can be nuked as bureaucratese; the third sentence of the revision should simply begin "Discretionary sanctions are authorized by [Link to arbitration decision]" (which is also a "don't bury the lead" fix, and a verb tense fix – this is about current authorization, not an authorization which may have expired). We can also lose the "An administrator has applied" stuff. No one cares what one particular administrator did; this isn't about that, it's about broader ArbCom/AE stuff with a big pile of community discussion behind it. The "an administrator" wording wrongly implies it was just some random, drive-by, unilateral admin thing. Try "This restriction has been administratively applied" (sometimes the passive voice actually is the best choice.)

However, this wording and that of {{Ds/talk notice}} should probably be normalized. Do we even have a solid reason for these to be separate templates? (Many editnotices are simply transclusions of talk-page banners, and we should do this more often to cut down on redundant templates.) And their names should be consistent; move {{Ds/editnotice}} to {{Ds/edit notice}}, and {{Ds/talknotice}} should exist as a redirect, so people don't have to keep guessing when their memory of administrivia down to the character fails them.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:59, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Template:Ds/alert

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Just to solicit some comments; is it really necessary to include this header, "Please carefully read this information:"? I understand the purpose is to encourage editors to not be reckless, but from a cold reading of this template, I find that the "importance" of this notice is already well indicated even without the header. Any thoughts/objections on removing it entirely? Alex Shih (talk) 03:15, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't think the instruction is necessary. If you're given a notice, it's clear that you are to read it. Natureium (talk) 03:25, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Please let this be just the first of many improvements.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:44, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Alex Shih - If your intention is to improve the notice in order to appear more neutral and lower the likelihood that it discourages new users, scares them, or implies any wrongdoing - on top of improving how the warning is worded, I also think that the symbol used and the color of the template should be changed to be more in line with how we color and symbolize level 1 notices and warnings - with the use of a light blue or green color and with a symbol that, while should represent a message that the user needs to read (an exclamation or other such symbol is fine), but one that doesn't contain red color or look like a warning. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:19, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Oshwah about the use of colors and symbols – that's more to the point (in terms of being editor-friendly) than removing that language. I appreciate the intention, but I really don't see what good would be accomplished by removing that part. I strongly urge ArbCom and anyone else to read the previous discussions about ways to improve upon this template, that I linked to in the discussion at the Motions page. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:13, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Here are the links to those discussions: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 37#DS alerts again (again), which links back to Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 37#DS alerts again, which in turn links back to Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 37#Discretionary sanction notice, which in turn links back to Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Archive 19#Please fix the wording of Template:Ds/alert. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:15, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

May be more practical to re-propose stuff now than try to get people to re-read the old stuff.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:23, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Sigh. True. But please someone read it anyway. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:03, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

The main reason I said that is because of the responses by a couple of Arbs that were along the lines of "you all proposed various stuff and nothing emerged". If the handwave has been used once there's no reason to think it wouldn't be again, about the same material.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:31, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Let's get rid of the red coloring and related symbols, and let's get rid of the unnecessary "Please carefully read this information:" as well. MPS1992 (talk) 23:05, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

What red coloring? Are we looking at the same template? Natureium (talk) 23:51, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

It's yellow now, but that's still an alert color.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:15, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Proposal

I'm putting this together from the earlier discussions that I linked to above.

Revise the text to:

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that any of your contributions to date have been problematic.

You have recently edited a page related to (topic). Be aware that the Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions for all pages related to this topic. For more details, [see the Committee's decision].

To minimize disruption, uninvolved administrators are authorized, on their own discretion, to impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks.

Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. No other action on your part is necessary. Please don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

–From Isaacl, 14:59, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Also, change the background color to blue or green. –From SMcCandlish, 07:41, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

The intent here is to not make any substantive changes, but just to make it less imposing and more likely to be received as informative. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:12, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support. Definitely steps in the right direction.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:56, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
• Comment Would it be useful instead of linking to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions (where I personally find it very difficult to discover relevant info) to link directly to the page detailing the DS on the (topic)?--Ymblanter (talk) 16:22, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, the intent is for the text after "For more details," to be a phrase specific to the decision that links to it. isaacl (talk) 17:24, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
    • Thanks. I would support for the time being (can reconsider if alternatives have been proposed).--Ymblanter (talk) 17:50, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Side discussion on it not being helpful to vote rather than discuss:

Not much point having a !vote on this, it's a Committee decision (but probably one which doesn't need a formal motion). Regarding the 'for more details' link, I'm guessing that the intent is for it to be the same as the current alert (linking to the final decision where DS was authorised)? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:45, 14 July 2018 (UTC) We're all aware how territorial ArbCom is, and that results of discussions like this are advisory. We don't need to be reminded of it every single time. Really gets old, seriously.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:25, 14 July 2018 (UTC) Nothing to do with being territorial SMcCandlish. As you've said before, DS are a complicated and 'powerful' set of procedures and, since they are imposed on editors/pages under ArbCom's authority the Committee has a pretty legitimate interest in making decisions about them. Engaging arbs early in the process makes it more likely that they understand why there is a desire for change, what the change is and the reasoning behind that specific change. I agree that this change is absolutely a good one and suggested that if arbs are generally happy with it (that is, involved so that they understand the change and why it's being suggested). I'd also suggest that, if arbs are happy with it, there probably doesn't need to be a formal motion which saves time and relaxes the process somewhat. In any case, it's probably best not to get distracted in side discussion but instead on getting opinions from people on the proposal. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:51, 14 July 2018 (UTC) Uh, okay .... We were busily providing those "opinions from people on the proposal", "so that [Arbs] understand the change and why it's being suggested", before you posted the above discouragement. This, a week after ArbCom looked like it was trying to derail a Village Pump RfC related to DS by holding and advertising an emergency motion on which community input was sought, then summarily closing it. Hard to tell that apart from a bait-and-switch. I can't read minds and discern actual intent, and AGF indicates I should assume this was all just poor judgement and coincidental effects. But you have to understand how this stuff looks from outside the ArbCom reality tunnel, especially when it begins to form a pattern. Anyway, it's unclear how to engage ArbCom any earlier than by posting on a page under ArbCom's explicit and total control. All the DS templates are ArbCom's babies, not the community's. Full circle back to the point of the post to which you're replying.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:10, 14 July 2018 (UTC) Sorry for getting distracted in the side discussion, but it's a lingering annoyance of mine: "!vote" is an unhelpful affectation a lot of the time. Is the intent to say that an actual vote by the community is not useful, that a discussion by the community is not useful, or a discussion that "isn't supposed to be a vote but nudge-nudge we all know is a straw poll" is not useful? To further muddy the waters, because some people just like bolding a concise summary of their opinion, not every discussion that looks like a straw poll needs to be treated as one. I agree a straight vote isn't relevant, a discussion to gauge the effectiveness of the changes is, and personally I'd encourage avoiding making the discussion look like a straw poll, so the value of a lot of pile-on opinions is low (though a few aren't necessarily a bad thing, as it illustrates some support/dissent regarding the changes). But it would be a lot easier to understand what opinion is being put forth if the programming jargon exclamation point ("bang") weren't involved. isaacl (talk) 06:12, 14 July 2018 (UTC) An actual vote by the community isn't needed or useful. But a discussion to come up with the best option definitely is. So I agree with your comment about not making it look like a straw people so that people don't think it is one. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:21, 14 July 2018 (UTC) I know that this is already collapsed, but I'd like to enter a clarification inside here. I used the word "Proposal" at the top of the section, and I had an uncomfortable feeling when I wrote it, but I couldn't think of a better term at the time. I was thinking of it as a sort of "proposal" presented to ArbCom, because I do agree that it is and should be entirely their decision, albeit made with community input. Other, non-Arb editors then began to comment, which I think is fine, but it was never my intention to make this like an RfC. Anyway – I'm very happy to see Arbs giving serious consideration to this. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:07, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

• I've changed the background colour to a light blue at Template:Ds/alert/sandbox per SMcCandlish's suggestion above - thoughts? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:05, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I think it looks much better. The top text should probably remain italicised, but otherwise this is getting closer to the intended purpose of the template. Alex Shih (talk) 05:03, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure about "administrative", editors might not understand it. Doug Weller talk 05:38, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
      • I felt the current language, "administrative situation", is unclear. I tried to think of how someone unfamiliar with the behind-the-scenes workings of Wikipedia would describe an arbitration case remedy, and "administrative ruling" was what I thought of. Other suggestions are welcome. isaacl (talk) 06:25, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
    • Setting just the second sentence in italics was to help emphasize that the alert does not imply any fault. While on the topic of the second sentence, I would like to suggest the following revision be considered: It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

      isaacl (talk) 06:34, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

      • I like your version of the (italicised) text. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:42, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

---

• The sandbox as of this writing is an improvement to me, but it's still a whole lot of bureaucratese. Can't we find a clearer way to say something like "Due to past disruption in this topic, a different set of rules apply to it. Consequently, everyone is expected to be on their best behavior while editing or discussing this subject". I keep thinking "get to the point!" when I read this stuff.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:14, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  • What about changing the paragraph starting with "To minimize disruption" to: Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules apply to it. Consequently,Please ensure that you edit carefully and constructively and maintain high standards of conduct in this topic area. For more information on the expectations of editors in this topic area, please the guidance for editors. Note that administrators may impose additional sanctions on editors who do not uphold expected standards of conduct. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:42, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

    The text you propose is good for me, but I would add at the end smth like "If you have doubts on whether your planned edits are appropriate, do not hesitate to discuss them first and ask for help". (pls feel free to reformulate, I am not a native speaker). This is smth many users in problematic areas only get too late.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:56, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

    Yar, that all helps. Could drop "Consequently," too. I shouldn't have introduced that bit of pedantry.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:15, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

    "Consequently" can be replaced with "Please".--Ymblanter (talk) 08:23, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

    There's a sentence at the end about contacting the person who left it, so what about if we modify that bit to include Ymblanter's suggestion?

    Yes, that's good.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:09, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

    Grammar Nerd. That's well said. However, in the green text where it says "A more stringent set of rules apply to it...", the noun is "set" which is singular, so change "apply" (plural) to "applies" (singular)NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:17, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

• What do people think of modifying the paragraph starting with "You have recently edited" to Please note that the Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions for all pages related to {TOPIC}. The Committee's decision is here {DECISION LINK}. This way the alert gets to the most important part of the message as early as possible. Additionally, the fact that the user had edited a page in a covered topic area is largely irrelevant to the message they receive (but not to whether or not they get the alert obviously). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:42, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

  Sounds good to me.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:47, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

  I however still have a generic problem. Imagine for example a (not a novice, but not an extremely experienced) user gets the template having recently edited an article on Armenian topic. The template directs them to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2. They are expected to see some guidance, for example, if there are any articles which have 1RR (assuming they know what it means). Am I the only one who finds it extremely difficult to get this information from reading the page?--Ymblanter (talk) 07:51, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

  There really isn't a way that individual page restrictions can be included in an alert (which is designed for all DS topics areas or (with parameters) one topic area). If there are page restrictions as well, I'd hope that the editor delivering the alert would include a custom message detailing the specific page restriction. Perhaps we could include a sentence encouraging the editor to look at the talk page or edit notice to check for page restrictions? It's worth noting as well that AC/DS requires admins, before sanctioning an editor for breaching a page restriction, to consider whether or not the editor was aware of the page restriction. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:57, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

  Indeed, I fully agree. (I am generally a long-time proponent of the idea that admins should not only use templates but also leave non-templated custom messages).--Ymblanter (talk) 07:59, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

  About omitting the part about "You have recently edited...", I think that we should consider that editors, and particularly new editors, will naturally want to know why they have received the notice – and not knowing is likely to lead to feeling threatened, which we don't intend. It's true that editors can surmise that the alert is related to the edits they made, but I still feel like there should continue to be some kind of language explaining what triggered the alert, although I don't have a strong opinion about how to say it.

  About the background color, I think that's a big improvement. For me, it looks like a white background, and I wonder whether a slightly darker, but still light, shade of blue might be even better. It's currently #FAFAFA. I made a test edit changing it to #E0FFFF: [2]. In my opinion something approximately like that might be better. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:45, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

  Perhaps the provided link can be to the "Remedies" section rather than the Case page as a whole? Granted, for cases where the remedies have been superseded by motions (which may be in turn superseded), it's still rather confusing. But at least part of the problem would be resolved. Maybe case pages should have a consolidated remedies section (similar to how legal codes get consolidated) that specify what is currently in effect? isaacl (talk) 20:34, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

  Can definitely change it to the Remedies section (or perhaps the Final decision). We've recently changes the clerk procedures so that superseded remedies are collapsed rather than crossed out which will help. But having a separate amendments section is desired last time the Committee discussed it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:14, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

  There can still be a separate amendments section, just as when legislatures amend laws, they pass a bill describing the changes to the legal code. Then a new consolidated version of the code is issued for actual use. In a similar manner, the existing sections can stay, but a "Current remedies in force" section can describe what is currently in effect. isaacl (talk) 04:17, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

• "Part of what makes this template feel threatening is the whole "that you have recently edited" thing. It strongly implies "since you dared edit that page, you're in for it now".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:15, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

---

Just free wheeling to suggest a whole new "vibe"... if the feel of this has popular support we can polish it more.

Hi there and THANK YOU! We are so glad you're interested in helping to improve our articles on (topic). Alas, in the past some editors have really gotten into bitter arguments working this subject. To help everyone like you have a constructive and enjoyable experience we're sorry to say we had to create some extra rules to head off problems before they become to big. We assume you're here to work with others in a civil way, using dispute resolution, to really collaborate on souces and adding that stuff into our articles, so you should have no problem! But in the rare instance editors do act out, we have regretably been forced to make special rules for the (topic) subject area. You can read about that here. Carry on! Blah blah....

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:24, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

• Problem with that, is we're writing a template which can be given to any editor, not just people who are new to the project but those who have been here a decade. I don't see that wording flying well with a long-term editor. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:35, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

  A bit over-the-top for a noob, anyway. I would feel condescended to!  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:38, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

  If it were thought to be desirable, there could be multiple versions of the alert: one for newbie editors (say someone with very few edits), and one for everyone else. I'm not sure if this is better, though. isaacl (talk) 18:46, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

  I don't think we could reasonably expect people giving the alert to pick a version every time they give it. It's more likely that it'd just be the default version would be used. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:14, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

• For this particular alert, I disagree with a conversational tone. I think the alert should be as brief as manageable, while still providing some context for the uninitiated, including why the alert was given. The longer a message is, the less likely it will be read or that the key points will be picked up. isaacl (talk) 18:17, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

I've combined some of the suggestions above with my own suggested modifications:

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in a page related to (topic). Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules applies: see [link to the specific decision] and the following guidance for editors. Administrators may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow these rules or Wikipedia's policies.

If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, do not hesitate to discuss them with me or any other editor.

More feedback is welcome. isaacl (talk) 20:22, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

• The "shown interest in" is a good compromise version per Tryptofish's comment above. I'd probably prefer to go with "You have recently made an edit related to (topic)" as the alert might be about a comment about the topic (such as at ANI) not necessarily a page which is directly related to it. I think it's probably better to put the link to the decision at the end so it's not as important a link. The actual Committee decision which authorised the discretionary sanctions is largely irrelevant to the alert, it should be there yes, but not as prominent.

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in {TOPIC}. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules, called discretionary sanctions, applies to it. Please ensure that you edit carefully and constructively and maintain high standards of conduct. Administrators may impose additional sanctions on editors who do not uphold expected standards of conduct. The Arbitration Committee's decision to impose discretionary sanctions can be seen here{link to ArbCom decision}.

For more information regarding the expectations of editors in this topic area, please the guidance for editors. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, do not hesitate to discuss them with me or any other editor.

This is a bit bulkier, but I think gives a little more useful information, especially to more long-term editors (that is, using the name "discretionary sanctions" is important). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:14, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I want to reiterate the the "you have recently made an edit to" sort of wording has much to do with why this template is perceived as menacing.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:18, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: I've changed it to "shown interest in" which is what I originally meant to be. Is that better? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:29, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Thumbs up.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:09, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Personally I like a somewhat shorter message, since editors should always be striving to edit carefully and in accordance with policy, whether or not discretionary sanctions are in place. I also prefer to explain the stringent set of rules in context of the remedies, which can contain additional rules to be followed. I think an alert given without a reason why is more alarming to the recipient than one that explains why, so I prefer keeping that in. Using the term "additional sanctions" is confusing when no sanctions have been mentioned yet. I don't like hidden treasure links where the link text doesn't make its target evident. How about the following:

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in {TOPIC}. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions applies: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or other restrictions described at {link to ArbCom decision}.

For additional information, see the guidance on discretionary sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, do not hesitate to discuss them with me or any other editor.

What does everyone think? isaacl (talk) 04:13, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

@Isaacl: Definitely an improved version! Regarding the link to the case page, it's really quite rare that the arbitration case actually imposed page restrictions other than discretionary sanctions. I can probably count the cases that imposed something additional to DS on a single hand. It's much more likely that page restrictions will be applied to a single page or set of pages by an admin than by ArbCom, and that'll be in an editnotice not on the case page. I think linking to the case page is good, and necessary (even though it's largely irrelevant), but saying that other restrictions are listed there is a little disingenuous. I wonder if, in the alert, it might be better to encourage editors to look for editnotices rather than to rely on the case page? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:57, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I was thinking of revert restrictions (and I suppose extended confirmed, but since that is enforced via permissions, editors don't have to do anything to comply), but true enough, the number of instances are small. Since edit notices on affected pages are now mandatory, they could be mentioned. I'm a bit concerned, though, that it may encourage editors to ignore the intent of the remedy and take their battles to pages that haven't yet been flagged but are obviously part of the topic area in question. Here's a new draft:

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in {TOPIC}. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions applies: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies. Some pages subject to discretionary sanctions have special restrictions in place, a notice should be shown when you edit the page if this is the case.

For additional information, see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and {link to ArbCom decision}. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, do not hesitate to discuss them with me or any other editor.

isaacl (talk) 05:35, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I've modified your version a little, hope you don't mind. What do you think? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:35, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm liking it. The shorter it gets, the better (which is maybe funny coming from me), at least up to a point. Notices like this cause a MEGO effect very quickly compared to conversational posts or 'pedia text.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:35, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Looks great—Ymblanter (talk) 14:47, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I really appreciate the progress on this, and particular thanks to Callanecc. I assume the underlining is just to show the revisions (but if not, I see no reason for underlining in the notice).

I see one potential problem in saying that "a notice should be shown", in that it is possible that a page does not have an edit notice, either because it was overlooked or because there is a talk page notice that nobody thought to change to an edit notice. Consequently, the language could be gamed by saying "you told me there would be a notice but there wasn't a notice" – and I think the whole point of the alert is that the alert, once given that year, fully constitutes "awareness". I recommend changing it to: "Some pages subject to discretionary sanctions have special restrictions in place; these will be noted at {link to ArbCom decision}." (I think it's OK to link there twice.)

Also, in the interests of being as non-threatening as possible, I'd like to add "please" to the last paragraph: "please see the guidance" and "please do not hesitate".

Picky, and I'm not sure: where it says: "a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions applies", I realize that the subject-verb is indeed set-applies, but it reads more like it should say "apply". --Tryptofish (talk) 17:18, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Making that change would be a grammatical error and actually confusing (it would suggest that sanctions apply not that the rules apply). Maybe just reword the whole clause: "a more stringent set of rules applies, called discretionary sanctions". This moves applies closer to set. Anyone who couldn't understand that set of rules applies means set ... applies is a lost cause. :-) Or, per revision below, "a more stringent set of rules is in effect, called discretionary sanctions". — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:20, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, and I think it is taken care of by the revision below. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:47, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I misread the section on page restrictions (and didn't recall what had been decided upon in January). (Note to Tryptofish: the notice is now mandatory for any special restrictions on a given page, and discretionary sanctions cannot be imposed if it is missing.) Here is a new version, copy edited for conciseness and to address a few more comments (maybe a different verb than "applies" will be less discordant? I'll think some more about different wording):

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in {TOPIC}. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any special restrictions displayed in the edit window.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and {link to ArbCom decision}. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, please do not hesitate to discuss them with me or any other editor.

isaacl (talk) 19:09, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

...although, since editors on mobile devices won't see the edit notice, this version of the alert might give a sense of false security to those editors. It's kind of hard to say this succinctly... ("If you edit from a mobile device, good luck! You can try to check the talk page, except it isn't easy to reach that either.") isaacl (talk) 19:24, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, that's good, and I didn't know about that new rule. I made some further tweaks to your version, that I don't think change anything substantive: I added another "please" to the last sentence, and I shortened the sentence about the edit window. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:10, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I realized when reading the whole message again that it did not specify that discretionary sanctions are authorized solely for edits related to the topic area, which is why I added that clause back (Callanecc had something like that originally). How about this (for variety, I replaced the second "please"):

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in {TOPIC}. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any special restrictions displayed in the edit window, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and {link to ArbCom decision}. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

(Just fyi, the back-and-forth of edits would be easier to follow if you would create your own draft, or mark your changes to mine.) isaacl (talk) 22:33, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

It's looking good. One more thing though, what about if we drop "displayed in the edit window" as that could be confusing as to exactly where it's displayed (above the window (desktop), click a link (mobile), where you type, etc) and instead go with "or any special restrictions on pages"? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:00, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

I also think that it looks good, and I agree with your idea about the edit window. I'd tweak it to be "any specific restrictions on pages" instead of "any special", because that makes it clearer that we are talking about restrictions that are in place only within the topic area. I'll put that set of revisions here:

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in {TOPIC}. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any specific restrictions on pages, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and {link to ArbCom decision}. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

--Tryptofish (talk) 19:47, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

My quick check on a mobile device didn't show any link to see an edit notice (I wasn't logged in, if that makes a difference). Since the current alert text doesn't provide any information on where to see page-specific restrictions, the proposed text won't be a backwards step in this regard, but I think it would be good to help editors know how to tell that a page restriction is in effect. Without this, it feels like the alert recipient is left with a dangling sword overhead. But I don't know yet the best way to do this that also accounts for mobile users. In the meantime, here's a minor tweak to the last proposal:

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in {TOPIC}. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and {link to ArbCom decision}. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

isaacl (talk) 23:11, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

I've updated Template:Ds/alert/sandbox to the current version of the draft so we can see what it looks like in context. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:16, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

So much better. Might tone the turquoise down a bit; it's very bright on my monitor, anyway.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:28, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Like. I think the text is now just right. I cannot think of any further improvements. As for the background color, I've made a test edit to a slightly paler shade, #E0EEEE, (although the slightly brighter shade, #E0FFFF, looks fine on my monitor, go figure). I'm neutral about which background color to use. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:57, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Much better color, as of this writing.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:28, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Guidance for editors can be updated to include information on how to find out any page-specific restrictions for the page the editor is changing? isaacl (talk) 19:55, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

• I've modified the background colour to a paler and more pure blue. I'll take the proposed version to the Committee for their approval and any changes they wish to make. Once ArbCom decides I'll enact the change. Regarding modifying the guidance section, that's something which would need a formal motion to change, and really, given the only advice we can give is to use a desktop to check the edit notice it's probably not worth it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:43, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Good! For what it's worth, the newest color just looks white on my monitor. Not a big deal, however. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:03, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Actually, the color change is simply back to what it was before we started trying other colors. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:08, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm just seeing light grey now.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:37, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

What about this. See Template:Ds/alert/testcases for a comparison. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:32, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Identical, as of this writing.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:38, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Identical for me too: extremely light gray that appears as essentially white. I'll add the two other colors to the test cases sandbox. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:11, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

OK, I know next to nothing about hex codes, but I went online and found some more, intermediate, colors that I have added. I've numbered all the test cases for convenience, and put them approximately in order from lightest to darkest on my display. In my opinion, numbers 1 and 2 are essentially white and not good, numbers 3, 4, and 5 are almost identical and probably the best choices,with number 6 just slightly darker and good too, and numbers 7 and 8 the darkest but acceptable to me. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:48, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm just noting again that I've added more colors for comparison at Template:Ds/alert/testcases, in case editors missed that earlier amid the other discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:00, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Although they all looked perfectly fine with respect to WCAG 2.0 accessibility standards, I did the due diligence and verified they all easily pass the required contrast ratio. isaacl (talk) 21:13, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm not yet hearing any editors other than me expressing an opinion about which of the background colors shown at Template:Ds/alert/testcases is the best, so I'll recommend the 4th one, E5FFFF, while also saying that the 3rd and 5th look essentially the same to me and are all fine with me. Because these things look different on different displays (and possibly with different browsers – I'm using Firefox on a fairly large Dell monitor), I'm curious as to what other editors would prefer. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:36, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Given that the alert is cautioning editors to follow any relevant page restrictions, personally I think it's worth the effort to point them to some guidance on how to tell if the page they're editing has any restrictions (even the desktop instructions are useful). If it helps, the alert can point to somewhere that doesn't require a motion to be modified, and so it can be more easily kept up to date. isaacl (talk) 01:50, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I was thinking back to what I said in the WP:VPPRO discussion that inspired this revision consideration thread. I still think it's a good gist (if the first point is clarified, as I've done here). The template should provide a short and informative message that: 1) By the way, special rules apply to this topic. 2) This good because it keeps us focused on the content and sources not on editor personalities. 3) Thank you for saying on-topic, reducing dispute, and helping improve our articles. I think some of it could be used verbatim. The first one is perhaps over-covered by most of the verbiage now present. While trimmed some in above drafting/sandboxing, I wonder if it could be compressed more to make a little extra room for "why you should go with this flow" instead of "why you should feel threatened". >;-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:36, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Personally I prefer the alert text to focus on what I need know: what needs to possibly change in my usual editing routine. "Due to past disruption" is enough for me to understand that more stringent rules help to de-escalate the situation (I guess not everyone will think that way, but I think a much longer explanation showing the track history of discretionary sanctions would be necessary to be convincing). Honestly, I think most editors without a detailed knowledge of how Wikipedia is administered already assumes that sanctions can be imposed by administrators (they don't realize the constraints on the type of sanctions that can be unilaterally imposed for topics not subject to discretionary sanctions), so the only new thing in their minds is the page-specific restrictions, and they'll be left wondering, how can I figure out what these are? To explain this and perhaps to provide more background information on the effectiveness of discretionary sanctions, I think a guidance page not controlled by the Arbitration Committee would be helpful.

Your "tq" template in your comment is unclosed; as you didn't provide a link back to the village pump discussion, I'm not sure what part is a direct quote and so where the template should be closed.

isaacl (talk) 15:02, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Fixt!  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:19, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

"Issues with"

Must we use the phrase issues with your contributions to date? I know that issue has come to stand in for problem pretty much everywhere, but it's still an insipid usage to me. Our own MoS discourages its use in articles, and it's really no better here. The previous wording misconduct regarding your contributions was perfectly clear and neutrally worded. I suggest restoring that particular phrase. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:01, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

How about this:

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there have been any problems with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in {TOPIC}. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and {link to ArbCom decision}. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

isaacl (talk) 22:19, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

If I follow it correctly, it changes "are any issues" to "have been any problems". In my opinion, that's a good improvement. The word "issues" had sounded a little off to me, too. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:25, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes; I'm not quite sure why I changed tense. Perhaps keeping it in the present tense is better: "are any problems". isaacl (talk) 22:29, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

I actually think that it's better with "have been". It sounds a little better to me, and it keeps it open as to what could happen going forward. The person giving the alert can only know what has already happened, after all. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:33, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

I like it in the present tense as it provides a sense that there is no implication of any problems as of the writing of the message, rather than at some fixed time in the past. As a bonus it's also more active, which generally conveys a stronger message. Given that the alert is not stating there are definitively no problems, I don't feel there is a need to hedge the statement. isaacl (talk) 23:10, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

OK, no big deal to me, and it's ultimately up to ArbCom anyway. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:25, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Either version looks better to me than the current phrasing. Thanks. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:39, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Support "have been any problems".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:54, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

• Note: I just realized that, while we have been continuing to discuss it here, ArbCom has already gone ahead and implemented a new version of the template: [3]. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:54, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, I thought about posting the link, but was leaving it to an arbitrator to do so. Sangdeboeuf's feedback came after using the new version of the template to alert an editor. isaacl (talk) 18:22, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Post-change responses

@Callanecc: and anyone else interested. In part, I want to make sure that ArbCom is aware of the "issues"/"problems" discussion just above, that happened after the template changes were implemented. But also, from the Department of Good Intentions, yesterday I gave the new-and-improved alert (GMO topic) to a newish editor, and here is what ensued: [4]. Apparently, still seen as implying wrongdoing. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:41, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

In any case, an editor asking for clarification is good. A quick look did not turn up any queries at the talk page of the editor who left the immediately preceding discretionary sanctions alert message. Nonetheless, I wouldn't draw the conclusion that the previous message was better in this respect. isaacl (talk) 20:05, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't think that the earlier version was better. I'm pointing out that the new version still gets received as something worse than just what it says it is. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:56, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Sure, all I'm saying is that it's one sample so shouldn't be over-interpreted. It's always hard to separate out the circumstances: for instance, maybe getting two official notices (and one unofficial one) prompted the editor to raise a question based on the cumulative effect of all of them. isaacl (talk) 22:40, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

I have to report happier subjective results. I've left at least half a dozen of these things since the changes above, and only one time two times did someone flip about and claim I was "threatening" them and yadda yadda. This is down from an approximately 95% flip-out rate. I also have yet to receive an angry tit-for-tat copy of the same template from any recipient since the changes (they rarely read the template docs and do not realize that they should not do this, as a redundant templating – whoever leaves the notice is also automatically "aware" of the DS they're notifying about). That's down from about a 35% rate of "stick your template back in your F'ing face" behavior. I'm sure admins never got results like these, since people tend to react differently to admins. But until these changes, it was very difficult as a non-admin to use Ds/alert without it causing more trouble that it would resolve.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:14, 19 November 2018 (UTC); updated the "flip out" count (I guess I jinxed it).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:12, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Template:Ds/alert bug report (or lost feature)

The template, upon attempting to save and triggering the filter that pops up the notice to check for recent alerts, used to have links that pre-populated the logs searches, etc., with the things to make them work (e.g., to search logs and the user's talk history for actual previous DS/alerts). This has stopped happening. The links provided now just go to page history or the main log page without any indication how to search for the information. I don't think many of us are going memorize (or know how to look up) the filter ID we're supposed to search for.

PS: I have previously reported (more than one) that if you try to leave someone a DS/alert and it does turn out to be redundant to one left at the same page, the template will actually save without producing this "pop-up" notice to check first. I.e., it basically forces you to violate the provision that you're supposed to check first. I don't know if this has been fixed yet. Not sure how to test it other than by leaving someone an alert and then trying right afterward to leave them another, which would be annoying.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Can you say where you tried this last? The system has some quirks but I wasn't aware of this one. EdJohnston (talk) 06:18, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for not splitting this into two separate "tickets". If you mean the first issue, only 2 days ago or so. If you mean the latter (older, previously reported) issue, over a year ago.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:37, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

I can't duplicate the problem seen by User:SMcCandlish. Just now I tried giving an ARBPIA alert to User talk:ThisIsaTest and the pre-populated forms showed up as usual. Then I backed out without doing the alert. The only curious feature (which has always been there) is that the alert shows up in the system log even if you back out without issuing an actual alert to the user. But I assume nobody is relying on the system log to see if the user was notified before. For those who enjoy the technical details, this search of the edit filter log shows all attempts to give DS alerts all across Wikipedia. You'll notice that not all entries represent actual alerts. EdJohnston (talk) 17:25, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, I observed the first issue reported above just a few days ago. I pressed "Publish changes" and got the big box of verbiage. I clicked the link for checking the user page for previous notices, and it wasn't pre-filled with anything like the filter tag to search for, it was just a usual page-history view. I guess the second reported (older) issue could be tested by repeatedly leaving that test account some real notices; I wasn't aware the account existed.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:37, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

The coffee kicked in, and I realized I could just test this on myself. Results:

1. My report that the feature is missing or broken is wrong; however I got this impression because of the design of the template's box of "do this before trying to save again" instructions. There's an embedded call to {{userlinks}} or one of its variants at the top of the template, and it's very large. The links that pre-populate the searches are much lower and quite small. This is helpful neither as to link placement nor font size, and both relationships should be inverted, which would need some rewriting, or at least the font-size one, if rewriting is to be avoided.
2. My repeated old report about the "box of checking stuff" not appearing when leaving a redundant template has in fact been fixed in the interim. After actually leaving myself a Ds/alert (about some DS I'm already "aware" of), I did get the box when attempting to leave a second one immediately after it.

 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:48, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Edit notice

The edit notice for this template says not to change either of the following text strings in the template:

"-- Derived from Template:Ds/alert --" in
"Z33" in

I'm not sure why "in" appears at the end of these strings. Perhaps the edit notice can be updated? isaacl (talk) 18:39, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

​I've updated {{Editnotices/Page/Template:Ds/alert}}. -- Derived from Template:Ds/alert -- and {{Z33}} are the two things that shouldn't be modified. — JJMC89 (T·C) 20:12, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Ds/alert tweak

Dear arbs that care to fiddle with these things (Premeditated Chaos pinging you because of your hatred of templates): if I may make an edit request, can we get rid of the word "recently" in Template:Ds/alert (You have recently shown interest) I have received multiple complaints from experienced users that this comes off as if they're n00bs. Removing recently might prevent that conception and doesn't change the message. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:31, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

If an editor is experienced, shouldn't they know that this is a standard template? Natureium (talk) 02:39, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

A lot of editors have thousands of edits in mainspace, but never run into these. The number of people who know what ArbCom is is less than one would expect... TonyBallioni (talk) 02:41, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure it's something I introduced in one of my proposed drafts, so you can blame me... I agree "recently" isn't necessary as it doesn't matter when someone was interested in the topic area. isaacl (talk) 03:12, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I pulled it, although IMO there is no way to word the template that will not piss people off. People just hate getting these things, and they're going to react defensively regardless of the wording or the intent. Honestly, I would not be surprised if someone were to get upset in the near future that it doesn't specify when the edits that prompted the templating occurred. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:17, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Redlink in DS Alert RESOLVED

I just posted a DS alert,[5] and the word "here" is a redlink. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:15, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Where does the code "ucu" come from? It is not listed at Template:Ds/alert.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:19, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

(Embarassed) Stupid typo. I fixed the alert I sent and now it isn't redlinked. Note to self: next time, smoke crack after editing Wikipedia... --Guy Macon (talk) 22:07, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Ds/alert doc clarification

Pursuant to confusion even among long-term editors about whether there even is a rule about not leaving someone redundant Ds/alerts for the same DS topic in the same year (see, e.g., here), I've updated the Template:Ds/alert documentation [6], with wording adapted from the template's own verbiage about this (which you only see after trying to leave someone a DS/alert). Given that you can at least theoretically get in trouble for leaving redundant alerts, this should be clear in the docs, not hidden.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:45, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Also fixed Template:Ds/alert/doc to be at that location instead of Template talk:Ds/alert/doc, which now redirects here to Template_talk:Ds like the rest of the sub-templates' talk pages do.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:25, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 13 August 2019

Please remove

<span class="plainlinks">

and

</span>

because

1. the first tag is misnested/unclosed and the second tag is stripped
2. there are no external links anywhere here anyway, so there's no need for plainlinks markup

— Anomalocaris (talk) 08:53, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:51, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 25 August 2019

Suggest changing "including this article" to "including some or all of this article". Why? Simple.... often, only a part of an article falls under an Arbcom ruling. For example, WP:ARBCC (presumably) applies to Hurricane_Sandy#Relation_to_global_warming but not to the rest of the article. Interestingly, in the 2013-2014 overhaul of DS procedures I advocated for a bot-auto delivery of the DS notice, and this idea was shot down. Among the big reasons (there were several) was the observation that a bot would often be unable to handle the partial-applicability problem. By making this clear, we can maybe prevent future disputes from blowing up over misunderstandings on this point. Thanks for reading. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:09, 25 August 2019 (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. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 14:05, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Not so! There is a bit of an WP:EGG problem here. If I click on "template" on this page, it opens Template:Ds which you're right, I can edit. But I'm not talking about that. Instead, I'm talking about the protected banner at Template:Ds/talk notice. Only admins and template eds can change it. From that page, if you click on talk this page opens. Hence the circular confusion. I am not sure how to "reopen" the thread. Could you please do that clerking for me? I at leat changed the edit box from yes to no. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:13, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

You're fine. It's in the queue again. --Izno (talk) 15:18, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

 Not done that is a complicated page syntax, please make your edits in Template:Ds/talk notice/sandbox and test first, then reactivate the edit request when ready. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:55, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 24 January 2020

I believe that the first article should be edited to add: | antipol=[[Antisemitism in Poland]], broadly construed The relevant line in the second template should be replaced with: {{for loop||call=Ds/sanction/usageline|9/11|a-a|a-i|ab|acu|aerc|ap|at|mos|b|blp|cam|cc|cid|e-e|ecig|fg|gc|gg|ggtf|gap|gmo|ipa|lr|lw|muh-im|old|pa|pr|ps|r-i|saq|sen|sci|tm|tpm|tt|we|antipol}} (only change is to add |antipol) This is because Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland has stricter requirements than Eastern Europe as a whole, especially as regards sourcing. buidhe 03:27, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done You missed a proposed edit but I took care of it. Izno (talk) 22:34, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Izno, I don't think this is right. Discretionary sanctions are authorized for Eastern Europe, not Antisemitism in Poland specifically (for the purposes of DS I believe we're considering Poland to be part of Eastern Europe). The sourcing expectations can still be enforced at AE as part of this case, but discretionary sanctions itself are authorized through the Eastern Europe case. – bradv🍁 23:13, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

@Bradv: You would know more than me. Feel free to revert. I was just performing the edit because it had been 2 weeks and no-one had done anything with it. --Izno (talk) 23:19, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Izno, done. I would have said something, but apparently Ds/topics was on my watchlist but not this page. (Does that talk page really need to be redirected?) – bradv🍁 23:27, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

@Bradv: Generally a related family of templates should all redirect to one location. (I have no personal preference on the best place.) --Izno (talk) 23:31, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

template text needs improvement

Someone put this template on my talk page and I was completely taken aback. This is a weird thing to read, as though I have some kind of fetish for the freshly dead. It took me awhile to figure out what it was about and I had to deduce it was connected to an article I had recently edited rather than my general pattern of edits:

You have shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles.

This text is unnecessarily clunky and at first seems like an incomplete sentence. "Shown interest" is not the appropriate term – I think it's saying "shown interest ... in edits" which is a bizarre way to say "edited an article." I would suggest, "You have recently edited one or more biographies of living or recently deceased individuals." This should be a clear and concise message. —Мандичка^YO 😜 10:45, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 19 April 2020

This edit request comes in two parts, and the second part is dependent on the first. Afaict, there is no functional downside to performing the first one, and not performing the second, although it won't be fully useful, until they are both present.

Part I: Ds/topics

Per community-authorised discretionary sanctions established on this page, please make the following changes to Template:Ds/topics:

• In the switch in the top half of the page, please add the following line in alphabetical order (after 'cid'):

  |covid=all articles and edits relating to [[COVID-19]], broadly construed

• In the switch in the middle part of the page, please add the following line in alphabetical order (after 'cid'):

  |covid=Wikipedia:General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019

• In the bullet list towards the bottom of the page, please add the following line in alpha order by topic (thus, after 'Complementary and Alternative Medicine'):

  * Articles and edits relating to [[COVID-19]], broadly construed ([[Wikipedia:General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019]])

Please note that the suggested text is a direct quote from the AN discussion, as linked from Wikipedia:General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019 where this sanction was adopted. Mathglot (talk) 09:34, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Part II: Ds/topics/table

Following that, a concomitant change should be made to Template:Ds/topics/table:

Please add |covid in the For loop switch in alpha order, i.e., right after |cid.

Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 09:34, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Response

 Not done: The COVID-19 sanctions are general sanctions imposed by the community based on the model ArbCom uses for discretionary sanctions. This template and it's subpages are only for discretionary sanctions imposed directly by the Arbitration Committee. Related templates available for COVID-19 sanctions are:

• {{COVID19 sanctions}} as a talk page notice
• {{COVID19 GS editnotice}} may be created
• {{subst:Gs/alert|topic=covid}}

See Wikipedia:General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019 for more information. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:11, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 30 April 2020

Change the line: |blp=living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles to |blp=articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles in Template:Ds/topics.

Rationale: as pointed out by Wikimandia above, the Ds/alert template prepends the line with "You have recently shown interest in," generating the line "You have recently shown interest in living or recently deceased people..." and "interest in (people)" can be (mis)read as, uh, romantic interest, so it comes off as a little weird. I'm not set on the exact wording I proposed above, but I think my suggested wording will keep the intent clear and fix the word choice issue without changing the Ds/alert template. creffett (talk) 19:41, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

To editor ­creffett:  done. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 00:28, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Four template documentation pages in template talk namespace

I'm doing a cleanup of Category:Template documentation pages, and found four files in the template talk namespace: Template talk:Ds/editnotice/doc, Template talk:Ds/sanction/doc, Template talk:Ds/talk notice/doc, and Template talk:Ds/topics/doc. Are these misplaced, are they historic and being saved for some reason, or do they just need to be cleaned out? Thanks for your help, VanIsaac_WS^cont 00:15, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

To editor Vanisaac: probably best that those pages' creator, Callanecc, address your concerns? P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 04:39, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I will copy this to his talk page. VanIsaac_WS^cont 04:42, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Edits subject to sanction, not the whole page

Can there be a |relatedcontentflag be added for when only a portion of the page is under sanctions similar to other ARBCOM templates? Right now the template says the whole page is under sanction, but if we have the relatedcontent flag, then it would be more clear that only a portion of the edit that is under that subject area is covered by the sanction. Thanks. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:29, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to see what others think, but at first blush, I'm opposed to this idea. It seems to beg for those who might otherwise be sanctioned for their addition to a page, to game the system by tacking on some anodyne content to the bulk of their sanctionable content, solely for the purpose of justifying adding their material into a different section not under sanction, due to the content hook. Will this lead to more wikilawyering, section title-warring, or a new WP:TROJANHORSE guideline? Ugh; don't even want to think about it. Mathglot (talk) 22:35, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

GS Alert Changes

A discussion affecting {{Gs/alert}}, regarding changes to make it consistent with {{Ds/alert}}, is ongoing at WT:GS, here. Although this change does not affect ArbCom DS templates, a notification is made here for interested parties. Your participation would be appreciated. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:33, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Using alert for both DS/GS

A lot of editors substitute alerts using {{subst:alert|ap}} for example. I'm wondering if we can create a Template:Alert which uses a module to automatically render both {{Ds/alert}} and {{Gs/alert}}, depending on what alert is being passed. It would allow for usage of {{alert}} to make notifications for both systems of sanction alerts. Of course, the alert templates themselves ({{Ds/alert}} and {{Gs/alert}}) will be kept separate, this will just allow them to be referenced using the same tag ({{alert}}). Thoughts? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:48, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't know enough about templates and substitution to have an opinion... but I would like to note and appreciate you efforts at bringing the two (DS/GS) into closer parallel. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:16, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I think this is a great idea and if there's not much objection over the coming days I'd say you could implement it. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 23:59, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Note the discretionary alert system is completely defined and managed by the arbitration committee, so if you want to change the instructions at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#aware.alert to specify that {{alert}} should be used, the committee has to approve it. isaacl (talk) 01:05, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't think we have to change the instructions because presumably the {{alert}} template would just be a wrapper for {{ds/alert}} in appropriate cases so it would be indistinguishable in practice (so people could use whichever they preferred). Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 02:37, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

This, pretty much. I'll elaborate slightly on my proposal, to avoid confusion. Right now, {{alert}} is just a redirect to {{ds/alert}}. I'm just proposing it be a proxy for community sanctions as well. It doesn't make sense to me to require editors to remember whether something is a ArbCom sanction or a community one, and which template they need to use, the point of alerting is the same regardless. The goal here is just to make it so it's possible to use both {{alert|ap}} (American Politics, AC/DS) and {{alert|syr}} (Syrian Civil War and ISIL, community sanction). This new {{alert}} would just forward to {{ds/alert}} or {{gs/alert}}, depending on whether it's a AC sanction or a community one. For the ArbCom topics, the output will also remain exactly the same. No change to the ArbCom templates or procedures is proposed here, neither to the GS templates or procedures, and editors can continue using {{ds/alert}} and {{gs/alert}} directly if they wish, just as they can now. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:34, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

It might not hurt to ask ARB clerks informally if the committee feels the need to weigh in on whatever is proposed. That way, you can be sure they won't be pissed at not having the opportunity later. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:44, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Editors using {{alert}} would be trusting that it forwards to {{ds/alert}} appropriately (they're trusting it now, but it's a simple redirect) in order to comply with the very specific instructions provided by the arbitration committee. This isn't necessarily a deal-breaking issue, but something to keep in mind. isaacl (talk) 18:43, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

They can follow the specific ArbCom advice and use {{ds/alert}} if really concerned. But it is incredibly technically basic for a template to render another template (either in the template itself, or using a module). It's not exactly like we're talking about something that is hacky and could break, it's a well documented feature of the templating system which is used in tons of templates. It's only going to break if someone edits it with something that breaks it, and that same risk is inherent with {{ds/alert}} too (or, any template really). I assume {{alert}} will be template-editor protected once I'm done with it to reduce the chance of issues. I don't think we're touching ArbCom's purview here, as this is a purely technical change, but due to the concerns, and to be safe, L235 is a clerk so he may be able to clarify further, and I've notified an arb on IRC to see if they wish to comment / have any concerns. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:07, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware of how templates work. The key issue is that the procedures around discretionary sanction notifications are incredibly specific to remove any doubt about whether or not someone has been notified. Like I said, I just think this issue needs to be considered, should this implementation proceed. isaacl (talk) 21:40, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I've got a quick demo up in the sandbox ({{alert/sandbox}}). Usage examples in my sandbox, here: Special:Permalink/969267461#New_Alert. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:32, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Discussion on editnotice design that'll likely lead to changes to {{DS/editnotice}}

 You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:COVID19 GS editnotice. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 23:49, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Bumping thread. Discussion still ongoing {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 03:12, 7 July 2020 (UTC) {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 03:12, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request 8 October 2020

Add an option for WP:APL (Antisemitism in Poland). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:25, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Retracted, needs a new template. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:29, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Combine?

Hi, can {{Ds/talk notice}} be edited to allow for the combination of multiple topics? See the headers at Talk:Amy Coney Barrett - three warnings is excessive; this should be able to be combined. ɱ (talk) 00:14, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

There should be a way to use #if statements and |topic2=, |topic3=, etc. to support multiple topics in a single notice, but my brain is too tired to attempt it right now. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:27, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

I've wanted to do this for a while. The banner blindness created by these templates is meh. I requested ArbCom's permission to do this back in July/August (I think) but haven't gotten a final confirmation from the committee. I think it would be appropriate to get permission from either the committee or the clerks (per Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Clerks this falls under their purview) before proceeding with this implementation. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:51, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Mandatory parameters?

The documentation says that two parameters are mandatory, but the template does not appear to enforce that in any way. I don't see an error message when |restriction= is blank, for example at Template:Editnotices/Page/Amy Coney Barrett. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:02, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Jonesey95, where is the restriction parameter discussed/explained? (I think this talk is the combined talk for multiple DS pages, but the word restriction doesn't appear on the main page for DS templates.) —valereee (talk) 12:26, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

You are right. I was referring to Template:Ds/editnotice. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:56, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! —valereee (talk) 17:09, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

It is, by design, meant to be mandatory (that's why the template used to give weird formatting before, if it was omitted). But de facto this and talk notice's editnotice form are sometimes (relatively speaking, quite rarely) used in the manner such as your example. I think it's too far gone to make a template modification to start fully enforcing the restriction now; it probably needs to be referred to clerks or ARCA, especially as some admins believe it constitutes or contributes towards awareness, so it becomes no longer a purely technical matter. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:54, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Huh?

MediaWiki:Abusefilter-warning-DS makes it sound like a big deal if you notify someone who was previously notified, intoning Special rules govern alerts. You must not give an editor an alert if they have already received one for the same area of conflict within the last twelve months. Except there's no such language at the link. EEng 23:28, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

The message could be made softer, such as "This editor has already received an alert for this area of conflict in the last twelve months." This would align with the intent of the edit filter: stopping alerts from being posted when the editor is already deemed to be aware of the discretionary sanctions authorization in question. isaacl (talk) 23:51, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

The message doesn't say that the editor's already received an alert; it says that there's a rule against redundant alerts and that I'm supposed to check several places, in some unspecified way, to find out. EEng 06:36, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I know; that's why I suggested changing the message. isaacl (talk) 15:56, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Are you saying the message only comes up if the editor has already received an alert? How does it know that? EEng 16:55, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

If I'm following correctly -- always a concern -- when I've left a DS alert and hit publish, a warning comes up asking if I'm sure the person hasn't been warned before, with two places to check. If I check the first and see nothing, and the second and see only my own (not yet posted), I know I'm good to click publish again. So it's not that the message only comes up if they've received an alert. I think. —valereee (talk) 17:14, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Well again, you're saying you think something checks and the message only comes up if there's already an alert. And yet the message doesn't say it's checked, only that you should check. (And, as noted, it falsely says there's some rule against alerting twice -- which is annoying but not forbidden, as far as I know.) What we need is someone to tell us, yes or no, does it check. From my superficial understanding of edit filters, I suspect it can only check the current content of the page and the content of your edit -- it can't go looking in some archives somewhere or in the history of the page; best it can do might be to see if an alert happens to already be present in the current version of the page. EEng 18:49, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

My apologies; my understanding of the edit filter was mistaken. In which case, I'd suggest deleting the italicized message, and changing the bold message to "Please check if this editor has already been alerted to this area of conflict in the last twelve months." isaacl (talk) 18:09, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I think you're saying that the message comes up all the time, whether or not the user's been previously alerted. So right now, the message says:

Special rules govern alerts. You must not give an editor an alert if they have already received one for the same area of conflict within the last twelve months.

My thought would be to change it to

Many editors find it annoying to receive an alert if they have already received one for the same area of conflict within the last twelve months.

But I think we should wait for others more familiar with all this stuff before we do anything. In particular, my proposal removes the assertion that there's some kind of "rule". EEng 19:12, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm suggesting to remove "You must not give..." and have something like Special rules govern alerts. Please check if this editor has already received an alert for this area of conflict in the last twelve months. I think the underlying reason regarding not needing to warn an editor too frequently is well enough understood. isaacl (talk) 19:29, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, it doesn't check for prior alerts on the page or in the history. The only check it does is using Module:Ds/aware which checks for the presence of {{Ds/aware}} for topic areas, and shows a message if an editor has a {{Ds/aware}} on their page. Otherwise, it does nothing and requires a manual check. As for how bad it really is to warn an editor twice, maybe worth dropping a note at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Clerks? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:30, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Aha! So you're saying works just like I said in my penultimate post above -- it can only see alerts currently on the page. Except that still doesn't seem right, in that I got the message when making this edit [7], and there was no alert present on the page at that time.

As for "how bad", my impression is that leaving someone an alert when you know, or really should have suspected (based on the recipient's areas of interest etc.), that they already might have one, can be seen as trolling. EEng 19:49, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

No, it checks specifically for the template that a user can use to self-declare that they are aware of discretionary sanctions being in effect for a specific topic area. If this is the case, an additional message is displayed saying that an alert is unnecessary. As far as I can tell, the edit filter just checks if the current edit tries to add the alert (along with some other checks to try to save some time or reduce false positives). The special rules in question (which are linked to in the current message) are with respect to awareness and the official notification procedure, which also specifies that Editors issuing alerts are expected to ensure that no editor receives more than one alert per area of conflict per year. isaacl (talk) 20:09, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Pretty much what isaacl says in the above message. Every time you put {{Ds/alert}} on a user talk page, you'll see MediaWiki:Abusefilter-warning-DS due to the warn edit filter. So far, this part doesn't check for anything. In this warn message, there will be an extra note if the user has a {{Ds/aware}} (used to self-declare awareness) on their page, saying "It is not necessary to notify this user of sanctions for the following topic area(s): [...]". But this only checks for the self-declaration, for other alerts (whether in history, or on the page currently) one has to do the check manually. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:50, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Oh wait. I became an WP:EFH so I could check things like that myself. But I guess I forgot. EEng 21:06, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

BTW, this isn't entirely related to your question but I think this is part of the reason why alerting is so broken. It's too much effort to give someone an alert, even with Twinkle. So really most people only do it when they have a specific reason to, ie when someone has wrote something they don't like, which defeats the whole "this implies no issue with your contributions" part. One of the best and most effective proposals I've read which would fix all of this, and the stigma, is this -- bots deliver messages to editors active in topic areas. Either that, or knock off the pretences and make the alert say what it's used for, aka "I don't like this edit you made, consider yourself warned". A good start either way would be just making it a log-only edit filter.

When alerting is a PITA it doesn't take a genius to realise why alerts are not usually given out liberally or indiscriminately. Plus, if alerts are indeed meant to be given out indiscriminately (as the "no issues with your contribs" would lead you to believe), what's the point of this alerting mechanism at all? And if they're not, then why doesn't the alert give feedback to an editor? What exactly are they meant to do otherwise: withdraw from the topic area completely, or keep editing in the way that they are and presumably face sanctions? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:02, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Make Template:Ds/topics/single notice simpler

Right now Template:Ds/topics/single_notice is kind of a hot mess. I'd like to strip it down just to the navigation piece and then transclude it in each of the documentation pages its used on, and then update the relevant templates that include those documentation pages to use the bog standard {{documentation}} instead of {{documentation/start box}} (unmaintained copy of {{documentation}} but only the 'beginning' elements).

Example stripping at Template:Ds/topics/single_notice/sandbox.

Usually I'd be bold and Just Change It but I've heard clerks can be jumpy. --Izno (talk) 02:30, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

These notices are used by a lot of admins. I advise you to have a discussion and not jump in and change aspects that you see as problems. This will incur backlash upon you by editors and admins that use these notices frequently and do not expect them to suddenly change. This is not the most visible place to have this discussion. Maybe the Arbitration noticeboard or AN would be preferable. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:52, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

I know almost nothing about Arbcom and DS but I have a vague recollection that the text of the notices is etched in stone somewhere, and cannot be changed if they're to be considered valid alerts. EEng 07:05, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Er, I'm having the discussion right now. Secondly, this is entirely a navigational piece of documentation that is poorly served today with some hard-to-update copy. It's not an actual alert or notice. --Izno (talk) 08:10, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Oops. EEng 09:02, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

The proposed changes look good, though I am not speaking on behalf of the committee or the clerks in general here. I don't think this change would be a major issue, though the placement of it should probably be moved on Template:American politics AE to the documentation subpage if this change is made. It looks cleaner, especially when it is around other text, as the size of the text is smaller for some reason. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 17:29, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Although its in arb space, this is just a navigational template, so as long as its just cosmetic changes, I can't see this being an issue. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 17:36, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm a little late, but what DJ said. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 02:46, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I am pretty sure this is done now. --Izno (talk) 21:06, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

COVID-19

Can someone add a Ds/alert parameter for COVID-19, which is under general sanctions? According to Template:Ds/alert/doc, there isn't a short code for COVID topics. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:29, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

See {{Gs/alert}} ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:33, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Please add the Horn of Africa decision to this list

Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:47, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Where specifically? It looks like it was already added by L235 on 10 December. It should work using the code "horn". ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:56, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

The problem is that the wikisource has to be edited in several places. We have

|gmo=genetically modified organisms, commercially produced agricultural chemicals and the companies that produce them, broadly construed
|horn=the [[Horn of Africa]] (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes)
|ipa=[[India]], [[Pakistan]], and [[Afghanistan]]

near the top, but

* All pages relating to genetically modified organisms and agricultural biotechnology, including [[glyphosate]], broadly interpreted ([[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms|''Genetically modified organisms'']])
* Any edit about, and all pages relating to, the governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues ([[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun control|''Gun control'']])
* Pages relating to [[India]], [[Pakistan]], and [[Afghanistan]] ([[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan|''India-Pakistan'']], [[Special:PermanentLink/504800033#Motion (India-Pakistan)|motion]])

lower down. The "lower down" section is missing the Horn of Africa. (From Template:Ds/topics/table it looks like there might be some other mismatches too.) @ProcrastinatingReader: Could an admin please fix the "lower down" section? Thanks. I've bypassed excuses for procrastination by doing the reading for you ;). Boud (talk) 16:28, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Pinging L235 to check. But I think that's only the list shown on the template doc page. As for actually using any of the templates, I believe that part is correctly setup.

This is easier with the Module:Sanctions/data system for the community, since data for one particular sanction is all kept together. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:35, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks folks. Done. @ProcrastinatingReader: We will absolutely want to enact something like that on the backend as soon as we can, which will likely be during the DS reforms this year. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:28, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Also, this talk page is low-traffic, so in the future please feel free to cross-post to WT:AC or ping me again. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:29, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Redundancy in editnotice

{{Ds/editnotice}} contains the sentence Discretionary sanctions have been used by an administrator to place restrictions on all edits to this page. which seems entirely redundant. The previous paragraph already explains that an administrator has placed restrictions on the page. Can this sentence be removed, or is there something I'm missing? the wub "?!" 23:58, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Redundant, but really the whole template needs to be rewritten. See this, may be of interest to you. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:17, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Coronavirus

Shouldn't coronavirus be an option for notification? --Hipal (talk) 18:18, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Arbcom needs to decide that it is. Have you considered asking them to do that? --Guy Macon (talk) 21:36, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

There has not been a relevant Arbcom case so there is no notification here. However, there are general sanctions set up by the community and there is a notification for that. The background is at WP:GS/COVID19 and the notice is {{Gs/alert}}; the wikitext for a new section on a user talk page:

COVID general sanctions notification
{{subst:Gs/alert|covid}} ~~~~

In an effort to set a WP:LAME record, there is an Arbcom case request regarding a dispute over the page-level edit notice {{COVID19 GS editnotice}}—see the talk page of the notice and WP:AN and WP:ARC. Johnuniq (talk) 22:16, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

I really do think Covid-19 (Not "coronavirus"; that word has a different meaning) should be under general sanctions and have a GS alert, but I was under the impression that only arbcom can impose general sanctions. Now I see what looks like AN imposing them by consensus. Was I wrong? --Guy Macon (talk) 00:03, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:General sanctions has the general blurb and its "Authorisation" section shows that Arbcom can impose them (commonly called "discretionary sanctions") and so can the community (commonly called "community sanctions"). I don't know when community sanctions were set up but it was many year ago. Johnuniq (talk) 00:41, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Ah. Thanks. Art the rules for alerting the user the same in both cases? Is it still called a DS Alert or is there a CS Alert template? --Guy Macon (talk) 06:11, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Now I know no one reads my messages! See "wikitext for a new section on a user talk page" above. Johnuniq (talk) 09:48, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Note to self: next time, smoke crack after editing Wikipedia... :( --Guy Macon (talk) 14:52, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Post-1932 vs. post-1992

If a user has received an alert for post-1932 politics of the United States does that imlpy that they have been alerted regarding post-1992 politics of the United States? --Guy Macon (talk) 14:05, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

(...Sound of Crickets...) --Guy Macon (talk) 14:06, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Your question is really a Committee matter, not strictly a template matter. You’d probably be better off asking this at ARCA. I suspect they’d say yes, but who knows. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:53, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! See [8]. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:14, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

2021 discretionary sanctions review: community consultation

Editors are invited to provide feedback in the discretionary sanctions community consultation, which is open until April 25, 2021.

This consultation is part of the Arbitration Committee's revision process for the discretionary sanctions procedure, which sets forth a special set of rules that apply in topic areas defined by the Arbitration Committee. The purpose of this revision process is to simplify and clarify the procedure and resolve problems with the current system of discretionary sanctions.

For the Arbitration Committee, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:21, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Error when ussuing an alert

I am recieving the following error instead getting a username to check if the alert was issued before it get 'Badtitle/ApiErrorFormatter::getDummyTitle' See example:

Arbitration​Committee A system filter has identified that you are trying to alert Badtitle/ApiErrorFormatter::getDummyTitle (contribs · logs · block log) to the existence of discretionary sanctions. Special rules govern alerts. You must not give an editor an alert if they have already received one for the same area of conflict within the last twelve months. Please now check that this editor has not already been alerted to this area of conflict in the last twelve months: Search logs: in user talk history • in system log. Search elsewhere (optional): in AE • in AE contribs. Do you wish to alert this user? If so, click 'Publish changes' again. If not, click 'Cancel'. v t e

Please submit a false positives report if you received this message in error.

Shrike (talk) 07:24, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Add optional param to support editor retention

I've been thinking about ways to make it less scary for newbies, when a {{Ds/alert}} template needs to be placed on their user talk page. I have a proposal for a new param |friendly= to add optional, unboxed introductory text above the Ds notice.

I'm concerned about how to assuage any negative effect on editor retention when using the template with new users. What I've been doing sometimes, is to add a brief, personal message above the notice, to provide a friendly introduction to it, with the intention of reducing the scare factor. As an example, see this section,^[perma] which I recently placed on a user talk page.

What if we added a new param |friendly= to the template, which would default to current behavior if absent, but if |friendly=yes would generate a standardized, friendly introduction above the box along the lines of the example, or using whatever boilerplate would be agreed upon in discussion. And if set to |friendly=My own custom friendly intro..., it could be set as desired. It seems to me, this would have a beneficial effect on Editor retention. Mathglot (talk) 19:56, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

• Listed at WT:RETENTION. Note: a related discussion appears in Archive 30 of the Editor Retention project (but that was about Ds notices on article talk pages, not on User talk pages). Mathglot (talk) 20:02, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
• Listed at WP:VPR. Mathglot (talk) 20:12, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Or maybe, |intro=yes (for a standard intro, maybe not-so-new a user), |intro=friendly (newbie), and |intro=Customized text. Mathglot (talk) 20:18, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

• I like your example message. I think it's a helpful addition for any editor getting a Ds alert for the first time; it explains the "why" more clearly than the template's This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date. Schazjmd (talk) 20:52, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
• I lean more towards encouraging editors leaving the alert to use their judgment and create a message tailored for the specific circumstances of the editor being notified. isaacl (talk) 21:40, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
• The entire way DS notices work is fundamentally broken, and their hostility to new (and even not-so-new) editors is a downstream consequence of that. Making the notice friendlier would be a plus, so this seems fine, but really what we need to be doing is designing a better system from the ground up that doesn't require using non-warning user talk page messages or scary complicated editnotices. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:34, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

  I contributed to the most recent revision of the alert template, so I'll take my share of the blame for its current wording. Nonetheless, personally I like keeping the alert in a "just the facts" form, and then augmenting it with personalized messages to best suit each case. As an fyi, if you didn't know already: there was a consultation on discretionary sanctions where changes to the awareness requirement was discussed. isaacl (talk) 23:28, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

  @Isaacl: Yes, thanks, I discovered the 2021 review just as I was looking around for where to list this issue. Too late, as it just closed; or at least, the consultation part just did. Also, just to be clear: I find absolutely nothing to complain about with the current wording, and I also like keeping the alert in a "just the facts" version available, especially when targeting editors who have been around a while and won't be spooked. But I thought it would be nice to make it easier for us to sweeten the medicine a bit with an optional message for the newer users, or older ones seeing a Ds/alert for the first time.

  Naturally, there's nothing to stop someone from adding their own message individually (as in the linked example), but it's just easier with a param. Also, given the formality of the alert wording, I'm sort of guessing that "somewhat-unsure-alert-placers" might worry that fire and brimstone will come shooting out of the usb port if they attempt to add a single word to an ArbCom-approved notice so if we added a param, then it would green-light their doing so, including the free-text version; upshot: friendlier notices. Mathglot (talk) 04:44, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

  Personally, I don't see a lot of advantage in having a parameter in which a personalized message is specified, versus just writing the same text before the template. For anyone concerned about using the alert template correctly, I actually think it is easier not to add a new parameter. isaacl (talk) 05:04, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

  I agree, it would not be easier if the user had to type the whole message out. I wasn't concentrating on that aspect of it, though, but rather on the time-saving (and validating) aspect of having predefined intro message(s) that would be created out of a single parameter value. That's clearly easier, right? or maybe I haven't been clear. Perhaps I'll mock something up. 17:55, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

  You also suggested having a parameter that accepted a personalized message. I disagreed with having boilerplate introductory messages, and adding a new parameter for this purpose based on the reasoning that it would assuage concerns of editors that they might use the template incorrectly. isaacl (talk) 19:47, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

  What ever tweeks we make- the whole DS business is written in the language of AGRESSION.- this really is just a sensitive topic alert. All we need is a message starting with a Please. Please tread carefully- please be aware that some comments may have to be deleted. Then {{Hidden begin}} and {{Hidden end}} can be used to hide all the legalese that long term editors so enjoy.ClemRutter (talk) 18:14, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

  @ClemRutter: thanks for your comment. I have mixed feelings about 'please' in this case, and wanted to see what you thought. I tend to use a lot of pleases in my initial communications with editors, but I think I modulate them based on where something is on the essay-guideline-policy-legal axis. (And I'm not even clear that an ArbCom decision even fits on that axis, and might belong to some other dimension, such as WP:EDITCONSENSUS - Talk page discussion with resolution - WP:LOCALCONSENSUS - Rfc - centralized Rfc - ArbCom decision - WMF decision (ducks)?) For example, for WP:LIBEL or required copy attribution based on Wikimedia's licensing requirements, I think I use please less; or maybe I use please but couch it differently, like "Please don't forget that X—this is required by Y", to make sure the obligatory nature of it comes through.

  Honestly, I don't see the notice wording as "aggressive", and I think it was trying to strike a balance by avoiding language editors might feel free to ignore in some cases, and something they must not ignore under any circumstances. I think that's a hard thing to do, and it's easier to see where it doesn't measure up, than to come up with an alternative that does. To me (wearing my experienced-editor hat), it seems like informative advice that I'm glad to learn about; but donning a newbie-hat, it feels scary. But, rather than try to mindread more precisely what you meant, can you propose some language you think works better, while still conveying the seriousness of intent or obligation, including the separation with hide/show where you think appropriate?

  The bottom line for me, is back to the WP:RETENTION issue; I *do* want newbies and rookies to receive Ds alerts when appropriate, and I *don't* want to discourage them from editing because of banners decorated with scary hammers hanging on their wall. How do we best serve both purposes? If there's an irreconcilable conflict between the two and we can't solve it, then I tend towards WP:DONTBITE; maybe newbies shouldn't get a notice, if they haven't violated anything. Mathglot (talk) 19:00, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

  I think it is only fair when a dedicated user asks for a comment- that I should respond. There are no red lines here-the problem is unsolvable but I approach it with a Quaker pov rather than that of a warlord- good luck with the improvement.ClemRutter (talk) 19:32, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Longevity

It appears from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Archive_9#Request_for_amendment_regarding_topics_under_discretionary_sanctions_.28November_2014.29 that discretionary sanctions should be removed from Longevity - I want to make sure I'm reading the jargon of the decision correctly before unilaterally making that fix. It looks like it was put under discretionary sanctions in 2011 and they should have been removed in 2014. Am I right? --The Cunctator (talk) 13:25, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Edit request May 2021

The wording any gender-related dispute or controversy and associated people, while taken from the original ArbCom wording, doesn't make sense in the context of the template, where it reads as You have shown interest in any gender-related dispute or controversy and associated people. That is not going to be correct in most cases; rather, the user will have shown interest in some gender-related disputes or controversies and associated people. I just gave a user a gender DS alert after two questionable edits to one trans person's BLP. They have not, in fact, shown interest in other gender topics, so I imagine it will read somewhat strangely to them to see they've been characterized as having a much broader interest.

Thus I suggest: You have shown interest in gender-related disputes or controversies and associated people. -- Tamzin (she/they, no pref.) | o toki tawa mi. 15:40, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

A typical response to an edit request of this nature, is "get consensus first", and that may happen here. Regardless, I'll take your comment as the opening salvo in a consensus-seeking discussion, so I'm responding to you in that light.

Yeah, I've always been bothered by that awkward any in that context. But I'm not sure shifting to plural is a good idea, because what if they've only edited one such topic? One could simply change any to a (or to one or more) to make the subject singular, either of which would still be accurate regardless how many they edited. Finally, there's the somewhat bookish any of several, which is used widely in dictionaries. Also since you broached the topic: associated people sounds awkward as well. If we are going to discuss changes to wording, then I propose this one:

• 2. You have shown interest in one or more gender-related disputes or controversies, or people associated with them.

(The number '2' is there, in case this discussion elicits additional interest and examples, with your proposal being "#1".) Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 17:30, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I would support that wording. (Pedantically, "or one or more people" would probably be more accurate, since the first "one or more" doesn't necessarily modify the second clause, but that's just adding more words for the sake of purism.) That said, I stand by my suggestion of using the plural form. A number of messages already use plural constructions (blp, cid, gmo, and med), and it's pretty common to see default pluralization in prefab messages in general in the world. Although your wording of the second clause strikes me as superior, but as a grammatical matter I don't think that comma is justified, and thus I propose #1b: You have shown interest in gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. -- Tamzin (she/they, no pref.) | o toki tawa mi. 17:49, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I support #1b as concise and grammatical. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:36, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm okay with 1b. Mathglot (talk) 05:48, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

1b looks fine to me. Tol | Talk | Contribs 06:52, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

 Done 1b. For future reference, please make an edit request to Template:Ds/topics where the list is actually stored. Elli (talk | contribs) 01:14, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

@Elli: Template talk:Ds/topics redirects here. -- Tamzin (she/they, no pref.) | o toki tawa mi. 03:12, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@Tamzin: I know. You made a request to {{Ds/alert}}, instead of {{Ds/topics}}. Elli (talk | contribs) 03:13, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Searching System Log for prior DS alerts returns false negatives following user name change

Yesterday I issued alerts to a user who changed user names hours later. Today as a test I searched the system for the alerts I had issued. They did show up when I searched the original user name but a search on the new name returned a false negative. In my specific example case, I just deleted the old DS alerts and reissued them under the new account name so the system log, should it be needed in the future, would return an accurate result. (I also left a note explaining what I did and apologizing for reissue in under 12 months). Could the system log be taught to recognize account name changes? Maybe a pop up notification asking if you also want to search the prior account name? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:40, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Difference?

Is there a difference between {{subst:alert|ap}} and {{subst:alert|tpm}}? Template:Ds/alert just lists those two with identical topic and identical decision linked, without explanation if there is a difference or not --Distelfinck (talk) 21:35, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Since the tpm refers to the second case on American politics and that is where the 1992 cutoff date can be found, and since the second case rescinded and replaced part of the remedies for the first case, I infer that the listing for topic code ap found in Template:Ds/alert was edited at that time. But I don't think the specific edit made was the right one. These DS alerts are only good for a year. Seems like the listing for ap should either be deleted or marked no longer used, see topic code tpm or something like that. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:33, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

I've now added a note below the table listing the topic codes. --Distelfinck (talk) 20:17, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Where's APL?

As I just mention in an ANI thread, Antisemitism in Poland appears to be missing from the list of codes displayed here, and I'm not aware of a good reason for this to be the case. I suppose a fair amount of APL cases would be sanctionable under the Eastern Europe and the Balkans regime (which may explain why this has evaded notice up until now), but APL does license some distinct sanctions that ARBEE does not such as ECP, so we should be informing interested editors with the correct link. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:54, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Antisemitism in Poland didn't pass any remedies authorizing discretionary sanctions. It noted that Standard discretionary sanctions as authorized by the Eastern Europe arbitration case remain in effect for this topic area. This was also discussed at Template talk:Ds/Archive 2 § Template-protected edit request on 24 January 2020. isaacl (talk) 00:21, 4 August 2021 (UTC)