Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:34, 6 August 2014

Implementation notes (2013)

In preparation for implementing this template, please feel free to add places that currently mention {{uw-sanctions}} which will need to be updated at the switchover. AGK 13:20, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages:General_sanctions#Imposed_by_the_Committee. AGK 13:20, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
• Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Template#Log_of_blocks.2C_bans.2C_and_restrictions. AGK 20:39, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Too wordy

This notice is far too wordy, and the effect is to make it less forceful or clear. It reminds me of the difference between public transit signs in New York versus Los Angeles.

• Los Angeles: Smoking tobacco products, including smoke-free devices, in or within the vicinity of a public transit vehicle is prohibited per municipal code section 12135 et. seq.
• New York: No smoking

- Wikidemon (talk) 06:32, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

@Wikidemon: It's not really supposed to be forceful, though I think its meaning is clear. Part of the reason for the relative wordiness is that the template is designed to be understood even by people who have no idea what a "discretionary sanction" is. Do you have any ideas for reducing the length of the template or improving its clarity while not being making the wording overly hostile? Thanks, AGK 11:03, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Change to Template:Ds/editnotice

@AGK: I've made a major change to Template:Ds/editnotice in which I rewrote certain parts of it, moved it onto Template:Editnotice and rewrote the documentation. Would you/anyone mind having a look and checking that everything still works. Also what's the purpose of using the tracking templates? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:19, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I've replied on the changes at my talk page (thanks for your note). Tracking templates is generally good form, particularly as some people will insist on substituting the template, and allows us in the future to see how widely these edit notices are used. AGK 13:53, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

trimmed

{{Ds/alert}} Per request at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions/2013_review#Appealing_and_modifying_sanctions_.28comments.29: template was tl;dr with many pointless superfluous words, I've trimmed most of them to what I think is likely a minimal set. There should also be explicit wording that the notice is strictly informational to minimize unnecessary churn on talk pages, AE, and Arbcom pages. NE Ent 11:30, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Looks good though I've added a critical "not",  Roger Davies 12:22, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Yea, the "not" does need to be there. NE Ent 11:20, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Instructions

I like the direction that the "alert" draft is headed. I'd like to have the docs changed slightly as well, to include one or two sentences discouraging "alerting" people who aren't making repeated or significant changes. Receiving an "alert", even in a kinder, gentler form, will discourage some people (especially newer or less confident people) from making any edits at all. I'm mostly concerned about people alerting everyone routinely, even for spelling corrections or without waiting to see whether the brand-new editor ever makes a second edit (I believe that the numbers are ~70% of them never make a second edit).

My first attempt would look something like, "Most people who edit these articles should not be personally alerted. Alerts are most useful for notifying people who have shown a sustained interest in editing in these areas." I'm pretty sure that this could be improved, though. What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:27, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

The doc's have since been copyedited. Hope this helps, AGK 09:49, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I may have been overtaken by events but here's my take..... The intent of going to the warmer kinder "alert" system was to forestall the tendency to view receipt as a badge of shame. The best (read only) way to achieve that is to almost blanket the editors in a given subject area. If everyone has one, then they don't create a sub class that has been tarred and feathered. If that's true, then extreme caution should be used when telling eds to refrain from passing the things out. When you caution eds on passing them out, you decrease their ubiquity in any given subject area, and in equal measure increase risk that the underclass/badge-of-shame perception will NOT be dispelled, making the conversion to the "alert" system a failure. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:42, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: resolved. As far as I can tell AGK's solution below seems to have either been explicitly or implicitly accepted by the other participants here, thereby rendering requested move moot. Drop me a line if I've horribly misread this and I'll be willing to re-open. Jenks24 (talk) 09:44, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, thank you, and thank you to AGK for his technical expertise in this matter. —Neotarf (talk) 17:10, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Template:Ds → Template:Ds/community sanction – Template:Ds/sanction has been deprecated with use for Arbitration Committee sanctions, and turned into a redirect to Template:Ds/alert, however the template is still being used for Community sanctions, with modification, since there is no documented sanctioning template for community sanctions. Propose moving this template to Template:Ds/community sanction and making Template:Ds/sanction a disambiguation page. Neotarf (talk) 11:24, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

• Support if the proposal is to move Template:Ds/sanction to Template:Ds/community sanction and then turn Template:Ds/sanction into a page (or redirect to a page) describing the difference and history. I don't think it would become a disambiguation page (unless we have template disambiguation pages), since the things being listed aren't articles. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:27, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I have two objections to this request:

1. These templates relate exclusively to the Arbitration Committee sanctions system. Community sanctions have little to do with the Discretionary sanctions template.
2. These templates are part of the Arbitration Committee's process pages, and therefore a move request isn't procedurally the correct way to request changes to the template layout or title; cf. WP:ARBPOL#Jurisdiction, "associated enforcement processes".

Therefore, I would deny the request. If the community want to copy the old template, they can do so by resurrecting the old {{uw-sanctions}} page. AGK 19:16, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requested moves is clear enough that this is the current process for templates. I'm not buying the idea that a template is an "enforcement process", and therefore owned by the ArbCom. Why not collaborate and cooperate, especially since the ArbCom doesn't use this template any more. —Neotarf (talk) 07:00, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

• Support the gist of this, one way or the other. I'm fine with AGK's "just copy it" idea or JHunterJ's clarification. I'm not swayed by the "you can't touch this, it belongs to ArbCom" reasoning latent in AGK's demurrer, but the AGK solution seems okay as a practical matter.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  21:48, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support resurrecting {{uw-sanctions}} with Special:Permalink/this version of {{Ds/sanction}}. The code can be changed so that rather than entering a code relating to ArbCom discretionary sanctions a link to the community decision can be used instead. Ds/sanction can then either be left as is or turned into a redirect, I'd rather it not be a disambig page, having uw-sanctions should be pretty clear. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:38, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Anyone looking for the old template should find an explanation and be directed to the current one(s).

What would be really nice would be if someone could sort out the Community Sanction templates, which are in a bit of disarray (see here). —Neotarf (talk) 07:00, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Mixing it in with the unrelated Ds templates probably won't help. AGK 09:49, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments/Questions

• After reviewing WP:General sanctions I can see that part of the problem is that page isn't quite clear enough that editors under both Community and Arbitration general sanctions can impose probation, discretionary and revert sanctions. It just needs a few tweaks to clear that up - unless I'm wrong? I want to make sure the correct info gets on the WP:BLP page and don't want to propose/be bold on the wrong info. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:51, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Update:
New template created: Template:Uw-gsanctions. Feel free to edit further or use as you will. As Neotarf says, anyone trying to use Template:Uw-sanctions should not be redirected to either new template (they have to choose the appropriate one, as neither template is the catch-all that Uw-sanctions was). I have therefore not created a redirect at Uw-sanctions, and I created this template at an entirely-new page. I believe this resolves the concerns of everyone who has commented here. (Documentation will be needed for the new template, as Uw-sanctions' old doc's contained too much stuff about ArbCom sanctions.) AGK 22:01, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

II guess it should be added to Misplaced Pages:General_sanctions#Sanctions_placed_by_the_Wikipedia_community which lists "useful templates"? Maybe a nice table of who can notify who of what would help clarify matters instead of people having to figure it out from the various texts at Misplaced Pages:General_sanctions. (Note: after posting this I noticed that an individual who had been in a previous discussion of WHO can leave notifications on Community Sanctions and Arbitrations was challenging the right of someone else to leave him one re: an Arbitration where he was sanctioned. Maybe I'll make up a table and propose at General Sanctions talk and the worst that can happen is someone will clean up my mess and make whole thing intelligible :-) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 22:19, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

• I'm puzzled why one letter is lowercase in an initialism for a two-word item: "DS" would be the normal way, not "Ds". Tony (talk) 14:12, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

• Essentially for convenience, just as "User Warnings" (a system in its own right) is always written Uw in templates. Typing in lower case reduces the number of keystrokes, and avoids complication that arises when a title is mixed case. AGK 20:34, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Apparent duplication

Is it necessary to have both |topic=h and topic=ps, which are both for Pseudoscience? Also, if the topic=ps is kept, please note that it is not in alphabetical order on the list.—D'Ranged 1  20:15, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

It probably wasn't in the first place, but removing one would break an unknown number of instances of the template. For backwards-compability's sake, I'd keep both. AGK 20:34, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

With the goal of being informative rather than scary

Could the sentence "This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date" be moved to the top instead of the bottom? WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:22, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

With new Ds/alert, do old ones have to be re-issued?

Text reads: {{Ds/alert}} is used to "alert", or draw a user's attention, to the fact that discretionary sanctions are in effect for a topic area or article they are editing. The alert is used to inform them that any user who disruptively edits the topic or article in question may be placed under editing sanctions by an administrator. This template must be used to notify users.

I did two to two different editors who were seriously over the line on two Arbitrations in January. I don't think the new regime was in then and just used a self-made alert. So does the old one not count? I'll wait to see if they start again, in any case, and then do new Alert. But just wondering, since I'm sure a lot of people and possibly admins may be in that position. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:18, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

(A) I don't know

(B) I guess that you're safe if the date of their "notice" in the logging section of the ARB ruling is more than 12 months ago.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I thought Ds/alert was just started in late February/early March 2014 - or at least just written into instructions for us laypersons that finally made sense at that time. I guess usually alerts are quickly followed either by improved behavior, reports, blocks or whatever so many are moot anyway. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:57, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

FYI, after someone smeared me which is a big NoNo in the arbitration in question I decided to use the spiffy new alert. Low and behold I got a page saying you only can alert someone once and this person may have been alerted, check "in user talk history • in system log. Search elsewhere (optional): in AE • in AE contribs." Well, they've probably had an unofficial warning in a couple of those places, include a completed different Arbitration, so I guess it's covered. Does everyone get that message or just if there really has been an alert? Very discouraging for others who haven't left alerts and need to! Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:23, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

@Carolmooredc and NewsAndEventsGuy: Some answers:

• Any alert/notification issued under the old system which met the requirements of the old system remain valid until 03 May 2015 per WP:AC/DS#Continuity. So if they were notified under the old system who don't need to leave {{Ds/alert}} on their talk page.
• The warning you saw is part of the edit filter which records which users have been notified, it needs to be displayed as editors can old be notified once every 12 months per WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts.
• Generally they are followed with either improved behaviour, a warning and/or a WP:AE request.

I think that was everything, if not ping me and I'll do my best. Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:34, 6 August 2014 (UTC)