Wikipedia talk:Contentious topics/2021-22 review

I don't like that this has stalled

Pretty much the title. What was the point of this? Schedule slip seems to have occured. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 01:04, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

@Chess: We're on it and coordinating with newly elected arbs. Thanks for the bump. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 01:07, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

@L235: Wish you luck! Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 01:09, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Liancourt Rocks

Were the Liancourt Rocks discretionary sanctions reviewed as part of this, or is it planned? I see that the Senkaku islands sanctions were rescinded, and the Liancourt Rocks dispute seems quiescent on the wiki. Philbert2.71828 23:11, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

We did consider whether to rescind Liancourt Rocks in this motion but ultimately did not decide to do so. Nonetheless, any arb can raise this on their own motion if they think that it would pass. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 01:32, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Pointer to missing section

Under section 2.10 ("Contentious topic restrictions: imposition, types, duration, use"), there is a link to a section which would be entitled "Renewal of page restrictions", but there is no such section. Was this an oversight of some kind? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:32, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

(Not sure if anyone's still watching this, so just in case: @Wugapodes:, @L235:, @CaptainEek:) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:34, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Seraphimblade, thanks for the note. Inside the "adopted language" box of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/2021-22 review#Contentious topic restrictions: imposition, types, duration, use, there's a section titled "Renewal of page restrictions". It reads If an uninvolved administrator (including the original enforcing administrator) decides that a page restriction is still necessary after one year, the administrator may renew the restriction by re-imposing it under this procedure and logging the renewal. The administrator renewing a page restriction then becomes the enforcing administrator. This does not apply to page restrictions imposed by consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. Sorry about the confusion – once it's all merged into one final text, hopefully it will be easier to follow! Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 01:37, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Mass mailing with missing end-tag corrupting every Talk page it appears on

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.

---

The mass mailing of around 21:45 14 December alerting users to the ArbCom DS review process with section header "Contentious topics procedure adopted" is corrupting syntax highlighting on every page in which it appears (the entire portion of the page after the message, not just the message itself) due to a missing italic markup end tag. Please fix the following:

• ''You are receiving this message because you are [[Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions/2021-22_review/Update_list|subscribed to updates]] on the Arbitration Committee's [[WP:DS2022|discretionary sanctions review process]].

by adding the missing italic markup to the end (or wherever it belongs). Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 02:46, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

@ArbClerkBot, L235, and Bradv: Mathglot (talk) 02:49, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

@Mathglot it doesn't seem to be causing issues on my user talk page. Can you give an example? Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 11:11, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

i.e. This revision on my user talk page where I add syntax highlighting tags with some example code to test this seems as expected. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 11:16, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Your page was broken as well; I fixed it in this edit. It's not that it interacts with other tags, it's that it breaks highlighting on the whole page after the missing end tag when you are in Preview mode (assuming your browser and device are capable of it, and assuming it's enabled, as I believe there may be a preferences option for it). To see the problem, edit the current version and edit the previous version side-by-side, and compare syntax highlighting at any point after the point of fix.

Not sure if you're just a user of mass media delivery, or also involved in the implementation of mass messaging generally, but imho all such messages should pass through a validator first, before being allowed to be distributed, because errors of any sort can impact a lot of pages, and some errors are not so easy to track down as this one was, especially if the error is buried in multiple nested templates. Mathglot (talk) 18:13, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

The odd thing that it doesn't seem to effect the page for me. Only that line is made italic and the rest is normally displayed for both before and after your change. I saw no change in the page content shown either in preview or normally, nor did the syntax highlighted code change it's display when previewed or normally shown before or after your edit.

I agree that the markup is wrong (the italic should have been closed). Perhaps it's something to do with the skins or browsers we use. I use Vector 2022 on Firefox. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 01:34, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry about that; that's my bad. I'd be ok with manually correcting this if needed, but perhaps someone with AWB installed can fix this more easily? Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 04:16, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Regarding "Only that line is made italic and the rest is normally displayed"; if you are talking about the rendered page, this is normal; the rendering engine is pretty forgiving, and I suspect it resets unterminated markup (of certain kinds at least) after a paragraph break. But that is wrt the rendered page, only. Why you're not seeing a difference in preview mode, I can't say.

Regarding AWB, I don't think this is worth fixing after the fact. My grumbling here is almost entirely to do with the fact that it should be impossible for this to happen in the first place; it should be stopped automatically before it occurs. Once the rabbit is out of the hat, it's not worth trying to stuff it back in. Mathglot (talk) 07:34, 21 December 2022 (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.

Is there more accessible info about the DS review somewhere, please?

The message about the changes to Discretionary sanctions in today's Administrators' Newsletter has two links, this and this. Come on.. That's making it very hard to get an overview, or in the case of the AC noticeboard link, any view at all — I don't see any mention of the DS review or its closure there. Is there an executive summary of the changes somewhere? Or is one on its way? Bishonen | tålk 15:02, 6 January 2023 (UTC).

One is on the way! KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:06, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Lovely, thanks, Kevin. Bishonen | tålk 17:12, 6 January 2023 (UTC).

Bishzilla not have time to read long words! GeneralNotability (talk) 17:27, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

To oblige Bishzilla, best summary/cheatsheet as few verbs as possible. (Disoblige Bishzilla always bad.) bishzilla _ROARR!! pocket 23:08, 6 January 2023 (UTC).