Template talk:COVID19 CT editnotice

What about making this template a bit more welcoming?

It is being seen by lots of people who would not normally edit here, and per WP:AGF, we should not presume that the majority of them are problematic. Yet that is the message that the template currently transmits. So I suggest to split the template in half, one part being welcoming and perhaps coloured in green, the other in the style we currently have, perhaps with some room in between and pointers to suitable community resources for when in doubt. -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 03:22, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

@Daniel Mietchen: Sounds reasonable. No one really watches this talk page, so your best bet would be to make a draft at Template:COVID19 GS editnotice/sandbox and propose it at a Village Pump or WP:AN for wider discussion. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:17, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

@Wugapodes: Hi both, I've added a proposal on this topic at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 167#Proposal to improve the COVID19 GS editnotice. I'd love to hear your thoughts. I've pinged Daniel in the post itself over there already, so I won't ping him here as well. Thanks! | Naypta^✉ opened his mouth at 21:37, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

@Naypta: Thanks! I see that progress is being made, so won't chime in over there. -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 04:36, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

This is also something I've been thinking about, and it's something that should incorporate potential page restrictions (as authorized by WP:GS/COVID19). If someone has a prototype ready please ping me, otherwise, I'll try to get to this at some point soon. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 01:19, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Following up

I wanted to follow up on this, since it's been about a month and the old version of the template is still in effect. The Village Pump discussion ended up becoming a little disorganized, making it hard to tell which proposed version had support behind it. But since I'm the one following up, I'll put forward the version I'd prefer, which separates out the "friendly" part of the notice targeted at AGF editors from the "unfriendly" part targeted at would-be vandals via two separate boxes:

Courtesy pinging Daniel Mietchen who started the discussion above, L235 since you asked for a ping, and Naypta since you started the pump discussion. Would this be an improvement, and are there changes you'd want to see before it's implemented? (Note: I can't test the "associated talk page" link since all the editnotice pages are locked. It should hopefully work when transcluded to actual pages, but please confirm before implementing.) Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:19, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Seeing no further comment, I'm going to turn this into an edit request. I'm happy to discuss further if anyone wants, though. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:12, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Edit request on 27 May 2020

This page is only semi-protected, but using an edit request since it goes on a bunch of template-protected edit notices. Please replace the content of the page with the new version at Template:COVID19 GS editnotice/sandbox, per above. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:20, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I've requested template-protection of the page. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:43, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's a wise idea to replace a template that's been the subject of active discussion at VPR on the basis of insufficient discussion at the local talk page. I think the topic should brought up again at VPR for consensus if need be. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 15:03, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@Naypta: I wish there was a little more discussion to make consensus clearer, but the sense I have is that there isn't really disagreement so much as just not enough attention to get implementation through. VPR seems like an overly broad forum for this (I try to only go there for things that have project-wide implications), but I dropped a note at the COVID-19 WikiProject, and I'll add another one there now. I think this should be the centralized point of discussion, but {{See also}} invites to it are welcome as much as is needed. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:01, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Why big scarry red text...we should inform and encourage participation.... not threaten potential editors off the bat. That said its not a big deal...scarry but most don't pay attention to banners anyways.--Moxy 🍁 22:16, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

We need both a scary part for vandals (that AGF editors will hopefully ignore since they know it's not addressed to them) and a friendly encouraging part for AGF editors. Right now, we have only the scary part; this change would add the friendly part, and would make it clearer that the scary part is addressed to vandals, not AGF editors. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:41, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh ...I get it you want to add the project banner above the Community sanction notice that is the intent of the template. Perhaps best to notify them before there template is changed to make there notice the secondary one.--Moxy 🍁 01:53, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

As I noted directly above, I have done so twice. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:35, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

@Sdkb: I'd prefer more discussion on this before implementation. I have been meaning to get back to this. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 03:15, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Not sure why you didn't link to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject COVID-19/Archive 9#General edit notice proposal, where discussion of the WikiProject banner was held. Personally, I don't feel there was a consensus in favour of having it. isaacl (talk) 09:11, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: consensus not demonstrated for this change yet — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:57, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Further discussion

Okay, so after the initial silence in the "following up" section, it looks like the edit request drew out a bunch of comments that there ought to be discussion, but little actual said discussion. So, for those of you who haven't weighed in on the notice itself yet: what do you think of the current version and/or my proposal above? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 08:48, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Further further discussion

Okay, so two weeks later, and we're still at the situation where folks agree that there ought to be discussion but said discussion does not seem to be happening. I'd appreciate additional feedback on the proposed redesign, so that we can adjust it if needed and implement it if there is consensus for it. Pinging everyone from above: @Daniel Mietchen, Wugapodes, Naypta, L235, Moxy, and Isaacl: everyone seems to agree that the status quo banner could be improved, so I hope we can come to agreement on how to do so. Regards, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:44, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support the redesigned banner. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:48, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
• Having the discussion over three talk pages instead of one is a good way to dissipate momentum... My concern about the WikiProject banner remains unaddressed. It's not clear to me if introducing scary red letters was considered to be a good thing given that the original post felt the current edit notice was scary. On a best practices note, it's not recommended to use "here" as link text. I suggest These restrictions were enacted by the community in March 2020. Linking to Wikipedia:Consensus isn't necessary, in my opinion. isaacl (talk) 03:41, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
• I am also opposed to the big large red letters. The WikiProject banner doesn't serve as an effective sanctions notice, for obvious reasons. We want our editnotices to be clear and direct, and we want to avoid notice fatigue; if there's no need for a sanctions notice, there's no need for an editnotice in general. (In fact, I don't know why we have any editnotice unless specific page restrictions have been imposed by an administrator, like with the standard DS implementation, but that's a different issue.) Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 20:10, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

  @L235 and Isaacl: thanks for the feedback. The "friendly" portion of the banner was introduced in response to feedback at the Village Pump from editors who wanted a link to WP:MEDRS included, but I concur it's not precisely related, so I moved it out to its own template, and I don't plan to introduce it anywhere unless I see indications its desired.

  I adjusted the proposed revision in the sandbox. It's now streamlined further, and I made the heading a darker shade so that it's less glaring. How does it look? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:59, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

  Does anyone have feedback? I'm trying not to spam people with too many pings, but it's really hard to keep this discussion going given that it's hidden away on this page. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:01, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

  Still the same problem as mentioned by 5 other editors...so what is there to move forward on?--Moxy 🍁 20:35, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

  Moxy, please read the above and communicate clearly. The revision here addresses the previous concerns about the friendly banner and bright red title. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:49, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

  Multiple people said the same thing to no avail....still have HUGE red letters discouraging editors. Wikipedia:REHASH.--Moxy 🍁 20:54, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I deliberately waited for other people to comment as I'm wary of trying to establish a consensus without more editors involved. I don't know if a darker shade of red makes a difference; it doesn't seem to align with the original concern, but I don't know what other people think. The text still uses "here" as link text. (I understand the frustration of failing to get sustained participation; for better or worse, a lot of discussions on English Wikipedia fade out without coming to a resolution.) isaacl (talk) 22:49, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I did experiment with changing the title fully to black in this revision. It doesn't look as good to me, but if going with that is what it'd take to get us unstuck from the present version, sign me up. Situations like this with low participation but a high standard of consensus expected are a recipe for maintaining a status quo. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 23:49, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I've discussed some changes for years that a lot of people seemed interested in, but when it came time to express support for a proposal, participation withered and a few regulars reasserted their contentment with the status quo. isaacl (talk) 04:32, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Isaacl, following up about the remaining "here", I just looked up and found WP:CLICKHERE, which seems to have as its main concern printability, which doesn't really apply to an editnotice. But I'm trying to think of what other phrasing might work since I agree it's not the most ideal. Do you think ...listed at this log, ...listed at this page, or ...listed at the COVID-19 general sanctions page would be an improvement? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:46, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

It's against best practices for accessibility. (The page you referred to links to Mystery meat navigation § "Click here" which discusses this.) I suggest Discretionary sanctions are in effect for this page. Incidentally, the format of Wikipedia:General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019 is very admin-oriented, and not very friendly for an editor who doesn't know what discretionary sanctions are. If a page-level restriction other than page protection is ever imposed, say a one-revert rule, it would be helpful to incorporate it into the edit notice directly. I suspect very few people are going to search the page-level restriction log each time they encounter a COVID-19-related article. isaacl (talk) 05:08, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Isaacl, thanks for the links! If we replaced the first sentence with the one you suggest, we'd lose the link to the general description of discretionary sanctions, and while it's technically a chain link (which we advise against), the unfriendliness of WP:General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019 makes it necessary, I think. I'll switch the sandbox to ...listed at the COVID-19 general sanctions page for now. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:00, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Personally, I think editors only need the link to the specific sanctions page, which contains a summary of the basic framework for discretionary sanctions, as well as a link to the discretionary sanctions page. (Also I think the summary should be moved up to the top of the page rather than embedded within the "Remedies" section.) Regarding the first sentence, there are two aspects to the discretionary sanctions framework: admins have been given the authority to issue sanctions at their discretion, and editors should be made aware of any specific sanctions already enacted on the current page. The current first sentence in the sandbox only covers the second case, and given that there are no page-specific sanctions at present, I think the first case is more important to highlight. Thus I prefer stating that discretionary sanctions are in effect, mirroring the same wording in {{Ds/alert}}. (Full disclosure: I participated in rewriting the alert template, including the sentence on discretionary sanctions being in effect.) isaacl (talk) 07:27, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Bigger picture - standardizing community sanctions and DS originating with Arbs

If it were my decision I would

• A. Modify Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Authorisation by tweaking the text to say DS can be either authorized by the Arbitration Committee or the community at large.

• B. Amend the various community-imposed sanctions, such as for Covid, to follow the enforcement procedures now used for ARB-imposed discretionary sanctions. (That page might need a few other tweaks, such as addressing the possibility of appeal for community DS, and the standardized "alert" template would need two versions, one for Arb-imposed and one for community-imposed DS.)

Impact

For the micro-specific issue here, the Covid template would simply look like any other DS alert now used in arb-based topic areas. But to elaborate a little... In about 2012/2013 I participated in a small way in a long discussion overhualing the arb-based DS procedures. One of the big goals was to de-stigmatize the DS notice, a bit like you are trying to do by making the Covid one "more friendly". Previously arb-based DS templates were warnings issued after perceived misdeeds. The giving of them was sometimes weaponized, the receipt of them often caused offense, and the giving of them just became a new thing to argue about. In the revised method (currently in use, as amended), the notice is not a "warning" but an FYI "alert". They are explicitly no-fault, and no-shame. I edit mostly in Climate, with a bit of US Politics and racism. All three are subject to ARB decisions so DS applies. Before I give the notice to someone else, I make sure I have the same thing on my own page. Then I can followup with a personalized comment that more or less says "Hi, you edited, so I wanted to give you this FYI about DS. There's no shame or fault implied... see? I even gave one to myself (diff)! Happy editing!" In my opinion the sought-after de-stigmatization is achieved by making these things ubiquitous among all participating editors.

By paralleling the familiar ARB-based DS procedures we can streamline our convoluted wikilaw by ensuring that community imposed sanctions are not constantly reinventing enforcement wheels, and sometimes at odds with other procedures. For example, why should ARB-based DS FYI "alerts" be received with an "Oh, ok, it is no-fault/no-shame" and the Covid alert be SCREAMING OFF THE PAGE? We have worked hard to create a DS process for ARB decisions. Discussions imposing community-based sanctions should focus on authorizing them, and maybe setting out specific principles and remedies like the arbs do. For enforcement, Community-based sanctions should just adopt the enforcement process found at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:11, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the shame part. This edit notice needs to be toned down. The red icon should be like an orange icon. Just change the colours and wording to any of the ArbCom templates (eg Template:ArbCom Arab-Israeli editnotice) and this template is instantly better, imo. The point of this notice is not to discourage contributions. We do so much to try encourage editors, I don't see why we're using such an aggressive editnotice for community GS. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:56, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Changing this template

The other templates have been converted to the GS system of templates, via {{Gs/editnotice}}. This template cannot be converted as COVID has no general prohibitions authorised, thus it shouldn't even exist. Nevertheless, I don't plan to nominate for deletion, as some believe it helps stop disruption, and more importantly it keeps the mobile editnotices feature ticket on phab assigned under the COVID tag (which might speed up the implementation). I do, however, plan to convert this into a general "Coronavirus MEDRS" template, which is what its de facto purpose is, with less of a focus on "discretionary sanctions" (for the aforementioned reasons). It will then be moved away from the GS system of templates and instead be repurposed as a COVID template. Any transclusions with actual prohibitions will be edited to also have a copy of {{Gs/editnotice}}. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:54, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

I've alas given up on trying to improve this notice, but best wishes to you if you want to take a go at it. Feel free to borrow whatever aspects of the design changes proposed above you want to. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 03:21, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

The version I plan to replace with is in sandbox, subject to wording changes. The point is to move this template out of the DS system, and make it fit for purpose, as its actual purpose (it seems to be a bit lost in its life) is MEDRS, not DS. I will probably seek input from WP COVID19 for further comments on wording. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 03:26, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

ProcrastinatingReader, looks good enough. It might be possible to improve the title a bit, though, since "Notice about medical sources" might lead some people to think "I can ignore this, since I'm not going to be citing a medical source, I'm going to be citing www.totallyreliablecovidfacts.com". {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:55, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Suggestions? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 04:57, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

ProcrastinatingReader, "Notice about medical sourcing" would be one option; the -ing vs. the -es makes a difference. "Notice about" is somewhat unnecessary since anyone can see that it's a notice, so maybe we could use "Medical sourcing requirements" or something like that. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:08, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

I pinched it from {{BLP editintro}}. Not particularly attached to the current title, but thinking of a better title has escaped my mind. Can't call them "requirements" as it's only a guideline, technically. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:18, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Authorization for administrators to apply sanctions at their discretion has been given by community consensus. Accordingly, editors should be made aware of this authorization, and an edit notice is a common method along with a talk page notice. My personal preference would be to also link to Wikipedia:General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019 and improve that page along the lines I outlined earlier. isaacl (talk) 05:25, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

An editnotice is not common for discretionary sanctions (in fact, COVID is the only one that has it). It is common for general prohibitions and DS-applied page-level sanctions, where it is required to enforce them, of which none exist for COVID. The existence and spread of this notice stems from a misunderstanding, but in any case I do not seek to delete it, instead just making it less useless whilst move it out of my DS todo list. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 05:33, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks; I misremembered the context around the change made to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions § Page restrictions regarding edit notices. In the interest of making the problem of banner blindness worse, it would be desirable to remove the edit notice where unnecessary. But for better or worse, some people will likely want a general consensus to be formed, and so yeah, it would take some investment in time. isaacl (talk) 13:41, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Re the link to that page, sure, but I'm not sure where to fit it in in the current text, and I don't want to make the text (at least not the DS part) much longer, especially not unnecessarily. The GS subpages aren't particularly helpful or accurate anyway imo and are long overdue an overhaul. My hypothesis: add more links to banners => higher chance none of them get clicked. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:22, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

The key points are these:

• The community at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive318 #COVID-19 community general sanctions overwhelmingly agreed to the proposition "I propose that the community authorize discretionary sanctions for all articles and edits relating to COVID-19, broadly construed, similar in form to other community-authorized general sanctions."
• Wikipedia:General sanctions makes clear that community-authorised sanctions are fully equivalent to ArbCom-authorised sanctions, and require the same level of awareness on the part of editors who are to be sanctioned. That requirements makes templates and notices necessary for general sanctions.
• Wikipedia:General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019 #Remedies outlines the specific requirements on warning and awareness that should be in place for the COVID-19 area.

Whatever changes are made to this template will have to satisfy the need to make editors aware of the general sanctions enforceable both in general and for page-specific restrictions. --RexxS (talk) 14:00, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, page-specific restrictions require an edit notice (as described in the Remedies section and under the arbitration committee discretionary sanctions framework). At present, there are no page-specific restrictions enacted under the COVID-19 community general sanctions. isaacl (talk) 14:06, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

@Isaacl: there are general prohibitions authorised for COVID-19, the same as for any discretionary sanctions: Any "aware" editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standard of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be sanctioned "on the spot" by any uninvolved administrator. Although that still presupposes that the editor was aware, so a talk page notice and page edit notice are useful mechanisms for creating that awareness.

In addition, I imposed a page-specific sanction at Coronavirus disease 2019 which states "Editors are prohibited from adding preprints as sources for content in this article." --RexxS (talk) 14:11, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Ah yes, I see the two page-level restrictions you enacted. For these two pages, I agree edit notices are required. Another thing I think should be changed about the COVID-19 sanctions page: separate the logged page protection actions from the log of actual page restrictions of which editors need to be consciously aware. isaacl (talk) 14:18, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Awareness must be done through a user talk page notice. Edit notices, not being visible to mobile editors, are one way to try to flag pages for which discretionary sanctions have been authorized, but due to the large number of pages encompassed within the scope of the topics in question, are not mandatory for all of them. isaacl (talk) 14:24, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

DS is not a general prohibition. It doesn't prescribe a requirement on the part of any editor, it doesn't ask them to do anything, and it fundamentally can't unless restrictions are in place. It just means admins may take more discretionary actions than they can in other areas. An editnotice for DS alone is not required or suggested, and there's a reason why COVID is the only DS (community and ArbCom) to have one. Those two pages you mention indeed do require editnotices, for awareness, and that requirement can be met using the standardised {{Gs/editnotice}}.

In any case this is moot, as again, I'm not proposing deleting the notice. It will still exist, and it'll still mention DS. But that's not the point of it, the point of it (even now, under the covers) is MEDRS, not DS awareness, so it should be cleaned up to actually be useful to people. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:34, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader: DS is a general prohibition on behaviour as I described in my previous post. It's not your place to decide on whether editors need to be aware of general sanctions on a page, and one of the purposes of the template is to help raise the awareness of editors that untoward behaviour may be met with immediate sanctions on those pages. --RexxS (talk) 14:38, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

RexxS, you're right, it's not my place to decide, I'm simply stating the system as it exists currently. DS itself is not a general prohibition, it's an empowerment of admin power in certain topic areas. Isaacl has referenced AC/DS' guidelines proving this to be the case, and I've already discussed this with an arbitration clerk, as well, who agrees that this editnotice is not supported by current DS policy. If you still feel your interpretation is correct, please feel free to find the text at WP:AC/DS, or any resolution agreed to by the community, that states pages with solely DS applicable, and no page-level sanctions, should or must show an editnotice, and quote it here. If you can't find it, I guess you can always change the system with consensus at WP:AN. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:54, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader: I've already given you the link to [[Wikipedia:General sanctions #Community-authorised sanctions which lays out the four categories of templates used and links to which includes this template, This is a GS template, not a MEDRS one as you seem to think. DS is a general prohibition requiring higher standards of behaviour than on other pages and I've already quoted the guidance for you. This editnotice is clearly supported by DS policy, and I'm afraid you have process back-to-front. I don't need consensus to maintain the status quo; the onus is on you to show consensus for repurposing this template. You're already aware of your own advice to find a venue to seek a change to that. In the meantime, you'll find that you won't be able to point to the text at AC/DS or anywhere else that states that pages with solely DS applicable, and no page-specific sanctions, should not or must not show an editnotice. Obviously you can always take your own advice on that as well. --RexxS (talk) 16:21, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

RexxS, obviously it wouldn't be stated if it isn't required. If we were listing negatives, WP:AC/DS would be a dictionary long. Not sure why you're ignoring the fact that this isn't policy, and an arbitration clerk has supported my interpretation.

In any case, what's your objection to the text in Template:COVID19 GS editnotice/sandbox? It still mentions DS. I'm not saying I want to delete it, nor that I want to remove the DS warning from it. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:29, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader: Lack of evidence of consensus is not evidence of lack of consensus and the current edit notice has been stable since Wugapodes created it. I'm ignoring the fact that this isn't mandated by policy because it isn't forbidden by policy either, so you're not making much of an argument. Policies on Wikipedia are descriptive, not prescriptive, and I don't need a policy to tell me that having a page notice is part of the general sanctions regime. ArbCom has no remit for community-authorised sanctions and you're foolish to rely on the opinion of an ArbCom clerk on such matters when the community decision has been pointed out to you multiple times. Your interpretation remains wrong.

My objection to your sandbox version is that it moves the focus away from the higher standards of behaviour required (i.e. different from other pages) to a note about MEDRS which is just as applicable here as to any other page on Wikipedia (i.e. no different). If you think editors need to be reminded about MEDRS, you'd need a page notice on every medical article because the requirement is exactly the same throughout. The DS sanctions on COVID-19 are about ensuring editors understand the consequences of their behaviour, not to enforce MEDRS. If I find the need to highlight MEDRS on particular pages, I'll simply apply a page-specific restriction as I already have for preprints and MEDRS sources on two articles. --RexxS (talk) 17:16, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

RexxS, it isn't the community decision - would you like to quote the community decision and let me know which part gives support to your interpretation? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:24, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader: you need to stop sealioning. It is the community decision to impose general sanctions on all COVID-19 pages and you have the link to the discussion. Pages under GS have the templates that I've already linked you to. Now how about you pointing to the discussion that supports your interpretation that this template is about MEDRS? --RexxS (talk) 01:44, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

RexxS, link has been provided - L235's proposal at AN to enact sanctions, plus Wugapodes (creator of template)'s talk when I brought the matter up with them directly. There is no sealioning here; you said it has consensus & when the community decision has been pointed out to you multiple times so I asked, in direct response to that comment, for you to point it out to me.

In any case, it's clear we're getting nowhere here, I figured my edit would've been less controversial / purely housekeeping, certainly compared to proposing deletion, but I guess I was mistaken. So be it; I guess we can take up wider community time on this issue. Perhaps this thread shows the real issue with community sanctions - a decentralised discretionary sanctions system doesn't maintain well at all, compared to ArbCom's regime. Could be a pro too, depending on how you look at it, I suppose. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:54, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

I suggest replacing the link for "discretionary sanctions" with a link to the COVID-19 page, and fixing that page to be more clear. isaacl (talk) 14:24, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

 Done (the link part) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:35, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Problematic template

This template is problematic for a few reasons. New users whose first editing experience involves coming across it may well be put off for good. The major problem is that it is rude. It uses the second person "you" to address the editor in an "in your face" personal manner and continues with a threat - "if you breach …" and "you may be blocked …" (my emphasis). It a bit like a notice in a shop window proclaiming "If you steal from this shop we'll call the police", rather than "shoplifters will be prosecuted". At the very least, the use of the second person should be removed from this template, but ideally the whole thing should be toned down to be more in line with Template:Editnotices/Page/COVID-19 pandemic. Is it possible to adjust this template according to these suggestions? Thanks, Arcturus (talk) 19:19, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

This template has been replaced. It no longer exists. See the template page. See {{Gs/editnotice}} if you wish to propose changes to that. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:31, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for letting me know about this template. However, the one you link to seems to be about blockchain and cryptocurrencies - unless it's some sort of general template with parameters? The template I have in mind can be seen here [1]. What's the actual source template for this one (apologies, but my knowledge of templates is limited)? Arcturus (talk) 19:40, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

It’s a general template with parameters. What is shown is just a single example (it has to choose one of the topics as an example). The source is there + Module:Sanctions ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:54, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks again. I'll see what I can make of it. Arcturus (talk) 20:00, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Template restored

@Primefac and ProcrastinatingReader: I've had to restore this template because the replacement {{Gs/editnotice}} doesn't properly acknowledge pages in the COVID19 area. It only works when a page-specific sanction is in effect. Wikipedia:General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019 #Remedies is quite clear that "Pages with discretionary sanctions in effect should be tagged with {{Gs/talk notice|covid}} and an editnotice with {{COVID19 GS editnotice}} should be created." Until {{Gs/editnotice}} can be used to create an edit notice, we won't be able to use it as a replacement here. --RexxS (talk) 23:46, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, that text isn’t part of the actual remedy. The consensus decision leading up to the COVID sanctions made no mention of it, and authorised standard ArbCom-mirroring DS only.

The issue with this template was described at the TfD (which was advertised to AN and a month long) and its replacement was intentional. I don’t believe editnotices are valid outside of page-specific sanctions. There’s some TfDs explicitly affirming this, as well. It should be re-deleted in process imo, barring a community discussion deciding to recreate. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:36, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether you believe editnotices are valid outside of page-specific sanctions. You're completely wrong, and you should not be altering the functionality of templates used by administrators to suit your own idiosyncratic view. This template has always been usable to create edit notices, and until you fix the faulty logic in gs/editnotice, it can't be used to replace this one. You fail to understand that "deprecate" does not mean "delete without replacing". --RexxS (talk) 01:38, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

ProcrastinatingReader, I recall you being quite cautious in the past, ensuring that you obtain all needed clarifications prior to taking any action on such fronts. So, please take a step back, if you will. El_C 01:52, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I can’t delete templates, El C. It was discussed at TfD, and the deletion and replacement carried out by Primefac. I had nothing to do with it except nominating the template. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:56, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

As for this template, since it was deleted according to a consensus deletion discussion, I think the matter should be referred to AN for broader input. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:59, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Okay, maybe I'm missing something, then. I confess to not being entirely up to speed about this. I did notice the new template and have used it a few times already, for whatever that's worth. El_C 02:08, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I dunno, El C, if you know I don't do things without asking (which I don't) I'd appreciate a little more benefit of the doubt before a warning to step back. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:17, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @ProcrastinatingReader: you created a generalised module (Module:Sanctions) with the intention of replacing a number of disparate sanctions templates. That's a good thing. However, you altered the functionality of the new editnotice template so that it enforces your personal view that editnotices may only be placed on articles that have page-specific sanctions. You have no experience of working in the area of applying sanctions and I warned you earlier that your view was contrary to current practice. Despite that, you started a TfD (while I was recovering from COVID-19) but never mentioned that the functionality had changed'. I don't find that appropriate behaviour for someone trusted with TE permissions and I'm seriously considering removing that permission from your account. If we go to AN to settle this, you can be certain I'll be seeking additional sanctions for your deceptive behaviour in this matter.

I'd like to ask Primefac whether they would have closed the TfD as replace and deprecate if they had known that the replacement for {{COVID19 GS editnotice}} was unusable on pages in the COVID-19 topic area in the same way as this template is? --RexxS (talk) 02:26, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I have sent this matter to WP:AN for wider community opinion. You are free to propose sanctions as you wish. I don't believe I've done anything inappropriate at all, or been intentionally deceptive. I've spent months in discussions with various editors on this. I don't really know what you mean about functionality changing. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:29, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Then I'll spell it out for you. If I decide that editors on an article under COVID-19 sanctions would benefit from an editnotice, I can place {{COVID19 GS editnotice}} on that article and editors will see

If I place {{Gs/editnotice|covid}} The editors see

Page sanctions are not authorised for this topic area. Edit notice is not required.

Now, if you don't see that as a change in functionality, you really ought not be messing around with sanction templates. --RexxS (talk) 04:13, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Sidebar discussion at the Administrators' noticeboard

Consensus required on COVID?

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. Question regarding the Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Coronavirus_disease_2019#Application_notes sub-section, which was cited to me at the Wuhan article. It says Editors are reminded that onus is on the editor seeking to include disputed content to achieve consensus for its inclusion. Any content or source removed in good faith and citing a credible policy-based rationale should not be reinstated without prior consensus on the article's talk page., which is effectively a consensus required restriction across the COVID topic area. It was approved by consensus here. The meaning of the section was questioned in exactly this manner by PackMecEng at the time but their question wasn't answered. None of this is announced on any of the talk notices or editnotices, which is standard for consensus required restrictions, and as far as I know no admin is enforcing it (certainly there's no such enforcement in the sanctions log). So, what exactly is this? Is this consensus/restriction actually in force and should it be added to the notices, or is it effectively abandoned and should the sub-section be removed? My feeling is that it was rashly decided and the latter applies here. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 07:21, 9 February 2021 (UTC) The fact that it's "disputed" content, to me, seems to more read as if it's saying "if you get reverted, don't reinstate" (or seek consensus beforehand) - basically a 1RR phrasing. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:44, 9 February 2021 (UTC) ProcrastinatingReader, that's just WP:ONUS. This is "actually in force" in all articles. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:16, 9 February 2021 (UTC) The first sentence yes, but the 2nd sentence seems distinct from ONUS to me. It reads like standard consensus required phrasing that you’d find in eg Template:American politics AE ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:20, 9 February 2021 (UTC) Agreed, first sentence is a restarting of onus while the second is basically consensus required with an extra removed in good faith and citing a credible policy-based rationale. PackMecEng (talk) 23:52, 9 February 2021 (UTC) Actually another key difference is it says "should not" rather than "must" not. (While the consensus required supplement doesn't say either, it does say "must demonstrate consensus" as you would expect. Likewise the template {{Gs/talk notice}} and {{American politics AE}} use the phrasing "must obtain consensus". IMO "should not" turns it from consensus required to consensus very very strongly encouraged. Or the difference between 'if you do this, you're wrong (subject to very rare exceptions)' and 'if you do this, you're extremely likely in the wrong' That said, I agree that I'm not sure the wording is helpful. Nil Einne (talk) 09:53, 10 February 2021 (UTC) I'm not sure the wording (ie "should" vs "must") was carefully thought out and is intentional. Either these are general sanctions (the first paragraph a sourcing restriction, and the second paragraph a consensus required restriction), and should be noted as such, or if they're "should"s then they're both redundant to WP:BRD and WP:MEDRS and the text should be removed from the general sanctions page, since it wouldn't be a general sanction. Reading over the discussion my feeling is that the intent wasn't to actually create any general sanctions. Although, a "no preprints or non-peer-reviewed sources for medical content" general sanction in COVID seems like a decent idea. Not sure about the consensus required restriction, though; that's very broad. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:33, 10 February 2021 (UTC) Post-unarchive break Unarchived the above, which was automatically archived. I'd appreciate clarification on this, since RexxS is accusing me of "forum shopping" for asking the above question here at AN rather than at Wikipedia talk:General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019 (which would be a local consensus). AN is the standard venue for GS clarifications. He is threatening sanctions for opening a discussion at AN. Linking in discussions WT:GS/COVID & template & TfD #1 & TfD #2. I've consulted with multiple ArbCom clerks, including @L235 and Callanecc about this, as well. My understanding is DS editnotices are only used when page-specific sanctions are in force (such as 1RR) to communicate those. This is in line with WP:AC/DS#sanctions.page and is the status quo for all discretionary sanctions areas except COVID. The discussion proposing authorised standard discretionary sanctions, and the proposing clerk said their intent was not to exceptionally create an editnotice. The template was deleted by Primefac following the linked TfD. RexxS has unilaterally undeleted it (see the second linked discussion). As I see it, two clarifications are needed here: Is 1RR/Consensus Required in force on COVID-19 articles? Should COVID articles warn of DS in the editnotice, unlike any other DS? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:25, 19 February 2021 (UTC) To add, in my view 1RR/CR would be detrimental. It is not currently enforced and it has never been communicated in an editnotice (which would be required). Adding these two sanctions would be highly detrimental to preventing drive-by POV pushing and the like. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:26, 19 February 2021 (UTC) ProcrastinatingReader, I'm not sure what you mean by it is not currently enforced and it has never been communicated in an editnotice. I've applied Template:Editnotices/Page/COVID-19 misinformation by China last month. El_C 02:39, 19 February 2021 (UTC) @El C: You've manually applied 1RR on a particular article. That's obviously okay, as a discretionary sanction. RexxS is claiming there's a topic-wide 1RR (a general sanction, akin to Israel-Palestine) in force. Editors break 1RR on COVID articles all the time. It has never been enforced; it couldn't possibly be because it's not communicated on editnotices (not even on the Template:COVID19 GS editnotice template), so it would be unfair to sanction editors for that. Indeed, Wikipedia:General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019 shows exactly 0 sanctions for this (ctrl-f for "1RR"). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:42, 19 February 2021 (UTC) Oh, I see. Indeed, not even in ARBPIA pages, per WP:ARBPIA4's amendments, there's no longer 1RR by default. Not anywhere. It has to be deemed necessary for that particular page first. That is the longstanding practice in DS/GS. An edit notice must be attached to notify contributors when sanctions are put into effect. El_C 02:46, 19 February 2021 (UTC) Off-topic slightly, but isn't 1RR default in the 'area of conflict' for ARBPIA per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_4#ARBPIA_General_Sanctions? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:50, 19 February 2021 (UTC) Who knows? Maybe default in the sense of only whenever a 1RR editnotice is added...? I, at least, do not add 1RR editnotices to ARBPIA pages without there being a need to do so. Many such pages simply do not need it. That is, there can be an ARBPIA page that gets ECP'd due to non-tenured user disruption, but still may exhibit no edit warring happening among the regulars there. So, what's the point of adding 1RR, then? El_C 03:15, 19 February 2021 (UTC) @ProcrastinatingReader: "RexxS is claiming there's a topic-wide 1RR". That's a deliberate misquote. I said very clearly that the text in WP:General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019 #Application notes looks a lot like 1RR to me. That text resulted from a community debate at AN and is quite a strong restriction, although not exactly 1RR or 'consensus required'. It makes sense to warn editors when restrictions are in place, and your continual pointless attempts to frustrate that process has become tendentious. "Editors break 1RR on COVID articles all the time. It has never been enforced." Another fabrication. There are 800+ COVID-19 articles and not enough admins to patrol all of them. But you are downright wrong to think that it is not enforced, although I find warning and inviting the editor to self-revert is very effective at stopping the behaviour. If you don't believe it is enforced, break the restriction on a c=COVID-19 article and see how long it takes for you to be sanctioned. --RexxS (talk) 03:40, 19 February 2021 (UTC) This is part of a much broader issue. ProcrastinatingReader is not an admin and no experience of administering sanctions. That is not a problem in itself, but it becomes a problem when they make changes to the functionality of templates used by admins in sanctions enforcement against the advice of an admin who uses them. ProcrastinatingReader decided to rationalise the diverse sanctions templates by consolidating them all into Module:Sanctions. That is a good intention, but ProcrastinatingReader took the opportunity to unilaterally impose their own view that editnotices cannot be used on articles under general sanctions unless a page-specific sanction is also in place. That seems to be based on the faulty conclusion that because editnotices are required when page-specific sanctions exist, they must be prohibited where only the general sanctions are in place. That hamstrings admins working in the COVID-19 area where we sometimes find it useful to add an editnotice to an article that has no extra page-specific restrictions, simply because of an influx of editors new to the topic area who would benefit from a notice cautioning them that they may be liable to be sanctioned for failure "to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process." In other words, a warning to be on their best behaviour. The discussion at AN that authorised the general sanctions is here. Furthermore a later discussion at AN resulted in the addition of the text "Editors are reminded that the onus is on the editor seeking to include disputed content to achieve consensus for its inclusion. Any content or source removed in good faith and citing a credible policy-based rationale should not be reinstated without prior consensus on the article's talk page." to the page documenting the procedures for general sanctions covering COVID-19, WP:General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019. On that page, the text reads: "Pages with discretionary sanctions in effect should be tagged with {{Gs/talk notice|covid}} and an editnotice with {{COVID19 GS editnotice}} should be created." That doesn't limit the editnotices to articles with page-specific sanctions, but rather implies that edit notices are expected to be used on all pages subject to the COVID-19 sanctions. Despite all of the above, and despite my clear explanation of that, ProcrastinatingReader made the new template {{gs/editonotice}} so that it could not be used unless additional sanctions were in place. I was ill with COVID-19 in October and November, otherwise I would have noticed, but ProcrastinatingReader created a TfD in November 2020, which was closed by Primefac as "replace and deprecate", but did not mention that they had altered the functionality of the new template compared with the old one, in order to enforce their personal opinion about the use of the template. There is no clarification needed on the questions posed above. The status of the general sanctions on the COVID-19 area is laid out at WP:General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019. The explicit use of '1RR' and 'Consensus required' for pages under GS is authorised for use at an admin's discretion by the discussions at AN I linked above. Similarly, the use of editnotices is authorised at an admin's discretion, and that should not be subverted by a non-admin who decided to impose their mistaken view by changes to template/module coding. I find that behaviour deceptive and a misuse of their template editor permission, and I will later prepare a motion to sanction ProcrastinatingReader for their behaviour. --RexxS (talk) 03:25, 19 February 2021 (UTC) This is misleading. I created the module (not edited something existing to 'enforce my views') and coded the current behaviour, not by unilateral decision but by consulting the community in several AN and TfD discussions throughout 2020 (some of which are linked in OP), and by consulting ArbCom clerks (some diffs are linked). Anyone who has paid attention to AN in 2020 can attest to that. The behaviour I coded when I created the module was in line with the clarity I got from those discussions. I never object to community scrutiny of my actions or clarification on matters from the community at AN. Your attempts to discourage me from bringing this to AN prior, and your dismissal of these issues above ("There is no clarification needed on the questions posed above."), appears like an attempt to avoid consensus and community scrutiny and comes across as unbecoming of an admin. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 03:36, 19 February 2021 (UTC) If I'm understanding RexxS, they're saying that an admin may place a mainspace and/or article talk page editnotices to any pages covered by the topic area without there needing to be any page-level sanctions being in effect. Like, informationally. Do I got this right? Because I do this all the time. El_C 03:45, 19 February 2021 (UTC) @El C: that's exactly my point. If I use my admin discretion to place a simple, unadorned, editnotice warning that editors should be on their best behaviour, I don't expect some template-coder to make the template that I've always used for the job non-functional. It's unacceptable that admins discretion is having to play second-fiddle to the whims of coders. @ProcrastinatingReader: Nothing I wrote was misleading. You coded the behaviour of that module to suit your views and altered the behaviour of the previous template. That's not your decision to make. You neglected to disclose the change of functionality in the TfD and that is indisputably deceptive. Consensus is already established by the previous AN discussions I linked. I warned you that pushing the issue would leave your actions open to scrutiny, and that will happen. I have shown the reasons why I dismiss your two questions as misleading, and I object to you besmirching my conduct, as I have taken no admin actions in this matter so far. --RexxS (talk) 04:00, 19 February 2021 (UTC) You undeleted a template deleted via TfD, which is an admin action. And to be frank, you're very combative, which is strange for an admin. It's difficult to even understand your concerns because you escalated a discussion, in your second response, with threats and baseless accusations of conduct issues, forum shopping, TPE abuse, going against an admin, etc etc. When they're patently false - I've engaged in countless discussions on this. Most editors are open to discussion: people discuss, we reason, we work things out. You seem to immediately escalate, and not just in this case. I think that's unbecoming of an admin, and I think you should change your approach to communication. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 04:12, 19 February 2021 (UTC) Anyway (again) I'd like to hear from the community, and hope this doesn't get archived without resolution, both on the content matter and on conduct, and am (of course) happy with my own conduct being scrutinised. As always, I appreciate feedback on how to handle situations better. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 04:17, 19 February 2021 (UTC) Hoping to duck from under all of this tension, much of the details pertaining to which I admittedly haven't fully grasped. But I will note that for every editnotice that I place which signifies a page-level sanction being put into effect, I probably place ten informational (unadorned) ones that simply tell contributors that the page falls under this or that DS/GS topic area, and that sanctions may follow if and/or when these are deemed necessary El_C 04:23, 19 February 2021 (UTC) I feel like we're talking about different things, El C, can you give an example? A skim of your logs going back to 2017 I don't see any examples of you doing that. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 04:28, 19 February 2021 (UTC) @ProcrastinatingReader: That is wrong again. The template was never deleted, and the AfD close was never to delete, but to replace and deprecate. I simply reverted the edit that stopped it working. That is an action that does not require administrator permissions, and I repeat I have taken no admin actions in that matter. I'll therefore ask you now to confirm that you are wrong and strike your accusation. Nothing I've said is false. You've not linked a single discussion that supports your view that your coding decisions should overrule my admin decisions. --RexxS (talk) 04:31, 19 February 2021 (UTC) Ah, you're right. Apologies, I have struck that part. I still believe in the rest of the paragraph, however. WP:ADMINCOND doesn't just relate to use of admin permissions. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 04:34, 19 February 2021 (UTC) ProcrastinatingReader, for me, I'm talking about (informational) article talk page editnotices only. I, myself, don't bother with unadorned mainspace ones, though I do realize they exist as such. I presume other admins may make use of them, though. Stands to reason, but I'm not sure I've actually seen them displayed as such (at least I've no immediate recollection of this). Anyway, as an example of the former, there's the {{Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement}} article talk page editnotice versus {{Ds/talk notice|topic=a-i}} — or there's its {{American politics AE}} counterpart versus {{Ds/talk notice|topic=ap}}. El_C 04:36, 19 February 2021 (UTC) El C, Template:ArbCom Arab-Israeli enforcement contains 3 page restrictions, and is a general sanction. Similar for Template:American politics AE, which contains two page restrictions (1RR + CR). There is no ArbCom standardised template which allows for DS-only editnotice notification. Heck, until October that wasn't even really possible: the Template:Ds/editnotice output didn't work for DS-only since it's not meant to (not my doing, before someone asks, that template's managed by the clerks). Apologies if unclear. I think I'd prefer to add less of my own voice here, since it's already a long discussion, so others can get involved, particularly the arb clerks (Kevin et al) who probably have most insight in this opaque area. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 04:59, 19 February 2021 (UTC) ProcrastinatingReader, I think above you're conflating between article talk page editnotices and mainspace ones. Look at my comment above yours. There, I contrast the former article talk page editnotices that outline page-level sanctions with Ds/talk notices. El_C 05:09, 19 February 2021 (UTC) Note that the edit notice under discussion is a message that is displayed above the edit box when an editor edits a page. The talk page notices you are referring to are shown on the talk page itself. isaacl (talk) 05:44, 19 February 2021 (UTC) Yes, I am aware. But I was discussing something else related to this matter. El_C 12:05, 19 February 2021 (UTC) If the question is @ me, El C, the talk notices have no filters. So, if you're talking about the setup on pages like Talk:Donald Trump, then that works as you expect if you place the talk notice as an editnotice on talk pages in the same way. RexxS is talking about the mainspace ones (as described in the TfDs). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:17, 19 February 2021 (UTC) Yes, again, I know. My point had to do with informational (unadorned) editnotices versus ones announcing page-level sanctions on article talk pages, as well. But since my point seems to have been lost to the ether (in my mind, too!), this thread indent has probably done all it could. El_C 12:26, 19 February 2021 (UTC) My apologies; you had mentioned "the {{Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement}} article talk page editnotice", but as far as I can tell, there is no "Template:Editnotices/Page/" subpage or "Template:Editnotices/Group/" subpage that is transcluding that template for an editnotice in the Talk namespace, which confused me. Thanks for clarifying. isaacl (talk) 02:53, 20 February 2021 (UTC) I've spent a few minutes trying to work out what is going on but it's pretty opaque. I believe RexxS is saying that the old Template:COVID19 GS editnotice could be used to provide standard text for the edit notice of an article, but the new replacement Template:Gs/editnotice does not work (sometimes? always?). I don't know if my experiment shows the problem under discussion, but I tried an edit notice for COVID-19 pandemic in Arizona. To do that, I edited Template:Editnotices/Page/COVID-19 pandemic in Arizona and previewed the old wikitext ({{COVID19 GS editnotice}}) and the new ({{Gs/editnotice|topic=covid}}). The old wikitext gave the expected edit notice but the new gave "Page sanctions are not authorised for this topic area. Edit notice is not required." I got the same results for an edit notice on the talk page. Is the issue that the new module has some code to check if an edit notice is "allowed" and purposefully fails if it thinks it is not? If that's the case, I don't know why I can't see somewhere that ProcrastinatingReader has said that. Johnuniq (talk) 04:45, 19 February 2021 (UTC) I've encountered the same problem recently, too. But I just switched to the updated (COVID) editnoice and all was well. Unless this is a very recent development (days rather than weeks), then I plead ignorance. El_C 04:48, 19 February 2021 (UTC) Johnuniq, that is pretty much an accurate description, I think. It's been like that since I created the module in July. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 04:59, 19 February 2021 (UTC) For clarity, since reading this over it seems you may mean I should've said this also in the TfDs also. To be clear: I did make this point explicitly in this TfD, linked into the broader TfD which included the COVID templates, saying that some of the usages would change to {{Gs/editnotice}} and others would be removed in line with the prior TfD consensus (which I linked in). My proposal in the nomination was slightly complex, since I intended for the templates to be handled slightly differently, so I tried to describe each case. In the end, it was deprecate all that gained consensus (which was probably the simpler option). I didn't actually enact the TfD results anyway, and the nomination had scrutiny from AN (where it was linked) and both were open for ~1 month each. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:45, 19 February 2021 (UTC) As described in the documentation, {{Gs/editnotice}} is designed to be used "only on pages with restrictions to notify editors of those restrictions. Its presence is required to enforce page-level restrictions. Editnotices should not be used on articles where only discretionary sanctions are authorised." Thus a restriction must be specified as a parameter, or else the error message you described will be shown. This is similar to {{Ds/editnotice}}, where a restriction must be listed (or the template will show "You must adhere to some restriction or another"). I appreciate there were differences in opinion when this was discussed last September on whether or not edit notices should be placed on articles for which no specific sanctions had been imposed yet, but were just under the scope of the authorized general sanctions. isaacl (talk) 05:19, 19 February 2021 (UTC) @Isaacl: would you be kind enough, please, to link the discussion you refer to? I know of no discussion that authorised a change to the current practice. My complaint is not about the accuracy of the documentation describing the functioning of {{Gs/editnotice}}, but that {{Gs/editnotice}} needlessly removes the functionality of {{COVID19 GS editnotice}}, which could be used on COVID-related articles that didn't have page-specific sanctions. The mistake was to assume that community-imposed sanctions had the same procedures as AbrCom-imposed sanctions. They don't. WP:General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019 requires "Pages with discretionary sanctions in effect should be tagged with {{Gs/talk notice|covid}} and an editnotice with {{COVID19 GS editnotice}} should be created." there's no differentiation between pages with or without page-specific sanctions. More importantly, and unlike ArbCom-imposed sanctions, the COVID-19 sanctions explicitly include two specific restrictions on all pages subject to the sanction, namely a requirement to adhere to MEDRS sourcing standards and a restriction on reinstating challenged content (not exactly a 1RR or "consensus required", but something similar). It is important that admins working in the COVID-19 area should be able to use their discretion to add an editnotice warning editors of the general sanctions. As an admin working in the COVID-19 area, I find it unacceptable that my ability to act should be circumvented by a decision made by a non-admin changing the functionality of a template/module without any broad community discussion. --RexxS (talk) 01:37, 20 February 2021 (UTC) Yes, I have previously read and understood your concerns. I was just replying to Johnuniq's question on the design intent of the {{Gs/editnotice}}. I was not involved in the discussions enacting the original authorization for general sanctions, nor in all of the subsequent related discussions, so I don't know what consensus agreements may or may not have been reached. I participated in Template talk:COVID19 GS editnotice § Changing this template; I don't feel a consensus was reached in that discussion, which is why I said that different points of view were expressed. As an aside, the wording you quote regarding the edit notice was introduced in January 2021; it used to say that pages "can be tagged with {{COVID19 sanctions}} and an editnotice with {{COVID19 GS editnotice}} may be created." However for purposes of this discussion, the distinction isn't very significant. isaacl (talk) 02:35, 20 February 2021 (UTC) The text you quote wasn't added by consensus, or by the closing admin. It was unilaterally added by a 'non-admin'. So that's a strange thing to rely on for as a show of consensus, compared to the various other discussions linked above. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 03:26, 20 February 2021 (UTC) Your "unilaterally" diff shows an edit to WP:GS/COVID19 on 17 March 2020. That was 11 months ago and has not been challenged as far as I can see. The WP:AN discussion (permalink) behind the general sanctions did not require any specific wording and claims that a page-specific remedy must be provided in an edit notice are bogus. It's fine to argue that a generic edit notice is bad, but it is not fine to replace a template with something that operates in a different manner because of a personal conviction. At the very least, there should have been a large notice of the fact that the proposed replacement involved a fundamental change in how the template worked. Johnuniq (talk) 04:12, 20 February 2021 (UTC) It was challenged in June, some time before I picked up on it. diff. Restrictions always have to be announced in the editnotice, otherwise it's not fair to sanction editors who probably didn't even know about the restriction. The replacement was mentioned in the TfD. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 04:21, 20 February 2021 (UTC) Your diff appears to be an objection to a very different version of the template which featured a gigantic "You will be blocked if you disrupt this page." At any rate, if proposing a replacement for a template, it is necessary to spell out that it's not actually a replacement, it's a new procedure which does not work in the same way. Johnuniq (talk) 05:52, 20 February 2021 (UTC) Johnuniq: (In fact, I don't know why we have any editnotice unless specific page restrictions have been imposed by an administrator, like with the standard DS implementation, but that's a different issue.) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 06:03, 20 February 2021 (UTC) ProcrastinatingReader There are a lot of reasons why editnotices are used like this on articles not under sanction - the most common, on articles, where a particular non-useful edit is being made by many editors, to warn them not to use it (hidden text can work for this, but many tend to ignore it). Go and attempt to edit Chris Morris (satirist) for an example. On talk pages, I have regularly used one to say "Hi - lots of people have come here to say this article should say X, and you can read the reasons why it's not going to say X here, so plase don't ask again - thank you". Or even just to say "Please go and read the FAQ on this page before you type anything". Black Kite (talk) 16:03, 20 February 2021 (UTC) @Black Kite: Yup, those (like the one at Chris Morris (satirist)) are normal and very useful, I agree. I've added a few of those myself in response to template-protected edit requests (I also created {{FAQ editnotice}} to help with the Sushant Singh Rajput issues). But this thread is specifically about mainspace discretionary sanctions editnotices on articles where no restrictions apply - those are not standard (which is why I nominated them for deletion in September and November of last year). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:07, 20 February 2021 (UTC) @ProcrastinatingReader: No, this thread has nothing to do with "discretionary sanctions editnotices" (which result from ArbCom decisions). It is purely about general sanctions editnotices (which result from community decisions), and your drive to conflate the two to create a false "standardisation", where two different sets of sanctions function differently, has resulted in your coding decisions altering the functionality of a template to prevent it being used in the way it previously was. You had no mandate to override community decisions and community-sanctioned practice, and if you can't understand that, you should be editing sensitive templates or modules. --RexxS (talk) 17:33, 20 February 2021 (UTC) Note that I have referred the conduct elements of this to the Arbitration Committee. See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#RexxS. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:09, 20 February 2021 (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. Non-admin close I'm not comfortable with the non-admin close of this discussion, in Special:Diff/1008062685 by Only in death, which presents conclusions that I don't think are true and not even established as fact by uninvolved editors in the discussion. For example, the fact that the 'change' was disclosed in the TfD (which are centralised consensus discussions for templates). In any case, the conduct elements, and this very issue, is before ArbCom and the section above was created for clarity on a content issue. Though I agree this section is probably unlikely to lead to anything productive on the content front anymore, I don't believe the comments in the NAC close reflect the discussion and so request that close be reverted. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:18, 21 February 2021 (UTC) No. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:21, 21 February 2021 (UTC) Or if you would prefer a longer answer: It is a matter of editing practice and clearly adhered to by almost everyone guidelines that 1. if you want to make a change that has wide-ranging consequences, you need to spell out in advance those consequences. 2. If you ignore/miss in error those consequences, when they are pointed out, you need to seek consensus to make them. If you can point to a discussion where in advance of you making those changes, you clearly stated the functionality would change, and gained agreement for that change, then I will be happy to remove that part. However from the discussion here, and at the talkpage of the templates, there does not appear to be any evidence of that. Lastly once you have referred something to arbcom, any further discussion here at this time is fruitless, as the core issue is not the behaviour of Rexx (which is how you framed your arbcom submission) but the functionality of templates which does not require any admin action at this time, and can be sufficiently resolved through a proper RFC on the templates themselves. The principle that if you do not understand something, you should not be doing it, is also long-standing practice, and with regards to advanced permissions, can be enforced by removal of the ability to do it. Consider it a reminder. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:34, 21 February 2021 (UTC) I wouldn't object to an admin closing it writing that the section is not going anywhere and that ArbCom will decide on the issue, but that's not what you wrote. A non-admin should not be closing discussions at AN/ANI with their conclusions, especially not one currently at arbitration, so I think an admin should revert that close. To your question, if you read my case statement the TfDs, and the exact quote, is given, but that's not really material to the fact that you shouldn't be closing the discussion; if you have comments to add, please add them as comments. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:42, 21 February 2021 (UTC) Arbcom will not decide on the issue of the templates. They act on conduct. This issue is not at arbitration. If you want a decision on the template issue, go open an RFC which clearly lays out the differences between the previous version and what you think it should not carry forward and make your case for it. Please stop wasting people's time. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:20, 21 February 2021 (UTC) I remember a couple years ago there was a complaint against an admin at ANI that had been closed like three times, and the three closers ended up being named parties to the subsequent arbcom case, and some of them were admonished for their closure. OID's closing statement reads to me like a !vote. Levivich harass/hound 18:54, 21 February 2021 (UTC) OID's closing statement reads to me like a !vote That was my first impression too. It's fine to close a discussion that's not productive, moved to another venue, or naturally come to an end, but that is best done in a neutral manner. The close is almost entirely OID's opinions--skimming the discussion I didn't see a single person bring up the interpretation of BOLD that they chastise everyone for not considering. It's not even a correct interpretation of policy. OID lectures participants (I assume mostly PR) based on Wikipedia:Be bold#Template namespace yet that policy quite noticeably doesn't forbid bold changes to templates. While that might be what OID wants the policy to say (based on how their close interprets it), closing a discussion with your own undiscussed interpretation of policy is not appropriate. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:23, 22 February 2021 (UTC) RfC Whatever policy Wugapodes is referring to certainly doesn't prescribe a course of action that leads to a major change in an important template's functionality without considerable prior debate. I have now opened an RfC at Wikipedia talk:General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019 to seek a definitive answer to whether admins should be able to use their discretion to place the COVID-19 editnotice on any article subject to the COVID-19 general sanctions. That should also answer the question whether OID made an accurate closing statement. --RexxS (talk) 21:52, 23 February 2021 (UTC) Whatever policy Wugapodes is referring to...wut? I cited the specific policy twice; I even linked to the specific section I was talking about. Bold neither forbids nor requires particular actions w/r/t templates, and the RfC doesn't mention changing BOLD at all, so I'm really struggling to see what it has to do with the interpretation of that policy brought up in the close or why I alone got pinged here. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:08, 23 February 2021 (UTC) I wondered whether you actually meant WP:BOLD #Template namespace or whether you had something else in mind that you didn't link. The guideline you referred to says "Before editing templates, consider proposing any changes on the associated talk pages and announcing the proposed change on pages of appropriate WikiProjects." and that pretty clearly doesn't prescribe a course of action that leads to a major change in an important template's functionality without considerable prior debate. Or am I missing something? --RexxS (talk) 22:20, 23 February 2021 (UTC) Regardless of what might be written somewhere, it is standard procedure (and common sense) that if an advanced user right is going to be used in a way that affects others, it is necessary to gain consensus first. Of course various exceptions arise when changes would only be minor or other mitigating circumstances exist. However, if people are used to the fact that Template:Example can be used as {{Example}}, it is unacceptable to replace that template knowing that {{Example}} no longer works (unacceptable unless clear notice has been given in a prominent location without significant objection). That is what happened here, and the "replacement" was intentionally not a replacement. By the way, WP:BOLD is a guideline, not policy. WP:TPECON is better guidance and that is how the template editor right should be used. Johnuniq (talk) 22:25, 23 February 2021 (UTC) Let me take a step back before taking a step forward: my concern is squarely about the close. I believe a closure, particularly of contentious discussions, should be a summary of the major points brought up by participants, and any interpretation of policies should primarily come from how participants (not the closer) weighed particular policies. The first link in the close is BOLD, and the close relies heavily on how the closer believes that policy applies to this situation. It seems no one brought up BOLD prior to the close, so (like others) I'm suspicious of its neutrality. While WP:BOLD counsels against major edits to templates without consensus, it does not forbid it. My point in bringing that up is not to say we should allow people to go on a template-breaking rampage, it's to point out that the policy is equivocal and reasonable minds can disagree about when and how it applies to particular actions. Because the policy is equivocal, the community, not the closer, should be doing the interpretation. There are of course other P&Gs to look to, and even an entire discussion of editor sentiment. None of that is in the close, instead it appears to be one editor's personal opinion of a policy no one else brought up. As an editor interested in understanding what happened, that's simply not helpful to me, and now my only option is to waste time reading the whole discussion when that information should have been in the close. Hopefully that clarifies my concern and why I was confused? If not I've already spent more time on this than I really care to, so I'm completely fine just dropping the issue if it helps us move on to something more useful. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:10, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Request for Comment on use of COVID-19 editnotice

Should admins have the ability to place the General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019 editnotice template (i.e., this template) on pages in scope that do not have page-specific sanctions?

An RfC on use of COVID-19 editnotice is open at WT:General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019. Feel free to participate in the discussion if this is a matter of concern for you. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:16, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Timeline

• 10 December 2020 – Primefac closed an RfC on community sanctions templates with a consensus to replace and deprecate them.
• 18 February 2021 – RexxS undid the deprecation and opened a discussion at Template talk:COVID19 GS editnotice#Template restored.
  • Primefac is twice-pinged and asked whether they'd have closed the TfD as replace and deprecate had they known about the undisclosed functionality changes. Response HERE.
• 19 February 2021 – ProcrastinatingReader unarchives an AN discussion and reboots it. See § Sidebar discussion at the Administrators' noticeboard.
• 21 February 2021 – The administrators' noticeboard discussion is closed; the closer says If a template editor (an advanced user-right) proposes changes/replacing a template but fails to disclose, either by error or ignorance, that the new version will not perform the same as the old version, any potential consensus to make that change (if it existed) will be invalid.
• 23 February 2021 – RexxS opens an RfC on these template changes.

— wbm1058 (talk) 12:40, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Point of clarification: that's a WP:TFD linked in the first bullet, not an RFC. Primefac (talk) 12:48, 14 March 2021 (UTC)