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)
 * 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)
 * Hi both, I've added a proposal on this topic at Village pump (proposals)/Archive 167. 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! &#124; Naypta✉ opened his mouth at 21:37, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * 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 who started the discussion above,  since you asked for a ping, and  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, &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  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. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  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. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  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 ☺ &#124; ✉ talk page &#124; 15:03, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 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. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  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. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  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. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 02:35, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 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, 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)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: consensus not demonstrated for this change yet &mdash; 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? &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  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: 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, &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 01:44, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support the redesigned banner. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  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)
 * 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? &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  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. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  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)
 * , please read the above and communicate clearly. The revision here addresses the previous concerns about the friendly banner and bright red title. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 20:49, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Multiple people said the same thing to no avail....still have HUGE red letters discouraging  editors.  REHASH.-- Moxy 🍁 20:54, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Multiple people said the same thing to no avail....still have HUGE red letters discouraging  editors.  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. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  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)
 * , 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? &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 04:46, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It's against best practices for accessibility. (The page you referred to links to which discusses this.) I suggest Discretionary sanctions are in effect for this page. Incidentally, the format of 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)
 * , 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. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  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  Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions 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 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. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  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)
 * , 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". &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 04:55, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Suggestions? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 04:57, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , "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. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  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 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 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 Administrators' noticeboard/Archive318 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."
 * 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.
 * General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * , 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)
 * I've already given you the link to [[Wikipedia:General 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)
 * , 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)
 * Lack of evidence of consensus is not evidence of lack of consensus and the current edit notice has been stable since 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)
 * , 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)
 * 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)
 * , 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)
 * ✅ (the link part) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:35, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ (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 . 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
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. General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019 is quite clear that "Pages with discretionary sanctions in effect should be tagged with and an editnotice with  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)
 * , 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)
 * 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 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  The editors see 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)

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 – 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.
 * 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.
 * 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)