Template talk:Ds/Archive 1

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


 * General_sanctions. AGK  [•] 13:20, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Requests_for_arbitration/Template. AGK  [•] 20:39, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Too wordy
This notice is far too wordy, and the effect is to make it less forceful or clear. It reminds me of the difference between public transit signs in New York versus Los Angeles. - Wikidemon (talk) 06:32, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Los Angeles: Smoking tobacco products, including smoke-free devices, in or within the vicinity of a public transit vehicle is prohibited per municipal code section 12135 et. seq.
 * New York: No smoking


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

Change to Template:Ds/editnotice
I've made a major change to Template:Ds/editnotice in which I rewrote certain parts of it, moved it onto Template:Editnotice and rewrote the documentation. Would you/anyone mind having a look and checking that everything still works. Also what's the purpose of using the tracking templates? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:19, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I've replied on the changes at my talk page (thanks for your note). Tracking templates is generally good form, particularly as some people will insist on substituting the template, and allows us in the future to see how widely these edit notices are used. AGK  [•] 13:53, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

trimmed
Ds/alert Per request at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions/2013_review: template was tl;dr with many pointless superfluous words, I've trimmed most of them to what I think is likely a minimal set. There should also be explicit wording that the notice is strictly informational to minimize unnecessary churn on talk pages, AE, and Arbcom pages. NE Ent 11:30, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks good though I've added a critical "not",  Roger Davies  talk 12:22, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yea, the "not" does need to be there. NE Ent 11:20, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

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

The result of the move request was: resolved. As far as I can tell AGK's solution below seems to have either been explicitly or implicitly accepted by the other participants here, thereby rendering requested move moot. Drop me a line if I've horribly misread this and I'll be willing to re-open. Jenks24 (talk) 09:44, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, thank you, and thank you to AGK for his technical expertise in this matter. —Neotarf (talk) 17:10, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Template:Ds → Template:Ds/community sanction – Template:Ds/sanction has been deprecated with use for Arbitration Committee sanctions, and turned into a redirect to Template:Ds/alert, however the template is still being used for Community sanctions, with modification, since there is no documented sanctioning template for community sanctions. Propose moving this template to Template:Ds/community sanction and making Template:Ds/sanction a disambiguation page. Neotarf (talk) 11:24, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support if the proposal is to move Template:Ds/sanction to Template:Ds/community sanction and then turn Template:Ds/sanction into a page (or redirect to a page) describing the difference and history. I don't think it would become a disambiguation page (unless we have template disambiguation pages), since the things being listed aren't articles. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:27, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I have two objections to this request: Therefore, I would deny the request. If the community want to copy the old template, they can do so by resurrecting the old uw-sanctions page. AGK [•] 19:16, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) These templates relate exclusively to the Arbitration Committee sanctions system. Community sanctions have little to do with the Discretionary sanctions template.
 * 2) These templates are part of the Arbitration Committee's process pages, and therefore a move request isn't procedurally the correct way to request changes to the template layout or title; cf. WP:ARBPOL, "associated enforcement processes".
 * Requested moves is clear enough that this is the current process for templates. I'm not buying the idea that a template is an "enforcement process", and therefore owned by the ArbCom. Why not collaborate and cooperate, especially since the ArbCom doesn't use this template any more. —Neotarf (talk) 07:00, 8 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Support the gist of this, one way or the other. I'm fine with AGK's "just copy it" idea or JHunterJ's clarification. I'm not swayed by the "you can't touch this, it belongs to ArbCom" reasoning latent in AGK's demurrer, but the AGK solution seems okay as a practical matter.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:48, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support resurrecting uw-sanctions with Special:Permalink/this version of Ds/sanction. The code can be changed so that rather than entering a code relating to ArbCom discretionary sanctions a link to the community decision can be used instead. Ds/sanction can then either be left as is or turned into a redirect, I'd rather it not be a disambig page, having uw-sanctions should be pretty clear. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:38, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Anyone looking for the old template should find an explanation and be directed to the current one(s).
 * What would be really nice would be if someone could sort out the Community Sanction templates, which are in a bit of disarray (see here). —Neotarf (talk) 07:00, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Mixing it in with the unrelated Ds templates probably won't help. AGK  [•] 09:49, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

As I originally blanked the template, I will recreate it presently (thereby undoing my own action, and rendering this discussion moot). AGK [•] 09:49, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

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

Update: New template created: Template:Uw-gsanctions. Feel free to edit further or use as you will. As Neotarf says, anyone trying to use Template:Uw-sanctions should not be redirected to either new template (they have to choose the appropriate one, as neither template is the catch-all that Uw-sanctions was). I have therefore not created a redirect at Uw-sanctions, and I created this template at an entirely-new page. I believe this resolves the concerns of everyone who has commented here. (Documentation will be needed for the new template, as Uw-sanctions' old doc's contained too much stuff about ArbCom sanctions.) AGK  [•] 22:01, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * II guess it should be added to General_sanctions which lists "useful templates"? Maybe a nice table of who can notify who of what would help clarify matters instead of people having to figure it out from the various texts at General_sanctions. (Note: after posting this I noticed that an individual who had been in a previous discussion of WHO can leave notifications on Community Sanctions and Arbitrations was challenging the right of someone else to leave him one re: an Arbitration where he was sanctioned. Maybe I'll make up a table and propose at General Sanctions talk and the worst that can happen is someone will clean up my mess and make whole thing intelligible :-) Carolmooredc  (Talkie-Talkie) 22:19, 8 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm puzzled why one letter is lowercase in an initialism for a two-word item: "DS" would be the normal way, not "Ds". Tony   (talk)  14:12, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Essentially for convenience, just as "User Warnings" (a system in its own right) is always written Uw in templates. Typing in lower case reduces the number of keystrokes, and avoids complication that arises when a title is mixed case. AGK  [•] 20:34, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


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

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

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


 * The doc's have since been copyedited. Hope this helps, AGK  [•] 09:49, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I may have been overtaken by events but here's my take..... The intent of going to the warmer kinder "alert" system was to forestall the tendency to view receipt as a badge of shame.   The best (read only) way to achieve that is to almost blanket the editors in a given subject area.  If everyone has one, then they don't create a sub class that has been tarred and feathered.   If that's true, then extreme caution should be used when telling eds to refrain from passing the things out.  When you caution eds on passing them out, you decrease their ubiquity in any given subject area, and in equal measure increase risk that the underclass/badge-of-shame perception will NOT be dispelled, making the conversion to the "alert" system a failure. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:42, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

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

I did two to two different editors who were seriously over the line on two Arbitrations in January. I don't think the new regime was in then and just used a self-made alert. So does the old one not count? I'll wait to see if they start again, in any case, and then do new Alert. But just wondering, since I'm sure a lot of people and possibly admins may be in that position. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:18, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * (A) I don't know
 * (B) I guess that you're safe if the date of their "notice" in the logging section of the ARB ruling is more than 12 months ago.
 * NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I thought Ds/alert was just started in late February/early March 2014 - or at least just written into instructions for us laypersons that finally made sense at that time. I guess usually alerts are quickly followed either by improved behavior, reports, blocks or whatever so many are moot anyway. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:57, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * FYI, after someone smeared me which is a big NoNo in the arbitration in question I decided to use the spiffy new alert. Low and behold I got a page saying you only can alert someone once and this person may have been alerted, check "in user talk history • in system log. Search elsewhere (optional): in AE • in AE contribs." Well, they've probably had an unofficial warning in a couple of those places, include a completed different Arbitration, so I guess it's covered. Does everyone get that message or just if there really has been an alert? Very discouraging for others who haven't left alerts and need to! Carolmooredc  (Talkie-Talkie) 20:23, 5 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Some answers:
 * Any alert/notification issued under the old system which met the requirements of the old system remain valid until 03 May 2015 per WP:AC/DS. So if they were notified under the old system who don't need to leave Ds/alert on their talk page.
 * The warning you saw is part of the edit filter which records which users have been notified, it needs to be displayed as editors can old be notified once every 12 months per WP:AC/DS.
 * Generally they are followed with either improved behaviour, a warning and/or a WP:AE request.
 * I think that was everything, if not ping me and I'll do my best. Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:34, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe that needs a bit more explaining here and at Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, especially the May 2015 and one year. Of course, most people will just run into it when they try to leave a message, so maybe there. We'll see how it goes. Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 13:17, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I thought I was paying attention but somehow the 5-3-15 expiration for old-system "notifications" escaped me as well. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:40, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * This is the first time, in my experience, that someone has been unsure how we treat alerts issued in the old format. Therefore, I don't think there is widespread confusion that would justify significant changes to the documentation (which I am, in fact, trying to keep brief). As you say, however, we can always re-visit if more people express confusion. Thanks, AGK  [•] 21:34, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, but does this "first time" follow several prior instances where it is crystal-clear the participants knew about May 2015?  If "no" then this aspect of the changeover suffers from a communication gap. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:02, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * PS Also, at the popwindow for doing the 12-month check, none of the options for checking relate to the "notifications" section of various arb rulings. You can use me as an example if you overlook the self-issued new system DS Alerts in the filter log.  I was "notified" in Jan 2014 at WP:ARBCC.  None of the options at the pop window would have led another ed to my old system notice.  So if an ed happens to issue a new system DS alert to someone "notified" under the old system before May 3 2015, hopefully no one will bite, since the issuing ed will have acted in good faith and after reasonable due diligence, even though the alert is technically duplicative. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:05, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * This is way too complicated to be issuing sanctions over, that's for sure. And it sounds like that is the threat, as opposed to a helping hand which would be more appropriate? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 03:09, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Edit filter
Still tries to prevent me issuing an appropriate DS notification. If this is not correct, please let me know. Otherwise I will assume that the edit filter is broken and no-one knows how to fix it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:10, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * What do you mean? Whenever you click the save button the edit filter will ask you to check that the user you want to alert hasn't already been alerted. That's how it's supposed to work. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:56, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Coding error?
Not sure where to post this, so I'll try here. When you initiate a DS-Alert, you get a popup window telling you to check for prior alerts in the last 12 months. Using myself as a test subject, I was doing some testing to see what happens if you click "cancel" and I think I stumbled onto a bug. The upshot is that if an ed first clicks "cancel" and then decides to start over, the alert goes live immediately, i.e., before the ed does the 12 month check at the pop window.

I ran this test with these steps 1. Started new thread at my own talk page to test the new alert system. Thread consisted of    cc ~ 2. At the pop window warning eds not to re-issue an alert in under 12 months, I opened new tabs for all the various checks and then clicked "cancel" 3. Inspected my talk page; the new thread referenced above had not been posted 4. Started a second new thread at my own talk page with the same string. 5. OOOPS!!!! I expected the pop up window to re-appear (where I intended to see if the filter log had registered the first attempt) but instead the alert was immediately posted to my talk page without the popup window.

This is bad because someone unfamiliar with the system could easily click "cancel" when confronted with the pop up, go away to read about the new DS system and consider whether they really want to issue an alert, and then start over. In this scenario the alert would instantly post to the target ed's talk page, before the issuing ed does the 12 month check.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:58, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll ping as he may know more but I think this is. But from my understanding this is how the edit filter works, as a warning has already been given it won't warn again as it assumes you have checked and do want to complete the action. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:03, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Apparent duplication
Is it necessary to have both  and , which are both for Pseudoscience? Also, if the  is kept, please note that it is not in alphabetical order on the list.&mdash; D'Ranged 1   talk  20:15, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


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


 * It get's worse: there's three of them, since cf also means pseudoscience and fringe science. Neither   nor   are mnemonic, and do not need to be documented/advertised in the /doc page, even if kept in the code for backward compatibility.  Having them both appear in the list along with   is just confusing.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:39, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Ds/alert edit filter not triggered
When I made a ds/alert here, the edit filter failed to trigger. Any reasons as to why it didn't? --RAN1 (talk) 22:24, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Apparently, if the system has previously logged a DS alert (regardless of subject area) the filter does not trigger. (Boo hiss) I don't remember if the system "forgets" about the prior alerts and again produces the alert filter after (x) months pass.   Regardless, now when I pass out a DS-Alert I do the checking manually as suggested when I asked about this also.  The thread starts with a description of some experimental self-alerting. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:50, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

BUG REPORT - new error in checking a user's alert history
An error with the DS Alert system has come to my attention at this thread in my talk page, courtesy (thanks Roxy). We were discussing how to manually check for one's prior alert history. This error can produce a false negative, leading to good faith double-alerting. Last year I sent myself a bunch of DS alerts for testing. Until recently, I could generate a list using two different approaches. Today, only one method works correctly NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:09, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * WRONG - I get the wrong thing when searching via my talk page version history
 * PART RIGHT - I get correct info when searching via the system log
 * MISSING - there should be two entries from today (is there a delay on the server's end?)
 * As we've established previously the edit filter isn't triggered if there are already alerts on the user's talk page. The alerts in your talk page history and the edit filter log are giving the same information, except that the filter log also gives details of when the template was placed on your userpage. Does that answer your question? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:34, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Splitting out: the problem is really wrong usage, and anyway what are we achieving with these templates?
...Like I was saying, the discussion on Dave Souza's talkpage was also partly (or mainly?) about the fact that templates and warnings, at least on Intelligent Design (which was the context) tend to be used not for all editors, and not when editors start entering a discussion, but at the moment that any editor disagrees about anything with a "Regular". That in itself implies that it is being used as a warning to specific editors, about holding specific opinions. There are clearly a number of "Regular" editors who think such warnings, along with hattings, deletings, and refusing to give rationales for edits, can acceptably be targeted against "non Regular" good faith experienced editors, with logical rationales, and are fairly clear about it. (One defense I have seen a lot on that article is that if a proposal has been discussed many times in the past then that is a reason it should not be discussed, which is of course nonsense as a general principle.) If we do not address that, then the words in the box can say anything we want, because the wrong message is being given in a different way. People who use warnings wrongly should themselves get clear warnings.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:43, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * @Andrew, I'd like to see us designate a few obvious main articles as belonging to one or another topic areas by default, and let the server auto-template anyone who stops by them and has no 602 alert tag in the server's log in the last 12 months. In this idea, editors could still do them manually.  By providing for automated management at some high traffic easily classified pages, we can depersonalize the sending pf some alerts, and at the same time ensure that even the regulars are covered.  In my view, this would help bring about the desired culture shift which motivated the recent overhaul. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:10, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * To me that sounds a great idea. If the real reason for these templates is "as advertised" then it makes sense. It removes the implication that these templates, no matter what they say on the surface, are being used by individuals against individuals, then misunderstandings will be less, and the practical effect on editing quality should also hopefully be less. And anyone who insists on still posting personal warnings would also be more clearly exposed to inspection of their motives. It will be interesting to see what other editors think. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:34, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't agree with the last part. The server can only do a small subset... easily classified man articles.  On all other articles, when a contrib falls within a topic area, human editors will still have to issue the FYI DS alert.   Those who follow the protocol in so doing are entitled to AGF, which manifests as a belief such editors are just trying to ensure everyone in the topic area gets a de-stigmatized FYI 1x per year, nothing more or less. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:25, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, I misunderstood and the idea seems more difficult to follow. What is the benefit then? Concerning AGF, sure very nice, but never ignoring reality, and that means reality including context. Good intentions are not the issue here. Rulings, templates, all things which note that an article or subject is "special" can and will be used by cliques who feel they are doing something important for the world, but need justification for not working according to normal WP practices. That is a real problem if you look through this real article's history. We should not have exceptions, or even anything which looks like exceptions, unless we are sure they are giving us a real benefit, and I think this is to be strongly doubted. WP has its normal policies, and following these more strictly would be better for the ID article. Declaring the ID article special has been a problem. I would like to see activists on issues like this get more interested in pursuing the people who use templates and warnings wrongly in order to make the editing of others tedious and unpleasant. These guys are a far bigger problem. We all know that keeping a good and diverse active editor population is a major concern of this community.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:28, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Its impossible to eliminate BATTLE mentality, but we can extract the gunpowder from the potential ammunition.... FYI DS alerts should be ubiquitous. Let the servers process contribs at the main articles, supplemented by human processing of other contribs.  Whether the server or a human issues the ubiquitous annual FYI DS alert should be irrelevant, because the goal is simply to make sure every newbie knows and every regular remembers that DS applies.  Ubiquity means neither the getting nor the giving is likely to be used as a weapon. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:38, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * PS As for "the people who use templates and warnings wrongly in order to make the editing of others tedious and unpleasant." (your words).... the tools are in place already.  Just make effective use of DR, ANI, and AE.  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:44, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

@Andrew L. and NAEG, the main issue isn't "the people who use templates and warnings wrongly in order to make the editing of others tedious and unpleasant." To suggest it is is not seeing the wood for the trees. The issue is the WP:Lunatic charlatans who do not edit in good faith, but according to their beliefs in their magical therapy or pseudoscience of choice. We wouldn't need special alerts if the system dealt with SPAs etc, effectively. It is a tool in the armoury of mainstream editors. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 15:55, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Case in point, Andrew.  Roxy, AE is your tool.  But it is tedious and it does take time, so some eds under the old system understandably sought shortcuts, like using the old-system DS warning as a bazooka.   After all, if an opponent goes away, that's easier than struggling for consensus!   But that mentality is precisely what the reforms are trying to un-do.   AE is the tool.   The FYI-DS-Alert is just (supposed to be) an FYI.   NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:02, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:59, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry Roxy but who are you calling a lunatic charlatan?? In your opinion have there been any at all editing on the ID page recently? I spent a few months on that article and received "warnings" sometimes weekly, sometimes daily. This was about things like long-standing disambiguation debates, major sourcing problems and OR, lead style problems, due weight problems, even sentences with grammar problems were sensitive ground. In terms of my position on the spectrum between sceptics and faith pushers, the "Regulars" are on the faith end. The biggest arguments we kept having are simply because of their position is that the article should not work according to the normal rules such as sourcing etc. In this real world, how do all these "special" rules and exemptions on this article help the fact that the article's biggest problems seem to be strongly associated with it being designated as special?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:15, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * @News: That is the wrong attitude IMOH. Wikilawyering has a tendency to go further and further away from a focus on good editing. I know many good editors agree with me on this. I am always troubled by Wikipedians who try to blame good faith editors who don't start wikidrama when others do the wrong thing. I can post links when attacked, but I do not want to be part of making Wikipedia worse! Wikipedia had a simple way of working that worked and wherever possible we should stick to that way. Pro-active wikidrama and wikilawyering are bad. We should judge proposals for systems based on the good and bad that they might cause and there has been absolutely no focus in this discussion upon that. "AE is a tool" does sound better, but "tool to do what?" Without that bit, this is all just amateur law making, aimed more at more amateur law making, and that means worse articles. I want to be able to make articles better. We used to call that the highest aim here.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:15, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Andrew, the DS alert has been used as a weapon to beat off the bozos (and a lot of good new prospects too). I was trying to say that AE should play that role.  It is the tool to deal with the bozos.  You seem to denigrate each and every ANI/AE complaint as "wikilawyering" but that's dead wrong.  wiki-lawyering is when one uses the letter of our policies to thwart their intent.   An AE complaint that is true in substance as well as form is not "wiki-lawyering" and although its necessity is regrettable, those who do a good job should be thanked, not denigrated.  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:31, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you are missing the point. Your point is equivalent to saying "martial law is sometimes needed". You are not demonstrating anything about whether it is needed in any real case in hand. (Have a look at ID and all its debates and find some examples where creationists really looked like they might takeover. They don't last an instant in WP. I am not sure if you get involved in editing debate work yourself or this would be obvious to you.) And secondly you are ignoring the moral imperative which exists upon anyone who declares martial law, given that it is commonly known, and widely experienced, that martial law almost always involves "mission creep". To put it simply: making an article special WILL cause problems. If you are a person who helps get articles declared as special you can not rightfully excuse yourself from feeling responsible for a PREDICTABLE increase in problems which WILL come from that decision. You will cause worse articles. You may not say, "the problem is other people", and not can you say this only happens in special cases. We are dealing with very common tendencies which derive from human nature. Based on what happens in the real world, and what we know will happen again and again, we should keep the system as simple as possible, and base it on what works for making articles better. The killing of editor debates might make many talkpages more peaceful these days, but WP now has a building problem of article stagnation. We should not create tools which allow any Wikipedians to put themselves outside the normal system, and give themselves and their favorite articles a different "rank". (The ID article even has two editors from the Regular group who are declared as owners (without using the word) on the talkpage. Every effort possible has been made to stake the article off as special, and connect mainly to a little walled garden of related articles.) This is the normal way with martial law. As we know from history, good uses of martial law declarations are very rare. Very likely, many years ago, there might have been some real creationists who caused a real problem and created the excuse, but it is very hard to get an article out of martial law. Rant over, but I beg you to keep these real concerns in mind. The aim is good articles, not artificial "law and order".--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:29, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Being a fan of concision, is it fair to say all that boils down to your opinion that we should dispense with discretionary sanctions altogether? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:45, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I said that they are over-used, and that the problems of all similar over-legislation which make certain articles or editors special are under-estimated (indeed not even considered) by Wikipedians who enjoy making rules more than making good articles. But as per my original notes and the title of this subsection, my proposal here is that the usage instructions should be clarified, and they should ask potential users of this template to "think twice" about whether the way they are about to use the template might look like intimidation against an editor, which would be against community norms. (Easy to add WLs to the relevant policies.) Things to consider could include:
 * Is the editor themselves involved in a debate, or have strong feelings about the debate, and about to post a warning to someone they disagree with?
 * Has the editor checked the history of the article to see how the template is being used there? (For example is it rarely being used, or commonly. Is the template being used for all new contributors or only some?)
 * Is there a chance the editor has been called in by a party or faction involved in a content debate, in order for your warning to have an impact on that?
 * People who post warnings should know that they are going beyond the needs or normal editing, and taking a type of action which may be seen as controversial by the community in some cases. If the warnings can not be posted universally and consistently, then the decision to post them to selected individuals should never be done lightly. This should in my opinion be mentioned clearly.
 * It will be interesting to see how people struggle to find excuses for opposing this proposal which do not make a nonsense of the "it is not really meant to intimidate" nonsense. I think I have never interacted with Roxy the Dog before noticing this discussion on Dave Souza's talk page for example, but there is nothing unclear about the mission on the user page, and in his/her contributions, and in the harsh comments above. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:17, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * This sub-thread seems to have devolved into something of a behavioral essay, so I'll bow out for now. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:46, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Devolved? Thanks. You asked me to split out my remarks about the usage instructions needing addressing if we are to address the original discussion on Souza's talk page. I did it. You and others reacted, devolving in the process, so I necessarily "co-devolved" and defended the background thinking. You suggested that there was no proposal and I gave a more concrete one. If you'd wanted to create a more convincing theatrical effect in order to sidetrack the discussion you should have made your remarks one step earlier? The proposal is there now and so your unfair accusation is too late. Please comment on the proposal. It is not a "behavioral essay".--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:16, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Somehow this thread got tangled talking about two different proposals. , lets meet at user talk to see about sorting out the two ideas under two different headings.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:13, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, tangling up always seems to happen with this subject. But I don't really see why I should not just make a proposal? I am looking at this page. I see it already contains the following under ===Usage=== :
 * "Alerts ensure a user knows what is expected of them. Alerts are a neutral courtesy; never use them to intimidate, coerce, or shame another editor."
 * I am suggesting making this more pro-active advice. For example:
 * "Alerts are only for helping a user knows what is expected of them. They should never be used to intimidate, coerce, or shame another editor. If the warnings can not be posted universally and consistently, then the decision to post them to selected individuals should never be done lightly, and editors should think twice before using the template in order to avoid being accused of bad intentions. Things to consider include:
 * Is the posting editor themselves involved in a debate, or have a history of editing on this debate, or have strong feelings about the debate, and about to post a warning to someone they disagree with?
 * Has the posting editor checked the history of the article to see how the template is being used there? (For example is it rarely being used, or commonly. Is the template being used for all new contributors or only some? Has the same template been posted multiple times to specific editors?)
 * Is there a chance the posting editor has been called in to post a warning by one individual or group, against another individual or group with whom they are involved in a normal content debate?
 * Posting in the wrong way may be seen as controversial by the community in some cases."
 * The aim of the above is to make sure we are serious that this template is not made specifically as a weapon in battles, and as an excuse for battles. Can we make this change?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:51, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * opposed to proposal dated 08:51, 9 March 2015 (UTC) because it perpetuates the cultural attitude of the old warning system, instead of strengthening the cultural shift to the new FYI system, and would suppress issuance of these simple FYIs out of fear that just spreading the word would become subject of a legalistic attack based on this new wording. If we are going to keep relying on ARBCOM and AE, we need to make them work better, and we do that best by spreading the word that DS applies without stigma.  This proposal is motivate by a beautiful optimistic ideal, but in our practical world it amounts to a step backwards, in my opinion.  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:23, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I must be missing something, so I beg you to explain more clearly. Please note that the proposal would only change the usage instructions, and it would only be a more clear warning NOT to engage in what you say is an older habit, which you clearly admit is still a problem. So how can it make the problem worse? Furthermore, I believe your remark that we are relying on ARBCOM and AE is not the Wikipedia way, and not an approach widely accepted in this community? I have never relied on ARBCOM and AE for anything, and they are badly suited to what I engage in most on Wikipedia, which concerns article content. You can't seriously be demanding that normal editors have to make use of ARBCOM and AE? And why are you saying that my proposal is motivated by an optimistic ideal? I just can't even follow how you can say that. I am arguing that the template will always be abused to some extent and that we should therefore have a more clear warning on record about what constitutes abuse. Far from being optimistic, I see your approach is part of a bigger effort to shift power away from normal editors, and at least having this warning on record gives people who receive warnings something they can refer to without going to AE and ARBCOM (which effectively means the end of normal editing).--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:00, 9 March 2015 (UTC) ADDED re "optimistic ideal": Your vision of WP is apparently something driven by courts and laws, in order to avoid all the messy debates. I think that is an optimistic ideal. Power, which is what you are distributing here, corrupts. Messy, chaotic debate is not perfect, but it has worked amazingly well on WP. Let the chaotic debates live on? AE, ARBCOM and legislation of all sorts are for extreme cases only, surely?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:09, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * As its just us, and I've already done my best to answer your questions, I'll just watch the thread for further developments. But I will observe that throughout the discussion you have repeatedly referred to the FYI alert as a "warning". That suggests to me that while your comments are certainly in good faith, some part of the old cultural attitude still dominates your perspective of the new de-stigmatized FYI alert system.  The usage instructions should rather say "Everyone in a topic area is encouraged to renew one another's FYI alerts so that every active editor has received one within the last 12 months.  They are, after all, just FYIs so please spread the word!" NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:45, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Did you not admit that it is often used as a warning, and that the "old cultural attitude" is still commonly in effect? So my proposal is simply based on reality, not any ideal. The explanations I propose there are supposed to help people see the light, but you do not seem to want to confirm whether my proposed ideas about what would be questionable usage match yours. Can you please advise? In fact, now that we come to it, this is the second time you have referred to there being a new culture. What are you talking about when you refer to this? You referred above to AE and ARBCOM now being the correct tools for editors to resolve content disputes, but where was this agreed and announced? I would like to get your position clear so if necessary we can take it to a better attended WP forum.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:30, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Answering your non-repetitive question, "new culture. What are you talking about when you refer to this?", I am referring to the recent DS overhaul, and specifically the multiple long discussions in the archives regarding alerts. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:15, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that link. But in the meantime you are refusing to even say if the proposed usage instructions are wrong in your opinion? That seems very tendentious and unconstructive, as per all the usual definitions of ways we should not act on talk pages. And concerning your new culture remarks I still don't see why this allows you to make such a big issue about my use of the word "warning" as opposed to "alert"? What is the difference anyway? A weather warning is the same as a weather alert? They both imply that the coming weather might be the opposite of good right? If you can't explain anything at all this template starts to look like a one man show with no community support.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:00, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * ADDED: At the very best, this word distinction must be wiki-jargon I suppose, in which case anyone can be excused for not knowing it, or for using normal English.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Nothing at that Arbcom link seems to suggest a special wikijargon meaning distinction between "warning" and "alert", nor indeed any disagreement with anything I am saying. The final draft seems very consistent with my proposal. Especially see the final paragraph in the section about Alerts. I think the following section about the expectations upon admins is also very important and not reflected in the current usage notes. The old normal question of "who watches the watchers" is something the committee clearly thought hard about and saw as relevant and important.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:19, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * In reply to in the meantime you are refusing to even say if the proposed usage instructions are wrong in your opinion? That seems very tendentious and unconstructive,", I believe I have already given my best shot at answering (and here also). You could reference what I said in a refined question; make formal complaint about my behavior; ask for help with our communication at WP:THIRD or other DR venue. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:07, 11 March 2015 (UTC) Come to think of it, maybe this will help..... implicit in my prior commment is the notion that the only improper uses of this FYI template are (A) giving to an editor who obviously never set foot in the topic area, and (B) giving to an editor without even looking for a prior alert in the last 12 months.  In the no-fault FYI alert system, all other uses are, as I understand the overhaul consensus, encouraged.  I thought that was inherent in my prior comment, suggesting different usage instructions ("please spread the word!".  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:24, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The two links you give are to comments where you seem to saying more-or-less that you disagree with the proposal because I use the word "warning" instead of the word "alert", which means I do not understand the new "culture". Right? So please explain the new culture, and please let the alert explain the new culture? If you are serious about a new culture being explained, then your reluctance to let people understand it is striking.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:52, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Done my best to respond.. I generally agree with Thryduulf below), though The bit about copy edits defeating the idea of automated alerts never sank in.   Andrew if you want more from me, Please invoke THIRD or other DR tool to aide our communication bot I'm on klunky touchscreen for awhile so next week pls.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:42, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You consistently come back to this "so sue me" approach. This is a talk page, and these responses are in conflict with the spirit and letter of the norms agreed for talkpages. Why should I need to "invoke" anything, or go to some authority? This whole attitude is wrong. Life is too short and I am just here to make articles better. My conclusion when someone won't explain themselves is that I can ignore them. The problem is that I am seeing avoiding discussion, and creating tools to make that easier, is a big theme being spread around Wikipedia. Less experienced editors are being shut down much more successfully. This attitude is hurting the mechanism (discussion between editors who had equal standing) which worked best, and not replacing it with anything practical. To repeat: from what I can see (which is not much) your positions are not consistent with the ArbCom decision you cite. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:28, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Acknowledging a communication difficulty and asking for outside help is very different from hostile "so sue Me". I'm willing to try Dispute resolution if you are, otherwise I choose WP:Drop the stick.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:45, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Sosumi chimes with me... as for the spirit of talkpages, I commend Lagavulin. Andrew, please reflect on DR. . . dave souza, talk 22:35, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Dave you have gone to great lengths to make it unpleasant for me to edit on Wikipedia and you continue. Yes, now the discussion is long so that is your new excuse to not answer a question. Where I have seen that before Dave? But for the record this has obviously been a deliberate refusal to respond to valid concerns. Future readers can examine it and confirm. There is no explanation being given for not wanting usage explanations to be clear about what kind of usage is wrong. My proposals do appear to be perfectly consistent with the ArbCom ruling I was directed to read. Dave's history of working with a team who make intimidating and repetitive warnings referring to the DS system, in ways which appear to be in clear conflict with the Arbcom ruling, can surely be assumed to play a role. Without clear usage instructions, Dave as intimidator will be in a much better position than the people he harrasses, to claim pseudoignorance. (Not every editor will be aware of this discussion here, nor of what ArbCom said. They will only see the template. Net result intended: they feel threatened and helpless.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:44, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

The question of whether every editor who touches an article or talk page in an area subject to DS should be given an alert template was discussed in the review that led to the adoption of this system. The consensus was that the templates should only be given to people making content edits, so as not to disrupt unnecessarily copyeditors working across many different articles and subject areas. What constitutes a content edit cannot be determined algorithmically and so the templates should only be given by humans. When exactly they should be given is going to very slightly on a case by case basis, but everyone who is has made multiple content-related edits to the article or talk should have be made aware. Speaking personally I would expect everyone who has made more than three such edits to be formally aware of DS in most circumstances (excluding where there has been insufficient time between edits for a human to determine the need for and then leave the template). I'm not seeing a need to change the usage instructions at present. If anyone is (trying to) use the issuing of DS templates as a weapon then this needs to be brought up at their talk page and then at AN/I if the behaviour continues. Thryduulf (talk) 08:13, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The amendments suggested in the section above are proposed to avoid the sort of good faith misunderstandings discussed at length on my talk page, after the occurred in relation to ID, and avoid getting into tedious dispute resolution which isn't needed. Don't know if any further suggestions were made in this long section, so can't comment on them. . . dave souza, talk 22:35, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * There is a section above about one proposal, but as I mentioned there, leading to the creation of this section, that section does not address the real discussion on your talk page. It is being assumed that only people receiving alerts are misunderstanding them, and it is also apparently being assumed that any questionable use of the alerts will be easy to take to wikicourt and fix up that way, which is nonsensical because people using the templates to intimidate will simply say "oops" because there is no clear warning to them. Indeed Dave, you and your group have been quite pro-active in WP:BAITING people because you WANT people to start wikidrama. What better way to stop discussions on talk pages?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:44, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If I understand correctly, one aim is to make sure that warned editors, sorry alerted editors, can't later say that they did not understand the situation. Right? What I am asking for is a parallel advice to the people posting the warnings. Same logic. Otherwise, assuming that editors really would go to ANI (as opposed to just quitting, which is what normally happens) you would have lots of cases where after a month of wikidrama, it would be decided that the abusers might not have known what they were doing. The apparent difference between our approaches is that you seem to be making an assumption that the people who post these things always know more about WP policy than the people they post to. From what I have seen, this is certainly not true, and besides it is a long-followed WP approach to say that admins and their ilk have no special power in content debates. Therefore both sides of the transaction deserve fair warning. It is striking how different the usage instructions are to the Arbcom document which I was directed to read as its supposed source.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:52, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

DS/talk-notice template question
Some articles contain large subsets of material that might falls under a DS category. Today's example is Political activities of the Koch brothers, in which large parts fall under DS topic climate change. In good faith, placed the DS-talk notice on the article talk page. However, since other parts of the article are unrelated to climate change, I found the templates suggestion that the entire thing falls under DS a little troubling, just from a housekeeping point of view. I reverted, pending this inquiry as to how we should handle such cases? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:52, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * There's only one article in all of Wikipedia of which the whole thing is nominally about climate change and that's Climate change. The DS finding says broadly construed. The alert says to edit carefully, that's all. I don't see the suggestion you see, that the whole thing falls under DS. The alert is notification, and is helpful to our fellow editors, some of whom may have topic bans. Hugh (talk) 05:11, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The template ends up saying the "article", not parts of the article, is under DS. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 05:39, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The article is subject to discretionary sanctions. As High points out, the template doesn't say that the whole thing is covered by discretionary sanctions but that editors (and hence the page) is subject to DS. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:48, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The template text displayed on the talk page prior to my revert, says (bold supplied)
 * This article is subject to discretionary sanctions. Please edit carefully.
 * However, the 650+ words in the section Think tanks and political organizations have nothing to do with climate change. Neither do the 300+ words in the section Background, and the 850+ words in the section Political activity contains only a single almost parenthetical reference to global warming.  There is indeed a section on their climate change views, and I'm keenly aware that the RSs document a trail of climate denial funding leading back to the Kochs.  But I also see over 1700 words (at which point I ceased counting.... there's more) with only a single almost parenthetical reference to global warming.   So why does the template say "This article is under discertionary sanctions" when so many sections of the article have nothing to do with the topic "climate change", which was the basis for the template? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 08:00, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Because the article is still subject to DS, for example I can full protect the article under discretionary sanctions and I could probably impose 1RR (for example) on the article as a whole. At the end of the day the notice is a non-compulsory way of giving people more information about the situation. Saying that only certain parts of the article are covered makes the template makes it longer (the brief version is designed to be short and too the point) and complicates it, especially as it isn't always the case (my example) and (I'm guessing probably) usually it is the vast majority of the page or the whole thing which would be covered. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:50, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

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


 * The prose is written as a hierarchy in that it mentions, from first to last, that:
 * The information is important and must be read (demands attention)
 * DS matters to the recipient (explains the message topic)
 * DS is an enforceable system that now applies (justifies the message)
 * Follow-up is welcome (guides towards further assistance)
 * The message is important but non-judgmental (placates people who may read other meanings into the message).


 * I don't think I could support prioritising the last sentence, and its purpose, above the preceding sections. Effectiveness is generally the most important thing with these sorts of messages. I also think – and I wonder if you agree? – that the rest of the message, generally, strikes a harmonious, non-scary tone (particularly given how abrasive its predecessor was and how relatively serious the subject matter is). For these reasons, I would probably leave the sections ordered as they are. AGK  [•] 21:30, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know, AGK. Thinking about the perspective of a newcomer, it feels to me like the message reads:


 * My thinking is that if it started like this, the recipient would be less stressed (and possibly therefore understand it better):


 * Also, it might be nice if the reason for the existence of said sanctions (namely, bad behavior in the past, by people other than the person receiving this notice) were mentioned. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:55, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I strongly concur (uncharacteristically >;-) with WhatamIdoing, on all of these points. As someone outright victimized by use and abuse of the earlier, accusatory version of the WP:AC/DS notices, I know first-hand exactly what effect these notices can have, and some editors have permanently resigned over them.  While the current wording is an improvement in the WP:AGF department, it still will have the same effect WhatamIdoing's parody wording conveys, at least on editors unfamiliar with the AC/DS system (which is all editors other than process geeks and troublemakers, basically).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:46, 13 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Support moving "This message is informational only..." to the top. Basic decorum and being less threatening supersedes other concerns. See for example this alert I gave -- which even included "Apologies if..." -- and the threatened response. This is a person with whom I had no interactions of a personal nature. It's a colossal mess that we have editors alerting each other like this instead of a bot, but if editors must alert each other then it is imperative that we do it as nicely as possible. Manul ~ talk 01:52, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to slightly rearrange the alert
The problem of scaring people was discussed above about six months ago, and several times before. I propose that the content of the message be re-arranged as follows:

This is a pretty small change, since the content is the same. The main difference is the order. My purpose for putting it in italics, above the bold-faced text, is to identify it as a background explanation (as contrasted with the main message).

If you want to get all science-y about it, it's widely accepted that people's comprehension and memory both work better when they're not scared about being punished. Consequently, I think that this re-arrangement would increase compliance and decrease the risk of good editors being scared away from controversial areas by alert-wielding POV pushers.

Does anyone object? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:33, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Please do this: the question was raised on my talk page in relation to ID, and I came to the same idea independently. In addition, the template page instructs "Type an appropriate subject line, then save the page." An editor in good faith used the subject line Arbcom Pseudoscience Warning, which was seen as attempted intimidation. It would be clearer and cause less trouble if the advice actually suggested the subject line, and specified it as ==Discretionary sanctions alert==. . . . dave souza, talk 09:51, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Whatamidoing and Dave, prompted by the discussion on Dave's Talk page. (I am the editor referred to as acting "in good faith" by Dave, above.) -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 10:53, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:07, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Vsmith (talk) 14:39, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support From first hand experience, I can state that moving the last sentence to the beginning is important. I read the section heading "warning" followed by possible sanctions that followed.  I went to the Arbcom pseudoscience page and never did come back and read the last sentence till long afterwards. --I am One of Many (talk) 18:36, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

It would be even better to start the text with
 * For your information, and without suggesting any wrong-doing on your part....

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:50, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Support Uncle Ed (talk) I like the version I saw just now ... This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date. It has the perfect balance of information and fear-reduction. (Thanks to N&E Guy for telling me about this.) --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:31, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Whoa, Ed Poor is still around! I would support if the top two lines were condensed into one somehow. If the goal is to make it less scary, burying the "oh this doesn't concern you personally" above the big bold READ THIS, CITIZEN! doesn't help. NewsAndEventsGuy's proposal is a step in the right direction. Harej (talk) 03:55, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support That's even better! --I am One of Many (talk) 05:10, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Supporting the general idea without any strong preferences on the options being considered. But I want to also point out that a second discussion might be needed concerning the usage guidelines. The discussion on Dave Souza's talkpage was also partly (or mainly?) about.... [But NewsAndEventsGuy has asked me to continue this in a new section, so see below]--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:43, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Will this change now go ahead?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:36, 10 March 2015 (UTC) Again, I note the warnings on the template page and I ask how we go about getting the above agreed change put into effect.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:06, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm just checking that the Committee doesn't have an objection (as it is a part of their official procedure. In the future it would be best to file an amendment request first and have the discussion there. Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:MOS Alert Notice
There is disruptive editing about capitalization at the Manual of Style and its talk pages. I can't find an alert code for Manual of Style alerts. What do I do? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:13, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * AT. Could we add MOS?  Robert McClenon (talk) 01:32, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:00, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Copyedit request
In the yellow box, change "#topic codes" to just "#Codes" (case sensitive I think) NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:19, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ typo fixed. AGK  [•] 13:41, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Suggestions to make template less alarming and more accurate
I suggest some tweaking to the Ds template, at least for "topic=pa". The recent one I received was initially confusing, partly because of the brief "(e.g. hebephilia), a topic which you have edited". I've seen one editor complain that they received an alert but have never edited the 'hebephilia' article. In my case, I initially thought it referred to an unpleasant dust-up which actually did involve the term "hebephile", though not the article on that topic. (An IP edit in January 2013 was reverted by another editor in October 2013, and an uncomfortable exchange followed shortly thereafter on The Little Girl Who Lives Down the Lane and related talk pages.) Even in the notice to my talk page, the "a topic which you have edited" is not accurate, since it stemmed from an edit to List of musicals: A to L.

So I suggest adding a few more examples to the miserly gratia one, and a tweak to make it more generally applicable. Maybe: "… to be used for edits involving transgender issues and paraphilia (e.g. Sex reassignment surgery, hebephilia) . One of your edits has touched on a sensitive subject." Note that I've changed 'pages' to 'edits', because the breadth of the template's application is confusing if not restricted to edits to the actual article pages of sensitive topics.

I also think the template would be less alarming if the purpose were stated more clearly right up front. Instead of: "This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date."; perhaps: "This is to inform you that one of your edits has touched on a sensitive subject. It does not imply any misconduct on your part. This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia." (although I don't think "an administrative situation on Wikipedia" is very clear to the common editor).

My two cents. Willondon (talk) 02:44, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

American Politics
What is the DS/alert template code for American politics? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:00, 20 June 2015 (UTC) ✅ I see that it is ap. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:51, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * In the listing of cases, American Politics is a red-link (and shows up as a red-link when the template is transcluded). There is a typo in the link.  Can a clerk please correct?  Robert McClenon (talk) 23:34, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Copyedit request x2
In Template:Ds/alert, there is an instance of "#codes" that should be "#Codes" (capital C). Anon 126  (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 01:35, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅. Thank you! AGK  [•] 22:08, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Ds/alert not triggering the editfilter
As of today, is not triggering the editfilter when you use this template , but it worked a few days ago. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  10:29, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The filter isn't triggered when there is already a DS alert on the talk page. designed it that way. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:37, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Argh. We don't get the array of options to check for previous alerts without the editfilter being triggered, though. It would be more useful if this worked like XfD templates, and presented its detailed "what next" options upon preview, instead of upon saving and then triggering the edit filter. By that point, it's often going to be too late. PS: One of the links it provides (the fourth, I think) goes to a softredir and should probably be replaced with the correct URL. PPS: An additional reason to move this stuff to the preview phase is that the attempt to save that presently bring up these tool happens to trigger the edit filter. This creates an undesirable loophole! If I attempt to alert someone who got an alert 11 months ago, I'll trigger the editfilter, but not actually save the message. If someone else comes to deliver another alert in two months (a month after the recipient's earlier alert already expired), they'll see the edit notice that an alert was given two months ago when it actually was not, and abort their own delivery, and so will anyone else for most of the next year, giving the should-be-recipient a "get out of jail free" pass they don't even have to do anything to exploit.  This is precisely the sort of gameable bureaucracy mess this Ds/alert system is being criticized for by admins and regular users alike (see WT:ARBCOM).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  12:17, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know enough about how the preview option works to comment. But I think a way to deal with the second issue you raise is to remove the link to the log and just have the page history (which will only show saved alerts). How does that sound? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:44, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi . The template was coded in this way based on data that suggested the number of people who edit in two completely unrelated topic areas is nearly nil. (People who edit in two separate but related topics don't need to be notified a second time.) So, rather than increasing bureaucracy, the design was intended to reduce it. Of course, it's impossible to plan for every use case, particularly when using software as unsuited to our unique purposes as MediaWiki. But I hope this sheds some light on the thinking during development. Regards, AGK  [•] 22:14, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if it is worth fixing, but it does appear to be a bug. The behavior is that a second alert can't be given so long as the text of the first alert is still visible on the talk page. Since alerts expire after 12 months, this means that a re-alert after expiry is not possible. That is, the revision will not be tagged. Arbcom might still accept this as a valid alert, though, since WP:AC/DS only prescribes the text of the notice, it doesn't say that the revision of the talk page has to be tagged. EdJohnston (talk) 22:42, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Right, though as noted below to Callanecc, there are other problems with this implementation.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  19:25, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm going to assume you mean that editors rarely edit two completely unrelated topic areas that are subject to DS. But that won't be true indefinitely, if it's true now (I'm skeptical of that).  ArbCom applies more DS to more topics all the time, and our editorial pool decreases all the time, so mathematically speaking, it's a necessary fact that eventually most regular editors will edit more than one DS topic area.  Without seeking them out, I edit, at least sporadically, in at least 5 of them, despite generally avoiding controversial topics and focusing on gnoming. Because of ArbCom's unwise decision to apply DS to WP:AT / WP:MOS, "broadly construed", any editor who ever edits those pages or participates in discussion at their talk pages, or any of their many subpages, or in WP:RM discussions, or in style discussions in article talk, or such discussions in user talk, or in Village Pump threads that involve titles or style, etc., etc., etc., will be under WP:ARBATC (which has, also unwisely, been held by at least one admin to apply to mainspace articles on the English language! I know, since I was topic banned from such an article under ARBATC "just in case"; WP:AN later overturned this, but that was frankly blind luck, and took two months.)  Most long-term editors do this eventually, often regularly, ergo anyone editing in some encyclopedia-content DS area is almost certainly also going to be editing in the ARBATC DS area, too, today or real soon now.  The encyclopedia-content DS areas are also increasingly converging to cover entire categories of topics. E.g. fringe, alternative medicine, e-cigs, GMOs – pretty soon medicine in general will be all under AC/DS, because the "broad construal" of all these cases will overlap.  Anyway, I'm not challenging the thinking during development, I'm pointing out practical and policy problems with the present implementation, very easy to fix by moving the four checks for prior notice to the preview stage instead of the logging stage.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  19:25, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Having it work in preview would just be matter of coding it in the noinclude/includeonly way as the instructions that appear when you preview use of a template like . I'm not sure where exactly the code "lives" that supplies that box of check-for-previous-alerts options that appears after you click save but before the actual save occurs, or I'd just sandbox a fix. Removing the log link might address the loophole (though that code appears to come from, the main point of which is the log search you'd want to hide/remove), but it won't address the utility problem.  I've already created a log entry is not when I should get instructions about how to thoroughly check for previous "awareness" (there appear to be four options to do this, only two of which are supplied by ; I'm not sure where the other two, the noticeboard searches, are being inserted from).  And now that I think about it, while it might address the loophole, it actually creates an equal but opposite "anti-loophole": If I go to some user's talk page and go through the motions of Ds/alerting them, but then abandon the save, it will appear to any admin looking at the log as if the user were alerted on that date, when they were in fact not, and thus the admin might apply AD/DS to them, despite them having no idea what that is or that DS applies to the topic area, because my alert was never actually saved.  This in turn could also get later editors in trouble: They may come to deliver an alert, not see one in the page history, save it, then later get admonished for leaving redundant notice, because the log [falsely] says the same user got one only a week ago. The obvious solution is to move the four alert-researching options into the template's main code and have it appear when previewing, not after attempting to save. [An even more obvious solution is abandonment of this bureaucratic alerts system in the first place, but that's a matter raised at WT:ARBCOM, and the proposed new DS review would probably be the ultimate venue for addressing that.]  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  19:25, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Before applying sanctions it;s up to the admin to make sure that they have been alerted for that topic area which means actually checking the text of the alert (so only looking at the log won't tell you that, you still need to look at the alert in talk page history). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:56, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Ds examples broken
None of the Ds [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Ds/talk_notice/doc&action=edit&section=T-3 examples] work unless you spell out Discretionary sanctions. Also, none of the topic codes fire when those examples are used, for instance: returns an error list and  does not insert the topic in the message. 05:18, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi . Template:Ds is a different template so it won't work. redirects to  which is designed for the talk pages of articles and other pages (this page lists the other redirects to that template). That template is not substituted which is why it won't display properly.
 * If you're trying to alert an editor (on their user talk page) you need to use on their talk page (that one is substituted).
 * Hope that helps. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:52, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Another topic= list item needed
Hello, a topic= list item is needed for: Syrian Civil War and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant

Here is the template used for Talk pages: Ping me back. Cheers! 04:39, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi again, these are not ArbCom authorised discretionary sanctions. The sanctions for that topic was imposed by the community, it's explained on the information page linked in that template explains it - WP:GS/SCW&ISIL. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:56, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Protection?
Should this template have more protection than semi-protection? It seems that for such an important template, and considering its complexity, template editor protection should be in order. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 00:52, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Done. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:43, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 15 March 2016
This is picky, but for new editors can we please link Arbitration Committee? There was a question about it. Kharkiv07 ( T ) 19:00, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Bazj (talk) 19:10, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * How has this been done, with no changes made to the template since the request or response? fredgandt 19:34, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The request was for Template:Ds/alert not this template. Its talk page redirects here. Bazj (talk) 19:52, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Wizardry! O.O fredgandt 21:11, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Welcome to Hogwarts Fred! Hope the new wizard's robe is a comfy fit.
 * Strange that you should happen across two templates on the same day where requests have originated on other templates' talk pages. In fact most of today's requests at TPERTable were a little weird. Bazj (talk) 21:54, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * IKR!? Mind=BLOWN fredg<i style='font-size:.7em;color:#0bb;'>andt</i></b> 21:57, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Alert edit filter did not log
I added a WP:ARBGG alert that failed to log: diff. Per the discussion above, I guess the reason is that the talk page already had an WP:ARBPIA alert posted 2 July 2014. I guess there is nothing that can be done, and I should not attempt a repair? I don't want to edit the talk page to remove both notifications, then add a new notification, then presumably restore the July 2014 message. Do I need to do anything? Johnuniq (talk) 09:35, 14 January 2016 (UTC)


 * As I reported before, this thing is malfunctional. It offers the tool to check if an alert has been left before only after you click save. If the user does not have one already, it gives you the tools, which you don't need, since you know they don't have one or you would not have gotten the tools. If they do have one, it just saves a redundant one, that you couldn't check for. This needs to give the tools .  Obviously.  It was obvious when I reported this something like 6-10 months ago.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:49, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Template:Ds/alert malfunction again
I just left a DS/alert, and it simply saved without offering the tools to check for previous alerts for that user, and it did not trigger the edit filter. No idea why. Does this invalidate the alert? I think it at least effectively might, since no one will notice that it was delivered, being missing from the edit filter log. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:46, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The reason it didn't work is the same as above, namely there is already a Z33 on the talk page at "DS alert" from 4 November 2015. Pretty crazy, I agree. A workaround might be to first edit the whole talk page and delete any Z33!? Johnuniq (talk) 03:54, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * We're not supposed to delete things from other users' talk pages (other than the standard exceptions like vandalism, copyvios, etc.) Just fix the template so it shows the tools upon preview instead of upon the attempt to save; the functionality is 180 degrees backward.  It's like having a fire alarm that goes off only after the building has burned down.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  05:35, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Just had the same issue.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 06:56, 24 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Here's a proposal: Move the textual content of both the template and (if ArbCom is asserting jurisdiction over it, which appears to be the case) its /doc page to something like WP:Arbitration committee/Template content/Ds and WP:Arbitration committee/Template content/Ds/doc, respectively. Transclude them into the actual template and template doc in the Template: namespace. Make both Template:-namespace pages protected only to template-editor level.  ArbCom has no business asserting jurisdiction over anything outside it's sub-namespace. This territorialism is causing problems, and per WP:EDITING and WP:IAR policies, me or anyone else competent to do the work should be permitted to fix this or any other problem in the coding of the templates, especially given that requesting admins to fix it falls on deaf ears for most of a year.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  17:20, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Template:Ds/alert is socially malfunctioning, too
Please see Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee, about the future of the Ds/alert template. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  11:45, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

edit request
You are subject to discretionary sanctions if you edit this article. Under an arbitration decision, discretionary sanctions may be used when editors fail to edit in accordance with the purpose of Wikipedia, our expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process.

The beginning is not logical and should be changed to something like this:

You are subject to discretionary sanctions if your edits to this article fail to comply with the purpose of Wikipedia, our expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Please see the relevant arbitration decision. --Espoo (talk) 13:35, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Longevity link anchor
For Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity links to #Final decision but should be to #Motion: Longevity (August 2015) since the original "final" decision's #Discretionary sanctions of 17 February 2011 was rescinded on 30 November 2014 and reinstated on 30 August 2015. jnestorius(talk) 13:16, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

False positive
I don't think I did anything to trigger the notification. Perhaps the mention of a warning about "disruptive editing." If I made a mistake please leave a message at my Talk page. Tapered (talk) 07:30, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * This is a side effect of the system triggering when a new alert is placed on a page with an existing one, which has been complained about for some time. Unfortunately we can't have it both ways. Which way we go (doesn't trigger for additional alerts, or an increase in false positives) I'm not sure on yet. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:18, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

False positive
I received a "second DS notice" warning when I made this edit. It was a new thread immediately following a DS notice, but it was not itself a DS notice and it was not part of the existing DS notice thread.. Meters (talk) 08:02, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * This is a side effect of the system triggering when a new alert is placed on a page with an existing one, which has been complained about for some time. Unfortunately we can't have it both ways. Which way we go (doesn't trigger for additional alerts, or an increase in false positives) I'm not sure on yet. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:18, 19 September 2016 (UTC)


 * , would you please say more about changes and/or attempted fixes to the template, if any? It used to be that the template would not produce a tag if there already exists a somewhere on the page, however from my recent tests it seems this problem has been fixed. If that is true, then when was the fix made? And "false positives" are a byproduct of the fix? Manul ~ talk 12:41, 20 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I've rewritten the edit filter and fixed the issue of it not triggering if there was one already on the page.
 * These two false positive reports highlighted another issue which I've also fixed. The filter was checking the "diff", which includes a couple lines before the added text, hence why it triggered on the next edit, how it will only check what is added to the page. So there shouldn't be any more false positives.
 * The filter's history will show when the changes were made. Hope that answers the questions? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:03, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you! FYI, I just self-administered multiple DS Alerts to myself in several different ways in an effort to break the code, but I always got the pink box.  That should reduce user confusion.   The manual search in my own talk page version history (described in a different thread) is still busted. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:57, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Is one DS related housekeeping function broken
Apologies if this is not the best place to post this. Feel free to move.

Is the code working correctly? When the new DS system launched, before using this template we were expected to verify whether an ed had already received the notice in the prior 12 months and one way to do this was to go to a user's talk page version history and type tag= discretionary sanctions alert. If I do this on myself, I only get a three alerts from 2014, but in fact I have received many (mostly from myself). I'm glad to search before giving a DS alert to someone else, but if it is broken, that sort of defeats some of the good ideas behind the new alert system (destigmatizing, lessoning the use of alerts as weapons, etc). Can someone look at this please? Thanks. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:13, 11 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Isn't that the same problem as this and this and this? Manul ~ talk 12:40, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * No this is different. All three of those reports have to do with the pink box, and fact an alerting editor does not see the pink box if the target editor has already received an alert.  The problem I am reporting is something else entirely.


 * The issue here is manually researching an editors DS alert history as described to me by in Oct 2014.  Editors should be able to manually search for DS-Alerts by following these steps... which I used several times with no problems....
 * Go to the target editor's talk page.
 * Open version history
 * Type "discretionary sanctions alert" in tag filter
 * I did that on myself to produce this demonstration of an incomplete list
 * As I understand it, this should generate a list of all the DS alerts I have received since the new system was adopted a couple years ago. What I see on my screen is just 3 DS alerts from 2014... all related to my testing of the DS system.  Missing from this list are several self-alerts and a few that I have received from others.
 * Example 1 March 2015 - self administered for testing
 * Example 2 Jan 2016 - self administered for real when entering a new topic area
 * Example 3 March 2015 - received from someone else
 * There are a number of others also. If these are supposed to show up when someone follows the steps for manual searching, then something must be busted.
 * NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:27, 20 September 2016 (UTC)


 * But none of those three edits were tagged, so the list appears to be complete in the sense of grabbing the existing data. The reason they didn't trigger a tag is the old problem of a already existing on the page when the edit was performed, as discussed in the archives here. Manul ~ talk 19:03, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Good theory, but has to be wrong because I used to see more (mostly self-administered) from 2014/2015. They're gone.  However, after Callenecc fiddled with the code (see other concurrent thread) I did more testing today and all of those alerts do appear in the list of hits.  To me, it looks like some tag data was somehow lost from the database - and no, I'm not suggesting anything nefarious.  Probably went to heaven, where the angels have it stored.  Could be wrong.  But who cares, moving on... thanks for the replies. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:15, 21 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Well just to be clear, the bug you're suggesting here is very different from the one Callanecc fixed. You're saying that it's possible for a tagged edit to not appear in the list for that tag, or that the database has lost some tag data. Either situation is extremely unlikely (especially considering the age of the codebase), but if you have any evidence of either then that would be very important. Manul ~ talk 14:19, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes different. I'll look into this more when real life allows and report back. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:05, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

False positive
Archiving talk page using subst triggered it: User talk:Cpiral to user:Cpiral/archive 4 using { {subst:#section:User talk:Cpiral|archive}} &mdash; Cp i r al &sect; Cpiral  06:08, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect values for codes
We need some means of detecting when Template:Ds/topics is fed an invalid code, such as  instead of   - see, and compare the new version of the "permitted" link with that in the. The same problem occurs for values that are uppercase but otherwise correct, such as. -- Red rose64 (talk) 10:31, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * may fix it. -- Red rose64 (talk) 18:33, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

It needs a lowercasing routine before acting on the code, I would think. Most of these codes are derived from all-caps shortcuts, so people are apt to input them in caps. It should convert something like  or   to   or   on the fly, instead of outputting a broken template. User:SMcCandlish/sandbox 20 worked fine. I started testing it in /sandbox versions of the real template and its /topics subtemplate, but seemed to run into an issue (maybe to do with ?), figured I would probably get yelled at for directly editing Template:Ds[/foo], and have to go out soon, anyway, so I'll leave it up to you all. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  19:29, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Mentioning two ArbCom cases in one banner
I recently added another banner linking to another case in Talk:Cold War II. Each banner allows only one link. How can I link more than one in one banner? --George Ho (talk) 05:43, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * As it stands, you can't. -- Red rose64 (talk) 11:55, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * So must I remove one and then keep the other? --George Ho (talk) 23:54, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily - why not keep them both? But personally I'd be consistent - either both long or both short, but not one of each. -- Red rose64 (talk) 00:07, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Same thought. Two banners would do, but... looks... I don't know how to explain it. Per common sense, however, best to leave those alone until someone else makes a big fuss about those. George Ho (talk) 00:19, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Adding a code
Arbitration/Requests/Case/Cold fusion and Arbitration/Requests/Case/Cold fusion 2 (code probably cf). Can anyone talk me through how to add these please? My template-fu is weak/ Guy (Help!) 19:05, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Revising this template
I've started a discussion at WP:AE. Doug Weller talk 11:42, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I think you meant to link the talk page thread NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:12, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

False positive
When archiving discussions from my user talk page to Archive 4. Linguist Moi?  Moi.  23:38, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not a false positive per se, it meets all the conditions required for an alert. Given that some people use a talk sub-page this is expected behaviour from the filter. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:30, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, good to know, I was about to report the same issue. No worries then! — JFG talk 02:57, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Yep, me too. --Legis (talk - contribs) 09:11, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Getting the same issue, but for something that wasn't even a Ds/alert per se, but someone's own message with an HTML comment that its wording was "derived from" DS/alert. It triggered when I was saving User talk:SMcCandlish/Archive 118.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:48, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Troubles ds alert error
For some reason the ds alert for the Troubles does not link to the final decision on the matter but rather to The Troubles article. Can this please be fixed? Mabuska (talk) 10:05, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Looks like it's working to me, there's a link to both the article and the final decision. Could you please give me a link to the page where it didn't work. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:14, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * At this users talk page. When you click on the link for "The committees decision is here" the link provided is to Troubles, which redirects to The Troubles not the committees decision. Maybe because I use Troubles for the notification as said to on the templates page? Either way it fails to go to where it should. Mabuska (talk) 14:15, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You're supposed to use the code for the topic. For The Troubles that's tt. So you should have posted tt . If you use "Troubles" it does indeed point to the article. Scolaire (talk) 14:44, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I did think it might have been something to do with the subst I used. Mabuska (talk) 16:15, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

wording of many items in this list
The wording of many items in this list (ds/topics) cases ds/talk notice to spit out semi-comprehensible English. For example, I've just changed an entry added by  to get rid of the "all edits about, and all pages related to" part. While that is legitimately part of the ArbCom decision, it doesn't really make sense on a talk page notice. Is there any other use of this list besides the talk notice that I'm not aware of, so that this removal does any harm? If not, I can reword several others. If so, please revert me and explain. I think we ought to fix this somehow, even if my first attempt messed something up. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:19, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree. This is something that's bugged me for years. I've thought about different solutions – perhaps, for example, the Committee would adopt a resolution explicitly authorizing all DS areas to use the "any page relating to or any edit about" language (even though the "broadly constructed" provisions of ACDS already seem to track the "any page relating to or any edit about" intent) and/or authorize changing Ds/alert and similar notices to include the "any page relating to or any edit about" language, so that we can design templates to match and don't keep the current mess of incoherence. I don't have time at the moment to suggest something that's better put-together – any thoughts? Thanks, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 21:47, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Two things. First, I was unaware of @ArbComClerks, that's handy, I'll try to remember that.  Second, I guess it does mess something up, I gather that ds/alert uses the same list, which does need the "all edits about" part. I'll revert my change (if you haven't already), but yeah, I'd like to see some kind of fix.  That quote in green above grates on my ear. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:54, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree this needs fixing. The more inclusive and detailed wording should be used, because the assumption that "broadly construed" already has this covered in the minds of the average Pickyweedian proves to be false; people are arguing right this moment at ANI about whether it applies to the talk pages of articles covered by a DS authorization. Those of us who've been around the ArbCom block know that it does, but the wikilawyering and WP:SANCTIONGAMING piles on pretty thick already.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  22:05, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes the wording should be fixed. No, people at ANI are not talking about discretionary sanctions authorized by Arbcom; they're talking about editing restrictions placed by an admin on an article. The ability to place such restrictions are described at WP:ACDS.- MrX 03:00, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, people at ANI were talking about DS, or I would not have mentioned it. Some where also talking about other restrictions.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  06:52, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Edit filter didn't trigger
Not sure why, but the edit filter didn't trigger when I posted a DS alert: In the first one, I used mos ~, and I used mos in the second. Maybe I did something wrong? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:45, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * As I've reported at least half a dozen times in as many places, over about 3 years now: This template is broken. Unlike the XfD templates, which show helpful instructions when you preview, this one does not. You only get the instructions when you try to save. If the party being warned already has an active notice on the log [or something like that; I forget the exact technical details] it just saves it, and you're in violation of the instructions it  given you to do various checks first. If the subject has not received the notice already within the last 12 months, then you do get the instructions, interrupting the save (it appears to be the edit filter that triggers this occurrence), but at this point you don't need the instructions or to do the checks, because you already know the editor in question can actually legitimately receive the notice.  It's just ass-backwards.  I would hazard a guess that in your case you saved an Ds/alert for MoS/AT (ARBATC) on pages of people who've already received one semi-recently, thus the filter didn't go off because it's surely the same filter that makes the instruction block show up when it's not needed.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  11:16, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Who knows with regard to Hijiri88 – he's been here for a while and has an active talk page. Huggums537, on the other hand, has 44 edits to his/her talk page.  I checked User talk:Huggums537, and there've been no prior discretionary sanctions alerts.  Still could be some kind of error on my part, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:04, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Looks like the change you made didn't work. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:22, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry :( The issue was that the filter was looking for the target redirect ds/alert. I've added alert, but I see that we have a number of other redirects. Since this template is used as part of a formal process, and it's substituted, would it make sense to force people to use only alert or ds/alert? We can add the others to the filter, too, but anyone could just create a new redirect that isn't supported. Ideally we can avoid using those pst variables in the filter, or find some way to cancel out most edits before using them, as that's what was making it so slow (up to two seconds for some users). Also, what about targeting extended confirmed users instead of just confirmed? Sorry again for breaking things... I realize the filter is important to this community process :/ &mdash; MusikAnimal  talk  04:17, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think limiting the number of redirects to it is going to work, as you say people can (and quite rightly) create redirects. Limiting it to only confirmed users was a trade off by itself (anyone can issue an alert) and I definitely wouldn't support taking that to extended confirmed. Depending on the cost of it, what about a check of the size of the added content, we can't do a maximum as people could add more content in the same edit, but what about a minimum of 1500 bytes? The number of edits to a user talk page, not made by a bot, above that would be small so it could effectively reduce the number of edits which need to be checked. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:05, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Aside from that stuff, the main issue to me is that you don't get the set of "see if this user is already aware of the DS" help links until after you try to the template, not when previewing. This should work the way the XfD templates do, and show you the help material when previewing.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  06:30, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The  variable is pre-substitution, so unfortunately I don't think it will help much here :/ However I'm now checking for any addition containing "subst:", which should account for all redirects, and still cancel out most non-automated edits. Let's see if it helps.  what you're saying sounds like an edit notice (or "group notice"). I don't know how the XfD templates work, but it seems we wouldn't want to apply an edit notice to all of the userspace. &mdash;  MusikAnimal  talk  04:18, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * This has nothing whatsoever to do with edit notices. Yes, you do not know how the XfD templates work. :-/ Hint: Paste the following into this page (or wherever), then click "Show preview" (not "Save changes"):  . Notice the nice fat blocks of instructions you get, complete with pre-filled data.  is what  should be doing, instead of only showing you this sort of information and links display when both of the following conditions are true:  you attempt to save, and after a save-interrupting edit filter has been triggered, which often does not trigger.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  06:45, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Except that it would the alert would still need the same functionality (after clicking save) for anyone who doesn't look at or use the preview. I suspect that having both is just going to annoy people who have already done what the edit filter is telling them to do. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:30, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * If this were a real problem then all the XfD templates would also work this way and they don't. They don't because we preview complicated templates before we save.  In the case of this particular template, the save point is already too late because, whatever the intent of it, the editfilter fails to trigger too often and the template is just saved without presenting the instructions.  This has happened to me repeatedly.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  11:27, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Except that an alert needs to be logged by the edit filter and (per the procedure) only one can/should be issued in a 12 month period. It's easy to help people with bits of the XfD process they've forgotten (is there a bot which does forgotten bits?). In comparison, the user who gives another user an alert matters (as they themselves are considered "aware" of DS) and an incorrect submission either can't be fixed (as they've already received one in the preceding 12 months or it's just repetitive). I also disagree that this is a complicated template, it's pretty similar to the normal leveled user warnings (uw-vandalism1 for example). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:39, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The filter can still go off, and just not show the same stuff again.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  12:43, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Transgender issues and paraphilia classification
Given that discretionary sanctions have been rescinded, should we remove pa from the list of available alerts? --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 17:42, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I think was going to change them all over to the gg code then remove it. DS is still active in the area, just a different area of conflict. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:34, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yup, that's on my to-do list. Thanks, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 14:44, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Edit request
Can somebody with the rights edit this to move the following text to it's own line and bold it entirely?
 * It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Suggested formatting (please ignore my   tags):
 * It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Emphasizing the whole line is more important that emphasizing the word not, so breaking it off into it's own line and swapping out the italics and bolding in that line would help draw attention to it. I've seen a ton of people complaining that this notice is some sort of threat, on admin talk pages and at ANI. It could really stand to be made more clear that it's not. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants  Tell me all about it.  03:24, 29 January 2018 (UTC) PAGE ]]) 15:52, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I would oppose this change. The template is looking rather nice and uncluttered at the moment and the proposed change would make it look worse. This seems to be a banner blindness issue. If editors do not read the message then they have no right to complain! There is a phenomenon on Wikipedia where subsequent editors of notices perceive different parts to be "more important" than others and attempt to emphasise those parts. The result is competing emphasis and ugly notices. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:17, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, your personal feeling on whether editors have the right to complain aside, editors frequently do complain. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  13:23, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Nothing you can do to the template will make these editors actually read the thing. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:07, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: Since this is apparently not a non-controversial change, please obtain consensus before using the edit template-protected template. --Ahecht ([[User_talk:Ahecht|<span style="color:#FFF;background:#00F;display:inline-block;padding:1px 1px 0;vertical-align:-.3em;font:bold 50%/1 sans-serif;text-align:center">TALK
 * Well, it should be noncontroversial as the objection raised is not even close to being policy-based, but I'll ask for more input below. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  16:07, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Proposed change
Should we change the line about this template not implying any wrongdoing to make it more visible? Specifically, I propose changing it as follows: From this:
 * It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

To this (please ignore my   tags):
 * It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

And moving it to it's own line. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants  Tell me all about it.  16:07, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

PAGE ]]) 22:26, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Support as proposer. (copied rationale from the edit request above) Emphasizing the whole line is more important that emphasizing the word not, so breaking it off into it's own line and swapping out the italics and bolding in that line would help draw attention to it. I've seen a ton of people complaining that this notice is some sort of threat, on admin talk pages and at ANI. It could really stand to be made more clear that it's not. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  16:07, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * My comments are above. Not sure why a new section was started. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:08, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Because fed me the usual line about trying to get consensus before making an edit request and I decided to humor them instead of pointing out how silly it is to respond with that line.  ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  22:21, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Per the Template Editor policy, minor visual changes "require at least some discussion, or at least several days passing with no one commenting on your proposal." That doesn't necessarily require a new section. --Ahecht ([[User_talk:Ahecht|<span style="color:#FFF;background:#00F;display:inline-block;padding:1px 1px 0;vertical-align:-.3em;font:bold 50%/1 sans-serif;text-align:center">TALK
 * Strictly speaking, nothing requires a new section. I fail to see the point of complaining about the new section unless the point is to have something to complain about. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  22:36, 29 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Alternate proposal
 * Existing first line
 * This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
 * Proposed replacement
 * This message is NOT a warning. It's just an FYI and can be given to any editor who works on certain topics, even editors who make fantastic improvements.
 * Reason, says the same thing, but the current text seems bland.   If the goal is to touch human beings who might have a trigger response maybe something more personable will help channel their reaction into constructive or at least calm direction

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:52, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I could get behind this. It's just as good as my suggestion. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  13:19, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd just like to remind everyone that the Arbitration Committee has mandated that: As template is part of this procedure, it may be modified only with the committee's explicit consent. Accordingly, prior to making any changes to this template, please seek the Arbitration Committee's consent at WP:ARCA. Thanks, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 14:46, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Excellent observation, thanks. BTW, I am not invested in this enough to organize support. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:03, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Me neither. I wasn't aware of that DS, and I'm not going through a bunch of crap to fix this if shit like this is all I can expect in the way of thanks. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  04:42, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

explain page restrictions
I don't think the template explains the restrictions as they usually work - a significant portion of the system are restrictions like 1RR - so I think adding something like to the what admins can do sentence: "and editing restrictions such as 1RR on certain pages within the topic area which are indicated by an notice when editing a page." would be helpful. I often have to append my alerts with an explanation of page restrictions. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:22, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

False positive
This edit triggered a notice that this user had been notified of these sanctions already in the last year. Not possible as this is a new account and this post was the first edit to the user's talk, activating it. FYI - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  18:09, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Another false pos+. same sanction notice
Different user tp] of course. This user rec'd only one Arbcom sancantions notive in the past year, but it was for a different subject (does that still count? Or can the system not tell the difference?) - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  07:22, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

False positive
This edit resulted a notice that I must check all entries in the editor's talk page history et cetera. But the editor's talk page history contained entries with edit summaries like these: (and many more) And I was not readily able to understand them. Is it acceptable to ignore this requirement if an editor is ignoring, and encouraging others to ignore, common sense normal practice in use of edit summaries or talk page edits? MPS1992 (talk) 05:10, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The notice has links that you click to check if an alert has been previously added. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 05:14, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you, NeilN. How do I test that again without bothering the editor again? MPS1992 (talk) 05:16, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Pick on . When you try to add a DS alert the message will come up before the alert is actually added to their talk page. Clicking on the links will show you when previous alerts have been added. Then you need to click on those links to check what was the alert exactly for. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 05:29, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, of course! So if the message came up last time, it will come up again this time, without the edit being added to the target's talk page. Excellent, thank you. I will experiment some more, all unknown to the poor victim. MPS1992 (talk) 05:33, 4 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Oh, I know. I know. I'm plotting my revenge as I type this. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  21:58, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 11 March 2018
This template has 7  tags that are missing end tags. It would appear that the fixes are to append  after:

— Anomalocaris (talk) 23:27, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * (3 times)
 * (3 times)
 * Please make your suggested edits in the sandbox first and test, then reactivate the edit request. — xaosflux  Talk 14:14, 12 March 2018 (UTC)


 * xaosflux: ✅ It passed tests at User:Anomalocaris/sandbox/Lint Test. In addition to the fixes arising from inserting 7 closing  tags, there were further issues:
 * Brief, with or without a restriction: The existing version had a stripped  tag. This has been removed (commented out).
 * Long, with or without a restriction: The existing version had a missing  tag, which I fixed by moving an existing   tag slightly to the left, and I left a comment showing where it had been.
 * I didn't test "nocat". If my sandbox version is acceptable, I suggest removing the HTML comments  and  . Also, the default style is long, but the documentation says the default style is brief. The documentation should be changed. Cheers! —Anomalocaris (talk) 18:49, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:38, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * MSGJ: Thanks! I have modified Template talk:Ds/talk notice/doc to correctly state that the default style is long. —Anomalocaris (talk) 22:57, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Proposal to make discretionary sanctions actually work, by auto-delivering the required DS "awareness" notices
Please see: WP:Village pump (proposals) — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:03, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Missing /tr tag
If the sanction box breaks when HTML Tidy is removed, a solution may be to add a  to Ds/sanction/usageline, after the   on line 5. I've refrained from editing the subtemplate pre-emptively, per the request in its documentation, but I hope that helps. Certes (talk) 13:20, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Now there is no line 5, and there's not even a  there, either, so it seems to be even worse.  If the   isn't being supplied by whatever's transcluding that, then this needs to be fixed.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:35, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I put an editprotected on it to draw administrative eyeballs. I don't want to directly edit any part of this myself.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:09, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * can you make your requested change here first: Template:Ds/sandbox. — xaosflux  Talk 21:03, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't really know whether the code needs to be in that spot, or if something transcluding it provides that code later on.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:45, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Tracked it down and fixed it. Please use the code found as of this timestamp in Template:Ds/sanction/usageline/sandbox . I sandboxed and testcased this (tracking down the transclusion chain and making each sandbox call the sandbox versions of the rest of the templates in the chain).
 * When the table of case codes is displayed, it has correct HTML:


 * — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:21, 8 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes check.svg Done, copied 's fix from Template:Ds/sanction/usageline/sandbox to Template:Ds/sanction/usageline. Cabayi (talk) 10:21, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

combining multiple instances?
The Mark Dice article has apparently been determined to meet the criteria of three different DS decisions, so there are three notices, along with a ton of other front matter ont he talk page. I'm looking to reduce this in order to increase the chance that newcomers to the page will actually read it and not just scroll past, is there a way to combine the notices? If so, would somebody with good template-fu go ahead and do so? That would be awesome. (I tried a few things just guessing but they all previewed as not working as intended) Beeblebrox (talk) 19:33, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that would be a nice fix/feature. This is not the only page subject to piles of such banner templates. One DS template listing all three (or whatever) DS topic areas would save a lot of space and reduce the "mine eyes glazeth over" effect.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:41, 15 May 2019 (UTC)