Template talk:American politics AE

Rewording of BRD sanction

I'd like to reword the first sentence of the BRD sanction to make it easier to understand.

Current wording	Proposed wording
If an edit you make is challenged by reversion, you must discuss the issue on the article talk page and wait 24 hours (from the time of the original edit) before reinstating your edit.	If a change you make to this article is reverted, you may not reinstate that change unless you discuss the issue on the talk page and wait 24 hours (from the time of the original edit).

Note I switched from talking in terms of "edits" to "changes" which is technically how we enforce reverts, and which I think should be more understandable for newcomers. Not sure if adding the words "to this article" is helpful or unnecessary.

Again, I think this is allowed without the need to go through WP:AN since there is no change in actual meaning. Are there any objections to this, or suggestions for further improvement? ~Awilley (talk) 19:31, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm fine with this too. Thanks for your work on this, Awilley. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 19:39, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Keep "to this article", lest pedants argue about WP:TPO. Perhaps a link to the talk page may help (if it can be automated). Several user surveys have shown that occasional editors have trouble identifying how to access the talk page. — JFG ^talk 07:12, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. That's a good idea linking the talk page from the edit notice. I'm not sure if it's possible either. I think at one point the "Talk" page tab used to be called "Discussion" for logged-out editors. It looks like that's been changed now (according to the "incognito" tab I just opened). ~Awilley (talk) 22:57, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Thirteen suggested changes

Hey! Quite a few little tweaks I'd like to recommend here:

1. change the aggressive bold yelling text saying "WARNING: ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES" to This article is subject to active arbitration remedies. to match the other tone of voice used in other talk boxes
2. change the {{Tmbox|type}} to speedy, so it's more prominent and more consistent with other high-importance boxes
   • if we did that, it might be worth removing the custom image and just using the default type=speedy icon. If not, it might be worth changing the image width to 40px to match the default value (so it doesn't look whack next to other boxes)
3. replace "This article article name is..." with just the article name
4. uppercase all the links to Wikipedia: etc (so it'd be Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions not wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions)
5. replace the "authorized by active arbitration remedies (see WP:ARBAPDS)" with just authorized by remedy 1
6. replace the pipe-around for WP:1RR, and instead have the one-revert rule
7. remove the extraneous "(via reversion)"
8. lowercase all the sentences after the colons
9. replace the consensus required explanation with consensus is required before reinstating any reverted edits, including similar edits to the ones reverted.
10. replace links with shortcuts
11. remove the random "Please edit carefully." at the end
12. merge the first sentence of the last paragraph to the end of the first sentence
13. replace "Limit of one revert in 24 hours:" with Revert limits, and "Consensus required:" with Consensus requirement:
14. remove the comma between "topic area" and "after an" at the bottom
15. move the bold sanction warning to the very end

All of this would then look like this:

ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 04:07, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Talk about the conversion of this thread from an edit request. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:35, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

{{ping}ItsPugle}} "Edit requests to template-protected pages should only be used for edits that are either uncontroversial or supported by consensus." This is obviously not supported by consensus (yet), and it's unlikely to be uncontroversial. Therefore it's a misuse of the edit request facility. I have converted it to a normal discussion by changing the heading and removing the edit request template. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:00, 10 October 2020 (UTC) @ItsPugle: Retry botched ping. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:02, 10 October 2020 (UTC) @Mandruss: Sorry, I was not aware that there's a requirement for edit requests to have a consensus before they're made. I thought that like requested moves, consensus is developed throughout the course of the discussion. Also, would you be able to point to which suggestion exactly is likely to be controversial? ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 11:08, 10 October 2020 (UTC) @ItsPugle: Yeah, edit requests are a different animal. See WP:Edit requests if you're interested in the long answer. "Uncontroversial" means no reasonable editor could oppose. To me, that means little more than spelling and grammar fixes, particularly in something as highly visible and contentious as the area of DS alerts. I strongly doubt any template editor would have been willing to make the changes without consensus. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:21, 10 October 2020 (UTC) @Mandruss: Gotcha! The intricacies of Wikipedia, I guess. Let's see what discussions comes up with. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 11:25, 10 October 2020 (UTC) Sorry, I meant ArbCom remedies, not DS alerts, although they are related. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:26, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

@ItsPugle: I'm surprised you don't have any response yet. After a few more days, I'd be pinging some of the more frequent participants on this page, available via View history->Page statistics. (Or, sometimes more reliable, notifying them on their user talk pages.) As for me, I'm apathetic on this question. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:30, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

@Mandruss: Hey! Have you had a chance to ping anyone? If not, I'm happy to try to develop some discussion here (otherwise, if you don't really have any objections, I wouldn't say no to invoking WP:SILENCE). ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 03:19, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

I apologize, it seems I was unclear. I didn't mean to say I would ping anybody, but that "I'd be pinging" [if I were in your place]. As for SILENCE, I have no objection per se, but I'd suggest that the chances of that not being a waste of your time would closely approximate zero. I could be wrong, and in fact I was wrong earlier this year. I thought I had made a mistake, but I hadn't. ;) ―Mandruss ☎ 03:58, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

@ItsPugle: I like a lot of these changes. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 11, 14, and 15 seem pretty uncontroversial and easy. I don't know if 2 is better or not, and I'm not sure how to implement 3, though I'm sure someone else would. I'm personally used to the shorthand for 1RR and Consensus Required, but writing them out in words makes sense for newer editors. I like the rephrasing of the two rules...it seems more concise and straightforward...but that's one where it could get a bit sticky as we're not allowed to change how the sanctions actually work without getting a consensus of administrators. I don't think your rewordings change that, but I need to look at it more closely. I'd also be interested if you have a way to reword the BRD sanction to be more concise and understandable. (It's off by default, but its current wording is: 24-hr BRD cycle: If a change you make to this article is reverted, you may not reinstate that change unless you discuss the issue on the talk page and wait 24 hours (from the time of the original edit). Partial reverts/reinstatements that reasonably address objections of other editors are preferable to wholesale reverts. ~Awilley (talk) 04:17, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

@Awilley: I'm not too fussed about any specific edit, I just thought of a few ideas as to what I thought are improvements, so I'm happy to apply those few but not all. To be completely honest, I don't know how you could do #3, but I think we could probably steal some code from {{Talk header}}. Yeah, absolutely - I'm not really sure about what needs to happen and who needs to be involved with AE stuff, but do you have any ideas of any places that I need to notify or if I need to run this by ArbCom clerks or something?

Maybe an alternative wording for 24h BRD might be 24-hour revert cycle: you shouldn't restore reverted edits within 24-hours of them being reverted without clear consensus on the article's talk page. If after 24-hours there is no consensus or there is a consensus to restore the edit in some form, altering the edit to address concerns of others is always beneficial.? ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 07:03, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

• It should be kept in sync (visually) with all the other DS talk notices (this leads it further astray and makes them less maintainable), so any changes here should be reflected across them all (or they should be technically consolidated, like the GS ones were). You should drop a note at Template talk:Gs for more input.
  But if we're just soliciting opinions, I don't really like it with all changes considered, but I think quite a few on your list are good. My concerns: it has the same issue as the proposals for the new editnotice earlier this year; too threatening. It also has too much information. Why does it matter what remedy it was, for example? Why does the case matter? Why not just "This article, title, along with all other articles related to post-... politics, are subject to discretionary sanctions." Some of the trimming is neat butttt something like "Joe Biden is currently subject to discretionary sanctions" reads strangely. Good ones I'd say are much of the ones Awilley points out. I still think "This article is subject to active arbitration remedies." is too obscure for the editors who this notice will help. What is "active arbitration remedies"? "may levy restrictions" -> "may levy sanctions" for consistency. "If you breach the restriction on this page, you may be blocked or otherwise sanctioned." editors can also be blocked or otherwise sanctioned for not breaching the restriction on the page. "The restriction" refers to 1RR/etc, but editors can be sanctioned for anything else too. So I think that statement is misleading as to what will get editors sanctioned (fwiw, it's a problem with the current templates too). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:06, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader: That's perfectly fine! I just mentioned it to Awilley, but I'm not particularly passionate about any one of these specific edits. In retrospect, it might be worth opening a discussion on a more centralised place that's watched by ArbCom clerks, admins etc to get some broader opinions and make sure this is all above board - any ideas on where or how? Just listing off a few ideas:

1. With article names, maybe we look at something like This article, Joe Biden, is subject to ongoing discretionary sanctions.? (also, good catch, had me laughing for a second reading that)
2. With all the remedy and ArbCom lingo, maybe we go with something like The article is subject to additional quality and collaboration requirements as part of a resolution by English Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee. Administrators have applied the following requirements to this article:?
3. Maybe change the bottom sentence to: Uninvolved administrators have the right to apply sanctions to enforce these, provided editors are aware additional editorial requirements apply.
   In addition to normal policy, violating any of these restrictions may result in editors being blocked or otherwise sanctioned.

I'm not sure if this template is used elsewhere outside of the article namespace (well, talk namespace), but if so, we might be able to have the template automatically detect that and change wording ("This project page", "This essay" etc). Also, and idea on alternative wordings for "requirements" - it seems a bit too threatening and formal, I think.) ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 07:24, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

There needs to be a simple, clear, unambiguous definition of revert:::. SPECIFICO talk 14:08, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: Would you mind just explaining what you think is wrong with the current definition in this template? Is there some special definition of revert for American politics AE purposes? ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 03:59, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikilink to WP:Consensus required

Can we include a link to the supplementary page WP:Consensus required in this template? Considering all of the confusion around this provision I think this would be a good idea. We also need more eyes on this page to verify that the text is consistent with the provision's intention, and the page is buried[1] into a subpage where it does not belong because it is not merely a personal editing restriction. The words: "In discussions of edits which add, modify or remove material, a lack of consensus results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the disputed edit", which I had added to that page,[2] may be helpful to add here to this template to make this provision readily understandable. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:27, 13 November 2020 (UTC)rewrite Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:51, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

I think that page needs some more explanation on it to explain exactly how the provision works for it to be super helpful. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:47, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

"pre92" param

On pages like Talk:Watergate scandal, this template is rather confusing. It asserts sanctions based on a regime that applies to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people; in fact, it was authorized under the post-'32 sanctions and left in place when ArbCom changed the cutoff. What would people think of a pre92 parameter? Something like this:

 ... post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. {{#ifeq:{{{pre92}}}|yes|(At the time that these restrictions were imposed, the sanctions extended back to 1932; the restrictions [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Motion: American politics 2 (1992 cutoff) (January 2021)|remain in force]] despite the change in cutoff year.)}} '''If you breach ...

Seems like the part within the editsonly parser might need to be changed too, but I can't tell from the documentation under what context that param is used. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 17:32, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Missing section in mobile view

The "Remedy instructions and exemptions" section does not display on the mobile site, which seems like a rather important issue to correct. In the short term this might be as simple as removing/replacing the "Collapse" template. –dlthewave ☎ 18:43, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 1 January 2023

Please remove or replace the "Collapse" template from the "Remedy instructions and exemptions" section, as it does not appear on the mobile site and prevents editors from seeing important information. –dlthewave ☎ 18:45, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: @Dlthewave This isn't really a solution. For me using Vector 2022, when I expand this information it over doubles the size (height) of the banner and makes it larger than all other banners combined (at least on Talk:Rush Limbaugh). This would be even worse for mobile devices which can have very limited width screens. This AE banner already takes up the entirety of the screen on my phone. I am happy to hear other solutions to this, however this isn't a good option. Terasail^[✉️] 20:18, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Just as a side note: This template is currently under review as part of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/2021-22 review/Implementation/To do. Most likley it will be updated to appear similar to {{COVID19 DS editnotice}} / {{Contentious topics/page restriction editnotice}}. Terasail^[✉️] 20:25, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Ok, I'm glad that a replacement is in the works, since the status quo (information is not viewable at all on mobile) seems worse than having a long notice which you have to click through to see anyway. I think the trend towards short, simple notices without extensive collapsed content will help with mobile accessibility. –dlthewave ☎ 21:37, 2 January 2023 (UTC)