Template talk:American politics AE/Archive 1

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Broken link

Why does this template yield a redlink when used at Talk:/r/The Donald? Clicking that redlink attempts to create the page Talk:/r/The Donald/r/The Donald. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:27, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Fixed, with this edit, inspired by {{talk header}} which wasn't broken on the same page. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:43, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 2 October 2017

Please add <noinclude> {{Ds/topics/single notice|1=Template:American politics AE/doc}} </noinclude> to the very bottom of this template. A doc page has been created to standardize it with the rest of the AE templates. Categories will be transcluded from the doc page. Thanks! – Nihlus (talk) 03:59, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:03, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Bullet points in conflict

Hi, y'all. Who authorized the verbiage of this template? Did the arbitration committee? It does not comport with the limited verbiage of the official talk page ds/alert templates found at template:ds/talk notice. To wit, the following two bullet points are in conflict with each other:

  • Consensus required: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). If in doubt, don't make the edit.
  • Limit of one revert in 24 hours: This article is under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24-hour period).

Once could argue that the first person to revert an edit has indicated a challenge, therefore the original editor is denied their single revert. 1RR gives each editor one shot at a reversion, but this template's verbiage does not. The first bullet point makes the second bullet point moot.

This template also has it wrong about what WP:1RR actually means. The official templates are succinct, whereas this batch is a hot mess of confusion and contractions. Ping me back. Having fun! Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 11:18, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Noting that this arises from a conflict at Donald Trump. Per the comment at Talk:Donald Trump#Current consensus, 1RR is not 100% inviolable even under the remedies, and that has been upheld by admins since the creation of the comment 11 months ago. My understanding, also endorsed by admins who have frequented the article (by their non-action if not explicitly), is that 1RR can be exceeded for the purpose of enforcing "bullet 1" of the remedies; i.e., a re-revert can be re-re-reverted even if that follows a challenge revert within 24 hours. Maybe this needs clarification, maybe not—maybe one should be required to go find an admin to do the re-re-revert, or just leave the violation alone until another editor shows up who is aware of the remedies, understands them, pays enough attention to the history to see the violation, and cares enough to spend his one revert on the re-re-revert (which easily might never happen)—but there hasn't been much conflict around this at that article until now. In this particular case, which isn't that uncommon, the re-re-revert would have required literally hours of tedious and error-prone work if it had been delayed until the violation edits were no longer undoable due to intervening edits; I don't think that's a reasonable expectation of any editor. I certainly don't think a clear violation of "bullet 1" is a matter for discussion and consensus on the article's talk page. And I don't know why we're here instead of at WP:ARCA, anyway. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:52, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Wording change to consensus required

If there are no objections, I will be changing:

  • All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). If in doubt, don't make the edit.

To

  • All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). This includes making similar edits to the ones that have been challenged. If in doubt, don't make the edit.

This will cut off the wikilawyering by editors who change a couple words when reinstating challenged material. Ping admins who have used this template in the last year. @TonyBallioni, GeneralizationsAreBad, and BU Rob13: Apologies if I missed anyone. --NeilN talk to me 18:32, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Support making the change. I am always for less wikilawyering in these situations. Thanks for proposing it, Neil. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:39, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support and I further inserted something that is already being done, but is not formally written, that a stable version of an article is 4-6 weeks old, and removing long-standing content counts as a bold move that can be revertable and starts a talk page discussion. Please revert my addition if this doesn't square with others' understanding of how the policy works. Andrevan@ 21:16, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
  • The initial wording change makes sense. It is telling though that it is needed. I am against putting a clock on 'long standing'. Doing so is likely to be gamed "…it's only been 27 days so I can …" and does not take into account the general editing process/environment/traffic of individual articles. In some recent/fast moving articles a week may be 'long-standing'. This also leaves a glaring loophole for new articles. Jbh Talk 21:32, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Hmm, '4-6 weeks' is a discretionary range and not a cutoff. I didn't come up with the range, apparently it's been used since 2016. If content being there for a week is long-standing, I would think DS would be enforced much differently in practice. Do you have an example of when it was only a week? Andrevan@ 21:34, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
  • There are only a few admins who purposefully use the consensus-required restriction and the admin who used it the most has left the project on unhappy terms (perhaps a cautionary tale for you, Andrevan). I believe I was the one who came up with four to six weeks, based on years of observing article editing histories. I'm not wedded to it. I wanted a duration that didn't make editors think they couldn't go on vacation without material they opposed getting snuck in and prevented new editors from ripping out existing material that had been in the article for some time and demanding that consensus be gotten before it was re-added. I'm not aware of gaming surrounding that timeframe. Also note that local consensus can override that timeframe. If consensus is formed within a couple days to keep new material, an editor cannot come in a week after and disregard that consensus. --NeilN talk to me 21:52, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm also not wedded to it. I am just trying to codify the range you told me earlier, because I wasn't aware of it. Like I said, I will revert the change if it is out of process or not what the current consensus is. Andrevan@ 21:56, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
@Andrevan: Discretionary sanctions don't really need "consensus". That's what makes them discretionary (and easy for admins to burn themselves with, if they use them without thought). Consistency would be good though. I also want to note that I'm not averse to editors coming up with their own timeframes on specific articles if they're reasonable. But edit warring because editors are arguing about what is longstanding is right out. That's why I gave a timeframe everyone can point to. --NeilN talk to me 22:04, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
I agree. I'm not criticizing you. I think the timeframe is fine. I just think it would be good if it exists somewhere concrete, so people know about it. Andrevan@ 22:05, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) I do support having a 'rule-of-thumb'. It is a good thing to be able to point to when asked about a decision but it is also good to be able to say 'in my judgment… ' and not have the warriors claim bias/inconsistency/whatever. I think that if a specific time-frame is in the template text is something all admins will become quickly "wedded to", particularly in this topic area where the 'warriors' will seize on any little thing for an advantage. Jbh Talk 22:11, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Perhaps the language should say it is a rule of thumb and may differ in specific cases. Andrevan@ 22:13, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
As NeilN says though, discretionary sanctions are up to the individual administrator. Four-to-six weeks is a rule-of-thumb for NeilN; it is not proper to codify it in a template for all admins who work in the sanctions area. Jbh Talk 22:17, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
I thought NeilN said he got the rule from other admins, but I could be mistaken. If it is not in this template, it should be written down in a place that's easy to find, even if it is just a discretionary rule of thumb that may differ. I'm not sure what the right place would be, though. Edit: I reverted the language but my proposal was here Andrevan@ 22:20, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
I thought of it another way. Some may say it is improper or bad form for me to propose changes to policy that I'm involved in disputes which they affect. I don't want to change the policy. I just want the NeilN discretionary policy to apply across the board if that is indeed the prevailing view right now in time. Otherwise, there seems to me to be a lot of confusion about what constitutes a stable change or a major reversion. Andrevan@ 23:21, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Policy has a specific meaning on Wikipedia so I'd rather stay away from using that term here and use something like editing restrictions guidance instead. These templates are in no way "official" - an admin come up with them and a few other admins started to use them. Some AP articles have different restrictions. All this being said, explaining the longstanding concept is a good idea and one that has been brought up before. Let me think about the wording. Having a look at WP:DSLOG, there are fewer admins that I thought using these templates so adding explanatory details shouldn't need a huge discussion. --NeilN talk to me 15:53, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Sounds fine, and it's better that the change come from you anyway. Only thing I want to add is this. Many policies, or guidelines, or explanatory essays, on Wikipedia were something that a few admins came up with at one time. Most policies didn't have a massive RFC with a zillion people discussing and !voting on them, someone just thought it was a good idea and put it in a page and then it carried the force of policy over time. The best kind of policy is something that is being enforced like policy anyway. So you aren't really changing the enforcement by adding the explanation to the template, simply explaining a system that's already de facto in place. Andrevan@ 19:12, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Please discard all of Andrevan's comments and revert his template changes. These templates are authorized for uninvolved admins only. He isinvolved and currently under sanction. He should be blocked for immediately comin off a block and reentering the area. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:1300:16E:3D22:C76D:817F:9403 (talk) 09:01, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
I already self-reverted the template change, but it's certainly not proper to discard all of my comments. I am not involved in all American politics. I simply want this restriction to be clear so that others don't make mistakes that I have made involving it. Andrevan@ 18:15, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
I'll make an analogy. Numerical support range for closing discussions is described as discretionary, where most above a certain threshold pass and most below a certain threshold fail. Rarely, numerical support rules of thumb have outcomes contrary to their expected threshold in a range. 2/3, a supermajority, by rule of thumb can be anything from 60 on up in some cases, and validity of the arguments must be weighed and enforced. The community has occasionally opined that ranges mean a specific thing or process should act in a certain way on things like closing AFDs or RFAs. Now, in this case, what constitutes long-standing stable content on an article tagged "consensus required" is debatable, since as NeilN points out it is an area where a single admin may apply their own discretion, and it isn't strictly a community process. That being said, I do believe that admins have a responsibility to editors, not myself necessarily, to explain that "long-standing" has a rule of thumb that they are applying. Perhaps this template is not the right place to do it. Perhaps my language is wrong. I am certainly not trying to complain at all. Having misunderstood the meaning of long-standing stable content in the past, as did other admins, I'd simply like this to be documented in such a way that it would stop editors from violating it unwittingly. Andrevan@ 20:37, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Really, you are not the person to be pushing for this. Even with all of the AGF in the world I still doubt you would be here if not for your recent faux pas re Trump et.al. In the current environment in the States, Trump is Post-1932 politics so saying this template is unrelated simply comes off as disingenuous. Just step back from it all. I think we have all seen editors who can not let an issue go; who keeps poking around the edges until they either exhaust everyone's patience or finally step over the line rather than just up to it and end up getting sanctioned more. Please do not be that editor – it is worth neither the evident stress it has caused you nor the drama it has and will yet cause the community. Maybe find something unrelated to humans in general or, at the very least, a topic relating to events which occurred before 1789. Jbh Talk 21:31, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
I can't respond constructively to your comment because it concerns me User:Andrevan, and not this template that we were discussing. My topic ban is about a specific topic, not everything since 1789 certainly. Anyway, that's off topic for this template talk page. I have tried to keep it general. You don't seem to be helping me out here. I think we have discussed it enough unless you have something further about putting NeilN's discretionary rule of thumb in a place where editors can see it and understand not to remove long-standing content because they find it UNDUE. Andrevan@ 02:30, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
The 1789 remark was a fatuous way of suggesting, it is the beginning of Presidential politics in the US, to find something far from US politics. The remainder though, I do hope you take on board.
Maybe documenting a specific rule of thumb is good, maybe it is not. I have made a case for why I believe it is not. You have made a case for why you think it is needed. The mid-point may be some text like: "long standing. Typically meaning weeks not days at an established article." or words to that effect.
I am firmly convinced that writing down a specific amount of time will result in 'issues'. As example, we have a situation where NeilN mentioned a timeframe, to give people a general idea of his thinking and an involved party wants to codify it for all of AmPol2. I don't say this to pick on you nor do I think you suggested the addition with any but good intentions. It is though easy to see the trajectory of

mentioned in a particular dispute by a single admin --> put on 'official' template as rule of thumb --> POV warriors opening AE threads because something was removed at 27 days or 29 days --> repeated with increasing acrimony over where in 4-6 weeks the line really is.

From what I have seen of AmPol2 editing recently I hold little hope that the good will exists to rationally compromise on how to apply a general rule-of-thumb. If such existed then we would not have these sanctions on an article. Regardless, it is the administrators who deal with this sanctions area who will have to make the call based on whether they think it will help calm and manage the area or not. Enjoy your, I presume, day. Jbh Talk 04:41, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Proposal to remove the "Civility restriction"

Moved to WP:AN

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This template currently includes a "Civility" restriction that was added in January 2018 by User:Coffee a couple months before his retirement. It reads:

Users are required to follow proper decorum during discussions and edits. Users may be sanctioned (including blocks) if they make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith.

I don't recall the extent to which Coffee enforced this sanction, but to my knowledge it has not been enforced since he retired. Searches I did of WP:AE archives didn't pull up anything except this in which one of the commenting users cited the Civility restriction, and where administrator User:NeilN (the primary admin patrolling the AP area at the time) commented with this: "many of these pages are already under a tightened civility restriction: [quotes the restriction] Doesn't seem to do much." The AE report was closed with a reminder/warning.

I believe this restriction should be removed for the following reasons:

  • It is redundant with our current civility policy. Administrators can already block uncivil users for personal attacks, etc., without the need to cite discretionary sanctions. (The other sanctions in this template (1RR and Consensus Required) are in addition to, not restatements of, current policy.)
  • The longer a template is the less likely users are to read it. Also WP:CREEP
  • The template is for sanctions, not reminders. If we want to make it a template for reminders I can think of better policies to remind users about (NPOV for instance)
  • The other sanctions are fairly "bright-line" sanctions with violations that can be easily and uniformly identified and enforced. It's not clear what constitutes a violation of "proper decorum during discussions and edits".

Pinging the last few administrators who have logged discretionary sanctions at Wikipedia:Arbitration_enforcement_log/2018#American_politics_2: @EdJohnston: @Bishonen: @Drmies: @Swarm: @Seraphimblade: @Ad Orientem: ~Awilley (talk) 16:21, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Ugh bureaucracy. We really need a reasonable way to modify sanctions after a sanctioning admin becomes permanently unreachable. Any objections to me copying/pasting this section (with comments) over to WP:AN? ~Awilley (talk) 16:48, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
WP:AE would also work. As a way to solve the problem in the future, does any admin want to step forward as Coffee's successor? Then that person would 'own' the discretionary sanctions that Coffee imposed and could agree to any changes. The new owner could be confirmed by consensus at a noticeboard. EdJohnston (talk) 16:55, 3 November 2018 (UTC
You're right, AE would have been a better venue. Unfortunately I already started a thread at WP:AN and my attempt to undo that got garbled somehow, and now that it's been commented on there as well I'm going to give up on trying to move it again. ~Awilley (talk) 17:03, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Creation of Template:American_politics_AE/Edit_notice

I made a new template {{American_politics_AE/Edit_notice}} to try to help standardize the edit notices for pages affected by the sanctions listed in this current template. It looks like right now the edit notices are made manually by filling information into {{Ds/editnotice}} which makes it a pain to update all the hundred or so edit notices when we change the sanctions in this template. Any objections to me adding the new template to the documentation here and applying it to the edit notices of the relevant articles? ~Awilley (talk) 03:22, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Add parameters for optional individual sanctions

I'd like to add some parameters to make the list of sanctions more versatile, so sanctioning administrators can choose one or both sanctions when placing the template. So instead of writing {{American politics AE}} and getting both sanctions you could write {{American politics AE|1RR=yes|ConsensusRequired=no}} to place just a 1RR restriction. If no additional options are added I think it would be reasonable to have the default be "yes" for 1RR and "no" for ConsensusRequired. Once the change is made I should be able to use AWB to replace all the existing transclusions with {{American politics AE|ConsensusRequired=yes}} so existing sanctions will be unchanged. This would be a step towards merging with {{Post-1932_American_politics_discretionary_sanctions_page_restrictions}} (which already has the optional parameter and is nearly identical in wording and intent to this template). I think I can figure out the changes myself, using the other template as a guide, but if anybody watching this page has some experience editing templates I'd be grateful if you could make the change and update the documentation. ~Awilley (talk) 21:00, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

@Awilley: If you still need help, I'm a template editor and I can help with param-fu. — JFG talk 05:12, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, I think I got it for now (after spending an hour yesterday figuring it out). [1] I'm no programmer, but I took a couple classes in college that allow me to scrape by with enough time. ~Awilley (talk) 13:43, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Make category for sanctions?

Is it possible (and allowed) to have this template add categories (visible or no) to the talk pages it's placed on? I was thinking of something along the lines of Category:American politics articles under Consensus required restriction That would help track which articles are affected by various sanctions. Right now I'm having to manually investigate pages where the template is transcluded (which granted is a step up from combing through the AE enforcement log) ~Awilley (talk) 22:03, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Awilley, categories are allowed to be added by templates on talk pages, and you can do that simply by adding [[Category:American politics articles under Consensus required restriction]] to the end of the consensus-required text. Galobtter (pingó mió) 03:50, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Template_talk:American_politics_AE/Archive_1"