| This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Contentious topics template. |
|
Archives:
1Auto-archiving period: 30 days
 |
 | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
At {{ Contentious topics}}:
| − |
{{'''Contentious topics'''}} is a family of templates used as part of the [[Wikipedia:Contentious topics|contentious | + |
{{'''Contentious topics'''}} is a family of templates used as part of the [[Wikipedia:Contentious topics|contentious topics system]]. Contentious topics are specially designated topics that have attracted more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project.
|
The target is about the system, not the topics themselves. That is, the current wording suggests to me that the target would be the list of topics. The actual list of topics is not prominently linked here, which is another thing that could be improved, maybe as a link in some part of that second sentence, but not sure exactly which words. </nowiki> DMacks ( talk) 18:56, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
- The use of 'nowiki' wrapping for the open-braces and no protection for the close-braces is annoying! DMacks ( talk) 19:00, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
Note: Template is not protected. Just be
BOLD — Martin (
MSGJ ·
talk) 12:55, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
The wording of this template, and of Wikipedia:Contentious topics, the page to which it directs people, are poor, and most certainly not suitable for presentation to new editors. Is anyone interested in working on a plain language version? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:09, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- @ Andy: can you be specific about what about {{ alert/first}} is poor and not suitable to new editors? Because that template was written with that audience in mind and if there are ways to make it better, great. The Contentious topics page was much harder to do that with for a number of reasons and so only the part before "Contentious topic restrictions" was written at a basic level. Barkeep49 ( talk) 23:25, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- Like {{
welcome-arbpia}}?
ScottishFinnishRadish (
talk) 23:39, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think it's suitable for experienced editors either. See this discussion on my talk page. It says it's not a warning, but it looks like a warning. It reads like a warning. It feels like a warning. I made a constructive, helpful edit to a page that apparently fell within the scope of one of these broad topics, and I got a warning template with no link to that edit and no real explanation of what I might have done to trigger the warning.
- I recommend that the template require a link to the edit in question, and that it be delivered only to editors who make substantive edits to article content, not gnomish minor edits like fixing of typos. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 20:27, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
- I agree that despite saying
does not imply that there are any issues with your editing
, CTOP alert templates do imply issues with one's editing. Since they are the first step in getting someone topic banned at WP:AE, to an experienced editor, they carry all the negative connotations of starting that process. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 11:18, 29 January 2024 (UTC)- Editors can be disruptive in lots of ways including correcting "typos" (ex: Kyiv vs Kiev) rather than typos or by being disruptive on talk pages. For me what is important is to 1) Stop disruption and 2) Not to unfairly penalize editors, including those who haven't had a fair chance to realize that they are making edits in a topic where
Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Getting an unjustified warning causes hurt feelings, getting a sanction you had no idea you could get feels like an injustice.We've tried to mitigate the hurt feelings piece by saying that only UNINVOLVED people may place the template. ButI'm not prepared to say that we're only going to give the template to people who have done something wrong. Because then we shift the argument to whether the edit justified the warning from the current status quo of whether edits justify a sanction because there is no stigma to having been told CTOP exists. Barkeep49 ( talk) 16:26, 29 January 2024 (UTC)getting a sanction you had no idea you could get feels like an injustice
To that, I'd ordinarily respond with ignorantia juris non excusat. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. On the one hand, I do think it is commendable that we require awareness before an admin can make an arbitration enforcement action, but on the other it can also be limiting. I non-specifically recall (I'd need to go digging to find the exact cases) there being a couple of times where I was either involved with or witnessed an AE filing fail in part, because the actions that would have lead to some sort of sanction occurred prior to the editor being considered aware.- Because awareness is required for sanctions under these provisions, it can create an opportunity for someone to be disruptive up to the point where they become aware, and then they just stop. While that may on the surface seem fine, because hey, the immediate disruption has stopped, we know from experience that there are CTOPs that have prolific socking issues. Yes you can argue that awareness is issued on the editor, not the account, but to confirm that user A is the same person as user B often requires a CU, and by that point it's more expedient to just CU block for socking.
- Ultimately in the examples I can remember it didn't overly matter, because the editor eventually continued their disruptive behaviour, and was sanctioned for that instead. But the idea of awareness being required for sanctions is still something that is somewhat open to abuse.
I'm not prepared to say that we're only going to give the template to people who have done something wrong. Because then we shift the argument to whether the edit justified the warning from the current status quo of whether edits justify a sanction because there is no stigma to having been told CTOP exists.
That makes sense to me. And to be honest, if we do get to the point where we only issue the template to editors who have done something wrong, it then becomes a question of why even have the template? If we're at that point, it would be more straightforward to just take the problematic editor straight to AE. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 20:15, 29 January 2024 (UTC)- The key trickiness is that there are no new rules to follow for areas identified as contentious topics. There are just more options that a single administrator can exercise on their own initiative. So arguably it's not important that a truly new editor be introduced to the contentious topic system. The audience for which a first alert might make a difference are those who are aware of the usual limits on administrator actions, and who would become willing to rein in their behaviour if these limits were changed for specific areas. It might be better for everyone to just get notified once about how to find a list of identified contentious topics, with a link to more details on the implications. (I had
previously proposed something like this in the 2021 review.) This can be safely ignored by the vast majority of editors who aren't pushing any boundaries on reasonable behaviour, while still providing a prompt for those who could benefit from understanding the additional options available to admins for contentious topics.
isaacl (
talk) 22:51, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
- I think this is true except for topics with blanket 1RR/ECP, where there really are special rules. But I kind of agree that for a truly new user, the fact that admins have certain extra powers is not particularly relevant (in fact most users will probably assume that admins have unlimited powers to e.g. unilaterally topic ban people).
Galobtter (
talk) 23:09, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
- Pages with enacted restrictions (including those enacted by a single administrator from the expanded list of options made available for contentious topics) must have associated notices in order for editors to be aware of them. The alert system, though, is solely about letting editors know that a topic area has been designated as a contentious topic. isaacl ( talk) 23:23, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
- I think this is true except for topics with blanket 1RR/ECP, where there really are special rules. But I kind of agree that for a truly new user, the fact that admins have certain extra powers is not particularly relevant (in fact most users will probably assume that admins have unlimited powers to e.g. unilaterally topic ban people).
Galobtter (
talk) 23:09, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
- The key trickiness is that there are no new rules to follow for areas identified as contentious topics. There are just more options that a single administrator can exercise on their own initiative. So arguably it's not important that a truly new editor be introduced to the contentious topic system. The audience for which a first alert might make a difference are those who are aware of the usual limits on administrator actions, and who would become willing to rein in their behaviour if these limits were changed for specific areas. It might be better for everyone to just get notified once about how to find a list of identified contentious topics, with a link to more details on the implications. (I had
previously proposed something like this in the 2021 review.) This can be safely ignored by the vast majority of editors who aren't pushing any boundaries on reasonable behaviour, while still providing a prompt for those who could benefit from understanding the additional options available to admins for contentious topics.
isaacl (
talk) 22:51, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
- Editors can be disruptive in lots of ways including correcting "typos" (ex: Kyiv vs Kiev) rather than typos or by being disruptive on talk pages. For me what is important is to 1) Stop disruption and 2) Not to unfairly penalize editors, including those who haven't had a fair chance to realize that they are making edits in a topic where
- I agree that despite saying
- I'm willing. Sympathetic to the WP:DTTR pleas, but on the other hand, there are 32 topics, and the wording is arbcom-approved, and it's not a bad idea to equalize the wording for everyone (or at least, if there's different wording for different seniority levels, a small number of agreed upon wordings) so will be interesting to see how that shakes out. Also, even if I have a dozen topics in my "aware" list, that still leaves more than a dozen more, and even most regulars can't be expected to know every last one, or keep in mind deprecations and new additions. Finally, before we get into working on a new version, is it your idea that the end result would be a joint proposal to ArbCom to use the new wording, or something else? Because I don't think even a consensus result here would override the current wording if ArbCom didn't accept it, but then I'm not quite up to speed on how that would work, or even if it's well-defined or not. Mathglot ( talk) 07:33, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
None of those terms appear in Template:Contentious topics/list, but "Polish history during World War II (1933-1945) and the history of Jews in Poland" (now also extended to include Lithuania as of Jan. 2024) seems to be a CTOP, that even has unusual "extended confirmed" and "reliable source consensus-required" restrictions, per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland and amendment thereto. At least Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe (as amended) is covered, but the Poland case is missing. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 09:55, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
Consider using Module:Sanctions?
I did some work in Module:Sanctions/sandbox (and Module:Sanctions/data/sandbox) to add support for ArbCom sanctions to the module. I want to suggest to ArbCom that maybe they use this or a similar module for contentious topics? It would reduce the amount of overhead from the current system of templates and whatnot when a sanction is added, modified, or removed, as well as allow for one set of templates to be used for both community and arbitration designated contentious topics. There is consensus at Special:PermaLink/1219827352#RfC:_Converting_all_current_and_future_community_discretionary_sanctions_to_(community_designated)_contentious_topics_procedure to update the terminology used for community sanctions, but no consensus for the specific details. I just wanted to bring this up as having single templates able to handle a wide variety of cases is better than having multiple fragmented templates only able to handle single cases. Awesome Aasim 00:50, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- I don't oppose the idea of using a centralised Module:Sanctions if the community system is either largely or completely based on WP:CTOP. If the system is modified, then using a centralised module may make the module more complicated than it was when two template systems existed.
- I think more work is needed to support all the use cases of the
Template:Contentious topics family of templates. For example,
Template:Contentious topics/page restriction talk notice has a
placed-dateparameter that would need to be supported and doesn't seem to be supported in that module. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 11:58, 21 April 2024 (UTC)- @
Dreamy Jazz Do you want to maybe add those features into the sandbox version of that module?
Awesome
Aasim 17:11, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- I don't really have that much experience with Lua, so I'll need to take a look into the docs before I could comfortably make those modifications.
- I would also say that the {{
Contentious topics/alert/first}} text shouldn't be changed and I would note that the text in the
buildFirstAlertmethod has been modified slightly. Is also seems to need further changes if this template was used for community first alerts. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 22:02, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- @
Dreamy Jazz Do you want to maybe add those features into the sandbox version of that module?
Awesome
Aasim 17:11, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Through experimenting in June 2023, I found that {{ Alert/first}} and {{ Alert/DS}} get their list of CTOP areas from one place, and {{ Alert}} gets its list from somewhere else. Whatever we do, I'd like to encourage us to unify these to all use the same source of data. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 07:20, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
| This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Contentious topics template. |
|
|
Archives:
1Auto-archiving period: 30 days
|
| This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
At {{ Contentious topics}}:
| − |
{{'''Contentious topics'''}} is a family of templates used as part of the [[Wikipedia:Contentious topics|contentious | + |
{{'''Contentious topics'''}} is a family of templates used as part of the [[Wikipedia:Contentious topics|contentious topics system]]. Contentious topics are specially designated topics that have attracted more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project.
|
The target is about the system, not the topics themselves. That is, the current wording suggests to me that the target would be the list of topics. The actual list of topics is not prominently linked here, which is another thing that could be improved, maybe as a link in some part of that second sentence, but not sure exactly which words. </nowiki> DMacks ( talk) 18:56, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
- The use of 'nowiki' wrapping for the open-braces and no protection for the close-braces is annoying! DMacks ( talk) 19:00, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
- Note: Template is not protected. Just be
BOLD — Martin (
MSGJ ·
talk) 12:55, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
The wording of this template, and of Wikipedia:Contentious topics, the page to which it directs people, are poor, and most certainly not suitable for presentation to new editors. Is anyone interested in working on a plain language version? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:09, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- @ Andy: can you be specific about what about {{ alert/first}} is poor and not suitable to new editors? Because that template was written with that audience in mind and if there are ways to make it better, great. The Contentious topics page was much harder to do that with for a number of reasons and so only the part before "Contentious topic restrictions" was written at a basic level. Barkeep49 ( talk) 23:25, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- Like {{
welcome-arbpia}}?
ScottishFinnishRadish (
talk) 23:39, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think it's suitable for experienced editors either. See this discussion on my talk page. It says it's not a warning, but it looks like a warning. It reads like a warning. It feels like a warning. I made a constructive, helpful edit to a page that apparently fell within the scope of one of these broad topics, and I got a warning template with no link to that edit and no real explanation of what I might have done to trigger the warning.
- I recommend that the template require a link to the edit in question, and that it be delivered only to editors who make substantive edits to article content, not gnomish minor edits like fixing of typos. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 20:27, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
- I agree that despite saying
does not imply that there are any issues with your editing
, CTOP alert templates do imply issues with one's editing. Since they are the first step in getting someone topic banned at WP:AE, to an experienced editor, they carry all the negative connotations of starting that process. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 11:18, 29 January 2024 (UTC)- Editors can be disruptive in lots of ways including correcting "typos" (ex: Kyiv vs Kiev) rather than typos or by being disruptive on talk pages. For me what is important is to 1) Stop disruption and 2) Not to unfairly penalize editors, including those who haven't had a fair chance to realize that they are making edits in a topic where
Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Getting an unjustified warning causes hurt feelings, getting a sanction you had no idea you could get feels like an injustice.We've tried to mitigate the hurt feelings piece by saying that only UNINVOLVED people may place the template. ButI'm not prepared to say that we're only going to give the template to people who have done something wrong. Because then we shift the argument to whether the edit justified the warning from the current status quo of whether edits justify a sanction because there is no stigma to having been told CTOP exists. Barkeep49 ( talk) 16:26, 29 January 2024 (UTC)getting a sanction you had no idea you could get feels like an injustice
To that, I'd ordinarily respond with ignorantia juris non excusat. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. On the one hand, I do think it is commendable that we require awareness before an admin can make an arbitration enforcement action, but on the other it can also be limiting. I non-specifically recall (I'd need to go digging to find the exact cases) there being a couple of times where I was either involved with or witnessed an AE filing fail in part, because the actions that would have lead to some sort of sanction occurred prior to the editor being considered aware.- Because awareness is required for sanctions under these provisions, it can create an opportunity for someone to be disruptive up to the point where they become aware, and then they just stop. While that may on the surface seem fine, because hey, the immediate disruption has stopped, we know from experience that there are CTOPs that have prolific socking issues. Yes you can argue that awareness is issued on the editor, not the account, but to confirm that user A is the same person as user B often requires a CU, and by that point it's more expedient to just CU block for socking.
- Ultimately in the examples I can remember it didn't overly matter, because the editor eventually continued their disruptive behaviour, and was sanctioned for that instead. But the idea of awareness being required for sanctions is still something that is somewhat open to abuse.
I'm not prepared to say that we're only going to give the template to people who have done something wrong. Because then we shift the argument to whether the edit justified the warning from the current status quo of whether edits justify a sanction because there is no stigma to having been told CTOP exists.
That makes sense to me. And to be honest, if we do get to the point where we only issue the template to editors who have done something wrong, it then becomes a question of why even have the template? If we're at that point, it would be more straightforward to just take the problematic editor straight to AE. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 20:15, 29 January 2024 (UTC)- The key trickiness is that there are no new rules to follow for areas identified as contentious topics. There are just more options that a single administrator can exercise on their own initiative. So arguably it's not important that a truly new editor be introduced to the contentious topic system. The audience for which a first alert might make a difference are those who are aware of the usual limits on administrator actions, and who would become willing to rein in their behaviour if these limits were changed for specific areas. It might be better for everyone to just get notified once about how to find a list of identified contentious topics, with a link to more details on the implications. (I had
previously proposed something like this in the 2021 review.) This can be safely ignored by the vast majority of editors who aren't pushing any boundaries on reasonable behaviour, while still providing a prompt for those who could benefit from understanding the additional options available to admins for contentious topics.
isaacl (
talk) 22:51, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
- I think this is true except for topics with blanket 1RR/ECP, where there really are special rules. But I kind of agree that for a truly new user, the fact that admins have certain extra powers is not particularly relevant (in fact most users will probably assume that admins have unlimited powers to e.g. unilaterally topic ban people).
Galobtter (
talk) 23:09, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
- Pages with enacted restrictions (including those enacted by a single administrator from the expanded list of options made available for contentious topics) must have associated notices in order for editors to be aware of them. The alert system, though, is solely about letting editors know that a topic area has been designated as a contentious topic. isaacl ( talk) 23:23, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
- I think this is true except for topics with blanket 1RR/ECP, where there really are special rules. But I kind of agree that for a truly new user, the fact that admins have certain extra powers is not particularly relevant (in fact most users will probably assume that admins have unlimited powers to e.g. unilaterally topic ban people).
Galobtter (
talk) 23:09, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
- The key trickiness is that there are no new rules to follow for areas identified as contentious topics. There are just more options that a single administrator can exercise on their own initiative. So arguably it's not important that a truly new editor be introduced to the contentious topic system. The audience for which a first alert might make a difference are those who are aware of the usual limits on administrator actions, and who would become willing to rein in their behaviour if these limits were changed for specific areas. It might be better for everyone to just get notified once about how to find a list of identified contentious topics, with a link to more details on the implications. (I had
previously proposed something like this in the 2021 review.) This can be safely ignored by the vast majority of editors who aren't pushing any boundaries on reasonable behaviour, while still providing a prompt for those who could benefit from understanding the additional options available to admins for contentious topics.
isaacl (
talk) 22:51, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
- Editors can be disruptive in lots of ways including correcting "typos" (ex: Kyiv vs Kiev) rather than typos or by being disruptive on talk pages. For me what is important is to 1) Stop disruption and 2) Not to unfairly penalize editors, including those who haven't had a fair chance to realize that they are making edits in a topic where
- I agree that despite saying
- I'm willing. Sympathetic to the WP:DTTR pleas, but on the other hand, there are 32 topics, and the wording is arbcom-approved, and it's not a bad idea to equalize the wording for everyone (or at least, if there's different wording for different seniority levels, a small number of agreed upon wordings) so will be interesting to see how that shakes out. Also, even if I have a dozen topics in my "aware" list, that still leaves more than a dozen more, and even most regulars can't be expected to know every last one, or keep in mind deprecations and new additions. Finally, before we get into working on a new version, is it your idea that the end result would be a joint proposal to ArbCom to use the new wording, or something else? Because I don't think even a consensus result here would override the current wording if ArbCom didn't accept it, but then I'm not quite up to speed on how that would work, or even if it's well-defined or not. Mathglot ( talk) 07:33, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
None of those terms appear in Template:Contentious topics/list, but "Polish history during World War II (1933-1945) and the history of Jews in Poland" (now also extended to include Lithuania as of Jan. 2024) seems to be a CTOP, that even has unusual "extended confirmed" and "reliable source consensus-required" restrictions, per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland and amendment thereto. At least Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe (as amended) is covered, but the Poland case is missing. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 09:55, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
Consider using Module:Sanctions?
I did some work in Module:Sanctions/sandbox (and Module:Sanctions/data/sandbox) to add support for ArbCom sanctions to the module. I want to suggest to ArbCom that maybe they use this or a similar module for contentious topics? It would reduce the amount of overhead from the current system of templates and whatnot when a sanction is added, modified, or removed, as well as allow for one set of templates to be used for both community and arbitration designated contentious topics. There is consensus at Special:PermaLink/1219827352#RfC:_Converting_all_current_and_future_community_discretionary_sanctions_to_(community_designated)_contentious_topics_procedure to update the terminology used for community sanctions, but no consensus for the specific details. I just wanted to bring this up as having single templates able to handle a wide variety of cases is better than having multiple fragmented templates only able to handle single cases. Awesome Aasim 00:50, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- I don't oppose the idea of using a centralised Module:Sanctions if the community system is either largely or completely based on WP:CTOP. If the system is modified, then using a centralised module may make the module more complicated than it was when two template systems existed.
- I think more work is needed to support all the use cases of the
Template:Contentious topics family of templates. For example,
Template:Contentious topics/page restriction talk notice has a
placed-dateparameter that would need to be supported and doesn't seem to be supported in that module. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 11:58, 21 April 2024 (UTC)- @
Dreamy Jazz Do you want to maybe add those features into the sandbox version of that module?
Awesome
Aasim 17:11, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- I don't really have that much experience with Lua, so I'll need to take a look into the docs before I could comfortably make those modifications.
- I would also say that the {{
Contentious topics/alert/first}} text shouldn't be changed and I would note that the text in the
buildFirstAlertmethod has been modified slightly. Is also seems to need further changes if this template was used for community first alerts. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 22:02, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- @
Dreamy Jazz Do you want to maybe add those features into the sandbox version of that module?
Awesome
Aasim 17:11, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Through experimenting in June 2023, I found that {{ Alert/first}} and {{ Alert/DS}} get their list of CTOP areas from one place, and {{ Alert}} gets its list from somewhere else. Whatever we do, I'd like to encourage us to unify these to all use the same source of data. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 07:20, 22 April 2024 (UTC)