To-do list for Contentious Topic implementation:
|
We definitely welcome anyone interested in helping with the process of implementing the proposals. My initial sense is that we would especially benefit from folks who could help with updating the old DS templates. I don't have a specific list of things that need updating yet, but am working on it. If you're interested, I would be really grateful if you could reply here. Thanks! KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 21:40, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
I will be creating the page at Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Administrator instructions (similar to how WP:AFD has it). Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 23:05, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
Will the "Current areas of conflict" section that's currently shown on WP:AC/DS be included in Wikipedia:Contentious topics? If not, where will the list of the areas under CT be placed? Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 23:17, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
Is there a draft location where the CT page is being created? Also will the drafting arbitrators be in charge of creating this? Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 23:53, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
WP:CT exists for "citation templates"; WP:DS exists for "deletion sorting". Thus, WP:AC/CT should probably be the main shortcut, and the page should probably be located at WP:Arbitration Committee/Contentious topics. ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 12:40, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Both current and proposed editnotices make reference to 500/30 as a requirement (See {{
ArbCom Arab-Israeli editnotice}} & {{
Editnotice contentious topic page restriction}}). I asked about this on the
template talk and was directed here. My question is: Should this not be changed to explicitly mention
WP:XC instead? For example: "You must be logged-in, with an
extended-confirmed account". While I get the whole clear and concise formatting
that is required. However explicitly stating the required 30 days 500 edits, is just inaccurate for the requirements to edit under these restrictions. The
page protection requires XC not 500/30, and
WP:ARBECR requires XC not 500/30. And this
ARCA request also states that 500/30 isn't relevant.
Terasail
[✉️] 16:47, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
few editors know or care about the "extended-confirmed" jargon. The protected page notice ( MediaWiki:Protectedpagetext) Uses such terminology and never mentions the 500/30 requirements, and I am not aware of any controversy over this.
The people who get ECP on an alternate account are already experienced enough to understand this, and the people who have it removed for disruption know why they can no longer edit.. Two points on this: Just because it could be interpreted by an experienced editor, should incorrect information be provided to begin with? And the idea of the "long inactive admin going against policy" is quite well discussed but what about returners who have had perms removed? They might edit after reading the edit notice since they have over 500 edits only to be taken to a noticeboard for not being XC? Terasail [✉️] 16:48, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
( extended-confirmed protection)" at the end of the list item in the editnotice. That way anyone who wants to know more can follow the link. isaacl ( talk) 17:05, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
@ ToBeFree and Dreamy Jazz: who I think have been working on this. We make reference to subpages of {{ Ct}} like {{ Ct/alert}}, but {{ Ct}} is a (highly visible) cycling related template. We should either avoid using that (pseudo)namespace or formally migrate that template. — Wug· a·po·des 23:42, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
The new CT talk notice does not contain the "Remedy instructions and exemptions" collapse box used in {{ American politics AE}} or shown in the mock ups in Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/2021-22 review/Phase II consultation/Templates.
Also missing is the footnotes for each restriction shown in the editnotice as detailed in Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/2021-22 review/Phase II consultation/Templates. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 12:13, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Special:Diff/1132921624 is the drafters' first draft attempt to implement "Amendment: Limiting blocks to one year". However, the resulting appeals language is kind of clunky:
Administrators have the authority to revoke or change a contentious topic restriction if and only if:
- The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change, [a] or is no longer an administrator; [b]
- The contentious topic restriction was imposed by a single administrator and it was imposed or last renewed more than a year ago;
- The contentious topic restriction was a sitewide block and it was imposed more than a year ago; or
- An appeal is successful (see below).
Would the following be better or worse? Or any other suggested copyedits?
Administrators have the authority to revoke or change a contentious topic restriction if and only if:
- The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change, [c] or is no longer an administrator; [d]
- The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and:
- the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or
- the restriction was an indefinite block; or
- An appeal is successful (see below).
Suggestions welcome. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 08:32, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 21:30, 13 January 2023 (UTC)An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies:
- The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change, [e] or is no longer an administrator; [f] or
- The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and:
- the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or
- the restriction was an indefinite block.
Here is what I think a case page amendment could look like on implementation day. Any suggestions? We'll have to do this on the ~30 DS topics currently authorized. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:07, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Is there a plan when Implementation day will be? I'm aware that the month worth authority granted to the drafting arbitrators is running out, so I presume it has to be soon. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 14:25, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Please update the list above as required. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 20:41, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks to everyone that has been working on this substantial change to AE. I'm still trying to come up to speed on the changes, I can't guarantee that I am going to do things correctly on my next foray into a CT, but I shall do my best. Perhaps an example might help somewhere? Also, there are still a few places which say solely "[LINK]", it would be a good idea to put these on a list for update, but I am not quite sure where?.... Thanks! -- El on ka 16:44, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
To-do list for Contentious Topic implementation:
|
We definitely welcome anyone interested in helping with the process of implementing the proposals. My initial sense is that we would especially benefit from folks who could help with updating the old DS templates. I don't have a specific list of things that need updating yet, but am working on it. If you're interested, I would be really grateful if you could reply here. Thanks! KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 21:40, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
I will be creating the page at Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Administrator instructions (similar to how WP:AFD has it). Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 23:05, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
Will the "Current areas of conflict" section that's currently shown on WP:AC/DS be included in Wikipedia:Contentious topics? If not, where will the list of the areas under CT be placed? Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 23:17, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
Is there a draft location where the CT page is being created? Also will the drafting arbitrators be in charge of creating this? Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 23:53, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
WP:CT exists for "citation templates"; WP:DS exists for "deletion sorting". Thus, WP:AC/CT should probably be the main shortcut, and the page should probably be located at WP:Arbitration Committee/Contentious topics. ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 12:40, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Both current and proposed editnotices make reference to 500/30 as a requirement (See {{
ArbCom Arab-Israeli editnotice}} & {{
Editnotice contentious topic page restriction}}). I asked about this on the
template talk and was directed here. My question is: Should this not be changed to explicitly mention
WP:XC instead? For example: "You must be logged-in, with an
extended-confirmed account". While I get the whole clear and concise formatting
that is required. However explicitly stating the required 30 days 500 edits, is just inaccurate for the requirements to edit under these restrictions. The
page protection requires XC not 500/30, and
WP:ARBECR requires XC not 500/30. And this
ARCA request also states that 500/30 isn't relevant.
Terasail
[✉️] 16:47, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
few editors know or care about the "extended-confirmed" jargon. The protected page notice ( MediaWiki:Protectedpagetext) Uses such terminology and never mentions the 500/30 requirements, and I am not aware of any controversy over this.
The people who get ECP on an alternate account are already experienced enough to understand this, and the people who have it removed for disruption know why they can no longer edit.. Two points on this: Just because it could be interpreted by an experienced editor, should incorrect information be provided to begin with? And the idea of the "long inactive admin going against policy" is quite well discussed but what about returners who have had perms removed? They might edit after reading the edit notice since they have over 500 edits only to be taken to a noticeboard for not being XC? Terasail [✉️] 16:48, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
( extended-confirmed protection)" at the end of the list item in the editnotice. That way anyone who wants to know more can follow the link. isaacl ( talk) 17:05, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
@ ToBeFree and Dreamy Jazz: who I think have been working on this. We make reference to subpages of {{ Ct}} like {{ Ct/alert}}, but {{ Ct}} is a (highly visible) cycling related template. We should either avoid using that (pseudo)namespace or formally migrate that template. — Wug· a·po·des 23:42, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
The new CT talk notice does not contain the "Remedy instructions and exemptions" collapse box used in {{ American politics AE}} or shown in the mock ups in Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/2021-22 review/Phase II consultation/Templates.
Also missing is the footnotes for each restriction shown in the editnotice as detailed in Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/2021-22 review/Phase II consultation/Templates. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 12:13, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Special:Diff/1132921624 is the drafters' first draft attempt to implement "Amendment: Limiting blocks to one year". However, the resulting appeals language is kind of clunky:
Administrators have the authority to revoke or change a contentious topic restriction if and only if:
- The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change, [a] or is no longer an administrator; [b]
- The contentious topic restriction was imposed by a single administrator and it was imposed or last renewed more than a year ago;
- The contentious topic restriction was a sitewide block and it was imposed more than a year ago; or
- An appeal is successful (see below).
Would the following be better or worse? Or any other suggested copyedits?
Administrators have the authority to revoke or change a contentious topic restriction if and only if:
- The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change, [c] or is no longer an administrator; [d]
- The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and:
- the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or
- the restriction was an indefinite block; or
- An appeal is successful (see below).
Suggestions welcome. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 08:32, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 21:30, 13 January 2023 (UTC)An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies:
- The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change, [e] or is no longer an administrator; [f] or
- The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and:
- the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or
- the restriction was an indefinite block.
Here is what I think a case page amendment could look like on implementation day. Any suggestions? We'll have to do this on the ~30 DS topics currently authorized. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:07, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Is there a plan when Implementation day will be? I'm aware that the month worth authority granted to the drafting arbitrators is running out, so I presume it has to be soon. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 14:25, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Please update the list above as required. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 20:41, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks to everyone that has been working on this substantial change to AE. I'm still trying to come up to speed on the changes, I can't guarantee that I am going to do things correctly on my next foray into a CT, but I shall do my best. Perhaps an example might help somewhere? Also, there are still a few places which say solely "[LINK]", it would be a good idea to put these on a list for update, but I am not quite sure where?.... Thanks! -- El on ka 16:44, 28 January 2023 (UTC)