Template talk:Post-1932 American politics discretionary sanctions page restrictions

See WP:AE#Sanctions clarification request: 2016 US Election AE for a clarification request.  Sandstein  08:01, 16 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

This edit request to Template:2016 US Election AE has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

"Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence." -- In this sentence, "offence" should be changed to "offense" (American spelling) as per MOS:STRONGNAT. This template is used only for US political articles ("articles relating to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people"). Edge3 (talk) 20:29, 30 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

  Done — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 14:51, 1 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

The template is not just about 2016 US Elections, but all post 1932 US politics, so the name of the page should reflect that. I suggest US Post-1932 Politics. Simple and to the point. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:45, 26 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Out of curiosity, why 1932? Sorry if I should’ve made a new section, I just figured this’d be more direct. Cup o’ Java ( talk • edits ) 07:47, 6 April 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cup o' Java (talk • contribs) Reply

Never mind. Cup o’ Java ( talk • edits ) 07:52, 6 April 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cup o' Java (talk • contribs) Reply

The pagenotice ({{Ds/editnotice|1=1RR|topic=ap}}) no longer indicates the rule which the talk page AE template does. This inconsistency has rightly confused editors. I suggest we decide whether the consensus rule is in effect for post 1932 US politics articles or not. (See also My talk page) El_C 19:24, 25 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

I don't think the "1RR" notice was ever offering more than the standard 1RR restriction. On articles which enforce the "1RR+consensus" restriction, the edit notice is given manually, e.g. on Template:Editnotices/Page/Donald Trump we have:

{{Ds/editnotice|must not make more than [[WP:1RR|one revert per 24 hours to this article]], must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining [[WP:CONSENSUS|consensus]] on the talk page of this article,|topic=ap}}

— JFG ^talk 20:25, 25 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Maybe this is a matter for ARCA... I just wanted to get a feel for people's views. El_C 20:28, 25 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Never mind, I'm just an idiot, apparently(!). El_C 20:51, 25 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Coffee, can you please point to where these changes were discussed? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:42, 7 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

@NeilN: These are called discretionary sanctions are they not? — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 04:43, 7 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

@NeilN: Administrators do not need explicit consensus to enforce arbitration decisions and can always act unilaterally. ^{WP:AC/DS (admin.consensus)} Or have you forgotten how the enforcement of Arbitration remedies works? — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 04:47, 7 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Coffee: So every admin working in this area has to follow your version of discretionary sanctions? I don't think so. Let's address concerns first. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:50, 7 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

@NeilN: You're making my attempts to make this system actually work, harder than hell to put in place. So, instead of debating any of this with you, I'll be forking this template (which I created by the way, and did not force other admins to use) with my changes to all of the articles I put this on (which by the way, is the vast majority of the transclusions here). Good day, and I hope you know that you've just modified the sanction that I created out of process (ArbCom will be informed regardless of me forking this). — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 04:55, 7 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Coffee: I'll be opening an arbcom case. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:03, 7 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

@NeilN: This is ridiculous. Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied. ^{WP:AC/DS (sanctions.fresh)} — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 05:18, 7 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

• "Violations of any of these restrictions should be reported immediately to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard" - I don't like this. It implies that editors have to run off to AE instead of trying to talk first or lose their chance to get sanctions.
• "Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as clear vandalism." - not thrilled with this either. Disruptive? Probably. Vandalism? No. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:00, 7 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

I have simplified the template, mostly be removing repetition.

New version is in the sandbox:

WARNING: ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES The article Template:Post-1932 American politics discretionary sanctions page restrictions (and its editors) along with other highly visible articles relating to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, is subject to sanctions authorized by the Arbitration Committee (see WP:ARBAPDS). The current restrictions are: 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). Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning. An administrator has applied the restriction above to this article. This is pursuant to an arbitration decision. If you breach the restriction on this page, you may be blocked or otherwise sanctioned. Please edit carefully. Further information Enforcement procedures: Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense. With respect to the WP:1RR restriction: Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors that are not vandalism are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. If you are in doubt, contact an administrator for assistance. Discretionary sanctions can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Discretionary sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions. Violations of any of these restrictions should be reported to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!

Note the "Further information" section doesn't unhide, nor does the current one. A fix for this would be nice too.  

Comments?

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:48, 4 July 2017 (UTC).Reply

Can we just remove the "Consensus required" provision from the template. It seems that

1. The provision is hard to understand and really just causes a ton of Wikilawyering and in many cases is open to broad interpretation (not just by admins)
2. It is being added to articles ONLY because it comes "packaged" as part of the template and several admins have indicated that they didn't really want to add that particular provision but it was simpler to just add the template.
3. The originator of the provision also has expressed doubts about the efficacy of the provision.
4. There have been numerous times, both at WP:AE and at individual articles, where admins have decided it was better simply to ignore that provision for reasons 1-3.
5. The provision gives any editor veto power over any change to an article no matter how much of an improvement. We end up in a topsy turvy situation where an edit against Wikipedia policy is "protected" (because "no consensus!") while edits which follows Wikipedia policy can be instantly reverted.
6. The provision fuels WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior by encouraging editors to make revenge reverts of constructive edits made by editors they personally dislike.

 Volunteer Marek  16:16, 8 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Yes, absolutely. I do not see any discussion on this page with WP:Consensus to include such restriction.My very best wishes (talk) 16:43, 3 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Following up from the AE discussion, the proposal by BU Rob13 to add parameters to this template that require the admin to set the specific sanctions. What I would suggest at this point is that the two bullet points both be made parameters set at default to =no, but that we run a bot or AWB to set them to =yes on the places where an administrator intentionally applied them (as determined by the AE log. As there was no consensus at the recent AE appeal to remove the consensus required restriction from all the pages, I think this is the best way to split the baby. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:00, 6 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Agreed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:39, 7 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Looks like the reasonable approach. — JFG ^talk 01:03, 11 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

We would need (e.g. required by policy/ArbCom motions) to apply the AWB bot run to all current pages the template appears on to keep the applied sanctions the same until/unless there is consensus at AE to change any existing sanctions. We could then approach individual enforcing admins and encourage them to reconsider the sanctions they applied or take individual pages to AE for consensus to change the sanctions. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:06, 11 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Support - Noting that all that I have placed had this (consensus required) restriction intended, but I'd also ask that all of mine be changed to {{American politics AE}} (which helps explain how the consensus restriction works in its entirety) if at all possible TonyBallioni. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 19:01, 12 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Coffee, it might be worth discussing merging the template so that the consensus required explanation is on this one too when it is turned on as a parameter. I also support wide usage of that restriction as I think 1RR is meangingless on highly visible articles without it, and simplifying the number of templates in this contentious field would be a positive thing. I'm also not the expert on templates, so I don't know if that would be possible. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:09, 12 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

There's a discussion there about a change I made here, which should be brought into sync there as well. Andrevan@ 21:24, 1 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

You shouldn't be editing templates that you are currently under restrictions for. You are involved. Please stop. The ONLY reason why you didn't receive a week long block and an extension is because you are an admin. These template changes to page level sanctions require AE logging by an uninvolved admin and you are not it. Fram just blocked you because of this edge testing and this appers to be more complaining about Trump article restriction. 2600:8800:1300:16E:3D22:C76D:817F:9403 (talk) 08:47, 3 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

I reverted my change to the template so it can be made by NeilN. My topic ban is not all American politics. I am simply trying to codify the restriction already being enforced, as I explained, and not change the sanction. Andrevan@ 18:14, 3 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Nominated for deletion at TfD. Please tag with {{subst:Tfd}}. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:44, 29 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

  Not done however, ProcrastinatingReader I've reduced the protection level, so you can update or tag as needed now. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:50, 29 August 2020 (UTC)Reply