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

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Clarification request[edit]

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

Protected edit request on 30 December 2016[edit]

"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]

This template should be moved[edit]

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]

Consensus provision: inconsistency with page notice[edit]

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]

Changes[edit]

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]

Requested move 4 June 2017[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Option 2.Clear consensus.(non-admin closure) Winged Blades Godric 10:16, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On request of the closer on my talk page, I have implemented this move. (The page was fully protected.) Respectfully, Mz7 (talk) 18:32, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2016 US Election AE → Template:Post-1932 American politics discretionary sanctions/1RR consensus required –

Either way, the proposed template names would be better than the current template name, which is ill-suited for the template's uses, since it can be (and has been) applied to pages related to post-1932 American politics other than those related to the 2016 US elections. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 23:01, 4 June 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. SkyWarrior 00:40, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Option 1[edit]

Support[edit]

  1. First choice. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 23:01, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Sounds good. I can't think of a good reason to oppose either of the proposed changes. This option is more complicated, but as Ks0stm points out, it allows for more flexibility in the kind of restrictions. Either way, these options rename the template to align it with how it's been applied (i.e. beyond the 2016 election). Mz7 (talk) 02:41, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support, as the template's title does not accurately reflect the sanctions. ProgrammingGeek talktome 13:43, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose[edit]

  • Oppose seeing as this is still ongoing, I'll go ahead and oppose this option since there seems to at least be consensus that a move should take place. This is too complicated, and per my comments below, 1RR is inevitably the active sanction applied on virtually any page that has page level discretionary sanctions. The other being 500/30, which is easy to note with a blue lock and logging at the DS log, so it doesn't really require a banner. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:57, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Option 2[edit]

Support[edit]

  1. Second choice. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 23:01, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Likewise. Mz7 (talk) 02:41, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per above ProgrammingGeek talktome 13:43, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Prefer this one. Its simpler and 1RR tends to be the default active discretionary sanction that is applied both in US politics and in general. Simpler title for what will most likely be the case anytime active sanctions are applied. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:03, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Prefer the slash-less title, especially when typing the whole title exactly. --George Ho (talk) 20:33, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose[edit]

  • Oppose Really too broad. —JJBers 23:54, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

What happened in 1932? Kaldari (talk) 22:42, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FDR was elected president. More at 1932 in the United States. --George Ho (talk) 02:49, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See also Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2/Proposed decision#Discretionary sanctions (not time limited), aka the discussion as to why the cutoff date is set at 1932. SkyWarrior 16:35, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment: I've decided to relist this for one more week, partly because it deals with discretionary sanctions, but mainly because, at the time of relisting, it appears to have no consensus and could benefit from more discussion. SkyWarrior 00:40, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Simplification[edit]

I have simplified the template, mostly be removing repetition.

New version is in the sandbox:

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]

Consensus required[edit]

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]

Parameters[edit]

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. ~ Rob13Talk 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]

Discussion at Template talk:American politics AE[edit]

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]

Protected edit request on 29 August 2020[edit]

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]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Post-1932_American_politics_discretionary_sanctions_page_restrictions&oldid=1138528805"