Noticeboard

Archives

1 (to 26 January 2006) 2 (to 28 January 2006) 3 (archive of a discussion started on January 29, 2006 at the incidents noticeboard) 4 (to 28 January 2006) Old noticeboard #1 (February 2006→December 2008, clerks' coordination board) Old noticeboard #2 (December 2008→March 2010, clerks' coordination board) 5 (January 2006→May 2009) 6 (May 2009→June 2012, noticeboard merged) 7 (June 2012→September 2014) 8 (September 2014→September 2015) 9 (3 October→4 November 2015) 10 (October 2015→March 2021) 11 (April 2021→present)

This page has archives. Sections older than 4 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 2 sections are present.

I would like to ask to amend two bans issued to me. Here is my statement [1]. Can someone help me please to properly start the amendment? I am not sure who should be notified about it. I assume that users @Volunteer Marek: and @Piotrus: should be notified because one of the remedies includes a one-sided interaction ban with them. Thank you. My very best wishes (talk) 22:58, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:41, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! That was fast. My very best wishes (talk) 23:45, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clerks,

The Anachronist case request has been majority declined for several days now. It's not fair to the accused party (weren't we going to move away from that naming convention when possible?) to have their name listed as the title of a case request for days longer than appropriate. Jclemens (talk) 21:29, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

{{subst:alert|kurd}}:

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date. You have shown interest in Kurds and Kurdistan. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has authorised uninvolved administrators to impose contentious topics restrictions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, expected standards of behaviour, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

{{subst:Contentious topics/alert|kurd}}:
You have recently made edits related to the topics of Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed. This is a standard message to inform you that the topics of Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics.

I think we need a separate code to refer to WP:ARBKURDS, as "kurd" is taken by the community-imposed extended-confirmed restriction. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:43, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the template itself is not ambiguous, how is that parameter ambiguous? We don't use Template:Contentious topics, or any of its sub-templates, for general sanctions. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:47, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I didn't realize that Template:Alert could also be used for general sanctions. If we want to continue doing so, TBF is right that we need distinct parameters for the different regimes. We should probably also further distinguish the two versions of Armenia/Azerbaijan sanctions, as "a-a" and "aa" are likely to be mixed up. Maybe "gskurd" and "gsaa"/"gsa-a" for the general sanctions versions?

We have another issue, which applies also to Template:Gs/alert: the community has not in fact "authorised uninvolved administrators to impose contentious topics restrictions" for the Kurds, Armenia/Azerbaijan, and Russia/Ukraine topic areas. It just imposed ECR. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 00:50, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be better to deprecate {{subst:Alert}} in favor of {{subst:Gs/alert}}, {{subst:Contentious topics/alert/first}}, and {{subst:Contentious topics/alert}}? I think the more specific templates are becoming more commonly used nowadays because they're the ones documented on WP:GS.

Another possible fix would be adding a required "type" parameter to distinguish between Arbitration Committee and community sanctions or prefixing every code like "gs/a-a" and "ct/a-a".

Regarding the {{subst:Alert}} language, it shouldn't say "contentious topics" for any community sanction. At this time, that term is only used for Arbitration Committee sanctions. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 01:11, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 212#RfC: Converting all current and future community discretionary sanctions to (community designated) contentious topics procedure decided to say "contentious topics" for community sanctions as well. SilverLocust 💬 01:21, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like I missed that RfC. Thanks! Daniel Quinlan (talk) 01:33, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We should neither deprecate the "alert" template for ArbCom's CTOP notifications nor suddenly require a parameter prefix. The current state is a convenient short code that can easily be (and is probably often) typed by hand; it has required a huge amount of work to be established. Its use is documented at Template:Contentious topics and its subpages; the direct use of the "Contentious topics" template is a trick I only had to apply because of the ambiguity of "kurds". People use, this, convenient, code, all, the, time. Trying to find a different usage in the filter hit log of 602 is actually tough. Changing the way alerts are placed every few years is something we really shouldn't do. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 06:12, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that Module:Sanctions would need to be changed to make that an option. If you don't include [ct] = 'true' in the data at Module:Sanctions/data, then {{subst:gs/alert|kurd}} and the others will give This topic area is not designated as a contentious topic. Alert is not required. SilverLocust 💬 01:09, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Firefangledfeathers that a separate code isn't necessary because the templates are separate. However, it would help distinguish the alert if it mentioned the Arbitration Committee, and it seems like "broadly construed" should be set off by commas. Something like the topics of Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed, are designated as a contentious topic by the Arbitration Committee perhaps? The last sentence is a little repetitive too. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 20:28, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]