Template talk:Ds

Implementation notes (2013)

In preparation for implementing this template, please feel free to add places that currently mention {{uw-sanctions}} which will need to be updated at the switchover. AGK [•] 13:20, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:General_sanctions#Imposed_by_the_Committee. AGK [•] 13:20, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Template#Log_of_blocks.2C_bans.2C_and_restrictions. AGK [•] 20:39, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Too wordy

This notice is far too wordy, and the effect is to make it less forceful or clear. It reminds me of the difference between public transit signs in New York versus Los Angeles.

• Los Angeles: Smoking tobacco products, including smoke-free devices, in or within the vicinity of a public transit vehicle is prohibited per municipal code section 12135 et. seq.
• New York: No smoking

- Wikidemon (talk) 06:32, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

@Wikidemon: It's not really supposed to be forceful, though I think its meaning is clear. Part of the reason for the relative wordiness is that the template is designed to be understood even by people who have no idea what a "discretionary sanction" is. Do you have any ideas for reducing the length of the template or improving its clarity while not being making the wording overly hostile? Thanks, AGK [•] 11:03, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Change to Template:Ds/editnotice

@AGK: I've made a major change to Template:Ds/editnotice in which I rewrote certain parts of it, moved it onto Template:Editnotice and rewrote the documentation. Would you/anyone mind having a look and checking that everything still works. Also what's the purpose of using the tracking templates? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:19, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I've replied on the changes at my talk page (thanks for your note). Tracking templates is generally good form, particularly as some people will insist on substituting the template, and allows us in the future to see how widely these edit notices are used. AGK [•] 13:53, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

trimmed

{{Ds/alert}} Per request at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions/2013_review#Appealing_and_modifying_sanctions_.28comments.29: template was tl;dr with many pointless superfluous words, I've trimmed most of them to what I think is likely a minimal set. There should also be explicit wording that the notice is strictly informational to minimize unnecessary churn on talk pages, AE, and Arbcom pages. NE Ent 11:30, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Looks good though I've added a critical "not",  Roger Davies ^talk 12:22, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Yea, the "not" does need to be there. NE Ent 11:20, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Instructions

I like the direction that the "alert" draft is headed. I'd like to have the docs changed slightly as well, to include one or two sentences discouraging "alerting" people who aren't making repeated or significant changes. Receiving an "alert", even in a kinder, gentler form, will discourage some people (especially newer or less confident people) from making any edits at all. I'm mostly concerned about people alerting everyone routinely, even for spelling corrections or without waiting to see whether the brand-new editor ever makes a second edit (I believe that the numbers are ~70% of them never make a second edit).

My first attempt would look something like, "Most people who edit these articles should not be personally alerted. Alerts are most useful for notifying people who have shown a sustained interest in editing in these areas." I'm pretty sure that this could be improved, though. What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:27, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

The doc's have since been copyedited. Hope this helps, AGK [•] 09:49, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I may have been overtaken by events but here's my take..... The intent of going to the warmer kinder "alert" system was to forestall the tendency to view receipt as a badge of shame. The best (read only) way to achieve that is to almost blanket the editors in a given subject area. If everyone has one, then they don't create a sub class that has been tarred and feathered. If that's true, then extreme caution should be used when telling eds to refrain from passing the things out. When you caution eds on passing them out, you decrease their ubiquity in any given subject area, and in equal measure increase risk that the underclass/badge-of-shame perception will NOT be dispelled, making the conversion to the "alert" system a failure. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:42, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived 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: resolved. As far as I can tell AGK's solution below seems to have either been explicitly or implicitly accepted by the other participants here, thereby rendering requested move moot. Drop me a line if I've horribly misread this and I'll be willing to re-open. Jenks24 (talk) 09:44, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, thank you, and thank you to AGK for his technical expertise in this matter. —Neotarf (talk) 17:10, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

---

Template:Ds → Template:Ds/community sanction – Template:Ds/sanction has been deprecated with use for Arbitration Committee sanctions, and turned into a redirect to Template:Ds/alert, however the template is still being used for Community sanctions, with modification, since there is no documented sanctioning template for community sanctions. Propose moving this template to Template:Ds/community sanction and making Template:Ds/sanction a disambiguation page. Neotarf (talk) 11:24, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

• Support if the proposal is to move Template:Ds/sanction to Template:Ds/community sanction and then turn Template:Ds/sanction into a page (or redirect to a page) describing the difference and history. I don't think it would become a disambiguation page (unless we have template disambiguation pages), since the things being listed aren't articles. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:27, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I have two objections to this request:

1. These templates relate exclusively to the Arbitration Committee sanctions system. Community sanctions have little to do with the Discretionary sanctions template.
2. These templates are part of the Arbitration Committee's process pages, and therefore a move request isn't procedurally the correct way to request changes to the template layout or title; cf. WP:ARBPOL#Jurisdiction, "associated enforcement processes".

Therefore, I would deny the request. If the community want to copy the old template, they can do so by resurrecting the old {{uw-sanctions}} page. AGK [•] 19:16, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requested moves is clear enough that this is the current process for templates. I'm not buying the idea that a template is an "enforcement process", and therefore owned by the ArbCom. Why not collaborate and cooperate, especially since the ArbCom doesn't use this template any more. —Neotarf (talk) 07:00, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

• Support the gist of this, one way or the other. I'm fine with AGK's "just copy it" idea or JHunterJ's clarification. I'm not swayed by the "you can't touch this, it belongs to ArbCom" reasoning latent in AGK's demurrer, but the AGK solution seems okay as a practical matter.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:48, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support resurrecting {{uw-sanctions}} with Special:Permalink/this version of {{Ds/sanction}}. The code can be changed so that rather than entering a code relating to ArbCom discretionary sanctions a link to the community decision can be used instead. Ds/sanction can then either be left as is or turned into a redirect, I'd rather it not be a disambig page, having uw-sanctions should be pretty clear. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:38, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Anyone looking for the old template should find an explanation and be directed to the current one(s).

What would be really nice would be if someone could sort out the Community Sanction templates, which are in a bit of disarray (see here). —Neotarf (talk) 07:00, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Mixing it in with the unrelated Ds templates probably won't help. AGK [•] 09:49, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

As I originally blanked the template, I will recreate it presently (thereby undoing my own action, and rendering this discussion moot). AGK [•] 09:49, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments/Questions

• After reviewing WP:General sanctions I can see that part of the problem is that page isn't quite clear enough that editors under both Community and Arbitration general sanctions can impose probation, discretionary and revert sanctions. It just needs a few tweaks to clear that up - unless I'm wrong? I want to make sure the correct info gets on the WP:BLP page and don't want to propose/be bold on the wrong info. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:51, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Update:
New template created: Template:Uw-gsanctions. Feel free to edit further or use as you will. As Neotarf says, anyone trying to use Template:Uw-sanctions should not be redirected to either new template (they have to choose the appropriate one, as neither template is the catch-all that Uw-sanctions was). I have therefore not created a redirect at Uw-sanctions, and I created this template at an entirely-new page. I believe this resolves the concerns of everyone who has commented here. (Documentation will be needed for the new template, as Uw-sanctions' old doc's contained too much stuff about ArbCom sanctions.) AGK [•] 22:01, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

II guess it should be added to Wikipedia:General_sanctions#Sanctions_placed_by_the_Wikipedia_community which lists "useful templates"? Maybe a nice table of who can notify who of what would help clarify matters instead of people having to figure it out from the various texts at Wikipedia:General_sanctions. (Note: after posting this I noticed that an individual who had been in a previous discussion of WHO can leave notifications on Community Sanctions and Arbitrations was challenging the right of someone else to leave him one re: an Arbitration where he was sanctioned. Maybe I'll make up a table and propose at General Sanctions talk and the worst that can happen is someone will clean up my mess and make whole thing intelligible :-) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 22:19, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

• I'm puzzled why one letter is lowercase in an initialism for a two-word item: "DS" would be the normal way, not "Ds". Tony (talk) 14:12, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

• Essentially for convenience, just as "User Warnings" (a system in its own right) is always written Uw in templates. Typing in lower case reduces the number of keystrokes, and avoids complication that arises when a title is mixed case. AGK [•] 20:34, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

---

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.

Apparent duplication

Is it necessary to have both |topic=h and topic=ps, which are both for Pseudoscience? Also, if the topic=ps is kept, please note that it is not in alphabetical order on the list.—D'Ranged 1 ^talk 20:15, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

It probably wasn't in the first place, but removing one would break an unknown number of instances of the template. For backwards-compability's sake, I'd keep both. AGK [•] 20:34, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

It get's worse: there's three of them, since |topic=cf also means pseudoscience and fringe science. Neither h nor cf are mnemonic, and do not need to be documented/advertised in the /doc page, even if kept in the code for backward compatibility. Having them both appear in the list along with ps is just confusing.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  00:39, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

With the goal of being informative rather than scary

Could the sentence "This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date" be moved to the top instead of the bottom? WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:22, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: The prose is written as a hierarchy in that it mentions, from first to last, that:

• The information is important and must be read (demands attention)
• DS matters to the recipient (explains the message topic)
• DS is an enforceable system that now applies (justifies the message)
• Follow-up is welcome (guides towards further assistance)
• The message is important but non-judgmental (placates people who may read other meanings into the message).

I don't think I could support prioritising the last sentence, and its purpose, above the preceding sections. Effectiveness is generally the most important thing with these sorts of messages. I also think – and I wonder if you agree? – that the rest of the message, generally, strikes a harmonious, non-scary tone (particularly given how abrasive its predecessor was and how relatively serious the subject matter is). For these reasons, I would probably leave the sections ordered as they are. AGK [•] 21:30, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't know, AGK. Thinking about the perspective of a newcomer, it feels to me like the message reads:

Please be scared:

A mysterious but official-sounding group of strangers has authorised arbitrary punishments for people who edit the pages you were just editing.

If-I-feel-like-it punishments are part of a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize changes to controversial articles. This means that if you make an innocent mistake, or if you didn't read all the policies first (including the policy that says, "There is no need to read any policy or guideline pages to start editing"), or who knows what else, then just about any administrator may punish you with editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please spend a couple of hours trying to figure out the discretionary sanctions system. Or, better yet, just give up and run away from this topic, because editing Wikipedia can get you punished.

Oh, by the way, you weren't supposed to get scared by any of this. Supposedly, even though it was delivered by the same person who just reverted your attempt to edit that page, you haven't done anything wrong. Or maybe you did, but this particular message isn't proof of it.

My thinking is that if it started like this, the recipient would be less stressed (and possibly therefore understand it better):

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia, but it does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised etc.

Also, it might be nice if the reason for the existence of said sanctions (namely, bad behavior in the past, by people other than the person receiving this notice) were mentioned. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:55, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I strongly concur (uncharacteristically >;-) with WhatamIdoing, on all of these points. As someone outright victimized by use and abuse of the earlier, accusatory version of the WP:AC/DS notices, I know first-hand exactly what effect these notices can have, and some editors have permanently resigned over them. While the current wording is an improvement in the WP:AGF department, it still will have the same effect WhatamIdoing's parody wording conveys, at least on editors unfamiliar with the AC/DS system (which is all editors other than process geeks and troublemakers, basically).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  00:46, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

With new Ds/alert, do old ones have to be re-issued?

Text reads: {{Ds/alert}} is used to "alert", or draw a user's attention, to the fact that discretionary sanctions are in effect for a topic area or article they are editing. The alert is used to inform them that any user who disruptively edits the topic or article in question may be placed under editing sanctions by an administrator. This template must be used to notify users.

I did two to two different editors who were seriously over the line on two Arbitrations in January. I don't think the new regime was in then and just used a self-made alert. So does the old one not count? I'll wait to see if they start again, in any case, and then do new Alert. But just wondering, since I'm sure a lot of people and possibly admins may be in that position. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:18, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

(A) I don't know

(B) I guess that you're safe if the date of their "notice" in the logging section of the ARB ruling is more than 12 months ago.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I thought Ds/alert was just started in late February/early March 2014 - or at least just written into instructions for us laypersons that finally made sense at that time. I guess usually alerts are quickly followed either by improved behavior, reports, blocks or whatever so many are moot anyway. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:57, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

FYI, after someone smeared me which is a big NoNo in the arbitration in question I decided to use the spiffy new alert. Low and behold I got a page saying you only can alert someone once and this person may have been alerted, check "in user talk history • in system log. Search elsewhere (optional): in AE • in AE contribs." Well, they've probably had an unofficial warning in a couple of those places, include a completed different Arbitration, so I guess it's covered. Does everyone get that message or just if there really has been an alert? Very discouraging for others who haven't left alerts and need to! Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:23, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

@Carolmooredc and NewsAndEventsGuy: Some answers:

• Any alert/notification issued under the old system which met the requirements of the old system remain valid until 03 May 2015 per WP:AC/DS#Continuity. So if they were notified under the old system who don't need to leave {{Ds/alert}} on their talk page.
• The warning you saw is part of the edit filter which records which users have been notified, it needs to be displayed as editors can old be notified once every 12 months per WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts.
• Generally they are followed with either improved behaviour, a warning and/or a WP:AE request.

I think that was everything, if not ping me and I'll do my best. Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:34, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Maybe that needs a bit more explaining here and at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, especially the May 2015 and one year. Of course, most people will just run into it when they try to leave a message, so maybe there. We'll see how it goes. Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 13:17, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I thought I was paying attention but somehow the 5-3-15 expiration for old-system "notifications" escaped me as well. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:40, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

@Carolmooredc: This is the first time, in my experience, that someone has been unsure how we treat alerts issued in the old format. Therefore, I don't think there is widespread confusion that would justify significant changes to the documentation (which I am, in fact, trying to keep brief). As you say, however, we can always re-visit if more people express confusion. Thanks, AGK [•] 21:34, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but does this "first time" follow several prior instances where it is crystal-clear the participants knew about May 2015? If "no" then this aspect of the changeover suffers from a communication gap. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:02, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

PS Also, at the popwindow for doing the 12-month check, none of the options for checking relate to the "notifications" section of various arb rulings. You can use me as an example if you overlook the self-issued new system DS Alerts in the filter log. I was "notified" in Jan 2014 at WP:ARBCC#Notifications. None of the options at the pop window would have led another ed to my old system notice. So if an ed happens to issue a new system DS alert to someone "notified" under the old system before May 3 2015, hopefully no one will bite, since the issuing ed will have acted in good faith and after reasonable due diligence, even though the alert is technically duplicative. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:05, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

This is way too complicated to be issuing sanctions over, that's for sure. And it sounds like that is the threat, as opposed to a helping hand which would be more appropriate? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 03:09, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Coding error?

Not sure where to post this, so I'll try here. When you initiate a DS-Alert, you get a popup window telling you to check for prior alerts in the last 12 months. Using myself as a test subject, I was doing some testing to see what happens if you click "cancel" and I think I stumbled onto a bug. The upshot is that if an ed first clicks "cancel" and then decides to start over, the alert goes live immediately, i.e., before the ed does the 12 month check at the pop window.

I ran this test with these steps
1. Started new thread at my own talk page to test the new alert system. Thread consisted of
{{subst:alert|cc}} ~~~~
2. At the pop window warning eds not to re-issue an alert in under 12 months, I opened new tabs for all the various checks and then clicked "cancel"
3. Inspected my talk page; the new thread referenced above had not been posted
4. Started a second new thread at my own talk page with the same string.
5. OOOPS!!!! I expected the pop up window to re-appear (where I intended to see if the filter log had registered the first attempt) but instead the alert was immediately posted to my talk page without the popup window.

This is bad because someone unfamiliar with the system could easily click "cancel" when confronted with the pop up, go away to read about the new DS system and consider whether they really want to issue an alert, and then start over. In this scenario the alert would instantly post to the target ed's talk page, before the issuing ed does the 12 month check.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:58, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

@NewsAndEventsGuy: I'll ping AGK as he may know more but I think this is. But from my understanding this is how the edit filter works, as a warning has already been given it won't warn again as it assumes you have checked and do want to complete the action. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:03, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Edit filter

Still tries to prevent me issuing an appropriate DS notification. If this is not correct, please let me know. Otherwise I will assume that the edit filter is broken and no-one knows how to fix it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:10, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean? Whenever you click the save button the edit filter will ask you to check that the user you want to alert hasn't already been alerted. That's how it's supposed to work. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:56, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Ds/alert edit filter not triggered

When I made a ds/alert here, the edit filter failed to trigger. Any reasons as to why it didn't? --RAN1 (talk) 22:24, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Apparently, if the system has previously logged a DS alert (regardless of subject area) the filter does not trigger. (Boo hiss) I don't remember if the system "forgets" about the prior alerts and again produces the alert filter after (x) months pass. Regardless, now when I pass out a DS-Alert I do the checking manually as suggested when I asked about this also. The thread starts with a description of some experimental self-alerting. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:50, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposal to slightly rearrange the alert

The problem of scaring people was discussed above about six months ago, and several times before. I propose that the content of the message be re-arranged as follows:

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised etc.

This is a pretty small change, since the content is the same. The main difference is the order. My purpose for putting it in italics, above the bold-faced text, is to identify it as a background explanation (as contrasted with the main message).

If you want to get all science-y about it, it's widely accepted that people's comprehension and memory both work better when they're not scared about being punished. Consequently, I think that this re-arrangement would increase compliance and decrease the risk of good editors being scared away from controversial areas by alert-wielding POV pushers.

Does anyone object? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:33, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Please do this: the question was raised on my talk page in relation to ID, and I came to the same idea independently. In addition, the template page instructs "Type an appropriate subject line, then save the page." An editor in good faith used the subject line Arbcom Pseudoscience Warning, which was seen as attempted intimidation. It would be clearer and cause less trouble if the advice actually suggested the subject line, and specified it as ==Discretionary sanctions alert==. . . . dave souza, talk 09:51, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Support Whatamidoing and Dave, prompted by the discussion on Dave's Talk page. (I am the editor referred to as acting "in good faith" by Dave, above.) -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 10:53, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:07, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support Vsmith (talk) 14:39, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support From first hand experience, I can state that moving the last sentence to the beginning is important. I read the section heading "warning" followed by possible sanctions that followed. I went to the Arbcom pseudoscience page and never did come back and read the last sentence till long afterwards. --I am One of Many (talk) 18:36, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

It would be even better to start the text with

<large>For your information, and without suggesting any wrong-doing on your part....</large>

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:50, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support Uncle Ed (talk) I like the version I saw just now ... This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date. It has the perfect balance of information and fear-reduction. (Thanks to N&E Guy for telling me about this.) --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:31, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
• Whoa, Ed Poor is still around! I would support if the top two lines were condensed into one somehow. If the goal is to make it less scary, burying the "oh this doesn't concern you personally" above the big bold READ THIS, CITIZEN! doesn't help. NewsAndEventsGuy's proposal is a step in the right direction. Harej (talk) 03:55, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support That's even better! --I am One of Many (talk) 05:10, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
• Supporting the general idea without any strong preferences on the options being considered. But I want to also point out that a second discussion might be needed concerning the usage guidelines. The discussion on Dave Souza's talkpage was also partly (or mainly?) about.... [But NewsAndEventsGuy has asked me to continue this in a new section, so see below]--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:43, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Proposal for current human issuance of alert template to be supplemented with semi-automation on some articles

This threads contents modified by mutual agreement of current participants NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:34, 8 March 2015 (UTC) I'd like to see us designate a few obvious main articles as belonging to one or another topic areas by default, and let the server auto-template anyone who stops by them and has no alert logged in the server in the last 12 months. In this idea, editors could still do them manually. By providing for automated management at some high traffic easily classified pages, we can depersonalize the sending pf some alerts, and at the same time ensure that even the regulars are covered. In my view, this would help bring about the desired culture shift which motivated the recent overhaul. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:10, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

To me that sounds a great idea. If the real reason for these templates is "as advertised" then it makes sense. It removes the implication that these templates, no matter what they say on the surface, are being used by individuals against individuals, then misunderstandings will be less, and the practical effect on editing quality should also hopefully be less. And anyone who insists on still posting personal warnings would also be more clearly exposed to inspection of their motives. It will be interesting to see what other editors think. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:34, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Don't agree with the last part. The server can only do a small subset... easily classified man articles. On all other articles, when a contrib falls within a topic area, human editors will still have to issue the FYI DS alert. Those who follow the protocol in so doing are entitled to AGF, which manifests as a belief such editors are just trying to ensure everyone in the topic area gets a de-stigmatized FYI 1x per year, nothing more or less. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:25, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

At this point the discussion produced a proposal for new usage instructions regarding human issuance of the FYI DS alert. That proposal has been split out and codified in another thread by mutual agreement. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:34, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Proposal for new template usage instructions

This threads contents modified by mutual agreement of current participants NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:34, 8 March 2015 (UTC) My proposal here is that the usage instructions should be clarified, and they should ask potential users of this template to "think twice" about whether the way they are about to use the template might look like intimidation against an editor, which would be against community norms. (Easy to add WLs to the relevant policies.) Things to consider could include:

• Is the editor themselves involved in a debate, or have strong feelings about the debate, and about to post a warning to someone they disagree with?
• Has the editor checked the history of the article to see how the template is being used there? (For example is it rarely being used, or commonly. Is the template being used for all new contributors or only some?)
• Is there a chance the editor has been called in by a party or faction involved in a content debate, in order for your warning to have an impact on that?

People who post warnings should know that they are going beyond the needs or normal editing, and taking a type of action which may be seen as controversial by the community in some cases. If the warnings can not be posted universally and consistently, then the decision to post them to selected individuals should never be done lightly. This should in my opinion be mentioned clearly. It will be interesting to see how people struggle to find excuses for opposing this proposal which do not make a nonsense of the "it is not really meant to intimidate" nonsense. I think I have never interacted with Roxy the Dog before noticing this discussion on Dave Souza's talk page for example, but there is nothing unclear about the mission on the user page, and in his/her contributions, and in the harsh comments above. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:17, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

BUG REPORT - new error in checking a user's alert history

An error with the DS Alert system has come to my attention at this thread in my talk page, courtesy Roxy the dog (talk · contribs) (thanks Roxy). We were discussing how to manually check for one's prior alert history. This error can produce a false negative, leading to good faith double-alerting. Last year I sent myself a bunch of DS alerts for testing. Until recently, I could generate a list using two different approaches. Today, only one method works correctly

• WRONG - I get the wrong thing when searching via my talk page version history
• PART RIGHT - I get correct info when searching via the system log
• MISSING - there should be two entries from today (is there a delay on the server's end?)

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:09, 6 March 2015 (UTC)