Template talk:AE sanction

Decision codes

Per KISS, the original version, where an editor simply inserted the appropriate decision, is highly preferable the really stupid "decision code" because:

• The insertion becomes self-documenting -- no need to look up what the heck "x-y" means.
• No template maintenance is required every time the Arbitration Committee applies discretionary sanctions to another case. NE Ent 03:08, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Additionally, as shown on testcases, accidentally putting in an incorrect decision code doesn't result in an obvious error because there's no error checking. It's a amateur and error prone technique which is unnecessarily complicated by a simpler, well-understood technique -- a wikilink -- is available. NE Ent 03:28, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Given that people (presumably) have to look at the documentation anyway, I don't think they need to "look up" what the codes are so much as glance at the list and type one or two letters…
• I've actually just spent several hours amalgamating the list of decision codes, so they are now all called from the decision code list at Template:Uw-sanctions. Therefore, no additional maintenance will be necessary when or if new discretionary sanctions are passed. (I hope that wasn't time poorly spent.) AGK [•] 03:29, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

• The reason codes exist because 1) they standardise the links and 2) they prevent template users from having to type out enormous, wordy links (or pulling up the case page and copying the link). In my experience they make these templates much less fiddly. AGK [•] 03:31, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

• Copy paste is hard???? Hopefully an admin is looking at the case page before deciding whether to place a sanction. NE Ent 03:33, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

• Of course, but whether they happen to have the decision up once they've started closing the enforcement request is another matter; I think forcing people to type up the link (particularly if they are used to using these codes) is, from a usability perspective, the wrong approach. Reversing the logic, forcing them to use the decision codes is just as sub-optimal, so why don't I have the template able to take a link as well as a decision code? (I think I intended to have it do that anyway, but I don't seem to have added that feature.) AGK [•] 03:45, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

• I'm fine with the coded approach, personally. Thanks, AGK, for taking care of the coding issues and for reviewing the wording.  Sandstein  20:38, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• The template now accepts both a full link and a decision code, so both your preferences are supported. AGK [•] 00:00, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Enforcement blocks

"If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked, indefinitely or for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction ..." Is that so? WP:AC/DS#Authorization allows blocks of only up to a year, presumably including for sanctions violations.  Sandstein  21:42, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure, but I understand that if an editor violates an arbitration enforcement sanction (such as a topic ban), he or she may be indefinitely blocked in order to enforce the discretionary sanction. I believe the duration of a block is only limited to one year if the block itself is imposed as the sanction, rather than imposed in order to enforce another type of sanction. One would only have to limit an enforcing block to one year if one wished it to be afforded the same protection against unilateral reversal as is afforded to the original sanction (by, in effect, punishing the transgression by replacing the original sanction with the new sanction of a one-year block). In any event, I have no objection to simply removing the words "indefinitely or" from the template; I am sure that the prospect of a one-year block is deterrent enough. AGK [•] 23:58, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

This template is currently under discussion at User_talk:AGK#Ds_templates. NE Ent 18:41, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Difficult to understand for inexperienced users

The text of this template is too long, formal, and complicated for the new/ish users whose pages I usually place them on. (Yes, I topic ban new users, if they're inveterate POV-pushers and unable/unwilling to profit from advice and warnings.) Many of them have rather poor English (hint: ipa), and in any case, it's hard enough for them to get their head round what a topic ban is. Compare this recent response from a user I had given a six-month topic ban. I always put in a specific plea to them to click on WP:TBAN, but it's probably quite confusing for them to also get the text "If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means." The banning policy is nine screens long! If they do dive into it, they'll probably never surface, and the mere mention of it is likely to decrease their trust in any other advice in the template. As far as I know, the sanction always is a topic ban — it doesn't "include a ban". (Discretionary sanctions blocks use a whole other template.) And the instructions for appealing are quite arcane, in the unlikely event that any of them read that far. If they do want to appeal, it doesn't matter what the instructions in the template are: I always, invariably, have to guide them step by step.

I suggest the template begin with "The following topic ban now applies to you"

And that this text

"This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the <topic code or link to arbitration decision> and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions. You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you.

is replaced with this:

This topic ban is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the <topic code or link to arbitration decision> and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This topic ban has been recorded in the log of sanctions. Please read WP:TBAN to see what a topic ban is. If you do not comply with the topic ban, you may be blocked for an extended period to enforce the ban. If you wish to appeal against the ban, please say so below or on [[<link to my talkpage>|my talk page]] and I will explain how to do it.

And if the sanction should be something other than a topic ban — I expect there are some rare cases — can we please code a provision where the admin can put in that specific kind of sanction — instead of subjecting the run-of-the-mill inexpert topic-banned user to instruction creep about things that have nothing to do with them? Not sure I made that bit clear. Thoughts? User:AGK is no longer active, so I'm not sure any arbs are watching this page, but presumably arbcom wants to consider suggestions before the template is drastically changed. (Though it's actually only semiprotected.) Pinging @RexxS: er, can you explain to me in coder's words what exactly I mean by "code a provision where the admin can put in that specific kind of sanction"? Bishonen | talk 11:29, 15 March 2017 (UTC).

@Bishonen: It's a bit tougher than I thought to explain to you what you mean in this case. However, as a 'work-around', I've created a template at Template:AE sanction/topicban that you could try out specifically for topic bans. It needs to be substituted as usual like this: {{subst:AE sanction/ | sanction = | rationale = | decision = }} , but I've adapted the documentation anyway for future reference. I hope other admins will find it useful, and perhaps it may then become a simplified alternative to the still-existing Template:AE sanction, which naturally can still be used for all those rare other cases when the sanction is not a topic ban. Is that any help? --RexxS (talk) 16:42, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

RexxS, you're even more wonderful than I've always thought. Thank you very much. I'll certainly use it, and I hope it catches on. Perhaps I can combine it with the Shakespeare insult generator too, by calling up User:RexxS/Shakespearean insults in the rationale field — what do you think? Bishonen | talk 17:39, 15 March 2017 (UTC).