I don't oppose the idea of using a centralised
Module:Sanctions if the community system is either largely or completely based on
WP:CTOP. If the system is modified, then using a centralised module may make the module more complicated than it was when two template systems existed.
@
Dreamy Jazz I think the wording might have changed slightly in the alert/first text since then that were not reflected in "buildFirstAlert". I think unifying the modules would be a great idea.
Through experimenting in June 2023, I found that {{Alert/first}} and {{Alert/DS}} get their list of CTOP areas from one place, and {{Alert}} gets its list from somewhere else. Whatever we do, I'd like to encourage us to unify these to all use the same source of data. –
Novem Linguae (
talk)
07:20, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I think the contentious topic is Eastern Europe (the magic code is typically e-e), and on top of it we have community imposed sanctions specifically for Russian-Ukranian conflict detailed in
WP:RUSUKR.
Ymblanter (
talk)
10:38, 11 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Change You must be logged-in, have 10 edits and an account age of 4 days to You must be logged-in to an [[Wikipedia:User access levels#Autoconfirmed and confirmed users|autoconfirmed or confirmed]] account (usually automatically granted to accounts with 10 edits and an account age of 4 days)
Change You must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days to You must be logged-in to an [[Wikipedia:User access levels#Extended confirmed users|extended confirmed]] account (automatically granted to accounts with 500 edits and an account age of 30 days)
Obviously fine if someone can come up with a more succinct way to put this, but as it stands the wording doesn't quite match with what's actually required. Kinsio (talk ★ contribs)23:58, 28 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I'll check about this. Here's what it would look like:
You are subject to additional rules when you edit this page.
If you do not follow these rules, you may be blocked from editing:
You must be logged-in to an
extended confirmed account (automatically granted to accounts with 500 edits and an account age of 30 days)
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this page (except in
limited circumstances)
This page is related to discussions about
infoboxes and to edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes, a
contentious topic. Pages related to this contentious topic are subject to additional rules as
authorized by the
Arbitration Committee. Before editing, please familiarize yourself with
the contentious topic policy.
You are subject to additional rules when you edit this page.
If you do not follow these rules, you may be blocked from editing:
You must be logged-in to an
autoconfirmed or confirmed account (usually automatically granted to accounts with 10 edits and an account age of 4 days)
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this page (except in
limited circumstances)
This page is related to discussions about
infoboxes and to edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes, a
contentious topic. Pages related to this contentious topic are subject to additional rules as
authorized by the
Arbitration Committee. Before editing, please familiarize yourself with
the contentious topic policy.
Thanks for the demo. I think examples of the old text are also needed to form an opinion on this. IMHO, it would be a mistake to add excessive precision to a we really want you to read this notice. Some pages point out that EC is not automatically granted at 500/30: apparently it is the 501st edit which does the granting. The simple "You must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days" is a lot easier to grasp than the proposal.
Johnuniq (
talk)
07:32, 29 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Here's the live template:
You are subject to additional rules when you edit this page.
If you do not follow these rules, you may be blocked from editing:
You must be logged-in to an
extended confirmed account (granted automatically to accounts with 500 edits and an age of 30 days)
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this page (except in
limited circumstances)
This page is related to discussions about
infoboxes and to edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes, a
contentious topic. Pages related to this contentious topic are subject to additional rules as
authorized by the
Arbitration Committee. Before editing, please familiarize yourself with
the contentious topic policy.
You are subject to additional rules when you edit this page.
If you do not follow these rules, you may be blocked from editing:
You must be logged-in to an
autoconfirmed or confirmed account (usually granted automatically to accounts with 10 edits and an age of 4 days)
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this page (except in
limited circumstances)
This page is related to discussions about
infoboxes and to edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes, a
contentious topic. Pages related to this contentious topic are subject to additional rules as
authorized by the
Arbitration Committee. Before editing, please familiarize yourself with
the contentious topic policy.
For what it's worth, what this is motivated by is a recent experience I had where I had to revert an administrator because they were (presumably) thinking of XC as simply straightforwardly 500/30, so they just assumed I must not be based on my edit count. That made me think of the inconsistent way I'd seen it worded in various messages, which was very confusing until I finally realized that anywhere that says 500/30 actually just means "be extended-confirmed", so once I successfully got it manually granted for this account it would be okay for me to do anything under ECR. I actually wonder if it might be better to just say be logged in to an
extended confirmed account for the sake of concision and let the link do the detailed explaining. (I'd appreciate feedback on that idea btw, @
SilverLocust,
Johnuniq, and
Paine Ellsworth.) I just didn't necessarily want to assume that it was okay to throw out the explicit mention of the numbers with my proposal here and my bold edits to other templates. (I edited a few essays and such too, but obviously I feel a bit more comfortable going into explanatory detail in those cases so there's less of an issue.) Kinsio (talk ★ contribs)12:04, 29 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I think it might be a good idea to at least link the "logged in" phrase, as in:
You must be [[Wikipedia:User access levels#Autoconfirmed and confirmed users|logged in]], have 10 edits and an account age of 4 days and
You must be [[Wikipedia:User access levels#Extended confirmed users|logged in]], have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days
And many people don't seem to realize that I could be extended confirmed with the number of edits I have either, which is a big part of what I'm wanting to address here 😆 Though honestly at this point the approach that's grown on me is simply stating the name of the right and letting the linked page do the talking if someone wants to know what exactly it means. I think my initial impulse to "compromise" with the existing wording was a solution in search of a problem in that respect. Kinsio(talk ★ contribs ★ rights)01:07, 2 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm sure ScottishFinnishRadish knows that extended confirmed can be manually granted. They have processed
WP:PERM/EC requests and
WP:AE requests relating to
WP:ARBECR. They evidently just didn't realize you had been granted it.
But I expect to modify the editnotices to reflect the 2021 change toward "extended confirmed" terminology rather than just "500/30" terminology. I'm waiting a bit for any further feedback (having checked with the
mailing list).
SilverLocust💬02:38, 2 July 2024 (UTC)reply