This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
COVID-19 This page is within the scope of WikiProject COVID-19, a project to coordinate efforts to improve all COVID-19-related articles. If you would like to help, you are invited to join and to participate in project discussions.COVID-19Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19Template:WikiProject COVID-19COVID-19

Please, could you add extended protection to Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data? It is already quite difficult to keep it working and prevent unsourced updates even without anonymous users and newbies. Thank you. --MarioGom (talk) 09:17, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. El_C 16:30, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible that ArbCom may decide to make their own discretionary sanctions, since dis/misinformation and controversy in this topic area is so prevalent. If ArbCom putting their own DSs on COVID-19 related pages does come to pass, how would we go about reconciling these sanctions and whatever ones ArbCom may create? I feel this is important to ask, as not discussing this ahead of time might result in some confrontation if it does indeed happen. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 21:48, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Remedies section states:

• "Editors who ignore or breach page restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator only if the editor was warned about this decision and an editnotice describing the page restriction was placed on the restricted page."

I was concerned that "an editnotice describing the page restriction" wasn't possible using the stipulated {{COVID19 GS editnotice}}, so I've added support to the template for up to three parameters: |restriction1=, |restriction2=, and |restriction3= for use to display article-specific restrictions. The template documentation is now updated, but please let me know if anything doesn't work or isn't clear. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 18:11, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@RexxS: looks like the edit notice template needs changing - that template no longer exists - and I don't quite get what the change is. Doug Weller talk 19:46, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: The specific edit notice template, {{COVID19 GS editnotice}}, was nominated for deletion by ProcrastinatingReader, who wrote a general template {{Gs/editnotice}} to replace it. The deletion debate was closed by Primefac as replace and deprecate and so Template:COVID19 GS editnotice was replaced by a notice telling editors to use its replacement. Unfortunately the documentation here was not updated as a result of that, but I've updated it now. Thanks for spotting it. --RexxS (talk) 20:04, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing it. Doug Weller talk 20:11, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@RexxS: I'm still confused. Is this area all 1RR? And if not, an edit notice isn't needed surely. Doug Weller talk 20:18, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: the section Wikipedia:General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019 #Remedies states "Pages with discretionary sanctions in effect should be tagged with {{Gs/talk notice|covid}} and an editnotice with {{COVID19 GS editnotice}} should be created." As far as I can see, that applies to all pages with discretionary sanctions in effect (including community-imposed general sanctions), so an edit notice is indeed needed. I've reverted the change I made and restored the functionality of {{COVID19 GS editnotice}} until the replacement can be made functional. --RexxS (talk) 23:50, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: To address your question, how do you interpret Wikipedia:General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019 #Application notes? The paragraph

"Editors are reminded that the onus is on the editor seeking to include disputed content to achieve consensus for its inclusion. Any content or source removed in good faith and citing a credible policy-based rationale should not be reinstated without prior consensus on the article's talk page."

certainly looks a lot like 1RR to me. --RexxS (talk) 00:16, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I had started a discussion here for clarification with little response. The section, and the discussion leading up to it, doesn’t really make sense. It’s more like consensus required, but not even that. De facto 1RR and CR have never been enforced, either, or noted on the notices. I think both provisions are null and void for any practical purposes and should be reinstated via an affirmative AN discussion to clarify what the community actually wants. 1RR would be highly detrimental due to the amount of drive by issues and conspiracy theory pushing. It doesn’t have the level of attention ARBPIA does, so it just wouldn’t work. It’s very unlikely, in my view, that the community would be in support of that restriction. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:31, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) That's your own fault for forum-shopping. If you'd raised your concern with the wording on Wikipedia talk:General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019 at its talk page (i.e. here), you'd have stood a far better chance of getting a relevant response than at AN. Nevertheless Nosebagbear told you it was "basically a 1RR phrasing" and PackMecEng said it was "basically consensus required". I disagree that the section doesn't make sense. It's pretty clear to me that it authorises me and any other uninvolved admin to place sanctions on editors who edit-war to push their POV into a COVID-19 article or otherwise fall below expected standards of behaviour. Why you think it's not a good idea to use an edit notice to warn editors new to the area that that might happen to them is beyond me.

I have enforced 1RR and CR regularly on COVID-19 articles, – as has Boing! said Zebedee, El C and other admins – although most of the time, the first step I take (an invitation for the the editor to self-revert with a reminder of the sanctions applicable) has been remarkably effective in damping down the overenthusiasm that was apparent at these articles last year. The couple of occasions where I've imposed a page-specific sanction are logged here.

I completely reject your assertion that the provisions are null and void, and I'll warn you that you are on thin ice if you think you can encourage editors to edit-war on COVID-19 articles. Just because the decision at AN doesn't fit with your view of how things should be, that's not a reason to waste time re-asking the same question. 1RR is anything but detrimental in the topic area, and it's nonsensical for an non-admin to try to tell the admins who have been working in this area how they should be doing the job. My view is that the community is already in support of that restriction, just as they are of restrictions on any behaviour that falls below expected standards, and your fringe view on the matter isn't borne out by any debate that has occurred. The COVID-19 area has sufficient attention from experienced editors and admins to be absolutely sure that it does work, and a perusal of the Log of individual sanctions along with the discussions behind them should be enough to convince all but the most recalcitrant that the general sanctions on COVID-19 have been both necessary and workable. --RexxS (talk) 01:32, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to the editnotice, it’s not necessary by my understanding. Linking in separate discussion here. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:44, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your understanding is faulty. The template {{COVID19 GS editnotice}} was always usable to create edit notices, and it is required on "Pages with discretionary sanctions in effect. I have quoted precisely the instruction from Wikipedia:General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019. Where is the documentation to support your contention that editnotices cannot be used unless page-specific sanctions are in force. Quote it for me. It's time for you to put up or shut up. --RexxS (talk) 01:45, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with RexxS. My understanding is that this (purported requirement) isn't actually a thing. El_C 01:48, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Having just glanced at this discussion, I reaffirm RexxS's view on the utility of 1RR and CR for this, and any other WP:GS regimes where it may be needed. If it ain't broken, etc. El_C 01:38, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The accusation of forum shopping is way off. The AN is the board to discuss clarifications on general sanctions. This is per Wikipedia:General_sanctions#Community_sanctions. If page-specific sanctions are authorised, I agree an editnotice would be requierd. I will unarchive the AN discussion so this can continue there, as I believe this is a local consensus. This should be a community decision. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:12, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As for Quote it for me. It's time for you to put up or shut up. A negative cannot be proved. WP:AC/DS is clear: Editnotices are used when page sanctions are in force. I've consulted with ArbCom clerks about this, as well as asking the community at TfD. El C you should know this, given your vast experience in DS and AE. Can you point me to a single other topic area which uses editnotices when there are no page specific sanctions? The ARBPIA topic area has them only because 1RR is authorised on all articles. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:13, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ProcrastinatingReader, maybe I'm missing something again, but of course any edit notice has to apply to an article deemed covered by whatever DS/GS regime it represents, even if only as (ARBPIA-wise) "related content." El_C 02:29, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So you can't quote any supporting policy, guideline or anything else that gives you the authority to alter the functionality of a template against the wishes of the administrators who use it?

WP:AC/DS is the documentation for ArbCom-imposed discretionary sanctions. You need to refer to Wikipedia:General sanctions for the appropriate procedures for community-imposed general sanctions. You fail to understand that although editnotices are required for articles subject to page-specific sanctions, they are not prohibited for articles subject only to the relevant general sanctions. You have attempted to impose your view of how editnotices can be used by misuse of permissions and deception. --RexxS (talk) 02:39, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While might or might not work with {{Ds/alert}} does not seem to be present on {{Ds/aware}} or as a code at Template:Ds/alert/doc. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 04:18, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Djm-leighpark: this isn't a discretionary sanction, so no DS code. Doug Weller talk 19:47, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Though there is a parallel system for community sanctions. See {{Gs/alert}}. This template includes a list of codes that can be used for alerting a user to the community sanctions. EdJohnston (talk) 20:12, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I had spotted and indeed used {{Gs/alert}} for covid, though did not report it back here. Not sure there's an equivalent of {{Ds/aware}} and annoyingly the sig= parameter seems to work differently if I remember. There may be a reason for this but I know enough now to get myself round it. Thanks. Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:41, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should admins have the ability to place the General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019 editnotice template on pages in scope that do not have page-specific sanctions? --RexxS (talk) 21:42, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Background

Up until 10 December 2020, administrators were able to use their discretion to place the old template {{COVID19 GS editnotice}} as a WP:editnotice on article pages in the scope of the COVID-19 general sanctions – seen by all editors when they make an edit to the article. The old template was replaced by a new one, {{Gs/editnotice|topic=covid}} following a bulk TfD discussion, whose result was "replace and deprecate".

However, the new template now prevents an admin from placing the template on article pages in the scope of the COVID-19 general sanctions unless the admin also applies a page-specific sanction. It simply gives the inaccurate message Page sanctions are not authorised for this topic area. Edit notice is not required. This is a change in functionality from the old template and was not pointed out at the TfD.

Please try to keep threaded debate in the discussion section.

NOTE: sorry, this is irregular, but in fact {{COVID19 GS editnotice}} still works, as RexxS reverted User:Primefac's change, with the edit summary "Undid revision 993349691 by Primefac (talk) replacement is not working". Also an IP made a major change in the instructions in January, making it a requirement to add an edit notice, seemingly under the impression that this was "normal". Doug Weller talk 13:02, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1. As proposer and for the reasons outlined below. --RexxS (talk) 21:42, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
2. I support this proposal, for two reasons. First, these general sanctions are terribly important for ensuring that the highest quality sources are used, and careful editing is encouraged, at articles related to a global pandemic that has killed (and is killing) millions of people. Second, administrators should be able to easily inform editors about these general sanctions at all related articles. That's a win-win-win for editors (who aren't ambushed by the sanctions), admins (who promote high-quality editing and reduce drama), and readers (who read a stronger article as a result). -Darouet (talk) 23:33, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
3. I'm sympathetic with the "why single out one illness for special treatment?" argument in the discussion section below, but I'd argue that this is a unique set of circumstances. Because events and particularly research are moving at such an extreme pace compared to any other disease, because of the unusually high volume of misinformation (whether good-faith or malicious) and because of uniquely high levels of public interest, this is a topic in which there's an atypically high risk that people will in good faith insert material which isn't true, on pages that have the potential to be seen by significantly higher numbers of readers than would normally be expected to be reading pages relating to a disease outbreak. As such, we have a elevated duty of care to readers, and part of that entails a mechanism for warning and if necessary removing people who are editing disruptively, even if they're doing so with the best of intentions. ‑ Iridescent 19:38, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
4. I support per Darouet rationale Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:41, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
5. WP:GS/COVID19 says This community discussion at WP:AN has placed pages related to COVID-19, broadly construed, under indefinite general sanctions, effective 20:49, 17 March 2020 (UTC). The idea that a page-specific sanction must exist before a general sanction can be applied misunderstands the phrase "broadly construed". --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:54, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

   I dispute that that is a “community discussion”. It is an AN discussion, heavily influenced by the page title, and typically dealing with things of immediacy and neglecting sunset clauses. It was not a community consensus. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:07, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

6. Support WP:GS makes it clear that general sanctions may be imposed by the community, and that those sanction have been imposed for Coronavirus and COVID-19. WP:GS spells out that repeated or serious problems can result in sanctions without warning for "aware" editors (violating page-specific restrictions is not required). Accordingly, it is desirable that editors can be warned with an edit notice; for example, see Hydroxychloroquine. Johnuniq (talk) 02:10, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support per Darouet and Iridescent, who have said everything I would have but more succinctly. Thryduulf (talk) 14:09, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support Per above. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:17, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support as proposed. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:44, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support - per Dorouet and Iridescent. Noting that Wikipedia:General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019 doesn't seem to have any links to an editnotice with a specific restriction, so I'm a bit confused. Doug Weller talk 15:11, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support per the above comments.Sea Ane (talk) 11:49, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support per above.--Vulphere 14:59, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support. I am suprised that the main point is even being disputed here. I believe that most editors understand General Sanctions to be a precise equivalent of WP:ACDS, just authorized by the community and not by the arbcom. WP:ACDS definitely include the option of admins placing an edit notice at the talk page of an article saying that the page is subject to DS is a particular arbitration case without imposing page-specific restrictions. This is done all the time, as a matter of course. I had always assumed that all General Sanctions (not just for COVID-19) automatically include the same provision, and there is no need to fall on the "broadly construed" language here to infer the needed authorization. Nsk92 (talk) 23:54, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    To be clear, we're not talking about talk pages or editnotices on talk pages. The point under discussion is editnotices on articles. Those don't happen with regularity in the ACDS system; until a non-arb's edit ~ October 2020 (unrelated to all this) it wasn't even possible to add them in a standardised manner. They can happen, arbitrarily, and relatively rarely, on "admin discretion", which isn't under dispute and is why the RfC question isn't really sensible. The question is really whether article editnotices should happen with regularity (& if so, what form it should take). In that sense, some of the comments above are concerning and show a clear misunderstanding of the issue. For example, this question has nothing to do with "broadly construed" (which is about scope, nothing to do with editnotice presence), or comments from admins that believe editnotices provide authority to take actions against editors who aren't otherwise WP:AWARE. This is IMO why one shouldn't start an RfC (or any kind of policy discussion) simultaneously with an arb case. ProcSock (talk) 10:46, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    OK, thanks for the clarification, I did originally misunderstand the question being asked. I still think that the admins should be able to place these kind of GS editnotices on articles, at least for COVID-19 topics, basically per arguments put forward by Iridescent above. Nsk92 (talk) 14:15, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, Iridescent's argument is logically sound. It focuses on problematic material added in good faith (often to questionable sources) which does disservice to our readers, which is a fair point but not one I've disagreed with. But more broadly, I think the crux of the questionable editing on COVID articles has passed at this point, which leads into the questions of a) how the template should look and b) generally when it should be applied. If you want to add a notice to COVID-19, or such articles, saying that standards of sourcing are high and that sanctions may be levied against editors, be my guest, same as with adding any other editnotice to an article. What I object to is a) thinking this template constitutes awareness for such sanctions (which is what some admins are saying above) or b) that it should be littered on 300+ articles, as it originally was, many of which barely receive edits and certainly no disruptive edits, such as COVID-19 pandemic in Equatorial Guinea. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:37, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    To clarify, my argument is that this is a unique set of circumstances, in which the probability that good-faith edits will have potential real-world impact is hugely magnified. As such, we should be permitting "Warning! If you're about to add that vitamin D supplements mitigate the need for vaccination, you're liable to be summarily blocked from editing Wikipedia!" style warnings in places we wouldn't normally allow them if we feel they'd potentially be useful. (Given the elevated risk of potential real-world harm here, I'd be happy with a more general "block on sight and unblock only once they've understood what was wrong" approach to misinformation, even misinformation inserted in entirely good faith. If the minor inconvenience of showing everyone an editnotice prevents us having to revert and/or block people in the first place, as far as I'm concerned it's a price well worth paying.) ‑ Iridescent 08:22, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Regarding "I think the crux of the questionable editing on COVID articles has passed at this point," I don't believe that's the case. I think we just entered a new phase of such questionable editing. There is a huge amount of misinformation and conspiracy theories regarding the vaccines out there, particularly in the U.S., but in many other countries as well. In the U.S. the anti-vaccine movement regarding COVID is heating up right now (including the pushback against "vaccine passports" and the vaccination requirements) and things are likely to get more dicey in this regard as the reopening proceeds. I expect that we will see these battles play out here on Wikipedia as well. Nsk92 (talk) 00:18, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1. First, I've got an issue with the format of this RfC because my opinion doesn't neatly fall into a support/oppose paradigm and my only other option was to post my opinion in the least visible spot. But that's not why I posted in the oppose section; I'm here because I think the question is a waste of time. No policy forbids admins from placing edit notices they think will be useful, quite the opposite according to WP:IAR. The TfD cited in the opening rationale certainly doesn't prohibit admins placing edit notices they think will be useful, it just standardizes the templates used in specific circumstances. So are admins allowed to place edit notices? Obviously. Who thinks otherwise? It's a question with a foregone conclusion, and I don't want my support of using edit notices to be taken out of context.
   Finally, to indulge the actual intent of the RfC: should we change {{COVID19 GS editnotice}}? I don't care. Just make a new template, eh? that's why I made {{COVID19 GS editnotice}} in the first place---existing templates didn't say or do what I wanted them to, so I made a new one by copying a similar template because this is a wiki and that's how wikis work. Wouldn't that be easier and faster than waiting 30 days for this mess to resolve? If someone disagrees, they can nominate that template for deletion allows us to have an explicit discussion about its usefulness, rather than a tangential discussion about a principle no one meaningfully disputes. Even if it goes to TfD, it would only waste 7 days of our time. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:13, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

   I'm going to briefly violate "no threaded discussion", but see the #Discussion section below. The reason we're here is that there's not consensus that Are admins allowed to place edit notices? Obviously. Who thinks otherwise? for the circumstances about which we're talking here (sanctions relating to the general topic but not to the specific named page). ‑ Iridescent 21:23, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

   In fairness Iri, I never opposed the idea of a MEDRS-style editnotice that read something like “This article relating to the Coronavirus pandemic is [something]. Editors are reminded that biomedical information should be sourced to high quality sources. Administrators have been authorised to levy discretionary sanctions on editors who fail to comply with our policies and guidelines.” This was, in fact, my first suggestion on the template talk back in September/October which RexxS rejected. My position is the same as Wugapodes’s really: [I don’t see the point, but] I have no objection provided it’s intended as a ‘COVID article notice’ and not on the premise that discretionary sanctions should be alerted in the editnotice, which they aren’t, or that an EN meets WP:AWARE (it doesn’t, not least because mobile users can’t see them). Provided also that it’s placed strategically and not bombarded on hundreds of articles that mention COVID even if they are having exactly zero relevant disruption, which is how this template used to be used after one or two editors created hundreds of edit requests to add this template to pages (which was just pure banner blindness). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:38, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

   I had read the section before commenting. Isaac disagrees on the threshold for "helpful", as he says, I just have a different personal view regarding the relative tradeoffs. There is a difference between whether we are allowed to do something (the RfC question) and whether we should do something (isaac's objection). In fact, I agree with isaac: we should be aware of banner blindness and use any edit notice sparingly regardless of whether policy allows us to place one. But that's not the question we're being asked. isaacl made 9 comments over 3 days; if he seriously thought admins are prohibited from placing edit notices I assumed he would have found time to drop a note in the formal oppose section stating that. The absence of his objection despite ample time to make it is what made me confident that I'm not being asked for my opinion on a serious dispute, but instead asked to participate in a proxy fight. If Rexx doesn't like how the template currently renders, make a new template or ask explicitly for consensus that the new one be changed. I'm not going to indulge dragging out an interpersonal dispute by dancing around the point. meatball:NameTheConflict — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:36, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2. Oppose. “ Should admins have the ability to place [an] editnotice template on pages”? Looks like an obvious “yes” but it’s a no because it elevates “admins” above “consensus”. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:04, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

   Are you saying that discretionary sanctions should not exist? I ask because they authorize uninvolved administrators to impose sanctions to reduce disruption in certain specified areas. At any rate, this RfC is about something different, namely whether this edit notice should require a page-specific sanction. Johnuniq (talk) 08:24, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

   Discretionary sanctions are a necessary evil, or at least a necessary authoritarian mechanism for the arbitrary enforcement of peace. They exist, but what they mustn’t be is a free pass authorising arbitrary measures without reference to consensus. If there is doubt that an edit notice should be applied to a particular page, then it should be decided by consensus, preferably on the page where the doubt exists, and definitely not automatically authorised from a brief thread at WP:AN. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:43, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

   That is not relevant to this discussion. There are pages within the Covid-19 topic area that have specific sanctions, and there are pages within the Covid-19 topic area that do not have specific sanctions. This discussion is only about whether an edit notice can be placed on the latter set of pages or not. This discussion will have zero impact on what measures can be applied by whom to which pages with or without consensus. Currently an admin has the authority to place a page-level restriction on any page in the Covid-19 topic area whether it has an editnotice or not and that will not change regardless of the outcome of this discussion. This discussion also will not define or change what the scope of the topic area is or which pages are or are not within that topic area - none of that will change regardless of the outcome here. If this discussion reaches a consensus in favour, then the only reason for a dispute about whether the edit notice should be applied or not to any given article will be whether it is within the scope of the Covid-19 topic area. If this discussion reaches a consensus against, then the only reason for a dispute about whether the edit notice should be applied will be whether it is within the scope of the Covid-19 topic area because an admin and/or consensus of editors including at least one administrator believes that a page level restriction is needed. Thryduulf (talk) 15:59, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is useful, but not compulsory, on occasion for an admin to make editors aware of the general sanctions applicable to a particular article even when no page-specific sanctions have been placed. This may occur when a new COVID-19 discovery or announcement focuses editors' attention on an article. It is then edited by many editors new to the topic area who may be unaware of the emphasis placed on the general sanctions applied to the COVID-19 topic area such as:

Any uninvolved administrator may, at their own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process

It is also important to note that COVID-19 sanctions also have two particular restrictions that apply to all pages in scope:

Sources for any content related to medical aspects of the disease are expected to adhere to the standards laid down at WP:MEDRS. Since this is a rapidly evolving area with instances already documented of poor or fraudulent research, preprints and other non-peer-reviewed sources should not be used.

Editors are reminded that the onus is on the editor seeking to include disputed content to achieve consensus for its inclusion. Any content or source removed in good faith and citing a credible policy-based rationale should not be reinstated without prior consensus on the article's talk page.

It is therefore important to be able to deploy an editnotice that draws editors' attention to the general sanctions and links to Wikipedia:General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019 for the full information. The decision to deploy should be a matter of admin discretion on an article-by-article basis, and not proscribed for technical convenience. --RexxS (talk) 21:42, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Both of those restrictions are not unique to COVID-19 related articles, though. Any medical topic will be expected to meet suitable standards for reliable medical sources, and indeed articles for all topics are expected to meet suitable standards. The editor onus is also true for all articles. So it's not like, say, a one-revert rule, where editors can claim they were just doing an action that they do on many other articles.

According to the WikiProject COVID-19 page, there are at present count 1,654 articles within scope. I am concerned about exacerbating the problem of banner blindness by having an edit notice present on potentially a couple thousand pages that describes table stakes for all medical articles (and, substituting guidance for reliable sources in general in place of medical reliable sources, all articles). This leads editors to tune out the edit notices, thereby missing ones that are identifying special circumstances for the pages in question.

Editors who fail to appreciate that a given article falls within the scope of general sanctions ought to be notified by a user talk page alert. In addition to allowing for a personalized message, it's the only way to be certain the message is accessible to the editor, since edit notices aren't visible on mobile devices.

I appreciate the motivation for trying to ensure reliability in this particular topic area. I understand the arguments put forth and am not discounting their importance. I just have a different personal view regarding the relative tradeoffs. isaacl (talk) 00:59, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You make a valid point about potential "banner-blindness", but it's worth remembering that there are less than a handful of admins regularly working the COVID-19 area, and I would expect any editnotice, either page-specific or the general one, to be used rarely. We should be able to rely on an admin's sensibility not to over-use editnotices.

Additionally, I hope you would agree that the second 'Application note' requiring prior consensus is noticeably more restrictive than standard editing practice, and in some ways is stronger than 1RR. I would prefer to have that drawn to the attention of all editors on a 'hot-button' topic before they restore challenged content, rather than having to rely on editor warnings after the event. Otherwise, why have any editnotices? --RexxS (talk) 01:45, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the bold, revert, discuss cycle is a fairly common practice. A discussion to establish consensus is warranted for any article when content (including sources) is removed with a credible policy-based rationale. Editing warring is a problem for all pages, and there are a lot of hot-button topics. As I stated previously, I think edit notices should be limited to page-specific warnings and restrictions, particularly if they contravene general practice for other pages. isaacl (talk) 02:10, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the bold, revert, re-revert, cycle is unfortunately also fairly common practice, and WP:BOLD is an essay that editors can ignore if they choose. The requirement for prior consensus before restoring challenged content really is a far stronger restriction, and is enforceable by general sanctions. That is so far different from an uninformed editor's expectation that it does nobody any favours to remove administrators' discretion to place a general editnotice. --RexxS (talk) 17:36, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think that good-faith editors understand when the initial revert is based on a credible, policy-based rationale, a subsequent re-revert is not without risk of being sanctioned, no matter what article it happens on. Most editors know when they are not being collaborative. isaacl (talk) 21:51, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My experience is that you're wrong to think that, and subsequent re-reverts happen with complete ignorance of the general sanctions far too often. Many editors believe that "peer reviewed" = "suitable for biomedical content" and will edit war to push the latest piece of news into a COVID-19 article. All in good faith. --RexxS (talk) 03:24, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean that editors were aware of the general sanctions; I meant that editors who edit war know they are behaving in an untoward manner, and that always carries a risk. They might believe in good faith that they are justified, but they still know they are not co-operating with others. isaacl (talk) 05:32, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Iridescent's comment: we have a elevated duty of care to readers, and part of that entails a mechanism for warning and if necessary removing people who are editing disruptively, even if they're doing so with the best of intentions. With respect to warning editors: a user talk page notice is a better way to reach editors, since there is no guarantee an edit notice is displayed to them, and banner blindness already drastically reduces how often edit notices get read. Sifting out well-intentioned editors from the others is going to take a conversation with them, in any case. I don't think the presence or absence of an edit notice is going to have a significant impact on the effort required to deal with uncollaborative editors. isaacl (talk) 22:03, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Isaacl: A user talk page notice specifically says "It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date" which is exactly the wrong message after they have restored challenged content. It's also shutting the door after the horse has bolted because the re-revert has already happened and readers are once again getting inappropriate information. The community very strongly supported the imposition of general sanctions in the COVVID-19 topic area, precisely to prevent the sort of misinformation that would occur. There's no more guarantee that a talk page notice is seen than an article editnotice, but the editnotice appears alone and there is no question of it being hidden among other stuff. If editnotices are so ineffective do you therefore propose we stop using page-specific editnotices as well? because every argument you've raised would apply equally to those. --RexxS (talk) 03:24, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can of course add a personal note to the user talk page notice. If you are of the opinion that the discretionary sanctions awareness criteria do not apply in an analogous manner to community-authorized general sanctions, then you can dispense with the template and just use your own custom note. If you do believe the awareness criteria should be followed in a similar manner, then a user talk page notice is required before sanctions can be applied in any case, and an edit notice is not enough. User talk page notices are of course not perfect either, but they are the standard accepted form of issuing notices to users. Page-specific sanctions are, by definition, a sanction that doesn't exist for pages in general and so an edit notice is, by consensus, needed.

I understand the point of view that the authorization for general sanctions is also something that editors ought to be made aware of. As I said, I am just weighing the tradeoff differently than others are. My out-of-the-blue guess is that the edit notices aren't stopping a significant number of re-reverts. Personalized messages might not, either, but I think they have a higher chance of doing so. isaacl (talk) 04:17, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the whole point of standardising sanction templates was to avoid the need for admins to have to use custom-crafted notes? Having a standard message avoids the excuse that the personal note was not clear enough if we reach the stage where sanctions need to be applied. --RexxS (talk) 04:50, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A standard alert template is indeed used to ensure clarity regarding awareness. In your scenario, you were describing a message that needed to be sent after a re-revert has happened. In that case, you are going beyond awareness and providing a warning. A message tailored to the circumstances is reasonable. isaacl (talk) 04:58, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, my scenario is an article where there is a big influx of editors new to the area and there's a need to warn them that editing the page carries extra restrictions before they breach those restrictions. So the admin adds an editnotice just as they used to before last December. That's also how 1rr editnotices work, for example, so why would you support one and not the other? --RexxS (talk) 05:12, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You said A user talk page notice specifically says "It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date" which is exactly the wrong message after they have restored challenged content. I said you can add a personalized message to the alert. Having a standardized alert message doesn't preclude also issuing a warning.

I understand you disagree with my reasoning on having an edit notice for page-specific restrictions but not this specific scenario. I'm not trying to convince you to change your mind. I suspect generally I'm more parsimonious on placing edit notices than most editors. isaacl (talk) 05:28, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I understand now that you meant adding a customised note to the standard user talk page alert. Indeed I often do that, but I still prefer to have the opportunity to have an article editnotice which might obviate the need to keep individually warning good-faith editors.

I suspect generally I'm more parsimonious on placing edit notices than most editors – of course, most editors can't place editnotices on articles: that permission is reserved to administrators, page movers, and template editors. I doubt that we are ever likely to be inundated with editnotices, on account of the small number of admins editing regularly in the COVID-19 area. --RexxS (talk) 15:14, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, I meant I suspect my opinions on placing edit notices are to be more parsimonious than in the opinions of most editors. isaacl (talk) 17:04, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If possible, I'd prefer not to hold a meta-discussion about who said what where, when, or how often, as I wouldn't read too much into it. I favour having discussions where pros and cons are brought forth, and I try to work towards consensus. isaacl (talk) 00:24, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I may as well mention it here for consideration/compromise if RexxS is interested: I support creating something along the lines of Template:COVID19 GS editnotice/sandbox. Also with the condition that it only be placed on articles where poor quality sourcing has previously been an issue, or COVID GS sanctions have previously been required. Not spam-applied to 300+ articles even when the vast majority have never had a single sanction recorded on Wikipedia:General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:40, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve already requested the page on Lockdown to be placed under pending changes due to recent sneaky vandalism (and high page traffic), and considering the article also relate to COVID, shouldn’t that be covered by general sanction? COVID-19 lockdowns may also need to be placed under GS. TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 19:02, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]