Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Administrator instructions/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Unnamed section
Shouldn't the blockquote have a footnote? --NE2 03:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- It does... Daniel (talk) 03:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- No, I mean a real footnote. With a long quote in it. And a revert war over the inclusion of the quote. --NE2 06:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- Ha, missed the pun totally. Daniel (talk) 06:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- No, I mean a real footnote. With a long quote in it. And a revert war over the inclusion of the quote. --NE2 06:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
This is making policy
Sorry I started this thread in the wrong place. - brenneman 03:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Templates
What do people think of these templates Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Special enforcement log/Templates as the standard set for this page? Am I missing any needed situations? MBisanz talk 07:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
- One thing that would be nice is a way to track usage of those templates. They are all substituted ones at the moment, right? What I'm thinking is that unless use can be tracked in some way, then people may use the templates to intimidate people while never actually having to do anything that gets logged. I know this applies to other warning templates as well, but theoretically these ones shouldn't get used as much, so it might be worthwhile being able to follow how they are being used. Having said that, the wording actually is not bad at all. A bit BITEy, but that is probably a good thing for BLPs. One thing, they all say they should only be used on user talk pages, when I think some are actually for talk pages or articles, and some are for logs. Carcharoth (talk) 17:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
- I could upload a single-pixel gif and add it to the templates, the 2 article ones have category trackers, and well the log one is technically impossible to track, but the user warning templates could use special imagelinks to check on their use. MBisanz talk 20:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if there's a problem, since all warnings and actions are supposed to be logged anyhow. --Conti|✉ 20:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
- Well just to be safe, I reuploaded identical versions of the images used in the templates, under unique file names, and put them in the templates, so we'll be able to track substitutions through the image file links. MBisanz talk 02:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
- Supposed to be logged. Forgive me for being cynical, but that is sometimes honoured in the breach, not the, um, whatever that phrase ends up saying <sigh>. MBisanz, I think there are other ways you can track usage. Make the substituted wikitext contain an invisible link, like --> <-- (clever, eh?) and then use "what links here" on it, such as here. Carcharoth (talk) 01:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
- Admins don't always do as they're supposed to do, that's true, but in this case.. Whoever does some "special enforcing" without logging it should receive a stern warning at least, IMHO. But being able to track the templates is a good thing either way, of course, so I'm all for it. --Conti|✉ 12:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
- Supposed to be logged. Forgive me for being cynical, but that is sometimes honoured in the breach, not the, um, whatever that phrase ends up saying <sigh>. MBisanz, I think there are other ways you can track usage. Make the substituted wikitext contain an invisible link, like --> <-- (clever, eh?) and then use "what links here" on it, such as here. Carcharoth (talk) 01:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
While we're at it, do we really need Template:BLP Spec Notice? Currently I don't really see any use for that template. --Conti|✉ 20:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
- I just sketched out the article versions to discuss with Risker and others, but no I don't think its really that useful. MBisanz talk 01:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
- Alright. Want to mention that at the template's documentation before anyone accidentally starts to use it? ;) --Conti|✉ 12:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
- Done, also those templates had built in categories, so it would be very easy to spot use of them before we can figure out if they're actually needed. MBisanz talk 16:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
- Alright. Want to mention that at the template's documentation before anyone accidentally starts to use it? ;) --Conti|✉ 12:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
| | This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
clarification needed
It now reads "Sanctions may only be imposed if the individual has been counselled and warned regarding the biographies of living persons, and their violations of it."
It should read something like: "Sanctions may only be imposed for BLP policy violations committed after the logged counselling and warning regarding the biographies of living persons policy, and their violations of it."
The point is not that they must be warned and their misdeeds explained. The point is that sanctions covered by this special enforcement may not be done for acts prior to that logged warning and explanation without there their having violated WP:BLP after the logged warning. WAS 4.250 (talk) 09:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
- Better now? MBisanz talk 09:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
- I think it should be clear that only logged warnings count with regard to this. Non-logged warnings could include almost anything if one decides to punish someone right now. One could look through their past and find something and count it. One could say they were warned by a notice at the top of an article talk page. We should be very clear there must not be a special enforcement unless there is a clear BLP violation after a logged warning. Further it should be clear that the person should have understood what they did wrong (for example they could be warned about one type of BLP violation and then blocked based on an entirely different sort of BLP violation that was not explained to them); but that's too easy to game by troublemakers, so that we probably should not specify this second concern, but let it be a common sense understanding. WAS 4.250 (talk) 10:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
- Well they must cite the warning when giving the sanction, so if a warning is off-point or old or some other weird thing, well people will notice and will appeal to AE. Also if someone goes from violating one part of BLP to violating another part of BLP, after being warned that BLP cannot be violated or they will be sanctions, I really would not have much sympathy for them. And I don't think we can require the person to "understand what they did wrong" due to the many cases of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT that plague the encyclopedia. If I know the sanction for understanding BLP and violating it is severe, I may make it a point never to understand it. MBisanz talk 13:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
- Even so, the page should be made more clear. It reads like it is designed to be gamed. WAS 4.250 (talk) 13:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
- Well they must cite the warning when giving the sanction, so if a warning is off-point or old or some other weird thing, well people will notice and will appeal to AE. Also if someone goes from violating one part of BLP to violating another part of BLP, after being warned that BLP cannot be violated or they will be sanctions, I really would not have much sympathy for them. And I don't think we can require the person to "understand what they did wrong" due to the many cases of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT that plague the encyclopedia. If I know the sanction for understanding BLP and violating it is severe, I may make it a point never to understand it. MBisanz talk 13:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
- I think it should be clear that only logged warnings count with regard to this. Non-logged warnings could include almost anything if one decides to punish someone right now. One could look through their past and find something and count it. One could say they were warned by a notice at the top of an article talk page. We should be very clear there must not be a special enforcement unless there is a clear BLP violation after a logged warning. Further it should be clear that the person should have understood what they did wrong (for example they could be warned about one type of BLP violation and then blocked based on an entirely different sort of BLP violation that was not explained to them); but that's too easy to game by troublemakers, so that we probably should not specify this second concern, but let it be a common sense understanding. WAS 4.250 (talk) 10:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
- And wording like "you are hereby placed" in Template:BLP Spec Sanction should be avoided. Does anyone in real life say "hereby", outside of quasi-legal situations? Carcharoth (talk) 17:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
- Oddly enough, I do, and it is weird, and everything I write from term papers and the like has that sort of style, so it would be nice if someone could change it when they see it, since it seems like second nature to me when writing it. MBisanz talk 20:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
- And wording like "you are hereby placed" in Template:BLP Spec Sanction should be avoided. Does anyone in real life say "hereby", outside of quasi-legal situations? Carcharoth (talk) 17:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
- If use hereby in real life, anytime I declare something. 1 != 2 12:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Red categories
On Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Special enforcement log/Templates, there's red categories: Articles under BLP Special Enforcement Sanctions | Articles on BLP Special Enforcement Sanctions notice. The second one is linked to Talk:Barack Obama and Talk:Seth MacFarlane too. TransUtopian (talk) 12:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)