Template talk:Blocked subject
Suggestion[edit]
Should "general dissatisfaction with Wikipedia will be ignored and possibly removed" be amended to "general dissatisfaction with Wikipedia or its editors will be ignored and possibly removed"? --NeilN talk to me 20:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Done, but you could have done it yourself, I'm really quite happy for people to hack at this - it's very much a first draft. Guy (Help!) 20:28, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Ugh[edit]
I have to say that I don't like this template -- even for blocked editors one should AGF as far as possible, and this template doesn't; it warns against a bunch of things that any given editor probably hasn't done and likely hasn't even thought of. If any template is necessary for this situation, a simple request to raise issues on the talk page ought to be sufficient -- any warnings that are needed can be added by hand. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 00:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- How does this not assume good faith? I can think of two editors right way that I've come across which this template is perfect for. If a subject of an article has been blocked they probably have repeatedly added unsourced info and/or attacked other editors. The wording calmly tells them what they neeed to do to get info fixed. Repeating the same behaviour that got them blocked, either on their talk page or in an email to OTRS, will get them nowhere. --NeilN talk to me 02:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- Looks good. The only place where any criticism of the editor (even hypothetical) appears is in the 'grandstanding' paragraph. As a rule, blocked editors often engage in this type of behavior, so the template responds to its most common use. EdJohnston (talk) 02:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- It's not about criticism, it's about making unjustified threats. Suppose we have an editor who has been blocked for a 3RR violation -- what's the justification for threatening that editor with a talk-page block for legal threats? You might say that this is just a statement of policy, but it doesn't come across that way -- if I go to a random editor's talk page and write "editors who make legal threats will be blocked", the editor will perceive that as hostile. It's also a BEANS violation, by the way. Looie496 (talk) 17:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- As always, judgement should be used to determine if the template appropriately addresses the user's behaviour. If it doesn't, don't use it. --NeilN talk to me 18:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- I don't see any reason to use this template on someone blocked for 3RR. It would only be appropriate for very long or indefinite blocks. EdJohnston (talk) 03:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- As always, judgement should be used to determine if the template appropriately addresses the user's behaviour. If it doesn't, don't use it. --NeilN talk to me 18:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- It's not about criticism, it's about making unjustified threats. Suppose we have an editor who has been blocked for a 3RR violation -- what's the justification for threatening that editor with a talk-page block for legal threats? You might say that this is just a statement of policy, but it doesn't come across that way -- if I go to a random editor's talk page and write "editors who make legal threats will be blocked", the editor will perceive that as hostile. It's also a BEANS violation, by the way. Looie496 (talk) 17:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- Looks good. The only place where any criticism of the editor (even hypothetical) appears is in the 'grandstanding' paragraph. As a rule, blocked editors often engage in this type of behavior, so the template responds to its most common use. EdJohnston (talk) 02:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Consider these tweaks[edit]
Add stuff at the end[edit]
First, how about adding at the end:
<!-- Template:Blocked subject -->
<noinclude>
[[Category:User warning templates|{{PAGENAME}}]]
</noinclude>
This puts the template in a reasonable category, and records the template name in hidden text, as the blocking templates do, in case somebody else tries to figure out what warning was given.
Colored box[edit]
What about putting the text in a colored box. It reduces the personal touch, but could make the user's talk page easier to read, since their page often fills up with notices:
Hello. I see that you have been blocked from editing Wikipedia but that you are the subject of an article. We take very seriously our responsibility to article subjects. If there are factual errors with your article, you currently have the following options:
- ... OMITTED TEXT ...
I won't make either of these changes unless someone else thinks it's a good idea. EdJohnston (talk) 03:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- Personally, when placing this notice, I would prefer to remove all the other warnings as they're only likely to irritate the user. However I realize this may not be allowable under current talk page guidelines. --NeilN talk to me 15:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
April edits[edit]
Hi. Nice template; seems friendly and to the point. :) I did some minor tweaking to the language which I hope will prove uncontroversial, added a documentation subpage, categorized it, incorporated the option of automatically including the sig and, as suggested by EdJohnston, enclosed the whole in a box for easier reading, though I went with "plain" to minimize the reducing of the personal touch. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:54, 4 April 2010 (UTC)