Template talk:Unblock
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Instructions needed
Apparently there are unwritten rules for usage of this. They should be written down. (SEWilco 17:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC))
- Instructions are needed for this template, either on the template page or in a Usage section at the top of this Talk page. I discovered this undocumented template, tried it on User:RefBot because the evasion justification is false; when the block was not reviewed I tried again to get a review and {{Unblockabuse}} got slapped on with rules which are not in this template. How many other undocumented traps exist? (SEWilco 04:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC))
- That appears to reflect on the admin in question, more than anything else. I generally do prefer to see warnings before page protection. Either way, the note you added to the template is inappropriate; I suggest you take these matters up with the protecting admin, or via WP:RFC. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- It is inappropriate to warn that there are undocumented rules for using a template? Most templates have Usage instructions or documentation on the template page. Usage of this seems obvious from the template message, but isn't. A recent edit message on the template confirms that people don't know what rules I'm referring to. Those rules should be documented. (SEWilco 07:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC))
- The warning you added to the template was grossly inappropriate, yes -- see WP:POINT. All else aside, the circumstances where protection can be used to stop unblock abuse are documented at Wikipedia:Protection policy. I do agree, however, that users should be warned prior to the protection of their talk pages. Again, please take this incident up with the blocking administrator, or via RfC. – Luna Santin (talk) 07:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Protection policy mentions this template but has no usage instructions, and doesn't even describe rules for protection based on usage of this template. What rules apply to this template? They should all be documented. (SEWilco 07:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC))
- The warning was to prevent others from stumbling into its undocumented traps. If there are few who use the template, then the warning is not disruptive. If there are many who use the template, there are many who are at risk from this template with no usage instructions. (SEWilco 07:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC))
- I've added a note to the template page, then. Please note also that MediaWiki:Blockedtext has a similar mention. Elaborating on the "rules" of the template is rather difficult, because for the most part, it's up to admin discretion and community consensus. Controversial actions are and should be discussed, frequently at WP:AN or WP:AN/I. A hard rule set would be needless rules creep that would only hamper the process, I think. – Luna Santin (talk) 07:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- Documentation of the existing rules is not rules creep, it just helps people to properly use templates which they discover. The Arbitrators have shown they are arbitrary, and why encourage their interference by scattering undocumented traps? (SEWilco 19:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC))
- Elaborating on the "rules" of the template is rather difficult, because for the most part, it's up to admin discretion and community consensus. Controversial actions are and should be discussed, frequently at WP:AN or WP:AN/I. A hard rule set would be needless rules creep that would only hamper the process, I think. You've had a single negative experience, please take it up via more appropriate channels. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- I'm discussing this template; my experience is due to the lack of documentation and that lack of documentation is the issue here, not my experience with it not existing. Template:unblockabuse states the rule "using the {{unblock}} template to relay abusive messages to administrators or reposting it after having been denied an unblock by more than one admin." Why should users of this template not be warned of the existing rules? (SEWilco 21:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC))
- You may notice that there's no "guideline" tag on {{unblockabuse}} -- it's not a policy or a guideline, or even the most common practice. The key issue here is not template documentation, but admin discretion and the protection policy. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- But the rule in {{unblockabuse}} is being used. The rules should be documented. Rule creep is the creation of new rules, not listing those which exist. (SEWilco 05:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC))
- Was used by one admin in one situation, so obviously it's an all-encompassing policy? Right. I'll say it more clearly: there are very few rules, if any, to document, because it's largely left to admin discretion and community consensus -- that could be changed, but I'd want to see some community consensus before making that change. Controversial actions can and should be discussed in appropriate venues. At this point, I see no consensus change the template, and I should hope it's clear that we disagree with each other rather strongly. If you'd like to bring in some fresh voices, feel free to make a post to WP:3O, WP:VP, WP:AN, WP:CN, or wherever you like, but other than that, we seem to just be going in circles with no end in sight. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- 'What links here' for {{unblockabuse}} shows over 200 pages. Shouldn't the reasons given in that template be documented in the template which is likely to trigger that response? (SEWilco 02:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC))
- Was used by one admin in one situation, so obviously it's an all-encompassing policy? Right. I'll say it more clearly: there are very few rules, if any, to document, because it's largely left to admin discretion and community consensus -- that could be changed, but I'd want to see some community consensus before making that change. Controversial actions can and should be discussed in appropriate venues. At this point, I see no consensus change the template, and I should hope it's clear that we disagree with each other rather strongly. If you'd like to bring in some fresh voices, feel free to make a post to WP:3O, WP:VP, WP:AN, WP:CN, or wherever you like, but other than that, we seem to just be going in circles with no end in sight. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- But the rule in {{unblockabuse}} is being used. The rules should be documented. Rule creep is the creation of new rules, not listing those which exist. (SEWilco 05:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC))
- You may notice that there's no "guideline" tag on {{unblockabuse}} -- it's not a policy or a guideline, or even the most common practice. The key issue here is not template documentation, but admin discretion and the protection policy. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- I'm discussing this template; my experience is due to the lack of documentation and that lack of documentation is the issue here, not my experience with it not existing. Template:unblockabuse states the rule "using the {{unblock}} template to relay abusive messages to administrators or reposting it after having been denied an unblock by more than one admin." Why should users of this template not be warned of the existing rules? (SEWilco 21:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC))
- Elaborating on the "rules" of the template is rather difficult, because for the most part, it's up to admin discretion and community consensus. Controversial actions are and should be discussed, frequently at WP:AN or WP:AN/I. A hard rule set would be needless rules creep that would only hamper the process, I think. You've had a single negative experience, please take it up via more appropriate channels. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- Documentation of the existing rules is not rules creep, it just helps people to properly use templates which they discover. The Arbitrators have shown they are arbitrary, and why encourage their interference by scattering undocumented traps? (SEWilco 19:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC))
- I've added a note to the template page, then. Please note also that MediaWiki:Blockedtext has a similar mention. Elaborating on the "rules" of the template is rather difficult, because for the most part, it's up to admin discretion and community consensus. Controversial actions are and should be discussed, frequently at WP:AN or WP:AN/I. A hard rule set would be needless rules creep that would only hamper the process, I think. – Luna Santin (talk) 07:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- The warning you added to the template was grossly inappropriate, yes -- see WP:POINT. All else aside, the circumstances where protection can be used to stop unblock abuse are documented at Wikipedia:Protection policy. I do agree, however, that users should be warned prior to the protection of their talk pages. Again, please take this incident up with the blocking administrator, or via RfC. – Luna Santin (talk) 07:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- It is inappropriate to warn that there are undocumented rules for using a template? Most templates have Usage instructions or documentation on the template page. Usage of this seems obvious from the template message, but isn't. A recent edit message on the template confirms that people don't know what rules I'm referring to. Those rules should be documented. (SEWilco 07:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC))
- That appears to reflect on the admin in question, more than anything else. I generally do prefer to see warnings before page protection. Either way, the note you added to the template is inappropriate; I suggest you take these matters up with the protecting admin, or via WP:RFC. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Unblocking others
Can you use this on behalf of other users? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RedsBot 2 (talk • contribs).
- I would say yes, but be careful to make it clear that you're doing so. On the other hand, you'd probably be better off posting your thoughts (and request) at the admin noticeboard (or the incidents subpage), as that'll probably get wider and quicker attention. If you prefer email, try the unblock-en-l mailing list. I'd personally probably go with AN/I in that situation, but it's your call. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- There's nothing in the template that says so, but I have never agreed to unblock any user based on another user's request via this template, and I doubt I ever will. Once a block is issued, it's between the blocked user and WP admins to work out the situation. The decision of the blocking admin can certainly be addressed, either via that admin's talk page, or if broader input is needed, via WP:AN or WP:ANI. Mangojuicetalk 14:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] "Admin use only" part
Does anyone actually use this text? I never do: I just insert "reviewed" into the existing request and add my reason, rather than cut & paste, and I don't bother with {{Request accepted}}, I just leave a message in such circumstances, and <nowiki> the request. Most times it doesn't get in my way, but sometimes someone has a very long unblock reason and then this part is extremely burdensome. Does anyone mind if I get rid of the copy-paste text? Mangojuicetalk 14:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- I almost exclusively use the copy/paste text at the bottom of the unblock request when reviewing. I actually find it easier when reviewing multiple requests, and would not like to see it disappear. - auburnpilot talk 01:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Please display kindness
I've discovered this page. I see some people begging to be unblocked. Please consider if you deny the unblocking that you make a notation but leave it for another adminstrator to review it. After all, if you deny it, that's like killing a person.
Please note that I don't condone behavior leading to a block but there seems to be a wide variation of blocking for similar behavior. Some prefer the death penalty. Others prefer 24 hours. Still others prefer a very odd 31 hours.
I experienced a bit a kindness by an administrator, Reedy Boy, about a month ago. His kindness really encouraged me to edit more, correct errors and add references, etc. In fact, I'm going to look for a barnstar to give him. Archtrain 22:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Helpful link
I just added a link to http://jodies.de/ipcalc today. Not all administrators are aware of how to calculate if an IP is within a range. Hope this helps someone out. ^demon[omg plz] 18:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Updating
This template really needs updating because inclusion of wikilinks and external links in a user's unblock reason request breaks it. Example:
{{unblock|Putting [[wikilinks]] here or [http://externallinks.com] here breaks this template.}}
So yes, it needs some work. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 21:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] User friendly
Does anyone else think templates like this or ((help)) are a bit complicated for new users to correctly use? Would an idea be to set it up as a link that says "Click here to request ot be unblocked" and that link would take them to a form field where they could type their reason and click submit. As it is now, a user must know how to add a template to the page and add the | to separate their reason. MBisanz talk 09:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- I agree. This really should be simpler. I suppose we'd need help from the dev's for this. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] RDNS link.
Hey, I noticed today, that the RDNS link in the unblock template no longer works, unless you pay for it. Is there a *free* alternative out there, that anyone knows of? (I just use host, but, I don't think windows has that). Perhaps, it's time that we re-evaluated using dnsstuff.com links in our templates, as they're pages seem to be getting spammier over time, and, who knows what tool will wind up switched to 'pay only', as time goes on. It probably wouldn't be very hard at all to replicate the functionality of these tools, on the toolserver. SQLQuery me! 15:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Overhaul needed
This template is getting a little cumbersome, and I think it would be beneficial to overhaul it—perhaps trimming it down, and making it more "user friendly". Does anybody have any proposals? AGK § 18:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- My 2 biggest gripes are.
[edit] Notice to Admins and why Admins only?
Shouldn't we have a notice like {{unblock-un}} has: "Administrators should not unblock without attempting to discuss with the blocking administrator (see the blocking policy)" on this template to remind admins that they generally need to discuss this with the admin who blocked? All admins were new admins once upon a time. :-)
Additionally, why do we say that the review section is for Administrator use only? WP:APPEAL seems to be a bit undecided on what word to use but often refers to editors reviewing the block and is clear that even if the reviewer happens to be an admin he or she probably won't remove the block but will still discuss it with the blocking admin. See especially Wikipedia:Appealing_a_block#What_happens_next. Why shouldn't experienced editors, the same sorts of editors who close non-delete XfD's, decline or discuss in the same way? Very few unblock requests should be granted without discussion with the blocking admin anyway. This Admins only language does not appear to be supported by policy.
Finally, I agree with the comments above that this is far too complicated for new users.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 03:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Link to Swedish Wikipedia
Could some administrator include a link to Swedish Wikipedia, using [sv:Mall:Avblockering] . Best regards Ulner (talk) 08:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Done. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 20:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Editprotected
{{editprotected}} What's with the "you may not unblock your own account"? Everyone knows that only admins can block/unblock, and we rarely see non-humorous blocks on admins.
Not done I'm going to decline your request, because that sentence is in the "Administrators only" section reminding them that they are not allowed to unblock themselves; it's not meant for general readers. I agree with the previous sections on this talk page that this template needs a redesign, and this request is something to keep in mind for when that happens. --CapitalR (talk) 13:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Removing a request
The template presently adds:
Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.
I have not found a guideline that says this. IMHO the request and the block notice should never be separated. This implies that if the block notice is removed or archived during the block then the request should go with it, whereas if the block notice is kept after the block expires then the request should stay too. Also, an unblock request should of course remain until it has been resolved or withdrawn. So, the text should rather read something like:
Do not disattach this unblock request from the block notice. Guido den Broeder (talk) 10:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
