![]() | This template was considered for deletion on 11 August 2023. The result of the discussion was "keep". |
![]() |
Template:Unblock is permanently
protected from editing because it is a
heavily used or highly visible template. Substantial changes should first be proposed and discussed here on this page. If the proposal is uncontroversial or has been discussed and is supported by
consensus, editors may use {{
edit template-protected}} to notify an administrator or template editor to make the requested edit. Usually, any contributor may edit the template's
documentation to add usage notes or
categories.
Any contributor may edit the template's sandbox. Functionality of the template can be checked using test cases. |
Apparently there are unwritten rules for usage of this. They should be written down. ( SEWilco 17:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC))
Can you use this on behalf of other users? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RedsBot 2 ( talk • contribs).
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? Mango juice talk 14:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. SQL Query me! 15:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
Could some administrator include a link to Swedish Wikipedia, using [sv:Mall:Avblockering] . Best regards Ulner ( talk) 08:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
{{
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.
I'm the admin who put that in there. You'd be surprised at how many people try copy and paste {{Request accepted}} into their own talk thinking that it'll automatically unblock them. I'm hoping that there is something that can be written there to reduce that. -- Netsnipe ► 06:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
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)
As an admin frequently patrolling CAT:RFU, I've written a guide to appealing blocks which I think reflects our current practice. Are there any objections to adding something like the following to the "Notes" section or to some other space within the template?
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.
Best, Sandstein 21:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Add please [[ro:Format:Deblocare]] in the interwiki links list. Thank you! Daniel Message 14:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
I frequently see unblock requests from editors (or socks) protesting their innocence, or claiming that the checkuser results are wrong, or offering some esotetic explaination as to why the checkuser would see that this account and 12 others were run by the same IP, and so on. I'm thinking that it might be worthwhile to add a parameter to this template that would flag an unblock request requiring a Checkuser's expertise. It might be something as simple as {{unblock|1=Your reason here|c}}. The "c" would add the request to Category:Requests for unblock requiring Checkuser attention, which could in turn be monitored. Am I overthinking this? UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 19:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
{{editprotected}}
This template currently tests to make sure it's on a user talk page, and only if so does it add the page to
Category:Requests for unblock. This means that if a user accidentally puts the request for unblock on their user page instead of their talk page, the request will silently fail—admins will not be alerted to the request. This should be changed: either the template should work if placed on the user page, or the template should display a warning if placed in the wrong namespace.
User:Citation bot has been blocked for several days due to this "bug" in the template.--
Srleffler (
talk)
23:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
What is the point of this? If a user can only edit their own talk page while blocked, and not their userpage, how would this even occur? Cirt ( talk) 07:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
"If the block was on the basis of the use of the checkuser tool and the checkuser finding is disputed, this request should be brought to the attention of a checkuser rather than declined out of hand" - any objections? -- Random832 ( contribs) 20:37, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
I've changed "can" to "may" in "If you accept the request (note that you can NOT unblock your own account), replace...", since it's technically possible to unblock oneself while blocked if one is an admin, but obviously it's not allowed. Nyttend ( talk) 02:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Please change
[http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Special%3AGlobalBlockList&ip={{PAGENAMEE}} global blocks]
to
[{{fullurl:Special:GlobalBlockList|ip={{PAGENAMEE}}}} global blocks]
so that users of the secure server are not needlessly taken to the non-secure server and vice-versa. Thanks.— C45207 | Talk 05:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
It says "edit the text" but it should say "add text".
Chevy
Impala
2009
17:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
May I ask why a block may be placed on hold only by an administrator? Sometimes a non-sysop may wish to delay an imminent rejection of an unblock request in order to comment, maybe a non-sysop version of unblock-on-hold could be added, or unblock-on-hold be modified to allow this? — what a crazy random happenstance 07:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
Jpgordon, I think your <p> addition broke the template. Peoples' unblock requests are not showing up inside the template itself.
mechamind
9
0
18:22, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
1=
is added before the reason, i.e. {{unblock|1=Your reason here}}
. —
DoRD (
talk)
01:10, 31 July 2010 (UTC)The instructions for accepting an unblock request seem to be broken. If they're not broken, what is the point of replacing the template with {{tlx|1=unblock|2=reason}}?? Kaldari ( talk) 17:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Why aren't we hiding the "administrator" part of the unblock notice? Seems it would reduce a lot of the common occurrence of blocked editors attempting (generally out of ignorance, rather than bad behavior) to unblock (etc) themselves. Then we could also make the admin-only part uglier, like have a big noisy "OFFICIAL USE ONLY" section. -- jpgordon ::==( o ) 18:30, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
The ugliness of this template has bugged me for years, especially the layout. I have prepared an overhauled version in the sandbox. Any comments are welcome. — Edokter • Talk • 16:57, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
I finished all messages ({{ unblock}}, {{ unblock on hold}}, {{ unblock reviewed}} and {{ request accepted}}); they now have a consistent look, but maybe too consistent? I need more eyes and comments. Have a look at the test cases page. — Edokter • Talk • 20:44, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Looks good. But shouldn't "a user may not in fact be blocked, or their block may be expired" be rephrased as "you may not in fact be blocked, or your block may be expired"? The rest of the paragraph also directly addresses the blocked user. Also, "Note that misuse of the unblock request procedure may result in the removal of your talk page editing privileges for the duration of your block" could perhaps be made to sound less bureaucratic: "If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page as long as you are blocked." Sandstein 18:07, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
I also added a "handled=1" example to the test page. Could that perhaps be made to look distinct from an unhandled request, such as e.g. by decoloring it and omitting the admin instructions? Sandstein 18:12, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
{{unblock reviewed|1=reason|accept=reason}}
, and we could indeed get rid of {Request accepted}, and even {unblock|handled=1}. —
Edokter •
Talk •
13:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)accept=
parameter. When the instructions are followed, there will be only one box during all stages of the unblock request. —
Edokter •
Talk •
15:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Hm, in practice, the color doesn't work very well; it blends in with the declined unblock requests, and the block notices themselves, which makes it harder to scan a talk page and figure out where exactly the request is. Perhaps a return to the previous blue would be better. -- jpgordon ::==( o ) 15:34, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
By any chance, will such an overhaul be performed on the Username and Autoblock templates? mechamind 9 0 00:50, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
I have slightly modified the colors of {{ unblock on hold}} so that the template catches the eye more easily, like it is intended to do. Access Denied – talk to me 04:12, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
See Wikipedia_talk:Template_messages/User_talk_namespace#Redesign_block_templates. Access Denied – talk to me 05:20, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
I suggest replacing "<tt><nowiki>{{subst:Unblock on hold-notification | 1={{BASEPAGENAME}}}}</nowiki></tt>" with
"<tt>{{subst:Unblock on hold-notification|1={{BASEPAGENAME}}}}</tt>", which will simply change "BASEPAGENAME" to the current username itself. Click the "edit" button to see what I mean. mechamind 9 0 08:30, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
{{
BASEPAGENAME}}
, so it should still be safe. Besides, copying and pasting from there when it still says {{
BASEPAGENAME}}
will just lead the administrator to their own pages, not the ones of the blocked user. My proposal allows for it to be directly copied from the template as displayed on the blocked user's talk page to the administrator's page.
mechamind
9
0
21:22, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
<pre>
and </pre>
tags; that way it won't distort the output. —
Edokter •
Talk —
20:57, 24 December 2010 (UTC)I should reccommend that the option used if administrators disables the user's ability to edit own talk page with this template, if he proposes an unblock which is abusive. Garygoh884 ( talk) 12:03, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
This page is the top hit for google:Wikipedia unblock, and we point all blocked users at this template page. To avoid confusing readers, can we hide the template from the top so they first focus on the instructions, and then transclude the template into the documentation with ' Example' as the dummy user instead ' Unblock'. John Vandenberg ( chat) 00:03, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
I've made two changes to the instructions for putting the request on hold. Firstly I've made it clear you need to add the name of the blocking admin, since I've seen this used with the words 'blocking admin' left in. Secondly I've removed the instruction about Template:Unblock on hold-notification, which no long exists. Olaf Davis ( talk) 11:34, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Hey, I'd like to get consensus for changing the template to [1]. The current wording may be seen as very confusing to a non-Wikipedian, and when a (possibly long) list comes up, it won't be clear to them what to do. Also, this makes it easier for admins to check as well, to see if a short block has already expired. User:DoRD, mind if you take a look at this? Thanks, Lixxx235 Got a complaint? 15:14, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please replace with the current version of the sandbox ( diff) to hide the checkuser links from non-checkusers. Thanks, -- DannyS712 ( talk) 19:49, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
I am proposing replacing the current clock image,
, with the very similar
. The advantage of the latter is that it is licensed under CC0, so the link could be suppressed to avoid confusing readers. This change would also be made to:
--
Ahecht (
TALK
PAGE)
21:07, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This template is causing obsolete HTML lint errors because it uses obsolete <tt>
tags. I have created a new version in
Template:Unblock/sandbox. Please copy that wikitext into
Template:Unblock. —
Anomalocaris (
talk)
09:48, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
The list at CAT:RFU often contains entries that currently do not require attention from administrators. The "administrative backlog" template is then also displayed incorrectly, without there actually being a noticeable backlog.
When an administrator replies to an unblock request without accepting or declining it, there should be a way for the administrator to temporarily remove the request from CAT:RFU, until the user has answered the question.
The most user-friendly and simple way to implement this might be an "idletimestamp" parameter. It is filled with {{ subst:CURRENTTIMESTAMP}} by the administrator. If the "idletimestamp" parameter is equal to {{ REVISIONTIMESTAMP}}, a subcategory ("Unblock requests awaiting response from the blocked user") replaces CAT:RFU. ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 22:50, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
I have implemented and documented the parameter now; there are currently 11 user talk pages in the new category, " Category:Requests_for_unblock_awaiting_response_from_the_blocked_user". Worth it. Thank you very much for the detailed feedback and questions; let's see how this works out in practice. The parameter has been added to {{ unblock-spamun}} and {{ unblock-un}} as well. ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 05:25, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change <samp>blocking administrator</samp>
to {{mono|blocking administrator}}
This markup was installed as a result of an edit request I made a year ago, to get rid of the obsolete HTML <tt>...</tt>
. At that time I believed <samp>...</samp>
was the correct replacement, but I was wrong; that markup is reserved for computer output. Here, we need the generic monospaced markup. There is no effect on the display. It's just for "correctness".
Also, please change two occurrences of {{subst:Accept reason here}}
to Accept reason here
, which were installed as a result of the same edit request I made. This is to restore it to the way it was before and undo the confusion, as {{subst:...}}
doesn't belong here.
— Anomalocaris ( talk) 22:03, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
<nowiki>...</nowiki>
markup! —
Anomalocaris (
talk)
07:37, 6 January 2021 (UTC)FYI, a related response template, Template:Ipberemoved ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated for deletion -- 65.92.246.142 ( talk) 02:25, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
OK, now this template is having the same problem as "unblock reviewed" used to: punctuation (a colon, an equals sign) before the template breaks the formatting. I brought this up in January at Template talk:Unblock reviewed#Can this be fixed?. The problem appears to be metastasizing. I'm not sure what the source of this is, but I imagine it's the result of the message a blocked user gets? --jpgordon 𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 15:01, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Remove "blocked" from "This blocked user's is asking..." as it is redundant since it mentions it's an unblock request. foo bar baz 09:25, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Template:Unblock,
Template:Unblock reviewed and
Template:Unblock on hold has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add the relevant TfM templates linking to
Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2023_August_11#Unblock_templates. <noinclude>
{{subst:tfm|Unblock}}
</noinclude>
Aasim -
Herrscher of Wikis ❄️
19:52, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Description of suggested change:
Diff:
− | + | CHANGED_TEXT |
87.1.48.40 ( talk) 15:09, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Draft:Gaetano_Minale?fbclid=IwAR1hUdAs248Zr1naKwLqEQSWbwNIkaE5NE9yx26utL-slYQjLKnadZoi4pA
chiedo sblocco
Please unblock my transaction from binance account to another wallet 117.20.116.225 ( talk) 11:23, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This template was considered for deletion on 11 August 2023. The result of the discussion was "keep". |
![]() |
Template:Unblock is permanently
protected from editing because it is a
heavily used or highly visible template. Substantial changes should first be proposed and discussed here on this page. If the proposal is uncontroversial or has been discussed and is supported by
consensus, editors may use {{
edit template-protected}} to notify an administrator or template editor to make the requested edit. Usually, any contributor may edit the template's
documentation to add usage notes or
categories.
Any contributor may edit the template's sandbox. Functionality of the template can be checked using test cases. |
Apparently there are unwritten rules for usage of this. They should be written down. ( SEWilco 17:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC))
Can you use this on behalf of other users? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RedsBot 2 ( talk • contribs).
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? Mango juice talk 14:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. SQL Query me! 15:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
Could some administrator include a link to Swedish Wikipedia, using [sv:Mall:Avblockering] . Best regards Ulner ( talk) 08:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
{{
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.
I'm the admin who put that in there. You'd be surprised at how many people try copy and paste {{Request accepted}} into their own talk thinking that it'll automatically unblock them. I'm hoping that there is something that can be written there to reduce that. -- Netsnipe ► 06:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
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)
As an admin frequently patrolling CAT:RFU, I've written a guide to appealing blocks which I think reflects our current practice. Are there any objections to adding something like the following to the "Notes" section or to some other space within the template?
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.
Best, Sandstein 21:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Add please [[ro:Format:Deblocare]] in the interwiki links list. Thank you! Daniel Message 14:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
I frequently see unblock requests from editors (or socks) protesting their innocence, or claiming that the checkuser results are wrong, or offering some esotetic explaination as to why the checkuser would see that this account and 12 others were run by the same IP, and so on. I'm thinking that it might be worthwhile to add a parameter to this template that would flag an unblock request requiring a Checkuser's expertise. It might be something as simple as {{unblock|1=Your reason here|c}}. The "c" would add the request to Category:Requests for unblock requiring Checkuser attention, which could in turn be monitored. Am I overthinking this? UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 19:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
{{editprotected}}
This template currently tests to make sure it's on a user talk page, and only if so does it add the page to
Category:Requests for unblock. This means that if a user accidentally puts the request for unblock on their user page instead of their talk page, the request will silently fail—admins will not be alerted to the request. This should be changed: either the template should work if placed on the user page, or the template should display a warning if placed in the wrong namespace.
User:Citation bot has been blocked for several days due to this "bug" in the template.--
Srleffler (
talk)
23:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
What is the point of this? If a user can only edit their own talk page while blocked, and not their userpage, how would this even occur? Cirt ( talk) 07:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
"If the block was on the basis of the use of the checkuser tool and the checkuser finding is disputed, this request should be brought to the attention of a checkuser rather than declined out of hand" - any objections? -- Random832 ( contribs) 20:37, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
I've changed "can" to "may" in "If you accept the request (note that you can NOT unblock your own account), replace...", since it's technically possible to unblock oneself while blocked if one is an admin, but obviously it's not allowed. Nyttend ( talk) 02:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Please change
[http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Special%3AGlobalBlockList&ip={{PAGENAMEE}} global blocks]
to
[{{fullurl:Special:GlobalBlockList|ip={{PAGENAMEE}}}} global blocks]
so that users of the secure server are not needlessly taken to the non-secure server and vice-versa. Thanks.— C45207 | Talk 05:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
It says "edit the text" but it should say "add text".
Chevy
Impala
2009
17:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
May I ask why a block may be placed on hold only by an administrator? Sometimes a non-sysop may wish to delay an imminent rejection of an unblock request in order to comment, maybe a non-sysop version of unblock-on-hold could be added, or unblock-on-hold be modified to allow this? — what a crazy random happenstance 07:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
Jpgordon, I think your <p> addition broke the template. Peoples' unblock requests are not showing up inside the template itself.
mechamind
9
0
18:22, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
1=
is added before the reason, i.e. {{unblock|1=Your reason here}}
. —
DoRD (
talk)
01:10, 31 July 2010 (UTC)The instructions for accepting an unblock request seem to be broken. If they're not broken, what is the point of replacing the template with {{tlx|1=unblock|2=reason}}?? Kaldari ( talk) 17:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Why aren't we hiding the "administrator" part of the unblock notice? Seems it would reduce a lot of the common occurrence of blocked editors attempting (generally out of ignorance, rather than bad behavior) to unblock (etc) themselves. Then we could also make the admin-only part uglier, like have a big noisy "OFFICIAL USE ONLY" section. -- jpgordon ::==( o ) 18:30, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
The ugliness of this template has bugged me for years, especially the layout. I have prepared an overhauled version in the sandbox. Any comments are welcome. — Edokter • Talk • 16:57, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
I finished all messages ({{ unblock}}, {{ unblock on hold}}, {{ unblock reviewed}} and {{ request accepted}}); they now have a consistent look, but maybe too consistent? I need more eyes and comments. Have a look at the test cases page. — Edokter • Talk • 20:44, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Looks good. But shouldn't "a user may not in fact be blocked, or their block may be expired" be rephrased as "you may not in fact be blocked, or your block may be expired"? The rest of the paragraph also directly addresses the blocked user. Also, "Note that misuse of the unblock request procedure may result in the removal of your talk page editing privileges for the duration of your block" could perhaps be made to sound less bureaucratic: "If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page as long as you are blocked." Sandstein 18:07, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
I also added a "handled=1" example to the test page. Could that perhaps be made to look distinct from an unhandled request, such as e.g. by decoloring it and omitting the admin instructions? Sandstein 18:12, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
{{unblock reviewed|1=reason|accept=reason}}
, and we could indeed get rid of {Request accepted}, and even {unblock|handled=1}. —
Edokter •
Talk •
13:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)accept=
parameter. When the instructions are followed, there will be only one box during all stages of the unblock request. —
Edokter •
Talk •
15:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Hm, in practice, the color doesn't work very well; it blends in with the declined unblock requests, and the block notices themselves, which makes it harder to scan a talk page and figure out where exactly the request is. Perhaps a return to the previous blue would be better. -- jpgordon ::==( o ) 15:34, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
By any chance, will such an overhaul be performed on the Username and Autoblock templates? mechamind 9 0 00:50, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
I have slightly modified the colors of {{ unblock on hold}} so that the template catches the eye more easily, like it is intended to do. Access Denied – talk to me 04:12, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
See Wikipedia_talk:Template_messages/User_talk_namespace#Redesign_block_templates. Access Denied – talk to me 05:20, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
I suggest replacing "<tt><nowiki>{{subst:Unblock on hold-notification | 1={{BASEPAGENAME}}}}</nowiki></tt>" with
"<tt>{{subst:Unblock on hold-notification|1={{BASEPAGENAME}}}}</tt>", which will simply change "BASEPAGENAME" to the current username itself. Click the "edit" button to see what I mean. mechamind 9 0 08:30, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
{{
BASEPAGENAME}}
, so it should still be safe. Besides, copying and pasting from there when it still says {{
BASEPAGENAME}}
will just lead the administrator to their own pages, not the ones of the blocked user. My proposal allows for it to be directly copied from the template as displayed on the blocked user's talk page to the administrator's page.
mechamind
9
0
21:22, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
<pre>
and </pre>
tags; that way it won't distort the output. —
Edokter •
Talk —
20:57, 24 December 2010 (UTC)I should reccommend that the option used if administrators disables the user's ability to edit own talk page with this template, if he proposes an unblock which is abusive. Garygoh884 ( talk) 12:03, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
This page is the top hit for google:Wikipedia unblock, and we point all blocked users at this template page. To avoid confusing readers, can we hide the template from the top so they first focus on the instructions, and then transclude the template into the documentation with ' Example' as the dummy user instead ' Unblock'. John Vandenberg ( chat) 00:03, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
I've made two changes to the instructions for putting the request on hold. Firstly I've made it clear you need to add the name of the blocking admin, since I've seen this used with the words 'blocking admin' left in. Secondly I've removed the instruction about Template:Unblock on hold-notification, which no long exists. Olaf Davis ( talk) 11:34, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Hey, I'd like to get consensus for changing the template to [1]. The current wording may be seen as very confusing to a non-Wikipedian, and when a (possibly long) list comes up, it won't be clear to them what to do. Also, this makes it easier for admins to check as well, to see if a short block has already expired. User:DoRD, mind if you take a look at this? Thanks, Lixxx235 Got a complaint? 15:14, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please replace with the current version of the sandbox ( diff) to hide the checkuser links from non-checkusers. Thanks, -- DannyS712 ( talk) 19:49, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
I am proposing replacing the current clock image,
, with the very similar
. The advantage of the latter is that it is licensed under CC0, so the link could be suppressed to avoid confusing readers. This change would also be made to:
--
Ahecht (
TALK
PAGE)
21:07, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This template is causing obsolete HTML lint errors because it uses obsolete <tt>
tags. I have created a new version in
Template:Unblock/sandbox. Please copy that wikitext into
Template:Unblock. —
Anomalocaris (
talk)
09:48, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
The list at CAT:RFU often contains entries that currently do not require attention from administrators. The "administrative backlog" template is then also displayed incorrectly, without there actually being a noticeable backlog.
When an administrator replies to an unblock request without accepting or declining it, there should be a way for the administrator to temporarily remove the request from CAT:RFU, until the user has answered the question.
The most user-friendly and simple way to implement this might be an "idletimestamp" parameter. It is filled with {{ subst:CURRENTTIMESTAMP}} by the administrator. If the "idletimestamp" parameter is equal to {{ REVISIONTIMESTAMP}}, a subcategory ("Unblock requests awaiting response from the blocked user") replaces CAT:RFU. ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 22:50, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
I have implemented and documented the parameter now; there are currently 11 user talk pages in the new category, " Category:Requests_for_unblock_awaiting_response_from_the_blocked_user". Worth it. Thank you very much for the detailed feedback and questions; let's see how this works out in practice. The parameter has been added to {{ unblock-spamun}} and {{ unblock-un}} as well. ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 05:25, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change <samp>blocking administrator</samp>
to {{mono|blocking administrator}}
This markup was installed as a result of an edit request I made a year ago, to get rid of the obsolete HTML <tt>...</tt>
. At that time I believed <samp>...</samp>
was the correct replacement, but I was wrong; that markup is reserved for computer output. Here, we need the generic monospaced markup. There is no effect on the display. It's just for "correctness".
Also, please change two occurrences of {{subst:Accept reason here}}
to Accept reason here
, which were installed as a result of the same edit request I made. This is to restore it to the way it was before and undo the confusion, as {{subst:...}}
doesn't belong here.
— Anomalocaris ( talk) 22:03, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
<nowiki>...</nowiki>
markup! —
Anomalocaris (
talk)
07:37, 6 January 2021 (UTC)FYI, a related response template, Template:Ipberemoved ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated for deletion -- 65.92.246.142 ( talk) 02:25, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
OK, now this template is having the same problem as "unblock reviewed" used to: punctuation (a colon, an equals sign) before the template breaks the formatting. I brought this up in January at Template talk:Unblock reviewed#Can this be fixed?. The problem appears to be metastasizing. I'm not sure what the source of this is, but I imagine it's the result of the message a blocked user gets? --jpgordon 𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 15:01, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Remove "blocked" from "This blocked user's is asking..." as it is redundant since it mentions it's an unblock request. foo bar baz 09:25, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Template:Unblock,
Template:Unblock reviewed and
Template:Unblock on hold has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add the relevant TfM templates linking to
Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2023_August_11#Unblock_templates. <noinclude>
{{subst:tfm|Unblock}}
</noinclude>
Aasim -
Herrscher of Wikis ❄️
19:52, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Description of suggested change:
Diff:
− | + | CHANGED_TEXT |
87.1.48.40 ( talk) 15:09, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Draft:Gaetano_Minale?fbclid=IwAR1hUdAs248Zr1naKwLqEQSWbwNIkaE5NE9yx26utL-slYQjLKnadZoi4pA
chiedo sblocco
Please unblock my transaction from binance account to another wallet 117.20.116.225 ( talk) 11:23, 23 February 2024 (UTC)