![]() | This template was considered for deletion on 11 August 2023. The result of the discussion was "keep". |
Hey -- I have some concerns about this process. It seemed like a good idea at first, but when is the {{ unblock reviewed}} tag supposed to be removed? If never, the category will just fill up endlessly. I would put a {{ adminbacklog}} tag on Category:Reviewed requests for unblock, but I'm not sure what we're supposed to do about it. Any thoughts? Mango juice talk 16:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Is there a way to get that to show up if the reviewed reason is blank? I'm not that good with wiki code so I am curious. Anomo 13:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
It was decided at CFD to delete Category:Reviewed requests for unblock which this template put pages into, since no one was maintaining it. Discussion is here. the wub "?!" 12:38, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
What exactly consitutes abuse of the unblock-review template? Is there a maximum number of times it can be used, or a minimum period between uses? Or is it at admins' discretion? -- Mel Etitis ( Talk) 17:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}} This template currently uses {{PAGENAMEE}} instead of {{BASEPAGENAMEE}}. This causes problems in archives such as User talk:82.148.97.69/Archive 1, where the "block log" link points to [1] instead of [2]. Could an admin please replace all instances of {{PAGENAMEE}} with {{BASEPAGENAMEE}} in this template? — Remember the dot ( talk) 21:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Why?
From what I can gather, this line is a reference to the fact that the template used to put pages in Category:Reviewed requests for unblock, but as that doesn't happen anymore, I think this line can be removed outright. Am I correct, or am I missing something? EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Could an admin please add <noinclude>{{pp-semi-template}}</noinclude> to to the top so people no its Semi Protected, it wont let me edit it because even though my account is older than four days it has cascading protection enabled on it, thank you. Telly addict 15:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Look people, it's simply misleading to use that word here. Of course the template is "visible"; nearly all our templates are visible and they don't require pedantically pointing that fact out. Instead, the usage here strongly implies the template actually adds the user's page to a list somewhere, which is probably historically what this sentence actually meant. I'd be happy with wording less misleading, like "This template remains present" but I'm not sure what that even means. -- Kendrick7 talk 20:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I was looking at the current wording "maximum of two" and thinking that as so many bans are of indefinite duration, we should be considering some allowance for periodic re-applications for unblock. If I'm indef blocked tomorrow, do I use one right away, and wait ten years and cross my fingers? And maybe make the final request on my deathbed so I can die as an editor in good standing? I was thinking "two per year" would strike a reasonable balance. Thoughts? -- Kendrick7 talk 22:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
Please add [[ro:Format:Deblocare revizuită]] in the interwiki list. Thank you. Daniel Message 15:24, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to change the background color of this template, so that it's easier to discern between open and reviewed unblock requests. Something like
I don't particularly care which color. I'd rather not use the light pink color, since that's too closely associated with warnings. And since it tends to be a big template, some very light color is probably best.
Opinions?
Amalthea
10:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
{{
editprotected|Template:Unblock reviewed}}
There is a space before the last ) in the string of links. –
BuickCentury
Driver
20:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
{{ edit protected}}
Please replace this code:
{{#if:{{{2|{{{decline|<noinclude>non-empty</noinclude>}}}}}}|<hr/><p style="margin-left:2em;">Decline reason: "{{{2|{{{decline}}}}}}"</p>|}}
With this code:
{{#if:{{{2|{{{decline|{{{declined|{{{reviewed|{{{review|<noinclude>non-empty</noinclude>}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}|<hr/><p style="margin-left:2em;">Decline reason: "{{{2|{{{decline|{{{declined|{{{reviewed|{{{review}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}"</p>|}}
I request this as there have been instances in the past where admins have used things like 'declined' or 'reviewed' in place of what the template suggests, such as here. I'm sure there are others out there, this modification would fix any such potential, or standing, errors.— Dæ dαlus Contribs 11:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
{{
edit protected}}
template. -
Rjd0060 (
talk)
14:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Furthermore, the current template says for the remainder of the block. That implies that the block will never be "indefinite" status. That should probably be removed. mechamind 9 0 20:35, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
{{ edit protected}} Remove "for the duration of your block" from the lower line. Some blocks are indefinite. mechamind 9 0 01:48, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
There is no reason for an indef blocked user, or especially a banned user, who still has talk page rights, not to remove the template. The reason remains in the history and we should not be "scarlet lettering" people for punitive reasons. For a temporary block, it makes more sense, IMO. If someone abuses the template (repeated unblock requests) then indef or not, they lose their talkpage privs, and the note can remain. -- Avi ( talk) 00:30, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
The text Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. needs to be made bold, like it was on the previous layout/version of this template.—
Dæ
dαlus
Contribs
06:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
I say use an Exclamation Mark instead. mechamind 9 0 22:22, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
The "has" at the beginning of the message should probably be "has had". The current case contains a grammatical error.
mechamind
9
0
22:34, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
{{
editrequested}}
I think "the guide to appealing blocks" generally is considered to be a more neutral wording than "our guide to appealing blocks". Also, the link to "administrator" should be Wikipedia:Administrators. Also, WP:GAB should be changed to Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks. Thanks in advance. Hey Mid ( contributions) 15:50, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure whether it's correct to say "who declined the request". As the request is about this one, I think it should be "who declined this request", as the user may make more than simply one unblock request during his/her block. Maybe the whole first sentence should be copyedited to say "This unblock request by this blocked user has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined this request." Eventually, there should also be an {{{administrator}}} parameter so that it may say "...has been reviewed by administrator [username]", if the administrator parameter is specified. Hey Mid ( contributions) 13:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
The "blocking policy" part is wiki-linked to an outdated subsection in Wikipedia:Blocking policy, which is no longer there. I therefore suggest removing that subsection part in the wiki-link and instead simply link to Wikipedia:Blocking policy. However, is there a corresponding part or subsection in the current blocking policy context? Hey Mid ( contribs) 12:21, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Can anyone fix the template so it works correctly in archives, such as User talk:MickMacNee/Archive/2010? I tried replacing PAGENAME with BASEPAGENAME, but that didn't go all the way back to the user.-- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:12, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
It has been a long time since the icon in the template is used. Could it be changed please? Replace
with
. Thanks.
StormContent (
talk)
14:12, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Here's an example.
{{unblock reviewed | 1=Comment below | decline=See the octagon on the top-left? I'm replacing the ordinary Octagon X with the new X icon because what if everyone thinks of this: "This unblock template looks fine with us, but after such a long time of usage of the icon in the template, it may be a little boring, so we make changes to unblock reviewed and add a new icon to make this template newer."? So, is it OK with you or no? StormContent ( talk) 20:36, 24 July 2011 (UTC) }}
I've come across a few situations where community sanctioned, or ArbCom/WP:AE restricted editors use {{unblock}} when it's inappropriate. They get told read the relevant policy (which says, on another page, not to use {{unblock}}), but the {{unblock reviewed}} template on their page by default implies that they can use it again.
As a concrete suggestion could a switch be added to {{unblock reviewed}} to change the message at the bottom of the box to say: "If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks." Rather than "If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page for as long as you are blocked."
This would help reduce confusion and stop editors who are panicking from having their talk page access revoked-- Cailil talk 15:49, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
The template breaks when an unblock request is accepted. Can somebody see what's happening and fix it? See User_talk:SoapFan12#October_2013 for an example. — ΛΧΣ 21 16:13, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
The link to the autoblock finder needs to be updated to https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/autoblock/index.php. I'd do it myself but will more likely than not mess something up. Cheers,-- Jezebel'sPonyo bons mots 20:38, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Replace
[//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/autoblock/?u={{BASEPAGENAMEE}} autoblocks]
with
[//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/autoblock/?user={{BASEPAGENAMEE}} autoblocks]
Otherwise the autoblock check will take you to the "X!'s Tools" form without submitting a check directly.
See
old code vs.
new code.
Meteor_sandwich_yum (
talk)
13:40, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Currently the background color of the template is not showing up on the mobile version of our site. Could anyone take a look a this and hopefully fix it? Tvx1 ( talk) 04:37, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There is a minor typo in the template, similar to this one. The template does work as-is, but depends on some unusual behavior of template parsing which could very well change at some point. Basically, the template only works by accident currently, so I think the typo should be fixed. I have fixed the other templates similar to this one with the same typo (presumably copy-pasted from the original) but since this one is template protected, I cannot fix it. -- Khgtcv ( talk) 00:24, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The sentence at the bottom of this template containing what is on the order of a parenthetic expression needs a second comma. The comma should be inserted after the bolded word "first". I've applied the requested changes to the sandbox of this template. — Godsy( TALK CONT) 23:47, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
I'd like another option besides "decline" and "accept", for procedural declines; or maybe another template like "unblock closed". (Users are not supposed to delete declines, but there's no reason not to delete the procedural ones.) And glancing at a page full of procedural declines gives perhaps a more negative impression than necessary. Does this make any sense? --jpgordon 𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 04:36, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Nominator withdrawn ( non-admin closure). B dash ( talk) 02:43, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Template:Unblock reviewed →
Template:Unblock declined – The word "reviewed" is ambiguous, because after the admin reviewed someone's unblock request, they can either accepted or declined the request.
B dash (
talk)
07:01, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
I'd like see added the checkuser link, same as on the unblock template. I'd do it myself, but I'm not all that good with spans and such to get the link sizes right. It would save a step or two when I want to check on an already declined unblock. It's additional clutter, but only for us checkusers. --jpgordon 𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 16:37, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
This template currently uses
File:Orologio verde.svg and
File:Orologio rosso.svg, which are licensed with an attribution-required license, but doesn't link to the source page at Wikimedia Commons as required. There are CC0 versions of these icons which don't require any attribution or link at
File:Appointment green.svg and
File:Appointment red.svg. Any objections to switching this template (as well as
Template:Unblock-un reviewed and
Template:Unblock-auto reviewed) over to the slightly different public-domain versions of those icons? --
Ahecht (
TALK
PAGE)
15:40, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
See
Template talk:Unblock#Creating an "idletimestamp" parameter.
~ ToBeFree (
talk)
23:05, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Right now, we've got only "approve" and "decline". But I'd like to have a third option, for procedural declines. The most common situation I'd want it for is "This IP/account isn't blocked". I consider it unpleasant to decline an unblock request, and it's certainly unpleasant to have such a request declined, but of course it's the most common response to unblock requests. It would be nice to deal with "procedural declines" with out having to say "NO". (Maybe I'm too sensitive, I dunno.) --jpgordon 𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 04:36, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
When the template is used on an "accept" unblock, it leaves standard verbiage "If you want to make any further unblock requests..." Why would an unblocked user want to make further unblock requests? Are we inviting editors to further "misbehave" so they can be blocked and unblocked again? Is there a way to have different verbiage at the end of the template depending on whether or not the unblock request is declined or accepted? Thanks! 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 23:58, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
There's something that happens on Template:Unblock reviewed that doesn't happen on Template:unblock. Specifically, if there's an indentation colon before the request, the formatting gets messed up. I can't show an example on this page because the unblock reviewed template won't let me use it on this page! You can take a look at it in action here. Maybe there's a premature div ending or something? Anyway, you can test it simply by putting a : as the first thing in the source to this template. --jpgordon 𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 06:05, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
<pre>...</pre>
tags. If necessary, you are welcome to post a sample on my talk page. –
Jonesey95 (
talk)
05:19, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
<span id="rfu"></span>
, which is indented, followed on a new line by the first div tag. We could do something like that in this template as a workaround if it made sense for this template to have an id associated with it. –
Jonesey95 (
talk)
14:57, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
<span id="rfu_something"></span>
would make the problem go away, can we do it please? Are span ids in short supply?I have recently noticed that the note regarding further unblock requests and revocation of TPA that appears at the bottom of the template has somehow inexplicably disappeared? Text in question is as follows:
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired.
The diff of the edit that removed such text is [4] with ES "remove autoblock link as it does not function". The code for the text in question is still there in the current diff, so I suspect there may be a syntax error that causes it to not appear at the bottom of the div. Could someone please investigate and fix? -- DL6443 ( Talk/ Contribs) 22:10, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
I'd like to suggest that the Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked notice be moved from the top to the bottom of the box. My rationale is that the top section otherwise is a notice to other users and admins: This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy)
; while the bottom section is instructions for the blocked user: If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the unblock template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired.
I think it would make it more visible to the affected user.
--jpgordon
𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇
18:02, 2 April 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 unblock request..." as it is redundant since it mentions it's an unblock request. foo bar baz 09:24, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I have seen a number of blocked users trying to modify their declined unblocked requests - some of the most recent ones being this edit and this edit. Such edits can be disruptive. Hence, I would like to suggest that the Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked notice be changed to Do not remove or modify this unblock review while you are blocked instead. That way, edits such as those I linked at the start of my request are less likely to happen again. SG5536B ( talk) 01:06, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This template was considered for deletion on 11 August 2023. The result of the discussion was "keep". |
Hey -- I have some concerns about this process. It seemed like a good idea at first, but when is the {{ unblock reviewed}} tag supposed to be removed? If never, the category will just fill up endlessly. I would put a {{ adminbacklog}} tag on Category:Reviewed requests for unblock, but I'm not sure what we're supposed to do about it. Any thoughts? Mango juice talk 16:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Is there a way to get that to show up if the reviewed reason is blank? I'm not that good with wiki code so I am curious. Anomo 13:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
It was decided at CFD to delete Category:Reviewed requests for unblock which this template put pages into, since no one was maintaining it. Discussion is here. the wub "?!" 12:38, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
What exactly consitutes abuse of the unblock-review template? Is there a maximum number of times it can be used, or a minimum period between uses? Or is it at admins' discretion? -- Mel Etitis ( Talk) 17:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}} This template currently uses {{PAGENAMEE}} instead of {{BASEPAGENAMEE}}. This causes problems in archives such as User talk:82.148.97.69/Archive 1, where the "block log" link points to [1] instead of [2]. Could an admin please replace all instances of {{PAGENAMEE}} with {{BASEPAGENAMEE}} in this template? — Remember the dot ( talk) 21:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Why?
From what I can gather, this line is a reference to the fact that the template used to put pages in Category:Reviewed requests for unblock, but as that doesn't happen anymore, I think this line can be removed outright. Am I correct, or am I missing something? EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Could an admin please add <noinclude>{{pp-semi-template}}</noinclude> to to the top so people no its Semi Protected, it wont let me edit it because even though my account is older than four days it has cascading protection enabled on it, thank you. Telly addict 15:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Look people, it's simply misleading to use that word here. Of course the template is "visible"; nearly all our templates are visible and they don't require pedantically pointing that fact out. Instead, the usage here strongly implies the template actually adds the user's page to a list somewhere, which is probably historically what this sentence actually meant. I'd be happy with wording less misleading, like "This template remains present" but I'm not sure what that even means. -- Kendrick7 talk 20:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I was looking at the current wording "maximum of two" and thinking that as so many bans are of indefinite duration, we should be considering some allowance for periodic re-applications for unblock. If I'm indef blocked tomorrow, do I use one right away, and wait ten years and cross my fingers? And maybe make the final request on my deathbed so I can die as an editor in good standing? I was thinking "two per year" would strike a reasonable balance. Thoughts? -- Kendrick7 talk 22:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
Please add [[ro:Format:Deblocare revizuită]] in the interwiki list. Thank you. Daniel Message 15:24, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to change the background color of this template, so that it's easier to discern between open and reviewed unblock requests. Something like
I don't particularly care which color. I'd rather not use the light pink color, since that's too closely associated with warnings. And since it tends to be a big template, some very light color is probably best.
Opinions?
Amalthea
10:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
{{
editprotected|Template:Unblock reviewed}}
There is a space before the last ) in the string of links. –
BuickCentury
Driver
20:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
{{ edit protected}}
Please replace this code:
{{#if:{{{2|{{{decline|<noinclude>non-empty</noinclude>}}}}}}|<hr/><p style="margin-left:2em;">Decline reason: "{{{2|{{{decline}}}}}}"</p>|}}
With this code:
{{#if:{{{2|{{{decline|{{{declined|{{{reviewed|{{{review|<noinclude>non-empty</noinclude>}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}|<hr/><p style="margin-left:2em;">Decline reason: "{{{2|{{{decline|{{{declined|{{{reviewed|{{{review}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}"</p>|}}
I request this as there have been instances in the past where admins have used things like 'declined' or 'reviewed' in place of what the template suggests, such as here. I'm sure there are others out there, this modification would fix any such potential, or standing, errors.— Dæ dαlus Contribs 11:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
{{
edit protected}}
template. -
Rjd0060 (
talk)
14:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Furthermore, the current template says for the remainder of the block. That implies that the block will never be "indefinite" status. That should probably be removed. mechamind 9 0 20:35, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
{{ edit protected}} Remove "for the duration of your block" from the lower line. Some blocks are indefinite. mechamind 9 0 01:48, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
There is no reason for an indef blocked user, or especially a banned user, who still has talk page rights, not to remove the template. The reason remains in the history and we should not be "scarlet lettering" people for punitive reasons. For a temporary block, it makes more sense, IMO. If someone abuses the template (repeated unblock requests) then indef or not, they lose their talkpage privs, and the note can remain. -- Avi ( talk) 00:30, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
The text Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. needs to be made bold, like it was on the previous layout/version of this template.—
Dæ
dαlus
Contribs
06:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
I say use an Exclamation Mark instead. mechamind 9 0 22:22, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
The "has" at the beginning of the message should probably be "has had". The current case contains a grammatical error.
mechamind
9
0
22:34, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
{{
editrequested}}
I think "the guide to appealing blocks" generally is considered to be a more neutral wording than "our guide to appealing blocks". Also, the link to "administrator" should be Wikipedia:Administrators. Also, WP:GAB should be changed to Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks. Thanks in advance. Hey Mid ( contributions) 15:50, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure whether it's correct to say "who declined the request". As the request is about this one, I think it should be "who declined this request", as the user may make more than simply one unblock request during his/her block. Maybe the whole first sentence should be copyedited to say "This unblock request by this blocked user has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined this request." Eventually, there should also be an {{{administrator}}} parameter so that it may say "...has been reviewed by administrator [username]", if the administrator parameter is specified. Hey Mid ( contributions) 13:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
The "blocking policy" part is wiki-linked to an outdated subsection in Wikipedia:Blocking policy, which is no longer there. I therefore suggest removing that subsection part in the wiki-link and instead simply link to Wikipedia:Blocking policy. However, is there a corresponding part or subsection in the current blocking policy context? Hey Mid ( contribs) 12:21, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Can anyone fix the template so it works correctly in archives, such as User talk:MickMacNee/Archive/2010? I tried replacing PAGENAME with BASEPAGENAME, but that didn't go all the way back to the user.-- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:12, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
It has been a long time since the icon in the template is used. Could it be changed please? Replace
with
. Thanks.
StormContent (
talk)
14:12, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Here's an example.
{{unblock reviewed | 1=Comment below | decline=See the octagon on the top-left? I'm replacing the ordinary Octagon X with the new X icon because what if everyone thinks of this: "This unblock template looks fine with us, but after such a long time of usage of the icon in the template, it may be a little boring, so we make changes to unblock reviewed and add a new icon to make this template newer."? So, is it OK with you or no? StormContent ( talk) 20:36, 24 July 2011 (UTC) }}
I've come across a few situations where community sanctioned, or ArbCom/WP:AE restricted editors use {{unblock}} when it's inappropriate. They get told read the relevant policy (which says, on another page, not to use {{unblock}}), but the {{unblock reviewed}} template on their page by default implies that they can use it again.
As a concrete suggestion could a switch be added to {{unblock reviewed}} to change the message at the bottom of the box to say: "If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks." Rather than "If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page for as long as you are blocked."
This would help reduce confusion and stop editors who are panicking from having their talk page access revoked-- Cailil talk 15:49, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
The template breaks when an unblock request is accepted. Can somebody see what's happening and fix it? See User_talk:SoapFan12#October_2013 for an example. — ΛΧΣ 21 16:13, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
The link to the autoblock finder needs to be updated to https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/autoblock/index.php. I'd do it myself but will more likely than not mess something up. Cheers,-- Jezebel'sPonyo bons mots 20:38, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Replace
[//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/autoblock/?u={{BASEPAGENAMEE}} autoblocks]
with
[//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/autoblock/?user={{BASEPAGENAMEE}} autoblocks]
Otherwise the autoblock check will take you to the "X!'s Tools" form without submitting a check directly.
See
old code vs.
new code.
Meteor_sandwich_yum (
talk)
13:40, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Currently the background color of the template is not showing up on the mobile version of our site. Could anyone take a look a this and hopefully fix it? Tvx1 ( talk) 04:37, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There is a minor typo in the template, similar to this one. The template does work as-is, but depends on some unusual behavior of template parsing which could very well change at some point. Basically, the template only works by accident currently, so I think the typo should be fixed. I have fixed the other templates similar to this one with the same typo (presumably copy-pasted from the original) but since this one is template protected, I cannot fix it. -- Khgtcv ( talk) 00:24, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The sentence at the bottom of this template containing what is on the order of a parenthetic expression needs a second comma. The comma should be inserted after the bolded word "first". I've applied the requested changes to the sandbox of this template. — Godsy( TALK CONT) 23:47, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
I'd like another option besides "decline" and "accept", for procedural declines; or maybe another template like "unblock closed". (Users are not supposed to delete declines, but there's no reason not to delete the procedural ones.) And glancing at a page full of procedural declines gives perhaps a more negative impression than necessary. Does this make any sense? --jpgordon 𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 04:36, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Nominator withdrawn ( non-admin closure). B dash ( talk) 02:43, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Template:Unblock reviewed →
Template:Unblock declined – The word "reviewed" is ambiguous, because after the admin reviewed someone's unblock request, they can either accepted or declined the request.
B dash (
talk)
07:01, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
I'd like see added the checkuser link, same as on the unblock template. I'd do it myself, but I'm not all that good with spans and such to get the link sizes right. It would save a step or two when I want to check on an already declined unblock. It's additional clutter, but only for us checkusers. --jpgordon 𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 16:37, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
This template currently uses
File:Orologio verde.svg and
File:Orologio rosso.svg, which are licensed with an attribution-required license, but doesn't link to the source page at Wikimedia Commons as required. There are CC0 versions of these icons which don't require any attribution or link at
File:Appointment green.svg and
File:Appointment red.svg. Any objections to switching this template (as well as
Template:Unblock-un reviewed and
Template:Unblock-auto reviewed) over to the slightly different public-domain versions of those icons? --
Ahecht (
TALK
PAGE)
15:40, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
See
Template talk:Unblock#Creating an "idletimestamp" parameter.
~ ToBeFree (
talk)
23:05, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Right now, we've got only "approve" and "decline". But I'd like to have a third option, for procedural declines. The most common situation I'd want it for is "This IP/account isn't blocked". I consider it unpleasant to decline an unblock request, and it's certainly unpleasant to have such a request declined, but of course it's the most common response to unblock requests. It would be nice to deal with "procedural declines" with out having to say "NO". (Maybe I'm too sensitive, I dunno.) --jpgordon 𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 04:36, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
When the template is used on an "accept" unblock, it leaves standard verbiage "If you want to make any further unblock requests..." Why would an unblocked user want to make further unblock requests? Are we inviting editors to further "misbehave" so they can be blocked and unblocked again? Is there a way to have different verbiage at the end of the template depending on whether or not the unblock request is declined or accepted? Thanks! 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 23:58, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
There's something that happens on Template:Unblock reviewed that doesn't happen on Template:unblock. Specifically, if there's an indentation colon before the request, the formatting gets messed up. I can't show an example on this page because the unblock reviewed template won't let me use it on this page! You can take a look at it in action here. Maybe there's a premature div ending or something? Anyway, you can test it simply by putting a : as the first thing in the source to this template. --jpgordon 𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 06:05, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
<pre>...</pre>
tags. If necessary, you are welcome to post a sample on my talk page. –
Jonesey95 (
talk)
05:19, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
<span id="rfu"></span>
, which is indented, followed on a new line by the first div tag. We could do something like that in this template as a workaround if it made sense for this template to have an id associated with it. –
Jonesey95 (
talk)
14:57, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
<span id="rfu_something"></span>
would make the problem go away, can we do it please? Are span ids in short supply?I have recently noticed that the note regarding further unblock requests and revocation of TPA that appears at the bottom of the template has somehow inexplicably disappeared? Text in question is as follows:
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired.
The diff of the edit that removed such text is [4] with ES "remove autoblock link as it does not function". The code for the text in question is still there in the current diff, so I suspect there may be a syntax error that causes it to not appear at the bottom of the div. Could someone please investigate and fix? -- DL6443 ( Talk/ Contribs) 22:10, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
I'd like to suggest that the Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked notice be moved from the top to the bottom of the box. My rationale is that the top section otherwise is a notice to other users and admins: This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy)
; while the bottom section is instructions for the blocked user: If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the unblock template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired.
I think it would make it more visible to the affected user.
--jpgordon
𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇
18:02, 2 April 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 unblock request..." as it is redundant since it mentions it's an unblock request. foo bar baz 09:24, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I have seen a number of blocked users trying to modify their declined unblocked requests - some of the most recent ones being this edit and this edit. Such edits can be disruptive. Hence, I would like to suggest that the Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked notice be changed to Do not remove or modify this unblock review while you are blocked instead. That way, edits such as those I linked at the start of my request are less likely to happen again. SG5536B ( talk) 01:06, 20 January 2024 (UTC)