Template talk:Unblock reviewed

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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? Mangojuicetalk 16:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The category is not necessarily meant to be easy to maintain, it exists mainly to make Category:Requests for unblock much easier to manage, but also to preserve a record of why someone had their request knocked back, and to allow for other admins to come and review blocks. See old discussion here and here.
It can probably be safely removed when the person is unblocked (because the template only carries information about a block in progress), or if they want to withdraw it, or (if they are blocked indefinitely) when some nice person prunes it. --bainer (talk) 17:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Sensible. I've added a note to the bottom saying the template should be removed when the block expires, or after 2 days. That way, if the tags are removed when they should be, the category won't be full of irrelevant, stale unblock requests. Mangojuicetalk 18:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] the "NO REASON GIVEN" text

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)

I'm not sure what you mean; if there is no reason given for the unblock request, "no reason given" will show up. If you want to leave that blank while filling in a decline reason, you can do "{{unblock reviewed|2=[decline reason]}}". Mangojuicetalk 14:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I think it might use the #if statement. I don't know if there's an else statement there. I will have to look it up. The way it is, probably a blank one would hit the whatever kind of else statement mediawiki has and then say no decline reason given. Anomo 23:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category deleted

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)

[edit] What constitutes abuse?

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)

Are you asking about abuse of this template ({{Unblock reviewed}}) or the reminder about abuse of the template usually used first, {{Unblock}}? See Template talk:Unblock for the current discussion about lack of documentation of those rules. (SEWilco 18:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC))

[edit] PAGENAMEE vs BASEPAGENAMEE

{{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)

It seems to me that the right thing to do is to use this code:
{{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>PAGENAME}}
which substitutes the page name when the template is placed. This makes sense since the template it only meant to be substituted. CMummert · talk 01:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
That would work too, as long as users remembered to substitute the template. But it should be {{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>PAGENAMEE}} because we're using it to form URIs and PAGENAMEE is how you get a URI-friendly string. You might want to read meta:Help:Variable, which talks about this. —Remember the dot (talk) 03:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
It looks like this template is often not substituted, based on the backlinks. I'll change it to BASEPAGENAMEE for now. It seems to me that the ideal solution would be for this template to be auto-substitutted by a bot, like other templates are. I thought it was standard to substitute every user talk page template - hmm. CMummert · talk 11:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I made the change, but I don't really like it. It only fixes the problem for single-level archives. I would much rather see a substituted template. CMummert · talk 12:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Some templates on talk pages are not substituted, and for good reason. Templates such as Template:ISP and Template:SharedIPEDU are boilerplate notices that are not substituted so that any improvements to the wording of the template show up on the talk pages. This is probably one of the reasons why there is no bot to mindlessly subst all templates on talk pages. —Remember the dot (talk) 19:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why remove?

"This template should be removed when the block has expired, or after 2 days in the case of blocks of 1 week or longer."

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)

Hm.. I think you're correct, so I removed it. There's really no point to removing these now. Mangojuicetalk 20:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit request

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.Tellyaddict 15:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Visible?

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. -- Kendrick7talk 20:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Personally I never thought this sentence could be misunderstood, why not "This template must not be removed"? -- lucasbfr talk 21:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I see no problem with that statement, and making a category would be fairly futile, because the cat would be hundreds deep and unnavigable. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 21:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree that a category is impossible. I'm terribly sorry for screwing up IRC or what have you, I should have checked the links. I never kept up on who won the subst wars, but I suppose in this case at least bots don't clean up and delink from the active template.
Anyway, if the statement on visibility isn't intending to be confusing, it certain doesn't actually add anything. -- Kendrick7talk 21:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I think the statement should be removed, it's misleading. It's technically true (and yes, one can even search for them by following "what links here" from Template:Unblock reviewed) but I don't think it's right to deliberately confuse people. I also don't think we should have instructions saying to add a new {{unblock}} template for further review: they'll figure that out themselves, plus WP:BEANS applies. I do want to note that a category should definitely NOT be created; there was one before but it got deleted: (CfD). Mangojuicetalk 15:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
OK, and that category deletion postdates this wording; see [3]. So that was clearly what "visible" meant at one time, that the template put the talk page in that category. Per Mango, I'll remove the wording again. -- Kendrick7talk 23:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] maximum of two per year?

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? -- Kendrick7talk 22:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, added this. -- Kendrick7talk 07:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Heya, just noticed the change. It's a good point. One problem: suppose somebody gets four short blocks in a year; would appealing each of those blocks once take them over the limit? Granted, the prior version didn't mention any factor of time, so that same ambiguity would still have been present, anyway. Shifted it to "per block or per year," since that seems to get a slightly more specific message across without being too wordy. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:33, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Good thought. I tweaked it slightly. -- Kendrick7talk 23:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)