Is this template and category actually useful? That is, users generally do contest the fact that they're blocked. And admins do check the block logs. So does this template actually help? Radiant_>|< 01:11, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience, yes. While most requests are bad faith, there are some valid ones, and I have already unblocked a few who were sincere in their apology and subsequently stopped vandalizing. It's also a useful tool for those who don't want to expose their email address, for whatever reason. Owen× ☎ 01:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I concur; this method is fairer and more open than emailing either the user who blocked you in the first place or a random name off a list. Most bad-faith requests don't even bother to supply an argument, and are easily denied with a polite form response. // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 04:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Am I missing something here? How can actually a user add this tag on his page if he's blocked? Misza13 ^{T C} 09:20, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only page a blocked user can still edit is his own User talk page. Owen× ☎ 12:56, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Usually admins protect a person's talk page when they ban them. Jackinthestock 09:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this was comment was removed by a bad faith edit by a bot Pgk. Jackinthestock 23:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To answer Misza13 on my talk page as I said I moved it here, if there was a template for previously denied unblocked it would be very easy to see. People who are denied unblocks will get their talk page locked. I saw this on Jimbo Wales's page and I hope this is policy now so my edit was not "some reverted test." Willy on Wheels is clearly not a bad vandal because he never got his talk pages locked. Jackinthestock 23:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is it fair that the admin that denies an unblock is the same that actually issued the block in the beginning?--151.47.87.229 00:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not, and smacks of plenary power and lack of oversight. - MSTCrow 16:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The malacious and vindictive block that was against me has now expired, due to the fact that no one appears to have reviewed my block within the 48 hour period. What do I do now, as the unblock request is still up, but as it was never handled, I don't want to just delete it without further review and input. Thanks. - MSTCrow 16:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To those users using the Google Web Accelerator (GWA) may be randomly blocked from editing due to abuse from others also using the GWA. The GWA works as a "middle man" (a proxy) to speed up web pages, and makes it appear to WP that you are at Google (where the blocked IP is).

If you are using GWA, click on the icon in your taskbar (near the time) and select Preferences. On the bottom of the page displayed, under Don't accelerate these websites add .wikipedia.org and click Save Preferences.

Guy M (soapbox) 14:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is anyone against me adding the parser functions to restrict the category from appearing unless the unblock template is used on a user talk page, to prevent possible abuse that I'm not going to describe for WP:BEANS. It won't be tested live. Kevin_b_er 05:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was just wondering how long the tag stays on my talk page. I was blocked for 24 hours on July 28. Does that just stay on my talk page forever now? Mattisse 13:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The template includes instructions that it should be removed when the block has expired, or after two days in the case of blocks longer than one week. Anyone may remove a tag after that time. I have now removed the tag for you. --bainer (talk) 13:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the message removed the tag I asked about above from my talk page. Was that action that caused the message banner to look like I was getting a message? If you don't answer, I'll assume that is the case.

If there was some additional message, then I don't understand what it is. Mattisse 13:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently there are unwritten rules for usage of this. They should be written down. (SEWilco 17:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]

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))[reply]

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)[reply]

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))[reply]

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)[reply]

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))[reply]

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))[reply]

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)[reply]

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))[reply]

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)[reply]

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))[reply]

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)[reply]

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))[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]