Template talk:OversightBlock

Template:OversightBlock 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.

Page protection[edit]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please protect this page. The ArbComBlock template is protected. 71.79.67.209 (talk) 01:30, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: Perhaps we could protect it when it starts being used properly, but it seems too early at the moment. The template has only just been created and we shouldn't deny non-admins the chance to edit it while it is still being tweaked. Also, for next time, please request protection at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 02:40, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Default appeal parameter value[edit]

@Opabinia regalis, KrakatoaKatie, and AGK: I came across this template for the first time here. Given the note to administrators, shouldn't the appeal parameter default to "arbcom"? I cannot see the point of telling an editor to use the unblock template when an admin can't do anything. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:42, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's a point. It should have language similar to {{Checkuserblock-account}}. Katie^talk 18:19, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, thanks NeilN. It's not as if there's an overwhelming number of oversight blocks being appealed, but I'll poke the list and see if there's any reason we shouldn't do this that I'm not thinking of offhand. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:28, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As an oversighter I cannot see any reason to have unblock appeals of oversight blocks on-wiki - it'll only be a matter of time before someone says "Why was I blocked for saying <whatever it was that had to be oversighted>?". With the block I placed today (MattWorks) I also disabled talk page access as at least three explanations haven't been understood and I don't want them to put the information on their talk page. Thryduulf (talk) 15:41, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
typically, the justification for an oversight block can only be seen by somebody with oversight privileges. Thtemplateshould therefore be changed. I don't see that it ever made sense. DGG ( talk ) 16:13, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with all the above. We should not be encouraging on-wikireview of blocks that involve suppressed material. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:23, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Seems a no-brainer. Doug Weller talk 19:27, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated the template to default to emailing ArbCom. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:54, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template-protected edit request on 3 June 2022 - Visual Editor ease of use[edit]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Currently, if the example of how to use the unblock template is copied and pasted using the visual editor, it doesnt correctly substitute and use the template. Replacing {{tlx|1=unblock|2=reason{{=}}Your reason here <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>}} with <code><nowiki>{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}</nowiki></code> would fix this. See this conversation for further details. Aidan9382 _(talk) 18:46, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 19:23, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]