Template talk:Uw-aeblock

This template should go

As the decision that it is enforcing is rotten. It allows unilateral blocking without the real possibility of review--- which is a big no-no.Likebox (talk) 21:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The template doesn't allow for anything, it's just a notice. If you have a problem with ARBCOM's decision, you should take it up with them. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 21:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

No, no--- it is important for the community to decide this. The template itself is the enforcement arm of the decision, and should wait until we find out if ArbCom even has the authority to do something like this. I will start an RfC, and ask for a quick consensus to kill this decision.Likebox (talk) 21:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect, the block itself is the enforcement arm of the decision. This template simply provides a standard notice which an administrator can optionally use as a notification message, and nothing more. ARBCOM is not subject to community consensus, and you are fighting this battle in the wrong place. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 21:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I am just advertizing the fight. I will place a link on this page.Likebox (talk) 21:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Please review WP:CANVASS before you do. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 21:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I know the policy--- this seems to be a neutral place where people will likely be interested.Likebox (talk) 21:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Or put it on TFD Count Iblis (talk) 01:20, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Readability

Recent Arbcom ruling aside, the aeblock template is still too harder to read and follow.

From this week's Signpost: Readability of user warnings: Hungarian Wikipedian Bence Damokos examined "the readability of user warning messages" on the English Wikipedia, calculating the readability scores according to several well-known formulae (including Flesch-Kincaid) for 105 template messages. Ranked by the SMOG readability measure, Template:Uw-aeblock came out the most difficult to read, with 18.49 years of education estimated necessary for reading it. Still, Bence Damokos concluded that "the warning messages aren’t unreasonably unreadable, although the various deletion notices, especially the ones concerned with copyright are written in a way that is too difficult to understand by the average user."

It should be simplified and reduced to a few sentences, I think. Ocaasi ^c 18:15, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Twinkle and template

I use Twinkle, which implements this template. However, when I use the "Linked article" in the Twinkle text box, Twinkle (or the template) doesn't include it in the block notice. I started a discussion on the Twinkle talk page, and, as you can see, the responder is "blaming" this on the template. My reading of the template doc doesn't support what they're saying, but what I care most about is being able to use Twinkle and stick in the linked article. Can anyone more familiar with templates sort this out? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:11, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Also could someone in the know please fix the documentation? — This, that and the other (talk) 00:42, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

More wikilinks would help

Here: (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA

When I got one I just didn't realize "AN" meant WP:ANI which is what I usually use (and I might have chosen that alternative had there been a link which would have been easier to follow in my discouraged state). Changing to at least (a) [[WP:AE}} or (b) WP:AN or (c) WP:ARCA would help those newly affected by an Arbitration and who may not know what those initials stand for or just be not quite up to typeing "WP:AN" or whatever into the search box. Every little bit of clarity and ease of use helps keep them coming back to edit at least somewhere on wikipedia. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:48, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 December 2016

Would you add div class="sysop-show" on the reminder to administrators note? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.110.210.81 (talk) 00:23, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 01:25, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Proposed warning of potentially increased sanctions

I propose adding a line to this template such as "Be aware that bringing an appeal to an administrator noticeboard may result in harsher sanctions than the current block."

I feel like the current message, since it includes the "reason=Please copy my appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard or administrators' noticeboard" bit as a default for the copy-and-paste unblock request, that a warning of potential for increased sanctions should also be included for those editors that aren't aware how AE/AN often work. -- Netoholic @ 12:37, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't think this is needed. Since Wikipedia has no rule prohibiting a reformatio in peius in general, it is not necessary to mention this issue here in particular. See Wikipedia:Avoid instruction creep. Sandstein 14:23, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

I think its fair to say that most editors live in common law-based societies where an appellant is never in such jeopardy, and so they would reasonably never expect such from Wikipedia. Its not instruction creep to both document so they aren't astonished and also because, while most appeals are declined, the majority of them that do effect a change are for the worse for the appellant. -- Netoholic @ 21:29, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Partial blocking as enforcement

Since partial blocking is now available as an enforcement mechanism, should we include {{Uw-pblock}} (like a |partial=yes) into this template or create a separate enforcement template? Maybe the clerks/members can discuss this on the mailing list and decide on a solution.​​​​​​​​​​​​​ --qedk (t 桜 c) 14:14, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

I think that makes sense, given that AE is probably likely to be a significant source of partial blocks. I'm not sure you need the go-ahead from either the Committee or the clerks to make such a change. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:43, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done No change to default functionality. Just enhancements to support partial blocks. --qedk (t 桜 c) 15:03, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

@qedk: What is the purpose of this edit which inserted "from"? I'm previewing a usage of this intended to notify a user about an AE site-wide block of one month. The preview has the following (without links) as the first sentence: To enforce an arbitration decision and for violation of a topic ban as discussed at arbitration enforcement, you have been blocked from editing for a period of one month from. Notice that it ends with "from". I want to get this done so I might undo your edit and you can reinstate it if needed. Johnuniq (talk) 06:14, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

While I have been pondering "from", another admin made the block and the slightly broken message can be seen here. Johnuniq (talk) 06:20, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: So, I was syncing it to the 9th February version of {{Uw-pblock}} (an extra "from" was required, pointed out by El_C), there is a minor difference in the other template, which has a fallback "editing" word thrown by the switch, so that template would always give "..from [editing/etc.]" while this template does not (which I forgot). Reverted myself now, welp, thanks for pointing it out. --qedk (t 桜 c) 06:22, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Template wikitext is bad for the brain! It would be much clearer and easier if written in Lua. Johnuniq (talk) 06:29, 24 February 2020 (UTC)