Template talk:Uw-pblock

Test cases + notalk

I've added a couple of testcases (using {{Testcase}}) to preview the effects of different args. Also, I can't imagine a case where talk page access would be revoked for a partial block; any reason to keep it? ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 15:25, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

TPA cannot be revoked with a partial block, they can be however be prevented from editing it using the "Page" partial block. Hence, a notalk parameter is helpful should they appeal to UTRS instead of t/p, that is my opinion. --qedk (t 桜 c) 15:30, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Talkpage access can be revoked if the entire user talk namespace is revoked. Unlikely, perhaps, but possible. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:42, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Email weirdness

I know you're working on some things at the moment, QEDK, so I'm just posting this here so I don't forget it, but there's some weirdness in language with something like {{uw-pblock|time=1 month|email=yes}}. There's a stray period and the "from" continues even if not provided. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:44, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

​ Good catch (and on it!) --qedk (t 桜 c) 16:48, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

@Amorymeltzer: Should be good to go, let me know if something else needs to be ironed out. --qedk (t 桜 c) 17:07, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

​Looks great, thanks! My only real comment is, philosophically, I feel that if a custom |area=area is provided by the user, it should supersede both email=yes and accountcreate=yes. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:48, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Actually, I think there're also some missing safesubst-s around accountcreate and email: compare {{uw-pblock|accountcreate=yes}} to {{subst:uw-pblock|accountcreate=yes}} or {{uw-pblock|email=yes}} to {{subst:uw-pblock|email=yes}}. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:57, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

@Amorymeltzer: All of those (nasty) ParserFunctions needed to be safesubst-ed. Behaviour is fixed now (tested on testcases as well). --qedk (t 桜 c) 19:17, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Sounds good yeah, I'll see what I can do about that. --qedk (t 桜 c) 19:19, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done Preliminary testing looks okay to me. --qedk (t 桜 c) 19:28, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Looks pretty good to me! Thanks for being such a whiz. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:37, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Glad to help. Now, someone just has to write the documentation. --qedk (t 桜 c) 19:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

@Amorymeltzer: As and when you get around to deploying the template to Twinkle, you might want to protect the template to prevent untoward changes from breaking the template functionality in Twinkle. --qedk (t 桜 c) 19:26, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

It's unlikely to need much, maybe semi like the db templates, but I think, when the time comes, I'll just tell you to do it your damn self! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:30, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Will probably end up protecting the meta:The Wrong Version. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ --qedk (t 桜 c) 19:45, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Other partial block templates?

This is pretty generic, but just thinking out loud, are there any other {{uw-block}}-based templates that would be good to duplicate for partial blocks? {{uw-ewblock}} seems like it'd be a good candidate, given how folks are using it. {{uw-ablock}} likewise for parity, but tbh would be just as fine using this. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:03, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

emailblock, acblock, ewblock seems like good candidates for starters --qedk (t 桜 c) 04:31, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

You wanna do the honors? ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:59, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

@Amorymeltzer: Hackathon tomorrow, I'll try to push the ewpblock out. --qedk (t 桜 c) 13:05, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Just got home and pushed two, {{uw-epblock}} + {{uw-acpblock}}. Lemme know if it's alright.​ -qedk (t 桜 c) 16:01, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Solid! I just made {{uw-pblockindef}} to mirror {{uw-blockindef}}, but mostly for my own sake adding to TW.

Not sure how best to add it to the template, if at all? At any rate, I think it would be good to ask at AN or WT:PB at least re: language, etc., if not other templates. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:02, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Partial block noticeboard

I changed the instructions from the user talk page-based unblock request, to the (hopefully at least partially community-staffed) WP:PBN noticeboard, which requires notifying the blocking admin, but does not add the user to the unblock review category. This was part of the RFC for at least two weeks without any comments either way.

Please revert, correct, and/or improve this at the first sign of trouble. I also took out the IP/logged out conditional instructions, which I am sure doesn't apply to partial blocks.

The point of this was to save admin time by having community members explain to blockees what they are doing wrong, not getting in the way of unblock requests from the fully-blocked, and prevent the situations where a reviewing admin might not have all the details that the blocking admin considered, which seems to be a perennial source of friction among admins. I asked Teahouse volunteers to watchlist it, so hopefully it will attract sufficient non-admin (and ideally thereby lower-stress) third party review, but only time will tell. EllenCT (talk) 05:34, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

EllenCT, I'm not opposed to it, but I don't really see much discussion in the RfC about it, as you note. You mentioned it a couple times, but I don't think without any comments either way is a good basis for inclusion in a subst-ed template. If it does take off — I'm not seeing any opposition — for sure it should be here, but I hope you don't mind if I undo it for now. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:44, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

@Amorymeltzer: it's not going be used at all if it's not in the notification instructions. Are there any advantages that the talk page {{unblock}} process has for the partially blocked? I listed three disadvantages above. EllenCT (talk) 21:20, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

{{unblock}} allows other administrators to review the block, every kind of block should have that option (checks and balances, so to say). --qedk (t 桜 c) 12:21, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Ok please try that for some period of time and then switch over for a similar amount of time and see if you can feel the difference. EllenCT (talk) 14:55, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Partial blocks are not used that frequently so I doubt we would get significant statistical data. Imo, the {{unblock}} route should be kept open, that's all. --qedk (t 桜 c) 15:17, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

I think the thing to do is to simple ask about WP:PBN on WP:AN or something. Block templates aren't a good way to try to build a system, especially when they're fairly uncommon. If sysops don't know about or want to use a PB noticeboard, it won't be of much help here. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:23, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Can anyone help with [1] please? I thought I had the braces and such right, but [2] isn't closed. EllenCT (talk) 03:48, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

"From from"

Something is "off" with this template. It appears to be causing a duplication of the word "from" during uses with Template:uw-ewpblock, as shown here. Could someone please take a look at this? --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 19:13, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: It was bit of Twinkle's interaction with the template that caused this, the |area= building code in Twinkle was not prepared to deal with the "from" I added a few months ago (Twinkle adds "from certain" always). I remember not including the "from" but forgot why I removed it in the first place (including it also broke a few email/account templates), and it comes up here now. Change is reverted now, though! --qedk (t 心 c) 20:18, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

@QEDK: Thanks! That was a weird issue and I figured that it had a fix like that, but didn't want to wade in where I don't really know much of what I am doing haha. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 20:48, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Missing "from" still a problem

As mentioned on User_talk:QEDK#"From"_still_missing_from_uw-pblock, the missing "from" error still remains. El_C 17:17, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

qedk has now fixed the error. We're all good now. El_C 07:44, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Duplicate "from"

In Special:Diff/955918595, the text of this template starts with "You have been blocked indefinitely from editing from certain pages" (emphasis added). The second "from" is grammatically incorrect and should be removed. Based on the previous issue in User talk:QEDK § "From" still missing from uw-pblock, it looks like the "from" should be added for time-limited blocks, but omitted for indefinite blocks. — Newslinger talk 15:09, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

@Newslinger: This seems to be a Twinkle's magic while making the {{area}} parameter. The current code already looks like: {{{{{|safesubst:}}}#if:{{{time|}}}|from}} Courtesy ping to Amorymeltzer. --qedk (t 愛 c) 15:21, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I see! Yeah, I didn't know some changes had been made to the template, I'll put up a PR real quick. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:51, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

[3] Will double-check and merge tomorrow or thereabouts, assuming this is finalized. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:55, 10 May 2020 (UTC)