Template talk:Banned user/Archive 1

Template proposal
I'm planning to have a newer template like this:

Big  top  08:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure you need to list the triumvirate. People can check the block log and see if it was Jimbo, or if it referenced an AC case. 68.39.174.238 01:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I do like the bigger X though. 68.39.174.238 02:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The text should be changed - a community ban is the result of a consensus of the community, not just of administrators. Argyriou (talk) 01:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion: Add a link
In future, I think we should add a link to wherever the community discussion happened. Regards, Ben Aveling 10:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

For example (feel free to improve):

Image Change
editprotected I also requested this on Template talk:Indefblockeduser, and per my other comment, Image:Octagon-warning.svg didn't work, and I am asking to change the template's image to Image:Process-stop.svg, as it seems more appropriate for this template. Astrale01talkcontribs 22:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * See here. Cheers. --MZMcBride 23:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Change request
Editprotected

Change the link (the first one) "This user is banned ..." to "This user is banned ..." May make things easier to confirm the ban as sometimes the indef blocked users get put on there. Another idea may be to factor the link so it goes to the person's name on the list, but I don't know how to do that in the syntax. Kwsn (Ni!) 02:20, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * There needs to be a consensus for this change before it is made. Until(1 == 2) 04:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Err, I made the change just before noticing your comment - it seemed to be minor. Is there any opposition to or problem with the change? I'm willing to self-revert if there's any problem whatsoever. Nihiltres ( t .l ) 04:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, my reason behind the change is A. the WP:BAN link is there twice, and B. it's easier to reference the list now (I CU clerk, and I tend to check code F's (community banned person) to see if the person is really banned). Kwsn (Ni!) 15:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * A user does not need to be on List of banned users in order to be banned, in which case the list is irrelevant. —Centrx→talk &bull; 00:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Optional parameters
I composed a new version of this template. It has various optional parameters, including,   and. Note that all parameters are 100% optional, so this edit isn't really controversial, as the template will remain the same when you don't use a parameter. I did, however, remove the "page moves" link as it seems quite useless to me, but feel free to leave that the way it is.  Mel sa  ran  (formerly Salaskаn) 04:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Could you document these parameters? Sandstein 10:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Code to be used, assuming documentation is provided. Documentation can now be added to the /doc subpage located here:

--MZMcBride 16:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) here you are.
 * specifies the time for which the user was banned. For example,  results in
 * Alternatively,  (or indefinite, or indefinitely) may be used, resulting in
 * specifies how and why the user was banned. For example,  results in
 * adds an optional link to the template. For example,  results in
 * specifies how and why the user was banned. For example,  results in
 * adds an optional link to the template. For example,  results in
 * adds an optional link to the template. For example,  results in

I'll add this to the documentation once the edit has been performed.  Mel sa  ran  (formerly Salaskаn) 16:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Yes check.svg|20px]] Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 16:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot.  Mel sa  ran  (formerly Salaskаn) 17:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you made a mistake. this worked fine (I copied the syntax here to the documentation page), but then I changed "User:Melsaran/test" to "banned", and suddenly it is bugged (a space is missing). Please fix this. You can do this by copying the contents of.  Mel sa  ran  (formerly Salaskаn) 17:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Yes check.svg|20px]] Done. Sorry about that; good catch. Cheers. --MZMcBride 19:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No probs, thank you :-).  Mel sa  ran  (formerly Salaskаn) 20:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Topic Ban parameter?
It would be helpful to provide a topic parameter that replaces the default "editing in Wikipedia" with "editing in [topic]", for example "editing in Sample and it's talk page". This would supplement (or perhaps replace) the templates that currently go on the article (talk?) pages, Template:User page ban, Template:User article ban, and Template:User article&talk ban.

In my opinion, it doesn't help articles that have been abused by an editor to be further abused with the above three templates -- but that concern isn't essential to the desirability of the proposed topic parameter. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 22:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Since this template advises against unblocking, while topic bans are not normally blocked, perhaps a new template (based on this one) would be more appropriate. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 19:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Please
editprotected Please restore the original version: with a pink background and both sentences on the same line.

Not done. No reason to do this, this template is easier to understand with the text split up. - Revolving Bugbear  14:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Mbox
Please sync with the sandbox. The new version uses mbox rather than the old  class. TIA. —Ms2ger (talk) 10:47, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅  Ron h jones (Talk) 17:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Redundant links
As things stand, the (very short) wording of the template links twice to the banning policy. It would make a lot more sense for the first link to be replaced with a link to the list of banned users. This would have the added benefit of linking a banned editor's userpage with their entry in the list describing the rationale for their ban. Thank you for your time. 213.94.235.249 (talk) 12:41, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, let's try it. ✅ &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:52, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Princess Ava, 2 September 2010
editprotected

Change the link (the first one) "This user is banned..." to "This user is banned..." I have seen administrators use ignore all rules policy by applying users as de facto banned without having a serious discussion on their capabilities on making useful contributions. A user does not have to be on the banned list in order to be banned. Princess Ava (talk) 15:55, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Administrators cannot summarily ban users. – xeno talk 16:57, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Info notice below the main box
Yesterday, Rd232 below the main box. The notice Rd232 added says: "Please note that account names are not normally verified in any way. "User:John Smith" may not belong to someone called "John Smith", and in any case there may be more than one person by that name."

Isn't this an unnecessary notice? There is no consensus for such a notice, and I believe that what says in the notice is obvious to everyone. I therefore suggest reverting this recent addition. Hey Mid  (contribs) 21:57, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It isn't unnecessary, it warns passersby (especially those who have no clue about how WP works) not to make unwarranted assumptions. See recent ANI discussion about Malcolm Schosha, and at User talk:Newyorkbrad. Rd232 talk 22:27, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * VPR. Rd232 talk 01:19, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Have a clear link to the explanation of why the user was blocked
Hi there. Having come across this template on a user page for a user that had been blocked, I was very surprised to see that it doesn't clearly link to the rationale for why the user was blocked. I would expect the "banned" link to point to the specific rationale for that account, rather than the (rather useless) list of every single user that's ever been blocked (which is now an incredibly long list - and is still very much incomplete). I'm not sure how to technically fix this, hence why this is a general request rather than an editrequested one - please could someone make a technical suggestion for how to improve this, or jump right in and improve it? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 23:15, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I just responded (well, non-responded) at WT:AC. One illustration of why a public explanation is not always possible (which is not related to the case you have in mind), is where it is believed that an editor has engaged in some dangerous real world activity. For example, it would be undesirable to publicly explain that an editor has been banned due to WP:Child protection concerns (nothing like that applies to the case you have in mind). In the past, users have been indef blocked with an edit summary labeling the user as a pedophile, but I believe current consensus is that explanations which involve a label like that are very inappropriate. Once more, the case you are thinking of is unique, and is not related to any dubious activity such as the example I have just mentioned. Johnuniq (talk) 11:39, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

"Please review the banning policy before commenting"
The template says: "Please review the banning policy before commenting ...". Before commenting on what and where? Who's doing the commenting? Alakzi (talk) 14:57, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Banned means banned
A recent TfD deleted the BMB template, which reminded the banned editor and everyone else that further edits through a sockpuppet were liable to summary deletion (per WP:BMB. Whilst there were good reasons presented for deleting that particular template (and a similar one at Banrevert) their deletion has left no option for making the above reminder, which would have some value as an explanation to anyone wondering why a seemingly innocuous edit had been reverted/undone/rolled back. One suggestion at the TfD was to add the wording to this template (“The fix is to change the layout and presentation of the messages to both the banned editor ("you are banned") and to the community ("he is banned, his edits may be reverted"...”), and I wish to propose that now. Would anyone have any objection to adding such a message to this template? Xyl 54 (talk) 23:34, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I don't think the wording of this template is great to begin with - e.g., the section above makes a good point that it's unclear if the would-be "commenters" are people who might post to the banned user's talk page, or people who might be looking to comment on the ban itself. But since the template does already link to the banning policy, would adding more text explicating specific subsections of the banning policy do anything other than make the template longer? Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:43, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Have centralauth link to meta wiki
I think we should make the centralauth link on here link to meta wiki. I remember making the change to the global lock template but I can't edit this since it needs template editor access. The reason is that a banned user may be locked on meta wiki but you can't see the log here. It also allows for quicker access to the right page for a user in case a mistake needs to be rectified etc. --Sau226 (talk) 09:58, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing what you want done, can you show in the sandbox please? — xaosflux  Talk 15:50, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * For whatever reason or the other the centralauth link is not showing up or I put this on the wrong template talk page. My apologies for the confusion --Sau226 (talk) 10:48, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

All Wikipedias?
The phrase This user is banned from editing Wikipedia is a bit vague, as it may be interpreted as "banned from editing all Wikipedia projects". I'd suggest changing the text to "banned from editing the English Wikipedia". —capmo (talk) 19:45, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ Jon Kolbert (talk) 21:34, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks —capmo (talk) 02:17, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Suppressing the banner for arbcom bans
We're looking to replace the "banned user" banner for arbcom bans with a (yet to be created) hidden category. I put a draft in the sandbox that appears to do what I want, but since I mostly just delete templates, not edit them, I want some template people to check/improve my work first :) Looking at existing transclusions "the Arbitration Committee" seems to be how people have typically used the parameter in the target cases. I don't want to end up having to edit the userpages of a bunch of long-departed users to fix the parameters. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:18, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * With wikilinks now being stripped, it works as you intend to; though, as you probably know, this isn't gonna catch all ArbCom bans. Izkala (talk) 00:04, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * See, I knew I'd find some way to be dumb. Thanks ! Yeah, not fussed about having an incomplete category. The point is to get rid of the tags without losing any existing information. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:08, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was unclear; this isn't gonna catch all uses of this template. Users banned by ArbCom in its inception trasnclude this template without any arguments; presumably, the 'by' parameter was a later addition.  Izkala (talk) 08:33, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I know; most of the really old bans were written for fixed lengths of time, but there's definitely some un-categorized indefs out there. I think this catches most of the ones where anyone is still paying attention, though, and I certainly don't think there's any value to chasing up all the still-extant bans from 2006 to get the bookkeeping right. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:50, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hold on, why was the template changed? Banning a user is a last resort and is by far the most severe form of "punishment" (I get that it is more of a preventative measure, hence quotation marks) one can give to an editor. The new template does not highlight this at all. I highly suggest it be changed back, unless there actually was consensus to change it (I don't see any of that, either). -- PatientZero talk 13:01, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Why? Anyone with the slightest interest in a user quickly learns if they are blocked, and large banners have no purpose other than to inflame grievances. No study of what works best has been undertaken, but it is possible that the former in-your-face banner encouraged some long-term-abuser behavior, whereas the current mild banner may allow some of the recipients to finally leave Wikipedia. It's the last point (leaving the project) that is wanted, not retribution. Johnuniq (talk) 22:10, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Was there any agreement to do this? Or are we all just going with it? Seems kind of silly. Rockstone   talk to me!   06:37, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Adding pointless boxes on user pages does not help the encyclopedia in any way. Please don't do it. Johnuniq (talk) 07:11, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * +1. The example of your changes to Carolmooredc's user page were not just pointless, they appear pointy (diff1, diff2). That example is for a user that has been free to appeal for several years, and probably should receive more encouragement to discuss a review of the ban, not be treated like a hated criminal. Drop the stick please. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 10:02, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay. I wasn't aware that the boxes are suppressed when the ban was caused by Arbcom. I also didn't understand the history behind User:Carolmooredc. I'll be more careful in the future. My misunderstanding. Rockstone   talk to me!   01:00, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Sysop-show wrapper
The text "Administrators, please review the banning policy before unblocking." would be much better if it were only shown to administrators through use of the sysop-show css class. If there is no objection in the coming days, I will make the change. Best, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 17:05, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Seems fine. — xaosflux  Talk 17:08, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree. * Pppery * has returned 20:34, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Why? Unless there is a good reason to have secret admin-only commentary, transparency suggests everyone should see what an admin sees. Johnuniq (talk) 23:55, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not "secret"; if you're interested, you can use CSS to show sysop-show material – it's as transparent as anything else. The change is meant for consistency with other text for interest only to administrators; see, for example, Template:Uw-aeblock (the "Reminder to administrators" section), Template:ArbComBlock (the "Administrators:" section), "Administrator instructions" links at the top of many noticeboards, etc. In particular, on block notices and such, if administrators are being advised not to unblock without some sort of additional approval, that text is typically enclosed in sysop-show as irrelevant to non-administrators. Best, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 05:20, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't feel strongly about the issue but I think "secret" is a reasonable description of text that only admins can see (it is hidden from almost all others). I can see that the text in Template:Uw-aeblock is pretty long and it seems ok to hide another long paragraph telling admins they must not unblock without certain conditions, so perhaps it's ok here as well. It just seems un-wiki. Johnuniq (talk) 05:43, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

"Current autoblocks" link
The "current autoblocks" link goes to xtools, but xtools hasn't had an autoblock checker in several years. Currently it just redirects to Autoblock. If the link stays there, it should probably go to Autoblock. That page is basically a trimmed-down version of the MW page, and has information on how to check for and remove autoblocks. - Frood (talk!) 18:51, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I've remove the link. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 02:05, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Using this template for joke purposes
Is it allowed to use this template for jokes, but clearly state it's a joke? E.g using the template but putting "JK" right after it. InterstateFive (talk) - just another roadgeek 17:31, 4 February 2022 (UTC)


 * nevermind, i created a template for that purpose InterstateFive (talk) - just another roadgeek 18:49, 6 February 2022 (UTC)