MediaWiki talk:Autoblockedtext/Archive 1

What do I do now?
If you are unjustly affected by this block, please copy-paste the following text to the bottom of your user talk page:

If this problem affects you repeatedly, we encourage you to contact your Internet service provider or IT department and ask them to contact Wikimedia's XFF project about enabling X-Forwarded-For HTTP headers on their proxy servers. This will reduce collateral damage from future autoblocks.
 * [[Image:Yes check.svg|px]] Wording changed. — M ETS 501 (talk) 00:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Suggested message change to this:
Message is more graphical and looks better. -- Hdt83 Chat 23:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: I changed the color to a light blue. Does it look better?

editprotected

You are not blocked from reading pages, only from editing them.

If you have just clicked a red link, it means you were blocked from starting a new page as no article on that topic exists yet.


 * The problem I have with that is that it's too unfriendly. Remember a lot of people who are autoblocked have done nothing wrong, and we don't want to scare them away. — M ETS 501 (talk) 00:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with modeling this after Blockedtext, for the most part, but a friendlier color (pale blue, perhaps?) might be more welcoming. Remember that a large number of autoblocked users haven't done anything wrong -- the less it looks like we're accusing them of anything, the better. – Luna Santin  (talk) 04:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I changed the color to a light blue. Does it look better? -- Hdt83 Chat 06:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Ooh, I do like that more. Looking around a bit to see if I can find any other images (Image:Information icon.svg is somewhat tempting, but doesn't quite fit, either). Also figuring we should include a link to unblock-en-l, but I'll work that out sometime tomorrow. Glad this got implemented, either way. :) – Luna Santin  (talk) 08:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * How about now, eh? Prodego  talk  15:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Open proxies/bypassing censorship
I don't know if users of open proxies see this message when they try to edit, but I would suggest adding a link to Advice to users using Tor to bypass the Great Firewall for the benefit of users in China and elsewhere who want to edit but can't because they're using proxy servers. This is coming from a discussion over at WikiProject Countering Systemic Bias. Wl219 11:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Nope, those aren't autoblocks -- they're direct blocks. Appreciate the thought, though. – Luna Santin  (talk) 21:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

What about this icon?
What do you think about this? -- Hdt83 Chat 19:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Time for a gallery. Feel free to add any of the options we've covered, if I missed any or you find more. :) – Luna Santin  (talk) 21:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I hereby insist that this image is fine and there is no need to change it again. It's just an image! Thank you :) – Gurch 21:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Colour
Per WP:DEW, the current colour is also absolutely perfect and there is no need to change it ever :) – Gurch 21:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Unnecessary text
The form in the "emailing us" section currently contains this text:


 * Note: your preferred username must not be listed as already taken here and must comply with our username policy.

This makes no sense in the context; the user isn't requesting an account or name change. I have a suspicion this was copied-and-pasted from the section of MediaWiki:Blockedtext that deals with requesting account creation on a blocked IP. It's unnecessary here, and should be removed. Thanks – Gurch 00:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Done. Prodego  talk  00:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Rewording
editprotected In the blue message box itself, it says "The other user was blocked by  for the following reason." However, I was recently autoblocked and the parameter $2 is replaced with "You have been autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by..." which is definitely not the other user's block reason. I suggest that you change the text to "You have been autoblocked by  for the following reason:" or something else, just not the text that it shows right now. Astrale01talkcontribs 17:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm... key question here is whether $2 here uses MediaWiki:Autoblocker or not, I think -- does that look familiar? – Luna Santin  (talk) 18:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I'd imagine it does. I think that each number does the following:
 * $1: Blocking admin
 * $2: (MediaWiki:Autoblocker??? labeled as block reason)
 * $3: IP address in question
 * $4: Blocking admin (Again? Perhaps this outputs a plaintext name.)
 * $5: autoblock ID
 * $6: Length of block
 * (why don't we have this kind of info on the MediaWiki talk page by default?)
 * Anyway, $2 is the issue. I'd like to continue on the assumption that it does use MediaWiki:Autoblocker, but I'm unaware of any other places where that message is used - otherwise, it would seem to be simpler to edit that page to solve the problem. Is anyone aware of any such other places? Nihiltres ( t .l ) 20:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * MediaWiki:Autoblocker is used as the block log entry for an autoblock, now that I think about it -- so it is, in effect, the block reason. We should do something so that it makes sense in the context of this page, but also hopefully without breaking our ability to search for autoblocks in Special:Ipblocklist (the autoblock search tool breaks more often than I think I'd like). – Luna Santin  (talk) 06:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

What specifically is the request here? --ais523 16:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe it's a request to modify the text of MediaWiki:Autoblocker, but it seems discussion has fallen short of reaching a proposed change. I'm gonna take off editprotected, for now, until such a proposal comes forward. – Luna Santin  (talk) 20:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If it isn't clear, this is the problem: Prodego  talk  21:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Request Change
I will change somethingSkyblue27 02:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Please be specific about exactly what change you would like to request, and an admin will consider making it. This page cannot be unprotected. Splash - tk 10:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

id
sudo

It would be helpful if the first  in the message could have an   attribute – something like "mw-autoblocked-text" – so that automated processes can identify it. Thanks -- Gurch (talk) 03:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * ✅ &mdash; Werdna talk 13:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Blockquotes & markup
Please make the following edits: Thanks. —Ms2ger (talk) 18:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Yes check.svg|20px]] Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Wording
This para is poorly worded: "As do many websites, Wikipedia administrators occasionally block accounts and IP ranges that are deemed responsible for or related to problematic activity. You may be an innocent victim of collateral damage, whereby a block of some other activity has accidentally caused your account to be unable to edit pages. If your editing access has been blocked by mistake, it will be reactivated very quickly, as soon as you let an administrator know of the problem. The box above gives the information you will need" I suggest: "In common with many other websites, Wikipedia administrators sometimes block accounts or IP ranges thought responsible for damaging activity. Sometimes innocent editors are blocked accidentally during this process. If you have been blocked by mistake, follow the instructions below and your access will be restored as soon as possible" DuncanHill (talk) 13:41, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

s
sudo

The  around the parameter $2 in the text autoblocked users are told to copy-and-paste doesn't actually do what you think it does. While it prevents templates from being transcluded into the text that they are told to copy-and-paste, templates in that text are still transcluded once they've copied and pasted it. Thus unblock requests end up looking like this (scroll down to see the whole thing). You either need to fix this message to insert the text " " ... " " around the parameter $2, as well as having s in the code, or else modify Template:Unblock-auto to insert them. Gurch (talk) 11:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Haha, I see you had fun just trying to type your request! Well, in MediaWiki namespace the rendering of parser functions and other such stuff is even less predictable. But I'll see what I can do ... &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I'm afraid I have no idea, but I can't think that either of your suggested solutions is going to work either. Putting two pairs of nowiki tags is unlikely to have any effect different to one pair of them. And I can't think of a way of expanding a parameter but nowiki'ing it. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Placing the block reason in nowiki tags works, try editing Gurch's old talk page and preview the unblock-auto template if you wrap the second parameter in nowiki tags. As Martin said, wrapping the second parameter of unblock-auto in nowiki tags wouldn't have been worked. Using would have been a possibility, since introducing the tag that way expands the parameter before applying the nowiki tag, but it of course also expands the template and displays the resulting html like:   →  Don't we all love the MediaWiki parser?  Amalthea  12:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Dash
editprotected

"This list exists for the purpose of reviewing blocks only — any request to make edits to articles on your behalf will be disregarded." I suggest removing the spaces that flank the em-dash, per the Manual of Style. Waltham, The Duke of 20:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 01:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Reword
The wording:

This is because someone using this internet address or shared proxy server was blocked. The ability of all users on this IP address to edit pages has been automatically suspended to prevent abuse by the blocked party. Innocent users are sometimes caught in an autoblock. It may be the case that you have done nothing wrong.

should be reworded to:

This is because someone using this IP address/shared proxy server was blocked. The ability of every user on this IP address to edit pages has been automatically suspended to prevent further abuse by the blocked party. Innocent users are usually caught in an autoblock. It might be the case that you didn't do anything wrong.

M&#39;encarta (talk) 15:10, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * ❌ - Firstly, there is no change in meaning between the two versions, and secondly, the original wording is more clear. &mdash;SW&mdash; squeal 13:59, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Uniform with "Mediawiki:Blockedtext"
In my opinion, "Mediawiki:Autoblockedtext" could be uniformed with "Mediawiki:Blockedtext" for consistency.


 * with

Or you could do vice versa. mechamind 9  0  20:39, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * And then, please remove "secure login" link. Thanks. --112.210.62.199 (talk) 07:32, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Why would you want the "secure login" link removed? I don't understand.  Also, has this request really been sitting here since 2010??  Ive deactivated it for now, as the user who originally placed it is long gone.  ☮  Soap  ☮  23:02, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Never mind, I see. The editprotected template automatically moved to the top of the section, placing it flush with mechamind's request.  I'll restore the request template for now.  ☮  Soap  ☮  23:05, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Disabling. Is this two requests? The first is extremely stale and the latter is unclear. If there is a new request, please start a new section with clear details at the bottom of the page. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:21, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Minor changes
Hello! I think the interface page need an update. Can you match with this? Then, remove "secure login" link added in 2006 because it's pretty much useless in normal mode and redundant in secure mode. --112.210.79.195 (talk) 12:26, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template.   Sandstein   07:40, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This edit was posted by a long-term vandal. Trijnstel talk 10:58, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Old address
I'd like suggest to change the UTRS link to http://utrs.wmflabs.org/ instead. « Saper // @talk » 19:21, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 07:33, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Privacy violation
This page shares a blocked user's identity with other editors using the same IP address, in violation of the WMF privacy policy. It need to have identifying information removed. All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 05:25, 12 April 2014 (UTC).


 * Which portion of the code causes it to do that? (As an aside, there is an unbalanced ) -- Red rose64 (talk) 10:47, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: That's impossible to achieve. Even if this page were blanked, a user could simply append ?uselang=qqx to the end of the URL to see all details passed to the message. Jackmcbarn (talk) 12:16, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

The text to be removed is

for the following reason (see our blocking policy): $2 This block has been set to expire: $6. The block ID is: $5

Failing to remove this on the grounds that a very technically sophisticated user could find the information in other ways is not helpful. Providing the information, however, is. I will add it to the Bugzilla (53008), and pass it on to WMF legal. All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 04:02, 16 April 2014 (UTC).


 * Note that legal has left comments on 53008 but has not indicated that this violates the privacy policy or needs to be changed. Jackmcbarn (talk) 11:41, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: This is one of those things that legal can fix itself or request a change, and as such I am closing this request as there is no need to announce to everyone that there is a potential issue here and honestly I think that should have followed the procedure and emailed the issue to the legal team or at very least followed the Bugzilla reporting procedure for submitting a security bug. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (t • e • c) 14:43, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Legal have been aware since 20 August 2013, Bugzilla since 18th August2013, the Foundation in general since 9 August 2013.
 * Standard procedure for security issues not fixed by vendors in a reasonable amount of time is to issue a CVE, or otherwise widely publicise the bug. I have chosen to follow a middle path, where the community can at least fix the obvious manifestation of this bug on the website we collectively manage, the flagship of the movement and arguably a very important website both in its own right and as an advocate for open source and open knowledge.
 * I have also, prior to my post above, reminded the developer community, WMF legal, the meta community and the chief executive. All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 20:55, 16 April 2014 (UTC).
 * Standard procedure for security issues not fixed by vendors in a reasonable amount of time is to issue a CVE, or otherwise widely publicise the bug. I have chosen to follow a middle path, where the community can at least fix the obvious manifestation of this bug on the website we collectively manage, the flagship of the movement and arguably a very important website both in its own right and as an advocate for open source and open knowledge.
 * I have also, prior to my post above, reminded the developer community, WMF legal, the meta community and the chief executive. All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 20:55, 16 April 2014 (UTC).


 * The problem is not in the message code displaying private information to the user - the problem is in the proposed template invocation that makes the user to disclose her private data (maybe inadvertently) by copying and pasting the text. Therefore I propose to remove $1 parameter of Unblock-auto (see also Template talk:Unblock-auto) and to change the example code   to   and adjusting Unblock-auto accordingly.  « Saper // @talk »  19:33, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Per the above, please change to  (copy this from the page's source or some HTML encoding will get messed up). No change to the unblock-auto template is necessary. Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:52, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yellow check.svg Partly done: I've implemented Jackmcbarn's suggestion, as well as fixing the unbalanced  tag that Redrose mentioned. I've also made some general updates and formatting fixes, including remove the "secure login" link, as all login links are now secure.  if the privacy-related aspects of this change don't go as far as you would like, perhaps you could open a discussion on WP:AN? If the WMF doesn't judge this to be a problem requiring immediate action, then making more far-reaching changes to this message will require a consensus. Best  — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 07:40, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks! That's a great start. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 08:02, 21 April 2014 (UTC).

Protected edit request on 5 December 2014
Under Alternative option, I believe a link to the Unblock-auto template would be better than actually showing the template a second time. It is jarring and confusing especially considering it is "inline" the second time around, not intended as it is previously on this page.

radiok (talk) 16:01, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 25 March 2017
Please change: You are currently unable to edit pages on Wikipedia due to an autoblock affecting your IP address.

This is because someone using this internet address or shared proxy server was blocked. The ability of all users on this IP address to edit pages has been automatically suspended to prevent abuse by the blocked party. Innocent users are sometimes caught in an autoblock. It may be the case that you have done nothing wrong. A user of this IP address was blocked by  for the following reason (see our blocking policy): $2 This block has been set to expire: $6. The block ID is: $5.

'''Note that you have not been blocked from editing directly. Most likely your computer is on a shared network with other people.'''

To:

If consensus is needed, please help me to achieve it before responding to the request. --120.155.53.171 (talk) 05:07, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Could you at least provide a rationale for the change? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 06:42, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Consistency with MediaWiki:Blockedtext. --120.155.53.171 (talk) 23:32, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not too keen on the large line break between the top of the table and the first line of text. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:08, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Disabled for now &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:09, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Message clarities
If "You are currently unable to edit Wikipedia" is better than "You are currently unable to edit pages on Wikipedia", remove the "pages on" from the "You are currently unable to edit pages on Wikipedia due to an autoblock affecting your IP address.". 73.1.57.180 (talk) 14:04, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 22 July 2017
Please change the link that says "Submit an unblock appeal" to "Submit a block appeal", you are appealing a block, not an unblock. Ups and Downs 1234 (🗨) 07:49, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ partially. changed to "unblock request" - matches the name of the system that link send you to. —  xaosflux  Talk 22:56, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Privacy violation redux
The above issue is dealt covered at [Bugzilla}} and a proposed set of fixes is at [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Privacy_policy/Fix_block_messages Meta.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:27, 12 September 2014 (UTC).

Message top
The top of the message should say "You are currently unable to edit Wikipedia due to an autoblock affecting your IP address." per MediaWiki:Blockedtext saying "You are currently unable to edit Wikipedia.". Ssjhowarthisawesome (talk) 00:41, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Cleaning this up
This page has a lot of detailed instructions, especially compared to the much cleaner MediaWiki:Blockedtext. Can we streamline it a bit to make it clearer where to go to remedy if you've been accidentally blocked? That's the main important piece of info; everything else is to some degree clutter. Sdkb (talk) 09:14, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * here is a sandbox: MediaWiki talk:Autoblockedtext/sandbox, feel free to mock up your proposed changes there. — xaosflux  Talk 11:26, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't have any specific proposed changes; I think it'd be better for someone more familiar with blocking to come up with those if anyone is inclined. I just wanted to at least flag the issue. Sdkb (talk) 18:44, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I might get to this at some point if it remains unaddressed, but I'm not very familiar with blocking, so I'd really prefer someone else take it on. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 01:54, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 29 October 2020
Please change "You are currently unable to edit pages on Wikipedia due to an autoblock affecting your IP address." to "You are currently unable to edit Wikipedia due to an autoblock affecting your IP address." since it says "You are currently unable to edit Wikipedia." on MediaWiki:Blockedtext Ssjhowarthisawesome (talk) 00:45, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:24, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Updates on MediaWiki:Blockedtext to be implemented here as well?
MediaWiki:Blockedtext recently got an updated and in my opinion the update made it better than before and less WP:BITEy to newcomers because the red text in the older versions 1 seemed to be too harsh. Now, if you look at the current version the background color and the text is much soft despite that red sign which may be too bitey, but it can just be not included here because the user is not blocked directly and is autoblocked. I think if the changes to MediaWiki:Blockedtext can be implemented here than it would be better as the current version of the page, in my opinion, is also quite harsh to newcomers. User3749 (talk) 06:39, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * there is a sandbox at MediaWiki talk:Autoblockedtext/sandbox where you can make your proposed edits then request the update here with an edit request. — xaosflux  Talk 11:08, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I will try to do that there. User3749 (talk) 12:41, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 1 May 2021
The page currently has a missing end tag Lint error because a closing div tag is missing. It is because the first div tag is not closed at the end of page.

So just add  at the end of page to fix the error. This can be seen in. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 15:56, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ — xaosflux  Talk 18:03, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Rephrasing this message
Unfortunately, this message looks too standardized and harsh. I think a better message for this would be "We're sorry, but due to technical reasons, you cannot complete this action at this time. Please try again later.  If you still see this message after 24 hours, please leave the following on your talk page:  , or file a request at the unblock ticket request system." See also WP:EFN. LTAs and sockpuppets know who they are, so there is no need to point them out except in messages directed at their account. Aasim (talk) 08:29, 1 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Support. fgnievinski (talk) 01:34, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Mention registering as alternative
IP editors should be reminded they could skip the block by registering. fgnievinski (talk) 01:36, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 13 December 2021
Please fix div/span misnesting errors and suboptimally specified font sizes by replacing the contents with the text in my sandbox (diff here). – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:51, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Jonesey95, Anomalocaris - Thanks for the heads up! Stand by - I'm on it...  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   04:03, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Jonesey95, Anomalocaris - The deed has been done! My thanks to you both! I'm always happy to clean up some code in order to keep it up to scratch. ;-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   04:16, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 26 July 2022
Please change "unblock requuest" to "unblock request". This is a typo that needs to be fixed. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis 17:27, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ — xaosflux  Talk 18:33, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Too long?
Hi I undid your recent bold change, mostly because you eliminated the route to UTRS. This message could still be too long, and there could be parts worth trimming - but in the event that someone can't edit and comes across this message I think advertising the UTRS option is still useful. Is there a part of the workflow I'm missing where that would never be useful? — xaosflux  Talk 01:29, 4 August 2022 (UTC)