MediaWiki talk:Blockedtext/Archive 2

Suggestions
I made the '''Your IP address is $3. Please include this address in any queries you make'' bold, since about half of the users emailing me dont include their IP adress. Also, should we suggest to log on again for dynamically assigned IP adresses? This would&#12288;fix some problems (e.g. with AOL users). Finally: Maybe we can include a template text to be emailed, e.g.:
 * Hi. It seems my IP adress $3 has been blocked. Could you unblock my IP adress so I can edit Wikipedia? Thanks. 

Chris 73 Talk 01:02, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

Allow registered users to edit
Can a developer or other authorized person please fix up the blocking procedure so anonymoyus IPs who log in can edit without having to get a different IP address? Thanks. --Scott Gall 19:57, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Proposed rewrite
See User:Pathoschild/Sandbox2 (revision as of this message: oldid 34884393) for the full proposal.

Generally, the text is expanded and clarified, and the page is reorganised to flow more logically. The user is explained the block before the appeal options, for example. The information given to include in any queries is now after the appeal options, and more complete; as well as the IP address currently included, it also specifies the blocking administrator and reason.

Emailing the blocking or other administrator is removed from the appeal options. This option is often slow and frustrating to access for unregistered or new users. Instead, the new instructions suggest the use of {{unblock&#125;} to add the user to Category:Requests for unblock. This helps mitigate the possibility of abuse of power both by delegating the review to a neutral third-party, and by making the discussion publicly viewable. Open discussion is particularly important since the only appeal option suggested in cases of power abuse involve the mailing list, and email is very difficult to use as evidence. // Pathoschild 13:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Needs a few typos fixed :) Ashibaka tock 19:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * "If you need to see the wiki text of an article, you may wish to use the Export pages feature." Could you include a link to the action=raw version to the page? as discussed at the end of Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy If you do that then i'll prefer your rewrite much better than the actual. --62.57.93.138 18:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Raw wiki text
Please add to  the parameter+value. Without that, Firefox and Opera are prompting to download a "file". --- Best regards, Melancholie 23:47, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I've added  instead.  It doesn't currently work, but I'll go ask a developer to enable it.  —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 13:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Oops, it seems there's a reason why text/plain is not enabled.  I guess the best thing to do is leave it alone for now and wait for the edit-while-blocked handling to get properly fixed.  —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 15:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[mailto:info-en@wikimedia.org info-en@wikimedia.org]
This email address is used in the Contact us page as the address to email when blocked. Should this be added to the blockedtext?--Keycard (talk) 17:47, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * No. — Mar. 20, '06 [04:09] 

What you mean is "No, because $5". Not just "no": that's very rude.--Keycard (talk) 08:40, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, please pretty please, no. — Apr. 3, '06 [00:05] <[ freakofnurxture]|[ talk]>
 * Wow how did you become an admin? So rude.

Unblock
I'd like to propose that mention be made in this message of the   template, as a way for blocked users to appeal to whichever admins happen to be around. Ideally, I think it could actually replace "You can email $ 4". First of all, as volunteers I don't see why admins should have to deal with Wikipedia email. All Wikipedia business should take place right here, as far as I'm concerned. Secondly, anybody emailing me is likely to have a long wait given that I have 2500 (yes) unread messages in my inbox, and a further 1000 in Bulk! --kingboyk 15:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It should definitely not replace the email link. I frequently receive emails when I block people. More often than not, the blocking admin is more knowledgeable of the situation than Joe Random Admin and, if they hae stopped editing by the time the {unblock} is placed, it can cause confusion among other admins. An email, on the other hand, goes directly to the target and may well get read 'in real time' even if the admin is not actually editing Wikipedia at that moment. That you have a big inbox is not a reason to remove email instructions from this message, but it is a reason for you to clear out your inbox. Admins need to be reachable by email if they are going to block people. -Splash talk 15:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Fine, that's an argument for not replacing what's there (my secondary argument really), but what about adding it? --kingboyk 15:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that would be fine. -Splash talk 15:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't see a problem with adding that. Also, looking at the section above, would anyone object to adding info-en to the list? We already get some emails regarding blocking and unblocking there already. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note? ) 16:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know. Shall I email the admin? Email info-en? Place {unblock}? Go to IRC? It's becoming bewildering to me, let alone someone more newbie than me. If we do add it, I'm inclined to offer the options that get to the blocking admin as quickly as possible: blockee's talk page, blocking admin's email, IRC, info-en. -Splash talk 16:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It's my personal opinion that if you are not contactable by email or willing to monitor the talk pages of users you block, you shouldn't be blocking users. Adminship is a volunteer thing, yes, but it is a volunteer responsibility. If as a volunteer you do not wish to follow up on blocks, you should not volunteer to block users; there are plenty of other uses for admin tools. There is so much warring over application and lifting of blocks that it is best for the blocking admin to be able to follow up on communication; if because you will not be around you cannot block a user who needs to be blocked, leave a note for another admin to do it. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I've added a mention of to the message. Feel free to improve. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I've tweaked the wording a little bit. Should we add the info-en email address here? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note? ) 22:38, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it would be a good idea. ςפקι Д Иτς ☺ ☻ 03:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm going to be bold and add the info-en address in there, given that it seems like most people support it and that it's already mentioned in Contact us. Feel free to improve the wording or remove it if you think it is inappropriate. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note? ) 22:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Freakofnurture, would you mind discussing the issue here instead of leaving your reasons in an edit summary (please don't put that, we get enough trolling on the public desk) and leaving a brief reply above? That would be greatly appreciated. Would you mind clarifying what you mean by this? Given that the email address is already mentioned at Contacting us, I think it would be best that we be consistent. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note? ) 00:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't really like the idea of it going to info-en because 1) I'm afraid this will generate more mail than we can handle, and we're already having trouble keeping enough people who won't burn out; the address was intended to handle requests that for some reason can't go on the wiki or for people who haven't figured out what to do on the wiki 2) whoever answers, unless the situation is really obvious, is just going to have to contact the blocking admin anyhow. I'd prefer just advising people to put the unblock template on their pages. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply, Mindspillage! Upon further thought, I'd probably have to agree with you and Freakofnurture; I also pretty much refer any requests for unblocks on info-en that aren't obvious to the blocking admin. On that note, do you think that the link to info-en at Contact us should be removed? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note? ) 21:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Clarification for AOL users
AOL users are constantly being caught by blocks, either as a result of autoblocks of registered vandals, or by those who take advantage their round-robin method of doling out IP addresses. As much as I would prefer to see this page kept as simple as possible, I think it would behoove us to add a link explaining why they are being innocently blocked in greater detail, similar to how we have a "Editing from China?" link at the bottom of the page. Best regards, Hall Monitor 18:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Doesn't the "Innocent?" section cover this topic, albeit briefly, already? Maybe a link to such a page could be inserted in that section; it seems like a good idea, though. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note? ) 21:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I support this idea. The real question is, what should the page say?  The German Wikipedia seems to suggest that simply using a different browser (such as Firefox) will bypass the AOL proxies.  Can anyone confirm this?  Can the AOL standard browsers (IE on Windows, Mozilla-based on Mac) be configured not to use the proxies?  Where couls we find a few AOL users to help us test this in practice?  —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

It's there now. See America Online. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 15:19, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Some stuff removed and changed
I boldly updated this after a very brief IRC discussion.


 * Removed link to wikien-l because it makes for a bad user experience. Mail gets delayed in the moderation queue and many times people make fun of unblock requests.
 * Added a link to contact_us/blocked which presently directs people to info-en though hopefully this will change very soon
 * Removed a suggestion to contact other administrators. The policy consensus is that the blocking admin should be involved in unblock requests, and so contacting admins at random is poor advice.
 * Added text indicating that the user must contact the blocking admin first before escalating the matter elsewhere
 * Added text indicating that the user must include copies of correspondence with the blocking admin when escalating

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Links to block log
Making someone look through the IP block list seems mean. Can't we just link to the block log for the IP address? I'm afraid to touch the page for fear of breaking it. --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of the Sith 23:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah. The link to the block log should be:  -- GeorgeMoney T&middot;C 01:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I considered adding something like this in the past, but realized that the value of $3 will always be the blocked user's IP address, and never a username, so that link would only be useful in about 50% of cases. — Jun. 4, '06 [09:10] < [ freak]|[ talk] >


 * I wish MediaWiki had another value for usernames, like $4 so we could use some kind of parser function and work something out so if it is a user, it links to the user. If it is an IP, it links to the IP. -- GeorgeMoney T&middot;C 06:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. Talk to brion about it. — Jun. 4, '06 [09:10] < [ freak]|[ talk] >

In any case, there should at least be a link to the IP block list. Many people are unaware of the search terms that will take them to it. Littleghostboo [ talk  ] 07:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Raw Wikitext
On the bottom, it has a link for "Raw Wikitext" that you have to download. Well, some people might not want to download it, so I think the link should point to "&action=raw&ctype=text/css" instead of "&action=raw", so it doesn't have to be downloaded.

An example is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:GeorgeMoney&action=raw&ctype=text/css - which is the non-download version

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:GeorgeMoney&action=raw - which is the download version

-- GeorgeMoney T&middot;C 22:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The fact that the former works as you expect it is coincidental, and arguably a bug: the "text/css" type is telling the browser to treat it as a style sheet, not as text — a number of common browsers just happen to default to displaying style sheets as text if viewed directly.


 * The issue has in fact been discussed above, in the section titled Raw wiki text. The mailing list link given there is useful reading.  —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

View Source
Is there a way to "view source" when you are blocked from editing a page? If the page were protected, I could view the source, but if I click edit on an unprotected page and am blocked, I get sent to this page instead of being able to view the source code. (I use AOL, which is always being blocked for all of its users). 152.163.100.138 14:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Try reading the blocked message?
 * If you need to see the wiki text of an article, you may wish to use the Export pages feature or download the [ raw wikitext].
 * --Lord Deskana I VALUE YOUR OPINIONS 14:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I'm just an incompetent newcomer who is too lazy to read. Thank you. 152.163.100.138 15:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * No need to apologise, I was a newcomer too not that long ago. --Lord Deskana I VALUE YOUR OPINIONS 15:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

You should know that both options are not that great. In one you have to allow a download to your PC (which I won't due for fear of viruses). If you cut and paste the text from Special/Export PAges, you don't get exactly what you would have gotten in the edit box (The headings are not done right for one thing). I still think there should be a way to view the source in an edit box type arrangement, as you can if you click view source on a protected page. I'd like to ask one of your software guys if they can do this for us, if it is not already possible. Thanks. 152.163.100.138 15:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * You should try posting on Village pump (technical) in that case then. --Lord Deskana I VALUE YOUR OPINIONS 15:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I will do that. 152.163.100.138 15:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * There's an ugly, manual hack in the section one up that works in most half-decent browsers. -Splash - tk 15:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Fixed!
As of today, the page shown to blocked users now includes the source of the page they were trying to edit. Even more importantly, if the user is blocked while they are editing, the message they see will show the version they were about to submit. Thus, IE users will no longer lose their edits if their IP is blocked while editing. I'm sure millions of AOLers will appreciate this. (Ps. Two new messages have been introduced for this feature: blockedoriginalsource and blockededitsource. Their purpose should be obvious.)  —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:49, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * This is one of the most positive developments in Wikipedia so far. -- S iva1979 Talk to me  20:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Talk Page?
As somebody who has seen this page a lot, I still can't believe that the page doesn't link to the blocked user's talk page. Perhaps a sysop could add it to the top, maybe? Something like you're IP/Username is $1. This is Your talk page.  J o r c o g a  E T C.  08:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Please search for your name or IP on the block list.
Wouldn't it be easier to link the user to their block log? The ipblocklist is absolutely colossal. -- Steel 00:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Tried it, it breaks w/ usernames w/ a space in it apparently -- Tawker 03:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh well. On a side note: I only just noticed the ipblocklist has that search box... -- Steel 10:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * When usernames have spaces in them, then the $3 parameter would be something like .  At the end of a link, this would make it something like , which would link to http://www.example.org/User:Foo with the text "bar link" instead of to http://www.example.org/User:Foo_bar with the text "link".  For some technical reason the $3 parameter cannot be passed to   either. (discussed on bugzilla, answer was too technical for me to understand :-) — Mets 501  (talk) 18:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I guess we could do two links, option 1 for IP's (the URL encoded) and a second for 2 word usernames etc.... it's just a thought but it's possible -- Tawker 18:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Just on a side note, $3 represents their IP, so if an account was blocked the link would just take them to the block log of their IP, right? Not helpful. -- Steel 18:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It shows their username or IP, depending on what was blocked. In most cases it will be an ISP, but really, it's hard to see w/ autoblocks et all -- Tawker 18:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I just tested this elsewhere and $3 definitely brings up an IP regardless of whether it was an IP or account that was blocked. -- Steel 18:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Searching for your IP in the block list if your username was blocked doesn't help, does it? — Mets 501 (talk) 18:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Quite. -- Steel 18:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It does find your block or it doesn't? — Mets 501 (talk) 20:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Blocking an account doesn't add the IP to the currently blocked users list. -- Steel 20:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * That's what I thought :-) — Mets 501 (talk) 20:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Request edit
Please fix the redirect under "Editing from China?" The page is now at Advice to users using Tor to bypass the Great Firewall instead of the current one now. Hbdragon88 05:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Yes check.svg|20px]] Done. --  Netsnipe  ►  06:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Steamlining suggestions
After spending some time on the unblock-en list, I am beginning to feel that our Blockedtext page is more confusing than it is helpful. For example, would there be any disadvantage to combining these multiple unblock tags into a single catchall template? If requests were funneled through a single point of contact, i.e. the mailing list, the verbiage could be cut in half. I'm throwing ideas out there, but would like to know if there are any other thoughts on how we might make less into something more. Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 22:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I believe that there are privacy issues that prevent us from having a single unblock template since a registered user may not want to reveal their IP address when requesting an unblock. We shouldn't funnel all requests to a mailing list since a lot of users don't want to reveal their email address either. My feeling is that less than 20% of unblock requests go through unblock-en-l at this moment while CAT:RFU handles the rest. --  Netsnipe  ►  20:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Not sure what to say, other than I disagree. :-) The unblock template business is relatively new (created last year in fact) and I believe we would be better off with a single point of contact, both for tracking purposes and reasons of simplicity.  Keep it simple.  Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 22:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree with Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me, -- HIZKIAH (User &#149; Talk) 20:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Fairly significant edit
I've done away with the two-column thing, instead having three linear sections and directing autoblocked users to the correct place right at the very top. I've also tried to clean up the wording of a lot of the page. Further editing is welcomed – Gurch 20:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Looks like someone decided to make it five sections – Gurch 03:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Appealing a block
Since pretty much everything from Appealing a block is now covered by MediaWiki:Blockedtext, what should we do about the now redundant page? Redirect? Shorten? --  Netsnipe  ►  12:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I strongly oppose having policies in MediaWiki-space. It's probably best to leave them both with similar information and to synchronize the MediaWiki page to the policy from time to time (in terms of content, not style, and loosely). If the interface message is saying something the policy isn't, it's probably worth changing one or the other of them (and a difference the other way round is probably OK but is worth thinking about). --ais523 16:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree.-- HIZKIAH (User &#149; Talk) 20:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Requested edit - grammar
The word "an" is repeated in a sentence:

== Unregistered? ==

MediaWiki, the software that Wikipedia runs on, identifies users without an an account through their IP address. (emphasis added)

--WikiSlasher 10:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. Thank you. --Lord Deskana (swiftmend!) 10:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Stop icon
Anybody mind if I update the stop icon from to  ? -- Renesis (talk) 18:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No, as a matter of fact I like your proposal very much Stop x nuvola.svg -- HIZKIAH (User &#149; Talk) 19:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, done. -- Renesis (talk) 20:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Stop x nuvola.svg How dare you! --Deskana  (talk)  15:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Suggested Edit.
I have a suggestion for this page: I think that: If you have just clicked a red link, you were blocked from starting a new page as no article on that topic exists yet should be changed to: 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. Does that read any better? I'm suggesting this because I think it does. Acalamari 18:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. --  Netsnipe  ►  18:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You welcome, but I thank you for actually doing the edit, as I couldn't. I think that sentence reads better now. Acalamari 18:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * As I can't edit this myself, here's another suggestion: why not change: If you wish to appeal your block, see the following section. to If you wish to appeal your block, please see the following section. I've seen the word please in other notices, and I thought it would be appropriate here too. Acalamari 23:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Done =Nichalp   «Talk»=  15:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. :) Acalamari 16:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Block reason in italics (suggested)
I believe that it would be better if the reason for the block is in italics again.  Amos Han  Talk 21:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Icon change?
editprotected Can an admin replace the image with this one. It is now SVG and it better matches the nuvola/modern icons now used in the (uw-series) of vandalism warnings.




 * Done . Viridae Talk 09:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Reverted by John Reaves, for some reason – Gurch 22:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Username font
Please improve this message. The username should be wrapped with  tags. It is neccesary to do this because some fonts confuse "I" or "l". ↔ tz (talk · contribs) 03:34:34, Saturday, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * ✅ Done. Sandstein 06:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

MediaWiki:autoblockedtext
editprotected Now users see different messages depending on whether they're blocked or autoblocked. Therefore, every mention of autoblocks should be removed from this page and the new message page should be rewritten. Max S em 21:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Ow yeah, and new parameter has been introduced to this message: $6 representing block expiry time. Max S em 21:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * All done. I assume people will want to clean up the wording at MediaWiki:Autoblockedtext, but it's good for now.  I also adjusted unblock-auto to include the block id. — M ETS 501 (talk) 23:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Template:Autoblock also needed adjustment. Sandstein 18:31, 16 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)

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)

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)

Edit
editprotected If the reason given is "username", "user...", "contact an administrator for verification purposes", or something similar, then you or someone with whom you share an IP address has been blocked for choosing an inappropriate username. If the reason given is "username", "user...", "contact an administrator for verification purposes", or something similar, then you have been blocked for choosing an inappropriate username.
 * should be:
 * because block and autoblock get different messages. GDonato (talk) 13:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that the new text is correct. Shared IPs could still have inappropriate usernames and not be autoblocked, just regular blocked, couldn't they? --MZMcBride 19:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * IPs can't have usernames. GDonato (talk) 19:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. [[Image:Yes check.svg|20px]] Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 19:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Requested edit
Can someone please linkify the username of the blocking admin to their userpage? Thanks,  Clyde  (a.k.a Mystytopia) 15:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Done. Good suggestion. Aquarius &#149; talk 15:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Parameters
The current template uses the parameters $1, $2, $3 and $6, but what information does $4 and $5 give? → Aza Toth 22:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm fairly confident that $4 gives the blocking admin without a userpage link (which $1 gives automatically) and $5 is the Autoblock ID, which is only used on MediaWiki:Autoblockedtext, but is reserved here so as to not cause confusion. — M ETS 501 (talk) 22:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, ok, thanks. → Aza Toth 22:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually $5 might be extremely useful, it should give a direct link to the block, regardless of whether it is a range block, IP block, username block, whatever. If it is stable, it could make unblock requests a lot easier. Prodego  talk  03:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

request edit
editprotected

make it like this:

To see the duriaton of the block.--Jer10 95 Talk 05:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Does anyone know whether this message has a $7? It's not in the default message, not even in the most recent MediaWiki version (see http://test.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Blockedtext). Admins can't just add parameters to MediaWiki messages; that needs a developer. --ais523 16:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I've disabled the editprotected request for a couple of reasons. (1) There should be consensus for a change to a system message that is highly visible (as this one is). (2) No one's really sure about an option $7 right now. (3) The request wasn't made very nicely. A "please" would've been nice rather than a demand. Cheers. --MZMcBride 19:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * We are on r22482, for which the last version of OutputPage.php was r22404. According to line 789, the variables for this page are, from 1 to 6:

* $link              Link to blocking admin's userpage * $reason            Reason supplied for block * $ip                IP address of blocked user * $name              Name of blocking admin (not a link) * $blockid           Block ID number (this is the number shown for autoblocks) * $blockExpiry       Date the block expires
 * There is no 7. Prodego  talk  22:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Range blocks
Just committed r22623 which, if the user is blocked as the result of a rangeblock, will add the range that was blocked in CIDR notation to this message as "$7". If the block is not a rangeblock, $7 will be an empty string. Hopefully this will help a bit in sorting out which range blocks are causing which headaches, so please incorporate this into the message somehow once it goes live (probably about a week or so .. check Special:Version). AmiDaniel (talk) 08:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * r22526 at the moment. Anyway, this makes the thread above about $7 not existing redundant pretty quickly... --ais523 14:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * What can I say -- perfect timing :). Just coming by with yet another update, by Prodego's request, as of r22641 $7 will now contain the username, IP address, or IP range of the original blockee regardless of whether it is a range-block or not. This differs from $3 in that $3 always outputs just your current IP address, whereas a block can effect an IP or user for many different reasons. Hopefully this will be of use. AmiDaniel (talk) 00:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * So, when is the scap going to be made? → Aza Toth 21:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * There have been a substantial number of commits since the last sync, and the time has to be taken to test all of these. I would guess probably within a week or so, but I'm not in a position to say for sure. AmiDaniel (talk) 02:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The scap was done, and I've edited the message. --ais523 17:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion
editprotected Hey, in the IP blocked? section, where it says, the third parameter (3= $1), you should change the $1 to a $4, which is the same thing, but it doesen't automatically link to the admin's userpage. This would remove a link in what should be source code, which shouldn't have links in it. Just a suggestion, Astrale01talkcontribs 03:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, seeing as there's now MediaWiki:Autoblockedtext, I wonder if the section's needed at all? It's kind of hard to check, as it would require an admin to cause an autoblock on their own IP and then log in with a sockpuppet, thus causing an autoblock on an innocent IP and possibly causing problems later. --ais523 16:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I've been considering cooking up a very similar "unblock-ip" template -- autoblocks will see the new MediaWiki page, but unblock-auto is the only template currently equipped to give us information on a user's IP address, should it be relevant and should they choose to reveal it. I'm trying to remember exactly what $4 is, on this one -- is it de-linked, or URL-encoded? – Luna Santin  (talk) 19:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm resolving the editprotected tag, there seems to be enough interest here to handle it. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 20:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, as Luna Santin said, $4 is like $1 but is de-linked, not URL encoded. So is the parameter going to be changed or not?

an account, IP address or range of addresses
I've noticed this particular wording seems to generate some confusion -- in particular, a lot more people than usual seem to be absolutely convinced that they're rangeblocked, when they're most definitely not. Is there anything we can do to resolve this? I'm not feeling clever enough to have any quick solution come to mind, short of removing "or range of addresses." – Luna Santin  (talk) 07:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

editprotected I think we need to remove the words "IP address or range of addresses" and just leave "an account", because unless I am much mistaken, this is only used for accounts now. We have a different page for Autoblocks. --Trumpetband WIHTW? 19:58, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Note that this message still shows up for IP addresses that are directly blocked as well as accounts so maybe we should just remove the "Range of addresses". --Hdt83 Chat 20:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No, Autoblockedtext is for, exactly as the title would suggest, autoblocks; that is, blocks triggered on a host by a blocked user editing from that host. This page is shown to registered and anonymous users who have been blocked as the result of their accounts being blocked or their IP addresses being blocked, either directly or as the result of a range block. The parameter $7 will show exactly that--a range of addresses, a single IP address, or a username--whoever the original blockee is (see 22641). As such, the wording is certainly technically correct--I agree however that it is misleading, yet I have no better solution. Additionally, I must state that simply because users think they've been blocked as the result of a range block, admins on unblock-en-l will certainly be able to conclude this as false quite easily. I wonder what harm it's really doing to have people mail in saying their IP range has been blocked if that is not the case. AmiDaniel (talk) 21:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Requested edit

 * If the reason given is "username", "user...", "contact an administrator for verification purposes", or something similar, then you have been blocked for choosing an inappropriate username. To request a change in username and be unblocked, please follow these instructions. Alternatively, create a new account with a more appropriate name.

Can someone please fix the link to the redirect by changing Username to Username policy in the phrase above?  Cheers,  Mystytopia  01:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Done. --Deskana (talk) 01:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

An edit I did
I made this minor edit here to the message. I've never edited a MediaWiki page before, and I would to know if that edit, despite the fact it was small and was a formatting correction, was okay or not. Acalamari 19:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It looks fine to me. Simple formatting, spelling, gramar type edits on these pages are almost always welcomed. The things you ahve to be the most careful about are pages with specific formating requirements where spaces etc will break something, and remember that in MediaWiki: wiki links don't always work. —  xaosflux  Talk  00:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks; I don't plan on doing any major changes to MediaWiki pages, only small edits like that when necessary. I did an edit to this MediaWiki message first because I've requested edits to this message before and some experience with edits to this message. I asked my question above because I wanted to make sure. Acalamari 01:47, 18 July 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)

Icon change?
editprotected Can an admin replace the image with this one. It is now SVG and it better matches the nuvola/modern icons now used in the (uw-series) of vandalism warnings.

SLSB  talk ER 19:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * done. Viridae Talk 00:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Remove the "IP Blocked?" Section
The "IP Blocked?" section should be removed because the section describes what to do in an autoblock but if you are autoblocked, MediaWiki:Autoblockedtext shows up instead of this template (which is if your user account or IP address was directly blocked). --Hdt83 Chat 20:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Not as true as you might think -- you'll see Autoblockedtext if and only if you're autoblocked. If your IP address is directly blocked or rangeblocked, you'll still see Blockedtext. Do agree some changes might be in order, though; I've been considering making another template, unblock-ip, or otherwise making the distinction more clear. Doing so would benefit both confused users and admins looking to respond to unblock requests, I suspect. – Luna Santin  (talk) 03:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I've disabled the editprotected request; this issue has an admin's attention. Cheers. --MZMcBride 22:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Should we create a MediaWiki:Ipblockedtext? Just a suggestion.  Cheers, Lights  22:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * or an ? Allowing wording to be maintained for both easily. FT2 (Talk 02:40, 17 September 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)

Change
I changed the wording slightly to reflect that admins may be uncontactable, for a variety of reasons. Seems like it should be uncontraversial, and anyone's who's interested can see some discussion about the motivation on the mailing list. Wily D 16:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I recommend that the "appealing" section be changed to "Official appealing procedure" and be
 * preceded by a "recommendations" section that suggests the person read up on Wikipedia policies and review the past edits of the people he is dealing with to better understand the situation and to allow time for emotions to subside and
 * followed by an "Unofficial appeals" section that suggests that finding a friendly influential editor (admin or not) to talk to by e-mail or on their talk page about the situation can be helpful in either
 * finding out that one really is being blocked for reasons that the community supports or in
 * finding an advocate that can help with righting a wrong. WAS 4.250 22:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I would not be opposed to a bigger rewrite. The mailing list had an extensive discussion and the main point was that the procedure was confusing about what to do if you couldn't contact the admin, especially since it specified "contact them by email" and some admins don't have a valid email.  Wily D  00:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I read that, which is what brought me to this page. I saw the larger problem as clueless people blindly following an official bureaucratic procedure, so I see solving the larger problem as providing some clue to people whose first instinct is to blindly obey the written instruction exactly as written immediately. I see the immediately part the biggest problem, and suggestions to find a friend to talk to about it important for some of our more nonsocial types. WAS 4.250 01:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I've edited the notice as follows: Diff =. If autoblock is mentioned and not needed, it can be removed (I played safe to be careful).
 * 1) Slightly less ominous, bureaucratic or assumptive
 * 2) More user supportive title, avoiding awkward expression (better to say what they are, not what they are not)
 * 3) Explains What does this mean in simple terms; the most common reasons, what to do, and quick links
 * 4) Explains (WP:AGF) that some blocks are caused by autoblock/mis-identification, and can quickly be fixed
 * 5) Explain up front they usually can still access the TP and email systems.
 * 6) Doesn't provide WP:BEANS.
 * 7) Clarifies that speaking to the blocking admin and using the unblock template, are the most common two recourses, and encourages users to choose one or both, and what to expect. This gets round the problems noted above about non-response by admins.
 * 8) Added wikilinks and indents here and there
 * 9) Clarified abuse of talk page access.

FT2 (Talk 02:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll take some time to mull over these changes, but overall, my first reaction is that I like them a lot. Nice work. As far as autoblocks go, autoblocked users should be seeing MediaWiki:Autoblockedtext, instead (my experience is that mentioning both on the same page can lead to a lot of confusion, just try to be careful about it). I'll be keeping an eye on unblock-en-l to see how/if traffic changes, after this. I've got some ideas for further changes, but those can wait. – Luna Santin  (talk) 19:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Revamp of header?
I've been wondering about this: the message as it is currently arranged seems to assume that the user seeing the message is the target of the block, and given the high number of offended victims of collateral damage I've seen in the past, I'm not so sure that's a safe assumption. There are plenty of blocks on ranges and shared (sometimes widely shared) IPs, and the users behind those addresses are probably inconvenienced enough without adding insult to injury. To that end, I've slapped together a slightly less menacing message here -- just the top bit, the rest would be the same -- the general idea being that malicious users will understand the meaning of the message plenty well, and confused innocents won't be slapped in the face, implicitly accused of vandalism or disruption, and so on.

I think there's two main changes I'd be interested in, the first and more important being a shift in language from "you have been blocked" to the less accusing "editing from foo is currently disabled," and the second being a less urgent shift toward matching the current suite of article cleanup templates, by using ambox (or something similar, I'm not sure about using MediaWiki parameters in a template call). In other words, letting people know that something is off, and informing them about it, without making it seem like a big deal they should panic over. Obviously this isn't perfect, and I'm quite open to feedback or improvements (feel free!). Any thoughts? – Luna Santin  (talk) 09:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Absolutely. This is a WP:BITE and important public relations issue. Let's make it so - David Gerard (talk) 08:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I've changed it to your text and noted it on WP:ANI - David Gerard (talk) 08:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Excellent changes Luna. I imagine this will make for much more pleasant exchanges between blocked IPs and admins tending to their requests. John Reaves 09:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, this wording is better. Thanks Luna Santin and David for the change. --FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 16:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, I like this a lot better.  Cbrown1023   talk   01:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * MeToo. Noel (talk) 11:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The rest of the text is arguably waaay too long and makes me go "tl;dr" ... attempts at condensing it are probably in order - David Gerard (talk) 20:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * "Note: Template parameters do not work in the MediaWiki namespace; do not use parameters with templates." - this looked really broken when used as part of the interface (was displaying 2 boxes and none of the text it was supposed to. It should be fixed now, I ran it through Special:ExpandTemplates and pasted that into the message. Mr.  Z- man  04:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I made a few tweaks, but it IS a really really long read for all the text we are sending someone, would more links be better? — xaosflux  Talk  04:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Edit
I'd like to change to what Prodego added. It's better then the current one. -Porchcrop (talk) 04:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Overhaul
I re-did a lot of the page, trying to shorten pieces and make it less ugly. I've removed the icon and a lot of the colors. These "cute" icons just annoy people who have been blocked. The colors made the page look disheveled. It still needs to be much, much shorter. Nobody's ever going to read all of this -- it's too damn long. Looking at Simple Wikipedia's version may help. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you! I think this redesign has significantly decreased the amount of BITE in the block screen.  r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  09:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Tweak the page if the blockee is an IP vs user?
The current wording of the page makes it difficult (in my opinion) for a user whose IP is blocked to find the "IP blocked?" section (carefully hidden in the "More informations" section). Anyone got an idea on how to distinguish blocked users from blocked IPs and ranges? -- lucasbfr  talk 08:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm... would a comparison between $3 and $7 be useful, there? If their IP matches the original block target, then the IP is apparently blocked directly. If the two don't match, then either they're rangeblocked or blocked directly (if autoblocked, they'll see MediaWiki:Autoblockedtext instead of this). Unfortunately I'm not sure if we can easily distinguish whether it's a user/range block, currently, and that seems to be important. – Luna Santin  (talk) 12:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah I couldn't find a nice way to do it. I have boldly moved the IP block section. Feel free to tweak or revert! -- lucasbfr  talk 12:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

id
sudo

It would be helpful if the first in the message could have an id attribute – something like "mw-blocked-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)

Talk page edit
How do Wikipedia and UESPWiki enable blocked users to edit their talk pages? Dagoth Ur, Mad God (talk) 08:54, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * See mw:Manual:$wgBlockAllowsUTEdit. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 13:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:GAB
As an admin frequently patrolling CAT:RFU, I've written a guide to appealing blocks which I think reflects our current practice. Are there any objections to inserting the following at the end of the first paragraph of the "Blocked directly?" section?

Best,  Sandstein   21:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You're not concerned about people reading that and having it enable them to easily game the system? --MZMcBride (talk) 22:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I can't really imagine how it would. If an unblock request is spurious, it will be more easily revealed as such if it is well expressed. And as for the 99% of unblock requests that are currently not well expressed, well, it facilitates patrolling CAT:RFU - we can point blocked users at WP:GAB and tell them to write a decent request. I'm just tired of wading through dozens of pages of contributions on the off chance that a blocked user's simplistic unblock request might possibly have any substance to it.  Sandstein   22:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, even if a patrolling admin finds an unblock request to be persuasive, they'll not unblock immediately, but invite the blocking admin to comment. That discussion, too (and a possible community review), is helped if any relevant issues are succinctly presented.  Sandstein   22:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable to me. I have no objection to the text addition. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * ✅ Done.  Sandstein   19:15, 18 July 2008 (UTC)