MediaWiki talk:Blockedtext/Archive 3

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)

Header formatting screwing up TOC on transclusion
Can somebody who knows better change the formatting so that this doesn't screw up the TOC at WP:APPEAL? Right now entries 4-6 of that TOC go nowhere unless one scrolls down that page to expand this page (as it is transcluded to that one) first.--chaser (talk) 02:43, 5 June 2009 (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)

Full of jargon and inaccuracies
This message is horrendous. It's full of Wikipedia jargon and inaccuracies. No wonder people feel overwhelmed by bureaucracy the moment they get blocked for whatever reason.

Here are some problems I've found with it:
 * A number of automated features identify unblocked usage that apparently should be blocked; this can be quickly rectified if incorrect.
 * What does that even mean?


 * If the reason given is "username", "user...", "contact an administrator for verification purposes", or something similar...
 * The "user..." thing was Curps's adminbot, which hasn't run since 2006 (thankfully). Nobody would get away with blocking someone with such an unhelpful reason now. I also don't know why "contact an administrator for verification purposes" would indicate an inappropriate username. (If we're verifying the name of a famous person, we're asking them to show that their username is appropriate, not saying their real name is inappropriate and asking them to pick a new one!)


 * You have just clicked a 'red link' - an article that does not yet exist - but you do not have access to start a new page when no article already exists. :What does clicking red links have to do with getting blocked?
 * You are using Google Web Accelerator or some other web accelerator...
 * Is this really one of the "most common causes" of blocking, as it says?

Besides weirdness like that, the message just goes on for pages, and almost all of the message is irrelevant to most users. We need to find a way to cut this message down to about 20% of its size for it to be at all helpful.

A technical measure, to show a different message to users when they are blocked by IP or by account, would help us to not show irrelevant instructions to people. But even without that, there's progress we can make. For example, we can probably take out sections relating to specific kinds of blocks such as username blocks, because those come with block templates (which get substituted into the $2 area) with directions that are specific to that kind of block.

On top of that, we should try to eliminate jargon. Most of this message is written from, to use more Wikipedia jargon, an in-universe point of view, where the universe is Wikipedia processes.

rspεεr (talk) 02:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * In general, I agree with almost any change that improves users' understanding of the page, what it means for their situation, and where they can go from there; as the page text can also impact the processing of unblock requests for better or worse, that's also an important consideration. The two latter bullets you mention (redlinks and accelerators) are added for the sake of resolving common threads in unblock requests: in the case of users clicking redlinks, such users frequently used to complain "But I wasn't trying to edit!"; in the case of users on web accelerators, I seem to recall that many of them ignored the more detailed explanations and instructions provided in block templates until similar information was added to Blockedtext. As far as jargon goes, what jargon could we remove or simplify? What page text can be eliminated or shortened easily? – Luna Santin  (talk) 08:12, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The highest density of jargon is in the "IP blocked?" section. "If you are not blocked directly, your IP address ($3) or range has been "hard blocked" due to abuse either by the previous person who was allocated or sharing your IP address," it begins, and then it goes on to talk about X-Forwarded-For and proxy servers. You have to be a serious geek to understand what X-Forwarded-For is, and most people are not going to understand the "blocked directly" distinction. rspεεr (talk) 22:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * At least it doesn't look like this anymore. I agree that there's far too much text; I tried to mitigate this by using a cheap hack&mdash;show/hide functionality. That could perhaps be removed if it's possible to get this message down to a reasonable length. Reducing the clutter and presenting the information as clearly as possible both sound very good. --MZMcBride (talk) 08:57, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think items 2 (user...) and 4 (accelerators) should go. The accelerator bit can be explained in the block reason (I think it is already), and I don't think many people are still using these (Google discontinued theirs). I'm still not a fan of the show//hide stuff, I have crash-tested it twice with total newbies and they just didn't get that there was some hidden text. -- Luk  talk 09:59, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It would certainly help if we could have different block messages for IPs and registered users. With or without that innovation, there are some things we can do. First, spend a lot less time explaining what the problem might be. Focus on giving possible courses of action, and use a kind of Wizard approach to put some of the relevant text on other pages. By Wizard approach I mean present a number of different options on how to proceed, and instead of explaining them, just summarise, and link to pages that explain them. Part of the splitting by options would involve distinguishing between IPs and Registered users, in different sections. This is isn't easy, but it can surely be done better. Rd232 talk 13:41, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with the slimming down, an I've created a sandbox version here to work on doing it in. I've had a first run over, but didn't get it small enough for it to be worth removing the show/hide boxes yet (might be best to split much of the text out into other pages, truly).  I also noted that part of the suggestions are, if you aren't registered, to "create an account on a different computer" etc., and I have no clue why it's a good idea to suggest that sort of thing.  Help would be appreciated on the work.  Cheers, everyone.  lifebaka++ 21:23, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It's a start. I don't think "If you have JavaScript enabled..." gets the message off on the right foot, though. Although most of us are geeks, we need to realize that most of our target audience does not know what JavaScript is. And they probably have it enabled because they have never twiddled that setting. Then again, our goal should be to remove the show/hide links entirely, making that part unnecessary.
 * I still find the "Blocked directly?" and "IP address blocked?" distinction confusing to new users. Is there a bit of CSS magic we could do to make different text show up for logged-in users and IP users? I know it would be possible if we could write arbitrary JavaScript into the message, but the fact that it's a Wiki-parsed message prevents that. rspεεr (talk) 22:29, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * We previously asked the devs to give us a distinct MediaWiki:Autoblockedtext for users impacted by autoblocks; at the time, I thought of it as a bit of a longshot, but before long we had a distinct page for that scenario. Might save some trouble to do the same for IP/account blocks. (thanks also for pointing out some jargon, above -- it's hard for me to spot, sometimes) – Luna Santin  (talk) 00:07, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't think of anything to let us do it in this page itself, unless we can ask the software to find IPs. Luna's idea is probably the best.  I also slimmed down my sandbox version a bit, and moved some things around.  Let me know if there's anything else that could or should be removed.  The biggest part left is the "E-mail Us" section, but I can't figure out a way to get it shorter without taking it out entirely.  Cheers.  lifebaka++ 01:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not clear to me why people should be emailing To request an account versus going to the Signup page. If it's because the block may sometimes make this impossible, shouldn't we encourage people to try it first, and email if they can't? Rd232 talk 10:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * At first glance, I'm rather liking Lifebaka's streamlined version -- it may even cut down on things enough to remove those hide boxes -- and I think it addresses many of the concerns that have been mentioned here. I would somewhat prefer if the "Appealing" section heading in "What do I do now?" were not a wikilink, for the sake of consistent appearance, but that's a pretty minor quibble. I'd support replacing the current page text with that version, or something like it. To Rd232, I think a variety of things including anonblock, schoolblock, MediaWiki:Cantcreateaccount-text, and so on, may ultimately direct users to email unblock-en-l or to Request an account... which I know isn't a complete answer to your question. If we want them to email, the "email template" is very helpful. – Luna Santin  (talk) 18:29, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Rd232, I think the steps at uw-ublock are good, ie do it yourself, but if you're unable to then email the blocking admin. What do you all think? Nja 247 18:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a good step, but I wouldn't want to leave it as the only option presented (not sure if that's what you're suggesting). – Luna Santin  (talk) 18:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think we should be directing them to request accounts at  instead, but I haven't figured out a good way to phrase that yet so I hadn't changed it.  uw-ublock and uw-spamublock both include instructions about how to deal with them, so I think we could just remove that bit entirely.
 * I implemented Luna's suggestion about keeping the headings not wikilinked, so I moved the link up. Currently the "What does this mean?" and "What do I do now?" sections come uncollapsed, as I've slimmed them down quite a bit, while the "Additional information" is collapsed.  Cheers, everyone.  lifebaka++ 22:27, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

We're talking about User:Lifebaka/Sandbox/Blocked text, in case anyone's lost track. Rd232 talk 22:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * A little more time for discussion might be good, but if no objection is forthcoming I'd like to give that version a try. – Luna Santin  (talk) 23:27, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I would suggest re-adding the IRC paragraph. It is used quite a bit and people do prefer to talk in real-time. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I've readded it, as I only removed it trying to take out as much as I could think of. I think it'd be worth slimming it down, if possible, and I'm open to suggestions.  Cheers.  lifebaka++ 02:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't really think it can be reduced much. If you have any ideas, go for it.  Anyways, looks good. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * IRC or no IRC, this version is much better. One hide box for "additional information" is tolerable. rspεεr (talk) 06:24, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. If emailing is down in "additional information", perhaps IRC should be mentioned there, as well? It seems a bit out of place, currently. Could just be me -- opinions welcome. – Luna Santin  (talk) 06:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I moved it on the additional information section. That section should probably be renamed since it now only deals with alternative ways of contacting us. -- Luk  talk 12:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hm... "alternatives" maybe? (Note: I've copied the sandbox version into the page) – Luna Santin  (talk) 16:35, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * (outdent) How about just "Contact us"? Then we could rename "E-mailing us" to "By e-mail" or something like it.  lifebaka++ 18:40, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hm, that could work. I'd be mildly concerned that it might get confused with the omnipresent "contact us" link, although that probably wouldn't be the end of the world (might even suggest some changes to one or both pages, depending). Whatever's good. – Luna Santin  (talk) 18:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If we call it "How to contact us about this block" -- I'm pretty sure we have the horizontal space for that -- it might look less like the standard "contact us" link. rspεεr (talk) 00:13, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Or "More ways to..." I suppose the more horizontal space we use, the easier the "show" link is to find. – Luna Santin  (talk) 01:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I like the way the cleanup is heading. I thought I'd see what the message looks like to the end user by using a blocked web proxy (well two actually). I'd recommend it for anyone who doesn't usually get blocked.

Not logged in, under a direct IP hardblock I was told that:
 * If 67.159.44.51 is not blocked, your IP address (67.159.44.51) or range may have been blocked. Please check here

and under a hard rangeblock:
 * If 76.73.0.0/17 is not blocked, your IP address (76.73.86.146) or range may have been blocked...

a logged in user account would see exactly the same. I'll just leave that here for comment before the next update .. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * We could kill the first case by putting that and related text inside a statement, as long as calling the variables inside the ParserFunction doesn't make something stop working.  I don't know enough about how IP ranges are expressed to come up with something for the second case.  lifebaka++ 22:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Grammar error
Hi. Please change "The reasoning for you block may be found above." to "The reasoning for your block may be found above." ("you" to "your"). Thanks. — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 20:50, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks. Rd232 talk 21:43, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

"reasoning" is an active verb, which may imply that the administrator is currently and constantly coming up with reasons. Please change the text from "The reasoning for your block..." to "The reason for your block..." (reasoning -> reason). Thanks. 173.130.184.19 (talk) 06:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ Done.  Sandstein   07:00, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Dash
In the last paragraph, please remove the spaces flanking the em-dash in "This list exists for the purpose of reviewing blocks only — any request to make edits to articles on your behalf will be disregarded", per the Manual of Style. Waltham, The Duke of 20:35, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * ✅, though I'm not sure that vandals really care whether or not their block message is correctly spaced ;-) —  Tivedshambo   (t/c) 21:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Now, now, all humans deserve a fundamental level of respect. Waltham, The Duke of 22:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

changes
Editprotected This block has set to expire: $6. to This block has set to expire: $6. Block ID is #$5
 * ❌. Please request edits to protected pages only when you've specified what exact text needs to be replaced, what the exact replacement is, and why the change needs to be made. Cheers, Skomorokh  01:24, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Overhaul over top
Please change the text here to a new one

Old:

New:

Thanks, --68.197.16.37 (talk) 23:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Might I suggest this instead? For users only.

How about "You are currently blocked from editing Wikipedia."?Jasper Deng (talk) 19:40, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Wording choice
Currently, the page states "You can still read pages, but you cannot edit, change, or create them." Within the wording "edit, change, or create them", edit and change are redundant, as they mean the same thing. One of the words should thus be removed. I personally have no preference, but I believe that, as "edit" is the common term for this and especially the tab is called this, people will associate this word with this action. Thanks, --The Evil IP address (talk) 21:22, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Done. —David Levy 21:24, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I think that instead is should say: you can still read pages, but you cannot edit, move, or create them. 71.94.158.203 (talk) 21:48, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * ✅ -- &oelig; &trade; 12:20, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion
When it says:

I think it is more grammatically correct to state

What do you think? Bryce 53  &#124;  talk  03:42, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think it really matters much either way. But I think the way the date is displayed would make a difference.. whether the day number comes before the month or after, depends on the user's setting in their preferences for date/time. -- &oelig; &trade; 12:27, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

"if $7 is not blocked" is wrong
The part "If $7 is not blocked, your IP address ($3) or range may have been blocked ..." is completely wrong (and been like this for a long time). First, $7 is the target that was blocked (user or IP address or range). Second, the text suggests to use template:Unblock-auto but this message is not shown on autoblocks (there is a different message Autoblockedtext). — AlexSm 18:37, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Please remove the wrong text. — AlexSm 16:58, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Verified it on my local test wiki. Anomie⚔ 21:04, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Distinguish IP / range / user
It's possible to make the text of this message more specific (if anyone is interested...) with the following code.

Note that the the first two cases could be a logged-in user + WP:HARDBLOCK. — AlexSm 21:19, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Remove "Secure login" link
Please remove "secure login" link added in 2006 because it's pretty much useless in normal mode and redundant in secure mode. — AlexSm 19:31, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:28, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. The same link is in MediaWiki:Autoblockedtext, maybe you could remove that one too? — AlexSm 19:48, 20 March 2012 (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)

$
Why are the variables $? I see dollar signs instead of numbers... thanks, Ax1om77 (talk) 20:01, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It stands for string. The old-school computer programming language BASIC used a dollar sign for string variables as well.  –BuickCenturyDriver 22:38, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

But why does it not convert into a variable? THX,  Ax1om77    22:41, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If you're talking about on the message page itself, it's because there is no value to substitute for the variable (and, in fact, the "substitute variables" code isn't even run for the page view). If you're talking about being blocked and seeing the message with variables unsubstituted, that would be a bug. Anomie⚔ 01:35, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Improve this interface page
I think that MediaWiki:Globalblocking-blocked is now superseded by the current interface message. Anything can you improve this new interface message? --112.210.79.195 (talk) 12:11, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "This template should be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, so that an editor unfamiliar with the subject matter could complete the requested edit immediately." Bulwersator (talk) 19:48, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This edit was posted by a long-term vandal. Trijnstel talk 10:58, 18 May 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)

Revise
Revise the text

You can still read pages, but you cannot edit, move, or create them.

To

You are able to view pages, however you aren't able to edit, move or create any.

m'encarta (t) 21:21, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I started to do this (and tried several variations on the text) but "able to read" sounds too much like commenting on literacy rather than technical prohibition, and so just seems to have the wrong semantic sense. - jc37 21:29, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * There. I fixed it. m'encarta (t) 21:30, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. (switch to "view" and to "able") I modified the surrounding text some to try to simplify. (Not everyone is a native speaker of english, even though this is the english wikipedia.) - jc37 21:38, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

TLDR
The current page is far too long. I've trimmed it slightly, but we need to radically shorten it. (There's been a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Editor_Retention which I'm trying to move here).  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  14:46, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * "What does this mean" and all text following it should be split to a help page. (Help:I have been blocked - or some such.) And merely add a clear link to it, here.
 * Blocked editors should be able to reference this whenever they want/need.
 * This page should mainly just be the announcement, and basic links. Most of the "how-to" should go to help, as I note above. - jc37 04:07, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Agree with Jc37 - the current text should be an explanation of he block notice. The notice itself should be clean and clear not TLDR-- Cailil  talk 16:21, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Copied the text to Help:I have been blocked. Though I welcome discussion on this. - jc37 19:04, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Show links
"Note: Please use the [show] links across from each header to show more information."

This line is no longer relevant, since the sections with [show] links were removed, so it too should be removed. – ultradude25 ( T &#124; C ) at 18:39, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Anomie⚔ 00:50, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request
Should the message be changed to this:

--187.126.187.228 (talk) 18:24, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. -- Red rose64 (talk) 14:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Visual change
This is purely a visual change and not a message change: should the "If the block notice is unclear" part be put in a  tag instead of a   ? <span style="font-family:Consolas,sans-serif;">~ihaveamac &#91;talk|contribs&#93; 00:11, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a because it's inside a <font ></font>, and the FONT element, being an inline element, should not enclose block elements such as . This could (and probably should) be simplified from  to  to eliminate the [//www.w3.org/TR/html5/obsolete.html#font obsolete FONT element].
 * That aside, it would affect the appearance of the border:


 * By using a the border is just large enough to enclose the text, but with a  the border is made to be as wide as possible, because by default a  is full-width. Notice how it also reduces the gap between the two lower borders. These two effects, to my mind, reduce the impact by bringing the borders close together.
 * If we do edit, there's a <tt ></tt> element which is also obsolete - it should be altered to <code ></code>. -- Red rose64 (talk) 12:20, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, we could do something like this:


 * Note the current version with the span looks very strange if your screen is narrow enough that the text wraps. Anomie⚔ 02:02, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I have implemented Anomie's suggestion above. Hope this is resolved now. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:15, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Slight copyedit
Just a minor cosmetic change--please change "E-mail" to "email": per email/etc, that's the now generally accepted spelling. — Theo polisme  15:43, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 16:32, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Changes
Due to some concern about this template blending in a bit, I've made some changes. 4px border instead of 2px, now red instead of black, with the header text red instead of black. It is much more "obvious" now, without being obnoxious. I don't normally watch this page, please ping me if there is a problem. Thanks! Dennis Brown - 2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 02:57, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

A different color, maybe?
I was briefly blocked about a week before this message's color was changed. I was alerted to it on IRC within seconds, but I tried editng a page anyways, just to see what would happen. I remember feeling somewhat relieved to see no flashing red lights or anything - you get enough red things as it is when you're blocked, and when you're in a sensitive frame of mind the little things matter. I see the appeal of making things stand out, especially for poor English speakers and young students, two frequently-blocked demographics. But... does it really have to be red? Could we maybe go with a deep blue, or something else noticeable but friendly? Of course, if this were all up to me, everything would be pink, but... guess that's why it's not up to me.  — PinkAmpers  &#38;  <sup style="color:#000;">( Je vous invite à me parler )  10:40, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The point of the block notice is to stand out: and red definitely stands out. [S]omething else noticeable but friendly — the point of the block notice isn't necessarily to be friendly...after all, the entire point of blocks is to prevent disruption to Wikipedia: somehow, I have a sinking suspicion that blue wouldn't have quite the same effect that red does. — Theopolisme ( talk )  11:55, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I mean, it takes up a fair amount of space, and once you find you can't edit, your eyes start to wander the page... noticeability isn't a huge priority, unlike with, say, an ArbCom sanction editnotice. And while I agree that a block notice doesn't need to be friendly, I think that we should make the layout by default as friendly as possible, and let the actual blocking summary and/or template do the yelling. After all, this is what a good number of good-faith contributors see whenever they try to log in at school or at work, and I think that from an editor retention standpoint, making the blocking/unblocking process as peaceful as possible is very useful. — PinkAmpers  &#38;  <sup style="color:#000;">( Je vous invite à me parler )  12:13, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Out of all honesty, it would be nice if we could use string parser functions to customize the notice based on block reasons. A block for sockpuppetry, for instance, probably should have a different notice than a block for edit warring, for example, if we could use string functions. At the moment it isn't possible because sockpuppetry blocks typically contain links to an SPI, so can't work. Red is the color of errors, and I have no personal opinion on the color.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:28, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I have absolutely zero Lua scripting experience, but seeing as it's something new and shiny, would this be something up their alley? (as far as customized notices go) — Theopolisme ( talk )  04:31, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

$1 variable is not working
Tried to fix it myself, but alas my coding days are over. While on my self imposed April fools block for a few hours today I noticed that the blocking admin varible $1 doesn't seem to be working as it is always listing user:Joao as the blocking admin. However I can't seem to find the interface page where $1 is being passed to blockedtext... any thoughts? 7 10:23, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Screenshot: image:Blocked Media Wiki Parameter Problem.png  7  02:21, 2 April 2013 (UTC)


 * MediaWiki:Blockedtext gets parameters from the MediaWiki software. User:Joao is not an admin and has not edited since 2004, but shows that Joao's user ID at the English Wikipedia is 7. That also happens to be your user name, so it seems the two are confused somewhere. Maybe MediaWiki thinks a number must be a user ID and not a user name, so it looks up the user ID instead of passing your username to $1. If you are the only admin with a number as username then we could maybe work around the bug by testing whether $1 is Joao and replace it with 7 in that case, but it's an ugly hack, and there may be other affected MediaWiki messages. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:02, 2 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I've filed bugzilla:46768. — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 03:35, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks all... If it's just me I can live with it, but I was worried that all blocked users were seeing Joao as the blocking admin.  7  04:13, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * On second thought, I'm glad MZMcBride filed the bug report because I have blocked a few users in my day and it would be unfair for all the users that I blocked to think that they were blocked by poor old Joao.  7  12:44, 2 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Confirmed the issue on Bugzilla (cf. 46768). Thanks everyone for uncovering (and reporting!) this. Hopefully it's an easy fix. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:14, 2 April 2013 (UTC)


 * LOL, that is not User:Joao's user id. It is simply where enwiki falls on the list of wikis they signed up to.  My user ID on this wiki is 14450599 but that page with my name shows an "8" next to enwiki.  What I am wondering is why the source looks like <code >$1</code> wrapped in code tags. — User:Technical 13   ( C • M • View signature as intended) 12:00, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You are looking at the wrong column. The user ID is in the "User ID" column. Your link confirms that your User ID is 14450599 for enwiki. I guess the code tags around the username were made to make the unlinked username stand out clearly in the middle of a sentence. Some usernames could have looked confusing otherwise. For example, "blocked (disabled) by 7 for the following reason(s)" could look like seven administrators made a block. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:22, 2 April 2013 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, the MediaWiki API is usually faster and more reliable than any Toolserver tool: <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php?action=query&list=allusers&aufrom=Joao&aulimit=1>. Most users have a local user ID and, assuming they have a unified login across Wikimedia wikis, they also have a separate global user ID. In this case, Joao does not have a unified login, but <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php?action=query&meta=globaluserinfo&guiuser=MZMcBride> is an example of how to retrieve a global user ID (also available via the graphical user interface at Special:CentralAuth/MZMcBride). The more you know.™ --MZMcBride (talk) 14:31, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Request for a full change
Can someone change the blocked text like this? Your user name or IP address has been blocked.

The block was made by $1.


 * Reason given: $2
 * Start of block: $8
 * Expiry of block: $6
 * Intended blockee: $7
 * Block ID: #$5
 * Current IP address: $3

You can contact $1 or another administrator to discuss the block. Please include all details in the above box in any queries you make. Tariqmudallal (talk) 15:50, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Request for a full change on September 27, 2013
secure login ''' You are currently unable to edit Wikipedia.  You can still read pages', but cannot edit, change, or create them.''

for the following reason(s): $2 See our blocking policy for additional information.

Your IP address is $3, and the block has been set to expire: $6.

'''Note: See below - you will usually still be able to edit your user talk page and contact other editors and administrators by email, even if blocked.'''

What does this mean?
As on 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 inaccessible. Alternatively, your account or IP may have been identified by an administrator as responsible for or related to misuse, or some other breach of policy.

If your account has been blocked by mistake, it will be reactivated very quickly, as soon as you let an administrator know of the problem. Otherwise, there is a rapid appeal process which obtains quick review by other independent administrators, and brief discussion of the matter. The box above gives the information you will need in either case, as provided by the blocking administrator.


 * What is a block?
 * A block is a measure used to protect Wikipedia from possible improper use, or modification in breach of editorial policies. Once blocks are over, they become history unless problems recur. Blocks can apply to a user account, an IP, or a range of IPs. A number of automated features identify unblocked usage which apparently should be blocked; this can be quickly rectified if incorrect.


 * Most common causes:
 * Your IP matches that used by another blocked account, or the software believes your account or IP is connected to another blocked account. Ask for further information and/or request unblocking.


 * Your account or a connected IP has been used in a problematic way, or your username was unsuitable and you need to choose another. The reason should be in the box above.


 * You have just clicked a ' red link ' - an article that does not yet exist - but you don't have access to start a new page when no article exists already. Ask someone else to create the page for you, or create an account yourself to do so.


 * You are using Google Web Accelerator or some other web accelerator, or an open proxy, or other similar software to access this site, which can interfere with some aspects of Wikipedia's vandalism-management process. Some schools, colleges, workplaces and ISPs can also cause this problem. Disable these and try again, or see below.


 * Useful quick links:
 * Blocking policy
 * Username policy
 * Autoblock
 * Appealing a block

What do I do now?

 * 1) 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, you can create a new account with a more appropriate name.


 * 1) If you have never edited Wikipedia before, or do not have an account, please see the Unregistered? section for specific information.


 * 1) If you are using Google Web Accelerator, please disable it for this site. This also applies to any other web accelerator software you may have installed.


 * 1) If your computer is blocked as an open proxy, please follow these instructions.


 * 1) If a specific reason is given or you wish to appeal, please see the following section.

Appealing
Your block will expire $6. If you do not wish to wait for your block to expire, you have multiple routes to resolve this. The first recourse is one or both of the following two steps:


 * 1) Contacting $1 (the blocking administrator) via email to resolve the problem that led to the block. You can use the 'email this user' feature if you have a valid email address registered and confirmed in your user preferences, and have not been specifically blocked from using the feature.
 * 2) Appeal the block by requesting that another administrator review the block. To do so, add
 * to the bottom of your user talk page (which you can edit while blocked, unless it is protected) to request unblocking. You will need to state a reason for this, and the block is then free to be discussed.
 * to the bottom of your user talk page (which you can edit while blocked, unless it is protected) to request unblocking. You will need to state a reason for this, and the block is then free to be discussed.

If you are unsatisfied with the discussion with $1, or if you cannot contact $1, and you still believe the block is unfair, then independent unblock review as described above will be your best solution. More details and other options, can be found under Appealing a block.

IP blocked?
Unfortunately, each IP address on the Internet does not necessarily map directly to a single person depending upon one's Internet service provider. If your block log (check via my contributions) does not list any current blocks, then your IP address or range has been "hard blocked" due to abuse either by the previous person who was allocated or sharing your IP address.

Please copy-paste the following text to the bottom of your user talk page.



Do not do this if you were blocked directly; instead, see the "Appealing" section above.

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.

Unregistered?
MediaWiki, the software that Wikipedia runs on, identifies users without an account through their IP address. However, some IPs are shared by many people, and as a result unregistered users are sometimes blocked for the misbehavior of another editor. Since administrators have no way to accurately tell the claims of an innocent user from those of an anonymous vandal, we strongly encourage you to create an account. This gives you your own contribution history, which administrators can use to determine if you are a trustworthy user who has been inadvertently blocked.

Blocks tagged in their reason as "AO" or "AB" have been set to "anonymous-only", meaning only registered users who have logged in can edit from this IP address. If you are currently blocked from creating an account, we suggest the following:
 * Try again after the block on your IP address expires.
 * Create an account at home and then log in at your school or workplace, if you are blocked there.
 * Ask a trusted friend on a different network to create an account for you. Don't forget to change the password when you first access the account.
 * Use Wikimedia's secure server at https://secure.wikimedia.org/; this may bypass your network's proxy server.

See Why create an account? for a full list of benefits that come with registration.

Emailing us
<div style="padding:5px; margin-bottom:10px; border:1px solid #999; background-color:#DFF7FF; text-align:center; font-size:115%;"> Due to the high volume of email we receive, you are more likely to get a quick response if you try requesting an unblock via your talk page first.

Before you email us, please make sure your situation has not already been addressed by the above sections. Your talk page may also contain further details related to your block or IP address and we strongly advise that you review it before contacting us.

When sending us an email, please copy-paste and fill out one of these forms.

Help us to help you by copying and using the forms provided. If you don't, the first reply will probably ask you to do so.

Even though emails sent to  mailing list are viewable only by administrators and trusted volunteers, under no circumstances should you email us your account's password or reveal it to anyone else even if asked to. When requesting an account, a temporary password will be generated and emailed to you. Please change the password on your new account as soon as possible.

This list exists for the purpose of reviewing blocks only — any request to make edits to articles on your behalf will be disregarded. Correspondence containing legal threats, personal attacks or rudeness is likely to be ignored and may result in the lengthening of pre-existing blocks.

IMPORTANT: Please do not email us without providing the information requested above. You are wasting your time and ours if you do. [mailto:unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org Click here to contact unblock-en-l].


 * No offence, but I think there's too much stuff in this one. Linking to Help:I have been blocked seems like enough to me. Cathfolant (talk) 03:31, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Revise the block message
Can someone consider to revise the blocked text like this?:


 * I've nowiki'd out the NOEDITSECTION and NOTOC in this and an earlier request, because they affect this talk page in a way that isn't really nice. I've also added editprotected to this section in the hopes that someone will get the message and come take a look at things. Cathfolant (talk) 06:56, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I've removed editprotected. You need consensus or something first. This seems closer to an earlier version that was considered newbie biting, and I don't see why it shouldn't say wikipedia, but otherwise I don't have an opinion. I should go to bed. Cathfolant (talk) 07:00, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh ya and it says twice that you've been blocked. A little bit weird/unnecessary I think. Maybe someone else will say something but it has already been a month so I don't know. Good night. Cathfolant (talk) 07:02, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

The main message of the proposed new box, "You have been blocked...", seems much clearer to me than the current text, which reads more like an error message: "You are currently unable to edit...". I really dislike messages that tell you something is wrong but don't tell you why. Blandly telling the user that he/she is unable to edit falls into that category of vague messages, and could, in principle, leave them wondering if they've done something wrong (messed up their login, clicked the wrong box, etc). The new text, on the other hand, is completely unambiguous. Salaw (talk) 19:23, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Good point. I seem to recall feeling a little confused the first time I saw this message as to why I was unable to edit. (trying to edit from a school ip.) The Uncyclopedia message says a bit more clearly that you are blocked, and I think I understood more quickly what had happened when I was blocked there. There was however an earlier version of this message that started out by saying the user was blocked, and was perhaps a bit more clear, but it was considered less 'bitey' to start by saying 'you are unable to edit wikipedia', so it was changed. I think. I'll try to find the diff. Cathfolant (talk) 20:18, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Diff. Cathfolant (talk) 21:01, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * And it does say why anyway, just not right away. Cathfolant (talk) 03:23, 31 December 2013 (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  — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">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).

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 — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 07:33, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Add image
Nerd in Texas (talk) 12:22, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Minor change to BlockedText
What about notifying the user that if the user makes personal attacks or too many unconvincing unblock requests then the talk page access is removed? So this means BlockedText will look like this:

1999sportsfan (talk) 13:10, 31 August 2014 (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).

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 30 December 2014
Could i please edit

MyDrubs (talk) 04:29, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Only administrators can edit MediaWiki pages, you can leave requests for editing the page here. — xaosflux  Talk 12:02, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 19 August 2015
Hello administrators, please change the following:

71.3.140.232 (talk) 22:26, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Please don't copypaste the whole template, it makes it very difficult to work out what changes you want. It also breaks the normal operation of this page. Therefore, Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please make your requested changes to the page's sandbox first; see WP:TESTCASES. -- Red rose64 (talk) 22:57, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 21 August 2015
Could you change the MediaWiki:Blockedtext to like this?

Your username or IP address has been blocked.

The block was made by $1. The reason given is $2.


 * Start of block: $8
 * Expiry of block: $6
 * Intended blockee: $7

You can contact $1 or another |administrator to discuss the block. You cannot use the "email this user" feature unless a valid email address is specified in your account preferences and you have not been blocked from using it. Your current IP address is $3, and the block ID is #$5. Please include all above details in any queries you make.

71.3.142.108 (talk) 14:08, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. -- Red rose64 (talk) 17:19, 21 August 2015 (UTC)