MediaWiki talk:Blockedtext

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Older comments have been moved to the archives.

[edit] 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　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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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}} 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#Violation of the GFDL 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)

[edit] Raw wiki text

Please add to &action=raw the parameter+value &ctype=text/css. Without that, Firefox and Opera are prompting to download a "file". --- Best regards, Melancholie 23:47, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I've added &ctype=text/plain 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. [1] 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)

[edit] info-en@wikimedia.org

This email address is used in the Wikipedia: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] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

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] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

Wow how did you become an admin? So rude.

[edit] Unblock

I'd like to propose that mention be made in this message of the {{unblock}} 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 {{unblock}} 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia:Contact us should be removed? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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 Wikipedia:America Online. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 15:19, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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: Special:Ipblocklist?action=search&limit=500&ip=$3 --GeorgeMoney ^T·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 [06:01] <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·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)

[edit] 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·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)

[edit] 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 Wikipedia: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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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. Jorcoga ^ETC. 08:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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 User:Foo bar. At the end of a link, this would make it something like [http://www.example.org/User:Foo bar link], 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 {{urlencode:}} either. (discussed on bugzilla, answer was too technical for me to understand :-) —Mets501 (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? —Mets501 (talk) 18:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Quite. -- Steel 18:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

It does find your block or it doesn't? —Mets501 (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 :-) —Mets501 (talk) 20:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request edit

Please fix the redirect under "Editing from China?" The page is now at Wikipedia:Advice to users using Tor to bypass the Great Firewall instead of the current one now. Hbdragon88 05:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Done. -- Netsnipe ► 06:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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'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't sleep, clown will eat me 22:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Can't sleep, clown will eat me, --HIZKIAH (User • Talk) 20:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Wikipedia:Appealing a block

Since pretty much everything from Wikipedia: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 (U T C)

Agree.--HIZKIAH (User • Talk) 20:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

--HIZKIAH (User • Talk) 19:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, done. -- Renesis (talk) 20:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

How dare you! --Deskana (talk) 15:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/l/o/MediaWiki_talk%7EBlockedtext_9b14.html"