Template talk:Unblock-auto

Template:Unblock-auto is permanently protected from editing because it is a heavily used or highly visible template. Substantial changes should first be proposed and discussed here on this page. If the proposal is uncontroversial or has been discussed and is supported by consensus, editors may use {{edit template-protected}} to notify an administrator or template editor to make the requested edit. Usually, any contributor may edit the template's documentation to add usage notes or categories. Any contributor may edit the template's sandbox. Functionality of the template can be checked using test cases.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Unblock-auto template.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Hi everyone, I recently created this template and incorporated it into MediaWiki:Blockedtext to streamline the lifting of autoblocks. Since autoblocked people are innocent, every minute waiting will make them more disillusioned with Wikipedia as a whole. The template was designed to minimise the time wasted reaching for the keyboard when it a copy and paste job would suffice, hence the length. Centrx (talk • contribs) calls this template "too long and flashy", but I would have to disagree in that since we started using it, we've cut back considerably on downtime from people not providing their IP address or an unblock reason. Anyway, the length of the template shouldn't be a real concern because it's not subst'ed and the administrator's copy/paste portion disappears once the block request has been reviewed. Does anyone else have any suggestions on how we can streamline or simplify this template further? --  Netsnipe  ►  07:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Make sure you fix {{autoblock}} for us CAT:RFU patrollers, so it makes sense with the new template. Otherwise, I like it. Daniel.Bryant 07:15, 5 October 2006 (UTC) I see it has already been done. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 07:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I rather enjoy the default "Not an autoblock, you have been blocked directly," feature that kicks in when we don't leave a decline reason; my only bother with it is that when doing that, we can't sign the message. There's three fixes I can think of: (1) subst the template, (2) add the "not an autoblock" message to the list of pre-written messages we can copy-paste in, or (3) add a "sig" parameter to the template, so that we can still have a signature without putting anything in "decline". So something like {{unblock-auto reviewed|127.0.0.1|sig=~~~~}} (since "decline" is still omitted, the default would kick in, and then be followed by "sig" (which if left undefined just won't show)). Any thoughts? Luna Santin 21:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it would be nice to be able to sign when it a block is declined, especially because if an administrator wants to discuss the block with the administrator who declined it. -- Natalya 00:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --  Netsnipe  ►  12:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

shouldn't the link to "autoblocks" be under the second name/ip, the one that is entered be the autoblocked user? ST47Talk 19:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, when you follow the link to the autoblock tool, it seems to be searching for autoblocks with the current name as the original blockee. That doesn't see quite right. Also, would it be possible to make the template display the autoblock number, rather than the IP, in the case of an autoblocked account? I thought it's the autoblock number you actually need for unblocking, and also we don't really want to force the autoblocked account to reveal their IP if not strictly necessary, right? Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. You can lift an autoblock by unblocking the IP address directly. The autoblocks link in this template is really a relic left over from {{unblock}}, but having it there is better than nothing I guess. It's not possible to link to the original blockee unless someone writes up a parser function to extract it from the Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "$USER" message. Note that MediaWiki:Blockedtext does not provide an autoblocked user with their autoblock number and there would be an incredible amount of confusion out there if we asked a user to dig it up themselves. An IP address is incredibly useful for determining if a user is indeed editing from a SharedIP such as a school or company and it's also handy in tracking down potential sockpuppets. --  Netsnipe  ►  15:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To narrow down what Netsnipe said, this is apparently impossible because the username of the original blockee is not available as a variable. Luna Santin 20:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The background color don't show up correctly in firefox. It sure makes it harder to read a page when the template doesn't stand out. ---J.S ^(T/C) 18:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. This may be the wrong page, but someone blocked me on wikitionary because they did not like my addition of legitimate slang words, without notifying me first. It says to contact an administrator, but I can't, as I'm blocked. Any help? Thanks. Tim Long 06:07, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Users who aren't even blocked, perhaps at a university or a large ISP (including large Saudi ISPs) will get their IP addresses exposed with this template when they are un-autoblocked. Shouldn't that information be kept private? 1of3 19:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose if any particular user has a problem with it, WP:OVERSIGHT would quickly delete it. It's probably not feasible to do that for every single unblock request though. If you are concerned about your rprivacy, that would be the best place to start. --Ybbor^Talk 03:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oversight isn't necessary; a user should always feel free to just ask an admin to delete those revisions of their talk page if they're concerned. Mangojuice^talk 15:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope no one minds, I've added an (unblock) link, for the autoblockid. It's a real bear to chase down autoblocks, and, that makes it a lot easier. SQL^{Query me!} 19:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I modified the reason inside to not include the user's username. This is for privacy purposes; including the username with the auotblock id allows someone to backtrace and discover the link between users. Mangojuice^talk 18:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Add nowiki to the block message in Unblock-auto reviewed, as it appears can be found in Unblock-auto. I don't know how. mechamind90 06:23, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The toolserver link to the block ID is stale; anyone have a replacement? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 23:41, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What about this one:

I welcome any modifications. /HeyMid (contributions) 22:59, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's in the works, on my to-do list. — Edokter • Talk • 00:12, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is good. HeyMid (contribs) 22:09, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{editprotected}} Can somebody re-add the Category:Requests for unblock-auto that was in the template before? The copy-edit seems to have deleted it. mechamind90 00:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that... fixed. — Edokter • Talk • 00:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{Editprotected}} Can you change this image: to the other image, like the one used for the {{Unblock reviewed}} template: ?

: Not done: {{edit semi-protected}} is not required for edits to semi-protected, unprotected pages, or pending changes protected pages. →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 06:19, 31 December 2010 (UTC)Didn't realize this was full-protected. →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 06:20, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done — Edokter • Talk — 13:12, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to replace the link to dnsstuff with a link to [1]. I find the latter site much easier to interpret, and it has the added bonus of identifying proxies in large red letters. Thoughts? TNXMan 19:27, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think your proposed link is better than the current one. Go ahead and do the edit. HeyMid (contribs) 13:09, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. TNXMan 13:23, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please replace: <tt>{{subst:Unblock on hold-notification | 1={{PAGENAME}}}}</nowiki></tt>

with: <tt>{{subst:Unblock on hold-notification | 1={{PAGENAME}}}}</tt>

as the </nowiki> is pointless there, and it shows up in the notification. Thanks! Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 14:32, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note - please change it based on what shows up on this talk page and not in the wikicode. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 14:34, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. — Edokter (talk) — 15:27, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It has been reported (to the Mediawiki talk:Autoblockedtext page as well as to bugzilla bug 53008) that revealing IP address of the user via this template might cause unwanted disclosure of the private data. Actually block number (provided in the parameter #4) should be enough to investigate the issue; should a CheckUser investigation be necessary, they can access the IP address without using this template. I propose to remove parameter $1 altogether from this template.  « Saper // @talk »  19:27, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Should we have the Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked for declined reviews? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:10, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that the "Blocking administrator" field will point toward User:Not provided if nothing is entered for that field (or maybe it was). I have redirected that page toward WP:ADMIN and the associated talk page as well. There actually is a user Not Provided (ancient and long abandoned) so maybe this is worth looking at. --dsprc ^[talk] 02:21, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It could be removed alltogether... an autoblock never has a blocking admin. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 11:12, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's not quite true - while an autoblock isn't explicitly placed, the log does show the name of the admin who placed the block that triggers the autoblock. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:33, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is not recommended to remove this field from Template:Unblock-auto reviewed (or others) because it is in wide use, as can be seen by looking at random User pages linked to by that template, eg: User_talk:Dominotree for instance. The template page shows "Not provided" as a plain-text entry instead of an internal Fast link, which would (presumably) be preferred. Mayhaps there is something that can be done with the template syntax or to the backend module (if there is one?) to have that default entry always be plain text if nothing is specifically provided. Baring any changes to the template, the User page it points to could be protected, or filled with informative pieces of policy and administrivia for any ne'er do wells who may be so inclined to click it. --dsprc ^[talk] 21:11, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

There is a minor typo in the template, similar to this one. The template does work as-is, but depends on some unusual behavior of template parsing which could very well change at some point. Basically, the template only works by accident currently, so I think the typo should be fixed. I have fixed the other templates similar to this one with the same typo (presumably copy-pasted from the original) but since this one is template protected, I cannot fix it. --Khgtcv (talk) 00:32, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done Alakzi (talk) 00:38, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please change [[File:Ambox blue question.svg|left|48px]] to [[File:Orologio oro.svg.svg|left|48px]] [[File:Orologio blu.svg|left|48px]] for consistency with {{unblock}} TL22 (talk) 21:42, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why the yellow one? Alakzi (talk) 21:48, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry, meant to put Orologio blu.svg, not Orologio oro.svg,  Self-trout this is what happens when you copy-paste too much... --TL22 (talk) 22:02, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done Alakzi (talk) 22:05, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please replace with the current version of the sandbox to hide the deleted contribs, change block settings, and unblock links from non-admins. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 02:10, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done -- /Alex/₂₁ 07:25, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please replace with the current version of the sandbox, to hide the unblock and deleted contribs links of IPs from non-sysops and the checkuser and checkuser log links from non-checkusers. Differences are currently visible in Template:Unblock-auto/testcases. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 01:11, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DannyS712: Didn't seem to work, I'll let someone else (@Xaosflux: did the last one) work it out. Looked OK in the sandbox :P - FlightTime (open channel) 01:31, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@FlightTime: what part didn't work? Everything but the first <span> is invisible on the template page, because the parameters that trigger them are missing. --DannyS712 (talk) 01:33, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DannyS712: Maybe my error, I thought the sandbox version had the {{unblock-auto}} red lettering hidden, and thought that what your changes were for. After looking again it's the same, I have re-made your change. If there any problems please ping me. - FlightTime (open channel) 01:37, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@FlightTime: thanks. I set this as answered --DannyS712 (talk) 01:39, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@JJMC89 updated {{unblock reviewed}} to make the user links the same as for unblock. I wonder if someone might do the sam for {{unblock-auto reviewed}}? Mostly, I want the checkuser link to show up on those. But the whole template as actually a bit messy right now and could use some cleanup too. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 21:02, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

​ Done Let me know if there's anything else that needs to be changed. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:40, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I like to make use of the default reason when appropriate. The problem is, it's not quite accurate. It starts, "You have not been autoblocked. However, you have been blocked directly as stated in your block log." But most of the time when this is used, there will also be an autoblock on the underlying IP address, and the user very well might know that. Should this just say, "You have been blocked directly..."? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 03:51, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Updated — JJMC89 (T·C) 07:21, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please replace {{his or her|{{PAGENAME}}}} with {{their|{{PAGENAME}}}} so that the template refers to the requesting user gender neutrally when they have not selected otherwise in their preferences ("his or her" is not gender neutral as not everyone uses he/him or she/her pronouns). This will also make this template consistent with {{Unblock}} and {{Unblock-auto on hold}}, both of which also use {{their}} instead of {{his or her}}. Thanks. GreenComputer (talk) 15:38, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Elli (talk | contribs) 03:57, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Could we get the "active blocks" link in here, same as in the other unblock requests? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 19:45, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi. Been a while since I made this request. Still no "active blocks" link, and the link that says "autoblocks" resolves to https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Autoblock, which is not very useful. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 18:17, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done (yet) @Jpgordon: please make the change you want in Template:Unblock-auto/sandbox, validate it, then reactivate the edit request above. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:56, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've just removed the "autoblocks" link in the sandbox; that's easy enough, and the "Block list" result is all we actually need. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 18:19, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Currently, if the example of how to use the unblock template is copied and pasted using the visual editor, it doesnt correctly substitute and use the template. Replacing <code>{&#123;unblock | reason=''your reason here &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;''&#125;}</code> with <code><nowiki>{{unblock | reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}</nowiki></code> would fix this. See this conversation for further details. Aidan9382 _(talk) 18:53, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 19:44, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Paine Ellsworth: Thanks for sorting all the user block requests. Sorry about the influx of TPE Requests. Hopefully that should be all the user block templates sorted. Aidan9382 _(talk) 19:47, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

my pleasure! Paine  20:05, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please remove 'shared' 70.22.248.187 (talk) 01:31, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. This template is specifically for use by an editor who is blocked because their IP address/range is shared with others and they are not the intended target of the block. If that isn't the case, then the correct template to use would be {{unblock}}. SilverLocust 💬 03:22, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This needs the same Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. as all the other review templates. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 14:24, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]