Template talk:Autoblock

Wording

This template is very poorly worded. People who have user accounts don't get a warning when auto blocked, and when they asked to be unblocked they get "Please note that we cannot unblock you at this time because you have not given us the information we need to look into your block.".

Wouldn't something like "Due to the nature of the block applied we need additional information before deciding on unblocking." ? -Ravedave 03:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Fine put it in there, don't be scared.--LtWinters 16:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

What about "Please note that we cannot investigate this block at this time" or something like it? Gets the same point in without being quite as wordy. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

But the block can be investigated. The user just needs to follow the steps in the template. How about "Before a decision to unblock can be made please provide the following information:" ? -Ravedave 20:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. I used something like Ravedave's original wording — hope you consider that ok. —David Eppstein 06:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Plainlinks

Please add plainlinks to the sandbox edit link, as so:

# Try to <span class="plainlinks">[{{fullurl:Wikipedia:Sandbox|action=edit}} edit the Sandbox]</span>.

—MC10 (T•C•GB•L•EM) 01:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Email

Should we add an email option for those who find they can't edit their talkpage? ϢereSpielChequers 00:50, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

IP range blocks

I fell foul of an IP address range block last night when a very large range of dynamically assigned addresses were blocked. Without going into the merits or otherwise of the block, the issue I seek to address is that when I clicked on the link in the block message I was taken here. These instructions are completely useless in this circumstance, particularly instruction 3. The items referred to in that instruction simply do not exist in this instance. I suspect that this is because no one had posted a block message on my talk page, not surprising since the block was not directed at me, but nevertheless I was unable to edit the Wiki and I was also unable to follow the instructions to request a review of the block, or at least an exception for myself as seems to be implied as a possibility. Can we at least modify these instruction so that people caught as collateral damage can actually do something about it? - Nick Thorne ^talk 21:35, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I think the issue is that the block template you saw, Template:CheckUser block, shouldn't actually have led you to the Autoblock template at all. I have removed that reference. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 00:34, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

IP range block problem unresolved

The problem described by User:Nick Thorne in the preceding section has not been resolved. When an Unblock request is pending, Template:Unblock states (I have put the problematic part in bold italics):

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check your block log. If no blocks are listed, or the latest one has already expired, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.

Clicking on the instructions link takes you to Template:Autoblock, which in turn states:

3. If you are still blocked, copy the {{unblock-auto|...}} code generated for you under the "IP blocked?" section. This is usually hidden within the "What do I do now?" section. If so, just click the "[show]" link to the right hand side to show this text.

The problem is that the sections described in those instructions are never seen by users caught as collateral damage. 94.197.67.32 (talk) 19:28, 10 May 2013 (UTC) (previously 188.29.160.91, 188.30.38.133, 188.28.176.77, 188.29.11.82)

Protection template

Please add {{pp-template}} inside the <noinclude> for this template. Thanks! —mc10 (t/c) 05:23, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Done --Redrose64 (talk) 22:50, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Added {{doc}} instead. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:10, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

autoblock problem

My account has been blocked -- that's another story -- but I sometimes still log in so I can check my watch list pages. The problem is that merely logging in to my account means the IP address of where I log in (library, Starbucks, airport) is then auto blocked for everyone else. This isn't fair since I have no intention of getting around my block and because I just want to log in to check my watch list (which is allowed). The block is indefinite so there is no end date for the damage does to the IP address of where I log into my blocked account. This seems to me to be unreasonable. If you allow me to keep the account for my watch list I should be able to keep logging in without hurting others. Please advise. 8.12.251.19 (talk) 19:03, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 14 April 2016

Add:

• Try resetting your internet connection as you may have a dynamic IP address. You can reset your modem/router by turning it off and on again.

As a person with a dynamic IP address, I've faced it once/twice and it'd be good to have this added. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 09:27, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Not done for now: @QEDK: Where exactly in the template do you propose to add this phrase? I'm also unsure whether this change is uncontroversial. Izno (talk) 12:29, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

@Izno: Preferably as the first or second point where there's one suggested solution of clearing your cache. I think this'd be non-controversial as it's a clear solution to a problem. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 14:04, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Do we really want to be telling IP vandals how to bypass blocks? --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:22, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Not done: Per Ahect and WP:BEANS, please establish consensus for this edit. Izno (talk) 14:49, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

@Ahecht and Izno: I don't think you understand but this is a solution for the people who've been caught up in rangeblocks or autoblocks, turning your modem on and off doesn't help bypass anything, they just help the hundreds of editors who have dynamic IPs to edit peacefully again after DHCP allocates them a new address. Most vandals have static IPs and they won't benefit by resetting their modem/router. Anyway, I will seek consensus on VPP. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 15:10, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose this, which would be nothing more than a how-to guide for block evaders. I've no idea where you've got the idea that Most vandals have static IPs from, but as a former CU I can assure you it's untrue; in most of the world (including a number of en-wiki's core areas such as the British Isles) static IPs are a rarity unless you're the head office of a major corporation, and it's not unusual for an editor unknowingly to cycle through multiple providers (let alone IP addresses) in a single editing session. ‑ Iridescent 15:27, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

The last line is exactly why we should have it added. A vandal will probably reset his modem atleast once a day anyway, so I don't see how it's a detriment. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 15:38, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Can you provide some evidence that vandals' use of dynamic IPs is different to that of non-vandals? Bazj (talk) 16:16, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

In the US, home internet users almost invariably have dynamic IP addresses unless they pay extra for a business-class connection (the only "home" users that regularly have static IPs are college students living in on-campus dormitories). However, about 2/3 of US broadband is cable internet, which typically uses persistent dynamic IP addresses. This means that the IP is assigned with a pre-determined lease time based on the modem's MAC address, and rebooting the modem doesn't result in a new IP until the original lease expires in a couple of weeks. The only way to get a new IP is if you have a modem that allows you to change the MAC address (which many don't). --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:04, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Technically, this appears to be a very bad idea.

Putting aside the quibbles about who does what with their routers, it seems that the autoblocking mechanism's collateral damage could be exponentially increased by anyone following the suggested advice.

Although it's a nice thought to help the poor folk caught in the crossfire, the results could be far worse than they are at present. fredgandt 16:36, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Where is this template used? --QEDK (T ☕ C) 16:56, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

It is used for registered users obviously, so what's the problem? They are the ones caught in the crossfire! --QEDK (T ☕ C) 16:58, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Autoblock#How it works describes a scenario where users aren't rebooting their routers, and it spirals into a virtual bloodbath. If those users were also rebooting their routers, perhaps multiple times to try to evade (not necessarily with ill intent) the block, the resulting mess could be epic. fredgandt 17:20, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Actually, read the section above this. fredgandt 17:26, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

• Ah, do whatever you guys want. It could be good or bad, I brought it up because I was affected a few times and that fixed it (quite obviously). --QEDK (T ☕ C) 17:27, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 15 April 2017

Please add "If you cannot edit your own talk page, then use the unblocking ticket request system". UpsandDowns1234 (Talk to me) (My Contribs) 19:04, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Done — JJMC89 (T·C) 19:10, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 8 July 2018

This is probably just me being nitpicky, but there's a small grammatical error. If and then phrases need a comma, meaning that "If you are not blocked from editing the sandbox then the autoblock on your IP address has already expired and you can resume editing" needs to be changed to "If you are not blocked from editing the sandbox, then the autoblock on your IP address has already expired and you can resume editing." The comma after the word "sandbox" is the difference. SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 13:17, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

 Done @SkyGazer 512: thanks for the note. — xaosflux ^Talk 21:00, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 23 October 2020

In the step 3 of the instructions in this template, the section stated for MediaWiki:Autoblockedtext has been updated in revision 158508469 back in 2007 to the current "Unblock request" section, and thus it has to be rectified to match the current version (especially that the MediaWiki autoblock message has a link to this template). In addition, I also think the "This is usually hidden within the..." text is no longer necessary as it has been unhidden since revision 257846369 back in 2008. Ntx61 (talk) 05:08, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 13:21, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 27 March 2022

Hello, template editors/administrators…

Forgive this, but I'd like to suggest the simplification of the link of "try to edit the Sandbox".

Right now we use <span class="plainlinks">[{{fullurl:Wikipedia:Sandbox|action=edit}}edit the Sandbox]</span>.

However, this same link can be generated by [[Special:Edit/Wikipedia:Sandbox|edit the Sandbox]], effectively simplifying the link.

In wikitext, it should look like this:

Original:

#Try to <span class="plainlinks">[{{fullurl:Wikipedia:Sandbox|action=edit}}edit the Sandbox]</span>.

New:

#Try to [[Special:Edit/Wikipedia:Sandbox|edit the Sandbox]].

If there is still consensus to use {{fullurl}} for links like editing pages, feel free to decline this request, but please do take this into consideration.

Thanks. — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 23:16, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done — xaosflux ^Talk 01:15, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Untitled

This page is incomprehensible. For example, it refers to an "Unblock Request" section that does not exist. It is also seriously unhelpful to any user who is not a Wikipedia jargon expert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:188:ca00:4b4:4db6:93ab:63b1:7037 (talk) 07:06, 17 February 2024 (UTC)