Jump to content

Template talk:CheckUser block

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

I'm wondering about the recent reword of the template; we don't generally block IP addresses indef unless they are open proxies or compromised hosts, in which case, a different template should be used. Is anyone aware of indef checkuserblocks that weren't proxies? Essjay (Talk) 20:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See 72.177.68.38, for one example - static IP, indef blocked. Picaroon 20:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mmm, indeed, that is an unusual case, but point taken. Carry on! Essjay (Talk) 20:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That one is actually the reason for the reword - I'm not aware of any others like that, and I'd say there are slim chances there are any. Maybe a parameter so people who place the template (mostly checkusers, I assume) can type {{checkuserblock|temporary}} or {{checkuserblock|permanent}}? I'd do it if I knew how to code templates/create parameters. Do you think it's worth it, or should we just keep it like this and save you guys the trouble? Picaroon 20:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would go for the easier solution; leave it like it was, and don't use it for indefblocks. ;) Back when I initially created the template, I included the temporary wording as an assurance for innocent editors hit by these blocks; we often had to block large ranges, and users get quite understandably upset when they get caught in such blocks. The idea was that seeing "temporary" in big bold letters might stem the flow of furious unblock requests to checkusers, unblock-en-l, and wikien-l. Essjay (Talk) 21:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please replace a PNG with an SVG

[edit]

{{editprotected}}

Please replace Image:Wikipedia Checkuser.png with Image:Wikipedia Checkuser.svg. Thanks in advance. It Is Me Here (talk) 19:51, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 16:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! It Is Me Here (talk) 18:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{editprotected}}

png svg

I disagree with the above change, the svg version has rendering errors and should not be used until perfected, not to mention looking terrible. Policy is to replace raster images with svg when superior, but in this case this is not true. I'll let you (the reading admin) decide though. Thanks! -- penubag  (talk) 03:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this actually has todo with the browser you are using, on mine it looks good from 100px to 500px. --Andersmusician NO 17:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm using Firefox 3. I'm just saying in general the png version looks better than the overly grey svg. The artists of the svg said Media Wiki has issues rendering svg blurs and is why this happens. The png just looks better. -- penubag  (talk) 23:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from , 14 October 2011

[edit]

Since the old wikipedia checkuser logo has been outdated and replaced a new one in 2010, we should likely to add this. This is better than the old one. Regards

Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 21:33, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:16, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

The link to ACC (where it says "please use this form" in the IP users paragraph) needs to be updated to https://accounts.wmflabs.org, since the tool has recently moved to Wikimedia Labs. FunPika 02:13, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. LittleMountain5 02:23, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oops

[edit]

"If you unable to edit while logged in" should be "If you are unable to edit while logged in". Zeke Essiestudy (talk) 13:44, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Redrose64 (talk) 13:57, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template-protected edit request on 15 November 2016

[edit]

Could someone please wrap the IP instructions in <span class="anonymous-show">...</span> and the admin instructions in <span class="sysop-show">...</span> to hide those instructions for users they due not apply to. (class="registered-show" doesn't exist). Pppery 22:05, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Partly done: While anonymous-show exists, I personally don't think the IP text there is particularly in the way. — Andy W. (talk) 23:48, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Andy M. Wang: What benefit is provided to logged in users by showing them the instructions for IPs? Pppery 20:06, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Increasing comprehensibility for non-insiders

[edit]

In order to help people who aren't as familiar with Wikipedia lingo, I propose that the first sentence of this template be changed from:

CheckUser evidence has determined that this IP address or network has been used (not necessarily by you) to disrupt Wikipedia. It has been blocked from editing to prevent further abuse.

to:

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this IP address or network has been used (not necessarily by you) to disrupt Wikipedia. It has been blocked from editing to prevent further abuse.

There are two edits that are being made here. First, "CheckUser evidence" has been changed to "Wikipedia's technical logs", which provides some information to anyone who isn't intricately familiar with Wikipedia lingo (as opposed to "CheckUser evidence"). Second, "has determined that" is changed to "indicate that" because evidence doesn't determine things; people determine things on the basis of evidence. If there is no objection, I will implement this in a few days. See also Template talk:Checkuserblock-account#Increasing comprehensibility for non-insiders for my parallel proposal for that template. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 00:47, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 00:48, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template-protected edit request on 11 August 2020

[edit]

When |1= is used, the </p> tag is missing. Could anyone help fix this? The exact changes to be done can be found at Special:Diff/972272851. ネイ (talk) 05:49, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Jackmcbarn (talk) 06:06, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. ネイ (talk) 11:09, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't necessary. A missing </p> is not a crime; of all the optional tags that HTML provides, it's among those that are most frequently omitted. As shown in the HTML 5.1 spec, A p element’s end tag may be omitted ... if there is no more content in the parent element and the parent element is an HTML element that is not an a, audio, del, ins, map, noscript, or video element. In this case the parent element is a <td> and there is a |} which converts to an explicit </table>, which implies the existence of the optional tags </p> </td> </tr> and </tbody>. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:15, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It does not harm to fix, and the fix makes the source code easier to read though. ネイ (talk) 07:32, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Multiline table in list

[edit]

Izno: Your recent edit installing {{Ivory messagebox}} may be good, but that template is table-based, and take a look at Multiline table in list, where your change has caused this lint error in User talk:88.110.49.76, and a similar change you made at Template:Checkuserblock-account has caused this lint error in User talk:Miss Baggins. If these are really the only two cases, the lint errors can be handily fixed in these two pages. —Anomalocaris (talk) 08:28, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I assume several others will show up. At some point ivmbox will have its tabling removed (I could probably do it today), so that might skip the need to sort the issues. Izno (talk) 08:52, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've now moved ivmbox to divs. Izno (talk) 09:04, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
Link goes straight to discussion instead of code. No need to scroll. Should be done for all templates.NYC Guru (talk) 01:56, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit template-protected}} template. This change seems somewhat redundant since WP:IP block exemption#Administrator's guide states as much and admins are expected to know policy. This is a notice for the IP user on how to edit despite the block, not really for any reviewing admin, I see more issues with confusing IP users with irrelevant information and therefore consesnsus should be reached first. Terasail[✉️] 03:18, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why does the text appear hidden on the template page? NYC Guru (talk) 09:44, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@NYC Guru What text are you referring to? Terasail[✉️] 18:50, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The notice I proposed to edit. NYC Guru (talk) 03:02, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@NYC Guru I didn't add the proposed text, that is why it isn't visible. Unless I am completley misunderstanding what you are referring to. Terasail[✉️] 09:14, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A <span class="anonymous-show">...</span> tag hides the administrator instructions. I checked the source and the tag hides the text when you access the article. NYC Guru (talk) 21:21, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean now. However I still believe that this addition needs consensus, as I just don't see administrators needing this piece of information from this template, it would just add a maintenance requirement if the policy was ever altered. Terasail[✉️] 15:23, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I created {{checkuserblock-expanded}} with the changes I proposed. --NYC Guru (talk) 05:11, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am reopening this discussion due to my version being redirected to the original and I am showing the more detailed version I wrote above. NYC Guru (talk) 07:48, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: There are a few problems with your proposed change: checkusers are not necessarily required to be administrators, it's not really appropriate to advertise on how to get additional permissions in a block notice (even though the blocked user can't see it), admins can change the block without consulting a CU if they're making it more restrictive (such as disabling talk page access), and consulting is not the same thing a notifying and admins are required to consult. My suggestion generally for you would be to gain much more experience on Wikipedia before trying to change information that is given to administrators about the blocking policy in a block notice. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:43, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Callanecc: the least you could do is change this this link to this one. Try both of them and see which one is better. NYC Guru (talk) 01:18, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've linked it to the blocking policy. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:46, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Callanecc: good work on rewording the template. still, why do you prefer linking "summarily desysopped" to the diff link instead of the archive announcement which brings up the text right away instead of the wiki coded text? It also has a functioning link as to how the decision was reached? NYC Guru (talk) 09:28, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've modified it from the diff to a permanent link of the noticeboard announcement. Permanent links are better in situations like this as the archive version could be intentionally or inadvertently modified whereas the permament link is what was originally written. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:27, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Callanecc: great work. clicking it now goes right to the text with the link as I intended. NYC Guru (talk) 09:46, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:CheckUser_block&oldid=1255203772"