Template talk:Blocked proxy

message: I, for one, do not know what a "proxy" is. I'm sure lots of people have no idea what an "IP address" is. Some links would be useful here. Brianjd 06:41, 2004 Dec 17 (UTC)
*I was just thinking that, too.  Maybe Wiki links to define some of the various terms, plus external links detailing some possible ways to fix an open proxy?  Granted, the external links would be very difficult, as we don't know the specifics of why this user is on an open proxy and thus wouldn't know exactly how to fix it if it were a trojan... CaptainSpam 01:08, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: At the moment it means you can't use an account either. Solving this is Mediawiki bug 550 - David Gerard 15:04, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Information 

message: I came across this template while following up on some minor vandalism.  I'm reluctant to edit such a frequently-used template, but the last sentence is a run-on and confusing.  I'd suggest: "If you did not know that you were editing from such a proxy, then you or your internet service provider may have a poorly configured system, or a trojan, that causes your system to act as an anonymizing proxy. This is a security hole; please try to fix it or report it to your ISP."  Chick Bowen 05:57, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  copy-edit 

message: The original instructions at WP:OP explicitly said that this template should be substed onto user talk pages.  Since then, the instructions have been removed from that page entirely.  WP:BP#Anonymous and open proxies and :Category:Wikipedia:Blocked open proxies seem to imply that it should not be substed.  I've been consistently substing it based on the WP:OP instructions, but it appears that other admins have not been doing so, and in fact have assumed that it will never be substed.  Personally I have no strong preference either way, but the usage should probably be consistent.  So, which way should it be?  —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I know, this template was designed to be used in the block reason (its contents show as the block reason when someone tries to edit from the blocked proxy), the same way as . I don't even know why it's used on user/user talk pages. --cesarb 22:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, does that really work?  I always assumed block messages were like edit summaries, in that template syntax doesn't work.  The templates don't seem to be displayed in the block log, but are they really shown to the blocked user?  In any case, I suppose the template still has to be included on an actual user (talk) page for the categorization to work, right?  —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, the template is meant to be used on the user or talk page. I see no reason not to substitute it, as there's no reason to update it thereafter. If there's a need to recategorise the pages, for example, it can easily be done with a bot using very simple regex. // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 23:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (edit conflict) This is how it used to look, before people started getting the idea to put it on user pages. Notice how it was much better back then — a lot more information to the blocked user (and there's no way that would fit in the block reason field, which is why a template is needed). The text which appears when blocked looked like this. If you want to see it in action, just go to one of the many open web proxies I blocked, like for instance http://www.netshaq.com/cgiproxy/nph-proxy.cgi/000000A/http/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sandbox?action=edit (you have to try a few times; that proxy has a lot of different IP addresses, and some of them have different block reasons). --cesarb 00:10, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

text: A quick look at the contributions of the original creator of this template shows     that it was meant to be used as a block reason from the beginning. --cesarb 00:21, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It doesn't matter whether the template is used on the user or talk page, as blocked users will realise their block through MediaWiki:Blockedtext and not through their talk pages. The current version links users to the WikiProject on open proxies, where they are greeted with bolded text suggesting they read Help:Blocked. This page provides vastly more information than could be fit into the template. // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 03:10, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should this template be substed? 

message: If I could, I would edit this template in order do divide :Category:Wikipedia:Blocked open proxies into subcategoies. I am sure there is a technical possibility to do so, but I'm not the person to do it. There are too many pages in the category, and browsing them 200 at a time isn't a very pleasant task. RaSten 12:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This category isn't really intended to be browsed; it catalogues blocked open proxies so that they can be rechecked at a later time by a bot or human. Subcategories wouldn't hurt, though. Which would you propose? Offhand, possible subcategories I can think of are zombie proxies and HTTP proxies. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 13:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  My idea was more like one category per first byte in the IP, och first digit of first byte. I want to be able to check out whether a spamming IP is found to be an open proxy. RaSten 18:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redesign of this template? 

message: Please add a link to :de:Vorlage:Offener Proxy. Thanks. -- kh80 18:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interlanguage Link 

message: Could an admin please change the ".png" in the image to ".svg" as there is now an almost identical SVG version available on commons under the same name except with ".svg" instead of ".png" (feel free to check the new one first). Thanks - Рэдхот 19:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. —[admin] Pathoschild 23:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested Edit 

message: If I am going to be autoblocked frequently, I would like a kinder, prettier blocking message.  Please replace this template with the material in my Sandbox above.  Thanks, Armed Blowfish (mail) 20:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please gain consensus first. Cheers. --MZMcBride 04:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editprotected request 

message: "No open proxies" has been downgraded from a valid policy to a proposal and is currently under discussion. This template should not refer to it as a policy or claim that "editing from these proxies is prohibited"! —Babelfisch 03:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Discussion is still on going, and Wikipedia:No open proxies is still policy. - auburnpilot talk 16:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Open proxies not "prohibited", policy downgraded 

message: Since WP:PROXY and m:Proxy currently say "While this may affect legitimate users, they are not the intended targets and may freely use proxies until those are blocked" (these policies are now relatively stable), the word "prohibited" should be changed into "disabled". Melsaran (talk) 19:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Disabled" makes it seem as though there's some type of software mechanism that recognizes open proxies and disables them. As the template currently states, editing from open proxies is strictly prohibited. The two pages linked are really talking about reading from open proxies. When this template is used, it's telling a user that they've been blocked because they edited from an open proxy, which is prohibited. Cheers. --MZMcBride 00:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think 'restricted' would be a better choice of wording, since editing via open proxies is not strictly prohibited, it's just unlikely. -- zzuuzz (talk) 01:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Prohibited

message: Feel free to use it if you like it:
notwist (talk) 20:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New icon 

message: Please add iw: :hu:Sablon:Blokkolt proxy. Bináris (talk) 13:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Soxπed93(blag) 13:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Hungarian iw

message: I have added a paramater for indef=yes to add to the category :Category:Indefinitely blocked IP addresses. It seems to work fine, but I would appreciate someone double checking my work. –xeno (talk) 15:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  indef=yes 

message: The host= parameter creates a link to http://samspade.org/ which is currently down. -- œ™ 20:05, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Samspade.org down, param not working 

message: This message is to inform people monitoring this talk page that there is an "editprotected" request involving this and several other templates at Template talk:! cymru.lass (hit me up)⁄(background check) 20:28, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editprotected request involving this template 

message: Now have vector version: :File:Banned proxys.svg.--Ch.Andrew (talk) 07:45, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:06, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editprotected request 

message: Please remove/replace  (Multi-RBL lookup • , broken link, goes to some church website.
Pilif12p 18:09, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for pointing this out! I'll see if I can find a replacement.... Sailsbystars (talk) 14:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed in the meantime. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:47, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from Pilif12p, 26 June 2011 

message: 
In the template:
...If you believe you are not running an open proxy, the most likely cause is that another customer from your ISP who was previously assigned this IP adress was running an open proxy.
This is incorrect, it's spelled address, not adress. Please fix this. Bryce53 | talk 14:17, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed; thanks for pointing it out. —Pathoschild 15:20, 03 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling error 

message: I don't see any links to WP:ACC but I'm not too familiar with block templates. Maybe someone could add one. Or suggest some wording/point to an example from another template and I'll add it myself. --Jeremyb (talk) 04:46, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  link to [[WP:ACC]] 

message: I've drafted a new version of the template in my userspace which is a little clearer to read and to get information from. Would others please have a look and let me know what you think? If no one comments in a few days I'll copy over the version in my sandbox. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:28, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  New version 

message: Could someone please wrap the admin instructions at the bottom of the page in  to hide them for non-admins. 
Pppery 21:18, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Not wrapped; just added the class — Andy W. (talk) 21:28, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template-protected edit request on 15 November 2016 

message: Can you please change  to ? There is no need for there to be an image, and this would make it match other block templates like  and . Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 04:43, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: The image must be clickable to view the license. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:50, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template-protected edit request on 21 March 2019 

message: Please add "such as a VPN" after "open or anonymizing proxy".  Most non-tech-savvy users do not know what this is or what a VPN is, and essentially all VPNs are open proxies. Aasim (talk) 08:31, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: From a very fast search, it looks like a VPN differs from a proxy in that VPN traffic is encrypted. I guess that isn't a very substantial difference, but it would be nice to keep the template technically accurate. Calling in , who's probably better educated than me on the difference, if any? Enterprisey (talk!) 08:55, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: So from a networking perspective, most VPN's can be considered "proxies" - however most VPN's are not "open proxies" (most of them are closed proxies which require the user of such to have an affiliation with the VPN provider). — xaosflux Talk 18:23, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: However, most VPNs are anonymising proxies, at least the ones we're interested in. This is part of the language used in both the template and local policy. I think this request is sensible, since this template does get used for VPNs, and it does cause some confusion - I'll have a go at tweaking the wording. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:45, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Here. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:48, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template-protected edit request on 1 December 2020 

message: There is a mistake in a sentence below that I cannot fix. The one in bold should have all letters at the beginning capitalized.
Alternatively, if you wish to keep your IP address private you can use the unblock ticket request system.
Can someone please change it to:
Alternatively, if you wish to keep your IP address private, you can use the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Thanks! --MDK-Fan 15:13, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello, I know it has been over 2 years since I sent this edit request, but can a template editor or admin look at what I said and fix that error? It's ok if not. I also added a punctuation mark to the improved sentence. Thanks! --MDK-Fan 00:43, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  . -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:33, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fix a mistake 

message: This template and  currently suggest using  on your own talk page. However, an administrator has referred me to WP:IPECPROXY after doing so.  also suggests using  for autoblocks, which this seems to fall under. Is the specified appeal vanue correct in this template and ? Randi Moth (talk) 11:10, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Appeal venue 

message: Change link for IP grabber from external service to Wikipedia's built-in one – see changes in Template:Blocked proxy/sandbox.
Reason: to use Wikipedia's built-in IP grabber instead of a third-party one, for the reasons of convenience (the user doesn't have to go to an external site), the external site could possibly go down at times, and also Wikipedia's one contains a useful relevant FAQ about privacy and disclosure of IP addresses. This would also bring the template in line with Template:Webhostblock and Template:Colocationwebhost, both of which already use links to WP's IP grabber. — AP 499D25 (talk) 09:21, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Izno (talk) 08:12, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template-protected edit request on 28 June 2023