Template talk:Unblock-auto

message: 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)
replies: text: Make sure you fix  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)
thread_title:  Functionality 

message: 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  (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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Signatures

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: autoblocks link

message: 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)
thread_title:  color problems with firefox. 

message: 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)
thread_title: Unblock

message: 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)
replies: text: 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. --YbborTalk 03:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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.  Mangojuicetalk 15:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why are we exposing users' IP addresses? 

message: 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. SQLQuery me! 19:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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.  Mangojuicetalk 18:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unblock link, for the autoblock ID 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Fix the reviewed template 

message: The toolserver link to the block ID is stale; anyone have a replacement? --jpgordon::==( o ) 23:41, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Toolserver link 

message: What about this one:
Note: If you were blocked directly, you are using the wrong template and your block will not be reviewed. Please use  instead.
This user is asking that his or her autoblock or (shared) IP address' block be lifted:
*  ([ block log] • contribs • deleted contribs • [ abuse filter log] • [ • [ unblock] • user rights management)
* 
* Block message:
 should only be used for autoblocked users.Do not call this template manually. Please follow these instructions instead.
* Blocking admin: 
Administrator use only:
Replace this template with one of the following as notification. Users should note that they CANNOT unblock themselves.
:
:
:
Note: If the "decline=" is omitted, a reason for unblocking will be requested.
:
Note: This should ideally only be used for when a auto- or indirect block needs checkuser assistance.
I welcome any modifications. /HeyMid (contributions) 22:59, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's in the works, on my to-do list.  — Edokter • Talk •  00:12, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  is good. HeyMid (contribs) 22:09, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

text: Sorry about that... fixed.  — Edokter • Talk •  00:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The new style 

message: Can you change this image:  to the other image, like the one used for the  template: ?
: Not done:  is not required for edits to semi-protected, unprotected pages, or pending changes protected pages. →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 06:19, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: — Edokter • Talk —  13:12, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change icon for unblock-auto reviewed template 

message: I'd like to replace the link to dnsstuff with a link to . 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Done. TNXMan 13:23, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  New WHOIS link 

message: Please replace:
</nowiki>
with:

as the </nowiki> is pointless there, and it shows up in the notification.  Thanks!
Logan Talk Contributions 14:32, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: .  — Edokter (talk) —  15:27, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from Logan, 4 April 2011 

message: 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)
thread_title: Remove $1 parameter

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Do not remove" 

message: 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)
replies: text: It could be removed alltogether... an autoblock never has a blocking admin. -- User:Edokter  11:12, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  [BUG] Unblock-auto reviewed (maybe others) 

message: 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)
replies: text: Done Alakzi (talk) 00:38, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Typo (braces and bracket in wrong order) 

message: Please change  to   for consistency with 
TL22 (talk) 21:42, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Why the yellow one? Alakzi (talk) 21:48, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops, sorry, meant to put Orologio blu.svg, not Orologio oro.svg,  this is what happens when you copy-paste too much... --TL22 (talk) 22:02, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

text: Done Alakzi (talk) 22:05, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template-protected edit request on 21 June 2015 

message: 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)
replies: text: Done -- /Alex/21 07:25, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template-protected edit request on 22 March 2019 

message: 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)
replies: text: Didn't seem to work, I'll let someone else ( did the last one) work it out. Looked OK in the sandbox :P   - FlightTime (open channel) 01:31, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  what part didn't work? Everything but the first  is invisible on the template page, because the parameters that trigger them are missing. --DannyS712 (talk) 01:33, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Maybe my error, I thought the sandbox version had the  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)
replies: text:  thanks. I set this as answered --DannyS712 (talk) 01:39, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template-protected edit request on 24 March 2019 

message: updated  to make the user links the same as for unblock. I wonder if someone might do the sam for ? 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)
replies: text: Let me know if there's anything else that needs to be changed. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:40, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unblock-auto reviewed change request 

message: 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)
replies: text: — JJMC89 (T·C) 07:21, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Default decline reason 

message: Please replace  with  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  and , both of which also use  instead of . Thanks. GreenComputer (talk) 15:38, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Elli (talk | contribs) 03:57, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template-protected edit request on 11 September 2021 

message: Could we get the "active blocks" link in here, same as in the other unblock requests? --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 19:45, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: (yet)  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "Active blocks" 

message: 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  with {{unblock | reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} would fix this. See this conversation for further details. Aidan9382 (talk) 18:53, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: . P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 19:44, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: my pleasure! Paine  20:05, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template-protected edit request on 3 June 2022 - Visual Editor ease of use