MediaWiki talk:Blockedtext

The following discussion was originally at "MediaWiki:VfD-Userpages of blocked users".

I request that the pages created by Martin at User:Angela is a troll, User:AngelA, User:2Angela be deleted as they cause confusion with my user name and/or are offensive. If these users need to be made aware of the username policy, it can be added to the message that is given to them telling them are blocked. Angela. 19:01, Apr 13, 2004 (UTC)

I agree. ;) 1Angela

Kill 'em. - UtherSRG 19:15, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The existence of this message on its userpage is irrelevant to that. The message will be linked to from the page which tells it that it has been blocked. Angela. 20:44, Apr 13, 2004 (UTC)

This seems weird. Angela, why do you request deletion of my notice at User:Angela is a troll, and not GrahamN's (shorter) message at User talk:Angela is a troll? Why is User talk:AngelA ok? How is one offensive, and not the other? If the pages are confusing, why can't you edit them to make them clearer?

Moved from History of User Talk:MyRedDice (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=MediaWiki_talk:Blockedtext&diff=3267500&oldid=3267499):

I just happened to notice this comment, and I find it puzzling. I have never heard of the user whose talk page you say I made a comment on, and I have certainly never posted anything on that particular page. Since the page has now evidently been deleted, I can't look at it to check. I'm baffled. Please could you tell me what I am supposed to have written there? Thank you. GrahamN 17:43, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

My recollection is that the comment was along the lines of "please stop vandalising, use the sandbox for testing, thanks". A form message, perhaps? I can't recall anything further on the incident. Martin 18:42, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are mistaken. I have never heard of User:Angela is a troll. I would have remembered that name. And I don't know what a "form message" is. It must have been somebody else. GrahamN 10:48, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'd rather they were both deleted, but user pages seem worse. Angela. 18:08, Apr 15, 2004 (UTC)

So you've be comparatively ok with these messages if they were only in user talk space? Ok: I can do that. Martin 20:58, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Indeed, the MediaWiki message can be linked (or even included inline, via Template:Msg) in the block message, so this would certainly be an alternative. My concern is that the fact that a user is blocked is of interest to more people than just the blocked user - it's also of interest to everyone else who may have been affected by the user in question - we need to ensure that they are kept informed as well (assuming that not everyone has wikipedia:block log bookmarked).

I can't see how creating these pages causes a problem. Often there is already a user talk page (or a user page) anyway. If it's showing up on recent changes that bothers you, it is only one more entry, and the user presumably made several before being blocked. I think it's worth that possible marginal extra offence for the extra transparency, and the simple defence against accusations of some kind of secretive cabal. Martin 21:09, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC) (edited for accuracy, Martin 17:23, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC))

It's not about it showing up in recent changes. It's about it existing at all. I'd rather these usernames were changed so they didn't show up in edit histories, but as there is no way for a sysop to do that, the next best solution is to delete the user pages so at least they won't show up in searches or in what links here from my user page. Creating these pages just gives the trolls more attention. Why not just delete them and forget about it? Do you honestly think people need to be informed that "Angela is a troll" is not an appropriate user name? Angela. 18:08, Apr 15, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I honestly think people do. Some folks (eg Netesq - check the old TMC debate for more) think that no user account should be blocked for having an inappropriate username. As a courtesy to people with this view, as well as those who may disagree with some individual username that some individual sysop has deemed inappropriate, we should aim to be transparent and open. Thus, the handful of people who might stumble onto user:AngelA should be told why the account is no longer active.

Since you're concerned about "what links here", I've removed any links from those pages to user:Angela. Martin 20:58, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Pages constructed merely to harass hard-working admins are unacceptable. Angela has been singularly fair and reliable for as long as I have been here, and were this not cyberspace, I'd invite a few "gents" out for a chat, ifyaknowwhatimean. Delete, delete, and delete. Denni 22:43, 2004 Apr 14 (UTC)

Denni - I created these user pages (as opposed to the user accounts), and I certainly did not do so to harass Angela, who I agree is hard working, fair, and reliable. Perhaps I could direct you to Angela's original request for deletion, or the page history of the pages in question? Martin 17:23, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Martin, I did not intend to imply that any one individual had done this, though your username as initiator for each page does indeed give pause to consider. Nor did I state that the intent in this case was to harrass Angela, though I am hard pressed to imagine what other reason there might be. My concern is that these pages were not constructed by the individual they name, are offensive to the individual they name, and failing any pressing need to keep them, they ought to be removed. I'm sure you would feel the same if some yahoo (I'm a google guy - I can say that) decided, just because he wanted to create grief for you, to create User MyRedDick. Angela saw me through a few newbie crises, and I have always found her supportive and approachable. I admire that, and consequently feel a little more inclined than some might to back her on an issue. However, be assured that I would be as vigilant on your behalf. We are a community here, and I have seen you around. Bottom line - we all have better things to do here than snipe at each other. If I want that, I spend an hour or two over at Everything2. Denni 17:44, 2004 Apr 15 (UTC)

Since you are hard pressed to imagine my reasons for creating these pages, perhaps you should re-read my comments on this page, where I explain those reasons? Are they unclear? I've expanded in response to some questions, so perhaps this will make things more obvious.

User:My Green Dice, which is about equivalent to user:2Angela in "offensiveness", exists (as a redirect), and should be kept, for similar reasons of transparency and openness. You are correct that I've no desire to see someone create a MyRedDick User, but in the period between its creation and the creation of the ability for sysops to rename user accounts, I'd be happy to have the simple message at Template:UsernameBlock stay.

Some quick stating-the-obvious agreements: yes, Angela is supportive, approachable, admirable. Yes, we are a community. Yes, sniping at each other is bad. Martin 20:58, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

With all due respect, and having read through all the comments on this item several times, the only reason for their presence seems to be your concern that "the fact that a user is blocked is of interest to more people than just the blocked user - it's also of interest to everyone else who may have been affected by the user in question". While I can agree with that sentiment when it comes to an actual user who has been banned, I believe userpages created as an act of vandalism should fall under a different protocol. I do indeed want to know if FredX, who has been terrorizing my talk page, is gone. I do not need to know that user:wikisux, who has never been a legitimate user, has been deleted, any more than I need to know that vanity pages have vanished into history if I never hang around VfD. I will note that it does not help that some comments here do not have a sig stamp, thus creating some difficulty following the flow of conversation. Thanks for your patience. Denni 03:13, 2004 Apr 17 (UTC)

One technical solution would be to automagically mark the user and user talk pages of blocked users with a system message (kinda like the message we put on user talk pages of anonymous users), or automatically append a "this user is blocked" message to the user and user talk pages upon blocking. I think I favour the latter, as it ties in with watchlists, etc, but I imagine Angela would object, for the same reasons. Martin 17:23, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

There already is a page which automatically notes when a user is blocked. It's the block log. These users want pages which upset me - why should these not be deleted just because they are in the user namespace? If they were anywhere else, they would be deleted instantly. Angela. 18:08, Apr 15, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, there is the block log, but most normal people don't have the block log on their watchlist. Thus you have the crazy situation where someone, for example, patiently tries to mediate with some controversial user, and gets told "oh, haven't you heard? He was blocked yesterday". That's wrong, and it needs to be fixed. Protected pages have a helpful "this page is protected" message (both on page and in sidebar), and blocked page should have a similarly helpful "this user is blocked" message. I wouldn't have thought that would be particularly controversial, to be honest. Regardless, I'll take it to wikipedia:feature requests.

As noted above, I've removed any links from these pages to your user page, and I'll move them into user talk now. Martin 20:58, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. While I appreciate that the pages were created in good faith, and that Martin is honestly puzzled at the request for deletion and understandably upset by the implied criticism, I also think that Angela's request is reasonable and should be actioned. I mean no criticism of Martin by this, IMO the problem is a difference of opinion that he had no way of predicting. Hang in there, everyone, and let's all focus on building the encyclopedia. To this end, don't anyone let the activities of those who don't share this goal upset or, worse, divide us. Andrewa 12:54, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• I'm fine with deleting the pages in user: space (which I have now effectively blanked), provided the user talk pages are kept. Martin 17:45, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Do you not think that knowing that pages with these titles will be kept indefinitely will just encourage them? Now, if anyone wants to offend someone or make some sort of statement, all they need do is create that as a user name, and the talk page with that statement will be kept forever. I really don't think this is a sensible solution. Angela. 19:02, Apr 16, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Firstly, I agree with AndrewA. Secondly, what purpose do these really serve? Ambivalenthysteria 05:21, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• Pages deleted by Cecropia

---

Contents

1 Contact the administrator 2 which message do blocked users see? 3 Innocent? help us 4 Just reading 5 email link 6 HTML tags? 7 Suggestions

Contact the administrator

It should be easier to contact the administrator who blocked me. Currently, as an unfairly or accidentally blocked user, I have to:

1. Create an account
2. Set up an email address in its preferences
3. Browse to the user's page
4. Click "email this user"
5. Possibly discover that the admin has disabled that feature.
6. Search the user page for alternative means of contact
7. Probably find that there are none

That's not good - people who have been incorrectly blocked should be able to easily discuss it with the admin who blocked the account/IP/IP range. To solve this, I suggest that a "$4" variable is created, and substituted for the email address of the blocking administrator.

There should be no worries about spam with this, as the email address is not being made public, so it cannot be harvested by a spam robot. Any admins with privacy concerns over this can simply avoid blocking anyone, and there are plenty of other admins who will be willing to take up the strain.

Anyway, I'll feature request this, and leave the discussion here for anyone interested. In the meantime, I'll create wikipedia:contact an administrator to bridge the gap. Or maybe wikipedia:list of administrators. Martin 20:52, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

There's already Wikipedia:Requests for sysop attention so perhaps wikipedia:contact an administrator could merge with that. Regarding the feature request, I think Special:Emailuser bug (https://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=939512&group_id=34373&atid=411192) might need to be fixed first. It would be easy enough to add a $4 variable if links like Special:Emailuser/Angela were still working. Angela. 19:02, Apr 21, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me about Wikipedia:Requests for sysop attention - very useful. And thanks for letting me know about that bug, too. Martin 21:00, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Emailuser bug fixed (http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/mediawiki-cvs/2004-April/001383.html) by Brion, and maybe $4 will be the blocking sysop's username (http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/mediawiki-cvs/2004-April/001396.html) when CVS next goes live. Angela. 13:19, Apr 24, 2004 (UTC)

Splendid. :) It doesn't handle sysops who have "email this user" disabled, but we can encourage them to either enable it, not block people, or put a contact address in the reason field. Martin 13:56, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I don't think sysops should be blocking people if there is no way to contact them. I'll suggest this at Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy. It makes no sense for this blocking form to suggest that the blocked user contacts a sysop when they can't actually do this. Angela. 14:26, Apr 24, 2004 (UTC)

Of course, Special:Emailuser/Angela only works for people who have created an account, so it's not massively useful for folks behind blocked IPs. The actual email address in plain text would be better, I think. Martin 12:30, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Maybe, but I don't know how to do that and I'm not sure people would want to display their email address in plain text. People who are blocked can still create new accounts and change their preferences, so it is always going to be possible for them to use the Special:Emailuser feature if they want to. I'm not sure it's a good idea having this talk page separate from Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy. Angela. 15:47, Apr 25, 2004 (UTC)

It's not the most ideal solution, but "email $4" is finally available. It provides a link to the "email this user" feature for the blocking admin, but does require both parties have an email address in their preferences. Angela. 01:56, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

which message do blocked users see?

I'm curious: when more than one sysop blocks a user, does the user see the message from the first blocking sysop or the last blocking sysop? To answer this question, I ask that a sysop block this account. I'll also block it, and then I'll check which message appears on the "You are blocked from editing" screen. Thanks, Cyan, a.k.a Socku Puppetto 21:05, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

done, for two hours, with message "known vandal "Cyan", back again. sigh" -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 21:34, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

Heh heh. Turns out it's the first sysop's message which is seen. Later blocks do not override the message. -- Cyan 21:46, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

But what happens when the first (shorter) block expires? Whose message prevails then? -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 21:51, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

Also - I'm sure you have, but have you checked that this is not a browser cache issue? Mark Richards 21:53, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

The fact that duplicate blocks are allowed is a flaw. The behaviour is counter-intuitive. The block that is used is whichever one MySQL returns first -- probably the one which was inserted first. When a short block expires, longer blocks of the same user are deleted. I think it would be better if attempting to create a duplicate block gave an error. -- Tim Starling 01:07, May 7, 2004 (UTC)

It'd be more useful for changing bad blocked messages if they overwrote the older block. Martin 23:55, 9 May 2004 (UTC)village pump

Innocent? help us

Innocent people who get blocked may want to help us by contacting their ISP and getting the vandal in question sorted out. So I added some text. What do you think? Martin 21:51, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

It'll be interesting to see if it works. Angela. 23:53, 29 May 2004 (UTC)

Just reading

I added a section for readers following this post (http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=wikien-l&m=108664915016643&w=2) on the mailing list which shows a reader confused about why she was blocked. Angela. 14:20, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

email link

This looks broken - it says email 5683 or similar... don't understand. Martin 20:59, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It's not only the email link, it's the user name. It will say you have been blocked by 5683 as well. Camembert has filed a bug report (http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=974152&group_id=34373&atid=411192) on this. Angela. 00:10, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

This has been fixed. Maximus Rex 17:43, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

HTML tags?

For the purpose of translating this at cs:, I wonder whether it is necessary to keep the HTML tags scattered in the text when the rest is in Wiki-syntax (and after all, two consecutive BRs are Evil anyway). And if not, I suggest some sysop with editing rights removes them from the template as well. --Malyctenar 11:23, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It doesn't work for some reason. Without the br tags, the text appears as one paragraph. Angela. 20:30, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)

Suggestions

I made the 'Your IP address is $3. Please include this address in any queries you make bold, since about half of the users emailing me dont include their IP adress. Also, should we suggest to log on again for dynamically assigned IP adresses? This would　fix some problems (e.g. with AOL users). Finally: Maybe we can include a template text to be emailed, e.g.:

Hi. It seems my IP adress $3 has been blocked. Could you unblock my IP adress so I can edit Wikipedia? Thanks.

Chris 73 Talk 01:02, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

---

Can a developer or other authorized person please fix up the blocking procedure so anonymoyus IPs who log in can edit without having to get a different IP address? Thanks. --Scott Gall 19:57, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)