Jump to content


From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

Urgent updates needed at Mediawiki:Autoblockedtext

Extended content

This system message needs a bit of a more complex design. This update will help readers understand what it means and how to bypass it, in case they did nothing wrong. The code needed for this design is as follows.

|2=This IP address has been [[mw:Autoblock|automatically blocked]] from editing. (Autoblock #$5)
|3=You have not been blocked directly. Someone else on this network was blocked from editing by [[User:$1|$1]]; therefore an autoblock has been applied to this IP address ($3) to prevent the blocked user from continuing to edit disruptively while logged out. This autoblock will remain until $6; a complete description of the autoblock is: ''$2''.
|2=If you have been autoblocked, please read the following information.
|3=An autoblock is the automatic block of an IP address, done by the [[MediaWiki]] software. Autoblocks are the result of an attempt to edit Meta-Wiki (or its sister projects) from an IP address recently used by a blocked user.

These blocks can affect other editors who have done nothing wrong. To bypass this autoblock, please consider doing one of the following:

* '''If you are a legitimate user, or have an account''': Please [[Special:UserLogin|log in]] to continue editing. If you still cannot edit pages even when logged in, then this is likely the result of a "hard" IP range block. If you encounter this message when trying to edit a page, [[Meta:IP block exemption#Requesting and granting exemption|follow these instructions to request an IP block exemption]].

* '''If you do ''not'' yet have an account''': Please fill out <span class="plainlinks">[//accounts.wmflabs.org/ this form]</span> to request a username. An email address must be provided to receive a temporary password, which should be used to create a new password. Once you have received the temporary password, go to the [[w:Special:PasswordReset|password reset page on Wikipedia]] (or another project) and enter the temporary password in the blank password field. You will then be asked to provide a new password for the account you requested.

If the autoblock seems unrelated to you, you may appeal by adding the following to your [[Special:MyTalk|talk page]]: <code>{{unblock|Caught in an autoblock but it doesn't relate to any of my actions. My IP address is $3. Block message: $2. (Autoblock #$5)}}</code>.
* If the request is '''accepted''', you should continue to edit normally. However, we recommend that you log in to avoid further problems.
* If the request is '''declined''', a reason for declining will appear on the <code>{{unblock}}</code> template.

For more information on autoblocks, refer to [[mw:Autoblock|this article on the MediaWiki website]].

We apologize for any inconvenience this may have happened.

The result:

Why is this urgent? Why this message should be changed? What have changed since the discussion that happened in the talk page of the system message that lead to the decline of this very request? —MarcoAurelio (talk) 16:12, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

That is very questionable. Because that the reason is said This has not been identified as being a requirement by the community after it has been managed to reset Mediawiki:Autoblockedtext as to default. I think that it is very simple, but should be adequate for autoblock software as well that wikis have like this. 2A02:2F01:620F:3D00:C899:2702:F8B1:3E6E 16:17, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't think this is urgent in any way, and due to multi-lingual nature of meta don't think this message is a good one to localize without a lot of work. — xaosflux Talk 16:45, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Why, Xaosflux? I don't understand what is problem. This, maybe is best term to invoke that user accounts has been blocked, as well when they logged out get message: (This IP address has been automatically blocked from editing. (Autoblock #$5)...). This would help in case of LTA when they did problematic actions. 2A02:2F01:620F:3D00:C899:2702:F8B1:3E6E 16:51, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
    Customizing interface messages is language-specific, even if we added in fancy colored boxes here for English, editors using every other language would not see them. That is why that sort of construct is useful on language-specific projects (who also run in to this challenge when they get visited by users in other languages. For example look at w:de:MediaWiki:Autoblockedtext - it is customized for their normal users, but if you don't have your language set for German you see w:de:MediaWiki:Autoblockedtext/es for example. We try to avoid customizing things too much for only English here on meta, since our users will get inconsistent messages then (outside of the text translations). — xaosflux Talk 17:02, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
    Additionally, your suggestion above include sending the users both to the English Wikipedia unnecessarily, and to the wmflabs platform when this is also seldom needed here. — xaosflux Talk 17:05, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
    Why you told that my suggestion above include sending the users both to the English Wikipedia unnecessarily? Please be patient, that this autoblock soft is regarding to MediaWiki system message of Meta-Wiki: Autoblockedtext. I hope all the wikis wouldn't suffer for this change. 2A02:2F01:620F:3D00:C899:2702:F8B1:3E6E 17:10, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
    Check the links you made above. Also, if you want to change the mediawiki DEFAULT, this is the wrong venue; this is the page for discussing changes to the messages here on the meta-wiki. — xaosflux Talk 17:29, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
    Yes, at Babel this page is for discussing changes to the messages here on the meta-wiki. I don't forget to mention MediaWiki:abusefilter-disallowed that it was ignored from discussion here. Which needs bit of updates (see discussion regarding system message)
Extended content
Edit request November 2018

{{Edit request}}

This action has been automatically identified as harmful, and therefore disallowed.
If you believe your action was constructive, please inform an administrator of what you were trying to do.
A brief description of the abuse rule which your action matched is: $1
- 12:43, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

This is the consensus: This is more better than the previous one. Add the image - 12:43, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Copy this source - 15:39, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Not done see the discussion just above this section. Please first establish a consensus for the change, then reactivate the edit request. — xaosflux Talk 18:37, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Please link to the discussion where the discussion took place. — xaosflux Talk 14:15, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

{{Help me}} How can I link to the discussion took place? - 10:21, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Go to the page where it was discussed, click on "Permanent link" on the sidebar, copy that from your address bar and paste it here. — xaosflux Talk 20:40, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Abusefilter-disallowed 11:10, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

--2A02:2F01:620F:3D00:C899:2702:F8B1:3E6E 17:47, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Not done. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 16:53, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Comment: Continued... what is wrong at discussion above? I think... very weaken havoc, due to major issues. Please let additional details below. 2A02:2F01:620F:3D00:C899:2702:F8B1:3E6E 16:59, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
    What is wrong is that while the main language at this wiki is English, it is a wiki where users of many languages need to be available. Your proposed change is in English only, and points to English Wikipedia, and your solution to get an account created points to an English Wikipedia solution that is not pertinent to any other wiki. What is currently in place for metawiki is the same message and in each user's preferred language as we pull standard Wikimedia-focused messages. In short, the benefits that you envisage are not a consensus view of the community.  — billinghurst sDrewth 03:57, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
    Ok that. It should be one of the places regrding Wikimedia objects. When I do get community consensus view, that needs point to focus WM system messages such as MediaWiki:Autoblockedtext since it was out of sense? I think it would be needed for the standard soft, is too simple and must be updated. 2A02:2F01:620F:3D00:C899:2702:F8B1:3E6E 04:13, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by:  — billinghurst sDrewth 04:16, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Clean a user page

User:Vivil as offensive trolling. Many thanks. Serial Number 54129 (talk) 12:43, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: It's not trolling. It's my opinion about Wikipedia after recent abuse of power against myself. I was banned without proof. If vulgar words are a problem we can reach a consensus in this case. Please use {{Reply to}} Vivil 🗪 12:47, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
This actually shouldn't be here, should be over RFH. No comments on the issue.--Cohaf (talk) 13:04, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Not done on RFH.--Cohaf (talk) 13:14, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --13:14, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Requests for oversight

Hello everyone, I have a request for oversight access open at Meta:Requests for oversight. RFO's have a minimum participation threshold, so if you are so inclined - your feedback there would be most welcome. If you have any questions for me, please leave them at that discussion. Best regards, — xaosflux Talk 01:56, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Cohaf (talk) 15:45, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Idea to add (supressredirect) to patrollers

Hey all, in the course of patrolling, I often see cases of marginal G7, like that of the SE statements. Some can be moved to userspace but then there's a redirect that needs to be speedied. I'm wondering could patroller be granted that flag so as to help in patrolling. Open for community inputs. Much valued.--Cohaf (talk) 03:09, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

You can just leave them for an admin to move and to manage, it being one of the roles of admins. It isn't particularly the role of a patroller to be moving SE-related material.  — billinghurst sDrewth 03:22, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
@Billinghurst:. I understand it but I'm just wondering if it is possible to unbundle from admin as not only SE but other areas may also need it. --Cohaf (talk) 03:32, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: withdrawn due to low interest and no support.--Cohaf (talk) 17:49, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Notice of RfC on English Wikipedia about the reference desk

A request for comment is taking place on the English Wikipedia ([1]) that could result in the Wikipedia reference being moved to Wikianswers and Wikianswers being adopted and an official WMF wiki, please post further comments there. BrandonXLF (talk) 04:06, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

I edited the section header to reflect the fact that the topic of the RfC is the reference desk, not references (which would be of interest for WikiCite). Nemo 08:47, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Probably worth adding to Wikimedia Forum  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:54, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

The open RFC section is a little messy because there is at the same time global ban requests, complaints about administrator abuse/local issues and propositions of cross-wiki guidelines/tech features/strategy...

I think we should split the section into 4 subsections:

  • Global ideas/suggestions
  • Indivudual blocks/unblocks/issues
  • Local/language-wide complaints
  • Cross-language complaints

What do you think ? --CreativeC (talk) 15:08, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

It has never specifically been a concern, or one particularly addressed. If there is to be an grouping, then it would be useful to have that same grouping applied to any categorisation. I doubt that many really mind.  — billinghurst sDrewth 04:48, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
The entirety of meta RFC is a mess. Sorry, User:MarcoAurelio but in my opinion the automatic sorting made it worse (though it was bad already). --Rschen7754 05:12, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
I agree the open RfC section could work better. If you find a better system that does not require much manual intervention, please be my guest. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 12:15, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

@MarcoAurelio: This is possible !

  • Apply type to currently open RfCs (with AWB ?)

--CreativeC (talk) 19:54, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

The biggest problem I have with the system as is is that there is no way to tell from the watchlist when there was a new RFC. I check my watchlist every day, yet I didn't see the latest global ban discussion for several days. --Rschen7754 06:48, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Watching Category:Requests for comments (open) doesn't work? Something can be done with DynamicPageList.  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:39, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: DPL is already used there. I think that for the closed RfCs section it works fine, but for the open RfCs I think DPL tends to move most recent editted pages to the top of the list. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 10:18, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
If someone is observing from their watchlist, it needs to be category watched. For DPL it has numbers on configuration options, look at sortmethod, using created or categoryadd as viable options.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:20, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

I changed sortmethod to categoryadd on every lists of the page (open was to created, others to lastedit). What do you think about four subsections of open RfCs ?--CreativeC (talk) 21:06, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Inaccurate protection message

The Main page's protection message simultaneously displays the expected message

"This page is currently protected so that only administrators can edit it."

and also the contradictory message

"Note: This page has been protected so that only autoconfirmed users can edit it. The latest log entry is provided below for reference:"

Don't have sysop or other related permissions here, but was wondering if someone could take a look at this? Leaderboard (talk) 18:01, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

@Leaderboard: can you provide the link you are using (copy the url) that gives you this message? What language is your interface set to? Are you using the desktop site or a mobile view? — xaosflux Talk 18:54, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
He provided more details at phab:T213846. Regards --Schniggendiller 21:41, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

It seems related to the translations. Load the main page with uselang=qqx from an IP login, and you will see.

(viewsource-title: Main Page)
(backlinksubtitle: Main Page)
(permissionserrorstext-withaction: 2, (action-edit))

(semiprotectedpagewarning: (Translations:)?Main Page(\/.*)? <noedit|autoconfirmed|errmsg=Semiprotectedpagewarning>, Main Page)
(protectedpagetext: editprotected, edit) ...

I don't think that we should overly fuss it.  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:45, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: @Schniggendiller: @Xaosflux: The two issues (what I've described and what Phabricator says) are separate. The problem I'm referring to here is regarding contradictory error messages and not translations (though it happens only for en-US). Leaderboard (talk) 06:29, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
@Leaderboard: It is basically the same issue, you are just viewing it from different perspective due how it is being seen in different languages through the old system with included components. We need to move the main page into translation system. We probably need to get it rebuilt in Main page-new.
main page

 — billinghurst sDrewth 10:06, 16 January 2019 (UTC)