MediaWiki:Blockedtext is the message shown to users who are blocked from editing, when they attempt to edit. This interface message or skin may also be documented on MediaWiki.org or on TranslateWiki. The page forms part of the MediaWiki interface, and can only be edited by administrators. To request a change to the page, add {{editprotected}} to this page, followed by a description of your request. Consider announcing discussions you add here at Wikipedia:MediaWiki messages to bring more people to the discussion.

v • d • e Key MediaWiki interface messages Edit window instructions Wikimedia-copyrightwarning · Summary · Wikimedia-editpage-tos-summary · Edittools.js · Edittools Signup/login page Fancycaptcha-createaccount · Prefs-help-email · Signupend · Loginend · Welcomecreation Search-related searchmenu-new · searchmenu-exists  · search-nonefound Article related Noarticletext · Movepagetext · Movepage-moved Edit notices Protectedpagewarning · Semiprotectedpagewarning · Newarticletext "Can't edit" notices Protectedpagetext · Nocreatetext · Blockedtext · Autoblockedtext  · Spamprotectiontext  · Titleprotected Admin action messages Protect-text · Confirmdeletetext · Deletedtext

Block Message Variables
$1	Link to blocking admin's userpage
$2	Block reason supplied by admin
$3	IP address of blocked user
$4	Blocking admin's name
$5	Block ID number
$6	Timestamp of block expiration time
$7	User block was applied to
$8	Timestamp of block start time

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Blockedtext page.
Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith Avoid personal attacks Be welcoming
Archives: 1, 2

Older comments have been moved to the archives.

Contents 1 Header formatting screwing up TOC on transclusion 2 Full of jargon and inaccuracies 3 Grammar error 4 Dash 5 changes

[edit] Header formatting screwing up TOC on transclusion

Can somebody who knows better change the formatting so that this doesn't screw up the TOC at WP:APPEAL? Right now entries 4-6 of that TOC go nowhere unless one scrolls down that page to expand this page (as it is transcluded to that one) first.--chaser (talk) 02:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Full of jargon and inaccuracies

This message is horrendous. It's full of Wikipedia jargon and inaccuracies. No wonder people feel overwhelmed by bureaucracy the moment they get blocked for whatever reason.

Here are some problems I've found with it:

A number of automated features identify unblocked usage that apparently should be blocked; this can be quickly rectified if incorrect.

What does that even mean?

If the reason given is "username", "user...", "contact an administrator for verification purposes", or something similar...

The "user..." thing was Curps's adminbot, which hasn't run since 2006 (thankfully). Nobody would get away with blocking someone with such an unhelpful reason now. I also don't know why "contact an administrator for verification purposes" would indicate an inappropriate username. (If we're verifying the name of a famous person, we're asking them to show that their username is appropriate, not saying their real name is inappropriate and asking them to pick a new one!)

You have just clicked a 'red link' - an article that does not yet exist - but you do not have access to start a new page when no article already exists. 

What does clicking red links have to do with getting blocked?

You are using Google Web Accelerator or some other web accelerator...

Is this really one of the "most common causes" of blocking, as it says?

Besides weirdness like that, the message just goes on for pages, and almost all of the message is irrelevant to most users. We need to find a way to cut this message down to about 20% of its size for it to be at all helpful.

A technical measure, to show a different message to users when they are blocked by IP or by account, would help us to not show irrelevant instructions to people. But even without that, there's progress we can make. For example, we can probably take out sections relating to specific kinds of blocks such as username blocks, because those come with block templates (which get substituted into the $2 area) with directions that are specific to that kind of block.

On top of that, we should try to eliminate jargon. Most of this message is written from, to use more Wikipedia jargon, an {{in-universe}} point of view, where the universe is Wikipedia processes.

rspεεr (talk) 02:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

In general, I agree with almost any change that improves users' understanding of the page, what it means for their situation, and where they can go from there; as the page text can also impact the processing of unblock requests for better or worse, that's also an important consideration. The two latter bullets you mention (redlinks and accelerators) are added for the sake of resolving common threads in unblock requests: in the case of users clicking redlinks, such users frequently used to complain "But I wasn't trying to edit!"; in the case of users on web accelerators, I seem to recall that many of them ignored the more detailed explanations and instructions provided in block templates until similar information was added to Blockedtext. As far as jargon goes, what jargon could we remove or simplify? What page text can be eliminated or shortened easily? – Luna Santin (talk) 08:12, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The highest density of jargon is in the "IP blocked?" section. "If you are not blocked directly, your IP address ($3) or range has been "hard blocked" due to abuse either by the previous person who was allocated or sharing your IP address," it begins, and then it goes on to talk about X-Forwarded-For and proxy servers. You have to be a serious geek to understand what X-Forwarded-For is, and most people are not going to understand the "blocked directly" distinction. rspεεr (talk) 22:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

At least it doesn't look like this anymore. I agree that there's far too much text; I tried to mitigate this by using a cheap hack—show/hide functionality. That could perhaps be removed if it's possible to get this message down to a reasonable length. Reducing the clutter and presenting the information as clearly as possible both sound very good. --MZMcBride (talk) 08:57, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I think items 2 (user...) and 4 (accelerators) should go. The accelerator bit can be explained in the block reason (I think it is already), and I don't think many people are still using these (Google discontinued theirs). I'm still not a fan of the show//hide stuff, I have crash-tested it twice with total newbies and they just didn't get that there was some hidden text. -- Luk ^talk 09:59, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

It would certainly help if we could have different block messages for IPs and registered users. With or without that innovation, there are some things we can do. First, spend a lot less time explaining what the problem might be. Focus on giving possible courses of action, and use a kind of Wizard approach to put some of the relevant text on other pages. By Wizard approach I mean present a number of different options on how to proceed, and instead of explaining them, just summarise, and link to pages that explain them. Part of the splitting by options would involve distinguishing between IPs and Registered users, in different sections. This is isn't easy, but it can surely be done better. Rd232 ^talk 13:41, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the slimming down, an I've created a sandbox version here to work on doing it in. I've had a first run over, but didn't get it small enough for it to be worth removing the show/hide boxes yet (might be best to split much of the text out into other pages, truly). I also noted that part of the suggestions are, if you aren't registered, to "create an account on a different computer" etc., and I have no clue why it's a good idea to suggest that sort of thing. Help would be appreciated on the work. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka++ 21:23, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

It's a start. I don't think "If you have JavaScript enabled..." gets the message off on the right foot, though. Although most of us are geeks, we need to realize that most of our target audience does not know what JavaScript is. And they probably have it enabled because they have never twiddled that setting. Then again, our goal should be to remove the show/hide links entirely, making that part unnecessary.

I still find the "Blocked directly?" and "IP address blocked?" distinction confusing to new users. Is there a bit of CSS magic we could do to make different text show up for logged-in users and IP users? I know it would be possible if we could write arbitrary JavaScript into the message, but the fact that it's a Wiki-parsed message prevents that. rspεεr (talk) 22:29, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

We previously asked the devs to give us a distinct MediaWiki:Autoblockedtext for users impacted by autoblocks; at the time, I thought of it as a bit of a longshot, but before long we had a distinct page for that scenario. Might save some trouble to do the same for IP/account blocks. (thanks also for pointing out some jargon, above -- it's hard for me to spot, sometimes) – Luna Santin (talk) 00:07, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I can't think of anything to let us do it in this page itself, unless we can ask the software to find IPs. Luna's idea is probably the best. I also slimmed down my sandbox version a bit, and moved some things around. Let me know if there's anything else that could or should be removed. The biggest part left is the "E-mail Us" section, but I can't figure out a way to get it shorter without taking it out entirely. Cheers. lifebaka++ 01:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not clear to me why people should be emailing To request an account versus going to the Signup page. If it's because the block may sometimes make this impossible, shouldn't we encourage people to try it first, and email if they can't? Rd232 ^talk 10:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

At first glance, I'm rather liking Lifebaka's streamlined version -- it may even cut down on things enough to remove those hide boxes -- and I think it addresses many of the concerns that have been mentioned here. I would somewhat prefer if the "Appealing" section heading in "What do I do now?" were not a wikilink, for the sake of consistent appearance, but that's a pretty minor quibble. I'd support replacing the current page text with that version, or something like it. To Rd232, I think a variety of things including {{anonblock}}, {{schoolblock}}, MediaWiki:Cantcreateaccount-text, and so on, may ultimately direct users to email unblock-en-l or to Wikipedia:Request an account... which I know isn't a complete answer to your question. If we want them to email, the "email template" is very helpful. – Luna Santin (talk) 18:29, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Rd232, I think the steps at {{uw-ublock}} are good, ie do it yourself, but if you're unable to then email the blocking admin. What do you all think? Nja²⁴⁷ 18:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

It's a good step, but I wouldn't want to leave it as the only option presented (not sure if that's what you're suggesting). – Luna Santin (talk) 18:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I think we should be directing them to request accounts at accounts-enwiki-l instead, but I haven't figured out a good way to phrase that yet so I hadn't changed it. {{uw-ublock}} and {{uw-spamublock}} both include instructions about how to deal with them, so I think we could just remove that bit entirely.

I implemented Luna's suggestion about keeping the headings not wikilinked, so I moved the link up. Currently the "What does this mean?" and "What do I do now?" sections come uncollapsed, as I've slimmed them down quite a bit, while the "Additional information" is collapsed. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka++ 22:27, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

We're talking about User:Lifebaka/Sandbox/Blocked text, in case anyone's lost track. Rd232 ^talk 22:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

A little more time for discussion might be good, but if no objection is forthcoming I'd like to give that version a try. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:27, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest re-adding the IRC paragraph. It is used quite a bit and people do prefer to talk in real-time. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I've readded it, as I only removed it trying to take out as much as I could think of. I think it'd be worth slimming it down, if possible, and I'm open to suggestions. Cheers. lifebaka++ 02:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't really think it can be reduced much. If you have any ideas, go for it. Anyways, looks good. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

IRC or no IRC, this version is much better. One hide box for "additional information" is tolerable. rspεεr (talk) 06:24, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. If emailing is down in "additional information", perhaps IRC should be mentioned there, as well? It seems a bit out of place, currently. Could just be me -- opinions welcome. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I moved it on the additional information section. That section should probably be renamed since it now only deals with alternative ways of contacting us. -- Luk ^talk 12:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Hm... "alternatives" maybe? (Note: I've copied the sandbox version into the page) – Luna Santin (talk) 16:35, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) How about just "Contact us"? Then we could rename "E-mailing us" to "By e-mail" or something like it. lifebaka++ 18:40, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Hm, that could work. I'd be mildly concerned that it might get confused with the omnipresent "contact us" link, although that probably wouldn't be the end of the world (might even suggest some changes to one or both pages, depending). Whatever's good. – Luna Santin (talk) 18:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

If we call it "How to contact us about this block" -- I'm pretty sure we have the horizontal space for that -- it might look less like the standard "contact us" link. rspεεr (talk) 00:13, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Or "More ways to..." I suppose the more horizontal space we use, the easier the "show" link is to find. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I like the way the cleanup is heading. I thought I'd see what the message looks like to the end user by using a blocked web proxy (well two actually). I'd recommend it for anyone who doesn't usually get blocked.

Not logged in, under a direct IP hardblock I was told that:

If 67.159.44.51 is not blocked, your IP address (67.159.44.51) or range may have been blocked. Please check here

and under a hard rangeblock:

If 76.73.0.0/17 is not blocked, your IP address (76.73.86.146) or range may have been blocked...

a logged in user account would see exactly the same. I'll just leave that here for comment before the next update .. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

We could kill the first case by putting that and related text inside a {{#ifeq:$3|$7||<text>}} statement, as long as calling the variables inside the ParserFunction doesn't make something stop working. I don't know enough about how IP ranges are expressed to come up with something for the second case. lifebaka++ 22:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Grammar error

{{editprotected}} Hi. Please change "The reasoning for you block may be found above." to "The reasoning for your block may be found above." ("you" to "your"). Thanks.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 20:50, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. Rd232 ^talk 21:43, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} "reasoning" is an active verb, which may imply that the administrator is currently and constantly coming up with reasons. Please change the text from "The reasoning for your block..." to "The reason for your block..." (reasoning -> reason). Thanks. 173.130.184.19 (talk) 06:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Y Done.  Sandstein  07:00, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Dash

{{editprotected}}

In the last paragraph, please remove the spaces flanking the em-dash in "This list exists for the purpose of reviewing blocks only — any request to make edits to articles on your behalf will be disregarded", per the Manual of Style. Waltham, The Duke of 20:35, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Y Done, though I'm not sure that vandals really care whether or not their block message is correctly spaced ;-) —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 21:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Now, now, all humans deserve a fundamental level of respect. Waltham, The Duke of 22:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] changes

{{Editprotected}} This block has set to expire: $6. to This block has set to expire: $6. Block ID is #$5

N Not done. Please request edits to protected pages only when you've specified what exact text needs to be replaced, what the exact replacement is, and why the change needs to be made. Cheers,  Skomorokh  01:24, 19 September 2009 (UTC)