Wikipedia talk:Appealing a block

A couple hundred malformed unblock templates

Resolved

I don't know if this is the right place to notify editors who deal with unblock requests, but there are a few hundred malformed unblock requests currently listed at User:Plastikspork/Transclusions of deleted templates/2. I have a suspicion that most of them are stale and should not simply be "fixed" by restoring the proper formatting of the template, since that will flood the category of unblock requests with a bunch of junk. If anyone here has time to deal with these transclusions in a sensible way, that would be helpful. Pinging Plastikspork to let them know that I have posted this notice. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:48, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Third party block appeals (again)

Moved to WP:VPP § RfC: Can editors request community review of the blocks of others?

 – AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 07:48, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

It's a little surprising that editors have forced in, via bold editing and edit warring, wording into a guideline page that is not "a generally accepted standard". Anyway, the solution is probably a CENT advertised RfC, since there's a bit of a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS going on here. The existence of this section doesn't really affect the status quo as at AN, but it is problematic for two reasons. 1) it misleads newer editors, those who haven't seen practice as at AN, as to what they can do, and makes them more vulnerable to bad admin actions. 2) it seems to be an attempt to change the status quo over time by bold addition to PAG. I'm thinking of presenting three options in an RfC:

1. Status quo: [1]: Only editors who are subject to a currently active block may post about their block at WP:AN.
2. Suggestion: [2]: Mention that block reviews may be submitted to the community for review by any editor if they believe they are out-of-policy, after ideally discussing it with the blocking admin first. Per WP:ADMINACCT.
3. Remove section entirely.

Feedback appreciated on thoughts to clean up the RfC before I post it. Cheers. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:23, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree that an RfC would be needed to change the guideline. No opinion about its contents. Sandstein 13:14, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, it's a little strange that an RfC was not required to make the addition in the first place, even after it very clearly failed to achieve consensus in the above discussion. After this RfC, I think I'd like to propose changes to WP:PGBOLD in line with Iridescent's comments here. But that's a different matter. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:52, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Now at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#RfC:_Can_editors_request_community_review_of_blocks?. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:36, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader: Don't you mind if I close discussion and tag it by {{Moved discussion to}} at the top? --AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 07:48, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Why are registered and logged-in users blocked by IP alone?

I'm not totally sure where to put this, but the method that Wikipedia uses to block users needs to change. If I am logged in from a public library, for instance, I should be able to edit Wikipedia if I log in. If I care about my privacy and use a VPN (which I do and is why I saw a block), I shouldn't have to disconnect my VPN and open up more holes in my security just to edit Wikipedia when I have been a Wikipedia user for many, many years now. If the concern is hacked accounts, there are other ways to verify users anyway. I am not fond of having to think about which Wikipedia articles I decide to edit to avoid associating it with my "interests" or making certain types of corroboration potentially possible. I realize that most people will probably see this as "paranoid", but the fact still remains that this method of blocking is an unnecessary pain for no reason. Repku (talk) 04:24, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

@Repku: You may want to take a look at Wikipedia:IP block exemption. 78.28.55.108 (talk) 01:15, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Editing

For some reason I cannot submit an edit since a few hours ago and I was wondering why that is ? MrNuckFugget (talk) 01:58, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Discussion on consolidating pages about/for blocked editors

 You are invited to join the discussion at MediaWiki talk:Blockedtext § Redundant help pages. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:40, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 October 2021

d

Josefous (talk) 14:06, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done You forgot to make your specific request. --Yamla (talk) 14:10, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

False Block

I was blocked from all of Wikipedia only because I corrected in one Wikipedia that Sultan Osman 1's grandfather was Suleiman Shah, not Gunduz. Gunduz was brother of Osman 1. However, your admit named Jaguar or Januthar (or something like that) incorrected it to Gunduz and then blocked me PERMANENTLY! Please take strict action against this admin. He blocked many innocents. Regards, John Alexander 103.31.100.180 (talk) 02:51, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

all the pretty colors

...but what do they mean? I've been trying to help out at the backlog at Category:Requests for unblock, for the life of me I cannot figure out why some rows are purple, etc. And why is the 'request time' sometimes blank, but only for the blue and purple rows, not for the peach rows? —valereee (talk) 15:53, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

@Valereee: I don't think anyone ever responded to your question. Purple rows are unblock requests that are "on hold". Typically, this means an administrator is awaiting further input before taking action, such as the result of a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard or a comment from the blocking admin. The brown rows are rename requests. Those are usually spammers who want their username changed to something less spammy. The bot that creates the table doesn't handle every situation perfectly, so sometimes there are minor errors in the table, such as missing timestamps or broken links. If I had to guess, I'd say broken markup or missing signatures can sometimes mess with the bot. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:47, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! Any objection to adding a key in case anyone else new to the area is wondering, maybe in the admin instructions? It's probably not a big deal if people object because of instruction creep. valereee (talk) 11:25, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Also...at the top of this page, it says "To appeal a block, go to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard." That was added in 2006. Obviously it's not possible without socking, I assume it was possible back then? valereee (talk) 11:30, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Oof. Yeah, this page probably shouldn't tell people to go to some noticeboard to appeal a block. It seems to be an artifact from the old days, back when people just made stuff up as they went along. I don't see a problem with a key. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:28, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Documenting the appeal process for UPE/spam blocks based on off-wiki evidence

Please see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy#Documenting UPE/spam blocks based on off-wiki evidence. – Joe (talk) 15:36, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Has "how to unblock user in the wikipedia?"

Then in the wikipedia portuguese: has "how to unblock user in the wikipedia?" the my user of the wikipedia portuguese is blocked and it will be administrator user unblock this my user. Jonh Kennedy do Maranhão (talk) 18:12, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

This is en.wikipedia. The Portuguese Wikipedia is a separate project with separate rules. --Yamla (talk) 18:27, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

ChatGPT unblock requests?

The unblock requests at this user talk seem to be AI generated, are others seeing this?

I input at ChatGPT "Write an unblock request for wikipedia expressing contrition for disruptive editing and promising not to do it again" and got back:

I am writing to request an unblock of my account. I understand that my behavior on the site was disruptive and caused problems for the community. I deeply regret my actions and would like to express my contrition for any harm or inconvenience that I may have caused.

I recognize that my behavior violated the Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and I understand the importance of these rules for maintaining the integrity and accuracy of the site. I promise that I will not engage in any disruptive editing or violate any policies in the future.

I would like to assure you that I take this matter very seriously and have taken steps to educate myself on the proper ways to contribute to the site. I am committed to being a productive and respectful member of the community, and I hope that you will give me the opportunity to demonstrate this through my future contributions.

Thank you for your consideration of my request.

Valereee (talk) 15:37, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

The ChatGPT request here fails WP:NICETRY: it does not identify the behaviour which led to the block, it just vaguely hand-waves it as disruptive editing. I would ask the user to be more specific, and if they could not then I would decline the request. The request you linked to I would decline because they obviously didn't write it. Compare the bio they wrote at User:Akinadewojo, in competent but imperfect international English for an editor with a university education whose first language is probably not English, with the unblock request written in perfect American English. They also seem to have been answering questions at WP:TEAHOUSE by feeding them to an AI, but you knew that already, that's why you blocked them. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:01, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Personally I feel that using an AI to edit is akin to meatpuppetry, and fails WP:ROLE anyway; having an AI write for you is probably also WP:PROXYING, not to mention the ethical issues with copyright. The block is for WP:CIR which I think is exactly right, and they certainly haven't demonstrated competence by also using an AI to write their unblock request. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:07, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

• We don't really need a policy on this, any request so written is guaranteed to already not follow expected protocols for an acceptable unblock request. As this is the internet, we can't even be seen laughing rudely at the person making the silly unblock request while we decline it. So I'm not sure there's any need to deal with the matter any differently than we already do. --Jayron32 16:11, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

  I wasn't suggesting policy, more just interested to see if this was something others were seeing. I don't often patrol unblock requests, so I don't see nearly as many as some do. Valereee (talk) 16:18, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

  For what it's worth - possibly nothing, since I've little to do with unblock requests beyond spectating - I have seen requests which I'm sure were AI generated, but not terribly many, and the responding admins were skilled enough at close reading to catch the many problems with such requests.

  I'm not sure this particular request was written by a bot, despite my earlier expressed skepticism about their Teahouse posts. Still working on my bot-spotting skills. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:52, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 June 2023

In "You may be an innocent victim of collateral damage", replace [[collateral damage]] with [[WP:COLLATERAL|collateral damage]], as users who follow this link are interested in the Wikipedia policy regarding collateral damage caused by IP address blocks, rather than the Wikipedia page in article namespace about collateral damage. 179.241.25.145 (talk) 15:07, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

 Done. Cheers! Cocobb8 (💬 talk to me! • ✏️ my contributions) 18:04, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Question on unblock templates

Is there a template that indicates that one is reviewing an unblock request pending a response from the appellant? I know there's {{Unblock on hold}} for if we're pending a response from blocking admin, and that when that template is used an individual unblock is highlighted at CAT:UNBLOCK, but I can't find one for the case where I'm merely waiting on the blocked person to respond. I think that this would be useful, as it would reduce the amount of clicking on unblock request entries only to see that others are already handling them. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:13, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I wish we had that. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:34, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

There's not a specific template, but there is |idletimestamp=. See Template:Unblock#Notes. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:46, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Rut-roh

Not all of the unblock requests are showing on the table, and those that are are sometimes out of date. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:14, 22 January 2024 (UTC)