Template talk:Checkuserblock-account

Template-protected edit request on 16 October 2014

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

"permanently" should be changed to "indefinitely", because technically we can not block any user permanently.

See Wikipedia:Sock puppetry: "If a person is found to be using a sock puppet, the sock puppet account(s) should be blocked indefinitely." GZWDer (talk) 11:33, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:10, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template-protected edit request on 17 November 2016

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please wrap the admin instructions and horizantal rule in <div class="sysop-show">...</div> to hide them from non-admins Ppp ery 21:44, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

{{OversightBlock}} needs this same edit too. Ppp ery 21:45, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done Primefac (talk) 00:56, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Admin note

JJMC89 I just noticed on one of my blocks that the normal note to admins about not unblocking didn't appear like it normally does. Is there a reason for this? TonyBallioni (talk) 23:22, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The note is there. Maybe there was a delay with the admin CSS loading for you. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:24, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Increasing comprehensibility for non-insiders

In order to help people who aren't as familiar with Wikipedia lingo, I propose that the first sentence of this template be changed from:

CheckUser evidence has determined that this user account has been or may be used abusively.

to:

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively.

There are three edits that are being made here. First, this edit would change the link from m:CheckUser Policy to Wikipedia:CheckUser, which has better information about CheckUser on the English Wikipedia. Second, "CheckUser evidence" has been changed to "Wikipedia's technical logs", which provides some information to anyone who isn't intricately familiar with Wikipedia lingo (as opposed to "CheckUser evidence"). Finally, "has determined that" is changed to "indicate that" because evidence doesn't determine things; people determine things on the basis of evidence. If there is no objection, I will implement this in a few days. See also Template talk:CheckUser block#Increasing comprehensibility for non-insiders for my parallel proposal for that template. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 00:47, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 00:47, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template-protected edit request on 19 December 2020

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

"Indefinitely" needs to be replaced with "{{{{{|safesubst:}}}#ifeq:{{{indef|}}}|yes|'''[[Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Indefinite_blocks|indefinitely]]" because other block templates like {{Uw-disruptblock}} have this paremeter. Also, block templates for anonymous users and user accounts require "|time=Duration" if blocked temporarily. Otherwise, if blocked indefinitely, administrators should instead use "|indef=yes". Sometimes, accounts blocked as checkuser-block can sometimes be blocked temporarily. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 01:16, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not done for now: If CUs want the option to set non-indef CU blocks with this template they can probably add it, otherwise this is putting the chicken before the egg really. I believe this template is only used for indef blocks, and if CUs make temporary blocks they use the regular block templates, but I suggest raising this with the CUs at WT:CU if wishing to pursue. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:24, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template-protected edit request on 22 February 2021

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

"Used abusively" in the first sentence should link to WP:ILLEGIT so that editors can know what "used abusively" means. Java Hurricane 18:21, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem like too big of a change but imo it should be ran by a CU first. TonyBallioni perhaps, thoughts? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:24, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To editors JavaHurricane, ProcrastinatingReader and TonyBallioni:

done, sounds like a good idea so thank you JH, very much! P.I. Ellsworth ed. ^put'r there 15:38, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Changes made to the template

I've WP:BOLDly made some changes to the template:

I've added the option to specify a non-indef expiry. This is by default set to display "indefinite" as this was the only option before this change, so this does not effect pre-existing non subst'ed uses.
I've added the option to specify a master name and spi case name, which is taken from Template:uw-sockblock. Unless |spi= or |master= is set when using the template this makes no visual change to the template, and as such does not effect pre-existing non subst'ed uses.
I've added text from Template:uw-sockblock that was not already in the template. This does change the text on pre-existing non subst'ed uses, but I think this text is useful enough to be displayed retroactively.

One thing to note is that this template is not substed, which does means that future changes (such as this) effect the output of pre-existing uses. I'm not sure if this is intended, and to bring it into line with other user block templates substing is probably best. Unless someone raises an objection, I'll change the docs to subst by default. It might be worth to also automatically subst pre-existing uses. The only reasons I can see why substing isn't used is because of the div only shown to sysops / changes to policy might affect what restrictions are placed on appealing CU blocks. However, I'm not sure these counteract the benefit of not affecting previous uses when updates are made to this template. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 00:36, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've also added a notalk option which has wikitext taken from Template:uw-sockblock, ~~and extended the sig parameter to allow "yes" to just include the signature for you (to bring it in line with Template:uw-sockblock).~~ These should be be all the changes needed to make this template work easily with spihelper.js Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 00:50, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the signature change as substitution is needed for that to work. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 01:28, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"per the evidence"

@Dreamy Jazz: I'm not a huge fan of the language Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively as a sockpuppet of User:X per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/X. The sentence currently says that the technical logs (i.e. CU findings) show sockpuppetry per the evidence at SPI, which seems incorrect. The evidence is generally not documented at SPI – the evidence is the "technical logs" (CU results).

How's this wording instead? "Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively as a sockpuppet of User:X (see also SPI LINK)." I'm still not super happy with it, so we may want to workshop it a bit. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 21:16, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly happy with a different wording and what you've suggested works with me. As mentioned above I mostly copied the wording from Template:uw-sockblock as something to base linking the SPI on. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 22:13, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Substitution

Shouldn't this template be substituted when used on user talk pages, similar to how Template:Uw-block is? This should be done as a matter of principle—if we use transclusion, then any changes we make to the wording of this template will be applied to all historical uses of this template, which basically rewrites history and makes it seem like a different message was left for and read by a user in the past than was actually. Unfortunately, at this point there are 14,000+ transclusions of this template, and I'm not sure it would be a good idea to go back and retroactively substitute these. Mz7 (talk) 07:31, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Dreamy Jazz as I noticed that you also raised this issue above (#Changes made to the template). Also pinging GeneralNotability to see if we may need to update the SPI helper script. Mz7 (talk) 07:35, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mz7, no objections to substing to bring it in line with similar templates. I can update spihelper to subst, no problem, and I believe there's a bot that can be told to auto-subst this. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:38, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One thing I would note is that the "admin only" part would be visible in the wikitext of the page when substed. However, I think substing should occur anyway. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 17:11, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Broken section link

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The word revert is a broken section link. Add "and blocked" after the word "banned". Snowmanonahoe (talk) 02:23, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 03:08, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template-protected edit request on 26 March 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

See the changes I made in this edit diff in the sandbox of this template.

The reason for this change is simple. It's to make it say submit to UTRS rather than {{Unblock}} when notalk=yes is specified.

I took a look at the test case page for the sandbox, and looks like the code is working properly (both notalk=yes and notalk=no show up like intended).

I've also tested substitutions of the template with notalk=no and notalk=yes here. — AP 499D25 (talk) 14:02, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:19, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]