Wikipedia talk:Unblock wizard
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Unblock wizard page. |
|
Suggestion for improvement to unblock wizard
editIt would be helpful to pre-fetch block details. Also a "demo" mode should be added for testing that generates the appropriate text and logs it (but does not save it). Aasim (話す) 18:54, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- Great ideas! For the first case, we've been working on this branch which does exactly that, by looking at the block template on the user page. The demo mode could also be a pretty neat addition, thanks! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:40, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- Update: working on a new branch for the demo mode! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:13, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- I submitted a commit and opened a merge request. Please feel free to make further changes, etc. Aasim (話す) 23:59, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- Amazing! Just left a comment there! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 00:23, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
- Please let me know if all the changes I made look good. If they do then they can be merged after further testing. Aasim (話す) 15:20, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
- Amazing! Just left a comment there! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 00:23, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
- I submitted a commit and opened a merge request. Please feel free to make further changes, etc. Aasim (話す) 23:59, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- It looks like some license washing is (hopefully inadvertently) occurring here. All of our onwiki text must be available under CCBYSA4 and GFDL, but in copying this back and forth to a third party, with derivative works occurring off-wiki (apparently only under MIT) - a licensing mess seems to be growing. The quick fix is ensure that the CCBYSA40 and GFDL are maintained throughout. — xaosflux Talk 20:51, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
- Oh, that's weird. I took the license from MediaWiki:AFC-submit-wizard.js as I originally forked the code from it. Would a dual license be possible? Looking at the AfC wizard's own GitHub, it is also under MIT alone, although I wonder if by publishing it here they are implicitly also released under CC-BY-SA 4.0? Pinging @SD0001 and @Novem Linguae as they've worked on the AfC wizard and might have encountered the same licensing issue. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:01, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
- Everything published on enwiki must be under CCBYSA and GFDL. It is agreed to every time publish is pushed. — xaosflux Talk 21:30, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Xaosflux: The MIT License is more permissive than, and compatible with, both CCBYSA4.0 and the GFDL. However, we (specifically meaning the author of the code, @Chaotic Enby) will make it clear on the GitHub repository that the code is all dual licensed with both licenses as well, for the avoidance of doubt. Thanks for raising it! KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 16:19, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks, don't want to go down the licensing rabbit hole, but it certainly can become a mess due to the nature of the combination of licenses. — xaosflux Talk 16:30, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Xaosflux: The MIT License is more permissive than, and compatible with, both CCBYSA4.0 and the GFDL. However, we (specifically meaning the author of the code, @Chaotic Enby) will make it clear on the GitHub repository that the code is all dual licensed with both licenses as well, for the avoidance of doubt. Thanks for raising it! KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 16:19, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
- Everything published on enwiki must be under CCBYSA and GFDL. It is agreed to every time publish is pushed. — xaosflux Talk 21:30, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
- Oh, that's weird. I took the license from MediaWiki:AFC-submit-wizard.js as I originally forked the code from it. Would a dual license be possible? Looking at the AfC wizard's own GitHub, it is also under MIT alone, although I wonder if by publishing it here they are implicitly also released under CC-BY-SA 4.0? Pinging @SD0001 and @Novem Linguae as they've worked on the AfC wizard and might have encountered the same licensing issue. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:01, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
- Update: working on a new branch for the demo mode! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:13, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
Broken image
editWhen this fails with "You are not currently blocked.", that line starts with an image that does not display. — xaosflux Talk 14:06, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
- The image does work for me, both online and offline (I've tested Vector 10 and Vector 22). Not sure what might be causing this, which configuration were you on? Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:35, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
Page Source:
<img src="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4b/OOjs_UI_icon_information-yellow.svg/40px-OOjs_UI_icon_information-yellow.svg.png" decoding="async" width="30" height="30" class="mw-file-element" srcset="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4b/OOjs_UI_icon_information-yellow.svg/60px-OOjs_UI_icon_information-yellow.svg.png 1.5x">
Error:
File not found: /v1/AUTH_mw/wikipedia-commons-local-public.4b/4/4b/OOjs_UI_icon_information-yellow.svg/40px-OOjs_UI_icon_information-yellow.svg.png
Using a desktop browser. — xaosflux Talk 20:37, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
- Oh, that's weird, the icon that shows up on my side is
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4b/OOjs_UI_icon_information-yellow.svg/60px-OOjs_UI_icon_information-yellow.svg.pngThe 40px one does seem to be non-existent, and I'm wondering if it could be fixed by only using the 60px version in the code. Aasim is working on a branch which would only use the native OOUI functionalities to display the icons (rather than having to load the images ourselves), which could be a better fix. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:04, 24 June 2025 (UTC)- That commit should be ready to merge, but I would review my changes to make sure that everything is still working as expected. Aasim (話す) 19:55, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
Pinging relevant admins
editLooks like we have our first in-the-wild use of this wizard at User talk:Adriana Rotea. Pinging the prolific unblocks admins, so you're all aware of this thing and don't lose your minds trying to figure out where these three bolded questions are coming from all the time: 331dot, PhilKnight, Tamzin, Beeblebrox, Yamla, Cabayi, Deepfriedokra, JBW, ToBeFree, Significa liberdade, Risker. -- asilvering (talk) 17:05, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
- I figured it out without losing my mind ;) but thank you nevertheless. 331dot (talk) 17:53, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
- Oh hey, cool! Thanks for the information! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:19, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
- Oooh, thanks for sharing. That's helpful, and makes it far less likely I'll just assume it's AI. --Yamla (talk) 20:31, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
Can't confirm
editTrying the "wizard" out, I am confronted by a message telling me that I am not blocked, and inviting me to click "confirm" to activate demo mode. However, there is no link labelled "confirm". Does this refer to the "OK" link at the bottom of the "You are not currently blocked" message, or is it, as I first assumed, intended that after I click "OK" an option to confirm will appear? Either way it needs correcting. JBW (talk) 15:47, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
- Good point, it should indeed be the "OK" button. I just pushed a change on the GitHub, @L235 can you check and make the change live? Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:04, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
- Done! KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 20:19, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
- ✔️ It's working OK now. Thanks. JBW (talk) 11:29, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
- Done! KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 20:19, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
move sig
editThe documentation for {{unblock}} says to put the signature inside the template, the wizard is putting the signature outside of the template. — xaosflux Talk 15:02, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
- My bad! Just fixed it! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:18, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
Issue with submission form
editThe "report it" button is not going to work for blocked users; they cannot edit this page 
Maybe a button which creates a custom {{help me}} on their user talk, which populates a unblock wizard–specific category? HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:27, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
- Maybe we put the report link point to #wikipedia-en-unblock connect or something similar. That might solve this issue. Aasim (話す) 16:23, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
Bolding
editI'm thinking the formatting on the resulting unblock request isn't the most helpful. The bold items are actually the least important thing on the request; the requestor's responses are the things that the people processing the unblock request most want to see. Maybe something like:
Can you explain, in your own words, why your edits were promotional?
- Here's why I think I should be liberated
What is your relationship with the subjects you have been editing about?
- None of your business, I'm proud of my COI.
This puts the focus on the actual responses, not the canned questions.
Just a thought. Great tool! --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 20:22, 5 August 2025 (UTC)