Wikipedia talk:Unblock Ticket Request System/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

server

Is unblock hosted on a high availability server? MiszaBot went down for a long time when nightshade went offline. Nobody Ent 01:40, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

No, it's hosted on Willow.--v/r - TP 02:51, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Is there a back up plan if Willow goes down? Nobody Ent 02:55, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

There is a trigger at Wikipedia:Unblock_Ticket_Request_System/on that if changed to anything but "yes" will change most of the block notices back to the unblock-en-l list.--v/r - TP 03:02, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Coolness. Nobody Ent 11:34, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Block template requires updating

Note that when the "notalk=yes" parameter is used on Template:Uw-vblock, the blocked editor is still directed to the unblock-en-l mailing list. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:16, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Fixed - thanks!--v/r - TP 17:46, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Publishing data from UTRS

See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Making_public_information_from_UTRS. It's about the Roth incident, really, but there are wider issues. Secretlondon (talk) 21:12, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Move to WMFlabs?

So there appear to be two instances of UTRS at the moment, one on toolserver and one on tools.wmflabs. Which one are we supposed to be using? (I'm assuming the original on toolserver since that's the one WP:UTRS links to...) —Darkwind (talk) 16:18, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I haven't finished the migration to Labs yet. The OAuth team have some ideas and they've asked me to try them out on UTRS so I want to implement on the Labs version and then migrate folks over.--v/r - TP 00:14, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Checkuser blocks

A blocked user has posed the question of why they were not informed that checkuser blocks can only be reviewed in a certain way. Apparently anyone editing from the University of Oregon is suspected of being a sock of a blocked user. —Neotarf (talk) 16:30, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Checkuser blocks must be appealed to a checkuser. All three methods of appeal (onwiki, UTRS, and BASC) are capable of supporting this requirement.--v/r - TP 17:02, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I think the confusion is that 3 admin reviewed and denied the unblock request but weren't checkusers, thus incapable of accepting an unblock, which is kind of weird. I would think a non-CU should never review a CU block as there is only one possible action they can commit to: nothing. I'm not sure how policy falls on this. I referred the blocked editor to UTRS as I figured it would get to a CU faster and not quite ready for BASC at this point. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:53, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Now reviewed and denied by 4 non-checkusers. This does not look promising for the U of O. Wonder which departments are blocked. —Neotarf (talk) 00:16, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Canned response for autoblock?

Can someone with appropriate access add a canned response for use in cases where it appears the user is hitting an autoblock, but hasn't provided sufficient information to do anything about it? The closest thing now is "No block found", but it seems more geared toward things like misspelled usernames, etc. Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:47, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

You should be able to use the "Need Block Information" template which asks for all the right info. Alternatively, if you enjoy working with the tool and decide it will be your admin-"niche" then I could give you tool admin rights and you could create your own templates.--v/r - TP 02:35, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Please modify subject headers

Sadly I'm not sure where the best place to bring this up would be, as I don't believe UTRS has any mailing list, so apologies if I'm posting in the wrong venue. Gmail has the tendency to group messages with the exact subject line together; as a result, we regularly get people responding to unblock appeals from UTRS combined. It makes it difficult to sort through and respond to, and it's doubly hard when you're trying to search previous appeals. Changing the subject field to be more descriptive to the actual appeal would solve both problems. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:09, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

• @David Fuchs: I don't understand the issue you're trying to raise. I've responded to thousands of appeals via the UTRS interface and haven't had any issues with the subject field being used more once. Do you have an example ticket you could provide where you've experienced issues? @TParis:, are you aware of this? --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:49, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Ah, sorry I realized I cut a sentence of some crucial context out! The issue isn't within UTRS but when we are sent messages by those who have gone through the UTRS system and are coming to the Ban Appeals subcommittee for appeal of the UTRS decision. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:53, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Would it help if we added the ticket number to the subject?--v/r - TP 21:22, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Seems it has been added recently according to the changlog.--v/r - TP 21:31, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Glad to hear it. Hopefully that means greater sanity for incoming arbs who have to deal with it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 23:27, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Was requested by Tim several days ago, modified two days ago, sent to live yesterday. Relevant request -- DQ mobile (ʞlɐʇ) 03:01, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

RFC which could seriously impact UTRS open

See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ban appeals reform 2015. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:36, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

List of UTRS admins

Is there a list of UTRS admins? (I'm betting there is, and that I just don't know where to look)

— Ched :  ?  21:54, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

• Tool admins probably have access to that. According to in-tool stats:

1. Number of tool users: 112
2. Number of tool users approved: 111
3. Number of tool users active: 104
4. Number of tool administrators: 8
5. Number of checkusers: 21
6. Number of tool developers: 4

☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 00:53, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

• Oh... well apparently I've become a tool admin at some point! And yes, I can see a list of accounts, which I do not believe is public, and am not sure if there is a specific reason for that. Was there anything specific you wanted to know, Ched? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 01:40, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

thank you Salvidrim - would it be ok if I emailed you? I have a ticket number I was hoping someone would look at. — Ched :  ?  01:59, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Of course, I'll help if I can. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 02:05, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

We currently have 5 active tool admins (besides the redundant ones). I'll post a copy on the main page here, and i'll try and get a live one on the tool soon. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 05:21, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

• Q.2 (sorry) - I was looking for a UTRS admin guide, ... link please? — Ched :  ?  08:28, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
  • @Ched: There really isn't a admin guide but the case analysis on Page 13 of the privacy overview for the WMF explains how a standard ticket would get processed.--198.201.23.10 (talk) 19:46, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Importing this system to Portuguese Wikipedia

Hi! I am a sysop of Portuguese Wikipedia. On that project, we use a mailing list to answer unblock requests. However, only a few users answer them. I think the reason is that attending those requests are boring. It is too difficult to follow up, separate new from old requests, discuss each request.

I wonder if we could improve our way of responding by using something like UTRS. I firstly thought on using OTRS for that, but a sysop from that system suggested me to come here an try this. Sounds like a good idea. I think community would approve that, but I would like to hear more details about this system, how it works and how can we bring it to Portuguese Wikipedia.

Thank you very much.—Teles «Talk to me˱_{M @ C S}˲» 23:08, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

@Teles: I apologize for the long response time, I haven't been able to access Wikipedia much since you posted this message. Thanks for dropping by. It's definitely an option for a second UTRS instance localized in Portuguese to exist, and very willing and open to supporting such an idea. So with UTRS, there are three different areas that we maintain. A place for people to file appeals, a detailed logging interface for administrators to review, and a light backend administrative platform. An appeal usually follows this path:

1. Blocked user files an appeal. (The system makes sure that the user is indeed blocked)
2. Appeals require email validation, so unless they verify email, only developers can see the appeals and they remain in an unverified status and are not presented to reviewing admins.
3. Once the pass email validation, it goes to new, and admins can review, comment, or defer the appeal (defer is usually to checkusers or another similar process). They can also change the status of the appeal to be on hold, or even have a conversation with the blocked user.
4. When the admin feels it is appropriate, they close the appeal. Appeals can not be responded to by the blocked user after this point, they must file a new one.

We do have a Beta site which I'd be happy to grant you access to so you can see what the interface does. I'm looking forward to further collaboration on this. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 20:54, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

@DeltaQuad: That sounds perfect. Thanks for describing it! Please, tell me what steps I have to follow to use it ASAP. I would like to have access to the test interface and I am thinking on inviting a few sysops so they can have their opinions too if possible. Thanks again.—Teles «Talk to me˱_{M @ C S}˲» 18:44, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

@DeltaQuad: I have a question: Does this system allow unregistered users to open requests? We receive lots of requests from unregistered users blocked due to a range block and they do not have a blocked account.—Teles «Talk to me˱_{M @ C S}˲» 01:01, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

@Teles: Absolutely it does. I fixed the link above, so you go to that url and click "Admins: Request an account" and have everyone who wants to test it go that page and fill out the form. Notify me when you have done so and i'll approve the requests. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 20:52, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

@DeltaQuad: Great! I have requested account creation and just invited others to participate. Thanks.—Teles «Talk to me˱_{M @ C S}˲» 02:23, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

DQ's pretty busy generally, so I approved your account (along with the two other requests from ptwiki users). :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 03:28, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Salvidrim!. Other sysops are listing themselves here.—Teles «Talk to me˱_{M @ C S}˲» 22:32, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I approved the other accounts. DQ is pretty much the only actual developper and will be the one to assist with eventual integration of a ptwiki version if you choose to use it, but in the meantime, for any questions or tests with the tool itself, I can help if DQ is busy. Do the other ptwiki admins have some basic understanding of English, or will you act as a translator (if ever needed)? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 22:52, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Teles, I noticed Mwaldeck has an account on the beta (as discussed above), which is fine. However, they also requested on account on the actual enwiki UTRS system, and I cannot approve that request, because he is not an admin on the English Wikipedia. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:53, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Just to keep you guys up to date, I have started the internationalization of the tool. Sadly, I didn't get as much done in the Lyon hackathon as I would have liked due to being sick. But I'm going to keep putting small dents into it to get it done. Salvidrim!, even with no knowledge of PHP you might be able to help with this one. If your interested, drop a ping in my mail and i'll explain. (It's more find/copy-paste work than anything) -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 21:03, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Salvidrim! and Teles, I'm sorry about this. I tried to enter into the wp:en environment and obviously I couldn't. I imagined that the account had expired (or anything else) and I've done a new record, but then I realized that our access would into the "beta" site. Sorry about the confusion and thanks. Mwaldeck ^talk 21:46, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Salvidrim! I can definitely help them in case of need, but it is unlikely to be necessary as machine translators work fine for Portuguese and English and some of them know English very well. When it becomes available we can start translating interface, which would make things easier.—Teles «Talk to me˱_{M @ C S}˲» 01:54, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Salvidrim! and DeltaQuad, I have been gathering opinions from sysops of pt.wiki and those that commented liked the system. I will start a discussion with others from community soon, so we can be sure that community wants it.
What are the next steps to implement it? I can help by translating system interface is possible. What else has to be done? Regards.—Teles «Talk to me˱_{M @ C S}˲» 06:39, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Problem?

I think there's an issue with this. Posting from a non-blocked IP, but when I attempted to request unblock from an IP which is definitely blocked, it told me I wasn't blocked. Sorry, that's complicated. But I do think there's an issue with this. 166.170.20.129 (talk) 23:04, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

What is the IP that is blocked? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 12:14, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

@Salvidrim!: The blocked IP is 2605:A000:1117:809A:FC45:413:1239:BCC1. Man, I hate IPV4 addresses. I'm on a Windows phone, which may be the problem right there. 166.176.249.16 (talk) 13:41, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

The platform you're using shouldn't be a problem; IPv6 might be? I'll run some tests. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:08, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Update: When I'm editing from the IPv6 mentioned above, I can't edit because it's blocked. But she I try to submit a UTRS, it tells me I'm editing from 65.24.181.61, which is not blocked. 166.170.26.161 (talk) 15:21, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

@Salvidrim!: Also, sorry for confusing IPv4 with IPv6. 166.170.26.161 (talk) 15:25, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

IPv4 address discovery problems leading to failure of the form

I filled in the form (at length) to request unblock for 94.197.0.0/16 (for non logged in user) without changing browser or anything from discovering a block notification, but when I clicked [submit] the form was rejected with a message that 10.68.21.68 is not blocked.
(I would hope that an address private to your network is not blocked, but that has no relevance to my submission of the form!)
Does your form query my browser for it's address? This will present irrelevant & rapidly changing results for anyone (more than 23 million) using Hutchison 3G's mobile network (probably others too) as it's behind NAT & device's addresses change with physical movement. It will also present interesting results for remotely buffered browsers like Opera Mini
The unblock request is not submitted
Alanthehat (talk) 01:45, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

• There are several issues here:

1. The address should not be detected as 10.68.21.68. That's an internal IP address reserved by IANA. It's not your IP address. It's not mine either, and the UTRS software also tells me it's what I'm editing from, so that's clearly not right. I've e-mailed our devteam about this.
2. Blocks and rangeblocks of IPs that are affecting logged-in users cannot currently be appealed through UTRS -- we're working on it. Blocks and rangeblocks of IPs can be appealed as IP blocks (by choosing that you do not have an account), but only if you're filing the appeal from a blocked IP -- if you're not editing from an IP within the rangeblock's range, that you are not blocked from editing.
3. This specific rangeblock, 94.197.0.0/16, already only affects editors who are not logged in. It is a CheckUser block that can thus only be appealed/reviewed by Checkusers. I recommend contacting Mike V, the latest blocking admin, with regards to the rangeblock. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 02:01, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

thank you for redirecting the bug report.
I was reporting for non-logged-in users, I have only logged in so that I can bypass the block to report here
I don't think that contacting Mike V is going to be worth my bother. If he's unreasonable enough to block a whole ISP he's not likely to listen to one user from that ISP
Alanthehat (talk) 05:37, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

• It's not a question of being reasonable or not, but he will be able to try to help you understand why the rangeblock is necessary (or to amend it if justified). ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 06:07, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

BASC reform motion

An arbitration motion proposing a major overhaul of the current BASC system has been proposed. Comments are welcome at that location. Thank you. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 20:21, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions#Community comments (BASC Reform)

Motion to disband BASC proposed

A second arbitration motion has been proposed which would disband the BASC. Comments from the community are welcome. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:53, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions#Community comments (BASC disbanded)

What to do with CU blocks?

I'm a new user of UTRS, so maybe I'm missing something here: I recently ran across a ticket related to a CU block. The user has the big "don't mess with this block without talking to a checkuser" banner on their talk page. So I referred it to the CU queue. It was bounced back into my queue by a CU without any comment that I can see. As a non-CU cannot effectively review a CU-based block, and risks being desysopped if they dare to overturn it, what is one supposed to do in such a circumstance? Beeblebrox (talk) 02:36, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

• To see comments, click on "Logs for this request". In the case of UTRS appeal #14640, Ponyo did provide CU commentary on how to process the appeal. Lemme know if you need further help! :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 03:24, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: First, thank you for helping out at UTRS, it is a somewhat neglected corner of the wiki-world. Note that you can review and decline checkuser blocks, it just needs to be done in consultation with a checkuser (which is why we have the checkuser queue). The only big no-no is reversing a checkuser block without consultation with a CU. I've gone ahead and closed the ticket as this is a typical song and dance for this sockmaster. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:01, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your replies. Oddly, the comment seems extremely obvious now, not sure how I missed it before. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:02, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Outdated?

Wikipedia:Unblock Ticket Request System's Further information section seems to be outdated, User:Yunshui has declared themselves to be retired and non-active, however, they are still listed as a tool administrator. -Yutah Andrei Marzan Ogawa¹²³|UPage|_☺★ (talk) 14:27, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks!  fixed ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:51, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Problem case - I want guidance on behalf of another

Hello, could someone give me advice on how to respond?

At WP:OTRS Ticket:2016010610006479 says that they are blocked from editing English Wikipedia while logged-in because they edit from a shared, blocked IP-address. They are requesting permission to edit Wikipedia while logged into a Wikipedia account they created. Should I send them to Wikipedia:Unblock Ticket Request System? The form there seems lengthy for a user who professes to have done nothing wrong, and I think the form is designed for users who had previously been associated with problem edits.

I was anticipating that since they wrote into OTRS, there would be a process where I could resolve their issue, and I am failing to recognize what advice I should give them. I certainly would not want to send them to this long form if that is not the correct place for them to go.

The user is Marinuse. They emailed a screenshot which shows them logged into that account, and shows them getting a "no-open wiki" "cross wiki abuse" block from Billinghurst. What confuses me is that it seems like if an IP is blocked, no block shows up on accounts using that IP, and I expected that if an account is under a block restriction then there would be some notice in the log for that account. Can accounts under an IP block not have any public notification of being blocked?

Thanks to whomever can give me advice on responding to this person. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:31, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

• The IP in question, which I won't divulge here because it was only divulged in a private OTRS e-mail, was Globally blocked for months by Billinghurst; interestingly, the local meta IP block is anon.only but I don't know if that is even doable for global blocks. The OTRS ticket doesn't raise any red flags of block evasion so I am willing to AGF; we could in theory unblock the IP locally (which shouldn't be done before finding out why there is a global block) or we could grant Marinuse IPBE (which is questionable at best considering the low age/edit count). But first we need to hear from Billingshurst. I'll forward him the OTRS ticket. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:00, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Having given up rights that included global block, I cannot check specifics. If I did a global block it would be due to xwiki issues, not particularly an issue at a particular wiki, local matters were left local (by me, anyway). I am presuming that this block is a hard block rather than a soft block. I am presuming that it is an extended block rather than a shorter term block. If it was a block on an individual IP, then it was ongoing abuse xwiki, check the block log, or get a steward to check for you. If it is a range block, then the reason used will always be the best indicator, as I generally put both a primary and secondary reason for what was identified and why it was blocked.

The process for this resolution would be to transfer the OTRS message to the stewards' queue with a note asking for it to be resolved. Stewards can look at the history and determine whether they lift, soften, or grant an exemption. Or for a public place use m:SRG. You can always granted IPBE if you choose, for an account it harms nothing, and just restores basic editing.

Noting that meta soft blocks are the usual practice rather than hard blocks, this allows affected users to contact stewards, so the best that you can read into this is that there was not a large problem on meta.

Re a view. For the user they are only told that they are only blocked (local or global) when they try and edit, not when they view, and then it is only when they are within a restricted IP range, not for their account. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:52, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

The global block only has 5 days left on it, but there is no indication of accounts abusing it recently, so I've changed it to IP-only. That should resolve the issue for now. If the IP needs to be re-blocked with further abuse, Marinuse could be granted a local or global exception. Edit: I just realized how much after-the-fact this was, but just now the ticket appeared in the steward's queue. @Salvidrim! and Bluerasberry: is this now resolved? Ajraddatz (Talk) 00:57, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Interface user guide

I have been a UTRS user for quite some time. I log in to look at the status of appeals, but I never do anything because I'm not sure how to use it and I'm afraid I might screw something up. Is there a document somewhere that explains how to use all the buttons, etc.?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:27, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

• @Bbb23: No, not particularly. The closest we have is this document from a prerelease that covers privacy features. There are quite a few controls is place to prevent you from screwing anything up. And we have admins on there that can unscrew up things too. But, if you'd like, we can meet on IRC and I can walk you through a ticket.--v/r - TP 01:49, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

• @TParis: That's kind of you, but I don't use IRC. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:12, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

• I'd also be happy to assist if you need any help (it's kinda supposed to be my role I guess? :p), although TParis is probably vastly more available and competent. ;) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 02:25, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

• Well, I could look at putting something together. But the scenarios in that file should give you a great idea.--v/r - TP 02:55, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Add link

What I wanted to suggest is whether the folks that use UTRS would like to have a different way then using {{utrs}}. How about a link, similar to ticket:213812 or otrs:123851, but just for UTRS? So utrs:6473 links to the request ID. Ping TParis. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 21:40, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

@DatGuy: That seems really handy to have. If it's cheap to have and easy to implement then I don't see why not.--v/r - TP 21:43, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't believe this will have any real opposition, so I'm creating and self-assigning phab:T154858. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 21:53, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

It's probably a simple enough edit on MW-wiki to add the utrs: interwiki prefix to the list... mw:Special:Interwiki URL would need to be https://utrs.wmflabs.org/appeal.php?id=$1 Apparently it can simply be requested at meta:Talk:Interwiki map#Proposed additions ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 22:42, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Fatal error

I've been able to log into UTRS in the past, but now every time I try it, it crashes with a PHP 'fatal error' message. Apparently the cause is because my email address somehow got duplicated in the database. I've written to every address I can find (utrs-admins, utrs-developers, unblock) with no response. Any suggestions? ~Anachronist (talk) 01:19, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

See this discussion and contact DeltaQuad.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:34, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

FWIW we didn't receive an e-mail from you to the utrs-admins mailing list. That being said, I'm pretty sure it is because your UTRS account is associated with Wikimedia user Amatulic, so that when you try to login it might try to check the Amatulic account for admin user rights? Just a guess. But as a tooladmin I lack the database access that would probably be required to manually impact this. I'll let DeltaQuad respond to this when she has time. Apologies for the inconvenience. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 02:13, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

• Should work now. Wikipedia account renames have never really been handled automatically on many sideprojects like UTRS, OTRS, etc. and the activation of OAuth simply prevented what shouldn't have been happening anyways, which is to say you logging into a UTRS account associated with a non-admin Wikipedia account (Amatulic). Everything should now be fixed manually (thanks to DQ), and better handling of wikipedia renames is on our to-do list, but not a priority due to their rarity amongst admins -- for this they'll require manual intervention from an UTRS tooldev. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 05:46, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

  Yes, thanks, it's working now. Oddly, when my username changed, I went through a procedure to get my credentials transferred to the new name on UTRS, and it worked fine for a while, until recently when I started getting that 'fatal error' message. Anyway, thanks for clearing it up. ~Anachronist (talk) 07:02, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

UTRS shortcut now exists

Hi UTRS team. There was a recent request to create a utrs: interwiki to allow easy links to UTRS block appeals. I am alerting the community to the creation of this ability a few weeks back, and I am unsure whether that information has been provided to you. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:57, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

---

• Copying an elsewhere post here to leave it somewhere handy for when I figure out how to integrate this into the main page:

When you discuss a UTRS appeal on-wiki, you might want to use [[utrs:16306]] or {{utrs|16306}} to provide quick, easy to use access to the ticket being referenced.

• Interwiki version (square brackets): utrs:16306, can be piped (Salvid UTRS appeal)
• Template version (curly brackets): UTRS appeal #16306

Note that 16306 is just a ticket previously used for testing from my User:Salvid account. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 20:29, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Ban Appeals Subcommittee

Please remove the mention of Ban Appeals Subcommittee in https://github.com/UTRS/utrs/blob/master/public_html/index.php. It was desolved long ago.--GZWDer (talk) 11:01, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, our dev team has been notified of this a few days ago. Thanks for your vigilance! ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ —Preceding undated comment added 11:13, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

• Just a note GZWDer that this has now been fixed (Oct.14th); I had created a (non-critical) pull request with the requested changes a few months ago but it needed the approval of a tool developper to be merged into the live version and our devs have their plates quite full at the moment. Apologies for the delay, and our eternal thanks for your care and vigilance which helped improve UTRS! :) Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 20:26, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

UTRS on twitter

seems dead. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 08:31, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Sure is! The account was created a while ago but ended up never really being needed. :) Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 15:01, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

E-Mail address

Are UTRS administrators able to see the E-Mail address of users, who make use of it? --84.147.38.84 (talk) 18:43, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi, no UTRS tooladmins (three people including myself) are not able to see the e-mail addresses associated with appeals. Only CheckUsers, tooldevs and WMF (in case of emergency) are able to access this information (and other private information asociated with appeals such as IP, etc.). However, the General confidentiality agreement is still required. The only time tooladmins might see the e-mail address used by an appellant is when the appellant e-mails the utrs-admins mailing list (or an UTRS responder directly), or mentions their e-mail address in the appeals text or on-wiki. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 15:07, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

locked out... ‘Lil help?

Tried to login to my UTRS account and can’t get in. Requested temporary password, got the email, and the temp password didn’t work either. I handed in a bunch of my permissions while I was inactive for a while, but don’t remember asking for my UTRS account to be suspended or anything, but maybe it was? Beeblebrox (talk) 20:29, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: It's all oauth based now. You shouldn't need a password.--v/r - TP 20:35, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

I’m so confused right now. How do I do that then, it’s not terrible clear. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:11, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Go to the login page and click "English Wikipedia". It will send you to mediawiki.org and ask you to login with your SUL. Once you do that, a popup comes up and asks you to "allow". Click that, and you're in.--v/r - TP 20:26, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Ok that’s weird, that’s totally working for me now, but when I went to the login page before it was still giving me the old interface that requires a password. Thanks! Beeblebrox (talk) 20:31, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Weird indeed, maybe the "old" user/pass login page was still in your cache... wonder if there's anything to be done on our end to force cache clear. OTOH, the "requesting password" mechanism should be deprecated as no longer useful, and perhaps for some time instead generate an e-mail or message directing users to clear their cache and OAuth login. :) Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 20:49, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

So, I was coming at it through my bookmarks, and the old login page appears to still be live, maybe there is some way to redirect it to the new process? Beeblebrox (talk) 02:02, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

On that page I still see "Please select the Wiki you wish to login with:" and not the userpass old version. :/ Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 02:26, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Doing that now for me too. I’m so confused, but apparently it’s fine now. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:51, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Admin discussion

I'm new to handling UTRS requests, and I'm wondering if there's any admin-only discussion venue anywhere? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:12, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Where would you hold "admin-only discussions" for on-wiki unblock requests? Outside of e-mailing the blocking admin and/or other trusted admins or functionaries, I don't think there exists a specifially admin-only venue. The mailing list is usually more for tooladmin stuff (management of UTRS itself) and may no be the best place if you just want a second pair of admin eyes. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 18:38, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, we don't need admin-only discussions for on-wiki unblock requests, because there's nothing private and discussions tend to go to ANI or AN. (Oh, and by admin-only I really meant those with UTRS access only, which is effectively admins plus others). But if there is no such venue for UTRS request discussion, you have answered my question, thanks. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:59, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

All enwiki admins automatically have UTRS access. CUs get a few extra buttons. We have a few Stewards and two WMF staffers who can login as well. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 19:54, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Iff there was sufficient interest I’m sure we could set up an email list for UTRS reviewers based off of the same type of lists for arbcom/functionaries/etc. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:05, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it's a good idea. We've been getting rid of extraneous mailing lists around enwiki lately. UTRS doesn't usually include much private information, since ticket contents are literally viewable by any enwiki admin. It's about as private as deleted revisions. There aren't many complex UTRS cases, and there should not be. UTRS appeals requiring more than a templated decline usually involve helping mitigate IP block collateral damage and re-enabling talk-page access for badly blocked users wishing to make new appeals on-wiki. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 19:54, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I have to say I don't buy the "UTRS is for templated declines, fixing IP issues, and rectifying bad blocks" line at all, as it is far more than that - and it's precisely the cases that do not fit that generalization that I thought might warrant some discussion. Still, if nobody has seen the need for such a thing, that's fine by me. If I see cases where I think discussion would help, I guess I'll ask an individual admin for their thoughts - or just leave them for someone else. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:23, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee: There is a UTRS-Admins email account for tool admins. As far as WP admins that use the tool, the comment box/message log is an admin-only space. You can leave a comment and the user won't see it. They only see messages you intentionally send to them through the email interface. Those messages get logged in the message log, but not everything in that log is visible to the user. There is also a {{utrs}} template to notify folks that you left a message in there for them to read. To use it, just fill in the text box at the end of the message log and press "Enter" or click "Quick Comment".--v/r - TP 14:31, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I guess the message log is the closest to what I was thinking of - and the {{utrs}} template sounds useful. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:39, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

We used to have an IRC channel with a bot and everything but no one used it...--v/r - TP 14:49, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Ah, I did wonder if there was one of those (or a mailing list, similar to renamers and the ones mentioned by Beeblebrox). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:54, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Errors with processing request

There is currently an issue regarding processing unblock requests in UTRS. After filling all the questions, a message pops up saying "There were errors processing your unblock appeal: We need to know which administrator placed your block." After that, I put admin's names (pinging them) in all question boxes, then I proceed. However, the message still appears, therefore it is not allowing the request even though I have basically completed what's required including CAPCHA. I think there is a problem with the processing system. Any way to fix this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.122.70.34 (talk) 22:17, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I just submitted a test appeal just fine. So, not sure what your problem could be.--v/r - TP 22:48, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

How did you do it? How did you put administrator names in the boxes? Could it be 1) operating on iOS device instead of computer, or 2) location probabley? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.178.48.100 (talk) 01:35, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Normally, for a while now, you're not supposed to be prompted to even input the name of the blocking administrator. The UTRS tool grabs it automatically when you input YOUR account name which is affected by a block or when you try to file an appeal from an IP address that is currently blocked (but I assume you have an account because if your IP/range was blocked you would not be able to edit this talkpage here). Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 01:49, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Understood. Perhaps because account was blocked from different IP then I appealed in UTRS from another IP (I moved). Could a different IP be the culprit here? — 159.122.70.34 (talk) 03:05, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

It shouldn't be if your account is blocked. When filing your appeal at https://utrs.wmflabs.org/index.php, choose "Yes" to Do you have an account on Wikipedia?, "My account" to What has been blocked?, and enter your account name in the text box besides What is the name of your account?. If you're prompted to enter the blocking admin's name, make sure you're at the right address I linked here and maybe try clearing your mobile browser's cache? As a last resort you can try e-mailing the detail of your account, its block, etc. to the UTRS-admins mailing list, and if possible include the URL & a screenshot of the page where you're getting the We need to know which administrator placed your block. message. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 03:18, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, but no luck. The message still appears. (I find this quite bizarre.) Can you please provide a link of the "UTRS-admins mailing list"? Thanks. — 159.122.70.34 (talk) 04:16, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I've looked at the code behind the main UTRS "filing an appeal" page and the words "We need to know which administrator placed your block." do not seem to appear. Other than your mobile browser showing you a years-old cached version of https://utrs.wmflabs.org/index.php I don't have any ideas right away. The mailing list is utrs-adminsgooglegroups.com. Please include the URL of the page where you are getting that error message and a screenshot of the message, in addition of course to your account name. The UTRS tooladmins and devs will hopefully be able to look deeper into it. In the meantime, if you haven't tried, you might still be able to edit your account's talk page while logged into your account and be able to file a block appeal there. If your talk page access has been removed you won't have a choice but to wait until the UTRS tooladmin team has been able to analyze the situation. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 04:25, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

The error message is valid, it shows up in [1]. That said, when I try and file the appeal both in our testing interface and the public interface I get two different errors and neither are the ones you have. So I will attempt to resolve those at least to see if I can reproduce it. But I can't work on this now, I have to head to work, so it will be at least another 13 hours before I have a chance to look at it. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 15:28, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I just took a quick look at the email you sent us, and I see a discrepancy in the screenshot where it converted the n in your username to the html equivalent for it, so that's likely the issue. I'll also look into that tonight. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 16:33, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Appealing a block on Wiktionary

The following is what I tried to send through the UTRS. I couldn't complete the request, because I'm not blocked on Wikipedia, and instead of Wiktionary, and so it didn't go through:

"Dear Wikipedia administrator,

I am currently unjustly blocked on Wiktionary. I was wondering if this is the correct form to use in order to appeal a ban there and explain my situation. I have tried appealing directly to the volunteer administrator of Wiktionary by sending him an e-mail directly, as well as sending an email to info@wiktionary.com, but he has refused to address my appeal in any constructive manner, and used a pitiful logical fallacy that addressed nothing, and then he mocked me for sending an e-mail to the second address, which he decided to reply to without involving anybody else.

I will fill in this form appropriately, of course, once I'm affirmed that this is the correct way to address my problem.

My Wikipedia account is under: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Skrzymir -- but it is not blocked. The blocked account is: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User:Skrzymir

I await your reply, Respectfully,

Welgswoj."

How can I handle a situation like this? The Wiktionary administrator has been rude, biased, irrational and chose to ignore my reasonable appeal. I've also sent an e-mail to legal@wiktionary.com and a certain representative suggested me to use the UTRS. I asked her 4 days ago whether it is the correct way to appeal a Wiktionary block, but have not received a reply yet; so then I tried filling it with the above message, and now I'm here... I don't know what to do. I'm not a vandal, I was planning to contribute a lot of straightforward words/translations. Instead, the administrator is accusing me of some kind of agenda only because I began with words that required a bit of a discussion (my edits were being reverted, and so I tried to initiate it, but after having been ignored, accusations and rude remarks suggesting I might have a mental problem, "backed" by an utterly fallacious and insubstantial in-group bias promptly followed, and then the permanent block) -- Skrzymir (talk) 17:59, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

UTRS responders are English Wikipedia admins, and thus UTRS can only respond to appeals for English Wikipedia blocks. Enoforcement on English Wiktionary is the responsibility of English Wiktionary admins. To appeal an English Wikitionary block, you can post and fill out the following template on your English Wiktionary user talk page: Template:unblock. Hope this helps! Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 20:19, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Take you very much. I must have not finished reading the message that first suggested I should message the administrator directly. In case you're curious, my request is here: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User_talk:Skrzymir -- Skrzymir (talk) 20:06, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Proposal for UTRS problem with IPv6 addresses

Because there is a known problem with the UTRS server not being able to process IPv6 addresses, resulting in a malfunction whenever someone tries to submit a request for a blocked IPv6 address or range, shouldn't this exception be noted in the instructions? And a work-around procedure explained? Perhaps @DoRD: may wish to chime in here.  JGHowes  ^talk 22:52, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I had submitted a proposal for an interface message but was declined in favor of coding a working roundabout, which remains in progress. If you would like to follow the progress of Wikimedia Labs supporting IPv6, see phab:T37947. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 23:22, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Since this problem has existed for a year with no end in sight, right now users with IPv6 addresses who have not been personally blocked but encounter a denial of access and can't login or even put an {{unblock}} on their Talk page because of a hard IP block hit a dead-end. Until a work-around is devised, I propose the interface be modified something like this, highlighted in red:

Submit an unblock request

Note: this procedure does not work for IPv6 addresses (such as 2001:0db8:85a3:0000:0000:8a2e:0370:7334). Instead, ................

 JGHowes  ^talk 00:50, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

• It's similar to what I had proposed; however the reluctance probably stemmed from the fact that for the moment there is no good "instead" option, which is why instead the decision was made to keep the status quo until a workaround is implemented. On the other hand, users should always be able to place an {{unblock}} request on their own talk page (although for underlying-IP blocks I understand there may be some reluctance to divulge the IP block in question?) Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 00:57, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Submitting a UTRS appeal vs. using the unblock template

This question concerns a user submitting a UTRS appeal instead of using the {{unblock}} template and how it relates to private information contained in the appeal.

I can think of at least four cases:

• UTRS, only private info submitted, unblock denied

I can answer this one: a notice is posted that the appeal was denied with no further information.

• UTRS, only private info submitted, unblocked

I can answer this one as well: a notice is posted that the appeal was successful and the block is removed, with no further information.

• UTRS, no private info submitted, unblock denied (in other words, he could have used the unblock template)

I think that this is another "a notice is posted that the appeal was denied with no further information" case, but is the person making the appeal privately informed that he could have (should have?) -- and still can -- use the unblock template?

• UTRS, no private info submitted, unblocked

Here is where it gets interesting. When someone uses the unblock template and makes an argument that get him unblocked, the community can then monitor him to see if any promises made are kept and can check any claims made in the appeal for to see if they are accurate. An experienced editor could use UTRS to evade this scrutiny. Also, any threats made by the unblocking admin in an unblock request ("OK, I am unblocking you, but I warn you that if you do X again you will be reblocked") are hidden from the community in the case of an UTRS request.

I can see an argument for "everything UTRS is always private" and an argument for "some promises made in unblock arguments should be open knowledge". So does UTRS simply say something like "it looks to us looks like an unblock should be granted, and the blocking administrator agrees, but you will have to post that promise you made about never again doing X where the community can see it"?

Related questions:

• What about a mix of information that needs to be kept private and information that the community should see?

• What about the common practice of asking an admin "can you give us a summary of the general nature of the OTRS appeal without revealing anything that shouldn't be revealed?" I have always wondered if that was allowed, or whether everything related to OTRS is confidential.

--Guy Macon (talk) 18:28, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

• One of the options when replying to a UTRS appeal is “you still have access to your talk page and there’s no private information involved, so you should appeal there” (or words that affect).
• I don’t know that I’ve ever personally seen or done this, but if there are unblock conditions they should always be recorded on-wiki. I can’t picture a scenario where this couldn’t be done without revealing personal information.
• I don’t think UTRS appeals are completely sacrosanct as they are often just like on-wiki requests. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:59, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

• UTRS appeals are already visible to every single admin, and thus are theoretically exactly as private as deleted (not suppressed) revisions, no more no less. If an appeal does not contain private information, it's encouraged to defer the user to appeal on their talk page for transparency, outside review and historykeeping; unless it's really simple mistake correction or "I was voa-blocked nine years ago and haven't socked since" kinda stuff, there is no reason to handle non-private, non-simple appeals off of the talkpage. But most appeals containing so-called "private information" pertains to users affected by rangeblocks who have to reveal their underlying IPs for UTRS responders to evaluate the situation; most of the time, they're either granted IPBE (rarely), the rangeblock is reevaluated, or the appellant receives explanations on why webhost/colo/procies are blocked and told they should edit from their regular Internet connexion. In addition, unblock conditions should always be made known because the invidual admin may not be available in the future to enforce; this could probably be done in the block log entry but I think the "proper procedure" is at WP:EDR. At least that's how we've been working UTRS so far in the years I was around, and it seemed fairly well supported by the community last I saw discussion on the topic. Disclosure, I'm speaking as a former admin and former UTRS tooladmin/ambassador, not as a current admin nor member of the UTRS team. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 19:21, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Downtime

Due to T204565, there will be some required downtime between Dec 4th - Dec 18th. This is an early notice. The database will be locked and the interface will be shut down during this time. A more exact date will be coming in the future, but I will also cross-post when I have that date solidified. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 01:29, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

This will be tomorrow, the 15th sometime between 20h00 UTC and 05h00 UTC on the 16th. The whole time is not likely to be required, it just is for flexibility with my schedule. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 08:18, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Logs or something?

Is there a way to find your own responses to UTRS appeals, a log or something like that? Beeblebrox (talk) 22:30, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

IIRC you can click on your username and on your UTRS userpage you can see the list of tickets assigned to you. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 23:14, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

That's good to know but unfortunately not exactly what I was looking for. I was hoping to be able to see not just tickets I closed but ones where I commented withut being the "owner". Beeblebrox (talk) 00:38, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't recall a way to see that (possible there is one but I don't know abot it!) other than keeping some sort of external list of tickets you've interacted with. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 01:14, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: I could always run a database query for you if you wish. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 01:38, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

It probably isn't a big deal, but I appreciate the offer. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:40, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

User experience with Unblock System

I got to see how this system works tonight from a blockee's perspective. I was blocked until Nov 2020 for using the same ISP as I have for several years. I was even blocked from editing my own user page where it was suggested I post an unblock request template. My only option was the UTRS. I made my request. Within an hour (that's good) and several automated emails, I had my answer. Not only no, but hell no.

Hello Rhadow,

Looking at our logs, the IP address you're editing from belongs to a webhosting service. Open or anonymising proxies, including VPN, Tor and web hosting services, are blocked from editing Wikipedia. While this may affect legitimate users, they are not the intended targets. No restrictions are placed on reading Wikipedia through a webhost.

Although Wikipedia encourages anyone in the world to contribute, open proxies and webhosts are often used abusively. MediaWiki, the wiki software that powers Wikipedia, depends on IP addresses for administrator intervention against abuse, especially by anonymous users. Anonymizing services allow malicious users to rapidly change and disguise IP addresses, causing continuous disruption that cannot be stopped by administrators. Several such attacks have occurred on Wikimedia projects, causing disruption and occupying administrators who would otherwise deal with other concerns.

Unfortunately, you won't be able to edit while using this webhost. To edit,you will need to turn off the proxy.

Just Chilling

English Wikipedia Administrator

Wow! The recommendation was to dump my cable provider, one that serves 4.9 million accounts. My only other option is my local telco. It's a canned letter; it addresses nothing in my unblock request.

This was a situation requiring some self-help. I got a new lease on an IP address and voila! I'm on again. I never used a VPN, proxy, or anonymizer that I know of, so I don't think I've done anything sneaky. What I did notice in the process is that the whole system is rather cleverly set up so that there was no way for me to ping an admin if I really had needed more help. Access to my own unblock request is prohibited (I'm just an editor, not an admin). The original block covered the mainspace AND my user and talk pages. effectively squelching me. The emails were all from no-reply. When the powers-that-be decide they don't want an editor any more, the letter is brusque, final and comes in an envelope with no return address. I just thought you'd like to know what the wall looks like from the other side. Rhadow (talk) 02:48, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

While I understand if you're reluctant to disclose the information on-wiki, I'm surprised to hear about a webhost-block that would've also disabled talk page editing. That being said, perhaps a link to m:WikiProject on open proxies/Help:blocked would indeed increase helpfulness to help you understand you probably weren't at fault for "doing anything sneaky" but the IP address you had been assigned by your ISP was part of a range of IPs in a webhost/open proxy from which Wikipedia editing had been disallowed. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 03:00, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello Salvidrim!, I've nothing to hide. I'll tell you my IPv4 and IPv6 addresses leased to me by an ISP that serves 4.9 million (and currently listed in my ipconfig). When I Googled What's my IP address, yes, at the time I got the offending address 173.244.192.0/19. It's good thing I copied the block message because that has disappeared. A similar Google search now returns another address, which appears to point to my router.

The link you suggested leads to a page WikiProject on open proxies which isn't used anymore and kept for historical interest. In any case, it recommends posting an unblock template on my talk page -- an option not available to me. That is throwing a starving dog a rubber bone.

In any case, thanks for hearing my side. I trust you can see how frustrating it is that the automated reply makes so many assumptions about my configuration. Rhadow (talk) 03:31, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

A webhost/open proxy block disabling own-talk-page edits is unusual (to me at least) which possibly explains why this specific element wasn't addressed in full in the response. I cannot see any non-deleted anonymous edits from 173.244.192.0/19 since 2013 (except one in 2015), so presumably there was problematic edits from logged-in accounts abusing the range, perhaps Drmies has some deeper insight on what led the to webhost block also disabling own-talk-page editing (and e-mail) since he reblocked the range in Oct.2018, almost three years into its existing 5-year regular webhost block, in light of your explanation that at least some of the IPs are being assigned by your ISP to regular straightforward user. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 06:47, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

In the last few months I started marking such blocks as "CU blocks", following the lead of other CUs; this was a time when I would run CU and block a range, but not mark it as such thinking it might not be allowed. This is one of those LTAs who not only creates sock accounts but also harasses via unblock requests by pinging other editors on IP talk pages in the range. I forgot which one (that's also not something I used to note in the log, and still don't always log), but it's likely this one. As for the rangeblock itself, Salvidrim, it's something where I follow the lead of other editors to see what they have done in similar circumstances--and in this case that's two seasoned admins in the block log (I wish Elockid were still here). I know it is not customary to also yank talk page access, but there's an LTA or two that render that necessary.

Obviously I am always happy to have a more experienced admin (experience with webhosts and proxies, for instance) step in and modify the block; I have no problem with that. And I cannot say anything about UTRS. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:23, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Unable to request unblocking of Server

I have been trying to get an IP of a server un-blocked (it's blocked from editing). However, I am not able to raise a request for this as the IP associated with the server and my ISP is different.

1. I am not getting a talk page for the IP address of the Server - when I go to the talk page, I only see the talk page with the IP address of my ISP .
2. When I try to raise a ticket through the Unblock Ticket Request System at https://utrs.wmflabs.org/index.php I get an error that says "There were errors processing your unblock appeal: Your IP Address (xxx.xx.xxx.xxx) is not currently blocked. Is it your account that is blocked?". The IP address of the blocked server and the IP address of my ISP is different. Pls help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacksonkailath (talk • contribs)

• There are often legitimate reasons why proxy/webhosting server IPs are blocked from editing. However I'm not sure why you'd be request an unblock of an IP address which is different than the one you're editing from. Usually you'd only appeal blocks when they affect you. UTRS does not allow appeals from non-blocked users (or users editing from non-blocked IP addresses like you). So to be able to get help what needs to be figured out is...... since you can already edit, what is the problem you're trying to solve? Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 15:00, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
• Thanks for your reply. We want to build a software that enables Schools to update their Wikipedia page frequently. We already have lot of data of clients on our system making this a very useful feature. For this we will be allowing schools to edit their wikipedia page using the edit API. The API will be called by a server whose IP address is blocked. Hope this makes our scenario clear. Any help on how to raise an un-block request for a server IP would be greatly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.82.100.145 (talk • contribs)
• When the edit is made we do ask the user to log in to their own Wikipedia account, but as the call happens from the blocked server, it is not allowing to edit a wikipedia page even from a not blocked account. Any help would be highly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacksonkailath (talk • contribs) 06:53, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I can see a potentially serious problem here. While I don't doubt the honorable intention behind this project, it sounds to me like it might also inadvertently be providing a proxy service that would allow vandalism and other abuse from school IPs to disrupt Wikipedia without Wikipedia being able to see which school IP was the source of the abuse. We get a very large amount of abuse from schools, which is why we block so many school IP ranges, and we rely on being able to identify the source IP so that we know which IP ranges to block. As the ability to record the IP address of the actual editor who makes a change is central to Wikipedia's anti-abuse processes, and your service sounds like it would prevent our ability to block editing from specific school IP ranges, I'm really not sure what you propose would be permissible. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:45, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

• Users on our system are the authorised counselors from schools itself. We allow only logged in users to add content on their own wikipedia page (not to edit from our system). Although that's the application. Real problem is that our server (whose IP is blocked) is Linux server with only command line access (no any GUI). So it is hard to open and fill the UTRS form. We are stuck at this point and unable to proceed with our feature. We are seeking some direction to be able to submit this request may be by command line from the server with the blocked IP in question? I hope I am able to readdress the issue clearly this time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacksonkailath (talk • contribs) 10:51, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

  The technical issue of how to make the unblock request is not really the problem - you could, for example, just tell us the server IP address here. The issue is that from Wikipedia's point of view, no matter what assurances you give us, all we would be seeing is edits made via a proxy server with no indication of the originating IP addresses - and we'd have to trust a stranger asking us to lower our well-tested defences based on their own promises. Now, I'm certainly not suggesting you are in any way untrustworthy, but we have no idea who you are or who you represent. I can't see how it could be within the remit of a Wikipedia admin to break our policy on proxy editing to enable what you want by unblocking your server, and I would expect a UTRS unblock request to be declined. My thoughts are that this project would need to be developed in conjunction with someone at the Wikimedia Foundation, but I personally don't know who that might be. Anyway, those are just my personal thoughts, and not an "official" response in any way. Does anyone watching here have any suggestions? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:23, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

  Oh, and please sign your comments by appending "~~~~". Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:27, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Backlog report

Apparently when people use this system it sends a message promising a response in 24 hours. A user reports waiting for a week with no response.

• ticket:2019060610007669

Is there, in fact, a backlog? Should the message be changed to make a more achievable commitment, such as 2 weeks or longer? I am not sure how this process works or who evaluates this. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:35, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Bluerasberry that ticket is an WP:OTRS ticket, not WP:UTRS. UTRS doesn't have a backlog but OTRS certainly has a large one, from what I hear. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:51, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

@Galobtter: Here is the situation -

1. User is blocked.
2. User writes to OTRS
3. OTRS refers user to UTRS for unblock
4. User replies back to OTRS, claiming UTRS unblock request and no response from UTRS

Should the user have gotten a UTRS claim ticket or something which I could share? What might be happening here? Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:55, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Bluerasberry Ah, oops - list of UTRS open tickets is at User:DeltaQuad/UTRS_Appeals - as can be seen, there are no tickets over a week old. On the user's talk page, there should be a post by UTRS bot (example: [2]) linking to the ticket, if they filed one. My guess is that the ticket was responded too but they missed the email. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:08, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Or they never completed the e-mail verification needed for the ticket to be sent from the hidden "unverified" queue to the "new" queue. Sometimes that happens if their e-mail provider blocks the UTRS verification e-mail as spam, or because the user mistyped their e-mail address when submitting the ticket. As for what to respond to the OTRS ticket, I think the response should be to resubmit an UTRS ticket; it should only prevent them if they already have an open one. or maybe they've been banned from appealing due to abuse and their tickets are intentionally not responded to, I wouldn't know. in either case they should be redirected from OTRS to retry UTRS or appeal on-wiki if they can. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 15:21, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

• A few things. Obviously a former-UTRS-tooladmin (Non-administrator comment) so I can't look behind the curtain to identify the UTRS ticket in question. While it is very possible that the user has in fact been replied to and not seen it or it went to junk, it's also possible that tickets (especially non-routine ones) may take time to be attended to. Since two years ago (-ish) all enwiki admins have access to login to UTRS and respond to appeals, however it's understandable that it remains a kinda niche, poorly-patrolled area, and while UTRS has a handful of dedicated active responders, they might fall into unavailability from time to time and nobody realizes there is a backlog. I think as a general principle it might be worth considering not even giving an estimate response timeframe, even if all tickets were 100% responded to under 4 hours. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 15:02, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Resolved

Thanks, this is enough information for me to sort this and future cases on OTRS. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:33, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry: The appeal was #25541. It was processed, closed, and an email sent to the user deferring them to WP:ACC for account creation. The email is the same as the one in OTRS. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 23:08, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

changed user name

but UTRS won't let me log in. How can I get it to work?-- Deepfriedokra 04:09, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Proposal - all requests cross post to user page

I might not understand all the details of how this system works. I thought of asking "why not make requests post to talk page", but since this is Wikipedia, I thought to just make the question a proposal and see what happens.

Right now the unblock requests go into a private back end queue. Is there any reason for requests to be private? Is there any reason that the tool should not post the completed form to a user's talk page for public scrutiny?

Unblock requests should be public and go through the public process by default, right? Our greatest need is for more public review and not any private backchannel, right? Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:16, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

UTRSbot already posts UTRS appeals on the blocked user's userpage along with a link and the result (once processed). The contents of UTRS appeals are already viewable by every admin. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 06:24, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Apparently UTRSbot has not been crossposting since the start of August. There was some abuse that occured in July due to a loophole, perhaps that's related to the task being temporarily disabled? TParis would know more. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 06:28, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks - it seems like normally the public talk page notes do happen. At ticket:2019090210004922 the user complains of the inability to post to their own talk page. They claim to have engaged the UTRS process. I have no opinion on what action to take in response except that I wish that everyone could access whatever is our due process. I expected that everyone should be able to get receipts of their attempts for the process. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:36, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

backlogs/bot still not working

It's come to my attention that Just Chilling abruptly went completely inactive in late July. As UTRS regulars will know, he handled a lot of tickets. As such I am seeing higher backlogs of late, so if anyone other admins would like to pitch in now would be the time.

Also the bot is still down. I've asked at WP:BOTN if there's anything to be done and it looks like for the moment the answer is no. I am going to file a request for a new bot, but that may take some time. (I don't really know how all that works but apparently with the bot maintainer being inactive and the bot broken down it's basically dead but someone else could use the same source code to make a new one, or something like that)

While this situation persists I think it is important that all users whose requests do not involve privacy concerns and who still have talk page access be referred back to an on-wiki request. Otherwise there is no visible record on-wiki of their appeal, which I for one think is not good as it allow for a certain level of gaming the system/asking the other parent. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:45, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

The bot's operators (and UTRS developpers) have always had to do the best they can with a limited amount of time and resources. @TParis: edited a few weeks ago, and @DeltaQuad: edited today. You can see above where I mentioned some context for the bot's on-wiki posting being restricted for the past few months; replicating the bot's operating code under a new bot account is probably not going to be helpful in any real way. Your advice to defer UTRS appeals to on-wiki whenever possible is very sound and has generally been common practice for most UTRS responders AFAIK. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 05:55, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Templates

Two minor issues spotted:

• This template is referring to "arbcom-l@lists.wm.o" not "arbcom-enwikimedia.org", which you might want consider fixing.
• This one: Meta SRG has permanent semi-protection which is probably not going to be relaxed in near term; you might want to adjust. — regards, Revi 14:26, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

@-revi: I did the first one, but not sure what the problem is with the second one. Is the email address in the template not sufficient?--v/r - TP 02:26, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

It gives me the impression that you should contact SRG first, which is a bad UX when it is permanently Semi-pped, imo. — regards, Revi 10:15, 9 February 2020 (UTC)