Wikipedia talk:Unblock Ticket Request System/Archive 3

Potential UTRS downtime due to WMCS maintenance - 2020-09-16
FYI: UTRS might be unavailable on 2020-09-16 between 14:00-17:00 UTC due to scheduled Cloud VPS maintenance. The downtime should not last the whole window, it will just be somewhere in it and according to the announcement will generally be measured in minutes rather than hours. – Majavah talk &middot; edits 16:56, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Banniing
Is there an alternative we can offer them when we ban them for multiple inadequate UTRS requests? ArbCom? -- Deep fried okra ( talk ) 16:16, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Not really, ArbCom will only hear a limited set of appeals. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 02:54, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

"Search for Appeal ID or appealant"
Typo of appellant needs fixing. Cabayi (talk) 15:01, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Global locks.
There is a discussion at WP:AN relevant to UTRS. -- Deep fried okra ( talk ) 02:26, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Proposal to replace UTRS
There is currently a proposal (not made by me) to replace UTRS through the Community Wishlist Survey 2021. Please feel free to comment over there. Direct ping as requested as this would be another major functionality change. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 08:27, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Comments
are not working. I filled a request at GitHub. -- Deep fried okra ( talk ) 22:40, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know where you filed it, but I saw this last night, and it was fixed just recently here. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 22:43, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It is now working. -- Deep fried okra ( talk ) 22:48, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It was 395/394 -- Deep fried okra ( talk ) 22:51, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 April 2021
Hello. I see something which says:

For Wikipedia Administrators only, if you need assistance with the tool, such as banning a user or assistance with an appeal, please contact.

I think it should be:

For Wikipedia Administrators only, if you need assistance with the tool, such as banning a user or assistance with an appeal, please contact:

Can you please do that? Thanks! amonguslover (contact me here) 13:57, 3 April 2021 (UTC)


 * ✅, the colon has replaced the full stop. Thank you very much! Good catch!  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 14:22, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for fixing the mistake! amonguslover (contact me here) 14:28, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It's my pleasure!  Paine 

Beta & Interwiki links
Now that legacy appeals from the old UTRS have been carried over to the new UTRS, and all appeals are accessible on the one system, can we fix the interwiki link situation? I wanted to make reference to a UTRS appeal in a block last night. Using the template won't work in the block log, and the iw link 46464 is still pointing to the unused system. Thanks, Cabayi (talk) 05:57, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The IW link should either point to https://utrs-beta.wmflabs.org/ - it still points to https://utrs.wmflabs.org/appeal.php?id=$1 OR
 * The new UTRS should move on from beta & assume the utrs.wmflabs.org domain.

My IP Adress was blocked from ban-appealing, what should I do?
It has broken my heart that I have done nothing wrong, yet my IP Adress was not only banned feom editing wikipedia, but even banned from sending a block-appeal, and that just feels so cruel considering it defeats their purpose of fixing any misunderstanding. In my first message I am testing if this messager will work, but for now, i'll just await a helpful response. 97.101.253.244 (talk) 22:40, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * This talk page is not for this sort of discussion. If you are banned from UTRS, your final option is to contact the Arbitration Committee. 331dot (talk) 22:54, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Fake UTRS appeals
Since we have no way of knowing who is filing each appeal, LTA's can claim to be other users with abusive posts that result in the impersonated user being banned from UTRS. We have no way of knowing who it is we are talking to. I have posted a UTRS notice on a talk pages and have gotten the response, "oh, that was not me." I've had an LTA brag on my talk page about getting someone banned from UTRS. They were quite smug about. Is there a solution? -- Deep fried okra ( talk ) 19:18, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I can imagine a partial solution at least. We have User:Arbitration Committee, a non-editing role account that exists just so users can use the "email this user" function to contact the committee. This can only be done using an email address tied to a Wikipedia account. So, we could set up User:UTRS the same way and make that the preferred avenue of contact. One problem: turns out that user exists, and is a blocked sock. Perhaps we could get it renamed. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:29, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * If it would make things better, I'd happily rename them. -- Deep fried okra ( talk ) 20:08, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I've asked the rest of the committee for input as to the ins and outs of how the role account actually works. I assume one just sets up an email address that forwards to the UTRS address. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok, here's what I've got:
 * Nobody seems to know who, exactly, is empowered to grant permission for such an account.
 * That being said there's no obvious reason for anyone to object if we just do this.
 * The way the ArbCom account is set up, all email sent to it routes to the main arbcom address, so when setting up the account, there would also need to be a dummy email account that forwards to UTRS. It is not clear to me what address that is but I assume the tool admins know it.
 * Once set up, the account apparently needs to make at least one edit in order for "email this user" to work. I would suggest establishing a user page similar to User:Arbitration Committee would do it.
 * The way permanent control of the arbcom account is insured is that it has a very strong password that is documented on the arbwiki, so even if the current "owner" of the account should quit or something it remains accessible in case something needs tweaked. So once this is set up the password should be sent to the committee, or you can just send it to me and I'll make sure it gets documented on the appropriate page on arbwiki.
 * I don't see any problem with renaming the vandal account currently sitting on the obvious name User:UTRS. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:46, 17 February 2022 (UTC)


 * It's possible to require OAuth2 for named accounts, and only allow unauthenticated UTRS requests for anonymous accounts.--v/r - TP 13:15, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * That's interesting. It would keep me from accidently banning someone. As IP's can change, I'm not much on banning them. When Yamla's and my friend does her thing, I just expire the ticket and move on. Do the UTRS yahoo groups still work? If so, maybe I should join them?13:40, 18 February 2022 (UTC) -- Deep fried okra ( talk )
 * Apparently it's already been implemented. At the top of a UTRS ticket, it says if someone OAuth verified or not.--v/r - TP 13:44, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh. Of course. -- Deep fried okra ( talk ) 13:45, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * None of the one's I've reserved have been verified😥 -- Deep fried okra ( talk ) 13:47, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

[https://utrs-beta.wmflabs.org/appeal/54944 nice to see I'm still loved. . . .] -- Deep fried okra  ( talk ) 14:08, 18 February 2022 (UTC) Heh! -- Deep fried okra ( talk ) 14:09, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It's tiresome, getting multiple death threats a day, I'd much rather that didn't happen. Our skiing friend tends to make these requests via IP addresses (addresses she isn't actually on), which is unfortunately the more difficult situation to resolve. I'm deeply in favour of requests not even showing up in UTRS for named accounts until they've been authenticated, though. That prevents the joe-job attacks. Outside of that, I haven't had enough coffee yet so don't see a clear picture. I love that Deepfriedokra and Beeblebrox are thinking this through, that gives me hope. :) --Yamla (talk) 14:18, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Maybe might be an area for AL/ML or an algorithm on part with Cluebot? Is Cluebot still around?  Maybe we can ask the developer to assist in creating a filter that can autoclose these kinds of things.--v/r - TP 15:18, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll note here before I forget—you can always set the OAuth endpoint to login.wikimedia.org? They'll never* be blocked from there -- TNT (talk • she/her) 20:56, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Getting a blocage for no reason
I got a blocage for no clear reason I received a notification that my wiki account including the IP address were blocked without any reason, can you please explain and help to understand why Wikipedia is reacting this way!? IlhamAlami (talk) 09:03, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Clearly you are not blocked or you are evading a block. This page is for discussion of the operation of UTRS. You need to request unblocking via your original account. The link to UTRS is HERE. -- Deep fried okra ( talk ) 09:08, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

"Your user roles have not been loaded yet"
I logged into UTRS for the first time today, and was told it would be minutes until the system recognises me as an admin and gives me access. That was several hours ago, so I am now posting here as per the UTRS instructions. Am I unworthy? —Kusma (talk) 18:46, 31 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Weird. You should be in. can you help? --  Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:07, 31 August 2022 (UTC)


 * , to the extent it may be a larger glitch flagging that I am having a similar issue as well. Thanks, Mifter (talk) 06:11, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * 😪 -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:16, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I apologize for the inconvenience right now. I'm currently away from home until sometime on Sunday for medical reasons, which will be the first chance I'll have to look into it as the logs are not indicating any errors, but there is definitely some sort of glitch. If I had to ponder a guess, something has likely changed in the API. I'll get it addressed as soon as I can. -- Amanda (she/her)  07:55, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @AmandaNP, thanks for the update. Please prioritize your medical issues and don't rush on my behalf, no urgency at all on my end. —Kusma (talk) 08:06, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * AmandaNP, thanks for the heads up, no worries at all regarding the delay! I'll echo Kusma, above, please don't rush on my behalf either.  Best wishes/speedy recovery with your medical issues!  Thanks, Mifter (talk) 22:17, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Just noting the same has been happening to me. No rush! DatGuyTalkContribs 15:37, 3 September 2022 (UTC)


 * So i've started looking into the issue (slowly for medical reasons). It's not as easy as I have thought. I have consulted Taavi and we are trying to move forward finding a solution. -- Amanda (she/her)  07:58, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * So the script to give you the permissions works, and you now have permissions. Problem is, that script is CLI access only, so while we sort out the automatic checks, any other new persons to UTRS will still also have the same issue. That said, your access should work fine now. -- Amanda (she/her)  20:05, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Yep, it works for me! Thank you very much! DanCherek (talk) 20:18, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Works for me too. Thanks.-- Hakan · IST 20:39, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, works for me as well. Get well/feel better soon!  Best, Mifter (talk) 00:49, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

My user account and IP address was banned Unblock Ticket Request System
I have been banned from using UTRS for unable to formulate adequate unblock request. consensus to ban can you to lift the ban that I promise can make a proper Unblock request by 2 weeks please? 41.68.71.215 (talk) 09:57, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * There's not enough information here to take action. What is your user account name and what IP address was blocked? --Yamla (talk) 10:35, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

OK my your user account is Moatassemakmal and I've been blocked and banned for my diruptive editing ,my current block evasion and sockpuppetteering, and my recent usage of death threats and threats of physical violences which I regrettably apologizing to you Yamla for lashing you out with anger I accepted my full personal responsibility to all my recent actions and I was worst user of all time and my main goal is to undo my serious collateral damage that I created so can you ask Deepfriedokra lift the ban please?
 * Zero chance of that. --Yamla (talk) 11:27, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Should I be concerned?
Not seeing new UTRS tickets. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:48, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Me neither. There are only a few of us who tackle most UTRS tickets and if neither Deepfriedokra nor I are doing it, I have to assume UTRS is borked. --Yamla (talk) 21:50, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 😩 -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:25, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I noticed this too. The older ones stuck around for awhile as well. 331dot (talk) 07:56, 2 October 2022 (UTC)


 * - And DQBot seems to be making several edits a second on the appeals report page. Unsure if that means Amanda is currently working on it or something else entirely. Ben · Salvidrim!   &#9993;  07:51, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * So...the DB choked up for some reason and started refusing connections. Things got queued up pretty bad, so once I restarted the server, all the queued jobs (including appeal verification and posting on the appeals page onwiki) all got released to act. That's why the spam on the appeals page onwiki. There are sadly now a large batch of appeals waiting to be processed from the past few days. Please feel free to ping me when you see things like this. -- Amanda (she/her)  08:10, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Question
Just wondering, does UTRS only work for Wikipedia, or can it also be used for other Wikimedia projects? (Assuming, of course, that one has a user account on Wikipedia and on, say, Wikivoyage.) Shāntián Tàiláng (talk) 14:38, 20 April 2022 (UTC)


 * AFAIK, only English Wikipedia. It's our thing. -- Deep fried okra  ( talk ) 14:52, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Looks like Portuguese Wiki and Global Locks/Blocks are now appealable at UTRS -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:32, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

My UTRS appeals are being ignored.
I now have three UTRS appeals which are totally being ignored. I want to know if the standard offer applies to global locks, meaning when the six month time period is up, I am elligible to be unlocked and unblocked. 1.145.142.242 (talk) 09:33, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Leaving aside for the moment that you are evading your block by posting here- it's difficult to answer you without knowing who you are, but I don't see three open UTRS requests by any single user. Global locks are not handled through UTRS, you must contact a Steward directly to request its removal. Go to here to do so. 331dot (talk) 09:57, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I was careful not to give too much information to identify any of my accounts because if I do, you would most likely just use 'block evasion' as an excuse to ignore and silence me. The only reason you responded to me is because you did not know who I was.
 * The stewards ignore me as well but that's understandable because of the mass emails I've been sending them, in addition to being temporarily banned from their IRC channel, so I will not contact them for a while as I'm sure they've had just about enough of me as you all have.
 * I have three UTRS appeals at Michaelshea2004, Sheamichael2004, and Michaelshea04. Now that you know who I am, feel free to block me to 'prevent damage and disruption to Wikipedia' because it's not like I can get any sense out of you or any other administrator anyway. 1.145.142.242 (talk) 10:43, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I see one open request by the first username you mention. It isn't being "ignored", admins are volunteers doing what they can when they can. If you had others under the other two names you use(not a good idea itself), they were addressed. Again, we can't help you until the stewards remove the global lock on you. If they choose not to do that, you'll have to accept at least for a time(the WP:SO period) that you can't edit Wikipedia and further block evasion only makes it worse. 331dot (talk) 10:46, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I have now closed that request. 331dot (talk) 10:47, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The other two are not addressed, but they are both for appealing my global locks so those are up to the stewards.
 * Well isn't this incredible, an administrator actually decided to talk to me instead of ignoring me!!!!!! 1.145.142.242 (talk) 10:56, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Glad that's settled, I have now blocked you. 331dot (talk) 11:01, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * 331dot, do you not think it is a little disproportionate to be accusing this person of block evasion, when the only thing they have done is left a talk page message? And it was to say they were having issues with UTRS? Nothing else. That's not really block evasion... or at least certainly not in the spirit of it as such. Surely you could use some common sense here?
 * The user had stated UTRS is not getting a clear response. That might not actually be the case, but from a perception viewpoint.... I've heard many a folk gripe about UTRS and how its a "one way system"
 * Now I've looked at their blocked accounts, and I can agree they should've been blocked for their behaviour at the time, but it may be the case they wanted to turn over a new leaf. We've all been there. When I was a kid, I used to make stupid edits and got IP blocked for it. Now, well I'm just another member contributing like any other. GeneralHamster (talk) 08:58, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I didn't accuse them of anything. They initially said that they were subject to a global lock- by posting here, they evaded that lock and the blocks to support it. If they want to change, that's good, and they should proceed as I described(get the global lock removed first). 331dot (talk) 09:41, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Not an unexpected attitude from a block evader. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:24, 21 July 2023 (UTC)


 * appealed to UTRS 70191 which was declined. The other two users, &  have not made any appeal to UTRS. Having dug yourself a super-deep hole, your route back is to appeal to UTRS from your original account asking for an admin to crosspost your UNBAN request for your 3X ban on WP:AN. Once enwiki has shown that your appeal might be acceptable, the Stewards may then assess your unlock request. As Michaelshea04 has been blocked on 6 projects that is no foregone conclusion . Cabayi (talk) 12:23, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Admin access
Hello. I was poking around UTRS tonight, logged in, and I received the error "Notice: You do not have the necessary permissions to view appeals on any queues." on page https://utrs-beta.wmflabs.org/review after logging in using ORES. As an admin, I should be able to see something on this page, right? Anything I need to do on my end? Thanks for your help. – Novem Linguae (talk) 05:27, 18 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Update: I found the "my account" page, where I was not marked as a user nor an admin. I ticked "Reload permissions from attached wikis" and saved, and that fixed my permissions. Might still indicate a bug somewhere though. That probably should have been done automatically by the software, right? – Novem Linguae (talk) 09:58, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I assume you mean logged in through OAuth? and it's not a bug - it does take some time (i've forgotten the timeline, I think it's max 24 hours) before it gives you access, but the message wording could very much use modification. -- Amanda (she/her)  04:44, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, I meant OAuth. Thanks for filing the ticket. – Novem Linguae (talk) 05:00, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Unverified tickets
We often see UTRS tickets which have not been verified to the purported account. This allows for abuse by LTA's whose only means of disruption is via UTRS. Recently, a user's block was extended and TPA removed based on such a ticket. In a subsequent, unverified ticket, poster mocked us for having acted on the previous ticket. Do we need a rule to not take action against an account based on UTRS, particular when the poster has not been verified to an account? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:18, 19 July 2023 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, UTRS should only be used to accept requests to restore talk page access. Trolling at UTRS is far too common, especially by those familiar with the process (i.e. LTAs), and we should avoid taking the bait. – bradv  14:39, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * If the appeal is verified, then I'm not as concerned. However, for unverified appeals I am concerned as it also makes it possible for a third party appeal. For example, someone could use UTRS to make a request for an unblock for someone they believe should be unblocked posing as that user. This could be then used to give back talk page access, where:
 * The user would either not notice this and therefore not make an appeal (causing the future requests to ask why they didn't follow up with an on-wiki request)
 * The user sees TPA being restored and uses it as a way to continue the behaviour that led to the removal of TPA, which makes it harder for them in the future to appeal on UTRS (even though it wasn't them that said they had changed their behaviour).
 * As such, I think only verified appeals should be used to make affirmative actions. Unverified appeals should only be used to inform whether a user should have TPA restored and then not referenced again. Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 14:48, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Is it possible to verify a UTRS request made by an IP address? I'm pretty sure the answer is no. I agree with the LTA trolling of UTRS, it's quite frustrating. Rather than policy, could this be solved at the code level? I'm thinking, unverified tickets don't even show up in the queue unless TPA has been revoked, they just automatically expire. Note that this is not a fully thought-out idea, I'm instead just encouraging a more fool-proof solution, if one exists. If we can't go that way, I think the ideas raised here have merit. --Yamla (talk) 17:02, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Moral support
 * -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:44, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * This has been on the coding block for a while and also been top of mind. The problem is we really have to think about everything affected. The biggest problem is anyone who is locked and has not put an email address on file can't then be verified. I don't want to end up with a "special approval to hear your appeal" queue either both for the fact that it targets the abuse to a smaller number of admins, and groups functionally outside of Wikipedia have been shut down before. So that leaves me with only accounts, users that aren't already locked, on enwiki only can't show their appeal until they verify. I would then have to also create a new well worded message that tells only accounts on enwiki that they need to verify themselves before the appeal goes through. But then the appeal needs to need to have a way to reverify themselves - which is not currently coded - or we auto-decline and force them to jump another hoop and file their appeal all over again, resulting in more complaints to the admin/dev list that I have to spend time dealing with. Beyond that, spam mitigation is needed, as this uses the wiki email system to verify them and I've gotten a few upset long term contributors who take it out on me if they get spammed through this system - so it has to be well beyond thought out. And please don't suggest we use OAuth...it won't work.
 * Then for IPs, if we ban anything not talkpage locked out, we deter potential contributors that a blocked by a checkuserblock-wide or rangeblock from filing (and will eventually get a direct connection to an account through ACC).
 * Please understand, I do want to try and control the amount of abuse that comes from UTRS (as enough of it comes from the harassment I receive also). It is very much my goal to try and reduce the cost & increase productivity if you will. To that end, I even have applied for a grant from the WMF recently to handle to big feature requests this fall. But all this is on top of the regular improvement tasks that need to get done also (aka Chrome being an ass), alongside my other wiki work/advocacy, on top of my regular employment and wellbeing. So please bear with me as I try and make a solution that will satisfy each party involved in some way. -- Amanda (she/her)  04:37, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * PS: if you ever need my involvement in a conversation here, please ping, as I easily miss things here. -- Amanda (she/her)  04:38, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, though the issue at hand is, we shouldn't take on-Wiki action against account holders for what is written in tickets when the ticket has not been verified. And it is my hope that we stop. --  Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:38, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, was replying to Yamla's comment. But yes, unverified should not be used unless a CU can put 2 and 2 togeather. -- Amanda (she/her)  19:29, 22 July 2023 (UTC)


 * A problem worth considering is administrators not having enough knowledge of how the system works to make informed decisions in the relevant kinds of situation. Here are two examples from my own experience. (1) I had no idea what an appeal being "verified" to an account meant, and did not realise that an appeal might not actually come from the named account, until some time ago, when, if I remember correctly, I consulted by email about an appeal I wasn't sure about for other reasons, not related to appeals being confirmed or not. His answer happened to include information related to accounts being verified, which clarified things for me.  (2) Until fairly recently I didn't know that trolls making fake appeals for other people in order to get further block action taking against those other people was a problem. I became enlightened when persistent trolling led me to email  to suggest removing UTRS access, and he explained the situation to me. It's entirely possible that in the past I may have made quite inappropriate decisions on some appeals because of my ignorance of matters. It seems therefore that it's worth considering how to help administrators have a better knowledge of the relevant facts. Obviously throwing too much information at administrators would risk producing a TLDR effect, or even deterring administrators from contributing at UTRS at all, but something could be done. Perhaps accompany the message on the UTRS interface about an account being unverified with a few words about what that means, or a link to a fuller explanation somewhere else, and an invitation to administrators new to UTRS to read it? Any thoughts? Also pinging  in case she is interested. JBW (talk) 10:50, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * We've never required that users link their account to an email, and I don't think we should require it, but we could require that they do so if they want to use UTRS, and simply tell anyone who is unverified that we can't confirm they operated the account in question and therefore cannot consider their appeal. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:30, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * In practice, I do as Bradv suggests above. Send them to their talk page and/or restore TPA. OR just decline if no TPA and no merit. Then we can know who we are talking to --  Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:38, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree it needs explanation as I didn't realise the importance of it. Secretlondon (talk) 11:12, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm absolutely happy to write in a line speaking to the importance of this, and will try and action this tonight. That said, and someone please blatantly say so if I'm reading this wrong, but it seems like the current atmosphere is to wind down UTRS operations to just folks who 1) don't have talkpage access on an account 2) can verify that account. If that's the case, then I'll have a lot bigger message of concern to write about this, but will ultimately respect the communities wishes and move on to other communities wanting UTRS. -- Amanda (she/her)  22:40, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think that sort of limitation would be a good idea. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:24, 25 July 2023 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) Amanda, I'm not sure that's what we are asking. :) I'm thinking: unblock requests containing private data must to go to UTRS. I think our primary problem is joe-job requests which occasionally cause admins to take action against the victim account. I think a "simple" fix might be to simply modify the UI to strongly indicate the request may be fraudulent, unsure about the wording. I think a more complex fix would be to require verification when possible, before pushing the ticket into the visible queue, but suggest just a UI tweak may be sufficient to solve this problem (or at least, kick the ball down the field a bit). Anything beyond that, I think it's much too soon. Easy stuff first. Any other suggestions I made in this thread were just to encourage thinking deeply about the problem rather than trying to foist work on you. --Yamla (talk) 23:35, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok, thank you too you both. I apparently misread. Yes, the wording will be done tonight, and the verification stuff is definitely on the map, it's the next major thing, essentially going to make UTRS 3.0, and should have WMF grant funding for September if everything goes well. Sorry for jumping the conclusion, it's been a long week and it's only Tuesday lol. -- Amanda (she/her)  23:38, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Excellent. As a (retired) software developer, I appreciate it. :) --Yamla (talk) 23:45, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I made the changes a day or two ago. If there is any feedback, feel free to let me know. -- Amanda (she/her)  15:56, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I saw that. Looks good! --Yamla (talk) 19:32, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Amanda. That should help. JBW (talk) 19:53, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Recusals
FWIW, I recuse from and  --  Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:39, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Peer to peer proxy blocks
I routinely try to stay out of the affairs of the unblock admins as I feel I have too much a vested interest being the developer of the tool. That being said, I'm concerned with the P2P proxy block template. It both refuses to assist a user affected by said block, and throws a slightly modified version of the regular proxy block template at the users. Beyond that it points the user to the meta page, which points to the stewards as a point to complain to. English Wikipedia hands out it's own peer to peer proxy blocks frequently, which the stewards have no ability to override unless they contact one of their English Wikipedia admin colleagues. So the buck is being passed here.

The other problem with this, is peer-to-peer proxy blocks are very similar to range blocks. There are legitimate editors behind it, who have done nothing wrong and no power to do anything to not be editing from P2P proxies. P2P proxies by nature are at their basics a shared IP where one user on that IP employs a proxy, but none of the other users have access to it (nor have a need for it).

I think we need to improve our response to these types of blocks. -- Amanda (she/her)  20:33, 7 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Agree. Lack tech knowledge to write it meaningfully and not write stupid. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:37, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * We need to offer them a solution or work around. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:38, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * How should we proceed? What changes can we make? How can we help blocked users? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:49, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Any idea how this is going?
We recently had a suggestion to add a parallel system on Commons. I was wondering: how often does this process on en-wiki result in someone being reinstated? I'm guessing that the number is quite low, but if I'm wrong then it makes more sense for Commons to consider it.

Please ping me if responding, I don't currently maintain a watchlist on en-wiki. - Jmabel &#124; Talk 18:32, 14 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Replied on Commons -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:51, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Possible privacy issue
I’m posting here as I’d like to get community input on this. (I’ve already emailed Oversight, but they confirmed that there was nothing that required suppression under the Oversight policy, so I’m assuming it’s ok to talk about on-wiki.)

Let’s say that Logged-in User X has a (non-anon-only) block that’s been placed on an IP address they use. They don’t want to reveal their IP address on-wiki, so they follow the instructions in the block notice and submit a request through UTRS, for the IP block underneath their account to be lifted.

After investigating, let’s say the responding administrator determines that the IP block was misplaced. They unblock it, and include the UTRS # in the unblock reason field so that it’s clear to other editors/admins why the block was removed.

This on its own isn’t a privacy issue, I don’t think. However, the problem is that there is an automatically-updated page on-wiki that contains a list of all UTRS appeals: User:AmandaNP/UTRS Appeals. When User X submitted their appeal, it will have been added to the table, along with the UTRS # and their username.

Therefore, because of the existence of this table, the unblocked IP address can be connected to User X completely on-wiki — by using the appeals table to determine a username from the UTRS #. This is despite the fact that User X appealed through UTRS (rather than on their talk page) specifically because they didn’t want this to happen.

This isn’t just a hypothetical situation. There are several situations I’ve found where an editor’s IP address seems to have been inadvertently revealed on-wiki in this manner (hence my contact with Oversight prior to posting this publicly).

I don’t know what the solution is here. I’m posting it on-wiki because I’m hoping that members of the community might have an idea of what might be best.

All the best, user: A smart kitten meow  08:29, 29 September 2023 (UTC)


 * As only admins have access to UTRS and as sensitive information is/can be oversighted, there is no privacy issue. Users with names do not reveal their IP's. IP's are visible to CU's only. Indiscretions in UTRS tickets are oversighted. Admins need to know the status of UTRS tickets when evaluating requests for unblocking.  covered these considerations years ago. --  Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:12, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @Deepfriedokra: Forgive me if I’m getting confused, but (e.g.) if an IP address is unblocked with the logged reason, and the UTRS table contains a row that connects #63829 to User:Example2, then isn’t that effectively revealing an IP address of user Example2? I don’t mean to imply that things haven’t been properly considered, just wanted to share a concern that came to my mind. Sorry if how I wrote it lead it to come across as the former. Best, user: A smart kitten meow  18:32, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * If it's an IP an not a registered user, it is not a privacy violation. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:05, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The ticket you refer to was sent to the checkusers as a checkuser block. Don't see where that user was unblocked per that ticket. I see no connection yet to a registered user. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:07, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, there was no connection drawn between the IP, the ticket, or a registered user. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:10, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * And I cannot see unblocking a registered user and referring to a UTRS ticket for an IP. I would have no way of knowing of that connection. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:12, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * And I think I only post UTRS statuses for uncomplicated tickets w/o privacy concerns because of obvious reasons. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:16, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * And, for instance, I did not post to that talk page (for ) when I closed the ticket. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:18, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @Deepfriedokra So sorry, that was a random number I plucked out of my mind to use as an example. I can get an actual example if you want but that was just a random string of numbers for a hypothetical example. user: A smart kitten meow  19:22, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * You have a registered user that was unblocked with reference to a UTRS ticket for an IP? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:23, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the reason for posting (after emailing oversight) is because I’d found IPs that had been unblocked with references to UTRS numbers, where the UTRS table connected those numbers to registered users.
 * Is it okay if I email you the examples? I was deliberately vague in my original post here because, even though oversight’s been declined, I’d still feel uncomfortable referring directly to an IP-user combination onwiki.
 * Best, user: A smart kitten meow  19:26, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * That would be great. Ann the UTRS ticket numbers. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:48, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * So the next question is, shouldn't we oversight any ticket that connects a name with a number? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:08, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that was all very confusing for me. A link to the IP and the UTRS number would be all I need. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:18, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Two I saw, and could probably revdel. One, the link did not work -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:23, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Three revdel'd. The 72.78 does not work for me. Moving forward, this probably something we should not be doing. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:31, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Please don't I'm dyslexic, and, no. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:32, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Having said all that, at UTRS, we walk a fine line between transparency and not violating privacy. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:35, 30 September 2023 (UTC)


 * This is an interesting problem. There is a need for transparency of admin processes and a need for protecting privacy.  I really don't know the solution here except to get rid of 's table.  Which reduces some transparency but I'd rather do that then not provide a UTRS ticket # when unblocking accounts or IPs.--v/r - TP 04:32, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry this is the first chance I've had any sort of energy all this weekend, and I've been trying to get some dev work done before the week starts.
 * This really is one hell of use case. Essentially, someone would have to find a UTRS ticket for a user - which could be a needle in a haystack, then search through the unblocks for the UTRS number, where an admin unblocked an IP (which is a rarity with some new statistics I'm tracking), and make the correlation there - if it's not already a proxy and obfuscated. That's a lot of leg work, but it's still enough for an essential privacy breach.
 * I don't want to review (nor want to have the argument in my head) what UTRS should/shouldn't be through this, so I don't really have an option but to at least remove the appeal numbers. I could I guess put hashes so that it doesn't link back to a ticket number...but that would require even more dev work for little gain. That would leave the appeal user, the type of appeal, the status and the verification - and verification being anything but verified will be a thing of the past shortly. I don't think any of that reveals private data nor would require me to stop producing the table and nuke it. I do see a point in deleting what has been there though, so I'll go through and do that now. If there are other concerns we'll have to talk them through. -- Amanda (she/her)  05:21, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * For clarity, that is now ✅. -- Amanda (she/her)  05:34, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * They used Quarry searches. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:06, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Looks good. Thanks. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:09, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I don't use the table to navigate UTRS. I get all I need once I'm there. Thanks again. 😀 -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:11, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Something not quite right
I clicked on a link (here) to utrs-beta.wmflabs.org/appeal/80761, whereupon I was told


 * 403 Forbidden: Viewing enwiki appeals is restricted to users in the following groups: admin, staff, steward

I'm an admin here in en:WP. (Actually I was always under the impression that this did not let me see OTRS/VRT/UTRS stuff.) But:


 * Your user roles have not been loaded yet.

I tried again after a few minutes. But:


 * If your role [sic] have not loaded after a couple of minutes, please contact us.

It haven't, even though I waited more than a couple of minutes. (Not that I much mind; I'm just dutifully complying with the request to contact you, as a working system might help another user who, unlike me, needs to be able to read what's written.) -- Hoary (talk) 02:48, 6 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I logged in through OAuth yesterday and I got the same message which hasn't changed when I checked again just now. 0x Deadbeef →∞ (talk to me) 01:14, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * There's a way to manually recheck one's permissions. Try logging in, then clicking on your user name (top right), then ticking "Reload permissions from attached wikis", then click save. See if that fixes it.
 * This process really should be automatic or at least less hidden, so may be worth a bug report at https://github.com/utrs2/utrs/issues. – Novem Linguae (talk) 01:31, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I did try that yesterday, and I did it again after your comment. Still no permission. 0x Deadbeef →∞ (talk to me) 02:26, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Does it send you to meta.mediawiki.org to authenticate? Is your account there and here both linked to the same global account?--v/r - TP 04:59, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, the same global account. 0x Deadbeef →∞ (talk to me) 05:35, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and opened a ticket, to hopefully get a dev's attention. – Novem Linguae (talk) 06:27, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I had replied to the issue when it was initially created as a task. I may have fell asleep that night because it stopped again. I have restarted it again and am doing some research on ways to ensure this remains continuous, but the queue has been cleared for now. --  Amanda (she/her)  00:54, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * A system process which is set to auto restart 100% of the time was made. I'm hoping this finally puts this to rest. -- Amanda (she/her)  03:24, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

UTRS outage Dec 9
I've been getting "utrs-beta.wmflabs.org took too long to respond" all day. Kind of nice not to have to deal with the death threats, but I presume they'll pile up anyway. If this isn't the right place to report this, let me know where is. --Yamla (talk) 22:15, 9 December 2023 (UTC)


 * So far, I had no problems, and only a couple of death threats. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:59, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't know about all day, but I pushed an update in the last hour or two, and it's been up as I've had at least two others look at it not related to enwiki. I'm not sure if it's WM Cloud related. -- Amanda (she/her)  01:31, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, it's working for me once again. I can't rule out problems on my side, of course, but I'm not aware of changing anything here. Still, it's working, so whatever it was is fixed now. Thanks. --Yamla (talk) 12:05, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Ip block
please unblock my ip I don't no who is use my ip 154.192.18.14 (talk) 21:35, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Your IP address is not blocked and if it was, this wouldn't be the way to get it unblocked. See WP:UNBLOCK. --Yamla (talk) 22:35, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks
to all who help at UTRS. Please remember, appellants don't see the comments in the comment box that leave a comment in green. For the appellant to see your reply, you need to click the "reply to user box." Thnaks -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:19, 28 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Should probably add to the software clear explanations of which comments are seen by the appellant and which comments are private. I've been confused by this before. – Novem Linguae (talk) 16:03, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Maybe, "Comments private among reviewers." But first, you need to click "reserve". -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:12, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

UTRS appeal #82450
✅ -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:14, 28 January 2024 (UTC)}} Could someone action this item? I recuse. Thanks -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:19, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

CheckUser block template at UTRS
There is at least one template at UTRS, "Refer to ArbCom ~ CheckUser block", that contains now-outdated instructions per the bottom of the current ArbCom noticeboard revision. &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 20:29, 14 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I must confess to being confused. Do we no longer refer check user blocks to arbcom? &#45;- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:50, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Cause, the last I looked, the check user block notice said it's OK to send to ArbCom. &#45;- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:51, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * We passed a motion to restrict the circumstances under which we hear appeals of Checkuser blocks. It is expected that CU blocks are by default are appealed on-wiki (or UTRS); ArbCom would still consider appeals that are unsuitable for public discussion, for example, where there are compelling reasons to hear a private appeal, or in cases where CUs disagree about the technical findings. Maxim (talk) 21:00, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * is the UTRS checkuser-in-residence. &#45;- Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:11, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Now what of the oversight blocks? That UTRS reply template says to contact ArbCom. &#45;- Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:12, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * ArbCom will still handle OS blocks. Maxim (talk) 18:33, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks. &#45;- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:33, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pinging me. I'm aware of this change and happy to ensure UTRS gets CU attention. Did the UTRS template(s) get updated? --Yamla (talk) 15:05, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I wrote to email the check users. &#45;- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:34, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Huzzah! --Yamla (talk) 19:28, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Of course, as long as we have Yamla . . . . . &#45;- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:37, 22 February 2024 (UTC)