Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Unblock Ticket Request System: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
m Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Wikipedia talk:Unblock Ticket Request System/Archive 1) (bot
Alanthehat (talk | contribs)
Line 64: Line 64:
:#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.
:#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.
:#This specific rangeblock, [[Special:Block/94.197.0.0/16|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 {{u|Mike V}}, the latest blocking admin, with regards to the rangeblock. <span style="font-size:10pt;color:white;background:black;padding:0 3px;"><big>☺</big>&nbsp;·&nbsp;[[User:Salvidrim!|<span class="smallcaps" style="font-variant:small-caps;"><span style="color:white">Salvidrim!</span></span>]]&nbsp;·&nbsp;[[User talk:Salvidrim|<span style="color:white">&#9993;</span>]]</span> 02:01, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
:#This specific rangeblock, [[Special:Block/94.197.0.0/16|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 {{u|Mike V}}, the latest blocking admin, with regards to the rangeblock. <span style="font-size:10pt;color:white;background:black;padding:0 3px;"><big>☺</big>&nbsp;·&nbsp;[[User:Salvidrim!|<span class="smallcaps" style="font-variant:small-caps;"><span style="color:white">Salvidrim!</span></span>]]&nbsp;·&nbsp;[[User talk:Salvidrim|<span style="color:white">&#9993;</span>]]</span> 02:01, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
thank you for redirecting the bug report. <br>
I was reporting for non-logged-in users, I have only logged in so that I can bypass the block to report here<br>
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<br> [[User:Alanthehat|Alanthehat]] ([[User talk:Alanthehat|talk]]) 05:37, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 05:38, 4 November 2015

This is not the page to request an unblock on Wikipedia.
This page is for discussion of the Unblock Ticket Request System page and its process.
Please go back to the request an unblock page to read how to request an unblock.
This page is automatically archived by MiszaBot II. Any sections without comment in at least 18 days will be moved to the archive.

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

@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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

  • 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 out 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)[reply]

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)[reply]