When trying to do a custom close on appeal #30385, I received the following error message:
Illuminate\Database\QueryException
SQLSTATE[22001]: String data, right truncated: 1406 Data too long for column 'custom' at row 1 (SQL: insert into `sendresponses` (`appealID`, `template`, `custom`) values (30385, 0, Your IP address has been blocked to prevent an abusive user from vandalizing our site which can affect innocent users. You will be able to edit while logged into an account. If you don't have one you can fill in the form at https://accounts.wmflabs.org/ and someone will create it for you so you can get online and edit.))
@Deepfriedokra: Judging by the source code raw HTML will be shown everywhere else than at the template management view. Technically speaking this should be easy to fix but I'll talk to Amanda first about security implications. –Majavah(t/c)11:38, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Is there a way I could see tickets marked as "privacy"? I promise to be discrete. Judging by talk page content, these (30470 & 30473) are straightforward requests I could answer. One is a partial block amenable to review in an on-wiki venue. The other is a SPAMU block. --Deep fried okraUser talk:Deepfriedokra11:02, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
So we just started doing user verification last night, meaning that all the appeals before then wouldn't have gotten the chance to verify. The bot definitely needs to start adding them to pages again, I'll file a bug for that. I don't see any reason why you can't put a notice. That's just information for the administrator incase someone comes and says "this is not me" or we need to be sure of who we are talking to. We may get more aggressive with enforcing verification in the future, but for now it's just a feature. -- Amanda(aka DQ)22:12, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Sorry if this is a stupid question, but have you checked your spam folder? Also pinging @DeltaQuad: as they have access to the server and can take a look at the logs. –Majavah(t/c)18:15, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
I don't see a user account for you. You say you have registered already? (Btw, I am the only developer with root access and Majavah is the only other developer, but they can't check into anything specific) I'll keep checking back here when I have time, but I won't have much time through the rest of the day today. -- Amanda(aka DQ)19:29, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Done@Deepfriedokra: Thanks for volunteering. I've enabled tool admin access for both sites. The old system won't have a direct link to templates (it's an active bug in the old system - we used to have it) you can find, so this is it. Please let me know if you encounter any issues. -- Amanda(aka DQ)07:29, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
@Deepfriedokra: The permissions system is still struggling...I've got a work-around in place for now, so try now for the templates. As for CheckUser, I don't want to play on any active appeals, so are you able to email the UTRS Devs email with a screenshot? or even paste the text here? -- Amanda(aka DQ)02:33, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
The other thing is a lot of people come to UTRS because it's (was, right now that's debatable) easier to work with than unblock templates. People are releasing their appeals to the public domain when they file them - so cross posting as long as there isn't privacy issues is not a problem. One of the big points of UTRS 2 (and it's original) was to stop forcing people to appeal onwiki. Sometime on the old version, it got started again, but i'm really hoping to avoid it here. -- Amanda(aka DQ)02:40, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing this out. I am wondering if the goal is for all unblock appeals to be handed at UTRS 2? 331dot (talk) 16:00, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Maybe it's just my autism showing, but I prefer the open-to-the-whole-community-ness of dealing with unblock requests on user talk pages. Making it a secret process available to scrutiny by only we happy few is contrary to the community aspect and community overwatch of everything we do. The whole block/block appeal process can be suborned by a clique answerable to no-one but themselves and therefore inevitably abused. Taking it out of the purview of the community at a time when admin abuse is a community concern is, well, concerning. The only way to have a minimum of community overwatch would be have all the WP:AN and WP:AN/I regulars signed on to examine unblock requests as they could do now if they so desired. It is not always pleasant when such a stakeholder user questions a block and an unblock discussion, but it keeps us on our toes. This toeness is largely lost if it all occurs sub rosa. This is why I believe unblock discussions that do not contain sensitive personally identifying information should occur on talk pages. --Deep fried okraUser talk:Deepfriedokra17:00, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Yeah that's probably a debate worth having (again) but there has definitely been sentiment expressed amongst the admin community for block appeals to be transparently on-wiki as much as possible, and while I was tooladmin it was also the preferred practice to refer to appeal on-wiki whenever there wasn't a privacy or technical reason why UTRS was acceptable. DQ referred higher to UTRS "slipping in that direction" in past years and I probably contributed to that trend. Making UTRS open to all admins freely via OAuth alleviated some transparency concerns but ever since the initial discussions about the shutdown of BASC and potential shutdown of UTRS there has been, IMO, a strong community consensus that appeals should be transparent and on-wiki whenever possible. If DQ disagrees and thinks UTRS can and should handle all appeals directly without referring to on-wiki, I'm sure she has a very reasonable and well-intended reason, she's smart and honest and has my complete trust, and that's why I'm saying it's absolutely worth discussing again (on an admin venue, not WT:UTRS). Ben · Salvidrim!✉18:38, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
I think that DQ's reasoning for this was to allow users to appeal their blocks without needing to use/learn wikitext syntax.[2] I think that it's worth noting that UTRS2 also allows non-admins to view (not comment) appeals unless they explicitly are marked as admin (or OS/privacy) only. OAuth support in UTRS2 is also in development. –Majavah(t/c)19:01, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Several excellent points! And as DQ pointed out the copyright license of UTRS appeals allows copypasting on-wiki so that might be another avenue to explore; UTRSBot used to leave a note of a user's appeal on their talkpage without specifying the content of the appeal, maybe now it will add it too (unless ticket is marked for privacy, as you mention). Ben · Salvidrim!✉19:47, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
UTRSBot not leaving messages is most definitely a missing feature and I thought we already had an issue for it. Created as #118. –Majavah(t/c)19:55, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Just wanna clarify that I didn't intend to sound critical in any way, just providing context for how we got where we are since DQ seemed to wonder above and I was part of that equation. I'm no longer admin nor UTRS tooladmin so I'm in no position to make any recommendations or comments on its future, except as a random member of the general community. :) Ben · Salvidrim!✉19:50, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
I think I'd like to get some formal clarification on this- as I state above, I agree that as many appeals as possible should be here on-wiki and I didn't really see the big issue with directing UTRS appellants here if possible. But if we are going to handle any appeals made on UTRS there, then it seems like duplication of services and there isn't much of a need for the on-wiki process. 331dot (talk) 15:55, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
I was just part of an unblock discussion that could not have occurred on UTRS. Issues were clarified and the user educated with his questions answered-- with input from non admins who knew the situation. I had another discussion that required I email the blocking admin. He did not respond in a timely manner, but I had already declined when he did. The entire UTRS process is awkward and not conducive to the timely discussions that occurred. Unless PII is involved or unless the user has lost TPA, the best format/venue remains on the talk pages of the appellants.. --Deep fried okraUser talk:Deepfriedokra16:05, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
For what little it's worth, I agree with DFO. Even apart from the arguments about transparency and oversight - which I'd argue are more than good enough on their own - having unblock requests on-wiki means that non-admins can see the blocking process from start to finish, which is important for a couple of reasons. Firstly, it means that other users who might be involved in any situation that led to the block are able to comment; secondly, it means that users can see unblock reqs and the reasons for their being accepted or declined even before becoming an admin, meaning that (hopefully) we end up with a conjunct of better-informed admins immediately following a successful RfA. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 16:22, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
I have always seen UTRS as the "appeals court" if you will to the unblock requests on Wiki. The process should stay here, and go to UTRS in cases where it CAN'T be held here (such as privacy reasons, or an account with talk page access removed, etc.) RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:29, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Unblock appeals should be kept transparent and on user talk pages as far as possible, using our well-established unblock appeals mechanism. UTRS appeals that can be heard in public and contain no sensitive/private information should be directed to talk pages as they have always been with the old UTRS system. We should have transparency, so that the community can review editors' records as far as possible (without having to join a new special group) and UTRS should only be for cases where that transparency is not possible (and that's why UTRS should not be open to everyone to view). Creating new special groups cornering off currently public functionality for themselves is in complete opposition to the ethos of transparency that has wide community support. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:21, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Did not know we had one. It may be best to hold off as once UTRS 1 is decommissioned, that link will need to be changed again to utrs.wmflabs.org instead of utrs-beta. -- Amanda(aka DQ)10:31, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
(copying this from an older post that ended up never being integrated into the project page itself) 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.
Pinging DeltaQuad as she is very involved with UTRS.
I just noticed this bug. I am not an admin. Can you consider giving an error message "You do not have permission to view appeals because you are not an admin or steward?" when a non-admin attempts to access the UTRS appeals list? Aasim11:19, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Please do only ping me once, thanks. This is not a bug. Maybe it could be enhanced to say this at more points through the system, but "Please note that only administrators are allowed to participate in this form." is clearly on the mainpage for now. Plus, as I have said before, this is not just a system for enwiki, and other wikis may have different requirements in the future, so I can't introduce a blanket message. The important thing is that they can't see any appeals or get access to them. -- Amanda(aka DQ)11:33, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
We have been working hard to get everything back to normal. OAuth is now live on our servers, and we are praying you have no issues using it and that we have no more login issues like we've had so far. Big thanks to @Majavah: for taking the lead and getting this going. Please do let us know if you have any issues. -- Amanda(aka DQ)14:46, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Sounds great, I had been keeping track of the pull request since Majavah made it, great work from the UTRS team. :) --qedk (t愛c)14:50, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
@DeltaQuad: thanks for the ping, I was able to log on with OAuth. Is there a general feedback/requests discussion open - ran in to some workflow oddities. (e.g. the highest priority one I've seen is "Can't see the list of pending appeals"). — xaosfluxTalk17:15, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
@Xaosflux: I asked Amanda about this on IRC, the tool can take upto 5 minutes (it took a bit more for me) to verify you, after that you might want to logout/login, that fixed the issue for me. --qedk (t愛c)17:28, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
@DeltaQuad: Do admins still need to sign up someplace to access UTRS even with the OAuth in place? I received a "Error 403: You are not an administrator on the wiki this appeal is for" error when I tried to access the system.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots17:20, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
@Ponyo and Xaosflux: No, you should receive the permissions automatically, however may take a couple of minutes (I'm working on making it more instant). Could you double-check if you still can't access any appeals? –Majavahtalk · edits17:58, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
@Majavah: It seems I have permissions, just nothing is on the page at this link, if I type in a specific person that has an open appeal it does load and I can work it (e.g. #30414). I've tried 2 different computers, with 2 different browsers each. — xaosfluxTalk18:38, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
We are at GitHub, and it might be better to track there, at least more live for us. I'm really banging my head off the wall on this one, but it's hard to look into because the permission values are right, it's just a matter of hunting the source. Your issue *may* be related to you editing on meta...still diving through it. -- Amanda(aka DQ)18:51, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
I just clicked on a utrs link and Hooray, it's back. But not for me, sigh. [4] says "Error 403: You are not an administrator on the wiki this appeal is for." Doug Wellertalk15:58, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
UTRS is in the process of moving over to UTRS 2.0 of the software. We needed to do this because several users were unable to file proper appeals due to IPv6 IP addresses not being accepted by our severs. Therefore, we made the decision to move over to a rudimentary beta software instead to allow everyone to appeal properly.
Please note:
In doing this, please understand that there will be bugs and issues. We will try our best to keep up with those issues. You can get assistance at the UTRS talkpage (preferably) or by placing "{{UTRS help me}}" on your talkpage.
New features are not being considered at this time. Though your idea may have already been thought of and be in development.
Administrators will need to create a new login to use UTRS 2.0. The only thing that needs to match is your Wikipedia username. You should receive a confirmation email to verify your account within 5 minutes. At this time, there is no plans for reintegrating OAuth for login (for multiple reasons).
Temporary tool administrator status can be requested on WT:UTRS, and will be granted liberally at this time to help create templates from the old version. All bans, user management, and other tool administration functions are only available via the database or automated scripts already running on the server at this time.
More information will be available in the days to come about the features of UTRS.
@DannyS712: Meta wiki has not approved the use of UTRS for it's unblock requests. The stewards have requested me to design one for global locks - and that's the consensus being acted on. Besides the old system you are trying to access no longer handling appeals, the meta login there was only for stewards and WMF Staff to be validated with their permissions. Meta admins will not gain access to handle global lock appeals (once implemented) or other appeals from other wikis. If you wish this for your wiki, you will need to pitch the idea to them and gain consensus first. -- Amanda(aka DQ)07:20, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
DeltaQuad, I like the added transparency of allowing other Wikipedians to see appeals. This is a good thing., Unfortunately UTRRS2 does not know I am an admin so I can't put in admin comments or take any actions. I presume I am missing something obvious? Guy (help!) 21:39, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
@JzG: I had to fix a script earlier because it broke which means you wouldn't have gotten permissions till about an hour ago if you had made your account in maybe the past few days. I see your permissions entry now, so try again and let me know. You can always send a screenshot to the developer email if you need to. -- Amanda(aka DQ)21:46, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
DeltaQuad I was a tool administrator on the old one. Just had to sign up to the new one. Not finding it that easy to understand therefore cannot see if I'm still tool administrator. If I'm not please can you add it? 5 albert square (talk) 12:08, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks DeltaQuad How do I tell if something is waiting tool administrator? All I see is a list of appeals nothing else.
Also, how do we respond to appeals? I hit "decline appeal" expecting templates to appear but instead the appeal disappeared? The next time I hit something else, then got template options but it didn't seem to close? I'm only seeing appeals, no checkuser queues etc. Used to see that on the old one? 5 albert square (talk) 01:38, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
@5 albert square: Anything that isn't just an open appeal will still appear in the same list. Eventually I will separate them out as a feature, but I've been staying on top of all such requests while UTRS gets going up, so there aren't any special ones right now. You can watch CAT:UNBLOCK if you are worried you are missing something.
So to reply to a user, 1) reserve the ticket 2) go down to the bottom and select send a reply to the user 3) send a template or custom message 4) then decline/accept the appeal (or don't if you are just communicating with them). -- Amanda(aka DQ)01:44, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
@DeltaQuad: Was received some time after I posted here saying that my account was created (an email from your bot account). I did not receive anything else prior etc. Thank you! TheSandDoctorTalk00:19, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Any feature requests/bugs
In general for everyone requesting features, bugs or enhancements are preferable to be requested on github as they will easily get lost here and then I have to spend extra time to transfer them over. If there are objections to using github for privacy reasons or something, I'm happy to transfer them over for you at that point. -- Amanda(aka DQ)11:33, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
@DeltaQuad: The github registration requires personal information that I'm not prepared to give, so I won't be using it. For those of us who do not wish to use it, should we report problems here and ping you instead? (For example, the problem I just reported below.) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:12, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
@Boing! said Zebedee and Deepfriedokra: I just registered for another account with my personal email, and sure, I had to click the home page to not include information it asked about if I was a student or my profession/coding background, but legitimately the only thing that was required was my email and I was able to draft up an issue. If you got to the page where it asked you that information, then you already have an account and you can go straight to here to file a new issue. -- Amanda(aka DQ)20:46, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
This is when a public figure uses their own name to make a wiki account, then they get blocked, then they get a message to send in their passport or ID to Wikipedia:Volunteer Response Team / OTRS for verification. This has been the practice for years. In my opinion, this has never been a good idea.
I wanted to check in here - do the admins at UTRS want to collect or evaluate people's passports, or have any part of this weird process? I presume the answer is no, but the infrastructure keeps requesting them. This unblock queue would be a natural place to do judge an account for an identity unblock, if it has to happen, because the VRT does not do unblocks and this team does.
@TParis and Boing! said Zebedee: If there were a community discussion about whether volunteers with OTRS rights should do this, do you think that you could rally opposition? I would like to end the current system for managing this and either do without or shift to non-WMF paid professionals somehow.
Also, I am not keen on WMF staff doing this. I wish that somewhere in the world, a Wikimedia community organization could do this, assuming that it needs to be done. If we ceased the current volunteer management, I also do not want this to result in WMF hiring multiple paid staffers to do OTRS and similar, which I think is a likely direction.
Do either of you have advice on where to take this? Is status quo tolerable, and is increased volunteer organization in anyone's vision of the future? Blue Rasberry (talk)12:26, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
I don't have any strong feeling either way about the current OTRS system - I've never examined it, so I have no idea whether it's good or bad. I'm just strongly opposed to identity verification becoming a part of the unblock request system itself. In my view, it should be a completely separate process, whoever does it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:10, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Oh, and I've no idea if OTRS really uses something as crude as wanting to see a passport. Do a Google search for "celebrity passport" and see how many you could fake. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:13, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
A passport image would only prove that the person possesses the passport, not that they are the person depicted in it. It is also risky from an identity theft standpoint. 331dot (talk) 12:40, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Absolutely not. This is and should remain a WMF function. Not within the province of ordinary editing at all. Asking for information I do not want access to. Not within the admin remit. --Deepfriedokra(talk)15:35, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
RfC - Figure out what to do with UTRS
In the sections above, there have been several admins citing that all appeals that can be onwiki, need to remain onwiki. Therefore, given the multitude, I'd like to put this to a formal RfC. -- Amanda(aka DQ)17:30, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
If we are going to hold only private appeals on UTRS - then I will need to seriously rethink the method in which UTRS is coded. Am I the only one seeing this be limited to only {{checkuserblock}}s & {{oversightblock}}s which means only functionaries should have access to it? If that's the case, UTRS might as well kick the can and we go back to email because getting functionaries on yet another interface is impossible and appeals would only rot there.
Giving up UTRS for appeals with only private information means less users will request unblock - Right now, 91 appeals are currently open between onwiki and UTRS. 50 of them come from UTRS. People who would have given up trying to deal with wikisyntax would no longer have a chance to appeal. Speak of WP:BITE. This is an all time high that I haven't seen before UTRS 2. This is therefore not process duplication. It may be on the admin side, but not for the appellant. It's a (more) accessible - not completely accessible - method for those with vision or other health issues.
All appeals, unless they have private information, are public to users through UTRS 2 - If people are worried about the 500 edits part and want all users to be commenting. I suppose we could even make it so that IPs that are not blocked onwiki could comment - though I won't put additional manhours or development time into preventing abuse to the system, it would be based on onwiki blocks only. This would address any concerns around secrecy and admin abuse.
Only 26 of 319 appeals (<8%) have been hidden from the public. Several of them were just abuses/spamming of the UTRS system and got removed for that reason.
If UTRS is too awkward to use, lets fix it This is not a "this is how UTRS is and deal with" it world. "input from non admins who knew the situation" and "discussion that required I email the blocking admin. He did not respond in a timely manner, but I had already declined when he did" - Both of these are already possible to deal with. Non-admins can comment on appeals (if they can't, something is broken), and we have a "Re-open" button after the appeal is closed.
We are in the process of re-enabling usertalk notification of unblocks - This is something I have been asked to be really careful how I handle because of the abuse we saw with UTRS 1 where users would get people who would appeal blocks that didn't exist for admins or people would take another blocked user and say "go fuck yourselves" to admins in the appeal, which would make the blocked user look bad, though they didn't even say it. For this reason, I have been working on core UTRS issues first, like getting user account verification before appeals proceed (we just got the ability to verify them, next is enforcing that requirement.
Allow UTRS to handle any block that comes it's way.
The functionality should remain just the same as the old system. So all blocked users should be allowed to appeal via UTRS, and in cases where the appeal can be heard at their talk page the UTRS appeal should be rejected and it should be directed there. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:34, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Oppose per my previous comments. I also think that it's not harmful for an appellant to learn how to use the syntax, it demonstrates their good faith on a certain level. 331dot (talk) 14:33, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
TBH, I think they can use the unblock request in the block notice w/o learning Wikimarkup. They just need to copy the highlighted text and add it to the bottom of the talk page, filling in the reason as they do. A better solution might be to have a button to click that posts the request for them, with spaces to fill in before they save or complete the post. --Deep fried okraUser talk:Deepfriedokra14:38, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Support UTRS should be allowed to handle all requests it receives, but should be encouraged to direct those enquiries that can be handled on-wiki there. This seems to best allow the consideration of individual circumstances, including situations where it isn't immediately clear whether relevant information is or isn't private, etc. Thryduulf (talk) 15:45, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Support Email can be more straightforward than talk pages for inexperienced editors. I am aware this comes with issues (2 parallel venues), but I feel that we shouldn't have to ask people to jump through hoops when a case is confusing to the user (rangeblocks for example). However, using the talk page should be encouraged and UTRS responders should probably refrain from handling contentious cases that need more wiki eyeballs. -- Luktalk13:28, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Minimise but permit I'm going to go for a similar view to Thryduulf, but perhaps with a stronger "unless a UTRS agent thinks there's good reason to keep with UTRS, send to on-wiki". That's deliberately vague, because the reasons vary, as does the strength of reasoning. For example, I'm happy for editors with no idea how to handle wikitext to send the most complicated cases through by email, just to be able to effectively make their case. But simpler cases should be sent back, as just preferring email wouldn't be a good enough reason. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:51, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Remove public appeals from UTRS
Remove the ability for users to appeal unless they have a block that requires private information (Example: {{checkuserblock}} & {{oversightblock}})
No, see above. There can be many reasons someone might need privacy (or want privacy, even if it's not actually needed by policy), and its not possible to know all the possible reasons in advance and automate access this way. Thus, even if there's no apparent technical reason why a public appeal is appropriate, a blocked user should still be allowed to make a UTRS appeal. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:32, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Violent oppose. I have twice been caught up in sitewide blocks by stewards, unable to edit anywhere I could find in any language WP, because there was an idiot vandal on my IP (I live in an apartment block, it could have been anyone). (I've since heard that there may be a couple of places I could have tried, but I don't know them.) The first steward's email was closed. It took about 8 hours (time differences) and intervention by at least two WP:ADMINs before I could edit again. The second steward never replied. An UTRS request got the block lifted within about an hour, which is all I could have asked for. I'd only made just over 100,000 edits at the time, and didn't even know about UTRS until after the first block. Fortunately, I know a very experienced admin; and although they had difficulty in raising that first block, they persevered. Narky Blert (talk) 15:16, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Oppose - certain unblock requests/appeals really struggle to not go through UTRS, even discounting TPA-block but public cases. Very complex cases are far easier for non-experienced editors to lay out in email form. Absolute prohibitions are not the way to go Nosebagbear (talk) 09:46, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Revoke consensus to have UTRS
Revoke the existing consensus and remove UTRS approval
I'm not sure what "the existing consensus" means here, but if it means the consensus behind current unblock policy then no, we should not revoke it (and can't do here anyway, as that would need a full community discussion at an appropriate place). What we need is a UTRS system that is compatible with the current consensus-based unblock policy. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:36, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Oppose Again. UTRS is an essential avenue for PII and for those w/o TPA. For those unblock requests that do not include PII and for appellants with TPA, requests should be on user talk pages. --Deep fried okraUser talk:Deepfriedokra18:04, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Well, actually, quite a few CheckUser appeals did go to the old UTRS, which had checkuser functionality in it which restricts visibility of the results to those with access. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:38, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Oppose I wasn't aware anyone felt that UTRS wasn't needed in some form. Even if we adopted the most minimal approach, there would still be cases needing UTRS. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:47, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Reproduce existing functionality and usage
Make the new UTRS satisfy the same requirements and provide the same functionality as the old one, just with the bugs and security holes fixed (and any coding/maintenance issues addressed). Retain the same levels of access for the same categories of editors, and treat privacy/transparency in exactly the same way.
Support making usage as before. UTRS for those lacking talk page access and those whose requests containing personally identifiable information. Redirect requests from users with TPA to user talk pages for community perusal. --Deep fried okraUser talk:Deepfriedokra18:20, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Support making it as it was. UTRS for those without TPA, and sensitive information, with those with TPA directed to their talk page. 331dot (talk) 19:23, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Support Blocked accounts can make appeals via UTRS and any appeals where a) the editor still has talk page access and/or b) no private information is involved are sent a response directing them to make an appeal on their talk page for transparency reasons. As before, only admins should have access to review appeals at UTRS.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots19:47, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Support – Strongly agreeing with Ponyo, DFO, Boing, 331dot's comments throughout this page: all blocked users are able to file a UTRS appeal, and appeals should be deflected to the transparent on-wiki process whenever possible (i.e. when there are no reasons for the appeal not to be on-wki, such a privacy/sensitive/PII, removed TPA, etc.); UTRS appeals should be visible to admins (and an option for more restricted viewing for CU/OS/WMF stuff as we had before); I'd favour the "all admins have access" we had with OAuth rather than the previous "admins must create a UTRS account" that we used to have and seem to have gone back to with UTRS2. (Former admin—UTRStooladmin comment) Ben · Salvidrim!✉23:08, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Support Some of the previous comments in UTRS were intended for other admins and contained BEANS info related to socks. The info should remain for admin eyes only. Agree with others above. — Berean Hunter(talk)17:15, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Support - Salvidrim's reasoning generally seems spot on. I would note, that I've seen a couple of very complicated unblock requests that made more sense to go to UTRS, but for general rules, those are correct. In terms of oauth, security etc, yep, as above. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:07, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Support - To my mind, blocks should always be appealed publicly on-wiki unless that is not possible. The two primary instances in which it is not possible are that private information is involved, or that talkpage access has been revoked. UTRS has, for years, provided an excellent medium in which to handle exactly those sorts of appeals; while the work put into UTRS2 is no doubt considerable and is much appreciated, I'm just not sure that any different functionality was ever actually needed. Yunshui雲水
Support broadly per Yunshui, but I would allow for the possibility of other situations too, e.g. a user who needs guidance, for the avoidance of drama, or for things that may be sensitive without being necessarily private. Thryduulf (talk) 15:41, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Support, UTRS should be for either those whose unblock request will contain private or sensitive information, or those who have had talk page access revoked. Otherwise, appeals should be made publicly on the editor's talk page. If an editor indicates they don't know how to do that, the UTRS volunteer responding should assist them in doing so, but appeals should be public by default, being done privately only when there's a clear reason for that. Editors who appeal via UTRS but who have no private information and still have talk page access should be directed to make a talk page appeal. SeraphimbladeTalk to me21:27, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
I don't think anyone has ever suggested this, and adding this could make it look like I want this...please be clear I'm not advocating for this at all. -- Amanda(aka DQ)19:05, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Strong oppose. I may be the only person here who has practical experience of both {{unblock}} and UTRS from the wrong end. The very first time I was caught up in a rangeblock, it took me an hour or so to find {{unblock}}; but once I had found it, I was back editing within minutes. Compare the character-building experiences I described at #Remove public appeals from UTRS, where I never knew about UTRS until I was told. Narky Blert (talk) 15:27, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
The overriding feeling I get from all of this is that the new UTRS system was coded first, and only now is anyone actually thinking about the requirements. That is absolutely, 100%, the wrong way round, and you don't need to be a software professional (which I am) to know that. There were clearly technical problems with the old UTRS system (the obvious one being that IPv6 users can't use it), but its functionality functional use was just about right. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:41, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
I'll just add, yes, the lack of secure access and the ease of faking UTRS requests was a big flaw in the old system, one which was badly abused. I welcome a remedy for that. 17:43, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
One last comment before I stop ranting (for now, anyway)... The UTRS should not be a system where everyone can see and help with appeals. And it should not be a functionaries-only system. Just like now, it should be a system for admins and functionaries. The entire admin body should be what now seems to have been usurped by the privacy team. I've no idea how it's designed, but there should be two interfaces. One is the user interface for blocked users to make appeals. The other is the admin interface, where admins manage those appeals. Just like the old one. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:56, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
The old system didn't just have bug issues, it had coding issues - which I guess you can just blame on us, and our not being professional software developers - that made it very difficult to maintain. The new system was built to address the difficulty of maintaining it, and to be more accessible. Added bonuses were proper handling of user verification. I don't see how no one thought about the requirements especially since we've been sitting on this for over 3 years now and it's finally done. -- Amanda(aka DQ)18:18, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Sure, by bug issues I meant to include coding issues, maintainability too - apologies for that omission. If the requirements have been thought of and properly addressed, where's the community consensus for the functional changes that have been made? Who decided on the functional requirements? I had no idea this has been in the pipeline for three years, so where's the communication with those who have the authority to decide on consensus, the community? With those who have been using UTRS and best know how it's used, the admins? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:27, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
I didn't know I needed an RfC to change the base platform we were coding on, to improve accessibility, implement IPv6 appeals and to implement a fix that had several users not to happy in my mailbox about security - that just seems like normal bugs to me. If we needed an RfC about how to to handle unblock requests and user talkpages, that should have been done back when people started changing how appeals were processed based on their interpretation of the community environment. I didn't pick up on this (or remember it) until we had the new system because I didn't regularly review UTRS requests. I try and maintain my distance because I coded the platform and would be executing my own bias of what I think the platform should be. -- Amanda(aka DQ)18:50, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
I did't say you needed an RfC "to change the base platform we were coding on, to improve accessibility (you changed accessibility, and we are debating whether it's an improvement), implement IPv6 appeals and to implement a fix that had several users not to happy in my mailbox about security", I said you should have gained a consensus for the additional functional changes - like giving everybody access, introducing a privacy team... I'm sorry if I'm being hard on you, because I really don't mean to be. But when you say "I try and maintain my distance because I coded the platform and would be executing my own bias of what I think the platform should be", that's exactly why you should have made its usage work the same way as the old one, engaged in consultation to discover current usage, and sought consensus before changing the functionality. And even if you didn't know of any changes in the community environment, you still did create a functionally different UTRS - and that *is* doing it your own way instead of the community's consensus way. Part of my frustration is that I am experienced in using UTRS, and I'm a software professional, and I would have been very willing to help with discussion on the new version - but those of us experienced in using it didn't get the chance. Anyway, I'm going to be busy for a while, so sorry if I can't engage further for now. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:04, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Fair on the everybody access point...that could have used some more consensus but I feel that more transparency is already what everyone was asking for above...so I was making it more transparent. Either way, definitely could have used a consultation at least. Mistake learned there. Other than that...I guess I don't see this as if it were a rewrite of the original mandate. Maybe that's tunnel vision on my part. -- Amanda(aka DQ)19:12, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
OK, that's cool, thanks. So are you open to the possibility of making the new UTRS an admin-only system? (Perhaps by only approving account requests from admins, and closing all others already requested?) It's always been that way, at least as long as I've used it, and there's no need for it to be anything else - it's supposed to be for appeals that, for one reason or another, can't be made in public. Producing a parallel public unblock appeal system doesn't make any sense to me, and it necessitates adding a new "privacy team" to now do what previously all admins could do. Admins do not need uninvited help from anyone else at UTRS (and can request help elsewhere if needed), and users sumbitting unblock appeals should be able to be confident that those appeals will not be seen by all and sundry - there should not be a new team deciding to display their requests to the world when they thought they'd be kept private. Are you willing to lose the privacy team and revert to all admins fulfilling that function? It would remove a new bottlneck, would expand transparency among admins, and would provide appealing users with the level of privacy that they choose. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:45, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Please note that we may (I haven't spoken with them since I did this revert to the old standards) lose a developer because I just had to revoke all their access as they are not an administrator - so they are running around with no access to the tool and can only test locally. If they depart - OAuth will go back to indefinitely delayed until I can bang my head off a wall for a few days and pray that I figure it out. They put a good amount of time into it, and they know way more than I do on the platform. I suppose it's my fault for taking on a non-admin as a developer (not with any additional access) for UTRS without asking for the community blessing. It has been extremely difficult to pickup developers, I got lucky with this one, so just be ready for more errors and my crappy program to screw more stuff up with UTRS.
I have added a notice to the appeal page noting that they will be redirected if their appeal doesn't contain any private information. I hope this doesn't result in many wiki users wasting their time appealing and then get frustrated when we told them to go there and they get kicked back and leave. An effort onwiki should be made to clean up any areas that send users to UTRS for regular blocks, so this can be avoided as much as possible.
I disagree fundamentally on some of your assertions, but in the interest of not being a dick, I've reverted back to the old system and won't argue it out and let the RfC do it's job.
I really don't see any problem with developers being allowed access to the new UTRS, as they clearly have a need. If it needs a consensus, I'm fairly sure we could get one quickly here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:47, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Just one thing about the changed user interface (and thanks for your efforts so far). It's missing a lot of the things it used to have, which I found very useful (I don't know about anyone else). Of particular value was seeing the queue of appeals waiting on me for action, and also the list of the last five closed requests. Are there any plans to reintroduce the funtionality in the main view that has been omitted so far? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:36, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
A suggestion: perhaps UTRS tickets could have a "contains PII" vs "doesn't contain PII" option, and then if the ticket doesn't contain PII, it is posted onwiki at the user's talk page? Or, equally, a link to UTRS is posted on the user's talk page, but tickets that are marked as not containing PII are public. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 17:53, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
No, it should not be automatically posted at the user page when the user is expecting privacy (even if privacy is not warranted). If it's not sufficiently private, they should be told so by email and then they should make the choice of posting it public themselves. And no UTRS tickets should be "public" - they should all be admin only. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:56, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Fair point about the expectation of privacy. To be honest, I'm not wholly clear on why this conversation is happening in the first instance - it seems like the current setup is perfectly reasonable, apart from the small matter of UTRS itself being temp-broken (!) Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 18:11, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
The conversation is happening because someone produced a new UTRS system with very different functionality, without first getting a consensus for its functional requirements. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:21, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
None of the above choices are adequate. In the past, if someone with talk page access requested unblock on UTRS, we redirected them to their talk page where the request would be fully visible to the community. UTRS provided a suitable avenue for those lacking talk page access and those whose request contained personally identifiable information. As I said at above, "I was just part of an unblock discussion that could not have occurred on UTRS. Issues were clarified and the user educated with his questions answered-- with input from non admins who knew the situation. I had another discussion that required I email the blocking admin. He did not respond in a timely manner, but I had already declined when he did. The entire UTRS process is awkward and not conducive to the timely discussions that occurred. Unless PII is involved or unless the user has lost TPA, the best format/venue remains on the talk pages of the appellants. " --Deep fried okraUser talk:Deepfriedokra17:58, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Deepfriedokra, yes. The default should be the most transparent venue, with the most potential eyes on review, consistent with the specifics of the appeal. Guy (help!) 21:00, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
That suggestion is off-topic, and is not my suggestion. I'm not asking to hide everything behind a wall where as people have stated above people can abuse the tools, not have fresh community eyes or nothing. The RfC is on the privacy bit and how that affects user talkpage appealing. -- Amanda(aka DQ)19:17, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
For transparency admins should left a public summary at user talk page of blocked users if possible ([5] does not indicate whether the user is going to the wrong venue, or the unblock is declined in other reason). Ideally if there is no private issue, other than the request itself any discussion or review should go to the user talk page. By the way the on-wiki unblock process should be improved - {{Decline stale}} is not really a good thing.--GZWDer (talk) 19:49, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Proposal for developer access
From the above discussion it seems that some developers will lose access now that UTRS has been reverted to admin only. I think there's a good argument that developers have a need for access, so I propose that developers be granted access on the condition that they observe the privacy of those appealing blocks.
Support I'm absolutely fine with non-admin developpers as long as they satisfy requirements for access to non-public information (meta:ANPIP/N) and don't actually respond to appeals. As I understand it the "best practices" is to work on a beta/dev version over Github (where people can be added to a repo regardless of enwiki userrights) and the beta/dev version would not actively receive appeals beyond tests anyways. Ben · Salvidrim!✉14:04, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Support, on the understanding that developers are not to handle appeals (preferably not even reading them). This is an obvious need, but Salvidrim makes a good point that the should meet the ANPIP requirements first. SpinningSpark15:27, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Oppose We've always had a beta site for developers. We can create a front/back end logging system to pipe production errors to the developers list. But there are better options than developers that are not sysops having access to private data.--v/r - TP13:00, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Query/Conditional support@DeltaQuad: - has this developer signed the Access to nonpublic personal data policy confidentiality agreement? If not, would they be able to do so? If so, then I'm absolutely in favour of adding them. Obviously they wouldn't actually handle appeals (excepting any test appeal that they submit themselves). If not, then I'd be more reticent. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:57, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Access problem
I have just re-registered for a UTRS account as my old one had apparently been lost, and now I get "The appeal you are trying to access is currently being reviewed by the privacy team. You do not have sufficient permissions to view it" for every appeal I try to view (together with a huge flashing Stop sign that really doesn't need to be five inches in diameter, and does not beed to be flashing (which could be dangerous to people with epilepsy)). I thought full access had been restored to all admins, with no privacy team being needed? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:48, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
This definitely sounds like a bug (and I have a vague idea what is causing it, but that's a guess as I don't have access to the live system currently). Apologies. –Majavahtalk · edits13:56, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
I sent a user to UTRS and removed their TPA and email when they declined to use it(though they have subsequently used it) Should I restore at least their TPA for now? 331dot (talk) 14:56, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
@Deepfriedokra: I'm not seeing any errors related to this, so I'll send you a temporary password. We are fastly moving towards OAuth, so password reset won't be need after long. -- Amanda(aka DQ)19:37, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
"Tool admin" button doesn't work
At UTRS #30847, if I hit the "Tool admin" button I get the error "Oops. This page was not found. If an internal link lead you here, please report this at https://github.com/utrs2/utrs/issues". To report it at that github page I first have to register an account, and the registration process requires personal information that I am not prepared to give. So can anyone watching here help please? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:09, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
There is an ongoing discussion about changing how UTRS handles large rangeblocks and looking to reduce the burden it puts on admins, tool admins and developers. The discussion is on GitHub and this is an opportunity to provide feedback on a potential feature. Direct ping @Boing! said Zebedee and Deepfriedokra: as requested. -- Amanda(aka DQ)20:29, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
