Wikipedia talk:Guide to appealing blocks/Archive 1

Archive 1

Comment

This page seems to suffer from a lack of brevity. Perhaps it could be shortened in certain places? And perhaps add a picture or two? It's very bland at the moment. : - ) --MZMcBride (talk) 22:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Removed "Good examples" section

I've removed this section. We are causing ourselves big trouble if blocked users are directed here before making unblock requests and are told exactly what to say in order to get unblocked. I've seen at least two, probably more, examples of users cut and pasting "good example" requests as actual unblock requests. Mangojuice^talk 17:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I've seen these too. They're easily recognised as bogus and can be declined. Copy-paste unblock requests are a good sign that the blocked user has understood nothing at all. I've re-added them with a warning to this effect. What do you think?  Sandstein  21:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I really think they need to go. I think it encourages users to skip the rest of this useful guide and just emulate the "good examples" as quickly as possible so as to return to editing. And a warning not to copy them is probably even worse... WP:BEANS. Frankly, I'm not so sure I approve of this page in general -- understanding how to get unblocked is like gaming the system. Users ought to work on understanding Wikipedia instead. But at the very least we can stop shooting ourselves in the foot by including these examples. Mangojuice^talk 04:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I added them in odrer to give users a feeling for what we expect of them. Blatant copy-pastes are easily identified and ignored, are they not? But if people here feel that's still to much of a risk of abuse, I'll agree to deleting them.  Sandstein  07:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

First, no, not that easily. I am sure I responded normally to cut and paste copies of the 3RR request a couple times before I realized the wording was familiar. Now I know, but there's no reason to think that every admin who handles unblock requests will keep up with any "good examples" on this page, so as to recognize them. Second, even when you recognize this, it puts you in an awkward spot, because the request *is* a good request, you're just not sure that the user really means what they're saying. What if the user doesn't straight cut & paste, but adds some text to the request? And, more importantly, what if such a request is denied because of the cut & paste -- how can the user ever make a believable request after that? Mangojuice^talk 13:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I see what you mean, and have removed the examples.  Sandstein  15:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I feared this would happen when this page was first written and then added to the blocked text. I think directions for writing an unblock request versus actual text is the best option. That is, "be polite; no shouting; etc." instead "I'm very sorry for disrupting Wikipedia...." --MZMcBride (talk) 22:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree with removing the boilerplate examples, and I've seen them C&P'd as well. –xeno (talk) 15:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I never saw them cut and pasted, but I thought they were a bad idea even if they never were. First, the text above should have been enough. Second, exactly what to say when blocked depends on the user, the admin and the situation. There's no right group of words to say. I support removing them. Daniel Case (talk) 03:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

Never done this before, but this is a collective barnstar for all the substantial contributors (and the gnomes for that matter) to this very good, very useful, very patient and supremely well-written guide. Personally, I think it should go from "essay" to "guideline". Thanks all. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 19:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I got somethinng new

Why don't you put this? this may be a good one:

UNBLOCK ME NOW! I AM INNOCENT. IF YOU DO NOT, I WILL HACK INTO WIKIPEDIA AND BAN IT! Do I make myself CLEAR?! You have NO RIGHTS TO BLOCK ME! EVEN IF YOU ARE ADMIN! I'll BAN YOU BACK!

Negabandit86 (talk) 00:45, 25 October 2008 (UTC) A good one, right?

Well, no. We don't have to include every random craziness. I've never seen something this idiotic.  Sandstein  06:46, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Is this self-contradictory?

Where the page explains about unblock requests appearing on CAT:Requests for unblock it says:

By custom, the blocking administrator does not make a decision on your unblock request (unless they are lifting the block), although he or she may post a note for other admins doing the review.

So the blocking administrator "doesn't make a decision" on the unblock request unless they lift the block (which means they've made a decision). I'm not sure what this means. Tonywalton ^Talk 00:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, it would be more precise just to say that the blocking admin, being involved, does not decline unblock requests.  Sandstein  06:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

That makes more sense. Tonywalton ^Talk 17:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't do it again

I think this edit is a very good addition. Chillum 14:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, looks good. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

BLP?

Would it be appropriate to add something specific about BLP in to the page? It seems like we've got specific instructions for every other major transgression. Jclemens (talk) 06:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

unblock-en-l

Why is there no mention of [email protected]? If the user's talk page is protected, that's the only choice they have. Would anyone object if I add something here? It's not mentioned in WP:APPEAL either. EdJohnston (talk) 23:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

That's weird. No objections here. –xeno^talk 00:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

How about this: Append a new sentence to the following:

To make an unblock request, copy the following text to the bottom of your user talk page: {{unblock|1=Insert your reason to be unblocked here}}. Don't forget to insert your own reason. We will discuss its composition below.

The additional sentence would say: If you find that you cannot edit your talk page, mail your unblock request to [email protected]. I think a similar change is needed later, where we advise that certain things should be taken to Arbcom, but we don't mention arbcom-l. EdJohnston (talk) 04:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Ugh

WP:NICETRY used to link to the "bad" unblock requests ... that section has now been collapsed, and NICETRY links to an unrelated place. Anyone else finding this a bit of a mess now when declining unblocks? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:33, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Threaten vs. threaten with

Threaten is the transitive verb form, and threatened with is the intransitive verb form. Switching from the former to the latter is less concise and doesn't change the meaning. Adding the plural in parentheses also is less concise and doesn't change the meaning, because, in the relevant definition of the word, action can be the plural of action. --Bsherr (talk) 18:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry blocks and WP:DUCK test

The page says that "an account that makes the same edits as a different blocked account, has the same linguistic peculiarities and the same general interests may remain blocked under the "quacks like a duck" test." I'm somewhat concerned that "the same linguistic peculiarities" could seem to be shared by different people who are from the same (non-English-speaking) country or region — this might or might not be a reliable test of whether two editors are one and the same. Similarly (though perhaps less so), different people from a given country or region might share common interests on a subject of intense interest within the group involved. I'm not suggesting that the "duck" test is unreliable, but when attempting to apply it to non-native speakers of English, it may not be as clear-cut as some might think. Comments? Richwales (talk · contribs) 04:50, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Error on the page

The page is protected and I cannot edit it. However, after the first bullet-point list: "Explainning your reason for requesting unblocking also matters because"
Explaining is spelled incorrectly and should be fixed. Jax-Kenobi (talk) 19:02, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Reworded the entire clause. NW (Talk) 14:06, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Shared IP blocks/Range blocks instruction incorrect

...the best solution for Wikipedia and users alike is to simply create a registered account and edit with it.

Doesn't seem like it's working for me. I have this account created long ago (and can edit with it using some other IP), but even after loggin in, I still cannot edit if I connect via my personal VPS's SSH tunnel (which unfortunately landed in some blocked IP range). Either we need to correct this information on the page, or we need to correct the way IP-range-blocking works?--Jimreynold2nd (talk) 23:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

The instructions are still good. Yes, there may be other reasons such as rangeblocks, and some editors may require WP:IPBE, but the phrasing itself is 100% correct (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 01:06, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Added a bit on "donation bribes"

I just added a bit to the guide instructing blockees not to offer to make a donation to the WMF as part of their unblock request: [1]. I've noticed a definite trend in these sort of appeals lately and quite frankly the blatant attempts at bribery annoy me, and really make me disinclined to unblock even if the rest of the appeal is good (although in most of these cases it usually isn't). This isn't intended as a "don't donate to the Foundation" instruction, but simply "don't bother trying to bribe us because we ain't getting the check." Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 16:49, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Adoption of new unblock appeals tool

{{rfc|policy|prop|rfcid=2F3113A}}

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the discussion.

---

Should the unblock-en-l mailing list (mailing list info page) be replaced with the new Unblock Ticket Request System tool as the first/second step in the block appeals process? Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:05, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Background

As matters currently stand, there is a de facto process when requesting unblocking. The typical first step for a blocked user is to appeal their block on their talk page, using {{unblock}} or one of the related templates. Administrators can review these blocks by going to Category:Requests for unblock and reading the appeals; other users are also free to comment on them as well.

Should that fail, the typical next line of appeal is an off-wiki venue. Currently, the unblock-en-llists.wikimedia.org and #wikipedia-en-unblock ^connect IRC channel on the freenode network serve these purposes. In the case of the mailing list - the focus of this RFC - users can send an email, explaining their block, and administrators subscribed to the list will reply, asking for more information as needed, and eventually accepting or declining the block. The mailing list is not intended to serve as the first step in the process, yet many users do seem to use it as a first choice, or will send an email and post an unblock appeal on their talk page simultaneously.

The only truly officially documented step in the process is the last one, an appeal to the Ban Appeals Subcommittee via an email to the Arbitration Committee. This is regarded as the "court of last resort" in unblock appeals, as the BASC will refuse to hear appeals that have not already been heard at a lower level, nor those pertaining to blocks of less than a few weeks.

Neither the first step (talk page appeal) nor third (BASC) are the subject of this discussion; they're only mentioned here for context. The issue is at hand is the mailing list, and a proposed replacement for it. Presently there are a number of issues with the mailing list:

1. Activity - For any given week, there's usually only one or two administrators doing any work handling requests sent to the list. As a result, there is a large potential for these requests to "fall through the cracks" and receive no response. While this has improved in recent months due to the actions of a few administrators to raise awareness of the list, there remain no safeguards to prevent this from happening.
2. Private data - Most blocks, due to the nature of the Mediawiki software, must in some way involve private identifying information. Unless an account is blocked directly, administrators need to know the blocked IP address or range in order to review the block and take any action. Obviously, this information is connected with an email address since the user and administrator are communicating via email. Together, these could potentially be used to connect an account with an individual and location. While unblock-en-l does not maintain any archives for this reason, individuals subscribed to the list can hold emails they receive for an indefinite period of time. This poses issues, if not directly violates, the privacy policy and the Access to nonpublic data policy.
3. Transparency - Only subscribers to the list can view emails, and there is no easy way to keep track of how many times a particular user or IP address has appealed a block. It is also very difficult to locate past discussions to review any decisions made, due to the fact there are no archives.
4. Practicality - Most blocks involving sockpuppetry require a checkuser's input before action can be taken, however with no data to compare to a checkuser is unable to make an informed decision as to how to proceed with these appeals.
5. Jumbled - Many users will send an email to the list with no subject heading, resulting in a large number of emails titled "[Unblock-en-l] (no subject)". Most email clients assume that these emails are in some way related due to the fact they have the same subject and are on the same mailing list; unfortunately this compounds the issues of lost appeals.
6. Administrator confidentiality - Some administrators prefer not to disclose their email address (especially if it's their personal one) to possible major sockpuppets or serial vandals. That anonymity can now exist with this tool as their email is no longer used in the response.

After some discussion, a group of us decided to work on an alternative method to handle off-wiki appeals that would address most to all of these issues. TParis, DeltaQuad, Thehelpfulone, and myself have been working to develop the Unblock Ticket Request System (UTRS) on the Toolserver. This system allows blocked users to fill out a form asking for all information we could possibly need when reviewing blocks; it also retrieves and securely stores checkuser data that can be used in relation with sockpuppetry checks. Similar to the Account Creation Interface, it allows us to track appeals by their status (if they're new, waiting for a response from various users, closed, etc.) and permits comments on blocks so that administrators may discuss possible courses of action. In accordance with Wikimedia policies and relevant national laws, it also removes privately identifying data no more than one week after an appeal has been closed (this includes obscuring the IP address with a one-way hash, and deleting the user's email address and other checkuser data). Access to the tool is open only to administrators, however, since private data will be held separate from other comments, it is not an issue for anyone with access to the tool to provide copies of comments made on the appeal, which will be held on record indefinitely. Furthermore, it still uses email to communicate between administrator and user, but does so in such a way that ensures neither party sees the other's email address. Finally and perhaps most important, it keeps private information private. The only users who can see IP and checkuser data of registered users within the interface are those specifically flagged as checkusers; the full email address is never shown to anyone. For more information, please see this report compiled for the WMF by TParis. Take note, however, that the report is slightly out of date with the current configuration of the system. Based on feedback from WMF, some changes were made to the privacy policy, the cron job, and also IP addresses are no longer removed but rather converted to an unreadable hash.

In short, the Unblock Ticket Request System was designed specifically to replace and improve upon the unblock-en-l mailing list. We, the development team, are now asking the community for permission to fully implement this as part of the unblock appeals process and begin to phase out the unblock-en-l list, which will likely be used to discuss operation of UTRS rather than handle block appeals.

We are open to any questions you may have about the system, and invite interested administrators to request an account at http://toolserver.org/~unblock/register.php. We're sorry, but only administrators may receive accounts, in an effort to limit distribution of private information to a need-to-know basis in accordance with relevant policies and laws.

P.S. - Thanks very much to all of our beta testers, Philippe Beaudette for his assistance with ensuring we were complying with Foundation polices and other restrictions, and Slakr, Martijn Hoekstra, AGK, Foxj, and Guerillero for their assistance with the requirements for the tool way back when. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:05, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Statement by DeltaQuad

It was only 9.5 months ago that I first joined the mailing list. In my time on this mail list, I have reviewed over 500 appeals that come in all shapes and sizes. Over my time i've come to the opinion that this mailing list, is a disaster. Why you ask? There is barely any organization to it, only those with gmail like structured accounts and a good folder hierarchy can semi-sucessfully work the list. We have duplicate emails come in left and right, I find myself answering the same appeal sometimes, and I don't have a list of previous emails. This is only one set of the problems that come with the mailing list. Furthermore, there have been issues dealing with the banning of persistent spammers or people who spam us with unblock requests. (Don't get me wrong, we have a great moderation team that sees that we don't get all the promotional junk mail)

One of biggest problems i've seen over the time period i've watched the list is One administrator reviewing a load of appeals, without someone taking a few. This is a problem because as I have experienced myself, you can get to the point where you just want to say 'screw this appeal, it won't matter in the end'. That's when I step away from the list. But if one ignores that to clear the backlog we have, then not every user is getting a fair right to appeal.

The second problem is the response times. Now I haven't done a statistics file since January (which is sitting somewhere on my hard drive), but the numbers that we saw when I compiled in this report here back in early November are not only shocking, but sobering as to how big the problem was. Also the replies that never get responded to are not included in there. Some of them I can't even see because they only emailed one administrator when replying. Also for that report timeline, 157/1023 emails or 19% were left unresponded to (even if it was a list only email basically saying we are going to ignore them). Does this ever happen onwiki? No. Most of those appeals, from my experience, would be first appeal users.

Even with repeated calls to Administrator noticeboards we have yet to successfully recruit a good number of users who have the tools and don't drop off. I've personally dropped of a significant amount of my activity in the past while to deal with onwiki things and real life. So all that being said, it's about time we scraped this list.

I would like to thank the following people who took on a good load of the appeals we have received, and at times have been the single contributors to keep the list alive. (Note: these count multiple admins commenting on the same appeal, but each appeal is only counted once) Hersfold - Sept and Oct 2011 lead, responding to over 130 appeals; Billinghurst - November 2011 to Janurary 2012, with over 260 appeals; Crazycomputers - Late January 2012, with over 70 appeals; Martijn Hoekstra - Feb 2012 to the current date, with over 70 appeals Jan; Salvio giuliano - a wide range contributor, responding to over 60 appeals. Also would like to thank our contributors who helped hit the backlog even if only by one, it's one less the rest of us didn't have to look through. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 12:34, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Above posted here on DeltaQuad's behalf from User:Hersfold/Hersfold's Sandbox - Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 21:06, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Philippe Beaudette

I wish to say that the Foundation's legal and community advocacy team has reviewed the plans as they stand and finds no impediment to the full adoption of the tool. In fact, we view it as a substantial improvement over the extant mailing list system, and as a successful example of what makes Wikipedia great: an ad hoc group identified a need, created the solution, and worked (with minimal advice from the Foundation) to bring it to execution. I congratulate the folks who have worked on this, and encourage the community to support its adoption. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 00:00, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Fluffernutter

The old mailing list system is, frankly, a mess. Chaotic, piecemeal, lacking in direction, and generally impossible to use for someone who isn't well-versed in how it's used. I don't think I ever answered a single appeal on it (sorry, DQ!), because I could never tell what had been answered, what hadn't, or how exactly to respond in an answer. It desperately needs improvement, and I think UTRS is it.

I had admin rights to the system during the beta test (that is, no dev access, but access to editing templates, etc) and explored, poked, and prodded both the front and back ends a fair bit. Every bug or improvement I thought up as I went through the process of submitting or handling an appeal was either dealt with at my request (for instance, adding the ability to switch between templates within the "compose email" view, a feature which OTRS, upon which this system is modeled, lacks) or already present and I'd failed to notice it (the big honking "my queue" section, which a dev kindly pointed out to me when I asked whether we could implement some sort of queue of tickets belonging to a particular logged-in admin). The system has a clear structure and direction for both admins and users who use it, it has descriptive form fields which will direct blockees into giving us the information we actually need about their block (alone, a substantial improvement over the mailing list), and it has ways to handle nearly everything an admin might need to do on the backend to analyze and grant/deny an unblock request - we can respond, we can comment on a ticket privately, we can request checkuser or other advanced/knowledgeable users take a look, etc.

Best of all, we have an active, engaged set of developers who work on the front line of block appeals and understand what organization and tools are needed. They are invested in the idea of making appeal-handling easy, straightforward, and efficient from both ends, so that people like me, who shy away from disorganized mailing list systems, can very easily pop in, handle a few items from the workload queue, and pop out again, thus distributing the workload from among the three or four admins who do all the mailing list work. Efficiency improvements benefit both admins and users - no more confused admins hanging back from helping, and no more surprised users languishing in block limbo for a week or two because their email slipped through the cracks. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 01:12, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

• This is not to denigrate the hard work by the people who set up this new system, who I'm sure have thought longer about this than I, but: why is another venue in which to request unblock, beyond the user talk page, at all necessary? By the time a talk page is locked for abuse of the unblock template, the likelihood is extremely high that the block does not need to be lifted for the foreseeable future. And I'm not sure that the remaining zero point something percent of blocked editors are those to whom particular support, through substantial volunteer time and effort, should be dedicated. Such resources could be better used to support and enable productive, peaceful content creators.  Sandstein  21:46, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

• The simple answer is that many folks are more comfortable with an email or a website they can fill out a form on. The Wiki-template-syntax for the unblock template can and often is confusing or daunting.--v/r - TP 22:01, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
• @Sandstein: There have been situations where users could, for example, only access the Internet from a public place such as a library. Unfortunately, if one vandal has been vandalising using the library's computers and abusing their talk page, this can have collateral damage on others. If the IP's talk page access was revoked, but a legitimate user that wants to contribute to Wikipedia would like an account, at present they typically email the unblock-en-l mailing list. We will usually refer them to ACC if everything checks out, and then they will have an account created for them. I don't know off hand how many of these accounts become contributors, but I'd imagine the users would make some productive edits - they have, after all gone through the effort of requesting an unblock, and sometimes filling out a form to request an account is created for them. Therefore, we if didn't have a form off-wiki communication by which a user is able to request a ban appeal (other than ArbCom's BASC), then I believe there would be cases where innocent and potentially very productive users can get caught up in a ban. If you have access to unblock-en-l, you'll be able to see that most of the users there are genuinely shocked that they have been blocked and would like to be able to edit (sometimes they can get caught up in range blocks etc too). Hope this answers your question! The Helpful One 22:30, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

• To answer the ACC question: I have no regular editor created: a really small minority did indeed a few edits (never get autoconfirmed), but of my ~750 requested accounts I created, I have no real user created. (I did a check between January and March while cleaning up my watchlist - it was getting too long) mabdul 01:40, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• I kind if agree with Sandstein in that I have never understood why we have the unblock mailing list at all, but these seem like great improvements for it. I would like to see some sort of automation built into the on-wiki unblock template, a lot of blocked users are confused by it, but that's another issue. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:11, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

• I really don't want to seem like I'm replying to all commenters hostily (last reply I promise), but I just wanted to point out that in my opinion the mailing list gets more activity than on-wiki unblock requests. In fact, I believe if we were to remove the mailing-list without replacing it with this tool that the BASC would receive all of the unblock appeals that currently come through the unblock list.--v/r - TP 01:08, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I'd second this. Each day, the mailing list will usually receive anywhere from 8 to 20 appeals. The on-wiki unblock category will, at any given time, usually have six to ten appeals in it, although many of these are very stale, having been in the category untouched for several days. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:10, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• I played around with the interface and it seems like it will be helpful; long awaited replacement for the mailing list. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:43, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
• In my nearly two years at ACC there is no doubt that our mailing list traffic equates to about 25% of the request handled. I see no problem with having different avenues of access, besides the question here is can the form(s) being used here be improved and I think the interface proposed here is easier on the eyes, easier to understand and use. Mlpearc (powwow) 18:08, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
• Let's see, what highly controversial and difficult things can I say about UTRS other than... yes. Do it, it's sensible and reasonable and an improvement on what we already have. There's really not much more that needs to be said other than "yeah, awesome". —Tom Morris (talk) 22:08, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
• Any system that improves usability for both the blocked user and the reviewing admins gets a huge thumbs up from me; this system is more intuitive and easily navigated and would be an improvement over the clunky mailing list. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 23:53, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
• This new tool is a vast improvement over the mailing list. It offers common response templates and ensures that requests are not missed or inadvertently ignored. I urge its immediate adoption. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:18, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
• We need a better unblock system than the current mailinglist, and this tool may be it. It's important that we closely monitor it's performance though. I can echo Sandsteins amazement that the mailinglist is even needed, but seeing the amount of traffic that arrives at it, it is needed. UTRS offers more protection against losing requests 'between the cracks', and offers some more handy tooling, but we will have to monitor the amount of traffic that it generates. As much as I hate the mailinglist, we need to be sure that the threshold for appeals isn't higher than it is right now. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:35, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Philippe thought of this while we were still developing the tool; there's a statistics page that can be used to keep track of traffic, and each user's account has a counter to keep track of the number of appeals they've personally closed. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 18:47, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Do we have statistics for the mailinglist? It's great if we have statistics for the tool, but if we compare then to mailinglist stats, then we still don't know how the tool compares to mailinglist in how much of a threshold it throws up. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:51, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
      • We can get them... sorta. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 23:05, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
        • Philippe, cool! Intuitively speaking I think we would have enough if we would know how many mails have come in to the mailinglist from unique email addresses that are not subscribed to the mailinglist, which would be fairly close to the number of unblock requests received. Do we have that? I still want to stress this is very important, and we shouldn't go forward with this experiment (which, although I'm fairly confident of a good outcome, it still is), without setting a clear and measurable definition of success. Otherwise, we get in the nasty situation where we want to evaluate if it is a success, but only have limited and soft data (i.e. the experiences of the unblock team). Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:52, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
          • Not sure I can fully say what Philippe means here, but if you are looking for statistics, you can see the documented link in my statement (where I also said thank you to you :) ). I do have one for January, it's rotting on my hard drive somewhere. If you wish I can also compile a new report, but the same accuracy margin will be used, and it's prone to quite a bit of error, but at least it's an idea. If you can use the statistics above that would be great, if you need specific ones let me know i'll see what I can do. My only reservation with another full report is the fact that it takes several hours to compile such reports. I think my first one took me 5+ hours (even though it was the biggest) to do. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 13:27, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
            • Note to self: Read stuff. Yes, I was looking for something like that. Shall I see if I can sort of automate a procedure to go through my own mail archives, and generate stats up to a more recent point in time (that can be run again if needed, so it won't cost us so much time?) Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:02, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Closure

I have reviewed the discussion on the UTRS. I see many comments in favor of it based on its improvement to the existing mailing list system. I also see concerns that the entire off-wiki system is unnecessary. Further, I see verification that the Foundation does not object to UTRS and may even see it as an improvement over the current system. Weighing all the comments, both for content and magnitude, I find that there is consensus to replace the existing mailing list with UTRS. MBisanz ^talk 23:13, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Is something missing here?

In the section Understand what you did and why you have been blocked, it says: "Before you make an unblock request, you should attentively read the policies and guidelines named in your block reason. They are usually one or more from among the following: vandalism, sockpuppetry, edit warring, violating the three-revert rule, spamming, editing with a conflict of interest or having a prohibited username." Shouldn't that list include personal attacks? --MelanieN (talk) 22:00, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it should. GeorgeLouis (talk) 07:44, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Examples of good unblock requests

Noticed this section last night, and I've got a few questions about it.

• It only gives one example, which is inconsistent with the section header and with the 'examples of bad unblock requests'. Should we try to make them consistent, by including more examples and adding a collapsible thingy, or should we change the section head to be in the singular?
• The example request states at the end that '[...] and if I will do it again I will get blocked forever.' This wording comes off as a little strange to me. For one thing, I doubt very much whether it reflects reality (as block lengths are often progressive - you don't necessarily get blocked 'for ever' if you repeat the same mistake that got you blocked temporarily, do you?), and for another, I'm not sure how appropriate or relevant it is to point such a thing out. It might come off as...I'm not sure how to put it - sarcastic?
• Is it a good example, and is it a good idea to include a 'good unblock examples' section? I'm not trying to imply that either is not, but I would like to know because I'm not sure.

Any thoughts?

I've also thought of including an example 'bad request' stating only 'I'm sorry. Please unblock me.' but I don't know if this is necessary. Cathfolant (talk) 21:50, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of removing the section, because in addition to the concerns voiced above, we don't want editors copy-pasting a boilerplate "good" request. We want to see whether they understand why they are blocked and won't repeat it, and this requires us to have them write it in their own words. Revert if you disagree.  Sandstein  21:55, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

No, it's ok. I agree; I didn't think of that. Cathfolant (talk) 23:20, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

The trick with copy/pasting a good request would work, but only once, the second time it would not be credible. Some people who are new to Wikipedia get indeffed in a week and it takes lots of explanations in order to make them understand what they did wrong. We know the rules of Wikipedia, they don't. So I would say give people the benefit of the doubt and at least tell them what to write in an unblock request. Since they don't know the rules, they have no idea what to write and they are lost as editors. Not that I would expect that someone who begins by deleting stuff, inserting original research and writing obscenities would have a good chance of becoming a good editor, but a few of them could become so. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:58, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Good point - we could add back some sort of example good request and qualify it with 'don't try this twice' and possibly 'adapt it to fit your situation'. We might also try discussing what that example should look like, since the one we had apparently wasn't quite right. This guide does explain pretty well what goes in an unblock request, though. I think. Cathfolant (talk) 00:49, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

"Given that many 3RR blocks are for a short duration (36 hours or less)"

I wonder if this is actually true. @Floquenbeam blocked me for a week for a fairly routine 2RR violation, never mind 3RR (I had called attention to the content at issue on the article Talk page in the past, at no time during my supposedly offending edits did the other party use the Talk page, I had a clean block record from 2005 until 2014 when I first encountered that one other editor and it was in clashes with that particular, uniquely difficult, editor that I received my two blocks including this week-long block). If it is true, I should think this statement should inform both admins and non-admins in terms of expectations. In other words, we should give some suggestions, or more explicit suggestions, about what reasonable blocks look like. Unreasonable blocks merit appeals. Reasonable ones should not be appealed, or at least reasonably blocked editors should not be encouraged to launch spurious appeals. I don't think it serves the project well if blocks are routinely appealed. I dare say admins should put more thought into the block duration than, say, "it hardly matters, since if it's too long it can just be appealed." The block log isn't informative if there's no consistency between editors in terms of their block durations.--Brian Dell (talk) 04:58, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Heading level changes

I've WP:BOLDly removed the "Blocks directed at you, as an editor" level 3 section heading and made all of its level 4 subsections level 3. The headings may be confusing to (newer) users reading the page (I know I was confused until I'd read down further for more context, and I've been here for years), and unlike the section underneath ("Blocks directed at a problem generally ("collateral damage")"), it has no explanatory text, only more subsections. In fact, users would assume that's the "default" kind of block, and that collateral damage is the exception. Finally, there is no reason not to have the current subsections of "Blocks directed at you, as an editor" each be level 3 sections. Thanks – Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 05:24, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Unethical tips

You suggest to accept the punishment. If a person believes s/he was punished without a serious reason, you advise - do tell lies, to be unblocked. (I mean an another Wikipedia) Wikipedia needs some way of central revision of local blocks. Xx236 (talk) 12:41, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Are admins a higher class user than editors?

My understanding was that they are not but Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks#Checkuser and Oversight blocks gives pause to my former belief where it says: "If an administrator believes that a Checkuser block has been made in error, the administrator should first discuss the matter with the Checkuser in question, and if a satisfactory resolution is not reached, should email the committee." Why is this standing only afforded to admins? In my opinion it needs to be changed, unless we are formally operating as castes which I see as woefully ill advised. What am I missing here?--John Cline (talk) 10:33, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

I doubt this was an intentional slight at users meant to assert the dominance of sysops. It's likely because 98% (made up stat) of unblock requests are exclusively addressed by sysops.--v/r - TP 19:19, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

And 100% (actual statistic) of all blocks were emplaced by sysops (exclusively). Thank you TParis, for your reply. It is nice to see you; I hope you have been well. I agree that this clause was not appended with an intent to slight non-admin users. But its letter is published; mightier than sword, and it carries its reader to the same end.

Statistically (I may be alone); for taking umbrage. And for seeing its precedent: bad.--John Cline (talk) 15:10, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it'd be controversial to make the change.--v/r - TP 16:42, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Unblock request on Wiktionary

Hello- I want to request a partial unblock on English Wiktionary (allowing me to respond to comments on my userpage). I can't make the unblock request because I can't post the unblock template on my userpage. What should I do? I tried to contact administrators that edit on Wiktionary via Wikipedia. Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:42, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Since you can post here, you are no longer blocked. Sandstein 07:44, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Bold change to "Checkuser and Oversight blocks" section

Hi all, I have just split the "Checkuser and Oversight blocks" section into two distinct sections (they really have little to do with each other) and shortened and clarified each of them. In particular, I have made it much more explicit what conduct triggers CU (sockpuppetry) and OS (posting OSable material) blocks and reduced greatly the emphasis on administrative quotes to one footnote per section. I hope this will help users better understand what these blocks mean and how to proceed. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 17:57, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom Block Section

Re the section: Arbitration enforcement blocks, which mostly just quotes Standard provision for appeals and modifications. The ArbCom procedures section covers all form of appeals against sanctions (eg including how to appeal topic-bans). This article covers how to appeal ArbCom blocks specifically, which means point #2 at least is moot since the editor wouldn't be able to post at WP:AE due to their block, so it seems kinda confusing to mention, and point #1 can only be done via their talk by pinging the involved admin. Should this section be rewritten somewhat to be more relevant to this context, which is ArbCom block appeals? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:16, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader: You're right that the ArbCom quotes aren't really helpful there – better to explain it more simply and link to it. However, the points are still relevant. Appeals of ArbCom blocks are typically made on the blocked user's talk page and copied onto WP:AE for review. You can see this advice at the standard template for AE blocks. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 23:36, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Hold up

Did someone actually threaten to shoot their dog for edit rights, or is this a concerning sample? Le Panini ^Talk 16:38, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

@Le Panini: it actually happened. --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 22:21, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

HurricaneTracker495, [[2]] Le Panini ^Talk 22:30, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Compromised accounts

There used to be guidance about what a user with a compromised account could do to regain the ability to edit; it was removed. I get why it was removed(encourages sockpuppetry) but then we are sending the message that a user claiming their account is compromised is thereby blocked for all time, never to edit Wikipedia again. Is that what we want to say? Most people intent on sockpuppetry either already know or figure out on their own how to create a new account. 331dot (talk) 09:43, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Truly compromised accounts are incredibly rare, and they're typically globally locked. Everyone else is lying. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:15, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

brief

Sandstein, I get that, but what = "brief"? :D —valereee (talk) 14:27, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Valereee, no more words than necessary? I don't think we need to go into instruction WP:CREEP here. The whole page is already less than brief... Sandstein 16:20, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Sandstein, like I said, I get it, but I'm not sure it's helpful to someone who's never posted an unblock request before, which is our audience here. There's a current second unblock request that in response to a request to pare the 1750 word first request, is now around 700 words, which the requestor believes are all necessary. :D —valereee (talk) 16:29, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Valereee, I suppose it depends on the patience of the reviewing admin, which is also why I am skeptical about whether we should prescribe a maximum length. In cases like the one you mention I'd just decline the unblock as TLDR. This will help the user understand that they are not yet concise enough. Sandstein 16:37, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Sandstein, yeah, I think it's just being ignored as "didn't listen" as the previous admin had asked for an unblock request that cut the number of words "by an order of magnitude". :D I don't have any strong opinion here, it's fine to just leave it as Be Brief. —valereee (talk) 16:43, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Discussion on consolidating pages about/for blocked editors

 You are invited to join the discussion at MediaWiki talk:Blockedtext § Redundant help pages. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:41, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 December 2021

In 4.9 Advertising-only accounts, add this hatnote:

"WP:SPAMACCOUNT" redirects here. For identifying spam accounts, see Wikipedia:Spam § How not to be a spammer.

(or close enough) 172.112.210.32 (talk) 02:14, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done. The link in the body to Wikipedia:Spam is good enough IMO. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 09:36, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry blocks - advice for the non-guilty

Unlike the other areas of advice, the sockpuppetry block guide section actually notes that it's likely to take down a certain number of innocents. But it then notes appeals should include info [that] might help explain why the community suspects sockpuppetry without covering that in most cases, they won't actually be told why the community suspects sockpuppetry. Thus too, the Checkuser block section indicates that To protect your privacy, administrators with CheckUser access are not able to share the relevant data with you on Wikipedia [my stress] - are CUs often sharing the information to those blocked by email? My understanding was that would be anomalous, with information not shared either to avoid aiding the actual socks, or not shared in case someone was innocent and thus being shared with a different person. Am I wrong on that front? Nosebagbear (talk) 10:28, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Looks like that needs rewriting. Doug Weller talk 12:37, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I thought that ("To protect your privacy [...]") provision was to cover the fact that if a CU blocked editor appeals to ArbCom, certain elements of technical data may be shared with them in the appeal process? — TNT (talk • she/her) 13:04, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

If it's applying to arbcom getting some information then it's failing, as it exists in a distinct sentence. The phrasing as-is suggests purely the negation of sharing info on-wiki, that is, any other form is fine. Sanity suggests that we don't mean, say, facebook, but a reasonable reading would be "have a registered email, and we'll send the evidence there" - any arbcom and sharing with the accused/blocked are currently decoupled. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:36, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I see your point. The sentence should just be removed, in my opinion. Risker (talk) 15:54, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Removed. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:55, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Only one unblock request

I have noticed that users often use more than one unblock request in order to get unblocked. I think it would be beneficial to add a line that says to only use one unblock request at a time, but not sure where. I'm hoping to get some feedback regarding the placement of this message. Interstellarity (talk) 20:40, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

I think this is the sort of thing which sounds like a good idea in principle, but most of the people who make duplicate requests aren't reading this page. 331dot (talk) 20:51, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Blocked for unverified information

Hello. I have been blocked by wikipedia Indonesia and can't write anything also for appeal for the block evaluation there. Apparently, I was blocked from contributing one page and it said that it was unverified information while I was writing for verified information with all the website references and writing about one of big companies in Indonesia. I had been trying to correct misinformation to the biographical page. I do not believe I did anything wrong, nor given false and unverified information since it is one of big company in Indonesia. I will be more cautious now to the process that Wikipedia use. I would greatly appreciate being allowed to contribute again, and please help to contact the wikipedia Indonesia team, because I can't contact anywhere or click anything. Thank you for your help. Regards, Avanwar93 Avanwar93 (talk) 08:05, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Avanwar93 We cannot help you with any issues on other language versions of Wikipedia, which are all separate projects. While I cannot read Indonesian, it appears that you are not blocked there from the logs that I can see. 331dot (talk) 08:12, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Oh, but I can't edit anything nor add topic about anything.

couldnt talk or send email for anyone there for appeal the evaluation.

but Thankyou for your help! Avanwar93 (talk) 08:20, 2 March 2023 (UTC)