Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
_ Bureaucracy _ UTRS
Posted by: carbuncle
I don't know where this came from, but I noticed a few requests for access popping on on my watchlist and got curious. https://toolserver.org/~unblock/ is apparently the "Unblock Ticket Request System".
QUOTE
If you are presently blocked from editing on Wikipedia (which you may verify by clicking here), you may fill out the form below to have an administrator review your block. Please complete all fields labelled in red text, as these are required in order for us to complete a full review of your block.
If you are having trouble editing a particular page or making a particular edit, but are able to edit the page linked in the previous paragraph, you may not be blocked, but instead could be having difficulty with page protection or the edit filter. For more information, and instructions on how to receive assistance, please see those links.
For assistance with a block, please complete the form below:
*What is your email address? We will need this to respond to your appeal.
*Do you have an account on Wikipedia? Yes No
*According to your block message, which administrator placed this block?
*Why do you believe you should be unblocked?
*If you are unblocked, what articles do you intend to edit?
*Is there anything else you would like us to consider when reviewing your block?
If you are having trouble editing a particular page or making a particular edit, but are able to edit the page linked in the previous paragraph, you may not be blocked, but instead could be having difficulty with page protection or the edit filter. For more information, and instructions on how to receive assistance, please see those links.
For assistance with a block, please complete the form below:
*What is your email address? We will need this to respond to your appeal.
*Do you have an account on Wikipedia? Yes No
*According to your block message, which administrator placed this block?
*Why do you believe you should be unblocked?
*If you are unblocked, what articles do you intend to edit?
*Is there anything else you would like us to consider when reviewing your block?
All of that is followed by a CAPTCHA and a note that "By submitting this unblock request, you are consenting to allow us to collect information about your computer that will in most cases allow us to distinguish you from any vandals editing from the same location. We do not store this information any longer than necessary, and do not share it with any third party. For more information, please see our Privacy Policy.".
Posted by: CharlotteWebb
I can't keep track of the OTRS and BVRS and other AQTC MMLS but it looks like this page makes the toolserver send some kind of singing checkusergram to a private mailing list. Does not appear to be documented anywhere http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:UTRS.
Posted by: Selina
QUOTE(CharlotteWebb @ Sat 4th February 2012, 3:15pm) 
I can't keep track of the OTRS and BVRS and other AQTC MMLS but it looks this makes the toolserver send some kind of singing checkusergram to a private mailing list. Does not appear to be documented anywhere http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:UTRS.
The interesting thing about this is Wikipedia is imitating every("http://www.parliament.uk/about/faqs/house-of-commons-faqs/members-faq-page2/#skipToContent") other("http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons/lib/research/rp2000/rp00-061.pdf" [2000])("http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/may/18/house-of-lords-reform" [2011]) ogliarchy("http://www.senate.gov/CRSReports/crs-publish.cfm?pid=%260BL)PL%3B%3D%0A") that's gone before it in gradually becoming a geritocracy in their moving just about everything important in their politics off Wikipedia to secret email lists:
• http://web-strategist.com/blog/2007/04/03/i-only-use-email-to-communicate-with-old-people
• http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2006/10/7877.ars, ars technica, 2nd October 2006
It's totally unethical for them to be hiding administrator discussions when policy is meant to be that they are kept on wikipedia and wikipedia talk pages for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transparency_(behavior):
http://wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CANVASS
QUOTE
Inappropriate | Mass posting OR Biased OR Partisan OR Secret
Term | Excessive cross-posting ("spamming") | Campaigning | Votestacking | Stealth canvassing
[..]
Stealth canvassing: Contacting users off-wiki (by e-mail http://wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:IRC, for example) to persuade them to join in discussions (unless there is a specific reason not to use talk pages)
[..]
Stealth canvassing
Because it is less transparent than on-wiki notifications, the use of email or other off-wiki communication to notify editors is discouraged unless there is a significant reason for not using talk page notifications.
http://wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests?oldid=104702658#The_need_for_existence_of_.23wikipedia-en-adminsTerm | Excessive cross-posting ("spamming") | Campaigning | Votestacking | Stealth canvassing
[..]
Stealth canvassing: Contacting users off-wiki (by e-mail http://wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:IRC, for example) to persuade them to join in discussions (unless there is a specific reason not to use talk pages)
[..]
Stealth canvassing
Because it is less transparent than on-wiki notifications, the use of email or other off-wiki communication to notify editors is discouraged unless there is a significant reason for not using talk page notifications.
QUOTE
In megabytes of the discussions of this thorny issue, no evidence has been yet given that there can possibly be any "admin-only" confidential matters that require the closed channel. [..]No examples have been given for inherently confidential "Admin-only" issues to this day
.. it's an abberation, but they get away with it because they stay away from the limelight and most people on Wikipedia have no idea the lists even existAnd any discussion about changing things - or the chance of anyone actually enforcing their own rules that are already supposed to stop the slip into off-wiki cabals - would be like asking aging chickens to vote on including foxes in discussions:
• http://wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Private_correspondence
• http://wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Correspondence_off-wiki
•• http://wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Correspondence_off-wiki#Oppose <- Wasn't that one of the http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/09/19/wikipedia_civil_servant_scandal/print.html
Posted by: carbuncle
QUOTE(Selina @ Sat 4th February 2012, 3:51pm)
The interesting thing about this is Wikipedia is imitating every("http://www.parliament.uk/about/faqs/house-of-commons-faqs/members-faq-page2/#skipToContent") other("http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons/lib/research/rp2000/rp00-061.pdf" [2000])("http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/may/18/house-of-lords-reform" [2011]) ogliarchy("http://www.senate.gov/CRSReports/crs-publish.cfm?pid=%260BL)PL%3B%3D%0A") that's gone before it in gradually becoming a geritocracy in their over-reliance in moving just about everything impotant off Wikipedia to secret email lists:
• http://web-strategist.com/blog/2007/04/03/i-only-use-email-to-communicate-with-old-people
• http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2006/10/7877.ars, ars technica, 2nd October 2006
You spelled impotent wrong...
Posted by: Selina
lol :/
Posted by: MrM
QUOTE(CharlotteWebb @ Sat 4th February 2012, 10:15am)
Does not appear to be documented anywhere http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:UTRS.
Looks like that is because it isn't live yet: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Call_for_Beta_Testers_-_new_unblock_tool