Wikipedia talk:Unblock Ticket Request System/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

server

Is unblock hosted on a high availability server? MiszaBot went down for a long time when nightshade went offline. Nobody Ent 01:40, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

No, it's hosted on Willow.--v/r - TP 02:51, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Is there a back up plan if Willow goes down? Nobody Ent 02:55, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

There is a trigger at Wikipedia:Unblock_Ticket_Request_System/on that if changed to anything but "yes" will change most of the block notices back to the unblock-en-l list.--v/r - TP 03:02, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Coolness. Nobody Ent 11:34, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Block template requires updating

Note that when the "notalk=yes" parameter is used on Template:Uw-vblock, the blocked editor is still directed to the unblock-en-l mailing list. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:16, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Fixed - thanks!--v/r - TP 17:46, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Publishing data from UTRS

See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Making_public_information_from_UTRS. It's about the Roth incident, really, but there are wider issues. Secretlondon (talk) 21:12, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Move to WMFlabs?

So there appear to be two instances of UTRS at the moment, one on toolserver and one on tools.wmflabs. Which one are we supposed to be using? (I'm assuming the original on toolserver since that's the one WP:UTRS links to...) —Darkwind (talk) 16:18, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I haven't finished the migration to Labs yet. The OAuth team have some ideas and they've asked me to try them out on UTRS so I want to implement on the Labs version and then migrate folks over.--v/r - TP 00:14, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Checkuser blocks

A blocked user has posed the question of why they were not informed that checkuser blocks can only be reviewed in a certain way. Apparently anyone editing from the University of Oregon is suspected of being a sock of a blocked user. —Neotarf (talk) 16:30, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Checkuser blocks must be appealed to a checkuser. All three methods of appeal (onwiki, UTRS, and BASC) are capable of supporting this requirement.--v/r - TP 17:02, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I think the confusion is that 3 admin reviewed and denied the unblock request but weren't checkusers, thus incapable of accepting an unblock, which is kind of weird. I would think a non-CU should never review a CU block as there is only one possible action they can commit to: nothing. I'm not sure how policy falls on this. I referred the blocked editor to UTRS as I figured it would get to a CU faster and not quite ready for BASC at this point. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:53, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Now reviewed and denied by 4 non-checkusers. This does not look promising for the U of O. Wonder which departments are blocked. —Neotarf (talk) 00:16, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Canned response for autoblock?

Can someone with appropriate access add a canned response for use in cases where it appears the user is hitting an autoblock, but hasn't provided sufficient information to do anything about it? The closest thing now is "No block found", but it seems more geared toward things like misspelled usernames, etc. Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:47, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

You should be able to use the "Need Block Information" template which asks for all the right info. Alternatively, if you enjoy working with the tool and decide it will be your admin-"niche" then I could give you tool admin rights and you could create your own templates.--v/r - TP 02:35, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Please modify subject headers

Sadly I'm not sure where the best place to bring this up would be, as I don't believe UTRS has any mailing list, so apologies if I'm posting in the wrong venue. Gmail has the tendency to group messages with the exact subject line together; as a result, we regularly get people responding to unblock appeals from UTRS combined. It makes it difficult to sort through and respond to, and it's doubly hard when you're trying to search previous appeals. Changing the subject field to be more descriptive to the actual appeal would solve both problems. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:09, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

• @David Fuchs: I don't understand the issue you're trying to raise. I've responded to thousands of appeals via the UTRS interface and haven't had any issues with the subject field being used more once. Do you have an example ticket you could provide where you've experienced issues? @TParis:, are you aware of this? --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:49, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Ah, sorry I realized I cut a sentence of some crucial context out! The issue isn't within UTRS but when we are sent messages by those who have gone through the UTRS system and are coming to the Ban Appeals subcommittee for appeal of the UTRS decision. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:53, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Would it help if we added the ticket number to the subject?--v/r - TP 21:22, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Seems it has been added recently according to the changlog.--v/r - TP 21:31, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Glad to hear it. Hopefully that means greater sanity for incoming arbs who have to deal with it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 23:27, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Was requested by Tim several days ago, modified two days ago, sent to live yesterday. Relevant request -- DQ mobile (ʞlɐʇ) 03:01, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

RFC which could seriously impact UTRS open

See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ban appeals reform 2015. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:36, 29 January 2015 (UTC)