Template talk:Blocked talk-revoked-notice
Add topicLatest comment: 2 years ago by Raidarr in topic In regards to this template having the non-existent Unblock Ticket System not having a page on here:
In regards to this template having the non-existent Unblock Ticket System not having a page on here:[edit source]
Is it quite feasible for the Unblock Ticket System to come into existence on this platform? DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 18:41, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
- It's a decent idea, and one I'd support, but would require additional server resources. We may or may not have that to spare, for a limited use case relating to unblock requests, likely on one wiki, though arguably it could be used as a way to review unblock requests on any wiki where local administration has revoked talk page access without due cause. Dmehus (talk) 18:43, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
- Per the above on resources I think it would be more feasible to just be efficient with our use of existing templates. --Raidarr (talk) 20:30, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
- Well, yes and no. In regards to locks, we don't want to encourage locked users from editing logged out or with alternate accounts to appeal. In regards to users appealing their local blocks that may not have been issued in accordance with local policies or similar, templates would be difficult for this purpose. That being said, it's a limited use case for an UTRS system. I'd rather have a broader CVT/Steward ticketing system, something like OTRS, rather than a more narrowly focused UTRS. Dmehus (talk) 20:35, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Dmehus: Then maybe you should ask the Site Reliability Engineering team about getting this system installed, kind of like Wikipedia has their own system. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 11:22, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
- Well, yes and no. In regards to locks, we don't want to encourage locked users from editing logged out or with alternate accounts to appeal. In regards to users appealing their local blocks that may not have been issued in accordance with local policies or similar, templates would be difficult for this purpose. That being said, it's a limited use case for an UTRS system. I'd rather have a broader CVT/Steward ticketing system, something like OTRS, rather than a more narrowly focused UTRS. Dmehus (talk) 20:35, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
- Per the above on resources I think it would be more feasible to just be efficient with our use of existing templates. --Raidarr (talk) 20:30, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
- To be honest I'd rather we have looked into integrating something like this in a homebrew, lightweight manner naturally rather than importing things which have assumptions or dependencies unsuited to the scale of Meta. In other words, this can and should be something collaboratively built up for the greatest chance of coming in useful and being used, while minimizing draw on limited resources. Miraheze, after all, is and cannot/should not be wikimed/pedia. --Raidarr (talk) 20:39, 22 February 2022 (UTC)