Test Wiki:Community portal: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
→Discussion: wrong essay
Piccadilly (talk | contribs) (→Statement from Piccadilly: added the rest of what I wanted to say) |
(→Discussion: wrong essay) Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
||
| (12 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| Line 90: | Line 90: | ||
*:This isn't about adding revocation criteria, [[User:X|X]]. As it stands, if you're an existing bureaucrat, you meet the exception criteria to have the bit re-added without the waiting period requirement. I would, however, potentially suggest adding a requirement that the <code>bureaucrat</code> user group is limited to the user's main account only. [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]], thoughts? [[User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk:Dmehus|talk]]) 23:24, 29 April 2024 (UTC) | *:This isn't about adding revocation criteria, [[User:X|X]]. As it stands, if you're an existing bureaucrat, you meet the exception criteria to have the bit re-added without the waiting period requirement. I would, however, potentially suggest adding a requirement that the <code>bureaucrat</code> user group is limited to the user's main account only. [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]], thoughts? [[User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk:Dmehus|talk]]) 23:24, 29 April 2024 (UTC) | ||
*::I do suppose that ''could'' be added, but how would we handle legitimate test (such as testing the bureaucrat right on its own, without sysop) or cratbot accounts? [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 00:33, 30 April 2024 (UTC) | *::I do suppose that ''could'' be added, but how would we handle legitimate test (such as testing the bureaucrat right on its own, without sysop) or cratbot accounts? [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 00:33, 30 April 2024 (UTC) | ||
*:::We wouldn't be able to technically restrict it, no, but, rather, it would provide automatic revocation criteria for the <code>bureaucrat</code> bit if Stewards suspect the two users are the same, or where the user has confirmed the two accounts are the same. That is, the bit would be removed from the legitimate sockpuppet accounts and a Steward would remind users to '''pick one''' account they want their bureaucrat bit on. [[User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk:Dmehus|talk]]) 02:14, 8 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
==Omnibus RfC: Unbundling abusefilter permissions from Administrators== | ==Omnibus RfC: Unbundling abusefilter permissions from Administrators== | ||
| Line 182: | Line 183: | ||
I will answer any questions or concerns to the best of my ability. [[User:Piccadilly|Piccadilly]] ([[Special:Contribs/Piccadilly|<span style="color:red">My Contribs</span>]] | [[User talk:Piccadilly|<span style="color:#0080ff">My Messages</span>]]) 23:10, 7 May 2024 (UTC) | I will answer any questions or concerns to the best of my ability. [[User:Piccadilly|Piccadilly]] ([[Special:Contribs/Piccadilly|<span style="color:red">My Contribs</span>]] | [[User talk:Piccadilly|<span style="color:#0080ff">My Messages</span>]]) 23:10, 7 May 2024 (UTC) | ||
:You have an active, current, and indefinite [[Test Wiki:Stewards|Steward]]-imposed block. I am unsure as to why Sav raised this discussion, but your proposal is unnecessary, in my view, because you are [[w:WP:NOTYET|not yet ready]] to be unblocked by Stewards. As I stated below, this is a matter for Stewards, and neither one of us would unblock you unilaterally (at least I know ''I'' wouldn't). As well, we have yet to fully implement the restricted user group to revoke abuse filter editing or creating user rights, so from a technical perspective, any conditions of such a theoretical conditional unblock could not yet be implemented. But as I say, you have an active appeal in to Stewards, but we have not yet replied because we, or at least I think we, feel you're not yet ready to be unblocked. Why don't you go read a book, play a computer game, take an online course (your local public library likely offers free access to LinkedIn Learning for Libraries!), go for some hikes, and so forth, for at least '''three months'''. Do '''not''' touch [https://testwiki.wiki/wiki/ testwiki.wiki], Miraheze, or English Wikipedia. Add their domains to your Windows Hosts file (Google that if you aren't sure what it is), pointed to '''127.0.0.1''' so you technically ''can't'' access them, then e-mail <code>staff[at]testwiki.wiki</code> ''only'' after at least three full months has elapsed. I,, [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]], and many other users, I'm sure, ''want'' to help you, so this is the best advice I can offer. :) [[User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk:Dmehus|talk]]) 01:46, 8 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
===Discussion=== | ===Discussion=== | ||
*Due to previously filing one of these myself, I should not close this, and hence will leave a comment. There have been 2 previous discussions. The second resulted and later unblocking her, and the first resulted in implementing an abuse filter which attempted and failed to resolve the problem . I think it is time for the wider community to have a say in any future appeals, as this is either [[Wikipedia: Wikipedia:CIR|a very egregious case of not having necessary competence]], or [[WP:WP:SNEAKY|an attempt to troll and evade scrutiny]]. Therefore, I support a community ban/block, or, at the very least, an automatic community ban upon an unblock and reblock by a steward of the current block. [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 02:41, 6 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
*Due to previously filing one of these myself, I should not close this, and hence will leave a comment. There have been 2 previous discussions. The second resulted and later unblocking her, and the first resulted in implementing an abuse filter which attempted and failed to resolve the problem . I think it is time for the wider community to have a say in any future appeals, as this is either [[Wikipedia: Wikipedia:CIR|a very egregious case of not having necessary competence]], or [[WP:WP:SNEAKY|an attempt to troll and evade scrutiny]]. Therefore, I | |||
*:Thank you for your input! [[User:Sav|Sav]] • ([[Special:Contribs/Sav|<span style="color:#0080ff"> Edits</span>]] | [[Special:Newsection/User talk:Sav|<span style="color:#0080ff">Talk </span>]]) 03:52, 6 May 2024 (UTC) | *:Thank you for your input! [[User:Sav|Sav]] • ([[Special:Contribs/Sav|<span style="color:#0080ff"> Edits</span>]] | [[Special:Newsection/User talk:Sav|<span style="color:#0080ff">Talk </span>]]) 03:52, 6 May 2024 (UTC) | ||
*First, I'm curious as to ''what prompted'' you, [[User:Sav|Sav]], to make this request for a 'community block'? [[User:Piccadilly|Piccadilly]] is currently indefinitely blocked; they recently ''had'' attempted to contravene the indefinite block by created a [[w:WP:SOCK|an illegitimate sockpuppet account]], which they promptly e-mailed [[Test Wiki:Stewards|Stewards]] about in [[w:WP:AGF|good-faith]]. This shows continued capacity for learning. Separately, they ''have'' appealed their block, but, as Stewards, your elected non-test administrators and bureaucrats on this wiki, I believe I can say there is [[w:WP:CON|fairly good consensus]] that this is a '''not yet''' situation with respect to an unblock. Piccadilly has made ''some'' progress in terms of continuing to demonstrate, very modestly, capacity to ''learn'', which is good, but it needs, I think, at least several more months before considering a provisional and conditional unblock. As well, technically speaking, we also need to put in place community-advised recommendations with respect to mechanisms to prevent editing restriction-restricted users from editing abuse filters. The community, last I checked, seemed to be leaning towards a restricted user group that revoked certain user rights related to editing or creating abuse filters. | |||
*Secondly, I would also note that there is no [[Test Wiki:Policies|official policy]] with respect to 'community blocks or bans'. It's good that you phrased this as a ''block'', though, since ''bans'' aren't something [[w:WP:NOTPUNITIVE|we do here]] fundamentally because bans, by their very nature, [[w:WP:NOTPUNITIVE|aren't preventative]]. As well, we're ''not'' English Wikipedia; we're a low barrier test wiki, not a wiki with a bunch of policies or content here. We have to provide guidance to users who don't understand or comply with our [[Test Wiki:Policies|policy-light testing wiki]] sometimes when required, of course, so as to maintain user harmony. As well, our ''community'' is quite a transient community. Users come and go, check in periodically, and spikes in activity from temporarily returning users occur. As such, this makes it exceptionally difficult to facilitate true '''due process''' with respect to indefinite blocks applied by the community. | |||
*Thirdly, the community elects Stewards to make these decisions for them. If the community were to see fit to micro-manage every administrative decision, then what is the ''point'' of Stewards? | |||
*That being said, that's ''not'' to say currently active members of the community cannot ''advise'' Stewards on the type of editing restrictions, blocks (partial or sitewide), or other types of restrictive measures and their ''duration'', conditions for restriction removal, etc., etc., but the key is that it is ''advice''. It is not binding as, ultimately, it is up to Stewards. With respect to Piccadilly, I don't believe it would be appropriate for a single Steward to unblock them unilaterally, and so I would personally commit to ensuring '''at least''' two Stewards agree, unconditionally, on any terms for unblocking, timing of unblocking, and any other preventative measures to put in place. [[User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk:Dmehus|talk]]) 01:30, 8 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
*:I believe what Sav intends here is to actually [[WP:WP:CIRRESP|resolve]] the high level of controversy and back and forth that has gone down because of this one user. If we allow her to be [[WP:WP:ROPE|ROPE]] unblocked repeatedly, as we have done in the past, and may do in the future, the disruption may continue. There is no concrete evidence of ''significant change'', rather, we [[WP:WP:AGF|assume]] [[WP:WP:NOTTHERAPY|wrongly]] that any marginal change is enough to unblock. Clearly, [[WP:WP:PREVENTATIVE|to prevent]] further disruption, the community (and I see little issue with it being transient, so long as users are willing to review the case) needs to hear further appeals (which is what a ban would do in this instance). [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 03:05, 8 May 2024 (UTC) | |||