Test Wiki:Community portal: Difference between revisions

{{discussion top|{{not done}}. Requester block and no consensus achieved. [[User:X|X]] ([[User talk:X|talk]]) 18:25, 16 October 2023 (UTC)}}

{{Discussion bottom}}

:''The following discussion is closed. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it</b>. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.'' {{not done}} - X has become active again, so that is no longer necessary. [[User:Drummingman|Drummingman]] ([[User talk:Drummingman|talk]]) 18:07, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

{{Discussion top|{{Not done}} per block. [[User:MacFan4000|MacFan4000]] ^{([[User talk:MacFan4000|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/MacFan4000|Contribs]])} 12:59, 6 August 2023 (UTC)}}

{{discussion top|{{done}}! [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 21:51, 2 October 2023 (UTC)}}

{{discussion bottom}}

{{Discussion top|While there is some support, there isn't a strong consensus. Personally I would want to allow IPs to perform legitimate test edits. Since three isn't strong consensus for or against, I will call this unsuccessful. [[User:MacFan4000|MacFan4000]] ^{([[User talk:MacFan4000|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/MacFan4000|Contribs]])} 01:52, 26 October 2023 (UTC)}}

{{Discussion bottom}}

:I don't really see a problem with it. Doesn't seem to be a problematic category, but this function is already done by [[:Category:Test Wiki administrators|Category:Administrators]] and [[:Category:Test Wiki bureaucrats|Category:Bureaucrats]], and similar, so it's somewhat redundant. [[User:EggRoll97|EggRoll97]] ([[User talk:EggRoll97|talk]]) 19:12, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

==Apologies==

==Non-steward oversighters/checkusers - alternate proposal==

{{Discussion top}}

:There is unanimity in one area of this proposal, and no consensus for another. There is unanimous consensus to allow non-Stewards to access the <code>suppressor</code> tools, but there is no consensus to allow them to access the <code>checkuser</code> tools. I will implement this myself through pull request within the week starting tomorrow (Sunday, December 3rd). <small>(involved closure)</small> [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 14:35, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

I propose allowing non-stewards to access checkuser/oversight tools, similar to the above proposal, but without the unblockable right. Being that the implementation of this could result in a lack of transparency with the community, I think that 2 additional groups should be added.

non-steward-suppressor:

With the following rights: suppression-log

Add groups to own account: Suppressor

Remove groups from own account: Suppressor

non-steward-checkuser:

With the following rights:

checkuser-log

Add groups to own account: Check user

Remove groups from own account: Check user

These users can be appointed by either:

1) Community consensus, closed by a steward

2) Steward consensus, at least 2 stewards support giving the right

A user may not hold both suppressor and checkuser rights, unless they apply for steward. [[User:X|X]] ([[User talk:X|talk]]) 17:13, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

*{{support}}: No inherent problems with this, although NSSs should have <code>suppressionlog</code> as Stewards do without the suppressor flag. [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 00:47, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

*:{{done|Amended}} [[User:X|X]] ([[User talk:X|talk]]) 01:15, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

*::'''Partially supporting'''. With suppression, I have no problem granting it to non-stewards as well. I therefore support that part. Granting a checkusser to non-stewards is not a good idea in my opinion. That right is so sensitive with privacy that I prefer to keep that with the stewards and since we have 4 stewards of which 2 are active and 1 semi-active, I see no reason to grant it to non-stewards as well. And otherwise, steward elections can always be held. [[User:Drummingman|Drummingman]] ([[User talk:Drummingman|talk]]) 08:50, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

*:::I don't think there's a serious actual privacy issue, although I can see your point that someone with non steward checkuser access would be practically on the same level of trust as Stewards. [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 02:22, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

{{Discussion bottom}}

==Formalize [[Test Wiki:Blocks and bans]] as a guideline==

This practically just formalizes practice and existing consensus. However, compliance with it should not be mandatory as with policies, but rather strongly recommended. This contains some things that simply aren't worthy of policy (see the blocks section), but it should be some form of community recommendation. [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 17:28, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

:Due to non-participation, I'll withdraw this within 4 days. [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 20:37, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

:: Withdrawn. [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 23:31, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

==Block appeal==

{{Discussion top}}

::Though their behavior is utterly unacceptable (as an AuADHD person myself, it's no excuse), I have taken the advice from [[User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] below. [[User: Piccadilly|Piccadilly]], you are indefinitely prohibited from editing Test Wiki due to repeated sockpuppetry. If you wish to be unblocked, you must go through staff@testwiki.wiki, after '''at least''' a [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Standard offer| 6 month abstention from editing Test Wiki, using your main account or other accounts]]. At least 2 of the current 4 Stewards must endorse your appeal to be unblocked, and they have the discretion to forward it to the community instead. [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 03:09, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Piccadilly sent this into the staff email address today: "The issues I have had on the wiki have been making random talk pages, using bad language in some of my edits, spamming random letters, and evading my block through IP addresses. I am not sure of all the reasons I thought any of that would be okay, but I do remember thinking at times "this won't hurt anything" or "I'll undo this right afterwards so nobody will even notice". I definitely should have been thinking more maturely or at least sensibly when doing any testing on the wiki.

If I am allowed back, I will be extremely careful in all my tests on the wiki. I also promise to adhere to any conditions that might be set for my unblock, including when I can ask for administrator and/or bureaucrat."

Are there any community objections or comments about her return? [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 23:31, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

===Proposal: Ban Piccadilly indefinitely===

I would like to propose a site ban of Piccadilly for an indefinite period of time, as the person who posted the block appeal and found CheckUser evidence. Piccadilly, you should take a break from wikis and prove you can stop socking. The fact that you used IPs to evade your block is utterly unacceptable, as you know the consequences of block evasion and sockpuppetry. You also seem to lack the ability to stop yourself, which is [[WP:WP:CIR|required]] if you want to be here, and you lacking it has caused severe disruption. [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 16:56, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

* '''Support''' as such behavior is really unacceptable. [[User:64andtim|64andtim]] ([[User talk:64andtim|talk]]) 08:43, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

* I don't know the circumstances that gave rise to their original block, or whether the block was imposed by a mainly testing permissions [[Test Wiki:Bureaucrats|bureaucrat]] or [[Test Wiki:Stewards|Steward]]. '''''If''''', and '''''only if''''', the original indefinite block was either (a) made by a Steward directly or (b) reviewed thoroughly and endorsed by a Steward, '''''then''''' I '''support''' an indefinite block (you can call it a ''ban'', if you want, but I don't personally like the word ''ban'' as that implies permanence here and we also don't have a "site ban" policy (nor do I think we need one), provided it's a steward-imposed indefinite block/''ban'' that carries the community's endorsement but would '''oppose''' any sort of "community ban" as, fundamentally, I tend to oppose community bans for the following several reasons, notably:

*# Philosophically speaking, we elect amongst ourselves Stewards, whom we entrust to make these decisions. Each Steward has different criteria for effecting certain user control measures in terms of restriction, severity, and duration. Users are always provided an opportunity to appeal, then an uninvolved Steward should review the circumstances and decide whether the sanction is appropriate, restorative and protective but, crucially, ''not'' punitive. If we're to then second guess ourselves and defer to the community on every major user control decision, what is the purpose of Stewards after all?

*# This is more of a Test Wiki-specific reason, but Test Wiki's community, aside from several core users is transitory in nature. Users come and go frequently and often have to "follow the herd mentality" of a few in community discussions, which is not a substantive community [[w:WP:CON|consensus]]

*# I suspect the behaviour is more of Piccadilly's reversion to the mean of not being to help themselves. They're [[w:WP:AGF|good-faith]], have made positive steps in terms of reforming themselves and even been a constructive contributor for several months, but then they revert to non-constructive gibberish outside of their own userspace and clearly marked test pages. The sockpuppetry is more of a symptom of their self-disclosed ADHD + autism, in being frustrated by stewards not responding to their appeal. That's not to ''excuse'' it, but I ''do'' think it provides a mitigating circumstance

: In summary, subject to the conditions I described above, I think they need a clear break, so no objections from me in imposing a steward-imposed indefinite block/ban on Test Wiki, provided it's made clear that (a) the appeal venue is to <code>staff[at]testwiki.wiki</code> and to Stewards and (b) that an appeal will ''only'' be considered after a reasonable break (of say, a minimum of 1 and maximum of 6 months) '''from date of last confirmed sock''' (note that each confirmed sock would reset the appeal date, which is why, in Piccadilly's case, a 1 month minimum block period can be the ''minimum'' sanction necessary; if they continue, it effectively becomes a longer block because the appeal date keeps getting pushed out, but, if they can keep their nose clean and steer clear, then they've shown they still have the capacity to '''follow direction''' from Stewards and, by extension, the community, which is ''always'' our aim). If the above is true, Justarandomamerican, please feel free to self-close this and impose the block/ban as such and make clear your appeal conditions, which could include appeal to a single steward alone or require support from a plurality of stewards (i.e., at least 50%). [[User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk:Dmehus|talk]]) 02:30, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

{{Discussion bottom}}

==Move Test Wiki:Request for permissions to ''[[Test Wiki:Request for permissions]]''==

{{discussion top}}

{{Done}}. [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 20:47, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia, their requests page is under that title. [[User:Username|Username]] ([[User talk:Username|talk]]) 19:56, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

:{{support}} per consistency. [[User:Sav|Sav]] • ([[Special:Contribs/Sav|<span style="color:#0080ff"> Edits</span>]] | [[Special:Newsection/User talk:Sav|<span style="color:#0080ff">Talk </span>]]) 20:03, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

:'''Doing...''' as relatively uncontroversial. [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 20:46, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

{{Discussion bottom}}