Test Wiki:Community portal: Difference between revisions

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

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.

*::'''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)

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

*# 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}}