Test Wiki:Community portal: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
→Discussion
m (→Discussion: ce-fix interwiki link) |
Piccadilly (talk | contribs) |
||
| (33 intermediate revisions by 6 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) | |||
*::::With the provisions for common sense exceptions by Stewards, that's fine. [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 13:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
==Omnibus RfC: Unbundling abusefilter permissions from Administrators== | ==Omnibus RfC: Unbundling abusefilter permissions from Administrators== | ||
| Line 182: | Line 184: | ||
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=== | ||
| Line 190: | Line 194: | ||
*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? | *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) | *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). I am willing to help under reasonable conditions, but my main instinct is to prevent disruption at this time. [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 03:05, 8 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
*::I could not have said this better myself, Justarandomamerican. The ongoing back and forth with this user proves a conflict in opinions regarding the appropriate course of action. | |||
*::PSA for {{Ping|Dmehus}}, this request was discussed between myself and [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] on [[User:Piccadilly|Piccadilly's]] [[User_talk:Piccadilly#About_My_Current_Block|talk page]]. [[User:X|X]] was indirectly involved with this request. [[User:Sav|Sav]] • ([[Special:Contribs/Sav|<span style="color:#0080ff"> Edits</span>]] | [[Special:Newsection/User talk:Sav|<span style="color:#0080ff">Talk </span>]]) 03:10, 8 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
*:::I really would have to disagree with you on point #3, Dmehus. This is not a simple decision, it has been a continuous point of contention and issue for years on TestWiki. The community and stewards have seen many false promises and appeals over this time and it appeared that the stewards were going to listen to another appeal. I don't want to speak for Sav, but I can say that I was shocked to hear that an appeal was even being considered after the consistent disruption for years that Piccadilly has caused. Thus, I think enforcing a community block is a great option so that the stewards cannot unblock without consulting the broader community. {{support}}. [[User:X|'''<span style="background:#3383ff;color:white;padding:5px;box-shadow:0 1px 1px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.2)">X</span>''']] ([[User talk:X|talk]] + [[Special:Contributions/X|contribs]]) 12:46, 8 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
*::::First of all, as a point of clarification, nothing in [[Test Wiki:Policies|''policy'']] provides for the community to ''impose'' or ''mandate'' a block or ban, but Stewards will take into consideration from the community prior to unblocking. Secondly, as I've noted elsewhere in this discussion, part of the problem with respect to Piccadilly is test bureaucrats, such as yourself, proceeded immediately to a sitewide block earlier on rather than a rights revocation. Thirdly, perhaps I misspoke when I said the appeal was being ''currently'' considered; no, what I meant was that Piccadilly had an ''active'' but currently ''deferred'' appeal before Stewards. None of us were prepared to unblock at this point, and we wouldn't do so without agreement with other Stewards. Moreover, as I've said, we would seek the community's feedback through community discussion, but ''not'' simply a !vote (as we don't do that here), with respect to conditions for unblocking, minimum timeframe for unblocking, and what other parameters Stewards should impose. [[User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk:Dmehus|talk]]) 12:54, 8 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
*::[[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] and [[User:Sav|Sav]], I'm not suggesting continuing to extend 'rope' indefinitely. The reality is, Piccadilly is blocked indefinitely, and currently has their user talk page access revoked as well. They know they have an appeal in to Stewards, but it isn't being considered now because they're not ready. We don't want to just keep unblocking and reblocking Piccadilly. That being said, I'm willing to consider that there have been a number of procedural mistakes with respect to Piccadilly (i.e., test bureaucrats and administrators blocking Piccadilly unnecessarily when they should've left sanction to Stewards, not putting in place technical mechanisms to revoke their ability to edit abuse filters, etc.). I'm also willing to consider Piccadilly's neurodiverse condition that causes them to act in an immature and, at time, gross manner in terms of type of edits, so they require technical measures to control that (when they're not blocked). Sav hasn't proposed anything here beyond the status quo (i.e., they're currently blocked indefinitely). I cannot understand what this discussion aims to accomplish. Stewards ''will'' and ''should'' continue to decline the appeal until we have both the technical measures in place and feel Piccadilly has demonstrated sufficient ability to operate within the minimal community norms of community. [[User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk:Dmehus|talk]]) 12:46, 8 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
*:::I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that everything would be much simpler if we simply stuck to what we said before: "One chance and no appeals if conditions are at all broken." (They were broken) It would be extremely easy to just say we're never going to consider an appeal from Piccadilly ever again and leave it at that... [[User:X|'''<span style="background:#3383ff;color:white;padding:5px;box-shadow:0 1px 1px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.2)">X</span>''']] ([[User talk:X|talk]] + [[Special:Contributions/X|contribs]]) 12:56, 8 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
*::::Simpler, maybe. But is it procedurally ''just'' and ''fair''? No. So far, they haven't been able to go a month recently without contravening user accounts policy. Let's see if they can even go three months, okay? If not, you have my promise Stewards will keep blocking any sockpuppets as crosswiki or long-term abuse. :) [[User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk:Dmehus|talk]]) 12:59, 8 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
*:::::They've been given countless chances and appeals that were just and fair. Enough is enough. [[User:X|'''<span style="background:#3383ff;color:white;padding:5px;box-shadow:0 1px 1px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.2)">X</span>''']] ([[User talk:X|talk]] + [[Special:Contributions/X|contribs]]) 13:01, 8 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
*::::::There is no such thing as a 'permanent ban or block', on ''any'' mainstream, reputable wiki. I think a core part of the problem, aside from blocks by test bureaucrats early on that should've been left to Stewards, is that we haven't allowed a sufficient length of time to pass before assessing Piccadilly's capacity to heed instruction from Stewards, together with the community's advice. If you (or Sav) would like to have a constructive discussion on that timeframe is, I think ''that'' would be a productive discussion to have and I'm happy to have it. I think it's obviously longer than a month. Should it be three months, six months, or a year? Keep in mind, they haven't been able to go a month in recent months. And, what is your reason for choosing that timeframe? [[User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk:Dmehus|talk]]) 13:40, 8 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
*:::{{tq|We don't want to keep unblocking and reblocking Piccadilly}} Unfortunately, I believe the ship of expressing a desire not to has sailed. That is what has happened. If the majority of [[Test Wiki:Stewards|us]] can promise that community consensus will be required for an unblock, that's great, and is an alternative way of resolving this discussion's aim. I'd be fine with that resolution. [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 13:05, 8 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
*::::I'm curious for your thoughts on simply not allow Piccadilly to ever appeal again, given you did make [https://testwiki.wiki/index.php?title=User_talk:Piccadilly&diff=prev&oldid=37774 this comment]. [[User:X|'''<span style="background:#3383ff;color:white;padding:5px;box-shadow:0 1px 1px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.2)">X</span>''']] ([[User talk:X|talk]] + [[Special:Contributions/X|contribs]]) 13:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
*:::::I did not ''necessarily'' say that no appeals would be allowed. Rather, I extended [[WP:ROPE|rope]]. Even if community or steward consensus would be required for an unblock, [[WP:WP:Appealing a block|reasonable]] appeals should be considered, except in the case where no [[WP: reasonable person| reasonable person]] would be willing to accept the appeal. We are an open wiki, not a corporate community with irrevocable blacklists. [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 13:17, 8 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
*::::::Maybe when the stewards forward my appeal to the community, we could include the condition that if I get blocked again, it will be almost guaranteed that no one would agree to unblock me if I were to get into trouble here again. [[User:Piccadilly|Piccadilly]] ([[Special:Contribs/Piccadilly|<span style="color:red">My Contribs</span>]] | [[User talk:Piccadilly|<span style="color:#0080ff">My Messages</span>]]) 13:20, 8 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
*:::::::Almost guarantees haven't proven effective before. [[User:X|'''<span style="background:#3383ff;color:white;padding:5px;box-shadow:0 1px 1px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.2)">X</span>''']] ([[User talk:X|talk]] + [[Special:Contributions/X|contribs]]) 13:23, 8 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
*:::::::As a community-advised, Steward-imposed block, that ''would'' effectively be what we would do. It wouldn't be an up-or-down !vote, but rather, a series of questions asking the community's input on minimum timeframe before unblocking, conditions to be imposed by Stewards upon a conditional unblocking, and what penalties shall occur based on the level of infraction. I think, fundamentally, if the community is able to advise on minimum timeframe away from Test Wiki, that would satisfy all concerned. At the end of the day, ''time'' often heals all wounds (apologies for the cliché!) [[User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk:Dmehus|talk]]) 13:44, 8 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
*So I see now that Sav just wants everyone to be on the same page in regard to this issue, which is understandable. How about the following proposal: | |||
:When the stewards feel I'm ready to be unblocked, which will most likely not be until at least August, they forward my appeal to the community, so they can all vote on it and can share any concerns or issues they may have with it? I'm willing to accept whatever is decided on by the stewards and community when that time comes, whether that means a full unblock, partial, or even no unblock. [[User:Piccadilly|Piccadilly]] ([[Special:Contribs/Piccadilly|<span style="color:red">My Contribs</span>]] | [[User talk:Piccadilly|<span style="color:#0080ff">My Messages</span>]]) 12:01, 8 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
::That's the status quo. You're currently blocked indefinitely by Stewards. Given your past disruption, Stewards ''would'' likely seek feedback from the community's with respect to minimum timeframe for an appeal to be considered and to the technical measures that need to be put in place as well as conditions of such an unblock. [[User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk:Dmehus|talk]]) 12:48, 8 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
:So as I understand this discussion currently, it seems the ideal option right now is to agree on a minimum length of time before my appeal is forwarded to the community for consideration. That's fine with me, and I won't make any more evasion accounts or use IPs here any more. [[User:Piccadilly|Piccadilly]] ([[Special:Contribs/Piccadilly|<span style="color:red">My Contribs</span>]] | [[User talk:Piccadilly|<span style="color:#0080ff">My Messages</span>]]) 20:33, 8 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
If I were to say away from here for 3 months, until August, would that be long enough? [[User:Piccadilly|Piccadilly]] ([[Special:Contribs/Piccadilly|<span style="color:red">My Contribs</span>]] | [[User talk:Piccadilly|<span style="color:#0080ff">My Messages</span>]]) 16:53, 9 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
==Question== | |||
Is thanking a user for an action related to right management considered a logged action? [[User:Harvici|<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:#CC4E5C ; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">Harvici</span>]] ([[User talk:Harvici|<span style="color:#228B22">''talk''</span>]]) 12:44, 9 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
:I think it would show up in the log (https://testwiki.wiki/wiki/Special:Log?type=thanks&user=&page=&wpdate=&tagfilter=&subtype=&wpFormIdentifier=logeventslist), although not list the specific action. [[User:Piccadilly|Piccadilly]] ([[Special:Contribs/Piccadilly|<span style="color:red">My Contribs</span>]] | [[User talk:Piccadilly|<span style="color:#0080ff">My Messages</span>]]) 12:48, 9 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
==New Template== | |||
Hey everyone I recently created [[Template:Failed policy|a new template "Failed policy"]] which I moved from my user subpage to the template namespace.This template mainly uses the code already available on [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Failed_proposal| English Wikipidea]. I think it is uncontroversial, but if you have any suggestions or concerns, please let me know. [[User:Harvici|<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:#CC4E5C ; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">Harvici</span>]] ([[User talk:Harvici|<span style="color:#228B22">''talk''</span>]]) 16:39, 9 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
:I created this template mainly for [[User:Harvici/Signatures| this policy]] which clearly failed but the recent nominations of policies like crat policy and abuse-filter policy was also the reason for creation of the template :) [[User:Harvici|<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:#CC4E5C ; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">Harvici</span>]] ([[User talk:Harvici|<span style="color:#228B22">''talk''</span>]]) 16:41, 9 May 2024 (UTC) | |||