Test Wiki:Community portal: Difference between revisions

*::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==

*::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)

*::::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)

*::::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)

*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)