Test Wiki:Community portal: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
re to Justarandomamerican Tag: 2017 source edit |
→Newest Block Appeal: +agree Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
||
Line 106: | Line 106: | ||
:*:I think consent by at least two bureaucrat-sysops is unnecessary for a temporary block to prevent disruption, rather, in the interest of this wiki [[wikipedia:wikipedia:NOTBURO|not becoming a bureaucracy]], I request you change consent for a temporary block to independent action. [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 00:57, 21 May 2023 (UTC) | :*:I think consent by at least two bureaucrat-sysops is unnecessary for a temporary block to prevent disruption, rather, in the interest of this wiki [[wikipedia:wikipedia:NOTBURO|not becoming a bureaucracy]], I request you change consent for a temporary block to independent action. [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 00:57, 21 May 2023 (UTC) | ||
:*::[[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]], that's fair and might be a bit much. For context, the thinking here was that Test Wiki is a "training ground" for new administrators and bureaucrats. As such, and at the same time, some may have different standards or views with respect to what constitutes a short block. Perhaps we could modify that to say two-bureaucrat-sysops are needed for the ''final'' thirty (30) block prior to be being re-blocked indefinitely by a Steward and, where one bureaucrat-sysop disagrees with a temporary block, they ''may'' vacate the temporary block? If further disputes occur, it should fall to a Steward to review and determine whether the temporary block was appropriate? Basically, we need some way to handle disputes over whether to impose a short block. [[User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk:Dmehus|talk]]) 01:16, 21 May 2023 (UTC) | :*::[[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]], that's fair and might be a bit much. For context, the thinking here was that Test Wiki is a "training ground" for new administrators and bureaucrats. As such, and at the same time, some may have different standards or views with respect to what constitutes a short block. Perhaps we could modify that to say two-bureaucrat-sysops are needed for the ''final'' thirty (30) block prior to be being re-blocked indefinitely by a Steward and, where one bureaucrat-sysop disagrees with a temporary block, they ''may'' vacate the temporary block? If further disputes occur, it should fall to a Steward to review and determine whether the temporary block was appropriate? Basically, we need some way to handle disputes over whether to impose a short block. [[User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk:Dmehus|talk]]) 01:16, 21 May 2023 (UTC) | ||
:*:::I would agree to that form of dispute resolution: for the final temporary block, the consent of 2 is required, given that your logic is reasonable. [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 01:21, 21 May 2023 (UTC) | |||
:* '''[[User:Seiyena|Seiyena]]'s agreement (signature and timestamp); a bureaucrat-sysop can please copy over from their [[User talk:Seiyena|user talk page]], linking to the [[Special:Diff|diff]] there in the wikitext of this page ''and'' an edit summary:''' | :* '''[[User:Seiyena|Seiyena]]'s agreement (signature and timestamp); a bureaucrat-sysop can please copy over from their [[User talk:Seiyena|user talk page]], linking to the [[Special:Diff|diff]] there in the wikitext of this page ''and'' an edit summary:''' | ||