Test Wiki:Community portal: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m (→Statement from Piccadilly: -remove unnecessary comment; this isn't a !vote) |
m (→Discussion: ce-fix formatting) |
||
| Line 184: | Line 184: | ||
===Discussion=== | ===Discussion=== | ||
*Due to previously filing one of these myself, I should not close this, and hence will leave a comment. There have been 2 previous discussions. The second resulted and later unblocking her, and the first resulted in implementing an abuse filter which attempted and failed to resolve the problem . I think it is time for the wider community to have a say in any future appeals, as this is either [[Wikipedia: Wikipedia:CIR|a very egregious case of not having necessary competence]], or [[WP:WP:SNEAKY|an attempt to troll and evade scrutiny]]. Therefore, I | *Due to previously filing one of these myself, I should not close this, and hence will leave a comment. There have been 2 previous discussions. The second resulted and later unblocking her, and the first resulted in implementing an abuse filter which attempted and failed to resolve the problem . I think it is time for the wider community to have a say in any future appeals, as this is either [[Wikipedia: Wikipedia:CIR|a very egregious case of not having necessary competence]], or [[WP:WP:SNEAKY|an attempt to troll and evade scrutiny]]. Therefore, I support a community ban/block, or, at the very least, an automatic community ban upon an unblock and reblock by a steward of the current block. [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 02:41, 6 May 2024 (UTC) | ||
*:Thank you for your input! [[User:Sav|Sav]] • ([[Special:Contribs/Sav|<span style="color:#0080ff"> Edits</span>]] | [[Special:Newsection/User talk:Sav|<span style="color:#0080ff">Talk </span>]]) 03:52, 6 May 2024 (UTC) | *:Thank you for your input! [[User:Sav|Sav]] • ([[Special:Contribs/Sav|<span style="color:#0080ff"> Edits</span>]] | [[Special:Newsection/User talk:Sav|<span style="color:#0080ff">Talk </span>]]) 03:52, 6 May 2024 (UTC) | ||
*First, I'm curious as to ''what prompted'' you, [[User:Sav|Sav]], to make this request for a 'community block'? [[User:Piccadilly|Piccadilly]] is currently indefinitely blocked; they recently ''had'' attempted to contravene the indefinite block by created a [[w:WP:SOCK|an illegitimate sockpuppet account]], which they promptly e-mailed [[Test Wiki:Stewards|Stewards]] about in [[w:WP:AGF|good-faith]]. This shows continued capacity for learning. Separately, they ''have'' appealed their block, but, as Stewards, your elected non-test administrators and bureaucrats on this wiki, I believe I can say there is [[w:WP:CON|fairly good consensus]] that this is a '''not yet''' situation with respect to an unblock. Piccadilly has made ''some'' progress in terms of continuing to demonstrate, very modestly, capacity to ''learn'', which is good, but it needs, I think, at least several more months before considering a provisional and conditional unblock. As well, technically speaking, we also need to put in place community-advised recommendations with respect to mechanisms to prevent editing restriction-restricted users from editing abuse filters. The community, last I checked, seemed to be leaning towards a restricted user group that revoked certain user rights related to editing or creating abuse filters. | *First, I'm curious as to ''what prompted'' you, [[User:Sav|Sav]], to make this request for a 'community block'? [[User:Piccadilly|Piccadilly]] is currently indefinitely blocked; they recently ''had'' attempted to contravene the indefinite block by created a [[w:WP:SOCK|an illegitimate sockpuppet account]], which they promptly e-mailed [[Test Wiki:Stewards|Stewards]] about in [[w:WP:AGF|good-faith]]. This shows continued capacity for learning. Separately, they ''have'' appealed their block, but, as Stewards, your elected non-test administrators and bureaucrats on this wiki, I believe I can say there is [[w:WP:CON|fairly good consensus]] that this is a '''not yet''' situation with respect to an unblock. Piccadilly has made ''some'' progress in terms of continuing to demonstrate, very modestly, capacity to ''learn'', which is good, but it needs, I think, at least several more months before considering a provisional and conditional unblock. As well, technically speaking, we also need to put in place community-advised recommendations with respect to mechanisms to prevent editing restriction-restricted users from editing abuse filters. The community, last I checked, seemed to be leaning towards a restricted user group that revoked certain user rights related to editing or creating abuse filters. | ||