User talk:Piccadilly: Difference between revisions
From Test Wiki
Content deleted Content added
Piccadilly (talk | contribs) →Block Appeal: new section |
m Reverted edit by Piccadilly (talk) to last revision by MacFan4000 Tags: Rollback Reverted Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
||
| Line 125: | Line 125: | ||
:::::::::[[Test_Wiki:Community_portal#Request_for_Block_Against_Piccadilly|Done]] [[User:Sav|Sav]] • ([[Special:Contribs/Sav|<span style="color:#0080ff"> Edits</span>]] | [[Special:Newsection/User talk:Sav|<span style="color:#0080ff">Talk </span>]]) 01:09, 6 May 2024 (UTC) |
:::::::::[[Test_Wiki:Community_portal#Request_for_Block_Against_Piccadilly|Done]] [[User:Sav|Sav]] • ([[Special:Contribs/Sav|<span style="color:#0080ff"> Edits</span>]] | [[Special:Newsection/User talk:Sav|<span style="color:#0080ff">Talk </span>]]) 01:09, 6 May 2024 (UTC) |
||
:::::[[User:Sav|Sav]], I think you misunderstood. Being ''allowed'' to appeal a currently indefinite block '''does not''' mean the appeal will be ''successful''. They appealed their block over a month ago (or so), and it's ''not'' been removed, fundamentally, because, as Stewards, we agree they're '''not ready'''. When we ''do'' feel they're ready, I'd be happy, and am sure Justarandomamerican and Drummingman would be happy to ''consult'' with the community on what restrictions are needed, the duration of such restrictions, and a timeline for a gradual removal, as well as penalties for contravention. Allowing appeals is an important part of '''due process'''; to ''not'' allow an appeal, we'd be no better than, say, a totalitarian state like North Korea or even Russia, for that matter. At the end of the day, it's about balancing both '''due process''' as well as getting community feedback to ensure the user can be reintegrated. As to the racist slurs and racially insensitive comments, I am well of those. [[User:Piccadilly|Piccadilly]] goes by [[w:User:Skiyomi|Skiyomi]] on English Wikipedia. I've told them before it's '''not''' acceptable behaviour, will be revision deleted, and is grounds for immediate rights revocation and/or blocking or partial blocking as necessary. I know they don't ''mean'' them, and the user has said in our <code>#testadminwiki</code> IRC channel that they struggle with autism. I take them at face value and am happy to extend [[w:WP:AGF|good-faith]] and grace, to a point. We're at the point right now where they need to remain blocked for an extended period of time, to demonstrate to Stewards, and, by extension, the community, they have the ''capacity'' to learn. :) [[User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk:Dmehus|talk]]) 02:26, 8 May 2024 (UTC) |
:::::[[User:Sav|Sav]], I think you misunderstood. Being ''allowed'' to appeal a currently indefinite block '''does not''' mean the appeal will be ''successful''. They appealed their block over a month ago (or so), and it's ''not'' been removed, fundamentally, because, as Stewards, we agree they're '''not ready'''. When we ''do'' feel they're ready, I'd be happy, and am sure Justarandomamerican and Drummingman would be happy to ''consult'' with the community on what restrictions are needed, the duration of such restrictions, and a timeline for a gradual removal, as well as penalties for contravention. Allowing appeals is an important part of '''due process'''; to ''not'' allow an appeal, we'd be no better than, say, a totalitarian state like North Korea or even Russia, for that matter. At the end of the day, it's about balancing both '''due process''' as well as getting community feedback to ensure the user can be reintegrated. As to the racist slurs and racially insensitive comments, I am well of those. [[User:Piccadilly|Piccadilly]] goes by [[w:User:Skiyomi|Skiyomi]] on English Wikipedia. I've told them before it's '''not''' acceptable behaviour, will be revision deleted, and is grounds for immediate rights revocation and/or blocking or partial blocking as necessary. I know they don't ''mean'' them, and the user has said in our <code>#testadminwiki</code> IRC channel that they struggle with autism. I take them at face value and am happy to extend [[w:WP:AGF|good-faith]] and grace, to a point. We're at the point right now where they need to remain blocked for an extended period of time, to demonstrate to Stewards, and, by extension, the community, they have the ''capacity'' to learn. :) [[User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk:Dmehus|talk]]) 02:26, 8 May 2024 (UTC) |
||
== Block Appeal == |
|||
{{unblock|Hello, I would like to ask that my block from this wiki be removed so I can test here. I will obey all the policies, not make useless pages of any kind, and refrain from using any bad language in my tests. I will also only use this account (Piccadily) here and not edit as an IP. |
|||
I feel that I am ready to return here after this break and will be able to test constructively. And I understand that I need to be extremely vigilant in ensuring I don't mess up here again. Thank you. [[User:Piccadilly|Piccadilly]] ([[Special:Contribs/Piccadilly|<span style="color:red">My Contribs</span>]] | [[User talk:Piccadilly|<span style="color:#0080ff">My Messages</span>]]) 14:07, 12 November 2024 (UTC)}} [[User:Piccadilly|Piccadilly]] ([[Special:Contribs/Piccadilly|<span style="color:red">My Contribs</span>]] | [[User talk:Piccadilly|<span style="color:#0080ff">My Messages</span>]]) 14:07, 12 November 2024 (UTC) |
|||