410
edits
Test Wiki:Community portal: Difference between revisions
From Test Wiki
→Newest Block Appeal: + moving to close; pinging Drummingman, Sav, and Q8j for their comments moving forward. Supporters may also add comments, too
Drummingman (talk | contribs) (→X's request for stewardship: fixed) |
(→Newest Block Appeal: + moving to close; pinging Drummingman, Sav, and Q8j for their comments moving forward. Supporters may also add comments, too) Tag: 2017 source edit |
||
| Line 87: | Line 87: | ||
* Seiyena is a difficult case, she has caused quite a bit of disruption cross-wiki, besides, she has already had many opportunities on this Test Wiki. I am taking a '''neutral stance''' on it. Should it be decided that she may be unblocked, this does seem to me to be the very last chance. Anyway, I think one of the current stewards should make the decision, since Dmehus already gave her a chance. To which it can be said that he only opened the talk page for [https://testwiki.wiki/index.php?title=Special:Log&logid=35209 her]. Then later I closed [https://testwiki.wiki/index.php?title=Special:Log&logid=35550 it] for [https://testwiki.wiki/index.php?title=User_talk:Seiyena&diff=prev&oldid=26060 abuse]. [[User:Drummingman|Drummingman]] ([[User talk:Drummingman|talk]]) 19:18, 19 May 2023 (UTC) | * Seiyena is a difficult case, she has caused quite a bit of disruption cross-wiki, besides, she has already had many opportunities on this Test Wiki. I am taking a '''neutral stance''' on it. Should it be decided that she may be unblocked, this does seem to me to be the very last chance. Anyway, I think one of the current stewards should make the decision, since Dmehus already gave her a chance. To which it can be said that he only opened the talk page for [https://testwiki.wiki/index.php?title=Special:Log&logid=35209 her]. Then later I closed [https://testwiki.wiki/index.php?title=Special:Log&logid=35550 it] for [https://testwiki.wiki/index.php?title=User_talk:Seiyena&diff=prev&oldid=26060 abuse]. [[User:Drummingman|Drummingman]] ([[User talk:Drummingman|talk]]) 19:18, 19 May 2023 (UTC) | ||
:Also, another note, specifically to {{ping|Dmehus}} It's definitely fine to at least me to impose a CONDUNBLOCK, or to lift it independently of community discussion if Seiyena agrees to certain conditions. Process this block appeal as you want, being sure to still make time for other things. TL;DR: '''Support any way of handling this''', if they are given a (perhaps last) chance at reintegration into the community, as the block does not appear to be preventing much, if any disruption based on behavior elsewhere. [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 02:52, 20 May 2023 (UTC) | :Also, another note, specifically to {{ping|Dmehus}} It's definitely fine to at least me to impose a CONDUNBLOCK, or to lift it independently of community discussion if Seiyena agrees to certain conditions. Process this block appeal as you want, being sure to still make time for other things. TL;DR: '''Support any way of handling this''', if they are given a (perhaps last) chance at reintegration into the community, as the block does not appear to be preventing much, if any disruption based on behavior elsewhere. [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 02:52, 20 May 2023 (UTC) | ||
* '''Proposed terms of conditional unblock.''' It looks like '''''most''''' of the participants here are in favour of some form of a conditional unblock, so I think we can move forward with proposed terms. For starters, and to be abundantly clear, I've seen some user(s) mention a "final unblock," I am never in favour of a "final chance" unblock. Rather, what I ''am'' in favour of is strict terms under which the user may be unblocked and reblocked as necessary. Any reblock [[rfc:2119|should ''not'']] be a final block, either, but rather, to ensure Stewards' and, where applicable, the community's time are not wasted, I believe it's important to specify the minimum timeframe before subsequent appeals are considered. | |||
: | |||
:Functionally, I propose the following, as a '''community-advised [[Test Wiki:Stewards|Steward]] conditional unblock and indefinite user restriction'''. Functionally, what does this mean versus a community block? In practice, there is not much difference, except that it's a Steward conditional unblock and indefinite user restriction, so they are free to manage terms, rather than have the community micro-manage minor aspects. They [[rfc:2119|''should'']] still seek the community's input before removal of the blanked user restriction and/or complete removal of the terms of the unblock conditions. It ''does'' provide for some flexibility in terms of removing said conditions, though. | |||
: | |||
:In any case, while there is [[w:WP:CON|consensus]] here to a conditional unblock, I ''would'' like to gain [[User:Sav|Sav]]'s support here and also ensure that [[User:Q8j|Q8j]] is supportive rather than officially neutral. Similarly, I would also like to have [[User:Drummingman|Drummingman]] agree with my points on why I am never in favour of so-called "last chances." I propose, noting what I've described above, that Seiyena (ApexAgunomu) is conditionally unblocked by Stewards, to which Stewards will seek the community's input before a blanket removal of such conditions, provided that they: | |||
:* Refrain from using racist or racially-insensitive commentary in the wikitext of pages, templates, etc., broadly construed; | |||
:* Refrain from using gibberish or patent nonsense, also fairly broadly construed, outside of community sandboxes, fairly narrowly construed, or their own userspace (including subpages of their own userspace); | |||
:* Be limited to the <code>[[Test Wiki:Administrators|sysop]]</code> user group for at least '''two (2) to four (4) weeks''' following closing of this discussion, after which they ''may'' be given <code>[[Test Wiki:Bureaucrats|bureaucrat]]</code> when two (2) or more Test Wiki bureaucrats in good standing agree to grant the group. [[Test Wiki:Stewards|Steward]] may also agree to grant the group, but for this purpose, as I will be closing this discussion, should that be ''me'', I will gain concurrence from at lease one other bureaucrat; and, | |||
:* Be limited to one (1) user account, indefinitely, on Test Wiki, being [[User:Seiyena|Seiyena]]. | |||
:Noting their positive improvements thus far, but also being cognizant of their self-admitted neurodiversity and that recidivism ''may'' occur, I propose that: | |||
:* The specific abuse filter(s) that [[User:Arcversin|Arcversin]] created be maintained, and Test Wiki bureaucrat-sysops are encouraged to request enhancements, as required, where such nonsense/gibberish filters through. | |||
:* Where such nonsense/gibberish ''does'' seep through, bureaucrat-sysops ''are'' encouraged to guide them, by giving them a friendly reminder on their [[User talk:Seiyena|user talk page]], including noting the next-level consequence. | |||
:* Next-level consequences would include rights removal for a short period of between three (3) days and two weeks (14) days. Where <code>sysop</code> rights are removed, they may still be granted appropriate rights below <code>sysop</code>, if useful (i.e., ability to view deleted revisions to analyze their mistakes) | |||
:* Short blocks, ideally consented to by two bureaucrat-sysops, a Steward, or a Steward and bureaucrat-sysop (if me) of the same duration as the rights removal are considered appropriate next-level consequences | |||
:* Once three next-level consequences, including the rights removal, are received, two bureaucrat-sysops may reblock for one-month until a Steward can indefinitely block them. If they are reblocked indefinitely by a Steward, that is ''not'' their "last chance," but rather, appeals will '''not''' be considered for at least three months. | |||
:* '''Important note:''' Where sockpuppetry is suspected, the suspected socks ''may'' be blocked indefinitely (but ''do'' use [[w:WP:DUCK|obvious]] evidence!) and a warning immediately issued to their [[User talk:Seiyena|user talk page]]. [[User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk:Dmehus|talk]]) 23:46, 20 May 2023 (UTC) | |||
:* '''Opportunity for others to comment and, hopefully, Sav, Q8j, and Drummingman''' will weigh in. | |||
: | |||
:* '''[[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:X|X]]'s request for stewardship == | == [[User:X|X]]'s request for stewardship == | ||
