410
edits
Test Wiki:Community portal: Difference between revisions
From Test Wiki
m
→Proposal: Ban Piccadilly indefinitely: ce-fix indentation
(→Proposal: Ban Piccadilly indefinitely: re to Justarandomamerican w/support conditionally for steward-imposed indefinite block/ban) |
m (→Proposal: Ban Piccadilly indefinitely: ce-fix indentation) |
||
| Line 306: | Line 306: | ||
===Proposal: Ban Piccadilly indefinitely=== | ===Proposal: Ban Piccadilly indefinitely=== | ||
I would like to propose a site ban of Piccadilly for an indefinite period of time, as the person who posted the block appeal and found CheckUser evidence. Piccadilly, you should take a break from wikis and prove you can stop socking. The fact that you used IPs to evade your block is utterly unacceptable, as you know the consequences of block evasion and sockpuppetry. You also seem to lack the ability to stop yourself, which is [[WP:WP:CIR|required]] if you want to be here, and you lacking it has caused severe disruption. [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 16:56, 17 November 2023 (UTC) | I would like to propose a site ban of Piccadilly for an indefinite period of time, as the person who posted the block appeal and found CheckUser evidence. Piccadilly, you should take a break from wikis and prove you can stop socking. The fact that you used IPs to evade your block is utterly unacceptable, as you know the consequences of block evasion and sockpuppetry. You also seem to lack the ability to stop yourself, which is [[WP:WP:CIR|required]] if you want to be here, and you lacking it has caused severe disruption. [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 16:56, 17 November 2023 (UTC) | ||
*{{support}} as such behavior is really unacceptable. [[User:64andtim|64andtim]] ([[User talk:64andtim|talk]]) 08:43, 24 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
*I don't know the circumstances that gave rise to their original block, or whether the block was imposed by a mainly testing permissions [[Test Wiki:Bureaucrats|bureaucrat]] or [[Test Wiki:Stewards|Steward]]. '''''If''''', and '''''only if''''', the original indefinite block was either (a) made by a Steward directly or (b) reviewed thoroughly and endorsed by a Steward, '''''then''''' I {{support}} an indefinite block (you can call it a ''ban'', if you want, but I don't personally like the word ''ban'' as that implies permanence here and we also don't have a "site ban" policy (nor do I think we need one), provided it's a steward-imposed indefinite block/''ban'' that carries the community's endorsement but would {{oppose}} any sort of "community ban" as, fundamentally, I tend to oppose community bans for the following several reasons, notably: | * {{support}} as such behavior is really unacceptable. [[User:64andtim|64andtim]] ([[User talk:64andtim|talk]]) 08:43, 24 November 2023 (UTC) | ||
* I don't know the circumstances that gave rise to their original block, or whether the block was imposed by a mainly testing permissions [[Test Wiki:Bureaucrats|bureaucrat]] or [[Test Wiki:Stewards|Steward]]. '''''If''''', and '''''only if''''', the original indefinite block was either (a) made by a Steward directly or (b) reviewed thoroughly and endorsed by a Steward, '''''then''''' I {{support}} an indefinite block (you can call it a ''ban'', if you want, but I don't personally like the word ''ban'' as that implies permanence here and we also don't have a "site ban" policy (nor do I think we need one), provided it's a steward-imposed indefinite block/''ban'' that carries the community's endorsement but would {{oppose}} any sort of "community ban" as, fundamentally, I tend to oppose community bans for the following several reasons, notably: | |||
*# Philosophically speaking, we elect amongst ourselves Stewards, whom we entrust to make these decisions. Each Steward has different criteria for effecting certain user control measures in terms of restriction, severity, and duration. Users are always provided an opportunity to appeal, then an uninvolved Steward should review the circumstances and decide whether the sanction is appropriate, restorative and protective but, crucially, ''not'' punitive. If we're to then second guess ourselves and defer to the community on every major user control decision, what is the purpose of Stewards after all? | *# Philosophically speaking, we elect amongst ourselves Stewards, whom we entrust to make these decisions. Each Steward has different criteria for effecting certain user control measures in terms of restriction, severity, and duration. Users are always provided an opportunity to appeal, then an uninvolved Steward should review the circumstances and decide whether the sanction is appropriate, restorative and protective but, crucially, ''not'' punitive. If we're to then second guess ourselves and defer to the community on every major user control decision, what is the purpose of Stewards after all? | ||
*# This is more of a Test Wiki-specific reason, but Test Wiki's community, aside from several core users is transitory in nature. Users come and go frequently and often have to "follow the herd mentality" of a few in community discussions, which is not a substantive community [[w:WP:CON|consensus]] | *# This is more of a Test Wiki-specific reason, but Test Wiki's community, aside from several core users is transitory in nature. Users come and go frequently and often have to "follow the herd mentality" of a few in community discussions, which is not a substantive community [[w:WP:CON|consensus]] | ||
*# I suspect the behaviour is more of Piccadilly's reversion to the mean of not being to help themselves. They're [[w:WP:AGF|good-faith]], have made positive steps in terms of reforming themselves and even been a constructive contributor for several months, but then they revert to non-constructive gibberish outside of their own userspace and clearly marked test pages. The sockpuppetry is more of a symptom of their self-disclosed ADHD + autism, in being frustrated by stewards not responding to their appeal. That's not to ''excuse'' it, but I ''do'' think it provides a mitigating circumstance | *# I suspect the behaviour is more of Piccadilly's reversion to the mean of not being to help themselves. They're [[w:WP:AGF|good-faith]], have made positive steps in terms of reforming themselves and even been a constructive contributor for several months, but then they revert to non-constructive gibberish outside of their own userspace and clearly marked test pages. The sockpuppetry is more of a symptom of their self-disclosed ADHD + autism, in being frustrated by stewards not responding to their appeal. That's not to ''excuse'' it, but I ''do'' think it provides a mitigating circumstance | ||
In summary, subject to the conditions I described above, I think they need a clear break, so no objections from me in imposing a steward-imposed indefinite block/ban on Test Wiki, provided it's made clear that (a) the appeal venue is to <code>staff[at]testwiki.wiki</code> and to Stewards and (b) that an appeal will ''only'' be considered after a reasonable break (of say, a minimum of 1 and maximum of 6 months) '''from date of last confirmed sock'''. If the above is true, Justarandomamerican, please feel free to self-close this and impose the block/ban as such and make clear your appeal conditions. [[User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk:Dmehus|talk]]) 02:30, 26 November 2023 (UTC) | In summary, subject to the conditions I described above, I think they need a clear break, so no objections from me in imposing a steward-imposed indefinite block/ban on Test Wiki, provided it's made clear that (a) the appeal venue is to <code>staff[at]testwiki.wiki</code> and to Stewards and (b) that an appeal will ''only'' be considered after a reasonable break (of say, a minimum of 1 and maximum of 6 months) '''from date of last confirmed sock'''. If the above is true, Justarandomamerican, please feel free to self-close this and impose the block/ban as such and make clear your appeal conditions. [[User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk:Dmehus|talk]]) 02:30, 26 November 2023 (UTC) | ||
