Test Wiki:Community portal: Difference between revisions
From Test Wiki
→Block appeal: templates
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
(→Block appeal: templates) Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
||
| Line 299: | Line 299: | ||
:Due to non-participation, I'll withdraw this within 4 days. [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 20:37, 11 November 2023 (UTC) | :Due to non-participation, I'll withdraw this within 4 days. [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 20:37, 11 November 2023 (UTC) | ||
:: Withdrawn. [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 23:31, 16 November 2023 (UTC) | :: Withdrawn. [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 23:31, 16 November 2023 (UTC) | ||
==Block appeal== | ==Block appeal== | ||
{{Discussion top}} | |||
::Though their behavior is utterly unacceptable (as an AuADHD person myself, it's no excuse), I have taken the advice from [[User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] below. [[User: Piccadilly|Piccadilly]], you are indefinitely prohibited from editing Test Wiki due to repeated sockpuppetry. If you wish to be unblocked, you must go through staff@testwiki.wiki, after '''at least''' a [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Standard offer| 6 month abstention from editing Test Wiki, using your main account or other accounts]]. At least 2 of the current 4 Stewards must endorse your appeal to be unblocked, and they have the discretion to forward it to the community instead. [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 03:09, 26 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
Piccadilly sent this into the staff email address today: "The issues I have had on the wiki have been making random talk pages, using bad language in some of my edits, spamming random letters, and evading my block through IP addresses. I am not sure of all the reasons I thought any of that would be okay, but I do remember thinking at times "this won't hurt anything" or "I'll undo this right afterwards so nobody will even notice". I definitely should have been thinking more maturely or at least sensibly when doing any testing on the wiki. | Piccadilly sent this into the staff email address today: "The issues I have had on the wiki have been making random talk pages, using bad language in some of my edits, spamming random letters, and evading my block through IP addresses. I am not sure of all the reasons I thought any of that would be okay, but I do remember thinking at times "this won't hurt anything" or "I'll undo this right afterwards so nobody will even notice". I definitely should have been thinking more maturely or at least sensibly when doing any testing on the wiki. | ||
If I am allowed back, I will be extremely careful in all my tests on the wiki. I also promise to adhere to any conditions that might be set for my unblock, including when I can ask for administrator and/or bureaucrat." | If I am allowed back, I will be extremely careful in all my tests on the wiki. I also promise to adhere to any conditions that might be set for my unblock, including when I can ask for administrator and/or bureaucrat." | ||
| Line 313: | Line 316: | ||
*# 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''' (note that each confirmed sock would reset the appeal date, which is why, in Piccadilly's case, a 1 month minimum block period can be the ''minimum'' sanction necessary; if they continue, it effectively becomes a longer block because the appeal date keeps getting pushed out, but, if they can keep their nose clean and steer clear, then they've shown they still have the capacity to '''follow direction''' from Stewards and, by extension, the community, which is ''always'' our aim). 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, which could include appeal to a single steward alone or require support from a plurality of stewards (i.e., at least 50%). [[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''' (note that each confirmed sock would reset the appeal date, which is why, in Piccadilly's case, a 1 month minimum block period can be the ''minimum'' sanction necessary; if they continue, it effectively becomes a longer block because the appeal date keeps getting pushed out, but, if they can keep their nose clean and steer clear, then they've shown they still have the capacity to '''follow direction''' from Stewards and, by extension, the community, which is ''always'' our aim). 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, which could include appeal to a single steward alone or require support from a plurality of stewards (i.e., at least 50%). [[User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk:Dmehus|talk]]) 02:30, 26 November 2023 (UTC) | ||
{{Discussion bottom}} | |||
