Test Wiki:Community portal/Archive 9: Difference between revisions

==Addition of interface admin protection level==

{{discussion top|{{not done}}. Requester block and no consensus achieved. [[User:X|X]] ([[User talk:X|talk]]) 18:25, 16 October 2023 (UTC)}}

:I would say that the only part of this that can be debated is which right they should be merged into. I say it should be reviewer, as the more sensible name. [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 15:48, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

::I also agree that the editor right can just be deleted. [[User:X|X]] ([[User talk:X|talk]]) 11:23, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

:::I concur, this has my vote. [[User:Sav|Sav]] • ([[Special:Contribs/Sav|<span style="color:#0080ff"> Edits</span>]] | [[Special:Newsection/User talk:Sav|<span style="color:#0080ff">Talk </span>]]) 12:52, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

{{Discussion top|While there is some support, there isn't a strong consensus. Personally I would want to allow IPs to perform legitimate test edits. Since three isn't strong consensus for or against, I will call this unsuccessful. [[User:MacFan4000|MacFan4000]] ^{([[User talk:MacFan4000|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/MacFan4000|Contribs]])} 01:52, 26 October 2023 (UTC)}}

I suggest removing the ability for IPs to edit all pages. The sole purpose of this wiki is to test administrator tools, which IPs cannot do. In addition, the only IPs that edit this wiki are used by an LTA for spam, which is mostly caught by an abuse filter. [[User:X|X]] ([[User talk:X|talk]]) 17:06, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

:{{support}}--[[User:Chqaz|Chqaz]] ([[User talk:Chqaz|talk]]) 04:54, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

:{{support}} [[User:Sav|Sav]] • ([[Special:Contribs/Sav|<span style="color:#0080ff"> Edits</span>]] | [[Special:Newsection/User talk:Sav|<span style="color:#0080ff">Talk </span>]]) 07:41, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

:I created [https://phabricator.testwiki.wiki/T69 T69]--[[User:Chqaz|Chqaz]] ([[User talk:Chqaz|talk]]) 12:31, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

:<s>'''Neutral, leaning oppose'''</s>{{oppose}}. Weighing the pros and cons gives me a <s> neutral </s> <ins> opposing </ins> stance. This would prevent some abuse, but multiple accounts can easily be created to continue that abuse. In addition, this may have a deterrent effect on good faith users. [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 12:42, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

::Reconsidered, opposing, I think this is overall negative, as it deters good faith users by making them think they are not welcome to test, and prevents abuse only from the laziest LTAs. [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 21:48, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello,

Warm regards, [[User:Sav|Sav]] • ([[Special:Contribs/Sav|<span style="color:#0080ff"> Edits</span>]] | [[Special:Newsection/User talk:Sav|<span style="color:#0080ff">Talk </span>]]) 13:57, 5 October 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)

* 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?

{{Discussion bottom}}

{{discussion top}}

:{{support}} per consistency. [[User:Sav|Sav]] • ([[Special:Contribs/Sav|<span style="color:#0080ff"> Edits</span>]] | [[Special:Newsection/User talk:Sav|<span style="color:#0080ff">Talk </span>]]) 20:03, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

:'''Doing...''' as relatively uncontroversial. [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 20:46, 2 December 2023 (UTC)