410
edits
Test Wiki:Community portal: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m
→Discussion: ce-fix indentation; this didn't format as I intended
m (→Discussion: ce-fix formatting) |
m (→Discussion: ce-fix indentation; this didn't format as I intended) |
||
| Line 187: | Line 187: | ||
*:Thank you for your input! [[User:Sav|Sav]] • ([[Special:Contribs/Sav|<span style="color:#0080ff"> Edits</span>]] | [[Special:Newsection/User talk:Sav|<span style="color:#0080ff">Talk </span>]]) 03:52, 6 May 2024 (UTC) | *:Thank you for your input! [[User:Sav|Sav]] • ([[Special:Contribs/Sav|<span style="color:#0080ff"> Edits</span>]] | [[Special:Newsection/User talk:Sav|<span style="color:#0080ff">Talk </span>]]) 03:52, 6 May 2024 (UTC) | ||
*First, I'm curious as to ''what prompted'' you, [[User:Sav|Sav]], to make this request for a 'community block'? [[User:Piccadilly|Piccadilly]] is currently indefinitely blocked; they recently ''had'' attempted to contravene the indefinite block by created a [[w:WP:SOCK|an illegitimate sockpuppet account]], which they promptly e-mailed [[Test Wiki:Stewards|Stewards]] about in [[w:WP:AGF|good-faith]]. This shows continued capacity for learning. Separately, they ''have'' appealed their block, but, as Stewards, your elected non-test administrators and bureaucrats on this wiki, I believe I can say there is [[w:WP:CON|fairly good consensus]] that this is a '''not yet''' situation with respect to an unblock. Piccadilly has made ''some'' progress in terms of continuing to demonstrate, very modestly, capacity to ''learn'', which is good, but it needs, I think, at least several more months before considering a provisional and conditional unblock. As well, technically speaking, we also need to put in place community-advised recommendations with respect to mechanisms to prevent editing restriction-restricted users from editing abuse filters. The community, last I checked, seemed to be leaning towards a restricted user group that revoked certain user rights related to editing or creating abuse filters. | *First, I'm curious as to ''what prompted'' you, [[User:Sav|Sav]], to make this request for a 'community block'? [[User:Piccadilly|Piccadilly]] is currently indefinitely blocked; they recently ''had'' attempted to contravene the indefinite block by created a [[w:WP:SOCK|an illegitimate sockpuppet account]], which they promptly e-mailed [[Test Wiki:Stewards|Stewards]] about in [[w:WP:AGF|good-faith]]. This shows continued capacity for learning. Separately, they ''have'' appealed their block, but, as Stewards, your elected non-test administrators and bureaucrats on this wiki, I believe I can say there is [[w:WP:CON|fairly good consensus]] that this is a '''not yet''' situation with respect to an unblock. Piccadilly has made ''some'' progress in terms of continuing to demonstrate, very modestly, capacity to ''learn'', which is good, but it needs, I think, at least several more months before considering a provisional and conditional unblock. As well, technically speaking, we also need to put in place community-advised recommendations with respect to mechanisms to prevent editing restriction-restricted users from editing abuse filters. The community, last I checked, seemed to be leaning towards a restricted user group that revoked certain user rights related to editing or creating abuse filters. | ||
* | *Secondly, I would also note that there is no [[Test Wiki:Policies|official policy]] with respect to 'community blocks or bans'. It's good that you phrased this as a ''block'', though, since ''bans'' aren't something [[w:NOTPUNITIVE|we do here]] fundamentally because bans, by their very nature, [[w:NOTPUNITIVE|aren't preventative]]. As well, we're ''not'' English Wikipedia; we're a low barrier test wiki, not a wiki with a bunch of policies or content here. We have to provide guidance to users who don't understand or comply with our [[Test Wiki:Policies|policy-light testing wiki]] sometimes when required, of course, so as to maintain user harmony. As well, our ''community'' is quite a transient community. Users come and go, check in periodically, and spikes in activity from temporarily returning users occur. As such, this makes it exceptionally difficult to facilitate true '''due process''' with respect to indefinite blocks applied by the community. | ||
* | *Thirdly, the community elects Stewards to make these decisions for them. If the community were to see fit to micro-manage every administrative decision, then what is the ''point'' of Stewards? | ||
* | *That being said, that's ''not'' to say currently active members of the community cannot ''advise'' Stewards on the type of editing restrictions, blocks (partial or sitewide), or other types of restrictive measures and their ''duration'', conditions for restriction removal, etc., etc., but the key is that it is ''advice''. It is not binding as, ultimately, it is up to Stewards. With respect to Piccadilly, I don't believe it would be appropriate for a single Steward to unblock them unilaterally, and so I would personally commit to ensuring '''at least''' two Stewards agree, unconditionally, on any terms for unblocking, timing of unblocking, and any other preventative measures to put in place. [[User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk:Dmehus|talk]]) 01:30, 8 May 2024 (UTC) | ||