410
edits
Test Wiki:Community portal: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m
→Request for Block Against Piccadilly: ce-fix formatting as it's not a !vote
(→Discussion: Reply) |
m (→Request for Block Against Piccadilly: ce-fix formatting as it's not a !vote) |
||
| Line 196: | Line 196: | ||
*::I could not have said this better myself, Justarandomamerican. The ongoing back and forth with this user proves a conflict in opinions regarding the appropriate course of action. | *::I could not have said this better myself, Justarandomamerican. The ongoing back and forth with this user proves a conflict in opinions regarding the appropriate course of action. | ||
*::PSA for {{Ping|Dmehus}}, this request was discussed between myself and [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] on [[User:Piccadilly|Piccadilly's]] [[User_talk:Piccadilly#About_My_Current_Block|talk page]]. [[User:X|X]] was indirectly involved with this request. [[User:Sav|Sav]] • ([[Special:Contribs/Sav|<span style="color:#0080ff"> Edits</span>]] | [[Special:Newsection/User talk:Sav|<span style="color:#0080ff">Talk </span>]]) 03:10, 8 May 2024 (UTC) | *::PSA for {{Ping|Dmehus}}, this request was discussed between myself and [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] on [[User:Piccadilly|Piccadilly's]] [[User_talk:Piccadilly#About_My_Current_Block|talk page]]. [[User:X|X]] was indirectly involved with this request. [[User:Sav|Sav]] • ([[Special:Contribs/Sav|<span style="color:#0080ff"> Edits</span>]] | [[Special:Newsection/User talk:Sav|<span style="color:#0080ff">Talk </span>]]) 03:10, 8 May 2024 (UTC) | ||
*:::I really would have to disagree with you on point #3, Dmehus. This is not a simple decision, it has been a continuous point of contention and issue for years on TestWiki. The community and stewards have seen many false promises and appeals over this time and it appeared that the stewards were going to listen to another appeal. I don't want to speak for Sav, but I can say that I was shocked to hear that an appeal was even being considered after the consistent disruption for years that Piccadilly has caused. Thus, I think enforcing a community block is a great option so that the stewards cannot unblock without consulting the broader community | *:::I really would have to disagree with you on point #3, Dmehus. This is not a simple decision, it has been a continuous point of contention and issue for years on TestWiki. The community and stewards have seen many false promises and appeals over this time and it appeared that the stewards were going to listen to another appeal. I don't want to speak for Sav, but I can say that I was shocked to hear that an appeal was even being considered after the consistent disruption for years that Piccadilly has caused. Thus, I think enforcing a community block is a great option so that the stewards cannot unblock without consulting the broader community. [[User:X|'''<span style="background:#3383ff;color:white;padding:5px;box-shadow:0 1px 1px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.2)">X</span>''']] ([[User talk:X|talk]] + [[Special:Contributions/X|contribs]]) 12:46, 8 May 2024 (UTC) | ||
*::::First of all, as a point of clarification, nothing in [[Test Wiki:Policies|''policy'']] provides for the community to ''impose'' or ''mandate'' a block or ban, but Stewards will take into consideration from the community prior to unblocking. Secondly, as I've noted elsewhere in this discussion, part of the problem with respect to Piccadilly is test bureaucrats, such as yourself, proceeded immediately to a sitewide block earlier on rather than a rights revocation. Thirdly, perhaps I misspoke when I said the appeal was being ''currently'' considered; no, what I meant was that Piccadilly had an ''active'' but currently ''deferred'' appeal before Stewards. None of us were prepared to unblock at this point, and we wouldn't do so without agreement with other Stewards. Moreover, as I've said, we would seek the community's feedback through community discussion, but ''not'' simply a !vote (as we don't do that here), with respect to conditions for unblocking, minimum timeframe for unblocking, and what other parameters Stewards should impose. [[User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk:Dmehus|talk]]) 12:54, 8 May 2024 (UTC) | *::::First of all, as a point of clarification, nothing in [[Test Wiki:Policies|''policy'']] provides for the community to ''impose'' or ''mandate'' a block or ban, but Stewards will take into consideration from the community prior to unblocking. Secondly, as I've noted elsewhere in this discussion, part of the problem with respect to Piccadilly is test bureaucrats, such as yourself, proceeded immediately to a sitewide block earlier on rather than a rights revocation. Thirdly, perhaps I misspoke when I said the appeal was being ''currently'' considered; no, what I meant was that Piccadilly had an ''active'' but currently ''deferred'' appeal before Stewards. None of us were prepared to unblock at this point, and we wouldn't do so without agreement with other Stewards. Moreover, as I've said, we would seek the community's feedback through community discussion, but ''not'' simply a !vote (as we don't do that here), with respect to conditions for unblocking, minimum timeframe for unblocking, and what other parameters Stewards should impose. [[User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk:Dmehus|talk]]) 12:54, 8 May 2024 (UTC) | ||
*::[[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] and [[User:Sav|Sav]], I'm not suggesting continuing to extend 'rope' indefinitely. The reality is, Piccadilly is blocked indefinitely, and currently has their user talk page access revoked as well. They know they have an appeal in to Stewards, but it isn't being considered now because they're not ready. We don't want to just keep unblocking and reblocking Piccadilly. That being said, I'm willing to consider that there have been a number of procedural mistakes with respect to Piccadilly (i.e., test bureaucrats and administrators blocking Piccadilly unnecessarily when they should've left sanction to Stewards, not putting in place technical mechanisms to revoke their ability to edit abuse filters, etc.). I'm also willing to consider Piccadilly's neurodiverse condition that causes them to act in an immature and, at time, gross manner in terms of type of edits, so they require technical measures to control that (when they're not blocked). Sav hasn't proposed anything here beyond the status quo (i.e., they're currently blocked indefinitely). I cannot understand what this discussion aims to accomplish. Stewards ''will'' and ''should'' continue to decline the appeal until we have both the technical measures in place and feel Piccadilly has demonstrated sufficient ability to operate within the minimal community norms of community. [[User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk:Dmehus|talk]]) 12:46, 8 May 2024 (UTC) | *::[[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] and [[User:Sav|Sav]], I'm not suggesting continuing to extend 'rope' indefinitely. The reality is, Piccadilly is blocked indefinitely, and currently has their user talk page access revoked as well. They know they have an appeal in to Stewards, but it isn't being considered now because they're not ready. We don't want to just keep unblocking and reblocking Piccadilly. That being said, I'm willing to consider that there have been a number of procedural mistakes with respect to Piccadilly (i.e., test bureaucrats and administrators blocking Piccadilly unnecessarily when they should've left sanction to Stewards, not putting in place technical mechanisms to revoke their ability to edit abuse filters, etc.). I'm also willing to consider Piccadilly's neurodiverse condition that causes them to act in an immature and, at time, gross manner in terms of type of edits, so they require technical measures to control that (when they're not blocked). Sav hasn't proposed anything here beyond the status quo (i.e., they're currently blocked indefinitely). I cannot understand what this discussion aims to accomplish. Stewards ''will'' and ''should'' continue to decline the appeal until we have both the technical measures in place and feel Piccadilly has demonstrated sufficient ability to operate within the minimal community norms of community. [[User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk:Dmehus|talk]]) 12:46, 8 May 2024 (UTC) | ||