Test Wiki:Community portal: Difference between revisions

*::::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)

*So I see now that Sav just wants everyone to be on the same page in regard to this issue, which is understandable. How about the following proposal:

:When the stewards feel I'm ready to be unblocked, which will most likely not be until at least August, they forward my appeal to the community, so they can all vote on it and can share any concerns or issues they may have with it? I'm willing to accept whatever is decided on by the stewards and community when that time comes, whether that means a full unblock, partial, or even no unblock. [[User:Piccadilly|Piccadilly]] ([[Special:Contribs/Piccadilly|<span style="color:red">My Contribs</span>]] | [[User talk:Piccadilly|<span style="color:#0080ff">My Messages</span>]]) 12:01, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

::That's the status quo. You're currently blocked indefinitely by Stewards. Given your past disruption, Stewards ''would'' likely seek feedback from the community with respect to minimum timeframe for an appeal to be considered and to the technical measures that need to be put in place as well as conditions of such an unblock. [[User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk:Dmehus|talk]]) 12:48, 8 May 2024 (UTC)