User talk:X

F-TW (discussion cannot take place on For-Test Wiki)

Myht seems to have been unreliable lately. I'm not too sure what's going on, nor if Matt is aware, but myht.org has gone down with 500s for 2 days in a row. Perhaps if we have another system administrator who can reasonably spend on it, it may be worth considering switching hosting method and domain for FTW. Justarandomamerican (talk) 01:36, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree. Site outages have became quite frequent. I have emailed Matttest about these issues and volunteered to become a system administrator, but have not heard back yet. X (talk) 01:47, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

About protection

It is not right to take away the user's right to object with an amendment. Please be careful to assume good faith. --LisafBia (talk) 13:36, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

What do you mean? The user abused their talk page while blocked (added the word foo), so I protected it from editing so they won't abuse it. Whats the problem? X (talk) 13:42, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

This was still not an inappropriate change. As I said, assume good faith. LisafBia (talk) 13:52, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

I did assume good faith. Twice. I told the user to be careful when I granted administrator rights the second time, and they still abused them. They then abused their talk page, (adding the word Foo over it, here), so I temp protected it for 2 weeks to stop abuse and allow for appeals in two weeks. This is an appropriate action, and is justified. X (talk) 14:26, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your good care and quick blocking of this user I can really appreciate that;-) I agree with LisafBia that the user should have the possibility to appeal. In case of abuse, access can be blocked, but protection is not necessary. :-) Drummingman (talk) 14:01, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

There was abuse (here), that's why I protected for 2 weeks, and after that they can appeal. Is this okay? X (talk) 14:24, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

I know it. Thanks again for your concern. Should the user continue to disrupt instead of consulting about the block, then any admin and crat may revoke access by blocking it. Kind regards, Drummingman (talk) 14:40, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Why would we give this user special treatment? Convention is to revoke TPA or protect talk page upon disruptive behavior, which has occurred here. I genuinely don't understand why we wouldn't protect it for a few weeks to let the user think about their actions and to prevent abuse. X (talk) 14:44, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

If a user is blocked, their talk page is for appeals only, and there is no need to wait for more disruption to revoke TPA or protect the talk page. This action was reasonable and preventative, not punitive. I agree with X. Justarandomamerican (talk) 14:51, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

I believe the actions were also good and certainly not punitive, and revoking access at that time was also helpful and good. We are now almost a day away, let's see if the user continues to abuse? If yes? Then you can revoke access. I would like to give the user a chance to explain and appeal this blocking. I really understand your concerns, With collegial regards Drummingman (talk) 15:01, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Okay, let's see. Thank you, Justarandomamerican (talk) 15:17, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. X (talk) 15:19, 24 May 2023 (UTC)