User talk:Kazrok4545: Difference between revisions

From Test Wiki
Latest comment: 12 April 2022 by Dmehus in topic Non-test blocks
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(→‎Non-test blocks: new section)
(→‎Non-test blocks: + Follow up)
Tag: 2017 source edit
Line 23: Line 23:
Cheers,
Cheers,
<br />[[User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk:Dmehus|talk]]) 03:08, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
<br />[[User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk:Dmehus|talk]]) 03:08, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
:[[User:Kazrok4545|Kazrok4545]], As a counter-balance to the above, I ''do'', and ''have'', {{Done|[[Special:Redirect/logid/30516|endorsed]]}} your [[Special:Redirect/logid/30488|revocation]] of the user's [[User:Platinum Rose|alternate account]] having [[Test Wiki:Bureaucrats|bureaucrat]] permissions. In my view, as a best practice, I ''do'' think that no user's alternate account [[rfc:2119|should]] have ''any'' permission '''above''' that of [[Test Wiki:Administrators|sysop]] and would strongly encourage any other bureaucrats that have provided their alternate accounts with such permissions to surrender those bits accordingly. What do you think? [[User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk:Dmehus|talk]]) 03:20, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Revision as of 03:20, 12 April 2022

Hello friends. This is my talk page.

Welcome

Welcome to the Test Wiki. Before you begin to take action, read our privacy policy.

Test Wiki message delivery (talk) 10:27, 24 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Test done

Done! Test Wiki message delivery (talk) 14:13, 25 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Non-test blocks

Hi Kazrok4545,

While I can appreciate your good-faith wanting to help Stewards here in regards to user conduct, and Seiyena does need guidance, the prior practice of blocking indefinitely and repeatedly blocking the sockpuppets was not working, and the user is making progress, demonstrating good-faith, and incremental capacity to learn. In addition, as it was quite clear at Test Wiki:Request permissions, Seiyena was being managed by Stewards, and I would've supported you revoking their bureaucrat bit, the blocks were steps too far. Likewise, if you'd offered to assist Arcversin with setting up an abuse filter I was about to ask him to set up here, that would also have been fine. As such, though I normally prefer to warn first before temporarily revoking rights, in this case, I felt a slightly firmer hand was needed here, and have  revoked your bureaucrat and sysop bits for two (2) weeks from today, after which any bureaucrat may re-add it.

Thank you again for your other constructive contributions here. :)

Cheers,
Dmehus (talk) 03:08, 12 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kazrok4545, As a counter-balance to the above, I do, and have,  endorsed your revocation of the user's alternate account having bureaucrat permissions. In my view, as a best practice, I do think that no user's alternate account should have any permission above that of sysop and would strongly encourage any other bureaucrats that have provided their alternate accounts with such permissions to surrender those bits accordingly. What do you think? Dmehus (talk) 03:20, 12 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]