User talk:Cocopuff2018

Add topic
From TestWiki
Latest comment: 3 years ago by Cocopuff2018 in topic Inactive

Test --Cocopuff2018 (talk) 03:45, 18 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


test 1234

Another test[edit]

test page 1234 --Cocopuff2018 (talk) 22:58, 4 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

unfair demotion[edit]

i told black widow to stop removing the conversation as it was legit unnecessary and he did not listen so then he did it again and zppix demoted me unfairly i would like to discuss this and please help me someone? --Cocopuff2018 (talk) 22:27, 29 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And theres no policy against removing messages from his talk. Therefore you abuse block. Zppix (Meta | CVT Member | talk to me) 22:40, 29 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, all I did was revoked his talk privileges that is no abuse, ya know I am gonna report you to john lewis and SPF I am tired of your power abuse and plus it was a block discussion he does not need to remove, demoted me without discussion with fellow colleagues. --Cocopuff2018 (talk) 22:45, 29 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(Note from another Consul) I'd just like to point out that it was a valid demotion. You abused local sysop in contravention of the Blocking policy to basically solve an edit war you were involved with. This was inappropriate and I see no reason to call it an unfair demotion.

Pup (talk) 00:08, 30 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is power abuse for a he Did not discuss before demoting he did it without consulting with fellow Collages that is what makes it power abuse. --Cocopuff2018 (talk) 13:39, 30 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2 Consuls atleast (myself and puppykun) agree the removal was ok. Appeal denied. Zppix (Meta | CVT Member | talk to me) 13:48, 30 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Personally, I do not think the removal of crat permissions here was justified at all. Even if the removal of talk page access was 100% wrong, attempts to work with the user or at the very least warnings should have been given. It should never be appropriate to immediately remove permissions upon a single mistake when done in good faith. In addition, the user who was blocked continously removed content after already being told not to once (w:WP:OWNTALK does not apply to removing unblock discussions while still blocked), so you could very easily make the argument that the removal of talk page access was justified here. Overall I do not see a reason for crat permissions to be removed at all and would strongly support the restoration of them. Naleksuh (talk) 02:57, 2 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

i just want to mention i did warn him 2 times to stop removing the conversation as i knew others would reply to it as well, therefore, that is my reason for the removal of his talk page privileges i do agree I was not given any warnings before and i will be emailing John or Southpark to override zppix. zppix please make your case you clearly power abused. --Cocopuff2018 (talk) 14:55, 2 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just for the record @Cocopuff2018:, please don't make threats, as that doesn't make the user anymore likely to undemote you. It just aggravates them. You of all people know how that feels. User:BrandonWM/signature 17:10, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi everyone i have sent a message to join and will be pausing this matter till John has time to get involved in it thank you for all your help to resolve this matter --Cocopuff2018 (talk) 20:29, 2 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, John does not have local rights here, and stewards cannot interfere with local administration, unless its in violation of a global policy. Zppix (Meta | CVT Member | talk to me) 23:24, 2 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I am currently inactive within this wiki --Cocopuff2018 (talk) 03:27, 14 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]