Block of Heathergot[edit source]
While your good-faith enthusiasm for spambot blocking on TestWiki is appreciated, your block of the above-captioned user is, in my view, premature, as while the user may well be a sleeper spambot, it has not made any hits in the abuse log. So, please try and concentrate on blocking users which hit the abuse filter's abuse logs or which post actual spam or create likely spam only account user pages.
- Okay then. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) 14:08, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
- Walhouse It's alright. You didn't know and while assuming good faith, it seems like you were only making test pages and removing them afterwards. So of course, no harm, no foul. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) 10:25, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Friendly reminder that Consuls remain the non-test administrators[edit source]
While your reminder to the Bugambilia sockpuppet account was in good-faith, asking a suspected sockpuppet account does remain one of the functions typically reserved for non-test administrators, which are Consuls, as I'm sure you'll no doubt recall. I wouldn't remove your
sysop bit, even temporarily, for this, but it does nonetheless necessitate this friendly reminder for you. With regard to Noelle88, their initial Meta user page together with their vague initial reason for requesting rights did raise my spidey senses. Their reply did comfort me a fair bit, since that is a very specific reason for requesting that is atypical of Bugambilia behaviour. However, their creation of several talk page translation subpages as blank pages on Meta Wiki last night, which I'd deleted, elevated my spidey senses. I left it last night, but perhaps I should've mentioned my suspicions to Reception123, who, in turn, could've provided you with a head's up, thus not needing this inquisition from you. Their creation of gibberish talk pages again this morning indeed proved it.
Anyway, please do keep the above in mind.
- Oh, so I wasn't the only one after all. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) 16:22, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Clarifying non-Consul administrator blocks[edit source]
Regarding your unblock log action, I'd like to this opportunity to clarify that non-Consul administrators can block other users, but to avoid wheel warring with other administrators, they really should be 100% certain that Consul would take the same action they took. Generally speaking, you're both correct and incorrect here. You're incorrect in the sense that non-Consul administrators can, absolutely, block users that are being blatantly disruptive on the wiki. Generally speaking, users who are presenting current and/or persistent disruption to the wiki. In the case of suspected abuse of multiple accounts, this is a bit tricky. It really depends on whether the user is being persistently disruptive, over a very short term, that cannot wait for a Consul. In my view, there was a non-Consul administrator block case here, but I disagree with the indefinite block. As we've guided non-Consul administrators in the past, non-test block durations should generally be limited to a maximum of between thirty (30) and sixty (60) days, and, of course, always their user talk page access available. This should, in turn, provide plenty of time for Consuls to review the actions.
Bugambilia is a bit of a different situation, since the original block was a Consul block, and they are generally not disruptive enough to warrant a non-Consul administrator block. As well, Consuls are already likely well aware of the suspected sockpuppet account, and have them on their radar, potentially having referred them to Stewards for further investigation as well. So, in the case of Bugambilia suspected sockpuppet accounts, you're fine to query them on their user talk page, if the behavioural evidence is beyond obvious, of course, but leave any blocks to Consuls. As well, only remove their user rights if they are being blatantly disruptive using their typical "calling cards."
Does that clarify things a bit more?
- Dmehus Yes, it does. I thought it would apply to any sockpuppet account like the Bugambilia case, but I guess I might have missed that part. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) 03:57, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
This revert was a bit BITEy[edit source]
While I can appreciate your intent behind this revert of ApexAgunomu's recent Sandbox edits (#1 and #2) was a bit BITEy as, firstly, it is a Sandbox after all and, secondly and more importantly, you didn't give them a chance to
undo. I know you mean well, but please do be mindful of your use of Twinkle and, remember, you are responsible for all actions performed using Twinkle,
rollback, and similar. I sent you a
MemoServ memo on IRC, but thought it was only fair, since ApexAgunomu has been warned via their user talk page, that you be guided on yours, too.
Thanks so much for your cooperation and understanding. :)
- I guess it would be best if I don't use any swear words in any of my edits, even if they're not used as insults. I'll try to keep my edits clean. ApexAgunomu (talk) 23:22, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, that would definitely be best. I'm more forgiving with swearing than I am with racially insensitive, xenophobic, or homophobic edit and log summaries. :) Dmehus (talk) 23:33, 10 April 2022 (UTC)