User talk:404 Error

Your !vote at Requests for Stewardship
Hi ThesenatorO5-2,

I noticed that you added a "strongest oppose" !vote to a closed stewardship removal discussion for. That discussion was unsuccessful and did not proceed anyway. I'm not certain whether you were intending to add your !vote to that discussion, or to the only open requested for stewardship. Because of that, I cannot add it to the open request. If you intended to !vote in the open discussion, you may re-add it.

As well, please remember to sign your posts with  so (a) we know who is !voting and (b) we know when they !voted.

Thanks,

Dmehus (talk) 01:48, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Your RfC for local Oversight and CheckUser
Hi ThesenatorO5-2,

I know you mean well with your RfC for a local Oversight and CheckUser; however, as a strong piece of good, wise advice, I would strongly recommend you tag that page with delete using parameter  with your rationale being, something to the effect of, "Author request; created by mistake," before users begin voting on that RfC. As and I have guided you in Stewards' noticeboard, there's a lot of discussion, both in private and in public, that would need to happen before we could even draft an RfC. It will not, and cannot, pass on the basis of a wiki vote, given the implications with respect to Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

As I've said at Stewards' noticeboard, if you have oversighting you wish on your wiki, e-mail the revisions, in a list, and your reason(s) to, and stewards will action it accordingly.

Cheers,

Dmehus (talk) 23:58, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Final Warning
This is your final warning, continuing to add new RfCs then immediately requesting them for deletion will result in a topic ban. Also continuing to be uncivil as you were on RhinosF1's talk page will result in a block. Zppix (Meta &#124; CVT Member &#124; talk to me) 05:39, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Requests for Comment/Allow wiki bureaucrats to have SSH access to the forked server
Hi ThesenatorO5-2,

Despite your final warning above by, you proposal is a good-faith idea, but it's not technically feasible for a couple reasons. One, all system files are maintained through GitHub, which any user can propose changes through pull requests, which system administrators then have the ability to approve and merge into the master file. So, wiki configuration files aren't modified directly on the server via SSH/FTP. Second, there is also the security issue with giving SSH access to any wiki bureaucrats upon request. Though stewards have full access to Special:ManageWiki and can manage virtually anything on all wikis in terms of permissions, as far as I'm aware, only system administrators have server access, and even then, there are different classes of system administrators such that their level of access and access to some or all servers is further defined. Your idea is just not practicable.

I would strongly urge you to curtail all RfC creation, given my initial cautionary note and your warning above by Zppix. I think, since your idea was made in good-faith, I'm hoping that it will not result in any hard blocks or sanctions. Part of your rushing to create RfCs, I think, stems from your idea that these are the only way to have a community discussion. So, I'd like to propose that, if some sort of restriction is imposed, you are first required to go through the Community noticeboard by initiating a discussion or, ideally, asking a question on whether an RfC is even possible for what you're proposing.

Cheers,

Dmehus (talk) 11:44, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Rights-holders versus rights-holder's
Hi ThesenatorO5-2,

I have had to revert, for a second time now, your good-faith correction of the word "rights-holder's" to "rights-holders" in one of my replies on Stewards' noticeboard. Plural possessive may be more grammatically correct here—I'd have to re-read my reply in its entirety; however, in this instance of this particular case, I really am referring to the singular rights-holder and not to rights-holders as a group. Thus, I want the singular possessive case.

Thank you,

Dmehus (talk) 12:30, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Topic ban notice - RfCs
Hello, After a discussion with few administrators, I decided to topic ban you. Now you are not allowed to create RfCs so pages starting with. If you create such a page, you can be blocked first time for 1 day, the second time indefinitely. If you create such a page using a verified sockpuppet account, you can be blocked indefinitely without further notice. Thanks for understanding.--MrJaroslavik (talk) 13:22, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Blocked
You've been told about moving pages before. I can't topic ban you from everything. Once your block expires, please try and understand the community and policy. We're always on IRC and Discord and happy to answer what you ask.


 * ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c - 09:05, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Requests for Comment/Allow GS to use CentralAuth tools
Hi ThesenatorO5-2,

Your creation of this RfC to add Oversight tools to Global Sysops was both unnecessary and malformed. Additionally, it is broadly in violation of, if not the letter, the spirit of your active topic ban. I am currently discussing with other administrators, but am inclined to block you for another week, unless you can convince me otherwise.

Where do we go from here?

Cheers,

Dmehus (talk) 00:50, 31 August 2020 (UTC)