Kerri Amber

And just one more thing are bureaucrats allowed to block without warning 

1) Yes, it is. "Abusing multiple accouns" is one of the default reasons present in the Block menu. Banning someone because they're trying to bandodge is common sense across all Fandom.

2) If this is found necessary then yes.

That is between the user and Staff

It'd be great for the admin teams of Wikias that Sactage is a part of to know why the user got blocked. Or that the user was blocked in the first place.

Actually it wouldn't be good. Imagine if you were globally blocked and certain other users knew the reason why. There are reasons why global blocks are private. Because they aren't things that other users need to know, as it's none of their business.

That's because global blocks are like account terminations on a lot of social media. Unlike local blocks, which are common, and everyone can see the reason why, global blocks are only between Wikia and blocked user. However I do think that sactage was incorrectly blocked. However, since she is a VSTF member, and VSTF can do global blocks, it seems to me that she was tired of administering Community Central and therefore decided to leave and remind herself to never come back by her simply blocking herself. I also do that sometimes.

Except when the user comes back to the wiki and requests their rights back, we have no idea why they lost them in the first place. Per example on our wiki, Call of Duty, Sactage was a Bureaucrat and Checkuser, now they've had both those rights removed by staff with the description of "If they want these rights back it's up to the local community". But how can we dictate if the user should get the rights back if we don't know what they did? In fact since they're globally blocked why even remove the rights? Now if Sactage does get unblocked we'll have to contact Fandom to re-add the rights because only Fandom can add those two rights. Even if we don't know why they're blocked, I'd still like to have known more information instead of Fandom just making changes without contacting anyone. Again.

What do you mean only Wikia can add those two rights? Local communities can still add Bureaucrat rights. It's only Check User rights that can't be handed out like candy.

We don't have an active owner any more, meaning b'crat rights have to be given by Fandom.

That's because this wiki physically wasn't separately founded. It was made when Wikia was released. This wiki was here since 2004. The owners of this wiki are Fandom, because this wiki is Fandom itself. Therefore there are no bureaucrats here, though Fandom can promote them, they don't want to.

See Help:Adopting a community.

The community of that wiki could simply start a vote for one of the administrators to be given bureaucrat rights. And if that goes well, then there would be an active bureaucrat on that wiki once again.

We have active b'crats. I never said Sactage was our only one.

Bureaucrats can grant bureaucrat rights. No need for Staff to get involved.

However when bureaucrats need to get demoted but don't want to demote themselves, then they can ask Staff to remove bureaucrat from them, because ONLY Staff and bureaucrats THEMSELVES can remove bureaucrat.

Also there are zero bureaucrats here, from what I can tell on Special:ListUsers:

https://prnt.sc/k8fue2

I know. But then I'm unsure why you need Staff to promote Bureaucrats. Bureaucrats have the power to promote other users to Bureaucrat.

OMG, Brick's back!

no im not

hello my name is shelby chism i like singing

and talks to grils and have a job and go toov chuch

too

ok

No

Fixed! Thank you for letting me know, I appreciate it very much!

I'll miss you, Brick. :(

It's fine, because I am only an illusion.

we will all miss you Brick ;(

i dont love myself

Why not? :(

You can't. Also this kind of rant isn't going to help you