Test Wiki:Community portal: Difference between revisions

From Test Wiki
Content deleted Content added
Line 47: Line 47:
:::::I suppose removing unblockself could cause inconveniences, as that could prevent one from undoing a test block on oneself. Also, if someone else with rights goes rogue and blocks a bureaucrat, they would then have to wait for someone else to undo their block. Why not just remove privileges when blocking someone? <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-weight:bold;text-shadow:1px 1px 1px cyan">[[User:Tester|Tester]]</span> ([[User_talk:Tester|ᴛ]]•[[Special:Contributions/Tester|ᴄ]]) 14:46, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::I suppose removing unblockself could cause inconveniences, as that could prevent one from undoing a test block on oneself. Also, if someone else with rights goes rogue and blocks a bureaucrat, they would then have to wait for someone else to undo their block. Why not just remove privileges when blocking someone? <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-weight:bold;text-shadow:1px 1px 1px cyan">[[User:Tester|Tester]]</span> ([[User_talk:Tester|ᴛ]]•[[Special:Contributions/Tester|ᴄ]]) 14:46, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:::{{Ping|TenWhile6}} Hi there, What is the exact answer of this abuse.😅--- ''<span style="background:#000000;border:1px solid #FF0080;border-radius:18px;padding:4px">[[User:Bhairava7|<span style="color:#F70D1A">Bhairava7</span>]] • [[User talk:Bhairava7|<span style="color:#FF6700">(@píng mє-tαlk mє)</span>]]</span>'' 08:52, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
:::{{Ping|TenWhile6}} Hi there, What is the exact answer of this abuse.😅--- ''<span style="background:#000000;border:1px solid #FF0080;border-radius:18px;padding:4px">[[User:Bhairava7|<span style="color:#F70D1A">Bhairava7</span>]] • [[User talk:Bhairava7|<span style="color:#FF6700">(@píng mє-tαlk mє)</span>]]</span>'' 08:52, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
It is not necessarily a good idea to restrict bureaucrat assignment and removal because of two main factors. One is that it's plainly quite rare an instance, although Justa is correct that if there is an issue then it should be patched and we shouldn't hope that people won't do it again. That is burying one's head in the sand. The other factor is that restricting bureaucrat grant/removal without altering standards is that a future abuser can simply do it again and change their tactics. They can make a different stream of hard to reverse actions and not be easily handled by a fellow bureaucrat. A Steward's intervention will be required in one example, in the other it might but won't necessarily be required. Removing permissions is relatively simple to undo and this incident was dealt with quite expediently. The train of abuse goes deep in a rabbit hole: to pick apart another suggestion, not permitting unblockself means a rogue bureaucrat can simply block everyone else first and then that's another problem that's harder to resolve. On top of the inconvenience already suggested.

Instead, it seems to me a reasonable answer is to increase the surface of people who can deal with the problem. Perhaps there should be an autopatrolled type access for more senior testers/bureaucrats, whom's access cannot be removed by 'mere' bureaucrats. This lets more established bureaucrats or even trusted but not very active community members deal with rogues and make it harder to sneak in and gain destructive, harder to reverse access with the minimum standard of autoconfirmed that bureaucrats currently have. This would be their only access and it could be assigned at the trust of stewards so there are more people who could respond to an incident like this, but wouldn't complicate everyday operation by requiring a steward step in for every instance of bureaucrat addition and removal and going rogue. This answer might have problems but I think it's a more elegant place to start.

My 2c,

--'''[[User:Raidarr|raidarr]]''' '''('''[[User_talk:Raidarr|💬]]''')''' 17:23, 15 January 2025 (UTC)


==Restrict removing bureaucrat rights to Stewards==
==Restrict removing bureaucrat rights to Stewards==