Test Wiki:Community portal: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
No edit summary |
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
||
| Line 210: | Line 210: | ||
==Non-steward oversighters/checkusers - alternate proposal== | ==Non-steward oversighters/checkusers - alternate proposal== | ||
{{Discussion top}} | |||
:There is unanimity in one area of this proposal, and no consensus for another. There is unanimous consensus to allow non-Stewards to access the <code>suppressor</code> tools, but there is no consensus to allow them to access the <code>checkuser</code> tools. I will implement this myself through pull request within the week starting tomorrow (Sunday, December 3rd). <small>(involved closure)</small> [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 14:35, 2 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
I propose allowing non-stewards to access checkuser/oversight tools, similar to the above proposal, but without the unblockable right. Being that the implementation of this could result in a lack of transparency with the community, I think that 2 additional groups should be added. | I propose allowing non-stewards to access checkuser/oversight tools, similar to the above proposal, but without the unblockable right. Being that the implementation of this could result in a lack of transparency with the community, I think that 2 additional groups should be added. | ||
| Line 242: | Line 243: | ||
*::'''Partially supporting'''. With suppression, I have no problem granting it to non-stewards as well. I therefore support that part. Granting a checkusser to non-stewards is not a good idea in my opinion. That right is so sensitive with privacy that I prefer to keep that with the stewards and since we have 4 stewards of which 2 are active and 1 semi-active, I see no reason to grant it to non-stewards as well. And otherwise, steward elections can always be held. [[User:Drummingman|Drummingman]] ([[User talk:Drummingman|talk]]) 08:50, 23 October 2023 (UTC) | *::'''Partially supporting'''. With suppression, I have no problem granting it to non-stewards as well. I therefore support that part. Granting a checkusser to non-stewards is not a good idea in my opinion. That right is so sensitive with privacy that I prefer to keep that with the stewards and since we have 4 stewards of which 2 are active and 1 semi-active, I see no reason to grant it to non-stewards as well. And otherwise, steward elections can always be held. [[User:Drummingman|Drummingman]] ([[User talk:Drummingman|talk]]) 08:50, 23 October 2023 (UTC) | ||
*:::I don't think there's a serious actual privacy issue, although I can see your point that someone with non steward checkuser access would be practically on the same level of trust as Stewards. [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 02:22, 26 October 2023 (UTC) | *:::I don't think there's a serious actual privacy issue, although I can see your point that someone with non steward checkuser access would be practically on the same level of trust as Stewards. [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 02:22, 26 October 2023 (UTC) | ||
{{Discussion bottom}} | |||
==Formalize [[Test Wiki:Blocks and bans]] as a guideline== | ==Formalize [[Test Wiki:Blocks and bans]] as a guideline== | ||