TestWiki:Community portal: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
(→Oppose: re to Naleksuh) |
m (→Oppose) |
||
| Line 175: | Line 175: | ||
#:: {{tq|there may be times when we may not be justified in revoking [[TestWiki:Bureaucrats|bureaucrat]], but where an [[TestWiki:Administrators|administrator]] has either misused <code>torunblocked</code> or is otherwise no longer trusted to use that user group right}} This proposal doesn't solve that, since you're proposing bureaucrats being able to grant it. Either only consuls can grant it, or we just tie it to bureaucrat and revoke the bureaucrat of people who misuse it. I'd say the second, since I can't think of any instance where a user who can't be trusted with tor could be trusted with bureaucrat. [[User:Naleksuh|Naleksuh]] ([[User talk:Naleksuh|talk]]) 01:50, 22 August 2020 (UTC) |
#:: {{tq|there may be times when we may not be justified in revoking [[TestWiki:Bureaucrats|bureaucrat]], but where an [[TestWiki:Administrators|administrator]] has either misused <code>torunblocked</code> or is otherwise no longer trusted to use that user group right}} This proposal doesn't solve that, since you're proposing bureaucrats being able to grant it. Either only consuls can grant it, or we just tie it to bureaucrat and revoke the bureaucrat of people who misuse it. I'd say the second, since I can't think of any instance where a user who can't be trusted with tor could be trusted with bureaucrat. [[User:Naleksuh|Naleksuh]] ([[User talk:Naleksuh|talk]]) 01:50, 22 August 2020 (UTC) |
||
#::: {{ping|Naleksuh}} If a bureaucrat re-added to their account the Tor user group, for which they'd been advised the reason(s) for revoking, that would be [[w:WP:WHEEL|wheel-warring]] and likely grounds for removal of at least the <code>bureaucrat</code> bit, so I ''did'' actually consider that possibility, and that's one of the reasons for why I proposed adding it as a separate user group. In other words, if we didn't quite have cause to remove bureaucrat then, we certainly would in that event, as the user was operating contrary to the restriction or right revocation that had been imposed on them. [[mh:meta:User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk:Dmehus|talk]]) 02:07, 22 August 2020 (UTC) |
#::: {{ping|Naleksuh}} If a bureaucrat re-added to their account the Tor user group, for which they'd been advised the reason(s) for revoking, that would be [[w:WP:WHEEL|wheel-warring]] and likely grounds for removal of at least the <code>bureaucrat</code> bit, so I ''did'' actually consider that possibility, and that's one of the reasons for why I proposed adding it as a separate user group. In other words, if we didn't quite have cause to remove bureaucrat then, we certainly would in that event, as the user was operating contrary to the restriction or right revocation that had been imposed on them. [[mh:meta:User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk:Dmehus|talk]]) 02:07, 22 August 2020 (UTC) |
||
#:::: I still think it should be tied to bureaucrat though. I don't envision a situation in which a users tor has been revoked, but they should still have bureaucrat. The only advantage to this group would be only consuls granting it, and I don't think that's a good idea and just unneeded bureaucracy. I think the best approach is to give torunblocked to bureaucrat. [[User:Naleksuh|Naleksuh]] ([[User talk:Naleksuh|talk]]) 05:33, 22 August 2020 (UTC) |
|||
==== Neutral/Abstain ==== |
==== Neutral/Abstain ==== |
||