On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 8:20 PM Deryck Chan <[email protected]> wrote:
> I agree with what's been said in this thread so far. > > An admin of a large wiki shouldn't be allowed to unblock themselves, if > another admin blocked them. > > However, on small wikis, this would lead to a first-mover advantage > situation, so admins should be forbidden from unblocking themselves if > there are more than a certain number of admins (and bureaucrats). > > I would recommend a threshold of five admins. Notice that if there are > only three admins (with Nemo's proposal), if one admin blocks another > admin, the situation reduces to a "shoot first to win" between the two > remaining admins. If there are five admins and one blocks another, there > will still be three uninvolved admins left to argue it out :) > > The Cantonese Wikipedia recently came close to a situation where an admin > might get blocked for bad behaviour. A few users presented a strong case > that an admin had been acting against policy. Because we have a dozen > admins, a few other admins were able to discuss the matter, and issued > strong words of admonishment to the unbehaving admin, and the unbehaving > admin disappeared from the wiki since then. Thinking back, one of the > concerns we had was that an admin could unblock themselves anyway, so there > was actually no real course of action to take other than desysopping (we > have a bureaucrat; not me). If this feature of "no self-unblocks on wikis > with lots of admins" was in place, then the threat of a block would have > had more teeth. > Just to keep everyone aware of what's been happening in https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T150826 – to avoid the "shoot first to win" situation, a blocked admin can block the admin who blocked them but no one else. Our balance of terror. //Johan Jönsson --
_______________________________________________ Wikitech-ambassadors mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-ambassadors
