and that can be devastating in the case of mod abuse.

If Founders had this ability, they could also abuse it and remove good bcrats from positions. Having staff be the ones to remove a bcrat ensures that there is no mod abuse.

but, it should only be kept as a technical last resort in case, and not used recklessly just because it is available

There's no way to ensure that it wouldn't be abused, just like there's no way to ensure a regular bcrat doesn't abuse their rights.

with how I see the system, promoting someone to Bcrat as the Founder will practically put them at the same level of power you have

That's because Founders are only bcrats themself, so it would make sense for them to be the same.

^^

You can't give the founder role to anyone. Because, if the founder have these permissions, well, he will be in possibility to remove EVERYONE, while others, can't do anything. Bureaucrats is a big role to give, a big responsability, that's why you can't remove it.

If Founders had this ability, they could also abuse it and remove good bcrats from positions. Having staff be the ones to remove a bcrat ensures that there is no mod abuse.

I am aware of that, but I am addressing this from the view of "What if the person you appointed bureaucrat was not how they seemed and quickly took advantage of their perms"

And the Founder would have a reason to promote Bcrats in the first place, so it doesn't make sense if they just demoted them like that if they had the ability without good reason (in the case I'm trying to argue, mod abuse)

^

He can block him temporarily waiting the staff does action.

Buh ;w;

I'm just gonna unfollow this since I instantly got the feedback about how ppl feel about this simple concern over discovery bc i'm still new, and I gotta focus on other stuff anyway, don't wanna end up with flooded notifs.

Thanks anyways.

Don't want any controversy to occur bc of dis :<

Questions:

• What would happen if a founder went inactive? Who would then demote the rogue bcrat?

• What if a founder abused this power and is demoted themself? Who would then gain this new right?

Staff would then have to be contacted regardless.

^^

We just wan't to make you understand that this feature cannot be introduced.

It wouldn't change anything. It would just add another level.

Instead of "how do we demote a bureaucrat?", people would ask "how do we demote a founder?".

If you don't fully trust someone, don't make them a bureaucrat. Simple as that. Admins can do everything bureaucrats can beside promote/demote other users.

I also don't understand the mod-abuse example. Bureaucrats can demote mods. Admins can block them if no bcrat is around.

And what if the founder leaves or becomes inactive? Ask for a new founder (that isn't actually "the founder")?

"Founder" is just a tag, not a user role. There can only be one, and if they're gone they're gone.

/edit:

"I'm just gonna unfollow this [...] don't wanna end up with flooded notifs"

What? Why do you open a thread and ask a question when you don't want to hear the answers?

I’m guessing it wouldn’t be ask for a new founder in that hypothetical situation, it’d still be adoption but the person who adopts the Wiki would still only get Bureaucrat rights as they never founded the Wiki.

Idk ig they could add that, but then again what if they retire