UDWiki talk:Administration/Policy Discussion/Truly Inactive Sysops Update

Discussion

Wiki self-determines active users at 3 months, policy should then follow the tools we use. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 18:45, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

confused ...the warning should come before the demotion, right? "they face demotion of their sysop powers in one week, if they remain inactive" ...so technically, they have 1 week (7 days) to become active (or use the sysop hiatus template), not 1 day (91 days = 3 months and 1 day?). basically, the policy is conflicting ...how can a sysop be demoted after 91 days of inactivity if they are warned after 3 months of inactivity but have 1 week (7 days) to make an edit before demotion? →Son of Sin← 19:29, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

That's the way it's always been done this just pushes up by about 4 weeks. Currently, after four months the sysop is warned on their talk page. After one week from the warning, if the sysop has not made contributions or used the inactive template (basically they have to indicate they are still interested in being a sysop) then they are demoted.

I don't really see a huge problem with this except that lately, there have been big gaps of inactivity with sysops which have then returned to lead pretty active roles. Rev and a few others went idle for a while but came back. Honestly we'd probably be a few sysops shy if this were already the rule.

Oh and you'll want to check the last paragraph of your policy suggestion. It still says 4 months instead of 3. ~ _{23:16, 6 January 2012 (UTC)}

I think it generous already for it to be four months, not in the sense that it should be less, namely 3 months, but that it is as low as it already is, or that activity is at all a reason for demotion. I'm not sure if inactivity by itself is a proper reason to demote because inactivity by itself does not hold any merit for the sysop in being a sysop. And this is especially, or particularly, true in the case of this wiki, where not much happens, where things that do happen are not very important or difficult. Neither is it terrible to demote a sysop because of this, but I'm not sure how necessary this is, or useful. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 23:37, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I like it. Wiki system says 91 days, we go 91 days. Makes a lot of sense.--Shortround 00:51, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

pointless. waste of time.--User:Sexualharrison00:57, 7 January 2012 (bst)

If there's a way to search for inactivity sysops with the new system, then yes, I would support this. If, however, we still have to check individual contributions, I don't see the point of this -- boxy 04:04, 7 January 2012 (BST)

I don't think oits any easier looking at Special:ActiveUsers than it is looking at Special:Contributions. Its about the same, really. ~ _{04:21, 7 January 2012 (UTC)}

As Vapor, it looks like it just adds an additional venue to check for activity, rather than an easier one. I am also not sure if Special:ActiveUsers takes admin actions other than regular contributions into account (deleting, banning etc.), which has once prolonged RHO's term by a week. Who was also the only op who ever fell victim to this rule during my time, which shows how little it matters either way. -- Spiderzed█ 16:21, 7 January 2012 (UTC)