UDWiki:Administration/Policy Discussion/Truly Inactive Sysops

From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Green check.png Guidelines — Policy Document
This page is a statement of official UDWiki Policies and Rules. See Policy Discussion for policy additions and changes.
Padlock.png Administration Services — Protection.
This page has been protected against editing. See the archive of recent actions or the Protections log.


  • A sysop that hasn't made any edit in four months is considered to be inactive and demoted from sysop status to normal user status.
  • This demotion is not considered a detriment to any future request for sysop status.
  • This policy does not effect any account that Kevan may use as a wiki admin account.

Rules of demotion

  • A sysop that hasn't made any edit in four months will be warned, on their talk page, by a Bureaucrat, that they face demotion of their sysop powers in one week, if they remain inactive.
  • One week after the warning has been placed, dependant on the actions of the sysop, the Bureaucrat will decide whether or not to carry out the demotion.
  • This is to avoid, for example, the unlikely case of a sysop simply making a single edit with the aim of avoiding the demotion.
  • The Bureaucrat is trusted and bound to make a fair decision, and not to demote a sysop who clearly demonstrates a return to activity on the wiki.
  • Any demonstrable abuse of this power by a Bureaucrat, however unlikely, could (as with any other abuse of specific powers) be grounds for a Misconduct case.
  • If the sysop makes no response at all to the warning, they must be demoted.


  • According to statistics (provided here) this policy, if passed, would immediately effect the following six sysops (with their last edit date shown in brackets):
  • BobHammero (30 October 2006)
  • Brizth (8 April 2007)
  • Morlock (23 September 2005)
  • Novelty (5 December 2006)
  • SA-TA-EK-Rumisiel (10 April 2007)
  • Spiro (28 April 2006)
  • That would result in a remainder of twenty sysops (discounting Kevan-alts), of varying degrees of current activity. (In general terms, only eleven are active as of 2008.)
  • It is likely that a further two sysops would be effected in mid-February (i.e. LibrarianBrent and Max Grivas).
  • There is currently the potential for a further seven demotions to occur in mid to late April.

Sysop Hiatus

  • It may be that a sysop knows in advance that they'll be taking a hiatus from this wiki.
  • Any sysop may extend the four month period this policy operates with to six months, by placing the following {{SysopHiatus}} template at the top of their user page or talk page:

I am on a sysop hiatus.
If I do not return within six months I will face potential demotion due to inactivity.


  • To rid the sysop list of any long-term inactive users.
  • This may promote the take up of new sysops as voters realise that there are less active sysops than the full list implies.
  • This policy does not purport to judge whether or not a sysop is currently engaged in sysop-specific duties, but only whether they are active generally.
  • This policy is not meant as a punishment, but instead a simple housekeeping task.


  • This policy was heavily influenced by, inspired by and drawn from the recently failed Inactive Sysops policy.

Voting Section

Voting Rules
Votes must be numbered, signed, and timestamped. They can take one of two forms:
  • # comments ~~~~
  • # ~~~~

Votes that do not conform to the above will be struck by a sysop.

The only valid voting sections are For and Against. If you wish to abstain from voting, do not vote.


  1.  Nalikill  TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI  22:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  2. For --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 22:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  3. Yep, Keep, Vouch. Deals with those who are gone, not just a bit lazy. Plus it doesn't treat inactivity as a crime.--RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 22:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  4. Thanks to all on the discussion page for helpful advice in tidying this up. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 22:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  5. Inactive sysops lose Mod stats. Seems good. And also does seem to prevent a hacker from hacking those inactive accounts and terrorizing the wiki with mod powers... --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 22:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  6. Yes, it would seem best to start doing this when it comes to inactive sysops.--Jamie Cantwell3 23:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  7. It's a bit pointless, but it can't hurt. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 23:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  8. tidies things up without victimizing anyone! --Honestmistake 00:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  9. why should they have powers if they dont use em?--'BPTmz 01:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  10. --Banana reads Scoundrell for all of Yesterday's News, Today! 01:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  11. It makes sense to me. --Pedentic 02:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  12. i'm a sycophant--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS DORISFlag.jpg LOE ZHU | Яezzens 03:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  13. I cant complain about this --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 04:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  14. Looks good, as there are a number of safe-guards in place for those SysOps who get temporarily burnt-out, or tied up w/ RL commitments/obligations. --Canker Sore|CK | GC | ZHU | MEM | 04:56 16 January (UTC)
  15. For - I actually think it could be stronger but it's a start.--Karekmaps?! 06:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  16. --~~~~ [talk] 07:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  17. For - Looks good to me. --Amanu Jaku 09:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  18. For --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 10:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  19. I liked the last one, and I like this one, too. --Z. slay3r Talk  13:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  20. For - Well done --Ryiis 14:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  21. Hmm. I wouldn't be completely for this, but on occasion people do seem to say things along the lines of "we have enougth sysops already" on the promotions bid, then someone else comes along saying how many of them are inactive, blah blah blah... So I'm voting for this just to get all that cleared up, apart from anything else.--SeventythreeTalk 17:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  22. I agree--MisterGame 18:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  23. For- this seems reasonable Scotw 19:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  24. Seems like a legit house-keeping action. If users can re-apply to become sysops when they return, there's no reason to be offended by this act passing. Dray 19:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  25. --Toejam 22:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  26. We should also create a category for inactive Sysops perhaps as well, so at a glance we can see who is active and who is not? --Ducis DuxSlothTalk 22:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
    That can easily be included into the template.--Karekmaps?! 22:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
    That crossed my mind. --Ducis DuxSlothTalk 00:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  27. -- dǝǝɥs ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 00:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  28. This is needed- Vantar 00:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  29. Ok. - Whitehouse T 15:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  30. Someone who isn't active for FOUR MONTHS doesn't deserve to be a sysop. --Hhal 22:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  31. Ok. -- BKM 03:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
  32. For Asheets 20:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  33. -- boxy talki 00:26 26 January 2008 (BST)
  34. - A step in the right direction. --Akule School's in session. 17:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


  1. i refuse to accept that we should demote users based on their lack of activity in this wiki. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 17:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  2. i agree.----SexualharrisonStarofdavid2.png Boobs.gif 05:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  3. Pointless.--Thari TжFedCom is BFI! 18:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  4. As above.--ShadowScope 20:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  5. Against - As above...--/~Rakuen~\ 02:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  6. Against Stupid waste of time. --Rogue 04:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Voting closed. Policy approved. 34 For, 6 Against. (85% majority.) --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 23:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)