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

Administration Services — Protection. This page has been protected against editing. See the archive of recent actions or the Protections log.

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)

Its easier to script for in activity checks, to the point where instead of trying to figure out when the last edit was you can simply Click a button and have your answer. It's also something that makes it plausible in the future to have this system be completely automated through things like generalbot if it's still kept around. Mostly thought it's simply about consistency. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 20:46, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, I'm for it, on principle. As long as Spider's concerns about "sysop activity" are addressed -- boxy 11:36, 9 January 2012 (BST)

I'm not sure what you mean by his concerns. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 01:10, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I like it, since it keeps policy consistent with the background technical side of the wiki. I have a few quibbles and other thoughts, however.

• Instead of specifying 91 days, say something that's easier to check, such as three months or when the wiki says they are inactive. 91 days would be a nuisance to do the mental math for sometimes. For instance, trying to figure out when a sysop that went inactive in mid-December is due for demotion would be a hassle if it was supposed to be 91 days exactly, whereas 3 months is trivial to figure out.
  • I'd advise against specifying that they are considered inactive when the wiki says they are because that length of time may change later with a wiki update, and we shouldn't have that affect policy. Otherwise I'd just say that we should use that and be done with it.
• The Truly Inactive Sysops policy was written a year-and-a-half before Sysop Reevaluations came into being. The whole sysop hiatus thing made sense at the time, since that was the only routine way that sysops were cleared out of the system, but reevaluations handle that purpose these days, and allowing someone to go inactive for a block of time that represents 3/4 of their term without penalty is rather silly. If you're effectively redoing the Truly Inactive Sysops policy, remove that part entirely.

I'd also make the warning optional, but that's just me. After all, if they can't be bothered to be on the wiki for three or four months, they've already made their choice. Anything they might do in that one week would be insincere. —Aichon— 04:38, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I view three months or 91 days as interchangeable from a policy standpoint. Essentially all that it means is when you stop appearing on the wiki's active user's list. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 20:46, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. On a different note Aichon mentioned something about getting rid of warnings. I think they should be kept because there has been long stretches of time where I check the wiki daily or every other day but don't edit anything. Granted sysops have a higher workload I guess you could assume but still they might just not getting around to cycling a page or two before someone else does it.        05:03, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

What is the difference in section 3? They both look the same to me  CrunchyCake  T  ^{Breakfast Club} 06:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Probably just a copypasta error. I'm sure Karek will correct it next time he checks back. ~ _{07:27, 8 January 2012 (UTC)}

Yeah, I'll look at that. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 20:46, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

good. I'd make it 4 or 5 months instead of 6 months tbh but anything that reduces an already bloated inactivity timeframe gets my vote D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 07:34, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Has anyone ever used the hiatus?--Shortround 10:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I looked around and couldn't see any notable examples. What's going on with this policy? Is it going to vote?--Shortround 12:39, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

I used it once but I ended up not being on hiatus very long. It was more like a short spurt of decreased activity. I think Axe Hack used it once when his internets was down. He was out for almost 4 months I think and had requested a demotion. We convinced him just to wait for a bit and put the inactive template on his page and give us an update from time-to-time. ~ _{15:15, 18 January 2012 (UTC)}