UDWiki talk:Administration/Policy Discussion/Truly Inactive Sysops Update: Difference between revisions
From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Son of Sin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
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?). | 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? {{User:Son of Sin/sig}} <small>19:29, 6 January 2012 (UTC)</small> | 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? {{User:Son of Sin/sig}} <small>19:29, 6 January 2012 (UTC)</small> | ||
: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. 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. ~[[Image:Vsig.png|link=User:Vapor]] <sub>23:16, 6 January 2012 (UTC)</sub> | |||
Revision as of 23:16, 6 January 2012
Discussion
Wiki self-determines active users at 3 months, policy should then follow the tools we use. --Karekmaps 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. 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)
