Jump to content

Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2017-03/Desysopping for inactivity

Add links
From Wiktionary, the free dictionary

Desysopping for inactivity

[edit]

Voting on: Allowing automatic desysopping based on the period of no use of admin tools. The proposed policy for X years of no use of admin tools:

If the number of admins is greater than 20, and a user who has admin rights has not used admin tools for at least X years as per Special:Log, the admin right can be removed from the user without further ado.

Schedule:

Discussion:

Support for 5 years of inactivity

[edit]
  1. Support --Daniel Carrero (talk) 05:09, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I would also support automatically removing the bureaucrat rights from people who haven't been using their bureaucrat tools in the last 5 years. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 02:21, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe we could use a second vote for b'crat and checkuser; people might support shorter periods for the removal of more powerful user rights. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:42, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:42, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support —JohnC5 05:45, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Equinox ◑ 06:30, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support --Vahag (talk) 06:33, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support - TheDaveRoss 12:43, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support —Aryamanarora (मुझसे बात करो) 23:51, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support — Saltmarsh. 11:39, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Five years is definitely long enough, two years is too short. And do we ever know whether certain users have passed away or not? DonnanZ (talk) 18:03, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, we found out when Eclecticology passed away, but I'm sure many users die without any other Wikimedians knowing. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 01:22, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 01:22, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support. --WikiTiki89 17:46, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support (it can always be reinstated) SemperBlotto (talk) 16:55, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support The votes are being flooded with these useless votes for "_____ for desysop."....... All of which gained mostly support votes. This is a waste of time and energy, definite support for 5 years, but 2 is too short. PseudoSkull (talk) 07:59, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support This improves security of neglected admin account. Also 5 years more okay than 2 years. --Octahedron80 (talk) 08:58, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support — I.S.M.E.T.A. 23:16, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support My thinking is on the talk page. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:59, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 12:29, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support — Eru·tuon 08:46, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for 5 years of inactivity

[edit]
  1. Oppose -Xbony2 (talk) 15:34, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Xbony2: Just so you know, your vote is a little odd... did you really mean to vote that you want to desysop those admins that are inactive for a little while, but not those that are inactive for even longer? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:52, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe Xbony2 is OK with a 2-year rule, but is not OK with a 5-year rule; meaning, if the 2-year rule fails, maybe Xbony2 prefers not having any rule at all. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 21:59, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess I'd rather have 5 years if 2 years failed, but I don't find 5 years sufficient enough in my own view. Maybe it's better than nothing, but not that much. -Xbony2 (talk) 23:57, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain for 5 years of inactivity

[edit]
  1. Abstain Eric Schiefelbein (talk) 11:48, 24 May 2017 (UTC)' Technically I am not yet eligible to vote according to the criteria, but I would have voted against both, since I see no need for it at all. I also wanted to point out that the vote is written very poorly, since a user has to vote twice if they are against both, and this seems to not be allowed by the rules. This probably caused people who might have voted against the 5 years also to only vote against the 2 year proposal, thereby biasing the result.[reply]
Re suppressed voting, a quick look at who voted for each proposition shows this to be false. It is common practice here to have votes with multiple alternative propositions, it is not considered to be improper to vote once for each proposition. - [The]DaveRoss 13:02, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support for 2 years of inactivity

[edit]
  1. Support -Xbony2 (talk) 15:34, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support - TheDaveRoss 23:38, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support and also remove from the autopatrollers' group. --Dixtosa (talk) 09:13, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support (it can always be reinstated) SemperBlotto (talk) 16:55, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support --Droigheann (talk) 11:45, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Ditto to what Dixtosa said. --Victar (talk) 02:07, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for 2 years of inactivity

[edit]
  1. Oppose --Daniel Carrero (talk) 05:09, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose —JohnC5 05:45, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose —Aryamanarora (मुझसे बात करो) 23:51, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose — Saltmarsh. 11:39, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose - Too short a period. DonnanZ (talk) 18:05, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose Equinox ◑ 16:52, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose PseudoSkull (talk) 08:00, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose I think this is too short. --Octahedron80 (talk) 08:59, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose, although I'd support automatic desysopping for three years of inactivity. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 23:17, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose. When an admin was away for 2 years, they should be exposed to the temptation of doing the admin work again without any further bureaucratic hassle of voting. Like Equinox, I think that somone fit for an admin flag should be able and willing to check key policy changes upon their return. Furthermore, key policies are remarkably stable over years; WT:BLOCK was last substantively updated in 2010. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:59, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 12:29, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose — Eru·tuon 08:48, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain for 2 years of inactivity

[edit]
  1. Abstain --Vahag (talk) 06:33, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Abstain. I had initially opposed, but I removed my oppose vote upon realising that I really couldn't justify to myself why two years was too short, considering how quickly policies and templates can change around here, and the responsibilities of an admin to be up-to-date on them. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:34, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    ...though at least someone deemed responsible for "admin-ship" should be able/willing to learn what has changed. Equinox ◑ 16:53, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Abstain, per Metaknowledge. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 01:21, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Abstain. --WikiTiki89 17:47, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Abstain see above under abstain from 5 years for my notice Eric Schiefelbein (talk) 11:50, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decision

[edit]

Passes with 5 years. Someone should now write a rule somewhere. --Celui qui crée ébauches de football anglais (talk) 10:08, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Added Wiktionary:Administrators#Removal for inactivity.--Jusjih (talk) 04:45, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2017-03/Desysopping_for_inactivity&oldid=52033286"