Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2017-03/Desysopping for inactivity: difference between revisions

From Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Content deleted Content added
Line 25: Line 25:
# {{support}} —[[User:Aryamanarora|Aryamanarora]] <sup>''([[User talk:Aryamanarora|मुझसे बात करो]])''</sup> 23:51, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
# {{support}} —[[User:Aryamanarora|Aryamanarora]] <sup>''([[User talk:Aryamanarora|मुझसे बात करो]])''</sup> 23:51, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
# {{support}} — [[User:Saltmarsh|<span style="text-shadow:#BBBBBB 0.1em 0.1em 0.1em; class=texhtml"><font color="#1e90ff">Salt</font></span>]][[User talk:Saltmarsh|<span style="text-shadow:#BBBBBB 0.1em 0.1em 0.1em; class=texhtml"><font color="#ff1493">marsh</font></span>]]. 11:39, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
# {{support}} — [[User:Saltmarsh|<span style="text-shadow:#BBBBBB 0.1em 0.1em 0.1em; class=texhtml"><font color="#1e90ff">Salt</font></span>]][[User talk:Saltmarsh|<span style="text-shadow:#BBBBBB 0.1em 0.1em 0.1em; class=texhtml"><font color="#ff1493">marsh</font></span>]]. 11:39, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
# {{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? ''[[User:Donnanz|DonnanZ]] ([[User talk:Donnanz|talk]]) 18:03, 2 April 2017 (UTC)''


==== Oppose for 5 years of inactivity====
==== Oppose for 5 years of inactivity====

Revision as of 18:04, 2 April 2017

Desysopping for inactivity

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

  1. Support --Daniel Carrero (talk) 05:09, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SupportΜετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:42, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SupportJohnC5 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. SupportAryamanarora (मुझसे बात करो) 23:51, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  8. SupportSaltmarsh. 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]

Oppose for 5 years of inactivity

  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

Support for 2 years of inactivity

  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]

Oppose for 2 years of inactivity

  1. Oppose --Daniel Carrero (talk) 05:09, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  2. OpposeΜετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:42, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  3. OpposeJohnC5 05:45, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  4. OpposeAryamanarora (मुझसे बात करो) 23:51, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  5. OpposeSaltmarsh. 11:39, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain for 2 years of inactivity

  1. Abstain --Vahag (talk) 06:33, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decision