Wiktionary:Votes/2017-05/Removing bureaucrat and checkuser rights for inactivity

Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word Wiktionary:Votes/2017-05/Removing bureaucrat and checkuser rights for inactivity. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word Wiktionary:Votes/2017-05/Removing bureaucrat and checkuser rights for inactivity, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say Wiktionary:Votes/2017-05/Removing bureaucrat and checkuser rights for inactivity in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word Wiktionary:Votes/2017-05/Removing bureaucrat and checkuser rights for inactivity you have here. The definition of the word Wiktionary:Votes/2017-05/Removing bureaucrat and checkuser rights for inactivity will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition ofWiktionary:Votes/2017-05/Removing bureaucrat and checkuser rights for inactivity, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.

Removing bureaucrat and checkuser rights for inactivity

Automatically removing bureaucrat and checkuser rights after a certain period of not using either those tools or admin tools.

Schedule:

Discussion:

Support removing rights after 5 years without use of the relevant tools

  1. Support --Daniel Carrero (talk) 02:37, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:28, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support - DaveRoss 12:39, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support Equinox ◑ 12:41, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support --Dan Polansky (talk). Note the "relevant tools" are "either those tools or admin tools", as per the text at the beginning of the vote. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:47, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
    If someone is an active editor and happened to have not used their admin tools or their bureaucrat or checkuser tools, why should they be de-bureaucrated/de-checkusered? --WikiTiki89 17:56, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
    If someone is an active editor and happened to have not used their admin tools, why should they be desysopped? Since, the present proposal is similar to Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2017-03/Desysopping for inactivity just that it is more lenient in that it tracks activity not only in the tools to be removed but also in any power tools. An alternative proposal tracking any activity could be fine, but this one is fine too. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:00, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
    You're right. I had misread the desysopping vote. I would have had the same problem with it. --WikiTiki89 19:04, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
    (after edit conflict) Correcting myself: not any power tools: for a bureaucrat, checkusering does not count. But since admin tools are so often used, no use of admin tools suggests no interest in use of power tools. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:05, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
    Let us see the difference of the discussed policies by means of an example of Paul G (talk • contribs): his last logged action is from 7 May 2012, while is last edit is from 24 December 2015. Thus, his last logged action is > 5 years old while is last edit is < 2 years old. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:17, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
  6. Support —Granger (talk · contribs) 21:25, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Oppose removing rights after 5 years without use of the relevant tools

  1. Oppose I think it should be based on inactivity in general and not only inactivity in the relevant tools. --WikiTiki89 18:02, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Too long. --Victar (talk) 16:08, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
    So when the 2 year limit fails, you would prefer there be no time limit? - DaveRoss 16:58, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
    @Victar, so you can see Dave's question. I too find your vote puzzling. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 15:24, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
    It's my right to vote how I wish. --Victar (talk) 20:56, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
    @Victar Of course that's true. I think several of us are just curious about your reasoning. Why is it that you prefer two years rather than no limit, but prefer no limit rather than five years? —Granger (talk · contribs) 22:12, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
  3. Oppose -Xbony2 (talk) 19:29, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
  4. Oppose per Wikitiki89. --Droigheann (talk) 00:19, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
  5. Oppose — Z. b"A. — 14:50, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Abstain on removing rights after 5 years without use of the relevant tools

Support removing rights after 2 years without use of the relevant tools

  1. Support. I think these user rights have so much power that it really requires something more than we ask of someone who is an admin alone. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:28, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
  2. Support Per Metaknowledge. --Victar (talk) 06:05, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
  3. Support per Metaknowledge. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 07:10, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
  4. Support - DaveRoss 12:39, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
  5. Support —Granger (talk · contribs) 21:25, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
  6. Support -Xbony2 (talk) 19:29, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Oppose removing rights after 2 years without use of the relevant tools

  1. Oppose: Too little time, in my opinion. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 18:00, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose I think it should be based on inactivity in general and not only inactivity in the relevant tools. --WikiTiki89 18:02, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Compared to adminship, I don't see much relevance of the increased power. Do we have any cases of stolen accounts or something? I think it is about granting fairly long sabbatical without the bureaucracy of reelection. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:43, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
  4. Oppose per Wikitiki89. --Droigheann (talk) 00:19, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
  5. Oppose — Z. b"A. — 14:50, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Abstain on removing rights after 2 years without use of the relevant tools

Decision

No consensus.

  • Proposal 1: 6-5-0 (54.54%) - No consensus.
  • Proposal 2: 6-5-0 (54.54%) - No consensus.

--Daniel Carrero (talk) 08:54, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikious
Boobota
Sagapedia