Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word
Wiktionary talk:Votes/cu-2014-04/De-checkusering inactive checkusers. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word
Wiktionary talk:Votes/cu-2014-04/De-checkusering inactive checkusers, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say
Wiktionary talk:Votes/cu-2014-04/De-checkusering inactive checkusers in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word
Wiktionary talk:Votes/cu-2014-04/De-checkusering inactive checkusers you have here. The definition of the word
Wiktionary talk:Votes/cu-2014-04/De-checkusering inactive checkusers will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition of
Wiktionary talk:Votes/cu-2014-04/De-checkusering inactive checkusers, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.
1. A previous vote indicated support for de-checkusering Connel MacKenzie.
2. As Ruakh wrote when he drafted that vote, de-privving votes sometimes include clauses that "rights can be restored immediately without a vote", but I think this is inappropriate as regards the checkuser tool, and so include no such clause. - -sche (discuss) 20:44, 2 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
- One thing that's been floated a few times (especially, but not originally, by me) is the idea that de-privving votes should reverse the usual status quo bias: an editor should only keep a given priv if the community feels that (s)he should. Unfortunately, this always comes up when we a specific de-privving vote is underway, which makes it awkward. Do you think we should have a discussion and vote on that broader question; and if so, then do you think we should postpone this vote until after that one? —RuakhTALK 03:24, 3 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
- I think it would be wise to discuss that, yes, and to do so separate from any specific vote. I've no objection to shelving this vote until such a discussion has concluded. - -sche (discuss) 04:32, 3 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
- I'm not sure where to put this, but the global policy indicates that if a user is completely inactive for 1 year (no edits, no logged actions at all) they will automatically have the CU flag removed. Of course, you may or may not want to enforce a stricter standard, either through policy or vote, which is the local community's choice. --Rschen7754 22:26, 3 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
- I have now removed Rodasmith for being completely inactive for a year. --Rschen7754 21:48, 21 June 2014 (UTC)Reply