D&D Wiki:Requests for Adminship/Sepsis 2
From D&D Wiki
< D&D Wiki:Requests for Adminship
Revision as of 12:46, 25 April 2018 by SgtLionBot (talk | contribs) (SgtLionBot moved page Requests for Adminship/Sepsis 2 to D&D Wiki:Requests for Adminship/Sepsis 2: Moving entire RfA section to D&D Wiki namespace)
Sepsis[edit]
Voice your opinion (0/4/0) 0% Approval; Ended 07:09, 14 September 2014 (MDT)
Sepsis has been a very helpful contributor and fulfilled his adminship role greatly. Since he has been inactive for a long time now, I am renominating him. --Green Dragon (talk) 07:11, 7 September 2014 (MDT)
Discussion
Support
Oppose
- Per above. --Green Dragon (talk) 07:11, 7 September 2014 (MDT)
- I mean yeah, unadmining inactive admins is common sense. We should just make it an automatic policy or somethin'. --SgtLion (talk) 13:32, 7 September 2014 (MDT)
- Agreed. --Jwguy (talk) 06:15, 8 September 2014 (MDT)
- Agreed, with suggestion that there be an implementation into the Admin rules that if inactive for X (say: 12 months) with no reasoning put forth that someone be de-admined automatically without the need for a second RfA that users can misunderstand. Not sure if de-admined is a word but I just used it anyway. Hooper talk contribs email 09:11, 8 September 2014 (MDT)
- I thought that it was written that an inactive admin will be renominated somewhere. I am looking for it now, but cannot seem to find it. 12 months seems quite fine to me, especially if someone has something come up for some reason. Are there any objections, and should this be put to a vote, or should it be accepted as common practice (e.g. since "bureaucrats are the final arbiters" anyway)? --Green Dragon (talk) 04:49, 9 September 2014 (MDT)
- Implementing it would probably be both clearer to users and just easier overall ('s long as it's actually written in admin rules). I can't think of any reason why someone would oppose this. --SgtLion (talk) 15:11, 12 September 2014 (MDT)
- I have now expanded Requests for Adminship#Exceptions. Does this seem clear and precise? --Green Dragon (talk) 04:12, 20 September 2014 (MDT)
- Implementing it would probably be both clearer to users and just easier overall ('s long as it's actually written in admin rules). I can't think of any reason why someone would oppose this. --SgtLion (talk) 15:11, 12 September 2014 (MDT)
- I thought that it was written that an inactive admin will be renominated somewhere. I am looking for it now, but cannot seem to find it. 12 months seems quite fine to me, especially if someone has something come up for some reason. Are there any objections, and should this be put to a vote, or should it be accepted as common practice (e.g. since "bureaucrats are the final arbiters" anyway)? --Green Dragon (talk) 04:49, 9 September 2014 (MDT)
Neutral
