TestWiki talk:Inactivity/Exceptions: Difference between revisions

:Good thinking, and I '''support'''. However, perhaps this should be discussed on a more high traffic page, such as [[TestWiki:Community portal|the community portal]]. [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomliberal]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 01:09, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

:While I can understand the logic behind [[User:Naleksuh|Naleksuh]]'s thinking here, I would just like to point out that removing the inactivity exceptions for [[TestWiki:Consuls|Consuls]] would ''not'' apply to the <code>[[TestWiki:Consuls|consul]]</code> user group as there is no inactivity clause in the given current [[TestWiki:Consuls|official policy]] for that user group. As such, it would apply ''only'' to the <code>[[TestWiki:Bureaucrats|bureaucrat]]</code> and <code>[[TestWiki:Administrators|sysop]]</code> bits that the Consuls could hold. While this is certainly ''possible'' to do, it seems a tad bureaucratic to require a less active [[TestWiki:Consuls|Consul]] to have to procedurally re-add their own <code>bureaucrat</code> and <code>sysop</code> bits. Additionally, I would also point out that other than several non-[[TestWiki:Consuls|Consul]] users, there are several inactivity exemptions for users holding no local user groups. Finally, while it's possible some Consuls are less active on TestWiki, they are not necessarily inactive pan Miraheze since many, or most rather, barring one exception, hold various global permissions, and are indeed quite active across Miraheze. So, there is never really any doubt as to ''where'' they are, if not on TestWiki specifically. As a procedural footnote, [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomliberal]] makes a good point that [[TestWiki:Community portal]] is indeed a better venue; however, in this case, since we're all engaging in a discussion on this talk page, I'm okay with it continuing here. Thanks. [[mh:meta:User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk:Dmehus|talk]]) 01:19, 25 November 2020 (UTC)