TestWiki talk:Inactivity/Exceptions

From TestWiki

I'm still there?[edit source]

I should be removed now... :3 SleepyMode (talk) 11:52, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why you are remove, when you are still here?

AYST201 (talk) 12:46, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is only for exceptions which need to have a good reason. Not any user gets on this list. Reception123 (talk) 13:54, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Reception123: Can you put me to the list for infinity:) TriX (talk) 04:53, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@TriX: As you are active anyway, I see no need of putting you on the list for the moment, as you need to be inactive for 6 months for your permissions to be removed. Reception123 (talk) 19:05, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. okay if you say toTriX (talk) 08:22, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ZppixBot renaming to MirahezeBots[edit source]

@RhinosF1:, when you get a chance, can you also update this page link to MirahezeBots instead of ZppixBot now that @Void: has completed the global rename? Also, do global renamings not happen instantly? I saw Void rename ZppixBot on Meta and other wikis yesterday, but this renaming is occurring only today?
Cheers,
Dmehus (talk) 21:07, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@RhinosF1: @Void: took care of the update to TestWiki:Inactivity/Exceptions. Dmehus (talk) 22:32, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Naleksuh BOT[edit source]

Possible request for inactivity exemptions - does it apply to bot's? Naleksuh (talk) 21:09, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's only given where there is a need or strong grounds. RhinosF1 (talk) 11:39, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Inactivity exemptions for consuls[edit source]

Is it a good idea to grant inactivity exemptions solely due to being a consul and nothing else? I don't see why simply being a consul should result in an exemption. In addition, the inactivity policy describes itself as being "for mostly security reasons", which arguably makes it more important to remove inactive consuls than inactive sysops/bureaucrats. Naleksuh (talk) 05:06, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good thinking, and I support. However, perhaps this should be discussed on a more high traffic page, such as the community portal. Justarandomliberal (talk) 01:09, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
While I can understand the logic behind Naleksuh's thinking here, I would just like to point out that removing the inactivity exceptions for Consuls would not apply to the consul user group as there is no inactivity clause in the given current official policy for that user group. As such, it would apply only to the bureaucrat and sysop bits that the Consuls could hold. While this is certainly possible to do, it seems a tad bureaucratic to require a less active Consul to have to procedurally re-add their own bureaucrat and sysop bits. Additionally, I would also point out that other than several non-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, 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. Dmehus (talk) 01:19, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

edit request[edit source]

Can a consul please edit the reasoning for my exemption so that it says that I am a sysadmin and not a former one? Thanks. MacFan4000 (Talk Contribs) 02:11, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done -- Void Whispers 19:55, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]