Inkipedia:Proposals/Passed/Demotion Policy Overhaul

This is a policy proposal.

The policy has not been approved yet.

Welcome to the first ever official proposal. This first one has intentionally been chosen to be a simple introduction to the process to help users with the change from Ink Pump voting to Proposal-style voting. If you have any questions, ask below in the discussion section or the proposals policy talk page.

This is a fairly simple request to overhaul the current demotion policy. The suggested rewritten policy can be found on this draft page. The major changes or highlights include:

• Clarifying why a user would lose rights, and organizing them in a way to be highlighted as a reason when forming a request.
• Tips on how to write a request, or information to include.
• Specifying examples of demotions that are not inactivity based, and providing information on the process to perform these types of demotions at all.
• Vastly cutting down the warning window for inactivity announcements before a demotion request can be made (30 days -> 7 days).
• Corrected a loophole that would allow staff to avoid demotion by making a single or few edits before returning to inactivity.
• More information overall.

If the policy passes, the draft will become the new form for the demotion policy. Trig Jegman - 15:43, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Start date: 24 July 2023

End date: 14 August 2023

Support

1. I greatly appreciate the closing of the "loophole". Besides that, the other big change is reducing the 30 day warning window to 7. This makes sense, given that with a 30 day window the requester may forget about the matter. That, combined with all the additional information, should make the process less intimidating. The confrontational nature of requesting to take away a single person's status is already intimidating enough for the requester, so I definitely support any changes that make things easier for the requester. Heddy (talk) 00:49, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
2. Odd (Talk) 15:02, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
3. I support all the changes proposed here, especially in regards to the loophole. GloverMist (talk) 21:28, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
4. WoomyGirl85 (talk) 02:32, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
5.  GX_64 (talk)  02:32, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
6. User:Randomnamehere/Sig 03:10, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
7. All of these changes are great additions to the policy. The closing of the loophole is especially needed. I support the policy overhaul. FancyRat 18:54, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
8. Slate Talk Contribs 22:04, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
9. Rassicas {Talk} {Contribs} 06:25, 29 July 2023 (UTC)