Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Removal/Inactive Admins (June 2010)

Inactive Admins
✅ Permissions were removed. -- Shakata Ga Nai ^_^ 18:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

According to this, the following admins have not been active in the last year (Since 2009-06-01). We should de-sysop them until the come back active again. -- Shakata Ga Nai ^_^ 22:40, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Per self-request here, I removed this user's admin privs. -Tempodivalse [talk]

Comments and questions

 * Has any attempt been made to contact any of these admins for comment? Tempodivalse [talk]  22:49, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant. There is too much risk to project integrity has always been my stance on this. A "hacked account" is one point, not being up-to-date on policies is another. Our real supporters/contributors will take a period to break back in. If they care about the project, they will not complain about this.--Brian McNeil / talk 01:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Nonetheless, it's at least a basic courtesy to inform the admins in question that their rights could be removed, give them a chance to reply. I'll ping them on talk pages and perhaps email shortly. Tempodivalse [talk]  01:35, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Go right ahead; instead of bickering about it here. You can edit; says it on the tin. --Brian McNeil / talk 01:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Uhuh. ✅ for now, I'll see if I can send out some emails in a bit as well. Tempodivalse [talk]  01:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


 * you missed one. But, that is because I would go by edits to the main namespace that are to published articles. --Brian McNeil / talk 01:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Votes

 * as I disagree with the inactivity policy. What harm do inactive users pose to the project? Honestly, I don't see the point of desysoping these users if they're likely going to get their rights back if/when they return - seems rather a waste of energy. Tempodivalse [talk]  22:49, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * What harm do they pose? A lot if their account is compromised - and they'd never know - cause they aren't around. As we 'crats now have the power to take admin away, this is a piece of cake.  We don't have to meta anything.  So it's a few clicks to take it away and if/when they come back, it's a few clicks to give it back.  In the mean time we can sleep better at night knowing their accounts wont be used for evil.  -- Shakata Ga Nai  ^_^ 22:52, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * But if someone wanted to crack an admin account, surely it wouldn't be any easier for them just because the user hadn't edited recently. Any potential hackers would just move on to other accounts that still have the bit. Tempodivalse [talk]  22:59, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not saying that it is any easier or difficult on inactive accounts. It is all about if it will go noticed.  If someone cracks my account (possibly changing my password on me) and starts fooling about on wiki - I'm gonna notice and get my account shutdown till it is sorted (Like when Brian requested all his bits be removed due to viri).  If someone is inactive, they will not notice if their account is being used for evil.  The hacker will just go about causing us all sorts of issues till we were forced to revoke permissions due due to misdeeds.  Now that user will have to get their setup fixed up AND prove to us that they weren't in control of their own account when used to do damage.  -- Shakata Ga Nai  ^_^ 23:07, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd think that, should someone hack into an admin account, that would be immediately obvious to everyone (i.e. funny stuff going on in recent changes, logs, etc.). Tempodivalse [talk]  23:12, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Going to have to agree with Shaka on this one. Bad things happen if an admin account is compromised, and knowing from first-hand experience how easy it is for 'crats to desysop and resysop people, it makes sense to me take preventative measures. C628 (talk) 22:57, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't care very much one way or another. I don't think the risk of their account being compromised is very significant (everything can be undone, whats the worst that can happen? Well de-admining them will reduce the number of potential targets, there will always be some targets) OTOH, they are not here, who cares if they are de-admined. If they become active again they can always be re-admined. Bawolff ☺☻ 23:03, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Remove. Agree with Shaka, and if they decide to come back, bring them the bits without further problems (a.k.a. votings). --Diego Grez return fire 23:14, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * For ease of counting above vote -- Sken   my talk 17:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Simple safety measure. --Pi zero (talk) 00:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * . Who can't think of significant changes in recent months? I've no issue about a speedier re-grant of privs, but with admin comes 'editor' – or the right to grant such. --Brian McNeil / talk 01:19, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Best to take of the sysop bit until their returns, to which I wouldn't have a problem regranting rights. — Mike moral  ♪♫  07:05, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * &mdash; I'll support this, but with the caveat that the re-admin process be fairly easy. They already went through it once, so I see no reason to go through the whole kit and caboodle again. Gopher65talk 14:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * periodical purges aren't a bad thing -- Sken   my talk 17:33, 21 June 2010 (UTC)