Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Removal/Ironiridis (admin)

Ironiridis
User hasn't edited in 14 months to now, and if we exclude the one-off edit in December 2007, for 16 months total. Propose desysopping for inactivity.

I have left a note at Ironiridis' talk page regarding this request and also sent an email linking to this discussion.

Regards, Daniel (talk) 11:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments

 * - It has been over seven days, and this appears to be unanimous consensus to remove rights. Any objection to closing and making a note for the Stewards at Steward requests/Permissions? Cirt (talk) 01:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Already done. -- ♪ Tempo Di  Valse ♪ 03:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * User de-sysoped (diff). -- ♪ Tempo Di  Valse ♪ 20:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Votes

 * as nominator. Daniel (talk) 11:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * per nom. Cirt (talk) 21:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the idea of desysopping for inactivity. Inactive admins do no harm. WN:IP is not policy and was widely opposed in April 2007. --SVTCobra 22:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the practice was widely supported in December 2007/January 2008 (more recent than your archaic discussion link), and resulted in numerous desysoppings for inactivity (Requests_for_permissions/Archive_3). So linking to a nearly-two-year-old discussion in such a fashion is distinctly misleading to those not aware of the history of RfDA's. Daniel (talk) 23:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes and no. Some of those desysop requests succeeded and others failed. One of the successful ones was because the user responded saying 'remove my admin rights'. Either way, it was never made policy, and I disagree with it in principle. --SVTCobra 23:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I won't oppose, if the user doesn't want the admin status. --SVTCobra 23:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * They dont need the mop & bucket if they aren't using it. Let's give it to someone else who will. -- Shakata Ga Nai  ^_^ 00:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Remove the bits. Users don't presently contribute and keeping them on clogs up the lists. Cary Bass (talk) 02:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * as per the reason given by Cary with no prejudice against restoring rights if requested. I don't think it is desirable to have a ever growing list of users with admin rights who haven't edited in years. I trust that anyone who the community has considered mature enough to have admin rights won't be offended by finding they've been removed if they haven't edited for a very prolonged period. Adambro (talk) 15:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * - I have supported the inactivity policy for a while but recently I reconsidered my opinion. Its not like there is a limit to a maximum number of admins we can have and I have no reason to doubt that our (now inactive) admins cannot be trusted to edit effectively. I think we should not de-admin unless the admin is causing problems. Thanks, Anonymous101talk 20:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC) Although I oppose WN:IP, I have changed to support as ironiridis has said he supports his de-adminship. Thanks, Anonymous101talk 20:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I say we switch this over to speedy. Iron himself is ok with this  -- Shakata Ga Nai  ^_^ 20:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I am generally in favour of de-sysopping people who have been inactive for a prolonged period. From a tinfoil hat/security perspective, the more admins there are, the more accounts to try and crack the passwords of. Inactive accounts make the most obvious targets. --Brian McNeil / talk 10:48, 14 February 2009 (UTC)