Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Inactive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Another request for de-adminship due to inactivity (8/15/3)

These two accounts have been dormant for over a year. It has been our policy to remove adminship from accounts that have been unused for a year or more, chiefly to protect against password guessing by vandals, and we should do so in these cases. If these users should return to Wikipedia in the coming year, it would be customary to restore adminship status upon request.

1. User:--_April. About 3000 contributions between 12/01-5/03 and under a dozen since then.
2. User:Scipius. About 2500 contributions betwee 2/02 - 6/03.

Vote Here

Support de-adminship

1. uc 17:36, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
2. Support all requests unless any of the listed users expresses opposition to being de-admined. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 21:39, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
3. Netoholic @ 21:54, 2004 Nov 4 (UTC) -- Provisionally. A message to this effect should be left on their talk pages for at least two weeks before removing access.
4. As above Shane King 23:43, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
5. Support. There's no reason adminship must last forever. Angela. 00:12, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)
6. [[User:Rdsmith4|User:Rdsmith4/sig]] 04:34, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
7. Agree with Netoholic, but with at least two warnings spaced two weeks apart with a further two weeks before deadminship. -- Grunt   ҈  16:09, 2004 Nov 5 (UTC)
8. Support, as above. Jayjg 03:10, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Oppose de-adminship

1. anthony 警告 17:56, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
2. silsor 21:16, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
3. Chris 73 Talk 00:36, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC) I think every admin should have its own vote. Also I would like a link to the policy. Right now I don't know the policy, i.e. if one of them comes back and wants to be an admin. I may change to support in these two cases, but I don't like the current mass-deadminship at all. -- Chris 73 Talk 00:36, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)
4. As above, please list them separately. Until you do, I'll vote against the en gros de-adminification. -- Schnee 03:05, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
5. VeryVerily 12:01, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC) This is unprecedented, is it not? And the stated reason makes no sense to me - how are the two inactive accounts more vulnerable to password guessing than the three hundred active ones?

   If someone were to guess, say, User:Angela's password, we would find out right away, because she would notice and draw attention to the imposter. Dormant accounts are susceptible because, if somebody were to guess a password for User:Scipius, for example, we would probably not be the wiser.

   I'm not sure I agree. If a vandal took over one of those two accounts, we'd know almost right away, wouldn't we? And why would Angela (alas being picked on) notice before anyone else, unless she happened to be paging through her own contributions? VeryVerily 01:32, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

   So, umm, someone is going to steal the password for User:Scipius and then start using the account for non-suspicious admin activities? Sounds like a positive thing. anthony 警告 01:45, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

6. Please list them separately, or I won't support. --Lst27 (talk) 00:29, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
7. Dori | Talk 02:59, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
8. [[User:Plato|Comrade Nick @)---^--]] 03:42, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
9. De-adminship of admins who wouldn't meet qualifications today is one thing. De-adminship of admins just because they haven't edited recently is another. Oppose deadminship of these admins who meet admin qualifications. —Lowellian (talk)[[]] 06:58, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
10. There's no policy for deadminship other than by request or bad behaviour. Inactivity is neither of those. - Nunh-huh 07:04, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
11. Sarge Baldy 02:07, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
12. Oppose. PedanticallySpeaking 17:35, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
13. Oppose for now, see above. Kim Bruning 20:49, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
14. Strongly oppose. Look, people sometimes wander off for a while because they need a break, or because of stress in their lives, or whatever. And it can be a long break, too - I was gone for the best part of a year. People were made admins (which is supposed to be "no big deal" anyway, right?) because they demonstrated judgement, and they aren't going to lose that just because they are gone for a while. From personal experience, yes, you have to be careful when re-appearing, because policy on some things will have changed subtly in the interim. If there is a security issue with inactive accounts, by all means lets find some way to deal with it. However, if it involves turning off the admin bit on the account after some period of inactivity, there ought to be some simple mechanistic way (e.g. contacting a bureacrat and asking) to get it turned back on. Noel (talk) 02:41, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
15. Oppose. I strongly disagree with the principle of de-adminning people without cause, and simple inactivity is not "for cause". I note that User:Jtdirl, one of our most valuable contributors, disappeared without warning for about 6 months earlier this year before returning. I notice that some of you seem to think that 2 weeks' notice on someones talk page is sufficient notice – I can only conclude you're all Americans with trivial amounts of vacation time -- in civilized parts of the world it's not unusual to be away from home for 2 or 3 weeks, and I would consider a calendar month to be the minimum reasonable notice time if any such de-adminning policy were to be adopted. -- Arwel 01:40, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Split vote

1. Support de-adminship for Scipius. However, with an edit as recent as July of this year, even if it's only one, I'm not prepared to support the request as applied to April. --Michael Snow 06:54, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
2. Agree with Michael Snow. Support de-adminship for Scipius, Oppose de-adminship for April. SWAdair | Talk 09:34, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
3. Ditto above. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 00:10, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

Comments

• It has been our policy to remove adminship; it would be customary to restore adminship
  • Are these policies and customs enunciated somewhere?
  • Has anyone been de-admined for inactivity before?
  • Has anyone been re-admined after being de-admined for inactivity?
• User:--_April last made an edit in July 2004 - is that inactive? (to be fair, the previous one was in December 2003).
• Shouldn't there be a separate vote on each one, rather than a slate? -- ALoan (Talk) 19:17, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • I'd like to hear more about this policy, too, before I vote on this or the other Inactive one. Andre (talk) 20:39, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
    • I believe that User:Eloquence handled this last time. I'll leave a note on his talk page. uc
• As above, the de-nominator should sign his/her de-nominations. As for now I can only guess that the first support vote also nominated -- Chris 73 Talk 04:29, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)