Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2005-06/Petruk, Fonzy for desysop

Discussion moved from Wiktionary:Administrators.

Petruk, Fonzy

I would like to propose that Petruk and Fonzy be removed from being administrators. Neither has made a single edit in over a year. Eclecticology 04:42, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I concur. (assuming this is a vote of some description...) - TheDaveRoss 05:12, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• This certainly seems reasonable. I assume that the person doing the desysopping will leave a clear note to those users explaining what happened and how to regain their sysop status. Jun-Dai 20:42, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Good point. Stewards will need to do the desysopping, but I accept responsibility for leaving the notes. Eclecticology 00:28, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    The notices have been left. Eclecticology 02:31, 2005 Jun 9 (UTC)

• I oppose this de-adminship request, being a sysop is not a privilege. 24 21:04, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Revoking people's rights to use the administrator tools should be done for reasons better than "Xe hasn't done much editing recently.". I find no evidence that these people should not continue to be entrusted with these tools, when and if they choose to edit. Meta's policy on administratorship is a bad idea for all of the other projects, and should be firmly ejected when people try to bring it in, as here. Wikipedia says "Throughout the history of the project, there has been a policy that users may have their adminship removed only in cases of clear abuse.". Oppose. Uncle G 00:53, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • How do you propose knowing if we'll ever see these people again? Being an admin is for the purpose of doing work. These guys aren't doing anything at all. Eclecticology 07:39, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Why do you care so much about knowing that in the first place? It's not as though we were running out of a limited number of little pink sysop flags to place on user accounts. Being an admin means that the community trusts one to use administrative tools. The simple act of not editing is not enough to revoke that trust. Uncle G 22:03, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually, there are some common sense security reasons. You have pointed out that we elect sysops on a basis of trust, which means that the tools they have require a trustworthy operator. The longer an account stagnates the more likely it is to be compromised, and those tools misused. What I don't see is a good reason to keep them flagged as such. They aren't presently of any benefit to the community, and if they ever chose to return, they could be voted back in by what will then be a different community than they were voted in by initially. Do I think it is a matter of great importance that they be kept or removed? No. I do however see the logic of removal more so than the logic of sustainance. - TheDaveRoss 22:14, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • The longer an account stagnates the more likely it is to be compromised — False. An inactive account is no more likely to be compromised than an active one. Indeed, inactive accounts are less likely to be compromised than active ones (passwords are not being sent to servers over interceptable HTTP connections on a regular basis, and cookies are not being used to be left lying around, for example). Your account is at more risk of being compromised than these two accounts are. Uncle G 20:43, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, their sysophood should be removed. It's no great trouble to reverse the decision if they ever come out of prison (or wherever they are). SemperBlotto 22:18, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Why should a prison record affect one's sysop status? Not that I'm worried...much. But law is arbitrary; almost as arbitrary as its application. Maybe the UK has reasonable laws, but we don't. Who gets arrested for an offense is partly random, partly a question of amassed wealth, here. The rules of the Wiktionary community should not be linked in any way to unrelated political/legal entities.
    • With all that said, I think a one-year-without-contributions limit is reasonable, provided there is a mechanism for quick reinstatement upon return. --Connel MacKenzie 22:16, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• One further note: User:Fonzy announced his "retirement" on w:User:Fonzy on 09 May 2004, I think it is safe to assume that he has no intention of returning. - TheDaveRoss

Result

Both individuals were desysopped without prejudice on 2005-07-21