Removing inactive admin Options

[Ottava]

Anyone notice this? Or that on Meta it was listed and used to desysop a lot of old, old admin accounts with no activity? It seems silly that it took so very long for this to happen. I do love how those like Abd fought tooth and nail for it to happen at Wikiversity. I'm rather glad that they finally fixed the problem on Wikipedia.

[EricBarbour]

Fetchcomms is right, but still a dick:

Oppose Per "security concerns" an invalid reason. Consider: how often are accounts compromised? Then: How many of those accounts are administrators? Then: How much damage could a rogue admin account cause before being shut down? Then: How many different ways can rogue admin accounts be quickly stopped? Versus: How much does leaving permissions on inactive accounts hurt? Seriously—when was the last time an old admin account was hacked? I recall Zoe/RickK, and Spencer195. It's not often at all. An active admin account can be "hacked" just as easily. The problem is not with leaving permissions on these accounts. It is with users picking weak passwords. You can't change that except at the individual user level. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:20, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Too bad it's overwhelmingly popular. Of course, Fetchcomms and SoWhy have no information or statistics to back up their opposition, because there ain't any. Because the "community" refuses to keep statistics on admin abuse/hijacking/hacking. (Probably because admins don't like to be told what to do, but that's just me.)

None of this will amount to shit, anyway.