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.

[It's the blimp, Frank]

Why do we need to remove inactive admins? They're not doing any harm. It's the active ones that are the problem. Or should I say, the "activist" ones.

[Abd]

Why do we need to remove inactive admins? They're not doing any harm. It's the active ones that are the problem. Or should I say, the "activist" ones.

Lots of arguments are given. Mostly bogus ones. Ottava had an agenda, proposing routine desysopping on Wikiversity, he was upset that SB_Johnny had resigned the tools in early 2010, and then requested them back and took a position that Ottava Rex didn't like. Indeed, SB_Johnny ... actually filed the CR over Ottava Rex, the very idea was sacreligious.

Hey, Ottava's back! (He's also stirred up shit on Meta, pushing the Poetlister ban -- think of the children! -- and whacking Abigor, very obviously because of Abigor's actions last year on Commons in the porn flap, (again, Think Of The Children!) which had zero to do with the RfC on meta over Abigor.

[Ottava]

Why do we need to remove inactive admins? They're not doing any harm. It's the active ones that are the problem. Or should I say, the "activist" ones.

Lots of arguments are given. Mostly bogus ones.

Abd, the only bogus arguments tend to come from you - you happen to be one of the most self-serving, contradictory hypocrites I've ever met. The only reason why you wanted to stir up opposition to something that I didn't propose but came from Darklama was because you wanted to try and get people who had no connection to the community and did nothing with their tools to rise up and attack an "enemy".

The simple fact is this: if you aren't active and you aren't helping out, you don't deserve to have the tool. It isn't an award or a status symbol. It is a duty, and if you are too lazy to do a duty, you shouldn't have it. It is for the actions like the above that if anyone wants to give you any position of power, I honestly think they need a lobotomy or already received one.

[Abd]

Abd, the only bogus arguments tend to come from you - you happen to be one of the most self-serving, contradictory hypocrites I've ever met. The only reason why you wanted to stir up opposition to something that I didn't propose but came from Darklama was because you wanted to try and get people who had no connection to the community and did nothing with their tools to rise up and attack an "enemy".

The simple fact is this: if you aren't active and you aren't helping out, you don't deserve to have the tool. It isn't an award or a status symbol. It is a duty, and if you are too lazy to do a duty, you shouldn't have it. It is for the actions like the above that if anyone wants to give you any position of power, I honestly think they need a lobotomy or already received one.

Vintage Ottava.

"the most self-serving, contradictory hypocrites I've ever met."

Ottava, let me recommend something to you. Meet yourself. It's not easy, but it can be done, if you realize the value. You will go through life, encountering assholes. There is one common factor. You.

The factual claims above remain preposterous. Some of the people whom Ottava wanted desysopped have become active, when the need appeared. I didn't want to "stir up opposition," and I didn't canvass. SBJ notified the sysops who were being considered as inactive, sort of a minimum action, and he disclosed that.

The general sense at Wikiversity is that it's hard enough to get decent sysops, and removing some for no offense, but only because, for a time, they do something else, seems to possibly create a loss for no actual gain. I am not necessarily opposed to automatic removal, particularly if tools can be regained easily. Part of what Ottava accomplished with his behavior was to make it more difficult to become a Wikiversity custodian, though it's unclear that this problem will last. He also tried to make it difficult to regain tools if they were voluntarily relinquished. It was all very personal, based on what he wanted or didn't want in any particular situation.

[Ottava]

... and removing some for no offense, but only because, for a time, they do something els...

Example that Abd lives in a fantasy world: some of those who had adminship never used the adminship and retired back in 2006. They were never part of the community nor did they really gain the ops except through whatever silly reason.

Out of the 25 admin, 12 of them were inactive for 3 years. That is -embarrassing-. Wikipedia has similar embarrassing numbers. No legitimate group, social or business, acts in such a way. If you go inactive, you do not keep leadership powers. You might keep basic membership, but even that is reduced.


And for the record: "It was all very personal, based on what he wanted or didn't want in any particular situation."

This ignores that Darklama et al were asking for these things for a very long time and I merely pointed out and organized the proposal for a discussion. Abd, hating that he wasn't given adminship, desired to go bonkers over it. Abd has no place in any kind of academic facility or an organization that pretends to be such.

This post has been edited by Ottava: