QUOTE(Ottava @ Sun 17th July 2011, 11:19pm)

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.
Uh, Ottava seems a bit confused here. The majority in the community argued that removing sysop status for inactivity was not an improvement. Ottava is the one who argued "tooth and nail, " and he argued so strongly that he incensed the body of administrators, thus effectively canvassing them to find him, himself, a problem....
What just happened on meta was that a steward jumped the gun, desysopping a huge pile of administrators based on an incomplete decision on Wikpedia. Classic meta screw-up. However, the stewards consider, ordinarily, that an incorrect desysop is No Big Deal, since any 'crat can fix it. Rather a bit of trouble, though, for a crat to fix several hundred desysops.... The steward admitted to not having read the alleged decision carefully. It provided for preceding process, desysop wasn't to be purely based on removal.