Wiktionary:Votes/2016-01/Uncle G for de-sysop

Uncle G for de-sysop

 * Voting on: Removing admin and bureaucrat powers from User:Uncle G. No edits or other actions in over 2 years.
 * Psst! I do not have bureaucrat powers.  Uncle G (talk) 23:17, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note that "No edits or other actions in over 2 years" is no longer true. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 21:01, 12 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Vote starts: 00:00, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Vote ends: 23:59, 8 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Vote created: Stubborn Pen (talk) 00:17, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Discussion:
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] WT:BP
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] User talk:
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] Wiktionary talk:Votes/2016-01/Uncle G for de-sysop

Support

 * 1)  Special:Log/Uncle_G suggests Uncle G does not need the tools. The next-to-last logged action is from July 2009, which is about 5.5 years ago. The single last logged action is from 2012. Furthermore, the magic keyword  gives 102 admins, and therefore, there is no risk that removing admin rights creates unhealthy concentration of power. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:11, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 2)  per DP and because he gave no response to msh210's ping asking him whether he even had an argument against desysopping, despite having edited the page after msh210 did. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 20:59, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) * What is the argument for that one has to "argue against"? It has not been stated.  Uncle G (talk) 12:36, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 4) ** I don't know and can't speak for Metaknowledge, but let me ask, @Uncle G: will you find use for your tools? Are you willing to state a preference as to keeping or not keeping the tools? (You can legitimately oppose in this vote, I think.) Do you think that admins who do not use their tools should eventually lose them--after a rather considerable period of time--or do you think somethink else? --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:41, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 5) *** The only major arguments that I've heard the times over the years when people talk of de-sysopping are those of risk. Risk that the account is stolen or compromised.  Risk that the account-holder will go barmy and start mis-using the tools.  Clearly, I am still in sole charge of my accounts.  Clearly, I haven't gone wild with the tools in approaching ten years.  &#9786;  Uncle G (talk) 13:14, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 6) **** @Uncle G: That does not entirely and expressly answer my questions, but is interesting anyway. I think the chief benefit of desysopping is the reduction of the list of admins, making it approach the state of actually active admins, even minimally active, but active in the capacity of an admin. I admit that the list will be excessively large anyway. My gut-feeling heuristic is that an admin with >= 5 years of admin-inactivity should be desysopped unless the number of admins in the wiki is <= 20, or the like. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:23, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 7)  SemperBlotto (talk) 10:41, 2 February 2016 (UTC) Inactive sysops are totally pointless. By the way, If you notice that I am inactive for more than, say, three months - you can assume that I am dead and may desysop me. There will probably be a death notice in my local newspaper.
 * 8)  per SemperBlotto -Xbony2 (talk) 00:49, 3 February 2016 #
 * 9)  per SemperBlotto, too :) Zezen (talk) 21:35, 4 February 2016 (UTC)(UTC)
 * Removal of tools due to inactivity is by no means unusual and it doesn't leave the editor under a cloud. If you're not actively swinging a mop you don't need it. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 10:58, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Vote struck due to user being ineligible to vote. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 16:41, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) --Dixtosa (talk) 11:39, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1)  — He responded, so it's not like he's gone from the project. I don't see the benefit of desysopping him. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 01:13, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 2)  per ISMETA, and per Dan's admission that the list of admins will unfortunately never reflect the reality of who is active. This, that and the other (talk) 10:34, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * . (Indenting since this is technically past the vote close.) --Yair rand (talk) 05:56, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Decision
Passes 6-2. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 21:11, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 02:34, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ I have no idea why I missed the earlier ping. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:40, 14 February 2016 (UTC)