[WikiEN-l] Re: Re: Re: Desysopping inactive admins

Mon Sep 19 02:16:58 UTC 2005

Valid points, both.  Other than what I've already brought up, I don't see any need for a desysopping system.  There are, IMO, much more important things to be taken care of.  For example, that "AfD" thing.  :)

--Ryan

PS.  I still call it VfD.  >_>

> From: Phroziac <phroziac at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Desysopping inactive admins
> 
> On 9/18/05, Ryan W. (Merovingian) <bigwiki at earthling.net> wrote:
> > It's not a bad idea, but I don't see it as necessary unless:
> > 1. An inactive account was hacked into.
> Being inactive makes you less visible. I think one of the active
> admins is MUCH more likely to get hacked. If the "hacker" really knows
> anything, they would try to hit the SQL servers, and delete a few
> databases... Deleting that much data might even crash the machines,
> causing a long fsck to be needed..
> Or hack the SQL and make it look like all the admins are vandalizing...
> 
> > 2, If the admin in question requests it.
> We already desysop you on request, as long as you can prove you're who
> you claim to be to a steward.
> 
> > --Ryan
> --Phroziac

-- 
___________________________________________________________
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm