There was a vote in 2012 to de-sysop and de-checkuser User:Connel MacKenzie, which barely favored retention. Since then, he has been a ghost here, with a dozen edits over the past three years, mostly on his own talk page, and zero administrative actions since 2009. In the meantime, the project has moved on, with various changes and refinements to our rules and our templates. If Connel were to return and contribute at the level of participation exhibited in 2009 and before, I have no doubt he could quickly regain the knowledge needed to merit having the bits, but it is pointless to continue having him listed as an admin, and even more so as a checkuser, a position for which time is often of the essence in combating vandalism and sockpuppetry. Since there was some confusion in the previous process stemming from the dual de-tooling nomination, I have split the vote into its component parts here. bd2412T16:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have emailed Connel and left a note on his talk page regarding this proposal. All participants in the previous discussion have been notified. bd2412T17:03, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since going offline, it is indeed rare that I get back here. As before, I am a bit suspicious of the motivation for de-sysoping. However, I do agree that the checkuser tool is dangerous, particularly since my access these days tends to be in places like public libraries. --Connel MacKenzie (talk) 00:39, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The motivation for de-sysoping is entirely that it is indeed rare that you get back here. Rules and procedures that a sysop should be familiar with have changed over the years, and nothing in your participation suggests that you have kept up with those, or indeed that you have any use for the sysop tools at this point. As I have said, I am sure that you would be able to carry out those functions if you were return to fairly regular editing, and were therefore to be in a position to need those tools. bd2412T00:46, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So far as I know it hasn't been done before. There may be others more deserving based on inactivity, but your also having the Checkuser bit is a consideration. I would hope that you are not discouraged from returning, and that you are motivated to do so by the value of the project, irrespective of any decisions made in this discussion. bd2412T13:14, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I e-mailed Connell. Here is the reply which he said I could repost:
My absence is primarily due to being offline - also why I'm uncomfortable making main NS edits without getting a feel for what's been going on in my absence. I am offended at being singled out (particularly by people who are not the least bit impartial.) I would certainly appreciate you reposting for me.
Support only for security reasons: I wouldn't let a close trusted friend keep an account on my server if they hadn't used it for years. Equinox◑00:57, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Many other Wikimedia projects have "administrator inactivity policies", whereby administrators are desysopped after a defined inactivity period (for example, 2 years without any edits or log actions, or 1 year with fewer than 5 administrative actions). In every case I have seen, a sysop simply has to invalidate the criteria (e.g. make an edit, or make 5 administrative actions) to keep their rights. On no other project have I ever seen administrators desysopped against their will for no other reason than their low level of activity. If Connel wishes to remain an administrator at this wiki, that should be his choice, for as long as he continues to respond to attempts to contact him. This, that and the other (talk) 13:28, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
When I wrote this, I hadn't realised that the five support votes above were placed before Connel posted his response. So I apologise if my language was a bit scathing. I wonder if those support voters wish to reconsider their position in light of the new information. This, that and the other (talk) 13:31, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Despite his comments, I have yet to see Connel actually say that he does wish to remain an administrator, or that he has any intention of using the admin tools. If he were to indicate as much, and were to take at least some admin actions (like clearing out a handful of old RfD or RfV discussions) I would be likely to withdraw my support for desysopping. bd2412T14:53, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I interpreted his use of the phrase "unwillingly de-sysopped" to mean that he was not willing to be de-sysopped. But yes, it would be helpful if he would clearly state his wishes. This, that and the other (talk) 11:56, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I am switching to oppose. Connel did not lose our trust, and can therefore remain an admin. I don't see any good reason for desysopping. There are multiple sysops who actually should be desysopped but will not, and it is because for what they did, not because for what they did not do. The trust is based on fundamental skills and character; from these, the ability to quickly reacquaint oneself with changed policies and practices follows. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:34, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I see no particular reason to de-sysop Connel. If he comes back and contributes, then he's a help. If he isn't up on the changes in how we do things since he was last a regular, he seems to approach any possible return with some humility in that regard. DCDuringTALK01:24, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain I sense there is a general advantage to having sysops linger as sysops despite not being actually active. If Connel posts support above, fine, but he has already posted to this page without posting his support to this section. I even considered opposing, but, OTOH, Connel has not expressed disagreement with desysoping either (despite posting to this page), so let this be an abstain. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:50, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I previously drafted a vote to de-checkuser both inactive checkusers (Connel and Rod), because checkusers should be active members of the community (so they are known to the community and so that they can respond in a timely manner to situations such as spambot floods, which we have faced several of since at least a year and a half ago) and because inactive users should not retain access to a tool which allows them or anyone who gains access to their account as much access other users' personal information as the checkuser tool. Connel made 5 edits in 2014, 4 edits in 2013, 4 edits in 2012, and 1 edit in 2011, and hasn't used the checkuser tool in six years. I postponed that vote so that the community could decide what threshold to apply to it; sadly, that discussion was inconclusive. One position advanced during the discussion was that because the checkuser bit is only to be held by users the community trusts, it follows that it should be removed unless a majority of users support the user in question continuing to have it; i.e. a vote of 51% in favour of de-checkusering should result in de-checkusering. - -sche(discuss)20:24, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support He's contributed a lot in years past, but this isn't an honorary title- it's a position of trust for those who are willing to help. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:08, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nom. bd2412 T 16:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Oppose Many other Wikimedia projects have "administrator inactivity policies", whereby administrators are desysopped after a defined inactivity period (for example, 2 years without any edits or log actions, or 1 year with fewer than 5 administrative actions). In every case I have seen, a sysop simply has to invalidate the criteria (e.g. make an edit, or make 5 administrative actions) to keep their rights. On no other project have I ever seen administrators desysopped against their will for no other reason than their low level of activity. If Connel wishes to remain an administrator at this wiki, that should be his choice, for as long as he continues to respond to attempts to contact him. This, that and the other (talk) 13:28, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Abstain