Wikipedia talk:Inactive administrators (2005)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

page status[edit]

  • Changed this to 'rejected' because as with all previous discussions, most people seem to not like this idea. Radiant_>|< 11:21, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think I agree with the above conclusion. Seems to me like we got to a proposal that most people supported, but then failed to publicize sufficiently to conclude there was consensus. I suggest we change it back to proposed and solicit comments. -- Rick Block (talk) 19:14, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Feel free to. Note that several people expressed objection and didn't follow the discussion after that, which contributes to the final proposal (yours, I believe) appears to have less objections to it (another factor being that it's a better proposal, of course). I don't believe this has consensus, but I'd be happy to change my opinion if more people weigh in. Radiant_>|< 22:28, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

consensus discussion[edit]

The proposal has reached a final form, see Wikipedia:Inactive administrators (2005) and previous discussion at Wikipedia talk:Inactive administrators (2005)/archive. Older discussion can also be found at:

Please indicate whether you support this proposal and include any comments you may have below. If you object, please state a specific reason in the style of WP:FAC.

Support[edit]

  1. Rick Block (talk) 01:03, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. bd2412 T 01:05, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Alabamaboy 01:10, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Seems like a good idea. --Improv 02:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. If you are an admin, you should be active. --Ghirla | talk 19:57, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. -- Felipe Aira 03:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC) For the security of all Wikimedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Felipe Aira (talk • contribs)
  7. Strong support. If an admin is going to quit Wikipedia, Wikipedia should remove the special rights. Seems simple to me. Enigma message 04:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Object[edit]

  1. There are far too many strict numbers in the proposal, and most of them are arbitrary - in other words, m:instruction creep. Also, common sense and a knowledge of network protocols dictate that an oft-used account is far more likely to become compromised than a dormant one, hence I feel there's no need for this. Radiant_>|< 01:09, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I don't get why a inactive user has to get their admin powers removed. If they are inactive, it won't hurt anyone. --Jaranda wat's sup 01:14, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I agree with the above comments. In particular, if an admin has been away for a while, we should welcome him/her back with open arms and with the elevated privileges they previously had. They've proved reliable to the community in the past, and there's no reason to assume he/she won't be the same again. As for security, if someone's account appears to be doing suspicious things, we can always block them. enochlau (talk) 01:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I don't see how being inactive makes it more likely for an account to get compromised. A friendly reminder to freshen up at the Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list is just fine for when one returns. -- Dissident (Talk) 01:18, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I have to object as well; there doesn't seem to be any evidence that dormant accounts are a danger (or at least, no one has mentioned it). --Maru (talk) Contribs 01:19, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. No evidence has been presented that this policy is necessary. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 01:21, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. see my comments below. Grutness...wha? 01:25, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. This is a solution in search of a problem. —David Levy 01:31, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Agree with above. This is a reasonable solution to a currently non-existing problem. If even one instance coud be cited, then I'd support. --Doc ask? 01:43, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  10. This is instruction creep pure and simple... if you want a way to remove sysop status institute a sysop removal process.  ALKIVAR™ 01:56, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose. Just because they're not on the site for a long time doesn't mean they're ever coming back. This is more suitable for someone that intends to stop editing. -- Eddie 02:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC) (moved here from project page -- enochlau (talk) 02:07, 27 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  12. ... though I must wonder why what should be a discussion has the appearance of a vote. — Dan | talk 02:22, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  13. I was gone for over a year, but now have back and resumed my membership in the community. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Unnecessary rules are A Bad Thing. File:Yemen flag large.png CTOAGN (talk) 02:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Too many rules and unnecessary. It's nice to think a 2002 admin will return one day. Hedley 02:56, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Utterly unnecessary. Every time this has been brought up, I've asked one question. Why? I've never been able to get an answer that didn't resemble "for the sake of it." In Wikipedia's four-year history, I challenge the proponents of this to come up with even one single case where a sysop account has been hijacked and caused trouble. Ambi 03:02, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Agree with above. How would a unused account become less secure than a frequently used account? The cookie expires from the browser after a month or so anyway. The only possibility I see that the admin who leave the project suddenly becomes mad and returns one day to wreak havoc. But that's more likely from active admins I would guess. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:27, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Let's wait until there's some evidence that such a policy is needed. Carbonite | Talk 04:28, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  19. I'm not sure how a sysop being inactive makes their account any easier to hijack or a hijacking would cause more trouble with an inactive than an active account. Arvindn 04:56, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Per Radiant, instruction creep. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:27, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Per lack of explanation of the need for this. Looks like a solution looking for a problem to me. --Celestianpower háblame 10:00, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Solution looking for a problem. Dan100 (Talk) 11:49, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  23. I oppose this for several reasons. First of all, adminship is supposed to be no big deal; this is another attempt to circumvent that. Secondly, there is no evidence of actual hijacking of inactive accounts, and thus no reason why such a policy is necessary. Thirdly, I would like to see more part-time admins. Firebug 12:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose for several reasons - not the least of which is that de-admining a person who may well be unable to contribute for several months due to r/l concerns is potentially removing a very good contributor and admin for purely spurious reasons. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:35, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Sean Curtin 02:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

  1. Rather than an outright loss of admin privileges to dormant admins, I think a far better solution might be simply to keep track of them. it's a relatively easy task to find out which admins haven't been active for a year - surely it would be just as simple to see which ones start editing again. And surely that would be a far easier way of keeping track of whether a dormant admin account has been compromised. Let's not start inventing problems for ourselves that may not ever exist. I don't think a loss of privileges is necessary, though I would suggest that any admins returning after an absence of over a year should be urged to at least make some comment as to why they took such a long break on their user page, so that we can assess what's up. Grutness...wha? 01:24, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. BTW, one way in which weeding out inactive administrators would have made sense (and whose existence in other contexts may have unconsciously led to the creation of this proposed policy), would be if there were policy conditions which depended on a quorum of administrators doing or being something. I don't believe any currently exist. -- Dissident (Talk) 01:32, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. It would be useful if somebody kept a log of important changes to policy or guidelines, so that admins returning after e.g. a month-long wikibreak know what has changed while they've left. Yes, we've got WP:A but that's only for the very severe changes. Radiant_>|< 01:44, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Great idea...the Signpost archives could be helpful with this, as important policy changes will quite likely be covered there. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:27, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm afraid that most policy or guideline changes do not end up in the signpost, and a lot of information that dates quickly does end up in there. Radiant_>|< 11:27, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I'm rather impressed at the swift turnout of this. Bottom Line: If You earn a promotion, You oughta be able to keept it as long as it's not abused. Unlike AOL Community Leaders (which I once was), Sysops have no schedules. Of course the sysop is responsible for any activity and edits from His or Her account, and should take care to log off whenever possible. I don't know if He or she is allowed to share the account or demonstrate the functions to close friends or colleagues, but if that's the case, He or she does so at His or Her own risk. -- Eddie 03:39, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sharing the account is definitely not permitted from memory, but demonstrating should be ok - as long as the administator is the one performing the demonstration. enochlau (talk) 03:49, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oh well, it would be hard to tell if the sharing took placed unless the activity was mentioned, but making sure no one else compromises is certainly common sense. -- Eddie 05:26, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
(Slightly tangential comments) An admin may be just editing but not using any sysyop functions or privileges for, say, one year. Then, should he remain an admin would be the logical question and going by the responses above, the answer is a resounding yes. I agree with others when they say that if an admin returns and there is unusual inappropriate activity, he would anyway be blocked; however, imo, we should also consider the costs of an inactive admin's account being hacked. I do not, usually, check an edit made by an admin on my RC patrol. --Gurubrahma 07:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Although as noted above, there is no evidence to suggest that an inactive account is more easily hacked than one than isn't... enochlau (talk) 07:25, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the evidence that this has ever happened and gone undetected? This is a solution in search of a problem. Ambi 08:18, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Inactive_administrators_(2005)&oldid=1137416770"