Wikipedia talk:Inactive administrators (2005): Difference between revisions

• 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]

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

• Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 23#Requests for De-adminship due to inactivity
• Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 29#Inactive admins
• Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#Inactive admins part 2

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.

1. Rick Block (talk) 01:03, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2. BDAbramson T 01:05, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
3. Alabamaboy 01:10, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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]