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
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.
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
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
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. --
Docask?01:43, 27 December 2005 (UTC)reply
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
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.
Ambi03:02, 27 December 2005 (UTC)reply
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
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.
Arvindn04:56, 27 December 2005 (UTC)reply
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.
Firebug12:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)reply
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
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
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
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
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
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. --
Eddie03:39, 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. --
Eddie05:26, 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. --
Gurubrahma07:16, 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.
Ambi08:18, 27 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
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.
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
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
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. --
Docask?01:43, 27 December 2005 (UTC)reply
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
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.
Ambi03:02, 27 December 2005 (UTC)reply
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
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.
Arvindn04:56, 27 December 2005 (UTC)reply
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.
Firebug12:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)reply
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
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
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
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
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
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. --
Eddie03:39, 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. --
Eddie05:26, 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. --
Gurubrahma07:16, 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.
Ambi08:18, 27 December 2005 (UTC)reply