Wikipedia talk:Inactive administrators (2005)

message: *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)
thread_title:  page status 

message: 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:
*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.  
===Support===
# Rick Block (talk) 01:03, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: (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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  consensus discussion 

message: # Rick Block (talk) 01:03, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: #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)
thread_title: Object

message: #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)
replies: text: 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)

text: (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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Comments