Wikipedia talk:Inactive administrators (2005)/archive

message: I don't see the need for complicated formulae such as the commons or meta plans.  Why not just remove the admin status of anyone listed as a "missing Wikipedian"?  As long as we make re-sysopping automatic, I can't see the issue with this.  If it's a matter of administrator pride, well, forget it! Sam Korn 15:53, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think resysopping should be automatic. The proposal states that people will need to go through RfA again to be resysopped. Angela. 16:35, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Angela - key reasons for desysopping weigh against automatic resysopping, particularly a long-dormant admin's likely lack of familiarity with new policies, and the possibility that the security of the account has been compromised. -- BD2412 talk 16:49, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Perhaps not, but I do think there should be a strong cultural expectation in favor of restoring it if inactivity is the only issue. In that case, I don't know why we wouldn't still trust the person, and we can just add a reminder of the need to refamiliarize themselves with policy before using their capabilities. --Michael Snow 16:31, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I generally agree with Michael.  If a person has been desysopped for reasons that don't relate to bad behaviour the requirements should be quite low.  Perhaps a reasonable number of recent edits (100?), and a statement that he wants to be a sysop again.  A bureaucrat should be able to act alone in such cases.  Familiarity with new policies should not be a major factor if he has already established a track record of working with the community.  Naturally, those individuals who left with a serious black mark on their records would be another story. Eclecticology 18:58, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal numero duo – The [[Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians|Missing Wikipedians]] plan

message: I think some sort of escalating "where the heck are you" mechanism leading to repeat RFA to regain sysop status is warranted.  Note that I already run a script that determines various activity thresholds and have been updating WP:LA to move admins between the "active", "semi-active", and "inactive" lists.  Perhaps this could be expanded so that (additions in italics -- Rick Block (talk) 14:01, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it was the WP:LA list that I was thinking about.  That's what comes of making quick proposals in the middle of writing essays!  Rick's plan seems the best proposed yet to me.  It seems to enterpret best the reasons we'd de-sysop someone.  I had always understood automatic re-sysopping to be an inherent part of the proposal, hence my confusion.  I must have missed something somewhere!  The mathematical methods seem unnecessarily complicated.  Sam Korn 17:52, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, and this also emphasises why we need to ensure that all admins give valid e-mail addresses.  I know they aren't failproof, but they're far better than nothing.  Sam Korn 17:56, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree with Rick Block's proposal (Put it under a new header?). It most accurately reflects the reasons for desysop... taking administrator rights away. It also takes away the ambiguity between non-minor and minor edits - an edit is an edit. No edits is (unsurprisingly) no edits. (I could make a highly political comment about the death penalty here but am restraining myself) --Celestianpower hab 18:33, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree wholeheartedly with Rick Block's proposal, and have put it under a new header. How attractive it looks after the scary minor-edits-how-do-you-define-'em-how-do-you-count-'em-how-did-we-stray-into-this-morass of Proposal One. Thank you Rick for cutting the Gordian knot. Bishonen | talk 19:23, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "This-piece-of-paper's-got-47-words-37-sentences-58-words-we-wanna-know-details-of-the-crime-time-of-the-crime..." Much better than Proposal One. Full support. --Blackcap | talk 19:59, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Way to tie up those loose ends. I also strongly support this proposal. Acetic'Acid 21:21, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

text: In fact, if they respond to the email but don't make any edits what would then happen is not very well defined.  Should they then be considered to be at the start of the "between 3 and 6 months" period (meaning email renewal with no edits would last three months)?  I guess we could avoid this by requiring at least one edit in addition to the email (which is slightly stronger in a security sense, since this demonstrates ability to log in).  There's another slight issue with the email response which is that it presumably would come from a bureaucrat - what if the bureaucrat who sent it goes missing or the return email address expires for some reason?  To fix this one, we could say either reply to the sender or forward the email to any bureaucrat.  I've made both of these changes above.  -- Rick Block (talk) 14:01, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  With these changes, I'm very much a happier soul in lending my support for this proposal. —Felix the Cassowary () 14:13, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Now that I think more about it, the e-mail bit is still a problem, due to this possible scenario: Admin is inactive for six months, is de-sysopped, e-mails bureaucrat, makes edit to article, is re-sysopped, is inactive for six months, e-mails bureaucrat, makes edit to article, is re-sysopped, rinse, repeat. I think it might be a good idea to have a limit on how many times e-mail re-sysopping can happen. Maybe, one can have two consecutive e-mail resysoppings (i.e. they're inactive for 12 months, and during that period makes ≈2 edits, enough to be de- and re-sysopped twice), and then the third time they're de-sysopped, they have to go through RfA again. I'd like to have something simpler, though, maybe just one, and RfA necessary after the second? --Blackcap | talk 18:00, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  In the scenario you've described, Blackcap, If I were a bureaucrat & I went thru that cycle a couple of times, & if I couldn't get a plausible explanation from the Admin for this behavior (maybe the poor person was encountering personal difficulties or having problems with Internet access) I'd probably petition the ArbCom to have the person banned from Wikipedia for disruptive activities. In any case, let's worry about that if & when it happens -- not before. I'd hate to see such an elegant solution be discarded for the possibility of a once-trusted user turned vandal. -- llywrch 20:33, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. I was actually thinking less of admin-turned-vandal and more of a still-wants-to-contribute-can't-find-the-time bit. Just was thinking to cover the bases. --Blackcap | talk 21:30, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Knowing your intent then, Blackcap, as long as an Admin is in the situation of "still-wants-to-contribute-can't-find-the-time", my inclination is to allow the person to keep the Admin status; the intent here at Wikipedia is to be inclusive, & assume good faith. Although were an Admin to announce that he is leaving Wikipedia for good over some sleight, I would expect one of the beauracrats to immediately inquire if he neverless wanted to keep his options open, i.e. retain Admin status. -- llywrch 00:33, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Users are expected to remain reasonably active on the Wikimedia projects where they hold sysop status. Should a sysop be inactive for a period of three months, an email may be sent to ascertain the reason(s) for this and to remind the User that further inactivity may result to desysoping. After a total of 6 months of inactivity, sysop privileges may be removed. If the User begins editing within the following 6 months, or sends an email to a bureaucrat explaining his/her absence, sysop privileges may be returned at the discretion of the bureaucrat without the need for a renewed RfA. Any absence from the project for longer than 12 months will mandate an RfA before sysop privileges are re-instituted. Decisions regarding the sysop status of Users with very low activity not covered by the preceding criteria (for example, <10 edits/year) may be made at the discretion of stewards.
—encephalonεγκέφαλον 00:16, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

text: This sounds good, but I would change all instances of "may" to "will." I know that we're trying to have rules that assume good faith and give B-crats some leeway with their decisions, but I always prefer clear rules. With a rule with conditionals in it, I can't help but wonder what the conditions are and where I can find them, and for that reason think they're more difficult to follow than a clear-cut one. Also, WP:IAR covers the basis for conditionals, so they're not needed. --Blackcap | talk 16:55, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: After reading WP:IAR and related talk pages, and seeing the obvious problems with them, I realized I need to clarify what I'm saying. My point is that B-crats will use their common sense and break the rule when needed, and that conditionals such as may or might are unnecessary and confusing. --Blackcap | talk 18:48, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal numero tres - Rick Block's proposal

message: Shouldn't this be at Wikipedia:Desysoping inactive admins? Or maybe "desysopping?" I can't figure out for the life of me why it's called desysopsing (emphasis added) unless it was just a mistake. --Blackcap | talk 17:18, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like a mistake, and it's an awkward term either way. Perhaps Wikipedia:Inactive administrator proposal would be better? If it is adopted, it could be moved to Wikipedia:Inactive administrator policy. Jonathunder 17:57, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Or Wikipedia:Inactive administrators (2005)?  Sam Korn 18:05, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Inactive administrators (2005) sounds good. Shall we move it to that? --Blackcap | talk 18:23, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll do just that. Sam Korn 18:26, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds fine. Jonathunder 18:27, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

text:  Brilliant - just as I was editting. Highly unnerving. --Celestianpower hab 18:34, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title of page 

message: Moved from project page by Sam Korn:
* Support.  Although this proposal isn't finalised, I support the idea under any conceivable variation.  If adminship is no big deal, then removing adminship from inactive accounts should be no big deal either.  dbenbenn | talk 19:42, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[user:dbenbenn|dbenbenn]]'s vote 

message: Would you really de-admin someone if they only made 49 edits? Personally I think if they are active at all they should not be de-admined. We need all the admins we can get given wikipedia's rate of growth. Is it really a pressing problem to get rid of mostly inactive admins? Kaldari 22:45, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The major point is that they didn't have any edits in the past six months, which means in the other six months there were only 50 edits. Sounds reasonable to me. — Ambush Commander(Talk) 00:24, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  50 edits? 

message: No one's edited this for a few days, so I'm assuming we have some kind of agreement on the proposal (Rick Block's). Can we finalize it and get down to the voting part?
If so, it looks like our final proposal is this:
:# After 3 months of no activity, an email is sent from anyone warning that sysop status will be removed after 6 months of no activity.
:# After a total of 6 months of no activity, the account is desysop'd and an email sent from a bureaucrat indicating that any edit and an email response within another 6 months is sufficient to regain sysop status. If the reply cannot be sent for any reason, forwarding the email to any bureaucrat is also sufficient.
:# After a total of 12 months of no activity, regaining sysop status requires going through a request for adminship again.
This looks good to me. Can the voting now commence? --Blackcap | talk 01:28, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The final proposal 

message: How Wikipedian that this page seems to consist almost entirely of discussing various riffs on complex proposals and voting procedures, and no debate on whether the impact of instituting any change will be positive or negative. 
The negative side: Clearly any (variation of this) proposal will create bad-feeling when a long-time Wikipedian does come back and finds he is no longer trusted.
The positive: I don't buy the arguments about security. What are the chances of an inactive admin having their password guessed? Virtually none. There is an argument about "admins not keeping with the latest rules and regulations"... they sprout and such a rate I suppose that it is true... even active admins seem to make all sorts of mistakes... however I think it would be better to presume the returning admin innocent until proven guilty.
In short I find the reasons quite weak. In fact I have no doubt there is an element of current Wikipedians wishing to punish the departed ("how dare they quit my precious Wikipedia!"). Such natural, but rather base, emotions should be surpressed. Pcb21| Pete 20:54, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly agree with what Pcb21 says here. —Lowellian (reply) 00:06, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't want to discuss this openly (see WP:BEANS), but suffice to say that the chance of an inactive admin account being compromised is distinctly greater than "virtually none".  I certainly can't speak for anyone other than myself, but my interest in this issue is distinctly not to punish long absent admins.  -- Rick Block (talk) 22:18, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Umm, so where's the rationale