Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/desysop poll

'''Admins that have not made edits in at least a year should be automatically desysopped.


 * Proposed language: Admin accounts which have been completely inactive for at least one calendar year (with no edits or administrative actions in that time) will be automatically desysopped. This is not to be considered binding, or a reflection on the user's use of, or rights to, the admin tools; if an inactive admin returns to wikipedia, they may be resysopped by a bureaucrat without further discussion, providing they left wikipedia in good standing and not in controversial circumstances, and that their identity is not in dispute. The admin will be contacted one month prior to the expiry of the one-year timeframe on their user talk page, and again a few days before the limit. If the account has a valid e-mail address, the user will also be contacted via that medium. The summary in the user rights log will make it clear that the desysopping is purely administrative.

Support

 * 1) Support I support suspending sysop (and buearocrat too) privileges after 1 year.--Kumioko (talk) 23:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Support as stated several times.  Enigma  message Review 23:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Support.  Proposed language: After 1 calendar year of exactly zero edits, be they regular edits or admin specific actions, a +admin account will be automatically changed to an editor (desysopped) account by an automated bot.  1 month prior to the desysopping, a talkpage message shall be left on the talkpage of the affected party, warning of the pending action.  A second message will be left 2 days before the pending action.  Resysopping can occur via the normal channels of "requesting the bit back because of non-controversial desysopping", namely, on the bureaucrats' noticeboard. In other words, if you're gone you're gone. If you're back, you're back.   Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  23:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Additionally, an email should probably be sent as well when the talk page messages are left on the admin's talk page. --Conti|✉ 01:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * A bot could leave a notice at Meta requesting removal, but actually desyopping someone would require the bot to have the Steward bit. I suspect that would not be likely to happen. If the notice included the proper links (a link to accepted policy on this, should it become accepted, and a link to the activity log of the admin in question showing no activity) stewards would promptly act (it's amazing how fast we stewards generally act on things where consensus or policy is clear, I find... and not at all amazing how adamant we are that we do not ourselves set policy, pass judgement, etc.). ++Lar: t/c 13:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Inactive admins are totally useless, pointless, and probably clueless when it comes to making decisions that may have once been acceptable but aren't now. As I said above, there are inactive admins who wouldn't even know what AfD is. That's clearly a sign something needs doing.  Majorly  (talk) 23:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. Mostly just because I think it's a good housekeeping procedure. For the same reason that I like to keep most of my hard drive empty and my desk uncluttered, we might as well tidy up a bit. Useight (talk) 00:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Support if done using Keeper76's method. The Placebo Effect (talk) How's my editing? Please contribute to my editor review. 00:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. If I were to leave for a couple years, I should expect to have my tools gone. I'm not entitled to leave an admin account floating out there. Plus we can give them the tools back if they come back, they know that. Wizardman  00:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Support We do housekeeping on categories and templates that are not being used; we ought to do the same with admin bits.  Horologium  (talk) 00:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Support I don't like inactive sysop accounts just floating around... housekeeping, as pointed out above. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 00:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) Strongly - Totally, this has worked perfectly on other wikis, why not Enwiki?. If the admin returns after a year, he can easily ask a crat for his sysop bits. This may help avoid the repeat of the May 8th hacking and possibly encourage admins to use their tools instead of getting it and going on a long holiday/cruise :p ...though I do agree it should be 1 year with Zero edits..-- Cometstyles 00:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) O.K. No harm because they can just get it back from a crat if they become active again.  Malinaccier (talk) 00:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 9) Support this - Yup, expectations change, memories fade, Wikipedia grows. While that last point seems counterintuitive to this support, let me just say that I feel a rusty and tired administrator who returns to the project is more of a detriment than a newbie jumping the gun and creating nonsense and vandalism.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 00:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * But, apparently, they would just have to ask a bureaucrat and they'd get the tools back. Epbr123 (talk) 01:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * True, they can request the bit, but I like Keeper's recommendation. With polite warnings/notifications, the sysop will take cautionary measures. However, I still maintain that without the push to be become wary, a derelict admin returning can be problematic.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 02:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Support Don't think I need to explain. Mostly per Wisdon89 and Keeper. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone
 * 2) Support per Horologium. If they do come back, they can just ask a bureaucrat for it back. However, the desysopping part of this would still have to be done manually, I don't see a steward-bot for desysoppings being approved in the near future. Mr.  Z- man  01:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Support per Useight and Wisdon89. Majoreditor (talk) 01:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Support (conditional), (condition) if the editor returns, they may request sysop access (or whatever is closest to sysop access at the time of their return) without going through RFA. Other than that, seems reasonable, if unnecessary. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Support the proposal as laid out by Keeper76. &mdash; scetoaux (T|C)  02:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Support, per text by Keeper76. (No edits after a year, and resysopping is considered non-controversial, and ample notification) But let's skip the bot. After the initial "clean up", a template similar to Bureaucrats' noticeboard/RfA Report which would show inactive admins, could be created. - jc37 03:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) Support as I've stated in a different thread a week or so ago. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 04:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) Support concept but I would tweak it: After a shorter period of time, say, 6 months, adminship would be suspended but would be returned on request.  This would make it more like a driver's license:  You can renew an expired driver's license without taking the test, but only if you do it within a time period set by law.  After that, it's STARTOVER.  Oh, an email notification well before and immediately before any change in status is a must, assuming the email address on file is valid. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  17:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 9) Support but I would have any re-grant of the privileges via RfA, to emphasize that it is the community that grants these privileges, and the community's consensus may change. That said, anything that tends to reduce the "appointment for life" aspect of admindom is welcome. DuncanHill (talk) 18:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If consensus here starts turning to new RFAs for returning users, I'm switching my support to oppose. Completely defeats the non-controversial part of this. Adds nothing but drama.   Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  18:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm ambivelant on the matter at large, but agree totally with Keeper in this aspect. If we de-sysop and then insist on RFA that's just a whole bunch of process and defeats the simplicity of this idea entirely. Also, I can see it now...
 * Oppose Doesn't need the tools per 1 year 3 months of inactivity User:No Need For the tools
 * Comment No need for the tools is not a good argument at RFA User:So What, like it matters
 * Comment User:No Need For the tools is clearly mental. User:Stir The Pot A Bit etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. . Best not to go that route, on balance. Pedro : Chat  18:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Support with the hope that this extends to 'crats at some point in the near future as well. GDonato (talk) 18:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) This one seems fine. Stifle (talk) 18:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Wikipedia needs active contributers. If an admin ain't doing that, they should lose their status. An ex-admin can always reapply for admin status using their admin history to support their application, so what's the big deal?--RegentsPark (talk) 19:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Support. A step in the right direction, although I support mandatory de-sysopping and re-appointment of admins every six monthsJeanLatore (talk) 20:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Support, works well at Commons, easy enough to approach a 'crat to get tools back should they decide to re-activate. Kelly  hi! 22:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) SupportHaving excessive, useless accounts with boosted privileges that do nothing to contribute to the Wikipedia community is just wrong. This would be a good, step, especially because admins who left for a good reason could get their powers back. Also take note of Keeper76's method! We don't want to leave the innocent blind. IceUnshattered (talk) 22:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Just a couple of simple words: What's the point in having admin privileges, if they're not used? Ilyushka88 (talk) 22:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Support - though I would welcome the user going through community consensus to get the tools back. A very common reason that people give for opposing giving a user the tools is lack of awareness of current process and consensus. If a user was in good status and regarded as trustworthy a year or two ago, then they should be able to quickly show similar levels of trustworthiness and ability to answer the current questions on returning.  SilkTork  *YES! 22:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Has worked on other wikis, and the admin can request re-adminship from a crat. Malinaccier (talk) 23:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) Strong Support People grow up and move away from Wikipedia. Whatever reason that may be, a full year is an awful long time not to make a single edit. If that former-admin suddenly became active again, I don't see why they can't go through the RfA process again if they want the admin status back. Tavix (talk) 23:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) Strong Support as of Wisdom89's reasoning. If admins come back after a year of changes and policy decisions (such as this one) they shouldnt be able to just jump in at the deep end again; not because they're neccessarily bad editors (they wouldnt've gotten admin status if they were) but simply because they're human, and humans make mistakes. Some time to get reaquainted cant do any harm. Ironholds (talk) 00:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 9) Support original wording or HappyMelon's revised wording. This is becoming common practice on some other wikis and as long as it is a simple "Hi, I'm back, it's me (see? [link]) can I have my bit back?" process to regain, great. If this switches to a "RFA rerun required" then I would oppose. ++Lar: t/c 13:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 10) This is also a security issue (even with throttling, you might have the time to crack an inactive admin's password in a year without him noticing). As long as they don't need anything more than a sanity check before they get the bit back, I don't think this is much an issue. --  lucasbfr  talk 13:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This is ridiculously unlikely. Even if some kind of prolonged dictionary attack could be successful within the space of a year under the constraints of MediaWiki's throttling, you'd have to know in advance that an account would be inactive for a year, that while inactive the password would never change, and that the password consisted of something vulnerable to a dictionary attack in the first place. For the last time, it is far, far more likely that an active account will be compromised than an inactive one.-- Dycedarg  &#x0436;  05:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Support - seems like obvious good practice for purposes of housekeeping and security. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Support - If I didn't show up to work for a year, and failed to respond to requests to come back, then I wouldn't expect my desk to still be intact should I chose to stroll back through the door some day. Hiberniantears (talk) 15:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Even if you were a volunteer with no commitment to work for a specific period, and your office had a near infinite supply of desks? Skomorokh  15:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * So long as said organization would offer me a new desk from their near infinite supply, absolutely. It's house keeping, not punishment. Hiberniantears (talk) 16:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Strong support. There's no reason for inactive users to have administrative tools.  I see this as a step in the right direction toward mandatory yearly re-evaluating of all admins to get their tools back.  Celarnor Talk to me  18:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Support - I'd like to see a yearly re-evaluation, however. Monobi (talk) 20:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Support This is just sensible housekeeping. If someone is off the web for a year or not involved in Wikipedia for that long, there is no reason to maintain their sysop status. If they return from their Mars mission, get out of prison, get the PC fixed, finish writing their novel, come out of the coma, recover from amnesia, or whatever, they can request the bit back. Makes it marginally less likely that some will gain access to the sysop account of a deceased person. Edison (talk) 23:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Normal housekeeping. Maybe waiting 2 years instead of 1 year, to make sure they are really inactive admins, and not just taking an extra-long wikibreak. Make it easy to recover the adminship. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Strong support - These tools are meant to be used. Adminship is not a trophy; those not using the tools to benefit the project shouldn't have them. In a year without activity, there are significant changes in how things are done. The list of reasons goes on. – Mike . lifeguard  &#124; @en.wb 03:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * With respect to your last point: admins completely ignorant of policy changes can just ask for their tools back and get them in a flash under Keeper's scheme, so the point that there significant changes in how things are done over the course of a year seems moot. Skomorokh  14:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Support It's a basic security principle to deactivate inactive accounts --John Nagle (talk) 05:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Support I see nothing to lose other than the click of a button from a 'crat, and lots to gain.--Liempt (talk) 11:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Hand grenade, pin, boom... (btw: non admin -->)  Queerbubbles | Leave me Some Love   12:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) STRONG Support this is good housekeeping and good information hygiene.  Admin rights should decay if only to limit the possible abuse of a stolen password.  The ramifications of admin vandalism are powerful and the likelihood that an account would be compromised increases with every day the password is not changed.  Now, most of us don't change our passwords regularly, but we do log on pretty frequently.  That allows us to limit abuses based on stolen personal information in terms of time.  That is an option that is not available to inactive users.  I would almost go so far as to say 8 months or less would be better. Protonk (talk) 17:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Support, this is very sensible. I'm not so worried about somebody hijacking admin accounts, I just think it's best that our list of admins comprises only active or at least marginally active people. It would also be helpful in encouraging the understanding that adminship has a functional purpose and isn't some kind of lifetime appointment. I would be a bit stronger, though: I'd require that anyone who leaves for such a long period as a year stand for RfA again (and I feel the same way about people who resign adminship and then want it back&mdash;I don't like the practice of automatically giving adminship back to people in general). Everyking (talk) 18:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

 * See my comments here. Acalamari 23:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Would you be comforted by the fact that he could just ask a bureaucrat to set the right back?  Majorly  (talk) 23:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It helps, though I'm still not sure I like the idea of removing the tools. I'll have to think more about it. Acalamari 00:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) Oppose per this. Cheers. -- LV (Dark Mark)  00:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well wherever you've been for the past two and a half years, welcome back! But the point is, if you wanted admin tools back, you can just ask a bureaucrat (btw, Essjay and Danny are no longer bureaucrats, so don't ask them)  Majorly  (talk) 00:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * (e/c) Welcome back LV! If this were already in effect, you'd be able to easily get your admin toolset back.  No reason to oppose.  You are in the vast minority, BTW. (apparently Gator is another) Most editors, after being gone 1.5 years, don't come back.  Welcome back!   Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  00:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec)This is pretty bizarre. Not just that he came back to post this, but I was reading his talk page earlier this week. How odd. Welcome back.  Enigma  message Review 00:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) What are the odds of just showing up for the first time in years to participate in this poll? Wow. But welcome back. Are you planning on staying? Useight (talk) 00:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Unsure at this point. I got word there was a more serious proposal to de-adminfy dormant admins, and had to say that I still want my tools... you know, just in case. My WikiBooks tools... nooooooo! ;-) -- LV (Dark Mark)  00:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, now that you edited, you'd still have 1 more year before the tools were removed, in the event that something like this was instigated. P.S. - I really wish I had your username. Useight (talk) 00:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No, at least not this way. Set up a page where users with legitimate problems with a sysop can request the removal of the flag. Likewise add the inactive accounts there. Being an admin is not a lifetime thing; admins should have to stand through re-confirmation. Monobi (talk) 00:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC) Changed to support. The reconfirmation thing is for another time. Monobi (talk) 20:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Admins in conflict (i.e. recall) is completely separate from admins inactive. If they haven't edited in over a year, how exactly will any of there (in)actions result in conflict?   Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  00:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That's not what I'm saying, exactly. Do something like you do on meta; every # months x admins are placed up for recall. At this time, by default, those that are inactive would be listed. Monobi (talk) 00:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, you don't seem to be arguing against this idea that an admin, after not completing a single edit, after 365 days, should retain the enwiki bit. How many "inactive" meta admins retain their bit during automatic recall?  If an inactive meta-admin is up for recall, hasn't edited for 365+ days, how do the proceedings generally go?   Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  00:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Monobi is agreeing with the idea but he wants blanket reconfirmations. With all due respect, that's a poor Oppose reason. Sounds more like Strong Support to me.  Enigma  message Review 00:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Meta has fewer than 100 admins, we have over 1,500. How well does that scale? Mr.  Z- man  01:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Size is irrelevant. Monobi (talk) 20:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Assume good faith, and competence on the part of those vetted by the community, for that matter. This proposal is senseless. Skomorokh  00:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Huh? What community? Some of these editors didn't even pass an RfA. Others may have passed with 10 support votes. That's not the community, not then and not now. It's not a senseless proposal either. There's no positive to having inactive admins. None whatsoever.  Majorly  (talk) 00:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "Some did not" is not equivalent to "none did"; equivocating the two is not particularly clever. "Inactive admin" is not a permanent state; placing roadblocks to returning valued contributors for no compelling reason is senseless. Skomorokh  00:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Majorly, although this opens up a whole new can of worms. We can't really expect a proposal to pass that demands that all admins/'crats that got it before a certain date would need reconfirmation. Some of them did not really go through a real RfA/RfB, however.  Enigma  message Review 00:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * OK I'll rephrase. None of them passed with the community support required today. These are not valued editors. An editor is worthless when they are not editing. And we are not banning them. We are removing a privelege that is only useful to active people. They can ask for it back at any time. This is a matter of cleanup and accuracy. They are pretty compelling reasons to remove what is really a waste of space.  Majorly  (talk) 00:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * To Skomorokh: There is no roadblock to regaining the bit.  If, by some miracle, an editor chooses to return, that has been bot-desysopped, it only involves one additional edit.  To the bureaucrats' noticeboard.  Copying and pasting this sentence:  "hey, 'crats! I've decided, by some fluke, to return to Wikipedia as an administrator!  I don't know WTF is going on, but I passed my RfA in 2003.  Can I have my bit back?"  To which a 'crat would say:  "Sure, adminx, you haven't done anything controversial.  Good luck with your new bit!  In case you haven't heard, since 2003 when you left, it is rather frowned upon to delete the main page.  Good luck!"  Where's the roadblock, Skomorokh?   Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  00:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I'm having a really hard time interpreting "None of them passed with the community support required today. These are not valued editors." as something that's not going to make me think "What the fuck?" And, anyways, what has that to do with anything? We're not taking away their bit because they got it with just 10 supports back then, right? --Conti|✉ 00:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * What is missing from your analysis is the realization that Wikipedia editors are not rational cost/benefit analysis machines. I have seen valued contributors (valued because of their contributions, for those needing clarification) leave the project entirely over the tiniest of incidents; an ill-framed comment, overzealous copyedit, moronic IP vandal attack. Imagine for whatever reason you are an administrator who leaves out of frustration over some dramatic affair. You wander back a year or two later and decide, without much thinking about the matter, to perform some everyday administrative function - delete an attack page for example. You are greeted with notification that you have been stripped of the tools you spent months, years, earning the community's trust to posses (not that adminship is a reward etc.). What message does that send? "Oh, btw, since you took a break we now no longer consider you trustworthy or competent enough to apply admin tools anymore. Thanks anyway". There's your roadblock. It would not be an unheard of reaction to simply conclude, after coming back in good faith and with an open mind, "Fuck. this.". Skomorokh  00:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, I would argue that it's only one additional edit to the WP:BN before speedy deleting an attack page. Just one.  No "fuck this" involved.  An admin, at any time and however approved, would understand that being gone for a year or more would inevetably lead to a community removal of privileges/rights.  Christ, even my Sam's club membership expires after a year if I don't use it/renew it.   Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  01:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * (Conti) No I didn't mean it like that. They were of course valuable when they were here. But they are no longer useful with admin rights. If they are, I'd love to know how. The community thing is something else.  Majorly  (talk) 00:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Alright. Sorry for possibly overreacting a bit up there. :) I just don't see what you're trying to say when you talk about the different required community support to become an admin nowadays, since I fail to see what it has to do with all this. --Conti|✉ 01:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Do we really want a user who will quit the project in a huff rather than make a simple request to a bureaucrat as an admin anyway? Mr.  Z- man  01:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * While it would be impolitic to name names, I can think of several active admins offhand who have temporarily resigned over something I thought inconsequential and whose contributions as admins are without doubt net positive. People are occasionally tetchy, irrational and defensive, sometimes even the most able and trustworthy ones. Skomorokh  01:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * And that being said, Skomorokh, would you want these particular +admins to retain there bit, if, hypothetically, they left? After a "tetchy, irrational and defensive" departure? If they came back in 6 months, they would still have their bit. If, after seeing usertalk warnings one month and 2 days prior to desysopping, they still came back to edit, do you want them as admins?  I really am hard pressed to understand your opposition to this, because your arguments seem to be in favor of the "support" side.... Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  01:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I have been quite clear; I believe this measure will cause harm to the project by losing us an undefined number of returning contributors, and that the supposed negligible benefits from the measure do not outweigh this harm. Yes I believe it is possible that a previously inactive admin spontaneously logging in and trying to edit and is then frustrated by this rescinding of trust could have been a net positive contributor to the encyclopedia. It is incomprehensible that you find this a difficult concept to understand. Regards, Skomorokh  01:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "Irrational" - yes, that's who I want closing deletion debates and blocking users. Mr.  Z- man  01:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * As if we do not already have legions of admins who make mistakes, or are wrongheaded, or power-hungry. If this is your concern, dormant admins are not the ones you ought to be targetting. Skomorokh  01:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No thanks. Someone who has a tantrum if they find their precious toys missing really shouldn't be an admin and we'd be better off without them.  Majorly  (talk) 01:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The weakness in User:Skomorokh's argument is that admin status is routinely denied to many valuable contributers who have tirelessly toiled away for years on mainspace edits. Few of these seem to depart in a huff when their requests for adminship are denied but stay on as tireless contributers. If Wikipedia can survive by denying valuable contributers adminship in the first place, then I don't see why it cannot survive by revoking admin privileges for erstwhile valuable contributers who have ceased to use them for a considerable period of time. --RegentsPark (talk) 20:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You make a good point, but you miss the scale of what I am talking to. I consider the benefits of this scheme so little that if only a handful of returning admins responded in the manner described, it would be enough to make the proposed scheme a net negative for the encyclopedia. It only takes a few. Regards, Skomorokh  20:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. A sledgehammer for a thumb tack. Perhaps you're right. I do wonder though about the principle behind maintaining the privileges of non-contributers. Still, your point is well taken. --RegentsPark (talk) 21:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Seems pretty pointless. I don't see the logic of removing admin-tools because an account's been inactive - couldn't the same reasoning could be used to block an inactive account, why do they need the ability to edit if they're not going to use it? Side issues - does the automated steward bot required actually exist? Is an automated bot that sets user rights really such a good idea? If not do stewards want the extra work load? Guest9999 (talk) 01:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Once trusted, I have no problem with extended breaks. You never know why somebody left.  And somebody who was trusted, shouldn't have to start over.  If they were trusted before, leave it.  Also, this is not a binding.  Such a decision would have to be made by a much wider community than this one alone.Balloonman (talk) 01:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That's why it's a straw poll. ;) I don't think anyone is under the impression that a few editors at WT:RFA can change policy.  Enigma  message Review 02:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Nothing I can say that hasn't already been said, really. I don't think admins should be rewarded for their hard work and contributions by being de-sysopped. They've earned plenty vacation time.-- Koji Dude  (Contributions) 02:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. The justification for this is silly. What makes inactive accounts more easily compromised than active ones?  r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  02:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * A derelict and idle account is not monitored by its user and thus there is no vigilance.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 03:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * What exactly means "vigilance"? I have had the same, unique, hopefully secure password on my account for the duration of my time here, and I have no plan to change it now, 1 year from now, or 10 years from now.  If for some reason someone were to gain access to my account, I would be helpless to do anything about it, even if I were online at the time, because the odds are likely that someone else would notice it before I would.  An active user is more likely to personally compromise their account by leaving it logged on on a public computer, having friends access their computer without their permission, etc. -- where an inactive user wouldn't be logging into the site, and thus such an attack could not occur.  And if a troll had a grudge against a certain admin, I would think they'd try to hack that admin's password first, rather than looking through retired accounts for a good target.  Finally, if you're allowing admins to regain adminship by just asking a bureaucrat, how exactly is the bureaucrat to know whether it's the real admin, or an impostor who's hacked the account?  Frankly, I think an active admin's account is just as likely a target as an inactive admin's -- if not more likely.  So the "vigilant" argument makes little sense to me.  Ral315 (talk) 03:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If there's no-one using the account, then there is no attention drawn to it. Active admins are more likley to, well, piss people off. I think Ral1315 is right in saying that more active accounts are more high-risk than inactive accounts.-- Koji Dude  (Contributions) 03:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) I don't get the reasoning, and frankly, this poll is silly.  Ral315 (talk) 03:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. Sorry but I would prefer to see expectations and requirements discussed on the talk page of the policy what an admin is than a rule like this after the fact. I would think it's possible to grandfather in existing admins. -Susanlesch (talk) 03:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. net negative of folks not returning is greater than very slim chance of account being compromised (which hasn't happened yet, well, not to an inactive one anyway). Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) This is a waste of time. The problems this would supposedly solve are implausible or unrelated to inactivity. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Cannot see the value of this change per many above. Davewild (talk) 17:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Potential harm, even if unlikely, easily outweighs the non-existing benefits. Zocky | picture popups 18:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose the potential benefits of this are tiny, and they are easily outweighed by the disadvantages. Hut 8.5 18:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) Solution in search of a problem. sho  y  19:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose. Users who don't log in are not vulnerable to man-in-the-middle attacks, as active users are, so their accounts are even more secure than those of us active admins. As technical measures have been taken to prevent dictionary attacks, the probability of an inactive account being hijacked is small enough to not be worrisome. Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 19:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose. Admin privileges are not meant to carry much significance. As many users as can be trusted should have admin privileges. It is not intended that administrator rights be special or time-dependent. I can't see any legitimate benefits of doing this: has a derelict account ever been hijacked, or are we simply imagining potential problems? Suppose a derelict account is hijacked, Wikipedia is very well monitored and rogue admin edits are easily reversed. --Oldak Quill 20:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I would buy this argument if the RfA process did not give so much significance to adminship - even a casual scanning of RfAs shows that it does. Moreover, words like 'earned', 'trusted' that are being tossed around in the oppose arguments clearly shows that their is a great deal of significance in admin privileges. If the privilege has to be 'earned' then the right to keep it needs to be 'earned' as well. --RegentsPark (talk) 20:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * IMO, that RfA is broken, doesn't mean we should break everything else associated with adminship for the sake of consistency. Admins should simply be trusted to know process and not mindlessly delete articles or block users. If an admin is proven to not be able to do these things, their erroneous changes can be reverted and adminship can be removed (subject to discussion). These bolt-on privileges, considering the ease with which admin actions can be reversed and the privileges taken away, are not significant. Adminship only needs to be "earned" in that a user needs to prove they know process and will not be irresponsible. I don't think these things change with time (certainly not over a time scale of a few years). --Oldak Quill 21:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I see what you're saying and, I suppose, under WP:NBD, it shouldn't matter if an admin is active or inactive as long as they are not doing any harm. Persuasive? Perhaps. --RegentsPark (talk) 21:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. Agree with the people above who argue that inactive admin accounts are no more likely to be compromised than active ones, and the list of administrators already separates active and inactive ones. I see no significant advantages to this proposal, and while the possible negative consequences are small too, sticking with the status quo makes the most sense to me. - Polo  te  t  21:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. There is no reason to deactivate inactive administrator accounts, unless such an account becomes compromised and starts doing damage to the project. Paradoxsociety (talk) 21:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose desysoping any user who had not abused their tools. How many times is this idea going to come up?? It has been rejected time and time again and we are not just going to desysop hundreds of admins who have done nothing wrong. Go ahead and look at the history of compromised admin accounts, they are from active accounts, not inactive. undefinedUntil  21:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * User:Vancouverguy was inactive for 2 years actually.  Majorly  (talk) 22:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I would rather a move protected page get moved twice than desysop hundreds of people. The damage was minor, and even if the person went around deleting and blocking it would still be easy to reverse. The whole idea of a wiki is to give greater freedom due to the ability to reverse actions. undefinedUntil  23:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - No compelling reason given as to why this major shift in policy is necessary. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. FCYTravis (talk) 22:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Weak oppose unless it actually becomes a problem. -- Ned Scott 22:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * A lot of different wording is being proposed here. I still don't think it's necessary from a security standpoint, but there might be a proposal to come out of this that I would feel is reasonable. -- Ned Scott 22:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. It's a solution in search of a problem. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose - This proposal is misguided attempt to solve a trivial problem in an overly complicated labor intensive manner. I read over all the arguments in support, and quite frankly don't so much as understand the basis for this proposal. Here's what I get out of the comments above: It's housekeeping; keeping the admin list free of junk is a good thing, and it prevents the possibility of someone hacking their account and no one noticing. The admins in question aren't going to return so what's the point of keeping their accounts around? And if they did come back, they wouldn't know what they're doing anyway, so we should desysop them so they don't come back and screw things up. In response to the first point: There is nothing inherently problematic about leaving inactive admin accounts as they are. Anyone who understands the underlying factors will tell you that they are indisputably less likely, not more, to be compromised than the active accounts. If they clutter up the admin list, who cares. A bot that compiles and maintains a list of active admins would be less complicated than a bot that carries out Keeper's process above (and already exists anyway). Sure, they aren't doing anything, they're useless, pointless, etc. However, how precisely is their uselessness a reason to purge them? Purging them takes effort. Not purging them takes no effort. Net negative. Waste of time. As far as their inexperience with current community norms were they to come back and plunge right back into the swing of things goes, this proposal does absolutely nothing about that at all because they can uncontroversially ask for the tools back, get them in a couple hours, and go on an inexperienced rampage through the backlogs. If you want to address this problem (which has never proved to be a problem at all, and has always been addressed in the hypothetical sense as if it's bound to happen despite the fact that it never does), come up with a process that does so; don't waste time with one that doesn't. This proposal would waste time on the part of a botmaker, multiple stewards, and in all probability multiple bureaucrats, and solve nothing.-- Dycedarg  &#x0436;  23:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) I stand by my comments at WT:RFA. Yes, I did read the proposal. 1) I don’t see the point, other than to clean up a list that i) is cleaned up anyway (per inactive sections) and ii) is barely used (in favour of noticeboards (AIV, RPP, AN, etc.), asking someone who’s online, or asking someone you’re familiar with). 2) It WILL piss people off to be emailed saying “hey, Wikipedia doesn’t trust you, so they’re taking your tools. Sorry.” Sorry, but it will. 3) Being pissed of for a justifiable reason doesn’t make someone a bad admin, so I would absolutely want them to still have the tools even if such a proposal pissed them off. 4) Do you really think the stewards will want to waste their time doing this? 5) Where, exactly, is the problem we’re trying to solve? Would appreciate a response to all five points if you wish to reply to me here (otherwise, take it to somewhere else, such as my talk page). dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 23:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd more characterise it as, essentially: "Hey, Since you've been inactive, your account will be desysopped. However, we still trust you, so if and/or when you decide to return just ask your local bureaucrat and you'll be resysopped." Sorry, I just don't see the "Bite" here. - jc37 00:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - Seems to me that this an attempt to fix a non-existent problem, and would just be unnecessary work for wikipedians that could be contributing elsewhere.CrazyChemGuy (talk) 23:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) There doesn't seem to be any problem this will solve. I just don't see any benefit to us to justify taking the time to formally gather a consensus, make new policy and orchestrate such an endeavor. seresin ( ¡? ) 23:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) No actual problem has been suggested that warrants this change. Maybe its caused by the "Number of admins: ####" thing? Why not just change it to "Number of active admins: ####" and have it updated differently? I don't really care that much for the outcome of this proposal either way, but I don't really see a strong reason for the change at this point. Avruch  T 00:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) More work for the 'crats and studards. Zginder 2008-04-23T00:50Z (UTC)
 * 5) This requires a fair more bit of work for the stewards with little or no benefit to the project. Captain   panda  03:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) I cannot see the slightest problem that needs to be addressed and you do not even try to provide a plausible reasoning. I consider this random activism that potentially makes life harder for all users involved. Сасусlе 04:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) Why? And per Captain Panda. EJF (talk) 07:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) I fail to see any point to this. As pointed out, inactive accounts are quite unlikely to get hijacked, and certainly less prone to it than active ones. As for complaints that things may have changed since they left, well duh! Software, policies and norms have always been changing here. If they were around long enough to become an admin, I'm sure they will be well aware of that fact. And if we trusted them to become admins in the first place, then I'm sure we can trust them to adapt. the wub "?!"  09:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 9) Unnecessary, and kind of rude as well. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 12:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose. Several reasons. First, the definition of 'controversial circumstances' (see wording) is not at all clear (what is controversial to some is clear headed to others) and the only reasonable way to deal with that is a new Rfa. Second, if WP:NBD has any meaning for admin privileges, then it is WP:NBD if a dormant admin retains those privileges. Third, if it ain't broke then what exactly is it that are we fixing. --RegentsPark (talk) 16:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose. As an admin who contributes every day, I would prefer to think that I do this for the joy of it, rather than as someone who is compelled to contribute. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 00:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 12) I am not a terribly "active" administrator in terms of tool usage, but I still keep a close eye on what goes on here on Wikipedia. Does that make me any less of an administrator? Sean William @ 02:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 13) Oppose. I don't see any real benefit to this proposal. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 14) Oppose Largely through Dycedarg's sound response to my question below (i.e. no benefit to the project, and a time waster), combined with the opposition of those who might be subject to this proposal. Van Tucky 05:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 15) Strong Oppose Where's the problem that needs fixing? "Let's all create needless bureaucracy, just for the sake of it" seems to be the crux of this particular poll. This has been proposed repeatedly in the past, and has been rejected repeatedly in the past - it's a hardy perennial. Please let's give this one a rest for a long time, it just may wither and die, hopefully. -- Cactus.man  &#9997;  12:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 16) Oppose This proposal is dumber than a sack of hair - it seeks to fix a problem that doesn't exist and wouldn't be fixed this way anyways. Wily D 14:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) I just don't see the point. What do we gain from doing this, exactly? I don't mind it if we do this (assuming that admins can get their bit back whenever they want to), but apart from some more bureacracy and a cleaner list of admins, what's the point? --Conti|✉ 23:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well that's the point. It's a cleaner, more accurate list of admins. And reduces potential for misuse should the admin return and not know what an AfD is. 00:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a pretty minor point, tho, and it's already taken care of by sorting List of administrators by "Active" and "Inactive". And I very much doubt that an admin who was inactive for a year or two will jump into closing AfD's without reading what's happened in the meantime. I've been inactive for a few months, and before I did anything AfD-related I simply read the rules again to see what's changed. I hope that all admins will act like that. :) --Conti|✉ 00:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Can't a separate List of active administrators be kept listing admins who have edited in the last [period of time]. There is no need to remove admin to have a better list. --Oldak Quill 20:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The only reason really that I'm supporting this is because there is no bureaucracy. A bot removes the bit from an inactive (dead/married/moved on/retired/disallusioned/WTF-ever) account.  No bureaucracy, just housekeeping.   Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  00:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That's still one more bot than we need, I suppose. And I can already imagine admins making an edit at least once a year just to keep their bit (which would be rather silly, of course). --Conti|✉ 00:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Your argument doesn't hold. They already retain the bit with zero edits.  If they make one a year, it is no different than what currently happens.  So be it. This thread started with a suggestion of a "compromise" (to get this out of discussions as it keeps cropping up).  So let them make an edit per year to keep the bit that they (already) keep indefinitely.  And if they forget in 2011, then when they remember in 2012, they can go to WP:BN and get it back anyway.  No harm, no foul.  Your oppose neutral has no merit.   Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  00:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Huh? I'd agree that this would've been a rather weak oppose reason, but I'm neutral, not opposing. :) --Conti|✉ 00:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * So stricken. 8 freekin edit conflicts later.  Sorry conti, been trying to fix it since before you even posted here....:-)   Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  00:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hehe, alright then. I just don't see very compelling arguments either way, hence the neutral. --Conti|✉ 00:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Shrug. I think expending this much time on this issue is silly and a great example of a solution in search of a problem, but since the outcome is basically irrelevant, I don't care either way.  Dragons flight (talk) 23:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If you didn't care, then why did you bother to comment? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't care about the outcome. I do care to say that all this fuss is silly.  Dragons flight (talk) 00:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral. It seems that removing the tools after a year goes along with the evidence of adminship being A Very Big Deal, as current RfAs conclusively prove. However, as long as the facade of "no big deal" is being bantered around, it seems silly to think that we need to remove the tools from people who once had the trust of the community. Yes, I'm sort of doing this to prove a point, but this is a straw poll, right? Seems like there's other pressing issues out there... Tan   |   39  00:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Good point, I'll make that my next target-)--Kumioko (talk) 00:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Quite, "once had the trust of the community". --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh come, Mal. Aren't you supposed to WP:AGF? ;-) Tan   |   39  00:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral Doesn't matter much either way. Epbr123 (talk) 00:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral. I lean slightly towards oppose for purely sentimental reasons, which is why I'm putting it here so no rationalists jump me. I respect the memory of our departed and inactive administrators, that's all.  bibliomaniac 1  5  00:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we could start a page, a wikileum of those who gave so much to the cause.:-)--Kumioko (talk) 00:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:MISS keeps a record.  Enigma  message Review 00:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't forget WP:DIED. Useight (talk) 00:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral - I can't say I understand the point of some of the support votes reasoning. If all the user needs to do to get mop back is ask, then what is the point of removing the tools. I'm not discounting arguments of us being able to count admins that are active, etc. but I would actually suggest that if the candidate has been gone for a year or longer, then editing for a few months then re-RfAing would make me the most comfortable. I only think this would be excessive if the issue at hand (admins leaving for at least 365 days then wanting to be admin again) was common. Also, there should be a caveat that sparse edits to go around the 365 day rule should have special instructions. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 01:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Think of it this way: the English WikiPedia has 1,536 administrators of whom 653 are dead. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 *  bibliomaniac 1 5  Do I have your trust? 02:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * He means "dead" as in "inactive". We do have a few dead admins, but nowhere near 653. We have a few hundred admins who are fairly inactive.  Enigma  message Review 02:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I was making a hypothetical point, but I meant "dead" as in dead. It may be that 653 is too improbable a number, so perhaps 652 would be nearer the mark. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This page indicates there are 81 admins who haven't made an edit since March 2007 (plus 8 more whose last edit was April 2007). But also note that as of right now, that page hasn't been updated since April 10, so it still shows Lord Voldemort's last edit as August 2006. --Pixelface (talk) 23:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) This is a solution in search of a problem. Probably won't do much harm, probably won't do much good.--66.121.66.113 (talk) 21:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) I think I see the point, but I feel this should be approached in another way. An unvoiced assumption about being made an Admin is that the person has decided to become a permanent part of Wikipedia, so when an Admin decides to leave she/he should state this explicitly. If this is indeed the intent in this proposal, why not try a less aggressive approach? After an Admin has vanished for a year, she/he is contacted to see if the Admin has, in fact, left Wikipedia. If so, then the account has the bit removed; if not, then they retain the status. And the best part of my proposal is that it needs no polling, just two people: one to run an email bot to contact the departed Admins, & a Bureaucrat willing to make the changes. Who knows -- maybe the fact someone noticed that they left might encourage some of them to return? -- llywrch (talk) 22:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You do understand that your proposal is pretty much exactly the proposal being offered here? Admin x disappears (announced or unannounced), contact is attempted, admin is either desysopped with no response (to be resysopped by request), or responds and says I'm still here.  Not sure where your proposal parts from what's already proposed.  Fill me in?   Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  22:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec)I think this essentially is what is being proposed. It's indefensible for an admin to claim that he or she is still a part of the project and yet not have made any edits for 12 months - all they have to do is fix one spelling error and we'll all get off their tails for another year. I very much doubt that any admin is going to reply to a message in the negative: but if they do, then of course desysopping is uncontroversial and doesn't need this new procedure. Admins replying in the affirmative will probably do so on their talk page: bingo, that's an edit, so reset the timer!!  So only those admins who don't reply at all face this new proposed procedure, and I think we have to face the fact that if they don't reply, they don't intend to come back.  Of course, we could be wrong, which is why we must be able to resysop those who do return without too much fuss; but for 99%, if they aren't talking, they aren't contributing, and meanwhile, their account is an unattended chip pan waiting to be lit. Happy‑melon 22:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem is that this is being proposed as policy; what I set forth can be done if either -- or both -- of you simply start sending out emails & find an agreeable Bureaucrat who will act on responses you get. Now whether you can convince your friendly Bureaucrat to flip the sysop bit on those who don't respond or don't have a valid email address is another issue. (I'd guess not.) -- llywrch (talk) 23:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) neutral There are no compelling reasons to enact this policy, and no compelling reasons to oppose it. However this policy has wider implication as it may set precedents relevant to other related policies such as admin reconfirmation. Jon513 (talk) 11:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) neutral Don't really see the point, other than having an easy way to see active admins, which I'm sure is pretty easily doable via toolserver, and probably someone already has done this. Just seems like more work de-adminning people. Also, as Jon mentions above, there are slippery slope considerations. - cohesion 14:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) I think this section better suits my comments here. Acalamari 17:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Where's this harm you speak of
What's the "harm" you see? This is automatic, non-controversial, and "nothing personal". It has nothing to do with their edits or editing, but with the lack thereof. (And a year is a long time in the wiki.) And they have the tools regreanted automatically, upon request. I guess I'm just not seeing the "harm". - jc37 18:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I just like to also think of it as housekeeping.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 18:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm starting to agree with this housekeeping stance. However, like Keeper said, adding more RfAs or really any other layers of beaurocracy/rules to this would make me oppose. They should just have to ask for it back, and on a crat's say-so, have the tools reinstated. Tan   |   39  18:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, no rfa, I'd oppose that too. - jc37 18:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess you have failed to read the Oppose section. It's difficult not to wonder whether certain proponents of this proposal are incapable of comprehending simply stated English sentences or are being downright disingenuous. Skomorokh  19:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I did, actually, and note that several actually support the "idea", but would rather see a different implementation of it.
 * That said, how about if you join the discussion by being informative (positively expressing why you feel that there's "harm"), rather than negatively attacking others with snide comments? I actually would welcome such thoughts. - jc37 19:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I have explained at length, on this very page, explicitly what I consider the potential harmful consequences of this measure. it's right there, in black in white, the fifth bullet point under the Oppose section. Suggesting I "join" the discussion is, you must concede, preposterous. If you have a problem with my arguments, address the specific arguments, don't throw your hands in the air and wonder why oh why anyone could possibly oppose such a harmless little change. This proposal has no clear consensus at this moment in time, and without winning opposers over or amassing a mountain of support !votes, this will likely fail. So if you honestly care about implementing this, get some good faith and address other's opinions instead of complaining about them. Regards, Skomorokh  19:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * First off, take a deep breath. Now realize that what Jc37 is asking for is a clarification of your concerns, since you may not have expressed them clearly enough up above.  I've read through the argument (in fact I only really read your side) and I do not believe that your concerns will become relevant. &mdash;  scetoaux (T|C)  20:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If someone takes issue with, or fails to understand something I have written, the convention is to follow up my comment with a question for clarification, not start a separate section querying the rationale for writing it. I do not think this is difficult to understand. Regards, Skomorokh  20:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well first, this was more as a result of reading Zocky's post. (I decided to start a separate thread so as to not confuse the threading. User:Skomorokh's oppose thread(s), in particular are "fun" to try to decipher and follow.) and I just don't think a request for clarification, or even a restatement of opinion deserves the "attitude" being spouted. But here, since you're here, I'll ask directly: Could you clearly explain what harm you feel will result in this proposal? - jc37 20:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If your interest is in clarity, it may not have been such a smart move to start a section with a title and comment addressing an undefined "you". I have given an account of my opinion above, and while English is not my first language, I think it was lucid enough for a reader to divine the cogent points. Since you asked nicely: I believe that the formal procedures this proposal would require (namely, an admin's having to request to be reinstated) send an unwelcome message to previously inactive admins (most of whom have been valuable contributors). I predict (this is an empirical claim) that this formal requirement may cause an inactive admin to reconsider returning to the project. I do not assign great value to the supposed benefits of the proposal, to the extent that I do not believe its implementation is likely to improve the encyclopedia. This is simply a restatement of what I have already said, and I am very sorry if anyone continues to have difficulties comprehending it. Regards, Skomorokh  20:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought my !vote was pretty clear. I think the potential for harm (as described by other users, including Skomorokh) is very small, but I think it still outweighs the potential benefits, because I don't see any benefits at all. In such circumstances, opposing instruction creep seems prudent. Zocky | picture popups 01:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no harm from an inactive admin. Show me when this has ever been an issue. If someone can show me a harm in inactive admin accounts that is greater than desysoping hundreds of admins who have done nothing wrong then I will reconsider. undefinedUntil 21:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You know, this is another thing I'm not understanding. The characterisation that this non-controversial desysopping of an admin (an inactive admin, mind you), is in any way punitive. Being inactive isn't right or wrong, it's being inactive. (And we're talking about no edits whatsoever for a year.) And if you're not using the tools, why should it matter to you if you have them or not? Especially if, when you choose to become active, you can immediately have them again by easily asking your local bureaucrat. I'm sorry, but apparently I'm just not seeing it. - jc37 00:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You have still failed to answer his question: What is the harm of an inactive admin account? If they're harmless, then what justifies the amount of effort entailed in desysopping them? Do you think the stewards have nothing better to do than fulfill a request to desysop hundreds of people for no apparent reason?-- Dycedarg  &#x0436;  04:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * the same harm that any network faces if they don't have a policy of decertification for inactive users: fraud and damage. An inactive account is a potential vandal with wide ranging powers and no automatic red flags (not like IP's or new users).  Wikipedia has to think about security in the same way that any business or organization would think about security. Protonk (talk) 18:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

So if the account is compromised the person who has access could just ask for the admin bit back. undefinedUntil 04:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

A better way of doing this than a bald straw poll of a single option
There are three issues packed into this straw poll, and I think each of them should be considered separately. My reasons for suggesting this have as their basis the well-known aspects of good questionnaire design that also cover issues such as this: one should ask about one thing at a time, otherwise all sorts of biases and skews in results will follow. The theoretical bases of these can be supplied by myself if required. I suggest the three issues should be: (a)Should inactive administrators lose their admin status? (yes or no, discussion about the conditions under which they lose it, or the methods by which they can regain it to form part of the other two questions) (b) Under what conditions should they lose their admin privileges? (length of period of inactivity: no yes or no, but opinions on lengths) (c) Under what conditions should they be able to regain them afterwards (new RFA, 'crats board request, etc, no yesses or nos, but opinions about what methods). Questions b and c could be considered in reverse order. If a yielded a "yes" outcome, then a range of possible strategies, assembled from the opinions given in answer to questions b and c should be put to a simple straw poll. That seems to be the more sensible way to proceed here, given that we are supposed to welcome opinions and thrash out views that are informed by ideas of others and the need to reach consensus. DDStretch   (talk)  18:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well the last two are based on current convention. 1 year is based on nearly every other example of this (like at meta, though there they also have yearly reconfirmation, which I oppose here). And I don't think anyone would consider inactivity to be "controversial", so the arbcomm's ruling on this should stand. That said, did you have a different way you'd like to see this "packaged"? - jc37 20:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes. I've just given it, and you've just commented on it. I agree with the general idea, but I think you will get more onboard if you allow some flexibility over the exact terms without giving leave to some others to claim you are appearing to railroad some specifics onto people by restricting the inactivity times and the means by which admin status could be regained by some. It makes it more open and willing to adapt to what people would want, I think.  DDStretch    (talk)  21:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately it's difficult to have a meaningful discussion about (a) without knowing the answers to (b) and (c). (a) on it's own is intractably vague, and there's really no reasonable answer but "it depends". Christopher Parham (talk) 06:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the comment. I did wonder about the problem of "it depends" myself. But bearing in mind that the answers to b and c would only throw up combinations of inactivity time and re-instatement conditions that would then be subject to further straw polls, I think it could still work. Look upon the answer to a as having the rider "provided the right choice of conditions specified by b and c are implemented". This will gauge whether some kind of admin withdrawal (but not specify what sort) would be acceptable or not. The position at the moment is similar to that which would happen if a, b, and c had already been addressed, and only one alternative had been chosen to go forward as an option for people to express a support or oppose to. We can see that the process has become very messy, because many other schemes are being proposed, etc. in with the opinions of support or oppose as well as changes in wording that obscure what the question is we are supposed to be voicing our opinion about. What I am proposing would try to deal with the identification alternative schemes in a separate step to the final straw poll of accept of reject: it is a bit like separating the "the concept is acceptable" type of issue from the implementation sort of issue. It seems a better way of proceeding, it helps avoid the cloud of uncertainty that develops when new proposals, changes in wordings, etc get mixed up, and I think it can handle the situation of "it depends" in the way I suggested.  DDStretch    (talk)  06:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Wording
I'd like to say that, while I agree with the spirit of the proposal, the current wording really doesn't do the idea justice. I would like to suggest that the wording below more clearly articulates the ideas of the policy, and forestalls common objections:

Admin accounts which have been completely inactive for at least one calendar year (with no edits or administrative actions in that time) will be automatically desysopped. This is not to be considered binding, or a reflection on the user's use of, or rights to, the admin tools; if an inactive admin returns to wikipedia, they may be resysopped by a bureaucrat without further discussion, providing they left wikipedia in good standing and not in controversial circumstances, and that they can confirm that they are the original owner of the account. The admin will be contacted one month prior to the expiry of the one-year timeframe on their user talk page, and again a few days before the limit. If the account has a valid e-mail address, the user will also be contacted via that medium. The summary in the user rights log will make it clear that the desysopping is purely administrative.

Thoughts? <b style="color:forestgreen;">Happy</b>‑<b style="color:darkorange;">melon</b> 20:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Awesome! Make the change! Make the change! : ) - jc37 20:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I've always found you to be poetic, Happy Melon; even your name is poetic. Your wording is much closer to what I was trying to say above and failed to do.  Support!   Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  20:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You might want to emphasise the procedure as a "formality" or "technicality" (if accurate). Skomorokh  20:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That was the intent of "automatic". That said, how would you phrase the sentence? - jc37 21:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't share the intent, so it is difficult for me to represent it faithfully. My point is only that language such as "formality", "technicality" and "temporary" is often used to mollify affront, and I don't see any negatives in trying to do that. It's sort of like those overly-friendly saccharine welcome template messages (example) - to most people they are unnecessarily over-the-top, but others seemed to be touched by them. If it's only the process that is important, you may as well make the manner as respectful as possible. Skomorokh 21:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't really agree. If adminship privileges are going to be restored by a bureaucrat, then why bother revoking them. If they are to be revoked, then the returning admin should go through the RfA process again. Presumably, there will be less scrutiny than for a new admin, but IMHO, either ask for a new RfA or don't bother revoking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RegentsPark (talk • contribs) 20:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, a new RfA is double bureaucracy (assuming they already passed one). And a returning editors RfA#2 would likely have double the drama as a contributing editor. (See Pedro's explanation above).  Example: "zOMG!  You haven't edited in 14 months!!! I don't care if you used to be an admin!!!"  and the retorts to follow...Again, if this switches from a uniform, bureaucrat flipswitch to a recon RfA, I'm switching to oppose, as will others. This is simple housekeeping.  No controversy. Admins that leave controversially, a new RfA would perhaps be in order if by some fluke they return.  Just going inactive due to RL is not a controversy by any stretch, no RfA needed.    Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  21:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * But then, why bother taking the privileges away in the first place? --RegentsPark (talk) 21:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * simple housekeeping. Wikipedia should be striving to be accurate in everything from articles to admin counts.  Nothing is being "taken away" as it were.  It's a removal of a userrights group from an account that is dormant.  The editor is not being removed or deleted.  He/she is allowed to edit.  If/when he/she comes back, he/she can get the userrights adjusted back to +admin.  Its so simple that its garnering opposes.   Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  21:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems unnecessary to me. Especially if, as someone pointed out, inactive admins are listed separately anyway (your accuracy argument). With a simple reversion we add (IMHO anyway) a bureaucratic layer which serves little useful purpose. An RfA, on the other hand, adds an open process layer to re-privileging the return admin, and open processes are usually better than bureaucracies. (This poll is now officially totally confusing!)--RegentsPark (talk) 21:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, I'd like to point out that the definition of 'leave controversially' is, at best, the start of a very slippery slope!--RegentsPark (talk) 21:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You're going to de-admin people for "housekeeping"? Feel free to come up with an accurate admin count based on a threshold of activity, but this is ludicrous.  r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  21:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You're right Rspeer. "Housekeeping" is a rather oblivious term, and for that I apologize.  Keep in mind though, we are talking about former editors.  Who haven't done as much as fix a spelling error in 365+ days. (Again, one edit calls them active, be it trivial or admin related)  I'm not particularly concerned that they'll be offended by being desysyopped, if they ever actually notice it in the first place. So, for lack of a better term, housekeeping.  Accuracy.   Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  21:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I've added an extra clause, because I've realised that I've actually forgotten the most important reason for desysopping in the first place: preventing account hijacking. That's why we need to desysop, and and restoration of rights must be conditional on them being able to prove that they are the original owner, and not a hijacker. My next edit will be to add  to my userpage :D.  <b style="color:forestgreen;">Happy</b>‑<b style="color:darkorange;">melon</b> 22:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Account highjacking in the past has happened to active admin accounts, not inactive. The devs already audit admin passwords with dictionary files and inactive accounts are not vulnerable to key loggers or packet sniffers like active accounts are. This is a solution looking for a problem.  undefinedUntil  22:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * How are they supposed to prove that they are really the same person? I don't think that's a very good addition to the wording. --Conti|✉ 22:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought it was already implied, otherwise the primary purpose of the process is completley defeated. There are a variety of ways it could be confirmed, and it should be an innocent-until-proven guilty system (perhaps that should be made clear, although it's getting a bit convoluted already);  is a sure-fire method, as would be an e-mail from OTRS from the old confirmed e-mail address.  If push comes to shove, checkuser could be used if there is any doubt, although it might be unreliable over long timeframes, and shouldn't be used just for fishing.  It's not supposed to be a major hurdle, just a statement of common sense. <b style="color:forestgreen;">Happy</b>‑<b style="color:darkorange;">melon</b> 22:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think this should be mentioned at all if it's an innocent-until-proven-guilty system. There's no need to prove who you are until someone actually disputes that you aren't you anymore, and that's true for everyone, whether it's old admins or new ones. So there's no need to specifically mention that, IMHO. --Conti|✉ 22:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I've reworded it slightly, which also takes emphasis off it. Do you still think it's unnecessary? <b style="color:forestgreen;">Happy</b>‑<b style="color:darkorange;">melon</b> 22:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that looks fine to me now. --Conti|✉ 22:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Huh, long discussion... I haven't read all but what about desysoping inactive admin as a security measure, however, if the admin wants to return, the rights should be restored with minimum comlpication (maybe just a checkuser check)? --Tone 22:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Good change. But what exactly do you mean by a "few days"? Clarifications don't hurt. IceUnshattered (talk) 22:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, reality check. We don't hold checkuser information for a full year, it expires. People's IPs change more often than that. Most admins who are inactive over the past year do not have a committed identity. Now, we go an de-admin some guy, and he shows up a month later. He says "Make me an admin again, why on Earth was I even de-admined in the first place?!?!". Now, what do we do? Is this the original admin or an impostor? Well, we just have to take his word for it then...


 * So, why did we take it away in the first place? Since there is no reasonable and objective was to confirm the identity of inactive admins then this proposal solves exactly nothing, and is down right rude in exchange for that nothin. undefinedUntil  13:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * good point, I didn't think of that... -- lucasbfr  talk 14:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Why must we always be making more work for ourselves?
I just don't understand the housekeeping argument. Not in the slightest. Could someone explain it to me? Why is cleaning for the sake of cleaning helpful? We have filtered lists of admins. Why oh why must all the lists of admins be accurate if we have one that is, and no one has put forth any reason as to why lists of admins are so bloody important in the first place?-- Dycedarg  &#x0436;  00:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Here are the answers. Q1: "Why is cleaning for the sake of cleaning helpful?" A1: "Cleanliness is next to godliness." Q2: "Why are lists of admins important?" A2: "Information is king." Useight (talk) 01:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Response to A1: This is a website. The excess bits are not visible unless you go looking for them. Having useless junk lying around doesn't make us look bad because no one could possibly know it's there. Besides, due to it's very nature a wiki can never be clean. All you're doing is exchanging useless clutter in the admin lists with useless clutter in the user rights log, which is arguably more important. Response to A2: The information is easily available in the only list the people who have need for such information are ever going to use. That the other list is wrong is irrelevant, people who need the information will know where to look or to ask where to look. In any case, you are proposing the waste of 'crat time and steward time for something that is of, if anything, extremely tangential importance, and justifying it through the use axioms used out of the context for which they were intended.-- Dycedarg  &#x0436;  02:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The housekeeping mentioned is figurative, not literal. Having namespace and permissions for large numbers of inactive users is BAD security policy.  As a comparison, most corporations get rid of user permissions for departing employees before they are out the door.  Wikipedia isn't a corporation, so I don't expect that policy to be followed here.  what IS important is that something like it exist.  People can loose their password.  People can sell their computer with authentication information still on it.  brute force attacks can be tried against accounts that haven't logged on in a long time.  The security risk is there.  How to deal with it is up in the air.  the argument made in this poll (at least the security argument) is that 12-18 months is more than enough time for someone to come back.  Odds are, if they haven't come back by then, they are either in the army or never coming back (hopefully not both).  If they are never coming back then the rationale is simple.  If they are in the army then I would hope that they agree with the decision.  when I went on deployment I had as many services turned off as I could, both those that I would have been paying for (like a cell phone) and ones that I wouldn't (like brokerage services).  If they DO leave for that 12+ month time and come back to find admin tools gone, all it takes is an email.  No harm done.  I would rather that happen then having them come back in 24 months and learning that their account was used to vandalize template pages, the main age, etc. Protonk (talk) 18:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Change to upon Editor Motion
I wholeheartedly agree with the underlying premise, however I do believe that as currently proposed we would need massive amounts of stewards to handle the desysoppings. One way to decrease the volume would be to use the following,

''Any Administrator who has not edited in one year may be desysopped upon simple motion of an editor in good standing. The bringer of such a motion must attempt to serve notice upon the affected Administrator. Such a motion shall be considered to have passed if there are no major legitimate objections and if no edits are made by the affected account within two weeks.''

Thoughts? Geoff Plourde (talk) 03:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This would seem to eliminate the "housekeeping" benefit as many inactive admins would probably retain their tools, and if they did not (i.e. were challenged), little reduction in steward workload would be effected. There is also the slight worry of vindictive bringing of motions, and the major concern that this would add a needless bureaucratic layer.  Skomorokh  03:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe, but it would place the burden on the person making the motion and decrease the number of stewards needed. Geoff Plourde (talk) 17:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

What is the point?
I'm truly undecided on this as yet. I certainly don't think it would hurt anything, but it might simply be a waste of time. Can anyone tell me what immediate benefit to the project this would provide? I guess I just don't see what harm inactive admins are doing us. Van Tucky 01:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It makes Special:ListAdmins useful, it makes adminship not a trophy... there is an entire section of good reasons to do this above. – Mike . lifeguard  &#124; @en.wb 03:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The first is neither necessary (considering that there is already a list of active admins easiliy available), particularly helpful, nor worth the amount of effort required. It does not address the second point in the slightest. Removal with the condition of immediate reversal upon request does nothing to alter the status of adminship, it neither makes it more of a big deal or less of it. It merely makes it conditionally impermanent. The "entire section" of good reasons you reference boils down to: A number of people going to great lengths to demonstrate that there's no reason we shouldn't with no or very little attempt to explain why it's worth the amount of effort on the part of already busy people, ambiguous references to "housecleaning" without any attempt at an explanation as to why this particular act of housecleaning is so beneficial (of for that matter beneficial at all) as to require this much effort except to leave one to conclude from their comments that keeping the site clean is an end unto itself and is worth all the effort necessary regardless of actual benefit received from doing so, the assertion that somehow having to request the bit back will somehow lead those who intended to idiotically jump right back into adminning without reading anything to refrain from doing so until they had done the reading, and then comments from a few people that hope that this will be a stepping stone to some kind of annual reconfirmation of all admins. If I missed anything please tell me. In any case, either you think that the views expressed warrant wasting a lot of time on the part of people who have a great number of other things to do, or you don't. Aside from clearing up the Special:ListAdmins, no one has made any claim of immediate benefit to the project of any kind.-- Dycedarg  &#x0436;  05:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

change to "not logging in for a year"
Make the software detect and flag that an admin has not logged in for a year. An admin could still be looging in once in a while to see if he has messages. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This would have privacy implications, and would very likely never be implemented at WMF wikis. Furthermore, many (most?) active users never log out, so this is highly unreliable. – Mike . lifeguard  &#124; @en.wb 03:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The purpose
I am hearing a lot of talk and comments about how this is a waste of time and that there is no benefit. In almost every software or database there exists a need to occassionally eliminate unneeded access, accounts, clutter, etc. Wikipedia is no exception. The public perception of many is that wikipedia is not reliable and that it can't be trusted. Part of the perception, I believe, is due to the fact that we are not policing our own. Having extra accounts with extra access simply floating around is just bad for business. It takes up resources on the server, it adds the potential for abuse (whether intentional or by accident) and it just makes us look unprofessional. I am not saying that we should be like citizendium or whatever its called but we should have some semblance of order. Also, in regards to the mention that there are simply not enough folks with access to go around. I also submitted a suggestion to modularize the 25 or so admin tools so that besides the admin package others would have the individual tools that they need to support. Not as administrators per say but as an extension of the administrators wingspan in specific areas ( antivandalism, susipcious user activity, etc). Similar to how we did rollback. That didn't cause the mass chaos that some suggested and this wouldn't either if we do it right. We certainly don't everyone to have administrative rights and yes it may require additional work, but if we temper that additional work with enabling users with the tools they need to support the administrators and stewards then this can work and at the same time enhance the crdibility, even if only by a little bit, of wikipedia in general.--Kumioko (talk) 15:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You're argument is completely fallacious: no widely-read source (I'm not talking about the Wikipedia Review, I'm talking the news articles that people actually read) has criticized us for not dropping inactive admin accounts. It's not an issue of professional image when it hasn't hurt our "professional image". Besides, Wikipedia didn't get the respect it has by constantly altering itself to fit the conventional idea of what constitutes reliability and professionalism. In fact, we run on exactly::: the opposite of professionalism: volunteerism. And that said, this housecleaning you're talking about? That's people. Real admins who have devoted their time and energy to this project, and (if you read some of the opposes) don't like this. Van Tucky 17:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Although I take exception to you calling me a lier, if you ask someone on the street, besides whats in black and white, say a teacher for example they would say that it can't be trusted. Your right though it has never been said that we should scubb our list of admins its still housekeeping, I suppose you never ash your close or take a shower, same goes here.  Also, on the note of they are real people, of course they are knowone said anything different but the fact remains they are unlikely to return and if they do so much has changed since they left 2 or 3 years ago they would likely do more harm than good.  Good aggressive tone though nice to see you establishing yourself with those new tools.--Kumioko (talk) 17:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't call you a liar, I said you're wrong. Fallicious is the adjective form of the word fallacy, which simply means a mistaken belief (not an intentional untruth). I'm not going to support this, and neither should anyone else, on hypothetical scenarios involving teachers. What the oppose voters are asking for is a single sound and immediate benefit to the project, not the negation of hypothetical harm. And please keep to discussing the content, not the contributor. Van Tucky 18:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You seem to be basing your comment on 1 paragraph above but you seem to be missing the conversation that has gone on for the last 3 days. Perhaps if you go back and read the original write-up it will make more sense. I have no doubt you will still oppose and this whole comment is mute since this will likely be closed with no consensus but at least you will have a better understanding of the whole thing and not just the paragraph I added above. By the way what am I wrong about, my opinion that we don't need 50 accounts with admin rights that haven't been used in 2 or 3 years that will likely not return anyway?--Kumioko (talk) 18:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is wrong. Those accounts don't do any harm, there is no evidence they actually get cracked more, and occasionally those admins come back to participate. If it's just 50 account out of 1500+ admins, it makes it a huge waste of time. It's not a big problem. Van Tucky  18:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Just to clear up an apparent misconception above: It does not take up additional resources on the server to leave these accounts where they are. Desyssopping them all would require far more resources than leaving them there. In any case server resources is very rarely a reason to do anything. As for your other points, I am a proponent of the view that addressing vague hypothetical problems that have never come up is never a reason to do anything. Additionally, washing one's clothes and taking a shower is necessary for proper hygiene and good health and a variety of other reasons. Cleaning this list is not even remotely necessary; there is an accurate list in existence, and the list is rarely useful anyway except to verify whether a particular person is an admin. If you want to find an admin to do something searching Special:Listadmins is quite possibly the least efficient method possible, and making it smaller would do little to change that.-- Dycedarg  &#x0436;  18:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The bottom line in all of this to me is that in all likely hood someone who hasn't done a single edit in a year is unlikely to come back and certainly someone who had the admin tools in 2003 who left and never edited again is, in my opinion gone for good. There are many reasons why they may not come back least of which is that they are no longer alive or in a capacity to edit. People obviously find the time to vandalize wikipedia so its not beyond reason (to me at least) that one may find the time to vandalize it with a long lost admin account.  I just simply don't understand why there is so much opposition to removing these tools from people who don't need them because they are not using them, are likely not coming back anyway, and can simply ask for them back in the small chance they do come back and want them.--Kumioko (talk) 11:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

There is still not consensus for this idea
This has been proposed many times in the past and it has failed to get consensus each time. This is what has happened here yet again. I think this poll has only confirmed that there is not consensus to mass desysop inactive admins. undefinedUntil 17:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree there is no consensus here. And very likely, barring some massive !vote switching/position changing, or a proliferation of new users all jumping on one side or the other, never will be.  I move that this should yet again be closed, sent back to WP:PEREN.  I move to close this as it has proven to be too contentious and has driven editors apart rather than together.  Any seconds?  Thirds? ( zOMG, do we need a poll to close the poll :-)   Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  17:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I think what we have had here is no consensus. Partly this is because people just don't agree with what is being proposed, but there is a problem with knowing now just what is being discussed. What we had is a very specific proposal, which almost immediately started to get varied by different wording, different lengths of time of inactivity before removal of admin tools, and differing ways in which removed tools could be reinstated. Because of this, it was almost bound to fail. I draw people's attention to the comments that I made in the section: "A better way of doing this than a bald straw poll of a single option" where the three separate questions are dealt with in a number of stages. As it is, I certainly support this current discussion being closed as it was a fundamentally flawed process to begin with in being far too specific at this stage, and it was thus almost guaranteed to lead to no consensus.  DDStretch    (talk)  17:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Regrettably, I concur that it is unlikely that we are going to reach a consensus on this issue and therefore we may as well close it.--Kumioko (talk) 17:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

It's clear that consensus has not been reached per the above - straw polling is sometimes a good way to determine is consensus is attainable, and currently, as in the past, it is not. Suggest preserving this debate and closing so no further changes should be made. Archive it.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 18:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure I've said this elsewhere, but I for one am happy to reconsider if new convincing arguments are brought forward in favour of this proposal—I promise not to rebutt them with "WP:PEREN!!"...the problem is that nothing particularly convincing has been brought forward here (inactive admins are useless, for instance, would be a weak argument even if it wasn't offensive). dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 10:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Consenus in a matter as important as this is not that important. Sometimes change has to be imposed from up on high and the masses will have to either 1) get over it, or 2) leave. this is too crucial an issue to trust to such platitudes as "consensus." JeanLatore (talk) 13:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Says who? We base things on consensus. If you think it is so "crucial" that it needs to be "imposed", then I think you will be disappointed. I think plenty of argument has been made that this is not crucial at all and I think it is unlikely that the stewards will enact this without consensus. undefinedUntil  13:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Word change
I'll support if, in the sentence if an inactive admin returns to wikipedia, they may be resysopped by a bureaucrat without further discussion you change may to either should or will. May appears to leave wriggle room, and you've already left enough wriggle room in the run-on which states providing they left wikipedia in good standing and not in controversial circumstances, and that their identity is not in dispute. Hiding T 10:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)