Slim Virgin wrote: While we're at it, why don't we start blocking all of the user accounts of users who aren't active editors? Every time this has been looked into, we find that it's a relatively small number of users who actively edit. Has anyone here ever heard of the [[Pareto principle]]? Slim Virgin's comment reflects the sort of paranoid attitude that really needs to be countered. Is there any evidence whatsoever that inactive sysops are actually creating a problem? If there's no evidence of a problem, what exactly would desysopping them fix? This whole sad thread began when Jayjg asked a question during an RfA based on information that he obtained using a power (checkuser) which even regular sysops do not possess. His question was posed to CharlotteWebb, a user who has done no discernible harm to Wikipedia. As justification for the question, Slim Virgin has proposed a scenario in which the user might be making harmless anti-vandal edits for the purpose of becoming an admin, with the ultimate goal of someday getting on ArbCom and wreaking havoc. Jayjg threw in some dark mutterings about WR and added ominously that *someone* has been leaking information about deleted pages to Wikitruth. And Jayjg accuses *other* people of engaging in conspiracy theories? Is there any evidence whatsoever, other than the fervent imaginations of Jayjg and Slim Virgin, to support the conclusion that CharlotteWebb is a front for the anti-Wikipedia forces that Slim and J think they're fighting? To suggest that a user might be editing via a Tor proxy with the goal of someday getting on ArbCom so they can wreak havoc is a pretty fanciful conspiracy theory all by itself. To embellish it with ad hominem references to unrelated topics such as WR and WikiTruth takes it into tinfoil hats territory. If someone wanted to do as Slim Virgin suggests, they would actually AVOID using TOR to edit under their "Trojan horse" user account. Using TOR just makes them more likely to stand out. Instead, they'd use an AOL account or some other disposable non-TOR vehicle to build up their ratings as a "respected user" and then as a respected sysop. If they were clever, they'd also make a point of siding with Slim Virgin and Jayjg and some other influential WIkipedians in a few editorial disputes, throwing in a bit of flattery to curry favor and ensure that no one suspects them of anything. Then they'd strike, get blocked, and start the whole game over again. In short, there's no way to absolutely prevent someone from occasionally getting admin status and using it briefly for malicious purposes that can be visibly connected to his/her user name. There's probably no way to prevent someone from getting admin status and using it indefinitely for purposes that CANNOT be visibly connected to their user name (such as looking up deleted pages). Fortunately, most vandals and trolls lack the patience and time to engage in this sort of thing. Wikipedia's "soft security" philosophy has been based on this realization: You can't absolutely secure the website against trolls and outside critics, but you CAN create an environment in which the time consumed in fighting vandals is minimized, and one of the ways that you accomplish this is by maximizing the number of people who are able to participate. If Wikipedia starts looking for excuses to desysop people such as "they haven't been active lately," it will hurt the project rather than help it. -------------------------------- | Sheldon Rampton | Research director, Center for Media & Democracy (www.prwatch.org) | Author of books including: | Friends In Deed: The Story of US-Nicaragua Sister Cities | Toxic Sludge Is Good For You | Mad Cow USA | Trust Us, We're Experts | Weapons of Mass Deception | Banana Republicans | The Best War Ever -------------------------------- | Subscribe to our free weekly list serve by visiting: | http://www.prwatch.org/cmd/subscribe_sotd.html | | Donate now to support independent, public interest reporting: | http://www.prwatch.org/donate --------------------------------