It's not a bad idea, but I don't see it as necessary unless:
1. An inactive account was hacked into. 2, If the admin in question requests it.
--Ryan
From: Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com Subject: [WikiEN-l] Desysopping inactive admins
Just to advertise a current proposal:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Desysopsing inactive admins
There are no set proposals yet, but it would be useful to have wider community input into the proposal.
Sam
Meta does it with 50 posts/year if under.
Don't really have an opinion myself yet.
On Sunday, September 18, 2005, at 03:18 PM, Ryan W. (Merovingian) wrote:
It's not a bad idea, but I don't see it as necessary unless:
- An inactive account was hacked into.
2, If the admin in question requests it.
--Ryan
Thanks, RN
On 9/19/05, Ryan W. (Merovingian) bigwiki@earthling.net wrote:
It's not a bad idea, but I don't see it as necessary unless:
- An inactive account was hacked into.
2, If the admin in question requests it.
The only reason I can think of would be that having inactive admins on the books might inflate admin numbers, but we already have [[WP:LA]], which is split into "active", "semi-active" and "inactive" groups as it is.
Personally, I don't see any advantages either unless their account was hacked into. It only makes returning to admin duties harder.
If I were to go away for a few months because I have other obligations in my life, I'd hate to spend extra time trying to find a bureaucrat to get me back to admin status.
It only creates extra work.
--Mgm
On 9/19/05, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/19/05, Ryan W. (Merovingian) bigwiki@earthling.net wrote:
It's not a bad idea, but I don't see it as necessary unless:
- An inactive account was hacked into.
2, If the admin in question requests it.
The only reason I can think of would be that having inactive admins on the books might inflate admin numbers, but we already have [[WP:LA]], which is split into "active", "semi-active" and "inactive" groups as it is.
-- Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 9/18/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
Personally, I don't see any advantages either unless their account was hacked into. It only makes returning to admin duties harder.
If I were to go away for a few months because I have other obligations in my life, I'd hate to spend extra time trying to find a bureaucrat to get me back to admin status.
It only creates extra work.
--Mgm
If you have gone away for 6 mounths getting back to being an admin is going to be very hard anyway. Finding a helpful bureaucrat (trivial just cheack the log to see who is active) is going to be the least of your worries.~~~~
On 9/18/05, Ryan W. (Merovingian) bigwiki@earthling.net wrote:
It's not a bad idea, but I don't see it as necessary unless:
- An inactive account was hacked into.
Being inactive makes you less visible. I think one of the active admins is MUCH more likely to get hacked. If the "hacker" really knows anything, they would try to hit the SQL servers, and delete a few databases... Deleting that much data might even crash the machines, causing a long fsck to be needed.. Or hack the SQL and make it look like all the admins are vandalizing...
2, If the admin in question requests it.
We already desysop you on request, as long as you can prove you're who you claim to be to a steward.
--Ryan
--Phroziac
On 9/18/05, Ryan W. (Merovingian) bigwiki@earthling.net wrote:
It's not a bad idea, but I don't see it as necessary unless:
- An inactive account was hacked into.
2, If the admin in question requests it.
Short of going to the backup tape/drive/whatever device in use, isn't image deletion permanent? If someone hacked an admin account, couldn't they delete dozens, or even hundreds of images before being stopped, especially if they used misleading edit summaries?
Unless ALL admin actions are easily revertable, removal of admin privileges from inactive accounts seems like an extremely obvious method of damage prevention to me.
If it's too much work, we shouldn't dodge the work, we should appoint more bureaucrats until we have more than enough to voluntarily cover all the duties.
On 9/19/05, Michael Turley michael.turley@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/18/05, Ryan W. (Merovingian) bigwiki@earthling.net wrote:
It's not a bad idea, but I don't see it as necessary unless:
- An inactive account was hacked into.
2, If the admin in question requests it.
Short of going to the backup tape/drive/whatever device in use, isn't image deletion permanent? If someone hacked an admin account, couldn't they delete dozens, or even hundreds of images before being stopped, especially if they used misleading edit summaries?
Unless ALL admin actions are easily revertable, removal of admin privileges from inactive accounts seems like an extremely obvious method of damage prevention to me.
If it's too much work, we shouldn't dodge the work, we should appoint more bureaucrats until we have more than enough to voluntarily cover all the duties.
-- Michael Turley User:Unfocused
Image deletions are permanent.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Phroziac wrote:
Image deletions are permanent.
OTOH, Brion told me[0] that making image deletion non-permanent and, indeed, as easily revertable as any other delete is trivial[2], it's just that the dev.s don't really get requests for it but they get requests for a lot of other stuff instead (new features, "help, the site's too slow!", etc.). If the community decides that non-permanent image deletion was a particularly valuable feature, I'm sure they'd add it...[3]
[0] - Though he may well have been drunk at the time.[1] [1] - Yes, indeed, Wikimania /was/ fun. ;-) [2] - For Wikipedia-sized values of "trivial". :-) [3] - Well, OK, they might say that our desire is mis-guided and what we /really/ need is a new thingumydoodle, but...
Yours sincerely, - -- James D. Forrester Wikimedia : [[W:en:User:Jdforrester|James F.]] E-Mail : james@jdforrester.org IM (MSN) : jamesdforrester@hotmail.com
On 9/19/05, James D. Forrester james@jdforrester.org wrote:
OTOH, Brion told me[0] that making image deletion non-permanent and, indeed, as easily revertable as any other delete is trivial[2], it's just that the dev.s don't really get requests for it but they get requests for a lot of other stuff instead (new features, "help, the site's too slow!", etc.). If the community decides that non-permanent image deletion was a particularly valuable feature, I'm sure they'd add it...[3]
[0] - Though he may well have been drunk at the time.[1] [1] - Yes, indeed, Wikimania /was/ fun. ;-) [2] - For Wikipedia-sized values of "trivial". :-) [3] - Well, OK, they might say that our desire is mis-guided and what we /really/ need is a new thingumydoodle, but...
I wouldn't call myself a developer, but I know my way around php (though i'm rusty as i have not touched it in a few years, until recently), and have a tendency of understanding most types of code. Yes, it would be easy. It would also eat a substantial amount of server space, and have to be cleared out somewhat often.