Removing inactive admin Options

[Ottava]

Anyone notice this? Or that on Meta it was listed and used to desysop a lot of old, old admin accounts with no activity? It seems silly that it took so very long for this to happen. I do love how those like Abd fought tooth and nail for it to happen at Wikiversity. I'm rather glad that they finally fixed the problem on Wikipedia.

[Kevin]

Anyone notice this? Or that on Meta it was listed and used to desysop a lot of old, old admin accounts with no activity? It seems silly that it took so very long for this to happen. I do love how those like Abd fought tooth and nail for it to happen at Wikiversity. I'm rather glad that they finally fixed the problem on Wikipedia.

What problem is that exactly?

[NuclearWarfare]

Anyone notice this? Or that on Meta it was listed and used to desysop a lot of old, old admin accounts with no activity? It seems silly that it took so very long for this to happen. I do love how those like Abd fought tooth and nail for it to happen at Wikiversity. I'm rather glad that they finally fixed the problem on Wikipedia.

What problem is that exactly?

Now people who buy old admin accounts have to go to WP:BN and wait 6 hours to get the tools back instead of being able to do what they want immediately.

[Ottava]

I was thinking more of the zombie accounts. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

But seriously, it removes the over inflated number for how many admin there are while also removing one more aspect of it being a reward - i.e. removing it for not using it. That is one more step to an community standard of admin being a job that has obligations (i.e., being active, doing good work, not being corrupt, etc).

[lilburne]

being active,

OK

doing good work,

OK

not being corrupt,

Spoilsport.

[Abd]

Anyone notice this? Or that on Meta it was listed and used to desysop a lot of old, old admin accounts with no activity? It seems silly that it took so very long for this to happen. I do love how those like Abd fought tooth and nail for it to happen at Wikiversity. I'm rather glad that they finally fixed the problem on Wikipedia.

Uh, Ottava seems a bit confused here. The majority in the community argued that removing sysop status for inactivity was not an improvement. Ottava is the one who argued "tooth and nail, " and he argued so strongly that he incensed the body of administrators, thus effectively canvassing them to find him, himself, a problem....

What just happened on meta was that a steward jumped the gun, desysopping a huge pile of administrators based on an incomplete decision on Wikpedia. Classic meta screw-up. However, the stewards consider, ordinarily, that an incorrect desysop is No Big Deal, since any 'crat can fix it. Rather a bit of trouble, though, for a crat to fix several hundred desysops.... The steward admitted to not having read the alleged decision carefully. It provided for preceding process, desysop wasn't to be purely based on removal.

[It's the blimp, Frank]

Why do we need to remove inactive admins? They're not doing any harm. It's the active ones that are the problem. Or should I say, the "activist" ones.

[Kelly Martin]

Just remove all the admins. Make Jimbo do everything. Seems like a good solution to me.

[Abd]

Why do we need to remove inactive admins? They're not doing any harm. It's the active ones that are the problem. Or should I say, the "activist" ones.

Lots of arguments are given. Mostly bogus ones. Ottava had an agenda, proposing routine desysopping on Wikiversity, he was upset that SB_Johnny had resigned the tools in early 2010, and then requested them back and took a position that Ottava Rex didn't like. Indeed, SB_Johnny ... actually filed the CR over Ottava Rex, the very idea was sacreligious.

Hey, Ottava's back! (He's also stirred up shit on Meta, pushing the Poetlister ban -- think of the children! -- and whacking Abigor, very obviously because of Abigor's actions last year on Commons in the porn flap, (again, Think Of The Children!) which had zero to do with the RfC on meta over Abigor.

[EricBarbour]

Fetchcomms is right, but still a dick:

Oppose Per "security concerns" an invalid reason. Consider: how often are accounts compromised? Then: How many of those accounts are administrators? Then: How much damage could a rogue admin account cause before being shut down? Then: How many different ways can rogue admin accounts be quickly stopped? Versus: How much does leaving permissions on inactive accounts hurt? Seriously—when was the last time an old admin account was hacked? I recall Zoe/RickK, and Spencer195. It's not often at all. An active admin account can be "hacked" just as easily. The problem is not with leaving permissions on these accounts. It is with users picking weak passwords. You can't change that except at the individual user level. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:20, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Too bad it's overwhelmingly popular. Of course, Fetchcomms and SoWhy have no information or statistics to back up their opposition, because there ain't any. Because the "community" refuses to keep statistics on admin abuse/hijacking/hacking. (Probably because admins don't like to be told what to do, but that's just me.)

None of this will amount to shit, anyway.

[Ottava]

Why do we need to remove inactive admins? They're not doing any harm. It's the active ones that are the problem. Or should I say, the "activist" ones.

Lots of arguments are given. Mostly bogus ones.

Abd, the only bogus arguments tend to come from you - you happen to be one of the most self-serving, contradictory hypocrites I've ever met. The only reason why you wanted to stir up opposition to something that I didn't propose but came from Darklama was because you wanted to try and get people who had no connection to the community and did nothing with their tools to rise up and attack an "enemy".

The simple fact is this: if you aren't active and you aren't helping out, you don't deserve to have the tool. It isn't an award or a status symbol. It is a duty, and if you are too lazy to do a duty, you shouldn't have it. It is for the actions like the above that if anyone wants to give you any position of power, I honestly think they need a lobotomy or already received one.

[Vigilant]

Why do we need to remove inactive admins? They're not doing any harm. It's the active ones that are the problem. Or should I say, the "activist" ones.

Lots of arguments are given. Mostly bogus ones.

Abd, the only bogus arguments tend to come from you - you happen to be one of the most self-serving, contradictory hypocrites I've ever met. The only reason why you wanted to stir up opposition to something that I didn't propose but came from Darklama was because you wanted to try and get people who had no connection to the community and did nothing with their tools to rise up and attack an "enemy".

The simple fact is this: if you aren't active and you aren't helping out, you don't deserve to have the tool. It isn't an award or a status symbol. It is a duty, and if you are too lazy to do a duty, you shouldn't have it. It is for the actions like the above that if anyone wants to give you any position of power, I honestly think they need a lobotomy or already received one.

Please.

I followed the kerfluffle on wikiversity. Ottava, you were the primary problem in that dust up.

Your continuous belly aching about how you had arbs/stewards/crats/admins in your pocket and how everyone that you spoke to/canvassed on IRC/skype/etc was just hilarious...and sad.

[SpiderAndWeb]

Anyone notice this? Or that on Meta it was listed and used to desysop a lot of old, old admin accounts with no activity? It seems silly that it took so very long for this to happen. I do love how those like Abd fought tooth and nail for it to happen at Wikiversity. I'm rather glad that they finally fixed the problem on Wikipedia.

Fine. Inactive admins get the tools they aren't using anyway removed so that their accounts don't cause massive disruption if they get hacked, and if they do come back, regaining the tools is trivial. Sounds like a rare case where common sense prevailed.

Certain royalists who fight any perceived attempt to decrease their "power" and privileges might be upset, of course... but surely that's not the real reason behind the oppose votes here (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

[The Joy]

Why not have developers make so that sysop accounts that are inactive for one year become automatically de-sysopped?

[Kelly Martin]

Why not have developers make so that sysop accounts that are inactive for one year become automatically de-sysopped?

Because (a) that would make sense and (b) having an automated process that removes sysop bits will only lead to ZOMG SKYNET!

Remember all the stupid idiotic arguments against having bot accounts with sysop flags?

[Milton Roe]

Anyone notice this? Or that on Meta it was listed and used to desysop a lot of old, old admin accounts with no activity? It seems silly that it took so very long for this to happen. I do love how those like Abd fought tooth and nail for it to happen at Wikiversity. I'm rather glad that they finally fixed the problem on Wikipedia.

Fine. Inactive admins get the tools they aren't using anyway removed so that their accounts don't cause massive disruption if they get hacked, and if they do come back, regaining the tools is trivial. Sounds like a rare case where common sense prevailed.

Certain royalists who fight any perceived attempt to decrease their "power" and privileges might be upset, of course... but surely that's not the real reason behind the oppose votes here (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

This actually caused one of the items at WP:PERRENIAL to be removed. Remember it for your children so you can say you saw it happen once.

I'm waiting for some policy change to happen at WP that somebody there formally notes began with suggestions and arguments at WR. Now, if they'd get to work on the dang anti-aging pills I might have a shot at seeing that also. Or perhaps, if cryonics works.

[Abd]

Abd, the only bogus arguments tend to come from you - you happen to be one of the most self-serving, contradictory hypocrites I've ever met. The only reason why you wanted to stir up opposition to something that I didn't propose but came from Darklama was because you wanted to try and get people who had no connection to the community and did nothing with their tools to rise up and attack an "enemy".

The simple fact is this: if you aren't active and you aren't helping out, you don't deserve to have the tool. It isn't an award or a status symbol. It is a duty, and if you are too lazy to do a duty, you shouldn't have it. It is for the actions like the above that if anyone wants to give you any position of power, I honestly think they need a lobotomy or already received one.

Vintage Ottava.

"the most self-serving, contradictory hypocrites I've ever met."

Ottava, let me recommend something to you. Meet yourself. It's not easy, but it can be done, if you realize the value. You will go through life, encountering assholes. There is one common factor. You.

The factual claims above remain preposterous. Some of the people whom Ottava wanted desysopped have become active, when the need appeared. I didn't want to "stir up opposition," and I didn't canvass. SBJ notified the sysops who were being considered as inactive, sort of a minimum action, and he disclosed that.

The general sense at Wikiversity is that it's hard enough to get decent sysops, and removing some for no offense, but only because, for a time, they do something else, seems to possibly create a loss for no actual gain. I am not necessarily opposed to automatic removal, particularly if tools can be regained easily. Part of what Ottava accomplished with his behavior was to make it more difficult to become a Wikiversity custodian, though it's unclear that this problem will last. He also tried to make it difficult to regain tools if they were voluntarily relinquished. It was all very personal, based on what he wanted or didn't want in any particular situation.

[Ottava]

... and removing some for no offense, but only because, for a time, they do something els...

Example that Abd lives in a fantasy world: some of those who had adminship never used the adminship and retired back in 2006. They were never part of the community nor did they really gain the ops except through whatever silly reason.

Out of the 25 admin, 12 of them were inactive for 3 years. That is -embarrassing-. Wikipedia has similar embarrassing numbers. No legitimate group, social or business, acts in such a way. If you go inactive, you do not keep leadership powers. You might keep basic membership, but even that is reduced.


And for the record: "It was all very personal, based on what he wanted or didn't want in any particular situation."

This ignores that Darklama et al were asking for these things for a very long time and I merely pointed out and organized the proposal for a discussion. Abd, hating that he wasn't given adminship, desired to go bonkers over it. Abd has no place in any kind of academic facility or an organization that pretends to be such.

This post has been edited by Ottava:

[Kelly Martin]

And once again, Martin's Law strikes.

[Somey]

And once again, Martin's Law strikes.

Since that post is in a members-only forum, it would be useful to remind folks that Martin's Law states that "on Wikipedia Review, the probability that a thread is about Ottava approaches one as the length of the thread tends to infinity."