Wikiquote:Requests for adminship/Jaxl (inactivity discussion)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new topic on this or other appropriate talk page. No further edits should be made to this text.

The result was: no consensus to remove administrative rights at this time. BD2412 T 19:03, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jaxl (talk · contributions)

Starting discussion here to remove Admin flag, unfortunately, due to over seven (7) years of inactivity.
Zero activity on Wikiquote since 2008 [1]. Also inactive on Wikipedia since 2006 [2].
Currently holds Admin flag [3].
Please vote with "Remove" or "Keep".

Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 00:47, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vote ends: 2015·02·11 (11 February 2015)

Remove

Remove, as nominator, per above. -- Cirt (talk) 00:47, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Remove, for this wiki to survive the next 10 years, it needs an active group of admins..--Ste moc 04:15, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Remove and support discussing on framing some sort of inactivity policy. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 13:16, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per nom and evidence of inactivity. OccultZone (talk) 17:02, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

Keep – I don't think inactivity is a good enough reason to remove someone's adminship. The likelihood of any account being compromised is almost zero (and, should it happen, it is easily noticed). ~ DanielTom (talk) 20:10, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Ningauble, Kalki, and DanielTom. -- Mdd (talk) 16:49, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep · I have not had time to attend to many matters here much lately, but as I have stated elsewhere, with such a small community, the process of removing adminship for simple lack of activity is not something I find either desirable or necessary. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 23:41, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Note: I've notified the user via: Posts to their user talk page both here on Wikiquote and on en.wikipedia, and also sent them a notification via email. -- Cirt (talk) 00:50, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't disagree, but I would recommend in the future that these notices be made a week or so before any inactivity discussion is initiated. We're not in a great rush with these. BD2412 T 01:46, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Jaxl was queried about inactivity over seven (7) years ago. -- Cirt (talk) 02:00, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Still, can't hurt to give it a week. Cheers! BD2412 T 04:11, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - Heh, I guess seven (7) years, plus one week, is okay. -- Cirt (talk) 11:29, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – As I remarked in a recent case, I do not think this is a good way to use the vote of confidence process. It would be better to establish a policy requiring current activity, if that is the sense of the community, rather than picking off selected individuals for putative truancy. I am not voting "remove" or "keep" as the question has been framed because I oppose the process and the nomination. ~ Ningauble (talk) 20:02, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- But Wikiquote doesn't have such a policy. We have this process, for this purpose. -- Cirt (talk) 20:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Note: Additional threaded discussion with back-and-forth replies, moved to talk page. -- Cirt (talk) 17:14, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Discussion open since 5 February 2015. Four (4) users commented for "Remove", and one neither Remove/Keep, commented with "Oppose". -- Cirt (talk) 20:03, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Village Pump notified, with link to this discussion page. -- Cirt (talk) 04:32, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new topic on this or other appropriate talk page. No further edits should be made to this text.