Wikiquote:Requests for adminship/MosheZadka (inactivity discussion)
From Wikiquote
- The following discussion is an archived debate. 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 19:02, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Starting discussion here to remove Admin flag, unfortunately, due to over four (4) years of inactivity.
- Zero activity on Wikiquote since 2010 [1]. Also inactive on Wikipedia since 2010 [2].
- Currently holds Admin flag [3].
- No email enabled as required by admins, see: Special:EmailUser/MosheZadka.
- Queried by BD2412 about inactivity DIFF, but no response, and no way to email user a notification.
- I also notified the user at his user talk page on en.wikipedia DIFF.
- Please vote with "Remove" or "Keep".
Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 16:37, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Vote ends: 2015·02·16 (16 February 2015)
Remove
- Remove, as nominator, per above. -- Cirt (talk) 16:37, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove say zero activity since 2007. OccultZone (talk) 15:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove. The lack of email ices it. (My opinion is that admins should always be accessible through email; obviously, they are not obligated to respond by email, and many will choose to respond on-wiki.). --Abd (talk) 02:11, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove, inactive and no email to contact them on. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 13:45, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove, no email, and lengthy period of disengagement cross wiki. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥ 16:57, 24 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) 20:08, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Per Ningauble, Kalki, and DanielTom. Mdd (talk) 16:51, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep · 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·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 23:44, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- DanielTom, Mdd, and Kalki, I would ask you to consider this case as different from the other recent de-adminship requests, as this is the only one where the admin does not have an e-mail contact, leaving no way to even ping him for information. In most wikis, it is a bottom-line requirement that admins have e-mail activated. BD2412 T 17:52, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree with BD2412, however in this case and the other cases, the admins haven't even bothered to respond to the email notification or indeed any of the notifications by BD2412, myself, and others. -- Cirt (talk) 20:24, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree with Pmlineditor to support discussing on framing some sort of inactivity policy. -- Mdd (talk) 21:31, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I am certainly willing to consider this additional aspect of the situation as one which might be properly specified in drawing up any properly formalized criteria for suspension or removal of admin privileges in the future, but am really still inclined to believe that the urgency and priority which have been given such matters recently to be a bit overblown. I see little need for swift or sudden action on it, and believe that there are numerous things of greater immediate importance to be addressed here. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 00:07, 24 February 2015 (UTC) + tweaks[reply]
- Going through this kind of vote once a year for people who have not been active cross wiki seems sensible to me. And after doing it for a few years, then this community will be in a better position to write and support a guideline because people will have thought through the way it would work and the ramifications of the process. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥ 17:05, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, FloNight, most appreciated. -- Cirt (talk) 16:19, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Going through this kind of vote once a year for people who have not been active cross wiki seems sensible to me. And after doing it for a few years, then this community will be in a better position to write and support a guideline because people will have thought through the way it would work and the ramifications of the process. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥ 17:05, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I am certainly willing to consider this additional aspect of the situation as one which might be properly specified in drawing up any properly formalized criteria for suspension or removal of admin privileges in the future, but am really still inclined to believe that the urgency and priority which have been given such matters recently to be a bit overblown. I see little need for swift or sudden action on it, and believe that there are numerous things of greater immediate importance to be addressed here. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 00:07, 24 February 2015 (UTC) + tweaks[reply]
- Agree with Pmlineditor to support discussing on framing some sort of inactivity policy. -- Mdd (talk) 21:31, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree with BD2412, however in this case and the other cases, the admins haven't even bothered to respond to the email notification or indeed any of the notifications by BD2412, myself, and others. -- Cirt (talk) 20:24, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- DanielTom, Mdd, and Kalki, I would ask you to consider this case as different from the other recent de-adminship requests, as this is the only one where the admin does not have an e-mail contact, leaving no way to even ping him for information. In most wikis, it is a bottom-line requirement that admins have e-mail activated. BD2412 T 17:52, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- Note: In this case to sum up we have: No activity for four (4) years, no email listed at Special:EmailUser/MosheZadka, and no response to inactivity query from four days ago. I tried emailing the user at the email listed here. -- Cirt (talk) 16:37, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: Discussion open since 9 February 2015. Two (2) users commented for "Remove", and no other comments. -- Cirt (talk) 20:03, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see how this can be closed as representing any consensus of the community with only two editors weighing in. I would suggest keeping it open a while longer. BD2412 T 23:36, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It's been open 11 days. I suppose a few more days can't hurt. -- Cirt (talk) 23:44, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see how this can be closed as representing any consensus of the community with only two editors weighing in. I would suggest keeping it open a while longer. BD2412 T 23:36, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I would not do this for one such request, but if a series of these accumulate, there could be a site-message pointing to a combined discussion. On the other hand, we should have routine procedure for inactivity removal, and the procedure would provide that an unopposed request could be actioned without prejudice ('crat discretion, and any crat can undo that later, if there was a problem). The request would be made here, and the lack of objection in the prescribed period would be enough to go ahead, ad-hoc. These should all be kept simple. If there ever is a controversy, the process should be announced by a wider notice, such as site-message or at least the Pump. --Abd (talk) 02:08, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Village Pump notified, with link to this discussion page. -- Cirt (talk) 04:32, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I would not do this for one such request, but if a series of these accumulate, there could be a site-message pointing to a combined discussion. On the other hand, we should have routine procedure for inactivity removal, and the procedure would provide that an unopposed request could be actioned without prejudice ('crat discretion, and any crat can undo that later, if there was a problem). The request would be made here, and the lack of objection in the prescribed period would be enough to go ahead, ad-hoc. These should all be kept simple. If there ever is a controversy, the process should be announced by a wider notice, such as site-message or at least the Pump. --Abd (talk) 02:08, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.