Wikiquote talk:Requests for adminship/Inactivity

Note

Note: Modeled after existing process at Wikimedia Commons, Commons:Administrators/De-adminship, and existing Policy for administrator access on Meta.

Still in proposed not yet ready for primetime mode.

-- Cirt (talk) 01:40, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

• In general I like it, but we are less busy than Commons. One thing I do not like is the "five admin actions within the period of six months" language. I presume admin actions means blocking or unblocking an editor, or protecting, unprotecting, deleting or undeleting a page. I can easily see an admin going for six months without doing any of these things. For example, often, when I log in and see the activity of a vandal, that vandal has already been blocked. We should not set up circumstances where an admin will be encouraged to engage in pointless admin actions (like deleting and restoring random pages), just to reach some arbitrary number. I am satisfied with an admin being here to edit at all, and being reasonably responsive to efforts to communicate. BD2412 T 18:33, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Good points, all. I've changed "five admin actions" to "five edits to Wikiquote". -- Cirt (talk) 02:09, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Yes, that is better. BD2412 T 02:59, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
      • Thank you, agreed! -- Cirt (talk) 16:02, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
        • I don't have a problem with a somewhat higher expectation. I don't believe I've had any admin activity in quite a while. I don't feel comfortable doing any until I review whatever the current standards and practices are for something that might warrant admin attention (like someone posting a global-block request to a peculiar subset of admins, instead of posting to WQ:AN). As I mentioned to BD2412 a while ago, I wouldn't necessarily object to being de-admin'd if consensus were to tighten activity requirements. I think all of us inactive rights-holders should be prepared for this, especially since the straightforward way to avoid it is to be just a little bit active – a direct benefit to a project that doesn't get the attention that WP gets. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:54, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
• As an inactive admin, who occasionally lurks here and maybe reverts/blocks a vandal per year or so, I'm okey with this proposed policy, as long as the inactivity period stays in two (2) years or other similar longish time period. I was de-sysopped in fi-wq few years back due to inactivity and only found out about it when I was resuming my editing there. No talk page notification, no email, no nothing. I decided to not contribute anything to that project ever since. jni (talk) 18:22, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I definitely have a problem with "No talk page notification, no email". But as long as active admins make these simple contact attempts and give us a little time to respond, and we inactives keep an eye out and have notifications set, there should be no problem. Codifying both in polilcy covers most everyone. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:17, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Thank you all for the comments and participation, above. It seems we're in agreement that two (2) years with zero edits on Wikiquote is a good metric for Inactivity. -- Cirt (talk) 20:56, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Mandatory email access

See also this interesting bit of info from Aphaia:

"In principle, administrators should register a valid email address and allow other users to send them messages in preferences, or an email address indicated on their user page. For active sysops, as well sysop candidates, it is mandatory."

Could be useful info here, as well. -- Cirt (talk) 02:00, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm inclined to support this. I have a hard time imagining a likely scenario in which someone who wishes to do administrative work (one step up from ordinary editing and two from just reading) cannot supply even a throw-away email address with which we can push communication to them (as opposed to posting on their talk page, which they may not be monitoring). Free addresses are abundant, and an admin can register one that has no connection (other than their IP address, with very limited access) to their other e-personae. We rightly insist on certain levels of trust for elevated authority, and the ability to contact someone reliably (or determine that we cannot reach them anymore) is utterly reasonable. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:28, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

This bit is problematic because of spam: Inactive sysops and guest sysops are recommended to put their wikimail addresson their talk pages Also, even throwaway email addresses can be problematic if want to hide your IP from mass surveillance as most free email providers do not support access through TOR. (don't talk secrets) (talk) 10:29, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I have never yet had a spam problem with my email address. Granted, I don't post it on my profile. BD2412 T 14:37, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I see no need for making email addresses public so long as inactive admins consent to notifications set so they get near-immediate notice of talk-page posts and include a (hidden) email for alternative contact. (I've never found this spam-baiting or at all inconveniencing, even after being one of the more visible admins.) I do feel that if we inactive admins don't monitor either of these contact mechanisms (both of which are push and therefore easier for us), we should be prepared to lose rights. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:29, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. BD2412 T 15:53, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments and participation, above. I agree with all the comments above by BD2412 and Jeffq. Thanks again, -- Cirt (talk) 20:57, 9 May 2015 (UTC)