Wikiquote talk:Requests for adminship/Inactivity

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)Reply

• 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)Reply
  • Good points, all. I've changed "five admin actions" to "five edits to Wikiquote". -- Cirt (talk) 02:09, 18 March 2015 (UTC)Reply
    • Yes, that is better. BD2412 T 02:59, 18 March 2015 (UTC)Reply
      • Thank you, agreed! -- Cirt (talk) 16:02, 18 March 2015 (UTC)Reply
        • 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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply