Wikiquote:Requests for adminship/InvisibleSun (inactivity discussion)

Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 03:21, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Zero activity on Wikiquote since 2010 . Also inactive on Wikipedia.
 * 2) Currently holds both Bureaucrat and Admin flags.
 * 3) Starting discussion here to remove both Bureaucrat and Admin flags, unfortunately, due to over four (4) years of inactivity.
 * 4) Please vote with "Remove" or "Keep".

Vote ends:  2015·02·04 (4 February 2015)

Remove

 * Remove, as nominator, per above. -- Cirt (talk) 03:21, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Remove, doesn't need either flag considering they have been inactive for so long. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 14:59, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Remove seems to be inactive for the past few years. I don't believe this user needs the flag at this time. Eurodyne (talk) 23:21, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Remove per nominator, and it has been a long time. OccultZone (talk) 17:53, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Remove No need for a small wiki to keep a bloated list of Admins, most of whom are inactive.. A year of inactivity is fine but 4 years is not...-- Stemoc 22:31, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Remove unless user responds. No response to talk page notices or requests. Last edit, 06:18, 11 April 2010, last logged action was in March before that. No global edits after that are visible (but account was never attached to SUL). Removal should cover both admin and 'crat rights. --Abd (talk) 18:02, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * User responded below, but indicates likelihood of continued inactivity. So my vote remains the same. To be clear, this is not about any improper behavior, only inactivity. --Abd (talk) 03:03, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Remove. I have nothing but respect for InvisibleSun, and would support restoration of these roles in a minute if he returned and requested them. However, he is not here, and we have too many "inactive" rights-holders listed on our boards. BD2412 T 03:11, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Remove both flags for long activity.--Jusjih (talk) 03:54, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Keep

 * Keep – I have complete trust in this excellent contributor, and see no reason to remove his adminship, should he ever wish to return. ~ DanielTom (talk) 15:03, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep — I am also not prone to reduce the numbers of those who have proven themselves generally good, respectable admins here, even if they haven't been active here, or even seem unlikely to return. I certainly don’t seek to close doors of opportunity on those generally respectful of others. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 15:23, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep – In the absence of any indication that the account has been compromised, and because we are an active community with an active recall procedure for handling problems that may arise, I do not believe it is necessary or useful to debar people just because they have been absent for a while. The following points may serve to explain the basis for my opinion:
 * Background: There is a global policy for Admin activity review, whereby Stewards remove the rights of accounts that have been inactive for two years on wikis that do not have processes to review holders of advanced administrative rights. Wikiquote has been exempted from this global review [//meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Admin_activity_review/2014/Data#enwikiquote_.28done.29] because it has and uses a local recall process at Requests for adminship. I concur with the Steward's policy that when there is an effective recall process in place it is not necessary impose arbitrary time limits.
 * Example: Administrator FloNight recently returned after an absence of more than two years (33 months[//en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20150122999999&contribs=user&target=FloNight][//en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&offset=20150122999999&user=FloNight]). One of her first actions upon returning was to rectify a mistake that I had recently made, for which I am grateful. I believe that had FloNight been "timed out" for inactivity it would have been a detriment to Wikiquote.
 * Case in point: It is not entirely clear to me why InvisibleSun has been singled out for a vote of confidence. I have every bit as much confidence in InvisibleSun as in other administrators who have been absent even longer. I have the highest respect for InvisibleSun, and would greatly welcome his return.
 * Process: I do not think this is a good way to use the vote of confidence process. The general proposition that unused rights should expire might be offered as a policy proposal (as was suggested last year without gaining much traction) rather than asking the community to declare a lack of confidence in any individual.
 * To be frank, I have more confidence in InvisibleSun than in an active administrator who has had rights revoked for cause at a larger wiki. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:42, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * InvisibleSun was "singled out" because he is both an admin and also a Bureaucrat, and the only Bureaucrat to be inactive for over four (4) years. -- Cirt (talk) 17:29, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments

 * Comment: It may also be a security risk to allow dormant accounts that have been inactive for over two (2) years to have access to Admin or Bureaucrat flags or other advanced permissions. -- Cirt (talk) 15:45, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with this comment. A long-inactive editor is unlikely to be taking steps to safeguard access to their account. BD2412 T 19:40, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I think the two (2) years of inactivity parameter is a good metric going forwards. -- Cirt (talk) 19:44, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Has an effort been made to contact User:InvisibleSun? BD2412 T 17:08, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd left a message on his Wikiquote user talk page. Just also went and left a message on his Wikipedia user talk page. And sent him an email. No response yet. No edits on English Wikipedia since the year 2010. -- Cirt (talk) 17:19, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. There can and should be two kinds of desysop procedures. One would be without prejudice, and under this procedure, rights are removed but may be routinely recovered with a summary process (i.e., one that does not require supermajority, but only absence of objection or majority). Removal for inactivity should be that kind. The other kind is removal with prejudice, i.e., resignation under a cloud or discussed removal. Setting this up would, then, avoid dispute as we see here.
 * There might even be two kinds of summary removal: one that is equivalent to a resignation, and that can be returned immediately on request, and one that is for long-term absence. One year, say, removal with ready renewal. Four years, we'd want to make sure the returning sysop knew current practices. --Abd (talk) 17:55, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree with everything stated above, by, thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 17:57, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It seems unfeasible to me that I could return to Wikiquote before I retire from work, which would be at least five years from now. To be desysopped "without prejudice" would be agreeable. Best wishes to everyone. InvisibleSun (talk)
 * I'd most certainly agree with the "without prejudice" part. :) Good luck, -- Cirt (talk) 22:50, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * As one of the Remove voters, I'd be horrified if this were taken as any kind of accusation of improper behavior. This is a removal only for inactivity, not for any kind of reprehensibility. Thanks, InvisibleSun, for showing up and acknowledging your inactivity and likely continuation of that, and best wishes with whatever you do. --Abd (talk) 03:01, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Request actioned. 20:23, 5 February 2015. Note by Abd (talk) 18:09, 7 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Request closed as granted by bureaucrat UDScott 21:24, 6 February 2015 note by Abd (talk) 18:09, 7 February 2015 (UTC)