Wikiquote talk:Requests for adminship/Iddo999 (inactivity discussion)

Additional concerns

 * More odd behavior: In addition to zero contributions, ever, to English Wikipedia, we have prior history uploading obvious copyvio to Wikimedia Commons, and indef block on English Wikinews. -- Cirt (talk) 20:11, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Is this a discussion of inactivity or a hearing on charges of misconduct? If the latter, please note the Wikinews account was blocked expressly because it was believed to be an impersonator who is not the same person as Wikiquote's Iddo999. I hope it will not be necessary to waste everybody's time presenting detailed evidence that Iddo999 was the victim, not the perpetrator, of cross-wiki vandalism in order to rebut this incredibly cheap shot. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:46, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Most certainly not a "cheap shot", not a "hearing on charges of misconduct". Please don't make assumptions, thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 18:18, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Regardless of your contention that it is not a hearing, the introduction of so-called "odd behavior" is not relevant to a discussion on inactivity here - that is why it was termed a cheap shot (and I happen to agree that it was). Please keep the discussion to the topic at hand. ~ UDScott (talk) 18:30, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, I called it a cheap shot because it is a lie. As DanielTom points out, the lie was even repeated after I explained the truth of the matter. Maybe we should be holding a vote of confidence on charges of misconduct by a Wikiquote administrator, but Iddo999 is the wrong person to indict. ~ Ningauble (talk) 22:58, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, I modified the comment to state the facts, that the account, not necessarily the user, was subject to possible impersonation. But as echoed by BD2412 regarding security concerns of dormant accounts, this especially becomes an issue with (1) Inactive admin account, that (2) Impersonation history at sister site. With both of those problems, combined, that's when it's a concern here. -- Cirt (talk) 00:59, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * As you are well aware, it is not the same account. SUL did not even exist at the time. You should also be aware that creating an account elsewhere with the same name poses no risk whatsoever of exposing Iddo999's password and compromising the account at Wikiquote. ~ Ningauble (talk) 02:08, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'm not certain it is or is not the same account. But it does indeed expose a vulnerability. And combined with the inactive admin account, it's relevant to the issue echoed by that "A long-inactive editor is unlikely to be taking steps to safeguard access to their account.". -- Cirt (talk) 02:16, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Firstly, I would like to know exactly how you imagine the existence of a blocked impersonator account on another wiki creates any vulnerability for compromising access to the Wikiquote account. Even if it were not blocked, there is no conceivable way it could be used to log into Wikiquote or access the administrator toolset. You are just making things up. Secondly, you should actually be very certain that these non-unified accounts are not the same account, as a matter of definition. I would expect a newcomer who arrived after SUL and automatic account creation were introduced to be ignorant of how accounts on Wikimedia projects work; but anyone who has been an administrator on multiple projects for years, and has even been a checkuser, must be fully conversant with how account registration works or else be completely incompetent. I find your plea of ignorance very difficult to believe, and the alternative is no less disturbing. Finally, insinuations about what you call "odd behavior" are readily understood to impugn the user's conduct. You have given no evidence to justify besmirching his reputation with this sort of muckraking. ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:47, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Not sure I've seen any evidence saying they are or aren't the same person behind the same account. And yes, it is odd behavior for an admin to have zero edits on en.wikipedia. -- Cirt (talk) 14:04, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Fine. I will take your admission, that you are not sure you have seen any evidence either way, at face value as stipulating to reckless disregard of whether it was false or not. I hope you now understand why I called it a "cheap shot". ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:17, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Wrong. False assumption into my personal beliefs and inaccurate representation of my thought process. The fact that the account with the exact same name is indef blocked on en.wikinews is relevant, particularly when dealing with an inactive admin account here. -- Cirt (talk) 19:36, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Regardless of your interpretations of the links above, they are facts. Regardless of those facts, the user is inactive. -- Cirt (talk) 19:43, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's precisely the point: regardless of the links, the user is inactive. Therefore the links do not have any bearing on the question of whether or not this user is inactive. Therefore they do not belong in this discussion. ~ UDScott (talk) 20:31, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It's certainly informative that the account is currently indef blocked on en.wikinews. And it's most definitely relevant that the user is inactive on en.wikipedia. And quite odd that the user has zero contribs to en.wikipedia. -- Cirt (talk) 20:34, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * More defamatory accusations. The user is not blocked at en.wikinews – some other user, who was impersonating him, is. The impersonator was blocked years before SUL finalization. ~ DanielTom (talk) 20:55, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Impersonation concerns led to the account being blocked indef at en.wikinews. Now we have an inactive admin account here at en.wikiquote. The combination of inactivity plus impersonation concerns in the past strong enough to indef block at en.wikinews, together, is reason to consider concerns of security issues with an inactive admin account. -- Cirt (talk) 20:41, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * My point is that you started this particular discussion (and the title of the discussion says it) related to inactivity and now want to bring in side issues that obfuscate that original discussion (something I noticed you have done in other discussions as well). If you want to bring up behavior that you deem suspect, then say so at the top of the thread - don't try to slide it in as a comment below the discussion. Not to mention the fact that I'm not at all sure you have your facts straight. I would just like for once to have a straightforward discussion about something without scope creep, especially when it is done in a manner similar to the U.S. Congress where side issues are tacked onto main issues (and often have nothing to do with the original issue). ~ UDScott (talk) 21:03, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Directly relevant to discussion about inactivity. Someone already apparently tried to impersonate the account before. I agree with this comment by : "A long-inactive editor is unlikely to be taking steps to safeguard access to their account.". Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 21:09, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * While I think it would be helpful for us to have a local policy on the topic, I note that Meta advises that "[t]he maximum time period of inactivity without community review for holders of advanced administrative rights should be two years". I think that's a good rule of thumb to follow. I would prefer that we enact our own policy on the matter before ferreting out more inactive admins to discuss in the absence of any clear rule. BD2412 T 23:20, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It has been a long time since I have commented much on issues as an admin, and I remain somewhat reluctant to do so, until I have studied more of the general Wikimedia situation and policies more thoroughly than I have had the time to do recently, but I am not certain there is any major crisis which is likely to occur in permitting simple administrative rights to be retained indefinitely, and I believe that with such a small body of admins as we have developed and maintained here, only the more advanced levels, such as bureaucrat or check-user, should perhaps have a mandatory "expiration" after a fixed period of inactivity, and two years seems reasonable one in such cases. I really do not perceive any urgent need for such sudden and massive purges of inactive admins, as have recently been promoted as if they should be a top priority of concern. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 00:21, 20 February 2015 (UTC) + tweaks
 * I agree with BD2412, and with Kalki, that the metric that Meta advises of two years seems most reasonable. All inactivity discussions so far for the most recent ones have been those inactive for more than two years. -- Cirt (talk) 00:53, 20 February 2015 (UTC)