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

Comment about possible inactivity policy

• Oppose – As I remarked in a recent case, I do not think this is a good way to use the vote of confidence process. It would be better to establish a policy requiring current activity, if that is the sense of the community, rather than picking off selected individuals for putative truancy. I am not voting "remove" or "keep" as the question has been framed because I oppose the process and the nomination. ~ Ningauble (talk) 20:02, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  • But Wikiquote doesn't have such a policy. We have this process, for this purpose. -- Cirt (talk) 20:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  • And not sure what is being implied by "putative truancy", there is nothing negative about it. Inactivity of over seven (7) years is the issue here, not anything "putative truancy". -- Cirt (talk) 20:53, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
    • I do not believe seven (7) years is the issue here any more than four (4) years was the issue last time: there is a general issue independent of these particulars. Yes, we have no general policy. I am saying that it would be better for you to seek consensus for a general policy than to single out particular individuals. ~ Ningauble (talk) 21:32, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
      • Last time you opposed at the other one, when the user was inactive for over four (4) years. What timeframe would be acceptable to you, in terms of years of inactivity? -- Cirt (talk) 23:55, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
        • Last time I voted to keep someone in whom I have very high confidence. Full stop.

          This is a vote of no confidence in an individual. For people in whom I lack confidence my time frame would be immediate: the more active they are, the more quickly we need to deal with it. ~ Ningauble (talk) 01:19, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

          • Not what I was asking. For a proposed inactivity policy, what timeframe would you be comfortable with of a period of inactivity to remove sysop rights, without prejudice? Two years? Four years? -- Cirt (talk) 01:25, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
            • (1) I have already said that I do not think this is the appropriate venue for discussion of a policy initiative. You are free to disagree, but please do not hound me about it. (2) I have already said that I do not think being absent for a period of time is itself sufficient reason to recall someone. You are free to disagree, but please do not badger me with impertinent questions in any venue. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:44, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
              • Okay, I can understand you feel a different venue is appropriate -- and I'll consider creating some other policy page about admin inactivity. It just seems like a recommendation that could potentially simultaneously be a waste of time, if you're suggesting I go create a policy page for a policy you would then subsequently oppose. -- Cirt (talk) 16:49, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
                • There are some requirements for retaining user rights that I would support in such a policy, and some that I would not. Please do not assume a different venue was suggested in bad faith. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:03, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
                  • Not assuming anything. Read it in your comments, above: " I have already said that I do not think being absent for a period of time is itself sufficient reason to recall someone." Therefore, to also suggest I go and waste time creating policy, when you disagree with it, for inactivity, seems quite silly. -- Cirt (talk) 17:11, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
                    • (1) You do not create policy, the community creates policy after discussion. You may recall that your proposal for image use policy was discussed extensively, and the adopted policy was substantially different from what you proposed. That did not make your proposal a complete waste of time, and you even voted in favor of what was adopted.

                      (2) To say it is silly of me to suggest formalizing a policy while opposing a particular stipulation as insufficient in itself is just a gratuitous insult. If you continue to insult, badger, or hound me then I will ask for independent administrative review of the situation. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:45, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

                      • Correct, I would draft something. I'm not saying it's silly of you. I'm saying it'd be silly of me to do something IFF it'd be sure to get opposition from inception. -- Cirt (talk) 18:47, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
                      • I will, however, consider drafting something up, anyways, as it does seem from the responses from the last 2 discussions so far, that the community is in support of these measures with regards to inactivity. -- Cirt (talk) 18:53, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
                        • Fine, I will assume that in writing "to also suggest ... seems quite silly", which clearly refers to my act of suggestion, you did not write what you meant to say.

                          To save yourself some time and effort, and remembering how the image policy discussion initially stalled, I recommend holding some preliminary discussion to get ideas for the policy before drafting anything very detailed or elaborate. Just a suggestion. ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:18, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

                          • So far, it seems the community feels the current process is working at least relatively well, with almost unanimous consensus in this ongoing discussion. But I admit, I'm a bit hesitant to draft something up, when there's such a strong comment above: "I have already said that I do not think being absent for a period of time is itself sufficient reason to recall someone." That comment is having a bit of a chilling effect on my motivation to draft up something. -- Cirt (talk) 19:26, 7 February 2015 (UTC)