Open main menu

Commons talk:Administrators/Inactivity section/Feb-Mar 2012

< Commons talk:Administrators‎ | Inactivity section


«These administrators have received a message on their user talk page on February 2»: as a steward pointed out, one such notification has been archived by MiszaBot, but this doesn't make it invalid; however, the policy says «An email should also be sent»: has such an email been sent? Nemo 12:34, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

That is a sensible requirement, and perhaps, if I may suggest, it should be added as a column to the table, like on enwiki, a column for notification, one for email, and then the status, so that it's clear that both steps have been followed. Snowolf (talk) 12:52, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
I did not receive the message in a timely matter, but an e-mail notice would have gotten to me just fine, and if I had received that I would have signed much earlier. Even if there isn't anything that can be done for me (which I hope there is), I think sending out an e-mail notice would be helpful in such cases. -Andrew c (talk) 20:56, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi Andrew c, didn't you have switched on E-mail me when my user talk page is changed in your preferences? --AFBorchert (talk) 22:43, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
I didn't email the administrators - I wasn't aware of that rule. My apologies for that. @Andrew c, I requested to reinstate your right. Trijnsteltalk 23:07, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Thank you Trijnstel. AFB, I have that option on for all of the projects except the two I have been most active in: and commons. However, since I had moved across the country, started a new job, and a lot of other things, I feel perhaps I should have add e-mail notification on for this project (though now that I am settled in, I intend to become more active again). Sorry about that. Lesson learned regardless.-Andrew c (talk) 00:20, 12 March 2012 (UTC)


The policy says «fewer than 5 admin actions on Commons in the past 6 months», it doesn't say "for 6 months". I interpret it as "before the removal"; it wouldn't make sense otherwise, as admin actions are a confirmation of interest in the tool even more than the requested signature. At least one user had made more than five actions before the removal, which therefore appears invalid to me. Nemo 12:34, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

str4nd had his status removed before I got to the scene, so I could no longer check the sysop statistics page (which he was no longer on). Now that you have shown me this, I agree that he is sending a signal that is as clear as signing the page. I am willing to re-sysop to correct this error, as long as there are no objections. --99of9 (talk) 12:45, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree, 5 actions the day after the signing is a strong signal he wants to keep the rights. Feu vert for me. --Dereckson (talk) 13:06, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
On the other hand, it was clear he had to sign here or add a statement, which he didn't do... Trijnsteltalk 21:08, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
We could also ask him what are his intentions, it would simplify the matter, and be coherent with the policy goal: ask every inactive sysop if he's still alive and want to keep his flag. --Dereckson (talk) 21:43, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Fine by me. :-) Trijnsteltalk 21:55, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
I've been in a conscript training since the summer so I'm very busy right now. I have more time for Commons and other Wikimedia projects again on 2012-04-05 when I'm "free"; I would like to keep my flag after that. Sorry for the inconvenience. — str4nd 22:01, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
  •   Done I've reinstated the flag in line with the spirit of the procedures.--99of9 (talk) 03:15, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Return to the project page "Administrators/Inactivity section/Feb-Mar 2012".