Commons talk:Administrators/Inactivity section

The current adminship policy states that an admins loses his adminship without being asked if he was once asked, signed, but was still inactive. As the policy currently stands though, this period is to be six months. And since the last run started August 6, 2007, the de-admin for those admins will wait until at least February 6, 2007. / Fred J (talk) 18:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I received a notice. I would like to keep admin tools. Thank you. --Fang Aili ^talk 15:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moved here. abf /talk to me/ 17:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Administrators/Inactivity_section#Exempt seems silly. There is a global group for sysadmins; they do not need local sysop tools at all, and certainly not if they are inactive. Board members do not require adminship on this wiki (are there any who have adminship for that reason?). Staff have a global group as well. I'll remove this and we'll include such users in the next round unless there is good reason not to.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 17:19, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with this comment and action by Mike.lifeguard (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 17:34, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 20:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I finally got the dreaded notice regarding my inactivity (never thought I'd be in this category), but there's no where to sign. The last page I can find is Commons:Administrators/Inactivity section/Feb-Mar 2011. Is this now done somewhere else? Rocket000 (talk) 02:46, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New folk don't really understand...;) I think there should be a new sub page here. Anyway - I'm a witness to your wish to continue! --Herby ^{talk thyme} 07:45, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Herby. Good to see you're still here. The inactivity notice was dated 2 July so I can be the first one wishing to sign, can I? Or the only inactive admin? (lol) I'll check back again before the month is up. Cheers, Rocket000 (talk) 09:44, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see you're not inactive :)

Actually I copied the warning word by word, but I wasn't aware there are kind of "scheduled runs" ... I prepared the next scheduled run, so you can sign if you like ... or just do some edit actions til August ;-) Regards a×p_de^Hello! 16:19, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here it is written: It may take a few minutes to generate the report. Do you want to poceed? Can the word be changed to "proceed", please. :) →Spiritia 08:14, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Steinsplitter: https://github.com/toollabs/joinedventure/pull/1 -- CptViraj (talk) 17:08, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Spiritia:  Done, Thanks! -- CptViraj (talk) 04:13, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! :) →Spiritia 19:09, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should avoid the word "resign" during the inactivity process because for non native English speakers there may be confusion between the possible meanings "resign = drop adminship" and "re-sign = sign again to get adminship renewed". --Krd 07:19, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, I suggest to replace "resign" by "relinquish". --AFBorchert (talk) 07:50, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Neutral This is true: wikt:resign vs. wikt:re-sign, but I think resign is easy enough to be clearly understood by non-native English speakers (it's among the the top 3000 written words in English according to Longman). On the other hand, relinquish is a formal and harder word. If you want to change it, quit would be a better choice. Thanks 4nn1l2 (talk) 09:18, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I accepted adminship largely to help clear the backlog of CFDs. While I have slowed considerably in the past year or two, I have continued to work on these. Is closing a CFD not considered an adminship action? Thanks. -- Themightyquill (talk) 22:05, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't. Krd 10:15, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]