I fail to see why people are making such a big deal of this. Adminship is not a badge of rank, but a set of tools. If you need them have them; if you don't, don't. If you have no interest in doing administrative work on Commons, holding Commons adminship is potentially harmful - as another user may approach you requesting admin help.

Commons RfA is ridiculously simple to pass in any case - its not like the freak show that en.wikipedia RfA is. Given that if you decide you want the sysop bit back after all a full RfA is not a big deal (or may not even be required http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=6881822#Any_bureaucrats_in_the_house.3F ).

As far as I know there has always been an inactivity policy, this has merely crystallised it. Due to taking a wiki-break I was not involved in the promulgation of this policy, but I was aware it was ongoing. Personally, there is only ONE issue I have with the exact phrasing. That is not all admin actions are logged, the policy is not about all admin actions but all *logged* admin actions.

Access to http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Undelete is useful in cases like: An image is deleted on Commons as copyrighted. However, it is used on en.wiki where it would have a solid fair use claim. A commons admin can grab the deleted picture and re-upload with minimal effort; but a non-admin would have to jump through a number of hoops first. This issue is more valid in reverse, as being able to see the original en.wp page of a Commons image is frequently useful in resolving sourcing issues.

Fundamentally however, I agree with Delphine's point. If you don't care for Commons adminship - let it lapse, you won't miss it. If you do care for it, delete a few images from http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Unknown . You will no longer be "at risk", and you will have helped the more active Commons admins with a major backlog.

Nilfanion