Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Administrator/Dan100 3

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Dan100

Hello, I'd like my admin rights back please. Nobody contacted me about the "deadminship" process despite the socking great notice about how to contact me on my user page, plus the "deadminship" thing doesn't even seem to be policy. Dan100 (Talk) 21:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Comment - RfA, April 2005 (promoted, 30 April 2005), Request for de-adminship (notified), May 2008. Cirt (talk) 00:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

Oppose User hasn't edited for ages except to make this request. Anonymous101^talk 19:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose While WN:IP is still only proposed policy, the de-adminship discussion showed a strong consensus in favour of removing rights. I am not against Dan100 getting his admin bit back, but only if he can show that (1) he actually intends to be an active Wikinews contributor again (while he was active with it until July last year, this request for readminship is the only thing he's done since then) and (2) he understands the differences in how Wikinews works now compared to when he was last around, and will be capable of using admin powers responsibly in that framework. Without those two things, I can't see a need for him to be an admin. Chris Mann (Say hi!|Stalk me!) 00:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is why I oppose WN:IP. If there hadn't been a de-admin for inactivity, this would have never come up. Sorry, Dan100, you need to prove yourself all-over again. Of course, we are just wasting everyone's time. --SVTCobra 01:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral i do not like WN:IP at all Jacques Divol (talk) 13:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No evidence user has returned to activity. Personal principle of only having rights where they are in use to minimise risk exposure. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 13:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose fourteen months of inactivity prior to request. I'd be willing to reconsider if he becomes more active again. Durova (talk) 05:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose user does not show basic levels of activity or commitment to receive admin bit. --Skenmy ^talk 07:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)----[reply]

Closed Unfortunately this did not pass. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 20:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of the Admin's page or the talk page of the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.