Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Removal/The bellman (admin)

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for de-adminship which failed as consensus was keep as admin.. Please do not modify it.

User:The bellman

No longer active. Last edit was 1 November 2006, last admin action was on 5 May 2005. Adambro 20:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

This was the person who {{hello}}ed me. Bawolff ☺☻ 21:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. That must be a weird feeling, to see them up for desysoping per inactivity... Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 22:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I still do read the front page from time to time, but I haven't edited for a long time. I do however keep thinking to myself that I should get around to doing some editing again. If the community feels I should be de-admined, then I have no problem with that. ~The bellman | Smile 00:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I note a number of users have changed their minds and now oppose this deadminship request in response to the comment above from the user in question, justifying this decision on the basis that the user is active. I'd very much disagree, the proof of the pudding is in the eating as they say and this doesn't really suggest to me that this user is active. Adambro 18:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I really don't want to be the cause of any tension in the community. I'm not really an active editor as my edit history shows, however I do still keep an eye on what is going on. I am one of the few people who takes an interest in wikinews who remembers the start of wikinews, (or even what Brian recently referred to on the email list as the first generation, which was really actually the second generation). One of the reasons that I stick around (even if it is passively) is because I think not losing that institutional knowledge is important. Now i do not need admin powers to do that, however as i have already said, I do keep thinking I should get involved again (and in fact this whole little episode might just be the spark that I need), and it is up to you guys to decide if I should be treated as a new user again or as an admin. Either way, I don't really mind. ~The bellman | Smile 02:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

Support User apears to have left the project entirely. For the record, the same aplies for the others below. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 21:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to oppose per the response above confirming this user is still active and has remained so more or less continuously. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 00:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 00:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as admin. No need to remove privileges. --+Deprifry+ 12:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support removal of privs. Not sure if I can even recall this individual editing while I have been active. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 14:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as admin. Nyarlathotep 08:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support privilege removal. --Skenmy

Oppose - user is active. --Skenmy^{(t•c•w•i)} 17:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Comment: This de-admin request wasn't a community effort. I wanted no part in it. I am glad to see you responded. As I see it, if you were welcome that long ago, you are still welcome to edit and be a part of the community. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 00:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course The bellman is welcome to return and edit and be part of the community but at the current time neither is the case. Not sure why DragonFire1024 feels the need to try to distance himself from this request, since when were adminship requests "a community effort", the whole idea is that this is raised by a user for the community to discuss and consider. We don't have discussions about whether we're going to have discussions. Suggesting users who haven't edited in years have admin rights removed is hardly the crime of the century, regardless of whether these people are contacted, although I appreciate that this could be seen as courteous. However, it is important to realise that we give users the rights to serve the community not as some kind of reward so I don't consider is necessary to inform users that haven't been around for ages that they might be de-admined, I would suggest that these should realise that if they do ever return that things will have changed. Adambro 07:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Though my standard rationale has been "if you're not around to use the tools, you don't need them anymore", The bellman is obviously still somewhat active (as evidenced by the fact that he posted here... kind of definitive...). Though I'd prefer some more activity, any activity is more ideal than none, and his willingness to step down if the community doesn't want him as an admin just makes me want him as an admin. :) EVula // talk // 21:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Since being contacted, expressed interested in helping out. Haven't seen any edits yet though. --Jcart1534 20:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Oppose. Changed vote due to some recent activity. --Jcart1534 00:57, 23 January 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.