Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Removal/Tomos (admin)

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.

Tomos edit

Tomos (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves)

User hasn't edited in 13 months to now. Propose desysopping for inactivity.

I have left a note at Tomos' talk page regarding this request; he does not have a valid email address confirmed so I was unable to notify him of the discussion using that.

Regards,
Daniel (talk) 11:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments edit

Comment Shouldn't this be closed, considering that it has been a full week since the request was posted? -- ♪TempoDiValse♪ 17:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. 5 for remove rights, 4 opposing that, seems this could be closed as no consensus to remove admin rights - any objections? Cirt (talk) 01:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Done discussion closed. -- ♪TempoDiValse♪ 14:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Votes edit

Support as nominator. Daniel (talk) 11:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Cirt (talk) 21:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I disagree with the idea of desysopping for inactivity. Inactive admins do no harm. WN:IP is not policy and was widely opposed in April 2007. --SVTCobra 22:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support They dont need the mop & bucket if they aren't using it. Let's give it to someone else who will. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 00:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Remove the bits. Users don't presently contribute and keeping them on clogs up the lists. Cary Bass (talk) 02:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per the reason given by Cary with no prejudice against restoring rights if requested. I don't think it is desirable to have a ever growing list of users with admin rights who haven't edited in years. I trust that anyone who the community has considered mature enough to have admin rights won't be offended by finding they've been removed if they haven't edited for a very prolonged period. Adambro (talk) 15:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I have supported the inactivity policy for a while but recently I reconsidered my opinion. Its not like there is a limit to a maximum number of admins we can have and I have no reason to doubt that our (now inactive) admins cannot be trusted to edit effectively. I think we should not de-admin unless the admin is causing problems. Thanks, Anonymous101^talk 20:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
remove per my comment in the earlier vote. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 10:49, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — I oppose removal for inactivity unless we have some concrete reason for doing so (ie, if we had a set number of admins that we couldn't exceed). Gopher65_talk 15:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per the other oppposes -- ♪TempoDiValse♪ 16:48, 17 February 2009 (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.