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

User:Crimson
User has only used admin tools 5 times, and last edited in Oct 07.

Votes

 * per nom --Mark Talk to me 18:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * per nom - Inactive for over 6 months and little use of the tools. Cirt - (talk) 18:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * removal due to inactivity. Adambro - (talk) 22:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * inactive --Ryan524 - (talk) 23:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Question: has an effort been made to contact these users via email? Daniel (talk) 05:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * They have all been notified via their Wikinews talkpages - you would have to ask if he emailed them.  Cirt - (talk) 05:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm just thinking they may be more likely to get an email than a talk page message. Daniel (talk) 05:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * IMO if the user isnt checking their userpages then they aint active or even involved with the community, but if you want to email them then feel free. --Mark Talk to me 09:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I emailed them just to be double-sure. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 13:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Crimson and Elliot were the only two with a valid email address/chose to recieve emails from other users, so they were the only two to get an email. I've voted for the others. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 13:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd agree with Mark. I'm of the opinion that we shouldn't be emailing users in these circumstances. What are we saying, that if they return they can keep their rights? Is that really appropriate, firstly, do we want users return from such a long period of absence and having all the buttons to play with and secondly do we want users returning for the reason of avoiding their rights being removed? I'd suggest not. Adambro - (talk) 14:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It should be noted that most of these users wouldn't have verified their email, as before they left, you did not have to. So most of them have emails, but you can't email them due to configuration changes. Also I think it is impolite to remove someone without telling them. the chance they'll come back is next to none, its just courtesy.Bawolff ☺☻ 22:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * (re to Adambro) i) courtesy and ii) on the off-chance they'll come back and start being active, having been reminded of the project. It is unlikely they're sitting at home thinking "Thank god I left Wikinews", but have probably forgot all about it. Daniel (talk) 23:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * per nom. --Skenmy(t•c•w) 09:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * --Brian McNeil / talk 12:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * removal of rights. This user is clearly inactive on Wikinews. Theres no point in allowing him to keep the admin tools if he hasn't edited for months. If they return and request the admin tools back, however, I would probably support them. User:Anonymous101  17:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I oppose removal of adminship due to inactivity as a matter of personal opinion. I also oppose the proposed policy WN:IP. The only difference between these requests and an automatic removal seems to be that here, they don't get notified by email. --SVTCobra 19:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree with WN:IP. -- IlyaHaykinson (talk) 07:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Per SVT and Ilya. --+Deprifry+ 11:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm sorry for my absence, I've been very busy at work the past few months. Is there a shortage of available admins and tasks that need done? I'm willing to pitch in if there's a need but if there's a surplus of admins I'm not going to insist on remaining an admin for the sake of having a title. Crimson (talk) 03:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yet, you just moved yourself from the list of inactive admins, to active admins. Does that mean you are returning? --SVTCobra 00:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)