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

User:Pingswept
User had 3 edits in 2007 as a whole.

Votes

 * per nom --Mark Talk to me 16:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * removal of admin rights due to inactivity. Adambro - (talk) 17:00, 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)
 * inactive --Ryan524 - (talk) 17:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * as inactive. Cirt - (talk) 19:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Daniel (talk) 23:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * as inactive. --Skenmy(t•c•w) 12:21, 11 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)
 * If they are not being notified by email, then people should probably be voting no, like some did last time. Also, WN:IP does say that rfda'ed people should be notified by email.  Well, the spirit of WN:IP is "Here is how to be polite about  it."  Nyarlathotep - (talk) 22:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * As I understand it they've all been notified via their talk page and those with valid email addresses have been emailed but seriously what is the point? I keep questioning this but no one seems prepared to explain. For what purpose should we make efforts to contact them? "Run back to WN now and save you admin rights?" I don't think that is in the interests of the community and I don't think being polite really overrules this, clearly they're not active on Wikinews so I doubt they're going to be upset about their rights being removed and I would hope that any of our admins would be sensible enough not to expect Wikinews to be frozen in time when they leave. Adambro (talk) 08:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That may be, but if so it would only be because of Daniel. It seems to me that the nominators both argued against it, so my assessment of the process is correct, imo. At the rate this purge has grown, I am not sure that Daniel got them all. Further, I just don't understand the purge. Why are we doing this? Have we ever had an inactive admin come back and abuse their privileges? --SVTCobra 00:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree with WN:IP. -- IlyaHaykinson (talk) 07:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Simply disagreeing with IP does not satisfactorily explain your opposition here IlyaHaykinson. IP proposes a certain way of handling inactive admins, the nomination of admins to have their rights removed is not automatically something to do with IP just because that proposed related policy exists. Please clarify your reasons for opposing these nominations. Adambro (talk) 08:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * In fact yes it does : It means I don't thing people should be deadmined for inactivity. Which is a reasonable point of view.  Nyarlathotep (talk) 00:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Per SVT and Ilya. --+Deprifry+ 11:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)