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

Tomos
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)

Comments

 * Shouldn't this be closed, considering that it has been a full week since the request was posted? -- ♪ Tempo Di  Valse ♪ 17:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * ✅ discussion closed. -- ♪ Tempo Di  Valse ♪ 14:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Votes

 * as nominator. Daniel (talk) 11:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * per nom. Cirt (talk) 21:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * They dont need the mop & bucket if they aren't using it. Let's give it to someone else who will. -- Shakata Ga Nai  ^_^ 00:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * - 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, Anonymous101talk 20:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * per my comment in the earlier vote. --Brian McNeil / talk 10:49, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * &mdash; 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). Gopher65talk 15:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * per the other oppposes -- ♪ Tempo Di  Valse ♪ 16:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)