Forum:Removal of inactive Administrators

It should not be a surprise to anyone reading this that Halopedia has some inactive administrators. As what has been done in the past, it's up to a community vote whether or not they get to keep their rights. Three of the four users listed below have informed me of their retirement.

1 - Bureaucrat
 * 1
 * 1
 * 1

These users have given a lot of time and dedication to Halopedia, but due to real life, they can no longer give the time they once did. Letting go of these admins will bring down the "active" staff from 10 admins and 4 bureaucrats to 6 admins and 3 bureaucrats. In the coming weeks, there will be some new RfAs created for a few veteran users we feel can handle administrative duties.

Voting for the removal of inactive admins will end on Thursday, June 20th.

Cheers.-- 12:16, 13 June 2013 (EDT)

Voting
Users must meet the voting requirements in order to vote.

Support (6/2)
Please vote here with if you support this proposal.
 * 1) --Spartacus (talk) 12:16, 13 June 2013 (EDT)
 * 2) --craZboy557 This is craZboy557, signing off. 12:45, 13 June 2013 (EDT)
 * 3) . Check out my comment please. — subtank   12:50, 13 June 2013 (EDT)
 * 4) - for the removal of inactive rights, including my own. As far as I'm concerned, my time is no longer available for Halopedia as it once was, and I thus declare myself resigned as Administrator (though I should have done this much sooner). I trust that the new generation of admins will make wise choices for the next round of RfAs and thus I wholeheartedly support the future RfAs to be submitted. - Major.png  Nìcmávr  ( Tálk  ) 14:19, 13 June 2013 (EDT)
 * 5) - Seems it's policy if they've been away for so long, though I wholeheartedly support them rereceiving their powers should they be able to resume their times at this wiki in the future.  Tuckerscreator (stalk ) 14:47, 13 June 2013 (EDT)
 * 6) - Agree w/ the policy but at the same time 3 months doesn't seem too long of a time but at the same time these people may be too busy regardless. Agree w/ Tuckers - if they have the capability to return to the wiki, they should have their rights restored. Remember when Nicmarv blocked a vandal ruining my talk page.-- Killamint  [Comm |Files ] 16:28, 13 June 2013 (EDT)
 * 7) - As per Tucker. If anyone is able to return at any point, I most definitely support them regaining their powers. It just seems so soon. Though if this needs to be done, I give my reluctant support. --Tent acle Torn ado  17:12, 13 June 2013 (EDT)
 * 8) - I also agree with Tuckerscreator. If an admin is able to return consistently, his/her original rights should be restored. --Courage never dies. (talk) 19:30, 13 June 2013 (EDT)

Oppose (1/0)
Please vote here with if you oppose this proposal.
 * 1) - I believe they have given a lot of time to this and deserve some more time. -Master of Halo

Comments
''Please keep your comments civil, short (five-word minimum), and to the point. Thank you!''

How long have they been inactive? This is craZboy557, signing off. 12:22, 13 June 2013 (EDT)
 * Check their contributions.-- 12:23, 13 June 2013 (EDT)


 * Hmm.... for the first three it hasn't been very long, so I'm kinda on the fence there but leaning towards demote, but Smoke is definitely more clear cut. I'll add my vote to support this. This is craZboy557, signing off. 12:44, 13 June 2013 (EDT)

Neutral section unnecessary for this event. Just to let you all know, it is a common practice to demote administrators who have not been active for three months (by this, I mean they have not made any significant contribution to the wiki in that duration).— subtank   12:50, 13 June 2013 (EDT)

it says Please vote here with if you support this proposal. can someone change that to oppose. -Master of Halo
 * Done. - Major.png Nìcmávr  ( Tálk  ) 14:19, 13 June 2013 (EDT)
 * Whoops. Derp on my part. :P-- 15:08, 13 June 2013 (EDT)