Forum:Removal of inactive Bureaucrats and Administrators

Forums: Index → Archive → Removal of inactive Bureaucrats and Administrators

While unfortunate, it should come to no ones surprise that Halopedia has an overabundance of inactive Administrators and Bureaucrats in our ranks. Through consultation with the Administration, they have given me the go ahead to begin removal of user rights for these members from their esteemed positions to simple rollback users. These users in question have given their [fingers and time] hearts and souls to this wiki, and in my opinion, and through various reasons such as school, work, etc., they have not been allowed to give the time they once did into Halopedia as elected officials. The users in question are listed below and are designated if they currently have Bureaucrat status by a ‡ next to their information:

• ‡ ED (talk) (contribs) (e-mail)
  
• ‡ EwCDnaudee419 (talk) (contribs) (e-mail)
  
• ‡ HaloDude (talk) (contribs) (e-mail)
  
• ‡ Manticore (talk) (contribs) (e-mail)
  
• ‡ RelentlessRecusant (talk) (contribs) (e-mail)
  
• ‡ Simon rjh (talk) (contribs) (e-mail)
  
• Spirit of Fire (talk) (contribs) (e-mail)
  
• ‡ Specops306 (talk) (contribs) (e-mail)
  

Though removing Administrative and Bureaucratic rights for retired staff members will not be a problem, letting go of the "active" staff will bring down the number of the staff from 10 Admins (and 5 Bureaucrats) to 6 Admins (and 2 Bureaucrats). In the coming weeks, I will begin a series of Requests for Adminship for quite a few veteran users and voting for the IRC Channel Contact (with the possible departing of Manticore); in addition, the Administration has decided that the two most senior Administrators Subtank and Devout Atheist will be given Bureaucratic status once this current vote is done.

Voting for the removal of inactive staff members will end on Saturday, April 10th. Thank you, and have a great day!

Rawr,
User:CommanderTony/Sig

Voting (Passed)

Support (22/3)

All users in agreement of this proposal please vote here with {{Support}} followed by a short message why and your signature.

• Support — As per my statement above. User:CommanderTony/Sig
• Support — As per Tony. This will be the end of the greats. T__T -- Sergeant Major Avery Johnson^{My Comm Line}_{What I've done} 02:02, April 5, 2010 (UTC)
• Support — I'm an old user, and don't really come here much, but I think this definitely needs to happen. Many of these guys have been around since I was new. SPARTAN-091 ^{HelmetComm||Juliet} 02:04, April 5, 2010 (UTC)
• Support — "The old king is dead, long live the king!" All good things must come to an end, time for a new generation. - S.B.44 ^[T] 02:06, April 5, 2010 (UTC)
• Support — While unfortunate, there is no reason for them to have extra rights if they will not be used. BLADEBANE Anti-Vandal 02:07, April 5, 2010 (UTC)Blade bane
• Support — Flood12345
• Support —   General5 7    talk    contribs    email   02:14, April 5, 2010 (UTC)
• Support — Colonel DA, Halopedian Administrator 04:08, April 5, 2010 (UTC)
• Support — I've got a feeling that we're going to need more veteran users when Halo: Reach comes out though.GySgt. Gonzalez -Comm Open- -Body Count- 04:14, April 5, 2010 (UTC)
• Support — In simple terms it is time for spring cleaning. :)Sith-venator Wavingstrider (Commlink) 05:07, April 5, 2010 (UTC)
• Support — Agreed, no objections for any of them. - Nìcmávr ^(Tálk) 08:48, April 5, 2010 (UTC)
• Support — I've been suggesting this for months, good to see we're finally going through with it. I hope that they come back someday though, they were some great contributors. - Halo-343 (Talk) (Contribs) (Edits) 11:50, April 5, 2010 (UTC)
• Support — Sure, why not. --Jugus (Talk | Contribs) 11:58, April 5, 2010 (UTC)
• Support — I've known and worked closely with some of these users for some time, but new active admins are needed. Field Master Spartansniper450 13:35, April 5, 2010 (UTC)
• Support — Even I have noticed that some of these people have been inactive for a long time. 7h3 Ma573r Chi3f (5par7an-117) (J0hn) (Ma573r Chi3f P377y 0ffic3r) 15:43, April 5, 2010 (UTC)
• Support — El Ammo Bandito, "¡Para todas sus necesidades destructivas!" 16:06, April 5, 2010 (UTC)
• Support Lol@Phailure 01:13, April 6, 2010 (UTC)
• Support —A Survivor of Old ^{They Came. I Fought...} I Prevailed._{(Another Poetic Spartan)} 06:06, April 6, 2010 (UTC)
• Support — I hope some day, after this generation of great Halopedian memebers have, after some amount of years, have passed, I hope I will be at least a rollback rights user. --"Why am I here and what the hell are you?"The guy who hates his username. 07:11, April 6, 2010 (UTC)
• Support — Great idea. - JEA13 ^[iTalk] 12:50, April 6, 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Having inactive admins may confuse new users if the ask them for help and didn't know that they were inactive. Teh lolz! Bionicle+Lotr 21:37, April 8, 2010 (UTC)
• Support - That works. Sub-71 13:49, April 9, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral (2/0)

All users in confusion/apathy/etc. of this proposal please vote here with {{Neutral}} followed by a short message why and your signature

1. Neutral — It doesn't hurt us by keeping them, but it also doesn't necessarily hurt by pruning the inactive admins. If I leaned any direction it would be towards the opposition as per Pheonix's case, but as it is I can't consciously vote that position. -- Lord Hyren 05:21, April 6, 2010 (UTC)
2. Neutral — I agree with Hyren and Pheonix, they don't need to be removed unless they have no intention of coming back. Van Dominic Flyhight 18:20, April 9, 2010 (UTC)

I think that opposes the proposal. Master Chief Petty Officer John-117 (Personal Favorite). 18:29, April 9, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose (4/0)

All users in opposition of this proposal please vote here with {{Oppose}} followed by a short message why and your signature.

• Oppose — I wholeheartedly Support new, more active administrators, but let's face it, there is no limit to the number of admins (or bureaucrats) a wiki can have. Thus, there is no need to remove administrators in order to elect new ones. I personally would like to hear from these admins and bureaucrats themselves why they are inactive. I believe that school work and such is a different case from user suddenly going MIA. I know another wiki where there was one very active bureaucrat and several active admins; the bureaucrat went MIA one day and the admins left the project, but now the wiki is doing well again and has more active admins than it ever did. The original bureaucrat's access has been since revoked. If it is obvious that a user has no plans whatsoever to contribute, then I will support the removal of his rights. Otherwise, let's question first and shoot later. --Jack Phoenix _(Contact) 12:24, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

I can see where you're coming from regarding the number of sysops, and true to the word, there shouldn't be any limits. However, we're not doing this solely to elect new admins. Adminship isn't and shouldn't be a big deal, neither should the number of sysops. We indeed did question the listed users, and more or less all of them (save maybe one or two) announced their "retirement" as an administrator. That said, no one's saying none of them won't/can't come back to contribute. Simply if they do and wish to be re-sysoped, they should face a reconfirmation. - Nìcmávr ^(Tálk) 13:03, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose — Per Jack. --Jedimca0^{(Do or Do Not, There is No Try)} 14:50, April 5, 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose — Per Phoenix. Removing their adminiship is utterly pointless. Roy Mustang's mini-skirt 14:51, April 5, 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose — What, honnestlly, is the point of getting rid of them? --þ†öW讥 ^{^ (UNSC Fleetcom)(UNSC History)(UNSC Mision Log)} 05:30, April 6, 2010 (UTC)

Comments

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

• While we're on the subject of cleanup, can we put up an ops list cleanup proposal as well? - S.B.44 ^[T] 02:46, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

We already removed several inactive ops. Best bring up IRC matters here if there's anything specific you want to propose about it. - Nìcmávr ^(Tálk) 08:48, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

Nope, nothing specific, just throwing it out there. - S.B.44 ^[T] 12:17, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

• Specops306 has been removed. 7h3 Ma573r Chi3f (5par7an-117) (J0hn) (Ma573r Chi3f P377y 0ffic3r) 15:48, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

He removed his sysop, but still has bureaucrat rights. - Nìcmávr ^(Tálk) 16:16, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

• Were they notified of their elimination as Admins? Brownie Was Here 01:05, April 6, 2010 (UTC)

i would believe so Lol@Phailure 01:12, April 6, 2010 (UTC)

• When is the Deadline? Master Chief Petty Officer (Personal Favorite). 16:52, April 8, 2010 (UTC)

10th of April, see above. - Nìcmávr ^(Tálk) 17:49, April 8, 2010 (UTC)

• One more day! Master Chief Petty Officer John-117 (Personal Favorite). 09:51, April 9, 2010 (UTC)

I don't see what's so exciting about this...User:CommanderTony/Sig