Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-26102520-20150217150045/@comment-24199126-20150312124612

I just want to preface this by saying that I still firmly believe that removing an admin/'crat requires consideration beyond their activity levels; these users were entrusted with extra tools for a reason and thus, there should be an equally compelling reason to revoke them. An inactive admin/'crat may not be good for a large wiki, but our community is small, so management is easier. To remove the inactive admins/'crats when the site is not suffering from their absence, and when the admins have been in touch with each other off-wiki and understand each others' situations, seems rather excessive to me. If there ever comes a time where the admins/'crats become inactive to the extent that there is absolutely no communication occurring amongst themselves and the users, I can understand considering removal, but this is hardly the case here. If this is about paving the way for new admins/'crats, I don't really buy into that either since nominations can be opened with just a click, and in cases of emergency, rules can be overlooked, and someone trustworthy can quickly obtain the necessary rights.

Bella8991: No changes to user rights due to above reasoning.

Dragonboy6491: No changes to user rights due to above reasoning.

Mojojojo13579: No changes to user rights due to above reasoning.

Raurauslly.music: No changes to user rights due to above reasoning.

Should it come to it, however, I will gladly take on 'crat responsibilities ... thanks again for the vote of confidence.

Regarding making a separate page for demotions ... I oppose per Fruipit's reasoning.

Dragonboy6491 (talk) 12:46, March 12, 2015 (UTC)