Board Thread:Community Announcements and Events/@comment-4799587-20140912224150/@comment-1738746-20140916120749

@Harold: But why, when switching them to the title of Inactive Admin is much more efficient? That way people who are on the side of "let's not strip them of admin rights" are appeased and those on the "an admin must be active" side are appeased too as the person isn't just an admin anymore. I see many Wikis use this system and it works out fine for them. What is the true purpose in clearing out inactive admins? So that members don't seek help from them unknowing that they are inactive? To "clean up" the admin section (what purpose does this ultimately achieve too)? Put up an Inactive Admin section and be done with it? And come on, unless you've been on here since the start, no one remembers who was or wasn't admin. Having the title of an admin is an honour, a trophy or medal, to have their name listed somewhere that distinguishes them from normal members. Like I said before, would you take away the medal of a veteran soldier because they don't fight in the army anymore?

@Draevan13: I wasn't clinging to the argument you highlight there and I apologise if I came across that way. My point was, using GramsJ's case to highlight, is that each person with the admin title worked hard to achieve it, and we don't know under what circumstances they left, and I find it sad that some people automatically assumed it was because of laziness, when it could have been something like a serious illness in GramsJ's case. Removing their adminship kind of is personal if you think about it; it's a pretty big achievement that person has gotten through a lot of hard work, something may have happened to them out of their control, and now a bunch of people get to decide to strip that person of their merit without knowing any better? You don't find that a little bit heart breaking?