Board Thread:Consensus Track/@comment-1251315-20150415101511/@comment-4984687-20150422220126

I suppose I'll expand on my position and suggest a compromise

GramsJ is inactive and not making use of her sysop rights, and while this is not harming us I'll explain how it can backfire. A user searching through the sysop flag users or going to WAM and seeing GramsJ as one of the admins on the list may give them the idea that she is still active and can assist them. This would just result in someone else telling them she is inactive and will only result in wasting the user's time. Her account is also vulnerable to hackers like said before. If something like the Heartbeat effect occurs again like it did back in 2014, someone could get a hold of Grams' account info. This would likely result in the hacker abusing her powers' and causing harm to the wiki. Grams hasn't been on in 3 years, she probably couldn't change her password when it's been hacked or even receive a notice. The only way to stop the user from abusing Grams' powers is by removing them when an incident like this occurs and if they continue vandalizing even after the flags are gone we would have no other choice then to ban the account.

For the compromise, I don't think we should give her name a colour. Even if unique, it would confuse users and cause them to ask for her help when she herself can't provide any. We should give her an MOTM-like user header saying "Inactive", "Inactive Staff" or simply apply the "Retired Staff" thing to all retired users. The away template is the only template needed if we're going to bring that up. We should remove her rights, but make an exception for her that she can retain them if she returns.