Board Thread:Consensus Track/@comment-9062114-20140220220301/@comment-3186827-20140221171913

Zippertrain85 wrote: Quality tests are especially important with higher positions since if they go "Rogue" and abuse there power it could be very bad for the Wiki. All admins and patrolled have already passed any sort of quality test you are thinking of. The scenario of if an admin or crat did decide to "go rogue" is a non-issue because it would be noticed very quickly, and they would be banned very quickly. Any damage that they did to the wiki would be rolled back with a click of a button.

Speysider wrote: From what I can tell, it does not matter how inactive you are as a patroller / sysop, as you will never lose those rights: conversely, it does seem to matter how inactive you are as a forum mod or chat mod. There is no consistently, why are patrollers / sysop's completely immune to the activity policy that forum mods / chat mods seem to need to follow ?

My point is: if chat / forum mods can lose their rights from inactivity, then patrollers and sysop's should be the same. Pretty simple if you ask me. Typically, on many wikis (including Wikipedia), admin accounts that have made no edits or administrative actions for at least 12 months may be desysopped. Admins are not immune - its just not enforced here because an inactive admin or patroller does absolutely no harm to the wiki as a whole - nor does it stop other people being promoted.

I was not part of whatever discussion you guys had to do this re-evaluation, so don't ask me why chat and forum mods are eligible to lose their rights if they are inactive. Inactive chat/forums mods don't harm the chat/forums and should not stop others from being promoted. From the looks of the re-evaulation, most oppose votes are because people are inactive. How well was this dicussed before even starting this process?

Wasn't the whole point of the re-evaluation to root out people who were not qualified for the position - not lack of activity?