Board Thread:Consensus Track/@comment-9062114-20140220220301/@comment-3186827-20140221133441

Speysider wrote: I don't see the point in re-evaluating all sysops and patrollers, nobody here will be demoted from any of those positions. I'm fairly sure that the point of these re-evaluations was to replace inactive users with people who are more suited to the job.

Example: It's like applying to be a computer IT technician in a work place, but only bothering to show up once every 2-3 weeks. The boss will likely tell you to make an effort or to leave the company. This is not how a collaborative effort on any wiki works. You can't compare it to real life or a job, because you actually get paid at a job - we are all here voluntarily helping out for free and we are not held to any deadlines.

If people are busy with real life, you cannot hold that against them otherwise 80% of the Admins and Patrollers who helped build this wiki would be gone and would likely never return.

Speysider wrote:

This is no different: if you are inactive repeatedly without reason, you are not fit for the role as it means you don't have dedication. The contributions you make should have no bearing whatsoever on whether you should continue to be a patroller or sysop: if I invented a really awesome feature for Wikia, I would get the job, but if I didn't bother to keep the feature updated, then I would likely be fired for not keeping the feature bug free. People are not required to give us a reason why they are inactive - it's not anyones business. Lets be clear - These positions do not work on the basis of one person needs to leave so another can take their place. If there are suitable people qualified for patroller or admin roles then they would be nominated. There isn't a set limit on how many can exist at any one time.

Do not question the patroller's "dedication" Speysider - these people have done solid work that is several orders of magnitude above the vast majority of people on this wiki. They helped build this wiki. This talk of dedication is a completely short-sighted way of looking at it. There is no reason to axe inactive patrollers just because they are inactive.