Board Thread:Consensus Track/@comment-10789912-20151109180419/@comment-10789912-20151116010559

Bluesonic1 wrote: The fact that this has already been a CT twice which has passed with the same result tells you quite clearly what the community thinks about the situation. I'm actually quite disgusted that the admins think this is ok to leave up and not even make mention of all the comments you're making Shawn, which are based on assumptions. Wulfharth is right, this is all extremely distasteful. As someone who was regularly editing on wikis and then had to leave for 2-3 years due to my own health reasons, if I saw something like this I would be very upset. On my wiki, the admins left me my tools. Did anyone get hurt because of it? Did the wiki itself suffer because of it? No. And when I came back, I spoke to the other admins to catch up before doing anything, and I trust considering Grams' experience, they would do the same. I really can't believe there's talk of a funerary thread when we don't even know Grams' situation, disgusting. People survive cancer plenty of times, I have family members who did. If I came back to the wiki to find that some user was spreading false information about my death in order to convince them that removing my tools was the right thing to do, I'd be very angry.

Just like you said to me on the last weekly update thread; it's just tools. On an inactive account. It's not even on a page that matters. You're taking this way too hard. It's pretty low, actually.

We make exceptions to policy all the time for the most trivial crap, I think we can make an exception for a really great editor who didn't have a choice in leaving us. Actually, we already did make the exception- TWICE. My vote stays as oppose, just as it was in both the last CTs. These assumptions are not my own, and that part was posted as a response to the major assumption of her possible death. I've quite clearly said that it doesn't matter if she's dead or not, as policy speaks.

The mass majority of the votes are positive, and the talk we had in chat ended in a completely positive agreement that the rights should be removed.

Again, I never stated she -was- dead. She's an "honored editor" on our site already, which is used for, guess what? Users whom are dead. That section was purely because users have a moral issue with removing her rights.

Your argument on that thread was over a joke quote. This is something the community agrees on. Your false-equivalent is pathetic, just as your disorderly behavior at that time was.

I, to put it bluntly, will deal with those two users you are referencing in future threads, if that is true. We've agreed to crack down on policy.

"spreading false information"- more like putting something in reference to the mass majority of the wiki agreeing on it. I don't give a damn about her situation, past simply hoping it ended in her favor. This is about policy. Read the title of the thread.

There are three possible situations.


 * She got better, doesn't care about the wiki enough to return| In this case, we remove her rights


 * She's dead| In this case, we remove her rights, with absolutely no reason not to


 * She's still fighting| In this case, we remove her rights, and if she chooses to come back, we give her the option to re-earn them.

There is no reason to oppose, rather than misguided morality. The "funerary" thread was simply a suggestion based on talks in chat, which you were not on chat for in the first place. This entire thread is based on it.

You think it's disgusting the admins leave up a vote that has far more supports than opposes? Heads up, this is run via democracy. You being disgusted is irrelevant to the core.

Also, that was a different wiki. Different wikis have different policies.

I never said it was the right thing to do because she's dead, in fact, it's the right thing to do, and I don't care about the situation, as I've said above.

Do I hope it turned out well for her? Sure. Does that matter to the site, and how we run it? Hell no.

Thank you for your completely void statements.