Board Thread:Consensus Track/@comment-10789912-20151109180419/@comment-26017205-20151116102545

ShawnCognitionCP wrote: 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. Acually, you did in the OP:


 * "This is where the issue comes it. GramsJ is an "Honored Editor", and we all know what that boils down to. She has died of her illness."

See, I support the rights removals, like last time. But what everyone here have no business doing is assuming a person is dead.

You say that it doesn't matter if she's dead or not, as policy speaks. This is true and wiki activity is what you look at when deciding admin rights - but then why are you making claims in the OP of her supposed death if its not relevant? Some guy in chat yesterday was trying to rationalize it by saying its okay to say she is dead because she will never read it. Really?

For what is an extremely simple matter, how this is being handled is pretty juvenile and yells incompetence. Personal life does not enter the equation - Has user x been inactive for over 1 or 2 years? If so, de-admin (if it bothers the community that much).