Board Thread:Consensus Track/@comment-10789912-20151109180419/@comment-10789912-20151116162643

Wulfharth wrote: 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 has 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? And don't shift the blame or say others decided that she was dead and you are just parroting that. 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). Right after that, I put, and again, I post- '''I'm going to break a stunning revelation to you all. She is either dead, or has bigger things to worry about and doesn't care about the wiki.''' I don't know why something so simple has to be beaten into your minds like it's the most difficult subject on the planet.

I don't care what some random user said in chat. Irrelevant. You and Bluesonic1 are simply keeping to your style, and meddling in matters you do not understand, nor most likely even care enough to give second thoughts about. In fact, you haven't even voted. When it gets to the point that someone has to repeat something 4 times- something every single user was able to understand within minutes, there is an issue.

The only juvenile and incompetent behavior here, is that of users that can't grasp the situation. I very clearly said I don't care if she is dead or not, as it doesn't concern the site. No part of any of our personal lives concerns the site.

Again, you're on this thread and think you're making a perfect point, when you've only offered a direct recap of all of the debunked and already handled business.

''It is accepted widely by the community that she is dead. That is why this thread uses that. The last two threads on this subject did not fail because of a lack of support, but rather because people had an issue removing the rights of someone they thought was dead. A funerary thread was brought up after the previous one, and it was met with mass support, but no one ever got around to it. I state very clearly that she could be dead, alive, or careless, and it does not matter at all to the site.''