Board Thread:Consensus Track/@comment-9062114-20140221021620/@comment-9062114-20140221035350

Kroq-gar78 wrote: I'm curious as to where you got your inactivity figure of "6 months". Going back 6 months takes the month to August, which was one of my most active times. Simply because you did not "see" me doing anything does not mean that I didn't do anything, and I have seen this comment on other "Re-Evaluation" threads posted here. See here if you want to see my activity. I think the end of November would be an accurate time to say that I became semi-active, if not inactive. I have really no clue how you think I have been inactive for "atleast" six months.

Now, with that said, I have actually been waiting to be labeled as an inactive admin for the past three months. You can see my message to TombRaiser here, and her response can be seen on my talk page.

On a side note, have these verification threads been discussed anywhere? I didn't really ever think of every single staff member being re-evaluated, especially with the justification that the members "may not be ready for there position". I've been absent from "wiki affairs" for a long time, so a link of some sort to where this was proposed/accepted would be great. That my Brain Fart by me, sorry about that. :P

The reaosn why we're doing the re-evealution is because as UAM said, we were using a flawed voting system for a long time, and because of that, a lot of people recieved these positions simply for being popular and not because they deserved them. I've removed the "6 months" part from my comment. But I still would like you to become more active, since I feel as of late, you haven't been on here often at all.