User blog comment:Reyes De Luz (Albert Spark)/Demotion Request:Captaingoldvane2/@comment-3503368-20131227062435/@comment-3503368-20131227212101

@Will: I don't need to, Hermit had that covered. To clear up any misunderstanding, I put emphasis on it PASSING the community vote, not passing the COMMUNITY VOTE. As in, you guys have to win with a majority for him to get demoted. I was just poking fun, though, it wasn't really intended to be a big deal and I apologize if it seemed offensive or argumentative. Rather, my point was this: you say you'd notified him of votes and asked him to sit in on meetings and increase his input, but where? You have absolutely NOTHING backing what could be a very valid point. I don't expect you to keep track of everything; however, that's a major (and currently invalid without evidence) point which could swing things in your favor. There's no excuse to embellish the truth here; if he's as bad a rollback as you say, you wouldn't have to.

"my" policy, unless overwritten by an SSC Request that passes, it can be used as a valid reason especially when this site is becoming more active and is requiring more for those with User Rights. We can't have someone who votes when they so ever feel like. "He does not have the time" He does have time seeing many PPWians on another site he administers. He can take 5-10 Minutes of his 4-5 Hours a day to meet our requirements. Because the wiki is dying is not necessarily a good reason not to demote someone who barely contributes while we can promote others in their place to be able to contribute, which there are multiple people we have been considering to promote. I don't see really a problem though since this would get rid of any concern so he may administer his site more efficiently than having us on mind. ^ Your policy was never really overwritten by a SSC request, except in the respect that Goldy's potentially getting demoted for inactivity when, as per your policy, he's not truly inactive. Given, him being not as active as you would like is understandable; however, demoting him for it prior to warning him or even asking why he's not as active is uncalled for. "It's his responsibility! he doesn't need to be warned!" It's a responsibility, but when a valued employee hasn't been as passionate about something for a short period of time in reality, do they automatically get taken off the project? No; someone attempts to figure things out with them first and possibly rekindle their activity (which none of you did), as opposed to jumping the gun and firing them. There really aren't that many qualified people to replace him (as you say), and there certainly aren't that many with the experience and ability he has. Think about that.