Board Thread:Consensus Track/@comment-1251315-20150608231255/@comment-1251315-20150609093729

Dantman wrote: We don't just pick Wikipedia policies and use them. When relevant and reasonable we might look at them for inspiration and if they work the way we want to work then we might use them as a base. We cherry-pick them. What Wikipedia decides what to do with inactive sysops is irrelevant here.

The sorting and organization of Special:ListUsers/sysop is nothing like it is on Wikipedia. We have no worry of inactive sysops going rogue. We don't have 1000+ sysops.

Frankly as long as we still have an inactive user with a bureaucrat flag, every single rationale for removing an inactive sysop's flag is moot. I find that an interesting stance, considering I asked you about it before and you suggested it would be more relevant if he didn't return after a year. Also, it's interesting you think we don't cherry pick Wikipedia policies, when it's happened several times in the past without any issue.

KirinNOTKarin98 wrote: There you have it. Oppose —

(Though in actuality, I don't really care one way or another- it's just the polite thing to do.)< That's really quite foolish reasoning to be frank. You don't actually care, yet your just going to oppose on the basis of "politeness"? What has this wiki come to?

Ninwing wrote: Oppose — The same as above since I find it pointless. Again, more foolish reasoning. Does anyone actually care for doing this properly, or is everyone just going to oppose because "it's pointless" or "what X said"? Because if users of this wiki are going to oppose for such foolish reasoning like this, I'm not even going to bother doing consensus for ANY user rights removal again and will go to sysops to remove rights from users.