Thread:Love Robin/@comment-764088-20140423003130/@comment-366087-20140423020421

Okay. Again, I offer to be a neutral and impartial voice from outside the local community with no agenda to either side of any heated discussions, a position which would need to be agreed to by all sides. Not a "judge".

Personally *I* think the opening post was what the legal profession calls "leading the witness", providing prompts to get specific responses by providing only the information to support their desired outcome. It related only the one side of the issue without providing counterpoints for consideration. Nothing about how Wikia tends to leave Bureaucrats in position especially if they are not doing anything detrimental.

So the responses were all to what they were being led to, with nothing about what was "on the other hand".

This is something you can present when you compose a forum calling for a revisit to the topic of restoring you. ALSO, you should dive back in and begin editing and providing your presence for all to see. After all, if you are not doing much, especially what they are now looking for from their administrators, what do you really need the Rights for?

Personally, and mileage may vary, on wikis I administrate I hold the opinion that 1) Founders deserve the courtesy of their labels (statues of town founders are not removed from prominent placements just because they are inactive or dead, presidents are not removed from currency(although Fed Law is they *must* be dead)), and 2) the main advantage of stripping an inactive admin is to remove the masthead tag so users seeking help do not try to get it from someone unlikely to respond in timely fashion if at all.

But it is NOT my personal views which matter.