Board Thread:Wiki discussion/@comment-3308937-20130226010348/@comment-1445357-20130227010933

Archonell wrote: As a frequent user of Wikis and once being a very active member of another Wiki for quite a long time (2 or so years), I used to hear this reasoning being passed around:

"A moderator is someone who has been entrusted with these tools, because we know and can depend on them to benefit in whatever work they carry out on the Wiki, and can appropriately, wisely as well without bias, use them as well in situations where it is demanded. I see no problem in inactive mods, because while they are no longer an active part of the community, they have been entrusted with these responsibilities and proven to use them wisely, so it would serve no point (and perhaps, be detrimental to the purpose we taught them to follow) by removing them."

As per that statement, I really am against removing moderator rights from inactive users because it serves no real purpose, akin to their tools, whatsoever.

This is true, assuming all of them went through a proper rights request. I feel that most of these mods were promoted as a response to the major counter argument by the peanut gallery (why don't you get more mods to moderate commentspace?) when we were discussing removing comments last year, regardless of their qualifications.