Board Thread:General Wiki Discussion/@comment-5619531-20140815212156/@comment-3999760-20140817051357

LOLSKELETONS wrote: Rollback is a very minor position and it's silly to require them to have such a level of devotion to the wiki. One or two inactive/semi-active rollbacks never hurt anyone. I mean, sure, if over half the rollbacks haven't made an edit in like a year, maybe they should be demoted. But I don't think this is something worth making a rule over. It could very easily be handled at the discretion of bureaucrats.

I highly doubt any of the current bureaucrats would just up and leave for six months without leaving a notice of retirement and/or stepping down first unless they died. If this was a big problem then maybe making it a rule would be necessary, but it isn't. So why bother?

In short: for being needless rule additions that would do nothing but overcomplicate things. We don't need to make a rule for everything. That's what I figured too. Rollbacks don't really have much extra abilities on wiki. We only give it to active editors that do constructive edits to help them do their job easier. Demanding to much from the rollbacks, in my opinion, discourages users to edit and seek higher user rights.

When it came to me being inactive, it was not like I was completely gone from the wiki. I do agree that we don't need to over regulate every little thing on the wiki. It leads to more problems with users in the long run.