First of all,
I don't care any researcher enough to feel a need to put words in any of his organs, make wild assumptions, feeling a need to argue about what is wild or not and what is assumption for him or not.
I wonder how many times I need to underline that I did not got removed by some non-activity process or global policy held by SI. I can welcome wholeheartedly if it happened like that on a large scale.
Dudes got beef with me, one of them showed it clearly on twitter, other one picks subtle ways to do it.
There are no strict lines drawn by SI about non-staff activity, I can name lots of people staying in data for an extremely long time and still in-game, both worldwide and Turkey especially. I don't oppose their belonging in data, I don't care. I don't want to look like I oppose their existance by sharing their names here but can share formally with SI. When I did that by e-mailing to SI, that local chief shared it's content publicly on twitter which is way out of his limits. Unprofessionality at it's finest.
I got added 3 or more years later after that job. If there was a harm in that, it could be shared with me, I asked it, chief said "You should be in it, of course, as long as I am here, you will be here." he said.
I shared other chief's beef with me with him. Now it looks like they formed a bond together in years. I have no interest to know or observe that honestly, just noticing.
If there is a definition about what is being inactive for non-staff and people got removed worldwide according to it. It would be awesome and I welcome it.
Nobody said I am not working or whatever assumption you are making. My removal is all personal. I object to this. If you still not understand what is going on, leave it please.