Board Thread:Support Requests - Community Management/@comment-1807002-20160410063539/@comment-1807002-20160412213059

I contacted her again this time discuss pre-conflict admin behaviour (conflict aside) and could we at least vote an admin. She responded better. I still think she didn't understand my original discussion with her, I think she thought I was fixated with the conflict being the reason and why, but conflict was the breaking point or just fuel.

I should have not let her read the full conflict discussion until I set up the way things were before first but instead I showed the conflict and then piled on the other complaints and issues, which probably just looked like I was making up more reasons why they were bad admins and over reacting on a conflict.

When I thought it was clearly why the conflict was exasperated: absent/unresponsive and/or neglecting admins who make wiki wide decisions which handicap a group of editors without discussing or allowing vote, especially when asked by the three most active editors.

Instead it looked probably more like 'us editors were denied a community vote and now we think these admins are poor admins and this is not fair. And we stomped our feet and got mad', *eye roll*. Sad thing is it is hard to clearly put your case when your still burning up from the situation. I think only one admin is even fully eligible for demotion if he can't learn to communicate properly and get along better with the community (and the bureaucrat just backed the wrong horse IMO).