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

Long story short 3 most active editors clashed with the 2 not so active admins over something the staff felt both sides where stubborn about. Though the conflict was not deemed remove worthy. We have 3 disgruntled editors and admins who refuse to allow the community to decide on changes that effect the whole community/Wiki. As an admin for smaller wikis I though the admins were doing bad practice saying that they wouldn't allow a community vote and won't allow consensus to rule.

I left (and another person may have left) but I was reading that leaving though encouraged by the staff, is not good for the good community left over to stay alone. The third said he pretty much doesn't let an admin have that power over him.

One admin is the bureaucrat but basically editing inactive (answering walls and the odd forum post in the past month maybe more), second only really got active once this clash happened (in my opinion to spite us and show it was his way or the highway). Both admins back each other up (which I think admins should do to an extent), but at 'damn the consensus'? Not cool.

I am over the actual conflict (and this admin is shadowing me on community corner (tried to use it as ammunition when he was told off by the third editor), might even read this but I don't care I always assume everyone is reading) but with that one editor staying and giving the admin his piece of mind over his bad adminship, it had me wonder...

Didn't I read somewhere if the community consensus votes for their own admin when they feel the other admins are either not active, or bad admins (but not bad enough for staff to get involved). The community consensus can vote their own (I don't want to volunteer, I do not want to admin next to someone who I clashed with). But that community deserved a fair, active admin who at least listens to the community (at least add some balance).

Or am I thinking of a perfect world where everything is fair LOL.  