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 full eligible for demotion (and the bearaucrat just backed the wrong horse IMO).