Board Thread:MicroWiki/@comment-25866192-20150219002830/@comment-4115655-20150223132306

I am considering withdrawing my vote.

The fault I found with Sabovia was editing the first post in this thread and deleting other posts. He should have made clear his added content to the first post, by signing his name, but I do understand that he was acting to limit the chaos of people being dragged into this vote who otherwise have no interest in the wiki.

There have been during Sabovia's time as admin policies which have at times frustrated users such as the British English rule, the removal of personal pages and especially the 'personal attack' policy. I feel that the personal attack policy has been used to deflect any criticism whatsoever when an admin should be prepared to accept criticism (not abuse, but criticism) which comes with being in a role of authority. However, though I feel this is the case, there is no solid evidence of abuse because the policy allows for it to be enforced in that way whether we like it or not. Apparently, people have had the opportunity to change policies. Is this the case? If it is, why have more people not volunteered to work on them to suit the interests of the community?

Has anyone yet proved through their dedication to the wiki that they can do a better job than Sabovia? Popularity and unpopularity is one thing, but contribution another.