Board Thread:MicroWiki/@comment-25866192-20150219002830/@comment-25866192-20150223175903

Aizenhand wrote: 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. Well, this vote certainly has absolutely nothing to do with the removal of pages or, least of all, the British English rule, although it might have a little to do not with the personal attack policy, but the way it has been used, which from my observations, has been used as a shield from criticism, rather than abuse, as you have said. Authority shouldn't be the bad guy, but right now I feel that that's the case, which is why I started this vote to spur progressive change, whatever it may be, because I feel that the community will improve even if the vote fails, though perhaps not as much as if it passes.

I believe the lack of user involvement in changing the policies has to do in large part with the fact that there are only two admins, one of which is inactive, and the other, probably by his own admission, is not particularly approachable. And anyhow, the users shouldn't have to approach the admins, there should naturally be more outreach into the community. All of this entails massive overhauls on policy, and none of this has yet has even been attempted by the current team, whatever the reasons be.