Thread:Mainframebabe/@comment-32739993-20180208012910/@comment-29954643-20180208023452

Unfortunately, for me that is based on wiki and off-wiki communications and so not fair for me to be specific except for her interaction here already. I don't have a problem with Sannse so much as I am unsure if that history could get in the way this time around. I'm not big on those that say things like "I don't want to read all the comments" or "are unwilling to do historical research" and skim reading leaves me wondering when and if all points have been considered.

Not saying that there is one particular reason for my response. I did say, I know that an 'outside' wiki person is needed but Sannse has often said that the admins should be voted in based on the 'trust' level, yet GEL was never voted on at all and got a pass. And, there were some long threads in the past where things got changed up at the last minute and there was no intervention (or even notice of the change), not sure why, but may have been because of her aversion to long posts and long discussions.

She has sometimes given a wishy-washy answer which left it possible for someone to quote only the one side that was 'their' understanding (me included). (Current case in point. Sannse second comment on The Discussion thread). Votes are equal or are they to be evaluated and/or weighted in some way. This could have been discussed and should be and agreed upon before a vote, but it just laid there unknown, as far as I am concerned. Not sure if this might become important or not, but who knows? Also, Sannse has clearly stated that Fandom does not have the time to arbitrate, but will facilitate, so I do understand that means that we are all supposed to somehow reach an agreement. Then it has a tendency to be a tit for tat thing until it get's mean and then Fandom might step in and do something about it, but usually just to say 'be nice, move on'. I'm sorry, I think I am nice, but that doesn't mean that I have to agree with others.

It's a tough call. Any and all Fandom community support reps have the same mandate, so my response was more based on personal history. Heck another rep could be more or less the exact same. Perhaps having knowlege of last year might be a good thing. I just thought I would like to see how another rep might handle the same discussions. Having done past research would be good, but even if not, then how is that bad. Not sure how to answer this any better.

And it is certainly only my personal POV. I will be happy if Sannse remained to do this. Her first post on that Discussion was excellent and said that we needed to separate the points into different and other discussion. Since I had said that in that discussion, I can only agree whole heartedly. I loved the bulleted points in that first statement. Makes it more clear than my wandering style of commenting here. Funny thing, but other than on this wiki, I am known for project plans with clear bulleted points. But I am just a member here and not creating my type of project plan. I just wanted to be free to edit and be treated fairly. I just wanted to have fun too, but I will not cave under pressure. I will continue to discuss and try to understand if given that opportunity and am usually (not always) willing to compromise if given sound reasons for a change of my POV. Just saying that someone is an admin over and over again as the reason for any decision is simply not good enough. Have sound reasons first and see if some compromise can be reached. Then and only then, should there be admin intervention.

Geez, I said I wasn't going to answer and then my fingers kept flying. Sorry 🌺 - El