Forum:Stubborn Contributors

A question for the fellow admins/founders of wikia's on here; what do you do with stubborn contributors? For example I got one contributor who feels the need to act like an admin and I've told him many times before he ain't admin, just a contributor, but after a while he just goes back to pretend he's an admin. I don't like it. He's moving pages without me knowing, or he let'sme know until after he moved them, he adds new headers though I said I want him to talk about that with me first, and worst of all, he orders other contributors around and now they seem to think he really is an admin and they come to him to ask questions and ask him to confirm stuff. Just now he ordered someone to upload a sh*tload of pictures, but they're not even related to my Wiki so they can all be deleted again. So he pretends to be admin and also makes errorfilled decisions as an admin... I really don't like it. Thing is, he is really stubborn, not a bad person or anything, just very very stubborn... what should I do? He really doesn't seem to listen... -- Zantam03 13:52, April 6, 2010 (UTC)

If he keeps doing it I'd just ban him... At first very little, but if he keeps doing it, higher bans. If people won't listen I suppose they'll have to feel it? -- Light Daxter |  Talk  14:32, April 6, 2010 (UTC)

You should of course warn him first. Tell him that if he continues he will be banned.-- 15:24, April 6, 2010 (UTC)

Before giving my opinion, I first want to address something I think is important for all wiki founders to know, since it’s a common misconception and, indeed, seems like it could possibly be a misconception here: founders, bureaucrats, administrators, etc. are not the boss. There are a lot of telling signs in your post—“moving pages without me knowing,” “adds new headers though I said I want him to talk about that with me first,” and so forth—that lead me to believe that this misconception may be here. Just remember, neither you nor any other bureaucrat or administrator is the boss of the wiki. All Wikia wikis are public and decisions should be made through consensus, not arbitrary administrative discretion. Administrators are no different than anyone else, with the exception of a few extra special editing tools. =)

Now even if this guy is thinking he’s like an administrator, he still has the totally wrong mindset. With the exception of matters that do require administrative action, like blockings or deletions and so forth, no administrator should really be ordering other contributors around, confirming things (unless you’re speaking about things you’re not just deciding arbitrarily), or ordering people to upload a lot of pictures. You should remind him of what I reminded you, namely that neither administrators nor anyone else for that matter have authority over anyone else, except in the case of blockings and speedy deletions, etc.

Another thing you may want to keep in mind, because this is something I myself had problems with awhile back, is that he may not have this “I’m an administrator” mindset at all. It may simply be a more formal, commanding way of writing, and it may be completely subconscious. Unless he’s told you that he thinks he’s like an administrator, this best thing to do would be to assume good faith and have a polite and respectful conversation with him about your concerns, while reminding him that no one on your wiki is the boss of anyone else. Doing this instead of instead of telling him “he ain't admin, just a contributor” would be a much better option.

I would try that conversation before considering anymore action. Like you said, he’s not a bad person, and what he’s saying doesn’t seem to be harming your wiki at all. Further action would, IMO, be ill advised, and I’d strongly advise you not to ban him, like the two previous repliers said, unless he actually becomes a legitimate detriment that is harming the wiki. I hope that helps you out a bit! =) - Brandon Rhea (talk) 17:18, April 6, 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I really disagree. I made a wiki about a hard subject and other sites, Wikipedia included, always mix up facts, fiction, reliable and unreliable sources. Therefore I do think that a "boss" is needed. Also, I created this Wiki with a certain goal in mind; to become a reliable source for my wiki's subject: The Three Kingdoms. Now, they're adding irrelevant articles, pictures and headers to it. In the beginning I asked politely not to do it, and I explained why (irrelevance or just not needed). It continued, so I again asked politely not to do it. It continued, I asked again and just now it happened again... Then I honestly think I should step up and act like the admin, or "boss".


 * Also, "moving pages" can harm 'my' Wiki. An example: there is a character named Lady Wu. That's it, no name, just Wu. Historically, that's all we know about her. On the other hand, her fictional name is Wu Guotai. If he'd move Lady Wu to "Wu Guotai" than he'd create an error on the site. I don't want that, because that would harm my goal; to become a reliable source about the historical aspect of the Three Kingdoms period. That may sound like a small error, and I know I can revert it, but I rather not have it happen. He makes so many mistakes, the first 15 minutes I'm always busy cleaning up his errors. The fictional aspect of The Three Kingdoms is much more popular than the historical aspect and it gets often mixed up. Because of that, I do feel that there should be some sort of "boss" or "overseer".


 * "what he’s saying doesn’t seem to be harming your wiki at all."


 * Actually, it does. Imagine you have a wiki about WWII and some new contributors think he's the man in charge, not you. They ask him: "can we upload some pictures and write articles about harry potter?" he replied: "yes, you can but watch your spelling, I don't want to clean up your mess! Your spelling is crap!" (quoted directly from him) Is that a nice reply? Is harry potter a subject fitting for a WWII wiki? Imagine if you're two weeks on vacation and in those two weeks he acts like the boss.


 * No really, I disagree with your post. Perhaps I can make the rules a bit less tight, but I really think you should not allow your contributors to 'have their way' with the Wiki. -- Zantam03 19:22, April 6, 2010 (UTC)

I never said it would be a have it your way wiki, nor would I begrudge you for trying to be the most reliable wiki on your subject. Additionally, you didn’t explain that clearly, so there was a misconception on my part about what was going on with this user. =)

That said, a boss is not needed, and having a boss/sole owner/whatever is contrary to the principle of Wikia wikis. There are administrators who enforce policies, but that doesn’t make them bosses. Administrators who think that way really need to get out of that mindset, because it’s just wrong.

Also, doing those things does not harm your wiki, because you can easily move those pages back. If he continues to do that, then you can block him. That doesn’t make you the boss, though, nor does it mean there needs to be one. You just need to enforce your wiki’s policies. If he’s telling people they can make off topic articles, delete them. If he continues after you ask him, once more, to stop, block him. Yet again, though, that doesn’t mean there needs to be a boss. There just needs to be policy enforcement.

There is one part of your post that’s absolutely right: “I should step up and act like the admin.” That is correct. In order to do that, 1) warn him that if he continues then he’ll be blocked and 2) if he continues, block him (not forever, of course, but you can make blocks incrementally longer). That’s your job: to enforce policies. That doesn’t make you the boss, though. It makes you a trusted user with extra editing tools.

Enforcement is what your wiki seems to need. - Brandon Rhea (talk) 19:39, April 6, 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes I know I can revert it or delete it or whatever but if that keeps happening than that means he's also not really listening y'know?


 * But your last paragraph sums up well what has been going on; yes I did talk with him about it (several times, and politely too) I'll just look and see what happens now since he once again promised to stop. I'll do my best to enforce policies a bit, although I have been doing that since a while now though. But I'll try again. Thanks for the replies -- Zantam03 19:54, April 6, 2010 (UTC)

And when he doesn't listen, despite warnings, that's when you start to use your blocking tools. Hopefully now that he knows that he'll listen. Good luck! - Brandon Rhea (talk) 20:15, April 6, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral Comment - After looking over your wiki, I'd advise against blocking him. Try and work out your problems, and remember that All Editors Are Equal. Check out the message(s) I left on your talk page and Knightrez's. Cook Me Plox 20:35, April 6, 2010 (UTC)

Admins are the ones who are trusted to run the wiki. People should listen to them.--17:48, April 7, 2010 (UTC)


 * 1) "Ain't admin" is wrong for 2 reasons, 1, it's "isn't" and 2, you forgot indefined article "an"
 * 2) I have never had that problem,. though i have seen stubborn contributors on another wiki that acts like a child, create tons of stubs even when he isnt supposed to and more, he got banned

The Emperor Zelos 18:44, April 7, 2010 (UTC)


 * "Ain't is a colloquialism and a contraction originally used for "am not", but also used for "is not", "are not", "has not", or "have not""


 * "...that problem,. though i have seen..." is wrong for two reasons, 1, the ',' followed by a '.' and 2, the 'i' should be a capital; 'I'. ;-)

-- Zantam03 18:54, April 7, 2010 (UTC)

Which is incorrect uses of such a contraction in english.

That is called a typo and you are correct it should be capital, but I am not native english and horrificly lazy XP

The Emperor Zelos 19:39, April 7, 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok, ok, I forgot the "an".. I'm also not native english btw ;-) -- Zantam03 19:58, April 7, 2010 (UTC)

"Admins are the ones who are trusted to run the wiki"&mdash;This is a very persistent and common misconception. Admins are not there to run the wiki. They are there to a) carry out administrative editing tasks such as deletions and b) enforce policies, through warnings and blockings. That doesn't mean they're there to run the wiki, though, because wikis are meant to be run by consensus. =) - Brandon Rhea (talk) 20:17, April 7, 2010 (UTC)


 * Enforcing policies... I guess with this you mean to, for example, make a page about the rules of the wiki? I really wonder, should these rules be made by the admin, or, by consensus.. --Zantam03 20:34, April 7, 2010 (UTC)


 * Consensus is always great, it helps let users realize that the Administration actually wants other people to help. When adding rules, it is always a good option to have the users voice their opinion because they are the ones who have to follow them, right? IMO, Admin's jobs are to guide the users, not rule them. Lastly, I have a question. Do you intend on promoting other users to become SysOps? - Bluethunder Contact 21:47, April 7, 2010 (UTC)


 * SysOps? SystemOperators? Is that something like a mod or something? Perhaps I'll do that when my Wiki gets more popular. -- Zantam03 21:51, April 7, 2010 (UTC)


 * It's just a fancy word for Admin. :P -- Bluethunder Contact 21:56, April 7, 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah ok :P well, no it's just me at the moment. -- Zantam03 22:32, April 7, 2010 (UTC)

Enforcement isn't just about having a page of rules. Yes, that's part of it, but then you, as an admin, will actually be there to carry it out. For example, if you have a rule that says someone needs to be banned (after being warned, of course, unless it's vandalism) for doing something wrong, it's up to the administrator to carry that out. Sometimes there may be a blocking policy that says how long people are banned for certain things, or maybe it would be your discretion. As for who should make the rules, it should always be the community, via consensus. If administrators start deciding rules, then they become bosses. As we've discussed here, they shouldn't be bosses.

Additionally, you're there for helping users if they need it. Bluethunder said it the best: you're there to guide users, not rule them. =) - Brandon Rhea (talk) 00:29, April 8, 2010 (UTC)

smalls wikis

 * Also, i think that if there's a very small number of users on a wiki, like less than 10 including 3 admins, admins are free to set up any rule they want. Sure, after writing the policy page, it's not a bad thing to ask users what they think of it. — TulipVorlax 00:46, April 8, 2010 (UTC)

Theoretically they can, but they should run it by all of the other users before actually making it a rule. If the other users don't like it, then the admin should respect that. - Brandon Rhea (talk) 01:04, April 8, 2010 (UTC)


 * We surely dont have the same experience of wikis.
 * Most of my experience comes from fr.guildwars.wikia.com.
 * On that wiki, the 98% of the contributions have been made by an administrator.
 * In the first year, i tried getting others users and admins to state what they think about rules and all.
 * Most of the time, most of them didn't even cared to reply.
 * So i slowly stoped caring about making policies and all.
 * I still, when i need it, ask the two mains admins what they think of what i do or what i should do.
 * But most of the time, now that the wiki's subject is getting (too) old, again, no reply.
 * I dont say that it's the "good way" to go with this.
 * But sometimes it's better concentrating on doing what we think is the best thing to do (like making more article, even stubs, or banning vandal for a week) instead waiting for others.
 * If all of you guys are lucky enough to always have good users that really want to get involved on your differents projects, i'm sorry, i've never experienced this yet. — TulipVorlax 17:30, April 8, 2010 (UTC)

If they don't reply, then that is consensus: they obviously don't care. Therefore, that means that what you proposed to them should be good to go and you'd be able to put it up. That particular situation isn't an administrator arbitrarily deciding things, because you're taking the effort to get the user's opinions. You should always reach out to the users, but if they don't care and/or don't reply, then that, to me, pretty much means you've got a consensus to go ahead. - Brandon Rhea (talk) 17:33, April 8, 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok, i see the small differency now.
 * — TulipVorlax 06:57, April 9, 2010 (UTC)