Forum:Role of Admin in Wikia sites?

I'm trying to understand the hierarchy in Wikia sites. Is the role of Admins to ride roughshod over contributers or are as a rule are they mostly supposed to stand aside and let contributers do their thing? I ask because I am an admin for a different Wikia site and I basically do that, stand back and allow contributers to add content and I only get involved when there are disputes. This morning I went to a site which for now will remain unnamed, I saw descriptions of a story in an intro paragraph, corrected them and came back later to find that they had both been erased by the site's admin. I was told I was telling the story twice, as other parts of the article decribed the story in detail. But a narrative was all ready in place in this intro article. I just fixed it. It seemed to me that instead of fostering a collaborative atmosphere, the admin at this site was trying to control content. I found it frustrating, taking the time to fix something only to see the changes thrown out. After a lengthy discussion with one of the Admin, I saw the writing on the wall and decided that my input was not really wanted and did not feel the need to bang my head against the wall, adding content only to see it disappear.

It made me wonder what the official line is on how Wikia sites are supposed to function? Are they supposed to be a collaborative effort or input as only allowed by admin of the site? Thanks. Titanic71 00:21, June 4, 2010 (UTC)


 * The problem is often that local admin who have created a wiki think they own it.
 * There was a page on this wiki that was explaining that nobody own a wiki on Wikia but i failed to retreive it.
 * Aside from that, Wikia generally let local admin do whatever they want and avise to try to talk with them when they behave badly. Normally, even if you're blocked, you can still edit your own talk page.
 * On some more severe cases, Wikia can intervene, although it generally only consist of talking whit them. — TulipVorlax 00:05, June 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly, no one owns a Wikia site. So the question then becomes how strick is the control an Admin has over the structure of articles? If you want to add a new paragraph in this case, a summary, does Admin have the right to block you? I realize there is what Wikia says is supposed to be and then there is how it really is. :P Titanic71 00:17, June 4, 2010 (UTC)


 * The behavior of admins is hard to police and there are so many Wikia in existence now (119290 according to TulipVorax's counter), that unless several users use Special:Contact to notify Wikia staff and have consistent stories, the likelihood of discipline is probably small. If there is a group of coordinated admins demonstrating bad behavior, you're basically screwed as they will back each other up when talking to Wikia staff. C'est la vie, as they say.
 * That said, Special:Contact is really your best recourse, if discussion with the offending admin has no effect. -- Fandyllic  (talk &middot; contr) 5:51 PM PST 3 Jun 2010
 * Thanks for the input. I have contacted Wikia staff by means of the link you provided, but realistically I don't have any real hopes I'll be able to function on that wikia. BTW the wikia in question is: http://james-camerons-avatar.wikia.com/wiki/Avatar_Wiki. Titanic71 02:31, June 4, 2010 (UTC)


 * Hopefully your task isn't unobtainium-able. Sorry, I couldn't resist. -- Fandyllic  (talk &middot; contr) 2:27 PM PST 4 Jun 2010


 * Now that's funny! :D Oh I got word back from Wikia Staff. In a nutshell, it is unobtainium. Their answer was "that's too bad". I think the notion that Wikias are not owned has been debunked. I'll be looking for more friendly Wikias to spend effort on. -Titanic71 03:24, June 5, 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Titanic! I'm the creator of the Avatar Wiki, and I don't consider the wiki as a hierarchy. We are not trying to do whatever we want, we are trying to mantain an order in articles. I'm sorry if you are somehow offended, we just reverted your edits because the introduction is a brief summary of the article. Please if you have any other question ask me, don't run to the forums or Wikia (they don't really help =P). And we are a friendly wiki ;) -- ( (  (  (  Matias   )  )  )  )  ~  Talk   IRC  04:14, June 5, 2010 (UTC)


 * Ironically Matias, you have debunked that running to the forums doesn't work, because you could have contacted Titanic on your wiki, but you decided to communicate here. Regardless, I hope it all works out. Some wikis have an admin or admins with the attitude, "it's my/our way or the highway." -- Fandyllic  (talk &middot; contr) 1:51 AM PST 5 Jun 2010
 * The topic has already been discussed in our wiki two days ago. Titanic71 simply does not like the explanation for why two of his edits were reverted. He did not correct the intro paragraphs of two articles, but extended them with additional paragraphs with info that is already found in the main part of the article, so that the intro was almost a DIN A4 page long. The people who reverted it happened to be admins, so he started to question the role of admins. Our admins are contributors like anyone else with only a few buttons more. His edits would have been reverted anyway, admin or not. Faern. 15:43, June 5, 2010 (UTC)

OK. I have seen this written somewhere, although I can't remember where. An admin is just a trusted user who has a few extra buttons. They do not have priority over normal users at all. They can just delete things and block vandals. 09:37, June 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is the ideal philosophy.
 * But since Wikia began to permit anyone to create wikis, they also tend to permit local sysops to do whatever they want like protecting any page they see fit.
 * But that doesn't excuse not explaining to an user why we reverted his edit. — TulipVorlax 09:41, June 5, 2010 (UTC)

I learned a lot from it :-P I still don't fully agree with the ownership part though... I mean, I made my wiki with a certain goal in mind, one that I know better than anyone else. Nowadays I just let everyone edit and have their way though, but "behind the scenes" I can't see how I cannot be the "owner", so to speak. --- Zantam03 ( Talk ) 13:27, June 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you guys are referring to a topic I once started: this one (and this one too I guess)


 * I never said that forums were useless, I said that contacting Wikia was. Really, we never tried to be autorithary, so if you want to check the conversation Titanic had with my other admin, please check it out here. Again, I'm sorry if he was offended. -- ( (  (  (  Matias   )  )  )  )  ~  Talk   IRC  15:46, June 5, 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, someone should have posted the conversation between Titanic and admins earlier and that would have made things more clear early on. I will also say, when removing large chunks of content, it might be wise to put a short message on the affected user's talk page. I still think the conversation about the role of admins is useful.
 * It is misleading and naive to suggests that admins are "just like other users, but with extra buttons to press". That's like saying a pilot is just like other people except they have buttons that can fly planes. Admins have to demonstrate a higher level of responsibility to go with their increased powers. Admins need to communicate more when they press their "special buttons" unless the person is an obvious vandal.
 * Also, admins need to follow the rules even more closely than a regular user, because regular users look to admins to enforce those rules. -- Fandyllic  (talk &middot; contr) 2:25 PM PST 5 Jun 2010


 * We do follow the rules. You can see here that If you are reverting a good-faith edit, avoid the rollback and always use the traditional revert so you can explain your rationale in the summary. That's exactly what we did. I do find this conversation usefull also, as it may clear things up. I hope this helps Titanic to understand we didn't do anything against him or anyone else. -- ( (  (  (  Matias   )  )  )  )  ~  Talk   IRC  21:40, June 5, 2010 (UTC)


 * Your presence here and willingness to take the time to explain the situation tells me that you care. I also hope Titanic is not discouraged and starts to contribute again. On the flip side, users have responsibilities too and the admins sometimes can piss people off even when they do the right thing. -- Fandyllic  (talk &middot; contr) 2:45 PM PST 5 Jun 2010


 * What is meant by "just like other users, but with extra buttons to press" is that they (we) have the same status as normal users. We can not say that we are above anyone. It may seem like a hierarchy but all an admin is is a highly trusted user in most cases (except adoption when it is a user who has made a few edits). 21:51, June 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * My take is that Wikis are collaborative efforts, and everyone is a collaborator, even the admins. Admins are there to serve and guide collaborators on a wikia, not to own a wikia. It is a learned skill and ability, servant leadership, and does not have overtones of control. Leadership of a wiki by way of sysop/crat status is firstly leadership by example. People will not follow leaders who do not set the example. Consider that the right of being an admin includes the responsibility of facilitating participation, not enforcing rules (although there is a time and a place for dealing with those who do not want to abide the agreed rules). Above all, wikis are at the same time, both sharing of information and knowledge, and social networking. You don't do social networking by dehumanising people and hitting everyone on the head with the rules, and playing "I'm the king of the castle"...  - <font color="#ff3300">Whiteguru  (Talk) 23:17, June 5, 2010 (UTC)Whiteguru


 * We'd all love to live in the land of cotton candy clouds and marshmallow hearts, but until someone enforces rules, even your idealistic vision of adminship will not come to pass. You're making rules, but just trying to make them sound "agreeable". When you have users that seems to only want to use a wiki to write nonsense that gives them a personal chuckle, I don't think admins have the responsibility to facilitate that, even though it still counts as "participation".
 * I do agree that admins should guide and lead by example, but only to serve to the extent that requests are reasonable. Wikia definitely has a laissez faire attitude about admins and seem to avoid policy when they can (see WikiAnswers), but that does not serve as guidance or good example. It would be helpful if Wikia were much more clear about their expectations for admins, so we wouldn't have to go round and round about it in forums like this.
 * Ultimately Wikia can kick any of us for arbitrary reasons, but if they at least made their positions clear, we could identify the arbitrary from the sensible. -- Fandyllic  (talk &middot; contr) 7:59 PM PST 5 Jun 2010


 * An admin, you could say, is a stronger user than most in the ways of wiki editing and sorting out arguments. But, they cannot, say, boss people around like You, do that or I will block you. That should not be allowed as that is a corrupt admin in my view. An admin can always ask but never force users to do things. 07:56, June 6, 2010 (UTC)

Theres a lot of users on Wikia and not so many staffs, they cant avoid all "abuses"...

But they can do this : Community Guidelines. — TulipVorlax 11:56, June 6, 2010 (UTC)