User blog comment:Sannse/Admin Philosophy Revisited/@comment-25920351-20170922200920

My feeling is that is information added to a wikia/wikia page that is not false, misleading, plagarized, copyrighted, or otherwise protected, should be welcomed with open arms. But this is not at all how wikia works. There are people (I'm not saying admins do this) that watch the new changes made to any page (not a page they ever had anything to do with in the past, ANY PAGE), and look for something wrong that they can find with it, and either undo the change or just change the material. They will decide that it is irrelevent (one edit said "everyone already knows this", WTF???). They will decide that new information added is superflous. They will decide that even added pages or external links should not exist because they personally don't think the information is relevent. It isn't that it is false, misleading, plagariazed, etc.; they simply don't want it to exist for whatever reason.

When a conflict arrises, the admins will generally rebuff whoever the originator is and side with the editor(s). I've had adds go untouched, then inexpicably, a virtually identical add on a different page is edited, undone, or changed to the point that the original meaning is lost. Trying to undo it results in the editor complaining to an admin, who then tell me not to get into an edit war. There is no actual logic or reasoning used, they simply decide in favor of the guy that shows he/she has 25,000 edits under their belt. Anyway, it's just my opinion, but it seems like there are editor-trolls that have infected wikia and they seem to delight more in undoing things that people have added, rather than helping, suggesting, and assisting.