Forum:Help with non contributors/anonymous harassers

I have recently adopted a almost dead wiki with no active contributors (well one but they only edit one page and doesn't communicate). No real activity for about 6 months and horribly out of date. First off comments were enabled and non-contributors/anonymous comments plagued the wiki with questions, info (instead of updating the article) and spam mostly unanswered from a year ago. But there was one page that had activity, this page had pages of comments of people asking and posting what could be called next to cheats/exploits. I am trying to bring an editing community in and so far it is me and another and 2 more hopefuls.

But I had to get rid of these comments, unfortunately I thought comments would be transferred to the talk page but disappeared without a trace. And the people who liked this cheat page are mad cause they can't comment and the comments are gone, I explained but it escalated to abuse and telling me to leave. I am the only admin and the wiki is well on it's way to being up to date but these non contributors/anonymous won't stop, I said if they truly feel that comments help the wiki as a whole an not just this page they have been using as a message board, they can become regular editors/contributors (for pages besides this one) and it can be discussed as a community.

How can I build a community if people: one don't care about the rest of the wiki's interest, second not scare off new contributors with this haters and three overwhelming me with negativity after spending countless hours updating and improving the wiki. I am just trying not to take it personal but everyday it is another comment and I am so close to just deleting or protecting this page to stop the abuse but I am sure it get worse. S.O.S 21:32, September 28, 2011 (UTC)

People tend to say that communicating with people who are also interested in the idea of making the site and the content is a good start to building a community. Removing the "bad meat" from the shed can also help make the place a friendlier place for newer editors, because I'm sure you wouldn't stay somewhere that treats you poorly. You can block the editor that is harassing you if it comes down to that. And just keep adding content. 22:09, September 28, 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, right now it seems to be multiple users from expressing frustration to, telling me off. I think my last warning to stop posting non topic comments (ie complaints will be removed) but I'd hate to start blocking so soon but it might have to come to that. Thank for your answer, I worry bout wikis cause users can out vote admins but a revolution over one page by non contributors though doubtful haunts me. I just needed reassurance that I am doing what is right for the wiki (even if it is bias willing to hear other opinions as long as they are for the whole wiki and not their cheat page). 22:17, September 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * If you are building the wiki's content, you are in the right (typically). Especially if the other people who sound like they are harassing you are using the wiki solely for use as a cheatsheet. Maybe if they're registered users you can tell them they can create a cheatsheet in their userspace, and ask them to use that instead of the mainspace for their cheatsheets? 22:23, September 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * That is great idea but so far there excuse is wikis are too complicated and even using the talk page was unreasonably difficult and some even refuse to edit update the article they just want to post in a comment or find the info is the list of comments. But if someone reasonably wants to discuss options that is something I can now recommend. I went as far to posting in the forums wiki for beginners (still just in rough but basic how to use talk pages, signatures, adding images, help links). But it does appear they do not venture from this cheat page.


 * At first I was very against all cheats and was going to remove the article because it does in a away unlawfully gives an advantage to the game that the company would be getting money for and though that it broke the wikis policy/terms, but I did double check (messaged a rep of the company) and the list it self has not been flagged as a cheat against the company's in question ToC... yet. I really can't wait till the community grows cause I don't like being the only admin with no back up when it comes to user confrontations. 22:38, September 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * Chatting with them is good. You guys might be able to work out a compromise if you keep working at it. Maybe in exchange for you transferring their cheatsheet to wiki markup in their userspace they could do something for you? Such as help edit other pages? 00:19, September 29, 2011 (UTC)
 * I have taken a look at the wiki cafeworldwhich you are admin at and i can a bit understand their reasoning for you suddenly shutting down comments without warning.
 * I also see at least 7 different people contributing in september, where you have done a major surge of edits. I am a bit ticked off that wikia staff did approve your adoption request without consulting the active community.
 * It took me a while to get to the mentioned page it is all about: GID and i can only figure out that many people actively took part in a discussion there, which was instantly removed by you without prior warning (it's a tad hard to get the comment details back for me right now, but i can get a bit of a picture there). You can, as far as i know, activate comments again and discuss it with the community before taking such drastic steps again.
 * That's better way then saying: this shouldn't be there. Now you are actually participating in an editing war (tip: read this), which you should try to avoid on a wiki. Especially since you used your powers to settle a dispute on this subject. In my humble opinion not in a good way (you silenced people who did not agree with you).
 * Also another point of advice: Use template Talkback when you reply to someone.
 * Those words of advice are to help you, not to make you feel bad or stop editing. You are doing a very great job at that wiki. It is smart to be nice to people if you want to build up a strong community however.


 * The more correct course of action would be to comb through the comments and transfer the useful stuff to the article before disabling them.
 * Also, you have no business removing people's posts from talk pages, that's what talk pages are for. Unless they post just insults or something. I suggest inserting people's feedback back into the talk page.
 * My $0.02 -- 14:50, September 29, 2011 (UTC)


 * IcecreamKitten, talk page etiquette/rules differ from wiki to wiki. Some wikis strictly enforce that article talk pages should only include comments that are directly related to improving the article. In such cases it would be all right for administrators to remove comments that broke the rules. Gardimuer { ʈalk } 18:51, September 29, 2011 (UTC)
 * Gardimuer, please do look into things a bit if you post such things. Hollowness has been editing the wiki for 3 days before opting for adoption. It gets approved after 7 days. No rules or such have been discussed or implemented BEFORE hollowness became admin, at least 7 people contributed to the wiki during the month she came in. She (or he) then turned off comments after consulting with the game creators the wiki is about. Not by discussing it on the wiki, at least, i could not track down such a conversation/ discussion anywhere on that wiki (but i may have missed it)
 * Such etiquette rules should be estabilished for a reason. For example, when the wiki is being edited a lot, and irrelevant talk comments make it harder to monitor discussions. Does the traffic on that wiki justify such a rule? I don't think so.
 * Such etiquette rules should be estabilished for a reason. For example, when the wiki is being edited a lot, and irrelevant talk comments make it harder to monitor discussions. Does the traffic on that wiki justify such a rule? I don't think so.


 * Hollowness is on the right track, it's the management style that seems unnecessarily strict for the size of that wiki. -- 20:07, September 29, 2011 (UTC)


 * Pim: Your assessment of the "active community" on that wiki differs from mine, which is why I did not ask for a "community discussion" before the adoption. I consider an active community to be users editing content on the wiki with some regularity. Only one of the users and a couple of the IPs which have protested the change had edited the wiki before the adoption was made; and none of them has ever made more than a few sporadic short comments on the single page in question.  The other 6 of your 7 users are not upset at all as far as I can see.  It would be unusual for a community adoption discussion to have touched on the subject of comments/content policy even if there had been one.  People routinely ask to adopt wikis the day they start editing and it is standard for us to ask for a week of consistent editing before granting the rights; Hollowness' 3 + 7 days is very consistent with the normal adoption process.  I also feel that this discussion of the merits of Hollowness' adoption is not particularly helpful here; although I am happy to continue discussing it elsewhere if you wish.


 * There was no "policy" on the wiki about appropriate content prior to Hollowness adopting it because there was no leadership of any sort, nor any consistent longterm editors. By definition, an abandoned wiki can be edited any way anybody wants.  Hollowness did not suddenly come in and reverse a longstanding policy; he tried to clean up the wiki and create some policies.


 * Hollowness, you are completely within your rights to decide what direction the wiki should take and what content is appropriate. No, you probably shouldn't do so without input from other users, but it is ok to recognize that some users are only interested in small parts of the wiki, and that those parts may not fit into the goals of the rest of the wiki, and to make decisions for the majority.  As far as I can see most of your users are fine with this decision.  That you have tried to help these other users adjust is really great.  So hang in there :).  -- Wendy  (talk ) 02:25, September 30, 2011 (UTC)


 * I did not realize all comments would be lost (I thought they'd be moved) IK or I would have followed such action, I have been in another wiki that never had comments, so though I could have handled it better knowing what I know now it is too late. Also I did look up to make sure changing a this setting was abuse of my admin rights (I spent 2 days double checking articles and old posts forums, reading and rereading the policies), no where I read that non contributors/anonymous can trump a decision made by an admin or even an editor (if one does no edit nor add to the actual articles, I believe you are only consider a viewer even if you comment/use talk pages) only actual contributors/regular editors should be asked before hand and this was only in reference to the viewers of 1 article, no other article has had a reaction and don't believe ever will. These people may have been in a discussion but there was little to no article editing and I believe this was due to comments since the change I have seen more edits on the article in question. And I have been a member of another wiki well run and worked close with the admins so I have tried to do nothing that I thought would violate the wikis policies. I do cafe world guides and update for players on the zynga forums (for over 6 months) and have had wiki experience, I would love to have had an active community to come to discuss the wiki for a smoother transition but there wasn't one.


 * I believe with some people it wouldn't have mattered how much contributing for how long, I would ever satisfy (cause I see that I am seen as knowing nothing, being stupid apparently, not caring and being wrong. Not my idea of something I want to see first thing after a 4-8 hours of editing the day/night before and see new ones every morning after, until I removed the troublesome comments and warn all non related comments would be deleted. And since then it has stopped). I tried to communicate but the more it was discussed the worse it got, I felt it was too volatile to feed the flame. If any of these non contributors/anonymous had a registered account it would have been easier to communicated because I am not here for confrontations (a war is bit of an exaggeration) and this prolly would not have turn out the way it did, I cannot look up countless IP address comment an explanation and alternatives for each, if the first thing they says is wiki is too complicated, and they don't barely understand talk pages and refuse to learn.


 * I ideally want to serve this wiki's community but until I get one and not allow to be harassed by a few upset non contributor/anonymous, I will make decisions and deal with the outcome as long as I believe it is for the better of the wiki but never unwilling to revert when a community is established and it is requested in majority. Since this I have recruited another admin who I am running things by so there be another point of view to consider and not feel everything is just mine to decide and taking an opinion of someone: who thinks of the wiki as a whole and who is just as excited to be helpful to the wiki and see it's development. And I can't wait till I have enough admins and regular editors I trust, to never have to make a soul decision without their full feedback, that is my goal.


 * Thank you Wendy when I started reading this additional feedback it did run through my mind to give up. Why, if everyone thinks this way, so just let things go to dirt just so a few people who don't care about the rest of the wiki, and let them get what they want and walk away. To read that I am trying to silence people as if I am some social regime (maybe it is the German background and raised by a parent in the military, but I never intend to be rigid or mean, I do hope that much is clear). And I am sure it is far easier finding faults and seeing that you took the time to see that I at least try, even if I am not that good at it has inspired me, thank you.  01:06, October 2, 2011 (UTC)