Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-37765668-20190722164920/@comment-1807002-20190722205130

I have clashed with some admins in the past. My edit count and contributions mean nothing if they out rank me and their fellow admins back them because they show a united front. And there is nothing wrong with a united front between admins on a wiki.

It doesn't mean they are bad nor I am bad, it is just a clash and sometimes the clash isn't pretty. I take in to account they may have been editing longer and have a high trust level with their fellow admins. Even if it could cause a schism in the community because contributors disagree with the acting admins- what does that help?

Unless it will truly better a wiki for the wiki community split and be two wikis, instead of a toxic- always at odds destructive environment. But you have to ask is it just you or is it more than just you. In one of my cases (it wasn't just me but) I just didn't want to fight it nor break a community over it. In another case we settled our differences, I just knew we'd personality clashed by default and it be something else again eventually. But to other wiki's I have gotten nothing but praise so I know it's not just me (just sometimes strong personalities clash). And apparently my word of the post is clash XD

Know when to just bow out and move on. Because in the end they have the authority and official staff rarely intervenes. Try to research a wiki before fully investing, belong to a 'Majority Rules' community (I been in some wiki's that follow it), basically if the top active contributors can/should over rule admins on certain decisions- admins follow the majority.