Forum:What do you do if a Wikia site creator or Admin are making it so yourself and several other users cannot add helpful content?

I've been to quite a few different wikia pages and sometimes the Admins or site creator are kind of jerks. They will undo your edits because they like a page their way (despite several users trying to change the page to a more universally helpful method). When their main page has code errors to where Internet Explorer and Firefox won't read the page right, but Chrome will, they will ignore your comment or delete it from their talk page.

What can I, as a user, do in that situation? This isn't an isolated incident (as I said before, this has happened on a few wikia sites). I generally stop using the wiki in that case, and also quit the game since it's demoralizing. But is there anything else that can be done?Кэне _零三 17:07, May 13, 2011 (UTC)


 * You can try Special:Contact.--
 * That's incredibly frustrating, I've seen a couple of wikis that do that. Remeber that wikis are built on open content grounds, and you always have the option of importing all the pages from one wiki to another one, essentially "forking" the content - but this takes time and effort, that you probably don't want to do.
 * Wikia likes to give communities the final say in decisions like this, so some wikis do get stuck in their ways like this, if you're not wanting to fork the wiki, then it comes down to communication of your point, try and explain why changing will be better for their wiki, and hope that someone will listen  Random Time  17:15, May 13, 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not a fan of admins forcing their views on an entire wiki, but there are times that a change has been previously discussed and rejected, thus making it justified to undo certain edits that are not necessarily bad edits, but are contradicting the previously established consensus. There are also situations that some edits might cause inconsistencies among articles or disrupt article structure and, for example, a DPL summary page. Such situations are can explain why some good edits get undone.
 * While admins shouldn't solely dictate what's going on on the wiki, they should take a stand when an agreement can't be reached, as they usually have a better idea about how the wiki is structured. Before jumping to conclusions and deciding to fork or to report via Special:Contact, it's good to get a full picture first. — Sovq 18:21, May 13, 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikia needs a better process for handling bad admins. With hundreds of thousands of wikis, this will be a growing problem and will begin to alienate much of the user base. -- Fandyllic (talk &middot; contr) 13 May 2011 6:08 PM Pacific
 * I agree on that point contr, as I have been bewildered into leaving both a Wikia and the content I enjoyed due to the bad wikia management due to power-tripping Admins like this. It's very frustrating and I think in most cases a wikia admin stepping in and reminding the wiki admins "Wikias are free to edit and you cannot force your view over that of the desires of the masses" would make a huge difference. While in other cases I'm sure the Wiki admin would just say "then you take over or piss off". Кэне _零三 18:00, May 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * I also agree with Sovq that sometimes the masses are "ignorant" of the big picture, but in that case shouldn't the site creator or main admin just explain that? Even in something as simple as "There are reasons why we can't change that" instead of just blindly deleting alterations without a good excuse. Кэне _零三 18:00, May 14, 2011 (UTC)


 * One thing you can do is to create another wiki about the same subject. You'll have to start anew, but maybe it's worth it. - Tjcool007 (Talk / Contribs) 18:10, May 14, 2011 (UTC)


 * re: "Wikia needs a better process for handling bad admins."
 * As a user who has recently been appointed admin, I believe Wikia simply needs better guides for Admins. While I am aware that Admins are just users with more responsibilities, it's still very easy to fall into bad ways of thinking.  Both former admins on my wiki were very opposed to change, and rarely Assumed Good Faith, always reverting anything they didn't understand.  I try to be the opposite, and Assume Good Faith far beyond the threshold of most - I can tell that, because after questionable content is added, I ask the user for a citation/explanation, and often another user hours later simply removes the content instead.
 * The reason I found this thread is because my wiki has a user who has repeated the same edit 3 times, and I have reverted and politely warned them 3 times, as well as contacting them twice about other issues, but they haven't replied, or acted on any of those messages. So I'm searching for some kind of guidance on how I should deal with the situation. I am aware that I'm not supposed to use admin powers to resolve edit disputes, or disagreements with another user, so I don't want to simple block the user, for fear of being labeled a "tyrant".
 * My point is that I, and many other admins, are not sure of exactly how we should behave. The common experience of many users would probably be with forum moderators, who are mostly heavy handed and not the same thing at all.
 * I'm not saying "stricter" guidelines and more "rules" for Admins, I just mean some instruction on the correct way an Admin is expected to deal with certain situations. The behaviour and fairness of many Admins, myself included, would be greatly improved if we had received a "congratulations on being promoted to admin" message with some links to lists dos and don'ts.  All I can find is tutorials on how to do things, but nothing regarding why/when to do things. -User452 12:50, May 22, 2011 (UTC)


 * lol, looks like they might have forgotten to look at other wiki's policies too, they should see this.
 * --  nobody cares    SongpediaFamily   Band   Chat      Contribs   09:11, May 21, 2011 (UTC)
 * Yup, I've seen it too. A while ago on the Kingdom Hearts Fan Fiction Wiki I got into a huge pissing contest with a tyrant admin. The guy deleted my articles and banned me because he didn't like my fan fiction. Eventually he had some sort of a meltdown and stepped down, only to vandalize my pages while still on the Wiki as a regular editor. He then abandoned the Wiki, after which I made the mistake of not banning him. Later I found him smearing my name on another Wiki, and some months after that he sneaked back into KHFF with a new account, playing it cool until he became eligible for adopting the Wiki because I and the other admins had been inactive. As soon as he regained his admin priviliges, he banned me and started deleting my articles like crazy. I got another, saner admin to revoke his rights, ban him indefinitely and restore my admin rights. I then spent hours fixing the damage he caused.
 * There are several faults I noticed during this ordeal:
 * Wikia needs stricter guidelines and better screening for its admins. Clearly a teenaged kid with anger management issues isn't fit to be an admin and will turn a Wiki into Soviet Russia in a second if granted admin powers. Most of these problems with power tripping admins seem to involve teenaged boys who get a kick of playing Emperor Palpatine over the Internet in between their jerk-off sessions.
 * The admins who handle adoption request need to take responsibility when admins they granted admin priviliges abuse that power. They facilitated the mess, so they need to step up and fix it. When I confronted the admin who gave the abusive KHFF bureaucrat his user rights she had the nerve to tell me that it wasn't an adoption issue, but an on-Wiki fight that we needed to resolve themselves. I mean, seriously. Talk about refusing to take responsibilty for your actions. I'm a pretty easygoing guy, but this kind of irresponsibility and flat-out laziness (all it would take to fix the damage is a couple of mouse clicks) staggers me.
 * Wikia's staff needs to grow some serious backbone. When I was initially banned on the Wiki by the abusive admin, I contacted Wikia staff, asking them to revoke the guy's rights. Again, a ridiculously easy task involving only a few mouse clicks. However, I was met with an maddening onslaught of vague, über-polite responses which seemed hopelessly clueless about what was actually going on on the Wiki and more interested in following protocol and shrugging me off than actually doing something. I mean, I know you shouldn't revoke an admin's rights just because some random user wants you to, but a simple look at the information I presented (a block log consisting of over a hundred blocks, all accompanied by abusive rants about the blockees editing the admin's articles or creating "unworthy" fan fiction) would've indicated my sincerity. This was a pretty clear cut situation and an obvious case of admin power abuse. Still, it took me several tiresome replies back and forth to get the staff member to do anything at all. And when something was done, it was a naïvely polite message that read more like a joint statement by the U.N. Security Council than a firm warning to the admin to stop abusing his power. I couldn't help but think of the scene in Team America where Hans Blix tells Kim-Jong Il to stop his nuclear program, "or we're going to get very angry, and we'll send you a letter telling you how angry we are". I mean, seriously.
 * Xerruy 13:07, May 21, 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. When I was a new user, I was summarily banned by an admin in his early teens who had a history of banning good contributors for petty reasons.  I contacted both the site's bureaucrat as well as wikia staff. The response from wikia staff came first and was only that I was free to start my own wikia.  Soon after, the site's bureaucrat unbanned me, and then demoted the offending admin. He complained loudly that he needed his admin powers back, but has barely edited since. -User452 12:50, May 22, 2011 (UTC)
 * This is why a liaison program is needed. Users that would go into a "locked" wiki and be a bridge between the established community and new editors. They would have no real power except respect of all users. The goal would be to establish new and keepable content. They would transend all hierarchy of wiki's to allow new user content to exist. But they have to be true to the rights of all users, young and old. --I am the best robot 13:18, May 21, 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought this was what Helpers were supposed to do, but from my experience, most helpers are too much like Wikia staff to be effective in these kind of matters. What I mean by this is that they are too removed from the wiki's internal politics to understand what's going on or they don't want to spend the time mediating issues. Also helpers seem to be either technically knowledgeable and very undiplomatic or very nice, but completely wishy-washy. Very little in between.
 * As I've said before, Wikia needs to focus more on quality and less on quantity. Being proud that you support thousands of wikis when most are awful is misguided. -- Fandyllic (talk &middot; contr) 21 May 2011 3:17 PM Pacific
 * As I've said before, Wikia needs to focus more on quality and less on quantity. Being proud that you support thousands of wikis when most are awful is misguided. -- Fandyllic (talk &middot; contr) 21 May 2011 3:17 PM Pacific