At this time, it looks to be that way. I've just now made an edit (which is well within the guidelines) that expands and adds information. If that gets removed too and they don't give me a proper answer as to why, then I might report them.

Good luck! 👍

Making redirects of names without diacritics isn't that weird. I've been doing it myself for over a decade. For user experience, it's often better, as not all search engines (and not evne Fandom search) can connect the dots.

We can't look inside the head of the admin. I'm not sure if this breaks the Terms of Use, but hey, you can always send in a report. It's in Fandom's best interest to keep communities alive, and if you've got a gatekeeper that nukes every blade of grass that's not a viable long term plan. However, they don't really have plans and policies in place to deal with that except fo "talk it over". You can make good arguments in your favor, but the admin controls the status quo.

In regards to redirects, there is also the matter of how far you want to go. Purely based on the example you mentioned above, I can understand creating them. The specific creation of those can be justified, for example for search engines, transliteration, or accessibility. However, to take an extreme, if I were to create redirects for actor Jet Li, would those new redirects include "Li Jet" (which is the Chinese format of the same name), "Li Lianjie" (which is his original name apparently), "Chet Li", "Cet Li", "Jet Lee", "Chet Lee", "Tchet Li" (which all could be the same name in different languages or dialects), all kinds of variations in Chinese, Cyrillic, or any other non-Latin language, the names of roles he has played, and all kinds of other direct associations?

I've had a user on one of my wikis that almost only created redirects and categorized them or added more text to the redirect pages. I've received multiple messages from them asking to create overly complex redirects like "The Academy Awards that took place in the Dolby Hotel in Los Angeles, California, United States on this and this date in this year", something they have done on a lot of different wikis. Is that allowed? Purely based on the example you mention, I don't see much different than the situation you are in right now. Do admins generally think this behaviour is welcome or wanted? Well no, someone who comes to a wiki just to create a lot of redirects for little to no reason, in this case also copies all kinds of information from Wikipedia, generally isn't seen positively within a community.

There's a difference between making a Chet Lee redirect and, say, a Motley Crue one.

Oh definitely, in the specific example the OP mentioned earlier, I can fully understand creating them. I'm just trying to visualize when or how a seemingly random user creating purely redirects can become too much. I don't have the full story of the wiki that is mentioned by the OP, I don't know if there is any indication or reason to create redirects that are vague, I don't know what the admin's experience is with redirects, I don't know how familiar a slightly adapted version of a name is within that community.

Hello!

First, just to be clear, no one of the users who participated in this conversation has any global role related to the said wiki. It's all about opinions and advices. And since no one of us is able to really investigate the details, the advices are generic. There was no any type of a "court" here. That goes also for the reply I'm typing right now.

Having different style choices is totally understandable, and usually in the hands of the current admins. It doesn't really matter how those admins were chosen or how experienced and talented they are, it's just the fact that they are in charge. Of courese, admins can choose to listen to more experienced people, but there is technically nothing forcing them too.

What admins are not allowed to do (and I'm not saying you did) is to keep the wiki from any attempt of other users to improve the contents, as this contradicts the idea of "wiki", which is a community collaborative project. There can be rules and guidelines, but they should be set in a way that leave space for constructive edits. Of course, there are also gray areas.

It's also important to say that according to today rules, there is no option to create another wiki about the same topic, and there is no such thing as "My (some topic) wiki". Only one Fandom wiki is supposed to exist about each topic, and it belongs only to the company. If one creates a second wiki about the same topic, it will just be closed,

I hope you will figure it all out for the best!

I can acknowledge a difference in opinion and styles. But there has to some allowance for change and growth. Saying "This is how we agreed on it years ago" doesn't mean you should bar change.

The reason I haven't made any minor edits on that wiki is because the edits I want to make are bigger. One thing I'm struggling to understand, is how it's okay for one person to have so much control over a public/communal thing to the degree that no one is allowed to do anything. Just because you "plan" to do things, doesn't mean plans can't change.

The situation is really unfair considering I'm a fan of the series and I want to help out. But it is getting harder and harder to do anything because you're too strict about how things should be done. I'm all for "If you want it done right, do it yourself." but not to this degree.

@HumansCanWinElves, thank you for your response. I do hope to keep my interactions with DuchessDream between just us and solve it peacefully as well.

@DuchessDream, given the other users' responses to the matter. I think it is best to solve on the Ultimo Wiki, as it should be.