Nope, there is no easy way to do it. Building your wiki to make it attractive is a good start, you want those googlers to find you! Have a look at Help:Search Engine Optimization for some advice.
There's also some help here on building a community. There are pages and videos linked from there too, look around for more!
With chat, word of mouth is important too. If someone from your community enjoys you chat, they will hopefully tell their friends in other communities. And then hopefully those friends will tell their friends... and so on.
Zambie, look, we already let you slide once. You were a lot calmer after my warning, but recently you started doing those bad things again. It's you own fault for acting like that and now you have to accept your punishment.
If you are unhappy with an admin and you feel they should lose their rights, you can propose this on the wikia itself. Then the community as a whole can decide whether the admin should stay or go.
The problem is bad admins are the type to block users and prevent them from making proposals like that on the wiki. This makes it impossible to open community discussions on the matter. Bad admins also might delete such discussions.
Is there a way to implement a way that even blocked contributors can propose discussions viewable for to the entire community of that wiki for things like admin review which are very important?
I just got blocked for 100 years for proposing a redirect from w:c:ProWrestling:Draft to w:c:ProWrestling:WWE Draft. Dean27 and Wagnike2 have both contributed a great deal with 392k and 332k edits but even if together they compromise the majority of them, but as can be seen at w:c:ProWrestling:Special:ListUsers others have still made thousands of edits and it seems unfair to let these guys own the whole of wrestling, particularly since this owns redirects like w:c:WWE and w:c:WCW. The simple act of discussing ideas with them is labelled "poor edits". They also leave misleading summaries in their log, like accusing people of inserting 'gibberish' when it actually isn't. talk2ty 08:30, July 20, 2016 (UTC)
That's exactly the case here. There is an extreme chilling effect from these two, you actually get afraid to edit an article lest they dislike something about it and enact some extreme punishment. As seen here I hadn't edited since May, and the only edits I made in July were:
1) asking Sannse a question about vandalism
2) discussing the vandalism on the appropriate talk page
3) proposing an idea for a redirect to Dean, who had edited the page I wanted to redirect to
4) replying to Wagnike's criticism of the redirect
In response to this, Dean blocks me a century. Apparently you just can't explain your reasons to Wagnike if he disapproves of an idea. I didn't even make the redirect! The whole reason I didn't do so was because I wanted to make sure there wasn't other drafts in case a disambig would be warranted.
I guess Dean did this as a show of solidarity or something since it's mostly been Wagnike instituting these abusive blocks.
This is clearly a block to stop community discussion because that's all I've done for the past couple months, I haven't even edited an article since May and they had no problems with my actual edits from December 2015 to May 2016 (hadn't participated at all in June).
Would really appreciate if a Staff could stop in as a tertiary bureaucrat to check these two and encourage them to take more moderate administrative action. They should only be punishing vandalism, not edits they don't think are cool enough or simply discussing things as a community.
The first step is to try and talk to the admin(s). You are allowed to contact them once on their walls here, and you can ask for specifics about your block there.
Intervening to open up a vote, is a last resort, and I would not do that on the strength of a single block. Admins can block anyone for any reason, or even for no reason! I would want to see many more people on the wiki who have problems with the admins before considering an intervention.
Hey, Sannse. So, my wiki has held admin elections for me to see whether I should become an admin. I won 80% of the vote, (4 voted yes, precisely AnimationFan15, Crossovers, SavanahBakes, and DandyAndy1989.) And only one, BouncingParatroopa, voted no. So, logically, I wanted to become an admin, b-crat, a-crat, chat mod, patroller, and rollback, and I should've got my priveliges, but BouncingParatroopa did not. Crossovers didn't say much about this. He thought that his position was closer to yes than no, but much closer to neutral. The rest of the voters, and me, vocalized our opposition. So, can you make me an admin on The Loud House Wiki? If you don't have the power to, convince Crossovers to make me one.