PvXwiki:Wikia noticeboard/Archived User Rights Issues

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

General message

(please move if this isn't the best place for this) There have been a couple of requests for Checkuser rights recently. I know that admins have traditionally had checkuser rights on this wiki, but we would like to move PvX a little closer to the rest of the wikis on Wikia. There are 23 people here with checkuser rights... most wikis have none, and those that do have checkusers generally have just two. So I think it's fair to say that PvX Wiki has enough people with the right to do the job. If that changes in the future, then we would consider adding someone else, and certainly we could remove the right from anyone inactive. But it's not something that every admin needs, and enough people have the right already for all your checkuser needs. Thanks all -- sannse (talk) 02:11, December 15, 2009 (UTC)

That may be true, but what you need to know is that many of the users on that list are inactive. Currently, I'd say we have around 1-3 active users with checkuser. Although I understand your desire for us to be closer to other wikis on wikia, I am almost certain that we get more vandalism than over half those sites, a lot of which is from ex-users or users who are trying to sock. So, there is good reason for us to have checkuser privileges. Karate

Jesus 02:51, 15 December 2009

People do troll quite a lot here. Invincible Rogue

02:54, December 15, 2009 (UTC)

I would recommend granting it to all our active admins (at the very least). We have a list of currently active (and inactive) admins here. Maybe some of the inactive admins could have their rights removed and the active admins added? Or something similar? Karate

Jesus 02:59, 15 December 2009

Or we could give it to people like Danny and I who make quality contributions to the site every day, and take it away from people who just use it for getting ip addresses for DDoSing (*cough* Big *cough*) —

03:10, December 15, 2009 (UTC)

"People do troll quite a lot here." See? Invincible Rogue

03:12, December 15, 2009 (UTC)

^. And Big doesn't have checkuser. Only 2 of our 4 active admins have checkuser. And our only "active" bcrat is inactive most of the time. Karate

Jesus 03:13, 15 December 2009

I see Auron around every day (on IRC), he just doesn't edit because there's little for him to do. ~ PheNaxKian talk 12:16, December 15, 2009 (UTC)

I don't think checkuser is needed for an every admin. I understand that it makes things easier but I would prefer to keep my privacy----X 12:32, December 15, 2009 (UTC)

So that you can log off and proxymaster like Life :> ---Chaos- (talk) -- 12:43, December 15, 2009 (UTC)

KJ has probably already explained to you that socking is a bannable offense on PvX due to biasedly voting on ones own builds, and, as he said, because we have many vandals. ---Chaos- (talk) -- 12:43, December 15, 2009 (UTC)

Due to our vetting system socking is a way bigger problem on this wikia, then on most others. There for a lot of people with checkuser are needed over here, though I do agree 23 might be a little over the top. however, there has been no abuse of some kind, afaik so why the hell does it even matter this wikia has more checkusers then others? Thomas So Dutch 13:11, December 15, 2009 (UTC)

Some addicts need to checkuser people when RC is silent. ---Chaos- (talk) -- 13:13, December 15, 2009 (UTC)

KJ's option is probably the best one. Remove Checkuser from inactive admins and give it only to active ones. If we didn't have the Vetting system, it would be entirely unnecessary, but as it stands it is still required in some cases. Also, please don't give it to me or Thunda - doing so would accomplish nothing. ··· Danny Hates Snow 22:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy to remove it from inactive admins (given a list) and review whether there is a need for more than those that remain. I think some of the comments above reflect why we are generally cautious about too many people having this ability. For the sake of privacy, it should be used sparingly... so even with socking problems it doesn't need to be in the hands of every admin -- sannse (talk) 00:49, December 16, 2009 (UTC)

If a user is really concerned about his or her privacy, he or she would likely be using a proxy or onion routing already. You'll notice that most veteran users of the site feel that it's a fair trade off considering that our administrative staff, while perhaps not a shining example of such, is not corrupt to the extent that they willingly share the IP addresses of other users. I have no problem conceding that it doesn't need to be in the hands of every admin, but given the pertinence of it to our policies, it would be difficult to determine which ones should be allowed to keep it. (Most veteran admins versus most active admins?) A possible solution would be to hold RfCU's, allowing the community to determine who they feel should be allowed to view their IP addresses. ··· Danny Hates Snow 05:16, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Here's the list:

This would leave 9 people with checkuser (all 5 bureaucrats, KJ, Big, Frosty, & Phen). Wait for other active admins' consensus on this list, obviously. Toraen-Gifts Plz 03:58, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Wait, why are people like Skakid and Rawr on that list? ---Chaos- (talk) -- 07:27, December 16, 2009 (UTC)

BMs used to get Checkuser, iirc. For sock identification. ··· Danny Hates Snow 07:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I just want to add in a message to note I am disappointed in Wikia. I believe we were told that the day to day running of the wiki would not be interfered with, yet here is a request for us to change the way we deal with checkuser permissions, while as far as I can see there is no understanding of why we even have the policy in place. Because we use a voting system to rate our builds it is important that we can confirm that accounts are unique users. If they are worried about abuse of the feature, removing it from inactive sysops and buildmasters will not prevent abuse as people who aren't here cannot abuse the tools anyway. This whole thing seems misguided and in bad faith. Misery Says Moo 08:31, December 16, 2009 (UTC)

Misery, I understand why you'd feel like that, but if this is a way for all of our active admins to have the tools we need to get the job done then, for the time being, I'm ok with it. I discussed this in detail with wikia staff through email and although, I agree with you that this isn't ideal, they had no plans to give our active admins checkuser without removing it from others.

I understand your argument, but to quote you, "removing it from inactive sysops and buildmasters will not prevent abuse as people who aren't here cannot abuse the tools anyway". Inactive admins and Bcrats aren't here, so I don't see why they even need the tool. And if one were to come back, they could easily declare themselves active and re-receive the tool. Karate

Jesus 19:54, 17 December 2009

I've had checkuser for like 8 months btw. lol -- Biggles Jollyfist 20:00, December 17, 2009 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. My bad. Btw, here's how wikia wants to do this in the future. Chris (Uberfuzzy) will give checkuser rights to anyone who's on the active admin list, so if an admin/bcrat returns then he will re-grant them checkuser rights. If an admin goes inactive, he will remove their checkuser rights. I didn't know he was planning on removing the inactive bcrats' checkuser rights, so I'm going to talk to Auron and see if he wants that changed. Karate

Jesus 20:04, 17 December 2009

Sannse; our wiki is not like the other wikia wikis. We are not a compendium of general information, we are a build vetting resource. Please restore any lost checkuser flags and continue to place them on new sysops and buildmasters as they are appointed, as was agreed upon when we became a Wikia wiki. I trust you guys haven't forgotten your pledge to interfere as little as possible with the running of our wiki - the checkuser tool is an integral part of ensuring that votes are not tampered with, and arbitrarily limiting who gets the tool runs counter to this wiki's aims and goals. -Auron 22:39, December 17, 2009 (UTC)

I certainly agree that both active and inactive bcrats should retain their checkuser, but I see little reason to allow inactive admins and buildmasters to retain such rights, particularly when several of those users were rather controversial to begin with. In fact, I can't say I see the need for buildmasters to have Checkuser at all, since their primary purpose is to patrol build quality, not watch for socks. ··· Danny Hates Snow 00:26, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Tbh, according to our policies the Bcrats are the ones who decide who gets what (as far as user rights are concerned) and in this case our bcrats weren't informed or consulted for this decision. And that's not how this works. If Auron wants all our admins, Bcrats, and BMs to have checkuser, then that's how it should be. That's the right he has as a bcrat (according to policy). Karate

Jesus 00:46, 18 December 2009

None of the policies specifically mention Checkuser, but I would personally motion for it to be included in the Administration policy and excluded from the Build Master policy. Given the contentious position that Build Master is, I believe it would be anything but wise to allow users who regularly conflict with other users to be provided with the ability to view those users' personal information. Build Masters should be patrolling builds, not users, and if the question of a sock is raised, an admin can easily handle such a situation without delving into the validity of a vote. ··· Danny Hates Snow 00:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

"as was agreed upon when we became a Wikia wiki" ← I did not know about this (not having been an admin at the time of the wikia move) but in light of it I support giving everyone back their checkuser rights. I also don't understand why the inactive Bcrats had their rights taken away to begin with. We were only discussing removing it from inactive admins (and BMs), and my list above reflected that. It also seems that Auron wasn't even consulted prior to removing the rights, which was a very bad move on wikia's part. Toraen-Gifts Plz

04:57, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I do not understand where the confidence comes from that Wikia will restore the rights of any sysop returning to activity considering that this entire process is already going against what they have assured us of at the start. They have never liked us having checkuser because they don't understand why we need it. I see this as another attempt for them to remove it from us stepwise. BMs should retain checkuser. It was actually proposed that only BMs should have checkuser to allow them to remove sock votes but it was decided that it was a useful tool for admins to retain to fight vandalism etc. Bureaucrats are supposed to manage user rights on this wiki, in fact that is their only real function up and above what a sysop does, yet they were not consulted on this change and in fact many of them had their rights altered. Something seems pretty fucked up here. Misery Says Moo 09:17, December 18, 2009 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that no consensus has been reached and that this whole issue was discussed on a tucked away part of the wiki that few people would frequent. This was basically done on the basis of what one of newest admins said (which was to provide a list of inactive admins, not to say that their rights should definately be removed) and on the whim of Wikia staff.

Misery Says Moo 09:19, December 18, 2009 (UTC)

See what Misery said above, although I do appreciate what wikia is doing for us (remember guys they are essentially paying for this website now) but I don't think removing our Checkuser rights is a very good idea "because other wikias don't have many checkusers". If we were to have checkuser removed people could go around creating second/third accounts and our whole vetting system would be a shambles, as well as the amount of problems it would cause on the drama and vandalism side of things. --Frosty

09:38, December 18, 2009 (UTC)

What I find hilarious is that all but 1 bureaucrat lost Check User, but all BM's retained it. ^_^ Thomas So Dutch 10:31, December 18, 2009 (UTC)

I think, sadly, one of the brcats need to probably map out exactly what we want (pretty much a list of names to be given checkuser/where checkuser is no longer necessary). Things seem to actually get done then. -

Athrun Feya - 11:34, December 18, 2009 (UTC)

Uh, I did. I requested all of the checkuser flags be restored. -Auron 12:45, December 18, 2009 (UTC)

Has anyone contacted GCard or DE? The two of them are the original bureaucrats, and it could very well be worth getting input from them. I'll leave a note on DE's talk page for now. ··· Danny Hates Snow 18:28, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Misery 100%. I want the admins and BMs to have the ability to identify sock puppets easily. See, Wikia, we basically have a democracy for each build. In a democracy, when one person votes multiple times, it skews both the results and the appearance of the popular consensus. The United States has very tight security on voting. If a man who had a heavily criminal record and showed no sign of reform ran for president, he probably would not win because people would not support him. If, however, people create extra votes for him, he can win the office and screw up the whole world. Wikis for Zelda or Final Fantasy don't have any kind of voting, so they don't need Checkuser. For a democracy like PvX, it is imperative that our admins have that. Invincible Rogue

23:44, December 18, 2009 (UTC)

I love you and imma let u finnish, but those r some srsly terrible metaphors :> ---Chaos- (moo) -- 23:45, December 18, 2009 (UTC)

First of all, PvX is by no means a democracy. Second of all, Auron and DE have submitted their opinions. It is probably best to let discussion die temporarily and wait for a reply from Wikia. ··· Danny Hates Snow 20:38, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to thoroughly and concisely explain why we need it, and if I'm missing out on something then someone please point it out. I'll just mash this wall of text here for future reference and visibility. These things mentioned are in no way speculation, and such events occur regularly.

Vandalism
- We have a massive amount of vandals, and the nature of the wiki being as it is, active users too might feel like vandalizing something in the spirit of the lovely joke. I could point out many incidents of my own and others, even one from within the last day or two, where checkusering would easily have given away the person for circumventing a ban.
- People get banned (and proxy) on a regular basis here. Even the people we accept as admins, and especially our build masters deserve a ban every now and then.

Vetting procedure and socks
- A build is put into a category (0-3.74=trash, 3.75-4.7.4=good, 4.75-5=great) once it has gotten 5 votes. People are in general very biased toward their own builds, and since having made many builds is a show of status (since vetting even one can be quite hard), and people are very stubborn about the qualities of the build, it comes to asking friends to vote favorably, or creating a sock account with which one votes higher. Thus we simply prohibit sock users. Again, I could probably point out a few cases which would've required checkusering.
- People can create sock accounts on a whim to troll a person or sock vote.

(16:19:48) Dandy so Dandy: What everything does checkuser tell of the person?
(16:20:00) Auron: the IP.
(16:20:06) Dandy so Dandy: That's it?
(16:20:09) Auron: ...yep.
(16:20:12) Dandy so Dandy: ...
(16:20:14) Dandy so Dandy: Hilarious
(16:20:26) Auron: you can check all the IPs used by an account, all the accounts logged onto by an IP
(16:20:34) Auron: and some bad whois feature that is wrong half the time

I assume that this can be seen a legal issue due to what the IP tells of someone? If not, care to elaborate? ---Chaos- (moo) -- 14:38, December 18, 2009 (UTC)

reply

Sorry for the slow reply everyone. I think the first thing to say is that we are not saying that admins shouldn't have checkuser, just that 24 people with the right (several of them obviously not needing it any more) is excessive. With that many, I was not comfortable giving it out further, even with a commitment to allowing the community here run itself.

Checkuser is a tool that can have serious implications if miss or over-used. Usually it gives little personal info beyond a general location. But there are occasions when the IP reveals something more specific such as a school. It's also a tool that can give confusing and misleading results at times, so conclusions need to be made with care. Now obviously the admins here are trusted to take these issues into account, and to respect privacy while using the tool. But it still makes sense to limit access to those that need and use the tool. That's why I asked that those no longer using it had the right removed, and why it is so restricted on other wikis.

I understand that Uberfuzzy has removed the right for those on the list on inactive users given to him, and he or I are now happy to give the right to anyone the community agrees needs it. Thanks -- sannse (talk) 05:50, December 20, 2009 (UTC)

Auron and DE (two of our Bcrats), who's job it is to decide user rights on this wiki, have asked that the rights be restored to all Admins, Bcrats, and be given to all BMs. Our policy stipulates that the bcrats decide user rights, so to deny their request is explicitly interfering with the way this wiki has always been run. Karate

Jesus 05:54, 20 December 2009

KJ, if need be I'll propose a policy that requires inactive admins to have their Checkuser rights removed. There is no reason for them to have it, in all fairness. ··· Danny Hates Snow 11:33, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome to do that. I'm not stating an opinion on this. I'm trying to not be biased, and the fact is that our bcrats have always handled user rights. So, the bcrats are the ones who should decide this, unless there's a policy against it. Karate

Jesus 14:27, 20 December 2009

apparently checkuser is serious fucking business — 15:15, December 20, 2009 (UTC)

@sannse: To start with at the very least you can restore the rights of the users who were not on the list Toraen provided who's rights have been removed. Specifically all of our bureaucrats.

Misery Says Moo 20:07, December 20, 2009 (UTC)

^agree----X 00:54, December 21, 2009 (UTC)

I think we kids should gtfo a little and let the "adults" discuss on the AN? I have a feeling half of the comments here are just repeating what has been said. ---Chaos- (moo) -- 09:24, December 21, 2009 (UTC)

Well considering that this Wiki likes to issue the same IP to different users I think they have bigger issues with there code let alone let everyone have check users rights. Bureaucrats and trust worthy admins should have check user only (that is if it works properly). Furthermore this is a community based site (as you know) and we should all have a say.----X 12:13, December 21, 2009 (UTC)

If one of the bureaucrats or admins can give me a definitive list of who should have checkuser right (leaving off inactives), then I can update the list. (note that I'm traveling tomorrow and Wednesday) -- sannse (talk) 21:27, December 21, 2009 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but this should be the list you're looking for. Do keep in mind that our two most experienced Bureaucrats strongly disagree with this course of action.

If I've missed anyone, I'm sure someone will fill it in for you. ··· Danny Hates Snow 22:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll take this opportunity to point out two things:

Inactivity on this wiki pretty much just means that they don't check the wiki daily. Despite being inactive, I responded faster to my rights being removed than the wikia staff have responded here to the concerns raised.
I'll be gone from Thursday until next year, so I am going to look pretty bloody inactive for a bit.

Misery Says Moo 23:52, December 21, 2009 (UTC)

Stunning. I even get back before another wikia response.

Misery Says Moo 13:38, January 4, 2010 (UTC)

judeochristian break is very serious. no working allowed! — Maf so rational. 16:41, January 4, 2010 (UTC)

Some kinda congress on wiki i never knew about? sounds kinda like alota hoopla over nothin :P i say flip a coin and give a sucker to the ones who piss and moan :P looking at this shows this whole thing is kinda ridiculus. All hail big brother. and 2+2=5 goodnight. @.@ ~~Akio_Katsuragi~~

08:27, January 5, 2010 (UTC)

Akio, this is a big issue to people who actually need checkuser. Karate

Jesus 16:34, 5 January 2010

I can tell that, but still it does pose the problem of to many people having it, more than 15 is kinda iffy. the list there with 11 seems fine enough.. ~~Akio_Katsuragi~~

00:59, January 6, 2010 (UTC)

It dosen't matter how many but who has it that matters. Privacy MUST be maintained and having fall into someone who will abuse checkuser, that IS the problem.--X 01:04, January 6, 2010 (UTC)

I meant, to many people having it, meaning the odds of a problem would statistically increase. Not that i dont trust the admins or bureaucrats, hell idt i have a problem with any of them, just like.... well not restating what half this page is about :P Like kj said earlier i think, how its been in the past, should be what they do now, although it was stated more "karate jesus-fied" when he said it. ~~Akio_Katsuragi~~

01:13, January 6, 2010 (UTC)

I didn't know there was a "karate jesus-fied" way of saying things, but it sounds awesome =P ~~—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Karate Jesus (talk • contribs) .

By choosing to be a part of this community, you have chosen to abide by our policies. Our policies, regardless of whether or not the text exists therein, include that our governing users receive CheckUser rights in order to assist the enforcement of our other policies. If you feel that the possibility of your IP being revealed is a serious risk to your personal security, you need to re-evaluate your continued contributions to this site, as well as your participation on any websites or other internet protocols whatsoever. The fact remains that, while certain admins and myself have conceded that inactive sysops and bms should not retain such rights, two of our three active bureaucrats, both of whom have been members since before a vetting system was in place, have expressed their wishes that all such rights be reinstated and left to the community's discretion. As an active user in this community, I may disagree with them, but I certainly don't think that they are wrong in their opinions or actions. ··· Danny So Cute 15:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

ReReply

Hi all. I made those rights changes based on an email from KJ about adding new checkuser users. We had briefly discussed removing it from older/inactive users, to "make room" for new ones. He provided me a link to your admin page, that had listed which were active/inactive, and that is what I used to the rights from people. I take blame for jumping the gun and not checking that it was an already decided group choice.

We understand your unique situation here, and understand your actual need for checkuser. We just dont want it sitting around on accounts that havent been used in a long time, due to the issues of old accounts possibly getting compromised without their knowledge, and those rights being abused (active admins are going to notice something like that happening, and can change their password/etc in short notice). I personally understand your struggle. The wiki that I started at (eq2.wikia.com) was also moved to Wikia, and we also had some things removed/changed. I know its a bit jarring losing some control over things, but there are reasons for everything.

We also have no problem with multiple people have it, or even adding it to new admins as you appoint them, we just hope that you give your admins with it a strong lecture on revealing "private info" (though, as any of you who have actually used it have seen, the only thing it shows is IPs, nothing else about your account) The main reason we dont just set it up so your bureaucrats can add this group (they have been able to remove it at any time since the move to wikia) is that we want to ensure that its not just given out to random people that have no need for it (your BM's for vetting, or admins for blocking), or havent had this lecture about privacy. Something you have to consider is that its not limited to just people from this community anymore. You can use checkuser on any person on Wikia that edits here. Its no longer just your (relatively) small community of GW players, its also privacy about the other 1.5+ million other users that are now part of this wiki (via wikia).

Let me show you a picture. This is a tool we use to see what admins are active on a wiki. This is live data as of a few minutes before I started this post.

The people in the lower half, the red and lower were the people who it was mostly who it removed from. Granted, its not a true test, as there are some log actions it doesnt pick up on (non admins ones, like moves), nor can it see your rating stuff, but if someone hasnt edited in 6 months or done anything admin'y, are they likely to still need those checkuser rights?

The reason we havent replied soon was sannse was traveling, and I was busy with holiday family issues (we all know this problem), and this page has been in a bit of turmoil over what I had originally done. We have been waiting to see what the outcome was, if they would settle, before making even more changes, and just making anything worse. A few lists have been given, but its not clear what the decision is of who should have it, and who shouldnt (and no, "all sysops" is not a choice"). We ARE indeed willing to make these changes for you as needed, but we cant for reasons stated above, let you do them on your own. When its not a holiday, we respond usually pretty fast, less then 24 hours to emails, maybe 1-2 days for talk pages depending on load (lots of wikis=lots of talk pages).

Can we get a clear, simple list (with links to userpages would be awesome), of who you want to have it RIGHT NOW, and if needed, who it needs removed from? --Uberfuzzy 00:06, January 7, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply to my email, Uberfuzzy. I will notify our bcrats about this and let them decide who they want to receive checkuser. I have a feeling that they will say to restore it to all admins, bcrats, and grant it to all BMs; however, that is up to them, not us. Karate

Jesus 00:12, 7 January 2010

Echoing KJ and clarifying, if you want to know who should be providing you with a "final list", that would be the bureaucrats on the community side of things. Specifically User:Auron, User:Defiant Elements or User:Wizardboy777. They are the people empowered by the community to control user rights, so basically anything anyone else says is just an opinion, hence this page being locked.

Misery Says Moo 11:03, January 7, 2010 (UTC)

I would like the following users to retain CheckUser: User:Karate Jesus, User:Phenaxkian, User:Toraen, User:Frosty, User:Auron, User:Misery, User:Bigtymerxg4, User:Defiant Elements, and User:Wizardboy777.

It can be removed from User:Edru viransu, User:Tycn, User:Rapta, User:Frvwfr2, User:Gcardinal, User:Hhhippo, User:Dont, User:Scottie theNerd, and User:Eronth. Thanks Uberfuzzy. -Auron 03:02, January 8, 2010 (UTC)

And it is so. --Uberfuzzy 01:05, January 12, 2010 (UTC)

Life Guardian

Hey Wikia, i've been an admin here at PvXwiki for a while and still do not have CheckUser. Could you possibly add me to the checkuser usergroup? Thanks. Life Guardian 09:56, July 30, 2010 (UTC)

It's been about two weeks and i havent heard anything. Any chance i could get this done? Thanks. Life Guardian 07:26, August 12, 2010 (UTC)

Try bugging Fuzzy or Angela directly on their talk pages. No one ever checks this. Misery 07:56, August 12, 2010 (UTC)

When you banned me, I saw you post this, and thought that you must haven't read the Help:CheckUser. Ju ze

08:35, August 14, 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, have you had yourself tested? Misery knows what checkuser is dipshit. Wikia has been really stingy about handing out checkuser rights, we have to get a wikia admin to grant them in each individual case. We've known this for about a year now. Didn't need your helpful little tidbit. Good lord.--TahiriVeila 08:38, August 14, 2010 (UTC)

Link/Source/Proof? And you could be more nicer. Ju ze

08:40, August 14, 2010 (UTC)

You could be less of an annoying twat. There's no need for link/source. There has never been anything posted about it on the wiki, because if you needed to know angela would have told you. You're not an admin. You're not a friend of an admin. You need to shut the fuck up and get your nose out of business that doesn't even begin to concern you.--TahiriVeila 08:42, August 14, 2010 (UTC)

K, take this discussion away from the noticeboard. Juze stop..being an annoying twat. Jake stop being provoked. -- Big McStrongfist 08:43, August 14, 2010 (UTC)

Also in the case of Checkuser, it is a very important tool of PvX admins to counter sockpuppets, vote stacking, and things of that nature. It also helps combat banned users coming back as vandals. And Wikia is stingy with the Checkuser rights. And I would know, I have them. So stop being an annoying twat (lol) and find something better to do. -- Big McStrongfist 08:45, August 14, 2010 (UTC)

to juze Life Guardian 08:52, August 14, 2010 (UTC)

Permanent deletion

http://pvx.wikia.com/index.php?title=User:Star_of_Exile/PvX:Hawt_or_Not&action=edit&section=141 is made to defame a person. As the person is charged of a major crime without linking to a Courts conviction this contribution is by itself a criminal offence and needs to be permanently deleted if the hosts of this site do not want to partake in that offence. As a permanent deletion can neither be done by a user nor a Bureaucrat and I could not find any other appropriate contact address, I posted this here in the first section of the Wikia noticeboard. 91.112.220.14

"As the person is charged of a major crime".....what? 86.30.16.21

That is clearly a comment on the picture, not on the person. Lighten up! --◄mendel► 23:22, January 12, 2011 (UTC)

I figured as much, but I can't figure out what he's trying to say....86.30.16.21 02:11, January 13, 2011 (UTC)

makes me lol. -- Danny Goes Rogue 10:08, January 13, 2011 (UTC)

I just deleted the whole page to get you to shut up. We have a copy on the new wiki anyway. Karate Jesus 04:47, 1 March 2011 (UTC)