UPS! Hey Sannse, welcome to PvX! Enjoy your stay.

You can find more information about using the wiki here.
Also, please try to participate in /wave and wtf? chains which can be located in RC.
If you see a build submitted by Lukejohnson, I strongly suggest that you trash vote it because it's probably terrible.
And remember to sign your comments with ~~~~ ;)

Chaos Messenger

Hey. I would've used my own welcome template but it isn't suit for people who don't make builds ;< --Chaos sig 3.png 16:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome! -- sannse (talk)

Dear Sannse

I've not been an active administrator on this wiki for quite some time, so the recent decision with regard to checkuser status is unlikely to impact me. Indeed, I'm not even particularly opposed to the notion of unflagging inactive administrators, per se. What I do not understand, however, is why decisions are being made by wikia more or less without the consent of PvX's administrative team, in particular, the bureaucrats. Though inactive, I appreciate the fact that PvX has been treated relatively well by Wikia, and I fail to see what wikia stands to gain by interfering with day-to-day administrative decisions. Honestly, what possible difference does it make from your POV if we have one user capable of accessing checkuser or ten? And if we'd like to add a few more, so what? The fact that one might be sufficient is, frankly, irrelevant. Who cares if they're "necessary" or not? If we decided to give fifty additional users sysop status, would you tell us that we couldn't because fifty was too many?

To be fair, you did provide a reason, so let's take a brief look at that reason, shall we? You stated in your General message that "we would like to move PvX a little closer to the rest of the wikis on Wikia." Unfortunately, that statement is inherently problematic: PvX is intrinsically different from other wikis. Checkuser is a far more important tool for PvX than for the vast majority of more traditional (read: encyclopedic) wikis simply by virtue of the fact that PvX is oriented around a voting system, not to speak of the unusual prevalence of trolling. More to the point, however, how exactly does reducing/limiting the number of people with checkuser status move PvX closer to the rest of wikia? The fact that we have more users with checkuser than most strikes me as an exceedingly insignificant difference. It's not as though a new user is likely to look at the local user list and say "huh, this wiki has 23 users with the checkuser flag, I guess this can't be a wikia wiki." Frankly, I'm amazed that wikia considers the number of checkusers that a particular wiki has more important than maintaining the best possible relationship with that wiki.

On behalf of the administrative team here, I'd like to formally request that you restore checkuser flags to all administrators. Either that, or I'd like a much more compelling explanation as to why wikia has an interest in limiting the number of administrators with checkuser and as to why wikia is making decisions on behalf of the administrative team sans consultation. Defiant Elements Sig Test 2.JPG *Defiant Elements* +talk 21:05, December 18, 2009 (UTC)

Hi, sorry for the delay, I have replied alongside the original conversation -- sannse (talk) 05:52, December 20, 2009 (UTC)

Dear Sanse. Fuck off. Wikia has provided us with shitty service from day one. If you wanna sabotage your corporation by ignoring the wishes of your userbase that's great. Don't get pissy when we decide to leave for greener pastures.--TahiriVeila 05:42, October 17, 2010 (UTC)

Jake, those types of comments are not welcome on this wiki, regardless of who they're directed towards. Consider this a warning. You won't be getting another.
Sannse, I replied to your comment on my talk page. I respect your perspective; however, we would like our wiki to look a little wacky. If it will appease you, I will seek consensus on our theme. However, I would like to warn you, that it will be rather easy for me to gain support for our current theme, and if you revert our theme again, I will be contacting another Wikia Staff member to mediate our issue. I'd rather not claim biases or anything on your part, but regardless of whether or not you and I have gotten along lately doesn't mean that we should stop acting professionally.
Thank you. Karate KJ for sig.png Jesus 07:18, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Woah, wait, you can't do that.

You don't have the right to demote our bcrats. We're allowed to govern our wiki and they haven't done anything wrong. 22:59, October 19, 2010 (UTC)

^ --Jai. - 23:06, October 19 2010 (UTC)

I actually also have a couple of questions:

  1. Why were the BCrats demoted? You say due to "ongoing issues with this wiki", but i've not seen a single instance where the BCrats have been involved (hell i've yet to see GCardinal edit in the past half a year =/) Auron's the only active BCrat and i'm lead to believe he's incredibly busy at the moment (given I never see him on MSN/IRC). Not to sound rude but it looks like you intend to put who you (wikia) believe is fit to be BCrat, which strikes me as odd because you're essentially saying "the wiki will be run how we want, not how the userbase does".
  2. you say KJ wasn't editing in the best interest of the wiki, but didn't he go and start a topic which got a huge backing from our user base? that sounds exactly like what he was supposed to if all the users had commented with "that's horrible I don't like it" then fair enough, but they didn't =/.

Finally, and this is more a musing than a question. If you think KJ's skin was disruptive (which is the only reason i can seem to get from your demotion/ban comment of him), then why does Oasis even allow you to edit the skin to that extent anyway, you're asking for stuff like that to happen. For instance, i could upload whatever image i like as the background, because you've enabled the users to upload images for backgrounds! banning someone for using such a feature seems kinda silly to me because he's just using what you gave him (now of course if he'd put say porn there, then yes I'd agree, but that wasn't the case. You enabled users to upload animated .gif files, so you should expect to see files like that!) ~ PheNaxKian talk 23:14, October 19, 2010 (UTC)

1. Removing the b'crats is a temporary change to prevent further damage. I've seen comments suggesting a user is made an admin with the intent of breaking the wiki, and I'm aware that my change to Karate Jesus' rights is likely to be controversial. Removing bureaucrat rights for a short time will cause no damage, and I'll be happy to replace them if those concerned decide to continue to edit here.
2. I know that some users have decided to move, and respect that. This wiki will remain for anyone who wants to stay, and for any future visitors and editors. By "this wiki" I mean the wiki that remains here and its future community.
And as for the last... if the edit button allows vandalism, why do we have one? Same reason. Because most people make changes that benefit the wiki and don't damage it. -- Sannse (help forum | blog) 23:33, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
2. In that case, then a site notice saying the main userbase has moved shouldn't really be much of a problem here. If people want to stay, they'll dismiss the message and go on their way. However, it's something that everybody should have to right to see. --Jai. - 23:45, October 19 2010 (UTC)
She already reverted game widow's removal of the site notice because it was put there by consensus. Life Guardian 23:47, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
I was under the impression the notice was still only temporary. --Jai. - 23:52, October 19 2010 (UTC)
Don't forget that we changed our skin due to consensus, not because KJ wanted to. Everyone on that page agreed that it looked good, except some shithead named Bluesomething. 23:55, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
Let's be frank... pretending you like the skin in order to damage the wikis is not going to wash. (The skin was awesome to be honest, the whole office was mesmerized... but the intent was pretty obvious) -- Sannse (help forum | blog) 00:12, October 20, 2010 (UTC)
Sannse, allow me to jump on the frank wagon. I'm not supportive of any vandalizing acts on this wiki, nor am I going to jump up and unban KJ and let him continue on with whatever bullshit he was doing. But I'm also confused at some of your kneejerk changes, so allow me to ask about them before I do anything rash.
1. How was demoting the inactive bureaucrats a safety precaution? I'm the only active bureaucrat - the only "threat," if you will. The rest of them haven't edited in months - one got married, two lost interest entirely and haven't ever really edited since the Wikia move, and Wizardboy has similarly moved on to other things in his life. How is a demotion of inactive bureaucrats, even a temporary one, a change to prevent further damage? Have any of them performed a single act of vandalism? Are they going to come back from years-long hiatus' to promote someone you demoted for wiki-wide vandalism? Are the chances of this happening high enough to warrant outright demotion? I somehow don't think so.
2. No, "respect" is the last thing we've gotten from Wikia. You've jerked our chains around and even reneged on the promises you made to our wiki when we first ported over here. You forced stupid skins on us purely in the name of profit, even though the license on our wiki specifically states this wiki is non-commercial. You ignore our protestations of your terrible skins (more than one, now) and make the changes anyway. You come onto our wiki and undo changes made with the approval of consensus of the userbase and don't offer any reasoning for doing so. Don't pretend you respect us.
I'm not an idiot. I can read. Having been at the helm of this community for nearing 3 years now, I know that there isn't much to respect. The userbase is wild and rude, but they are the userbase. You claim to respect our wishes, but every action you take runs directly opposite your words. I doubt your actions will change, but you should think over your words more carefully. I have more to add, but it's on another topic so I will find someplace more fitting to post. -Auron 00:52, October 20, 2010 (UTC)

Dear Sannse

Most good Administrators check users' contributions before demoting / banning them. Also, read what the IP said. Also, umad? Love, Ben.

23:07, October 19, 2010 (UTC)

I know Karate Jesus is a good admin and a good guy, with good contributions here over a long time... there's no doubt about that. But he and others have decided to leave, and have clearly decided to damage this wiki on the way out. However much he puts a polite face on it, the skin changes and other tricks going on aren't acceptable. -- Sannse (help forum | blog) 23:19, October 19, 2010 (UTC)

In Case You Can't Already See This

You can keep what you're doing and revert obvious vandalism (as Game Widow is doing), but since you don't play GW, you're not going to be able to know what are joke builds and what are not not. PvX has some pretty damn strong trolls, and they are going to be able to subtly fuck the entire wiki (read: in a way you can't know) in a short amount of time. Without admins like KJ, Phen, and Toraen reverting what to the average GW user is obvious vandalism, but unnoticeable to non-GW users (read: you), the wiki is going to get trashed in a matter of weeks. You can't stop this, and it's actually already happening. I mean, you could revert anything that appears to be a joke build, but then you'll also probably lose legitimate builds as well. By alienating all of the people on here that are actually good at GW and spend their time keep PvX updated (Life, Tahiri, etc.), along with admins that actively prevent vandalism (KJ, Phen, Toraen, etc.) you're basically condemning PvX to become either a troll haven or a Gamependium 2.0. Either way, you lose, and there really isn't anything you can do about it. Regards, Jai. - 23:32, October 19 2010 (UTC)

Sounds to me like those that lose are the visitors you have all tried so hard to write content for. That's very sad. -- Sannse (help forum | blog) 23:36, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately, you're forgetting the bit about the new pvx that won't be vandalized at all and will see regular contributions as opposed to the ghost town that this site will soon become. Life Guardian 23:39, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
Actually, they get to go to our new site. Which is nice, is well supported, doesn't have to put up with Oasis, and doesn't have to put up with hypocritical, autocratic whores who interfere with our site. 23:39, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
What they said ^__^ --Jai. - 23:42, October 19 2010 (UTC)
I wish you all the best on your new wiki, but you can't leave a wiki and expect to control the one you are leaving. Forking is a right, screwing up a site for those who choose to use it (now or in the future) is not. -- Sannse (help forum | blog) 23:48, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
In that case, then a site notice saying the main userbase has moved shouldn't really be much of a problem here. If people want to stay, they'll dismiss the message and go on their way. However, it's something that everybody should have the right to see. --Jai. - 23:51, October 19 2010 (UTC)

The builds which PvX documents need to be ever-changing in order to keep up with the skill and meta-game changes in Guild Wars. This means that within a few months of the user base migrating to Curse, the articles documented here won't only be useless, but even harmful for an ignorant person who good-willingly comes here for game info. With the (as well as I'm aware of what's happening) termination of modifiable CSS which is essential for our rating system + forcing of a skin which WE DON'T WANT TO USE, it's obvious and understandable that we want to move our site elsewhere. Sannse, why are you standing in our way? Can't you respect our decision and show some goodwill? --DANDY ^_^ -- 23:52, October 19, 2010 (UTC)

Well, it is her job to protect the interests of wikia. =\ Zyke 23:53, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
Except PvX@Wikia is still going to die no matter what she does. It would be better to be graceful about it than fight the inevitible. --Jai. - 23:55, October 19 2010 (UTC)

Basically, I think it comes down to this: Sannse is acting in the interests of Wikia, while everyone else is acting in the interests of the community. The problem is, the community is the only reason Wikia's here. Obviously, Wikia has fucked up their values. --Jai. - 00:04, October 20 2010 (UTC)

They still don't have the right to go against our consensus. And demoting our bcrats/KJ is NOT cool. 00:06, October 20, 2010 (UTC)
Actually, they pretty much have the right to do whatever the fuck they want. It's their website. However, if they alienate all of their userbase, then they're out of business. They depend on their userbase to stay alive. It's their choice. Of course, PvX is probably only a drop in the bucket for them, but it's still not the best business practice. --Jai. - 00:11, October 20 2010 (UTC)

CSS is not being removed. We are asking that people don't use the CSS to change the overall layout of the wiki, but the stylesheets are still in place and can be used for ratings and anything else in the content area. I suspect that most people here use Monobook, which is also staying available after the change. The change is that we are discontinuing Monaco, and moving wikis that use that as their default to the new skin. We absolutely respect your decision, I hope that you will respect our decision to do what the free license specifically allows and keep this wiki open. -- Sannse (help forum | blog) 00:08, October 20, 2010 (UTC)

What we're trying to explain is that keeping this wiki open after the userbase leaves will be detrimental to the Guild Wars community. The Guild Wars "metagame" shifts incredibly rapidly and builds require constant monitoring and tweaking to be useful. There are a dozen or so experienced game players who perform this task for PvX, and aall of them are planning to move to curse with the rest of the community. Within a month of those users leaving, almost every page on PvX will become out of date, obsolete, and detrimental to users who come here seeking information about the game. PvX isn't like other wikis. On a standard encyclopedic wiki, users have the luxury of writing articles that will be accurate and relevant for months or years at a time. Build pages on PvX under go huge changes on a day by day basis in order to keep up with the fluctuating nature of a Player vs Player video game. Without the users maintaining those pages, wikia will be providing an incorrect, harmful service to the public. That's what we've been trying to explain to you all along. Where the data on PvX is hosted doesn't mean anything, as the information will become useless without the experienced userbase. --TahiriVeila00:28, October 20, 2010 (UTC)
^ Please read this Sannse. It's a very nice summary of everyone's opinion on PvX@Wikia. --Jai. - 00:32, October 20 2010 (UTC)
I understand your point of view. All I ask is that you do not actively damage this wiki. If you are right, then it will fade by itself. -- Sannse (help forum | blog) 02:33, October 20, 2010 (UTC)
So you can suck every dollar out of it's site-traffic while it dies, huh? Sickening.
Also, check Mendel's post on KJ's talk page. He's absolutely right, and you're a ridiculous cunt for trying to bend us over this way (you being directed at Wikia, not specifically Sannse). Neither you, nor Wikia helpers have the right to run our wiki. Our license is in breach if you do so. And make no mistake, by taking away our rights, you have officially put in place a "for profit" company as the head of this site and invalidated our copyrights.
You have a choice. We have already contacted Anet and NCSoft to put to light the fact that Wikia is using their licenses for their own profit. Your move.

An attempt to set things as straight as possible

It's obvious that you want to keep PvX.Wikia up and going. If your motive for this is "loyalty to Wikia", I can understand and respect it despite not fully accepting it. If your motives are altruistic, eg. retaining it for those who want to stay, I also understand and respect that, though I would want to mention that this is unrealistic considering the nature of our site. The third option is that you're covering up your "loyalty to Wikia" by saying this site should be retained for those who want to stay; obviously not wanting to give in, and covering this up in arguments which show poor understanding of logical thinking.

So which is it? I can't say I'm speaking for the whole community when suggesting this, but it's probably a fair compromise:

  • If you're just loyal to Wikia and won't give the site up on principle/greed; say so. Then it's obvious the situation won't change and all we (I) request is that we would get to message very clearly to any visitor that PvX has moved.
  • If you're trying to think of the best of the Guild Wars and PvXwiki community, let us talk some sense into you: take down this site. Forking is destructive, as very well explained by me and TahiriVeila.
  • In the third scenario of you covering the first motive with up the second, I just request of you to be honest, tell us to get the fuck out, and return to the compromise suggested in point 1.

--DANDY ^_^ -- 03:28, October 20, 2010 (UTC)

It's not a binary question. Of course I want to preserve the site for Wikia and help the company grow. I also believe that the best way for me to do that is to support the Wikia community to the best of my ability. I recognize that you have chosen to fork, and respect your right to do that, and so now want to work to doing what I see as best for any remaining community. I understand that you feel that the best way to help that remaining community is to.. well.. stop them remaining -- but I don't share that opinion -- Sannse 22:54, October 20, 2010 (UTC)
Your ignorance is one big reason why so many people are leaving. Just letting you know. --Jai. - 23:05, October 20 2010 (UTC)
Jai, I think we've said enough on the matter. Let's let it alone. Sannse has biased interest in Wikia, as she should. We have biased interested in PvX's community and Guild Wars, as we should. The middle ground is not reachable, since they want the best for Wikia and we don't want guys to run crazy, harmful builds.
Sannse has seen our perspective, and Hippo, Tahiri, and Dandy have done a good job of explaining it. There's nothing else we can do. Karate KJ for sig.png Jesus 23:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Oasis and the theme editor

If we are going to be forced to use Oasis, we are obviously going to want to change it from the default skin. You have already demoted and banned one admin for doing this. I intend to stick around as long as this wiki is still breathing, I have a long history here and I assume the domain is not being released. What are the limits that Wikia has decided to impose upon changes to the Oasis skin? While I agree vandalism can be obvious, one person's obvious vandalism could simply be another person's poor taste. When I have some time I would like to look at changing the skin, but I do not wish to be demoted and permanently banned for it. Are animated backgrounds against the rules? Are certain colours considered unprofessional and outlawed? Misery 12:05, October 20, 2010 (UTC)

My apologies, but as per User_talk:Game_widow#Oasis I seem to have jumped the gun and inadvertantly changed the theme. I am asking for a revert until I can get some community input on this and hear back from you. I didn't find the documentation entirely clear and I am still trying to get a hang of these new tools. I've also noticed that checkuser seems to be absent from what can be added to "My tools". I guess this is because most wikis do not have it or use it. Will this be changed in the future? Accessing it through someone's contributions is a bit cumbersome. Misery 21:29, October 20, 2010 (UTC)
Hi, taste is certainly variable! But the only skin I have reverted (so far) was that... interesting... one of KJ's. I actually said to Mendel that I thought his was rather strange, but didn't do anything further. Basically, if it doesn't make your eyes bleed, and you are genuinely not trying to drive users away, then I'm happy. -- Sannse 23:13, October 20, 2010 (UTC)
Actually, you've reverted 2 of mine. But water under the bridge. Karate KJ for sig.png Jesus 23:16, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
I have a memory like a sieve. -- Sannse 23:22, October 20, 2010 (UTC)
I'm assuming that I should refrain from editing the theme then? I'm the most qualified to do it, but I can try to teach Misery or someone else. Karate KJ for sig.png Jesus 23:29, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
No, I'm content with your agreement not to damage this wiki on the way out, I'm not asking you to refrain from anything bar that -- Sannse (help forum | blog) 01:55, October 21, 2010 (UTC)

Re: no message

Hi Sannse,

Here's my comments on the demotion of PvXwiki's Buerocrats:

1. I was informed about the demotion by an automated message, which I received because I am watching/following my own user page. The reason given there was "due to ongoing issues on this wiki". That by itself is a pretty weird reason, since the possibility of ongoing issues is exactly the reason why wikis DO have administrators and buerocrats. Anyway, what I would have expected if there were issues with my buerocrat rights, is that you contact me and see if we can resolve those issues BEFORE demoting me. In case the issues were too urgent to wait for an answer, you could still have told me directly what you are doing along with an explanation that's a bit more consistent than the above. Instead, you didn't contact me at all.

May I quote Jimbo Wales, September 17, 2007: "And as everyone knows from my work, the one thing that I think I do really well, and that Wikia does really well, is respect communities and work with people."

Would you still say that Wikia is good at working with people? Without blinking? I'll come to the respecting-the-community part later.

2. After people complained about the demotions, you explained your reasoning a bit more on this page. So the Buerocrats were demoted because you've seen someone suggesting they should do harm to the wiki by appointing a malevolent admin. Well, I've also seen people suggesting everybody should vandalize the wiki by normal edits, but still you didn't remove the edit button or lock the database. Normal vandalism is obviously much more disruptive than the promotion of a malevolent admin, since it can come from many users and is much more work to revert. But still you removed our bcrat powers but not the edit button. This means you must assume a more imminent danger than just the theoretical possibility that we might appoint someone bad in the future. Your overall message clearly is that you expect us bcrats to actually intend to harm this wiki.

This, Sannse, is a serious personal insult.

None of the bcrats has abused his powers or shown any intent to do so in the future, so please don't treat us as if we did.

3. My view on the "ongoing issues": I understand that Wikia is hosting a lot of wikis with a large overall user base. New developments should thus be aimed at generating the best possible benefit for this overall user base, which unavoidably can lead to disadvantages for individual wikis with non-average demands. The best solution in such cases is give these wikis the possibility to opt out of changes that have an adverse effect on their site. I further understand that in some cases this is not possible due to the limited resources available for maintaining different options in parallel. I even understand that wikia has to keep an eye on ad revenues since that's what's paying for the infrastructure you provide to us in the end.

However, if a whole wiki community (or even several) unisono decides that the upcoming changes are disruptive to the vital functionality of their wiki, and you can't avoid making these changes mandatory, then it is in nobodies interest if such a wiki keeps being hosted by Wikia. Wikia lives from hosting wikis that fit in the overall concept and infrastructure of Wika, while for wikis it is essential to have a host that provides them with whatever they need to function. If the Wikia environment changes such that one wiki no longer fits in there, the only reasonable solution is to move this wiki to another host. Im specifically talking about moving the wiki, not about moving individual editors.

PvXwiki was not founded on Wikia, it came to Wikia as a grown and fully functioning site on the grounds of a community consensus about Wikia being a fitting host. Now there is a consensus that moving to a different host is better for this wiki than trying to live with the latest changes in the Wikia environment. The community should thus have the freedom to decide to move on, just like it once decided to move to Wikia.

The most peacful way to do this move would be closing PvX@wikia and directing all users to the new site once it is up, possibly even selling the domain name to the new host. If Wikia is unwilling to grant the community the freedom of chosing their host, and instead insists on keeping PvX@Wikia running in parallel, they should at least grant individual users the freedom of choosing which site they want to use. The latter includes informing all visitors of PvX@Wikia that the community they came for has moved on, and where. Doing this is not an advertisement for a competing host, most readers won't even notice who is hosting the wiki they visit (unless the host is disrupting the wiki by excessive self-advertisements). It's just informing the reader where the community they look for is to be found now, instead of trying to impersonate that community.

4. My own plans on future contributions: I don't have much time to spare at the moment, but I would be willing to invest some of it in PvXwiki, IF that seems to make sense. I can't tell yet if that will be at the new place or at wikia, or both. It mainly depends on:

The technical environment: How will the changes at Wikia finally turn out? How will the new host run PvXwiki? Where will be a useable environment for this wiki? That's not obvious yet, but the current trend is not in Wikia's favor.

The personal environment: The host has a lot of power, as you just demonstrated. Investing time in a wiki is thus based on trust in the host. Trust that the host will not destroy the wiki. Over the last week you made it increasingly difficult to trust Wikia. After all, how can I trust you if you openly and unprovokedly mistrust me?

5. Last but not least: please don't take it personal. I understand you're not here for fun, but representing your employer. The messages you bring us are not from you, but from Wikia, and it's not my intention to kill the messenger. It is rather to send the messenger back to the sender to ask them to reconsider what's the best way to solve the "ongoing issues". Ask them to respect communities, all of them. And ask them to try a bit harder in being good at working with people. For a start, by not insulting them.

P.S.: Sorry for the wall of text. If it looks too long, just switch to monobook ;-) – HHHIPPO ‹sysop› 21:48, October 20, 2010 (UTC)

Hi Hhhippo, I certainly didn't mean any insult, and I apologize for any given. I was acting on past experience of such situations, but I agree I should have limited myself to reacting rather than trying to be proactive. After talking with Karate Jesus, I have restored his rights (while acknowledging that he is leaving and does not awnt to continue as an admin here) and those of the bureaucrats.
For the rest, I do understand your point of view. While I'm not prepared to close this wiki, I do hope that we can part ways as gently as possible -- Sannse 23:21, October 20, 2010 (UTC)
Apology accepted. For the rest, you basically say "I've read your analysis of the situation, but I will continue to act as if it was wrong, while silently ignoring any request for an explanation on where exactly I think it's wrong." I appreciate a lot if people act de-escalating and show understanding for others. But there's a difference between showing understanding and claiming understanding while at the same time refusing to respond to most arguments. If one exaggerates the latter, people tend to feel they're treated like small children, or like psychopaths you have to lull in empathy until you get hold of their gun. I'm not saying you intend to treat us like that, but a certain perceived imbalance between the understanding you claim and that you show could be part of the reason why so many people on so many Wikia wikis feel ignored and disrespected. – HHHIPPO ‹sysop› 21:13, October 21, 2010 (UTC)

Advertising external wikis

I understand your position on people trying to advertise the forked wiki, but I don't know if you were aware that all our build templates currently point to another wiki, which is in direct competition with, for all the skills and attributes. I believe this is stored server side. Also several build articles link to this wiki as we basically left it to editor preference whether they linked to (the non-wikia guild wars wiki hosted by the game's creators) or Do you guys at Wikia want this to be changed? The layout of the two wikis is the same so it may be as simple as redirecting any links of the form [[gww:Page]] to [[gw:Page]] and changing where the links point to in the build templates.

Also, while I am here I noticed that checkuser isn't something listed under the available options for "My tools". I don't think any other wiki uses this tool, but we do extensively because of our rating system. Will this be added as a possible option for "My tools" in the future? We also appear to be lacking a rating tab in the Oasis skin, which is critical for the operation of this wiki. Misery 09:38, October 21, 2010 (UTC)

Hi Misery, sorry for missing this one (I'm saying that way to often right now I know! Busy times)
On the links to - I'm not asking for those to be changed. The links should go to wherever the editors/community think the best info is.
I'm aware that the argument for links to the new PvX wiki will be "that's the best info", but I see that as a different situation. If it's information that should be an internal link, then linking elsewhere doesn't benefit the remaining/future wiki.
That also means that I won't object to that link being changed to the new Guildwars fork either. I would consider that an editorial decision. Of course, I'm aware of the risk of this being misused... but all I ask is that those editing here do what they consider best for this wiki.
On Checkuser... a link to that should be very easy to add via javascript for all those with the right.. I have a couple of extra buttons on my toolbar for staff work, so I know that's possible. If there isn't someone here who can help with that, then let me know exactly what you need and I can find someone to help.
I understand that Uber has put in a temporary solution for the ratings tab, and a full fix should be in the next code release :) -- Sannse (help forum | blog) 00:04, October 30, 2010 (UTC)
Yes, the ratings fix should work for now. I also think it is nice that it is currently the default option for pages because it is far harder to find voters than it is to find editors on this site. As for the checkuser thing, I'm not really sure how that would work, are you talking about changing the oasis equivalent of monobook.css for each individual user? I could probably work it out if you link me to an example. Don't worry about the delay, I am relatively busy at the moment (as my low edit count probably shows), so I don't require or expect next day answers. Thanks for keeping an eye on the wiki community that wants to make this work. Misery 11:20, October 31, 2010 (UTC)
There's an example of code adding a button at - that's probably more complicated than it needs to be for simply giving each admin a checkuser button, but it should be easy to add to each person's personal js (which is at User:Name/Wikia.js ) or to do a bit of code in Mediawiki:wikia.js that only adds it if the user is an admin.
I'm aware of the "pink on grey" and other tricks going on here at the moment btw, a sad thing. What I want is for this wiki to have a fair chance, whether it lives or dies should depend on the remaining community, not on the vandalism of those who have moved on. Thank you for doing what you can to help with that, and please let me know if you need anything -- Sannse (help forum | blog) 19:58, November 1, 2010 (UTC)
I'd like an answer to the licensing question brought up below. But you seem to just ignore all of my posts now ^___^ --TahiriVeila 20:15, November 1, 2010 (UTC)
I will play with it later, I don't really have time tonight to get into any details, so I've basically just copy pasted the code for now. Let's hope I didn't break anything on my skin! I'll have to read it properly later. I noticed the pink but I assume the people who did it aren't using Oasis and I've never botted so I wouldn't have any idea how to undo anything like that. Going to edit my wikia.js does bring up something I noticed earlier as well. With the wikia skin there doesn't seem to be any good way to access the talk pages of a page within someone's user space. The talk page button is replaced with a "profile" and "user talk" links, so if you are on the talk page you cannot get back to the main page and if you are on the talk page you cannot get to the main page without editing the url directly. This seems like an oversight to me. Misery 22:25, November 1, 2010 (UTC)
TahiriVeila: sorry, I just don't have the bandwidth for that conversation right now.
Misery: I'm not sure where you are looking... When I'm on this page, I see a tab leading back to my user page (profile) and can click between that and the talk page tab. Is it an issue with a browser other than Firefox? or am I misunderstanding where you mean? -- Sannse (help forum | blog) 16:42, November 2, 2010 (UTC)
Misunderstanding take for example this random persons sandbox build discussion, theres no link to get back to the users build page which would be without editing the url, also vise versa. The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dr Rawr (talk • contribs) .
Exactly as Dr Rawr said. Subpages within the user space, so any page of the form User:Sannse/Pagename would have this problem, while User:Sannse is fine. I was going to link to an example at the time, but I couldn't think off one other than my .js off the top of my head. Misery 17:24, November 2, 2010 (UTC)
You don't have the bandwidth? What? Do you even understand what bandwidth means? If you're not prepared to give an explanation or simply don't have one, just say that. Don't agree to explain the licensing problem then make up a bullshit excuse that doesn't make sense to try and get out of it. =\ --TahiriVeila 17:26, November 2, 2010 (UTC)
Jake, could you please keep this discussion in the relevant section? I know you are frustrated by the lack of an answer, but spreading your complaints all over the page isn't going to improve that situation. Misery 17:34, November 2, 2010 (UTC)
That "bandwidth" thing is called a wikipedia:Metaphor. What Sannse means is that she's busy talking to everyone else, so she has to cut/postpone some convos. If you see the lag she has answering her central talkpage, you get the idea. Apparently the licensing issues don't rate highly with her right now. --◄mendel► 17:51, November 2, 2010 (UTC)

Catching up again... Thanks Dr Rawr, I see what you mean. I'll make sure that's in the bug queue. (I'll answer TahiriVeila and Mendel further down the page) -- Sannse (help forum | blog) 00:10, November 13, 2010 (UTC)

are u srs

That site-wide ban you handed out to KJ was a little over the top, don't you think? zzzz--TahiriVeila 15:54, October 29, 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't. Anyone going to 4chan and asking them to troll Wikia is most certainly no longer welcome to use our service. -- Sannse (help forum | blog) 00:05, October 30, 2010 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure he didn't actually do it. If he did, then lol, really :p --DANDY ^_^ -- 11:43, October 30, 2010 (UTC)
Can you actually prove he did that? I mean, I could say I'm going to kill the guy across the road from me, but that doesn't mean I have/will >.> (I don't actually want to, just for clarification, it was just an example). ~ PheNaxKian talk 13:06, October 30, 2010 (UTC)
I assume sannse reacted to this edit, the summary says "Partially because we're advertising for new users on /b/, which has been funny." It doesn't mean he did it himself (and I don't think he did, somebody else wrote about doing this?), but it does look like he approves of it. Now I don't know what the agreement is that KJ had with sannse, but apparently sannse thinks that it doesn't cover this edit, and that she doesn't need to ask KJ about it. --◄mendel► 14:29, October 30, 2010 (UTC)
If my assumption is true, what we have here is a conflict of interest. KJ thinks it is ok to advertise PvXwiki on /b/, Sannse thinks it isn't. Since Sannse seems to feel (ex-)bureaucrats and admins are simply guests of Wikia ("no longer welcome"), and acts on this doctrine in this case, it is clear that Wikia is really publishing PvXwiki, and the non-commercial community isn't. ("asking them to troll Wikia" is overbroad, btw, unless I don't have the whole picture; AFAIK it didn't concern Wikia itself, but merely the PvXwiki site?) --◄mendel► 15:23, October 30, 2010 (UTC)
tbh, afaik KJ doesn't even visit /b/. --Brandnew 18:47, October 30, 2010 (UTC)

Mendel: I feel that everyone who uses Wikia needs to do so in a reasonable manner -- that's all. And I don't consider trying to recruit people from other sites to troll here is reasonable. I'm convinced enough that that's happening to say that it's time for KJ to move on. As for the licensing questions you've brought up here and elsewhere -- I'll leave those to the future community of this wiki. Or, I'll be prepared to go in to those in detail with you sometime in the future if you are still concerned -- Sannse (help forum | blog) 06:44, October 31, 2010 (UTC)

I'm concerned right now. Let's hear it.--TahiriVeila 15:43, October 31, 2010 (UTC)
I advertised on /b/ because it's expected of me. ~Rask
While I understand why you may have felt it was necessary to ban KJ since he expressed his opinions quite vividly, I find that banning him on the basis that he theoretically went to /b/ boards to recruit people to troll the site disconcerting. I'm also concerned about licensing considering what mendel and danny have discussed so far.--Relyk talk 20:24, November 2, 2010 (UTC)
I'm concerned with "supposedly." As far as I'm aware, before we came here to watch wikia's advertisements and generate profit for them, PvX has never permanently banned anyone with the reasoning of "supposedly." That's like putting some poor bastard in prison for the rest of his soon to be miserable existance because he's suspected of being irritating, of all things. I'll be frank, Sannse, that's horseshit. —ǥrɩɳsɧƴɖɩđđɭɘş Grinshpon blinky cake.gif 05:01, November 13, 2010 (UTC)

image deletion and Licensing

I appreciate that you're very busy and have little time but this will just take a couple of seconds to reply (I only expect a yes/no).

As mendel has pointed out, we have a lot of images that haven't been categorised/tagged. This is because we didn't implement the system until...well, a long time after PvX started, so there was a few years of images there.

As such I'd like to delete all images that haven't been tagged/Categorised via a bot, however I don't want wikia to see this as part of some elaborate scheme to mess up the wiki, so I'd like to confirm before running said bot, is it ok to delete all the untagged images?.

~ PheNaxKian talk 20:38, November 2, 2010 (UTC)

It has been a week and I assume all of them are meme's and copyrighted content anyway if they aren't tagged, so I would say go ahead. You were reasonable enough in your reasoning and it appears Wikia is too busy to deal with us at the moment. Misery 22:13, November 11, 2010 (UTC)
It's certainly been hectic... I'm sorry for my absence (again!)
Misery, I'm happy to defer to your opinion on this. I'd suggest that it's better to leave untagged images in place if they are being used, with the plan of getting them tagged in the future... and I certainly don't see any immediate rush to make changes... it's going to take a while for this wiki to settle so why make any big choices now? But... your choice -- Sannse (help forum | blog) 00:28, November 13, 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the reply Sannnse. I think we'll go ahead with the delete. I've tried getting people to tag images that were uploaded before the system was implemented, and it always ends...well, ends =/ there's a couple of days doing it then nothing, and there are a lot of pics (and i would bet a lot of copyrighted material.)
What i'll do is i'll alter the site notice and add a news article (tommorow) just saying it's going to happen so any images that want keeping should be tagged beforehand. ~ PheNaxKian talk 03:47, November 13, 2010 (UTC)
I'm fairly confident that most of the images will be pure crap. We let things get out of hand some time ago. There are very few images in our mainspace, so the couple deleted in error (if they exist) can easily be restored. Misery 18:43, November 13, 2010 (UTC)

Questions above on general licensing

copied from above:

You don't have the bandwidth? What? Do you even understand what bandwidth means? If you're not prepared to give an explanation or simply don't have one, just say that. Don't agree to explain the licensing problem then make up a bullshit excuse that doesn't make sense to try and get out of it. =\ --TahiriVeila 17:26, November 2, 2010 (UTC)

Jake, could you please keep this discussion in the relevant section? I know you are frustrated by the lack of an answer, but spreading your complaints all over the page isn't going to improve that situation. Misery 17:34, November 2, 2010 (UTC)
That "bandwidth" thing is called a wikipedia:Metaphor. What Sannse means is that she's busy talking to everyone else, so she has to cut/postpone some convos. If you see the lag she has answering her central talkpage, you get the idea. Apparently the licensing issues don't rate highly with her right now. --◄mendel► 17:51, November 2, 2010 (UTC)

end of copy

Mendel, I don't believe there are licensing issues here. As far as I'm concerned, there is no change in the suitability of the license. Wikia is a host that also provides communities with technical and community support... which includes acting as a site moderator as necessary. That's supported by ads, just as it has been since PvX moved to Wikia. I understand that you have a different interpretation of that relationship and how it's changed, but I disagree with that interpretation. I don't think this is a difference of opinion that any amount of discussion will resolve, I'm sorry -- Sannse (help forum | blog) 00:39, November 13, 2010 (UTC)
Well, then this question will have to be decided someplace else. It is obvious to me that a hosting service would only step in for technical or legal reasons that would endanger or detriment its capability to operate; you acting outside of this as a "site moderator" in an uncalled-for fashion and with no consent from the clients you are hosting, and thus the relationship is not simply "hosting", you are in fact controlling the site (albeit loosely), and you are also benefitting commercially from it. But I see this is not obvious to you, or at least you claim it isn't, regrettably. --◄mendel► 01:08, November 13, 2010 (UTC)
Example: [1] reverts what Kirkburn, a past and present active admin there and Wikia staff member (product manager, isn't he?) calls "this is what was agreed upon" [2]. You are "moderating" the sites "as necessary" for Wikia's commercial interests (there are also PvXwiki examples), which is one of the things the "noncommercial" clause in the license was thought to prevent. --◄mendel► 01:26, November 13, 2010 (UTC)
@Sannse, so are you saying that ads are only for the expense of hosting as well as technical and community support and doesn't profit Wikia commercially? I think the more important question is whether the license was suitable in the first place, since your reasoning is that since there wasn't a problem in the past, there shouldn't be a problem now.--Relyk talk 02:47, November 13, 2010 (UTC)
The license is suitable if PvXwiki (an association of provate individuals) is the noncommercial publisher who is employing a commercial hosting service. However, it appears that Wikia does not behave like a hosting service recently, and that makes the situation appear that Wikia is a commercial publisher who employs unpaid volunteer managament and editors (whom they can "fire" i.e. globally block at will), and for that situation the license is unsuitable. It is Wikia's rewriting of the unwritten hosting contract that invalidates the license, if my interpretation is right. Mind you, I'm fairly clueless about law, so I might just as well be wrong about this. --◄mendel► 22:47, November 13, 2010 (UTC)
I know I'm a bit late but...Wikia is a for-profit company. That alone makes it incompatable with this wiki's license which is CC-BY-NC-SA 2.5... There is a reason why CC-BY-SA 3.0 was chosen for wikia licensing instead of the noncommercial version for upcoming wikis. My reading of and interpretation of the legal code seems to indicate a direct conflict with Wikia's commercial objectives. :-) --Lania Elderfire 08:24, November 17, 2010 (UTC)


Hi there Sannse. I've spent the last several hours reading a whole ton of talk pages, trying to get a handle on the back and forth of this thing (the move, the bullshit, etc...) and I have to say - you have the most thankless job in the world. Seriously, I thought road kill collectors or maybe the guys that deliver the ' your son died ' telegrams had it bad but damn, people really don't like you. Which is sad, because you're probably a halfway decent person when you aren't representing such a shit company. Anyway, just wanted to let you know I don't hate you and - while I don't really agree with your employers - I think you are doing a fine job of doing your job. Hope you don't let all the crap get to you. 16:45, November 14, 2010 (UTC) Average Joe

Yeah, I think one thing some people might be missing is that Sansse can only say what Wikia lets her say, so she's not the one who should be taking all the blame here. That should be reserved purely for Wikia's decision makers. As (according to a very quick Googling) Shakespeare first said, don't shoot the messenger. --Jai. - 16:52, November 14 2010 (UTC)
Well... thanks both... but I have to say that Wikia is still a small company, so I'm very involved in the decisions and discussions. I believe in what we are doing with this skin -- professionally and personally. I can't say I enjoy being yelled at, but... even with that, I still love what I do (and, yes, I'm aware that is just going to sound like me talking for Wikia again) -- Sannse (help forum | blog) 05:59, November 17, 2010 (UTC)
And you support the one-size-fits-all policy of wiki skinning that lost you a number of wikis and thousands of contributors? I can maybe see being "behind" the skin for some wikis, but when the skin directly interferes with wiki editing, why would you still insist on it? That doesn't seem terribly professional, unless professional just means getting ad revenue. -Auron 08:25, November 17, 2010 (UTC)
What gave you the impression people don't like her? They just don't like the changes Wikia made. As part of the community support, of course she's not going to make any friends. That said, pvxwiki isn't the largest wiki either and I for one respect the effort she's made addressing the issues brought up here.--Relyk talk 07:01, November 17, 2010 (UTC)


KJ needs to be temporarily unbanned so he can migrate his userpage to the fork. As one of the few active admins that hasn't abandoned this place, it'd mean a lot to not just me, but the community at large, both at curse and here. Most of the remaining people here aren't going to just be here, but also at the fork dual-editing and doing twice the work. Showing wikia is flexible and not as heavy handed as is perceived would do a lot for the company's reputation. Speaking as someone who not just knows the guy but as an ancient pillar of this place, he's pretty laid back and reasonable, but you can ban him after his user page edit. Again, as someone who knows him, he wouldn't vandalize anything or do anything uncouth or non-constructive during the period in which you unban him. Please respond regardless of your decision, be it for the wiki and its community, or against it. Thanks in advance. —ǥrɩɳsɧƴɖɩđđɭɘş Grinshpon blinky cake.gif 19:34, November 23, 2010 (UTC)

I've removed his block and left him a message on his talk page. Thanks for the note :) -- Sannse (help forum | blog) 05:40, November 24, 2010 (UTC)
thank you sannse, it's much appreciated--Relyk talk 05:52, November 24, 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. —ǥrɩɳsɧƴɖɩđđɭɘş Grinshpon blinky cake.gif 16:32, November 24, 2010 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-NC-SA 2.5 unless otherwise noted.