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)

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)

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)

Community content is available under CC-BY-NC-SA 2.5 unless otherwise noted.