• My occupation is Director of Community Support at Fandom.
  • I am away at the moment
  • Bio My dog is my obsession, making jewelry is my passion, chocolate is my addiction, and Fandom is my delight.
  • [Show More]
Revision as of 23:48, October 19, 2010 by Life Guardian (Talk | contribs)

| User:Sannse
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 16:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome! -- sannse@fandom (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 *Defiant Elements* +talk 21:05, December 18, 2009 (UTC)

Hi, sorry for the delay, I have replied alongside the original conversation -- sannse@fandom (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 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@fandom (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)

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@fandom (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@fandom (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)
Community content is available under CC-BY-NC-SA 2.5 unless otherwise noted.