Changes: Forum:Next steps for WoWWiki

Latest revision as of 00:21, 9 December 2010

Forums: Index ⇒ WoWWiki general → Next steps for WoWWiki
(This is a dead topic, Please do not edit this page!)

Hi. Now that BlizzCon is over (and I hear it was a blast!) It's time to consider the practical future for this wiki.

I think that the various talk page messages, site notices, and so on will have done their job - WoWWiki regulars now know that the community has forked and that they have a choice of where to edit.

So this seems a good time to ask those leaving talk page messages to move on from this phase of the transition. You would likely stop any other site's owner going to each user's talk page here to ask for new members, I don't think it's unreasonable to ask the same from Wowpedia.org from now on.

I’ve attempted to negotiate this with Pcj and others on IRC, in the same way that we negotiated the wording of the talk page message and sitenotices. But... we didn't really get anywhere there. I know his intentions are good, he may even think that mine are too -- we just disagree on what is right for the community here, and even what "the community here" actually means after the fork.

We also need to set a time limit on the duration of the current sitenotice and community messages, it's fair enough to let people know what's going on of course, but there is a point where the two wikis need to go their own ways.

At some point we should also turn to the question of admin rights: who are the remaining admins? Is there a need to promote new admins? Is there a need to remove admin rights from those who have chosen to leave? This isn't something that needs deciding instantly, I know that some of those who have decided to go are still looking out for vandalism, and JoePlay and others will also help during the transition -- but it is something that will need to be looked at.

I think those are the main issues. By the end of the day today, those leaving talk page messages will have been doing so for a week. That's a fair amount of time to have been notifying people - so I ask that you stop then. Please let me know your views on the timing for the other issues. Thanks -- Sannse (help forum | blog) 19:07, October 26, 2010 (UTC)

What, you're now trying to revive the horse that you beat to death? Good luck with that. That also goes for trying to convince the community that's still left to stay - the same community that you don't give a damn about. --Gourra (talk) 19:13, October 26, 2010 (UTC)

I think that the spamming should continue until every user's talk page has been tagged including new accounts and change the welcome message to direct people to the new site. You dug your own grave and now you want out? EGingell 19:57, October 26, 2010 (UTC)

We're informing the WoW community as to their choices: stay at wowwiki where the information is massively outdated for the new patch (because the small group of users who actually update have left), or join wowpedia where the information is actually being updated. You agreed to allow it, you even negotiated the wording of the notices with pcj in IRC, and it was agreed upon by all members. The only reason you're bitching now is because you've realized that wowwiki is losing users at an amazing rate, and you're concerned with the almighty dollar - if no one comes to WoWWiki, your ad impressions drop significantly, which means less money for you.

I doubt we'll need to be doing much talk page spam now that MMO Champion's posted, random gaming sites are posting about it, along with all the twitter posts, the Trade Channel messages in-game... OH and theres still the Press Releases to other gaming sites to go out, we can't forget them. See the spam of user reclaiming on wowwiki? Thats just from a single MMO-Champion post on the site, which has more than double our user audience.

As to the community issue, I honestly don't think anyone gives a damn about the 'Wikia Community'. The only community that any of us give a damn about is the WoW Community - we're very loyal to those in the community. Moving away from Wikia is whats best for the WoW Community. If you had've been willing to negotiate with us, rather than stick to the "no, this is staying the way it is" things probably would have ended up differently - ie us staying, and remaining to happily stay your cash cow.

Your bribe to move us to 1200px is just that, a useless bribe. We told you for weeks that WoW users don't use smaller resolutions and that the width should be increased, but no, you had to wait til we'd stated that we were leaving, til you decided to attempt to bribe us. Too little, way too late. Resa1983 (talk) 20:09, October 26, 2010 (UTC)

I'm not certain why there's a hostile response to this request. Yes, I know that more than a few editors were peeved at the changes to the wiki, and that's fine. People took the initiative to not only change things but to move in another direction when their needs/requests weren't met. I applaud that. But I've been wondering over the past week (it seems longer) when the tags on peoples' pages are going to stop. I more than understand trying to get word out, but at some point this activity becomes less 'getting the word out' and more 'trying to scuttle wowwiki'. I've already made my opinion known about the split: I have zero vested interest in either site, so read this as the opinion of someone on the outside looking in.

I think San is attempting to be reasonable in her request. She certainly has the power and authority to lay a heavy hammer across the entire lot of people who choose to ignore what she's asking. There's not much to lose, either, since those people are leaving. Though admins and editors can hold quite a bit of sway, we are all still guests on this wiki.

Frejya 20:12, October 26, 2010 (UTC)

As another 'outsider looking in,' I'm going to have to agree with Resa and EGingell. Wikia had their chance to remedy the situation and simply chose not to. Not only that, but the talk page spam can continue whether the users are sysop or not or whether they are banned from the site or not. EGingell had a point in that all talk pages have the right to be tagged as the ones that already have been. I don't forsee a reason to not allow it to continue other than the fact that what Resa said was true and that Wikia is concerned about the loss of users. At this point, user loss is inevitable. The users of this site have a right to know that this site is no longer the official site and that the core users that started this site will no longer be updating it with new information. Oasis broke quite a few functioning templates for this site that the old admin aren't going to fix, so the functionality of this site has suffered too.

I personally don't like the threats of "Do what we say, or we will drop your admin rights and send you on your way." Wikia's 'for the community' outlook has greatly changed over the last year. If it was really for the greater good of the community, then Wikia should realize that this site isn't any more. Think of it religiously... regardless your faith or belief, I am still allowed to share with you mine whether you agree with it, understand it, or take any value it in what-so-ever. You guys made your bed. Please lie in it and watch the outcome. Rappy 18:34, October 27, 2010 (UTC)

Rappy, I would put it this way: "do what is best for the community on this wiki -- the remaining and future occupants of WoWWiki -- or we'll ask you to move on". Of course, the difficulty is that we disagree what's best for that community, but if you choose to leave it, you cannot also choose to influence it. -- Sannse (help forum | blog) 17:58, October 28, 2010 (UTC)

Most people aren't going to see it that way, Sannse. Most people are going to view it as a precautionary action taken because of the loss of users. Wikia already chose what was best for the community here. You guys did that with a deaf ear and a cold shoulder. If editors chose to stay here, more than likely it's because of a few points... 1) loyalty to a site they started editing on... 2) they have no clue the core editors have branched off to edit elsewhere 3) they are oblivious to what happened that caused the decision to move. I am betting that a good percentage of the ones that chose to stay do it without knowing the option rather than because of key point #1 above. Staff should not be able to say "you can't tell people that edit here about the community options." The community that was here has left. The remaining should still get that choice, whether or not Wikia is able to cope with it. Rappy 20:09, October 28, 2010 (UTC)

Of course, I disagree with your perspective on this, and I'm simply going to say that it is not acceptable to use Wikia to spam visitors with messages about other sites. And I can't play tag on this... I've asked Gourra to stop, and to pass that message on to the next people waiting to take their turn. -- Sannse (help forum | blog) 20:40, October 28, 2010 (UTC)

Random Argument Break

Freja wrote: we are all still guests on this wiki. I am. The editors and admins who built this site, who cared for the content, and who made it so valuable for everyone in the community as an information resource and for Wikia as a revenue resource, are not. To stamp the people who made this site work as "guests" is disrespectful, and to decide unilaterally that they're not part of this community any more because Wikia has another definition of community than they do is shameful.

By the way, from the website statistics, most readers are still here. It's the editors that have mostly left. But then, Oasis is geared towards readers and not towards editors, and readers rarely have accounts, so they don't get talkpage messages, and there's no sitenotice now to reach them, so Wikia is probably going to do well no matter whether talk pages keep being tagged or not. --◄mendel► 21:27, October 28, 2010 (UTC)

Mendel - I think you full well know how innocuous my statement was meant to be. I'm sorry you are of the opinion that I am someone that should be caught up and hung with everyone else, as I've made it more than clear via my posts (especially when asked my opinion) that I am attempting to stay neutral in this argument. You know full well no disrespect was intended. If you want to know my stance on wowpedia and don't trust what I have to say on the matter, feel free to discuss it with Kaydeethree. He and I spent a good portion of yesterday defending your site on the warcraft forums yesterday when someone seemed to be utilizing underhanded means to recruit new visitors.

Frejya 21:54, October 28, 2010 (UTC)

*cough* I posted on the forums as well, you were just too busy to notice it. --Pcj (T•

C) 22:05, October 28, 2010 (UTC)

If you did, that's great. What I'm growing tired of is people deciding my neck looks pretty in a noose and that I apparently am against the new site.

Frejya 22:09, October 28, 2010 (UTC)

I don't particularly care if people want to stay here, that's their choice - but I want to make sure that they are aware they have that choice. I just think Wikia is more than capable to defend their own poor decision to implement the skin and not listen to the community when they had the chance. They are essentially a hosting provider, and I cannot fathom anyone standing with a hosting provider over the community that actually generated the content. --Pcj (T•

C) 22:13, October 28, 2010 (UTC)

I see - so just by virtue of pointing out how wikia is within its bounds to request certain activities be suspended on their site you are of the opinion that a) I agree with everything they're doing and saying and b) that the noose really does belong around my neck. As I said below, it seems like word has gotten out via other methods that wowpedia does exist. What is it exactly that would make people happy, then? That every user from now until wowwiki melts into pieces have an announcement put on their user page? If there's a time frame that's been tossed around, I haven't seen it yet. I know wikia is saying it's been long enough. What would entail 'long enough' for you?

Frejya 22:20, October 28, 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't accuse you of agreeing with Wikia, I just don't understand your perspective in trying to defend them. If people sign up to WoWWiki now that the obscene new skin is active and the content is starting to get outdated, that's fine, I would hope to not bother them. It's not being able to tell the members that were active in the community that come back for another edit ignorant of the change that gets me. --Pcj (T•

C) 22:24, October 28, 2010 (UTC)

Pointing out fact is much different than defending someone. Is it not a fact that the rights users have here are granted by the owners of the site? I don't believe I'm incorrect in saying that.

Frejya 22:29, October 28, 2010 (UTC)

No, the right to fork is an fundamental software freedom common to (and inherit in) all open source structures. Wikia has the means to shut us down on their servers, and they have the legal right, they do not have the moral right. As an analogy, compare what Wikia is doing to oppressing the freedom of speech/press (or democracy vs. autocracy) - democracy is a freer political structure and it is the one our community has selected. --Pcj (T•

C) 22:38, October 28, 2010 (UTC)

That changes nothing in what I said. We aren't discussing your right to fork. You did it. You have a new site. What we're talking about is your right to post notices on this site that run contrary to the the wishes of the site owners.

Frejya 22:46, October 28, 2010 (UTC)

Sure, since these twin discussions are trending to one point I think we should just continue below if you want to go on.--Pcj (T•

C) 22:47, October 28, 2010 (UTC)

I'd really just prefer if we found a coffee shop, to be honest :P

Frejya 22:49, October 28, 2010 (UTC)

Haha, there's always IRC or you can hit me up on IM if you want. :P --Pcj (T•

C) 22:52, October 28, 2010 (UTC)

Part 2 of the random argument

(reset indent) I'm just talking logically here. You said it yourself. "Do what is best for the community here..." What if what's best for the community that is left here is progress? You are making that choice for them without allowing them to acknowledge the choice. Yeah, sure, rebuilding and nurturing the site here is a good thing, but you are trying to hide the fact that the wiki users here have moved on. The casual user doesn't read the forums. The casual user searches for information and edits if they feel it's wrong. Most of this won't even be seen by the casual user. I don't edit here, nor do I ever plan to, but I feel your standpoint on this is wrong.

The people here have the right to know and you are doing your best to deny them that right. Rappy 20:49, October 28, 2010 (UTC)

First, not all Wiki users have moved on. Some of us are either sticking with this site or floating between the two. Secondly, the news announcements on the front page of WoWWiki currently stretch back into August. The announcement about Wowpedia is right there on the front page and will likely stay there for another two to three months. Nothing is being done to hide it.

Frejya 21:04, October 28, 2010 (UTC)

People visit the front page? --Pcj (T•

C) 21:05, October 28, 2010 (UTC)

If Wikia really wanted to hide the information about wowpedia they could easily remove the post from the front page, take off the post on the board, remove the wowpedia page itself, and delete each and every recruitment/announcement post made on peoples' pages. They could also unilaterally delete every user page of every admin that is leaving. If they're attempting to hide what's been happening they're doing a pretty piss poor job of it.

Frejya 21:54, October 28, 2010 (UTC)

I'm not saying they're "hiding" it, they're just making it hard for people to find it. People don't visit the main page - they come in by searches. They don't read the community corner or the forums. The only thing that gets their attention is "hey you have new messages on your talk page". We should have the right to exercise due diligence to notify every user of their option to join the rest of the community, and I don't think we are being afforded that. --Pcj (T•

C) 22:07, October 28, 2010 (UTC)

Let me put it to you this way, then: should wowhead have the right to come in and post on peoples' user pages? Should mmochamp or any other site? The only thing that makes wowpedia any different is that forked from here. But Wikia still reserves the right to monitor and check what goes on here, right? And if they say that someone has the right (or not) to do something, shouldn't those requests be adhered to? I mean, you wouldn't want someone flouncing about wowpedia doing the same thing, would you? I know you'll argue that everyone currently at wowpedia already knows of the fork (fork, right?), but what about in a year if some editor from wowwiki gets an ant in their shorts? From what I've seen there have already been multiple sites who have large audiences announcing wowpedia's existence. The general and getting started forums have already had threads in them about it (warcraft). The word seems to have gotten out pretty well.

Frejya 22:16, October 28, 2010 (UTC)

Free content should be free; I don't see why you're trying to defend a corporate overlord dictating to a community what it has the right to do. The community decided to move. I know you're trying to be neutral, but I cannot see any sense in it. --Pcj (T•

C) 22:20, October 28, 2010 (UTC)

You cannot say on one hand that I am attempting to be neutral while also claiming that I am defending the corporation. I am neutral - all I'm pointing out is that the rights that exist on this website are rights that are granted by the owners of the website. Wowpedia is no different than this. The Warcraft forums are no different than this. *No* website is any different than this. People lobbing verbal grenades at the powers that be isn't going to change this; in fact, it will do quite the opposite. Neither site comes out looking particularly good. In fact,m the thread I mentioned earlier should illustrate that the more negative this gets, the less likely it is that people are really going to contribute to one or both sites.

Frejya 22:26, October 28, 2010 (UTC)

You say you are attempting to be neutral but you end up defending Wikia more than anything. I'm not accusing, it's just the way it works out. Wikia won't attack your position, they have the upper hand (and you are more neutral than others), but you are defending them against our attempts to notify the community of our efforts, so it seems to you that we're being aggressive to you - for that I am sorry. Yes, Curse is another corporate overlord, but they are already part of the community and hopefully understand it quite a bit more than Wikia. The thread you mentioned earlier began to drive people away because the person was misleading people (whether on purpose or not) about WoWWiki and the reasons behind the move. I would hate to mislead people about this - that's why I was simply notifying them of their option to join us. --Pcj (T•

C) 22:33, October 28, 2010 (UTC)

Here's a simple question: who grants the rights that users have on this site? Notify people all you want. Scream it from the mountaintops for all I care. But the *fact* is that the rights you have to make such announcements on this site are limited to the rights that are given to you by the site owners. What you feel you 'should' and 'should not' have are moot. Let's say that I'm rabid and foaming at the mouth in support of wowpedia and all the former admins have to say. If I'm not mistaken, that doesn't change what rights you have here. It doesn't change that what I'm trying to point out is fact. Am I saying that you don't have the right to advertise? No. Am I saying you don't have the right to spread the word among the players? Not at all. What I'm pointing out - and what is *fact* - is that you don't have the right to do it here because wikia controls what rights you have here. Am I mistaken? Does someone *else* grant those rights that I am not aware of? If so, please correct me, otherwise what I've stated is fact, and no amount of me supporting or not supporting wowwiki/wowpedia is going to influence that fact.

Frejya 22:41, October 28, 2010 (UTC)

You are correct, Wikia has the technical means to stop us here - but it would be awfully high-handed of them: that's why we're trying to protest it. --Pcj (T•

C) 22:44, October 28, 2010 (UTC)

I think what it boils down to is that there doesn't seem to be an end in sight with posting messages on peoples' user pages. How long were you guys planning to do that until you felt the message was satisfactorily spread?

Frejya 22:48, October 28, 2010 (UTC)

*shrug* Probably not that long. But when Wikia came to me to ask me to stop in under a week after I started posting the messages Wikia and I agreed on, let's just say I wasn't inclined to agree. --Pcj (T•

C) 22:50, October 28, 2010 (UTC)

I'll accept that. I'd even agree that the time frame was a bit short. But they are within their right (moral or not) to ask such a thing. Besides the ire I expressed in our above conversation, what distresses me the most is that there's such an instant, negative reaction to something (it seems anything) that is asked by the wikia, it really doesn't do you guys a great service. As self-certain as you guys are in that what you're doing is the right thing, it has made me wonder if I want to be a part of wowpedia's community, either. It seems some members of both sites are willfully missing the high road.

Frejya 22:56, October 28, 2010 (UTC)

The reason we are leaving is because Wikia is treating us terribly. I hope you can understand if we act negatively towards them, they have not given us anything but misery over the past few months. They are notoriously hard to work with and I will be happy when I can leave and never look back. On the other hand, I would hate to leave anyone behind to deal with Wikia and its problems if I can help it. I don't want the community to splinter just because some people didn't know. --Pcj (T•

C) 23:00, October 28, 2010 (UTC)

I understand negative feelings - believe me, I do - but nothing good can be gained from an 'eye for an eye' approach. It drives people like me away who might otherwise choose to be an active member of your community. I'm not saying I won't be (after all, I did already reclaim my account) but I am holding back with all the fur that's been flying. Especially fur that's been flung at me. Let's be completely honest, though: you can't notify everyone, and there are other, less difficult avenues you can pursue rather than banging your head against the wall here.

Frejya 23:07, October 28, 2010 (UTC)

Well, I apologize for any hard feelings you may have felt directed at your way, it certainly wasn't intentional. We certainly are doing positive press, and I have indeed stopped posting on talk pages since Sannse formally asked me to. I don't want people to feel guilty for staying behind, I want to encourage them to come over. --Pcj (T•

C) 23:23, October 28, 2010 (UTC)

No worries; I know how upset people are. The conversation was helpful, though ;)

Frejya 23:25, October 28, 2010 (UTC)

A side discussion

Wait, why is Sannse trying to run this wikia site? You guys know that she's not allowed to do that (it violates their free use licenses). Not to cause issues or drama here, but you guys have the full right to deny her requests and run the site the way you see fit. {{subst:User:Karate Jesus/sig}} 21:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Karate Jesus, I'm not going to go in to this here and derail the conversation. The logic for this would be dubious even if this site were -nc (which it isn't) or if I were trying to run the site (which I'm not). Sorry I haven't had time to go in to this on PvX, I'll try and call in as soon as I can -- Sannse (help forum | blog) 15:58, October 27, 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that Wikia became the legal owners of the domain name when the site moved here. They do not believe in the right of Wikia communities to self-determination (edit: technically, they do allow communities to 'fork' but not to take the unified site the members created) and refuse to let the community take the domain with it when it leaves. That's what's got at least me so angry with them. It's like Geocities - when it still existed, but I though this was appropriate since Wikia was originally called Wikicities - saying, "Okay, well you decided to move to a real web host, but we're going to keep your domain name and a copy of the content and continue to profit from all the work you did, as well as confuse and split the community we profess to serve." Plymouth (talk) 22:53, October 28, 2010 (UTC)

As for the questions...

My personal opinion is that it's fine for the notices to stay up for a bit longer. I don't know that it's a big deal to have the total duration they're posted lasting for a month or so. As for the admin question: I think there are certainly some admins who have made it crystal clear that they will no longer be working on this site. Others have stated they may work between the two. Administration rights should vary accordingly, then. I think adding new admins should be delayed until it is known who is going to be actively participating in the wiki. Frejya 20:33, October 26, 2010 (UTC)

WoWWiki policy states that no admins have been demoted for inactivity. --k_d³ 20:54, October 26, 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's an actual rule, as opposed to an observation. Since San is asking about it, I'm assuming it's certainly a possibility. What's being considered is removing the admin rights of those that have made it clear they're moving elsewhere, as opposed to those who have become inactive. If someone is moving elsewhere and has made it known they have no intention of coming back, I'm not sure there should be much concern on either side.

Frejya 21:06, October 26, 2010 (UTC)

Are there any admins who are actually staying with the site? Or editors for that matter? Plymouth (talk) 16:08, October 27, 2010 (UTC)

Other than wikia staff, no. They're already bringing in admins from other wikis who either hate wow (Deadlykris) or haven't even played wow (Ausir) as they apparently can't trust the WoW Community. They also apparently don't know how to admin well, as Deadlykris came into IRC last night asking questions about some abilities. Resa1983 (talk) 16:10, October 27, 2010 (UTC)

How do I shot web?[1] Oh sorry, that wasn't productive. Plymouth (talk) 16:44, October 27, 2010 (UTC)

I came into chat to ask questions about one function I was unfamiliar with; how can attempting to familiarize myself with that function be considered not knowing how to admin? If I just ignored the function, and didn't seek to understand it, would that make me a better admin? No, I think not. And while I may hate what WoW has become, I am also a former forum MVP, and I still care about the WoW community; that hasn't changed even though I moved on from playing the game. I enjoyed the game immensely before it was, in my opinion, ruined by Activision's greed; it would have been much better had it remained in the hands of Blizzard Entertainment, alone. I'm an admin here solely for the benefit of the WoW community, to help those who have questions about WoW and Warcraft lore, should they seek those answers here. I have no animosity towards anyone in the WoW community, but unwarranted personal attacks make it hard to maintain that neutrality. --Kris ^talk 18:53, October 27, 2010 (UTC)

I enjoyed the game immensely before it was, in my opinion, ruined by Activision's greed - Replace "the game" with WoWWiki and "Activision" with Wikia, and that is the situation for a lot of people and why they left. StarNeptune^{Talk to me!} 14:15, October 29, 2010 (UTC)

+1 Deelaa (talk) 18:27, October 29, 2010 (UTC)

To help with the transition, we have added Deadlykris as a temporary administrator to assist with any blatant vandalism/spam that might occur. He will work alongside any of the current admins who are going to continue to edit here, as well as give any other help current and new editors may need. Since Deadlykris is a former official WoW forum MVP, as well as an experienced wiki admin, we feel he should be a help while things settle.

We would obviously prefer that any currently active admins stay around long-term, but in case that doesn't happen it's always good to have backup until the future admins are chosen by the remaining community. JoePlay (talk) 16:59, October 28, 2010 (UTC)

Here's my two cents: Delete this wiki after the move is complete as most of the Original and main editors are gone. It's not worth the drama that this has caused. It is clear that the majority of the WoW community has moved on. To respect this, it is best to delete it. As many have said, It's not Wikia's place to try to run a site of a game that they have no clue on. It would be like a blind dog running a pack of strays into a brush pile of prickles. Also, those that are left may possibly not know how to do a lot of the pages that would need fixing, due to coding made or done by the original editors. Ariyen 23:05, October 28, 2010 (UTC)

See my Geocities comparison above. Although I believe Sannse is just doing the best she can with a difficult situation, Wikia itself is only interested in wringing every last drop of ad revenue they can out of a site that didn't even originate as a Wikia project. Plymouth (talk) 23:09, October 28, 2010 (UTC)

I saw that and I agree. It's why I left Geocities, when they were doing similar things. I know many left Geocities due to all that crap. Isn't Geocities closed now? Ariyen 23:22, October 28, 2010 (UTC)

Yahoo bought out Geocities. They [Yahoo] kept the domain name and mirrored the whole Geocities domain name to their "geocities" sub domain where the user pages were hosted, for a while, then they dumped all of their users' web pages. Now the Geocities domain name redirects to a "Geocities has closed" landing page. Yahoo still offers paid hosting for businesses. -- EGingell ^{Talk,WoW Pedia} 23:43, October 28, 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. It makes me wonder what Jimmy Wales and the shareholders would say if they knew the company was treating its users this way. And again, I'm not blaming Sannse personally. I'm also not threatening to run to the press or something. Just wondering aloud. Plymouth (talk) 23:25, October 28, 2010 (UTC)

See: User_talk:Jimbo_Wales --Timeshifter (talk) 18:56, October 29, 2010 (UTC)

Looks like he has forsaken the community, too. -- EGingell ^{Talk,WoW Pedia} 19:19, October 29, 2010 (UTC)

I bet you that Jimmy Wales and the shareholders are actually the ones behind this mess. Jimmy Wales has made no secret of the fact that Wikia has always been about profit, and WoWWiki is one of (if not THE) most profitable wikis in the network. Without this site, there's a chance Wikia may go under. StarNeptune^{Talk to me!} 14:15, October 29, 2010 (UTC)

I believed that I had learned some where that the consumer was always right. In retrospect, the consumers, company, etc. should have compromised from the get go and if things didn't work - part ways. Most companies even the one that I had worked at would part ways with their customers (other companies in this respect) if they all felt that it wasn't suitable and even customers (other companies) would part ways with companies that they were doing business with, if things didn't work out. It's sad to not see this type workable here, but to see a company try to hold on to things that's dying or not compatible with them anymore. Ariyen 23:32, October 28, 2010 (UTC)

ugh... wikia, please note: you are doing a disservice to the community by keeping this site open. people are confused and the only reason you are still getting traffic is because they don't know about the move or someone started an "omg wowwiki has viruses" thread and they think curse is behind it. there will not be two communities of editors in the end, you are just delaying the inevitable and making things worse for yourselves. PLEASE RECONSIDER whether a few extra ad dollars in the short run is worth turning thousands of people against your company. it doesnt have to end this way...

--Faithful Forum Follower (talk) 03:52, October 29, 2010 (UTC) (note: this user is Plymouth using a sock account -- sannse)

Delete per all of the above, #REDIRECT Wowpedia, etc. How much did they offer for the domain name? We can start a donation drive if they're that concerned with lost revenue. Deelaa (talk) 18:27, October 29, 2010 (UTC) (note: this user is Plymouth using a sock account -- sannse)

They just said it's not for sale. --Pcj (T•

C) 18:31, October 29, 2010 (UTC)

Admin rights

Over the weekend, there was a dispute between Frejya and Plymouth (who was using sock accounts) on the Wowpedia article. It was clearly a unproductive edit war, and both were banned for 3 days. But looking deeper - not only was Plymouth sockpuppeting (something pretty obvious from the edits) he was making null edits, apparently to keep the article at the top of RC. So why did the admins not stop this behaviour when it's damaging to this wiki?

It really highlights the problem of having admins with such a clear conflict of interest. Wowpedia wants to advertise their fork on WoWWiki, and I know that they have turned a blind eye more than once in order to do that. WoWWiki needs to move on, and look to the future of this wiki and anyone who wants to remain here. While some admins are continuing to make good edits, I think it's clear that they are doing so in order not to lose their rights, and with no intent to do what is right for WoWWiki rather than Wowpedia.

I had hoped that we could allow some more calming time before looking at admin rights here. But it seems clear that we need to address this before more harm is done. Is it possible for someone to truly be an admin for the benefit of two competing wikis?

So I am removing all admin rights from those who have chosen to make Wowpedia their primary wiki. I've left those I'm not sure about, or who have been inactive for some time -- and I'd like to start a discussion on how and when to add new admins here, and who they should be.

Obviously, at the moment it would be easy for Wowpedians to influence any vote without intent to benefit WoWWiki, so it's likely we will hold off on that for a while. But the ideal, of course, is for the remaining community here to choose who should be promoted (or reinstated). I hope we can get back to that – Sannse (help forum | blog) 20:13, November 1, 2010 (UTC)

"why did admins not stop this behavior" - I did, when there was a violation of wiki policy (WW:3RR) - and I got demoted for it. Wikia seems to not care about local wiki policies in favor of its own interests. --Pcj (T•

C) 20:45, November 1, 2010 (UTC)

I was at work for most of the weekend, so, wha?

Oh, no. It's never about local policies when the bottom line gets in the way. --Kaydeethree (talk) 21:23, November 1, 2010 (UTC)

I also notice that your new admin didn't take care of edit warring, as he also wasn't really online this weekend. You should demote Deadlykris as well as the rest of the admins/bureaucrats (yes, including Kirkburn) if you're going to demote admins simply for not being online to deal with a single problem. The former admins were STILL doing the bulk of the admin work (up until you decided to demote them of course), might wanna check out Special:Log/block and Special:Log/delete. Resa1983 (talk) 21:38, November 1, 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree with the demotion of admins for enforcing wiki policy, and I would also like to add that I can't be everywhere at once. Not only that, but I'm hesitant to intercede in matters regarding the fork, and will only do so after careful deliberation. That said, I didn't notice the edit war until 12 hours had passed after it was over, and I kinda feel that my protecting the page was a case of too little, too late. I did consider protecting it at an earlier time, but my reluctance to jump into matters of the fork caused me to not do so. I don't want to alienate the WoWWiki community by any means. --Kris ^talk 22:54, November 1, 2010 (UTC)

As a more impartial observer, I can't help noticing that wikia obviously waited for an excuse to remove admin rights from these people. This is pathetic... --User:IcecreamKitten 00:54, November 2, 2010 (UTC)

That's exactly what I said. Sannse, your reasoning is completely off-based compared to your actions. The admin that ended up putting a stop to the issue was an admin with a "conflicted interest." I can see your rationale if the admin that took care of it was not involved with Wowpedia at all while none of the Wowpedia admins did anything. I am loosing respect for you with every passing day, Sannse. This is indeed vindictive. Ressy is right. You should drop admin rights to all admins here as they did nothing to stop the edit wars and reinstate pcj because he's the only one that did do anything to stop the issue. That's the only logical thing to do if anyone should be demoted for not doing their job. Rappy 00:59, November 2, 2010 (UTC)

To clarify, this was not a demotion for those blocks as such -- I agree that the edit war was unreasonable. However, it doesn't appear that Frejya has had problems of this sort before, and Atavism/Plymouth was rather obviously trolling with the null edits and sockpuppeting. It seems to me that the reaction was biased simply by dealing with the two as equivalent (I see the policy page gives a range of possible reactions). And this incident follows on from a pattern that says to me that the old admins are going to allow behaviour targeted against this wiki for the benefit of their own. That's the real issue here -- Sannse (help forum | blog) 01:13, November 2, 2010 (UTC)

Let me break down the illogical thought process here, one step at a time.

Over the weekend, there was a dispute between Frejya and Plymouth (who was using sock accounts) on the Wowpedia article. It was clearly a unproductive edit war, and both were banned for 3 days. But looking deeper - not only was Plymouth sockpuppeting (something pretty obvious from the edits) he was making null edits, apparently to keep the article at the top of RC. So why did the admins not stop this behaviour when it's damaging to this wiki?

I think you a) presume too much about a whole lot of people here, starting with the entirety of the ~~current~~ex-admin crew, and then go on to assume a whole hell of a lot which is completely antithetical to your worries as a Wikia-person. Firstly, the admins are normal people with jobs and activities, just like you are (seeing as this was Halloween weekend...). Shocking, we know. Secondly, I don't think any of us condone the edit warring, and in fact pcj took the time when he had the time to deal with the situation by removing both users (even though one is plainly in favor of Wowpedia, while the other seems quite in favor of Wikia-WoWWiki). That seems fairly nonpartial to me. Thirdly, I'm going to attach your concern about "RC" to the fact that no-one fucking views RC anymore, because the most obvious way is through a "hidden link" (you should know what that means) buried in Special:Activity (or w/e it's called). Yeah. You made a skin for the readers. Oops. Why the fuck then, are you worried about what RC looks like? Hmm? Yes, this first concern here is a mistake of one on your part.

It really highlights the problem of having admins with such a clear conflict of interest. Wowpedia wants to advertise their fork on WoWWiki, and I know that they have turned a blind eye more than once in order to do that. WoWWiki needs to move on, and look to the future of this wiki and anyone who wants to remain here. While some admins are continuing to make good edits, I think it's clear that they are doing so in order not to lose their rights, and with no intent to do what is right for WoWWiki rather than Wowpedia.

WoWWiki doesn't exist anymore. Or, if it does, it has moved on, where you are attempting to prevent it from moving on (and have successfully done so on the matter of the domain, if nothing else!). What this really highlights is your conflict of interest here. Ironically enough, we haven't even touched the article on "Wowpedia" because we know we have a conflict of interest. This should make it obvious (if not for the reason that we have lives) why action was taken so late: We don't want to touch, and have not touched, that particular one with our own fingers because we know they'll look dirty to the angry schoolteacher. Our apologies.

I think your assumption here is false. Some admins have made good edits to make good edits. Some admins have stopped editing completely. Some admins have made good blocks to make good blocks. I do not think you should be the one to judge, either way. "Intent to do what is right" doesn't (and shouldn't!) even factor into the fucking equation!

I had hoped that we could allow some more calming time before looking at admin rights here. But it seems clear that we need to address this before more harm is done. Is it possible for someone to truly be an admin for the benefit of two competing wikis?
So I am removing all admin rights from those who have chosen to make Wowpedia their primary wiki. I've left those I'm not sure about, or who have been inactive for some time -- and I'd like to start a discussion on how and when to add new admins here, and who they should be.

Have any of us made harmful edits, those that have left? No. Have any of us made harmful blocks, those that have left? No. Does that mean we should be stripped of our administrator powers? Fuck no, and you are much beyond your rights to be stripping the rights from anyone who has not done active harm. We are not running a negative campaign here. We have absolutely been focused on providing a positive one, and it appears to me that you are the one turned into a Downer Debbie.

To be fair, you should have removed all the ones you weren't sure about and the inactive ones; by default, you cannot be sure of the inactive ones. The logic: You want to "move on". Leaving admin rights with any admin who is currently listed as being an admin on WW:ADMIN actually empowers us to be able to influence those admins. Again, you are contradicting your own actions (as Wikia has so often done). Were I an idiot, I would call you stupid for it, but I'm not, so I won't.

Obviously, at the moment it would be easy for Wowpedians to influence any vote without intent to benefit WoWWiki, so it's likely we will hold off on that for a while. But the ideal, of course, is for the remaining community here to choose who should be promoted (or reinstated). I hope we can get back to that.

What the fuck are you referencing? Why the fuck do you think we would attempt to influence any vote (for new administrators?!)? Again, that just looks like we're getting our fucking fingers dirty, and then you have actual evidence to demote us. You, ma'am, are an idiot for demoting us when there is an absence of evidence against us (oh wait, I guess I did just call you an idiot). Guilty until proven innocent, obviously.

To wrap up, you made a choice. We made a choice. But our choice has not required us to view them as exclusive. Yours does. And so now you're projecting your choice onto us. Good job. Watch the wiki decay even faster now, as it will be true decay, rather than maintained stagnation. Good job indeed. --Sky 01:04, November 2, 2010 (UTC)
PS: You'll notice I didn't argue about my own admin rights. That was deliberate.

Unless they're abusing their admin access to advertise the new site, I don't see why they should have been demoted. I'm sure there have been plenty of instances on other wikis where no admin took action in an edit war. They may have been away or unaware. Being an admin means one should use their extra access fairly or to enforce what the community has agreed on. It's encouraged, but not an obligation to take care of any problem that comes up and it's certainly not an obligation to be present at all times in case a problem crops up.

If you insist that there is a remaining community, shouldn't they have been consulted and asked if they agree that there should be demotions rather than acting immediately on your own initiative? -- Deltaneos (talk) 01:18, November 2, 2010 (UTC)

As a person who has contributed to BOTH forks (and my recent edits in forum discussions contain no animosity to either side, hell, I sometimes stick up for the Wikia side)... I have to say "huh?". If I am reading this lengthy thing right, Pcj dealt with inappropriate behaviour in accordance with the rules, when he had the opportunity, carrying out the admin work needed to maintain WoWWiki -- despite the fact that this fork is no longer his primary, so any help he does is contrary to his own personal goals of expanding Wowpedia. And in return for the free favour... you demote him? I must be reading something wrong. Can someone please correct me if I'm not getting this right. (Maybe it was right for me to open an account at Wowpedia...)ddcorkum (talk) 04:06, November 2, 2010 (UTC)

Nope, you hit the nail right on the head. Rappy 04:12, November 2, 2010 (UTC)

Pcj was maintaining this site by his own free will when he no longer had any reason to do so (other admins might have been doing so as well, I am not sure). He was not doing anything blatantly hostile (including, but not limited to, the massive damage that an admin could do). The "spam" he was posting on everyone's talk page was not spam, it was informing the community of a choice that existed. It is very hard, in my opinion, to find announcements on the new Wikia/WoWWiki skin, and this choice was a major announcement. Personally, I navigate WoWWiki now by entering the URLs of now-deprecated-by-Wikia special pages. It was in the best interest of Wikia to find an excuse to ban the former admins of WoWWiki eventually, as we/they were dissenters causing a potential drop in Wikia profits. It was only a question of when. This Wowpedia-favored oversight was the prefect "evidence" that the two sites were at all-out war, vandalism of WoWWiki (or the allowance of vandalism of WoWWiki) by former admins included. However, all it was was an excuse. The crime was not any real hostile action on WoWWiki, the crime was Wowpedia itself. Then, I ask, why keep any of the old admins? Is it because more names, even inactive/useless-but-respected ones, on the admin lists make WoWWiki look more controlled? Is is because someone is clinging to scraps of hope, thinking that being randomly lax to some inactive admins will make them help WoWWiki still? On the topic of crimes and violations, not stopping an edit war immediately is not a traditionally demoteable offense. In fact, there are no "traditionally" demoteable offenses, as no WoWWiki admin, former or current, has ever done something heinous enough to be demoted, and that remains true today. WoWWiki has policies and guidelines established by the community, and these have been violated by Wikia. Some-to-most of the community has now left WoWWiki for Wowpedia, but that does not negate the procedures that they created. Such policies and guidelines can not have been created just to benefit Wowpedia, as Wowpedia did not exist at the time that the policies and guidelines were created. WoWWiki is unique enough for its own width, but not enough for its own rules? WoWWiki no longer exists. I say that not because Wowpedia killed WoWWiki (which it might have), I say that because Wikia did. WoWWiki no longer exists; a generic Warcraft.Wikia exists in its place in all but visible name.--SWM2448 15:07, November 2, 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary desysop section break

As I said above, this isn't about the blocks as such, and it's not about them not being quick enough -- I'm sorry if I didn't make that clear. What I'm concerned about is the two getting the same treatment for two different situations. One was an editor in good standing that the blocking admin had recently been arguing with (and who, I agree, was edit warring unreasonably), the other was obviously trolling with null edits and using a sockpuppet account (as well as edit warring unreasonably). The blocks show bias by acting as though the two were equivalent. And I see this as part of a pattern that made me, and others I discussed this with, worried enough to take that step. I don't think it's impossible for someone to edit two competing wikis, but these admins have moved to Wowpoedia and it's understandable that they are going to put that wiki first. Right now, that's harmful to this wiki and its future recovery and growth. -- Sannse (help forum | blog) 19:19, November 2, 2010 (UTC)

No, you pawned that off as an excuse to demote them, now you're changing your story. We know you're using any excuse you can to demote them.

When it comes to policy (ie WW:3RR) you can't play favorites, you deal with both users the same. I personally reverted some of Plymouth's vandalism on other pages, which he then reverted my revert. If I had've continued, I would have been blocked as well as him, and rightfully so. It comes down to its the user's responsibility to STOP what they're doing, and report it to an admin. That wasn't done. Theres nothing in Problem Reports (Oasis sucks balls, it needs to die), and no admins talk pages were edited to inform them of this issue. They're both to blame for not following policy, so they both receive the same slap on the hand. Yes Plymouth was vandalizing, but you still can't break policy and expect to get off scott-free. Resa1983 (talk) 19:40, November 2, 2010 (UTC)

Did you consider that removing those admins while you have no PROPER replacement in place, might even make this wiki worse off than having, according to you, biased admins? -- D ♠ T ♣ C ♦ I ♥ WP 19:42, November 2, 2010 (UTC)

Sannse, the bottom line, really, is this: the admin that put first did something about the situation was an admin that has supposedly 'moved on'. Not Wikia, not another admin, not you... I wonder myself when and if it would have been dealt with if pcj hadn't jumped in and did something. Is this action here going to affect other wikis whose admins don't deal with vandalism quickly? I'd hate to see admins across Wikia being demoted because some spam bot trashed several pages and it wasn't noticed withing a 'timely manner.' Are you the one running our wikis? Or are we? Rappy 20:42, November 2, 2010 (UTC)

Okay that's a bit clearer. Thank you. So two users were blocked for edit warring. One was also spamming, but wasn't blocked extra for that. So the rationale is they're willing to use their admin access to stop problems, but not problems they benefit from? I still disagree with the removal of rights.

I still feel is was presumptuous. You only know that one of the ten seen it and even he may not have noticed that more than an edit war was happening.
Was two equal blocks really a big issue? If you think it was bad moderating to not extend Plymouth's block, why haven't you done it yourself? You say there were two issues and only one was dealt with; the one that the WoWpedians benefited from? There was also two issues for you to deal with, extending the block and doing something about the admins and you also only took care of the one that you benefited from.
Them having admin access did not cause this problem. They haven't done any harm by having admin access nor is there heavy evidence to suggest that they will. You've removed them as a preventative measure. Isn't that something discouraged on wikis? -- Deltaneos (talk) 21:35, November 2, 2010 (UTC)

Resa: what I said was "So why did the admins not stop this behaviour when it's damaging to this wiki?" - referring to the trolling and socking that Plymouth was doing - and which was treated as equivalent to what Frejya was doing. I'm sorry I wasn't clearer above.

Dotted: Yes, that was a large part of the discussion before I made the changes -- a double-edged sword

Rappy: This is a specific and difficult situation. Of course it's not equivalent to admins not seeing vandalism -- or not having time to deal with it when they do, or deciding to leave it while they rush off for dinner, or whatever. The issue is the potential for turning a blind eye to something that harms WoWWiki because it benefits Wowpedia.

Deltaneos: I did extend Plymouth's block, but on a global level. He and his sock accounts are currently banned from Wikia. We've been trying to interfere as little as possible with local admins on all wikis -- forking or otherwise. In general, we have left admin rights when people have left, have accepted reasonable levels of messaging about forks, and have only blocked those who have been vandalizing or exceptionally abusive. But here, for more reasons that this last, I no longer have any faith that the admins who have moved are willing to work for the benefit of WoWWiki or to leave it be to recover. And that was worrying enough for intervention -- Sannse (help forum | blog) 23:50, November 2, 2010 (UTC)

Wait, wait. You unilaterally desysopped all of us because of the potential of someone turning a blind eye to an editor harming WoWWiki? So does that mean I can stop reporting the goldsellers buying ad space in the "Sponsored External Links" using Special:AdSS?

Also, what the hell is up with that? Didn't someone say that Wikia was manually approving those ads and that goldselling/RMT ads were supposed to be verboten? Maybe the ad guys really only do care about the bottom line and not the communities they're getting paid to "support". --Kaydeethree (talk) 00:10, November 3, 2010 (UTC)

Sannse:Again, as you can't seem to comprehend it, it was dealt with when it was seen due to said admins actually taking a weekend to have a life. There was no 'conflict of interest' or admins turning a blind eye, as you keep stating, there just weren't any admins ON to deal with it. Most admins weren't in IRC all weekend (Kd3 as a prime example), and the ones that were, were mostly afk with life. I know, a life. Thats hard to believe. If you want 24/7 admins, you should hire ppl to watch the wiki. The problem was dealt with when it was seen. There were many users on the wiki who COULD have brought it to the attention of the admins by posting on admin user pages (potentially getting it seen earlier due to email notifications to cell phones), but didn't. Hell, Frejya COULD and SHOULD have posted the issue to an admin's talk page, but didn't. Hell, I would have brought the matter to the attention of the admins myself, but I actually had a life myself this weekend with visiting family in a different city on Saturday, and being out most of Sunday. You can't just paint this entire episode as 'conflict of interest' and 'admins turning a blind eye' when its a blatant lie. The truth is you are using ANY minor thing to twist to your purposes to demote the admins.

*Sniffs* I smell... Power trip.

Yes, Plymouth should have gotten a longer block, however I highly doubt anyone would have thought to look for sockpuppets. Personally, I would have just figured it was another jerk following Plymouth's lead for giggles. Resa1983 (talk) 00:25, November 3, 2010 (UTC)

Among other things, I wonder about what your mandate here is -- what is it, exactly, that entitles you to demote an arbitrary set of sysops on a whim, with absolutely no local community support? Who is it exactly that you had those lengthy discussions about your actions with? It surely wasn't the (remains of the) WoWWiki community. It also seems presumptuous that you can judge more or less all active admins based on your interactions with a few -- that'd be akin to me drawing negative conclusions about all Wikia employees based on your actions.

Personally, I find the reasoning behind the removal of sysop privileges laughable. What were your concerns here, really? Administrators banning random people? You'd be on them faster than they could press the "Block" button. Administrators ignoring some conflict somewhere? You're actually worse off having no administrators at all -- and User:Deadlykris has to sleep sometime. Administrators resolving some conflict in a way that seems biased to you? Take it up with them -- if you were even remotely familiar with how things work here, you'd know that decisions to block people frequently end up having their duration changed based on a mediation process. You've lost the respect of the entire administrator team, and they no longer do exactly what you want them to? Hm, yes, that's a tough one. In the end, regardless of why you chose to act the way you did, leaving the site with virtually no active, experienced sysops is a disservice to everyone involved, and most of all Kris.

I detect a hint that "have accepted reasonable levels of messaging about forks" in our case involves not telling community members about the fork. If there actually was a community that was inclined to stay with Wikia, rather than a stream of editors making one or two edits every few months, and increasingly often wondering why the site sucks lately, this wouldn't be a problem: they'd simply ignore the one-liner talk page message and continue editing. So it would seem that your "stop editing pages, or I'll ban you (and everyone else!)" stance is aimed at building a community based on ignorance rather than actual desire to be here. Let's not kid ourselves -- you are not representing the interests of any community besides Wikia Inc, and those rank rather low on an average wiki community's agenda. Your own actions here have caused more harm to the WoWWiki community than anyone else ever could. -- foxlit (talk) 00:59, November 3, 2010 (UTC)

Double standard

Yo Sannse, I know you were busy with being an asshole and all, but you forgot to demote Deadlykris - I mean, he brought his account over to Wowpedia yet neglected his obligation here until it suited him - so obviously he has a conflict of interest too...or maybe you're too busy having your head stuck up your ass to notice. --PcjGamepedia wiki manager (TDrop me a line!• C) 03:54, November 2, 2010 (UTC)

I'm Dotted and I approve this message. -- D ♠ T ♣ C ♦ I ♥ WP 04:00, November 2, 2010 (UTC)

I approve Dotted's approval of this message. Rappy 04:12, November 2, 2010 (UTC)

<imagelink>http://test.wowkoe.com/avatar576_1.gif</imagelink>

This post also gets my seal of approval. -- EGingell ^{Talk,WoW Pedia} 08:00, November 2, 2010 (UTC)

because I've contributed a lot over there? Oh wait, no I haven't. --Kris ^talk 11:41, November 2, 2010 (UTC)

Then why did you transfer your account over there? You seem more and more like a hypocrite. --Gourra (talk) 13:13, November 2, 2010 (UTC)

I have nothing against you personally, Deadlykris, but it is similar logic.--SWM2448 15:07, November 2, 2010 (UTC)

It may just be me... but stuff like this makes me wonder why you are at either site... Rappy 20:42, November 2, 2010 (UTC)

If you'll take a closer look, that edit was reverted nearly a full month ago (Oct. 11). I wasn't approached for adminship until one week ago today (Oct. 26th), over two weeks later. I don't see how my disillusionment with the game, and the edit to my userpage that reflected that until it was reverted, are relevant when I've made it known from the beginning that I'm disillusioned with WoW. Also, please don't try to paint me as some Wikia scab or lackey, I have no love for the Oasis skin nor the draconian method by which it's being forced upon all Wikia sites. When Monaco goes away, I will be using Monobook instead of Oasis. --Kris ^talk 21:31, November 2, 2010 (UTC)

It still may just be me... but if I thought a game sucked, I wouldn't take an admin position over a site about the game. I am not painting you as anything. I am just stating my position. Take it how you wish. Rappy 22:01, November 2, 2010 (UTC)

I reverted the change because I don't think it sucks. I don't like the direction it's gone, and I don't see myself playing the game again. I didn't accept the admin position because of my personal feelings about the game, however; I didn't take it because Wikia asked me (they didn't, Ausir did); I didn't take it to earn points with Wikia, either. I took it to help those WoW players who would still look to this wiki as a source of information on the game. --Kris ^talk 22:15, November 2, 2010 (UTC)

I doubt, after the above issues, anyone will take this site seriously for anything... Rappy 22:40, November 2, 2010 (UTC)

You may be surprised just how oblivious people can be. --Kris ^talk 22:48, November 2, 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't that the whole reason for the talk page notices? Oh right... it was... Rappy 23:00, November 2, 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it was; however:

Not all who would seek information here are registered.
Apparently Wikia doesn't like people to know that the community is moving.

--Kris ^talk 23:09, November 2, 2010 (UTC)

On the account: I considered making one myself... to solve this problem. And, as I've said, I don't object to people editing on both sites - but I'm not convinced that you can truly act an admin trying to support and grow this wiki, when you have decided that you no longer want to be on Wikia and want to promote another wiki at this one's expense. That leads to conflicts of interest like those at the weekend.

On Kris' comment: Wikia objects to people using their service to promote a competitive one. And we want whoever is left as part of this wiki's community to have the best chance possible of rebuilding it. That's all. -- Sannse (help forum | blog) 23:30, November 2, 2010 (UTC)

Problem? If you don't reclaim your account, nobody can make any edits using your name. Last I checked it was generally understood that we copied everything before the 18th or so, Wikia-employed edits or not. --Kaydeethree (talk) 00:15, November 3, 2010 (UTC)

Even Wikia employees who have edited here (Sannse, Kirkburn, etc.), can "reclaim" their account at Wowpedia. -- EGingell ^{Talk,WoW Pedia} 07:14, November 3, 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Sannse can't. After her bs excuse as to why she demoted the admins here, her account was blocked on wowpedia by pcj. Resa1983 (talk) 13:33, November 3, 2010 (UTC)

Quote: I have not, and will not, ban anyone for disagreeing with me. -- Sannse (help forum | blog) 07:09, November 3, 2010 (UTC) [2]

You know, I thought that was true. I thought you only had banned/demoted people for doing something you disagreed with (and when that happens, I've seen you block/demote first and discuss later (if pressed)). Right here, you expect Frejya to be treated differently than Plymouth, and I suspect this is because she agrees with you and Plymouth doesn't - they've certainly violated the same policy in the same way, so there's no logical reason to treat them differently. You say that User:Faithful Forum Follower and User:Deelaa are socks of Plymouth. It is not obvious to me from the edits further up the page that either of them is a sockpuppet, so if I was an admin on this wiki and had checkuser (I don't think any admin had that?), I'd not even have thought of employing it here: there is no reason to do it, and in fact this edit made it seem unlikely. (How have sock puppets been handled here in the past?)

he was making null edits, apparently to keep the article at the top of RC -- (aside: a real null edit doesn't show up on RC) I don't see what was changed here, or why Plymouth did that - you might want to ask him - but I'm certain he didn't do it to "bump" the page as his previous edit was a single minute earlier. Who bumps an edit by one minute? That makes no sense at all.

While some admins are continuing to make good edits, I think it's clear that they are doing so in order not to lose their rights -- that is in flagrant violation of WoWWiki:Assume good faith, a policy that has been pioneered on Wikipedia and established on many Wikia wikis to good effect. We need to address this before more harm is done. The harm you claim is insufficient admin coverage, and the remedy is removing the number of admins? Who have been doing good edits? How is that helping the problem? You have chosen to demote those admins who do not agree with you; you have not demoted that do. I don't need to assume anything here to claim that this time, while you did not "ban" anyone who disagreed with you, you certainly demoted them, which is just another removal of rights.

I did expect from past experience that you would demote the admins who had moved to the fork about two weeks later. I did not expect that this time you'd try to disguise it by attributing ill intentions to them with little to nothing to go on. I had expected more of you. --◄mendel► 16:35, November 3, 2010 (UTC)

EGingell: I haven't tried to recover my account, for the same reason that I haven't joined the Wowpedia IRC channel - I'm aware I wouldn't be welcome on either. The problem I have is a personal one with my name being in the history of a wiki I've never edited, and in the possibility of someone in the future controlling an account that appears to be me -- although obviously the counter to that is that it's there as attribution and that Wowpedia has blocked that account from being reclaimed by someone other than the author of those edits.

Mendel: You are someone I respect highly, so I'm very sorry you feel this way. A couple of quick corrections: some admins here (including Pcj) did have checkuser rights, and the main sock was the one banned for edit warring not the others mentioned above. You said: "you expect Frejya to be treated differently than Plymouth, and I suspect this is because she agrees with you and Plymouth doesn't". Yes, I'm aware that's the likely perception -- ironically exactly the one I have in the other direction.

Outside of that, there's nothing much more I can add -- I hope you will understand that I always try to assume good faith, and to keep to minimal intervention in any community. But I also that know that we differ in our views on what that means in difficult situations like this one. -- Sannse (help forum | blog) 18:10, November 3, 2010 (UTC)

The problem with this statement: "I hope you will understand that I always try to assume good faith" is that you didn't assume good faith when it came to demoting the admins. Yes they'd moved to another competing wiki, however they were still managing the site according to community-created policies in place until you could find sufficient replacements who knew said policies, which was shown if you'd view the block/deletion/move logs. You assumed incorrectly they're turning a blind eye to the site - YOU didn't assume good faith at all.

While Deadlykris looks to be a good choice of a temporary admin, he currently has insufficient knowledge of Wowwiki policies to maintain this wiki solo, which was shown with the accidental blockage of a user on Monday, and subsequent unblocking at my urging yesterday. As well, he can't maintain it on his own 24/7 (maybe he can considering the lack of traffic on wowwiki, I dunno.) I suggest having Kirkburn around more to help admin the wiki as he's been around longer and knows policies slightly better (no offense Deadlykris, it just takes a while to read all those policy pages, theres a lot of stuff there). Resa1983 (talk) 18:33, November 3, 2010 (UTC)

"The problem I have is a personal one with my name being in the history of a wiki I've never edited" You forgot to read the license on the wiki before editing WoWWiki? Please tell me you just forgot, because otherwise... Oh dear... -- D ♠ T ♣ C ♦ I ♥ WP 19:26, November 3, 2010 (UTC)

Learn2read, Sannse wrote, obviously the counter to that is that it's there as attribution, so you can ssume she does know the license. --◄mendel► 19:38, November 3, 2010 (UTC)

nod* I'm fully OK with my edits etc. being reused with attribution (one of my CC-sa-by photos was actually used in a book recently, with the attribution listing my Wikipedia user page - yay!). What I have personal reservations about is the common way of attributing via history (which is used on Wikia as well as elsewhere). That could be misleading if I am not the current holder of the account on that wiki. I'm not asking for any action in this case or any other, it was just an explanation of why I considered making an account there -- Sannse (help forum | blog) 23:30, November 3, 2010 (UTC)

Sannse, I am glad that you still respect me highly after all the criticism I have levelled at the company you work for and whose policies you represent to us; it speaks for you. I have made the experience that my views, especially in difficult situations, differ from most, so I certainly don't begrudge you that. I'm sure that were I in your position, I'd invite a lot of criticism as well, albeit in different areas.

The feeling you have about your contributions ending up on wowpedia is, incidentally, the parallel of what many editors of forked wikis feel: that "their" edits are now effectively beyond their control, due to the Open Content license they are under, and might be used to ends they do not agree with. (You could try asking Wowpedia to have your contributions deleted -- they might be more charitable than Wikia and accede to the request.) --◄mendel► 19:38, November 3, 2010 (UTC)

Sannse, I'll be glad to delete all of your contribs on Wowpedia if you'd do me the favor of deleting all of my contribs here. --Kaydeethree (talk) 23:01, November 3, 2010 (UTC)

So uh, "Help me currently-not-desysopped admins, you're my only hope!"

So Seveki has been uploading fan art of dubious quality in an effort to get his name listed everywhere. Yay for users now owning articles in the mainspace, I guess? I don't have access to wipe them out any more, nor does anyone else currently active.

Way to go, Sannse. --Kaydeethree (talk) 22:57, November 3, 2010 (UTC)

I took care of the edits and deleted the poor-quality images. It's a shame there were no other admins around to help, that could have been taken care of a while ago if there were. --Kris ^talk 00:50, November 4, 2010 (UTC)

Personal Experience (Frejya)

Originally my intention when Wowpedia forked from Wowwiki was to float between the two sites and contribute edits to both. I was not particularly invested in either site, as my main duties regarding the Warcraft community involve my function as an MVP on the official game forums. Any decision I would make regarding which site to stay with, if such a decision was needed, would come at a much later date.

My involvement in the ensuing argument between those admins that departed Wowwiki and Wikia itself started with me interjecting into a forum post. In it, the Wikia staff member was asking that the admins that departed (hereafter referred to as Wowpedians) stop leaving messages on users’ pages about the new website. She also wanted input on how administration rights were to be handled in the future on Wowwiki. The responses she received were angry. I made the mistake of interjecting (not the wisest of decisions in hindsight) that she was well within her rights to request such a thing, seeing as how Wowwiki is owned by Wikia – see the beginning of this page.

This instantly branded me as being ‘pro-wikia’ and against the new website, or so I thought; this sentiment had evidently already been decided without me even posting in the forum thread. Days prior to this there were folks on the official Warcraft forums who were posting that Wowwiki itself was moving/changing to Wowpedia, which was incorrect and led to some confusion. People thought Wowwiki itself would cease to exist. The Wowpedians knew about this, according to their IRC logs. Note that I did not look at their logs until the 27th of October:

10/22/2010:
http://logs.wowpedia.dk/%23wowpedia/20101022.html
[00:55:39] <pcj> nice
[01:01:25] <pcj> http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.html?topicId=27397540281&postId=273950647417&sid=1#0
[01:01:42] <pcj> http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.html?topicId=27387869798&postId=272900925527&sid=1
[04:20:51] <Sandwichman2448> Did anyone post on the official forums about Wowpedia? I found two threads, and on both MVP Frejya sounds like Wikia.
[04:20:59] <Sky2042_afk> Sandwichman2448: Yeah, Frejya does.
[04:21:09] <Sky2042_afk> I noted that.

There was no effort made on their part to correct the erroneous posts, and when I made those corrections (without bias, as evidenced in the threads, and well within my duties as an MVP), I was labeled as ‘pro-wikia’ as seen in their IRC chat above. The label was already affixed to me, therefore, and so my statement regarding Wikia’s rights was taken and viewed through that lens. I should also note at this juncture that the three posters above are part of the core administration/editors at Wowpedia and were also (then) part of the core group of administrators^[1] at Wowwiki. This will become more important later.

I continued on Wowwiki as normal with only a few minor edits. I chalked up the initial reactions in the Wowwiki forum post as coming from people who felt very strongly that they were wronged. Emotions tend to run high when that happens. Again, I had not looked at their IRC logs at this time, so this seemed a logical assumption.

So now we move to the 26th of October. A user decided to create a page about Wowpedia on Wowwiki, which they are perfectly within their rights to do. After reviewing the article, it seemed to conflict with the NPOV (Neutral Point-of-View) policy which Wowwiki has. Having no time to edit myself that evening, I placed a tag on the page for someone else to come along and review it. Ressy did so, removing the tag but leaving the article skewed ^[2]. The biggest piece that was missing was an explanation of why Wikia chose not to hand over the Wowwiki name, as it was only said that Wikia ‘refused to give up the domain name’ and nothing more. I searched for what information I could find on it but didn’t get anywhere. I then edited ^[3] the page with what I thought were the reasons ^[4] (My edits were apparently incorrect in some regards; see the posting history), hoping that someone more ‘in the know’ would come along and edit it. I apparently forgot what label had already been placed upon me:

10/27/2010:
http://logs.wowpedia.dk/%23wowpedia/20101027.html
[16:06:37] <Ressy> Freyja is now a wikia flunky. Editing the wowpedia page to try to make us look bad - saying we told wikia to remove wowwiki from their servers.
[16:09:57] <pcj_2> ressy: always was
[16:10:15] <pcj_2> says they're "neutral" pfft
[16:22:17] <Ressy> pcj, you wanna fix the part of wowpedia? Freyja's adding in blatant lies
[16:22:57] <pcj_2> fixing it

Keep in mind I was also noticing a rather peculiar trend from one of the editors on that page, Plymouth, who was making frivolous and empty edits at an astonishing rate. The Wowpedians also noticed this:

10/27/2010:
http://logs.wowpedia.dk/%23wowpedia/20101027.html
[17:37:43] <Ressy> Plymouth may need to be dealt with on wowwiki.
[17:39:07] <Sky2042> Let plymouth do what he wants.
[17:39:19] <Sky2042> We aren't endorsing it...
[17:41:22] <Ressy> no, but we'll take the flak for it.
[17:44:20] <Sky2042> Ressy: "We'll take flak for it"... lol, hrpa drp.
[17:44:26] <Sky2042> We're taking flak for other crap too.
[17:44:45] <Ressy> it could look like we're condoning it because none of the admins are reverting or warning him for vandalizing templates

Though Ressy was quite correct in her assumption that people would think the Wowpedians were behind this, nothing was done and Plymouth’s activities were allowed to continue as such:

http://www.wowwiki.com/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&showall=0&target=Plymouth
148/253 total edits that the user made were to the Wowpedia article (58% of all edits by that user)
118 of those edits that the user made to the Wowpedia article were made after admins were aware of the issue [IRC] (almost 80% of changes that user made to the page)
13 more edits were made to the Wowpedia page by Plymouth under another name – Atavism - though he attempted to hide they were one and the same person by ‘warning’ Atavism on his talk page

Both Ressy and Pcj proceeded to enter the Talk page of the Wowpedia article to accuse me of lying and, in so many words, of being an idiot. It is interesting to note just how minor my supposed infractions were, judging by what was changed ^[5] – the first paragraph is where corrections were made to what I attempted to infer. No mention was made of Plymouth and his edits. At this point it was becoming more apparent that my desire to float between the two sites – or even eventually join Wowpedia – was diminishing quickly. Further illustrating this point is the argument that ensued within the Wowwiki forum between myself and Pcj the next day:

http://www.wowwiki.com/Forum:Next_steps_for_WoWWiki#Random_Argument_Break
http://www.wowwiki.com/Forum:Next_steps_for_WoWWiki#Part_2_of_the_random_argument

At that time I was naïve enough to think that our argument had been resolved and that Pcj and I had come to a mutual understanding, though maybe not an agreement. Little did I know that further attacks against me were being continued in their IRC:

10/27/2010:
http://logs.wowpedia.dk/%23wowpedia/20101027.html
[18:51:23] <pcj_2> http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.html?sid=1&topicId=27387367250&pageNo=5#86
[18:53:23] <g0urra> "The pages are not being deleted."
[18:53:26] <g0urra> LETS SEE ABOUT THAT
[18:55:12] <Afpersing> "The pages are not being deleted." --Frejya on wasting server resources
[19:00:53] <Ressy> Its funny, because being an MVP doesn't mean they're supposed to be better than anyone else.
[19:01:26] * g0urra eyes Freyja
[19:01:27] <g0urra> nope
[19:40:06] <pcj_2> is frejya's "signature" supposed to be phallic
[19:40:35] <rocode> pcj_2, I was thinking the same thing. I wonder if I should make a ANSI art signature and append it to all of my posts to.
[19:40:41] <rocode> Then I can be cool like a MVP
(The pages are not being deleted—refers to the poster’s insistence that the information pages (not user pages) on Wowwiki were being deleted, which was and still is not true)

I should note that the linked Warcraft forum thread was an attempt by someone not connected with the Wowpedians attempting to make Wowwiki look bad by claiming their site was full of malware and Trojans. The irony of the entire IRC chat above is that, while correcting the poster and informing others Wowwiki was safe and still active, I also did more than suggest that the Wowpedians were not behind this smear campaign. I came to their defense, yet the only thing that was focused upon by the Wowpedians was that I, once again, was correcting someone and telling people that Wowwiki still existed.

At this point it was glaringly obvious that I would not be participating at Wowpedia, as I was not welcome there. At or around this time I began attempting to contact Kaydeethree (kd3) so that my User page might be deleted at that site. His email listed on Wowpedia was not working when I attempted the first and second time over the course of two days. I never did get in touch with kd3. I also did not know who among the remaining admins could be trusted, especially when a review of their IRC was conducted. Note that this is the first time I looked at their IRC logs, so include the above quotes as well in addition to those below:

10/20/2010:
http://logs.wowpedia.dk/%23wowpedia/20101020.html
(on changing Wowwiki’s IRC message)
[18:11:38] <g0urra> /topic Welcome to #wowwiki, join #wowpedia instead.
[18:11:41] <g0urra> le oops.
[18:30:37] <pcj_2> nice

10/21/2010:
http://logs.wowpedia.dk/%23wowpedia/20101021.html
[17:00:22] <g0urra> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_of_Warcraft#External_links
[17:00:24] <g0urra> # World of Warcraft on Wowpedia, a Warcraft wiki
[17:00:25] <g0urra>:>
[18:47:54] <pcj_2> http://www.wowwiki.com/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Wikia.css&curid=289378&diff=2413863&oldid=2413860 fail
[19:44:10] <Sky2042> pcj: Uh oh, sannse doesn't like you.
[19:51:32] <Ressy> sky: Whats sannse's problem now
[19:53:10] <Sky2042> Ressy: Just being a micromanaging bitch like usual.

10/25/2010:
http://logs.wowpedia.dk/%23wowpedia/20101025.html
[12:04:48] <g0urra> http://www.wowwiki.com/index.php?title=WoWWiki:IRC&curid=27724&diff=2415054&oldid=2201370&rcid=2423703
[12:04:49] <g0urra> lmao
(This is the link that shows Plymouth has changed all the ‘Wowwiki’ links on that Wowwiki page to redirect to ‘Wowpedia’; no Wowpedian chose to revert it, and I did so five days after the fact)

10/26/2010:
http://logs.wowpedia.dk/%23wowpedia/20101026.html
(The following refers again to the changing of Wowwiki’s IRC message)
[02:05:58] <Herodotus> * Topic is 'Welcome to #wowwiki, please join #wowpedia - but don't tell Wikia!'
[02:06:04] <Herodotus> That's subtle.
[02:06:13] <Sky2042> Herodotus: She hasn't noticed it either, I don't think.

(The following refers to Plymouth changing the front page to say that Wowwiki has moved to Wowpedia; note the responses and who noticed and decided not to change anything)
[02:16:39] <Ressy> wow. someone changed the front page of wowwiki, and nobody noticed?
[02:18:02] <Herodotus> What happened?
[02:18:36] <Ressy> http://www.wowwiki.com/index.php?title=WoWWiki:News&curid=12445&diff=2415268&oldid=2314252
[02:18:46] <Ressy> http://www.wowwiki.com/index.php?title=Portal:Main/User_News&curid=122626&diff=2415269&oldid=2414498
[02:18:52] <pcj> ressy: i noticed
[02:18:58] <Ressy> lol
[02:19:11] <pcj> are you calling me a nobody?
[02:19:25] <Ressy> no
[02:19:44] <pcj> oh
[02:19:57] <Sky2042> Ressy: I noticed also.
[02:19:58] <Sky2042>:(
[02:20:00] <Ressy> lol
[02:20:04] <Ressy> just don't care anymore huh
[02:20:22] <pcj> ressy: why would i revert that :P
[02:20:24] <pcj> its not vandalism

(I should note that Ressy did revert the changes)

(The following is vandalism Pcj noticed and brought to the Wowpedians’ attention, but which everyone, including Pcj, decided to ignore; thankfully it was changed minutes later)
[04:37:50] <pcj> wtf is up with the last paragraph of http://www.wowwiki.com/index.php?title=Arthas_Menethil&curid=14302&diff=2415345&oldid=2415342&rcid=2424080#Wrath_of_the_Lich_King
[04:37:51] <pcj> lol
[04:41:02] <MilesRout> Arthas has been secretly planning a trip to the Eastern Kingdom to see his lost love. Which has never happened because SOOO MANY PEOPLE RAID HIM DAILY that he has no time. So extremely angry Arthas just tries to take over the world and kill everyone!! In the meantime his lost love travels to Northrend to see him. What she doesnt expect when she arrives is A RAID!!! AAHHHHH!!! She dies and he plans
[04:41:02] <MilesRout> to kill himself when things start going wrong with his reign. His set date...... 12.7.2010!!!!!! - Zlaeh<3

(The following has to do with talking about Plymouth’s vandalism to the Wowwiki IRC page, originally mentioned on the 25th )
[13:37:09] <g0urra> I'm still amused that this hasn't been reverted http://www.wowwiki.com/index.php?title=WoWWiki:IRC&diff=prev&oldid=2415054
[13:37:10] <Kiingy> lol...

(More comments made about me)
[22:46:20] <pcj_2> also this makes him the second Blizzard MVP to be pro-wikia
[22:46:20] <Ressy> it shows wikia's grasping at straws to find ppl to admin the site
[22:46:34] <Ressy> who's the first pcj?
[22:46:36] <PrimalZed> why would he agree to be an admin for something he dislikes? unless he was trying to be ironic?
[22:46:39] <pcj_2> frejya

10/27/2010:
http://logs.wowpedia.dk/%23wowpedia/20101027.html
(Another bit of vandalism by Plymouth which was noted by the Wowpedians and ignored)
[03:25:20] <Ressy> http://www.wowwiki.com/index.php?title=Template:Outdated&curid=79899&diff=2416015&oldid=2131216
[03:25:22] * Ressy coughs
[03:26:11] <Sky2042> I can't quite tell what Plymouth has in mind.
[03:26:20] <Sky2042> It's almost like he doesn't know...

(Yet more on Wowwiki’s own page about itself, again ignored; corrected by me the same day hours later)
[03:26:25] <Ressy> http://www.wowwiki.com/index.php?title=WoWWiki:About&curid=12969&diff=2416020&oldid=2314338
[03:26:37] <Sky2042> loooooool
[03:34:44] * Ressy snickers

(And an interesting comment by Pcj that further cemented the fact users like me would be, at the least, frowned upon)
[03:37:11] <Sky2042> So, we've got someone who's editing both wikis.
[03:37:13] <pcj> lol
[03:37:13] <Sky2042> o.o
[03:37:20] <pcj> we've got a couple people
[03:37:30] <pcj> i think that annoys me more than the people who just stay there

So now we’re to the 29th of October. I have resolved at this point not to join Wowpedia, but still cannot contact kd3. I stay over at Wowwiki and notice the Wowpedia article needs a logo added to it. That’s correct. I decide to try to enhance the Wowpedia article to include an infobox ^[6] just like the other fansite articles, complete with a logo of their new site. I upload their logo and don’t know what license to put it under. I end up choosing the incorrect one. Rather than just stepping in to correct it, the logo picture is flagged ^[7]. Like an idiot I decide that Pcj must know the correct license and so post the question on his User page with what I think might be the right one:

10/29/2010:
http://www.wowwiki.com/User_talk:Pcj
Just wanted to double check that the license that should be used is the 'fair use' one - if not, would you mind correcting it? Thanks! User:Frejya 23:36, October 29, 2010 (UTC)

I, of course, receive no answer. Not surprising, here’s what’s focused on in their IRC:

10/29/2010:
http://logs.wowpedia.dk/%23wowpedia/20101029.html
[18:14:25] <foxlit> http://www.wowwiki.com/File:Wowpedia.png "This file is in the public domain"
[18:14:33] <foxlit> To. The. Ground.

At this point it is obvious that no one is going to do anything about Plymouth. I find his vandalism on Wowwiki’s IRC page and revert it, then decide to attempt to stop him on the Wowpedia page. I have no administration rights, so I can’t just block the page itself. Plymouth changes to another account under another name the next day unbeknownst to me. I proceed to get into an edit war, not knowing about the editing policy that I am in violation of. It is at this point – and only at the point when I am in violation of a policy – that Pcj intervenes and blocks me from editing Wowwiki for four days.

I have a good posting history with Wowwiki and have never been in violation of a single rule. I never received as much as a warning, but judging by what I have presented above, it certainly comes as no surprise; it also seems that the other participant was blocked by Pcj just so that it appeared he was doing his due diligence. There may be some truth that no one knew that Atavism was Plymouth, but Plymouth’s actions on the wikia were well known before this time and ignored, as shown above. Only my actions in this matter and on this page were ever addressed.

This is all I have left to say on the matter. I will not be responding to this post, neither here nor anywhere else.

It may be construed that I am taking the Wowpedians’ chat log comments out of context. If anyone has any doubts, I strongly recommend going to their public IRC logs ^[8] and scanning through them yourself. It should also be noted that Sannse came to her conclusions and decisions based on avenues and information I am not privy to. Frejya 00:47, November 4, 2010 (UTC)

This bores me, you never intended to join Wowpedia, you admit you had already decided not to join before you even looked at the logs so our judgment of you as being pro-Wikia would've had no affect on that. The logo is not really a big deal - fair use is fine. Your forum posts sufficiently corrected the misinformation in the WoW forum threads you cited - I saw no reason to follow up. We never said we don't have a conflict of interest, we just said it was bad to demote admins who do without replacing them. Basically it boils down to you're siding with a corporate webhost over the community. Have fun on this ghost town, but you are still welcome on Wowpedia if you ever change your mind. --Pcj (T•

C) 01:05, November 4, 2010 (UTC)

Well I, for one, don't condone this treatment of Freyja. It's just as wrong as Wikia removing Monaco and replacing it with Oasis, and all the other factors that lead up to WoWWiki deciding to leave and all the perceived slights by Wikia since. Honestly this whole situation disgusts me, as do many of the actions on both sides of the dispute. --Kris ^talk 01:11, November 4, 2010 (UTC)

"Well I, for one, don't condone this treatment of Freyja." Neither do I. I also apologize about not being contactable. My email is [3]. Feel free to poke me at that email address if you wish. --Kaydeethree (talk) 01:32, November 4, 2010 (UTC)

I already apologized about any rudeness Frejya felt coming from me because I considered them to be pro-Wikia earlier in this thread (which we worked out after everything was said on IRC). I'm saddened they dug this up again; I consider the matter closed. I have no hard feelings towards Frejya or anyone else, I really was enforcing policy when it was broken. --Pcj (T•

C) 01:40, November 4, 2010 (UTC)

As a complete outsider, I just don't get what the big deal is here. Freyja I think you need to condense your facts down to three tight paragraphs, then collapse the rest into a collapsible table for those who want to read it. I got really lost in this long, long post. Anno1404 (talk) 01:41, November 4, 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate you quoting me, but it's quite obvious that the sequence of events is wrong -- the line wouldn't make much sense if it had happened after I changed the licensing tag. Personally, I regard the whole affair as ordinary -- someone uploaded an image with an obviously wrong license, I changed the licensing tag to reflect that, and you've subsequently fixed it. This is how things should work. On a tangential note, I would caution against the reading the IRC logs as a forum thread -- assuming that everyone knows even a large fraction of what has been said -- this is simply not how communication on IRC works.

The proper course of action in responding to repeated edits that you perceive to be vandalism is to contact a sysop. This is also the procedure for appealing a block. If you had taken the time to contact someone, rather than deciding that "they are not going to do anything" beforehand, things would've worked out very differently.

I mildly dislike the "I won't be replying" stance, but, hey, if you don't want to deal with the responses, you don't have to. -- foxlit (talk) 01:49, November 4, 2010 (UTC)

Observer's note: I do not read the official Warcraft forums. I do not frequent the wowpedia IRC (and I have remarked that having public chat logs for an irc channel hosted on freenode is bad policy, IMO). My interest in WoWWiki and Wowpedia is as an interested observer (I am bureaucrat on another big MMORPG wiki), nothing more. I have explained to Freyja on her talk why her stance in this forum makes her not neutral, and received a rude response. If Freyja believes to have suffered from prejudice, I can assure her that if prejudice existed, from my point of view it does not seem to have affected the treatment received. I can only endorse what foxlit states the proper course of action to be; this is standard operating procedure on most wikis I have encountered, and on many webforums as well.

Frejya has spread out a personal grievance in a public forum where it is somewhat off topic (none of this is relevant to the next steps for WoWWiki), focussing on selected perceived historic slights. At the same time Frejya is blocking any way forward by refusing to discuss. I would not advise this course of action to anyone, as it is likely to decrease your standing with many reasonable people, and unlikely to help your cause any. --◄mendel► 06:48, November 4, 2010 (UTC)

Reaping what you have sown

Sophisticated people in power tend to only respond to those who are a threat to their power. Smart people in power will ignore those who have no threat to their power.

Do you all realize that Sannse has responded on this very page possibly more than she did in all of the forums announcing the wikia skin? The interest in this wikia, combined with the attempts at appeasing the defectors before they left (with different screen widths), tells me that the World of Warcraft wikia defection is the biggest threat to wikia which cannot be ignored.

As this skin is now mandatory, I am interested how many other big wikias will be leaving in the next week. How many other big money making wikias will the staff attempt to appease, how many others will she spend an inordinate amount of time arguing with?

Many of us predicted this would happen. Blocking defecting editors will be the next step.

The wikia staff's arrogant attitude that they know better than the community is finally catching up to them. Wikia staff: It is time to reap what you have sown. As one editor wrote in the 100% negative forum responses about the new wikia skin:

"Dude, calm down...Just [sit] back and watch the chaos. "

Anno1404 (talk) 01:38, November 4, 2010 (UTC)

The Vault has already debated the issue and decided against moving; while I was in favor of moving, I'm not leaving just because they're staying - though at least one editor over 10k edits has decided to do so, and one bureaucrat is on the fence on the matter. The Vault isn't the biggest wiki on Wikia, but it's one of the oldest to be sure. I haven't heard many good things about the new skin from anyone there. --Kris ^talk 02:15, November 4, 2010 (UTC)

The release of Fallout: New Vegas has catapulted The Vault into a performance that equals WoWWiki in terms of people and exceeds it in terms of pageviews; since the release coincided with the New Look release, Wikia marketing could use these website statistics to "cheat" if they wanted to.

I find it interesting that the editors there almost unanimously didn't like the new skin, but felt they couldn't move the wiki without Ausir; so they decided to make Monobook their "de facto" skin. They did petition Wikia to receive the same width extension that WoWWiki did; so far Wikia have been unresponsive. --◄mendel► 08:33, November 4, 2010 (UTC)

Curse will ruin the wiki in due time, as they do all the sites they scavenge up. I'm sticking with WoWWiki. HooperBandP (talk) 04:04, November 4, 2010 (UTC)

So cynical. Also {{cite}} --Afpersing (talk) 12:26, November 4, 2010 (UTC)

As a long standing wowace.com member, I have to respond with a simple "wtf?". Ruin? What are you on about? --Mikk (T) 14:22, November 4, 2010 (UTC)

Similar Situation?

I'm reminded of a time when a website called "TheGlobe" was a thriving social networking site. Membership was not free and I was a paying member. One day, they decided to "beta test" (term used very loosely) some radical new skin complete with more advertising (Everyone likes advertising, right?). The general consensus was that the new skin was an atrocity. It was ugly, hard to navigate, and had ... advertising. And yet, they pushed it onto the community, anyway. The new skin was met with the same outrage that the so-called beta testers brought up, yet nothing changed. I'd guesstimate that roughly 70% of their entire member base, including several prominent, what I would consider, VIP members as well as myself, left as a result of their blind eyes and total disregard for their membership community. Where is TheGlobe now? ^[9] -- EGingell ^{Talk,WoW Pedia} 03:11, November 4, 2010 (UTC)

Globe who? All this has happened so many times. People give feedback, but the company knows better... rinse and repeat.

Speaking of similarities, I think the wikia crew is getting tired of all this "unconstructive negativity". It's quite possible for them to gradually start censoring the wikis, deleting the negative feedback and block users that simply disagree. In fact, this particular thread is likely to get locked very soon. After all, it worked for so many other companies... or did it? --IcecreamKitten 16:29, November 4, 2010 (UTC)

They ignored all feedback, bar none. Did they expect everyone to just ignore their misgivings and love the "fabulous new skin" from the "almighty Wikia rulers"? Do you expect that? I think right now they need to do everything they can to avoid alienating any other wiki communities. --Kris ^talk 17:25, November 4, 2010 (UTC)

I think it's a little late for that...word about what is going down here (bribery, desysoping otherwise capable admins apparently out of spite) is spreading. StarNeptune^{Talk to me!} 17:37, November 4, 2010 (UTC)

Wikia staff's future resumes

I find it so ironic that Jim Wales, founder of Wikipedia and Wikia said this to the Toronto's The Star this week:

"We’re releasing a new version of the Wikia software. We’re testing it on a few wikis. We’ve done a few usability studies looking at how to make it easier for more people to participate....Currently, the most popular sites that we have are in entertainment and gaming. In gaming, every major video game has a huge wiki about it. World of Warcraft is probably the biggest. That community has built a guide to World of Warcraft that has 80,000 pages on it. Just for that particular wiki alone, I think we see 4 to5 million people a month." The wiki world, according to founder Jimmy Wales, The Star, (November 1, 2010).

Future wikia staff resume sentence :

"As a member of the wikia staff, I helped alienate and forced out the largest group of editors of all of wikia."

Congratulations something to be proud of. Anno1404 (talk) 13:33, November 4, 2010 (UTC)

I think I'll be sending an e-mail to the writer, Dana Flavelle, about this. Should make for an interesting follow-up article to know the people that built that 80,000 page wiki are all leaving. Felix Omni 13:54, November 4, 2010 (UTC)

Her twitter is @dflavel. I've already twitted her. "What Jimmy Wales didn't tell you, is that the change to the skin for Wiki is what forced wow's wiki to leave wikia for wowpedia.org". Unfortunately that article's comments are closed, so I couldn't post there about him alienating the wow community, and because of that, us all leaving. Resa1983 (talk) 14:03, November 4, 2010 (UTC)

I emailed the newspaper about how assine (not in those words) it is that comments close in less than 3 days after an article is written. No response. Anno1404 (talk) 15:35, November 6, 2010 (UTC)

GourraBot

The GourraBot is nothing more than pure spiteful vandalism. HooperBandP (talk) 20:33, November 5, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the input Hooper, it was super helpful as usual. --Afpersing (talk) 21:08, November 5, 2010 (UTC)

Just so we're clear... this was not condoned by Wowpedia, and g0urra has been slapped on the wrist. Coobra (talk) 21:06, November 5, 2010 (UTC)

Cool story bro, also just show how utter incompetent the replacement admins are. -- D ♠ T ♣ C ♦ I ♥ WP 21:09, November 5, 2010 (UTC)

That's redundant. Vandalism by definition is spiteful. Also, a bot is a vandal not "vandalism" while the bot's edits are vandalism. -- EGingell ^{Talk,WoW Pedia} 21:11, November 5, 2010 (UTC)

Yawn with the legal speak. It reflects poorly on the community of the new fork, even though it was just one user who created the bot. That isn't fair to those users, and it definitely isn't fair to the users of this site. Gourra's IRC reply when asked about it is telling as well, and his banning (that was quickly reversed) of a WoWWiki "rep" for mentioning it is also telling. For the sake of all the users, if you've left - then be gone, and if you're here, then be here. No need to be rude to each other. HooperBandP (talk) 21:21, November 5, 2010 (UTC)

HooperBandP speaks wise words. I do empathetically not condone G0urra's actions. But at the same time I can't seem to work up the steam to get mad about it; for all intents and purposes, the "wowwiki community" has moved on, and this site just remains as a free moneymaker for Wikia. --Mikk (T) 21:58, November 5, 2010 (UTC)

Gourra and GourraBot have been banned from Wikia. And this certainly made me think again on the decision not to remove bot flags as well as admin flags (reading Dotted's comment above, I'm leaving the remaining flags)

Actually, this relates very much to the decision to remove those admin flags in the first place... When a wiki forks, our usual pattern is to leave admin rights in place unless there are specific problems (this was the case on Transformers, which was mentioned above I think). And when we de-admin we don't block unless there are specific problems. When we block, it's rarely permanent unless... and so on.

Here, there was a situation where I was aware that some admins were not acting to this wiki's benefit (I knew of some of the stuff that Frejya mentioned above) and so there was a conflict between only reacting to active problems and doing what seemed most protective of WoWWiki. The de-admining was wider that I would have liked, but the feeling in discussions in the office was that the harm of having admins who were actively trying to diminish this wiki in favour of their own was more harmful than removing too many. But, as always, I'd rather not need to intervene at all. And if those who are no longer wanting to be a part of this wiki will leave it be, then perhaps things can settle and those remaining can have a chance to rebuild. -- Sannse (help forum | blog) 22:03, November 5, 2010 (UTC)

Well, this might still have been a self-fulfilling prophecy, i.e. Gourra being so pissed off by the round of demotions that he decided to go vandalising as a result - in this case, your demotions would not have prevented vandalism, but provoked it. Which means it's completely impossible to take Gourra's act as a justification after the fact, unless Gourra speaks out - and he's blocked, so he can't.

That's why I prefer my actions to be justified by an actual offense when I do them. --◄mendel► 11:56, November 6, 2010 (UTC)

Reading most of the above, it comes across (whether intended or not) that:

Wikia are going back on an agreement to allow postings on peoples' talk pages that wowpedia exists
Admin rights have been removed, whether people have acted badly ("vandalized" pages), ignored vandalism (Freya's post on IRC logs - good reminder that what you post on the internet is more like mail than the telephone, it is always recorded), or done no harm (but moved to wowpedia)
People have feelings and on both "sides" people are ignoring this and, quite frankly, starting to sound like children arguing
This skin is absolutely dreadful to read long pages of text in

Over time, people will make up their own minds as to where a "good place" to look for information is. I moved to wowpedia due to (4) alone. I do not see most of the adverts anyway due to NoScript. I may move back if they reconsider this unreadable skin and format. People want facts, not drama when they come to a wiki. May the best site win (appropriate for a warcraft site). Tequima (talk) 17:10, November 6, 2010 (UTC)

References

[1] Old group of Wowwiki admins

[2] result of Resa1983's edits, still slightly skewed

[3] Attempt at NPOV

[4] Cited TOU as reason

[5] Corrections made to Wowpedia article; note first paragraph

[6] Adding in Wowpedia's infobox

[7] Logo flagged rather than corrected

[8] Wowpedia's public IRC logs

[9] ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TheGlobe.com

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-{{Forumheader|WoWWiki general}}
+{{Forumheader|WoWWiki general|dead=1}}
 <!-- Please put your content under this paragraph.  Be sure to sign your edits with four tildes ~~~~ -->
 {{Tocright}}
@@ Line 491: / Line 491: @@
 ::I think I'll be sending an e-mail to the writer, Dana Flavelle, about this. Should make for an interesting follow-up article to know the people that built that 80,000 page wiki are all leaving. [[User:Felix Omni|Felix Omni]] 13:54, November 4, 2010 (UTC)
 :::Her twitter is @dflavel. I've already twitted her. "What Jimmy Wales didn't tell you, is that the change to the skin for Wiki is what forced wow's wiki to leave wikia for wowpedia.org".  Unfortunately that article's comments are closed, so I couldn't post there about him alienating the wow community, and because of that, us all leaving. [[User:Resa1983|Resa1983]] ([[User talk:Resa1983|talk]]) 14:03, November 4, 2010 (UTC)
+::::I emailed the newspaper about how assine (not in those words) it is that comments close in less than 3 days after an article is written. No response. [[User:Anno1404|Anno1404]] ([[User talk:Anno1404|talk]]) 15:35, November 6, 2010 (UTC)
 ==GourraBot==
@@ Line 496: / Line 497: @@
 :Thanks for the input Hooper, it was super helpful as usual. --[[User:Afpersing|Afpersing]] ([[User talk:Afpersing|talk]]) 21:08, November 5, 2010 (UTC)
 :Just so we're clear... this was not condoned by Wowpedia, and g0urra has been slapped on the wrist. [[User:Coobra|Coobra]] ([[User talk:Coobra|talk]]) 21:06, November 5, 2010 (UTC)
+:Cool story bro, also just show how utter incompetent the replacement admins are. --{{User:Dotted/Sig}} 21:09, November 5, 2010 (UTC)
+: That's redundant. Vandalism by definition is spiteful. Also, a bot is a vandal not "vandalism" while the bot's edits are vandalism. -- [http://www.wowpedia.org/User:Egingell EGingell] <sup>[http://www.wowpedia.org/User_talk:Egingell Talk],[http://www.wowpedia.org/ WoW Pedia]</sup> 21:11, November 5, 2010 (UTC)
+::Yawn with the legal speak.  It reflects poorly on the community of the new fork, even though it was just one user who created the bot.  That isn't fair to those users, and it definitely isn't fair to the users of this site. Gourra's IRC reply when asked about it is telling as well, and his banning (that was quickly reversed) of a WoWWiki "rep" for mentioning it is also telling.  '''For the sake of all the users, if you've left - then be gone, and if you're here, then be here.  No need to be rude to each other.''' [[User:HooperBandP|HooperBandP]] ([[User talk:HooperBandP|talk]]) 21:21, November 5, 2010 (UTC)
+::: HooperBandP speaks wise words. I do empathetically not condone G0urra's actions. But at the same time I can't seem to work up the steam to get mad about it; for all intents and purposes, the "wowwiki community" has moved on, and this site just remains as a free moneymaker for Wikia. --[[User:Mikk|<span style="border-bottom: 1px dotted; cursor: help;" title="Mikk WAS a WoWWiki Admin">Mikk</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Mikk|T]])</small> 21:58, November 5, 2010 (UTC)
+Gourra and GourraBot have been banned from Wikia.  And this certainly made me think again on the decision not to remove bot flags as well as  admin flags (reading Dotted's comment above, I'm leaving the remaining flags)
+Actually, this relates very much to the decision to remove those admin flags in the first place... When a wiki forks, our usual pattern is to leave admin rights in place ''unless'' there are specific problems (this was the case on Transformers, which was mentioned above I think).  And when we de-admin we don't block ''unless'' there are specific problems.  When we block, it's rarely permanent ''unless''... and so on.
+Here, there was a situation where I was aware that some admins were not acting to this wiki's benefit (I knew of some of the stuff that Frejya mentioned above) and so there was a conflict between only reacting to active problems and doing what seemed most protective of WoWWiki.  The de-admining was wider that I would have liked, but the feeling in discussions in the office was that the harm of having admins who were actively trying to diminish this wiki in favour of their own was more harmful than removing too many.  But, as always, I'd rather not need to intervene at all.  And if those who are no longer wanting to be a part of this wiki will leave it be, then perhaps things can settle and those remaining can have a chance to rebuild. -- [[User:Sannse|Sannse]]<staff /> <small>([[w:c:community:Forum:Community_Central_Forum|help forum]] | [[w:c:community:Blog:Wikia_Staff_Blog |blog]])</small> 22:03, November 5, 2010 (UTC)
+:Well, this might still have been a self-fulfilling prophecy, i.e. Gourra being so pissed off by the round of demotions that he decided to go vandalising as a result - in this case, your demotions would not have prevented vandalism, but provoked it. Which means it's completely impossible to take Gourra's act as a justification after the fact, unless Gourra speaks out - and he's blocked, so he can't.
+:That's why I prefer my actions to be justified by an actual offense when I do them. --<span class="sigpic">[[User:M.mendel|◄mendel►]]</span> 11:56, November 6, 2010 (UTC)
+::Reading most of the above, it '''comes across''' (whether intended or not) that:
+* Wikia are going back on an agreement to allow postings on peoples' talk pages that wowpedia exists
+* Admin rights have been removed, whether people have acted badly ("vandalized" pages), ignored vandalism (Freya's post on IRC logs - good reminder that what you post on the internet is more like mail than the telephone, it is always recorded), or done no harm (but moved to wowpedia)
+* People have feelings and '''on both "sides"''' people are ignoring this and, quite frankly, starting to sound like children arguing
+* This skin is absolutely dreadful to read long pages of text in
+::Over time, people will make up their own minds as to where a "good place" to look for information is. I moved to wowpedia due to (4) alone. I do not see most of the adverts anyway due to NoScript. I may move back if they reconsider this unreadable skin and format. People want facts, not drama when they come to a wiki. May the best site win (appropriate for a warcraft site). [[User:Tequima|Tequima]] ([[User talk:Tequima|talk]]) 17:10, November 6, 2010 (UTC)
 == References ==