Changes: Forum:Next steps for WoWWiki

Revision as of 01:30, 2 November 2010

Forums: Index ⇒ WoWWiki general → Next steps for WoWWiki

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)

@@ Line 143: / Line 143: @@
 :::::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 -- [[User:Sannse|Sannse]]<staff /> <small>([[w:c:community:Forum:Community_Central_Forum|help forum]] | [[w:c:community:Blog:Wikia_Staff_Blog |blog]])</small> 01:13, November 2, 2010 (UTC)
 :Let me break down the illogical thought process here, one step at a time.
-:<blockquote style="font-style: italic; margin-left: 1.5em">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 [http://www.wowwiki.com/index.php?title=Wowpedia&diff=next&oldid=2417062 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?</blockquote>
+:<blockquote style="font-style: italic; margin-left: 5em">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 [http://www.wowwiki.com/index.php?title=Wowpedia&diff=next&oldid=2417062 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?</blockquote>
 :I think you a) presume too much about a whole lot of people here, starting with the entirety of the <del>current</del><ins>ex</ins>-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.
-:<blockquote style="font-style: italic; margin-left: 1.5em">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.</blockquote>
+:<blockquote style="font-style: italic; margin-left: 5em">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.</blockquote>
 :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!
-:<blockquote style="font-style: italic; margin-left: 1.5em"><p>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?</p><p>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. </p></blockquote>
+:<blockquote style="font-style: italic; margin-left: 5em"><p>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?</p><p>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. </p></blockquote>
 :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.
-:<blockquote style="font-style: italic; margin-left: 1.5em">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.</blockquote>
+:<blockquote style="font-style: italic; margin-left: 5em">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.</blockquote>
 :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. --[[User:Sky2042|Sky]] 01:04, November 2, 2010 (UTC) <br />PS: You'll notice I didn't argue about my own admin rights. That was deliberate.