0 Discussion posts
  • My occupation is Director of Community Support at Fandom.
  • I am Back!
  • Bio My dog is my obsession, making jewelry is my passion, chocolate is my addiction, and Fandom is my delight.
  • [Show More]


Absolutely. whats your skype?HeroGaming 22:34, January 30, 2012 (UTC)

or is their a better way of chatting i dont want to bog you down with alot of invites.HeroGaming 22:35, January 30, 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Skype is fine (sannsec) or I'm on Community Central chat at the moment -- sannse WikiaStaff.png (help forum | blog) 00:21, January 31, 2012 (UTC)


Confirmed.HeroGaming 00:53, January 31, 2012 (UTC)


I am working very hard to improve video submissions.

On the topic of gracey and math, if justice cannot be done I would rather withdraw from the wiki and notify the public. My username on youtube is who I am. I fight for whats right and that is why I can't be bought off. If they want the wiki and you want them to be on the wiki then I would rather give up the wiki and tell the public. I am not a supporter or backer of injustice. These men are bad guys. They have greed in their hearts and their only goal is power. I love the wiki and I want it to be a peaceful place with honest people. I Can't support a wiki which supports them. It has been one of my biggest projects and a labor of love. If they want to corrupt it so bad and are permited back on the wiki then I would rather publicly leave. Its not a source of income for me or money. It's something I have grown fond of. I am not the best editor but I love the wiki. My heart hurts from this situation. I may come off synical or condesending but its because I don't do well with liars. Its just who I am. This will be my stance no matter the decission. The community has voted it should be respected. If its not then my heart is no longer with this wiki. Just because someone hides there actions in the shadows does not mean they should be allowed to prevail. My heart is set though. It was from the moment I realised what they were trying to do. I don't compromise with the shadows. As childish as I might sound I stand only in the light. Regardless of the outcome. Again my heart hurts from the situation and I wish regardless of your decission for it to made as soon as possible so the wiki can get past this.--HeroGaming 03:06, February 1, 2012 (UTC)

In relation to the Wiki Mediation Incident

Thanks for all your help with this, Sannse. It's good to have both an outside opinion, and the intervention of the staff in this difficult matter. As Math said, we'll look to you for guidance in future, regarding the B-crats, wiki health, administrative groups, and all other matters pertaining to the management of my favorite wiki. Thanks again. :)

User:The PathogenUser talk:The PathogenUser blog:The PathogenThe Pathogen-Signature Image
04:11, February 3, 2012 (UTC)
Definitely all subjects to get back to :) I'll be looking in on Monday to see how we can move forward -- sannse WikiaStaff.png (help forum | blog) 19:58, February 5, 2012 (UTC)


Hey sannse. I have accepted the decision and would like to have the community make the decision about video sooner than later. I can handel it. I love the wiki and support it but I just won't be taking my ruthless business tactics with me anymore as far as growing the wiki. We will be number 2 without them though. I see now that I need a new set of skills called people skills.HeroGaming 04:21, February 3, 2012 (UTC)

I'm hoping we can get restarted on Monday or Tuesday. I'm doing some reading to get caught up again today, and will call in tomorrow -- sannse WikiaStaff.png (help forum | blog) 19:59, February 5, 2012 (UTC)


Apparently you blocked Gracey91, could you please unblock him. He has done amazing things for the wiki and it is unfair for him to be blocked. He has helped me on my wiki alot so he would not do anything bad. New Captain (talk contribs count) 09:18, February 4, 2012 (UTC)

Gracey was banned because of an incident elsewhere on Wikia. He will be able to return in a few days. -- sannse WikiaStaff.png (help forum | blog) 20:04, February 5, 2012 (UTC)

RE: Next Steps

I posted a reply on my talk page here.
Mathmagician ( talk blog ) 07:29, February 7, 2012 (UTC)

Wikia's stance

Hey Sannse I do feel that wikia favors the editors. That stance was gained because of the discussion that was only open to editors of the wiki. This is where it came from specifically. It is true that they weren't given a say in the final matter and were asked to not comment. The thread only asked for editors and said that those with more edits opinion would be weighted. This is in clear favor of editors.

You said "One aspect of this is that I would like to hear from editing users of this wiki (and, in particular and Gracy, HeroGaming and Mathmagician). I would say that the reading/viewing users (in particular those who follow HeroGaming on YouTube) have had their say, let's hear from the editors now" which I thought was unfair we did a vote but none really got to give out thoughtful comments about the reasons they use the wiki or where they come from. Or talk about me donating money to run contest for the wiki prior to ever making a cent off of my youtube channel. A vote from a livestream which was less that 5% of the actual audience wasn't in my opinion a fair voice to there opinions. You are staff and you decided how to run the operation so I followed your lead.

The admin left in charge wants to post videos from users who almost every single video link in the video the terrariaonline wiki. For me that is Wikia not defending there business model. Also he specifically asked for those 2. Which if I had to say 2 youtubers who support the other wiki like I support this wiki those 2 youtubers would be the top of the list.

The saddest thing in all of this is I am working with the game developers on upcomming features and a new mod but after all of this it's almost not even worth going any further into the game. The people who support another wiki are in power and the staff doesn't give a voice to the audience in the final matter. It can be said there vote was there voice but it is not. It is a yes or a no not any real thoughts or discussion.

you said (Similarly, I said (and I'll quote in full for clarity) "readers are a part of this community, and should be heard. But editors are also a key group, and are the group responsible for the day to day running, organization, and maintenance of this wiki.") When you use the word but after something it negates what you said, it is like saying this is true although it doesn't matter because. Wikia has made there stance on viewer vs editor. It's not one that I agree with but it's not my chocie to make. I am more than sad about this because the viewers are the editors they just haven't stepped up yet. All ediotrs where first viewers.

I will participate in the discussion although I feel my words will not be heard in a crowd of people who support the other wiki and give viewers second class citizenship. The wiki is on the road to the end. The promotion of other wikis and the viewers having no say. We lost are rank because of this situation and will continue to fall because of the decisions made over the past week. I am just gonna be around watching something I love get dismantled. I am using this to teach myself a lesson. I am trying to increase my writing skills and learn to be more political in situations. Wikia owns this wiki I now know that and understand what that means.HeroGaming 00:41, February 8, 2012 (UTC)

I read this and left a reply of my own on Hero's talk page.
Mathmagician ( talk blog ) 02:40, February 8, 2012 (UTC)
I think what needed to be said here has been said :) I disagree with your interpretations, but have already stated that and don't think repetition will make a difference.
I will say that I do not believe that this dispute has had any effect on Google rankings. They simply don't work that way. I haven't been watching the ranking and don't know when they changed or why - but I do know enough to be absolutely certain that this argument is not the cause. But for now, let's focus on the places we do agree. We need to hear from both viewers and editors in the coming discussions. Viewers will be important in helping us understand what they want to see, and because they are potential future editors. Editors are important as content creators, maintainers, and organizers of the site. From both groups, full discussion will be more useful than "me too" (although that can also have value). I believe this community can find a way to get the balance right and make the right decisions. -- sannse WikiaStaff.png (help forum | blog) 22:00, February 8, 2012 (UTC)


Alright, I think I'm all caught up on who said what on who's talk page. For my part, I'm ready for the video + admin discussions to begin. Also, thanks for letting us know about the logo thing =)
Mathmagician ( talk blog ) 23:30, February 8, 2012 (UTC)

Terraria wiki admin discussions.

Hello. Sorry to bother you but do you have a rough time estimation when the dissusions will start? Just wondering beacuse I plan to be there to add my thoughts.


  Dak47922 talk contrib count 00:00, February 9, 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I've just unblocked Gracey, and have posted the first one. We'll be talking be over the next couple of days though (and I'll drop in to check as much as I can) so lots of time to participate :) -- sannse WikiaStaff.png (help forum | blog) 00:39, February 9, 2012 (UTC)
And the second is up. That's Video_Policy_Discussion and Administration Discussion - please spread the word! -- sannse WikiaStaff.png (help forum | blog) 01:08, February 9, 2012 (UTC)

Page move

Hey Sannse i noticed the 2 pages about the policy discussions were made on content pages, can i move them to the forum so they can easily be found and they aren't in the content namespace? Thanks Gracey91 (talk contribs count) 07:38, February 9, 2012 (UTC)

Gracey, the discussions are in the main namespace as I suggested, because it allows for both forum-type discussion (the page itself) + commenting (from people who aren't comfortable with the forum format) all in the same place. Also, it's a bit easier for most people here to find compared to if it were a forum post. When the discussions are over, we'll get them out of the main namespace--for now, I think they need to be there. Though site maintenance must continue, sorting things out on the wiki takes precedence at the moment, so time and effort must be devoted to that end before anything else.
Mathmagician ( talk blog ) 15:20, February 9, 2012 (UTC)

Video Discussion Help

Sannse, could we please get your clarification regarding the direction of the video policy discussion? (In particular, I'm talking about the recent developments regarding Yrimir which begin at Video_Policy_Discussion#Yri.27s_thoughts and also many things said in the comments.)

  • I do not approve of Hero trying to present a "solution" mentioned in the comments. It is not any person's place to do so, and the discussion is merely a rough draft--it is not the time or place to speak of solutions. I believe that he needs to respond to things other people have said and present more ideas in the course of the discussion, rather than pull away from it and do his own thing.
  • While I agree with Hero that 1 youtuber is not the entire purpose of the discussion, I do not feel that Hero should be moving the discussion away from this point at this time. I would like to hear from more people on the topic of Yrimir. I am fairly confident that if the inclusion of Yrimir's videos on this wiki is addressed fairly in the discussion, most people will support having him here.
  • Hero made a good point that it might make more sense to form the policy first and then talk about which youtubers are acceptable under the policy--but the fact of the matter is that as a youtuber Hero himself is given preferential treatment since his videos are implicitly acceptable under whatever the policy may be (we're not going to take down all of Hero's videos--at least, I hope not, because that's an extreme measure and many of them are already good). In fairness and due order, we must talk about individual youtubers as part of the video policy discussion.
  • Happypal is a bureaucrat of However, he is also a Wikia user, made some fair points in the Wiki Mediation forum, has contributed to this community in the past, and speaks for a number of people who have left this community in the past. Should he not be included in the discussion simply because he's also a member of another wiki and because Hero doesn't trust him? As long as he says reasonable things--and I think he mostly does--I see no reason why he can't contribute to the discussion. He's not controlling the discussion, playing a leading role in it, or otherwise attempting to do so. In fact, he only first entered the video policy discussion when I quoted him as part of something I was saying. What's your stance on this?

Mathmagician ( talk blog ) 15:19, February 10, 2012 (UTC)

Hi both. Please forgive me, as I have stated on my page, it was not my intention to participate/contribute, and I do not want to be a part of the conversation. I maintain that it is important for this community to find out what is best for its wiki on its own. However, I do enjoy being on this wiki, reading the articles, viewing the discussions, so sometimes I see some things that make me want to react on as a 3rd party "drive-by editor". Please see my comments as nothing more than that of a random editor, and put no more weight behind them than the words they carry. happypal (talk • contribs) 16:14, February 10, 2012 (UTC)

Helloooow Sannse

I just saw this in the feed and I thought I would chime in. I know we are supposed to be having the conversations on the thread post. I'm sorry! I just felt like addressing Math's concerns. He has shown to be reasonable and that is a trait I am working to pick up so I wish to discuss things instead of argueing in the future. Since I saw him going to you for advice I thought maybe you can give us both some direction? I will just address a few things he was concerned about.


"I do not approve of Hero trying to present a "solution" mentioned in the comments. It is not any person's place to do so, and the discussion is merely a rough draft--it is not the time or place to speak of solutions. I believe that he needs to respond to things other people have said and present more ideas in the course of the discussion, rather than pull away from it and do his own thing." -math

I am just trying to find a solution. I have a pretty good plan that I think will help the community. I would like Math's feedback on it as well as the communities. I hope that people will like it but it is in fact a community discussion.


"While I agree with Hero that 1 youtuber is not the entire purpose of the discussion, I do not feel that Hero should be moving the discussion away from this point at this time. I would like to hear from more people on the topic of Yrimir. I am fairly confident that if the inclusion of Yrimir's videos on this wiki is addressed fairly in the discussion, most people will support having him here."-math

You seem to want to change the pace of the discussion about yrimir. I feel When someone brings up a topic in a discussion they say something and then people get a chance to respond. I believe fairly addressing the issue is allowing me to respond. I respect your opinion. You can have a favorite youtuber and I understand that. I just don't think out of the 100's of youtubers he should be anywhere near the top 10 for videos we should use.

I think that the youtuber specifically isn't the issue we should be addressing, I feel that for the wikis best interest a policy will allow for what is best regardless of the youtuber. If someone fits the guidelines then they fit them. Our wiki policy should not be developed around the conversation of 1 youtuber but a policy that is best for the wiki in general.


"Happypal is a bureaucrat of However, he is also a Wikia user, made some fair points in the Wiki Mediation forum, has contributed to this community in the past, and speaks for a number of people who have left this community in the past. Should he not be included in the discussion simply because he's also a member of another wiki and because Hero doesn't trust him? As long as he says reasonable things--and I think he mostly does--I see no reason why he can't contribute to the discussion. He's not controlling the discussion, playing a leading role in it, or otherwise attempting to do so. In fact, he only first entered the video policy discussion when I quoted him as part of something I was saying. What's your stance on this?" -math

I feel his total participation in this wiki outside of the discussions is less than what is needed and since he is not a viewer because he runs the other wiki his opinion is not in the best interest of our wiki. I respect the time he has put forth in his wiki but I don't think his heart is in the right place for our wiki. His wiki is in fact our #1 competitor. They now hold the google spot we once held. It might not be looked on kindly that I belive them competition but they are.

Again I apologize for bringing this out of the discussion you set up for the matter.HeroGaming 17:09, February 10, 2012 (UTC)

Mathmagician: I've added a comment asking Hero not to present a solution at this time, but to continue adding ideas and opinions (and for others to do the same). That might include his ideas for a solution, but they should be in the same context as other comments and not (yet) a proposal for everyone to vote on or similar. I've also made a blog post to encourage those who mostly participate in that area to join the discussion, we should still be gathering as many perspectives and opinions as possible at this point - at least over the weekend.
Herogaming: I agree we don't need to discus specific youtubers at the moment - although I think it may help us to understand the issues to give examples. Certainly the idea that including new youtubers might actually encourage them to start promoting the wiki is a good one.
I'm OK with Happypal adding his thoughts - we can read them in the known context of his favoured editing space being the other wiki. That is, he may have useful insights and suggestions but (as with reading anyone's comments) we will read them while keeping in mind his level of involvement on the wiki, and any potential conflicts of interest or other factors that might be influencing those suggestions (no offense intended Happypal :). I think everyone involved has the wherewithal to balance all the factors in each comment fairly. -- sannse WikiaStaff.png (help forum | blog) 21:44, February 10, 2012 (UTC)

News Regarding Discussions

Sannse, I just wanted to raise a few more points regarding the discussions, if you don't mind:

1) For the good news, the Administration Discussion may be getting ready to move on to the next step. It appears that there is a great deal of consensus there.

2) A part of the Video Policy Discussion is now over on Hero's blog. I initially disabled commenting there because we really should keep everything in one place. I changed my mind a few minutes later, because it's also important that we hear from all members of the community, and it's not entirely appropriate for me to moderate the discussion.

I do have some objections to Hero creating the blog post, as it appears to me to be skirting around the video discussion and directly presenting a solution to the community, as we talked about earlier, and I recall that you instructed him not to do so:

  • The blog post doesn't present the full discussion to the community. It represents Hero's part in it and his interpretations of people's opinions. Users who comment on that blog likely may not be seeing the full discussion.
  • It contains what I see as an unnecessary and inappropriate banner (File:Save the wiki banner.png) which I would like to be removed (it appears as visual propaganda to rally support, similar to File:HERO vs Gracey.jpg)
  • The blog post isn't merely calling attention to the discussion, it's attempting to serve as part of the discussion, which doesn't adhere to the conversation structure that we previously agreed on.
  • On the other hand, the blog post may allow more people to have a say in the policy, and Hero did copy the contents of the blog post into the video discussion itself.

As the discussion moderator, I'll accept your decision whether the blog post stays or is deleted / has commenting disabled / etc. My personal stance is that commenting should be disabled on the blog and that readers should comment on the discussion itself, just as it is with the blog post you created =).

3) A portion of what I wrote the other day on the video discussion regarding "promotion" seemed to have greatly offended Hero. For myself, I was quite offended that he interpreted things very differently than I intended, did not directly address the heart of what I was saying, and, well, all of the very out of hand comments on the video discussion page...

It's been apparent since the previous forum discussion that promotion is one of the topics that Hero and other people (especially myself) disagree on the most. It is a part of the video policy discussion, and even if we put it aside for now in favor of more constructive conversation, we will need to revisit the issue. I favor talking about promotion sooner rather than putting it off until later (which is why I wrote about it), because some people have already stated some views related to it, and we're going to need time to work out that sticky issue.
Mathmagician ( talk blog ) 02:39, February 13, 2012 (UTC)

Hello Sannse i would just like to request that Heros blog be either locked or removed. He has deliberately done this, so users don't see all the points against him on the video policy page. And you clearly stated to him that he shouldn't do this in your message to him. Detailed above. Gracey91 (talk contribs count) 06:58, February 13, 2012 (UTC)
The blog post has been closed. I hope to look in detail at the admin discussion early this week, but will delay the next stage of the video discussion to allow anyone who wants their comments from the blog to be included to copy them over. -- sannse WikiaStaff.png (help forum | blog) 00:47, February 14, 2012 (UTC)
Graey I said in the blog to go to the page and comment. I separated the post because it is hard to get feedback about an idea in the sea of text on that page. Also I don't recall not being told to post a blog I was told nt to present a solution so I presented my idea and asked for feedback on how it could be changed and what changes needed to be made. I did nothing wrong and the happypal team strikes again.....--HeroGaming 01:15, February 14, 2012 (UTC)


Sannse you removed my blog because it was a duplicate. I lost my admin right for telling math he had created a duplicate blog and chewing him out about it. You said you were just going to remove bcrat status until that happened. I am wanting to understand this situation. Can you explain it a little bit more to me because they are the exact same context. Math created a blog with a duplicate post from the discussion as a blog and I chewed him out about it and then lost my admin rights and was told that was censorship. Now I have created a blog in a separate place and it has been removed. Can you help me to understand this. I didn't think that after how you had defended math when I told him off for the duplicate blog post you would ever be mad for that in any way. For me I am sorry but I just missunderstood after the other situation. I still don't understand. HeroGaming 01:21, February 14, 2012 (UTC)

HeroGaming, the context is very different. As I said in the original message about this discussion, I am acting as moderator, which includes ensuring the discussion doesn't spread out in to multiple spaces. I have been consistently directing people towards the single conversation - including by making a blog post of my own to try and encourage that section of the community to join the main discussion (without adding a new venue for the discussion and so creating a new split in the conversation).
Your points are all preserved on the discussion page so this was a true duplication (if there were differences in the two versions that I missed, you are welcome to reconcile them). The previous incident was around a blog post presenting a second point of view not included on other posts. In the current case there is already a space for your point of view on the shared page, and you are using it. In creating a new post, you were instead excluding the other point of view (again).
I'm also increasingly concerned about your attempts to derail the conversation with accusations of "the happypal team". Again, you are distorting what is said, something that has been an increasing concern throughout this process. Please stop that.
I would very much like to get through this process and develop a fair and agreed video policy. I'd also very much like to end the process with you still a member of this community. Many people (including me) have acknowledged the good you have done for this community, and don't want to lose you from it. Let's try to work together to find the right way forward. -- sannse WikiaStaff.png (help forum | blog) 02:25, February 14, 2012 (UTC)


Hello Sannse, I really don't understand why you blocked me for a week.I didn't put those negative posts with an other account.Maybe they hacked my account.Plus,I seriously don't understand why you blame it on me.I expect a reply from you why you did this since I couldn't post anything for a week.Thanks in advance.Warbad 02:19, February 15, 2012 (UTC)

Staff are able to see details that others can't, which can help us match bad edits with other accounts by the same person. It doesn't look to me as though your account was hacked - but it does look like this edit was you on another account. I suggest you don't do that again. -- sannse WikiaStaff.png (help forum | blog) 02:52, February 15, 2012 (UTC)

Thank you & a couple more questions =)

Thanks for putting together drafts in the administration discussion. I left a few questions about it in the comments, I just wanted to leave a message here to make sure that see them: Administration_Discussion#comm-150390. I was also hoping that you might be putting together a draft of the video policy soon. The discussion is extremely lengthy and it's a lot of work for you, so again, thank you for doing this. I think that the one reader's comment about needing a short and concise overview of the discussion is essential if we want more people to participate.
Mathmagician ( talk blog ) 20:23, February 20, 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, a similar stage of summarizing the discussion and pulling it in to a first draft is needed for the video discussion. I'm working on that, but it is taking me a bit longer than I hoped - there have been other things pulling me away over the last week. I'm still very committed to finishing this process though, so have called back in to the admin discussion, and hope to have a draft for the video discussion over the next couple of days. Sorry it's such a long process, it's one of the reasons we usually leave this stuff to each community!
You probably saw, I removed your nomination of HeroGaming. I agree with many of your comments about his dedication to the wiki, and appreciate your willingness to work though your differences, but am not yet prepared to give him back admin rights. What I'd encourage you (and the community) to do first, is to look at others first... is there anyone else on the wiki who you think might be suitable? Are there any who might just need encouraging to get involved in a different way and learn enough to become admins? We could always give out rollback rights as a first step... -- sannse WikiaStaff.png (help forum | blog) 04:31, February 21, 2012 (UTC)
Alright, I understand. I apologize for my mistimed nomination of Hero. Would it be okay for me or someone else to make another nomination (my understanding from Section 3 of the draft was that we're ready to begin with nominations)--or is there more to be discussed before nominations begin?
Speaking for myself, we have a rather immediate need for another admin or 2, as I cannot keep up with all of the work, and the other current admins are quite inactive. In the long run, I think that we will need several more admins. As you will be making all user rights changes in the near future, I do not think we need a bureaucrat just yet. But, we do have need of an admin team, and I'm sure that I'm not alone in being eager to see it formed =).
One other question I should ask: Is it appropriate to nominate Gracey91 as admin at this time? If not, I'm perfectly OK with nominating others first. I can certainly think of a few other people that I would like to see nominated as admins. I also like the concept of encouraging people to get involved in other ways and possibly learn how to become admins. However, I am eager to see Gracey in particular be an admin again, as he possesses special skills that no-one else in our community currently has which are rather difficult to learn.
Mathmagician ( talk blog ) 05:29, February 21, 2012 (UTC)
Edit: If it would help, I could name a few users who I think may be good rollback-ers, or I could make a blog post asking who has interest in fixing vandalism and becoming a rollback user?
I think we need to be sure that people agree with the draft I posted before we start using it :) but so far it looks as though there are no major objections.
I would like to wait on Gracey for a while longer... although (from what I've seen of him since I unblocked) I think it likely that I'll feel OK with withdrawing tmy hold on his nomination in the future. But if there are others that could be nominated first, that would be preferable.
How about this for a time-line: we'll wait a couple of days for any objections or modifications to the proposed policy, then move it the page to the Project Namespace and get the first suggested names. Then we could try this out for the first time over the weekend. Works? -- sannse WikiaStaff.png (help forum | blog) 05:06, February 22, 2012 (UTC)
This sounds like a good timeline, I agree here.
Mathmagician ( talk blog ) 16:41, February 22, 2012 (UTC)

More News

I just wanted to give you a brief explanation regarding the new comments on the video discussion, as I'm guessing explanation may be helpful. Yesterday, the developers of Terraria made a public announcement that the game is no longer being actively developed:

I see this announcement as somewhat abrupt (after they have been silent for months), though given previous news about a related game they're working on called Starbound, it's not entirely surprising. The announcement is a highly polarizing topic however, as evident on the forum post that I linked above, and it will obviously have some effects on this wiki in the future. I don't know if you would consider it to be a part of the video policy discussion.
Mathmagician ( talk blog ) 23:45, February 22, 2012 (UTC)


I would like to express serious concern over Hero's repeated comments that "the game/wiki is dead." My admin nomination of Hero predates the developers' announcement and Hero's recent comments, and if I had seen those beforehand, I would not have nominated him. I can forgive personal arguments, and I can even work with people I don't fully trust for the sake of the community, but that kind of attitude is harmful and unacceptable. A community leader does not say things like the "the game/wiki is dead." Saying it once and apologizing is one thing, but he has made his position abundantly clear. A line has been crossed here, and the only reason I am not saying this to Hero himself is that it would not be helpful to start another argument.
Mathmagician ( talk blog ) 23:45, February 22, 2012 (UTC)

I understand your worries, and definitely agree this wiki has a long way to go before it's "dead" or "over"! There are going to be plenty of people looking for information to play the game, and still plenty to improve and add :)
I've got a draft of the video policy ready now, and will post it in the morning (I want to sleep on it, and be sure I've not missed anything). Let's focus on that for now -- sannse WikiaStaff.png (help forum | blog) 03:07, February 24, 2012 (UTC)

Another Issue

I also have concerns about the Starbound Wiki. That wiki will become an active community once the game is released in a few months. It is highly similar to Terraria and is being developed by the same person. Some have gone so far as to call Starbound "Terraria 2.0." As indicated in the forum post that I linked above, there will be a great amount of crossover between the Starbound community and the Terraria community.

Just a few days ago, Hero requested and obtained bureaucrat rights on the (inactive) Starbound Wiki.

  1. The appropriate channel for adopting wikis is Hero did not use it, and given whats happened on this wiki recently involving him I do not think it appropriate for him to be adopting a wiki.
  2. It was done a few days ago. In these actions, I see nothing but his intention of picking up the Terraria community and moving it to his new wiki. I see problems here for both the Terraria community and (what will become) the Starbound community.

I realize it is not my place to say this, but for the sake of the Starbound wiki and its community, a sizable portion of which will be the Terraria community, I would like you to request that HeroGaming step down as bureaucrat on the Starbound wiki. Someone more responsible and of better character should serve as a leader of that community. I think that Hero's a great gamer and contributor to communities, and possibly one of the leaders. But I strongly disagree with his inappropriate adoption of the Starbound wiki.

I do not see this as some unrelated matter with two different wikis. I see this as a matter highly related to Hero, current events, the Terraria wiki, and the Terraria community.
Mathmagician ( talk blog ) 23:45, February 22, 2012 (UTC)

I'll look in to this -- sannse WikiaStaff.png (help forum | blog) 03:07, February 24, 2012 (UTC)

Video Policy Discussion/archive

Hey Sannse i noticed a user has been editing the archive for the video policy, so i thought maybe you should protect it? I have added the Archive header template to the page too. Gracey91 (talk contribs count) 14:08, February 25, 2012 (UTC)

I see Math got it, good catch, thank you -- sannse WikiaStaff.png (help forum | blog) 01:24, February 26, 2012 (UTC)

Admin and Bureaucrat Nominations

Hello Sannse i was wondering if you could clear up the format used on the Admin and Bureaucrat Nominations math seems to feel comments should be hidden away on the talk page and has decided to removed my comments. I think this is wrong, the user is also only replying on the talk page making this super confusing for everyone to follow. If you could clear it up that would be great. Gracey91 (talk contribs count) 06:50, February 27, 2012 (UTC)

I felt that the comments which I moved to the talk page were related to the structure of nominations, not Pathogen's nomination in particular. The nomination page is for nominations, not discussions about the structure of nominations. The move was intended for organizational purposes, to keep the nomination page free of clutter, as the nomination page needs to be reasonably well organized and concise to allow others to more easily participate. Of course, all comments were preserved when I moved them to the talk page--I did not delete or modify anything, as can be seen here and here.
That being said, I guess I don't see why Gracey is concerned about other's votes lacking a reason. On another wiki, that may certainly be an important concern. But on this wiki at this time, there is no realistic threat of seeing a mass of skewed votes from people just leaving signatures. On the contrary, I think we're going to have a hard time simply getting more people to participate. Readers have been strongly encouraged to provide a reason and a signature. I do not see the point in requiring them to provide a reason at this time. The votes with opinions/reasons provided are what will be ultimately credited as more important I think, but simple yes/nos can also have some value.
As Gracey mentioned though, clarification is much appreciated.
Mathmagician ( talk blog ) 10:48, February 27, 2012 (UTC)
Regarding the other thing Gracey noted above, there are some things on the talk page that probably should go on the nomination page instead. Here's what I would like to do to keep the conversation in order. Does this seem reasonable? (I have asked Pathogen and Gracey to verify that I have placed their conversation in the correct order.)
Mathmagician ( talk blog ) 00:28, February 28, 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure a collapsible table works well, it may hide comments too much. But I agree that the ideal is for comments about a specific nomination to be on the nominations page, and comments about the process to be on talk - so some are misplaced. Gracey, perhaps it would be best if you could try to pull out the comments about the process, and get them organized on the talk page?
I'm going to veto The Pathogen's nomination for now, and the best thing is likely to archive that discussion. -- sannse WikiaStaff.png (help forum | blog) 03:22, February 28, 2012 (UTC)


Tbox-left Hello, Sannse. You have new messages at Mathmagician's talk page. Tbox-right
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} template.

Re: Nomination Process

Hey there Sannse, I know this may just seem a bit like a loser's reaction here, but I find it a little unfair that I be excluded from the nominations because of both false accusations and the statement that I took sides in a (major) dispute in which I took no side. I fail to see where my position or actions could be seen as controversial. I can see that I'm not always impartial, though everyone has their moments. If you can offer any insight into this, such as where I can find evidence of my own controversy, I'll gladly accept it.

User:The PathogenUser talk:The PathogenUser blog:The PathogenThe Pathogen-Signature Image
Tue, 28 Feb 2012 16:43:57 +0000
Per what you said above about letting Gracey organize the comments and archive Pathogen's nomination for now, I agree with this. I have further spoken with Pathogen in chat and offered my opinions on your decision about his nomination, and what he should prepare for in the next round. He is understanding, though understandably a bit disappointed as well. As Pathogen noted, I think he would still appreciate a brief response from you about your decision. I understand this is an experimental process for us and I'm hopeful that things will work out.
Also, I wanted to add thank you for the reminder about contact info. I'll be happy to stop in at the community central chat or add you to skype if talking things out in real time would be helpful.
Mathmagician ( talk blog ) 07:55, February 28, 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Path, I'm not sure which is the best place to talk about this... but maybe here will do :) I'm sorry I wasn't clear enough in my original comment. Looking back, I think my phrasing was confusing.

The reason for my veto (and I want to emphasize, I'm not saying "never") wasn't the things Gracey said. The part that worried me was how quickly that discussion escalated in to an argument. Gracey's comments came across harshly, and I can understand you being upset, but it's also important to look at how you dealt with that upset. Admins tend to have to deal with people who are angry, or unreasonable, or downright rude... the best ones do that calmly and politely, even if provoked. From what I've seen, you have the potential to do that, but maybe you need a bit of practice between now and then.

A while back I wrote a blog post on dealing with conflict for the Staff Blog... maybe some of the points in there might be helpful to you - and to others on the wiki. Just to be clear, I don't expect the admins here to all have the calm of a Buddha (or a Mathmagician ;) but my ideal is that the first of this new group are the uncontroversial types that tend to soothe arguments and encourage calm. -- sannse WikiaStaff.png (help forum | blog) 04:55, February 29, 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, I wondered if that would be the reason behind it. Thank you for clarifying there Sannse, and I'll certainly put forth my best efforts when it comes to the next round of nominations, as well as all the time before, in between and afterwards!
Oh, and a small note; If it's possible, I'd still like to have Gracey's statements reviewed. This is because I suspect there was at least a little malicious intent behind the way they were worded. If this isn't possible, I'll be disappointed, but I will accept it.
Thanks either way, and anjoy the rest of your day ^ᴗ^
User:The PathogenUser talk:The PathogenUser blog:The PathogenThe Pathogen-Signature Image
Wed, 29 Feb 2012 18:19:26 +0000

Is it OK if I nominate both Gracey91 and HeroGaming as admins?

Although what happened between the 2 of them recently has put them under scrutiny with many members of the community, I felt that, other than starting this whole mess, both HeroGaming and Gracey91 did a particularly good job as admins, keeping the community nice and orderly, and helping out alot. I'm willing to forgive them both, which is why, despite these recent events, I'd like to nominate them both as admins again, though I'm not yet willing to nominate either one as bcrats just yet.

Shadow Wolf TJC 08:38, March 1, 2012 (UTC)

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