Talk: Sannse

Please leave any new messages at the bottom of this page. Thanks! -- sannse (talk)

Re: Changes

Hi there Sannse. I can't see what I am doing wrong by aiding the transition of the Vault to its new home, so therefore, I will continue to make changes which in the majority opinion make this easier and are for the good of the two communities. As for causing harm, I have never been banned or warned for harming this wiki. In fact, that is why I am among the first people to become 'Moderators'. So I would like to ask you how I am harming the wiki exactly, as I am simply changing mention of The Vault to the Fallout Wiki to show that this is no longer the former. 19:48, November 20, 2011 (UTC)

Somehow I missed this one until I got the notification for the next message - so sorry for leaving it hanging!

There's a lot of discussion on this point, and it's probably best to keep it together on Ausir's blog post. The short version is that it may be damaging to the future of this wiki to change the name, so it's not a decision that should be made by those who are choosing to leave this wiki (or one that should be made at all right now... the situation is too new and should stabilize first!) Thanks -- sannse (help forum | blog) 21:15, November 22, 2011 (UTC)

No, changing the name doesn't affect the future of this wiki, it affects the future of Wikia, and its profit margins, just because if you lose the name, you'll lose the hits on search engines to the real Vault. Also, I didn't see this because you did reply on my talk page, but I think it is a decent compromise to keep it on the blog posts. 22:40, November 22, 2011 (UTC)

Trademark protection violation

Your recent reversal of edits made to protect Paweł Ausir Dembowski's intellectual property rights as to the The Vault trademark are in violation of current United States law. Title 15, section 1125, heading c, point 1 states:

“Subject to the principles of equity, the owner of a famous mark that is distinctive, inherently or through acquired distinctiveness, shall be entitled to an injunction against another person who, at any time after the owner’s

mark has become famous, commences use of a mark or trade name in commerce that is

likely to cause dilution by blurring or dilution by tarnishment of the famous mark, regardless of the presence or absence of actual or likely confusion, of competition, or of actual economic injury.”

Furthermore, 15 USC 1125, heading a, point 1 states:

“Any person who, on or in connection with any goods or services, or any container for goods, uses in commerce any word, term, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof, or any false designation of origin, false or misleading description of fact, or false or misleading representation of fact, which—

(A) is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive as to the affiliation, connection, or association of such person with another person, or as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of his or her goods, services, or commercial activities by another person, or

(B) in commercial advertising or promotion, misrepresents the nature, characteristics, qualities, or geographic origin of his or her or another person’s goods, services, or commercial activities, shall be liable in a civil action by any person who believes that he or she is or is likely to be damaged by such act.”

As you can clearly see, your actions constitute a deliberate attempt to cause dilution by blurring a famous trademark (The Vault), which has been made famous by Ausir, who, as the original founder of The Vault and its principal administrator, is the present owner of the trademark.

The reason is simple: the section I quote protects unregistered, but famous marks, ie. The Vault name and logo. Thus, we request that you cease injuring Ausir's exclusive rights to the trademark and rename your site to an inoffensive name. _Tagaziel ^(call!) 15:42, November 22, 2011 (UTC)

The original fault logo also still appears to be in use on the Monobook skin. Agent c 16:37, November 22, 2011 (UTC)

Hi Agent c: please see my reply on the other copy of this (on Ausir's blog post). Thanks -- sannse (help forum | blog) 21:15, November 22, 2011 (UTC)

Aestune's ban

I'm sorry, what? I'm not going to let him slander admins that aren't even here anymore, and I have to wonder what your problem is with Itachou that you would let him be publically insulted for... what, exactly? Because Aestune agrees with you? You're gonna let someone say whatever they want if they're on your side? I will not overturn Aestune's ban, he can wait it out. I'm also particularly insulted that you think I'm removing 'opposition'; he has as much right to an opinion on the Vault as I do, as long as he's respectful. Except, y'know, he's shown he's not.

In any event, I have no idea what the 'shut the fuck up' part was about. Was there a comment prior to Aestune's that had been deleted before? I can't be expected to ban people for comments that I haven't seen and nobody's directed me to.

In addition addition, if Aestune is indeed a sockpuppet of a previously banned user (User:Flower of Pock-Lips, in this case) then Cartman! has every right to extend the block length. This is our standard procedure for ban evasion (though our previous ban durations were actually shorter than what is written in our administration guidelines), so I'd appreciate if you did not belittle my fellow administrator as well by calling his response less than honest. Nitty ^Tok. 01:18, November 23, 2011 (UTC)

I would like to state (although you will probably claim conflict of interest) that I agree with this ban for the following reasons. Firstly the user is a known troll, who has been banned many times (on different accounts may I add, via proxies), and is currently circumventing a ban that was imposed a few month ago (so the original ban was no way influenced by current events). Additionally, with comments like this "WoWWiki moved because Blizzard wanted to control the third-party community so they could wring more cash out of their subscribers. Curse's entire business is compromising everything and everyone (single-handedly causing almost all account hacking by selling Bnet emails to hackers) to line their pockets.". You and I both know this wasn't the reasons for there move, the comment is a simply lies and defamation of character. Such comments are nothing more that flame bait. Now I can understand you wish to have them unbanned, but I can also site conflict of interest on your part in this matter, since it is the only voice in the community to speak outright for Wikia. If he was to be unbanned, the discussion would soon escalate into a free for all flame war with heated emotions (which it was heading that way already) and would not serve the interest of either party involved. In fact it would probably serve to alienate more contributors here, by allowing such things to happens. 01:19, November 23, 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that his ban was indefinite when I had posted my first comment, though I stand by it. He has no right to insult anyone for the sake of his argument, and I'd gladly go through the 'supporters' comments to ban anyone that needed it as well. I haven't been paying overmuch attention to the forums, I assumed that it was being policed by essentially every other administrator anyway (and it's a looot to read). To boot, he was not banned at first because, as far as I saw, he kept his arguments more civil.

I also think it's incredibly short-sighted of you to allow someone that is insulting the community to speak as a member of the community. You have no right to let Aestune say anything if Aestune is going to use his time to insult people, regardless of whether he's arguing competently or not. Would you not also ban someone that supported staying but insulted you directly? I'm honestly very appalled in you, ma'am, that you're going to let him spew his hate just because he's supporting you in a legal-speak manner.

In Aestune's defense, I suppose, his block should be recinded to the original 2 week ban should it be found that he's not a sockpuppet. I personally have had no prior encounters with him, I would ask Crazysam10 or Kingclyde about that.

Furthermore, I can't actually seem to find the comment you mentioned. If it's been deleted, are the other admins not therefore doing their jobs? Nitty ^Tok. 01:54, November 23, 2011 (UTC)

So I'm dishonest because I removed a well known sock-puppet user who has been banned multiple times on multiple accounts to the point where the guidelines require an indefinite ban. If anything that is an insult in itself.

It's amusing how you're trying so hard to cling to the only person who was really fighting your corner despite the clear personal attacks and poor understanding of the legal documentation. For "fairness sake" we should be looking at the actual community, not people who have been cast out of it for unacceptable behaviour.

"The style here seems to frequently be less polite than I tend to feel appropriate"
Yes, as a community we're strongly opinionated about our subject, and we definitely don't bend our wiki to cater for a young audience. The problems begin when someone issues direct personal attacks. Whether you "find it appropriate" or not is ultimately irrelevant as this is how it has been since long before you decided to grace our news blog. -- 03:00, November 23, 2011 (UTC)

I have since found the comment you are referring to and have banned the poster for breaking the sites rules. Something that was actually missed by admins both departing and staying, so good faith can assume it was not an act of neglect. Obviously it got missed in the flurry of comment on the subject, also I am surprised you did bring it to the attention of anyone when you observed it, which does demonstrate and act of neglect on your part as you have admitted to being aware of the comment.

Now as for the comment deletion, currently I have left it, but I am happy to delete it also based on the site rules. But in the interest of fairness, I would also have to delete Aestune contributions that are also in violation of the rules. I will leave that choice up to you.

Now back to the ban, Aestune may not have been banned on there first edit, that is true. But, then again, was he noticed on his first contribution? Nope, he was banned when it became apparent who they where. So your logic is fundamentally flawed, in assuming that we know every single detail that goes on in this wiki (I have, in the past, found vandalism that dates back many months before it was noticed). However I fail to see how someone who is perma banned on 2 separate accounts should have a say on the community that is staying, since he would not be apart of that community based on the previous perma bans.

But if you insist that everyone should get their say right now and we should unban him because he cant wait it out. I will endeavour to unbanned every single vandal and troll, so they can have there say also (in the interests of fairness). 04:20, November 23, 2011 (UTC)

I'll post here for continuity, and as I'm replying to several people. I think this is gonna be a long one, apologies if I miss replying to any key points...

GhostAvatar: I agree that the comments about why WoWWiki moved are not true. I don't know what he's referring to with Curse, but expect that that's not true either. But I also think he had some good points (obviously I acknowledge they were in Wikia's favour). You say: "If he was to be unbanned, the discussion would soon escalate into a free for all flame war with heated emotions" - that's definitely something I'm trying to avoid, which is why I left talk page messages rather than jumping straight in to remove the ban.

Nitpicker of the Wastes: You asked: "Would you not also ban someone that supported staying but insulted you directly?" - it's unlikely that I would ban in either case. It's not difficult to find instances on Community Central of people insulting me while commenting on something... and not getting banned. I'm certainly not saying that people should be allowed to insult others, it's really important to me that disagreements stay polite, but it's also important that people get their say. That balance can be a tricky one for sure.

I tried to have a quick look on the sockpuppet question, but there are no checkuser results for Flower of Pock-Lips - he edited too long ago (I checked on all wikis).

Cartman: I did not call you dishonest, I said I felt the other block reason was more honest. I'm not trying to be nitpicky here (no pun intended ;) but am trying to keep things calm while speaking out if I feel problematic decisions are being made.

You quoted my comment about the tone here. That was an observation, not something that I expect to change. Every wiki has it's style, and I'm used to adapting to that. Of course I have preferences, but I'm obviously not here to talk about the wiki's style... I'm here to try and look after this wiki through this change.

GhostAvatar (again): I'm trying to work with the norms of this community, which seem to be more accepting of harsh comments than many wikis. I'm obviously in a place where I can be told off by Cartman for commenting on the wiki's tone being impolite at times, and told off by you for not commenting on the tone being impolite ;) That comment stood out to me, but I accepted the (apparent) decision to let it stand. It was only when that was in contrast to a later block, that I spoke about it.

As I said above, I wasn't able to find anything to clarify the socking issue (in either direction), and obviously don't know the history that lead you to believe this is the same person.

A general comment to all: I've had to back off from the detailed discussions of law - I'm not a lawyer, and don't want to say anything on behalf of Wikia that's not accurate. But I am still reading and will continue to comment where I can, and to be available for questions and other needs. -- sannse (help forum | blog) 05:05, November 23, 2011 (UTC)

If I may interject for a moment, I found User:Flower of Pock-Lips and User:Lugiatm (Pocklip's second account), and it only took me about 30 seconds each to find . Do what you wish with them. --Kastera ^(talk) 05:15, November 23, 2011 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand Kastera, I meant that I used staff tools (checkuser and others) to look at Flower of the Pock-Lips and Aestune, and didn't get results to show anything either way. I wasn't aware of the other account, so will also look at that, thank you for pointing it out -- sannse (help forum | blog) 06:39, November 23, 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for understanding my position then, ma'am. 'm still particularly moved by your support for him, and not in a good way, but I assume that this does mean that the 2 week ban will remain in place, as well as the indefinite ban should the puppetry follow through. Nitty ^Tok. 05:26, November 23, 2011 (UTC)

I need to talk to Jen and others about this situation in the morning, Nitpicker (if that's OK as a short version of your name), but agree with leaving it in place until then. -- sannse (help forum | blog) 06:39, November 23, 2011 (UTC)

"I'm obviously in a place where I can be told off by Cartman for commenting on the wiki's tone being impolite at times, and told off by you for not commenting on the tone being impolite"

I'm referring to the harsh tone, he's referring to the direct insults. Those are two very different things here and you can only get in trouble for one of them. -- 17:38, November 23, 2011 (UTC)