Arbitration requests and results are listed below. If you wish to request arbitration, ask an uninvolved admin—this list of administrators might help. Please note that any administrator can refuse or redirect an arbitration request!

September 11, 2006: Not a fifty five vs. Karlos

Discuss on this arbitration's discussion page.

Original arbitration request

Tho you did say you loved your page when stuff like this happens lol. Anyways, I thought the matter would have been settled with karlos agreeing with any of the 5 reasons why his banning me was not a good idea, but he dismissed them all nonchalantly. I would like for you, when you want some light reading, to look at the bottom half of my now humorous talk page. Following precedent of karlos, I wish to call for about 2 years' worth of bannings for vandalism of build votes, and the temporary release of karlos' administrative powers. You'll find this somewhere in the topic "can we cut the crap now?"

Obviously, I dont believe this should be done. However, I find no alternative given karlos and 99% of the wiki's (one person agreed with me I think) flat denial that banning me was wrong, and the precedent as is must be followed.

Please do not post in this topic unless you are tanaric, I'd like for him to not have to sift through *^$&%$%$# "he did it, she did it" comments that would inevitably arise.(Not a fifty five 16:32, 10 September 2006 (CDT))

The people involved

Not a fifty five

Not a fifty five has been on the wiki since August, and has contributed almost exclusively within the builds vetting process. Recently, he has begun contributing in policy discussions that relate to builds. Despite his account's relatively short age, he has been an active and worthwhile contributor.

His recent policy arguments have centered around a more thorough, informative vetting process for builds. He is attempting to get rid of commentless votes that do not help the build submitter or the rest of the community see why certain builds become favored/unfavored.


Karlos is a long-time contributor, editor, and administrator of the wiki. He has been very active in... well, everything, really, with the exception of build vetting. He is known for being a magnet for user conflict; however, some of the more notable users he's butted heads with still maintain that he's done nothing improper as an administrator. Karlos is the first to admit he's made mistakes, and he's even campaigned for the people that point them out to him. Of all the admins of the GuildWiki, Karlos has the honor of having been asked to step down/be kicked off the team the most.

I was one of the more vocal proponents of making Karlos an admin back when he was first appointed. I have quite a bit of respect for him, but I have not hesitated to disagree with him when I thought he was in the wrong.

Recent related events

The build vetting process is currently undergoing revision, in a process supported by many long-time contributors, including myself. You can read more about this on GuildWars Wikia:Builds.

The issue

Not a fifty five sought to prove that the builds vetting process was flawed. Instead of voting as he usually does—that is, instead of being helpful, informative, and constructive—he provided commentless/cruel votes instead. More importantly, he then moved the builds in question immediately to the unfavored category, even though one of the builds had only two votes.

Somewhat ironically, one of the users who had previously submitted commentless votes (User:Rapta) had the first vote in this example, and he provided a great summary of why the build in question wasn't that good.

Skuld stated that Not a fifty five's actions were wrong. Not a fifty five replied, stating that he didn't actually feel this way, and was trying to prove a point. Karlos stated that this sort of vandalism is never appropriate. Not a fifty five replied, stating that he did not believe his actions constituted vandalism. Karlos then banned him for three days, on the principle that since the warning given clearly did not have the desired effect, the administration had a responsibility to escalate the situation to the next level.

Not a fifty five emailed me in an attempt to get the ban lifted. I attempted to reply, but learned only today that my message did not go through. My college is performing significant network maintenance, etc. In any case, I did not lift the ban.

Not a fifty five believes that Karlos's actions were inappropriate, and has been attempting to get an apology from him since the incident. No user has stepped up in support of Not a fifty five's actions. Because no apology has been issued, Not a fifty five has called for every user in the past who contributed a commentless vote to also be banned for three days.

In another somewhat ironic twist, he stated that he doesn't actually believe these bans should occur, which is the same sort of misrepresentation that got him banned in the first place.

My responses

About the banning of Not a fifty five

You got off easy. I would have banned you for significantly longer, had I seen your actions first and been able to reliably access the Internet. I do not believe Karlos acted inappropriately in the slightest. In fact, I'm somewhat impressed at the restraint he's shown in this case, especially considering his reputation. ;)

About the issue of the builds vetting process

I myself wholeheartedly agree with the push to make the vetting process more wikilike. That said, I think Not a fifty five grossly overestimates his own contribution to this process. His vandalism was not necessary to get people talking. People were already talking!

Other responses

Admins and involved users, you may leave your own responses here under ====level 4 headings====. This is not a talk page! This is meant only to preserve reactions and responses from those users directly involved in this arbitration, or from other admins who wish to voice their opinion. If you wish to discuss the case with other GuildWikians, please use the talk page!

Not a fifty five's views

Vandalism v.t: vandalized, pt.. pp.; To destroy or damage maliciously.

Simply not true in my case. Vandalism would be like replacing all the text in "armor" with "Hi!!!!" ( much ore severe case of vandalism dont you agree? and did this not only result in , not adding a vote and rightfully placing the build in unfavored. "boasting about it"- Kinda weird to boast about it if you have declined in every statement made about it that its not vandalism. "innopropriately condemning a build cause of just two votes" I'm sorry but you're wrong on that one tanaric, the policy at the time was to condemn a build to unfavored if it had two, unopposed votes for unfavored (absurd yes, but that's true). I can quote several instances of this being done, and in fact if you research it further there was a vote for this of either 2 or 3 unopposed votes and at the time it was a tie, and people were generally going for two. Ther only thing left to be refuted is the vote itself was malicious, to which I think I need to quote something from my user talk page.

Votes that were made with 0 or gibberish comments like "lol", the reason I was banned:

(Note all of these have been checked to see if they wrote something in discusiion to go ith the vote. they didnt. Also not we are still on "A" of Unfavored builds (there should be a few hundred more to be listed, suggesting month long bans for some people)

— Skuld 10:05, 20 August 2006 (CDT) (0 reason) in "a/e Stinging Mist build"
— Rapta (talk|contribs) 23:59, 31 July 2006 (CDT) (0comment, casters bane build)
— Shady 21.55 1 august 2006 (0 comment, casters bane build)
Impracticle — Skuld 10:31, 20 August 2006 (CDT) (says nothing, condition outbreak build)
Sir On The Edge (just his name, not even sigm black steel build)
--Rapta 21:30, 10 July 2006 (CDT) (Crippling shadow)
Bad build. -- 22:15, 22 July 2006 (CDT) (criplling shadow)
— Skuld 06:41, 26 August 2006 (CDT) (Displacement of Purity)
...Shady 22.07 1 august 2006 (Holy stonesoul)
Getting rid of this... — Rapta (talk|contribs) 21:45, 10 August 2006 (CDT) (Palm mender)
— Rapta (talk|contribs) 22:31, 27 July 2006 (CDT) (Spirit-assin)
— Rapta (talk|contribs) 23:47, 19 July 2006 (CDT) (Siphon Vampire)
... — Rapta (talk|contribs) 01:59, 26 July 2006 (CDT) (Support sin)
Useless. — Rapta (talk|contribs) 00:03, 1 August 2006 (CDT) (no real comment, insult as well, anti-melee assasin)
— Skuld 07:01, 24 August 2006 (CDT) (critical flash)
Horrible... — Rapta (talk|contribs) 22:44, 27 July 2006 (CDT)
(no real comment, insult as well, falling hammr) — Rapta (talk|contribs) 22:37, 27 July 2006 (CDT) (Master assasin)
— Skuld 04:38, 21 August 2006 (CDT) (Steel Lotus)
— Rapta (talk|contribs) 22:42, 19 August 2006 (CDT) (the critical palm 19:53, 28 August 2006 (CDT) (the critical palm)
Wow I didnt expect there to be this many... Anyways all this is only from CATEGORY "A" OF UNFAVORED BUILDS. A good estimate would be 200 total."

Which would result in about 2 years' worth of bannings for other people if I were, and have, been banned.

In fact you will find some comments like "horrible..." or "useless" are worse than mine, in that they are both inadequate AND insulting, perhaps a 5 day ban for those?

As to my saying this 2 year banning is what would happen if precedent would follow due to my banning, but that I didn't agree it should be done, I kinda misworded it :(. I meant to say, I agree this should be done, but that I didn't like it. The admins follow precedent, as karlos has said, and thus, there rly is no reason that 600 days worth of bannings should not take place.

As to why I'm pissed off when I'm normally not that type of guy, theres 2 good reasons. A) people disrupting wikipedia by making this a huge debacle (400 insults or so from them, returned by 400 replies from me), and B) When a web site's admins act like an oligarchy, banning whoever the *&$^ they please just because someone argues with one of their fellow admins, rather than doing the right thing, it REALLY pisses me off. They have every right to be do this anyways, it is their web site to rule, however this is ruling wikipedia in "bad faith" (Not a fifty five 19:33, 11 September 2006 (CDT))

May 9, 2006: Stabber (via esan) vs. F G

Discuss on this arbitration's discussion page.

Original arbitration request

I wasn't planning on logging in here again, but this comment by User:F_G surely crosses a line that shouldn't be crossed. It barely matters that he is completely incorrect. Even if he were 100% right, it is an unjustified personal attack on someone who has had a long and positive history on this site, and on me (though he right on the money regarding balding and 40 years old). I am not sure what F G's motivation is, but please intervene here. I am asking you because on GuildWars Wikia:Administrators you are listed as the person to contact regarding user disputes. esan 17:01, 9 May 2006 (CDT)

The people involved


Stabber is a well-known contributor to GuildWiki. She participates mostly as a wikignome, fixing things and updating things to meet current standards, though she's contributed some original content too. She is perhaps better known for the drama surrounding her and her talk page. When she makes a mistake, she tends to break down, apologize to everybody, and state that she's leaving the GuildWiki forever... only to reappear in a matter of weeks. Further, her temper has caused some issues with other contributers on various pages.

That said, she's generally considered a net positive around the GuildWiki.


esan is a non-entity among the GuildWiki. He knows Stabber from work in real life.


F G is a regular contributor to GuildWiki. I cannot objectively establish his noteriety. His edits appear to be generally well-received—Rainith left a note on his talk page thanking him for his cool-headedness. He appears to be mostly focused on clarification and structure, not new content.

Recent related events

F G posted a notice on Stabber's userpage requesting a ban. He pointed out that she violated GuildWars Wikia:Only revert once, and, since nobody contested the charge, she should be banned. Every reply stated that such a simple mistake didn't deserve a ban. He later revealed that he was using the ban device to draw attention to a policy issue:

"[S]hould normal users feel empowered to patrol Special:Recentchanges and enforce GuildWars Wikia:Only revert once? My personal opinion is that they should not. This is one of the few privileges that should be the sole domain of sysops and bureaucrats."

This policy question, though asked in an inappropriate matter, was considered by many (even Stabber!) to be worth asking. GuildWiki has not yet codified every policy, because, as F G correctly notes, we are currently in that uncomfortable stage of being a little too big to be ad hoc, but not quite large enough to justify a huge bureaucracy. Regardless of this arbitration, this question will be asked, and the answer, one way or the other, will be written and added to the GuildWiki policy pages.

In any case, F G realized that he went about this inappropriately, and posted an apology:

All right, I'll drop the issue. You're probably right that this was bad judgement on my part. Sorry everyone. F G 06:19, 7 May 2006 (CDT)
For reference, she was nominate here, and she refused the nomination here. I am actually deeply sorry now for my comments above and wish I could simply erase them. Please accept my humble apologies, Stabber. F G 06:54, 7 May 2006 (CDT)

The issue

A few hours prior to this apology, F G had left a comment about the revert war in question on User_talk:PanSola, attempting to clarify the situation. He also provided his own analysis:

Technically, Stabber wasn't the instigator. See the history. The original reverts were done by Tetracycloide, then they were reverted by anon with no explanation. However, I'm not excusing either party. As I have said, both deserve bans. Stabber deserves a more severe ban because he has a long history of abusive behaviour. F G 04:40, 7 May 2006 (CDT)

Stabber wished a clarification to this, and requested one on User talk:F G. F G's response, though rather uncomplimentary, was probably the most polite way to state such a complaint about somebody. He neatly summed up his response near the end: "You act like an admin without being one and that is abusive, even if it is not apparent to you."

Stabber thanked F G for his "candid words," and proceeded to once again leave the GuildWiki. This evoked a round of support on User talk:Stabber, as it has every other time she's "left." Additionally, both PanSola and esan posted on User talk:F G about this, and stated that they disagreed with F G's characterization of Stabber. esan stated that he, too, would leave the GuildWiki, and stated that others would as well.

F G's reply is copied in its entirety below:

You are not exactly a disinterested party here, considering that you have claimed to know Stabber in real life. You are simply being blinded by your loyalty. By the way, I find it very suspicious that you disappear for long stretches of time, only to reappear whenever Stabber has one of her phases. I won't beat around the bush: I think you are Stabber's sockpuppet. Or vice-versa. I've been on the internet long enough to know what a woman's writing reads like, and Stabber's writing doesn't fit. She (you) is (are) a balding 40 year old male, as is generally the case. Google shows next to no hits for "Stacy Berger", which means that the name was manufactured to fit "Stabber", rather than the reverse. I seriously doubt the real Stacy Berger is so well versed in covering her tracks from Google. I am very careful with my identity myself, and still there are hundreds of hits for my real name. So I read the above comment as Stabber/Esan's true response to my comment, in which case it gives me a grim satisfaction. Good riddance to both of you. The internet has enough of your nonsense. F G 15:52, 9 May 2006 (CDT)

My responses

About the comments in question

F G can say whatever he wants on his own talk page. There is no justification for any administrative measure to be taken against F G for any of his comments on that page. They are his thoughts, and he has a right to them.

Furthermore, even if they weren't on his talk page, Stabber asked him for his opinion on this matter. You cannot expect the admins to ban people who have opinions that differ from yours, especially when you asked for the opinion in the first place!

About the issue of non-admin users issuing ban requests

This needs to stop as soon as possible, as it is clearly causing harm to the GuildWiki. I suggest that the ban request template be deleted immediately. I would not be against a very specific "anonymous vandal" template, as that is theoretically a help to the admins that keep tabs on that sort of thing.

I would rather do a ton of these arbitration requests than deal with users threatening bans on each other. If you're uncomforable posting your disapproval of another user publically, I've even supplied my email address on my user page, so you can do so privately.

Somewhat related, I'd like to point out that user bans are an absolute last resort on the GuildWiki. I'd rather instruct than ban any day, regardless of how much more difficult instructing often is.

To clarify: I'm talking about in the context of user disputes and GuildWiki policy, not in cases of vandalism. Vandalism obviously needs some type of marker like the ban template to help admins out. I think any such template should be specific to vandals, though, and shouldn't be used in cases of user disputes. Check the discussion page for more thoughts on ban templates (as well as the justification for this clarification).

About "I'm leaving the GuildWiki forever!"

I think it's a shame when any contributor leaves for political reasons—especially since the majority of them come back within a month or two anyway! That said, I'm not going to ask you to stay. If you can't handle reasonable discussion on the Internet, we don't need you. Every discussion on the GuildWiki, even ones that require direct, uncomfortable accusations like the one that spawned this arbitration request, should result in you learning something. If somebody has a reasonable complaint, attempt to address it! Don't just run away from the situation. Even if F G's claim that Stabber is a net negative is true (and I'm not saying it is!), leaving doesn't help fix that issue. Working to become a net positive is better for everyone, and results in the GuildWiki becoming an even more useful resource for our fans.

Other responses

Admins and involved users, you may leave your own responses here under ====level 4 headings====. This is not a talk page! This is meant only to preserve reactions and responses from those users directly involved in this arbitration, or from other admins who wish to voice their opinion. If you wish to discuss the case with other GuildWikians, please use the talk page!

Esan's Response

Well, I can't say that I am happy with this summary and what I think will be the outcome of the events of the last few days. FG's personal attacks against Stabber (and me, but I'm a nonentity) have been allowed to stand unchallenged and uncommented on.

As regard to the future participation in GuildWiki by the participants in this conflict, FG has stated in User_talk:F_G in no uncertain times that he is leaving GuildWiki. This outcome I am entirely pleased with.

Stabber has indicated to me in personal communication, in somewhat more uncertain terms, that she does not intend to return to GuildWiki. I am an optimist, so I hope she will change her mind.

(As for me, I don't even play Guild Wars any more, having given my account(s) away to friends already. Therefore, I too will depart from GuildWiki. But I'm a nonentity.)

Quite independently of the arbitration, the participants have simply decided to quit. Therefore, the only salvageable benefit from this spat will be what improvements are made to GuildWiki policies. I support Tanaric's call for deleting or bowdlerizing the {{ban}} template, and propose "no registered user may nominate another registered user with a nontrivial history for banishment" as a new policy line-item. I think further that WP:NPA should be adopted here as an enforced policy. Lastly, policy enforcement should be taken out of the hands of normal users. (On this point alone I am in agreement with FG.) This means that the sole option open to normal users who spot a policy violation is to bring it to the notice of an admin. This will mean an increase in the work required of admins, and therefore an increase in the number of admins, but there are several suitable candidates who have proven over a long period of time to be reliable and deserving of the responsibility if they wish it. (Skuld and Barek immediately come to mind.)

I will note in conclusion that when I first came to GuildWiki, I never expected to be leaving on such a down note.

esan 22:46, 9 May 2006 (CDT)

Karlos' moment of Enlightenment

All I can say is... Wow. When did all this happen?

It is very unfortunate that things unfolded as they did. I feel an amount of guilt over this being the first one to ask for arbitration in a dispute between me and another user. I do agree that it is spiraling out of hand and I can't escape the feeling that I pushed it down that hill.

With regards to the situation itself, I think FG's rmarks were unfortunate, excessively blunt and truly do injustice to Stabber. But I think Tanaric is on the money. Stabber asked for his opinion. I do not think Stabber needs a lawyer to ask for bans on her behalf. Still, I do find it most unfortunate that we lose two valuable contributors like Stabber and FG for something like this.

I would advise both to take a page out of me and Tetris' saga, which despite getting very melodramatic at times, has not prevented either of us from contributing.

Finally, leaving the wiki solves nothing and only makes he rifts between people wider. --Karlos 11:11, 10 May 2006 (CDT)