GuildWiki talk:Requests for arbitration/Not a fifty five vs Karlos

Section 0
I was holding myself from taking part in this discussion/argument, and don't regret. In addition Tanaric had the same opinnion as me, which seems to be rare. :) Okay, issue solved, nothing more to see here. Move along and contine contributing. -- (talk) 14:41, 11 September 2006 (CDT)

I missed most of this while it was taking place as I was on vacation last week and not watching Special:Recentchanges or my watchlist as closely as I normally have done. However, after reviewing the considerable amount of talk on this, I can say that I would have also banned User:Not a fifty five, and likely for longer than the three days done by User:Karlos. There are appropriate ways to bring attention to issues, but intentionally vandalising builds to gain attention is not one of them. And yes, his actions were vandalism. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:45, 11 September 2006 (CDT)
 * Clarification: I am using Wikipedia's definition of vandalism here, which states:
 * Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia.
 * The most common type of vandalism is the replacement of existing text with obscenities, page blanking, or the insertion of bad jokes or other nonsense. Fortunately, this kind of vandalism is usually easy to spot.
 * Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Apparent bad-faith edits that do not make their bad-faith nature inarguably explicit are not considered vandalism at Wikipedia. For example, adding a personal opinion once is not vandalism — it's just not helpful, and should be removed or restated.
 * The edits in dispute, for a time, compromised the integrity of GuildWiki entries until reversed. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:42, 11 September 2006 (CDT)
 * :) thanks for giving a better quote: "For example, adding a personal opinion once is not a vandalism - it's just not helpful and should be removed or restated." Anyways it was removed.  no vandalism /yawn. (Not a fifty five 00:52, 12 September 2006 (CDT))
 * and "any good faith effort to improve the encyc, even if misguided or ill considered  is not vandalism" I believe you are all calling what I have done I believed to be in "good faith", I can quote many people on this, even those in my opposition. You are also calling it ill-considered and misguided but as the quote shows this is not vandalism. I think all the administers, and this is pretty sad, have no idea what vandaism is. (Not a fifty five 00:58, 12 September 2006 (CDT))
 * You are making incorrect assumptions. The edits to the build article were intentionally done to incorrectly classify a build for the sole purpose of making a point.  That is not a good faith edit.  As the policy points out, assuming good faith does not mean that we should ignore bad actions.  --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:59, 12 September 2006 (CDT)
 * Nope, I've said before (tho comments are spewed all over the place so who knows where it is) That the vote I made was the vote I intended. I simply replaced what I meant to write down and put up gibberish.  The only regret I have is not informing the build author of that, so I apologized to him the day after my ban ended. (Not a fifty five 15:51, 12 September 2006 (CDT))
 * My comments are based on your statement from User_talk:Tanaric: "I was proving a point by selecting about 5 builds every day and voting by flip of coin to show the community what its like. I had changed all of them back as of liek 3 hours ago, that one slipped through >.< Needless to say, it started lots of discussion, which is the only reason I had done so." --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:58, 12 September 2006 (CDT)
 * Oh, I lied there >.< I was getting Skuld riled up (He's insulted me soooooo many times you cant blame me). With that reasoning I can see why I was banned, except it still was not disrupting, so I hold me ground :P.

I also agree that Not a 55 was in the wrong in this situation. His actions were reprehensible. I think Karlos made the right decision here, and I think Tanaric has dealt with this arbitration request well.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 18:45, 11 September 2006 (CDT)

Tanaric's best arbitration yet. --Xasxas256 18:56, 11 September 2006 (CDT)

I am completely in agreement with Tanaric's decision and the above comments. --Rainith 20:44, 11 September 2006 (CDT)

Can we port the "Don't disrupt" policy from Wikipedia?
In conclusion to this, perhaps it is important to have that policy spelled out and stated clearly. Maybe in a separate policy document or as part of Assume Good Faith or How to Help. So, that new users (who may not be very mature), understand that we take such a thing very seriously. --Karlos 19:13, 11 September 2006 (CDT)
 * Wikipedia's "don't disrupt" guideline has been implicit on this site; but I agree that the time has come to port it over and make it explicitly spelled out. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:35, 11 September 2006 (CDT)


 * While I think most people would have interpreted our current vandalism guidelines to include this kind of thing I certainly don't see any harm in making things a bit more clear here.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 04:22, 12 September 2006 (CDT)


 * Ditto Barek. That policy has been cited so manytimes I mistakenly thought it WAS a GuildWiki policy. - 04:55, 12 September 2006 (CDT)

Message to Not a fifty five:
Dude, for someone who wants to enshrine a class of build gurus who alone will have the power to vet builds (see Talk:Builds), you seem awfully dismissive of the "oligarchy" of this site's admins. The only fault in Karlos's ban is that he gave the reason as "vandalism". He should have blocked you with the reason "disruption". You cannot win any arguments by disruption, which only proves that you do not see the worth of civil discourse. You are showing no remorse for your actions. This is a very black mark against you. I think you should step back. Walk away from this debate. Take a two week vacation from builds in the wiki. I'm saying this not because I think you are bad for the wiki (the wiki can protect itself), but because you are digging yourself a hole you cannot escape from. Are you enjoying this? If you aren't, just stop. If you are enjoying this, then it is grounds for more drastic administrative intervention. 217.173.129.76 20:08, 11 September 2006 (CDT)


 * Yes this is a black mark on it, tho I do wear it with pride and wish to make it blacker. I don't believe there is a single reason that the admins or anyone has given supporting that my ban was a good idea that I haven't rebutted.  It is more the admins that are making a black mark on against themselves. Lol they dont even know what vandalism is >.< (Not a fifty five 01:02, 12 September 2006 (CDT))


 * I think you are testing the community's patience. Why not try something constructive such as championing a better build process? A battle of petty grievances is a waste of everyone's time. Even if you are 100% right that the admins have it out for you, how is that helping get a better build process? As you like to quote random people and things, here's one for you: "be the change you want to see in the world." By Gandhi.


 * I am >.< I'm unemployed atm so I have time for both. My idea atm is in talk:builds  And I'm complaining cause I believe this to be wrong, not because I'm whining.  What I did was hardly vandalism (don't reply everyone we know you disagree) and I received no real warning (Not a fifty five 14:38, 12 September 2006 (CDT))

Response to cwingham's view
First flaw: People are penalized by their actions not their intentions. If I steal a loaf of bread from an open stall market rather than pay the buck so I could save for a Guild Wars Factions, I would get fined. If I steal a loaf from an open stall market so I can feed a starving person and I dont have any money on me, I would STILL get fined. So fine rapta and skuld, ban em:) thanks again for an opportunity for me to advance my side.

and,totally unrelated but funny:

"The WORST of things are done with good intentions" (Gandalf the grey, Fellowship of the Ring) Second flaw:

disrupt v.t. to break apart;to split up;to rend asunder

I broke his talk page apart... hardly... I split it up... hardly... I rended it asunder... hardly...(Not a fifty five 01:18, 12 September 2006 (CDT))


 * That's a very specific definition of "disrupt". Here's a definition from answers.com:

dis·rupt (dĭs-rŭpt') pronunciation tr.v., -rupt·ed, -rupt·ing, -rupts.


 * 1) To throw into confusion or disorder: Protesters disrupted the candidate's speech.
 * 2) To interrupt or impede the progress, movement, or procedure of: Our efforts in the garden were disrupted by an early frost.


 * To clarify where you stand at present, not a 55, you have done something that Karlos has seen as being wrong, and this was voting with the intent of derailing the build process (this on its own may or may not be covered by our current vandalism policy, depending on your interpretation) and also moving build articles before they had reached sufficient votes to be moved.


 * You did not agree with Karlos' ruling so requested arbitration on the subject. You asked Tanaric, who I know from experience does not always see eye to eye with Karlos, and in this instance Tanaric has come to the same conclusion; that your actions were disruptive. I also agree with Karlos and Tanaric here.


 * You have then argued that this is not covered by our vandalism policy, and you may be correct here, the vandalism policy will probably be revised soon and we might even add a disruption policy since vandalism and disruptive behaviour are two distinct things.


 * The wikipedia disruption policy has then been quoted, which you say you are not in violation of. However, I disagree here. "...Apparent bad-faith edits that do not make their bad-faith nature inarguably explicit are not considered vandalism..." You have carried out a number of bad-faith edits that have made their nature explicit. You have made it perfectly clear that your reason for being involved with those articles was to demonstrate that the voting system was not very robust.


 * You have also said that the other people who have not commented on votes should be banned too, "People are penalized by their actions not their intentions." That isn't true. I take it you understand the difference between murder and manslaughter? A person's intention is quite often a factor in their sentence, as is their guilt.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 04:45, 12 September 2006 (CDT)


 * Well as far as murder and mansluaghter, thats about the only exception. And in that case the difference is not good/bad intention but either  lack of intention  (accident) or either good or bad intention (so a good intention kill, "He killed my father and he's gonna kill more, I know it!" is still murder")(Not a fifty five 13:04, 12 September 2006 (CDT))


 * That's inaccurate too. See intent.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 14:33, 12 September 2006 (CDT)


 * Except it isnt...at least I think, what are you trying to prove is innacurate? Tort law doesn't apply to manslauighter, thats criminal law. This is getting off topic but I'm learning stuff o.O  Now if you're talking about assault, the tort for what may end up in murder, then yes intentions plays a factor.  However "People are penalized by their actions not their intentions" is still true, tho "not" should be replaced with "and".  Thus, replacing stuff for example's sake, a commentless vote would be murder, threatening a commentless vote would be assault, and threatening AND making a commentless vote is still just murder.  I'm still correct, and manslaughter wasn't a factor in here :P(Not a fifty five 16:59, 12 September 2006 (CDT))


 * And as far as the vandalism goes, even if it is true, I received no warning. If you look at that very page about vandalism it highly suggests one should.  Karlos' "warning" was false for a true warning means if I did the said vandalism again I would get banned (Not a fifty five 13:04, 12 September 2006 (CDT))


 * It's not our policy to warn vandals, although we sometimes do. I think Karlos was well within his rights.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 14:33, 12 September 2006 (CDT)


 * I assumed you simply held to mediawiki, which says a warning should be given for vandals. (Not a fifty five 16:59, 12 September 2006 (CDT))

Now that I've proven lack of vandalism or disruption....
Lets assume I have, and further drive my argument. Voting is evil, tanaric agrees, so do a number of admins. A person really should not be banned for making a fake vote should they?, since a wiki is not bound by votes, right. Thus the ENTIRE VETTING SYSTEM is up for change and its policy. Thus, people can do anything they rly want as a vote. Thus I can make a vote saying "this is complete vandalization, I am fully intent on disrupting wiki", and it is not diruption, but should just be ignored. Thus one cannot ban anything having to do with the vetting process. Thus anything within the vetting process is not disrupting, unless it is vandalisation or a revert war. Thus I CAN EVEN MOVE A PAGE WITH 0 VOTES to any category I like and it should not be banned, on the good faith that I think it belongs where I put it and do not agree with voting.

Lets face it. The admins so far in this discussion have no idea when and when not to ban people. I believe the above paragraph adamantly proves that point.(Not a fifty five 01:27, 12 September 2006 (CDT))
 * A) You have not proven anything, except to yourself.
 * B) If you trully feel that you can make those changes with no consequences, go ahead, try it. --24.19.60.17 01:31, 12 September 2006 (CDT)


 * In response to A) something that is proven is proven for everyone, in response to B)Of course I'll get banned, even tho I have completely and utterly proven it shouldn't be done. (Not a fifty five 13:14, 12 September 2006 (CDT))


 * You are acting against the rules and systems agreed on by the users of the wiki. Although you might be sure that your stuff above is convincing, it is up to the majority of the users to decide what kind of behavior and actions we tolerate in the wiki. You are acting in a totally different way and casuing a lot of trouble and wikistress to many regulars. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 01:43, 12 September 2006 (CDT)


 * I'd just like to point out a line from GW:ADMIN to you ( 55, not [[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] or the anon): ...an administrator is fully autonomous: he may do as his powers allow, as he sees fit. Thus your point of, "Thus one cannot ban anything having to do with the vetting process." is completely wrong. Karlos can, and did, ban you (as he saw fit).  You took your request to Tanaric, whom as far as I can tell, is one of the most fair minded people I have seen on this or any wiki.  He agreed with Karlos, in fact he stated that he would have banned you for longer than Karlos did.  --Rainith 11:14, 12 September 2006 (CDT)


 * Well you're right about that, even more specifically "An administrater has the right to ban or remove anyone for any reason or even no reason at all" I'm simply pointing out that Karlos has been a jerk about it.  And I dont rly care that all the admins are against me on this matter.  I'm showing quite clearly that I disagree with them, for what I see so far are completely good reasons.  E.g. Karlos can temp ban me for picking my nose.  Would you think it's only fair to bring this up if it happened. (Not a fifty five 13:14, 12 September 2006 (CDT))


 * I doubt Karlos would do that, but if he did then one of us would undoubtably disagree with him and overturn the block ;) &mdash; Skuld 13:19, 12 September 2006 (CDT)
 * And admins have modified (changed durration or removed) blocks made by other admins in the past. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:52, 12 September 2006 (CDT)

You're missing the point, Not a fifty five. We didn't ban you because of your vote, or because you moved the build to the unfavored category. We banned you because you stated you did so against your own opinions to disrupt the wiki. &mdash;Tanaric 16:07, 12 September 2006 (CDT)


 * I got that point. It wasn't disrupted, tho o.O. And the creator of the build complained only of the vote and the move(Not a fifty five 16:20, 12 September 2006 (CDT))


 * I hate succumbing to your love for endless, pointless arguments... But I need to make sure the situation is clearly recapped:
 * The wiki was disrupted. When a user goes to an admin complaining that the wiki is being unfair to his contribution, that is disruption. You can say it is not 45 more times, but it is, and we all agree it is. If you want us to vote on it and show you that 99.9% of all users agree that it is, feel free to start a vote on your user page. That YOU don't see it as disruption is now no more relevant. It's like a thief who thinks his theft is not theft, or a vandal who thinks his work is creative self-expression. This point seems lost unto you. Your perception of what is disruptive does not matter in light of an consensus (not a majority even) among Admins seeing things differently.
 * The second point is, was the disruption intentional? In the case of other irritating votes (like Skuld's and Rapta's), it was not, and those who voted made that clear. In your case, you made it very clear that you WERE twisting the process and messing up the builds. You were messing up the builds not because you voted with no rationale, but because you categorized them as unfavored. Even if you DID mean to vote down the build seriously, you had no business slapping an "unfavored" tag on it. That tag speaks on behlaf of the whole community, and you used it against process, knowingly.
 * So, you did disrupt the wiki, and you did it on purpose. I would recommend others leave him to "win" this debate and move on. My last entry in the re-incarnation of "let's all repeat ourselves over and over." --Karlos 17:07, 12 September 2006 (CDT)


 * Here here.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 17:58, 12 September 2006 (CDT)

sigh
I agree that using Vandalism as the reason for banning was bad. I would've banned 55 for Disruption, whether we had a written policy for it or not. 55 isn't be the first person who gets banned for disrupting the wiki to make a point, there have been quite a few in the past. - 17:09, 12 September 2006 (CDT)
 * Note: I struck out my first sentence because I later realized the part about slapping on unfavored tag could qualify as vandalism if the voting is not supposed to be concluded yet. I didn't look into the circumstances, so I simply struck that sentence out.  I don't know whether there was vandalism (depending on whether the use of the unfavor tag was proper), but my comment about disruption remains. - 17:15, 12 September 2006 (CDT)