User talk:GW-Stabber

/archive 1 /archive 2

You're back
Since I am here, and I'm sure you and I will have many discussions...welcome back. - Jack  20:14, 26 May 2006 (CDT)


 * Guildwiki is becoming an official ANet sponsored thing??? Anyway, welcome back hopefully. --Xeeron 05:35, 27 May 2006 (CDT)


 * See GuildWiki talk:Community Portal. Welcome back Stabber. :) --Karlos 06:44, 27 May 2006 (CDT)


 * Nice to see you (again). Just stop leaving, you can't stay away! Ahahahahaha!!!11eleventhirteenseventeennineteentwentythree *ahem* (That's as many primes as I can list off the top of my head.) Nice to meet you ingame too, yesterday. --Tinarto [[Image:Tinarto-gold-Monk-icon-small.png]] 07:40, 27 May 2006 (CDT)


 * Welcome back, nice to have you again. - Unchain 16:10, 27 May 2006 (CDT)


 * * Moves in silently hoping not to scare her away* Welcome back! *Disappears* --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] 17:24, 27 May 2006 (CDT)

Former mentions
Ha ha you make me laugh, well you knew the GuildWiki would fall apart in your absence didn't you :P Actually I do still have one thing over you, you've made exactly 100 more edits to your user page than I've made to mine, so who's really spent more time on it? :) Besides some of that elaborateness directy related to you and my red candle I was burning in your honour while you were gone. Also I'd like to point out that you don't have the ultimate user page on your list, check out Fyren now that is impressive! It's good to have you back. --Xasxas256 12:07, 27 May 2006 (CDT)

"but if it is going to become an official Arena Net sponsored thing, then I want in."
Well, if it does go that way, the type of people whose behavior drove you away would probably increase 100-fold... Glad to see you back, but just want you to be prepared and not hold any illusions of what GuildWiki will see in the future d-: - 18:28, 27 May 2006 (CDT)
 * Eh. I don't blame anyone but myself for getting into fights. &mdash; Stabber &#x270d; 18:35, 27 May 2006 (CDT)

Community expectations
I heartily endorse this product and/or service! Kidding aside, if you wanted to show up those who thought of you as "just a wikignome", you could not have done so more effectively. Glad you're back and contributing again. Hope you stay a while this time. --Bishop (rap|con) 05:01, 28 May 2006 (CDT)
 * That wikignome stuff was a load, heck she run the GuildWiki's only bot, clearly she's more than just an editor who fixes a few spelling mistakes. --Xasxas256 05:57, 28 May 2006 (CDT)
 * And I'm definitely almost as much a wikignome as Stabber. Heck, I don't even have factions yet and I'm making all these edits on Factions stuff. - 06:27, 28 May 2006 (CDT)

The death of victory
Honestly, why not just correct the silly typo? I don't think we have a policy against fixing typo's in religiously sacrosanct ANet announcements... :p --Bishop (rap|con) 13:51, 2 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Why not indeed. I am not the author of that policy, however. I have half a mind to raise this issue on the Community Portal, but at the moment I am distracted by a call to GvG. Maybe in a few hours. &mdash; Stabber &#x270d; 13:53, 2 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Fair 'nuff. I wasn't aware of the policy, thank you for bringing it to my attention. If you do bring it up, I'll second a change in a heartbeat. --Bishop (rap|con) 13:59, 2 June 2006 (CDT)

View on an official wiki
I would like more info on some of your points. First off your choice of people that can edit the wiki. that goes agaist all what wiki stand for. I see that an official wiki need to be more control then guildwiki but cutting user for editing is not a good idea. My view on that would be allowing everybody to see it and if you want to change something you need to link your username with your guildwars accounts. that would prevend most people from doing dmg because losing your game account if you do vendalism would scare most children. (I see that this limit the users permited to edit but if you dont trust Anet with your account you probably wanted to hurt the wiki.) Second point, the idea of not having weapon screenshot. I dont see why not. Anet have shown there concept for weapon and show some armor screenshot. Just to see own many demmand on forums for weapons and armors screen shot would confirm the need for such page. Since Anet have approuved some build ( the pvp one) I dont see why they shouldnt allowed more. Since they want to keep the game balance why would only a handful of people have access to "secret build" to farm and domminate other players with money? Well I would accept that Anet prevend those build to be put on the wiki but they should fix them in the first place. Im just looking for explanation on your view. --Aratak 14:26, 2 June 2006 (CDT)


 * My proposed access restriction is only for editors. The official wiki should be publicly readable, of course, or what's the point? For screenshots, I think a company making an RPG should leave some things for the players to discover. If everyone knew about Zodiac skins from day 1, for example, they wouldn't have been so highly sought after. As for builds, the build articles in the GuildWiki are highly opinionated and even several of the so-called "tested builds" are not necessarily superior to possible variants. The funny thing, though, is that these articles pretend to be objective and factual. Now, you'll note that I do recommend certain opinionated articles be allowed in an official wiki, but these articles would be obviously (marked as) opinions. The premade builds are an exception because they have already been officially blessed by Arena Net. &mdash; Stabber &#x270d; 19:35, 2 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I must admit, that as a long time user of GuildWiki, I'm glad to see that it's finally getting the recognition it deserves. I've found it to be an invaluable resource.  But what happens to the user such as myself that has information to profide, but has only recently started to take a part in providing to the Wiki community?  Are we just cut out of the loop altogether and go back to being a pure user?--Xis10al 15:55, 3 June 2006 (CDT)


 * No, users such as yourself would still be welcome on the GuildWiki. I do not wish to see the GuildWiki dead. My opinion is solely about an official wiki sponsored by Arena Net. &mdash; Stabber &#x270d; 15:58, 3 June 2006 (CDT)

What would be the difference between this new wiki idea and a page like this http://guildwars.gameamp.com/, or any number of other Guild Wars fan sites? They already have most of the content you seem to want, and they also only allow a few priveleged editors to modify the content of those pages. Is your main goal to be officially sponsored? Is it to control content in peace and quiet without the unwashed masses making a mess of things? I don't want to sound harsh, but it seems like you don't really want to be a part of a wiki community. It seems like you want your own page that's officially sponsored and can only be edited by a select group of friends. That's great for you, and a few select others, but kind of irrelevant to the rest of us. --Tjoneil 22:54, 3 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Well, first of all this new wiki idea isn't mine. See GuildWiki talk:Community Portal. Secondly, it doesn't describe a fansite, but rather a site created and sponsored by Arena Net. Thirdly, while I do participate in several fansites, I have no loyalties to any of them. If an official wiki sprouts, I will move there if allowed, because I believe an official wiki stands to benefit the Guild Wars community more than a fansite. Lastly, I suffer no delusions that I would be allowed on any official wiki that follows my suggested design. I don't as such have any problems with not being given access, as I don't consider any activities I am engaged in here or on any fansite to be particularly necessary for the well being of the Guild Wars community. &mdash; Stabber &#x270d; 23:01, 3 June 2006 (CDT)

Style & Formatting box
Hey Stabber, I quite like the Style & Formatting box you recently added to all of the Style & Formatting articles. Was there a discussion on this?  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 05:33, 4 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Yes, but the discussion was conducted entirely inside my head. It was a heated debate, with a narrowly contested conclusion that had to be won with ridiculously overblown campaign promises. &mdash; Stabber &#x270d; 05:35, 4 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Ah, ridiculously overblown campaign promises FTW, as the kids say these days. Ho ho ho.


 * So did you win or lose the debate? I'm guessing you won, but perhaps you lost and you are now forced to implement changes that you don't agree with. That's always a tough position to be in.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 05:53, 4 June 2006 (CDT)


 * There was no majority. The minority parties had to scramble together a coalition at the last moment, but a no confidence motion is imminent and the coalition is sure to collapse. Stock markets have been down in early day trading. &mdash; Stabber &#x270d; 06:10, 4 June 2006 (CDT)

template:Userbox
The template you made is a few pixels too big... which makes my user page look ugly.. I tried to tinkering with your code but it is beyond me... any chance of fixing it? here is a picture displaying the difference between it & common userboxes on the wiki. --Jamie 09:22, 5 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Perhaps moving the margin from the div into the table would work? I have no idea. Someone more clued into CSS quirks should take a shot at it. &mdash; Stabber &#x270d; 17:41, 5 June 2006 (CDT)


 * The template was 2px too big, I found the proper value and changed it (238px to 236px) - Jack  19:00, 5 June 2006 (CDT)

GuildWiki:Requests_for_adminship
Question: On Requests_for_adminship it appears that the only entry on which you have listed as one of the counts for "Support" is the one which you did not nominate. Did you intend to vote support for all the others that you had nominated?

FYI: I'm not a contender. I don't consider myself admin material. Besides, I'm playing other games now and will be here less often going forward. --I am 161.88 12:57, 5 June 2006 (CDT)
 * According to the RfA, a nomination counts as a support vote (see bottom of page). --Draygo Korvan 13:01, 5 June 2006 (CDT)

Raisu Palace (Mission)
Thanks, adding it as a tip in the Master's section without the extra verbage seems a better fit. I still want to work on quantifying each some when I get a chance (numbers and types of obstacles), but that will take a while as other projects are up first. --- Barek (talk &bull; contribs) - 17:22, 5 June 2006 (CDT)

Tight Editorial Restrictions
Another person's opinion: I disagree 100% with your restrictions. This doesn't allow for any room for creativity, take the Builds section--without the contributions of those anonymous users, we wouldn't have the guides like the N/Mo 55hp Solo Necromancer. I understand that documenting the game is a 100% full-time job, but that doesn't mean GuildWiki should be limited to only that. Of course, this is coming from someone who makes little to no contributions to the GuildWiki--save for the few builds and little pushes I've given to some articles. - Jack  18:51, 5 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Read the bolded dislaimer at the top please. &mdash; Stabber &#x270d; 20:31, 5 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Even though I read the article, I didn't grasp the fact that you are suggesting a completely seperate wiki. Not a bad idea, but I think Arena Net shouldn't bother doing something like that when they have us :) (Sorry about the outburst) - Jack  21:34, 5 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Yes, the separate wiki thing took me a minute the first time too. --Tinarto [[Image:Tinarto-gold-Monk-icon-small.png]] 03:50, 6 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I honestly hope ANet does not create an almost rival Wiki. Though I would love to be one of the players selected from the community that could edit. :D And I am not sure how the art department would like not having their work documented. :P --Gares Redstorm 11:20, 15 June 2006 (CDT)

Cya
Good luck with your conferences and whatnot. I agree with Blessed Light's awesomeness ^^ &mdash; Skuld  09:05, 7 June 2006 (CDT)
 * I pass on my regards too on you taking another break, although this time there is a marked lack of fireworks on your departure :P Still it's been nice to have you back these last two weeks making tonnes of contribs again. We'll try to look out for your user page too, because you're in a very exclusive club of people here who've actually had user page vandalism! If you're doing a summer of conferences I guess you're got the student part covered, see if you can rediscover your secondary necromancer too!! ;) --Xasxas256 18:20, 7 June 2006 (CDT)
 * I'm always a student at heart, but it's been several years since I've been enrolled in any educational institution as a student. Conferences happen every summer and fall and I have to make at least a token appearance for papers that have my name among the (usually long list of) authors, although I find reading the papers to be several times more edifying than the blurry days of presentation soup that most conferences are. I guess the networking side of things has its plus points. &mdash; Stabber &#x270d; 18:36, 7 June 2006 (CDT)
 * I miss uni too although given the amount of time I spend here on the GuildWiki during work (like right now for example) I'm probably not doing too bad. But seeing the trainees and work placement guys come in does give a bit of a nostalgic gaze sometimes, the last year of uni was great, by that stage you know how to "play the game" and so many elective meant I could do plenty of stuff I liked (in my case as many eco subjects as I could). But I think main reason I miss uni is seeing my sister go out every night because she's just started her 7 weeks of mid semester holidays! Now that's the life! --Xasxas256 19:18, 7 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Do you speak of this arcane thing I hear rumors of, called "dating"? Hmmm.... --Tinarto [[Image:Tinarto-gold-Monk-icon-small.png]] 20:51, 7 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Huh, what are you talking about? Me and Stabber dating? Me and my sister dating? Ugh what's wrong with you! Oh my sister going out on dates. No there's no dating, I must be married to the job or something, I mean I neglect it and take it for granted, aren't they the cornerstones of a modern marrage? Well I only said I'd look after Stabber's user page, I made no mention of any talk pages, I'm sure she'll be incredibly impressed when it's degenerated into a dating guide! --Xasxas256 21:01, 7 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Haha! "How to reach 3rd base on your very first date - The five step approach" by Xasxas256. Now that's worth reading :) &mdash; Fenris  [[Image:FenrisPaw.jpg]] 21:20, 7 June 2006 (CDT)

Uploads
Hey there - you mentioned uploading empirical testing (data files) but the wiki seems only to accept .jpg, .png and .ogg files. I can re-name my excell file to .jpg, and simply have a caution saying that one should change the extension to .xls to open it, but that seems silly. Anyway, I'll gladly contribute any testing I do, but it should be possible within the wiki structure rather than through something like that.--Epinephrine 15:15, 11 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Oh? That's unfortunate. Hmm... how about exporting it as a CSV file and uploading that as plain text in some page? If it's too much work, just forget about it. Having the raw data is only a luxury. &mdash; Stabber &#x270d; 17:44, 13 June 2006 (CDT)

Ranger masks
Since you were responsible for like half the Ranger galleries, I figure you can help populate Ranger Attribute Headgears with thumbnail shots like how Mesmer Attribute Headgears look. I lack the energy and passion for rangers to download the shots individually and crop them and then reupload them... - 17:21, 11 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Sadly, I don't have a computer with Windows to log into GW. I tried for a long time, but I just can't get GW running under cedega on my strange laptop graphics card. So this will have to wait until I'm back home in mid July. Hopefully someone else can do the honors. &mdash; Stabber &#x270d; 17:44, 13 June 2006 (CDT)

"don't follow football"
How about "soccer", will they figure out what you mean? d-: - 17:39, 13 June 2006 (CDT)

I like pancakes.
Mmmmm, pancakes. Especially with maple syrup and bacon on the side. -- Bishop [ rap|con ] 10:14, 15 June 2006 (CDT)
 * I like apple pancakes... Mmmm. --Draygo Korvan 10:17, 15 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Bacon, eh? Sorry, I don't dig on swine. &mdash; Stabber &#x270d; 10:40, 15 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Then stabber you can be a fan of putting a glob of applesauce on top of your pancake and pour maple syrup on top. Mmmmm. --Draygo Korvan 10:42, 15 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Let's keep this PG-13, OK? &mdash; Stabber &#x270d; 10:46, 15 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Draygo's got a food fetish. Never heard it called a pancake before though :P --Gares Redstorm 11:20, 15 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Well prepared bacon is irresistible goodness that has caused many a strong man to fall off the kosher wagon. But far be it from me to dictate anyones feeding habits. To each his, or her, own. Pancakes are nice with strawberry marmalade and/or ice cream too. -- [[Image:Bishop_icon2.png]] Bishop [ rap|con ] 11:37, 15 June 2006 (CDT)

Suggestions
I want to say I respect someone that speaks their mind. Hope your having fun travelling around. --Gares Redstorm 11:20, 15 June 2006 (CDT)

When adding borders
...do you resize or crop? -- Bishop [ rap|con ] 14:15, 15 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Just to clarify. This is about the borders of the skill icons. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] 15:21, 15 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Resize. Hang on, I wrote a script to do it using ImageMagick and I'm sure it's in this laptop somewhere. &mdash; Stabber &#x270d; 18:01, 15 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Here it is. The incantation you need to convert an unboxed  to a boxed   is:
 * Replace  with   for elites. HTH &mdash; Stabber &#x270d; 18:11, 15 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Replace  with   for elites. HTH &mdash; Stabber &#x270d; 18:11, 15 June 2006 (CDT)


 * It does help, thanks. I may be be able to squeeze in some time for adding those borders tonight. -- [[Image:Bishop_icon2.png]] Bishop [ rap|con ] 05:50, 16 June 2006 (CDT)

Game update 1RV issue
I've been sitting at my desk for the last half an hour thinking about what I should say on the issue and basically I'm a bit torn. I quite like both you and Karlos, Karlos is a good guy having spoken to him on several occasions in game and he obviously cares about the wiki and it's contributors. However I'm big wrap for your presence here, I think you look at things a bit differently and you're prepared to tackle a wider range of things than the average contributor. So I feel bad "picking a side", however I think Karlos did the wrong thing reverting again. To me when you re-re-reverted and then requested a ban and protection on PanSola's talk page it looked like you fell on your sword. Requesting a ban on just Karlos looks bad whereas intentionally breaking the rule and requesting a ban of the both of you doesn't.

I could be wrong about the falling on the sword thing but either way you both (in my opinion) did too much reverting! But I think that Karlos should have taken it to the talk page instead of doing the first re-revert. My high opinion of both of you hasn't diminished, everybody makes mistakes and I don't think either of you should be hung out to dry for it. So there's my take, if even Gares Redstorm is getting stuck in then I should state my opinion. If you don't want to remove the +ban tag which is currently placed on you, I'd be happy to, just ask. --Xasxas256 22:27, 15 June 2006 (CDT)

If you have left (again),
Leave for good this time. And take your sockpuppets with you. I have proof of at least two you created since you retired User:Esan, but I'll give you a chance first to leave with the last remaining shreds of your dignity. You are not so valuable that the wiki can tolerate any amount of disruptive behaviour from you. Vandalism is curable, but you are a cancer. Please, don't ever return. 70.17.169.122 08:58, 16 June 2006 (CDT)
 * And are you just an anon user, or a sockpuppet of another registered user who has expressed discontent at Stabber before? Who are you to give other people chances to do something on GuildWiki?  If Stabber is a cancer, then your above behavior is the small pox during the early colonization of North America.  - 09:06, 16 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I was a registered user here many moons ago, but now am "just an anon user". It should be pretty obvious who I am if you give it a little thought. 70.17.169.122 09:19, 16 June 2006 (CDT)


 * This is just another attempt to piss off the allready pissed off Stabber. (The only thing that the 'anon' can do to revenge last time ;) ) There is no reason to call someone a cancer and blame of something without proof if that person is one of the most helpfull wikians and has never done anything worse than fought against others in talk pages and taken part in one revert war. I stand with Stabber, once again. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] 09:21, 16 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I have a suspect or I wouldn't have asked. And if you are truely that person, then I'm quite disappointed in your choosing to escalate the issue, especially after so many moons. - 09:23, 16 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Have the guts to post under your username. This is such a stupid comment it'd be laughable if it wasn't so offensive. Karlos has already apologised and said he lost his temper during the incident on the game update page. I hope Stabber doesn't take your idiotic comments to heart, "last shreds of your dignity", honestly, I'm not even going to bother writing anything else, you're not worth bothering with. --Xasxas256 09:24, 16 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Oh, believe me I would if I could simply recall or retrieve my password. Also, this has nothing to do with me or Karlos. I am well aware that Stabber has legions of fans, but he (yes he) is still guilty of disrupting the wiki to make a point (far from the first time). Who knows what he plans to do with his sockpuppets that he can't even keep straight consistently, but whatever it is, I am sure a person does not need more than one "alt" persona for any reasonable activity. I am confident that you and Gem, at least, are not more of Stabber's sockpuppets, so I guess he does have at least two genuine supporters, but you should really do a little legwork before you pledge your support. 70.17.169.122 09:59, 16 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Sympathy/support for Stabber will only increase with your current style of critism, regardless of the facts. How one person say certain things affects how other people perceive the speaker, and the speaker's message.  Of course you might not care about how many supporters Stabber has, or whether s/he gains or lose supporters because of what you say here.  Afterall, even if half the planet's population decide to support Stabber, if s/he decides to leave, s/he will.  However, if you want actual administrative action be taken against Stabber, you should pay attention to your presentation of information. - 10:09, 16 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Besides, I dont think we have permabanned anyone on this wiki. At most stabber needs a short wikibreak. But I have never seen someone getting an indefinate ban for revert wars. I disagree with you Seventy.twenty.x.x. What he did does not mean he should be gone from the wiki for good. --Draygo Korvan 10:20, 16 June 2006 (CDT)


 * You have me mispegged. I used to be F G. I suspect Seventy.twenty.x.x to be another of Stabber's sockpuppets, in fact. 70.17.169.122 10:28, 16 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I have long given up hope of administrative action being taken against him. My last and best attempt ended up in flames. All I am doing here is appealing to any decency left in him to do the right thing and leave for good. In truth, I expect this attempt to fail also, and Stabber will be back in a week or three with no improvement to the situation. And, like clockwork, something will snap again in a month and he will stage another grand exit. And, because exits are only dramatic the first time, and are increasingly pathetic subsequently, he will have to do something even more ridiculous the next time he snaps to get everyone's attention. Perhaps he will use his bot flagged account to do a mass vandalism. Perhaps he will engage in a revert war with a sockpuppet. Who knows. It is far too late to assume good faith on his part. In fact, the evidence is clear. After the vandals, the next most disruptive person on this site is Stabber. Why is that, has anyone asked? Why do you tolerate him? 70.17.169.122 10:28, 16 June 2006 (CDT)


 * First of all, I believe there are at least 4 people who are more disruptive than Stabber, including myself and 2 other admins. Why do we tolerate Stabber?  Probably because s/he's no worse than quite a number of us, before we even take into consideration of the value of his/her contributions (which you and the much of the community also disagree greatly).  We are just disruptive in different manners/areas that might be more easily overlooked or tolerated by you. There is a difference between being disruptive and being destructive, and people do commit disruptive actions out of good intentions, or at least none-hostile intentions.  You are speculating that s/he perhaps might turn destructive in order to gain attention, based on a history of disruptive behavior, and I have to disagree with your logic there.  All in all, the community itself is far more disrupted by this escalating hostil tension for which you are at least partially responsible for, than by most of Stabber's actions. - 10:49, 16 June 2006 (CDT)


 * interesting you share the same IP range as 70.20. Anyway, I am in primary disagreement with you because I dont think anyone should be banned from the wiki for life. That is a harsh level of punishment that should be only reserved for the worst of the repeat offenders. If any action would be taken against stabber, it would have to be equivilant to what an anon user would get for participating in such a revert war. This would follow the policy layed out here: GW:YOU. It simply states that no person on the wiki is more significant than another in contributions. All serious contributions need to be given the same weight. I extend this to infractions as well. I think you are being rash, and are overreacting to this situation which is already resolved. --Draygo Korvan 10:34, 16 June 2006 (CDT)


 * As far as I see it, you're the only person who has a problem "tolerating" Stabber, the rest of us generally don't have a problem getting along with her. Draygo, F G had a bone the size of a flagpole to pick with Stabber (and Esan) for a long time but supposedly left ages ago. You can read about the arbitration if you're interested I suppose. F G, I can't imagine why you've hung around just waiting for Stabber to slip up so you can see "ah ha, I've got you now!" Anyway I've got better things to do with my time than arguing the toss, I'm going to bed. --Xasxas256 10:40, 16 June 2006 (CDT)


 * So Stabber has 2 sockpuppets this time, not only one? And I'm not a sockpuppet? What a relief to hear that, I was almost suspecting myself allready. Btw, I by no means think that you are disturbed in some way and that you should get professional help. I think its perfectly normal to stalk a wiki to get the chance to accuse a user of using sockpuppets and what not. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] 10:47, 16 June 2006 (CDT)

Okay, I was going to stay out of this; but I can't any longer. There are a few comments I would like to make. Please stop this pointless rumormongering. As far as I can see, the only current disruptive presence is yours in bringing unsubstantiated claims to the wrong place. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 11:17, 16 June 2006 (CDT)
 * First, if you have an email account on your account, go to the login screen and ask for your password to be reset. The email from the server should be working now.
 * Next, I have seen far too many empty threats of "I have proof of whatever - so do abc, or else I'll xyz" made in various forums, chat-rooms, whatever to take any comment of that sort seriously. If you have proof that you feel requires admin intervention, send that proof directly to Gravewit or use the e-mail link on an admin's page (assuming they have a working email account in their profile).  Your comments on Nunix's page come accross to me as someone who has a grudge and suspicions, and is just trying to trick someone into taking the suspicions serious for long enough to do research for you.
 * Last, I see no reason to question Stabber here. Even if she does have sockpuppet accounts, so what?  We have no Guildwiki policy against them.  Unless she's using those accounts to game the system, or to attempt to manipulate/game other users, I see no problem.  However, you would first have to prove that she has sockpuppet accounts, then also prove that those accounts are being abused in a disruptive or manipulative manner.  I see no proof of the former, so the latter is irrellevant.

I think it's time for a : 85.31.186.86 11:23, 16 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I would suggest everyone leave this thread alone. Stabber's worth is seen in her work. If Stabber is a disruptive influence, in time, it will show. Nunix one time called me a disruptive influnce and said I have no contributions other than poisoning the wiki. I remember being very offended at first and then thinking, what the heck is he talking about?
 * People's worth, in a community effort like this, is defined by actions, not words. This is not a political campaign where a message repeated over and over to millions of people who do not know either candidate can affect those people's views. We are all working together and know each other's "wiki-personality." If I posted that Xeeron was doing the PvP section a disservice, everyone would laugh my comment off because people SEE Xeeron's work. On the flip side, a new user could come and proclaim himself the savior of the wiki and people would know he is full of Charr doodoo.
 * Stabber's worth is well known to us, and Stabber's "disruptiveness" too (how many of you did not foresee her departure after she put the ban request in PanSola's talk page?). If, one day, Stabber's "side-effects" become a problem, I am sure the community will start to handle it, and I am sure we will handle it by talking WITH her, not ABOUT her. --Karlos 17:33, 16 June 2006 (CDT)

What an idiotic thread and a waste of everyone's time this fight was. I agree with the OP. Don't let the door hit you on the ass on your way out, "miss" Stabber. And this time, please, stay left for fuck's sake. The world is too complex for immature ppl like you- stay in your mom's basement and let the adults run things. 195.169.149.213 10:13, 17 June 2006 (CDT)

Wow
I just have to say.. Wow. So, you were Crack Addled all along.I don't know whether to commend you or laugh or feel angry. I was actually suspicious this time around as Deldda seemed to resurface the very next day after Stabber left, but.. Wow.

I will say this. You will never get more from people by fooling them than by coming out clean. It's a common mistake among intelligent people to think they can manipulate those they deem less intelligent by tricking them. The fact that you stalked the wiki (as Deldda the tempermental snobby wikpedian, not Stabber, the tempermental, yet noble female researcher in Europe) has greatly diminished your legacy in my eyes.

I advise you to come clean. Set an ID for yourself and be who you are and stop trying to induce feelings/opinions in others using soap operas, instead use logical arguments, which you are actually very good at. --Karlos 05:19, 18 June 2006 (CDT)

Your identity is known to me
Hello. You might remember me as F G. I will make no bones about having followed your activities on this wiki closely since that arbitration debate in May. I now have a strong suspicion of who you are in real life, and I have sent you an email with full proof of every sockpuppet account I know you have used on this wiki. This evidence is available to all from just trawling through the history of this wiki, but I have still not presented the details here, nor emailed Gravewit, because I want to first give you a chance to come clean. But there is nothing in principle holding me back from doing both.

Please, for the last time, leave this wiki. If I see any more evidence of disruptive activities from you here, I will contact your abuse department with all the evidence I have collected. I will drag your name through the mud if you even so much as dare to think of mass vandalism or DOSing this wiki. I will get your department involved. I will contact your boss. If you are who I suspect you are, then you have a reputation to maintain. This reputation I can destroy by leaving an indelible google trail of your awful activities on this wiki and elsewhere. The only person who can prevent this cataclysm is you. Be sensible. Leave the wiki.

If you want to discuss this further, respond to my email, respond here, or contact me directly at ferd (yes, ferd, not fred) dot gross at gmail dot com.


 * This kind of message is NOT acceptable in the wiki. If you proceed down this path you will subject yourself to banning. We do not have users threaten each other... We do not have users tell each other to leave the wiki "or else." It's your choice to think she/he must leave the wiki and it's also your choice to believe he/she is up to malice. You, however, cannot proceed in this manner. Virtual thuggery by you is no more honorable than that practiced by Stabber/Deldda. Please stop this.
 * If you have evidence you believe is vital to the safety of the wiki, present it to admins or to Gravewit. Please refrain from this gangster style, gloating-filled, street-justice kind of vigilantism. You are feeding all the wrong emotions in the community. Try to look outside of you rown little "battle" with Stabber and think of the kind of atmosphere you are endorsing with this kind of espionage, this kind of language and this course of action. If you are unable to think of these things, I, as an admin, have to. --Karlos 15:37, 18 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I am in the process of presenting the evidence that I have. I will leave them in the respective user talk pages. As you might expect, I have nothing to lose in this fight. I have long stopped contributing actual material here, and my sole purpose now is to expose Stabber and make him/her leave the wiki alone from now on. I have tried appealing to his good sense, but it has prove fruitless. Now I am appealing to his sense of self preservation. F G 15:49, 18 June 2006 (CDT)

Stabber and "sockpuppets"
I have read before and read here again, the claim that Stabber is using other usernames as sockpuppets. In my mind that is a pretty grave accusation, because doing so seriously undermines important concepts of the wiki, like votes or community consensus (where each user counts as one vote, with the assumption that each user is a distinct person). Can someone please post link that are evidence of that claim. --Xeeron 05:52, 18 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I guess you're skimming (or skipping) through the above thread. Here is the relevant evidence: in this image
 * Stabber uploaded this version first. Then quickly uploaded the current one with the quest text wiped out. If you read the quest text, the NPC is talking to Deldda Kcarc.
 * Unless Stabber has access to Deldda's screen shot folder, I think we all know what this means. If you couple this with him leaving, Stabber joining, Stabber leaving, him returning, you get the picture. --Karlos 05:59, 18 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Thx. I did load the second version of the picture only and saw nothing. --Xeeron 06:06, 18 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Pay special attention to the first line of Moleneaux's dialogue in the quest summary. For the record, I will not offer an opinion on this soap opera, just facts as shown from my first sentence. --Gares Redstorm 07:33, 18 June 2006 (CDT)

Ha! Don't say I didn't warn you people. This was the most satisfactory day in all the time I've been reading this wiki. For the record, I believe all the following have been "Stabber": The evidence for all of these is in the history, if anyone cares to look. I also suspect two other usernames of being this person, but I don't have solid proof so I'll leave them out for now. If they start contributing again, I will keep an eye on them.
 * 128.2.206.194 (which is "his" personal computer. "He" also often uses Tor to generate random IPs.)
 * Deldda Kcarc
 * Esan
 * Hank
 * Koyashi
 * Seventy.twenty.x.x
 * Stabber

Anyway, this was fun. Block all of these, including the IP and all Tor exit nodes, and you will greatly lower the risk of future sockpuppetry from this very distrurbed individual. I am sure he will find some other means of getting past the filters, though. -- user formerly known as F G 12:39, 18 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Even if you were right I despise you. Your manner of accusing her without evidence was horrible. Stabber and co didn't cause trouble (ok, people made this into a huge issue now) but instead helped the wiki with their contributions. Besides your style, I despise you for returning after you left the wiki with the great end comment. (Oh, and would you mind giving links to any proof against the other users you mentioned? If you want them blocked, we need evidence.) --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] 12:49, 18 June 2006 (CDT)
 * And I'm not even sure if users should be banned for sockpupetry. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] 12:50, 18 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Oh well, I am not exactly shooting for love and admiration here. I am just gloating. As regards the evidence, I'll leave it up to the interested parties to do the investigating themselves. A lot of evidence is hidden around November 23, 2005, and in March and April of 2006, if you want to narrow your search. About blocking, let me ask you: why does any sane individual need seven sockpuppet accounts? Granted, some of them such as Hank and Koyashi were one shot wonders, but still... do you seriously think that this sort of person is contributing in good faith, or is valuable? Do you think the huge amount of disruption this user has caused in recent weeks should simply be excused? If there is no blocking policy in place for sockpuppetry, then one should be created. F G 12:57, 18 June 2006 (CDT)


 * What harm has been done? Stabber was often abrupt with people, and often petty, but these were her only flaws as far as I can find. As far as I'm aware Stabber never used "sockpuppets" to weigh votes in her favour or to create allies in arguments. Please correct me if I'm wrong.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 13:03, 18 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I just went through the history of the IP you gave in your list. It seems that it is Stabber and he/she was trying to hide it. However, no harm has been caused by any of these users you listed as far as I know, if we ignore the delete tags that DK put on several useful articles. The discussion raging on several user pages is not disturbing the wiki as people are still contributing as they would be otherwise. I do think that sockpupetry isn't necessary and pretty bad, but I don't think Stabber did anything wrong with the user names he/she used. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] 13:08, 18 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Yeah, well, I did not expect any other response from this wiki. Still, you might be curious to know that Wikipedia blocks Tor IPs and considers any form of covert sockpuppetry a punishable offense, even if it is not used to sway consensus. Stabber might not have done anything severe with his sockpuppets, but you might have noticed that each incident he has been involved in has been progressively worse than the previous one. Where do you draw a line? Take my words as a warning. The next incident this person precipitates, and by all appearances this person has a fair bit of technical knowledge of programming and mediawiki, will be devastating. The wiki is severely understaffed to handle a swarm of bots from a multitude of IPs (Tor has over a thousand exit nodes, and he might have even more IPs at his disposal at his university) vandalizing or DOSing the site. The time to take action is now, not after the incident. F G 13:19, 18 June 2006 (CDT)


 * From the gamewikis blog, there is this post by this user:
 * Thanks, Phil. GuildWiki appears to be a lot stabler and faster than before, which is a very welcome change.


 * If you have a few moments to kill, can you explain the server architecture gamewikis is using? I am idly curious. Does each wiki get its own database server, or are all wiki databases on a single machine?
 * Tell me, with a straight face, that he is not planning a serious attack. F G 13:31, 18 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Just discovered something very interesting. If you look at the "test wiki" Stabber has linked to before, and do a little poking around DNS with that IP above, you can discover who Stabber is in real life, or at least discover who is in charge of the computers that Stabber used to access GuildWiki. I am now going to send this person an email asking for confirmation. If he isn't Stabber, I am sure he will try to trace who was abusing his computers. If he is Stabber, then we will probably see a more violent reaction. Stay tuned... F G 13:46, 18 June 2006 (CDT)

Well.. maybe i'm being paranoid but I think F G could be another stabber/whatever alias ~_~ &mdash; Skuld  14:33, 18 June 2006 (CDT)


 * This has been suggested before but not proven. Yet, I am glad to see that, finally, there is starting to be a healthy suspicion about user identities in debates revolving around the Stabber persona. My work here is done -- the followup is in User talk:Stabber. The ball is in "stabber/whatever"'s court. Good day. F G 14:50, 18 June 2006 (CDT)


 * This is the problem with sockpuppetry. It creates this atmosphere of mistrust in a cyber community. I faced one some 5 years ago on a message board, it was a very troubling encounter. People resort to sockpuppetry, I think, for one of the following reasons:
 * To build fake support for their views.
 * To have an alter ego that can say and do dumb things without tarnishing the image of their "real" persona.
 * Finally, the worst kind, is for the fun of it. This was the guy we had on that message board. He had made 4 (maybe more) personalities and had us folled for over a year. Just for the heck of it. He would start fights with his other personas and watch us take sides and try to resolve the conflict and get a big kick out of it. It was the sickest (and most pointless) thing I ever saw.
 * I don't have much of a problem, as an admin here, with points 1 and 2. They greatly diminish the credibility of the contributor if they are found out, but I don't think they can be used very effectively in a wiki.
 * The big concern I have is 3. It reveals a selfish psychotic mentality that can be very disruptive. When I look at the last sentence Deldda said before he left "I don't wish the wiki well. I wish it the worst." I am VERY troubled by this sentence.
 * Was it that "Stabber" was faking a miserable and frustrated "Deldda" to build support for his argument that Karlos is making people leave? Or was it that "Deldda" was done with acting nice and was planning on doing worse things? The fact that Deldda vandalized the Community Expectations page with frustrated comments is a dangerous indicator to me that it's the latter. The problem with sockpuppetry, though, is that.. I honestly have no clue.
 * For all we know, FG could be Stabber having a really big laugh at getting us pitted with one persona of his against another. It's really lame if you think about it. :( --Karlos 16:07, 18 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Actually, for me it is totally the opposite: If some sicko wants to start fights with himself, I dont care a lot about that (except for the time wasted by others reading it). However in a small wiki where even important votes are sometimes won by a small margin and community consensus can depend on 1 or 2 more persons posting in favor of one view instead of the other, the prospect of one person having several accounts is deeply worrying. And using the account to "do dumb things without tarnishing the image of their "real" persona" is very harmful as well, since a wiki depends to a large extent on reputation building by its users. So using a face account to dodge bad reputation is not acceptable. --Xeeron 17:54, 18 June 2006 (CDT)

No witchhunts in this wiki
Ok, I think that setting up sockpuppets is something extremely suspicious and runs directly against the wiki spirit, but this kind of witch hunt Template:Sockpuppet has to stop right away. Without clear and obvious proof, that is just an baseless accusation (and to top it off you edited the userpage of several other users). And "I'll leave it up to the interested parties to do the investigating themselves" is not good enough. --Xeeron 15:15, 18 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Rest assured I will provide the evidence if I don't hear back from "stabber" in another day at most. F G 15:18, 18 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Yes, please refrain frm this witch-hunt. We ar enot even sure if, as a wiki, we care to track sockpuppetry to begin with. --Karlos 16:07, 18 June 2006 (CDT)


 * It is not a witch hunt because that would imply that there is no reason or justification for it. I am willing to justify every claim I have made, and am gradually adding the relevant justifications to the relevant user talk pages. It is a slow process because the server is very slow at the moment. Hopefully not as a result of a DOS attack by you know who. F G 17:08, 18 June 2006 (CDT)


 * While I have no idea why stabber did what he/she did, I am getting more and more disgusted by your petty personal revenge campaign. Let me tell you this one in clear words: I do not believe your claims that stabber is out to harm the wiki with DOS attacks or robot vandalizing.
 * Your whole use of Template talk:Sockpuppet is in no way meant to help the wiki. Instead you are fighting a personal war against someone who wronged you in the past. And no matter what stabber did, your comments on User talk:Stabber are totally unacceptable.
 * I wish you both would have stood by your word when you said you would leave the wiki, but obviously standing up for what you said is a priority for neither of you. I will be happy when I see the last edit of User:Stabber, User:F G and all their alter egos. --Xeeron 17:54, 18 June 2006 (CDT)

No matter the sockpupetry, I really liked User:Stabber. A fake or not, it was a great pleasure knowing her and contributing with her. It's a sad thing to lose her in this way, I would have expected her to leave, but she wasn't really there. -- 18:28, 18 June 2006 (CDT)

Oh man
I go away for one fucking day and suddenly I am promoted from user to Devil? WTF!

OK, so let me clear something up. Deldda Kcarc is not my character. It is a ranger that belonged to User:Esan, and he gave it to me after he left the game. I deleted my PvE ranger long ago. You people were half right. Esan and User:Deldda Kcarc are the same person, it appears. Why was he using his old account instead of his new one? Who knows? Perhaps because he said that he would stop using User:Esan? Do you know why I blanked that picture? Because I didn't want that name known to the world. But I guess everyone keeps tight tabs on all my activities. I didn't even know User:Deldda Kcarc existed at that point. "I wish the wiki the worst" -- does that even sound like me? I have taken many wikibreaks before, but point me to one instance where I have said anything so negative about the project or even done anything destructive to any articles here. You guys clearly pissed Eric off something severe, but you have pissed me off before too, and do you see any similarity at all in our reactions? He added that delete tag to List of skill anomalies just minutes after I had posted a link to it on gwguru. Why on earth would I want to delete a piece of work that I'm still pointing people to? You people must think I'm stark raving mad.

With User:Koyashi, it was a simple mistake in remembering what went on. I thought I had actually added the note to SoS, because I had just previously been involved in Talk:Game updates and had gone to the trouble of capping Archer's Signet and verifying Koyashi's preemptive updates earlier. I had done a shitload of stuff on June 1 and 2. Am I allowed to misremember things or what? See what the note said: "I added that note based on second hand info as I don't have SoS unlocked". I.e., I thought I had added that note because of some observed in-game thing. Koyashi added that note based on conjecture from the pre-update notes, and I thought I had added it based on second hand info. Haven't I said here before that I don't play warriors unless utterly forced to? Everything I know about them I know from second hand info from guildmates. Heck, I even made a mistake in remembering the timing there, as the update hadn't even happened when that note was added. Anyway, do you want to know why Koyashi and I cannot be the same person? Because he argued for deletion of User:Archangel Avoca's link to his elite skills site on Elite skills list, and I was opposed to that deletion and in fact apologized to Avoca for somehow precipitating that whole mess on the gwguru thread. Believe it or not, I consider that debate to have been one of the worst that has ever happened on this wiki. Guess what, Avoca added that link here because I pointed it out to him on gwguru. You people have seen my activities for a long time here. You know I constantly invite people here from all over the place because I am a tireless advocate of the GuildWiki on gwguru and in game. Do you think I like inviting people to the wiki, and then argue for deletion of their work? If so, you must think I'm some kind of psychopath. See this edit and this edit where I am reverting Koyashi's edit (because, surprise, I disagree with it). Do you think I enjoy reverting myself for the hell of it? The only reason would be if I'm a crazed lunatic. Do you people seriously think I am crazy? Obviously you do.

I have no idea who User:Seventy.twenty.x.x is. Trust me on this. All the IPs I use are in the 128.2 range, which is in Carnegie Mellon University, the place where I work. The 70.20.x.x range appears to be dynamic IPs owned by Verizon. Why would I be using Verizon IPs? Last I checked, they were not a cable provider. I don't play from home because, as I have repeatedly said, I cannot get Guild Wars running on my laptop under cedega.

No idea whatsoever who User:Hank is. I don't have a Wikipedia user name. F G's reasoning in User talk:Hank is total rubbish. Do you people find it convincing? I frequently use Tor? Really? Proof please.

Finally, to really cap off this horrible day, User:F G sent a very nasty email to my boss, whom he mistook for me. By the way, this IP is the proxy for our lab. Lots of stuff goes through it. I am writing this from Germany and it's going through that IP.

Bah. There have been several episodes here that have made me sad, but this one has made me furious. What the fuck happened to this wiki? I just changed my password on this account the other day, and I can't for the life of me even remember what I changed it to, I'm so mad. Fuck this. I am so done with this nonsense. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.2.206.194 (talk &bull; contribs) 05:26, 19 June 2006.


 * I'm too confused to take any stance on the sockpuppetry, but just so you know: People really think there is some kind of weirdo with a psychological problem using all these users simultaneously. If the whole thing is just not true, I beg for you to prove them wrong. I like you (sockpuppet or not :D ) and don't want to lose you. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] 01:41, 19 June 2006 (CDT)


 * The thing that gets me the most in this drama, is the impeccable timing of all the stage actors! The audience is never given a moment to breath: Stabber storms out, Deldda creeps in, Deldda storms out, FG steps in, Storm seems to have passed... Poof! Back comes Stabber.
 * All I will say about this is: Whatever. You want to change some minds on this issue? Here's a tip: Post your in-game character names. You are the only prominent contributor here who has not done that. Post all the chars you play with here (including Deldda) if you have nothing to hide. A simple test of whether someone IS a sockpuppet of someone else or not is if both of them can be reached in-game at the same time and can appear before another player at the same time. It can at least give more weight to the opinion they are NOT the same person.
 * But this diatribe, accusing "us guys" as if we are a collective mass against you, is pointless. Throwing the bulk of the blame on another cyber entity (Mr.Esan) is not going to help much. --Karlos 01:45, 19 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Darn your timing! I was pretty sure that it would soon be my turn to get burned at the stake with everyone else and I have to admit that, in a twisted sort of way, I was sort of getting anxious to see what people would come up with. (Note: not an invitation for anyone to do so.)  Seriously though, thank you for giving them this explanation, and you have my condolences. --Rezyk 02:47, 19 June 2006 (CDT)

Arin

 * Arin Report:

OrgName:   Carnegie Mellon University OrgID:     CARNEG Address:   Computing Services Address:   5000 Forbes Avenue City:      Pittsburgh StateProv: PA PostalCode: 15213 Country:   US

NetRange:  128.2.0.0 - 128.2.255.255 CIDR:      128.2.0.0/16 NetName:   CMU-NET NetHandle: NET-128-2-0-0-1 Parent:    NET-128-0-0-0-0 NetType:   Direct Assignment NameServer: T-NS1.NET.CMU.EDU NameServer: T-NS2-SEC.NET.CMU.EDU NameServer: CABBAGE.SRV.CS.CMU.EDU Comment: RegDate: Updated:   2004-09-24 That backs up what stabber said about being in a university. This also further complicates it because it makes it extremely plausable and likely that they are seperate people, even if they are in the same IP range. Think for a minute, how many people are in a university? What are the odds a certain % play Guild Wars, then on top of that what are the odds they might know each other. And on top of that what are the odds that they might, just might be introduced to guildwiki together. This whole debate is hogwash. --Draygo Korvan 10:16, 19 June 2006 (CDT)


 * All the whois report proves is that his/her confirmed IP originates in some university, which was already known. It does not prove:
 * That this IP was not used for multiple accounts.
 * That User:Stabber was not the puppetmaster of all those accounts.
 * That this was the only IP User:Stabber used.
 * These three key statements require us to believe User:Stabber, and we have no reason, in light of this debate, to believe anything this user says. At this point, the only way to be absolutely certain is to have a system administrator post all the IPs used by User:Stabber, User:Deldda Kcarc, User:Esan, User:Seventy.twenty.x.x and User:Koyashi, and all the accounts used from the IP 128.2.206.194. This step is not absolutely necessary, as the case for at least four of them being the same person is solid in my opinion.
 * One last thing. There have been several claims in various pages that I too am another sockpuppet of this user. I am sure these claims were made with a humorous intent to illustrate the extreme paranoia that results from proven sockpuppetry, but I am happy to have my IPs also revealed to everyone; I don't have anything to hide. Of course, even if you find that all my IPs are different from those used by the above users, that is still not proof that I am not a sockpuppet: there are many well known IP-anonymizing networks out there, Tor being one of the more popular (I don't use Tor). Arrowsmith 11:00, 19 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Sorry Arrowsmith, that must have been me. I should have made my intention more clear. I'm not accusing anyone of anything and am not interested in doing so. As I stated, I will react to every user based on their former contributions and discussing, not on accusations made by others. I think that the best would be to clear this whole mess so that Grabewit goes through the users and IPs possibly related. I'm not taking any pressure of this thing, but it seems to disturb most of the other users of the wiki. Everyone is suspecting everyone. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] 11:54, 19 June 2006 (CDT)

Not convincing
I have examined your response, and your rebuttal is not convincing to me.

User:Esan and User:Deldda Kcarc
 * If User:Esan and User:Deldda Kcarc are the same person, then why were User:Esan's initial edits so hesitant. Was he affecting cluelessness?
 * The available data is just as well explained by all three of User:Stabber, User:Esan and User:Deldda Kcarc being the same person. In fact, I would consider your message as the missing link between User:Esan and User:Stabber, because the User:Stabber-User:Deldda Kcarc link is extremely solid. (One appears when the other leaves, etc.)

User:Koyashi
 * The issue with User:Koyashi and Talk:Signet of Strength still appears as to be a genuine slipup on your part in maintaining the separation between personas.
 * Why would you revert your other persona's work? Maybe because that's what sockpuppeteers do -- stage fights between sockpuppets.
 * Your rebuttal requires us to (a) believe you are saying the truth, and (b) that you are not indeed crazy. I don't agree with either requirement.

User:Seventy.twenty.x.x and User:Hank
 * I am willing to grant your point that the evidence presented is not compelling. I am, in fact, willing to believe that User:Hank is not your sockpuppet, as there are a few countervailing factors. User:Hank's initial edits seem to involve genuine confusion about how the wiki works.
 * Once again, you are asking us to trust that you do not use IPs in the 70.20.x.x. range. This can be checked with CheckUser.

User:F G
 * I personally think it is highly likely that User:F G is another sockpuppet of User:Stabber, but I am not interested in seeking out the evidence.
 * If, however, these are two different people, then I once again voice my severe disapproval of User:F G actions and comments.

Lacking further evidence, I am forced to conclude that User:Stabber had three confirmed sockpuppets: User:Deldda Kcarc, User:Esan and User:Koyashi. As I have stated elsewhere, all three sockpuppet accounts should be permanently banned from the wiki. Arrowsmith 01:59, 19 June 2006 (CDT)

Calling for ceasefire
This is just causing just waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too much drama before we as a community even have a stance on the entire matter of sockpuppetry. It is a waste of time, energy, and emotions to dwell on this until we have decided what is/isn't allowed. Until then, I call out to everyone for a ceasefire for all attempts to prove/disprove anyone being sockpuppet of anyone else. Stop analysing user behaviors, typing styles, punctuation and grammarical structure preferences, etc etc. Please supress the urge to point out any flaws/contradictions in someone's arguments as well as the urge to have the last remark on the matter. You may resume once we determined what kind of multi-account activity is disallowed. Until then, let it be and ignore everyone else on the subject matter. - 02:15, 19 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I am whole-heartily in agreement with Pan. All this has escalated way too far and from what I have seen recently, every anon that does something "suspicious" gets the third degree. For heaven's sake, F G's witchhunt has done exactly what he wanted it to do, turn this community upside down. I believe the community should focus on policy, security, and as always, the game for which we all love. Listen to Pan, he is wiser than he looks :P --Gares Redstorm 11:44, 19 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I would disagree on one point: it is not User:F G's witchhunt, but the sockpuppetry itself that has turned the community upside down. So far, we have one user, User:Stabber using three confirmed sockpuppets, User:Esan, User:Koyashi and User:Deldda Kcarc. If User:Stabber and User:F G are also the same person -- something I would rate as very likely at this point -- then there was no witchhunt to begin with, and it was just one very depraved individual jerking the wiki around for fun. This should be punishable by permanent banning and possibly a followup with the user's ISPs if Gravewit has the energy or the inclination, but that policy debate can be had after a more thorough discovery that I have requested on User talk:Gravewit. Arrowsmith 11:56, 19 June 2006 (CDT)


 * F G's witchhunt was that Stabber was using sockpuppets. From what I have seen, no one has officially stated they are confirmed sockpuppets. I have read User talk:Gravewit and I know Gravewit is looking into it. There is no reason to further fanning the flames at the moment. Pan politely asked for a halt in all this for now, I agreed. You seem to keep bringing it up and asking for things, (posting all IPs of each account accused), that the community as a whole, doesn't really need to see. I ask you to contribute to this wiki in a positive way for the time being. Thank you. --Gares Redstorm 12:32, 19 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Enough of this nonsense. There's so much crap in this thread that it disgusts me; infact it makes me wonder why I bothered comming here in the first place.  F G is an ass, sorry but it's the truth and you really can't deny this.  Stabber has made valuable contributions for as long as her user contributions go back for.  These accusations must stop now.  Is Stabber Deldda Kcarc (the User)?   I don't know.  I also don't really care a great deal.  I can however verify that Stabber has at least two accounts ingame, I have contacted her on the "unlisted" one once before, and it's definately not the same one as the account with Deldda Kcarc (ie: Add Friends gives an error if you add two names from the same account, and I've got both on mine currently).   And no, I'm not sharing the info as it's easily available despite what Karlos might have implied. - Greven 15:25, 19 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Greven... No one is asking you to provide any info on Stabber. I know she used to have SOME info on her chars in her user page and I can go dig it up, but that's exactly what I am trying to avoid. I want her/him to tell me who they are and I want to be able to trust that this is who they are. You are missing the point. I am telling Stabber that the only way to change minds and restore some of his.her credibility is to come out clean. This is who I am this is what I do. Not hide and tunnel.
 * I am having HUGE issues believing she is not Deldda Kcarc. Her rationale that the hapless "Esan" is the same as the arrogant Deldda is a lot less acceptable. That Esan would choose to come back (and get right to work on the wiki, after almost never contributing as Esan), and comeback with an ID he had sworn he would not use (which supposedly caused him to use "Esan") is very illogical. So, I DO believe right now that those 3 people are the same.
 * Posting a reply filled with f-word is not going to change my mind. Going on a FoW run with Stabber and Kiyoshi at the same time would be a lot more convincing.
 * The identity of character of FG is not even an issue here. The discovery was made by Rainith to begin with. --Karlos 16:29, 19 June 2006 (CDT)
 * I find I don't care much about this whole issue. Why does anyone else? It won't burn your house down. Honest. It does fill up talkpage after talkpage, though, in a wide variety of articles. :P --Tinarto [[Image:Tinarto-gold-Monk-icon-small.png]] 16:39, 19 June 2006 (CDT)

I once again reqest a temporarily freeze on all conversations regarding this topic, so energy may be better redirected to GuildWiki talk:Sock puppetry. Feel free to resume this topic once GuildWiki actually has an official stance on sock puppetry. - 17:12, 19 June 2006 (CDT)

Re: Administrative Request

 * I agree on all accounts. A user can't request his IP or username be banned simply because he is sick of the wiki or wishes to proof his/her innocence. It really solves nothing. It does however prove that it was Stabber posting that note. :) --Karlos 07:36, 20 June 2006 (CDT)


 * It's her choice to withdraw her votes, but I don't see why. Apparently, I was the "accuser" since I was the one that shown a light on it before the so-called evidence was provided. The thread was a "what if" scenario, not an accusation. If you notice, I, Gares, made no comments on who is who or that I even cared. Sorry if you think that way, Stabber, but looking after the Wiki is high up on my list around here. I am also sorry to see you go, you were a good, if not great, contributor. --Gares 17:37, 20 June 2006 (CDT)


 * It doesn't matter what anyone believes. The accusation has been made that I have six or seven puppet identities. Until these identities return to prove their individualness, and lacking solid refutation, these accusations must be taken seriously. Therefore, all votes by me, Esan, DK, 70.20, Koyashi, FG, and... uh, whoever I'm forgetting, should be summarily disqualified, pending confirmation. I also cannot fulfil Pan's request above as I have lost the password to the Stabber account. There is no registered email address, so no way to recover it. -s 16:32, 21 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Nothing against your request, but accusation of the few does not equal condamnation of the community. The votes will not be pulled until we have a formal process to arbitrate accusations of sockpuppetry, and that process arrives at a conclusion that the other accounts should be considered as your sockpuppets.  In which case, your votes would be pulled anyways regardless of your request.  For the time being then, no administrative action will be taken. - 18:50, 21 June 2006 (CDT)

Farewell
I'm sorry to see you go. Thanks for all your work on the wiki :) &mdash; Skuld  17:24, 21 June 2006 (CDT)
 * You will be greatly missed. Please don't flee GuildWars over this debacle.  If you are no longer enjoying the game, then by all means leave it... but don't delete your characters.  You may regret it at some point.  I find this whole ordeal very disturbing, and I'm not referring to the possibility of sockpuppets when I say that, but the actions of the community here. - Greven 18:38, 21 June 2006 (CDT)
 * I regret that I missed the opportunity to spend more time getting to know you... I always saw you as one of "the guildwiki-ers" that held this thing together; without you, the wiki would be that much weaker. I hope wherever you go, and whatever you do, you progess that as much as you have GW -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|||My Talk]]  00:38, 22 June 2006 (CDT)

Been nearly two months since the flameout, and the wiki hasn't collapsed. On the contrary, it's going stronger than ever. Such a waste of the above overwrought farewells! I haven't been keeping a close watch, but it seems that there is a lot less meaningless drama now that the biggest problem user has left. (At least I hope he/she has left and is not simply back using a different id.) If people had just listened to me at the start of this whole soap opera, we could have ended this in March instead of June. What ever happened to the sock puppetry debate, by the by?

On a side note, isn't it amazing how not a single one of his/her socks has returned to defend themselves?&dagger; I'm going to take a wild guess that I was 100% correct in spotting the socks. On another side note, I don't know how many of you have tried to talk to this user in game, but be warned that he/she doesn't skimp on the expletives. (Yes, I've reported them to ArenaNet.) On yet another side note, why isn't this page protected? 64.79.194.175 (formerly F G) 22:58, 5 August 2006 (CDT)
 * &dagger; Oh, right, I'm one of the socks also. Keep forgetting this twist. -- F G
 * A month late, but I wonder if you still stalk this page in hope to glean some small satisfaction out of it? Oh, wait, you already answered that by posting here again.  The sour taste is still in my mouth over this group persecution of someone who contribued a vast amount of information, totally of her own volition, to the wiki.  Now, gone not of her own volition, yet you still remain and wonder if she's still here.  It is of my opinion that your intent was simply to destroy someone, not to preserve some sanctity of the Wiki, and in that you have succeeded.  Have you wondered perhaps why you might be met by curses and damnings when you have done something like this?  Think well upon the actions you have wrought, and the reasonings for such.  Perhaps when you do this, you'll think not to post here again, or yet again harassing her.  I wonder if the devil has access to the internet, sometimes... -Greven 04:33, 2 September 2006 (CDT)
 * Oh, the devil am I? I don't agree. El Diablo would want to destroy the wiki, if ever something as insignificant as a wiki about a game were to cross his sights. I am not so impressive. I just wanted to get rid of one person. A Grentch I am, perhaps. Besides, do you accept my claim that I was 100% right in spotting the socks? Well, it doesn't matter if you accept or not; the record is plain. I suspect (s)he is back on the wiki with a different identity. Or should I say with different identities? 72.232.68.234 (a.k.a. F G) 02:15, 10 September 2006 (CDT)

Final words?
Those who leave for good often have few words to say on their way out.--Jack  17:05, 27 June 2006 (CDT)