GuildWiki talk:Requests for arbitration/Stabber and esan vs F G

Let me be the first to say, that as an avid contributor, I have been watching(reading) this little dispute play out. Since I have been here, I have seen some minor quarrels, but nothing of this magnitude. Although a complete stranger to those involved, I would have to say that anyone that read any of this dispute is dissappointed in those individuals. GuildWiki should be a place of accurate information, mature discussions, and making sure others do not tarnish what we are working hard to do here. This should not be a place of quarreling between contributors, name calling, ban threats, and the like. I agree with Tanaric as he stated, "If you can't handle reasonable discussion on the Internet, we don't need you."

With that said, I know I have placed Bans on some anon users and reverted their vandalism. While I, and most others, do it the way it was intended and try to help the admins, the Ban template can also be used to threaten someone. That never crossed my mind until this debate. I am 100% in agreement with Tanaric in not allowing non-admins to use the Ban template. Having been apart of many forums and admin some, I expect to see this type of behavior again, although I always hope I never do. --Gares Redstorm 22:22, 9 May 2006 (CDT)
 * There's no point in not letting regular users using the ban template. We admins simply ban, we never use the template. -PanSola 03:24, 10 May 2006 (CDT)

Ban template issue
My personal thoughts on the ban template. First let's look at what this template actually says, the text of it: This user is a candidate for (temporary) blocking, because: 

See the history of article "" for evidence.

If you disagree with this user's privileges being (temporarily) removed, please explain why on their talk page.

Administrators, remember to check the user's contributions :: Check | Ban * Fields inside <>'s show user entered fields.

Essentially what this is is a request for admins to look at this user's contributions (the word links to the user's contributions whose page the template is posted on), especially the article mentioned. And then, if the admin feels that it is warrented, to ban them. If the admin does not feel a ban is warrented, then the admin should remove the template. No where does the notice state that, "You will be banned," and it gives a place where other users, including the user who is the subject of the notice to post their opinions.

Now IMO this is an asset for the admins. There are, what, four of us who are on here with any regularity? 84-175, Karlos, PanSola and myself. I don't know about the other three, but I personally don't have time to go through all the entries in Special:recentchanges, especially now, when in the time between when I go to bed and when I get up, we have more than 500 entries (altho, to be fair roughly 100 of these entries last night were about this Stabber/F G thing). Personally when I go through Category:Candidates for banning, I check the article linked to the notice and look to see what that user did in said article, usually I will check to see what, if any other contributions the user has made, and to see if they have been banned before or not (all these options are available as links in the template). If I think it is warrented, I will ban them for an amount of time I feel is appropriate, if I don't think it is, I'll remove the template.

As for Tanaric's comment about "I'd rather instruct than ban any day, regardless of how much more difficult instructing often is.", please don't take offense at this, but WTF? Please instruct me what sort of instruction is necessary for a user who wipes out an article and replaces it with, "I hate niggaz!"? Add to that the fact that we only see you on here once in a blue moon, usually when someone has had a run in with someone else, and that comment really comes off as holier than thou (note, I'm not saying that you aren't here often, but you don't make your presense known).

On Administrators Tanaric stated:
 * 84.175, Karlos, Rainith and PanSola are on the wiki daily to fight vandalism, block users, delete pages, and respond to general user requests. (This comment has been edited since it was originally written it to reflect the current admins, but not the "responsiblilites" that they have)
 * Tanaric is on slightly less often, and does the above jobs when there's anything left for him to do. Additionally, if you have non-technical issues which you wish an admin to intervene in, such as interuser disputes or policy/tradition questions, he's usually willing to help.

The Ban template is one tool that we (the afforementioned administrators) use to help us with with the fighting of vandalism, blocking of users, deleting of pages, and the responding to general user requests. If people feel that a change in name to the ban template is needed, fine, although I think   is much easier to type than   .

Any users who feel that they could be "targeted" by another user that they are having a dispute with and that they will be blocked for not doing anything shouldn't worry. I very much doubt that any of the 4 above mentioned admins (myself included) is going to block someone because of a request like this without doing due dilligance. In fact, I don't think I've ever had a complaint from anyone who I blocked because of a request. But I can think of at least 2 people that I blocked (that was not requested by another user, just an edit that I saw that looked like vandalism to me) that it turns out were unjust.

Blah, like most of my posts that go on for more than a paragraph, this has wandered further than I had intended. Short and sweet, keep the ban template, rename it if you must, reword what shows when it is applied to a page if you feel that is necessary, but keep the functionality there. --Rainith 23:04, 9 May 2006 (CDT)


 * I actually agree with you; I didn't mean to be unclear in the arbitration request. I had actually typed a few more paragraphs about the ban template, but deleted them, figuring they were redundant and that nobody but you four would care. Lesson learned. :)  The only remaining line from that paragraph is this:


 * 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.


 * ...which both deprecates myself for rarely doing anything involving wiki maintenance and acknowledges that the ban template's original goal was to help us categorize vandals when nobody was monitoring Recentchanges.


 * That said, I think that, while the template is 99% of the time used in that context, it has the potential to be abused. Logging in to see that message on your talk page isn't pleasant, regardless of how unjustified it is. It has the potential to scare away new users. It has the power to cause users that regularly patrol Recentchanges, and whom regularly place the ban template on anon vandal pages, to think of themselves as mightier than the average GuildWikian. Most deviously, it has the power to make other users think of said vandalwatchers as "more than users."


 * There is definitely a need for a template to mark vandals.  would be sufficient. But a template that, even in name, purports to cause the banning of users isn't appropriate, and the "you messed up so you get a tempban" mentality that has evolved alongside it (NOT among us admins, but among some users) needs to be squelched. A user that sees another user messing up (ESPECIALLY non anons, but even anon users that aren't obvious vandals) should post a message with some advice; they shouldn't be posting a  notice.


 * I didn't mean to imply that any admin bans based on the template without checking the important info first. I know that none of you would; I recommended all of you as admins because I trust you'll do the job right! :)


 * &mdash;Tanaric 23:31, 9 May 2006 (CDT)


 * In this particular case, the anon that Stabber nominated for banning did not even want to discuss thing on the talk page. That anon user fundamentally disagree with the Revert Once Policy, as illustrated in him accusing me of barging into his and Stabber's little revert war.  The anon user (and Stabber) would not have stopped the revert war had Rainith not protected the article.  I don't believe bans are being used as threats at all on GuildWiki, nor do I feel there is a "oh no if I mess up I might get banned" mantality spreading or being encouraged by the current use of ban templates.  The only improper thing regarding usage of ban templates was F G's presumption that, after he nominated someone for banning, and if no one come to the nominated user's defense, then he can proclaim that user to be banned.  That was a singular incident. -PanSola 03:22, 10 May 2006 (CDT)


 * FWIW I was going to name the ban template like wikipedia:Template:Vandal  Skuld   08:18, 10 May 2006 (CDT)


 * I 'll abstain from any comments in the Stabber-vs-FG debate. Anybody who knows my history on this wiki will understand that I made a resolution to stay out of any fights. :)
 * As for the ban request template, I think it should not be deleted, however, the use of the template should strictly be limited to cases of vandalism, and the template should be changed accordingly. --Tetris L [[Image:TurningL sml.gif]]  04:15, 10 May 2006 (CDT)


 * All of the points I do want to comment on can be found here. --Xeeron 07:55, 10 May 2006 (CDT)


 * Tanaric wrote, "I had actually typed a few more paragraphs about the ban template, but deleted them, figuring they were redundant and that nobody but you four would care. Lesson learned." Correct. :D The GuildWiki is a great idea and I would not be helping unless I thought so. Its a convenient way for others to find the information they seek and a very good learning tool about the game Guild Wars. While I do not think of this place as a "home", I do strive in any way I can to make this a better place. If that means voicing my opinion on a particular matter, then that's what I'll do. It also means I will spend hours in The Falls to find that particular boss so I can get a screen of him and his SoC.


 * If the Ban Template is used for the right reasons, sure keep it. I know if I had a quarrel with someone on this forum and was threatened to be banned or even saw a Ban request on my page, I would be highly upset. I, myself, do not use the Ban Template to feel like a "god", I use it to make admins aware of a possible vandal, and a vandal they usually are. I do, however, hate that when an Admin is not on and a vandal is going around deleting or defacing articles and all you can do is follow them and revert their damage until they get tired or an Admin comes on and Bans them. That is not how I want to spend my time here, but if it needs to be done, then so be it.


 * Rainith writes, "I don't know about the other three, but I personally don't have time to go through all the entries in Special:recentchanges..." That is where normal GuildWikians come in, to share the load and help the overworked Admin staff here. Not only do these Admins have to do the enforcing and protection of the GuildWiki, but they also do things to improve to the content. For examples, I have seen Rainith adding missing and new content from GuildWars that we do not have yet, PanSola doing what he does? What do you do again, play with templates? :P Just kidding. He helps to create and improve standards on the GuildWiki pages. So our are doing the job of two, not counting their real life responsibilities. I applaude them for that.


 * After having had thought about the situation for a night now, I would say keep the Ban Template, as Admins should and do review the activites of the possible vandal before making a judgement. I would, however, like to bring up that if a user threatens another with a Ban or adds the Ban Template to a User Page out of malice or what-have-you, that person should be punished. That is childish behavior and should not be allowed in, what I believe, is a mature site. --Gares Redstorm 08:01, 10 May 2006 (CDT)

PanSola's response - Agree, but some things are overlooked.
1. "About the comments in question" include in Tanaric's arbitration does not seem to cover F G's reply to esan. At least, "Stabber asked him for his opinion on this matter" definitely does not cover that latter reply. Additionally, I in principle disagree with "F G can say whatever he wants on his own talk page." We acknowledge free speech, but that does not mean literally ANYTHING is allowed. Specifically, I strongly believe that if a GuildWiki user should type something that constitute personal attacks on another individual, even if it's on the user's own user page, that there be nothing for the administrators to do. A direct implication of "User can say whatever s/he wants on her/his own talk page" means uncontrolled flame war is allowed.

In this particular incident, I do not consider F G to have crossed over the line. I just disagree on the general principle Tanric stated.

2. A point of irony I have noticed. F G claimed Stabber threatened to ban the anon user. As far as my observasion goes, Stabber simply flagged the anon user as a candidate for banning. There were no threats involved, and there where no assumption of administrator rights/authorities/status implied by Stabber. It was a pretty routine "I saw a violation of policy, I'll flag that user" on Stabber's part, without realizing that she herself also took part in violiating the policy. Later F G flagged Stabber as a candidate for banning.

The irony was that, a short period of time after F G flagged Stabber, he proclaimed that, because nobody has came to Stabber's defense, Stabber should be banned. The "short period of time", as far as I can tell comparing insert of ban template and "no one has come to her defense", was 4 MINUTES.

In this entire drama I see one single individual who have overstepped the lines of regular user vs admin, and that wasn't Stabber.

The above are topics I felt Tanric did not touch upon in the arbitration. In the end however, I don't see anything that needs to be done, as the conflict has been resolved by the involved parties no longer engaging in communication. -PanSola 03:17, 10 May 2006 (CDT)


 * Am I to understand that in the case of F G Vs Stabber, that Tanric has ruled that F G was not out of line because he can say whatever he likes on his talk page? That's rubbish in my opinion., I'm not going to prove a point by putting a whole lot of religious/race hate material on my user page (hell I've just got onto the Gem list, couldn't jeopardise that!) but if I did it should be removed and some warning or ban placed against me by an admin. What's the point of having user talk pages if we can say whatever we like on them, piss off whomever we like because we have no accountability there? I disagree with the assertion that the "conflict has been resolved", I don't consider both parties leaving the GuildWiki to be a sucessful resolution. Stabber was personally attacked, her character came under fire and her real life person was brought into disrepute. I'm off to put a comment on her talk page but as I see it you can be a long time good contributor here but if you come under fire in a totally unacceptable way, expect to get hung out to dry. --Xasxas256 09:09, 10 May 2006 (CDT)
 * As I mentioned on one of the talk pages, I have a high threshold for insults, and I apologize if my tolerance/apathy caused discomfort or offended people. -PanSola 09:14, 10 May 2006 (CDT)


 * If F G had gone to Stabber's talk page unannounced and posted attacks, I'd have considered this differently. That said, Stabber came to F G's page and asked for his opinion of her. I cannot make a policy that his opinion must be positive. Furthermore, he expressed that opinion in the nicest way possible. He didn't flame her, he didn't trivialize her accomplishments. He simply stated that he believed she was a net negative, and gave his reasons why. Whether or not you agree with him shouldn't be a matter of administrative arbitration.


 * Xasxas, I have no problem with you posting religious or hate material on your user page. In fact, if other users attacked you on your talk page for doing so, I'd intervene on your behalf! As long as you don't negatively affect the wiki proper (i.e., don't blank a page and write "I hate niggers," as Rainith so delicately put it :)), there's no reason you can't express your own opinions on your own page, regardless of what those opinions are.


 * That said, if you started going to OTHER user talk pages, and posted "I hate blacks" there with no provocation, I'd consider you in the wrong.


 * PanSola, admittedly, I didn't see those later replies, as I was working off an older revision of the page. Oops!  Nevertheless, I stand by my decision: I think users ought to be able to say what they like on their own talk pages.


 * &mdash;Tanaric 16:09, 10 May 2006 (CDT)


 * 1. I'm not talking about F G's response to Stabber, I'm talking about F G's response to esan. Unless, of course, you also treat esan = Stabber, then your logic would make sense.
 * 2. So are users allowed to post "I hate n***ers, and f**k all republicans, let's blow up the White House" on their own user talk page? Your logic says yes, and THAT (the principle that users can put whatever on their own user talk page) is what I strongly disagree. -PanSola 16:38, 10 May 2006 (CDT)


 * Stabber didn't ask for opinions. She asked for evidence. May be a significant point. 68.94.237.112 16:46, 10 May 2006 (CDT)


 * I also have a major problem with any user putting intolerant (religious, race etc.) hatred on either their User Page or Talk Page. I'm not entirely sure that I'm fully conveying how strongly I believe this, I can't think of many things more distasteful than seeing that kind of stuff on any part of the GuildWiki and that certainly includes User Pages and a User's Talk Pages. I unequivocally vote against any intolerant hatred material on any page of the GuildWiki. --Xasxas256 18:01, 10 May 2006 (CDT)


 * I am seriously surprised by your ridiculous standard that users can say "whatever they want" in their talk page. In this so-called arbitration I notice that you have repeatedly given the benefit of the doubt to F G, even going as far as stating that Stabber should have been willing to endure any amount of personal attacks just because she asked for proof regarding yet another personal attack on an unrelated page. I wonder whether you condone the sort of vindictive campaign that F G waged against Stabber... a campaign that was prompted by no slight against him by Stabber, nor by any action that adversely affected F G's participation in this wiki, nor, in fact, by any serious impairment to the wiki's function. The only attacks here have been by F G against Stabber for no fathomable reason. Is this what you consider fitting the parameters of "assume good faith"? Stabber has neither responded to F G's ridiculous tirade in kind, nor even spoken up in her own defence. Here's what F G said: "Good riddance. The internet has enough of your nonsense." Is that something you consider meeting the parameters of "you are valuable"? "You'll be forgiven for making mistakes, just like anyone would be," claims You are valuable. This is forgiveness? Do you truly see no injustice done here? Well, maybe you don't. Personally, I think it is a crying shame how Stabber was all but run out of this community for an infraction so minor it barely merits mention. (posting anonymously for my own reasons) 85.214.29.234 20:43, 10 May 2006 (CDT)


 * F G's ban request was recinded by F G, and he apologized, and wished to move on. Stabber's talk page documents this. From the evidence I can see, the only reason F G posted anything else was because Stabber went to him and requested it.  Thus, the campaign ended, F G realized he was wrong to start it.  Issue over. Issue #2, which you all seem to have issues with, is this: Stabber went to him, F G responded the best way he could, noting that his opinions were sour and he'd like best to simply leave it at that, and Stabber chose to leave regardless.


 * Then, esan attacked F G on F G's talk page, and F G responded in kind. Seeing as this is a talk page, I see no problem with this. I noted that in this arbitration.


 * My duties as an admin in this case are, to the best of my ability to determine, completed. I'll now respond, as a GuildWikian, and say that I agree with Rainith below (sorry to reply above you, but I wanted to keep the threading intact).  Both Stabber and F G have acted fairly gracefully in issue #2. F G responded a little vindictively to esan, true; but admittedly, the only thing that would stop me from replying equally vindictively is my admin role here. As I said, I believe he has the right to do so in the context of a personal discussion in User talk.


 * &mdash;Tanaric 00:29, 11 May 2006 (CDT)

Ok, I'm just a little tired of people saying that Stabber was run out of here. Now before anyone assumes otherwise, I think Stabber should stay, if she wants to. She has left of her own accord. No one should stick around here if they are not having fun anymore. None of us is getting paid to do this (if we are I'm guessing that my check got lost in the mail). So if you no longer enjoy the wiki, then really there is no reason for you to stick around. If/when I grow tired of this wiki, guess what, I'll leave it. I don't see that happening anytime soon, but it isn't really something that you can predict with any certainty. If Stabber decided that she wanted to come back to the wiki, she could and many people here (myself included, would welcome her back). If F G decided to come back to the wiki, I would welcome him back too. If neither one of them come back, I wish them well.

As for Stabber being "attacked" some people may see it that way, if it had happened to me, in exactly the same way, I wouldn't have thought twice about it. That's the way I am. It obviously affected Stabber more than it would have me, but she is a big girl (I think she stated at one point that she was 26, I may be wrong though), and is more than capable of fighting her own battles if she so chooses, or not as she wants. Something people may not realize is that in a way, when you jump in and defend her (or anyone for that matter), you are in a way saying that she is incapable of doing so herself. That to me would be a real insult. --Rainith 21:10, 10 May 2006 (CDT)


 * I am immensely displeased with this turn of events, the idea that the GuildWiki's user talk pages are some sort of free for all fighting deathmatch zone. I'll say this in point form, so it's easier to read and more likely to be objective (although I have strong opinions on this matter)
 * I stand up for people that I care about/respect, this goes for both the GuildWiki and life. If somebody comes under a personal attack and is consequently hurt by this, damn right I'll step into the ring, it's not a sign of weakness to have your friends help you out. Just because I'm not fussed an issue, say religion, some of my friends are, I'm not so uncaring and uncompromising that I wouldn't help someone else out just because it wouldn't effect me and I reckon they can fight their own battles. What else is worth fighting for in life?
 * Left of her own accord? If your neighbour decided to throw a constant torrent of abuse at you every time you came home would you stay there? What if you went to the police first and they decided that you're old enough to handle it yourself and that because they're in their own house they can say whatever the hell they like, the fact that it's directed at you isn't important. I don't think that's right.
 * No one should stick around here if they are not having fun anymore. Yeah true I'd wholeheartly agree except in this case a tirade of personal abuse was the catalyst for Stabber and esan leaving, not a general sense of "I'm a bit sick of wiki editing".
 * I have no idea where you draw the line on what's acceptable Rainith and basically I don't want to find out. --Xasxas256 22:36, 10 May 2006 (CDT)


 * I think too many people are emotionally involved in Stabber's decision to leave. As Rainith stated, she's a big girl or I should say a woman, and she can defend herself. All those that are defending her by attacking F G after he left, and now going after Tanaric for his decision, which Stabber's advocate asked for. User esan did not get the decision he was hoping for. That's what happens when you don't look at a situation such as this from all angles. Just as Stabber asked for evidence, she didn't get what she was hoping for, in my opinion. We lost two good contributors. It does not matter if they work maintainance for the most part or add new content. Both are important and both have to be done in order for this Wiki to succeed.
 * None involved, and its been 3 days? now, have not taken the high road and let by-gones be by-gones. Gem is the closest one to try and get this behind him. Although, I do not agree with that fact that "he took satisfaction in FG leaving", but thats his opinion. His Fun Page shows me that he is trying to turn a bad situation around.
 * My point of this is that there is better and more important things to do, than to linger to the past and keep this resentment towards whoever you have that resentment towards. Making sure all these anon users are adding correct information and, if not, teach them the GuildWiki standard. Adding new content and filling in missing information. Even the land of Tyria is far from being complete as I found 2 undocumented bosses last night. Updating the GuildWiki to conform to new standards. So much to do than to waste it on this. We lost too valuable members, let's pick up the pieces and move on. --Gares Redstorm 09:02, 11 May 2006 (CDT)

I've kept out of this so far, partly because I was not directly involved and the emotions of those involved were running so high, and also because I didn't have anything new to add. However, as Tanaric's findings (above) are being disputed, I wanted to weigh in on that. I agree with Tanaric's findings with one exception. F_G's tone/attitude in his talk page was certainly excusable given the context of the conversation, but when he made an unsubstantiated claims that Esan and Stabber are the same person I believe that F_G lacked an assumption of good faith on the part of Esan. Our current good-faith policy doesn't address specifically assumptions about the identities of the user, but I believe that it should still apply. That said, as F_G and Stabber have both stated intentions to depart the wiki, I do not believe that any further action can nor needs to be spent on this issue other than reviewing our existing policies and making any changes or additions that the community agrees are required as a result of this experience (my personal recommendations are to review and adopt variations of WP:NPA and WP:UP). --- Barek (talk &bull; contribs) - 09:30, 11 May 2006 (CDT)

The "User can say anything on their talk page" issue
My position on this matter has been stated a few times, here's the newest and most vivid example: User talk:PanSola. -PanSola 20:15, 10 May 2006 (CDT)
 * Could we pleeeaaase not start a whole "freedom of speech / first amendment to the worldwide constitution of we know best / u r zenxxorring me rofllol / you can say anything you like except the things I don't"-discussion? I really, really don't think anyone would benefit from that, at all. Those discussions always degenerate into namecalling, huffing, puffing and references to the Third Reich. Please... just let it go. --Bishop (rap|con) 21:25, 10 May 2006 (CDT)
 * The very fact of whether we want namecalling, huffing, puffing and references to the Third Reich or to prophibit them on user talk pages is at stake here... -PanSola 21:30, 10 May 2006 (CDT)
 * The way I see it, you're causing it to prevent it, which, in my humble opinion, is poor judgement (something which is unusual for you, from what I've seen). I just don't think this needs more discussion -- all these things are more readily handled using common sense in the future than trying to hammer out a fixed policy now. For the same reason, unless something really extraordinary happens, this will be my last words on this issue, because I would also just be fanning the fire if I go on arguing the point. You may have the last word. :) --Bishop (rap|con) 21:40, 10 May 2006 (CDT)
 * The way I see it, an admin explicitedly stated "Anything is ok". If it were never mentioned, I'm more than happy to never have the issue brought up or codified.  I am trying to stop something that currently has a precedent (not set by me) as being allowed.  User:esan has explicitly stated that he felt there was a personal attack on him, and Tanaric's response summarizes to: "It's ok for F G to have launched a personal attack on you and Stabber, it's on his talk page and he can do anything he wants (and Stabber asked for his opinion)."  Thus, I do not think I am preventing anything.  I am attempting to change a precedent that has happened.
 * For reference, my stance on the esan issue was "While offensive, it hasn't quite crossed the (grey and uncodified) line in my judgement, so it is ok." I reach the same conclusion as Tanaric, but I strongly disagree the principle upon which Tanaric reached his conclusion. -PanSola 21:49, 10 May 2006 (CDT)
 * Actually I believe that I set the precedent before Tanaric, as there was a user (anon I think, not sure tho) who posted something that a was offensive. Not racist I don't think, mostly cursing and ranting about how everyone here sucked and how he was easily a better player than anyone at the game.  Normal stupid sh*t.  A few people posted on his talk page asking if he should be banned or not, even Karlos piped in.  Either I blanked his page or deleted it (all that was on there was the rant, nothing else), and posted that I wasn't going to ban him and that I doubted we would hear anything from him again.  To the best of my knowledge, we haven't.  All this happened at least a few weeks before Factions came out, so I believe I can claim to have set the precedent.  --Rainith 21:56, 10 May 2006 (CDT)
 * In that case we have two different precedents. One is "no ban, but remove offensive/stupid content", the other is "no ban, and keep it as is".  I support the Rainith precedent and still disagree with the Tanaric precedent. -PanSola 21:59, 10 May 2006 (CDT)
 * True, but the devil is in the details, and who decides what is offensive. Is posting an image of Christ taking a bong hit on your user page offensive?  What about putting a cartoon rendition of Allah (or if I'm remembering correctly any redition of Allah)?  Different groups of people would be offended by either one of these.  Personally neither one offends me being the athiest that I am, but I can understand how people could be offended by them. (Please note that this post was not meant to offend anyone, just to demonstrate 2 things that would easily offend some people.)  --Rainith 22:08, 10 May 2006 (CDT)
 * my support of the Rainith precedent is independent of my judgement of whether F G has crossed the line. I personally think it's kind of borderline and I wouldn't delete it.  I'm arguing for the bigger picture, the general policy that it is NOT ok for a user to post anything s/he wants on her/his user talk page.  Whether an incident has crossed the line might have to be handled on a case-by-case basis.  My main point is the user talk page is not a free license to post anything the user wants. -PanSola 22:12, 10 May 2006 (CDT)


 * I know the content of User talk:Snagglepuss was deleted due to his user page's content. I don't know if a ban was done (didn't check).  I believe this is the precendent that Rainith mentioned. --- Barek (talk &bull; contribs) - 22:05, 10 May 2006 (CDT)

For the record, I personally believe people should be allowed to put whatever they want on their user pages: porn, dirty language, rants, whatever. However, (1) certain things like porn would be illegal in most countries, and (2) I don't run this wiki, someone else does, and they have the right to determine whatever standards for the user pages they see fit. If you guys don't want it, don't allow it; it's that simple. --Tjoneil 23:50, 10 May 2006 (CDT)


 * I Disagree. I believe that a good model to follow on user pages is WP:UP.  One line they have which I believe is especially relevant is "It's a mistake to think of it as a homepage: Wikipedia is not a free host, blog, or webspace provider."  I believe that the GuildWiki user pages should be viewed in the same way.  I see no problem with providing conent that (a) is relevant to the wiki, or projects taking place on it, (b) information to help people know a little about the contributor in real life and/or their in-game personas.  As we are a gaming fan site and not an encyclopedia, I believe that modifying the wikipedia policy to allow expanded sections on our in-game personas is reasonable.  I also believe that humor is a good thing at helping reduce blood pressure, and see nothing wrong with humorous content that is related to this wiki or to Guild Wars, provided other GuildWiki policies are also met.  In combination with this policy, I believe that another one which is needed here (I haven't seen one, forgive me if I missed it) is WP:NPA, which would be relevant to all user pages as well as all articles and article discussion pages. --- Barek (talk &bull; contribs) - 09:09, 11 May 2006 (CDT)


 * To allow "ultimate" freedom is to something most will take "ultimate" advantage of. If a user talked about molesting a child and how he enjoyed it, how many grams of coke he can snort up his nose in a night, that he hates certain ethnic groups, etc, etc. Its a disgusting thought, but "ultimate" freedom could bring about those things. --Gares Redstorm 09:16, 11 May 2006 (CDT)

An outsider's POV
I think it is good that the two or three involved have left the wiki (hopefully they'll stay left). When it comes to community projects, drama = bad... drama has totally destroyed the community spirit on Wikipedia... The wiki will be a funner place without abrasive personalities. 70.20.64.187 09:37, 11 May 2006 (CDT)


 * By the way, is this level of drama common on GuildWiki? If so, I'ma turn right around and walk away. Just curious because I only started following the wiki a week or so ago. 70.20.64.187 09:48, 11 May 2006 (CDT)


 * No. So far I can only think of one other incident that had the same level of high emotions. But then, small skale squabbling ocurs more often, wiki contributers are, after all, only humans. --Xeeron 09:57, 11 May 2006 (CDT)