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

May 9: Stabber (via esan) vs. F G
Discuss on this arbitration's discussion page.
 * Arbitrator: Tanaric

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


 * All right, I'll drop the issue. You're probably right that this was bad judgement on my part. Sorry everyone. F G 06:19, 7 May 2006 (CDT)


 * For reference, she was nominate here, and she refused the nomination here. I am actually deeply sorry now for my comments above and wish I could simply erase them. Please accept my humble apologies, Stabber. F G 06:54, 7 May 2006 (CDT)

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

esan 22:46, 9 May 2006 (CDT)