User talk:Esan4004

Ugh
Didn't mean to draw you into this mess, esan. I was just bitching in general. You don't have to be my "knight in shining armor" as is now being claimed. Don't get addicted to this shit &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stabber (talk &bull; contribs) 2006-04-03 04:58:23.
 * She lives! Esan 05:01, 3 April 2006 (CDT)
 * But knights in shining armor are a fun thing! --Xeeron 07:51, 3 April 2006 (CDT)
 * S can kick my ass in real life. It's true. I'm a pathetic weakling. Not much of a knight. esan 04:53, 5 April 2006 (CDT)
 * A likely story. Who has that black belt in Karate again? &mdash; Stabber 00:37, 7 April 2006 (CDT)
 * Not I. I'm at least two ranks away from Shodan. Ask me again next year. esan 00:50, 7 April 2006 (CDT)

Comments about my response
Esan,

I never said that Stabber's contributions were minor in any way. I quote: "She participates mostly as a wikignome, fixing things and updating things to meet current standards, though she's contributed some original content too." That is not at all negative. I respect the work she's done, because it's the stuff I want to do but simply don't have the time for.

An objective tone, in a matter which must be handled objectively, should not imply disrespect. I am not obligated to gush fandom for any contributor, regardless of the significance of their contributions.

Similarily, my comment about you being a "nonentity" here at the GuildWiki was meant solely to establish context for the arbitration. I looked at your contribution history, and you do not appear to be active or well-known in any sense. Thus, the term "nonentity" does in fact apply to you. You are valuable, but you're still unknown. It's not disparaging, simply a statement of fact.

If you're attempting to make me look bad, you're wasting your time&mdash;issuing an arbitration that didn't glorify Stabber has already made me look bad amongst her fans.

&mdash;Tanaric 16:12, 10 May 2006 (CDT)

'Because of the length of your reply, I'm replying inline, paragraph by paragraph. Otherwise, I'll miss stuff. Feel free to move around as you see fit. &mdash;Tanaric 00:31, 12 May 2006 (CDT)'


 * What can I say? I just totally disagree with you regarding your evaluation of Stabber. Here's what FG said: "You act like an admin without being one". Your responded that that was a "neat summation", disregarding the fact that Stabber in fact hasn't acted like an admin, as many have pointed out. The mere existence of the accusation does not make it true. In point of fact she has strongly refused to even be considered for adminship in the past, as FG was himself made aware. How can someone who does not desire the position act like she holds it? What would be the sense in it?


 * I said it was a neat summation of F G's position, not of Stabber's actual contributions. I never agreed (or disagreed) with F G's interpretation of Stabber, and I will never do so.


 * You claim to have an "objective" tone, but your objectivity amounts to accepting FG's evaluation of Stabber. Where do you disagree with FG? Nowhere. Both of you add some boilerplate about "we appreciate the work of wikignomes", without actually noting that Stabber's contributions to the site are, in fact, not limited to making (in FG's words) "trivial edits". Look at her contributions. She has added a large number of quest articles from Factions. As far as original authorship goes, W/Mo Bold Forge Runner was her contribution, which FG simply overlooked. E/R Invincimentalist was her contribution, which FG overlooked. R/Me Weariness Ranger was her contribution, which FG overlooked. N/Me Blacklight was her contribution, which FG overlooked. R/N Touch Ranger and R/N Melandru's Toucher were her contributions, which FG overlooked. R/Me Dazer was her contribution, which FG overlooked. W/N Lone Ganksman was her contribution, which FG overlooked. Me/N Fast-casting Orders was her contribution, which FG overlooked.


 * Your request for arbitration was solely about "an unjustified personal attack" on Stabber and yourself. My response was solely geared towards that: I don't think it's something I should bother with, since it was on his own talk page. As far as Stabber's contributions&mdash;I'm not going to look through all million or so of her contributions for a short paragraph on her history that was geared mostly to establish some background for me. I've never interacted with her before. From the most recent of her contributions, I saw a lot of wikignomish activity, and of course, Stabbot, which is by definition limited to wikignome activities. Since I'm not involved with Builds personally, I'd have no way of knowing about her contributions to builds&mdash;but more importantly, it's irrelevant to the arbitration you requested.


 * What do I gather from this? That her significant authorship here can be entirely brushed away into oblivion by a mere accusation. She has been an active author in the builds side of the wiki, but who remembers that? Silly girl, writing builds that no one cares about, right?


 * Again, irrelevant in terms of my arbitration.


 * By the way, you have called FG a valuable contributor. Point me to one article that he has authored. His contributions are all minor edits to other articles. If we use FG's standard that only users who have made significant contributions are allowed to have "mannerisms" (his words), then FG is surely disqualified from the stunt he attempted by his own standard! (And I don't accept FG's standard.)


 * I called him a valuable contributor because of his wikignome activities. F G's "standard" isn't relevant, because the scope of the arbitration did not cover that previous issue. Additionally, he apologized and recinded his entire movement for the Stabber ban, so I see no issue there.


 * Then note the fact that Stabber, single-handedly, ran User:Stabbot, which was greatly appreciated by nearly everyone here. (Or maybe it wasn't, I'm really starting to wonder about what people think here.)


 * I greatly appreciate it as well. There was no need to note it in the arbitration.


 * Most importantly, I asked for arbitration regarding FG's comment to me, which only mentioned Stabber because FG has this delusion, backed by nothing, that we are the same person. If your admin powers allow you to look at which IPs correspond to which users, I encourage you to verify FG's claim. You will find it false. There was only one aspect of FG's accusation which was correct. Stacy Berger isn't her real name. Stacy is a homonym of an abbreviation of her actual name, which is Eastern European in orign. Berger is her mother's maiden name (I think, I could be wrong here). She wasn't born yesterday, you know. No one here is required to reveal their real names on this site, and she used some standard obfuscations.


 * Had I the ability, I would indeed investigate the sockpuppet claim. I almost called in a favor from Nunix to verify this, but I decided to save it for something I cared more about. :) More to the point, he's got the right to think you're a sockpuppet if he wants to. It's not a completely unfounded claim&mdash;your "knight in shining armor" behavior is pretty sockpuppet like, as is your timing on your edits on the wiki. I'm not saying I think you're a sockpuppet, because I honestly don't care.


 * From your request for arbitration:


 * 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


 * Since you listed Stabber first, I assumed you were most concerned with his statements about her. Thus, I focused on that in my arbitration. If you like, replace all instances of "Stabber" with "esan" in the arbitration, because my opinion stands both ways. You took an argument to his talk page. I'm not going to spare you his candid reply.


 * You continue to say that FG's didn't make personal attacks, but note specifically that FG accused Stabber of having "a long history of abusive behaviour", and of having a sockpuppet account to defend herself, and lying about her sex. Despite your assessment, these are personal attacks. What is a personal attack? They are attacks on the person, not on the content. These attacks were backed up by nothing. No evidence was provided. FG's previous attempt to substantiate it was laughed at by User:Gem. I challenge anyone in this wiki to substantiate the claim that Stabber has a "long history of abusive behaviour". Note that opinions are not evidence, and Stabber asked FG for evidence.


 * F G listed his justification for his "long history of abusive behavior" claim on User talk:Stabber. His sockpuppet claim is justified, though probably false&mdash;the sex claim is equally justified, and equally incorrect. I am assuming good faith on both your parts, but I'm assuming good faith on his part as well. His goal was the improvement of the wiki in his "ban Stabber" run. After he realized that was a bad idea, he stopped. Stabber came to him requesting evidence. He did provide this evidence, although not in a bulleted list of edits, which seems to be what you require him to do. I find his response appropriate.


 * You cannot lambast somebody for personal attacks on a talk page discussion about the person. Anything negative said is bound to be a personal attack in that context&mdash;the traditional "no personal attacks" line of GuildWiki simply cannot apply.


 * Now why am I coming to her defense so strongly? Mainly because I am loyal to her as a friend. Stabber is not someone who likes to defend herself, because she empathizes too strongly with her detractors. This is a great failing of hers and I have told her many times to have more confidence. But yes, she is nearing 30, and someone that old doesn't need a "knight in shining armor" to defend them. So I accept this rebuke of my actions. (Note: she hasn't asked me to defend her, and I am guessing that she doesn't like my involvement in these disputes one bit.)


 * Here is what FG said to me and to Stabber: "Good riddance to both of you. The internet has enough of your nonsense." Are you seriously going to brush that off as an "opinion" FG is entitled to? Does the wiki truly not care about its participants to such an extent that they will countenance one user telling another to go away? In my eyes it is a blatant violation of "you are valuable".


 * You both said you were leaving. I have made it clear before that I have a similar "good riddance" policy when users attempt to use "I'm leaving forever!" as a political tool. And, again, you went to his talk page. Had he made random posts across the wiki stating that he wished you both to leave, I'd side against him. He did not.


 * You say that you have become unpopular here because of her legions of fans. This is pure grandstanding. There is no one (except one anonymous comment) who has found your arbitration faulty. To be perfectly clear, I did not ask for arbitration expecting that you would write poetry praising Stabber. There is a wide gulf between being a blind fan of hers and agreeing completely with her detractors.


 * I do not agree or disagree with her detractors; I do not know Stabber well enough to form a meaningful opinion, and in any case that opinion would not be relevant to this arbitration.


 * Bah. Just writing this has raised my blood pressure several notches again. I am getting too old for this. Stabber told me by email that "that site just makes me sad now". She's right. This site just makes me sad now. I'll let you have the final word.


 * esan 21:31, 11 May 2006 (CDT)


 * I am willing to continue this discussion as long as you like&mdash;I think it's important, and my job here is to help users as best I can&mdash;but please note that I'm fairly busy and a gulf of a few days in reply should not be taken as me ignoring the topic. My access to the GuildWiki is often sporadic. &mdash;Tanaric 00:31, 12 May 2006 (CDT)