GuildWiki talk:Community portal/Archive 6

Request for demotion of User:Karlos
I know this will fall on deaf ears, and Karlos will surely revert this and ban me the second he sees it, but he does not deserve to be a sysop on this wiki any longer. He has wantonly violated several key policies of the wiki today, not the least of which violations is abusing his sysop powers to exert editorial control over another user's pages and impose week-long blocks on said user.

It is completely foolish of me to even suggest this demotion because the wiki has no oversight policies and no means of appeal for administrative action. However, I am making it so there is some record, however fleeting, of opposition to Karlos' actions.

Because I am confident nothing will come of this request, I have requested all the evidence---my user pages---to be erased. I am sure none of my requests for deletion will be honored. I am further sure that, far from demotion, the wiki will circle their wagons around Karlos and will do whatever is necessary to make Karlos' actions retroactively justified and me out to be the sole guilty party. I understand the nature of communities well enough to see the utter futility in my bringing this up here and now. Therefore, this request for demotion is a mere formality.

I will not read or comment on the wiki after this comment. I do not wish the wiki well. I wish it the worst.

-- DK 03:54, 18 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Lol. No need to comment, but I still will. There is NO point in the recent disputes which have caused so many users to leave the wiki. I find the fighting here stupid (and funny if it wouldn't have such results), but I relly can't do anything about it. I'm not sure what you think that was wrong use of admin powers by Karlos, but I myself don't like it that you delete individual comments on your user page from other people. Removing negative feedback isn't a way to work in a wiki. You should answer and discuss, not just delete, delete and then finally place a delete tag so that your history of negative feedback will vanish. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] 04:05, 18 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Fall on your sword again Stabber/Deldda Kcarc, see if it works this time. --Rainith 04:13, 18 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Wha? Deldda is Stabber? This is confusing, i'm going to stamp on some chipmonks -_- &mdash; Skuld  04:22, 18 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Confused? I wasn't as soon as I saw Stabber upload Image:Black Moa Availability.jpg and then upload it again almost right afterwards.  I went to see if the first image needed deleting for some reason, but after I saw it, I decided not to wipe it out.  It actually made me laugh.  Then I started looking thru some of DK's old edits and noticed a lot of similarities, including the ones done today (FSK skill icon uploads, that were altered exactly the same way Stabber's were).  Add in the Superman/Clark Kent action and it makes sense.  --Rainith 05:05, 18 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Hah! Extremely amusing! He's referring to this. Hee hee. :) I actually went with him (I assume it's safe to say him now) to FoW and even in a group in Cantha in some mission (I think beating Shiro). So, FG was right about (some of) the sockpuppets theory. Wow. --Karlos 05:13, 18 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I don't think you should be rubbing your hands with too much glee. I don't feel as though you should be off the hook yet. Like PanSola (see below), I also disagree with your actions during the "DK incident". You seem to think that your edits have some "administrator power" behind them when they're basically just normal edits anyone else would do except the person who's doing them happens to be an admin. --Xasxas256 05:27, 18 June 2006 (CDT)


 * No glee, sir. Sheer amusement. I find the whole saga captivating at this moment. And I responded below. --Karlos 05:33, 18 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Not going to comment on this request itself, but I do disagree with Karlos' actions pretty much completely during the relavent dispute (including the bans and the reverts) - 04:23, 18 June 2006 (CDT)
 * See my thoughts on Karlos' actions at User_talk:Karlos. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] 04:31, 18 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I will take this request seriously, even if Crack Addled does not. Here is my reasoning:
 * I believe that significant discussions of a user's contributions should be maintained. If a user does not like the "bad rap" on his talk page, then the content should be moved elsewhere. But to wipe it from existence is to cheat the community. I know it's in the history books, but that means it's not "searchable" i.e. findable.
 * I was wrong to place the saved copy in his user space. I was thinking it would be an easy place to find it, but of course if he never wanted it in his talk page to begin with, he won't like it in his user space either. I took that part out of the equation pretty quickly and moved the talk to non-user space.
 * I did not ban Crack Addled because I was trying to force some page on his user space. In fact, I honored his right to place a delete tag on it. I banned him for a couple of hours because he was butting heads with an admin over administrative policies. Now, I could have just moved it out of his user space and let it rest, but, like I said to PanSola, the precedent of Rving an admin on an administrative edit and ignoring his instructions isa VERY bad precedent.
 * I agree with Gem that deleting criticism from one's talk page is lame. We should perhaps consider keeping track of this? The reason I wanted to archive Crack Addled's talk is because he has a history with the wiki and I wanted there to be a continuation of that history. I did not want that history to be subject to whether Karlos is till around, or whether Pansola still remembers which talk page that discussion was wiped from.
 * I believe Crack's further actions and words speak for themselves. Overall, he could have went to the talk page of that article and said: "Look, this might belong in the wiki, but it sure as heck does not belong in my user space, if I don't want it." And he would have won that argument by a landslide. He chose the path of "It's me or you" and "let's make it personal baby." I would expect any user in this wiki when told by an admin not to change a page (for administrative purposes, not squabble over content) to respect that request. Be that user someone I like, like Gem, or an anonymous guy.
 * --Karlos 04:52, 18 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I challenge the concept of administrative edits -- what you consider as administrative edits are edits where, from my perspective, edits that are of equal level as other user edits, but which you think have more leverage and power. Any edits I have made in reverting or attemptting to moderate discussions since becoming an admin, I would've made them anyways even if I were just a regular user.  Thus, from my perspective, your banning for the reason that the user in question reverted your "administrative edit" was uncalled for, and I disagree with its justification. - 04:45, 18 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Then you and I have orthogonal views on this matter. You're saying that, let's say there is a revert war between two users, and you step in and say "Ok, stop" that if either of them RVs your edit you would just let it go? Say, ok, they have a right to edit my edits?
 * The concept of an administrative edit is clear and is there. You may choose to say I will not exercise my power in this incident because it bring about more good, or for whatever reason. However, if you're saying that an Admin can be reverted on administrative requests (don't edit this page, don't revert, don't overwrite this image, ...) then you and I see the role and power of an admin quite differently. --Karlos 05:07, 18 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Indeed we do disagree and see things differently. If there is a revert war going on, and someone reverted a request of mine asking them to stop the revert war, I would treat it exactly the same manner as if another user (non admin) has stepped in to ask people to stop the revert war, and get reverted.  Would that have resulted in a page protection or banning of the revert war participants, that depends on the circumstances.  However, any random user, even an anon, stepping in and telling people to stop the revert war are, from my perspective, of the exact same level and value compared to an edit by me to tell people to stop the revert war.  Any user, even anon, saying "don't revert / don't edit this page / don't overwrite this image / ..." do have, from my perspective, the exact same weight/value compared to an admin.  It needs to be backed by sound reason/logic for other people to accept it. - 05:18, 18 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I look at this just as a police officer. A police officer does not have unlimited power, but there is still a basic assumption in the system that an officer uses his powers responsibly, and another assumption that for an officer to be effective, he needs to have some authority in the street. Therefore, if an officer tells you that you cannot go into a street at this time, you have to listen to him. Does not matter how much you like the street or how much you think it's your right to go into the street. If you even disagree with his reasoning, you need to listen to him. If you break his order, he has the right to arrest you. Resisting arrest in it-self (even if you are innocent) is a charge. All this power is not so that cops can push people around, but because in order for them to be able to resolve disputes they need to have this kind of authority.
 * Likewise, if an admin steps into a situation and says "Freeze!" then everyone should freeze. Anyone breaking that command risks to destabilize the whole situation. The admin should have the powerto neutralize that person.
 * Now of course, I know that it was Stabber, which actually changes a few things. Having just butted heads with Stabber a few days earlier, I would have actually let him/her have the final word and left a note on your talk page to intervene. I would not have banned Stabber two days after I had a run-in with her/him. In the end, placing the page in that user's space was not the right place. I guess that's what you get for having sockpuppets. --Karlos 05:33, 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)