GuildWiki talk:Requests for arbitration/Not a fifty five vs Karlos

Section 0
I was holding myself from taking part in this discussion/argument, and don't regret. In addition Tanaric had the same opinnion as me, which seems to be rare. :) Okay, issue solved, nothing more to see here. Move along and contine contributing. -- (talk) 14:41, 11 September 2006 (CDT)

I missed most of this while it was taking place as I was on vacation last week and not watching Special:Recentchanges or my watchlist as closely as I normally have done. However, after reviewing the considerable amount of talk on this, I can say that I would have also banned User:Not a fifty five, and likely for longer than the three days done by User:Karlos. There are appropriate ways to bring attention to issues, but intentionally vandalising builds to gain attention is not one of them. And yes, his actions were vandalism. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:45, 11 September 2006 (CDT)
 * Clarification: I am using Wikipedia's definition of vandalism here, which states:
 * Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia.
 * The most common type of vandalism is the replacement of existing text with obscenities, page blanking, or the insertion of bad jokes or other nonsense. Fortunately, this kind of vandalism is usually easy to spot.
 * Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Apparent bad-faith edits that do not make their bad-faith nature inarguably explicit are not considered vandalism at Wikipedia. For example, adding a personal opinion once is not vandalism — it's just not helpful, and should be removed or restated.
 * The edits in dispute, for a time, compromised the integrity of GuildWiki entries until reversed. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:42, 11 September 2006 (CDT)
 * :) thanks for giving a better quote: "For example, adding a personal opinion once is not a vandalism - it's just not helpful and should be removed or restated." Anyways it was removed.  no vandalism /yawn. (Not a fifty five 00:52, 12 September 2006 (CDT))
 * and "any good faith effort to improve the encyc, even if misguided or ill considered  is not vandalism" I believe you are all calling what I have done I believed to be in "good faith", I can quote many people on this, even those in my opposition. You are also calling it ill-considered and misguided but as the quote shows this is not vandalism. I think all the administers, and this is pretty sad, have no idea what vandaism is. (Not a fifty five 00:58, 12 September 2006 (CDT))
 * You are making incorrect assumptions. The edits to the build article were intentionally done to incorrectly classify a build for the sole purpose of making a point.  That is not a good faith edit.  As the policy points out, assuming good faith does not mean that we should ignore bad actions.  --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:59, 12 September 2006 (CDT)
 * Nope, I've said before (tho comments are spewed all over the place so who knows where it is) That the vote I made was the vote I intended. I simply replaced what I meant to write down and put up gibberish.  The only regret I have is not informing the build author of that, so I apologized to him the day after my ban ended. (Not a fifty five 15:51, 12 September 2006 (CDT))
 * My comments are based on your statement from User_talk:Tanaric: "I was proving a point by selecting about 5 builds every day and voting by flip of coin to show the community what its like. I had changed all of them back as of liek 3 hours ago, that one slipped through >.< Needless to say, it started lots of discussion, which is the only reason I had done so." --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:58, 12 September 2006 (CDT)
 * Oh, I lied there >.< I was getting Skuld riled up (He's insulted me soooooo many times you cant blame me). With that reasoning I can see why I was banned, except it still was not disrupting, so I hold me ground :P.

I also agree that Not a 55 was in the wrong in this situation. His actions were reprehensible. I think Karlos made the right decision here, and I think Tanaric has dealt with this arbitration request well.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 18:45, 11 September 2006 (CDT)

Tanaric's best arbitration yet. --Xasxas256 18:56, 11 September 2006 (CDT)

I am completely in agreement with Tanaric's decision and the above comments. --Rainith 20:44, 11 September 2006 (CDT)

Can we port the "Don't disrupt" policy from Wikipedia?
In conclusion to this, perhaps it is important to have that policy spelled out and stated clearly. Maybe in a separate policy document or as part of Assume Good Faith or How to Help. So, that new users (who may not be very mature), understand that we take such a thing very seriously. --Karlos 19:13, 11 September 2006 (CDT)
 * Wikipedia's "don't disrupt" guideline has been implicit on this site; but I agree that the time has come to port it over and make it explicitly spelled out. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:35, 11 September 2006 (CDT)


 * While I think most people would have interpreted our current vandalism guidelines to include this kind of thing I certainly don't see any harm in making things a bit more clear here.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 04:22, 12 September 2006 (CDT)


 * Ditto Barek. That policy has been cited so manytimes I mistakenly thought it WAS a GuildWiki policy. - 04:55, 12 September 2006 (CDT)

Message to Not a fifty five:
Dude, for someone who wants to enshrine a class of build gurus who alone will have the power to vet builds (see Talk:Builds), you seem awfully dismissive of the "oligarchy" of this site's admins. The only fault in Karlos's ban is that he gave the reason as "vandalism". He should have blocked you with the reason "disruption". You cannot win any arguments by disruption, which only proves that you do not see the worth of civil discourse. You are showing no remorse for your actions. This is a very black mark against you. I think you should step back. Walk away from this debate. Take a two week vacation from builds in the wiki. I'm saying this not because I think you are bad for the wiki (the wiki can protect itself), but because you are digging yourself a hole you cannot escape from. Are you enjoying this? If you aren't, just stop. If you are enjoying this, then it is grounds for more drastic administrative intervention. 217.173.129.76 20:08, 11 September 2006 (CDT)


 * Yes this is a black mark on it, tho I do wear it with pride and wish to make it blacker. I don't believe there is a single reason that the admins or anyone has given supporting that my ban was a good idea that I haven't rebutted.  It is more the admins that are making a black mark on against themselves. Lol they dont even know what vandalism is >.< (Not a fifty five 01:02, 12 September 2006 (CDT))


 * I think you are testing the community's patience. Why not try something constructive such as championing a better build process? A battle of petty grievances is a waste of everyone's time. Even if you are 100% right that the admins have it out for you, how is that helping get a better build process? As you like to quote random people and things, here's one for you: "be the change you want to see in the world." By Gandhi.


 * I am >.< I'm unemployed atm so I have time for both. My idea atm is in talk:builds  And I'm complaining cause I believe this to be wrong, not because I'm whining.  What I did was hardly vandalism (don't reply everyone we know you disagree) and I received no real warning (Not a fifty five 14:38, 12 September 2006 (CDT))

cwingham's view / response
There are 2 flaws in your arguement.

First. What Rapta and Skuld are doing is vote by their opinion, is it wrong, maybe, they could have do better job by putting down a reason for unfavoured and try to start a discussion. Is it bad intention? certainly not. Let's look at your action, it is the same action but different principle, you are disrupting the process of Voting INTENTIONALLY. This is the first flawed and the difference in your VOTING and their voting.

Second, The method of improving the wiki is not to disrupt but contribute, saw someone did something you don't agree with, discuss about it and voice it. Ask for a change in policy. Ask them in their user page about the 'misconduct', reported it to an ADMIN. All of them are valid action but not disrupting the wiki project.

Before the warning are given, people did request you to stop and use a better method for contribution, you carry on with your 'disruption'. Then you are given a warning because a build creator notice the disruption and complain to an admin(which is the right method to voice an opinion). After the warning, you seems to boast about your contribution and you don't seems to think that you did something wrong. Karlos then banned you for the action. Before the banning and warning, you have plenty of time to correct your wrong doing.

And the last, you require an apology from the public community, may i ask, what do you thinks you deserve an apology from the public?

-- Cwingnam2000 20:31, 11 September 2006 (CDT)


 * First flaw: People are penalized by their actions not their intentions. If I steal a loaf of bread from an open stall market rather than pay the buck so I could save for a Guild Wars Factions, I would get fined.  If I steal a loaf from an open stall market so I can feed a starving person and I dont have any money on me, I would STILL get fined.  So fine rapta and skuld, ban em:) thanks again for an opportunity for me to advance my side.


 * and,totally unrelated but funny:


 * "The WORST of things are done with good intentions" (Gandalf the grey, Fellowship of the Ring)
 * Second flaw:


 * disrupt v.t. to break apart;to split up;to rend asunder


 * I broke his talk page apart... hardly... I split it up... hardly... I rended it asunder... hardly...(Not a fifty five 01:18, 12 September 2006 (CDT))


 * That's a very specific definition of "disrupt". Here's a definition from answers.com:

dis·rupt (dĭs-rŭpt') pronunciation tr.v., -rupt·ed, -rupt·ing, -rupts.


 * 1) To throw into confusion or disorder: Protesters disrupted the candidate's speech.
 * 2) To interrupt or impede the progress, movement, or procedure of: Our efforts in the garden were disrupted by an early frost.


 * To clarify where you stand at present, not a 55, you have done something that Karlos has seen as being wrong, and this was voting with the intent of derailing the build process (this on its own may or may not be covered by our current vandalism policy, depending on your interpretation) and also moving build articles before they had reached sufficient votes to be moved.


 * You did not agree with Karlos' ruling so requested arbitration on the subject. You asked Tanaric, who I know from experience does not always see eye to eye with Karlos, and in this instance Tanaric has come to the same conclusion; that your actions were disruptive. I also agree with Karlos and Tanaric here.


 * You have then argued that this is not covered by our vandalism policy, and you may be correct here, the vandalism policy will probably be revised soon and we might even add a disruption policy since vandalism and disruptive behaviour are two distinct things.


 * The wikipedia disruption policy has then been quoted, which you say you are not in violation of. However, I disagree here. "...Apparent bad-faith edits that do not make their bad-faith nature inarguably explicit are not considered vandalism..." You have carried out a number of bad-faith edits that have made their nature explicit. You have made it perfectly clear that your reason for being involved with those articles was to demonstrate that the voting system was not very robust.


 * You have also said that the other people who have not commented on votes should be banned too, "People are penalized by their actions not their intentions." That isn't true. I take it you understand the difference between murder and manslaughter? A person's intention is quite often a factor in their sentence, as is their guilt.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 04:45, 12 September 2006 (CDT)


 * Well as far as murder and mansluaghter, thats about the only exception. And in that case the difference is not good/bad intention but either  lack of intention  (accident) or either good or bad intention (so a good intention kill, "He killed my father and he's gonna kill more, I know it!" is still murder")(Not a fifty five 13:04, 12 September 2006 (CDT))


 * That's inaccurate too. See intent.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 14:33, 12 September 2006 (CDT)


 * Except it isnt...at least I think, what are you trying to prove is innacurate? Tort law doesn't apply to manslauighter, thats criminal law. This is getting off topic but I'm learning stuff o.O  Now if you're talking about assault, the tort for what may end up in murder, then yes intentions plays a factor.  However "People are penalized by their actions not their intentions" is still true, tho "not" should be replaced with "and".  Thus, replacing stuff for example's sake, a commentless vote would be murder, threatening a commentless vote would be assault, and threatening AND making a commentless vote is still just murder.  I'm still correct, and manslaughter wasn't a factor in here :P(Not a fifty five 16:59, 12 September 2006 (CDT))


 * I really don't know what to say. You're constant mantra of "I'm right" is impossible to rationally argue against. Of course manslaughter wasn't a factor here, and I never suggested it was. I asked if you knew the difference between them, I didn't use them as an analogy. Your intent to derail the voting is the reason why I think Karlos was justified in banning you.


 * Just to quote something you've said:


 * "However 'People are penalized by their actions not their intentions' is still true, tho 'not' should be replaced with 'and'."


 * What you are saying, then, is that when you said "People are penalized by their actions not their intentions" it was correct, however the word "not" should be replaced with "and"? I'm afraid that the two statements cannot both mean the same thing. So either the word "not" is correct in this phrase or the word "and" is correct in this phrase.


 * I don't expect you to acknowledge the error. I think this will be the last time I post on this dispute.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 04:30, 13 September 2006 (CDT)


 * And as far as the vandalism goes, even if it is true, I received no warning. If you look at that very page about vandalism it highly suggests one should.  Karlos' "warning" was false for a true warning means if I did the said vandalism again I would get banned (Not a fifty five 13:04, 12 September 2006 (CDT))


 * It's not our policy to warn vandals, although we sometimes do. I think Karlos was well within his rights.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 14:33, 12 September 2006 (CDT)


 * I assumed you simply held to mediawiki, which says a warning should be given for vandals. (Not a fifty five 16:59, 12 September 2006 (CDT))

Now that I've proven lack of vandalism or disruption....
Lets assume I have, and further drive my argument. Voting is evil, tanaric agrees, so do a number of admins. A person really should not be banned for making a fake vote should they?, since a wiki is not bound by votes, right. Thus the ENTIRE VETTING SYSTEM is up for change and its policy. Thus, people can do anything they rly want as a vote. Thus I can make a vote saying "this is complete vandalization, I am fully intent on disrupting wiki", and it is not diruption, but should just be ignored. Thus one cannot ban anything having to do with the vetting process. Thus anything within the vetting process is not disrupting, unless it is vandalisation or a revert war. Thus I CAN EVEN MOVE A PAGE WITH 0 VOTES to any category I like and it should not be banned, on the good faith that I think it belongs where I put it and do not agree with voting.

Lets face it. The admins so far in this discussion have no idea when and when not to ban people. I believe the above paragraph adamantly proves that point.(Not a fifty five 01:27, 12 September 2006 (CDT))
 * A) You have not proven anything, except to yourself.
 * B) If you trully feel that you can make those changes with no consequences, go ahead, try it. --24.19.60.17 01:31, 12 September 2006 (CDT)


 * In response to A) something that is proven is proven for everyone, in response to B)Of course I'll get banned, even tho I have completely and utterly proven it shouldn't be done. (Not a fifty five 13:14, 12 September 2006 (CDT))


 * You are acting against the rules and systems agreed on by the users of the wiki. Although you might be sure that your stuff above is convincing, it is up to the majority of the users to decide what kind of behavior and actions we tolerate in the wiki. You are acting in a totally different way and casuing a lot of trouble and wikistress to many regulars. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 01:43, 12 September 2006 (CDT)


 * I'd just like to point out a line from GW:ADMIN to you ( 55, not [[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] or the anon): ...an administrator is fully autonomous: he may do as his powers allow, as he sees fit. Thus your point of, "Thus one cannot ban anything having to do with the vetting process." is completely wrong. Karlos can, and did, ban you (as he saw fit).  You took your request to Tanaric, whom as far as I can tell, is one of the most fair minded people I have seen on this or any wiki.  He agreed with Karlos, in fact he stated that he would have banned you for longer than Karlos did.  --Rainith 11:14, 12 September 2006 (CDT)


 * Well you're right about that, even more specifically "An administrater has the right to ban or remove anyone for any reason or even no reason at all" I'm simply pointing out that Karlos has been a jerk about it.  And I dont rly care that all the admins are against me on this matter.  I'm showing quite clearly that I disagree with them, for what I see so far are completely good reasons.  E.g. Karlos can temp ban me for picking my nose.  Would you think it's only fair to bring this up if it happened. (Not a fifty five 13:14, 12 September 2006 (CDT))


 * I doubt Karlos would do that, but if he did then one of us would undoubtably disagree with him and overturn the block ;) &mdash; Skuld 13:19, 12 September 2006 (CDT)
 * And admins have modified (changed durration or removed) blocks made by other admins in the past. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:52, 12 September 2006 (CDT)

You're missing the point, Not a fifty five. We didn't ban you because of your vote, or because you moved the build to the unfavored category. We banned you because you stated you did so against your own opinions to disrupt the wiki. &mdash;Tanaric 16:07, 12 September 2006 (CDT)


 * I got that point. It wasn't disrupted, tho o.O. And the creator of the build complained only of the vote and the move(Not a fifty five 16:20, 12 September 2006 (CDT))


 * I hate succumbing to your love for endless, pointless arguments... But I need to make sure the situation is clearly recapped:
 * The wiki was disrupted. When a user goes to an admin complaining that the wiki is being unfair to his contribution, that is disruption. You can say it is not 45 more times, but it is, and we all agree it is. If you want us to vote on it and show you that 99.9% of all users agree that it is, feel free to start a vote on your user page. That YOU don't see it as disruption is now no more relevant. It's like a thief who thinks his theft is not theft, or a vandal who thinks his work is creative self-expression. This point seems lost unto you. Your perception of what is disruptive does not matter in light of an consensus (not a majority even) among Admins seeing things differently.
 * The second point is, was the disruption intentional? In the case of other irritating votes (like Skuld's and Rapta's), it was not, and those who voted made that clear. In your case, you made it very clear that you WERE twisting the process and messing up the builds. You were messing up the builds not because you voted with no rationale, but because you categorized them as unfavored. Even if you DID mean to vote down the build seriously, you had no business slapping an "unfavored" tag on it. That tag speaks on behlaf of the whole community, and you used it against process, knowingly.
 * So, you did disrupt the wiki, and you did it on purpose. I would recommend others leave him to "win" this debate and move on. My last entry in the re-incarnation of "let's all repeat ourselves over and over." --Karlos 17:07, 12 September 2006 (CDT)


 * Here here.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 17:58, 12 September 2006 (CDT)


 * Thanks, Karlos. I'm done with this now, too. &mdash;Tanaric 19:36, 12 September 2006 (CDT)

sigh
I agree that using Vandalism as the reason for banning was bad. I would've banned 55 for Disruption, whether we had a written policy for it or not. 55 isn't be the first person who gets banned for disrupting the wiki to make a point, there have been quite a few in the past. - 17:09, 12 September 2006 (CDT)
 * Note: I struck out my first sentence because I later realized the part about slapping on unfavored tag could qualify as vandalism if the voting is not supposed to be concluded yet. I didn't look into the circumstances, so I simply struck that sentence out.  I don't know whether there was vandalism (depending on whether the use of the unfavor tag was proper), but my comment about disruption remains. - 17:15, 12 September 2006 (CDT)


 * People are quoting Gandhi, PanSola! Gandhi is being quoted on Guildwiki!! :) --Karlos 18:27, 12 September 2006 (CDT)

Objective view, something sorely lacking here
This just cemented it. I spent all day compiling this list, and if you ignore this effort (as you have Not a 55's), I can tell you my involvement with this project will cease. Not to imply this as a threat, merely that it will become so obvious as to the nature of the administration and community as to push me away from wanting to ever contribute in any shape or form again after this particular incident. I can't say I'm shocked at the behavior of most everyone involved here (save Tanaric), after previous incident. I was not involved in any of this, nor am I an admin (even if I had been nominated for such, I don't really like the idea). I think that everyone here is somehow missing Not a 55's points, but I can't entirely see why this is... perhaps it is his presentation? Let me illustrate it clearly, with (an extremely long list of) examples:

1. Votes with no comment/unhelpful comments are currently accepted:
 * 1) A/E Knock it Off
 * 2) A/E Stinging Mist
 * 3) A/Me Caster's Bane
 * 4) A/Me Condition Outbreak
 * 5) A/Me Epidemic Conditioner
 * 6) A/Me Fragility Assassin ("I question the damage" erm?)
 * 7) A/Mo Black Steel
 * 8) A/Mo Displaced Knockdown
 * 9) A/Mo Displacement of Purity
 * 10) A/Mo Holy Stonesoul ("no 100% knockdown" ...yes but it still has a knockdown)
 * 11) A/Mo Palm Mender
 * 12) A/Mo Regenerating Assassin ("not much condition removal" dot dot dot)
 * 13) A/Mo Spirit-assin
 * 14) A/Mo Syngel (why the hell are people stuck up on not being able to counter EVERYTHING IN THE GAME!?)
 * 15) A/N Death's Empty Palm
 * 16) A/N Ox marks the spot ("too conditional" ...and it has the means in which to MEET the conditions?)
 * 17) A/N Parasitic Aura ("no clear purpose" ...it kills stuff? look at the skill interaction)
 * 18) A/W Anti-Melee Assassin (also of note, this build was changed mid-vote, with no votes being removed)
 * 19) A/W Falling Hammer Assassin
 * 20) A/any Cheap Shot ("too many broken combos")
 * 21) A/any Deadly Shadows ("your daggers have a requirement" ...so? doesn't affect +dmg or bleed/deep wound on this build)
 * 22) A/any Master Assassin
 * 23) A/any Steel Lotus Spider (wow.. one no comment, one lack of understanding the skill interaction, and yet another perfectionist comment... all somehow = unfavored)
 * 24) E/A Shadowy Flamethrower
 * 25) E/Me Caster bodyguard
 * 26) E/Me Illusionary Geomancer ("I don't like it at all")
 * 27) E/Me Immolate Spammer
 * 28) E/Me Mixed Disruption
 * 29) E/Mo AAoE Nuker (it uses dual attunements, yet with 2/8 skills devoted toward energy management, all 3 votes were "no energy management." ...um?)
 * 30) E/N Blizzard
 * 31) E/R Barrage Pet
 * 32) E/Rt Flashfire (again, 2 skills for energy management, yet voted down due to... lack of energy management)
 * 33) E/W Thor's Hammer
 * 34) E/W Water Guardian (multiple "don't think it would work" votes...)
 * 35) E/any Ice Spear Geomancer (uh, Ice Spear is to keep Kinetic Armor up, in addition to doing higher damage than Stone Daggers, maybe?)
 * 36) E/any KD Prodigy
 * 37) E/any Prodigy Nuker (the negative votes are confusing... if this was the same, why wasn't it just merged/deleted?)
 * 38) E/any Titan Burner (!?)
 * 39) Me/E Glyph of Nightmares
 * 40) Me/Mo Threat Remover
 * 41) Me/N Signet of Midnight
 * 42) Me/R Condition Spreader
 * 43) Me/W Blackout Blade
 * 44) Me/any Anti-Melee Hexer
 * 45) Me/any Counter and Interrupt
 * 46) Me/any Degenerating Health
 * 47) Me/any Distortion Survival (in addition to the unhelpful comments, this build was voted unfavored with *3* favored (well, ok one was the author) and *3* unfavored votes.)
 * 48) Mo/any BoonSig Protector
 * 49) Mo/any Enchantment Healer
 * 50) Mo/any Forever Monk
 * 51) Mo/any Sheath Prot
 * 52) N/A Dark Aura of Displacement
 * 53) N/A Demonic Assassin
 * 54) N/E Crystal Desert Farmer
 * 55) N/E Flame Reaper (look at this one also one of two votes was based on complete ignorance, assuming the build was E/N for some insane reason, and never retracted... and guess who it was moved it to Unfavored? that's right.  the guy who didn't retract his misguided vote in the first place)
 * 56) N/Me - Mop 'M Up Build (awkward isn't build-breaking...)
 * 57) N/Me Shiverer
 * 58) N/Mo 55 Battery
 * 59) N/Mo Soul Sucker
 * 60) N/R Golem Marksman
 * 61) N/Rt Accursed Flesh (unfavored... not because it doesn't work... but because it's an SS variant?)
 * 62) N/W Vampiric Swordsman (mock ftw? also why the vote unfavored vote 'oh my build is better'...)
 * 63) N/any Blood Renewal Minion Master (...unfavored due to options? it even lists them...)
 * 64) N/any Competitive Missions Minion Master ("Super sac-to-death ftw!" ...I don't think he understands how a lot of skills work, other unfavored vote makes about the same sense)
 * 65) N/any Discord Master
 * 66) N/any Discordant Gladiator
 * 67) N/any Icy Degen (not paying attention to skill interaction)
 * 68) N/any Malign Summoner
 * 69) N/any Survivor (people seem to be ignoring the damage capabilities...)
 * 70) N/any Vampiric Master (unfavored not because it doesn't work, but.. because it doesn't have dark bond? because it's not a different build?)
 * 71) N/any Xialon Defect (...was anything actually said here?)
 * 72) R/A Bestial Daggers
 * 73) R/A Lunge as One (no other single build that I've tried has ever killed things as fast as this one with no setup time (like building adren), yet multiple votes say it's not good at offense?)
 * 74) R/E BM knocker
 * 75) R/E Practiced Flame Slinger (utterly ignorant comment as one of the two votes)
 * 76) R/Me Anti-Melee Ranger (misguided comments)
 * 77) R/Me Condition Spreader (misguided comments)
 * 78) R/Me Dazer
 * 79) R/Me Farming Build
 * 80) R/Me Thieving Dominatrix (uh, one vote because it wasn't "defended" and a second because "dont get this build"? as well as people not realizing the raw power of Debilitating Shot... sigh)
 * 81) R/Mo 55 Ranger (votes don't make any sense, just because the build wasn't listed with +3 BM & marks doesn't mean they can't be used, obviously)
 * 82) R/Mo Crude Diagonal ("the damage is high and the build does exactly what it says - but it isn't enough")
 * 83) R/N Marksman's Minions
 * 84) R/N Melandru's Toucher (self-preservation aspect difference ignored by all voters, especially in the face of hexes)
 * 85) R/Rt Brutal Barrager
 * 86) R/Rt Brutal Needle (more misguided vote comments)
 * 87) R/Rt Spiritmaker (yet again)
 * 88) R/W Blademaster (shield req 9 tactics, not just 1 skill for 9 tactics... and the other three have no real comments)
 * 89) R/W Crazy Ranger ("no interrupt protection" yet it has Escape and Whirling Defense)
 * 90) R/W Fast Barrager
 * 91) R/W Frenzy Abuser (people missing the point of Frenzy use... hint: there's a time and a place)
 * 92) R/W Silencing Flurry
 * 93) R/any QS interrupter
 * 94) Rt/W Spellblade
 * 95) Rt/any Spiritualist (...by 'variant' it shares, what, 3 skills?)
 * 96) W/A Fake Sin (obviously because it's different it must be unfavored)
 * 97) W/E Cyclonic Burster (delete comment is unwieldy and makes little sense, no reasoning for build not working. hint: it does)
 * 98) W/E Warrior of the Mist
 * 99) W/Me Caster Blaster (er, so what if they're out of energy after casting the interrupts? all the other skills are adrenal, and one serves as energy recovery)
 * 100) W/Mo Minotaur Farmer
 * 101) W/Mo Survivor ("disgrace" eh?)
 * 102) W/Mo Tactic Sword Build ("suck" huh?)
 * 103) W/N Grenth's Fist (sigh)
 * 104) W/N Lone Ganksman (theory-based unfavored votes, 2keep vs 3del)
 * 105) W/N Milthuran's Staff Farmer ("it works" = unfavored?)
 * 106) W/N Spinebreaker
 * 107) W/N Sword Spiker (there was a time when IAS wasn't a requirement, as I recall)
 * 108) W/R Survival Tank (looking over the history of this, the build was originally intended to support itself solely, in addition to being a PvE build. Votes later on appear to assume this a build used in a team, or say nothing at all... really now, contempt for Dolyak Signet when you could use this build solo?)
 * 109) W/any Lethal Axe (it gives a *lot* of options... this is a bad thing?)
 * 110) W/any Tactician ("only useful against idiots" which also applies to PvE, no?)

2. A mere 2 opposing votes has been a precedent for moving builds to Untested:
 * 1) A/E Conjured Fury
 * 2) A/E Knock it Off (special note: 1 Tested, 2 Unfavored, yet moved to Category:Unfavored anyway...)
 * 3) A/E Phoenix Spiker
 * 4) A/E Stinging Mist
 * 5) A/Me Condition Outbreak
 * 6) A/Me Epidemic Conditioner
 * 7) A/Me Fragility Assassin
 * 8) A/Mo Displaced Knockdown
 * 9) A/Mo Holy Stonesoul
 * 10) A/Mo Palm Mender
 * 11) A/Mo Regenerating Assassin
 * 12) A/Mo Spirit-assin
 * 13) A/N Death's Empty Palm
 * 14) A/N Ox marks the spot
 * 15) A/N Parasitic Aura
 * 16) A/N Promised Execution
 * 17) A/N Siphon Vampire
 * 18) A/N Spinal Assassin
 * 19) A/R Beast Striker
 * 20) A/R Falling Spider Assassin
 * 21) A/W Falling Hammer Assassin
 * 22) A/any Master Assassin
 * 23) E/A Shadowy Flamethrower (special note: if nothing else look at this build, and pay attention to the history & vote dates)
 * 24) E/Me Caster bodyguard
 * 25) E/Me Immolate Spammer
 * 26) E/Me Mixed Disruption
 * 27) E/Mo Energy Monk
 * 28) E/Mo Word of Censure Smiter
 * 29) E/any Frozen Ettin
 * 30) E/any Hydra Farmer
 * 31) E/any Ice Spear Geomancer
 * 32) E/any KD Prodigy
 * 33) E/any Prodigy Nuker (special note: 1 Tested, 2 Unfavored, yet moved to Category:Unfavored anyway...)
 * 34) E/any Shocking Stoner
 * 35) E/any Titan Burner
 * 36) Me/E Glyph of Nightmares
 * 37) Me/Mo Keystone Bonder
 * 38) Me/Mo Threat Remover
 * 39) Me/N Signet of Midnight
 * 40) Me/N Soul Barbs Support
 * 41) Me/R Condition Spreader
 * 42) Me/R Ultimate Interruption
 * 43) Me/W Blackout Blade
 * 44) Me/any Anti-Melee Hexer (special note: 1 Tested, 2 Unfavored, yet moved to Category:Unfavored anyway...)
 * 45) Me/any Degenerating Health
 * 46) Me/any Energy Denial (special note: 1 Tested, 2 Unfavored, yet moved to Category:Unfavored anyway...)
 * 47) Mo/Me Empathic Protector
 * 48) R/any Ettin Farmer
 * 49) Mo/N Offering of Blood Spike Healer (...did this even get a revote after OOB was changed?)
 * 50) Mo/W Anti-Melee
 * 51) Mo/W Monk of Victory (votes were.. odd back then. also, builds essentially identical to this were seen in HA during the 6-team weekend)
 * 52) Mo/any Blight Boon Bonder
 * 53) Mo/any BoonSig Protector
 * 54) Mo/any Enchantment Healer (moved this out of unfavored as I wrote this post, since I had experiance with it, and it shouldn't have been in the first place)
 * 55) Mo/any Forever Monk
 * 56) Mo/any Sheath Prot
 * 57) N/E Crystal Desert Farmer
 * 58) N/E Flame Reaper (this "vote" was so convoluted that it's hard to tell, but there are only two real votes)
 * 59) N/E Frostbite (this build was moved to Unfavored with 0 votes)
 * 60) N/Me - Mop 'M Up Build
 * 61) N/Me Pain of Failure
 * 62) N/Me Shiverer
 * 63) N/R Golem Marksman
 * 64) N/any Competitive Missions Minion Master
 * 65) N/any Discord Master
 * 66) N/any Discordant Gladiator
 * 67) N/any Vampiric Master
 * 68) R/A Shadow Trapper
 * 69) R/E BM knocker
 * 70) R/E Practiced Flame Slinger
 * 71) R/Me Anti-Melee Ranger
 * 72) R/Me Chaos Ranger
 * 73) R/Me Condition Spreader
 * 74) R/Me Dazer
 * 75) R/Me Frag Spike (special note: one vote = Unfavored?)
 * 76) R/Mo Crude Diagonal
 * 77) R/Mo Pongmei Valley Farmer MK2 (moved to Unfavored with 0 votes, said it should be merged with vastly different "prior version;" however this was never done)
 * 78) R/N Marksman's Minions (moved to Unfavored with 1 vote, by the person who voted it unfavored)
 * 79) R/N Touchless Ranger
 * 80) R/Rt Barrage Spirit Lord
 * 81) R/W Condition Beast Master
 * 82) R/any Ettin Farmer
 * 83) R/any QS interrupter
 * 84) Rt/Me Channeled Spiker
 * 85) Rt/Mo Monk's Sheath
 * 86) Rt/any Heal-Attack Assist
 * 87) Rt/any Restoring Monk Alternative
 * 88) Rt/any Spiritualist
 * 89) W/A Tele Tank
 * 90) W/E Cyclonic Burster (moved to Unfavored with 1 vote)
 * 91) W/Me "Victory is Mine!" Warrior (uh... aren't those 2 votes for "Unstub" not... Unfavored?)
 * 92) W/Me Caster Blaster
 * 93) W/Mo Complete Totem Farmer
 * 94) W/Mo Hammer Smiter
 * 95) W/Mo Holy Smiter (special note: 1 Tested, 2 Unfavored, yet moved to Category:Unfavored anyway...)
 * 96) W/Mo Minotaur Farmer
 * 97) W/Mo Solo Hydra farmer
 * 98) W/Mo Vigorous Axe Warrior
 * 99) W/N HammerMortis
 * 100) W/N Milthuran's Staff Farmer
 * 101) W/N Plague Warrior
 * 102) W/N Quivering Fanatic (moved to Unfavored with 0 votes or any other apparent reason)
 * 103) W/R Gladiator
 * 104) W/any Coward Killer (moved to Unfavored with 1 vote)

There's quite a lot of builds that support his claim by precedent. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but somehow I think this proves Not a 55's ignored points. He is A) not liable for disruption/vandalism as he was following prior standards (104 / 254) and B) not liable for unhelpful comment as he was following prior accepted behavior (110 / 254, perhaps more since I just looked at Unfavored builds). Following through with your assertions that these actions merit banning, you should start with Rapta, and perhaps Skuld as well, in addition to everyone else who contributed to moving builds to Unfavored at 2 votes. - Greven 19:43, 12 September 2006 (CDT)


 * Wow... that musta took a lot of work! thanks!!! I made a list of 20 for just category A of untested, and that took a bit o time even o.O Lol moved to unfavored with 0 votes.. I gotta look at that one.  (Not a fifty five 22:19, 12 September 2006 (CDT))


 * I agree almost 100% with Greven that the above builds were incorrectly moved to the unfavored category. I will now start from the top of Greven's list and methodically move these builds back to testing and restart the vote discussion on their talk pages. 66.90.73.113 22:42, 12 September 2006 (CDT)
 * And I'll start from the bottom. --Crazytreeboy 22:52, 12 September 2006 (CDT)


 * Greven: Not a fifty five originally said that he had been doing the wrong thing intentionally, just to prove a point. Yesterday he said he has lied. At the moment of the ban Karlos was doing the right thing as he was acting with the current aquirable knowledge. And what comes to the list above, please wait untill the build policy discussions are over. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 01:04, 13 September 2006 (CDT)


 * I think tho, we showed the intention didnt in fact matter, especially since I did not intend to break any rules or damage the wiki. The above quote said I intended to flip a coin on 5 builds and take em where it takes.  This is not breaking the rules, since some cases haven't even bothered voting at all before tagging where it goes!!! (see the 0 votes one?) What I find very ironic, is that one admin said "you trully feel that you can make those changes with no consequences, go ahead, try it" Implying that I would be reprimanded for tagging something with 0 votes on it.(Not a fifty five 01:12, 13 September 2006 (CDT))


 * Although I don't agree with you on the above 'proof' that you are not guilty, remember that the 'proof' was given after the ban was over. The ban was okay with the knowledge Karlos had at the moment. We can't undo the ban now that it's allready over. This discussion has no point. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 02:29, 13 September 2006 (CDT)

You have gone to a lot of effort here Greven and I commend you for that! I had no doubt that there had been many votes without comments, and I also had no doubt that there had been many moves without votes (although I am surprised at how many).

My problem, from the start, has been that Not a 55 admitted that he was doing this, not out of ignorance, but out of a desire to demonstrate that the voting system was flawed. If any one of those other people who had moved the build to unfavoured and also admitted that they understood the practices of the wiki and did this anyway then I would agree that they should be banned.

My point is that we should always assume good faith. Not a 55 lost any assumption (from me, at least) of good faith when he admitted to voting on and moving builds in order to derail the voting process, and this has been my opinion from the start.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 03:58, 13 September 2006 (CDT)


 * Do people never have lapses of judgment? When confronted, he thanked Skuld for reverting it, and then started removing his unsubstantiated votes.  Even besides that, this isn't something that harms the Wiki over the course of a single late evening through morning; especially when policy in which it concerns is starting to be discussed in depth.


 * The banning itself was essentially vindictive, as the actions had been corrected by that time. Not a 55 stated his motivations beforehand, and while I don't agree with them, I also don't agree with the reasoning for banning him.  It's already said and done, but it shouldn't have happened in the first place in this scenario.  - Greven 04:57, 13 September 2006 (CDT)

Incorrectly unfavoured builds (section breaker)
Can you hold off moving them until we have some concensus, this is a contentious issue, if you're going to change 100 pages perhaps some discussion first would be wise, isn't that the whole reason (a lack of discussion) you want to now move them back? --Xasxas256 22:54, 12 September 2006 (CDT)
 * Oh, well, when ya put it that way, sure. I just didn't realize so many builds had been unfavored for little to no reason.  All the examples I'd paid attention to had nonsense votes maybe, but not NO votes. Still, you're right about adding 200+ builds back into testing... --Crazytreeboy 22:59, 12 September 2006 (CDT)


 * STOP. As much as I agree with the fact that these builds got a raw deal, DO NOT MOVE THEM BACK.  If you do, they will get the same deal that they've gotten already, because between their voting down and right now, there have been no policy changes to the builds testing category which would ensure a new vote for them.  I agree that 55 had a good point, but the way he went about pointing it out, and the stance he took afterwards, angered people and caused them not to look at the point, but to argue with 55 instead.  What needs to be done now is to work harder to get the vetting policies changed,  while leaving these builds where thay are to maintain the integrity of this list.  If these were all added back into the untested category, all it would do is double the size of the category, forcing the testers to work even faster and spend less and less time on each build.  This wouldn't help these or any builds, so dont move them anywhere.  Policy changes must be made, or all these build will be back in untested tomarrow.--Azroth 23:07, 12 September 2006 (CDT)


 * Well the policy has since changed to 3 votes o.O But yeah if policies changed, and they are soon since we have two ideasalready for a change, it'd be sad if they all went zoom somewhere after all that work. (Not a fifty five 23:12, 12 September 2006 (CDT))


 * Don't worry, I haven't and ain't touching them. And you've an even better point to add to Xasxas(...'s?).  Fix the vetting process first, Then fix the unfavored builds.  The LAST thing I wanna do is make things any more messed up than they already are right now or cause trouble. I'll wait. --Crazytreeboy 23:18, 12 September 2006 (CDT) (Edit Conflict)


 * There has been a deep and pervasive injustice done to over a hundred build articles because of a flawed process. If you read GuildWiki talk:Builds, you will see plenty of support for this. The proponent of this flawed process (Xeeron) is currently not available for comment. One of the persons commonly accused of flippant voting (Rapta) is similarly absent. The other person (Skuld) is an admin who has the power to impose discretionary blocks if he feels that moving these builds back to testing is disruptive. Xasxas256 hasn't staked a position either way except to urge caution where it is unnecessary. Consensus already exists on this matter. There should be no voting on any of these builds moved back to testing until one of the proposed policy changes is implemented; this is why I am not using on them. 66.90.73.113 23:14, 12 September 2006 (CDT)

Look...Xeeron, Rapta, Skuld, and the other testers are not the enemy here (I'm not sure if this is what you're suggesting but I'm going on the assumption that you are). The testers are just working within the limits of the policy. They are fighting an up hill battle against an ever increasing untested category which demands that they vote on builds and move them as fast as possible less the untested category become so alarmingly huge that the builds section is completely abandoned as a lost cause. Without them constantly casting votes on builds, no one else would. If you one day logged on, and went to the untested category and found it too contain 1000 untested builds, would you be the one to begin testing them? How would you decide what builds to test? If you were able to test two builds a day, as five or ten more came in, would you keep testing or would you give up? Or would you take the third option and begin casting votes as fast as you could simply to easy the strain and try to clear out the untested section? It’s not the people that’s the problem here, it’s the system. So don’t just sit here on this page and talk about how the builds section gets tested too quickly and not enough attention is paid to each build. If you don’t like it, help them. Devote some of your time to testing builds, testing them the right way. You've all proved today that you have the time just by sitting here and watching the events on this page unfold. So now its time for you to stop watch, to stop talking, and to start acting. Now get your buts in gear and get to it. I'm not an admin, and I haven't been here for very long, but since when has it ever been the policy of this or any other group of people to see a problem and instead of trying to help out, to sit around and complain about it and hope that someone else will take care of it for you? Now go test some builds and fix the problem that you all helped to create. If you need me, you'll know where to find me.--Azroth 23:40, 12 September 2006 (CDT)


 * dont worry this section has little to do with my banning, we aren't name calling >.<. We're just saying there's no point to continue testing if the policy is about to change.  I believe xeeron himself commented about this, that there should be more people trying to work on a better policy than voting.  So I'm not bothering testing until we take a look at those policies.  Theres only two so far, mine and zaishen's.  People should either comment on these or make a policy of their own, both helping the builds section move along.  We all here seem to like examples >.< So we're saying "Hmm this boat is sinking faster than we can bucket water out, maybe we should look at the hole for a sec..."(Not a fifty five 01:09, 13 September 2006 (CDT))