Difference between revisions of "User talk:Evil Greven4060"

From GuildWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(The Stabber saga: a better timeline)
Line 253: Line 253:
   
 
-- [[User:F G|F G]] 16:43, 26 September 2006 (CDT)
 
-- [[User:F G|F G]] 16:43, 26 September 2006 (CDT)
  +
  +
:* Some things said about my participation are inaccurate. I commented on Stabber's harsh summary remark (not the one linked) primarily so she'd be more cautious in the future. I was confident that she would end up doing the right thing regarding the anon user, based on maturity she had previously demonstrated, and was not disappointed. My intention was for that to be generally all there was to it. (As a small added bonus, I could also villify myself and get suspected as a sockpuppeteer of the anon user, so that I might hopefully absorb the brunt of the inevitable sockpuppet accusations. That part didn't pan out. =P) To be fair, I should note that the purity of my motives has been disputed.
  +
:* I am one of those who left the wiki specifically because of this stuff, despite the fact that it hadn't yet happened. In case I was not clear before, my decision was to leave rather than be considered part of a wiki where users have to endure demonization. I still hope to perhaps return as a regular contributor once the wiki has improved past it.
  +
:--[[User:Rezyk|Rezyk]] 22:17, 26 September 2006 (CDT)

Revision as of 03:17, 27 September 2006

Boss Crsade

Hi Evil Greven! Just a little heads-up: For your boss crusade, are you aware of this page? It might help you. --Tetris L 16:00, 1 March 2006 (CST)

Yeah, thanks though. PanSola gave me the heads up on that over in the GuildWiki talk:Task List. Ironically, I was just adding a link there to the crusade description. - Evil_Greven 16:02, 1 March 2006

Thanks

Thanks for fixing the Seeking Blade template immage :) --Sagius Truthbarron 05:11, 2 March 2006 (CST) Didn't realise that wasn't your talk page... ^^;

Elite tag

The (Elite) tag should only go on boss pages, since you can't capture them from normal monsters, no reason to have it on their pages. See GuildWiki:Style and formatting/Bestiary. --Rainith 06:40, 2 March 2006 (CST)

Missed that. Revertting. - Evil_Greven 06:47, 2 March 2006


Category:Jade

Didn't this wiki come to the conclusion that Mursaat and Jade armors should be merged into the same category? I don't recall off the top of my head, but I believe there was a discussion about it a while back... 69.124.143.230 09:31, 2 March 2006 (CST)

I haven't seen that one, I'm going off the discussion listed at Category_talk:Jade, but it's somewhat dated. Jade are the Warriors and Rangers of the Mursaat, which are strictly spell casters. - Evil_Greven 09:30, 2 March 2006

include / noinclude tag addition

umm... check out GuildWiki talk:Style and formatting/Skills/Archive 4#14-day Vote: Revamp Skill boxes?. Basically we are going to implement a new skill box system that will make your efforts be completely wasted. Unless you are planning to use those particular skills in includes before the skill box format is settled.

Of course, fixing broken ones is a good thing to do. But if a skill is not included by any article, my advise is to leave it alone. -PanSola 18:03, 2 March 2006 (CST)

Really? And here I just finished, too! I know I've even looked at that page... I thought it was for the floating vertical skill boxes that were off to the right side of the page, though. The reason I had it out for the Signet in particular was that was what got me blocked for a month... using the Glyphs page as a template for a similar Signets page. If it's a wasted effort... well, I'm stopping on Signets for now. I kind of think a complete revamp of the Skills pages are necessary.. they're rather messy, and have to be changed if something is changed on a different page. My thought was using the templates used on Glyphs for that. Of course, to make it universally-compliant, the <includeonly></includeonly> would need another column for the (normally) class-specific cost (sacrifice, adrenaline, exhaustion). Time to call it a night, I'm rambling. - Evil_Greven 18:11, 2 March 2006
Alright, now that I got some rest I see where you were talking about. It looks like the voting has ended, though, is that correct? - Evil_Greven 01:53, 3 March 2006
Yes, the 14-day vote has ended. -PanSola 02:23, 3 March 2006 (CST)
So when do we start? :) -Evil_Greven 02:27, 3 March 2006

One more thing, I think you missed the fact that Option A1 won the vote, not A2... -PanSola 01:52, 4 March 2006 (CST)

March 2nd Update

Why do you keep reverting edits to certain skill changes from the March 2nd Update? eg. Ineptitude The game update clearly says 30...135, but you changed it to ...114? I don't have a Mesmer to confirm this, are you sure that the update data is incorrect? 69.124.143.230 03:52, 4 March 2006 (CST)

I have a level 20 primary of every class (2 accounts), and verified all skills before changing them (with the exception of Warrior's Endurance, which looked like it had remained the same). ArenaNet is using (0...15) attribute range for their update, rather than the standard (0...12) which is used here on the site (and I believe ingame when you first get a skill). -- Evil_Greven 04:04, 4 March 2006
any idea why they're using 1..15? — Skuld 04:10, 4 March 2006 (CST)
My theory is that the 1...15 scale is the linear progression the game mechanics use. Whereas 1...12 scale is the normal character rank range without using additional bonus modifiers. Not sure why they can't be consistent though -PanSola 04:18, 4 March 2006 (CST)
Ugh, yeah I saw a few things that would agree with the 1...15 scale -- bloody hell, that's aggrivating. 69.124.143.230 14:05, 4 March 2006 (CST)
Funny thing is, IIRC when the game first came out they did use 1...12 scale in the updates. They changed it sometime in the summer though. Since then, everytime there is an update for a skill, it gets edited 2-3 times before people leave it alone. --Rainith 14:08, 4 March 2006 (CST)
I think even now when you unlock a skill, it still shows the (0...12) range, but I could be mistaken. -Evil_Greven 14:09, 4 March 2006
You are correct, well as of a few weeks ago anyway. I haven't unlocked a skill since yesterday's update, but the last time I did it was still the old range. --Rainith 14:12, 4 March 2006 (CST)
Unlocked two skills just now. As of today, the ingame range is still (0...12). - Evil_Greven 14:03, 6 March 2006 (CST)

SoC Purge

Why? Why why why? did you do that? --FireFox Firefoxav.gif 11:44, 4 March 2006 (CST)

Because I asked Rainith and he said to (see: GuildWiki_talk:Task_List#Acquisitions:_Signet_of_Capture) -Evil_Greven 11:44, 4 March 2006 (CST)
It has been discussed before that any SoC info after the skill is available from quest or trainer is not worth keeping. --Rainith 12:02, 4 March 2006 (CST)

|Progression - Terms

I modified some of the Progression Tables to have a terminology of sorts for their effects. While previously some of these were already this way, others were not, and I had kind of standardized them when I did the whole Progression Table update. However, looking back and thinking on it, the term "Duration" did not really fit well with the skills that caused effects. Some skills, such as Tainted Flesh, would have conflicting terminology in the tables themselves, and others, like Deadly Riposte, have a fixed skill duration which also conflicts with the term "Duration." Conditions are status effects; either on or off for a fixed duration of time, so replacing the "Duration" with the appropriate condition name should be naturally understandable without any need for footnotes such as "note in seconds" or somesuch. For now, I've halted at the Warrior skills, so if this is disagreed upon, I can always change it back without too much trouble. - Evil_Greven 17:24, 8 March 2006 (CST)

I think this standardization is a good idea. Honestly I haven't checked out what you've done, but I like the idea of this. --Rainith 11:11, 9 March 2006 (CST)
One thing that bothers me about what I changed has to do with "Blind" effects... many skills say "Blinded" but while there is a redirect from Blind to Blindness, there is no existing one from Blinded. I went ahead and termed them as "Blindness" even though it conflicts slightly with the skill descriptions. - Evil_Greven 11:16, 9 March 2006 (CST).

Progression - Values

Please only fill in values verified in-game. If you have been interpolating the values between 0 and 12, jsut want to let you know that they in general do not scale linearily, even after taking rounding errors into consideration. This is because the actual internal linear range goes from 0 to 15. So if the steps are not a common factor of 12 and 15, assuming linear progression between 0 and 12 can give you some bad errors.

And if the numbers you use are taking from in-game, then ignore this note d-: -PanSola 13:07, 9 March 2006 (CST)

I normally only verify numbers ingame. The only reason I didn't on some of the progression tables for Assassin & Ritualist was the margin of error involved and the little disclaimer at the tops of the pages. Anything that was less than whole numbers 0-12 progression was simply left blank, as was all of the 13-19 progression (at least, the ones I did numbers for). If it needs to be changed I'll work on it, but I figured as I went along putting the progression tables in I might as well put some bare estimates based on the ranges. - Evil_Greven - 13:20, 9 March 2006 (CST)

Pagename

If you really think {{PAGENAME}} should be used like you're changing all those templates to use, then it should be in the templates themselves. --68.142.14.96 12:37, 10 March 2006 (CST)

It would be nice, yes, but at the moment there's still the upload bug. Thusly, so far it's not in the template. However, if it ends up getting included in some form of template, then it will already be there. - Evil_Greven - 13:21, 10 March 2006 (CST)
Not really. Someone will still have to go through and purge/null edit every page for the template to update. --68.142.14.96 14:08, 10 March 2006 (CST)
I was thinking more along the lines of the problems with the skillset template and skill images than redoing the boss infobox template. - Evil_Greven 14:11, 10 March 2006 (CST)

are you done with your template or need more time?

Assuming you have paid attention to the difference between Option A1 (which lost) and Option A2 (which won) in GuildWiki talk:Style and formatting/Skills/Archive 4#14-day Vote: Revamp Skill boxes?, are you going to modify how your template works, withdrawing it from the proposal, or proposing it as-is dispite that's what people voted against the last time?

I won't disqualify it if it's the last case, but just want to point out that the last voting on the matter indicated ppl in general don't want to have the same info at two places, even if the two places could be in the same article. -PanSola 19:03, 10 March 2006 (CST)

I think I'll just leave it merely as an alternative design. I was disappointed that I couldn't get the includes to work with it properly, but ah well. - Evil_Greven 02:10, 11 March 2006 (CST)
BTW can you demo how the landscape will look on Shield Stance and Rush? I noticed your demos currently all existing skills that use 4 stats. -PanSola 05:11, 13 March 2006 (CST)
Done and done. Also, I missed something when I was doing the template, so now it looks much nicer. - Evil_Greven 06:06, 13 March 2006 (CST)
Er, noticed there's no test for long attribute name & detail, so I added Troll Unguent (Wilderness Survival) and Call of Protection (115 recharge). - Evil_Greven 06:17, 13 March 2006 (CST)

BTW, I added chapter markings to my skill box, which makes mine more "full-featured" than your current proposal. But then it'd feel like cheating if ppl voted for mine simply based on taht feature, so just informing you about it so you can put it in yours if you are so inclined to. -PanSola 20:22, 14 March 2006 (CST)

One more thing, if you are not keeping the vertical info box in the proposal anymore, I suggest you comment it out to reduce confusion (assuming when you said "I'll just leave it merely as an alternative design" you meant you will just leave the landscape format as an alternative landscape design and nolonger include the vertical one in the proposal). -PanSola 23:05, 14 March 2006 (CST)
I meant both. Because they are totally interchangable, and with minor use of include tags on the new demo pages, either one could be displayed - Evil_Greven 02:53, 15 March 2006 (CST)
BTW, as a suggestion to the syntax, it'd be better of users don't need to enter the full link for the icon. It almost defeats the purpose of templating that part of the box, except to keep the whole thing as one template... While I had bones to pick with how Skuld named the parameters for his "plain English" syntax, when it comes to Energy, Activation, and Recharge, his syntaxes are easier than yours. You can try to use his system or my system, a hybrid, or something totally different (or keep it as is...).
Also, for the landscape form, I suggest putting Adrenline as the second field to align with Energy, since they are both considered "cost" and they do align in the in-game skill menu. -PanSola 05:18, 15 March 2006 (CST)

Moving stuff around

Not sure if you know this or you were joking, but you can move any article in the wiki that you can edit, or 99% of them. Just click on the move tab at the top of the page and ZOINK! --Karlos 09:49, 14 March 2006 (CST)

I miss stuff in plain sight all the time. I'd looked in the toolbox and navigation box to no avail, when it's sitting right there at the top. Sigh. Thanks for the heads up. I converted all the links to Resnar Mountaininsight to Resnar Mountainsight so the old one can be deleted. - Evil_Greven 09:49, 14 March 2006 (CST)

Skill bars

Have you see Template:Mini skill bar? — Skuld 15:51, 17 March 2006 (CST)

No, I hadn't, but some of the skills I've got listed won't show up using that method (non-uploadable image bug) - Greven 15:53, 17 March 2006 (CST)

Progression script

Since it seems you're working on it, check out User talk:PanSola#Moo.. It's something I made many months ago for the wiki that might come in handy now to fill in the progression templates. --Fyren 18:05, 24 March 2006 (CST)

Factions N, W, and E skills done

And with the minor additions to the Expertise progressions, I'm taking a break! - Greven 12:09, 25 March 2006 (CST)

Boss Pics

I noticed you and I are on the same crusade, to clean up bosses. I made a list of the bosses that needed pictures if you need it as a reference. --Gares Redstorm 15:24, 4 June 2006 (CDT)

Aah thanks much, that should help tremendously! - Greven 15:59, 4 June 2006 (CDT)

Locations work

Nice work on adding the locations info for all those places. --Karlos 08:10, 6 June 2006 (CDT)

mute point

this one used to drive my english teacher nuts: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/moot_point. pitty there's no PM capibilities in mediawiki. please blank this comment once you read it --Honorable Sarah Honorable Icon.gif 17:24, 20 June 2006 (CDT)

Quest Stubs

I see you've created the articles The Minister's Quest and Capturing the Orrian Tome for the 2 new quests. However you've basically added nothing to the articles, in my opinion it would better not to have created them, this way people can see the red links and say, "oh we don't have an article on this, well as I do the quest I'll make notes and create the article" or something to that effect. Creating the articles but not filling in any details suggests that we've got info for those quests when in fact we don't. --Xasxas256 22:26, 28 June 2006 (CDT)

Yeah.. against my better judgement, I created them before checking ingame to see if the update was even live.. which it apparently isn't. Sorry about that. - Greven 22:28, 28 June 2006 (CDT)
Eh these things happen next time use Signet of Judgment or something. Oh gawd that's bad, well PanSola's deleted them now anyway so no dramas. --Xasxas256 23:05, 28 June 2006 (CDT)

the "noinclude" stuff in skill articles

I guess you didn't know. They were deprecated a few months ago, and are no longer used/needed. They don't hurt, so no need to go on a crusade to remove them, but if there are any new skill articles to create, just don't put them in. Thanks. -User:PanSola (talk to the Follower of Lyssa.png) 08:44, 28 July 2006 (CDT)

Same with the categories, and please stub the pages!!! — Skuld 12:37, 28 July 2006 (CDT)

Essence Bond...

Hey, I saw your entry here and I was quite surprised by your reaction. I understand your frustration with the build process and the examples you listed only go to show what everyone has been saying... That it's messed up.

However, I think you are mixing two different things... Many of these builds were given the boot as a result of poor votes prior to the present discussion. In fact, many of them sparked the present discussion. That discussion mainly started because of Rapta's ill-conceived plan of speeding up the vetting process as well as Skuld's and some other people's poorly constructed votes of saying nothing or something like "bad build."

What Not-a-55 did was that he wanted to send a message that this is messed up (or some other noble intention) so he started to mimic it and push builds into unfavored (even though, at the time, Rapta had stopped, and the discussion was taking place).

So, I fail to see why you are so incensed that we are penalizing Not-a-55 for what he did (to the point of abandoning the wiki). Do you think what he did is the SAME as what those earlier voters did (which you so melticulously tallied)? Do you think what he did was ok? --Karlos 23:39, 12 September 2006 (CDT)

19:09, 4 September 2006 Not a fifty five Talk:Mo/any Ebond Boon Heal (→Rate-a-Build) →initial nonsense vote
19:11, 4 September 2006 Not a fifty five Mo/any Ebond Boon Heal →"moved" to unfavored
19:12, 4 September 2006 Not a fifty five Talk:Me/A Illusionary Daggers (→Rate-a-Build) →nonsense vote
19:15, 4 September 2006 Not a fifty five Me/A Illusionary Daggers →"moved" to favored
23:29, 4 September 2006 Not a fifty five Talk:Me/A Illusionary Daggers (→Rate-a-Build) (restoration) →removed a nonsense vote
23:31, 4 September 2006 24.69.200.105 User Talk:Tanaric (Unreasonable vote down.) →start of discussion on "move" to unfavored
00:41, 5 September 2006 Skuld User Talk:Tanaric (→Unreasonable vote down.) →skuld agrees that this is unreasonable
00:40, 5 September 2006 Skuld User Talk:Tanaric (Restarting testing....) →skuld reverts tag
comments on (→Unreasonable vote down.) User Talk:Tanaric and (→Messing with build votes...) User talk:Not a fifty five/archive
02:32, 5 September 2006 Not a fifty five Talk:Mo/any Ebond Boon Heal (→Rate-a-Build) →removed nonsense vote
comments by multiple parties on (→Unreasonable vote down.) User Talk:Tanaric and (→Messing with build votes...) User talk:Not a fifty five/archive
03:11, 5 September 2006 Karlos blocked "Not a fifty five" (Special:Contributions/Not a fifty five (contribs)|contrib) for a duration of 3 days (vandalising build vetting process, boasting about it)
You see what happened here, don't you? He corrected his error in judgment, although he did not admit his error in execution (with good reason - this 2-vote, or less even, and move to Unfavored was used quite extensively, as I documented). He even initially thanked Skuld for restoring the Testing tag to the article initially disputed by its author.
Then what happened? You banned him. Not for something he did, by this point, no (as he had removed his votes) - for something he might do. Or was that really it? You said the issue was with you, not Skuld. Why did you say this? Skuld is the one 55 initially saw and discussed with. Why did you all of a sudden make this a personal issue, when you had nothing initially to do with it? Suddenly, oh hey don't talk about Skuld, I'm the one warning you! Oh wait, never mind that, you're banned for three days. Nevermind it had been a mere 8 hours since the onset of this, not to mention nearly an hour after everything was all fixed (which had started, rather interestingly, two minutes before the initial complaint).
As for discussions, it had not really progressed a great deal by that point.
I do not agree with him being penalized for what, essentially, was already practiced in the votes. And while I do not agree with his methods, I also do not agree with yours. He reverted his votes, after the complaint, yet you still banned him in apparent ignorance of that. From what I've seen, you have a history of banning first and asking questions later (remember DK? just as an example, don't go about trying to justify that).
I don't like drama, yet I've likely caused some in saying what I did. This isn't the only thing that has forced me to consider my continued participation in this project. It's just one of many. And you know what they say about straws and camels. - Greven 02:43, 13 September 2006 (CDT)

New proposal for build vetting

I am not sure if you have followed the discussion in GuildWiki talk:Builds#Comments on process, but I have proposed an alternate scheme for vetting builds that is heavily influenced by Wikipedia's featured articles process. One of the builds I am using in my experimental run is R/A Lunge as One (nom), a build that I believe you have a keen interest in. If you are willing to attempt to salvage a good end to the current builds-related drama on the wiki, please consider participating in this experimental run. 66.90.73.113 01:29, 13 September 2006 (CDT)

Please clarify

Greven,

Could you please clarify what you meant by this statement:

"I can't say I'm shocked at the behavior of most everyone involved here (save Tanaric), after previous incident."

Thanks!

Tanaric 00:08, 15 September 2006 (CDT)

Yeah! Am I one of the bad guys? If so I've got dibs on Boba Fett! Generally I'm more into crazy behaviour than shocking behaviour but I'm curious too. --Xasxas256 00:19, 15 September 2006 (CDT)
Are you sure you want clarification? Please look at my response to Karlos above. I was surprised that you, Tanaric, whom I considered a generally objective person did not research this matter very well at all. I was not surprised that everyone else failed to do so, after the prior incident I linked to there.
  1. You and everyone else failed to research how common the practice of unhelpful comments (or lack of) in votes actually was.
  2. You and everyone else failed to research how widespread the practice of 2 (or less) votes and a move actually was.
In failing to do this, you and everyone else ignored and brushed over his points in defense of his actions. He could have written "this build sucks" and, based on past accepted behavior, it would have been fine. He could have written "this build doesn't work" even if it did and, based on past behavior, it would have been perfectly acceptable.
People even fell to using "vandalism" to describe his actions, as if to add merit to their attitudes toward him. Analogies with murder were even made, of all things... totally absurd action on the part of people who had nothing to do with this incident. Based on prior accepted behavior, his actions were perfectly valid. In fact, his actions were better than others, because he reverted his own votes. This wasn't done for many builds in Unfavored, even when on occasions when a voter was shown to be completely wrong. Afterwards Karlos banned him because, I can only surmise since he hasn't responded to my reply, he didn't like being contradicted and felt ignored.
Then there's this statement by Karlos: "When a user goes to an admin complaining that the wiki is being unfair to his contribution, that is disruption." Hey, I have an example! What if I were to go to an admin and complain about the wiki being unfair to one of my contributions? Afterall, whenever I said anything about it, it was completely ignored (and then archived, hah). So there you go, I'm going to you, Tanaric, and complaining that the Wiki was unfair to my contribution.
That was put to a vote (however flawed the premises was... skills might change, and they might not), and it was deleted from the Wiki completely (far harsher than simply getting your build moved to Unfavored). So there you have it, in the opinion of Karlos, everyone voting for deleting in that vote disrupted the Wiki. They should all be banned then, and according to you and several other admins, it should be for quite a long time! Seriously, how can Karlos consider this to support this ban?
Let's see your statement, Tanaric: "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." I don't recall him saying he did this to disrupt the Wiki. Further still, what opinions did he go against? Do you know? I assume you believe it to be that his votes were different from what they would have been. What actions did he actually take that ran contrary to his opinions? Let's see... he was against posting unhelpful comments (or none at all) and also against moving builds to Unfavored with a mere 2 votes, and yet he did both of those.
Does this help you any? - Greven 02:06, 15 September 2006 (CDT)

vote

Not that it matters that much (as we probably won't have another sucessful adminship this year) but I've changed my vote on your RFA. My reservations about you not being active enough in discussion and policy issues are no longer relevent. --Xasxas256 08:32, 15 September 2006 (CDT)

The Stabber saga: a better timeline

I don't agree with the timeline you posted to User talk:Karlos#Fallout. Here's what I believe actually happened. To keep matters simple, I will use male pronouns.

Deldda Kcarc (prehistory)

  • 6 July, 2005: [1] X makes his first edit to the wiki. He makes a few other edits, but doesn't really start contributing until November.
  • On or around 15 November, 2005: User:Deldda Kcarc is registered and makes a number of edits. By all appearances DK is a prolific and valuable poster, doing widely appreciated work on Damage (among other things)...
  • ... until he gets involved in his first political war on Talk:Dragon with Karlos, who was an admin at that time. This war gets ugly. DK leaves this belittling comment about Karlos, which leads to this response by Karlos, which leads to DK claiming to leave. In all, Karlos is soundly criticized for his actions (example). The day DK leaves is 23 November, 2005. His last edit is to blank his user page and leave a goodbye message.

Stabber appears (epoch I)

  • On or around 26 November 2005, User:Stabber enters the scene. By all appearances Stabber is a prolific and valuable poster, doing widely appreciated work on a number of articles. No one suspects any sockpuppetry because there is no reason to suspect any. There is no link between Deldda Kcarc, who had departed just three days previous, and Stabber.
  • Stabber refrains from directly opposing Karlos on any matter, but this is not to say that he refrains from wars. He was certainly a party to the Talk:Tank war, where he spoke in opposition to Karlos. [2] [3] In this light, this edit is fascinating: Stabber is trying to get on Karlos's good side, despite speaking in opposition.
  • On or around 4 December 2005, Stabber decides to take a wikibreak. Perhaps this is prompted by another major fallout in the wiki at the time, a Tetris L/Karlos war, which left Tetris L wanting to leave also. See this message of support from Stabber to Tetris L.
  • Between 4 December and 17 February there are no edits by Stabber. His last edits are blanking his user page and leaving a goodbye message.

Deldda Kcarc's brief appearance (intermission)

  • DK returns to the wiki on 14 January ([4] [5]).

Stabber returns (epoch II)

  • Stabber's second epoch begins in earnest on 17 February 2006. He restores his pre-blanked user page and starts contributing in earnest again.
  • War erupts on Talk:List of skill anomalies on 31 March 2006. The disagreement is over the mechanics of Judge's Insight. In a heated moment Stabber calls the argument "idiotic". This is criticized by Rezyk who posts a thinly veiled warning about possible bans. Stabber takes it to heart, adds an actual ban tag on his user page (blanking prior contents), and leaves.[6]
  • On or around 31 August, User:Esan appears on the scene. He first posts as 128.2.196.71 in Talk:List of skill anomalies, and later as his username. Esan claims to know Stabber in real life and is vociferously loyal to him.

Stabber returns again (epoch III)

  • War erupts on 7 May 2006 when Stabber wades into a revert war in support of User:Tetracycloide. I once used to suspect Tetra of being Stabber's sock, given how similar his user page was to Stabber's old page and how he seemed to freely adopt Stabber's editorial style (see Team - 5 Man Farming (Tomb Ruins), which was highly reminiscent to Stabber's Team - Barrage/Pet (Tomb Ruins)).
  • The war gets ugly and Stabber leaves in a huff after requesting a page protection despite being a party of the war. His last act is to blank his user page.
  • This was is the first time that I, User:F G, directly get involved in a wikifight over Talk:Mo/Me Barrier Bond Monk. While I argue on Stabber's "side", I am also very critical of Stabber's actions. I dig through Stabber's history and am convinced that this user needs to be given a stern warning. I make a case for a punitive ban. No one speaks in support, so I retract my ban request.
  • User Esan shows up and again is extremely loyal to Stabber. He eventually takes the case to Tanaric in the arbitration debacle. I happily missed the entire thing as I had initially intended to stay true to my word and leave the wiki.

The age of sockpuppets

  • On 11 May 2006, the first major sockpuppet (Esan was too minor), User:Seventy.twenty.x.x, arrives on the scene. One of his edits is on the Stabber/Esan/F G arbitration page. 70.20 is an interesting fellow as he is the first sock to live entirely in the policy pages. See his contributions.
  • Among 70.20's major contributions is a number of bot-assisted edits. The only person at the time who had used bots on the wiki was X.
  • One key edit by 70.20 is this edit. If 70.20 is a Stabber sock, then this counts as vote tampering.
  • On 13 June 2006, 70.20 gets into a fight with User:Rainith. See the thread that starts with this comment. The disagreement is over banning policy, which, one might remember, was one of the many policy proposals initiated by Stabber. Instead of staying and arguing his case, he leaves in a huff. His last action is to blank his user page and replace it with a diatribe.[7].
  • On 23 May 2006, User:Koyashi enters the scene. His first edit is to leave a message on User_talk:Stabbot. The odds are astronomically low that a new user would know of Stabbot's existence.
  • Koyashi claims to be a Japanese native speaker and even affects difficulty with English. However, contradictorily, he confidently makes grammar corrections to wiki articles.
  • Koyashi vanishes without a trace on 2 June, 2006.
  • Somewhere around this time I discover the sock puppetry, but I keep my promise to stay away from the wiki.

Stabber returns yet again (epoch IV)

  • On 26 May 2006 Stabber makes his triumphant return, bearing exciting news.
  • He returns to active participation in the wiki. Note that his time here overlaps with several of his socks, primarily Koyashi and 70.20.
  • On 16 June 2005 he initiates a revert war with Karlos.[8] [9] Karlos uses his admin powers to lock Stabber out of prolonging the war. Stabber then storms out in a huff, blanking his user page.[10] This is the last edit that User:Stabber will make while logged in.
  • On 16 June 2005, Deldda Kcarc magically reappears. He wipes the prehistory from his user and user talk pages.
  • He then goes delete tagging articles that Stabber initiated. Primary among them are List of skill anomalies and GuildWiki:Standardizing skill templates. This piques Karlos's interest and he leaves this comment. At this point, plenty of people were already aware of the sockpuppetry. Example.
  • Deldda Kcarc and Karlos then have their famous edit war over User talk:Deldda Kcarc. Karlos uses his admin powers to finally do what he should have done in March and bans Deldda Kcarc. DK uses anonymous IPs to prolong the revert war until Karlos ends up protecting the page.
  • DK then leaves a message on GuildWiki talk:Community Portal requesting Karlos's demotion.[11] The date is 18 June, 2006.
  • Rainith, disgusted with the situation and to remove all doubts, posts the evidence of sock puppetry that he had held back so long.Start here
  • I then break my promise, enter the fray, and the rest is history.

Call me the devil or whatever you wish, but do not say that there has been collective injustice. Everyone has been extremely restrained in dealing with this person until he chose to blow it all out of proportion and bring Karlos's adminship into question. No one, and I repeat, no one came to Stabber's support then. It is now abundantly clear to all but half a dozen holdouts that Stabber added strife and misery to the wiki.

"A dozen people who left following this collective injustice"? Really? Give us the names. User:Bishop? He laughed it off, continued to contribute for a long time, and is now at WarWiki. User:Gem? Still here. User:PanSola? Still here. User:Evan The Cursed? He'd already left by the time of this war. User:FireFox? Same. User:Tetris L? Still here and defended Karlos in the last war with DK. User:Draygo Korvan? Still here. User:Gares Redstorm? Still here. user:Xeeron? Still here. You? Still here. Esan, Deldda Karc, Koyashi and 70.20? Socks, for the simple reason that not a single one has spoken up in their defense. Stabber? Still here (probably). Who are these dozen people?

-- F G 16:43, 26 September 2006 (CDT)

  • Some things said about my participation are inaccurate. I commented on Stabber's harsh summary remark (not the one linked) primarily so she'd be more cautious in the future. I was confident that she would end up doing the right thing regarding the anon user, based on maturity she had previously demonstrated, and was not disappointed. My intention was for that to be generally all there was to it. (As a small added bonus, I could also villify myself and get suspected as a sockpuppeteer of the anon user, so that I might hopefully absorb the brunt of the inevitable sockpuppet accusations. That part didn't pan out. =P) To be fair, I should note that the purity of my motives has been disputed.
  • I am one of those who left the wiki specifically because of this stuff, despite the fact that it hadn't yet happened. In case I was not clear before, my decision was to leave rather than be considered part of a wiki where users have to endure demonization. I still hope to perhaps return as a regular contributor once the wiki has improved past it.
--Rezyk 22:17, 26 September 2006 (CDT)