GuildWiki has been locked down: anonymous editing and account creation are disabled. Current registered users are unaffected. Leave any comments on the Community Portal.



Welcome FG =) — Skuld 20:55, 5 April 2006 (CDT)

Thanks, but I've been here since November. Most of my edits have been anonymous though. F G 21:05, 5 April 2006 (CDT)

Slaughtering Babies for Organs[]

That's the first time I've laughed out loud reading the GuildWiki in ages. :)

That said, some users (especially those who speak English as a second language) won't think of that as a joke, and I can see people getting pissed over that sort of thing. Keep an ear out for complaints, and if you hear any, tone it down a little. —Tanaric 12:24, 7 April 2006 (CDT)

Xasxas thought that I was fanning the flames with that comment. Surprised me somewhat -- I thought it was quite plainly a laugh line. F G 17:17, 7 April 2006 (CDT)

About the armor penetration article[]

Can you be more specific about what you thought was deleteworthy about that passage? Your comment on the talk page was very cryptic. Feel free to respond on the article's talk page -- just trying to get your attention. — Stabber (talk) 15:37, 18 April 2006 (CDT)

I'll respond in Talk:Armor penetration. F G 15:52, 18 April 2006 (CDT)


You speak Python natively? That's awesome! Maybe I can ask you for some bot help sometimes as I had to teach myself Python for Stabbot.

Also I can't help but comment that because the P in Prolog is capitalized, knows(user,Prolog) unifies with any knows(user, X). That is quite a boast, you know. — Stabber 14:18, 22 April 2006 (CDT)

Good point. F G 19:36, 24 April 2006 (CDT)
Okay, I love your userpage too. -Tanaric (who can't freakin' log in from this machine)


I just wanted to thank you for keeping a cool head during the recent "issue" with the [Mo/Me PvE Life Barrier Monk]. I'm glad to see there are still people who can post facts and then let them speak for themselves without feeling the need to pose and posture at the same time. :) (As a side note, I have no idea who is correct in this argument, nor do I really care, but you are one of the few people who acted with a cool head here.) --Rainith 23:14, 6 May 2006 (CDT)

Thanks for that kind comment. I am not sure how cool headed I'm really, but it's always good to be perceived that way :) By the way, you're an admin, right? Can you see if you agree with me regarding User talk: dirty laundry washing, or should I just let sleeping dogs lie? F G 23:27, 6 May 2006 (CDT)
At this point I'm inclined to just leave it. If it becomes an issue again, it can be revisited. Keep in mind that that is just my opinion, if you feel strongly about it, pursue it. --Rainith 23:33, 6 May 2006 (CDT)
Nah, I'll leave it also. Too much overhead. F G 23:37, 6 May 2006 (CDT)
On second thought, I think I will poke the debate after all. This needs to be codified into policy. All wikis go through this phase. F G 04:48, 7 May 2006 (CDT)
Yeah, as I said on her page, that was just a bad idea. But I see that you have backed down. esan 06:28, 7 May 2006 (CDT)

delete on Template:PvE[]

It wasn't ment as a redirect, it was a wrong template name, thanks for adding a delete tag to it anyway. --Jamie 04:31, 8 May 2006 (CDT)

About enforcing policies[]

I think you have a fairly valid point about who should be enforcing guildwiki policies. My user page is not the right place to raise this issue, as has already been pointed out. If you care enough about it, you should restart the debate on GuildWiki talk:Community Portal — Stabber  07:40, 8 May 2006 (CDT)

Request for proof[]

Just found this on PanSola's talk page.

Stabber deserves a more severe ban because he has a long history of abusive behaviour. F G 04:40, 7 May 2006 (CDT)

"Long history of abusive behaviour"? Provide the evidence, please. — Stabber  17:29, 8 May 2006 (CDT)

Well, I've often seen you make edits that are just on the borderline of acceptability and would be considered breaking decorum in more conservative circles such as Wikipedia. I am not going to dig through your contribs again to find examples, as each example will be explained away individually. The sum of your edits stands out because you are possibly the most active member here in terms of number of edits, 95% of which are, as described by that anon, of the "maintenance worker" variety. Why do you make such a large number of trivial edits? If you had made significant contributions to this site, one would be more inclined to accept your mannerisms. But you live in the background and haunt the political side of GuildWiki. Your actual authorship here is---as far I can reconstruct---limited to [Build:Team - Barrage/Pet] and Blood Spike. You have nowhere near the raw amount of contributions here of Karlos or PanSola, or even non-admins like Tetris L, Gem or Honorable Sarah. Now, wikignomish activities are certainly not worthless---I am not saying that, and would argue that they are the opposite of worthless---but they are best done by people who do not pretend that they own the place. They should most definitely not disobey policies (no one should!).
Also note that I am not the first person to raise a stink about the nature of your GuildWiki activity: at least once previously you have been threatened with a ban warning because of your behaviour. You act like an admin without being one and that is abusive, even if it is not apparent to you.
Sorry if this reads harshly, but I do not like to sugarcoat things. As I said on your talk page, I desire to simply drop this matter, as there has now been an obscenely high amount of time devoted to it. F G 13:43, 9 May 2006 (CDT)
Wow. I truly had no idea. Thanks for being candid. I often regret my edits, but I never seriously believed that any of them were being hurtful. Maybe it really is time I left. Thank you, sincerely. — Stabber  13:57, 9 May 2006 (CDT)
And there you go with the quitting routine again. Fine, I'll cut you a deal. You remain steadfast this time to your intention to quit, and I will in turn quit myself. The wiki will go on, minus one person with a short temper and another with no tact. This is good for the whole. F G 14:08, 9 May 2006 (CDT)
Blah, again I do not think Stabber has ever pretended she owns the place or pretended to have the status/power of admins. People make mistakes all the time. Heck, I have been known to break a few policies here and there. I completely disagree with F G's characterization of Stabber's contribution on the wiki. -PanSola 15:05, 9 May 2006 (CDT)
You know, I am not easily angered, but that was one utterly disgusting comment. You have very possibly cost GuildWiki one of its prized treasures. And for what purpose? Stabber has done nothing to deserve such a harsh comment from you. And what pray are your own contributions here? You accuse her of thuggery, and what have you done? I have no problem with anyone else here, but you, sir, you and you alone have made me ashamed to have ever associated with this site. I think you have very likely precipitated an exodus. For instance, this is the very last edit I myself will make here. Good bye. esan 15:14, 9 May 2006 (CDT)
You are not exactly a disinterested party here, considering that you have claimed to know Stabber in real life. You are simply being blinded by your loyalty. By the way, I find it very suspicious that you disappear for long stretches of time, only to reappear whenever Stabber has one of her phases. I won't beat around the bush: I think you are Stabber's sockpuppet. Or vice-versa. I've been on the internet long enough to know what a woman's writing reads like, and Stabber's writing doesn't fit. She (you) is (are) a balding 40 year old male, as is generally the case. Google shows next to no hits for "Stacy Berger", which means that the name was manufactured to fit "Stabber", rather than the reverse. I seriously doubt the real Stacy Berger is so well versed in covering her tracks from Google. I am very careful with my identity myself, and still there are hundreds of hits for my real name. So I read the above comment as Stabber/Esan's true response to my comment, in which case it gives me a grim satisfaction. Good riddance to both of you. The internet has enough of your nonsense. F G 15:52, 9 May 2006 (CDT)
There are a surprising number of people I can do online-stalking with google. There are also a lot of people (from highschool) who I cannot find traces of on google. -PanSola 16:07, 9 May 2006 (CDT)
FG, I nominate you as the worst pest of this wiki ever. You have no right to claim that the constributions of Stabber are not balancing anything a little shady she might have done. You have far less than 500 edits, most of which are very small or talk page edits. Stabber has earned her place in the wiki by working very hard with the rest of us. We are ready to accept everything she has done. All of us, me included have taken part in revert wars and other stupid things. Still no one but Stabber has ever received a ban request. Why are you haunting her? As I mentioned on the archived talk page, if Stabber is driven from the wiki by accusing her of having made bad edits before, I will too consider leaving. I have no tolerance for communities polluted by people like you. If there was a way, I would nominate a vote for banning you from the wiki. And I am usually the peaceful guy. --Gem Gem 16:19, 9 May 2006 (CDT)
Btw: There are far less hits for my name than Stacy Berger and I aint hiding my name.

User_talk:Tanaric#Request_for_arbitration. esan 17:15, 9 May 2006 (CDT)

Well done, Mr. Last-edit-I-will-make-here. Your resolve lasted a whole two hours. But, I think I'll hurry this along to the thrilling conclusion now as this drama has already gone on several episodes longer than it should have. I have much more interesting things than wiki drama to fill my time. I am sure you will revert to your Stabber persona in a few days (if this exile lasts even as long as a day). Tell "her" I send my warm regards. Let me show you what an actual final edit looks like. Good bye. F G 19:06, 9 May 2006 (CDT)

I think this is a lot of nonsence, Stabber, only did good contributions to the site. So why then shoo him away like old dirt, its not the way to handle people, even when they did do some wrong stuff. i personally never had any troubles with the things F__G submitted as 'evidence'. Maybe stabber did do something wrong, but hé who didnt do anything wrong? - Pezmerga -

More sockpuppets of Stabber[]

After the whole mess today, I'm really amused at the moment. I am personally pretty sure that you are one of Stabbers sockpuppets. I do not have the evidence, and probably wont bother to get it if it is too hard, but I base my assumption on a few things.

  1. You have popped out in the wiki every time Stabber has had these major things going on
  2. No one sane stays in a wiki just to stalk a sockpuppet master, you claimed to only stay here for that purpose
  3. On Talk:R/Me Weariness Ranger you just popped in. Seems like one of those 'forgot which user to use' things, which seemed to happen often to Stabber. This is not the only one.

I won't search for evidence today, maby tomorrow, but I think that whoever Stabber is, he/she will be able to stay in the wiki if he wants. I suppose there are more users able to do his bidding. :) --Gem-icon-sm.png 18:53, 18 June 2006 (CDT)

Btw, this list should have been longer, but I'm too tired to stay awake for this. --Gem-icon-sm.png 18:54, 18 June 2006 (CDT)

The IP F G has been posting from anonymously is in Pittsburgh, which is also where CMU is located. -- 20:16, 18 June 2006 (CDT)
He does share a lot of qualities with Stabber, storming exits, promising never to come back and being back the next day, slapping ban tags on people liberally, coming up with templates for the sockpuppetry thing is a very Stabber-esque act. His arrival just as Rainith uncovered Stabber to expose Stabber seems extremely amusing too. This all has the same look, feel and smell of that mess I saw on the message boards 5 years ago. My best advice is to judge opinions and edits based on merit and not worry how many "cyber-personalities" he has. Let's not get concerned with how melodramatic Stabber is compared to Xeeron and factor that into our math because it could all be an act. Xeeron could be Skuld for all we know. :)
As for FG, I do not care. Even if he was a diferent person, he does not strike me as any bit more trust worthy than Stabber. --Karlos 21:10, 18 June 2006 (CDT)
So I am back to being 14? Oh all the joys of having pimples and going to school once again =P --Xeeron 04:30, 19 June 2006 (CDT)

Continued from my talk page, as requested[]

The claim that a dozen people left isn't something I can go back and change; it was an estimate, and I'd originally put "perhaps" in front of it, but deleted it when I was proofreading. If Stabber isn't gone, ok? I haven't seen any edits by the username, so how was I to know? Why do you consider User:Gr3g to be a sockpuppet? If you'd actually checked Wikipedia, you'd see that is a user from there. Why should there even be suspicion? What just cause is there for such? If a crime is committed, a suspect may be considered by circumstantial evidence or conjecture, fine. But what was the crime? Having multiple usernames isn't a crime. Causing drama isn't a crime. Causing war might be considered a crime, but all of the examples you listed do not involve a user causing the war (and most of them were instigated by Karlos). So people are paranoid... you certainly were and are, and you apparently felt this lingering desire to cause such paranoia amongst other contributors. Hence a reason you came back, and started the whole drama-fest. Users could "clear their names" by just posting their ingame names? Hmm... let's see... as I recall, it's an accusor's job to show burden of proof for the accusation in the first place. Only then does someone need to clear their names, by providing proof to the contrary. Your "proof" failed, so too does your accusation. Further, if you go around accusing people who have left of being sockpuppets, why would they come back? Not everyone is Stabber or yourself, not everyone comes back. Perhaps it even drove them from comming back. You are not judging a user on his or her actions, you are judging a user on tenuous assumptions with no substantial proof. The actions you refer to are tainted by your portrayal of them, and your personal assumption that they are connected to another person's actions. For instance, you claim Stabber initiated a revert war with Karlos. You are wrong, because it was clearly Karlos who instigated it. You claim Stabber then (assuming Stabber = DK) started another revert war with Karlos. You are wrong once more, as Karlos once again sparked that, and even had the nerve to abuse his powers (by blocking the user) and try to assert control over a user's own talk page. Stabber left when fights occured. So what? Some of them were dramatic, some weren't. If you yelled at me back and I yelled back over and over, then I suddenly is that causing some great harm to anything? Further, what tearful fairwells? Certainly not from me, as I was disgusted and angered by the whole ordeal. Skuld was sorry to see Stabber leave, and thanked her. Auron regretted her leaving, as the wiki would be weaker without her. Isn't a sizable wall minus a brick *slightly* weaker than if the wall had the brick? Yet more, who claimed that the Wiki would fall apart without Stabber? Xasxas256 made a joke about it some time previously. You are the only one who brought it up during this ordeal.

In regard to User:Karlos: I'm not sure what May 7th war you're referring to, but if you disagree with policy (anyone, including admins/registered/anon), you take it up with the policy. You don't arbitrarily violate it. I agree that it is a somewhat silly policy to mimick ArenaNet, but I strongly disagree with the brute force Karlos used in ignoring it. You think I'm alone in being against actions of Karlos? Gee, why don't we take a brief look:

  • The game update comments, which some anon moved to /fighting
  • Referencing the above, on Karlos' own talk page
  • Referencing the DK incident on Karlos' talk page

There you have it, people disagree with Karlos' actions. They may not oppose his being an admin, unfortunately, but such is life and politics. In addition you might want to read my response to Karlos' response on my talk page, which he has as-of-yet failed to respond to. I don't hate Karlos, and I fail to see why you assume such, but I disagree with him retaining administrative powers. - Greven 16:17, 27 September 2006 (CDT)

Well, you have a very negative opinion of Karlos, and I'm not convinced such a negative opinion is justifiable. I personally hold that admins have greater rights than non-admins, in dictating policy. If a policy is flawed, it is an admin's responsibility, rather than a non-admin's, to improve the policy. Admins are more inclined to have the best interests of the project at heart than pointless egotism -- it's the reason they are selected in the first place! Users will rarely see beyond their own personal victories. It is an admin's duty to lead when situations demand it. What was Karlos doing in breaking from tradition in the game updates article? He was taking the initiative. Stabber should have asked Karlos for his reasons for reformatting the page instead of reverting and then taunting Karlos. There is no justification for Stabber's revert, and as a result the 1RV policy now states that unjustified reverts may be undone. Whatever Stabber's aim might have been with the revert, it was thoroughly repudiated by the community.
I'm not saying Karlos should be deified, but he is at least willing to stay and argue for his actions. Stabber engages in drama. He stages exits instead of participating in rational discourse. Sock puppetry is just more drama. My belief continues to be that Stabber could have been brought in line long ago with a timely warning or a well placed cooloff block. Instead, in every instance he was given a wide berth. The wound was allowed to fester until it became gangrenous: Stabber came to take the support of the community for granted. Only a supremely confident person (or an idiot, and I would never say Stabber was an idiot) would brazenly violate policies, revert war with an admin, etc., etc. The chief reason I suspect all these identities to belong to the same person is because the pattern is consistent to a fault. DK/Stabber fights with Karlos, 70.20 fights with Rainith, Gr3g fights with Skuld, Zaishen Reject fights with Gares Redstorm... This user is incapable of contributing to this wiki without getting into a fight with an admin.
This brings us back to whether injustice was done against Stabber. I say no injustice has been done. Perhaps the only injustice is that it wasn't made clear to him in time that his behavior would not be tolerated. The Talk:List of skill anomalies war should have been the moment when the admins should have stepped in and left a clear warning. Rezyk tried to, but his words unfortunately did not have the voice of authority and so Stabber took it as a license to ratchet up the drama. Block, then warn: that's how to do it. The wiki certainly has learned from its mistakes. I was satisfied, for example, with the way User:Not a fifty five was brought in line (yes, I am aware of your disagreement in this instance also). If anything, Stabber has done this wiki an injustice by the drama he has caused. And I'm speaking of incidents that happened before my involvement. -- F G 17:23, 27 September 2006 (CDT)