Guild Wars Wiki talk:Arbitration committee/2010-01-01-Uchiha Lena, Jonnieboi05 and Wafflez

Chat log
I'm posting this chat log with permission. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 11:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Gordon, I want you to kindly remove this before you create another unnessecary dramastorm and shut the fuck up about giving rightfully banned users a "second chance", no one in this wiki wants him back here. --66.90.73.246 09:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC) Now that part of the IM convo listed above makes much more sense to me. That is fucked up. >:\ --75.99.28.106 11:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It's responses like yours that create "unnecessary dramastorm" by being confrontational right from the start... -- ab.er. rant User Ab.er.rant Sig.png 10:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Aberrant, that IP just hit the nail on the head. All gordon did was create unnecessary drama with his block review bullshit. I had been interested to see what the discussion would be about until I saw how poorly thought out his plan was. This is more of the same. I'm sure he means well (TM) but that doesn't cut it when his ability to sniff trolls out is an absolute joke. He really just needs to lay off this case and realize that he's the only one on earth that wants these Lena and all his socks unblocked. Coincidentally, he was pretty much the only one on earth that thought those accounts were wrongfully banned. Hmm, I think I'm seeing a pattern here...
 * Regardless, I trust the bureaucrats to be much harder trollbait than Gordon, and the most they would do in this case is laugh and decline. - Auron 11:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Disagree with the above by Auron. That is how you and other trolls think, Auron. Deny it if you might- everyone knows the truth about it. You think you are above others and that leads to superiority complex and furthermore compromises your judgement and usually follows by a "lolwtf ursobaed" response. Lena, his gf fiance and his brother deserve a fair chance on the wiki regardless what you say. That is how I feel. If Shard can get away with a breach in his ruling against ArenaNet staff AFTER his ArbCom then why can the 3 prior not have a second chance after nearly a year? --216.245.202.34 11:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, wow. How ironic... The IP sides with Lena (kinda of) and gets suspended by Auron as "obvious Lena sock"? "Btw, just to be clear. The times that the images were being uploaded really WERE my friend Sye (who got permabanned by Auron 'cause he said "it ia Lena") and my brother Jason (who is also permabanned by Auron just because of the fact he is my kid brother)."


 * The fact that Misery didn't outright turn down Lena kinda shows that Gordon's not the only one. It's a sincere appeal (regardless of how much of an act some think it is). I know you and some other sysops are great at sniffing out socks and it's pretty easy to permaban again. So it's more of an issue of whether those antagonized (directly or indirectly) are ready to forgive or whether the time kept away is still insufficiently long. Hence this appeal - for the current bcats to decide whether to allow him back in on probation or ignore him. It's not like there's no precedent whereby other incredibly disruptive users came back with little issue. -- ab.er. rant User Ab.er.rant Sig.png 11:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't believe lifting these bans would benefit the wiki. While Lena made some positive contributions, he never indicated any positive interest in the community and the rules that govern it. Simply looking through User talk:Uchiha Lena and the archives, the vast majority of his interactions were in some way confrontational or in response to requests from users and admins alike to cease or desist something he was doing. The antics between himself and Wafflez that ultimately led to their bans were intentionally disruptive, and I have yet to see any real indication of remorse from either of them that would indicate to me that anything would be different if they were allowed back. Lena's behavior toward Gaile following the perma ban of his account from GW ultimately lead to Gaile requesting an Arb Com based on his harassment (which was ended due to his perma ban from the wiki). He was also banned 4 times in 8 months for causing disruptions for willfully violating policy or violations against other users. While I don't agree with Auron's total assumption that every IP that posts something negative is actually Lena, I don't feel Lena is a needed or wanted contributor. In addition, his threats of vandalism via email following his ban, again show a lack of respect for this community, as well as little remorse for the disruption already caused. Unfortunately for those around him (Wafflez and Jonnieboi05) they are rather caught up in it whether unwillingly, or unknowingly. Wafflez has a total of 379 contributions in the year+ she was active here. Of those, 274 were in User or User talk, 22 were in main, 23 in talk. I don't see this user as being vital to the continuation of GWW's purpose. Unfortunately for Jonnieboi05, there are simply too many things that tie that account to Lena for anyone to be comfortable with his return. While these reasons may seem "elitist" or "snobbish" the only real thing we have to base any opinion on is past actions/contributions, and I don't feel that any of them positively outweigh the negatives. -- Wyn [[Image:User Wynthyst sig icon2.png|19px ]] talk  12:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Against Lena
I'm not sure a review of Lena's contributions are necessary, as I believe it would take a considerably long time to point all cases in which Lena had a disruptive behavior. A few examples, just in case: Lena wasn't suddenly permabanned. He was banned multiple times and his behavior did not improve after each ban. He also stated multiple times how he has little regard for those who he meets only through the internet, and has shown clear disregard for the wiki rules, be it by breaching 1RR multiple times, insulting users or creating a sea of socks. His recent edits shows the same behavior he had always presented, making me doubt the sincerity of his "No more trolling" claims. I'm also troubled to see Gordon again creating unnecessary drama and questioning the judgment of other sysops, after all the disruption caused by his previous attempts. A sysop who's constantly acting to doubt the judgment of other sysops isn't something nice to have. Erasculio 12:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Waffle decided to update her user page claiming her Guild Wars account had been compromised; Lena followed by undoing her edits twice (here and here), both times breaching NPA by calling her stupid. The wiki community reacted by taking Lena's reverts as vandalism (after all he was undoing the edits of the user page's owner), to which he replied attacking the administrators here as well as other users. When the community used his talk page to talk to him about those issues, his answer was again to attack users.
 * Lemming undid an edit on Lena's page that was make the page difficult to be seen by other users. Lena replied attacking Lemming and other users who tried to reason with him.
 * When told to be more reasonable, he just dismissed those comments.
 * Harassing Gaile.
 * Interestingly enough, after all the above, Lena ignored all those events when speaking about his mistakes in his own bureaucrat election page, as seen here. Either he forgot about those incidents, or he didn't believe them to be mistakes which could taint people's opinions about him.
 * The whole mess between Lena and Waffle. It would take hours to link everything, although a few comments do stand out, but the older ArbComm page has more information about it. Lena's reaction to the following ban was documented here and here and here.
 * The sea of socks:
 * 66.190.80.193 had edits summaries with Lena forever!, doing the same kind of edits Lena used to do (notice the same wording, "touching up"), the same complains about Arena Net injustly banning people (and attacking specifically Gaile, as Lena used to do), ignored 1RR as Lena did all the time, and it began editing slightly more than a week after Lena's ban.
 * 66.183.24.203 edited pages linked to Lena, such as Waffle's page and his guild page.
 * I swear this is NOT Lena circumventing his ban to positively contribute to the wiki and upload a very nicely rendered picture of Dhuum....
 * 24.98.24.92 and Temp_account_to_upload_proof_screenshots._Delete_after_if_needed. followed the same pattern seen above, and there had already been evidence (which for the records was ignored) about the account being another of Lena's sock. IMO, discussing whether it's Lena or not is moot now that it almost admited being so (and made another sock in the process, by the way). The interesting thing here is how his recent edits are still being disruptive, showing the same kind of behavior he was blocked for in the past.
 * I would like to say I do not hold this against Gordon in any way. This was requested of him and he felt it fair to honor the request. That is his choice, and I do not feel we have the right to remove that choice, or question it. It is fair to allow the Bcrats to review this under the perview of Arb Com. -- Wyn [[Image:User Wynthyst sig icon2.png|19px ]] talk  12:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Do not blame Gordon. This appeal was not his fault, he was mearly honoring an appeal request that he recieved via IM.

, Where's the hard proof that the accused truly did circumvent his ban as many times as you all say he did? There are people who go so far as to impersonate others just to cause the real person more problems when in actuality they are innocent. , Ah, see? He admits to only 3-4 times and no more than that (according to Erasculio, the accused circumvented an ungodly amount of times- which is honestly hearsay). , Yep. Even the accused recognizes that people were impersonating him. *points to the MooKitty thing* . Give the guy a second chance. A year is a very long time and people do undergo something called "change".
 * "This page was created due to an IM request."
 * this "In all honestly I only circumvented my permban no more than 3-4 times."
 * this "And tbh I am quite sure people were impersonating me."
 * and this "In the end all I personally want is a second chance back onto the wiki to be a POSITIVE and BENEFICIAL contributor. No more trolling, no aNet hate (they even allowed me back onto the game), nothing. Just me being another user who abides by the rules."

Oh, and this
 * "For me, on my behalf, I want back on the wiki more than anything. I am not the troll I once was. I don't like to point fingers but I will have to defend myself and says I followed the wrong crowd (Shard, Adrin, ect) and it lead me into trouble."

Having seeing these 2 people quite often on this wiki I see they are kind of a really bad influence (no disrespect to them).

By Erasculio's logic if I go around stating " forever!!" it is "obviously them circumventing their ban. What? That makes no sense.

", discussing whether it's Lena or not is moot now that it almost admited being so (and made another sock in the process, by the way)." The only thing I see, if it is Lena posting this on the Gordon Ecker's page is Lena requesting to talk to him via messenger (I do not see a single edit for that IP anywhere else on the entire wiki apart from the subtle request). --75.99.28.106 13:09, 3 January 2010 (UTC) This says otherwise. The accused accepts and embraces that he was in fact once a bad influence.
 * Lena, I wish I could claim I'm smarter than you by showing people how those were your socks. I can't, though; you are doing it on purpose. You knew saying "Lena forever!" as your edit summary would make it obvious it was you under a sock; you knew editing Waffle's page and your guild page's would let we see it was you; you were telling us it was you, all the time.
 * You crave that attention, don't you? It's not going to work, though. Like your previous socks, this ArbComm will soon be forgotten, as your next socks will be. The wiki doesn't work as a source of fame or glory; a single person cannot have such a big impact here, no matter how much you do. If you're aiming for prominence, I would suggest looking somewhere else. Erasculio  13:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * For one thing, Lena and Wafflez were banned on June 22, 2009, which is no where near a year, and Jonnieboi05 was banned on November 5, 2009, which is not even 2 months. Even if Lena only circumvented his ban 3-4 times during this period, it's 3-4 times more than he should have, and by doing so once again indicates his lack of respect for the rules that govern this wiki.
 * For another, if he doesn't wish to point fingers no names were required in his statement and once again is refusing to accept the responsibility for his own actions. Ultimately it was the antics between him and Wafflez that got him permabanned, and none of that had ANY relationship to the postings of any other user on this wiki. It was simply an intentional disruptive fiction performed for the "lulz" it would create. -- Wyn [[Image:User Wynthyst sig icon2.png|19px ]] talk  13:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you sir for further proving me right that the accused just might be more innocent than what you people are willing to Admit. By you calling me "Lena" is exactly how this whole "circumventing" conspiracy got started and why people's judgement gets impared. It's because of the unbacked and very rediculous links you've provided as "proof" that taints more and more people into believing it's the accused editing. Once more, hence you calling me "Lena". --75.99.28.106 13:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * IMO, it would be better to stop the farce. In a previous ArbComm, the user in question was unblocked in order to be able to participate, under the condition that he could not edit any other page, right? I suggest doing the same here, unblocking Lena temporarily until the ArbComm decides to deny or accept this case. Not that Lena would not keep using socks, but at least we wouldn't waste as much time with this. Erasculio  13:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * @ Wynthys: "But I do accept that I was a bad influence and a troll back then. I will not deny it at all. But that was then, someone I am not liek anymore."


 * Everyone: do not be confused and stride away that the accuseds request to Gordon Ecker was to be allowed a second chance. Bringing up the past IMH professional opinion is not grounds for an auto decision whether the person at hand is or is not truly someone changed. If the accused breaks any rules how hard would it be to simply reperma ban him and be done with it? What harm can be done by giving someone a chance? Again, a simple re-ban (with the string attached that they would never be allowed a reappeal) would be a quick, swift and efficent means of dealing with it if for any reason they breached the wiki rules/policies again. --75.99.28.106 13:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is an excellent strategy, Erasculio. Allow limited access (to this page only) to the wiki until it is further resolved. --75.99.28.106 13:43, 3 January 2010 (UTC)"
 * Probably because that user had more than one chance to prove himself, got blocked from wiki/warned several times, and then got perma'd. If they got perma'd, it should remain that way. pers  onn5 [[Image:User_Personn5_sig.jpg|19px]] 14:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

So anyway, with this entire WoT going on, why do you think Lena is requesting a review? I mean, I don't think he's dumb enough to not realize that one slip means he would swiftly be banned again with absolutely no second chances. Why not just give him this one chance now that he actually is saying he changed and end it once and for all? You can sit here and argue for days, throwing dirt both ways, but why not just test it and see? I think it would be much easier and cost everyone fewer brain cells. Rose Of Kali 15:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * He's been given so many chances already, and seems to be addicted to creating wiki drama. Every few weeks he does something. He doesn't need another opportunity. Manifold [[Image:User_Manifold_Jupiter.jpg|19px]] 19:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have 0 blocks, 0 arbcomms, and only a handfuls of stfu adrin's on my wiki account.... and i'm a bad influence? -- adrin [[Image:User_Adrin_mysig.jpg|20px]] 02:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Leave it to the bureaucrats, and go do something else
I think the community has made their opinions pretty well-known, what with Gordon's block review page and other discussions about Lena/unblocking. Contributing to this page adds zero benefit to the wiki, and any post would probably be redundant anyway. In other words, there's no need to be posting here. Now obviously I'm not a bureaucrat and that's just my opinion, but I don't think it's a bad one. -- pling 15:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * IMO, until the bureaucrats claim they have enough knowledge about this issue, I don't believe we could assume they wouldn't want more information. None of the three current bureaucrats contributed directly to Gordon's block review page, so we can't just assume they bothered to read that article and avoid providing relevant information. Plus, there are some details they may have forgotten, or have not noticed at all.
 * It could be, of course, that they think this is a waste and is actually getting in the way of what they would like to do (which would be unusual, given how providing more information about such things is the point of the talk pages at this stage, but it's possible). But if so, I trust the bureaucrats completely...In being able to say so without the need of someone else acting as their proxy. Erasculio  16:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Speaking only for myself, I can assure you I followed Gordon's block review page from start to finish. Honestly, there's not much of this situation left that could be news to me by now, but nonetheless I appreciate your attempting to collect a general summary of events and links, Eras, and anyone else who does similarly. Of course, if people could avoid the bickering along the way and particularly NPA like the first section, that would be fantastic. - Tanetris 16:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Two things
-- R I D DLE 19:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) To Gordon: Why did you make this? I mean, ignoring the fact that he is a known dramawhore and troll, where's the physical evidence to suggest that he has changed?
 * 2) The fact that people still shit their pants in rage at the sight of Lena's name is a pretty good indicator of how people might react to Lena's appeal being approved.


 * Regarding 1: He was approached in a PM, so it was almost his duty to open this page. It is not up to Gordon to evaluate whether the request is valid or not, that is the bureaucrats job. --Xeeron 23:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Regarding #2. Shouldn't we treat every person equally? We all have bad points, does it give us the right to be ugly to others that are willing to change for the better, asking for a second chance? I think being respectful and assuming good standards might help. If they overstep, the persons in question have been warned repeatedly. I don't think it would hurt to give a chance. If a mishap, then I would suggest a permanent ban. Just my opinion. Good day. -- [[File:User Ariyen sig icon.gif]] riyen ♥ 23:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Typing like Yoda, you are. Stop capitalizing at random you should. [[Image:User_Felix_Omni_Signature.png]]elix Omni 23:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Haha, sorry Yoda is like an influence at times. -- [[File:User Ariyen sig icon.gif]] riyen ♥ 23:48, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Afaik, this is the first time he's actually attempting to say that he had changed, and in a way is trying to promise to "be good" from now on. [[Image:User Rose Of Kali SIG.jpg]]Rose Of Kali 01:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Third, actually, if you consider the "I've decided to somewhat take a need lead on things..." comment at the top of his userpage (which has been there for a while) and the same "I just want a chance, that's all I am saying" statements in his page for the bureaucrat election. Erasculio  02:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Except that he's still. trolling. and. will. not. stop.
 * I'll give you a little timeline, in case you haven't been following the case.


 * He gets blocked on Lena for being stupid and creating retarded drama. Prior to and immediately following the block, sysops receive a flurry of emails like this one that contest his "biased" ban.
 * He then emails the sysops from the Wafflez account with similarly aggressive emails - talking about how "her boyfriend" would beat people up IRL because they're all weak faggots and whatnot.
 * He then takes control of another sock account, Jonnieboi, which is the name of his Guild Wars Guru account. For a week or two, he edits without much drama, but as soon as it started (as it invariably would) I blocked the account for trolling/sockpuppetry.
 * He sends a flurry of emails out to the sysops (again), some of the emails mean and aggressive, some of them nice and polite. But here he makes a mistake - he sends the emails from the same Email address as the one who contested Lena's original block.
 * The rest is history. Gordon is major trollbait, so naturally the request would go to him (instead of, say, me or pling or Tane or calor or Emmett or any of the sysops who can deal with trolls), and naturally he would bring it here instead of saying "wow, you're bad at trolling, go away."
 * This isn't Lena's second chance. This isn't even his third or fourth. Those were all used up before his first account got permablocked. Accepting this arbcomm case would mean giving the user a fifteenth chance. This is his last hurrah. He's been blocked, the entire sysop team (individually and as a whole) have refused to unblock his account(s), so the only chance in hell he has is to get down on both knees, suck some major cock, and pretend he'll be good so the bureaucrats will unban him.
 * The bureaucrats aren't stupid, however, so the chances of that happening are pretty slim. - Auron 02:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow... [[Image:User Rose Of Kali SIG.jpg]]Rose Of Kali 02:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * With that case, it is obvious the kid hasn't learned in those times. I think we should just let the Arbcom deal with this. -- [[File:User Ariyen sig icon.gif]] riyen ♥ 09:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Auron's post above was little fact and a lot of ungrounded offense, at least from what I can gather. He managed to mock more than one person in it, and the "proof" factor of the "facts" appears rather low. Plus the obvious uhmm... graphicality. So yeah, wow... all that from an admin. He is either very offensive in general, or biased in this particular case. Either way, he should refrain from further posting in this manner. If you claim Lena is such a horrible troll, why do you act like that yourself? [[Image:User Rose Of Kali SIG.jpg]]Rose Of Kali 04:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You new here or somethin'? - Auron 04:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't have to be new or old to read the above post. Why does it matter? [[Image:User Rose Of Kali SIG.jpg]]Rose Of Kali 04:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You have next to no knowledge of the banned user. You haven't seen him post, you haven't received emails from him, nor have you been harassed by him in-game. I have. When I try to inform you of things said user has done, it's in your best interest to listen and learn. It is not a requirement to have been around when he was - but if you're going to try to post blatantly wrong information like "this is the first time he's actually attempting to say that he had changed, and in a way is trying to promise to "be good" from now on," you are going to be called out on it.
 * In case you haven't noticed, I value being correct and informed over being nice and polite. When it comes to cases like this, only the former matters. - Auron 04:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think cursing the hell out of people in public ever matters, and being correct and polite are not mutually exclusive. I've read the whole thing above, and I speak from what I've read, with having followed the links. The provided email might have as well been written by anyone, it has no identifiers whatsoever, so I dismiss it from the "facts" list. Because you claim having received said Email means that you will be biased in the situation. I've seen him "asking for a chance" but not admitting wrong doing until now. I'm not posting wrong information, I just can't seem to match the numbers and sort fact from speculation from one post to another, as they seem to change every time. Acting superficial towards me is not calling me out on anything. But hey, it doesn't matter in the end, does it? Rose Of Kali 04:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC) It's funny how people say "it happened, it happened!" yet not once-- ever-- did any of the sysops provide proof of this happening. Ironic, huh? GWW consists of nothing but biased sysops and trolls. Look at Wyn. She's an admin who got suspended. Shortly after she went to wikia and started raging on there about it and even had to get her page locked down. lolwut? I am looking at Uchiha Lena's block log right now and I do not see more than 3 suspensions. Look at Super Igor. THAT was someone who needed a permaban. Look at Shard. He has NPAs out the ass. He even VIOLATED his ArbCom and still got off the hook free with a small pathetic 3 day suspension. Once again: lolwut? But when Uchiha Lena, a user with a sincere rehabilitaed attitude comes alone, all the troll sysops (which is damn near most of them) and the troll editers come out of their cave to bash on someone who really does not seem as bad as you all make him out to be. I read every link that was posted (against him and those for him) and my judgement is leaning towards that he and his girl and sibling were trolled off the wiki via permabans by power-hungry psychotics. Which if it was me, I'd permaban, as the ones involved, haven't obviously learned and I'd say one, with the looks of one email being used. One person uses one email, not three. I wouldn't share email with two others as that's invading privacy. -- riyen ♥  09:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Pretty sure Skype conversations create bias too. Vili &#x70B9; [[Image:User Vili sig.jpg|User talk:Vili]] 07:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Please keep in mind, Rose, that whether Auron is biased or not will have little effect on the arbcom, since he isn't a bureaucrat at this time. This isn't the best place to call him out. [[Image:User_Felix_Omni_Signature.png]]elix Omni 08:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "The provided email might have as well been written by anyone, it has no identifiers whatsoever, so I dismiss it from the "facts" list." - Put it back on the "facts" list, because it is real. All involved sysops can confirm that, and a lot have received similar emails... poke | talk 08:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "All involved sysops can confirm that, and a lot have received similar emails..."
 * As Rose of Kali and Ariyen said-- let him have one more chance on the wiki-- if it does not work out how hard would it be to reperma him? Uchiha Lena needs a fair ArbCom by BCrats who actually know what they are doing- NOT by trolls who only want to partake in something they have no right to partake in. I can name numerous people on here who SHOULD NOT have a voice against Uchiha Lena because of the sole reason that there would, and IS, a huge conflict of interest involved (not to mention a hellstorm of obvious lies against Uchiha Lena -ahem- all the sysops claiming to have received an email yet proof has never been given).
 * Carry on. --199.71.214.205 08:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Did you skim over the ImageShack link, or are you saying it was doctored? Vili &#x70B9; [[Image:User Vili sig.jpg|User talk:Vili]] 08:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I already said I looked at every link given. And yes. That image can in no way be considered as "proof". I can make the exact thing right now and make it seem like you harrassed the hell out of me via email and upload it to imagheshack. Does that mean you actually harrassed me? No. Not in the slightest. This is why Gordon Ecker proposed that emails should be exempt from these kinds of situations-- too many people can (and will) lie about them-- and that is a big negative. My opinion is bound to what Rose and Ariyen said on the matter. At least they seem to have enough maturity and professionalism to see the bigger picture and not what liars/trolls want others to believe. --199.71.214.205 09:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually Ip. I said the following after that. "With that case, it is obvious the kid hasn't learned in those times. I think we should just let the Arbcom deal with this."
 * I would also happily provide images of the emails I received, however, you would simply consider that more "doctored" stuff, and irrelevant. The admin team were elected by the community as "trusted" members, and we have a policy of Assume Good Faith. If you truly believe that every single admin on this site is "out to get" Lena, then this Arb Com would never have even gotten started. What exactly would you consider proof that emails were received? A notarized statement from Gmail? All we have are images, or copy/paste text. I would happily forward the emails to you if you wish to provide me with an email address, but you would just claim that I somehow managed to forge them as well. -- Wyn [[Image:User Wynthyst sig icon2.png|19px ]] talk  12:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Why this page was created
I was acting as a neutral third-party bureaucrat (in the plain English sense of the word). I provided some advice and complied with a reasonable request. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 06:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC) , and for those who didn't notice, the ArbComm was declined yesterday, so there really is no point to argue over 'spilt milk'. Edit: Ignore that (Thanks for pointing that out Freedom) ~Celestia 13:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I would have done the same thing. :) [[Image:User_Felix_Omni_Signature.png]]elix Omni 07:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, Lena asked for an appeal, which had already been discussed rather recently. Calling an ArbComm was your idea, and something which is creating unnecessary drama (not unlike the block reviews themselves did). Not to mention how it's bad for the wiki to have a mentality in which the few users who are actually banned know they can rely on a specific sysop to second guess the ban and escalate the issue, apparently without regards for how often said procedure is done for a given banned user. Erasculio  09:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There already has been an Arbcom before on Lena here. As seen, it was declined. -- [[File:User Ariyen sig icon.gif]] riyen ♥ 09:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course, you must totally miss out the fact that the grounds for arbitration in both situations are clearly different. Is it so hard to read? Or it because it is not using your "unique style of using English" or your so-called "south american english style"? Pika Fan 09:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Just showing to those people who may not have known there was one before, on reasons of appeal. Being nice here. Thanks. -- [[File:User Ariyen sig icon.gif]] riyen ♥  09:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * * rolls eyes* Reading properly and understanding the contents of the discussion would be much nicer than listing remotely related history. Something which you have successfully failed at since the time you joined the wiki.Pika Fan 09:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Be nice. Accept that someone is trying to be respectful. As it has shown on the wiki that some are more clueless than you perceive. Thanks and Happy Editing. -- [[File:User Ariyen sig icon.gif]] riyen ♥ 10:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I mentioned arbitration because that is what I believed Lena was implicitly asking for and wanted to cut to the chase. I'm sure that if I had decided to play dumb, he would have gotten around to explicitly requesting arbitration, but I didn't want to be rude or unprofessional. -- [[Image:User Gordon Ecker sig.png]] Gordon Ecker (talk) 10:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Given the wiki's history of reviewing and undoing perma bans without bureaucrat interference, there wasn't any need for Lena to ask for an ArbComm in order to have his appeal, nor reason to assume he meant so. Or do you think it's a coincidence he talked to you? Erasculio  10:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Considering the outcome of the previous set of block reviews, I'd be surprised if anyone was naive or arrogant enough to ask me to do more of them. I think Uchiha Lena probably chose to contact me primarily due to my anti-permaban and pro-arbitration stances (edit: 03:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC) - and advice from someone who probably recommended me for the same reasons, as he mentioned in an email). -- [[Image:User Gordon Ecker sig.png]] Gordon Ecker (talk) 11:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * From the point of view of the users who were unblocked, that move wouldn't be either naive or arrogant, rather very smart. However, I do agree with you: Lena did not ask you directly to add his case to the block reviews (considering how he was already there anyway), rather he sought you thanks to the traits you displayed in the block reviews (although I would describe them differently from how you did). Erasculio  11:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * @Ariyen You don't have to insult yourself like that, and being not very nice doesn't make me wrong. Learn to tell the difference between being right and being nice. Pika Fan 11:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * A couple of things here: In reading through some of this, @Ariyen, Lena's previous Arb Com was opened due to his harassment of Gaile regarding the banning of his GW account. While it was in the "presentation" stage, he was perma banned from the wiki for the episode with User:Wafflez. At that point, there was no need to continue the Arb Com. It was not "declined" due to lack of evidence, or because the Bureaucrats judged him "worthy". @Erasculio, Gordon is not the only one who has received requests from Lena/Wafflez/Jonnieboi05 to have these bans reviewed or brought to Arb Com. He is however the one that chose to agree to it. It is within his rights to do that, just as it would have been within mine. He, however, is a much more neutral party in this entire situation, where I was directly involved, and as such is probably the BEST choice to do it. He has not once (on this arb com) indicated he supports the request, just that he was putting it forward as an unbiased 3rd party. Now give it a rest. Please. -- Wyn [[Image:User Wynthyst sig icon2.png|19px ]] talk  12:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I know, Wyn. Just was being nice to showing those who didn't know. Whether I was right or wrong to do this, doesn't matter. It is only an addition to showing about Lena as there are links on this person's behavior there as well. Was just being helpful. -- [[File:User Ariyen sig icon.gif]] riyen ♥ 13:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Anyway, my motivation is largely irrelevant. Deciding whether it warrents arbitration is the bureaucrats' responsibility, the only judgement I've made so far is that the the arbitration request warrents consideration by the bureaucrats, and in the current circumstances, that's the only judgement I want to make. -- [[Image:User Gordon Ecker sig.png]] Gordon Ecker (talk) 03:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm getting a bit weirded out by how often I seem to be agreeing with Pika recently. Anyway guys, this does not have to be a drama-fest. As pling has said, this is really up to the BC's now and our posts here aren't helping, if anything all they are doing is creating more drama. In response to this section, Lena can't post (even though he clearly is posting) without circumventing his block, he wishes to have his block reviewed and he feels the sysops are unfair in their attitudes towards him in this instance. Therefore the next course of action is to apply for arb-comm in this instance and see if the BC's feel the block merits a review. I personally feel very strongly on the Lena, Wafflez issue, in that I believe both accounts should NEVER have their block lifted, as I received a bunch of those offensive emails myself and was around for the whole drama-fest at the time and I am aware just how disruptive those accounts were, however if Lena had of asked for an arb-comm review in the same way he asked Gordon, I would have started the arb-comm here for him as requested. It is not the sysops role to do the BC's job for them and those moaning about Gordon for raising this should really get a better handle on the BC/sysop role divide. -- Salome   [[Image:User_salome_sig2.png|19px]] 13:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "this is really up to the BC's now and our posts here aren't helping"
 * There are three bureaucrats, only one of which has declined thus far. -- FreedomBound [[Image:User_Freedom_Bound_Sig.png|19px]] 13:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Well.
Since I have kept my mouth closed this entire time and refrained from posting on this talk page and not being given a fair opporunity to defend myself... I guess I'll go ahead and say it now.

I've done my very best to abide by my permaban. Since this ArbCom has been declined without me allowed a chance to voice myself and for the BCrats to ask me questions I can pretty much care less now about anything anyone has to say on the matter. But whether or not what you people (this is pointed at Auron and any known trash-talker that are lurking this page) think or lie about on my behalf, just know that in the end I am the one that knows the truth about my supposed "circumventing" and your so-called emails that I "sent to every sysop". I've only ever sent one email that could be even remotely close to "crude" in my entire time on Wiki and that was to Auron (I have NEVER- not ONCE- seen any "proof" or "evidence" from any sysop about these alleged emails "that I sent to everyone"). To this day I still have not seen "the email that was sent to Lemming64" that I was accused of and permabanned for.

Apart from that, I've never circumvented my ban as many times as all these trolls have claimed. I did it 3 times and those 3 times were (if memory recalls) a revert to a vandal that went unreverted for ~a month, a change to my fiance's page, and one more than I can't recall for the life of me. Everytime, I swear this is the truth, it was someone else impersonating me. I know as a fact was one of the following people must have been behind it (since these are normally the people who always tried to troll "me" after my ban? Isn't it odd how quickly they were to come to the talk pages of the accounts they used and say "HI LENA!" to try and frame me?): Auron, Shard, Adrin, Drogo, Erasculio, Vili, Titani, Cursed Angel, Wyn, Dark Morphon, ect. The list goes on and on). I know this because if I created an account to circumvent my ban I would know it and I wouldn't deny it 'cause I am not so immature as to feel I need to lie on a troll-ran place such as wiki.

The fact that my brother, someone whom never did anything wrong on this wiki and got singled out because he has blood relationtions to me, in my opinion, is unbelievably fucked up and something that should NEVER have been allowed to happen. But... To my lack of surprise it did happen. And it was allowed to happen.

To be honest I really could care less what you people think of me; what a known-troller thinks of me or anyone is honestly quite irrelevant and should be marked out from any type of decision-making rights. Hence why my sibling was permbanned for doing nothing more than being a positive and constructive user.

My real life friend, Sye, was also permabanned (his IP was permabanned... WTF!?) by Auron. Just because of the fact he uploaded a Zaishen picture he "must have been Lena" was Auron's exact words. Auron even went so far as to suspend an IP address for defending me in this very talk page. How corrupt is that!? So if someone sides with me they get the banhammer!? WHAT!? I came back to this wiki after nearly a year (WITHOUT CIRCUMVENTING MY BAN) wanting to be a POSITIVE contributor. But, because people (like the ones I listed above) wanted to harrass my good name and create fake accounts and claim "LENA FOREVER!" as their edit message for pages that I used to edit religiously, I was denied an appeal.

The very system of this wiki has been manipulated and corrupted by the trolls (whom by the way seem to have a very strong grasp of control and quite literally seems like they are the ones who run this wiki whether you are all either too blind or too ignorant to admit or not). It's just amazing that people claim "we have great sysops and BCrats!" yet the very people they praise so highly can't even see that they are all lies that have been spread all over wiki with their false-truths about "how often I come to the wiki and cause drama" *look at Auron claiming I was given "14" chances... WHAT!? That's a damn lie. My block log confirms no more than 3 blocks- in which none of them were in ANY way as bad as the violations conducted by Raptors, Super Igor, Noxify and Shard).

If you want another quick proof that the sysops have their heads wayyy too far up their ass to do the math themselves then look how Shard actually managed to convince people that my fiance, Jeanette, and my brother, Jason, are "fake" and "my imaginary friends". What... The... Fuck... :\

Oh, and to Adrin: Just because someone is smarter than you and knows how to edit a wiki doesn't mean they are "not a real person". My brother, Jason, is actually very real and is unbelievably intelligent and in fact has bee accepted to go to Yale. In case you don't know what I am talking about then let me quote you: "How come you've only had Lena's old wiki account for 3 weeks, rarely play, but are making wiki postings and uploads like you've been here for a while? Someone who's only had this account for a couple weeks can't know all that."

To be blunt, my brother has had my wiki account for years, not 3 weeks. He merely started becoming more active on the account for those passed few weeks when he started working on his titles with me.

Anyways, I'm tired and done with this rediculous goose chase. If our oh-so amazing sysops and BCrats can't even see past the lies on here of the manipulation people have created then I truly do feel this site has lost it's glimmering light that I once thought it had so long ago. I loved this site. Very much. EVen so much that I kept my nose dry and clean even since I got my permaban in the hopes that when I do finally try for an appeal I would be able to rejoin the site that I once fell in love with. But, like I said earlier... That is a hopeless dream now. With everyone claiming false-truths that I truly had nothing to do with (circumventing being the biggest lie). In all honestly I somewhat feel like maybe... Just MAYBE I should have actually circumvented my bans since I am so deeply accused of doing it anyway.

I don't care what my past actions were. They happened, yes. That's past- not present. What I care about was the fact that I am nothing like that anymore and THAT was what the Bcrats were supposed to evaluate and reconsider- NOT what the past was. Honestly... How hard is it to make your own decisions, as a BUREAUCRAT, and to simply not shrug off your duties and follow along with the crowd with a copy-and-paste decision of "I back the sysop's decision"!? This is the part where truly good leadership comes into play and when you, as a human being, need to look beyond the obvious and actually consult a profession decision of "did he or did he not change?" As everyone else above me who has tried to defend me has stated: Give him one chance off his perma to see h ow it goes. If he fucks up then reban him for good this time. IMO, if I am really so stupid as to violate policy even after getting my perma removed then I really must be one dumb ass idiot.

Well, in conclusion, Auron. Troll wins. Conratulations on a job well done. You've successfully trolled yet another person with your superiority issues. Go ahead and ban my IP, Auron. It truly doesn't matter anymore. It's not like I ever had any intentions after posting this to try and circumvent my ban after I click "Save page". That's the real trollers job to do, not mine. Take care and have fun, you all. I hope you all have a great new year with more fortune than what I've already been given with me not being given a fresh start with a fresh year. - L ena   talk 19:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I personally am not opposed to giving you another chance on the wiki -- I am not willing to overturn your block myself, since I was not around when you were blocked, but I'd support any sysop who did. That said, this issue is about whether ArbComm should overturn your block, and I agree with them declining the case. This is a sysop matter. &mdash;Tanaric 19:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Considering the contributions of the IP he used to post his "defense", I'm really curious as to how he can say he wasn't the one circumventing his block. -- <font color="#0104C6">FreedomBound [[Image:User_Freedom_Bound_Sig.png|19px]] 19:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * at freedum bound: dident at 1 point lina say he lets hes brother share computers with him? 216.245.202.34 19:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * tl;dr pers  onn5 [[Image:User_Personn5_sig.jpg|19px]] 19:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Proxies are fun, but you should try to make it a little more believable than non-random spelling errors when your other contributions have perfect spelling and show that you have intimate knowledge of the group (so feigning only partial knowledge of whether or not they share a computer or IP address also fails). <font color="Black">-- <font color="#0104C6">FreedomBound [[Image:User_Freedom_Bound_Sig.png|19px]] 19:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Tbh, I should probably keep my mouth shut on this subject. It is possible that all of the IPs posting here are Lena, and I understand why you may believe that. However, I do not see why it would be so hazardous to unblock Lena, and put him on some kind of probation for a few months. What is the worst thing that could happen if he is unblocked, and he begins to troll again? We can easily re-block him, and never look at any plea from him again (Yes, I know I was not here when Lena was, but people can make amazing changes to their habits and behaviors in short periods of time).


 * On the otherhand, should we choose not to unblock him, there are an infinitesimal number of proxies out there that he could continue to use for single edits, or for creating a whole new identity. Yes, it is highly likely that the current sysops would easily find those and ban them, but that would not stop anything. The thing about proxies is that they can be switched at the single click of a mouse, and it takes several clicks to find out about that change.


 * After all, it is not better to have edited and reverted, then to never have edited at all? Thrain[[File:User_Thrain_Sig.png]] contribs 20:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Surprisingly, you defeated your own argument. --User Ezekial Riddle silverbluesig.png <font color="#dce2e8">R <font color="#cfdae5">I <font color="#b8c2cc">D <font color="#a1b1bf">DLE 20:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am quite good at that. Thrain[[File:User_Thrain_Sig.png]] contribs 20:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)