Guild Wars Wiki:Sysop discretion log

__NEWSECTIONLINK__ This page is for sysop actions that contradict written policy per adminship policy. Note that this is not required for discretionary actions with an absense of any directly supporting or opposing written policy, but they are also allowed here (especially if the status is questionable).

To avoid misunderstandings, new log entries should only be made by the sysop who performed the action. When someone objects that action and it is not listed here, the respective sysop should be contacted on his or her talk page first.

Temporary deletion of Help:Ask an account question
I temporarily deleted Help:Ask an account question to remove one edit, in which an editor posted his or her access key and passwords, apparently due to mistaking us for support. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 04:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Shard's 6 week ban
I feel his rant on Regina's talk page has once again stepped over the line into violation of GWW:NPA. If any of you feel differently, feel free to change it. -- Wyn 03:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Super Igor's 6 week ban
Since he was kind enough to point out Cursed Angel's NPA violations against him, I went through some of his posts since he's been back and found several NPA violations, thus the renewed block. -- Wyn 20:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Uchiha Lena & User:Wafflez infinite bans
Uchiha Lena has proven himself to be a disruptive and highly disrespectful user of the wiki. He has flaunted bans, posting through proxy servers. He has been offensive to various users. He has driven other users off of the wiki and has generally displayed "excessive asshattery". He is in no way a positive contributor to the wiki and his limited useful contributions to the main space are grossly outweighed by his negative talk pages contributions.

Wafflez is his alleged girlfriend and is at best a meat puppet and at worst a sockpuppet. This is evidenced by emails sent from the wafflez account and posts made by it also displaying Lena's tact for language and offence. Therefore this account has been blocked in addition.

Pending the result of any further arbcomm Lena and Wafflez may be unbanned to dispute these claims, but I belive a majority of users will agree with the outcome, and any allegations of sysop "biasedness" are clearly unfounded.

Please feel free to message me on my talk page regarding these decisions if you disagree. Or email another sysop if you are Lena or Wafflez to complain, which you undoubtedly will.

I personally hope this will bring an end to the whole saga. -- Lemming 23:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Temporary promotions
I have temporarily promoted User:Satanael and User:Erasculio to sysop to enable them to help set up the Feedback namespace. I expect that they will not take advantage of the situation and will be closely monitoring logs for either user taking inappropriate action. If anyone notices such inappropriate actions before I do, please notify me or one of the other two bcrats for their demotions. - Tanetris 18:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Noxify
Banned this account and deleted the RfA it created. While this was not an emergency block or an ongoing problem, current sysops were not dealing with it so I stepped in. I assume this was not User:NoXiFy as he has no reason to make a new account with only one contribtion to start an RfA. The RfA can be restored if it was in fact him. Misery  22:19, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Guild Wars Wiki:Elections/2009-10 bureaucrat election/Mtew
Self-evidently a joke nomination created by a sockpuppet. While I don't love setting the precedent of sysops deleting nominations, I also believe that joke nominations inherently undermine the system as a whole (not to mention that they have the potential effect of upsetting the user who has been nominated). &mdash; Defiant Elements   +talk  02:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Reduction of Zesbeer's block from 24 hours to 14 hours.
I was contacted by Zesbeer to look into his block, after going over Zes's edis for the past week and viewing the actions which resulted in his block, I believe that the message Auron was trying to get across, was accomplished and the remaining time of the block would serve no extra purpose in this instance and thus reduced his block by 10 hours. I did try to contact Auron before taking this action, but was unable to do so, however it was pointed out to me that I should have contacted him via mail, which I neglected to do, thus my sincere apologies for that. I have left a message on zes's page concerning his block and making it clear that one should always assume good faith, which includes faith that the user is not a sock account, which Zes failed to do in this instance. Regards -- Salome    17:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Removal of posts on User talk:Marcus The Cube
I chose to simply wipe the reported comment and subsequent comments from this talk page. I also requested User:Daññy stop bringing crap from PvXWiki here. These types of conflicts are nothing but a disruption, and I felt this would be the best way to just end it before it became worse. I have no problem issuing bans if it continues. -- Wyn  talk  09:51, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Blocking of users suspected to be trivia vandal.
I have permanently blocked many users with zero contribs suspected of being the trivia vandal. My criteria were: created from the IP range frequently used by the vandal (see checkuser log), using the same browser/browser version, and created after the vandal initially started. --JonTheMon 12:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

User talk page deletion
I deleted the user talk page and user talk page archives of Barek, who emailed me that he is having a stalker problem. The stalker knows his online identity. Barek's talk page has not been used in years, and he is not active anymore, so in my mind, his privacy concerns weight stronger than our concern to have past talk archived. --Xeeron 09:24, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

User:ArmaNang
I banned this user and deleted his userpage since it's sole content was a link to a website other advertisement-bots have linked to. While the user had made no other edits I felt a permaban was warranted since we don't allow advertisements and certainly not for sites such as the one this user linked to (promoting essay/thesis fraud). &mdash; Why 13:24, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

User:The Scythe Has Fallen
I realize I'm a little bit late to the party seeing as how this ban is already more than a day old, and, admittedly, I've not spoken to any of the other admins (Gares included), but I am nevertheless going to put myself out on a bit of a limb and extend Scythe's most recent block to a permaban for several reasons--this is my comeuppance for being only semi-active, I suppose.

The first reason is simple: unlike say, Igor, who was permabanned for inveterate trolling, the question of whether or not Scythe is truly a troll is somewhat up for debate; however, there can be absolutely no question that Scythe is utterly inveterate--see, for example, the many and varied (and failed) attempts literally begging him to reconsider his mentality if not his position, including my own. In fact, an email sent to me by Scythe included the following line: "Or, i could just stop, but that really wouldn't serve my purposes". While I freely admit that Scythe's motives were probably essentially good, and while I think that there was a fair amount of baiting going on--thus why I was initially somewhat leery of any kind of extended ban--Scythe ultimately brought this upon himself by ignoring every single good faith attempt, choosing instead to believe that he was being actively persecuted by anyone and everyone who suggested that he was creating unnecessary drama. What is more, while it is undeniably true many of Scythe's contributions were good, a quick glance at his contributions reveals that those good contributions were increasingly cast by the wayside as he pursued his agenda. In my mind, the month+ of drama largely overshadows the good that he did.

Second: following my one week ban of Scythe, I explicitly warned him that although some of his contributions were good, and while I did not believe that his (sole) intention was to create drama, these two facts alone would not be enough to prevent him from being permanently banned if he continued to disregard warnings and blocks. What's more, in an email sent to him by me while he was banned, I suggested several methods in which he could constructively and reasonably attempt to alter the state of affairs on this wiki, including suggesting that he propose an alteration to the RFA policy that would govern what constitutes a legitimate vote. His response ignored those suggestions. And, of course, upon returning from said ban, he *immediately* proceeded to intentionally disrupt the wiki for the sake of proving the point.

Third: simply put, it is no longer worth this wiki's time to waste effort hoping that Scythe will return as a productive member three months from now. As things stand now, in the absolute best case scenario, Scythe comes back having forgotten his grudge against Auron and proceeds to contribute in his small way in a more or less healthy manner. Alternatively, Gares' ban convinces Scythe that Auron is being sheltered not only by the sysops, but also by the bureaucrats (per Gares banning Scythe)--he already believes that "the system is horribly broken, the cabal has Misery in the highest seat of power possible at the wiki, and can act as a "get out of jail free card" for auron"--and Scythe either decides that he's done contributing forever (in which case the permaban has essentially no effect), or he returns with a vengeance, and we get to sit through a whole new round of drama until he's banned again. In short, then, the bad clearly outweighs the good just as Scythe's good contributions are outweighed by his bad contributions. &mdash; Defiant Elements   +talk  06:10, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Mafaraxas
Today, I received an email from this user, containing these three links, and an encouragement to take action. While the absurdity of the situation amused me somewhat, I decided to take the bait and block Mafaraxas for three months because of his latest edit, taking into account the user having been blocked for a similar action before.

While it's probably true that his edit breaks no policy of ours, I decided to take action regardless since I am not one to condone (implied) antisemitism. That, coupled with Mafaraxas' block history, prompted the first block. While their second edit can be regarded as being in jest or as parody, considering their earlier block for similar reasons I figured that a second block would be warranted since they (and as the user described in the email they sent to me) "evidently doesn't learn and doesn't want to". Having concluded I was going to impose yet another block upon Mafaraxas, I started considering the length of time I would block the user for. While at first I was reluctant to simply extend the duration by one standard length, I concluded that despite the presumably joking/trolling nature of his actions, it would be best to set a precedent regardless.

As noted earlier, I will not tolerate antisemitism or discrimination, serious or in jest. Calling others a jew while implying traditional biases towards the people is unacceptable under almost every circumstance, and even if it's used solely and truly for the sake of parody (which here, I believe, it was not), it does not belong on this site. I encourage every admin to uphold this standard or to discuss it and/or my actions if they disagree with me. &mdash; Why 14:33, 21 April 2011 (UTC)