Guild Wars Wiki:Arbitration committee/2009-06-21-User:Shard

This page was created due to this suggestion by User:Gaile Gray, which followed requests for administrative intervention or review.

Issue at hand

Shard (talk • contribs • logs • block log) has been accused of personal attacks and defamation.

Decision about accepting the case for arbitration

The case for or against acceptance is on the discussion page.

• Accept: Based on this post and these posts on the Admin Noticeboard and its talk page, as well as Shard's generally confrontational posts on Gaile's talk page since then, I believe it is clear that the only resolution to this short of a permaban is going to come from an ArbComm ruling, regardless of warnings and milder bans. - Tanetris 22:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• Accept: Considering Shard's warning and block history, and that he has continued to show the same or similar behaviour without a sincere willingness to restrain himself, I also think that an arbitration ruling is necessary. -- Brains12 \ talk 16:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• Accept -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 01:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Shard's Statement

This arbitration process and Auron's constant nagging have brought me much closer to realizing why I should stay away from certain developers' talk pages, as it's only gotten me in trouble in the past. I'm sure many ArenaNet employees would like to hear what they're doing wrong, but the way I tell them is often done in a way that alienates them, and I know that's not permitted on the wiki. I'm here because I've done this to Gaile in the last month or so, despite being asked not to.

Looking back, I can see how much I've stepped down each time I've done something stupid. Early on, I was calling people dumbasses on their own page, something I wouldn't dream of doing today. I've brought myself down considerably in terms of viciousness since I started here, and I hope you'll all be able to see that I'm still willing to bring myself down more, hopefully near or at the level Auron conducts himself. He's no role model, but you can't expect me to be cheery 100% of the time.

That said, my contributions to other parts of the wiki are largely beneficial. I happily help new users figure out how to do things, I patrol RC for vandal edits or falsely documented information, and when needed, I countertroll the trolls, not to mention many of the pvp pages would be largely empty had I not written them. I don't believe a permanent ban would be of any use to anyone, but I do deserve some penalty for my actions. I'm not in any place to advise you on what that should be. I believe some of the best people for the job are right up there and will come up with an appropriate course of action. ~Shard 22:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Per Request from the Bureaucrat Team

My concerns have been with frequent irrelevant and untruthful accusations directed by Shard at several wiki members and Guild Wars players. Those comments may have irreparably damaged the reputations of people reviewed and cleared by Support. Shard has also suggested malice, corruption, or incompetence on the part of various company representatives or teams.

For background: Every report gets a thorough review; all players are treated fairly; no one gets preferential treatment. For the record: All reinstatements are... for the record. That is, they're archived and can be reviewed at any time. (In fact, spot checks take place daily.) Reinstatements are generally reviewed by multiple team members; breach reports whose resolution is even modestly in question get multiple reviews. Appeals are reviewed by different people, to give everyone a fair shake.

As for me, I don't handle tickets at the first, second, or even third tier of review. By the time something gets to me -- and only a small number do -- the matter has been assessed by at least three people and outcomes are then discussed as a group. I don't make decisions about matters involving friends or members of my guild; I refer them to the team, to prevent the suggestion of unfairness or prejudice. (Well, to hopefully prevent such a suggestion.)

While I hate repeating the negative comments, someone suggested a few quotes would be useful in the review:

Which process allowed wasabi and fall to clear their names? Being in ZoS, or breaking more rules since? How is real money trading any more acceptable when the person brags about getting away with it later? ~Shard 21 June 2009 link

Why isn't it painfully obvious to you all that anet just bans people they don't like? There's more evidence of prejudicial bans than there are of Wasabi violating pretty much every section of EULA, and trust me, there's plenty of that. ~Shard 2 June 2009

As an example of how Shard's comment have been accepted as truth by others: @ Shard - Does this include Ms. Gray lifting Wasabi's suspension on that double fame weekend? -Lena™ 2 June 2009 link

Gaile has a long history of dodging questions about wasabi, fall, and starcraft. ~Shard 21 June 2009 link

Starcraft is the first person to reach HA rank 15, mainly because Gaile helped him avoid bans. Other people say she even lifted one of his bans so he could play in a double fame weekend, but that's not something I know much about. ~Shard 21 June 2009 link

Concerning one accused player: He's just a guy who bought gold and got away with it, despite being reported. ~Shard 21 June 2009 link

If I was trying to get permabanned, I'd say "hell yeah" on Gaile's page. It's worthy of an in game permaban, so it must be just as bad on the wiki, right? ~Shard 21 June 2009 link

It's regrettable that someone who also tries to make valuable contributions to the GWW can be so destructive. It's sad that some people will remember the allegations, and fail to remember they were disproved. And it's frustrating to see aggressive comments labeled as an attempt to improve things.

I want to say that my primary issue is not with the attacks directed towards me or the team, but with those directed towards players and wiki members with whom Support has no outstanding issues. I feel that there should be repercussions for harassment, for trolling, for thread high-jacking, and for attempting to damage the reputation of any Guild Wars Wiki member. Please let me know if you have any questions, and thanks for looking into the matter. -- Gaile 02:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Ruling

• Shard is prohibited from making inflammatory posts regarding ArenaNet, its employees, NCSoft support, and/or players allegedly receiving favoritism. These posts, and any replies made to them may be removed by any sysop, with blocks applied if necessary.
• Shard is prohibited from posting on ArenaNet employees' talk pages without permission. All users are permitted and encouraged to immediately revert any future post Shard makes to these talk pages and any replies made to them.
• Shard may not attempt to relay requests for permission to post on ArenaNet employees' talk pages through any non-admin.
• At their discretion, Sysops may block Shard for violating any of the above restrictions.
• At their discretion, individual ArenaNet employees may grant, refuse or revoke permission for Shard to post on their talk pages. Current permission status should be listed here along with diff links of the acceptance or refusal for community reference if applicable. If permission is refused or retracted, the refusal or retraction should be presumed to be final.

Permission status

• User talk:Emily Diehl (accepted)
• User talk:Linsey Murdock (accepted)