Guild Wars Wiki talk:Admin noticeboard/Archive 11

Ariyen/Kaisha (revisited a fifteenth time)

For background information, if anyone needs links... block log for Ariyen account and block log for Kaisha account.
I'll be blunt - this is retarded. This user has been blocked by half the sysop team like 15 times. More than a year ago, I argued in favor of a permanent block - the counterargument was made that permanent was too harsh (despite her already lengthy block log at that time), so we settled for a year-long ban.
The user comes back from a year-long ban, which is a rarity in itself, and begins editing (early) from IPs and gets nailed for ban evasion. In addition to this user's usual drama, Kaisha expanded to sending harassing emails to anyone she gets into an argument with on the wiki - except in the emails, she is much less friendly (if you can believe that).
Every time the user gets called out on something, the same bullshit responses get fired back - people are trolling her, people are singling her out, people need to assume more good faith, etc. It's never "I'm sorry, I fucked up, I'll make an honest attempt to improve," - it's always someone else's fault (or, in some cases, the entire rest of the wiki's fault). I dunno about you guys, but I'm tired of seeing this user around, stirring up the same drama she's stirred up for years now.
I am, again, calling for the sysop team to discuss this user's positive and negative contributions to the wiki. If you conclude, as I have, that the negatives far outweigh any positives, then state your support of a permanent block on User:Kaisha (and all sockpuppet accounts she creates). -Auron 00:42, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Auron, my email is basically moot, I sent that before I saw this, but anyways.

I'm glad someone is facing this head-on, I was about ready to. I (along with most of you I'm sure) have been on the receiving end of quite a few of these emails, a few right after she was blocked. This useless circle of wiki-lawyering, most of which is started by her, is very counter-productive to the Wiki. I really hate to be a dick, and I'm sure this isn't the last we've heard from her, but I vote "Aye". ~FarloTalk 00:58, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Considering this most recent drama has managed to catch even my attention, in my current state of all but complete detachment from this wiki, and since I was one of the acting sysops during the events that led up to the user's one-year block, I'll share my opinion on the matter.
Last time I pleaded for the non-permanent block because I believed that even though the user's actions were disruptive, the user in question did not act out of malicious intent and thus she deserved a last chance. Year-long blocks aren't handed out lightly, as they are pretty much the most severe forms of administrative action we take short of permabans, and while a shorter block can be treated as a timeout, a user that is blocked for a year is expected to drastically improve the quality of their behavior on this site, or not to return at all. Ariyen/Kaisha chose to come back, thus I expected her to show some serious effort to change her ways. Not only have her recent actions shown me that this has not happened, I cannot imagine a second year-long block having any effect if the first one so clearly failed to yield results. Thus, in my opinion, a ban is the only logical course of action. — Why 01:35, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

(+1,339) . . Why (Talk | contribs)

swing and miss

tbh permaing someone without letting them get a word in leaves a bad taste in my mouth, up to you guys though 24.130.140.36 01:42, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Like 24.130 said, I think we should let Kaisha make a case for herself, but only once she has (hopefully) seen our discussion and had the chance to calm down over the next week because it is wrong to pass such harsh judgement without allowing the user to defend themselves. Until then however, I hope we can have some constructive conversation regarding what to do and not more drama or wiki-lawyering. ~FarloTalk 02:18, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I have an issue with waiting for a response from Kaisha. In fact, I have several issues with it. Firstly, the response will be exactly the same as it always is - Auron is biased because he hates me, Farlo is biased because he was personally involved, Why is biased because he banned me before, Armond is biased because he's a troll. Nowhere in the response will be admission of personal failure and an honest attempt to do better.

Secondly, and this is my biggest issue - even if she did respond with a "oh, I'm sorry, I'll do better next time," it's too fucking late for that. If she was actually sorry, she would have stopped pulling this shit a year ago. Waiting for a response hints that you actually care what she has to say, and that you'll actually think about not permabanning her if she promises to be good. Guess what? She'll definitely promise that, even though it's never her fault in the first place. She'll be good, she pinkyswears by it. But a week later she'll be doing the same shit again.

So... no, I actually have no interest in hearing a damn thing from Kaisha about this matter. This is a discussion among sysops as to the admin action that should be taken on a problem user with the longest block log in the history of this wiki, spread across two accounts and several IPs she's used to sockpuppet with.

The choice, as always, is down to the sysop team, and not me alone. But you have to ask yourselves - are you just going to get played again? Are you really going to give her ANOTHER chance? When is it too many times? When are her chances up? This isn't about second or third chances. She used those up literally years ago. You're talking about giving her a twentieth chance. And that, quite frankly, is the stupidest thing I've ever heard of considering. I'd like this discussion to remain on topic - and letting her comment will do nothing but derail it with bullshit in an attempt to lessen the block she rightfully deserves for years of trolling, socking, and hostile behavior.

This isn't an ArbComm. We don't need to do stupid shit simply for the sake of going through the motions. We are granted the power to block users without input from said users - and in this case, that power should be exercised. There is literally no benefit in waiting for a response we already know the content of, and we merely need to glance at her block log to know the honesty behind her promises to do better. TL:DR; no, we don't need to hear what she has to say. She lost her right to defend herself somewhere between the third and fifteenth blocks. -Auron 03:51, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

It's funny you mention her assumed reactions... because that's exactly what she did in an email to me just now. Thought that was good timing. ~FarloTalk 03:58, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Saying they're assumed implies we don't know for a certainty what they'll be based off what she did the last dozen times this happened. I agree with Auron; the appropriate response is a perma years ago, and this time without a bureaucrat reverting. -- Armond Warblade 04:08, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to submit some more evidence to the jury *hands folder to myself* : Kaisha's been continuing her shit (to be quite frank) in about 6 emails to me today even after I told her to stop and serve her ban. Nothing major, but it is quite annoying how relentless she's being, although she'll soon join all the Viagra advertisements in my spam folder. I'm beginning to re-think my opinion of giving her a chance to explain herself. ~FarloTalk 04:19, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

(Edit conflict x2) "tbh permaing someone without letting them get a word in leaves a bad taste in my mouth, up to you guys though " I think that's irrelevant in this case. She has roughly 20 bans over a two-year period, including a year long ban and a permablock that was overturned, and hasn't really changed. I mean, yeah, she'll come off an extended ban with a good attitude, but then it just degrades into something stupid over the course of a few weeks. I don't think it's worth the trouble anymore. --Riddle 04:21, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Alright, So. For you admins out there: I've sent you all a copy of my "conversation" with Kaisha and/or her friend. If I missed someone who'd be interested in reading it, let me know. I just wanted to make that (let's be honest: pathetic) attempt at trolling known to the rest of the team, and I'd like to seriously move forward in perma-banning Kaisha, her aliases, IPs, and all that jazz. This one message, IMO, is enough to constitute severe punishment, much less on top of everything else. I'm not sure if you guys are familiar with Kaisha's writing style, but the "buddy" seems to share it quite a lot, so I wouldn't be surprised if this was in fact her.

I've blocked both emails and wouldn't be surprised to see some retaliation against myself and the wiki in general, given how pissed off they/she seem(s) to be. Now I'm pretty sure I'm preaching to the choir here, so I won't even bother going into this anymore, so there's the evidence, what is going to be done? ~FarloTalk 06:35, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Erm... now's the part where we wait for other sysops to comment on the issue before we take action. It doesn't have to be done instantly. -Auron 07:56, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I believe this is totally up to the admin team, so the following is just an advice and a more outside look. I've looked at the block log and the contrib log of this user. Given the additional info on this page I strongly feel that a perma block should be considered, but I also feel before doing so there should be a final change for this user to correct herself. The reason is that the one year block was a year ago and there has been a stretch of time between then and this situation. I think it's good to give her one change (and one change only) to correct herself. Invite her to make one post on this page to say what she has to say bout this. If that post isn't what you want to hear from her, it's a perma block. If it is what you wanna hear, she is welcome but under very strict conditions. Any breach of the guidelines and rules we all agreed on will result in a perma block in the future. No discussion bout it will be needed, no more warnings will be given, no more shorter blocks will be given, no more discussion bout blocking her or not will be started. So if in her reply she is showing a side of her we want to see and she keeps on showing that in the future, she can stay. But one slip, showing her "darker" side will result in a perma block, either she is the perfect wiki user or she isn't a user what so ever. My main reason is that given the fact she has returned to here, she likes doing stuff for the wiki, but she has some sort of uncontrolable part of her that is totally unwanted. Giving her a final warning, and letting her know what is at stake, gives her a final opportunity to do the right thing, if she is only showing one inch of her darker side it will be game over. Rumian 08:05, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

One word - bullshit. - Reanimated X 10:07, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't emailed... but then again I don't particularly feel the need to read it. Auron's posts above, particularly the one about how Kaisha has said quite enough for herself already, reflect my own opinions anyway and I see no reason to give her a 20th second chance. – Emmett 19:17, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm about to be out of the country for about a month, so I'll be out of contact, but before I go - I have no problem with permablocking Kaisha at this point. She's proven beyond a doubt that she is unable to rectify her behavior. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 01:22, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

My opinion on the matter is stated here. G R E E N E R 04:36, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I just have to bring this up. Will this block affect the one in the GW2 wiki? In other words, even though she's permanently blocked here, will she still be able to stir drama in the GW2 wiki once her block there has expired? - Reanimated X 04:51, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

GW2W and GWW are two separate wikis. A block on this wiki does not necessitate a block on GW2W, much as actions taken on the GW2W should generally not be used to judge a person on this wiki. G R E E N E R 04:54, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Since I am a very (self-) important person, I would like to add my comments after the fact. I've been something of a champion for Ariyen in the past, offering her advice and excusing her transgressions on GW2W and GuildWiki. Sometimes I've met with success, more often not. Ariyen is incredibly defiant and defensive, and all available options have been exhausted on GWW. I believe a permaban is/was the necessary action, and it will serve both the common good and Ariyen's own good. Dealing with self-inflicted hostility every day can really stress a person out. elix Omni 18:52, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Peanut Gallery comments

Section above is probably meant to be exclusive to sysops, so I'll just mention down here that I was surprised at a couple of things: first, that it took someone so long to ban her at all (the drama started about five seconds after she (officially) returned), and second, that the ban was only for a week. I was actually going to ask Auron on his talk page about the length, but he started this section. Kudos to Auron for finally at least having a discussion, though to be honest, I think the decision should be fairly obvious. -- FreedomBound 11:30, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Very obvious. Sardaukar 19:54, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

@Rumian, I'm pretty sure pling tried something like that almost 18 months ago (heck, I think he was still a sysop). It didn't go over so well. I don't think that any amount of pleas and "last chances" will change the fact the hers is not a personality match for this wiki, especially since she was banned for a year and didn't really change her attitude after her ban expired. --Riddle 03:03, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

No wonder. Most of the sysops don't bother to permaban someone. Even if it was the user him or herself who asked for a permaban. 88.152.25.23 19:19, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Either you're referencing Ariyen or you're completely derailing the topic. If it's the former, whether or not she asked for it, she wasn't banned because she asked. -- Armond Warblade 19:33, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I meant both her and someone else. Predominantly I was referring to the sysops' unwillingness to permaban people who should be permabanned. 88.152.25.23 20:05, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

It's mostly a problem that a few sysops are willing, and do perform bans, they just get reverted by carebears who prefer giving people twenty second chances. -Auron 21:08, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Speaking as someone who's felt their own ban in the past was unnecessary and as someone who didin't even know what was going on, fifteen (15) bans per sysop (or even enough to make such an exaggeration) is ridiculous. Both for the sysops and the banned. For the sysops to be incapable of unifying even after so much evidence against the subject in question and for the subject to be incapable of growing the fuck up by not doing stupid shit to get yourself c-c-c-combobanned. Isn't it true that repeating the same shit over again while expecting different results is a sign of insanity? Guild Wars was officially released only six years ago. This wiki is <7 (less than seven) years old. "Ariyen/Kaisha" was supposedly banned for a full year. So, in roughly five (5) years, this person has been banned supposedly fifteen (15) times. That's three times per year, including the year-long ban. Through a maximum of six (6) years, this person has continued the same conduct even after persistent intervention. It would be safe to assume that, if left to continue, you could expect to ban this person at least three (3) times every year until he/she is banned permanently. I'm sure a final decision has finally been reached, but are you really okay with how all this transpired? Guild Wars is a game, and this is an encyclopedia for that game. However, you take it seriously. It is because you take it seriously that you should question whether or not any changes need to be made so that a situation like this does not repeat itself, and what those changes should be. I'm not a bureaucrat. I'm not a sysop/admin. I'm barely an editor, at least anymore. However, if I can see the wrench between the gears in your grand machine, so should you. 76.106.245.213 11:39, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I think we all can, yeah. -- Armond Warblade 12:59, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

We do. Or at least, I do - I've seen it for years, and I've been pretty outspoken about broken shit on this wiki. The original super-strict admin code of conduct. The entire fucked-up and useless ArbComm system that gave trolls more attention than they could have garnered by themselves. They were all designed with good intentions, but failed in reality. Luckily, I've been mostly able to convince the general public on these issues, and the product is fairly obvious; admins are allowed to act with some level of discretion, and arbcomms are never used. They haven't been officially abolished, unfortunately, people have just been too smart to use them.

But the issue you bring up is a fair one. This wiki has always been fighting uphill. The admin team has never been a team. When shit hit the fan, the community was all too quick to jump on a scapegoat - and here we had sysops offered up on a silver platter, because the bureaucrats were too cowardly to protect them. It wasn't even entirely their fault - it was the community's fault just as well, for putting such restrictions on the relationship between sysops and bureaucrats. Unfortunately, just like everything the fuck else, that system was a failure. (Pling and Wynthyst are good examples of good sysops turned sour by constant abuse at the hands of the community, and trolls protected by the policies set forth by said community. When either of them tried to fix the problem, they were "thrown under a bus" and abused further, to a point where they both lost all interest in continuing to contribute and simply stepped down).

I propose to you, the community, a simple solution. You may choose to ignore it and continue doing what we've always done, despite the obvious failures in the system on display every time something like this happens. You may choose to ignore it simply because the game is dead, the wiki is old, and it's easier to keep with old habits, even if they're bad. But if you give two shits about this wiki, read on.

Abolish the stupid fucking bureaucrat election system. No more elections. Bureaucrats can appoint bureaucrats to replace them when they feel they can no longer serve the wiki. Bureaucrats deal with sysop power abuse as they see fit - warnings and demotions, if necessary. But the bureaucrats need to be on the same side as the sysops, and the sysops need to be on the same side as each other. Favoritism and nepotism, the age-old arguments, were merely the fantasyland constructs of the same people who set up this failure system to begin with. Everyone here realizes why we're here - this is a wiki about a video game, and giving friends special treatment with sysop tools has never been an issue. It will continue to be a non-issue even with all the unnecessary restrictions abolished. All they do is serve to hinder the ability of the sysop team to function as a team, and all in the name of preventing an abuse of power - one that hasn't happened, and will not happen.

Get rid of Arbcomms, officially. I don't even need to talk about this one, it's pretty damned obvious it was a terrible system, and a brief read over the few cases that were pushed through that bureaucratic mess are enough to support my point. Sysop discretion effectively replaced this, and bureaucrats are still free to overrule sysop action if they see fit (as long as they take care to avoid pointless wheel warring; see below). Requests for Reconfirmation are pretty solid in theory and practice, and those should be dealt with as usual by the acting bureaucrats.

And lastly... this is my biggest issue. The byproduct of this issue is displayed brilliantly in this Ariyen/Kaisha case. When a user is a troll, and they get banned for trolling, fucking leave them banned. Do not pull a Salome and, without consulting the banning sysop, undermine his authority and remove bans on trolls specifically placed for trolling. Do not pull an Aiiane and revert a permanent ban on a problem user simply because you disagree with how it was placed. Do not pull a Gordon Ecker and question the authority of all bans previously placed, demanding fresh evidence of troll behavior on accounts banned years ago. This is not how a sysop team works, and all it does is make us, as a whole, a weaker force and less able to deal with any issues that arise. It is obviously fine to disagree with specific admin actions, but there are proper ways to go about discussing it, and flat-out wheel warring is not it and never will be. If a disagreement is big enough, the sysop team needs to discuss as a team and come to a consensus on the matter, instead of countering specific sysops on specific actions and not even attempting to present themselves as being on the same side. That leads us to situations like the one we had with Ariyen. The simple fact that I was unable to permanently ban her, without fear of retribution from my own sysop team, highlights the failures in our efforts to act as a cohesive whole. A team acting as one would be able to nip these problems in the bud, one way or another, way before any singular troll racks up 15 blocks (none of them perma) over a span of years.

The hardest of my suggestions to implement is definitely the last one. Learning how to work as a team after years of polite indifference, struggling to appear impartial and neutering our ability to admin... it'll be a change. But it's one worth pursuing, and it'll set a good framework for how we expect GW2W to be handled. Is anyone with me? -Auron 13:21, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm with ya, especially on the last part. Such concept could make the wiki much cleaner of all the trolling shit and the like. However, I'm not quite sure if this wiki can still implement any such a change in this state. Most of sysops are either already gone or just no longer care and the years of old ways will not help either, pushing through any changes is going to be fucking hard. In any case, I wish you good luck in this tough matter, if GW2W would also take this route, only the better. ***EAGLEMUT*** TALK 14:29, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, the paradigm shift in the third part is the most important for sure, and that'll be something for you and the other sysops/bcrats to figure out I suppose. I don't think I've been around enough to see the issue with Arbcomms, but I have seen sysop and bureaucrat elections get hostile, without really knowing the details in most cases. I don't know whether you intended for both sysops and bcrats to just be elected by bcrats from here on, or only bcrats, but I don't particularly disagree either way. --ஸ Kyoshi 15:01, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Again, ironically speaking as someone who has felt wronged by an unnecessary ban in the past, I'm on board this one. In fact, I would actually take this a step further by proposing such things as removing userspaces and proposing a larger "staff" to police discussion pages. This wiki needs to stop being so user-friendly because, guess what, that's trollbait. Trolls in a user-friendly environment are like roaches. All they do is multiply and annoy the crap out of you while being dodgy as hell to stomp out. Even if it got me permabanned from editorial privileges, I would put such a motion in place that would allow for nothing but the documentation of the game this wiki was created to. This isn't a forum. This isn't a chatroom. This isn't space-book-ter-My-Twit-Face. This is an encyclopedia. Everyone with administrative authority needs to unify because not doing so puts a spotlight on a weakness in the system that can and will be exploited. It needs to be fixed. 76.106.245.213 19:49, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Break down the walls of pointless bureaucracy and faux elections. Let's make this wiki function again. elix Omni 21:23, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Everyone knows my opinion here, even if no one cares. -- Armond Warblade 02:15, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

"Guild Wars was officially released only six years ago. This wiki is <7 (less than seven) years old. "Ariyen/Kaisha" was supposedly banned for a full year. So, in roughly five (5) years, this person has been banned supposedly fifteen (15) times. That's three times per year, including the year-long ban." The user first created an account on 1 June 2009, so the account hasn't been around for the entire duration of this wiki. --99.232.78.45 02:31, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I was letting that slide because now, with fifteen (15) bans in just over two (2) years, you're looking at optimistically seven (7) bans every year. I didn't think it necessary at the time, but thank you for the information. I think, though, that we've moved on from the Ariyen/Kaisha issue to the system that allowed it to become what it has/had. Although, I'm sure Auron has already shared his concerns with his fellow privileged editors and I believe chances are high that they are already in discussion, again if that discussion ever really ended. 76.106.245.213 11:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

AbuseFilter changes

So, since only admins can see the filters themselves, I'm bringing this here. Our filters seem to be working, and since the vandal bots have moved on recently, not a whole lot is happening on that front. However, one of the filters we have is getting a few mis-fires and is causing some issues with good-faith edits: Filter 8 aka Section removal (not autoconfirmed) (log). Right now it's preventing IPs and new users from removing a section, which can frustrate new users, but can also prevent bots from replacing a section as well.

One option that I'd like to consider is having questionable section removals be flagged in RC rather than straight-out prevented. I'm torn about such a move because on one hand it would make editing by new users easier, but on the other hand it would allow bot edits through, with only a warning in RC (not that even now we need that, since RC is checked a lot). What are the thoughts on this? (addendum). Leaving the filter as is does stymie many bot edits, and it also often prevents vandals from removing a section and replacing it with vandalism. --JonTheMon 21:23, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Looks like the only edits you'd really want to keep in that log are the ones in the Guild and User namespaces (kind of silly to block one from removing sections on one's own user page, and guild pages are edited by IPs all the time), if you can get to that level of granularity with the filters. -- FreedomBound 01:18, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

That's an easy change and AbuseFilter can have rules for any combination of namespaces. ~FarloTalk 03:38, 16 September 2011 (UTC)