Guild Wars Wiki talk:Admin noticeboard/Archive 8

RE:Sig

Queer can also mean "strange" or "weird". Even if the user intends it to have homosexual overtones, it isn't directly a personal attack, but I guess sysops will have the last say about it anyway. Pika Fan 02:39, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not the term I have an issue with, rather that his user name is Thrash and "You're Queer" is in no way representative of it. -- Salome 02:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The fonts were so light that I thought I saw Thrash at the front. Had to highlight it to see anything. Pika Fan 02:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

He's been warned multiple times previous. I don't think he has intents of changing it.... -- Wandering Traveler 02:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Yup that's why I've blocked him. If he had an account called Queer or something like that, I really wouldn't care but his continued breach of sig policy has to result in a ban in this instance. -- Salome 02:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your reasoning here for the most part, but was two weeks a bit overkill? I think a 3 day or a week block at the most would've been a punishment fit for the crime. calor (talk) 03:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

His last one was for a week, if I'm not mistaken. So thats...one Mediawiki standard up? I'd say thats fair, considering its a block for the exact same thing. -- Wandering Traveler 03:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I was too ignorant to check the block log. Forget I ever doubted you :P calor (talk) 03:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) To be honest I originally was going to go for 3 days, but saw that in the block history for the same think, he had already had a 3 day ban and a weeks ban and was still refusing to fix the sig, thus the next wiki block step up is 2 weeks and thought that might get the message across that we aren't taking this piss (as thus far 10 days worth of blocks and 4 sysops asking him to abide by policy hasn't resulted in him even attempting to change the sig to conform with policy) However Cal, if you feel I was unduly harsh in this instance matey, I honestly don't mind if you reduce the block to something you feel is more fitting. -- Salome 03:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Doh, seems thats all already been said. I really need to learn to type faster and stop being so verbose in my answers, too many things get sorted before I post. :( -- Salome 03:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Spam removal...

Would there be any problem on removing the wtf update section on the last update's talk page on the grounds of spam content? It seems to just be attracting more of the same kind of "answers".--Fighterdoken 20:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that would be problematic. — Defiant Elements +talk 20:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Removed. -- pling 20:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: Vandalism issues - Pika Fan

Her criticism about my character didn't belong on DM's talkpage. So I moved it to Ariyen's talkpage as she was the one who triggered the incident, as well as it is my reply to her.

Removing user comments is vandalism, and breaking 1RR to revert vandalism is perfectly fine.

I shall leave it up to a sysop to judge whether her off-topic content belongs where. Pika Fan 03:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

You are correct in your original actions - her post was 100% off-topic on the RfA page, and belongs on either your talk page or her talk page. Regardless, revert warring with her is not acceptable. You've both been told to lay off each other, and while you were actually doing rather well, at the first sign of her failing you jumped right back into her shit. Give it a rest. Open an arbcomm about her if you think she's pestering you. Just ignore her trolling/antagonizing and go on with your everyday life. -Auron 03:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

You moved part of the discussion, resulting in a reply by Ariyen being on her talk page without the post she was replying too. In future moves, please copy over the entire discussion. Or just leave it together in one place. --Xeeron 16:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Regina's talk page...

← moved to Guild_Wars_Wiki_talk:Talk_pages

NPA discussion

→ moved from Guild Wars Wiki:Admin noticeboard

"User talk is user business"....orly? Karate Jesus 20:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Users are free to criticize each other's contributions on talk, too, even users like Pling. Until it disrupts the operations of the wiki, it's not a sysop matter. These NPA "violations" that keep appearing on the AN rarely meet that criterion. —Tanaric 21:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I realize no one was offended, however, no one was offended by what Danny said either, but that was a big deal? — Mini Me 21:20, 19 January 2010

Someone (Lacky) was offended enough by Danny's comments to criticize them. You will notice that Danny wasn't blocked because of them, and the "big deal" was a result of people reacting to the criticism disproportionally. -- Wyn talk 21:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

When did this become a discussion page? -- Salome 21:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

(In response to Freedom moving the section to the talk page) Actually Freedom the reason i left it on the front page, was to make a none too subtle point to those none involved users that they shouldn't be posting on that page with random chatter, for example KJ's post was nothing but none-pertinent debate which should never have been put on the admin noticeboard page. We've seen alot of it lately from a few users. -- Salome 22:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Right, but how does you responding to the discussion help at all? And didn't we have this conversation about a month ago (not you or I in particular)? -- FreedomBound 22:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I was bad, I should have moved it rather than comment...... -- Wyn talk 22:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) In that Freedom, a gentle reminder to KJ to not be debating none pertinent points, without an "OMG GTFO" rant etc... should have been enough. You see Freedom I don't have to justify using the admin noticeboard page to point out that it's turning into a discussion, as first and foremost it shouldn't be being used as such and secondly, I am an admin. Hope that helped clarify the point. Further to that I dont know the month old conversation you are talking about. If you mean the one involving Lacky, Lacky at least was talking about the primary issue posted on the noticeboard, KJ was referencing a whole different topic, that was not in anyway related to a possible NPA breach posted by Mini Me. -- Salome 22:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I tl;dr'd that, but I noticed my name was brought up twice. So apparently you <3 me? Karate Jesus 22:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

This is the conversation I was referring to, a little older than I thought, and much shorter. Anyway, regardless of you being an admin, it is still not the place for discussion. I didn't mean to point fingers, though, it was more of a "why not just move it instead of furthering the dicussion". ETA: I wasn't referring to the Lacky situation at all, that was a little bit different. -- FreedomBound 22:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

i'm not offended by what was on my page. --adrin 07:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

troll

→ moved from Guild Wars Wiki:Admin noticeboard#troll

I think TahiriVeila is a pretty cool guy, eh breaches npa and doesn't afraid of anything. --Frosty 23:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

If you'll actually read my posts, not a single on contains a personal attack.Briar offered an opinion on backbreaker assassins. I gave several reasons as to why backbreaker sins provide a perfectly viable and balanced build at which point I was shouted at by the above user. I presume this is because he could not form any logical counterpoints to my arguments, but I cannot be sure. After these assaults on logic, I kindly suggested to briar that he reconsider the obviously immature notion that he could not possibly be wrong. There was not trolling or personal attacks involved, it was simply an effort to help a fellow user grow and become a more logical human being.--TahiriVeila 23:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

tl;dr. Im serious now. Im sick of this guy loading up my talk page with NPA violations. Do something about it. --Briar 23:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't discuss crap on the noticeboard itself, guys. It's not a hard rule to follow. elix Omni 00:17, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I think Briar is a pretty cool guy, eh serious now and doesn't afraid of anything. Karate Jesus 04:13, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Dear Frosty, TahiriVeila, Briar, and KJ; PvX is that way. ------>

Stop this bullshit now or ima ban all of you. -Auron 04:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say anything mean though :< Plus frosty blocked me on pvx for trolling saint so I have nothing better to do while procrastinating on my linear algebra homework--TahiriVeila 04:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Do I look like a bitch? You're trolling him, he's trolling you, and every one of the pvx circlejerkers are finding it funny and adding their trolling. Don't try to play it off like anything other than what it is. It is going to stop. You've been warned. -Auron 04:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Tbh, I'm still shocked that none of the other admins catch this shit. srs bsns is v srs. Karate Jesus 04:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Briar

Can a sysop step in. He is taking this way too far and blowing it out of proportion and it will end up being another dramafest. He is acting completely childish and believes that because he has a notice on his page that he can just remove every post made by Jake and or quick archive it based off of his hatred for Jake and not weither Jake is trolling/baiting him. Drogo Boffin 20:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Gares just warned him.--neshot 20:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Gares warned him several times. He hasn't stopped. I'm trying to stay out of it but I'm getting a little pissed off!--TahiriVeila 21:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

He isnt listening to reason nor does it appear he is willing to let stuff go. Jake just stay out of it. Then nobody can say you added to it. Drogo Boffin 21:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey hey buddy. I just want to be left in peace. Thats all I ask for. I'll go my way, he goes his. Thats all I want. You people are the ones making a big deal about that. --Briar Flame Me 21:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Says the guy who stuck a notice at the top of his page begging for attention. --92.10.117.207 21:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I meant Gares warned him again. +++Briar, you want to be left in peace but blow the matter way out of proportion. Surely you must have noticed that by making such a big deal out of it, you're only getting more (bad) attention?--neshot 21:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Mass deletion tagging of "outdated" suggestions

I know that not many of the current admins were directly involved in the creation of the Feedback namespace, but I would like to point out that throughout the discussions, it was determined there would be no generalized tagging for deletion of suggestions considered "outdated" by an update. I was dismayed to see that FreedomBound had gone through and tagged every Shadow Form suggestion for deletion, as well as those suggestions tied to skills that were impacted by the recent skill rebalance, and not a single person commented about it. It was overzealous "community" editing and deletion tagging that created so much strife with the old suggestions, and to see it happen again is a major step backwards. I have undone all of Freedom's deletion tags, and have recommended to him that he use the discussion pages to convince the creators of the suggestions that the update has indeed made their suggestion irrelevant, and either tag it for deletion, or include a resolved = yes into the infobox to remove it from the active suggestion lists. Please don't let all the work we did to create the suggestion space be for nothing. -- Wyn talk 12:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Need

We need more sysops to ban these vandals. Kaisha 02:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll set up RFA's for some people? :3--/ u /nendingfear File:User Unendingfear Avatar.png 02:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Lol, I prefer those that have actual history of editing pages, etc. such as these. Kaisha 03:19, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I prefer people I know well :3--/ u /nendingfear File:User Unendingfear Avatar.png 03:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

If you guys feel its needed, then go right ahead; theres nothing stopping a nomination. But remember, the community will thrash any candidates they can get their paws on. So don't expect a cake walk or niceties. -- Wandering Traveler 16:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

What about top-hats and pie walk? 3:--/ u /nendingfear File:User Unendingfear Avatar.png 16:08, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Ariyen/Kaisha

I propose a lengthening of the current block on the Kaisha account to infinite. The user has shown a history of abysmal judgment, inability to play nice with anyone, and absolute refusal to take advice from people, on top of a willingness to break policies and make sock accounts to evade bans. This is not an arbcomm issue, this is a sysop issue. The last time a sysop tried to make it a sysop issue, Aiiane reverted the block on the claim that there was no consensus. (I understand that the revert is not necessarily a disagreement, Aiiane - feel free to voice additional opposition here if you oppose an increase of block length on its merits and not just on principle.)
The time to find sysop consensus is now - before the arbcomm case has a chance to take off. The matter of who ends up placing the block is not as important to me as what sysop consensus is - does the user contribute enough to outweigh all the negative s/he brings to the wiki? Is the user worth keeping around? Are we just going to keep 1-week and 2-weeking her for nonstop policy violations? I don't see him/her as an asset to the wiki, but I could just be six kinds of biased. Input? -Auron 18:56, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the proposal, but I'm at least seven kinds of biased. Karate Jesus 19:07, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd support the proposal. – Emmett 19:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Makes sense to me.--neshot 19:31, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that's the best proposal. Not only would that be good for the wiki but also probably for her as well. But I'm biased too since I started the arbcomm in the first place in hopes of a infinite block for her. --Lania Elderfire 19:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I think this could possibly be knocked down to a sysop matter, but this thread started off fishy. A) Not allowing Kaisha to officially defend herself. If her statement isn't enough, then go for the permaban. One more possible post isn't going to destroy the wiki or the community, so what's the rush? B) The quickness of the two users to vote support, one of whom is not an admin and has no say in the matter. How quick? See timestamps. C) Already admitting that or, at least, hinting at bias in this decision making.

Again, if you want to take this avenue at this time, at least do it with some sort of fairness. As to everyone else that is not a sysop, please remember that your contributions are welcome, but they do not hold sway in any final decision. — Gares 19:47, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Tbh, I'm just a RC whore and happened to see Auron post. There was no collaboration. However, I should have no say in the matter. I'm just being a douchebag, mostly. Karate Jesus 20:02, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I saw this at 19:12, rapid response means little on a wiki. Also consider that users could be weighing in because they believe there is a chance user opinion can sway sysop opinion. That is all. — Jon Lupen 20:06, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Gares, I disagree with your statement that non-sysop opinions don't matter - if it's reasoned enough, it's good enough. Although this is to garner sysop consensus, including "community" consensus solidifies the action taken (if any). Regarding bias: I'd like to say that the "bias" here is towards the well-being of the wiki, but I'm not sure how accurate that would be or how well that would come off.

As for a statement from Kaisha: I think it would be a nicety only. She's made hollow claims before (see my quote on her talk page regarding an email after I permanently blocked her), so I doubt any statement by her will carry any weight in the decision-making process. If someone wants to contact Kaisha via email and post a statement via proxy in order to fulfil that nicety, I think that would be fine. -- pling 20:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I just said what I said because it does seem like the logical choice.--neshot 20:18, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm with Pling. If people think a statement from her is needed, 3rd party that, as anything directly from her will blow the RC up with drama, though not as much drama as an arbcom would cause.--*Yasmin Parvaneh* 20:26, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

@ Gares A) Officially defend herself against what, Gares? All I'm doing is pointing at her block log, her behavior, and her lack of improvement and saying "what is wrong with this picture?" Her response is going to be, invariably, "it's someone else's fault," because that has been her answer this entire time. It's either the evil trolls like Pika or the evil sysops like Pling and myself or the evil people who know how to follow policy reverting her on pages... the list doesn't end. This is her defense - "don't be judgemental." Do you need it reposted again before you believe it's what she actually thinks?

B) The quickness of what? For some people, there's nothing to debate. The user is simply the most voracious troll this wiki has seen in months, and signing a ban petition doesn't exactly require a dissertation. The speed of Emmett's response should tell you how he feels more than any amount of text he could throw up.

C) Sigh. The hinting at bias in the decision making is a pre-empt to any trolls (namely Ariyen, in this case) that will invariably yell bias when the banhammer lands. I would have thought it obvious that my distinct lack of bans on this particular user is a sign that yes, I am biased - but it has nothing to do with my comments here on this talk page. I specifically asked the sysops at large to voice their opinions on the long overdue permabanning of a troll that's been allowed to run rampant for far too long. In order to save the wiki a bit more trolling, I'm attempting to do it before the arbcomm case, as those are nothing but trollfests anyway. Aside from being jokes.

I'm honestly not sure what you mean with your last paragraph. Some sort of fairness? Are we looking at the same logs here? Are we talking about the same troll? What exactly do you want? What can be more fair than me asking the opinion of the sysops at large before taking any action myself? To me, the answer is already obvious - the ridiculous amount of bans placed, the lack of behavioral improvement, and the previous attempts at perma blocking paint a pretty good picture of what the sysop team at large thinks of this troll. As far as I'm concerned, Aiiane's unblock was procedural at best, and right now we're taking the steps to go through that procedure. But I'm being fair - I haven't already applied a permanent block. I'm waiting for comments and suggestions to pour in, so that I may get a feel for sysop consensus. I'm not sure how srs bzns you expect a discussion on a 10+ block troll is supposed to be, but I'm being pretty damn straight up with everything here. I have gone through great pains to avoid acting out of bias, and I have distanced myself from the user so as to reduce the chance of me banning her every day for more and more policy violations. I'm not sure where you come off asking for fairness, because from where I'm standing, looking at the troll and all the damage it's caused, it's a hell of a lot less fair to the rest of the wiki to play this down instead of finishing it up.

And yeah, as much as I hate splintering discussion, non-sysop commentary should be in a different section. -Auron 20:40, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) How is it not an Arbcom issue? GWW:ARBCOM states that the Bureaucrats on it "are the final arbiters on the English language Guild Wars Wiki of user conduct (but not content decisions), including that of administrators." All the issues put forth as your reason to permaban are issues with her conduct. I know I'm not a sysop, so my opinion doesn't mean as much, but it seems like an Arbcom is where this should be resolved, especially since this talk was started by someone who admits they "could just be six kinds of biased." Additionally, the sentence "The time to find sysop consensus is now - before the arbcomm case has a chance to take off." gives this a conspiratorial feel. --Ceru talk contribs 20:29, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Ceru. - Reanimated X 20:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

The last similar arbcomm ended with a decline from all bcrats saying that it's a sysop matter and can (and should) be handled by those. Also there is nothing that prevents sysops and bcrats (arbcomms) "ruling" over the same issue. poke | talk 20:38, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

It isn't an ArbComm issue because it isn't out of sysop hands. Please don't quote policy without understanding what it means. Bureaucrats being "the final arbiters of user conduct" doesn't mean that every case of user misconduct is an arbcomm-worthy one. Only those users who cannot be dealt with properly by the sysop team need to be elevated to the arbitration committee. Some cases are simply not suitable for sysop intervention, and some cases are too controversial for any active sysops to participate in. In such cases, an arbcomm ruling is necessary. This is not such a case. Thus, it is not an arbcomm issue. -Auron 20:53, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

So, you feel that this user is bad enough to deserve a permaban yet not enough to deserve an Arbcomm? You come just short of accusing her of trolling, you do accuse her of bad judgment, disrupting the wiki, and of socking to avoid bans, all of which have been part of arbcomms in the past. As for controversy, look how much text has appeared in such a short period of time. What exactly would she have to do to take that extra step to be worthy of one? Also, why do you specifically state that this needs to be settled before the bcrats even decide if they will take it for arbcomm. If I don't understand this interpretation of policy, then educate me, give me the whys of what you are trying to do here; otherwise, your actions here seem more like trying to avoid following policy. --Ceru talk contribs 22:03, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Lurk more. -Auron 22:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Somehow, I expected that to be your response. I bring up policy, you say I don't understand it, I point out why I'm reading policy to mean what I think it does and ask for an explanation of why you believe it means something different, you tell me to "Lurk more." With sysop interaction like this, who needs trolls? --Ceru talk contribs 13:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I agree with this proposal. Kaisha's edits, while trying to be helpful, generally cause drama. Her terrible grammar annoys a lot of fellow users and even though it's been pointed out to her, she refuses to acknowledge that her grammar is terrible and continues to "improve" the grammar in articles. This mostly gets reverted soon enough, quickly followed by Kaisha reverting the revert, and a discussion which shouldn't even be taking place.

When a user tells her that she's made a mistake, broken a rule or just offers some advice she always denies that she did anything wrong, or she dismisses the advice because "her way is the right way" or she thinks the user has no idea what is going on, so he/she is wrong (example).

So yes, I strongly feel that banning her will only be an improvement for this wiki. I'd also like to note that if she gets banned, she should be banned from emailing, too. She has sent some abusive emails to users on this wiki (Pika Fan and Tanaric are two of them IIRC).

Oh, and as soon as she tries to sock it should be banned ASAP, obviously. 173.24.206.168 is one of them.

tl;dr: The cons outweigh the pros of her keeping her editing privileges, so ban her. - Mini Me talk 20:50, 22 March 2010

Oh and yes, I realize I'm not a sysop so I don't have any say in this, but whatever. - Mini Me talk 20:51, 22 March 2010

I feel it's worth mentioning that it would appear that User:Kaisha was created as a means to avoid a block on the User:Ariyen account. 152.105.167.236 21:03, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

^^That is a well established fact. I'm not sure it needed pointing out. -- Wyn talk 21:18, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

ah, I wasn't sure, I figured it'd be better to point it out and have everyone already know, as opposed to the opposite. ~ PheNaxKian 21:28, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Let me start with a quick one. @Pling, you stated "your statement that non-sysop opinions don't matter". That does not what sway means. Again, regular users' comments will be welcome, but ultimately, it will be sysop consensus that determines final judgment, hence both Auron and Aiiane stating sysop consensus and not community consensus before I even stepped on the scene.

@Auron: Yeah, we are looking at the same contribs, drama, and blocks. She has been given plenty of chances, has been caught in lies (I caught her in one myself), does not heed warnings, and does not listen to advice. Sound about right? I'm not her advocate, nor will I be. But yes, fairness is allowing a person to speak on their behalf. "I'm not sure where you come off asking for fairness" I gave that to you on GWiki when you were being a dick everywhere you looked. You know how much of a hardass I can be when it calls for it and my first instinct was to permaban you back then and get it over with, but I gave you a chance, you stated in my RfA that you learned a lot from me and look where you are now. Obviously, that isn't going to happen with every major troll, not even 95% of them. I don't see Kaisha ever becoming an admin or what-have-you, but allowing her to respond to this is not going to be the end of GWW as we know it.

I actually do think this is a sysop matter. Why do you think I haven't accepted on the ArbComm yet? But I was willing to wait 6 days for the block to be removed and Kaisha to make her statement. No more, no less. My fairness has its limits as well.

Your quote, "But I'm being fair - I haven't already applied a permanent block." is blowing smoke. You know as well as I do that it would be overturned again until there is consensus. Now if you are true to what you say, there are other users that offer nothing to this wiki, except being trolls and causing drama. — Gares 22:06, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm siding with Gares on this one. I don't know how much my support means in all of this, but I'd also rather we waited for another 6 more days before handing out permabans. In the end, she'll probably end up getting a permaban, so whatever. Either we wait for 6 more days, or we don't.

She'll probably come back with a new sock anyhow. Thanks! NuVII 22:42, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, I would be very surprised if my block had been overturned. Not one person on this page has stood up and said "I think Ariyen deserves a twentieth chance, let's not permaban her." That was the wiki opinion before I posted here, and it is the wiki opinion as I see it unfolding on this page. I'm sure Aiiane can see it as well as I can, and I'm also sure Aiiane would want to avoid a wheel war.

As Pling said above, if we're simply waiting for a response to avoid appearing biased, we can proxy post something from her email. I'm not following where a person with months and months of this behavior will suddenly come around and reform. There is no rush to lengthen the ban, but there is no merit in waiting overlong, either. A response from this user will change nothing. Feel free to ban her in 6 days as opposed to now, I don't really care, but I am annoyed at the pointless delay. If it was something worth waiting for, I'd wait as long as I needed to. But when you're waiting for just another attack-riddled paragraph blaming everyone for everything, I don't see the point. That doesn't make the block lengthening any more or less justified, it just gives the troll a stage for more trolling in the spotlight (which is also my big problem with arbcomms, but that's a separate issue entirely). -Auron 22:54, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I think Gares said pretty much everything I wished to on this matter. As the blocking sysop in this instance, I'm clearly not an advocate of Kisha's but nor do I think it will kill anybody or the wiki to give her a chance to have her say and see if we can resolve this issue without resorting to a permaban. -- Salome 22:59, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I thought the third-party response thing was a fair compromise, but I'm also willing to wait it out. The bureaucrats could issue an injunction in the meantime to prevent Kaisha creating more drama in other discussions (or add restrictions to her contribution to this one). I think a bureaucrat can do that at any time (i.e. including before acceptance), so that's a chance to restrain her a little through "fair" or transparent means while allowing her to give her say. -- pling 23:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Considering the user in question's almost total disregard for rules, regulations, other users, sysops, heck, authority in general, are you sure any injunction imposed by the bcrats will be honored? 3rd-party/proxy is probably the best route to take. If that's the route you're going, I'd be willing to take the statement via email, considering my interactions with the user number at pretty much non-existent. — Jon Lupen 23:29, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not an admin any longer but then neither is Pling, and yet he seems to feel it's appropriate for him to post, so here goes my two cents on this. I do believe that allowing the block to lift and allow Kaisha to at least respond to the arb com, as well as this thread is the "fair" thing to do. It's unfortunate that by everyone's reckoning, a perma-ban is a fore gone conclusion. I'm not advocating for Kaisha, I supported the lifting of the previous perma ban simply because I did not agree that it had been appropriately placed. Based on the emails I've received from Kaisha, I don't believe her behavior is going to change as long as other users are allowed to run rampant here without penalty. While I have deleted the emails so I can not give a direct quote, the gist of it is that until the admin team start applying penalties fairly and consistently across the board, she sees no reason to change the way she behaves. I have learned that there is always a "whipping boy" here, one day it's Shadow Pheonix, the next day it's Mtew, then it's 42, the day after that it's Ariyen/Kaisha, all the while, the consistent trolls remain unscathed by the admin team. This is something the current admin team really does need to address if they want these types of issues to stop arising. -- Wyn talk 23:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Raptors, User:Super Igor ... why all teh frainess ? 127.0.0.1 00:22, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Auron, you seem to believe that Aiiane is the only user on this site that can overturn your block without question. Perhaps my statement was too subtle. I would overturn your block, on the basis that it is not for one individual to decide. Being that I am a bcrat, that even means my opinion does not hold any concrete bearing in a sysop discussion. Regardless, you state "where a person with months and months of this behavior". If you were so eager to rid the wiki of this user, then it was well within your right to start a discussion like this and saved some months. As for "A response from this user will change nothing." No, it probably won't, but it's the right thing to do. The user "on trial" should be entitled a chance to say one thing in a case like this. — Gares 00:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) In response to Wyn, The problem with Kaisha is that she is prime troll bait and always will be, due to how she chooses to interact with people. (I know how that is, as for the first year of my editing here I was prime troll-bait too). I suppose we can start banning users for trolling, but as a general rule we don't really do that unless the trolling is disruptive or in someway breaching our existing policies. Simply put Kaisha responds in a manner which is disruptive and escalates any minor issue to crazy levels, rather than just shrugging her shoulders and telling the respective trolls to fuck off and getting an admin's help. I personally hope she isn't going to get a permaban as I think if she could in some way moderate how she behaves with other users, she could be a positive force on this wiki. However, if as you say, her stance is "the admins don't block X, Y, and Z, so why should I stop doing A,B and C?", then I will be the first in the line to permablock her. One can not justify their actions by saying "they are a douche, thus i should be allowed to be a douche too", which from what you said, seems to be her stance in this matter. I for one hope she chooses the road of further personal development, however if she doesn't, I suppose the wiki will just have to trundle on without her edits. -- Salome 00:29, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

@Wyn The difference between "consistent trolls" like Nuclear and Pika and "whipping boys" like Ariyen/Kaisha and 42 is intelligence, common sense as well as the ability to know when he/she is going too far. @Gares No one will really think it's unfair to just permaban her straight away, pointless bureaucracy is pointless. In fact, show trials only exacerbate the issue and paint the unfairness a deeper red; not to mention the drama will be blown up past the standards of an exemplary soap opera. The wiki has given her many chances and tolerated her long enough, cut the red tape and the baby coddling. 220.255.4.30 00:35, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

zzz let's all write tl;dr arguments instead of just banning, that will solve things! -Cursed Angel 00:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Ariyen/Kaisha is showing signs of a ignorant wiki user. While lately she has been thrown under the bus at every opportunity the users get she is blocked. In some ways yes she is troll bait, but 95% of this wiki has turned into trolls. IMO her behavior is not the best it could be, and instead of a perma ban I think a 6 month block is better since she isn't really harming the wiki as much as the wiki is hurting itself. --Dominator Matrix 01:59, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't treat the problem: treat the source. If she is frequent "troll bait" when most every user is trying to pin her for their woes, then why not try banning some of those trolls? Its hard to react to whats not there. I agree theres a problem, but lets try a sane solution before needlessly handing out perma-bans. -- Wandering Traveler 02:08, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Except she reacts the same way to pretty much everyone, not just trolls. King Neoterikos 02:41, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, my first run in with her was over a dispute over grammar on an article... I'm pretty sure I wasn't acting like a troll when I was trying to explain it to her since English obviously isn't her first language. If I was, I really apologize... I think some of the other problem is that she really does bring out of worst of everyone because she is frustrating to talk to. But then again, those who troll bait her for fun ain't helping either.--Lania Elderfire 03:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

According to her, English is first language. --RIDDLE 04:41, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

And everyone knows what a terrible liar she is, so why even bother digging up dubious past claims made by her? 220.255.4.30 05:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I had been trying to avoid getting involved in this conversation... But now I just feel like I need to say something. While I don't myself have any personal quams with the Kaisha, and am a troll at times myself, It would seem to me that Stopping the trolls from trolling would be far more important than banning a quite obvious scapegoat. What makes her an eligible scapegoat is obviously detrimental to her case, however, You should not be ignoring the obvious trolling done by various users against kaisha for the simple fact that she's troll-able. Thats both dangerous and asinine. On another note, I know plenty of people that were born and raised in america, with English as their first language that are GOD AWFUL at grammar. I myself have alot of trouble with English grammar and even at times English/American colloquialism's (See thrown under a bus) when I was born and raised in Las Vegas Nevada and have never taken (or at least passed) a foreign language class in my life. Just because someone is terrible at grammar doesn't mean that English isn't their first language. And accusing someone of lying about their first language is pointless, Inane, Ineffective, Meaningless and accomplishes absolutely nothing. While I do agree with some of the points made here, that kaisha is Delicious troll-food and that is detrimental to the wiki as a whole, You, as sysops, should not be playing into the trolls games and allowing the scapegoat to take the fall. That only serves to make you, as sysops, look impotent and stupid (this is said with the best intentions, I assure you). If your going to ban kaisha, do it for the right reasons. Not because she's omnomnom delicious troll food. --BriarFlame Me 09:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

i have to echo what briar has said and go on to say that this has turned in to a witch hunt/scapegoating/way to much drama, and it is clear that is what this is. me and Ariyen/Kaisha haven't seen eye to eye and i am not defending her and i kept out of this because i thought it was lol but i think it has gone to far. - Zesbeer 09:32, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Problem is that she would cause almost the same amount of drama even without the trolls, since she behaves the same way with pretty much everyone. Any one "conflict" may not be ban worthy, but taken together it paints a pretty disruptive picture. I first interacted with her (then Ariyen) over Guild inactive tagging (that old pet peeve of mine), and it was an ordeal for sure. It is like talking to a wall (of grammatically incomprehensible text). She means well, but it is just so much work to interact with her. And you cant just ignore her either (as you can trolls), since she does a lot of editing that needs to be addressed. That said, I think that it would not hurt to give her one last chance to defend herself after the current block has expired, with the explicit message that it IS the very last chance and any drama whatsoever will lead to a summarical permaban. That way she gets her final chance and cannot complain later about being unfairly treated. --Lensor (talk) 09:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

And exactly how many last chances do you want to give to her? She had like, at least 2 "last warnings" now, and unless I am horribly mistaken, a "last warning" should mean exactly what it suggests - last. The end. 220.255.4.28 11:46, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

She has gotten a lot of chances, true, but I have never seen it stated as "This is your last chance, behave or be permabanned" in plain uninterpretable terms (although I could be mistaken).--Lensor (talk) 12:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the wall of text above you'll probably forgive me for not reading most of it, but I just want to point the fact that the community should be listened to, if for nothing else, then purely for the fact that it's the community who elects bureaucrats and admins. Also, I support her banning. ---Chaos?- (moo!) -- 10:05, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Gares and Briar. However, I like to know why the people who attacked her never got punished on a serious way. It seems she was just left on the battleground. -- Cyan 10:40, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with what Briar and Wyn have said. Trolls target her, and unfortunately she responds to it (often ending up in a 1RV or NPA policy infringement). Although I have not always seen eye to eye with Ariyen, it seems that the main issue with her is the conflict arising over, mainly, policy. When Ariyen tried to start over as Kaisha, yes it ended up circumventing a ban, but before that look at the amount of crap she got over "being Ariyen". Imagine if those people were wrong. While Ariyen has made positive contributions to the wiki in terms of articles, the amount of conflict behind the scenes is quite frustrating. Personally, I would like to see Ariyen given another chance and hopefully this time she doesn't fall for the likes of Pika Fan (from what I've seen, Pika Fan has been the major anti-Ariyen front) and others readying their pitch-fork. Then we just wait for the next target and so the circle of GWW starts again. ~Celestia 11:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

She responds aggressively and negatively to *everyone*, here's a hint: "everyone" consists of more than just one Pika Fan, as if it were the case, he/she can just be permabanned for disrupting the wiki. By the way, agreeing with Briar doesn't do your argument any good, it's just blind leading the blind - an obvious indicator being that he doesn't get it that when Ariyen/Kaisha claims her first language is English she means she thinks her command of the language is better than everyone else. It has absolutely nothing to do with people accusing her of lying. 220.255.4.28 11:41, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

That argument followed no logical train of thought whatsoever and made absolutely no sense at all. I cant even begin to refute it because I can't even begin to understand what your getting at other than you seem to think I'm saying she somehow doesn't deserve a perma-ban or something. To which I can only shrug and say GWW:Dont Be Trollable <- notice how that page doesn't exist. And your the one that brought up an apparent history of lying. I was simply pointing out that doing so is needless, pointless, and all-together stupid. --BriarFlame Me 13:21, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Holy shit that is a lot of discussion guys. I am rather confused as to why a small percentage of it has anything to do with Kaisha being banned or not though. People who are saying that she is basically only disruptive when trolls step in are accussing Lania Elderfire, Lensor, Konig Des Todes, Pling, Oldmonk, Previously Unsigned and myself of being trolls. I know I'm a debateable case, but I'm pretty sure the other names I listed are on the level. All that said and done, the sysops do seem to be discussing things and it would be ridiculous to expect them to consult the community on general administrative actions. I'm not a sysop, so I'll be pulling my head back in and thinking about the arbcomm case which is my job. Misery 14:13, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I have to echo Misery's point here, as I feel many people missed it. Ariyen is a scapegoat for nothing. Regardless of who tried to talk to her about what, her responses have always been hostile. She was blocked months ago on her first account back when nobody knew who she was, and she's been continuously blocked since for policy violations. A scapegoat would be blocked for no reason at all, or at best, "sysop discretion." That hasn't been the case. You can look at her contribs and find them riddled with blatant policy violations, personal attacks, and messages like her response to pling, which was basically "fuck you, I don't need your help, you don't know who I am so you can't comment on my situation." As Misery said, she was trollbait in addition to acting that way to perfectly normal users. Unless, of course, you're all trying to say people like Lania and Konig are trolls.

I must also point you to sections like this and the user's block log. This is the "main" troll everyone's been talking about, and everyone's been talking about it like we've ignored him entirely. Firstly, that's stupid, as his block log is long as fuck, and secondly, in terms of actual disruption caused, he did nothing compared to Ariyen (who, as I said above, acted hostile to the vast majority of people she interacted with, not just Pika Fan). Pika was reported multiple times, and he was banned multiple times. In situations where they were both equally at fault, they got equal punishments - when I stepped in, I gave them both 1-week bans. (Pika took that 1 week off, while Ariyen proxied immediately to evade the ban - hence her block increase).

This scapegoat stuff is bullshit. Trolls troll and get banned. Mtew was wikisquatting and was told to stop by pretty much everyone. He tried to implement weird ass code bullshit without ever consulting poke. When someone brings everything on themselves, that person isn't a scapegoat. A scapegoat is a more-or-less innocent person blamed for stuff they had nothing to do with (or had very little to do with). I can sit here and flip through Ariyen's contribs and block log and find multiple bans for multiple policy violations, plenty of hostile messages, and even a sock account created to evade a ban. That isn't a scapegoat anymore. That's simply a troll. -Auron 20:33, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I do just want to add briefly that I am not advocating a permanent ban, but I do think that, trolling from other users aside, there is a problem here. I wanted that to be clear. If other people are trolling, feel free to point that out and question why nothing is being done about it, specifically, not generally. It has no bearing on what the sysops decide to do about Kaisha. If anyone has any questions about my feelings on permanent bans, my talk page is open, but as I'm not a sysop it is barely relevant at all. Misery 22:32, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

what is the point of blocking someone who rage-quit the wiki? i have a feeling she is going to just proxy and be back on here as another sock. this is now a worthless witch hunt that auron is doing and is exactly why he is up for rfr - Zesbeer 12:44, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

To those thinking she's left, she's still contributing under 173.24.206.168. Also, a couple of days before the block expired, she sent emails saying she's gone on a break, yet her contribs afterwards (and obviously on that sock) seem to indicate otherwise. Since the block expired, she's removed/prematurely archived comments on her talk, so it's still the same old Kaisha. -- pling 15:57, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

For whatever reason, Ariyen is incapable of leaving the wiki on her own. An assisted leave of absence is in store. elix Omni 16:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

She just wants us to believe that and hope we don't notice when she comes back as a new sock. --Lania Elderfire 17:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

It may be the case, but the continual baiting/trolling that was going on on her talk page is NOT helping, and the people doing that should also be dealt with. What happened to the concept of common courtesy? I think the protection should be extended to her userpage as well and lengthened to a month at least. If she continues to post as any IP etc, now that her block has been lifted, it should be dealt with as any anon user is dealt with... unless a perma ban is decided on, then it would require blocking as well. -- Wyn talk 20:55, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) @Jon: Yes, please disable her email privileges too. She keeps sending me emails despite me clearly asking and stating I do not want to receive any emails from her. - Mini Me talk 20:36, 31 March 2010

I will point out briefly that if she knows your email address (i.e. you've ever responded without using the email this user function), then it is already too late. Misery 21:18, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, "Email this user" reveals your own address when using it (as the reply-to address). The email address it doesn't reveal is the one of the person being emailed. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 21:56, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Orite. I didn't even think of that because my email is posted publicly both here and on PvX ^___________^ Misery 21:59, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Just create an email filter that auto deletes any mail from her if it's still a problem. -- Wyn talk 02:39, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

The latest media wiki 1.16.0.Beta1 can block users from using email this user (* It's now possible to block users from sending email via Special:Emailuser). Though by the time Anet installs it will be several months. --Dominator Matrix 02:50, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

We're already able to do this (and, as stated below, this was done for Kaisha/Ariyen's account(s)). (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 03:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Sysop only

To facilitate a sysop decision, I'd like the below section to only contain the final/current opinion of the sysops that weigh in.

• As this user is currently disruptive and doesn't seem to be learning very well, I'm for an extended ban of 3-9 months. It's not a perma and allows the user to participate in the future, but gives a clear time-out that may help temper her for future interactions. --JonTheMon 20:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I am still in favor of an infinite block. The user will not be any better 3 months down the road, or 9 months down the road. Problems that deep-seated aren't going to go away. -Auron 20:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I have not checked all of Kaisha's contributions yet, but the talk page is telling. In any case, we should not make a decision before the 1 week ban expires in a few days, to avoid the impression of deliberately discussing this while Kaisha is not able to respond. --Xeeron 11:00, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

The block has ended. Any last comments? -Auron 08:30, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Since Kaisha has left the wiki I don't think we can expect a response from her here. Either way, I'm somewhat uncomfortable with perma'ing someone who contributes with good intentions. However, I do see the validity of the points raised, so I'm undecided. Kaisha taking a long break from the wiki will be a good thing anyway. About the length, I don't know, but I won't block a consensus. 3-9 months sounds fair, perma sounds like a solution. — Why 10:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed with Felix in the above section- I still believe a perma is warranted. – Emmett 17:08, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I will raise my favored block length to 9 months-1 year. And to reduce potential drama around the user, prot the user and talk page for the same duration, to assist the user in her desire to leave. --JonTheMon 18:02, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I suppose we should also deal with the e-mail function for her as well. Since it has been an issue in the past, i'd say that it should also be removed. --JonTheMon 20:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't care if it is 9 months, 1 year or permanent. I guess any of those durations will in the end make her sock, or just forget about the wiki completely. And yes, I am for a ban, the history is long enough. poke | talk 20:39, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Final Action

Kaisha has been blocked for 1 year with e-mail privileges removed. Her user and talk pages have been protected. --JonTheMon 21:08, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Briar (2)

He needs to be unbanned. He was neither trolling or baiting.--/ u /nendingfear File:User Unendingfear Avatar.png 20:46, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Responded on my talk page. Links to his trolling diffs can also be found there, along with direct quotes for those who can't read the diffs. -Auron 22:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Your points are things I already saw, and the "NPA" which wasn't really, and really aren't that good of points. Plz2unban--/ u /nendingfear File:User Unendingfear Avatar.png 22:37, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Keep it on one page.--neshot 22:40, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikisquatting

In reference to myself and Wikisquatting comments by Auron...

First, the material I added has always been directly or indirectly related to Guild Wars.  While what I have done could have been built and tested on another wiki, it does belong here in the end. 

Second, while Poke is an excellent member of this community, he is not a god.  His judgements are occasionally a little too narrow minded.  It should be possible to chalange him and require that he explain his reasons.  In particular, his judgment of aesthetics is quite ordinary and does not deserve the uncritical homage some people give him.  (His technical judgment is exceedingly good and does deserve the highest respect!) 

--Max 2 23:28, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi,

No.

-- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 23:08, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

You mean his technical prowess are not to be admired? :þ --Max 2 14:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Your credibility dropped significantly after you said Poke is not a god, and also at your signature. ~Shard 23:10, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Guys, shut up. This is the admin talkpage, not the trollpage. elix Omni 23:11, 24 March 2010 (UTC)