Guild Wars Wiki talk:Arbitration committee/2007-09-19-User:Skuld

Note: In a short email exchange, Dirigible, LordBiro and I decided to discuss this case fully on the wiki instead of email as long as no particulary sensitive points are brought up. --Xeeron 10:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Proof is upon the claimant

It's imperative that no such accusation as "General behavior of Skuld" is ever brought to ArbComm. I believe Aiiane needs to provide a DETAILED list of infractions and why she believes these are infractions. A user cannot defend himself/herself against "presumed" charges. The other users cannot judge the integrity of your decision if the charges were never explained.

So, unless someone out there provides a specific list of things they believe Skuld did wrong and reasoning as to why they believe those things were wrong, I don't think there is anything for ArbComm to look into. Proof is upon the claimant is a very strong legal principle in my culture that I think would serve any community very well. If I sue someone with a claim, I have to present evidence (beyond a reasonable doubt or simple sufficient reason to believe, or any other level of proof) that the claim actually happened. Or as people in the west say, the accused is innocent until PROVEN guilty. --Karlos 19:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

For the record, this would have been the first step that I (and, I expect, my colleagues) would have taken before beginning proceedings. You are entirely correct, at present I understand that this article does not exist with the aim to "judge" Skuld but merely as a starting point to determine whether a case exists, and it is up to Aiiane to persuade us of that. LordBiro 20:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Up till now we have not even decided whether to accept the case for arbitration. Some detailed list of what Skuld is accused of would surely help that. --Xeeron 20:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

My post on Dirigible's talk page was solely to suggest that the matter should be brought up at all, and I agree should not be (and will not be) the entirety of the details provided. However, given that this is essentially the first proceeding of its nature, I initially took a very small step to see whether it is even viable to pursue.

However, I would like to make another point - I think we should steer clear of making this into one user versus another. Anything that is significant enough with ArbComm in regards to disruptiveness should probably not be something that only a single person finds to be a problem, and thus we should seek the input of all users who have relevant thoughts to relate on the matter.

I will certainly endeavour to present all of the facts as I see them, however I do not think my presented points should be the only points sought simply because I happened to be the first one to type "ArbComm" on a bureaucrat's talk page.

The legal system has a District Attorney's office to act as the plaintiff for cases which concern the community as a whole, whereas this wiki has no such equivalent as it stands. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 20:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The ArbComm is allowed to deny cert, no? 193.52.24.125 20:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

If by "deny cert" you mean refuse to accept the case, yes, they are allowed to. --Dirigible 22:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Should Aiiane be the only one to provide evidence, as she mentioned it seems harsh to be one user versus another? --Lemming 22:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course, everyone is welcome to chip in. Feedback from the community was one of the main reason why we decided to have this discussion on wiki (and if this goes well, hopefully it'll happen on here even in future cases). --Dirigible 22:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Well lets start with the circumstance behind his recent ban for violation of GWW:NPA and the total unprovoked uncalled attack that it was. [1]

another example of when he was given a warning for stepping close to the NPA line can be found here --Lemming 23:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Unless we're starting a new policy of double jeopardy, I don't really see the point of reviewing cases where punishments have already been decided and carried out.

In the first case, I disagree that the attack was uncalled for; trolls get flamed. That's how the intarweb works. That's why they do what they do; to get attention. Sure, flaming is against the rules (and thus the punishment still stands), but saying the violation was unprovoked would be wrong.

The Eloc one is even less outstanding. There's a long history between those two editors that started back on GWiki (hell... there's a long history between eloc and most people); Skuld's reaction to Eloc's post is understandable (not correct, but understandable).

I am not defending the attacks themselves, but I cannot stress the importance of the scenario in which they came about; otherwise heinous attacks become much less atrocious when looked at in context. -Auron 08:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Auron, the reason I requested ArbComm review of this case was because of the pattern of repeated incidents, thus past incidents are completely relevant to the matter at hand. If it was a single incident I was concerned with, I would have taken up the matter with Skuld in discussion, but that is not the case. I am not suggesting that Skuld be blocked again for particular prior infractions, rather that they be considered when examining if there is is larger overall problem than any individual incident. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 08:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

That's fine, as long as each case is reviewed in context. -Auron 08:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Argumentation

At the current stage, the arguments/evidence should just be focused on convincing (or discouraging) ArbComm to accept the case, right? Stuff like explaining whether normal approaches (like discussing the problem with the user) have been tried or are unlikely to be any help, and why invoking the last-resort-of-arbitration is justified. Then if accepted, the "hearing" should gather all the important arguments/evidence that should be considered for the final ruling. --Rezyk 23:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

On a side note, thank you Rezyk for adding a notification for Skuld - I meant to do that as soon as I saw this page was created but it slipped my mind. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 23:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I've reorganized this into arguments for and against, with rebuttals to be placed inline using normal discussion syntax. I hope that's okay, revert if it's not. —Tanaric 06:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Arguments for ArbComm accepting this case

In regards to whether ArbComm should accept the case for consideration, Skuld has been contacted multiple times by multiple users ([2], [3], [4], [[5], [6], [7], [8] - in reverse chronological order) in regards to complaints about his behavior, including a recent block for violation of GWW:NPA. Even after that block, he has continued to post comments that various users consider disruptive (see the first link in the previous sentence for an example). Since conversation does not seem to help, nor is this an isolated incident, I would submit that it is a matter which would benefit from ArbComm review. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 23:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Gem's complaint was found to baseless by multiple sysops, and Karlos's initial complaint, oh-so-long ago, resulted in an apology by Skuld and a localized improvement in his behavior. The rest of those recent complaints were resolved via sysop-imposed blocks. I see nothing left in those particular cases to justify ArbComm involvement. —Tanaric 06:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

To be more clear, I think that ArbComm should only be involved in cases where sysop-imposed blocks or warnings are insufficient. I'm not saying that's the case here -- I'm merely saying you haven't illustrated that to me. —Tanaric 06:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, Tanaric, I think that the entire reason for involving ArbComm in the first place is the overall pattern, not individual occurrences. ArbComm shouldn't be consulted for every little circumstance that comes up, or else we'd need something much more efficient than a single committee of 3 people. You specify "localized" improvement, and that's exactly why I would ask that ArbComm step in here, because it's only localized.

Before I go any further, let me note that the following is unrelated to Skuld's case in particular but meant to illustrate an overall point: Now, if someone keeps stalking you, and then when you ask them why they're following you, they apologize and walk off, to return a week later and continue, do you keep just asking them why they're following you each week, or do you get a restraining order eventually? (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 08:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I think merely increasing block times with Skuld should be sufficient. If he violated GWW:NPA again, block him for a week instead of for three days. Next time, make it a month. The problem will resolve itself without ArbComm interference.

I would like to only involve ArbComm in cases that aren't actual policy breaches -- for example, recent behavior by Readem, Raptors, Auron, Skakid9090, or even myself might be more appropriate for ArbComm referral.

—Tanaric 09:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Skuld may have behavior like this too -- linking to that instead of previous policy violations would make the need for ArbComm more apparent to me.

—Tanaric 09:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict) What I see in this particular case are a few policy breaches that are amplified by a fairly standard disregard (the occasional exception withstanding) for requests to be more respectful of other wiki users. For instance, the repeated "no u" replies to reasoned requests for less antagonistic behavior. Other contributions by Skuld leave me no personal doubt that Skuld is capable of contributing in a positive manner, and thus this periodic trend of negative contributions is disturbing, to say the least. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 09:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

In regards to your last comment, Tanaric: [9], [10], [11], [12]. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 09:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Structured in this way, with general non-policy-violating disregard being the primary issue, with previous, sysop-handled policy violations being brought in as supporting evidence, I agree with you that this case should go forward to ArbComm. —Tanaric 09:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Emulation of Raptors [13] *sigh*. --Lemming 10:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

No policy breach per se, but disruptive behavior none the less: [14] ~ dragon legacy 16:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Arguments for ArbComm rejecting this case

1. Skuld's behavior (good or bad) can be judged by GWW:NPA and punished accordingly. This is defined as the job of the admins, so let the admins do it. If a specific admin is afraid to administer policy, why doesn't another do it. Where is the brave Xeeron, enforcer of centimeters on user pages when you need him?
2. If the issue is that Skuld's pattern of behavior has gotten so bad that he is now a "threat" to the wiki that must be "dealt with" and the implication is that if found guilty, he is somehow banned for life, then there are a few problems with that:
   1. First off, it's not true... Skuld's behavior was not that bad. Nothing a slap on the hand would not prevent. In fact, Skuld has always abided by his bans and never come back to post under an IP or rage on the admins or any such thing.
   2. I do not think it is within ArbComm's jursidiction, nor do I honestly think we should make it within anyone's jursidiction to permanently banish people from society simply because they agitate enough other people. That's just very medival, very Nazi and very wrong. Skuld contributes positively, he sometimes argues in ways I don't like personally but so does Erasculio and sometimes even the holy Aiiane herself. I think the precedent here is HUGE, if this is what is intended. In my little idealistic world, the only user who should ever be a candidate for such a consideration is someone who did something so heinous (like a user massively wiping out pages, an admin massively abusing his power and banning lots and lots of innocent users, ...) that would be the only culprit worthy of such high-treason charges, and then, ArbComm would need approval of the community to try that person with the possible outcome of execution (permanent ban).

So, I don't see any meaning to this arbitration request. If Skuld did something bad, block him according to policy. If you think Skuld's "badness" was so bad you wanna do something more, all you can do is block him for life and I don't think Skuld's case warrants any of that. I mean, what else can you do? Take his ectos? Flog his user page? Put on a banner on the main page that says he's been a bad boy?

By the way, the Blocking Policy that's been on hold since last decade says you can block a person for 3 days to 1 month for personal attacks. So, graduate Skuld from 3 days to 1 month. I am sure if he's blocked 1 month each time he cusses at someone he won't be much of a problem for this or any wiki. --Karlos 19:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm still amazed at Karlos' ability of insulting others ("the brave Xeeron, enforcer of centimeters"? Please) while taking things out of context and twisting them so he has something to fight against. Where did this "implication is that if found guilty, he is somehow banned for life" come from? So now we are just going to jump from deciding if the committee is going to take the case to deciding about banning Skuld? Karlos, you don't belong to the committee; you are not in place to decide for them what sort of punishment should Skuld get, assuming he would be considered "guilty", and frankly I'm happy for that. Erasculio 19:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with #1, Karlos, and I think I made that clear above. Aiiane has provided links to examples which aren't strictly personal attacks, but are still disruptive. Whether this should be a sysop issue or not is irrelevant at this point -- the fact is, under current policy, sysops aren't allowed to act merely for disruptive behavior, and so I think the request for ArbComm intervention is justified.

I don't mean to imply that I think Skuld should be harshly punished. I simply wish to see this brought before ArbComm to see what they do.

—Tanaric 19:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Skuld said "F-You" to the guy, that's a pretty blockable offense. Block him and move on. The "no u" thing is a joke between him and Readem. What exactly are you referring to as "disruptive behavior" that is other than those? --Karlos 20:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

If the "no u" is a joke between him and Readem, why is it being used when Readem isn't involved? (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 20:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Why can't he express his opinion by abbreviating 'No, you.' ? — Skakid9090 20:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Karlos you make this whole thing sound like it is set in stone that Skuld will be deemed guilty and will be blocked permanently if the case is accepted to ArbComm. However, that is not the case. If the case is accepted, the ArbComm will decide if and what penalties are given. The issues pointed by Aiiane in the above discussion are something that the sysops can't solve with banning because they aren't clear policy violations. This is why the ArbComm was asked to deal with the case. -- (gem / talk) 20:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

He actually didn't try to express an opinion. He (succesfully) tried to kill the conversation. ~ dragon legacy 20:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

That is because the only legitimate response to "no u" is... "no u"... Seriously though, no u is the least of the examples of disruptive behaviour that we see here. --Lemming 20:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

no u.

That being "said", it is my personal opinion that Skuld's behavior, while somewhat disruptive, does not necessarily warrant anything beyond the usual temporary bans that he has received in the past, though a duration adjustment may be in order. There will possibly, at some time, come a point where his behavior becomes so disruptive that further action will be required; however, I do not believe we have yet reached that point. That is to say, of course, that I feel bringing the case before (at this time) ArbComm is unnecessary, and for the time being, the sysops should handle the various occurrences as needed. Faer 21:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I would much rather get a clear statement from ArbComm as to whether such behavior is something that is acceptable on the wiki now, than to wait until it becomes unbearably disruptive later. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 21:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you guys aware that "no u" and "o rly" is just childish banter of GW players (especially the leet PvPers under 5 years old)? I mean why does this even warrant a response? It's like if some random user responded to my posting now with "Bulbber." What can I do? Ignore the guy and move on. I don't even understand where the "insult" or "trolling" is in him saying "no u." The way I see it (and Skuld can elaborate himself) is that he's saying he doesn't care, not that he's trying to provoke some angry response from others. --Karlos 22:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

"he's saying he doesn't care" - so you're agreeing with me that he shows a disregard for requests of respectful behavior from others? (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 22:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

No, he doesn't care for the policy, he thinks the proposal is a joke. That's my interpretation. --Karlos 22:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Then why reply to a user who was addressing him, if the comment is directed towards policy? (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 22:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't get it. How is his "no u" anymore offensive/disruptive/destructive than the fiddle/violin posted by auron earlier. They are both making fun of the porposal. What is going on here? --Karlos 23:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Gem, my point is exactly that. What is it that Aiiane is exactly seeking? And what exactly is it that he has done that is a PROBLEM but is NOT covered by NPA? --Karlos 22:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Karlos, last I checked punishment is not determined by the person requesting arbitration and then merely approved by ArbComm, thus, "what I am seeking" isn't really defined, beyond a resolution to any situation that is deemed necessary of one. As for what we believe to be a problem, that has already been laid out, and I will leave it up to ArbComm to decide if they agree in that respect. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 22:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

And I've laid out why I don't see what you're seeking outside of GWW:NPA. Do you have anything new to add other than to point me to text I have already read? --Karlos 23:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

This is getting highly circular, You don't think Aiiane has made her case, she think's she has, let's leave it at that and let the three bureaucrats make their own judgements. --Lemming 23:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I've laid out my question more clearly below... --Karlos 23:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

General response to the whole "no u" thing and aiiane's inability to understand its purpose; it is impossible to argue with insanity. People who truly believe their logic is sound (even though it's insane) cannot be reckoned with; this was the case on that page. Skuld wasn't arguing against the policy, he was countering Elvion's flawed logic with apathy (since replying with logic and reason would be a waste of time and mostly ignored). The "no u" response, in this case, is no more disruptive than the display of idiocy, and possibly even more benefitial as a whole, given that it avoided more serious remarks (compare "no u" to "wow, you're a fucking idiot" - same meaning here, although the former is much less disruptive). 166.122.31.2

Anon, nicely put. Aiiane, "No u" is common game lingo. You do play this game, right? Finally, even the suggestion of banning Skuld for that reason, saddens me. It is almost as bad as the time you suggested banning me, for my name being in Bold and Grey on irc. I still lol@that. Readem Hate Mail Goes Here 05:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

"Common" is still subjective and depends on the areas and timezones you play in. I've personally never seen anyone using "no u" in-game (or any online game for that matter). And regarding this requests for arbitration, I would say Skuld is definitely not at the top of the list of problematic users right now. I also find that his responses, while distasteful, are not something that warrants any additional administrative action against him. -- ab.er.rant 05:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

So we're asking ArbComm to legislate?

I still don't understand what is being sought by this "lawsuit." I would like one of the proponents (since Aiiane believes she's said too much already) to explain to me what exactly is ArbComm supposed to "do"? Let me recap some of the possible outcomes and if you guys see another desired outcome, please add it:

• ArbComm is to find that Skuld is a bad boy and slap a tag on his user page marking him as a bad boy.
• ArbComm is to find that the sum of Skuld's contribution/influence on the wiki is negative, so they ban him for life.
• ArbComm is to find that there is a need to legislate policies against the kind of behavior that Skuld is doing that Aiiance finds troubling but that is NOT covered by GWW:NPA. Perhaps create a GWW:No annoying other people or some such policy.

Now, the first outcome is silly and discriminatory, the second one I have already argued against it above and the third (which I assume is something similar to what Aiiane wants by her last response above) is dictating policy which I thought was absolutely NOT part of ArbComm's job description. If people see that there is a bad behavior that Skuld (and others) are doing but that is NOT described by GWW:NPA yet poses enough of a problem, why not describe it and form a policy against it. Is it GWW:No trolling? GWW:No getting on other people's nerves? GWW:Don't be like Erasculio?

Whenever anyone takes a case to any judge, they have to ask for something (see my ArbComm request on Dirigible's talk page). You file a suit and you are always "seeking" something. What is being sought here? That ArbComm acknowledge that Skuld has been a jerk at times? All the time? Or that they DO something? --Karlos 23:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Try,

• ArbComm finds that Skuld's behavior is not in the interests of the wiki, yet not something that can be explicitly laid out in a policy, and thus formally requests that he cease such behavior and lays out a plan for ensuring that such a request is fulfilled.

(Aiiane - talk - contribs) 00:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I think "his behavior is not in the interest of the wiki" is a very slippery slope. Skuld is not an employeee working here. I do not believe users are "required" to always act in the interest of the wiki, otherwise user pages and guild pages are a waste of space. I think the measuring stick should be "detrimental to the wiki," not "in the interest of the wiki" as one can claim that about 90% of user space content. --Karlos 06:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Some more possible outcomes:

• ArbComm accepts the case and eventually finds that: Skuld's behavior overall falls within the range of general acceptability (however disliked) and does not pose enough of a threat of being problematic/disruptive to necessitate administrative action. Negative participation is not condoned/encouraged, but administrative restrictions against the level shown here is not warranted and does not generally follow the sentiments against censorship and "moral policing" that have been demonstrated by the community.
• ArbComm accepts the case and eventually finds that: Skuld's pattern of participation appears to be disruptive enough, and potentially resilient to normal recourses, that further administrative sanction is warranted. Skuld is hereby placed on a 3 month probationary period, during which any edit he makes which any sysop sees as willfully disruptive shall be taken as justification for an immediate 1 week ban. During that period, any edit he makes which any sysop sees as a personal attack shall be taken as justification for an immediate 2 month ban.

--Rezyk 03:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I like the probation option as a possible outcome. However, I see that it gives discretionary power to admins, something I thought admins were not supposed to exercise. Which is it? Is this false advertisement? Elections said they will not really be using much discretionary power ESPECIALLY on blocks and bans, and now you're saying that ArbComm (i.e. Bureaucrats) can bestow more power upon admins towards a certain user.

The flaw I see is that ArbComm is NOT the source of admin power, so it inherently cannot grant admins more discretion or less discretion as it sees fit. That would be like the supreme court widening the powers of the president stated in the constitution. The court does not have that power, congress does. The court can only say whether or not something the president did (or is going to do) falls under the powers already granted in the constitution.

That is, in order for ArbComm to be able to grant such power to an admin, the admin policy page needs to say that under X special conditions Admins may expand their power and use of discretion. Because right now, they do not have that power, and ArbComm can't give it to them. ArbComm cannot legislate. --Karlos 06:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be pretty squarely okay in terms of the spirit of what we expect for arbitration's scope. Suppose my example were reworded to say any personal attack made shall be cause for an immediate 2 month ban. Then it isn't cast as an extra sysop power but has the same effective result when it comes to enforcement (since it will fall to sysops to enforce it anyways). I do agree that we should try to keep ArbComm from potentially usurping the general legislative role somehow, but not with strict prohibition against anything seen as potentially legislative -- at least not until legislation pre-creates enough tools for ArbComm to use effectively.

In terms of whether it is technically "policy-legal" or not..I don't agree that such an extra clause is required to allow this. I'd say it is allowed under the scope of ArbComm being named as "the final arbiters ... of user conduct". If policy explicitly said that legislative powers belong to the community at large and judicial powers belong to ArbComm, then we might need a correctional clause like that. I also don't know which statement of mine you are asking about regarding false advertisement.

--Rezyk 08:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

False advertisement is regarding how the bureaucrats are elected and what their job description says at election time vs what you're proposing. I wasnt saying you did it, I was saying the overall message at the elections was "they can't legislate" but now it seems to be fine. --Karlos 08:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I see. I apologize for not having made it more clear at that time. I simply had no idea that there was any impression that arbitration could not include these kinds of rulings (just like how I was clueless about users seeing the election process as supposed-to-not-be-a-vote). --Rezyk 09:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I quite honestly am not sure what you're referring to with "job description at election time", Karlos? To my knowledge the only description that was ever given during elections was the one at GWW:ADMIN. Have I missed something? (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 09:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I do not think there is a generally-held idea that arbitration cannot include this. To the contrary, I think people generally feel that this is exactly what arbitration is for. —Tanaric 18:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

But isn't a few elite users legislating EXACTLY what this wiki is not about? I mean even in GuildWiki we do not have a few users legislate, we still propose policies and approve them. My point is, if Admins can be granted extra/special powers by the Bureaucrats, shouldn't that be in GWW:ADMIN to begin with? GWW:ADMIN specifically states they do not have such liberal oversight and it does not say that Bureaucrats (or ArbComm) can grant such oversight. Why are we going in circles here? I don't know if you guys are native English speakers, but "Arbitration" by design means to judge, not to legislate. Here. --Karlos 19:54, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The bureaucrats are not granting extra or special powers to the sysops, sysops have always had the power of blocking. Specifying when it should be used is something that is involved in arbitrating user conduct. Does a judge not also determine the sentencing in a trial?

Furthermore, GWW:ADMIN does state that ArbComm rulings may involve blocks, and that it is up to the sysops to enforce those blocks. Is that not exactly what would be the case? The wording does not indiciate that the blocks need be unconditional. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 19:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not talking about blocks, obviously, Aiiane. If you would kindly scroll up and read from the beginning of my response to Rezyk. the entire issue, for me, is the ability of ArbComm to grant extra powers to admins whereby they can block someone for something that does NOT violate GWW:NPA but that they deem is bad. This is the kind of adminning that we do in GuildWiki which was legislated OUT of admin job descrition here and NOW you guys are saying ArbComm can LEGISLATE it back into their job description on a case by case basis.

And the entire point being made is, if I voted for a guy to be admin simply because I know he'll be cleaning the delete log and what not, and SPECIFICALLY being told by many people of weight that his lack of skill in reacting to conflict is no big deal since he's just supposed to be a bot excet that he occassionally eats and goes to the bathroom; then ArbComm comes and grants him this vast discretionary power over Skuld (or me or Erasculio as seems to be the direction of the other arbitration) doesn't that represent false advertisement? Aren't the voters here being scammed? They were told it doesn't matter that Lemming or Gem can't manage conflicts very well, they would never have to, then lo and behold, when issues arise, ArbComm gives them the power to manage conflicts and exercise judgement liberally. Isn't that basically lying to the voters? --Karlos 23:41, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I partially agree with Karlos here. Imho, if the ArbComm makes such a decision it must be very clear in which kind of situations blocking is done and it must ve very clear what the length of the block will be. No judging should be involved in the sysop role as that's how we have been building the role. -- (gem / talk) 23:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I'm not gunning for any particular outcome -- I just think it's important for ArbComm to take the case. Or not. Either way we get a stronger definition of ArbComm, and we might improve the behavior of an on-again, off-again (lovable) troll. —Tanaric 16:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree with Karlos's suggested policy, and I sincerely hope that it gets vetted. Can't wait to suggest people like Karlos, for getting on my nerves. Readem 21:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Some ignorable format suggestions

Since we don't have a policy guiding the format for arbitration (which I blame myself for; I was planning on getting it started after my term ended), I'll try offering some suggestions in an effort to help things run more smoothly, and leave it up to ArbComm members to follow them or not.

• During the deciding-whether-to-accept stage, whenever each bureaucrat is ready with his individual decision, he should go ahead and post a signed Accept or Decline on the project page.
• If declining, please also give some explanation. If accepting, giving a reasoning is more optional (as it will often be apparent enough).
• If the first two deciders already form a majority decision by agreeing, the third can still post his opinion.

--Rezyk 10:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Unless more bureaucrats also decide to decline the case, I suggest going ahead and taking this as an accepted case. The possible forms of the final result is pretty open-ended, and the committee could still decide on adopting some proposed community solution, or even to just say "no official action at present, due to <whatever reason>". Some stuff to consider:

• There is a factor of arbitration being where the stuff that anyone feels is important to hear, is given a decent opportunity to be heard. That would generally come after case acceptance -- a hearing period to gather evidence to try and be as complete as possible before ruling. Then again, maybe the time taken so far after the "accepts" were posted have been enough for this. Just make sure you bureaucrats are generally comfortable with coverage of this aspect.
• Another aspect is that in some ways, arbitration can be taken as the final measure of making sure problem issues regarding user conduct will eventually move forward and not just get stuck. I'm not saying that bureaucrats should take it as a responsibility to necessarily make it move measurably forward with every arbitration, but you should make sure you're comfortable that we won't fall into an indefinite standstill. (In other words, just rule on no official action if that's what you believe is right, but if, for example, the problem persists and we end up in another arbitration request, there should be a heightened need of a more concrete resolution to move things forward if mediation hasn't yet.)

--Rezyk 13:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

um

I could just try and tone down my hostility and shiz — Skuld 20:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I brought up the idea of a community solution instead of an ArbComm one directly to Skuld today, and he agrees that it's worth a shot. For one possible option see his talk page, and if that doesn't sound acceptable, we can try figuring out something else that we all agree on. I'd personally rather leave arbitration as a last option, since we can always go back to it if this doesn't work out.

So, I'd like to propose to the other bureaucrats that we leave this case in a Pending Approval state until we have decided on a possible solution to try and, once that happens, to decline the case. If for whatever reason we fail to reach consensus on deciding what that community solution should be, we can accept the case instead of declining it. And if, further down the road, we see that the solution we decided on isn't working, we can always start a new ArbComm request then. --Dirigible 00:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I am unhappy with leaving the arbitration case in a "pending" state. That is like a sword of damocles hanging over his head. We should either outright drop the arbitration case (I would like to have some form of consent from those who brought forwards the case for arbitration for that) or go through with it (my current expectation is that the arbitration ruling would not be very different from what you proposed on his talk page). --Xeeron 08:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Dir, what you're proposing both here and on Skuld's page to me does not seem like it would be mutually exclusive with "arbitration" - quite honestly, it's what I'd personally prefer the majority of arbitration outcomes to be. Blocking people does very little to help advance the goals of the wiki. I don't see arbitration as necessitating a punitive stance (hardly) - I'd much rather see solutions that work towards correcting anything that seems unacceptable. Furthermore, I don't see ArbComm accepting a case as being something that should necessarily be avoided - it's not as if there's much difference between "unofficially" working out a corrective solution and "officially" arranging one. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 08:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Aiiane here. While initially I agreed that this would be a good alternative to arbitration I now think that implementing the solution laid out at Skuld's talk page would be an acceptable outcome of the arbitration process.

I also agree that if we implement this solution we should mark this arbitration as resolved; it's not difficult for Aiiane or whoever else to start a new arbitration request if they feel that this solution is not working. LordBiro 09:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I completely agree with Aiiane and Biro above. —Tanaric 20:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

And for what it's worth, I'd like to say that I disagree that reaching the same conclusion via an ArbComm and non-ArbComm solution is the same (even if the results are the same). At least in my opinion, a resolution reached through common efforts by all involved parties means quite more and would be preferable to a resolution mandated by a committee. --Dirigible 20:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

In general, I agree, but in this specific case, it's more like, "Hey Skuld, ArbComm says they'll punish you unless you find a solution outside of ArbComm." I think an ArbComm conclusion like "Because Skuld has demonstrated willingness to work with the community on this issue, we choose Tanaric/Pepe/whoever to vouch for Skuld etc." is more appropriate than the implied ultimatum. —Tanaric 21:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Dir, I'm basically saying that ArbComm doesn't necessarily have to be dictatorial with their decisions. They can incorporate community input and essentially create a community solution in the form of an ArbComm decision. However, I do think having something recorded as an ArbComm decision makes it easier to follow up on matters later, if the need should arise. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 21:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Decision discussion

I believe that while Skuld is generally a great contributor on this wiki, repeated instances of somewhat disruptive comments have made it necessary for other editors to bring this case in front of the ArbComm.

Since the vast majority of his contributions are unquestionably positive, I'm personally in favour of an outcome for the case that allows him to keep contributing freely, while at the same time provides some kind of feedback mechanism for the community through which comments that seem excessively disruptive can be dealt with in a case-by-case basis.

Whatever the solution, I'd personally like to stress that it should only affect those cases where his comments genuinely are problematic, as this is not a school and we're not trying to make everyone fit in the 'standard' box. Some of us are more polite and some of us are more blunt, and there is nothing wrong with that. I think it's healthy for the wiki to have editors that are able to make a point directly, even if bluntly, just like it needs to have other editors who are willing to discuss more calmly and express their opinions with more diplomacy.

If we choose the 'mentor' path, it should be necessary for Skuld to be approached first, rather than jumping over his head to whomever editor that decides to help with this. And at any point, if Skuld decides he'd rather leave a comment unchanged and deal with whatever may follow because of it (a new ArbComm request, or such), he should be free to do so.

I should also note that I'm not particularly attached to the 'mentor' idea, so if there's anything else we may want to try, I'd love to hear it. --Dirigible 07:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Skuld has engaged in some very childish behavior, yet I do not feel that he deliberatly tried to disrupt the wiki. Trying to punish such behavior is usually counter productive, it is best to explain to people that posts of the "NO U" achieve nothing, except illustrating the non-maturity of the poster. Skuld has been part of the wiki for a long time and seems willing to listen to others when asked to cut down such behavior on the talk page. In my mind arbcoms decision should be to make it clear that such behavior is not contributing to the wiki and to leave it to his own intelligence to stop doing it. If he goes over the line, it is up to everyone (not only arbcom or sysops) to notify him on his talk page. --Xeeron 11:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I think we all agree that a solution in which Skuld is restricted from contributing comfortably is not acceptable.

I've been thinking this over a lot recently and I think Xeeron's suggestion is good. I would prefer a more substantial solution as I fear that simply asking Skuld to behave is not so different to what we have been doing already (the only difference is that it would be in an official capacity). I don't want to prevent Skuld from contributing comfortably, but I do think that it would be useful for him and for the rest of us if there were some guidelines for him to follow. That said I believe that trying the simplest solution first makes the most sense, and Xeeron's suggestion might do the job without any uneccesary bureaucracy. LordBiro 21:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll agree with trying that solution, here's to hoping it will work. --Dirigible 06:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Lets try to wrap this one up, guys, since it doesn't seem there's much else left to be said. How does something along these lines sound as the decision statement:

The ArbComm members believe that, even though Skuld's contributions to the wiki are mostly positive, those instances highlighted during this arbitration case can be seen as disruptive and problematic for the wiki. While the committee does not believe that administrative action at this stage is needed, we will take Skuld at his word that he is willing to try toning down these incidents, and we also suggest that he should remain open to feedback from other community members on this issue.

Cheers, --Dirigible 03:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I am ok with that text. --Xeeron 12:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's fine by me. LordBiro 17:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Request

I'm going to attempt to keep this comment separate as I want to distinguish it from the discussion of the bureaucrats themselves - I'd like to request, if acceptable, that if a decision which effectively maintains the status quo is decided upon (such as Dirigible's italicized text above), that it contain language stating that if the issue is brought up before ArbComm again because it has not ceased to be a problem, that further action be taken. Otherwise, I really don't see what the point of such a decision would be. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 08:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

In general, should Skuld's future action provide reasons for another arbitration, such arbitration can be requested and can result in further action, but of course we can not tie our hands now and say for sure what result a possible future arbitration case would produce. --Xeeron 12:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree entirely with Xeeron; I think that it is perfectly acceptable for us to take this incident into account in future arbitrations, but I don't think it's a good idea to say how we will behave in the future. We may not even be the bureaucrats. LordBiro 17:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not asking for a straight out "we will do this in the future", beyond simply stating that this case can be considered if the need arises in the future. I don't want claims of double jeopardy or some such being raised if the effective decision reached now is to defer any further action for possible future consideration. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 11:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

As I said, I think it is acceptable to take this arbitration request into account when dealing with future arbitrations. I don't think it should be part of our policy to have rules like double jeopardy, but that is a bigger issue. It should really be determined by the community whether this should be the case or not. LordBiro 16:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Precedent?

So I can go around the wiki being as disruptive, rude and inconsiderate of the other positives contributors of the wiki as much as I like as long as I get lots of attention leading to minimal behaviour improvements - which are localised in scope, an inflated ego from repeatedly "getting away with it" with defence of many Sysops and even the ArbCommittee - leading to a sense of justified action and "no real harm done", as long as my "contributions to the wiki are mostly positive" and I give my word, in spite of repeated offenses which went unchallenged, that I will turn over a new leaf?

What about the positive contributions that would have taken place in the time wasted dealing with a user like this all the time? What about the positive contributors who are put off by the presence of a user like this on the wiki and the inaction of the current administration to prevent these disruption, leading to these users to contribute less, become less involved in the wiki, or even turn away from the wiki all together? Why is a user being given so many chances, in what appears to be, based on their long term presence on this wiki, (and the past one, coincidentally where a lot of his admin support came from), and the volume of their positive contributions. This wiki belongs to a user with one positive contribution just as much as it belongs to one with many. Maybe we should all emulate Skuld and see how positive his presence on the wiki truly is. Dancing Gnome 01:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

You've really got no clue what you're talking about. Re-read Skuld's 20 or 30 archives on the GuildWiki before acting like you know why people react the way they do. Skuld was a dick, but he got lots done; in comparison, lots more than the users he offended. In the end, even if he made a hypersensitive user flee the policy discussion pages (which I've seen no evidence of, mind you), it was better than him not having contributed at all. That is the driving reason why people let him go; because the wiki was, overall, better off.

Most people who are dicks don't contribute at all to policy discussions; they are just dicks. Those people are the real problem, not the people that help form policy and reduce idiocy in discussion. -Auron 07:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

This isn't the GuildWiki this is the Guild Wars Wiki - his contributions there don't matter a hoot here - as he himself pointed out in one of the referenced discussions with Gem. My point was the volume of a person's contributions doesn't give them a right to act any different from anyone else. It's not even about the loss of contributions from "hyper-sensitive" people, no-one is so valuable that they are exempt from the same considerations that would be applied to a "less valuable" (contributes less in volume) user. I didn't make any assertions as to why he acts the way he does - it doesn't matter to me and I don't think it mattered much to the people involved in the instances he makes his remarks. I have more I could say but I think I've said enough to respond to your comment. Most people are able to contribute positively in a positive manner, without lowering the quality of discussion that takes place. Skuld is usually not one of these people and this decision sets a bad example for further trouble makers and poor balance between contributions and value or "get out of jail free". Dancing Gnome 08:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Could you clarify more about this protest? I'm not exactly sure what you think should instead happen. Are you saying it's a bad precedent for the ArbComm to accept Skuld's promise to tone down his behavior? The ArbComm should be more about mediation and resolution than meting out punishments (if that's what you feel should have happened). If you read the section above, you can see that this ruling will certainly be considered if Skuld ever winds up on a ArbComm request again. -- ab.er.rant 08:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

My "protest" is about the decision that the ArbComm came up with implies if a user contributes great volumes then their actions are above punishment - at least to a certain extent. His actions have been brought up before; "simply asking Skuld to behave is not so different to what we have been doing already", and the same path has been taken here, only this time his word has been taken on the matter, (which seems more laughable as he has shown nothing to indicate his word is worth anything prior to the decision, otherwise this problem wouldn't exist). I beleive the decision has been too lenient and is no different from any action previously taken. The most good this decision has is to act as an official warning, at a higher level from previous requests. The decision shows the ArbComm to be a toothless shark, (before it is said, and I know it will be, I don't ArbComm to be kicking ass and taking names, but this just doesn't seem like an effective decision) and does nothing to discourage others from following the same lines as Skuld, I can't yet comment on it's effectiveness to curb this behaviour so assume the best. Having thought about it again I don't see any action or change which could be made even considering my comments simply because the decision has been made already. I just wanted to point out I disagree with the leniency shown here and further more I strongly dislike the implication of one user being of more value than another based on volume of contributions, which as Auron's reply has shown, is an implication some people have identified here. The rules and boundaries are too lenient and many users know them well enough to be a nuisance and harass others, against the spirit of the rules, but not in direct breach. This is where I believe this decision has failed. Dancing Gnome 03:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

As I have said before, if an arbitration request were to be made again following similar actions from Skuld I would be perfectly happy to take more severe action, and I suspect the other bcrats would be willing to consider this too. I supported the action taken because it was the simplest solution that I thought could work. LordBiro 06:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with Dancing Gnome - I actually like the implication that one user is more valuable than another based on contributions. Not based on number of contributions, or size of contributions, but rather on contributions; as in, someone who does nothing else than troubling others on the wiki is, IMO, far less valuable than someone who does trouble others but also contributes to the improvement of the wiki. I thought this was something implied, for example, in how an anonym IP is blocked (and/or banned) due to smaller things than someone who is a registered, contributing user - the former is doing nothing but disruption, the later is contributing to the wiki despite a few incidents.

More to the point of this case, I think users who don't have any interest in contributing the wiki, but only to cause trouble, wouldn't really benefit from educative action; users who are interested in improving the wiki would, IMO, and thus the kind of resolution seen on this ArbCom (educative action before punitive action) is not only what I would expect to happen, but also what I would like to happen. Erasculio 10:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Erasculio. I further disagree with Dancing Gnome -- a person's actions off-wiki are entirely relevant on-wiki. Many important discussions -- including non-ArbComm portions of this very arbitration -- took place off-wiki. More to point, the Internet is not an isolated vacuum from the rest of the world. Google my username to see that -- you'll quickly find my real name, my alma mater, my current place of employment, my personal website, and, if you're even moderately thorough, you'll find my picture, my address, and my phone number as well. Because the rest of the world -- even the "real world" -- is accessible via the Internet, naturally those ties must also apply here.

Because ArbComm and, more importantly, the editing community in general values Skuld, his arbitration went a more lenient route than someone who was not valued by these groups. That's human nature, and it's a good thing. When a total asshole gets put up for arbitration, the pendulum will swing the other way, and you'll have more evidence that the system makes sense.

—Tanaric 08:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Declined requests

Shouldn't this go into declined requests as one of the bureaucrats declined? — ク Eloc 貢 02:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

No, a majority of bureaucrats need to decline in order for the request to be declined, therefore this request was accepted. :) LordBiro 08:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

kk, ty. — ク Eloc 貢 17:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)