Guild Wars Wiki talk:Arbitration committee/2008-04-06-User:J.Kougar/Archive

FIGHT THE MACHINE — Skakid 03:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Drama Llama is not amused--Underwood 22:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

LOL @ both of you ;) -- Salome 15:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Original Issue at Hand from main page

User:J.Kougar was recently banned for an NPA violation wherein he accused Gaile Gray of "cowardice" when she failed to address an issue that he approached her with concerning her apparent rule violations of archiving back active topics without due reason.

The initial ban of two days was then over-ridden and extended by another sysop to a week when she saw the situation and J.Kougar evading a ban to inquire as to the details and duration of his ban (since they were not provided to him at the time of the ban), with the reasoning that she didn't feel that the ban was long enough. It also appears that a reported NPA violation that J.Kougar made on User:Shadowphoenix's talk page was a factor in this decision, but his response there was because of the harassment and stalking from that user that he had suffered. The supposed violation in that case was when J.Kougar referred to Shadowphoenix as "Pathetic" because of her previous harassment of him.

The issue though, is that use of the term "Pathetic" doesn't appear to be an actual NPA Violation, as even the Bureaucrat User:Aiiane called J.Kougar "Pathetic" with no apparent violation committed.

Furthermore, when J.Kougar attempted to express concerns about User:Shadowphoenix stalking his edits and trolling his every post, Aiiane ignored these accusations of Harassment with the supposed justification that J.Kougar was currently evading his ban because he did not think it was fair, and there in by doing so he gave up all rights to protection from other users, as are governed by the wiki's rules, since the rules do not seem to state that other users may disregard the rules when confronting another user who is currently banned or circumventing a ban that seems questionable.

Since the Bureaucrat User:Aiiane has failed to respond to the above issues on her talk page, and given her history with the user J.Kougar that stems back to long before this wiki's creation on the forums and such, where she and he had countless disagreements, we are hoping that perhaps this request might find a much less bias and more fair judgment on the situation.

In J.Kougar's defiance, he has contributed well over 50 images and articles to the Wiki, as well as contributed to countless discussions about the game. He's even solely created pages such as the male Monument Mesmer Armor gallery and filled it with quality images for all the wiki to benefit from. If allowed to do so, and not persecuted unfairly, I'm sure he will continue this trend for a long time to come. ~ Sabastian 03:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

J.Kougar's Statement

The following is a statement from J.Kougar concerning the issues at hand.

"I realize that I am widely unpopular with a lot of folks for my persecution of Gaile Gray concerning the times she has violated the rules without repercussion, or her unprofessional outbursts towards various customers on the forums in the past. I do not have a high opinion of the quality of the job she has preformed, and as such I have on more than one occasion pointed out such.

I was a little blunt and critical when I gave my farewell to Gaile on her talk page in the section where other's where doing the same, but I did wish her the best of luck on her new position with true conviction. My follow-up post questioning her contradictory reasoning for how and when she archives content from her page, and pointing out the wiki rules against archiving active content might have been a little bit blunt, but I did try to keep it professional and courteous. Her disregard for it that was shown when she archived it away without response was rather frustrating, and led to my comment to another user on my talk page, where I accused her actions of being cowardice, and thus received my ban.

I have only since evaded my ban because I did not feel that the double-standards that allow some users to violate the rules and not others, and the sketchy classification of what my NPA violations actually were, justified the ban that I was given. Perhaps not the most constructive way of seeking further discussion of why a user can tell me to "Clean the sand out of my vagina" on my talk page, and not be in violation of the NPA but my accusing someone of cowardice is... or why my calling another user pathetic is an NPA violation, where it is apparently not a violation when done so by a Bureaucrat, who are supposed to be held to a higher standard than normal users. ~ J.Kougar

Discussion So Far

The discussion of these issues to this point, which have failed to resolve anything, can be found on both Aiiane's talk page as well as J.Kougar's talk page. ~ Sabastian 03:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

My 2 cents

If this were the first time JKougar had been banned you might possibly have some semblance of a case on your hands. However I believe this is the third, and almost every time in the past when he was blocked he persisted in causing disruption to the wiki. Every case began with what I would consider trolling and is just a continuation of that. This leaves me and I am sure a lot of other users with a lack of respect and loss of assuming good faith when it comes to anything he does now.

With regard to the accusation of SP trolling that is ridiculous, she was merely being a "wikifairy" and watching the actions of a known trouble maker user who has a history of being banned, and alerting sysops to pertinent policy violations. --Lemming 12:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

You are correct, in the more than one year I've been active on this wiki, I have received three bans. The first was well deserved and I didn't argue it. That was a one-time incident that's been long since explained to death and moved beyond. The second ban by Aiiane, a user with a long past of disagreement with me that go back to before this wiki's creation, banned me without giving a valid reason other than NPA, which she could not point out or explain where I made these NPA violations and what they were. That was a questionable ban that I also fought against for a while, because it was someone with such a biased opinion of me that initiated it. This last one, well, it's pretty clear that it wasn't based on solid violations... and since no direct NPA violations where made it doesn't seem to be a valid ban either, do since this is the second time it's happened I thought I'd take it to the next step, which I have with this Arbitration. Please don't rely on one solid and deserved ban to justify anything, when compared to the hundreds of worthwhile contributions that I have made. J.Kougar 22:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of whether double standards have been put in place for this particular user (which I'm not sure they have been), the fact remains that this isn't his first ban. In fact, I believe that at least one of his bans in the past has been of his loud and desparate attempts to inform seemingly every user on the wiki of his disapproval of Gaile and the job she does/did. We get it. He doesn't think she does a good job at CRM. However, I don't believe that warrants a comment along the lines of, "You sucked at this job, but good luck on your next one!" in a "Thank You" section on Gaile's talk page. You wouldn't write such statements on a thank-you or going-away card (and I'm talking about the general populace that is tasteful and, more important, tactful in asserting their opinions, not this particular user as I wouldn't put writing something of that nature past him). The proper venue to address one's criticisms, should that person believe that another is doing a poor job, is on your own user page or, even better, with customer support. The action taken by this user could have served no other purpose than to cause wiki drama/disruption. He claims he truly wanted to wish Gaile good luck, but with the comment he made, is that really how she was going to take it? Kokuou 12:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Please don't post falsified quotes to support your argument against me. I don't tell people they "suck" as it's just a crude and ineffective way of expressing your opinions. This is not my first ban, no. However, the last ban was also questionable and my attempts to find out the exact reasons for that ban were also fruitless, but that ban was made by Aiiane and given our history I didn't really expect there would be a valid reason for it, other then personal vendetta, and I had to assume that was the reason when she refused to clarify where I broke the rules. That was six months ago, and the other ban was five months prior to that. The first ban was the only one that was honestly deserved and it was made clear why I deserved it, and I was in full agreement with it. So if you want to look at my Hundreds of contributions made over a year, and nit-pick on one deserved ban and another questionable one, then go right ahead... but I don't see where that builds a very strong case. J.Kougar 22:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Shadowphoenix does need to lay off. It isn't her role to pester users, and that's pretty much what she did here. We had this discussion with Eloc; sure, they're acting in good faith, but they're hurting more than helping. She need to learn where to stop. A single friendly note on the talk page letting them know they broke policy is fine, spamming comments when it's obvious he knows he's breaking policy isn't fine. That's the sysop team's task.

I know YAV didn't make it very far here, but it still is crucial on any wiki - even if it isn't a policy we can cite. Don't write Kougar off simply because he dislikes Gaile. He does a better job than most angry users at keeping his temper in check and avoids breaking NPA (unless you stretch it really really far in an attempt to find something to ban him for, which is IMO what Aberrant did, seeing as a number of other users in the same discussion had more blunt and open personal attacks and went unpunished).

I support Kougar's argument. I don't support his methods, nor do I like him very much as a person. There is not, however, a bunch we can do about either of the latter; which leaves either ignoring him or addressing his arguments as our only real options.

Finally... this case doesn't need arbcomm attention. It's, at best, a personal debate project against the wiki at large. It isn't asking for resolution, it's asking for more attention. The case calls for "less bias and more fair judgment" (the bias being Aiiane's past history with the... accused? :P), even though both actual blocks on the user were done by other people. I don't know how much fairer a judgment is possible on this wiki, most cases don't even get two sysops deciding them. Even if the case is accepted, I'm fairly certain Tanaric and Aiiane would be in agreement with the punishment carried out... or at least be unwilling to order the ban lifted. -Auron 14:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

what can u expect of a nerd who'v wasted 7321 hours in Guild Wars in 32 months (7.5 h/day).on gw? is 29 and argue with kids and always begins messages with something like "i find u very amusing and pathetic" and end every message with a ":P" or a "you think you are somehow one of the moderators or have any right or authority to threaten me, is simply laughable.  :)" the thing is that he's pretty laughable. the only thing he writes about is how much gaile and izzy fails so why not ban this guy, readem is fun, raptors is too but this guy is just outright gay --Cursed Angel 14:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

It's hard to take serious a post from you against me, when you cannot make an argument without falsifying facts and making NPA violations. For starters you claim I end every message with a ":p" yet I can't recall doing so, and a search of my talk page only revealed two instances where ":p" was used, and neither of them by me. Also, taking two poorly quoted sentences from one conversation with a user who had been trolling my every post and harassing me, and claiming they are the basis of my every post, doesn't do much for your case either.

If you're jealous that I have so much free time to spend on the game, do keep in mind that I only have that much time because I'm on disability, and when you no longer have to work for a living as you once did, you have a lot of time to engage in recreational activities such as online gaming, fishing, camping, and kobudō. If I spend ten or twelve hours over the course of a day playing a computer game, I really don't see the relevance to your argument.

You obviously aren't familiar with my contributions on this wiki if you think my occasional criticism of Gaile's job performance or criticism of Izzy's mistakes or questionable nerfs make up the majority of my contributions. Please do try to have accurate information if you are going to try and slander someone. J.Kougar 22:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow CursedAngel, your response was very much like J.Kougar's first response to Gaile that was called a personal attack but wasn't. The difference being is he ended his politely and wishing her well where as you end yours with an actual NPA violation. ~ Sabastian 21:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

"The case calls for "less bias and more fair judgment" (the bias being Aiiane's past history with the... accused? :P), even though both actual blocks on the user were done by other people." The biased part being that for Miss Gray. J.Kougar's removed posts where not NPA violations but him doing what others where doing in wishing her well and stating how he felt she did at her job without giving any insults. Miss Gray broke the rules by removing valid posts as she always does with no repercussions for doing so. He then later in his talk page referred to Miss Gray's removal of anything that points out her negetive preformance, even if it did not break the rules, as it being her "cowardice". Others have more than said worse than that without so much as warnings yet he gets banned because his is directed at Miss Gray. Neither his origional post to her or the topic "Here is a Thought" broke NPA nor did his origal post that listed as a personal attack derail from the topic. Others said they thought she did good and wished Miss Gaile well and J.Kougar said he didn't think she did good at the job and wished her well.

As for Aiiane, her being biased in favor of Miss Gray and her past history with J.Kougar as such is what keeps her from being able to be unbiased in this matter. Nor does it help when Aiiane ignores others breaking the NPA and breaks them herself in this matter. ~ Sabastian 21:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

This discussion is pointless. J.Kougar has shown he wants to and can evade bans via proxies, and there is nothing we can currently do about that. Lord of all tyria 21:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the removal of text on Gaile's page, i think you and Kougar may need to be aware that, even if not explicitly (sp?) allowed on the policy, is still a common (and accepted, even encouraged in some cases) practive along the wiki to archive topics on talk pages when they are deemed disruptive, or just not warranting attention in case of user talk pages.

Going back to the topic, i think we have too many issues in just one place for treating them properly (overzealous users policing things, possible double-standar on actions, non-compliance of rules, bypasing of sanctions). Since this is about Kougar only, i would like to ask: If the Arbcomm accepts this case, and were to ask Kougar to actually comply with his bans instead of trying to bypass them just to "make a point", would he be willing to comply?.--Fighterdoken 21:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but the rules do say not to archive active topics, which Gaile does frequently, even when they are not disruptive or violations of the rules themselves.

Yes, if they can explain where I actually made NPA violations, and why those were violations when I made them and why they were not violations when others did or said the same things, then I'd be willing to accept the serve out the ban. J.Kougar 22:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that I did stop evading my ban prior to this Arbitration, and waited until I was unblocked to respond to it. I know better late than never isn't the best excuse, but given the circumstances... J.Kougar 22:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

She did not remove the posts, she archived them, the record is still there for the pedants and the disruptive comments are removed. How would you like it if in your leaving card at work some guy wrote, "well I personally am glad you are going, good riddance". That is basically what J.K did on gaile's talk page. --Lemming 22:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

That might be how you perceived it, but that's not how it was intended and that alone isn't a NPA violation now is it? Several of the things said to me on this page as well as my talk page, have been far worse than anything I said to Gaile, and yet the people doing those far less tactful attacks, aren't punished for them. Why is that? J.Kougar 22:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, I did attempt to apologize for that post, when it was made clear to me that it could have been perceived as more offensive than it was intended. If someone did tell me though, "well I personally am glad you are going, good riddance" when I was leaving a job, I'd have been professional and courteous about it and simply said "Thanks, good luck to you too" and left it at that. Then again, I don't take things personally... especially if I know my job performance was questionable to begin with. J.Kougar 22:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

what point is this guy trying to make...? --Cursed Angel 22:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I'll post it at the bottom for easier reading.

J.Kougar, Sabastian gave another reason as to why you won't/haven't been on lately; you also did not seem to give up evading your ban and kept using proxies, despite a lengthening and several blocks on those proxies; that hardly makes me think that you gave up evading the ban because you thought it would be best to "[wait] until [you were] unblocked to respond to it". -- Brains12 \ Talk 22:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

"Sabastian gave another reason as to why you won't/haven't been on lately" Where did I give reason for his not being on lately? ~ Sabastian 22:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I attempted to bring my case to the Bureaucrat Aiiane (not the best choice given the history I have with her than pre-dates this Wiki) but I did so because she is the one who got involved. I evaded my ban long enough to make my case with her, but since she ignored it and refused to reply, I stopped evading the ban and went through this more official channel. J.Kougar 22:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I am pretty sure you are confused about the rules or removing text, it must be an NPA violation to be outright removed, but archiving something that is "not clear cut" is perfectly acceptable especially on your own talk page. --Lemming 22:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

What Gaile did, while you may disagree with it, and it could perhaps be frowned upon, is within rules. Calor 22:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict x2) Apologies, I mistook J.Kougar's response for Sabastian's; but considering the fact that JKougar shouldn't have even been responding (and the similar signatures)...

Despite that, I still think my conclusion stands in that not evading the ban after continuously doing it beforehand is nothing to feel humble about. -- Brains12 \ Talk 22:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

J Kougar was unblocked to respond here only, so he is allowed too :) --Lemming 22:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I know; I meant that he should not have circumvented a block in the first place, so stopping that doesn't improve his position. -- Brains12 \ Talk 22:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

He only first circumvented the block to find out what was going on since nobody told him why he was blocked or anything. Also, how is his nolonger evading the blocks a bad thing? He gave up evading them to take the matter here once he learned more about this. ~ Sabastian 23:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

You don't circumvent a ban. Full stop. If he stopped doing it, that's no extra kudos - that's what you're supposed to do. It doesn't "improve his position". A reason was provided by Ab.er.rant and Tanetris, but that's just going circles and obviously being ignored, as are the original notices and advice slash warnings. -- Brains12 \ Talk 23:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

"You are permitted to archive older comments as your talk page gets longer. Do so by copying or moving your talk page to an archive subpage, such as User talk:Example/Archive 1, and leave a prominent link to it from your main talk page. " as per the Guild wars user page. Also, removing and deleting are not the same things. She removed the comments from her talk page that were new posts that did not break the NPA but simply didn't consist of the "WE LOVE YOU" that she wanted to be seen. She also removed a fully new topic that did not break the rules. ~ Sabastian 22:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

This particular issue is more about precedent than it is about the word of the user page policy. In situations where users have been told they can not remove material because it is unclear if it constitutes an NPA violation every user I can think of has been advised to archive the material on their talk page that they personally find offensive as a compromise. This happened in the Liche vs Eloc incident for example. As Gaile has a very much public talk page, I don't think it is unreasonable for her to remove text by a user that has basically made it his mission on this wiki at times to try and publicly humiliate her at every turn, and more visibly the better. I believe that hijacking her leaving thread for a very personal grudge constitutes a reasonable cause for her action. --Lemming 22:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

"That might be how you perceived it..." What? That's how any human being in their right mind would perceive it. Kokuou 22:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, links or it didn't happend. I am sure there are more, but others can find it for i am too lazy.

• Removal of text by Gaile, followed by archiving of such contet. All in rule
• Removal of NPA according to the rules, and even more, NPA breach was archived instead of removed. Heck, she even took the time to add a neat new header so it can be easily located.--Fighterdoken 23:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

"Your talk page should generally be treated like any other talk page on the wiki. Do not remove any comments, including your own." It didn't break the rules as it only stated J.Kougar didn't find her job performance to be a good one but wished her better luck with the new job. She also removed a full topic that was not in violation of the rules and belonged on her talk page as it was a question directed to her. "This particular issue is more about precedent than it is about the word of the user page policy." Either the user page policy is to be followed or it is to be ignored. The rules are meant to be followed yet if users are to ignore them then that would also bring about the NPA policy being useless if the others are. It would also lead to further the current standards of the rules are in place for some people but not all people. So which is it? The rules are to be upheld for all or are they for some people and not all people leading to further the current double standards? ~ Sabastian 23:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I think what sums it up best is the following, a quote from W:Wikipedia:What_"Ignore_all_rules"_means - "Following the rules is less important than using good judgment and being thoughtful and considerate, always bearing in mind that good judgment is not displayed only by those who agree with you." In continually bringing up a subject that Miss Gaile had obviously indicated she did not wish to address, Mr. Kougar was being far from considerate of her as an individual, and I would not have an issue with her removing comments that persisted in such attempts. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 23:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

So because Miss Gray doesn't like people to be honest in saying they don't like her job performance as CRM, even when they still wish her well on her new job, she can archive it and thusly breaking the rules? His first post to her was on topic but it didn't contain the "WE LOVE YOU" that she wants all to see, nothing else. Also, the newly made topic to Miss Gray from J.Kougar called " Here's a thought" was also swiftly removed though it did not break the rules and was addressed to her. Even if she did not want to answer she still broke the rules by archiving it without valid cause. ~ Sabastian 23:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Well said Sabastian.

Nice to see you finally took a stance on one of the issues Aiiane. Care to explain why you refused to address the others such as your turning a blind eye to other rule violations that were pointed out to you, or why you refused to respond to the inquiries involved in this mess when they were posted on your talk page, and why we had to come to this just to get a response? Given you're long history with me that dated back to the forums and before this wiki, I can't say I really want you involved with this discussion... just as they'd not allow a family member or the bully who harassed some poor kid all through high school to be in that person's Jury in a criminal trial... but it is nice to see you making at attempt to respond to something, even if it's not with a very solid statement.

Would you also be willing to make a statement regarding other people being allowed to post blatant NPA violations on this page or on my talk page without repercussions? I might be blunt in my comments and some people seem to find them to be derogatory, but I don't post vulgarity or curse at people in my posts. J.Kougar 23:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Actually, is not just Gaile, any user is free to archive content from their talk page or move it to a more proper location. Even you two, if you were to, let's say, want to have an "empty talk page with no discussion", you are free to move the content.--Fighterdoken 23:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) You are right, rules are to be followed, but they are to be followed in what inspired them and not only in what is written, since the letter of the law hardly covers any and all possible instances that can happend. In this case you and Kougar are at mistake, even if you are not willing to accept it. Removal of text in the policy is treated as "deletion of text without backup". Archival of text, or content being moved to other pages does NOT count as "removal" and thus is not a breach of the policy. Also, you must note that all this happened at the end of a month, time in which some users will archive content on their pages (some archive ALL the content, even if it has not been answered). Since we have not a guideline on how this process should be applied, is left to criteria of the users, since unanswered topics can always be raised again if deemed important.--Fighterdoken 23:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

"You are permitted to archive older comments as your talk page gets longer. Do so by copying or moving your talk page to an archive subpage, such as User talk:Example/Archive 1, and leave a prominent link to it from your main talk page." Neither of which where followed by Miss Gray. ~ Sabastian 23:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Content is older the instant you read it. Content was moved to a proper location. A prominent link exists in the location. If you felt there was a policy breach, you should have followed the rules and posted a report in the proper format in the Admin Noticeboard, instead of bypassing your sanction and starting arguments over there.--Fighterdoken 23:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

A prominent link very much exists to Gaile's archives, which are very well listed and categorised. Also her talk page is very long if you want to be pedantic so she did follow the first rule. You are still MISSING the point though, the spirit of the policy is not to prevent people removing what they consider an attack against themselves. If someone did the same thing on your talk page no one would get up in arms if you archived it. --Lemming 23:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Gaile's Talk page is also quite unlike most other user talk pages. Gaile's page is like a forum for most users to try to get more "official" information and direct responses. Due to the sheer quantity of information and topics that can arise (especially ones that dont fit the typical use of the page) I would think she needs to archive stuff like your comments Kougar. She cant let her page size get out of hand, and frankly, no one needs to know if your drama with her. I am not saying shes been right to do everything shes done. But all she did was move it off the main page because it served no purpose for anyone else.

You can also think she is trying to hide the negative views of her, but I dont really think she cares what you think of her (nor should she). Removing your comments from her main page is kind of like trying to get it out of the way so it doesnt turn into a 100 page flame war with other users defending/attacking the opinions made. I dont believe you honestly wanted to wish her well. If you did, it wouldnt have turned so ugly so fast. I think you were simply looking for a fight but dont want to admit that.--riceball 01:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Re-reading through this entire section, I have lost track of the number of times it's been explained that what Ms. Gray did by archiving Mr. Kougar's comments on her talk page was NOT a violation of policy, but a common, and sometimes even encouraged practice, based on the spirit in which the policy was created. Yet both Mr. Kougar, and Mr. Sabastian just ignore this and continue to quote the letter of the policy. This willful avoidance of explanations is also what has lead to Mr. Kougar's repeated evasion of his ban, as both the initial block, and the extension of it were both explained by the admins that took the actions. Mr. Kougar continues to maintain that no such explanation was ever given, thus he was 'justified' in ignoring the ban/extension until such time as he received an explanation. I see it as a case of "I'm not getting the answer I want to hear, so I just won't hear anything." This attitude is totally self serving and has no place in a community.-- Wynthyst 02:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Issue at hand

Could a shorter, and more importantly, neutral summary of the issue be posted instead of a biased account that waffles on? I suggest moving the current Issue to the talk page and leaving something along the lines of what is on Guild Wars Wiki:Arbitration committee/2007-09-20-User:Erasculio and Guild Wars Wiki:Arbitration committee/2007-09-19-User:Skuld.

-- Brains12 \ Talk 22:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

My opinion

My opinion is that J.Kougar asks for what he gets. While his posts may not technically violate the letter of the policy, his tone, and intent, clearly violate the spirit of the NPA policy. While there are many out there who don't believe that the spirit of the policy is enforceable, I beg to differ, which is why sysops have been allowed the discretion to do as they feel is appropriate. In this case, J.Kougar has been banned multiple times for the exact same types of offenses, and then proceeds to avoid the ban and throw it in the community's face that because he doesn't believe it's fair, he's just going to ignore it. It comes off as he somehow believes he is better than the rest of us because he is using technology to do as he pleases regardless of what rules he may be breaking. This attitude is in no way a benefit to the community, his posts have had no positive impact on the community in fact, just the opposite. If he wishes to be a positively contributing member of the community, he should learn from his mistakes accept his ban with grace, and move on to an actually contributing role, rather than slinging condescending, negative statements at people. As to his 37 (I counted) contributions to mainspace, that's great, but it doesn't outweigh his overall attitude. -- Wynthyst 22:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually you'd be incorrect in the statements of multiple bans for the same reason, but I already addressed that a few times on this page, as well as at the top of the above "My 2 Cents" subject, so please see that for more information.

Your count is greatly off, because the majority of my contributions have been needed images for articles for multiple images for an entire armor gallery. Those screen-shots were far more difficult to obtain and provide here that my other contributions.

You argue attitude, but that's something that's very hard to perceive accurately online. If I were truly that disruptive than I'd have received more than one fair and two questionable bans in the more than a year that I've been active here. Also keep in mind I have not had countless indiscretions with dozens of different users, as many have (and yet don't ever seem to get banned) as all my supposed conflicts have been with one user. That's far better than the folks who run around starting pointless fights with anyone and everyone who they run into. That kind of user is truly disruptive. J.Kougar 22:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict x2) I agree, any positive contributions does not mean he has the right to continue the negative - including snide remarks, subtle insults and, as you said, violating the spirit of the personal attacks policy. Despite advice, and some warnings, J.Kougar continued with the condescending remarks -- heck, despite a block, he continued. The several evasions of his block also tells me that he has no interest whatsoever to respect the decisions of administrators and that of the countless users who agreed that his comments were unnecessary and should be stopped. -- Brains12 \ Talk 22:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I continued in a pursuit of the reason for my ban, and then the extending of my ban, since no one could or apparently can explain why it's a NPA violation for me to say call someone "pathetic" when they've been harassing me, but it's fine for a bureaucrat to call others that. This violation of "Spirit" that you are claiming now is something entirely new and not used as a reason when my ban was made. J.Kougar 22:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Both sides, Kougar and the administration, handled this entire situtation poorly. I think the whole thing should be dropped. Maybe a new policy, demanding that registered users must be told on their talk page the reason they are blocked and the length of said block, can come out of this.--Ryudo 22:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

True. I'd be willing to accept that, and then go post the missing armor photos that I have been waiting to upload since shortly after my ban. J.Kougar 22:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Kougar, can you stop putting your comments in the middle of the discussion? Its kind of annoying. Lord of all tyria 22:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Just trying to respond directly under remarks made to me. If I just stack them under the bottom it'll be far harder to see what replies go to what statements. I know it can be a little frustrating to find new posts, but when looking the entire page over for information it's much more clear about who is talking to whom. J.Kougar 23:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe Tanetris and Ab.er.rant told you the reasons for your block? As to the "spirit", that's always been apparent - it's why the policy was made, why it needs to be in place. It's not a new thing and it never has been. Some people refer to the literal presentation of a policy when quoting it because it can be quoted - but in the cases where a policy doesn't include every single violation that can ever occur, you rely on the "reason", the "spirit", and that's always there. -- Brains12 \ Talk 22:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually they did not clearly do so, no. Just stating that it was NPA violations without being able to point out the violations or explain why they are violations when some users do it and not when others do the same thing.

Still, If that is the case, then I think steps need to be taken to not only clarify this in the rules, but to inform the Sysops as well, so that when they go around banning folks they can at least say something like "Your remarks, while not a direct violation of the rules, do infringe on the spirit of the rules and are still seen as a problem. Please attempt to remedy this by...etc. etc. etc." instead of just yelling NPA and throwing out bans. J.Kougar 23:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

...Anja asked you to tone down your comments to Gaile or stop posting on that page, and so did Ab.er.rant, so did Dominator Matrix, so did Shadowphoenix. That's how you could "remedy" the situation, yet you chose to ignore that. And throwing out bans? You received several comments of advice and notices from administrators and users alike; that's hardly "throwing". -- Brains12 \ Talk 23:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

My apologies, the contribution count is 37 to mainspace articles and 48 images. Still doesn't outweigh the overall poor attitude.-- Wynthyst 22:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

In your opinion, but can you honestly say that someone who has found those image resources to be valuable to their game play and who isn't concerned with my conflicts with an isolated user, would feel the same? J.Kougar 23:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

So because I RV'd a bunch of vandalism, does it mean I'm allowed to act like an idiot? Can't think of a way of expressing that without NPA. Just because you have legitimate concerns over the health of this wiki doesn't give you the right to be an asshat. Lord of all tyria 23:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Eloc has 10,000+ contributions, and sometimes he's an asshole to people. Do we let him off because he's helped out a lot? Nope, I see bans on his record. Calor 23:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

So what are aruging over here? how long to ban him? or if to perma ban him? whats his current ban sentence?--Ryudo 23:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

It is one week. Originally two days and then extended without proper reason. The ban was made on the 1st, so the 8th would see it's end... but given this ban is so questionable I decided to attempt to get further clarification on it, and perhaps get it lifted early. J.Kougar 23:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

http://wiki.guildwars.com/index.php?title=User_talk:J.Kougar&diff=prev&oldid=776121 look here sir, the reason is on ur talk page but u must've missed it..? --Cursed Angel 23:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Have to admit that looks like clear and valid reasoning to me on the link Ca provided. Oh also on another note CA, how about you not use "Gay" in such a derogatory manner in the future as its really quite homophobic and I find it quite offensive. -- Salome 02:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Aye, I'm as staunch a heterosexual as heterosexuals come, and I don't like seeing people say/type "gay". Calor 02:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Salome your not alone. But this dissusion is not needed. Dominator Matrix 02:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it is since he is using this as an argument for him breaking rules. I would have to agree on one of his points, and this should make us wonder why CA has't been brough to arbcomm before since he plainly doesn't care about the warnings and petitions to stop. But even so, one user openly breaking the rules doesn't give me (or anyone) the right to break the rule also. What we should do is start a process against him instead.--Fighterdoken 02:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

While not relevant to J.Kougar's issue, CA has been asked before not to use the word, but continues to do so, indicating his lack of respect for other wiki users. Kokuou 04:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

To several of the people posting above: If you can't express yourself without calling others "gay", "asshole" or "idiot", please dont post at all. The huge majority of wiki users shows that they can clearly make their point without insulting others, and so should you. --Xeeron 12:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Original Ban

Since it's an issue raised through all the discussions, i think it is a good idea to sum it up.

• Warnings started being issued on March 31 on Kougar's talk page about his behavior on Gaile's and other user pages. A final warning was issued at 03:37 by ab.er.rant asking him to calm down. The comment was followed by a new NPA breach, which resulted in 03:45, 1 April 2008 Ab.er.rant (Talk | contribs) blocked "J.Kougar (contribs)" with an expiry time of 2 days (You can't help but throw in that little NPA can you?).
  
• Several rants and ban evasions later (even after told to stop doing it), the bans was extended by 06:37, 1 April 2008 Tanetris (Talk | contribs) blocked "J.Kougar (contribs)" with an expiry time of 1 week (Per User talk:J.Kougar), argumented on the talk page under the basis of "repeated NPA breachs, bypassing a ban, and arguing on the admin noticeboard ignoring the warning to not do so".

In short, warnings were issued at time, and reasons were given properly.--Fighterdoken 23:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

*shrugs* I used a poor reason again. Like Auron said the last time, it would have been fine if I called the reason "General asshattery" instead. Attempting to link it to only the most recent violation resulted in users (respected ones no less) saying I overreacted, apparently seeing the ban in isolation. So poor reason on my part. I was tempted to throw in a month due to his past violations but yea, at that time, from history, I already knew it wouldn't stick. But being the only sysop responding at that time, I don't think I could have just ignored him. -- ab.er.rant 14:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, it's clear now

Okay, it's clear now that the best arguments against my actions, from the above sections, is that I violated the spirit of the rules with my actions, and I didn't actually make any NPA violations... since apparently accusing someone's methods of being "cowardice" is not a violation and neither is calling someone "pathetic" (even the Bureaucrats do it) ...and since even calling someone a nerd, or gay (in a derogatory sense), or telling them to "clean the sand out of your vagina" is also okay and not an NPA violation, I was far from committing an NPA violation (yet getting jumped onto for it despite that). This seems to be the current consentience, and I accept that.

I admit that I was blunt when I wished Gaile well on her new position, and I was perhaps rude to question her about breaking the rules when she disregarded my comments without response... but overall, it stems back to people believing that I violated the "spirit" of the rules and NPA with my professional, but pointed, comments. I was not right to evade my ban, but I did so in an attempt to clarify the reason for the ban (since a clear reason was not provided with the ban). This might not have been the most advised course of action, but it was the one I chose, be it a mistake or not that's already been done and cannot be changed. If I was wrong, then you have my apologies.

I still think that the week's ban is excessive and shows the double standards at work, but if the above conversations are correct and it's now accepted that I didn't actually break the NPA (as was the generic label applied to my ban) then we can just disregard the issue as the course of it's attempt to find resolution has run almost the length of the ban itself. I think that the rules still need clarification, and that when someone hands out a Ban for NPA it should be explained if it's an actual NPA violation or just a violation of what they believe the "Spirit" of the NPA is. After all, this whole mess was started because of a lack of clarity. J.Kougar 23:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

um, I don't think this is a lack of clarity. Unless you sneezed when typing that and hit a wrong key, this is pretty much a blatent insult to those who read it. -- Wandering Traveler 23:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I see that you are apparently a little late in joining the conversation, but as was stated above the lack of clarity was in the reason given for my ban. As far as I know there was no lack of clarity in my posts, and as such I didn't claim so. You might find that post offensive, but it wasn't intended to be anything more than truthful and perhaps a little blunt, but since the comments were not directed at you I fail to see how it's your job to decide if the content is offensive to you. If that were said to me when I was at fault for something like that, then I'd take it as such and not a personal attack. J.Kougar 02:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

So I assume ArbComm does not need to take the case? Calor 23:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Depends. I'm assuming, the way the majority of this discussion has gone, that my above statements are correct. If this is the consensus, then no, I suppose they do not. J.Kougar 02:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Sad part about this is that entire first paragraph is true. More NPAish remarks were made during this so called investigation than what it was that actually caused it, lol.--Ryudo 23:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Yep, that seems to be the biggest issue currently. The Sysops want to focus so harshly on specific users, while completely ignoring the actions of others and not even taking time to scold them for blatant NPA violations and name-calling. J.Kougar 02:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

In fact, you got it wrong. I could say "Fighterdoken is pathetic", and that would be a NPA breach, but NPA breach doesn't mean "instant ban". In your case, you actually broke and bend the rule a few times, and you were warned about it. Everything would have been happy had you stopped when told to do so, but same as minor vandalism, you were sanctioned because you "ignored the warnings and just kept going". Since the other users who may have broken NPA stopped when told to do, there was no need to punish them too at the time.

Also, you have to remember that your sanction was only 2 days for the Gaile issue (usually would range from 1-3 days). The one week sanction was not because of it, but because of all the issue that was raised after in the admin noticeboard, your talk page, and other users talk pages once you started evading your 2-days ban.--Fighterdoken 00:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem is, the other users violating the NPA on this page and my talk page didn't stop when they were told to, as you claim... since they were never told to or even warned for their actions. Aiiane even admitted that she wasn't about to hold another user to the rules when that user was harassing others.

I know I've said it many times so far, but I evaded my ban because I wasn't given a reason for why I was banned, and then I evaded because the ban was extended without a clear reason as to why, so to find out why I returned and evade in order get more information. This has already been covered, many times, in the above discussions. J.Kougar 02:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

You have an email, no? Lord Belar 02:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

"Aiiane even admitted that she wasn't about to hold another user to the rules when that user was harassing others." - I have said no such thing. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 02:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, when you refused to address an issue of harassment and then said the following...

"In my eyes, by bypassing your block you've forfeited any right you might have had to "file a complaint""

"My statement was simply that I would not accept complaints from users who are blocked from editing the wiki, as their rights in such a regard are temporarily (or if relevant, permanently) forfeit. That is all I have to say regarding this."

...I think it's safe to say that you were not going to attempt to reprimand or even address the issue and rule violations in question. It's all right there on your talk page. You basically gave free license to anyone to break the rules in harassing me, because you don't feel that the rules should always apply, no matter the situation. J.Kougar 02:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Link or it didn't happend.--Fighterdoken 02:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

What are you, 12? If you didn't read over the material enough to know what's going on, and you cannot find the above mentioned talk page of Aiiane on your own, then you really should not be attempting to argue on issues you were not involved in and know nothing about. J.Kougar 02:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I stated that while you were blocked I would not accept complaints from you as you were bypassing a block. That is not the same thing as stating that I would not entertain complaints period; were you to file a complaint when not blocked, or were another user to file a complaint not directly on your behalf, I would be more than willing to respond to it. (However, with regards to NPA, that is a policy issue and is thus dealt with by sysops, of which I am not currently one). (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 02:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

So you honestly intended to address the issues of harassment that I posted about, once my ban was over? Somehow I didn't think you'd be willing to dig back a week into past pages, and then address the harassment that took place... I figured it was either now, while the issue was still happening, or never. I didn't expect to be able to just go back a week or so and say "Hey, last week this user harassed me. Can you do something about it?" If I was mistaken, and you will be discussing the harassment issues with me when my ban is over, then I apologize for doubting you. J.Kougar 02:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Funny you should mention that. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 02:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

...and while I appreciate your effort there, that doesn't change the fact that despite your warning of her to back off and leave me alone (and let the sysops handle it) on the 1st, she ignored that request and continued her fixation of me by further harassing me in following my every post after (and responding to most of them), rushing to the notice board about my every post, and further involving herself in the discussions about me on your talk page as well. You may have asked her politely to back off and not get involved, but she ignored you on that and did just the opposite. I know if I reported someone for rule violations and a Bureaucrat asked me to back off and leave them alone now, that the sysops would handle it, I would have respected that and stopped harassing the person. Apparently she did not (and given your opinion of me and our history, it's pretty bad if I'm more willing to follow your requests in a situation like that than she was) and looking at her history, she's been confronted many times for the same thing... refusing to back off and stop acting as if she's a Sysop, instead of just an involved wiki user. She doesn't seem to accept that it's the Sysops job to handle that stuff, not hers. J.Kougar 20:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I very much find it hard to believe that you would back off if someone asked you to, considering your constant circumvention of your block... and your persistent comments to Gaile, even after various sysops and users told you to back off. It's obvious that nothing of the sort would happen. -- Brains12 \ Talk 21:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. You fail to take into consideration that with the exception of my rivalry with Gaile, I have had no other indiscretions with users and have never violated a rule except when an instance of a questionable ban was given to me for indiscretions with Gaile that were questionable (as to if they would have been ban worthy if they were with any other user besides her). Three instances where things got a little carried away with one user (Gaile) is hardly reason to ignore my otherwise good record of adhering to the rules and not causing any trouble. It's already been pointed out about lots of other users who are into smaller scrapes with lots of other folks on a frequent basis. Is it really more trouble to address a larger issue a few times in a year, than trolls that constantly cause problems on a weekly basis and yet are never banned for long because they are otherwise active or occasionally helpful? Also, and it's already been said but, since Gaile is leaving her position I won't have any reason to question her work or point out her mistakes from here on... so I'm not going to be having future indiscretions with her (no that doesn't excuse the past ones, but it is worth noting). J.Kougar 21:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

What? I said you did not back off after sysop warnings and user advice. You may be right in saying that I didn't take into consideration your rivalry with Gaile, but only because there was no reason to. Your comment was that you would back if an administrator told you to; yet you didn't. Also, in this case, I'm not talking about your contributions or other scraps with other users in other places; I'm just pointing out your hypocrisy. -- Brains12 \ Talk 21:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

...no, I pointed out that in a hypothetical situation where I reported a user for violating the rules, I would leave it up to the Sysops to handle it if I were asked to do so, since it doesn't involve me and it should not. If you want to help out and report a user for a violation is it not best to report and then drop it, letting the Sysops handle it? That's what I would do, but it's not what shadowphoenix did, even after being asked to do so. That's what I was getting at... sorry if I wasn't clear. J.Kougar 21:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough; but in a situation other than that, it's ok for you to ignore sysops and users alike and not let them deal with it? Or do you only listen to them when you agree with them. Because it's obvious to me that you're not willing to leave a sysop's decision rest and respond when it's appropriate for you to bring it up. -- Brains12 \ Talk 21:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Eah, it was a personal call... I was defending myself from an unfair ban listed only as NPA violation (when it's since been made clear that it was much more complicated than that) and maybe I took the wrong path in doing so, but I would rather have my reputation marred by my own actual actions than actions I did not commit, or at least not as cut-and-dry as a simple label of NPA would indicate. I've never attacked someone and told them to F* Off and the like, and I don't want people to think that I did. I'd rather them know me as someone who evaded a ban and caused a huge page and a lot of drama (because I did that, I take responsibility for my actions) than to suspect that I'm some random lowbrow troll spouting profanities. J.Kougar 22:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

She didn't and this is turning into a "Well s/he said this and that" Dominator Matrix

If you don't know the facts, and cannot contribute something useful, please don't post here just in an attempt to earn yourself some 'brownie points' with the admins. Thanks. J.Kougar 02:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Same way, if you don't want to understand the facts, there is nothing else we can do. I think by now the situation should be pretty clear for Bcrats to decide if this deserves or not to be dealt by them. We are just starting to repeat arguments over and over.--Fighterdoken 02:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) This is what is clear to me, a regular editor and wikifairy - The original (read:third, the ban that is being discussed here) ban is of questionable means; however, this happens and must be accepted. Often people are persecuted unfairly; often people aren't persecuted when they should be; this is a part of life. I might get a speeding ticket for going five over the limit and someone else might not get a ticket for going fifty over the limit; this happens and must be accepted; this is a part of life. I believe that User:J.Kougar was wrong in going around his ban. Sure, it sucks when you're banned especially without reason, but I hope that all regular editors remember that we must Assume Good Faith. This includes assuming good faith of the adminship of this wiki. If I were to be banned for twenty four hours right now, I would NOT circumvent the ban. I might perhaps post a message on the ban-ers talk page asking why, but that would be after the ban. We must respect those who take their time and effort to make this wiki work, and causing disturbances takes their time away from documenting the game; we must respect them for time given, even if we can respect them for nothing else. At the same time, the adminship (and rest of the wiki) should respect regular editors such as myself and User:J.Kougar and Assume Good Faith for our actions, as well as respect our time put into the wiki. As such, while I believe that the original ban was not quite warranted, User:J.Kougar circumvented the ban instead of stepping back and waiting until the time passed. If you really want to contribute to the wiki during a ban, then use a notebook, use Microsoft Word, use whatever, so that when your ban expires you can continue contributing as you desire. As such, I think that while the original ban wasn't warranted, that User:J.Kougar should live out the rest of some sort of ban since he circumvented the original ban. I also believe that no apologies are necessary on any side of this matter. Just like with the traffic ticket, these things happen, and we must accept them, move on, and continue with our goal of both creating a community and documenting a game. I hope that this will be resolved soon so we can do just that. MiraLantis 06:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

One of the wisest things I've read on-wiki in a long time. —Tanaric 06:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

MiraLantis very nicely explains two important principles of justice:

1. Just because someone else was not punished for a crime, you do not have the right to commit the same crime as well.
2. Being punished unjustly does not give you the right to commit further crimes.

The two might not be immediatly clear, but they make a lot of sense once you consider that all punishments and verdicts are issues by failable humans.

Not having rule No1 would require a justice system to be 100% perfect in catching and punishing all criminals, since missing only one would mean all others go unpunished as well. It obviously can't be. Pointing to someone else and saying "he/she did it as well" is not a valid excuse.

No2 is needed for the same reason: Since humans are prone to make errors, some innocents are bound to be punished. If you do not accept that, you can not have any justice system at all.

Of course, those two rules do not mean that any injustice has to be accepted. The basic check and balance on rule No2 (even present in a rudimentary system as this wiki's admin policy) is a court of appeal. In this case being arbcom. Even when banned, you were perfectly able to complain to arbcom, since all bureaucrats are required to post a public email address. The remedy for rule No1 is that those judging can be held accountable to issue balanced judgements. Note that this is an issue between the general public and the judge and not between the judge and the person punished (who will almost always disagree with his punishment, while the general public will only disagree with unfair ones). Single mistakes are bound to happen and have to be accepted, only if there is a consistant bias in the punishment can (and should) the public intervene. --Xeeron 12:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Injunction clarification

This only applies to edits outside of this talk page, right? -- Gordon Ecker 06:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Since he posted with his main account, I am sure that he was allowed to defend himself on this page. Of course, he is allowed to defend himself. Cheers for that. MiraLantis 06:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

No, it applies wiki-wide. He will be allowed to issue a statement if this goes to arbitration, but this talk page, to every person who speaks against him, is not the way to do it.

He was unblocked for this arbitration, but this unblocking is in error -- ArbComm has not requested that block be revoked. I don't mind if his account remains unblocked, but the injunction stands regardless.

—Tanaric 06:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Update: Xeeron requested the unblocking, and that he be allowed to participate in this discussion. I'll amend my injunction to allow for that. —Tanaric 07:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Q.Q

uhh.. Its just a wiki folks, and, wooo you cant post for a week or 2 days or what ever, who cares? I dont really see the need to write a fucking book about one post? Ya know its really pathetic. ~.~ I mean seriously, was what Kougar said wrong enough to justify big walls of discussion text, get over it. Not everyone is going to fall at Gailes feet and make out with them. Most of her "Defenders" are brown nosing anyway. ~.~ I will make my point once again, just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't make them wrong. And kougar this is as much directed at you as anyone else, "I wont accept a ban, blah blah blah" Sounds to me like alot of effort over something as stupid as posting on a wiki. If honestly your mind set atm is "Lets see how we can annoy the admins today" you probably should be banned anyway. To the rest of you jump off the NPA bandwagon, theres a difference between "Pathetic" and "Yur a poofaeced whore"--Shadowsin 06:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Although expressed inelegantly, I agree. Gaile did a sensible thing by just quietly moving Kougar's unconstructive comments. Kougar then went looking for a fight and the community duely obliged. Original ban overreaction, but not surprising in the context of deliberate provocation, and a two-day break isn't the end of the world. This would be over and done a week ago if Kougar hadn't kept pressing it (in breach of ban). He needs to be reined back hard - Tanaric's interim injunction shows the way to go. Breaching NPA is one thing. Breaching bans strikes at the heart of the operation of the wiki - if people are allowed to get away with it, it will become unmanageable.Cassie 13:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Have to agree with Cassie on this one. IMHO the ban was an over reaction and Gaile does get special treatment, not just with over vigilance on her talk page but with her basically being subject to a more lenient set of rules than the rest of us. However that being said their was no doubt that Kougar was just trolling. What he said was offensive and a personal attack. Although Gaile is an anet employee that does not give you the right to make direct attacks on her work. She is subject to the same protection as everyone else on this wiki and you would not be allowed to come on and attack anyone else's professional life. Kougar you clearly over stepped that line and you and your boyfriends continual game of agreement tag that your playing doesn't change that. I agree completely With Auron above in that one of our beauracrats acted most unprofessionally and went for a direct attack herself which should NEVER have happened and honestly I think she should be deeply ashamed of herself and her actions. As argued before and something that I agree with, what course of action one deems right on this wiki can not be a case of subjective relativism. You can't sit there and think "we'll she broke the rules thus i can too as what she's done is way worse" as thats an absolutely ridiculous notion. To be honest Kougar you have not been and never have been a particularly constructive contributor (yes i have read your sparse edits they are mostly minor things which would have been fixed in time by other users) and your behavior here imho far outweighs any good you could have done for the wiki. Truly I believe that for the benefit of the wiki you should consider just leaving. You state quite clearly that you no longer enjoy GW and on top of that you seem to want to troll the admin space, anet's employees space and other such things. In short none of us are truly interested in your personal grievances with these people. Your choice to flaunt the rules by avoiding the ban imho should result in a permanent ban. (I know that it would be pointless in your instance as you would just circumvent it again but honestly i think the message needs to be sent that behavior like yours is unacceptable!). In conclusion my major points are this:

1. Gaile does and always has had preferential treatment on this wiki.
   
2. I agree compleatly with Auron on what hes being arguing.
   
3. I do not agree with Kougar and his actions and i think he deserves a permanent ban due to his flaunting of his previous ban.
   
4. I think the original banning sysop should have made a very clear post on the talk page of Kougar as to why he got banned.
   
5. I think Aiiane should be ashamed of how unprofessionally she handled this issue.
   
6. And finally Kougar all your questions have been answered. Very clear reasons for your ban have been given so kindly please just stop posting the same stuff over and over with an abject refusal to pay attention to anyone who isn't agreeing with you.
   

Warmest Regards -- Salome 15:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I dispute that Gaile gets preferential treatment, I agree she get's different treatment, as does Izzy's talk page. But that is because they are wholly different from any other users talk page at a fundamental level. I can't think of any examples when we have let Gaile break rules. Sure we spot violations on her talk page more quickly and probably deal with them quicker as a result, but that is because way more people have the page on watch and frequent it to report such violations. --Lemming 15:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Lemming I respect you alot mate but I think you've misunderstood me. I never said you let her break rules as I don't think you do but I do think shes allowed to ignore the niceties of wiki etiquette as and when she wishes without any comment. Such as even though its not strictly a violation of policy to archive ongoing active conversations, it is bad wiki etiquette to do so and if other users were doing the same on a regular basis, something would be said to them about it being rude. However cause its Gaile its let go. I'm not referring to her actions in relation to kougar as i would have archived them right away too as they were just downright trolling and would have started a complete flame fest (which i suppose he managed to create anyway), but shes done it many times and its not just a case of wiki talk page maintenance, it is a case of if people say something she really doesnt like that she can't explain away, she just archives it right away. Again i'm not referring to Kougars post as I don't think anyone should be subjected to trolling, but she's done it a fair few times with posts concerning anet's policies and the like, from people who have been very polite and courteous to her. -- Salome 15:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The first rule of etiquette is that you don't point out other people's lapses in etiquette. —Tanaric 15:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

We have let other users, not just Gaile, archive parts of ongoing conversations in the past when under what they considered to be an attack, even if no-one else did. Hence the precedent I mentioned earlier on this page. Liche vs Eloc springs to mind. --Lemming 16:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) True. I wanted to point that out as well. Gaile's talk page is not the only talk page where people archived too early, and I haven't seen any sysop take another user to task for "archiving too early." -- ab.er.rant 16:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

@ Tanaric: thats a rather glib response don't ya think? @ Lemming and Aberrant, as ive said before you're two of the sysops i respect most so you must believe me that im not trying to get at either of you as i'm not. I'm also not arguing in favour of Kougar as i said above i think he deserves a perma ban. What im saying is that in instances where gaile has not been attacked personally and the poster has been courteous but has pointed out some flaws with anet and its practices, she has archived the ongoing discussion just cause she doesn't like the content of it. I fully agree with archiving content which is deemed an attack but archiving ongoing active chat when it concerns real anet issues that she just doesn't like, is just plain rude. -- Salome 16:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Heh it's ok I don't think you are trying to get at me or aber, or defend JK this is sort of a separate issue. I hear what you are saying about other issues (not attacks) but some issues I guess she either can't/is unable/doesn't want to respond to and that is her right. What remains is how long should that remain on her talk page assuming she will never reply to it before it is acceptable to archive. If I understand you correctly, be it now that the point may mostly be moot as she is no longer CSR :) --Lemming 16:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Yup lemming you summed that up quite nicely and indeed the point is moot, well at least until we see who gailes replacement is and how they function on the wiki. :) -- Salome 18:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

For those talking of Perma-Bans while admitting that the situation was handled poorly by the Sysops and Bureaucrat, really should consider that when the same sort of instances happen in actual law, mistrials are declared and people get off scott free on technicalities. It's true that if I had been given a reason on my talk page for my ban (at the time it was made), and it had been clearly stated the reason for the ban, I'd have stopped and accepted it, and there would never have been an issue of ban evasion to question the ban, and then further ban evasion because the ban was extended for my seeking a reason for the original ban. As has been stated, the original ban is even in disagreement by you folk to if it should have ever happened, so I think this more than qualifies someone to take responsibility and look into sharpening the edges of some of the less clear policies, and instructing the Sysops on a better way to handle bans in unusual circumstances... while the remainder of my week's ban is left to expire, or I'm left unblocked as I currently am I'll respectively enforce the remainder on myself and forego further edits or uploading of images until it would have expired (as I have been since this Arbitration began). J.Kougar 20:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The following is just to address a few statements from the above section.

• "Truly I believe that for the benefit of the wiki you should consider just leaving."

I could, but I'll still have images and information to contribute as time goes on, and I'll still be posting them to GuildWiki... and if I'm not able to contribute those same images here as well, they'll just be stolen from there and posted here as so many other images have been. Not to mention, I have already invested a lot of time into this wiki, with over 85 quality submissions to article pages, most of them being images that would possibly still be missing if not for my submission, or still be of a much lower quality than they are now. My screen-shots are known for their high quality.

• "You state quite clearly that you no longer enjoy GW and on top of that you seem to want to troll the admin space, anet's employees space and other such things."

My enjoyment of Guild Wars has gone down quite a bit, I play a lot of Rappelz now as well, instead of solely Guild Wars, because I think changes in this last year or so have seen a lot of negative results, and I don't enjoy the game as much as I used to. Those weekly marathons of twelve plus hours of playing aren't really a reality anymore... but I still play a lot, for all the time and money I have invested into the game, and because of that I don't ever see myself truly and completely stopping.

Secondly, if I really wanted to harass the employees of ArenaNet I would not solely be picking on Gaile and it would be very noticeable. Really, with the proxy programs I have and the capabilities they gave me... if I'd wanted to be a troll or a vandal I'd be one of the best. I have no desire to spend my time vandalizing pages and cursing out people who don't deserve it... I want only to make my submissions to the wiki and mostly be left alone. Yes, I have a bad history with Gaile, but she's one user who won't be in her current position much longer, and as such won't be anyone I'll have to worry about anymore. The problem solves itself in time, but no... that doesn't excuse my picking on her for her mistakes a few times over the past year or so.

• "To be honest Kougar you have not been and never have been a particularly constructive contributor (yes i have read your sparse edits they are mostly minor things which would have been fixed in time by other users) and your behavior here imho far outweighs any good you could have done for the wiki."

Actually, I beg to differ. There might only be 37 submissions from me on mainspace, but there are another 48 images that I've submitted as well, and taking high quality and well-lit screen-shots, usually with the use of two computers and accounts to accomplish this, is far more work that correcting minor errors or missing information. I currently have a set of armor images that are currently missing, that I'm waiting to upload once this business is over and my ban expires, and I'll continue to make quality image submissions so long as I can, for the community, is nothing else... as I personally place high value on it when I want good shots of a weapon or armor to see if I want to spend my gold on it, and they are actually available for me to view on this wiki. Surely I'm not the only one. J.Kougar 20:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Could I just point out that your last mainspace and image contributions seem to be around the October-November time period of last year -- while they may be of "high quality", I think it's safe to assume that your contributions here won't be of the same quality and quantity as, say, Liche or whoever else that contributes on a day-to-day basis (or even on a weekly basis).

I also think that we should be focusing more on your user-related side rather than the contributory aspects towards images and the mainspace -- that is, after all, why you were brought to arbitration. Yes, your contribution may be something worth taking into account, but I don't think it's a major factor considering my first point. -- Brains12 \ Talk 20:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think anyone's contributions should come into play in an arbitration situation. He could be the highest image-uploading user on the whole wiki, but the fact remains that he continues to cause unnecessary wiki drama and disruption. Being a high-quantity uploader should not be a Get Out of Jail Free card, in whole or in part thereof. Kokuou 20:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

My contributions may have gone down hill when I stopped playing more than once a week for a little while there, but I have new submissions to make now, and yea... as my game play fluctuates so will my contributions. I kinda lost hope for the game for a bit there, but that's changed a little now. I'm not claiming to be the key submitter who holds it all together, but I do make quality and needed contributions when I can.

Yes, we should be looking more into the rules, but my paragraph above covers most of that... and the comment you just responded to was only in reply to another user questioning me on the subject. J.Kougar 20:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Aye. Realistically, it won't happen perfectly, but if Eloc (10,000 contributions), me (<6,000), and SHINZO (4) posted the same things and did the same actions, we would receive the same punishment. So contributions should be a no-factor, and I don't even know why it came into discussion. Calor 20:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

It came into discussion because people wanted to use it as weapon against me. If it cannot be used in my defense, then it should not be used in a factor against me wither, as people seem to be trying to do. J.Kougar 20:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

In Skuld's arbitration case, contribution played some part of it -- however, I wouldn't compare J.Kougar's contribution with the level of Skuld's. Skuld seemed to be centred around contribution in most cases, whereas that's not the case with Kougar. -- Brains12 \ Talk 20:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Why are we still trying to use this to derail from the actual issues? J.Kougar 20:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, seeing as you seemed to hold your contribution in such a high regard and how it is positive, I thought I would tell you it isn't the most positive. I'm not saying it's a negative thing, just that it shouldn't be counted as a positive thing. It's funny that when you talk about contributions, it's alright, yet replies about said contribution is derailment and off-topic.. -- Brains12 \ Talk 20:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm proud of all the images that I have submitted, yes, and while it might not count as high in number as other users, they are often of a much higher quality and I'm still not going to sit there while someone disregards them as just a few worthless submissions, and attempts to use that as a reason against me. I only responded to it because someone else felt the need to bring it up and use it against me in the first place. J.Kougar 20:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

"he continues to cause unnecessary wiki drama and disruption"

Three times in more than a year? Hardly comparable to the folks who have to be constantly supervised and reprimanded for their countless indiscretions with dozens of people. I have had three major (as you'd describe them) indiscretions with one user... and unless that user gets special treatment above all others, my three indiscretions should be counted as just that, with no regard to who they are with. J.Kougar 20:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

kougar have made a very few helpful edits last november which he all the time refers to, gaile can archive whatever she wants on her talk page and tanetris did tell him completly why he was blocked and why it got increased to a week, still this guy tries to prove a point that doesnt exist about how shadowphoinix "harrased" him and how everyone is unfair to poor him. why is this such a big deal, just permaban him --Blood Anthem 20:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually you are mistaken. Please see my ongoing discussion with Aiiane concerning that harassment in the middle of the "Okay, it's clear now" section a on this page.

As far as submissions go, if you'd read the above conversation you'd already see where people are trying to use my submissions for positive or negative influence in my case, and the Bureaucrats have already pointed out that it should not be taken into consideration, so please quit trying to beat a dead angle to death just to have more reasons against me (despite them being invalid).

Tanetris did not make the first block, so your comments regarding that are pointless... because he did not make the first block, he was not responsible for giving me an original explanation as to the block, and that is that is what caused the second block by Tanetris and all this drama.

Lastly, I don't think any commentary from you should be seen as a valid argument given all the warnings for trolling you've gotten and you're childish arguments with people about the revert wars you've been involved with where you're idea of a defense was "no u". I can't fathom why someone with your history feels entitled to attempt to judge me on my actions. J.Kougar 21:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Kougar on this one. This whole situation was handled badly on everyone's part. Drago 21:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Given your dislike of me, that really speaks volumes. Thanks. J.Kougar 21:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I am pretty sure the bureaucrats can distinguish between valid arguments and not JK so no need for character assassinations. --Lemming 21:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, if my every past mistake from the date I joined this wiki can be dredged up and used against me, then what's so wrong with me looking at the last few incidents that he's been involved with and use them to invalidate his argument? J.Kougar 21:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Because this is Guild Wars Wiki:Arbitration committee/2008-04-06-User:J.Kougar, not Guild Wars Wiki:Arbitration committee/2008-04-06-User:Blood Anthem. -- Brains12 \ Talk 21:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but forgive me if I lack faith that the people judging this will take the time to check into every troll who pops in here with negative comments about me, to see if they are a troll or a reputable user, due to the actions taken by all parties involved in this mess so far (as Drago pointed out just above). J.Kougar 21:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

haha in ur face kougar! :P --Blood Anthem 21:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

That's not helpful. Lord of all tyria 21:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Blood Anthem, please confine yourself to constructive edits on this page, even if they are not positive. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 21:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you.  :) J.Kougar 21:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay to address a few points of JK's:

• "the comment you just responded to was only in reply to another user questioning me on the subject. User:J.Kougar J.Kougar 20:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)"
  

Actually that's incorrect. I wasn't questioning you on it, I was making a statement. You can tell a question from the addition of a question mark, not a full stop, at the end of the sentence. My statement was also in response to something that both you and your partner have been touting all the way through the debate, such as "he has contributed well over 50 images and articles to the Wiki", from Sebastian; "Please don't rely on one solid and deserved ban to justify anything, when compared to the hundreds of worthwhile contributions that I have made" from JK himself. I could go on with examples there but I won't as its needless, as I've already highlighted that you were the pair who brought discussion about ones edits into this debate not us, the community, and thus if debating this statement is a derailment of the topic, it is you who first derailed that train. Anyway my point, for those who clearly didn't catch it the first time, was that any supposed good you've done for this wiki, is far outweighed by your harmful and disruptive presence. The number of edits isn't even a major consideration, just that any harm you've done far outweighs them. Also honestly no one cares how much you value them, it is for the wiki at large to decide the value of an article.

• "Lastly, I don't think any commentary from you should be seen as a valid argument given all the warnings for trolling you've gotten"
  

That was JK's comment to Blood Anthem above. Now am i the only one who sees the irony in such a comment? Isn't your comment a close parallel to your current argument with Aiiane, in that you continue to argue that her stance, that you lose the protection of the wiki when you flout its rules, is wrong. Isn't that exactly what you just said to Blood Anthem though. That due to his past warning he should be exempt from having an opinion on this page even though he is allowed to have one through wiki rules and regs. Please Kougar at least try to be consistent in your arguments as your gaps in logic are showing for all of us to see. you can not argue that you should be entitled to all the privileges granted by the rules and regs when you yourself clearly don't believe it as you're arguing against it for others.

• "I have had three major (as you'd describe them) indiscretions with one user"
  

You keep saying this as if its some sort of defense. However I'm failing to see how this helps your case. A general troll, who just generally annoys people, is one thing, but what your claiming to be is not a troll but an outright bully to one user. IMHO that's an even worse thing to be guilty of and you should be ashamed of yourself for it, not proud of the fact. As to your comments , concerning her leaving her position and thus your issue is now sorted with her, is an insane stance to take, as it doesnt change the fact that you bullied and harassed the woman.

• "the same sort of instances happen in actual law"
  

Please be careful as to who you start telling how actual law functions. As a lawyer myself, your debate holds no weight with me at all on this subject. The sysop who banned you was within his rights to do so. When i said he over reacted, it was more that personally I wouldn't have banned you, however under the rules and guidelines set out, he was within his rights completely to give you a ban and if you wanted to object to how you were treated, to continue to use the courtroom analogy, you should have waited til your day of court instead of screaming it from the cells and generally just being an annoyance to everyone on the wiki. You we're the one who spoke about technicalities so if you truly want to stick to technicalities, then technically the sysops are right, as are the bureaucrats (well all except Aiiane), and you don't have a leg to stand on.

• "I could, but I'll still have images and information to contribute as time goes on and I'll still be posting them to GuildWiki...and if I'm not able to contribute those same images here as well, they'll just be stolen from there and posted here"
  

Although I disagree with your point above, if we take for the moment that it is true then what is your problem?(note the question mark) The valued contributions you so dearly and selflessly want to contribute will still get to us according to your statement and thus those gaps in our wiki will still be rectified through you by proxy (and i mean proxy here in its common English usage not in relation to servers). Therefore if you do truly care about this wiki you can both still get your contributions over here (through peeps using your contributions over in guildwiki and posting them here) and we can be clear of your constant bullying/trolling (pick the one you're most comfortable with). That way we all win. You dont have to put up with 'unfair practices and double standards' as you keep shouting about and we dont have to put up with you, and the gaps in the wiki are still filled. Win/Win!

• "I think this more than qualifies someone to take responsibility and look into sharpening the edges of some of the less clear policies, and instructing the Sysops on a better way to handle bans in unusual circumstances"
  

As has been said repeated times, one can not live in a world of subject moral relativism. You can not argue for legal reform while not obeying the current laws yourself as you undermine your stance immediately. Believe me, I know this for a fact as I have a strong background in arguing for changes in relation to civil partnerships, section 28 and the new anti-terrorism legislation. It is not your place to disregard the law/rules as and when you wish just cause you feel that you are subject to some social wrong or injustice. One must work through the system in place not against it like you have been doing since your ban by circumventing it and the like. The correct thing was for you to wait the 48 hours and then say "i want reasoning for that ban and i want this all explained and a debate about wiki polices". It really isn't your place to chop and choose which rules you will abide by and which you won't.

There we go I think I answered all your major points. In short and to take a slightly less official tone. You dont have a leg to stand on. You have been offensive and obnoxious to other users and now you are clearly trying to run this arbitration in circles by playing a victim. The only thing you are a victim of however is your own obnoxious antics, so IMHO you should just take the punishment like an adult and accept that it is valid. I am not saying that this event has not highlighted some issues. Namely that bureaucrats/Sysops should start clearly stating why they ban people, to prevent confusion, and the fact that I'm no longer sure that Aiiane is truly capable to put aside her dislike of people in carrying out her role as an admin, which I think raises some pretty serious questions about her position here. However aside from these 2 major issues, I personally consider this to be a closed case and I'm hoping that the arbitration committee sees things the same way and gives you a nice big perma-ban. Regards -- Salome 10:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the "childish and pathetic" comment.

Since it seems to be a focal of some contention, let me explain my thoughts with regards to what has apparently become much more than it was intended to be.

"Attempting to blame sysops for the consequences of your own actions is both childish and pathetic. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 10:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)"

User:J.Kougar argues that since his usage of the word "pathetic" was stated as a NPA violation by User:Tanetris in the process of blocking him, it would follow that my own usage would also fall into the realm of GWW:NPA.

First, let me start by offering an apology to J.Kougar if he interpreted my remark as an attack against his person, for it is not. Were I to have allowed myself to lose control so as to make disparaging remarks against any attribute of a person beyond their expressed behavior on this wiki, I could not in good conscience remain in my position as a bureaucrat. As one may have inferred from the portion of the previous statement I have italicized, however, I do not believe this to be the case. If you will, please examine the actual subject clause of the sentence which I've quoted above. Namely, "attempting to blame sysops for the consequences of your own actions" - that is, the action of placing blame. I am not ascribing the later-mentioned attributes to Mr. Kougar himself, but rather to his actions as I have perceived them on the wiki, specifically previously in the very conversation from which the quote is taken. I would describe any such actions, regardless of the individual performing them, in similar terms. Thus, I believe the usage to not violate NPA, which states "Comments should not be personalized and should be directed at content and actions rather than people" (my bolding for emphasis).

Why, then, would usage of the same word by Mr. Kougar be considered NPA? Let us examine a relevant quote from Mr. Kougar's addition to User talk:Shadowphoenix (since archived to User_talk:Shadowphoenix/NPA_&_Spam):

"...You're pathetically amusing, you know that. My fiance and I are sitting here, laughing at you... ~ J.Kougar"

Immediately, note the subject: "you". Not referring to actions, not referring to content, but the user as an individual. This immediately points us towards a possible NPA violation. Furthermore, Mr. Kougar continues to share information that both a) no bearing on the wiki and b) is hurtful to one or more users of that wiki, in a tone which is clearly not intended to be respectful or helpful. Given these factors I have no difficulty seeing how Tanetris considered such a comment to be a violation of NPA.

My apologies for potentially burdening the wiki community with yet another addition to this discussion page, but I felt the need to make my reasoning with regards to this specific facet of the matter at hand known. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 12:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for posting this clarification Aiiane, I think that it will help greatly with the debate at hand. Regards -- Salome 12:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Culture poll

← moved to User talk:Xeeron

This is enough

I'm sick of seeing this in recent changes. Everyone, Aiiane, shadow, kougar, his fiance, EVERYONE involved in this is acting like a *NPA DELETED*. So stop fucking *NPA DELETED* you *NPA DELETED* and get over this already. Shit happens online, you can bitch about it for weeks or say "w/e, screw it." Serious, the utter patheticness of the way this entire situtation was/is being handled and the way people just cant let it go "oooohhh noes, he called me pathetic, ban! ban!" Get over yourselfs people.--Ryudo 16:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

So do you think you comming here and (thinly veiled) insulting everyone will help calm the matter down? You are also a good bit late, only 3 users had edited it in the last 10 hours prior to that comment. --Xeeron 16:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

People need to grow up and stop playing tattletail tag. And I have commented on here before, saying basically the same thing in a calmer manner only to be ignored.--Ryudo 16:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Ryudo, how about you just ignore the page then. Instead of posting thinly disguised insults at everyone which ultimately aren't conducive to the discussion at hand. -- Salome 17:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

1. if you going to tell me off, do so in an orginal way and not just copying what xeeron said, lol. 2ndly, Im sorry, but when peoples ignorance and self-centeredness drag on to this degree I feel the need to give an internet slap to the face to the parties involved.--Ryudo 17:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Ryudo, nay offense about what you feel you can do or not, but tantrums don't get you anywhere and ultimately unless you have something to add to the discussion I don't think anyone is particularly interested in what you post. Also thinly disgusing insults by using *NPA DELETED* is childish. However please feel free to keep it up as I have no power to stop you or even have the inclanation to do so. Perhaps something good will come out of this arbitration though, we can ban all the trolls in one go. Oh wait maybe I should have put *NPA DELETED* somewhere in that last sentence. -- Salome 17:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

this is really starting to piss me off. doesn't the fact that most users feel that he has violated NPA give enugh reason to ban him? also, why the hell did the bcrats allow him to have an arbitration?--Sum Mesmer Guy 17:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Sum Mesmer Guy, why hasnt this already been resolved? its already obvious enough he violated NPA, and the fact that he tried to go around his ban just to "contest" it is already reason enough to ban him for a good long time. He should have been blocked right then and there. Why are we all of a sudden going so soft on these violations? it seems we're ignoring them more then going NPA nuts over it. -- Wandering Traveler 17:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

See, this is exactly what im talking about. Instead of laughing at my stupid thing, and saying "hes right, this whole thign is childish, lets set this behind us and get over this", you people, its like your just not happy unless your bitching about something or another. When I was growing up, I was taught two ways to look at the world: You can look at the world and say "oh its so bad, so mean, so hurtful" and you can spend your life bitching and complaining about every little thing that happens that you dont like...or, you can look at the world and decide that its mostly just funny as hell and shake off about 95% of all "bad situtations" you run across as just that: being funny. If Kougar had just laughed and ignored Gailes antics, we wouldnt be here. If shadow had laughed and ignored Kougars antics, we wouldnt be here. If Aiiane had laughed and ignored the entirely harmless situtation, we wouldnt be here. If sabastian had laughed and ignored this wikis nit picky and VERY biased policies/actions, we wouldnt be here. And if you had just laughed and ignored my statement, we wouldnt be here. And for the record, my above statement was meant to be just that, laughed at, and not responded to. I never believed yall would feel the need to make an issue out of something so small. Does every little thing have to be an attack to you guys? Seriously...--Ryudo 17:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Following your logic, why write it at all then? --Lemming 17:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I must have missed the joke, either way do you really think this is the most appropriate page to be joking about on? Also added to that not everyone sees the world the two ways in which you were brought up to see them. Personally I was brought up to try and see the world for what it is and work towards its betterment and thus why I'm taking the time to post here, as I hope that what comes from this is the betterment of the wiki. Also To Sum Mesmer Guy and Wandering Traveler; The reason we are still here and the arbitration is ongoing is cause we are trying to get to the bottom of it and come to some set conclusion, instead of just making an arbitrary decision based on debates which aren't fleshed out. I agree that in essence this debate has ran its course now though, as i honestly don't see whats left to debate. As Kougar's abject refusal to accept that hes wrong doesn't mean that this debate should continue, it just means that his edits lack anything new to pay heed too. Unless their is anything new and substantive to add to the discussion I think all the bases have been covered and only the decision of the arbitration council is left to be concluded and added. -- Salome 17:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) (Edit conflict) If you can't tell by now, a ban has resolved nothing. In fact, one could argue that it was a ban that sparked this whole thing off anyway. As of right now, it's left to arbitration and the final injunction of the bureaucrats, not the sysops. That is why this case has been accepted.

Also, Ryudo, if you had not put your topic statement here, you wouldn't be here now and we wouldn't be, yet again, arguing about this and that. I suggest you take your own advice to heart and just ignore this whole arbitration case, if that's what you want to do. -- Brains12 \ Talk 17:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC) (Edit conflict) Cause Im bored and this is worth a few good laughs, since its beyound the point of being able to be taken seriously. plus im hoping at least one of you will see how stupid this whole thing was.--Ryudo 17:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Well basically in effect what you have just done is trolled the arbitration case for a laugh. Please don't do it again. --Lemming 17:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Id hardly consider this trolling, more of "a poorly thought out way to make a point while bored in a networking class cause im learning acronyms whos definitions are other acronyms." And ill be done when someone finally gets what im trying to say, because im not a very articulate person, even online.--Ryudo 17:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

So what happens? We try to ban him, he'll go nuts and use his proxies, we don't ban him, it'll still enourage him to do it again. I'm beginning to wonder what this arbitration case is all about. even if we find him guilty, how do we enforce a punishment? -- Wandering Traveler 17:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

IMHO if kougar did stuff bad enough to warrent a ban, then I know at least 1/2 a dozen other users that need a ban like, right now, including myself. I think the case has proven itsself, he should be unblocked, and the lessons we should take from this are devolping anti-proxy and "state the reason for the ban on said users talk page" polices. Also, dont ban me cause im cute.--Ryudo 17:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Well then, wandering traveler, that opens the whole blocking proxies thing again. However i think the interim order from Tanaric is a great idea. Basically if a perma ban is in order for Kougar, no matter what edit Kougar makes in the future be they helpful or not, will be instantly reverted. Will be quite a bit of work for the sysops but effective. Anyway we're getting mightily offtrack now. -- Salome 17:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Get a grip, Ryudo. You come here ranting and raving and ask everyone else to get over themselves? Good joke - practice what you preach.
If you were seriously concerned about Recent Changes spam, you'd be rallying against the entire Guild: namespace, which receives many more edits and is much less useful than this page. -Auron 17:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

lolz auron, where did I say I cared about recent changes spam? nowhere. I simply said I was sick of hearing about this issue. And, for the 2nd time, if anyone actually took that rant seriously get over it, it was a joke. A poor one, I admit, but anyone losing sleep over it needs to get over it.--Ryudo 19:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry

I'd like to apologize for this page being so long, and that so many people are now getting tired of seeing it in the recent changes section. Honestly when I filed for this I expected a short discussion by some Bureaucrats and Sysops that were not involved in the original incident and thus a little less bias about it... and then a decision. I didn't expect it to get this long, and I really didn't expect to have to invest this much time responding to everyone who popped in with a valid or often completely inaccurate opinion about the events that did or did not even happen.

I of course, feel obligated to respond when someone makes a reply to me, or a statement that is completely off-base... but at this point I'm just seeing the same issues misconstrued and misunderstood and posted again and again, leaving me to explain the same thing multiple times to different people. This isn't helping matters and is only taking up a lot of time I'd rather be using for other things, and annoying the heck out of people who are already tired of the debate and inciting them to come here with a grudge against me from the start, just because they are frustrated with seeing the issue come up so frequently throughout the day.

As such, I plan to limit my replies here after this one. That does mean that some of those new walls of text above from users who have entirely the wrong idea about things and have greatly misunderstood things and thus asking me to reply again, and say the same things again... only attempt to make them even more clear and easy to understand... won't be answered (sorry guys).

• In short, I've had issues with one user on this wiki, a few times in the last year. This is no longer a problem since that user is no longer in a position where she can affect things I care about. So no, it won't happen again.

• I was wrong to evade my bans, but at the time, since I didn't feel that a clear reason was given with the ban, I made the choice to do so. I cannot go back and change that, sorry. As a result my ban length was extended because of my evasions to attempt to find out why I was banned.

• I did not expect this mess to get so involved, and as such I'll be avoiding replying to anything that's already been clearly addressed already, and responding only to original posts. Hopefully this will help a lot of folks out and encourage less random postings with the only intent being to derail the original topics at hand.

Waiting for a final decision... J.Kougar 18:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

What a nice neat way for you to avoid my entire post above, the one which started "Okay to address a few points of JK's:". Not actually engaging with the debate and giving a half baked excuse for not doing so. Well done you. -- Salome 18:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Cant let this go, can you salome? let it die already.--Ryudo 19:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you? So far, you've done more bitching than almost anyone else. Lord Belar 21:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Lolz, thats funny. Compare my number of edits on this page to salomes again please?

Sides, your way late mate, that conversation was over before lunch, and Im about to eat dinner.--Ryudo 21:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Reply constructively all of you, or don't bother. I am getting tierd of asking. --Lemming 21:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Constructive reply: STOP REPEATING THE SAME THINGS OVER AND OVER.. that is all.--Shadowsin 06:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

On a side note:WARNING: This page is 117 kilobytes long; some browsers may have problems editing pages approaching or longer than 32kb. Please consider breaking the page into smaller sections. err "Your patheticlly amusing" = what like .5 maybe 1 kb? --Shadowsin 06:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)