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

I agree with this in general, with two exceptions:

I don't believe ArbComm should recommend sysop/wiki neutrality. One of the strengths of having discretionary sysops is that they can use the most appropriate tool to shape behavior. For example, if somebody vandalizes with the sexual Gwen story, I personally would ban them immediately, because their intent to disrupt is obvious. If somebody vandalized with "Will this really be saved?", I'd revert and leave a message on their talk page. If the community wishes to make sysop reactions more standardized, that's their right, but seeing as it's not a clear-cut issue, I think ArbComm should stay out of it.

Secondly, I think the ruling is too weak. At the very least, I'd like to include something like this:

Because of J.Kougar's stated willingness to bypass blocks, if he should ever do so again, he is to be immediately and permanently banned with no right to an ArbComm appeal. In such a case, all his edits, and all edits carried out by proxy, must be immediately reverted by any willing sysop. Further, in such a case, all responses to his talk page edits, by any party, must be immediately reverted by any willing sysop.

I'd also like to increase the scope of the prohibition against posting about Gaile (though I'm willing to meet somewhere in the middle if this seems too harsh):

Due to his repeated abuses of the generally free speech on the Guild Wars Wiki, J.Kougar's free speech privilege is partially revoked. He may not post any talk or user page content that isn't directly related to improving the wiki. He may not comment on other users or ArenaNet staff, directly or indirectly. Due to the discretionary nature of this ruling, only sysops should attempt its enforcement. Sysops, when enforcing this ruling, assume good faith and avoid rules lawyering.

—Tanaric 18:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Because of J.Kougar's stated willingness to bypass blocks, if he should ever do so again, he is to be immediately and permanently banned with no right to an ArbComm appeal. In such a case, all his edits, and all edits carried out by proxy, must be immediately reverted by any willing sysop. Further, in such a case, all responses to his talk page edits, by any party, must be immediately reverted by any willing sysop.

I am ok with that, though I rather agree with Backsword below that we can not tie future bureaucrat's hands. I'd cut out the "with no right to an ArbComm appeal" part. "immediately and permanently" is quite strong on its own.

any talk or user page content that isn't directly related to improving the wiki is to unspecific (and to strong) for me. Interpreting what is directly related to improving the wiki could be wastly different for different people. If you see the need to restrict his comments about people apart from Gaile, I'd suggest a "no repeated negativ comments about other users" wording instead of that paragraph.

Regarding neutrality:

Maybe I need to reword that, since you missunderstood me. There is no violation of neutrality if you act differently towards people that do different stuff. Neutrality would be violated if user A posts said gwen story and gets banned for a week and then user B (who happens to be friendly with sysops on the IRC and on talk pages) posts the same story and does not get a ban. In that sense neutrality is very essential to me and does not interfere with discretion or standardization. --Xeeron 22:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I am okay with removing the no right to appeal bit.

I expected a little opposition to the second one. To mitigate the discretionary issue, how about we issue a guideline to sysops instead of to J.Kougar?

Due to J.Kougar's repeated abuses of the generally free speech on the Guild Wars Wiki, sysops are encouraged to be wary of J.Kougar posting on other users' talk pages. Any post which can be interpreted as generally inflammatory -- to any user, not just the user whose talk page the comment is posted on -- should be grounds for an immediate block of no less than a week. Further blocks related to this ruling must be at least one MediaWiki default block length longer than the last one. If repeated blocks of this nature lead to a permanent ban, it should be enforced in the same manner as the case above.

I agree with your clarification of neutrality, but I still feel that ArbComm has no business dictating such neutrality to the community. The community has always had the right to request and require said neutrality via our policy/guidelines process, and more so, via direct influence on convention.

—Tanaric 06:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

That paragraph is ok, though I want to shorten the wording a bit and take out the free speech part and "can" part:

Due to J.Kougar's repeated trolling, sysops are encouraged to be wary of J.Kougar posting on other users' talk pages. Any post which is generally inflammatory -- to any user, not just the user whose talk page the comment is posted on -- is grounds for an immediate block of no less than a week. Further blocks related to this ruling must be at least one MediaWiki default block length longer than the last one. If repeated blocks of this nature lead to a permanent ban, it should be enforced in the same manner as the case above.

I don't want to dictate neutrality to the community, I want to remind sysops to be neutral. There has been plenty of evidence that the community wants sysops to be neutral (and zero evidence that the community wants them to play favorites). I would not have included that if there were grounds to assume that the community does not want sysops to be neutral (which strikes me as quite absurd). --Xeeron 09:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm okay with your rewording there. I was trying to stay away from the word "troll," but it really is a good term in this case.

I'll let go of the neutrality issue. It's not something worth fighting about, since in the end it really can't cause any harm. :)

—Tanaric 18:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I copied over the changes discussed here. Please proof read whether everything is ok now, if no further changes are needed, we can copy it over to the main page and make the ruling official. --Xeeron 18:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Community Opinion

i thought i'd create a section here to see what the community thought of this. i, personally, think that Tanaric is correct in what he's saying. J.Kougar needs a harsh punishment like that to stop him from disrupting this wiki further (argueably, these events revolving around J.Kougar caused 2 normal contributers and a bureaucrat to leave, not something to be taken lightly). but that's just what i think. any other comments?--Sum Mesmer Guy 18:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Please note that this is an arbitration case, not a What-do-the-wiki-user-think-about-this-case. poke | talk 18:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

i know that, i'm not trying to sway the desicion. i'm just interested in what different ppl think.--Sum Mesmer Guy 18:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I think there's been enough community input in this case already. --Valshia 18:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

no-ones forcing you to take part.--Sum Mesmer Guy 18:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Use the case talk page to discuss things. This is for deliberation. Backsword 20:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry sum but have to agree with everyone else. This isn't our place, were not arbcomm members and unless they ask for our oppinion we shouldnt be giving it. IF you are interested post a subject on the previous discussion page or on your talk page but leave this page alone for the arbcomm to decide what to do -- Salome 19:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Technical note

ArbComm rulings may not be binding on future ArbComms, so the resolution cannot dictate what cases ArbComm may accept in the future. Backsword 20:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

There is a difference between not having a right to have a case accepted, and not being able to have a case accepted. ArbComm could still choose to accept a case from a user who has no right to have it accepted; it would simply require more (theoretically) justification/convincing to do so. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 20:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

You're right one could read it like that. Such a reading didn't occur to me since people have no right to have a case accepted in the first place. Backsword 20:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

A little clarification

In the cases of where J. Kougar carries out an edit via proxy (through Sabastian or a .. proxy) while User:J.Kougar is blocked, what happens to said proxy? Are sysops expected to block the proxy permanently, even in the case of via User:Sabastian? Or does the infinite block apply to only User:J.Kougar and an arbitrary/incremental block on the proxy? Should the proxy even be banned, or just reverted?

The only mention of blocking a proxy in the current draft ruling is "Further blocks related to this ruling must be at least one MediaWiki default block length longer than the last one", but again, that raises the point of if proxy servers and User:Sabastian should need to be blocked for a long amount of time, perhaps even infinitely. Not sure if that sentence only applies to just User:J.Kougar either, so some clarification would be helpful. -- Brains12 \ Talk 19:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Banning or not banning the proxies (be that IPs, socks or other users) is up to the sysops, you are not required by the ruling to ban them. --Xeeron 23:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)