Guild Wars Wiki talk:Arbitration committee/2009-06-21-User:Shard

Initial discussion

So, pointing out irony counts as a wikicrime now, huh? lolgww :D Karate Jesus 14:03, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration request have nothing to do with "crimes", policies or anything else. They are meant to solve (personal) user disputes, which is the reason this was created. poke | talk 14:40, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to see links of the edits I made in question. ~Shard 20:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The "final straw" edit is probably [1], since that was the one where you involved Gaile in your claims. However, the repeated questioning in an uncomfortable or unanswerable topic is definitely going to be under consideration. --Riddle 02:09, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

That wasn't meant to be an "attack," I was pointing out that she made two mutually exclusive claims within half an hour of each other. It turns out she was speaking about buying gold in one post, and selling gold in the other, I just misunderstood. ~Shard 02:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

It's things like this that hurt the Iranian people. --76.25.197.215 06:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, originally I thought Shard was just being funny and shit. Now it's kinda gone too far. Karate Jesus 19:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

What's gone too far? Nothing I've done even remotely resembles an NPA violation, and defamation? Are you serious? Who am I defaming? A few days ago the sysops were telling me elections shouldn't be jokes, shouldn't the same be true for arbitration? ~Shard 20:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

0/10. Not even remotely good. -Auron 20:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

FFS, Auron's troll score is more disruptive that any of the crap I've done recently. ~Shard 20:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

"Arbitration is a last resort" [2] The parties involved in this matter should try other dispute resolution steps such as requests for comment. Loves to Sync 06:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Gaile has made it clear to Shard she finds his posts rude and disrespectful and has asked on numerous occasions for him to stop posting, which he actually offered to do, and then he just continued on. If there were going to be any resolution reached between the two of them, it would have happened by now. Shard has spent months going on about how incompetent ArenaNet staff are and has repeatedly accused Gaile and the rest of the Support team of biased and unprofessional behavior. Now I'm not posting an opinion one way or another on these claims, just on the fact that he has been asked repeatedly to stop, after questions have been answered, yet he continues because he's not personally satisfied with the answers given, and just won't accept that that's all the answer he's going to get. This arb com has little to do with any specific policy violation, other than the fact he has refused to respect the request that he stop posting in the manner he has been. -- Wyn 06:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

If me pointing out how support handles things is disrespectful to her, who do you think she should go to? Sorry, but if bringing up relevant facts and issues makes them look bad, they need to focus on themselves, not on me. ~Shard 07:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I will not enter a he said/she said discussion with wiki members, but I'm more than happy to answer questions from the wiki administrative team about this issue or about the accusations that have been made against certain members of the community, the Support Team, or myself. -- Gaile 07:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

It might be helpful to just do that all at once on this page. Let them know anything and everything we're here for. ~Shard 07:22, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Setting aside the questions of NPA and defamation with regard to individual statements for a moment, I'd just like to point out that it would not be unreasonable to assert that Shard has been harassing Gaile. Whether or not there is sufficient evidence underlying that assertion to merit punishment is a separate issue, but there is definitely evidence. I'm also inclined to believe that short of a permanent ban or injunction, that harassment, to whatever degree it exists, is extremely unlikely to stop based on past history. *Defiant Elements* +talk 18:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

In the past Shard has also shown a serious lack of respect to other members of the ArenaNet staff who's actions have not met with his personal approval where the game is concerned. He has repeatedly attacked Izzy on balance issues repeatedly demanding his resignation or that ArenaNet fire him, and his attack on Kim Chase of QA (which he did later apologize for) actually made her cry. I think his history of abusing ArenaNet staff in general needs to be addressed by this arb com, not strictly his actions regarding Gaile. -- Wyn 18:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Zomg, Kim cried because of mean people on the interwebs. -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 19:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

wow, the internets rly r srs bzns for some ppl. --Cursed Angel 23:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, when your livelihood is based on internet gaming... then yeah, it is serious, and being told you have the IQ of a chair when you are diligently trying to do your job is above and beyond the call of what is necessary. -- Wyn 01:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Both Shard and Anet fail. Shard fails because he takes Build Wars too seriously and trolls too much. Anet fails since anyone who cries over an online insult probably deserves it and PvP balance is broken. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.43.62.68 (talk • contribs) at 03:35, June 24, 2009 (UTC).

I never thought Armond and Cursed would go that low...at this point, if I had a way to make them cry...145.94.74.23 06:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

For srs. Uhh, Kim is a person. It doesn't matter if it's over the internet or not, there's another person sitting on the other side of that screen, a person who has feelings too, and Shard made her cry. Would Cursed and Armond have reacted the same way if Shard had made her cry to her face, rather than via a computer? Kim is still a person, and deserves to be treated better than that, and not mocked by people who ate too many Edgy-O's. Elysea 06:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Nobody cares. Not even a little. Take unrelated crap off this page - that goes for Armond all the way down to Elysea. Keep this page for discussion of Shard and evidence for/against him, not how much your heart bleeds for people who cry over shit people say on the internet. -Auron 07:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

This is, actually, pertinent to the matter at hand. If Shard, in fact, did attack Kim to the point of tears, and there is evidence to back it up, then it is relevant to his case here. It clearly shows that his attacks on Gaile are not limited to one person. Elysea 07:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Kim's crying is irrelevant (not something I'd bring up personally if it were me but it has been). It was an emotional response that could have had many contributing factors: we can not accurately gauge her mood, well being, emotional state prior to the event, stress levels, work performance (positive/negative) or several other factors that could had 'enhanced' her reaction to Shard's comments. Perhaps, if this "Kim was brought to tears" line wants to be used please bring Kim into the conversation, she's big enough to speak for herself if the event in question is worth her time. ~~000.00.00.00~~ 08:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Kim's crying is irrelevant, the personal attack is relevant, but quite outdated. I believe it was dealt with at the time. Linking the diff for the personal attack might be valuable, pointing out she cried is not. Misery 08:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

So this means that if someone insults me, I can CLAIM that I QQed a lot about it, and the other guy gets banned? Seriously, grow up. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:72.43.62.68 (talk).

It should be relevant, wheter you think she's overreacting or not. Unfortunately, this is the internet, where people have no morale, ethics, decency, upbringing or life. So the point is moot, because the less enlightened are also allowed to post here. Unfortunately. 145.94.74.23 13:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

So you are saying if Shard personally attacked me and I didn't cry, it wouldn't be against policy or relevant? Stop being silly. The attack is relevant, her reaction is not. People need to stop trying to turn this into something emotional and start being logical. Being logical doesn't mean Shard gets off free, it means things get analysed fairly and in an unbiased manner. Misery 13:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I never said that. All I'm saying that there are people behind those PC's, who have feelings too, and even though the internet in general belongs to a bunch of cowboys with no moral code, it shouldn't be a place where insults are allowed 'as long as they aren't personal attacks'. However, I'm also fully aware that this is the internet, and that things aren't ideal. Logic has nothing to do with wanting people to behave like civilized human beings. 145.94.74.23 18:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

And I'm not saying that the personal attack should be ignored, I'm just saying that the fact that she cried doesn't make the crime more heinous. Stick to facts rather than emotional bandwagoning please. Misery 18:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

So the case was accepted by all three bureaucrats

What's next? Three more days of bickering? ^^ Loves to Sync 01:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

No, now it's in the hands of the Bureacrats to discuss and decide. -- Wyn 02:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I will never understand why people are so afraid to use the "perma" button ^______# Frosty 14:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

It probably has something to do with caring about the other person's feelings and situation. Even if they didn't do so themselves. 145.94.74.23 18:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

A wiki is made by its community. Not on the pseudo mushy meaning of "a happy community is good for the wiki" and similar nonsense, but rather how each word on the wiki has to come from someone here. Losing a member who has positive contributions to the main goal of the wiki means losing an asset; it's different from banning people from a forum, in which there's nothing being build other than a community. Erasculio 22:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Some considerations

I was not expecting Gaile to come to this page accusing me of making things up as she makes other things up about me. I didn't want to post a follow up statement or have any argument with her or anyone on the main page, but it seems she is only doing what she is accusing me of. I'm keeping this list short because I don't want to get into it that much.

She states that As an example of how Shard's comment have been accepted as truth by others: "@ Shard - Does this include Ms. Gray lifting Wasabi's suspension on that double fame weekend?" This is something I have never said to Lena or anyone, and in fact, I had never heard of that until Lena brought it up.

She quotes If I was trying to get permabanned, I'd say "hell yeah" on Gaile's page. It's worthy of an in game permaban, so it must be just as bad on the wiki, right? as an attack (against myself?), despite it being a 100% factual case that I can (and have) proven.

He's just a guy who bought gold and got away with it, despite being reported. This one's even in my userspace.

Gaile is accusing me of damaging peoples' reputations or defaming people based on lies - the very same thing she's doing to me right now. I do not want to put her on an arbcomm, as fitting as it would be, but I did want to make the case that over half of what she's saying is based on her imagination and/or wrongfully drawn conclusions based on very poor information gathering.
I know how professionally Gaile can write, I'm very surprised and a little disappointed she chooses to deviate from that talent when it matters most. ~Shard 03:00, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Click the link that is there. It is there...half way through the text wall. Dominator Matrix 18:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

One thing I'd like to point out: when it comes to Guild Wars, we're just civilians, and ArenaNet is the government. Regardless of what we expect, there is room for error, bias, and even corruption. Fighting against things that happen as a result of human nature does nothing. Fighting against things that happen as a result of human nature in a video game does even less. Knowing what is happening, however, and attemptinig to ensure that other people know does have an effect. Documenting cases well and in the open would be a much more effective tactic, should knowledge be the goal. That said, even the best journalists can become aggravated when faced with frustrating circumstances, particularly when facing those circumstances in an online community of anonymity.

Just my thoughts on the matter. I have no intent of making my opinions on Shard or the ArenaNet team known here. ··· cedave 19:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I want only to repeat: All accusations / reports are reviewed by the neutral body of the Support Team, and if any offenses were involved in the incidents in question, the penalties have been served. The Support Team will not be taking private matters between the company and players to the wiki for review. The Support Team has sufficient safeguards and procedural standards to prevent internal misbehavior. The "information" that has been provided by members on the GWW is incomplete or inaccurate to the point of bias. One cannot build a case on anecdotal evidence, and libel and personal attack should not never be mistaken for exposure of truth. -- Gaile 20:00, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

If I implied at all that Shard's accusations were truth, I apologize. I do not and cannot confirm or deny any accusations of such types. I did intend, however, to reinforce the fact that, as human beings, both ourselves and our systems are innately flawed and exploitable. It is simply the nature of things. Whether or not events have occurred which involved corruption is a separate matter. I have very little previous knowledge of Shard's research or lack thereof, so I can't speak to it nor against it. Speaking as a journalist, I only desired to point out something which I thought might be valuable for consideration. ··· cedave 20:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

To be perfectly honest, what the support team does has nothing to do with this case. All that needs to be discussed here, by anyone, is information pertinent to the case - which is Shard's alleged harassment of Gaile et all. A past history of Shard's behavior, links to Shard showing either similar or drastically different behavior, and links to specific offenses are generally considered proof. Once a party has such proof, it can discuss what that proof means or entails, but all this "she said he said" stuff really needs to stop, as it proves absolutely nothing.

I don't think Gaile has to do too much of this herself, as many fans and whiteknights will provide links aplenty, but keep in mind that the point of posting on this page is to sway the judges in favor of your perspective. As long as this page stays rather neutral and the discussion doesn't get too wall-of-texty to be useful to the judges, the case shouldn't take very long. -Auron 20:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Auron. I will let the facts speak for themselves, with apologies for any walls o' text I may have contributed lately. :) -- Gaile 21:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Bureaucrat discussion

Note: I'd like to ask that only bcrats respond to this section. Everyone else, if you want to reply to something said here, please start a new section. Thanks.

Okay, so we've heard from Shard and Gaile, and various others have chimed in on both sides above, so let's see where we stand at the moment. As much as the word permaban has been getting bandied about in relation to this case, I don't think I'm alone in saying that as long as someone is making useful contributions, it is a non-ideal solution. Certainly there may come a day when Shard gets permabanned by the sysops, likely soon if these issues are not resolved, but I don't think it's a useful outcome for this ArbComm.

So, assuming we rule out a permaban for now, I think what we should be looking at is setting some parameters for "revert on sight" comments, backed with bannings if Shard persists at something he knows he shouldn't be doing. Gaile's talk pages would be the obvious top of the list, but Shard's postings about Anet, NCSoft support, and the handful of players allegedly receiving favoritism certainly bleed into other pages as well. So where do we want to draw the lines? The rest of the dev talk pages? The whole upcoming Feedback (and talk) namespace? Any comment anywhere on the wiki that mentions or refers to said groups individually or collectively? Any post anywhere that doesn't directly relate to a mainspace wiki article or wiki operation?

Thoughts? Ideas? Other concepts? - Tanetris 22:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

IMO the most lenient practical options would be some sort of "gag order" (a prohibition on starting or participating in discussions on the wiki regarding certain topics, such as alleged misconduct by ArenaNet employees and members of affiliated guilds), "restraining order" (a prohibition against posting in certain talk pages) or "probation" (requesting that sysops block Shard for any posts which look like trolling, similar to the second paragraph ruling in this case). -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 00:08, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the on-sight reversions and blocks idea (blocks for repeated violations? for any violation?), and I think that could be applied for ArenaNet users' talk pages in the form of a blanket restriction on posting, or alternatively (or perhaps additionally) to comments on any page which refer to the groups Tanetris mentioned. I think sysops only should be enforcing the latter, but any user could revert for the former since it's a complete restriction and not content-based. -- Brains12 \ talk 20:05, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

So, something like this work for you guys? "Shard is hereby prohibited from posting on ArenaNet employees' talk pages. All users are permitted and encouraged to immediately revert any post Shard makes to these talk pages and any replies made to them, and sysops may apply blocks if necessary. Furthermore, inflammatory posts regarding ArenaNet, its employees, NCSoft support, and/or players allegedly receiving favoritism made by Shard elsewhere on the wiki, as judged by sysop discretion, and any replies made to them may be removed by any sysop, with blocks applied if necessary." In both cases I'm qualifying an "if necessary" on the blocks because I don't think an automatic block for stepping just a little bit over the line without thinking is always called for, but of course ArbComm enforcement without blocks for a huge freakin leap, or a lot of little steps, over the line would be toothless. What's necessary is, of course, left up to the blocking (or not-blocking, as the case may be) sysop. Any additons, edits, concerns, comments? - Tanetris 21:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

That sounds acceptable. If we're allowing exceptions to the "posting on ArenaNet employees' talk pages" prohibition, they would need to be clearly listed so as not to confuse those who would revert. However, I think those exceptions should still follow the second part of the ruling (the "elsewhere on the wiki" bit), in that sysops can remove inflammatory posts and replies made to them. -- Brains12 \ talk 17:15, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Blocking

I think we should discuss the possibility of blocking in addition to the posting restrictions. I see four general options: stating that Shard should not be blocked for prior conduct because the posting restrictions are sufficient punishment, stating that Shard should be blocked in addition to the posting restrictions, stating that Shard may be blocked for prior conduct at the Sysops' discretion or not addressing the question of blocks in the ruling. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 05:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't see there being much point. I would assume that if one of the sysops felt compelled to block Shard for his actions up to this point, they would have by now, if not before the ArbComm. As for the possibility if imposing a block along with posting restrictions, again, I don't see much point. Either Shard will follow the restrictions set out for him in letter and spirit, in which case the matter is settled, or he won't, in which case I expect he'll be blocked for not doing so fairly quickly. On the other hand, specifically stating not to block him for prior acts is suggestive of a "clean slate", which I don't favor either as his history should certainly be kept in mind in applying any future blocks, so all in all I'd say don't address it. - Tanetris 06:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Wording, take 2

Shard is hereby prohibited from posting on ArenaNet employees' talk pages. All users are permitted and encouraged to immediately revert any post Shard makes to these talk pages and any replies made to them, and sysops may apply blocks if necessary. Furthermore, inflammatory posts regarding ArenaNet, its employees, NCSoft support, and/or players allegedly receiving favoritism made by Shard elsewhere on the wiki, as judged by sysop discretion, and any replies made to them may be removed by any sysop, with blocks applied if necessary.

An ArenaNet employee may grant an exception to the former restriction for their own talk page, at their discretion. Any requests for such an exception are to be routed through an admin, and a refusal on the part of the ArenaNet employee will be considered final. If granted, the talk page should be listed here along with the diff of the acceptance for community reference, and users may not revert Shard's posts to these pages, though they remain subject to sysop review. An ArenaNet employee who has granted Shard use of their talk page may revoke this permission at any time

Current exceptions:

User talk:Emily Diehl [3]

I think that covers everything discussed. Give it a read, edit if necessary, comment, etc. - Tanetris 15:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Shard would still be allowed to ask others to post on employee talk pages on his behalf. Perhaps we could cut the part in the second paragraph about routing requests through admins and add a more general statement in the first paragraph permitting Shard to ask admins to post on ArenaNet employee talk pages, and prohibiting him from asking non-admins to post on ArenaNet employee talk pages. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 06:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the routing-requests part needs to be cut and replaced with a generalised version, since that's the only kind of post that should be relayed through an admin on behalf of Shard. Perhaps modifying the first line to "Shard is hereby prohibited from posting directly or via proxy on ArenaNet employees' talk pages" might be enough.

Also, must we use "his/her"? I hate seeing that :P -- Brains12 \ talk 20:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

The current draft would permit Shard to relay comments through anyone, and does not mention any penalty for attempting to route a request for permission through a non-admin. I also dislike the one refusal per employee rule, and the vagueness about whether or not sysops are obligated to relay requests for permission to employees who have not refused it, I'd rather have a ruling which allows the admins to choose to relay or not relay requests for permission based on their own judgement (for example a new request may be appropriate if an employee's role at ArenaNet or on the wiki changes significantly). -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 01:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

His/her changed to the singular their just for you, Brains. The reason for the refusal final thing is simply so Shard can't, for example, have a sysop go to Gaile to let him back on her page based on how his behavior has improved, she say no, then Shard asks the sysop to post some links to his contribs on how much he's improved, or waits a week and asks that (or another) sysop to ask again because his behavior has improved even more, and so on and so forth. It also rather discourages spurious requests. Overall, I don't think we're going to manage to write a ruling that explicitly covers any potential loophole, as none of us to my knowledge are lawyers nor prescient, and I don't think we should try. The spirit of the wiki's policies are to follow the spirit of the rules, which I would count to include ArbComm rulings. Certainly the spirit of the ruling shouldn't imply to anyone that sysops are obligated to relay requests if they don't want to (or in fact do anything they don't want to), nor that an exception can't be made to "decisions final" in exceptional circumstances.

That said, Brains if you want to make your suggested change or Gordon if you want to make some tweaks for less vagueness, go ahead and edit the text directly. Neither of you seem to want to change any of the intent at this point, as far as I can tell? And as long as we're all on the same page on intent, I have no quibbles on how it's worded precisely. - Tanetris 06:49, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Pretty much, I've dropped the forwarding issue and written up a new draft, if the two of you don't like it, I'll settle for some minor wording tweaks to the second draft. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 11:21, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Wording, take 3

bullet point form

• Shard is prohibited from making inflammatory posts regarding ArenaNet, its employees, NCSoft support, and/or players allegedly receiving favoritism. These posts, and any replies made to them may be removed by any sysop, with blocks applied if necessary.
• Shard is prohibited from posting on ArenaNet employees' talk pages without permission. All users are permitted and encouraged to immediately revert any future post Shard makes to these talk pages and any replies made to them.
• Shard may not attempt relay requests for permission to post on ArenaNet employees' talk pages through any non-admin.
• At their discretion, Sysops may block Shard for violating any of the above restrictions.
• At their discretion, individual ArenaNet employees may grant, refuse or revoke permission for Shard to post on their talk pages. Current permission status should be listed here along with diff links of the acceptance or refusal for community reference if applicable. If permission is refused or retracted, the refusal or retraction should be presumed to be final.

paragraph form

Shard is prohibited from making inflammatory posts regarding ArenaNet, its employees, NCSoft support, and/or players allegedly receiving favoritism. These posts, and any replies made to them may be removed by any sysop, with blocks applied if necessary. Shard is also prohibited from posting on ArenaNet employees' talk pages without permission. All users are permitted and encouraged to immediately revert any future post Shard makes to these talk pages and any replies made to them. Shard may not attempt relay requests for permission to post on ArenaNet employees' talk pages through any non-admin. At their discretion, Sysops may block Shard for violating any of the above restrictions. At their discretion, individual ArenaNet employees may grant, refuse or revoke permission for Shard to post on their talk pages. Current permission status should be listed here along with diff links of the acceptance or refusal for community reference if applicable. If permission is refused or retracted, the refusal or retraction should be presumed to be final.

I've written up a draft in both bullet point and paragraph form. I have a slight preference for the bullet point version. Most of the actual rules are close to the ones in the second draft, however I believe it's clearer and flows better: first it states the restrictions, then it states that sysops may block Shard for violating any of those restrictions, then it goes into detail about granting, refusing, revoking and tracking permission. The part about refusal being final has been softened to a recommendation, however the language involving permission forwarding has been changed from requiring any requests for permission to be forwarded through admins (which I believe could be interpreted as implying that admins should forward all requests for permission to employees who have not refused permission) with a prohibition against forwarding requests for permission through non-admins (which I believe implies that sysops may choose to relay messages at their own discretion, and should not be expected to do so). It clearly states that only future posts should be removed. It doesn't include any restrictions or forwarding comments in general since the two of you don't seem to support that type of prohibition, however if forwarded comments become a problem in the future, they can be handled through blocking or another arbitration case. Was the second draft intended to prohibit people from responding to Shard's posts on inappropriate pages, or was I correct in interpreting that as an unintended loophole? -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 11:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

The second draft stated that responses to inflammatory posts made by Shard could be removed, so it could be seen as somewhat of a prohibition (though an indirect one, and focused more on Shard's posts than responses).

I wouldn't want to try and 'close more loopholes', because the more we focus on closing loopholes and defining everything exactly, the more loopholes we might open and the more we might encourage one to look for loopholes. The bullet-point draft that you wrote is probably the furthest we should go in terms of rewording the ruling while basically having the same meaning. -- Brains12 \ talk 16:25, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

By the way, the wording of both the bullet point and paragraph forms of draft 3 are identical, the only difference is that the one splits the sentences into bullet points, while the other has them in a single paragraph. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 03:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

A good bullet-point list is always nice. I'm down with it. There's something about the third bullet-point that feels poorly worded, but it's probably good enough. I would like it to be specifically pointed out that exceptions to the 1st point are still covered by the 2nd point. Other than that, works for me. - Tanetris 04:33, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you think that swapping the positions of the first and second points would fix that issue? IMO it's clear that there are three separate prohibitions and the permission exception only applies to the one against posting on employee talk pages, not to the prohibitions against making inflammatory posts or forwarding requests for posting permission through non-admins. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 05:18, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Gordon, and I also think that the inflammatory posts bullet already covers the issue of exceptions to the first bullet, since it doesn't specify a place where such posts should be prohibited (as the second draft did, i.e. "elsewhere on the wiki") - it's a wiki-wide prohibition on any inflammatory post regarding those groups of people. That's how I see it anyway. -- Brains12 \ talk 12:43, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, a position-swap would work for me. - Tanetris 13:04, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, they've been swapped. Are we done? If so, are we using the bullet point version or the paragraph version? -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 02:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think we're done. (Bullet point version) -- Brains12 \ talk 16:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Same, on both counts. - Tanetris 16:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I've added the ruling, closed the case, and notified Shard. -- Brains12 \ talk 16:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Bureaucrat discussion: User Discussion

@ Gordon, the link you provided goes to the most interesting ArbComm this wiki has had.

It ended up showing that neither the Bureaucrats nor the Sysops could follow the rules and that Gaile received special treatment from them and was above the rules. Now here we have a case brought on by Gaile where the opposing party's points are basically ignored. Shard posted proof of what he was claiming and all Gaile provided was 'well Support denies those claims.' That's it. The results of the ArComm was decided the moment Gaile requested one and that was to please Gaile. You guys want to stop someone from posting about game issues and support issues because Gaile doesn't want them seen. Is this wiki only real purpose is to kiss up to A-Net and Gaile with a little info about the game on the side... well the positive info that is.

Also: From the case Gordon brought up is a nice little line that has yet to be followed when it comes to Gaile.... ". Any sysop acting consistently biased towards/against some users would present a grave problem for us (and would be a case for a reconfirmation or arbitration." 64.235.52.170 01:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

"all Gaile provided was 'well Support denies those claims.'" ..wait, you mean Support is denying that they are playing favorites and/or have been screwing up? Imagine that.  ;) 216.17.103.90 02:09, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

You're forgetting a few things:

This is not about what Wasabi/Anet/whoever did. Whether or not those cases are factual or not has no significance here.

I was posting on Gaile's page after being asked not to. She was not posting on my page at all, though she did go out of her way to claim every single thing that I say to her is an NPA violation.

Gaile was dead wrong when she said I'm here for attacking other people, and everyone knows that. I'm here because of my presence on her page and the tone of my posts on her page. More specifically, I'm on ArbComm because it's happened before. ~Shard 02:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Shard can have his opinion of people and Arenanet, he can make his claims of favoritism and all that stuff but that doesn't mean it has to leave his userpage(s). Confronting Gaile on such things on the Wiki is 100% unproductive because it's the wrong place to do it. Being critical of other developers, like Izzy, can be done in a more constructive manner, but then again that's just not limited to Shard either as a lot of people on the Wiki could be critical in a more constructive manner. Being rude, insulting and acts of harassment aren't necessary, just weaken the position you're trying to establish and can have unforeseen outcomes.

Personally, I'd put him on probation with a clear set of guidelines (yet quite frankly this situation isn't important enough for me to suggest guidelines than the view I expressed in my first paragraph) and give him the choice to shape up or ship out. Yet, then again, none of that would mean anything if Shard doesn't see that his current methods are disruptive. ~~000.00.00.00~~ 02:36, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I do. ~Shard 02:43, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

216.17.103.90, as Shard stated, the factual accuracy of Gaile and Shard's claims regarding the Wasabi dispute are irrelevant to this case. They are irrelevant because neither sides can publicly prove their claims. I suspect that whatever "proof" you're referring to could plausibly be falsified or misleading. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 03:22, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

@Shard: not everybody knows that, especially people who haven't been around long enough to know you well. You tend to use a very aggressive discussion style about anything you're passionate about and that tends to upset people a lot. After you've heated them up, a simple 'it's not personal' isn't going to make them like you again. 145.94.74.23 06:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

My style of argumentation allows me to see other people more clearly, it works for me, and I'm good at it. It has nothing to do with people liking me. It's like CA's userbox says: If I have offended you, fail less. There are plenty of people who disagree with me or who I disagree with who I am very close to, and there are tons of people who agree with everything I say that I don't want to meet. Coincidentally, the way I discuss things repels people I don't want to hang out with anyway. ~Shard 06:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Your style of argumentation may work for you, but so far it does not appear to work for a constructive purpose vis a vis the wiki. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 10:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Shard, if you can self-identify that your methods are disruptive then what do you think you could do to be non-disruptive? Can you still be you without being disruptive? ~~000.00.00.00~~ 11:20, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Your "style of argumentation" is also called "verbal abuse". I don't mean that in a "wiki-policy" kind of way either. Look it up; because beleive it or not, speaking that way to people is not "if you are offended, fail less", it is a different form of being a wife-beater. I'm sorry to have to put it down in words that way, but all you have done is alienate yourself to the other people who think, feel, and act the same way. No one on the receiving end hears (reads) your point, they just see you being mean and hurting them. You can joke about it if you like, but I'll bet somewhere in there you know exactly what I mean. Ghosst • Talk • 14:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

The problem I have with Shard on the wiki is that with one post he says "I see how my current methods are disruptive" and with the next he says "If I offend you, it's because you are a failure". I believe he's willing to say what it takes to minimize the injunction of the ArbCom, while in reality, he has no intention of becoming a less disruptive, better member of the community. -- Wyn 16:48, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't twist people's words when you quote them Wyn. — Jon Lupen 16:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

@Ghosst: Zomg, people are mean on the intarwebs. -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 16:56, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

@John, I'm sorry you feel that is a twist of Shard's words. Let me repeat.

000_00_00_00 - "...none of that would mean anything if Shard doesn't see that his current methods are disruptive."

Shard - "I do."

Shard = "It's like CA's userbox says: If I have offended you, fail less."

I hope that is appropriately quoted. It just shows me that Shard isn't taking responsibility for the way he interacts with people, it's all their fault for being failures. <edit> He sees his methods are disruptive to the community but really has no intention of changing. -- Wyn 18:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I get your point, but there is a pretty big difference between saying "If I have offended you, fail less," and "If I offend you, it's because you are a failure." It's the difference between personally attacking someone and not. What would you take more personally, someone telling you that you failed a test, or that you're a failure? I see your point and respect that, but keep in mind misquoting and warping someone else's words (intentionally or not) gets to me the quickest, regardless of who it is. — Jon Lupen 18:43, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

@Tanetris: If your wording is accepted, would it be acceptable for me to acquire permission from a select few developers (namely Emily and Linsey) to allow me to post on their pages? ~Shard 00:02, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Interesting question. If Emily and Linsey want you to be allowed, I have no issue with bowing to their wishes on their talk pages. Of course, that's if Emily and Linsey agree, and if Gordon and Brains agree, and I would add a caveat that Emily and Linsey can revoke their respective permissions at any time they choose, and still subject to sysop review for inflammatory posts. I'll ask Linsey and Emily to comment here, but knowing how busy Linsey gets, I don't know how soon we can expect a response from her. - Tanetris 04:35, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

That's generous, thanks for considering. ~Shard 05:02, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd be okay with adding a "without permission" clause. This would effectively prevent Shard from asking for permission directly, however requests for permission could still be relayed by other users on Shard's behalf. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 05:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Not sure how comfortable I'd be with giving other users tacit permission to post on dev talk pages on Shard's behalf as a general rule... Perhaps leave it specific (if Linsey and/or Emily give their permission at all), and if a new dev comes along that Shard really really wants to talk to and thinks he can behave on their talk page, he can go to an admin (possibly one of the bureaucrats at the time?), the admin can approach the dev, and, if the dev agrees, add it to this page? That'd make sure whoever it is doesn't wind up flooded with requests, and keep the exceptions (if any) in one convenient place. - Tanetris 08:14, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

If he really wants to post something on a page or have something posted on his behalf he can just post from an IP and no one would know. Its something not worth worrying about.~>Sins WDB 17:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I thought it'd be pretty easy to tell, actually. -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 17:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Let's not be undermining the whole purpose of ArbComm, ok? calor (talk) 18:09, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to get involved in the decision making, but wasn't Gaile's issue with Shard that he falsely accused people, rather than the location on the wiki where he posted those accusations? Or did I misunderstand? 145.94.74.23 18:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

"Let's not be undermining the whole purpose of ArbComm, ok?" In reality it is pointless and the bcrats know it, so do the sysops. That's why they simply don't ban shard everytime he gets out of line. It's also part of the they aren't going to permaban him. If he remains associated to a user name that they control they at least have some influence over him even if it is small. They are just trying to figure out how much they can control his actions (specifically being disruptive) at this point.~>Sins WDB 18:27, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Gaile's issues with Shard are only passingly relevant. I think people are more concerned with the giant disruption caused by his actions. The point of this arbcomm isn't actually to please Gaile thankfully. Misery 18:43, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Although you may think this whole process is an effort in vain, that doesn't give you carte blanche to go ahead and encourage Shard to simply accept the ruling, become "inactive", and then pop up on a sock or his IP or a proxy IP. We, the community as a whole, believe that we can limit or prevent Shard's borderline trolling and harassment through an ArbComm ruling and a subsequent block or ban if deemed necessary, so we will go down that road, end of story. calor (talk) 19:03, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

In Shard's defense (yes I really said that) when he's been banned previously, he has respected that ban, and has NOT posted with proxies or socks. I believe he will abide by whatever decision the Arb Com makes. Just because some people have such total disregard for this community doesn't mean that everyone will. -- Wyn 20:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Sins, stop trolling. Your opinion is baseless. Users who have displayed a willingness to evade bans have always received harsher punishments, not lighter ones. If Shard were to decide to post as an IP or a sock (and I don't think that's actually likely), either we find out and both the IP/sock and Shard's main account get banned, or we don't find out and the IP/sock gets banned. The reason permabanning isn't on the table right now is that he has made, and hopefully will continue to make, positive contributions. If we can keep the positive contributions without the negative ones, it's a win for the wiki. If not, Shard will likely be permabanned sooner or later. - Tanetris 21:12, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Every time I try to point something out it's called trolling. All I did was point out that it's not worth the time to consider putting in a statement about people posting on shard's behalf. I gave a reasonable explanation as well and never put any negative connotations towards anyone in my statement. How the hell can you say I'm trolling. In any case you all should know by now that you can get around permabans/blocks from websites through IPs. Also you may notice the IPs I use are not always the same. It's not like everyone on this wiki can't do the same thing to avoid bans. That's why I'm trying to point out that controlling what people say on shard's behalf is pointless, because if he really does want to get something across he will. So yet again, trying to stop people from speaking for shard isn't worth the effort (I'm not trolling, just trying to make sure you don't waste your time on something useless).~>Sins WDB 01:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Is there any point to your raised issue, other than just theorycrafting? --Riddle 02:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Shard has already made it clear that even though his GW account is banned he has other accounts he uses at times to play the game. Therefore, I am attempting to save time by suggesting the bcrats ignore thinking about preventing people speaking on behalf of shard. The reasons being they can't stop him from changing his dynamic or static IP and posting anyways. Due to the fact that he still has methods to access GW and uses them, I am applying this to his posting on the wiki, which he seems more passionate about. Since he (and everyone else on the internet) has methods of posting on the wiki pages in question without anyone being able to prove it, my point is that it's a waste of time to even put thought into whether or not a statement about people speaking on behalf of him should be considered. I don't understand how my original statement drew out all this out. I regret trying (and failing) to bring my point to light.~>Sins WDB 02:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

What about only allowing permission requests to be relayed through sysops? -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 05:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Sins, stop trolling. And this discussion is redundant, Tanetris has already asked other people on Arena Net's staff about shard being allowed to use their talk pages. Erasculio 15:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Sins, on the Wiki, when banned (he has been banned before!!!) he abided by it and didn't use socks or IPs, so yeah. Poor logic there. DarkNecrid 21:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) 145 is correct. My hope with this going to ArbComm was not to deal with my page; it was to deal with a contributor who has presented a body of inappropriate posts and who shows little likelihood of amending that sort of behavior. While Misery is correct -- the point of the ArbComm is not to please me -- I have to say I'm not at all comfortable with the way this is heading. I sense a lack of resolution in dealing with a very real and very-frequently-repeated issue. If I read this properly, the only restriction might be to stay off my page? That's not the point, not by a longshot. -- Gaile 16:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Wait ... so if I give a kid a lollipop, it's still not ok to go ahead and rob a bank?? (for those with reading comprehension problems, I suggest looking up the word allegory) Ghosst • Talk •

Gaile, have a look up one topic, They are looking at doing more than keeping Shard off just your page. — Jon Lupen 16:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Personally Gaile, I think sysops could do more to prevent those kinds of actions, but anything that happens here is up to Gordon, Tanetris and Brains. If they want to specify something about Shard and libel, that's their call, but I suspect he will mostly shut up about it anyway if he isn't talking directly to you. Misery 22:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

LoL... something tells me this hunt is far from over. Hell, we're not even to the sequel yet. Also to everyone above, I believe the term you're looking for is "Polarizing Effect"...but accusing people of having polarizing effects (like Sins there) could also be Personal Attacks if you have no evidence at all that their comments were premeditated in order to generate disruption. --ilr 04:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

this wiki link if you'd like to better understand my original point and/or my postings in general.~>Sins WDB 04:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Disruption that isn't pre-meditated is still disruption, just like non-pre-meditated murder is still murder. Also, from what I've been able to tell, this is far from a witch hunt. This is closer to the lines of dealing with an inner-city gang leader. ··· cedave 17:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

@Gaile: If you take a look at the bureaucrat discussion section, you can find the currently proposed ruling that we're working on in italics. While not finalized, do note that it goes much further than just keeping him off your talk page, and has consequences for similar posting anywhere on the wiki. If you still have concerns that aren't covered by that, I encourage you to give us further input. If you think we're overlooking something, if there's some point you feel we haven't addressed or haven't addressed strongly enough, tell us. While I can't promise your word will translate directly into the final ruling, we're here to consider the needs of the entire wiki, including you. - Tanetris 06:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Where is the evidence that Shard has done anything wrong? So far, this case is lacking evidence, so I have added the section below to help organize any evidence against Shard. Loves to Sync 17:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Is the Evidence In Defense of Shard section really going to do anything besides provide biased and/or circumstantial evidence that his attacks were justified in some way? I'm pretty sure the only section that might be needed would be the evidence of his violations, much like in a criminal case - only the prosecution really presents any evidence that isn't testimony. Not to mention, doesn't the arbitration page list most of the evidence? ··· cedave 17:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Evidence that User:Shard has violated GWW policies and direct counterpoints thereof

1. Insinuation that Arenanet employees have IQ lower than a chair, violation of GWW:NPA. Misery 17:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
2. Threats including implied legal action, violation of GWW:NPA. Misery 17:58, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
3. Not a direct violation per se, but libel against Starcraft. Misery 18:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
4. Libel against White Wasabi. Misery 18:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Just wanted to add quickly

It's nothing personal Shard, I don't think anything I added to the "evidence" section will change the bureaucrats decision one way or the other, but I am sick and tired of people on both sides throwing comments around with no diffs linked. You actually have to go back pretty far to see Shard directly breaking policies, those are things he has already been banned for. This isn't really about Shard directly breaking policies, if it were, the sysops would have already dealt with it. Looking through for evidence, there are also plenty of links, even on Gaile or Regina's pages, of Shard being helpful with no aggression at all. I believe this is why the bureaucrats presiding over this case are taking the approach they have. The major issue here is the diruption and perceived harassment, which are things Shard has even partially admitted to. Whether allegations Shard makes are true or not, the place for them is not on this wiki. I wish you luck Shard, I'm a little upset I couldn't find your retarded zoo-monkey comment, I liked that one. Misery 18:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

"Looking through for evidence, there are also plenty of links, even on Gaile or Regina's pages, of Shard being helpful with no aggression at all." Post us some links to that then as counter evidence, since it has been requested. — Jon Lupen 18:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Except it's actually mostly irrelevant, not being a dick occasionally doesn't excuse being a dick. But if you want to post them, they are actually relatively near the top. For example he was criticising people for attacking various Anet staff over the lag problems. Misery 18:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Fair point. — Jon Lupen 18:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the zoo monkey thing was in a previous edition of my first dev update. Can't quite remember. I think the Bcrats already have in their mind what they want to do, they're just deciding on a ban length. ~Shard 20:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Just my 2 cents: Shard does not play well with others. That's his style and he admits it works for him. The problem is, I don't think he realizes that it may not work for others, to the point that they choose not to 'play' with him. In the case of the ANET banning him from the game, they can choose more than not playing with him, but instead to take the playground away from him. I would say the same could be true of Wiki. Whether a violation occurred to justify or not to justify a banning in the game or in Wiki, I simply suggest to Shard that he re-evaluate how he comes across to people in his posts, or else face the possibility of the 'playground' being off limits to him. His userpage alone is almost completely one long insult of the game and of people, and I doubt I would see any less in other posts he's made elsewhere--209.194.208.116 22:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I've seen Shard play nice with others before. — Jon Lupen 22:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

And Hitler once kissed a puppy. I'm sure Shard is capable of playing well with others. Perhaps he just needs to do it more often and in a more courteous manner. I'm just sayin'--24.92.116.83 23:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I get along fine with people who aren't full of shit. ~Shard 22:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

See, maybe those are the kinds of comments you want to avoid. Just saying. Misery 22:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Problem is, you eventually have to deal with people who is "full of shit" (from your perspective), and when that happends you find that they are not willing to deal with you at all. You kinda have to expect reciprocity when dealing with people, otherwise you find they are not willing to go "beyond their jobs" with you.--Fighterdoken 23:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Good call, set precedent to ban people just b/c ya don't like their personality. --ilr 23:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

"We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone." The precedent is already there in many businesses and organizations. It's the same situation as if you had someone in your house whose personality you didn't like. You have the right to ask them to leave. Wiki is no different. It's made public by those who operate the site, but it is not your right to be able to use it. It is a privilege.--24.92.116.83 23:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

That's a lot of fallacy for one post. -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 23:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Getting along with people also includes being able to accept when you don't agree with them, and being gracious about it in the end. Getting along with people who "aren't full of shit" only means that you can't accept opinions or feelings that don't reflect your own thoughts.--Babyduck 00:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

You would first have to prove why it would matter - to Shard, at the very least, but even in general. Who cares? Not everyone is a snuggly fluffy bunny. If you can't get along with him, stay away from him. -Auron 00:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

There's a very big difference between disagreeing with someone who knows what they're talking about and not liking someone because they're full of it. I disagree with Auron all the time, but he's awesome. ~Shard 00:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Nobody is saying you have to be some snuggly fluffy bunny. But there are ways to disagree, without outright telling someone that they are "full of shit" and name calling. As for the statement; 'if you can't get along with him, stay away from him'; the same can be said of him. If he doesn't like Gaile, or other Anet employees, or anyone, he should just stay away from them. If he chooses not to, then he should try to keep it civil, or face further criticism, complaints, and if need be, bannings. This is a lesson for life, not just for Wiki. You may think your boss is 'full of shit' but in order to keep your job, you're more than likely going to be civil, or avoid him as much as possible, correct?--24.92.116.83 01:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I have to prove why it matters? That says alot right there, I'm not the one who is under the microscope so to speak. It should matter to him because he is the one who this arbitration is all about. He has good ideas, I read just about all of his blogs, but the good points are lost in all the mud slinging. I don't say that to be mean, all i'm saying is that we can disagree without the anger and name calling. It's healthy to disagree right? Thats why people love to debate or blog as the case may be, myself included. However, who wants to blog when the outcome is rudeness. If someone came up to Shard and argued that the Sun really does revolve around the earth then I would totally understand his "full of shit" comment. Though I still wouldn't be so harsh in my disagreement. When you are debating an opinion though, who is anyone to say that opinion is grossly incorrect. --Babyduck 01:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

There are plenty of times when opinions are grossly incorrect - pretty much every time they're formed without full knowledge of the situation or scenario, for example. And, when trying to talk about game balance and the quality of NCsoft support, you run into plenty of people on par with the "sun revolves around the earth" comment. I'm not excusing Shard for the myriad of shit he's done, particularly at Gaile, but several of his comments were just reactions to the general ignorance of those around him. -Auron 02:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you Auron, when you are fighting someone with a solid fact, their opinion can be grossly incorrect. However, when you are arguing an opinion with an opinion of your own then it's just that opinion vs opinion. Neither one can be correct nor incorrect. It's good to disagree and you are entitled to your opinion just as much as the other person is entitled to theirs. Like I said before, Shard has some good ideas and just maybe some bloggers and even the devs would have given greater consideration to his opinions if they hadn't been put off by his negative commentary such as "fail less" and his inability to consider that maybe some of his opinions lack merit. --Babyduck 03:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention that even if Shard can prove someone's opinion to be wrong, or even polar opposites of the general opinion of several others, he doesn't have to reply with an attack in the way that he does. Accept that the other person has the right to an opinion, and don't call them 'ignorant' or a 'retard' or to 'fail less' simply because that opinion doesn't agree with you. That's where you lessen the value of your own opinions with verbal abuse.--24.92.116.83 03:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

IMO, no one has the right to be a complete idiot, but I'm not a bureaucrat. -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 04:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Then you should try harder not to be Armond :P (and for all you that can't tell, that IS a joke) -- Wyn talk 04:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I think you all are getting sidetracked on this, Gaile is not complaining that Shard does not "get along with others." This wiki is full of rude people, of which Shard is only one. If one actually bothers to read Gaile's complaint, it is easy to see that she is more concerned with a user who has repeatedly used the wiki space to denounce and accuse both players and ANet employees of breaking the rules and getting away with it. Whether or not such accusation are true is not the point, what is the point is that the wiki is not the place for such discussions. It doesn't matter if those discussions occur on a dev talk page or anywhere else in the wiki, it just simply doesn't belong in the wiki at all. This is not a civility issue, it is a defamation issue. (Satanael 15:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC))

Surely for it to be defamation it has to be false? I'm not taking sides here, as I don't know the validity of it either way and now do i wish to know. What the key issue here is, is that basically he's hounded Gaile about these issues. The subject matter isn't the major thing, it's the continued hounding of a certain users which could equate to harassment. Shard himself admits he's conducted himself poorly in regards to this, so I don't see why we have to keep on relabelling what is actually being debated, when it is so straight forward. It's not about if this is the place for such debate, it's really about is continually posting on a persons page calling them, or the company they represent, corrupt enough to signify a breach of our policies. IMHO it is and again Shard admits this. I personally also don't see the point in blocking him. While Shard is direct and can and has been downright offensive and rude, he is also a positive force on this wiki with alot of what he does and I would be saddened to see him go. A simple block on posting on anet employees pages and anything directly relating to Anet itself should be enough. Combined with a "revert on sight" notice if he breaks these limits and the imposition of a full on ban if he continues to break them. That should allow Shard to focus his energies in a more positive manner on the wiki, while keeping his personal grievances with them off the wiki. Thus in conclusion I'm quite happy with how the BC discussion is proceeding. -- Salome 15:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't necessarily have to be false to be defamation, there are still false light laws, though even if some brain-dead moron decided to take Shard to court over internet defamation (lol), it'd never fall under that category either. Really, though, people should stop tossing around terms like "defamation" and "libel" and what have you when they have no idea of what they mean. --Jette 15:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that, but I am well aware of what "defamation" and "libel" mean, I work for trial attorneys, am currently in law school, and part of what we do is take people to court for all kinds of things, including defemation claims.

Whether or not a statement is false in order to be defamation is a little bit complicated, because it all comes down to what needs to be proven. If the defamer proves the statement is true, then it is not really defemation. But the defamee does not have to prove a defaming statement is false in order for the defamer to be punished. Do you see the difference? For example, when Jerry Falwell accused Larry Flynt of defamation because Flynt's magazine said Falwell had sex with his mother, Falwell did not have to prove that he had never had sex with his mother. However, in order for Flynt to not be punished for defaming Falwell, Flynt could either prove that what he said about Falwell was true, in which case he was being a reporter, or he could claim (as he did) that it was all a joke, and because Falwell was a public figure, jokes at his expense are okay.

But that's in the US legal system, this wiki's rules are different. What I meant by "Whether or not such accusation are true is not the point..." was to say that this wiki just isn't the place for discussing decisions made by Support with regard to specific players in the game. It would be like saying I can legally accuse anyone I want in a newspaper so long as the newspaper agrees it's true. In that case, the newspaper does not get to decide what is true and what is not, only the courts do. In this case, the wiki does not get to decide whether or not these accusations are true, only Support does. My understanding is that they already have... (Satanael 16:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC))

I wasn't referring to you. And I already knew that. The point remains the same, though; anyone expecting everyone to play fair and be nice all the time and make sure absolutely everything they post is absolutely 100% true no matter what is fooling themself. I'm not going to say that gives Shard permission to post crap about people without hard evidence, but it's a wiki MMO, ffs. We're sponsoring a community commonly regarded as being only a step above MySpace camwhores and /b/ kiddies in terms of intelligence and maturity, you need to cut people some slack, especially when said people have been putting up with what was once a really good came going down the shitter for 3 years without any sign of improvement, or even the common decency to admit mistakes were made.

I'm going to stop here, because covering the principal's office in defamatory ranting would be "inappropriate." --Jette 16:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Gaile's complaints may have triggered the ArbCom, but now that it's started, no one really cares about them anymore. This isn't a "please Gaile" situation, it's a "get Shard to shape up" situation. 99.142.46.39 16:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Santanael makes some good points. I'm not sure how all this applies to whether Shard violated wiki rules or not though. What he's said about wasabi and Fall I can't really see is in direct violation of wiki policy. I'm not saying what he said was all fine and dandy, maybe the NPA policy needs to be updated or something, or maybe i'm just not looking @ the right place. Plus, Fall and wasabi have left the wiki a while ago anyway. I'm not sure it makes a difference, or if it really matters at all, but thats just something i noticed. If support has to look into Shard's claims, does support's ruling have any influence on wiki ruling? I'm just posting this cuz I'm not sure of the rules, and maybe other ppl need to be informed as well before they make any accusations. --adrin 16:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I think these kinds of statements may have had something to do with Wasabi leaving iirc. Shard wasn't involved at the time. Misery 16:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Then it should have taken exactly five minutes to finish. Let me show you what this should have been:

Gaile: bla bla bla he's mean bla bla libel bla

Shard: bla bla game sucks bla incompetence bla bla

Bureaucrats: Shard, stop trolling Gaile or you're banned.

Shard: k'

See how simple that is? I don't understand why everybody has to go and make a long-ass wall of text "arbitration committee," as if intelligent adults couldn't just stop screwing around with each other without the need for one. I think Shard knew he screwed up before this whole comedy started, and I think Gaile knew pretty much how it would end when she requested it. This could have been avoided with a polite conversation on someone's talk page, but nooo, somebody wanted attention. --Jette 16:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Polite conversations have been tried, and tried, and tried, and tried, and tried yet again, by multiple people, same goes for bans. Also, look back, and look beyond Gaile's page. — Jon Lupen 16:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with Jette. If Shard suspects player x of breaking the EULA, report it, but keep that between you and support, and accept their judgement as law, because for all intents and purposes in the game, Anet Support decisions are law. I'd equate it with the U.S. supreme court in that their ruling on a case is pretty much the final stop for that case. One difference is that as for the game, the governing body is not really a democracy, but more of a dictatorship, such that when ANET chooses to make a change in the game, or chooses to ban or not to ban, it does it, without a vote from the majority of players approving that change. However for the most part, I do think that ANET does try to incorporate 'some democracy' in their decisions, by listened to complaints and suggestions. In the end though, if ANET says 'this is how it's going to be' or 'this person didn't violate policy' or 'the game servers will be shut down permanently' then that is what will happen, and claiming that ANET violated this, or an ANET employee violated that, etc. would be akin to telling the owner of the company you work for that he/she is an idiot and running the business poorly. He/she might take the insult and use it constructively or not, or he/she might just fire you on the spot. So long as the owner is not violating national or local laws in his business practices, then you really have no recourse to fight any decision he makes. ANET is the same. If they break their own rules, who do they answer to? Nobody. If they break the law of the country, then that's a different story. If that has happened, then by all means take them to court, but don't try to defame them, their players, or their game, because you don't like that they made the rules, can change the rules, and can break the rules if they choose to do so. You may not like it, so if that is the case, I recommend you stop playing, stop blogging about it and stop trying to defame real people because that is where it can be treated as breaking the law, such that you can be sued for real damages. As a final note, I see that the section for evidence in defense of Shard's actions is still blank. I wonder why.--209.194.208.116 17:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Just to be clear, there is the possibility that, should Shard continue to harass ArenaNet personnel, legal action may be taken. Harrassment is criminal, does apply to the internet, and can be proven, even on wikis. I'm sure this has been avoided thus far for fairly obvious reasons, but this isn't a matter which can be simply laughed off. It's quite similar to someone calling another person constantly and telling them how terrible of a person he or she is. ··· danny 17:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

No, almost all of what you've just said is in direct opposition to what I said and have been saying. Learn to reading comprehension. --Jette 17:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

My apologies, it was Satanael, not you that I was agreeing with. ...was to say that this wiki just isn't the place for discussing decisions made by Support with regard to specific players in the game Regardless, you cannot deny that ANET is not a democracy, although they do try to take suggestions and constructive critism and apply it to the game. Wouldn't you, if you had programmed the game yourself? I know I would run "My" game, however "I" chose to run it, and I'd be damned if I would let anyone defame my character just because I chose to do things 'my' way.--209.194.208.116 18:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but if people pointed out that your game had bugs that have been in the game for over 4 years, you'd have people flaming you too --adrin 18:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Probably. But defaming one's character, and complaining about the error's one has made in their programming are two different things. Bugs happen in programming...that's life. The fact that the bug has existed for so long is irrelevant, and to the best of my knowledge, does not prevent the game from functioning, or have an effect on 99.9% of the rest of the game. The word for that is 'minor'. Look at it this way. If your boss fired you because you made one tiny mistake (and he most likely could) that had an insignificant effect on the business, but then attempted to get you blacklisted with other company's because of that minor mistake by defaming your character, that would would certainly be a vilolation of law, or at the very least, a violation of what is morally justified, depending on where you live, of course.--209.194.208.116 18:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

[Golden Gates bug]does not prevent the game from functioning uh yeah it does, it can affect the outcome of a match if a ranger is on one side of an open gate and can't interrupt skills because of a bug --adrin 18:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Trust me, i'm not saying defamation and harassment of anet employees is ok, come on now. i'm just pointing out that there are reasons why people get upset like this. i'm justifying shard's reasoning, not his actions --adrin 18:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh by no means am I saying he doesn't have the right to not be frustrated with a bug not having been fixed as of yet, so yeah his reasoning for writing flamers is understandable. Nevertheless, one should use better judgement to control one's actions. Take a road rage incident. Most people could agree that when someone cuts you off, you'd like to chase him down and punch him in the face. That's understandable and forgivable. But if you actually go and punch him in the face, then all forgiveness goes out the window. It's made even worse that his actions relate to a game...something that should be so insignificantto you, that issues like a minor bug should never drive you to name calling or defamation of someone's character. Do it in private or in your mind if you have to, but don't bring those feelings out in public unless you're in some kind of group therapy, or unless you control your tone and finger pointing. If all else fails, play something else and move on with your life.--209.194.208.116 20:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Irrelevant discussion is irrelevant. ~Shard 21:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

As it is irrelevant to complain about a game, game company, game employees, and game players not meeting with your standards or approval. It is also irrelevant as to whether you are allowed to play this game or comment on wiki about it. It's about time you realize that you don't own the game company, therefore you're in no position to demand changes. You may make your suggestions and recommendations, as well as, complain about the game or EULA violations. But don't be surprised or upset if things don't go the way you want them to. Anet provides you with a form of entertainment, but is not obligated to do that or to make changes just because you want them to. You're 'renting' fun for the limited time that you feel that it is fun. Once the fun is over for you, move on. You wouldn't watch a movie 5 times until you don't like it anymore, then continue to go out and watch the same movie over and over again, do you? You certainly wouldn't email or blog constantly about how the director of the movie is an idiot because of that one movie, would you? If you answer yes, then you need to re-evaluate your life.--209.194.208.116 21:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I had trouble getting through that. Could you rewrite it without the fallacies? Thanks. ~Shard 21:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

No need to as your inability to understand is your problem.--209.194.208.116 21:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Off-topic: aNet biasly bans people. Will they ever admit it? No. It's their game, how they want to go about and ban/unban people is their business whether it's unfair or not. I have countless screen shots of White Wasabi saying he had his suspension removed by Gaile Gray. Will Gaile ever admit it? No. There's nothing we can do about it, sadly. It's their turf... We honestly have very little influence in the matter when it comes to issues like these.

On-topic: Shard is a nice guy. He may come off as "a dick", or whatever. But, he does apply logic for the most part and is a good contributor to this wiki. Sure, he can post things a little differently from what he does, but, as stated above, wiki is barely one step higher from that vile, cam-whore infested, immature "ROFLCOPTER I'M T3H C00L P0S3R" sad excuse of a website by the name of "myspace". :\ --66.190.80.193 21:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... Telling someone "you need to re-evaluate your life" ... Isn't that a direct NPA? .... 209, you should tone it down. It's because of comments like yours that this ArbCom has turned to somewhat of a joke. :\ --66.190.80.193 21:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, this arb com is not a joke, some of the discussion here is. The bureaucrats have been presented with the issues, and evidence, and are currently just deciding on how far they wish to take their injunction regarding Shard's future participation on the wiki. This is ALL about Shard's behavior within this community. It has nothing to nothing to do with Anet's or anyone else's. Very little of this current discussion is going to affect the outcome. -- Wyn talk 22:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I actually agree with that, and never once thought my input would have any effect one way or the other on the arbitration, and wouldn't care if it did or did not have an effect. I conducted my discussions primarily because I am in awe as to why Shard or anyone would continue to post negative comments, alleged defamation statements, and other alleged insults on Wiki about how 'GW sucks', when his biggest impact on the game and the company is merely to stop playing, not posting, and not buying future products from ANET. Personally I feel that he is just wasting the Arb Com's time, and perhaps I am too. At least I still think that parts of the game are still fun, and appreciate any effort by ANET to keep the game going, even if those changes may not be to my liking. Enough said I think.--209.194.208.116 22:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

/facepalm

So many bad arguments. It's horrifying. Not to mention, none of it matters in the least. ··· Danny Pew Pew 22:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

3/10. Also, read your own link, numbnuts. If you look hard enough, virtually any argument can be found to be fallacious. Furthermore, you are contributing nothing relevant, useful, or even entertaining the topic at hand, please to be GTFO. --Jette 22:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

cbf. ;o ··· Danny Pew Pew 22:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

True or False: Part of Gailes claims (and therefore case) hinges on the case that Shard should be banned for Defamation and that Anet is not in anyway guilty of Collusion with players suspected of breaking the EULA? How were those issues separated by the Bcrats? ...Is it B/c the Wiki is not an enforcement Arm or Anet? ...Well it would appear that the filing of this Arbitration is b/c Gaile expects full punishment on the basis of Defamation which they can only offer circumstantial evidence against. This is just like if CCP had demanded their EVE Wiki and fansite Forums Admins ban anyone who was accusing them of being accessories to Cheating. Therefore any additional punishments against Shard involved in this case will have the direct appearance of the Wiki handing out punishment on the behalf of Anet itself. I think the Bcrats are fully aware of this and are only "testing the limits" of how much they can actually punish Shard. In the long run, Gaile is ultimately getting her request so I don't see why the "we hate Shard" Club is continuing to argue for more and immediate actions... Anyone? --ilr 03:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

What the hell are you even talking about? I got lost around "Arm or Anet." -Auron 03:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) You are just wrong ilr. This is not about Gaile, or even Anet for that matter. It's Shard's impact on this community based on how he behaves. The fact that he is continually causing turmoil because of his campaign of ArenaNet hate is something that the sysops have tried to moderate, but with his continual harassment of ArenaNet staff (not just Gaile) and his constant rant posting in his and other's userspaces, he has had a polarizing affect on this community which makes it difficult if not impossible at times to focus on the purpose of this wiki which is to document Guild Wars. If he has issues with ArenaNet and the way they manage their game, or actions taken against players, he should take those issues up with them via email, or other private communication, rather than using this wiki as his soapbox. He's been told that many times, but has refused to comply with those requests, choosing instead the actions that have lead him to this arb com. -- Wyn talk 03:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

On the other hand, the whole "defamation" issue should not be considered by the bureaucrats at all, simply because on this wiki Gaile's word means no more than Shard's word. Frankly, Wasabi et al have a poor reputation without Shard's help, and his statements cannot be called defamation when they cannot be proven to be false. 99.142.46.39 03:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Just because the meaning of words doesn't matter, does not give Shard the right to harass Gaile, or Anet. It's against policy, and he has been warned so this should clearly be considered as a case. —Rein 03:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

"his statements cannot be called defamation when they cannot be proven to be false." Epic fail. /seppuku (Satanael 08:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC))

Ilr, I believe that we (the admins) should be extremely skeptical of all off-wiki evidence and all claims regarding off-wiki events. IMO, in order to perform its' job effectively, the arbitration committee must be reasonably unbiased, and must be perceived as being reasonably unbiased, I think we'd need to be crazy to risk our credibility by playing favorites, especially with ArenaNet, if they disagree with the sysops and arbitration committee and believe it's really important to ban someone, they can do it themselves since they're the ones who are ultimately in charge of the wiki. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 08:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Right, that's basically what I said... plus the Trap Card's already in the deck, everyone can chill and go home now. LoL. --ilr 09:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

lol ilr, just gtfo and take your bullshit with you. --Cursed Angel 15:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

speaking of which, how was your last Ban? Sounds like you're hungry for more. I gotta admit, I really envy that. I feel like I've turned into such a pussy by not telling everyone exactly what I think of them like you do. --ilr 21:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

lolgww. ··· Danny Pew Pew 16:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

What about

the existing stuff? The current wording "Shard is prohibited from making inflammatory posts regarding (...) players allegedly receiving favoritism" doesn't allow it, right? — Why 13:55, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Two cents: I'm going to assume that the ruling isn't retroactive, due to the vast amount of stuff that people would have to find and undo in order to comply with the ruling. Perhaps if he were to edit the section (read:the parts with accusations), then that might be grounds for whatever punishment occurs. --Riddle 14:19, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Yea, I thought as much. Perhaps it'd be an idea to tell him to remove such thingies from his userspace though (and by that I do not mean his talk pages). Just something that crossed my mind, I'm not really following this ArbCom. — Why 14:23, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

In two words: sysop discretion. No one's being asked nor expected to dig out and remove every old negative post of Shard's from every talk page archive, but by the same token sysops aren't restricted from taking something down just because the posting date is before the ArbComm ruling. - Tanetris 04:22, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see how anything in my userspace has ever caused problems or why any of it should be touched because of this. ~Shard 04:36, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure you're a bit biased in this case, Shard. Sysop discretion. ··· Danny Pew Pew 16:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Then most sysops are biased :/ TBH if its userspace and it doesn't harm anyone (like a 1000 ways to say how fat someone in the anet staff is) I don't know why they SHOULD do it Lilondra *poke* 16:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Most sysops are biased. It happens because we're human and we live in the real world. However, sysops are also far less biased than most users or they wouldn't be sysops. ··· Danny Pew Pew 16:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I was referring to the fact that shard doesn't have a sysop fanclub (yay understatement).TBH most sysops are robotlike OoLilondra *poke* 18:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I would rather have robot sysops than sysops that wear their emotions on their sleeves and are easily ruled by them. — Jon Lupen 18:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Again I wasn't referring to that as a bad thing Lilondra *poke* 18:51, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

*shrugs* — Jon Lupen 18:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)