Guild Wars Wiki talk:Arbitration committee/2009-12-27-User:Wynthyst

Archive

---

• /archive

I will try to expand later, if necessary. - Mini Me talk 18:58, 27 December 2009

I have archived most of the sections here that were debating whether or not the case should be accepted since it now has been. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 02:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Trolling

Among the issues listed on the project page and linked in the now archived discussion, this is the one incident that stands out, that had me sitting in front of my computer speechless when I first read it. I just extensively re-read it just now, and it does not look one bit better. What happened?

• Lacky decided to create several new accounts, named Chris Malone and differently spelled variants of it.
• A few minutes later, Wynthyst arrives, asking "How many usernames do you plan to redirect here? Is this really necessary?"
• After a few more minutes, the first of several accounts made explicitly to troll the Chris Malone talk page shows up
• 2 minutes after that, Wyn warns Lacky that "In case you haven't figured it out yet, the absolutely absurd attracts trolls like nothing else....."
• Finally, the talk page is overrun by troll accounts. The trolling was obviously coordinated (given its speed, I suspect via a link to the talk page in IRC or IMs).
• Lacky reacts by archiving the talk page, which is reverted by several users
• Wyn again posts: "(...) You know what they say,ignore a troll long enough and he (or she) will go away. Archiving every two minutes is just not productive and also makes it hard to follow the conversation."

• Now, the IRC log reveals, that Wyn is one of the people who created the troll accounts: "[2009-12-26 04:34:38] <Wyn> we trolled him pretty hard that night", "[2009-12-26 04:34:55] <Wyn> I still have one of the Lacky troll clones".

So, here we have a sysop, creating a sock puppet to troll a users talk page, likely coordinating the trolling with other users, who at the same time advises the user from her main account to endure the trolling and that his actions against the trolling are "just not productive and also make(s) it hard to follow the conversation". I really can't find adequate words to describe this.

That not a single person in IRC disapproved of this (other than one person stating the troll user name he would have liked to use in that night if present) is also shocking. In my opinion, Wyn needs to be stripped of her sysop status for this action alone, disregarding everything else. --Xeeron 18:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm very tempted to say welcome to GWW or something, but that's the way Wyn has been for a while. The fact that it's just now getting recognition is pretty much awesomesauce. Karate Jesus 18:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

lolIRCabal. ··· Danny Pew Pew 18:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, troll socking is something of a national pastime for the IRCabal. elix Omni 19:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Do we know the name of the sock account? Wyn mentioned in the IRC log you linked that I might have blocked it, but I can't find it in my logs (I was a bureaucrat then anyway). The only two that were blocked were Christofer Malone (talk • contribs • logs • block log) (three days for 1RR) and Ima Vandalizin Ur Talk (talk • contribs • logs • block log) (infinite for disruption), which were blocked by Wyn herself. -- pling 19:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Can't you guys just CheckUser it? I'm not sure who all around here gets those rights. ··· Danny Pew Pew 19:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The checkuser logs only go back to November. We could try, but I doubt she's since logged into the sock. (Sysops and bureaucrats can checkuser.) -- pling 19:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Can't you just ask her? She's supposed to comply, right? Karate Jesus 19:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

If you're asking which account is Wyn's sock name, she told me in-game. I'm pretty sure it's LaCkY (talk • contribs • logs • block log). I think also remember posting on her socks talk page saying "Hey Wyn", however I don't know which one that was on. I shall attempt to find it though. She may have deleted the page however. -- Lacky 07:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

A discussion of the case

One of the problems I have with this arbcomm case is that I think it is obvious that a problem exists, it has been brought up multiple times by different people, but a solution is far from obvious. I still think that on the balance, Wynthyst being a sysop is more beneficial to the wiki than her not being a sysop, but I do not think that her behaviour is always appropriate.

Most of the attempts to curb Wynthyst's undesirable behaviours have been ineffective. I don't believe she will receive a "wake up call" and magically change the way she acts, not from an RfR, not from a temporary block, not from undergoing arbitration. It does not seem consistent with her personality. Some people have suggested that her rights could be removed "temporarily" and she could go through another RfA when she "cools down" or something. Realistically, I do not see that ever happening.

I believe the best way that these problems could be solved would be by actions by Wynthyst herself. I suspect many possible rulings from arbitration would only serve to antagonise her, which isn't to say that nothing should be done, but rather that the full consequences need to be considered beforehand.

My suggestions for Wynthyst would include:

• Stop helping people who you dislike or are annoyed with. You are not obligated to help everyone on this wiki and I have seen comments in the past suggesting that one reason you blow up disproportionately is because while dealing with someone's problem, they do something else to irritate you.
• If a task starts to get to you, just stop. The wiki isn't going to fall apart because you didn't compile a list of historical guilds for archiving right this moment. You probably take on too many tasks regularly. The risk of burning out is something that every good sysop needs to be aware of. A burnt out sysop does far more damage than good.
• If you are feeling annoyed or angry about a situation, ask someone else to deal with it. Getting angry with someone blurs the lines as to what is appropriate and inappropriate very quickly.
• I'd really suggest monitoring your own mood, being honest with yourself, and realising when you need to step back and do something else for a while.

Talking about a few of the things presented as evidence, if you look at the Elric Coy incident, Wynthyst was actually being reasonable for a very long period with Elric being hostile from the start. I see nothing wrong with the change in attitude after being so received and responded to for an extended period. A contrasting example is the Lacky noticeboard incident. Lacky made a mistake, he should have been more specific and said "The email address has been removed from the page, but a sysop is still required to remove it from the history", or something similar. Wynthyst should likewise have been more specific and less aggressive in her response. That was a disproportionate response, likely due to past encounters between the two.

One last thing I want to touch on is that a lot of this is only coming up because it is Wynthyst and what people expect from her and because she is a sysop. Taking away Wynthyst's sysop status would not magically make her nice to everyone. Generally speaking, her bad behaviour has had nothing to do with her sysop status, apart from a couple of occasions where she essentially told someone that if they ever stepped an inch out of line they would be banned due to being placed on her "shit list".

I'm open for suggestions on how people think these problems could be alleviated without being exacerbated. Misery 16:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

lol, rickrolls on the internet. -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 17:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The consensus seems to be that Wyn is incredibly valued and a positive for the wiki for 70-90% of her contributions. Additionally, it seems that the only problematic edits from Wyn occur when she is hostile. I suggest an ArbComm ruling that recommends exactly those bullet points above, with the additional recommendation to sysops for a 1-day block in any case where Wyn shows hostility that is detrimental to the wiki, with the expectation that the blocking sysop will resolve the situation that Wyn was involved in that lead to the block (assuming it's a sysop matter at all).

One could supplement this with a limit on the number of these blocks before Wyn automatically loses her sysop status, if that's a serious concern. From my perspective, I don't think it should be -- ignoring the sockpupptry/trolling, which your post doesn't bring up and I'm assuming you don't consider relevant.

—Tanaric 17:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The very fact that this issue has been brought up so many times shows how big of a problem it is. I understand that Wyn is a vital part of the wiki and most of the time she contributes positively. However, because of this she has been able to troll the wiki unmercifully at times without consequence. In my opinion, the only option to end this would be for her to lose her sysop status. Anything else would just be a cause for her to think that she got off easily, and as both of you know, that is unwarranted in this situation.

And although she does a lot of good for the wiki, if she were to lose her sysop status it's not as if none of the other sysops would do the things she did. There will be void, that's a given, but we've had several RfAs lately for people who could easily fill that void (not that the current sysops couldn't already). And Wyn could always continue to do many of the things she does, namely - helping users with signatures, guild page designs, etc. - that don't require sysop tools.

One other thing. She could always have the chance to re-RfA in the future and I have no doubt that if she kept her head out of her ass she would re-earn adminship. All I'm suggesting is that her actions will not stop w/o the loss of her sysophood, and that may result in her being a better admin in the future (if she's re-elected).

After all, the old maxim is that "you never know what you have until you lose it". Maybe it's time she learned there are repercussions to her actions here. Karate Jesus 17:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

It does sound an awful lot like most of the project Wyn has undertaken in the past do not require sysop tools, which makes me question just how necessary it is that she continue to possess them. However, were the rest of the current admin staff to begin treating Wyn like a regular user, which sysops are according to policy, that could resolve the situation alone. It is surprising to me that Wyn's regular method of resolution - ban threats - has not been addressed previously, considering just how destructive it really is. I believe either it is this sort of action, specifically, that needs to be addressed. The best ways to check abuse of a tool is to either remove that tool or act when that tool is abused, and either one seems fitting.

Any overly aggressive tendencies in regular discussion are hardly anything to worry about. If I may cite Auron as an example, violations of NPA in discussions are hardly addressed on this wiki unless they are direct attacks, let alone antisocial dispositions. If Wyn wants to tell a user to fuck off and stop being bad because that user was being an asshat, I see no problem. I only see an issue arise when and if she adds "or I'll ban you." ··· Danny Pew Pew 19:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

You speak as if threatening to ban an user were a bad thing; it isn't. When a sysop warns a disruptive user to change his behavior or be banned, he/she is being nice; simply banning the user with no warning would have worked, too. Considering how users have been blocked for "disruption: trolling, personal attacks, zzz", telling someone who's so much of an asshat to the point of being disruptive to the wiki to stop or be banned is fully within the role of a sysop.

The problem only arises when Wynthyst threatens to ban an user not because he has been truly disruptive, but thanks to how she has been annoyed by that user. The distinction is not always an obvious one, however, and I believe it to be lost to users who don't realize what disrupting the wiki means.

Which brings us to an interesting point: in the past, bureaucrats have asked for a section in the ArbComm's talk page reserved for discussion within the bureaucrats and only them, with other users being allowed to comment on a separate section. Considering how the decision lies with the bureaucrats, and we assume they have a more objective point of view (having been chosen bureaucrats and all), I believe that system is a good thing that could be implemented here. Erasculio 20:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) "Any overly aggressive tendencies in regular discussion are hardly anything to worry about." Quite the contrary.

"If Wyn wants to tell a user to fuck off and stop being bad because that user was being an asshat, I see no problem." The problem comes when the user is not trolling or being an asshat. Telling off a troll is permissible in almost any fashion, to a point. I've seen plenty of that from plenty of users. Telling off another user who is posting in good faith with good intentions is not. I'll cite myself and my lash-out against Auron on that. A while back I posted a light-hearted and good-natured (and non-disruptive) joke on Wyn's talk page, and was met with hostility. Not cool. — Jon Lupen 20:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

@Erasculio: When DE and I (or Tanetris if he decides to join) have something to discuss, such a section may be made, but it's still early now and we don't need it yet. I do actually want to hear what other people have to say for now. As for the trolling and sock puppetry, I'll address that briefly now. I don't have full facts yet, but who do you think "we" is? I have an inkling it involved people in the IRC channel and could have even involved other sysops, only the people who were there would know for sure. This kind of stuff probably happens more often than people realise and I see it more of a separate issue than something specific to Wynthyst and this arbitration, even though it doesn't look great. I'd appreciate if people brought it up either as a separate section on this talk page if they want to discuss the relevance to this case, or you can bring it to my talk page if you wish to discuss it in general. It could become a thing of the past now that we have checkuser installed. It's kind of a pain in the ass to proxy and most people can't be bothered for trivial trolling. Misery 21:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

@Karate Just to point out Wyn has now passed 2 RFA's and the wiki functions on the idea of community consensus. Getting an arbitration committee to usurp the power of the RFA itself would be in my opinion completely detrimental to the entire process of the wiki that we currently have set up and go against the main spirit of the wiki. Actually to be honest almost everything you said in your post I think lacks a thorough logical basis. You seem to believe that being a sysop is in some way a reward or in itself a nice thing to be, when in actual fact it is mostly a thankless job which is done simply because you care and are trusted to do it. @Misery I think your points have merit and are a good grounding, however I think a mandatory placing of a ban at anything which could be hostility would be detrimental and would undermine her basis as a sysop to the point of making her position untenable. What one sysop could consider hostile, another would not. (jesus i would be banning Auron all the time on those grounds). I think any such form of strict liability therefore needs alot of consideration so as to be as fair and non-restrictive as it can be. -- Salome 22:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

1. I know that she has passed two RfA's, but with the large following of dedicated users she has here that's not surprising. Tbh, that only gives more credibility to my idea. If she were to have her sysophood removed, it would almost be guaranteed that it would be restored, simply because of her fans.
2. Logical basis? Lol.
3. Whether or not admining is "nice thing to be" is opinion/perspective, not fact. I've personally found that it can be a bit of both over on PvX, and I would sincerely doubt that Wyn hasn't enjoyed at least a little bit of it. Her IRC comments would tend to agree. To addendum this, she does get a bit stressed out sometimes, but that's what spending 22 hours a day on the wiki will do to you. Karate Jesus 22:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

It is your point 1 which makes my point 2 valid. Why bother removing something which she could regain on a whim? Pointless exercise is pointless. Also in reference to your point 3, I suppose it is open to person points of view (for example i enjoy being a sysop due to the extra abilities it gives me to help the wiki) but it is also not a browny badge to be given to someone for being a good girl and I don't think we should be using it as such, which is kinda what you are suggesting. -- Salome 00:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

My point isn't that sysophood is a reward (/sigh). My point is that anything short of removing her sysop (when she was abusing the wiki) seems ridiculous. I mean...if you ban her for a week, so what? That's supposed to teach her that this kind of behavior is not acceptable? Please. Karate Jesus 00:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry but removing something that community consensus has said twice she should have is without merit imho, especially as you said she could just go and get it again easily. Do you think an arbitration removing her from sysophood in the face of community support would really go anyway to get any message across? Especially when that same community could easily usurp that ruling the day after and vote in favour of her a third time of becoming a sysop. (as you say their are many users who would vote for her again regardless of how she talks to people occasionally) So again I say your idea would be damaging as it would undermine the power of the arbitration process and undermine the election process. In addendum, I would also just like to point out that I personally don't see what possible good can actually come from this arbitration. Not trying to argue against it, just don't see what conclusions can come from it other than a "wyn please step back before snapping at people" type comment and beyond that it's just administrative threats. -- Salome 00:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Keep in mind, Salome, that IF the bureaucrats decide to remove Wyn's sysop status, they can also decide to reject any day-after RfA that may occur. Unless we have a second set of bureaucrats that I'm not aware of. elix Omni 00:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

^ that's more or less what I was thinking. Karate Jesus 00:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

They can indeed, but then that also would basically say "community consensus be damned", which somewhat flies in the face of every wiki that I've ever been on. -- Salome 01:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The "consensus" with Wyn has commonly been based on her little fan club. "Consensus" can be a very loose term around here.... Karate Jesus 01:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) In this particular situation, "community consensus" hasn't really gotten us anywhere. Which is pretty much the reason for any and all arbitrations. Keep in mind that this arbitration was not only brought up due to situations in the past, but current situations as well. So not everything can be placed on the last RfR. -- Wandering Traveler 01:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

(EC) The above is exactly why I think it would be better if the bureaucrats actually discussed it only among themselves. We will fill this page with circular arguments between Wynthyst's fanclub, who doesn't want anything done, and the trolls who know they could be banned any moment by Wyn, who don't want her to be a sysop anymore. Erasculio 01:20, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, I don't think I'm under imminent threat of ban by Wyn, nor would I care if I was. That has nothing at all to do with my reasoning for why her sysophood should be removed. As a matter of fact, I'm doing my best to be unbiased.

And as Misery said, the bcrats want user feedback on this issue. They can easily discuss these things amongst themselves on MSN or make a section to do that here later. Karate Jesus 01:28, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

(EC) @ karate When it comes to RFA's, 3:1 vote split = community consensus, regardless of how valid you think those votes are. That being said every RFA is a popularity contest of one degree or another.

@ WT, Actually its not normally community consensus which is an issue for arbitration, it is rather that normal administrative processes have been exhausted or that the sysop team either can not or don't know how to further an issue to conclusion. In this instance I don't think the arbitration should be linked directly to a consideration of Wyn's sysop status. I do think they should be looking at her communication style and how she interacts with users and try and find a solution to anything which is deemed problematic, I just don't think undermining the whole RFA system should be the way forward. If people want a debate on her no longer being a sysop, then this should be an RFA not an arb comm IMHO.

@ Eras, I wouldn't put everyone here into the wyn fan-club and troll categories. Personally I do feel something has to be done as clearly their is an issue that needs sorted, however I'm clueless as to how to approach it. We don't have a "be nice" policy and nor do we have a "dont be a bitch" policy. However a degree of consistent congenial discourse is needed for a sysop to effectively do their job, thus putting a higher standard of care on the admin team than that expected from your average user. This is not a bad thing I hasten to say, we should be held up to higher standards, however I'm just at a loss for what the arb comm can achieve other than telling wyn not to do what she's already been told not to do and then trying to back that up with administrative threats. -- Salome 01:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I see no point in contending that I am a troll, but I could, quite frankly, give less of a damn whether or not my account here were active. My interest in this case is solely that a trolling admin should have no right to action the accounts of other trolls. ··· Danny Pew Pew

Salome - consensus among users who are supporting her sysophood because she designed their userpage (something that has nothing to do with sysophood, just in case you missed it) is completely meaningless. I wish you'd realize that. -Auron 01:34, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I wish all the edits to this page were as quick and easy to read as yours Auron. After several paragraphs, I start to think that people are way too involved in this :/ Karate Jesus 01:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Salome, I think we're ignoring the RFR process because the first one didn't really produce the results people wanted. This sound odd considering I supported her, but I thought this was a one-time incident that wouldn't happen again. If another RfR comes up, and it passes due to Auron's suspcions, I'm just fear a repeat of things. -- Wandering Traveler 01:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Any RfR or RfA will always pass for Wyn, as long as she has that fan club. Sadly....it ends up hurting the wiki. Karate Jesus 01:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Further to what I said above, I would also suggest that any higher standard of care imposed on Wyn in this instance, should also be generally applied to all sysops. I do not mean any particular sanctions that the BC's feel are solely relevant to Wyn in this issue, but I mean that if they believe that Wyn has dropped beneath the standard expected of your average sysop, then some guiding principals of the general levels of what is expected of the entire admin team could be handy. (for example if we are adding a "don't be aggressive" or a "dont troll" clause into her role as admin, then surely that would indicate that we don't expect our sysops to either troll users or be needlessly aggressive to users [which seems an obvious requirement of any sysop to me] and I would assume that it would be deemed applicable to the rest of the admin team also)
@ Auron, and I still wish that you could see that as long as we use voting to decide anything, then every election has a degree of fan-boism in it and has nothing to do with if one is actually suitable to the job. (EG see every election ever)
@ WT, I don't think one can say we should ignore what the people wanted because it wasn't what they wanted. Which is in effect what you are saying by stating that we should ignore the RFA. If people want her admin powers revoked, the correct course of action is to have another RFA and see what happens, if it still passes with a 3:1 split, then by our policies the community wants her to be an admin.
@ KJ, and you can't ignore that group of people just because you don't agree with why they are voting the way they are. -- Salome 01:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Salome, consensus seems to be against you.... Karate Jesus 01:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, since the IRC log was posted Wyn has been pretty quiet. Perhaps opening this Arbcomm is what was required to get her to back down a little. She was right about the issue that began all of this from what I've been able to see, the tiny amount of evidence that was presented was what ... 4 instances in a year? I've seen other sysops and a bcrat be asshats more often than that in a week.

Now with all of that said, she went overboard. Wyn if you are following this, sorry, but it's true. You might have been right, but you went a little far. I wouldn't want to force someone to take a break but maybe it's time you did for your own sake, regardless of what goes on here. There are more important things in life than 17 year olds with more power than puberty. Ghosst • Talk •

Salome, RfAs aren't democratic votes. Bureaucrats are allowed and expected to use their discretion to judge what constitutes support and oppose. They're also allowed to remove userrights in disregard of an RfA - in theory, arbitration is limitless in what it can conclude. That is, of course, not taking into account the bureaucrats' conflict resolution skills - while it would technically be ok to remove Wyn's sysop status in a ruling, it probably wouldn't help in this situation. For the most part, it's not Wyn's sysop status that I feel is the issue, it's her attitude and general behaviour. If the bureaucrats can find a solution to that problem, it wouldn't be necessary to remove her sysop status - she's a good sysop where her attitude doesn't get in the way. -- pling 13:28, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

^ ··· Danny Pew Pew 04:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

A month late, but I was under the impression that elections on the wiki weren't based on votes, but [logical] consensus. Is that not the case? is for Raine, etc. 01:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Are you talking about elections or RfAs? o.O Vili 点 01:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Voting should be outlawed imo. is for Raine, etc. 02:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Votes don't decide anything on the wiki. only general consensus based on civil discussions does. Votes are used as a metric but not as a deciding factor. The wiki is not a democracy :-) --Lania Elderfire 04:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Nothing except bureaucrat elections. Vili 点 04:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

In theory or in practice? is for Raine, etc. 05:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Yo, this ArbCom is closed. Take the discussion elsewhere please. e.e elix Omni 05:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

In practice. The election policy was changes a long time before to base the decision only on the vote count. It was done after noticing multiple times that discussion during elections doesn't take place. poke | talk 13:04, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

DE's resignation

I'm not going to play god here, Tanetris hasn't accepted or declined and Defiant Elements is gone, so I now consider this Arbitration to be in limbo. I'll highlight this to Tanetris personally when I get the chance, but if he declines I'll consider it closed. My original recommendations stand, but they were recommendations to begin with and nothing binding. I'm not going to enact anything binding all on my lonesome. Misery 11:56, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure to what extent DE will be gone, maybe it's worth asking him if he can finish this off. Alternatively, Aiiane can step in; the case was started pretty close to her election, so I don't think that would be problematic at all. -- pling 17:31, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Where is Tanetris, anyway? Backsword 12:12, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Around somewhere, I'm sure. - Tanetris 16:16, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

What is the reason for allowing Aiiane to accept/decline as opposed to Tanetris? I'm comfortable leaving it in his hands. He knows about it and will make his decision in due course. Misery 21:42, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I meant as a replacement for DE, not Tanetris. -- pling 22:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Bump

It's been a week since the last comments here and the acceptance of the case by the active bureaucrats; I'm not sure if you guys are discussing this in private, but activity on the wiki seems to have stalled again, so I thought I'd send out a reminder in the form of a watchlist ping. I think we're also waiting for Wyn to provide a statement. -- pling 19:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I have absolutely nothing to say about this witch hunt. I thought my total silence on the matter would make that clear. -- Wyn talk 20:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

@Wyn: Lack of comment seems to translate to being ignored for the general wiki public, just a thought. — Jon Lupen 20:19, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Or it could just come off as bitchy....which.... Karate Jesus 20:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

← moved to User talk:Karate Jesus

I'd love Tanetris to reply to my comments above. Talking to myself isn't going to solve a whole lot. Misery 21:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

do these normally take 3 months?

seems like a long time to ban a user for breaking policy and being a bad sysop. 69.162.123.218 19:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that one of the bcrats left, and the other two (one of which is not a bcrat anymore) are just being lazy.--Fighterdoken 19:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Fighterdoken for calling me lazy, but I'm the only bureaucrat that has ever actually commented on this past an acceptance statement. Misery 02:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome :). That was why i didn't yell at you on your talk page :P.--Fighterdoken 02:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Hilarious how once upon a time you told me I acted too hastily for this wiki. Misery 03:00, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

As much as I'd like to see this resolved meaningfully (in any direction, I don't have a preference) by ArbComm, I'd argue that at this point the case is so stale as to be impossible to adjudicate. More to the point, Wyn herself has generally distanced herself from the situations which lead up to this ArbComm over the last couple months it's been sitting here. I propose that ArbComm mark this as abandoned and treat it, for all practical purposes, as a rejected case.

Wait, that's not quite bureaucracy-laden for the wiki. Instead let's make a new category "Resolved without adjudication" as a subcategory of "Accepted". This will have the connotation of "ArbComm agrees the case is problematic but has no prescriptions to solve it." Any takers?

—Tanaric 08:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, fine, go ahead. There's nothing to arbitrate anyhow. Thanks! NuVII 09:05, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm borderline-support on that idea, Aric. Not quite sure how to put it, but if the idea is accepted, then I'm fine with it. -- Lacky 10:56, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

...wait, I thought aric was being sarcastic? — Why 12:28, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I only spotted sarcasm in the last paragraph. Even if that's not the case, burying this request is the most efficient thing we could do. Thanks! NuVII 12:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

There was a little bitterness in the second paragraph, but the proposal (either of 'em) is entirely serious. —Tanaric 20:37, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't really have an opinion on the matter, but if this is dropped I think the rejected category would work just fine. — Why 21:02, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that how this arbitration should be categorised if a certain event in the future occurs is currently the most meaningful discussion on this page. Misery 21:13, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that Wyn's reconfirmation can't be that far off. Wyn started with net positive 20 votes, the amount of reconfirmation requests needed to start it goes from 20 last July to 1 request by this July, there are 7 reconfirmation right now. Depending on how the bureaucrats count, the reconfirmation should be opened not too far into the future. I still think that a reconfirmation is preferable to arbitration, and given how slowly this arbitration has proceeded, the reconfirmation could make this case obsolete before it is resolved. --Xeeron 14:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

A fair enough statement. I for one do not see why only one or the other can occur though, so if current bureaucrats are holding back because of this, that would just be silly. Misery 15:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Obviously, the bureaucrats are not constrained at all in their decisions by a concurrent reconfirmation. However, both still deal with essentially the same issue. --Xeeron 15:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

End the total "witch hunt" & flaming discussions and mark a date as "from now on"?

How about "not burden the new admins with past flawed (imho) arb.comms and similar behaviour by others". Lets make a fresh start together starting from the date the new admins are starting their job? I hope many here are irritated enough by Wiki drama to be able to see A) flaws in themselves, B) accept flaws in others, C) Get a fresh starting point together for the greater good of gw?? --Silverleaf Don't assume, Know! 13:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

This arbcomm doesn't have anything to do with any new admins starting a new job. I am not sure what your point is. Misery 13:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I think silverleaf is suggesting that the current admins start afresh without all the in fighting which has been seen recently. (I am not distancing myself from that infighting, as I am well aware that I was right in the middle of most of those events.) -- Salome 14:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Misery & Salome. Indeed, both points are valid. It boils down to "make GW Wiki about Guild Wars again". Not about "User Wars". These past few months I can't escape the feeling that every contributer to the current drama level has a good & valid point. No matter what point is discussed. --Silverleaf Don't assume, Know! 14:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

A workable suggestion

Resubmit this arbitration request when the current bureaucrat election is over. elix Omni 19:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with that if Tanetris decides to drop this, but I'm not going to drop it on him alone. It's pretty close to what Tanaric suggested above. Misery 21:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to make this easy for everyone. I hereby resign as sysop. -- Wyn talk 21:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Tanetris's absence

A topic a large number of people have wanted addressed, in particular here. Long and short of it is I've been sick for the past 2 weeks now (still am), and have therefore not had the attention needed to devote to this. After struggling most of the weekend to sort back through this to refresh myself and "catch up" so I can make intelligent comments, I've come to the determination that I simply don't have the energy for it, and won't for the forseeable future. This makes me a rather poor member of ArbComm, and a rather poor bcrat. So I'm withdrawing from both of those. I encourage the wiki community to take whichever of the solutions from the above sections they deem most appropriate, whether letting the matter drop, waiting for a reconfirmation, or resubmitting the ArbComm when the new batch of bcrats are in place after the current election. And I apologize, in particular to Wynthyst who's had this ArbComm dragged out on her for so long, to Misery who's put in actual work on this ArbComm unlike myself, and to Aiiane who will have to be the lone bureaucrat for the next 2 weeks, but also to the community as a whole.

And as I'm writing this, Wyn resigned, so that's something of a resolution, but nonetheless the rest of my statement and my resignation stands. - Tanetris 21:46, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

In light of recent events, I am considering this arbitration closed. If someone perceives an issue still exists that cannot be handled by sysops, then they are free to request further arbitration in two weeks time when we have three bureaucrats again. Misery 22:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)