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

Basic opinions

Was the first block of User:J.Kougar allowed by policy?

Xeeron

It was not explicitly called for by policy, but was allowed by the general discretion part in Guild Wars Wiki:Adminship.

Tanaric

I'd say calling Gaile a "coward" constitutes an NPA violation -- especially considering this user's volatile history in relation to User:Gaile Gray.

Was the first block of User:J.Kougar justified by convention/culture/perceived consensus?

Xeeron

No. The amount of users speaking up against the interpretation of his edits as NPA violations show there is no consensus about that.

Tanaric

Yes. Convention allows a block for NPA violations. Some have argued that the "cowardice" line wasn't enough for an NPA violation, but that decision lies within sysop discretion, which again is support by convention.

Should the first block be overturned?

Xeeron

No. While I personally disagree with the block, a 2 day block for his behavior is withhin the limits of what I would call "normal interpretation of the policies", that is, not an outlandish case where arbcom needs to stop a mad sysop.

Tanaric

No.

Was the second block of User:J.Kougar allowed by policy?

Xeeron

Same as above.

Tanaric

Different NPA violation, same basic idea.

Was the second block of User:J.Kougar justified by convention/culture/perceived consensus?

Xeeron

Yes. I have not seen anyone (except Kougar and Sabastian) doubt the reasoning for Tanetris second block yet. Blocking for circumventing blocks seems to be widely accepted.

Tanaric

Agreed with Xeeron.

Should the second block be overturned?

Xeeron

No.

Tanaric

No.

Was the avoiding of (either) block justified by policy?

Xeeron

No. There is nothing in our policies that allows blocks to be avoided via proxies.

Tanaric

No.

Was the avoidance of (either) block justified by convention/culture/perceived consensus?

Xeeron

No.

Tanaric

No.

Are User:J.Kougar's actions since the block in question a sysop matter, or subject to ArbComm resolution?

Xeeron

Yes [, they are subject to ArbComm resolution], because clearly normal sysop action could not resolve the conflict.

Tanaric

Agreed with Xeeron.

If they're subject to ArbComm resolution, should User:J.Kougar be blocked further for actions since the block in question?

Xeeron

This is a matter of deliberation: Tanetris already did lengthen the block from 2 days to 1 week, using his avoidance of the block as part of the reason. It is up for discussion whether his avoidance justifies a longer block or other measure.

Tanaric

Agree to deliberate, will make section below.

If User:J.Kougar is to be blocked further, is any additional measure necessary to ensure User:J.Kougar does not edit the wiki during his block?

Xeeron

I believe that a measure like disallowing him to post on Gaile's talk page or even disallowing him to post about gaile would go much further to resolve the situation in the long term than another block.

Tanaric

Agreed that this user should not be allowed to post about Gaile. He has abused the privilege of open communication and should have that privilege revoked. Additionally, because this user has indicated a general willingness to evade blocks, all future blocks of this user should be treated similarly to the injunction during this arbitration -- all edits by him (and any responses to those edits) during his blocked period should be immediately reverted. Finally, I believe that if this user ever evades another block, he should be permabanned, with the above stipulation that all edits (and responses to those edits) after permabanning should be immediately reverted.

Aiiane calling J.Kougar pathetic, after the same word had been used in Tanetris ban reason for Kougar.

Tanaric

I don't believe Tanetris banned J.Kougar specifically for the word "pathetic." The entire paragraph in which that phrase appeared was cruel and disruptive -- I believe that Tanetris pointed out the word "pathetic" in his notification to J.Kougar simply because it summed up the rest of the paragraph. If J.Kougar had merely called Shadowphoenix "pathetic," I wouldn't have considered it blockworthy -- it's calling an apple an apple, from his point of view. I feel the same way about Aiiane's use of the word. Both are sub-optimal, but neither are blockworthy in and of themselves. I'd like to get an official statement from Tanetris to clear this up.

The claim that J.Kougar was not protected from NPA violations during the discussion following his ban.

Tanaric

This is true and regrettable. I'd like to specifically call out some users (User:Scourge most obviously, for his "sand in your vagina" comment) when we issue our final statement.

The claim that in evading the ban J.Kougar gave up rights to protection from other user (or, more specific, the claim that this was said by sysops).

Tanaric

I don't think this is an ArbComm issue. Users need to generate a policy on evading blocks and what that means to them. I believe that, since there is no policy on this issue, and because it's never come up before, so there's no existing convention or culture to look to for guidance, that this falls under "sysop discretion" until a consensus arises.