Guild Wars Wiki talk:Arbitration committee/2007-11-15-User:Raptors

I'll be the first to post...

With the recent harrassment, profanity, obscenity, etc drafts and proposals that have made their way into the public spotlight here, I think we need to take a deeper look into user actions. Out of the above mentioned proposals, the most needed imho is the no harassment. Regardless of the degree of things posted on Ryudo's talk page, the very simple fact that he asked that people stop and many did not warrants some sort of action. While we can't ban someone for being anti-authority in ideals, the fact that he chooses to defy the rules consistently and makes a big deal of it- requires punitive, possibly permanent action. -elviondale (tahlk) 15:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Lets not turn this into another discussion on policy. Can we discuss Raptors' behaviour and reach agreement on whether or not he is going to be a useful contributor, without causing disruption and frightening off other players from the wiki, when he returns from his current ban?

I acknowledge that Raptors has made some contribution to the content of the wiki, but I feel since his return from his second ban that his on-going trolling, his pride in being a 'dickhead' and his bullying actions against User:Ryudo shows that he isn't interested in truly helping the wiki and, in particular, supporting the community and Guild Wars players here in any way. Raptors is without remorse or apology for his actions.

I'd like to see Raptors permanently banned from the wiki, especially if each time he returns there is a chance that he contributes to a situation where a user feels they can no longer help or use the wiki. --Aspectacle 22:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

This isn't a discussion about policy, however his actions need to be judged against policy and in light of the proposals that have been created as a direct result of his actions. -elviondale (tahlk) 22:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it seems that the actions of Raptors are at the heart of many of the recent policy discussions which have happened on this wiki. His disruption on the wiki and all its occupants is significant. I'd just like to make sure we reach consensus on Raptors, not the policies surrounding his behaviour. --Aspectacle 23:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Thus far Raptors' few positive contributions are basically worth nothing compared to the huge amounts of problems caused. -- (gem / talk) 22:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I see high potential for unacceptable conduct to eventually continue unabated here regardless of intentions and/or normal recourses, which do not seem to be effective enough. I believe that arbitration consideration is necessary to make sure that we are on a unified and appropriate path in working against that. --Rezyk 23:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I am Raptors

Hi, Raptors here on one of my alternate accounts. I'm done trolling, I'm done being a dickhead, I'm done with all of that. This wiki takes up too much time in my life and this banning has helped me get things done in my life that actually matter, instead of spending hours a day online. Once I get unbanned from my main account I plan to do nothing but contribute positively, if at all. I always said if I did enough to get an arbcomm case I'd quit being such a douchebag. So yea, take this as you will, believe me or not, it's your choice. Consider this an apology to GWW and all it's members, especially Ryudo, since I bullied him off the wiki apparently. I know many users think that I think just because I posted this little apology message I think I'm going to get unbanned, which isn't what I want. I deserve to be banned, and I'm "doing my time". Again sorry, see you around the wiki (I'm still here...) I also figure this sockpuppet account is going to be banned but no worries, it's not my only one... Hyrule 23:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Doing your time? Apparently not since you're circumventing a ban by using a second account. Does this action not prove that Raptors is making a point to violate any and every rule he can?--Pyron Sy 23:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

lol you remind me of Greg from w:Kid Nation. A complete jerk sometimes, but a mildly nice guy for a small percentage of the rest. -elviondale (tahlk) 23:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

If circumventing a block to participate in arbitration turns out to be a major issue (don't know if it will or not), note that one can always address concerns to the committee through e-mail. --Rezyk 23:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, never-say-die, always another trick up his sleeve, always a hat for a rabbit, good ole Raptors. I say we let him free for a week or two and see what he does. If a Ryudo-esque case pops up again, and Raptors is at the heart of controversy, then fine, perma-ban. If he helps the situation for the admins, and convinces the user to continue contributing or whatever it may be, then fine, he speaks the truth. Any trolling, bye-bye. Constructive edits and helpful advice, then he understands what he did wrong. And something makes me think perma-banning him wouldn't keep him away..he's too smart. Calor - talk 00:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

So you're saying... another chance? -elviondale (tahlk) 03:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Sure, he's pissed people off and trolled and everything, but no society (or community) is perfect. Raptors is brilliant. We ban him, he'll just pop his head back in. If he uses his smarts the right way, he'd be a valuable addition to the community here on the wiki. He's said if he ever worked his way to ArbComm, he'd stop being an ass and start making real contributions, because he really doesn't want this wiki to crumble and fall, just to annoy people for the hell of annoying people. Obviously, if he keeps doing what he's been doing for ages, then, by all means, block him. Calor - talk 03:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

In Raptors defence, I'd like to point out that no one thought his nonNPA vios serious enough to do anything about before the Ryudo incident. And he was only one part of that.

But there is also another side which I guess people haven't noticed; he has been using sockpupets to distrot elections. (Eg. Gem's.) Which I find a far more serious offence that latching on to some minor harassment or even violating policy. Serious enough to warrant a permanent block. He's had seconds chances before.

Backsword

I want raptors back --Cursed Angel 17:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Raptors was amusing at first if you didn't take his vandalism too seriously. Over the time it got just irritating and in the end very harmful. Sockpuppeteering, vandalism, harrasment, personal attacks, ban evasion, ... And many of those have been repeated even after the last time that he promised to stop. I'd go for banning all of his accounts and IPs. -- (gem / talk) 17:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I would too, if it continued, but we don't know all the accounts, unless Raptors is playing mind games of what accounts are(n't) his. Or if he has access to an open proxy. Calor - talk 18:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Since we (luckily now) don't have a blocking policy, maybe an alternate punishment to a perma-ban could be applied when things come this far? Something in the lines of "User will declare all and every account he has created or uses. User will not create any new account besides the one declared as 'main'. User will not participate in any kind of administrative task (sysop elections, admin/arbcom issues raised by other members of GWWiki, other?). User will not be the source of a new NPA violation or vandalism of any kind. User will refrain from harrasing other members of GWWiki. Any violation to the above in the next 3 months from this sanction date will result in the User being Perma-banned from GWWiki". This, i think, could leave almost everyone happy.--Fighterdoken 01:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

(Reset indent) The above statement by Hyrule is laughable. When faced with the threat of being banned before Raptors repented and promised to improve his behaviour. It was a lie then, why should we believe it now? - BeX 03:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Something to consider is imposing a ban in a more generalized sense (as opposed to simply blocking accounts). This might involve stuff like allowing the community to enforce it by reverting edits that plainly evade the ban. Beyond a long-term ban, I don't feel that imposing/threatening a perma-ban or hunting down otherwise-good accounts could accomplish much (although perma-blocking a misused sockpuppet account might be appropriate). --Rezyk 20:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Raptors being blocked

Raptors should get a chance to reply to this and give his point of view, however he is currently blocked. An idea would be to unblock him till the end of the arbitration case with the restriction of only making edits on this page. --Xeeron 01:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

And his talk page, if possible. Calor - talk 01:52, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

If the proposed arbitration policy was passed, one of the bureaucrats could place an injunction restricting his/her edits to here and his/her user page until the arbitration is resolved. Although we could technically do the same thing under the current policy due to the lack of a blocking policy, I would prefer it if we just unblocked Raptors without any special conditions. -- Gordon Ecker 03:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Personally I think it is entirely reasonable for bureaucrats to set restrictions on those users under arbitration. I think unblocking Raptors with the condition that he may only post on this talk page is a suitable idea. LordBiro 11:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. --Rezyk 17:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

So is anyone going to make an unblocking request? -- Gordon Ecker 11:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Lack of arguments brought forth here

I don't see any posts here regarding the issue at hand, apart from the small first section. This should not drag on longer than needed, so if you have something to say about Raptors, do so now and here please. --Xeeron 11:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

So are we required to dig every offense from Raptors' contribution history so that the bureaucrats can make a decision other than "not guilty"? Or are the bureaucrats allowed/able to judge his actions wihout us doing that? -- (gem / talk) 12:14, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Aside from him being an asshat to everyone (posting profanity on his userpage for no reason outside of offending people), him violating NPA on several occasions, him pestering another user enough to cause them to leave the wiki... what are you looking for, exactly? -Auron 12:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I still didn't get a response to my question. Is the community forced to paste a series of links or are the bureaucrats allowed to look at Special:Contributions/Raptors? -- (gem / talk) 08:02, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Should the fact that Ryudo's stated reasons for leaving the wiki include harrassment from Raptors be taken into account? -- Gordon Ecker 08:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that the fact that Ryudo left should have impact at all, just the stuff that Raptos did. For example, what if I said 'Hi I like your user page' to someone and he would decide to leave the wiki for that? The only thing that should have impact are the edits that Raptors did, not the reactions of others to his actions. -- (gem / talk) 09:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The whole point of trolling is to get a rise out of someone without saying anything obviously wrong or against the rules. Most of Raptors edits were intended to be disruptive or annoying, etc. And looking at someone's edits without any context doesn't get us anywhere. - BeX 09:46, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you should look at the context, but it shouldn't matter whether Ryudo decided to leave or not. -- (gem / talk) 11:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Similar to the first ArbComm case we've had... it is not clear exactly what is being requested for. Was the ban not sufficient? Something more needs to be done? -- ab.er.rant 16:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we aren't happy with just a ban. I personally want a decision that threatens him with a very long ban if he acts like that in the future. -- (gem / talk) 23:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe that his behaviour will change because of a ban. He's shown before that he cant keep his promises to behave. If he messes up again after he's unbanned I want to be sure there wont be months of just waiting around for something to be done about him. - BeX 23:12, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

you guys talk too much, i know u all liek raptors. --Cursed Angel 00:52, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Current ban, longer ban, whatever, this is simple. When User:Raptors comes back, if he screws things up, you ban him again. If he then comes back with another account, well, sockpuppetry is a violation, so additional accounts will be banned too. If you can't establish it's a case of sockpuppetry, he'll just screw up with that account too, so you ban him anyway. His second account has proven a perma-ban and any kind of ban useless, it doesn't matter if it's Raptors, Hyrule, Troll-X or Vandal-Y, you see a violator, you ban him, if it's the same guy, who cares, just ban him.reanor 04:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry isn't currently a violation of anything, however using a sockpuppet account to bypass a block or get around an injunction or ruling is a clear violation of the spirit of the policy. -- Gordon Ecker 05:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem with re-banning is that he could continue to troll without actually breaking policy and we couldn't stop him (we've seen this already). That's why we need an arbcom decision that any edits from him that are deemed negative could warrant him a ban from any sysop. -- (gem / talk) 08:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

A restriction from posting on user talk pages other than his own, maybe? He can still answer requests on his own talk, can still make helpful edits on the "ask a game question" page or whatnot, but can't troll anyone to the point of blatant harassment. He can still make offhand troll comments on pages, but he usually doesn't. -Auron 08:46, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I like Auron's idea, bans won't stop him since he can come back with a new account, but having him as Raptors with a short leash should keep him under control and would also give him a chance to change.reanor 13:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Yea I'll cool down, and I'll quit being such an asshole. --- Raptors / RAAAAAAAAAA!

Pretty sure you have said that before. --Lemming 03:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Take it or leave it. If you can't believe my direct words then I shouldn't have been unbanned. If I'm correct wasn't the reason i was unbanned to give my direct opinion? w/e. --- Raptors / RAAAAAAAAAA!

Yes, you were unblocked to make your case. -- Gordon Ecker 04:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Decision discussion

I believe that for months now Raptors has intentionally played an overwhelmingly negative role on the wiki. Taunting and teasing other editors just for the fun of it, even when they've made it absolutely clear that they are frustrated and just want to be left alone. Repeated NPA violations. Linking to shock images and the incident with the profanity on his user page, the sole intention of which was to offend the readers and to provoke the community. Creating pages such as FUCK THIS WIKI which are simply vandalism. Using a sock-puppet to vote twice against a user's RFA (Gem's). Persistently circumventing blocks, including this last one and on this very arbitration page (and going so far as even to flaunt it, "I also figure this sockpuppet account is going to be banned but no worries, it's not my only one...").

He has only been banned three times so far, but not because he has so cleverly managed to work around the policies, as he proudly states every time someone approaches him with a request to tone down his behaviour. He has only been banned three times because the vast majority of the community on this wiki is pretty lenient, quite forgiving, and prone to err on the side of caution and giving second chances. Just look at the section above this, users are still not talking about immediately banning him, but about giving him yet another chance at contributing positively to this wiki.

I think Raptors has had enough second chances. I'm not convinced that he will or can live up to any "I will be good now" claims, since he has already made them enough times in the past and failed to live up to them. I don't think any soft blocks (such as "you can post only on Type A pages, but not on Type B pages") will work, as Auron suggested above. He was unblocked to post on this talk page, yet out of the 21 edits he's made as of this moment since he was unblocked, only 3 were on this page. (as for his excuse; one thing is to keep an open mind, and a completely different thing is to miss the fact that there were only nine posts since he was blocked on his talk page and only two, one of them mine, in the last 10 days before he was unblocked).

Right now the only realistic solution I see is a long term ban. As a community we've spent enough time dealing with this acute case of disrupting behaviour, I think it's time to move on.

Curious to hear what the other two bureaucrats have to say. --Dirigible 04:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I fully agree with you Dirigible. Raptors edits make it clear that his aim is not to help this community, but to draw personal enjoyment from annoying other editors here. He should be blocked for a long time. --Xeeron 11:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Dirigible and Xeeron that a long-term ban is the only solution here (I would even be willing to consider a permanent ban), but I share the concerns of others that Raptors will continue to be a menace even after he is banned.

I would like, if possible, to discuss means by which we can deal with this, but if it would delay the arbitration unnecessarily I am happy to concentrate on simply discussing a ruling. LordBiro 20:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, well no one's posted anything so I'm going to presume that this isn't delaying the process :)

While it received opposition when it was first suggested I think that an extension such as CheckUser might help sysops to deal with Raptors should a long-term block be deemed necessary. I do not think it is the place of the arbitration committee to decree that such an extension must be installed (installing CheckUser has implications beyond the scope of this arbitration) but I would recommend that the community reconsider such an extension as without it I am not certain that such a ban would be enforceable. LordBiro 21:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Note that so far Raptors has been pretty easy to spot with his socks. If the socks aren't easy to notice then they probably aren't a problem either. If a sock causes problems it can be handled just like a regular user would be. -- (gem / talk) 22:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

It's true that so far Raptors has been easy to spot, but should every troll that appears on the wiki be brought before arbcomm? Bear in mind how much Raptors had to do in order for this arbitration request to be made. I am by no means the biggest advocate of CheckUser but I can see its appeal; if a user behaves like Raptors then a request could be made that his details be compared with Raptors, if they are a match then we might consider this reasonable evidence that this user is a sockpuppet. So basically, if a user doesn't misbehave there would be no grounds for such a check, and if a check returns a negative result then we could continue with the standard procedures.

Again, this is just me thinking aloud, it is up to the community to decide whether this is necessary. LordBiro 23:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't Raptors the one who got around IP blocks and what not? Wouldn't that also render CheckUser useless? -- (gem / talk) 23:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it was J.Kougar who was actually going around IP blocks. — ク Eloc 貢 16:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

It was mentioned as not helpful for WikiRaptors before. Maybe that was Raptors' friend or whatever, but still. Perhaps consider ruling something like "during the ban, any editing which plainly emulates Raptors' style/identity should be removed+blocked", that doesn't strongly rely on verifying user identity. --Rezyk 23:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I asked Dirigible recently if he still felt as strongly about the use of CheckUser and he said that he did not, and he also said that he shared my opinion that it might be useful for sysops in the coming situation (perhaps Dir can correct me if I misunderstood).

I am not simply advocating its installation; I am advocating a discussion on the subject, and I think a separate discussion should be created for its purpose, possibly on GWW:TECH or even somewhere more public than that. LordBiro 10:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Guild Wars Wiki talk:Requests for technical administration#CheckUser. --Dirigible 12:42, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

About the actual decision, how about a slight rewrite of Dirigible's first paragraph above:

Raptors has intentionally played an overwhelmingly negative role on the wiki. Taunting and teasing other editors just for the fun of it, even when they've made it absolutely clear that they are frustrated and just want to be left alone. He committed repeated NPA violations, linked to shock images and displayed profanity on his user page, the sole intention of which was to offend the readers and to provoke the community. Created pages such as FUCK THIS WIKI which are simply vandalism. Used a sock-puppet to vote twice against a user's RFA (Gem's). Persistently circumvented blocks, going so far as even to flaunt it, "I also figure this sockpuppet account is going to be banned but no worries, it's not my only one...". His actions have not been in the interest of this wiki and distracted a huge amount of attention away from other issues.

Raptors and all of his known sockpuppets are to be banned for one year. --Xeeron 12:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I support that. --Dirigible 12:42, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

One year sounds reasonable to me. LordBiro 13:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Holy shit, one year? Don't you think that's a little overboard? — ク Eloc 貢 21:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

it was decided before they even came up with this idea to make him say sorry and then block him a year for the fun of it,

i curse you Xeeron --Cursed Angel 21:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Minor note

Using a sock-puppet to vote twice against a user's RFA

Thrice, I'd say. Backsword 05:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Sailors is not me. :) --- Raptors / RAAAAAAAAAA!

While I don't disagree with a hefty ban on his primary, what would we do against his guaranteed incessant sock-puppetry? I don't think we can take his word that he'll quit his asshattery once we ban his main. -Auron 09:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

If someone uses a sockuppet to edit when banned the sockpuppets are also banned. Ofcourse it might be hard to be sure in some cases, but we can always ban any accounts that we notice to be his socks. -- (gem / talk) 09:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

You guys unblocked him so that he could say what he felt about it, wtf more do you want him to say except that he will stop it? why did you unblock him in the first place if you still dont believe him? You guys seems to liek wasting your time. --Cursed Angel 10:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Cursed Angel has a good point. I believe Raptors has already made his statement - from both Hyrule and Raptors. Since he doesn't appear to have anything to add and he has been violating the terms of his temporarily lifted ban, would the bureaucrats disagree with re-applying the ban while this decision discussion is being carried out? -- ab.er.rant 11:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Which will achieve nothing... Raptaz? Raptorz..... he can use a million different usernames if he wants to and there is nothing we can do about it. Sure he violated a bunch of policies and annoyed a lot of people, but most of the harm done from or by him comes from over dramatisation of an issue he was involved with, people seem to want to react stupidly to every situation he is involved with. I personally have been on this wiki since just after its conception and I never once went to his user page... it's like me telling you now to google tub girl for "shocking imagery". People who want the drama will google it, and then complain about me telling them to do it, don't touch the stove it's hot. People got involved with raptors to involve them self in drama and execute their perception of justice or "what's right in the face of what I beleive to be offensive". This is further reinforced by Gem's perception, "I beleive Raptors is bad and ArbComm needs to search the wiki for proof, because I'm too lazy to do it myself, just take mine and other editors like me's word for it and ban him," which is stupid, the burden of proof is upon the one who makes the claim, not anyone else. Banning him will achieve nothing and aside from an overreaction from many of the users he isn't as bad as many people perceive. Anon --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:58.110.140.18 .

Do you actually have a suggestion for resolving this or are you just lashing out? Perhaps you're saying that we should all just forget about trying to prevent disruptive behavior. -- ab.er.rant 12:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I told you I would stop, I told you I was sorry. What more do you fucking want? If I do something bad again, ban me for forever, save me the temptation, please. --- Raptors / RAAAAAAAAAA!

dont get me wrong guys, i asked why you even unblocked him if whatever he said would only get him blocked again, he said that he's sorry, accept it as this is what you wanted him to say --Cursed Angel 12:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm saying why bother taking an action which we know won't do a damn thing? Anon 12:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Why give him a chance make his case before issuing a ruling? Because the alternative would be to issue a ruling without giving him a chance to make his case. -- Gordon Ecker 12:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

What? --Cursed Angel 12:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

In the same vein, why bother asking us to not do anything when you know it won't do a damn thing? -- ab.er.rant 14:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Raptors, telling us you are sorry and that you will shape up every time wont work. Cursed Angel, he was unblocked to get the chance to provide reasons and possible solutions. Going and posting troll posts is what would grant him a reblock, not the posts here. - anja 13:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

He said that he didn't see the message about him only being able to post here, and i would also post some welcome templates back if my talk page got spammed with them. --Cursed Angel 13:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

To those that believe a long term block will not solve anything, I disagree, it is fairly obvious when raptors is posting as another account, or circumventing a ban, if a permanent/long term ban is in place, we can fairly quickly lock it back down. When he is not under a block it is we are generally less harsh and issue warnings to try and diffuse the situation before handing out additional blocks. --Lemming 13:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

And it's pretty obvious that Raptors is still all over this wiki, trying to stir up trouble. But being able to block his accounts as they get noticed he is better than giving him free rein. -- ab.er.rant 14:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

take a look at his contributions, btw this page is gay, just let him go, we dont need a disussion for it, its retarded. --Cursed Angel 16:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

To respond to Cursed Angel, I personally had hoped that we might unblock Raptors and he would produce a reasoned argument as to why he should be allowed to stay. I realise the chance of Raptors saying something reasonable is remarkably slim, and I also realise that the chance of him saying something that could sway the opinion of the many people who have had to put up with him is even slimmer, but nonetheless it is only fair that Raptors should be allowed to defend himself. Instead he has made various posts across the wiki after being asked not to, and done nothing but repeat his mantra that he is sorry and he won't do it again.

Raptors' unblock was a politeness and he has abused it. LordBiro 16:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

This is in response to 58.110 and anyone else who uses the argument "we can't get him banned anyway, he can just create a new account etc". Yes, he can do that if we ban him, but he can also do it even if we don't ban him. If we keep banning all accounts causing trouble then we either get rid of him, he starts to contribute positively or the game never ends (which I highly doubt). If the wiki shows that we don't ban for ditruptive behavior then people might start breaking policies because they think they can get away with it. -- (gem / talk) 19:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

This is getting out of hand. I understand what I did. I'm sorry, I'm and asshat/douchebag/fuckup/dumbass/etc. etc... I understand the way I've acted is unacceptable. I would not like to be permabanned, as I would like to start actually contributing 100% positive like I was considering to do until I saw the harassment Eloc was taking from numerous users. I expected the admins to step in as I watched from home and didn't post about it. It became obvious that the admins here do not care about helping users they do not like. If thats the way they want to be, fine. I don't give a damn, they are human. Back on topic, I will make a complete turnabout in my behavior if not banned. I don't see how it helps anything acting the way I do, and I don't want to do it anymore. This long message probably means nothing because nobody wants to believe me when i say I'll stop. How about, let this go, and if I do 1, just 1 wrong thing, ban me. I plan to stay off talk pages unless I need to ask a user a question/comment on something, but i will not act the way I did. Yea, I've said I'd stop before, and I didn't, I know. Instead of quarrelling about how much of a liar I am and how I should be burned at the stake, instead ask yourselves, what would Jesus do? Forgive.

I realize the chance of Raptors saying something reasonable is remarkably slim

My two apologies weren't reasonable? Excuse me for posting blatant lies.

and I also realize that the chance of him saying something that could sway the opinion of the many people who have had to put up with him is even slimmer

Nobody believes me when I say I'll stop. Can you think of another way that I can sway the users because I'm stumped.

I'm done trolling. Quote it Y0 ich halt.

lol now rip me a new one like you have been. Everything I've said above is 100% sincere. --- Raptors / RAAAAAAAAAA!

These kind of debates should be approached with an open mind. Comments like I realize the chance of Raptors saying something reasonable is remarkably slim show that is exactly NOT what has occurred here. All you are doing is prodding an angry lion and giving him more reason to feel slighted by the community here. This case was decided before anything was even said. Anon

Great then. The bureaucrats should just wrap this up without further deliberation. -- ab.er.rant 09:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

So... what's happening with this?

The stage seems to be 1 week overdue to end, so what happens now with this? —Ebany Salmonderiel 19:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The 2 sections up, the final decision is drafted. It will probably be ready shortly. --Xeeron 19:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok then, thanks, I was just wondering because the main page for this said that it was still in the comments stage. —Ebany Salmonderiel 19:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppets

May I ask for the proper methods or approaches to take in identifying and banning sockpuppets? There are several accounts and IP addresses that are quite obviously sockpuppets that I'm itching to ban. -- ab.er.rant 14:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Since we don't have checkuser installed yet (and he might be using proxies anyway), the only way to indentify is by convincingly agrueing that the edits made by the account in question could only have been made by raptors. --Xeeron 14:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

What is checkuser? 122.104.230.105 20:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

A function that lets admins check the IP of a user, I think. Lord of all tyria 20:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Check talk page of GWW:RFTA for more info. - BeX 02:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Be sure to make absolute sure that they are Raptors if you are going to ban accounts. — ク Eloc 貢 02:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Obviously... that's why I'm asking. -- ab.er.rant 06:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't mind me! Just stating the ovvious! — ク Eloc 貢 09:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)