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

Yes

I say we redo this, if people want her back, she'll be re-elected. IF not, then it's definitely obvious we should :P--/u/nendingfear File:User Unendingfear Crane eats peanut.jpg 21:51, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? This is not a RfR. - Mini Me talk 22:08, 27 December 2009

K, then wtf is it?--/u/nendingfear File:User Unendingfear Crane eats peanut.jpg 22:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Unending, it isnt that I want to offend you but do you actually read before you comment on something like this? -- Cyan 22:10, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Guild_Wars_Wiki:Arbitration_policy - Mini Me talk 22:11, 27 December 2009

Sorry Cyan, I read fast (I honestly try not to), and I miss things sometime >_>--/u/nendingfear File:User Unendingfear Crane eats peanut.jpg 22:12, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Like everything on that page? -Auron 22:45, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Yesh--/u/nendingfear File:User Unendingfear Crane eats peanut.jpg 22:49, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Lay off the booze. →[ »Halogod (talk)« ]← 22:51, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

It's the song @_@--/u/nendingfear File:User Unendingfear Crane eats peanut.jpg 22:57, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

What is the point of all this when (from what I read of your IRC log), you only count the votes you like anyway... Ghosst • Talk •

Did you miss the part where "the votes they like" exactly match the votes that aren't dumb? -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 06:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I was only aware of the contribution requirement. Now we need a reason to vote the way we do, (which, much like the last line of the arbcomm reasoning which is purely inference and only underlines why I didn't support that person's bcat seat) is subject to opinion for its validity? Teenage logic at it's best; "I don't like you, therefore, you're wrong!" Ghosst • Talk •

ups

This place is really starting to feel quite a bit too familiar. ··· Danny Pew Pew

Lolo

Wyn causing drama, who would ever have thought that! This is a happy day in the history of trolling. Dark Morphon 17:10, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The history of trolling only goes as far as the day I met you, though. Koda Kumi 20:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Then you have a lot of catching up to do. Dark Morphon 09:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Add this to consideration

Wyn reverting a non-vandal message on another user's talk page here. -- riyen ♥ 20:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I suspect that was just a misclick of a rollback link - they're next to every edit in recentchanges and watchlist. -- pling 20:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

GWW:AGF --194.44.18.83 20:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not hard to see the 'changes' to be made. It is 'obvious' when you 'revert'. So not easy to 'AGF' there. -- riyen ♥ 21:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

AFAIK when you click rollback you won't get taken to an edit screen. Could be wrong though. - Mini Me talk 21:44, 30 December 2009

(Edit conflict) That's precisely what "assume good faith" means. Lacking evidence to the contrary -- that is, a comment from Wyn that she's reverting your edit to be malicious -- you must assume that she's acting in good faith. Either she made a simple misclick (which honestly happens all the time) or she thinks that edit was inappropriate (which is unlikely in this case). Either way, by going straight to ArbComm with your request instead of attempting to discuss it with her -- or, you know, just ignoring it as a misclick until it happens again -- you are disrupting the wiki and ignoring the basic ideals its founded upon.

Also, Mini Me is correct -- you get no second chance to verify your edit after a rollback. This is precisely why we have an "assume good faith" policy to begin with -- in any given situation, nobody knows all the details from every perspective.

—Tanaric 21:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

All it takes is a single accidental click on the rollback button and the edit is reverted. I do it occasionally, especially when opening multiple tabs at once. -Auron 21:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

^ I've had to stop editing PvX on my cellphone because I accidentally click rollback too often. That was probably an accident. Karate Jesus 22:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Got an email that showed differently. It was a wrong email, but I think her 'anger' is directed at another on here now. -- riyen ♥ 22:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC) My mistake. -- riyen ♥ 23:10, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's helpful to personify Wyn as some vengeful person, because that's not exactly her character. If you have a problem with Wyn, there are plenty of real problems you can set up as your soapboxes to declare her inadequacies from....but her holding a grudge against you isn't one. Karate Jesus 23:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Probably not the best place to ask this, but I am not sure where else to ask it, and also since the topic is kind of related to it...When you hit the roll-back thing, does it not give you a confirmation dialogue? -- Lacky 03:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

That is correct. Rollback takes effect the instant you click on it. elix Omni 03:34, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

There's a reason why only sysops have it - there's very little "safety margin" on it. It's designed to be an efficient tool for dealing with vandalism. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 23:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

It also rolls back to a previous version of the page made by a different editor. I once made the mistake of doing a rollback instead of an undo on a userpage to remove an annoying div. </offtopic> -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 05:03, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Your arrow missed! Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ аІiсә ѕνәи Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ 06:02, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Making

a new topic to express my opinion instead of looking to see if there's a better place to put it first. -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 15:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I've been gone, so forgive me if I'm unaware of all the minutia of what's happening here, but if she's being ridiculous (like normal) why not just RfR her over doing arbitration? Karate Jesus 18:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

An RfR for Mini Me? --Silverleaf Don't assume, Ask! 18:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I think he means only a RfR for Wyn instead of an arbritration. -- Cyan 18:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Ohhwww. Was starting to think we would start RfR's and Arb's and all else for everyone that showed bad temper or impatience here. --Silverleaf Don't assume, Ask! 18:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. How much time do you have? I think we need some months. -- Cyan 19:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I think we can find "a few" rightaway. --Silverleaf Don't assume, Ask! 19:05, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I vote for a shortlist with the most urgent 'situations'. -- Cyan 19:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmmmm...do we get to flame and call names? --Silverleaf Don't assume, Ask! 19:09, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Only if you like a chill down ban for violating NPA and disruption. -- Cyan 19:11, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Put ourselves on the list first ^^. --Silverleaf Don't assume, Ask! 19:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

My plan was to ban all and rule the wiki by our self. -- Cyan 19:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Wiki Anarchie!!! W00T!! Let me flame and ban you so I can rule the wiki by myself!! (* do you think our little banter is making people laugh?). --Silverleaf Don't assume, Ask! 19:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I guess they all think that we're a couple of weirdo's. -- Cyan 19:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

We are!!! Let's ban us for that!!!! --Silverleaf Don't assume, Ask! 19:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

To everyone commenting on this thread: kindly stop being obnoxious. Thanks. — Defiant Elements +talk 19:40, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

It is to make a point Defiant. --Silverleaf Don't assume, Ask! 19:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed it is. -- Cyan 19:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a lot of spam to me. :/ – Emmett 19:49, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Short sentences. Did you read it? --Silverleaf Don't assume, Ask! 19:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

This all seemed like pointless banter with no relevance to me. – Emmett 19:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I am well aware of how satire functions, thank you. With that said, your point had been made well before I posted. There's a fine line between making a point and plain old asshattery, and, generally speaking, that line involves knowing when to stop. If you ask me, this subject is more than sufficiently contentious without people injecting this kinda nonsense. — Defiant Elements +talk 19:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

And nonsense is exact the word for the whole drama situation where this wiki is in to. -- Cyan 20:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Wiki politics, at it's finest... Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ аІiсә ѕνәи Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ 21:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no significant political wrangling occurring. A user behaved poorly in the eyes of some and was therefore referred to ArbComm after sysop intervention failed to solve the issue. This is the way the system was designed to work. —Tanaric 21:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

No.

Stop this before it begins. I'm not her biggest supporter, but some very malicious people (or as far as I can judge from their actions) are trying to use this one incident to run her (not to mention her reputation) to the ground, and I can't stand that. Neither Lacky nor Wyn wanted to drag this dead horse into the public eye; the whole effort to discredit her is entirely the doing of her - for the lack of a better phrase - political opposition. Demagoguery is something we certainly do not need on the wiki, and I fear bringing the ArbComn into such a trivial matter only accomplishes that before it begins.

When Wyn's ban expires, she'll come out and laugh at how this is being blown out of proportion. Please, let's leave things at a level where we can all laugh. NuVII 20:02, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Please inform yourself well enough. This is not about one single thing and the block was not either; and no, she did not laugh about it. poke | talk 20:12, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I would advocate a longer block before escalating this to ArbComm, but I also realize that any sysop implementing such a block would likely be brought up to ArbComm himself. —Tanaric 20:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you honestly think that would help? - Mini Me talk 21:05, 27 December 2009

Yes, long block periods really do serve as cooloff timers for people that are used to editing freely every day. Being forced to take a step back and read the wiki for a long period of time gives a lot of time for introversion. Even a 24 hour ban seems like forever when you're used to waking up, editing the wiki, eating breakfast, editing the wiki, going to work, editing the wiki, etc.

Blocks made as "timeouts" are usually very carefully done, and from my experience, almost always deserved. If the person blocked is unable to see the reason for the block, there is a much more deeply-seated issue at hand. -Auron 22:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I am aware of that but seeing how she did not learn anything from this block I don't think she'll learn anything from a longer one. - Mini Me talk 22:53, 27 December 2009

What do you expect the arbcomm to be able to do? Unless they choose to apply another block, what do you want them to say- "Wyn is hereby banned from having a temper"? – Emmett 23:32, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Well not all the time...there are acceptions----Xtreme 16:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Why

What do you hope to get from an ArbComm? ~Shard 20:55, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Getting the message across, simply put. Obviously sysop action has failed. - Mini Me talk 22:14, 27 December 2009

Oh, I must have missed something. Was she having an attitude during the ban she's still on? ~Shard 23:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

She's no longer banned. And yes, she was, and still is. - Mini Me talk 23:25, 27 December 2009

Is it appropriate to bring IRC logs into the discussion, rather than only issues that occur on the wiki itself? --Emkyooess 03:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I didn't think it was appropriate, according to previous readings of arbcomms, the outside stuff had been thrown out. -- riyen ♥ 04:19, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Personally, in reviewing everything that's been written/linked to, I've only taken the IRC log into account in so far as it goes to show Wyn's state of mind with regard to her behavior on wiki. Her actual conduct off-wiki is (mostly) irrelevant. — Defiant Elements +talk 06:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how I feel about IRC logs being used on this. Yes, it is telling evidence of an admin "trolling", "socking" and showing behavior that isn't becoming of an admin, but realistically, I know that a lot of things get said on IRC that many who chat there wouldn't want repeated to certain parties, or to certain members of the community in general. We all trash-talk, lets not act like we don't. Hell, Wyn called me a horse-face on IRC, but I never QQ'd about it, I said things about her on XVII's vent that were much, much worse. Big deal, she and I are cool now. I'm certain IRC is used as a place to vent about wiki-going-ons so a professional front can be maintained on the actual wiki. Not to sound like a Wyn fanboi, but if things she says in IRC are going to be used against her in such a manner, then past things said by other admins that is similarly discriminating should be posted as well, just to be equally fair so it isn't a Wyn-Witch Hunt. And going forward, just as an FYI, be careful what you allow to be put in a printed paper trail.--*Yasmin Parvaneh* 23:19, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Underhanded tactics are underhanded. Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ аІiсә ѕνәи Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ 23:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Right. And that's why she's not going to get in trouble for the things that she said on IRC (eg. we're not going to punish her for NPA vios that occurred off-wiki), and we're not going to hold it against her that she trash talks on the IRC; you're right, everybody does it, and, frankly, people can say whatever the hell they want on the IRC, which is why it's inappropriate most of the time to involve off-wiki communications. However, when what a sysop says on the IRC starts to bleed over into how he or she acts on the wiki (as in the case of, for example, Wyn and Lackey), then we've got a concrete, on-wiki problem. In such instances, off-wiki communications may become relevant. In this case, the IRC log becomes relevant, not for the truth of the matter (i.e. not for the actual words she used), but only in so far as they go to show her state of mind with regard to actions she took on-wiki. For example, though I've tried my utmost to disregard what Wyn actually had to say about Lackey in considering the accusations that have been leveled regarding Wyn's behavior, the IRC logs clearly show that Wyn was aware that she had an ulterior motive in acting the way that she did and that she didn't care. Those kinds of factors are undeniably relevant, regardless of whether the evidence supporting them was procured on or off-wiki. The simple fact is that we have to live and act with the knowledge that everything we say, especially online, is never truly private. — Defiant Elements +talk 23:52, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Put that way, I can agree/understand the perspective. I even felt the cord about the neck tighten when I read "I feel like being a bitch/I feel like a fight" part. Also, the admitted trolling was a bit much. Admins really shouldn't admit if they do that. That can certainly justify others doing it and nullifies people being banned for it (like Lena/Waffles & Igor to name a few). When I was an onsite manager, I still had to pay rent by the 3rd just like my tennants do, or I risk a FH violation.--*Yasmin Parvaneh* 00:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Nobody should be punished or otherwise administrated against for their actions in IRC (or email, or IM, or in-game, or real life). However, if somebody acts destructively and insight into their state of mind is helpful, I think it's reasonable to use those sources.

In this particular case, I would have blocked either way. However, because of Wyn's stated goal of fighting Lacky, I would elevate her from "disruptive user" to "vandal" and adjust block length accordingly (assuming, of course, I chose to go the route of the punitive block at all).

—Tanaric 00:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Woah, wiki didn't show EC or anything, but posted mine after DE posted his. His is better. :) —Tanaric 00:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Bit much?

While latley Wyn hasn't shown her best side we havn't either. I mean the irc log is useless since several times in the past to use outside info was thrown out. This arbcom at best is over reaction to the events that took place. So really let's just take a couple of minutes to what the issue really is. Stop the arbcom as it's not the right way to face the issue but rather just a way to direct the recent wiki drama against the sysops. --Dominator Matrix 06:36, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe...

Maybe people should remember that are bureaucrats the ones to judge if their intervention is required or not after a request, and votes for or against a case from the rest of us shouldn't hold real value here.

Basically, it would be great if people only posted here relevant information for/against the case (ie. links to relevant edits).--Fighterdoken 06:36, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Not needed and a bit hasty.

This is way to aggressive a method to use in the wiki-drama of recent (imho). There have been many "insights" and "responces" from a lot of wiki-members with more expression due to the holiday season (I think).

I would advice a more general approach to the whole bit and state that we are all humans behind what ever role we play here on GWW. Entitled to good and "I could have handled that better".

Wyn is appreciated for the many things she does for GWW and so are others. Let's start 2010 and the road to GW2 with a "we can do it together" instead of "he/she did this or that". We need eachother to make it work. That includes Wyn & you (reader). --Silverleaf Don't assume, Ask! 08:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Not to be a negative nancy, but her behavior has been like this for 6 months or longer. I don't think "hasty" has anything to do with this situation. -Auron 08:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Have you guys thought about that she takes the brunt of the trolls, etc., because of the work that she does on this site that I don't see that much out of some of you? Isn't that stressful to carry for months? Without getting people to help? I do think she needs a break from the wiki to help clear her mind, but I also think that we all need to work together more. Not for her to take on so much and to get stressed out over. Also to not let things get 'personal'. She needs to learn this isn't her wiki, but all of us and we all need to work together. I am not out to do the let us all love and give hugs, etc. but I do think better communications and dealings is needed, You can be too soft or too strick. It needs to be the middle. Yes, Wyn was a bit harsh to Lacky, but we have taken too much for granted from her to not expect her to break or start breaking during six months. I think many seem to forget that women do have a 'bad time' during a few days, etc. out of each month, to not expect us to be perfect, but to hope that we don't carry our 'attitudes' (being crude, etc.) into the wiki, that we judge, etc. from a professional type view more so than personal view, not carrying in our history knowledge into each decision of an instance that is happening or an Issue that's on one thing. Too many bring in their personal views or vendetta and I am to blame on this too, because of me bringing in my personal views. However, we're human, are we not allowed mistakes? Are we forgetting the AGF? As it was, or even forgetting to think,(Thank you Poke for the reminder that we must think, before we do things on the wiki) before we commit actions ?

Yes, Wyn has gotten out of hand a few times with her attitude. When have the rest of you, not done so? All that this would do to Wyn in the end would be another slap, but not merely that much of a lesson. I have faith in the arbcom in being done right and feel that they would make the right choices with things that become presented.

Here's what I think that relates to Wyn. 1. Misuse of words or using them incorrectly as a sysop would do, aka bringing a 'distasteful' attitude. 2. No breakage of policy, but has apparently caused disruption with her wordings and the way the discussion on her talk page went, even lack of using AGF with Lacky.

Though, what is this 'issue' being brought forth exactly? the issue with Lacky? or for the past six months? If the latter, should have done this sooner. -- riyen ♥ 09:44, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

No, this is not about the issue with Lacky, it's about the attitude she's had for the past 6 months (and before that). If you had actually read the things that are being said you would've known this. It's fine if you get in a shitty mood because of your menstruation, but this is not Wyn's issue, unless she has extremely long periods. She's had an extremely shitty attitude the past 6 months (and before) and she has let her personal feelings guide her use of the sysop tools and her interaction with others users and sysops.

Please note that I am not aiming for a simple demotion. Some kind of ban on speech similar to Shard's (one which would still allow her to do her sysop duties) is what I was thinking of, however, it is up to the bureaucrats to decide what the "punishment" will be, if they accept the case. - Mini Me talk 10:19, 28 December 2009

She hasn't 'let' them guide her all the time, but whatever. It's just this needed to have been started sooner, if it was such a problem. Basically, if you have had a problem with her attitude for the past six months. You should have brought it up sooner, instead of waiting this extreme period of time. That's just my opinion. -- riyen ♥ 10:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

It has been brought up by multiple users multiple times.

Also it doesn't really matter whether you think it an ArbComm should've been started earlier; I'm requesting one now. - Mini Me talk 17:33, 28 December 2009

Relevant stuff

So much drama, and no post on the only thing that matters at this stage of an ArbComm request: Whether ArbComm should be hearing this sort of case.

And as far as I can tell the only issue there is if other means should be tried first. The normal one being trying to have a calm reasonable discussion between the parties. Which it seems only Tanaric has tried, among all the screaming. If the situation is too infect for any to be possible, or if wating until this calms down and people move over to the next dramafest is worth it. I'm pretty sure than an ArbComm won't calm any emotions. Backsword 13:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

/signed --Silverleaf Don't assume, Ask! 14:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

/agree -- Cyan 14:10, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I don't know what's the expected outcome of this request. MiniMe mentioned above how he would rather have some kind of injunction than just demoting Wyn, and that's good, but I can't imagine what kind of injunction that could be. We have plenty of sysops capable of doing menial tasks, a few sysops who can deal with trolls and only one or two who actually bother to do anything about trolls; Wyn belongs (once in a while) to this last group, but to do do she must be allowed to edit talk pages, which is where the problems lie anyway.

Unless the bureaucrats think a demotion is in order (something I don't agree with, and which IMO wouldn't be supported by the community given the result of the recent RfR), I don't think there's anything to be done here other than a calm, reasonable talk and, if then yesterday's block appears to have been ineffective (Wyn has raged about it outside the wiki, but not here), following Tanaric's idea about a longer ban; in other words, nothing a sysop couldn't do.

(For the records, it amuses me that when a sysop is said to be trolling we get pages of drama, yet common trolls continue to run around while being happilly ignored.) Erasculio (airports are not cool) 14:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The answer to your question is simple Backsword: Arbcom should not hear this case. There is nothing in this case that Arbcom can possibly resolve (or resolve in a better way than other instruments). The proper method is a) talk page discussion and b) a reconfirmation. This is all about whether Wyn is hindered (by her emotions, etc) to be a sysop and not about any user disputes. --Xeeron 15:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you a right. But I don't think you are reading other posters correctly. As I do, this is not seen as a question regarding her use of sysop tools and a RfA thus inappropiate. Backsword 13:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Pathetic

I'm pretty sure I might get some "who are you" replies, but well, I'm just an user that cares about the wiki so I am hardly involved in any 'politics' until now. This whole discussion is a huge waste of energy and time over something that wasn't even an issue to begin with: Pling's banning of Wyn makes no sense at all, serves no purpose and seems more like a personal vendetta than anything else. Using this ban as a way to base your ArbComm is simply laughable, Mini Me.--Sensei 14:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I would like to suggest that you go back and read the involved pages, because hopefully if you do you'd realize that a significant portion of sysops and normal users support Pling's block. – Emmett 15:12, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes I made sure to read the whole discussion before posting. While a significant portion of people supports the block, there are also a few who are against it (see Pling's RfR) and I chose to be against it as well. I'm not Wyn's friend and I don't always agree with her bahiavor, but this block I believe was questionable, in a way it is not enough to request an ArbComm over. Wasn't it a 'preventive' ban, and not a 'punitive' one? --Sensei 15:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Regardless, this arbcomm is for Wyn, not Pling- this is kinda separate from the block. If you believe Pling abused his sysop tools you should probably go vote on his RfA; this page concerns Wyn and her "aggressive, too confrontational and disruptive behavior". – Emmett 15:31, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. But this is exactly my issue: the Arbcomm page has links pointing directly to the discussions about the block, thus giving the impression it was started solely because of the issue where she got blocked. Even if we consider the block was fair as a 'preventive' measure (which I personally think not), using it as basis of argument for an Arbcomm for Wyn seems way over the top, hence why I created this section. I don't like the block, but I like the Arbcomm request even less. --Sensei 15:44, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not done. It is just one example out of many. - Mini Me talk 17:30, 28 December 2009

Pathetic is missing the entire point of the arbcomm tbh. -Auron 17:44, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I like to think I know what an ArbComm is for, thanks. My point is that this subject is not ArbComm worthy, that's all, unless Mini Me has other significant issues to bring up, as he says he will.--Sensei 18:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Just wanted to apologize to Mini Me (& others) for my rude approach on the subject. My mood wasn't exactly the best yesterday, I surely could've worded my concerns in a more civilized way. I am sorry about that, although my opinion on the matter stands.--Sensei 13:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Re:Issue at hand

Although the responces of Wyn seem indeed "less friendly" I've seen sexually offensive material here on GWW that did not merit a block/ArbCom. Up till now I do not yet think this is convincing enough. I am sure more is to follow but every link has an equally "nice & helpfull comment" from Wyn too. --Silverleaf Don't assume, Ask! 20:50, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

What does sexually offensive material have to do with Wynthyst? elix Omni 03:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

And more importantly, do you have photographic proof? —Tanaric 03:29, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, these were short term issues with quick delete/block actions. Discretion wasn't needed in these cases because the only answer was the obvious one, and no one really opposed the deletion of said material (last I checked...). This is exactly the opposite of pretty much everything stated. -- Wandering Traveler 03:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Pretty sure Silver is just trolling this page. Just look at the section above... Karate Jesus 04:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

We are not all like you Karate. -- Cyan 09:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank god! Although there are things you can learn from KJ....well there is a lot you can learn. Wyn needs to be "shown the light" and a good kick in the ass could do the trick. The ban is significant however I can't see her making a change.----Xtreme 16:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

"Evidence"

None of the current reasoning for this ArbComm seems to be anything more than "Oh no Wyn bitched me out." Which, to be honest, is more like the diet coke of bitching. So why is this actually here? Did she actually do something worth all this? Or is it simply just "She's become more of a bitch all of the sudden?"--Shadowsin 07:06, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

You mean this looks like a witch hunt? --Silverleaf 14:07, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

It has to do with the alleged increase of bitchiness in recent days and the lack of efficacy of RfR's in the cases of admins who have a grouping of people whom are benefited by that admin's position of power. Too much paperwork around here for this to be an interesting point of contention more than it is simple lawyering and bullshit. =/ ··· Danny Pew Pew

I think it's a legitimate concern that a sysop's attitude is being problematic, however I'm put off by the way they dragged IRC logs into the issue, and it smells a little bit like drama rather than an actual problem. Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ аІiсә ѕνәи Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ 21:03, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Meh. IIRC Wyn does a lot around here. Not sure why, I mean the game is fucking dead, but she does do a lot. I don't ever remember there being a standard for "niceness". --Shadowsin 04:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Doing a lot doesn't warrant adminship. At PvX it might, but around here it shouldn't account for anything seeing as they have plenty of candidates that actually qualify for the position. The fact that the IRC comments pertain to the subject give a bit more context, which is nice in my opinion. In any other organization, a representative is not forgiven his or her actions outside of the organization, so I see little reason for that to apply here except in cases where the attitudes displayed in other mediums do not carry over to said organization. ··· Danny Pew Pew 06:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

She had to do something at some point to warrant adminship, or was given it because this place is just as much of a popularity contest as PvX, but whatever the reason, there is not a "no bitch" rule for admin behavior. Then again, lolgww.--Shadowsin 02:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The argument against her is that her "bitchiness" has begun to affect her discretion. From what I know, she's usually a cordial contributor and has done a lot in the way of templates, wikicode, and research, but that's tough to weigh against recent issues. I wouldn't be surprised if she lost her adminship temporarily as a cool-off period only to see it reinstated later on. ··· Danny Pew Pew 05:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)