Guild Wars Wiki:Requests for adminship/Gordon Ecker/Archive 2

Note: This RFA has been resolved. Please do not add further support/oppose opinions.

Gordon Ecker

This request is for the reconfirmation of Gordon Ecker (talk • contribs • logs • block log) based on user requests.
Created by Misery 21:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC).

Status

Successful. 21:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Candidate statement

I've already provided a detailed explanation of the motivations and rationale behind the block reviews at User:Gordon Ecker/Block reviews and User talk:Gordon Ecker/Block reviews. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 08:30, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. Support. Are we really going to damn someone for a single failure? Are we really that blind and quick to judge that we are going to cast down someone and set aside all the good they've done because of one event? Please, prove me wrong. — Jon Lupen 21:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
2. Support. I think his unbanning was justifiable, and he gave me 8 plat for turning in a book ;D--Unendingfear File:User Unendingfear Crane eats peanut.jpg 22:30, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
3. Support. The block reviews were a good idea that went about the entire wrong way. I have to agree with Jon: This is just one thing, why are we getting so worked up here? One issue got trolled like a fairytale drawbridge. That doesn't mean Gordon is some evil Nazi trying to take over the wiki. He's a great sysop, he can still keep his cool, and I still trust his discretion. -- Wandering Traveler 05:25, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
4. Support. --Dominator Matrix 06:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
5. Support. Although I disagree with reviewing blocks without being asked too and thus disagree with the block review page, the actual thought behind it I agree with, in that sysops should be free to review standing blocks if that block is appealed and if they feel the block was unduly harsh. That is the only way to truly have a fair and just blocking system in place on the wiki. The way Gordon went about it was flawed but I do not think it raises issues about his ability to sysop. To be honest this review seems somewhat vindictive in nature and I am somewhat saddened by it. -- Salome 06:48, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
6. Support. Why are we really doing this? Like come on, seriously? Is this a joke? -- Lacky 08:56, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
7. Support. I don't find Gordon's request for a review of a few permanent blocks to be in any way a failure. Gordon has proven to be a solid sysop, not prone to become involved in drama, or allow personal issues to cloud his judgment (which I can not always say for myself). Removing him as a sysop would be a detriment to this wiki overall. -- Wyn talk 13:02, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
8. Support. People make mistakes. End. -- Cyan 21:37, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
9. Support As Cyan says, people is bound to make "mistakes". I haven't seen any act from Gordon's part that doesn't go beyond a discretional decision based on a personal interpretation of a given situation. The fact that his decisions were challenged (by the rest of the admin crew, or by the community itself in other cases), and the fact that he hasn't insisted on such decision beyond arguing on their favor makes me believe he is still apt for the position.--Fighterdoken 00:46, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
10. Support While I disagree with the way Gordon seems to be going about his 'crusade,' I don't feel that it currently rates revoking his sysop status. --Rainith 04:28, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
11. Support Sorry, it's hard to go with two sysops (and I won't say more as this is about Gordon), but I believe Gordon has good intentions. He shows them a lot more than I can say for a vast few. However, I may not agree with his unbanning of a few, but I understand as he is seemingly going by the "Innocent, until proven guilty." Like so many are to be treated in the usa (as far as our country laws go). However, some have been proven guilty that he over looks. I just hope that he can understand his mistakes. I think more discussion was needed before the decision of unbanning, but he made his choices and from my views of legal, etc. I think many may have done similar. I do not see any reason, however, of him needing his position removed. -- riyen ♥ 06:13, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
12. Support ive seen him help people quite alot and he always seems to know whats hes doing --Nick123 11:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
13. Support What's already been said covers the situation well. --Ceru talk contribs 20:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
14. Support - Reanimated X 12:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
15. Support I just spent the last hour playing 'catch-up' and am wondering what this has all come to. Sorry, but just because Gordon is being accused for acting recklessly doesn't mean we should be doing the same. The discussion in concern hasn't even reached consensus and already people are shooting bullets while their guns remain in the holster. Take a step back, gather some composure and look at the issue more carefully before making a decision. With regards, I vote support. Gordon's composure is remarkable, and he has done much for this wiki.(Xu Davella 06:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC))
16. Support Gordon's initiative at his unblocking page was entirely done in good faith. Imho, it is also entirely useless, since these accounts are most likely abandoned (and every banned troll knows how easy it is to make a new account), but I wont hold it against him, it is his decision what to do with his time. I see no damage done to the wiki at all (same argument as before: Those old accounts do not matter). So I also see no reason to be against Gordon's continued sysophood. --Xeeron 00:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
17. Support I agree with #1 here. -- Halogod35 04:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
18. Support Per Wyn, Xeeron, and John (and Salome, but in a less verbose manner). -- FreedomBound 17:13, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
19. Support Looking past the block review controversy, Gordon has done a tremendous amount of good work for the Wiki, I feel that his contributions over all exceed any questions raised by the recent block reviews, and that he should be allowed to continue as an admin on some level.--*Yasmin Parvaneh* 17:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
20. Support Per Jon, Salome, Fighterdonken, Yasmin, et cetera. — Why 13:46, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
21. Support Gordon raises excellent points on the talk page. Sysops are implicitly given jurisdiction to mete out blocks, yet altering or removing existing blocks is more taboo than underage bestial incest- so much so that a single instance prompted this reconfirmation. When so much importance is placed on sysop discretion, why should courtesy overrule it? I see no compelling reason, merely a case of "Honey, don't contradict me in front of the kids." I do not and will not always agree with Gordon's decisions, but I do not doubt his ability to make them. elix Omni 00:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
22. Support I think reviewing the bans was a huge waste of time that would have been better put towards anything else, but I think his history and general wiki/Guild Wars knowledge outweighs it. Manifold 02:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
23. Sad. Whatever you think about the review thing (and it was less than optimal), I doubt anoyone finds it such an earthshattering event that it would matter compared everything else that happened during years of service. Seem like this is political (Vili is pretty open about that. And, no, your gang is not 'the community'), and that's not how the wiki is supposed to run. Sysophood should have nothing to do with that. Backsword 23:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
24. - Mini Me talk 17:06, 16 December 2009

Oppose

1. Oppose Block reviews have done more harm than good... - J.P.Talk 21:04, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
2. I think the whole attitude he took towards his permablock review (i.e. Basically, the question is "Why shouldn't I unblock these accounts?".) seemed, if not powertripping, just out of line with the wiki-spirit. --RIDDLE 21:47, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
3. Oppose. It's not a matter of a single misake, rather a large succession of them. Creating the block reviews on itself was a mistake, and many of Gordon's attitudes in the block discussions have been extremely random. The adminship structure of the wiki is already too weak for someone to begin second guessing the sysops in order to unblock users who have not asked to be unblocked, who may not even care about the wiki anymore and who more often than not were blocked for good reasons in the first place. Erasculio 21:57, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
4. Oppose. Drogo Boffin 05:36, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
5. To specifically counter Jon's too-narrow view on this matter, it isn't a one-strike-you're-out deal. Everything he's done since the inception of the Block Review page has been failure after failure after failure. He's created more drama than I've ever managed to, he's unblocked accounts on the basis that checkuser didn't prove them guilty, and as I've said on other pages, he's tried to throw out perfectly solid evidence as rumors and hearsay. A single one of these things would be a "strike" - all of them together, one after another, without any apology for screwup or a promise to avoid future screwups, is what makes me oppose. On top of all that, what has the wiki gained from the project? The only unblock that I can see as remotely beneficial is the IP, and that can (and should have) simply been unblocked by Gordon when he noticed it. -Auron 09:09, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
6. Oppose. - Mini Me talk 10:11, 5 December 2009
7. Oppose. Agree with Auron and Erasculio. To expand on this, I don't think Gordon had provided sufficient evidence to overturn a block such as Moo Kitty's, and did so without a consensus between the community or even directly asking the blocking sysop - recent events concerning Salome's overturning of a block carried out by Auron pretty much reconfirmed the notion that the blocking sysop should be contacted first. And that was changing a one day block to a 12 hour block. Even if it was agreed upon to undo the infinite block, the previous block's expiration date was 26th January 2010, not 11th December 2009 as Gordon set it; Moo Kitty was blocked for a number of reasons, circumvention was just one of them. I also disagreed with his approach to unblock Wafflez - believing that other admins' claims of email abuse should be "should be ignored as hearsay" and that they're "unverifiable allegations".
   "People make mistakes" - yeah, they do. However, if they don't see them as mistakes but as the right thing to do, and consistently make them and to the detriment of the wiki, that's something to be concerned about. -- pling 21:47, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
8. Reluctant Oppose. Gordon, you're a nice guy and I generally like you. I've never seen you abusing your sysop tools before or otherwise causing any trouble. Sadly, sysop status carries the responsibility to protect, delete, and ban - and I can not in good faith continue to endorse a sysop who I do not believe is capable of using all three tools. I've watched your various attempts over time to make some sort of a blocking guideline; I saw your block reviews page, which started with good intentions but has ironically now led to a reconfirmation for you. If sysops could be split into categories - only to delete spam, only to block obvious vandals, only to protect conflict-ridden pages - I would support you in a heartbeat. But what you've said/done with the block reviews has convinced me that you can no longer be trusted with more than the most clear-cut and basic bannings. Sysop teams work best when they are balanced by a variety of styles and viewpoints, but especially in your latest proposal draft, it seems clear that your views on this matter just diverge too much from the rest of the sysops, let alone the general community consensus. Disagreement is good; unnecessary drama and conflict is not, and that is all that I can see in the future should other contentious cases come up. Thus, I reluctantly vote oppose. Vili 点 05:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
9. Oppose. I have seen Gordon helpful in many places before, but his help seemed to be very discrete, and not powerful or direct in many manners. Since the Block Review, I frankly was kind of disappointed with him and his function there. Reviewing perma-bans is a good idea, but reviewing bans that were very old (at least 2 years) is a bad idea, especially if you say "Give new evidence or unblock". As seen per User:Gordon_Ecker/Block_reviews#Moo_Kitty, he unblocked Moo Kitty just on the bases of "CheckUser can't prove anything", whilst completely ignoring 98% of the argument. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Misery, a friend of Moo Kitty, said that she proxies and ignored the ban, and there were many other non-proxy related terms. As said, Gordon Ecker ignored that. That is one of those mistakes Gordon made, but it was preceded by others, which makes me wonder... did he do what sysops should do, and learn from past mistakes? Should I as a member of the community be 100% sure that he won't use his sysop tool without sufficient discretion? No one wants Lena or Igor back online. Titani Ertan 08:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
10. Per Auron, Pling, Vili. I don't have a problem with the theory of block reviews, but I feel that from the way Gordon handled the arguments to the actual unblocking of Moo Kitty despite pretty clear opposing consensus I do not trust Gordon to handle similar matters in the future. – Emmett 20:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
11. Oppose. Gordon has been a naughty little sysop lately. Loves to Sync 21:15, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
12. Oppose Entropy (Vili 点) is correct. Our three primary duties are to protect, ban, and delete. Everything I've read since I've been back have shown me that Gordon is unable to preform his duties when it comes to banning. The most recent mistakes I have read, Gordon states that he unblocked and changed block durations based on assumptions that there would be a consensus. In addition, without fully investigating his actions, as per his confession regarding the Moo Kitty block and not realizing that the original block was to expire in January. Regardless of his character or contributions, Gordon is not new to the admin status and should not be making mistake after mistake after mistake. — Gares 16:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
13. Oppose. -Cursed Angel 14:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
14. Oppose. as per all of ^^^^. personn5 04:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral: Undoubtedly Gordon is a respected member of this wiki, not to mention his contributions on GWiki. He has demonstrated himself to capable with sysop tools and with sysop discretion. If this were any other time, I would've voted for him in a heartbeat. Yet his recent initiative of reviewing some of the permanent blocks has generated not an inconsiderable amount of unnecessary drama, drama that should have been foreseen and prevented. As of now, I am unsure whether if he'll go on to be a capable sysop, or if he is slipping as Auron has mentioned. --NuVII 21:26, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
2. The notion behind the reviews was noble, but not the way it was applied and carried out. Hopefully it was merely an abnormal slip-up that humans do make. Pika Fan 21:46, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
3. Neutral: I recuse myself from voting, but I plead with others to consider how Gordon is a stabilizing force and that the overall balance of administration could tip sharply without him. To some that might be their primary motivation in this, but it would ultimately lead to more widespread drama than the block reviews themselves have --ilr 03:05, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
4. Neutral: I was going to support him, as he has been a good sysop/bcrat in the past, but his recent actions regarding his block reviews shows a lapse in judgment and a lack of communication between him and other admins prior to the unblockings. This doesn't mean he couldn't keep the sysop role o f course, Gordon's smart and has probably learned from his mistakes. ~Shard 06:19, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
5. Neutral. I have seen Gordon helpful in many places before, but his help seemed to be very discrete, and not powerful or direct in many manners. Since the Block Review, I frankly was kind of disappointed with him and his function there. Reviewing perma-bans is a good idea, but reviewing bans that were very old (at least 2 years) is a bad idea, especially if you say "Give new evidence or unblock". As seen per User:Gordon_Ecker/Block_reviews#Moo_Kitty, he unblocked Moo Kitty just on the bases of "CheckUser can't prove anything", whilst completely ignoring 98% of the argument. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Misery, a friend of Moo Kitty, said that she proxies and ignored the ban, and there were many other non-proxy related terms. As said, Gordon Ecker ignored that. But, I still can't make up my mind, if removing him from the sysop team is a good idea, or a bad idea. Titani Ertan 08:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
6. Neutral. I don't know much about the Block Reviews and Check User nonsense (And I've been to both relevant pages), so I can't judge.-- anguard 20:25, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Request for Reconfirmation

1. ...