Guild Wars Wiki:Requests for adminship/Pling

From Guild Wars Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Info-Logo.png Note: This RFA has been resolved. Please do not add further support/oppose opinions.

Pling[edit]

This request is for the reconfirmation of Pling (talk • contribs • logs • block log) based on user requests.
Created by pling User Pling sig.png 22:23, 26 December 2009 (UTC).

Status[edit]

Resolved - Pling reconfirmed.

Candidate statement[edit]

This reconfirmation was requested based on my blocking of Wynthyst (talk • contribs • logs • block log), explained at User talk:Wynthyst#GWW:AN, and a block made last year to Limu Tolkki (talk • contribs • logs • block log), explained at User talk:Limu Tolkki/archive1 (in multiple sections). When you make your comments below, I would appreciate it if they're reasoned and properly explained. Other than that, have fun. -- pling User Pling sig.png 22:23, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Support[edit]

  1. In my opinion, Pling is one of the best sysops on this wiki, and those 2 little incidents (which weren't problems at all imo) do not warrant his desysopping. - Mini Me talk 22:34, 26 December 2009
  2. Support. I find Pling's block of Wynthyst to be perfectly reasonable, and the other guy thing doesn't really matter. It is my opinion that Pling is the very model of a modern major general. User Felix Omni Signature.pngelix Omni 22:45, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
  3. Support. I agree with Felix, Pling blocking Wyn was perfectly resonable, and the other users block also appears to have been resonable and justified. Pling has always struck me as a very effective sysop, and is capable of thinking things through, deciding on what the best course of action is and then acting on that. ~ PheNaxKian User PheNaxKian sig.jpg 22:51, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
  4. Support. I was going to put together a fancy explanation but... *shrugs* I don't need one. Pling has his head in the right place and put on correctly. — Jon User Jon Lupen Sig Image.png Lupen 22:59, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
  5. Support. I agree with both Mini Me and Felix. + He is one of the few admins who contribute to and clean up the GW2 wiki regularly. Shew 23:05, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
  6. Support. There's nothing wrong with either block. There's no need to make molehills out of nothing and then turn them into mountains. --User Oneshot O.JPGneshot. 23:09, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
  7. I do believe Pling blocking Limu Tolkki wasn't unwarranted. Checking over that issue, Limu's justification for asking for a recon seems misinformed at best. However, while I am not entirely sure blocking Wyn ex post facto was the best thing to do, I do believe we can forgive him for this one mistake (read: →1← mistake). --User Ezekial Riddle silverbluesig.pngRIDDLE 23:10, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
  8. ec x4Echo all of the above. Pling is a very rational and logical sysop who doesn't let his emotions, feelings or personal bias get in the way of fairly and effectively administrating. His block of Wyn was entirely rational, and I don't quite see how people are calling it inappropriate. Wyn herself acknowledged that she was being a bitch on purpose, and especially since she already underwent 1 reconfirmation for such behavior (and may soon undergo another, for 6+ months of consistently inappropriate behavior) I fully stand behind Pling's decision to block her. It was even arguably necessary- upon being told by Tanaric to back off & cool down, Wyn only responded with "LOL!" and more aggression- not exactly indicative that Wyn acted appropriately/action short of blocking would have worked. Furthermore, complaining about perceived favoritism and bias still doesn't justify Pling losing sysop- "baww <x> did it too, punish him too!" is a terrible argument. In addition, even to those who don't agree with the block... why are we starting a reconfirmation for one event? Unlike Gordon's recent reconfirmation, which was for a range of problems within the block reviews, Pling is now undergoing reconfirmation for one single thing, which imo is a terrible precedent to set. I still have not seen a valid reason for Pling to be desysopped, despite reading through the discussion multiple times and having an hours-long discussion about it on IRC, so I wholeheartedlly oppose Pling losing sysop status. – Emmett 23:11, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
  9. pretty much everything up there ^^^^. Also blocking wyn made me laugh so +1 point to you, my good sir. personn5User Personn5 sig.jpg 23:24, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
  10. Support. The one reason to remove his sysop status (misuse of sysop tools) is not a valid one, in my opinion. Pling did not partake in the heated 'conversation' between Wyn and Lacky, so there is no reason to say he swung the banhammer for his own gain or something like that. It may not have been the best solution for the situation, but a solution is a solution nevertheless. Koda User Koda Kumi UT.jpeg Kumi 23:32, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
  11. Support. Does this even have to be explained? Pling has been a sysop for over two years, and because of one little lapse in judgement we're breaking out the torches and pitchforks. Last time I checked, the sysop team was not a perfect set of robots with flawless input commands and prime A.I. discretion capabilities. They were human, and humans can make a mistake. So the block was late. Maybe a timestamp got read wrong. Discretion is never perfect. I have seen nothing wrong out of Plings actions and I still trust him as a sysop. --User Wandering Traveler Sig2.png Wandering Traveler 00:03, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
  12. Pling remains one of the best sysops on the team, and his ability to emotionally distance himself from the cases is honestly a rare one on this wiki. Blocking vandals isn't hard - blocking people you know and trust is much harder, and Pling doing so fairly and justly shows virtue and character beyond that of most sysops. -Auron 00:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
  13. Support As per the previous comments. Manifold User Manifold Jupiter.jpg 00:50, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
  14. Support. It's rare the sysop who knows when to apply a non-punitive block. Even if I did not agree with its use in this most recent case, I would support him because he has the guts and initiative to use it (within reason, obviously). —Tanaric 01:18, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
  15. Support From what I've seen, Wyn can act very strongly based on emotions, and this can cloud anyone's judgment of a situation. Even admins (Wyn, in this case) are suspect to making mistakes, and admins should be allowed to ban other admins as seen necessary. ---Chaos- (moo) -- 01:30, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
  16. Support Ditto the above comments. I don't think there's any admin on the wiki that fits the role more than Pling. I mean it's Pling. There was no lapse in judgement, it was justified (if anything this is a reconfirmation for the wrong sysop). If Pling is deemed not worthy of being a sysop on the wiki, then I don't know who is. ~Celestia 01:43, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
  17. Support As per Chaos. →[ »Halogod User Halogod35 Sig.png (talk)« ]← 01:44, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
  18. Support As per above. --★KOKUOU★ 01:48, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
  19. Support. Pling was just doing what he thought was right. Although I did not want Wyn to get banned, I can see why he did it. Drogo, I think that saying Pling only blocked Wyn and not me because he likes me and not Wyn is a harsh thing to say. To my knowledge, Pling hardly knows me. I don't even think we have had a chat other than him helping me out with some things (although we should talk more often Pling =P). Also, as per all above and below Supports. -- My Talk Lacky 02:03, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
  20. Support Pling has been always been helpful. He's always been able to help when it's been needed. Pling deserves it. Even admins can use a little break from the wiki. Blocking Wyn wasn't a crime or anything. Invincible RogueUser Invincible Rogue siggyiggywiggy.gif 02:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
  21. Support Anything I could say has already been said above. Shadow Runner 02:21, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
  22. Support I see nothing wrong. Sysops make mistakes we are humans. --Dominator Matrix 02:25, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
  23. Support. Pling's recent actions have been perfectly logical and justifiable. Additionally, he has an excellent track record as a sysop. Belar 04:11, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
  24. Support I'm trying to read through all this---but overall and based on his track record here, Pling is an excellent sysop. I see no reason this event can't be settled via discussion and I see no reason to question Pling's administrative status either.--*Yasmin Parvaneh* User yasmin parvaneh sig.png 05:12, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
  25. Support Pling made a judgment call. Even if it was a bad call (which I don't think it was), I don't think it's reason enough to remove sysop status.--Pyron Sy 05:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
  26. Support As per Yasmin. User Ryuu R.jpg Ryuu - talk 05:28, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
  27. Support. I am starting to think that the policy regarding reconfirmations needs to be changed, since I have not seen one half-valid recon in all my time on the wiki...they were all started due to a small number of overly angry users, some of whom I would dare to say are completely out of touch with reality. Even for the recons of Auron and Wyn, which did have considerable community split, most of the votes could be attributed to fanboi-ism or being overly butthurt. I know that the idea behind the policy is to preserve relations between "the power elite" (sysops) and regular users, by empowering them to be whistle-blowers...but honestly, this is turning into almost as much of a joke as 42's bureaucrat nomination.
    tl;dr Unlike Gordon's "one mistake", which I believe showed him to be incompetent using the sysop tools, Pling's judgment call raises no alarms with me, and I am more than comfortable with him retaining ops. It's merely a difference in methods whether to use the block tool to catch someone's attention, or to write a book to them about the problem. I know that Pling values efficiency. Vili 点 User talk:Vili 06:25, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
  28. He has both a sack and a brain. A rare thing on this festering slophole of a website and traits both conducive to being a decent sysop. —ǥrɩɳsɧƴɖɩđđɭɘş User Grinshpon blinky cake.gif 06:28, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
  29. Support. As per all above. -- Cyan User Cyan Light sig.jpg 12:33, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
  30. Support. Pling is one of the persons on this wiki, I can trust the most. Sadly we don't have many other (active) sysops where I can say similar things about. Even adding requests for reconfirmation over this one stupid issue is something where I never thought it would happen. I am quite surprised about the people who added their signature in that section because they should have known that it would start a RfA and it basically means that they no longer want Pling to retain his sysop status.
    Regarding the actual issue that started this, I completely agree with the block. While I don't think it was the best time to do it, Wyn's actions in the past justified this block. As I said before, neither a sysop status nor a high edit count should protect people from being blocked, and if it wasn't Wyn who behaved like that but anybody else, that person would have been blocked long before. Of course it was clear how Wyn would react after the block, and that is also the main reason why she wasn't blocked for her actions before, but I personally still hope that Wyn might finally realize that her behaviour is not good. Given that the RfR before didn't work, this block was a different approach.
    However, to leave Wyn out of this RfA for Pling, I really don't believe that one action, being justified or not, should decide if a really good (if not best) and active sysop should keep the status or not. poke | talk 14:06, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
  31. Support. As per Poke. --SharkinuUser Sharkinu sig.png 14:28, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
  32. Support. It seems to me after reading the pages of discussion on what happened, that both RfR's were done quite hastily and because people were a) pissed at Pling/Brains for blocking Wyn and b) pissed at Wyn for her attitude of the last 6 months / century depending on your view of her editing history. Sysops are given discretion in their blocks, even if that means blocking other sysops. And people can have an attitude and not violate GWW:NPA (but that is generally a very fine line and one that can easily be crossed). Neither of which seems worthy of an RfR to me. IMO both issues should have instead been brought to ArbCom if people felt that they were so far out of line (which Salome tried to do). As such I do not believe either person should have their Sysop status revoked at this point, if either suddenly start acting inappropriately then it may become necessary. But I hope and don't think that that will happen. --Rainith 16:58, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
  33. Support PLING!--/u/nendingfear File:User Unendingfear Crane eats peanut.jpg 18:30, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
  34. Support --Nick123 User Nick123 sig.jpg 21:33, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
  35. Support Not much new to add to what was said above. The block was not the best way possible to deal with the situation, but it was not entirely unwarranted and definitely not abuse of sysop tools. --Xeeron 23:28, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
  36. Support As much as sysop drama makes me sadface, I think Pling made about as good a decision as anyone. Wyn - get away from the wiki for a few days. Blowing up on someone because they replied on the AN isn't ideal sysop behavior. ~Shard User Shard Sig Icon.png 23:38, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
  37. Support Wyn needed some corner time. Regardless if they're all smoochie @ the end of the thread, it was still out of line. I agree with what pling/others have said that this block wasn't punitive. --adrin User Adrin mysig.jpg 02:11, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
  38. Support The current crying sounds a lot like when I trashed the toucher. -- Armond WarbladeUser Armond sig image.png{{Bacon}} 06:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
  39. The latest in a row of 'I can point out one issue with them, so lets try to get them desysoped, and screw the overall picture' RfAs. One can hope the last, but people not seeing every administative tool as an option to attack people? Sigh. Backsword 12:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
  40. Strong Support. Wyn fanbois have gotten out of hand lately (as has Wyn, but it's been like that for a while). The block was reasonable. It was only a 1 day ban for God's sakes. Karate User Karate Jesus KJ for sig.png Jesus 18:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
  41. Support I think Pling was wrong in blocking wyn, but one mistake does not warrant an impeachment. I agree with Salome that this should have gone to arbcomm. (Satanael | talk) 18:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
  42. Support. One small incident should not overshadow all of the positive contributions that Pling has made. He did not break the rules; he used his discretion in blocking a disruptive member. I strongly support him for being bold enough to do this. — User indochine dsk tree.png Indochine talk 19:05, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
  43. Support. One may agree or disagree with the block as such (I happen to think that a short time-out was not unwarranted in this case), but regardless I think it was sufficiently motivated and not beyond the scope of proper use of sysop powers. And definitively not questionable enough to lose adminship over.--Lensor (talk) 19:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
  44. Support. The block was a difficult call, but was not an unreasonable one. I don't see any clear evidence that supports the claim that Pling abused his sysop powers. User De Kooning sig.png... de Kooning 20:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
  45. Support. This vote on Pling seems to be a proxy vote on the block on Wyn. However, I choose to ignore that and just say that I like pling and think his adminship is a net positive for the wiki. — THARKUN User Tharkun sig.png 05:45, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
  46. Support. I think more of you guys need a 1 day ban, jesus, get a grip... --Frosty User Frosty Frostcharge sig.jpg 13:40, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
  47. Support. GWW:BOLD. Happy Reconfirmation Pling. -- FreedomBoundUser Freedom Bound Sig.png 19:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
  48. Support While I may not fully agree with the way things turned out, I certainly don't believe it merits taking away Pling's sysop status. --JonTheMon 20:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
  49. Support The fact that there are oppose votes here regarding a 1-day block for whatever reason is enough of a reason for me to support him for what would appear to be, for a lack of better words, not riding the dick of another admin. ··· Danny Pew Pew 23:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
  50. Support It takes a lot of guts to apply Pling's amount of judicial discretion given what happened, and even more to stand up for all the /drama that occurred because of it. I don't think Pling's ban was unwarranted, and having an RFA audit for one action is a bit petty and sets a dangerous precedent for future misbehaviours. A high edit count is always welcome on a wiki, however; you cannot use this as evidence to relieve pressure on Wyn. While this analogy might be a bit extreme, its like saying we can let someone get away with murder because of all the money you've donated to X organisation. People should be held accountable for actions and behaviours no matter how important or how much they have contributed. A high edit count warrants no excuse for this type of condescending, repeated, problematic behaviour. -- rawrUser rawr Sig Image.png 03:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
  51. Support. Cress Arvein User Cress Arvein sig.JPG 04:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
  52. Support. I would be hesitant to vote for him for bureaucrat right now, as many are questioning his "people skills", etc., but he does an excellent job as an admin, and that's the current issue. So I support him. calor (talk) 22:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose[edit]

  1. Oppose. I dont know how much I can trust him not to just throw logical reasoning out the window and block somebody with no justifyable evidence. As a sysop you are expected to be completely unbiased. Your block on Wyn was based on your dislike of her. If you really felt that the discussion was disruption then Lacky should have recieved the same one day block, only you dont dislike him. I feel that you no longer see things as a sysop should. I would like to see you take a break from the wiki and rethink your role as a sysop and how you conduct yourself as one. You lead by example. Just blocking Wyn like that screams "I dont like you, I'm gonna block you." User DrogoBoffin sig icon.png Drogo Boffin 23:21, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. I don't agree with someone banning another after a discussion is clearly over and there's NO disruption going on at the time. He has done this instance more than once without looking at the situation and seeing if it's resolved or not. Also not even looking at the history of the times, etc. He judges by what little information he sees. I don't think we need a sysop who uses or abuses tools in this way. All I see is that this person seems to have a personal issue involved in matters and that this person does not look to see that matters are already resolved. I do not think we should let someone who uses their tools when it is not needed or called for. I think it's sad to ban several hours after a discussion is over. -- User Ariyen sig icon.gifriyen ♥ 00:29, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. As per Ariyen and Drogo. - Reanimated X 05:56, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. We are somewhat limited on this wiki in areas of dispute resolution. If two sysops disagree we can only really discuss it to death, go to arbcomm or if we feel strongly enough about something, go down the RFR line of things. I personally wanted an arbcomm to decide if in this instance Pling acted within his remit and thus gain clarity for future events, however this RFR was started and I felt it unfair to have both an RFR and an arbcomm ongoing at the same time. I personally feel the block was over the mark and both outside the remit and spirit of sysop discretion. It was a none issue and the blocking of Wyn exacerbated the situation rather than rectifying it. IMHO the ban is an abuse of sysop discretion and as such does raise concerns about his ability to sysop in both an objective and impartial manner in instances where his personal opinions of a fellow user is involved, which is a luxury none of the admins can afford to have. -- Salome User salome sig2.png 12:57, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
  5. Oppose. He has decided his way of communication is the only way, which is basically none at all imo. Using sysop discretion as an excuse to slap a fellow admin in the face with NO attempt at two way communication is a joke, placing a "stop disruption" ban 4 hours after the conversation is over is a joke, and a thinly veiled disciplinary action that was unwarranted, and over the top. He did not even (as far as I know anyway) discuss/consult with any other admin (at least no evidence has been put forth to indicate otherwise) a block that would guarantee wiki drama, and displays a lack of judgment beyond anything I would consider good for this community. -- Wyn User Wynthyst sig icon2.png talk 18:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
  6. Oppose. The motivation behind Pling's ban was neither to punish nor to prevent further disruption. It was clear that the argument ended, factoring in the way the discussion ended after Lacky and Wyn had some form of agreement. Yes, Wyn has been uptight lately. Get her to take a break by convincing her that it's good for her as a whole, not undermine her on her talkpage with false concern and scrutinize semantics involved in the discussion of an issue as small as this. The motivation behind the ban is clearly to stir drama by provoking party(ies) involved, and that in itself is more disruptive and insidious than any "bitchiness" that Wyn is capable of. The spark that set the fire was clearly Wyn's poor(or at least ambiguous) choice of words, and even though she clarified that she did not mean it the way people twisted it to be, instead of AGF, Pling decided to fan to flames even harder instead of properly resolving conflicts via far better and less controversial methods such as msn and IRC private chat. I do not trust a person who makes mountains out of molehills, use multiple standards to judge different people as well as to not know his own place and limits to be anywhere close to a sysop position, or capable of admin-standard decisions. Pling's good track record thus far is moot in a situation where he clearly is intending to disrupt, instead of actually having good intentions like what some other admins(like Gordon Ecker) are put under recon for, where the issue would be just a lapse in judgement. However, I see that blind faith is going to make a mockery out of this whole issue anyway, judging from the overwhelming amounts of "support". Seriously, I expected more than backstabbing and personal vendettas from the sysop team the community puts so much faith in. Pika Fan 21:30, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
  7. Oppose. have to echo what salome has said along with what Ariyen said and wynthyst.- User Zesbeer sig.png Zesbeer 22:49, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
  8. Oppose. He's naughty and not nice. Loves to Sync 03:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
  9. Oppose. OMFG U MEEN PLING U BENND WYN MEENIE! Dark Morphon 17:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Neutral[edit]

  1. Neutral/Subject to Change -- I don't know what is going on between Pling & Wyn yet, but I do know that the only thing hasty about Wyn is her comments. ...Unlike Pling who Who was either being really Sloppy by hastily admin'ning without bothering to double-check history, or worse, was acting upon Agenda instead of Accuracy and then refused to correct the mistake... *BOGGLE* (IE: not my final vote, I just wanted to get that other incident out in the open first) --ilrUser ilr deprav.png 23:15, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
  2. Neutral. What's the point of blocking another sysop anyway? Whenever somebody blocks me on my wiki, I can just unblock myself. Granted, I'm the owner rather than just an administrator, but I don't have to do it manually, the tools are right there. –Jette 00:45, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
  3. Neutral. Drama is going way too far and I don't want to participate in it (which I do, because I comment here). -- Cyan User Cyan Light sig.jpg 18:33, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
  4. Neutral Both Wyn and Pling have shown haste at one time or another. I for one see no need to collective bashing of either one. I would like it if both try to resolve their differences together without all the comments of the GWW community (I read those and most do have a point or not) and resume both their tasks for the greater good. Fun in GW & this Awesome corresponding Wiki. --Silverleaf Special:Contributions/SilverleafDon't assume, Ask! 14:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
  5. What Xeeron said. I believe Pling should have kept GWW:AGF in mind, but I also think there's more to this situation than I am aware of so I can't really come to a proper descision. — WhyUser talk:Why 14:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
  6. I have conversed with Auron on MSN, and it seems that there are more mitigating circumstances that I have to consider. Neutral for now. Pika Fan 03:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
  7. Neutral You have to do what is best with some people in some circumstances, but I just think Pling needs to do things in ways that his personal opinion doesn't come into play (has happened from research). He can do things in ways without personal opinion coming into play as I have seen this in him, too. -- User Ariyen sig icon.gifriyen ♥ 10:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
  8. ...

Request for Reconfirmation[edit]

  1. ...
Retrieved from "https://wiki.guildwars.com/index.php?title=Guild_Wars_Wiki:Requests_for_adminship/Pling&oldid=1856198"