Guild Wars Wiki talk:Requests for adminship/Aiiane/Archive 1

On GWO

Just a little personal observation note on some of the oppose votes. While I understand that Aiiane has her share of conflicts and problems as a moderator on the forum there, I feel that they are irrelevant to the wiki. Her track record here is what counts, and that is what a vote should be based on, not personal grudges or grievances made elsewhere. -- ab.er.rant 01:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you shitting me!!! What if Hitler {for lack of a better example} applied? --69.64.79.211 18:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

As long as SuperAryan19 behaved himself on this site and followed GWW policies I wouldn't have an issue with it. (btw, using Hilter is a logical fallacy these days w:Reductio ad Hitlerum.) - HeWhoIsPale 18:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Links to ideas like that stifle thinking with wrong logic. The reference to Hitler in this context was along the lines; he clearly has issues with certain groups, he clearly exercises power in an extreme way, he is not in it for the benefit of the community, and if he were he is severely misguided. The example wasn't "Aiiane likes people with blonde hair and blue yes and so did Hitler, thus she must be bad," it was a sound reasoning. Her stance else where is entirely relevant here. That's what a resume is all about - demonstrating your previous experience and performance relevant to the job. We don't know how they will act in a position of power most of the time but with Aiiane we already had some kind of example of the type of person she is as an admin. The kinds of decisions she will make and the way she holds herself in a conflict. The grandfathered sysops were given power here based on their actions on another wiki - nothing to do with how they acted here. The people who opposed her RFA for reasons related to her performance of a similair role on another forum are fully justified to hold those beliefs and make those votes. 122.104.230.147 10:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Request to review Sysop Aiiane

→ moved from User talk:LordBiro

I beleive this sysop is going above what we as the wiki community have allowed our sysops to do. particularly here She has exercised a judgement I disagree with, but more importantly I don't beleive is supported by our current policy. It is true how much freedom our admin have in exercising judgements like this is a hotly debated topic, but as it stands at the moment the block she made was not justified and wasn't in compliance with our current policy. This isn't the first time this has happened with this admin either. This block here again shows where she has exercised a personal judgement, possibly related to her personal beliefs about Raptors when there is no proof that this was raptors - and it was in fact refuted by both raptors AND an ip claiming to be the banned user.

This kind of admin action sets a dangerous precedent, acting beyond what our rules allow them to do. The issue is not whether you agree with her that the users were trouble, it is here we have a sysop exercising personal judgement about a non evidence based banning which is not supported by policy. This kind of vigilante sysoping needs to be nipped in the butt now, before we have a problem similair to the MP47 on the other wiki. If the someone wants to change what a Sysop is allowed to do, they can propose it and have the community decide, not set a terrible precedent. There is no proof that the accounts banned were Raptors - only suspicion, which is not a justifiable reason to ban. Neither was there any violation of our wiki policies. I would like to formally request a review of Sysop Aiiane and her actions. 208.53.131.78 15:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

A bcrat's talk page is not the correct location for things like this. Please use the admin reconfirmation process for that. Also I think Aiiane behaved just fine. poke | talk 15:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Well thank you for avoiding the issue. Aiiane's reason for these bans is suspected sock puppets of Raptors. Now I will quote Xeeron on the ArbCom discussion page for Raptors: Raptors and all of his known* sockpuppets are to be banned for one year. --Xeeron 12:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC). *It says known, not suspected. This isn't about you agreeing with the ban, this is about the ban not being justified by the current rules. 67.159.46.131 15:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

What avoiding the issue? If you just want to bitch about this and get nothing done, then by all means keep commenting here. Otherwise, start a request for reconfirmation as per the link LordBiro provided. He is under no obligation to do it for you. - HeWhoIsPale 15:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but this edit here clearly states that that user is Raptors. sorry I was looking at the wrong ban. --Lemming 17:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Requests for reconfirmation is just one path; one can also request arbcomm do an immediate review (although arbcomm isn't automatically obligated to accept; if requesting that, it might be wise to also show something where this grievance was discussed with the sysop, to help show arbcomm that arbitration is really warranted). --Rezyk 17:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I personally think that a reconfirmation for Aiiane is, quite frankly, utterly ridiculous. She has been an active and helpful sysop almost since the Wiki's inception, and a contested decision cannot change that. At worst, she made a mistake, and the block should be removed, at best, the block is warranted and nothing happened wrongly. Either way, to suggest the removal of sysop rights for two blocks, spaced far apart, and for at least one of which it was decided that the block was probably correct anyway, is absolutely absurd. =/ Ale_Jrb (talk) 18:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The initial post said nothing about reconfirmation... it was moved here by some overzealous retard, contested and it still remains here. The request was about some kind of action or review to be taken over Aiiane as you said yourself, one of them was unjust and removed - it shouldn't have been that person job to request a removal of a block, the block was unjust and unfounded in the first place and it never should have taken place. Far Apart? Eight days is far apart to you? In the last 8 days she has made at least two unjust blocks, these are the only ones which have been brought up. As for contesting the block or showing where a user has approached Aiiane about the blocks how could they? They were banned! They shouldn't have to in the first place - they did nothing wrong. This request was made to a BC and was not made as an request for reconfirmation it was made as a request to review these two cases. Some idiot just moved them here even when contested. You might think she has done nothing wrong but the users who were banned for no reason justified by either policy or ArbCom likely don't. 69.10.36.3 18:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

1) In the case of Raptazz (the first one you linked), I will reiterate what I mentioned on GWW:ADMIN - "if you examine the block log you will notice that I specifically disabled autoblock and did not disallow account creation - if it is truly a legitimate user (which I doubt, but I have left open the possibility), then they will have no restrictions preventing them from creating a less provocative user account with which to contribute." Thus, the "how could they contact anyone, they were banned" point does not apply here - they could have easily posted from an IP or from a new username, and there was nothing preventing them from doing so, nor would it have lead to their blocking for creating another account (if, by such circumstance their second account was blocked simply due to their previous blocking, I would have seen it my duty to reverse such a block as the initial block was clearly stated not prohibitive of creation of a new account).

2) In the case of Raptaz, the second instance you linked to, I would direct you to the comments of 74.62.153.41 regarding the matter, namely, that the account was indeed a sockpuppet created in bad faith. I would also point to the fact that the user had named themselves in a manner which very closely resembled an extremely controversial user and, immediately upon registering, began to make an extreme number of controversial edits, in a pattern which demonstrated a fairly in-depth knowledge of the workings of the wiki, less than 5 days after the block of the original user. Furthermore, upon being asked to stop, the user did not but rather starting making personal comments towards Gem, yet another direct correspondence to the original Raptors. There was very little doubt that Raptaz was either a) Raptors, sockpuppeting to circumvent his ban, or b) another user intent on causing disruption in a similar manner to what earned Raptors his ban. In either case, it is not beneficial to the wiki to allow such to go unchecked.

3) I am disappointed that you did not even attempt to contact me regarding the matter before going elsewhere; I see no comments from you in the relevant threads on GWW:ADMIN; nor do I see any questions on my talk page regarding the matter. I would have been more than willing to discuss the matter there had you brought it up. I would suggest, however, that if you truly wish discussion of the matter to be forthcoming that you refrain from calling other users "retards" and "idiots" - it doesn't help communicate your point and it makes others more likely to react in a hostile manner to your remarks, rather than fully considering them.

4) Therefore, I would ask you - what reasoning leads you to believe that the blocks were not in the best interests of the wiki? Is it that you do not believe that the users in question were disruptive of the wiki? Do you believe that they were contributing more good than they were bad? Do you simply think we should not move an inch beyond what is explicitly laid out by policy, even if it means that the spirit of those rules is abused and danced around? Please, share your motivation for why you believe the blocks to have been unjust. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 10:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Aiiane, your entire point 4 is irrelevant. Under the current interpretation of our sysop policy, sysops cannot simply act "in the best interest of the wiki" -- they're bound to only act when policy specifically allows an action. The issue here, to me at least, is less about whether these particular blocks were helpful (they were) and more about whether sysop policy and consensus support your actions.

For what it's worth, I think your blocks fall under the "reasonable discretion" clause in our adminship policy.

—Tanaric 10:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Except that they're not bound in such a manner; this "current interpretation" you speak of is something that is entirely out of thin air and in fact goes against the wording of GWW:ADMIN. You mentioned it yourself, there is a "reasonable discretion" clause for sysops and people seem to want to ignore that. That's exactly what the last part of point 4 was asking about. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 16:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if I was unclear -- I agree with you, but I would like to see the community discuss this, and this complaint and your actions are as good an example as any. —Tanaric 03:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

This brings up the issue: is what's presumably a proxy server considered a "user"? Backsword 08:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)