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

Has anyone actualle read the RFA policy?

We seem to be jumping the gun here. As far as I know, no bureaucrat has declared the voting stage open. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 06:00, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

According to the rfa page this is an open rfa. Maybe Mis started the rfa for you to be a sysop. Perhaps the person who started the rfa should read the policy. Drogo Boffin 06:03, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, I found the petition in the archive. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 06:25, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I was within policy, I did however break some rules of etiquette. I really should have given Gordon a chance to see the petition existed before opening the RfA. Misery 11:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

"Why shouldn't I unblock these accounts?"

Perhaps this wasn't the best way to phrase the statement. It was sincerely requesting evidence to help me understand the reasoning behind the blocks. The evidence provided so far has persuaded me to stop supporting two of the eight proposed unblockings. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 09:09, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Requesting evidence should have been done around the time the block was placed, and should start as a simple request to the blocking sysop. If he does not provide ample evidence (emails, personal confessions and the like do count), bring it to the admin noticeboard talk and plead your case there. Coming to months or years old blocks and trying to overturn them with no new evidence simply does not work. -Auron 11:34, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

This statement to me makes me think that you think very highly of yourself and that you have a higher say then the other Sysops. What I want to know is how many of the other Sysops had anything to do with the page when you decided to start it, and were you even working with the other Sysops and seeking consensus when unblocking accounts? Drogo Boffin 20:40, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Just pointing out quickly that Gordon is a sysop, not a bureaucrat. That being said, your question is valid if you replace the word "bureaucrat" with the word "sysop" in each instance. It's technically more of a sysop matter in any case. Misery 20:42, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

What should I have done?

So how should sysops deal with blocks which they consider to be excessively long? -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 10:43, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Talk to the blocking sysop, don't stand on a soapbox and preach to the wiki. It doesn't have to be in private - their talk page is fine. It's personal enough there that they feel comfortable with the conversation, and it lets other sysops comment on the situation without making it a ritual witch burning. The wiki is driven by consensus, yet the sysop team is driven by discretion. If you disagree with their discretionary actions, tell them so, and attempt to reach a consensus. Don't immediately bring in a third party (as in, don't ask the entire wiki for their opinions) before starting with the blocking sysop and working your way up.

You wanted to make a way to appeal permanent blocks, which is fine - you should have started with a discussion on that (the process and the theory behind your idea) instead of a discussion on specific blocks without a plan in place. It sent the wrong message to the wiki as to what you were trying to do - the impression many people got was that you were powertripping and trying to overturn blocks simply because you didn't think that Lena was Lena on all three accounts. If you were trying to use those permablocks as a test run for your new "appeal permablocks" plan, that plan should have been in place before the discussion on the blocks started. -Auron 11:34, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Although I generally don't agree with Auron on much, in particular when it comes to block reviews. (as can be seen from our recent past) I still think that unless their is some kind of urgent time bar preventing one from contacting the blocking sysop, that the first recourse should be to raise the topic with the blocking sysop. In case of permablocks, especially 2 year old permablocks, one should have ample time to contact the blocking sysop. (obviously this isn't the case if the sysop has ceased editing but that's neither here nor there in this instance) I do not agree with Auron that the only valid unblock was the IP's, as I agree that both Festooned Twinklepixie and Dnmbplz should have had their blocks lifted and their was consensus between the sysop team to do so. I do not however think Moo Kitty should have been unblocked as there was no consensus either way in that instance and I do think Gordon was in error to change that block until further discussion has taken place and a consensus emerged. -- Salome 22:05, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Addressing specific criticisms

Here are my responses to some of the opposing vote statements:

• "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."
  • The other sysops never asked if they should permaban the accounts in the first place.
• "Creating the block reviews on itself was a mistake, and many of Gordon's attitudes in the block discussions have been extremely random."
  • Would anyone care to provide examples of those supposedly random attitudes?
• "he's unblocked accounts on the basis that checkuser didn't prove them guilty"
  • I've unblocked accounts on the basis that nothing has proven them guilty, and have declined to unblock accounts when persuasive evidence has been provided.

-- Gordon Ecker (talk) 20:32, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

"The other sysops never asked if they should permaban the accounts in the first place."

Uhh, they shouldn't have to. The community entrusts sysops with this tool when we promote them. If the sysops are abusing their tools, we suggest a reconfirmation. --RIDDLE 20:52, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Pardon me, but isn't the whole point SUPPOSED to be avoiding silly hoo-haa's like reconfirmations? Every human makes mistakes, which was the whole point of the ban review - to see if there are mistakes made and improve transparency as a whole. We trust sysops to do their job and not abuse tools, but in actuality that only extends to the individual sysop's idea of what "isn't abusing tools", aka discretion. One admin might decide permabanning me for the next policy breaking I make, but another sysop might disagree. Like I said on the main page itself, the idea was good, but the way it was carried out wasn't. There were definitely indications that the whole thing was rushed, and hasty. Are we really going to start reconfirmations for one-off judgement lapses, or trust our sysops to learn from their mistakes, which is more important than trusting them with their tools? Pika Fan 22:50, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

No, of course not. But as many people have pointed out, some do not view this entire debacle as a one time lapse in judgment. NuVII 23:00, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I was actually referring to riddle's part about "sysops are abusing their tools". I was in no way exclusively referring to this current recon. Pika Fan 23:06, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

(EC) Nor do we know if Gordon actually realizes what was the mistake here. He is still trying to undo all the permanent blocks. Erasculio 23:07, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that's rather over stating it Eras. His proposal just wants perma bans to be a BC power rather than a sysop power. As BC's have to reach a consensus before issuing such a ban, where as sysops do not. -- Salome 23:09, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

You're right, but one side effect is that all the current permabans made by sysops would be undone. That's bypassing all the discussion regarding whether those accounts deserved to be blocked or not. Erasculio 23:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually I don't think it would work like that. I think through the change of onus on to BC's it would require each permabanned account to be reviwed by the current BC's before the ban would be lifted. A task I would not force onto anyone personally, as it will take fucking ages. -- Salome 23:20, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Please don't unnecessarily pin ourselves to to a singular definition of "how a bcrat/sysop and the process they undergo" should be like. We are human, and thus flexible. Pika Fan 23:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

This entire discussion is about removing flexibility from sysops, be it by undoing their actions, by second guessing them or by tying their hands. Erasculio 00:27, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Pika, there's all ready a system in place. Whether it's set in stone or not (I'm not going to check atm), if a sysop (or even bcrat) feels another sysop banned wrongly/unjustly, the former brings it up with the latter to get the reasoning, and possibly work out a compromise on the ban. We don't need a bureaucracy to cover something that is all ready done. --RIDDLE 23:26, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

And if every person thought that system was enough, we wouldn't be here engaging in this farce of an argument. Pika Fan 23:30, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Not trying to be an arse here, but that's not really a system, its more convention of common courtesy than anything else. It is in no way a necessity under policy or under any guideline. A sysop has full discretion to both place a ban and review a ban, without the input of other sysops. I'm not saying its advised to do so, but it is not breaking any policy or system to do so. -- Salome 23:32, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Pika, do you see anyone else other than Gordon claiming said system isn't enough? Erasculio 00:27, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I think a more formalised appeal process would be a good idea. i just dont think this was a good way to get the ball rolling. -- Salome 00:35, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

It must be terribly difficult to see that there are other users like Salome who feel that much more can be done about the current system. Oh, wait, you have been consistently reading selectively anyway, so it's fine. Pika Fan 00:58, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

As fine as it is ignoring how no one was complaining about this until Gordon decided to begin contesting two years old bans. It's one thing to claim something is a problem and begin discussing it, and another to just agree with someone else's opinion that maybe something could be improved. I guess you would know about reading selectively, though. Erasculio 01:13, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually it was contested before Gordon brought up. (see the recent BC election and the whole bit between myself and Auron) I conceded that over turning without consultation with the original blocking sysop was a mistake, however I also quantified that with considerations of block length and generally being unhappy with the vague review system currently in place. That was about 2 months before Gordon even raised this issue. As I said before, I agree with the reasoning behind this, just not the way it was went about. -- Salome 01:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

^You just got pwned Era. Also, it is also fine to ignore my stand on the RfA. Please, continue. Pika Fan 01:34, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Riddle, sysops have also been entrusted with the tools to remove blocks, they have just been hesitant to use them. IMO unilaterally permabanning someone based on mere suspicion of sockpuppetry is far more abusive than shortening a block, and I specifically chose to use delayed block expiration in order to give other sysops an opportunity to prevent the blocks from expiring if they disagreed with my decision and give everyone an opportunity to provide additional evidence or arguments. I strongly suspected that my actions would be controversial, however I consider blocking reform to be important enough to risk my sysop status. As for trying to discuss things with the specific admins, I tried that. I tried to persuade the other bureaucrats to take the Uchiha Lena arbitration case so that it could be dealt with in an formal and transparent manner, I tried to persuade the blocking sysop to persuade the bureaucrats to take the case, I tried to persuade people to hammer out a blocking policy or guideline. All of these attempts failed, so I decided to start using some of my discretionary powers. In the past few weeks, the sockpuppet status of three of the reviewed accounts has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt and three permabans have been overturned based on consensus that they were excessive. In response to Erasculio and Salome's posts, I am not trying to undo all the permanent blocks, I have no problem with sysops permabanning obvious throwaway accounts when their status as throwaway accounts has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, as is the case for hundreds of currently blocked accounts. Currently, there are only nine blocks which I would like to see formally reviewed through arbitration, and if I was on the arbitration committee, I would probably support harsh punishment for six of those nine accounts based on the evidence I have seen. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 01:59, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Leaving these accounts permabanned hurts no one. Unbanning them and letting them free to troll and cause more drama/chaos just to have an arbcomm in which the end result should be a permaban is redundant and stupid. Moo Kitty, Jonnieboi05 earned thier permabans. Waffles also asked to be permad and does not deserve another chance. I have seen a couple of the emails and I was shocked by what was in them. Unbannin any of these 3 is a potential nightmare. As for the blocks that are a year old or more, just leave them alone. Drogo Boffin 02:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

First, leaving accounts banned hurts the owners of those accounts, and we can always reban them in response to furthermisconduct. Second, have you read my block reviews page? Other sysops have already convinced me that the Jonnieboi05 and Wafflez accounts are Uchiha Lena sockpuppets and should remain banned as long as his main account is banned. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 03:31, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I just wanted to pop in and say that it doesn't hurt the owners of those accounts if they don't care about them. If they haven't contacted anyone, sysop, bureaucrat or user, in-game or via wiki-mail or whatever, then IMO it is safe to assume that they don't care. Just my $0.02 and this seemed as good a 'take a penny / leave a penny' tray to put it in. --Rainith 04:26, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Gordon, do you think there's perhaps a reason why talking to other admins, going through arbitration, and making policies/guidelines "failed"? I don't think the community felt these kinds of reviews or bureaucracy were necessary. -- pling 13:33, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

When I started the block reviews, I was not aware of most of the evidence against the Wafflez account. When I started the block reviews, I was trying to work within the system, I believe that both the letter and spirit of our policies permits individual sysops to lift or shorten blocks at their own discretion, much like it permits them to place, lengthen or reinstate blocks at their own discrettion. I only set blocks to expire when I believed that specific discussions were finished and all important information had already been presented, I used delayed expiration to give everyone time to present any additonal information I had overlooked, and to give sysops time to lengthen the blocks before they expired if they believed the reductions were excessive. As for the failed proposals, I believe that the previous proposals failed because the users who supported more blocking standards couldn't agree on the details and eventually ran out of steam. By the way, I used the "Why shouldn't I unblock these accounts?" line because I wanted to know why people thought I shouldrn't unblock those accounts, and it seemed like a simple, straightforward way to ask for that information, and that the context would be sufficient to make it clear that it was an honest request rather than a taunt. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 09:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Just for the records...

The current revision was made today. Notice how, despite the entire discussion above and on the block reviews article, Gordon is still stating he's right, and that all permabans should be undone. Erasculio 21:31, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Their is nothing wrong with putting forward a proposal of this sort and I don't think it should be seen as evidence against Gordon in this instance. Gordon is allowed to feel that some form of limitation upon sysop discretion should be added to our blocking powers, that in itself is not a bad thing. I think his block review process jumped the gun and should have been geared up in a slower and less drama inducing way than this, but aside from that I see nothing wrong with the proposal. (not saying i agree with the proposal however, just saying as it stands it isn't proving of anything) -- Salome 22:09, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem arises when Gordon is the only one on the entire wiki who feels that way, yet he keeps acting like he's got consensus to overturn blocks left and right. -Auron 13:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

See the section below; I think that pretty much covers it. A mistake was made, not the end of the world. -- Wandering Traveler 20:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The adminship policy doesn't require pre-existing consensus support, it only requeres the expectation of future consensus support. If the action is challenged, consensus must be established or the action should be reverted if consensus fails to materialize, unless the original action breaks "an explicit restriction" (which I believe refers to policy restrictions, although it could be interpreted as extending to guideline restrictions), in which case it must be reverted as soon as it is challenged. When I set the Dnmbplz account's block to expire, I already had consensus support. When I set the Professor Dog account's block to expire, I expected consensus support based on the precedent of the Festooned Twinklepixie review, in that case, consensus was forming in favour of unblocking, the account was unblocked, the sockpuppet status was pretty much confirmed and it was not reblocked. I assumed that, if no one was willing to reblock that account after it had been confirmed as an Mgrinshpon sockpuppet account, there would also be support in favour of unblocking an account which was merely a suspected Mgrinshpon sockpuppet (which was the original block rationale). When I set Moo Kitty's account to expire, I assumed that the action would be supported because the block seemed unusually long (many users have received shorter blocks for more extensive block evasion), and I had forgotten that the original block would not have expired until January. I'm sure that the sysops who placed the permabans in the first place expected future consensus support, and I'm sure that Auron expected future consensus support when he reinstated two of the permabans which I had set to expire. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 11:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

You mean the permabans you removed without just cause? There should be consensus before any bans are lifted/changed in any way. Drogo Boffin 17:24, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Moo Kitty's block reduction

When I reduced the duration of Moo Kitty's block, I made the mistake of assuming that all the relevant information was in her section of the block review page. I had forgotten about the post which Misery had made on the talk page over a week earlier, and about the fact that the original three month ban would not have expired until January. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 06:23, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Length

Just curious as to when this will be closed. -- FreedomBound 17:16, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Soon. I let it run a bit over due to my mistakes with how I handled opening it. Misery 17:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The policy says two weeks. Loves to Sync 17:18, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

...No, it doesn't. It says roughly one week. Thanks for the answer (and explanation), Misery. -- FreedomBound 17:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

That two weeks is how long the administrator has to open an RfA and pass it after being informed by a bureaucrat that one should be open. Instead of informing Gordon that he should open his reconfirmation, I just opened it. This has led to some confusion due to my misreading of the policy. Misery 17:24, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Because we've all misread policy and hammered ourselves in the thumb before. X) — Jon Lupen 17:26, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we have. :P -- FreedomBound 17:28, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

See Guild_Wars_Wiki:Requests_for_adminship#Reconfirmation

Reconfirmation Reconfirmation is a process by which a sysop is reconfirmed in his role as sysop. If the reconfirmation fails, the person in question loses sysop status. The reconfirmation process itself is simply another RFA for the sysop. It can be brought about by one of the following conditions:

enough user support: While a user is a sysop, anyone may add their support for the reconfirmation process to the "Request for reconfirmation" section of that sysop's latest successful RFA. Short explanations are encouraged, but avoid personal attacks; consider simply giving links to evidence if necessary. This generally has no immediate effect and does not trigger the reconfirmation process until there is enough accumulated support for reconfirmation. The level of required support starts at the amount of support given for sysophood during the latest RFA (direct opposition to either is not counted), and this requirement gradually descends over time to a minimum of one user supporting after one year. Whenever this threshold is reached (as judged by a bureaucrat, not simple tallies), a bureaucrat will give notice to the sysop that they must be successfully reconfirmed within two weeks or lose their sysop status. Loves to Sync 17:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but note that there is no mention of when they must open their reconfirmation. It is quite ambiguously worded, but it essentially means that they need to open their reconfirmation within a week of being informed (to allow for about 7 days for the RfA to run) and then pass the resulting RfA in order to retain their sysop status. Misery 17:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) A reconfirmation is simply another RFA (paraphrased). RFA's are resolved in around one week. You're confusing the RFA process with the reconfirmation starting (the RFA from a reconfirmation is supposed to start within two weeks). The policy, honestly, is not written very clearly. -- FreedomBound 17:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

When and how RfAs and RfAs resulting from requests for reconfirmation are being closed is solely handled by bureaucrat decision. You are misunderstanding what requests for reconfirmation are; this here is not a request for reconfirmation, this is a normal RfA process that resulted from requests for reconfirmation. poke | talk 17:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)