User talk:Tanaric

From Guild Wars Wiki

Looking for an old conversation? Check the /Archives. If you wish to respond to an old thread, bring the entire thread back.

Contents 1 Late Welcome! 2 Admin Policy Change 3 Hey 4 "Interesting" new site 5 [1] 6 Christmas presents 7 Thanks 8 Yeah yeah... 9 Seriousness 10 . 11 Recent events 12 Admin names 13 .... 14 About Lussh/Liche NPA 15 Reconfirmation 16 Nomination 17 GW2W 18 Election results 19 Thought you might like this: 20 Check This Out 21 RFC 22 Lemming64's RFA 23 If I could ask a favor 24 User talk:Readem#User talk:222.127.198.144 25 Comments 26 lol 27 Injunction 28 Why? 28.1 Finished? 29 I Won't Stand Fot It

[edit] Late Welcome!

I was reading through some of the discussions on your talk page, just to better familiarize myself with some of the candidates in the current election, and I see you recently relocated to Minneapolis. I'd like to say welcome, as it's been my home for many many years now. It's a great place, with great people, and lots of opportunities. While I'm a long term resident of Minneapolis, I'm relatively new to the wiki, but so far I've mostly been enjoying the experience. I hope you feel the same about Minneapolis!-- Wynthyst 11:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm greatly enjoying Minneapolis so far -- thanks for the welcome!

You and other Minnesotans should consider coming to the International Game Developers Association Twin Cities (IGDATC) meetings on the first Thursday of every month. I'm the acting chair of the group, and we've had a good time since I've been here -- this month we had a big holiday party with lots of free booze and food and four next-gen game consoles set up, including one with RockBand. Next month we'll be talking about the bridge between board games and video games. Get on our Google group] if you're interested.

—Tanaric 03:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Admin Policy Change

Hey Tanaric,

Was just hoping you'd be able to provide some input into Guild_Wars_Wiki_talk:Adminship/Draft_2007-11-14 which appears to be approaching consensus but needs more editors to read and comment upon it. --Indecision 16:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up -- I've commented there. —Tanaric 03:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hey

I see all these big long speeches about other users you've put on their talk page and I decided you need one too :P I haven't been here very long as a user, just a lurker. I've seen alot of stuff go down here and Guildwiki, and I think of everyone in those discussions/conflicts you were the most level-headed. After seeing how you've handled things I must say I respect you and the way you do things. If I had the 100 needed contributions, I would vote for you in the upcoming bureaucrat election. I wish you luck :)

--Zinc 23:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliments!

I'm nitpicking a little, but I don't really like thinking of the bureaucrat election as winning or as a competition. Whoever the community wishes to do the job should do the job. If that's me, I'm happy to serve, but I'm just as happy if some other competent editor takes care of it. :)

—Tanaric 03:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Lolwut? Dark Morphon 14:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

How does one tell if they have enough contributions to vote. As I'm assuming contributing to chat on peoples user pages doesn't count. -- Salome 13:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

At the moment there isn't a more sophisticated means than simply going to your contributions page, filtering by each namespace, and adding up the edits from the qualifying namespaces. (Edit: I went through your contributions page, from my count you have about 80 edits, give or take a few, outside of the User/Guild namespaces.) (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 23:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Interesting" new site

Hiya Tanaric! I just wanted to get your attention and point you in this direction. Check it out when you get a chance, and let me know if you have any questions! -- Emily Diehl (talk) 19:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] [1]

+1. Maybe the wiki has a bit of hope if you two keep that sort of thing up... Armond 07:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Christmas presents

In particular, the one you gave Eloc. I'm not here to defend Eloc's behaviour, I find it problematic too. But out of the two, you're the one who's most in the wrong. Harassment could not be policy because there was no agreement on what constitutes it, as this case could illustrate, and it was thus left to ArbComm. GWW:AGF was explicitly made a guideline. That means that while consensus was that it's a good thing to do, it's also not a good idea to ban someone for not doing so.

I know you disagree with many of the policies on GWW. I may concur on some of them. But you know what they say: "Do not cause disruption to make a point". Especially when it's an already well known point. Backsword

Policy has no basis in policy. Nowhere is it stated that a policy must exist to act. You have not illustrated why my actions were incorrect. —Tanaric 19:54, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe that there is nothing wrong with Tanaric blocking Eloc as it falls under the "discretion part" of ADMIN. But what I do believe is wrong is the reason behind it - Eloc was telling another user of the policies here. If that warrants a ban, you may as well block me as well, and a large number of other users here. -- br12 • (talk) • 20:06, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Brains, the discretion bit is about how to enforce, not picking what values to enforce. Backsword 23:36, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

The content of the message was not so much the problem as the manner in which it was delivered and the reasoning in delivering it. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 22:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

One can question GWW:POLICY if one wants too. It's always a problem for a foundation to justify itself. Using the foundation to justify itself is just circular reasoning. But that's not really an issue. The community sees the system as set. The expectation is that sysops should follow it, including when they want to change the system. Eloc's block is mostly over, but this isn't really about that.

The real question is: do you intend to continue like this? Backsword

Something that should be pointed out: not blocking someone isn't an indication that you approve of their actions. It's simply an indication that you don't disapprove enough for it to warrant a block. I've not seen anywhere that Tanaric has voiced support for violating policy; rather, I've only seen him block someone for what he considered to be harassment of another user. You can't play tit for tat with blocks. Just because one person is blocked and another is not, does not mean that the first is completely wrong and the second completely right. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 00:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Does he intend to continue blocking people that, frankly, detract from the wiki by annoying the crap out of other users? I would certainly hope so.

Were this PvX or GW, I'd say Tanaric doesn't have to explain himself to you or anyone else. He'd get to do whatever he wants (which, really, equates to whatever he needs) to do to get his job done. Here, I can only say that he was using his discretion to solve the problem as best he knew how, and that he did so well. Armond 04:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Eloc was not in the right. He would have been "in the right" if he had written a note explaining policy and left it at that. The instant he starts harassing others and ignoring the entire point of policies on a wiki (on top of ignoring what admins are for - enforcing said policies), he is not in the right. Eloc has never grasped the subtle line, and has crossed it very often; the line that separates his friendly reminder from an admin's warning.

I don't think Liche/Lussh being flustered and responding with personal attacks is something to ban for (at this point). A warning, sure; new users aren't likely to know of policies, and Liche/Lussh definitely isn't the first person to be annoyed at Eloc's pestering. Down the road, if Liche/Lussh is still making personal attacks, a ban would be more fitting. -Auron 09:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)

I appreciate your support, Armond, but it's my policy to always explain myself -- I've been that way since the GuildWiki was founded.

Backsword, yes, I intend to continue blocking those who disrupt the Guild Wars Wiki.

Aiiane is correct in that I don't generally approve of Lussh's actions, approach, or attitude. That said, in the end, Lussh stated that he would wait and not exacerbate things -- I believe that he (with Aiiane) will improve and change his behavior to better meet the standards we hold. A block certainly would not have helped in his case. Eloc, on the other hand, has repeatedly harassed users about this sort of thing, has repeatedly ignored advice about his behavior from numerous users on the wiki (see any of his bureaucrat talk pages for that), and, most importantly, was aggravating a situation that shouldn't have existed in the first place.

His block had two purposes. One, it was meant to show him (and others) that I find said behavior unacceptable and unsupported by consensus. Two, it was meant to allow Aiiane, Lussh, and all others involved time to work toward a solution without Eloc's negative input. Admittedly, that second purpose didn't really work out, since it was Christmas and nobody was here, but the point stands regardless.

As far as the community seeing the system as set... well, I agreed with you publicly very recently. Rezyk disagreed with me about the culture of this community. I value Rezyk's opinion more than most, and I'm taking his stance a step beyond what he stated to see what the community does with it. So far, few people have said anything one way or the other.

—Tanaric 09:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Tanaric, Eloc did not violate a single policy on this wiki. It is not up to you to decide which users are harrassing others and which other users are giving warnings about policies in good faith - which is what Eloc was doing. I don't believe there was any intention in Eloc's actions to harrass lush but rather he beleives we all have to follow policy - as soon as you decide one person is justified to ignore policy or one user must follow policy when another didn't, you have overstepped your boundaries as both as user and an admin. It's disgusting you blocked Eloc over this, if you believe this bloc is the result of the cumulative actions of Eloc aggrivating other users in this manner you should bring the issue up for arbcom to discuss, not block people who acted in good faith to enforce a policy many users put a lot of effort into writing and following. Eloc's behaviour IS supported by consensus - THAT IS WHAT OUR POLICY IS ALL ABOUT. It is not up to you decide what consensus is. The only reason I have not brought both you and Aiiane up for ArbCom review or reconfirmation is because this is the first time I have seen you take action like this and Aiiane was not the one who made the block in question. You and Aiiane are establishing a very slippery slope, where you begin to beleive your views are representative of the majority or allowed to take actions like this. If you do something like this again be sure I will bring it up for ArbCom. 122.104.227.220 14:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Eloc's actions were not in good faith. Taking that view is skewing your argument from the beginning. -Auron 15:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe it is my job to determine which users are acting in good faith. If I cannot determine that, I cannot enforce the spirit of any policy, as they all, at some level, depend upon good faith actions. I do not believe Eloc's behavior is an ArbComm issue, as I believe my actions are supported by consensus. I never decided that anybody is allowed to ignore policy, nor did I grant any lenience or special treatment to any one user. Blocking Lussh would have accomplished nothing -- he was being handled by Aiiane in a very suitable manner.

I'd prefer that you bring this up for ArbComm review immediately instead of waiting. I do not believe I made a mistake here, and so delaying arbitrarily your ArbComm request out of respect for my history -- though I respect and appreciate the sentiment -- seems like prolonging the issue to me.

—Tanaric 16:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

More practically, if you wait to bring this up to ArbComm, Aiiane or I will be one of the members of the committee. Bringing it up now lets you keep Dirigible involved. —Tanaric 16:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Probably a reason why you shouldn't become a member of ArbCom. Anyone who doesn't plan to sit out on ArbCom discussion about themselves or issues which they are obviously biased should not be made a member of ArbCom. Even if you didn't, I seriously doubt the other two members would allow you much weight in a discussion about yourself anyway. I do not delay on bringing this up out of respect for your history, I don't care about it. I don't bring this up because I think something like this shouldn't be brought up unless you have established a trend as opposed to a single incident, (such as Aiiane but because she has already had a request I will wait for another incident similair to this). I remain unconvinced you acted in the realm of what was right in this scenario, Eloc did nothing wrong aside from get into a conflict with a user who has repeatedly had issues following policies relating to this matter and has repeatedly either ignored anyone who brought this to his/her attention no matter how they did it, or outright attacked them when they brought it up to him/her. 122.104.227.220 18:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

If it matters, I recomend you doing it. I think the way you are discussing prevents people for taking your side. You might have some points, but yelling them makes difficult to be accepted, if you really think you have the reason, do the right thing and bring the case up. Coran Ironclaw 20:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Not to speak for Tanaric on his own page, but I think it's clear that he would recuse himself from an ArbComm involving himself (or indeed Aiiane on this issue) - look at what he says on his election discussion page re the Karlos ArbComm. His point was that if done now, Dirigible will be able to opine - do it later and you'll only have 2 beaurocrats able to consider. Speaking personally, I want Tanaric to know that as a longtime lurker, I've been afraid to contribute becuase I didn't want to get sucked into some nitpicking policy discussion which seems to be all the rage here. Recent behaviour by Tanaric and Aiiane has given me the courage to start editing and I appreciate it.Cassie 22:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Cassie. You're correct in that I would recuse myself from such a case -- I thought that was obvious. I'm glad you've started editing -- we can always use another sound mind around this place! —Tanaric 03:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

As I stated earlier, the issue isn't really Eloc or Liche. I hope my comments here and on the noticeboard conveyed that I have no major disagreements on the particulars of that case.

I presume the statements on culture you refer to are those made on the policy talk page on GW2W. If so, I agree with what Rezyk wrote there, and think that you are indeed testing them. But what you are doing is pushing towards creating exactly the mentality you claimed to disfavour. One of the tangible advantages of a Rule of Law system is just that people may post without fear that an enforcer will make up a new policy to enforce.

While I understand that changing the system with the tools it provides is near impossible due to inertia and vested interests, I find that trying to force change through is less advisable. It will lead to aggravation, edrama and possibly rifts in the community. Please reconsider. Backsword

After me missing this entire conversation due to being banned mainly, I have read through it and I do disagree with my block. I was doing what was explicitly said on GWW:SIGN. "If a signature is found to be in violation of this policy, a notice should be placed on that user's talk page explaining the violation and requesting compliance." ← Which is exactly what I did. Then he goes with a personal attack and by me following GWW:NPA, which tells me to contact an Admin. I did that by going to the Admin Noticeboard & then I find I get banned without a chance to explain myself. The reason for the block was "Harassment and assumption of bad faith with User:Lussh", in which harrassment would be me constantly bugging them, but according to User talk:Lussh, I posted only two times, one time being in November and another being in December as I'm told to do that by GWW:SIGN. Also, GWW:AGF is a guideline. No where on the guideline does it say anything about being blocked for not assuming good faith. I also ask this question, if I got blocked, why didn't Lussh/Liche? Ever consider they didn't assume good faith in my actions? Because he/she didn't. All I got was a personal attack against me and then Aiiane telling me to stop doing what a policy tells me to do and then I get banned for two days while Lussh just gets a small slap on the wrist. Then by looking around the wiki, I see all these things about "the spirit of the policy". Spirit doesn't count for anything! I follow the things that are clear and written down, not a spirit. Where does the spirit say that I'll get blocked for 2 days for just following the clear written down part of the policy?? — ク Eloc 貢 22:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The spirit of the policy counts for everything. Policies aren't there to provide things to be policed, they're there (or should be there) only when necessary for the smooth running of the wiki, or when they help with the task of this wiki - namely, providing a great source of information on Guild Wars. Just because a policy says you can do something does not always mean it's the best thing to do.

Note: I'm not supporting or condemning your block, just had to address that point. -- AT(talk | contribs) 23:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Most of the admin here have nothing to do with the main task of the wiki - providing a great source of information. Look at the main contributors these days, they are normal users, one which has recently been blocked. Maybe a "Spirit of the Policy" section should be added at the top of each policy page. Policy sets out what can and can't be done for the smooth running of the wiki, but it also has another very important purpose. Admin actions are also restricted and guided by policy, otherwise admin can go around placing bans by personal preference. If Tanaric's issue here is this lone case with Eloc and Lussh I would argue it too small to warrant a ban. If it is as many people including Aiiane have suggested, a cumulation of edits of this nature creating conflicts with users, Tanaric should take the appropriate action and bring this to ArbCom where the case can be heard in a forum which Eloc has a chance to participate (as opposed to a ban preventing him from having a say). Many people have said they don't like Eloc's actions on the wiki and think they act against it's interests and have even gone as far as to ignore Assume Good Faith (ironically a guideline sited as a reason for a ban when the ban itself ignored AGF). We have a system designed for cases like this which deals with larger issues (which this appears to be) with users but also allows them to have a fair case set for and against them instead of personal judgement bans being handed out. 58.110.142.135 04:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Eloc, I'm honestly getting tired of this discussion going in circles. Nowhere in policy does it say that my blocks have to be explicitly supported by policy. If that's what the community wants, I'm more than happy to abide by it -- in fact, I'd been abiding by it for the last six months because I (possibly erroneously) thought it was what the community wanted. If it's clear to me I should go back to that, I'll do so. So far, it's not clear to me at all.

I'm sorry that you were the first common-sense block that I've performed -- it was nothing personal, as I explained to you when you came to me privately. Honestly, the fact that no other sysop overturned the block leads me to believe I'm on the right track.

—Tanaric 05:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The only sense that was used was nonsense. I'm sorry, but thats what it was. @ AT- its interesting how Policy and Police seem so similar... hmm.. perhaps they are based on the same root? -elviondale (tahlk) 06:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Tanaric, where did the community request Eloc be blocked? I have seen a lot of opposition to the block you placed and the same usual faces, aka the admin and your clique defend it, but even they seem less than the opposition. Where did you derive the community wanted this? Edit: It's not even on the noticeboard. 58.110.142.135 06:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

58.110, I don't have a clique. I have a couple fans -- and the thought is frightening -- but I don't have any real friends. I host Auron's forums on my server and I occasionally chat with Baxter about life. My chats with everyone else have been focused on the wiki or people who frequent it. As far as the administrators go, only Aiiane and myself seemed to have responded, and Aiiane seems only marginally in support of my actions, if she supports them at all.

Counting usernames, I see 7 against what I've done and 5 for it. That's 12 people total. Please don't tell me that "the community" is against me. Only 12 people have even commented on a wiki with 22,749 registered users and at least that many more anonymous ones.

Elviondale, that's a personal attack, but I'm not going to ban you for it. Sysops are expected to use their discretion. Banning you for calling my actions "nonsense" would hinder the mission. In the end, the mission is all that matters -- every policy, every guideline, and every sysop and bureaucrat action is made to support the mission.

Sorry if that sounds too military -- I spent my childhood among the military and I have great respect for a common goal. I also have a great deal of experience into how bureaucracy can help a mission and how bureaucracy can hinder it. In the case of your personal attack there, elviondale, the choice is clear to me.

Since the literal word of policy is important to many of you, let's examine parts of it. From Project:Adminship, we see that "[s]ysops are administrators who perform cleanup tasks (deleting pages, undoing page move vandalism) and can block accounts and IP addresses according to the rules of the Guild Wars Wiki policy. ...Sysops are granted reasonable discretion, but they are expected to apply policy rigorously and respect consensus."

The last six words are important. "Apply policy rigorously and respect consensus." I like the adminship policy because it's brief and provides just what's important. Those six words alone provide an ample definition of what a sysop should and shouldn't do.

Alas, many of you will focus more on this phrase instead: sysops can block according to the rules of the policy. I actually like this sentence too, because it seems overly restrictive but actually isn't. For example, it doesn't say "Sysops can only block when a policy explicitly grants the authority." It also doesn't say "Sysops can block anybody as long as policy doesn't explicitly forbid it." The meaning of the policy is important because the words are ambiguous. Since the policy states that sysops should "use reasonable discretion" and "respect consensus," I think in the end the policy is loose enough to grant sysops the authority to actually do some good.

In this particular case, I believe I have respected consensus. A great many users have complained about Eloc's (and other policy zealot's) behavior. Many new editors have been scared off by this behavior -- and since "someone's number of contributions doesn't mean a damn," I have to consider new editors as contributing to consensus. Finally, guidelines exist because consensus supports them. In this case, Eloc's behavior clearly didn't assume good faith. It's dangerous to say something like that, because the inevitable retaliation is "but you're not assuming good faith by assuming he didn't assume good faith!" I believe that my role as a sysop, and the expectation of the community that I use reasonable discretion, not only allow but require me to make this judgment. Nothing that has happened since the block has convinced me -- or many others contributing to this and various other discussions -- that I interpreted incorrectly.

I used my discretion, I analyzed consensus, and I made a decision. Feel free to disagree with it, but please stop attacking me personally for attempting to do the best I can for the wiki. Figure out and explain why you're unhappy and why you feel I made a bad decision. Address my repeated counterpoints that my decision is actually supported by policy. I'm sorry, but I just don't have the time to keep addressing the same unsupported outcry.

General last words to everyone involved:

1. My block of Eloc is unrelated to Lussh's behavior. They are two separate issues. One can not compare my reactions to one to my reactions to the other. Those that know me better know that I treat the sysop team as exactly that -- a team. Aiiane was managing Lussh and I felt no need to interfere. If you believe Aiiane failed to block Lussh, please take it up with her on her talk page -- I'll jump in and defend her actions as much as I'm now defending my own, but I think it's important to delimit the two issues.
2. For us to continue a discussion, you must accept that both of our differing opinions on current policy are reasonable. I've made the effort understand where you're coming from, so I need you to do the same.
3. If you feel I made an egregious error, your recourse is ArbComm. It's why they're there. You can also request my reconfirmation. If more than one of you requests my reconfirmation, I will voluntarily initiate the process.
4. Finally, assume good faith. I acted as I did because I thought it was best for the wiki, and more specifically, for the conflict at hand. Eloc is known for many things, but he is not known for being a patient mediator. I would have preferred to issue an injunction to Eloc preventing him from conversation with Lussh for two days -- as it stands, policy implies that only bureaucrats can do such a thing, for a reason I don't understand.

—Tanaric 06:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

All good and well thought out/said. Did you ever consider I was acting within good faith? Also, how can me/Lussh be a seperate issue when the issue was intertwined together? Finally, I would have just prefered that you just say "don't talk to Lussh/Liche for 2 days", & I would have just been like "Ok" and then I probly wouldn't have ever talked to Lussh/Liche again. — ク Eloc 貢 08:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Without bothering to investigate (it's late and I'm tired) I could swear I remember Auron posting something about you're being warned a number of times (if I'm wrong, I apologize). Also, whether or not you were trolling doesn't really have much to do with whether or not Liche/Lussh was breaking policy/should be banned for breaking policy except possibly insofar as whether or not one provides extenuating circumstances for the other. *Defiant Elements* +talk 08:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Consensus: A total agreement, at least in content, if not in expression. One example and not all say that total agreement but most, if not all require something along a majority or general acceptance. You yourself said 7 users disagreed with your action and 5 supported you. That in itself is not consensus (even if it had been 7 support 5 oppose), you are also counting the intangible "users who left the wiki" which must be a whole lot. I agree with you on one thing, this point has reached a conclusion on your talk page. I brought it here to say I disaproved of the block and we have reached a point where you believe you are allowed to take this action and I disagree. It has only been approx one day since I mentioned it and I have tried to resolve this with you like I intended. 58.110.142.135 08:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

My final thoughts:

1. So much for the "Apply policy rigorously" part
2. How is calling what you did "nonsense" an act of NPA
3. If it really is NPA, block me. I only ask that you consider whether you're the one to do it or not. -elviondale (tahlk) 13:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Cory. I'd like to convey that I'm not doing this out of personal dislike and I still respect you as a person. But I can't accept the way you've gone about this. I hope you get the attention you wanted, perhaps some good will come out of this. Backsword

Thanks, Backsword. Happy new year to you, too! I never assumed anything beyond concern for the wiki in your actions. I wasn't intentionally trying to cross a line -- I didn't look at this situation and say "Well, that's just far enough beyond what Rezyk said to be controversial." That said, I recognize that some people are seeing it that way, and I'm looking forward to seeing what consensus supports in the end. —Tanaric 03:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I support you in using your discretion Tanaric, The way I read the talk page of luush it did seem like Eloc was going way beyond the realms of a friendly reminder to remain within the boundaries of the signature policy. It certainly is not the first time this has happened either. --Lemming 13:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

I'd like to thank you for your revert earlier, and all of the work you do for the wiki. I swear, if they're going to vandalize, at least make it funny. MiraLantis 10:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

I feel bad for those sorts of vandals, to be honest. A lot of 'em are kids who don't really realize that what they're doing is 1) disruptive or 2) even visible by anyone else but them. It's not until they're blocked do they realize that they're not in their own personal sandbox.

—Tanaric 10:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yeah yeah...

I saw it. Revert edit conflict -elviondale (tahlk) 03:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Seriousness

The "joke" on your reconfirmation was meant as a personal note, and I did not mean it to be any kind of derogatory comment at all. Seeing how everything is misread at the moment, I wanted to make it clear, but I still felt the need to post it. If you wish to keep a more serious level on the reconfirmation, I'll remove it immediately. :) - anja 21:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I insist that it remain. The wiki is too damned uptight lately. :) —Tanaric 22:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] .

Happy new year!

Armond 23:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent events

Looking at the most recent debacles you have been presented with, I can only say that my opinion is a mixed bag...I no longer know whether what you do is right or wrong all the time anymore. Sometimes it seems that you stand for the spirit of the law and the advancement of the wiki above all else. Other times it seems that there is a "schism" of sorts, and it's just you few against an increasingly restless Wiki who neither likes nor respects its leaders (and maybe doesn't need them). A split community is a dead community. Your actions do not seem to have been very successful at preserving the delicate balance of late.

That being said, I came to leave something positive on your talkpage, since it could use some cheering up...So, I want to say that I still admire your courage. You never cease to amaze and inspire me with your tireless devotion. Keep fighting for what you believe in, Tanaric. Entropy on GuildWiki, 24.6.147.36 10:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Entropy. That means a lot coming from you!

I'd say the GWW doesn't need leaders, in the top-down sense it currently has them in. That said, in any group of people leaders will naturally arise. We made the poor choice of defining "leader" and deciding who those leaders should be in advance instead of simply letting go and letting the question sort itself out. It seems like the same mistake is going to be made on GW2W, and that makes me very sad indeed.

—Tanaric 07:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Admin names

May I have your vote and/or opinion regarding the Admin names (on a three level draft) discussion here? Coran Ironclaw 22:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ....

why did u block the sockpuppet i used to circumvent my ban on gw2wiki? i did nothing wrong and whats up with the 1 month ban for nothing? tell dirigible to unblock me as im getting tired of this now --Cursed Angel 01:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, that's your sock? It's blocked here now too, and you're blocked for using a sock to disrupt talk pages. Use better judgment, think about why you're acting the way you are, and come back a positive influence on the wiki. —Tanaric 02:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

/supports Tanaric's action. Coran Ironclaw 06:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] About Lussh/Liche NPA

While i agree that nothing regarding the signature was done intentionally wrong, the fact is that the redirect from an edit account to a signature account (instead of the opposite as stated somewhere) may have confused things after all.

Knowing that my english is not really good to verbalize it, i will just point links:

• ban log for Liche
• ban log for Lussh
• contribution list of Liche on the time covered by the ban. He probably never knew about the ban, so i doubt the breach was intentional here.

Maybe we just need something like "One person, One account" to avoid stuff like this. (but would need to allow users to keep their edit count at least, for elections purpose, since many seem worried about it). --Fighterdoken 03:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

"One person, one account" is literally impossible to enforce, thus it's simply better to not try. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 04:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Same as how the "no sockpuppet account votation on admin elections" is almost impossible to enforce, that doesn't mean we couldn't try at least. In any case, On GWW1 seems unrealistic (as the wiki has been already allowing it for a while, and it would cause more troubles that the ones it tries to prevent), but maybe on GWW2 could be tried. Anyways, rules of this kind are not to be actively enforced, but just as they are discovered.--Fighterdoken 05:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that Lussh should redirect his user/talk page over to Liches so we can atleast contact Liche if something arises and he would atleast see it. Get what I mean? — ク Eloc 貢 06:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

No sockpuppet voting exists because we don't want sockpuppet accounts to manipulate elections. What does "one person, one account" prevent? The Lussh/Liche issue is caused by flaws in GWW:SIGN, of which I made a proposal to hopefully rectify. What is harmful about one person choosing to edit using two different accounts for two different purposes? The only time it's harmful is when that person attempts to manipulate discussions using both accounts - i.e. sockpuppets. A no-sockpuppets policy is more to-the-point than a one-acocunt policy. -- ab.er.rant 06:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Just to help a little on making sure that, when actions have to be taken against a certain user, admins don't "miss" accounts and users don't miss warnings by mistake (as it happened in the case explained here, or with user Xerir/Uzataki Monosaki a couple of hours ago). At worst, making it "one user, one editing account" (as to allow signature and changing names, but prevent edits on multiple accounts where you in the end don't know who to talk/where to move things).--Fighterdoken 08:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

But how does this work if they redirect their talk page to another talk page? It would be sort of like me redirecting my talk page over to Gailes talk page in a way. We can't get any messages through to Liche as he'll never check his talk page as it's a redirect. — ク Eloc 貢 06:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, it is confusing to see user Liche editing, and a sign of user Lussh, maybe now that it is so famous does not causes much trouble but what if everyone starts doing it? Coran Ironclaw 07:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

As I said - flawed GWW:SIGN. If I edit as "A", and sign as "B", and you notify "B", and I don't respond, feel free to accuse "B" of ignoring the issue and taking any appropriate action. It would obviously be my problem. -- ab.er.rant 07:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

On a side note, why didn't Liche get blocked, but Lussh did. Shouldn't both get blocked as one is considered a sockpuppet? — ク Eloc 貢 07:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

On another note, shouldn't that redirect from Liche to Lussh be deleted under R3? Or atleast fixed that Lussh redirects to Liche? — ク Eloc 貢 07:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Speaking as an outside observer, Eloc, you're honestly starting to sound malicious. -- Armond Warblade 07:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

LoL, ok, I'll keep that in mind :P — ク Eloc 貢 07:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) My fault, i knew i should have changed the title of this when i changed the focus. And regarding the ban, like i said, he probably never realized he was banned to begin with. I wouldn't call it intentional, since he had actually no way of knowing unless he had logged on Lussh after the sanction was impossed.--Fighterdoken 08:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, ok, now I see what you mean. Yes, it was my oversight that I didn't block both of them; for some reason, it didn't occur to me to block both at that time... apparently no other sysop thinks he should be banned to cool off either *shrugs* As for the redirect Eloc, I don't find it misleading. It's not like he's pretending to be Gaile and redirecting to Gaile's talk page. -- ab.er.rant 03:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reconfirmation

Your reconfirmation was successful and has been archived. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 13:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

It was a close run thing, but you just managed to squeak through. Congrats, heh --Snograt 13:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

What a cold, passionless statement, Aiiane. The bureaucrat role has already turned your heart to stone. —Tanaric 01:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

LOL! Quick, throw her to Cyndr! Gotta melt that heart of stone! -- ab.er.rant 02:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

It is against policy to speak in such ways about the leaders. Respect is crucial to success. Continue to do so at your own risk. -- Armond Warblade 07:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The question I am, personally, more interested in: Does your heart restore once you are no longer bureaucrat? ::looks concerned:: --Xeeron 13:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

*prepares a Restore Condition for Xeeron* -- ab.er.rant 13:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe Dir could answer that. I think a Contemplation of Purity would help better, you need that to relax after such a stress =p -- Coran Ironclaw 23:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nomination

I've nominated you as a candidate for the February bureaucrat election. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 03:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Well thanks! —Tanaric 05:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Good luck. — ク Eloc 貢 17:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GW2W

I just wanted to point you to a discussion on your talkpage on GW2W, in case you haven't seen it. It's evolving in itself, and I would appreciate your input. - anja 09:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it too please. — ク Eloc 貢 17:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Election results

Congratulations on your election to bureaucrat. Given its date of request, I will assume you have no problem with LordBiro retaining jurisdiction of the seat with regards to Guild Wars Wiki:Arbitration committee/2008-02-07-User:Readem. (As a reminder, you'll need to add your email address again over at GWW:ADMIN when the time comes.) (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 11:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations!-- Wynthyst 18:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. :) —Tanaric 23:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thought you might like this:

You were at the top of my watchlist, so enjoy: [2] -elviondale (tahlk) 23:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Now that is quite interesting ~ SCobra 16:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Fits Tanaric perfectly. Calor 19:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Hahaha, that's what I should have said yesterday when I arrived half an hour late at job because of my response on bcrat election. -- Coran Ironclaw 20:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Nice. :) —Tanaric 03:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Check This Out

Hey there make sure u check this out and post here User:Shadowphoenix/User Birthdays --Shadowphoenix 04:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RFC

Guild Wars Wiki:Elections/draft B --Rezyk 09:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lemming64's RFA

In case you haven't been watching RFAs, Lemming64's reconfirmation has started, and several users have been asking for the original reasons for the reconfirmation request. It would be nice if you could elaborate on your reasons for the reconfirmation request that was made. -- ab.er.rant 03:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] If I could ask a favor

could you check the validity of the concerns I express in this edit? If you're busy, that's fine and I'll ask someone else, but you were the first person to come to mind. -- Armond Warblade 07:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:Readem#User talk:222.127.198.144

Just wanted to ping you toward some further discussion there. Feel free to reply there (I've got it on my watchlist), or here (also on my watchlist) or my talk page or you know where to find me on IRC if you care to discuss it at length. I'd much rather talk about it so we're both satisfied with the result than just revert. - Tanetris 20:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

Thanks for the comments on my RfA, which has failed. Anyway, your words have done much to change my views, and hopefully the community will accept me someday as a sysop someday. Thanks again, and take care. --People of Antioch talk 17:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] lol

lol, I figured it looked cleaner like that. For some reason I have and odd FASINATION WITH THE SHIFT KEY, lol --Shadowphoenix 15:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Injunction

Your incunction is unclear about the timing: Does it end once the original block ends, or are sysops to continue reverting edits after the block has expired? --Xeeron 09:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Additionally: Do you need more time to read up on stuff/let the discussion continue/etc, or do you think we could start drafting a statement? --Xeeron 22:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

My injunction ends when arbitration ends. If J.Kougar had abided by the original block, I would have ended it after the original block end date.

I think I know enough to begin drafting a statement, though I'll likely need to do extra research throughout to actually finish one.

—Tanaric 22:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Just a bit of clarification if you don't mind, is J.Kougar's ban being lenghtened a second time because of the filing of an arbitration?

As a side note, is there any chance that the rules of the wiki will be amended to actually clarify them a bit more for all users and the sysops? Also, is there any chance a policy can be put in place to have sysops post the reason on the person's talk page of why they where banned to help keep any more of the messes like the current one from happening again? In the regaurd of the sysops posting why the person was banned, if implemented, could they also post stating if it was an NPA violation or what they feel was a breach of the "Spirit" of the NPA but not an actual NPA violation along with the quote of what resulted in the banning if it isn't offensive enough to be quoted? That should help to keep things from being repeated by other users in the future as well since the current rules aren't very clear. ~ Sabastian 00:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

His editing privileges are being revoked for longer because he willfully flaunted the initial revocation. Part of our arbitration will be deciding if and how these privileges will be reinstated.

I appreciate your concerns about policy clarity. Please feel free to offer amendments to policy that clarify their meaning on the various relevant talk pages. I wish I could merely say, "Sure, I'll implement that right now!", but unfortunately nobody here is in that sort of position. Clarification is always welcome, though -- at worst, you'll spark a discussion about what the policy actually means, and thus force people to re-evaluate if they actually think the policy is worthwhile.

I'll take a side note too: this is the first edit I've seen from you that actually seemed like you wrote it. It's nice to see you contributing with your own personality and goals -- this sort of sincerity is very noticeable and it makes people more likely to listen. If you attempt to clarify our policies, in good faith and without ulterior agenda, and the userbase gives you hell because of your association with J.Kougar, I'll champion the cause myself.

—Tanaric 01:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why?

May I ask why you stepped down, I was just asking you to stop commenting; I did not mean for you to quit your position --Myria83 05:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I think part of the reason had to do with what you specifically said. How he supposedly chased off Shadowphoenix. Along with another user kind of calling him out and asking for reasoning behind what he said. Tanaric didnt chase SP off. I think most people here understand shes pretty emotional and flies off the handle a bit. Tanaric was a little brash at first, it wasnt necessary, but it also wasnt that bad.--riceball 02:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Hummmm. If you end up being a sock of SP, I really hope you are happy with yourself. All this drama was really needless. You shouldnt let people get to you so easily. You can tell yourself forever that you dont, but that doesnt mean its true. The sock only supports the notion of immaturity going on here. This is of course assuming you are a sock.--riceball 02:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Nope, im not a sock, I have just been observing the situation from a far. The only reason I posted that was because he would not stop posting, but I did not want him to step down. The whole thing about me being a sock is a joke anyway. --Myria83 03:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, I wouldnt put it past her sadly. But you are still wrong in that he chased her away. So you might want to look from a little farther away. :P --riceball 03:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Tanaric, please. Take a break, get back to real life or whatever it is that needs time. Don't do a drama leave. :) Your presence here is needed of course, but moreso appreciated. Seeing you leave because of drama is sad. - anja 08:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Bye. ): --71.229.204.25 19:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

There is a nearly finished text I wrote today under the assumption you had left. I'll put it up as a draft tomorrow somewhere. --Xeeron 19:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Xeeron -- based on the answers you gave to my bullet points, I imagine your draft will be acceptable. I'll have a look-through and post any comments I have. Please let me know when/where I can find it. :) —Tanaric 06:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I put what I drafted yesterday up: Guild_Wars_Wiki:Arbitration_committee/2008-04-06-User:J.Kougar/draft

Obviously the disclaimer needs to go and the last part reformulated. Depending on how much you disagree with the middle part, feel free to tweak it or add your own view in a new part. Of course, we need one joint last part. --Xeeron 09:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Responded on the talk page there. —Tanaric 18:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I truly wish I could convince you to stay, but this is your decision, and it's not my place to debate it. Either way, goodbye and good luck. *Defiant Elements* +talk 01:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with DE. But remember one thing: If you're going to emoquit, be decisive. Are you sure you want to leave? Calor 01:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Although I don't really know you that well Tanaric, I hate to see good contributors leave, especially under these types of circumstances. As Anja said, take a few days break away from the wiki and return when you feel you are ready. If you do however end up deciding to leave the wiki completely; although I hope you do decide to return; I wish you luck :) --Kakarot 02:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's not tempt him further. Hope he cools down after a few days and come back. It'd be a loss otherwise. -- ab.er.rant 02:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Calor, I'm doing it as decisively as I can, given the current arbitration. If that weren't the case, you wouldn't see me posting here at all. :)

And, since I'm already here... I'm not angry, Ab.er.rant. That said, I'd really prefer not to discuss this here. It's undeniably lame to post "I'm leaving!" and then keep talking. I'm not on an ego trip and I don't need the community's reassurance -- I'm actually happier in general than I've been in some time. I simply feel that I get more out of my time if I spend it elsewhere, especially if I'm causing the harm that Rezyk and Dirigible have always believed I have. I greatly respect their opinions in general, yet I've foolishly ignored their thoughts about me.

If in a few months, the community feels like they really need me back here, I guess I'd be okay with helping where I can. As it is, I don't believe my presence or my absence will greatly affect the wiki at this point, so it's a good time for me to leave.

It was inconsiderate of me to leave in the middle of the ArbComm case -- apologies to Xeeron and others involved for the temporary confusion -- but I'm standing by the decision.

As always, I'm happy to discuss anything I do with anybody. I'd just rather not do it here, because of its fundamental lameness after declaring my leave.

—Tanaric 06:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

In that case, I wish you the best in whatever else you decide to put that extra time to. -- ab.er.rant 06:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

It's sad to see you go Tanaric, I wish you all the best in the future and I hope you still pop into the IRC channel every once and a while :) -- scourge 09:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, you've clearly made up your mind, so good luck where life brings you. Calor 18:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

dont go just cuz u said so and dont want to feel lame by not holding ur word, thats retarded. --Cursed Angel 21:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

That's probably the best advice I've gotten in... uh... wow. A long time. Thanks, Cursed Angel.

I'm sorry, everyone, for any extra drama I've caused recently.

—Tanaric 03:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Let me take a few days to collect myself. —Tanaric 03:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Finished?

I was waiting for a final ok from you here, but seeing how everything was already discussed, I'll close the case with the current draft as ruling shortly. --Xeeron 10:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I Won't Stand Fot It

Please do not leave on my account. If I offended you in anyway I apologize, I re-read what you and the other users wrote and I have seen what you guys were all talking about. If you are leaving because of me, don't I am not worth you throwing away all the hard work you have done here. Please come back ;-; --Shadowphoenix 22:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

If anyone, it would be on me, not you. --Rezyk 02:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually its my fault. Well, not really, but I might have sparked some of this unknowingly with the comment I made earlier. You're a pretty rock solid guy, so I'll take a guess that something outside of the wiki is on your mind as well. This reminds me of the episode of Walker, Texas Ranger where the neo-nazis were burning down black churches and such and the pastor of one of them told everyone he was stepping down, but his congregation would have none of it. Yeah, things happen and we get frustrated and such, (don't misunderstand me here >.<) but we elected you for who you are and what you bring to the table and we expect you to fulfill your responsibilities :). Anyways.. take some time to reflect on what you mean to this community (hopefully, humbly) and reassess. -elviondale (tahlk) 03:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm Spartacus! -FireFox 03:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Om nom nom nom? -elviondale (tahlk) 03:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:User Lord Belar Kitten4.jpg <- How can you leave this kitten D: LET ITS ADORABLENESS MAKE YOU COME BACK.--Shadowsin 07:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Aw, come on, Cory - they've brought out the kitties now --Snograt 19:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)