Guild Wars Wiki:Requests for adminship/Tanaric/Archive 2

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.


This request is for the reconfirmation of User:Tanaric (talkcontribs).
Created by —Tanaric 04:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC).

Candidate statement[edit]

This is a voluntary reconfirmation in response to complaints about my block of User:Eloc_Jcg. My creating this RfA should not count as a nominator's support vote. —Tanaric 04:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


Successful 13:31, 9 January 2008


  1. Support. He hasn't done anything wrong and has done a good deal right. --Edru/QQ 04:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support. I think he knows what matters most. lussh 04:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support. Tanaric should never have been put up for reconfirmation, he was fully warranted in his actions.-- scourge 04:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support. An unwarranted reconfirmation that threatens to deprive GWW of one of its most intelligent Admins. User Defiant Elements Sig Image.JPG *Defiant Elements* +talk 04:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support. If he loses here, he loses the game in real life. Grinchydiddles goes proxy 05:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC) (proxy of blocked user)
  6. Support. While i feel he made a mistake in the procedure of the issue that brought us here, i also feel that he acted having the wiki in mind.--Fighterdoken 06:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  7. Support. Tanaric is devoted to the cause of the wiki and understands what it needs. The wiki's best defence against the wiki-lawyering that seems pervasive here.Cassie 08:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support. I only see the Eloc's case against him here, and no other sysop or bureaucrat appears be against the action since Eloc was, in Tanaric's view, disrupting the wiki. Coran Ironclaw 10:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support. Discretion ftw -- Brains12Talk 13:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  10. Support. I agree with Scourge --User Gummy Joe Sig Icon.PNGGummy Joe 13:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  11. Support. Tanaric is one of those admins the wiki needs in this (drama) times.. poke | talk 13:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  12. Support. Tanaric and I have had our differences, but he is still a very good admin. --LemmingUser Lemming64 sigicon.png 14:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  13. Support. I may not agree personally that Eloc should have been blocked at that point, Tanaric's judgement call had valid concerns behind it. --Valshia 17:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  14. Strong support Tanaric is, and has always been, one of the most important people behing GW wikis. --SnogratUser Snograt signature.png 18:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  15. Support. One man to rule them all.. Tanaric takes the best for the wiki over policy squabbles. - anja talk 21:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  16. Unlike Eloc, I believe that Tanaric does indeed judge for the best of the wiki, not because he likes or dislikes someone or because of some other obscure reason. He's been one of the best things to happen to all of the gw wiki communities and should definitely be allowed to continue to the best of his capabilities. -- Gem (gem / talk) 00:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  17. Support. Tanaric's judgement call was valid and necessary, I believe, in this case to prevent any further snowballing (forgive the Wintersday pun) of wiki-drama. Kokuou 00:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  18. There are two points here. 1: I agree with Tanaric's decision. Eloc has repeatedly ignored friendly advice and even an admin warning to reign in his confrontational nature with other users throughout his time on GWW. I see nothing wrong with a short block both as a further warning it's not acceptable and to prevent the situation on Lussh's talk page from escalating further. 2: Even if I didn't agree with Tanaric's decision, I support his ability to make it, and I don't have to agree with someone's decisions 100% of the time to continue to trust their judgment overall. Sysops are granted reasonable discretion. If a short-term block to keep a negative situation from escalating doesn't fall under reasonable discretion, what does? Eloc could have very easily contacted any bcrat or sysop, agreed not to pursue things with Lussh further, and the ban probably would have been lifted. He didn't (at least, I assume he didn't), and the ban was upheld. Tanaric is not a sysop that has gone rogue or broken the community's trust, just a sysop trying to act in GWW's best interests. Support. - Tanetris 02:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  19. WHY ARE WE VOTING? — Skadiddly[슴Mc슴]Diddles 04:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  20. Support I agree that Tanaric was within his rights to act as he did. He acted within the spirit of the wiki policies which is so much more important than following them to the letter, as some seem to insist on. I believe his actions are in this case and will continue to be in the future, in the overall best interest of the entire wiki community. --Go to Wynthyst's Talk page Wynthyst 04:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  21. Has enough contributions. -Auron 10:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  22. Support Tanaric does a good job. In fact so good that this re-confirmation because of Eloc's ban should not be necessary at all. Where will it end when people who cause often much trouble and drama are allowed to use their very own interpretation of policies against the sysop/admin who banned them? I prefer a constructive admin that does something for the Wiki over such lowly attempts of revenge and protest. --Longasc 12:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  23. Support The fact that Tanaric bothered to make this RfA makes him a good admin. Antiarchangel 21:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  24. Support My response to the User:'s request for a formal stance. I support Tanaric's recent actions. I trust Tanaric's judgment. Accuse me of being "in his clique" or whatever as you will. I am of the opinion that this wiki is moving towards admins who are less about a strict literal interpretation of policies. The only "consensus" we have is the current GWW:ADMIN wording, and since any request for formal clarification or rewordings never garner much interest, the policy is open to interpretation. The support here is a strong indication that this way of interpreting it is more widespread. -- sig 05:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  25. Support Generally keeps a cool head, and more importantly, acts like a human. Every person has flaws, the real test is if that person's actions can outweigh the flaws. (you can guess my opinion.) --User Jioruji Derako logo.png Jïörüjï Ðērākō.>.cнаt^ 09:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  26. Tanaric is good. Lord of all tyria 22:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  27. Initially I disagreed with Eloc's ban, but the more I look at it, the more I see how any decision made could have been criticized or applauded, and Tanaric acted in the best interest of everyone in the community. Calor (t) 22:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  28. Uh, so Eloc someone went QQing and now Tanaric's adminship is in question? Does anyone else see something wrong with this? It's bloody Tanaric. Armond 22:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  29. Honestly, banning Eloc makes me like him more. --Wizardboy777 05:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  30. Mega super support 9000 --Santax (talk · contribs) 10:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  31. What Wizardboy said. -- 10:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  32. Support. Needs more landslide. - User HeWhoIsPale sig.PNG HeWhoIsPale 14:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  33. Backsword


  1. Oppose. I feel that Tanaric allows his own personal feelings into the mix and that only proves to detroment GWW and break it's policys. — Eloc 05:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. Unless I've misinterpreted, it seems to me that you should first get more familiar with what consensus really is or isn't. --Rezyk 21:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


  1. While I don't necessarily think removing Tanaric is the best decision, the choices admins have made recently are a bit disheartening. It seems as if we've swung from being super strict about policy to forgoing it in favor of judgment calls. Not a good idea. -elviondale (tahlk) 17:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)