User talk:Tanaric/Archives

From Guild Wars Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search


Hey there[edit]

Hey there mate. :) Jyro X 10:24, 7 February 2007 (PST)

Man, this is going to be fun. It's the old days all over again. :) —Tanaric 11:01, 7 February 2007 (PST)
So when am i allowed to start Create/edit? ~ Kurd 11:32, 7 February 2007 (PST)
I'm waiting until tonight, after Fyren, Biro, and I talk with Gaile and Mike. I'd like to get some basic ground rules in place before we start populating this place. I'm really not sure how this is going to work yet. I'll post information on this talk page, the GuildWiki community portal, and probably in new policy pages here when I know more. —Tanaric 11:41, 7 February 2007 (PST)
Thank for the fast answer, any news on userpage rules? Kurd 11:46, 7 February 2007 (PST)
Not yet, so I advise keeping them simple, since it was mentioned last summer they might not be allowed at all. I'll update everybody when I know more. —Tanaric 12:01, 7 February 2007 (PST)


Nice job slipping the part about builds in the article retention policy. :) I will argue with you when you slip in the part about not matching in-game capitalization into the ULC policy though. :) --Rainith 20:05, 7 February 2007 (PST)

Grr! :) —Tanaric 20:05, 7 February 2007 (PST)
Slippage well noticed. However, the thing that should be agreed on fastest is how to deal with different policy proposals. I remember the mess of having more than one proposal at the same page, till you(?) introduced [1]. That should get a high priority. Just found the page. --Xeeron 08:41, 8 February 2007 (PST)
Well wile we are on policy. How do we deal with stuff copied from guildwiki. There is already article completely copied from guildwiki. The first exemple I have is Survivor. The original article have been edited by over 15 users wich many have no sign of accepting the dual liscense. How do we deal with that? Delete, mark them for improuvement or simply let it pass? It may seems little but I think that breaking a liscense is bad.--Aratak 22:23, 7 February 2007 (PST)
Ok Fyren was faster then me.--Aratak 22:24, 7 February 2007 (PST)
I've blanked the article, as that's pretty straightforward copying. —Tanaric 22:26, 7 February 2007 (PST)

Builds & article retention[edit]

Keeping this here, since I dont want this discussion at the policy articles, but I think we are both fully aware that had your article retention policy being implemented as policy, this would have meant the end of builds on the wiki, since we would have never gotten consensus to remove the "no builds" part (just like I dont see any consensus on "builds never"). "Slipping in", to quote Rainith, such an important decision without any discussion at all (and the wrong comment attached) feels very unwiki and wrong to me. Making the initial policy decisions is arguably what will define how the wiki evolves for the next years to come. It should neither be fast tracked nor slipped in. --Xeeron 12:49, 8 February 2007 (PST)

Like I mentioned on the build page, my intent was only to be restrictive in the short term, as we assuredly need longer than the next few days to hammer out a meaningful builds proposal. I don't want people to start posting builds now, using the old GuildWiki policy or no policy at all, because then we really will have a mess on our hands. This is the same reason I've been deleting guild articles, even though I think they're good -- restriction today means harmony tomorrow. We're in no position to deal with such a huge influx without policy.
I had no intent whatsoever to kill off builds from the beginning. I don't think that will be the result at all. I do think, even just via community consensus, that builds will end up in a significantly different state here than they were at our old stomping grounds. Honestly, though, even if builds are only allowed on user pages, there's nothing stopping users from making a [[Category:User/Builds]] and creating their own experimental builds portal. I think such a move would be grand.
Tanaric 12:54, 8 February 2007 (PST)
Avoiding that trouble is the reason I have not posted anything build-related (like categories or portals) yet. I really really hope we can set up sensible policies first, instead of having to adapt the policies to established facts on the ground later. That is why I am agrueing for dealing with anything policy related as fast as possible. --Xeeron 13:41, 8 February 2007 (PST)
I'm right there with you. :) —Tanaric 13:42, 8 February 2007 (PST)


"non-GuildWikians" I had to laugh as I immediately thought of the Gulliver's Travles "Lilliputians" All the little people! Lojiin 13:33, 8 February 2007 (PST)

Title Case[edit]

Sooo.. any thoughts on the ol' Title Case Battle, and if it's worth fighting? (I'm on your side for that one.) Seems like it might be better to get it over with early on.. --Rezyk 20:40, 8 February 2007 (PST)

IMO, use english language rules unless the game specifies differently. - - BeXoR 20:47, 8 February 2007 (PST)
The problem is that the game puts pretty much everything in Title Case, because most often, nouns are used in places where Title Case is appropriate. The term "fiery dragon sword" is never seen in context as just a noun, and that caused the early GuildWiki contributors to assume it should be capitalized in all cases.
Honestly, I'd rather you guys fought it out amongst yourself. Somebody port GuildWiki:Use lower case over and fight the fight. —Tanaric 21:58, 8 February 2007 (PST)
Agree completely with you Bexor, especially because it should make the possible future integration with the game easier if we follow the in-game case with articles from the start. --Rainith 22:09, 8 February 2007 (PST)
If someone else can port it I will place my arguments for it on the talk page. :) - - BeXoR 22:13, 8 February 2007 (PST)

Administrator selection process draft[edit]

Per your request in one of the many talk pages, I have drafted a possible selection process. Project:Adminship. Just a heads up. S 05:55, 9 February 2007 (PST)

Personal attack in Project talk:Policy[edit]

Okay, this is going too personal Tanaric: "These arguments are particularly unsettling coming from Gem, who's training in software. When a client disagrees with a design decision you make, will you refuse to change it just because you think it looks better the way you did it?" The wiki or the wiki users are not my 'client'. Especially a single user. I'm trying to have a discussion here. The wiki is not a project ordered from the contributors by a single corporation or person, but a community project. Your comment suggests that I should not be allowed to discuss anything - that I should accept anything that the other contributors say. I don't think that's how a wiki works. I would appreciate if you would stay on the subject next time, not trying to make up arguments as ridicilous as that. --Gem (talk) 01:32, 11 February 2007 (PST)

I'm sorry. I agree that was out of line, and I'm sorry I digressed. I let personal issues interfere with my wikiwork, and it will never happen again. —Tanaric 16:16, 11 February 2007 (PST)
Thank you for your appology. I appreciate it. Case forgiven and forgotten. :) --Gem (talk) 04:35, 12 February 2007 (PST)
I've moved this to my talk page, as it isn't particularly relevant to policy. Also, it's embarrassing to have it there. I hope nobody minds. —Tanaric 00:28, 14 February 2007 (PST)

Where to address wiki tech stuff?[edit]

Hi! Could you please have a look at Talk:Main Page#Where to address wiki tech stuff?, and maybe comment? Thanks in advance! --Tetris L 11:11, 14 February 2007 (PST)

Your input requested re: guilds[edit]

Can you add to the discussion on Project talk:Guild pages#Failure. We are wondering how we might decide if the project is a failure after all. Thanks. S 15:35, 14 February 2007 (PST)

Re: Drekmonger's talk page[edit]

The proposed user page policy states:

As with any talk page, do not remove any comments, including your own. You may, of course, correct obvious typos, but if you wish to change your comment significantly, strike out the portions that you are changing (use <s></s>).

I think Drekmonger meant to remove Blastedt's personal attacks, not his entire talk page. Can you negotiate with him to verify that he intended to blank his talk page? S 17:39, 14 February 2007 (PST)

Guild Proposal[edit]

Can you comment on this? — Gares 10:57, 21 February 2007 (PST)


Where do i report stuff like this? Vandalism ~ KurdKurdsig.png13:34, 6 March 2007 (EST)

This should do. I'm sure most (if not all) sysops have Tanaric's page watchlisted. --Dirigible 13:38, 6 March 2007 (EST)
Posting a notification of vandalism on any admin's talk page should be enough. LordBiro 14:35, 6 March 2007 (EST)

Firefox Search Plugin[edit]

Hi,,, Could you pls take a look at , or show some1 that knows how to fix it? ~ KurdKurdsig.png17:00, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

That plugin works for me. I don't know what you're asking me for. —Tanaric 02:00, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
Sorry for the late response, i was reffering to Firefox 2.0, when you visit this site and press the searchbox, you will see "Add GuildWars Wiki(English)", when you press it you will see "Firefox could not install the ......", the link i posted goes to someone who knows how to fix it :). ~ KurdKurdsig.png17:13, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
I really think you should make a request at GWW:TECH, Tanaric is a bureaucrat and not able to install any software. LordBiro 17:29, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
Ok tnx done ~ KurdKurdsig.png11:30, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Testing something. Fake Main Page Main Page

Voting- a friendly discussion[edit]

I have to disagree with your publicly stated opinion about voting, and before I go on I don't want this to become a flame war, and I don't want you to hate me. I like having discussions, noticed your opinion section and feel like having a discussion about it. I'll lay off if you think this will get out of hand.

You state, from what I gathered, that those who 'seem' to have more knowledge should not be equal to those that 'seem' to have less. In my opinion, everyone's thoughts are just as valid as anyone else's, not matter how much stupider they may seem. I also must disagree with you about voting being unwiki-like, voting embodies every principal wikis stand for, that if free and collaborative work, not an elite group dominating the project and forcing everyone else to do grunt work. Everyone should get their hand dirty, and everyone is just as capable as anyone else. One person may seem less educated then another, but you have to give them the benefit of the doubt by giving them a vote. A person that seems intelligent may also really not be as intelligent, and thus pre-judging people is not the way to go.--Mortazo 18:33, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Thought experiment: you've broken a leg. Would you be more comfortable with a group of mechanics or doctors deciding what's to be done with that broken leg? Or alternatively, your expensive Ferrari breaks. Would you rather get your dentist's or mechanic's opinion on how to fix it?
People aren't alike, they have different interests, expertises and backgrounds. Getting someone who doesn't speak a word of English to solve a grammatical riddle in English amounts to nothing, it's only a waste of time. --Dirigible 18:51, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
Dirigible has expressed how I feel quite well. Wikis are not inherently democratic. That's a pretty common misconception. They're closer to a meritocracy. People who are good at, say, missions in Cantha will have more of a say on Canthan mission articles. It's not that we, in a bureaucratic sense, award people more say based upon perceived merit. Instead, by virtue of their merit alone, their voice has more authority.
This works because wikis in general, and this wiki in particular, work on consensus, not majority. It's a very different structure than your average Westerner is used to. In a majority-based system, it's your support or opposition that matters -- your reasoning behind your support or opposition is irrelevant and usually not even sought. Our consensus-based system is just the opposite -- your reasoning behind your opinion is all that matters. If you merely express support or opposition, it's as if you've said nothing at all.
If our wiki worked on a majority system, it would quickly spiral into uselessness. Policies that allow us to be productive could be overturned by a simple gathering of vocal, yet vapid, people. Useful articles could be gutted because a majority felt the information didn't belong. Exploiting the technology behind our system, sockpuppets or meatpuppets could be used to garner a "majority" for any decision you wanted to affect.
Our consensus-based system works quite well. Editors who are willing to discuss courses of action generally come up with a solution that's amenable to all. The unhelpful few who chime in just to nay-say don't affect the outcome, because they are largely ignored. The rampant success of the Wikipedia or the GuildWiki -- or the hundreds of other successful topical wikis out there -- should illustrate just how useful a consensus-based system of governance can be.
By the way, I'm always up for discussing anything, whether it be my opinions, my edits, or my administrative actions!
Tanaric 22:49, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
Wow, I wish I read this earlier ;) I just posted a "vote" summary today out of ignorance. *blushes* --Rohar (talk|contribs) 23:01, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

thoughts on Guild Wars Wiki:Adminship/version B?[edit]

Please feel free to give your latest thoughts on my idea at Guild Wars Wiki:Adminship/version B. There's at least 2 who seem to like it, so if nobody opposes, I'll probably work the change into the Guild Wars Wiki:Adminship draft (and see if I find opposition there). --Rezyk 20:41, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

Done. —Tanaric 03:42, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Copyvio deletion/replacement request[edit]

I just came across the Coffer of Whispers page and found that it was marked (correctly) as a Guildwiki copyvio. I've written a non-copyvio version at the /Temp subpage suggested by the deletion template - could you delete the copyvio and replace it with the version in /Temp? Thanks. Cynical 05:04, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

Done. --Rainith 06:04, 22 April 2007 (EDT)


Hehe - it being a Guild page, nobody else is going to go within a hundred yards of it. By the light-hearted nature of the thing, it's hard to tell whether anonymous edits such as are intentional or vandalism. But lol! all the same ^_^ --SnogratUser Snograt signature.png 04:08, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

I can assure you that edit was not vandalism, as I stood behind my guildmate and watched him add it. :) —Tanaric 13:06, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

Guild page[edit]

Hi Tanaric. I would like you to consider editing the article at Guild:Kings Of Christ to remove the disparaging remarks about Christianity. The use of the term "mythic" applied to Jesus of Nazareth implies to the reader that He is an imaginary or fictitious character and not, as adherents of Christianity believe, G-d incarnate. The article asserts that the guild's members consider themselves to be "kings" over and "better" than Jesus of Nazareth, a standpoint incredibly offensive to Christians: The origin of our name is fairly obvious. The most powerful human is, of course, the king. The most powerful "mythical" creature is Christ. Since Guild Wars is about being better than "mythical" creatures, and because all our members are required to be human, we are, of course, the Kings of Christ. I don't believe that this wiki is a place where any religious viewpoints should be expounded, and certainly not where belief-systems and faiths of others should be disparaged or mocked. User Fox.jpg Fox (talk|contribs) 05:00, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

I don't know if it is anywhere in policy to be P.C., but it probably should be. I'm not a Christian but I think that statement is offensive, and considering any religiously intolerant statements or character names in game can earn you a block or a rename, then I think it is something that would be enforced here too. - BeX 05:27, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
The only policy we have in that direction is Guild Wars Wiki:No personal attacks, which does not apply here, because there is no user or other person being attacked. We do not have a policy requiring users to be PC, on the contrary, a very similar policy was rejected (Guild Wars Wiki:Be civil) and, imho, with very good reason. Disallowing anything that someone finds offensive is not the way to go. --Xeeron 05:52, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
I have mixed feelings about this.
On the one hand I don't think that there is anything inherently offensive in the article. To me it does not say "Christians are stupid" it says "we don't believe", and everyone is entitled to have a different opinion.
On the other hand I do think that it is a controversial topic that is probably best left off the wiki.
I do wonder, though, what the reaction would be if a guild were to produce a highly religious guild page. LordBiro 07:41, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
There's something about reducing someone elses beliefs to a "myth" or saying they aren't real that is very disrespectful in my opinion. I think that they could easily reword their statement to make it less insulting to Christians. I think if someone made a very religious page, saying that their members all followed one faith and were devout - that would be a different situation because it is about their faith, not about someone else's. - BeX 08:07, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
(Edit conflict)Well, opinions are like anuses :D Believers and non-believers of all faiths, creeds and colors are entitled to hold whatever views they choose - but I don't think that this wiki is necessarily a place to express all of them, at least not in explicit terms. Far better that they are not included at all. A guild article which stated We hold no religious views, or Our members are predominantly Muslim, or similar non-provacative information, is perfectly acceptable. I don't really feel that the KoC comments are, however. And yes, I wonder the same thing... User Fox.jpg Fox (talk|contribs) 08:16, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
This is a can of worms we should not open:
For me (and more than half of the world's population would agree), Jesus was nothing more than an ordinary human and I find it offensive when it is suggested that someone who started a faith that is responsible for some of the worst crimes in history (witch hunts, crusades anyone?) is better than all other humans, including me. So any guild text stating that Jesus is the best, while simply about the beliefs of those guild members, would be offensive to me and should be removed.
Do you see why this is the wrong way to go? Of course, I wont stop anyone from being PC, but this is not something that should be demanded by policy here. Not showing some tolerance here would lead to endless problems. --Xeeron 08:22, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
I think I should clarify something: Personally, I find the guild text in question childish and inane, but I will fight for Tanaric's right to post it there as long as he is not attacking anyone personally. --Xeeron 08:26, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
Tolerance works both ways. User Fox.jpg Fox (talk|contribs) 08:30, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
I'll admit, I lost my faith a long time ago and have been an atheist ever since (long story), yet still interested in the history of all religions. I don't find that the [KoC] description offensive myself, but I can't speak for others. There are some descrepancies from my point of view though. If you use the name Christ to associate with Jesus of Nazarath, then the mythical part is wrong due to the word Christ acting as a nickname to a real person. That's like saying Tanaric or Gares are mythical creatures. I also want to point out that I find it funny that a king is considered the most powerful human, considering some, if not many, kings in history and in fiction were just puppets.
A lot of guild pages are going to be full of controversy or immaturity. That's a downside of the guild namespace and will probably be the black sheep of the official site, but unless it violates any current policy, users have free reign to post whatever they feel like posting within those boundaries. — Gares 08:45, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
Fair enough. User Fox.jpg Fox (talk|contribs) 05:18, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Sorry about the delayed response, end of term and all that.

I put a page about my guild up specifically to test how the community react. Our guild members (all four of us) routinely pretend to be female to scam for money, make disparaging remarks about race and religion in local chat, and all in all make the Guild Wars community worse off. We are not, however, the only guild like this. If the wiki wants to deal with guilds who exist solely to grief other players in a certain manner, I'd like to see the discussion start because of this. I don't want a knee-jerk, witch-hunt reaction later, if it turns out that a third of our guild pages are like mine.

(So maybe we're not really as bad as all that -- I'd still like to get the discussion started.)

In any case, my intent was not to be deliberately offensive. However, just as you have the right to believe that Jesus rules over all from Heaven, or whatever the hell Christians believe, I have the right to believe he's more like Zeus or Hercules -- a myth with some good moral literature behind him. Because my guildmates feel the same way, and that's probably an important point to those considering joining (we play in North America, which is about 80%-90% Christian), I believe it has a place in the article.

You're welcome to disagree with my views -- I'd be surprised if you didn't. However, if you want to argue content, let's take it to a policy proposal.

Tanaric 13:13, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

I'm not a religious person, but I see where both sides are going.(personally, I agree with tunaric) Well, IMO, i believe it's all free speech, and that everybody has a right to their own opinion(within reason). but anyway, I can see where there will be a blown out religious argument from all of this. hahaha. offensive: not really. controversial: yes.--Zemmy 13:27, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
Ooh, "Tunaric." That's a new one. Do I sing songs, or am I the main ingredient of a kickin' sandwich? :) —Tanaric 13:29, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
Hmm, maybe I shoulda fixed your name when I edited to put in my sig. ;) Or... better yet, change your name to Tunaric! YES! No? okay.--Zemmy 13:34, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

On a different note[edit]

Kalispell?? Are you a Montanian Tanaric? One of my finest friends in the whole world (also a guildie)lives in Kalispell. Always complaining its too cold. User Fox.jpg Fox (talk|contribs) 05:14, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

I lived in Great Falls for a few years. My mother, however, was born and raised in Kalispell. I'm not really "from" any particular state, since I moved every couple years. I honestly feel more at home in Europe than in America. —Tanaric 13:14, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

Admin noticeboard[edit]

Hey, Tanaric. Since the Ban and Admin Review tags got canned, there was no way left for users to contact the entire admin team short of writing to each of them (as I'm doing now). For this reason the admin noticeboard was put in place, as discussed Template talk:Admin review. Just thought I'd let you know about it. Cheers! --Dirigible 18:12, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

Watchlisted. Thanks for the update, Dirigible! —Tanaric 13:30, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

Busy bee[edit]

Heya Tanaric! We see that you are working like a mad man flagging and tagging articles and pages. Is there anything that I can do to give you a hand? I'll be staying in tonight at home, and will be on the wiki all night most likely, so if there is anything you'd like me to help you with just let me know. --UserEmilyDiehlStar.gif Emily Diehl (talk) 02:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Heya Emily! I intend to watch Category:Candidates for deletion, so simply flagging articles is enough to make me see them and take appropriate action. If I think of anything more specific, I'll certainly let you know! —Tanaric 02:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Sure, that sounds great. We're trying to encourage regulars not to instantly flag guild pages for deletion just because we're concerned that that may scare new and inexperienced users away. I started a discussion over here if you want to give your thoughts to it too :)
I'm going to have to leave the office soon, but as soon as I get home I will be back and I'll help out wherever I can. --UserEmilyDiehlStar.gif Emily Diehl (talk) 02:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I could run the bot periodically and have it tag new guild pages if that would help. I wish that we had some way to guide these people, for example by providing links to examples of well-crafted guild pages. I think that a lot of people want to have a nice guild page here, but they just don't know how to go about it. -- Mike O'Brien 02:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I added a link to our guild pages policy to the copyright warning contributors see when they edit. Maybe that will help. —Tanaric 02:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
What would you think about creating a tag that contains content similar to what you've been posting on talk pages ("welcome to the wiki and thank you for trying to contribute; guild pages need to follow a specific format; etc.") and then asking all of us volunteers to post that tag on newly-created-but-poorly-formatted guild pages? That way, not only the original contributor but also other members of his guild could be encouraged to learn about our guidelines and try to improve their guild page. -- Mike O'Brien 02:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Thats a good idea. Also it cuts back on re-deletion of guild pages when another person comes along and tries to make the guild again. -- 19px (General | Talk) 02:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I prefer immediate deletion, as I see four benefits:
  1. The non-conforming article is removed from public view immediately,
  2. The contributing editor/guild is made aware of our intention to enforce policy immediately -- this prevents slippage whereby some articles sit in "needs to be fixed up" state for quite some time.
  3. If a "needs to be fixed up" tag is tossed on, it means we'll have to come back in three days (or a week, or two, or whatever timespan is desired) and patrol all the "please fix up" articles to ensure they're actually fixed up.
  1. A user can simply remove a "needs to be fixed up" tag and it's very hard for us to track it down. I'm having trouble monitoring recent changes now, and the big rush hasn't even started yet!
Tanaric 02:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
You make good points. One thing to consider. Instead of viewing the proposal as us leaving their content there and appending a "needs to be fixed up" tag, you could view the proposal as us completely blanking their content and replacing it with an "if you want to try again, please read our guidelines first" tag. Would that change your opinion?
The thing I'm grappling with here is that I keep thinking we're more likely to get a guild to learn about the wiki if we post feedback for them in a place where every guild member can see it, rather than if we post feedback on a talk page of an IP address which may well have been a dynamic IP address. -- Mike O'Brien 02:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
You've swayed me. I'll use Template:Bad guild page to mark these from now on. —Tanaric 02:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Cool. I'll do my part to help as well. A nice thing about using the template is that it doesn't require sysop involvement. -- Mike O'Brien 03:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm personally very much against this blanking of pages and slapping a "Do it again, and do it right this time!" tag on them. Those pages have been written with the best of intentions, and for many of them it's obvious that the contributor who submitted them has spent a fair amount of time writing those articles up. Simply blanking the pages seems very inappropriate and harsh to me. Add the tags if you want, but don't destroy the content that's already there (and before you say it's in the history, it really isn't for most of these new users, they'll think it's simply been nuked). Between our convenience and giving these new users a warm welcome, I give priority to the second. Please don't blank any more guild articles just because they're missing a silly infobox. --Dirigible 12:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
If you notice, the last sentence in the template dictates, "You can use the history tab above if you wish to recover portions of your previous content." It is not like a deletion in where a regular user cannot revert the actions that has occurred. They can see the notice, review the policy and the example, restore the content they first wrote if they wish and modify it to conform to policy standards. Regarding location, my history tab is not on the top of the page, but that's me being nicpicky. — Gares 12:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
In practice, that seems to be what has happened in the majority of cases. For instance, see . Nearly ever case where I've added a stub and a note pointing to policy, it's been ignored. Most of the users making these pages are very new to the wiki, and probably don't realise that the policy exists. Ideally, we could stub every single one and message the user involved, but the sheer volume of pages has prevented me from getting close. AT(talk | contribs) 12:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
And just a few lines above the Save button there's a big bold sentence warning users to not submit a guild article without checking the policy first, Gares. It's not quite working, is it? Just like the notice telling users to not post copyvio content isn't working, just like the sentence telling them to use Show Preview so as not to spam recent changes isn't working, just like the sentence telling them to use four tildes to sign isn't working. Big surprise? Have you never visited a place where you haven't been before, where people, traditions, rules, everything is new to you?
The majority of these pages aren't harmful or hostile in any way, they're simply... unpolished. Why destroy instead of improve? Just like with any other article on the wiki, add to it if you want, make it better, but don't destroy someone else's effort. If someone were to post a 2000 chars article about Mallyx tomorrow, would you nuke it or would you just add the missing categories, tags and infoboxes, helping out with the article? There is no good reason to immediately mangle these articles over something as harmless as not following a formatting guideline. This might sound very corny, but please lets treat new users' contributions with more respect. We're making a very bad first impression. --Dirigible 13:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
There's a big difference between an article on a widely known and verifiable boss, and a guild that we know nothing about. If someone wants to edit the multitudes of new guild pages, they'll have to liason with guild members, and somehow make sure that data is correct. Also consider the pace these pages are being added; and the last 4 pages created were either 1 sentence or junk. How is it possible for anyone not in the guild to polish these up? Surely the most efficient way is to point the guild members to the appropriate pages and let them fill it in themselves. Of course, that doesn't mean the current method is the best way of doing it, but we've nothing else at present. AT(talk | contribs) 13:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not saying don't add the tag, I'm saying don't blank the existing content when you do so. --Dirigible 14:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

(Reset indentation) [Edit Conflict] You are correct, Dirigible, and I find the replacement of a notice a much better route than deletion based on policy violation. Not everyone cares to pay attention to notices or warnings, which is why certain measures are taken to try to persuade them to focus more on policy. The information blanked is not destroyed. A simple click of a few buttons and the information can be retrieved and the instructions are located in the notice. Yes, I have visited many places where I did not know anything about the culture, laws, etc. I study up everytime I leave the country to the place I plan to go. Granted, I can't very well learn the language of the "natives" in the time allowed, but I know what to do and what not to do for the most part. That is far more complicated than reading a one page policy, reviewing an example and some syntax, or reading a notice and following the links provided. If you feel the blanking is inappropriate, please express your opinion on Template talk:Bad guild page. To answer your question regarding the Mallyx article, that is a vital part of information in respect to the game, a guild page is not. — Gares 13:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I posted this here and not at Template talk:Bad guild page because I'm not concerned about the wording of the template, I'm concerned about the deletion of the content that was previously there. And that decision was taken above by Mike and Tanaric on this page. Hence I found it appropriate to post here, in reply to them.
My point is that information blanked is effectively information destroyed in this particular context; we are dealing with new users, many of whom are posting on a wiki for the first time in their lives. All I'm asking for is that we make their first introduction with this place at least somewhat less dramatic, since asking it for it to be a pleasant experience is obviously asking too much.
There is no good reason for which to blank the content that's already there. (In the majority of cases) that content is not offensive, it's not harmful, it's not hostile, it's been posted with the best of intentions. Getting rid of it simply because it doesn't look nice or is not yet complete is uncalled for and inappropriate and not wiki-like. That's all I have to say about this. --Dirigible 14:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
To be honest I agree with Dirigible in this case. I think it would be much better if we added a notice to guild articles that did not match our guidelines, and notified users that their article needed a bit of work. We could even add a time-based condition to the template, giving the user 7 days to improve the article or the article is flagged for deletion. LordBiro 16:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I've knocked up {{guild cleanup}}. LordBiro 16:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I'll say my little bit...While yesterday when we started using the Bad guild page tag i was a little scepticle about it myself, i have since changed my mind and decided that it is actually by far the best approach. The reason's being simple, As of right now it has been less than 24 hours since the update and we already have 91 pages that have been tagged bad. If this rate was to continue (which i am sure it will increase greatly as the week progresses) we would have between600 and 700 bad guild pages by the time the first review came around. This would be a ridicoulously difficult task to keep on top of. Also the use of the tag specifically links to the Example which can simply be copied to their page and edited. Without this approach that i admit does seem a little 'harsh' i feel that after a week there will be simply too many to keep up with, let alone after a month. The new users should be made aware very quickly how importnat following policies here on wiki is right from the start. Just my view. --ChronicinabilitY Spiteful Spirit.jpg 16:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

That {{guild cleanup}} could be a good starting point if it does the delete-tagging automatically if deadline is reached and template is still on page. It could be better to post this template on the guild page than the "bad guild page" template. It will give time to change page. If delete-tagging is not done automatically, that would be as bad as "bad guild page" as it will be much work to check the pages wether 7 days are gone and nothing is done. Regarding the good example on {{bad guild page}}: that should be added to {{guild cleanup}} to give users same help as bad guild page does. - MSorglos 16:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, feel free to edit {{guild cleanup}} to contain more useful info!
Chronicinability, I'm not suggesting that we shouldn't use a template, I just think that blanking an article AND adding a template is a bit overkill. With {{guild cleanup}} a guild article has 7 days in which to meet our standards before it is deleted. LordBiro 18:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree that Dirigible and Biro's strategy of... well, being nicer than me... sounds a lot better than mine does, and is probably more welcoming. However, I agree with Chronicinability's support of immediate "deletion" according to policy. Further, I've reverted my stance -- I'd prefer to go back to immediate sysop deletion. The users who are adding these articles aren't used to a wiki environment, they're used to fora. Deletion and a note from an administrator are standard operating procedure on most moderated fora. More importantly, it's also standard operating procedure on big wikis. Note that Wikipedia immediately deletes nonsense or ridiculously poorly-written articles.
While a 7-day hand-holding period might seem nice or welcoming, I believe it greatly increases administrative burden (and not just for sysops) while providing very little benefit, and may actually be less useful than blanking/deletion.
Tanaric 18:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I accept that my suggestion requires more involvement than blanking. For the time being I won't labour the point. It seems like most guild article submissions are just test data, and I don't disagree with blanking these. LordBiro 22:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict)
I still disagree with immediate deletion. I was very pleasantly surprised over the past 24 hours at how many guilds, after having their pages blanked and tagged, went back and learned the right way to do things and made actual guild pages. And I was especially thrilled to see some people who went back and learned the right way, made actual guild pages, and then started joining in the blanking-and-tagging effort and leaving comments on talk pages teaching other newcomers the right way to do things. I could be wrong, but I don't think you'd get as much of this from just deleting their guild pages with no visible explanation. It's really harsh to encounter a new site that seems to be encouraging you to contribute, to try to contribute, and then to have your contribution deleted. If it happened to me, I wouldn't come back. Remember, these are not generally people who are intentionally vandalizing the site. They're just honestly trying to make a cool spot for their guild on the web, and they have no idea how to go about doing it. Tanaric, you bring up forums as an example. If I post an interesting thought on a forum but happen to use improper grammar or formatting, they don't delete my post. If they did that, no one would join those communities. And finally, remember that there are two big procedural advantages to tagging over deleting. One, tagging creates visible links to policies and procedures that everyone from the guild can see. Deleting just reverts the page to being blank and other guild members who try to contribute will run into the same stumbling blocks that the first one did. And two, tagging is something that the entire community can do. It doesn't require a sysop's involvement. -- Mike O'Brien 22:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
By the way, if you guys want to create a page along the lines of "Guild Pages -- Read This First", we could include a link to it in the Help panel in an upcoming build of the game. Probably not today's build, though, because we're running out of time for that. -- Mike O'Brien 22:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I see blanking-and-tagging as only mildly inferior to deletion, and I'm happy to continue doing it. I agree that it's working quite well. I feel no need to argue in support of immediate deletion as policy. However, since we're on my talk page, I'll certainly argue in favor of it in theory. :)
As for your forum example, I think it's a bit contrived. Most of our guild submissions haven't been mostly good, but merely lacking in grammar or formatting; on the contrary, these submissions have generally been downright awful, single-line "MyGuildName FTW See our website omg." In any forum I've been on (or moderated), a post like that would, in fact, be immediately deleted. When I'm the moderator, I send the user a message stating our spam policy and a link to an article I wrote about how to write a good thread.
As for a "Read this first" article, that's a good idea. We've got a lot of policy pages, but we rarely write general articles on how to be a good editor. Such articles in general are widely needed, and guilds are as good a place to start as any.
Tanaric 22:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm a little late here, and I did note this on the template's talk page, but I believe you should not wipe incorrect pages, just like we don't wipe articles that are poorly formatted and user pages that are poorly written. Only wipe guild pages that are extremely offensive. Have the template place the guilds in a category, and then wipe them after 3 days if they don;t comply. And then place all that stuff in the notice that the template produces. In addition to a sentence that says "Don't remove this tag, an admin will check back in 3 days to remove it" --Karlos 06:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, now that I've been yelled at for blanking non-conforming guild pages, I guess I'd better weigh in on the discussion. I think I actually agree with Tanaric for once, scary as that is. Many of the pages that I blanked as I was going along had either no content (the previously mentioned MyGuildFTW see our website) or content that was actually offensive (Mr. X is a total N00blet). As much as I dislike enforcing guidelines harshly, I really think that blanking the page is the best way. It may seem harsh, but these pages were created after completely ignoring the BOLD TEXT at the bottom of the editing window. And really? It does say "immediately deleted" right there. Either we need to follow through with that, or figure out another option, including changing that text.
I don't really think that there is another valid option, at least in some of the cases. A decent portion of the pages were blanked not just because they didn't match the formatting guide. I DO put delete tags on pages with no content in the main namespace. I DO put delete tags on pages that were created for vandalism purposes. It obviously makes sense to, at the very least, blank those pages - I would prefer deletion, but Mike brings up a good point.
As for the rest of the articles, the ones that don't match the formatting guidelines - I'd still rather have them blanked rather than simply tagged, mainly because it makes it pretty obvious that they need to follow the policy here. Especially if we're going to leave this message right below the editing window - it makes it seem that we're a lot more committed about this than we seem to be, IMO.
I did start blanking pages because I've been off-wiki for a decent number of hours and forgot to check this discussion when I got back. Tanaric's blanking policy was undisputed at the time. I will hold off blanking pages until consensus (or something like it) is reached, but I really think that's the way we need to go here. MisterPepe talk 08:51, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I just want to make you aware of this comment (the discussion before that section might not be of interest). Apparently, this user is new to the wiki and got really offended by this way of working with blanking and nothing pointing at what was done wrong. As she also says, the policy and formatting is not clear and they contradict eachother in some places. We really need to look over the policy if it's hard to understand, I don't think the purpose of the policy is that only the creators can understand it? - anja talk (contribs) 08:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I'm swayed that {{guild cleanup}} certainly does look better. How about adding another parameter for a reason to specified? But I'm still supporting page blanking if the page contents are ridiculous one-liners or weird remarks. -- sig 09:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Was this the page you blanked because it had no content, Pepe? How about this one? Was this an offensive page? Or was it these guys? These people even added an "Under Construction" notice, yet it was still removed from under their feet. Were those the offensive useless pages you are talking about? Or was it this article, result of probably hours of work, that Kurd just blanked in the few seconds it takes to Select All + paste the delete tag?
Please give me a good reason why we would remove content simply on the basis that it's poorly formatted or incomplete? Nowhere else on the wiki would we do something like that, why are we using a double standard with the guilds section? I'm repeating it here: these pages aren't offensive, they're not harmful, they're not jokes, they're not made in bad faith. Why would we remove them? I'm a slow guy, if you could give me those reasons in bullet-point form so I can grasp them, I'd appreciate it very much. --Dirigible 09:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
The examples you linked of MasterPepe's are good examples of us taking this too far and not paying attention to subjectivity. I'm sure you could find a couple examples of me doing the same thing. We all make mistakes, especially in crunch-time periods like this.
That said, I disagree with your statement about a double standard. If somebody created, say, Pet strategies with the content "Use dire cuz they hit harder elder pets suck", my experience suggests such an article would be deleted.
Tanaric 19:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Ugh. Yeah, mea maxima culpa, apparently. Apparently I'm going to have to ban myself from editing at four am, and especially stay away from policy discussions.
Thanks for stopping me, Diri. You were right and I was wrong. MisterPepe talk 19:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

discussion is going on[edit]

(hope that subsection helps to jump to actual discussion...) May I note that the "are you editing a guild page" is only shown in english interface version? E.G. german version does not show such a hint. Don't know wether this behavior is only for registered users. Guild Policy and Guild page formatting should be revised. I remember there was talk about should guild images have a name that shows that these are guild images, which could be missing in these articles(?). someone added this - MSorglos 09:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I support {{guild cleanup}}. Should be changed to link to example guild page. - MSorglos 09:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
If anyone wants to edit {{guild cleanup}} they can feel free! When using the cleanup template please using {{guild cleanup|~~~~~}} (5 tildes). This way the template actually produces a date, and without it the editors would have to look at the history of the article to see when the template was added. I've also added a second parameter that contains a reason, i.e. {{guild cleanup|~~~~~|complete roster is discouraged}} or something like that. LordBiro 09:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Member Deletion[edit]

Hi, You deleted our members from our Guild page. You then linked to the priject regaurding guild pages as reason for deleteion. I had previously read this, and once again since, and checked that it wasn't breaking any of the rules set. We were not going to be using it as a 'Roster' as in to imply who the core team is etc. It was simply to allow people to find out a little more about our Guild by linking to their respective Wiki User pages. This is not prohibited and there is in fact a line saying that linking to user pages is fine. I didnt want to just revert your deletion without talking to you but i feel you have misunderstood what we were doing. --ChronicinabilitY Spiteful Spirit.jpg 02:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to revert -- I may have misinterpreted and I've got my hands full deleting non-compliant guild pages to research the point right now. :) —Tanaric 02:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Quick Question[edit]

If you get time, I'd appreciate a quick clarification here. Thanks! AT 08:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


I've posted a few of my concerns about your "bad guild" template here, take a peek when you get the chance. Thanks. -Auron My Talk 12:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

User character templates...[edit]

I THINK I copied them correctly, however... The Show/Hide functionality is not working... Which leads me to believe that there's an option that is not enabled in the wiki here or for me personally. Which is it? Cause right now, Bexor thinks I'm a noob. And while being a noob is leet, I think I'm innocent in this one. The page is not supposed to drag like that. --Karlos 03:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you're a noob, your page is just too big and show/hide is not allowed to be used to get around it. Gotta read that policy! :P - BeX 04:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
That Show/Hide template won't work since we haven't yet installed NavFrame on the wiki. It has been brought up before at GWWt:RfTA#NavFrame, but that discussion went nowhere. --Dirigible 06:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Dirigible is correct. I removed extraneous div tags from the character template in your userspace to compensate in the meantime. —Tanaric 19:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Alliance pages?[edit]

moved to Guild_Wars_Wiki_talk:Formatting/Guilds


I've no better guild to be in at the moment, if I happen to see you ingame I'll nag you for an invite. ;) Aiiane-a.gif (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 02:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Sweet. :) —Tanaric 02:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


Heh, seems that you were thinking along the same lines I was: User talk: MisterPepe talk 07:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Free time + ego is usually a bad combination. I hate kids like that. :) —Tanaric 11:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


You've been nominated in the election. --Rezyk 19:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Cool, I appreciate the support. Let's see who ends up getting the seat. :) —Tanaric 03:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

One more time? =) --Rezyk 02:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Want you to get in on the Charr Doodoo[edit]

Hey, I have started a riot, demonstrationn and ended it with civil disobedience. The diatribe is going on in the Charr Doodoo factory. Chime in when you get a chance. I'd like to hear your thoughts before we get from one extreme to another without rational thought. --Karlos 12:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


Hey, be sure to check out Guild Wars Wiki talk:Requests for adminship#Shortening this page? regarding the apostrophe. --Rezyk 19:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, supported the change there. —Tanaric 19:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Ish have a question. ^^[edit]

I was wondering if it's okay to upload a lot of images over a period of about 10 minutes...because that's what I've been doing for NPC's around Cantha... Vengeance Signet 00:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem at all, go for it. If you haven't already, you might want to read the correct formatting guide and our image use guidelines first. —Tanaric 00:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
I have...twice... =P Thanks for answering. Vengeance Signet 00:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


Sorry to bother you again, but do I have enough edits to vote? Vengeance Signet 00:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

For RfA, anyone can vote. For bureaucrat, you just need 100 in non-talk and non-guild namespaces. You can see your contributions using the "my contributions" link in the top-right if you need to count them. :) —Tanaric 00:51, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Tanaric, you're my hero! =D Ugh...counting...xD Vengeance Signet 00:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Should've mentioned, you need 100 edits before the start of the election. Looks like you're quite a few short. It's okay, you can support me when I'm nominated for the next one. :) —Tanaric 00:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Awww. Okay, I will. =P But I can still vote for the RfA right? Vengeance Signet 00:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Yep, RfAs have no requirements, other than being a registered account. I appreciate your support! :) Let me know if there's anything else I can help with. —Tanaric 01:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Will do! ^^ Vengeance Signet 01:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


Is it okay to tell users (on their userpage) that they should add something to their page, for example, a guild page without an alliance navigation on the bottom? Oh and is it okay if I use random things like ==Uhm..==? =P Vengeance Signet 06:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Although if the guild isn't in an alliance, then there's no reason to have an alliance nav on the page. Also, it's usually better to "recommend" then to "tell". *wink* Go to Aiiane's Talk page (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 07:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Lol, seems like you found your "Helper User". By that I mean as User which has seniority over you and you come to the frequently for help. I'm still looking for my new one, switched quite a few times.--§ Eloc § 07:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
For this sort of thing, it's actually better to use the talk page of the article in question. That way any editor interested in that article can attempt to make the fix. —Tanaric 07:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Ish true...Oh and Tanaric...maybe you should is getting long...xd Vengeance Signet 17:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

sysop guide[edit]

Some people have started working on this, thought I'd leave you a note as you may find it useful, or may want to make some changes. --Xasxas256 04:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

In regards to signature images[edit]

I mentioned it sort of within my reply later on down the thread, but I'm specifically interested in your response - you said "[images in signatures] serve no purpose". Do they not, however, provide a fairly efficient means to locate a certain person's contributions in a talk page, given that they do stand out among what are sometimes literally walls of text? I have to admit that I have a much easier time finding, say Anja's contributions, or Bex's, than I do attempting to locate yours or Barek's.

Now, that's not saying all images are good (as Dirigible, well, demonstrated) - and as I've already mentioned myself, I don't support increasing image limits in signatures either. However, I do think 19x19 icons can serve a fairly useful purpose, while at the same time not being overly distracting. Go to Aiiane's Talk page (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 04:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Challenge to Skuld's blocking[edit]

I would like to formally challenge your blocking of Skuld. Your blocking message to him reeks of patronizing and belittlement. Can you please cite the policies he broke and the reasons behind your judgement. I believe the right ting to do while a block is challenged is to remove it till it's proven legitimate. Will you do that? --Karlos 08:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I must admit I'm a little curious to hear the explanation behind that message myself. --Xasxas256 10:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm more curious about the length of it than the message; the message just feels like a "take a break" kind of message to me. -- sig 11:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I feel he's been blocking people arbitrarily to "establish order" and he's been going after the "trouble makers" especially harsh. I feel he is abusing his power personally as I do not think that one of the job descriptions of the admin is to "tame" unruly users who do not share the "popular" views on the wiki. All the while, he is proving, beyond ANY doubt, that Admins do hold sway and exercise judgement beyond simple interpretation of policy.
I felt his ban of myself was along the same lines (I made it very clear I am joking with Xeeron, and without waiting to see what Xeeron will say, he decided to punish me for vandalism, a decision devoid of context) and I find his usage of banning to instruct/make a point instead of to uphold policy very, very, very disturbing. --Karlos 11:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I believe the block in question was related to User_talk:Eloc_Jcg#asdf. Go to Aiiane's Talk page (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 11:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I know that. I'd like to see how he got from there to 3 days blocking Skuld. --Karlos 12:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to engage in this power struggle with you, Karlos. I have removed Skuld's block. —Tanaric 17:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

For how he behaved then, and on numerous other occasions, i think that a 3 day ban was not only justified, but fairly leniant all things considered. Tanaric dont feel as if you did anything wrong in the slightest. --ChronicinabilitY User Chronicinability Spiteful Spirit.jpg 18:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Power struggle? Over what? What is this supposed to be exactly? Was the block founded on any reasons at all or just whimsical? Was the block unfair and thus you're going to apologize toskuld or was the block just and you removed it cause another user was nagging you about it?
Does anyone else even care about how he's handling this? --Karlos 22:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Sure, I care -- I just don't think this is an especially productive approach. --Rezyk 01:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I look forward to seeing your productive approach in action. Or will you not take action as long as I am championing the issue? Should I walk away so that you'd be more involved? Is that what you're saying? Or should I be less confrontational and more pleading? How is it that the way I present the issue is more important to you than the issue itself? You're not at all bothered that he blocked him in such a condescending manner and unblocked him in such an arbitrary manner? --Karlos 01:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Clearly this is not as cut and dry as I viewed it when I first was involved. (sorry for the late reply to this, been on vacation this week). This is clearly a reason why the blocking policy needs to be finalised so we can give consistent length of blocks with consistent reasons so no confusion is caused. Grey areas should fall in between the different levels of blocking but should not exceed the minimum or maximum block duration of where the policy breaking is confined. In this situation I can not say whether I would or would not have banned Skuld, as he directed "shut-up" at me, I could not impartially ban him. However I do believe skuld has been testing what he can get away with for some time now. I disagree with the statement about taming unruly users who don't share popular views. This is more about Skuld blatantly insulting certain people time and time again. --Lemming64 18:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
No, no, I didn't say any of those. My approach has been up for quite a while; my involvement just got stalled because I wanted to avoid muddling the issue with any counterarguments influenced from beliefs that I'm trying to mimic another wiki, or being anti-establishment, or whatever. I guess it's been antidisestablishmentarianistic enough that I'll try to continue further now. Unfortunately, I can't promise productivity with my approach (as it's ultimately still up to the community), but I hope enough people see good reason to have this sort of blocking policy that we can focus on ironing out the details. --Rezyk 21:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Condescending sarcasm and cheap shots ftl... Can you give your opinion as a bureaucrat on whether or not you find his block and subsequent removal of the block proper admin behavior. I find it very arbitrary, and I find your interjection simply to poke fun and say "neener neener" to me rather childish. However, if you wish to dig up the rivalry from the Guildwiki days between us, by all means, we can go down that path at your desire.
I understand youre saying the Blocking policy is the bigger isse.. But if I have no hope to get you to give your unbiased opinoin on the matter and instead expect you to keep poking fun and make insinuations about issues we've had in the past, then I think you're failing your position as a bureaucrat. It's one thing to do like Biro and Dirigible and pretend nothing is happening, and it's a whole different ball game, to get in on the thread only to make condescending remarks at me. Just lame. --Karlos 03:47, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
You are reading into things that are not there. You were misinterpreting my position, and I continued here to make it clearer. My statements are very serious, plain truth, and not about you. I am not giving my opinion about this case as a bureaucrat/user because, as I implied, I am not a fan of this approach. If you want to make a request for arbitration though, I will try to respond as appropriate in that capacity. --Rezyk 05:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm, the one thing lamer than condescneding sarcasm is thinking the person reading is not supposed to notice it and react to it. Let's see... Should I start from the remark about "anti-establishment" or the "issue" of people believing you're enforcing something from another wiki? I wonder WHOM you're referring to? Must be Confessor Dorian. --Karlos 06:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe my block was justified. My note was jovial because Skuld and I are friends. —Tanaric 21:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Wait... When I said that, you blocked me regardless of context. How jovial can one get without being blocked and how jovial does one get to get to block people while instilling the opposite of wiki policy? --Karlos 03:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Two totally different cases. You vandalized another user's page, even in jest. I blocked you before reading the note about you joking with Xeeron. After I read your note about being jovial, I chose to maintain the block in support of your recent spree of defiance against totalitarianism. Under current policy, you vandalized, and I blocked, end of story. I thought you'd appreciate the example of why such blind blocking policy is not acceptable. I thought my note about it on my talk page made that clear -- it would have to the Karlos I grew fond of years ago -- but apparently it didn't and I'm sorry for the misunderstanding.
In this case, Skuld, despite being my friend, was being an asshole. Sure, we don't technically have an asshole-blocking policy yet, as far as I know. You could very loosely interpret "Shut up" as a violation of GWW:NPA. In any case, I didn't see the block as being controversial. When you campaigned against me, using it as your example -- even though I think you're campaigning against the wrong person for the wrong reasons -- I removed the block. I'd rather have a vandal free to harm the wiki than give the impression that I'm acting unilaterally. Some other sysop can reblock Skuld if he proves to be a problem -- though he apologized to me personally after I blocked him, which leads me to believe he won't be, at least not for a while.
In any case, if you're willing to actually discuss something -- in contrast to your recent "I'm a martyr and you're undeniably evil" strategy for argument -- I'm happy to oblige. Our discussions had always been enlightening. As it is, well, I'm a bit disappointed. I will not indulge this emotional sort of argument any longer. If that's all you can muster, please simply sign under my requests for reconfirmation on my recent RfA and leave it off my talk page.
Tanaric 18:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Whatever you do, please dont describe people as asshole. I can already smell someone calling for (yet another controversial) block here... --Xeeron 18:19, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Er...I would like to pitch in the conversation as well. I'm not going to question Tanaric's block - as far as I can see it was deserved and it was fair. However, I did not like the words he used on the block, specifically - "Please don't tell sysops to shut up -- especially new sysops who don't have any reason to like you. :)". This was a joke among friends, so no real harm was intended there (something Tanaric has said a few times already). However, I would ask Tanaric and everyone else to read that note from the point of view of someone who did not know that Tanaric and Skuld are friends - it would then sound like Tanaric is saying that sysops are different from common users, and that telling a sysop to shut up is worst than telling a common user to shut up. Again, Tanaric said this was just a joke, but it did sound otherwise. In that regards, I agree with some of the things Karlos said - but I would have been completely happy if the statement had been "Please don't tell users to shut up -- especially new users who don't have any reason to like you. :)". (For the records, I think this is a very small issue - a matter of wording, nothing else. If Tanaric had not been joking, if he really thought that it's worst to insult/whatever a sysop than to do so with a common user, then - IMO - it would be an important matter. As it is now, though, I don't think there's anything to worry about.) Erasculio 14:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, that's a tricky point. If user A goes to user B's talk page and posts something like, say, a diatribe on why his real-world political party or religion is better than user B's, I would have no problem with user B telling user A to shut up. After all, it is user B's talk page. However, if sysop C goes to user B's talk page and gives an administrative warning, user B ought not to tell sysop C to shut up, as sysop C is performing official wiki duty. Of course, in an ideal situation, user B would not say shut up in either case, but I do see a significant difference in those two scenarios. This is why I chose the word "sysop" in my message to Skuld.
I admit that this difference is not codified in policy.
Tanaric 00:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I was being an asshole, Tanaric was perfectly justified in calling ;p — Skuld 14:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


On the new job. Hope you enjoy it! (Moves are never fun, though, even if the destination can be.) Go to Aiiane's Talk page (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 19:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! It should be fun -- it appears that an average day at work is never boring there. Plus, I get to develop video games, and what could be more fun than that? —Tanaric 21:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm green with envy :P Too bad I'm stuck with business apps. At least I get to play with new open source stuff as they come up. -- sig 02:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
So I guess that means I can't talk you applying to be a programmer where I work? :P Congrats, bro. I'm glad things are working out for you and you'll get used to Minneapolis in no time. I'll have to check the company out and make sure it is worthy of your genius. ;) — Gares 13:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Ask again in a year, Gares. And include a prospective salary. ;)
In all seriousness, I've been in the city since Wednesday, and I'm really enjoying the work so far. I'd talk specifically about what I like, but I really can't. I'll send you guys links to cool stuff once it's publicly released. Also, through a fortuitous set of coincidences, I've found myself with a nice duplex close to downtown -- I move in September 1. I'll post pictures of that too, sometime.
Tanaric 07:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Settled in yet?[edit]

I figure you've probably been busy in RL, but a reminder for when you have time: my question in Guild Wars Wiki talk:Elections has been sort of left hanging. --Rezyk 19:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder -- I've responded. —Tanaric 17:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

My little straw men[edit]

You mentioned on the admin noticeboard that I have been setting up "straw men" arguments all over the place. Since I have actually been exerting great effort in making sure I do NOT get side tracked from the issues I am trying to debate I am curious as to how you still see that I am setting up straw men. I know that I did have a tendency to do that in the early days of GWiki, and it was actually thanks to the debate style of more calm people like Dirigble, yourself, Fyren and others that I have learned to stay on the ball and not get sidetracks by petty debates (avoid starting a response when I see the first thing that sounds wrong in the other side's response).

In fact, that seems to be entirely Erasculio's problem right now. Not to say that I am "fully cured," as it takes time for habits to die, but I have paid extra attention during this round of debates (on profanity, on IRC, on Erasculio's arbitration, on Auron, ...) to stay on the issues at hand and focus on the objective rather than petty arguments over the letter of what people said.

So, when you have a chance, I'd like you to give me a few examples of how, in these recent discussions, I have been setting up straw men arguments. --Karlos 20:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I intend to reply, but I want to be as complete and as fair as possible. It will be a day or two. —Tanaric 19:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


I didn't mean to sound so brash, but it is an arb req page.. might be a bit out of place for jokes- but anywhere else is fine :) -elviondale (tahlk) 00:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

No, you were right on the money. Sorry about that. —Tanaric 01:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


In fact, I wandered by because my attention was brought to the developing guildwikia fiasco. I vowed long ago never to care about guildwiki again, so this isn't about healing frayed bonds there. However, I do have a suggestion for the money. Give it to ArenaNet to hire a programmer to release a cross-platform OpenGL port of the GW client. $62K is a decent year's salary for a programmer, and absolutely freaking amazing six month's salary. They should be able to hire someone good. I'm telling you this suggestion for two reasons: one, both of us run GuildWars under Linux, and two, you have what I've never had nor desired: clout in the community. Please, if you like this idea, champion it on GuildWiki and to ArenaNet. If ArenaNet thinks they can't maintain a Linux port, open the client to the public and we shall maintain it. I have many years of OpenGL programming experience, albeit for robotics not games, and I am sure there are others in the community with similar or better skills. Plus I have read an interview with someone at ArenaNet that the game client is written in a fairly portable manner. There is only goodwill in this for ArenaNet: the game is eol'd after all, and this final burst of community-supported endeavour will be a fitting epitaph for guildwiki. —S3 18:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. —S3 12:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to see this fizzle, though it is plain to anyone that it was overly optimistic to begin with. One thing you might want to figure out soon is whether the term "Guild Wiki" is trademarked or not. USPTO has no record of it. If Wikia gets the trademark, they can force whoever owns the domain right now to relinquish them. —S3 11:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


How, and to whom did I target? Readem Hate Mail Goes Here 02:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


Why did you left? 16:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry I didn't answer this, but I believe this is pretty clear. —Tanaric 00:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


Mind if I change IAP into a draft policy and edit it mercilessly? --Rezyk 22:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Not at all -- I was hoping somebody would. —Tanaric 16:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

You probably don't care AT ALL[edit]

But I just want you to know I'm completely behind you and Karlos in the GuildWiki money problem, and I think you've done the right thing to step to a lawyer. -- Mini Me 18:05, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks -- that means more than you think it does. —Tanaric 20:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Why, you're very welcome. I do hope you win. -- Mini Me 21:44, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
You went to a lawyer? wow. --Hawk SkeerUser Hawk Skeer Assassin.png 15:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I support you guys too. It took a while to read through everything, but I wish you guys the best of luck. I'll be on this wiki more often and, if there's anything specifically I can help beef up content-wise, let me know. I work from home during the day so I'm readily available most of the time. I need a good character template tho for my user page. =]. Likai 18:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)LikaiKailla
For content contributions, you can start from Guild Wars Wiki:How to help or User:Gem/Wiki improvement. Do take the timJust try to browse through our Category:Policies a bit, especially the part on copyrights. For character boxes, you can start with {{User infobox}} or Category:Users providing user page layouts. And lastly, if you have the time, do browse through our policies and guidelines. Thanks. -- sig 01:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. I'll browse through all of it tomorrow. Cheers. Likai 02:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)LikaiKailla

The guildwiki domain[edit]

Hey, according to my understanding:

  1. Tabor will point the URL to where the community resides
  2. You have contacted Tabor advocating the domain be pointed to the official wiki.

Apparently Wikia has now changed the server for gamewikis, so that currently points nowhere. Can you contact Tabor (or give me Tabor's contact info) to make him aware of the situation? I would like the guildwiki domain to point to either the "gamewikis"/Wikia wiki or the official wiki. I personally feel the greater portion of the "community" is still staying on gamewikis, but I also understand where you are coming from. In any case, I feel having the domain pointing to somewhere is better than nowhere, for the GuildWars player community at-large. -User:PanSola (talk to the File:Follower of Lyssa.png) 08:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Just putting my opinnion here in case someone is intereted. Although it might be a bit confusing for some users to change the domain to link to this wiki instead of the other, it might benefit the whole Guild Wars community in the long run. -- Gem (gem / talk) 08:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


Tanaric Last Seen 4 weeks and 3 days <-- You have betrayed the IRCabal, I want your membership badge, your secret keyring decoder and the limited edition #GWW underpants on my desk by morning. -- scourge 09:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

But what about the scrotal implant? You can get that back... — Skuld 09:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for reminding me Skuld *walks off to get gloves*. This might sting a bit Tanaric. -- scourge 09:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

December 2007 bureaucrat election[edit]

I don't know if you're interested (and if you're reading this you probably already noticed it yourself : P) but the new bureaucrat election has just began. I would be happy if you were a candidate. Erasculio 12:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Sadly, Tanaric's MIA. I would certainly nominate him as well if he's still stalking around. -- sig 15:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
As always, I'm happy to do the job if the community wishes it. My activity is directly proportional to the good I think I can do. Not a whole lot has come lately which requires someone like me, so I haven't really been around. If I'm a bureaucrat, I'll be around often enough to fill that role. —Tanaric 19:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Good to see you back : ) I have nominated you for the election. Erasculio 21:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Apropos, what are someone like you like? Backsword 04:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Need your help[edit]

Hello, I am using one of your templates and want to change it just a little bit (I want to produce it a large profession icon rather than the small one) but unfortunately it I am a wiki-code-noob. So I´m asking wether you could give me a little help. Please let me know. Thank you very much. --Tapps75 09:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy to try. In my code, you'll see something like this:
Five braces is a bit much, so think of it like this:
{{ {{{class}}} }}
Three braces in a row mean "Substitute the template parameter named 'class' here." So, let's say you're using a mesmer. That means you'd call my Character template with class=me. So, after that substitution, the code looks like:
And, since two braces is template tranclusion, you get:
which is the Mesmer icon stored at Template:Me.
The trick is changing that code to get the big icon instead. To do that, you need "|big" or "|huge" after the template name, depending on how big you want the icon. Thus, if you change {{{{{class}}}}} to :
{{{{{class}}}|big}} or {{{{{class}}}|huge}}
You should get what you want. I've edited the |big into the main template code you copied over. If you want that in your NavFrame code as well, add it there too!
Tanaric 10:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Wow, that was fast. Thank you VERY much. I think now I will be able to make it the way I want it to look like. Unfortunately I started with the unofficial guildwiki and now I am working on transferring my userpage to the official guildwiki. Up to now not everything is fine but I hope to get it to work.(The unofficial doesn´t know "tango-icons" yet) Otherwise I hope I may ask for help again? --Tapps75 10:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
One more tiny little problem: The show-hide-frame does not work on the official page, what did I forget? (I hope not to bore you or waste your time!) --Tapps75 11:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
It has become a lot neater and it is exactly what I imagined: Large symbol beside the character's name and small symbols below. Wow, you are great!
Show/hide doesn't work on official wiki -- nothing you can do about that. —Tanaric 11:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Raptors[edit]

I will respond likewise: if you wish to discuss my opinion, you're welcome to do it on GuildWiki. You know I have good reasons for not posting here, and I think it a bit cowardly and cheap to call me out on GWW. Ante up.

That being said - now that you have clarified yourself, I understand a bit better where you are coming from. Similar to the infamous Skuld, you like Raptors as a person, but disapprove of the way he does things on the Wiki(s). I think that's a perfectly reasonable assessment. However, I would strongly disagree with your professed (sarcastic?) advice to "start anew and never mention you're Raptors". Could you honestly say such a thing? As much as you may wish Raptors reformed as a responsible Wiki user, can you honestly believe it to be possible in light of his actions? As much as I support GW:AGF (no idea what policy that is on here), it is very hard to extend that to Raptors on this Wiki.

I simply have serious doubts about your judgment on this issue, and that is why I have lost respect for you. Entropy on GuildWiki, 12:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

@ Tanaric - I just want to clarify as well. Whether I agree with you or not (the answer might shock you), I didn't think it was the wisest thing to say publicly and I think the entity of 'adminship' was a bit undermined. That is all I have said, am saying, and will say about this matter unless a need otherwise arises. -elviondale (tahlk) 13:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


Thanks for responding here, I really appreciate it.

If Raptors makes a sock and acts like an asshole, it's not my fault. I didn't cause that to happen. Nothing I said on his page makes his behavior my responsibility. I was simply giving him advice on how to structure his disagreements with this wiki in a more constructive manner. If he acts contrary to that advice, well, at least I tried.

I do not understand how my judgment is controversial. "Don't vandalize using sockpuppets" isn't advice I thought would upset anybody, least of all you. It really doesn't matter if I think Raptors can "reform" or not -- I wish him to and will advocate that course.

As much as you may wish that he will wait out his year ban without editing, can you honestly believe it to be possible in light of his actions? :) More seriously, I also hope that he'll wait out his ban, but I do not believe that he will. I'm therefore focusing on the hope that he'll violate his ban constructively instead of destructively, and I hope he'll violate his ban in a way that doesn't cause drama.

With much respect, —Tanaric 13:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


I'm not out to make a great reputation for myself or pander to what the public wants to hear people say. I'm my own person and I've garnered the reputation I have by being open and honest with everyone I've met. That includes those who disrupt the wiki.

It's very easy to say "Raptors is an asshole." People are correct in saying so -- I think he's an asshole too. Nevertheless, it's not helpful, it's a violation of NPA, and it doesn't move toward a solution to the problem. While I certainly can't claim to have any control over Raptors, I'm certainly not just going to sit around attempting to ignore the issue or enforce an impossible-to-enforce ban.

Oh, and I'm banning myself for a day for calling Raptors an asshole. It's a violation of NPA. I'm all for enforcing policy, and I do it whenever I can. I think my role -- not a sysop's role or a bureaucrat's role, but Tanaric's role -- is significantly more than merely enforcing policy however, and I'll do what I can to make the wiki run better. If that includes talking with vandals or assholes, so be it.

Tanaric 13:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

funniest thing ever banning yourself lol Fall 13:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Yup, I was browsing RC and saw that and I was like "WTF?" Lyra ValoUser Lyra Valo LVsig.jpg 13:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I have to say I am quite entertained both by Entropy's opening paragraph and by Tanaric's self block. I love you both. LordBiro 13:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
@ Tanaric - What the public wants to hear you say? Its not about what you say, its about what you do, and admins following the rules is generally what the public wants. ArbComm handed out a stiff punishment for numerous offensives to a user who proved to all that if we wanted his contributions, we'd have to accept his trolling, harassment, and otherwise disruptive behavior. By encouraging User:Raptors to circumvent his block, you've castrated ArbComm and subverted their authority. I don't understand why LordBiro responded so glibly... unless I'm just a bit naive here thinking that "say one thing, do another" doesn't really have its place here. If so, enlighten me. -elviondale (tahlk) 14:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Tanaric didn't encourage Raptors to circumvent his ban (he can do that all by himself, I think ^^). Tanaric simply put forth an advice: Making a point through disruption doesn't work. That's how I see it, and nothing more than that. - anja talk 15:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
It's a bit over-the-top to claim that his advice to Raptors is undermining ArbComm authority. If any troublesome accounts starts exhibiting similar behavior and starts claiming to be Raptors, I'm positive Tanaric will block those accounts as he notices them, and as per whatever method we can come up with in determining sockpuppets (which, unfortunately, don't have much atm). -- sig 16:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps my response was too light-hearted, but I have already spoken to Tanaric about this privately. I don't think Tanaric has undermined the ArbComm, but I also don't agree with Tanaric that Raptors is misguided; I think he took great pleasure in disrupting this wiki and was not trying to make a point. But Tanaric does not have to agree with me or any of the ArbComm members, and neither do any of the sysop team, as long as they respect the decisions made, and I don't think Tanaric disrespected the decision.
So this is why my comment may have appeared glib. LordBiro 19:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Duly noted -elviondale (tahlk) 01:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

(RI) Alright, Tanaric...I can see you're still the same as ever in your devotion to the community above all else, and after considering the matter a bit more, I can begin to understand why you might have chosen to say such a thing in such a place. The irony is that I agree with what you're saying in principle, but applying that to Raptors takes far more courage and moral turptitude than I can muster.

You're a great man and you continually amaze me with your ability to stand tall in the face of opposition. Taking the moral high ground with a self-block seemed a bit silly at first, but upon further consideration, in the name of your beliefs you could do no less. Entropy on GuildWiki, 03:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

If Tanaric's not going to put the community above all else, what can he do? Armond 05:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Tanaric is the man! (Well, one of the men/women, anyhoo ^^). Cory, my already high opinion of you has risen even more. And Entropy? Go on, make a user page. We're not all company men here, you know - it's just like the other place, only with some official input and kick-ass servers ^^ --SnogratUser Snograt signature.png 14:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Please don't break NPA, even if it helps to get your point across. =( --Rezyk 19:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

You're right. Sorry about that, to the community in general and to Raptors specifically. I could have made my point in a better way. —Tanaric 07:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Would appreciate some help?[edit]

Hi Tanaric, thanks for the welcome! I have set up a Category page, but it doesn't sort alphabetically. Would you mind helping me out? Category:Users_in_Push_The_Button - AislingDubh 23:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Spamming RC with attempted fixes. The problem is definitely in the userbox categorization code, but I'm trying to figure out what specifically will fix it. Currently Twiggy's categorized correctly, at least... And I linkified the cat name, hope you don't mind. Armond 00:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, ok, maybe purging twice helps. Dunno why it would need two purges, but whatever. :P Armond 00:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Great, thank you! -- AislingDubh 00:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Late Welcome![edit]

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!--Go to Wynthyst's Talk page 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)

Admin Policy Change[edit]

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)


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.) Go to Aiiane's Talk page (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 23:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

"Interesting" new site[edit]

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! --UserEmilyDiehlStar.gif Emily Diehl (talk) 19:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


+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)

Christmas presents[edit]

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. --Talk 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. Go to Aiiane's Talk page (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. Go to Aiiane's Talk page (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. 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. 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?? — Eloc 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. 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. 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. — Eloc 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. User Defiant Elements Sig Image.JPG *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. 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. --LemmingUser Lemming64 sigicon.png 13:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


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)

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)

Yeah yeah...[edit]

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


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 talk 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)


Happy new year!

Armond 23:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Recent events[edit]

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, 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)

Admin names[edit]

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)


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 talk 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)

About Lussh/Liche NPA[edit]

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:

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. Go to Aiiane's Talk page (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? — Eloc 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. -- sig 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. — Eloc 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. -- sig 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? — Eloc 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? — Eloc 07:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Speaking as an outside observer, Eloc, you're honestly starting to sound malicious. -- Armond WarbladeUser Armond sig image.png 07:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
LoL, ok, I'll keep that in mind :P — Eloc 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. -- sig 03:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


Your reconfirmation was successful and has been archived. Go to Aiiane's Talk page (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 13:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

It was a close run thing, but you just managed to squeak through. Congrats, heh --SnogratUser Snograt signature.png 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! -- sig 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 WarbladeUser Armond sig image.png 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* -- sig 13:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Maybe Dir could answer that. I think a Contemplation of Purity Contemplation of Purity would help better, you need that to relax after such a stress =p -- Coran Ironclaw 23:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


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

Well thanks! —Tanaric 05:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Good luck. — Eloc 17:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


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 talk 09:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Election results[edit]

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.) Go to Aiiane's Talk page (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 11:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations!--Go to Wynthyst's Talk page Wynthyst 18:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. :) —Tanaric 23:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Thought you might like this:[edit]

You were at the top of my watchlist, so enjoy: [3] -elviondale (tahlk) 23:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Now that is quite interesting ~ SCobraUser-SuperCobra-Sig.png 16:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Fits Tanaric perfectly. Calor Talk 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)

Check This Out[edit]

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


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

Lemming64's RFA[edit]

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. -- User Sig.png 03:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

If I could ask a favor[edit]

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 WarbladeUser Armond sig image.png 07:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Readem#User talk:[edit]

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)


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 User People of Antioch sig.png 17:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


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


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. ~ User:Sabastian 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)


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 User Riceball Sig.JPG 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 User Riceball Sig.JPG 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 User Riceball Sig.JPG 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 talk 08:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Bye. ): -- 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. User Defiant Elements Sig Image.JPG *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 Talk 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 Talk 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. -- User Sig.png 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, 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. -- User Sig.png 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 Talk 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 talk 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)


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)

I Won't Stand Fot It[edit]

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 User Shadowphoenix Necromancer.png 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 User FireFox av.png 03:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Om nom nom nom? -elviondale (tahlk) 03:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
File: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 --SnogratUser Snograt signature.png 19:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Happy Birthday[edit]

Happy Birthday to you Tanaric! Hope that you live to have another one. |Foul Bane| 18:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Happy Birthday, even though you might not see this message. — Eloc 19:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Happy birthday... if you ever read this! poke | talk 19:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Happy Birthday Tanaric :) --Kakarot Talk 21:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Happy B-day Tanaric! ~ KurdUser Kurd sig.png 00:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
A slightly belated, by UTC, happy birthday. Enjoy it! calor (talk) 01:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


Centaurs != bestiality. Bestiality = non-human animals, and in a fantasy setting that's expanded to non-humanoid animals. Centaurs, being neither non-humanoid nor, arguably, animals (I believe D&D 3.5 has them listed as magical beasts), do not fall under the bestiality category.

And no, I can't stand idiocity, why? 03:46, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, happy belated. 03:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Happy Birthday![edit]

-- |Cyan LightUser Cyan Light sig.jpgLive!| 08:51, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Happy Birthday Tanaric :) poke | talk 13:24, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Happy Birthday!--Burning Freebies 07:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
We miss you, Aric. :( - Tanetris 08:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


o.o -Auron 07:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Bawwwwwwww --snogratUser Snograt signature.png 07:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Heh, 20 minutes. I'm touched. —Tanaric 07:59, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
I also forgot to say hi. Hi. —Tanaric 08:03, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
What's the occasion? -Auron 08:04, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Can't sleep, was reading about old times, hit edit on Aiiane's election page for a laugh, and then accidentally hit save. —Tanaric 08:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
You are missed! <3 HI TANARIC! <3 -- Wyn User Wynthyst sig icon2.png talk 08:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
There's a {{wub}} template now? This place has gone to hell. :) —Tanaric 08:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Btw... you all ready for the snow? Old fashioned Christmas eve blizzard on the way! As for going to hell, what did you expect when you left us kiddies to fend for ourselves? hmmmm? -- Wyn User Wynthyst sig icon2.png talk 08:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
I live in San Francisco now, so if we get any snow, I will be seriously freaking out. :)
As for leaving you kiddies, Rezyk correctly convinced me that my emotions were causing more harm than good. Besides, this place had been on autopilot for some time, and still looks to be that way. Seemed silly to continue to interfere just because of pride (though I'd intended to bow out more gracefully than an emoquit, the day after it seemed backwards to change my mind).
Tanaric 08:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) It's good to see you back, Cory (however fleeting it may be). Also - holy crap, you sell gold now?[4] heh. --snogratUser Snograt signature.png 09:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

GoDaddy messed up my domain renewal, and wanted to charge me $100 to fix their mistake. I figured I'd just wait the month or so until it was back on the market, but I guess the site had been around enough/linked to enough that spammers bought it up first. Luckily, I had already migrated to at that point, so it wasn't a huge loss... though I miss owning the domain. Random old friends would get in touch via it every year or so. —Tanaric 09:04, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, San Francisco is cool, I'm just sorry we never made it to dinner when you were here. Btw.. you are always welcome to pop into IRC and say hi. -- Wyn User Wynthyst sig icon2.png talk 09:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
My life got really crazy really quickly. Maybe I'll go into detail sometime when it's not 1:30 in the morning.
What server/channel for IRC? I don't see it anywhere obvious on-wiki.
Tanaric 09:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
We had to close down the IRC channel after allegations of favoritism and violent protests against the cabal. (We're still on gamesurge). -Auron 09:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure my cabal membership expired, so I should be good to go. —Tanaric 09:36, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Whoa, hey Tanaric! Good to see that you are still alive :D Btw. cabal membership never expires. poke | talk 10:49, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Good to see you Tanaric, regardless of how long or short you decide to stay :) Wow 1 year 8 months 7 days 14 hours and 7 minutes since last edit. --Kakarot Talk 11:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi Tanaric..! wb wb wb -- pling User Pling sig.png 16:12, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Good to see your alive and well, Cory. And I thought you were working for a Flash gaming company in PA or WI or something cold. — Gares 16:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
MN actually. But now I work on SuperPoke! Pets for Slide in San Francisco. —Tanaric 19:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Huh. Hello. Cake or death? — Defiant Elements +talk 05:13, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, the cake's run out. Your choices are or death. -- My Talk Lacky 06:32, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Glad you are back! With you (somewhat) active, I feel young again, wikiwise. --Xeeron 22:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Heh, I'll have to butt in on a few random policy arguments before it really "counts." :) —Tanaric 23:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Merry Christmas and welcome back! -- User Sig.png 03:35, 25 December 2009 (UTC)


You have a pending request here made by Backsword. -- User Ariyen sig icon.gifriyen 12:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. —Tanaric 19:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

New Drop/Salvage Research Project[edit]

Hi and thanks for the interest. As I'm new to wiki stuff in general I'm just wanting to get some input from people before I start on the mass moving/editing/recreating that this project will entail.

Once this project is really up and running a lot of the old data will become particurlaly incomplete or redundant but I feel it will be a massive improvement to the quality of the data and make it much more useable. Dakota


You remembered the ArbComm request, but did you recall Guild Wars Wiki:Requests for adminship/Tanaric/Archive2? Much for the same reason I gave on Brains reRfA. Backsword 12:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I remembered the ArbComm request because you argued on talk. I didn't remember the RfA because you just signed your name and said nothing. Either way, you don't have to explain yourself if you don't want to, I was just concerned that it was a joke nomination. I'm glad that it isn't. —Tanaric 20:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

On Adminship[edit]

As you mentioned on Aiiane's talk page, all the work we had to pick a bureaucrat gave us someone who's at most being summoned twice a year to be part of an ArbCom. Bureaucrats are, most of the time, weaker than even a sysop, as they not allowed to use sysop tools unless it's an emergency with no real sysop available.
IMO, that's a waste of the time, to say the least. What do you think about changing that entire system, in order to empower sysops so any three willing sysops could become an ArbCom? Bureaucrats would become only sysops capable of changing User Rights, would be unlimited in number, chosen by common RfAs and have 12 month terms. We would have far less drama around bureaucrat elections (which would not exist) and sysops would become more important than they are today. Erasculio 14:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Intriguing idea. I like your goals but the implementation has some trouble spots.
Firstly, this would create a higher barrier to entry into sysophood than even our current unreasonably high barrier. This barrier is probably higher than some of our currently-elected sysops would have been able to meet. I expect certain sysops would be removed immediately via RfR or some other mechanic, with no ready replacements.
Secondly, this would remove some of the intent that bureaucrats be able to effectively oversee bureaucrats sysops. With our small sysop pool, most are buddies, and having them step up to ArbComm eachother would not be particularly effective.
Thirdly, this would remove the effectiveness of ArbComm declining a case. Currently, decline is a valuable tool that forces a conflict to be solved by the parties involved or sysop intervention. If any sysops can accept a case, quorum would always be met, and we would rapidly find ourselves shifting to a culture in which ArbComm is one of the first mechanisms for conflict resolution instead of the last.
I could be wrong here, but I don't feel like Tanetris, DE, or Aiiane would be actively engaged in sysop duties if they weren't bureaucrats. I'm interested in looking into solutions to maximize our sysop pool, but I feel like even if we figured this out and made it work, we'd gain, at best, a single sysop out of it. I'd rather focus our efforts on lowering the barrier to getting less-user-dispute-savvy sysops into the system, personally.
Tanaric 21:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
P.S.: A much simpler way to get a single new sysop would be for you to accept a nomination. Interested? —Tanaric 21:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Hum, nice points. I hadn't considered how people would become even more worried when choosing sysops (and when deciding about keeping existing ones) if this kind of change were made. I guess it's back to the drawing board with this idea.
(And about me becoming a sysop: heh, that would actually be interesting, but considering how I would stamp all my controversial opinions at the top of the RfA page - and there are a lot of them - we would likely have the biggest oppose:support ratio this side of the wiki.) Erasculio 22:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
I disagree re: support/oppose. I'm interested to find out. Nom'd on GWW:RFA. —Tanaric 22:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Also, I'd like to clarify this sentence above:
"I could be wrong here, but I don't feel like Tanetris, DE, or Aiiane would be actively engaged in sysop duties if they weren't bureaucrats."
I mean that those three are capable user-intervention-ers, and that's certainly a valuable role. Further, all three would, as far as I can tell, respond to direct requests for intervention, be it user disputes, vandals, etc. But I suspect that interests and time constraints prevent any of those three from being proactive wiki gnomes, new user mentors, policy shapers, or many of the other similar, time-intensive roles that sysops often play (even though some of those roles don't involve or require the sysop tools).
If I'm mis-characterizing any of you three, and you intend to jump into some significant, active subset those roles when your bcrat terms have ended, I apologize and feel free to correct me.
Tanaric 23:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

RFA: Slander[edit]

I wasn't slandering, thank you for assuming that it was. At least the one running, knew what I was talking about and had a couple of private messages. It's better to be honest, showing own good faith, than to nitpick. Thank you, happy editing, and have a nice day. -- User Ariyen sig icon.gifriyen 22:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

It's funny how people only wish you a nice day when they are upset with you, huh? Vili 点 User talk:Vili 22:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Once again, I don't understand what you mean. What was I nitpicking? I said Wyn's situation wasn't related to my actions and you called me a liar, and I wanted to know why. What one running? We weren't discussing any particular user. You use English words but in combinations that don't make any sense. —Tanaric 02:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Not to butt in (ok, it is to butt in, so sue me :P), but wasn't Tanaric's OP promptly archived from Ariyen's talk page specifically because she didn't want to answer it? And now there is an answer anyway, just nowhere close to the actual question. Context ftw. --Lensor (talk) 16:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


- Mini Me talk 21:34, 5 January 2010

2nd. Please be my friend Tanaric. NuVII User NuclearVII signature 3.jpg 21:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Congrats.--User Oneshot O.JPGneshot. 22:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Same as above. -- User Ariyen sig icon.gifriyen 22:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Congrats Tanaric, welcome back to the team :) --Kakarot Talk 23:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


I am more or less the culprit for the drama on the Rfa page, I *try* not to start drama for unnecessary reason. I believe that sysops have to at least be able to deal with extremely confrontational and judgemental users; if they can't handle even minor criticism of them, they don't deserve to achieve the status. I don't have a problem with Erasculio, nor many other sysop candidates because they were able to handle criticism in some way or another satifactory.

Just wanted to explain and clarify my motives for posting in a confrontational manner. In all honesty, I wouldn't be in the discussion at all if DM didn't act like the world owes him a living for his apology. That was also what I don't believe sysops should be like. Pika Fan 17:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Pika, please drop it. --Dominator Matrix 17:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) I disagree about you being the culprit, Pika. Stating "I don't believe you're sysop material, and here's why" on an RfA talk page is completely appropriate. If anyone, I'd pin the drama on DM himself, for reasons related to handling criticism you've already mentioned, or maybe Ariyen, because she decided to lambaste everybody for not being nice rather than constructively contributing to the discussion.
And DM, please don't ask other users to drop issues they bring to my talk page.
Tanaric 17:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Tanaric. I do know about AGF, but It's clear you listen to others instead of reading the text in your own personal right. I will explain more in Irc. Thank you. -- User Ariyen sig icon.gifriyen 18:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
I read every wall of text in every discussion I participate in. Don't ask me why, but I do. —Tanaric 18:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Also, no, please do not contact me on IRC. Have your discussion on-wiki where it can be documented or don't do it at all. I'm tired of you starting an off-wiki discussion with me and then, when I incontrovertibly show something you're doing to be harmful, you resort to ad hominem arguments and then refuse to respond. —Tanaric 18:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Then don't Dis How others AGF on things or that they're doing it wrong, just because they do it differently. After all, that's not good AGFing there either. Good Day. 18:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Me telling you that you're interpreting AGF wrong has absolutely nothing with assuming good faith. I am not assuming bad faith by saying you're making a mistake. That is not what "assume good faith" means.Tanaric 18:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Could somebody help me out here? This is the third time I've tried to explain this to Ariyen and I just can't communicate this message to her in a way she understands. —Tanaric 18:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
If Misery and Wynthyst can't, I doubt there's anyone who can, tbh. Pika Fan 18:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) just dont try i wanted her to get off me and had to adminbord it but it turned into a slaugterfest because of all the dramaqueens <__< just ignore areiyien 18:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Same advice I gave another user applies here, Tanaric. -- FreedomBoundUser Freedom Bound Sig.png 18:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
You did not assume bad faith. You accused me of misusing the AGF, when My faith is different than yours' and you can't handle that. It's the truth. So, admit it. -- User Ariyen sig icon.gifriyen
What? No he didn't. He tried explaining to you what AGF means, but you're just too dumb to understand. How did you ever graduate? - Mini Me talk 19:20, 6 January 2010
Yes, he did over on another page. So, yea you didn't catch everything. Thanks for the assumption. -- User Ariyen sig icon.gifriyen 19:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Oh, really? Show me where, please. - Mini Me talk 19:24, 6 January 2010

AGF means "Assume Good Faith". Now, the "faith" part is not to be read literally as to mean that someone has a specific belief system and that this belief system can be good or bad. Rather it means that they do what they do because they think it is the right thing to do, even though they may be wrong. Thus, to "AGF" means that whenever you see an error, you should assume it was an honest mistake and not done out of spite. This in no way implies that mistakes should not be corrected though! Also, there is no "good AGF" or "bad AGF", only "AGF".--Lensor (talk) 19:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Oh, you mean on Dom's RFA page? Obviously he'll accuse you of that, because, well, you do, to be honest. This is something you have proven time and time again.
Also, I would like to hear your idea of AGF? If you have already explained this somewhere, I apologise for not stalking you. - Mini Me talk 19:33, 6 January 2010
It's what Lensor posted that has been taken out of context by so many. -- User Ariyen sig icon.gifriyen 19:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
No, what Lensor posted is correct, while what you say is incorrect. For example, "Then don't Dis How others AGF on things or that they're doing it wrong, just because they do it differently. After all, that's not good AGFing there either." is not even close to what Lensor (very helpfully!) explained. —Tanaric 20:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Go look at Dom's rfa talk page and tell me that again with what you said about Agf. User C4K3 Facesmile.png What you send, is what you receive Tan. You don't like me, but don't tell me I use AGF wrongly. Mine was and is not in the way you 'perceived'. -- User Ariyen sig icon.gifriyen 20:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

"One word, that you're over stepping. AGF. You haven't shown that since your first post in here. Good day." You said this to Pika. Pika at no time assumed DM was acting in bad faith. Therefore, your statement is a misuse of linking GWW:AGF. —Tanaric 20:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah so to you, insult-ment is good faith or let's say 'negativity' is Good faith? -- User Ariyen sig icon.gifriyen 20:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, Ariyen. I could claim someone make a mistake and call that person an idiot while still doing it in what is called "good faith"; "bad faith" would be claiming that person didn't make a mistake, rather did something bad on purpose in order to bring harm to the wiki or to an user. AGF doesn't mean being nice; it means considering people make mistakes out of lack of knowledge about the wiki, instead of making mistakes out of spite for the wiki. Erasculio 20:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
One doesn't have to be spiteful themselves, just to make a claim or a point. That would be harsh and disruptive to the wiki. -- User Ariyen sig icon.gifriyen 20:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
...Which has nothing to do with AGF. We don't have a "Be nice!" guideline, or a "Don't be a dick" guideline (although the latter has been proposed many times). Users are perfectly allowed to be harsh against each other, which is even necessary once in a while. That's outside the scope of what AGF means, which is just a guideline to prevent drama parties such as claiming that an user who has been around for only a few weeks and makes a mistake in a template page is actually a vandal in disguise trying to destroy the wiki. Erasculio 20:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
If there was a "Don't be a dick" guideline, half the wiki wouldn't abide by it anyway. In your example Eras, a claim that a person is wrong or made a mistake is fine, but calling someone an idiot does actually fall under NPA. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Gares Redstorm (talk).
I know. That's just an extreme example to show Ariyen how AGF is actually restricted to a very specific kind of circumstance. Erasculio 21:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Agf shouldn't be restricted. And Don't be a dick or be nice guidelines should be similar or close to AGF, in which since they are not on here. good judgment should be used in place, but we have people apparently some who lack in good judgment here. Maybe people don't know what faith is in it's self. Is there anywhere in faith to be spiteful or vindictive to people? No. This hatred on the wiki is going to cause it to fail, because we have people letting some get by with negativity, while others are punished. I don't think this is fair or right at all. -- User Ariyen sig icon.gifriyen 22:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Then you are free to suggest changes to the current AGF guideline or to propose a new guideline called "Good judgment" or something else. The current AGF is rather restricted, though, and that's what was being talked above. Erasculio 22:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
What part did I miss of it being restricted? -- User Ariyen sig icon.gifriyen 22:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
The part about how AGF works here, which is different from how you believe it should work. Insulting people, telling them to shut up and leave, laughing in their faces and etc - none of that is forbidden or even mentioned by our AGF guideline. You may want to change it, and you can actually try to change it so it's more like what you would like it to be, but currently it's a very specific guideline, covering only the situations I described a few paragraphs above, nothing else. Erasculio 22:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Ariyen, if it helps, the words "faith" and the phrase "good faith" have vastly different meanings. While I'd very much like to see a "Don't be a jerk" policy to address your "faith" concerns, it's really important that you realize that "assume good faith" is different and has very different goals. At no point in the wiki's five year history has anybody intended GWW:AGF to mean what you want it to mean. The reason we have "assume good faith" and not "assume good judgment" is that, while 99% of contributors act in good faith 100% of the time, 0% of contributors act with good judgment 100% of the time. It's a battle worth fighting, but we shouldn't pervert GWW:AGF to fight it. —Tanaric 22:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
With so many problems lately. Why don't we have don't be a jerk policy? -- User Ariyen sig icon.gifriyen 23:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, there is a guideline draft for civility, but it hasn't even been discussed in almost two years. Feel free to try to revive it or create a new guideline or policy. Be bold! -- FreedomBoundUser Freedom Bound Sig.png 23:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) That's a good question. Policies are only ratified into policy base when they have consensus behind them. "Don't be a jerk" has never gained consensus for three primary reasons:
  1. Difficulty in adjudication -- what you decide is "being a jerk" I might evaluate as mere personality or cultural differences. With any potential enforcement, some faction is upset.
  2. Belief that it hampers quality contributions -- some editors believe that being a jerk is a useful tool in certain qualifications, or that it otherwise diminishes "free speech."
  3. Unnecessary -- excessively jerk-y behavior that causes disruption can be handled by sysops already.
If you can draft a policy and convince others that it should become official on its talk page (per our policy policy), you can make this an official policy and sysops will have the right to enforce along those lines.
Tanaric 23:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Take a look here and on its talk page as well. It's on a (slighty) different wiki, true, but the arguments are pretty much the same you would find here. Erasculio 23:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
It's a miracle! Ariyen finally sounds like she is understanding! What a development! Pika Fan 01:41, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
@Pika: Tanaric, et al are perfectly correct in saying that we don't have a 'Don't be a dick' type policy. With that said, don't be a dick. — Defiant Elements +talk 04:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

About Ariyen[edit]

Forgive me for being overly curious, but I have come to the conclusion (using my innate intuition and your post on her page) that she has asked you to wipe her userspace? Is this due to some sort of rage-quitting the wiki after all this drama? NuVII User NuclearVII signature 3.jpg 00:20, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and yes. —Tanaric 00:22, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
May I, then, venture to suggest not deleting all her stuff here (ofc, godly sysop powers considered, deleted stuff can be reanimated), but instead letting her cool down? It is not unheard of wiki users blowing circuits and "leaving", only to return afterwards. It happens to the best of us (hint, hint), and her transition may prove to be easier if she finds the enviorment the way she left. NuVII User NuclearVII signature 3.jpg 00:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
She explicitly requested that both her pages and images be deleted. calor (talk) 00:28, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
There's a lot of wisdom in what you're saying, but on the other hand I don't feel it's my place to make somebody's decision for them. I think that the sysop team refusing her request at this point would only further alienate her. —Tanaric 00:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, it was just a suggestion. Oh, and before I forget:
Would you like to be my friend? NuVII User NuclearVII signature 3.jpg 01:05, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
I feel that my signature would contribute as forensic evidence to this discussion. -- Armond WarbladeUser Armond sig image.png{{Bacon}} 18:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Ariyen's talk page[edit]

While she may not be active any longer, her talk page contents need to remain at least archived including links to her archives. I did not see that you created an archive for the comments you removed. -- Wyn User Wynthyst sig icon2.png talk 00:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I moved them to the 2010 one, but forgot to add the link. Fixed and thanks. :) —Tanaric 00:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
I missed the addition to the archive page, sorry for that. -- Wyn User Wynthyst sig icon2.png talk 00:27, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
i question the protecting otehrs ask for that and dont get teh protection 19:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with those requests -- if another sysop feels the protection is inappropriate, they are free to revert. —Tanaric 19:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
@127 There's a difference between protecting the talk page of an active user and one that is planning on not coming back. -- FreedomBoundUser Freedom Bound Sig.png 19:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
i see at lest oen request on the admin board simlar 21:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

personal attack on all black people individually[edit]

lol oyxmoron much? 22:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I used my sysop discretion in both my block and my block log humor. :P —Tanaric 22:28, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
You failed to crit imo. -- Armond WarbladeUser Armond sig image.png{{Bacon}} 23:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

D': dark chaos 00:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


Gogogo? Erasculio 01:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


this. Vili 点 User talk:Vili 01:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Noted. —Tanaric 17:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Ariyen/Kaisha Blocking[edit]

For you --adrin User Adrin mysig.jpg 04:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Nice mp3, lol. --User Sensei sensei-sig.pngSensei | talk 10:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


" 23:47, 12 February 2010 Tanaric (Talk | contribs) blocked Auron (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 3 days (account creation disabled) ‎ (trying to circumvent existing block: trolling as" This is a joke right?----Xtreme 23:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

No, see Project talk:Policy. —Tanaric 23:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
"trying to circumvent existing block" is arguably inappropriate. I bring it up because I have free time and I'm trying to figure out what I would have said if I were the one to place the block, not because I think it's serious. -- Armond WarbladeUser Armond sig image.png{{Bacon}} 05:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
pre-defined block reasons on a dropdown menu can't cover every possible scenario appropriately, imo. Vili 点 User talk:Vili 05:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Nothing says you have to use the dropdown menu 100% of the time, unless current GWW mediawiki is significantly worse than mediawiki was when I was an admin on PvX. -- Armond WarbladeUser Armond sig image.png{{Bacon}} 05:45, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
the drop down menus' are customisable. You have to select an option from the drop down menu, but there's a box to provide additional reasoning as well. It would appear that "trying to circumvent existing block" is from the drop down menu, where as the rest is what Tanaric put in himself. ~ PheNaxKian User PheNaxKian sig.jpg 13:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Just a fyi[edit]

Not trying to derail conversation, but I suspect it would be lost in the main discussion. I didn't realise that the IP belonging to Auron was banned. Also, I wasn't saying "only block socks accounts for breaching policy, not main accounts", I was saying block any account breaching policy regardless of whether it is a sock or not and don't block it if it isn't breaching policy, regardless of whether it is a sock or not. I hope that makes my position clearer. Misery 02:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

So treat every sock as a different user, even if it's the same person behind it? --JonTheMon 05:21, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Why are you asking such a stupid question? Pika Fan 11:45, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
That's totally irrelevant to what I said and I believe irrelevant to how you handle any situation. There is a breach of policy or there is not, but if you have any further questions as to my interpretation on policies on socks, I'm going to ask that you ask me on my talk page rather than Tanaric's. Misery 13:09, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Noted Misery, and thanks for the clarification. —Tanaric 08:13, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

"[20:59] * You were kicked from #gww by ChanServ ((Tanaric) Bye.)"[edit]

Was pretty amusing. You can come up with some personal attack directed against you if you took my comment seriously. ---Chaos- (moo) -- 19:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't need a personal attack in IRC. You were just annoying. Though honestly didn't mean for the ban to last that long, I thought chanserv autoremoved after a minute or so. It's removed now. —Tanaric 19:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. ---Chaos- (moo) -- 19:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


sigh Are you sure you really want to do that? A very strict warning before bans would have at least made things a little more..... transparent. --JonTheMon 20:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that at the moment it looks very much like you banned Cursed Angel for requesting your reconfirmation and Pika Fan for disagreeing with you. Misery 20:37, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
And TV for saying "tl:dr, dramallama, /popcorn, etc.--TahiriVeila 19:53, 23 February 2010 (UTC)"......probably a bad call. But, hey, I'm a PvX admin, so..... Karate User Karate Jesus KJ for sig.png Jesus 20:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
In the least it stopped the out of control discussion practically dead in its tracks, which attracted trolls to come and comment/troll unnecessarily on it. --Lania Elderfire 20:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
As far as discretion goes, haven't all the involved users had "1 more chance" too many times already? They are not new to the wiki, and there is just so many "other chances" you can give.--Fighterdoken 20:53, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Excuse me Fighterdoken I have not nor will I ever troll. So no I have not had ""1 more chance" too many times already". User DrogoBoffin sig icon.png Drogo Boffin 20:56, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
I consider TV's message trolling/baiting -- it added nothing and only served to fan the flames.
CA posted "wtf?" -- same thing. And then made a Loves to Sync-style RfR, which everybody seems to agree was trolling. If my biggest failing as a sysop was failing to block LtS for such a request, surely I can't allow CA to do the same.
I am convinced that Pika was trolling me, as his statements didn't make any sense and were advocating I break policy. He said I should have a firm stance against trolls, so I took his advice.
Every one of these users have gotten warnings or bans before. I stick by my actions.
Tanaric 20:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Uh nobody even commented on my post. I was trying to point out how ridiculous the whol thread was =\ and can we PLEASE stop calling me TV. Tahiri or jake if you can't be bother typing my whole username please--TahiriVeila 20:56, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
I would like for you to point out where I was warned for trolling Tanaric. I can guarantee you will not find one. I am an asshole and have been warned about being such but a troll I am not. User DrogoBoffin sig icon.png Drogo Boffin 20:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
"In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response[1] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[2]". You, sir, are a troll. —Tanaric 20:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) You guys seem to misunderstand the meaning of what trolling constitutes. According to [5] both Tahiri and Drogo meets the definition of a troll. --Lania Elderfire 21:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
That was not and is never my intention. Also I was not off topic. User DrogoBoffin sig icon.png Drogo Boffin 21:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
My comment wasn't offtopic, it was pointing out that the topic is pointless and ridiculous. It wasn't trying to disrupt the conversation, it was trying to show that it's already emotional and idiotic--TahiriVeila 21:04, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Intention doesn't matter, you guys did what you did. If you don't understand or see that what you did was trolling then I suggest refraining from making comments that can be construed as inflammatory, even in the slightest degree. --Lania Elderfire 21:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
You could have done everything you did, but slightly differently, and avoided all the drama and current reconfirmation requests. My statement of how the actions could be interpreted seems to be accurate as evidenced by how people are reacting. I'm sorry for how things turned out, especially as I suspect my comments on IRC contributed. I don't see this ending well or without drama. Misery 21:03, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
PikaFan specifically requested that I not be fazed by drama or negative reactions by the trolls themselves. And I agree -- as I have said before, minimizing drama is not my role as a sysop or otherwise. —Tanaric 21:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Also I apologize for failing to block KJ -- I meant to, but somehow missed him. As I am confident the block will be immediately reverted, I will not enact it right now. —Tanaric 21:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
For...the penis thing? What would I have been blocked for? Karate User Karate Jesus KJ for sig.png Jesus 21:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, for trolling with the penis remark -- it was off-topic and disrupted the conversation. —Tanaric 21:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
@Lania: "...a troll is someone who posts...with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion." Intent does matter, since you're going to go by the book on the definition. --Kyoshi (Talk) User Kyoshi sig.png 21:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
The problem is that some people do not "appear to understand" (even though they should) how what they say can cause problems or disruptions to a discussion. They say intentions were benign, but the end result was disruption and problems by posting completely irrelevant comments. Unless they have a mental disorder I do not see how they cannot see that posting "sexual" or stupid comments could be disruptive. So either they are lying about their intention or they have a mental disorder. And don't quote "assume good faith" as I can't see how any disruptive comments about penis can be in good faith.--Lania Elderfire 21:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) Intent is not hard to judge if you take in account the context by which the conversation was ruled, and the flow of the same. Is easy to consider someone just saying "i'm wearing no pants" in a conversation where no mention or asociation to the phrase can be made to be, effectively, "trolling". He may have no ill intent, and may just be doing it just to have a little fun at the expenses of the other users who are taking things too seriously, and his participation may not be "that" disruptive alone, but if more users join just "for the lulz", then yeah, the trolling was disruptive enough to earn some kind of disciplinary action.--Fighterdoken 21:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Tanaric, which part of the "don't disrupt guild wars wikipedia to make a point" is confusing to you? If you think what you did was productive, then I've seriously lost confidence in you. Thanks! NuVII User NuclearVII signature 3.jpg 21:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

What is more disruptive: Blocking someone for trolling, or unblocking him 2 minutes after the block and then disapearing for the day without further comments?--Fighterdoken 21:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
At this point, he hasn't fully disappeared, he just doesn't have much more to say at the point. So, since we know that there is displeasure about the blocks, let's drop it for now. Also, he wasn't the one that unblocked. --JonTheMon 21:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
I think he was referring to you, Jon. —Tanaric 21:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
That one made me laugh. User DrogoBoffin sig icon.png Drogo Boffin 21:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict x3) @Lania: How much disruption did the alleged trolling actually cause? Nobody replied to KJ's comment. Nobody replied to Tahiri's comment or Drogo's comment or CA's comment. And however you look at it, Pika wasn't trolling, regardless of how little sense his comment made to Tanaric. There was no negative intent and no negative outcome except for the bans causing even more drama. Where exactly was there disruption? --Kyoshi (Talk) User Kyoshi sig.png 21:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Nobody needs to reply to for stupid comments to cause disruption, just the fact that it's an eyesore can make the discussion more emotional and out of control, and probably contributed to the hastily bans. Also by making comments and arguments that makes absolutely no sense for the sake of arguing can be considered trolling. I didn't say Pika was trolling but Tanaric think so, and reading over Pika's comments, I tend to agree. I don't agree with Tanaric's hastily ban but I don't disagree with it either. As far as drama goes, policy and policy discussion arises from drama and politics; I mean just look at the political climate in the states right now... Drama doesn't equal trolling, so in this case the bans, even though they were temporarily, stopped the spiraling discussion in Auron's talk page at the expense of Tanaric's credibility. --Lania Elderfire 22:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) It would seem to me that much of what has been interpreted as "trolling" has just been subtle and indirect remarks criticizing the emotional attachment to the drama at hand, or innocent jokes which felt perfect to say in the discussion right then. Situations for jokes go by, so it's often quite irresistible to avoid saying something, even though just increasing the amount of posts in a topic can be considered "disruptive", because most posts are anyways completely useless (thus, a sysop with some discretion [whim] can consider mostly any comment disruptive, and hand out unnecessarily long blocks for it). Among others, Jake's "/popcorn" is a common (he does it often, it's a nice way to take distance and let others argue) and good example of an easily misinterpreted comment, pointing out that our drama is stupid and amusing, I could probably say that someone who is capable of seeing it as only "disrupting in intention of provoking an emotional response" has a mental disorder. It seems to me that lately our sysops have been a little too eager to ban people, which only leads to lost confidence and feelings of rebellion (RfR). Seeing the word "reconfirmation or "RfR" mostly anywhere where a block has been handed out isn't really a sign of good discretion. Admins are humans too, and I think this should allow regular users to question admin's judgment freely and speak out their mind, and not allow admins to do anything they want because "they're humans too". Also saying "I'm sorry, I probably shouldn't have banned you for that one" can't really be that humiliating, and even though it might be a temporary shame, it causes better relations.

In other words, calm down and talk things straight with people before you hand out so many unnecessary bans. And if a comment causes no harm, don't try to make it seem as the comment caused harm, because then it has. ---Chaos?- (moo!) -- 11:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Tanaric, I only have one thing to say "strongly consider taking a break from the wiki for a day. Pika, et al, has done nothing wrong and you're being awfully aggressive....You have turned a non-issue into an issue, which is the opposite of what sysops should be doing." -- Wyn User Wynthyst sig icon2.png talk 12:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
You are right, Chaos. Admins are humans. We make mistakes and we have bad days. I don't know what was going on in Tanaric's head at the time, so I'm not going to make any excuses for him. I do disagree with his actions regarding this issue. However, with any admin, I believe one mistake in years is not immediate cause for de-sysoping. Repeated offenses, yes. Is it cause for concern? Most definitely.
Also, not sure if you have specific admins in mind, but you state that admins are a little too eager to ban people. Here's the thing. There was a lot more leeway on PvX than there is here, so what you see as eager is the norm here and most of the bans I've seen are warranted. I know there is nothing anymore except for when there are updates and it gets boring here. I don't care if users want to bullshit around as long as they don't cross the line or try to make the wiki into their own chat forum. I know other admins feel the same way. My suspicions slightly reinforced by Dark Chaos's post was that a lot of the new users back then wanted to fit in at PvX, peer pressure set in, and they conformed. It's the same way here. You have to adapt as these are different surroundings. If users are too stubborn, proud, immature to realize, w/e, then they will just continued to be banned. I'm not singling you out, Chaos, but if any of that is unacceptable to anyone, then sorry because I can't help you. — Gares 15:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
No, I don't exactly have any specific admins in mind, but that doesn't mean I'm saying all admins act the same. Many bans are warranted on some level, and it could've been completely rational to ban Jake and Cursed Angel (wtf? in that context is a blunt way to put that he completely disagrees with what Tanaric said) for a day or so as in a "stfu", any longer than that is ridiculous, but when you take the suited ban duration and lengthen it 30 times, then I'm beginning to wonder whether everything is alright with this system. Admins should warn before acting, and not act so fast. And I'm not singling out Tanaric here, he just happens to be the example because this case strongly revolves around him. ---Chaos?- (moo!) -- 16:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Chaos, lol? We never banned people on PvX back when I was an admin, and I doubt that's changed. (Well, Auron's probably taken up my job of banning people for being shitters, but that never got the attention it deserved.) -- Armond WarbladeUser Armond sig image.png{{Bacon}} 16:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Community runs smoothly. I leave. PvXers leave PvX and come here. All talk pages turn into a spamfest. Admins do nothing to prevent this because they're crippled by design. Admins start trolling.

I come back. People are upset about spam/trolls. I make effort to correct this in the ways I know how, I get jumped on for not fixing the problem fast enough. I block trolls. Perhaps overzealously blocked Pikafan there, but the rest of you are fucking trolls. Community jumps down my throat.

I came back because I had a few friends here and because I wanted to catch up. I didn't ask to be made an administrator again, and I certainly didn't ask for a mob of spamming, one-off, "doin' it for the lulz" trolls to form the basis of any consensus I needed to seek to actually do my job.

I don't care that "it's the perfect time to make a joke." I am not fundamentally against jokes. I've made a handful myself. But I don't fucking take over every discussion on every important talk page and turn it into a fucking meme.

At 24, I think I'm too old for the Internet. See you in 18 months or so.

Tanaric 17:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

You didnt block trolls you blocked people who werent trolling. Not only was I NOT trolling I was ON TOPIC. None of the people that you blocked were in anyway trying to or causing disruption in any way. The only person who was and is still causing the disruption is LtS who btw is still not blocked. Wiki was fine without you. User DrogoBoffin sig icon.png Drogo Boffin 17:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Also during those 18 months or so I strongly recommend that you learn what trolling is so when you come back you can identify one when you need to. User DrogoBoffin sig icon.png Drogo Boffin 17:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
I sincerely believe the fundamental issue with this wiki is that people can't avoid approaching issues with an as serious attitude as ever possible. I think it's perfectly possible to solve an issue while still laughing alongside and not having emotional attachment. It's called being objective, and I think everyone has misunderstood the "being" there.
/Wave. Have fun ^__________^ ---Chaos?- (moo!) -- 17:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Wow,at 28 I must be ancient for the internet. Sad thing is I saw this coming as there was a lot on inconsistency between sysops in terms of what's bannable and what's not. These inconsistencies are frustrating a lot of people including sysops. Trolling here is increasing as more PvX peeps come here. Then people troll here and adamantly defend that they were not trolling because they were doing the same thing at PvX and weren't called out. Many people here also can't approach issues seriously because there are a lot of immature people, still in highschool, and trying to fit in with the trolling online friends. Many here also don't have much of a life in RL as evident by the number of hours they put in the game and the wiki... and this becomes their life, and by turning the wiki into a social forum like facebook for guildwars, people cause problems. Laughing also isn't objective, laughing makes an issue less of an issue, and you're trying to reduce the seriousness of the discussion. How would you feel if I laughed at you when you were trying to bring up an issue that you genuinely cared about, and I went on saying, "what? I'm trying to make it more objective!". Seriously, just put your self in Tanaric shoes and just think how he feels, then maybe you'll gain some insight into the situation here. --Lania Elderfire 18:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Most discussions on GWW are ridiculous, pointless, and melodramatic. The argument on Auron's page is a prime example. I fail to see how making it obvious that said discussions are ridiculous, pointless, and melodramatic could possibly be construed as a bad thing.--TahiriVeila 18:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Its because your from PvX. You dont understand this wiki. Lania I agree that the PvX people are showing up and a lot are trolls but they arent all bad. I cant name any good ones but they arent all bad. User DrogoBoffin sig icon.png Drogo Boffin 18:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) Here is the thing that some people don't seem to get here at all. HE felt that it was important to him, and apparently HE didn't feel that it was pointless. It doesn't matter what you think. Voice your opinion somewhere else and not just butt in the middle of someone else's conversation tell them that they are pointless. It was a discussion between Tanaric and Auron. Yes I was watching the discussion but I didn't butt in because it wasn't my business as I'm not a sysop, and I wasn't part of the part involved. Now let me be clear here, I'm not defending his actions. I think they deserved to be blocked temporarily but not in the method Tanaric did, it was too hasty which really says to how much frustrated he was with the general attitude here on the wiki. LtS still isn't blocked after all of this which is just ridiculous. Also... if you feel that some other discussions are pointless where others apparently seem to be taking it seriously, just say nothing. Telling someone that their discussion is pointless doesn't make a situation any better, and doesn't defuse any situations. --Lania Elderfire 19:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
The problem is he didnt block everybody who was taking part in the discussion. He raged and acted with extremely poor judgement. User DrogoBoffin sig icon.png Drogo Boffin 19:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
I would disagree and argue that if you can make a comment that successfully convinces one or more participants in a ridiculous argument that their argument is ridiculous, there is a fairly good likelihood that the argument will end. Once again that's an opinion, so in the end it really doesn't matter.--TahiriVeila 19:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Some of you seem to be stuck on the block lengths. Look at them again, then look at the user's block history. You've got Cursed Angel, 3 months. Wow, that looks like a long time... Until you look at his last block, which was 1 month, meaning 3 months would be (I think) the next standard block length. Look at Jake's block for a month. Oh, his last block was for two weeks, so again, one block length up. The other two blocks were for 12 hours! This whole thing was blown way out of proportion, and on both sides. -- FreedomBoundUser Freedom Bound Sig.png 19:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry Freedom only one person blew it out of proportion. The reactions to that are within normal limits. User DrogoBoffin sig icon.png Drogo Boffin 19:24, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Could you all please stop this now? poke | talk 19:24, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey man[edit]

Has Aiiane ever initiated communication with you in regards to bureaucrat matters? Please let me know within a couple days. This is a reasonable request. User Felix Omni Signature.pngelix Omni 01:23, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

“Please let me know within a couple days.” – Do you know who you are talking to? :o poke | talk 16:15, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Responded on the nomination talk page. —Tanaric 16:18, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Now that was unexpected; good to see that you are still around somehow Tanaric :) poke | talk 16:18, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Hiya poke. :) Kinda surprised some of the old faces are still around to be honest. Figured by this point everything would be, you know, documented. —Tanaric 16:20, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Several content-relate categories are showing that we are still far away from being perfect.. but yeah, there are quite a few of us still around, waiting for your return *cough* ;) poke | talk 16:21, 14 June 2011 (UTC)