User talk:Tanaric

Old conversations and dead threads can be found on /Archives. If you want to dredge something up, bring the whole thread back here.

Answer
I really meant it when I said the discussion was closed over there. However, as you've stated and I have absolutely no problem supporting, you've been around damned near forever, and I have no problem having a discussion with you on this. If anyone's earned it, you have. I'd really love it to be real-time; IRC or IM (I've only googleTalk setup at the moment) would be awesome if this doesn't answer what you need. First, I want to make a distinction on all this "ownership" stuff. There's hard and fast site ownership. Someone has that. That's the domain name, the actual hard drive with data.. all that stuff. Then there's content ownership which is what I think you've been driving at, and no, of course nobody owns that! That's the whole point of the wiki. But I think the people with site ownership still get to call what shots they want. Is that where we were tripping up? Physical vs Content? If so, that's awesome, cos pretty sure we're in agreement there. Also, the conflict started because the way the issue was brought to us was unbelievably rude and hostile. I can't read it any other way, no matter who says it was benign and, "Oh, you're just assuming." Not saying anyone has but that's a usual fallback, and I'm coming clean and saying boy do I not care what was intended. =p Anyway. Absolutely. And aside from the splash page, this is how things have been going, innit? So you see how I get a little tetchy when the response is not, "Hey, this is a new thing you've done, why?" but, "We're voting to somehow limit what you can do." However! Which is true! But man, is it unlikely. No, I don't like conflict. And I've been trying so hard this week to figure out what the actual problem here is and sort it out without resorting to simply wiping the discussion away and banning people who annoy me, because of course that'd be the poor way to handle it. So if for no other reason than this has kept me up nights all week, while we certainly maintan that right - AS THE SITE OWNERS - it's probably not going to happen. So, would IM or something be needed? Wanted? Is there even a problem at all? And don't say you're gonna bail for a few days and be unable to respond, that's bad form, man. =p --Nunix 22:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I, (Nunix and/or Gravewit), accept that I have the ability to do anything I wish to the GuildWiki, but choose to do only those things either 1. necessary for the maintenance of the GuildWiki, including its server and database, or 2. put through some sort of community process before implementation.
 * "We maintain that we have the right to stuff like this in the future."

Guildwikians
I wanted to let you know that as of now The Guildwikians have a sister-guild over here in Europe, called "Guildwikians Of Europe" [Wiki] :) I hope you don't have any objections about me copying your idea (if so, tell me). At least I certainly will never copy your cape ;). --Eightyfour-onesevenfive 20:12, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. :) &mdash;Tanaric 22:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I'd be interested in joining any formal GuildWiki Guild in game, as this remains my favorite GW site, even if my time and ability to contribute has decreased. In game name is "Yang Earth". --JoDiamonds 11:31, 24 February 2006 (CST)
 * What he said :p, and my ingame is "The Fire Fox" -- 20:14, 24 February 2006 (CST)

How big are the 2 guilds? 20:53, 24 February 2006 (CST)


 * Mine has exactly two people right now (potentially four once JoDiamonds and FireFox accept their invitations), both of which do not play the game seriously anymore. Hence the non-advertisement.  &mdash;Tanaric 13:55, 25 February 2006 (CST)


 * Mine's a one man show currently. I just wanted the [Wiki] tag and have no intentions to create a serious guild. But if someone wants to join anyway, just gimme a call. :) -- 19:54, 11 March 2006 (CST)

Requesting User Ban
Hi, Tanaric. I would like to request a user ban on Wes Richard (User:Wesrichards). Please see Talk:Leaver. Aside from the childish mocking, check the e-mail link he placed. Thanks. --Karlos 15:28, 2 March 2006 (CST)


 * Thanks for looking into it. I will let you chart the path here. You are charting the path for future incidents so me and Wes are not the only ones observing this or affected by it. --Karlos 13:04, 7 March 2006 (CST)

He will not drop it, Tanaric: User:Wesrichards, Care to suggest something new? --Karlos 18:05, 7 March 2006 (CST)

Banning Policy
Could you write up a document detailing the criteria/practices for banning on GuildWiki? I dislike having to make such a request of work from another, but IMO this has become important to have and I feel the system has generally restricted me from making any more effective progress by myself. --Rezyk 15:56, 13 March 2006 (CST)

Request for arbitration
'This is a formal request for arbitration. For unrelated parties, please be sure that you wish to be involved before commenting.'

I am requesting arbitration over a potential user dispute involving myself. My main issues are the ways offensive statements are made about my character in [ this edit] by Karlos. Also of issue is the same in [ this edit] and [ this edit]. Simply put: I would not have thought that these kinds of statements about me are supposed to be acceptable here.

Previously I have tried to assume good faith and not press it, as it is understandable that heated things are said in tense discussions (and a little forgiveness can go a long way) and I personally have a long and ugly history with him. However, from these and other edits, I am now losing the ability to maintain that faith of non-maliciousness. To be frank, I found many of the offensive statements in all 3 edits as gratuitous and out of line (and this is besides the provable inaccuracies), despite being technically related in some way to the issue at hand. Combined with other less blatant elements of our history, I tend to perceive an emerging pattern of harrassment.

As for hope of resolving this ourselves -- a while ago, I tried to address our major differences in straightforward discussion and reached a severe impasse. I have no reason to believe another attempt would fare differently (and it'd likely result in another ugly conflict), especially when considering how [ this request] was [ rejected]. Ever since, I have gone far out of my way in trying to minimize any potential headbutting, including: These steps have proven insufficient, as I still repeatedly find myself at severe odds with him. At this point, I feel that to go any further in this direction necessitates my simply leaving the wiki entirely.
 * avoiding areas where I cannot see how to deal with his practices (such as main article namespace)
 * restricting myself to my personal top priority issues (such as policy and how new users are treated) and strictly uncontroversial stuff like pointing out info
 * refraining from or greatly minimizing participation in many discussions just because he is involved
 * keeping any responses to him relatively short, simple and diffusive, even when it meant not defending myself from what I felt were baseless insults

I respectfully request specific answers/direction from arbitration:
 * 1) Should I or should I not respond in kind to defend myself? On the one hand, I feel that various comments and implications about my character demand it.  On the other hand, I think it's also obvious that the discussion would quickly degenerate into yet another inane fight.
 * 2) Are users expected to continually put up with comments from normal users that label them as childish, on a pride trip (second time I ask about this, btw), manipulative, insincere, or intent on stirring up arguments? Are they expected to put up with such from admins?
 * 3) Is the comment in question considered polite? If I am perhaps grossly misreading things just because of some language barrier issue, in what way?
 * 4) What could generally be expected if Karlos makes a similar comment in the future (about any user, not necessarily myself) and a similar request for arbitration is submitted?

Please note that I am not specifically asking for judgement about anybody's intentions, but rather about whether certain behavior is acceptable (a frequent point of confusion).

I'd also like to note these statements of possible relevance:
 * "I'm going to ban the next of [Karlos and some other user] to say anything to anyone in any tone I consider less than polite." —Tanaric 17:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * "Name calling, personal attacks and turning differences of opinion over Golems into an analysis of why this other person is evil are, to me, not only unhealthy ways of debating, but more seriously, they will leave the wiki with poorer content. Because instead of following a scientific system of determining how to classify undead, one guy scared the other with accusations of being a troublemaker and we ended up with one person's personal opinion of what undead are. I cannot believe how so many fail to see the danger in throwing around the label "troublemaker" at a contributor for questioning but readily accept another contributor's name-calling and harrassment as "normal behavior." I am trying to think of the long term consequences of open-debate and questioning vs the long-term consequences of allowing users to be harrassed and stereotyped and assaulted. Doesn't even seem comparable to me." --Karlos 04:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * "The issue here is when contributors decide to stray off-topic into attacks on others' character. Regardless of how stubborn Karlos is, I have yet to see him do that. If he does, I'll come down on him harder than my level 20 warrior comes down on the Charr." —Tanaric 19:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, --Rezyk 04:07, 3 April 2006 (CDT)


 * Karlos's response:
 * I have not assaulted your person nor called you names nor even proceeded to call what you did wrong. All I did was point out what you did. Which is turn a small thing into this crisis about whether or not Stabber will be banned. I said I am glad that people did not fall for your move and I am entitled to that opinion. If they had followed your lead, then you have every right to go and post that you're glad they took on your implicit request to undermine the existing policies on user conduct.
 * That is what I see at the heart of your post and that is how I read your text. I don't believe that is a malicious goal. You don't like the existing user policy changes and for some reason, your requests to change or clarify the policy have fallen on deaf ears. I don't like the fact that you have to basically "lurk" around the wiki until a situation arises between two users and then you post immediately to revive your demands for a change (in direct or indirect ways), and then blame me for you not contributing to the wiki anymore. I don't think that's a healthy way of getting your change to come about, but that's just me, you don't have to agree. I am truly amazed at how much effort you have put into logging and noting every comment to try and use them against me. I believe it is a great waste of your time and talents.
 * In the edits you have posted, I have never called you names nor ridiculed your character. That is all I have to say in defense. --Karlos 19:57, 3 April 2006 (CDT)


 * Tanaric's response:


 * I will not consider the quote from January, as it is no longer relevant. While the GuildWiki has no stated statute of limitations, I believe it is reasonable to ignore issues that happened almost a season ago. Further, I do not wish to encourage the hoarding of "dirt" on people. Everybody occasionally makes mistakes, and such hoarding would only make users less likely to contribute.


 * As far as Stabber's talk page, I think your warning was probably appropriate, though I personally would not have included the parenthetical on ban warnings. I believe that Karlos was somewhat out of line. Regardless of your history, he immediately assumed that you were attempting to use Stabber's talk page for policy changes in the wiki. From an impartial perspective, this is not apparent. I urge Karlos to exercise more restraint in the future, especially among users he's quarreled with in the past&mdash;as useful as such cynicism sometimes is in maintaining the wiki, it is clearly detrimental at times too, and, if it were to become widespread, it would become harmful to the wiki. Karlos, you yourself remarked against stereotyping in the quote Rezyk posted above. While out-of-context at the moment, it's still a good point.


 * However, Rezyk, you must admit that he was mostly correct about your prior editing habits. His assumption was not entirely without ground, and I believe, had you simply ignored his "Rezyk anti-establishment machine" comment, he would not have carried it further. The ":)" after said comment leads me to believe that he was being jovial. I often do the same sort of thing with people. Thus, while I urge Karlos to exercise more restraint, I urge you equally to take things less seriously. While your sense of humor may not coincide with his, try to recognize that he jokes around fairly often, even with those who have disagreed with him.


 * In short:
 * Karlos, write as if your text will be interpreted in the worst possible way, because it usually is.
 * Rezyk, interpret as if the text was written in the best possible way, because it usually is.


 * Moving on to the specific answers requested:


 * 1. As you said, a little forgiveness can go a long way. If something he says bothers you, I suggest a simple message like this on his talk page: "Karlos, I'd prefer it if you didn't do __________ in your responses to me. It seems confrontational to me, even if you don't mean it that way." I'd hope that Karlos would respond favorably to something like that.
 * 2. No, and no. As I said above, Karlos's comments (especially the second one on Stabber's talk page) were somewhat out of line. If it happens again, you're welcome to link me to the comment in question, so I can look at it from an uninvolved perspective.
 * 3. Karlos and I have similar writing styles and personalities, at least as expressed in hypertext, so I tend to view his writings much less harshly than many others. However, I recognize that he has been at the center of a few user-to-user disputes. I imagine that you are misreading his comments to be deliberately inflammatory. If I recall correctly, his first language is not English, and his first culture is not American -- I've spent a significant amount of time over the last 8 years overseas, among non-English, non-American cultures, so I'm used to that sort of thing, but I could see how such a difference might affect your interactions with him. Unfortunately, since speaking with people from other cultures seems like the norm to me these days, I can't accurately gauge what difficulty this might impose. (I'm also assuming you speak English natively and are American, which might not be the case.)
 * 4. From what you linked, Karlos did very little I'd consider wrong. I think he grossly misread your intentions on Stabber's talk page&mdash;I might be missing something (Karlos, feel free to point it out if I am), but Stabber herself posted the ban request, and you did little else besides request information on why -- but that's something he should apologize for, not something he should be banned for. Like I said earlier, everybody makes mistakes. If you demonstrate a pattern of abuse from Karlos, I'll do what must be done to stop it. As you quoted from me above, I've said this before. However, no user has stepped forward and given a clear transcript of abuse from Karlos, so I maintain the position that he's done no more wrong than anybody else.


 * If this is not sufficient or satisfactory, please respond and indicate what I missed.
 * &mdash;Tanaric 17:13, 6 April 2006 (CDT)


 * Rezyk's response:


 * I had requested clarification from you about some of that stuff back in January, and didn't get it. Some frustration over that was one of the main reasons I brought it up this time.  Anyways, on this point, the answer to #2 suffices for me.


 * I meant it when I said I don't think there's much hope of resolving this ourselves (at least, not peacefully). Your suggestions are appreciated, but they are really approaches that I can no longer keep using.  I've done the "ignore" thing many times in the past. I even ignored a statement saying that I don't believe in any trust given to admins (and which the anti-establishment labeling kind of hit too close to); this is why I reacted seriously despite the smiley.  I accept your point that he could have just been jovial and I really should have reacted in a better way, but please also note that his responses since indicate that it actually did reflect his true opinion.  I've tried the passive "asking" method, more than once (I'd like to suggest that it might be better to ___ ; I tend to think a major factor of why [problem issue occurs] is ... you will tend to ___ ; I also wish you would stop ___); the responses were not favorable.  IMO, everytime I try it greatly risks another escalating conflict.  I know I jumped to requesting your help rather quickly in this particular case...but I really do consider arbitration as a last step, not first, for when I've exhausted almost all other options.


 * Hmm, I guess it might not be clear what exactly I am objecting to. I certainly am not against everything that was said in these edits (I'm just not responding directly due to the objectionable parts).  If people want to discuss whether my comments are to blame for the ugly discussion that occurred, or if I forced/manipulated everyone into it, feel free!  If anyone is curious about my reasons or has constructive criticism for me, you really can ask/post on my talk page.  However, I do not invite anyone to make statements and labels about my intentions or state of mind as if you know them.  I am not here to get random psychoanalysis nor to be crucified over thoughts that someone else can only guess I might have. Please comment on content/actions, not on the contributor.


 * Numbers:
 * I tend to feel that an adequate response would have to rebutt with my own true opinions of his intentions. As this would be just as out of line, and against assuming good faith, I will just refrain.
 * Thank you.
 * His responses (especially the one above) make a lot of negative assumptions about my intentions/reasons/character and treats them as facts. That in itself seems naturally inflammatory to me, even if the inaccuracies are not deliberate (in that he believes his presumptions are correct, which I assume he does).  If a cultural difference applies here, I'd be interested in understanding it.
 * How and whether anybody is sanctioned is entirely up to you, and I make no suggestions. My only reason for asking is to better understand where we are.  I also am not clear what your idea of "abuse" is (it is a bit of a vague term) so cannot easily take you up on that offer.  I actually thought your perception was that "abuses of administrator power simply do not happen".


 * I am not so happy about having to be so personally reactive to this stuff as it comes up (as it does again in this discussion). Had I simply not noticed one these edits, there would be unopposed statements out there giving people wildly misleading/inaccurate ideas about me.  Maybe there even is -- I don't review everything that comes up in every discussion, and there shouldn't be any reason I would need to.  I already have to correct people's ideas about what I've actually said; I'd rather not also have to deal with so many wrong ideas about what I actually think.


 * Anyways, at the end of the day I still have to judge for myself, after considering all the responses, whether I really can have the faith to believe that the chance of seeing this issue again is reduced enough. I'm unclear where the line between acceptable and unacceptable is being placed with respect to this stuff (previously I thought it was apparent as a personal attack)...but no matter how it is classified, it is not something I personally care to have to continue dealing with, nor do I want to be part of a project where others may continue to be subjected to it.  For this reason I will be taking an indefinite leave from the wiki altogether, and require no further arbitration.


 * Thank you for your considerable time and effort. --Rezyk 11:56, 9 April 2006 (CDT)

Suggestion, sort of
I noticed in a certain talk page, which I am deliberately leaving unlinked, you wrote (a long time ago) that the problem with redirects is that they can't be categorized. Is there any issue with creating a page for that term such as "Synonym. See: [link to other page] "? Or is it done and I haven't seen it? :) It seems like it would solve your problem with synonym-things, especially in slang/for definitions, and the fact that auto-redirects don't categorize... assuming that that's a problem on more than one definition page. 'Course, it wouldn't be automatic, but then you would have both terms look-uppable. Which would be a good thing. Seems like it would have also averted an argument, haha. Anyway. Just thought I'd mention it. --Tinarto 15:04, 10 April 2006 (CDT)
 * I'm not sure what the original discussion was about but redirects can be categorized. simply put the category after the redirect on the same line:

#REDIRECT Article
 * --Rainith 15:17, 10 April 2006 (CDT)
 * Whoops, I posted this on the wrong user's page anyways. My mistake. Meant to put it on Tetris L's page. Sorry! :) Now the big question, move this over there or just forward him a link to this heading? --Tinarto 15:22, 10 April 2006 (CDT)