User talk:Tanaric

Old conversations and dead threads can be found on /Archives and /Archives2. If you want to dredge something up, bring the whole thread back here.

Hi
"You still regularly block users with no meaningful justification, so that a "vandal," in the cases when they are in fact vandals, see the text "bla bla bla" when they try to edit. You still regularly vote on builds with no justification, or worse, with justification that belittles not only the build in question, but the author of the build itself."


 * Heh, no-one has ever mentioned the few block messages, and the few i've done were entirely appropriate to the chlidish vandalism . Maybe I should not have done it in the first place, but even a 2 line email or something would have been appreciated. The second point, I've been trying to give better reasoning since late december, so i'm not sure what the lack of improvement is about. If you had any problems I could have sorted it out ASAP &mdash; Skuld 02:44, 1 February 2007 (CST)


 * Heh, I liked "user lacks Penis" the best :D (Not a fifty five 02:58, 1 February 2007 (CST))


 * I'll agree that suspending Skuld from his sysop duties probably would have been justified in late December but that didn't happen. In the new year I'll also testify that there's been a really marked, notable improvement in his admin type edits and general user interaction.


 * Given that one of the things I liked about you most Tanaric was the fact you were/are always prepared to speak your mind and have a go at those "above" you, I'm taking a leaf out of your book. De administrating Skuld without prior warning screams of Big Brother is watching you and at any time your services may no longer be required.


 * Perhaps the fact that Skuld wasn't punished shows a failure on our part and somebody like yourself is required, someone who's made of sterner stuff and is a bit removed from the day to day happenings. On the other hand looking at the improvement in Skuld's more recent edits, maybe it shows that the system works. I don't disagree with his de sysoption as such (at least for a temporary period) but doing it now is too late to punish last years deeds.


 * I'm also worried about the fact that I post this at my own risk, I could be next as such without any warning. But I'm not posting this anonymously, I've already said that I like the way you don't pull punches so I'm not pulling any here. --Xasxas256 05:11, 1 February 2007 (CST)


 * Regarding Skulds demotion see my comment on User talk:Skuld.
 * On a side note, when I was not yet an admin I always thought that the admin team has a closed forum somewhere well hidden where they can talk in private about matters like this. Now that I've been promoted to admin I'm suprised that there is no such place. I think it should be considered. This has nothing to do with the admins being "elite" or something. Just that some things are better discussed in private before the general public gets involved. --[[Image:TurningL sml.gif|Tetris L]] 05:55, 1 February 2007 (CST)


 * I don't know if my opinion matters, but I think everyone should look at it from this direction: If Skulk weren't an admin and one was needed, would he have been made an admin? - BeXoR  [[Image:Bexor.png]] 06:11, 1 February 2007 (CST)


 * Like me? Haha, I've made my comment, and I understand that as I tend to take a similar stance as Skuld on builds discussion, my comment would be biased. Still, hope you would consider that. If his tone/attitude seem harsh, I think at least his conduct is reasonable. For the amount of edits he makes, I don't think his brevity is unjustified. He usually follows them up if possible anyway. --Silk Weaker 06:25, 1 February 2007 (CST)


 * Tanaric, are you aware of this? If yes, I do see that he's been trying to make better edits since then. However, I feel, and feel free to correct me, that you do not believe Skuld should have been an admin to begin with. While you are free to "rectify" a wrong selection if you must, I think it's unfortunate that we as admins gave him conflicting messages. We could discuss this at length over e-mail or in-game. I just wanted the record to show that he was warned and that his comments since that date were significantly more thought out.
 * Also, I don't quite understand your most recent moves in tandem with your decision to step away from the wiki. I would appreciate an explanation in private when you get a chance. --Karlos 06:54, 1 February 2007 (CST)


 * Yes, I am aware of that. I have not seen the sort of marked improvement that would have swayed me. I won't argue that he hadn't improved, only that he hadn't improved enough.


 * Truth be told, I think Skuld's appointment was premature. However, I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. Six months is sufficient, I should think.


 * As always, you will have your private explanation. This offer goes to anybody else as well -- anytime you'd like to discuss something that is perhaps inappropriate for the GuildWiki, you can contact me privately.


 * (For the curious, I've received no angry email about this, and the only instant messages I've received are from those admins with whom I regularly correspond anyway.)


 * &mdash;Tanaric 14:45, 1 February 2007 (CST)


 * Well I'm not trolling, but I want to do the pout emote anyway.


 * /pout -210.3.39.32 18:22, 1 February 2007 (CST)

Recent Events, and how they relate to contributors
If I understand the situation right, in the last day or so you've stripped Skuld of his adminship without warning, put a (apparently final) kibosh on Gem's otherwise overwhelmingly supported RfA, and promoted TetrisL to admin instead without any process. GuildWiki is a fairly small community, and it contributes a lot to my enjoyment of Guild Wars, so I'm concerned about these things. I'm willing to bet I'm not alone in wondering... Why all of that so suddenly? And what else is in store? See my question on Gem's RfA page... might it be appropriate for you to initiate a discussion of your priorities for GuildWiki before there are more surprises for us contributors? — HarshLanguage 06:59, 1 February 2007 (CST)


 * I question your questioning of Tanaric. My guess is that you have not been around very long. Two points:
 * a) The wiki is NOT a democracy. We reach decisions by consensus and discussion and rationale thought. Not by popularity contests. As such, Tanaric did not do anything scary or weird. The whole RfA process was created by Stabber on a whim, not really the way we have been doing adminship promotions to begin with.
 * b) Tanaric is actually the best thing to happen to the wiki since Mingas the Meek's page got deleted. If you've been around long enough, you know he is the one we all go to for level-headed decision and guidance. He's been around since day 1.
 * --Karlos 07:11, 1 February 2007 (CST)
 * Nope, I haven't been around that long. And I don't know any of the higher-ups from other boards or in-game. I don't know Tanaric's past actions, but I trust your opinion of them. Still, from what's in front of me, I think the question is valid. I've seen comments suggesting that Tanaric was basically away from GuildWiki, and he's explicitly described as being inactive... and I see a shakeup of admins without much explanation. (Not all of which I disagree with, BTW.) Other admins and heavily-involved contributors seem to be a little weirded out. So, as just a regular Joe Contributor, I'm wondering if this is a change in how the wiki is going to run, and what happens next? — HarshLanguage [[Image:qswearing_small.png|HarshLanguage]] 07:21, 1 February 2007 (CST)


 * Fair enough. I'll leave it up to Tanaric to address your concerns. --Karlos 07:34, 1 February 2007 (CST)

I've posted this on my talk page, but I'll post it here, too.
 * I don't really care anymore, without skuld this will become largely meaningless. You know what happened to my old clan?  I joined, I soon become to regard everyone as friends.  An old veteran left the guild.  The leader had IP problems.  Next, it split in two as one faction of admins split the entire clan.  All I had ever known of it disappeared, never to reappear.  Here lies the first step for guildwiki &mdash; Skuld, the veteran, has left.  I wonder which admin will spearhead the split of rulings. &mdash;[[Image:BlastedtSigleft.jpg]]Blastedt[[Image:BlastedtSigright.jpg]]&mdash; 20:36, 1 February 2007 (CST)


 * I'm fairly new here either and this doesn't really worry me. As far as I see events, Skuld was told his behaviour needed to improve and after a time period of 3 months it was found he hadn't improved enough. I don't see anything to be alarmed about. - BeXoR  [[Image:Bexor.png]] 07:36, 1 February 2007 (CST)


 * It might surprise someone but I support Tanarics recent actions. And I mean all of them.
 * Although he could have given a warning to Skuld first, I completely understand why he demoted him and I don't think it's a personal issue but an action ment to protect the wiki.
 * Promoting Tetris wasn't a bad idea and Tetris would have been nominated for the RfA a long time ago if the RfA would have existed at that point.
 * I am really sorry that I, due to a simple watchlist related mistake, did not notice that he had acted just like I would have liked him to realated to myself. I understand why he did not promote me even with the high support and he is allowed to do so.
 * --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 07:42, 1 February 2007 (CST)


 * I'm sure you can appreciate that, as one of the few bureaucrats on this wiki, I am in a sensitive position, but I want to quote something Karlos said, simply to draw attention to it.


 * "We reach decisions by consensus and discussion and rationale thought."


 *  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 08:24, 1 February 2007 (CST)


 * It is true that discussion and democracy are the basis for the every day success of the wiki, but certain things might need someone like Tanaric, who has a high status given by Gravewit and only acts after thinking things throughly, to act without weeklong discussions and arguing. For example the case of Skuld. If it would have been discussed first we would have probably seen dozens of flaming comments instead of the non-hostile discussion at the moment. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 09:19, 1 February 2007 (CST)


 * I saw this happen last night, and decided to sleep on it before commenting. I see that many others have voiced their opinions now, covering much of what I was thinking.  But, I'll cover my 2-cents on this here.
 * You've addressed your reasons at User talk:Skuld; and while I agree with Karlos that there has been improvement in Skulds behavior, I understand why you believe the change needed to be made.
 * However, I disagree with the method in which it was implemented. I realise that we have no documented procedure or precedent for de-sysoption other than the phrase "the system administrators listed below may remove any administrator for any reason".  Still, I would have preferred that either a firm warning be given first; or the de-sysoption be the result of a requests for arbitration.  At the very least, to avoid the drama being introduced to the talk pages, the majority of the reasons could have been communicated off-line.  If it becomes necessary to remove me at any point (I was, after-all, partially involved in the discussion you referenced as a reason to oppose Gem's RfA), I would hope that you or others with bureaucrat status at least gave me the courtesy of notifying me of the reasons off-line, and if/when posted in the notice in my talk page just referenced that it was per an off-line discussion or something of that sort.
 * Aside from all of that - I did see a comment by Tetris L where he was surprised that the admins didn't have a seperate forum for discussions. I would like to hear your opinion on it.  I need to think about it more myself; but my initial reaction is to be against it.  While I like the idea of a place for admins to work out disagreements amongst themselves - as those types of debates can degrade other users respect for all admins.  At the same time, such a forum can potentially be abused by eliminating transparency to admin discussions on other issues or worse, it could be a potential path of abuse for admins to strategize on handling of difficult issues/users or to be accused of such even when its not true.  But then, I was on my city's planning commission for a while; so I may be overly sensitive towards avoiding the perception of holding closed quorums, so I would want to hear other opinions on the idea. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 12:47, 1 February 2007 (CST)


 * Barek, regarding the method in which Skuld was removed, I actually agree with you. I believe that, for a wiki the size of ours to be sustainable, actions like these must resolve themselves via a democratic process. Unfortunately, because Gravewit is unwilling to relinquish absolute power on the wiki, such a democracy cannot ever exist. I exercise my authority, which is nearly as absolute, because I know that at any moment it can be revoked from me, and I'm unwilling to waste that time on the false pretense of democracy.


 * For the record, Skuld's removal was discussed among much of the administrative team in various ways. I did not remove him blindly, and, as I mentioned, have been considering doing this for some time. I think saying he was removed without warning is a bit unfair, really, since both Karlos and I admonished him publicly on his talk page in the past for some of his actions. In short, I don't think Xasxas and others should have any fear for their positions. That certainly wasn't my intent. I can say with all honesty that there isn't a single administrator I've ever considered removing besides Skuld.


 * I think that any private forum is a tricky proposition. On the one hand, it makes certain housekeeping tasks easier, but on the other, it has great potential for abuse. That said, considering how much I communicate with the admin team via instant message, adding an official private forum might not increase the risk for abuse. I also think that considering abuse risk is slightly silly when we've invested ourselves with limitless authority from the beginning. Maybe we can discuss the abuse risk privately in the admin forum. :)


 * &mdash;Tanaric 14:30, 1 February 2007 (CST)


 * IMO any ruling body such as a government should have some kind of transparency. Lack of transparency seems to quickly lead to distrust, and animosity to those with power... but then again that's just my opinion --Lania Elderfire 14:04, 1 February 2007 (CST)


 * I completely agree, but as I mentioned to Barek above, any transparency I officially enact would be in name only, since the mysterious boss of this place is anything but transparent. I think that I've been as forthcoming, honest, and communicative as I can be, and I don't think I've ever shied away from explaining, discussing, and defending my actions on the GuildWiki. I'm happy to continue doing this as long as people are interested.


 * Finally, in reply to HarshLanguage:


 * These recent actions represent no change at all in the way the wiki is run. I acted according to the written policy on Administrators, and will of course continue to do so.


 * ...okay, that response was pretty dodgy. In truth, I hate doing this sort of thing, but I think it was necessary in this specific instance. I'm not on a "sysop crusade," I'm not trying to do any major restructuring, and I've not got anything else major planned for the GuildWiki anytime soon. That said, if you'd like to talk about intangibles, my dreams for this place, and such, you're welcome to get in touch with me privately. My contact info is on my userpage.


 * By the way, have you ever considered becoming a sysop?


 * &mdash;Tanaric 14:30, 1 February 2007 (CST)


 * I hope the last one was a joke. ;P I don't think that someone so new could posible act in the admin position very well.
 * Regarding the admin forum or a similiar way of private communication between the admins, I don't oppose. If I were an admin, I would feel a bit weird being able to exclude all of the wiki users from some possibly important discussions. The fact that private discussions are possible anyway is what makes me allow a private forum as this would atleast make stuff discussed public to all admins and not only one or two. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 15:05, 1 February 2007 (CST)


 * I'm glad you can tell when I'm joking. Though, admittedly, I'm only half-joking. I have always tried to appoint admins that critically examine our current policies and constantly strive for what's best for everybody. I don't want an admin team that defends itself because they all have the same mentality. The more constructive conflict within the group, the better. Give HarshLanguage a few more months to get better situated, and he'll likely make the perfect candidate. &mdash;Tanaric 15:08, 1 February 2007 (CST)
 * With all those discution about admin, I want to be one now, looks like fun ;)&mdash; ├ A ratak ┤  15:12, 1 February 2007 (CST)


 * It's often fun. This kind of stuff isn't, but I guess that's why I get to do it. :) &mdash;Tanaric 15:14, 1 February 2007 (CST)
 * I see what Aratak means, all this admin diplomacy has had me captivated :p. I'd like to sum up my feelings on the whole matter. I've looked at all your various comments on this issue and agree almost completely with them. With regards to Skuld's demotion, it seems you gave him some form of warning and his small improvement has not been enough for him to remain a sysop. When I first started contributing on the wiki, I did not approve of most of Skuld's methods and was surprised to find that he was an admin. After a while, I started to realise that although a lot of his actions were rash and he voted unfavoured on builds without testing or even giving a reason for his vote, most of his votes were the right ones generally. Therefore, I began to respect Skuld, and seeing an admin voting in such a way caused me to think it was ok to do the same. It's a good an example of how an admin can influence other contributors. The sort of mentality Skuld showed towards voting on builds may be a big reason for the sorry state of the builds section at the moment. Because of this, I have realised that a lot of my votes and been unfair and have decided to test the build before I actually vote on it, even if the concept looks ridiculous at first glance, or the builds just looks bad etc. Everyone is valued equally according to GW:YOU and builds should be too, at least until they have been throught he testing stage. With regards to Gem's adminship I think you made the right decision in the end, I totally agree that many contributors, including Gem, may be losing touch with what people want and are becoming too focused on style and formatting of the wiki rather than the information, heck, I was becoming wrapped up in all that myself. But after reading all your comments, I realise that that's what the wiki is all about really; the information. Despite this, Gem's overall contribution to the wiki cannot be ignored. He is an excellent choice for admin. Don't have much to say about Tetris L's promotion, except that it's a good idea, he's good contributor, level-headed and appreciates wiki policies. I'd like to thank you for making me want to become a better contributor to the wiki as a whole. Hyperion`  [[image:Hyperion_sig.png]] (talk) 19:50, 1 February 2007 (CST)


 * A bit offtopic, but I'm really surprised that people think that I care more of nice layout than user friendlyness. It seems that I really need to scroll through my contributions and strive for better. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 20:01, 1 February 2007 (CST)


 * I don't think you generally don't care about user friendlyness due to your frequent helping of users with editing etc. (including myself), but I do think you were out of line on that particular conversation with Lodurr, and it was unlike you, but I still strongly favour your adminship, because, as you have frequently said it is wrong to judge someone on one conversation and your overall work on Gwiki speaks for itself. Hyperion`  [[image:Hyperion_sig.png]] (talk) 20:13, 1 February 2007 (CST)


 * Ah, you were also only refering to that one conversation. I'm sorry, I thought that you thought that I generally act like that. :) Well, I'm still striving for better and if I have the time, I'll go through my contributions and try to learn from them. Others could probably learn something too by going through their own contributions. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 20:24, 1 February 2007 (CST)

As you might have noticed, I have not been my usual, vocal self over the past 24 hours. I don't doubt that some of you are relieved :P but here is my stance on the recent events.

I am good friends with Tanaric, and with most of the people involved, but I like to think that I'm objective in my analysis of the situation.

I think that Skuld is an excellent contributor, and I get on with him well, but I do tend to agree that Skuld was promoted prematurely. This does not mean that I would have demoted him, but I respect Tanaric's decision, and I can't fault his logic.

I personally think that both Tetris and Gem will make excellent administrators, but promoting Tetris at the expense of Gem was something that did not sit well with me. It can be argued that the RfA is just an indicator of the opinion of the community, but I would say that this undermines the importance of the community at large.

Of course, the issue of Gems adminship is now, gladly, a moot point.

But what is not a moot point is the way in which action was carried out by Tanaric. Regardless of whether his decisions were justified or not, he carried out his actions with no regard to the sentiments of the community to which he is (or rather, he should be) accountable.

There is very little transparency or accountability in the wiki, and there never will be until people demand it.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 20:28, 1 February 2007 (CST)


 * I see what you mean. While I do agree with what Tanaric has said and done mostly, he has done it without regards to the community like you say, but his original reason for opposing Gem's RfA was because he did not put the interest of the entire community first. Tanaric has also said that the wiki is not a democracy and never will be, therefore he has contradicted himself in this respect. Hyperion`  [[image:Hyperion_sig.png]] (talk) 20:35, 1 February 2007 (CST)