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)

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'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)
 * 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)