Guild Wars Wiki talk:Arbitration committee/2007-12-30-User:Tanaric

Didn't intend to be confrontational, but I admit that I've gotten a little frustrated at the ridiculous circuitous argumentation, and I may have said something in haste that I shouldn't have. I apologize to any I've affronted.

I wouldn't say I've violated policy, but I admit that my actions have not been specifically sanctioned by any single identifiable line.

As for the rest, I'll let ArbComm figure it out.

—Tanaric 04:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Examples?

Backsword's comments for the Arbitration of Tanaric are rather vague, does anyone have specific examples of Tanaric's "Transgressions"? -- scourge 04:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I know Tanaric can be - and generally is - a blunt guy, but "confrontational" isn't something I'd normally associate with him... any examples of that would be great as well... -- Jïörüjï Ðērākō.>.cнаt^ 04:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

My comments were mostly contained on my talk page. The discussion was spread all over the place by User:58.110.142.135, and I may have responded elsewhere too, so tracing his contributions back seems the easiest way to dig for examples. —Tanaric 17:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

With Tanaric's reconfirmation currently ongoing, I think this arbitration request is unneccessary. If the community believes that he's acted out of line in his actions as a sysop, that'll be reflected in the RFA. Aside from that issue, I'm not aware of anything else which merits this case being brought in front of the ArbComm. So I'd also appreciate some concrete examples. Thanks. --Dirigible 22:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

In full agreement. *points to* Guild Wars Wiki:Requests for adminship/Tanaric. -- ab.er.rant 05:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm surprised you think a RfA is a replacement for ArbComm. If one reads the votes, many make clear that thewy're not voting on the issue, and only a few think they're voting about system change. I'm not inclined to vote against Tanaric myself. (Since when do we vote on policies anyway?) This is especially true since no one was told the vote was going to be about anything else before making their choice.

This well illustrates the limits of representative systems: people are packages and one must vote for the whole. This makes them popularity contests to a significant degree.

There is no doubt Tanaric is popular. But should not ArbComm consider rules to apply equally to popular induviduals? Backsword 03:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

That's the thing though - ArbComm is, in general, about going beyond rules, because if it were simply a matter of a rule, it would (generally speaking) not need to go to ArbComm. ArbComm is typically judging things that are on the outside or the border of the rules, or of the very interpretation of the rules themselves.

Note that Dirigible did not say that RfAs are replacesments for ArbComm, but rather, that he didn't see the need for an ArbComm ruling in this case, which honestly I think is probably correct: the nature of this proposed case is really trying to determine how much leeway sysops should have, and that's something that is, for the most part, something the community is going to have to decide on - ArbComm saying one thing or another isn't going to sway the entirety of the community if that's not what they want. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 04:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

While you're right about basics, the thing is, there never was an "entirety of the community" (consensus) behind it. There was just Tanaric on his own deciding to force a system change. If there was consensus behind it, I'd be the first to agree with it's implementation. My previous post can be read as explaining why I don't think an RfA represents consensus on an specific issue, especially not a fundamental one such as this. Backsword 04:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The RfA clearly shows that most either agree with Tanaric's actions or they think that it's not nearly so important as you think it is. In reality, Tanaric's action has nothing to do with a system change. His actions were the exercise of a power that the admin policy gives him(the ability to exercise reasonable discretion). It's not a system change just because zealots insisting that that line in the policy doesn't exist have made it seem too risky to the sysops' adminship for it to be exercised more often. --— Edru/QQ 05:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I fully agree with Backsword that there was no consensus behind my actions. I misinterpreted that from the beginning. Equally so, there's no consensus against my actions -- the RfA indicates that pretty clearly. I believe ArbComm intervention would be useful in determining if I broke policy or not, as clearly Backsword and I disagree about this. —Tanaric 08:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll take the liberty of disagreeing with you on that. I'd say it's pretty clear a few people disagree with your actions, while many don't. It's one of the risks and troubles of administrative duty - that is, not everyone will agree with you. But you knew that already, of course. Armond 09:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

With Tanaric's reconfirmation currently ongoing, I think this arbitration request is unneccessary. - Dirigible So let all admin know when someone brings them up for ArbCom all they need do is request their own reconfirmation, thus side stepping any actual action to deal with them or their actions. I would argue because Tanaric himself requested the reconfirmation it can only' be seen as a personal statement requesting people to see if he is fit as an admin overall rather than representative of anyone who wanted the issue dealt with on the wiki. The reconfirmation and this request are completely separate issues and should be treated as such. trying to determine how much leeway sysops should have, and that's something that is, for the most part, something the community is going to have to decide on. - Aiiane Which is all well in good, but when admin take it upon themselves to push forward with an opposed interpretation and take action, they have avoided any kind of real clarification decided upon by the community and that is where ArbCom comes into place. The community didn't decide - Tanaric did. That is why ArbCom should be involved in this case. The RFA is, again, nothing to do with this. It is merely a popularity poll, or an expression that people think he should remain admin. I can disagree with the decision he made and still want to keep him as admin, I might just want to prevent him or other admin from taking action like this again. The real issue here is as Aiiane said, the leeway of sysops and Tanaric has taken a new liberty which was previously not something admin did, he is pushing an agenda with his Sysop powers without first seeking consensus. ArbCom should be involved because Tanaric exercised power setting a precedent without formally seeking consensus, because he is an admin he is able to do so, but when his decision is contested a review is needed. The expressed desire is to review this in the form of ArbCom. 122.104.231.105 04:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Want my honest opinion? Yes, the admins voluntarily requesting their own reconfirmation every time someone brings them up to the ArbComm would be an absolutely terrific thing. I'm not saying it'd be enough, as that's up to the ArbComm to decide; I'm just saying it'd be great if they all did so. And yes, in this particular case I'm also saying that the community expressing whether they trust Tanaric as an admin is very relevant and the best way to end this debate.

Tanaric didn't break policy, since GWW:ADMIN gives sysops the freedom to use their discretion in their actions on the wiki. It doesn't even require that their actions be all supported by consensus; how could they possibly be 100% sure and 100% correct every time that they are supported by consensus? Not every admin action is going to have consensus all the time, simple as that. We (the community) delegate decision-making power to these chosen sysops so they can take the decisions they see fit, and we expect them to be able to figure out for themselves whether any particular action they take would be supported by consensus or not. If an admin is unable to estimate this accurately the majority/most of the time, well... isn't that what we have Reconfirmations for?

The ArbComm is not a legislative body; it's not supposed to be about interpreting "laws" and their finer details. It's supposed to be here to solve problems. What this ArbComm case is trying to do is making an example out of Tanaric so as to scare off others who may want to try doing new things with the system in this or that direction within the playground boundaries. That's not up to the ArbComm. Get to your nearest GWW:ADMIN discussion page, and lay out your argument in favour of removing the "reasonable discretion" phrase from that policy, get consensus to do so and remove it. See the examples Xeeron gave below for the kind of issues the ArbComm right now could and should deal with. I simply don't think this is one of them, especially with the reconfirmation going at the same time. --Dirigible 05:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

lol

wut? Armond 22:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I was coming here to post a heading with the name "Is this a joke?", but you beat me to it. :) -- (gem / talk) 00:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Guild Wars Wiki: Serious fucking business. --71.208.141.117 04:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Do I smell a new policy? -- scourge 04:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

the right and the wrongs of blocking

Ok, I spend (wasted?) the last hour or so reading up on the whole lussh/eloc/Tanaric/Aiiane issue since I was asked to get involved on my talk page. I'll keep the comment here, since that seems to be the best place for it:

• The ban of Eloc seems somewhat harsh from my point of view, I would have likely not banned, had I been a sysop reading that page. Maybe I would have banned Lussh (I did not bother translating the french part yet, which seems to use some pretty strong words, but I don't know at whom they are directed). However the important point is: While I or others might disagree with the actions taken, arbcom is not an "court of appeal" for sysop actions. Unless a sysop does something absolutely horribly wrong, I dont plan to walk after our sysops and second guess their actions. Tanarics action where not in that category. His ban was not clearly supported by policy (such as a policy explicitly stating "ban for this"), but neither was his ban forbidden in any policy. He was using his allowed sysop discretion. If anyone feels this was too wide an application of the policy's wording, they should bring that specific point up (preferably on that policy's talk page).

• There seems to have been some confusion whether or not there was consensus for Tanarics action, but I feel Tanarics above comment clarifies that he did not see any consensus. So there is no strange claim of consensus, nor is there a need for consensus for sysop actions, this matter seems settled.

• As a third point there is/was a lot of discussion about the "spirit of the policy"/personal interpretation, however you want to call this. This warrants a discussion, but neither here, nor in connection with the Lussh/etc incident. As a policy discussion this has no place in an arbitration case. --Xeeron 14:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this should be a policy (interpretation) discussion. It is clear that the action was not supported nor forbiden by policy, then there is actually no interpretation of policies, the action falls on the "discretion" part of a sysop. The only discussion regarding a posible policy change is whether that particular action should be regulated by a policy or not, but since the situation is not that frequent I don't see the need for that. And actually we don't even know if the action was "right" or "wrong", or in other words what should be done the next time that happens? Is it worth a discussion to answer the previous question? Should that answer be transformed into a policy? In my opinion, It would be healthy to know if the action has or not consensus aproval, but there is no need to create or change any policy. Coran Ironclaw 19:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

One a side note for future reference, the French part, loosely translated says "Go fuck you. You have nothing better to do than chase me because I use two names for reasons already explained? Go to enforce your rules stupid in the butt ponies band débiles. Change this rule has the con you or me go, in both cases I despise you." — ク Eloc 貢 22:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

In the same note, they actually banned Lussh for that NPA breach, but forgot to ban Liche also... (which, kinda, highlights that part of the point of Eloc).--Fighterdoken 22:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't going around a block get another block? — ク Eloc 貢 23:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

No clue, but i think the situation here is a bit different. Users are asked to redirect the shortened version of their nicknames to the full version (by example, Eloc redirects to Eloc Jcg, and you do edits on the Eloc Jcg account even if you sign just as Eloc), but Liche did the opposite, redirecting his active account (Liche) to the shortened version (Lussh). As such, this probably confussed the admins, since the discussion was on, and was signed by, Lussh. --Fighterdoken 00:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we are not discussing Liche's actions or block here. Coran Ironclaw 00:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

No worries, we are still dealing the same issue. Eloc uses the npa argument as a way to defending his point of view, i counter proving that admins did, indeed, took that in account (while also making a procedure mistake), and the other two are just clarifications in order to avoid a new jihad on the admin noticeboard :).--Fighterdoken 00:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Nothing Lussh did was confusing, and he justified his actions. He redirected one user to the other, so there was no worry about sockpuppetry. Finally, he performed nothing but productive edits, so there was no problem of evil. I have absolutely no problem with Lussh's behavior, with the exception of the personal attacks -- but Aiiane dealt with those. —Tanaric 03:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

But there is a problem. Liche contributes using the login Liche, but has redirected his talk page to Lussh. So if we posted anything on his talk page (which could have some high importance), he'd miss it completely as he wouldn't get the new message banner. It could be something like a warning (like 1RR or NPA or anything like that or even just a helpful hint or even a question about a certain edit), and he'd miss in completely. I don't think it should be allowed that a user can redirect their talk page to another userpage. That would be like me redirecting my user talk page. — ク Eloc 貢 06:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Nobody is required to check their talk pages. Your proposal is equivalent to a "GWW:Check your talk page" policy. —Tanaric 07:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

So why is Liche allowed to move all content on regarding Liche to Lussh's talk page? — ク Eloc 貢 07:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Because they're the same person? -- Armond Warblade 07:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

But it's in direct violating of GWW:SIGN. Liche is not an easily recognized version of Lussh. — ク Eloc 貢 07:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd say it is - I see them around enough that they mean the same to me. -- Armond Warblade 07:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Ya, but you're also an experienced wikier. What about new users? — ク Eloc 貢 08:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd say if a look at the user/talk page of either makes it fairly obvious, it's within reason to assume that the new wikiers can figure it out. -- Armond Warblade 08:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Do keep in mind the vast majority of the people don't know how to use a wiki. — ク Eloc 貢 08:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Then will they care about who's editing what? I don't think they'd be able to keep track of that sort of thing if they really don't know enough about the wiki to visit a few user pages. -- Armond Warblade 09:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, well. I guess our system is slightly screwy, as that's more of a verdict than a statement on whether AbComm should hear policy issues. Since I expected Xeeron to be the one most likely to think system change should not happen without the community behind it first, I guess this is pretty much over and done.

For the record, it was just the lack of discussion that prompted me to act. I expected an ArbComm resolution to at least trigger one, whatever the outcome. I still think system change should be preceded by debate. But I guess that won't happen until dissatisfaction with the new system grows, which will take some time since people have a tendency to give new things time for a chance to prove themselves. Backsword

I've been reading through events and I think I should respond to a point made within Xeeron's first point:

I believe that the arbitration committee should be a "court of appeal" for sysop actions, at least to an extent. The arbitration committee predominantly exists to deal with user disputes, and sysops are users as well. We are all users.

The reconfirmation process is useful, but it does not necessarily highlight whether a sysops' actions were right or wrong. In a reconfirmation triggered by an event a support vote does not indicate that the sysop's actions were justified, only that the community agree that the sysop should not be made to stand down.

I also think it makes sense for users to come to the arbcomm regarding sysop actions. Who else would they go to? I understand that sysops are promoted because they are trusted, but everyone has lapses of judgement, and everyone makes mistakes. If someone thinks a ban was unjustified, take it to arbcomm. If someone thinks action wasn't taken when it should have been, take it to arbcomm. I personally think that those are two very legitimate uses for arbcomm. LordBiro 11:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I should clarify that, because my wording seems to have been poor and I am misunderstood on an important issue. With "arbcom is not an "court of appeal" for sysop actions" I mean that I do not want a flood of people comming to arbcom argueing that the ban handed out against them was unfair and even less I want arbcom to be an instance that monitors all sysop action. Of course there are instances when arbcom is the correct place. For example, when a sysop systematically acts unfair against one user (the arbcom request sounded a bit like this, but I have not seen anything brought forward to back up the statement that Tanaric systematically "transgresses", even after scourge specifically asked for it above).

So, yes, I do agree that users should be able to have arbcom review sysop behavior. However I do not want arbcom to be the ones who micromanage the boundaries of sysop discretion, that should first be done by discussion among all users and arbcom should only be contacted as a measure of last resort. Between "arbcom is a court of appeal" and "arbcom is not a court of appeal" I am rather in the middle (than at the later side as my above comment suggested) at "arbcom is a court of appeal, if the issue is important and discussion among users could not resolve the issue first".--Xeeron 14:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I insist we need something like this: User:Coran Ironclaw/Consensus, that would save the wiki a lot of misplaced and disrupting discussion. Coran Ironclaw 15:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't get it, what's that page for? — ク Eloc 貢 16:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

To solve all the issues regarding controversial actions like this one.

1. Disruption by tons of discussions all over the wiki: The Arb Comm can't solve this since for it to take place the discussions already happened. The RFC can be trigger faster and can force to concentrate all discussion in one place.
2. After tons of discussion we don't even know if Tanaric's block has consensus support or not (was "right" or "wrong"). The Arb Comm can't solve this since all they can do is to penalize one way or other the involved users. The RFC can show that.
3. (the most important) Leave a precedent for future similar situations. The Arb Comm objective is just to end the fight between the users. The RFC objective is to know what to do in future similar situations, if the situation became frequent then a new policy is needed.
4. Sysop reconfirmation and Arbcomm: if the RFC consensus strongly opposes the action then an reconfirmation for the sysop can be triggered doing it before has little sense to me. The RFC can also be a very good argument/evidence regarding any Arb Comm that the action might bring. -- Coran Ironclaw 17:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for consensus only works in a culture in which meaningful discussion to build consensus is valued. I don't think we have that. We have a culture in which a very few editors attempt to meaningfully resolve a question, while others blithely repeat themselves without acknowledging other comments, and others further are outright trolls. Very few people here are willing to simply close an issue and accept a conclusion that isn't their own. "Consensus" only exists here when an overwhelming majority agree before discussion. —Tanaric 18:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

While I somehow agree with your opinion of what happens with consensus here on wiki, it is still consensus and is the base of our policies and community. To prevent endless discussion the final decision on RFC can be setted the same way as the RFA: after all have voted with their arguments and discussion have been taken place the bcrats then decide the final veredict on the action in question. Coran Ironclaw 19:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

RfC's won't solve anything. You're ignoring someone's point on one of the many other discussion pages; RfC would not have done a damn thing in this case, or any case. Sysops are not required to have consensus before acting; thus, the RfC is useless. If you were looking for a consensus on Tanaric as a sysop in general, that's what reconfirmations are for. If you thought Tanaric was abusing his sysop powers, that's what Bureaucrats are for (not ArbComm; bureaucrats on their own are allowed to deal with sysop power abuse). Nowhere in this big picture would adding more bureaucracy help anything. -Auron 00:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Auron: I find no argument on what you say, you just say it would not solve anything but you don't say why, you are not rejecting any of the four arguments I posted above. "Sysops are not required to have consensus before acting" while I agree with that sentence, actually the bcrats think otherwise according to their decline argumentation, also even taking your sentence as true they do not require consensus "before", but if the action resulted to be polemic I find healthy to the wiki to be able to require a consensus "after". I am not looking for a consensus on Tanaric's sysophood, neither I am looking if he abused or not of his power, I am looking whether the action was healthy for the wiki in the long run or not. "Nowhere in this big picture would adding more bureaucracy help anything": If all bureaucracy would be subject to rejection without reasons then we could start deleting all policies, bcrats or even sysops and expect that to be good for the wiki. Coran Ironclaw 01:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: precedent

A comment on Biro's response: Precedent is what was the point. Had I thought this was a one of event I wouldn't have brought it to ArbComm. It wouldn't have been a system change then, and hardly worthy of much noise. I reallise Tanaric's only done it once, but he has stated that he will continue (And I trust his word), so this does set a precedent even if that wasn't the intention. Backsword 11:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)