Guild Wars Wiki talk:Requests for adminship/Tanaric/Archive 2

Not to sound ignorant or rude or anything, but if this doesn't pass, does Tanaric lose his Sysop status on GW2W also? — ク Eloc 貢 04:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't, as GW2W has no policies. If you can convince a bureaucrat to remove my sysop status, that's his choice, regardless of how this turns out. —Tanaric 04:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm just curious, that's all. — ク Eloc 貢 05:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Discussion of votes

"Oppose. I feel that Tanaric is to used too the loose policys over at Guildwiki. Here it's more strict and he should be following the policys accordingly & not letting his personal judgement or the "spirit of the policy" get in the way. — ク Eloc 貢 05:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)"

The admin policy here gives sysops reasonable discretion, just as those on PvX or Guildwiki do. It's not Tanaric's fault if most of the sysops are unqilling to exercise the discretion that policy calls for. --Edru/QQ 05:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

First, the first "to" should be "too" and the first "too" should be "to." Second of all, the only reason its more strict here is because a bunch of users decided to interpret policy as strictly as possible, there's a difference between that interpretation and what the policy actually says, and Edru's right, the policy can easily be read as giving Admin's reasonable discretion. *Defiant Elements* +talk 05:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

If I can interject- the issue isn't that policy wasn't followed- its that a user was banned informing a user about said policy and attempting to get him/her to conform to it. Eloc was protected by policy to do so. -elviondale (tahlk) 04:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing in policy that says "you may be as impolite as you wish when informing people of this policy". No one is "protected" from responsibility for harmful actions by policy. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 04:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but it's staying as Oppose. — ク Eloc 貢 05:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't change that you're wrong about what policy says. Policy gives sysops reasonable discretion in the use of their admin powers. --Edru/QQ 05:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I, like Edru, had no intention of attempt to change your mind, to be perfectly honest, as far as I can tell, how you were gonna vote was a foregone conclusion, not likely to be changed by what I have to say. I was merely trying to point out that an interpretation of policy is not the same as policy. There's I believe an inherent irony in people who claim to be against interpreting policy since really, all that they're doing is interpreting the policy themselves. *Defiant Elements* +talk 05:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I think Defiant Elements' last point here is the key one. It's all in the interpretation. Policy gives some examples of things which are block-worthy. Some around here seem to think that means that sysops can only block in those situations. In particular, there seems to be an idea that a block can only be given where there is "consensus" in favour of that specific block. This is dangerous nonsense. On any blocking issue there will not be unaminity (unless the user concerned wants to be blocked, in which case they're engaging in wiki-drama [and I know some otherwise sensible users have done tihs :-)]). Furthermore, swift action is often vital (if only to stop a conflict escalating). So a sysop has to make a judgment call. Sometimes they'll be right, sometimes wrong. It's not really the end of the world if they get it wrong occassionally (oh noes! I can't edit for a whole day or two but still have full access to all the information the wiki provides !!!!111oneone!!) provided they're not overall harmful (if you expect a sysop never to get it wrong, you're living in a fantasy world). You shouldn't fetter their judgment to the point of being human bots. To illustrate why over-restrictive interpretation is bad, I'll give you my own experience of this wiki. I first found it a few months back and after exploring it found Gaile's talk page, (which is a highly useful page if a bit odd for a wiki). The first thing I noticed was a sysop querying why she had made an edit (to Raptor's userpage). I viewed the history and was, to be honest, shocked. I'm not easily offended, and I'd oppose any "no profanity" policy on this wiki, but what Raptor's had put up seemed just gratuitous. I was very uncomfortable viewing it from work. I was astonished that anyone could wonder why Gaile had edited it away, and even more astonished that the sysops seemed to think querying this more important than slapping a ban on Raptors. I could not believe how many people felt the letter of the policy (don't edit other people's user pages) was more important than swift action to remove such material, but more than that, that anyone could argue Raptor's didn't deserve an immediate ban (of at least a month; this was gratutitous vandalism). I'd been about to register and contribute, but this scared me right off. Raptor's eventually got his ban after he'd alienated further people, but all the fuss could have been cut out by decisive action earlier. All the "second chances" just encouraged him to push the boundaries further. And I see over on GW2W, he has already blown his second chance, and yet over on "user talk: Entropy" over there we find people (some familiar names...) defending his disruptive behaviour!! Really, a portion of this community seems to think that being pally with each other is more important than maintaining the wiki.Cassie 08:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

That's why i don't like to talk, and don't listen. lawering about details is not my business. since the beginning of my case, because i am the starter of this wonderfull adventure that brought us on this page, i was amazed, then bored, then angry about how much time people can loose giberring about interpretation, consensus, lawering and arguing in vain. like a religious fight, the extremist are forgetting the mains goals of the religion, to focus on the to the letter application of the rules, and no one is above the rules. some people found the goal more important.

And i think extremists are more dangerous than leaders who don't plays "by the rules". you are all saying that we all should have consensus, but never accept or respect that your opinion can be denied and refute. and with the joy of a written down rule (or holy book), everyone can read what he wants, and there will never be everyone hand in hand dancing and imrpoving the wiki together smiling, because everyone will say and believe in good faith, that they have the only truth.

I see the few people that have a thought a little higher that common sense (what i call stupidty) are here too, burned.

I don't have a friend,don't listen, and don't like to talk, because the end of every discussion i start is allways the same, no one changed mind, but everyone getted angry.

seeing today so far my "case" went, i'm amazed at how many time you can loose upon useless giberring lawery details, with no arm to the main goal. i won't ask people to start "think by themself else by rules", or "think about what's really important", because everyone will say they do. back to start point. i'm tired. lussh 09:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm very happy to see the support Tanaric is getting, I hope this sets a precedent going forward over the level of acceptable discretion sysops can use. --Lemming 02:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps this goes without saying, but... same here. :) —Tanaric 05:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

However, any support for Tanaric shouldn't be seen as a support for the action taken, unless the person explicity says that he agrees with the action. Disagreeing with the action and being oppose to the Tanaric's sysophood are very diferent things. I think there should be a form to "Request for consensus" on a specific action, just like this but just to know if consensus if in favor or against a single action. Coran Ironclaw 07:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Your point is valid; people shouldn't be supporting here just to agree with his actions, but I vehemently disagree with any kind of a "request for consensus." In my attempts to visualize a worse sysop system than what we have currently, I thought of something that required a committee decision for every single action taken by sysops; RfCs would be just that. A terribly ineffective system that undermines the entire point of Bureaucrats. -Auron 11:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

What can a "request for consensus" about Eloc's ban tell us that is useful? If Eloc should be unbanned? It expired awhile ago, and if it was ongoing, that would be an ArbComm matter (if you think there should be a long-term ban, that's also ArbComm). Whether or not Tanaric should still be a sysop? That's already being decided here. Nothing else actually concerns that specific action.

As for any implications about general sysop actions in the future, that's what Guild Wars Wiki talk:Adminship is for. Anyone at all is free to create a draft that clearly eliminates or limits admin discretion, or codifies broader discretion, and attempt to gather consensus for it the same as any other policy proposal. There is simply no benefit that I can see to the proposed "request for consensus", and as Auron says, the precedent of every single ban being subject to committee decision is horrifying. - Tanetris 11:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not very experienced on this things, however looking on everything that happened regarding this block. By far, I would have prefered an organized RfC on the matter than tons of circled dicussions over more than 6 talk pages over 2 wikis where the main point was if the action had the consensus support or not but there was no proof on either way. @Auron: I am not suggesting "consensus needed to take action", I am suggesting action taken and if some people really disagree they can request a consensus. @Tanetris: It would be useful to stop circled discussions, also it would had been useful to prevent actually this RfA, because to me it is stupid to anyone lose sysophood by a mere 2 days block even if that was a "bad" action. If the RfC result was "support" then we could conclude what lemming said, (and there was no need for this RfA) and so sysops would have a healthy and organized feedback on their actions that are beyond the policy. If you think that preventing those discussions is a matter of the ArbComm then fix something there because obviusly that didn't work well. @talk:Adminship: And no, there is no way to specify every action a sysop might take beyond the policy, that is actually the main point of allowing sysops to use discretion. That would be the road if the same type of action is becoming frequent and a lot of RfC or discussions are generated about it. Coran Ironclaw 19:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

This is the wrong place for it, but people seem to be looking here so... As I tried to explain above, we shouldn't be looking for consensus on every individual decision - it's just not possible. What is possible is that (as demonstrated here) we can reach a consensus on who we want to be making the decisions (and change that guy if they're messing up). We did end up in a debate over the rights and wrongs of Eloc's block, but in a sense that was because it was emblematic of a New Approach (TM) by Tanaric. I think the jury's still out on whether the NA(TM) will in the end be supported by consensus, but it's pretty clear that Tanaric's the guy we trust to carry out whatever is ever settled with - and use his judgment in the absence of binding policy. What I think would address what you're looking for, Coran, is a Policy on "Limits of sysop discretion". If such a policy existed, Tanaric's behaviour could have been compared to that template. This is true of any contentious decision - it simply reflects a policy lacuna. (Note that I myself have no problem with such a lacuna - they're inevitable and that's what sysop discretion is for. In my day job I make arbitration decisions that cost one side or the other literally millions - and I often face such a lacuna in the law and have to use my discretion to see justice served as I see it, right or wrong. If arbitor's discretion works when millions are at stake, I think it should suffice for a 2-day ban on a wiki documenting a game).Cassie 20:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Close?

This reconfirmation has been up for over a week now and it seems there haven't been any additions for a while. Looks ..slightly.. successful to me..-- Brains12 • Talk • 17:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

*insert trolling comment here* -- Armond Warblade 17:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

/agreewithtrollingcomment. Lord of all tyria 17:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm??-- Brains12 • Talk • 17:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Dunno. But yeah, this needs closing tbh. Lord of all tyria 17:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)