Guild Wars 2 Wiki:Requests for adminship/Tanetris

Tanetris

This request is for the reconfirmation of Tanetris (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

This user hasn't made any mainspace contribution since May 2019 (a year ago). Has not done non-janitorial edits since 2017 (three years ago). Created by: Konig (talk)

Status

Successful. 22:50, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Candidate response

So, my second reconfirmation! My first can be found at Guild Wars 2 Wiki:Requests for adminship/Tanetris/Archive 1 if anyone's curious. I think usually we discuss whether a reconfirmation needs to happen before actually making one, but hey, I'm happy to go along with it. We only barely have any precedent for reconfirmations around here anyway.

As for the substance of the reconfirmation. Well I've noted on the talk page I have actually made some IP edits, but that's really an aside. I certainly admit that for the past year in particular I've been less active due to some RL matters I won't get into here. But I will say I've never dropped the wiki and do not plan to in the foreseeable future. I also still play the game and chat with people in the wiki guild, and I lurk the GW2W Discord, though the latter is a bit active for me so I tend to tune it out or skim if it doesn't involve me directly. More importantly to my role as bcrat, I make sure to keep an eye on what the admins are doing, give them a nudge if they need a nudge, and make sure they know my door is open if they need me. Similarly for non-admins, my door is open if you need me! Whether a talk page ping, Special:EmailUser, or a Discord DM or ping, I'll see it.

Realistically though, the only times a bcrat is strictly needed are for user rights change matters, user merges, or if the sysops need smacking. As of the moment, API editor requests, widget editor requests, and user merges are all current (Greener's been pretty on top of them, and they aren't exactly called for often, so my last use of bcrat tools in that sense was June 2019). There are two open reconfirmations besides this one, but both started today so hardly time to close them. I'm watching them both though and will talk things over with Poke and Greener when resolution time comes (obviously I don't get a say in the resolution of this one, that would be completely inappropriate)

All in all, I don't feel I've failed in my duties nor abused my powers. I am less directly in touch with the wiki community than I have been at some points in the past, but I don't feel I've fallen completely out of touch either. If the community feels differently, or feels that isn't enough to retain my bcratship and/or sysophood, well this is the place to express that, so we'll see! Happy discussing. - Tanetris (talk) 23:10, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

June 17th update: I have added further statementing to the talk page. Tanetris (talk) 03:19, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Support

1. Support. When I joined the wiki I had a bit of an issue with another user, to put it lightly. It got the point where I was genuinely afraid of this user, I was constantly afraid of them patrolling my edits to find something wrong to yell at me about, and, after prodding of the Greener, contacted Tanetris about the situation. Tanetris looked into the matter quite thoroughly. His response the user in question is probably the best example of dealing with a dispute that I have ever seen. And that's what Tanetris does. He quietly observes, stepping in when he needs to, with the diplomacy level I hope to be able to achieve. He's not editing the wiki every day, but he doesn't need to. The wiki would be at a great lost without him. - Do_odleplex 02:21, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
2. Support. I find Tanetris to be very responsive when directly asked. Communication is precise, considerate and open for input. —Kvothe (talk) 18:04, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
3. Support. I'll preface this by saying 1) yes I know my opinion on this wiki doesn't matter any more and 2) if this was seven years ago I would have spitefully said oppose to defend my own wounded teenage ego. Having gotten that out of the way, I think Tanetris does a good job at doing what needs to be done both as a sysop and as a bureaucrat, and I do think his activity over the years in both roles has been a significant boon to the wiki as a whole. Tanetris is one of the people who clearly believes the project comes above everything else (to paraphrase what he said to me when he declined my own RFA many years ago), and I think that while sometimes his actions can seem misguided in the moment, I can at least trust that he's doing something because he believe it is the correct course of action. Having said that, I do think that he would sometimes benefit from explaining why he does the things he does, but this is not a grievance that I think necessitates removal from his positions. (As an aside, I cannot help but feel like this reconfirmation is not being made with the best interests of the wiki in mind, but my answer would remain the same regardless.) Aqua_[talk] 01:40, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
4. Support - While I must admit I never sought out his direct guidance, I always felt comforted knowing a well-spoken and knowledgeable bureaucrat was in our midst. He is objective in his decisions and helps us with ours, while simultaneously advising us when the going gets rough. I realize he might not appear to be overly active to our regular users, but he's been an incredible boon to the admin team for a long time now, and I'd hate to see it end. If anything, this reconfirmation can show other users how helpful he is to the wiki as a whole, even while working from behind the scenes. —Ventriloquist 19:39, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
5. Support. It's Tanetris. I think he invented wikis or something. — snograt 13:23, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
6. Support. Largely I would echo Ventriloquist's vote. I am involved with wiki because of Wynn and Tane. I haven't needed his assistance in a long time, but I know if I asked for it that he is a friendly face here among a bunch that often seem detached and impersonal. No offense meant and I understand why it has to be that way, but kindness goes a long way when you're in a confusing space. SarielV 16:05, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
7. Support. I find Tanetris to be a recognizable name and I think their experience is worth keeping around. They still play the game and pop in when necessary. We must remember that we are all volunteers and while we expect more from certain positions, them taking a break from editing for awhile after SEVERAL years is completely reasonable. That said, I think this whole thing should be a cautioning event instead of a punitive one. Don't throw out what you could use later.--Rain Spell (talk) 22:47, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
8. Support. After viewing the discussion page, I do not find that the reasoning for this RfA to be up to be sufficient. I don't know the exact specifics of what Tanetris does because I am not an admin, but what I do know is that doing "backstage" work does not mean that they are not contributing meaningfully to the wiki. Wiki admins are like the managers of a large project. It would be awesome if every manager contributed directly to the project, but most of the time they let the project team do their thing while they make sure things run smoothly in the background and intervene only when they need to. That is the kind of role that Tanetris plays on this wiki. --Teletric.3821 (talk) 17:55, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
9. Support. Tanetris is one of the most seasoned editors for both the GWW and the GW2W. He is also one of the most rational, level-headed people I have ever seen, and he has an uncanny ability to defuse even the most heated of situations. Whenever I see a post from him, I know it's going to be something worth reading and heeding. He is that strong of a presence. There is merit, of course, to the fact that none of that matters if Tanetris isn't here. However, he is. I don't know much of the back-workings of Discord and its influence here, nor do I have an accurate example of what constitutes acceptable activity. The GWW has shown drastic life in its retinue of inactive sysops and bcrats thanks to these reconfirmations, and perhaps it is true that, had that slew of reconfirmations not happened, those admins would have simply stayed silent. Having said all of that, however, Tanetris' skillset is far too inavluable to risk him losing the tools he may need to do what he does best: an objective, level-headed voice of reason that can soothe even the most dire of situations. In my time working on the wikis, there has been no person I trust more, and that has to count for something here. -- Traveler (talk) 19:13, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
10. Support. Tane has been an ever-present guide throughout the life of both GW1 Wiki and GW2 Wiki. As I said over on the GWW page, activity has not ever been a fundamental consideration for retention of admin rights. One does not need to be in the midst of wiki drama, to understand what options are open to the administrators or how to engage with the issue at hand. Tane has been present for nearly 15 years and now the attempt to make arbitary degrees of activity, essential... retroactively; flies in the face of all concepts of justice. You simply do not ever bring about a new condition and then tell someone they have fallen afoul of it, with no ability to accomodate the new requirement. It blatantly runs in the face of logic or any notion of due process or justice. If you wish the admin team to be more active, have that discussion and then give people the option to either accomodate this or not; do not chuck a new requirement on someone and say they've already failed it due to retroactive applicability. It's simply wrong. -- Salome 14:04, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
11. Support. While I have not been as active on GW2W as I was on GW1 wiki, I do not see any reason to demote Tanetris. Hes not as inactive as other admins have been. Dragonsawareness (talk) 04:08, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
12. Support - Ok so take this however you all wish given my previous apparent activity level on the wiki (I encourage you to look if you are not aware), but I still think I should write *something*. I'll be honest in that I've never taken a real good look in "what it means to be a good admin/sysop/brct" so this goes off of my personal opinion of things. Since my first edits on the wiki, I've personally always seen Tanetris in this role, and though not seen many edits from them have still interacted with them regularly in such a capacity.
    
    There are quite a few times where I would ping Tanetris in game for wiki related concerns (either for modding requests or just generic help) as well as on the discord. Now I understand that this in itself might seem like poor reasoning; however in each case I got either almost immediate actions or replies. Replies had always been up to date on what the wiki does (how do I do X on the wiki), and actions were always overviewed and responded to (even was I was mistaken).
    
    I've personally seen quite often people be passionate about projects and communities without having a visible footprint in the mainspace equivalent here. To me this is the case for Tanetris. I may not know all of the details or all of the info but any interaction I've had have been prompt, professional, and in my opinion according to what is expected as a community admin. -Darqam 01:33, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
13. Support. Tanetris is an invaluable member of the admin team, and particularly so as a bureaucrat. He balances out poke, who never wants to do anything, and Greener, who always wants to do everything, by sometimes wanting to do something. I understand the desire from the community for more active, more visible admins, a desire to which I've personally been trying to respond, and I encourage other admins (and indeed all wiki users!) to follow suit. But ultimately I do not believe we need admins to be active. We need admins to be present, which is to say available when called upon and capable to perform the task at hand. It is important to remember that while activity proves presence, a lack of activity does not prove a lack of presence. I will personally vouch that Tanetris is present even if he's not visibly active, and anyone saying otherwise can 1v1 me IRL. - Felix Omni 01:51, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
14. Support. As a newer visitor to, and avid consumer of, the information contained in the wiki, I appreciate all of the hard work put in by all parties at all levels - including the smoky backrooms of Discord and the off-board admin to admin chats - that ultimately result in this ever improving project. As such, I feel it is my duty - and my honour - to also contribute in whatever small ways I can, when I can. I have made only a single edit thus far, being a bit of a drive-by editor as and when I see a need. If I can contribute more, I shall certainly endeavour to do so, including putting in my two-pence worth here:
    As some others here have directly or indirectly alluded to or stated, I am a believer that the grunt-work of day to day administration of any project should be undertaken by the admins (or sysops) and that when an admin has proven their long-term commitment to said project, they be given the opportunity to step-up to the 'managerial or bureaucrat position. I say 'opportunity' as it should be considered a choice, given that the role can be a double-edged sword, exposing one to new stresses dealing with internecine politics, dispute resolution, policy interpretation and direction and many other similar functions that are a world away from editing wiki pages, (although, if one has the drive and wherewithal to also continue their previous duties, they obviously can.) As with editors and sysops, however, it is a role that can over time - and probably does, being nonsalaried and often un-noticed or criticised - wear one down a little, leading to sometimes being less active for a time.
    My personal opinion on this is that so long as complaints and mistakes are acceptably low and deliberately negative activity is absent that such 'sabbaticals' should not be a reason, in and of itself, for removal from a position that has been earned. (Much in the same way that certain 'elder-statesmen' - such as ex-Presidents, Judges and Professors Emeritus - retain their position elsewhere, to be called upon for advice and assistance by their successors and peers as necessary.)
    Therefore, in the absence of evidence of deliberate abnegation of responsibility by making 'dirty' judgements or dereliction of duty through other conduct that would negatively impact the wiki or its community, then I say let them keep their privileges (assuming they still want them,) and continue to guide, advise and assist their fellow administrators, editors and community members, if only from the sidelines. There does seem to be testimonial evidence that Tanetris has been slightly more 'active' than logs alone would lead one to believe. The fact that there's some debate from the Opposing side suggests that, while some decisions and actions may have been disagreed with or frowned upon, they are also supporting evidence that conversations, assistance, decisions and actions have indeed taken place.
    Maybe there should simply be an annual e-mail, sent to all sysops and bureaucrats, asking if they want to retain their status and associated privileges, or would they like to step down. This could serve as a reminder to those who have taken their hands off the wheel for a while and either stir them back into the mix, continue as before or nudge them to retire voluntarily. --MAMAPAPAXP (talk) 02:47, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
15. Support. For formatting reasons, I've placed my statement here. horrible | contribs 17:51, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. My thoughts are that a player who CHOOSES to act as a "sysop" MUST take an ACTIVE role in that position. Someone who looks on it as "just another bcrat position" is NOT suitable to serve as a sysop--------in another role, maybe Tanetris would be an EXCELLENT candidate---------but not as a "sysop".Undouble (talk) 20:47, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

   Undouble, just so you know Tanetris is a Bureaucrat, not a Sysop. Two different rolls. - Do_odleplex 22:10, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

2. Oppose. Tanetris is invisible on the actual wiki. That's not good enough to retain Bureaucrat rights in my opinion. Bureaucrats need to be as visible as other sysops and conventional users in the day to day running of the wiki, as they have been given a mandate by the community to add to or remove memebers from the admin team, and if they are not in frequently contact with the community, then any decisions made to adjust the roster may appear out of line with the direction proposed by the community. The effective lack of edits however does play well on one hand alone, namely that he hasn't made (m)any mistakes, and on this basis I wouldn't have a problem with retaining Tanetris as an active administrator. (edits in italics from 18th June) -Chieftain Alex 21:54, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
3. Oppose. While I have not been active much over the past two years, I did get to observe Tanetris over some conflict situations on the Discord channel lately. I noticed that Tanetris did not respond until after the fact, without any repercussions towards a member who was actively flaming another member. A week later this happened again in a different setting. Both times I made a complaint to Tanetris about the member's behaviour. First time he ignored me completely, and second time I only got a message where said member's behaviour seemed to be excused, and there was clear doubt in how to handle. A few hours later however, Greener had taken the lead, warned and subsequently banned the member for his behaviour and follow-up personal attacks. I have also noticed that while Tanetris is (AFAIK) a well-known and active figure on GW(W)1, I do not get the impression he spends a lot of time on GW(W)2. This is not enough to stay in touch with the community and perform a leading role in said community. ~ Sanna 11:04, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

   While Greener may have been the one to publicly make a statement, the decision to act was almost certainly discussed among the entire admin team prior to it (probably the cause for the delay, see Felix's comments on the talk page discussion). horrible | contribs 13:51, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

4. Oppose. Tanetris is kinda inactive in the wiki and I just think that an "admin" should be way more "active" than that. Not everyone should be selected to the positions they want, it's not the real world after all. Lonelyquaggan (talk) 12:41, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
5. Oppose. (The very elaborate voting comment has been moved to the talk page for formatting and readability reasons) talk 13:35, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
6. Oppose. While the role of bureaucrat isn't as public as that of a sysop, I think they should still try to actively contribute to the wiki and it's community. From what I've observed Tanetris wasn't very active in either over the last year( except for the latest discord drama). I can see why some people want him to retain his rights, since he's been a part of the admin team for a long time and in the past he did make valuable contribution to the wiki, but simply retaining rights for the sake of having someone with experience isn't a good idea in my opinion. As some have already pointed out it could also prevent change from happening and he could still use his experience in guiding the active admins without himself having administrator rights. As I said in the other RFA, if Tanetris wants to become an active member of the wiki again and regain his administrator rights, I'd be more than happy to welcome him back. There's also something else that's bothering me, but I don't know how to express it without throwing shades at Tanetris and/or the other persons involved, and that is that there seem to be multiple Support votes from editors that seemed to be inactive for ~1 year (and more) just to come back to vote in the RFA. I know there's no rule that you have to be an active editor to participate in the RFA, it's just something that is bothering me in the back of my head. All things considered, I'd say that what Tanetris has been doing for the last year hasn't been enough to retain his position. Almdudler (talk) 18:46, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
7. Oppose. While I've never had any personal issues with Tanetris, I've seen him several times trying to intimidate other users (also in bcrat role), often unclear whether jokingly or not. This and the lack of participation, especially in GW2W, does not justify a sysop or a bcrat role. --Smiley™ de: user | talk 21:34, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral. All things considered, I do think Tanetris has been a good bcrat, and has absolutely improved the wiki during his time as a sysop/bcrat. That said, there's always been a distinct lack of communication outside of direct requests. (anecdotally in IRC, I'd usually only see tan when he was pinged - and on discord, even less since there are no accidental pings there.) I'm aware that there's far more to administration than community interaction, but I feel that it's an important enough aspect to deserve more effort than it has been given. horrible | contribs 19:27, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

   Statement moved to the support section and expanded. horrible | contribs 17:51, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

2. Neutral. - I agree with horrible about the lack of communication. ~SimeTalk 00:54, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
3. Neutral. The other admins' comments put Tanetris as more of an administrative advisor role, however I would like to see him more involved with the general wiki community. We could use some of his wisdom too ;) --BuffsEverywhere (talk) 04:42, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
4. Neutral. I've interacted with Tanetris a few time in the last few days and I cannot find any reason to oppose the RFA. However, I wish this RFA would push sysops and bureaucrats to be more active within the general wiki community, not just within the sysop/bureaucrat group and in matters other than administrative. ❄The F. Prince❄ (talk) 21:05, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
5. Neutral. — I concur that Tanetris has not been sufficiently interactive with the community to inspire my support. I feel that the admins in general need to work on their ability to manage the community (though I freely admit my perception of how the admins are handling things is outdated, as I haven't been involved with the community for half a year), so a bcrat who struggles to commit to this aspect of their duties would perhaps be better off being replaced (or at least supplemented — the support section paints a clear picture of Tanetris being a helpful presence amongst the admin team, and I don't want to rob them of that) with someone who can. —Idris 20:45, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

   I've started a discussion on the talk page regarding the admin team's general transparency and ability to manage the community. Apologies for hijacking Tanetris' reconfirmation if this isn't the best place for such a discussion, though I do feel it's relevant to how the votes are currently playing out. —Idris 21:59, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

   In light of current discussions, I want to rephrase my statement: Neutral. Due to Tanetris's inactivity, I feel unable to form an opinion on his abilities as an admin, as I'm just not familiar with what he does for the wiki. This was the point I intended to convey in my original statement, but I allowed my feelings about what I expected from the team as a whole to leak in, and in retrospect that was sloppy of me. I am glad these conversations are happening, though. —Idris 23:59, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

6. Neutral — Upon reading the various discussions on the talk page and this page, I've realized that I am not sufficiently active enough or knowledgeable enough to responsibly weigh in on this talk. I've left my initial support message up but struck through in the standard preference of not erasing things. While I still feel that experience should not be wasted, if it is not being used then perhaps it is a crutch halting true change.--Rain Spell (talk) 18:16, 14 June 2020 (UTC)