Guild Wars Wiki talk:Requests for adminship/Tanaric/Archive 3

Archive

---

• Archive 1
• Archive 2 (talk)

"Wiki-god"

That word startled me when I read it first, but now it is beginning to scare me. It is a symptom of the bad kind of elitism, which I want to prevent in this wiki. Whether Tanaric himself adheres to that view (I hope not) is not even the crucial point. The fact that users elevate one person above others due to some long past events is. There is a fine line between trusting good advise and blindly following some "leader". When I read the longish pages about Wyn and the IRC use, I could not help but notice something similar. The tendency to split users into an "in group" and "the rest", where the ingroup feels, or some say is, entitled to more rights than others.

There is a place for good, knowledgable and experienced members here and Tanaric is one of these, but there is no place on this wiki for any kind of wiki-god. --Xeeron 12:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree - I've noticed this phenomenon too, but in a different case. I saw it as soon as the block was placed on Wyn. Several users, most of whom are usually logical, became suddenly irrational and illogical in their zeal to support their "leader," completely losing the ability to argue and debate because of the supposed wrongdoing suffered upon their respective "wiki-god." Both Tanaric and Wynthyst have large followings, but as you attested, the existence of those groups of fanbois is more of a harm to the wiki than a benefit.

Be that as it may... those groups already exist. The Wyn fanbois and the Tanaric fanbois have dug their trenches deep. What would you suggest for breaking them out of the "in group" vs "the rest" mentality? It's all well and good to provide social commentary, but do you have any plans for us to get out of this rut? -Auron 13:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I have done nothing to encourage that attitude in anyone. I don't see the people who felt my block was unjust as "irrational and illogical" just because you don't happen to agree with their opinion, and I believe it's just as illogical and irrational of you to say such things. You are as guilty if not more so of considering Tanaric a "wiki-god" and I have often heard you say that the best admin structure you could imagine for GWW would be to let him run it as he saw fit, so don't even try to present yourself as some sort of "unbiased" observer of this phenomenon. -- Wyn talk 13:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The only solution is, theoretically, to implement a system which randomly decides who gets to be a sysop, bcrat, right or wrong etc etc. And we know that it is extremely impractical and will cause much more harm than good. Being humans will mean that we WILL to different extents make decisions with our personal ideas of what is good and bad. In this case, each of us has an idea of what is an exemplary sysop, and naturally when we have someone whom we look up to as a model, we treat them with more respect than other people, and may even step into the boundaries of "fanboyism". It is not something that can be solved unless humans becomes robots, so we can only hope people make the "right" choice when pursuing the perfection of their "ideal" world. Pika Fan 13:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) It's funny that you guys bring this up now, considering the votes and rationale on some of the recent reconfirmations. Where was the "wiki-god" outrage then? -- FreedomBound 13:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Thats not really acurate now, Rainith and Gares are both around. Thereby, Pika Fan said it already, you can't stop "fanboyism". -- Cyan 13:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Cyan, keep in mind the situation back when those reconfirmations took place. Most of those users had ceased editing completely. I'm pretty sure Rainith only came back to accept the RfA because someone emailed him. They dropped in once every five months, but they were not "around." Regardless, it doesn't matter in the least because it has very little to do with the topic of discussion (outside of simply offering further evidence that wiki-god-following has a history and isn't a recent happening). -Auron 14:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think Cory has attempted to encourage that attitude in anyone, either. Neither of you parade around asking for a following - it just appears. Some people gravitate toward you because of your personality, some because they agree with what you stand for. Either way, you've both gotten enough followers to be seen as a wiki-god in most senses of the term.

No, I'm not talking about your block specifically, I'm talking about everything they've said since then. Salome, for example, sat on IRC and spewed the biggest pile of bullshit I've ever heard him spew, and most of it had nothing to do with your block. He was annoyed to the point of illogicality because his wiki-god had been blocked, and everything he said was influenced by it. (Seriously - you were blocked for 1 day and people flipped their lids, going so far as to reconfirm Pling because of it. That is illogical and irrational in every sense of those words, and the landslide of support votes cast by pretty much the entire rest of the wiki on that Recon shows that my take on that situation has nothing to do with personal bias).

Alas, that is where your ability to assess this situation falls short. I made (and will still make) those comments about Tanaric because I saw, first hand, his ideas of wiki leadership and consensus. I did not make those comments simply because "omg tanaric is so awesome he's my favorite guy on earth and i wanna marry him if i get the chance!" or because "omg tanaric is so awesome he made my userpage all pretty and nice for me!" There is a difference between mindless fanboiism and wholehearted support of another's ideas. The former is obvious when a user tries to ignore how wikis work in order to prove a point (reconfirming a sysop over a 1 day block, for example). The latter is obvious when a user's support of an idea exists regardless of what happens to the user that suggests it originally. Tanaric left this wiki for a year and a half - yet my ideals did not change. My take on wikis did not change. My support of him stems not from who he is, but from our mutual vision of what a wiki can and should be. I preach now the same things I've always preached - with or without Tanaric. Trying to pretend that I would illogically support Tanaric on any matter just does you no good, because it simply isn't true.

Regardless, most of your response has nothing to do with the matter at hand. The wiki-god concept is still a dangerous one, and it still exists, regardless of who I am or how neutral you perceive me to be. -Auron 13:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying the reconfirmation point Auron. I thought I saw them around for some time. -- Cyan 14:30, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

*couch* (I'm kidding, I know that was a joke : P). I don't think there is much we could do about this; I think it's human nature that strong personalities will eventually make some users gravitate towards them, whether those personalities want it or not. Tanaric and Wynthyst haven't really done anything to encourage this kind of behavior, so there isn't anything we could ask them to stop doing; and their "followers" are not going to stop admiring them if someone bothered to them to.

As long as the wiki isn't dominated by that kind of thinking, and we have enough users outside the "fanboy" groups to drive consensus away from them, I think it's fine. Not the ideal circunstances, true, but that's human nature. Erasculio 14:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Errrr... WTF? How has a debate on the term wiki-god became an excuse to attack me? Wyn and I are not bosom buddies and nor is she anyway close to a wiki-god for me. I try not to run in a crowd on this wiki, sure I have the people I like more than others but I do try and stay objective. The things I said in IRC were relevant and reasoned and points I stand by. I personally wanted an arbcom on the issue to curtail Pling from exercising his administrative powers against a fellow sysop who he's known to dislike (which according to admin guidance it is recommended that admins with a personal stake in an issue take no administrative action and leave it to more dispassionate admins in that instance). I have said repeatedly that I don't think it should have been tied to an RFA but as it was starting anyway I choose to go along with it and retract the request for Arbcomm.

Anyway this is all by the by, I have an awful lot of respect for Wyn, that is true, that does not however make me a fanboi who was butt hurt because she was banned. I don't like people being bullied Auron. Despite my distaste for your admin style, I was the MAIN admin arguing against your RFA before, in fact if I remember correctly I got into a heated debate then with other sysops on IRC for not commenting on your page sooner. Did that make me your fan-boi, of course it didn't. Again all it meant was that I don't approve of people picking on others. Until you can point out any logical fallacies in what I have said, with an actual quote or some kind of finite reference, I would appreciate if you stopped making general unsupported snide comments about my ability to reason. As has been said by people who know you well Auron, you are not as dispassionate as you claim to be and you too often resort to general name calling when you have no basis to back your arguments up.

In direct reference to the subject at hand, I agree with Pika. In any community of a particular size, people will fragment into "in groups" and "out groups" for want of a better term. Nothing really can be done about this, all one can hope for is that when exercising ones abilities as an admin, that the admin does not let there respect for another admins opinion sway them completely in there actions. I do however accept that groups of these "in crowds" and "out crowds" within the admin team would be a major issue as it would lead to the stacking of consensus in an unbalanced manner. -- Salome 15:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't believe in this 'fanboyism'(According to spell check, that is not a word) that some of the people have started. I think that's against some of those who have voted. Speaking of voting, I half-way feel that some may vote on who they want, as in usual real elections, instead of who would actually do good in that position and why, by even looking at the contributes, the discussions and not just user pages, but discussions on main pages as well and the speech the person gives, their views, ideas, etc. How so few (in my opinion) seem to really vote that way in real life (of those I know). I don't think of these people as followers as they use their own best judgement that so many seem to have acloud and not think that these people have their own opinions that should be taken into consideration. To me, all of this calling out fanboyism is selfish and childish and shows distaste. -- riyen ♥ 19:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Ariyen, I really tried, but I cannot make heads or tails of what you just wrote..You think fanboyism is a bad thing? A good thing? Not existing at all? No disrespect, but sometimes you are pretty much impossible to follow. Anyways, I read the comment about "wiki god" as a token of long-time respect and admiration made half in jest, not to mean someone who by default can do no wrong. I also think that the term "fanboi" is thrown around a lot when it isn't really warranted. Mere proclaimed admiration is not enough, you also have to turn a blind eye to obvious faults for the term to apply (for instance Twilight fans who consider New Moon a movie masterpiece). The problems with an "in crowd" is to me a separate issue. These are people not really viewed as "wiki gods" as such, they just have friends in the right places. Trawling the IRC seems to be an effective way to get into the wiki "in crowd". I sometimes wonder how many sysops/bureaucrats have been nominated and raised without frequenting the IRC.--Lensor (talk) 20:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it exists and I think those that the word is used in a selfish and childish term that to me shows distaste. That is all. -- riyen ♥ 21:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed with Xeeron. The conversation seemed to spiral off-topic pretty quickly, but if there's significant concern about the "wiki-god" problem, I'm willing to re-withdraw from the wiki. Arguments for/against? —Tanaric 02:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

IMO, a legend is worse than a real user. If you had not left, probably no one would be calling you a wiki god right now. Not to mention the loss of an useful wiki asset isn't really worth the small gain we would get from avoiding this "wiki god" thing. Erasculio 02:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

.....What the hell? Look, I was one of the people that said that. Perhaps it wasn't the best choice of words. But I don't think thats how a lot of people should be interpreting it. Its not like we have enough fanbois on this wiki worshipping the next user or sysop around; I used it to define a "Well respected user" that was around during the base foundations of the wiki. What other people are thinking is beyond me, but hopefully thats what they're trying to think too. It would probably be easier to say that anyways, but meh. -- Wandering Traveler 02:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

There's going to be "fanboyism" as long as there are sysops with strong personalities. It's part of the process, it just happens. That doesn't mean we can't have sysops with strong personalities though. I don't really like the term "wiki god", but I think those admins that have a loyal following should be strong enough to make sure it doesn't affect their actions. As long as you do not use your status to influence those people for your own benefit and are careful not to upset the balance of things, there shouldn't be too much of a problem. In this case, Tanaric, I support your RFA, mainly because I think you'd be a welcome addition to the sysop team, but also because I believe you are smart and honest enough to handle these kind of things. So, if you want to withdraw from the wiki, that's entirely up to you, but I don't think you should. — Why 02:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

In reponse to Auron's first post (and partly Tanaric's): I don't think there is a silver bullet against the phenomen. But there is lots of small things that can be done. One of these being to bring it up on a talk page so others who might not have thought about it get involved (that is what I tried). Another point is for sysops to (occasionally) mention that they are just normal users with access to a few more wiki functions. Just as a reminder to other or new users that the sysops themselves do not adhere to the wiki-god view. Finally, whenever you see User Y making an arguement along the lines of "I support User X, because he is a wiki-god/always right/just awesome/etc", you should call out User Y and demand a proper reasoning. I am sure there is more out there, but in general, it all revolves around making it known that such behavior is harmful and speaking out against it when it happens. --Xeeron 14:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Just an idea, but perhaps add some of this to the sysop guide? — Why 15:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Bullshit RfR

Why aren't we simply asking Tan to take a step back for a day or two? I've seen little that wouldn't be solved by a short break. -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 00:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm gonna hold him to his word; he's ragequit --RIDDLE 00:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Ya it's kinda stupid but as Riddle said he has ragequit. --Dominator Matrix 00:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I personally feel that it is needed. I never trusted him with sysop tools, but know I am worried about him keeping them. Drogo Boffin 23:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

[1]. --Dominator Matrix 00:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Drogo Boffin 00:16, 26 February 2010 (UTC)