User talk:Tanaric/WikiBoss

Poll

/accept

1. I trust Tanaric as i trusted him on GW and GWW ~ SCobra 19:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
2. Tanaric has great knowledge of GW, GWW, and this wiki. If someone had to be picked for this, it's him. Calor (t) 19:50, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
3. As has been said many times before, it's bloody Tanaric. Armond 20:10, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
4. ITS BLOODY TANARIC — Skakid HoHoHo 21:01, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
5. If it ain't broken, don't fix it. --- -- (s)talkpage 21:02, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
6. Tanaric's knowledge of how to run a wiki well surpasses the knowledge of everyone else combined. See also; GWW problems. -Auron 06:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

   I really don't know about "knowledge". But it is not "knowledge" that worries me, it is judgment. I actually prefer some extremely :annoying disruptive behavior (1, :2, :3, 4, and 5@readem and Mgrinshpon) than some arbitrary judgment augmented and limitless, simple because the first can be ignored but not the second. Either way, we can have all his "Knowledge" if he correctly discuss on topics. Coran Ironclaw 07:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

   If you have a question, ask it. If you have a problem, bring it up. Don't blithely attack my character on a talk page as if I don't exist. —Tanaric 07:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

7. I'll support you as long as you're not going to go nazi or anything (instawin) - IronHeart 09:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

/decline

1. -FireFox 20:13, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
2. - Coran Ironclaw 20:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC) (I think I could reply with some article of yours, but you deleted it.)
3. - Cursed Angel 20:24, 26 December 2007 (UTC) what is this page for?
4. Huh! A poll? poke | talk 21:02, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
5. - Y0_ich_halt 21:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
6. NOWAI RT | Talk - A joyous wintersday to all 21:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
7. - BigBluetalk 22:05, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
8. This isn't your wiki. This is owned by ArenaNet meaning that this shouldn't be a dictatorship. Sure, if this was like your own personal wiki and you were paying for it or something then fine. But this isn't. — ク Eloc 貢 04:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

   Did anyone contend that this was Tanaric's wiki? Besides, Anet has made it clear that the administration of this wiki is left to us, thus, to say that "this is owned by ArenaNet meaning that this shouldn't be a dictatorship" is essentially arguing that correlation implies causation (which it doesn't). Yes, ArenaNet owns GW2W, but how does that relate to what kind of administrative structure is used? Short answer is: it doesn't (at least not from anything I can see). *Defiant Elements* +talk 05:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

9. No. 06:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
10. I found this amusing, but...no. Comparing the glory days of GuildWiki to what may happen on GW2W is not a good idea. You've got too many core differences between the two...basic shifts in ideology (yeah, it's a tug of war still), many many more users, stricter policies, lack of the "First Crowd" which would support you 100% (though some have returned). I know that you did a pretty smashing job with what resources you had on GuildWiki, and I respect your decision to attempt to apply that here. But, I just don't think it would work, not in the long run. You're good, Tanaric, but I think this Wiki will grow out of the scope of even your control. One man alone won't be sufficient, even one with all your experience.

    As a rebuttal to the "put him in power now, worry later" - I thought the point of building a new wiki from the ground up was to not make mistakes that you'd later regret. While it is clear that there needs to be some change in the form of, eh, government from GWW...I don't think either extreme ("democracy" or WikiBoss) is a good idea. Entropy on GuildWiki, 24.6.147.36 21:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

/neutral

1. I've seen good things about Tanaric, and I've seen bad things. I didn't really notice him around on the GuildWiki so I'm not sure how it'll work. I'm willing to give it a test run for a while, but I'm not sure if this is best in the long run. -- br12 • (talk) • 20:01, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
2. i... /agree. (who am i?) ^Teo^ 21:06, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Initial discussion

Go Tanaric! — Skakid HoHoHo 17:36, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The concept of a universal dictator, albeit a very benevolent one interested in the advancement of the wiki, is a very interesting one. I'm not against it yet, as you raised the points I'd've been worried about, and you gave good explanations of your actions. But I sense the downfall in this is that you nominated yourself, not someone else nominated you, which may give people not overly familiar with you the idea that you're a power-seeking "tyrant", for lack of a better term, who just wants total control of the wiki. Calor (t) 18:03, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Really, it's down to either this or DE's "PvX adoption". And if it comes to this, I'd say put either Tanaric or DE as the man for the job. Armond 19:21, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

On a side note, I think he probably meant "PvX Adaption," but, either way, I think Tanaric would probably make a better WikiBoss for GW2W, the community that's likely to edit here simply knows him better than they know me. *Defiant Elements* +talk 19:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I think both of you meant "adaptation". And if we were to have a dictator (that term really comes across too harsh), Tanaric would be the prime candidate. Calor (t) 19:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah... adaptation, that's the one :). As to the term "dictator" (or more appropriately "benevolent dictator") if it's really a problem (and yeah, semantics combined with warped perceptions can lead to very drawn out arguments), then why not simply call it a benevolent WikiBoss (i.e. the name of this page), and be done with it? It's not like it changes the merits of the argument, I think people are simply more used to this kind of position being called a benevolent dictatorship. *Defiant Elements* +talk 19:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, nothing I'll lose sleep over. Just when people think dictator (at least me) think Hussein and someone who takes over and doesn't give a shit about the people. Obviously, Tanaric wants the best for the community. WikiBoss would, of course, work fine, if Tanaric and the community accept the new term. Calor (t) 19:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I did (as I mentioned to DE over MSN), but my internet died before I could edit it. :/ Armond 00:48, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

As far as the "he nominated himself, therefore he must be powerhungry" argument goes... are you serious? It's a wiki about documenting a game I don't even play. I've grown beyond the need of the Internet thinking I'm cool. :)

The only reason I support myself in this sort of role is that I believe I'm one of the few persons here who doesn't make the wiki out to be far more important that it actually is. I'm here to hang out with nerds who document video games for fun. I can't think of a less important or meaningful hobby (except maybe fishing).

More seriously, I'd rather pretty much anyone become dictator/wikiboss than attempt another democratic state. It just doesn't fit the nature of a game-oriented official fansite. In the end, people want somebody to blame if nothing else.

—Tanaric 07:18, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Fishing wins. It gets me sharks. Owait, wrong game. Armond 06:24, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Disagreement

As long as you don't mind, I like democracy as it is teh cool! RT | Talk - A joyous wintersday to all 20:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

GWiki turned out a whole lot better than GWW. I'm supporting Tanaric on this one. He knows how it's done. -Auron 21:34, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

As much as I like dictatorship (especitly if I'm the dictator) no RT | Talk - A joyous wintersday to all 21:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Democracy is theoretically better... if "the people" are well-informed and intelligent. They never are, which makes democracy a poor choice in most cases (although I will admit democracy makes a pretty good facade for fascist regimes). -Auron 21:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Benevolent dictatorships actually tend to work out better than democracy. On the other hand, when Tanaric "retires", he would need to either return to the democratic system used before (which would be difficult for the wiki) or appoint a successor...users trust Tanaric. The only person who would need to trust his successor would be Tanaric himself. I'm basing my knowledge of the situation from my time at GWW, where I've been since the beginning of the project - I am not active (nor have I ever really been) on either GuildWiki or PvXWiki. Personally, I would put off a decision on the adminship situation (which tbh isn't much of a problem) until the basic policies begin to near finalisation - the adminship system we currently have will suffice, and I'd rather see a democratic system help build the wiki rather than have one person decide everything. --Santax (talk · contribs) 21:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Democracies don't build wikis. Wikis get filled up with information as time goes on, usually regardless of the style of adminship. The big problem GWW had was all the new-to-wiki users (with no clue how to effectively run a small wiki) that decided they knew which admin system worked, and thus picked a really bad one. -Auron 22:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll just say that this one would definitely work. That said I don't care if we go down this path or another one as long as it works, but I believe that many others care and sadly I don't expect this wiki to accept anything that would work even nearly as well as this one would. -- (gem / talk) 23:34, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Bizarrely, even though I'm a staunch supporter of democracy, I'd agree to this too! Sadly, I don't think everyone will go for it - someone's bound to come along and start comparing e-peens contributions. --Snograt 23:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Who cares? Tanaric is better. — Skakid HoHoHo 23:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

You have my vote Tanaric ~ SCobra 00:47, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, out of the 10 or so people who appear to have posted on this page (I only did a cursory check) the overwhelming majority (all but one) seem to be in support of this. *Defiant Elements* +talk 04:07, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Probably because, in the end, we all know it works good? --- -- (s)talkpage 13:53, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Or that there are only 10 people on the wiki yet? OK not exactly 10, but there'll be opposition somewhere along the line.-- br12 • (talk) • 17:44, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Meh, Vipermagi's right, this is pretty much guaranteed to work. Sure, there are potential problems with it, but it's still better than a democracy's gonna be. *Defiant Elements* +talk 17:49, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I also agree whit this solution, it seems the best one compared to the solutions adopted on GWW... --Ricky 18:20, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Possibly because only people who know of Cory visit this page? The illiterati haven't arrived in force. Yet. --Snograt 22:20, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Flame war? RT | Talk - A joyous wintersday to all 22:28, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I actually think the support, with a few exceptions, is damning, not helping. Backsword 14:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's a good idea. For all people talk about how much better things were at GuildWiki I don't agree. In the short term I don't doubt that this proposal would work, and as an interim proposal I could support it (or at least tolerate it), but I have to register my disapproval for this proposal in general. LordBiro 17:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

That's nice, but care to elaborate as to why? What people disagree with can be tweaked to make this work better if it was instituted. Calor (t) 18:47, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Polls

Aside from the obvious irony of having a poll to elect a supreme dictator, has anybody else noticed that from the moment the poll was put up, any real discussion has stopped, simply replaced by signatures meant to convey some abstract sentiment of opposition or support? *Defiant Elements* +talk 21:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

no wai? ^Teo^ 21:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

YAWAI RT | Talk - A joyous wintersday to all 21:54, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

zomg :o i'm drowning in sarcasm here ouch ^Teo^ 21:56, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Why we should trust just 1 person when there are elected Bureaucrats ? I have not seen (redirect me if necessary) a valid argument for not allowing them to be temporary bureaucrats here. Coran Ironclaw 22:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

this is not meant as a temporary policy but as a permanent one. Basically this is what was happening at GuildWiki and it turned out very well (until recently when new sysops had to be promoted from not-so-ideal users due to lack of active contributors). -- (gem / talk) 22:59, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

interesting..(or is it?) ^Teo^ 23:00, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Four tildes is less effort than an insightful argument. Stilll, it's been informative for me, who believed this page to be mostly read by supports and the poll intended for them. Obviously, I was wrong. Backsword 23:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

yes you were.. i think :p don't read this. cause i'm tired and i don't know what i'm doing ^Teo^ 23:55, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

While I'm against a photocopy of the GWW model of policies, I'm also not crazy about the idea of a straight copy of GW's model. I still believe there can be middle ground between the two. But, when I saw this page, I couldn't help but to be struck by the irony of seeing a poll on this page. To understand why, take a look at the last item on older version of Tanaric's guildwiki page, under the subject of what he's against (sorry Tanaric, I think you're a great leader, but this item just jumped out at me as an incongruity). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Two things to keep in mind, one, he does state that polls are alright, and, two, he's not the one who put up the poll in the first place nor has he responded to it as of this time in any fashion. *Defiant Elements* +talk 04:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

At one point, this poll was titled "vote." I was late for work or sleep and couldn't respond. It's now titled "poll" and I'm more okay with it. Further, since this page was never intended to solve or provide anything but a questioning look at current politics and trends, even if it were called "vote" my reaction wouldn't be overwhelmingly negative -- it's supposed to be a bit of fun!

Now that somebody linked this from the policy main page and readers think this is really how I'd make my tyrannical bid for ultimate Internet power, I'm taking it more seriously.

—Tanaric 08:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

For the record...

I made this article as a joke -- that's why it's so poorly written and self-gratifying -- and did not intend for it to be taken seriously. While I do support the idea of a single head administrator, were I to write a serious proposal on the matter, it would need to include at least the following clauses:

1. The head administrator would need to respect consensus.
2. A method for approving and registering ongoing approval/disapproval would need to be outlined, including...
   1. The nomination method for head administrator.
   2. The way to complain when he inevitably does something you disagree with.
   3. A metric for the community to determine when the head administrator is no longer acting in good faith.
   4. Explicit ArenaNet acknowledgement and support of the head administrator guidelines, as well as a method of ArenaNet intervention in case things go horribly wrong.
3. Explicit limits on authority, including...
   1. A complete restriction on administrating content, except...
      1. When all parties in a content conflict agree to binding arbitration by the head administrator.
      2. When ArbComm decree head administrator arbitration as the result of a conflict arbitration. (if ArbComm exists)
      3. In an emergency situation on a temporary (day or two) basis.
   2. A restriction against directly intervening in ArbComm affairs unless at ArbComm's request (if ArbComm exists)
   3. A restriction against deleting talk content directly or indirectly related to the head administrator unless the content is clearly vandalism.
4. A requirement to reasonably listen to appeals.
5. A requirement to document off-wiki conversation that leads to on-wiki decision.
6. A requirement to make personal contact information available to the community.

As this article has none of those things, I'm removing it from the policy proposals list. If there's community interest, I can draw up a serious head administrator proposal.

—Tanaric 08:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

No seriously, I'm not kidding. proposing as serious How I ever going to believe you again? I might get this all wrong again but I find sad that such respected and experienced person as you come and present a joke as serious causing disruption in discussion. This is not the first time. Do you enjoy seeing others worried ? Coran Ironclaw 08:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The initial discussion on this talk page does not suggest that people took this as a serious policy proposal but more like the airing of an ideology to create discussion. Further, no other link in the proposal list you mention (with the possible exception of Gordon's) treats itself as a policy proposal either; these are all merely essays about ideas -- most of them solid ones, even if I disagree with 'em -- that could be used in setting up the wiki. Defiant Element's original post was introduced as a rant -- a lighthearted description of a wikiboss seemed in keeping with the trend.

Could more of you chime in about this? I'm curious if this is a language/culture barrier issue or a gross failure to communicate on my part.

—Tanaric 08:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I also took this as (mostly) serious, though in retrospect I probably shouldn't have. I think the "No seriously, I'm not kidding" is what threw me. Remember, we can't read your tone of voice on the etharwebs, Aric. That and the simple fact that, if we were going to go with a wiki dictator, it'd probably be you. I think we need a [[GW2W:Formatting/Joke_proposal]] for a standard we can use to recognize what's real and what's fake. Maybe require mention of the IRCabal for all fakes... - Tanetris 09:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, yeah, that makes sense. I was talking on the phone with a friend from college, and we had this weird Egyptian professor who would say "no seriously, I'm not kidding" 20-30 times a minute, and for some insane reason I thought it was obvious I wouldn't actually say that.

Sorry for the confusion, friends. For future reference, I'll never post a policy proposal in my userspace, and I'll never post it worded this hastily.

—Tanaric 10:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Was it Karlos? ~ SCobra 11:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how much it matters, but I never read this as a serious proposal. I thought it was meant as a spark for discussion. - anja 11:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Ya, the 'seriously' part threw me, as if I read the rest of it without the serious part, I would've seen it as just an idea for a way for any wiki to be run, but including himself and the 'seriously' mention made it seem too real. Calor (t) 15:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

That part was what got me thinking it was an idea, not a full out joke :P - anja 15:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Tanaric, thanks for clarifying. I doubted you would place a legitimate proposal in your user namespace; but by the time I saw this, it had already been linked from the policy proposal page, and that combined with the above mentioned "No seriously ..." bit made me uncertain what to think. My earlier post here was sort of a hedge - partly as a light-hearted jab at a perceived incongruity (now also clarified above), as well as a side comment of not supporting it ... just in case. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't thought to worry about those because, well, it's bloody Tanaric. Get him in power now, let him deal with the specifics as necessary. But as long as we're discussing it, I may as well try my hand at each of them.

1. No, he would need to do what's best for the wiki. If that goes with consensus, fine; if not, too bad. This is one of the main reasons I so ardently support Tanaric for wikiboss; I believe you have enough knowledge and neutrality to always put the good of the wiki ahead of everything else.
2. Placeholder number.
   1. The head admin appoints a successor when he needs to step down (a decent time before he actually does so, if possible). I'd trust you to pick a successor who would have your huge qualifications. (This is, of course, assuming GW2W is still around by the time you get bored of ruling us.)
   2. Uh, bitch about it in your (the complainer's) userspace or something? If someone has a problem with you, they should either rant on their talk page (where it likely won't be noticed too much) or take it to your talk page (where you and the community can defend you and discuss why you did what you did).
   3. Should never be a problem.
   4. ANet has said that they're not dealing with our policies, haven't they? Worst case scenario, they can shut the wiki down, wipe your user properties (if they can port over usernames and passwords, they can modify them too), and boot it back up. But again, that should never happen, as you meet the extremely high standards we set for this position. And by we I might mean I, but whatever.
3. Placeholder...
   1. Placeholder...
      1. You shouldn't have to deal with this kind of stuff anyway. You're the head administrator; your job is to deal with the biggest problems on the site. The wiki, as a whole, will run itself (as seen on PvX, though I'll admit a content-based wiki might be a bit choppier than a builds-based one).
      2. Sysops are our ArbComm. You're our High Council.
      3. Well, that's what any sysop should do. If there's an emergency, deal with it to the best of your ability. It's part of the job description.
   2. No such restriction needed. You wouldn't intervene anyway unless something had gone wrong. And besides, you'd likely be asked your opinion anyway.
   3. Again, not something you or your successor would do.
4. Another thing you and your successor would do.
5. No. No need to document every little thing you say and do. If people want to know your reasoning, they can ask - although I'd expect you'd give a clear reasoning and analysis when you make whatever actions you would make anyway.
6. You shouldn't be required to give personal contact information. I disliked it at GWW, I dislike it here. The thing is, you'll do it anyway.

Does this help you understand how high my expectations are for you and your successor, and how confident I am that you meet them and you'll choose someone who meets them just as well? A benevolent dictatorship is, quite simply, the best form of rule I can think of, but it requires quite a lot from its dictator. I am confident that you meet those requirements. Armond 07:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)