Board Thread:Wiki Discussion/@comment-1073312-20140816013529/@comment-1633483-20140816041218

Reading Angrybird's reaction to his warning was really quite interesting. While there are quite a few details I question for a range of reasons, I am willing to put them aside. I want this episode to end in the most mutually beneficial way possible. I certainly do think that notions that users should divide themselves into groups based around a leader should be removed, since they are unhealthy and toxic to the wiki's environment. It is times like this that I truly regret making the GigaConflicts, which may have entertained some users, but has ultimately fallen mightily short of living up to the original expectation of a unifying fiction that would demolish the perceived barriers that are currently plaguing us.

Personally, I don't place a lot of stock in the belief that there is any real hierarchy of users on the wiki and I look to the many new users that freely approach older users and admins as equals as proof whenever they need help with their fiction or starting up on the wiki. These users are join the community free from the attitude that they are being spat upon because they arrived to the wiki a few years before an admin. I understand that there are users who genuinely feel like they are being victimised and I sympathise with them. But grouping together in such a way that breeds the internal opinion that admins and older users are unapproachable tyrants is completely unhealthy.

As for me and I'm being completely honest, when it reached a point a couple of months ago, I just decided to avoid contact with users who I didn't particularly like, considering that the events mentioned in the perspective almost convinced me to quit the wiki entirely. I genuinely felt like people were ganging up on me in an attempt to make the wiki an uncomfortable place for me to be. It was a horrible feeling. Now, I aim to either have neutral relations with people I know I can never be friends with, or earn the trust of those who are perhaps wary of me. I say with some confidence that I have never turned up my nose at anyone based on how long they've been on the wiki and many of my wiki-friends have joined in the last year or so as the population of older users who I was friends with in the past has dwindled.

As for the debate about whether or not we need a new admin, I wholeheartedly disagree with it. I know each and everyone of the current admins personally and any accusation that a user like Wormulon has ever had anything but the best intentions for the wiki in mind is completely ludicrous. I can totally understand if someone dislikes me and I really don't care at this stage of my time on the wiki. I'm sure you have your reasons, but I will not stand for claims that any member of the current team of admins are elitest and unapproachable. Of course many of you will have one or two members of the team that you don't see eye to eye to, but surely that is to be expected between two individual people. It's not like an admin is going to ban someone without reason solely because s/he doesn't like them. That is an abuse of power and would quickly be sorted out with a demotion.

As many have said, adminship may have a connotation attached that those afforded the position are leaders of the community and in that regard, I understand that the so-called "newer users" (a name I question, given the fact that many new users are happy to see admins for what they are; regular users with extra buttons) would like to see one of their own as an admin. But the only thing that would result in is a solid affirmation of the very thing we are trying to destroy; the view that users should form competing factions that ultimately desire one of their own in a lordy position of power.

While I am sure that this wall of text is an eyesore, it's not finished.

There is an accusation floating about that a reason why these factions (come to think of it, I really only see one) appear is because some users have coalesced in the hopes that they will have more power in decision-making on the wiki. If users truly do form groups based on that reason, and want an admin for that reason, it is really quite unfortunate. It's not like the admins have regular group meetings set against the backdrop of a thunder storm discussing new ways for the wiki to develop without the opinion of other users. In general, we have at most, three meetings a year, and only when faced with an emergency and we always make decisions based on what people have been saying on IRC. Even then, these decisions have never been those that affect the entire wiki, those decisions are always made indirectly via discussions on IRC.

I would gladly a form of community management group designed to prevent the spread of factionalism and indeed, general arguments, though I wholeheartedly disagree with the notion that promoting someone from one of these groups, and again I stress the fact that I really don't see more than one, would solve anything. If anyone on the wiki has proven that he has the right mindset to be admin it's the Randomness, who has time and time again proven that he has a highly intelligent, level-headed individual who knows that adminship is not something that is rewarded as a token or as a means to represent a group of users on the wiki. While I once again make my opinion clear that I don't think a new admin is necessary, if we are to promote someone it should be based on the right reasons and not because some people want to promote the idea that there's a real difference between new users and old users. I for one do not say that because I doubt the abilities of the newer users in such a position, but because I think that that such a position should be earned through useful contributions, not highly debatable accusations that some users are powerless and that the current admins are unapproachable tyrants.

Finally, I would like to address what happened yesterday. We did overreacted, yes, but the situation wouldn't have arose in the first place if we were actually consulted before the UDB barrage began. I knew about the in-universe reaction it would receive, even though I had to explain time and time again that the MCA had no part in the GCs and that these attempts to draw it into the politics of it, even in such a minor way, were incredibly irritating. However, when I saw the UDB a few days later, I was appalled and quite frankly, I might not have been had I only been consulted that such a big deal would be made of the MCA's reaction. If I knew that such a big deal would be made, I would have done what others suggested to me, and I would have completely ignored it. The fact that some have actually apologised to me, and the others involved in the MCA, is quite telling and was graciously appreciated. For the record, I also apologised in turn for overacting and I think I speak for most people involved when I say that I wish I never responded at all. But alas, I feel that the Gigaquadrantic Conflicts is fundamentally flawed and that previous attempts to heal it have failed. Time will tell if what is decided here will help the fiction, but unfortunately, I'm not particularly optimistic.

Still, I did take this opportunity to try and heal wounds with old friends and we are now united in our attempts to rejuvenate and reunite the wiki, which I feel is a far more healthy and positive step than appointing admins which will reinforce wiki-divisions rather than heal them.