It must have been a hard decision to take such a drastic action, but I'm sure that this move will only benefit the wiki in the future. --Ribsy 00:14, 30 August 2006 (CDT)
- I'm intrigued to know what's happened in the last few days for such a hard decision to be made. I was on vacation from the wiki all last week and I dont use Skiffy boards or other forums to know what happens off-wiki... --Mercifull (Talk/Contribs) 04:07, 30 August 2006 (CDT)
- I suspect the off-wiki behavior has just come to a head. But I'd not speculate further. We are what we are outside and inside the wiki. While Merv's face was improving here, it seems he began to claim the wiki as his own, and this isn't a place we can take ownership in. We can all take pride in adding our own contributions to form, together, one great resource for everyone, yes, but we can not take ownership to be point of being catty, rude or representing yourself as a wiki official without authorization. --Spencerian 12:42, 30 August 2006 (CDT)
- It was not only that, but his general behavior to people off-wiki -- his behavior even prompted RDM's own wife, Terry, who posts on the SciFi.com boards as "Mrs Ron", to warn Merv about his's own behavior. (In light of how she herself is painted as "a champion of [Merv's] bad behavior", I do not envy her current position as well, which apparently mirrors our own in some ways.) What I do know through conversing with others who aren't contributors to the Wiki, but have their pulse on the fandom, is that he has damaged the wiki through his actions as he is associated with us. (He's made this association clear through a banner on the SciFi.com boards, a banner that I will ask be removed from his signature immediately.) I know that he's caused damage to the wiki; it's not like any of this is not out there on the boards and the like -- it is. I've tried to establsh damage control, hence the Official Representation policy, which, I will freely admit, is a direct response to Merv's previous actions. He has (almost) cost us a very good contributor in the process just within the last 48 hours and, in talking with others, I have determined that an RFC would have caused much, much more issues than the primary issue we were attempting to fix. I'll make it pretty clear that this decision was not a spur of the moment; I've thought about it intermittently for some time now, until I could put the pieces together all of the events that have transpired for the last six to eight months, without massive bias on either side of the issue. The sad thing is that it all adds up to a very nasty picture, which I refuse to have this wiki be a part of. -- Joe Beaudoin So say we all - Donate 17:35, 30 August 2006 (CDT)
I dont need to know about the reasons that leave to Merv´s banning ,hes childish behavior and arrogance are very well known arround the BSG fanbase.These action open the gate to our group of fans that avoided these place because we didnt want any involment to do with the Merovignian. The FRAKHEADS! and the BSG-55 board will celebrate these desition and ad theyr contributions to the BSG wiki project.
Moctezuma. BSG-55 FRAKHEADS! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Moctezuma (talk • contribs).--Moctezuma 19:17, 30 August 2006 (CDT)
Dont worry about these site image on the contraire,the relevance of the content and the profesional structure are really amazing, im very pleased to read about a young profesional entrepenour like you and the TEAM that makes these site posible.--Moctezuma 19:17, 30 August 2006 (CDT)
- Thank you for your kind words. I personally appreciate them. :-) -- Joe Beaudoin So say we all - Donate 22:22, 31 August 2006 (CDT)
I don't understand what has prompted this move at this time, and there is nothing in your announcement, Joe, that explains it. I have been clued out of the community for a few weeks now, and there may well have been some new incident that showed Merv not only to be unworthy of adminship, but unworthy of editing as well. If there is, you haven't cited it. Why not? Banning people out of the blue for vaguely generalised past behaviour casts, IMO, an even worse impression on the wiki. Is it because he called somebody a moron in that thread? If it is, just say so. Why the hints and allegations? Because MrsRon tried to calm him? I wouldn't call what she wrote a scathing indictment, just a voice of reason. Judging from the arguments I have seen from people on this site in such matters, which have been generally very rational and of a high level, I find this announcement disappointing, more for the content of the announcement than the actual decision that was taken. It comes across as an emotional reaction -- something that I thought the wiki was above indulging. If you were going to ban somebody from editing, I would expect this to include a carefully cited set of examples of his behaviour, not a link to a single slur wrapped in several paragraphs of what basically boils down to 'People don't think he's cool.' I suggest that in the future if you ban anyone from doing anything that you take a much more rational and carefully laid out approach, because otherwise you appear to have arbitrarily and without careful consideration (but merely out of a sense of fed-upness) chosen a side in what is ultimately a personality conflict. Maybe if you get rid of Merv the whole conflict will just go away? What happens to the next target chosen for unpopularity by your secret sources? And exactly who are these people, anyway, with their "fingers on the pulse of fandom"? They don't have their fingers on MY pulse. You might as well have said that Merv is excommunicated because a shadowy figure came to your doorway and slipped you a note after you left an X on your window.
I don't really have time to debate this at length, but I think the way this decision was presented reflects very poorly on the wiki. Think about somebody with no prior experience of this conflict reading what you just wrote, Joe. You have given this hypothetical newbie almost no actual reason to believe that The Merovingian is still the imperious dictator you say he is, and instead given him/her a major reason that is right in their face to believe exactly that about you and about the wiki.
I'm not asking that you reverse the decision. As I say, I have not been privy to what's been going on, which is why the paper-thinness of this page is so glaringly obvious. But I hope that in the future any bannings of longtime members that are under consideration will be handled much more carefully than what I see here.--Dogger 03:22, 1 September 2006 (CDT)