Battlestar Wiki Battlestar Wiki talk:Requests for adminship/The Merovingian (3)

Battlestar Wiki talk:Requests for adminship/The Merovingian (3)

Discussion page of Battlestar Wiki:Requests for adminship/The Merovingian (3)

I'm sorry I didn't accept this right away, but I had hoped to finish updating the Cast and Crew articles first. Upon further evaluation, to finish these articles up to the quality of detail I wanted would take over a week, so I'll just do this first :) --The Merovingian (C - E) 22:53, 29 July 2006 (CDT)

It's not like we don't have your questions as answered before on the last 2 RFAs. :) It's a formality, so if the real world gets in the way, don't sweat it too much. --Spencerian 08:20, 30 July 2006 (CDT)

Sorry everyone I was once again occupied by real-world activities for a while; I'll set up my nomination thing now (wish I could have done it immediately). --The Merovingian (C - E) 16:16, 30 July 2006 (CDT)


Something is seriously messed up with this page, in that the source no longer seems to match the displayed contents. I am going to go through the edit history and re-create it as best I can. --April Arcus 00:52, 31 July 2006 (CDT)

I had it fixed in my version. I was submitting it and poof. I got a locked notice. :x --Shane (T - C - E) 00:53, 31 July 2006 (CDT)
Formatting fixed. --April Arcus 01:23, 31 July 2006 (CDT)

As I noted in the article; I'm sorry if there's some rule against me pointing out that someone didn't qualify as I personally welcomed this person to the wiki when they joined a matter of hours ago, just to vote against me; are only Administrators supposed to do that? If so I'm sorry, wasn't sure how to handle things. Is there a problem? BTW, yes the code seems a bit odd on this page, I had to resort to bracketed b's isntead of bolding stuff using apostrophes. --The Merovingian (C - E) 00:57, 31 July 2006 (CDT)

Yes as Peter pointed out I was just following precedent; very much so; I don't know how to strike stuff out using wiki-code, so I went to my 2nd RFA and cut and paste one of the ones from there, using it as a precedent for this kind of thing. --The Merovingian (C - E) 01:12, 31 July 2006 (CDT)
Just better said. I was getting around to it. Please read the RFA guidelines etc, etc, etc. All you had to say. --Shane (T - C - E) 01:19, 31 July 2006 (CDT)

Ain't Right

I know that it is the rules, but IMHO it ain't right that a group of users with less than 20 worthwhile contribs (one had none) can come in and determine the outcome of an RFA, then disappear until the next time. Sorry, just had to say that. --FrankieG 06:10, 3 August 2006 (CDT)

Merv withdrew from the RFA, I doubt the KR vote would have counted should the RFA continued. If you were referring to the other people, remember that you can be an active user of a wiki but never make a single change... --Mercifull (Talk/Contribs) 06:35, 3 August 2006 (CDT)
This is a technical issue we may need to address. Technically the voters in question are valid contributors, but how do (should?) we make additional qualifiers for RFA voting? In a perfect world, I would require at least 50 edits over a fixed period--say, 30 days. That would ensure that lurkers and others have spent a legitimate time in actual involvement with substantial editing in the wiki--which means that their opinion should involve working with the contributor up for RFA and basing their vote on that criteria. There should also be, in my opinion, a 3-month moratorium before a new RFA can be opened for a past candidate. I'm unhappy for this, too, as Merv was ready here, but his reputation DOES make an impact from the outside.
This topic should be brought to Joe's attention and not here since this article will be archived soon. I will bring up the topic as a Think Tank item. --Spencerian 07:56, 3 August 2006 (CDT)
If this RfA had gone through, I have no doubt that Joe would have discounted the votes of lurkers and non-users. Far more important were the no-votes cast by Shane, Mercifull, and Spencerian - while I happen to disagree with their reasoning, they are entirely qualified to object. Consequently, I don't think this RfA was torpedoed by outside forces. --April Arcus 12:31, 3 August 2006 (CDT)
As I have said over at Battlestar Wiki talk:Think Tank/RfA Amendments, I made this comment out of ignorance because I didn't realize Joe reviewed the RfA. I apologize once again. However, it just seems that they made a "mockery" of the whole process. --FrankieG 12:43, 3 August 2006 (CDT)
I am glad that I am not the only person that is saying that, because if I alone was saying that it would look like I was pouting, when in fact from an external point of view, it is a serious problem. THanks. --The Merovingian (C - E) 12:49, 3 August 2006 (CDT)

Koenigrules came here because he was directly affected, and moreover because I asked him to come this time myself. If there are questions about my behavior, KR is a good judge. I understand that KR thinks a great deal of time filled with exemplary behavior is required after what happened (and if there are lingering after-affects, I'd like to help him any way I can). That said, my behavior SO FAR has been as good as humanly possible (within the time span of a few months) and I simply can't "cooperate and be nice to people", any faster, as it were :) And KR did not say that I have been *continuing* anything bad behavior from the past.----->That said, no we should not count the votes of people who don't contribute. On a wiki like this we have the perfect easy to use tool; the "user contributions" button next to their name, which will instantly show everything they've done. ***If you simply set up a "50 edits rule", non-wiki users will simply fill up 50 edits by dotting i's and crossing t's, and not really contributing. ****My suggestion would be that the Administrators, ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS (as all of our votes have never had more than a dozen votes) look at a potential voter's contributions page and determine if they've made A) a suffient quantity of edits and B) that there were Contributions of actual merit. Do you guys like this idea? That said, not only did Ribsy join and try to vote, but I've noticed that "Rohmann" (aka Burntoast, who trolls and spams the Skiffy boards constantly, and I say that objectively (ask SteelViper if you dont' know who this is) also joined and didn't actually edit anything, probably anticipating that he can simply wait for the next RFA and then vote against me; further earlier today "Darth Marley" another bboard "personality" joined and didn't contribute anything, also probably because he hopes to stack the vote against me later. I hope I don't sound paranoid...but everyone in the world is trying to kill me! (haha, sorry, that's a DS9 joke/referrence).

I mean I haven't simply been saying "wow, KR, I'm sorry, now drop it"; I am deeply concerned that this caused real life problems for KR and I'm horrified at that and would like to help out. When I was trying to work things out with KR in PM's, I went so far as to say that as I had seen the Season 3 trailer at MTR (a month before anyone else), and the material in it was things he had reported weeks beforehand, I would like to go onto Subject2Discussion with Shaun and KR, prostrate myself and just say how yes, everything they've ever reported turned out to be entirely true and confirmed, and if anyone ever doubted them as a result for my wrong attack, I'd be there telling everyone that they should not. KR wanted me to check with Terry Moore on the messageboards, and personally ask her if the Moores were mad at KR and Shaun, and I went so far as to get her personal statement that they were not angry at Subject2Discussion for KR. KR and Shaun ultimately decided not to have me appear on their show, and I understand that as it is there show and I sure did ruffle a lot of feathers, though I still think me going on and saying "KR is great and everything he's ever done is confirmed and true, and the Moores aren't mad or anything", on their show itself would have really removed the doubts I stirred up among some people; I thought it would have been pretty constructive, and I kind of still hope they're open to the idea. But in case you didn't understand, I'm not simply popping up and going "KR I'm sorry", but I'm really trying to pull in all the favors I can to be nice to KR & Co. and make things up to them. --The Merovingian (C - E) 12:32, 3 August 2006 (CDT)

People who do use the Wiki should be the next step to mend with. It should be the people who use the wiki on a regular basis your should also try to mend relationships with. KR might be great to get the next piece of juciy spoiler info outside of the Wiki, but if you are counting on people to support in your status to adminship, you should also try to mend things with us. Did it ever occur to you that actions that happened against me on this wiki, could have effected you as well? (Newton's Third Law) This might be the same with me if I get nominated again, will my RFC or previous actions come back to haunt me? I've might not have the time in a few month to even be here at all, but I am trying to mend by using the BW:TANK as a guide. It's only for what you make it and not anyone else. --Shane (T - C - E) 12:59, 3 August 2006 (CDT)
Shane my current actions on the wiki have been fine. We all known that you, Peter and I had words on your RFC resulting in your one week break; I didn't do anything negative in that respect. You have been behaving quite well Shane and in a few months if you run again I think I might actually support you, as this Think Tank thing is working out really well. As for wanting to pry KR for "juicy spoilers", Shane the entire result of the arguement KR and I had was that BattlestarWiki no longer uses unsourced spoilers, and while KR is on the level (he's not making things up) things he reports are admitedly not from the final form of the episodes and subject to much change; bottom line is that we have already decided not to use unsourced spoiler information, from non-cast or crew members, and we don't use any of those as a source, be they KR or even TVguide. As for "mending things with us", other than that I along with a majorty of users was concerned on your RFC, I've been cooperating with new users such as Homeworld616 instead of attacking them, actively working well with people I've had friction in the past with like Peter, and on the whole I've been great here these past few months. --The Merovingian (C - E) 13:22, 3 August 2006 (CDT)