Battlestar Wiki talk:The Merovingian Ban

Please REMEMBER TO BE COURTEOUS and WP:CIVIL AS The Merovingian CAN NOT RESPOND. This is a remember to all parties adding comments to this page... myself included. --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 16:00, 1 September 2006 (CDT)

Comments

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 really 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. But if there is, you haven't cited it. When I saw the title of this page I expected to see laid out for me a series of recent references to Merv's transgressions both here and off-site. I didn't get 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 characterisations? Is the trigger that MrsRon spoke against him? I wouldn't call what she wrote a scathing indictment, just a mild 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 and therefore they think the wiki isn't cool.' I suggest that in the future if you ban anyone from doing anything that you dispense entirely with all of the talk about wiki's reputation (which dominates your announcement and is not on point, i.e. it's not the relevant issue), and instead take a much more rational and carefully laid out approach that concentrates on examples (especially recent ones) of Merv's actual behaviour, because without that, there is no 'there' there. And that presents the appearance at least of having arbitrarily and without careful consideration (but merely out of a sense of fed-upness) chosen a side in what is ultimately a personality conflict in fandom, and chosen the side that will result in the least repercussions for the wiki. As in, maybe if you get rid of Merv the whole conflict will just go away? Okay, leave aside the fact that this doesn't seem to be an actual valid reason for banning anybody; more importantly, what happens to the next target chosen for unpopularity by your secret sources? Do we all have to curry favour now with certain off-wiki fan personalities to remain in good standing here? 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 has been excommunicated because a shadowy figure came to your doorway and slipped you a note after you left an X on your window. It really leaves an awful impression.

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, because I find most of the things you have talked about to be not relevant. 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 clear and present 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. I don't know enough to say that. As I say, I have not been privy to what's been going on, which is why the paper-thinness of what is on 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 and methodically than what I see here. It also would help if there were reference made to violations of an official policy on exactly what is bannable and what is not. Is being unpopular with other fans a bannable offence? You give a very strong impression here that it is.--Dogger 03:22, 1 September 2006 (CDT)

What prompted the banning were the fact that, repeatedly, editors have tried to up and leave regarding his behavior -- behavior which is well documented on the message boards to which he participates as well as the wiki. It is not only pathetic that I have to keep on talking down contributors who have had issues with Merv, but it is also pathetic that people, like Shane (who isn't even an admin, for pete's sake), have to talk people out of doing such an act. Perhaps you didn't know this, as it wasn't common knowledge, but myself and the other administrators, such as Peter, have been endeavoring to help Merv soften his behavior. For a while, it seems he was improving in his behavior, until the complaints -- from people who hardly participate in message boards -- started rolling in again.

I'm not going to release names because they have come to me in confidence -- though I do hope that they have the courage to come forward, since I believe it would be cathartic for them. But Merv is directly responsible for us almost losing a very good member of this community 24 hours prior to making my decision.

We have had issues with Merv for quite some time now, including the whole KR thing which, sad to say, almost damaged the wiki more than I've ever let on. This is detailed in his three Requests for Adminship, which I believe you may have read, as well as throughout the wiki. Feel free to do a search in our wiki, or even a Google search. (As I said, it's all out there for review.)

Merv has also attempted to comport himself as taking ownership of the wiki on various occassions, despite our attempts to curtail such behavior by establishing our Official Representation policy. No one here, including myself (who shoulders the burden of financing, tech support, and being the one who tends to mediate issues here), dares take ownership of the wiki because it is a team effort. We are one here; everyone works together to build this reference. If there is someone who tries to use Battlestar Wiki as his personal pulpit, such as in the whole KR thing which is documented in our archives here, then they will reap the consequences of doing such a thing from not only myself, but from the community.

Fact of the matter is that I haven't included links due to the fact that his behavior outside the wiki and goals are so glaringly apparent that I believed such a thing was unnecessary; I now know why he was so insistant on getting adminship here at the wiki as well, which was to solidfy a position to be some sort of prima donna information broker in the fandom. (This motivation doubtless lead to the near-disasterous incident with KR, which Peter should be thanked for mitigating.) I firmly believe that Merv never wanted the responsibility; he wanted the title, which is something that the cynical part of me has always suspected.

To satisfy your curiousity regarding links and a dossier of his behavior on and off wiki, there are people who are working to create a compilation of all of Merv's replies and actions to date. A link to it, most likely in PDF format, will be uploaded to my website and linked here as an archive for all to see upon completion and review. I personally think such a thing is a waste of time, but I want everything out there because the truth will come out sooner or later, as it always does.

Also, Merv's assertion that people such as Darth Marley have been mailbombing me with complaints is totally ludicrous and strikes me as an indicator of Merv's paranoia, as well as solidifies what I've found to be a characteristic of his personality: that he will take leaps of logic with pithy information and without thorough research. I have never corresponded with Marley or others (I've talked to Larocque, but that's because I respect him for all his work he's done with the original Battlestar Galactica FAQs and so forth); to continue, I've read what they've said on the boards and had I heeded them immediately, this ban would have happened several months ago. Merv's popularity, or lack thereof, had no bearing on this decision -- it was his actions and his treatment of others both on and off wiki that came to a head. Call it the powder keg just waiting to be lit that Merv's actions (and consequences of his actions) have built up for months, if you will.

There was no "ban Merv" caucus or calls from said non-existant caucus to ban Merv that lobbied me; Merv acted uncivily and nearly scared off new and even established contributors (that I know about, anyway), as a result, was banned indefinitely, until he wishes to act like a respectful human being and not the overbearing person he's projected himself to be.

If Merv wants to be a part of a community, he can't act like the progeny of a prima donna and pitbull. Such progency and the goals of a productive community are mutually exclusive and have no place with one another.

Humility. Integrity. Respect. Honesty. Collaboration. These are things that the wiki stands for and, quite frankly, Merv's actions do not fit in line with the philosophies of this wiki. And, needless to say, Merv is being watched very carefully now more than ever even from people who have better uses for their valuable time. Think about that for a moment, or for as long as you need to... why would people waste their valuable time to watch him like a hawk?

I think there is something very wrong with this picture, and it is something I have no desire to have this wiki be a part of. Hence my executive decision. Now I've said enough and have better things to accomplish... do excuse me. -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate} 09:18, 1 September 2006 (CDT)

Thanks Joe for making such a concerted effort to explain yourself further. I think it helps make this page intelligible. It still bothers me somewhat that most of your complaints are from behaviour that is not clear & present but now ancient history as in it does make the timing seem somewhat arbitrary. If you were going to ban Merv over the KR incident then it should have been done long ago. To now name that incident as a major reason for his banning doesn't make much sense. The things you are saying about fresh altercations with new wiki members are very relevant but you seem to be not at liberty to discuss them further, which is unfortunate because that should be the meat of your case: it is that stuff that would be the most justifiable support for a move like this at this time, not the KR thing. Sometimes when you take a shotgun approach you damage your case, because it isn't clear to anyone exactly why all the stuff is a good reason now but wasn't a good reason then (is there is a timer that goes off six months after a bad act that results in a banning?). It invites speculation as to what is happening behind the scenes. Too bad you can't much talk about what I consider to be the only valid reasons you have named for taking a fresh look at Merv's membership status; knowing the history I'll take your word for it, but laying out this recent evidence would have been far preferable. I hope you know this and will consider how important that is in making this kind of announcement. The wiki is not in control of Merv's actions; but it is in control of its own actions, and the transparency and above-boardness with which you handle a banning speaks much more directly to the character of this place than anything done by one of its members.--Dogger 14:48, 1 September 2006 (CDT)

I agree, Dogger - I feel that I must give Joe the benefit of the doubt on this matter, but we are at great risk of setting a bad precedent here. I eagerly anticipate a final report on the off-wiki behavior of Merv's which justified this. --Peter Farago 19:07, 1 September 2006 (CDT)

Bad precedent, indeed. If I've read your arguments correctly, then generalized bad behavior AWAY from bsgwiki is considerable cause for banning ON bsgwiki. In light of this, I have a list of usernames I'd like to see banned for some serious bad behvaior on skiffy. Where would you like those names sent? What if I wanted to complain about Joe's "executive decision making" on this "community run board?" Who would I submit those anonymous, unrepeatable, and unspecified charges to? Just curious. Would it be possible for you "leaders" to post a really good list of offenses off-board that will get me banned here? I mean, I flipped off the guy who cut me off in traffic today. AND I made a really mean joke about Dualla on Skiffy sometime back and I REALLY upset a lot of people. Can I expect my login here to stop working? -AerynSun44 22:01, 1 September 2006 (CDT)

If he wanted to be hated by the community in his own fashintion he can, but as soon as you link bad behaviour with the wiki using the wiki as a tool that's not correct. No one person speaks for the wiki, except Joe. I don't see any other users setting up camp on the SciFi Forums who speaks for the wikiw and then on top of that, "acts in bad faith" using the wiki as a tool. Name someone else who uses the wiki as a refernece on the SciFi forums in a bad manor. --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 22:14, 1 September 2006 (CDT)

So, it was the incident from several months ago that prompted the banning (as opposed to recent, mysterious incidents) because he used battlestarwiki to paint a user in an extremely negative light. Not unlike, um, using the administrative banning function and associated talk pages to publicly humiliate a user with as broad coverage as possible. Oh, wait. Did I say that out loud? -AerynSun44 22:31, 1 September 2006 (CDT)

I did not say that. Joe statied it's a number of reasons. Current and past. --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 22:41, 1 September 2006 (CDT)

Alrighty, I think the blonde girl has finally caught up with the logic train. The banning was the result of an offense committed months ago (that Joe is now also guilty of - using bsgwiki pages to publicly humiliate another member of fandom) and mysterious, unspecified charges levied by persons unknown. Got it. I do appreciate the clarifications. -AerynSun44 22:48, 1 September 2006 (CDT)

Aeryn, I thank you for sharing your point of view with us. It is very welcomed, although I would like to ask that you please calm yourself. This isn't end of the world type stuff we're talking about here.

However, you need to know that Merv placed himself in a position where he and the wiki were intertwined; this isn't one of our contributors going out and making mean or sexists jokes on the SciFi Bulletin Boards. (It's up to SciFi's administration on whether or not to deter that kind of behavior, not ours.) Essentially, had he not placed himself in a position to act (and insinuate that he was) the wiki's unauthorized promoter or placed the unauthorized banner beneath his posts with the URL and icon to this wiki then his off-wiki behavior would have never been brought into question. And this is not a one time incident, hence the creation of our Official Representation policy which, ironically or not, Merv supported. To go with what Peter said in one of Merv's previous RFAs, I am not concerned about what other people think of a contributor -- unless they deliberately placed themselves in a position to use the wiki as a backing to advance his own agendas. Agendas that he has made clear in the past. I am concerned about the image of the wiki, as well as ensuring that no ones contributions have been in vain because of the acts of a person or group out to advance an agenda. (This agenda will be made crystal clear once the dossier on Merv's overall behaviors on and off wiki have been completed and published.)

I will also state again that everything has a cumulative effect and Merv's behavior on-wiki has come first circle, much to the point where we nearly lost one very good contributor. For some time now I (and others) have had to deal with Merv's behavior to others and try to mitigate the damage. Were it not for the work of the dedicated individuals in this community to retain those upset members, we would have lost more people than Merv.

As you yourself may not be aware, we as admins and contributors have tried to make Merv understand that his treatment of others is destructive and damaging to a community. None of his behaviors to date are a surprise to either myself nor anyone else here who has been for more than six months. The fact that I had to perma-ban Merv disappoints me, because it tells me we have failed to help Merv modify his social skills to a point where he can be respectful of others and their opinions, regardless of whether he views them as "moronic" or vapid from his point of view.

At this point, my concern is whether or not the wiki will recover from the damage Merv's inflicted. For a place he claims to love so much, he's endangered all our work here with his actions... and I've sid enough, because I will wait for the dossier to come out and then, as it is said, the truth will attend to itself, because it always does one way or the other. And then you can all do with the dossier what you will; you can believe or not. The choice to believe or not to believe is up to you.

Thank you for your interest and your concern. :-) -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate} 22:51, 1 September 2006 (CDT)

Joe, I find your comment to be condenscending and mean-spirited. I engaged your representative in a dialog concerning your unilateral action and your response is a very rude "calm yourself." I demand an apology for your poor judgment in dealing with me since I am, as far as I know, a member in good standing of this community. Your use of harsh words and offensive tone was derogative and completely unwarranted; I am deeply insulted and plan on quitting this board unless you apologize immediately. -AerynSun44 22:58, 1 September 2006 (CDT)

Aeryn, I did not mean to be mean spirited; I'm sorry if you viewed my words as mean spirited, I am merely concerned about ensuring that everyone remains calm. It does no one any good to act irrationally. I recognize that this is a highly emotional situation. For instance, I myself am not fond of making this decision, but all I ask is that people please wait until the evidence comes to light. Then you and everyone will better understand why I banned Merv for the ultimate good of this community. That's all I ask right now during this difficult time. Thank you. Now I'm going to get some sleep. Good night everyone. -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate} 23:15, 1 September 2006 (CDT)

As a minor point of interest, a true apology is one in which the offender says "I am sorry for what I said/did" (taking responsibility for his actions) NOT one in which the offender says "I am sorry you didn't understand what I said/did" (taking no responsibility for his actions and placing blame on the other party). There is a difference. I am inclined to observe that the efforts to reform the student may not have succeeded because the teachers suffered the same failings. This is just a hypothesis, of course.

I AM one to mince words but I will get to the point anyway (finally). You had an opportunity and ability to handle this privately with Mero. But you chose instead to make a broad, public statement via a project page and associated discussion; you CHOSE to publicly humilate someone who has worked tirelessly on behalf of your pet project when you had the opportunity to be silent and let the pieces fall where they may. From where I sit, this says much more about you and your approach to this "community" than it does about Mero. In the same project page you tout your "executive decision making" powers but try to convince us "we are all one." The latter rings false in the shadow of the former.

Whether I agree with your decision or not is really irrelevant and I certainly do not dispute your right to make the call but I have serious doubts about your sincerity in light of your approach. This doesn't feel like the results of careful consideration and thoughtful examination of facts. It feels like opportunistic public flogging designed to inflict the most damage possible and to "recruit" people to your point of view. These aren't the actions of a good, reasonable administrator.

Of course, everyone here will agree that I am no one of any importance - just the hall monitor - and my opinions don't really matter all that much but I would invite you to consider that what has transpired here (the public nature of your decision implementation) may appease a few but many others will remember this course of events in a less positive light. -AerynSun44 00:45, 2 September 2006 (CDT)

Shane's Comments

While Merv might see this as a sudden "ban", I don't really think it was. Merv has been giving tons of opportunity to mend relationships with the community a dozen of times. A simple, "Thank you" or "I am sorry." or "I made a mistake. Please forgive it." would have gone a long way.

I realize now, after all this time, that User:Peter Farago deserved a sorry from me because of the two RFC's I filled against him in protest in defending Merv's actions. While I got one a while back when my first RFC was posted by Peter.

Merv, if you want to discuss the polices that you broke, all you need to do is look up all the pages in the Battlestar Wiki namespace. The admins gave you tons of chances and though maybe a mistake on their part for now being more tough on the rules, you should have been able to follow your own suggestions as you did when voting for the BW:OR policy, the first one in-fact. The BW:TANK was created so I had an avenue to get my ideas out and you know what.. it worked. the BW:OR was for you, you didn't know that, but you through it was a good idea after the KR incident.

You say you could not use the high complex templates? I was always willing to help, yet I never got a message saying something. I hope, that you can make peace with yourself, otherwise you will never be able to get along with people in real life. If you were so ambitious why you were blocked, do a search on your username in all the forums that you do. Re-read your posts. Look at where you might have said something that might have offended people. You said once that the Battlestar Wiki article that it was deleted and should not have been because it was just like Memory Alpha. Memory Alpha is a bit larger and it has a little bit more fame since it's been around. But did you ever check the AFD page? Joe, an admin of Wikipedia, voted to delete it. (State of the Wiki II)

As for the wiki, drastic actions as in resorting to outside forums to further your cause also inside the wiki was not a good idea. When you first did it with me and the portals, I found info on two different forums. One was SciFi and the other was the GalacicaBS forums. Why am I being smeared to something that would have a positive effect on the wiki as a whole? Why?

Do you want to know why the person came to me? Because they didn't know if they could bring issues to Joe directly. It could have been the other way around and I could have been out-of-the loop up to the ban and still not what was going on. People came to be because I was fair and have always been fair. (Also since I have direct contact with Joe kinda helps, but that's a side factor). I don't know why you think it was the guys over a MS or Frackheads (?). Can't you think that it was someone who was part of the Wiki? And before you ask yourself, it was not me. Granted, I spend a ton of time here, and know what goes on, I know how people feel.

Anyway, you can contact me via email if you want. You know how.

P.S. Adminship does not grant one "ambasatorship".

P.S.S. If you can prove to the heart that you can be curtiousto others and show that you can repect over people for what they do and how they do it, you will never know if you will be allowed back here. Take this as a vacation as I did. Come back with a fresh view. It might be benifit to your understanding with Joe and the community. You can only prove it to yourself that you can be true to the guidelines of the site that you love.

--Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 14:56, 1 September 2006 (CDT)

Merv needs to grow up. The guy has shown that he has little social skills and alienates fans who don't need to know about the board politics. It's not about him; it's about the show. If he wants to show some humility he'll continue to contribute without attribution. Starting with the podcast transcriptions.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hal Levolier (talk • contribs).

So "we'll ban you but we want you to submit work anyway"? 'Some nerve' doesn't even begin to describe this comment. If Merv doesn't submit those transcripts it proves nothing other than that he understandably doesn't feel motivated to contribute anything to a community that has declared him an outcast. What else would anyone expect? The sense of entitlement here to hours of the man's free labour is kind of breathtaking. If he is banned, then let him move on with his life and find somewhere else to place his efforts. To make this kind of statement that in order to prove his humility he needs to submit not ONLY for free but without credit, is just repugnant. What has happened to this place?--Dogger 01:29, 2 September 2006 (CDT)

Okay never mind. I just checked and Hal Levolier has never edited anything around here, so while that doesn't render his opinion invalid, he wasn't (at least I hope not) expressing any expectation among the regular contributors. Merv's banned, so he's probably done contributing. Nobody should be expecting otherwise.--Dogger 01:55, 2 September 2006 (CDT)

Re-imagined Series definition: Battlestar Group ^{(TRS: "Water")}. It also doubles as an acronym for the television series itself.

Original Series definition: the equivalent of saying "objection" in a Colonial Tribunal ^{(TOS: "Murder on the Rising Star")}