I'm still not comfortable with things being discussed like this off the wiki - why not 'get your people together' on the wiki? The point of a wiki is openness. For all everyone is complaining about how they don't like dealing with me, there have been few who simply asked 'what is the current procedure/policy' and 'how can i change the current procedure policy'... most of the discussions opened on the wiki are outrage over someones supposed inability to do something they were completely free to do in the first place -- all they would have to do was avoid starting the conversation with an abusive tone, or simply start the conversation before starting the confrontation.
We wish to speak with one voice when we present this letter. To that end, I have contacted people who have indicated they would support changes in Memory Beta policies and am soliciting their advice before we present this letter, co-signed by all who indicate their final approval. So far as I am aware, there is no rule against developing alternate policy suggestions in private before presenting them to the larger community for debate and for a vote to approve or disapprove. Until then, the current policies at Memory Beta remain in effect, and once presented, the Memory Beta community will have the final say on what happens.
I would just like to make it clear, here and now, that I posted here, not out of malice to Captainmike, but really out of shock that so many users had felt upset or angry from their experiences on Memory Beta. As I stated in my earlier post I have received an email with a former user expressing similar concerns, and when I visited here I found that it was a more widespread problem than I thought. Calling this a vicious campaign of hatred is a bit far of the mark though really. I suspect, like me, that people discovered this thread and realized that they weren't alone in their feelings. The thread has only existed for a couple of days and the decision to approach MB has only been recent, so not exactly pre-determined. As Sci has said, we wish to approach as a united front to show our strength of feeling on this matter, which I believe would be diminished should we approach it individually. Please don't believe that we bear you any ill will, we just simply wish to work with you to make Memory Beta the buzzing hive of community once again, where people apprieciate others work, work together to create such works and then vote for them to be featured articles. Sure, there's bound to be some disagreements, but isn't that what democracy is all about.
i just find it disturbing that so many people have such deep problems with the site that they haven't been able to open up about in the proper manner, besides starting petty fights and otherwise skulking off the wiki has been been open, i've nominated several ongoing contributors to adminship, but everytime a discussion comes up it is approached as a confrontation, and i am personally blamed for it everytime someone has a bad experience. the fact remains, i only dish out what i receive. nobody has honestly opened a dialogue except to argue and confront me rather than suggesting a positive change. somebody earlier was going through my talk archive for laughs -- they missed the fact that the first conversation i started, i actually asked for the wiki to be a little more welcoming after i wasn't well received, and was shouted down with a stream of obscenities. no one has started a bbs thread about how that contributor should change his ways.
I'm not saying that that isn't true, after all everyone has got heated and confrontational in discussions in the past, you yourself have been confrontational on occasions. I have to ask if there isn't at least a part of you that isn't concerned that others have been made to feel so upset and angry by visiting Memory Beta, even if you feel that you have no part in it. After all, you championed Memory Beta being a pleasurable experience for everybody, and this thread proves it hasn't been. Your hurt, we get that, but we are trying to move on and put all of this behind us. Of course, it won't be easy, but we've got to at least try.
'coup' -- sounds pretty confrontational! i wonder what other assassinated persons wondered what was beingdiscussed behind the door where a liar said 'we're doing this for your own good'
i'm willing to try, but everyone here is so focused on getting rid of me (Sci's 'coup') and not working with me... i've helped nominate a handful of admins, most of whom never even spoke to me or came back after i tried to recognize their efforts. no one has ever given me the respect of approaching me as a peer (like wikis should run) and trying to work it out without the confrontation. everyone skips right to the confrontation
"Coup" is the wrong word, originally used in jest probably and has always had quotation marks around it. As I said earlier, everyone has been confrontational in the past, and possibly will be again. After all, when a user has taken time to contribute an article and then seconds later have a terse message on the talk page about it being completely wrong, or have a snarky comment about using the incorrect categories then obviously things are going to be heated at first. Its just Human nature. From my perspective, the discussions on Memory Beta never seem to get anywhere due to the limited perspective. Things would just go around and around in circles and we'd just end up arguing for the sake of it. People never sought to communicate on MB with you, because like me, they had grown tired of the place and left. I've barely visited in the past four or five months and when seeing a discussion about the place I decided to join it and put my view-point forward. And for the record, I don't believe that everyone has got together on here to have a laugh at your expense. I visit daily and haven't even seen your named mentioned until today. As for respect, maybe some here have been disrespectful in the past. I see you believe, correctly, that you treat as you are treated. That's fair enough, if we are to have a fresh start here then I believe everyone should proceed on that basis. After all, a little civility and politeness goes a long way. That applies to all.
Unfortunately, the well has been nicely poisoned at both ends. At the TrekBBS end, this thread really started by complaining about Mike's reversions, which were done as per the policy decided on at MB late last year (that policy is: if there's no inherent contradiction, treat it as valid. otherwise, note the possible contradictions). Those complaints were quickly aided by insults, including David Mack calling Mike a "douche" and commenting about sticking a boot up his ass, then talk of a "coup" from Sci (even if jokingly). The current STO/TrekLit policy is really an extension of the prior one that simply tries to take everything as "valid", unless it contradicts. I've personally never been the biggest fan of that as regards STO, but there were a number of users who presented some decent arguments at the time, and heck, the comics tied really closely into the new movie that were plotted by the screenwriters threaten to contradict what is going on in the TrekLit timeline, simply by leading toward the Path to 2409 timeline. In short -- it's in everyone's best interests to take a step back, cool down, and think about more diplomatic ways to approach this situation, especially if there is any desire to continue to have MB be such a resource to authors of TrekLit (and it's obviously been a big resource, else it wouldn't be acknowledged in so many novels as having been useful!). Sci: Yes, new policy suggestions would be more than welcome, but don't throw it on the table just pointing out how many TrekBBS people have "co-signed" it. A bunch of brand-new users with no contribution history other than the occasional talk page message has the appearance of sock-puppetry. The only way that MB can improve is to be civil in the matter (and this goes for everyone, on both sides, and goes for comments here and there). If you've got issues, bring them up there. Don't hide them in a "Fate of the Terran Empire" thread over here.
This discussion has a very old-school trekbbs vibe. I half expect somebody to post a link to some Memory Beta version of the Briefing Room threads.
why doesn't MB go along the lines of what the Transformers and GI Joe wikis do when detailing a character's history in one particular medium 'universe'? take for example, Optimus Prime. There's a page for the original G1 Prime, said page will feature a general over-view of his defining characteristics, this is then followed by seperate CLEARLY DELINEATED sections on the various tie-in media. EG: Marvel US comics Marvel UK comics G1 cartoons Japanese G1 cartoons Japanese G1 comics or G1 related comics like Kiss Players Dreamwave comics IDW comics. in the same fashion, a page for the A Real American Hero version of, say, Snake Eyes would have a main section on his character and then sections on: Marvel US comics Marvel UK comics Sunbow cartoon DIC cartoon Devils Due comics IDW comics. in this way, for example, Janeway's page could go: Main section on TV career sub-sections for: Elite Force video game novels set during the series comics set during the series post-series novels STO this way, you can clearly see which section's which and what happened where. the Shatnerverse novels could then be a sub-section of the post-series novels, or series novels, sections. then you can bung a bit on the end for Alternate Janeways like the ones from Echos, the Myriad Universes books and Mirror-Janeway. seemples?
If you're referring to me, yes I looked through your talk page, because someone had made reference to you joining under somewhat unfortunate circumstances and I wanted to see if this was the case... I merely raised the fact that your arrival at Memory Beta led to you advocating a radical shift that seemed to fly in the face of popular opinion, and that there were some rather zealous actions made... I did make a regrettable comment, which I expunged and apologised for. However since your talk page remains public, I don't see the issue in it being examined. Some people here had alluded to a pattern of behaviour, I wanted to see if they were correct. I apologise if I was out of line. Quick question, who's in charge at MB?
That's a joke. The letter is mostly about continuity policy, and at no point are we asking for anyone not to be an admin anymore.
Again -- I'm the one personally attacked, both here and on Memory Beta -- but you're eager to join the crew making digs against me when I remind the group of my right to seek higher power help.
I'm still a little confused. Isn't Memory Beta supposed to be apocryphal? As in encompassing all non-canon Star Trek? I don't get what the deal is with attempting to ignore something from the novels in favor of Star Trek Online? Isn't that the issue at the heart of this debate? Since I barely go to MB I'm unaware of the sites official policy regarding Star Trek non-canon and am only going on assumption. Shouldn't both the novels and Online data be included in entries for the site?
Indeed it is your right to seek help and advice from those at wikia and I applaud you doing so, if no agreement can be reached at wiki level. However, to go there and say that we are plotting to de-sysop you and run you out the wiki is ridiculous. The only person involved in this group who has bureaucratic rights is me, and I would never, ever do such a thing. Besides which, once bureaucratic rights have been granted then they cannot be removed at wiki level, it has to be done by Wikia itself. But do we really want to see things reach such a level?
The various "flames" that took place occurred prior to captainmkb's registration here at TBBS so no one is getting warned for those since the policy is you can't flame people who post here, and at the time, he didn't. Now, since he's with us, this can't happen anymore, obviously. And I must say I'm very happy to see that everyone has made a concerted effort to not do that since his arrival and even all the various edits and deletes prior to his arrival. Several of you have said that MB and it's policies should be discussed over at MB and not here. Yes, it should, so let's go ahead and finally make that be the last of that and get back on with discussion of the MU and its fate. If there's nothing to discuss about that then let the thread die, lest I be forced to kill it.