Memory Beta, non-canon Star Trek Wiki

A friendly reminder regarding spoilers! At present the expanded Trek universe is in a period of major upheaval with the finale of Year Five, the Coda miniseries and the continuations of Discovery, Picard and Lower Decks; and the premieres of Prodigy and Strange New Worlds, the advent of new eras in Star Trek Online gaming, as well as other post-55th Anniversary publications. Therefore, please be courteous to other users who may not be aware of current developments by using the {{spoiler}}, {{spoilers}} or {{majorspoiler}} tags when adding new information from sources less than six months old. Also, please do not include details in the summary bar when editing pages and do not anticipate making additions relating to sources not yet in release. 'Thank You


Memory Beta, non-canon Star Trek Wiki
Ten ForwardWhy is this wiki not allowing admin status for major contributors (Reply | Watch)

I would like to understand the rules here more; because this is very different from other wikis I have been a part of. I have a lot of information (countless hours worth) that I can add over the next few months. However, I am being told that I can not do this under admin status.

Most wiki's make admins of people who are building and expanding the wiki. What makes this different. Are you a group of friends who started this long ago and won't let anyone in?

it just is difficult to comprehend how you are not interested in having all the novels filled out as well as many missing piece of information added to your wiki. While this is a great resource, it is far from comprehensive.

I would appreciate someone making an intelligent reply instead of just copy/paste something from your terms and conditions.

Thank you Grathon Tolar (talk) 21:02, May 8, 2016 (UTC)

Are you, or have you been, a major contributor?
You don't get admin status for "offering" material. You get it for contributing to Memory Beta, and the other Memory Beta contributors agreeing that you deserve it.
That's what you've been told previously. That's what you'll be told again. -- sulfur (talk) 10:22, May 9, 2016 (UTC)

Basically you are saying give you all my knowledge and hours of work for no reason; and then maybe one day, you will recognize me (or likely not it seems). No wonder there are so many gaps in your information pool. This is an old boy's club or something.

The point of a wiki is to give your work for free based on our license. As I said last time we answered one of your bait messages, if you are not willing to contribute, for free, according to our license, then you are welcome to leave.
These continuing insults are pointless and really betray your intentions to troll participants in the wiki. I myself nominated a newer major contributor for admin status last year and the user declined. Admin status is not a reward of any sort, it is a tedious task and it is not appropriate to give it to anyone who is not 100% on board with the wiki's established policy and licensing, and is reserved for someone who can be trusted to a reasonable level of discourse.
Since you've had nothing but baseless accusations and zero contributions to the wiki, you've really proven that you are not cut out for any sort of cooperative task here, so are we done yet? -- Captain MKB 19:43, May 9, 2016 (UTC)

To turn away major packages of information over dogma or fear or insecurity is short sighted. Grathon Tolar (talk) 19:24, May 9, 2016 (UTC)

I don't think so. I'd rather pool information with people who are cooperative. Star Trek publications are everywhere, so anyone in the world can access the entire body of valid information that can be instantly added to the wiki. I'd actually rather prefer that people with attitudes like yours stay as far away from the wiki as possible, and we'll get that information from those with better collaborative skills.
To put it simply, anything you have we can get elsewhere from someone with better character. And once that person proves their character, we'll make them a fellow admin -- Captain MKB 19:47, May 9, 2016 (UTC)

Well, what can I say. If you were able to "get it from elsewhere" you would have it already. The fact is, very few people are willing to put in 40 hours of time updating some novel summaries and plotlines, with all the appropriate links and formatting and so on. Can anyone buy a stack of books, read them, and make wiki pages? Sure, however, most won't. You call my character into question? Do you guys have any social experience? This is not the way you treat people. Hey, I get it. You are a little group, you don't trust anyone not to smash your wiki to bits, so no body gets in the door. Isolationists. That is your choice. However, my character is not in question simply because you disagree with my request for sufficient board access for all of my effort, does not mean I lack anything. You can continue to take pride in an incomplete resource and if that is what makes you and your little group happy, live in your own bliss. Hoarding everything to yourselves is really unbecoming and perhaps your character should be in question.

And, it is not collaboration if it is grossly unbalanced in favor of one side. That is called exploitation which you seem to be supporting. Thank youGrathon Tolar (talk) 23:06, May 9, 2016 (UTC)

I'm curious. Which wikis offer a guaranteed place as an admin after a certain number of contributions? And why do you want to be an admin so badly? Is there some policy that you want to change? NetSpiker (talk) 12:51, May 10, 2016 (UTC)
I've made tens of thousands of edits, and I don't feel exploited.
The fact of the matter is, you dont need admin rights to make a simple edit. You're completely mistaken on that point, Grathon Tolar, and have clearly illustrated your unwillingness to take part in the wiki as a normal contributor.
We've answered all your concerns, and proved that youve never contributed or provided any information whatsoever, so I'd hope your disruption here is complete. -- Captain MKB 12:55, May 10, 2016 (UTC)

Why do I want to be admin so badly? I don't want it "Badly". I just feel that serious contributors should have a place in the management of a wiki. You can frame it as a reward or payment, I frame it as I am serious about making this better and want to be part of "the group". Look, it's pretty obvious this is a bunch of guys who don't like outsiders and want to keep it their own little castle. If being the guardians of a Trek wiki bring you peace at night, so be it. As for the other person saying you make tens of thousands of works are are not exploited. Well, you are an admin, are you not? So, you are part of the leadership and that makes a difference. Lots of people want to live their life as the worker on the bottom, that's not for me. I am a leader and when I make a major impact on a place I want to be part of the leadership. Pretty simple. I don't know if you guys have careers or social lives; if you do then I find it odd you would hold to such draconian beliefs. I mean, you are so offended and call out my character because I talk and ask questions. You want this place to be dead, no talking, no discussion, no social interaction... maybe that works for your lives. Not for most humans.Grathon Tolar (talk) 17:16, May 10, 2016 (UTC)

Admins are not really leaders since they can't order people around. Admins can make policies, protect pages, delete pages or ban users. These are the only real differences between an admin and a regular editor. Unless you want to do one of those four things, I don't understand why you want to be an admin. NetSpiker (talk) 03:24, May 11, 2016 (UTC)

You don't understand, I get it. I think there is only one view that is acceptable here and everyone else can piss off. I have my reasons which I attempted to explain, and I think it is a fair agreement to share the wiki with people who are willing to put in 40+ hours. That is just me and I live in the real world. This is not run like a real world with social grace and integrity, that is ok. I guess sometimes we have to accept that Trek stereotypes (poor social skills) unfortunately do exist. It flabbergasts me that the amount of hours I am offering to this wiki is being turned away. I really did not expect this kind of awful reception to my arrival. On we go.Grathon Tolar (talk) 06:33, May 11, 2016 (UTC)

Once again, you've mis-stated the actual situation in order to martyr yourself.
A great many new contributors to any wiki are vandals and trolls. We are not automatically defensive because that would be unwelcoming to actual honest users.
But as a vetting process we require any user to show that they know how the wiki is supposed to work and participate. Admin rights could do great damage to the data and the website itself if given to a vandal, and when it comes down to it, you have proven yourself to be irrational and insulting, on top of having performed zero edits. Stop making it sound like there is anything to it like this.
To go to a job interview, you would have to develop some 'social grace and integrity' that your online persona apparently lacks, so please stop turning this around as an attack on the character of the dedicated users of this site.
If this were a real workplace, you also would not be instantly hired for an actual paying job on the promise of 'quality work' that you could not demonstrate any proficiency for, and the wiki is no different. We have no way of knowing who you are or what you are actually capable of, except for your comments, which have been rude non sequiturs.
I make this final comment to defend the wiki contributors against your personal attacks against their character, because you have not gotten an 'awful reception' except for an honest defense against your blatant insults. -- Captain MKB 13:57, May 12, 2016 (UTC)