Battlestar Wiki:Requests for adminship/Shane

From Battlestar Wiki, the free, open content Battlestar Galactica encyclopedia and episode guide
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that was unsuccessful. Please do not modify it.


Back to RFA.

Battlestar Wiki:Requests for adminship/Shane|action=edit}} Vote here (3/4/1) ending 18:00 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Shane (talk • contribs) – Shane has been a tireless contributor since he began actively editing mid-march. One of his first projects was also one of his most ambitious, and the Main Page redesign effort is also one of his most visible successes. (You can't miss it.) An offshoot of the main page redesign was the Portals project, which has yielded some interesting navigation pages that continue to be updated. Shane is unquestionably energetic, amassing over five thousand edits in areas ranging from the Main space, the Battlestar Wiki space (working on policy pages), and also the template space (fixing existing templates as well as creating new templates for everybody's benefit). Shane collaborated with Mercifull (and others) to provide color to the project pages with unique icons, and has been a driving force behind the featured content pages (both BW:FA and BW:FP). Most of Shane's conflicts arise from his tendency to boldly forge ahead, blazing the trail (and ruffling some feathers). Shane has improved in this regard, and even his user page has received an extensive overhaul with an up to date listing of the different projects and tasks that his is working on or planning. With regards to the number of administrators, while the current number is sufficient for the offseason, we need to be thinking ahead to the upcoming (eventually) season. Also, there have been some proposals to potentially reduce the login requirements for posting (which is another issue entirely), so there is a potential need for energetic admins who are on around the clock in order to help prevent/cleanup vandalism. Ultimately, the issue at hand is whether or not Shane would responsibly use the admin tools to perform the administrative and maintenance tasks that need to be done. He's already doing the tasks, I'm just proposing giving him the tools.

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination for adminship to the Battlestar Wiki. --Shane (T - C - E) 11:53, 23 June 2006 (CDT)
  • Would like all of you to read this before you vote: You all seem to think being "TOO BOLD" is bad. But it is not. Without situmlation or ideas or changes or content or information or being able to view the site, what whould you be able to do? Now, re-read Steelviper nomination. --Shane (T - C - E) 21:46, 23 June 2006 (CDT)
  • Withdrawn. --Shane (T - C - E) 12:01, 25 June 2006 (CDT)


  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support Per nom. --Steelviper 11:48, 23 June 2006 (CDT)
  2. Symbol support vote.svg Support --Fordsierra4x4 12:37, 23 June 2006 (CDT)
  3. Symbol support vote.svg Support While I still stand by my point about having enough US admins I dont feel that this should detract too much from the qualities Shane has especially with the amazing skills he shows at wiki syntax. While I do agree he sometimes takes a few hasty decisions I feel that so long as he continues to consult people on their opinions a bit more he would be a valuable asset to the community here --Mercifull 13:58, 23 June 2006 (CDT)


  1. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose: Shane is undoubtedly one of our wiki's finest technical contributors. Between he and Mercifull, the wiki's features, particularly that involving templates and code on the part of Shane, has greatly improved. It didn't take long after the MediaWiki update for Shane to hit the ground. His work on the sorely-needed update to the Main Page is probably his finest work. However, I must oppose his nomination at this time for two conditions. One: I have already supported Mercifull's nomination and don't feel we need to promote another contributor to adminship just yet. Two, and this is most serious, involves Shane's tendency to move too swiftly in wiki-wide changes without consulting with others for consensus. Shane appears easily bruised by criticism--a trait that can't exist with an administrator. As a result, he has shown a tendency to "go nuclear" a bit too quickly, creating not just one but two Requests for Comment against a fellow contributor--a wikipedian known for his tolerance, patience, and insight. While Shane is obviously capable of using all that MediaWiki offers, I feel he sometimes forgets when using the tools is appropriate. As Merv can attest, applying for adminship might take some time, and all of us scrutinize each other fiercely to ensure we give the right responsibility at the right time. Shane's powers are awesome as they are, and if there was a status I could vote him for in that capacity, I would. For now, I don't feel that Shane has the best temperment for being an administrator, yet. ADDENDUM: While I can understand Shane's comments on items he and I have worked on and disputed, two points come to mind when I read his responses. (1) It is critical that an administrator NEVER take an argumentative approach to discussion, which Shane unfortunately tends to do. Often, I'm afraid I see more of his wiki coding skills than his ability to lose a battle here and there so we all ultimately win the "war" together. (2) It is also important to work with guidelines to keep the wiki consistent, but not to adhere to matters in such as lock-step fashion that the guidelines are enforced as law. Battlestar Wiki works because we don't keep to the same way of doing things--once we discover a better way, test it, and vote on it. There is a "flex" to how standards and conventions are used, and Shane, as yet, frankly doesn't get it. --Spencerian 17:09, 24 June 2006 (CDT)
  2. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose: I agree with the things Spencerian said. --The Merovingian (C - E) 15:01, 23 June 2006 (CDT)
  3. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose: Per Spencerian's comments. --April Arcus 18:50, 24 June 2006 (CDT)
  4. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose: You do realize that one can oppose your adminship and still value your edits, right, Shane? Also, while one should Be Bold, there is a caveat. Click that Wikipedia link and scroll down to "Note too...". Basically the idea is this: "Be bold... but not too bold." Additionally, consistant and positive edits has, in my mind, very little to so with one's ability to be a good admin. It's a bonus, sure, but the other criteria are much more valuable. Lastly, I would consider it a grevious wrong if Peter's vote were not counted. I know him to be a level headed person who has little time for things so petty as grudges, and I trust his vote to be unmarred be personal feelings. --Day (Talk - Admin) 22:17, 24 June 2006 (CDT)


  1. Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral: Shane is an excellent contributor to the wiki, and extremely dedicated. However, he is indeed hasty in certain aspects, and this conflicts with my supporting for his adminship. In the end, I am neutral, I think he doesn't really need adminship when he already benefits the wiki more than well enough as a wikipedian, and while the adminship could help him make a lot of changes, in haste he might accidentally make others that aren't as good. Perhaps with time my opinion will change, but as of right now I'll choose to remain neutral. --Sauron18 17:10 23 June 2006 (CDT)


  • I might have to comment on each one of the opposing ones just because I need to get my point accross before someone makes their decesission final. I do this because I want to be judged fairily based on the requirments of BW:RFA and not someone's gut feelings. --Shane (T - C - E) 12:44, 23 June 2006 (CDT)
    • On Spencerian/The Merovingian/April Arcus: Spenc points out that we have to many admins and another possaible admin being nominated Mercifull, but pointing out on his user page, he clearly states that he is not around as much as he can so why wouldn't two more admins be nice to have in reserve? One part two RFC's are for resuolving disputes as the policy points out. Me and Peter have tried to work it out normally and as people can tell from many discussions that does not happen. There is no spefic "wide-wiki" instance he points out that did any harm to the wiki. (i.e. Marking images with the tag {{no tag}} isn't an issue because it would go against the policy set forth in BW:ITP -- a policy I did not create.) All "wide-wiki" instances where already done out of concenus. (I.e. Resistance to Resistance (episode)). If you were to give in on criticism and not let your point be heard clearly and loudly, the USA would not have succeded from England and this would be the UK. I have not shown disregard for the "real" admin tool of "BW:DEL" following the policy to the letter when marking pages. I also keep huge changes at, which not many people, including Spenc, have not commented on at the proper BW:MAIN page. Spenc also was wrong with the Computers page. The BW:SAC states clearly on my edit: User_talk:Shane#Rollback_Note and User_talk:Spencerian#BW:SAC. A new way is under proposed status right now, but no one else has backed it up: Battlestar_Wiki_talk:Standards_and_Conventions#Adjustment_to_Links_to_Episodes. Clearly his reason for me going "nuculer". To the ADDENDUM This wiki is not for my personal benift. I have memeorized all the shows even when watching the Show. This is for the average person who comes in, regeiters and wants to contribute. So without anyone augreeing or steping up to the beliefs that they see that might be bad for the wiki, it would be inapporipite to lay back and let it happen. The guidleines of the wiki are voted on, but as spenc points out. Then why would he make changes to the BW:BOLD pages without allowing people to compare the two version. You can not cahnge a page off the bat and expect people to agree with it like me. Plus the BW:BOLD policy is in dispute by me because it goes against the policy, but it must be removed as policy before a new one can be activiated. The {{policy}} and {{Proposed Policy}} states that the community at large the 'status quo' must agree. Not one person and certainily not an administrator, unless it is Joe. Because I have a different view on how things are run or viewed is a reason I am being (Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose) by? Clearly a personal attack on the part of Spenc. Spenc's puts on a 'happy' face when he seems to get something he wants. seems to happen alot to me, but then gets reversed. They have also never giving me the chance on trying new ideas, yet they love the Portals project, and etc. /me pats self on the back for standing up for other people than just the admins
      • This was amneded on to The Merovingian and April Arcus oppose vote.
        • The Merovingian - Talk:Resistance - Refering to (I.e. Resistance to Resistance (episode)): Merv was the one who did the change and did nothing on the part to fix the pages
          • Shane, that's not what happened. This is what Spence mentioned when he said your getting upset about Peter and letting is spread a bit, although I honestly think you do good work stuff like this has happened more than once (Though after a time it goes away, you'd have my vote on RFA)------->If you check my Contributions page (like the last 500 or so, it was a few days ago) after I disambiguated "Resistance", I proceeded to correct "Resistance (movement)" to "Caprica Resistance"....Shane was online at the same time, and simultaneously, was changing "Resistance" to "Resistance (episode)"....but if anyone checks my Contributions page you can see that 1 - I was just focusing on "Caprica Resistance" fixing first, as I can only click "edit" so fast on a given page and there were like 50 links to "resistance (movement)", which slowed me down but I'd have finished it within an hour if Shane hadn't been helping So as for "doing nothing to fix the changes", my on-record fixes to "Caprica Resistance" links disprove that. 2 - If you check my contribs, yes, about a dozen or so "Resistance" to "Resistance (episode)" changes were made by me. It was my decision to disambiguate the word "Resistance", and I think I personally updated (roughly) about half of the links to the word "Resistance". ---->Shane, if we told you that we're concerned that you react badly to things on your RFA, reacting badly to that and making accusations against other users which simply lack evidence isn't going to help. You should try to handle this more maturely. I'm sorry.--The Merovingian (C - E)
              • Addendum: I just checked my Contributions button: click "last 500 edits" and scroll down starting on June 13th: I made over 70 link fixes to "Resistance", many of them for "Resistance (episode)". --The Merovingian (C - E) 20:27, 24 June 2006 (CDT)
    • On a side note of April Arcus: Peter has no respect for me. His vote should not be counted and I will consider filling an RFC against him even in during the process unless it is discounted. --Shane (T - C - E) 18:55, 24 June 2006 (CDT)
      • That's uncalled for. I know that we've had many disagreements, but we've also had a number of successful collaborations. Please understand that, like Spencerian, I respect your abilities and initiative - it is your quick temper and poor judgement that motivate my opposition. --April Arcus 19:20, 24 June 2006 (CDT)
        • Not really. You and Spenc and made up your mind in the last RFC. Question for you, do you respect Steeelviper judgement? Opposeing this RFA means you do not. --Shane (T - C - E) 19:41, 24 June 2006 (CDT)
          • I am capable of respecting SV's judgement without agreeing with it. Please don't try and establish a false dilemma between us. --April Arcus 19:45, 24 June 2006 (CDT)
            • If that is true, your trusting his but not agree with this because you don't like me. That's all you have to say. I can't bite over the net. --Shane (T - C - E) 19:53, 24 June 2006 (CDT)
        • Repect and agreement are two different things. One can respect another person's viewpoints without agreeing with them completely. This horribly reminds me of the temperment of people who believe that "If you don't agree with me, you must be my enemy," something that has no place on a collaborative effort whatsoever. -- Joe Beaudoin So say we all - Donate 20:04, 24 June 2006 (CDT)
          • Yes: I think SteelViper is the most moderate and fair voice of anyone on BattlestarWiki (myself included), and I do not agree with his choice, but I respect his opinion and I'm not shouting but pointing out why I'm voting this way. --The Merovingian (C - E) 20:30, 24 June 2006 (CDT)
          • That's not what I statied. I stated that anything I contribute he disagrees with. There has yet to be a major contribuation that I have givin, minus his main page note, that has not gone under the close eye of peter. I only stand up for what I beleive in. He says if he doesn't comment on something he does agree with it. I do the same thing. I do not get in the discussion unless needed. So I am guessing I have the option of marking pages with {{policy}} and he will not have objection to it because he's never commented on it. --Shane (T - C - E) 20:12, 24 June 2006 (CDT)
    • Another observation during this RFA, these guys seem to like {{oppose}}. How come they didn't think of it? Why? Because they are old fastion and they must have a debate about a template that does nothing more that obvious reasons. Template:Location Data does the same thing, and peter suggest we delete it? That's just pointing out that the creation was stupid by the person who made it. If someone else created it, which I doubt because no one else would, they would not be-intact. Template_talk:Userbox is a perfect example of someone going through a concenus. Do I sence a comparision here: Template_talk:Location_Data --Shane (T - C - E) 19:10, 24 June 2006 (CDT)
      • The purpose of {{oppose}} is obvious, and the results are attractive. Under the circumstances, I see no need to call for a debate on its use. This differs from other changes you have proposed from time to time, which often call fundamental procedures into question, or agitate for the inclusion of unnecessary templates throughout entire series of articles. Your inability or unwillingness to distinguish trivialities such as {{oppose}} from major revisions, such as {{Location Data}} continues to be worrisome. --April Arcus 19:20, 24 June 2006 (CDT)
        • I am not the one with admin power do keep my guard up. I follow policy, and when you and other admins break it, I am up to the plate to stop it. Nothing more. You are {{oppose}} because you know I am right. I do accually have a high temper, and I have not blown my top over this site. I bet you some othersite could you my skills and they would want it because it would incress their fanbase. All you guys cite me for are my contributions to articles and nothing more. Gezzz.. it's that content and not templates. If you check my contribs, most of my contribs might have been on the main namespace, but most of them are "minor". Only one article I have really worked on: Colonial One, and even then went I went to ask a question of BW:OC did you object to what I was saying. I havn't jumped on yours because it's your question. We can do this all night Peter. {{Location Data}} is not a major thing if it's 5 pages, all TOS pages. I like to point out something.... as steelviper said, my user page now lists on what I am working on? Have you even commented on this things I marked? Or should I just mark them with {{policy}}. Take the next step. I do, everytime. Your the one who even said, you marked that minor? Please, I been using MediaWiki software for over a year before I came here. Wasn't that agreementive and hostile towards a person. Next time that happens, you can use {{minor-0}}. Oh... I created that for good use. Do you know what I havn't be blocked? Because I have been right and following the policy. Do you know why people get blocked? Is because they continue. I have never been blocked, warned, nor "told to stop" contrib. Are you using me as a pawn? Maybe, but I still call for your vote removal because it's baised based on previous RFC and possaiblily another RFC. --Shane (T - C - E) 19:30, 24 June 2006 (CDT)

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What duties, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Battlestar Wiki:Project List's for a list of projects.
A. Apart from my many projects I am working on the ones that I would focus the most energy are these:
  • BW:Tem – Keeping a tab on the templates everyone must use for quick and easy generation of “standardized” things that the Wiki uses
  • BW:FA and BW:FP – Keeping tabs on the nominations
  • BW:PORT – Keeping the portals clean and expanding it as needed
  • BW:News/BW:CP – Cleaning Duties Only
  • BW:SI/BW:MAIN – Keeping the overall look of the site “pretty”
I believe that most “projects” need the attention of everyone so not everything would be overlooked if I became an admin, but these are just the ones I would focus my energy level too.
2. Of your articles or contributions here, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. My favorite article that I keep tabs on is Colonial One. Since it has to do something with government, I fancy this article. Also any article would get my tender loving support if it needs it, with format and navigational help if the article needs it. Keeping an article conformed with the BW:SAC protocols in something to maintain through out the site.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A. My conflict does not lie in what I do, but in my energy in which I commit to the project. I don’t believe that there is not just one people who I had a disagreement with or agree over a “small” problem. I think this is just human nature. The ways that I have dealt with the misery and stress sometimes I just take a timeout or even work on a project that needs updating. Stepping on one’s toes is not a good idea and I don’t do it deliberately. The only recent instance I can think about is with dispute on the creation and use of the Template:Location Data in which Peter did not agree with it’s use, but as the talk page shows, there was no other serious objections to it’s use there for the dispute has been settled. In working with some new templates, standardized “warnings” and “message” templates that everyone can agree too would help future problems that arise in this area. (i.e. Warning templates).
Another problem point early on was with merv, and those have since been mended with myself nominating him on his thrid RFA. We had some of the most heated conversations and to ignore them would just be impropper.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.