Editing Battlestar Wiki:Requests for comment/April Arcus
From Battlestar Wiki, the free, open content Battlestar Galactica encyclopedia and episode guide
More actions
The edit can be undone.
Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then publish the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
| Latest revision | Your text | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
In order to remain listed at [[Battlestar Wiki:Requests for comment]], at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the ''same'' dispute with a ''single'' user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 23:11, 7 June 2006 (CDT)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: <tt>{{CURRENTTIME}}, {{CURRENTDAY}} {{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTYEAR}} (UTC)</tt>. | In order to remain listed at [[Battlestar Wiki:Requests for comment]], at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the ''same'' dispute with a ''single'' user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 23:11, 7 June 2006 (CDT)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: <tt>{{CURRENTTIME}}, {{CURRENTDAY}} {{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTYEAR}} (UTC)</tt>. | ||
---- | ---- | ||
*([[User: | *([[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] | [[User talk:Peter Farago|talk]] | [[Special:contributions/Peter Farago|contributions]]) | ||
---- | ---- | ||
''Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.'' | ''Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.'' | ||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
''This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.'' | ''This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.'' | ||
[[User: | [[User:Peter Farago|Peter Fargo]] has on a number of times, changed the "outcome" of a "consensus" (Defined as: at least two people). On his most recent "change" (reverting [[Galactica (RDM)]]) as the non FA) to make sure his "points" are heard. | ||
=== Description === | === Description === | ||
This is dealing with | This is dealing with Peter's inability to calmly work on "operationial" problems during the 11th hour. Instead, he went and made drastic mesures and reverted all the changes I worked on for three hours getting the new [[BW:FA|FA]] and new [[BW:FP|FP]] up on the front page without even consulting the users who have. | ||
On June 3rd, | On June 3rd, he added [http://www.battlestarwiki.org/wiki/Battlestar_Wiki:Featured_articles/Current_Debate#Language_in_the_Twelve_Colonies this item] to the Featured articles list and a few other items he made comments on. On June 7th, he posted his concenrs in the morning of the "date" of change about the process and the articles that "could" be potiniality the FA for the next month. | ||
During this "reverting" war, | During this "reverting" war, he said he listed his points on the "debate" page. He said that: ''Logically, if we have one featured article per month, that gives us a month each to work on the next one, which should be adequate. The vetting process for featured articles on Wikipedia results in some very high quality work, and I'd like to see that carry over to here. --Peter Farago 10:36, 7 June 2006 (CDT)''. He told me, that this are his "points". However, underneath the "Galactica (RDM)" section he posted ont he 3rd, ''A good article succsessfully rescued from the abyss by group effort several month ago. Could currently use some '''minor reformatting''' - the "running tallies" probably belong in their own article, rather than in the footnotes, and the "fleet details" section seems a little precious. --Peter Farago 15:08, 3 June 2006 (CDT)''. | ||
Now with tradistion, | Now with tradistion, he played no role in tryin to reformat this section so it could be an FA. He just left it. All other users who endorsed this article, did not mention that this was a problem. They agreed that the way it is now was worth endorsing as an [[BW:FA]]. | ||
So in | So in his power, he has "reverted" all the pages, deleted all the pages, and changed all the pages that dealt with the two new items that were on the front page without much of a sentence of ''I have reverted Shane's archival of this debate, as I do not consider it over. The June 7th deadline was declared by fiat, and has not, in my opinion, been adequately defended. Please reply to the points I have raised above before formally declaring "Galactica (RDM)" a featured article. --Peter Farago 22:34, 7 June 2006 (CDT)''. | ||
Further more, calling a user a "fiat" (arbitrary order or decree) which it turns means (based on or subject to individual discretion or preference or sometimes impulse or caprice; "an arbitrary decision"; "the arbitrary rule of a dictator"; "an arbitrary penalty"; "of arbitrary size and shape"; "an arbitrary choice"; "arbitrary division of the group into halves") is not refelct me well because on my clearly stated profession on my user page. | Further more, calling a user a "fiat" (arbitrary order or decree) which it turns means (based on or subject to individual discretion or preference or sometimes impulse or caprice; "an arbitrary decision"; "the arbitrary rule of a dictator"; "an arbitrary penalty"; "of arbitrary size and shape"; "an arbitrary choice"; "arbitrary division of the group into halves") is not refelct me well because on my clearly stated profession on my user page. | ||
In conclussion, I recommend that | In conclussion, I recommend that Peter be striped of his sysop flag. --[[User:Shane|Shane]] <sup>([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]])</sup> 23:54, 7 June 2006 (CDT) | ||
=== Evidence of disputed behavior === | === Evidence of disputed behavior === | ||
| Line 39: | Line 39: | ||
=== Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute === | === Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute === | ||
(provide diffs and links) | (provide diffs and links) | ||
:# [http://www.battlestarwiki.org/wiki/User_talk: | :# [http://www.battlestarwiki.org/wiki/User_talk:Peter_Farago#Please_prepare_to_respond_to_an_BW:RFC Peter's Talk Page] | ||
:# [http://www.battlestarwiki.org/wiki/Battlestar_Wiki:Featured_articles/Current_Debate#General_Comments The "debate"] | :# [http://www.battlestarwiki.org/wiki/Battlestar_Wiki:Featured_articles/Current_Debate#General_Comments The "debate"] | ||
=== Users certifying the basis for this dispute === | === Users certifying the basis for this dispute === | ||
''{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}'' | ''{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}'' | ||
<!-- Please note: If you did not try and fail to resolve the dispute, but agree with the summary's presentation of events, please sign in the next section. Please notify the user, via | <!-- Please note: If you did not try and fail to resolve the dispute, but agree with the summary's presentation of events, please sign in the next section. Please notify the user, via his talk page, that a conduct dispute has been raised. --> | ||
(sign with <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) | (sign with <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) | ||
| Line 92: | Line 92: | ||
'''Issue 3: Failure to contribute to [[Galactica (RDM)]]''' | '''Issue 3: Failure to contribute to [[Galactica (RDM)]]''' | ||
Shane writes that "with tradistion, | Shane writes that "with tradistion, he [Peter] played no role in tryin to reformat this section so it could be an FA. He just left it." | ||
My only response to this is that my time is limited and I did not become aware of the June 7th deadline until Steelviper announced it the previous day. If we were not currently spending our energies on this RFC, I would probably be contributing to the article right now. | My only response to this is that my time is limited and I did not become aware of the June 7th deadline until Steelviper announced it the previous day. If we were not currently spending our energies on this RFC, I would probably be contributing to the article right now. | ||
| Line 98: | Line 98: | ||
'''Issue 4: Personal Attacks''' | '''Issue 4: Personal Attacks''' | ||
I did not "[call] a user a 'fiat'" - I'm not even sure what it would mean if I did so. I did state that the June 7th deadline had been declared '''by''' fiat, without community input, and thus lacked legitimacy, but I am completely baffled as to how Shane has misconstrued this as a personal attack. --[[User: | I did not "[call] a user a 'fiat'" - I'm not even sure what it would mean if I did so. I did state that the June 7th deadline had been declared '''by''' fiat, without community input, and thus lacked legitimacy, but I am completely baffled as to how Shane has misconstrued this as a personal attack. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 00:42, 8 June 2006 (CDT) | ||
Users who endorse this summary (sign with <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>): | Users who endorse this summary (sign with <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>): | ||
| Line 112: | Line 112: | ||
One problem that I think permeates many of our special articles that require major consensus (such as standards) involves the relative speed in which some things happen. Many of us visit the wiki daily, others not so much. To place a deadline of less than 2 weeks for a major article or format change not defined in some way by our current standards and guidelines will cause unnecessary rushing. This is what I see with the Featured Articles. | One problem that I think permeates many of our special articles that require major consensus (such as standards) involves the relative speed in which some things happen. Many of us visit the wiki daily, others not so much. To place a deadline of less than 2 weeks for a major article or format change not defined in some way by our current standards and guidelines will cause unnecessary rushing. This is what I see with the Featured Articles. | ||
Further, dispite the points that define a FA, I haven't seen a "checklist" that confirmed that [[Galactica (RDM)]] was indeed ready. Because of this I concern myself more than we haven't completed what is necessary to ''qualify'' an FA, much less approve one for use. In that line of observation, I see | Further, dispite the points that define a FA, I haven't seen a "checklist" that confirmed that [[Galactica (RDM)]] was indeed ready. Because of this I concern myself more than we haven't completed what is necessary to ''qualify'' an FA, much less approve one for use. In that line of observation, I see Peter's point. | ||
I see Shane's frustration, but also must remind him and others that actions on a wiki cannot and should not be too rapid. We are an encyclopedia, not a newspaper or even a magazine, and need to be careful in rushing ''anything'' other than to prevent widescale changes that disrupt the purpose of the wiki (such as stopping vandals). All else takes time. Likewise, there needs to be an agreed-upon timeframe where discussions can be wrapped up. Again, two weeks may be a sufficient time for this, although for the more youthful of us, this could seem like an eternity. Others must chime in or consensus is not reached, but merely opinion. Shane's request to strip | I see Shane's frustration, but also must remind him and others that actions on a wiki cannot and should not be too rapid. We are an encyclopedia, not a newspaper or even a magazine, and need to be careful in rushing ''anything'' other than to prevent widescale changes that disrupt the purpose of the wiki (such as stopping vandals). All else takes time. Likewise, there needs to be an agreed-upon timeframe where discussions can be wrapped up. Again, two weeks may be a sufficient time for this, although for the more youthful of us, this could seem like an eternity. Others must chime in or consensus is not reached, but merely opinion. Shane's request to strip Peter of admin privileges is ''non sequitur'' since, as Peter noted, the tasks he believed were appropriate could be done by any contributor account (there's a lot less to being an admin than some believe). Steelviper's self-admitted arbitrary time frame might have set a hasty deadline that was too fast for most of us. | ||
I recommend a handful of things: (1) Don't feel pressured to move forward without true consensus. (2) We have plenty of admins that can also assume the role of moderator in addition to adding their two cents. Contributors can defer to admins to close discussions after a two week period, and we will summarize the points and define what consensus came from the discussion. (3) If a topic or change is controversial or needs attention, do what has already been done--add a banner to the main page to note the need for all user comments. | I recommend a handful of things: (1) Don't feel pressured to move forward without true consensus. (2) We have plenty of admins that can also assume the role of moderator in addition to adding their two cents. Contributors can defer to admins to close discussions after a two week period, and we will summarize the points and define what consensus came from the discussion. (3) If a topic or change is controversial or needs attention, do what has already been done--add a banner to the main page to note the need for all user comments. | ||
With that: [[Galactica (RDM)]] has not been properly defined as a FA based on the list of items on the project page. | With that: [[Galactica (RDM)]] has not been properly defined as a FA based on the list of items on the project page. Peter apparently believes this but may not have detailed the points of the article that has failed. Peter may have been abrupt in closing discussion, but his basis was his opinion that sufficient time has elaped on this discussion, while Shane disagreeed. Both were trying to fit things to an arbitrary deadline. FA do not need to be a monthly change, so we don't necessarily need to rush to make this happen. A FA is an FA when it's an FA. Recommend that we close this RFC, note the qualifiers for the FAC article and check consensus in two weeks time from 6/8/06. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 12:50, 8 June 2006 (CDT) | ||
*'''Comment:''' I think you have our names reversed in the last paragraph. --[[User: | *'''Comment:''' I think you have our names reversed in the last paragraph. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 16:32, 9 June 2006 (CDT) | ||
Users who endorse this summary (sign with <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>): | Users who endorse this summary (sign with <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>): | ||
| Line 130: | Line 130: | ||
{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.} | {Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.} | ||
'''The Merovingian's Comment''': I agree with much of Spencerian's call for moderation in this. I think Galactica (RDM) was fine myself, and if it needed tweaks, it had enough votes by people who thought it didn't (3-4) that I think it passed: granted, we're all new at this system. Generally, I agree with Shane's basic feeling that the thing should have gone up, however, such a drastic claim that | '''The Merovingian's Comment''': I agree with much of Spencerian's call for moderation in this. I think Galactica (RDM) was fine myself, and if it needed tweaks, it had enough votes by people who thought it didn't (3-4) that I think it passed: granted, we're all new at this system. Generally, I agree with Shane's basic feeling that the thing should have gone up, however, such a drastic claim that Peter be somehow stripped of his Administrator status over such a disagreement is just letting anger talk; such a move would be unwarranted. Look guys, we just need to work a few kinks out, but with a little more work things will be fine and we don't need to go to war over this. --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] <sup>([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]])</sup> 17:19, 8 June 2006 (CDT) | ||
Users who endorse this summary (sign with <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>): | Users who endorse this summary (sign with <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>): | ||
| Line 147: | Line 147: | ||
Since the issue of admin tools (and the removal thereof) is brought up, I wish to comment on it: | Since the issue of admin tools (and the removal thereof) is brought up, I wish to comment on it: | ||
I find that calling for an admin to be stripped of | I find that calling for an admin to be stripped of his status is seriously unnerving to me on a personal level. Calling for such things shouldn't be done lightly; the admin position has a lot of responsibility attached to it, with (admittedly) very little to show for it, in some cases. The duty is thankless, in my view, and I appreciate the efforts of every admin who goes above and beyond the call of duty, as it were, to do their best to make this wiki what it is right now. The same goes for the contributors -- because that is because '''everyone''' is a contributor, regardless of what tools are at their disposal. | ||
Also, as | Also, as Peter correctly points out, no admin-level tools were used incorrectly, from my determination. Anyone could have done page moves, reverts and edits. | ||
Now, I don't feel like saying anything else, since Spencerian said what I, as of this writing, would have said had he not beaten me to it. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]]</sup> 17:45, 9 June 2006 (CDT) | Now, I don't feel like saying anything else, since Spencerian said what I, as of this writing, would have said had he not beaten me to it. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]]</sup> 17:45, 9 June 2006 (CDT) | ||
==Discussion== | ==Discussion== | ||
''All'' signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to [[Battlestar Wiki talk:Requests for comment/ | ''All'' signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to [[Battlestar Wiki talk:Requests for comment/Peter Farago|this page's discussion page]]. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page. | ||