Editing Battlestar Wiki:Requests for comment/April Arcus (2)
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 15: | Line 15: | ||
=== Description === | === Description === | ||
Accused me of not sharing a [[BW:BOLD|BOLD]] idea in which I have already implemented with a new template I had created, [[Template:Location Data]]. | Accused me of not sharing a [[BW:BOLD|BOLD]] idea in which I have already implemented with a new template I had created, [[Template:Location Data]]. He posted stuff on my talk page, which was innaproite for "furthing" development of the intened template. If he had a suggestionn on it's use and it's creation, instead of crizing me for creating and implementing it on '''five''' articles on my talk page, he could have done it at [[template talk:Location Data]] with the understanding that it would be worked upon. | ||
Peter couninully does this to me in everything I do, even when we first created the [[BW:PORT]] system, in which, he is now a contribuater. HOWEVER, in a recent Gtalk message from Peter, he was glad on my initaitive on the [[BW:OC]] project - "''nice initiative on the Oficial Comminques [ Communiques ] page''". He changes his mood every mintue towards new things. --[[User:Shane|Shane]] <sup>([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]])</sup> 16:21, 10 June 2006 (CDT) | |||
=== Evidence of disputed behavior === | === Evidence of disputed behavior === | ||
| Line 50: | Line 50: | ||
=== 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 83: | Line 83: | ||
'''Spencerian's Comment:''' I'm getting the disturbing feeling that a potentially useful tool for resolving disputes (the first time I've seen it used here) has already been abused. | '''Spencerian's Comment:''' I'm getting the disturbing feeling that a potentially useful tool for resolving disputes (the first time I've seen it used here) has already been abused. | ||
We have all have had some dispute here with a fellow contributor, most minor, some not. I've had a few comments back and forth with | We have all have had some dispute here with a fellow contributor, most minor, some not. I've had a few comments back and forth with Peter early on, but I began to understand ''how'' and ''why'' he saw things for the wiki. I've actually began to adopt some of his practices (concision, mostly) and watched his neutral tone when managing changes. | ||
As I've said before in Shane's first RFC, the Wiki is NOT designed for massive, fast changes. Time is needed for all to adjust, not only to understand, but to ensure that we all work with the same tools in the same way. | As I've said before in Shane's first RFC, the Wiki is NOT designed for massive, fast changes. Time is needed for all to adjust, not only to understand, but to ensure that we all work with the same tools in the same way. | ||
| Line 89: | Line 89: | ||
I've already said what's needed in RFC #1, which brings me to the point where I must praise and admonish Shane with equal vigor. Shane is a powerful wikipedian with great technical skills. Between he and Mercifull (among others), I've watched many positive changes that have enhanced the wiki aesthetically, and I hope for this to continue. But Shane appears easily bruised by comments or critiques. This is a wiki: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then don't submit it here." Harsh commentary on what you add is also part of the process, and anyone must be prepared to receive a little of this. | I've already said what's needed in RFC #1, which brings me to the point where I must praise and admonish Shane with equal vigor. Shane is a powerful wikipedian with great technical skills. Between he and Mercifull (among others), I've watched many positive changes that have enhanced the wiki aesthetically, and I hope for this to continue. But Shane appears easily bruised by comments or critiques. This is a wiki: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then don't submit it here." Harsh commentary on what you add is also part of the process, and anyone must be prepared to receive a little of this. | ||
Shane's actions in the adjustments of templates that affect several articles is an issue I would have also called him on, just as | Shane's actions in the adjustments of templates that affect several articles is an issue I would have also called him on, just as Peter did. While no policy I can think of dictates that every single little change requires consensus voting, it is important for Shane or others to ensure that all contributors have some fair warning of what "bright ideas" you (as a contributor) might have to improve an article. Templates, splits, moves--whatever. A good contributor not only is skilled with his talent, but also ensures that everyone has had time to chime in on whether your idea is OK or has problems. Shane, in my opinion (and buoyed by past successful changes that were initiated without complaint) made a change that wasn't a good idea (or, at least, questioned after it was already implemented). Again, Shane and others must learn to advise others and wait a day or two before making changes that affect more than one article at a time. Reverting is a bitch to do on such a level, and contributors must remember that such changes also change the "face" of the wiki in such a way that could not sit right with the main body. | ||
Now, because I've had to read and research ''two'' RFCs within days of each others that appear hastily drawn up to what appear to be disputes that could have been handled with some time to cool down (for instance, cease template edits while we all wrap our heads around the changes) and some extra third-party comments from other contributors, I'm worried that Shane is creating a "cry wolf" effect. From what I understand, RFCs are for very serious issues that can change wiki policy or user access. Unfortunately I wonder if the cavalier use of RFCs require ''Battlestar Wiki'' to create a policy on how or when RFCs can be created. As an admin, I '''must''' stop what else I'm doing to view an RFC since this falls under aid in disputes as well as reciting policy. I'd rather be doing something else more enjoyable on the wiki. And if I need to review an RFC again, I'd prefer it to be for something very important. Even the most argumentative of us to date has learned to cool down and know when they are in the wrong. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 09:27, 11 June 2006 (CDT) | Now, because I've had to read and research ''two'' RFCs within days of each others that appear hastily drawn up to what appear to be disputes that could have been handled with some time to cool down (for instance, cease template edits while we all wrap our heads around the changes) and some extra third-party comments from other contributors, I'm worried that Shane is creating a "cry wolf" effect. From what I understand, RFCs are for very serious issues that can change wiki policy or user access. Unfortunately I wonder if the cavalier use of RFCs require ''Battlestar Wiki'' to create a policy on how or when RFCs can be created. As an admin, I '''must''' stop what else I'm doing to view an RFC since this falls under aid in disputes as well as reciting policy. I'd rather be doing something else more enjoyable on the wiki. And if I need to review an RFC again, I'd prefer it to be for something very important. Even the most argumentative of us to date has learned to cool down and know when they are in the wrong. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 09:27, 11 June 2006 (CDT) | ||