Battlestar Wiki:Requests for comment/April Arcus (2) - Revision history

April Arcus: name change

2020-04-11T06:14:05Z

name change

April Arcus: April Arcus moved page Battlestar Wiki:Requests for comment/Peter Farago (2) to Battlestar Wiki:Requests for comment/April Arcus (2) without leaving a redirect: name change

2020-04-11T06:02:09Z

April Arcus moved page Battlestar Wiki:Requests for comment/Peter Farago (2) to Battlestar Wiki:Requests for comment/April Arcus (2) without leaving a redirect: name change

← Older revision	Revision as of 06:02, 11 April 2020
(No difference)

Joe Beaudoin Jr.: Text replacement - "Peter Farago" to "April Arcus"

2020-04-11T01:54:40Z

Text replacement - "Peter Farago" to "April Arcus"

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:54, 11 April 2020
Line 7:		Line 7:
	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: 16:04, 10 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: 16:04, 10 June 2006 (CDT)}), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: <tt>{{CURRENTTIME}}, {{CURRENTDAY}} {{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTYEAR}} (UTC)</tt>.
	----		----
	*([[User:~~Peter Farago~~\|~~Peter Farago~~]] \| [[User talk:~~Peter Farago~~\|talk]] \| [[Special:contributions/~~Peter Farago~~\|contributions]])		*([[User:April Arcus\|April Arcus]] \| [[User talk:April Arcus\|talk]] \| [[Special:contributions/April Arcus\|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 66:		Line 66:
	''		''

	I have always held that effective communication is vital - it's one of the first things listed on my [[User:~~Peter Farago~~\|user page]]. I believe that this has been a weak spot for Shane since the beginning of his time with us, and I do not apologize for continuing to make an issue of it. Furthermore, my tone on his talk page was entirely civil. Shane appears to have some difficulty accepting criticism, which has also been a problem in [[User talk:The Merovingian#Point Out Mistakes\|the past]].		I have always held that effective communication is vital - it's one of the first things listed on my [[User:April Arcus\|user page]]. I believe that this has been a weak spot for Shane since the beginning of his time with us, and I do not apologize for continuing to make an issue of it. Furthermore, my tone on his talk page was entirely civil. Shane appears to have some difficulty accepting criticism, which has also been a problem in [[User talk:The Merovingian#Point Out Mistakes\|the past]].

	If I may digress briefly, there is a certain danger in allowing useless templates to proliferate - they tend to quickly become the status quo and then become resistant to attempts at removing them. I think - as with most major changes to the wiki - that these kinds of additions should be vetted ''before'' they are implemented. Although this problem is not relevant to the [[BW:OC]] project, and I did not in fact have a problem with it, that too could have benefited from a brief discussion here.		If I may digress briefly, there is a certain danger in allowing useless templates to proliferate - they tend to quickly become the status quo and then become resistant to attempts at removing them. I think - as with most major changes to the wiki - that these kinds of additions should be vetted ''before'' they are implemented. Although this problem is not relevant to the [[BW:OC]] project, and I did not in fact have a problem with it, that too could have benefited from a brief discussion here.

	Lastly, I must note that I find Shane's recent behavior toward me extremely disconcerting. Without wishing to make an accusation as such, his recent [[Battlestar Wiki:Requests for comment/~~Peter Farago~~\|request]] that I be stripped of my adminship, combined with his comments today, have begun to feel like a campaign of harassment. --[[User:~~Peter Farago~~\|~~Peter Farago~~]] 00:18, 11 June 2006 (CDT)		Lastly, I must note that I find Shane's recent behavior toward me extremely disconcerting. Without wishing to make an accusation as such, his recent [[Battlestar Wiki:Requests for comment/April Arcus\|request]] that I be stripped of my adminship, combined with his comments today, have begun to feel like a campaign of harassment. --[[User:April Arcus\|April Arcus]] 00:18, 11 June 2006 (CDT)

	Users who endorse this summary (sign with <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>):		Users who endorse this summary (sign with <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>):

April Arcus at 08:03, 25 June 2006

2006-06-25T08:03:14Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:03, 25 June 2006
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{\| align=center style="background: #850000; border: 1px solid #1F0B0B; padding: .2em; margin-bottom: 3px; width: auto;"
			\| style="padding-right: 4px; padding-left: 4px;" \| [[Image:BSG-WIKI SM.png\|60px\|]]
			\| '''Please Note'''<br><span style="font-size: 90%"> This page is an ''archive'' of a ''failed RFC''. It has been temporarily restored as evidence for the duration of [[Battlestar Wiki:Requests for comment/Shane]]. </span>
			\|}


	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: 16:04, 10 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: 16:04, 10 June 2006 (CDT)}), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: <tt>{{CURRENTTIME}}, {{CURRENTDAY}} {{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTYEAR}} (UTC)</tt>.
	----		----

Spencerian: /* Outside view */

2006-06-11T14:27:29Z

Outside view

New page

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: 16:04, 10 June 2006 (CDT)}), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: <tt>{{CURRENTTIME}}, {{CURRENTDAY}} {{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTYEAR}} (UTC)</tt>.
----
*([[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.''
==Statement of the dispute==
''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.''

=== 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]]. 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 ===
(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)
:# [http://www.battlestarwiki.org/en/index.php?title=User_talk:Shane&oldid=58099 My Talk Page]
:# GTalk before this ''RFC''
''
Quit it.
All i did was create a template like I always do
implement it
waiting for feed back
and your snapping at me AGAIN
because I did not share it in the quarum
which hampers ideas
and creation
If you want to comprimise in us working together...
Onlt repond if I do drastic changes, delete.
Which I won't do because I am not like that
This is not your wiki
This is the communit's wiki
All my things are in policy with BW:BOLD
I should not even gotten the orginial response from you because it was in good faith
Expect another RFC in this matter.
''
=== Applicable policies ===
:# [[BW:BOLD]]

=== Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute ===
(provide diffs and links)
:# [http://www.battlestarwiki.org/en/index.php?title=User_talk:Shane&oldid=58099 My Talk Page]

=== Users certifying the basis for this dispute ===
''{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}''


(sign with <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>)
:#
:#

=== Other users who endorse this summary ===

(sign with <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>)
:#
:#

==Response==
''This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.''
''

I have always held that effective communication is vital - it's one of the first things listed on my [[User:Peter Farago|user page]]. I believe that this has been a weak spot for Shane since the beginning of his time with us, and I do not apologize for continuing to make an issue of it. Furthermore, my tone on his talk page was entirely civil. Shane appears to have some difficulty accepting criticism, which has also been a problem in [[User talk:The Merovingian#Point Out Mistakes|the past]].

If I may digress briefly, there is a certain danger in allowing useless templates to proliferate - they tend to quickly become the status quo and then become resistant to attempts at removing them. I think - as with most major changes to the wiki - that these kinds of additions should be vetted ''before'' they are implemented. Although this problem is not relevant to the [[BW:OC]] project, and I did not in fact have a problem with it, that too could have benefited from a brief discussion here.

Lastly, I must note that I find Shane's recent behavior toward me extremely disconcerting. Without wishing to make an accusation as such, his recent [[Battlestar Wiki:Requests for comment/Peter Farago|request]] that I be stripped of my adminship, combined with his comments today, have begun to feel like a campaign of harassment. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 00:18, 11 June 2006 (CDT)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>):
#I'm going to have to agree that there is a problem here. I don't see any reason why we have to rush head-on into things. We are not Wikipedia (thank the Gods) and we can do things differently than them. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]]</sup> 09:22, 11 June 2006 (CDT)

==Outside view==
''This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.''

{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.}

'''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 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.

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 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)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>):
#

==Discussion==
''All'' signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to [[Battlestar Wiki talk:{{PAGENAME}}|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.

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:14, 11 April 2020
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]]. 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.		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]]. They posted stuff on my talk page, which was innaproite for "furthing" development of the intened template. If they 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, they 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)		April couninully does this to me in everything I do, even when we first created the [[BW:PORT]] system, in which, they are now a contribuater. HOWEVER, in a recent Gtalk message from April, they were glad on my initaitive on the [[BW:OC]] project - "''nice initiative on the Oficial Comminques [ Communiques ] page''". They change their 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 ~~his~~ talk page, that a conduct dispute has been raised. -->		<!-- 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 their 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 ~~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.		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 April early on, but I began to understand ''how'' and ''why'' they saw things for the wiki. I've actually began to adopt some of their practices (concision, mostly) and watched their 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 ~~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.		Shane's actions in the adjustments of templates that affect several articles is an issue I would have also called him on, just as April 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)