Battlestar Wiki:Requests for comment/Shane

From Battlestar Wiki, the free, open content Battlestar Galactica encyclopedia and episode guide
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for comment. The decisions in this RFC are final. Please do not modify it.


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 ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: {insert UTC timestamp with ~~~~~}), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 09:40, 27 September 2023 (UTC).

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Statement of the dispute[edit]

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.


Although the "feud" between Shane and myself has already made a mockery of the RFC process, I feel like there is no other way to deal with this. I can no longer tolerate Shane's personal insults, or his behavior issues in general, and these issues must be addressed in a fair and open fashion.

Evidence of disputed behavior[edit]

I will begin by documenting Shane's personal attacks against me. I understand that our "feud" weakens my more general case against him, but I feel it's important to air our dirty laundry before moving on to broader issues.

I believe that these actions amount to a concerted campaign against me which has clearly entered the realm of harassment. He has strained my considerable patience nearly to the breaking point, and I cannot continue to endure this sort of abuse without complaint.

What follows is a more general, and incomplete list of my criticisms of Shane as a contributor. These are all separate issues, but they also deserve consideration as we contemplate Shane's general pattern of behavior since joining us, and any possible remedy thereto. As always, I have done my best to separate the personal interactions above from the following criticisms, which I issue in my capacity as veteran contributor and administrator.

1. Shane has consistently refused politely worded requests to display common courtesy toward other contributors. Examples:

2. Shane has, on several occasions, edited other contributors user pages:

The Jzanjani incident last year clearly demonstrated the importance of maintaining the sanctity of these areas.

3. Shane has displayed belligerent ignorance in areas to which he is clearly unqualified to contribute:

4. Shane has frequently charged ahead in potentially controversial areas without first obtaining consensus or applying due diligence.

  • Most memorably, the Portals project was initiated without any plan or period for public comment. The controversy is documented at Battlestar Wiki talk:Portals.
  • He prematurely moved Bradley Thompson's contributions to an official sources subpage before his identity had been confirmed: [1]

5. Shane has cleared controversial entries from his user talk, in an attempt to obscure the record:

(This edit caused the entries visible here here to be completely de-linked)

Obviously the list above is hardly complete, and I have provided only a few examples of the behaviors cited. If other users endorsing this summary can think of additional incidents, please note them.

Applicable policies[edit]

We do not currently have any policies in place regarding most of these issues. On the matter of harassment and user page edits, I believe that the Jzanjani incident sets an appropriate precedent.

Belligerence and hostility toward other users should not be tolerated under any circumstances. I hope that we don't need a formal "be nice" policy in order for my other points to proceed.

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute[edit]

The above links contain several instances of users, including The Merovingian, Steelviper, Day and myself, who have attempted to resolve various matters.

Users certifying the basis for this dispute[edit]

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. April Arcus
  2. As mentioned above, there is evidence that I've expressed my concern to Shane about his behavior. My most vehement of such expressions were in connection to his handleing of the Portals project at its inception. Since that time, I've been a bit less vocal on talk pages, etc. but have talked with Shane via the Gmail chat client and attempted to urge patience and level-headedness both in his dealings with edits and other users, as well as the specific issue if his interactions with April. I'm not certain what measures should be taken in this case, but I definately think that this issue needs some kind of official Admin response. --Day (Talk - Admin) 02:59, 25 June 2006 (CDT)
  3. Yes. I agree very much with numbers 1 and 4. Shane is a good contributor, but rarely compromises and just goes ahead and does things, and gets angry and thinks we're "attacking" him when we tell him to show moderation in such matters. I mean, many times I or others here make a template change, to show how it would look, as a test that is, and we're just "trying it out", but we'll change it back if it's unpopular and we haven't really implemented grand template changes on a massive scale. ---->I think the Portals project was one of the worst handled projects we've ever had. Shane made them without broad consensus but far more importantly, without planning them out far in advance. How many months were those things sitting around half finished? 2? 3? Visitors to the site probably didn't know what the heck was going on: we only just started getting a handle on the Portals. Nextly, Shane's been going into "Little Red Hen" mentality that "I made the Portals and new front page and I'm not made Administrator as a result?"--->Shane may have accumulated 5,000 edits rather quickly, but most of Shane's changes have been to the Big Dig-like Portals project. April and myself passed 5,000 edits some time ago...the actual number doesn't mean anything towards Administratorship. The Portals project and front page were not one of Shane's biggest claims to good behavior or something: they were controversial not planned out and I think a lot of you will admit caused a lot of yelling and fighting on BattlestarWiki. They're nice, but in terms of "Battlestar Galactica information added" Spencerian, April, myself, Steelviper, lots of other users have contributed more, with information, with less edits. --->but moving on, Requests for Administratorship are sacrosanct, and people CAN vote against you. It's actually up for Joe to determine if these votes are based on merite (that is, Spencerian pointing out that Shane has had judgement problems) vs. that loraque guy who never even comes to this wiki popping in to vote against me when he heard there was an RFC. That type of thing is up to Joe: but I think we'd all agree that April actually had "reasons" based on past behavior, for voting against Shane, and it is a serious sign that Shane is not yet ready to be an Administrator, and show the moderation ability an Administrator needs, if he starts requests for comment when people vote against him. ------>Moving on, yes, an Administrator needs to be able to try to resolve disputes. I've got times I've tried to do that with other users, so has April, Spence, SV, lots of other people. Shane just gets angry when people disagree with him and acts like he's been attacked. Another aspect of the "moderation" part is deciding what to put into BSwiki--->Shane just tends to believe whatever he hears when we get rumors or new information. Case in point I strongly agree with April when it came to the Bradley Thompson thing: I'm happy it was indeed him but there's every chance it wasn't, and Shane just instantly assumed it was Thompson without confirmation...and proceeded to make more templates about official production team status and changes to his user page and such. To be honest, Shane is GREAT at making Wiki code and templates, but his contributions to the actual battlestar information *in terms of weighing options and deciding what to keep, what to concise, what to leave out and what to compromise with others on*...well he just tends to believe everything, do what he wants and then jump into a whirlwind of work without asking the rest of us. Yikes; during the Portals project's long production I remember several of us practially *Demanding* that he at least pause what he was doing, and he went on to make MORE portals. ------->I don't want to yell at Shane because he means well, but he has been pretty irresponsible. I mean I goofed up on that KR thing, but that wasn't a "behavior pattern" so much as just a big goof, and moreover, I recinded that and have been trying to come to terms with KR through PM's and other stuff on the messageboards. Six months ago I was "that hothead guy" I admit (bear in mind, in college I'm functioning on 3 hours of sleep on a regular basis and thus was predictably "short" at the time, but I'm more coherent now, and, on the whole I sohuld hope, I'm been more compromising or at least discussiing why I feel things. I don't think that in his current performance, Shane should be an Administrator so I agreed with Spencerian and April: does this mean I "hate" Shane and have a "grudge" with him? No. Nor does April. They're an Admin and they're trying to enforce our Conventions and behavior and such. Reacting to a vote against his RFA by April by making a request for comment was really a clear sign that he doesn't have the right behavior needed for Administrator status. If anything I feel that Shane's behavior "breaks even"; the portals and new front page are nice, but their creation and implementation have caused a lot of arguement here, and Shane's just seems easily bruised by comments. It took me a while to realize I couldn't respond to stuff here the way I would on a messageboard, but I did eventually. I don't think we should give Shane a warning ban or censure or such felgercarb, he's an okay guy he just needs to work on his behavior around the wiki more and show restraint a little. Six months time, who knows? things might turn around and then I'll vote for him. But right now, I dunno. I agree with April on a lot of their points, as I did with Spencerian's on the RFA. --The Merovingian (C - E) 09:51, 25 June 2006 (CDT)
  4. There is little I have to add on this matter per comments on other articles, and concur with Merv's notes (if just a bit winded :). Maturity and responsibility, knowing when NOT to do something as well as when, is critical to getting along in the real world, or here. I am not against the notion of forcing Shane to calm down by a 1-week to 1-month block, but I'd rather that he show some reflection on what others have said here before we consider such action, as, despite some of the issues that April has encountered, the majority of Shane's work is worthy and well intentioned, and our wiki will be diminished a bit while he is blocked from edits. I find it interesting and pleasant that Merv (nee Ricimer) has come a long way from where he began here to where I hope Shane will also be; Merv appears more enlightened on the workings of the wiki and (most importantly) interacting with the people on it, and his comments stand to that. It may be that Shane, like Merv, also a valued contributor, needs to sit back to understand and not just do. A tougher "skin" would also be appreciated. If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly...then don't submit it here.--Spencerian 10:36, 25 June 2006 (CDT)

Other users who endorse this summary[edit]

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. --The Merovingian (C - E) 09:52, 25 June 2006 (CDT)


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.

This is simple:

  1. I do not contribuate infomration to the articles. Just the backend.
  2. The earlisit of time when I request comment and NO one had commented for over a month.
  3. Portals where not linked. They were worked on in the background. The only time I posted when I requested comments and a "poll": Battlestar_Wiki_talk:Portals#Vote_How.3F. Portal work was not done with the approvoal of the wiki, but Joe: Battlestar_Wiki_talk:Portals#Chill.2C_Cree.21. As you can tell there is only one section in which I post in. Other than that it was April attacking the system. April orginially filled an RFC against me for this matter and no one supported it. (I request that be retored). I am not sure if he posted out about a new portal discussion: Battlestar_Wiki:Portals
  4. User:Jzanjani was way before my time.
  5. Battlestar_Wiki_talk:Main_page There is no comments from April accept them Battlestar_Wiki_talk:Main_page#Style_Consensus. I requested more comment, and April did not fully explain their intensions: Battlestar_Wiki_talk:Main_page#More_Comment
  6. Battlestar_Wiki_talk:Policy
  7. Myself and Bradley Thompson have been talking over e-mail since he joined. Also if you did a search for his username on Google and my private database, his name comes up.
  8. - Ignoring does not work with April so I started doing it before this.
  9. User_talk:Shane/Archive03#Template:Location_Data - Refering to the comments. I was recently told that if no one comments they have no problem with it. Template_talk:Location_Data Proiving a point why we should have a template.
  10. Posted many things to Category:Candidates for deletion, to responses. None.
  11. Template_talk:Email i never objected to it other than stating my option on the change and from what I know. April snaped at me.
  12. Gmail conversations with April
  13. Talk:Main_Page/Friends_Section - No one else had a problem with this other than April. And depmanding a change before people even had a chance to comment was not in good faith.
  14. BW:FA - Finshed May20th. No comments until the process started.

And mostly, there are no policies that I am breaking. So I have not done anything wrong execpt post my vaild reasons (strongly) on issues I beleive in. So if you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen. --Shane (T - C - E) 10:46, 25 June 2006 (CDT)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

I don't know where else to put this (on second thought "outside views" seemed bad) but I need to comment on this Response somewhere (Admins move it if somewhere else is more appropriate):
1)" I do not contribuate infomration to the articles. Just the backend." --->What does that mean? "backend"? What? One of the main points of BattlestarWiki isn't making many categories and templates, but judging what material to put in and keep out, working on our Question and Analysis sections and deciding what should stay and what shouldn't. Shane has, mostly, just been incredibly overzealous with Wikipedia Code, putting in things we didn't use to use; yikes, it's a dozen regulars and some guests fixing stuff; we're not aggressively pursuing everything from the "Policy" page: most of it's just copied from Wikipedia's, and we learn and adapt as we go. Shane's constant defense seems to be "I was following the Policies and Rules": Shane has become consumed by the formality of running a Wiki, rather than battlestar or the other users on this site.
  • Backend is soemthing that no one sees, but uses it. It's like the code to MediaWiki. My first edits where done on articles and way way way back then my changes were made so I stoped doing it and just worked on the backend. My background is in programming. Not english, though this is my language.
2) No one commented on the Portals project because we were waiting for Shane to announce that he was "done" with it, or that it was finally in a presentable form. But Shane was continually "working" on things, starting projects, not finishing them, then acting surprised when we critiqued or tried to change them.
  • I hadn't finshed ebcause I was waiting for software update. Once that was done it could be marked done. So everyone edits were premature.
3) Yes, you were asked to make a test run of a Portals system--->It was implemented, and but not entirely finished and usable for a very long time. Yes, it was put up in places half finished or not thought through fully.
  • A test run? I created on Wikipieda: Wikipedia:Portal:Battlestar Galactica. You even commented on it during the process. Again, it was put on hold due to mediaWiki which joe can confirm for you if you want.
4) It is irrelevant that the Jzanjani incident was before your time: as was linked on this page and stated, it was a problem involving a user changing someone else's user pages consistently: a link was then provided to the comments on that user's page chastising him for what he did, and why. It doesn't matter that it was "before your time", the lesson learned from it stands. The "Miranda incident" happened years before I was born, but I sure hope the police respect my Miranda rights which resulted from it today.
  • You even put something on his page after he left. there was no policy in place. Me and mercifull were working together on his own user page (check the history) and no one commented on it. Then we created the BW:SI project.
5) We kept waiting for you to say "this is finished", or to work on it more, and then we'd critique it....this is a hard thing to do to something perpetually half finished. April was just doing their job. SteelViper and I even started toying around with a mockup alternate new Main page based on MemoryAlpha's, as your's was dragging on and did not appear to be making progress.
  • Again, this is not MA. My mockup was done before Steel's. Check the dates, and I had stop because of the "Mediawiki" problem which was address during the creation.
6) How can you possibly cite, with not explanation just a link, "Battlestar Wiki talk:Policy" your proposed policy page in your defense?! It met with unanimous disaproval, Joe didnt' support you just up and writing it without even proposing it, it was filled with "names and titles" for enforcing templates behavior and code and such (which Shane seems overly zealous about) but little to do with Battlestar Galactica.
  • I have accauly re-edited that page and again waited for comment with no avil.
    • Because my opinion was not changed: 'If you want people to get consensus, as for a formal vote, don't just assume everyone agrees with it. Some days hundreds of edits pass and it might simply have not been visible. --The Merovingian (C - E) 17:18, 25 June 2006 (CDT)
7) This is the first I've heard of you talking with Bradley Thompson. This is your own matter and you don't have to, but would you be willing to tell us what you talked about? Why have you been doing this without telling us? Or did you tell April & Co, how have g-mail, as I myself don't make use of it? ***MOST IMPORTANTLY***, if you *already knew it was Bradley Thompson*, because you searched his username on Google mail (which I didn't think of as I simply do not possess a G-mail account) Why didn't you announce this on his user talk page? Why did you keep it to yourself? Even when I made a post there specifically asking for confirmation of his identity? April had to call the production office themself (I do not know the specifics of this). ---->Thompson in fact e-mailed ME, directly, telling me that I shouldn't try to confirm his identity through asking Ron Moore's wife on the messageboard, but he gave me the phone number for the production office and everything: however, by the time I checked my e-mail, he must have given similar information to April who then phoned and confirmed it (good), so I didn't need to make mention of his e-mail anymore because it was a moot point by then--->but had April not done so first, I would have told everyone else about this when someone publicly asked for confirmation of this.
  • I will not explain on how I do things and how I get information.--Shane
    • Ignoring all else, can you please tell us why you did not post confirmation that this was Bradley Thompson, but instead April had to go and phone the production office itself, if you already had such information?--The Merovingian (C - E) 17:14, 25 June 2006 (CDT)
      • Would you have beleived me? --Shane (T - C - E) 17:16, 25 June 2006 (CDT)
        • Without evidence, I would have doubted it no more or less than I doubted if Ngarenn was actually Thompson based solely on his word. But don't you think you should have....passed on this information to at least JOE, of all people? He could try and talk to the production office or something. You just didn't mention it at all, even when in the open I was asking "is there any way to confirm this is Thompson"-------------->Even in the e-mail he sent me (I assume April got a similar one) he said he didn't know if I'd accept an e-mail as proof, and that I should phone the production office, so he gave me the number. Did you get a phone number, or did you trust a HOTMAIL e-mail account? If you trusted just an e-mail from a free e-mail site....that's not really different from our initial problem that you believed "Ngarenn" at face value without (as we thought) confirming if it was Thompson or not...and on the other hand, if you didn't just trust an e-mail but actually got into a phone conversation with the production office....why didn't you foward the number to Joe, our trusted site owner, for total confirmation? Either way...--The Merovingian (C - E) 17:23, 25 June 2006 (CDT)
          • I did not base it off a hotmail account. I told you I can not tell you how I found out, but I did not call the production office. I have access to more than one database. --Shane (T - C - E) 17:25, 25 June 2006 (CDT)
            • If you didn't have a phone conversation, and you didn't use Please tell us. Because not telling us sounds increasingly like you either got an e-mail or a phone conversation, either of which would put you in an embarrassing position, and you're now just cryptically quipping that you have "other means which I can't talk about" to try and diffuse the situation. Not telling us will only go closer to confirming this suspicition in my mind.--The Merovingian (C - E) 17:28, 25 June 2006 (CDT)
              • Why do you keep pressing the issue? Arn't we supposed to be trying to DEFUSE the situation? --Shane (T - C - E) 17:32, 25 June 2006 (CDT) ********A) You're changing the subject. B) You gave quite a confusing response, the "difusing" thing would be to clarify it as asked, instead of belaboring the original point against you. --The Merovingian (C - E) 17:35, 25 June 2006 (CDT)
8) "Ignoring does not work"...what does that mean? Shane disappeared for a few days, people were asking if he was still even here or does this reflect poorly on April or anyone?
  • Blocked them on GTalk.
  • Kept in contact with Joe and Steel
9) See my talk on the discussion page for location template, to which I have already added back a "delete" tag, as 3-4 users commenting on it isn't enough to judge consensus on it, and moreover as you were one of the involved parties in a Deletion discussion, the most you should have done is asked for a formal vote (which Shane rarely if ever does) and not gone on and removed the tag by yourself.
  • Joe did not agree with the delete, but he thought the use of it was misused, as april did with a few pages with {{Character Data}}
  • A template not used is but is usefull shouldn't be deleted until it becomes aparent that there is a use for it.
10) Like what?
  • I do not want to list them, but you can check the history.
11) You were unaware of the rule, yes, but pointing it out to you, and disproving your previous misconception, is not "snapped".
  • That was after a long stressfull augrement on another factor and I thought that what partiapated the new template that I was working on.
12) That sounded like an honest question. We get all sorts at BattlestarWiki.
  • I am on the english part. Why would I not post in a "native" lanague first?
    • ...because we only have rudimentary Spanish and German versions, and several users here don't speak those or English as a native language?--The Merovingian(C - E) 17:25, 25 June 2006 (CDT)
      • Did you even see where I was born when I first joined? I don't have access to my old user page because I requedted it deleted because of Wikipedia:SSBI problems, but it stated I was born in NY. And that is discrimination. --Shane (T - C - E) 17:28, 25 June 2006 (CDT)
13) Again, Shane never made it clear when he was done, I have already some time ago replied to the discussion on that page, agreeing with April and asking Shane to stop asking petulant. Frak, every single time something's wrong "The Administrators are ganging up on me". Sometimes people are just wrong. Sometimes I'm wrong. Does this mean the Administrators shouldn't correct me? Regardless April wasn't acting as an administrator but a user. ****"NO one comments on templates", no because "they agree", but because for many templates Shane rushes them and finishes them before people can see how they function or if they're worth keeping. And when we said we didn't like something, such as the locations template, he overeacted.
  • No one else announces when they are done. All they do is stop working on it. The podcast project had a system because of the large ammount of data.
14) Finally, Shane never implemented the Featured Article system after creating it, and didn't make an announcement to start using it or that it was done: I had to kick start it. Check the history tags: last week of May I realized "The Featured Article and Picture sections aren't being used at all, and the Portals are NOT being regularly updated. I then went around trying to actually START the process of nominating these: Shane made a shiny looking template, with many rules and policies written on its implementation, but ultimately didn't put it to use after "finishing" it. So I tried to just nominate "Galactica (RDM)" as a featured article, but it turns out that the "Featured Article" *process*, not just a code template, obviously wasn't finished as after I made the simple request for "Galactica" Shane and April got into a raging arguement about it's implementation. I'm not taking sides too much on that one (though I think I agreed to April, with caveats). Either way, the "Featured Article" project was not one of Shane's high points, but something we had to kick-start into actually USING after he wrote more code and templates and policies. --The Merovingian (C - E) 16:42, 25 June 2006 (CDT)
  • I was being proper and waiting for comment. That's why I never created the template. Once you created the first template to be placed on a page, I figured it was ok to go ahead and do something about the full process. I even noted that there was no activitey on these pages and nothing been updated. I go around and update pages everyonce in a while since no one else has done it.

How come I am being blamed for creating something THAT Joe does not mind? Joe loved the new main page and even implemented on my Birthday. --Shane (T - C - E) 17:06, 25 June 2006 (CDT)

Joe's proposal[edit]

It is sad that this has to happen, but there is a definite problem here that doesn't seem to have a neat solution to it. I'm not going to lie when I say that the situation is messy. I'm not going to reply point-by-point to either April's or Shane's bulletpoints, as that wouldn't be utterly beneficial to the community. For some time now, I have attempted to moderate and deal with the issues between Shane and April; I try not to choose a side. (If there is a side I am on, it is that of consensus and compromise.) As I have indicated before, and as many of you have seen here, Shane and April represent a dichotomy: one is quick to action without full consideration of the potential consequences of said actions, the other inquires as to why the changes are necessary and how they will benefit "the big picture".

I have encouraged both editors to try to work together. I know I am not the only one. I have tried to get Shane to understand that there is a fundamental difference between the contributor and their contributions. In other words, criticism of someone's work does not equate to a personal attack. The issue here is that Shane takes things far too personally -- it's a position that I emphathize with, because I've been there myself. I understand it on a personal level.

Thus far, I've failed in getting Shane to understand this. And I'll be quite honest, I don't know how exactly this situation should be handled. So this RFC is necessary, because it gives the community a chance to voice in on how to address the issue. I do have an idea, but I'll get to that further on.

After reviewing the months of activities, contributions and issues between the two, I believe that April has demonstrated restraint and emotional control. (If they've blown up, it's been in private -- before now.) Anyone without April's respectible patience would have said "fuck this, I have better things to do" long before this point. And, really, April does have better things that they could be doing. And so does Shane. And so do I. And so do we all.

The reason this wiki exists is because we have passion. We find contributing to an encyclopedia and episode guide is fun. It's enjoyable.

However, right now, it's not enjoyable for at least two people.

So here's the issue before us. There needs to be a concerted effort to get Shane to understand that when people criticize something he's created, it's not a personal attack, or an attempt to use him and then throw him out. Achieving and striving for a positive solution for all concerned is the point of the RFC. Here's an action plan I have for Shane, and tell me what you think, please.

First, there is the issue of snapping back at people and using the RFCs in an inappropriate way, as a form of personal attack. RFCs are not to be used on people you don't like personally, or that you have personal problems with. These things should be handled off-wiki. Secondly, the issue is that there needs to be a cooldown period for Shane, because of his history of reacting without thinking the issue through. Despite my understanding that this reactionary response didn't just appear out of nowhere, this still needs to be addressed. Therefore, I propose that Shane will not edit the wiki for seven days after the decision is finalized. I am hoping that this break will be taken voluntarily; however, should it not be, I will place a seven day block on the account.

After the break, Shane will be on a thirty day probationary status. He is to conduct himself in the proper ettiqite, thus he will not engage in personal attacks (ad hominem or otherwise) or major actions. If he wishes to make a major change, such as the creation of a new policy, procedure, or new template, he is to follow the following action plan, as outlined below:

Area of opportunity: Shane requires assistance in understanding the difference between constructive criticism on his work and a personal attack against his person. Typically, this follows when he's made an action or implemented a system without proposing it to others. Therefore, the change in how to implement a new idea is needed.
How to achieve successful results: An issue brought by both sides is that there is no clear cut method of communicating new ideas. Shane has indicated his belief that people don't comment on his implemented ideas, yet when some time has passed, people start offering critiques on something he believes has the silent support of the community and all its members, including myself. Thus, I am calling for the creation of Think Tank that Shane (and others!) are to use to propse his ideas. (To an extent, this Think Tank is an extension of the Hangar Bay I set up for him a couple months ago, where new ideas for the Battlestar Wiki are beta tested before deployment through the site.) For every major idea he has, he is to write a proposal. In his proposals, he is to outline what he would like to do, what his idea will do for the wiki, and how it will affect the wiki's performance, whether negatively or positively. Basically, he is to give a hypothesis ("If we do some task by adding some technical thingamajig we will get this result.") as well as how this will be tested (Who will test this? What will they do? Where will this test be conducted? When will this be tested? Why will we use it? How will this be done? etc.)
After this, the administrators will be solicited to offer their view points and comments. Non-administrators are also highly encouraged to comment, suggest, and contribute to refining the proposed idea. After debating and tweaking an idea, once consensus is achieved, which can -- but not necessarily -- be achieved by straw polling, of a minimum of 80% percent of contributors, the idea should be deployed per the agreement reached in the discussions and debates. There will be a minimum two week period for discussions, which may be altered by consensus in either a reduction or an extension of this default timeline.
Obviously, if the proposal fails, then it is not implemented. If it is implemented against consensus, it can be deleted or removed without warning.

A failure to abide by this process may lead in blocks not to exceed seven days, after which the thirty day probationary period will be reset.

This vote will end Monday, July 3, 2006 at 12:00 A.M. EST.

Administrators, please vote below. Also, please indicate on why you voted the way you vote.

CalculatinAvatar: Support Having read the entirety of this page (with the exception of the rather confusing interlaced bullets above), this seems like the best course of action presented; it should have a reasonable chance of achieving the desired outcomes and is not excessive. --00:25, 28 June 2006 (CDT)
Day: Support Very nicely written, Joe. We can use the seven days to hammer out any kinks we think of in the Think Tank.
Joe Beaudoin Jr.: Support, as originator.
April Arcus: Support. This remedy satisfies all my major concerns.
Spencerian: Support. Since the RFC appears to be going nowhere, this can end it and give us and Shane time to form up the new-work process. I concur with SV's comments. --Spencerian 19:28, 26 June 2006 (CDT)
Steelviper: Support. I hope that at the end of this RFC process we recognize the fact that there is a problem/conflict and that there are people trying to figure out a solution. This remedy begins as a solution to an individual problem, but I hope that it may evolve into a larger solution. We don't usually have problems with people making sweeping changes, usually not because they have the restraint not to make them, but because they don't have the idea or the iniative for such changes. The thought of a place to propose and discuss major changes appeals to me, and I hope it will be a place that prompts people to start to think outside the box and come up with ideas that may impact more than just one article. It is also important that such ideas be discussed, debated, and refined before they are implemented, since a great deal of effort might be spent implementing those ideas (or reverting them, if the consensus does not agree with them). I think we can come to some sort of compromise whereby the integrity and consistency of the wiki is maintained, but where new and radical ideas can be debated reasonably, and if agreed upon, implemented. The fact that this (RFC) page is growing as large as it has is a testament to the love and care that the people/editors have for this community. The simple/straightforward solution would have been terse calls for an indefinite ban, and that clearly has not happened here. I'm proud of that.

Shane's Comment[edit]

I rather it just start with than have to wait for everyone to vote support because for the next seven days I will not even have a computer starting Tuesday. But if I am reading this correctly, 30 days for after the inital 7 I have to write up reposts and then after 30 days it end or am I going to be doing double duty after 30? If so, I would never agree to having to keep doing this. I would only agree with this and if the Policy was not just for me, but for everyone. Because it can not single out just one person.

I like to also point out that I have withdrawn my RFA and for some time now had this new user page with what I been working on.

  • What about other people major ideas?
  • What is major?
  • Is this policy going to be voted on?
  • What is major and what is not?
  • What is going to happen in 7 days when I can edit?
  • Are things going to change without my input if it effects mystyle? Things like the Template:Location Data could happen without further objections from me.
  • Is this "Think Tank" policy going to go ineffect without me having input during these seven days?
  • What if it's created during the process of prensting? My ideas need a place to work before I can present a live example and the Hanger Bay does not have the full recources of all the types of pages unless we shared datasbases. You don't get better examples than that and my english, as you all know, is not that good. (It's still the only language I know other than computers.)
  • Is there going to be sweeping changes WIKI wide that are going to happen that effect policy that I might object to because I think it might not be in the best entrance. Lets say I start tommorow, and in the seven days, there could be changes that I might not like as a very active contributer?
  • If I create a policy, template and it's tagged correctly (i.e. {{Proposed Policy}} and or not implemented) but created here, because the policy is and is like what I am doing and there is no technobable or a teamplate and in the template itself I explain what it's function is using the <noinclude> along with the examples, and then post it on this "Think Tank" for comments, is this going to be an infractions?
  • Do PROJECTS count? (i.e. BW:NEW, BW:Tem, BW:OC)

These are criticial questions I ask before anything happens.

--Shane (T - C - E) 23:28, 25 June 2006 (CDT)


Thanks for the questions, Shane. I'd be happy to clarify them.
  • What about other people major ideas?
Other people's major ideas aren't the issue at present. However, I am going to begin work on the Think Tank and will encourage its use for other members. Right now, this is a plan tailored for this specific situation. Should it grow organically into policy, then that's what shall happen.
I should also note that this has more to do with the implementation and execution of ideas, rather than the ideas themselves.
  • What is major?
You've asked this question later on (with an additional question tagged to it), so I've answered there.
  • Is this policy going to be voted on?
This isn't policy that will affect the entire wiki. Right now this is a corrective action meant to address the current issues at hand that will be voted upon by the administrators, with outside comments from our contributors so that they may present views and opinions that, perhaps, we haven't considered yet.
If the "Think Tank" becomes policy by its use (such as a good bulk of our Standards and Conventions), then it's just another tool in our toolbox that will be available for our use.
  • What is major and what is not?
As I've indicated in the proposal, major changes include the creation of new templates, editing and creating new policy proposals, and sweeping changes such as the Main Page and the Portals system. Non major changes, which you may do, are minor edits (grammar fixes, fixing minor errors such as improper syntax, and things of that nature) and the adding of information to articles.
(I'd feel better if this were less well defined, actually. I feel that Shane has demonstrated a pattern where he wants to know exactly where the "line" is, so that he can stand right up against it. When someone points out that his behavior is unaaceptable, he claims he is following the "letter of the law". I'd rather pay more attention to the spirit with which policies were written and are understood, than having to spell everything out to ensure there are no loop holes. This is not a Battlestar Nomic. I'm not trying to set a trap, I just feel that part of this needs to be about learning to judge this kind of thing for himself. In any case, I think an Admin consensus should have final rule over whether a given change or set of changes is "major". --Day (Talk - Admin) 11:19, 26 June 2006 (CDT))
You've made a good point here, Day. Therefore, I agree that consensus is necessary to determine what major is and what major looks like. -- Joe Beaudoin So say we all - Donate 11:32, 26 June 2006 (CDT)
  • What is going to happen in 7 days when I can edit?
During the seven days, you are not to edit anything on the wiki or participate in the discussions. Basically, it'll be a vacation, where you can't call the office and check up or comment on what's happening.
After the seven days, you will be in a thirty day probationary period and will follow the action plan for any major edits. We will designate one or two administrators who are to keep track of your contributions to ensure that the action plan is being followed. (Due to the obvious, April not be assigned to keep track of your contributions; this doesn't mean that they may do so on their own reconnisance.) You may still do minor tweaks.
  • Are things going to change without my input if it effects mystyle? Things like the Template:Location Data could happen without further objections from me.
First, I will note that no one owns an article or other contribution to Battlestar Wiki. Everyone's edits and contributions can (and have been) edited mercilessly and redistributed at will. For what I mean, please see WP:OWN. Again, I leave most everything up to the community to decide, so if they decide that the template needs to be restructured, removed, deployed further, or think that templates should be selectively used based on certain criteria, then that's what shall happen.
  • Is this "Think Tank" policy going to go ineffect without me having input during these seven days?
Again, the think tank isn't Wiki-wide policy. Yet. It is meant to address the issues that were brought up during this RFC.
  • What if it's created during the process of prensting? My ideas need a place to work before I can present a live example and the Hanger Bay does not have the full recources of all the types of pages unless we shared datasbases. You don't get better examples than that and my english, as you all know, is not that good. (It's still the only language I know other than computers.)
We can use the export and import tools that are given to us by MediaWiki to import any pages or templates you need. I can also open up the Hangar Bay's access to our media repository here at the wiki. As always, if you feel you need some tool, you are free to ask and we can see how and if we can accomodate your requests.

Any additional questions? -- Joe Beaudoin So say we all - Donate 08:34, 26 June 2006 (CDT)

Responding to: Is there going to be sweeping changes WIKI wide that are going to happen that effect policy that I might object to because I think it might not be in the best entrance. Lets say I start tommorow, and int he seven days, there could be changes that I might not like as a very active contributer?
This is more or less a risk you have to take. Again, contributing to Battlestar Wiki is not compulsory -- this ultimately a volunteer effort. Anyone at any time can decide that contributing to the Wiki is no longer desirable. Additionally, part of the issue is that "sweeping changes" without debate is detrimental to a Wiki, hence the Think Tank. -- Joe Beaudoin So say we all - Donate 11:32, 26 June 2006 (CDT)
Responding to: Do PROJECTS count? (i.e. BW:NEW, BW:Tem, BW:OC)
The fact that you have to ask this is telling. Any idea so large that it needs a project page to organize is very clearly large enough to warrant mention on the Think Tank. And, I'd say, mention before creating said project page. The way I understand it, this is not a place to link things you're working on, but a place for you to outline ideas before beginning work. I remember discussing (on Wiki, of course) whether or not to make a S&C page with April for some time before actually making it. That is, in my mind, exactly the way things should work. In actuality, I felt like I might have been rushing things in making the page when I did, so I immediately asked he most prolific editors (at the time Joe was the only Admin and I was new) I could find for input and guidance. --Day (Talk - Admin) 23:16, 26 June 2006 (CDT)

Outside views and commentary on this proposed action[edit]

A "Major idea" would be something affecting a wiki-wide template, policy, or anything relating to something on our Standards and Conventions page. Specifically the templates. I mean if we're figuring out sources and stuff, that's low-level things that can be changed on the fly even though they affect large parts of the wiki. In short, the answer is obvious: things like changes to a "Portals" system, a new front page (both water under the bridge, now I guess), and most pertinently, new templates or changes to old ones. Just based on empirical evidence....I don't think any of us have ever made as "major" changes to templates, in one sitting, as you ever have, and I cannot think of any day to day stuff that would actually require this: the few times in the past everyone else has changed something massive, we brought it up on standards and conventions or whatnot. In short, no, this is not a policy per se, you're a special case. Joe could simply snap, ban you for a week and tell you to hush up, but instead is trying to customize this situation and compromise and give you room to continue to work. ---"affects my style", what? This is not a policy, only administrators are voting, and I'm just putting in my two cents. But frankly it doesn't need to be a Policy, you're really the only person we're holding this out for. --The Merovingian (C - E) 01:11, 26 June 2006 (CDT)
From an outside view, I think that Joe's proposal is fair. What is needed right now is a break for everyone. It would show me a lot if Shane voluntarily takes a week off. I think that the Think Tank idea is great and is generally needed, NOT just for Shane. --FrankieG 08:04, 26 June 2006 (CDT)

Final Response[edit]

Has anyone ever watch Pleasantville? I feel like this is happening to me and a few other people who decided. Bud fights the rules because he don't beleive in them. This lands him jail. The point is that you guys have treated me not as an equal because I am not an admin or see things differenlty from you does that mean. Put yourself in my shoes. How do you think I feel? Would you want to be the one alone to see your point? You debate. None of April's "points" indicate bad debating? Just for "judgement" of trying to improve the wiki I get critized and insulted. Take stuff at face value. Don't see it as harm otherwise you start to see, like the Mayor stared doing because you just don't know what it is or what to make of it yet. --Shane (T - C - E) 19:48, 25 June 2006 (CDT)

Shane. It dissapoints me to say this, but I am going to be blunt. I think you are lying. By this, I mean that you are intnentionally misrepresenting events. Now, I could be wrong, and I invite you to prove it. The word, specifically, that I take issue with is "insulted" above. Please provide a link to a page history, talk page, talk archive, etc. on this Wiki where you have been insulted for edits you have made. Gmail chat quotes are invalid as they cannot be corroborated. Please try to restrain your response as specifically as possible to this very narrow topic. I do not wish to have a rambling debate where this issue gets lost. That goes for anyone else who responds to this thread. This page already risks losing focus. In the case that an example you provide, Shane, is a page with much text on it, an out-of-context quote would be very helpful, as well as a link. That way, we can all use our browser's find function to track down the full passage. Thank you. --Day (Talk - Admin) 21:44, 25 June 2006 (CDT)


  • Per Shane's request, I have restored my initial RFC from some months ago here. --April Arcus 12:46, 25 June 2006 (CDT)
  • Merv, I understand that you disagree with the need for this, but I really think Shane's behavior has gone on far too long and reached levels far too egregious for us to continue to ignore it. The administrative responses available to us are limited, and our only real enforcement mechanism is temporary blocks. I therefore suggest the following:
    • A one-week block in response to the issues cited above, and
    • Following that, a one-month probationary period during which that block may be reinstated with the consensus of a majority of administrators. --April Arcus 12:46, 25 June 2006 (CDT)
      • I wanted to be moderate and understanding, but after I read Shane's "Response" (I'll make a commentary on his response in "outside views", I think that's the spot for it?) I now support the one week warning ban and subsequent one month probation period for Shane, along with you and Spencerian. --The Merovingian (C - E) 16:02, 25 June 2006 (CDT)
  • I would hate to see this enforced, and then Joe come along and remove it. That would be a real shame that the real owner of this site that we all use for the purpose of providing information does not see this as a real solution. As anyone tried to communicate to Joe? When I can't handle stuff with other admins, I talk to the person who has the real power, and that has been Joe. But I rather walk off than be banned. --Shane (T - C - E) 16:13, 25 June 2006 (CDT)
Again, rather than try to act maturely about this and try to compromise or reform and we've given you like 3 opportunities now, you keep coming back with another reply snapping back at all of us; for god's sake you're digging yourself a deeper grave and we're trying to help by POINTING OUT the problem: are we calling for outright permanent banning or something? No. Just stern warnings. And time after time you just refuse to come back to the table. It's not the initial problems that made me want to favor a warning one week ban: it's the defiant refusal to acknowledge that the Administrators are acting in the best interest of BattlestarWiki. Dammit, I hate when Olive branches of peace or at least avenues at getting back into good graces are just thrown away....but one of our central complaints is that you don't listen to the group, you just up and do things and then demand that you have the right to. Even I try and boldly spearhead some things, the difference is A) the constant level that you do it at B) I STOP when people are upset with things, and try to COMPROMISE. -------------------------->I tried giving you chances at appology and FRAK I even opposed doing this at first, but I'm bringing up a temporary one week warning ban for Shane as a proposal on the Administrator noticeboard. If Shane "leaves" in protest, that's one of the MOST imature things to do and even more evidence that he is unfit to be here and play well with others: and if he stops coming, and then after 6 months of abscence comes BACK, how does that in any way let us know that his actual BEHAVIOR has changed? It doesn't. If Shane leaves in the middle of this arguement it's the equivalent of jumping a state line and laughing at your prosecutors. If he does that, the most immature thing I can think of in such a situation, he should be banned in absentia. --The Merovingian (C - E) 16:54, 25 June 2006 (CDT)
All I seen is "ban". I don't see any suggestions. I am posting my respones to what people write to defend myself. I have even tried in the past few contribs to be "Correct". Me and April were battleing over "BW:CITE" on one of the articles. A "ban" does not change me nor options. You are saying I want you to do it more "auguementive" that most people. I am not the one who posted something ont he SciFi boards making fun of someone. At least I say it outloud. And reposting it on BSG is not an excuess. You see where my anger comes at? You have never appologized EVEN to me. --Shane (T - C - E) 17:14, 25 June 2006 (CDT)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments regarding this request for comment should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page). No further edits should be made to this page.