April Arcus (talk | contribs) |
April Arcus (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 68: | Line 68: | ||
<!-- If you agree with the summary's presentation of events but did not try and fail to resolve the dispute, please sign in this section. --> | <!-- If you agree with the summary's presentation of events but did not try and fail to resolve the dispute, please sign in this section. --> | ||
(sign with <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) | (sign with <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) | ||
:# <br/> <!-- Remove this br when you add an entry here. --> | :# <br/> <!-- Remove this br when you add an entry here. --> | ||
==Response== | ==Response== | ||
Revision as of 08:07, 25 June 2006
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: 09:42, 18 December 2024 (UTC).
- (Shane | talk | 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
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
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.
- In Talk:Main Page/Friends Section, Shane attacked me for taking a strong position on the appearance of our links to other websites.
- In Battlestar Wiki:Featured articles/Debate for June 2006, he accused me of displaying favoritism toward an article I had created.
- In Battlestar Wiki:Requests for comment/Peter Farago and Battlestar Wiki:Requests for comment/Peter Farago (2) he initiated a string of frivolous attacks against me, in retaliation for my attempts to encourage him to pursue a more moderate behavior pattern.
- In Battlestar Wiki:Requests for adminship/Shane, he threatened to file another such RFC against me if my vote against his adminship were allowed to stand.
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
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
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
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}
(sign with ~~~~)
- Peter Farago
- 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 Peter. 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)
Other users who endorse this summary
(sign with ~~~~)
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.
{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.}
Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):
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.}
Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):
Discussion
All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to 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.