|
Please Note 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. |
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: 16:04, 10 June 2006 (CDT)}), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 05:38, 18 December 2024 (UTC).
- (April Arcus | 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
Accused me of not sharing a 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.
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. --Shane (T - C - E) 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.)
- 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
Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
(provide diffs and links)
Users certifying the basis for this dispute
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}
(sign with ~~~~)
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.
I have always held that effective communication is vital - it's one of the first things listed on my 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 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 request that I be stripped of my adminship, combined with his comments today, have begun to feel like a campaign of harassment. --April Arcus 00:18, 11 June 2006 (CDT)
Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):
- 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. -- Joe Beaudoin So say we all - Donate 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 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.
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 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. --Spencerian 09:27, 11 June 2006 (CDT)
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.