Shane[edit]
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: 12:14, 18 December 2024 (UTC).
- (Shane | talk | contributions)
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.
Description[edit]
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.
- 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[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 ~~~~)
- 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)
- 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. Peter 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, Peter, 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 Peter 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 Peter, 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 Peter 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 Peter: does this mean I "hate" Shane and have a "grudge" with him? No. Nor does Peter. He's an Admin and he's trying to enforce our Conventions and behavior and such. Reacting to a vote against his RFA by Peter 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 Peter on a lot of his points, as I did with Spencerian's on the RFA. --The Merovingian (C - E) 09:51, 25 June 2006 (CDT)
Other users who endorse this summary[edit]
(sign with ~~~~)
Response[edit]
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[edit]
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[edit]
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.