Toggle search
Toggle menu
5.2K
0
8.4K
245.5K
Battlestar Wiki
Toggle preferences menu
Toggle personal menu
Not logged in
Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits.

Battlestar Wiki:Requests for comment/Shane

From Battlestar Wiki, the free, open content Battlestar Galactica encyclopedia and episode guide
More actions

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: 06:10, 18 December 2024 (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.

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.

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. Peter Farago
  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 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)
  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.  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)
  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 Peter 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)

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.

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 Peter attacking the system. Peter 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 Peter accept him Battlestar_Wiki_talk:Main_page#Style_Consensus. I requested more comment, and Peter did not fully explain his 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. http://www.battlestarwiki.org/en/index.php?title=User_talk:Shane&diff=prev&oldid=52289#Status - Ignoring does not work with Peter 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. Peter snaped at me.
  12. Gmail conversations with Peter
  13. Talk:Main_Page/Friends_Section - No one else had a problem with this other than Peter. 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.
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.
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.
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.
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. Peter was just doing his 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.
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.
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 Peter & 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? Peter had to call the production office himself (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 Peter 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 Peter not done so first, I would have told everyone else about this when someone publicly asked for confirmation of this.
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 not...how does this reflect poorly on Peter or anyone?
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.
10) Like what?
11) You were unaware of the rule, yes, but pointing it out to you, and disproving your previous misconception, is not "snapped".
12) That sounded like an honest question. We get all sorts at BattlestarWiki.
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 Peter 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 Peter 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.
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 Peter 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 Peter, 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)

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]

  • Per Shane's request, I have restored my initial RFC from some months ago here. --Peter Farago 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. --Peter Farago 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)

Re-imagined Series definition: the process of using the FTL engines to make an near-instantaneous apparent faster-than-light transport of a ship from one point in space to another

Galactica 1980 definition: vulgarism equivalent to "shit" (see: felgercarb); Dillon uses this when discovering that his laser pistol wasn't set to stun (1980: "Galactica Discovers Earth, Part II")

Original Series definition: expletive, similar to "crap" (see: felgercarb)

Galactica 1980 definition: Troy attempts to use a phone booth near a gas station prior to their first run-in with Jamie Hamilton (1980: "Galactica Discovers Earth, Part I").

Retrieved from "https://en.battlestarwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Battlestar_Wiki:Requests_for_comment/Shane&oldid=61116"