Content deleted Content added
|
Technical 13 (talk | contribs)
→Edit warring on template-protected pages: RE Mr. Stradivarius and others.
|
|||
|
Line 674:
:::* The problem with that, {{U|Mr. Stradivarius}}, is that [[WP:TPE#Editing disputes|This right should never be used to gain an upper hand in editing disputes.]] which is entirely based on {{Xt|You have a privilege that most people do not have.}} does not apply when both editors are in the {{TE}} group. — <span class="nowrap">{{U|[[User:Technical 13|Technical 13]]}} <sup>([[Special:EmailUser/Technical 13|e]] • [[User talk:Technical 13|t]] • [[Special:Contribs/Technical 13|c]])</sup></span> 13:10, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
:::::From the last sentence of that paragraph: {{tq|never wheel war with other admins or template editors}}. To me, that seems to describe today's edits rather well. — '''''[[User:Mr. Stradivarius|<span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius</span>]]''''' <sup>[[User talk:Mr. Stradivarius|♪ talk ♪]]</sup> 13:32, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
:::::* {{U|Mr. Stradivarius}}, I didn't see it as wheel warring at all. Setting aside what I consider an [[WP:OWN|OWN]]ership issue of those proficient with [[WP:Lua|Lua]] suggesting that those that aren't proficient aren't allowed to edit templates that have module components even for something as simple as adding a CSS class which had zero impact on appearance or functionality, and setting aside the fact that there are at least two fully capable [[WP:Lua|Lua]] editors that despite this discussion having gone on for more than 24 hours insisted on using reversion (which is only suppose to be used ''after'' their preferred method of fixing the situation has been completed) instead of just adding the class to the module so that it can be used to remove all parts of the documentation from template pages in edit mode for those that want it (of which {{Diff|Module:Documentation|cur|prev|still hasn't been done}}). My first change was reverted by Jack, and he gave a clear explanation of why it was an issue for him. That was the end of that. Then, I made an entirely different edit, in order to accommodate a new user script I had written to allow only editors that want to get rid of having to scroll through those long annoying pages upon pages of documentation a way to avoid it in a completely unrelated method. In order to accommodate this, I needed a class to reference, and I made a [[WP:TPE#ND|change to add a CSS class with no visible effect]]. All was good. Jack decided to revert that edit saying that the class name for my script needed to be "template-documentation" instead of "template-doc" as the former was already in use in the module. I found that this class name already in use, was only applied to a portion of the documentation and I accommodated Jack by adding the class HE specified as a wrapper for the template. Apparently, you [[WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT|didn't like]] that simple solution, but [[WP:SOFIXIT|instead of fixing the the module]] to properly attach that class to ALL parts of the document you decided to revert the template without fixing the module.
:::::: To everyone else following this thread, don't get me wrong, I've had plenty of interactions with both Jackmcbarn and Mr. Stradivarius to know that their actions were made in good faith, and I'm not in the least trying to accuse them of anything ''wrong''. They are both very good and productive editors and there are many other projects we have worked together on in some capacity (including some going on while this discussion takes place). I'm just not convinced at this point that this was the right course of action for this situation as they should both know by now what the revert stage of the [[WP:BRD|BRD]] process is: "Revert an edit '''if it is not an improvement, <u style="font-size: larger;">and</u> it cannot be immediately fixed by refinement'''. Consider '''reverting <u style="font-size: larger;">only</u> when necessary'''. It is not the intention of this page to encourage reverting. When reverting, be specific about your reasons in the edit summary and use links if needed. '''Look at the article's''' edit history and its '''talk page to see if a discussion has begun.''' <u>'''If not'''</u>, you may <u>'''begin one'''</u>." As such, their insistence on reverting the improvement to the template was entirely inappropriate.
:::::: Regardless, I had a good day spending time with my daughter today (except for at the end when she knew her mommy was going to take her home and daddy wasn't going and she cried saying daddy go with us that tore my heart out), and I'm not going to allow this discussion to ruin that for me. So, I'm asking any of the Lua editors that are reading this, if you don't want non-Lua people editing your templates that invoke lua modules, please, just fix the Lua module and end the charade... — <span class="nowrap">{{U|[[User:Technical 13|Technical 13]]}} <sup>([[Special:EmailUser/Technical 13|e]] • [[User talk:Technical 13|t]] • [[Special:Contribs/Technical 13|c]])</sup></span> 22:44, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
== Hasteur's concerns ==
{{ec}}*2 {{Ping group|Concerned Editors|Redrose64|OccultZone|Mr. Stradivarius}} This it not the [[User_talk:Technical_13#Exists_template|first]], [[User_talk:Technical_13#Final_Appeal|second]], [[User_talk:Technical_13#Template-protected_edit_request_on_7_June_2014|third]], [[User_talk:Technical_13#Template:Wikisource_author|fourth]], or [[User_talk:Technical_13#Your_change_to_Template:Archive_basics|fifth]] recent case where Technical 13 has used the Template Editor privilege in a manner inconsistent with the rules regarding the permission not withstanding other recent cases of Technical 13 being strongly warned to not edit war over a prefered version of the page( see [[User_talk:Technical_13#Edit_warring.3F|1]]). I would also like to note that freqently when Technical 13 is confronted about their actions, the responsibility is shifted elsewhere (Cell Phone Browser's incomplete implementation of HTML standards, Twinkle, Archiving utilities, MediaWiki core logic, etc). It was impressed upon me that if I believed that there was a pattern of misuse that a RFC/U should be conducted, but that I should keep my hands out of drafting the RFC/U due to my significantly being involved as a disputant against Technical 13. I am bringing this to your attention so you may determine if there is a pattern of misuse of the permission and thereby a RFC/U should be conducted or if we should go straight to AN/ANI/a uninvolved administrator with this significant string of evidence as RFC/U has no enforcement provisions. [[User:Hasteur|Hasteur]] ([[User talk:Hasteur|talk]]) 13:00, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
:{{ping|Hasteur}} the first and fifth links you give don't involve template-protected templates, and the second doesn't go into any specifics. The third and the fourth bear further consideration, though, particularly the third. If you think that, plus today's incident, is enough to open a thread at ANI, then you are welcome to open one. Personally, I would rather that T13 recognise that his use of the template editor right has sometimes been problematic, but it may be a good idea to have a wider discussion about it. If you do post at ANI, the usual caveats will apply - the behaviour of all parties will be examined. — '''''[[User:Mr. Stradivarius|<span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius</span>]]''''' <sup>[[User talk:Mr. Stradivarius|♪ talk ♪]]</sup> 13:32, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
|
|||