User:TreasuryTag/Mentoring

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Hi. I'd like you to move forwards (when I give you the green light) as follows:

  1. No edits to talk pages, other than your own and mine
  2. No email to me - all communication to be open and viewable
  3. No reverting without simple, factual, explanatory, polite edit summaries
  4. No reverting at all of users you've ever had conflict with
  5. No edits that could in any way shape or form be viewed as controversial
  6. Go to the limit to AGF
  7. Go to the limit to be civil
  8. Anything comes up that you want to work on that might possibly step into these areas, raise here and notify me at my talk page

I may well add to this list... --Dweller (talk) 16:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

I'm not really that happy with 1, 3 and 4.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 17:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Those are the terms of my mentorship. However, they are not permanent. As you gain my trust, I will relax all of them by the successful completion of mentoring. I will also explain further, here, how you will be able to work within those constraints. --Dweller (talk) 17:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't mean 3. I'll reply further in a mo.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 17:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

NB It's fine for you to refuse my terms. I can reapply your block and seek an alternative mentor for you. --Dweller (talk) 17:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

(ec)Right, basically, I am really not happy with being totally barred from talkpages. You stated on ANI that you'd merely be "watching me", and I thought that that was exactly what this would be. I had no idea that you would be imposing such inhibitions. I am also concerned about not reverting users I've had conflict =with. I understand that edit-warring is out, but there are certain users (see [1]) with whom I have quarreled but it's still worth reverting, IMO. Are you open to any negotiation?--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 17:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
PS... I apologise for this - it was an automated edit (using Twinkle) that I'd been storing up for when I eventually got unblocked. I hope that it doesn't count as editing a talkpage?--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 17:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not inflexible. What I want you to do, initially, is discuss things here before doing them. And no worries about the Twinkle auto edit --Dweller (talk) 17:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Cheers for that! What I would suggest is the following: I can initiate discussions on article talkpages, but not participate in discussions I have initiated. I may respond once to discussions I didn't start. I may initiate discussions on user talkpages, but would continue them here on my own. I may not post warning messages on user talkpages unless it's actual genuine vandalism that I came across on a RC Patrol spree, rather than through my watchlist or anything that could be dispute-related. How does that sound?--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 17:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Just for a further example, I would wish to leave the following comment here: I actually prefer the second image, as it not only shows the principal cast members but also a background related to the substance of the episode: the current image is simply a rather dull "wooden room" scene! I don't see how we'd be causing fair use difficulties - they're both simple promo pics, and surely we could just use the same licensing details? --Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 17:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Talk page edits are an excellent way of reducing conflict, so of course I want you to be able to do them once more. However, as you know, they're also splendid ways of stoking things up, too. I want you to settle back in and earn my trust first (I'm afraid AGF doesn't really work too well for mentoring responsibly).

That particular comment is fine - please go ahead and post it. That's exactly how I want things to work.

And, on reflection, I'll allow you to post template warnings for blatant vandalism on vandals' talk pages. Please do up to 20. Let me know when you're getting close to that number, so I can review them. If I'm happy, I'll relax.

I'm going to create some subsections to avoid edit conflicts. --Dweller (talk) 17:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I've slightly cleaned up your design, though :D I'm not absolutely following your point... are you basically saying that I can't edit talkpages without clearance here unless it's something glaringly fine like Support or reverting vandalism? And I'm assuming that this applies to discussion pages like requests for adminship too? Or not? And one final point... assuming I stay unblocked until then :-) would I be able to vote in ArbCom? Thanks!--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 17:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Design - fine
  • Talk page - exactly; except for now, the only thing I'll allow you without clearance is templating vandals. You'll quickly move on to the kind of edits you describe if I remain as happy as I am right now
  • RfA/ArbCom votes - Happy for you to vote or !vote without clearance except if you plan on leaving a comment/anything other than a bald signature. I'm not going to tell you how to !vote, but I want to clear any comments for now.

Does that clarify? --Dweller (talk) 17:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Yup, I'm all clear now. ArbCom is just a vote, rather than a !vote, as far as I'm aware, so I'll be fine on that. Just out of interest, what sort of timescale are we looking at for talkpages, controversial edits etc.?--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 17:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Can't answer you... it depends on how well you build my trust. Sorry, I know that's an annoying response. --Dweller (talk) 18:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is bloody annoying, you stupid f***... just a joke, as I'm sure you realise! You did say that editing this page was fine... :D Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 18:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I can take a joke. I'm going to create two new sections now... I might not finish them tonight (my time). Please don't edit in either until my sig appears in it (which'll be my way of showing I'm done). --Dweller (talk) 18:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Good Faith in focus[edit]

AGF is a very beneficial policy. It's crucial to stress-free editing and productive working here. I'd like you to re-read it. Really. Yes, really.

I'm going to show you some of the lengths I personally go to to AGF and the (sometimes unexpected) benefits it's brought. I'm not holding myself up as a paragon. I'm sure I can do better. It's just I know of some examples from my own back catalogue that prove various points. It'll take me some time to dig 'em up, so keep watching this space.

Civility in focus[edit]

Remaining civil is easier once you're already pushing AGF to the limit. However, here's some general pointers. (I make no apologies for patronising)

  • No swearing. Let's spell this out. None. No word you wouldn't use to your dainty great-grandma/priest/deity. Not even a hint of it / at it.
Why? Well, it's simple. Some users can get away with it. They even may get away with it if others complain. We even have WP:DICK that's often referred to. You're different for two reasons: 1) you've previously shown dubious abilities to judge civility and 2) you're so close to a ban, the last thing you need is someone complaining about you at ANI for something as silly as swearing.
A case in point - I've been away from WP for a while until recently. During that time I missed two Wikifriends of mine having successful AfD nominations. I congratulated the first then when I realised I'd also missed the second I placed a message on their talkpage headed "Ah, bugger" (the rest of the message along the lines "Ah, bugger, I missed you both"). Was this a problem? No. I "know" the editor in question. Would I have said "bugger" on a user's talkpage (or in any edit summary, except possibly a self-revert) whom I didn't "know"? No. You need to know that someone won't take offence; you cannot assume it. Assume that offence will be taken. Tonywalton  | Talk
  • No name-calling. Similar to the first point. Don't characterise other editors as stupid/idiots/stubborn etc.
Why? Same two reasons as above. And you should be able to make whatever point you need to without needing to do this. If you feel there's a driving need to characterise someone, please raise it with me. I'm a reasonable chap. I might agree.
I'd go further than saying "name-calling", to be honest. Calling an edit, for instance, a "glaring howler" (which as far as I know you haven't; this is an example) doesn't involve name-calling but it does push the other editor's (I nearly said "opponent's", and that's what this sort of thing becomes) buttons and lead to an adversarial situation rather than to collaboration. It boils down IMV to "do not editorialise others' edits". If someone is likely to be upset by your comment on the quality of their edit, don't make the comment (aka "if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything"). Possibly you wouldn't be upset at one of your edits being described as a "glaring howler"; that's fair enough, however you can't judge the reactions of others by how you'd react, so the safest way (though agreed, it does make things a bit stilted) is to try to avoid commenting on the quality of others' editing except in the most neutral and factual terms. Tonywalton  | Talk

Clearances[edit]

Proposed talkpage edits[edit]

  • To post here: This isn't a bad idea, as long as the {{editprotected}} is not used - that's not what it's for. The protection would, IMO, be to prevent changes without consensus to be made, and general shifting of policy on a day-to-day basis. It would be to make changes to policy pages a "special occasion". Thus, a discussion should simply be initiated, with no need for a template... but obviously we could continue using the template for simple spelling corrections and so on. The protection would also reduce vandalism to high-profile policy pages such as WP:3RR, WP:CIV and... it's got to be said, WP:VAND. All in all, it's a good idea... and I'm not an admin, so I'm signing away my birthright, here! --Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 18:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Go for it. --Dweller (talk) 18:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Yeah, that's fine. --Dweller (talk) 18:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • To post here: I don't think we have a source for the Porg yet, do we? It's just one of those "Sun" stories that's got a 50% chance of turning out to be made up! Furthermore, the slogan doesn't appear to apply to the episode; the date given is today's, which is the day that the advent calendar starts. The "advent" section of "adventure" is highlighted, so there's no reason to suppose that it pertains to the episode at all, adventurous as it will surely be... --Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 09:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  • That one's fine. --Dweller 11:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • To post here: I understand your problem with this, but I'm actually greatly in favour of restricting anon access in general. There has been so much speculative material and other unacceptable stuff posted on that page recently that it's taken a lot of time away from valuable editors who could be doing something much more constructive than deleting the word "Porg" when it was placed next to a sign saying "Do not type the word Porg here". This time-wasting disruption (and it is disruption when as blatant as that) will only increase with the media leaks and inventions that are bound to begin appearing in our fabulous press :D And, I'm afraid it's got to be said, most (at least 75%) of this stuff comes from IPs. Full-protection isn't a good idea, since most of the worthwhile contributions come from registered users, most of whom aren't admins, but since most of the poor material comes from IPs, I think that semi-protection is very apt. [para break] Actually, the protection will automatically come down about 3-5 hours after the end of the episode. I'd like to suggest that the protection extend at least 24hrs after the end of the episode, as it is this aftermath period that yields the most unacceptable material. If the protection doesn't change, I'd like to suggest a template at the top of the page, reminding IPs and registered users alike to spell correctly, use grammar and apostrophes correctly, read WP:NOR, WP:CITE, WP:RS and WP:VER and generally remember that this is an encyclopedia and not a chat room. Sorry if this sounds blunt :-) Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 19:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Looks fine. --Dweller 19:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Just FYI there are specific "do not use this talkpage as a chatroom" templates developed by the user warnings project, for placing on the talkpages of editors who, er, are using talkpages as a chatroom. See {{uw-chat1}} through {{uw-chat4}}. In fact in general it's worth taking a look at Wikipedia:Template_messages/User_talk_namespace for neutral warnings which a) have the advantage of already having gained consensus as to their suitability and b) are a helluvalot easier to type than putting a full warning each time. Tonywalton  | Talk 20:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Fine, but avoid getting drawn into a WP:3RR war. Explain the consensus gently but firmly at all times, including edit summaries. --Dweller (talk) 11:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • To post here... A sentence about the Eighth Doctor was recently changed from "played by" to "portrayed by". I reverted this change, considering it completely useless - we can all use a thesaurus! - and complicating the article. I noted that "to portray" is a poncier verb, whereas "to play" is much simpler and more commonly used. Ckatz then undid that, claiming that it's not poncy. There are several flaws with this edit, as I see it... firstly: how is it not poncy to use a posher word than necessary? Secondly, surely we should avoid using complicated language where possible, and thirdly: assuming that s/he's right on both arguments (!), why change something for the sake of change? Any thoughts? Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 09:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, I think you've inflamed the situation by not being civil enough. "Poncy" is rude - clearly the other user thinks it's a fine word; by denigrating it as "poncy" or "posh" you are attacking the other user. You also misunderstand a fundamental - we don't replace words for being too posh or not posh enough. We replace them if they are a barrier to comprehension, or if they are inaccurate. In this case, "portrayed by" is simply incorrect use of English English, which Dr Who articles should be in. Actors "play" parts, they don't "portray" them. Rewrite your proposed talk page edit please. And please be more careful to avoid offending people in edit summaries. Finally, I'd like you to drop a short but polite note to the other user on his/her talk page explaining that you didn't mean to give offence when you used that term, that you don't want to get into a revert war and pointing him to the talk page where you're going to discuss the difference of opinion. Thanks. --Dweller (talk) 12:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I thought the idea was to comment on content not editors? "Poncy" really isn't a rude word, at least in the UK. By describing an edit, I cannot be attacking another editor; the 'in a nutshell' for WP:NPA is specifically that. If I'd described the edit as sh*t, that would be different, but "poncy" is a perfectly social and descriptive word. I honestly don't think that Ckatz was offended; also note that although it was him/her who reverted my revert, it wasn't them who did it originally. It was (I think) Shokuwarrior - there'd be no reason for Ckatz to be offended, let alone grounds. I really can't suggest alternate wording, because I feel that you've misunderstood the situation. I don't know about the US meaning of "poncy", but the very idea of apologising for a word used by those who attend Harrow School causes me to grin! Of course, if you feel that it is an inaccurate word, I presume there's nothing to stop you from fixing it yourself?--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 16:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, but not using derogatory terms. "You're an idiot" and "that edit was idiotic" amount to the same thing. "Poncy" is a derogatory word (I also live in the UK) - if your best mate told you your new shoes made you look poncy, you wouldn't (probably) take it as a compliment. I have no desire to be involved in the debate... if you don't want to take it any further, drop it. But don't revert war. And be careful with civility in edit summaries. --Dweller (talk) 10:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Further, if someone you had never met turned round in the street and called your shoes "poncy" I think you would most definitely not take it as a compliment. Equally, how likely are you to describe the shoes of someone you have never met before as "poncy" to their face, and not expect some distress on their part? As I mentioned above, unless you "know" someone on here you can't assume what their reaction may be to use of language. Tonywalton Talk 10:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • To post here... The section about Tate's and Tennant's relative ages was recently removed by Ckatz; this is a section that has been discussed several times - the main point being that it isn't original research since it is incontrovertably true. Tate is older than Tennant, this is a first to the extent described; what's other peoples' opinions on this?--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 08:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Looks fine. --Dweller (talk) 10:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • To post here... Pertaining to this edit: the Harold Saxon website does not say or suggest that Saxon was a member of no political party. What it says is that all the parties agreed on him. If the Lib Dems and the Tories - for example - agreed to support one of Gordon Brown's bills, one could write that same sentence, but to say that the mad Scot is a member of no political party would, of course, be nonsense. To say that Saxon was non-affiliated is original research.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 16:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Not sure I follow your logic, but that's irrelevant. What's relevant is that there is no need to name-call Gordon Brown as "the mad Scot". Sometimes I wonder if you're trying to wind people up, but I think you just don't think enough about what you write and the impact on others. Kindly revise. --Dweller (talk) 17:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • It's just humour, really, nobody likes him. How about it, changing "the mad Scot" to something original, like "Gordon Brown"?--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 17:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Catchy? No. Funny? No. Neutral? Yes. Likely to provoke controversy? No. Good idea. Even "the Clunking Fist", while a well-sourced soubriquet for the current First Lord of the Treasury, wouldn't be appropriate. IMV. Tonywalton Talk 17:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I think you might have answered questions 3 and 4 wrongly :-) That's as may be - how about the message?--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 17:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • The yes/no referred to changing "the mad Scot" to "Gordon Brown" in your message. Tonywalton Talk 17:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposed controversial edits[edit]

  • Yes that's fine (inasmuch as it's OK to do it; I'm not saying I agree it should be deleted). Please make sure you notify the originator and anyone else who may have substantially edited the page - this is courtesy and in no way contravenes WP:CANVASS. Just one thought - I'm not sure I understand what you mean by notability being "unstable". Once a topic passes our notability criteria, it's notable; it can't become not notable once more. --Dweller 11:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Two responses: 1) Post it to the pump 2) Please make no further amends to other peoples' user space without their express permission while under my mentoring, unless it's reverting vandalism by a 3rd party. I'm surprised it didn't occur to you to come here and post it as a proposed controversial edit. --Dweller (talk) 15:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC) NB those fake message banners have been discussed several times before... I'm not sure there's ever been consensus and the relevant policy (WP:USER#Simulated_MediaWiki_interfaces is rather weaselly-worded.
  • Just to leap in once again, your edit summary merely said "(rm simulated "new messages" banner per policy". If it's "per policy" then at the very least cite the policy in the edit summary. I detest those damn' pretend "You have new messages" things as well, but I note that the "policy" you cite here isn't a policy at all, it's a guideline, and the specific section you cite just says "is generally frowned upon", which is nowhere near a policy. In other words if you're going to start waving the rulestick about, make sure you're holding it by the right end. I also agree 100% with Dweller about edits to others' userspace. Tonywalton Talk 22:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Fair enough; as I said, I bow to your authority :-) I merely thought that deleting something that the community decided "should be avoided except for essential testing" would be absolutely fine, since its only purpose was to distract editors from creating an encyclopedia - which, I'm sure you'll agree, is totally non-essential!--Porcupine (prickle me! ·

contribs · status) 22:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Authority, me? Pah. I quite agree in principle with what you say - as I said, I detest those things. However I find it ironic that you're in a sense arrogating authority (and yes, I know WP:USER/WP:OWN etc "allow" you) to delete things "per policy" (which isn't one) and later complaining about a user, er, arrogating authority by having the words "The Management" on a user template (I'll address this one later). Tonywalton Talk 22:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I've taken the liberty of nominating Wikipedia:Log for deletion without listing it here; obviously any deletion discussion is controversial - mostly, anyway - but I don't feel that my nomination violates any of the broad mentoring principles.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 13:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  • No. You've already done so once and he's reverted. Don't edit war. If you're unhappy with this, suggest above some wording for his/her talk page. --Dweller (talk) 21:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  • How about this: Hi, I noticed that you've reverted (without explanation) my change to your Letter to Sockpuppets. I personally disagree with its entire message, since it encourages sockpuppetry in itself, but my main issue is that it is signed "The Management". Users can be blocked for having usernames implying that they are authority figures; there is no reason that this rule should apply only to usernames, IMO. "The Management" of Wikipedia is the Wikimedia Foundation, more specifically - its board. It is misleading and wrong to say otherwise, and I would like to encourage you to chage the signature. Thanks.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 21:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I would drop the stick here. Two reasons. 1) I don't think you'll "win" this one (and remember, it's not a competition). Mangojuice is a well-respected editor and an admin - while being an admin is No Big Deal it does imply some passing knowledge of what Policy is, what Guideline is, and what WP:IAR is (and is for). I am not implying that MJ would block you or otherwise take action against you in a fit of pique (not doing these things is what gets you "well-respected") but MJ could probably marshal arguments not to change it better than you could to change it. 2) If you read the voluminous stuff at WP:SOCK (and trust me, I have read it to death following this little lot) that template could indeed be said to represent very well the views of "The Management" on sockpuppetry. So it's in userspace. So what? If the WP:SOCK policy changes (and I doubt it will) then if Mangojuice doesn't change the template, remind them. Gently. If you must police policy, why not keep an eye on newpages and tag for WP:CSD those that are disruptivelyagainst policy? Cheers, Tonywalton Talk 22:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Requesting a rename - I'd like a fresh start, as our mentoring will soon end, and it'd be rather nice. I'd have all the redirect-biz as per usual, but just thought I'd list it here. Any views?--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 18:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Sounds a good idea. If one day you run for adminship, you'll need to acknowledge your former account, which will go in your favour far better than if you're perceived to have hidden it and it's "discovered". The way you're going, I see no reason why the community shouldn't agree to making you an admin at some point in the future; they'll just want to see evidence of a solid block of time of 'mended ways'. :-) Please do not put in the request until the mentorship expires and I have posted at AN to that effect. Do you know what date that is? --Dweller (talk) 10:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Fine; I'd put a note on my userpage listing all my names anyway :D The mentoring ends on February 28th - out of interest, why not to request rename before then?--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 10:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Just to keep things simple when I report a successful completion of mentoring to WP:AN. --Dweller (talk) 11:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposed reversions of editors formerly in conflict[edit]

(none as yet)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:TreasuryTag/Mentoring&oldid=261729807"