User:Moonriddengirl/Mentorship archives

Good example

Hi, Malke. I haven't read the background of this conversation (lot of work this morning!), but I wanted to say that this response is a good example of how to try to work towards cooperation. :) It may be just the beginning of a conversation, but it sets a cordial tone and seems geared towards mutual understanding. Well done. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:11, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

It's from this: [1].Malke 2010 (talk) 13:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, in context, it's even better. You handled that well. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:58, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Brief review

Malke has not been very active these last few days, but what interactions there was have been handled well and been practice/policy compliant. Indeed, it was only in reviewing some other matters it occurred to me that I was supposed to be mentoring an editor and was then aware that none of my watched pages had given me any cause to comment or intervene. I am pretty pleased with the progress presently, and hope that when editing becomes a bit more intense that the same standards of civility and good faith are maintained. Cheers, LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:08, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear it! Keep up the good work, Malke. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:35, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks LessHeard and MRG. I didn't know this was here.Malke 2010 (talk) 18:40, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Taking opportunities to de-escalate

Hi, Malke. Sometimes drama is unavoidable, and sometimes it can be curtailed. When you are involved in drama, which distracts everyone from the true purpose of editing, the goal is to look for ways to get people back on track. In this case, you have evidently inadvertently contributed to drama by putting some links on a page in such a way that they can legitimately be read as drawing inference that the diffs support the header. A comparable situation might be if I put something on an article talk page that said "Copyright violations" and put diffs below them. People would understandably be likely to presume that I mean to suggest the diffs are examples of copyright violations. If I intended something else and those concerns were expressed to me, I would edit my own comment to clarify. This is acceptable behavior under Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, so long as you note what you're doing. For instance, on 21 October I added the following to a comment I had made that caused some confusion at Wikipedia talk:Image use policy: "(eta: I am still speaking to Soundvisions, whose points I am addressing here. This has evidently caused some confusion, and clarity is important here.)" (ETA means "edited to add") It's actually a good thing to do if another user feels misrepresented by what you've said and you did not intend the implication that he is drawing. It's a particularly good thing to do when other users have also misinterpreted your intentions. Unfortunately, it is being interpreted as an "ill-considered accusation of impropriety" (per WP:CIVIL).

Related to the above, it is standard practice to sign unsigned comments for other people; see WP:UNSIGNED. Attributing unsigned comments is one of the "acceptable" forms of editing other's comments listed at WP:TPO. Altering section headers is also permitted: per that document, "no one, including the original poster, 'owns' a talk page discussion or its heading. It is generally acceptable to change headings when a better header is appropriate, e.g. one more descriptive of the content of the discussion or the issue discussed, less one-sided, more appropriate for accessibility reasons, etc."

The drama here can be ended. You have the opportunity here to help shut down the disruption to ordinary editing that is ongoing to bring attention back to where it needs to be: building the article. What's needed is for you at least to clarify your original comment in such a way that you make plain your intention. I hope you'll take it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:35, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I've already made posts on the article talk page and my talk page that cover the situation. Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 21:41, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment I have emailed Malke my thoughts, since I considered the matter too fresh to be reviewed without the potential of re-opening the discussion. However, since it has been commented upon I would make the following general observations; MSG is correct regarding what can and what shouldn't be done with editors talkpage comments - but this is part of the learning process and perhaps not so much a mentorship issue. Likewise the comments about ensuring clarity; good advice generally. What I said in my email that I will repeat here is that I felt that you kept your temper under control and applied yourself mostly to the points being disputed - and were well within the guidelines of WP:CIVIL. Disagreements and disputes are as much a part of WP as is real life, and these were handled within normal WP practice (IMnsHO). It is very likely they could have been handled even better, but then it is very likely that I also could do things even better - but as long as we do as well as we can under the circumstances then that is fine. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:53, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your adding your clarification especially to the hatnote. That kind of thing can go a long way towards keeping matters moving in the right direction. This conversation is a bit fractured at this point, but hopefully the clarification I've added to the section header resolves your concern. Please let me know if it doesn't at my talk page, and we'll keep the focus here tight.

With respect to the focus here and especially your note at my talk page "I'd appreciate it if from now on you refrain from making mentorship page posts until after an issue has been settled. I appreciate it." I cannot do that. Under the terms of your mentorship, I have a responsibility to the community as well as to you. Waiting until after something has escalated to ANI or another forum isn't living up to that. I, too, have an obligation to de-escalate drama where I can. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:12, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree with MRG, the mentors remit is to intervene and stop problems at source; this may include inserting oneself into a dispute, or responding elsewhere if considered appropriate, or posting "well done, keep it up" posts, or whatever is deemed appropriate. Our intent is to keep both the project and the mentored editor both generally moving in the same direction, and we need a free hand with which to do so. Presently, these are the conditions that prevail. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:39, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

A heads up to MRG

You might get a slightly belligerent post to your talkpage or here in respect of a comment I made at User talk:Chhe, following them 3RR templating Malke and making a report on the 3RR noticeboard. I am happy for you to talk about the mentorship on both our behalf's, but if they have an issue with the manner of my questioning their actions please refer them to me. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:33, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thanks so much for that. Much appreciated. :) Malke 2010 (talk) 22:44, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Now that that's done with

Comments, suggestions?Malke 2010 (talk) 16:58, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I hope this will be okay to comment here as this is the mentor page. What I wanted to mention to both of you was that the thing I would do differently is I wouldn't have moved the uncivil comments from the project page to the discussion page over on the Mediation Cabal page. I've had experience on that page with another article. I didn't open the mediation on that one, but I was a party to it, and I do remember that commentaries such as the one I moved belonged on the discussion page. So turning the clock back, comments would have stayed. And as it turns out another editor thought as I did and made a discussion page comment about it which resulted in it's being deleted.

I am grateful that Daedulus came along for the simple reason that he validated what I'd been seeing all along, and he pointed out what I could have done better, i.e., not moved the comments. And his sense of what is civil and not civil is what has finally brought this to an end. I can't thank him enough for that. And while I've worked with M.Lauba before, I have no problem with the solution he's come up with. I am very grateful for the relief. So, thank you M.Lauba. You had to be Solomon and I accept any and all responsibility for anything I did that added fuel.

MRG and LessHeard, I hope you both can see that I managed the situation using the guidelines you've both been teaching me. And again, sorry LessHeard, I'd not have posted to AN/I had I understood what my position there was.Malke 2010 (talk) 20:06, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

The lesson I would like you to take from this is that it is far less long term trouble to take a step back and ask for advice before acting - and that includes talking to the other editor. A revert or two is okay between some editors, but as soon as it isn't - start talking. Get advice, involve other editors, find a consensus, be the person who is trying to resolve the problem before it becomes an issue. Keep your name, even in respect of other editors being discussed, off the 'Boards. Editing is so much easier without those distractions. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:21, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

All very good advice! First, let me say that commenting here is perfect; it's a good place for self-reflection and discussion. I think you did a very good job of keeping civil in a tense situation. I've never been involved in a mediation of that sort, though I do know that at RfC/U comments are made on the discussion page. But I think your hindsight is good here, that next time you should probably leave moving the comments to the discussion page to somebody else, especially when they seem to be critical of you. LessHeard already mentioned at your page that it would have been better for you not to comment at the AN/I. I understand why you did, but I agree with him. The risk of escalation there was high, and Daedulus' edit spoke for itself. You don't want to seem to be fanning the fires. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:32, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, great. About the noticeboard bit, I did comment on the AN for the Tea Party Movement page unlocking because Magog moved the discussion there rather than leaving some of it over on TPM. No more after that, though.  :) Malke 2010 (talk) 04:08, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Archiving

Hi, Malke and LHvU. :) I've archived October, except the good example at the end of the month, which I thought might be beneficial to reflect back on. (Not in any particular context, but just in general.) Malke, if you think I've removed anything prematurely, anything that isn't finished with, please pull it back out. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:24, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

MLauba's comment

Hi, Malke. I just wanted to comment on what User:MLauba said here: that's pretty good advice. Depersonalizing such statements can be beneficial both for the reasons MLauba sets out and for more Wikipedia-specific reason in helping you remain within the boundaries of WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. (That said, the approach can itself be subject to abuse. :) Saying "I feel as though my ideas are being dismissed without good reason" would be depersonalizing; saying "I feel as though I'm talking to a sexist nutjob who barely comprehends written English" would not be. :D) Leaving beyond that obvious example and reflecting back on our conversation here, for a better one, stating that somebody is "harassing" or "hounding" somebody (whether that's you or somebody else) is a presumption of ill-intent; it's better to focus on the issue and the effect of the following and avoid terms that inherently imply impropriety out of it.

Now, that doesn't mean, of course, that you don't do anything about it if somebody is out of bounds. Using neutral language is actually helpful here; people are more likely to back off of bad behavior if you give them a way out that doesn't require them to tacitly admit that their behavior was bad. This is a technique I use all the time in copyright work. And if they won't, and you have to pursue it through an appropriate board, what will matter most are clear diffs demonstrating the behavior and demonstrating your good-faith efforts to resolve it. Your neutral language will be helpful there, too, since nobody will then be able to say that you've contributed to or further inflamed the situation. It's a good thing all the way around. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:30, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, MRG. As you pointed out, maintaining civility and use of neutral language is always best. One suggestion here, I think we need to clarify that your example of, "I feel as though I'm talking to a sexist nutjob who barely comprehends written English," is not something I've ever said, either in the past nor in the recent and now firmly concluded, situation. As you and LessHeard have pointed out at various junctures in this now past situation, I have maintained civility, have not personalized anything, and as you can see, have respected and maintained M.Lauba's interaction ban, and will continue to do so.

Anything further that may arise from this past situation, is not something I would initiate, nor participate in, nor would I be in any position to offer a solution should anything new develop. Therefore, I have no further comments to offer regarding it.Malke 2010 (talk) 19:21, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

MRG was only using a general example with the "sexist nutjob" quote - per ensuring that nobody might be offended (or if they were, being a sexist nutjob is not something they are going to advertise anyway) - to demonstrate why being neutral and civil is the preferred (required!) option; she was not referring to any of your past comments. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:10, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi LessHeard. Thanks for that. I just read over M.Lauba's comments on my talk page again to make sure everything was fine there, and I just now noted he not only reminded me not to comment in the future but he also asked me to reformulate a comment I'd made here. So I'm going to do that now. If you think I could have said it better, feel free to suggest or change at will. Thanks. Malke 2010 (talk) 21:18, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it was one of my exaggerated-so-nobody-will-think-its-actual examples. :) I'd be shocked if you ever called somebody a "sexist nutjob who barely comprehends written English." :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:56, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, obviously she hasn't had that much interaction with me - but I agree that it is unlikely she would write it out loud... LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:51, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Collegial interaction

Malke, this is inappropriate: [2]. Telling somebody "If you want to talk to yourself, do it on your page" cannot be interpreted reasonably as constructive interaction. It doesn't matter how angry or provoked you may feel. WP:CIVIL says "In order to keep the focus on improving the encyclopedia and to help maintain a pleasant editing environment, editors should behave politely, calmly and reasonably, even during heated debates." WP:BATTLE says, "If another user behaves in an uncivil, uncooperative, or insulting manner, or even tries to harass or intimidate you, this does not give you an excuse to respond in kind. Address only the factual points brought forward, ignoring the inappropriate comments, or disregard that user entirely." You can disengage, you can reasonably discuss, but you cannot lash out at him, no matter how badly you feel he is behaving. Please do not make comments of that sort again. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:27, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

You're right. I was feeling a bit snarky there as the barking was getting louder. But still, that's not an excuse and I do know better. If it's still there, I will remove it.Malke 2010 (talk) 20:39, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

It's already gone. Thanks. If you feel you are being harassed, try to remember per policy to "act calmly (even if difficult)" (emphasis in original). This is very important and will not only benefit the project, but you. Remember "the law of diminishing returns" we discussed in June. It's an effective technique. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:47, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I went back but he'd deleted it. And, I do remember June.Malke 2010 (talk) 20:54, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Supporters, statement expansion

Hi, Malke. Please be careful to avoid lumping people together in conversations about content development, as you've done here. The only time people have supporters is when they are running for some kind of office or being considered for sanctions. Otherwise, positions have (or do not have) support. Calling people "supporters" may be read as suggesting some kind of impropriety, such as meat puppetry, or at least of being somehow uninformed in their opinions. It also overlooks the fact that a person may share a viewpoint on one issue, but not another. You do a much better job later in that conversation; they do share support of a single position, and thus calling them generally "supporters" is not a bad thing.

I'm a bit concerned that I may have led you astray with your rationale expansion. When I suggested here that you should expand it, I did so with the condition that it be done "before anybody else replies." This is to maintain context in the conversation. If you alter your deletion rationale after the conversation begins, the deleting administrator will not know that early responders are answering a different argument. Too, in the general run of things, early responders may react differently to a different rationale. In the future please try to make your rationale complete before listing the AfD. If you addlater, please make clear that you are adding, say by subsectioning your additional notes. In this case, it would be a good idea to add, maybe, a parenthetical note at the end of your rationale, saying something like "(rationale expanded)". Otherwise, the timestamp is a bit misleading. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:36, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

One needs to assume good faith.Malke 2010 (talk) 15:57, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, one does. :) Avoiding referring to people as "History2007 and his 'supporters'" can keep it clear that you are. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

If I felt meat puppet was accurate, I'd use it. I'm pointing out that they are wagging the dog instead of addressing the issues raised in the AfD, and I've used that exact term consistently. I've pointed out it's always the exact same editors on every AfD, parroting the exact same attacks against the nominator and all failing to even offer one reason why the articles aren't content forks. They consistently refuse to address the true issue, hence they're wagging the dog. Poor damn dog. :/ Malke 2010 (talk) 16:47, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be deliberately being fractious here: [3]. Please remember that I'm here because you demonstrated sufficient concerns with WP:BATTLE that it was agreed that mentorship was necessary to help you engage with others. Let me remind you of some of the core principles there:

Every user is expected to interact with others civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation. Do not insult, harass, or intimidate those with whom you have a disagreement. Rather, approach the matter intelligently and engage in polite discussion....In large disputes, resist the urge to turn Wikipedia into a battleground between factions.

You are factionalizing the conversation by segregating those who disagree with you into "History2007's supporters", and moreover you are now obviously doing it intentionally. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:44, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea what is upsetting you right now, so I'm hoping LessHeard will return soon.Malke 2010 (talk) 17:52, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

What's upsetting me is the fact that I asked you not to refer to people as History 2007's supporters, very clearly, and you have done it again. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)