User:TreasuryTag/Mentoring

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

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

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

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

Proposed talkpage edits

• 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)

• Thanks. I assume it's still civil if I don't reply every time ;-) Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 18:47, 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)

• To post here: Hi, you seem to be in an edit war on the article Voyage of the Damned (Doctor Who). The reason that your image keeps being removed, as explained above, is that it doesn't conform to Wikipedia's copyright standards. As well as the links I left you earlier, you should also read the policies at this page, this page and this page. See you around! Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 13:39, 4 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)

• I do avoid this... I only reverted it the once!--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 13:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposed controversial edits

• Deletion nomination of List of Is It Legal? characters (as per current version - admittedly a fairly new page; however, it took valid, well-written content from an existing article). I don't believe that this article is notable, and it contains much original research. It is not terribly well-written, with an unencyclopedic style. Though tagged heavily (!), I wouldn't think that there's much room for improvement, and its notability is, IMO, terminally unstable. Cheers,--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 15:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

• 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)

• To post here or here: User:Redmarkviolinist contains a simulated "You have new messages" banner, which is a bit iffy under this policy. I deleted the banner [2], and this was then undone. He then left a rather rude, inaccurate message on my talkpage. The banner is very realistic, and certainly fooled me - thus I would suggest that we form a consensus to remove it.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 10:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposed reversions of editors formerly in conflict

(none as yet)