Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:07, 11 October 2009

Welcome to my (rather minimalist) user and user talk page: please leave comments, questions, complaints, or just general chat below. I can't promise to reply, but if I do I will reply here: if I take a while I will drop a note on your talk page. Please provide direct links to issues you raise. I like to help out and have experience with templates, but my wikitime is limited. I have access to admin tools, but I don't use them to deal with vandalism or editor conduct (although I am willing to help with both of these issues sans tools).

"Official" abbreviations of my username include G'guy, G-guy and (recently!) Gguy. I promise I will only be mildly irritated by approximations relating to horses, but if you need an RfA conom, beware :-)

Archives: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Your suggestion of a hatnote

I have put up a notice as you suggested, and notified my other mentors/advisers, except for Ling.Nut who has retired and Fowler&fowler who has not been active for a while. Hopefully, I will not let you down again. It will be a while before I return to GA work, though. That is the scariest place. I have definately learned never to give a second opinion, that's for sure! Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 23:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

That is progress, but there is still more to do: the monitoring page needs to be well structured, welcoming and easy to use so that anyone can post there. You also need to have a clear mechanism to archive resolved concerns. Geometry guy 23:45, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome to set it up however you think it should be. I am limited by just knowing how to copypaste the archiving mechanism from my talkpage. I can do that, if that would work. —mattisse (Talk) 23:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I will think on it. Geometry guy 23:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that the best approach is for User:Mattisse/Monitoring to be the place where issues are raised, and User talk:Mattisse/Monitoring to be a place for discussion. I think Johnbod suggested the other way round, but this way makes more sense to me and I'm making some tentative edits with that in mind. Geometry guy 22:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I've completed my sketch of how the page might operate. Auto archiving can be added to both the monitoring page and its talk page in due course according to the amount of activity there. Geometry guy 23:21, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your thoughtful response at User Talk:Mattisse. :) MastCell  05:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for this as well; now if we can assure the mentors watchlist it, that should do it. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:52, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Time will tell. I've added an "active mentors" list which consists of those who have indicated recently that they are watchlisting Mattisse's plan pages. I hope mentors will add or remove themselves from this list according to their activity. Geometry guy 23:18, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I guess you probably understand that the "contact YellowMonkey" for any issues at FAR comes out of left field ... that would put him in a COI for closing FARs, and I (at least) wouldn't do that. If there continue to be issues at FAR, that goes to the monitoring page, I suppose? Where is the active mentors list? Concerned that the issues raised about F&F at FAC are similar to some of those Mattisse struggles with. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:24, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The list is at User:Mattisse/Monitoring and doesn't currently include F&F, as he hasn't indicated his activity recently as far as I know. YellowMonkey and ArtLaPella, although not mentors, may be helpful filters and it would be churlish to turn away their kind offers of help; ultimately, though, any concerns should go to the monitoring page. I understand your COI position; an alternative one (which may be closer to YM's) is that if all ones contributions are aimed purely at improving the encyclopedia, then a COI can never arise. I try to bear both of these points of view in mind myself. Geometry guy 23:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Also confused about YM's offer to help, as I've never seen it and the diffs to it don't show that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:25, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• User:YellowMonkey has stated at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Workshop > Monitoring: that he does not put up with unruly behavior at FAR, when I asked him to make a statement about my participation there for arbcom. He encouraged me, in answer to a direct question, to continue participating in FAR. Why don't you ask YellowMonkey directly, if in doubt? HIs monitoring of FAR was considered satisfactory by Arbcom. I have consulted with him on his page regarding all my FAR nominations. He has never criticized my work there to me. —mattisse (Talk) 12:35, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• This is an area where it continues to surprise me that you've received no guidance from your mentors; you often supply diffs that don't show what you think they show, and this often gets you into trouble. As an editor who understands the importance of assuring that sources state what article text claims they state, I'm surprised you're not more discriminating in the diffs you supply about non-article issues, and I wish your mentors would help you understand this issue. Your diffs to YM don't show what you think they show, and I have no intention, ever, of involving YM in a COI if there are problems at FAR. In that case, editors need a central location for raising issues, which as now been provided, end of my involvement and concern. SandyGeorgia (Talk)

  As far as I am aware, no one is asking to you to involve YM in a COI. The monitoring page does not state (nor did it ever state) that YM has any particular involvement beyond his work at FAR. You have misread it and I will clarify it. I understand your confusion because I effectively reacted similarly by lumping together ALP's and YM's positions. If you wish to edify Mattisse, you may wish to discuss on her talk page what you think the diffs mean, what you think Mattisse thinks the diffs mean, then listen to what she actually thinks the diffs mean so you can discuss what the discrepancies actually are. If you have better things to do, I will understand: so do I. Geometry guy 20:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

  Just clarifying to you, as there are frequently things written on the monitoring page and elsewhere that aren't reflected in diffs or by anything stated in the ArbCom (and it must be confusing to Mattisse, when she continues to hold misconceptions that no one clarifies). Nowhere have I ever seen a diff or statement that FAR issues should be resolved by YM, nor would I ever involve him in a conflict by taking FAR problems to him. If there are problems with Mattisse at FAR, those belong on the monitoring page, where all can follow and mentors can do what they signed on to do. Once again, I continue to be frustrated that mentors don't explain issues to Mattisse; my past attempts to help her were unsuccessful, and she now has mentors for that purpose. I didn't sign up to help her understand the behaviors that lead her to difficulties; I can point out to her mentors when that is occurring, though, particularly on pages where I'm actively involved like FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

(←) I understand your frustration and will take it as a compliment that you comment here because you see my detached outlook the best chance you have to convey to Mattisse the concerns you perceive. I agree with you that YM has nowhere offered to resolve issues involving Mattisse at FAR. I believe Mattisse is basing her position on the fact that this version was approved by ArbCom (diff to current). Given this diff and the relatively few edits to the monitoring page prior to 17 September, I have no idea what you mean by "frequently". Let me repeat one more time: the mentors are not parents; Mattisse's plan is her own responsibility and she will sink or swim accordingly. Regarding what mentors signed on to do, please read this, and please stop digging up the past: you cannot transfer your own notions and experiences of mentorship to a different situation. I didn't sign up to be a parent either and will not become one. Geometry guy 22:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Complaints regarding anything I do at FAR are to be monitored by User:YellowMonkey. I have checked with him before I nominated any article and I have posted to his page for feedback since. I have not received any negative feedback from him, except once when he thought my reference to "inmates taking over the asylum" was a reference to mentally ill users. At that time, Karancas explained to him that it was a common American expression that was not meant to denigrate the mentally ill. So far, I have received positive feedback from him. However, if anyone has any complaints, please relay them to YellowMonkey per my arbitration plan. He is capable of handling them. I will ask him again if he has any complaints about my behavior. Thanks, —mattisse (Talk) 23:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Geometry guy, I have read your suggestions on the talk page of my monitoring plan, and I am willing to have the plan change in the direction you suggest. Frankly, I do not understand much of what has been said there, other than the obvious—that I should never post on AN/I or use sockpuppets. In any event, I would like my plan to be constructive and to be something that I can understand and follow. So I am in favor of your suggestions (even though I don't quite understand them). I will be interested to see how they will work out. I would rather be able to continue editing on Misplaced Pages than not be able to edit on Misplaced Pages. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 23:39, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Re the "Venom alert" incident

Hi, G-Guy. Thanks for your usual level-headed comments. I'm not trying you into this mess, but if you if you wish comment on my view of the situation I'd be very interested. Here goes:

1. Bishonen titled the item "Venom alert" and used the term "venomous" of Mattisse's conduct at the ANI concerned.
2. IMO Mattisse's ArbCom does not declare open season on Mattisse. It is not a licence to carry on feuds, and editors commenting on Mattisse are expected to avoid incivility and personal attacks with Mattisse as much as with any other editor.
3. The expressed purpose of the ArbCom is to improve Mattisse's behaviour, i.e. she must unlearn old habits and learn new ones. In terms of learning, she will have to handle the simpler situations before the more difficult ones. That implies that she is not yet ready handle comments that are presented in a hostile way. In that spirit I invited KillerChihuahuah to start a new thread expressing KC's concerns in non-hostile language.
4. In the "Venom alert" discussion I expressed concerns about Mattisse's conduct, and in emails to Mattise I was lot more direct. I was unwilling to put my blunter comments in public as I suspect the more hostile contributors would have used them as ammunition. --Philcha (talk) 06:44, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Philcha, your statement, "The expressed purpose of the ArbCom is to improve Mattisse's behaviour ... " might explain why you seem to have a different view of the mentor role than several others. I hope you don't believe this is the only purpose, outcome or conclusion of the ArbCom? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

This discussion can be taken elsewhere if necessary. Geometry guy 23:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Philcha, thanks for asking my view. I've numbered your comments for ease of reference.

1. Bishonen's comments fall just short of a personal attack, as she probably well knows. There is nothing anyone can do about editors who seem congenitally unable raise an issue without couching it in colourful language. However, I don't think loaded or inflammatory comments should be tolerated on the Monitoring page, which is one of the motivations for the proposal I have made.
2. I agree, but Mattisse's ArbCom placed no sanctions on any editor other than Mattisse, and so there is nothing that can be done beyond standard processes to encourage other editors to play nice. You must accept that, and help Mattisse accept that.
3. I agree that Mattisse needs to unlearn old habits and learn new ones, but otherwise I mostly disagree. The phrase "if you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen" springs to mind. Mattisse evidently believes that many internal aspects of Misplaced Pages are deeply flawed, and she wants to try to fix them. I sympathise, but she has to understand that if you try to change anything here, you are likely to receive flak because not everyone agrees with your point of view, especially if, as YellowMonkey put it, you have "no political capital". While I appreciate that it is helpful to Mattisse to have a mentor like yourself who sees things from her perspective and wants to encourage her personal growth, mentorship is not protection. If Mattisse wants to go out and play hard, she is going to come back with some bruises. It's up to her whether she can handle it and still stick to her plan per ArbCom.
4. I consider it completely unhelpful in general to say one thing off-wiki and another thing on-wiki, as I'm sure you know. If you seriously believe that blunt onwiki comments are more harmful than contributing with personal integrity, then I don't understand you. Why would anyone want to quote anything you say if they don't believe it is what you really think? And if they did, who would then take notice?

So far the Monitoring proposal I have made has received no comments. If no one expresses an interest, I will assume that this means that other editors are happy for the monitoring page to be simply another talk shop where editors can rehash arguments or thrash out frustrations. If that is what others want, that's fine with me: I will simply remove my name from the list of active mentors there (while remaining willing to offer advice per the ArbCom decision), since I won't be able to contribute to any such discussions. Thanks, Geometry guy 23:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I did comment. See the section above. Also, I believe I commented on the monitoring talk page. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 00:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for responding to my implicit request. I hope discussion there can clarify any misunderstandings and reach consensus on how to improve the effectiveness of the monitoring page. Geometry guy 08:02, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Peer review tools and lists

Hi G-guy, Carl has weighed in on the idea of adding tools to the peer reviews here. WOuld you be able to add the code to the PR templates? I am afraid I would mess it all up ;-) Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>° 03:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I had a look at the code (check my contribs), and I agree with Dispenser that a separate Peer review tools template including SAPR is the way to go. This could be added to the preload substitution for new PRs. I hope to find time to do it this weekend. Geometry guy 22:17, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks so much - I see you already removed the superfluous text. Ruhrfisch _><>° 11:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Something totally different..

I'm doing the GA review for Suwałki Agreement. When I started the review, the article was fairly stable, no signs of edit warring, just the normal editing, etc. Since I've posted the review, an edit war has sprung up. I'd like your advice on when it hits the point where it fails the stable criteria of GA. I've posted a note on the review page pointing out that the edit war isn't helping it's nomination, but it's being ignored, near as I can tell. I'm not really in the mood to get attacked for quick failing the article, but this is getting kinda silly.... Ealdgyth - Talk 15:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

With a small scale edit war like this, what I would do is ignore any associated wikipolitics, raise the stability issue on the review page, and walk away for a few days to see what happens... which is exactly what you have done :-) It looks like you have received plenty of advice in the interim. The article has quietened down a bit, but it is not clear that the underlying dispute has been resolved. Time constraints on reviews are indicative only and are intended to help the review process run smoothly. If you want to wait a bit longer to see if the new lead sticks, it is within your discretion. However, part of the point of stability is that reviewers should not have to review a moving target. That would not be quick failing in this case, as you have left a thorough review. If anyone attacks you for providing such helpful input, they will just make themselves look silly. Geometry guy 13:07, 11 October 2009 (UTC)