User talk:Willirennen/Mentor

Voluntary mentoring agreement

Willirennen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Persuant to suggestions in an incident discussion at WP:AN/I, User:Willirennen has agreed to a voluntary mentoring period, during which time he will refrain from using Twinkle to tag articles and images for speedy deletion or issue warnings to users. This is not intended as a punishment for the involved user, but rather a means to prevent problems that can arise from inadvertant errors that are deemed more easily made with this semi-automated patrol tool. The mentor will determine the criteria to sever this arrangement and will inform the mentee when the mentioned functions of Twinkle may again be used without supervision.

User:Jerry has volunteered to be the mentor in this arrangement.

To begin the process, the user must formally accept this mentoring arrangement. This shall be a binding agreement; once the user does accept, any failure to comply with the agreed-upon terms may be subject to review at WP:RFC. Willrennen may terminate this agreement at his own discretion at any time by removing Twinkle from his Monobook and stating here that he has opted-out of mentoring and will not use Twinkle.

Willirennen, please sign immediately below my signature to indicate that you accept (and therefore enter into) the mentoring arrangement.
JERRY ^talk _contribs 03:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Willirennen (talk) 03:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Objectives

For Willirennen to demonstrate understanding of:

1. WP:CSD criteria codes, and their applicability.
2. User warning templates, and their applicability, including multi-level templates and how to select the appropriate level when warning a user.
3. WP:USERNAME and how to make complete, valid and proper reports at WP:UAA.
4. WP:BITE, WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL and how these apply to dealing with vandals and other new editors.
5. The difference between vandalism and bad idea articles, and why the distinction is important; and how to make complete, valid and proper reports at WP:AIV.
6. Wikistalking, user space harassment, and WP:DRC.
7. The disruption caused by making inaccurate reports about users, and placing erroneous tags on pages and images.

Discussions

The below comment was split from signature from top section by mentor
but what do I do with vandals and where do I report them to. Willirennen (talk) 03:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

For now, you may perform all of the same patrol functions in the normal edit way, that is, by clicking on "edit" on the article or image page and adding the tag(s) manually. You may similarly use normal editing to add warning templates on user talk pages, or make reports to WP:UAA and WP:AIV. JERRY ^talk _contribs 03:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Is this user (shown on this edit)entitled to be given a AGF warning for use of language and what level would he be entitled to. Willirennen (talk) 21:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I would give him a {{subst:uw-agf1|List of YouTube celebrities|In a recent edit you left the summary "reverting self-promoting faggots". This is an inherantly bad faith remark, and potentially could upset other editors reviewing the page history. Wikipedia is a very inclusive community, and you are requested to refrain from such comments in the future.}} JERRY ^talk _contribs 22:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I just had to give this user a 3rd level warning after consulting the WP:TT section, if that is okay with you.(link) Willirennen (talk) 22:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:TT#Multi-level templates. The user you just warned has only ever made 1 single edit to wikipedia. You left a level 3 template on their user talk page, which assumes bad faith on their part. I believe a level 1 or 2 would have been more appropriate. New users must be handled with great care, and you have to assume a little extra good faith with them. You don't have the benefit of being able to look at their deleted contributions (this user has none), but you can look at their talk page history, and see a lack of previous warnings. JERRY ^talk _contribs 23:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

But that edit look very deliberate vandalism, should that user be treated the same as that of an educational faculty with an extensive vandalism history. Willirennen (talk) 23:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

No, it was their only edit. They may well be the same user as the previous IP vandal, but we have no way of knowing that without a checkuser request. We need to be nice to supposed vandals too, when they are in their first few edits, unless it is unquestionably vandalism (like replacing the Hillary Clinton page with the word "cunt"). If there is any way to imagine it as a simple mistake, we must make that assumption on their first few edits. JERRY ^talk _contribs 00:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

In this edit, you used twinkle to warn an anon about vandalism. This is a reminder that you have agreed to refrain from using twinkle to add csd tags to articles or issue warnings to users. If you continue to go against the agreement, then this mentoring will be cancelled and the issue will be referred to WP:RFC with the recommendation that your monobook have twinkle removed and be protected. I am hoping to not have to go this route, as so far you have seemed open to learn. Please consider temporarily removing twinkle from your monobook to prevent inadvertant errors or forgetfulness from causing you to make twinkle edits contrary to this agreement. JERRY ^talk _contribs 18:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

For the time being I will avoid using it to warn users, but I have read a bit at #2 above where it says where User warning templates, and their applicability, including multi-level templates, so therefore I thought I done the right thing and given him the right warning, so in this case I won't use it. Another thing is, what about this user, User:Seriousspender, he have given this warning out of revenge, although neither users consulted with each other, because I gave him a warning as advised by you. Willirennen (talk) 22:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the warning you received seems to be rataliatory, and also seems like the user is reading this mentoring page. If I were you, I would ignore the warning, and leave it there without a reply for 30 days, then delete it or archive it. As far as the warnings in general, I was not saying that you should not be leaving them, just not to use Twinkle to leave them. I do appreciate you taking this process seriously and making a respectable effort to learn. I hope to have this mentoring process completed as soon as possible, but my own reputation is slightly on the line, so I must first be sure that I am comfortable with your understanding of the listed items. Don't dwell on the warning I gave you. JERRY ^talk _contribs 00:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

What about this user (User:CHRIS 73 - KNOWN PERVERT), I was tempted to use my TW to shop him in as I already knew with a vandalism like that, he is obviously a sockpuppet of user:General Tojo. With a single purpose usage like that and the same signature editing style, who doesn't agree that he is? Willirennen (talk) 19:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not 100% certain that you understand that there are no edits that you can perform with Twinkle that you can not also perform in the normal edit way. TW just gives you a single click or dropdown choice for making edits easier. In the case you mentioned, you would go to WP:UAA and report it by editing the page in the format shown there. Then normally an admin will follow up and block the account as User:Slakr already has in this case, or leave you a message as to why this action is not being taken. JERRY ^talk _contribs 19:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I totally understand that I cannot use TW, that was why I did nothing with it. Willirennen (talk) 19:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I feel these 2 users could do with a warning, most likely for User:68.248.226.107 (for this edit) and User:130.13.0.245 (for this edit), although I assume the latter botched up the edit repair. Would giving the first vandal a level 2 vandalism edit be a good idea. Willirennen (talk) 23:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the first diff you listed, even though we are certain this guy is just farting around and has no good intentions, If I were the editor on patrol and came across this edit, I would give the user a {{subst:test1|The Fast and the Furious (2001 film)}} followed by a personalized message like: "Hello, you may not have intended any harm, but the material you added to the article above was deemed inappropriate, as it was not properly sourced. Wikipedia is not he place to inject your own opinions on things. Also the use of weasel words is to be avoided. I will paste a welcome template below; please review the links to relevant policies, so you may know how to make better contributions in the future." Then I would leave the welcome template as follows: {{subst:welcomeg}}~~~~. As for the second diff you cited, I would not warn this user or point out their error at all... their intentions were obviously good. I might look at their talk page and if it did not have a welcome template yet, I would add just the welcomeg template. JERRY ^talk _contribs 01:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

As for this edit, would this carry a level 2 blanking offence (is using this template ({{subst:uw-delete2}}) be appropriate) as that edit was removed without explanation which I view as vandalism. Willirennen (talk) 00:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'd say you got that exactly right. Good job! JERRY ^talk _contribs 02:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Done it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Willirennen (talk • contribs) 03:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

For this edit, should that user (User:81.99.38.135) should get a {{subst:uw-spam1|Isuzu VehiCROSS}}, although I feel he is trying to use a source. Willirennen (talk) 03:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

That edit does not look like an attempt at spam to me. The user does not appear to be trying to provide traffic to the external site, but rather seems to try to use the external site as a source for the comment he included. The problem I do see is that the site is a blog, and the opinion he added would require a verifiable source. I would revert his edit, leave him a friendly message (either just write up a sentence or two or if you want to use a template, you might consider {{subst:uw-unsourced1|Isuzu_VehiCROSS|The website you used as a source for this opinion was a blog, which fails [[WP:V|the source verifiability policy]].}} ). JERRY ^talk _contribs 04:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Just had to give User:81.99.38.135 a {{subst:uw-delete2|Bugatti Veyron}} for this part in an unsummarised removal of this edit. Wwhen would giving him a level 3 would be right other than vandalising the article 2nd time over. If a user vandalised 5 articles, would giving them a serarate warning until they reach to their final warning be a right thing. Willirennen (talk) 19:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a somewhat subjective thing. One would need to consider if the edits are pure vandalism or gray area unwanted edits, whether the user is an established editor and/ or is also making constructive edits, whether the incidents are far apart in time (especially when it is an IP/anon). The prime directive is to bend over backwards and assume good faith, be civil and not bite the newbies, even if we think they might be evil miscreant bastards from hell. JERRY ^talk _contribs 19:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

...not to mention this edit, should he get a {{subst:uw-spam1|Subaru Impreza WRX STI}} considering what he has done is spamming for a forum site, when do users get a level 2 or 3 spam warning other than repeated spamming. Willirennen (talk) 19:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

If the edit pattern by the individual seems to indicate that it is a single-purpose account attempting to put the same link or website in many articles, or if the text added seems to indicate that the link addition provides little or no context or content to the article in question, but is a mere attempt to drive traffic to the website. An example would be "check out the cool video at blah.youtube.blah". You do have to use judgement, but just remember if there is any chance that they are NOT spamming, but just not good at adding to wikipedia yet, give them the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise. When you are not sure what level to give, give the lower one. JERRY ^talk _contribs 01:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

• Sorry that I hadn't bee visiting this page since I had not been doing patrols lately as I had been pretty much busy and there had not been much on my watchlist that needed to be reverted, but when I came back to look at this page, I noticed that the objectives was all ticked off without me doing anything, what does this mean as I didn't think this mentoring was over yet. As with the conditional close, although I agree on the first three, on the forth, would this mean that i will not be able to be able to use twinkle, which I want to still do. Willirennen (talk) 06:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

It would only mean that you would not be able to use twinkle IF in the future an editor complained that your use of it was improper, and then it would only be for the duration of another mentoring process. In other words the closing of this mentoring agreement would be nullified if somebody says that your use of twinkle is still improper.JERRY ^talk _contribs 17:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

30 January 2008

What CSD should this user get for incorrect licensing on this plus others, image as they are incorrectly licensed and are copyright owned, more of it on the creator's talk page. For that one I brought up, as said there, that is a obviously a press release photo as said on his talk page and personally I don't know if he got permission to do so, therefore they will be contacted via flickr. Willirennen (talk) 20:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The images would get:{{Db-imgcopyvio}}, the user would get:{{subst:uw-copyright|IMAGENAME|OPTIONAL ADDITIONAL MESSAGE}} JERRY ^talk _contribs 21:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

...and this user for use of inappropriate and offensive words on the section of that article, what warning should he get for that. Willirennen (talk) 21:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I would delete his comment, and give him a warning like: {{subst:uw-ra|Talk:Spinner (wheel)|In [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASpinner_%28wheel%29&diff=183844900&oldid=183844653 this recent edit] you left the comment "look great on niggermobiles and wiggermobiles". This is a racially-pejorative remark, and potentially could upset other editors reviewing the page. Wikipedia is a very inclusive community, and you are requested to refrain from such comments in the future.}} JERRY ^talk _contribs 22:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

2 February 2008

What should, the Claude Valentini article get, as it is unsourced, plus other issues and there is no other articles to merge it to. I feel that a CSD would be deserving as it is unsourced, plus the notability of the subject and it lacks context. Willirennen (talk) 22:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Your use of "prod" was perfect for a non-controversial case like this. JERRY ^talk _contribs 01:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

4 February 2008

As this user, who have made 2 vandalism edits, would giving him a level 1 vandalism (which I have done so), followed by a level 2 for another, then a final warning for the other one (if there is any) be a good thing. Willirennen (talk) 17:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

It is not productive or in keeping with the progressive warning system to leave multiple warnings of escalating levels at the same time. The user needs to be given a fair opportunity to read your level 1 warning, and be given a good faith chance to comply. If you come along too late to issue the level 1 and find 4 bad edits, you should not immediately leave test1, test2, test3, and test4, all at a whack. Depending on the severity of the bad edit a test 1 or test 2 with a follow-on comment like "the same problem occurred in Foo, FooFoo and FooFooFoo" would be best. JERRY ^talk _contribs 01:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

8 February 2008

Would it be appropriate to award User:Bdocili a 3 revert warnings since he is engaged in an edit war over the Panerai article, plus he has already stepped over the 3-revert mark once. Willirennen (talk) 03:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Please be careful to ensure the 3 reverts are in a 24-hour period. His original edit does not count. So he edits, someone changes and he reverts: that's revert number one. The third must be in the same 24-hour period, and must be the exact same content replaced. If the content is slightly different, and there is dialogue on the talk page about it, then its not considered a revert, but rather could be considered a negotiation, collaboration, or attempt at compromise. My review of this user's edits on that article are that at this time no warning is warranted. JERRY ^talk _contribs 01:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I have tried to apply WP:RFC/ECON to the Talk:Panerai article, but nothing appears on it yet, so what have I done wrong. Willirennen (talk) 20:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

25 February 2008

Which CSD button do I use on this as that talk section has been vandalised and there is no decent edit prior to that as there was no edits before. Willirennen (talk) 21:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Conditional close

User:Jerry, as mentor, proposes to close this mentoring as completed, under the following conditions:

• User:Willirennen agree to the terms herein by so stating and signing below this section.
• the user agree to ask questions before performing any action using twinkle that he is not familiar with
• the user agree to be cordial and assume good faith while on patrol
• the user will agree to suspend use of twinkle upon reasonable request by any editor, pending reopening of this (or similar) mentoring agreement to address the concerns cited.

JERRY ^talk _contribs 17:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Willirennen (talk) 18:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)