User talk:Punk Boi 8/Mentoring

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Copy of items found on talk pages

[edit] Trödel's

[edit] Punk Boi (Archive of before 06:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC) on Trodels talk page)

I am willing to help. I think riana_dzasta would be a good person to help as well as she has already shown an interest in trying to help Punk Boi. Unfortunately, so far he has been unresponsive to people who post on his talk page. Sarah Ewart 19:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I tried the "ignore it and it might go away" approach with this editor. It failed of course :) Leave him blocked. He might enjoy his Christmas break a little more with less (wiki)conflict in his life :) -- Longhair\talk 21:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I've seen the unblock request at User_talk:Punk Boi 8. My gut feeling... Let it slide. I'm supportive of unblocking if he agrees to take on a mentor and edit article and talk namespaces only for now. Blocks are not meant to be punitive, only preventative, and he does mean well. What do you think? I'll keep my eyes open where I can. -- Longhair\talk 01:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Understood. A definite way forward is needed here. I don't mean to unblock and let him go rampant all over again, not at all. Certainly, a commitment from him to stop the nonsense is needed here. Keep in mind he's young (I think about 13, but I may be wrong, I have seen an image he uploaded of himself time back and am only guessing). Remembering back when I was a teen, it wasn't as easy as it is now to identify frustrations. Keep conversing, he may realise what we're getting at yet... :) Let him know I'll help out again if he agrees to "LISTEN" this time. I've ignored him for a month or two now and that may have sparked him up a little. -- Longhair\talk 02:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Strike throughed because I DID LISTEN last time. -- Punk Boi 8 08:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Possibly younger than that (evidence available off-wiki); please see my comments below the barnstar. Regards, Newyorkbrad 02:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Agreeing with Brad here. Possibly younger. I've found my own off-wiki evidence and correct the above age estimate by taking off 2 years. The real name issue is also a very real problem considering his age. -- Longhair\talk 02:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
(responding here rather than both your talk pages)
Totally agree, I am hoping to build some trust first and take it from there. I just proposed some "next steps". I am totally pleased with his unblock request. Any advice would be appreciated during the process. Perhaps we should move the further discussion to User:Trödel/Mentoring? --Trödel 02:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Good luck. Let me know if you want any help or support from yet another former "victim". Apart from doubtful spelling, Punk Boi's contributions to article space have generally been fine, unlike some other young editors. --Scott Davis Talk 07:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Strike throughed for simular reason as Longhair. -- Punk Boi 8 08:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Don't edit others' comments, please. Trodel, please take note of what Punk Boi has done here, per WP:VAND and modifying others' comments. – Chacor 11:48, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Can I please get confirmation of exactly what User:Punk Boi 8 agreed to before being unblocked? My understanding as per his talk page was that he'd agreed to edit only article-space and talk-space until further notice? His user page states he's agreed to a voluntary probation from edting articles in the Wikipedia namespace, and a commitment from him to only edit Article and Talk pages, which is clearly not the case after looking over his recent contributions. -- Longhair\talk 08:06, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
My side of this is that these edits have very good reasons behind them.

User Talk:Billnoblet - My grandfather, why can't I?

Template:Gold Coast opentask - For Wikiproject reasons.

Template:WPGoldCoast - As Above

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Truth of Santa - Tried out new AFD tool

Wikipedia:WikiProject Awards - Name Change

Wikipedia:WikiProject Victoria - Wikiproject I think we need.

User talk:Longhair - Bah Hmubug if you dont like this

Template:Australia opentask - Requesting article

Wikipedia:Australian Collaboration of the Fortnight - Nominating

Image:Sydney NYE 2005-1-.jpg - Licicencing

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Other - (Addressed) & story written on ArbCom.

These are all made in good faith.

Also, Tr%C3%B6d said this on my talk page

"Just keep making changes like you did to Coles Group recently and we'll take things one step at a time. I got your list by email and am preparing an answer. I suggest that editing the main article pages and their talk pages is the best place to spend your time for now. It worries me a little that the 2nd edit you would make after the lifting of the block would be to a Wikipedia page; however, if all you want is some assurance that the effort will be worthwhile; then yes it is worthwhile. After you follow through with the mentoring plan and develop the writing skills you need, many options will be open to you including proposing an article to Ral315 for publication in the Signpost."

Thats in User Talk:Punk Boi 8/Archive5#Signpost.

In reply to my editing of comments, I did this because I thought this was in breach of WP:CHILD and WP:NPA.

I apolagize.

Punk Boi 8 08:41, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Punk Boi blocked again

FYI, I've blocked Punk Boi today for further edits in the Wikipedia namespace despite your recent advice. -- Longhair\talk 04:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm letting things idle for now. Things are getting quite firey at his talk page between him and I (again!) -- Longhair\talk 04:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Sure. To be honest, I couldn't care less for the talk page being left intact, but it's a tactic used early on in his wiki career to 'erase history' (he ended up archiving once warnings came in thick and fast). Somehow I don't think we've seen the end of it yet. I admire your efforts at mentoring, I admire his far less :( -- Longhair\talk 04:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Commented out redlinks that may be identifying on his main userpage - I'll leave it to you to decide what to do further on that front. Your efforts in trying to rehabilitate him are admirable, even if they ultimately don't succeed. Orderinchaos78 12:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I am back from holidays. Placed copy at User Talk:Punk Boi 8/Mentoring. Plz show me the mentoring plan ASAP. -- Punk Boi 8 01:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possible Punk Boi sockpuppets?

I thought I would mention that there are several Users who have joined Wikipedia recently who are giving each other and themselves multiple awards:

User:Happyman_oz_123 has given 1 award to User:Hpfan9374
User:Punk Boi 8 has given 1 award to User:Hpfan9374
User:Noobiemacnoss1 has given 3 awards to User:Hpfan9374
User:Hpfan9374 has given 2 awards to User:Hpfan9374

In fact, it looks like Noobiemacnoss1's and Happyman_oz_123's only edits have been their awards to Hpfan9374 (and their own User pages).

As an additional FYI, Hpfan9374 has given nearly 30 awards just today. Hpfan9374's User page looks nearly the same as Punk Boi 8's.

Just an FYI. Suspiciously yours, Madman 21:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

No, I am not sockpuppeting. I based my userpage on theirs. -- Punk Boi 8 20:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Uh... WP:AN?

Uh... wasn't Punk Boi asked to avoid project namespace under terms of his mentoring? I cannot imagine comments to WP:AN like this one help much. – Chacor 15:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Punk Boi 2

His links at the top of his user page link to stuff of a non-existant user. People have posted at the talk page he links, even though he does not "receive" the messages as it's a non-existant user. We can't leave the messages there, though, since there's no such real user "Punk Boi1006"... – Chacor 02:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know abou that - working with him to clean up his talk/user page is on my agenda - though not a priority right now :) - Let me know if you see questionable behavior so I can talk to him about it prior to it growing in ferocity. Thx - --Trödel 02:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I am adding a note now. -- Punk Boi 8 23:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Punk Boi 8

Note:Punk Boi 8 is looking through his e-mail outbox for stuff to add. -- Punk Boi 8 01:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestions

Hi!

I am the person who blocked you today. I became aware of the actions you have taken with regards to User:Ral315 because of your recent post on his talk page. Although I had seen your request to do a "beat" on the Signpost, I didn't know any of the history other than Ral315 said, "No thank you."

Upon looking at your edits I was surprised to see you had requested adminship so soon after joining us as a Wikipedian, which piqued my interest, so I kept reviewing some of your edits and, frankly, was shocked by some of the behavior I saw. So I blocked you.

Sarah Ewart has told me that you are very young, which, in my opinion is a mitigating factor (i.e. it effects how I view the situation in your favor). So I am proposing that you work with me to review some policies and to help you better understand the nature of dispute resolution, article promotion to GA and FA, etc.

If you would like to take advantage of this offer, reply here on your talk page (you can do so even when you are blocked). If things go well, I'll be happy to remove the block earlier than the original timespan.

My first piece of advice concerns requesting unblock review:

How to Place this text: " {{unblock|reason= <put your reasoning here> }} " on your talk page (not including the " quotes) including your reasoning and another administrator will review the appropriateness of the block I placed on your account.
Do Request review only once. Be respectful to those that reply. Make your request only if you have reasons that you think a respected parent or teacher would find persuasive. In explaining your reasoning: be concise, do not attack others personally, and provide specific reasons why you think the block should be lifted.
Don't Complain bitterly about an editor. Complain that Wikipedia policies are unfair. Insult editors or admins. Use template tags such as {{helpme}} to draw additional attention to your userpage.

Finally, good work on articles, making contributions to the text (as you have done) and supplying images (as you have done) is valued above all. Learning to work with others is an essential skill that will allow you to be more productive with your edits. I am hopeful that through this process you will be back editing your favorite Australian articles quickly. --Trödel 19:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moving forward

I noticed that the reviewing admin would like me to make the decision regarding unblocking.

First, let me say, "Thank you!" for a professional unblock request.

Second, I think it would be good for you to formally accept mentorship.

Third, lets discuss what has been happening a little. Suppose you make an edit that you think is totally useful, neutral, appropriate for the article and fair. But some other editor thinks that edit should be removed from the article. Could you explain what you think you are supposed to do. And what you wish you could do.

Fourth, please make a short list of what things you think I could help you with, or what things you wish you knew about Wikipedia. In other words - how do you see a mentorship helping you.

I'll be gone for a couple hours. If you could respond to the above then we can continue some dialog then. --Trödel 02:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:AN/I (Archive 165)

[edit] Requesting 1) review of my block of Nathannoblet and 2) propose community ban

Nathannoblet has been harrassing User:Ral315, claiming that he is not able to work on Wikipedia:Signpost. However, he has a history of inappropriate behavior and improper use of dispute resolution and other Wikipedia processes.

additional examples of his use of the process inappropriately exist during the following timeline which is limited to the Signpost issues only (and the above list is not claimed to be comprehensive) --Trödel 18:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Which brings us to the arbitration filed recently

I have blocked this user for 1 month. I propose that he be indef banned by the community. Additionally the following pages should be deleted:

  • Template:UserWPAvril - user template not in userspace - only his page links to it
  • this edit
  • Wikipedia:Wikipedia Times (and any prodigy) - currently up for MfD - but this proposal is to speedy it in lieu of the general concensus there to userify.

If there are no major objections - I will implement the above --Trödel 17:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Agree with it all, I'm sick of this user. He doesn't seem to understand the main reason this encyclopedia exists, and as above keeps misusing the resolution process. He is desperate for some sort of power and I found this comment seems a little ridiculous – ArbCom? He must be kidding. I endorse a community ban, or at the very least I approve of blocking. We don't need harrassment here. --Majorly (Talk) 17:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Unless I missed it, Trödel overlooked two other arbitration cases that Nathannoblet filed a few weeks ago, which made no sense and I believe set the modern Olympic record for speedy rejection of an arbitration request. His nomination of Krispy Kreme for featured article status today while the article still has neutrality-disputed and cleanup tags on it also isn't going to impress anyone. On the other hand, the user never been blocked before and does have some (not a huge number of, to be sure) good faith edits, so a jump from zero to indefinite is pretty steep. A one-month block is already a long time and hopefully will send the intended message. Suggest a strong warning and monitoring when he comes off the block and the situation can be reconsidered then if he picks up where he left off. Newyorkbrad 18:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry - I got tired of documenting so stopped documenting stuff unrelated to the Signpost after 31 Oct. But there is more... --Trödel 18:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Newyorkbrad; an indef right now seems excessive. Give him a nice cool off block with a Talk page message pointing out that his apparent wish for power/control at Wikipedia is having the exact opposite effect and he is more likely to be banned for this type of behavior than to get sysop'd, etc. If he continues this behavior after his block expires, then an indef would be appropriate.--Isotope23 18:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I got edit conflicted (twice) and there's no point in submitting what I typed now, as Newyorkbrad has already said what I wanted to say. J Di talk 18:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree that Nathannoblet may be indef blocked without many regrets, but we'd better see how he behaves after the current block is over. --Ghirla -трёп- 18:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
<after edit conflicts>I endorse your block, however, I think a community ban may be too much at this point. I don't think Nathan has any malicious intent, he's just very young. Also, I think we should at least wait and see if this block has any impact on him. It is the first time he has ever been blocked and it is possible (though admittedly, unlikely) that it might make an impression on him and help him to understand that his behaviour is not appropriate. Sarah Ewart 18:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Nathan seems slightly naive, I am of the opinion that a community ban is slightly excessive, I do however endorse a cool down block. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 18:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
(Side note) - I believe 48 hours to be an acceptable cool down period and so I urge the blocking admin to reconsider the length, 1 month is pretty long and I can't imagine it will do much good. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 18:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I also thought a month was on the long side, but rather than reduce it now, I'd wait for a reasonable unblock request. If community sanctions are in effect, maybe for the rest of the month he could be requested to edit in mainspace rather than projectspace, or something along those lines. Newyorkbrad 18:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Sarah Ewart's assessment above: we're dealing with a little kid here. Maybe the month-long block will lead him to lose interest and find something better to do with his time. Another alternative worth looking at is assigning Nathan some sort of mentor, although admittedly, that's a solution that has had mixed results in the past. A Train take the 18:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I also agree that a 1 month block is quite sufficient. -- Szvest - Wiki me up ® 18:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I have left Nathan a note on his talk page. I agree that a month is long even if I think it was warranted, but had I known he was very young I probably would have done something shorter. I have offered to help mentor him and started by giving him some advice on how to request an unblock. If this goes well, I would wager that he will be back editing with a week, maybe sooner. Thank you for your support and comments. --Trödel 19:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm probably the one who's had the most dealings with Nathanoblet, initially helping him out upon his entry to Wikipedia several months ago now. In the end he turned on me also, but that's a long boring story we don't need to go into here. I think what we've got here is a case of a very young editor who isn't afraid to try new things, and sometimes the boundaries aren't too clear. I endorse the 1 month block to give Nathanoblet some time to think about how he behaves when editing, but I don't endorse a permanent block just yet. Allow him a chance to show us some positive change. He is a little hungry for power, but perhaps with the right guidance he can become a useful editor. He sure is keen. -- Longhair\talk 21:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse the 1 month block. If he is a kid, maybe he will lose interest in that time. If not, then maybe the reasons for the imposed break will get through to him. If the behaviour returns with him after the block I would then support a year long blo0ck over an indefinate one, because if he is indeed a kid then there is not need to punish him forever for childish actions which he will hopefully gorow out of. ViridaeTalk 21:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Hopefully the suggestion of mentorship will help things work out well here. It should also be noted that if this is indeed a younger editor, there is also a WP:CHILD issue here as from a Google search it appears the username may be the editor's real-world name. I've mentioned this to User:Trödel who has offered to mentor, with the suggestion that he guide the user either to WP:CHU or suggest that he start a new account. Newyorkbrad 23:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Strongly support block. Not sure about allowing the user to "hide" his past under a new username, so to speak, so would prefer CHU. – Chacor 00:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Maybe a community-consented probation?

Just throwing some ideas around...how does a probation about disrputive behaviour pertaining to the writing of the Signpost. I mean, something like:-

Nathannoblet is placed on disruption probation for one year regarding the operation of the Wikipedia Signpost and its' compilation; if he harasses Ral315 (the editor), other writers, or any general page related to this production, he may be blocked for up to one week at an uninvolved administrators' discretion, and up to one month after three such blocks, again at an uninvolved administrators' discretion. Any such action to be logged at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents for discussion.

Although WP:PROB doesn't specify that a superconcensus of users can actually create probation terms, I believe that in the spirit of WP:IAR, and following the lead of WP:BAN (regarding community bans), it could be allowable. Thoughts? Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 00:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not an administrator, but I really disliked seeing this happen on Wikipedia once before, an indefinite community ban on a user who had never been blocked before. I've said it before, so I know many of you have just moved on, but sometimes disruptive users get used to not being blocked when they display atrocious behaviour--and they become bolder and bolder, when just having blocked them earlier for their bad behaviour, blocked them repeatedly, and blocked them for a longer time, could have had a positive impact. I think potentially good editors can be made into bad and disruptive ones simply by being allowed to get away with too much. And, with probabtion, no one would have to doubt they had given the user every chance. Please consider probabtion first, you'll feel better when and if you eventually ban the user. And thanks for the info on the Krispy Kreme FAC--very hard to figure out what it was doing there. KP Botany 00:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Thats not an indefinate one though, it is a 1 year community imposed one. ViridaeTalk 04:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I think this was a good suggestion, so combining it with this editors offer to only edit Main and talk namespace, I have unblocked him, and placed him on a voluntary probation This is pending his review with me of his goals, and the proper way to resolve disputes. See his talk page for a framework for the mentoring of this young user. I anticipate that most of the communication will be by email. Thanks to Sarah Ewart and Longhair who have offered to help --Trödel 04:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk on mentoring

[edit] Mentoring suggestions

Hi, Trodel and Punk Boi. Are you guys interested in suggestions for Punk Boi's mentoring process?

I sort of imagine Punk Boi like early Bruce Wayne, going to a series of shifty characters for difficult and demeaning tasks, and eventually returning to Gotham a master of all human skills.

My first suggestion follows, which you are both free to take or leave as you choose. TheronJ 19:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion 1:Sourcing

Many Wikipedians judge other editors first and foremost by their contributions to the Wikipedia articles themselves. A good ability to research and include sources is one of the things that many editors take months or years to learn, and is one of the ways a good editor can stand out. Based on Jimbo's recent comments and recent comments on talk:RFA, I suspect that this skill will end up becoming more and more important in the next year.

Task one: Read and understand the following pages:

Task two: Wikipedia currently has no sources for the statement "The sun rises in the east and sets in the west." More generally, the sunrise page has no sources.

  • Visit your local library and ask for help from the reference librarian, or a science librarian. Find at least three reference books that offer broad information about the sunrise. No more than one of them may be a paper encylopedia.
  • Using paper reference books, add page-specific citations to at least five sentences in the sunrise article using Wikipedia footnotes. Use template:cite book for any book entries.
  • Attempt to provide citations for all other factual statements in sunrise. (You need not provide a citation for the same fact twice). You may use any reliable source, including reliable online encylopedias such as ExpediaEncarta (whoops! TJ) or reliable books found on online sources such as Google Book Search. Use appropriate citation templates for all cites.
  • Other than creating a "References" section and adding the footnotes themselves, try to make as few edits as possible to the actual text.

If you take on this challenge, please feel free to ask any questions on my talk page if you get stuck or have problems. When you're done, I'll be glad to offer general feedback.

Task three: After we are finished discussing sunrise, add sources to at least three more articles listed in the subcategories to category:Articles lacking sources by month

After that, congratulations! You are a proficient researcher and sourcer. Thanks, TheronJ 19:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. Trodel, that is 2 against 1. Ive added that to the plan. -- `Punk Boi 8 20:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
What does the "2 against 1" refer to? Thanks, TheronJ 20:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree with TheronJ's suggestions. As long as we are discussing mentoring - the "2 against 1" statement is the kind that encourages conflict. Remember online - people can't read facial expressions, or other body language to know how to intepret the written words - so one needs to be extra careful in the words selected. The goal should be to get concensus - and unless someone objects, it is better to assume that either 1) they assent to the statements made by others, or 2) they don't care enough about the specific issue to oppose it (a concensus building position if there ever was one).
TheronJ's suggestions are excellent ones because it will be of great benefit to the encyclopedia. I visit the library about 1/week when I am editing heavily on Wikipedia - because I want to be able to provide the best language that I can, properly attribute it, and provide references for others to reveiw my work and find additional information. There is no substitute for learning to research by going to the library. And it will be a skill that will be of great benefit to you - especially in college. --Trödel 22:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comment on Signpost suggestion

Punk Boi, please feel free to take this suggestion for whatever you think it's worth.

I recognize that you want to work on the Signpost, on advocacies and mediations, and that you have a lot to contribute. I can't argue with that; I probably spend more time on advocacies and mediations than on anything else.

However, in your specific case, I would plan on spending at least the next month (after your block expires), maybe the next few months, working on articles. The absolute most productive thing for the next month or two would be to do only the next step in your mediation plan, or to ask questions from Trodel about how to do the next step in your mediation plan -- it may not be as much fun as Signposting, but you will learn a lot, and will be in a much better position to take on more responsibilities once you're done with the mentoring.

I know it's kind of a pain in the rear when you want to do something else, but articles are what the encylopedia is about, and learning to write good articles will be a great asset to you both here and in real life. If you can edit articles for a month or two and be a substantial contributor to a featured article, every editor who has criticized you will be happy to give you a fresh start. If you can get five featured articles under your belt, you can practically write your own ticket.

Thanks for listening, and good luck, TheronJ 15:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I want to second TheronJ's comments. --Trödel 17:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/u/n/User_talk%7EPunk_Boi_8_Mentoring_37bd.html"