User talk:WormTT/Adopt/MathewTownsend

Sorry ...
... to but in here at a private area, but I thought I'd suggest something. Worm, you may want to have Mathew skim through (although not get involved in) some of the AN and AN/I to see what can and will go wrong here. Also, the AC recently accepted the Malleus vs. the admins case, and I suspect it will be a learning experience for us all. Again, I'm not suggesting that Mathew get involved, in fact quite the opposite. It's just that these types of things can give one a perspective of what these adminy buttons can entail in the trenches. Feel free to just delete if you feel this is taking things in a direction you'd prefer not to go at this time. Cheers — Ched : ?  15:04, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Ched, you're always welcome to comment at any of my adoptee's pages! Indeed I think Mathew is the sort of person who may well benefit from having a look at AN and AN/I, and I'm sure I'll point him that way in due course :) I don't think I'm planning to train him up to be an admin just yet, but hey, you never know!  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 15:41, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Understood. I met him when he did a GA review - certainly seems to be a good writer - and nice guy too.  BTW - hope your holidays are going well. — Ched :  ?  17:25, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Blame it on Lisa
copied from main page Well, it's an WP:UNDUE aspect, I think. And I do find myself getting flustered. So I would appreciate your advice as maybe I'm wrong.
 * The article was this version of Blame It on Lisa, a The Simpsons episode.
 * I thought the "Controversy section" was overemphasized per Manual of Style/Words to watch, and that there should be a "Critical reception" section.
 * The nominator did modify it some. But I still thought mentioning the US Constitution etc. is too much.
 * He did modify it a little more, but said the rest must stay in. No more modifying
 * Then I started checking the sources more thoroughly and didn't feel the emphasis given was proportionate to media coverage. The article now is Blame It on Lisa and the review is Talk:Blame It on Lisa/GA1.
 * Now someone else has stepped in who seems a little more amenable and perhaps it can be resolved. But do you think I was being unreasonable? Or taking my point too far?
 * At what point should I just compromise, even if I feel otherwise? MathewTownsend (talk) 00:03, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I thought I'd move this here, so it would be a little easier for us. There's a clear weight problem in the version you mention above, the text should be related to the article. There's no need for comments about who the mayor had sued previously. Nor the detail that the user has gone into over why or why not suing would be successful. Having said that, I think the cut down version that we're currently at is much better.
 * The episode is all about Brazil and has many negative portrayals, so it's not surprising that the vast majority of the response would be from Brazil. I don't think you were being unreasonable, but sometimes fresh eyes on a situation will help.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 09:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

mvd from template lesson
_____________________________________________

Regarding the methods of resolution you described above, when I first registered and began editing I was bullied by another editor who reported me repeatedly to Wikiquette assistance, Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring and other places. On one day alone, he reported me to three different noticeboards. On none of them was his view supported. The other editors took my side, but that didn't help me. He just continued warning me and reporting me to the same noticeboards So I just stopped editing all articles that he followed me to, and stopped responding to his repeated threats on my talk page. And stopped reverting vandalism, as he would threaten me if I did.

I learned then that the only solution is to back away. That there really is no help at the time. Even when those noticeboards agreed with me, it didn't stop his harassment. So what's the point?

Later I found out he was a banned sockpuppet when another editor posted the info on my talk page. See post on my page which gives a link to here! - that editor was a banned sockpuppet! (The reporting editor mentions my response in his SPI report.) But I was really helpless at the time.

MathewTownsend (talk) 22:37, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I wish I could tell you something helpful, but unfortunately I can't. Becuase of its voluntary nature, Wikipedia is a place where you need to push to get things done, and so some users will push to the point of harassment. I would guess that the user had been blocked for that behaviour before, but giving the nature of the internet, they managed to circumvent the block.
 * All I can tell you is that, in future, you are always welcome to come to me, if you are being bothered by a user. I will talk to both parties, and assess the situation. I've helped a number of adoptees in the past with that sort of problem, so don't think you're the first. What's more, when I get involved, I don't stand for any harassment, and will ensure it is stomped on quickly. I will also highlight any areas you would need to improve in such interactions (if there are any). I hope it gives you a little more confidence to know that I would be available for such things, and if you post on my talk page I can think of at least 2-3 friendly editors who will also be available when I'm not.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 11:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I thank you so much for that! An editor needs some kind of protection here. MathewTownsend (talk) 14:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Discussions

 * Dear Worm, is it possible we could discuss things here without others intruding? I'm mind blown by what is considered ok for some editors to do. I'm trying to get into a good head about editing again. MathewTownsend (talk) 20:32, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It's open here, as is all of wikipedia, but it's less likely that other editors will join in or even notice our discussions here. If you want something more private, feel free to email me. So, let me know what's on your mind.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 08:33, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Dear Worm,
 * I guess I'd like to ask you how to deal with my feelings over what happened. I'm going to be candid here, on the assumption that this conversation between us is private.


 * I've done at least one GA review of one of Dana boomer's articles previously, Michael Plumb, edited it, made suggestions which were accepted and resulted in the article's improvement, and it was passed. No problems and a pleasant experience.


 * I was expecting the Large Black (pig) to be a similar experience. But Montanabw entered the scene and in my mind went way beyond the pale. Her "apology" was that she's an experienced editor, knows all the GAN proedures and that she was justified in the revert to "help" me. Her justifications don't make any sense at all. And even worse, she still doesn't seem to get it (and the more she posts, the more that's apparent), and those defending her (Pesky) don't get it either. And even more awful, they post their views at length on my talk page, meanwhile trashing another editor.  I don't want this kind of stuff on my talk page. At least Dana hasn't done that, but she has not spoken out against  Montanabw's revert either (at least I haven't seen it.)


 * That Pesky thinks the whole problem will be solved by wiki hugs I fine condescending. It's clear from reading the ANI posts etc. that this is behavior that Montanabw has engaged in before, but her "friends" rush in to protect her.


 * It's rather depressing that these wikipedia editors, who are apparently experienced and held in high regard, don't understand GAN at it's most fundamental level, or even fundamental aspects wikipedia editing, and that they support each other in their wrong behavior, no matter what. I see these types of cabals as destructive to wikipedia.


 * As far as what I can do, all I can think of is to just bow out and avoid them. I hadn't realize Dana boomer was embroiled in one. I'll not review any more articles by Dana. (I was about to do Jack le Goff but I won't now.)


 * I realize that I'm still hot under the collar and I don't stay that way long about things. So no big deal about all this and it will blow over. I'd just like your take on how I handled it and suggestions on how to move forward. I believe that ignoring them now and avoiding them in the future is the best course, as its clear to me that their behavior is entrenched.


 * What do you think? MathewTownsend (talk) 14:08, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I've dropped a talk page header for clarity. We've got a few things to look at here, what happened, how you can resolve your feelings in the matter and how you handled the situation. To start with, I'd say this was a relatively unusual situation, as it involved long term disagreements, spilling over in to more recent discussions. They do happen, and can often be found at places like RfC/U or AN/I, but you're unlikely to just wander into one.
 * So what happened. From the looks of things, it is basically two editors (Montanabw and JLAN) have very similar interests but different ways of looking at things. One is more experienced and so tried to impart that experience - though it sort of backfired over a long period. JLAN seems to resent Montanabw's meddling/strong interest in pages, whilst Montanabw seems to resent JLAN's style of editing.
 * Dana boomer happily comes along and edits similar pages to the two for a while. When she moves on to a tangential page (the pig one), JLAN came along with some further comments. He again seems to have interest a general interest - but hasn't done much pig work before. Montanabw interpretted this as harassment, and I can certainly see this point of view. Harassment would be well out of the scope of a GA reviewer. She made a large scale revert (thinking that it was him she was reverting), and took it to an appropriate forum. Now, I don't agree with that revert, and I've told her so. She accepts that it was a mistake/brain fart/her seeing red and has apologised. I think that to some extent, given the length and scale of the dispute she feels that any other reasonable editor would have done something similar in the same circumstances - and that's what she's trying to get across to you.
 * Does that help you see her point of view at all? She could have contacted you - and I think that would have been the best thing to do, but going to ANI was a reasonable alternative. With respect to Pesky, she's not intentionally being condescending, but rather she genuinely means well. It takes all sorts, as they say. You're not the first person to feel her way of talking condescending, but I will personally vouch for her good faith there. I don't believe she's defending Montanabw blindly, but rather she has significant experience of JLAN in the past.
 * Interestingly, you're not the first person to complain about cabalism regarding Montanabw - indeed, there's a conversation on WP:AN with regards to unblocking User:Rlevse, a past arbitrator, long before your time - where similar concepts come up. The stark reality is that Wikipedia, like all societies do have an element of "it's not what you know, it's who you know". Wikipedia does try to combat that though and I've managed to survive by attempting to be a decent person, rather than trying to create a cadre of friends.
 * As to how you can resolve your feelings on the matter, well talking helps. You're always welcome to vent to me, by email or here. In all aspects of life, you will find people acting in less than optimal ways and working out how to deal with that is a great big part of it. I generally just try to not let things get to me.
 * How you handled it? Probably took the whole thing a little too personally and expected a little too much, but you didn't do anything particularly wrong. I would personally accept Montanabw's apology, she knows she was in the wrong. Rationalisation of mistakes is a perfectly human response and I don't see any problem with her trying to justify why she did what she did. I'm hoping my suggestions at ANI will have a positive influence going forward, but you never know.
 * I do think that you should be clear to carry on reviewing Dana's other good articles - if you want to limit yourself, keep away from animal based ones (which is where problems would be more likely to happen) especially anything to do with horses. So if you feel up to it, Jack le Goff might not be a bad idea - remind you of how positive interactions can be.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 16:13, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * hummm. Reading those links is most interesting and leads me to believe that I shouldn't get mixed up with any of them. Bad judgment abounds. Montanabw for sure. Extremely bad judgment. As someone said, Montanabw is thinking in terms of "liking" and "friendship" and not what's best for the encyclopedia. Alarming, her defense of the blocked editor User:Rlevse! All that forgiveness for him, who it sounds like did really bad things, and yet she's on her high horse about JLAN who has done none of the awful things Rlevse has, but has disagreed over some issues and perhaps is a little rough around the edges. But did none of the really determined harassing Rlevse et al did. Really screwed up. MathewTownsend (talk) 02:26, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, to be fair to Rlevse, he did a lot of good too and dedicated a lot of time to the encyclopedia. The bad things were fixable, but the shitstorm that came about due to his position made it impossible for him to carry on. I haven't formed an opinion on whether he should come back or not, but there's more to the story than meets the eye. As for JLAN, I'm hoping that situation has made some progress in sorting itself out - but either way, you should be able to find somewhere quieter to edit!  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 08:19, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

You're right about Rlevse, I think. I've been reading various opinions on the Rlevse thing and he was valued by many and did serve the community well in a lot of ways. And I don't know if what he did was so very serious. I can't evaluate that. But I believe in general  that the best way for wikipedia to damp down bad feelings and reduce the sockpupping thing is to offer bad doers a way back into the editing community when they truly want to edit as Rlevse apparently does. Not slam doors on editors. And if he had a mentor, like you are to me, that would be wonderful. Thank you for for being a great role model for me. I've learned so much from you already. I'm seeing that everything is very very complicated, not a good/bad dichotomy, and rarely is a simplistic stance helpful. Rather, it's polarizing and a way to head down a blind alley. You have a way of saying things that allows you to get your point across when harsh, blaming words, a holier than thou attitude, would not. Thank you! MathewTownsend (talk) 21:39, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you Mathew, I do appreciate that. I'm certainly not one to go for black and white, grey is the way to go :D - anything more I can do, let me know  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 08:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Recent GAN problem
I understand that User talk:Cindamuse is extremely upset with me for finding the copyvio/close paraphrase stuff and questions some of her wording. Despite unanimity on Talk:Douglas W. Owsley/GA1, she continues to distort what happened and attack me on the basis that I am wrong and that in bringing up issues regarding her GAN, I've acted in bad faith. e.g. and on your talk page.

I've apologized several times, but that seems to tick her off more. I decided to fail the article, and explained that she can renominate it and start over with another reviewer. (She's deleted most of my explanations on her talk page.)

However User:Moonriddengirl recognized the problems with Cindamuse's edits and said I did nothing wrong in posting on her page.

I've now reviewed 73 GANs and except for the Large Black (pig) reversion by Montanabw, had no problems. Cindamuse is similar to Montanabw. Dealing with them is really unpleasant. I'm a little uneasy about doing any more GANs. Perhaps I'll do only editors I've dealt with previously so I know they won't suddenly get nasty. And avoid any editor in Montanabw's group. Still, I'm a little frightened. Any suggestions? MathewTownsend (talk) 15:59, 24 February 2012 (UTC)