User:Robertinventor/ca2james

__NOINDEX__

Response to Ca2james
Yes, things got heated last March. The conversation between Ca2james, Gryllida and me became charged and repetitive. Since then, I've been working on ways to minimize conflict on Wikinews talk pages. At the suggestion of Wikinewsie Gryllida, I started writing essays about my experience on Wikinews such as. If, for instance, I find myself in a two- or three-person conversation that has gone heated but is serving the needs of the project, simply writing up an answer and then waiting twelve hours before posting it slows everything down. Then heads are cooler and responses are more calm, productive, and even occasionally artistic.

Here are a few things I've tried since the conversation in your linke:


 * Tell the other person I need a break. "I wrote up a response to your post, but I think we need to slow down, or at least I do. Okay if I respond in 12 hours instead of now?" The other party responded well.


 * If the conversation's getting heated and not serving the needs of the project, then the trick is to get it to end: either let the other person have the last word, set the other person up for the last word, or give a last word that the other person won't feel the need to respond to.

I've tried all these things, and they work.


 * If the mentorship goes forward, I will be asking questions like "What am I missing?" and "Do you know a conflict resolution technique that would work?"

I can also add that during the last time I was unblocked on Wikipedia, I was involved in no arguments of this kind. Unlike Wikinews articles, Wikipedia articles have no time limits. That makes it much easier to say "no thanks" and go work on something else.

My plan for the future is if I ever notice myself going back and forth with someone else, and I feel the discussion might be getting even a little out of hand/uncivil, I'll step away from the discussion where I can, or do the things that I've tried in the past since the discussion that was referenced by you/Ca2james

Secondary request
I'd like to draw the community's attention to my secondary request: Even if consensus toward lifting the block fails to form, please consider restoring talk page access. The admin who revoked it said he would consider restoring access after three months, but then he quit Wikipedia and no one else was authorized to change it.

Comments collapsed - these are listing bullet points that I see in the content that follows.

The first four paras are mine. I think some intro like that is a good idea expect it to be rewritten. Rest is your original text with slight change of last para by Steven.

You can send it "as is" perhaps. But the bullets in the collapsed sections can help you trim.

[Needs intro, this is a suggestion] Need to explain that
 * Thank Ca2james, important to help keep him in the loop and feeling appreciated
 * this is MoS on Wikinews and your initial unblock does not include MoS on Wikipedia.

And that on Wikinews, MoS are


 * Strictly enforced
 * With a deadline
 * Good practice for MoS on Wikipedia but harder

'''Thanks for bringing these points up. They can help me to explain how I plan to do things differently.'''

'''First, these are discussions of style. They are relevant for my eventual return to MoS but not for the initial unblock. The topic areas of RSN, updating articles with new material have never lead to any conflict with me. For the RfC and 3O's, as I said, I was able to practice techniques for deescalation and conflict resolution wiht some success, amd there were no such arguments or fights during the last six months I was unblocked.'''

'''On Wikinews, unlike the situation on Wikipedia, all the articles are reviewed by a small team of reviewers who will not pass them for publication until they conform to the MoS guidelines. On Wikipedia even featured articles often do not comply with all the details of MoS.

'''We also have a strict deadline, of only a few days before the news becomes "stale". Passions there often run high as the deadline approaches, if an article has not yet passed review.

'''This makes it a place where I can practice the techniques I will eventually need for my return to MoS, but one that is more highly charged, and where just leaving a conversation is not an option, if I am the drafter of an article that has to comply with the style gudelines before it is published in a couple of days.


 * Acknowledge that the discussion was repetitive and charged
 * Been trying to find new ways forward
 * Gryllida has been invaluable
 * On Gryllida's suggestion you have done essays, here is an example

'''I reread my whole Wikinews talk page starting in March and some other talk pages from around the same time. You're right; that extended conversation between Gryllida, Ca2james and me is repetitive and charged. I've been trying to find ways to have more effective, cooler-headed conversations on Wikinews ever since. I will add that Gryllida has been invaluable toward that goal, both through their deliberate actions and things I noticed about G passively.

'''Gryllida suggested that I write essays about my experience on Wikinews. I wasn't hot on the idea at first, but I gave it a try and it turned out to be a real winner. I think I managed a few good ones. If you've got the time, I'd like you to take a look at.


 * Helps to slow things down
 * My posts become cooler headed and usually the other person's do too.
 * Mention Slowdown and Downturn

'''During the March conversations, I found one thing that helped was finding a way to slow the conversation down. The more time there was in between posts, the cooler-headed my posts were, and usually the other participants' too. I wrote Slowdown and Downturn. Although SVTCobra is probably right that they're unenforceable, they did get me thinking.


 * Noticed that we see each other's posts as "permission to continue"
 * Found ways to tell the other person I need a break - details
 * Complementing things I approve of
 * Found ways to end conversation - details
 * "Let's do it together" model for conflict resolution - details

'''I find that when someone makes a post addressed to me, I take it as permission to continue. And then they take my post as permission for them to continue, and so on. Here are a few of the things I've tried since the conversation in Ca2James' link:


 * '''Tell the other person I need a break. "I wrote up a response to your post, but I think we need to slow down, or at least I do. Okay if I respond in 12 hours instead of now?" The other party responded well.


 * '''I got into the habit of emphatically complimenting someone when they do something I think is good or have an idea I can sincerely get behind. It doesn't subtract but it adds.  Again, I got this idea after something Gryllida said.


 * '''Finding a way to end conversations: I always knew telling people to stop talking just made them angry, but the trick is to either let the other person have the last word, set them up to have the last word or say something that I don't think they'll mind being the last word.


 * '''I came up with a "Let's Do It Together" model of conflict resolution that's had some success. First try was with Ca2james. I always used to think he had written a lot of Wikinews articles way back and had just fallen out of it, but it turned out he never has.  When he was criticizing the way I go through review, I thought, "Hey, let's have you write a Wikinews article.  Then you'll get lots of insight into the review process.  Let's write it together!  It'll be fun!" I asked two or three times, but he never went for it, so I stopped.  I had more success last month when Pi zero initiated a conversation about source distance.  I suggested we write an essay about it together.  Pi zero decided not to but did respond positively to the skeletal essay that I started and we had a good conversation.

Aside here. Not sure if you are doing this yet. I think you also need to thank the other person for sincere and kind efforts to help even if you think it can't actually work, and to do them the courtesy of offering to give it thought. This also helps create natural breaks in heated conversations.

E.g. "Thanks Gryllida for your offer to help by editing Wikinews articles for me on MoS, I need to give that some thought and will get back to you"

Then you can come back and say you don't think it will work but may have a counter proposal on your part as a result of thinking over her idea

If you think this is a good idea going forwards it might be a useful thing to add. Just a suggestion

Original intro to Steven has useful points about mentorship to add

Would ask mentor:


 * "What am I missing?"
 * "Do you know a conflict resolution technique that would work?"

'''If the mentorship goes forward, I will be asking questions like "What am I missing?" and "Do you know a conflict resolution technique that would work?"

This is perfect, not sure I need to bullet point it but this is what a reader will pick up from it:


 * You have a plan
 * It involves first noticing if you are going back and forth, and then noticing if it is getting out of hand of uncivil
 * You will step away if you can
 * If you can't you will do the things you tried before (with success) since the discussion

'''My plan for the future is if I ever notice myself going back and forth with someone else, and I feel the discussion might be getting even a little out of hand/uncivil, I'll step away from the discussion where I can, or do the things that I've tried in the past since the discussion that was referenced by you/Ca2james