Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch/Pedophile topic mentorship

This pedophilia-related article is under topic mentorship.
For any discussion with the mentors,
or to report any disputes that need intervention,
please see Wikipedia:Pedophile topic mentorship.

Mentorships

Not a bad idea. I do have one rather administrative question (that is likely to be asked by many coming to the page):

"The following users have been appointed mentors to pedophile and sex abuse articles" the page says.

Appointed by whom?

(I don't necessarily have any issues with those listed, but it'll be asked eventually how these four were chosen over, as an example, SqueakBox or Roman or John Nevard or AnotherSolipsist or Jack-A-Roe or myself or Herostratus or Homologeo or SSBohio or many others. It doesn't matter to me directly, but there should be some sort of methodology used and thus indicated to proactively alleviate the concerns some may have.)

• VigilancePrime • • • 00:53 (UTC) 13 Mar '08

To be honest with you VP, I struggled to get these admins - I really didn't want to put my own name forward but I had to because of lack of interest. I was planning to put the admins to the mediation, but as I said, this is all that I got so there wasn't a choice to make. I'm very welcome to suggestions here for admins that all parties would be happy with. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Like I said, I'm sure others would ask and it'd be good to have an answer for them. I have no problem with it. • VigilancePrime • • • 00:58 (UTC) 13 Mar '08

I wouldn't want to be a mentor myself because I want to edit the articles and I would only mentor on a subject which I then chose not to edit. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I totally agree with Squeak! He and I (and most of the ones I listed, with the possible exception of SSB) shouldn't be. • VigilancePrime • • • 01:49 (UTC) 27 Mar '08

A section for action taken/archive

It might be good to have an archive for actions that have been taken against editors, on this noticeboard, and outside, when related to pedophile related articles. Whatchall think? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. I'll set up an archiving system here, but what are your thoughts about recording actions taken on users outside the board? We'd probably need something seperate for that. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was afraid I was a bit vague here, and clearly I was. What I meant was action taken involving these articles, that hasn't been the result of this board. (i.e. an editor warned for disruptive editing on the subject) I do believe it should still be listed here. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we could easily create a log of actions as a subpage of the main noticeboard, if that's what people want. Similar to logs for arbcom cases. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Advertising this

I'm looking for suggestions about how this page should be linked to. Could a talk page notice be created for all articles that come under its scope? The message could name the mentors and point to this page should there be any problems. I'd like to hear others ideas and thoughts. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Like the idea of a transclusion box. Don't think mentors should be listed in it as those are likely to change over time. Something simple, like "To learn more about Wikipedia's blah-blah-blah regarding articles relating to pedophilia..." - OR a line could be added to the top of the PAW box... that would also help tagging relevant pages automatically... I like that idea, actually... simple, effective... • VigilancePrime • • • 01:29 (UTC) 13 Mar '08

PAW? That is what it is there for. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is completely seperate from any other initiative currently in place on pedophilia related articles and it should be maintained as such. That said, it would be easier if we could find a template that's currently on most of the articles to pop a line in about this page - it would certainyl save us some time. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think PAW is for all in initiatives or anything re pedophilia, and I am certainly not opposed to someone creating a template, I would myself but I have no knowledge in that area. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Squeak, I'd be willing to make a template if you or others would tell me what you want it to say. I'm good enough with design, but not particularly lucid in this area. Let me know. • VigilancePrime • • • 20:17 (UTC) 13 Mar '08 ALSO: Squeak, I wasn't sure if you would support adding into the PAW template or feel they should remain totally sep. The former would be very easy, the latter would be more - independent. The latter, though, would require someone(s) going and tagging each article with the template for this mentor group. Thoughts on that? • VigilancePrime • • • 20:19 (UTC) 13 Mar '08

I think a simple statement that says "This article is under topic mentorship. For any discussion with the mentors, or to report any disputes that need intervention, please see Wikipedia:Pedophile topic mentorship" - I don't mind tagging talk pages if someone can provide a cat or a list. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If there isn't a cat yet, we should make one. Maybe a hidden cat, cat:under pedophile topic mentorship maybe? *disclaimer, I don't know how hidden cat's work* Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds fine to me, ie RPs words and VPs design. I'd like to mention this at PAW talk but we wouldn't need to add the template there. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

template v1

So there is a template now. Let me know what you'd like to change, anything from colors ro font size or type, italics, bold, add words, remove words, etc.

The idea is that this page can be {{db-userreq}} after we finalize a template and put that template into it's permanent location. WITH THAT REASONING, yes, the images are only placeholders (duh!) for any image, if any, we want to put there. Disclaimer: Yes, the image placeholders are somewhat flippant irony-laden jokes... do not take them seriously. Do not be offended. I figured, since I will delete the page and thus history when we're done, I could be a little silly about it. Try not to take that part too seriously!

Okay, if you agree to that... here's the prototype, version1 template. Let me know specifically what changes we want to make and definitely what image we really want to use. • VigilancePrime • • • 21:01 (UTC) 13 Mar '08

Sound of Silence

Hello darkness my old friend; I've come to talk with you again.

Is anyone out there? I haven't heard any comments on the template for days... how's everyone doing? Did someone turn the lights out accidentally? Blow a circuit breaker? What happened that there hasn't been any activity on this project for almost five days?

Hope eveyone's doing okay. • VigilancePrime • • • 08:39 (UTC) 18 Mar '08

proposed move

I propose to move this obsolete page out of main project space and place it as a subpage to WP:PAW, to preserve the archives. Let any who object say so now. Herostratus (talk) 17:44, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds ok to me.Legitimus (talk) 17:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support move. -- But with a caveat that the move does not change the inactive status of the PAW project. PAW was useful in its time but that time has past, as can be seen by viewing the most recent of the archives there. If editors in good standing choose to join the project and take on the work in a productive way, that would be different. But short of that, it should remain marked as inactive, to dissuade the use of those pages for disruption as has happened many times. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:03, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Thanks, SqueakBox talk contribs 13:01, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely agree with Jack that this doesn't in any way make the PAW not-inactive, nor should it. Even inactive projects can be lightly tended (I guess) in case they or their materials are needed in future. Herostratus (talk) 16:31, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

I wanted to point out that Hmwith and Postlethwaithe, two mentors on the list, are mostly inactive. Overthat10 (talk) 23:05, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Still active?

Is this Project still active? The last activity was three years ago. Just curious if there are still people actively watching sensitive articles. 63.143.216.178 (talk) 20:43, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the project is not really active anymore (or active at all), but I do think there are enough experienced editors keeping an eye on things. If you have any indication that things are off, please do let us know. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:00, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]