User:Piotrus/discussion1


 * Moved to Piotrus userspace as a result of this discussion: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Barts1a/discussion1.

Hi Barts, just wanted to let you know -- the "hoax" you recently identified was actually a good faith effort, just by someone without a lot of wiki experience! I can see how that would't be clear though -- thanks for keeping an eye on things. I'm working with her now to help her with her project. -Pete (talk) 00:15, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the message. I shall ignore edits by that IP in the future. Maybe next time to avoid confusion you could train them a bit on using the wiki? (Not editing from an IP anon is a good place to start!) Barts1a (talk) 00:20, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Amazing, fooled me completely. I would never suspect that an anon IP claiming authority from the Foundation might be serious. Fæ (talk) 00:21, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Can't blame either of you, I'd have thought the same thing! It's just the result of a whirlwind of miscommunication on our end -- you guys were definitely reacting appropriately :) -Pete (talk) 00:25, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You and me both Fæ. And thanks again for clearing this up Pete Barts1a (talk) 00:26, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

But let's not forget WP:AGF... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 01:16, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Kinda hard to do that when a random IP address is claiming to be from the wikimedia foundation and providing little to no proof to this effect Barts1a (talk) 01:20, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Then you talk to them, explaining how the project works (WP:BITE and all of that), and you also raise the issue on affected article's talk page (where constructive discussion has now begun). The (former) anon's edits were obviously good faithed if imperfect effort (creating table duplicating info), not vandalism. Calling them vandalism and bullshit is not the right approach to new editors. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 01:32, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you are handing out some unfair criticism here. I cannot see the word "bullshit" being used in the user page history and Barts1a was not the only person to add standard user warnings to the IP talk page. Barts1a also took the incentive to discuss the case on IRC which attracted my investigation as well as Prodego. Only after I added an ISP notice did it start to become clear that the location matched the Foundation's address. Editing from this IP appeared to be persistent and disruptive, easily confused with damaging vandalism and potentially false claims of authority. If you feel Barts1a is in the wrong and requires advice on how to behave in the future, please be even-handed and add the same criticism to my talk page, Teles and Ma8thew. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 01:45, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The word bullshit was used in this edit summary. Such words should be avoided, and certainly, by administrators who should hold up high standards. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:37, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No. The edits were not disruptive. You folks please get your act together: learn to WP:AGF. learn what "disruptive" means. Learn to actually read the edits to see if they are vandalism (major miscall there!). Learn to use talk pages; they exist for a reason. The "bullshit" edit summary was out of bounds. In general, stop excusing yourselves and learn from this. &bull; Ling.Nut (talk) 02:06, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If we are going to keep discussing this can we please move it to neutral ground? The new message notification is supposed to be for meaningful messages, not discussion of one. Thanks! Barts1a (talk) 02:11, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm done talking. The last sentence of my post above is a fair summary of everything I wish to say. You don't need to be spanked; you need to admit that it is you (and one other editor; I left a message on that person's talk) who were in the wrong. In fact, you should be issuing apologies, not that WMF memeber. And above all else, you should learn. &bull; Ling.Nut (talk)
 * Please do not lie. You have not left a message on Fæ's talk page as I write this. Barts1a (talk) 02:21, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * In addition: You contributions list suggest the only talk page you have edited recently is mine Barts1a (talk) 02:23, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Also in addition: The message you left on Ma8thew's talk page isn't nearly as scathing as the message you left for me


 * Look. You had plenty of time in this thread (above) to admit that you were in the wrong. Instead, you chose to justify yourself. I'm not whacking you for your mistakes; everyone makes mistakes. I'm whacking you for your refusal to admit that you were wrong & refusal to apologize. User Ma8thew has not yet engaged in this discussion, and thus has not done as you have...  I assume by your stance that  you wanna be an admin some day; this inability to  consider the possibility that you are wrong is a huge problem with admins. Please. learn. &bull; Ling.Nut (talk) 02:30, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I can see why you are pissed off over your recent RfA. but there really is no need to take it out on fellow wikipedia users. Might I suggest a wikibreak? Barts1a (talk) 02:36, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Holy Crap! That is lame, lamer, and lamest! This is exactly what I was talking about. Wait.. link here.. File:Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement.svg. See the second and especially third layers from the bottom. Then look at the top of the triangle to see what you decline to do... &bull; Ling.Nut (talk) 02:39, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Ling.Nut. I came here to comment on a minor error in judgement that could be easily closed by Bart saying "yeah, I was a bit too quick tempered there, sorry." Instead I see the "admin can to no wrong" attitude, and personal attacks. This is disheartening. Let me say after Ling again: we are not perfect, we all make mistakes. Admitting to that is what makes a better person - just like the inexperienced WMF staffer did, apologizing to Bart and others. He was not the only one at fault here, though. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:37, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi again everyone -- if I may, I'd like to suggest that everybody just have a nice cup of tea and let this rest for a bit. I think I have a pretty unique view on this situation, and want to assure you all that everyone in the situation was proceeding with a healthier-than-average amount of good faith. Barts and Fae, you guys were dealing with edits that -- I completely agree -- had the look of a childish and unproductive prank; Ling and Piotr, you guys are putting a ton of good work lately into exploring the experience of new users, and I am full of admiration at your desire to make sure the newbie is represented well here.

I don't think there's much to be gained by arguing out the details here; yes, lots of little judgment calls were made by several people, and they led down an unfortunate path. With the benefit of hindsight, I'm sure we could all name things various people could have done better. But that doesn't mean that hashing them all out is going to be a productive activity.

If I had the ability to bring out a wiki tray of actual tea and cookies for everybody right now, that's what I'd want to do. Let's just let it rest, and maybe each of us will find some little lesson/takeaway from the situation on our own time. -Pete (talk) 02:43, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well said. I fully intend to do as such. Barts1a (talk) 02:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Not well said, sorry. I know we all wanna get along and so on. I know we don't want controversy or arguments at USPP or whatever. But the edits were good faith, and were furthermore completely appropriate (though aesthetics and convenience can be debated) and very obviously good faith. They were not dealt with appropriately. There was no attempt to go to talk, and that is Just Plain Wrong. Moreover, though mistakes are  forgivable, but the mistake was never conceded, and that is an unresolved issue. This editor cannot learn from this experience if we paper it over; the comments above, though well-intended, are unhelpful. &bull; Ling.Nut (talk) 03:00, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This whole thing is NotThatBigADeal. There were no casualties in today's incidents; let's keep it that way. Please walk away slowly. Killiondude (talk) 03:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * What do i want? I want this user (and potentially others) to admit that he/she was in the wrong. I want this user (and potentially others) to apologize to the editor whose good faith edits were smacked down in an inappropriate manner. And that is all i want. This is an opportunity for a learning experience; we do Wikipedia no favors if we elide it. &bull; Ling.Nut (talk) 03:08, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I am waiting to hear what people have learned from this incident. So far, the lesson I am seeing is that some editors see WP:BITE as unimportant :( That said, certain matters should be let go, if a party is unwilling to compromise. As far as I am concerned, the ball is in Bart's court now, and nobody else should comment any more. He can chose to say something based on those experiences, or let the ball drop. His action will affect how others think of him, but one way or another, this should be the end of that story. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:42, 10 November 2010 (UTC)