User talk:WormTT/Adopt/Barts1a

Questions from WTT

Hi Barts1a, I've just got a few questions which I'd appreciate it if you could let me know the answers to.

You seem to have quite a checkered history, could you tell me what, in your own words, lead to you not using Huggle and being banned from notice boards?
Wow; this is gonna be a long answer... What happened was that apparantly I was misusing rollback and Huggle to effectively mark non-vandalism edits as vandalism. I also apparantly made quite a few unhelpful posts at the various noticeboards. The catalyst for this came from an incident that involved Ryulong singling me out as a threat for the encyclopedia and calling for my head in the form of an indef block after an honest mistake. The noticeboard and huggle restrictions were proposed to the community and accepted in place of an indef block. This showed that not everyone thought my editing was as disruptive as Ryulong and others made it out to be. I've been under these restrictions ever since. Barts1a / What did I actually do right? / What did I do wrong this time? 22:22, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a reason you don't have talk page archiving?
I prefer archiving talk page threads by hand, that way I can archive a conversation when it is resolved instead of waiting for the bot to archive it or having the bot archive the conversation while I or someone else is awaiting a reply. Barts1a / What did I actually do right? / What did I do wrong this time? 22:22, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How attached are you to your "complaints page"
I quite like that page. It allows for easy separation of good talk and bad talk. That way if someone wants to focus on my good points they can easily do so however if someone wants to focus on my bad points they can just as easily do so. Barts1a / What did I actually do right? / What did I do wrong this time? 22:23, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just think that might help me get a bit more of a perspective on how you edit. Worm^TT · (talk) 10:36, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Past

Ok. I found your answer very interesting for the first question there. To the extent that I've started this section regarding it. I expect that it might be worth a bit of chatting. Now, firstly, I want you to understand that I'm not intending to push you on your past problems, I'm certainly not going to hold them against you - but those who do not learn from the past are doomed to repeat it. I think it'd be really helpful to find a few areas where you could do with focussing on improving, which should lead to an overall improvement.

So let's see.

"Apparently" you were misusing tools & posting disruptive threads. Apparently? Do you believe that the sanctions upon you were unjustified? NB I have not yet looked the edits in question
Ryulong called for your head after an innocent mistake. I find that surprising, most editors will forgive 1 mistake.

I will be having a look into what happened today (hopefully) and may have some other questions. Worm^TT · (talk) 09:42, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jeez Louise. I've just been through all your edits (not with a fine toothcomb, but in general - I've certainly reviewed over a quarter - any that interested me). I think I've got a much more accurate flavour of your editing habits now. Most of the problems should be covered by my adoption course, I'll make sure I add some relevent questions to your tests. I do want to set down a few ground rules though, while you're under my mentorship. I'm hoping you are already ahead of me on these, but let's make it explicit.

Do not perform any "admin tasks". By admin tasks, I mean any tasks that might require administrator tools or any work in any area that might require evaluation of consensus.
Do not edit whilst angry. If you feel yourself getting angry, write it in an email and send it to me. Then take time away from the encyclopedia. If it is temporarily wrong, then the world will not end. This is important.
Do not go over 1RR, even for situations where it is blatent vandalism. There are other editors who can revert. We can move back to your normal 1RR once you've gone through the course.
Finally remember that I do my best to treat all editors the same. I will never be "against" you, though I am very likely to disagree with you.

Are you happy with all these conditions? Oh and from the looks of things, we've crossed paths a couple of times, most notably when Goldblooded suggested you came to me when you were having problems back in November. I said you were over reacting

Worm^TT · (talk) 15:19, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me. I shall do my best to abide by them. Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 22:32, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's great to hear. Only one thing you didn't answer - do you feel that the community restrictions you are under are reasonable or unfair? Worm^TT · (talk) 10:46, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Part of me thinks they are fair but another part thinks they are not so. The two parts are engaged in a never ending war. At this point in time the side that thinks they are fair is winning. Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 11:44, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very good (and reasonable) answer Worm^TT · (talk) 12:26, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Communication

Communication is paramount on the encyclopedia, just as it is elsewhere in life. You can get pretty much anything you want if you have good communication skills, and what's more, you can make people happy that they're giving it to you. Call it what you like, customer service, empathy, a friendly attitude - it matters. It's also not something I can particularly teach, but I can give you some pointers.

Put yourself in the other persons shoes. Try and see things from their point of view. Assume good faith follows on very quickly from this - when you see it from their point of view, try and work out the most positive version point of view is.

I'll try that next time I get into a dispute over something (Hopefully there won't be a next time) Barts1a / What did I actually do right? / What did I do wrong this time? 10:51, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wishful thinking ;) Worm^TT · (talk) 11:21, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whenever you do have to give criticism, try to make it constructive. Focus on ways they can improve. Highlight the good stuff they've done. Above all, be fair.

Alright. Will do Barts1a / What did I actually do right? / What did I do wrong this time? 10:51, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't put barriers in the way of communication with you. In fact, I'd go further to say, make it as easy as possible to communicate with you. This is why I asked about your "problem page". You're instantly making it more difficult to communicate with you by making them chose how to contact you.

Personally I feel that my good points can be highlighted easier by having a separate page for people to complain about me on. That way it is also easy to get an overall impression of how I am being received in the community by monitering monthly edit counts to each page.

Fair enough. I haven't looked at it deeply enough, and I'll bring it up again in the future if I see it as a root of problems. I know another user I've mentored got a lot of stick for something similar. Worm^TT · (talk) 11:21, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I should also point out that the perception you're giving from your signature is either self deprecating, "I'm always screwing up, What have I done this time?" or designed to make the user feel guilty "Oh, you're complaining again? What have I done this time?" I'm not sure which one you were aiming for, but neither really give an impression I think is open and friendly.

I could go back to what I had earlier which was "Talk to me / Yell at me" if you would prefer. Barts1a / What did I actually do right? / What did I do wrong this time? 10:51, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How about "Talk to me | Help me improve"? Instantly changes to a positive slant. Worm^TT · (talk) 11:21, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea! Will do that right away! Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 11:48, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't try to hide your past. Everyone makes mistakes and if you hide them, you won't learn from them. I can accept that you like to archive manually, but your archives are hidden. When you use a bot, everything is archived and any perception of hiding conversations stops. To the best of my knowledge, we haven't interacted before and when trying to get a view of you, my gut instinct is one of deception, just because you don't allow easy access to your information.

Whoops! I had forgotten that element was not there! I've added the standard archive header. Barts1a / What did I actually do right? / What did I do wrong this time? 10:32, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that helps! I've looked through your "criticism" page, and much of it has been deleted, almost none has been archived. Similarly for the recent incident that brought us together, that wasn't archived, just removed. Worm^TT · (talk) 11:21, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that should be kept a bit more visable... I've put it into the archive. Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 11:48, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked more thoroughly, you've done a decent job of archiving, I'm happy with that now. Worm^TT · (talk) 15:20, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know it's a lot to take in, but I thought it worth bringing up these points. Worm^TT · (talk) 09:42, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This Week

My word it's been a busy week hasn't it. I'll be putting up a test for you in a moment - I'm up to date on marking :)

Right, firstly, the Kony 2012. Luke's comments were in good faith. He's explained his reasoning, that the white soldiers rescuing the villagers can be seen as propaganda, to encourage American intervention. Without sources, it's a contentious edit, which is inappropriate to add, but labelling it as racism? My word that's over the top. Racism is a loaded word, it carries all sorts of connotations - see our article on racism. If you say someone has a a racist POV then you are calling someone a racist and you better have a damn good reason to do so. This was not a damn good reason. It is a personal attack, make no mistake about it. I'm not happy with their behaviour either, I've left a message on their talk page, but I think you should back down on this personal attack - very quickly.

I have done so (I hope!) Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 11:34, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So I see. Thank you for that.

Then we've got the whole Courcelles thing. I was surprised by your request for recall in that situation and emailed you about reasons why - explaining that you were effectively saying that Courcelles "is a terrible administrator who is likely to make decisions no one else would". You decided to keep your vote, that's your opinion, and you are allowed to have it. That you followed it up immediately after closure with a "kitten" is insulting to say the least, on a number of levels. It can be seen as patronising - "You are a terrible administrator, but it's ok, have a kitten", thoughtless - "I may have said you were a terrible administrator, but I didn't mean it really" or disruptive - "You're not a terrible administrator, but I had to say you were to prove a point". THAT is why you got trouted for it.

I have clarified that I did not mean to be patronizing. Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 11:34, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And again, thanks.

Finally, I'm rather upset with the tone of this this diff. You read the email, you know full well what it said. There was nothing problematic with that email, I just wanted you to understand the full consequences of what you were saying when you supported the desysop. The note implied that it was something more than that, and was quite a slap in the face - which I did not deserve. If someone who had not read the email said that, I would understand, but that's not what happened. If you have a problem with me, you take it to me. If you are not satisfied with my response THEN you take it the wider community. This should be something you always do - a simple courtesy you didn't extend me, or indeed Courcelles before you said they should be stripped from adminship. It implies you do not believe the person could have a reason for doing what they do (against WP:AGF) and will always escalate a situation. Worm^TT · (talk) 09:29, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that! As thanks for not losing your temper over it (Most people would have!); see your talk page. Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 11:34, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's ok. I'm slow to anger generally, that's why I'm quite good at mentoring. Discussing problems with editors is always the best way to handle things, because if you can sort it between the two of you, things run much more smoothly. That's exactly why I emailed you, most of the comments I made about editors were positive, but I did mention negative points. If I'd shouted that to the community, those I'd spoken about negatively may well have felt aggreived. Imagine if I'd started complaining about your behaviour elsewhere - that would have done no good at all, and undermined any relationship we have. I'm glad you've taken the actions you have - things should sort themselves out from here. Worm^TT · (talk) 11:55, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]