Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:19, 29 January 2010

This page is primarily intended as place for Mattisse and her advisors to discuss her editing and responses to stresses, so that clear guidance can be provided and understood. The Clarification motions do not specifically forbid other editors from contributing to such discussions, but Mattisse and her mentors/advisors would appreciate being given space here. Editors can report concerns and issues at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Alerts and provide constructive commentary at Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Alerts

Role of this page/talk page

I've cut back the associated page to its basics, and made an initial attempt to find a useful role for the talk page. This might be a good place for advisors/mentors and Mattisse to have transparent discussions. Discussion as to how to make this page as useful as possible would be welcome. Geometry guy 22:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Archives

In the move from User:Mattisse/Monitoring to Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Monitoring then to Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Alerts the archives of User:Mattisse/Monitoring appear to have been lost. Can anyone see them? Or shall we create them again from the history? SilkTork * 10:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, they are still there in Mattisse's user talk space, and I was planning to set up links to them. Geometry guy 10:18, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Indefinite ban from 2010 Haiti earthquake proposed

I'd like to notify other mentors/advisors and Mattisse that I believe it is appropriate, in the light of this now archived discussion, to extend the ban I made (that Mattisse should not edit 2010 Haiti earthquake for 36 hours) to an indefinite ban (for that article and its talk page), until such time as Mattisse posts to an advisor/mentor that she wishes to edit the article again, giving reasons, and her request is approved. Any comments on this proposal are welcome. If none are received in the in the next 12 hours, I will post this ban. It can, of course be disputed subsequently. Geometry guy 22:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

That is OK with me. I have been effectively excluded from 2010 Haiti earthquake anyway and have no wish to edit it. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 22:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I just came here because I saw this heading on my watchlist. You might want to clarify that you are talking about this article only. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:37, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Good point, thanks. Geometry guy 22:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I would like to point out that this ban is for a talk page violation and has nothing to do with the quality of my edits to the article, which were high. It is unfortunate that good editors are prevented from editing articles because of the politics of talk pages. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 23:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect. The talk page violation was minor and could have been resolved (indeed it was). The ban is for escalation and subsequent comments. Mattisse was asked to seek these reasons on her talk page, but she has so far not done so. She will not be able to fully appreciate this ban until she does. Geometry guy 23:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, your questions got buried in further comments that seemed to cover your questions. I have said that being banned from the article has pretty much eliminated me from editing it again. So, since I am out of the editing loop, I am resigned to never editing the article again. It would be quite difficult to gather the data again and update myself. I have ceased following it and am unwilling to do all the work it would take to return to editing the article. Also, the "lead editor" issues remain. So if you ban me indefinitely, it is immaterial to me. It is Misplaced Pages's loss. And the article's loss. (I was balancing out some POV.) But since that is the way Misplaced Pages works, ok. I explained the "wow" statements as copied from responses I have seen by editors on wikipedia that seemed to be effective. I explained that my very poor eyesight makes poorly formated replies difficult for me to follow and read. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 23:53, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I have made further replies on my talk page which I think is just a repetition of what I have said here. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 00:08, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Mattisse, you really have to learn to be a minimalist in responses. All you had to do was to strike the one comment that GeometryGuy had suggested you strike and the matter would have been a minor one and long over. There is absolutely no question that there is a pattern here where a small matter becomes huge because you just can't keep shut. I have no choice but to support this indef topic ban and, once again, ask you, no implore you to not respond at length to every slight that you perceive being directed at you. Better still, don't respond at all. Just do what is asked and keep editing. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 02:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this analysis and advice. I also agree with Mattisse that it is a great loss to the article that she is no longer able to contribute to it in the collaborative spirit which preceded the events leading to her ban. I have recorded the outcome on the monitoring page, and would add for clarity that this ban only refers to this particular article and its talk page: Mattisse has worked on related articles without problems and may continue to do so. Geometry guy 16:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

There is a lot of POV in the article. I would like to support those who also think so on the talk page. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 23:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, through your own actions, you cannot do so at present. Contrary positions will prevail if other editors support them; the same is true for supportive views. Geometry guy 00:07, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, when? Actual errors in the article, e.g. a misunderstanding of the UN peace keepers as "aid providers" riddle the article. No understanding of the history of the UN peace keepers. Also, a bias toward the Miami Herald and certain reporters views. I would think Misplaced Pages would want a balanced article and not POV. —mattisse (Talk) 00:20, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Up to you. Others may fix the article. If you want to do so, you need to regain the confidence of your advisors about removing this ban. You have not done so to date. Geometry guy 00:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Discussion re alert on Music of Minnesota

The following was originally posted on the Alerts talk page.

::::Yes, I wonder why she asked why I had an unusual interest in the article? That seems strange. Making three edits gives me an unusual interest in the article? Well, I guess she was stressed out by the unpleasantness of the whole experience. Misplaced Pages is not the encyclopedia that "anyone can edit" if three edits cause a challenge. Perhaps if they encouraged more editorial input and were not so possessive of articles, those articles would get more help at FAR. Certainly a one in three error rate in sources is not good. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 00:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

This kind of comment is contrary to your plan, Mattisse, and I advise you to strike it. It isn't particularly relevant anyway. Thanks, Geometry guy 00:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, it is relevant to why I no longer contribute to the encyclopedia. Your wikilink above reminded me of the inappropriateness of the bad faith comment on my talk page about my "sudden" interest. Struck. So, to clarify, I should not make three edits to an article without worrying about being accused of a "sudden interest"? I believe this is contrary to the "anyone can edit" philosophy and encourages ownership of articles. —mattisse (Talk) 00:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

This does not seem very productive towards resolving the original alert, and so is better discussed here, as part of the monitoring process, without outside comments. Geometry guy 01:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

To clarify, three edits to an article are too many and invite attack and innuendo on my talk page? (Yes, I made two mistakes in this case, but it is not very often I do that.) However, being already fearful of doing any reviews or much copy editing, nothing like I used to do in my prolific days, I find myself frightened even more of doing anything. I should feel this way you agree? I ask again, I should not make as many as three edits to an article, in case I may be attacked and an "alert" registered? I am not accorded any leeway? This is reasonable? I truly don't think this is what arbcom had in mind. —mattisse (Talk) 01:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree. There is no problem making edits to articles, and you should not be afraid of making good faith mistakes. Problems only arise when you try to interpret the intentions of other editors. This is not the place to discuss their intentions. What matters is how you respond to their queries. Interpreting the post of another editor as "innuendo" personalizes a content discussion: you must not do so, even if it seems another editor has; seek advice instead. The "alert" was a request for attention without prejudice; you have not been attacked. This matter should be easy to resolve, but you make it more difficult for yourself and everyone than necessary by being unable to let your frustrations go.

You have plenty of leeway if you stick to your plan. If you do not, you have very little. Geometry guy 02:11, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

So for another editor to ask what is my "sudden interest" in an article, because I have made three edits, is reasonable? —mattisse (Talk) 02:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

In general, it is not productive to try to deduce the motives of others (whether on wikipedia or in real life for that matter). Ninety nine times out of hundred, the reasons behind an acerbic remark have nothing to do with the situation at hand and, it is best, to just think so unless more compelling evidence arrives. Once is happenstance, twice coincidence, and, it is only the third time that you have to worry about enemy action! (paraphrased from Goldfinger) --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 02:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. This is another situation where assuming the other editor has good intentions and a genuine wish to understand is a win-win situation. Many editors have challenges they are trying to deal with and don't always seem to behave "reasonably". Editors are human with complex feelings and motivations, but text is digital. Don't attach too much weight to an individual remark. We all need to cut each other a bit of slack sometimes. Geometry guy 02:40, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Then, why is it justification to open an "alerts" about three of my edits? This is at a time when there is an RFC over the crisis that editors don't do reviews and copy edits for FAC. Certainly I no longer do any. There was a couple of years in which I used to do several FAC reviews a week and got ample praise from those whose articles I copy edited. The same for GAN. Now I no longer do either of those. Why was it good for 2006, 2007, 2008 but now it it not? Now three edits opens an "alert". I do not think this is what arbcom had in mind. Please see this arb comment:baiting —mattisse (Talk) 02:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Mattisse, may I remind you that there you are essentially on probation. What that translates to is that there is heightened scrutiny of your actions on wikipedia. You may not like it, but that's the way it is, and, if you want to contribute meaningfully to the encyclopedia, you have to learn to accept it. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 02:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

In this respect, an alert draws mentors' attention to an issue. That is not baiting. Geometry guy 03:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it is exactly what Vassyana meant. —mattisse (Talk) 03:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec) It is not worth worrying about whether this is baiting or not. If it is baiting, avoid the bait. If it isn't, then where's the problem. What Vassyana meant or did not mean is not important either. At this point, if you want to keep editing on wikipedia, you have to take the knocks that come your way. Look at it like this. There was a perceived issue. You apologized BEFORE it was brought up on the alerts page - you were purer than pure. People can see that. If, after that, the discussion gets protracted and deteriorates into who did what and why, all people will see is the mess. What's the point in that? --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 03:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

As the discussion regarding the dwindling willingness of editors to review FAC and GAN reveals, it is not just me. The ownership culture is taking its toll. Gone are the days when I gave freely of my time and energy to benefit the articles of others. To answer RegentsPark, I guess I just don't care anymore. I haven't contributed meaningfully since the arbitration, and I doubt I will in the future. There is absolutely no incentive at all to do so. —mattisse (Talk) 03:12, 29 January 2010 (UTC)