User talk:Mattisse/Archive 27
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Suggestion
Mattisse, if I may make a suggestion. Take a week off and then decide what you want to do. You are obviously upset and that is never a good time to be saying things that cannot easily be unsaid. If, after a few days, you still want to dissolve the mentorship in place (which means the mentorship you have, not necessarily the one you want), then dissolve it and take your chances with arbcom. It is also not a bad idea to put some distance between this pressure point and a decision on whether to stay in or leave wikipedia. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 02:17, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
- I appreciate your suggestion but the situation is intolerable. I am being harrassed on multiple pages, my mentors/advisers do not understand and do not seem familiar with my plan, and I have been threated with a block if I try to point out the provisions of the plan. As someone has pointed out to me, there is COI in their attempt to suppress my opinions of their implementation of the plan, as they do not want to admit they are have failed in their job and left me out to dry. Meanwhile, I have suffered abuse and punitive actions against me. My plan states that certain factors upset me, so my mentors/advisers have done those very things to increase my frustration. Most of them have been missing in action. They are only periodically available. The situation cannot continue as is. It is not feasible. They are accepting input from those editors that bear lasting grudges against me as valid. I must do something or I certainly will be indefinitely blocked, as that is the mood of my mentors/advisers. I really have not done the awful things that are being alleged. The mentors/advisors only look superficially into the situations and accept the complainants evaluations. I would stand a better change with the arbs who have no COI to defend. These mentors have not done their job and do not want to admit it. It would be s sign of good faith if they were willing to read the provisions of the plan and abide by them. But I am told by thejm that is unnecessary and they can do what they want. I believe that I can choose my mentors, and that mentors cannot be foisted on me, especially after they have fallen down on the job. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 02:38, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
- I understand your frustration and I'm sorry about the way this matter has been handled. But people do make mistakes. I think if you can find a way to do some article work that would be great. That's why we're here after all. I'd be happy to try and help if I can and you want some entertainment. If I can't no worries. I respect the way you've held it together through this trial. I'm not sure why some of your mentors can't see things from your perspective, there's a saying about walking a mile in someone elses moccasins, but anyway, just remember they're just trying in good faith. Good luck! I hope things will be brighter with the next dawn. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
I support RegentsPark's suggestion. I had proposed Monday 15th for a discussion on dissolving the Plan, but I think it would be wiser to wait until the following Monday, the 22nd. Take a break from Wikipedia for a week. You are clearly stressed, and historically you have done damage when you are stressed. After this statement I am withdrawing from the Plan. I will be available to join in the discussion on the 22nd, and I will be available to comment if requested if the ArbCom case is reopened, but other than that I feel I have not been able either through discussion, or by example, or by standing by you when I was able, or by employing sanctions, to dissuade you from the activity that causes others concern and you distress. I would still like to help you and be your friend and ally, but I find that under the terms of the Plan and the expectations and mis-expectations from various parties of my role as your advisor that I have been unable to that adequately. It is possible I will help you better as someone you can consult simply as a friend and fellow editor. Keep well, and please take the break. SilkTork *YES! 10:58, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Plan
I will be blocked for quoting my plan? How can that be? I do not understand —mattisse (Talk) 23:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
I think I will file a Clarification request. I am really taken aback that I can be blocked for quoting parts of my plan. Therefore, there is no way to enable the plan to be followed. That leaves me in limbo, since I cannot tolerate the abuse and punitiveness that has resulted from the plan as currently in action. I simply will not edit articles or contribute to the encyclopedia since the result is punishment. I prevented some punishment by no longer reviewing FACs and GANs. Since Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Münchausen by Internet/1 I have done no GANs, thank god. I am one of the reviews that has been driven off, and to think I used to do several reviews a week! There is really nothing for me to do here at Wikipedia anymore. I refuse to copy edit because of the ownership issue. So my leaving will be no loss. —mattisse (Talk) 01:29, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, I will file a Clarification request. There is something wrong if I can be threatened with a block for quoting parts of my plan, since it is clear my mentors/advisers are not familiar with it. How do you suggest I enable them to become familiar with it so that they will not violate the provisions if I am not allowed to bring relevant parts of it to their attention? Since that is the case, and I will be blocked if I do, I do not see any other alternative that to go back to Arbitration and seek clarification if the provisions of the plan are to be followed, or whether the mentors/advisers can make up there own provisions, now that I am helpless and under their control. Have you another idea? —mattisse (Talk) 01:58, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
- My understanding is that you have "dissolved" your plan, yet are also endeavouring to use it to make a point, and blame your failings on other editors. When you are blocked for provocative comments against another editor (which you have long known is contrary to your plan), you call it a block "without a warning" (you've been warned time and time again). When you are warned that disruptive behaviour may lead to a block, you don't refer to it as a warning, but a "threat". You wilfulling ignoring the fact you are under conduct probation (which goes beyond your plan), talk about advisors "applying" your plan, which is contrary to its nature, and generally twist the comments and actions of other editors in order to support your self-identification as an innocent victim. It is very sad. I hope you can find a way out of the hole you have dug for yourself.
- As you appear to have no confidence in your advisors, I am unable to give you any further advice at this time. SilkTork has withdrawn his offer of mentorship. If I see no sign in the next 24 hours that you are able to accept rather than deflect your failings, I may also withdraw my offer of mentorship permanently. Wikipedia does not revolve around you. Regards. Geometry guy 08:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Mattisse, it's up to you what you want to do next. You can go back to arb-com for a clarification, continue with the plan with the mentors you have in the way they implement mentorship, or walk away from wikipedia. What you're doing instead is venting publicly. In my opinion, there really is not much point in that. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 13:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
- If I may suggest another alternative, Mattisse has indicated that she has ended the plan and dismissed her advisors. Fine. I suggest that the advisors concur in this and notify ArbCom. I note that the ArbCom decision gives Mattisse the freedom to choose advisors, presumably she could unchoose them or choose others, if she wishes. In the meantime, she is on conduct probation for another 10 months, which provides admins ample means of dealing with any questionable conduct. What is difficult about that? I should add that I urge Mattisse to be cautious, sanctions under conduct probation may be more harsh and more impersonal than she has known to date. But it's a free wiki; give her what she wants.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:29, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Graham87
Hi Mattisse. Great that you've agreed to be a part of the Graham87 interview! I've set up a page at User:RegentsPark/Graham87Interview but not yet asked Graham87 to respond to the question there (I was hoping you would agree to co-interview him). When you get the chance, take a look and add questions. I'd like to go to Graham87 after we have a few questions in place. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 02:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Myitsone Dam
Mattisse, Thanks for your many constructive edits on Myitsone Dam which is now advanced to Prep area 2, thanks to you. I hadn't looked at the article for several days and have been working on Dams in Burma and Weigyi Dam, neither of which are ready for the main space. If you are interested, you are welcome to work on those articles in my user spaces. I bit off more than I can chew with these Burmese Dams. I should be back in my usual territory, Protected areas of Tamil Nadu. -Marcus334 (talk) 07:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.
The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. -- TS 23:18, 20 February 2010 (UTC)