Misplaced Pages

User:Mattisse/Plan

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< User:Mattisse

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Geometry guy (talk | contribs) at 23:09, 14 June 2009 (→Consequences for failure to adhere to plan: copyedit one bullet). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 23:09, 14 June 2009 by Geometry guy (talk | contribs) (→Consequences for failure to adhere to plan: copyedit one bullet)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

ArbCom statement

Within 15 days of this decision, Mattisse shall, in conjunction with one or more mentors or advisers, submit to this Committee for approval a plan to govern and guide her future editing with the continued assistance of those mentors or advisers. The plan shall seek to preserve Mattisse's valuable and rewarding contributions to Misplaced Pages while avoiding future disputes and the types of interactions that have been hurtful for herself and others. As a starting point in developing the plan, Mattisse and her mentors or advisors should consider the suggestions made by various users on the workshop page of this case, including but not limited to Mattisse's taking wikibreaks at times of stress, avoiding or limiting Mattisse's participation on certain pages, Mattisse's refraining from making any comments regarding the motivations or good faith of other users, and Mattisse's disengaging from interactions that become stressful or negative. The plan should also address how any lapses by Mattisse from the standards of behavior described in the plan shall be addressed.

ArbCom findings regarding my behavior

I believe ArbCom is saying the important dimensions of my behavior that need to be addressed are the following:

  1. I personalize the routine remarks of others.
  2. I make accusations and personal attacks on others.
  3. I have accused a group of editors of cabalism. I composed a list including these editors among others.
  4. I continue to comment long after an issue is resolved and this is considered POINTy.
  5. I make statements that I will no longer participate in a particular forum but I have returned to that forum.

Situations in which I tended to become stressed (per Ling.Nut's request)

  1. Reviews or discussions such as FAC in which my comments are ignored and/or refactored under an irrelevant heading, or where my comments are answered with disrespectful edit summaries, like "Yawn", "Blah" such as in the Major depressive FAC
  2. Reviews or discussions in which I am told I am wrong because I don't have the credentials or experience of the person who is responding to my comments as in the Ali Smiles talk page.
  3. Reviews or discussions where I am called a troll, made fun of, etc. such as the Buckingham Palace GAR
  4. Reviews or discussions in which I am told that I have not justified my comments, but when I add more justification I am told that I am being disruptive, such as the Buckingham Palace GAR.
  5. Reviews or discussions in which many other editors seem to come from nowhere and support a position against me such as the Ali Smiles GAR.
  6. Situations which seem unfair, such as when a new article I had listed at DYK was merged without discussion with another article, and I am required by a mediator to supply references to the second article.
  7. People who post directives on my page when I have no clue who they are, but they act like I do know. After a while I get frustrated.

Behavioral rules

  1. Per ArbCom, I am prohibited from engaging in unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, and disruptive point-making. I must avoid making any comments regarding the motivations or good faith of other editors.
  2. I must not accuse others of conspiring against me.
  3. Per ArbCom: Mattisse is instructed not to maintain on-wiki any lists of users with whom she has had negative interactions or of whom she has a negative view. I must not maintain such lists of other users.
  4. I must not make statements that I will not post again in a particular forum that suggest an indefinite time frame.
  5. I must avoid all comments that seem as if I a personalizing the routine remarks of others. I must limit my comments to article content and not the characteristics of other editors.
  6. I must avoid making statements that I will not return to a forum, as that is an indeterminate statement implying no time limit and opinions will vary as to when, if ever, I could return.

Interactions with mentors/advisers

  1. When posting, if I receive two negative comments in a row (discounting irrelevant intervening comments), I will not comment further until I consult with a mentor.
  2. If I receive one negative response, but am able to refocus editor attention on the content issue, then I may inform one or more mentors that I have achieved a small success. This will also alert my monitoring mentors to a stress so as to be able to follow it.
  3. In any conversation, I will post sparingly, and be careful not to pursue a topic more than by making a two or three comments at the most before consulting with a mentor.
  4. If when posting, if my suggestions are not accepted, such as at FAC, I will drop the matter unless I consult with a mentor before I continue.
  5. I will not criticise another editor's conduct without consulting with one or more mentors first. After consultation, if my complaint is deemed appropriate, I will raise legitimate concerns of another editor's conduct either directly with the editor in question, in a civil fashion, or if necessary on an appropriate noticeboard or dispute-resolution page. In some cases, I may just ignore it.
  6. I will consult with my mentors/advisers if there is any dissension or problem regarding my comments in a post before I reply.
  7. I will listen to the advise of my mentors/advisers and follow that advice even if I do not want to do so.
  • Note: A "negative comment" is one which criticizes my character, competence, behavior or motives in a discussion in which I am already involved on the same or related page. It explicitly excludes disagreements that do not include criticisms of my character, competence, behavior or motives; that is, civil disagreements about matters of fact or interpretation relating to articles, guidelines or policy are not considered "negative".

Coping techiques

Per Arbcom: Mattisse and her mentors or advisors should consider the suggestions made by various users on the workshop page of this case, including but not limited to Mattisse's taking wikibreaks at times of stress, avoiding or limiting Mattisse's participation on certain pages, Mattisse's refraining from making any comments regarding the motivations or good faith of other users, and Mattisse's disengaging from interactions that become stressful or negative.

Techniques to reduce stress:

  1. Disengaging from stressful or negative interactions
  2. Taking wikibreaks
  3. Frequent consultation with trusted advisers/mentors to gain perspective and to prevent the build up of stress
  4. Following the advice of trusted advisers/mentors, rather than overlooking it as I have at times in the past.

Measures my advisers/mentors may impose to help me cope

  1. Force me to avoid or limit my participation on certain pages (for example, FAC or FAR) by page or topic bans for what they judge to be an effective length of time.
  2. Strongly suggest that I take wikibreaks.
  3. If I do not seem amenable to reason, block me for short time frames, e.g. 8 or 12 hours, or until my perspective is restored.
  4. As a last resort, block me for longer time frames, such as one or two weeks.

Consequences for failure to adhere to plan

The plan should also address how any lapses by Mattisse from the standards of behavior described in the plan shall be addressed.

The Arbitration Committee retains jurisdiction over the subject-matter of this case, as it does in any case. Should the preceding remedies fail to improve the situation described in this decision, after a reasonable time, an application may be made to reopen the case and impose other remedies as may be necessary.

This proposal is an escalating series of consequences for a failure to adhere to the plan, ending with a return to the jurisdiction of ArbCom:

  1. Temporary page bans
  2. Wikibreaks
  3. Blocks of escalating lengths, for example:
  • 8 hours
  • 12 hours
  • 24 hours
  • 1 week
  • 2 weeks
  • 3 weeks or return to ArbCom
  • Return to ArbCom
  • These will be applied by my mentors/advisers in consultation with each other.
  • I believe any editor or group of editors, if they feel I am being sufficiently disruptive, can appeal to a disinterested admin to warn me regarding disruptive behavior and to block me if I do not desist.
  • Any editor or group of editors can petition ArbCom to take further action to restrain me.

Reporting

  • User:Art LaPella is willing to report to my adviser(s)/mentor(s) should I be disruptive at DYK.
  • User:YellowMonkey says he does not put up with unruly behavior at FAR, so there are no worries there, I think.

Mentors list

I have the following list of editors who have provided significant interaction with me regarding advising/mentoring me. They have productively advised me in the past. I trust their judgment and I trust that they have Misplaced Pages's best interest at heart. I believe that it should be my responsibility to solicit and obtain advice in the manner most comfortable to me and to each adviser.

  1. Salix alba - admin
  2. John Carter - admin
  3. Philcha
  4. Malleus Fatuorum
  5. Geometry guy - admin
  6. SilkTork - admin
  7. Fowler&fowler
  8. RegentsPark - admin
  9. Ling.Nut

Monitoring

I will start a dedicated page User:Mattisse/Monitoring upon which my mentors/advisers may discuss my behavior and their advice, as well as any measure that may need to be taken to help me cope.