User talk:Cindamuse/MathewTownsend

I'm filing a formal complaint against you per Wikipedia:Ambassadors/Steering Committee/Ambassador Recall Process
I have filed it on Wikipedia talk:Ambassadors/Steering Committee/Ambassador Recall Process. Some one brought up the problem on at ANI problem in the online ambassador program. There are links there to the other places it has been discussed. My main complaint is that you don't seem to understand close paraphrasing/plagiarism/copyvio issues, as demonstrated by your submission of your article for good article review twice and being turned down twice. If you had learned from the first submission Talk:Douglas W. Owsley/GA1 that would have been good and a step forward. Instead you accused me of bad faith, harassment, and wikihounding and made pejorative statements that I had a mentor. You learned nothing and submitted the article again Talk:Douglas W. Owsley/GA2 and it was turned down for the same problems. Therefore, after discussion with others, it seems this is the only step available for me to take. User:Dcoetzee has also suggested you are unfit for the role, and SandyGeorgia said that you were the online ambassador that she had the most trouble with on Psychology articles during the Fall semester.

I apologized to you, although I had nothing to apologize for and Moonriddengirl said I had done nothing wrong. To accuse me of bad faith because I found problems with your article shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the detection of plagiarism issues. This is the only way I know to get your attention so that you don't harm the encyclopedia more.

Best wishes, MathewTownsend (talk) 23:11, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I understand your concern. Honestly, these issues were addressed by the Steering Committee a long time ago. I recommended an immediate response to your concerns on behalf of the Steering Committee, but one was never made. I could apologize for that, but it was really out of my hands. I think there are some misunderstandings that you may have of the Wikipedia Ambassador Program and my role. I am not a paid WMF staff member or top supervising Online Campus Ambassador. I have not participated in travel junkets on behalf of the WMF or WEP or whatever else you have thrown out there. I am simply a Wikipedia Online Ambassador and volunteer that stepped forward to support the program due to my professional background in business management and organizational development. To that end, many changes are being made to not only address concerns that you have, but concerns that the community has overall.


 * There was some confusion about the Online Ambassador Selection Team. This is an alternate choice for individuals to apply to serve as an OA through email, rather than through the online process. This is not defunct, but only exists when editors choose to use it. While the general OA application process is open for all Ambassadors to participate, the Selection Team is a group appointed by the Steering Committee to ensure neutrality, civility, and objectivity.


 * Last month, I nominated an article for GA. Since I am new to the GA process, I had a couple of admins and WP fellows review the article prior to the nomination. I was assured that the article was ready and that there were no concerns with close paraphrasing or citations. I was puzzled when a fairly new editor stepped forward to review the article and asked me "where it came from". While I now understand your motive, I was put off by your manner of address and took it as an accusation that I did not write it. I apologize for the misunderstanding there. Possibly rewording your question to be direct would help in the future. I was also puzzled that you would revise article content, rather than discuss these revisions first. Discussion is a general process of the GA review.


 * You asked for intervention from Maggie in her WMF role, to which she replied that she could not do so. At that point, she suggested Derrick, after which I contacted him on your behalf for input. Derrick provided constructive feedback to which I acknowledged the error. I then thanked everybody for their input and requested that the GAN be put on hold so that I could take the advice received, review my work, and make appropriate corrections. The response that I received was a failure of the article, followed by widespread attacking of my character and the integrity of the WEP.


 * Mathew, you have engaged in a campaign that has personally attacked me throughout the project. You have called me "incompetent", blaming me directly for the IEP failures, accused me of disrupting the WP community, and stated that my body of work as an Ambassador has been "disastrous". These equate to personal attacks. None of these claims have been backed up with examples or evidence. The harassment and hounding has been never ending, with no recourse on my behalf.


 * It is clear through your editing background, that for whatever reason, you have developed strong opinions about the WEP. You have often brought up situations that were addressed and resolved prior to your arrival (in November). This has been quite puzzling. You have used this particular GA review to raise a red flag, posting all over en.wiki in an effort to discredit the WEP. It seems much like Chicken Little crying out that the sky is falling, when the reality is simply an isolated incident that was addressed last month. Here it is weeks later and you are still making accusations and crying out to anyone that would possibly listen to you.


 * Weeks ago, I recommended to the SC that you receive a quick response to your concerns. I recommended that we should acknowledge your concerns and assure you that they have been addressed. I also stated that you should be thanked for your work and effort to bring quality issues to the forefront. You should be encouraged in your editing and involvement in the GAN process. Acknowledge that your attention to detail is appreciated and valued. Let you know that the community has heard and appropriately addressed your concerns, then give you a point of contact, in case you have any questions in the future regarding individual Ambassadors, the Ambassador Program, or the Wikipedia Education Program overall. Unfortunately, a response was never made.


 * Mathew, GAs have nothing to do with the WEP, nor does a GA failure of an article written by an Ambassador indicate that they have incorrectly performed their duties as an Ambassador. I have responded to your concerns as understood by myself with the SC. As appropriate, it is important that you succinctly compile and present evidence where I have incorrectly performed my duties as an Online Ambassador or violated the Ambassador Principles. Until this done, it is difficult for me to respond appropriately to your concerns. You can find out more about the Ambassador Principles and expectations here.


 * I have asked the Steering Committee to take a look at the claims of that I have made personal attacks against you, as well as various complaints made by SandyGeorgia regarding some psychology class, and claims that I am to blame for the IEP failures. I have no idea what she is talking about and have never been in charge of a psychology class. And have never received any complaints about any classes I have worked with or inaccuracies or inability to perform my role as an Online Ambassador.


 * I would additionally state that while I have acknowledged the close paraphrasing, this does not equate to incorrectly performing my duties as an Online Ambassador. As Ambassadors, we all have various degrees of knowledge and understanding of the WP policies and guidelines. The Education Program does not (should not) equate to RFA. None of us have full knowledge of the policies and guidelines. My failure at understanding close paraphrasing as applicable to Wikipedia is not the touchstone to raise the red flag of “A-HA!! Here’s the evidence that the WEP is a failure!”


 * When I stated that actions made by you were indicative of bad faith, I was not referring to the failure of the article. I offered you an out and it was certainly a fair option. I felt relieved when you failed it. In my opinion, when you equated the GA to the failure of the IEP, it became clear that you were unable to separate your serious concerns, opinions, and issues with the WEP from your ability to review the article objectively. It was bad faith when you followed up this review with statements that you feared I would ignore the advice received and immediately turn around and renominate the article. You expressed concerns that others would be be less thorough than you had been and pass the article. Nothing in my editing history or background would support this assumption in any regard. Additionally, I never accused you of bad faith because you found problems with the article. My concerns have been with the manner of communication, harassment, and hounding.


 * In the review, you asked:
 * "Although his father served as game warden, he was rarely found hunting and disliked the thought of making trophies out of heads and carcasses of animals." to which you questioned: I don't think (I may be wrong) that a game warden necessarily engages in hunting or making trophies out of heads and carcasses... I think they enjoy nature, but as to the rest .... Do you have information about this aspect?


 * I responded with "(I'm in the northwest and know wardens in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming that hunt and work with taxidermists, that said, I added a source)" Why did you have a problem with this response? I either misunderstand your question, or the question was never presented. Did you intend to ask "Could you provide a source for this information?" If this was your intention, it would be better to state your questions clearly so that communication may be effective. The citation was placed at the end of the paragraph and could have been easily linked internally at the end of the sentence that you questioned.


 * I took much of your input to heart and after the article was failed, I reviewed and made corrections to the article. I have to admit, I felt like such a bonehead when taking another look at my work. I would note that the recent GAN did not fail due to close paraphrasing, but because the GA team has had too many articles hang around on hold for a long time and the GA team wants to clean things out. So, when my article wasn't "perfect" it was automatically failed without discussion. The reviewer was very helpful with her explanation. She mentioned close paraphrasing. I wish that GA reviewers would stick around, work with editors, and present solutions, rather than simply state that the issue exists and walk away. In all, I appreciate her manner of communication and find no fault with her.


 * You have stated that your main complaint is that I don't seem to understand close paraphrasing/plagiarism/copyvio issues. The purpose and role of GA reviewers is not to teach, but to review. You should not be concerned with what I take away from our interaction. Adult learning theory has shown that all individuals learn in different manners. While some are self-directed, others draw upon personal experience, along with internal and external motivations. We all learn in different manners. If you feel like someone has "not learned from your guidance", walk away and leave it for the next person. It's certainly not healthy or productive to internalize it to such a degree that you would trash me and the Wikipedia Education Program to anybody that would listen. I'm sorry that this review was such an emotional and troubling experience for you. It was certainly not my intention.


 * As far as the comments about your mentor, they were not offered in disapproval that you have a mentor. I apologize if it came across in that manner. The continual running back to Worm simply became a bit jarring and felt disruptive. Honestly, I was concerned that a new editor currently being mentored through the adoption program was reviewing GAs. If they had to continue going to a mentor for answers, my thought was that they may not fully understand the process. I was also puzzled that you offered information that contradicted that received by seasoned editors (which was clearly subpar).


 * While you state you have been around since November 2011, you have also stated that you have been around since 2005. This is puzzling. I fully support a clean start, but am left wondering if you have an unpleasant background with the WEP or possibly interacted with me in the past that was less than positive. If this is the case, I would request a detente between the two of us. If there has been negative interaction between the two of us in the past, please accept my apologies. It is never my intention to belittle, berate, or cause emotional stress to anyone that would result in a clean start.


 * At the recommendation of the SC, I have been encouraged to assume better faith and maintain civility. I accept that recommendation. Mathew, I am more than willing to apologize for any actions or faults that I have made against you personally. Would you please let me know the areas where I have personally erred against you so that these can be resolved? Thanks and Best regards,  Cind.   amuse  (Cindy) 04:40, 15 March 2012 (UTC)