Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Alerts/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4


Comments on stress-point

Favorable outcome noted

Malleus Fatuorum and I had a favorable interaction by successfully reducing a stressful interaction as outlined by my plan. I asked him for advice when I was beginning to feel stressed and was able to reduce the stress.[1] —Mattisse (Talk) 08:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

This is good. It's helpful to keep examples of good things. SilkTork *YES! 17:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Removing diffs from the monitoring page
It's hard, but remain positive. And don't keep this sort of thing anywhere. Don't even archive it. The best action is to move forward rather than look back. Present yourself as someone who is highly respected and others will pick up on that and respond appropriately. You have the support of many people who value what you do here. Build confidence from that, and ignore those who attempt to drag you backwards. If you feel you can't ignore it, then please get in touch with someone you trust - one of those who signed up to your plan, or any other person you feel is appropriate. My recommendation is that you remove the above. And from our experience of discussing concerns on-Wiki, if you wish someone to examine some evidence, then it may be less contentious and less liable to misunderstanding if you present the evidence via email. SilkTork *YES! 17:17, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Are you saying that I should delete it? —mattisse (Talk) 19:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
You should delete it. --Philcha (talk) 21:09, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Done. —mattisse (Talk) 21:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
That was a step in the right direction. Geometry guy 22:22, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Monitoring goals and ideals

Bishonen's post concerning Mattisse's comments related to Geogre has been an excellent test of the challenges the Monitoring page may face. Thankfully the test was relatively minor (in the scale of possible problems that could arise), since the Monitoring page almost entirely failed to be anything other than another talk shop for extending disputes and back histories. I agree with Newyorkbrad that useful further discussion remains unlikely, and that has been one reason why I have not contributed to the thread. Geometry guy 22:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC) (I'm signing to draw a line: comments on this paragraph can be placed immediately below, but in the spirit of drawing the line, I would discourage this: anyone feeling compelled to respond might instead consider my talk page.)

The purpose of the monitoring page is to help Mattisse stick to her plan, and hence reduce the risk that she finds herself at RfArb before anyone can say "assume good faith". This should be its sole purpose. The monitoring page is only useful if it draws attention to areas where Mattisse might need further advice on sticking to her plan. It is also only useful if she receives concise advice that will help her to do so. In particular the page is not:

  1. a place to discuss the conduct of other editors – any concerns should be raised in other fora, not here, although the conduct of other editors may inform the advice given to Mattisse;
  2. a place to chastise Mattisse or extend grudges or disputes with Mattisse.

I would like to propose that we clarify the Monitoring page with this in mind. In particular, I propose the following.

  • The Monitoring page should clearly state its purpose according to the above outline.
  • Posts to the Monitoring page should be unsigned. The Monitoring page should explain this, and state that alerts should be as factual as possible and written in as calm a language as possible: interpretations and personal feelings can be elaborated here (Monitoring talk) if necessary. Reasons:
    1. Writing an unsigned comment encourages greater distance and objectivity.
    2. Unsigned alerts can be refactored to focus on the issues that will help Mattisse stick to her plan, and avoid inflammatory interpretations. (For example, I would have refactored the title "Venom Alert" immediately, were it not signed.)
    3. An unsigned monitoring page makes it impossible to hold argumentative discussion: any discussion can take place here (Monitoring talk).
    4. The Monitoring page will thus be free to give concise and considered advice to Mattisse on what to learn from the alert and ways to avoid similar issues (should the concerns be genuine).
  • Editors, especially Mattisse and mentors, should discuss alerts on this talk page, where the only goal is to provide the best advice for Mattisse to stick to her plan.

That's all for now, but further alerts are likely to raise further challenges. Geometry guy 22:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I have no objections to Geometry guy's ideas as expressed above. The monitoring page was clearly not working as implemented. A new method needs to be created if I am to be able to understand what is happening. So far, I have not been able to follow the page, as too much is happening, it is too distracting, and there does not seem to be consensus. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 23:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
I think G-guy may have assumed that others are as objective as level-headed as he is. If it appears that another editor is trying to chastise Mattisse or extend grudges or disputes with Mattisse, discussion of the other editor's conduct is inevitable - although it should be limited to that editor's comments in the specific thread and the incident that triggered it, and not range into other aspects of that editor's conduct. Likewise in "... ways to avoid similar issues (should the concerns be genuine)", the caveat "should the concerns be genuine" involves examining the other editor's conduct.
I'm not at all sure about unsigned comments:
  • Some editors may be less restrained by the feeling of anomymity that unsigned comments, and thus create more heat than light.
  • As far as I can see, it would be fake anomymity: the Monitoring page's history will show authors; complaints will have to be supported by diffs and other evidence, which will identify authors. --Philcha (talk) 06:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
The purpose of unsigned comments is not to create anonymity, and certainly not a cloak of anonymity: as you point out, anyone can check the edit history, and editors are responsible for all of their edits, signed or unsigned (they are even copyright holders!). Instead the purpose of unsigned comments is to encourage greater objectivity and allow for refactoring (as on most non-talk pages). The latter is critical for addressing your hesitation. No one is truly objective, nor can anyone be level headed all the time, and I am not assuming that. In any given situation, all that is required is that at least some of the mentors are detached enough to refactor inflammatory alerts (or make null edits over inflammatory edit summaries).
If the misperception of anonymity causes problems, we could ask for or add small print tags such as <Reported by Geometry guy (talk · contribs)>.
I take your point about other editors' conduct: I agree that this is often relevant to the situation and may need to be discussed (on Monitoring talk). What I should have said was that other fora should be used for holding other editors' conduct to account and addressing it. My main concern is not what is discussed here, but the purpose of the discussion, which is to give Mattisse informed and thought-through advice. Any improvements to the Monitoring page with that in mind have my support. Geometry guy 08:22, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't take that point at all. Philcha spent a good portion of his time shooting the messenger when a complaint about Mattisse's behavior was brought here. That has a chilling effect, and causes me to wonder about the efficacy of this process. This page is for mentoring Mattisse, and getting her past the behaviors that caused her to come under arbcom sanctions. It's not meant as a place to analyze the behavior of people who bring the reports. UnitAnode 11:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
It's quite simple. Comments that are presented courteously will be considered. Attack posts are as unacceptable here as they would be against any editor. The "Venom alert" thread was presented as an attack post. I invited Killer Chihuahua to re-present the matter courteously, but he declined. --Philcha (talk) 12:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Wrong on several counts: I didn't post that, rendering asking me to "re-present" utter nonsense; you never asked me to refactor it (although I did, and got bitched at by you for it) and I'm female. Not too impressed with your accuracy here, Philcha. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 21:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
I regret to say that I cannot agree with Philca above. While it might be permissable to refactor comments, such as in this case replacing "Venom" with something more acceptable, for instance, it is also at least possible that the person posting here might be so emotionally agitated by Mattisse's actions that they find themselves using unacceptable language, and if someone is that agitated it would be in everyone's best interests to know that. John Carter (talk) 14:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
(ec) John Carter, if a comment on Mattisse's conduct (or anyone's) is expressed in an unacceptable matter I'm not sure that any one other than the author should refactor it, because another editor would might well misinterpret parts of the original message - especially if it was composed in a state of agitation, which might well make it unclear and/or incomplete. If the author is prepared to refactor and, if necessary, provide of exactly what the concern is, that would be fine.
"it is also at least possible that the person posting here might be so emotionally agitated by Mattisse's actions that they find themselves using unacceptable language" contradicts principles expressed at Mattisse's ArbCom ruling, which apply to all editors. See for example "Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, and disruptive point-making, is prohibited" and "An editor's misconduct also is not excused because another editor or editors may also have engaged in such conduct". Caracaroch commented "In my view, this is not just directed at Mattisse, but is also aimed at those that interact with Mattisse. If a suitable plan is put in place, and Mattisse is keeping to it, then I expect the committee to come down hard on anyone reigniting this dispute."
ArbCom said, "The long-term aim of such arrangements should be for those involved to improve their conduct and work collaboratively without the need, or with a reduced need, for such advice." IMO the term "improve" implies a learning process (in this case by Mattisse). In any learning process, the learner has to start with the simple cases and progress to more difficult ones. That includes asking Mattisse to start by handling comments presented clearly and courteously, and progressing to those that less clearly or courteously expressed. In the early stages handling comments expressed in a hostile way is beyond Mattisse's current skills. --Philcha (talk) 16:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Your responsibility as a mentor is not to cast aspersions on the motives of the person bringing a good-faith report -- which Bishonen's report was. It is to guide MATTISSE in how to address the concerns raised. Surely you're not actually contending that Mattisse was somehow in the right to post to that ANI about people with whom she's had clear conflicts in the past? UnitAnode 15:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Unitanode, do you think titling a thread "Venom alert" and citing a diff that uses the term "venomous" is a good sign of good faith?
No, I don't think Mattisse was somehow in the right to post to that ANI about people with whom she's had clear conflicts in the past, and said so during the thread in the Monitoring page. However that was based on my own reading of the ANI case and related diffs, histories, etc. In other words my words may have been good advice for Mattisse, but cannot represent the opinions of the original poster. The original poster could have removed the inflamatory language and then been prepared to clarify the substance of the comment, but did not do so. --Philcha (talk) 16:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
I think the title of the thread had nothing to do with whether it was a good-faith report or not. Bishonen was clearly angry, but you can be angry, write an unfortunate and inappropriate title, and still be making the report in good-faith. You chose instead to focus on Bishonen. It's your responsibility to convey to Mattisse where SHE went wrong, not enable her persecution complex. By shooting the messenger because of a flawed title, you effectively neutered any lessons Mattisse might have drawn from the incident. Instead of simply removing the word "Venom" from the title, with an explanation in the edit summary or some such, and then focusing on the problematic nature of what Mattisse did, you turned it around. There is a reason Mattisse is under Arbcom sanction, and Bishonen is not; and there is a reason she is required to have mentors. Your responses to the legitimate concerns were counterproductive, at best. UnitAnode 16:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I like the idea of clarifying the mentoring page, and especially with the note that posts there should not focus on only Mattisse's behavior (not that of her mentors, and not that of whoever posted). I disagree with the plan for unsigned comments. I think this will likely be ignored/accidentally overlooked. My recommendation would be to make the monitoring page be only editable by a) people involved in the dispute, b) Mattisse, and c) her mentors. I would encourage that the mentor comments should be very specifically targeted at explaining to Mattisse whether or not her behavior was acceptable in that situation (and if not, why not) and provide advice on how to better handle that situation or similar ones in the future. Any other comments should be placed on the talk page. That way the main page will exist more as a learning tool and less as an AN/I-type drama-fest. Karanacs (talk) 16:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I too like the general thrust of the suggestions that geometryguy has made. It would help if the page had posting instructions on the top (examples: please word your comments neutrally, please include diffs, etc., your comments may be refactored by a mentor, etc.). That way, it wouldn't matter if the posts are signed or not (I prefer signed because it is important for people reading the post to know - at a glance - who is commenting/posting). Drama should be avoided at all costs because that would defeat the purpose of this page (as well as the purpose of the mentoring), so comments about the posting editor should be made elsewhere - the editor's talk page seems ideally suited). Mentors can respond to the post appropriately ("I don't think this is a problem", "Matisse should not comment further on this issue", Mattisse should apologize to x editor, "Matisse should be blocked for y days", and various points in-between). --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 17:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Structure

If this is a place for editors to bring their issues with Mattisse, I think it should be as structured as possible to avoid any misunderstandings between what other editors expect of this process, or what Mattisse expects from the editors who are participating on this page. I suggest asking editors to do the following:

  1. Briefly explain the behavior that is at issue.
  2. Briefly explain the consequences of the behavior, if possible (i.e. exacerbates an already acrimonious relationship, potentially impedes the improvement or promotion of an article, impedes improvement through disorganized or unnecessarily forceful discussion)
  3. Briefly state what should be the outcome of a complaint: mentors speaking with Mattisse about the wisdom of some actions or comments, or a block including the length of a block, disengaging from a discussion, or some other outcome. Some behaviors I suppose, should be made very clear that any user will be blocked: for using sockpuppets to argue with another editor, edit warring, or engaging in the same behaviors as sanctioned by ArbCom. This perhaps, should be posted at the top of the page.
  4. State clearly that Mattisse is not the only editor who may be encouraged to change behavior, and by any editor bringing their issues here, they should understand that their own reactions/interactions/invitations to Mattisse may be criticized.

Following the posting by an editor, the mentors may agree through discussion how to handle the problem. I do not think the page should be archived so quickly. That appears to be erasing some issues that should be kept open for viewing for a while.

I am as interested to see this put in place as I am to see how Mattisse's mentors agree or disagree about clarity. I think this is right now a problem that should be fixed immediately, and making this page as structured as possible will accomplish this. Hesitating to do it may illustrate serious differences in how mentors are approaching this situation and may indicate this mentor plan may not work at all.

Should I say I disagree with unsigned comments? Abruptly put, I think that condones cowardice. --Moni3 (talk) 17:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks good - thanks, Moni3 --Philcha (talk) 17:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm glad to see work here moving in productive directions, but I, too, disagree with unsigned comments; we have enough concerns about ongoing misstatements about the Arb that unsigned comments may only serve to further that confusion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:33, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
If it looks so good, how come nothing has happened? This thread has been dead for 10 days. Once the moment has passed and the drama is old-hat, do editors still care about taking the consensus forward to make concrete changes? I summarize below. Geometry guy 21:50, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
I was going to wait a full 2 weeks to ask about this. --Moni3 (talk) 21:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
The plan below looks real good, but it might be useful if there were also some sort of indication possible regarding archiving of "dead" threads, as per the concerns expressed above. One option might be that the montiors could decide somehow to agree that matters are "resolved", and agree to archive on resolution, with another option, like Moni3 said, based on recent activity in the section. It might be possible that someone raising an issue might not consider a matter resolved when either the inactivity period has passed, or disagree with a decision regarding whether something is "resolved," but I'm not sure myself how to address such matters in a brief summary. As you all no doubt have noticed by now, I'm a longwinded old coot and "brief" and I don't get along real good. ;) John Carter (talk) 22:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Fine with me. I appreciate constructive advice rather than attacks on my respected advisers, who have been very responsive and responsible, in my opinion. I thanks you all! Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 22:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Summary

It is generally agreed that:This is my (Geometry guy's) interpretation of and response to the above discussion.

  1. the monitoring page is not another talk page (it isn't a talk page – this page is a talk page);
  2. the main if not sole purpose of the monitoring page is to help Mattisse stick to her plan;
  3. posts to the monitoring page should only concern alerts that Mattisse is (or is in danger of) breaching her plan, and advice to Mattise on how to stick to her plan.

With this in mind, it is proposed that:

  1. the preamble of the monitoring page makes the purpose of the page clear;
  2. in particular, editors are advised to raise issues in neutral language (on the monitoring page - talk page comments permit freer expression), to provide diffs for the issues they raise, and to be aware that their comments may be refactored to comply with the purpose of the page and promote a productive response.

Editors also have noted that:

  1. it is helpful for alerts to be signed, both to identify more easily the source of the concern now, and to minimize potential misuse of the diff in the future;
  2. concerns are restricted to Mattisse's contributions, not those of other editors (including her mentors);
  3. discussion of the contributions of other editors on the monitoring talk page may help to inform the advice provided to Mattisse, but any issues for other editors to address should be raised in other fora, not here.

Can we improve the monitoring page with this in mind before there is another problem? Thanks, Geometry guy 21:50, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The summary looks good, except that I for one have no interest in providing commentary that "may be refactored" to "promote a productive response". I don't want to be represented as signing some Newspeak that I have no control of;* I say what I mean, or say nothing. Consequently, it's fine by me if the instructions state that people's comments may be removed if they're not useful, or something like that. Admittedly, my opinion of the plan is not the most important, since I'm not that likely to post on the "Monitoring" page again after finding my original input unwelcome; still, I don't think I'm the only editor who doesn't care to be refactored. Bishonen | talk 23:50, 4 October 2009 (UTC).
*"The underlying theory of Newspeak is that if something can't be said, then it can't be thought". Wikipedia article, Newspeak.
No, you're not alone in that view. This will very likely be my only posting on this page, as my comments to date have been almost uniformly ignored by Mattisse. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Actually, that was precisely why I proposed unsigned posts. There was no consensus for that. Comments of a subjective nature can always be made on the talk page. Geometry guy 01:00, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I still think that refactoring is a good idea. Assuming that the objective is to keep Matisse focused on the many useful things she does on wikipedia and keep her away from the stuff that is a no-no, it is important not to make this a 'dump on Mattisse' page. Removing is one way of ensuring polite discourse, but then we may lose essential input. We don't want Newspeak to become nospeak (so to speak)! --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 02:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Concerns regarding "shooting the messenger"

As raised by Unitanode "I have some real problems with how Philcha dealt with the concerns raised on this page. It's not helpful to Mattisse at all, and in some ways enables the persecution complex. "[2] and others on the main page.

I am moving my post regarding that here:

  • I quite agree. Philcha has uniformly focused on attacking the messenger, and failed utterly to focus on Matisse. I have already suggested she remove herself from the list of monitors, as her behavior is completely inappropriate for mentoring someone under ArbCom restrictions. She is, unfortunately, enabling rather than helping. However, she seems deaf to concerns about her approach. This is a problem; I cannot say I see a very clear solution. I suggest Matisse ignore her advice as not likely to be beneficial; otherwise, I cannot think what might be a solution. I have taken the liberty of making a new heading, as your comment was not about me but was in a section where Philcha made a suggestion to me, and which was so titled. Please let me know if you prefer to refactor this. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 23:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
    This is entirely covered by my proposal above. Geometry guy 23:21, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
    I'm afraid I must disagree. While I think your proposal to instruct those giving alerts to make them unsigned, much as in Article Rfc, is an excellent move, this hardly addresses Philcha's numerous inappropriate actions. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 23:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
    I quote: "In particular the page is not: 1. a place to discuss the conduct of other editors". Philcha's approach would be impossible under the proposed changes, as there would be no signed messenger to shoot. If you wish to discuss Philcha's past behaviour, rather than ways to improve this page, I suggest you do so on his talk page, or another more appropriate forum than this one. Thanks, Geometry guy 23:33, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
    So you're undertaking to police the page, and remove inappropriate content, signatures etc? I merely wish to confirm that this sweeping change will have the support of all the monitors. I realize you wish to close this matter, and I respect that and sympathise, however I cannot view this as closed on only your input. None of the other monitors have stated they support this and that they believe this will mitigate, if not remove, Philchas unfortunately counter-productive efforts. They may have other solutions, or suggestions. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 23:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
    I am undertaking nothing and wish to close nothing: I started a thread above with my suggestions for improving this page. I would welcome comments on that thread. Other ideas for improving this page are likewise welcome. This has been the first occasion it has been seriously used, and there is much to learn. Geometry guy 00:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
    I appreciate your suggestions and think they are a step on the "right road". Hopefully it would prevent editors from airing individual beefs with each other here, as that kind of thing proves distracting to me. I cannot follow it, especially complaints that are general and do not contain diffs. I appreciate all suggestions for my improvement. With 72, 000+ edits, almost all related to content, my editing problems center around the relatively few "other" edits I have made, and those centering around a few specific editors. I welcome all suggestions on how to get along with these editors. I understand the suggestion to just avoid their articles. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 20:43, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Mattisse commenting on Geogre again

I happen to have SlimVirgin's talkpage watchlisted, and noticed this comment Mattisse made regarding Geogre. Was not this a part of her "plan" or whatever? I was under the impression that she needed to quit inserting herself into situations regarding Geogre, Bishonen, and Giano, as well as other users on her plague list. UnitAnode 23:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

No, I do not believe it is part of my plan that I cannot support another editors view [3] The fact is the Ottava Rima did offer to provides references to Geogre's article. I merely backed up Ottava Rima's statement. My connection with Geogre is that he used a sockpuppet to discredit me, part of the evidence I submitted to ArbCom that resulted in his desopping. I do not believe I am prevented from addressing anything that has to do with an editor that used a sockpuppet to discredit me, if that is what you mean.[4] Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 23:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Incredible. You "merely" backed up the hostility of Ottava Rima, a notoriously rude editor currently on RFAR, and now, here, you "merely" go on to badmouth Geogre further. So the injunction to leave George alone and your various undertakings mean nothing ? You're on the wrong page, Unitanode: alerts are supposed to go on the User:Mattisse/Monitoring page. Bishonen | talk 00:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC).
Just noticed this from Bishonen. The main page had been organized as if it were to simply contain the plan. And when I put an alert there one other time, it was moved here, so I thought this was right. Sorry for my mistake. UnitAnode 00:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
I think it is perfectly clear from the diff that my posts are far from hostile and that I was working to help Geogre. The only thing you could consider "hostile" is when I pointed out that one of -your- articles at FAR did not reflect critical consensus as it left out some major Theatre historians who were about and well known from the 60s to the 90s. That was a major gap that was neglected. When it came to Geogre's articles, the only problems were citations. I had no problems with his citation style. Furthermore, -I- initiated the Rfar and it is about people like you causing problems, not about me causing problems, which is clear from the evidence put forth. Your statement above reflects the problem and I will ask you to apologize for your blatantly incorrect statements above. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Mattisse, Geogre hasn't edited in two months. I don't really understand why there would be a need to criticize him at all at this point, irrespective of any disputes you might have had with him in the past. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
I have no idea why this utterly unhelpful thread was started precisely at the moment that productive discussion had recommenced on this page. I intend to move it to another page and at the moment, my preferred candidate is User_talk:Mattisse/Monitoring/Sideshows. Geometry guy 00:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I have not criticized him. Please look at the diff offered above. I merely backed up that Ottava Rima was making a true statement. Why cannot the truth be stated without attack? Why so much defense of Geogre who was desopped, in part, for using sockpuppets to diminish my credibility. Why I am I the bad guy when the editor was desyopped, in part because of his duplicitous edits regarding me. I do not understand the "values" of arbcom members. This is the problem with the "monitoring" page. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 00:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
  • "Utterly unhelpful", eh? What are we supposed to do when we see Mattisse violating her plan? I thought his page was FOR that purpose. If this is how her "mentors" are going to treat good-faith notices, then what's the point of the plan? UnitAnode 00:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
(ec) Geometry Guy: no idea why the thread was started.. ? That sounds like you're criticizing Unitanode for coming here to alert the mentors to Mattisse's inappropriate behavior. Remember her request, just above, for suggestions on "how to get along with those editors"? (Here's a simple tip, Mattisse: teaming up with Ottava Rima ain't it.) I hope that's not what you meant. I suppose you're not trying to warn off everybody from using these pages at all? Bishonen | talk 00:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC).
I don't know that there's any other way to take what GG wrote. UnitAnode 00:37, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
(ec again.) Yeah. And you're right that there's certainly no obvious, let alone inviting, place on the main page to place alerts. I think it's intended to be reorganized in a while, see GG's note about improving the main page "before there's another problem" (Too late for that :-(). In the meantime, I suggest you simply place comments at the foot of either of these pages, it's not like they can be hard to find. Sorry I confused the issue. Bishonen | talk 00:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC).
Mattisse can be returned to arbitration at any time. The point of the plan is to help her avoid that. This page does not exist for the satisfaction of other editors, only for its prime goal as stated. At the moment the page is in transition, and if editors were not aware of that before this remarkably timely post, I apologize for suggesting otherwise. Geometry guy 00:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
So the antagonism in your first reply to me was intended? I'm still not certain as to why, since I was under the impression that this was what we were supposed to do when we had a concern about some action she had taken. UnitAnode 00:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
No, antagonism towards an individual editor is never my intention. Geometry guy 01:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
I fail see how else your calling my concern an "utterly unhelpful thread" could possibly be seen as anything other than "antagonism towards an individual editor." UnitAnode 01:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Sadly, I cannot help you with your failings. Geometry guy 01:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
So snarkiness and sarcasm is your chosen response to legitimate concerns? Wow. Just wow. UnitAnode 01:29, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
According to your interpretation, not mine. Geometry guy 01:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
I think any uninvolved observer would see the snarkiness and sarcasm in your "Sadly, I cannot help you with your failings." UnitAnode 01:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
You say that this post on the talk page of Slim Virgin is a violation of her plan. I'm not sure I see exactly how you come to that conclusion. The closest thing I can see to anything in that comment to "criticism" is the phrase of "for reasons of his own," which does seem kind of neutral, at least to me. And, under the circumstances, considering that Mattisse seems to hold OR in at least moderate regard, as demonstrated by her comments elsewhere, I'm not sure if this can really be counted on as being in the situations she should avoid. She is, so far as I can tell anyway, more standing up for and offering information she has in support of a friend than criticizing Geogre. This isn't saying that the negative comments on this page are really anything I think particularly useful, but, again, under the circumstances, I'm not sure that comments here are necessarily among those that get "counted". However, it might be valuable to perhaps define whether "avoiding people she has had problems with" extends to situations when she may be entering into a discussion regrding those individuals seemingly apparently for informational purposes, or to perhaps offer support for a person who is in a "situation". Again, I'm not really in love with the comments Mattisse made here either, but considering the thread in question had been basically "dead", I'm not sure that I myself would necessarily look with warm regard upon something which might be seen as extending it, particularly when the comment in question doesn't seem to be necessarily primrily criticial of Geogre, but rather offering seemingly factual information regarding the nature of OR's contacts with Geogre. Any opinions? John Carter (talk) 00:46, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
I too have a problem with the claim that Mattisse's post was simply "for informational purposes." It seemed like piling on a user who hasn't been active for quite some time. And it was piling on a user with whom Mattisse has had conflicts in the past. It was for these reasons that I brought this here, and I'm growing concerned (for, really, the first time) that this page is more about protecting Mattisse from the big, bad community than it is about helping her see how she went wrong, and how she can interact more productively with other people in the future. UnitAnode 01:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

"For informational purposes"? Newyorkbrad sure did get it all wrong, didn't he? I've had enough of your hypocrisy and beating-about-the-bush and swaddling your protegée in tl;dr euphemisms, John Carter. I guess my comments about Newspeak were even more relevant than I thought. I've had enough; I don't know why I tried; I'm out of here. Bishonen | talk 01:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC).

I notice that two people have now responded to my question with insinuations against me. I should have mentioned that Mattisse did in the psst request OR as one of her mentors, as can I believe be seen I think in the records. And, also, despite the fact that both responses have ignored that point, that maybe she was, in fact, standing up for a friend. I did however, believe it or not, ask a question which both responses have seemingly saw fit to ignore. I wonder if there will be any direct response to that, or just further insinuation and denigration of others of the kind that would probably get Mattisse in very big trouble. And, by the way, the phrase "for informational purposes" was intended to be related to the question asked, rather than this particular situation. John Carter (talk) 01:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
What am I supposed to think, John? I posted a concern, and have been attacked as unhelpful by one mentor, and now have you claiming that my concerns about the mentor response would "get Mattisse in very big trouble." Tell me, how am I supposed to view these responses? UnitAnode 01:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I've asked Brad for guidance here. I'm very much flummoxed by the response to what I feel was a legitimate concern, which I intentionally worded in a non-inflammatory way. If I've done something wrong here, I'd like for Brad to inform me where my mistep was. UnitAnode 01:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
And I would regret to say that you still seem to be misinterpreting the statement I made, and still not responding to it, rather than actually addressing the legitimate question I asked. To clarify, because evidently it wasn't clear enough, the "offering information" was one of two situations which I could see arising in the future when Mattisse might be wanting to involve herself in dealing with people she "should avoid", the other one being helping a friend. And, please note, I think I implied that was what was being done here. And, yes, when a question is specifically and I thought clearly asked, and, rather than respond to it, people instead attack me for what I think is something I didn't even say, how are we supposed to interpret that. And, for what it's worth, the comment about behavior was actually, unfortunately, for directed at Bishonen than you. I wasn't thinking primarily of you, and you have my apologies if it seems that it was directed primaily at you. Once again, however, I wonder whether anyone is actually interested in responding to the question, rather than continue to discuss the behavior of people other than Mattisse. John Carter (talk) 01:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
My answer would be that she should offer her information to one of her mentors, who could then evaluate it for usefulness, and post or not post it at their discretion. As for "supporting friends", if it involves engaging with or about a person with whom she's had conflict, she should either follow the same procedure I give above, or simply email a note of support to that friend. UnitAnode 01:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the answer, and I could agree to that idea myself. However, I do hope you can understand that I think we would want to have that written down somewhere as part of the plan, and to do that would require having people agree to it before it would be made operational. John Carter (talk) 01:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
I'd think that what I recommended would be kind of common sense -- something she should think of before posting about X editor on her plague list. I hope you're not saying that her post is okay because there's not some explicit, written portion of her plan that says, "Do not post negatively about members of your plague list." UnitAnode 01:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
It probably is common sense, but there will be times for any of us when emotion, like wanting to help a friend, takes over. And I think it's probably in those types of situations that the problems arise. So, yeah, for normal situatons you'd be right, but I think most normal situations don't wind up becoming the problematic ones for Mattisse or others. John Carter (talk) 01:59, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
How does the situation I raised here fit in, do you think? I view it as pretty clearly unwise for her to post about Geogre in the way she did. How do you see that fitting in here? UnitAnode 02:04, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Unwise, yeah. But, then, lots of people have been found doing really unwise things lately, as I think we both know, regarding other matters. Personally, like I said, Mattisse was, at least I think, trying to help out OR, whom she respects. Even when she might be trying to help out others, though, it could probably be fairly easily misinterpreted, if certain other parties are involved in any way. Logically, were it me, I would hope that I might realize that my saying something directly might wind up just adding fuel to the fire, and possibly wind up making the situation worse. So, yeah, in this case, if she were to have asked, say, me, what to do, or left a message on this page or elsewhere where I or one of the others might see it, I hope I would think to leave a message on, in this case, Slim's talk page, maybe with a link to Mattisse's statement here and/or a paraphrase. To do that, it might help if there were some sort of way for Mattisse to leave a "help" tag for one of us to see fairly quickly, and, at this point, I'm not sure if we have one worked out, other than leaving a message on one or more user talk page. Maybe we could use the "you have a response on person x's page" template (which I myself never use, that's why I don't know the name) for situations like this. Mattisse could probably copy that to each of us fairly easily, I think. John Carter (talk) 02:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
This might be good, in that it would also give Mattisse some "lag-time" to really consider as to whether offering the commentary was the best idea. UnitAnode 02:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I suggest that Mattisse refactor the first sentence of the comment as follows and strike out the second sentence: :It is true that Ottava Rima unsuccessfully offered several times to provide references and in other ways tried to be helpful to Geogre. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 02:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Lets cut down to it

I saw above statements that Mattisse and I are friends. Mattisse has made it clear that they avoid my pages because they are intimidated by me and feel that I am utterly hostile to them. They have also torn apart (grammar, style, MoS, etc), many of my FACs and had over a year worth of disagreement with me on multiple issues relating to FAC. Do Mattisse and I talk? No. Are we social? No. Do I stand up for Mattisse when others refuse because Mattisse shows that they care about content and Wikipedia? Yes, as I stood up for just about everyone else who is actually here for the Wiki. The truth is that Geogre did a lot of problems. Bishonen aided Geogre in those problems. Bishonen and others are in a crusade against abuse of sock puppets, and the claims of hypocrisy will come up as there is plenty of evidence that was lodged against Bishonen before of her acting inappropriately. As such, this evidence is brought up for two reasons: 1. to show that Bishonen has a double standard when it comes to ethics and 2. that this double standard implies a treatment of Wikipedia as a battleground to silence people who she does not like which, when combined with number one, is a very problematic series of actions and a damaging mindset. Bishonen's constant attacks on those like Mattisse and others across other pages is extremely troubling. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Without commenting on the substance of your complaints about Geogre and Bishonen, may I suggest that you strike through everything after "everyone else who is actually here for the Wiki"? UnitAnode 02:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
No, as it explains the inappropriateness of Bishonen's actions on this page. Combined with her misleading claims about what I have said above, this is important. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Okay, then. I would say that redacting them with a strike-through would probably place you in a much better light than not doing so, but that choice is, of course, yours to make. UnitAnode 03:07, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Looking for clarity

It does help if we have some clarity over the ArbCom decision and Mattisse's plan to edit on Wikipedia with less conflict.

  • The ArbCom decision was that Mattisse submit a plan "to govern and guide her future editing" which would include "refraining from making any comments regarding the motivations or good faith of other users".
  • Mattisse's plan includes the words, "I must avoid making any comments regarding the motivations or good faith of other editors."

As such, Mattisse's comment on SlimVirgin's talkpage that "OR was rebuffed, ignored, for reasons only Geogre can fully know" is part of the area of concern, as Mattisse has made a comment regarding the motivation or good faith of another editor.

As such it is appropriate that Unitanode brought the comment to the attention of those who have offered to assist Mattisse.

For clarity, there have been no individuals named in the ArbCom decision nor on Mattisse's Plan. The remedy extends to every user on Wikipedia, not a select few. It would be a mistake to think that there are special guidelines regarding Mattisse's interaction with certain individuals - the guidelines mean that Mattisse should, as we all should, assume good faith, and not seek to stir up conflict with anyone. However, given Mattisse's history with certain individuals, such as Geogre, it is understandable that people are more concerned to draw attention to comments regarding such individuals as these may prove to be flash-points.

This monitoring page where users can draw attention to potential problem postings can be useful - can indeed be very valuable in preventing conflict. However, as we have seen, the actual language used when informing us of the problem can develop into an unhelpful discussion of the motives of the person bringing the message. And further, the resulting debate can escalate into a drama that is not helpful to addressing the original concern, while also creating a negative interaction between those who are here to assist Mattisse with her plan, and those who are willing to inform us of her postings.

My suggestion for how this page is used, is that people simply post a link to the comment that is causing concern. No further message is needed. A link, and a signature. That is the most neutral and helpful thing that can be done. (If we agree to this, then any additional message attached to the link can be removed when seen by one of those who have agreed to assist Mattisse.) As a follow up, a note can be left on the poster's talkopage thanking them for leaving the link, and letting them know that the matter is being dealt with. I think at that point the poster's involvement should cease in order to prevent any extra drama. The situation is then left for those who signed up to the plan (and them alone) to advise Mattisse. If the advise that Mattisse is given is so inappropriate that Mattisse continues to cause conflict then Mattisse WILL be brought back to ArbCom. But we will be better able to assist everyone if our own motives and methods are not continually examined and criticized.

As regards this particular incident, I support RegentsPark's example of how Mattisse could have posted her comment. That is a positive example, and I would urge Mattisse to study that example and compare it carefully with what she did post. The original post caused conflict, which is splashed out above on this page. If RegentsPark's example had been used instead, there would not have been any drama. SilkTork *YES! 11:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Good analysis. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 13:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Now she's bolstering her "case" at SV's talkpage with diffs for some reason, instead of just letting it die. While this normally wouldn't be a bad thing, would it not be most advisable for her to simply disengage there? Especially given that another member of the plague list (Giano) has taken issue with what she posted?

    For the record, SilkTork, I think your post here is excellent, and I'd have no problem with a plan whereby people with concerns simply post a diff, with a sig. Would it be acceptable, then, if the person posting the concerning diff engaged a mentor they trusted about exactly what they find concerning about the diff? UnitAnode 13:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

  • "the motivation or good faith of another editor." Saying that the motivation -cannot- be known is directly -not- discussing the motivations or good faith of another editor. This is what Mattisse is -supposed- to do. Don't attack her for that. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
    No, it's a passive-aggressive, non-attack, that leads to further conflict. Even she has struck that portion. UnitAnode 14:07, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I struck out the section out of an abundance of caution, not because I think there is anything wrong in defending Ottava Rima, which was my motivation. I would suggest that Unitanode refrain from attacking the motivations of other editors, such as calling them "passive-agressive". He/she has misinterpreted my motivations, interpreted then derogatorily and cast them in a bad light. As have others.[5] —mattisse (Talk) 15:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Mattisse, it's over, let it go. --Philcha (talk) 16:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Moved from Mattisse's talk page

(Responses below are to this, subsequently removed [6] [7])

Request

Hi, Mattisse, I suggest WP:DNFT :-) --Philcha (talk) 11:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
First, Philcha, you are way out of line with your link. Second, Giano, this is already being discussed at User talk:Mattisse/Monitoring, if you're interested. UnitAnode 12:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Philcha's attitude is -- fortunately -- not the norm. John Carter, RegentsPark, and SilkTork have all engaged about the concern there, and are going to be engaging with Mattisse regarding the problems with what she's doing at SV's talkpage. UnitAnode 13:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
I mostly agree with you here, and have mentioned her continued participation to those mentor at the page who do seem intent on actually mentoring her. UnitAnode 13:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
The list of diffs was added after my last comment. I think it's a step too far.
Mattisse, I think you should strike out the list of diffs. One of the habits you need to stop is that of harping on at the same point. I'm disappointed that you disregarded the advice I gave privately, "I suggest you leave it at that." --Philcha (talk) 15:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Mattisse, I've just noticed your message, which shows that you added the diffs before seeing my message - so I withdraw my comment about disregarding my advice, my apologies.
However I think my other comments stand - you do need to learn to stop after you've summarise your views, and avoid adding detail after detail. --Philcha (talk) 15:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Are giving diffs considered "details"? If so, I will stop trying to support a position using diffs, although I have been criticized for not using diffs. Please be willing to stand up for me the next time I am criticized for not providing diffs. This is the first time I have defended Ottava Rima against a statement made about him that was untrue. Is that considered harping on a subject? I always appreciate at when someone does the same for me. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 15:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Question from Mattisse

Since I have been criticized for making statements without providing diffs and also criticized for making statements that include diffs, which is the correct way to go? I would prefer not giving diffs, as they are difficult to find. I only give them out of fear of criticism. Am I free to make statements that are not backed by diffs, or should I avoid giving diffs? Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 15:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

When addressing someone else's statements, diffs are as essential as providing sources in an article. Without diffs, I can make any array of claims from accurate to outrageous and spin what I think you are trying to say, or perhaps your motivations for saying it. Diffs simply provide the connection to what was actually said. I would not expect someone to stand up for me for not providing sources in article space, and would not hope that someone would support me if I were criticizing someone else (or merely describing another's words) without the link to what was said. Furthermore, looking for diffs, in the rare occasions I make commentary about someone else's remarks, forces me to re-read the original statements, and on more than a few occasions the second and third time I read something I construed it differently. --Moni3 (talk) 15:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Moni3, you are supporting my use of diffs, and disagree with the editor criticizing me for using diffs? Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 16:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
(ec)Mattisse, your diffs are fine because they provide support to your statement that OR offered to provide references etc. The problem with your original comment was the tone in the latter half of the comment, particularly the rebuffed, ignored, for reasons only Geogre can fully know part. The diffs you provide obviously do not support that statement (no diff can show the absence of something!). My suggestion is, as always, to keep things as simple as possible. You want to say something in support of Ottava and you're entitled to do that but you need to say it in a way that doesn't make an assumption or implication of bad faith on the part of another user - irrespective of who that user might be. Therefore, the simplest thing to do is to refactor your original comment along the lines suggested above and move on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RegentsPark (talk • contribs)
Always use diffs. I actually don't know who criticized you for using diffs. Diff, please? Ha, no. I'll read this entire page to look for it, but I don't know if the criticism was using the diff, using an incorrect diff that did not support your point just like including a cite to a source that does not say what the cited sentence does, or misrepresenting someone else's comment as, for example, an attack when it might have been lighthearted or not referenced you at all such as some of the younger editors who are quick to take personal offense when adolescent judgment is questioned in general. --Moni3 (talk) 16:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) OK. I understand what you are saying, RegentsPark. I will try to do as you say regarding avoiding assumptions that do not have diffs. The diffs do support that OR was trying to be helpful, yes? What do you mean "refactor" my comment? I am not sure what "refactor" means, unless it means delete? I have been criticized for changing comments already made, which is why I choose to strike out. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 16:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
My suggestion above was that you add the word 'unsuccessfully' in the first sentence and strike out the entire second sentence. Your comment will then read It is true that Ottava Rima unsuccessfully offered several times to provide references and in other ways tried to be helpful to Geogre. (followed by the struck out part). As far as I'm concerned, you can leave the diffs because they support your statement and are neutral in presentation. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 16:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
(ec, but similar)
In general I agree with Moni3's "Always use diffs." The best course would have been for Mattisse to:
  • Check the diffs before making any comment.
  • Write only that some of Ottava's attempts to help appear at diff1, diff2 and diff3.
  • Then stop. Mattisse's addendum "rebuffed, ignored, for reasons only Geogre can fully know" had 2 faults:
    • She had no business speculating on Geogre's thoughts.
    • The repetitive phrasing "rebuffed, ignored" was much too rhetorical, and even one of these terms would have been more than was needed - Ottava had already mentioned the lack of response. --Philcha (talk) 16:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
  • OK, I am trying to understand all this. The list of diffs was a "selected" list as there are many more. So are you saying that in providing a selected list of diffs, the maximum number in a selected list should be three diffs (even if three does not cover the range of variation of types)? I struck out the remaining sentence and altered per RegentsPark's suggestion. Hopefully, that is "refactoring", as I don't know what that means, except possibly moving the comments of others around, which I don't think I should do. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 16:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
The number of diffs is not hugely important, except that too many might appear obessive.
"refactoring" is a dumb piece of jargon, AFAIK misadapted from computer programming. "second thoughts" would be clearer - and would correctly imply that you can only edit in your own second thoughts, as others' are unknowable unless they write them in. --Philcha (talk) 16:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, "refactoring" functionally just means "editing previous comments." And, while I could myself see using words like "rebuffed" or "ignored" if there were clear evidence from the user in question, through their own edits, that they used the words themselves, I would try to avoid using such potentially loaded language, and provide diffs to the comment where the language was used if I did use them. I'm sorry for not having seen the potential "insult" in them earlier, but it would probably be preferable to use completely neutral language like "chose not to accept offer", "declined...", etc.. If the editor in question used rather, ahem, "interesting" language to respond to or comment on any such offer, it might be best to just add a link to the statement with a comment like "and his response was [diff]." But that sort of approach avoids doing any sort of "judging" or "commenting on others", as per ArbCom, and would be much harder for anyone, even an "enemy", to take justifiable exception to. John Carter (talk) 17:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your explanation and ideas on how to handle this issue. This has been a useful lesson and I will be much more careful in the future. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 17:56, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Tony, I don't see how "the monitoring process doesn't seem to be doing any good at all". The original incident spread over 3 sections, and the last (this one) achieved a satisfactory explanation of the issue and a satisfactory response from Mattisse. Moni3 and RegentsPark should be thanked for starting this particular section in a calm and objective manner. It is not the fault of Mattisse or her mentors that other editors started the earlier sections on the same issue in a manner that was hostile and sometimes insulting. --Philcha (talk) 06:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I certainly hope you are not lumping my initial report into your last statement. UnitAnode 14:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I know I can't necessarily speak for anyone else, but personally I wouldn't include it in that group. Other people, with perhaps a longer history with Mattisse and of "colorful" language, might be a different subject. John Carter (talk) 14:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
As far as I know, I have no history with Unitanode and s/he was not involved in my arbitration. We have not edited the same articles nor the same wiki pages, except for this monitoring page, nor had any wiki interactions. I believe Unitanode registered under this username in March of 2009 so s/he is unlikely to have an in depth understanding of the history underlying these issues. I would prefer superficial discussion be avoided on this page. As it is, I can not follow the the page's discussions, so these back-and-forth discussions between editors are of no benefit to me. Is there any way to cut down on this sort of thing. It is not helpful for editors to use this page to defend perceived slights. —mattisse (Talk) 15:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Take it easy, Mattisse. Your mentors are here to help if things get complicated or unclear - e.g. summarising at intervals in a long discussion. --Philcha (talk) 15:50, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
This page is impossible to understand and TLTR. Too many editors weighing in with trivial remarks of their own that do not add to or clarify the discussion and that are not helpful. I made one edit that was meant to be supportive of Ottava Rima. That one remark means that at least four editors with nothing constructive to say weighted in and made a goobygook out of this page. If you can summarize what the point of all this is, I would be grateful. As far as I can tell, this page serves in part as a pile-on by editors having nothing to do with the issues and who do not seem familiar with the history and/or have nothing constructive to add. —mattisse (Talk) 16:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree that this discussion (including the 2 previous sections - or was it 3?) got TLTR. However Moni3 and RegentsPark did an excellent job of summarising the useful bits - thanks guys! - and your made the right sort of response to their helpful comments.
After that there was a bit of unconstructive grumbling. Some of that may have been "a pile-on by editors having nothing to do with the issues". If so, getting upset about it would be playing into their hands, so ignoring such comments would be sensible. If any then really want a response, they should explain politely and clearly what they're concerned. If they don't explain politely and clearly, ignore them. --Philcha (talk) 16:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Clarity revisited

I hoped that my suggestion to structure this page as rigidly as possible would take care of Mattisse's comment above about this page being impossible to understand. For this most recent instance, it would have helped for the initial complainant to state what the problem was, provide diffs, and state what sort of expectation s/he had from the mentors so it would look something like this:

Complaint from Unitanode:

I happen to have SlimVirgin's talkpage watchlisted, and noticed this comment Mattisse made regarding Geogre. Was not this a part of her "plan" or whatever? I was under the impression that she needed to quit inserting herself into situations regarding Geogre, Bishonen, and Giano, as well as other users on her plague list. UnitAnode 23:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Specific problem this causes: for Unitanode
  • Expectation from mentors: for Unitanode
  • Action mentors took: for mentors (i.e., discussion with Mattisse not to comment on Geogre who has not posted in two months,The stricken part is incorrect John Carter requested Giano not exacerbate issues on Giano's talk page [8])
  • The above is incorrect. Please read Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Proposed decision. I am to refrain from "casting aspersions". There is nothing about refraining from inserting myself into "Geogre, Bishonen, and Giano, as well as other users on her plague list." This is a misreading of the decision. To the degree that I cast aspersions by listing Ottava Rima's attempt to provide references and in other ways help Geogre, I violated the terms of my arbitration and cast an aspersion on Geogre. To remove all doubt I deleted any part that could be misinterpreted, specifically (OR was rebuffed, ignored, for reasons only Geogre can fully know). I believe the judgment of how much that is an "aspersion" is in the eye of the beholder, as in any event Geogre did not respond to any of these offers of help at the time. The fact that Geogre has not posted for the last two months in no way lessens the fact that Ottava Rima attempted to help him before then, contrary to the statement on the page where I posted this comment. In the decision, there are no prohibitions about posts regarding any specific editors. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 17:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Aspersion (from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Proposed decision) "It is unacceptable for an editor to routinely accuse others of misbehavior without reasonable cause. Legitimate concerns of fellow editors' conduct should be raised either directly with the editor in question, in a civil fashion, or if necessary on an appropriate noticeboard or dispute-resolution page. Although broad leeway is granted to allow editors to express themselves in their interactions with one another, particularly in dispute resolution, a consistent pattern of making objectively unsupported or exaggerated claims of misconduct can necessitate sanctions or restrictions even if the editor subjectively believes that they are true."
Comments from arbitrators on aspersions
  • "This applies to people commenting on Mattisse as well as Mattisse commenting on others. Civil behaviour is required both ways here, as is use of dispute resolution, rather than sniping, bringing up old disputes, and returning to previous behaviour. Some have pursued dispute resolution here. Others have sniped." -Carcharoth
  • "This cuts both ways." -Cool Hand Luke
  • "The observations of Carcharoth and CHL are well made." --bainer
I do not believe my comment regarding Ottava Rima's offer of help to Geogre falls under this category. However, I am willing to monitor my behavior more carefully. —mattisse (Talk) 17:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Discussion:

For other parties watching or interested.


This helps with clarity, quick understanding of the problem, and distances an extended discussion so it does not become entangled with the initial problem. It also assists with documentation for ArbCom assessment of this plan or others in the future.

Now I would suggest providing a glossary at the top of the page for quick reference as to what some issues really mean. Include "refactor" and other concepts so everyone has a common understanding of what is expected. --Moni3 (talk) 16:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

  • I don't believe Geogre (talk · contribs) was on my "plague list". In any event, I was not prevented from commenting on him by arbcom. Arbcom said only that I was prevented from having such lists. It never said that I was preventing from commenting on any one particular editor, whether on that list or not. Those ideas of protecting certain editors were suggestions made by other editors that were not accepted by the Arbitrators. Rather, those suggestions were rejected. I have never had any direct interaction with Geogre. It was only through the arbitration case on Geogre that I discovered Utgard Loki (talk · contribs) was Geogre. At that point, subsequent to my own arbitration, I filed evidence on harassment and abuse of me of Geogre's sock at his arbitration. Where does the basis of this complaint about me come from? Unitanode (talk · contribs) needs to read the decision of arbcom. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 16:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
  • That's fine. I have no opinion about this issue. I was just trying to propose a way to make this page readable and understandable, for documentation to protect both you, your mentors, and the editors who come here to complain. I simply used this as an example of how it should appear. --Moni3 (talk) 17:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I appreciate your attempt to make sense of the page, and I think the format you suggested is a good one. Unfortunately, your example perpetuated a myth that many posters here appear to believe. I urge everyone to actually read the decision and My Plan, as these are what my agreement with arbcom is based on. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 17:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


Gracious. Can Philcha, JohnCarter, or Geometry guy do me a favor and seriously consider formatting this page using this idea, which I posted and has since devolved into something entirely different? I am merely requesting the page be formatted for easy understanding, to avoid point in fact, what just happened to my suggestion. --Moni3 (talk) 18:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I would appreciate someone coming up with a format with neutral and accurate examples. I think examples that feed into the misperceptions of a group of editors should be avoided. It will only encourage more borderline to frivolous complaints. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 18:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Mattisse, in this case Moni was using was the exact text that had been posted on this page before. Moni didn't make it up, but was trying to show how the responses should have been structured after the initial request was posted. Karanacs (talk) 18:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

"discussion with Mattisse not to comment on Geogre who has not posted in two months" - this is exact text? If it is exact text, I would think that Moni3 would know that it was in error. I was not and am not forbidden to comment on Geogre. The fact he has not posted in two months is irrelevant. I think the examples would be much more helpful if they promoted accurate information rather that misperceptions, whether or not one of my advisers engaged in the misperception. The issue here is a pattern of "casting aspersions" per the arb decision. Did I, by the one comment regarding Ottava Rima's helpfulness to Geogre, contesting an aspersion cast on Ottava Rima, engage in a pattern of casting aspersions? Posting distracting and incorrect information as "examples" is harmful. —mattisse (Talk) 18:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Complaint from Unitanode (Moni3 example revised by Mattisse):

  • Complaint: I happen to have SlimVirgin's talkpage watchlisted, and noticed this comment Mattisse made regarding Geogre. Was not this a part of her "plan" or whatever? I was under the impression that she needed to quit inserting herself into situations regarding Geogre, Bishonen, and Giano, as well as other users on her plague list. UnitAnode 23:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Specific problem this causes: (for complainant to complete, in this case, Unitanode)
  • Arbcom point at issue: "Casting aspersions" Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Proposed decision (See User:Mattisse/Plan)
  • Expectation from mentors: for complainant to complete, in this case, Unitanode)
  • Expectation from Mattisse per : It is part of Mattisse's plan to avoid keeping lists of users; to avoid accusing other users of cabalism or conspiring against her, to avoid taking remarks personally. There is no prohibition against commenting on any specific user. There is an expectation that Mattisse use diffs in comments about the behavior of other users. Mattisse is cautioned as to her wording to avoid implying motivation of other users. "Mattisse frequently personalizes discussions by responding to other editors' routine comments about article content as if they were personal attacks or accusations directed against her. She has engaged in personal attacks, accused various editors of cabalism or conspiring against her, repeated some of her assertions long after any underlying issues had been resolved, and maintained various lists of editors who she believes have wronged her, sometimes under captions such as "plague" or "torment."
  • Action mentors took: Mattisse is reminded to conform to the expectations above. John Carter requested Giano not exacerbate issues on Giano's talk page [9] Giano was formally warned.[10]

Disengaging

Given her responses above, I have no further desire to participate in these discussions. I will post here only if I notice a problem from her on one of the pages I watch. And even then, I will most likely follow the suggestion one of her mentors made above, posting only a diff, my signature, and following up on, say, Regents' talkpage about it. I don't have the stomach for what Mattisse is about right now. UnitAnode 16:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Moved from main page to clear up "clutter"

Moved from talk page

"Commenting" class

Personally, although I can and do acknowledge that you should be allowed to make jokes, like anyone else, at this point it might not be the best of all possible times to try to start making them, or, alternately, maybe to make them on less "official" pages. User talk:Bishzilla gets quite a few joke edits, including from me, and if the comment is such that it is obviously a joke, I think it would be taken as one. But, yeah, right now, you are still, in a sense, on some form of "probation", and, even though I myself have never been involved in the legal system, I know that anyone who is involved is supposed to be very, very careful about what they do and say. I got nothing against jokes myself, and tell rather more of them than I should, but it might not be a bad idea to try to choose the places for jokes very carefully for at least a while, and, maybe, to use language more obviously joking. And maybe adding a few jokey items to your userpage, indicating the kind of sense of humor you have, might not be a bad idea either. John Carter (talk) 01:38, 13 October 2009 (U

Well, probably you are right, but that is bad for Wikipedia. A very small "class" of people controls Wikipedia at a time they are trying to "retain" new editors. This small, elite class prohibits editors from having opinions, which decreases the desire to contribute. I used to regularly contribute to whole areas of Wikipedia that I stay away from now, like FAC. And I no longer review GAN articles, even though I was considered a stellar reviewer, because of the bile of the few. Is this really for the good of Wikipedia that this small in-group contributors decide who is on the shit list and who is not? I know many valuable editors who have left for good. And I am about to be one of them, as the snugness of the (self-appointed) "few" that at the moment are in power is disgusting. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 01:50, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
No, it isn't. And I agree people like Giano and others are treated with probably unearned kid gloves, and that in many cases people are pushed away because of not understanding "how things work around here." But this isn't the only place it happens. I have been accused of things which even the accusers themselves realize are unlike me at work over the years, because, strange as it might sound, I'm a "nicer" guy than most people are used to, and in several cases people find it difficult to accept that there isn't anything I'm "after", particularly female co-workers. I think the main issue here is not the comments themselves, but rather the comparative uniqueness of it. The fact that there is a small group of volunteers effectively controlling a larger volunteer community is pretty much standard for non-profits. But, in those cases, the small group of people tend to know the ropes better, and knowing the ropes always helps anyone anywhere. And I don't think that it's really a matter of trying to prohibit people from having opinions. But it is useful to know when, where, and how to express them in such a way as to not cause others to react on the basis of preconceptions. Part of the problem is, I think, considering you have not involved yourself partcularly much in such discussions to date, people will question why you would involve yourself in the few you do involve yourself in. This is a bit of an example of same, particulaly after the "enforced break" joke from Bishonen earlier in that thread. People like Bishonen, Baseball Bugs, and a few others are at this point known to make a lot of jokes of a certain kind, and now people have come to expect that of them, and to, yes, "cut them some slack" if there's a question as to whether it is serious or not. Right now, even though you've been around a long time, you aren't known for involving yourself in many such matters, or in displaying a sense of humor very often, from what I've seen anyway. I get the impression from what I've seen of you that you tend to be serious most of the time, and so that's what people expect. I don't doubt you have a well-defined sense of humor, but no one here knows what it looks like, and the unknown always is looked at with reservations for a while. So, in cases like this, I would urge you to do what I try to do in such cases. If you're not sure how your comments might be perceived, add a qualifier at the beginning, to indicate what you're "aiming at" and make it clear what you intend to be addressing. And, yeah, the one thing I would urge you to try to do is to not make any comments which might be perceived as "making a point", because that's the core of your prior difficulties. Granted, any comment is open to interpretation by others, and that's unavoidable. But you do have control over how you present yourself, and that's the thing to focus on.
One thing I remember from when I was a kid, was to try to "taste" the words before they come out of your mouth, or, in this case, keyboard. At this point, I think you would probably be best served by doing that in almost all cases where you might be driven by any form of feelings. Yes, this place is screwed up big time. One of the best editors I've known changed his name to avoid getting weird e-mails from people. Another of our top editors has temporarily retired I don't know how often. That's going to happen. In your case, like in mine, try to focus on what it is that you want to accomplish here, and spend most if not all of your time doing that. If you became an admin, or involved yourself in "office politics" more regularly, then I think your comments would probably be more welcome, better received, and carry more weight. The downside is, you'd probably wonder why the hell you're wasting your time on it. I know I think that once in a while myself, regarding the policies, guidelines, noticeboards, and what all.
From what I can see, one other thing you've found you're good at is starting new DYKs. Personally, I wish I could do that more often myself. I started with the saints, and I think there are only about 7000 or so left uncovered here, out of a total population of about 11000, so there's still a bit of work to be done there. If you like doing DYKs, do it as well as you can. You were a great reviewer, but the DYK section gets updated what, 4 times a day? That area clearly needs a lot of attention to. If you like it, and you have no problems with it, go for it. I don't doubt you would be as valuable there as anywhere else. And, if you want, I might even be able to help you find a few people who might be able to point out some of the articles we're missing. There are still a ton of them.
Shutting up now, believe it or not. Finally. :) John Carter (talk) 02:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I sincerely hope that any comment that I make is taken in a spirit of goodwill. Earlier, I suggested the Duck Test. I meant it seriously. When it looks like sarcasm, and feels like sarcasm, it probably is. By the same token, if comments look/feel like they're meant as humourous, they probably are.
When you read any comment that you are unsure of its intent, ask the poster. Inquire, politely if the comment was meant to be serious. Asking questions is (or should be) the catylist for a serious discussion. If you feel like you're not getting any kind of "straight" answer, then it may be time to ignore the comments, and get on with what you were doing.
I would like to think that spirit civility, and good humour go hand-in-hand within the project.
I understand your concerns about the "clubbishness" of WP. Allow me to share an observation I have made. I have a wide variety of interests, so I have a wide variety of pages that I watch for changes. I should describe these as my "spheres of interest." I seldom encounter individual "groups" or "clubs" or "cliques"... what-have-you's... away from their particular "sphere." But, year after year, those same editors hover around the same articles, policy discussions and votes! pages. Theres no law against that, or rather there are rules that govern edit wars and whatnots, but by and large, those groups are going to be one of the hazards of editing in and around those spaces.
I have gone on the WP record - for as long as I can recall - quite strenuously opposing any "Off-WP" communications that are intended to stack the results in any of the projects' various "spaces/spheres." The mechanisms for reporting abuses of process are there; a current arbitration seems to be addressing the issue of off WP communications. So, sometimes its just a matter of waiting, and the thing that you want to happen might just happen. The other side of that coin, is: We as editors often end up abiding by decisions that we disagree with.
I wanted to let you know that I apprciate the (to me) exasperated tone of some of your recent posts. I hope that by sharing some of my experiences, I might help to ameliorate some of that feeling. In closing, I suggest that when in doubt, always take the high road. Don't respond to percieved sarcasm with sarcasm....stay the steady course, and no one could ever accuse you of not taking any particular discussion with perfect, concentrated seriousness, and gravitas. Good luck, and good editing! Regards, Hamster Sandwich (talk) 04:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
If you want to improve skills in WP-humour, which is may be a valuable skill, use your friends as guineau pigs. In that case all you risk is getting some poor jokes back :-) --Philcha (talk) 06:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
  • So am I to understand that, even though I make statements at arbcom and enter evidence, I am not allowed to make a comment there, because any comment I make will be scrutinize for a way to take it in bad faith? I have made comments before at abcom, especially recently The arbs themselves have seemed receptive to my questions and statements. But this behavior on my part is no longer allowed by the self-appointed censors? Am I no longer allowed to make statements or present evidence also? Or is it being suggested that if I do it more, I will be "tolerated" like Giano and Bishonen and other disruptive editors are. It does seem that if someone is sufficiently disruptive, they are tolerated by the ruling elite. Is there any place on Wikipedia that I can make a statement or have an opinion, even if it is not perfectly worded? I can be tarred and feathered because I can't word jokes to the liking of the elite censors of Mattisse? This outcry about a trivial comment, perhaps misunderstood, but not rising to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors is an attempt to undermine my confidence and drive me from Wikipedia. —mattisse (Talk) 13:18, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't understand the lack of options in this case. If you disagree with the actions of editors, certainly you are not restricted to participating in the same behavior in protest. In fact, I don't see this as effective in any form. You have an array of possibilities which include ignoring all of it entirely, or creating a large-scale protest and process by which the behaviors you designate to be unacceptable are brought to light at ArbCom and the Wikipedia community in total, though it may be rejected soundly. Your mentors should be directing you toward more productive uses of your time. You are yourself protected by double standards that may have had any other user indefinitely blocked for creating unnecessary disruptions, but because you are at times constructive, we are here discussing you instead of having moved on a long time ago. --Moni3 (talk) 16:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
  • In the last statement you make above, you seem to be assuming that people are in fact "out to get you", which I think in private correspondence with most of the people involved I have found not to be the case. And the rhetorical questions aren't particularly productive, either. Yes, like it or not, right now you have what many people consider a "history" of pointy comments, which some people might characterize differently as "petty", "vindictive", or whatever. Making any future comments which could be seen as being similar won't help anyone. Given the history people have percived in you, it is in your best interests to avoid making such statements. I don't think ArbCom would officially even tell Giano to go away, even though he seems to use clearly objectionable words more often than any other kind. I know that you pereceive the system to have problems here. So do I. It's one of the reasons I am fairly regularly involved in policy discussions. But, like anywhere else in the world, if someone has been perceived as fairly regularly making "cutting" or disparaging comments of others, and makes statements now which can be perceived as something similar, those statements will be perceived by at least some people in that light. In such case, it really isn't the fault of the person seeing what is an obvious connection to previous comments, though. If there is fault, it's that of the person who makes comments which can be so easily interpreted as being like the earlier ones. Useful, productive comments, even if at times extremely critical of the previous ones, are if not "welcome' in all cases accepted as part of reasonable conversation. I don't want to tell you how many people have ripped into the various policy and guidelines proposals I've made, but I had to assume that they were made in the right spirit. But it's a different matter with comments that are less than clear even in regards to what they're talking about, which is what the comment prompting this discussion was.
  • In response to the I think rhetorical questions about whether you will be "allowed" to make comments, sure. However, I think you should realize that your previous "comments" in some cases have caused people to at least consider imposing something like a topic ban on you. You don't make them really want to change their minds by making more comments now that could be interpreted as continuing in that vein. You seem to be indicating that the rest of wikipedia wants to impose some restrictions on you. If that is true, then it is because, unfortunately, you don't seem to have been interested in imposing any sort of restrictions on your own actions and comments. The one thing that would be most effective to reduce the posts to the page would be to make sure that you don't do anything which raises the question of "pointyness" or whatever in the minds of anyone else.
  • Positive comments, or comments which obviously have as their objective improving something somewhere, are going to be welcome anywhere around here. But this comment doesn't seem to be one such. There will be places where it is appropriate to criticize existing standards as well, generally because those locations are aimed at finding ways to improve the system. But I'm not sure the place you posted this comment is one such. Regarding the "cabal" controlling the rules around here, ever look at any national government? ;) Most people are neither sufficiently interested in or knowledgable about policy to want to address such matters. If the policies and guidelines created by the cabal are still good ones, though, then even I, who really dislike most public officials, have to admit that their actions are probably good, even if their person is less than appealing.
  • Basically, try to contain your comments to those which clearly are productive, in some way, or are in a venue where "dubious" comments are going to be expected and accepted. Given your lack of history in a lot of the "governmental" areas around here, at this point your comments there aren't expected. I and others would welcome seeing them there, but this comment wasn't the best way to "introduce" yourself in those venues. "Make haste slowly", like Augustus said. And, at least for a while, make sure that any comments you do make are such that they can't be easily misintepreted. If you can agree to do that, I honestly think the difficulties would be resolved. It's just, basically, up to you if you're willing to do that. John Carter (talk) 13:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Removing the kid gloves for a moment, calling productive editors "disruptive editors" is surely not helpful, whether done here at your talk page, at the "monitoring" page, or on an Arbcom page. As that portion of Mattisse's commentary isn't being addressed, I wanted to point it out. It's unacceptable to refer to other editors in this way, simply because you don't get along with them. UnitAnode 15:02, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Then surely you will call for the ceasing of other editors calling me "disruptive". I am an extremely productive editor. So please encourage others to stop applying the "disruptive" label to me. By the way, I would appreciate your addressing me as an editor, rather than referring to me in the third person on my own talk page. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 15:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
    Please refrain from lecturing me on how to address you. I was clearly referring to John Carter's post that didn't deal with your calling productive editors "disruptive." UnitAnode 16:02, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
  • <edit conflict>:I am a productive editor who is called "disruptive" at the drop of a hat, including by people I have never heard of, in an apparent "bandwagon" effect. I made a huge mistake in thinking I could make a joke out of "joke" sockpuppets. I paid the price for that with a lengthy block, something that even Arbcom has not done to the last two editor they found engaging in ongoing abusive sockpuppetry. Other than that, although there has been much complaining after my arbitration, there has not been any other evidence that I have done anything wrong. I don't think Arbcom's intention was to make me into a perfect person, but rather to allow me to continue to be a productive editor while refraining from making personal attacks and casting dispersions. I have not engaged in the behavioral examples described in POINTy, WP:NPA etc. Please remember that I am an actual person and realize that I have human frailties. If you want an editor to feel good about Wikipedia, then picking apart their every action is regrettable. How come no one picks apart my editing? Isn't that the reason we are all here? That should be the issue, not the few remarks I only very occasionally make. My behavior is less likely to improve if I feel as intimidated as I do, and people unknown to me, who do not edit on the pages I do, who were not part of the arbitration or even made any comments about me and who have never posted on my talk page or tried to contact be personally and ask what I meant by a comment, then turn up with criticism on my monitoring page. This method does not further a constructive environment. Putting an editor on the defense immediately is not likely to foster good will, improve behavior or ultimately benefit Wikipedia. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 15:33, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
    Your mainspace edits aren't really the problem. You're quite a good copyeditor, particularly. It's when you start commenting on other editors that problems arise. UnitAnode 15:39, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
    Mattisse, that is what your monitoring page is for! It is a neutral venue that gives any editor, regardless of whether you've previously interacted with them, the opportunity to comment on edits of yours that they felt might be inappropriate. It is not just a place for people who participated in the arbcom to bicker. Karanacs (talk) 15:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
<edit conflict> I agree with you, Karanacs, and dislike editors referring to me in the third person on my own talk page and arguing with each other. Unitanode repremands me for not understanding he was replying to someone else. Crips. —mattisse (Talk) 16:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Good points both there, actually. The last page I would expect someone to be refered to as a "he/she/it" would be that person's own talk page, and this probably isn't the best place to conduct a conversation with someone else. I'm beginning to regret starting the thread myself at this point. And I know some of my own language above might have been a bit excessive, both in terms of length (no argument there) and possibly in lack of tact. All I can do is basically repeat what I said. At this point, you aren't exactly thought of as one of our "policy wonks", and people might be surprised by seeing comments from you on some of the infrastructure pages. Particularly if the comments seem uncomplimentary and without any specific suggesions for correction. I don't like it either, but right now that seems to be the case.
And, Mattisse, even though there is apparently going to be a lot of criticism of various sorts aimed at you in the near future, partially as a result of the monitoring page, I want you to know that you are in no way one of the most problematic editors around. Giano I think wins that one hands down, with two separate arbitrations explicitly about him. And, no, it doesn't seem possible that his conduct has any chance of impoving, while I think even the worst of your detractors probably thinks you might be able to address and reduce the incidence of the problems that have arisen.
I just hope you realize that even much or most of the criticism you receive here is in effect given because the people making it think you are actually interested in reducing the problems. I seriously wonder whether anyone thinks Giano at this point even cares about how unpleasant his own conduct regularly is. John Carter (talk) 16:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
(ec) Unitanode, your "calling productive editors "disruptive editors" is surely not helpful" is ... not helpful - and your "Removing the kid gloves for a moment" was even less helpful, so put it mildly. While Mattise has made mistakes, there are "productive" editors who regularly and long-term get away with seriously disruptive behaviour. Do you have the same zeal for scrutinising their behaviour? --Philcha (talk) 15:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
There you go again, lecturing people who try to point out the problematic areas. The kid gloves you all wear around Mattisse are not working. I've posted nothing here that is in the least bit inappropriate. And this isn't the forum for discussing the behavior of other editors. Deflection of the concerns raised is much less helpful than raising those concerns in the first place. Please deal with your mentee in a way that lets her understand that she can't simply call other editors "disruptive" at her leisure. It's just not acceptable. UnitAnode 16:05, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Unitanode, as Karanacs has stated above, this page is not for making statements to or arguing with other editors. That is the purpose my monitoring page, to prevent this endless bickering between other editors from occurring here. I request that you take you attacks on me and my advisers to the monitoring page. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 16:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, Mattisse, for acknowledging that Unitanode should be able to comment at the Monitoring page (thus implying that you understand that posts there are not meant to intimidate you, but to raise issues in the appropriate fora). Also, if you are disappointed with bickering on this page, we should also admonish Philcha, who started this round by commenting on Unitanode rather than the issue at hand. Karanacs (talk) 16:26, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
(ec)Unitanode, your comments here were too vague to be constructive. And, as Mattisse correctly and courteously pointed out, the monitoring page is where you should raise any questions about Mattisse's conduct. --Philcha (talk) 16:29, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
They weren't vague at all. They were a direct challenge to those who weren't addressing one of the larger problems with Mattisse's response. Additionally, JC brought the discussion here, with his "Commenting class" post, so unless the whole thread is moved there, then my comments were not at all misplaced. UnitAnode 16:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry to see this again degenerate into squabbling by one "mentor", when things seemed to be going well in terms of helping Mattisse understand how to avoid these issues. Philcha, again, your approach to this mentorship is not serving Mattisse well. One thing that I haven't seen any mentor clarify yet: RE: I am a productive editor who is called "disruptive" at the drop of a hat, including by people I have never heard of, in an apparent "bandwagon" effect. It may be instructive to review ArbCom's findings, rather than focusing on perceptions of other, non-specific editors. Staying away from problematic areas may be a good strategy; if humor is a problematic area, then avoiding it is wise. Many of the mentors have stated as such on the monitoring page, so I'm sorry to see this recent squabble, which once again only serves to obscure the issues that matter: how to help Mattisse avoid these issues and be a more effective editor. Can everyone move on now? The message was delivered on the monitoring page; it's up to Mattisse whether she will take the mentors' advice. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, if you have comments specifically about my activities here, it might be better to post them at my Talk page. You might like to look at this example of the kind of feedback (from myself and then SilkTork) I think is most likely to resolve situations. Some earlier clear, specific feedback, following a lead from Moni3 and RegentsPark. --Philcha (talk) 18:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


Mattisse's behavior

2) During her years of participation in the project, Mattisse has engaged in a pattern of troublesome comments and behavior. These have led to many stressful controversies affecting both Mattisse and many other editors. Among other things, Mattisse frequently personalizes discussions by responding to other editors' routine comments about article content as if they were personal attacks or accusations directed against her. She has engaged in personal attacks, accused various editors of cabalism or conspiring against her, repeated some of her assertions long after any underlying issues had been resolved, and maintained various lists of editors who she believes have wronged her, sometimes under captions such as "plague" or "torment."

Passed 10 to 0 at 04:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Prior attempts at resolution

3) Mattisse has sometimes agreed to address certain issues concerning her interactions with other users, such as by avoiding the types of discussions or interactions that she finds to be stressful. However, in each instance she has soon returned to the same forums and behavior patterns she had agreed to avoid.

Passed 10 to 0 at 04:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Sandy Geogia please add diffs of relevant new behavior of mine

The arbitration findings directed against rehashing old incidents. Please add diffs of relevant new new behavior of mine rather that rehashing old complaints in essay fashion. Please follow the arbitration directions. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 17:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The diff which led to the squabble on your talk page is plainly linked, where it was first raised, on this page, as is the full discussion. Curiously, what is not linked on this page, is ArbCom's final decision (rather, the proposal page is linked); perhaps one of the mentors could correct that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, the proposed decision with passing votes is all I have been able to find. It is what I based My Plan on. So until I have knowledge of another set of findings, that is what I will rely on. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 17:51, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse is the final page, and probably the one that should be linked here. I'm sorry the mentors don't point these things out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the link, although as a summary of the decision it lays out behavior that is applicable to all editors, not just me. I am asking you to stop the personal attacks and the casting of aspersions for which you have provided no diffs. I have almost completely stated away from FAC, I no longer freely copy edit articles for FAC and I no longer provide in depth reviews for FAC. Because of your complaints, I no longer work with articles at FAR. If you have recent diffs of my misbehavior that others have not provided, please give them. And please keep in mind that a central theme of my arbitration that not only I, but other editors also, must follow the rules set up for me, especially in not rehashing old issues and persevering on past events. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 18:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Sandy was casting no aspersions on you. You need to cease these accusations. The portions of the case that Sandy posted related directly to you, and posting them was in no way a "personal attack" or an example of "casting aspersions." UnitAnode 18:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Once again, noting that mentors haven't taken tadvantage of ample oppportunity here to help Mattisse avoid recurring issues, and one of them (Philcha) focuses more on shooting the messengers than guiding Mattisse. First, singling out an editor in a section heading is never good practice (see WP:TALK), although it is often done at Arb Cases, but if you single out an editor, at least spell it right :) Second, while the discussion at your talk page was clearly diffed, you have accused me of personal attacks without providing a diff: this is the kind of behavior that led to your Arb. Where is the personal attack you allege I made, please ? Third, I remain interminably puzzled at why your mentors don't clarify things you clearly hold to be true, to make things easier for you. You refer to the Proposed Decision rather than the final case, and you say above that "although as a summary of the decision it lays out behavior that is applicable to all editors, not just me." Your mentors do not seem to have helped you understand that the case does pertain to you, there is nothing written about other editors in either Sections 6.2 Findings of fact or 6.3 Remedies, and the thread on your talk page, which led to this squabble, was an attempt by several of your mentors to help you see how you could avoid the behaviors listed in the case. This case has become much more about a failed mentorship than helping Mattisse, and before the recent derailment on Mattisse's talk, it actually looked like things were progressing well for once~! No, Philcha, with moves of talk page posts hither and thither, I've no interest in taking items related to this case to yet another place ... I placed my comments on the talk page where the discussion originated; I prefer to keep discussions together. So, now we have an issue where the mentors clearly explained to Mattisse how she could avoid the problem in the future, but now Mattisse has started a thread, making it All About Me, and accusing me of a non-existing personal attack. When will this cycle stop ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

She has a point here. The conduct of other editors has been problematic at times, but the ArbCom itself indicated no special penalties which could be levied against anyone for attacking you beyond the standard. And this thread, with the title it has, could very easily itself be seen as being an attempt at diversion. A simple message to Sandy on her talk page requesting an addition of the diff would have been just as effective, and created less drama. Drama of any sort is probably in virtually every instace bad for the project, and it tends to make any situation worse. We've all been told repeatedly to comment on the edits, not the editor. This thread kind of clearly goes against that. If we can keep the conversation about the subject which I think brought us all here, the improvement of the encyclopedia, rather than in making any sort of accusations or demands on each other, I think that would be very good for everyone involved. We are all basically here to improve the encyclopedia. Distracting ourselves with "personalities" of any sort is probably one of the worst things we could do. If we can all act rationally and deal with the issues presented before us first, rather than deal with questions regarding other editors or trying to act on any preexisting ideas we might have regarding them, that reduces the amount of "personality" and "drama" involved and generally makes for a more collegial environment. Having anyone jump to conclusions regarding the actions of another is going to ultimately be counterproductive itself. John Carter (talk) 20:01, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I think the material linked to is at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates#Thanks to reviewers. I have to admit that the comments, while relevant, did, in a sense, detract from the flow of the intended purpose of the thread, and could be seen as being off-topic. They do also seem to put a bit of a damper on the express purpose of the thread While it is probably perfectly acceptable to indicate errors, I'm not sure that the comments here were necessarily either required for the thread or particularly helpful to it.
In addition to ensuring that you do not do things which are literally against the ArbCom decision, it's probably a good idea to encourage you to not do things which might, while perhaps technically acceptable, wind up generating more less than favorable views of you. No one really needs to have people hold more reservations or grudges about them than are absolutely required, and I could see how comments of this type could generate more ill will than good will from others. And I do think that they were probably off-topic, which didn't help. Such comments could very easily make people more likely to look for and see reasons to object to other conduct elsewhere. And, yeah, one of the best ways to ensure that one doesn't get criticized is by making people less likely to criticize you, partially by giving them less reason to think ill of you.
If, as I think reasonable, we are here not only to ensure that you do not engage in overtly disruptive behavior, but also behavior which might unnecessarily stimulate ill will against you, I would have to say that those comments could very easily been omitted, or, perhaps, placed in a different thread. I don't think it would necessarily have reduced any effectiveness they might have had, and it would probably reduce the amount of negative response you get from others. Doing that would in and of itself be a benefit to you. John Carter (talk) 19:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Probably so. I used to follow behind and fix the situations where the link checker screwed up. Now, of course, I no longer do all the grooming of FAC articles that I used to do. I think it is recognized that the link checker itself is a crude tool and does not replace actually checking the links. So I probably did not need to remind anyone, although there are still those who believe it is accurate. It is rather misleading to have a link to the link checker on review pages without explaining its caveats. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 19:24, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Your third and fifth sentences are perfect examples of the types of comments that you should be making at WT:FAC - > I think it is recognized that the link checker itself is a crude tool and does not replace actually checking the links. ... It is rather misleading to have a link to the link checker on review pages without explaining its caveats. This could be followed with a concrete suggestion for what to do differently (remove the link, add text, etc). This type of feedback is more likely to lead to improvements, and cannot be interpreted as disparaging the efforts of any other editor or as simple complaining. Karanacs (talk) 19:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

John Carter & Mattisse's Mentors.

(moved here from my talk page [11]) —mattisse (Talk) 19:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

This one should be removed [12] but unfortunately I just noticed it now, so I probably can't remove it. I will see if I can do so. —mattisse (Talk) 20:22, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Seeing as you wish to discuss me on this page, you can have the reply on this page. John Carter, would you please stop referring to me in this debate concerning your protegee. I avoid her as often as possible and have no wish to associate with the like of you either. That you can say "I agree people like Giano and others are treated with probably unearned kid gloves." about an editor who is no part of this matter or debate shows you are unfit to be either a mentor or an Admin. Mattisse and her "mentors" are becoming increasingly concerning. I suggest you concentrate your efforts on your protege and leave the rest of us out of these all too frequent skirmishes that she causes. Giano (talk) 19:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps if you acted according to guidelines yourself and didn't just vandalize her talk page, your comments might be taken better than they are. John Carter (talk) 20:01, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Accusations of vandalism should certainly be accompanied by a diff, or they should not be made at all. I've questioned from the start the wisdom of dragging the names of other users into these discussions. When she begins her "but X editor does Y", it should simply be nipped in the bud, and not encouraged. UnitAnode 20:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Here is diff:[13] I request that both Giano and Unitanode stop posting on my talk page. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 20:26, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I have done nothing to merit such a request. You really need to stop with this now, Mattisse. Not everyone that finds your commentary problematic can simply be dealt with by "banning" them from your talkpage. And until and unless I violate some policy in my dealings on your talkpage (and it won't happen, because I just won't do it), "banning" me from there in such a way as you seem to be requesting reflects very poorly on you, and not on me. UnitAnode 20:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
(e-c)Restoring comments she removed here may not qualify as vandalism as per WP:VANDALISM, but, consdering that Mattisse has evidently asked him to stay off her page before, I have to think that he was the one who in fact inserted himself with his own belittling commentary here, evidently against Mattisse's own apparently previously expressed request that he stay off her talk page, as per her most recent edit summary there. So, in effect, we did not "bring him into the conversation", he was the one who introduced hiself to it, apparntly against previously expressed wishes by Mattisse to leave her alone. John Carter (talk) 20:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
You guys bring him into a lot of these discussions by mentioning him. And what you diffed isn't close to vandalism. UnitAnode 20:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
<edit conflict> Accusing someone of trolling and making other derogatory remarks is considered a personal attack. Examples:[14] [15] [16] and inflammatory remarks not meant to be helpful. [17] as well as personally attacking my mentors/advisers.[18] —mattisse (Talk) 21:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm still waiting for a diff to the personal attack you alleged of me here; it is customary, and a sign of good faith, to strike comments once you realize they are inaccurate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

It is unrealistic that editors with whom Mattisse has had conflicts in the past be expected to avoid her talk page or this monitoring page. It is entirely realistic that everyone remain somewhat civil before discussions unravel and names start flying that accompany wild accusations that are not supported by any evidence. What should remain on this page are very plain links to comments that users count as unhelpful, potentially inflammatory, or blatant attacks and accusations. This is the last time I will suggest this because all I can do is suggest, but adopt the formatting I put forth here to keep these discussions from spiraling out of control. What has taken place today is a fraction of the ill will that has surrounded Mattisse in the past and apparently the atmosphere can get very hot very fast. Neglecting to control it pre-emptively only makes me think that inevitably the people in charge (a term I use with some significant skepticism) have no problem with the chaos. --Moni3 (talk) 20:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

  • I an not asked anyone to avoid posting on the monitoring page. That page is free to anyone, and I have not sought to restrict anyone's access. I asked Giano and Unitanode to stop posting on my talk page, Giano because of personal attacks and Unitanode because he was addressing other editors and not me on my talk page. Yesterday he posted six times in one day with dialogs directed at other editors. I asked people posting on my talk page to please address me, and not refer to me in the third person. I have not asked anyone to stop posting on my monitoring page. I ask all beefs with other editors be conducted on the monitoring page. Is that unreasonable? —mattisse (Talk) 21:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
    Having a short conversation with another person (in this case, JC) about you on your talkpage is in no way problematic. Your choice to "ban" me from your talkpage based on that is, as I mentioned, a reflection on you, not me. UnitAnode 21:15, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
  • <edit conflict> To Unitanode, you can conduct those conversations here. That is what this page is for. To Moni3, unfortunately, posters seem way more interested in attacking my mentors/advisers than in seeking to help me deal with my behavior. Most comments are complaints about others. I am lost in the shuffle as there are hardly any constructive comments directed at me. You suggestion, which I endorsed, was lost in the shuffle in attacks of one editor on another and whatnot. —mattisse (Talk) 21:18, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Mattisse, if you really like Moni's suggestion above, you can take the initiative to implement that here. This page should be set up in a way that benefits you. It might be as simple as moving all this to the talk page and creating blank templates so that other editors would know what format you would like them to follow. Karanacs (talk) 21:21, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
"the past be expected to avoid her talk page or this monitoring page" Then those users should be blocked. If people cannot avoid each other, then there is a clear way to deal with it. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
  • <edit conflict> Karanacs, how do I implement anything? Do you not see that the attacks focus on my mentors/advisers, not me? I am not in control here. Perhaps the aim is to create chaos here so as to prove to arbcom that the mentor/adviser idea does not work and get me banned. I feel guilty about my mentors/advisers, as they are taking the brunt of the abuse. I am fearful that mentors/advisers will no longer be willing to undergo the attacks that regularly take place here on anyone who tries to treat me like a human being and gives constructive advice. If you can implement it please do. I obviously cannot stop the carnage going on here and on my talk page. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 21:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Also, Mattisse, please stop responding to this current thread for now. If you want to talk about it, please feel free to email me. There is nothing good that can continue here at the moment and your statements suggest the beginning of a spiral that would be problematic. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
  • You are in control here, Mattisse; you moved a thread from your user talk to here, which was a factor in this page spinning out of control. If the same need arises in the future, you might move the thread to the talk page associated with this page rather than this user page. If you look at Moni's link above, you'll see she is proposing a very simple structure for this page; it wouldn't be hard to implement. The issue that was initially raised here resulted in you getting good advice from all of your mentors; the page was working fine until the thread from your talk was moved to here. Also, perhaps you could adjust your thinking to realize that the world is not all enemies or friends; many of us are very frustrated that your mentors aren't adequately helping you. Can you not perceive that these are not attacks against your mentors, but pleas that they do the job they signed on to do? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I said at the time I agreed with Moni3's suggestion and I repeated that I agree above. Salix alba's comments below are dead on. I appreciate his constructive point of view. I hope he and others will help me turn this into a constructive page. I actually made one bad mistake in the joke sockpuppets for which I was blocked for two weeks, a penalty longer than those dispensed by arbcom when they find abusive long-term sockpuppet abuse. They have issued no blocks for such behavior on the editors responsible for the socks. I do not think that anything else I have done warrants talk of a ban or even of my mentors/advisers "failing" me. I would think you would be disinterested as I no longer copy edit or do in depth reviews of FACs and I no longer work on FARs. All my FAR work was checked with YellowMonkey. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 22:29, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Alerts/Archive_3&oldid=1142510266"