Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Proposed decision

Arbitrators active on this case

Active:

1. Carcharoth
2. Cool Hand Luke
3. Jayvdb
4. Kirill Lokshin
5. Newyorkbrad
6. Rlevse
7. Roger Davies
8. Stephen Bain
9. Vassyana
10. Wizardman

Inactive:

Recused:

1. Casliber
2. Coren
3. FayssalF
4. FloNight
5. Risker

To update this listing, edit this template and scroll down until you find the right list of arbitrators.

Planning to address issues

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Proposed_decision#Planning_to_address_issues needs to clarify its provisions on timescales. "Within 15 days of this decision, Mattisse shall, in conjunction with one or more mentors or advisers, submit to this Committee for approval a plan to govern and guide her future editing with the continued assistance of those mentors or advisers ..." does not adequately specify:

• Whether Mattisse's editing should be restricted in any way until such a plan is submitted to ArbCom. This needs to be handled very carefully, e.g to avoid forbiding Mattisse from contributing to discussions about "mentoring" arrangements.
• Whether Mattisse's editing should be restricted in any way between submission and approval of such a plan. This may need even greater care, as:
  • the range of pages where Mattisse's input would be relevant will extend to pages where ArbCom members comment on the plan.
  • what happens if ArbCom takes more than a few days to reach a conclusion, for example if some emergency arises that requires ArbCom's undivided attention.
  • whether that last point should be qualified to depend on how much notice ArbCom gets of a proposed "mentoring" plan. E.g. if a plan was submitted on day 5 of 15, one would normally expect (barring emergencies) comments within at most 5 days, and a "mentoring" plan to be given at least provisional approval before the end of the 15 days. OTOH if the plan were submitted just before the elapse of 15 days, one would have to allow time for ArbCom to deliberate, and the proposed remedy needs to specify what edits are allowed during the deliberations. --Philcha (talk) 11:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Users willing to act as advisers

In order to establish the feasibility of "a plan to govern and guide her future editing with the continued assistance of those mentors or advisers", ArbCom will reasonably wish to know who would be willing to to act as advisers. I suggest those who are willing should sign here. --Philcha (talk) 11:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

We the undersigned are willing to act as Mattisse's mentors or advisers:

• --Philcha (talk) 11:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
• --I am happy to volunteer if Mattisse doesn't think it is presumptuous on my part, since in the past she is the one who has advised me and done so with great acumen. That is why her purported behavior as laid out by her accusers in this RfArb is very puzzling to me. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:29, 31 May 2009 (UTC) (I would recommend admin user:RegentsPark and user:Abecedare (who should be an admin), both superb dispute resolvers who keep a cool head; that is, of course, if they and Mattisse agree to the arrangement.) I would also recommend user:Geometry guy and user:Ling.Nut both of whom are incisive in their analysis of the situation, and, perhaps even user:Moni3, user:Awadewit, and user:Karanacs as distant/outside advisers (I know, from her statement, that Mattisse doesn't always get along with them, but they might be able to provide early warning of a potential "situation.") In fact, if this stellar cast, along with user:Philcha, come on board, then I will become redundant. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:29, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
• -- I am willing to volunteer. I anticipate should I be chosen the possibility of tensions will be high to start with. I hope, however, that Mattisse shall make a solid effort to restrict her commentary to article content only, and that we can reach a mutual understanding that personality issues are unnecessary on Wikipedia. Should Mattisse follow such rules to avoid problems she has had in the past, I will be happy to defend her if she or her suggestions to improve article content are met with hostility. --Moni3 (talk) 15:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
• -- I would not be offering if Mattisse herself had not asked me if I'd be willing to act as one of her advisers, not least because I am not myself convinced that I'd be ideal for the role. Nevertheless, I place a high value on Mattisse's many positive contributions, which for me outweigh the downside of the sometimes difficult relationship that she and I have had in the past. I'm adding my name here not so much because I want to be one of Mattisse's advisers, but because I want to emphasise my belief that with Mattisse the good outweighs the bad. Having said that though, to pick up on SandyGeorgia's point below, it's very clear that there are serious issues that need to be addressed, and some of those commenting in this case appear to be unwilling or unable to recognise that. Whoever is chosen from this list, or any other list, has to be realistic in recognising that too. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
• I'm willing to help Mattisse put forward a plan to ArbCom, and I'm also willing to be involved in an ongoing role as part of that plan. However, I say this without prejudice as to the precise nature of that role, which I believe, in line with my comments below, is a matter for discussion and mutual agreement with Mattisse and other volunteers. Geometry guy 17:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

• --(ec) I am reluctantly willing to advise Matisse on a plan that guides her future editing. Willing, because I think Matisse is an asset to wikipedia that we should be loathe to lose. Reluctant, partly because I have not followed this case carefully and partly because I think it a bit presumptuous to be advising someone with 10 times more edits and infinitely more FAs, GAs, and DYKs than I have. At best, I can comment or be a sounding board on a plan and that I am willing to do. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 17:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

• I will be willing to look into a dispute Mattisse is involved in and give her my honest appraisal. SilkTork *^YES! 18:00, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
• I may be of somewhat limited usefulness, but I am more than willing to review any situations that many arise and do what I can to help resove them reasonably to the best of my own limited abilities. John Carter (talk) 17:02, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
• I reaffirm my willingness to assist Matisse navigate any difficult situations that my arise. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 03:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
• I have amended my retirement to a Sabbatical leave. I log in at least once per day, at least two or three days per week. I am always available via email. Generally speaking, I will not be avalable to intervene in real-time in any problems or situations, if any arise. I will be available, especially via email, to consult, confer and process events, analyzing how they may have gone wrong & how they can be improved in the future. I may return to more active editing in the future, but at this moment that does not seem to be an imminent development. I wish Mattisse all the best of luck, hoping one day she can edit in genuine harmony and trust with the same people she once had listed on various "enemies" lists. Ling.Nut (talk) 01:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

<Beginning in response to "I am happy to volunteer if Mattisse doesn't think it is presumptuous on my part,...Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:29, 31 May 2009 (UTC)">

I've seen many suggestions here of other editors willing to help, and all of them seem impartial and acceptable. I'm not sure having Fowler & fowler involved as an advisor would be a good choice, considering past issues that arose around Dinesh's articles and involved both F&F and Mattisse. Part of the advisorship role may necessitate intervention if Mattisse should become emotionally or overinvolved in a FAC or FAR or certain editors' FACs and FARs, and Dinesh was an editor who seemed to frequently gain the attention of F&F and Mattisse. I don't see indications that F&F would be able to see issues objectively from all sides. I also question the usefulness of having those editors who have failed to consider the evidence serve as advisors: many of the statements on the arb pages amount to speculation and opinion; the most helpful advisors will be those who have accounted for the evidence, as well as the benefits Mattisse brings to Wiki, and are realistic about the issues and goals. (That might include editors such as Ling.Nut, G guy or Malleus, as examples: I've not seem them discounting the evidence as some others have.) Those who don't appear to have factored the evidence into consideration may be less helpful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:12, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more with user:SandyGeorgia. As I said, if the stellar cast agrees, I become redundant; it was obviously also understood that I would become an adviser only if there were no objections, which, in light of user:SandyGeorgia's, becomes moot. I didn't get along with user:Dineshkannambadi for the simple reason that he was making up bogus history, and when others such as Laser Brain and RegentsPark more or less agreed with my assessment, and user:DK saw that his jig was up, he left Wikipedia. If anyone one on Wikipedia disagrees with me that biased history was not being composed, for example, on the last article Kannada literature in the Kingdom of Mysore, I am happy to have an independent expert evaluation. The South Asia departments of Berkeley, Columbia, Penn, Chicago, Texas (at Austin), Oxford, Cambridge have many people (or their graduate students) who will be up to the task. As to why, user:SandyGeorgia subtly defended user:Dineshkannambadi, in spite of her many denials, remains a mystery to me, and, in my view, speaks to Mattisse's criticism of easy passes being granted to FA regulars. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

PS I also agree with user:SandyGeorgia's very valid point that someone like me has not considered all the evidence. That is very true. I have interacted with Mattisse in a limited context, and, as I said somewhere in this RfArb, I have not read others' evidence (for the simple reason that i don't have time). So, that does make me less objective. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I respect that you have admitted that, but remain concerned that we see indications of similar from others. There are statements throughout the arb that seem to be ill-formed opinion, from editors who don't appear to have read or acknowledged the evidence. Advisors willing to help Mattisse will be most effective if they recognize and understand the issues in evidence, as well as her strengths. I believe that some time away will help Mattisse reevaluate, and gain a better perspective that will make her work here more effective, and her time here more enjoyable. For as long as I've known her, she has seemed almost tormented by Wiki, and I hope she can get a break from that, with counsel from realistic advisors, and come back stronger. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

No one can provide objective, helpful, effective and impartial advice in every possible situation. Hence I believe Mattisse would benefit from having a variety of editors whom she could turn to for advice depending on the context. For instance, someone who is a critic of FA or GA processes would not be a good source of advice if the situation concerned an FA or GA review, but may well be very helpful on the talk page of a controversial topic. Geometry guy 15:10, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Can someone clarify for me what the process is? The Workshop page has stalled within the past few days. There were several plans for some kind of adviser, including my idea for three. They are in various states of debate. If the 60-day block proposal is on the same par with these plans for advisers, is it not jumping the gun to start looking for people to fill the adviser capacity?

If not, I considered in my idea of three stewards having one who has disagreed with Mattisse in the past. I do not want to propose a system I would not be unwilling to participate in, so it is with reservation that I volunteer myself to be one (but not the only one) adviser. I say this with a huge caveat: I have declined to intervene between Mattisse and other editors following Bambi's mom's advice not to say anything if I have nothing good to say. I find Mattisse's manipulative commentary to be especially objectionable, but that's because it hits too close to home. But that also means I can spot it at a thousand paces. Ultimately, whoever advises Mattisse should be trusted at least to be fair and have Wikipedia's growth at heart instead of any individual's. --Moni3 (talk) 14:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Moni3. Although you've had disagreements with Mattisse, you've shown plenty of good faith in contributing to discussions of the "panel of advisers" proposal from a very early stage. I also note that you're a USA resident, which has a practical advantage: Mattise sometimes contributes until 3:00 UTC; I've just checked the timing of Ling.Nut's, Guy's and Malleus's contributions, and they appear to end mostly around / before midnight UTC, and for what it's worth I also often quit around the same time; so having a USA resident who has clock-time available for issues that break around / after midnight UTC is a big advantage. If you're willing, I suggest you sign up in the bullet list at the top of this section, as this discussion is getting longer than I anticipated. --Philcha (talk)

PS Sorry, I forgot you other question, "is it not jumping the gun to start looking for people to fill the adviser capacity?" If I were on ArbCom, I'd want to know whether this is a viable option, and the availability of volunteers is very relevant to that. Even if only 3 should be active at a time, I'd want to see more to provide cover for drop-outs, temporary unavailability, time-zone issues, etc.--Philcha (talk) 15:24, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I can try to clarify the process as I see it. The main remedy proposed by the Arbitrators is that "Mattisse shall, in conjunction with one or more mentors or advisers, submit to this Committee for approval a plan to govern and guide her future editing with the continued assistance of those mentors or advisers." (the 60 day block proposal has not - thus far - been brought to the Proposed decision). At the moment they would like her to do that within 15 days of the closure of the case, but it is possible (and I think reasonable) that this will be modified to require that such a plan is put forward before the case is closed.

An important point here, in my view, is that Mattisse herself is being asked to submit this plan. I believe it is good judgement to separate roles in this way: Mattisse is ultimately responsible for what the mentoring plan is, while the Arbitrators, in consultation with involved parties, are responsible for determining whether the proposal is acceptable to the community. I would certainly be happy to help Mattisse put together an effective plan. In my view, this is best achieved by starting a mentoring/stewardship page (with associated talk page) and for those wishing to help Mattisse, either in drafting the page or in an ongoing mentoring/advisory role, to contribute to discussion there. Once agreement is reached, Mattisse will then have something concrete to submit, in conjunction with some advisors/mentors, as requested. Geometry guy 15:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, hmm. This is perplexing. So on my sandbox page, which is linked below, shall we try to devise a plan to submit to Mattisse, who in turn then submits it to ArbCom? I'd like to go with the premise of my 3 stewards idea. Durova had reservations about it, but hasn't continued the discussion on it. I left the top section of my sandbox page mostly vacant, assuming ArbCom would already have a decision in place, fully detailed, with consequences for certain actions. Are they leaving that out? --Moni3 (talk) 16:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I do believe a plan is more likely to be effective and successful if Mattisse has buy-in from the start. However, she's hardly edited at all this week. It may be worth each of us pausing to think how we would feel in Mattisse's current position. I think the ideal would be to develop the plan in Mattisse's userspace with her active participation, then move it to a location determined by ArbCom if it is accepted, but it is unclear to me how to achieve this ideal. Concerning your last question, I'm afraid I can't read minds any better than you can. Other proposed remedies may be developed if agreement is not reached on the current approach. Geometry guy 17:00, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I am re-volunteering myself. Upon reflection, I don't believe user:SandyGeorgia's objections to my being an adviser are entirely valid. True, I haven't read all the evidence in this RfArb for lack of time, and my own evidence is partial (as I clearly say in the evidence itself), but that, by no means, would make me a biased or unhelpful adviser in any future conflict that Mattisse might find herself in. For example, I don't object to the FAC process, just to shabby articles. As for the past history with user:Dineshkannambadi, I'm afraid that only showers credit on Mattisse for her intuition in spotting both original research and obsessive linguistic nationalism in user:DK's work. Besides, I just discovered, that she has requested me to be on board (by email), in part because she trusts me; that element of trust is important in the relationship between the advisee and the adviser. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:08, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I just want to say thank you to the Committee and to the people who are offering themselves as advisers. A wise response to a tough situation. Here's wishing you the very best for a positive outcome. Durova^Charge! 17:08, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Durova, you had reservations about a 3 steward system per a previous arbcom case that apparently failed. Can you review the sandbox construction of a resolution to this and pick apart its weaknesses? But you know..nicely? --Moni3 (talk) 17:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Not much more to say beyond what's already been said. All it would really take is one clever person acting in bad faith to make the advisors' situation really tough. Suppose someone went right up to the line and you weren't sure whether they were doing it deliberately? And suppose that kept happening in slightly different ways. Suppose you got shown cherry picked evidence, or a misleading chronology: from that point forward you'd be reading diffs and histories to figure out what really happened. There are forms of brinksmanship that can really wear you down. And if you ever did block Mattisse, how would you retain her trust afterward? Durova^Charge! 17:39, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Good, ok. There will be kinks to work out. I anticipate should Mattisse accuse others by providing evidence, the stewards would ask the other editor for their side, look at histories, and whatever else is reasonable. I'm hoping that the ArbCom decision gives admin stewards some discretion to act in accordance to the decision as a whole, thereby giving warnings or blocks for behaviors that might not warrant similar reactions in situations not involving ArbCom issues. What I am outlining seems fairly clear to me, with several steps involved before blocking Mattisse. Should she get blocked the first time, she will have been warned clearly for overstepping the ArbCom decision, so it will not be a surprise. Trust is relative in this decision, but perhaps it should be made clear that the stewards should act on Wikipedia's behalf first, and then on the sides of whomever has the valid complaint. I hope Mattisse trusts the stewards to be fair, to call shenaningans on her if she gets riled up, or assist in cutting out the nonsense if she has good points and other editors are devaluing her contributions. I do not believe she should trust any steward to act on her behalf all the time. That is unreasonable. Although I believe the best friends are the ones to tell you you're full of bullshit when you are (but in a good way) and back you up when you're right, the stewards should not be considered friends. A mixture of AA sponsor, umpire, and Dear Abby perhaps. --Moni3 (talk) 18:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

My principal worry with regard to your plan is that Mattisse may be cooperative up until the first actual block, then unmanageable afterward. Regardless of what the actual terms are, there's the chance she'll treat this as if it were a cushion to insulate her from interpersonal conflicts. And once there's empirical demonstration that's not so, she may become extremely suspicious of the advisors themselves--viewing herself as trapped in the power of enemies--and thereafter act in a manner that compels her eventual siteban. Durova^Charge! 18:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps this concern could be reduced if Mattisse (or those who don't seem to have engaged the evidence) were to acknowledge as part of the submitted plan that the RfC and arb evidence do indicate serious issues that need to be resolved. In the past, the tendency has been for Mattisse to be confused about or disregard the exact nature of the concerns; this tendency will only be exacerbated if advisors are not frank with her about the evidence. Having "friends" as advisors could backfire on Mattisse, if they are unwilling to examine and be frank about the serious nature of the issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

@ Durova et al: What if the 60-day block is instituted if the steward plan fails? Then, within the 60-day block, tighter restrictions are placed on Mattisse's editing if she returns? --Moni3 (talk) 18:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Either solution depends upon Mattisse responding rationally to predetermined agreements, once they begin to have unpleasant consequences. It would be very good if that occurs. SandyGeorgia and Moni3, both of you appear to have had much longer and closer experience than I have had. In your observation, has she held herself accountable in this way? It seems that we're here because there's a pattern of overreaction, followed by pledges of reform that she abandons when they begin to become burdensome and resentment toward individuals who wish to hold her accountable for the consequences of her actions. You've known her longer than I have; is there a successful way to say 'no' to her and make it stick, without getting pegged as an enemy? If there is then you've got an excellent plan. If not, then I worry the ultimate result of this very well intended plan would be her departure from the project. Durova^Charge! 18:56, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if your question is phrased optimally, because IMO, past failures to acknowledge the seriousness of the issues and stick to commitments have been due to two factors: 1) Mattisse misinterprets, misreads or misunderstands other editors and hasn't yet learned how to use diffs to support her opinions (this is an area where she could benefit from help from advisors ... she often makes statements that she obviously believes to be true but are unsupported by evidence), and 2) she misreads sympathetic editors who are supportive of the good work she does as meaning that the problems are not problems. This seems to be again happening throughout the case, and it could lead to Mattisse being undermined. It is not helpful, IMO, for editors who aren't aware of the full evidence or haven't fully understood the issues to be misleading Mattisse. I say this after having read (only) bits and pieces of Mattisse's talk page, where she seems still to be reluctant to understand the evidence, or to recognize that NYB wasn't so much proposing a "block" or "ban" as an editing break (in the most sympathetic terms) that would give Mattisse a chance to gain perspective. I don't think we can blame Mattisse for never being accountable when other editors may not have fully understood the evidence and may not be frank with her; this will not work to her benefit, even as ArbCom has gone quite a distance to be gentle and favorable in this case (even issuing positive findings, which they almost never do). Realistic expectations must be in place. I suspect, not sure, that Mattisse tends to see the favorable and see less of the evidence presented; her advisors should be clear and firm if this is to work. Hence, why I continue to think that F&F would not be among the best advisors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

<reset>While I have been consistently surprised that Mattisse interpreted the third RfC to be in her favor, or that some action of some kind somehow invalidated all the concerns within, I was heartened to see her admission of weakness in her evidence. I am assuming that Mattisse 1. wants to edit Wikipedia, 2. dislikes the constant conflicts she encounters (and I have had my reservations about this), and 3. would like to continue to assess article content without the egregious personality conflicts. If any of these factors are not the case, the steward plan will not work. Her input in this regard is invaluable. I think it's safe to say that things cannot get much worse than an ArbCom case against you, so now is the time to start fresh. Yes, there has been much distrust from many editors, but I hope Mattisse is willing, as am I, to admit the kinds of things that drive us a bit batty and work around them. However, Mattisse is ultimately the best person to answer if she can take honest criticism, accept it, and move on. --Moni3 (talk) 19:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec, written in response to SandyGeorgia) Very well spoken. In a way that goes back a couple of posts to the worry that Mattisse would treat the mentors as if they were there to cushion her interpersonal conflicts, until the first block actually happened, and afterward they'd likely get pegged as enemies. What you note her reaction to Newyorkbrad's proposals is very similar to what I noted in evidence about her reactions to my own participation. After I posted a very modest statement at her third RfC--essentially only saying that on a couple of points the opening request appeared to have overstepped--she misread that as full vindication. Then when I proposed a very modest remedy at ANI--essentially allowing no more than administrators are already authorized to do but stating so explicitly so there wouldn't be drama if they actually did it--she misread again and pegged me as an opponent. From other presentations by people who attempted to assist her in the past, it appears that this tendency to erase shades of gray and view things in black and white has occurred several times before, and ultimately led to the present dilemma. Is that analysis accurate? In what way would an advisory team escape the same fate?

Or to put this another way, there may be two binary paths where she either remains unfettered and in good standing, or else goes 'on the outs' with a downward trajectory. Obviously she contributes a lot of good that we'd want to keep and honor; if she would only take ownership of the rest and correct it she'd become one of the site's most beloved and respected editors. That ideal resolution isn't likely to happen, so we're caught with the risk of losing the good with the bad. The only workaround I've ever come up with was the proposal to authorize third party refactorings of her posts. That way she isn't under visible restriction; if she overreacts for a moment it doesn't really stick. A thin layer of Teflon might do a lot of good if we applied it wisely. Durova^Charge! 19:32, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I can't say if your analysis is accurate, but it does reflect my experience. For example, I was an early defendor and mentor of Mattisse, yet she responded with antagonism for reasons as yet understood. Another example is the statement I've seen frequently here that I "invited her back" to FAC, unsupported by diffs. I don't invite or disinvite anyone from or to FAC; when she had seemed to understand and accept the RfC, I extended a hand to her, appreciating her recent reviews at FAC, hoping it would help her feel more accepted. Different than "inviting her back", which is how she interpreted it. Her advisors must understand how often she does see things in black and white terms, and impress upon her the need to back her antagonistic statements towards others with diffs that she understands, and if she doesn't understand them, to ask for clarification. I am concerned about the tone of her posts on her talk in reaction to NYB's most generous wording about an extended break, and yet, once again, Mattisse can't be blamed, since other editors jumped on that same "BAN BLOCK" bandwagon, and failed to get the point of just how gentle NYB was being. An extended break would be good for most of us; considering how often Mattisse expresses frustration on Wiki, it might be helpful for her to recognize the benefits of occasional time off, but the break is only of benefit if one truly walks away for a while, accepts that the WikiWorld will tur without us, and takes time to smell the roses and develop other, less addictive interests outside of Wiki. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Here's part of the dilemma: she does tend to elicit negative reactions from people who were formerly gentle. Does that mean we cannot hold her responsible, or is there deliberate provocation on her part that contributes to the pattern? Durova^Charge! 20:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Again, much of this will be ironed out in the initial workings and it may not be very pretty. I hope that the stewards will tell Mattisse when she is overreacting, offer her a different perspective, and she can accept it, grumble a bit perhaps, but eventually let it go. The system should have several levels of failure built in, such as the temporary topic ban and block that is currently proposed. If it becomes apparent that all consequences have been exhausted and problems continue, then it is time to bring it back to ArbCom, admit the failure and propose a solution where Mattisse fends for herself and has no choice about accepting the consequences of the committee, whatever it may be. --Moni3 (talk) 20:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Responding to SandyGeorgia, I think it makes eminent good sense for those editors to be selected as mentors or stewards who (1) have a high opinion of Mattisse's talent and (2) enjoy the respect of those editors who have had troublesome encounters with Mattisse in the past. Mattisse's friends can and will provide support as well – that is what friends are for – but it is important that the stewards/mentors are people whose judgment both sides have confidence in. JN466 19:39, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The question, Jayen, is whether those stewards/mentors would retain Mattisse's confidence if they actually used the powers Moni3 proposes. Durova^Charge! 19:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. But I suspect Mattisse knows that she can't afford to alienate her mentors. There is nowhere to go after that. At some point, should it ever come to that, she will have to take a deep breath and allow the possibility that she is mistaken if three of the people who most respect her work, talent and enthusiasm are telling her that she is. JN466 19:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Again, that presumes she will undertake a nuanced and rational assessment of this situation. It would be wonderful if she does. Have you known her to do so? Durova^Charge! 20:04, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Responding to Jayen466 (and other comments on Moni's talk page from Philcha), I'd ask just who it is that has expressed that they don't respect Mattisse's work? It's not her work, but the behavioral issues and the personalization of issues and disruption of content review processes that are the concern. I can't recall anyone here who has disrespected her work when she engages unemotionally. There are numerous advisors who have volunteered, respect her work, and are aware of the issues as well. My point is that editors who have another pony in the race and haven't taken the time to fully digest the evidence should perhaps back off, so that Mattisse can be best served and that they don't end up shooting her in the foot. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I should perhaps have said, "most respect her work, talent and enthusiasm and appreciate her as a person." No? There are some who it seems to me have more goodwill towards her than others, even if, like you say, everyone seems to be agreed that she is very capable. JN466 20:00, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreeing with Sandy: I can't think of anyone who hasn't respected her content work; it's the behavioral problems that appear to be the sole source of concerns. Durova^Charge! 20:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Whoever the advisors are, clearly they need to be acceptable to everyone, friends and foes alike; I don't like to use those terms, or think in those terms, I'm just making a point. Equally importantly they have to be editors that Mattisse herself can trust, because there will be inevitable peaks and troughs during the process that will demand trust. I'll admit to some doubts as to whether three editors acceptable to all parties can actually be found, but I hope that they can. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

All would agree that they must be editors Mattisse trusts and respects, but I think in saying the proposed three should also enjoy the respect of those editors who have had troublesome encounters with Mattisse in the past, Jayen has hit the nail on the head. I sincerely hope such a three can be found. Is there any merit in looking for one, like an ex-arbitrator for example, who has no prior involvement at all? Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:12, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I think SandyGeorgia's "just who it is that has expressed that they don't respect Mattisse's work?" is the wrong question. Moni3, who has criticised Mattisse's behaviour, has also said, "I hope that my idea here not only makes Mattisse more accountable for what she says about other editors, but protects her from the ones whose articles have genuine problems, and who are attempting to waylay the work they should have done in the first place by trying to discount Mattisse in the eyes of others." So it's not a matter of either / or, we need to remedy both sides of the problems. --Philcha (talk) 21:08, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Well Philcha the thing to do is select people who are clued up enough to spot that if its happening but not so partisan that they may assume it. Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Edit break

I think we need to put a full stop on all activity. Mattisse should have ownership of the names of the mentors and the number of them (where did this number 3 come from)? Mattisse should have ownership of the plan. Ling.Nut (talk) 21:21, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

As replied on the talk page of my sandbox, I disagree. Mattisse should participate, but I do not agree she should have ownership. I made up 3 because it's an odd number and I thought finding 3 fair editors to act as stewards would be fairly easy to do. This ArbCom I gather is moving at a speed that is somewhat faster than what has in the past. I can accept that this 3 stewards plan is being developed because nothing else has been offered. The alternative, I'm assuming, is accepting something ArbCom comes up with, such as the 60-day block. It seems they're going to decide with or without Mattisse or us. --Moni3 (talk) 21:35, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Do you mean, "I agree Mattisse should participate?" Don't see why a three steward system is the alternative to the 60-day block. Why not five or even seven stewards, whether I'm in that list or not? After all, ArbCom itself, works routinely with ten or more members and seems to get business done. Also, I feel that there are too many Indians and no Chiefs, as it relates to the venues of these discussions. Can we agree that all Mattisse plan development will be done here? I tend to agree with Ling.Nut's last post on a subpage of Moni3, which I quote again in full below. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

"Other editors are involved, but other editors were not requested to come up with a plan. Mattise is in charge. The 15-day deadline can be renegotiated if ample evidence of good faith work is seen. The key to feeling overwhelmed is to take things 1 step at a time. Step 1 is to pubicly reconfirm her commitment to working with mentors. Step 2 is to provide the number and names of the mentors. Step 3 is to begin working on a plan, step by step, one step at a time. Ling.Nut (talk) 21:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)"

"Ownership" has so many meanings I suggest the word be avoided. However I guess that in Moni3's "Mattisse should participate, but I do not agree she should have ownership" the word means something like "control". If I've interpreted that correctly, then I agree with Moni3's statement.

Re number of mentors, I think we also need some back-ups to deals with times when one or more of the "first team" are unavailable. Both the "first team" and back-ups should include editors whose periods of activity bracket Mattisse's. Mattisse's contributions run from about 13:00 UTC to 5:00 UTC. I'm not sure if Moni3's "it's an odd number" implies that Moni3 thinks they should all confer before giving any advice, warning, etc. If it does, the "time-zone" constraint may make it infeasible. In any case I'm not sure 4-way consultation (Mattisse and 3 mentors) is practical, as the process is likely to take so long that the situation may have changed in the discussion where the issue arose. So I envisaged discussion between Mattise and one of the mentors being enough in most cases, with the "active" mentor having the option to call "time out" and request input from the others if the situation looks unusually tricky. --Philcha (talk) 23:10, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

If I may say so, I think this proposal is the wrong way round. It is not for "advisors" or whatever to be constantly monitoring anything, but for Mattisse to have a trusted group to whom she can go whenever she feels the need for advice and guidance. If in the event this mentoring system is agreed to by ArbCom, and Mattisse in whatever trial period is allowed either does not consult with, or ignores the advice of, the appointed advisors, then she must face the consequences. But she is not a child, and ought not to be treated like one. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I broadly agree, or to put it more bluntly (just to take the rare opportunity to be slightly more blunt than Malleus :), if we screw up and our well-intentioned recommendations lead to disaster, then Mattisse is the one who gets banned, not her advisors. Geometry guy 23:42, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

(undent) Philcha says Mattisse shouldn't have control? Normally this is where I would place obscure references to Oriental literature or pop songs from the 70s that would have everyone scratching their heads and saying "Ling's a good guy, but he seldom makes sense." But since this is a serious thread (one of the few on Wikipedia) let me suggest that Mattisse should have full control – otherwise, where is the opportunity for learning and growth? this whole process is about decision making. If Mattisse doesn't make the decisions, then there is neither learning nor growth. Mattise is in control, and acts in consultation with others. Insert obscure and probably sarcastic ending here. Ling.Nut (talk) 23:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying desperately to agree with you Ling Nut, I think that's absolutely crucial as well. Nothing forced on her, her own choice. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Well then. I'm getting a warm fuzzy "Brady Bunch" kinda feeling. Let's quit this thread while we're ahead. ;-) Ling.Nut (talk) 00:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Malleus, Ling.Nut, and GG. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Where to put all this together?

At User_talk:Mattisse#ArbCom We're discussing how to put together a plan. Does ArbCom have any preferences about where this should be done? I also susect we'll need 1 page for the plan's "rules" ( initally more discussion at its Talk page, followed by drafts on the "rules" page) and then a separate one for handling specific cases. Where should the latter go? --Philcha (talk) 14:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Anyone's sandbox to start with. I also considered putting a steward page together the way I envisioned might work well. --Moni3 (talk) 15:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

If you already have some ideas, would you like to outline them in a sandbox page of your own? On the understanding that this would not commit you to being the permanent host and that it may be desirable to copy / move it elsewhere later? --Philcha (talk) 15:32, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Working on it now. --Moni3 (talk) 15:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Something like this that can be fleshed out a bit more once the committee makes their decisions. It's open to editing. --Moni3 (talk) 15:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions for ArbCom plan

I hope the plan will address a remedy so that FAC and FAR closers have a means of calling attention should issues occur and aren't accused of cabalism or favoritism should disruption of those processes, or targeted nominations, occur. How should FAC and FAR closers and admins call to the attention of the advisors when a review is becoming personal or the page is being used inappropriately? I also hope the plan to be submitted to ArbCom would include an agreement that Mattisse will avoid reviews of articles from Giano, Bishonen, Dinesh, Fainites, Casliber or others who have been affected or targeted in the past (that might include editors like Cosmic latte as well); the plan might include mention that Mattisse will avoid FACs and FARs on any editors that have been previously affected. I also am hoping the plan will involve a lengthy voluntary break for Mattisse, as I believe some time away will give her time to evaluate the role Wiki occupies in her life. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Part of my idea was to build a page very similar to AN or ANI, but without the parts that make you want to stick a fork in your eye. Constant communication between Mattisse and her advisers/stewards is ideal. I do not think it is fair that they should chase after her to read her edits. But it would be helpful for all for her to keep them advised of what she plans to work on, what she is currently working on, and what has been successful and what has not.

I imagined the top part a schedule of articles she is reviewing for GA and FA. When their reviews have been archived, they can go in a section of articles past, perhaps with some commentary on how successful her interactions were with the editors involved. For FAR and GAR, I considered that she would have 48 hours to announce before she initiates either of these actions so the advisers/stewards can consider her points and if they need to be honed, they can discuss them with her. If not, they can approve of the reviews when they are initiated, kind of like "My name is X and I approve of this GAR." or something less dramatic.

The bottom part of this page would be dedicated to discussion of her commentary, where other editors who have concerns can post them. --Moni3 (talk) 15:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Some very good elements there! Rather than advisors having to closely monitor every edit (which would seem like babysitting), if Mattisse were to gain their consensus before initiating a FAR or engaging a FAC, that would place the burden on her, and avoid issues of time zones, and give her time to think about consequences, etc. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Mattisse's proposal

Linked here.

I hope that the arbs will weigh in with some guidance here, as this is still in the early stages and there is plenty of time to get it right. The most important ingredient IMO is recognition of the eight support votes at:

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 has wronged her, sometimes under captions such as "plague" or "torment."

With recognition and acknowledgement of these concerns by all parties (balanced by the positive findings from ArbCom), there should be little left to resolve. Without recognition of these concerns, there may be no plan that will work to Mattisse's and Wiki's benefit. I'm not seeing that recognition emerging yet in this plan, and still see indications that not all mentors have factored the significance of this finding, while some of them seem to be advocating round-the-clock handholding rather than Mattisse simply acknowledging the behavioral changes needed. I'd also hope that the arbs will assure that the final plan doesn't turn the various content review processes into battlegrounds should a large panel of advisors disagree; I'm seeing some possibilities for that to happen beginning to emerge. It would not be healthy for Mattisse or for Wiki if disagreements among advisors were to be played out at GAN, GAR, FAC, FAR, DYK, etc. A plan that will have a large panel of advisors managing FACs would not be a good outcome, IMO. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Understood, but I think that the proposal, whether stated or not, was for only one person per incident to "step in" regarding Mattisse. I know that, as one of those listed, if I were to see one of the others already step in to deal with the matter I wouldn't invovle myself. There are enough other things to do than to fight with someone else over the actions of a third party whom we have both agreed to help mentor. John Carter (talk) 16:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I somewhat agree with you SandyG. I too don't think that Mattisse would be well served by a bunch of mentors who share her view that there is or has been some kind of conspiracy against her, and that she has been entirely without blame. What's needed is a realistic assessment and understanding of the circumstances that brought us here by all parties, including Mattisse's mentors. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree. A recipe for disaster all round.Fainites ^barleyscribs 20:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I uh...went and had a bit of a life last night and as a result, everything after Ling.Nut insisted everyone stop talking about this is um... I'm lost again. What I put together has changed significantly. That's ok, but I have questions.

• Is what is in my sandbox right now what Mattisse is considering being what her mentors shall be directed to do per the final decision? Or are editors still working and changing this without her approval?
• Are there a set number of mentors, or is it open to anyone who feels like volunteering at the time? If this is the case, I think this is a recipe for...the nicer word for clusterfuck. I think there should be a set number of mentors and they should have specific expectations. I will continue to say this: if there are not specific consequences for specific actions lined out it will open any future conflicts to individual interpretation (it's not that bad, I've seen worse, we're not allowed to do that, we need consensus, etc), further conflict, further drama, and I guarantee we will be back here arguing about what to do under certain circumstances.
• I note in my sandbox it says the page is for Mattisse and her mentors only. How would editors not previously involved contact the page to express concerns or their thoughts?
• And some other things I'm unclear on. --Moni3 (talk) 17:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Hope you had a good time, Moni3. As you said, the proposal needs to get specific fairly quickly so that: Mattisse has a clear idea of what's involved and how well it will work for her; we all have a better chance of eliminating bugs before they bite anyone - and the most likely victim be Mattisse, as G-guy said yesterday.

Re number of mentors, the proposal you and I have worked on has always stated that the number should be fixed and the individuals accepted by both Mattisse and ArbCom - as you said, a free-for-all would be a disaster.

IMO 6-9 mentors would be good, to allow for vacation & emergency cover, and for rotation, and for time-zone issues, including the peculiar ones of Wikipedia.

But for any one incident, one mentor should handle it initially - that's common sense and I can see enough support for that idea above. Ideally the front-line handler should be one who can stay with the incident for a few hours - but we mustn't overload the furthest west mentor, so that will need to be worked when we see the full line-up. However the front-line handler should have the option to call a "time out" for a "mentors' conference" if something looks really tricky. --Philcha (talk) 18:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm a bit concerned about Mattisse's recent statement [1] that she doesn't feel comfortable consulting anyone with the power to sanction her. What will be the consequences for continuation of the behavior that arbcom is finding problematic? Will we be right back here? Karanacs (talk) 18:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm concerned about that as well, and I'm also concerned about this proposed large panel of advisers. What could be so important that the proper response from Mattisse wouldn't be to walk away from whatever is causing her stress and later, with a cool head, discuss the problem with her mentors. I am very uncomfortable with this idea of providing round-the-clock cover; to me that means that Mattisse will not be in control of the situation. So far as seeking advice from those with the power to sanction, that's something each of us does every day, and something that Mattisse needs to get comfortable about. Even I, probably one of the fiercest critics of wikipedia's admin system, don't give a shit whether I'm talking to an administrator with the power to block me or not, and neither should Mattisse. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The same statement worried me as well. I thought it was just me. The round the clock cover isn't as worrisome as the fact that there may be no structure. If 8 or 9 mentors jump into a situation, it could spiral out of control more quickly than if 1 or 2 were involved. --Moni3 (talk) 18:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it would work, and I wouldn't take part in any such proposal. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

This leads me to another concern: I absolutely acknowledge that Mattisse must have a stake in whatever the decision is. But now I'm confused about who is developing the proposal, and it appears that we don't really have a say in what the proposal is anyway. So it may be a moot point how we may state what we take part in. I don't even know what to ask here to clarify what I need to know. --Moni3 (talk) 18:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

For me it's very clear. I agreed to be a sounding board, not at the end of a round-the-clock Samaritans help line. This is not real life; stuff can wait. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Please slow down folks. At the moment User:Mattisse/Plan is a redlink, not even a draft. The current motion posits that Mattisse has 15 days from the "decision" (which can only mean the closure of this case, as a passing vote can change - and has already in this case) to submit a plan. It is possible that this motion will be replaced by one requiring a plan before the closure of the case, but I sincerely hope Mattisse will be given at least 15 days from now to submit it.

She needs that time: if she, in conjunction with those willing to help her, is unable to come up with a plan that is acceptable to the community, in the judgement of Arbcom, then she will likely be subject to harsher remedies, possibly including a ban. This "I'm concerned about this, I don't yet see that emerging" kind of pressure is premature. Much of a Proposed Decision is in place; at this stage it should be possible to spend some time away from the case and not be confused by developments on return. Geometry guy 19:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• But User talk:Mattisse/Plan is not a redlink. It is an attempt to develop a plan with input from my advisors. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 20:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Whats the big issue about "round the clock" or "emergency cover? A lot of Mattisses editing is problem free. If something looks potentially contentious, Mattisse can consult advisors at her leisure first. If Mattisse gets into a pickle then surely it can wait a bit until an advisor is available. Then they'd need time to give it a bit of thought surely. Hardly anything on Wiki is that urgent. I think this long list of mixed editors of those who do percieve a problem and those who don't is both unecessary and fraught with potential problems. Fainites ^barleyscribs 20:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

That's my view as well. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to all interested editors to participate in development of plan for Mattisse for ArbCom at User talk:Mattisse/Plan

• Although it has not been passed yet, ArbCom has so far suggested that I come up with a plan in conjunction with one or more of my advisers. Mattisse shall, in conjunction with one or more mentors or advisers, submit to this Committee for approval a plan to govern and guide her future editing with the continued assistance of those mentors or advisers.

I gratefully accept ArbCom's suggestion that I and one or more of my mentors develop a plan. I would like to invite all those editors interested in my positive development and my future constructive contribution to the encyclopedia to contribute to the development of my plan at User talk:Mattisse/Plan.

I am not sure if I should post this here or on the workshop page.

Warmest regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 22:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Final plan for Mattisse

This is a link to my final plan, currently a red link, which I and my advisers will finalize: User:Mattisse/Plan. Thank you. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 00:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

suggested remedy wordings

1. Mattisse is instructed, to develop a plan in conjunction with one or more mentor(s), that governs her future editing on Wikipedia, with the continued assistance of the aforementioned mentor(s). The plan should preserve Mattisse's valuable and rewarding contributions to Wikipedia while simultaniously avoiding future disputes and the types of interactions that have been hurtful for herself and others. The plan also must address how any lapses by Mattisse from the standards of behavior described in the plan shall be addressed, and is to be submitted to the committee upon completion.

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

2. If Mattisse does not submit a plan that receives majority approval by the Arbitration Committee within 15 days of the closure of this case, she shall be banned until she submits a plan that receives majority approval by the Arbitration Committee. 2a. The Arbitration Committee will judge the plan on its completeness, feasibility, and adaptability.

3. Mattisse is restricted from creating, maintaining, or editing on-wiki any lists of users with whom she has had negative interactions or of whom she has a negative view.

--Tznkai (talk) 00:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Status

It has been 9 days since any arbitrator voted on this decision, and all active and non-recused arbitrators except Thebainer have voted. This section also has Coren recused, can someone point me to where he noted that? Thanks, Nathan ^T 20:24, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I do see that the target date is listed as June 19 - think I forgot or didn't know about the target dates in the new template for arbitration tasks. Curious whether discussion is ongoing somewhere, and that is why votes to close is held up, or are folks waiting for the date to come up? Nathan ^T 20:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I recused a posteriori after I remembered I had had some negative interaction some time ago. I did so by moving myself to the recused list here. — Coren ^(talk) 02:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Outside comment

I've been looking over this case yesterday and today, and my fundamental reaction is WP:Wikipedia is not therapy. At least, it's not supposed to be, but in this case we seem to be constructing support systems of exactly the kind that I'd expect a good therapist to develop -- identifying trigger situations, listing alternative responses, developing problem mitigation plans -- and to be providing emergency assistance from trusted, sympathetic advocates for crises. This sounds an awful lot like therapy to me.

I'm not entirely convinced that this isn't appropriate in this instance, but I am a little concerned about setting a precedent. It might be better to simply say, "This editor is apparently unable to function in FA and DYK; therefore this editor may not work in FA and DYK." WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

As the arbitrator who drafted the decision, I'm sensitive to the issues you've raised. There is some relevant discussion on the workshop page as well, which may interest you if you haven't already seen it. I and, I am sure, others will be monitoring what follows from this case and bearing it in mind for the future. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm also aware of these concerns, which have also been expressed at the 'plan' talk page. Avoiding a paternalistic relationship between advisors and mentors and those they are advising and mentoring is important, especially in areas such as featured content and reviewing of featured content. There is a need for people active in these areas to be able to stand on their own two feet, but equally there is a tradition of support mechanisms on Wikipedia (and hopefully people come across them before encountering the less supportive aspects of Wikipedia), ranging from mentoring and support for new editors, to mentoring for sanctioned editors, to training and coaching for new admins, to noticeboards that people can go to to request assistance. My preference would be to have a support system that covers areas in general (i.e. anyone who consistently runs into problems at DYK, FAC, FAR and so on, can get advice and be helped, including efforts needed to improve things on both sides if needed, rather than have problems fester). But here, ArbCom are approving an individual approach. Which is understandable in a way. ArbCom can require individuals to conform to sanctions, but the wider approach of asking a community of editors to make changes is less amenable to the way ArbCom works. It is up to the community itself to take time to take stock and see if a different approach would have handled things more efficiently before ArbCom was reached. Certainly, if anything like this happens again, with different editors, I would be more inclined to look at the wider support issues, rather than focusing on individual editors. Carcharoth (talk) 04:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what point WP:THERAPY is trying to make or how helpful that essay is. There is an implication that people who sometimes have a negative emotional reaction to editing Wikipedia which then spills out into disruptive behaviour should not be helped - but the advise on the essay is that: "If an editor is having trouble, offer advice, gentle correction, and, if necessary, use Wikipedia's dispute resolution processes to resolve problems. Remember to assume in good faith that an editor whose work is disruptive is likely not trying to cause problems.

"In some cases, those actions will ultimately be ineffective, and action must be taken to stop the disruption of the encyclopedia. This requires that Wikipedia editors accept our limitations at changing behavior or policing it, admit that we are not equipped to engage in extended efforts to change or improve someone's behavior, and follow the usual procedures to request a block or ban. Ultimately, it is not the responsibility of the community to develop or enforce a plan that enables the editor to be successful."

Which sounds like what we are doing here. We are offering advice, and Mattisse is putting together a plan herself to deal with the conflict situations she sometimes encounters. What complicates this case is that Mattisse feels, and there is evidence, that she has been provoked. There are essays on much Wiki behaviour, appropriate ones here may be Wikipedia:Don't be inconsiderate and Wikipedia:Don't bait others. I'd be pleased if people moved away from an assumption that we are having this ArbCom because Mattisse has been problematic without cause. SilkTork *^YES! 07:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

As User:SilkTork implied, Mattisse has not generally been problematic without cause. --Philcha (talk) 09:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

It continues to concern me that two potential mentors don't appear to have analyzed/internalized the evidence. (Where was Mattisse provoked in the Che Guevara FAR, or in the Reactive attachment disorder FAC, or in the untrue statements made about other editors in various GANs and GARs?) Unrealistic advice/mentorship will not bode well for Mattisse. I'm also concerned that the plan would be more effective if it stated how potential disruption should be brought to the attention of whom; a scenario where FACs/FARs/GANs/etc. are micromanaged by committee would not be desirable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

That continues to concern me too, which is the main reason I withdrew from the list of proposed mentors. I have seen plenty of evidence of Mattisse becoming difficult without provocation, and it will not help her if her mentors see their role as in some way protecting her from every imagined slight. The responsibility must lie with Mattisse, not with her mentors, and if they are unable to assess the situation realistically, both now and in the future, then we'll all be meeting back here again when this plan is seen to fail. --Malleus Fatuorum 12:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

(I had this typed and was contemplating the "save page" button with some time while I considered the impact of this statement.) It is difficult to address this. There is little value in bringing up once more that blaming the editors who have participated in this case is foolish, antagonistic, and offensive. However, it is more concerning that editors who are volunteering to assist Mattisse with navigating her way through interpersonal disputes may not understand the problems inherent in this case. It's quite frustrating and foreshadows a bad end. I don't know what to make of this process. Too many opportunities for this case to go awry are being afforded. I do not understand the logic. For my own peace of mind, I'm disengaging until I am personally called upon to participate in some constructive way. --Moni3 (talk) 12:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

The implications in "It is up to the community itself to take time to take stock and see if a different approach would have handled things more efficiently before ArbCom was reached" also concern me. Many editors and admins approached Mattisse many times with contructive and supportive comments about moderating her behavior, and dispute resolution was pursued via RFCs and AN/I. In most cases, this resulted in further accusations of cabalism; how is this to be avoided in the future? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Sandy I think you should just put the hammer down at FAC where appropriate, I wasn't referring to blocks YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 03:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

With reference to Moni3's post and several previous, mentorship isn't magic pixie dust. It's hard work; in order to succeed it requires mutual candor and respect. There's hardly an individual I've mentored who didn't get the riot act (discreetly). Fundamentally, what's required is on one side the desire for an honest opinion--on the other the hard work and gumption to give it--and completing the loop, the intellectual strength to take it. Eighty percent of the time that feedback is positive. The tough part is the twenty percent that isn't. Mentors don't know everything; that takes humility too. What's really necessary is enough trust and candor that both parties agree that when bad news has to come, it's best to get it from a friendly source along with constructive guidance. Otherwise, mentorship might only delay a painful end. Here's hoping the necessary positives exist here. Durova^Charge! 05:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

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

Ling.Nut is retired (again); SilkTork, Philcha and Fowler have made statements leading to concern whether they have understood the evidence. (Malleus and Moni withdrew, both indicating some frustration). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I should clarify: I am frustrated, but I am still willing to participate if the final system makes sense. I have no idea what is going on in this case. Ling pretty much quashed the discussion about it then left, again...more confusion as to where that leaves it. I've said what I've thought. I don't know what else to say, so I'll just STFU now. --Moni3 (talk) 13:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• To Moni3. Ling.Nut merely wanted to include me in the discussion, which continued on my plan talk page, User talk:Mattisse/Plan. Ling.Nut has been in contact with me via email. He gave me his work email, so that I can contact him there at any time. He has made it clear to me that he is available and willing. —Mattisse (Talk) 13:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I echo the concerns expressed above and I cannot see how such an approach assists Mattisse in the long run. Having mentors who primarily see Mattisse as the victim of provocation and baiting by others and whose primary aim appears to be to support Mattisse is a recipe for future conflict or for having more editors drop out of participation in forums where Mattisse is active. Having this sort of thing as part of a plan subscribed to by the mentors does not bode well. Fainites ^barleyscribs 15:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• To Fainites. Although I was originally unwilling to list stressful situations when Ling.Nut proposed I do so, now I think his idea was excellent. If I cannot identify situations that are stressful to me, then I will be less alert when these situations arise. I found the identifying of the situations very helpful. It increased my self awareness of my danger zones and helped me recognize what triggers my reactions. I think this is necessary if I am going to avoid many of the situations that troubled me previously. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 16:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Mattisse sometimes you are too obvious for words! Cool! But don't worry. Half your mentors will miss it. I'm done here. Best of luck! Fainites ^barleyscribs 20:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• To Fainites, another response. It turns out that Ling.Nut's advice was very good. It was the situation [ here on my list that enabled me to bow out of the Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Benzodiazepine/archive1 early, thus rendering Tony1's accusation below as unfounded. I thank Ling.Nut. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 00:14, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

In response to SandyGeorgia's concerns that I have not understood the evidence. I have. There are times when Mattisse has misunderstood good intent, and responded inappropriately, and there are times when Mattisse has been treated inappropriately. The evidence does indicate that there are times when Mattisse has been baited, and indeed on this page there are unhelpful comments about therapy. My part in this ongoing discussion has been to point out such unhelpful comments. We all play different parts, and focus on different areas. I have seen my role in this as building Mattisse's confidence. And I have been pleased to see Mattisse's confidence grow. I firmly believe that with such confidence, Mattisse is less likely to get drawn into conflict. In drawing up the plan requested by ArbCom, Mattisse has reflected on her behaviour and recognised areas of concern, and considered how she can avoid future conflict. She has included in her plan details of how she expects both those named in her plan and "any editor" to warn her and block her if needed. Where yourself and Malleus, and possibly others, appear to having problems is that Mattisse has not said "I am able to take care of myself and I will recognise conflict and withdraw from it in a graceful and dignified manner." My feeling is that if she had said such a thing we would have a plan that would be likely to break down very soon, as Mattisse has indicated that she is not always able to differentiate between the well meaning critical query, and the more hostile, personal ones, and that she gets stressed and frustrated in some heated situations. What people have said quite clearly is that Mattisse is a valued contributor to Wikipedia, and even her critics would like her to continue her good work which helps build this encyclopedia. What ArbCom have decided is that a way should be found to support Mattisse in doing her good work while avoiding conflict. Pushing Mattisse into the deep end without swimming lessons or a lifebelt is not going to be helpful. From the way that she is currently handling herself Mattisse is starting to hold her head above water, but let's keep those water wings on for a little bit longer. We are all different, and while some are great swimmers, others are great singers. Let's be happy that we have a great singer in our midst, and that people are willing to teach her how to swim. SilkTork *^YES! 22:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment from Mattisse

I thank Malleus for helping me and he suggested that his helpful efforts be used as an example of how my mentoring can work.[2] Geometry guy and I have been in frequent contact by email and chat. Ling.Nut, Fowler&fowler, John Carter, SilkTork and others who have been willing to interact with me in an ongoing fashion. They have also offered valuable advise to me via interaction on User talk:Mattisse/Plan, the discussion of my plan development, and by email. I thank them all.

My final plan User:Mattisse/Plan was developed by taking into account all their suggestions and feedback. Geometry guy and I had long chat sessions, discussing my behavior and refining my plan. I am confident that it works. If there are problems with my current behavior, I will be glad to address them. I value highly my current trusted and competent panel of advisers/mentors and believe I have benefited. I gratefully thank them and do not want to engage in behavior that will disappoint them. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 13:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I hope whatever plan this is works

My interactions with Mattisse have been smooth and productive, and I have no reason not to like her. However, I am dismayed to see that continuing drama surrounds her presence in many places. And just why articles in the medical/pharmaceutical areas should be particular trigger points is beyond me: a recent instance is the recent FAC Benodiazepine, which seems to have imploded in a fury of unpleasantness, resulting in great upset to a worthy nominator/author.

If Mattisse is to have a mentor, the community will want to see significant progress, and soon: we're all sick of it. The anger-points seem to sound like the smashing of plate-glass windows. Tony (talk) 14:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• I ask Tony1 and the ArbCom to read what actually happened there.

First I copy edited the article with no problems. Second, I removed the excessive tagging of the article by another editor. Third, I added two short comments on the FAC page.[3][4] Please read them and tell me if you think they are out of line. Please see also the main editor's response, which was favorable and apologetic to me. Forth, please read my actual edits to the talk page. I want your honest opinion as to my interaction, preferably with diffs showing my faults and revealing how I was responsible. I admit that I made a joking comment about the housing crisis on the talk page, and that it is wrong to joke. However, I do not think I am responsible for the implosion taking place in the FAC. Rather, I think this is a question of blaming me because my name cropped up a few times. To me, this is an excellent example of how I get tarred merely because I got involved with an article by copy edited an article constructively.

However, one of my provisions in my plan helped me here. Do not get involved in articles, or if involved disengage, if the main editor is emotionally involved in the article or edits emotionally. In this case I disengaged long before the implosion. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 14:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I second Mattise's request that her critics read Benodiazepine properly.

• There seemed no personal ill-will between her and Literaturegeek, incl at the end.
• Benodiazepine, which seems to have imploded in a fury of unpleasantness ..." is a gross exaggeration. There was an honest diffrent of view between Mattisse and Literaturegeek, but Literaturegeek haha had more serious problems with at least 1 other editor.
• Most of that FAC was comments about the quality of sources by several editors. --Philcha (talk) 15:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I read Mattisse's comments in the FAC and the Benzodiazepine talk page and what I read seemed to be addressing content issues only. Very few comments were made of other editors, and what was present was positive. Literature geek mentions in the FAC that Mattisse had a "fit" which I don't see. If that refers to a particular comment I couldn't find it. --Moni3 (talk) 15:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes this does seem to be indication that the plan could work/is working: identify potential problems; keep well away. Reading the obvious places FAC, article talk page, archives, I can't see any inappropriate interactions with Matisse, a couple of others are having a flame war but that is beyond the scope of this RFArb/mentors.

This does raise one question about notification of mentors. I don't intend to monitor every FAC or every edit by Matisse, but I do keep her talk page on my watchlist. How are the mentors to be made aware of the potential situations arrising? --Salix (talk): 07:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The responsibility has to lie with Mattisse, not with her mentors, and I think she's already demonstrated perfectly well how it could work.[5] --Malleus Fatuorum 13:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I've read the FAC in question, and the article talk page discussions (now archived at Talk:Benzodiazepine/Archive 3 and Talk:Benzodiazepine/Archive 4), and have formed my own opinion of what happened there. Before I say anything more, I'd like to hear what Tony1 has to say in response to the above comments made by several editors following his post here. I'll drop him a note in case he misses this request. Carcharoth (talk) 09:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrator Carcharoth, thanks for alerting me to this thread, which I'd neglected to watchlist. I concede that things seemed to have resolved between Mattisse and the nominator at the end; I'm pleased. But I'm afraid I went in there to revisit my earlier review and saw these posts by the nominator, which made me recoil and leave without further comment:

"Then Mattissa [sic] is attacking me with her original research for example, saying things like there is no way benzos could cause convulsions from abrupt high dose withdrawal and I am biased for even suggesting this, she had a "fit" when I mentioned this doesn't happen with opiates. Her evidence, things like well it is Schedule IV so therefore withdrawal has to be mild. I spent 5 or 6 hours refuting all of her original research with refs. She denounced National Statistics of drug related deaths as propaganda, implying some government conspiracy involving hundred of coroners faking lots of dead people and lab results. Furthermore a lot of these arguments were totally off-topic as I was not challenging the article content such as overdose section so it was a pointless argument. I feel under attack by scientifically illiterate people who have gotten ideas in their head."

"... have tried dispute resolution, trying to reason with people, compromise, nothing works. It has now escalated as I now have two people with very little knowledge of addiction medicine or medicine in general edit warring with me or bombarding me on the talk page with original research POV stuff."

"I also had issues with Mattisse but she stopped when I challenged her ...". Then to Mattisse: "Please don't use original research to continue to criticise me or the article." Then "She did tread on my toes when she kept criticising edits based her perceived view of the suubject matter, I feel she got sucked in by Sceptical Chymist being not medically trained or knowledgable on the subject matter ...".

Now on closer analysis, I see that there was some kind of triangular dynamic between Mattisse, the nominator and another editor (accused of trolling). I may have judged Mattisse out of context in my post above—I concede that—but this sadly failed FAC might still provide a good starting point in the plan for Mattisse to determine how she might have taken the lead to cool off the others. Was she misunderstood? Is there a better way to deal with potential drama? I feel that Mattisse is capable of learning how to avoid these situations—perhaps how to show others more productive modes of collaboration. There's the hope. Tony (talk) 18:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, Tony. My opinion, which I said I'd post, is that there was an existing dispute between the FAC nominator and another editor, before Mattisse arrived on the scene (as can be seen from an earlier archive). Mattisse did get drawn into that dispute (both ways), but in the end extricated herself and as Tony notes, things seem to have resolved there between the nominator and Mattisse. Issues are still there in the original dispute (as can be seen on the article talk page). Hopefully someone experienced at dispute resolution will help out there, or suggest that they seek resolution (and where) before things get intractable. Carcharoth (talk) 19:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Aspersions cast by Tony1 - this is the method used by editors to built up cases against me in the past

(Please see aspersions cast by Tony1 above.)

• This incident points out the extreme danger of any involvement of mine in FAC and with involved editors. I believe the main editor of the article, called a "worthy nominator/author", mischaracterizes suggestions I made on the talk page as "original research", and says that I made statements that I did not make, perhaps mixing me up with another editor. My involvement is not seen in good faith by regulars of FAC but rather the accusations of the FAC editor are accepted on face value as if they were true. For example, there was no place I threw a "fit" and the other quote passages are not supported by evidence. I hope the ArbCom recognizes this problem and takes it into account in evaluating any further complaints against me. Much of the evidence against me in the arbitration is of this nature. However, I do accept the ArbCom's findings regarding my behavior and intend follow my behavioral rules and avoid undesirable behavior in the future. —Mattisse (Talk) 19:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
• I need a method of dealing with this. My experience from the past is that it is not enough that editors (such as my advisers/mentors) weight in on my side to dispel these charges as they get repeated over and over anyway, under they are accepted as fact by those that want to use them against me.
• As an example, after months of harassment, an RFC was brought against me by those later determined to be sockpuppets. Salix alba wrote an outside view, endorsed overwhelmingly, that the RAC was brought against me merely to subdue an enemy. This view passed overwhelmingly with no one endorsing the charges in the RFC. Yet this RFC has been repeatedly used against me. It was used in a second RFC, an RFC that was dismissed as groundless. It was brought up and used against me in the Major Depression RFC, the ANI thread against me that lead to this arbitration, by Durova in opening this arbitration etc. Therefore, this unfounded baggage, unexamined for the most part by those who continue to houd me, perpetuates the so-call wiki drama and my "smashing of plated-glass windows" and continues to hound me. It undoubtedly will in the future, with additions such as that provided by Tony1. That fact that it was refuted here will prove to be immaterial, I predict.
• Unless my behavior is accorded good faith and the aspersions of others cease, there is no hope for this plan. —Mattisse (Talk) 15:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I recommend you grow a thicker skin, cultivate a stiff upper lip for display in public, and seek comfort, solace and advice from friends off-line, if needed. I believe the above is an example of the sort of thing you just should not state in public (i.e. anywhere on Wikipedia). By showing how hurt or downcast you are because of unfounded accusations, you risk encouraging others to pick on you mindlessly, simply because you make a tempting target on a primitive, fight-or-flight level. Don't. Life is too short. Next time someone comes along with off-target accusations, feign utter surprise, ignore it, let it fade away (and, if needed, seek help, reassurance and advice from a friend off-line). Never state on Wikipedia that you feel hurt, or dismayed, because of another editor's actions. It will only encourage them in a way that won't even be transparent to themselves. (And remember that others here examining the interaction at that FAC came to their own, independent conclusions.) This is very important: by reacting emotionally you give the appearance as though an accusation was justified, even if it wasn't. Many people just judge by such cues; few take the time to check the actual history. – The plan will work. Just don't wobble. JN466 22:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I agree with JN. Very often it is not what we say, but how we say it. Speak with confidence and people will have confidence in you. Talk at length about your problems and people will associate you with your problems - the exact details they won't remember, they'll just remember, "Oh Mattisse, yes, she's the one who always has problems." SilkTork *^YES! 05:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Moving towards closure of the case

Putting some thoughts here on what needs doing to bring the case to a close. Mostly addressed to Mattisse, but others should comment as well if they have thoughts. Some thoughts may be better at the plan talk page, so will cross-post there as well.

• (1) Can you please summarise the changes (diff is changes up to the time of writing) made since you submitted the plan.
• (2) Given the above changes made after submission to ArbCom, can you indicate how you intend to approach making changes to the plan in future (whether your own changes or suggested by others)?
• (3) A very minor point: do you intend to rename the page if the plan is accepted and is thus no longer a plan?
• (4) Can you ask those listed here to confirm that they are aware of the plan, and are happy with the plan and their role in it.
• (5) Can you consider whether the reporting section needs expanding. In particular, it doesn't seem to cover Featured Article Candidate (FAC) discussions.
• (6) The example you added here is probably better placed at the "monitoring" page you set up.

I think I've covered most of what I want to say here. I'll go and ask the other arbitrators who haven't voted on the new proposals if they are ready to do so, and hopefully this can be finished up soon. Carcharoth (talk) 11:09, 28 June 2009 (UTC) Crossposted.

1. I am aware of the plan, and feel that it is helpful and appropriate. My role, as I understand it, is to be notified by Mattisse when she is encountering conflict, and to give her an unbiased assessment of the situation. If I feel she is behaving inappropriately I am to encourage her to behave more appropriately, and this encouragement to include warnings and blocks if necessary. The warnings and blocks to be on the same level as a warning or block to any other Wikipedia user - that is to say, not harsher or more lenient. If I feel she is behaving appropriately I am to advise her of this and monitor the situation to see how it develops. If matters escalate, I am to either advise Mattisse to withdraw or I am to make a comment on an appropriate forum/talkpage giving my assessment of the situation, depending on the circumstances. The theory behind the plan is that Mattisse will learn to differentiate between the clean and dirty end of the stick; will learn to back away when she has got the wrong end; and will have the confidence to appropriately stand up for herself when she has got the right end.

One aspect of the plan that I am uncomfortable with is the use of the word "punishment" in the Consequences for failure section. Blocks would be used to prevent disruption, and as a deterrent to Mattisse to continue any inappropriate behaviour. The word punishment need not be used, and carries complex associations that muddy the water. SilkTork *^YES! 11:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

2. Likewise I've red the plan and think on the most part its good. The one question I have is how mentors are made aware if there's trouble brewing. The reporting section just seem to cover DYN and I'm not quite sure what the role of User:Mattisse/Monitoring is, I'd prefer to see something broader as over the years Matisse has worked in various parts of the project and this may change in the future. Maybe a page where people can raise issues for attention of the mentors. I'm happy to provide support for Mattisse both on and off wiki as has happened in the past. I don't think it will happen but I am prepare to use short term blocks if some cooling off time is needed.--Salix (talk): 16:34, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

3. John Carter (talk · contribs) has responded here. —Mattisse (Talk) 18:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

4. I'm aware of the plan and I believe my role in it would be to offer guidance and assistance to Mattisse when she asks me to do so, particularly in respect of any potential difficulties that may arise at GAN, which can sometimes feel like quite a lonely place for a reviewer. I've made it clear that I do not consider an active "policing" role to be appropriate. Nevertheless, if I become aware of any potentially problematic situations developing at either FAC or GAN in which Mattisse is involved I will make suggestions to her on her talk page as to how best to proceed with an eye to minimising any unnecessary stress or conflict. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:45, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

5. Ling.Nut (talk · contribs) has responded here. —Mattisse (Talk) 06:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

6. RegentsPark (talk · contribs) has responded here. Though it was not just reaffirmation, but also confirmation that they had read the latest version of the plan, that I was after. But that at least 6 of those listed are still engaged with the process and the plan is the important thing. Carcharoth (talk) 07:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

7. Geometry guy (talk · contribs). I have read the current plan and continue to be willing to be involved in the mentoring, although I firmly and respectfully disagree with John Vandenberg's closing vote that "The mentors need to grab a sturdy hold of the reins now": Mattisse's plan is her responsibility and the mentors can only facilitate her better interactions with other editors, not govern them.

I think the plan needs some tweaks, such as the removal of the word "punishment" (in association with blocks) mentioned above by SilkTork; I will comment elsewhere in due course. Tweaks will also be necessary as the plan is rolled out, as is common sense for anyone who has been involved in anything new. 1a.iii covers this, and is currently the first choice decision anyway. Geometry guy 06:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

8. I've read the plan and and am willing to contribute as a mentor. My view of the job is similar to Malleus's (18:45, 28 June 2009) - mainly respond to requests / queries by Matisse, but also pass on suggestions via her Talk page if I see a tricky situation developing. --Philcha (talk) 18:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Answers to Carcharoth

1. Changes to my plan. I wikilinked mentorship. I added another example of stressful situations "#Reviews and discussions of articles in which there is a primary editor who is emotionally invested or "owns" the article and/or appears, from my viewpoint, to have a POV." and my remedy for such: "*These are situations that I must step back from, disengage, and let be."; I added "#Mentors are urged to offer me constructive criticism freely whenever they see the need." based on an arbitration's comment on the decision page; I added to Art LaPella's remark "He has not seen any disruptive behavior on my part there." as support that I have no problems at DYK as is still alleged; I added to YellowMonkey's remark that "He encourages me to participate in FAR" based on his last comment to me on his talk page; I added Malleus Fatuorum as he agreed yesterday to be added back as a mentor/advisor; I added "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.[6]" as a successful example of how mentor/adviser relationships can work, and how I hope it will work in my case.
2. I do not know how to approach the ArbCom in the future over any issues, including proposed changes to my plan. Perhaps that procedure can be outlined to me.
3. Regarding renaming the plan, I have not thought about it, but I am certainly willing to consider another name.
4. I will notify those mentors/advisers to reply as you suggest. All but John Carter have interacted with me recently on the matter. Fowler&fowler is moving and off line until after July 1 and Ling.Nut is only periodically on line but available to me by email. Do you want a formal notification and in what manner?
5. Regarding the reporting section, I do not know what to say there. The only area I have had trouble in the past is FAC, as alleged. I am unclear what prompted Tony to make the accusations recently regarding me at FAC that "anger-points seem to sound like the smashing of plate-glass windows." I have asked for his feedback three days ago but he has not answered.[7] There does not seem to be any one voice speaking for FAC. Those FAC regulars that have spoken at this arbitration have been unduly critical, from my point of view, relied on a few examples of old evidence (none of which I was the only person at fault nor was I motivated to destruct, and some examples they misconstrued) and have not looked at the broad span of my positive contributions to FAC. Geometry guy covers GA and GAR but has not seen problems with my behavior there. I can ask him if he would be willing to engage in "reporting" for GA/GAR. He has not been on line since June 22. Perhaps you have some suggestions regarding FAC. I have copy edited several articles there recently with no problems.
6. I can move the example to the "monitoring" page as suggested.

• I hope these answers are satisfactory. I will be happy to address these or other issues further. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 14:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the prompt answers, Mattisse. Hopefully this won't take too many rounds of questions and replies, but here are my responses:
    1. Summary of changes is fine, thanks. Could you please ensure that you discuss any future changes before making them (see below).
    2. I suggest you adopt the procedure suggested by John Vandenberg (a fellow arbitrator) in the proposed decision being voted on: "Amendments to the plan may occur by consensus of the mentors, whereby the changes become provisional." Please note that this only applies to the official plan. Nothing stops you from making changes - it is just that they won't be "official" until they are confirmed (technically, ArbCom are only approving the 24 June version - you should, to be pedantic, get approval from your mentors for the changes made since then). As for approaching ArbCom, the idea is that you (and others) work with your mentors/advisors (and with you), rather than with ArbCom. The hope is that coming to ArbCom again will be a last resort.
    3. The name of the page is really not a big deal. I can't think of anything suitable at the moment. Best to leave as it is rather than end up with a name that might suggest the wrong thing. As long as there is something added to the page following the close of the case to indicate that it is official and has gone 'live', that is the main thing.
    4. Suggest that those listed respond above with (brief) statements as SilkTork and Salix have done. The detailed statements so far are appreciated but not required (from me at least). Don't worry if not all of them reply before the case closes. However, I would want to see a minimum of three sign off here before the case closes, and the rest to sign off later as they return (or withdraw if they feel unable to sign off for whatever reason). Other arbitrators may want all of them to sign off, and may oppose the close of the case until that happens (i.e. I can't speak for the other arbitrators).
    5. Suggest that the default in the absence of anything specific is that people contact you on your talk page if they have concerns, and that you respond there and then wait for advice (which you can request by approaching any of your advisors/mentors) before returning to the FAC (or other discussion area) in question. The ultimate aim is for people to be able to contact you if they have concerns about your conduct, and for you (and your mentors/advisors if need be) to assess the concerns and respond calmly and appropriately. Hopefully, concerns about your conduct will be few and far between. Excessive numbers of valid concerns and/or frivolous claims would eventually come back to ArbCom.
    6. If you could move the example in question to the monitoring page, I think that would be best.
    • As a final point - it's not mentioned officially, but some review after a few months (to see how things are going) is a definite possibility, as is stepping in if things go completely wrong, and this is why ArbCom have explicitly said we are retaining jurisdiction here. With regards to my replies above, if any response to them needs to be numbered, could you say which points have been dealt with satisfactorily, and only number (manually) the ones that may still need discussion. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 18:27, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Answers to Carcharoth

1. OK. Do I have permission to amend the plan according?
2. OK. Do I have permission to amend the plan with the suggested wording?
3. OK. I will leave then name as is then.
4. Done. I have posted to everyone. Four have responded. John Carter, SilkTork, Salix alba and Fatuorum
5. OK. The only problem since the ANI thread which sparked this arbitration almost two months age has been Tony1 (talk · contribs)'s allegations, and he has not responded to my post or yours on his page. As he said in his allegation, he has never personally had a problem with me. So I am not sure of the origin of his complaint, as I would not have known about it if he had not posted here.
6. You mean the comment by Malleus Fatuorum? OK. Do I have permission to do that then?

—Mattisse (Talk) 19:04, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

1. ArbCom need a stable version of the plan to vote on and link to. Any changes after that version are "post-ArbCom". Talk to your mentors about the changes made between 24 and 28 June. I'm sure they will be fine with the changes, but it is a good trial run for any future changes, and how to get them approved.
2. I would wait until the proposed remedy passes (that will be if it gets 6 votes), then say to your mentors that you will adopt this as the way to make changes, and ask them to approve it. Or just adopt it anyway. No rush either way. Final changes to the plan (such as that one) can be done before or after the case closes, as long as you are consulting with others over it. These are technicalities in any case. The more important thing is to internalise how to deal with conflicts in the context of this plan.
3. OK. Keeping the names as it is is probably simplest.
4. Thanks for notifying those concerned.
5. That is a special case, as it was during the case, so coming here was sort of logical. Once the case has closed, I presume the first place people will bring concerns is either the place where they see conduct of concern, or your talk page. It is a good thing that you mentioned the ANI thread. The plan doesn't cover what to do if someone takes concerns straight to a more public venue, such as AN, ANI, or RFAR (or any other noticeboard, e.g. the etiquette noticeboard), or to a more general (but still specific) discussion place, like WT:FAC. There is no requirement for people to come to your talk page if they have concerns (though it is considered the right thing to do), so I suggest you have a plan for what to do if you become aware of a thread on a public noticeboard or other discussion page about your conduct, and you haven't been notified (if you are notified, the standard response is as already discussed). Hopefully people will be aware of this plan, and if people aren't aware, you could post to the discussion pointing out the plan and saying what you think necessary, and then withdrawing until it is clearer what needs doing. Again, the plan is not meant to be comprehensive, and will need changing and adapting, and can't cover every eventuality. Please suggest and discuss changes in conjunction with your mentors after the case closes.
6. I mean this bit. Yes, you do have permission to make that change, but maybe bundle it in with the other changes when you run them past your mentors/advisors at some suitable point. The aim is to get a stable plan everyone is at least moderately happy with, close the case, and then you can get back to doing reviews, and we will see how things work out from there.

Carcharoth (talk) 19:34, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

OK. I am quite tired and may take a little rest before I embark on more of this. I hope that is all right. Maybe in a few days. —Mattisse (Talk) 19:45, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure. The case may close before then (depending on the input from others), but hopefully things are flexible enough so that won't be a problem. Carcharoth (talk) 20:16, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I am taking a wikibreak and when I feel up to it, I will return. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:09, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I have returned. Please note that this page is very confusing and difficult to find relevant sections. —Mattisse (Talk) 14:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

To address Carcharoth's concerns about "a more public venue": my understanding of the plan, and I think it's declared in such wording as "if I receive two negative, comments in a row ... I will not comment further until I consult with a mentor," is that if Mattisse is aware of a conflict situation which is getting out of hand she will contact one or more of the people on her list and discuss the issue with them before making any comments herself. This would cover all aspects of Wikipedia - user or article talkpages, noticeboards, forums, GAR, DYK, RFAR, etc.

To quickly summarise Mattisse's plan - She identifies the behaviours which concern people in "ArbCom findings regarding my behavior"; she identifies the situations which provoke those sorts of behaviours in "Situations in which I tended to become stressed"; she declares the behaviours she aims to adjust in "Behavioral rules"; she shows how she intends to modify her behaviour in "Interactions with mentors/advisers", "Coping techiques" and "Consequences for failure to adhere to plan", with attention to how she will use the people on her list to assist her in "Interactions with mentors/advisers". Those people who have agreed to assist her are given in "Reporting" and "Mentors list". I think it's all there. And I think the wording is loose enough to cover a wide variety of situations. SilkTork *^YES! 23:16, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I have read the plan and substantially agree with it. The one thing that I might consider adding, although this is clearly not something I would count as "necessary", to the stress-reduction techniques is to, maybe, add a section indicating that Mattisse should feel free to ask any parties whom she deems competent, based on their previous experience, mentor or not or admin or not, to directly make any comments regarding the potentially problematic discussion which might help decide whatever the matter of controversy is. So, in effect, maybe me, who has some familiarity with Christianity subjects, might be asked to make any input whether a specific interpretation of a given council document would count as "mainstream" or "fringe". That party would then be free to indicate their opinion, whether it agrees or disagrees with Mattisse's own. Granted, having a "mentor" disagree with her on the page in question might at times be stress-inducing rather than stress-reducting, and, possibly in such situations, the mentor might confine their comments to Mattisse's talk page or elsewhere. But bringing in editors who have some competency regarding a given subject to possibly contentious matters is probably always a good idea. John Carter (talk) 14:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies and thoughts above. Just returning to this page briefly to tie up one loose end, which is this post I made to User:Fowler&fowler's talk page to let them know what to do when they return and see the message on their talk page and the case closed. That should really, really be it now. Carcharoth (talk) 23:18, 2 July 2009 (UTC)