Revision as of 23:14, 14 October 2009 editMattisse (talk | contribs)78,542 edits →Response to SandyGeorgia above: provide correct version of monitoring page before stripped down version was locked down← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:32, 14 October 2009 edit undoMattisse (talk | contribs)78,542 edits →Statement by Mattisse: Response by Mattisse to 'I told you so' by DurovaNext edit → | ||
Line 115: | Line 115: | ||
(the prior to lockdown version is the one we will revert to once the lockdown ends) is for mentors/advisers only. This is to prevent the bickering, the attacks on mentors/advisers that were turning the page into chaos. ArbCom made it clear that I was in charge of my mentoring. I have determined that ] is for editors who are not mentors/advisers to make comments, as announced at the top of my talk page. Thanks, —] (]) 21:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC) | (the prior to lockdown version is the one we will revert to once the lockdown ends) is for mentors/advisers only. This is to prevent the bickering, the attacks on mentors/advisers that were turning the page into chaos. ArbCom made it clear that I was in charge of my mentoring. I have determined that ] is for editors who are not mentors/advisers to make comments, as announced at the top of my talk page. Thanks, —] (]) 21:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC) | ||
==== |
==== Response by Mattisse to 'I told you so' by Durova ==== | ||
I do not have a pattern of behavioral problems since my arbitration. Two instances of unfortunate wording was brought up, and my mentors/advisers were hard on me for that. I was blocked for two weeks for a brief episode of joke sockpuppets. That is not a pattern of blocks. That was one out-of-the-ordinary incident. I now have 73,000+ articles, 89 dyks and one in the hopper. I have created 500+ articles. Almost all my work has been in the article space and there have been no complaints about my work there. Aside from the long standing complaints of Moni3 and SandyGeorgia, I have not received any serious complaints about my behavior, in fact hardly any at all. The work on the monitoring page has been productive. (See version prior to lockdown.) I think my mentors/advisers have been very successful in a difficult situation, one that has been stressful for them. As you have pointed out, mentoring/advising is difficult work and I think mine have done a stellar job. The whole incident today did not have to happen. The page did not have to be locked down. If it was, I could have been notified that this was a legitimate use of admin tools by an invested admin. That was my only question at AN/I. This did not have to come to arbcom because of this incident. What does it matter who is able to write on my userspace page that warrants arbcom attention? Nothing in particular happened today, except that my mentors/advisers and I made some very good progress today on coming up with a format for a complaints page. What is wrong with the format we devised. Why are we not allowed to continue to modify and improve the process? | |||
===Codicil by Giano=== | |||
*If the above is another of her snipes "''everyone and his aunt''", then I would like it known I have never posted on any of her various monitoring pages in any guise at all. Nor do I intend to take part in Mattisse's games or those of her "mentors" ] (]) 18:46, 14 October 2009 (UTC) | *If the above is another of her snipes "''everyone and his aunt''", then I would like it known I have never posted on any of her various monitoring pages in any guise at all. Nor do I intend to take part in Mattisse's games or those of her "mentors" ] (]) 18:46, 14 October 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 23:32, 14 October 2009
Arbitration Committee proceedings- recent changes
- purge this page
- view or discuss this template
Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.
Open casesCase name | Links | Evidence due | Prop. Dec. due |
---|---|---|---|
Palestine-Israel articles 5 | (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) | 21 Dec 2024 | 11 Jan 2025 |
No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).
Clarification and Amendment requestsRequest name | Motions | Case | Posted |
---|---|---|---|
] | none | none | 14 October 2009 |
] | none | none | 14 October 2009 |
Motion name | Date posted |
---|---|
Arbitrator workflow motions | 1 December 2024 |
Requests for clarification
Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification/Header
Request for clarification: Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
- Moni3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
- Mattisse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) notified
- SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) notified
- Karanacs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) notified
- Philcha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) notified
- RegentsPark (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) notified
- Geometry guy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) notified
- Unitanode (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) notified
- Salix alba (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) notified
- John Carter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) notified
- SilkTork (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) notified
Statement by Moni3
The monitoring plan as approved by ArbCom has proven to be confusion marked with a lack of clarity, scope, and structure. There is no process in place for editors who have had conflicts with Mattisse in the past to place their concerns and have their concerns recorded, discussed by Mattisse's mentors, and dealt with in any formality. Mattisse has a page off of her talk page User:Mattisse/Monitoring where it appears to be somewhat structured. However, there is no clarity about how complaints are to be filed and responded to. There are no stated expectations of the mentors or Mattisse. There is no clarity about where discussion about these issues is to be held.
The incident which has prompted me to file this is my protect is this:
- Two weeks ago, I suggested that the User:Mattisse/Monitoring page have some structure, User_talk:Mattisse/Monitoring/Archive_3#Structure. You can see it was met with no reaction until Geometry guy (talk · contribs) asked about it.
- I suggested it again, here: Mattisse responded by altering the suggestion because she saw the original complaint as incorrect or invalid. Actually, I don't know why she altered it, but she did not seem to understand that it was a proposed format for her Monitoring page. , , , , .
- I requested again here.
- I requested again here, yesterday.
Mattisse's mentors have not instituted any kind of cohesion or clarity. I do not understand what is trying to be accomplished on this Monitoring page. Discussions about complaints take place on Mattisse's talk page, the Monitoring page, and the Monitoring talk page as well as individual user pages. When SandyGeorgia attempted to encourage the formatting of the page , it was removed from the Monitoring talk page by Mattisse to another offshoot, , here. I finally fully protected the Monitoring talk page for 6 hours. Mattisse opened an ANI topic on that protection, , which is fine. It's actually a logical reaction to simply the absolute muddle this Plan and its implementation have ...whatever...I don't even know anymore.
This process is no process. It's utter chaos. I am quite confounded that SandyGeorgia and I, two editors with whom Mattisse has had serious conflicts in the past are pushing to get this process organized. My suggestions on organizing the Plan have been met with silence and an astonishing lack of direction by Mattisse's mentors. It is my intention in this request for clarification for the ArbCom to set their own parameters here. Step it up, folks, really. I'll be happy to give you an example of the structure that is required. --Moni3 (talk) 16:12, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Elucidation: RegentsPark has a point and I was in a hurry and a bit stressed, which made me use some hyperbole and I should not have. Mattisse's mentors were discussing the proposed structure of the page, so I cannot claim that my suggestions were met with silence. I will stand by the comment that there is an astonishing lack of direction, however. I neglected to point out in my original post above, for perspective, that this Plan was implemented months ago and only seriously, it seems to me, gone into scrutiny within the past month after Mattisse returned from a 2-week block for sockpuppeting. I do not know how to impress upon Mattisse's mentors that they should be taking matters seriously enough to take some action. They waited until the 2-week block to reassess their efficacy, and unfortunately, little has changed. Mattisse continues to enter into conflicts, which is borne from a lack of clarity from the mentors, who, in my opinion the day after the ArbCom decision should have structured a venue for receiving complaints and a method for dealing with comments ranging from serious to spurious, and established a forum for other editors who have been involved with Mattisse in the past to discuss the issues at hand. It has not happened, and I am really unable to be so frustrated at them when ArbCom itself has not set the parameters for how this will be accomplished. --Moni3 (talk) 17:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Proposal for Newyorkbrad
- User:Mattisse/Monitoring is the only place where complaints about Mattisse should be registered.
- The page should be displayed at the top of Mattisse's talk page, which I believe it is now.
- Mattisse shall not refactor anyone else's comments to the User:Mattisse/Monitoring page or its talk page. Any of her mentors or Mattisse herself can move comments or complaints from her talk page to User:Mattisse/Monitoring. Any reformatting necessary for the User:Mattisse/Monitoring page or its talk page should be completed by a mentor.
- Assign at least one mentor who has had significant problems with Mattisse's behavior in the past.
- The User:Mattisse/Monitoring page shall be archived no less than 7 days after the first post about a complaint.
- Adopt the layout created by SandyGeorgia that was moved to User_talk:Mattisse/Monitoring/Editorial_comments as laid out below, and place specific instructions about what is expected from a complainant to the page, from Mattisse, and from the mentors.
- Specify the problem(s) concisely and courteously, along with specific link(s): Complainant only edits this
- Cite the Arbcom point(s) at issue, with specific links: Complainant only edits this
- Describe what you think Mattisse could do to improve the situation and/or avoid similar problems in future: Complainant only edits this
- Describe what you expect the mentors/advisers could do to help resolve the issue(s): Complainant only edits this
- Action(s) taken by mentors Mentors only edit this
- Comments from Mattisse Mattisse only edits this
Discussion, if any, to take place on talk page.
After each complaint, Mattisse and her mentors evaluate the success of handling each issue.
After one month or two complaints--whichever comes first--Mattisse, her mentors, and other interested parties evaluate the success of the plan as a whole. If the plan is seen as successful so far, constant reassessment is to be done by mentors, Mattisse, and the various interested parties.
If general consensus is reached after one month or two complaints that the system has failed in the following ways: Mattisse's mentors have not addressed serious complaints or have disparaged the complainants, Mattisse has ignored the advice of her mentors or acted beyond their advice (per the sockpuppeting issue where she did not seek their advice before acting), or despite the best efforts of all involved problems still persist, further advice should be sought from ArbCom to include a schedule of increasing blocks.
Awaiting discussion by Arbcom members. --Moni3 (talk) 22:20, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Statement by Philcha
I agree it's been messy, partly because of a degree of piling in. A few days Moni3 suggested a more structured presentation, and I support this - see this and this. I also support Moni3's recommendation that items at Mattisse's monitoring page should not be archived for at least 7 days after the "case" is closed - I'd prefer retention for a month before archiving. To preserve a balance between getting the business done and allowing others to comment, I've suggested an "ArbCom lite" type of structure - the item on the monitoring page should stick to the format we're developing and only the original poster, mentors and Mattise should post there; but there should be a separate subpage for comments by others. --Philcha (talk) 16:36, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
PS RegentsPark summarised the activities of the mentors accurately - only two "cases" were presented clearly enough to be resolved, and they were resolved. As Ottava Rima also pointed out, there's been a lot of full of sound and fury signifying nothing, which has obscured what has been achieved. --Philcha (talk) 17:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Response to Moni3
With hindsight, Moni3 appears to have been right - a more structured approach would have shut down the useless noise. Personally, I interpreted ArbCom's decree as meaning other editors should not regard the mentoring arrangements as an opportunity to "punish" Mattisse. Unfortuately that's the behaviour that occurred, and events showed I was optimistic. However, as RegentsPark mentioned, we resolved 2 "cases" despite all the noise, and a more structured approach will improve the signal-to-noise ratio - to the benefit of posters who actually want to resolve issues, of Mattisse, and of ArbCom, which I assume has an interest in how this turns out. --Philcha (talk) 19:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC) --Philcha (talk) 22:20, 14 October 2009 (UTC) (ce)
Response to SandyGeorgia
- This comment "... they do all appear to be more engaged now in addressing the issues" became possible as we cut down on the inflammatory and unconstructive comments.
Well-defined comments are still be handled in as we see them, for example at Karancs' concerns. One result of this was noted by SandyGeorgia. --Philcha (talk) 20:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Statement by SandyGeorgia
I'll add commentary here as soon as I have time. For now, here is a permalink to the AN/I page, and User talk:Mattisse/Monitoring/Editorial comments is the new page that Mattisse began moving commentary to, from the talk page of her plan page, without any apparent on-Wiki consensus from any of her mentors, and without responding to good faith queries about what was going on. She persisted in moving content, without responding to queries, when Moni3 protected the page. She also deleted content (that I later restored on the new page ), and added commentary to the new page under sections where it wasn't originally posted, making it very difficult for mentors or other readers to sort what happened when they try to catch up. This kind of spinning out of control is seen often on that page; the day before, Mattisse moved a large chunk of text from her talk page to her monitoring page, and yet here she seems to have decided she no longer wants other editor commentary on the Monitoring page, although it was decided mutually between her and her mentors that other editors could post to the page. Oh, my, do I really need to find diffs for all of this? Can anyone just stick a citation needed tag on anything I have wrong ? :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
I understand and respect that Mattisse may have lost some of the posts while moving them because of edit conflicts, but one way to avoid that would have been to respond to good-faith queries about what she was doing, and wait for consensus from her mentors.
Here is my summary of events this morning: I will supply diffs as needed. Mentors and Mattisse had previously agreed that other editors could post to the Monitoring page, and were working to develop a structure. Geometry Guy and others stated that they would work on the new structure on Sunday, when they had time. Based on good discussion, Philcha proposed a very workable solution-- an adaptation of the structure proposed by Moni3. I provided, on talk, a sample (which I considered a trivial issue, or better stated, an issue I've become accustomed to but should be addressed), using Philcha's proposed structure, so that kinks could be worked out before Geometry Guy worked to install a structure this weekend. (diff of page before Mattisse began removing content, which supports all of the above) Mattisse began unilaterally moving my posts, losing some of them, and incorrectly combining some posts to wrong sections. When she didn't respond to queries, Moni protected the page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Regents and Philcha that the most recent issue received adequate feedback from the mentors at the Monitoring page, but the page spun out of control after Mattisse moved commentary from her talk page to the monitoring page, so a clear structure is needed here. Mentors were advancing in that direction when Mattisse began to unilaterally change the page this morning. Mattisse needs stronger encouragement towards patience, understanding that her mentors aren't always around, and working with them before making moves and changes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:29, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Summary: Mattisse continues to make undiffed and unsubstantiated comments about my motives (added: and other editors), including but not limited to the most recent ones linked on the new "Editorial" page above. She stated that I opposed ArbCom's decision, when what I have opposed is the chaotic, unstructured plan, and mentors with varying degrees of willingness to engage (as they stated up front). Mentors lately have worked very hard to address these issues, and good progress towards a new Plan structure was underway. As I see it, the only factor that led to this current brouhaha is that Mattisse acted unilaterally, without waiting for her mentors until Sunday (as they requested), disrupting the progress that was being made, while failing to respond to good-faith requests about what was happening. If anyone disagrees with any of my undiffed statements, please request diffs on my talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:32, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- Update: Mattisse has struck some commentary at AN/I. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Response to SilkTork
There is a page - User:Mattisse/Monitoring - where people may bring their concerns. Um, but this problem arose because Mattisse decided that people may not bring their concerns there, and she implemented that change without, apparently, discussing that with her mentors, and without responding to requests about what was happening. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Response to Ottava Rima
Much earlier, I thought most of the "battleground" issues arose because of the role the mentors were playing; of late, that is less and less true, as they do all appear to be more engaged now in addressing the issues. The best way for Mattisse to avoid "battles" is to consult with her mentors and cease the behaviors that ArbCom noted in the original case. If that doesn't begin to happen soon, even I will begin to question if the time that so many productive editors have had to invest in this case has been worth it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:08, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Response to NewYorkBrad
We are right where I feared we'd be: a dysfunctional mentorship because the initial plan accepted by ArbCom was too vague and then was poorly executed, and mentors had varying degrees of availability and willingness to address concerns, compounded by no effective format for expression of concerns. Arbs have to weigh their own responsibility for having accepted this vague plan in their final decision: was Mattisse adequately served by the plan that ArbCom approved, weighed against has the disruption been enough, considering that so many of Wiki's best editors have been involved in trying to help, taking inordinate amounts of time, with many of the issues unchanged? Everyone made mistakes here, which is why Moni and I have been joined by several others in railing for months for more attention to be paid to the dysfunctional mentoring plan. On the upside, the Monitoring page was close to becoming a well functioning page before today's derailment, and the mentors have been doing a sound job lately. On the downside, today's brouhaha was a direct result of no mentors being available, and Mattisse not waiting to consult her mentors (unless something private has not been revealed). If Mattisse isn't availing herself of so much effort from so many other editors, that should also be factored. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:18, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- Response to Moni's response to NYB
- Good. Put that woman on ArbCom; as she said all along, this is how it should have been done from the beginning. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- Response to Regents Park response to Moni
- On too much time for the format, Boloney :) I put up a sample today in less than 10 minutes, including the time to find diffs. :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:41, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Statement by Mattisse
- Please see See this version of User talk:Mattisse/Monitoring], prior to lock down of the page. We began working on a structure yesterday and were making good progress. Previously the page had devolved in to arguments and attacks on my mentors/advisers with nothing constructive resulting. (Here is a snapshot of what the page looked like yesterday.) The page was TLTR with many long editorial essay. Arbcom made in clear in its decision that User:Mattisse/Plan was to be "my plan" and I was to be responsible for it. I was going bonkers with all the bickering and the repetitiousness of the comments, and someone cleared the page. When discussions between SandyGeorgia and Moni3 reappeared there this morning, I moved the comments to another page, and my mentors/advisers and I are working on a new format. (I lost some material, not on purpose, because of the repeated edit conflicts. I ask SandyGeorgia to assume good faith that I did not intentionally lose content.) That is, until an involved admin User:Moni3 locked down my user page so that I could not edit it any more. Hence the problem now. I have faith in my advisers/mentors and I have faith that ArbCom make a well thought out decision. No one thought that this would be easy. But it is not for SandyGeorgia and Moni3 to control what happens on my user page because they think their way is best. I believe that if my mentors/advisers and I are left along to do our work, ArbCom will be satisfied.
- I made one bad mistake since the Arbitration in creating what I thought were "joke" sockpuppets that made a few edits, that I now see were pointy. I was blocked for two weeks for that. Other than that, I have made a couple relatively minor errors in judgment, from which I am learning more what is considered "wrong" for me, Mattisse, to do by Misplaced Pages through my mentors/advisers. It is not true that they have failed to provide me with input. They have, much of it by email because any posting on the monitoring page or my talk page causes a storm of opinions and arguing from other editors. Please have faith in my mentors/advisers and allow us to work unimpeded. Please do take into consideration that almost everything I did on the monitoring page and the editorial comment page was met with edit conflicts, and I lost much material that explained my actions.
- I agree with RegentsPark that "everyone and his aunt" felt they could comment on the monitoring page, with resulting repetitiousness and chaos. Thus the need to severely limit the posts there to a stringent format, and move "discussion" to the editorial talk page. I also agree with him that progress has steadily been made. Please allow me and my very fine panel of advisers/mentors to work on the problems without chaotic, repetitious, distracting input, in our own way.
- Addendum: Unfortunately, the monitoring page was locked down with the major suggestions by my mentor/advisers removed.Please see this version and the progress we had made. Editors are basically repeating themselves. Agree with User:Ottava Rima that the page has become a battleground. And my mentors/advisers can find other ways of communicating. On an open page, my mentors/advisers end up being attacked. It is too stressful for both me and my mentors/advisers to sustain ourself in this us against them mentality. I am fearful they will not want to continue, as it is so unpleasant to be under attack.
Response to SandyGeorgia above
User:Mattisse/Monitoring (the prior to lockdown version is the one we will revert to once the lockdown ends) is for mentors/advisers only. This is to prevent the bickering, the attacks on mentors/advisers that were turning the page into chaos. ArbCom made it clear that I was in charge of my mentoring. I have determined that User talk:Mattisse/Monitoring/Editorial comments is for editors who are not mentors/advisers to make comments, as announced at the top of my talk page. Thanks, —mattisse (Talk) 21:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Response by Mattisse to 'I told you so' by Durova
I do not have a pattern of behavioral problems since my arbitration. Two instances of unfortunate wording was brought up, and my mentors/advisers were hard on me for that. I was blocked for two weeks for a brief episode of joke sockpuppets. That is not a pattern of blocks. That was one out-of-the-ordinary incident. I now have 73,000+ articles, 89 dyks and one in the hopper. I have created 500+ articles. Almost all my work has been in the article space and there have been no complaints about my work there. Aside from the long standing complaints of Moni3 and SandyGeorgia, I have not received any serious complaints about my behavior, in fact hardly any at all. The work on the monitoring page has been productive. (See version prior to lockdown.) I think my mentors/advisers have been very successful in a difficult situation, one that has been stressful for them. As you have pointed out, mentoring/advising is difficult work and I think mine have done a stellar job. The whole incident today did not have to happen. The page did not have to be locked down. If it was, I could have been notified that this was a legitimate use of admin tools by an invested admin. That was my only question at AN/I. This did not have to come to arbcom because of this incident. What does it matter who is able to write on my userspace page that warrants arbcom attention? Nothing in particular happened today, except that my mentors/advisers and I made some very good progress today on coming up with a format for a complaints page. What is wrong with the format we devised. Why are we not allowed to continue to modify and improve the process?
Codicil by Giano
- If the above is another of her snipes "everyone and his aunt", then I would like it known I have never posted on any of her various monitoring pages in any guise at all. Nor do I intend to take part in Mattisse's games or those of her "mentors" Giano (talk) 18:46, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Statement by Karanacs
I agree that more clarification is needed, on both the role of the mentors and the way in which concerns can be brought. Several editors have tried to bring concerns to the attention of Mattisse's mentors; instead of responding to the content of the request, several mentors have instead derailed the conversations into discussions of the reporter's motivations. "Do not feed the trolls" This has even extended to other user talk pages "I would welcome a response to my earlier question as to why you are taking an interest in Mattisse"
The lack of structure, lack of agreement on roles the mentors should play, and a lack of documentation on actions taken is contributing to the chaos and drama that has surrounded this page. The current situation can only harm Mattisse.
Karanacs (talk) 16:52, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
I would also like clarification on what this means: . I am concerned that fragmentation of the requests will lead to inconsistent advice for Mattisse and much less transparency on what is going on. Karanacs (talk) 19:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Statement by RegentsPark
I agree with the spirit of Moni3's statement above. In my view, Mattisse is under a sort of behavioral probation that restricts her from making any comments that could be perceived as lacking in good faith or as a comment on an editor (rather than on content). As a monitor, I see my role as advising her on how to avoid getting into these sorts of imbroglios and, if she does find herself embroiled in one, how to extricate herself in as undamaging a way as is possible. However, that's not what seems to be happening. Rather, things spiral quickly out of control once the mess begins because everyone (Mattisse included) is in a hurry to chime in to support her or to dump on her. The page quickly becomes useless because the original complaint gets buried under a sea of accusations, counter-accusations, and general cant and the entire process becomes a mess.
However, I disagree with moni3 that his/her plan has been met with 'silence and an astonishing lack of direction by Mattisse's mentors'. From what I can see, several mentors have offered their own suggestions, as have I and there is a healthy ongoing discussion. As a fairly neutral editor in all this, I believe that the main intent of monitoring is to serve as a one-stop location which mentors can use to help Mattisse. But, because it has also become a place where everyone and their aunt can comment, it needs structure and that's what the current discussion is focusing on. Mattisse has to be a part of the discussion because without buy in from her we might as well throw up our hands and tell her to leave wikipedia.
My suggestion is that everyone takes a deep breath and note that the process has so far dealt with two complaints. One was resolved based on suggestions made by the monitors, and the second required that Mattisse be advised appropriately, which a monitor did. Bottom line, the process is sort of working. What isn't working is the chaotic nature of the monitoring page but this is a learning process for everyone and the page will evolve. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 17:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
(Note: I agree with SandyGeorgia that Mattisse should be more patient and try not to respond or defend herself until mentors have had a chance to comment and discuss the incident in question. Less is, more often than not, more.--RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 17:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)))
Response to NewYorkBrad
As I note above, I think it is premature to call the plan dead in the water. What's working well is that concerns are getting reported and mentors are giving suggestions. Two things are not working well. The discussion goes way beyond the original concern and Mattisse does not seem to see where the boundaries are wrt her comments though, to be honest, I think there is a lot of provocation. Perhaps arbcom needs to clarify, for Mattisse, what her limits are as well as the consequences of not adhering to these limits and we, the mentors, need to come out with a plan that limits discussion (and, as a side effect, reduces provocation as well). --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 22:22, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Comment on moni3 proposal
The general thrust is fine but I don't agree with the specific format. First, the amount of work that the complainant has to do is enormous. A simple expression of concern should be all that is required. Second, the complainant is likely to be someone with whom Mattisse has had negative interactions in the past and expecting Mattisse to passively accept suggestions and advice from them is not practical. My suggestion is that the format be simpler, with a section where an editor can express their concern (like unitanode did), and then where mentors can respond with comments and then with a specific course of action (if necessary). Additional comments can go elsewhere, away from the main thread. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 22:36, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Statement by Ottava Rima
I feel that there are too many partisans operating at the page, and that this is not in the best interest of Mattisse. Instead of being a way to help Mattisse get away from the battlefield mentality, the page has become a battleground with many more players. I find the situation unfortunate. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- I am highly disappointed to find out that Moni3 had used her ops on Mattisse's page while she is an involved user. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- Sandy, from what I know you have had a long history in which there was a dispute between you and Mattisse. I do accept that you were negatively dealt with during the dispute, and that there were problems that you were not to blame for. However, I do not believe that there is a way to see you as neutral in the issue. While your actions may be just in regards to history, they are not neutral. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:41, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- Brad, I feel that your words suggest that the previously available options have disappeared and that there is nothing less. If that is the case, I feel that we would be in a regretful situation. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Statement by SilkTork
There is a page - User:Mattisse/Monitoring - where people may bring their concerns. There is ongoing and active discussion - User talk:Mattisse/Monitoring - on how best to use that page. We are working with people to address any concerns. I have today agreed with User:Unitanode that I may be pinged directly. While I accept that Moni3 is raising legitimate questions about the process, because discussions are happening right now to improve matters, I am slightly concerned that this request might divert attention from that discussion, or fragment it by moving it to another venue. The monitoring page has had its problems; however, we are endeavoring to sort out those problems.
I continue to be keen to assist, though good will is hard to maintain (and I was warned privately that good will can get worn down in any "mentoring" situation!) when those willing to help are questioned and criticised too closely. If those willing to assist Mattisse are so worn down they are no longer willing to maintain that role, then we are back to square one. However, Mattisse's "mentors and advisors" are not assisting matters when responding too quickly with negative comments, so a general air of conflict is created.
I would welcome everyone drawing a line now on what has happened in the past, and resolving to work positively together in the future. SilkTork * 18:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- Response to Newyorkbrad.
- Is the decision working out as well as we had hoped? No.
- Should additional time be allowed for things to be adjusted? Yes - because there is awareness by all concerned that the plan is not yet working effectively; and Mattisse and those who offered to assist her have been working on, and continue to work on, improvements to the plan. This is actively ongoing. Plans are rarely perfect and ongoing adjustments are needed. This has been the case. If there had been no attempt to improve the plan I could see reasons for concern, but there has been reflection on the merits of the plan and ongoing suggestions for making it better. If we were a long way down the road and the plan had been altered many times with no success, I could see reasons for concern. But this is relatively soon, and with only a few incidents to test the effectiveness of the plan.
- Should ArbCom provide additional guidance on how things ought to work? Possibly. It might be useful if people indicated areas of concern that required a decision that ArbCom could rule on. Though for the plan to work as devised, and as agreed by ArbCom, the actual mechanics of the plan should be left in the hands of Mattisse and her advisors. In short, Mattisse has to stand or fall by the plan - and Mattisse and her advisors should be given room to make it work. To allay concern that this might be an ongoing excuse for Mattisse to misbehave, there could be a time limit imposed on the plan. 12 months from now ArbCom could look again at the plan, and if it was felt not to be working, that would be the appropriate time to vacate the original decision and replace it with a more conventional one. Though I would add, that if the plan is still failing in 12 months time, it would be pertinent to look into the reasons for the failure, not just that it had failed, and to take into account positive endeavors (or not) by Mattisse to make the plan work. SilkTork * 22:12, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
'I told you so' by Durova
No way to put this graciously: I saw this coming from the beginning. Was hoping to be proven wrong. Durova 18:54, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- Difficult to get more specific without naming names. Do you want examples? Cutting to the chase: the impression on this page is that mentorship appears attractive to most of the participants. 'Structured and empowered' mentorship appears attractive to the Committee also; that seems to be the fashion. So if this is a serious discussion that's a very tough question to answer; there's a respect we'd prefer to extend toward people who are working to rebuild their reputations. If it's more of a debating club question (asked solely for purpose of preparing rebuttal) then respectfully conceding. Things have reached the point where the best option may be to step back and let people see for themselves. If I'm wrong then congratulations; ping me in six months with a diff to this post and you'll get a barnstar. If I'm right and if there's no way to stop the mentorship experiment, then the only thing to be gained from further discussion is the chance of saying 'I told you so', which isn't very gracious. Best wishes; whatever happens I truly hope it turns out well. DurovaCharge! 03:44, 25 May 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. DurovaCharge! 05:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
- And for the record, I have avoided Mattisse since the arbitration case. Durova 19:46, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- To Newyorkbrad, sometimes the conventional solution is indeed the best one. A similar dynamic unfolds across multiple situations: a productive content editor develops behavioral problems, so the community splits between people who emphasize the positives and people who prioritize containment of the negatives. Over the long run those problems tend to escalate despite reasonable attempts at containment, blocks fail to curb the behavior, and innovative approaches fail to stabilize the situation. This usually ends badly because it consumes a lot of volunteer effort and goodwill until the end result is catastrophic (long term bans, resignations, etc.). There was an instance that broke from that spiral earlier this year where the Committee imposed a three month ban on a long term contributor who has since returned with relatively little problem. Perhaps the appropriate questions for the current situation are "Where is this headed"? and "What approach yields the best chance at a long term positive outcome"? Probably most of us here can agree that we would like to see Mattisse actively editing a year from now and producing good content without the interpersonal conflicts. Durova 22:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Statement by Unitanode
The only statement I want to make is with regards to Ottava Rima's last about being "disappointed" in Moni's use of the tools. Her use of the tools in this case has been almost unanimously endorsed as appropriate. As such, OR should strike that portion of his statement.
Statement by user
Clerk notes
Arbitrator views and discussion
- Recuse, still. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 18:49, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- Commment: Ordinarily, when we find that an editor has engaged in conduct sufficiently problematic to warrant an arbitration finding, we impose an appropriately tailored sanction. In this case, in drafting the decision, I found that we were dealing with an editor whose content contributions were respected but who frequently was finding herself in interpersonal conflicts with others. Mattisse had expressed a desire to improve her behavior, several other editors had expressed a desire to work with her in doing so, suggestions were already being made while the case was pending for how this could be done, and it seemed to make sense to allow Mattisse to work with these editor to develop such a plan. At this remove a few months later, I am not certain that the decision is working out as well as we had hoped. The question before us is whether we should allow additional time for things to be adjusted, whether we should provide additional guidance on how things ought to work, or whether we should vacate our original decision and replace it with a more conventional one. Cogent comments on this question, devoid of personal attacks and the like, will be appreciated. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Request for clarification: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Asgardian-Tenebrae
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
- Hiding (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
- Asgardian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Statement by Hiding
Per Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Asgardian-Tenebrae#Asgardian restricted, for one year from December 2007, Asgardian was "limited to one revert per page per week (excepting obvious vandalism), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page. Should he exceed this limit or fail to discuss a content reversion, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below." I'd like to clarify what the current situation would be with regards this sanction? I accept that the sanction has now expired, but if I feel it should be re-instated I'd like to clarify the process for re-instating it. Is another arbitration case the only way, or is it possible to have the case amended? I'm concerned about gaming of the system here, namely that a user sits tight for a year, and then once the sanction ends, returns to behaviour deemed unacceptable. My concerns are based on the following:
- At Secret Wars, Asgardian engaged in edit warring with another user in September. See , , , . No posts made by Asgardian to the talk page while the edit war was in progress, and Asgardian's last edit is after the other user had raised the issue on the talk page at Talk:Secret Wars#important information. I informed both users of the bold revert discuss guidance, and .
- In light of this pointer to WP:BRD, at Abomination (comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Rhino (comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Asgardian engaged in revert warring with another user: a diff between Asgardian and Dr Bat here. Notice the many differences, mainly consisting of mentions of individual issues, for example, Solo Avengers #12 and Marvel Super-Heroes vol. 3, #6 - 8. Now we can see a diff here, which covers twelve edits to the page over the course of two days, four made by DrBat and five by Asgardian, the other edits from anonymous or uninvolved editors. The diff is from an Asgardian edit to an Asgardian edit. Note, no posts were made by Asgardian to the talk page of either article during this revert war.
- Although I have page banned both users (Misplaced Pages:AN#User:DrBat_and_User:Asgardian_page_banned_from_Abomination_.28comics.29_and_Rhino_.28comics.29), there appears no intention to resolve the dispute, there is instead a continuation of the dispute as can be seen at User talk:Hiding#Topic Ban, Misplaced Pages:AN#User:DrBat_and_User:Asgardian_page_banned_from_Abomination_.28comics.29_and_Rhino_.28comics.29, User_talk:Asgardian#Topic_ban_2 and User talk:DrBat#Topic ban
- Ownership issues: Please see this diff. I am concerned at the claim made by Asgardian that the "article is almost complete". It's an assertion Asgardian has made repeatedly in this dispute, see here: "It took hours to complete Abomination, and Rhino was in fact almost finished" and here: "one article as finished and supported by others and the other was one session from being completed". To me these comments completely cut across the idea that Misplaced Pages is a collaboration and that decisions are made through consensus.
I hope that outlines why I am seeking clarification as to the next step in this dispute, whether it is possible to reactivate a previous arbitration ruling through an amendment or whether a new case is needed? I have notified User:Asgardian of the request here. I have also requested input from WP:COMICS here. Hiding T 11:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Statement by other user
Clerk notes
Arbitrator views and discussion
Aware of request and awaiting more statements. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 18:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)