Misplaced Pages

talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Alerts/Archive 4: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration | Requests | Case | Mattisse | Alerts Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 16:28, 7 October 2009 editUnitanode (talk | contribs)Rollbackers6,424 edits →Disengaging: new section← Previous edit Latest revision as of 23:36, 2 March 2023 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB 
(80 intermediate revisions by 14 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{talkarchivenav}}
;Related pages:
*]
*]


==Comments on stress-point== ==Use of this page==
Argh. Is this page working? I've been quite quiet as a mentor as others have been quicker to respond than me.


From my past experience there is a pattern which has repeatedly occurred: one small comment angers some other user or group of users. Over the next few days this spirals out of control with an escalating cycle of angry responses. If left unchecked this can get very ugly for all involved. I've no particular wish to be involved in another such long running dispute and I see one of the task of the mentors as to try and dissipate such situations as quickly as possible. Unfortunately I'm beginning to see the opposite occurring with this page becoming a place for longer arguments which may not be productive - precisely the early signs the flame wars we are trying to avoid.
;Favorable outcome noted
] 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. &mdash;] (]) 08:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
:This is good. It's helpful to keep examples of good things. <span style="border: 1px #F10; background-color:cream;">''']''' *]</span> 17:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


If this mentoring is going to work it will require some restraint by all involved. Mattisse is already working under a restrictive set of guidelines and I would remind her to reread those and follows them, even on this page - probably best to dis-engage. Other editors will also wish moderate their behaviour here as well. This is not the forum to complain about the result of the arbitration the mentors are merely the executive trying to enforce a decisions.
;Removing diffs from the monitoring page


I do think it would be wise to implement the template for reporting here
:It's hard, but remain positive. And don't keep this sort of thing anywhere. Don't even archive it. The best action is to move forward rather than look back. Present yourself as someone who is highly respected and others will pick up on that and respond appropriately. You have the support of many people who value what you do here. Build confidence from that, and ignore those who attempt to drag you backwards. If you feel you can't ignore it, then please get in touch with someone you trust - one of those who signed up to your plan, or any other person you feel is appropriate. My recommendation is that you remove the above. And from our experience of discussing concerns on-Wiki, if you wish someone to examine some evidence, then it may be less contentious and less liable to misunderstanding if you present the evidence via email. <span style="border: 1px #F10; background-color:cream;">''']''' *]</span> 17:17, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
* Specific problem this causes:
::Are you saying that I should delete it? —] (]) 19:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
* Arbcom point at issue:
:::You should delete it. --] (]) 21:09, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
* Expectation from Mattisse:
::::Done. —] (]) 21:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
* Action mentors took:
:::::That was a step in the right direction. '']'' 22:22, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
--] (]): 22:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


:Good idea, but I might add to the format perhaps a link to the comment in question, with perhaps a short description of the objectionable material, to maybe make it easier to see how the cited problem can be seen as being relevant to the specific ArbCom point in play. ] (]) 22:22, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
== Monitoring goals and ideals ==


::Yes, I think diffs are essential. Almost all of the criticism of my behavior has been general bemoaning and not linked to a specific incident. Thus one error in my judgment leads to multiple editors declaring the adviser/mentor plan a failure, all out of proportion to my actual transgression. It would also be helpful to know what the complainant wants as a remedy, aside from the continual calls for banning me completely from Misplaced Pages. Also, I think it is harmful to attack my mentors/advisers. It sets up an attack mentality which has triumphed on this mentoring page and made meaningful interchange impossible. The mentors/advisers are volunteers also. They deserve praise. I understand now why mentor/adviser plans fail on Misplaced Pages. There is not a way, with editors responding in such a negative tone, for any such plan to succeed. Regards, —] (]) 22:40, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Bishonen's post concerning Mattisse's comments related to Geogre has been an excellent test of the challenges the Monitoring page may face. Thankfully the test was relatively minor (in the scale of possible problems that could arise), since the Monitoring page almost entirely failed to be anything other than another talk shop for extending disputes and back histories. I agree with Newyorkbrad that useful further discussion remains unlikely, and that has been one reason why I have not contributed to the thread. '']'' 22:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC) (I'm signing to draw a line: comments on this paragraph can be placed immediately below, but in the spirit of drawing the line, I would discourage this: anyone feeling compelled to respond might instead consider my talk page.)


:I agree with Salix alba, the page is a mess and is currently largely counterproductive, with long threads erupting either here or on the talk page, extending disputes rather than resolving them. This thread itself belongs on the talk page, not here, but while there is no clarity, I don't have the enthusiasm to move it.
'''The purpose of the monitoring page is to help Mattisse stick to her plan''', and hence reduce the risk that she finds herself at RfArb before anyone can say "assume good faith". '''This should be its sole purpose.''' The monitoring page is only useful if it draws attention to areas where Mattisse might need further advice on sticking to her plan. It is also only useful if she receives concise advice that will help her to do so. In particular the page is '''not''':
:There are plenty of suggestions to improve the set-up here on the talk page, and I suggest someone just does it: almost every proposed change would be an improvement, so please use the wiki process to sort out minutiae. I will have time to contribute on Sunday, but would be happier if progress is made before then: if need be, I can do technical things like nice editintros and preloads to encourage best use of this page, but there needs to be a clear understanding of what this page is for. That has not been evident to date. '']'' 22:45, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
# a place to discuss the conduct of other editors &ndash; any concerns should be raised in other fora, not here, although the conduct of other editors may inform the advice given to Mattisse;
# a place to chastise Mattisse or extend grudges or disputes with Mattisse.


::OK lets work on a draft report form until close on Sunday. Ammend the form below until then. --] (]): 22:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I would like to propose that we clarify the Monitoring page with this in mind. In particular, I propose the following.
===Draft report form===
* The Monitoring page should clearly state its purpose according to the above outline.
* Specific problem this causes (include one diff):
* '''Posts to the Monitoring page should be unsigned.''' The Monitoring page should explain this, and state that alerts should be as factual as possible and written in as calm a language as possible: interpretations and personal feelings can be elaborated here (Monitoring talk) if necessary. Reasons:
* Arbcom point at issue:
*# Writing an unsigned comment encourages greater distance and objectivity.
* Expectation from Mattisse:
*# Unsigned alerts can be refactored to focus on the issues that will help Mattisse stick to her plan, and avoid inflammatory interpretations. (For example, I would have refactored the title "Venom Alert" immediately, were it not signed.)
* Action mentors took:
*# An unsigned monitoring page makes it impossible to hold argumentative discussion: any discussion can take place here (Monitoring talk).
:: <edit conflict> Can I just archive this page? There is nothing useful on it at this point. Reading it is not helpful but rather the opposite. If I could archive it, set up a template (which I don't know how to do) something like:
*# The Monitoring page will thus be free to give concise and considered advice to Mattisse on what to learn from the alert and ways to avoid similar issues (should the concerns be genuine).
---'''Draft report form'''---
* Editors, especially Mattisse and mentors, should discuss alerts on this talk page, where the only goal is to provide the best advice for Mattisse to stick to her plan.
*'''Specify problem concisely, along with specific link:'''
That's all for now, but further alerts are likely to raise further challenges. '']'' 22:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
*'''Document the damage caused, citing the Arbcom point at issue:'''
:I have no objections to Geometry guy's ideas as expressed above. The monitoring page was clearly not working as implemented. A new method needs to be created if I am to be able to understand what is happening. So far, I have not been able to follow the page, as too much is happening, it is too distracting, and there does not seem to be consensus. Regards, —] (]) 23:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
*'''Describe what you expect Mattisse to do:'''
*'''Specify what you expect the mentors/advisers to do:'''
*'''Note actual actions taken by the mentors/advisers:'''


Then if I had permission to remove or delete general complaints with no diffs, attacks on my mentors/advisers, arguments between editors using this page as a forum, moralizing, "I told you so", etc., then I would have control of the page. I would not allow editorializing, lecturing, moralizing, "I told you so"s or attacks on mentors/advisers. Frankly, I have not read much of what is on the page now, as I just can't get through it: TLTR. Regards, —] (]) 23:13, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
:I think G-guy may have assumed that others are as objective as level-headed as he is. If it appears that another editor is trying to chastise Mattisse or extend grudges or disputes with Mattisse, discussion of the other editor's conduct is inevitable - although it should be limited to that editor's comments in the specific thread and the incident that triggered it, and not range into other aspects of that editor's conduct. Likewise in "... ways to avoid similar issues (should the concerns be genuine)", the caveat "should the concerns be genuine" involves examining the other editor's conduct.
:I'm not at all sure about unsigned comments:
:*Some editors may be less restrained by the feeling of anomymity that unsigned comments, and thus create more heat than light.
:*As far as I can see, it would be fake anomymity: the Monitoring page's history will show authors; complaints will have to be supported by diffs and other evidence, which will identify authors. --] (]) 06:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
::: The purpose of unsigned comments is ''not'' to create anonymity, and certainly not a cloak of anonymity: as you point out, anyone can check the edit history, and editors are responsible for all of their edits, signed or unsigned (they are even copyright holders!). Instead the purpose of unsigned comments is to encourage greater objectivity and allow for refactoring (as on most non-talk pages). The latter is critical for addressing your hesitation. No one is truly objective, nor can anyone be level headed all the time, and I am not assuming that. In any given situation, all that is required is that at least some of the mentors are detached enough to refactor inflammatory alerts (or make null edits over inflammatory edit summaries).
::: If the misperception of anonymity causes problems, we could ask for or add small print tags such as <small><Reported by {{User|Geometry guy}}></small>.
::: I take your point about other editors' conduct: I agree that this is often relevant to the situation and may need to be discussed (on Monitoring talk). What I should have said was that other fora should be used for holding other editors' conduct to account and addressing it. My main concern is not ''what'' is discussed here, but the ''purpose'' of the discussion, which is to give Mattisse informed and thought-through advice. Any improvements to the Monitoring page with that in mind have my support. '']'' 08:22, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
::::I don't take that point at all. Philcha spent a good portion of his time shooting the messenger when a complaint about Mattisse's behavior was brought here. That has a chilling effect, and causes me to wonder about the efficacy of this process. This page is for mentoring Mattisse, and getting her past the behaviors that caused her to come under arbcom sanctions. It's not meant as a place to analyze the behavior of people who bring the reports. ]] 11:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
:::::It's quite simple. Comments that are presented courteously will be considered. Attack posts are as unacceptable here as they would be against any editor. The "Venom alert" thread was presented as an attack post. I invited Killer Chihuahua to re-present the matter courteously, but he declined. --] (]) 12:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
:::::::Wrong on several counts: I didn't post that, rendering asking me to "''re''-present" utter nonsense; you never asked me to refactor it (although I did, and got bitched at by you for it) and I'm female. Not too impressed with your accuracy here, Philcha. ]<small><sup>]</sup>]</small> 21:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
::::::I regret to say that I cannot agree with Philca above. While it might be permissable to refactor comments, such as in this case replacing "Venom" with something more acceptable, for instance, it is also at least possible that the person posting here might be so emotionally agitated by Mattisse's actions that they find themselves using unacceptable language, and if someone is that agitated it would be in everyone's best interests to know that. ] (]) 14:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


:::::::(ec) ], if a comment on Mattisse's conduct (or anyone's) is expressed in an unacceptable matter I'm not sure that any one other than the author should refactor it, because another editor would might well misinterpret parts of the original message - especially if it was composed in a state of agitation, which might well make it unclear and/or incomplete. If the author is prepared to refactor and, if necessary, provide of exactly what the concern is, that would be fine.
:::::::"it is also at least possible that the person posting here might be so emotionally agitated by Mattisse's actions that they find themselves using unacceptable language" contradicts principles expressed at Mattisse's ArbCom ruling, which apply to ''all'' editors. See for example "]" and "]". Caracaroch commented "]"
:::::::ArbCom said, "]" IMO the term "improve" implies a learning process (in this case by Mattisse). In any learning process, the learner has to start with the simple cases and progress to more difficult ones. That includes asking Mattisse to start by handling comments presented clearly and courteously, and progressing to those that less clearly or courteously expressed. In the early stages handling comments expressed in a hostile way is beyond Mattisse's current skills. --] (]) 16:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


I'm ok with that. The only suggestion I have here is that it should be clear that the complainant should be the only editor to alter the first four points unless someone needs to fix minor formatting. The only editors to edit the last point should be Mattise's mentors. This should not be a refactoring free-for-all. --] (]) 23:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
:::::*Your responsibility as a mentor is not to cast aspersions on the motives of the person bringing a good-faith report -- which Bishonen's report was. It is to guide MATTISSE in how to address the concerns raised. Surely you're not actually contending that Mattisse was somehow in the right to post to that ANI about people with whom she's had clear conflicts in the past? ]] 15:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
:I agree. This should not be a "chiming in" free-for-all. Too many editors watchlist too many talk pages and feel free to butt in with opinions. I think that has been the problem here. I want this to stay on track. Regards, —] (]) 00:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
*Just to be clear, this form doesn't preclude other editors from participating in discussions on this talkpage, nor would it keep them from offering their own view of the situation at the talkpage as well. Or am I misunderstanding the set up? ]] 00:18, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
:*From my point of view, yes, you are misunderstanding the set up. There has been too much opinionating by everyone, including people like you who are apparently not familiar with the history. My aim is to tie all comments to the actual arbcom ruling. This is not an editorial page where editors take sides. That is what torpedoed it currently. Too many opinions/editorials. And the mentors/advisers are not fair game for attack. Remember, they were approved by the arbcom. Let them do their work. This is a work page. Regards, —] (]) 00:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
::In so far as "opinions" aren't particularly what we're looking for, I tend to agree. However, I do think that we might allow some latitude in the "Expectations from Mattisse" section, because there is always the possibility that the person filing the complaint is either very young or otherwise not really able to address the matter very well themselves. It also might be possile to add an "Outside comment" section, but I would believe that such comments should probably be as limited as reasonably possible, and maybe allow for "refactoring" parts of comments that don't add any significant points to the discussion. ] (]) 00:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
:::I'm talking about on the talkpage, not inside the actual form. I don't think this form should preclude anyone from proffering a take on a given situation ''at the talkpage''. Also, I have a not-insignificant problem with Mattisse referring to me as "people like you", and implying that since I haven't feuded/been friends with her for however long, I'm in some way less qualified to address concerns I see in her behavior. That's just not true. ]] 00:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
::::<edit conflict> Yes, a reasonable "alternate opinions" section is ok with me, as long as it isn't a "chiming in" or a "taking sides" comment, but is an original alternate explanation or inquiry about the issue. Regards, —] (]) 00:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
:::::Even better on the talk page. The way the page is now, I cannot follow it and many of the conversations are beefs between other editors and don't even include me. Regards, —] (]) 00:49, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
::::::The main clutter on this page is where you moved all that stuff from your main talkpage. <s>I'm going to move it to the talkpage, to clean this area up.</s> I tried to clean it up for you, by moving all the "clutter" to the talkpage. Why did you revert it, if you're truly concerned about the clutter here? ]] 00:54, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
:::::::You are apparently unfamiliar with the history of the arbitration and this page. The issue of this page is all about me "owning" it. I am supposed to take charge. Instead, I made an comment and it was lost in an edit conflict because the section no longer existed. My understanding is that it is not for you to make major decisions unilaterally about this page. Regares, —] (]) 01:12, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
::::::::I was trying to help you, based upon your direct comment above. And would one of Mattisse's mentors please address what I see as her fundamental misunderstanding about "owning" this page, and "taking charge" of things?<p>I'll ask you again, Mattisse, do you want the clutter here moved to the talkpage? I've already placed it there, with levels and everything fixed. All you need to do is cut and paste this last bit there, and then remove the rest of it from this page. ]] 01:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::I want my mentors/advisors and interested/previously involved others to contribute to a finalization of the format for complaints. Removing their valuable input on this issue wasted the page and did my no favors. Please leave these drastic decisions up to the people who have been involved before your first edit in March 2009. So the answer is no, I do not want you deciding what is on this page. You removed all the valuable suggestion and the outline for a new "complaint format". With the removal of that, all out constructive "new beginnings" where we were reaching agreement are are wiped out.
::::::::::I would have to say that if there is any fundamental misunderstanding, it would be that of the person who thinks he has the right to move content, and then objects and wants others to address what he claims is ''someone else'''s "fundamental misunderstanding" of how such material should be plced. Having said that, I think it would probably be best to just remove the entire section from both this page and the talk page, provide a link to the previous discussion, and allow it to continue, to the extent that it will continue, from that point. ] (]) 01:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::::Do with it what you will. I had a decent little timesink trying to clean it up a bit, and this is how I'm treated? Wow. My message at your talk is the last I'll be communicating with you about Mattisse. ]] 01:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
::::::::::::I have lost a second edit to edit conflict. This never happens to me that the browser cannot retrieve the edit conflicted edit. I don't know what is going on, but I plead with Unitanode to step back and leave the page alone for a while to those familiar with its operation try to repair the damage. Please consider that action not carried out with prior consensus is not helpful, and in fact is detrimental. Perhaps because of your new arrival to Misplaced Pages you are not familiar with the processes in this case. I would appreciate your leaving any clening up to those who are familiar with the issues of the case. Regards, —] (]) 01:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


I would much rather see a simpler report that (broadly!) contains: '''The complaint/concern''', '''Comments by mentors''', '''Recommended course of action''', '''Follow-up''', '''General discussion''' with other editors commenting in the general discussion section. The current format is out of control and it is impossible to make sense of most of the discussion. The way I see it, an editor expresses a concern, the mentors respond with comments and agree on a specific remedy if necessary, and we all move on with our lives. If others want to chime in, either wrt the original concern or because they feel that the mentors are not doing their job properly, they can do so in the general discussion section. --] <small>(])</small> 01:57, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
:::::::], do you think titling a thread "Venom alert" and citing a diff that uses the term "venomous" is a good sign of good faith?
:::::::No, I don't think Mattisse was somehow in the right to post to that ANI about people with whom she's had clear conflicts in the past, and said so during the thread in the Monitoring page. However that was based on my own reading of the ANI case and related diffs, histories, etc. In other words my words ''may'' have been good advice for Mattisse, but cannot represent the opinions of the original poster. The original poster could have removed the inflamatory language and then been prepared to clarify the substance of the comment, but did not do so. --] (]) 16:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
::::::::I think the title of the thread had nothing to do with whether it was a good-faith report or not. Bishonen was clearly angry, but you can be angry, write an unfortunate and inappropriate title, and still be making the report in good-faith. You chose instead to focus on Bishonen. It's ''your'' responsibility to convey to Mattisse where SHE went wrong, not enable her persecution complex. By shooting the messenger because of a flawed title, you effectively neutered any lessons Mattisse might have drawn from the incident. Instead of simply removing the word "Venom" from the title, with an explanation in the edit summary or some such, and then focusing on the problematic nature of what Mattisse did, you turned it around. There is a reason Mattisse is under Arbcom sanction, and Bishonen is not; and there is a reason she is required to have mentors. Your responses to the legitimate concerns were counterproductive, at best. ]] 16:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
I like the idea of clarifying the mentoring page, and especially with the note that posts there should not focus on only Mattisse's behavior (not that of her mentors, and not that of whoever posted). I disagree with the plan for unsigned comments. I think this will likely be ignored/accidentally overlooked. My recommendation would be to make the monitoring page be only editable by a) people involved in the dispute, b) Mattisse, and c) her mentors. I would encourage that the mentor comments should be very specifically targeted at explaining to Mattisse whether or not her behavior was acceptable in that situation (and if not, why not) and provide advice on how to better handle that situation or similar ones in the future. Any other comments should be placed on the talk page. That way the main page will exist more as a learning tool and less as an AN/I-type drama-fest. ] (]) 16:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


:Hi, ], I'm not fond of forms myself. However a lot of the posts at Mattisse's have little to do with resolving actual issues and too much general backbiting at Mattisse. So I think we need a format that guides the discussion along constructive lines. If people find it does not cover some legitimate concerns, they can post enhancements to the form at this Talk page. Based on the layout recently by Mattisse, itself based on ]'s proposal, I suggest:
:I too like the general thrust of the suggestions that geometryguy has made. It would help if the page had posting instructions on the top (examples: please word your comments neutrally, please include diffs, etc., your comments may be refactored by a mentor, etc.). That way, it wouldn't matter if the posts are signed or not (I prefer signed because it is important for people reading the post to know - at a glance - who is commenting/posting). Drama should be avoided at all costs because that would defeat the purpose of this page (as well as the purpose of the mentoring), so comments about the posting editor should be made elsewhere - the editor's talk page seems ideally suited). Mentors can respond to the post appropriately ("I don't think this is a problem", "Matisse should not comment further on this issue", Mattisse should apologize to x editor, "Matisse should be blocked for y days", and various points in-between). --] <small>(])</small> 17:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
:*'''Specify the problem(s) concisely and courteously, along with specific link(s):'''
:*'''Describe what aspect(s) of Mattisse's conduct concern(s) you in the incident(s) you have documented.'''
:*'''Cite the Arbcom point(s) at issue, with specific links:'''
:*'''Describe what you think Mattisse could do to improve the situation and/or avoid similar problems in future:'''
:*'''Describe what you expect the mentors/advisers could do to help resolve the issue(s):'''
:*'''Note actual actions taken by the mentors/advisers:'''
:Comments, everyone? --] (]) 08:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


Problems have arisen from comments that people have made when notifying us of potential problems. When people are reporting on a post that Mattisse has made, they have quite likely been provoked by that post, and - with the best will in the world - some of the impact of that provocation will come through in their wording, even if they attempt to be neutral or courteous. Others then react to the wording, and a conflict unrelated to Mattisse's post develops, which is not helpful. I strongly urge that we stick by the notion that people post a link to the problematic edit, and do not comment further on the monitoring page. It would be more helpful if that page were kept clear for a discussion by those that signed up to assist Mattisse, and Mattisse herself. If the notifier wishes to talk further about the edit, this page can be used, or the talkpage of any relevant person. And I think it would be helpful if we ensured that the monitoring page is kept clear, by assiduously moving inappropriate comments to this page. <span style="border: 1px #F10; background-color:cream;">''']''' *]</span> 08:32, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
===Structure===
If this is a place for editors to bring their issues with Mattisse, I think it should be as structured as possible to avoid any misunderstandings between what other editors expect of this process, or what Mattisse expects from the editors who are participating on this page. I suggest asking editors to do the following:


:I understand ]'s concern that people are reporting on a post that Mattisse has made, they have quite likely been provoked by that post, etc. However if posters provide only links without specifying what they think is the problem(s) and the ArbCom points at issue, we'll get a lot of pure fishing expeditions. So I think posts must take responsibility to define the issue(s) and show how they are relevant to the ArnCom verdict. OTOH we could drop or treat as optional "Describe what you think Mattisse could do to improve the situation and/or avoid similar problems in future" and "Describe what you expect the mentors/advisers could do to help resolve the issue(s)". I'd favourr treating them as optional, as some posters will come up with helpful suggestions - for example Moni3 has criticised Mattisse's conduct several times but has provided several constructive suggestions. --] (]) 08:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
# Briefly explain the behavior that is at issue.
# Briefly explain the consequences of the behavior, if possible (i.e. exacerbates an already acrimonious relationship, potentially impedes the improvement or promotion of an article, impedes improvement through disorganized or unnecessarily forceful discussion)
# Briefly state what should be the outcome of a complaint: mentors speaking with Mattisse about the wisdom of some actions or comments, or a block including the length of a block, disengaging from a discussion, or some other outcome. Some behaviors I suppose, should be made very clear that any user will be blocked: for using sockpuppets to argue with another editor, edit warring, or engaging in the same behaviors as sanctioned by ArbCom. This perhaps, should be posted at the top of the page.
# State clearly that Mattisse is not the only editor who may be encouraged to change behavior, and by any editor bringing their issues here, they should understand that their own reactions/interactions/invitations to Mattisse may be criticized.


::My understanding of arbcom's intent is that any editor can make a complaint, but after that it is up to me to deal with it with the advice and consent of my mentors/advisers. None of the wording in the arb decision indicates that I should have to deal with a free for all that includes editors unrelated to the complaint, lack of specific diffs, or opinion from editors who are unrelated to the situation but are "chiming it". The complaint that Unitanode makes above, that he does not like my wording "people like you" is an example of how complaints can spiral out of control. Whereas "people like you" may be misinterpreted and taken offense to if AGF is not employed, if my wording in making a relevant comment can taken by another editor as grounds for second complaint unrelated to the arbcom decision, this page will turn into a free-for-all again. The wording "people like you" is not the sort of problem arbcom was addressing, especially as I clarify what I mean as those editors "apparently not familiar with the history". —] (]) 12:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Following the posting by an editor, the mentors may agree through discussion how to handle the problem. I do not think the page should be archived so quickly. That appears to be erasing some issues that should be kept open for viewing for a while.


== Sample of how proposed process would work ==
I am as interested to see this put in place as I am to see how Mattisse's mentors agree or disagree about ''clarity''. I think this is right now a problem that should be fixed immediately, and making this page as structured as possible will accomplish this. Hesitating to do it may illustrate serious differences in how mentors are approaching this situation and may indicate this mentor plan may not work at all.
(comment moved to ] , the proper forum for those not appointed as my mentors/advisers.)


== Monitoring page (per My Plan) ==
Should I say I disagree with unsigned comments? Abruptly put, I think that condones cowardice. --] (]) 17:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


According to My Plan, approved by ArbCom, it is the job of my mentors/advisers to monitor my behavior. See ]. Provisional changes to My Plan may be made by consensus of my mentors/advisers.
:Looks good - thanks, ] --] (]) 17:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


Therefore, I believe that the monitoring page should be restricted to the comments/suggestions etc. of my monitors/mentors. I agree that a limited and concise "form" to provide a means of allowing outside editors to make a complaint, per the suggestions of my mentors/advisers above can be tried out, and retained if it is found useful. However, this is not strictly necessary, as any editor may complain to any of my monitors/mentors directly, who in turn are urged to provide feedback to me regarding any complaints. Further, any editor may apply to a disinterested admin to have my behavior dealt with as they would with any other editor whose behavior they find problematic. Also, any editor or group of editors can petition ArbCom to take further action taken to restrain me. This page is primarily a means and a forum for me to interact with my mentors/advisers.
:: I'm glad to see work here moving in productive directions, but I, too, disagree with unsigned comments; we have enough concerns about ongoing misstatements about the Arb that unsigned comments may only serve to further that confusion. ] (]) 17:33, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
::: If it looks so good, how come nothing has happened? This thread has been dead for 10 days. Once the moment has passed and the drama is old-hat, do editors still care about taking the consensus forward to make concrete changes? I summarize below. '']'' 21:50, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
:::: I was going to wait a full 2 weeks to ask about this. --] (]) 21:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
:::::The plan below looks real good, but it might be useful if there were also some sort of indication possible regarding archiving of "dead" threads, as per the concerns expressed above. One option might be that the montiors could decide somehow to agree that matters are "resolved", and agree to archive on resolution, with another option, like Moni3 said, based on recent activity in the section. It might be possible that someone raising an issue might not consider a matter resolved when either the inactivity period has passed, or disagree with a decision regarding whether something is "resolved," but I'm not sure myself how to address such matters in a brief summary. As you all no doubt have noticed by now, I'm a longwinded old coot and "brief" and I don't get along real good. ;) ] (]) 22:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
::::::Fine with me. I appreciate constructive advice rather than attacks on my respected advisers, who have been very responsive and responsible, in my opinion. I thanks you all! Regards, —] (]) 22:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


I believe the monitoring page has not worked because it was not implemented as intended, as a forum for my mentors/advisers to problem solve with each other and provide feedback to me. Rather, it was used by other editors to complain about them and carry on arguments. If other editors insist on continuing this type of behavior on this page, then this page will certainly fail.
===Summary===


I would like to suggest the removal of all comments, other than those of my mentors/advisers. If a limited "complaint form" is implemented for the use of other editors, it must be very structured and focused on a specific complaint about my behavior, with diffs and so forth as suggested above. This is not the place to criticize the mentors/advisers.
It is generally agreed that:<sup>This is my (Geometry guy's) interpretation of and response to the above discussion.</sup>
# the monitoring page is not another talk page (it isn't a talk page &ndash; this page is a talk page);
# the main if not sole purpose of the monitoring page is to help Mattisse stick to her plan;
# posts to the monitoring page should only concern alerts that Mattisse is (or is in danger of) breaching her plan, and advice to Mattise on how to stick to her plan.
With this in mind, it is proposed that:
# the preamble of the monitoring page makes the purpose of the page clear;
# in particular, editors are advised to raise issues in neutral language (on the monitoring page - talk page comments permit freer expression), to provide diffs for the issues they raise, and to be aware that their comments may be refactored to comply with the purpose of the page and promote a productive response.
Editors also have noted that:
# it is helpful for alerts to be signed, both to identify more easily the source of the concern now, and to minimize potential misuse of the diff in the future;
# concerns are restricted to Mattisse's contributions, not those of other editors (including her mentors);
# discussion of the contributions of other editors on the monitoring talk page may help to inform the advice provided to Mattisse, but any issues for other editors to address should be raised in other fora, not here.
Can we improve the monitoring page with this in mind before there is another problem? Thanks, '']'' 21:50, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


This is a page in my userspace, and not for use as a free-for-all forum.
::The summary looks good, except that I for one have no interest in providing commentary that "may be refactored" to "promote a productive response". I don't want to be represented as signing some ] that I have no control of;<sup>*</sup> I say what I mean, or say nothing. Consequently, it's fine by me if the instructions state that people's comments may be ''removed'' if they're not useful, or something like that. Admittedly, my opinion of the plan is not the most important, since I'm not that likely to post on the "Monitoring" page again after finding my original input unwelcome; still, I don't think I'm the only editor who doesn't care to be refactored. ] | ] 23:50, 4 October 2009 (UTC).
::<small>*"The underlying theory of Newspeak is that if something can't be said, then it can't be thought". Misplaced Pages article, ].</small>
I appreciate all feedback from my mentors/advisers on what to do next.


Regards, —] (]) 14:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
:::No, you're not alone in that view. This will very likely be my only posting on this page, as my comments to date have been almost uniformly ignored by Mattisse. --] ] 23:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


* <edit conflict> (further comments by other editors moved to ] This page is a work page for my mentors/editors only). —] (]) 15:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
::::Actually, that was precisely why I proposed unsigned posts. There was no consensus for that. Comments of a subjective nature can always be made on the talk page. '']'' 01:00, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) I still think that refactoring is a good idea. Assuming that the objective is to keep Matisse focused on the many useful things she does on wikipedia and keep her away from the stuff that is a no-no, it is important not to make this a 'dump on Mattisse' page. Removing is one way of ensuring polite discourse, but then we may lose essential input. We don't want Newspeak to become nospeak (so to speak)! --] <small>(])</small> 02:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


Stop moving comments until it is decided what these pages are for or I will protect this page. --] (]) 15:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
== Concerns regarding "shooting the messenger" ==


I have fully protected this page for 6 hours. --] (]) 15:36, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
As raised by Unitanode "I have some real problems with how Philcha dealt with the concerns raised on this page. It's not helpful to Mattisse at all, and in some ways enables the persecution complex. " and others on the main page.


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


One basic principle we should keep in mind is that Mattisse is a human being and we humans don't take kindly to being preached at or talked down to. If the purpose of the monitoring process is to keep Mattisse doing the good stuff she does here then we must recognize that and take steps to keep the page simple and to keep everything as clinical and non-judgemental as possible. With that in mind, I propose a very simple structure as well as a process that is controlled by her mentors:
== Mattisse commenting on Geogre again ==
#'''Concern'''. This is stated by an outside agent.
#'''Proposed remedy'''. Only mentors can add remedies. I don't like the idea of outside agents adding remedies because they may not be neutral agents and this will only rile Mattisse.
#'''Follow-up''' Whether the remedy was successful or not
#'''Mentor discussion'''.
#'''Statement by Mattisse'''. This needs some thought as to what she should and should not say here.
#'''Statements by others'''. Rather than one long threaded discussion that goes back and forth, let others have their say in their own subsections.


I'm not married to this structure but I think we need to have control over the page and not cede that to others, not even (with apologies!) to Mattisse. --] <small>(])</small> 10:07, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I happen to have SlimVirgin's talkpage watchlisted, and noticed Mattisse made regarding Geogre. Was not this a part of her "plan" or whatever? I was under the impression that she needed to quit inserting herself into situations regarding Geogre, Bishonen, and Giano, as well as other users on her plague list. ]] 23:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
:No, I do not believe it is part of my plan that I cannot support another editors view The fact is the Ottava Rima did offer to provides references to Geogre's article. I merely backed up Ottava Rima's statement. My connection with Geogre is that he used a sockpuppet to discredit me, part of the evidence I submitted to ArbCom that resulted in his desopping. I do not believe I am prevented from addressing anything that has to do with an editor that used a sockpuppet to discredit me, if that is what you mean. Regards, —] (]) 23:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


:That looks good. I was also thinking of a "Mentor discussion" section, similar to but a lot smaller than the "Motions" sections at ArbCom. "Statements by others" is similar to my suggestion of a separate discussion per "case", but a "Statements by others" section is easier for archiving.
::Incredible. You "merely" backed up the hostility of Ottava Rima, a notoriously rude editor currently on RFAR, and now, here, you "merely" go on to badmouth Geogre further. So the injunction to leave George alone and your various undertakings mean '''nothing''' ? You're on the wrong page, Unitanode: alerts are supposed to go on the ] page. ] | ] 00:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC).
:I assume only the original poster is allowed to use "Concern", plus possibly mentors if we mentors to get the concern clarified. I'd prefer 3rd parties to be restricted to the "Statements by others" section, and forcibly moved there if necessary.
::::Just noticed this from Bishonen. The main page had been organized as if it were to simply contain the plan. And when I put an alert there one other time, it was moved here, so I thought this was right. Sorry for my mistake. ]] 00:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
:I understand "I don't like the idea of outside agents adding remedies because they may not be neutral agents and this will only rile Mattisse". However:
::::I think it is perfectly clear from the diff that my posts are far from hostile and that I was working to help Geogre. The only thing you could consider "hostile" is when I pointed out that one of -your- articles at FAR did not reflect critical consensus as it left out some major Theatre historians who were about and well known from the 60s to the 90s. That was a major gap that was neglected. When it came to Geogre's articles, the only problems were citations. I had no problems with his citation style. Furthermore, -I- initiated the Rfar and it is about people like you causing problems, not about me causing problems, which is clear from the evidence put forth. Your statement above reflects the problem and I will ask you to apologize for your blatantly incorrect statements above. ] (]) 02:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
:* Some original posters may have constructive suggestions that may be a good basis for action, and we should ''consider'' whether original posters should be allowed to propose remedies in the "Concern" section.
:* While we don't want 3rd parties trying to grab control or cause confusion, if they propose appropriate remedies ''in "Statements by others"'' we can use or ignore them. --] (]) 12:53, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
::My main concern with letting others propose remedies is that they may be excessive and not neutrally worded and may force Mattisse to respond to the complaint (that's pretty much when all hell breaks loose!). Much better for proposals to come from her mentors (who can also decide whether a remedy is needed or not - some complaints may not be justified). The thing is, IMO, that the point of mentorship is not to provide relief to other, possibly aggrieved editors, but rather to channel Mattisse in the right direction. And it is the job of the mentors to do that channeling. --] <small>(])</small> 14:58, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
:::It looks godd, although I have two concerns. "Statements by others" looks like it could really be an accident waiting to happen. Having some pretty clearly defined rules which govern what can and cannot be considered relevant for conclusion there would be a definite plus. Also, "Follow-up" is going to be hard to define the content of too. Would this include, for instance, checking (x) time later whether the previous suggestions worked, os some statement when we might become involved should similar problematic behavior arise, or what? It would probably help if the intended content for that section were a bit clearer than it is right now. ] (]) 15:10, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
::::I agree about "Statements by others" being too open ended but don't really see how we can control what goes in there (Mattisse really has to learn not to respond to everything!). About the Follow-up, I'm not really sure what I meant to put there. Something vaguely along the lines of "Mattisse struck her comments on editor xxx's page and here is the diff". Not sure what else would go there but I guess we also need some way of seeing patterns of problematic behavior and this section could help keep track of that. --] <small>(])</small> 15:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Can you all help the rest of us understand what is wrong with Moni's proposal on the Arb page? Understanding your thinking may help avoid another train wreck, and several of us regret having backed down earlier on making sure a workable plan was put in place. ] (]) 15:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
: And would you all mind using one of the samples on the "Editorial" page to work out any kinks here on talk before something is installed? ] (]) 15:27, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
::(ec):Moni3's proposal is fine except for its emphasis on the complainant. Letting the person complaining define the remedy is not, in my opinion, going to work. --] <small>(])</small> 15:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
::: Makes sense (but my recollection is that her model asked for suggestions for mentors more than defining the remedy ... ??? ... as in my samples on the "Editorial" page.) ] (]) 15:32, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
:::: (So that's where the disappeared stuff went - I should have checked!) Both your proposal as well as moni3's specifically ask the complainant what they think Mattisse could do to improve the situation and what mentors should do. That is the part I don't think will work. --] <small>(])</small> 15:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


(ec) For the most part, I like the example RegentsPark posted, although, like John Carter, I'm unsure what follow-up would/should be used for. Perhaps the Statements by Others could be split into two sections. Involved editors (who may be able to provide valuable context but were not the one who filed the complaint), could post on the main page, while editors uninvolved in that particular dispute would be restricted to the talk page? I would also encourage that no '''uninvolved''' editor be allowed to post until after a) Mattisse has made her initial statement on this issue and b) at least one of the mentors has weighed in on this page. That would give a little break for tempers to calm and allow comments to be more appropriately addressed at the potential response. ] (]) 15:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
:::Mattisse, Geogre hasn't edited in two months. I don't really understand why there would be a need to criticize him at all at this point, irrespective of any disputes you might have had with him in the past. ] (]) 00:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
::::I have no idea why this utterly unhelpful thread was started precisely at the moment that productive discussion had recommenced on this page. I intend to move it to another page and at the moment, my preferred candidate is ]. '']'' 00:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
:::::(edit conflict) I have not criticized him. Please look at the diff offered above. I merely backed up that Ottava Rima was making a true statement. Why cannot the truth be stated without attack? Why so much defense of Geogre who was desopped, in part, for using sockpuppets to diminish my credibility. Why I am I the bad guy when the editor was desyopped, in part because of his duplicitous edits regarding me. I do not understand the "values" of arbcom members. This is the problem with the "monitoring" page. Regards, —] (]) 00:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
::::*"Utterly unhelpful", eh? What are we ''supposed'' to do when we see Mattisse violating her plan? I thought his page was FOR that purpose. If this is how her "mentors" are going to treat good-faith notices, then what's the point of the plan? ]] 00:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


* <edit conflict> I also like RegentsPark's example. My suggestions:
:::::(ec) Geometry Guy: no idea why the thread was started.. ? That sounds like you're criticizing Unitanode for coming here to alert the mentors to Mattisse's inappropriate behavior. Remember her request, just above, for suggestions on "how to get along with those editors"? (Here's a simple tip, Mattisse: teaming up with Ottava Rima ain't it.) I hope that's not what you meant. I suppose you're not trying to warn off ''everybody'' from using these pages at all? ] | ] 00:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC).
*'''Directions'''. I think there needs to be directions to be concise. e.g. Describe in a concise sentence, or something similar. (This is to prevent an extended, unfocused description.)
::::::I don't know that there's any other way to take what GG wrote. ]] 00:37, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
*'''Only one incident at a time'''. Only one incident should be dealt with in any one complaint. The one incident should be supported by one or two diffs. (This is to prevent the unfocused laundry list of complaints and diffs of varying relevance and widely varying timestamps as previously was the case.)
*'''Content of page strictly controlled'''. Care must be made in monitoring any "statements by others" on this page to prevent arguing, attacks on mentors/advisers, discussions between editors that are not advisers/mentors etc. Every effort must be made to keep this page clear and focused. Emotional wording should be avoided/removed, as should editorial comments on the process. There should be another page for discussions of the process and suggested changes to it.
—] (]) 15:51, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


:::::::(ec again.) Yeah. And you're right that there's certainly no obvious, let alone inviting, place on the main page to place alerts. I think it's intended to be reorganized in a while, see GG's note about improving the main page "before there's another problem" (Too late for that :-(). In the meantime, I suggest you simply place comments at the foot of either of these pages, it's not like they can be hard to find. Sorry I confused the issue. ] | ] 00:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC). :(ec) "Involved editors" may be too involved, and that's when trouble can start. I'd suggest: "Involved editors" can post at the "Statements by others", possibly only after Mattisse has made Mattisse has made her initial statement on the issue and at least 1 mentor has commented; uninvolved editors have been mostly trouble so far, and should stay out unless invited by the mentors (just in case we find exceptional cases). --] (]) 15:54, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
:Re "Follow-up", that would be clear only after a few months, by which time the "case" would probably be archived. If we need some sort of follow-up (lower case), I think it would have be a "summary and highlights" report. -] (]) 15:54, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
::::::::Mattisse can be returned to arbitration at any time. The point of the plan is to help her avoid that. This page does not exist for the satisfaction of other editors, only for its prime goal as stated. At the moment the page is in transition, and if editors were not aware of that before this remarkably timely post, I apologize for suggesting otherwise. '']'' 00:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::So the antagonism in your first reply to me was intended? I'm still not certain as to why, since I was under the impression that this was what we were ''supposed'' to do when we had a concern about some action she had taken. ]] 00:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
::::::::::No, antagonism towards an individual editor is never my intention. '']'' 01:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::::I fail see how else your calling my concern an "utterly unhelpful thread" could possibly be seen as anything ''other than'' "antagonism towards an individual editor." ]] 01:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
::::::::::::Sadly, I cannot help you with your failings. '']'' 01:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::::::So snarkiness and sarcasm is your chosen response to legitimate concerns? Wow. Just wow. ]] 01:29, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
::::::::::::::According to your interpretation, not mine. '']'' 01:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::I think any uninvolved observer would see the snarkiness and sarcasm in your "Sadly, I cannot help you with your failings." ]] 01:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
:::::You say that this post on the talk page of Slim Virgin is a violation of her plan. I'm not sure I see exactly how you come to that conclusion. The closest thing I can see to anything in that comment to "criticism" is the phrase of "for reasons of his own," which does seem kind of neutral, at least to me. And, under the circumstances, considering that Mattisse seems to hold OR in at least moderate regard, as demonstrated by her comments elsewhere, I'm not sure if this can really be counted on as being in the situations she should avoid. She is, so far as I can tell anyway, more standing up for and offering information she has in support of a friend than criticizing Geogre. This isn't saying that the negative comments on this page are really anything I think particularly useful, but, again, under the circumstances, I'm not sure that comments here are necessarily among those that get "counted". However, it might be valuable to perhaps define whether "avoiding people she has had problems with" extends to situations when she may be entering into a discussion regrding those individuals seemingly apparently for informational purposes, or to perhaps offer support for a person who is in a "situation". Again, I'm not really in love with the comments Mattisse made here either, but considering the thread in question had been basically "dead", I'm not sure that I myself would necessarily look with warm regard upon something which might be seen as extending it, particularly when the comment in question doesn't seem to be necessarily primrily criticial of Geogre, but rather offering seemingly factual information regarding the nature of OR's contacts with Geogre. Any opinions? ] (]) 00:46, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
:::::::I too have a problem with the claim that Mattisse's post was simply "for informational purposes." It seemed like piling on a user who hasn't been active for quite some time. And it was piling on a user with whom Mattisse has had conflicts in the past. It was for these reasons that I brought this here, and I'm growing concerned (for, really, the first time) that this page is more about protecting Mattisse from the big, bad community than it is about helping her see how ''she'' went wrong, and how she can interact more productively with other people in the future. ]] 01:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
"For informational purposes"? Newyorkbrad sure did get it all wrong, didn't he? I've had enough of your hypocrisy and beating-about-the-bush and swaddling your protegée in tl;dr ], John Carter. I guess my comments about Newspeak were even more relevant than I thought. I've had enough; I don't know why I tried; I'm out of here. ] | ] 01:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC).
::I notice that two people have now responded to my question with insinuations against me. I should have mentioned that Mattisse did in the psst request OR as one of her mentors, as can I believe be seen I think in the records. And, also, despite the fact that both responses have ignored that point, that maybe she was, in fact, standing up for a friend. I did however, believe it or not, ask a question which both responses have seemingly saw fit to ignore. I wonder if there will be any direct response to that, or just further insinuation and denigration of others of the kind that would probably get Mattisse in very big trouble. And, by the way, the phrase "for informational purposes" was intended to be related to the question asked, rather than this particular situation. ] (]) 01:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
:::What am I supposed to think, John? I posted a concern, and have been attacked as unhelpful by one mentor, and now have you claiming that my concerns about the mentor response would "get Mattisse in very big trouble." Tell me, how am I ''supposed'' to view these responses? ]] 01:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
*I've asked Brad for guidance here. I'm very much flummoxed by the response to what I feel was a legitimate concern, which I intentionally worded in a non-inflammatory way. If I've done something wrong here, I'd like for Brad to inform me where my mistep was. ]] 01:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
::::And I would regret to say that you still seem to be misinterpreting the statement I made, and still not responding to it, rather than actually addressing the legitimate question I asked. To clarify, because evidently it wasn't clear enough, the "offering information" was one of two situations which I could see arising in the future when Mattisse might be wanting to involve herself in dealing with people she "should avoid", the other one being helping a friend. And, please note, I think I implied that was what was being done here. And, yes, when a question is specifically and I thought clearly asked, and, rather than respond to it, people instead attack me for what I think is something I didn't even say, how are we supposed to interpret that. And, for what it's worth, the comment about behavior was actually, unfortunately, for directed at Bishonen than you. I wasn't thinking primarily of you, and you have my apologies if it seems that it was directed primaily at you. Once again, however, I wonder whether anyone is actually interested in responding to the question, rather than continue to discuss the behavior of people other than Mattisse. ] (]) 01:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
:::::My answer would be that she should offer her information to one of her mentors, who could then evaluate it for usefulness, and post or not post it at their discretion. As for "supporting friends", if it involves engaging with or about a person with whom she's had conflict, she should either follow the same procedure I give above, or simply email a note of support to that friend. ]] 01:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
::::::Thank you for the answer, and I could agree to that idea myself. However, I do hope you can understand that I think we would want to have that written down somewhere as part of the plan, and to do that would require having people agree to it before it would be made operational. ] (]) 01:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
:::::::I'd think that what I recommended would be kind of common sense -- something she should think of ''before'' posting about X editor on her plague list. I hope you're not saying that her post is okay because there's not some explicit, written portion of her plan that says, "Do not post negatively about members of your plague list." ]] 01:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
::::::::It probably is common sense, but there will be times for any of us when emotion, like wanting to help a friend, takes over. And I think it's probably in those types of situations that the problems arise. So, yeah, for normal situatons you'd be right, but I think most normal situations don't wind up becoming the problematic ones for Mattisse or others. ] (]) 01:59, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::How does the situation I raised here fit in, do you think? I view it as pretty clearly unwise for her to post about Geogre in the way she did. How do you see that fitting in here? ]] 02:04, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
::::::::::Unwise, yeah. But, then, lots of people have been found doing really unwise things lately, as I think we both know, regarding other matters. Personally, like I said, Mattisse was, at least I think, trying to help out OR, whom she respects. Even when she might be trying to help out others, though, it could probably be fairly easily misinterpreted, if certain other parties are involved in any way. Logically, were it me, I would hope that I might realize that my saying something directly might wind up just adding fuel to the fire, and possibly wind up making the situation worse. So, yeah, in this case, if she were to have asked, say, me, what to do, or left a message on this page or elsewhere where I or one of the others might see it, I hope I would think to leave a message on, in this case, Slim's talk page, maybe with a link to Mattisse's statement here and/or a paraphrase. To do that, it might help if there were some sort of way for Mattisse to leave a "help" tag for one of us to see fairly quickly, and, at this point, I'm not sure if we have one worked out, other than leaving a message on one or more user talk page. Maybe we could use the "you have a response on person x's page" template (which I myself never use, that's why I don't know the name) for situations like this. Mattisse could probably copy that to each of us fairly easily, I think. ] (]) 02:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::::This might be good, in that it would also give Mattisse some "lag-time" to really consider as to whether offering the commentary was the best idea. ]] 02:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) I suggest that Mattisse refactor the first sentence of the comment as follows and strike out the second sentence: :It is true that Ottava Rima unsuccessfully offered several times to provide references and in other ways tried to be helpful to Geogre. --] <small>(])</small> 02:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
*While I would think not offering the commentary to begin with would have been the best idea, I think this is, perhaps, a "next-best" option. ]] 02:37, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


Hi, Mattisse, I agree with your first and 3rd points. However "Only one incident at a time" would make it difficult to handle recurring patterns such as charges of feuding. How about if we said "Only one incident at a time, unless the complainant can ''show'' that a set of incidents ''clearly'' form a pattern" - on other words the onus is on the complainant to demonstrate a pattern, otherwise the case is dismissed. --] (]) 15:58, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
*:I think it will be a good way for Mattisse to think about how to frame her comments down the road. <small>And would help us move on :-) </small> --] <small>(])</small> 02:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
===Lets cut down to it===
I saw above statements that Mattisse and I are friends. Mattisse has made it clear that they avoid my pages because they are intimidated by me and feel that I am utterly hostile to them. They have also torn apart (grammar, style, MoS, etc), many of my FACs and had over a year worth of disagreement with me on multiple issues relating to FAC. Do Mattisse and I talk? No. Are we social? No. Do I stand up for Mattisse when others refuse because Mattisse shows that they care about content and Misplaced Pages? Yes, as I stood up for just about everyone else who is actually here for the Wiki. The truth is that Geogre did a lot of problems. Bishonen aided Geogre in those problems. Bishonen and others are in a crusade against abuse of sock puppets, and the claims of hypocrisy will come up as there is plenty of evidence that was lodged against Bishonen before of her acting inappropriately. As such, this evidence is brought up for two reasons: 1. to show that Bishonen has a double standard when it comes to ethics and 2. that this double standard implies a treatment of Misplaced Pages as a battleground to silence people who she does not like which, when combined with number one, is a very problematic series of actions and a damaging mindset. Bishonen's constant attacks on those like Mattisse and others across other pages is extremely troubling. ] (]) 02:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
*Without commenting on the substance of your complaints about Geogre and Bishonen, may I suggest that you strike through everything after "everyone else who is actually here for the Wiki"? ]] 02:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
:No, as it explains the inappropriateness of Bishonen's actions on this page. Combined with her misleading claims about what I have said above, this is important. ] (]) 02:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
::Okay, then. I would say that redacting them with a strike-through would probably place you in a much better light than not doing so, but that choice is, of course, yours to make. ]] 03:07, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


:Yes, I agree there needs to be a format for a "pattern". There needs to be a definition of a "pattern" though, as statements made months apart should not, willy nilly, be used to show a pattern, especially when the topics are different. I really want to avoid the laundry list of unrelated diffs spanning long time frames that have been proposed in the past regarding me. Not only is such a laundry list unwieldy, it engenders a hostile tone to the monitoring page. I think it is essential to prevent the negative ambiance that has pervaded the monitoring page previously. I am only human. When the tone is harsh and punitive, the outcomes is less likely to be constructive. —] (]) 16:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
===Looking for clarity===
::Suggest that a pattern is three or more related diffs on the same or similar subject {e.g. reaction on article talk page) within a short time frame. I'm not sure what the time frame should be. But the linking or connection between the diffs should be obvious. —] (]) 16:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
It does help if we have some clarity over the ArbCom decision and Mattisse's plan to edit on Misplaced Pages with less conflict.
:::I don't think that (a similar subject) is necessarily the only type of pattern. For an unrelated example, if I were to point out that an editor had a battleground mentality, I might find two instances where his comments at a user talk page showed that, one diff of a similar type of instigation at article A talk page, and another example at article B talk page. These would span three distinct subjects, but would all be evidence of a larger pattern of behavior. From my reading of your post, this type of concern would not be allowed. (please correct me if I misunderstood.) ] (]) 16:49, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
*The ArbCom decision was that Mattisse submit a plan "to govern and guide her future editing" which would include "refraining from making any comments regarding the motivations or good faith of other users".
::::Unfortunately, there is a theoretical possibility, if only a slight one, that the pattern might only become apparent over a longer period of time. If for instance, I impugned someone's motives, then, in my next contact with that person several months later, made substantially similar impugning of that person's motives, and again in the next contact several months later, that could reasonably be seen as being a pattern. I would suggest that long-term, intermittent patterns be permitted, althogh I would also acknowledge that if, in the opinion of the mentors, they re insufficient to require separate action, that they be dismssed as insufficient basis for a complaint. ] (]) 16:55, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
*Mattisse's plan includes the words, "I must avoid making any comments regarding the motivations or good faith of other editors."


::::(ec) ::::], I agree that recognising patterns is tricky. For example identifying a "battleground mentality" would require analysis of the the topic(s) and/or editor(s) involved - some topics are notorious battlegrounds even if one particular editor withdrew (e.g. nationalist issues are common), and some editors are particularly combative (a random sample from ANI would find a few).
As such, Mattisse's comment on SlimVirgin's talkpage that "OR was rebuffed, ignored, for reasons only Geogre can fully know" is part of the area of concern, as Mattisse has made a comment regarding the motivation or good faith of another editor.
::::Mattisse, I agree that a "laundry list of unrelated diffs spanning long time frames" is difficuly to unravel. However an accusation o ffeuding would involve a list of "unrelated diffs spanning long time frames".
::::I think in such cases 1 or more mentors would have to research the history, possibly going back before the cited diffs. Right now I would not dare to classify the main types of outcome, and hopefully such complex cases would be rare. Mattisse, in such cases you should nopt coment until after your mentors have analysed and commented. We're quite capable of dealing with complaints whose credibility or good faith is doubtful. --] (]) 17:07, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
:::::Karanacs, I would consider the similar subject to be "battleground mentality". I was not thinking of "article topic", although that could be included. But I want the net to be narrow so it will be focused. Otherwise we will have what is happening now, a laundry list of diffs that occuring in July and August, for example. It is important that the diffs be related in time and have a similar theme, not just a list of several unrelated mistakes I made. —] (]) 17:58, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
::::::Thank you for clarifying. I misunderstood your post and interpreted subject more narrowly than you intended (I thought subject meant "editor X", "article Y", or "process Z"). ] (]) 18:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


== Editintros and preload, with a draft ==
As such it is appropriate that Unitanode brought the comment to the attention of those who have offered to assist Mattisse.


I'm not sure which section above to add this to, so I'm starting a new section. Please feed forward any consensus to this thread. While these discussions of principles are valuable, it may help to be aware of the tools we have for implementation.
For clarity, there have been no individuals named in the ArbCom decision nor on Mattisse's Plan. The remedy extends to every user on Misplaced Pages, not a select few. It would be a mistake to think that there are special guidelines regarding Mattisse's interaction with certain individuals - the guidelines mean that Mattisse should, as we all should, assume good faith, and not seek to stir up conflict with anyone. However, given Mattisse's history with certain individuals, such as Geogre, it is understandable that people are more concerned to draw attention to comments regarding such individuals as these may prove to be flash-points.


There are (at least) three ways to encourage better use and provide structure to the Monitoring page: text on the monitoring page itself, ''preload''ed structure in the edit window, and ''editintro''s which appear above the edit window. I've set up drafts of these last two at ''User:Geometry guy/preload'' and ''User:Geometry guy/editintro''. You can see the effect that these would have by <span class="plainlinks"></span> to the ] I have set up. '']'' 19:29, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
This monitoring page where users can draw attention to potential problem postings can be useful - can indeed be very valuable in preventing conflict. However, as we have seen, the actual language used when informing us of the problem can develop into an unhelpful discussion of the motives of the person bringing the message. And further, the resulting debate can escalate into a drama that is not helpful to addressing the original concern, while also creating a negative interaction between those who are here to assist Mattisse with her plan, and those who are willing to inform us of her postings.


: I have now moved this here and updated the page accordingly. It may require tweaks. '']'' 20:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
My suggestion for how this page is used, is that people simply post a link to the comment that is causing concern. No further message is needed. A link, and a signature. That is the most neutral and helpful thing that can be done. (If we agree to this, then any additional message attached to the link can be removed when seen by one of those who have agreed to assist Mattisse.) As a follow up, a note can be left on the poster's talkopage thanking them for leaving the link, and letting them know that the matter is being dealt with. I think at that point the poster's involvement should cease in order to prevent any extra drama. The situation is then left for those who signed up to the plan (and them alone) to advise Mattisse. If the advise that Mattisse is given is so inappropriate that Mattisse continues to cause conflict then Mattisse WILL be brought back to ArbCom. But we will be better able to assist everyone if our own motives and methods are not continually examined and criticized.


==Handling of amendments to Arb/.../Clarification==
As regards this particular incident, I support RegentsPark's example of how Mattisse could have posted her comment. That is a positive example, and I would urge Mattisse to study that example and compare it carefully with what she did post. The original post caused conflict, which is splashed out above on this page. If RegentsPark's example had been used instead, there would not have been any drama. <span style="border: 1px #F10; background-color:cream;">''']''' *]</span> 11:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Mattisse. I agree with the http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FClarification&action=historysubmit&diff=321232600&oldid=321217208 comments] that you should not completely change of remove old comments there. It's not like an article or article Talk page, as most ArbCom pages are all about evidence. I suggest the least confusing approach may be to strike out the old stuff, so readers saw there was content but it's obsolete, and explain your new thoughts in a separate para. --] (]) 18:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
:Good analysis. Thank you. ] (]) 13:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
:OK. I will do that from now on. Regards, —] (]) 18:19, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
*Now she's bolstering her "case" at SV's talkpage with diffs for some reason, instead of just letting it die. While this normally wouldn't be a bad thing, would it not be most advisable for her to simply disengage there? Especially given that another member of the plague list (Giano) has taken issue with what she posted?<p>For the record, SilkTork, I think your post here is excellent, and I'd have no problem with a plan whereby people with concerns simply post a diff, with a sig. Would it be acceptable, then, if the person posting the concerning diff engaged a mentor they trusted about exactly ''what'' they find concerning about the diff? ]] 13:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
:: Thank you, Mattisse. It was a not big issue in this particular case, but the arbs are very busy, and having to reconstruct history just makes it harder for them to sort things and understand why some responses were made. ] (]) 18:35, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
::I suggest you also reinstate the incident you deleted (re Karanacs), and then add and update under it. --] (]) 18:36, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
:::Ok, I think I did it correctly. —] (]) 18:51, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


== Arb Decision ==
*"the motivation or good faith of another editor." Saying that the motivation -cannot- be known is directly -not- discussing the motivations or good faith of another editor. This is what Mattisse is -supposed- to do. Don't attack her for that. ] (]) 13:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
*:No, it's a passive-aggressive, non-attack, that leads to further conflict. Even she has struck that portion. ]] 14:07, 5 October 2009 (UTC) G guy, while you're at work on this page, I still wonder why the "Proposed decision" from ArbCom is linked, but the Final case page, where the final decision is rendered, is not? ] (]) 20:32, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
: This dropped off my watchlist, my apologies; this has been a busy time. Anyway, on returning, I think I've spotted the problem you refer to, and have fixed it. '']'' 19:55, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


== Clarity regarding blocks ==
::*I struck out the section out of an abundance of caution, not because I think there is anything wrong in defending Ottava Rima, which was my motivation. I would suggest that Unitanode refrain from attacking the motivations of other editors, such as calling them "passive-agressive". He/she has misinterpreted my motivations, interpreted then derogatorily and cast them in a bad light. As have others. —] (]) 15:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
:::Mattisse, it's over, let it go. --] (]) 16:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


In view of ] recent blocks, I thought it might be helpful for advisors to discuss this. I believe that the block worked well as a preventative measure to de-escalate the discussion and hence avoid Mattisse causing further disruption and harm to herself. I'd particularly highlight the approach taken by ] to extend the block until Mattisse struck the personalizing or otherwise unhelpful comments on her user talk page.
== Moved from Mattisse's talk page ==
(Responses below are to this, subsequently removed )
=== Request ===


Whatever happens at the Request for Clarification, I think we can learn from this experience, with a view to providing clarity to Mattisse, and satisfying the community that measurable actions and consequences are in place. I propose also that we add a general principle that Mattisse, when blocked, should not continue the dispute on her user talk page, and blocks will be extended until all such comments are struck.


I'm raising it here also because the Monitoring page would be the natural place to log such blocks and I'd be happy to set-up a form to help us do so. Well, you know I like templates :-) '']'' 19:37, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


== DYK vs FAR ==
:Hi, Mattisse, I suggest ] :-) --] (]) 11:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


I just noticed the following on the Monitoring page: "User:Art LaPella has offered to report on Mattisse's contributions to DYK at my ArbCom > Workshop > Development of advising/mentoring plan. Please contact him if my behavior at FAR is disruptive." Should "FAR" read "DYK" there? (Apologies if this is the wrong place to be raising this, just thought I should point it out). Cheers, ] (]) 02:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
:::First, Philcha, you are ''way'' out of line with your link. Second, Giano, this is already being discussed at ], if you're interested. ]] 12:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
:Yes, it should read that User:Art Lapella should offer evidence of transgressions on dyk, not FAR. He as offer evidence at other arbitrations regarding dyk pages so I am confident that he will do so in mine. Regards, —] (]) 03:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

::This typo has now been fixed. '']'' 21:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
:::Philcha's attitude is -- fortunately -- not the norm. John Carter, RegentsPark, and SilkTork have all engaged about the concern there, and are going to be engaging with ''Mattisse'' regarding the problems with what she's doing at SV's talkpage. ]] 13:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

::::I mostly agree with you here, and have mentioned her continued participation to those mentor at the page who do seem intent on actually mentoring her. ]] 13:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

::::: was added after my last comment. I think it's a step too far.
:::::Mattisse, I think you should strike out . One of the habits you need to stop is that of harping on at the same point. <s>I'm disappointed that you disregarded the advice I gave privately, "I suggest you leave it at that."</s> --] (]) 15:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

:::::Mattisse, I've just noticed your message, which shows that you added the diffs before seeing my message - so I withdraw my comment about disregarding my advice, my apologies.
:::::However I think my other comments stand - you do need to learn to stop after you've summarise your views, and avoid adding detail after detail. --] (]) 15:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

::::::Are giving diffs considered "details"? If so, I will stop trying to support a position using diffs, although I have been criticized for not using diffs. Please be willing to stand up for me the next time I am criticized for not providing diffs. This is the first time I have defended Ottava Rima against a statement made about him that was untrue. Is that considered harping on a subject? I always appreciate at when someone does the same for me. Regards, —] (]) 15:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

== Question from Mattisse ==

Since I have been criticized for making statements without providing diffs and also criticized for making statements that include diffs, which is the correct way to go? I would prefer not giving diffs, as they are difficult to find. I only give them out of fear of criticism. Am I free to make statements that are not backed by diffs, or should I avoid giving diffs? Regards, —] (]) 15:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
:When addressing someone else's statements, diffs are as essential as providing sources in an article. Without diffs, I can make any array of claims from accurate to outrageous and spin what I think you are trying to say, or perhaps your motivations for saying it. Diffs simply provide the connection to what was actually said. I would not expect someone to stand up for me for not providing sources in article space, and would not hope that someone would support me if I were criticizing someone else (or merely describing another's words) without the link to what was said. Furthermore, looking for diffs, in the rare occasions I make commentary about someone else's remarks, forces me to re-read the original statements, and on more than a few occasions the second and third time I read something I construed it differently. --] (]) 15:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
::Moni3, you are supporting my use of diffs, and disagree with the editor criticizing me for using diffs? Regards, —] (]) 16:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
:::(ec)Mattisse, your diffs are fine because they provide support to your statement that OR offered to provide references etc. The problem with your original comment was the tone in the latter half of the comment, particularly the '' rebuffed, ignored, for reasons only Geogre can fully know'' part. The diffs you provide obviously do not support that statement (no diff can show the absence of something!). My suggestion is, as always, to keep things as simple as possible. You want to say something in support of Ottava and you're entitled to do that but you need to say it in a way that doesn't make an assumption or implication of bad faith on the part of another user - irrespective of who that user might be. Therefore, the simplest thing to do is to refactor your original comment along the lines suggested above and move on. {{unsigned|RegentsPark}}
:::Always use diffs. I actually don't know who criticized you for using diffs. Diff, please? Ha, no. I'll read this entire page to look for it, but I don't know if the criticism was using the diff, using an incorrect diff that did not support your point just like including a cite to a source that does not say what the cited sentence does, or misrepresenting someone else's comment as, for example, an attack when it might have been lighthearted or not referenced you at all such as some of the younger editors who are quick to take personal offense when adolescent judgment is questioned in general. --] (]) 16:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
::::(edit conflict) OK. I understand what you are saying, RegentsPark. I will try to do as you say regarding avoiding assumptions that do not have diffs. The diffs do support that OR was trying to be helpful, yes? What do you mean "refactor" my comment? I am not sure what "refactor" means, unless it means delete? I have been criticized for changing comments already made, which is why I choose to strike out. Regards, —] (]) 16:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
:::::My suggestion above was that you add the word 'unsuccessfully' in the first sentence and strike out the entire second sentence. Your comment will then read ''It is true that Ottava Rima unsuccessfully offered several times to provide references and in other ways tried to be helpful to Geogre.'' (followed by the struck out part). As far as I'm concerned, you can leave the diffs because they support your statement and are neutral in presentation. --] <small>(])</small> 16:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

:::::(ec, but similar)
::::In general I agree with Moni3's "Always use diffs." The best course would have been for Mattisse to:
::::*Check the diffs before making any comment.
::::*Write only that some of Ottava's attempts to help appear at diff1, diff2 and diff3.
::::*Then stop. Mattisse's addendum "rebuffed, ignored, for reasons only Geogre can fully know" had 2 faults:
::::**She had no business speculating on Geogre's thoughts.
::::**The repetitive phrasing "rebuffed, ignored" was much too rhetorical, and even one of these terms would have been more than was needed - Ottava had already mentioned the lack of response. --] (]) 16:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
::::::*OK, I am trying to understand all this. The list of diffs was a "selected" list as there are many more. So are you saying that in providing a selected list of diffs, the maximum number in a selected list should be three diffs (even if three does not cover the range of variation of types)? I struck out the remaining sentence and altered per RegentsPark's suggestion. Hopefully, that is "refactoring", as I don't know what that means, except possibly moving the comments of others around, which I don't think I should do. Regards, —] (]) 16:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
:::::::The number of diffs is not hugely important, except that too many might appear obessive.
:::::::"refactoring" is a dumb piece of jargon, AFAIK misadapted from computer programming. "second thoughts" would be clearer - and would correctly imply that you can only edit in your own second thoughts, as others' are unknowable unless they write them in. --] (]) 16:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
::::::::Yeah, "refactoring" functionally just means "editing previous comments." And, while I could myself see using words like "rebuffed" or "ignored" if there were clear evidence from the user in question, through their own edits, that they used the words themselves, I would try to avoid using such potentially loaded language, and provide diffs to the comment where the language was used if I did use them. I'm sorry for not having seen the potential "insult" in them earlier, but it would probably be preferable to use completely neutral language like "chose not to accept offer", "declined...", etc.. If the editor in question used rather, ahem, "interesting" language to respond to or comment on any such offer, it might be best to just add a link to the statement with a comment like "and his response was ." But that sort of approach avoids doing any sort of "judging" or "commenting on others", as per ArbCom, and would be much harder for anyone, even an "enemy", to take justifiable exception to. ] (]) 17:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::Thank you for your explanation and ideas on how to handle this issue. This has been a useful lesson and I will be much more careful in the future. Regards, —] (]) 17:56, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
*Mattisse, the monitoring process doesn't seem to be doing any good at all. Why can't you just avoid any sign of trouble and get on with things? ] ] 00:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

::Tony, I don't see how "the monitoring process doesn't seem to be doing any good at all". The original incident spread over 3 sections, and the last (this one) achieved a satisfactory explanation of the issue and a satisfactory response from Mattisse. Moni3 and RegentsPark should be thanked for starting this particular section in a calm and objective manner. It is not the fault of Mattisse or her mentors that other editors started the earlier sections on the same issue in a manner that was hostile and . --] (]) 06:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
:::I certainly hope you are not lumping my initial report into your last statement. ]] 14:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
:I know I can't necessarily speak for anyone else, but personally I wouldn't include it in that group. Other people, with perhaps a longer history with Mattisse and of "colorful" language, might be a different subject. ] (]) 14:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
::As far as I know, I have no history with Unitanode and s/he was not involved in my arbitration. We have not edited the same articles nor the same wiki pages, except for this monitoring page, nor had any wiki interactions. I believe Unitanode registered under this username in March of 2009 so s/he is unlikely to have an in depth understanding of the history underlying these issues. I would prefer superficial discussion be avoided on this page. As it is, I can not follow the the page's discussions, so these back-and-forth discussions between editors are of no benefit to me. Is there any way to cut down on this sort of thing. It is not helpful for editors to use this page to defend perceived slights. —] (]) 15:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
:::Take it easy, Mattisse. Your mentors are here to help if things get complicated or unclear - e.g. summarising at intervals in a long discussion. --] (]) 15:50, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
::::This page is impossible to understand and TLTR. Too many editors weighing in with trivial remarks of their own that do not add to or clarify the discussion and that are not helpful. I made one edit that was meant to be supportive of Ottava Rima. That one remark means that at least four editors with nothing constructive to say weighted in and made a goobygook out of this page. If you can summarize what the point of all this is, I would be grateful. As far as I can tell, this page serves in part as a pile-on by editors having nothing to do with the issues and who do not seem familiar with the history and/or have nothing constructive to add. —] (]) 16:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
:::::I agree that this discussion (including the 2 previous sections - or was it 3?) got TLTR. However Moni3 and RegentsPark did an excellent job of summarising the useful bits - thanks guys! - and your made the right sort of response to their helpful comments.
::::::After that there was a bit of unconstructive grumbling. Some of that ''may'' have been "a pile-on by editors having nothing to do with the issues". If so, getting upset about it would be playing into their hands, so ignoring such comments would be sensible. If any then really want a response, they should explain politely and clearly what they're concerned. If they don't explain politely and clearly, ignore them. --] (]) 16:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

== Clarity revisited ==
I hoped that my suggestion to structure this page as rigidly as possible would take care of Mattisse's comment above about this page being impossible to understand. For this most recent instance, it would have helped for the initial complainant to state what the problem was, provide diffs, and state what sort of expectation s/he had from the mentors so it would look something like this:
=== Complaint from Unitanode: ===
I happen to have SlimVirgin's talkpage watchlisted, and noticed Mattisse made regarding Geogre. Was not this a part of her "plan" or whatever? I was under the impression that she needed to quit inserting herself into situations regarding Geogre, Bishonen, and Giano, as well as other users on her plague list. ]] 23:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
* '''Specific problem this causes:''' for Unitanode
* '''Expectation from mentors:''' for Unitanode
* '''Action mentors took:''' for mentors (i.e., <s>discussion with Mattisse not to comment on Geogre who has not posted in two months,</s><small>The stricken part is incorrect</small> John Carter requested Giano not exacerbate issues on Giano's talk page )

*The above is incorrect. Please read ]. I am to refrain from "casting aspersions". There is nothing about refraining from inserting myself into "Geogre, Bishonen, and Giano, as well as other users on her plague list." This is a misreading of the decision. To the degree that I cast aspersions by listing Ottava Rima's attempt to provide references and in other ways help Geogre, I violated the terms of my arbitration and cast an aspersion on Geogre. To remove all doubt I deleted any part that could be misinterpreted, specifically (<s>OR was rebuffed, ignored, for reasons only Geogre can fully know</s>). I believe the judgment of how much that is an "aspersion" is in the eye of the beholder, as in any event Geogre did not respond to any of these offers of help at the time. The fact that Geogre has not posted for the last two months in no way lessens the fact that Ottava Rima attempted to help him before then, contrary to the statement on the page where I posted this comment. In the decision, there are no prohibitions about posts regarding any specific editors. Regards, —] (]) 17:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

*'''Aspersion''' (from ]) "It is unacceptable for an editor to routinely accuse others of misbehavior without reasonable cause. Legitimate concerns of fellow editors' conduct should be raised either directly with the editor in question, in a civil fashion, or if necessary on an appropriate noticeboard or dispute-resolution page. Although broad leeway is granted to allow editors to express themselves in their interactions with one another, particularly in dispute resolution, a consistent pattern of making objectively unsupported or exaggerated claims of misconduct can necessitate sanctions or restrictions even if the editor subjectively believes that they are true."
; Comments from arbitrators on aspersions:
:*"This applies to people commenting on Mattisse as well as Mattisse commenting on others. Civil behaviour is required both ways here, as is use of dispute resolution, rather than sniping, bringing up old disputes, and returning to previous behaviour. Some have pursued dispute resolution here. Others have sniped." -Carcharoth
:*"This cuts both ways." -Cool Hand Luke
:*"The observations of Carcharoth and CHL are well made." --bainer

:I do not believe my comment regarding Ottava Rima's offer of help to Geogre falls under this category. However, I am willing to monitor my behavior more carefully. —] (]) 17:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
==== Discussion: ====
For other parties watching or interested.


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

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

*I don't believe {{user|Geogre}} was on my "plague list". In any event, I was not prevented from commenting on him by arbcom. Arbcom said only that I was prevented from having such lists. It never said that I was preventing from commenting on any one particular editor, whether on that list or not. Those ideas of protecting certain editors were suggestions made by other editors that were not accepted by the Arbitrators. Rather, those suggestions were rejected. I have never had any direct interaction with Geogre. It was only through the arbitration case on Geogre that I discovered {{user|Utgard Loki}} was Geogre. At that point, subsequent to my own arbitration, I filed evidence on harassment and abuse of me of Geogre's sock at his arbitration. Where does the basis of this complaint about me come from? {{user|Unitanode}} needs to read the decision of arbcom. Regards, —] (]) 16:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

:* That's fine. I have no opinion about this issue. I was just trying to propose a way to make this page readable and understandable, for documentation to protect both you, your mentors, and the editors who come here to complain. I simply used this as an example of how it should appear. --] (]) 17:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

::*I appreciate your attempt to make sense of the page, and I think the format you suggested is a good one. Unfortunately, your example perpetuated a myth that many posters here appear to believe. I urge everyone to actually read the decision and My Plan, as these are what my agreement with arbcom is based on. Regards, —] (]) 17:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


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

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

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

=== Complaint from Unitanode (Moni3 example revised by Mattisse): ===
* '''Complaint: '''I happen to have SlimVirgin's talkpage watchlisted, and noticed Mattisse made regarding Geogre. Was not this a part of her "plan" or whatever? I was under the impression that she needed to quit inserting herself into situations regarding Geogre, Bishonen, and Giano, as well as other users on her plague list. ]] 23:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
* '''Specific problem this causes:''' (for complainant to complete, in this case, Unitanode)
*'''Arbcom point at issue''': "Casting aspersions" ] (See ])
* '''Expectation from mentors:''' for complainant to complete, in this case, Unitanode)
* '''Expectation from Mattisse per :''' It is part of Mattisse's plan to avoid keeping lists of users; to avoid accusing other users of cabalism or conspiring against her, to avoid taking remarks personally. There is no prohibition against commenting on any specific user. There is an expectation that Mattisse use diffs in comments about the behavior of other users. Mattisse is cautioned as to her wording to avoid implying motivation of other users. "Mattisse frequently personalizes discussions by responding to other editors' routine comments about article content as if they were personal attacks or accusations directed against her. She has engaged in personal attacks, accused various editors of cabalism or conspiring against her, repeated some of her assertions long after any underlying issues had been resolved, and maintained various lists of editors who she believes have wronged her, sometimes under captions such as "plague" or "torment."
* '''Action mentors took:''' Mattisse is reminded to conform to the expectations above. John Carter requested Giano not exacerbate issues on Giano's talk page Giano was formally warned.

== Disengaging ==

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

Latest revision as of 23:36, 2 March 2023

This is an archive of past discussions on Misplaced Pages:Arbitration. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Use of this page

Argh. Is this page working? I've been quite quiet as a mentor as others have been quicker to respond than me.

From my past experience there is a pattern which has repeatedly occurred: one small comment angers some other user or group of users. Over the next few days this spirals out of control with an escalating cycle of angry responses. If left unchecked this can get very ugly for all involved. I've no particular wish to be involved in another such long running dispute and I see one of the task of the mentors as to try and dissipate such situations as quickly as possible. Unfortunately I'm beginning to see the opposite occurring with this page becoming a place for longer arguments which may not be productive - precisely the early signs the flame wars we are trying to avoid.

If this mentoring is going to work it will require some restraint by all involved. Mattisse is already working under a restrictive set of guidelines and I would remind her to reread those and follows them, even on this page - probably best to dis-engage. Other editors will also wish moderate their behaviour here as well. This is not the forum to complain about the result of the arbitration the mentors are merely the executive trying to enforce a decisions.

I do think it would be wise to implement the template for reporting here

  • Specific problem this causes:
  • Arbcom point at issue:
  • Expectation from Mattisse:
  • Action mentors took:

--Salix (talk): 22:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Good idea, but I might add to the format perhaps a link to the comment in question, with perhaps a short description of the objectionable material, to maybe make it easier to see how the cited problem can be seen as being relevant to the specific ArbCom point in play. John Carter (talk) 22:22, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I think diffs are essential. Almost all of the criticism of my behavior has been general bemoaning and not linked to a specific incident. Thus one error in my judgment leads to multiple editors declaring the adviser/mentor plan a failure, all out of proportion to my actual transgression. It would also be helpful to know what the complainant wants as a remedy, aside from the continual calls for banning me completely from Misplaced Pages. Also, I think it is harmful to attack my mentors/advisers. It sets up an attack mentality which has triumphed on this mentoring page and made meaningful interchange impossible. The mentors/advisers are volunteers also. They deserve praise. I understand now why mentor/adviser plans fail on Misplaced Pages. There is not a way, with editors responding in such a negative tone, for any such plan to succeed. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 22:40, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Salix alba, the page is a mess and is currently largely counterproductive, with long threads erupting either here or on the talk page, extending disputes rather than resolving them. This thread itself belongs on the talk page, not here, but while there is no clarity, I don't have the enthusiasm to move it.
There are plenty of suggestions to improve the set-up here on the talk page, and I suggest someone just does it: almost every proposed change would be an improvement, so please use the wiki process to sort out minutiae. I will have time to contribute on Sunday, but would be happier if progress is made before then: if need be, I can do technical things like nice editintros and preloads to encourage best use of this page, but there needs to be a clear understanding of what this page is for. That has not been evident to date. Geometry guy 22:45, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
OK lets work on a draft report form until close on Sunday. Ammend the form below until then. --Salix (talk): 22:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Draft report form

  • Specific problem this causes (include one diff):
  • Arbcom point at issue:
  • Expectation from Mattisse:
  • Action mentors took:
<edit conflict> Can I just archive this page? There is nothing useful on it at this point. Reading it is not helpful but rather the opposite. If I could archive it, set up a template (which I don't know how to do) something like:

---Draft report form---

  • Specify problem concisely, along with specific link:
  • Document the damage caused, citing the Arbcom point at issue:
  • Describe what you expect Mattisse to do:
  • Specify what you expect the mentors/advisers to do:
  • Note actual actions taken by the mentors/advisers:

Then if I had permission to remove or delete general complaints with no diffs, attacks on my mentors/advisers, arguments between editors using this page as a forum, moralizing, "I told you so", etc., then I would have control of the page. I would not allow editorializing, lecturing, moralizing, "I told you so"s or attacks on mentors/advisers. Frankly, I have not read much of what is on the page now, as I just can't get through it: TLTR. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 23:13, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


I'm ok with that. The only suggestion I have here is that it should be clear that the complainant should be the only editor to alter the first four points unless someone needs to fix minor formatting. The only editors to edit the last point should be Mattise's mentors. This should not be a refactoring free-for-all. --Moni3 (talk) 23:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. This should not be a "chiming in" free-for-all. Too many editors watchlist too many talk pages and feel free to butt in with opinions. I think that has been the problem here. I want this to stay on track. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 00:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Just to be clear, this form doesn't preclude other editors from participating in discussions on this talkpage, nor would it keep them from offering their own view of the situation at the talkpage as well. Or am I misunderstanding the set up? UnitAnode 00:18, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
  • From my point of view, yes, you are misunderstanding the set up. There has been too much opinionating by everyone, including people like you who are apparently not familiar with the history. My aim is to tie all comments to the actual arbcom ruling. This is not an editorial page where editors take sides. That is what torpedoed it currently. Too many opinions/editorials. And the mentors/advisers are not fair game for attack. Remember, they were approved by the arbcom. Let them do their work. This is a work page. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 00:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
In so far as "opinions" aren't particularly what we're looking for, I tend to agree. However, I do think that we might allow some latitude in the "Expectations from Mattisse" section, because there is always the possibility that the person filing the complaint is either very young or otherwise not really able to address the matter very well themselves. It also might be possile to add an "Outside comment" section, but I would believe that such comments should probably be as limited as reasonably possible, and maybe allow for "refactoring" parts of comments that don't add any significant points to the discussion. John Carter (talk) 00:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm talking about on the talkpage, not inside the actual form. I don't think this form should preclude anyone from proffering a take on a given situation at the talkpage. Also, I have a not-insignificant problem with Mattisse referring to me as "people like you", and implying that since I haven't feuded/been friends with her for however long, I'm in some way less qualified to address concerns I see in her behavior. That's just not true. UnitAnode 00:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
<edit conflict> Yes, a reasonable "alternate opinions" section is ok with me, as long as it isn't a "chiming in" or a "taking sides" comment, but is an original alternate explanation or inquiry about the issue. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 00:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Even better on the talk page. The way the page is now, I cannot follow it and many of the conversations are beefs between other editors and don't even include me. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 00:49, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
The main clutter on this page is where you moved all that stuff from your main talkpage. I'm going to move it to the talkpage, to clean this area up. I tried to clean it up for you, by moving all the "clutter" to the talkpage. Why did you revert it, if you're truly concerned about the clutter here? UnitAnode 00:54, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
You are apparently unfamiliar with the history of the arbitration and this page. The issue of this page is all about me "owning" it. I am supposed to take charge. Instead, I made an comment and it was lost in an edit conflict because the section no longer existed. My understanding is that it is not for you to make major decisions unilaterally about this page. Regares, —mattisse (Talk) 01:12, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
I was trying to help you, based upon your direct comment above. And would one of Mattisse's mentors please address what I see as her fundamental misunderstanding about "owning" this page, and "taking charge" of things?

I'll ask you again, Mattisse, do you want the clutter here moved to the talkpage? I've already placed it there, with levels and everything fixed. All you need to do is cut and paste this last bit there, and then remove the rest of it from this page. UnitAnode 01:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I want my mentors/advisors and interested/previously involved others to contribute to a finalization of the format for complaints. Removing their valuable input on this issue wasted the page and did my no favors. Please leave these drastic decisions up to the people who have been involved before your first edit in March 2009. So the answer is no, I do not want you deciding what is on this page. You removed all the valuable suggestion and the outline for a new "complaint format". With the removal of that, all out constructive "new beginnings" where we were reaching agreement are are wiped out.
I would have to say that if there is any fundamental misunderstanding, it would be that of the person who thinks he has the right to move content, and then objects and wants others to address what he claims is someone else's "fundamental misunderstanding" of how such material should be plced. Having said that, I think it would probably be best to just remove the entire section from both this page and the talk page, provide a link to the previous discussion, and allow it to continue, to the extent that it will continue, from that point. John Carter (talk) 01:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Do with it what you will. I had a decent little timesink trying to clean it up a bit, and this is how I'm treated? Wow. My message at your talk is the last I'll be communicating with you about Mattisse. UnitAnode 01:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
I have lost a second edit to edit conflict. This never happens to me that the browser cannot retrieve the edit conflicted edit. I don't know what is going on, but I plead with Unitanode to step back and leave the page alone for a while to those familiar with its operation try to repair the damage. Please consider that action not carried out with prior consensus is not helpful, and in fact is detrimental. Perhaps because of your new arrival to Misplaced Pages you are not familiar with the processes in this case. I would appreciate your leaving any clening up to those who are familiar with the issues of the case. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 01:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I would much rather see a simpler report that (broadly!) contains: The complaint/concern, Comments by mentors, Recommended course of action, Follow-up, General discussion with other editors commenting in the general discussion section. The current format is out of control and it is impossible to make sense of most of the discussion. The way I see it, an editor expresses a concern, the mentors respond with comments and agree on a specific remedy if necessary, and we all move on with our lives. If others want to chime in, either wrt the original concern or because they feel that the mentors are not doing their job properly, they can do so in the general discussion section. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 01:57, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, RegentsPark, I'm not fond of forms myself. However a lot of the posts at Mattisse's have little to do with resolving actual issues and too much general backbiting at Mattisse. So I think we need a format that guides the discussion along constructive lines. If people find it does not cover some legitimate concerns, they can post enhancements to the form at this Talk page. Based on the layout recently by Mattisse, itself based on Moni3's proposal, I suggest:
  • Specify the problem(s) concisely and courteously, along with specific link(s):
  • Describe what aspect(s) of Mattisse's conduct concern(s) you in the incident(s) you have documented.
  • Cite the Arbcom point(s) at issue, with specific links:
  • Describe what you think Mattisse could do to improve the situation and/or avoid similar problems in future:
  • Describe what you expect the mentors/advisers could do to help resolve the issue(s):
  • Note actual actions taken by the mentors/advisers:
Comments, everyone? --Philcha (talk) 08:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Problems have arisen from comments that people have made when notifying us of potential problems. When people are reporting on a post that Mattisse has made, they have quite likely been provoked by that post, and - with the best will in the world - some of the impact of that provocation will come through in their wording, even if they attempt to be neutral or courteous. Others then react to the wording, and a conflict unrelated to Mattisse's post develops, which is not helpful. I strongly urge that we stick by the notion that people post a link to the problematic edit, and do not comment further on the monitoring page. It would be more helpful if that page were kept clear for a discussion by those that signed up to assist Mattisse, and Mattisse herself. If the notifier wishes to talk further about the edit, this page can be used, or the talkpage of any relevant person. And I think it would be helpful if we ensured that the monitoring page is kept clear, by assiduously moving inappropriate comments to this page. SilkTork * 08:32, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I understand SilkTork's concern that people are reporting on a post that Mattisse has made, they have quite likely been provoked by that post, etc. However if posters provide only links without specifying what they think is the problem(s) and the ArbCom points at issue, we'll get a lot of pure fishing expeditions. So I think posts must take responsibility to define the issue(s) and show how they are relevant to the ArnCom verdict. OTOH we could drop or treat as optional "Describe what you think Mattisse could do to improve the situation and/or avoid similar problems in future" and "Describe what you expect the mentors/advisers could do to help resolve the issue(s)". I'd favourr treating them as optional, as some posters will come up with helpful suggestions - for example Moni3 has criticised Mattisse's conduct several times but has provided several constructive suggestions. --Philcha (talk) 08:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
My understanding of arbcom's intent is that any editor can make a complaint, but after that it is up to me to deal with it with the advice and consent of my mentors/advisers. None of the wording in the arb decision indicates that I should have to deal with a free for all that includes editors unrelated to the complaint, lack of specific diffs, or opinion from editors who are unrelated to the situation but are "chiming it". The complaint that Unitanode makes above, that he does not like my wording "people like you" is an example of how complaints can spiral out of control. Whereas "people like you" may be misinterpreted and taken offense to if AGF is not employed, if my wording in making a relevant comment can taken by another editor as grounds for second complaint unrelated to the arbcom decision, this page will turn into a free-for-all again. The wording "people like you" is not the sort of problem arbcom was addressing, especially as I clarify what I mean as those editors "apparently not familiar with the history". —mattisse (Talk) 12:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Sample of how proposed process would work

(comment moved to User talk:Mattisse/Monitoring/Editorial comments , the proper forum for those not appointed as my mentors/advisers.)

Monitoring page (per My Plan)

According to My Plan, approved by ArbCom, it is the job of my mentors/advisers to monitor my behavior. See User:Mattisse/Plan#Monitoring. Provisional changes to My Plan may be made by consensus of my mentors/advisers.

Therefore, I believe that the monitoring page should be restricted to the comments/suggestions etc. of my monitors/mentors. I agree that a limited and concise "form" to provide a means of allowing outside editors to make a complaint, per the suggestions of my mentors/advisers above can be tried out, and retained if it is found useful. However, this is not strictly necessary, as any editor may complain to any of my monitors/mentors directly, who in turn are urged to provide feedback to me regarding any complaints. Further, any editor may apply to a disinterested admin to have my behavior dealt with as they would with any other editor whose behavior they find problematic. Also, any editor or group of editors can petition ArbCom to take further action taken to restrain me. This page is primarily a means and a forum for me to interact with my mentors/advisers.

I believe the monitoring page has not worked because it was not implemented as intended, as a forum for my mentors/advisers to problem solve with each other and provide feedback to me. Rather, it was used by other editors to complain about them and carry on arguments. If other editors insist on continuing this type of behavior on this page, then this page will certainly fail.

I would like to suggest the removal of all comments, other than those of my mentors/advisers. If a limited "complaint form" is implemented for the use of other editors, it must be very structured and focused on a specific complaint about my behavior, with diffs and so forth as suggested above. This is not the place to criticize the mentors/advisers.

This is a page in my userspace, and not for use as a free-for-all forum.

I appreciate all feedback from my mentors/advisers on what to do next.

Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 14:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Stop moving comments until it is decided what these pages are for or I will protect this page. --Moni3 (talk) 15:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I have fully protected this page for 6 hours. --Moni3 (talk) 15:36, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposed structure

One basic principle we should keep in mind is that Mattisse is a human being and we humans don't take kindly to being preached at or talked down to. If the purpose of the monitoring process is to keep Mattisse doing the good stuff she does here then we must recognize that and take steps to keep the page simple and to keep everything as clinical and non-judgemental as possible. With that in mind, I propose a very simple structure as well as a process that is controlled by her mentors:

  1. Concern. This is stated by an outside agent.
  2. Proposed remedy. Only mentors can add remedies. I don't like the idea of outside agents adding remedies because they may not be neutral agents and this will only rile Mattisse.
  3. Follow-up Whether the remedy was successful or not
  4. Mentor discussion.
  5. Statement by Mattisse. This needs some thought as to what she should and should not say here.
  6. Statements by others. Rather than one long threaded discussion that goes back and forth, let others have their say in their own subsections.

I'm not married to this structure but I think we need to have control over the page and not cede that to others, not even (with apologies!) to Mattisse. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 10:07, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

That looks good. I was also thinking of a "Mentor discussion" section, similar to but a lot smaller than the "Motions" sections at ArbCom. "Statements by others" is similar to my suggestion of a separate discussion per "case", but a "Statements by others" section is easier for archiving.
I assume only the original poster is allowed to use "Concern", plus possibly mentors if we mentors to get the concern clarified. I'd prefer 3rd parties to be restricted to the "Statements by others" section, and forcibly moved there if necessary.
I understand "I don't like the idea of outside agents adding remedies because they may not be neutral agents and this will only rile Mattisse". However:
  • Some original posters may have constructive suggestions that may be a good basis for action, and we should consider whether original posters should be allowed to propose remedies in the "Concern" section.
  • While we don't want 3rd parties trying to grab control or cause confusion, if they propose appropriate remedies in "Statements by others" we can use or ignore them. --Philcha (talk) 12:53, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
My main concern with letting others propose remedies is that they may be excessive and not neutrally worded and may force Mattisse to respond to the complaint (that's pretty much when all hell breaks loose!). Much better for proposals to come from her mentors (who can also decide whether a remedy is needed or not - some complaints may not be justified). The thing is, IMO, that the point of mentorship is not to provide relief to other, possibly aggrieved editors, but rather to channel Mattisse in the right direction. And it is the job of the mentors to do that channeling. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 14:58, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
It looks godd, although I have two concerns. "Statements by others" looks like it could really be an accident waiting to happen. Having some pretty clearly defined rules which govern what can and cannot be considered relevant for conclusion there would be a definite plus. Also, "Follow-up" is going to be hard to define the content of too. Would this include, for instance, checking (x) time later whether the previous suggestions worked, os some statement when we might become involved should similar problematic behavior arise, or what? It would probably help if the intended content for that section were a bit clearer than it is right now. John Carter (talk) 15:10, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree about "Statements by others" being too open ended but don't really see how we can control what goes in there (Mattisse really has to learn not to respond to everything!). About the Follow-up, I'm not really sure what I meant to put there. Something vaguely along the lines of "Mattisse struck her comments on editor xxx's page and here is the diff". Not sure what else would go there but I guess we also need some way of seeing patterns of problematic behavior and this section could help keep track of that. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 15:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you all help the rest of us understand what is wrong with Moni's proposal on the Arb page? Understanding your thinking may help avoid another train wreck, and several of us regret having backed down earlier on making sure a workable plan was put in place. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

And would you all mind using one of the samples on the "Editorial" page to work out any kinks here on talk before something is installed? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:27, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
(ec):Moni3's proposal is fine except for its emphasis on the complainant. Letting the person complaining define the remedy is not, in my opinion, going to work. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 15:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Makes sense (but my recollection is that her model asked for suggestions for mentors more than defining the remedy ... ??? ... as in my samples on the "Editorial" page.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:32, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
(So that's where the disappeared stuff went - I should have checked!) Both your proposal as well as moni3's specifically ask the complainant what they think Mattisse could do to improve the situation and what mentors should do. That is the part I don't think will work. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 15:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec) For the most part, I like the example RegentsPark posted, although, like John Carter, I'm unsure what follow-up would/should be used for. Perhaps the Statements by Others could be split into two sections. Involved editors (who may be able to provide valuable context but were not the one who filed the complaint), could post on the main page, while editors uninvolved in that particular dispute would be restricted to the talk page? I would also encourage that no uninvolved editor be allowed to post until after a) Mattisse has made her initial statement on this issue and b) at least one of the mentors has weighed in on this page. That would give a little break for tempers to calm and allow comments to be more appropriately addressed at the potential response. Karanacs (talk) 15:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

  • <edit conflict> I also like RegentsPark's example. My suggestions:
  • Directions. I think there needs to be directions to be concise. e.g. Describe in a concise sentence, or something similar. (This is to prevent an extended, unfocused description.)
  • Only one incident at a time. Only one incident should be dealt with in any one complaint. The one incident should be supported by one or two diffs. (This is to prevent the unfocused laundry list of complaints and diffs of varying relevance and widely varying timestamps as previously was the case.)
  • Content of page strictly controlled. Care must be made in monitoring any "statements by others" on this page to prevent arguing, attacks on mentors/advisers, discussions between editors that are not advisers/mentors etc. Every effort must be made to keep this page clear and focused. Emotional wording should be avoided/removed, as should editorial comments on the process. There should be another page for discussions of the process and suggested changes to it.

—mattisse (Talk) 15:51, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec) "Involved editors" may be too involved, and that's when trouble can start. I'd suggest: "Involved editors" can post at the "Statements by others", possibly only after Mattisse has made Mattisse has made her initial statement on the issue and at least 1 mentor has commented; uninvolved editors have been mostly trouble so far, and should stay out unless invited by the mentors (just in case we find exceptional cases). --Philcha (talk) 15:54, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Re "Follow-up", that would be clear only after a few months, by which time the "case" would probably be archived. If we need some sort of follow-up (lower case), I think it would have be a "summary and highlights" report. -Philcha (talk) 15:54, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Mattisse, I agree with your first and 3rd points. However "Only one incident at a time" would make it difficult to handle recurring patterns such as charges of feuding. How about if we said "Only one incident at a time, unless the complainant can show that a set of incidents clearly form a pattern" - on other words the onus is on the complainant to demonstrate a pattern, otherwise the case is dismissed. --Philcha (talk) 15:58, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree there needs to be a format for a "pattern". There needs to be a definition of a "pattern" though, as statements made months apart should not, willy nilly, be used to show a pattern, especially when the topics are different. I really want to avoid the laundry list of unrelated diffs spanning long time frames that have been proposed in the past regarding me. Not only is such a laundry list unwieldy, it engenders a hostile tone to the monitoring page. I think it is essential to prevent the negative ambiance that has pervaded the monitoring page previously. I am only human. When the tone is harsh and punitive, the outcomes is less likely to be constructive. —mattisse (Talk) 16:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Suggest that a pattern is three or more related diffs on the same or similar subject {e.g. reaction on article talk page) within a short time frame. I'm not sure what the time frame should be. But the linking or connection between the diffs should be obvious. —mattisse (Talk) 16:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't think that (a similar subject) is necessarily the only type of pattern. For an unrelated example, if I were to point out that an editor had a battleground mentality, I might find two instances where his comments at a user talk page showed that, one diff of a similar type of instigation at article A talk page, and another example at article B talk page. These would span three distinct subjects, but would all be evidence of a larger pattern of behavior. From my reading of your post, this type of concern would not be allowed. (please correct me if I misunderstood.) Karanacs (talk) 16:49, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately, there is a theoretical possibility, if only a slight one, that the pattern might only become apparent over a longer period of time. If for instance, I impugned someone's motives, then, in my next contact with that person several months later, made substantially similar impugning of that person's motives, and again in the next contact several months later, that could reasonably be seen as being a pattern. I would suggest that long-term, intermittent patterns be permitted, althogh I would also acknowledge that if, in the opinion of the mentors, they re insufficient to require separate action, that they be dismssed as insufficient basis for a complaint. John Carter (talk) 16:55, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
(ec) ::::Karanacs, I agree that recognising patterns is tricky. For example identifying a "battleground mentality" would require analysis of the the topic(s) and/or editor(s) involved - some topics are notorious battlegrounds even if one particular editor withdrew (e.g. nationalist issues are common), and some editors are particularly combative (a random sample from ANI would find a few).
Mattisse, I agree that a "laundry list of unrelated diffs spanning long time frames" is difficuly to unravel. However an accusation o ffeuding would involve a list of "unrelated diffs spanning long time frames".
I think in such cases 1 or more mentors would have to research the history, possibly going back before the cited diffs. Right now I would not dare to classify the main types of outcome, and hopefully such complex cases would be rare. Mattisse, in such cases you should nopt coment until after your mentors have analysed and commented. We're quite capable of dealing with complaints whose credibility or good faith is doubtful. --Philcha (talk) 17:07, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Karanacs, I would consider the similar subject to be "battleground mentality". I was not thinking of "article topic", although that could be included. But I want the net to be narrow so it will be focused. Otherwise we will have what is happening now, a laundry list of diffs that occuring in July and August, for example. It is important that the diffs be related in time and have a similar theme, not just a list of several unrelated mistakes I made. —mattisse (Talk) 17:58, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying. I misunderstood your post and interpreted subject more narrowly than you intended (I thought subject meant "editor X", "article Y", or "process Z"). Karanacs (talk) 18:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Editintros and preload, with a draft

I'm not sure which section above to add this to, so I'm starting a new section. Please feed forward any consensus to this thread. While these discussions of principles are valuable, it may help to be aware of the tools we have for implementation.

There are (at least) three ways to encourage better use and provide structure to the Monitoring page: text on the monitoring page itself, preloaded structure in the edit window, and editintros which appear above the edit window. I've set up drafts of these last two at User:Geometry guy/preload and User:Geometry guy/editintro. You can see the effect that these would have by adding a new report to the test page I have set up. Geometry guy 19:29, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I have now moved this here and updated the page accordingly. It may require tweaks. Geometry guy 20:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Handling of amendments to Arb/.../Clarification

Hi, Mattisse. I agree with the http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FClarification&action=historysubmit&diff=321232600&oldid=321217208 comments] that you should not completely change of remove old comments there. It's not like an article or article Talk page, as most ArbCom pages are all about evidence. I suggest the least confusing approach may be to strike out the old stuff, so readers saw there was content but it's obsolete, and explain your new thoughts in a separate para. --Philcha (talk) 18:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

OK. I will do that from now on. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 18:19, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, Mattisse. It was a not big issue in this particular case, but the arbs are very busy, and having to reconstruct history just makes it harder for them to sort things and understand why some responses were made. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:35, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
I suggest you also reinstate the incident you deleted (re Karanacs), and then add and update under it. --Philcha (talk) 18:36, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I think I did it correctly. —mattisse (Talk) 18:51, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Arb Decision

G guy, while you're at work on this page, I still wonder why the "Proposed decision" from ArbCom is linked, but the Final case page, where the final decision is rendered, is not? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:32, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

This dropped off my watchlist, my apologies; this has been a busy time. Anyway, on returning, I think I've spotted the problem you refer to, and have fixed it. Geometry guy 19:55, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Clarity regarding blocks

In view of Carcharoth's motion to endorse recent blocks, I thought it might be helpful for advisors to discuss this. I believe that the block worked well as a preventative measure to de-escalate the discussion and hence avoid Mattisse causing further disruption and harm to herself. I'd particularly highlight the approach taken by SilkTork to extend the block until Mattisse struck the personalizing or otherwise unhelpful comments on her user talk page.

Whatever happens at the Request for Clarification, I think we can learn from this experience, with a view to providing clarity to Mattisse, and satisfying the community that measurable actions and consequences are in place. I propose also that we add a general principle that Mattisse, when blocked, should not continue the dispute on her user talk page, and blocks will be extended until all such comments are struck.

I'm raising it here also because the Monitoring page would be the natural place to log such blocks and I'd be happy to set-up a form to help us do so. Well, you know I like templates :-) Geometry guy 19:37, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK vs FAR

I just noticed the following on the Monitoring page: "User:Art LaPella has offered to report on Mattisse's contributions to DYK at my ArbCom > Workshop > Development of advising/mentoring plan. Please contact him if my behavior at FAR is disruptive." Should "FAR" read "DYK" there? (Apologies if this is the wrong place to be raising this, just thought I should point it out). Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 02:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it should read that User:Art Lapella should offer evidence of transgressions on dyk, not FAR. He as offer evidence at other arbitrations regarding dyk pages so I am confident that he will do so in mine. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 03:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
This typo has now been fixed. Geometry guy 21:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)