Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:08, 13 October 2009

Archives

Archive 1

Welcome to Mattisse's monitoring page, where editors can help Mattisse follow her plan, for instance by drawing early attention to situations where Mattisse may be heading into conflict with other editors. For more information on Mattisse's plan, see:

• User:Mattisse/Plan
• User talk:Mattisse/Plan

To raise an issue, please start a new section on this page. This page is primarily for alerts, although the talk page can be used for discussion with mentors and others. Advice intended directly for Mattisse is better placed on her user talk page.

Active mentors/advisors

1. Salix alba - admin
2. John Carter - admin
3. Philcha
4. Geometry guy - admin
5. SilkTork - admin
6. RegentsPark - admin

ArbCom decision

• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Proposed decision

Monitoring

• Monitoring DYK and FAR

DYK

• 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. He can be contacted if any of Mattisse's contributions to DYK are causing or are likely to cause disruption; this is not a substitute for alerting editors here. Notifying Art LePella was accepted by Arbcom as a monitoring method.

FAR

• User:YellowMonkey has stated at my ArbCom > Workshop > Development of advising/mentoring plan > monitoring (under Art LaPella's statement) that he does not put up with unruly behavior at FAR. He encouraged her continue participating in FAR. He can be contacted if any of Mattisse's contributions to FAR are causing or are likely to cause disruption; this is not a substitute for alerting editors here. Notifying YellowMonkey was accepted by Arbcom as a monitoring method.

GA

• Philcha and Geometry guy are active in the GA process. They can be alerted here if any of Mattisse's contributions to GAN or GAR are causing or are likely to cause disruption.

Problematic addition at AC/N

UnitAnode 23:56, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

You're right, it didn't exactly help. But there is a question here as to whether most any other comment on that thread was "productive" either. An infraction, yes, but there is a question as to whether Mattisse should be singled out for taking part in a joke, which appears to be what she is doing here. And I don't really see any comments on the motivations of any parties. Calling the unspecified subject a "joke ArbCom (sic)" seems at worst more a generic criticism than any attempt to speculate on the motivations of others. But I could be wrong, and I'd welcome any other input. John Carter (talk) 00:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

"There are none so blind as those who will not see." --Malleus Fatuorum 00:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Is the above comment supposed to make any form of sense, I wonder? I certainly cannot see how the quotation without amplification makes any sort of sense. Could you perhaps say something directly relevant to this situation, rather than quoting? John Carter (talk) 00:19, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not convinced...actually, I'm wholly unconvinced that Mattisse is adept at satire and that that post was a joke. I think she's serious. --Moni3 (talk) 00:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it was directly addressed to you John. You appear to be completely blind to what is going on here. Time that you wised up I think. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

It was meant as a joke, but it is true that I am wholly incapable of understanding what is a joke on Misplaced Pages and what is not. You are saying that was not a joke thread, so making a joke was inappropriate of me? I can't tell what is real and what is not. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 00:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Put it to the Duck Test. Or to Occam's Razor. Usually good guidance from application of those standards. Hamster Sandwich (talk) 00:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

It didn't read as a joke to me. It struck me as veiled griping about the Geogre thing again. The thread to that point basically consisted of people teasing each other. Mattisse's comment didn't strike me that way. Anyway, I just saw it as something that was potentially quite problematic, so I posted it here. Do with it what you will. UnitAnode 00:50, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Geogre? He never crossed my mind. How is he involved in this? He did not have jokes, as far as I know. —mattisse (Talk) 01:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Mattisse's comments about her previous "jokes" regarding Bishonen indicate to me that, if true, her sense of humor is markedly different than my own, and that is why I personally reserve judgement. I acknowledge that others will see things the way they are inclined to, including me. The earnestness of the comment "I'm smiling", etc., is one of the factors in making me think it may have been intended as a joke to maybe "break the ice", and I could certainly understand the motivation behind that. The fact that the thread is about Risker, who was associated with Geogre, is a concern, and the comment could be taken, even by me, as a bit of a "dig" into Risker, or maybe Bishonen, or ArbCom, or whoever the comment is about, I'm not honestly sure there. However, I acknowledge the potential ambiguity, or, at least to me, the very real ambiguity, of the comment. If nothing else, I might suggest refraining from jokes which might be interpreted as "cutting". The downside there is, of course, that many jokes are insulting to someone at some level. So, like I said, I'm leaning toward taking her at her word here, but acknowledge that the joke, if that is what it was, could, maybe, have been funnier and more obviously an attempt at humor? If it was not intended as a joke, however, I would agree that "cutting humor" is probably a bad idea for anyone, including Mattisse, and would urge her to refrain from it. John Carter (talk) 01:13, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

You're very trusting, that's all I'll say. Given the context, who the thread was about, and the fact that it wasn't in the least bit funny, you're very trusting. UnitAnode 02:29, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I obviously don't belong to the "culture" that pervades Misplaced Pages. I am one of those editors that does not "fit in" to the pervailing class that make profane and other obnoxious "jokes" constantly. Does that I am excluded from ever making a comment? As far as I know, my content contributions have been gratefully accepted. Is the problem that I am not of the "class" that is allowed to comment? Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 01:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Mattisse, funny or not, the comments were not opportune or timely. I'm sure that you can look at the people involved and see that there would only be a negative reaction. Please be more careful next time and don't make yourself vulnerable by making such comments. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

When I first started giving talks, I was advised: "Never tell a joke with a victim" and "Never tell a joke unless you know and understand your audience's sense of humor." MastCell  03:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Mattisse, your AC/N comment was - well, not very sensible:

• It did not focus on the content - in this case it was hard to see whether there was any content, and that should have been a warning sign.
• It refers to incidents (joke socks, joke blocks) that got you into trouble.
• Some prior posts in that discussion was by an editor with whom you've had trouble (including one of your "monitoring" discussions that the editor in question phrased in a very hostile way). Despite WP:AGF, I think it likely that editors with whom you've had conflict are mor elikely to interpret your words unfavourably.
• While you're an excellent editor, you don't (so far) seem to be good at jokes in the WP environment.

Right now I don't see a need any remedial action from you. For example your comments contain no phrases that should be rephrased. So for now I think you should simply avoid such unnecessary risks. --Philcha (talk) 06:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I support Philcha's comment. SilkTork * 09:02, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Moved from talk page

"Commenting" class

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

Well, probably you are right, but that is bad for Misplaced Pages. A very small "class" of people controls Misplaced Pages at a time they are trying to "retain" new editors. This small, elite class prohibits editors from having opinions, which decreases the desire to contribute. I used to regularly contribute to whole areas of Misplaced Pages that I stay away from now, like FAC. And I no longer review GAN articles, even though I was considered a stellar reviewer, because of the bile of the few. Is this really for the good of Misplaced Pages that this small in-group contributors decide who is on the shit list and who is not? I know many valuable editors who have left for good. And I am about to be one of them, as the snugness of the (self-appointed) "few" that at the moment are in power is disgusting. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 01:50, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

No, it isn't. And I agree people like Giano and others are treated with probably unearned kid gloves, and that in many cases people are pushed away because of not understanding "how things work around here." But this isn't the only place it happens. I have been accused of things which even the accusers themselves realize are unlike me at work over the years, because, strange as it might sound, I'm a "nicer" guy than most people are used to, and in several cases people find it difficult to accept that there isn't anything I'm "after", particularly female co-workers. I think the main issue here is not the comments themselves, but rather the comparative uniqueness of it. The fact that there is a small group of volunteers effectively controlling a larger volunteer community is pretty much standard for non-profits. But, in those cases, the small group of people tend to know the ropes better, and knowing the ropes always helps anyone anywhere. And I don't think that it's really a matter of trying to prohibit people from having opinions. But it is useful to know when, where, and how to express them in such a way as to not cause others to react on the basis of preconceptions. Part of the problem is, I think, considering you have not involved yourself partcularly much in such discussions to date, people will question why you would involve yourself in the few you do involve yourself in. This is a bit of an example of same, particulaly after the "enforced break" joke from Bishonen earlier in that thread. People like Bishonen, Baseball Bugs, and a few others are at this point known to make a lot of jokes of a certain kind, and now people have come to expect that of them, and to, yes, "cut them some slack" if there's a question as to whether it is serious or not. Right now, even though you've been around a long time, you aren't known for involving yourself in many such matters, or in displaying a sense of humor very often, from what I've seen anyway. I get the impression from what I've seen of you that you tend to be serious most of the time, and so that's what people expect. I don't doubt you have a well-defined sense of humor, but no one here knows what it looks like, and the unknown always is looked at with reservations for a while. So, in cases like this, I would urge you to do what I try to do in such cases. If you're not sure how your comments might be perceived, add a qualifier at the beginning, to indicate what you're "aiming at" and make it clear what you intend to be addressing. And, yeah, the one thing I would urge you to try to do is to not make any comments which might be perceived as "making a point", because that's the core of your prior difficulties. Granted, any comment is open to interpretation by others, and that's unavoidable. But you do have control over how you present yourself, and that's the thing to focus on.

One thing I remember from when I was a kid, was to try to "taste" the words before they come out of your mouth, or, in this case, keyboard. At this point, I think you would probably be best served by doing that in almost all cases where you might be driven by any form of feelings. Yes, this place is screwed up big time. One of the best editors I've known changed his name to avoid getting weird e-mails from people. Another of our top editors has temporarily retired I don't know how often. That's going to happen. In your case, like in mine, try to focus on what it is that you want to accomplish here, and spend most if not all of your time doing that. If you became an admin, or involved yourself in "office politics" more regularly, then I think your comments would probably be more welcome, better received, and carry more weight. The downside is, you'd probably wonder why the hell you're wasting your time on it. I know I think that once in a while myself, regarding the policies, guidelines, noticeboards, and what all.

From what I can see, one other thing you've found you're good at is starting new DYKs. Personally, I wish I could do that more often myself. I started with the saints, and I think there are only about 7000 or so left uncovered here, out of a total population of about 11000, so there's still a bit of work to be done there. If you like doing DYKs, do it as well as you can. You were a great reviewer, but the DYK section gets updated what, 4 times a day? That area clearly needs a lot of attention to. If you like it, and you have no problems with it, go for it. I don't doubt you would be as valuable there as anywhere else. And, if you want, I might even be able to help you find a few people who might be able to point out some of the articles we're missing. There are still a ton of them.

Shutting up now, believe it or not. Finally. :) John Carter (talk) 02:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I sincerely hope that any comment that I make is taken in a spirit of goodwill. Earlier, I suggested the Duck Test. I meant it seriously. When it looks like sarcasm, and feels like sarcasm, it probably is. By the same token, if comments look/feel like they're meant as humourous, they probably are.

When you read any comment that you are unsure of its intent, ask the poster. Inquire, politely if the comment was meant to be serious. Asking questions is (or should be) the catylist for a serious discussion. If you feel like you're not getting any kind of "straight" answer, then it may be time to ignore the comments, and get on with what you were doing.

I would like to think that spirit civility, and good humour go hand-in-hand within the project.

I understand your concerns about the "clubbishness" of WP. Allow me to share an observation I have made. I have a wide variety of interests, so I have a wide variety of pages that I watch for changes. I should describe these as my "spheres of interest." I seldom encounter individual "groups" or "clubs" or "cliques"... what-have-you's... away from their particular "sphere." But, year after year, those same editors hover around the same articles, policy discussions and votes! pages. Theres no law against that, or rather there are rules that govern edit wars and whatnots, but by and large, those groups are going to be one of the hazards of editing in and around those spaces.

I have gone on the WP record - for as long as I can recall - quite strenuously opposing any "Off-WP" communications that are intended to stack the results in any of the projects' various "spaces/spheres." The mechanisms for reporting abuses of process are there; a current arbitration seems to be addressing the issue of off WP communications. So, sometimes its just a matter of waiting, and the thing that you want to happen might just happen. The other side of that coin, is: We as editors often end up abiding by decisions that we disagree with.

I wanted to let you know that I apprciate the (to me) exasperated tone of some of your recent posts. I hope that by sharing some of my experiences, I might help to ameliorate some of that feeling. In closing, I suggest that when in doubt, always take the high road. Don't respond to percieved sarcasm with sarcasm....stay the steady course, and no one could ever accuse you of not taking any particular discussion with perfect, concentrated seriousness, and gravitas. Good luck, and good editing! Regards, Hamster Sandwich (talk) 04:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

If you want to improve skills in WP-humour, which is may be a valuable skill, use your friends as guineau pigs. In that case all you risk is getting some poor jokes back :-) --Philcha (talk) 06:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• So am I to understand that, even though I make statements at arbcom and enter evidence, I am not allowed to make a comment there, because any comment I make will be scrutinize for a way to take it in bad faith? I have made comments before at abcom, especially recently The arbs themselves have seemed receptive to my questions and statements. But this behavior on my part is no longer allowed by the self-appointed censors? Am I no longer allowed to make statements or present evidence also? Or is it being suggested that if I do it more, I will be "tolerated" like Giano and Bishonen and other disruptive editors are. It does seem that if someone is sufficiently disruptive, they are tolerated by the ruling elite. Is there any place on Misplaced Pages that I can make a statement or have an opinion, even if it is not perfectly worded? I can be tarred and feathered because I can't word jokes to the liking of the elite censors of Mattisse? This outcry about a trivial comment, perhaps misunderstood, but not rising to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors is an attempt to undermine my confidence and drive me from Misplaced Pages. —mattisse (Talk) 13:18, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand the lack of options in this case. If you disagree with the actions of editors, certainly you are not restricted to participating in the same behavior in protest. In fact, I don't see this as effective in any form. You have an array of possibilities which include ignoring all of it entirely, or creating a large-scale protest and process by which the behaviors you designate to be unacceptable are brought to light at ArbCom and the Misplaced Pages community in total, though it may be rejected soundly. Your mentors should be directing you toward more productive uses of your time. You are yourself protected by double standards that may have had any other user indefinitely blocked for creating unnecessary disruptions, but because you are at times constructive, we are here discussing you instead of having moved on a long time ago. --Moni3 (talk) 16:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• In the last statement you make above, you seem to be assuming that people are in fact "out to get you", which I think in private correspondence with most of the people involved I have found not to be the case. And the rhetorical questions aren't particularly productive, either. Yes, like it or not, right now you have what many people consider a "history" of pointy comments, which some people might characterize differently as "petty", "vindictive", or whatever. Making any future comments which could be seen as being similar won't help anyone. Given the history people have percived in you, it is in your best interests to avoid making such statements. I don't think ArbCom would officially even tell Giano to go away, even though he seems to use clearly objectionable words more often than any other kind. I know that you pereceive the system to have problems here. So do I. It's one of the reasons I am fairly regularly involved in policy discussions. But, like anywhere else in the world, if someone has been perceived as fairly regularly making "cutting" or disparaging comments of others, and makes statements now which can be perceived as something similar, those statements will be perceived by at least some people in that light. In such case, it really isn't the fault of the person seeing what is an obvious connection to previous comments, though. If there is fault, it's that of the person who makes comments which can be so easily interpreted as being like the earlier ones. Useful, productive comments, even if at times extremely critical of the previous ones, are if not "welcome' in all cases accepted as part of reasonable conversation. I don't want to tell you how many people have ripped into the various policy and guidelines proposals I've made, but I had to assume that they were made in the right spirit. But it's a different matter with comments that are less than clear even in regards to what they're talking about, which is what the comment prompting this discussion was.
• In response to the I think rhetorical questions about whether you will be "allowed" to make comments, sure. However, I think you should realize that your previous "comments" in some cases have caused people to at least consider imposing something like a topic ban on you. You don't make them really want to change their minds by making more comments now that could be interpreted as continuing in that vein. You seem to be indicating that the rest of wikipedia wants to impose some restrictions on you. If that is true, then it is because, unfortunately, you don't seem to have been interested in imposing any sort of restrictions on your own actions and comments. The one thing that would be most effective to reduce the posts to the page would be to make sure that you don't do anything which raises the question of "pointyness" or whatever in the minds of anyone else.
• Positive comments, or comments which obviously have as their objective improving something somewhere, are going to be welcome anywhere around here. But this comment doesn't seem to be one such. There will be places where it is appropriate to criticize existing standards as well, generally because those locations are aimed at finding ways to improve the system. But I'm not sure the place you posted this comment is one such. Regarding the "cabal" controlling the rules around here, ever look at any national government? ;) Most people are neither sufficiently interested in or knowledgable about policy to want to address such matters. If the policies and guidelines created by the cabal are still good ones, though, then even I, who really dislike most public officials, have to admit that their actions are probably good, even if their person is less than appealing.
• Basically, try to contain your comments to those which clearly are productive, in some way, or are in a venue where "dubious" comments are going to be expected and accepted. Given your lack of history in a lot of the "governmental" areas around here, at this point your comments there aren't expected. I and others would welcome seeing them there, but this comment wasn't the best way to "introduce" yourself in those venues. "Make haste slowly", like Augustus said. And, at least for a while, make sure that any comments you do make are such that they can't be easily misintepreted. If you can agree to do that, I honestly think the difficulties would be resolved. It's just, basically, up to you if you're willing to do that. John Carter (talk) 13:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• Removing the kid gloves for a moment, calling productive editors "disruptive editors" is surely not helpful, whether done here at your talk page, at the "monitoring" page, or on an Arbcom page. As that portion of Mattisse's commentary isn't being addressed, I wanted to point it out. It's unacceptable to refer to other editors in this way, simply because you don't get along with them. UnitAnode 15:02, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• Then surely you will call for the ceasing of other editors calling me "disruptive". I am an extremely productive editor. So please encourage others to stop applying the "disruptive" label to me. By the way, I would appreciate your addressing me as an editor, rather than referring to me in the third person on my own talk page. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 15:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

  Please refrain from lecturing me on how to address you. I was clearly referring to John Carter's post that didn't deal with your calling productive editors "disruptive." UnitAnode 16:02, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• <edit conflict>:I am a productive editor who is called "disruptive" at the drop of a hat, including by people I have never heard of, in an apparent "bandwagon" effect. I made a huge mistake in thinking I could make a joke out of "joke" sockpuppets. I paid the price for that with a lengthy block, something that even Arbcom has not done to the last two editor they found engaging in ongoing abusive sockpuppetry. Other than that, although there has been much complaining after my arbitration, there has not been any other evidence that I have done anything wrong. I don't think Arbcom's intention was to make me into a perfect person, but rather to allow me to continue to be a productive editor while refraining from making personal attacks and casting dispersions. I have not engaged in the behavioral examples described in POINTy, WP:NPA etc. Please remember that I am an actual person and realize that I have human frailties. If you want an editor to feel good about Misplaced Pages, then picking apart their every action is regrettable. How come no one picks apart my editing? Isn't that the reason we are all here? That should be the issue, not the few remarks I only very occasionally make. My behavior is less likely to improve if I feel as intimidated as I do, and people unknown to me, who do not edit on the pages I do, who were not part of the arbitration or even made any comments about me and who have never posted on my talk page or tried to contact be personally and ask what I meant by a comment, then turn up with criticism on my monitoring page. This method does not further a constructive environment. Putting an editor on the defense immediately is not likely to foster good will, improve behavior or ultimately benefit Misplaced Pages. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 15:33, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

  Your mainspace edits aren't really the problem. You're quite a good copyeditor, particularly. It's when you start commenting on other editors that problems arise. UnitAnode 15:39, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

  Mattisse, that is what your monitoring page is for! It is a neutral venue that gives any editor, regardless of whether you've previously interacted with them, the opportunity to comment on edits of yours that they felt might be inappropriate. It is not just a place for people who participated in the arbcom to bicker. Karanacs (talk) 15:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

<edit conflict> I agree with you, Karanacs, and dislike editors referring to me in the third person on my own talk page and arguing with each other. Unitanode repremands me for not understanding he was replying to someone else. Crips. —mattisse (Talk) 16:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Good points both there, actually. The last page I would expect someone to be refered to as a "he/she/it" would be that person's own talk page, and this probably isn't the best place to conduct a conversation with someone else. I'm beginning to regret starting the thread myself at this point. And I know some of my own language above might have been a bit excessive, both in terms of length (no argument there) and possibly in lack of tact. All I can do is basically repeat what I said. At this point, you aren't exactly thought of as one of our "policy wonks", and people might be surprised by seeing comments from you on some of the infrastructure pages. Particularly if the comments seem uncomplimentary and without any specific suggesions for correction. I don't like it either, but right now that seems to be the case.

And, Mattisse, even though there is apparently going to be a lot of criticism of various sorts aimed at you in the near future, partially as a result of the monitoring page, I want you to know that you are in no way one of the most problematic editors around. Giano I think wins that one hands down, with two separate arbitrations explicitly about him. And, no, it doesn't seem possible that his conduct has any chance of impoving, while I think even the worst of your detractors probably thinks you might be able to address and reduce the incidence of the problems that have arisen.

I just hope you realize that even much or most of the criticism you receive here is in effect given because the people making it think you are actually interested in reducing the problems. I seriously wonder whether anyone thinks Giano at this point even cares about how unpleasant his own conduct regularly is. John Carter (talk) 16:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Unitanode, your "calling productive editors "disruptive editors" is surely not helpful" is ... not helpful - and your "Removing the kid gloves for a moment" was even less helpful, so put it mildly. While Mattise has made mistakes, there are "productive" editors who regularly and long-term get away with seriously disruptive behaviour. Do you have the same zeal for scrutinising their behaviour? --Philcha (talk) 15:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

There you go again, lecturing people who try to point out the problematic areas. The kid gloves you all wear around Mattisse are not working. I've posted nothing here that is in the least bit inappropriate. And this isn't the forum for discussing the behavior of other editors. Deflection of the concerns raised is much less helpful than raising those concerns in the first place. Please deal with your mentee in a way that lets her understand that she can't simply call other editors "disruptive" at her leisure. It's just not acceptable. UnitAnode 16:05, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Unitanode, as Karanacs has stated above, this page is not for making statements to or arguing with other editors. That is the purpose my monitoring page, to prevent this endless bickering between other editors from occurring here. I request that you take you attacks on me and my advisers to the monitoring page. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 16:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Mattisse, for acknowledging that Unitanode should be able to comment at the Monitoring page (thus implying that you understand that posts there are not meant to intimidate you, but to raise issues in the appropriate fora). Also, if you are disappointed with bickering on this page, we should also admonish Philcha, who started this round by commenting on Unitanode rather than the issue at hand. Karanacs (talk) 16:26, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Unitanode, your comments here were too vague to be constructive. And, as Mattisse correctly and courteously pointed out, the monitoring page is where you should raise any questions about Mattisse's conduct. --Philcha (talk) 16:29, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

They weren't vague at all. They were a direct challenge to those who weren't addressing one of the larger problems with Mattisse's response. Additionally, JC brought the discussion here, with his "Commenting class" post, so unless the whole thread is moved there, then my comments were not at all misplaced. UnitAnode 16:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

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

Mattisse's behavior

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

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

Prior attempts at resolution

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

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

Sandy Geogia please add diffs of relevant new behavior of mine

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

The diff which led to the squabble on your talk page is plainly linked, where it was first raised, on this page, as is the full discussion. Curiously, what is not linked on this page, is ArbCom's final decision (rather, the proposal page is linked); perhaps one of the mentors could correct that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the proposed decision with passing votes is all I have been able to find. It is what I based My Plan on. So until I have knowledge of another set of findings, that is what I will rely on. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 17:51, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse is the final page, and probably the one that should be linked here. I'm sorry the mentors don't point these things out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the link, although as a summary of the decision it lays out behavior that is applicable to all editors, not just me. I am asking you to stop the personal attacks and the casting of aspersions for which you have provided no diffs. I have almost completely stated away from FAC, I no longer freely copy edit articles for FAC and I no longer provide in depth reviews for FAC. Because of your complaints, I no longer work with articles at FAR. If you have recent diffs of my misbehavior that others have not provided, please give them. And please keep in mind that a central theme of my arbitration that not only I, but other editors also, must follow the rules set up for me, especially in not rehashing old issues and persevering on past events. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 18:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)