Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:03, 14 October 2009

Related pages

• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Proposed decision
• User:Mattisse/Plan
• User talk:Mattisse/Monitoring/Editorial comments

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

Following Philcha's proposed outline above, I'm putting this on talk so you all can use it as a sample:

Specify the problem(s) concisely and courteously, along with specific link(s):

Mattisse makes unsubstantiated claims about other editors, does not back them with diffs when requested, and does not strike them from her commentary when other editors comment. Unsubstantiated statements about other editors remain on record, unaddressed and uncorrected.

Describe what aspect(s) of Mattisse's conduct concern(s) you in the incident(s) you have documented.

The concern is that her mentors help her understand the need for and appropriate use of diffs, what a personal attack is (vis-a-vis stating my opinion that one of her mentors is harming more than helping the mentorship), that she not personalize discussions, and the importance of AGF and the benefit to her in improving good will by striking comments that are unsubstantiated.

Cite the Arbcom point(s) at issue, with specific links:

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse#Mattisse.27s_behavior

Describe what you think Mattisse could do to improve the situation and/or avoid similar problems in future:

Work with her mentors to understand how to use supporting diffs and the importance of striking commentary that is unsupported. Learn to refrain from making comments about other editors unless they can be backed by a diff that cleary shows what she believes they show. By doing so, she will help everyone understand her better, and where the problems occur.

Describe what you expect the mentors/advisers could do to help resolve the issue(s):

Be aware of when Mattisse makes unsubstantiated statements about other editors, how that is detrimental to a collegial working environment, and help her understand that diffs in commentary about other editors are as important as sources in an article, and should be taken seriously. Unsubstantiated comments about other editors will not help her towards the goals of the ArbCom.

Mentors' responses

Mattisse response

Discussion

I would also like to see someone add a link to the final ArbCom decision to the monitoring page, as Mattisse still seems confused about the difference between the final decision and the proposal page. If mentors want to move this to the main page as a sample of how the page should work, I don't mind, but I suggest it would be better used on talk as a sample only, to help work out any kinks in the system. I hope this example will show mentors staying focused on the issues with Mattisse's edits, rather than side issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

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)

Please note that the page did seem to be working (in the last incident) until you moved a section from your talk page to the monitoring page. If editors aren't allowed to comment on your talk, and aren't allowed to comment here, the page will also fail. Are you now suggesting that this is not the page for recording concerns? That seems to go against the previous consensus among yourself and the mentors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)