Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Karanacs (talk | contribs) at 17:42, 21 September 2009 (why question the reporter? if you see someone behaving badly, point it out). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

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.

Venom alert

Just to mention that Mattisse wasn't long back from her block before Geogre (who left the project two months ago, so you'd think she might be done with him round about now) was again in her sights. I do not wish to personally discuss the matter further with Mattisse. And with the complexities of mentorship and monitoring, I'm not even sure who I ought to write to—I hope this page is allright. I certainly don't want to put a Klieg light of publicity on Mattisse. But I do want to make the mentors aware of this recent nastiness. And put a stop to it if possible. I believe Geogre, Giano, Bishonen are people Mattisse has most particularly been requested to not use for target practice. Bishonen | talk 00:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC).

My comment was a true statement and not venomous. My heart goes out to other editors when I see them caught in exactly the same situation that I was regarding FAR nominations and the retribution that follows. I think it is only right to point out that this is a continuing situation situation that has not yet been dealt with by admins. FAR nominations of articles by that editor and retributions by specific protective editors continue. Please see Unexplained_Admin_Abuse_by_User:KillerChihuahua_and_User:SlimVirgin, also FAR of Oroonoko and the rest of the thread noted above on Giano for context.Giano As I said, this problem continues unabated at FAR whenever an article by that editor is nominated. Other editors step into the FAR situation unaware and are attacked. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 15:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The comment in question seems to be more about the behavior of others regarding a Geogre article than about Geogre himself, so I think that the original post implying that they were somehow directed against Geogre may be somewhat inaccurate. And I would expect some such comments to be at least strongly considered for making by at least some people in the light of the current Eastern European mailing list matter. If it could happen once, ... . By saying that, I am in no way trying to imply anything about any parties, simply noting that it would not be impossible for the idea to at least occur to people. While I can and do think that the comment might have been not necessarily the nicest one, or one which bends over backward to AGF, I can't, in the light of the current situation, necessarily think that a few comments about how editors seem to at time often work or appear together is something which, in and of itself, is necessarily a particular cause for concern, although I would hope that such comments perhaps not be made again in the future in regards to other matters without clear, specific, evidence.

Having said all that, I'm not at this point sure that saying simply because an article is associated with Geogre or anyone else is necessarily grounds for suspicion either, although I wouldn't myself rule out concern if an article were apparently worked on as some sort of memorial for him or anyone else. If such a case were to ever occur, and be one in which emotions of the editors involved were clearly relevant, then I would think that expressing concerns about how such emotion might impact things might be relevant. John Carter (talk) 17:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

You are right that my comment was not directed at Geogre himself but rather the conduct of others. I am merely concerned that FAR be a civil place for editors to work. As for the Eastern European mailing list matter, I know nothing about that and don't understand what is going on in that situation. It is over my head. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 17:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Mattisse, my impressions from a very quick read of Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Giano are:

• Giano has caused trouble over a FAR of one of "his" FAs and shown hostility towards of those who says improvements are needed if an artcile is to retain FA status.
• The initial victim of this particular incident was Collectionian, as reported at the main section "Unexplained Admin Abuse ...". It was both unnecessary and imprudent for Mattisse to get involved, as Mattisse was not involved or a victim at Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Oroonoko/archive1.
• The 1-week block on Giano looks excessive, but I think a 1-2 day block would have been fine, given Giano's actions. After this point the ANI thread became a shouting match between Giano's supporters and opponents. This is the kind of situation Mattisse needs to avoid, as any participant beyond this point looks like a party to a feud, and Mattisse is in a situation where she cannot afford to give such an impression.
• If Mattise has continued, she should have stuck to that specific incident instead of widening the number of parties and span of time covered. Mattisse, that was very poor tactics on your part.

In short: focus on content, not editors; think about whether you need to get involved in a controverisal issue (IMO no need here, there was enough criticism of Giano's conduct); if you do get involved, focus on that specific incident, not previous conduct of the same persons or presumed allies of the same person. --Philcha (talk) 17:25, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Bishonen, I just checked the current version of ANI and your name does not appear there (I have not checked for any of your actual or alleged socks). It's unclear what the grounds for your complaint are against Mattisse. --Philcha (talk) 17:25, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

At any point when a user sees another user potentially behaving inappropriately, they should be able to intervene (and, I think, this is most especially true when the user in question is under mentorship due to previous inappropriate behavior). Karanacs (talk) 17:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)