Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 18:14, 22 October 2009

Arbitration Committee proceedings

Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]

Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Venezuelan politics	25 May 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse\|Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse]]	none	none	14 October 2009
[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Asgardian-Tenebrae\|Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Asgardian-Tenebrae]]	none	none	14 October 2009

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for clarification

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification/Header

Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

Moni3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
Mattisse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) notified [1]
SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) notified [2]
Karanacs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) notified [3]
Philcha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) notified [4]
RegentsPark (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) notified [5]
Geometry guy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) notified [6]
Unitanode (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) notified [7]
Salix alba (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) notified [8]
John Carter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) notified [9]
SilkTork (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) notified [10]

Statement by Moni3

The monitoring plan as approved by ArbCom has proven to be confusion marked with a lack of clarity, scope, and structure. There is no process in place for editors who have had conflicts with Mattisse in the past to place their concerns and have their concerns recorded, discussed by Mattisse's mentors, and dealt with in any formality. Mattisse has a page off of her talk page User:Mattisse/Monitoring where it appears to be somewhat structured. However, there is no clarity about how complaints are to be filed and responded to. There are no stated expectations of the mentors or Mattisse. There is no clarity about where discussion about these issues is to be held.

The incident which has prompted me to file this ~~is my protect~~ is this:

Two weeks ago, I suggested that the User:Mattisse/Monitoring page have some structure, User_talk:Mattisse/Monitoring/Archive_3#Structure. You can see it was met with no reaction until Geometry guy (talk · contribs) asked about it.
I suggested it again, here: [11] Mattisse responded by altering the suggestion because she saw the original complaint as incorrect or invalid. Actually, I don't know why she altered it, but she did not seem to understand that it was a proposed format for her Monitoring page. [12], [13], [14], [15], [16].
I requested again here.
I requested again here, yesterday.

Mattisse's mentors have not instituted any kind of cohesion or clarity. I do not understand what is trying to be accomplished on this Monitoring page. Discussions about complaints take place on Mattisse's talk page, the Monitoring page, and the Monitoring talk page as well as individual user pages. When SandyGeorgia attempted to encourage the formatting of the page [17], it was removed from the Monitoring talk page by Mattisse to another offshoot, [18], here. I finally fully protected the Monitoring talk page for 6 hours.[19] Mattisse opened an ANI topic on that protection, [20], which is fine. It's actually a logical reaction to simply the absolute muddle this Plan and its implementation have ...whatever...I don't even know anymore.

This process is no process. It's utter chaos. I am quite confounded that SandyGeorgia and I, two editors with whom Mattisse has had serious conflicts in the past are pushing to get this process organized. My suggestions on organizing the Plan have been met with silence and an astonishing lack of direction by Mattisse's mentors. It is my intention in this request for clarification for the ArbCom to set their own parameters here. Step it up, folks, really. I'll be happy to give you an example of the structure that is required. --Moni3 (talk) 16:12, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Elucidation: RegentsPark has a point and I was in a hurry and a bit stressed, which made me use some hyperbole and I should not have. Mattisse's mentors were discussing the proposed structure of the page, so I cannot claim that my suggestions were met with silence. I will stand by the comment that there is an astonishing lack of direction, however. I neglected to point out in my original post above, for perspective, that this Plan was implemented months ago and only seriously, it seems to me, gone into scrutiny within the past month after Mattisse returned from a 2-week block for sockpuppeting. I do not know how to impress upon Mattisse's mentors that they should be taking matters seriously enough to take some action. They waited until the 2-week block to reassess their efficacy, and unfortunately, little has changed. Mattisse continues to enter into conflicts, which is borne from a lack of clarity from the mentors, who, in my opinion the day after the ArbCom decision should have structured a venue for receiving complaints and a method for dealing with comments ranging from serious to spurious, and established a forum for other editors who have been involved with Mattisse in the past to discuss the issues at hand. It has not happened, and I am really unable to be so frustrated at them when ArbCom itself has not set the parameters for how this will be accomplished. --Moni3 (talk) 17:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for Newyorkbrad

User:Mattisse/Monitoring is the only place where complaints about Mattisse should be registered.
The page should be displayed at the top of Mattisse's talk page, which I believe it is now.
Mattisse shall not refactor anyone else's comments to the User:Mattisse/Monitoring page or its talk page. Any of her mentors or Mattisse herself can move comments or complaints from her talk page to User:Mattisse/Monitoring. Any reformatting necessary for the User:Mattisse/Monitoring page or its talk page should be completed by a mentor.
Assign at least one mentor who has had significant problems with Mattisse's behavior in the past.
The User:Mattisse/Monitoring page shall be archived no less than 7 days after the first post about a complaint.
Adopt the layout created by SandyGeorgia that was moved to User_talk:Mattisse/Monitoring/Editorial_comments as laid out below, and place specific instructions about what is expected from a complainant to the page, from Mattisse, and from the mentors.

Specify the problem(s) concisely and courteously, along with specific link(s): Complainant only edits this

Cite the Arbcom point(s) at issue, with specific links: Complainant only edits this

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

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

Action(s) taken by mentors Mentors only edit this

Comments from Mattisse Mattisse only edits this
Discussion, if any, to take place on talk page.

After each complaint, Mattisse and her mentors evaluate the success of handling each issue.

After one month or two complaints--whichever comes first--Mattisse, her mentors, and other interested parties evaluate the success of the plan as a whole. If the plan is seen as successful so far, constant reassessment is to be done by mentors, Mattisse, and the various interested parties.

If general consensus is reached after one month or two complaints that the system has failed in the following ways: Mattisse's mentors have not addressed serious complaints or have disparaged the complainants, Mattisse has ignored the advice of her mentors or acted beyond their advice (per the sockpuppeting issue where she did not seek their advice before acting), or despite the best efforts of all involved problems still persist, further advice should be sought from ArbCom to include a schedule of increasing blocks.

Awaiting discussion by Arbcom members. --Moni3 (talk) 22:20, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement following Carcharoth's post

My initial intent in this request for clarification was to get some direction from ArbCom about how mentoring should work. It appears to me that mentoring is not a tried or true method of dealing with problematic editors and y'all are seeing what works and what doesn't, hence the lack of structure, this wait and see method, and the request for a report. I have some serious concerns about conducting experiments without any parameters and I feel quite strongly that it is a mistake not to set any. If this was a conscious decision in a type of experiment, i.e. to watch an editor flame out of her own making to justify an indefinite block later on, I find it disrespectful to all of the editors involved. I truly hope it was simply what I suspect: something that has not yet been tried and ArbCom members did not foresee how it would unravel. Although again, I'm at a loss as to how this was not anticipated.

So Carcharoth seemed to have opened this fresh hell, where instead of structuring the mentorship situation, the focus has shifted to the overall effectiveness of mentorship with Mattisse and her place at Wikipedia. If possible, I would like to refocus the purpose of this request for clarification to ascertain what ArbCom views are reasonable expectations and consequences and a structure for registering comments and complaints about Mattisse. If the proverbial cat has left the bag and this is now a minor issue in a much larger tapestry I simply do not know what is to be achieved by re-opening the entire case to look at evidence of Mattisse's behavior and the myriad ways it has been perceived by dozens of editors since the original case was closed. Which scenario is worse: no clarifications are made and the editors with whom Mattisse has had conflicts in the past are left once more to wade into a tar pit of confusion and accusations that surround her? Or she gets indefinitely blocked and adds no more to Wikipedia? In any case, I don't know what more I can do now that this seems to have taken on a life of its own...Let me know...I'll be in my corner playing with something sparkly.

In a related note, I strongly encourage ArbCom to devise a structure for mentoring controversial editors in the future. If this vortex of time and energy is worth something, per this day-brightener, it should allow us to recognize that there may be brilliant, productive, and prolific editors who have problems working in a collaborative environment. What would you do with an Einstein who became a Phineas Gage? Figure it out now to save a dozen editors in the future the stress and disappointment, please. --Moni3 (talk) 15:35, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification for Vassyana

I don't understand what needs to be clarified. Let me know what you need to know. --Moni3 (talk) 22:43, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For Moni3: Why did you feel page protection was necessary? Why did you intervene directly? Did you have any reservations about instituting protection? In retrospect, do you feel it was the proper thing to do or do you believe that another action would have been more proper? Vassyana (talk) 23:13, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Page protection was necessary because there is simply no clarity in this process. From the original ArbCom decision I have been pushing for clear structure, where there are no questions from anyone about what is proper, what procedures are necessary, what is expected from every person involved. Instead, mentors neglected to create any logical structure, then slowly began contemplating it two weeks ago, and began discussing it asking each other what they thought. When SandyGeorgia attempted to help in this clarity by expanding upon plans, Mattisse created another page, moved SandyGeorgia's comments, splintering an already confusing lack of process. I think I've already made the point clear enough that this is chaotic and needs no further disruption. The very next action I took was asking for clarification here (interrupted by an aside post about the ANI thread). I'm finding that I have to escalate the seriousness of these issues. I should not have to do this. This should have been clear from the start.
I intervened directly because no one else was. I was in the middle of constructing a reply on the Monitoring talk page about something when I checked my watchlist to see text had been moved. Threads about complaints have been archived in less than 24 hours. There is no integrity in this process. It needs to stop and ArbCom needs to step up and do what they neglected to do months ago.
I have no reservations about protecting the page for six hours. I have serious reservations about acquiescing months ago when Ling.Nut demanded I stop trying to formulate some kind of logical process. I should not have. I should have pitched a holy fit then because that's apparently what people pay attention to here. Something else for ArbCom to think about: editors who are respectful and reasonable are dismissed for those who speak at a fever pitch. ArbCom appears to become used to a crisis and response method instead of discussing issues calmly and professionally. I find it unfortunate in the extreme that I have to take admin action in order to be heard.
The more proper action is what I have been saying all along: ArbCom should have set parameters that are easily read and followed, leaving no questions from mentors about expectations from Mattisse, mentors, or the editors who have conflicts with her. None of this would be necessary if that was put in place from the beginning. Problems with Mattisse, including her 2-week block for socking and various other issues probably would not have arisen either. --Moni3 (talk) 00:12, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Philcha

I agree it's been messy, partly because of a degree of piling in. A few days Moni3 suggested a more structured presentation, and I support this - see this and this. I also support Moni3's recommendation that items at Mattisse's monitoring page should not be archived for at least 7 days after the "case" is closed - I'd prefer retention for a month before archiving. To preserve a balance between getting the business done and allowing others to comment, I've suggested an "ArbCom lite" type of structure - the item on the monitoring page should stick to the format we're developing and only the original poster, mentors and Mattise should post there; but there should be a separate subpage for comments by others. --Philcha (talk) 16:36, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS RegentsPark summarised the activities of the mentors accurately - only two "cases" were presented clearly enough to be resolved, and they were resolved. As Ottava Rima also pointed out, there's been a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing, which has obscured what has been achieved. --Philcha (talk) 17:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Moni3

With hindsight, Moni3 appears to have been right - a more structured approach would have shut down the useless noise. Personally, I interpreted ArbCom's decree as meaning other editors should not regard the mentoring arrangements as an opportunity to "punish" Mattisse. Unfortuately that's the behaviour that occurred, and events showed I was optimistic. However, as RegentsPark mentioned, we resolved 2 "cases" despite all the noise, and a more structured approach will improve the signal-to-noise ratio - to the benefit of posters who actually want to resolve issues, of Mattisse, and of ArbCom, which I assume has an interest in how this turns out. --Philcha (talk) 19:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC) --Philcha (talk) 22:20, 14 October 2009 (UTC) (ce)[reply]

Response to SandyGeorgia

This comment "... they do all appear to be more engaged now in addressing the issues" became possible as we cut down on the inflammatory and unconstructive comments. Well-defined comments are still being handled as we see them, for example at Karancs' concerns. One result of this was noted by SandyGeorgia. --Philcha (talk) 20:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re to SandyGeorgia's list of Mattisse's alleged recent misconduct

A few hours ago SandyGeorgia posted here a list of Mattisse's alleged recent misconduct. The first of SG's diffs I looked at does not support a charge of misconduct. So I thought it necessary to check the rest. Results:

(the first I looked at, just because of its eye-catching label) about tightening of FA criteria. SG labelled this as "alleges a "class system", presumably at FAC". This was not "presumably at FAC", it was explicitly and honestly about FAC, following YellowMonkey's comments that even some 2007 FAs now fail to meet the current criteria. I've seen discussion at WT:FAC of systemic difficulties at FAC, one being that some review get an easy ride while others face an inquisition, depending on who turns up. SG has failed to WP:AGF about Mattise's comment. Yes, I can provide diffs about "systemic difficulties at FAC".

The rest, in SG's order:

Mattise's comment about the "Advisory Council" proposal. SG labelled this post "cabalism". Most of the criticisms about the "Advisory Council" proposal opposed the un-transparent nature of this proposed appointment of "the great and good", often in quite forthright terms. I see no reason to single out Mattisse's post out of similar hundreds of similar ones.
SG's "allegations about FAR" is a post by Mattisse supporting SG's own comment there, "when we're seeing multiple supports without source checks, that raises eyebrows, since WP:V is a pillar". As far as I can see, that discussion was not explcitly about FAR, it was about poor checking of source's actual content at various reviews - at least one of SG's comments there was about GAN. Mattisse's comments in that discussion were relevant, courteous and largely agreed with SG's own words!
SG describes this "accuses me of stalking her edits to a page I've long been involved in". This was at Mattisse's own Talk page, initially in a conversation of Ling.Nut, who IIRC was at the time one of Mattisse's mentors. At this point SG's name was not mentioned. I notice SG did not show the whole of that discussion. SG's name was introduced by SG herself, "Mattisse, in the (I hope unlikely) event that you are actually implying that I stalked you to James Joyce". I see no basis here for an accusation against Mattisse.
SG's "disingenuous" was in a discussion about FARs. Mattisse's full comment was "Very disengenuous. That article was not at FAR". I think Mattisse's response was rather literal, but SG's preceding comment was slightly off-topic - the article SG mentioned was not at FAR. Mattisse's "disingenuous" was a poor choice of word - I'd have preferred "irrelevant". But it's a storm in a teacup.
SG's "James Joyce issues continue with edit warring" refers to a simple disagreement about the use of a particular source in James Joyce. For some reason I looked at this series of edits at the time - can't remember what rang my bells. My impression was that Mattisse misunderstood the way that source was being used, but I had my doubts about using the source's own description of itself as "the largest library of ...". At the time SG did not raise Mattisse's edit at Talk:James Joyce, so presumably SG did not consider the question important at the time. --Philcha (talk) 07:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC) (ce: --Philcha (talk) 13:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]
SG's "personalizing issues at FAR" shows no basis for an accusation against Mattisse. The preceding post by YellowMonkey said, ".. a very large proportion of people are willing to do anything unless their star is at stake ... putting their star under the hammer is the only way to get the article improved (or removed) unless a small amount of FA regulars [Philcha's emph] have to rewrite half the 2005 or 2006 articles after reading a lot of books ... Else we end up with double or quintuple standards of FAs ...". Mattisse simply agreed with YellowMonkey's concerns. (ce: --Philcha (talk) 13:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]
At another post by Mattisse on the same topic, Mattisse says she's found FAR too stressful and is withdrawing. How can SG describe that as "more personalizing of issues at FAR"?
Re Mattisse's edits to her own Talk page on [21], which SG describes as "alters talk page headings to target me":
- Mattisse created the "SandyGeorgia's supportive posts" series of headings at Mattisse's Talk page. The preceding version of Mattisse's Talk page, with a section about Mattisse's block for use of sockpuppets. Into that SG inserted a long list criticsms of Mattisse's conduct, with a long list of diffs.
- I looked at a few of SG's diffs at the preceding version, and the few I checked were diffs that I've examined above, i.e. poor evidence of anything.
- If SG wanted to improve Mattisse's conduct, SG could have raised these diffs one at a time as they occurred, and explained why they raised concern. The laundry list SG presented is hard to see as anything than hostile.
- SG's "yet another thing" list was inserted into a thread about Mattisse's block for use of sockpuppets, but was irrelevant SG's list was not to the sockpuppet case.
- I think it quite reasonable to move SG's list into another section. Since it's a list with no obvious theme, it's hard think of a title that does not include SandyGeorgia's name. I'd prefer "SandyGeorgia's recent posts" rather than "SandyGeorgia's supportive posts". However I think it was a fairly restrained title.

SG's selection and interpretation of these diffs is seriously flawed, and consistently presents each as unfavourably as possibly. --Philcha (talk) 09:30, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re monitoring formats

There seem to be several parallel sets of discussions, which have little contact with each other: at Clarification#Proposal_for_Newyorkbrad, by Moni3; at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Response_to_Carcharoth_2, by SilkTork; one by SandyGeorgia, containing hypothetical examples at User_talk:Mattisse/Monitoring/Editorial_comments#Sample_of_how_proposed_process_would_work and at User_talk:Mattisse/Monitoring/Editorial_comments#Second_sample_of_how_proposed_process_would_work; and one that has grown out of discussions at User_talk:Mattisse/Monitoring#Draft_report_form and User_talk:Mattisse/Monitoring#Proposed_structure. I apologise if I've missed out any other discussions and their contributors. As far as I can see, all are based on a proposal originated by Moni3 on 6 Oct 2009 and still share the major elements, although differences of emphasis have developed and the various discussions have explored various approaches to minising the impact of foreseeable problems. I suggest we need a single place for further discussion of format and procedure, where contributors to the parallel threads can pool ideas. --Philcha (talk) 21:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC) (ce: --Philcha (talk) 06:04, 17 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]

We are using User:SilkTork/Report for reports and consensus on procedure and layout, and User Talk:SilkTork/Report for discussion of ideas on these. --Philcha (talk) 18:05, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SandyGeorgia

I'll add commentary here as soon as I have time. For now, here is a permalink to the AN/I page, and User talk:Mattisse/Monitoring/Editorial comments is the new page that Mattisse began moving commentary to, from the talk page of her plan page, without any apparent on-Wiki consensus from any of her mentors, and without responding to good faith queries about what was going on.[22][23] She persisted in moving content, without responding to queries, when Moni3 protected the page. She also deleted content (that I later restored on the new page [24]), and added commentary to the new page under sections where it wasn't originally posted,[25] making it very difficult for mentors or other readers to sort what happened when they try to catch up. This kind of spinning out of control is seen often on that page; the day before, Mattisse moved a large chunk of text from her talk page to her monitoring page,[26] and yet here she seems to have decided she no longer wants other editor commentary on the Monitoring page,[27] [28] although it was decided mutually between her and her mentors that other editors could post to the page. Oh, my, do I really need to find diffs for all of this? Can anyone just stick a citation needed tag on anything I have wrong ? :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand and respect that Mattisse may have lost some of the posts while moving them because of edit conflicts, but one way to avoid that would have been to respond to good-faith queries about what she was doing, and wait for consensus from her mentors.

Here is my summary of events this morning: I will supply diffs as needed. Mentors and Mattisse had previously agreed that other editors could post to the Monitoring page, and were working to develop a structure. Geometry Guy and others stated that they would work on the new structure on Sunday, when they had time. Based on good discussion, Philcha proposed a very workable solution-- an adaptation of the structure proposed by Moni3. I provided, on talk, a sample (which I considered a trivial issue, or better stated, an issue I've become accustomed to but should be addressed), using Philcha's proposed structure, so that kinks could be worked out before Geometry Guy worked to install a structure this weekend. (diff of page before Mattisse began removing content, which supports all of the above) Mattisse began unilaterally moving my posts, losing some of them, and incorrectly combining some posts to wrong sections. When she didn't respond to queries, Moni protected the page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Regents and Philcha that the most recent issue received adequate feedback from the mentors at the Monitoring page,[29] but the page spun out of control after Mattisse moved commentary from her talk page to the monitoring page,[30] so a clear structure is needed here. Mentors were advancing in that direction when Mattisse began to unilaterally change the page this morning. Mattisse needs stronger encouragement towards patience, understanding that her mentors aren't always around, and working with them before making moves and changes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:29, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Summary: Mattisse continues to make undiffed and unsubstantiated comments about my motives (added: and other editors),[31] including but not limited to the most recent ones linked on the new "Editorial" page above. She stated that I opposed ArbCom's decision, when what I have opposed is the chaotic, unstructured plan, and mentors with varying degrees of willingness to engage (as they stated up front).[32] Mentors lately have worked very hard to address these issues, and good progress towards a new Plan structure was underway. As I see it, the only factor that led to this current brouhaha is that Mattisse acted unilaterally, without waiting for her mentors until Sunday (as they requested), disrupting the progress that was being made, while failing to respond to good-faith requests about what was happening. If anyone disagrees with any of my undiffed statements, please request diffs on my talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:32, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Mattisse has struck some commentary at AN/I. [33] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to SilkTork

There is a page - User:Mattisse/Monitoring - where people may bring their concerns. Um, but this problem arose because Mattisse decided that people may not bring their concerns there, and she implemented that change without, apparently, discussing that with her mentors, and without responding to requests about what was happening. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Ottava Rima

Much earlier, I thought most of the "battleground" issues arose because of the role the mentors were playing; of late, that is less and less true, as they do all appear to be more engaged now in addressing the issues. The best way for Mattisse to avoid "battles" is to consult with her mentors and cease the behaviors that ArbCom noted in the original case. If that doesn't begin to happen soon, even I will begin to question if the time that so many productive editors have had to invest in this case has been worth it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:08, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re "a long history in which there was a dispute between you and Mattisse. I do accept that you were negatively dealt with during the dispute", I have no idea what you are talking about, Ottava. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to NewYorkBrad

We are right where I feared we'd be: a dysfunctional mentorship because the initial plan accepted by ArbCom was too vague and then was poorly executed, and mentors had varying degrees of availability and willingness to address concerns, compounded by no effective format for expression of concerns. Arbs have to weigh their own responsibility for having accepted this vague plan in their final decision: was Mattisse adequately served by the plan that ArbCom approved, weighed against has the disruption been enough, considering that so many of Wiki's best editors have been involved in trying to help, taking inordinate amounts of time, with many of the issues unchanged? Everyone made mistakes here, which is why Moni and I have been joined by several others in railing for months for more attention to be paid to the dysfunctional mentoring plan. On the upside, the Monitoring page was close to becoming a well functioning page before today's derailment, and the mentors have been doing a sound job lately. On the downside, today's brouhaha was a direct result of no mentors being available, and Mattisse not waiting to consult her mentors (unless something private has not been revealed). If Mattisse isn't availing herself of so much effort from so many other editors, that should also be factored. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:18, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a recurring, unaddressed issue that needs to be factored into whether a mentorship will work. Mattisse does not know how to locate and read diffs, or how to review the editing history on Wiki pages. This leads to many of her faulty assumptions and statements, and anyone who has worked closely with her has seen this, and knows that until it is addressed, it will be at the core of the recurring issues. A more active mentorship is needed. The reason the ATC mentorship worked is that I devoted darn near 24/7 for two months to leading her by the hand through each issue, teaching her how Wiki works, while an admin was on board to block when she didn't respond. None of Mattisse's mentors appear to really understand what is behind her problems, no one is on board who will block, and I suggest they will continue to occur until someone teaches her to read diffs and edit histories. Mattisse's edit count is deceiving in this sense, as she still is lacking in some basic editing skills. (See discussion on her talk; this is "not my job". I was not listed on her "plague list" likely because I refrained from commenting in earlier go-rounds, but I think most observers know that I am one of the editors most frequently targeted by her, so someone else needs to help her learn to read edit histories and use diffs; that may help her avoid some of these recurring issues.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:22, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Moni's response to NYB: Good. Put that woman on ArbCom; as she said all along, this is how it should have been done from the beginning. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Regents Park response to Moni: On too much time for the format, Boloney :) I put up a sample today in less than 10 minutes, including the time to find diffs. :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:41, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Carcharoth

I'm concerned when you precede a statement with "I'm not 100% sure of what is going on here yet", and then proceed to make recommendations. Your recommendations amount to giving more time to a situation which hasn't changed since within weeks after the Arb closed, and worse asking even more work of the mentors by suggesting they submit a report, when you already have ample evidence that the mentorship as currently structured isn't working. Wikipedia is severely lacking in editors lately (just in case we all haven't noticed :) and vandal fighting, admin processes, and content review processes are all suffering, and yet here we have many of Wiki's finest and hardest working editors devoting already large amounts of time to helping sort issues with one editor, and you suggest that they do more by submitting a report. That sounds like unnecessary paper shuffling to me. All of these editors could be writing articles, fighting vandals, and participating in content review processes: it is time for Mattisse to begin listening to her mentors. The recent event unfolded because she took unilateral action, against their consensus that other editors could post to the Monitoring page, without consulting them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:06, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Carcharoth, I don't think you've noticed that she doesn't have that many active mentors, several of them are MIA, all of them are busy, and there aren't surplus people to write reports. By the way, will this report be public, since she was allowed to designate a mentor committee of only her own choosing (biased by ArbCom design in her favor)? I don't see what a report could add to what has already been presented, particularly considering how very busy all of those editors are. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:39, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree with Moni that Carcharoth's post has opened a new and peculiar "hell" and detracted from our focus here. Mentoring Mattisse is taking inordinate amounts of time from many of Wiki's finest editors, and it's time for ArbCom to step up to the plate, and not request "reports" on a mentorship that isn't working because it was too vaguely defined, and where too many messengers are being shot in the process. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Mattisse

Mattisse has repeatedly stated that "the monitoring page was locked down with the major suggestions by my mentor/advisers removed" and similar; this is simply not true, and she has shown no diffs which evidence that, and the failure to provide diffs is misleading and will only cause arbs and other newcomers to the page to spend extra time trying to sort the situation, as it is presented inaccurately. The only person removing content was Mattisse, and the only content she removed was mine.[34] (Correction: she later removed more here, and after my two queries and a warning, she removed still more. No suggestions by her mentors/advisers were removed by anyone, and no content was removed by anyone but Mattisse.) She also stated on talk that she removed comments after I introduced negative comments; this is also false. She unilaterally began removing productive content with no notice, and the page was only protected after she started that process and failed to answer queries (see my diffs above and on her talk page).

Further, although one of her mentors, and myself more than once has asked her to strike derogatory statements at AN/I,[35] she has not done that, although she continued to edit all day and did go to AN/I to alter an archived comment.[36] Although a mentor she trusts requested it,[37] she has still not stricken "Moni3 has no right to lock down my user page because SandyGeorgia is not getting her way" from AN/I. Mattisse does not seem to understand the original arb case or the issues that lead to these flareups, or how to read page histories or diffs. For mentorship to work, Mattisse has to be willing to work with her mentors, and recognize the severity of ArbCom's previous findings and the need to change the behaviors and back her beliefs about other editors with diffs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Curiously, Mattisse also states that "User:Mattisse/Monitoring ... is for mentors/advisers only"; this is not the case, consensus on the page with her mentors was that other editors could post there, and Philcha has pointed this out to Mattisse. So, most of what Mattisse presents in her statement is simply inaccurate or misleading, and it's regrettable that so much time has to be spent sorting an issue that could have been avoided if she had simply consulted her mentors before unilaterally deciding no one else could post to her mentoring page. She questions if she must have "superhuman abilities" to stay on Wikipedia; no, she simply has to stop the behaviors that led to the original Arb sanctions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mattisse also asks Karanacs to list behavioral issues since her ArbCom; there are too many to diff, so in addition to the two I already listed on the "new" Monitoring ("Editorial") page, here are some other diffs since the Arbcom (recalling that assumptions of bad faith and allegations of cabals of editors were part of her arb):

cabalism, allegations about FAR, accuses me of stalking her edits to a page I've long been involved in, "disingenuous", James Joyce issues continue with edit warring, personalizing issues at FAR, more personalizing of issues at FAR, alleges a "class system", presumably at FAC, alters talk page headings to target me. This is a small sampling; others are detailed in the archives on the Monitoring page (where they were prematurely archived) and in the new "editorial" page. I'm also concerned about her use of edit summaries. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After I responded to this query, Mattisse removed the query to Karanacs.[38] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Philcha's analysis of diffs

From the Arb findings and the Arb-approved plan:

Amendments to the plan may occur by consensus of the mentors, whereby the changes become provisional.
As a starting point in developing the plan, Mattisse and her mentors or advisors should consider ... Mattisse's refraining from making any comments regarding the motivations or good faith of other users ...
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.

Philcha, your analysis of the diffs I presented is incomplete and in several instances inaccurate, and disregards knowledge of the articles or pages and how those diffs specifically relate to the Arb and subsequent Plan; if you will number your list instead of using bullet points, I can respond to correct any misunderstanding when I'm home tomorrow, explaining exactly how they relate to the points above (apparent to editors more familiar with those articles and instances, but perhaps not to you). On the other hand, I don't know if this is the page where we need to analyze all of the instances where she has failed to adhere to her Plan; that's not why we're here, and doing so is likely to muddle the purpose of this Request for clarification. Mattisse asked for samples from Karanacs, so I put up just a few. (added Those were only intended to be a sample of past issues that weren't raised because an effective means of dealing with them was not in place, and messengers were being shot. We should focus instead now on new instances, moving forward.) If you all get a working structure installed on the Monitoring page, situations can be handled there, but I can see from this example that if editors are required to briefly list only diffs, mentors might not get the full picture or history, so a limited page structure might not work. You all do need some mentors who know and see the issues from the "plague list" side of the equation; this has always been a shortcoming in ArbCom allowing her to choose only mentors acceptable to her, and has resulted in "shooting the messenger" of complainants and mixed messages to Mattisse.

Even without the sample diffs, we already have ample indication that Mattisse is not working with or listening to her mentors or following her Plan. These include, but are not limited to: the socking incident; the incident which led to this Arb Request, where she failed to gain consensus with mentors before unilaterally changing her plan; her failure yesterday to adopt your suggestions about her disparaging commentary on AN/I; and the two sample incidents I recorded on the new "Editorial" page. I think we're here to evaluate whether the plan is working rather than an extensive analysis of sample diffs of where it's not. She made those disparaging posts about other editors at AN/I within days of the archival of the most recent incident on her Monitoring page (regarding her comments about Geogre on AC/N, which by the way, I can't find in archives, a complaint-by-complaint archival system is needed), where she did get good advice from her mentors, so it's apparent she isn't listening to y'all, isn't working with y'all, and continues with the same issues, only days later in this case, and failing to strike those comments as you recommended. We have plenty of examples that the Plan isn't working and she isn't listening to her mentors; something needs to change, with or without extensive analysis and understanding of the diffs I listed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:14, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will, though, provide at least one example of the problem with your analysis of the diffs. [39] In that discussion, someone presented hard, factual data about the number of nominations at FAR. Data is data. Mattisse has been reminded not to personalize discussions; this directly relates to the Arb and the behaviors that led to it. Mattisse responded to hard data as if it was an attack on her, personalizing the discussion; this is a frequent pattern. If you will work harder to understand all of those diffs and how they relate to her Plan, it will help editors on the "plague" list feel that the Mentorship has a chance of working. You might also note that Mattisse's messages are often conveyed in her edit summaries, and pay close attention to them, reminding her of the appropriate way to use edit summaries. If this mentorship is going to work, it needs to be a much more active mentorship than the original Plan provided for; as things stand, mentors aren't often aware what work is needed and when issues are occurring. You also suggest that I should have raised these issues one at a time; have you not observed what happens when I specifically try to engage Mattisse to resolve disputes (yesterday) or how the "messenger was shot" on any incident raised thus far? She came to James Joyce-- an article I have edited for years-- edit warred to remove a source twice, even though her error was pointed out (your recollection there is wrong), and then implied that I had stalked her to that article (you need to know the timeline, and you all should help her learn how to read article histories and diffs, where it's plainly apparent how long I have been involved at the James Joyce article). Should I spend all of my Wiki time trying to resolve these ongoing Mattisse issues, when what matters now is simply, is she adhering to her plan and is she listening to her mentors? When y'all get a working system, issues can be raised when they occur; so far, there was no means of raising issues, and the messenger was often shot. I left two samples on the "editorial" page that you all can use to develop a new system. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:42, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update

I was traveling most of September, several days last week, will be out all day today, and have Dr. app'ts tomorrow. I am preparing several responses, that I may not get to until Monday or perhaps Tuesday. The only thing I'll add for now is that an established editor like Fowler should be familiar by now with WP:EDITCOUNTITIS; as most observers of my edits know, it takes me many more edits to complete a post than younger editors with better eyesight and better prose than mine, and I took multiple posts to add diffs and commentary here. I will try to update in one post, but it is highly unlikely to happen. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:49, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't yet found the time for an update, but expressed this concern on the Report page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:52, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This whole affair (and by that, I mean what I see as ArbCom's initial mishandling of the mentorship portion of the decision, and including one unfortunate comment from an arb which was subsequently and thankfully struck from this page) has been exhausting and exasperating for many editors, and has really drained enthusiasm for Wiki among some of our best FAC reviewers. I hope the pending Mentoring report will be viewed in the context that: 1) the committee was self-selected by Mattisse, 2) the Monitoring page was only for mentors until recently, so complaints couldn't be presented there, hence the record is incomplete; 3) many of the mentors didn't even have the Monitoring page or Mattisse's talk page watchlisted until mid-September;[40] 4) some editors gave up and left FAC or Wiki; and 5) there were initial concerns of "shooting the messenger" and incidents not being paid attention to when they were raised, leading at least one editor to bow out.[41] [42]

I largely stood down in the first Arb, thinking these issues would be addressed, but since then, I've watched as I, other productive editors, and content review processes are maligned across multiple pages, while little was done until this most recent incident prompted action. The mentors do seem to be more engaged now, but I continue to note that 1) none of them signed on to "babysit" or follow contribs; 2) none of them has or agreed to use the power to block; 3) some of them remain relatively uninvolved; and 4) often, clear issues are first noted by other parties, notably Karanacs.[43][44] I continue to believe the mentorship will have a better chance of success if the mentoring committee is expanded to include someone who actively follows Mattisse's talk and content review processes, such as Karanacs, who has demonstrated the ability to notice issues unnoticed by her mentors and calmy and politely convey issues to Mattisse without raising hackles.

I also find the frequent statements about "overinvolvement" or lack of "neutrality" by anyone curious; in which sort of forum are "victims" expected to be silent while little action is taken in the face of continued behaviors?

Regarding ongoing confusion from Mattisse's editing style (evidenced on this page), one of the mentors mentioned a full day into this recent debacle that he had just figured out where the moved posts went.[45] Karanacs has explained how Mattisse's frequent moves, combines, and failure to understand diffs and article histories contributes to confusion and some of her misunderstandings; this is a pattern I have long observed, and which affected FAC. I've had a sense of frustration that her mentors going in didn't seem to understand the source of some of Mattisse's confusion, and how her own misunderstandings fuel her perceptions that other editors are out to get her.

I am concerned that the Monitoring page must allow for ample input from complainants, to avoid the partial analysis of situations and diffs as presented by Philcha in the examples I gave above (which we do not need to explore further here, because they are in the past, we need to move forward); the complainants need to be able to discuss and clarify, with no "shooting the messenger" forcing them to back down. Alternately, they should take issues back to Arb or to AN/I. Because the mentorship wasn't working out until recently, I didn't report them on the Monitoring page whenever I saw issues, but was stunned that the mentors didn't even notice issues right on Mattisse's talk page. I hope we're beyond that now.

At a minimum, I never understood why ArbCom didn't rule that Mattisse should no longer review (or initiate) FACs, FARs, GANs, GARs or DYKs of editors with whom she has had previous conflicts. Giano/Bish/George/Filiocht have been clear targets at FAR (note the James Joyce incident, where the article was incorrectly tagged twice (Mattisse tags articles before bringing them to FAR); there are plenty of truly bad FAs in need of review, perhaps Mattisse could focus elsewhere, and Mattisse once nominated an article at FAR, then removed and had it deleted per the "one nom at a time rule" after she engaged in a tussle on a G/B/G article, so she could FAR it instead ... sorry, I'm not an admin, can't locate the deleted FAR). ALL of this context is necessary to a full understanding of disruption at FAR, and why Mattisse might have personalized the discussion when another editor pointed out that almost half of the FAR noms were hers when the "one nom at a time" rule was temporarily suspended. I agree that we don't want to lose her sometimes valuable input at FAC and FAR, and to that aim, G guy and I once discussed the idea of allowing her to comment on talk pages only,[46] so the review pages wouldn't be derailed, as they are when she is emotionally involved. (I've seen numerous references to her copyediting skills, yet she seemed so upset during the Major Depressive Disorder FAC that she introduced copyediting, spelling and grammar errors almost every time she edited the article; she shouldn't stay involved in reviews if she becomes emotional. Those are noted in the MDD talk archives.)

A recent example supports some of what Durova observed. It took a long time for Mattisse to strike a comment from AN/I, that was initially called to her attention by Karanacs, with a followup from Philcha, on her talk page. I stuck with it this time, although previous attempts at discussion with Mattisse have all failed, because there were enough observers involved to hopefully assure the discussion would stay on track, and because her mentor had specifically recommended a course of action that she delayed (substantially) in following. But from observing that interaction on her talk page, and that she twice went to AN/I and yet did not follow her mentor's advice until a long while afterwards and with a lot of prodding from me, makes me wonder what's going on there. It appears disingenuous, as pointed out by Durova. If she can find her way to AN/I to strike one comment, and then alter an archived comment, why can't she notice both of Philcha's comments, and why did it take so much prodding for her to follow her mentor's advice and why will she not answer direct questions from editors attempting to resolve disputes?[47], [48] She found her way to AN/I to strike one comment,[49] alter a comment after archival of the thread,[50] but managed to overlook until she was significantly prodded the other issue raised by Philcha and Karanacs in the very same posts.[51]

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mattisse

Please see See this version of User talk:Mattisse/Monitoring], prior to lock down of the page. We began working on a structure yesterday and were making good progress. Previously the page had devolved in to arguments and attacks on my mentors/advisers with nothing constructive resulting. (Here is a snapshot of what the page looked like yesterday.[52]) The page was TLTR with many long editorial essay. Arbcom made in clear in its decision that User:Mattisse/Plan was to be "my plan" and I was to be responsible for it. I was going bonkers with all the bickering and the repetitiousness of the comments, and someone cleared the page. When discussions between SandyGeorgia and Moni3 reappeared there this morning, I moved the comments to another page,[53] and my mentors/advisers and I are working on a new format. (I lost some material, not on purpose, because of the repeated edit conflicts. I ask SandyGeorgia to assume good faith that I did not intentionally lose content.[54]) That is, until an involved admin User:Moni3 locked down my user page so that I could not edit it any more. Hence the problem now. I have faith in my advisers/mentors and I have faith that ArbCom make a well thought out decision. No one thought that this would be easy. But it is not for SandyGeorgia and Moni3 to control what happens on my user page because they think their way is best. I believe that if my mentors/advisers and I are left along to do our work, ArbCom will be satisfied.

I made a very bad mistake since the Arbitration in creating what I thought were "joke" sockpuppets that made a few edits, that I now see were pointy and hurtful. I was blocked for two weeks for that. I have made errors in judgment in wording my concerns. Never was it my intention to be disruptive. I am learning more what is considered "wrong" for me, Mattisse, to do by Wikipedia through my mentors/advisers. It is not true that they have failed to provide me with input. They have, much of it by email because any posting on the monitoring page or my talk page causes a storm of opinions and arguing from other editors. I am trying to learn. Please have faith in my mentors/advisers and allow us to work unimpeded. Please do take into consideration that almost everything I did on the monitoring page and the editorial comment page was met with edit conflicts, and I lost much material that explained my actions.

I agree with RegentsPark that "everyone and his aunt" felt they could comment on the monitoring page, with resulting repetitiousness and chaos. Thus the need to severely limit the posts there to a stringent format, and move "discussion" to the editorial talk page. I also agree with him that progress has steadily been made. Please allow me and my very fine panel of advisers/mentors to work on the problems without chaotic, repetitious, distracting input, in our own way.

Unfortunately, the monitoring page was locked down with the major suggestions by my mentor/advisers removed.Please see this version and the progress we had made. Editors are basically repeating themselves. Agree with User:Ottava Rima that the page has become a battleground. And my mentors/advisers can find other ways of communicating. On an open page, my mentors/advisers end up being attacked. It is too stressful for both me and my mentors/advisers to sustain ourself in this us against them mentality. I am fearful they will not want to continue, as it is so unpleasant to be under attack.

I note other "uninvolved" editors had a fundamental misunderstanding of my monitoring page and were adding and removing material.[55]

My editing

If superhuman abilities are required at Wikipedia, then I admit I fail. I am human and do make mistakes. My mentors/advisers have been all to willing to point them out to me. Ultimately, it is up to arbcom to decide what level of human fallibility is tolerable here. Having taken up reading arbcom pages, on the advise of one of my mentors/advisers, I think my failings are minor compared to what arbccom regularly deals with and concern a small group of editors. For example, I do not vandalize or edit war to insert agenda into articles. I do not insert POV.

Please take into account the timestamps on the diffs of my behavior provided. Today is October 15. Many of the diffs refer to much earlier, such as July and August. Please look at my entire editing history since the arbcom. Since almost five months have passed and over 8,000+ edits on my part, I submit my errors in judgment are minor in number and confined to specific loci only. The vast amount of my work and my interactions with other editors is problem free. Please note that I am No. 124 on Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits as of October, 2009. I submit that this is because I have given unstintingly of my editing skills to Wikipedia and that my problems lie with a very narrow group of editors. I am very willing to make every effort to avoid that subgroup of editors. In reading through the many diffs offered as complaints about my behavior, many of them seem to be situations in which an assumption of good faith would have resolved.

My editing has changed. I used to regularly review articles for FAC, several per week and copy edit extensively several more. Now I no longer review or copy edit FAC's unless requested by the nominating editor, and even then, as in the case of The Disasters of War, which Ceoil asked me to review, I withdrew and I will not complete that review. I have been asked to review Ottava Rima's current FAC. I used to review review 3 to 5 GAN's a week. I no longer am willing to do GANs at present, although in the future I may return perhaps. I do not do GAR or FAR at all. I used to help out with verification of dyks, but after Durova's complaint, I am unwilling to review a dyk unless I know the editor is not a sock puppet. So I write dyks, of which I have written 12 so far in October, 2009, and work on my own articles, as well as upload PD pictures.

I now have 73,000+ articles, 91 dyks and three in the hopper. I have created close to 550 articles. Almost all my work has been in the article space and there have been no complaints about my work there. The work on the monitoring page has been productive. (See version prior to lockdown.[56]), I think my mentors/advisers have been very successful in a difficult situation, one that has been stressful for them.(See unhelpful comments added) As others have pointed out, mentoring/advising is difficult work and I think mine are doing a stellar job.

Over involvement and use of admin tools

Moni3 was an involved admin, and not one of my mentors/advisers; she should not have used her admin tools to control my mentoring in my userspace. I ask arbcom to consider that both SandyGeorgia and Moni3 are overly involved in my case, as noted by (former mentor/adviser) Ling.Nut at the end of this long discussion Saddens me to say .... They both have made their points multiple places on Wikipedia. After the Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Münchausen by Internet/1 in which I gave my opinion regarding an article by Moni3, she commented on my talk page Mattisse is full of neurotic bullshit] and refused to address aggressive remarks at request of an admin. And here also. (This is also an example of the attacks on my mentors/advisers.) As an example of this over involvement is here[57] and today, October 20, Sandy and Moni3 continue posting long remarks on a mentor's talkpage, not satisified with this arbcom.[58][59] It is the posting of such long remarks on my talk page, the monitoring page and elsewhere that I found unhelpful and disruptive.

The page did not have to be locked down. If it was, I could have been notified that this was a legitimate use of admin tools by an invested admin. That was my only question at AN/I. This did not have to come to arbcom because of this incident. It was an over reaction by an invested admin. This was not an article in article space. This was a userspace page. What does it matter who is able to write on my userspace page for six hours that warrants arbcom attention? Nothing in particular happened today, except that my mentors/advisers and I made some very good progress in coming up with a format for a complaints page, and I became frustrated by multiple edit conflicts that confused me. We were revising the format and continue to do so. We welcome constructive feedback.

SandyGeorgia continues to be overinvolved, answering questions directed specifically at another editor [60] and not allowing my mentors/advisers to work without interference.[61] As Philcha mentions, that SandyGeorgia put a long list of grievances on my page just after I was blocked and still upset, and that was not experienced by me as a constructive attempt to change my behavior but was experienced by me as an attempt to inflame. I concur with his analysis of the diffs she provided relating to July and August. I will try to use better wording in the future, but I also think she tends to personalize my remarks and not assume good faith. I would like to know if she has any recent evidence (e.g. in October) of my disruptive editing (other than the incident related to Moni3's lockdown of my userspace page). Note that I no longer maintain my long-standing practice of extensive copy editing and reviewing of several FACs a week but only review selectively upon request. I have not participated in FAR for several months and have no desire to do so at present.

I also wonder at the involvement of "uninvolved" User:Unitanode who has posted on the mentoring and talk pages more than my advisers/mentors, or anyone else but me. [62][63]

Response to SandyGeorgia

User:Mattisse/Monitoring (the prior to lockdown version is the one we will revert to once the lockdown ends) is for mentors/advisers only. I sought to remove the unhelpful comments[64] and return the page to its constructive mood. This is to prevent the bickering, the attacks on mentors/advisers that were turning the page into chaos. ArbCom made it clear that I was in charge of my mentoring.

Response to 'I told you so' by Durova

Durova's dyk complaint relates to an April 29, 2009 action[65] which apparently relates to a sockpuppet of hers.[66][67] I am not quite clear. Durova did not respond to my attempt to clarify.[68] I sincerely regret that an incident from April 2009 is still painful to Durova. I have never been given any feedback that my responses to dyk's were considered inappropriate, so I did not know. I wish Durova had not waited until now to bring up what seems to be a painful incident from six months ago. I deeply regret that this incident has affect her so, but there is nothing I can do but apologize I do think we should avoid each other, since I cannot make sense of what Durova says. If she is using sockpuppets, then I will not know it is her.

Response to revised statement by Durova

I continue to be baffled by Durova's statements and the psychoanalyzing or "detective work" she conducts regarding my words, behavior, and my answers to hypothetical questions. In the RFC Mattisse, much the same happened and I was equally baffled. I simply don't understand her meaning. Perhaps there is a cultural barrier.

Response by Mattissee to Karanacs

~~Please specify the "behavioral issues" I have had. I admit there have been a few, but considering that I have completed 8,000 edits since the arbcom, do you think there have been many?~~ Struck as Karanacs has not responded to this specific question.

Response to Karanacs

Update. Karanacs has ~~apologized~~ acknowledged she was mistaken in blaming me on Geometry guy's talk page for archiving or otherwise removing posts from the monitoring page[69]. She accepted my explanation.[70] She ~~apologized~~ clarified on my talk page that she had been mistaken in her accusation.[71] I acknowledge that I removed a few posts to try to gain some control over the page in the period immediately before the page was locked down by Moni3. However, it is only during this small period of time before the page was locked down that I removed a few posts. At no other time did I remove posts from the page, although others did, and I did not set up the archives nor archive anything. Perhaps Karanacs is not clear on this issue and I suggest she consult page and editing histories to clarify. I acknowledge that Karanacs did not apologize for her mistake, and have struck that she did.

This incident is important as it shows how the "common wisdom" regarding my behavior is spread and accepted as true, even by common-sense editors like Karanacs. Many editors belief that I was removing posts willy nilly from the monitoring page. This was not true. ~~Karanacs had the kindness to acknowledge her mistake.~~ Karanacs apparently continues to believe that I removed posts in periods other than the time just before the page lockdown. A look at the page history will show that I last even posted on the page on October 6. My next editing was on October 14 in the period just before the lock down where SandyGeorgia posted 12 times and I posted 7 in quick succession because I was trying to clean up the monitoring page and make it usable. My attempts to do this are given as justification for Moni3's locking down the page. ArbCom has acknowledge that it was within my right to do this.

To the degree that I do not understand statements made to me, as Karanacs says, then that is a fault of mine due perhaps to cultural differences between me and some other editors. It is true that Durova makes no sense to me, and I apparently do not understand much of what Karanacs says. And it is true that I find remarks by other editors quite offensive at times. I guess ArbCom and Wikipedia has to decide how much tolerance exists for editors that do not think as do my most outspoken critics: SandyGeorgia, Moni3, Karanacs, Malleus and Unitanode. Yes, I am different than these folks. My sense of humor is not the same, I don't like joke blocks and joke sockpuppets etc. I am offended by much of the language. This is something arbcom must decide: how much tolerance for editors whose culture is outside the boundaries of what is considered "ok" and how much good faith is extended to those of use who lie outside the norm. There is not much I can do about misunderstanding other editors, except to listen to those I do understand, such as SilkTork, Salix alba, Philcha, John Carter, RegendsPark, Geometry guy etc.

What does arbcom suggest in the case of cultural differences and true misunderstandings? The level of anger expressed against me is scary, especially as 99.999% of my energy goes into improving the encyclopedia. Should I just give up?

Codicil by Giano

If the above is another of her snipes "everyone and his aunt", then I would like it known I have never posted on any of her various monitoring pages in any guise at all. Nor do I intend to take part in Mattisse's games or those of her "mentors."

This whole ongoing process of numerous user pages, forms and red tape then meeting an entire committee of mentors before lodging a complaint against one editor is completely ridiculous and smacks of self indulgence. Only a fool would humour that indulgence. If Mattisse irritates me, I shall ignore dismiss the entire fantastical process and post on ANI or her talk (depending on the severity and my mood at the time) as I would with any other editor, and I advise all others to do the same. Never read such rubbish in all my life. Giano (talk) 18:51, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If as someone suggests Vassyana comments refer to me, then Vassyana is ill-advised and naive. S'he would do well to checj their facts very carefully. I ignore Mattisee untill she deliberatlty treads on my feet. Then is one expresses disatisfaction one is attacked by her "mentors". So Vassanya, if that is what you meant - check your fact or hush. Giano (talk) 09:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Karanacs

I agree that more clarification is needed, on both the role of the mentors and the way in which concerns can be brought. Several editors have tried to bring concerns to the attention of Mattisse's mentors; instead of responding to the content of the request, several mentors have instead derailed the conversations into discussions of the reporter's motivations. "Do not feed the trolls" [72] [73] [74] This has even extended to other user talk pages [75] "I would welcome a response to my earlier question as to why you are taking an interest in Mattisse"

The lack of structure, lack of agreement on roles the mentors should play, and a lack of documentation on actions taken is contributing to the chaos and drama that has surrounded this page. The current situation can only harm Mattisse.

Karanacs (talk) 16:52, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like clarification on what this means: [76]. I am concerned that fragmentation of the requests will lead to inconsistent advice for Mattisse and much less transparency on what is going on. Karanacs (talk) 19:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Newyorkbrad

On the one hand, I think that the lack of structure and clear roles has made it difficult for the mentorship to work, and that fixing these problems could give the mentorship new life. If we're going to try this again, I like Moni3's plan, especially the shorter time limit. The 12-month period proposed by one of her mentors seems way too long for a trial; a lot of disruption can occur in that time frame (although I sincerely hope it won't).

On the other hand, I don't see that Mattisse's behavior has improved that much, and I don't see many indications from her that she actually understands the gravity of her situation and is amenable to permanent changes. Her references to the Arbcom case often seem to focus on the side comments made in voting that others have baited her, and make it appear to me as if she is still blaming the rest of the world for her troubles. I'm also troubled by her statement here that she hasn't had many behavioral issues since the case. Yes, in some ways it is better, but in some ways it is equally disruptive. Karanacs (talk) 00:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Mattisse

I had not planned on posting here again, but now I see that Mattisse is misrepresenting or misinterpretating my comments. I have not "apologized" nor have I stated that Mattisse has not moved text. Instead, I acknowledged that she was not the only one moving posts. She very definitely moved posts from the monitoring page to the editorial comments page, hence why we are here. There is a big difference between the statement I left for her and her representation of that here.my comment Mattisse's interpretation

Also, I wonder why she brought this up here. It has nothing to do with comments I have made at this clarification request, but instead posts I made on another editor's talk page. I have not retracted any statements I made here, and her statement should not be interpreted that I have. Karanacs (talk) 14:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further response to Mattisse

Again, Mattisse appears to have misunderstood all of my posts and makes inaccurate characterizations [77]. My initial statement on Geometry Guy's talk page was that posts had been moved around and then archived from several places into one page. I incorrectly attributed all of that to Mattisse; she moved posts from her talk page to the monitoring page, from the monitoring page to the editorial comments page, and occasionally moved posts to different locations within the monitoring page, but her mentors archived. I have not said that I "believe that [Mattisse] removed posts in periods other than the time just before the page lockdown."

This is an extremely unimportant (imo) incident, but it represents a larger pattern (as noted by Durova). Mattisse misunderstands/misinterprets other editors' comments, attributes motives/beliefs to those other editors, and brings her misrepresentations/misinterpretations to forums where they are not relevant, potentially prejudicing whoever she is communicating with. I don't know how to help Mattisse with the first step (misinterpreting), and if she cannot recognize these incidents, I don't know if she will be able to stop steps 2 and 3 - if you don't know you've done something wrong, how can you fix it?

Statement by RegentsPark

I agree with the spirit of Moni3's statement above. In my view, Mattisse is under a sort of behavioral probation that restricts her from making any comments that could be perceived as lacking in good faith or as a comment on an editor (rather than on content). As a monitor, I see my role as advising her on how to avoid getting into these sorts of imbroglios and, if she does find herself embroiled in one, how to extricate herself in as undamaging a way as is possible. However, that's not what seems to be happening. Rather, things spiral quickly out of control once the mess begins because everyone (Mattisse included) is in a hurry to chime in to support her or to dump on her. The page quickly becomes useless because the original complaint gets buried under a sea of accusations, counter-accusations, and general cant and the entire process becomes a mess.

However, I disagree with moni3 that his/her plan has been met with 'silence and an astonishing lack of direction by Mattisse's mentors'. From what I can see, several mentors have offered their own suggestions, as have I and there is a healthy ongoing discussion. As a fairly neutral editor in all this, I believe that the main intent of monitoring is to serve as a one-stop location which mentors can use to help Mattisse. But, because it has also become a place where everyone and their aunt can comment, it needs structure and that's what the current discussion is focusing on. Mattisse has to be a part of the discussion because without buy in from her we might as well throw up our hands and tell her to leave wikipedia.

My suggestion is that everyone takes a deep breath and note that the process has so far dealt with two complaints. One was resolved based on suggestions made by the monitors, and the second required that Mattisse be advised appropriately, which a monitor did. Bottom line, the process is sort of working. What isn't working is the chaotic nature of the monitoring page but this is a learning process for everyone and the page will evolve. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 17:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Note: I agree with SandyGeorgia that Mattisse should be more patient and try not to respond or defend herself until mentors have had a chance to comment and discuss the incident in question. Less is, more often than not, more.--RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 17:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)))[reply]

Response to NewYorkBrad

As I note above, I think it is premature to call the plan dead in the water. What's working well is that concerns are getting reported and mentors are giving suggestions. Two things are not working well. The discussion goes way beyond the original concern and Mattisse does not seem to see where the boundaries are wrt her comments though, to be honest, I think there is a lot of provocation. Perhaps arbcom needs to clarify, for Mattisse, what her limits are as well as the consequences of not adhering to these limits and we, the mentors, need to come out with a plan that limits discussion (and, as a side effect, reduces provocation as well). --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 22:22, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on moni3 proposal

The general thrust is fine but I don't agree with the specific format. First, the amount of work that the complainant has to do is enormous. A simple expression of concern should be all that is required. Second, the complainant is likely to be someone with whom Mattisse has had negative interactions in the past and expecting Mattisse to passively accept suggestions and advice from them is not practical. My suggestion is that the format be simpler, with a section where an editor can express their concern (like unitanode did), and then where mentors can respond with comments and then with a specific course of action (if necessary). Additional comments can go elsewhere, away from the main thread. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 22:36, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Carcharoth proposal

Sounds good to me. The unnerving speed with which the things develop is definitely one of the problems here so a short time out is a good idea anyway but I also ike the idea of compiling a mentor report on how successful the process has (or has not) been and on how the current problems can be better addressed (re the moni3 proposal). --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 02:28, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Carcharoth new proposal

I don't think Moni3's proposal as presented is workable (as discussed here). I believe that a simpler structure, that allows for complaints but restricts judgmental comments about Mattisse's actions from non-mentor editors is a preferable process. Quoting arbcom decisions is, IMO, overly bureaucratic, and suggesting course of actions is likely to be inflammatory. A good example of what should be posted is Unitanode's posting (here) and, IMO, an excellent example of how the process actually worked well (Mattisse got good concrete and actionable advice which she acted upon). This is true despite the fact that the discussion spiraled out of control because of comments from other editors and because Mattisse was too quick to rush to her own defense. If Mattisse can promise not to respond to complaints, and if outside comments can be kept at a distance, this mentorship is both workable and working. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 01:12, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ottava Rima

I feel that there are too many partisans operating at the page, and that this is not in the best interest of Mattisse. Instead of being a way to help Mattisse get away from the battlefield mentality, the page has become a battleground with many more players. I find the situation unfortunate. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am highly disappointed to find out that Moni3 had used her ops on Mattisse's page while she is an involved user. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy, from what I know you have had a long history in which there was a dispute between you and Mattisse. I do accept that you were negatively dealt with during the dispute, and that there were problems that you were not to blame for. However, I do not believe that there is a way to see you as neutral in the issue. While your actions may be just in regards to history, they are not neutral. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:41, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brad, I feel that your words suggest that the previously available options have disappeared and that there is nothing less. If that is the case, I feel that we would be in a regretful situation. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"I have no idea what you are talking about" - If you are going to claim that there was no dispute between you and Mattisse ever, then I have nothing further to say to you and if any Arbs believe that there is no dispute, they are welcome to email me and I will point out the obvious. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:32, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SilkTork

There is a page - User:Mattisse/Monitoring - where people may bring their concerns. There is ongoing and active discussion - User talk:Mattisse/Monitoring - on how best to use that page. We are working with people to address any concerns. I have today agreed with User:Unitanode that I may be pinged directly. While I accept that Moni3 is raising legitimate questions about the process, because discussions are happening right now to improve matters, I am slightly concerned that this request might divert attention from that discussion, or fragment it by moving it to another venue. The monitoring page has had its problems; however, we are endeavoring to sort out those problems.

I continue to be keen to assist, though good will is hard to maintain (and I was warned privately that good will can get worn down in any "mentoring" situation!) when those willing to help are questioned and criticised too closely. If those willing to assist Mattisse are so worn down they are no longer willing to maintain that role, then we are back to square one. However, Mattisse's "mentors and advisors" are not assisting matters when responding too quickly with negative comments, so a general air of conflict is created.

I would welcome everyone drawing a line now on what has happened in the past, and resolving to work positively together in the future. SilkTork *^YES! 18:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Newyorkbrad

Is the decision working out as well as we had hoped? No.
Should additional time be allowed for things to be adjusted? Yes - because there is awareness by all concerned that the plan is not yet working effectively; and Mattisse and those who offered to assist her have been working on, and continue to work on, improvements to the plan. This is actively ongoing. Plans are rarely perfect and ongoing adjustments are needed. This has been the case. If there had been no attempt to improve the plan I could see reasons for concern, but there has been reflection on the merits of the plan and ongoing suggestions for making it better. If we were a long way down the road and the plan had been altered many times with no success, I could see reasons for concern. But this is relatively soon, and with only a few incidents to test the effectiveness of the plan.
Should ArbCom provide additional guidance on how things ought to work? Possibly. It might be useful if people indicated areas of concern that required a decision that ArbCom could rule on. Though for the plan to work as devised, and as agreed by ArbCom, the actual mechanics of the plan should be left in the hands of Mattisse and her advisors. In short, Mattisse has to stand or fall by the plan - and Mattisse and her advisors should be given room to make it work. To allay concern that this might be an ongoing excuse for Mattisse to misbehave, there could be a time limit imposed on the plan. 12 months from now ArbCom could look again at the plan, and if it was felt not to be working, that would be the appropriate time to vacate the original decision and replace it with a more conventional one. Though I would add, that if the plan is still failing in 12 months time, it would be pertinent to look into the reasons for the failure, not just that it had failed, and to take into account positive endeavors (or not) by Mattisse to make the plan work. SilkTork *^YES! 22:12, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Carcharoth

For clarity, Moni3's proposal was a development on Geometry Guy's essay into looking at structuring the process as the advisors had already become aware that there were problems with the reporting - User_talk:Mattisse/Monitoring/Archive_3#Monitoring_goals_and_ideals. I feel it is important to mark this, as the impression being given is that the advisors have not been considering the issues.

My observation of the current process is that confusion is arising because there has been no regulation on who offers Mattisse advice. There appear to be a number of people willing to offer advice, but it is difficult for Mattisse (or myself) to know who to listen to as some of the people trying to assist Mattisse have not been formally recognised by ArbCom or Mattisse. It might assist matters flow more smoothly if people who wish to formally be part of the assisting process be ratified by both Mattisse and ArbCom in advance. Too many voices can create such noise that the right signals get lost.

I also have observed that when people have reported potentially problematic edits by Mattisse that if they have been offended by the edit, their wording can be coloured with their emotion, and that this has caused problems with a side-discussion of the motives of the messenger rather than dealing with the edit in question.

I have also noted that while side-discussions remain in open view that bickering continues even when Mattisse has been admonished for her edit, and she has made no further edits in the arena in question. This is clearly not helpful. The plan is to assist Mattisse become aware of which of her edits are problematic and to guide her away from such editing so she can concentrate on her productive work. The intention of the plan is not to hang Mattisse's dirty washing on the line, or to be a public stocks. Indeed, the less drama the better. People closely involved in issues around Mattisse and Mattisse herself do not respond well to drama, and there is a tendency for things to spiral out of control. The aim should be to deal swiftly and discretely with matters, and then move on - an appropriate record having been made of the incident.

With these views in mind I will comment on Moni3's proposals and offer some of my own.

Moni3's proposals:

User:Mattisse/Monitoring is the only place where complaints about Mattisse should be registered.
Agreed
The page should be displayed at the top of Mattisse's talk page, which I believe it is now.
Agreed
Mattisse shall not refactor anyone else's comments to the User:Mattisse/Monitoring page or its talk page. Any of her mentors or Mattisse herself can move comments or complaints from her talk page to User:Mattisse/Monitoring. Any reformatting necessary for the User:Mattisse/Monitoring page or its talk page should be completed by a mentor.
As the purpose of the plan is to assist Mattisse herself to edit with confidence and without issue, I don't think it would be helpful if someone else edited Mattisse's own subpages on her behalf. Mattisse should have ownership of her own plan, and of the structures she puts in place to assist her with the plan.
Assign at least one mentor who has had significant problems with Mattisse's behavior in the past.
I feel this might cause Mattisse to lose confidence in the plan, and has potential for discussions to become unnecessarily heated
The User:Mattisse/Monitoring page shall be archived no less than 7 days after the first post about a complaint.
Not agreed for reasons given above
Adopt the layout created by SandyGeorgia that was moved to User_talk:Mattisse/Monitoring/Editorial_comments as laid out below, and place specific instructions about what is expected from a complainant to the page, from Mattisse, and from the mentors.
Not agreed as it is too bureaucratic, and with the best will in the world, if someone has been upset by an edit Mattisse has made, they will have difficulty reporting it in a neutral manner - we have already experienced the flack that can result from wording that was felt by the poster to be neutral, but which was received as problematic.

My proposals:

Alerts on User:Mattisse/Monitoring should be links to the problematic edits only - no additional comments. If mentors/advisors need more information they are to contact the alerter directly.
Once alerts have been dealt with, the alert and any related discussion by the mentors/advisors is archived
That an individual should volunteer/be appointed to act as mediator in situations where someone who has a legitimate interest in a problematic edit by Mattisse is not satisfied or is concerned by the response to the edit. I am willing to put myself forward on the understanding that I do not expect to devote time to answering queries from people who are simply curious (I will expand on this if necessary).
That only those assigned by Mattisse and ArbCom should refactor or protect subpages set up by Mattisse
That only those assigned by Mattisse and ArbCom should offer advice on subpages set up by Mattisse for the purpose of receiving advice

SilkTork *^YES! 11:13, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Revised statement by Durova

Original statement here. After Fowler&Fowler and Mattisse responded yesterday I went to their talk pages to discuss matters with them. With Fowler&Fowler things went pretty well.[78] I wish it were possible to say the same about the discussion with Mattisse. Her assertion "And the fact that some hold grudges over time should not determine whether I am allowed to continue to contribute to the project or not"[79] appears to attribute the entire range of objections to bad faith motives. I asked "Could it be possible that some of your critics are sincere (even if mistaken) and do not bear you a personal grudge?"[80] Her reply was doubtful and requested examples,[81] which I supplied. The subsequent dialog fits into a pattern she has previously exhibited.

Mattisse never specifically clarified whether she believed it possible that editors could object to her conduct without holding personal grudges against her. Instead she responded with continual requests for more input, claiming not to understand the input that had already been supplied. One example concerned a DYK review in a specific regard--Mattisse had appeared to apply a higher than normal standard--possibly because the hook might be regarded as promotional (four sources for the hook were supplied including the Washington Post and a book published by Simon & Schuster; Mattisse ceased responding and another editor eventually approved it).[82] Rather than respond to the specific query about the appearance that she might have appplied a double standard in that one instance, Mattisse offered to give up DYK reviews entirely--which was far outside the realm of anything I had suggested.[83] She followed up by telling a third party that she was under attack at DYK and being driven away from that process,[84] which is something an experienced editor would normally assert only after being very certain of the matter. I asked her directly whether that referred to me, and assured her specifically that I had no intention of attacking her.[85] Subsequently she sought more input from me without resolving any of the outstanding questions.[86] I pointed out the discrepancy and requested an answer before proceeding further.[87] Since that time she has made 19 posts on other matters without responding.[88]

It is reasonable to conclude that mentorship made zero substantial progress in her response methodology to constructive criticism. She avoids specific reply to direct questions, speculates the lowest motives of those who criticize her conduct, and spreads tangential and inflammatory claims to third parties about the criticism itself. At best, that behavior expands minor problems into larger ones. She even behaves this way within hours of receiving tangible advice about an effective way to apply WP:AGF.

Another potential explanation arises--regarding which one of this site's most experienced mediators has given feedback (who will remain unnamed for confidentiality reasons). Possibly this is a political game. Mattisse's content contributions demonstrate that she has no shortage of basic intelligence. Could it be that play dumb + draw them out + misrepresent the criticism to third parties as attack + continue to draw out the critic until no one else will read the actual criticism constitutes a tactic to deflect attention from her real conduct issues? If so, this is someone who has no real intention to reform in response to criticism and is rather clever about persuading intelligent people to insulate her from it.

Leaving it to the Committee to determine which scenario is more likely, and to respond as appropriate. Durova³²⁶ 18:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To Newyorkbrad: have a look at the dialog with Fowler&Fowler; also note that the previous subthread header was a word for word repetition of something I had stated in May. No, mentorship is not useful in every situation. Yes, I did issue repeated warnings--and then finally backed off to let others see empirically. Determination of what is or is not helpful predicates belief that something would be helpful. See this followup, which still attempts to draw me out without any answer at all to outstanding queries. And again, as if clarification were a unidirectional obligaion. And once more, imputing feelings that had never been expressed and still without answering any questions. The conversation yielded nothing but a large catch of red herrings. Call this cynical if you want, but I actually was willing to revise this statement in several directions. Mattisse has been consuming the attention of the arbitrators and some of the site's best editors for how many months? The most helpful advice I can supply is cut your losses; I make no claims to diplomacy about how to deliver that. It probably isn't what many people want to hear, but it's sincere. Durova³²⁶ 19:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Unitanode

The only statement I want to make is with regards to Ottava Rima's last about being "disappointed" in Moni's use of the tools. Her use of the tools in this case has been almost unanimously endorsed as appropriate. As such, OR should strike that portion of his statement.

A note about the Mattisse/Durova back-and-forth

While Durova's choice of heading for her statement was unfortunate, Mattisse's response, in which she downplays the problems (including abusive sockpuppetry) that she's had, and minimizes the problems she's had in re: Sandy and Moni is even more problematic. I stumbled upon this mess initially when she made a problematic post to a page I watch (I believe it was Slim's talkpage). I reported it to her monitoring page, and was thus "sucked into the vortex" that the monitoring page has since become. There was a significant amount then (and remains even through today) of "shooting the messenger", with a few of Mattisse's mentors looking for ulterior motives in my report, and just generally attacking me. This seems to have receded a bit, with the issue finally making its way back to the purview of the Arbitration Committee, but it is not a problem that should simply be ignored. Mattisse needs strong mentors, who are willing to challenge her when she crosses the line. It appears that's starting to happen after Moni brought the issue here, but even in her statements here, Mattisse still is exhibiting some of her most problematic behaviors. U A 01:28, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quick note to Carcharoth

I completely concur with SandyGeorgia here. There's little point in waiting a week for a "Report." This needs dealt with and the underlying confusion clarified immediately. Waiting on some kind of bureaucratic "report" won't accomplish a whole lot. This request for clarification should serve as more than enough of a "report" that the mentorship is not going well at all. U A 03:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum to my quick note

If #4 of Moni's proposal is not adopted, the plan is then, in my view, rather neutered. Mattisse needs a voice (like Moni's, for example) that will challenge her in ways which are constructive. Moni has clearly demonstrated that this is possible. Thus, not having amongst the mentorship, such a voice of one who has had conflict with Mattisse previously, seems inadvisable. U A 01:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To Vassayana

You need to be very clear about who you're accusing of "rancid" attacks on Mattisse and her mentors. That's a pretty bold allegation. U A 18:20, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think you do need to name names, Vassayana. Otherwise, you're simply painting everyone who's brought an issue to the Monitoring page with the same broad brush. The way your statements stand right now, you're making allegations that -- for the few weeks I've been watching the Monitoring page -- aren't just ill-advised, but objectively untrue. U A 18:51, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It took me two minutes to find this thread where Mattisse complained to ANI about Moni's protection of the Monitoring page. The protection was apparently endorsed by Xeno and Mjroots at ANI. U A 23:40, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem that two people who were given the opportunity to say, "Hey, not a good idea", but clearly chose not to do so could be viewed as a tacit endorsement. This is why I said "apparently endorsed." Your unequivocal statement that my view was "blatantly false" is noted, as is your assertion that Moni was wrong to protect the page. I can't say more than this without coming close to the line of what would be considered civil. With the tone of your earlier, more oblique comments, and now these, more specific comments, I don't feel I can afford to even approach that line. U A 20:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To Joopercoopers

Just so you know, Moni is not an official mentor of Mattisse. Even still, I find the stridency of the criticism of her admin actions unwarranted. I just wanted to let you know that she's not one of the official mentors. I too share your concern that perhaps the "love should be tougher", but at least there's real discussion happening there now, so that's a start. U A 23:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In support of Karanacs statement

Karanacs is absolutely correct in her statement regarding Mattisse's removal of text. As that page is on my watchlist, I observed Mattisse removing posts as fast as Sandy made them, even when the posts were directly asking her why she was doing this, and requesting that she stop doing so. I also fail to see how Karanacs' acknowledgment that Mattisse wasn't the only one who removed text could possibly be construed as an "apology" or anything like it. U A 15:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Fowler&fowler

Having been out of the loop for a while, I can't say I clearly understand what is going on here. To the extent I do, I agree with the spirit of RegentsPark's statement (and also with the spirit of Ottava Rima's first statement that the page might have become a battleground). I think the process should be allowed to evolve more and to reach homeostasis. ~~Perhaps another mentor should be brought in. I would like to recommend user:Abecedare for this (contingent, of course, on his assent). He is great at dispute resolution.~~ Fowler&fowler «Talk» 23:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Durova: ~~If you've decided to keep a distance from Mattisse, then why are you holding forth, with no seeming end, in an inimitably preachy style here? Fowler&fowler «Talk» 23:57, 14 October 2009 (UTC)~~ I think you're being too oblique in your statement and response. If you think a three month ban is merited, then you should say so clearly and provide your reasons. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 00:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Carcharoth: I agree with Carcharoth's statement. A report would be very helpful and would clarify the situation. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 02:12, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to SandyGeorgia and OttavaRima: I agree with Ottava Rima that SandyGeorgia might not be in a neutral position. Apparently, she is really worked up over this. Her page statistics are a testament: 63 edits (only 11 minor) from 2009-10-14 16:46 to 2009-10-15 15:45. That is way more than anyone else, including the initiator of the discussion, Moni3, Mattisse herself, or any of the mentors or arbitrators. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 14:24, 16 October 2009 (UTC) To: SandyGeorgia, In retrospect, what I wrote was unfair. My apologies. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 12:34, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Slp1

I'm no doubt being a bit Pollyannaish, but when thinking about solutions I urge Arbcom members (and others) to think about ways that would facilitate greater trust and better communication. A formalized system for dealing with the concerns of other editors, as has been suggested, would be a great start. I also suggest reducing the number of mentors so that there are fewer, more clearly identified voices for everyone to deal with. On the other hand, multiple voices need to be encouraged in other fora. There have been suggestions that one editor's opinion be "discounted" because s/he is "involved" and others be discounted because s/he weren't "involved" (so didn't have the full picture). While any kind of piling on is unhelpful and a concern, so is the danger of loss of trust in the process when there are attempts to silence voices.

In reducing the number of mentors, it may be useful to think about those with the best skills to help Mattisse improve her integration into the community. Mentors have a difficult role to juggle between guiding their mentee in a supportive yet effective way, and playing what is essentially a mediator (or even arbitrator??) role when responding to aggrieved editors. Their interventions need to be calming and respectful, and show a strong emphasis on open, honest, unbiased communication. They need to model to Mattisse and others appropriate attitudes and interactions, even when frustrated. While some communication may need to take place behind the scenes, evidence that they are responsive to concerns needs to available for all to see. The best mentors will be those capable of balancing the two, quite different roles, and these will, ultimately, be those that have the trust of all. I have seen evidence in the last few days of much more open, clearly productive interactions between Mattisse, her mentors, and those concerned about Mattisse's actions, and as a result, my personal trust in the process has grown. In my view, the mentors and how they execute this very difficult and to date ill-defined role will be a major key to success, if there is to be any. The other key is whether Mattisse is able to use their insights to modify her behaviour, and cease to rub editors up the wrong way.--Slp1 (talk) 03:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MastCell

The mentorship has not worked. It has not provided a sounding board for trusted advisors to dissuade Mattisse from pursuing her less constructive instincts. It has not provided a forum for serious, good-faith concerns about Mattisse's behavior to be addressed. It has not seemed to increase Mattisse's expressed level of contentment or enjoyment on Wikipedia. By any objective standard, Mattisse's behavior in the areas of concern has been the same or (IMO) worse since the ArbCom case closed. Opinions certainly differ on why the mentorship has not worked, but I would hope we can all appreciate that it has failed to produce the desired result. If we can't get that far and learn from it, then there is really no hope here.

Loeb's second law of internal medicine states: "If what you're doing isn't working, stop doing it." It's time to stop this mentorship in its current incarnation. We could have a discussion about what should replace it. Giving the current system "more time" will not help. Creating more subpages will not help. MastCell ^Talk 05:10, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by John Carter

I personally see two weaknesses with the present system. One is that, right now, in a lot of cases, Mattisse's contact with her mentors is more or less limited to comments interchanged away from any of the real "action". To the best of my kowledge, there isn't that much real "regular" contact between her and them. Possibly having Mattisse say what areas she expects to be involved in for a while, even if only in comparatively vague terms if that is as specific as she can be, would make it possible to check to see if there were someone active in that area who would agree to be a mentor with whom she would have regular contact and who would more easly by able to see if any conduct issues arise, might be useful.
Also, there is a bit of a problem in that, right now, Mattisse chose all her mentors. While these are presumably individuals whose word she would trust, it also might produce results which are in a sense unbalanced in her favor. If there would be any way for an outside body to maybe recommend mentors who might in some cases be more directly relevant, which Mattisse could either accept or reject, preferaby only with a good reason, that might help as well.
I too have come to the conclusion that, whatever the intentions, the lack of structure of the current method is problematic. I doubt very seriously ArbCom intends to make this sort of resolution at all standard, given the amount of work and number of people involved, but there might arise the possibility that it wants to take some sort of similar approach regarding another issue later. If that is the case, I might ask them to suspend taking any judgement on Mattisse until we either have a system in place which is workable, and could thus presumably be copied in any similar situations in the future, or it decides that there is no way in which such mentoring is ever likely to work, and suspend it on that basis. John Carter (talk) 16:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recommendation by Sandstein

I am uninvolved in and uninformed about the case and/or previous dispute(s) behind this, but I recognize a major waste of time when I see one. And time is our most precious resource.

My recommendation is that the Committee or the community determine whether any aspect of Mattisse's current editing constitutes disruption of the sort described in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse#Findings of fact.

If yes, she should (like any other persistently disruptive user) be indefinitely blocked until the community is convinced that she understands the problem and won't disrupt Wikipedia any more.
If her conduct is not found to be disruptive any more, then there is no need for any Arbitration Committee action whatsoever here, and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse#Remedies should be vacated.

All this bureaucratic fiddling around with "mentorship", a "plan to govern and guide her future editing", etc. appears to me, as an uninvolved observer, as a waste of time and effort on the part of all involved. Sandstein 16:34, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Fainites

I think Vassanya needs to name names with those kinds of allegations, (a set of editors has continued to assume bad faith, make derogatory comments, and otherwise demean Matisse and her mentors on a regular basis). Otherwise the statement made will be applied to all those who have expressed a concern about either Mattisse or some of her mentors. Further, without being specific about who is being referred to, the threat of sanctions (I will be seeking sanctions against those who have engaged in the baiting and incivility that contributed to the poisonous atmosphere and failure) is intimidating to all those who have registered a concern about Mattisse or mentors and discourages editors from raising matters here.Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:27, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Vassanya Thank you for striking that particular part. As for the rest, you may be right in the general run of things. However, it isn't just a question of whether an editor thinks the words apply to them. It's also a question of whether Mattisse and/or her mentors think the words apply to that editor. Some may assume your words are meant to apply to ~~Giano~~particular editors, but what if they are taken to mean anybody who has raised a concern about Mattisse's behaviour? Fainites ^barleyscribs 00:29, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Second comment re Moni3 The rather extreme criticism of Moni3 is unwarranted. The absurd situation of there being nowhere to address concerns and "shoot the messenger" responses had been going on for some time. Refactoring and moving other peoples comments in a disorganised way, coupled with early archiving brought further chaos to an already chaotic situation. I appreciate the point about involved admins, but really the breathing space and the protection of threads was needed.Fainites ^barleyscribs 20:48, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Third comment I think it would be better if Mattisse didn't keep changing her posts after people have responded to them. If you change your mind about something you said Mattisse (which everybody does), just collapse it or strike it.Fainites ^barleyscribs 17:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Geometry guy

I will try to be brief, as part of the problem here has been the sheer quantity of talk, with wide-ranging interest and a diversity of views on "How Do You Solve a Problem Like Mattisse?".

I share the concern that some aspects of Mattisse's Plan were not sufficiently worked out when it was accepted, and I was already advising Mattisse in July to revisit it. I also share the concern that the Monitoring page is currently not working. It has effectively been another talk shop. Mentors and other editors have made 3-4 attempts (starting with this thread) to develop a more coherent mode d'emploi. Typically, the discussions were overwhelmed by events or opinions and ended up being, you guessed it, another talk shop. I think this has been frustrating for many editors (for instance, I failed to assume good faith on one occasion, which is fairly rare for me) and mentors (who are volunteers like any other editors) have understandably wanted to go and do something more pleasant. Ironically, the movement of threads which led to the page protection and the ArbRequest was stimulated by the latest effort to organize the Monitoring page.

However, I don't wish to dwell on the past as I see that as another problem here. I hope the above remarks are sufficiently generic that I don't have to dig up diffs. Indeed I'd rather simply strike them. Concerning the present, I regard this request as being primarily about the Monitoring page, rather than Mattisse's recent behaviour. Apart from the sock incident, for which she has served time, there hasn't been, as far as I am aware, the kind of significant disruptive behaviour that merits a substantial reevaluation, in my view. In particular, on the GA front, I am only aware of two occasions where her behaviour has been called into question: the GAR of Munchausen by Internet, and her second opinion on the History of Sesame Street. The vast majority of nominators and reviewers have valued her thoughtful and careful reviews.

So, where do we go from here? We need clarity of purpose and we need implementation. Regarding the former, I have consistently espoused the view that Mattisse's Plan is ultimately her responsibility, as she is the one who will be blocked or banned if she doesn't stick to it. Mentoring and monitoring are resources to help her keep to her plan. If at any stage the community and Arbcom resolve that instead they want other editors to enforce and hence be responsible for Mattisse's behaviour, then so be it — in that event I will walk away with no hard feelings. That being not yet the case, it is important to remember the purpose of the monitoring page: it is not there directly for the satisfaction of other editors that Mattisse is "under control", but to help Mattisse stick to her plan by alerting editors to problems and allowing coherent advice to be given. Of course, this should indirectly satisfy the community, as the more closely Mattisse sticks to her plan, the happier everyone will be.

Concerning implementation, I note the request for a report to Arbcom and that mentors have begun work on one. While I see no harm in this (indeed it should be helpful), it is important to recognise that what is needed here is action. There's general agreement on what needs to be done to fix the Monitoring page (e.g. Moni3's first 3 points above) and even if there is disagreement on minor details, pretty much any of the proposals would be an improvement. Actually, it is pretty simple: as with almost any page on Wikipedia,

User:Mattisse/Monitoring should be for information and
User talk:Mattisse/Monitoring (only) should be used for discussion.

That way at least the user page will provide clarity to Mattisse, in the form of the original alert/concern, actions taken in response, and the consensus advice.

This was me trying to be brief :-) — time to sign off! Geometry guy 12:16, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment in response to Vassyana: Although I found the page protection (and indeed the opening of this ArbRequest) frustrating at the time, I don't believe it is helpful to criticize Moni3 on this point, even less to consider it a "serious issue". Hindsight is 20-20, the heat of the moment another story. And in fact this request has in fact been useful in focusing minds on improving the monitoring page so that it will better serve Mattisse and the community. Geometry guy 19:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Wehwalt

Having happened upon this page last night, and having worked with Mattisse here, I see no complaint against Mattisse here that requires arbs to do anything except encourage editors to work things out among themselves.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by user:Joopercoopers

I have given a summary of some events that troubled me to Silk Tork, in the hope they will be included in the ArbCom report. I think it was Malleus who commented just 14 days after Mattisse was put on restriction, that the first test of the plan was 'not going well'. Worryingly it seems that 3 months on, Mattisse's behaviour is still periodically continuing to be problematic. If we must have this systematic drain of time and effort to keep one user in check, I'd urge the mentors to at least strive to make it effective - part of that is reviewing what went wrong and coming up with better ways of dealing with it in the future. (Personally I think the love needs to be tougher, but that's your call).

On the flip side, for Vesayana to say "Protection of a user subpage by an obviously involved administrator with no indication from the administrator that such actions are even questionable (and every indication to the contrary) is a very serious matter." needs some scrutiny:

Arbcom have in a sense delegated the enforcement of bringing Mattisse's behaviour up to scratch to the mentors (The responsibility remains, rightly with Mattisse), but there's no reason why other admins can't lend a hand. To berate an admin for using their judgement and tools to effect that end, seems to me appalling. If Mattisse's behaviour in the judgement of her mentors or admins is problematic, then you should at least give them the latitude to deal with it, rather than carping in hindsight that the usual adminstrative i's haven't been dotted and t's crossed.

Here Arbcom could help - traditionally, extensive latitude is given to user's pages and subpages (and talk pages too). I'd like a statement from Arbcom, that 1. restricts the usual rights of Mattisse in this area and 2. empowers mentors and admins to do what they see fit to keep it in order. 3. Allow the use of admin tools in any way they see fit, to control Mattisse's behaviour - to sanction one so strongly for what may have been a minor infraction, surely will make the others think twice about doing anything - don't tie one hand behind their backs, help them be more effective. --Joopercoopers (talk) 23:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

:To Newyorkbrad - Option 1, continue as we are - no. Option 2, tweak the existing arrangements - maybe, but it's got to be less not more bureaucratic and frequently reviewed to see if it's effective. Option 3 - vacate the mentoring scheme. I think Mattisse has some great stuff to offer the project (If only she could do it in a locked room without interacting with others) so it would be a shame to see her go. Personally I think it's all a great waste of productive editor's time, but if they'd rather spend their days here nursing Mattisse's fragilities then who am I to say they shouldn't. --Joopercoopers (talk) 23:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC) Striking this until I've seen the completed mentor's report. --Joopercoopers (talk) 12:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by user

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

Recuse, still. FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 18:49, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Ordinarily, when we find that an editor has engaged in conduct sufficiently problematic to warrant an arbitration finding, we impose an appropriately tailored sanction. In this case, in drafting the decision, I found that we were dealing with an editor whose content contributions were respected but who frequently was finding herself in interpersonal conflicts with others. Mattisse had expressed a desire to improve her behavior, several other editors had expressed a desire to work with her in doing so, suggestions were already being made while the case was pending for how this could be done, and it seemed to make sense to allow Mattisse to work with these editor to develop such a plan. At this remove a few months later, I am not certain that the decision is working out as well as we had hoped. The question before us is whether we should allow additional time for things to be adjusted, whether we should provide additional guidance on how things ought to work, or whether we should vacate our original decision and replace it with a more conventional one. Cogent comments on this question, devoid of personal attacks and the like, will be appreciated. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:

Original statement collapsed 14:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

(1) I'm not 100% sure of what is going on here yet (there is a lot to look through), but what I think is happening is that people are not giving each other enough space, and while some people might want the monitoring page worked on and worked into a definite structure right now, it is sometimes the case that if you stand over someone (or a group) insisting they fix something, it can make things worse. Somewhere in all this, someone suggested that Mattisse should be more patient and wait for her mentors to deal with things at that page rather than trying to sort thing out herself. I agree with that, but would go further and say that those who responded to Mattisse's actions should also have waited as well. Why not just take things slowly, with no need for moving of comments back and forth, or page protections, and just talk about it calmly (or wait for others to arrive), instead of escalating?
(2) Turning to what Brad has said, I disagree that it is possible to pass judgment yet on whether things are working out or not. On 20 September, I presented an internal report to ArbCom titled "Review of ArbCom mentorship remedies Dec 08 to Sept 09" (it was more a listing of the seven mentorship remedies passed this year, but it did briefly give updates on the status of each one). In my conclusions to that review, I recommended that we ask for a status update on the two mentorships that were still in progress. One of those was Mattisse, but sadly nothing further was done with my suggestion to ask for a status update (though we did make progress with one of the other mentorship remedies). I think the best way forward here is for there to be a delay of a week (during which time Mattisse and everyone else should be patient and wait - with injunctions to enforce that if needed), while her mentors prepare a report for ArbCom on how successful they think things have been so far, and what changes they are proposing to make (they could look at Moni3's proposal, among others, and also suggest changes to who the mentors should be). Once that report is ready, others can comment on it. That will be far more productive than trying to deal with things at a clarification request and have ArbCom voting on different alternatives.
(3) ~~Turning to what Durova has said. My view here is that it is inappropriate and unhelpful to turn up at a request like this and say "I told you so".~~ The philosophy and advice on mentorships is good ~~but presenting it in this way is not~~. Others are making comments that are less than helpful as well. As I said, what is needed here is space for productive discussion to take place without extraneous noise. Which is why I am suggesting that Mattisse's mentors be asked to produce a report, and we then take things from there.Thank you, Durova, for refactoring what you said. Might I suggest that following up on people's talk pages may not be the best option here? The more people that get that closely involved, the more difficult it is to resolve this.

Carcharoth (talk) 01:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC) Updated 01:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy, the "not 100% sure yet" bit refers to stuff that hasn't been mentioned here. I always take what people say in cases and at requests with a pinch of salt, as there is often more going on than what people are saying here. When I've finished looking at the context of some of the events described here, I'll update what I've said. Meanwhile, I will note that if Mattisse's mentors (maybe only two of them?) concentrate on a report, instead of spending time at this request, and everyone else goes back to doing the things that Sandy mentioned (vandal fighting, admin processes, content review and writing articles), that is less people overall spending time on this matter. I would support any temporary injunctions needed while this was being done. Carcharoth (talk) 03:35, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken another look at this, and I have some ideas about what could be done here, but as I'm going to be away from now until Sunday evening, I'm not going to actually propose any motions to deal with this. What I will do is give a general outline of two options (one long, and one short), and other arbitrators can hammer out details, or adopt something from the suggestions above, or suggest something completely different.

A - (1) Suspend mentorship; (2) Place Mattisse under an injunction; (3) Request report from the mentors; (4) Request public comment from the case parties and others on the report; (5) Draw conclusions and take things from there (either re-instate a changed mentorship, or adopt a different sanction).

B - Present a version of the proposal made by Moni3 for a more structured approach (after review by an arbitrator) to Mattisse and her mentors and ask if they are willing to adopt the version presented. The version I would present of Moni3's proposal is everything except point 4.

I would support either of the above approaches to this. Option 'A' is intended to combine firm action, careful deliberation, public input, change where change is needed, and increased and new sanctions where such sanctions are needed. Option 'B' is intended to be a much quicker way of dealing with this. There are other options, but those come later. The alternative is a timesink of a clarifications request that may linger here for days. Hopefully, by the time I next look at this on Sunday, a motion of some sort will have been proposed, based on either 'A' or 'B', one of the other suggestions above, or something else. Meanwhile, in anticipation of a motion based on Moni3's well-written proposal, can I ask those who have commented here so far to briefly state whether they would support Moni3's proposal, or a version of it, and say what they would accept and what they would change (I note that a version of what Moni3 proposed was being discussed here, that being itself based on an earlier proposal by Moni3). If everyone focuses on that, we may be able to get this sorted out relatively quickly. Carcharoth (talk) 00:54, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken another look at this clarification request (to see what progress has been made over the weekend), and I see that things may have settled down somewhat, even if things are not totally clear yet. From what I can gather so far, Moni3 and others had legitimate concerns, and in the face of what may have been a slow or inappropriate response (that is, ultimately, a subjective judgment), the issue was forced (by several of those concerned) and escalated by a page protection, an ANI thread and coming here. Hopefully, if de-escalation is taking place, productive discussion can resume where this all started, maybe after the discussion here has concluded. It would be ideal if those concerned could sort it out themselves. I suggest arbitrators and others check back on this towards the end of this week (Friday), and see what progress has been made. Carcharoth (talk) 14:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Original statements. I will replace it after further review and consideration. Something more nuanced, and specific, is needed. Vassyana (talk) 19:21, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This entire situation is distressing to me. I agree that Mattisse has some continuing problems and I will not belabor that point as others have more than well-expressed the problems, except to note that the downplaying of some problematic behavior by Mattise is extremely concerning. It is difficult, if not impossible, to presume in good faith that someone will alter their conduct sufficiently when prior problems are not acknowledged or minimized. That said, one thing that is utterly striking about this request that allows me to still hope for a better outcome is Mattisse's attempt to maintain a positive focus and failure to note the egregious behavior of some detractors. Out of the gate, a set of editors has continued to assume bad faith, make derogatory comments, and otherwise demean Mattisse and her mentors on a regular basis. Mattisse and her mentors have been subjected to an utterly rancid and constant stream of aggressive demands, insults, and so forth. That Mattisse has maintained a relatively high amount of cool about it and has not raised it in the all too common "look at what they did" defense is commendable. If the mentorship fails, Mattisse will almost certainly face other restrictions to curb the negative behavior. ~~However, if the mentorship fails, I will be seeking sanctions against those who have engaged in the baiting and incivility that contributed to the poisonous atmosphere and failure.~~ If this situation reaches that critical point, the conduct of all involved parties will be examined for acute violations of our policies and community norms. I would exhort everyone involved to take a few steps back, allow some breathing room, and reconsider their individual approach to the situation. Vassyana (talk) 18:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Fainites, I have reformulated one statement. That noted, please consider my comments in the same vein as general arbitration findings, warnings, probations, etc. They need not name names in order to be effective warnings. Everyone involved here is experienced and quite familiar with our rules and norms. If someone is unsure whether or not it applies to them, it is a good indication that they may need to reconsider their conduct. I will be honest and say that I am not very swayed by chilling effect arguments about general observations and warnings, particularly when the affected parties should be more than aware of where the lines are drawn. People can raise concerns and express that they feel misconduct is taking place without descending into gross bad faith, insulting snark, and personal attacks. If they cannot, they need to stop commenting. Vassyana (talk) 18:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Misrepesentations and hyberbolic representations of facts and circumstances are common and witnessed in this request:

~~As an additional note, I find~~ [T]he complaints against Mattisse in this situation regarding changing her mentoring plan by way of editing/managing her subpages [appear] to be without foundation. Nothing in the plan prohibits her from taking such actions or establishes a particular subpage regime. (Whether or not her actions were ill-advised is another matter and unrelated to the point.) Indeed, her plan has long-specified the purpose of the monitoring subpage (see [89]), which is exactly the purpose that she asserts in this situation. Thus, contrary to complaints, the good faith interpetation is that she is trying to stick to her plan and return the page to its purpose while creating another subpage to address the obvious demand for a centralized discussion location. I see no reason to presume otherwise. Vassyana (talk) 18:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unitanode's claim that the protection was endorsed by two administrators is blatantly false. Xeno simply closed the thread in light of this request. Mjroots did nothing more than note the blocking rationale. Neither can be reasonably asserted to be endorsements. Vassyana (talk) 18:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[Placeholder]

Protection of a user subpage by an obviously involved administrator with no indication from the administrator that such actions are even questionable (and every indication to the contrary) is a very serious matter. There was no emergency. Even with more pressing matters in mainspace, administrators are expected to not act when involved and file a request for protection like anyone else. This is deeply concerning to me. Please give me a reason for my concerns to be laid to rest. (Noting that I do not think even a formal warning is warranted here. This is an isolated incident and I have no reason to believe it will become a pattern. This is not an invitation to give me a reason and derail this request. RfC is that way if necessary. I am only addressing what's in front of me.) Vassyana (talk) 18:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As clearly illustrated by the evidence outlined by Durova and a detailed review of the situation, Matisse has serious and continuing issues with making matters personal and reacting extremely. A close examination of matters seems to make it clear that there is little hope that this will change simply with a more structured approach to mentorship, despite the good faith of those involved. I am open to being convinced otherwise, but I have become extremely skeptical. Vassyana (talk) 18:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Matisse, you are talking a lot about other editors and a lot about your editing benchmarks, but you are addressing very little of the concerns about your conduct and reactions to matters. I'm not saying other people are blameless, as you can note by comments here, but you really should be focusing on your actions in this situation. I want to know why I should hold good faith in the potential of the mentoring process, when it does not seem to have improved matters. I still see you reacting in such a way that makes it very difficult for other editors to engage with you. You are simultaneously expressing confusion, assuming the worst faith, and insisting (explicitly or implicitly) that people want you to stop editing. (This is even evidenced in your comments on and about this request.) You must understand how this appears to other editor. Imagine if someone responded to what you thought to be reasonable feedback with something that indicated they had no idea what your point was, but that they felt it was raised in bad faith and (though you didn't even imply anything of the sort) they all but accuse you of trying to push them out of the area. Wouldn't you find it at least a bit difficult and frustrating to try and communicate with that editor? This is not the whole of the issue, but it's one of the main patterns that I see and if that were resolved, other things would much more easily follow. Vassyana (talk) 18:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[Placeholder]

Request answered. Thank you Moni3 for the prompt reply. Vassyana (talk) 19:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I neglected to mention in my original comment that I would like a more complete statement from Moni3 regarding her protection of Mattisse's subpage. My apolgies for the oversight. Vassyana (talk) 18:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For Moni3: Why did you feel page protection was necessary? Why did you intervene directly? Did you have any reservations about instituting protection? In retrospect, do you feel it was the proper thing to do or do you believe that another action would have been more proper? Vassyana (talk) 23:13, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Asgardian-Tenebrae

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

Hiding (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
Asgardian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Statement by Hiding

Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Asgardian-Tenebrae#Asgardian restricted, for one year from December 2007, Asgardian was "limited to one revert per page per week (excepting obvious vandalism), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page. Should he exceed this limit or fail to discuss a content reversion, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below." I'd like to clarify what the current situation would be with regards this sanction? I accept that the sanction has now expired, but if I feel it should be re-instated I'd like to clarify the process for re-instating it. Is another arbitration case the only way, or is it possible to have the case amended? I'm concerned about gaming of the system here, namely that a user sits tight for a year, and then once the sanction ends, returns to behaviour deemed unacceptable. My concerns are based on the following:

At Secret Wars, Asgardian engaged in edit warring with another user in September. See [90], [91], [92], [93]. No posts made by Asgardian to the talk page while the edit war was in progress, and Asgardian's last edit is after the other user had raised the issue on the talk page at Talk:Secret Wars#important information. I informed both users of the bold revert discuss guidance, [94] and [95].

In light of this pointer to WP:BRD, at Abomination (comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Rhino (comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Asgardian engaged in revert warring with another user: a diff between Asgardian and Dr Bat here. Notice the many differences, mainly consisting of mentions of individual issues, for example, Solo Avengers #12 and Marvel Super-Heroes vol. 3, #6 - 8. Now we can see a diff here, which covers twelve edits to the page over the course of two days, four made by DrBat and five by Asgardian, the other edits from anonymous or uninvolved editors. The diff is from an Asgardian edit to an Asgardian edit. Note, no posts were made by Asgardian to the talk page of either article during this revert war.

Although I have page banned both users (Wikipedia:AN#User:DrBat_and_User:Asgardian_page_banned_from_Abomination_.28comics.29_and_Rhino_.28comics.29), there appears no intention to resolve the dispute, there is instead a continuation of the dispute as can be seen at User talk:Hiding#Topic Ban, Wikipedia:AN#User:DrBat_and_User:Asgardian_page_banned_from_Abomination_.28comics.29_and_Rhino_.28comics.29, User_talk:Asgardian#Topic_ban_2 and User talk:DrBat#Topic ban

Ownership issues: Please see this diff. I am concerned at the claim made by Asgardian that the "article is almost complete". It's an assertion Asgardian has made repeatedly in this dispute, see here: "It took hours to complete Abomination, and Rhino was in fact almost finished" and here: "one article as finished and supported by others and the other was one session from being completed". To me these comments completely cut across the idea that Wikipedia is a collaboration and that decisions are made through consensus.

I hope that outlines why I am seeking clarification as to the next step in this dispute, whether it is possible to reactivate a previous arbitration ruling through an amendment or whether a new case is needed? I have notified User:Asgardian of the request here. I have also requested input from WP:COMICS here. Hiding T 11:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Asgardian

Regarding the assertion from Asgardian that "The first article - Abomination - was in the main rewritten by myself, and supported by other users", please review Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Comics/Archive_38#Stand_up_and_take_notice.21, Talk:Abomination (comics)#Who's in change?, Talk:Red Hulk#Dates while describing the plot, Talk:Abomination (comics)#Who's in change? and Talk:Abomination (comics)#Recent edits. Hiding T 18:44, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what Hiding is trying to say. With regards to Abomination, I have written two version of the article, both of which advocate different styles and are really no more than bold edits. When the first, which included many dates and reflected a preference at the time, was felt to be inappropriate, I wrote the second version that is currently in use. Given I was willing to go back again and rewrite an article in accordance with consensus, I'd say I was being a team player. As for Red Hulk, another editor insisted on another way to write the article, and I complied. Asgardian (talk) 04:10, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Vassayana

What would you have us do? To clarify, you state that this "appears to be a relatively straightforward situation." Can you explain in what way it is straight forwards, as I don't actually see it as being so. Thank you. Hiding T 18:49, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A pointed question: Are there other interpretations to the sentence "A user may be blocked when his or her conduct severely disrupts the project; that is, when his or her conduct is inconsistent with a civil, collegial atmosphere and interferes with the process of editors working together harmoniously to create an encyclopedia." than those listed in the blocking policy? By which I mean, can the sentence itself be read as a sentence on its own, and blocks made using that sentence? I've always held to a rather tight interpretation regarding blocking. I feel I for one perhaps need guidance in that area. Hiding T 19:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Asgardian

While I respect Hiding, I believe there is a considerable amount of inference here. For sake of ease, I'll address the points individually.

Secret Wars - the first link [96], simply shows a correction of another user's edits. It doesn't appear to be the user that participates at a later stage. I left comments in the Edit Summaries, and was happy to engage in dialogue with this user, which I currently am with reference to another article [97]. I also posted this on Hiding's page at the time [98] which shows good faith [99]. There was no edit warring, merely an attempt to educate which I am now expanding on with said user.

Abomination/Rhino - I outlined my entire rationale here [100], which also shows that it was in fact the other user who constantly reverted, and made no contributions whatsoever. None. I was even insulted by this user and called a "troll" [101]. Note that I did not retaliate, but instead asked a neutral administrator to intervene, which they did. I also attempted to continue to discuss the issue with the user, and refered the discussion away from Hiding's page as it was not appropriate. I am also not seeing what is inappropriate about the two users in dispute discussing the issue on their respective Talk pages. I have made several attempts, although discussion seems to have stalled as the other user has chosen not to apologize [102] [103] [104].

Hiding is unfortunately also incorrect in the statement that "one article as finished and supported by others and the other was one session from being completed". To me these comments completely cut across the idea that Wikipedia is a collaboration and that decisions are made through consensus." This is assumption and inference, as the tell-tale phrase is to me. The first article - Abomination - was in the main rewritten by myself, and supported by other users [105]. Please note that no one has made any major changes since it was redrafted [106]. This would imply a collaborative consensus. The other - Rhino - was one session away from the final section being redrafted, and in accordance with the wishes of the group [107], which I stated here [108] (the section in question being: I have contributed to dozens of articles and make every effort to improve them. It took hours to complete Abomination, and Rhino was in fact almost finished. A check of the Edit Summary [109] and this line - The Rhino proves to be a perennial favourite in Marvel publications, appearing in over a dozen titles in solo capacity or teamed with dother villains - shows that I was just about to take the advice offered here [110] and create a summary of the signifiant issues, as opposed to a laundry list. Please also note that I wrote both versions, hence improving on my own work is hardly outrageous. The summary would number no more than six points, as opposed to the dozens of listings currently present in the 1990s-2000s section.)

To conclude, I find much of this to be opinion. I have edited dozens of articles, many of which were nothing more than a few lines and an empty SHB and made them fully, fledged articles. In doing so I have seem to have received far more criticism [111] [112] [113] than actual compliments [114]. I've also come a long way, and do not engage in blind reverting and attempt where possible to discuss the issues. I suppose I could also ask why I am the focus here, when my edits are performed in good faith and there is constant edit warring on a number of other articles.

I do have the odd encounter with other editors over substance, but these are almost always over substandard material, and I do my best to accommodate, despite the immaturity and rudeness that is often displayed. I do not feel that Hiding was right to impose a month-long ban on myself for my work on two articles, although I can accept this with good grace. I am happy to continue to try to discuss where possible (although again this is more than most do) and have shown evidence of collaboration. I also do not believe I have done anything that warrants a sanction.

For your consideration

Asgardian (talk) 04:41, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since Asgardian and I were involved in that previous Arbitration, I should probably add my perspective. On the positive side, Asgardian is diligent against fancruft. I'm not sure that's of sufficient weight to balance the continuing difficulties he presents to veteran members of Wiki Project Comics, including myself. The tipping point, for me, is two-fold:

First, the reluctance to accept established, consensus-derived style guidelines. It pains me to say this, since I have collaborated with him successfully on some occasions in 2008, but he will only accept style guidelines for a little while after being told to by an admin, and then he reverts to old habits. I do not believe that a WikiProject Comics editor of three or more years is simply forgetting — to give one of several examples that I could, and the smallest and most picayune &mdash that WPC does not abbreviate "June" or "March" when citing comic-book cover dates. Related to this is his disingenuousness in edit summaries, when something he claims as a small change is actually much more, or a change that is said to go along with consensus actually does the opposite. I have seen a pattern of "laying low" and then returning after a few weeks or month to an article in which consensus went against him, and making the disputed wholesale edits again.

In 2007, this was one thing. In 2009, after much more experience and more time to see behavior repeating itself, it shows a disinclination to accept consensus, and someone whom other editors cannot trust. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:40, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Tenebrae

Again, I think there is a degree of inference. First of all, please note that I respect Tenebrae, who excels at editing comic articles on real life persons.

As to the claims, Tenebrae speaks of the "continuing difficulties he presents to veteran members of Wiki Project Comics, including myself." Firstly, Tenebrae has been absent from Wikipedia since the beginning of the year, and returned only recently [115]. Secondly, who are the "veteran" editors? Once again, it is the same small group of editors who offer opinions on matters, and again, there is the danger that such a small group has become set in their views with no new fresh perspective.

Next, Tenebrae mentions dates, and yet it is acceptable to abbreviate months as per the Guidelines [116]. In the interests of "keeping the peace", I adopted the style that Tenebrae requested, and despite this another editor reverted back to my original choice and cited the Guidelines as a reference [117]. This clearly shows duality, and that editors have choices as to how to make improvements to articles. They should not be chastised for choosing one over another if the option is allowed under the umbrella of the Guidelines.

Also, note that I made several overtures to Tenebrae to work with him on the article in question [118] [119] despite the fact that he continually reverted because he disliked the format, and in doing so removed valid, additional information.

Finally, I'm perplexed as to the comment "someone whom other editors cannot trust." What does this mean? All actions by editors are recorded and available for viewing. Where is the relevant section in the Wikipedia Guidelines on "trust"? I was under the impression that editors are asked to acted on good faith [120] as opposed to forming judgements about trust.

All my edits are performed with the intent of improving the articles (which sometimes means removing invalid information which Tenebrae refers to as "fancruft"), and with good faith.

For your consideration.

Asgardian (talk) 04:41, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the months, as I have noted to Asgardian time and time again in vain, the long months are abbreviated, as was done in the very example Asgardian gives. WikiProject Comics does not abbreviate the short months (as Asgardian does, changing "June" to "Jun.", for example), and neither does the example Asgardian gives. So I'm confused as to what Asgardian's point is.

Second, being away for some months does not change the four years' experience before that. I refreshed myself in WikiProject Comics guidelines and policies, most of which remained unchanged, on my return. To say I "disliked" Asgardian's formatting is a disingenuous and misleading statement on his part. His edits unilaterally blended two discrete and highly different sections together in a manner clearly at odds with standing, long-established consensus. This is part of what I mean by trust issues.

"Veteran editors" means WikiProject Comics editors who have worked on the project for years, a number of whom are admins. Asgardian and I are both certainly Project veterans.

And clearly, I am far from the only veteran WPC editor who feels remarkably frustrated at all the time and effort being expended on a single editor who often refuses to respect guidelines, policies and consensus. -- Tenebrae (talk) 20:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tenebrae did advise me as to a preferred option on dates [121], but didn't specify that it was only the long months that are abbreviated. Now that I know this, we can amicably move off that topic and go to another part of the Guidelines under discussion [122]. In short, we are in discussion, and this shows good faith. I'm not seeing anything insurmountable. Asgardian (talk) 04:02, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In point of fact, I've informed Asgardian about WikiProject Comics MOS on dates time and time again, beginning months or even a year ago. For him to suggest I've only advised him of this recently is frustrating and indicative of his tendency to try and mislead. This editor does not readily listen to other editors, does not adhere to MOS that he knows fully well, and creates difficulties for, and wastes much time of, many editors. This was a serious issue when he was put on a year's probation in December 2007 and the situation has not appreciably approved. Hiding is far from alone in beseeching help. -- Tenebrae (talk) 03:12, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest Tenebrae not use this forum to keep examining a minor point that has been resolved. We can discuss this at his Talk Page: [123]. It would be also be appreciated if edtiors could comment without making inflammatory inferences, such as "his tendency to try and mislead". For one thing, it is a breach of civility [124]. The claim that I do not "readily listen to other editors" is also untrue as I have shown collaboration above, and dramatic generalisations such as "Hiding is far from alone in beseeching help. -- " should be avoided. Many thanks. Asgardian (talk) 03:21, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

Aware of request and awaiting more statements. FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 18:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Same as FloNight. Awaiting statement from Asgardian and also any WP:COMICS editors who may wish to say something. Carcharoth (talk) 01:53, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be a relatively straightforward situation. Is there a pressing reason that this cannot be handled through standard administrative intervention and/or community discussion? Vassyana (talk) 18:36, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Hiding: A user conduct request for comments could potentially help resolve the situation, but if nothing else would provide a clear, centralized view of the problem. Blocks and community-imposed topic bans are two "hard" tools that would be suitable to the situation. Regarding the pointed question, it is important to remember that we are more bound to the principles that our policies represent than the letter of them. If someone is obviously being disruptive, their actions do not magically cease to be disruptive (and therefore subject to sanctions) because the exact behavior is not detailed in policy. If that disruption fits under the general spirit of the blockable offenses listed in the blocking policy, it is blockable behavior. Or, to put it another way that directly responds to your question, that sentence is a fit rationale for blocking. Vassyana (talk) 19:05, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 178: / Line 178: @@
 I was traveling most of September, several days last week, will be out all day today, and have Dr. app'ts tomorrow.  I am preparing several responses, that I may not get to until Monday or perhaps Tuesday.  The only thing I'll add for now is that an established editor like Fowler should be familiar by now with [[WP:EDITCOUNTITIS]]; as most observers of my edits know, it takes me many more edits to complete a post than younger editors with better eyesight and better prose than mine, and I took multiple posts to add diffs and commentary here.  I will try to update in one post, but it is highly unlikely to happen.  [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 11:49, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 : I haven't yet found the time for an update, but [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SilkTork/Report&diff=321273642&oldid=321272912 expressed this concern] on the Report page.  [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 21:52, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
+This whole affair (and by that, I mean what I see as ArbCom's initial mishandling of the mentorship portion of the decision, and including one unfortunate comment from an arb which was subsequently and thankfully struck from this page) has been exhausting and exasperating for many editors, and has really drained enthusiasm for Wiki among some of our best FAC reviewers.  I hope the pending Mentoring report will be viewed in the context that: 1) the committee was self-selected by Mattisse, 2) the Monitoring page was only for mentors until recently, so complaints couldn't be presented there, hence the record is incomplete; 3) many of the mentors didn't even have the Monitoring page or Mattisse's talk page watchlisted until mid-September;[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:SilkTork/Report&oldid=321400871#Report_to_ArbCom] 4) some editors gave up and left FAC or Wiki; and 5) there were initial concerns of "shooting the messenger" and incidents not being paid attention to when they were raised, leading at least one editor to bow out.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum&diff=318330770&oldid=318330358] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Vassyana&diff=321330862&oldid=321288791]
+I largely stood down in the first Arb, thinking these issues would be addressed, but since then, I've watched as I, other productive editors, and content review processes are maligned across multiple pages, while little was done until this most recent incident prompted action.  The mentors do seem to be more engaged now, but I continue to note that 1) none of them signed on to "babysit" or follow contribs; 2) none of them has or agreed to use the power to block; 3) some of them remain relatively uninvolved; and 4) often, clear issues are first noted by other parties, notably Karanacs.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mattisse&oldid=321403567#Concerns][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mattisse&oldid=321403567#Arbcom_note]  I continue to believe the mentorship will have a better chance of success if the mentoring committee is expanded to include someone who actively follows Mattisse's talk and content review processes, such as Karanacs, who has demonstrated the ability to notice issues unnoticed by her mentors and calmy and politely convey issues to Mattisse without raising hackles.
+I also find the frequent statements about "overinvolvement" or lack of "neutrality" by anyone curious; in which sort of forum are "victims" expected to be silent while little action is taken in the face of continued behaviors?
+Regarding ongoing confusion from Mattisse's editing style (evidenced on this page), one of the mentors mentioned a full day into this recent debacle that he had just figured out where the moved posts went.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mattisse/Monitoring&diff=320033241&oldid=320033068]  Karanacs has explained how Mattisse's frequent moves, combines, and failure to understand diffs and article histories contributes to confusion and some of her misunderstandings; this is a pattern I have long observed, and which affected FAC.  I've had a sense of frustration that her mentors going in didn't seem to understand the source of some of Mattisse's confusion, and how her own misunderstandings fuel her perceptions that other editors are out to get her.
+I am concerned that the Monitoring page must allow for ample input from complainants, to avoid the partial analysis of situations and diffs as presented by Philcha in the examples I gave above (which we do not need to explore further here, because they are in the past, we need to move forward); the complainants need to be able to discuss and clarify, with no "shooting the messenger" forcing them to back down.  Alternately, they should take issues back to Arb or to AN/I. Because the mentorship wasn't working out until recently, I didn't report them on the Monitoring page whenever I saw issues, but was stunned that the mentors didn't even notice issues right on Mattisse's talk page.  I hope we're beyond that now.
+At a minimum, I never understood why ArbCom didn't rule that Mattisse should no longer review (or initiate) FACs, FARs, GANs, GARs or DYKs of editors with whom she has had previous conflicts.  Giano/Bish/George/Filiocht have been clear targets at FAR (note the James Joyce incident, where the article was incorrectly tagged twice (Mattisse tags articles before bringing them to FAR); there are plenty of truly bad FAs in need of review, perhaps Mattisse could focus elsewhere, and Mattisse once nominated an article at FAR, then removed and had it deleted per the "one nom at a time rule" after she engaged in a tussle on a G/B/G article, so she could FAR it instead ... sorry, I'm not an admin, can't locate the deleted FAR).  ALL of this context is necessary to a full understanding of disruption at FAR, and why Mattisse might have personalized the discussion when another editor pointed out that almost half of the FAR noms were hers when the "one nom at a time" rule was temporarily suspended.  I agree that we don't want to lose her sometimes valuable input at FAC and FAR, and to that aim, G guy and I once discussed the idea of allowing her to comment on talk pages only,[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SandyGeorgia/arch58#Saddens_me_to_say_it_...] so the review pages wouldn't be derailed, as they are when she is emotionally involved.  (I've seen numerous references to her copyediting skills, yet she seemed so upset during the Major Depressive Disorder FAC that she introduced copyediting, spelling and grammar errors almost every time she edited the article; she shouldn't stay involved in reviews if she becomes emotional. Those are noted in the MDD talk archives.)
+A recent example supports some of what Durova observed. It took a long time for Mattisse to strike a comment from AN/I, that was initially called to her attention by Karanacs, with a followup from Philcha, on her talk page.  I stuck with it this time, although previous attempts at discussion with Mattisse have all failed, because there were enough observers involved to hopefully assure the discussion would stay on track, and because her mentor had specifically recommended a course of action that she delayed (substantially) in following.  But from observing that interaction on her talk page, and that she twice went to AN/I and yet did not follow her mentor's advice until a long while afterwards and with a lot of prodding from me, makes me wonder what's going on there.  It appears disingenuous, as pointed out by Durova.  If she can find her way to AN/I to strike one comment, and then alter an archived comment, why can't she notice ''both'' of Philcha's comments, and why did it take so much prodding for her to follow her mentor's advice and why will she not answer direct questions from editors attempting to resolve disputes?[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mattisse&oldid=321403567#Concerns], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mattisse&oldid=321403567#Purpose_of_mentoring_page]  She found her way to AN/I to strike one comment,[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=319857196] alter a comment after archival of the thread,[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=319888188] but managed to overlook until she was significantly prodded the other issue raised by Philcha and Karanacs in the very same posts.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=320039101]
+[[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 18:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 === Statement by Mattisse===