Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Monitoring

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration‎ | Requests‎ | Case‎ | Mattisse

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SlimVirgin (talk | contribs) at 23:08, 22 September 2009 (→‎Suggestion for Philcha). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

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

Active mentors/advisors
  1. Salix alba - admin
  2. John Carter - admin
  3. Philcha
  4. Geometry guy - admin
  5. SilkTork - admin
  6. RegentsPark - admin
DYK
  • User:Art LaPella has offered to report on Mattisse's contributions to DYK at my ArbCom > Workshop > Development of advising/mentoring plan.[1] Please contact him if my behavior at FAR is disruptive. He can be contacted if any of Mattisse's contributions to DYK are causing or are likely to cause disruption; this is not a substitute for alerting editors here. Notifying Art LePella was accepted by Arbcom as a monitoring method.
FAR
  • User:YellowMonkey has stated at my ArbCom > Workshop > Development of advising/mentoring plan > monitoring (under Art LaPella's statement) that he does not put up with unruly behavior at FAR.[2] He encouraged her continue participating in FAR.[3] He can be contacted if any of Mattisse's contributions to FAR are causing or are likely to cause disruption; this is not a substitute for alerting editors here. Notifying YellowMonkey was accepted by Arbcom as a monitoring method.
GA
  • Philcha and Geometry guy are active in the GA process. They can be alerted here if any of Mattisse's contributions to GAN or GAR are causing or are likely to cause disruption.

Alert

Just to mention that Mattisse wasn't long back from her block before Geogre (who left the project two months ago, so you'd think she might be done with him round about now) was again in her sights.[4] I do not wish to personally discuss the matter further with Mattisse. And with the complexities of mentorship and monitoring, I'm not even sure who I ought to write to—I hope this page is allright. I certainly don't want to put a Klieg light of publicity on Mattisse. But I do want to make the mentors aware of this recent nastiness. And put a stop to it if possible. I believe Geogre, Giano, Bishonen are people Mattisse has most particularly been requested to not use for target practice. Bishonen | talk 00:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]

My comment was a true statement and not venomous. My heart goes out to other editors when I see them caught in exactly the same situation that I was regarding FAR nominations and the retribution that follows. I think it is only right to point out that this is a continuing situation situation that has not yet been dealt with by admins. FAR nominations of articles by that editor and retributions by specific protective editors continue. Please see Unexplained_Admin_Abuse_by_User:KillerChihuahua_and_User:SlimVirgin, also FAR of Oroonoko and the rest of the thread noted above on Giano for context.Giano As I said, this problem continues unabated at FAR whenever an article by that editor is nominated. Other editors step into the FAR situation unaware and are attacked. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 15:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The comment in question seems to be more about the behavior of others regarding a Geogre article than about Geogre himself, so I think that the original post implying that they were somehow directed against Geogre may be somewhat inaccurate. And I would expect some such comments to be at least strongly considered for making by at least some people in the light of the current Eastern European mailing list matter. If it could happen once, ... . By saying that, I am in no way trying to imply anything about any parties, simply noting that it would not be impossible for the idea to at least occur to people. While I can and do think that the comment might have been not necessarily the nicest one, or one which bends over backward to AGF, I can't, in the light of the current situation, necessarily think that a few comments about how editors seem to at time often work or appear together is something which, in and of itself, is necessarily a particular cause for concern, although I would hope that such comments perhaps not be made again in the future in regards to other matters without clear, specific, evidence.
Having said all that, I'm not at this point sure that saying simply because an article is associated with Geogre or anyone else is necessarily grounds for suspicion either, although I wouldn't myself rule out concern if an article were apparently worked on as some sort of memorial for him or anyone else. If such a case were to ever occur, and be one in which emotions of the editors involved were clearly relevant, then I would think that expressing concerns about how such emotion might impact things might be relevant. John Carter (talk) 17:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are right that my comment was not directed at Geogre himself but rather the conduct of others. I am merely concerned that FAR be a civil place for editors to work. As for the Eastern European mailing list matter, I know nothing about that and don't understand what is going on in that situation. It is over my head. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 17:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

I'll just mention that I don't have socks. "Sock" means abusive or disruptive unacknowledged alternative account, and I don't have any such. It's unclear what the grounds for my complaint is, really? Even though I put in a diff? Here it is again. My complaint was of Mattisse disseminating yet again her (apparently ever-lasting) grudge against, in this case, Geogre. Did you happen to notice how she went on and on about Geogre on her talkpage when she was first blocked? Oddly enough, I still care, though he's gone. Oh... hey, I see you were reading the wrong thread, Philcha. The main thread in question is called "Unexplained Admin Abuse by User:KillerChihuahua and User:SlimVirgin"; my name appears twice in it, once telling Mattisse she was being unhelpful, as well as breaking promises. This thread is "folded up." You can unfold and read it, if you like. You probably read the thread called "Giano" instead, which was about Giano's block. It didn't have a lot to do with Collectonian's complaint (s/he was complaining of SlimVirgin and KillerChihuahua, not Giano.) Matisse was active in both these threads, complaining first of Geogre, then of Giano, making a full deck of broken promises to leave us alone (I, Bishonen, having already been dealt with by her abusive sock.) Bishonen | talk 18:45, 21 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Which of the posters of the thread containing your diff is a sock of Mattisse and attacks you? --Philcha (talk) 18:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What are you trying to say? I don't get it. [/shakes head to clear it. ] I do believe a sock of Mattisse attacked me and was blocked for it. And I believe you know it. Who said it was a sock on ANI? If you have trouble understanding me, as you clearly have trouble thanking me for politely explaining the ANI thread business you had gotten tangled in, please see SandyGeorgia below. Bishonen | talk 19:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
At any point when a user sees another user potentially behaving inappropriately, they should be able to intervene (and, I think, this is most especially true when the user in question is under mentorship due to previous inappropriate behavior). Karanacs (talk) 17:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The point of this page is, from the header, to draw "early attention to situations where Mattisse may be heading into conflict with other editors". Parties posting here should not need to have personal grounds for complaint, and indeed it is perhaps preferable if they don't. As well as Bishonen's expressed concern, another editor has also commented that her interventions at ANI were perhaps unhelpful and unnecessary[5], and this view has now been clearly and effectively echoed by her mentors above. This will, one hopes, be the cause of some reflection on M's part, and result in different choices in similar situations in the future.--Slp1 (talk) 17:56, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've already told Mattisse both publicly and privatle ythat she went too far and was very unwise. However However Bishonen's comment above (00:55, 21 September 2009), "I believe Geogre, Giano, Bishonen are people Mattisse has most particularly been requested to not use for target practice" goes too far and itself needs reproof for feuding - whatever history may exist between Mattisse and Bishonen, Mattisse does not mention Bishonen at the diff Bishonen cites nor in any part of current version of ANI. Hence Bishonen's inclusion of his/her own name in the complaint is totally groundless and might be considered trouble-making. --Philcha (talk) 18:04, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Trouble-making..? All right, Philcha. You assume I have some shady agenda, because you missed my name on the ANI thread. You choose to meet me with suspiciousness and accusations of "feuding". Goodbye and good luck. Bishonen | talk 19:11, 21 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
I guess I don't read it the same way as you do. I don't see Bishonen has claiming that that her name was mentioned on ANI, or that she had a personal complaint. In my view she was simply stating that M had been specifically asked to avoid focus her energies on those 3 WP editors, and pointing that M had commented on a thread where two of the three were involved. It would have been nice to have a diff, however, I agree, to show what B was specifically thinking about.--Slp1 (talk) 18:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe I was required to avoid any specific editors, per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Proposed decision. Although I take Philcha's advice to heart, I do not think I am barred from ever having an opinion. —mattisse (Talk) 18:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Noone is barred from having an opinion. However, it is not always necessary, desirable or politic to express the opinion publicly. A wise person needs to learn when to comment and when keeping silent is the better, more productive course. --Slp1 (talk) 18:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am traveling now, on a very bad internet connection so I can't locate diffs, but there was a long conversation a while back on my talk page where concern was expressed over Mattisse's targeting of Geogre/Bish/Giano and Filiocht, and I'm fairly certain this has come up before at WT:FAR (although I could be wrong) ... way back when she FAR'd one of their FAs and then deleted it so she could FAR another one after she got into a subsequent entanglement over a second article. I encourage her mentors to encourage Mattisse to avoid comments on people or FACs, FARs, GANs and GARs of editors who are on her "plague list" or with whom she has had prior personal entanglements, because those are the situations that lead her into problematic behaviors. There was no need to mention Geogre in this current incident. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Geogre was not on my Plague list. Also, please read the decision: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Proposed decision. It prohibited me from keeping lists, not from posting about anyone on my unfortunate list. Also, it did not prohibit me from editing in any specific area of Wikipedia, nor prohibited me from editing about specific editors. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 18:51, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • From the decision > Casting aspersions:

3) It is unacceptable for an editor to routinely accuse others of misbehavior without reasonable cause. Legitimate concerns of fellow editors' conduct should be raised either directly with the editor in question, in a civil fashion, or if necessary on an appropriate noticeboard or dispute-resolution page. Although broad leeway is granted to allow editors to express themselves in their interactions with one another, particularly in dispute resolution, a consistent pattern of making objectively unsupported or exaggerated claims of misconduct can necessitate sanctions or restrictions even if the editor subjectively believes that they are true.

This applies to people commenting on Mattisse as well as Mattisse commenting on others. Civil behaviour is required both ways here, as is use of dispute resolution, rather than sniping, bringing up old disputes, and returning to previous behaviour. Some have pursued dispute resolution here. Others have sniped. Carcharoth (talk) 06:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

—mattisse (Talk) 18:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Mattisse, could you perhaps explain how you think that this section of the Arbcom ruling applies to this situation? I suspect that your interpretation may differ from others posting here, and it would be useful to try to undersand each other. Karanacs (talk) 19:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Perhaps you could show how it does not apply to the current situation. I was voicing my opinion about a troubling situation in an appropriate forum. I was not, to my mind, engaging in "a consistent pattern of making objectively unsupported or exaggerated claims of misconduct". No one denies that Giano made the post that he did at FAR, nor that his personal attack upset the editor involved. The question is if his personal attack was trivial or consequential. —mattisse (Talk) 19:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thank you for the clarification, I was trying to figure out if you were looking at the section regarding your behavior or that of others who interact with you and now I understand. In my opinion, generalizing the behavior from this particular FAR to anything involving an article of Geogre's is a bit exaggerated. if you are going to make comments like the one in the diff Bishonen provided, you need to provide diffs of your own to support those comments. It's good practice to always have diffs if your post could be taken as disparaging another editor or group of editors. Karanacs (talk) 19:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • OK. I think the AN/I thread regarding Giano has taken on a life of its own, and any more input I have, regarding diffs or anything else, would be irrelevant. —mattisse (Talk) 21:15, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've just had another look at the Giano thread. The range of opinions about the block on Giano ranges from "block unjustified / excessive / too late" through "about right" to "blocking Giano is pointless, ban him". I don't know most of those commenting, but one person whose objectivity and courteous behaviour I respect supported the 1-week block. Mattisse's comments on the Giano issue are by no means extreme.
In the previous ANI thread, "Unexplained Admin Abuse ...", Collectionian complains of being dogpiled by three other editors after tagging Oroonoko "citations needed", and provides diffs.
Bishonen has at least twice described Mattisse's posts in these discussions as "venomous" - in the title of the current discussion and at "Unexplained Admin Abuse ...". An editor who wanted to resolve a dispute could have used dozens of less emotive alternatives, such as "Concern / complaint abuot Mattise's comments at ...". Bishonen's choice of words looks more like a declaration of war.
While Mattise's involvement in these ANI discussions was poor tactics (i.e. inviting trouble), her phrasing in these comments was more restrained than either Giano's about Collectionian (diff at the Giano thread) or Bishonen's about Mattisse. Likewise IMO Mattisse made the same points too often, but she was neither the first nor the most strident to repeat points in these unpleasant ANI discussions. While ArbCom has commented about Mattisse's past conduct, I do not see that ArbCom requires Mattisse to behave better than is expected of other editors. --Philcha (talk) 21:41, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that:
  • Mattisse avoids commenting on the conduct of others unless they directly and specifically attack her conduct. Note the word "attack" - suggestions that about how Mattisse should handle an issue better are quite legitimate.
  • Everyone else drop this, because no-one will come out of this well. --Philcha (talk) 21:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reason I'm "dropping this" is that I had already stopped posting (compare "goodbye and good luck" above). Not because I think you're the boss of the discussion, Philcha. I arrived full of good will and good faith, but you have made a point of changing that, and have levelled a barrage of nasty (and strangely far-fetched) hints at me. Are you sure it's wise to turn your mentorship into a battlezone? You're not coming out of this well. Bishonen | talk 23:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Are Bishonen's "Venom alert" (heading of this thread) and "time for you to stop spitting venom" ("Unexplained Admin Abuse ...") examples of Bishonen's "good will and good faith"? --Philcha (talk) 05:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What are you trying to say, Philcha? I suggest you focus on Matisse, who made a very hostile and unhelpful edit, rather than attacking a highly respected admin. You are not doing a damn thing to ensure she doesn't cause problems; indeed, your entire behavior here is more troll-enabling than correcting her unwarranted attacks. I've been on ANI a couple of times, and most of the people who decried my "admin abuse" were eventually indef'd - not by me! Because no one was able to get them to tone down their hostile and false accusations. You are in a position to help Matiesee, but instead you are acting very rudely to Bishinen, who was merely drawing your attention to her behavior. The correct response is "thank you, Bishonen, I will talk to Matisse". KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 16:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think Bishonen's genuinely thinks "Venom alert" (heading of this thread) and "time for you to stop spitting venom" ("Unexplained Admin Abuse ...") are examples of kindly meant, helpful posts, free of bad faith and negative wording. —mattisse (Talk) 17:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KillerChihuahua, which edit by Mattisse do you regard as a "very hostile and unhelpful edit"? Does it contain terms as strong as "venom" or "venomous"? --Philcha (talk) 17:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're changing the subject, Philcha. You seem confused. You're supposed to be mentoring Matisse. Matisse is the one judged by Arbcom to be sorely lacking in civility and needing mentoring. Your dislike of Bishonen's terminology has no place here; please try to focus. This page is for reporting Matisse's actions which might lead to issues. If you want to talk to Bishonen about her verbiage, please go to her page. We're not here to mentor Bishonen. Your fixation on her, and your failure to address Matisse's actions, lead me to believe you are not interested in mentoring Matisse so much as covering for her and attacking those who bring potentially problematic posts by Matisse to your attention. You really need to either stop focusing on other editors, not under ArbCom sanction, and focus on matisee, or step down as mentor. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 17:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • From ArbCom: Mattisse and her mentors or advisors should consider the suggestions made by various users on the workshop page of this case, including but not limited to Mattisse's taking wikibreaks at times of stress, avoiding or limiting Mattisse's participation on certain pages, Mattisse's refraining from making any comments regarding the motivations or good faith of other users, and Mattisse's disengaging from interactions that become stressful or negative. The plan should also address how any lapses by Mattisse from the standards of behavior described in the plan shall be addressed. Philcha, explain to me how anyone else's conduct, Bishonen's or anyone's, has fuck-all to dow ith "Mattisse's refraining from making any comments regarding the motivations or good faith of other users" or "Mattisse disengaging from interactions that become ... negative." Tell me how your switching to complaining about Bishonen in any way is addressing "lapses by Mattisse from the standards of behavior described in the plan. You're not mentoring. Its like a cop gave Matisse a ticket, and you're bitching out the cop becuse you don't like his handwriting... but you're not helping Matisse become a better driver. You, madam, are failing utterly to mentor, and are instead arguing rather than resolving problems with your mentoree. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 17:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Mattisse, while 'Venom Alert' may be a poor choice of heading, you should bear in mind that not only is it you, not Bishonen, who is on probation, but it is also the case that Bishonen was the target of your recent sock fiasco and he/she is unlikely to be kindly disposed toward you. My suggestion is that you not respond any further on this matter and, as always, avoid making comments on any editors anywhere. At this point, it seems to me that a single uncharitable comment on your part is escalating into something bigger. One should always aim to avoid that something bigger. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 17:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KillerChihuahua, if Bishonen's comments here and at ANI had avoided inflammatory language, the situation would have been fairly straightforward. AFAIK Mattisse's ArbCom is not a licence for others to use such unpleasant language to or about her. In short, editors who wish to comment on Mattisse's conduct should adhere to the standards they demand Mattisse should follow. --Philcha (talk) 18:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neither do another edtitor's choice of verbiage negate concerns about Matisse's behavior. I say again, since you seem to be fixated still on other editor's behavior, and not on the behavior of the person you're supposedly mentoring; if you have an issue with how Bishonen said something, talk to her on her talk page. But the concerns are not negated by your disapproval of how they are brought to your attention. I repeat myself again that you really should step down as a mentor. Remove your name; you're causing drama and enabling poor behavior, by acting as though Bishonen's verbiage excuses Matisses' verbiage, you are giving exactly the wrong message. You are not a good mentor. Puppy has spoken, puppy is done. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 18:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The intent of the arbcom decision was also to make life more possible for me on wikipedia, not to serve as a means of putting me down and degrading me. That is why so many comments were made that my problems were a two-way street and that I was baited and provoked much of the time, according to arbcom. I made a true statement at AN/I, nothing out of bounds of civility. FAR regular Dabomb87 suggested that Giano be topic banned from FAR because this was repeat behavior on Giano's part.[6] I was merely noting that fact. I do not think I should be punished for that. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 18:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
RegentsPark. I agree Mattisse's choice of words at ANI was likely to lead to trouble, and agree with your "One should always aim to avoid that something bigger" - I said as much above, firmly but politely, and more bluntly by email to Mattisse. However Bishonen is as bound by WP conduct policies every bit as much as Mattisse or anyone else, however "unlikely to be kindly disposed" towards Mattisse. I do not regard the ArbCom rulling as painting a target on Mattisse's back. --Philcha (talk) 18:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not Bishonen's words are warranted (except for the choice of words in the heading, I have no beef with his/her comments), extending this discussion on Matisse's monitoring page is hurting rather than helping. IMO, the way to look at this is that an editor has posted a comment on the monitoring page with the goal of alerting mentors to an action of Mattisse. That is useful because how else will a mentor know when she is on the verge of getting into trouble. Attacking that editor, especially on this page, will only discourage other editors from posting such alerts and that will hurt Mattisse in the long run. Better to assume that the post is in good faith, counsel Mattisse if necessary, and move on without commenting on the post itself. The way I see it, while Mattisse is a very useful editor, her position here at wikipedia is fairly tenuous, no sense in making it more so. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 18:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Choice of words in heading is rather important, do you not think, as some 20 or so posts have followed under that heading. Arbcom made it clear than my problems were a two-way street. I do not see how expressing sympathy to an editor who has experienced the exact same confusing problem as I have regarding talk page and subsequent FAR page abuse is wrong. I wish someone a clued me into the dynamic of what was happening at the time, instead of allowing me to flounder in a confusing and abusive situation. If someone had told be whats what, I could have been saved much anguish. —mattisse (Talk) 18:49, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see little prospect of useful discussion in any continuation of this thread. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying Matisse cannot learn what was inapproprite in her actions in this instance due to the "noise" regarding how the complaint was worded here, or something else? please clarify, thanks - KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 21:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the points that might be useful for learning purposes have already been made. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks much for clarifying. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 22:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with both of Newyorkbrad's comments, and have commented further on the talk page. In particular the points useful for learning purposes may well have been lost in the to-and-fro, and this thread lacks clarity of purpose and is not really distinguished from an article or user talk page discussion. Geometry guy 23:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion for KC

KillerChihuahua, if you have some comments about Mattisse's conduct, I suggest you start a new thread. We all know what the original title of this thread was. Please provide diffs, state what you think was wrong, and what you think Mattisse should have done instead. --Philcha (talk) 22:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. If I do have such comments, I will do so. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 22:49, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion for Philcha

  • The diffs are above, and it's my view that Mattisse should stay far, FAR away from ANI and anything remotely related to those people whom she has feuded with in the past. Her participation there was very ill-advised, and your defense of her by critiquing the people who brought the reports didn't help at all. The title of this page is User:MATTISSE/Monitoring, and there should not be a shoot-the-messenger mentality when concerns are brought here. UnitAnode 22:53, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, could you clarify who this is addressed to, Unitanode? Thanks - KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 22:59, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's addressed as a concern regarding Mattisse, per the request of Philcha. I have some real problems with how Philcha dealt with the concerns raised on this page. It's not helpful to Mattisse at all, and in some ways enables the persecution complex. UnitAnode 23:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I quite agree. Philcha has uniformly focused on attacking the messenger, and failed utterly to focus on Matisse. I have already suggested she remove herself from the list of monitors, as her behavior is completely inappropriate for mentoring someone under ArbCom restrictions. She is, unfortunately, enabling rather than helping. However, she seems deaf to concerns about her approach. This is a problem; I cannot say I see a very clear solution. I suggest Matisse ignore her advice as not likely to be beneficial; otherwise, I cannot think what might be a solution. I have taken the liberty of making a new heading, as your comment was not about me but was in a section where Philcha made a suggestion to me, and which was so titled. Please let me know if you prefer to refactor this. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 23:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have three suggestions:

  1. That the mentors get together and choose a chief mentor, as it were, or that one of them step forward to assume the role, and that that person coordinates complaints and responses, so that people know who is dealing with this.
  2. That in the interests of human dignity, this page be moved to the main mentor's userspace e.g. User:Philcha/mentoring, so that we don't have a title centered around watching Mattisse.
  3. That the mentors ask Mattisse to stay away entirely from issues related to Bishonen, Geogre, Giano, or people Mattisse perceives as related to them, and in particular never to comment in relation to their FAs or FARs. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 23:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Monitoring&oldid=315603490"