Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Alerts/Archive 4

Comments on stress-point

Favorable outcome noted

Malleus Fatuorum and I had a favorable interaction by successfully reducing a stressful interaction as outlined by my plan. I asked him for advice when I was beginning to feel stressed and was able to reduce the stress.[1] —Mattisse (Talk) 08:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

This is good. It's helpful to keep examples of good things. SilkTork *^YES! 17:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Removing diffs from the monitoring page

It's hard, but remain positive. And don't keep this sort of thing anywhere. Don't even archive it. The best action is to move forward rather than look back. Present yourself as someone who is highly respected and others will pick up on that and respond appropriately. You have the support of many people who value what you do here. Build confidence from that, and ignore those who attempt to drag you backwards. If you feel you can't ignore it, then please get in touch with someone you trust - one of those who signed up to your plan, or any other person you feel is appropriate. My recommendation is that you remove the above. And from our experience of discussing concerns on-Wiki, if you wish someone to examine some evidence, then it may be less contentious and less liable to misunderstanding if you present the evidence via email. SilkTork *^YES! 17:17, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying that I should delete it? —mattisse (Talk) 19:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

You should delete it. --Philcha (talk) 21:09, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. —mattisse (Talk) 21:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

That was a step in the right direction. Geometry guy 22:22, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Monitoring goals and ideals

Bishonen's post concerning Mattisse's comments related to Geogre has been an excellent test of the challenges the Monitoring page may face. Thankfully the test was relatively minor (in the scale of possible problems that could arise), since the Monitoring page almost entirely failed to be anything other than another talk shop for extending disputes and back histories. I agree with Newyorkbrad that useful further discussion remains unlikely, and that has been one reason why I have not contributed to the thread. Geometry guy 22:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC) (I'm signing to draw a line: comments on this paragraph can be placed immediately below, but in the spirit of drawing the line, I would discourage this: anyone feeling compelled to respond might instead consider my talk page.)

The purpose of the monitoring page is to help Mattisse stick to her plan, and hence reduce the risk that she finds herself at RfArb before anyone can say "assume good faith". This should be its sole purpose. The monitoring page is only useful if it draws attention to areas where Mattisse might need further advice on sticking to her plan. It is also only useful if she receives concise advice that will help her to do so. In particular the page is not:

1. a place to discuss the conduct of other editors – any concerns should be raised in other fora, not here, although the conduct of other editors may inform the advice given to Mattisse;
2. a place to chastise Mattisse or extend grudges or disputes with Mattisse.

I would like to propose that we clarify the Monitoring page with this in mind. In particular, I propose the following.

• The Monitoring page should clearly state its purpose according to the above outline.
• Posts to the Monitoring page should be unsigned. The Monitoring page should explain this, and state that alerts should be as factual as possible and written in as calm a language as possible: interpretations and personal feelings can be elaborated here (Monitoring talk) if necessary. Reasons:
  1. Writing an unsigned comment encourages greater distance and objectivity.
  2. Unsigned alerts can be refactored to focus on the issues that will help Mattisse stick to her plan, and avoid inflammatory interpretations. (For example, I would have refactored the title "Venom Alert" immediately, were it not signed.)
  3. An unsigned monitoring page makes it impossible to hold argumentative discussion: any discussion can take place here (Monitoring talk).
  4. The Monitoring page will thus be free to give concise and considered advice to Mattisse on what to learn from the alert and ways to avoid similar issues (should the concerns be genuine).
• Editors, especially Mattisse and mentors, should discuss alerts on this talk page, where the only goal is to provide the best advice for Mattisse to stick to her plan.

That's all for now, but further alerts are likely to raise further challenges. Geometry guy 22:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I have no objections to Geometry guy's ideas as expressed above. The monitoring page was clearly not working as implemented. A new method needs to be created if I am to be able to understand what is happening. So far, I have not been able to follow the page, as too much is happening, it is too distracting, and there does not seem to be consensus. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 23:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I think G-guy may have assumed that others are as objective as level-headed as he is. If it appears that another editor is trying to chastise Mattisse or extend grudges or disputes with Mattisse, discussion of the other editor's conduct is inevitable - although it should be limited to that editor's comments in the specific thread and the incident that triggered it, and not range into other aspects of that editor's conduct. Likewise in "... ways to avoid similar issues (should the concerns be genuine)", the caveat "should the concerns be genuine" involves examining the other editor's conduct.

I'm not at all sure about unsigned comments:

• Some editors may be less restrained by the feeling of anomymity that unsigned comments, and thus create more heat than light.
• As far as I can see, it would be fake anomymity: the Monitoring page's history will show authors; complaints will have to be supported by diffs and other evidence, which will identify authors. --Philcha (talk) 06:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The purpose of unsigned comments is not to create anonymity, and certainly not a cloak of anonymity: as you point out, anyone can check the edit history, and editors are responsible for all of their edits, signed or unsigned (they are even copyright holders!). Instead the purpose of unsigned comments is to encourage greater objectivity and allow for refactoring (as on most non-talk pages). The latter is critical for addressing your hesitation. No one is truly objective, nor can anyone be level headed all the time, and I am not assuming that. In any given situation, all that is required is that at least some of the mentors are detached enough to refactor inflammatory alerts (or make null edits over inflammatory edit summaries).

If the misperception of anonymity causes problems, we could ask for or add small print tags such as <Reported by Geometry guy (talk · contribs)>.

I take your point about other editors' conduct: I agree that this is often relevant to the situation and may need to be discussed (on Monitoring talk). What I should have said was that other fora should be used for holding other editors' conduct to account and addressing it. My main concern is not what is discussed here, but the purpose of the discussion, which is to give Mattisse informed and thought-through advice. Any improvements to the Monitoring page with that in mind have my support. Geometry guy 08:22, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't take that point at all. Philcha spent a good portion of his time shooting the messenger when a complaint about Mattisse's behavior was brought here. That has a chilling effect, and causes me to wonder about the efficacy of this process. This page is for mentoring Mattisse, and getting her past the behaviors that caused her to come under arbcom sanctions. It's not meant as a place to analyze the behavior of people who bring the reports. UnitAnode 11:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

It's quite simple. Comments that are presented courteously will be considered. Attack posts are as unacceptable here as they would be against any editor. The "Venom alert" thread was presented as an attack post. I invited Killer Chihuahua to re-present the matter courteously, but he declined. --Philcha (talk) 12:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Wrong on several counts: I didn't post that, rendering asking me to "re-present" utter nonsense; you never asked me to refactor it (although I did, and got bitched at by you for it) and I'm female. Not too impressed with your accuracy here, Philcha. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 21:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I regret to say that I cannot agree with Philca above. While it might be permissable to refactor comments, such as in this case replacing "Venom" with something more acceptable, for instance, it is also at least possible that the person posting here might be so emotionally agitated by Mattisse's actions that they find themselves using unacceptable language, and if someone is that agitated it would be in everyone's best interests to know that. John Carter (talk) 14:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec) John Carter, if a comment on Mattisse's conduct (or anyone's) is expressed in an unacceptable matter I'm not sure that any one other than the author should refactor it, because another editor would might well misinterpret parts of the original message - especially if it was composed in a state of agitation, which might well make it unclear and/or incomplete. If the author is prepared to refactor and, if necessary, provide of exactly what the concern is, that would be fine.

"it is also at least possible that the person posting here might be so emotionally agitated by Mattisse's actions that they find themselves using unacceptable language" contradicts principles expressed at Mattisse's ArbCom ruling, which apply to all editors. See for example "Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, and disruptive point-making, is prohibited" and "An editor's misconduct also is not excused because another editor or editors may also have engaged in such conduct". Caracaroch commented "In my view, this is not just directed at Mattisse, but is also aimed at those that interact with Mattisse. If a suitable plan is put in place, and Mattisse is keeping to it, then I expect the committee to come down hard on anyone reigniting this dispute."

ArbCom said, "The long-term aim of such arrangements should be for those involved to improve their conduct and work collaboratively without the need, or with a reduced need, for such advice." IMO the term "improve" implies a learning process (in this case by Mattisse). In any learning process, the learner has to start with the simple cases and progress to more difficult ones. That includes asking Mattisse to start by handling comments presented clearly and courteously, and progressing to those that less clearly or courteously expressed. In the early stages handling comments expressed in a hostile way is beyond Mattisse's current skills. --Philcha (talk) 16:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• Your responsibility as a mentor is not to cast aspersions on the motives of the person bringing a good-faith report -- which Bishonen's report was. It is to guide MATTISSE in how to address the concerns raised. Surely you're not actually contending that Mattisse was somehow in the right to post to that ANI about people with whom she's had clear conflicts in the past? UnitAnode 15:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Unitanode, do you think titling a thread "Venom alert" and citing a diff that uses the term "venomous" is a good sign of good faith?

No, I don't think Mattisse was somehow in the right to post to that ANI about people with whom she's had clear conflicts in the past, and said so during the thread in the Monitoring page. However that was based on my own reading of the ANI case and related diffs, histories, etc. In other words my words may have been good advice for Mattisse, but cannot represent the opinions of the original poster. The original poster could have removed the inflamatory language and then been prepared to clarify the substance of the comment, but did not do so. --Philcha (talk) 16:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the title of the thread had nothing to do with whether it was a good-faith report or not. Bishonen was clearly angry, but you can be angry, write an unfortunate and inappropriate title, and still be making the report in good-faith. You chose instead to focus on Bishonen. It's your responsibility to convey to Mattisse where SHE went wrong, not enable her persecution complex. By shooting the messenger because of a flawed title, you effectively neutered any lessons Mattisse might have drawn from the incident. Instead of simply removing the word "Venom" from the title, with an explanation in the edit summary or some such, and then focusing on the problematic nature of what Mattisse did, you turned it around. There is a reason Mattisse is under Arbcom sanction, and Bishonen is not; and there is a reason she is required to have mentors. Your responses to the legitimate concerns were counterproductive, at best. UnitAnode 16:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I like the idea of clarifying the mentoring page, and especially with the note that posts there should not focus on only Mattisse's behavior (not that of her mentors, and not that of whoever posted). I disagree with the plan for unsigned comments. I think this will likely be ignored/accidentally overlooked. My recommendation would be to make the monitoring page be only editable by a) people involved in the dispute, b) Mattisse, and c) her mentors. I would encourage that the mentor comments should be very specifically targeted at explaining to Mattisse whether or not her behavior was acceptable in that situation (and if not, why not) and provide advice on how to better handle that situation or similar ones in the future. Any other comments should be placed on the talk page. That way the main page will exist more as a learning tool and less as an AN/I-type drama-fest. Karanacs (talk) 16:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I too like the general thrust of the suggestions that geometryguy has made. It would help if the page had posting instructions on the top (examples: please word your comments neutrally, please include diffs, etc., your comments may be refactored by a mentor, etc.). That way, it wouldn't matter if the posts are signed or not (I prefer signed because it is important for people reading the post to know - at a glance - who is commenting/posting). Drama should be avoided at all costs because that would defeat the purpose of this page (as well as the purpose of the mentoring), so comments about the posting editor should be made elsewhere - the editor's talk page seems ideally suited). Mentors can respond to the post appropriately ("I don't think this is a problem", "Matisse should not comment further on this issue", Mattisse should apologize to x editor, "Matisse should be blocked for y days", and various points in-between). --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 17:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Structure

If this is a place for editors to bring their issues with Mattisse, I think it should be as structured as possible to avoid any misunderstandings between what other editors expect of this process, or what Mattisse expects from the editors who are participating on this page. I suggest asking editors to do the following:

1. Briefly explain the behavior that is at issue.
2. Briefly explain the consequences of the behavior, if possible (i.e. exacerbates an already acrimonious relationship, potentially impedes the improvement or promotion of an article, impedes improvement through disorganized or unnecessarily forceful discussion)
3. Briefly state what should be the outcome of a complaint: mentors speaking with Mattisse about the wisdom of some actions or comments, or a block including the length of a block, disengaging from a discussion, or some other outcome. Some behaviors I suppose, should be made very clear that any user will be blocked: for using sockpuppets to argue with another editor, edit warring, or engaging in the same behaviors as sanctioned by ArbCom. This perhaps, should be posted at the top of the page.
4. State clearly that Mattisse is not the only editor who may be encouraged to change behavior, and by any editor bringing their issues here, they should understand that their own reactions/interactions/invitations to Mattisse may be criticized.

Following the posting by an editor, the mentors may agree through discussion how to handle the problem. I do not think the page should be archived so quickly. That appears to be erasing some issues that should be kept open for viewing for a while.

I am as interested to see this put in place as I am to see how Mattisse's mentors agree or disagree about clarity. I think this is right now a problem that should be fixed immediately, and making this page as structured as possible will accomplish this. Hesitating to do it may illustrate serious differences in how mentors are approaching this situation and may indicate this mentor plan may not work at all.

Should I say I disagree with unsigned comments? Abruptly put, I think that condones cowardice. --Moni3 (talk) 17:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks good - thanks, Moni3 --Philcha (talk) 17:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad to see work here moving in productive directions, but I, too, disagree with unsigned comments; we have enough concerns about ongoing misstatements about the Arb that unsigned comments may only serve to further that confusion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:33, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

If it looks so good, how come nothing has happened? This thread has been dead for 10 days. Once the moment has passed and the drama is old-hat, do editors still care about taking the consensus forward to make concrete changes? I summarize below. Geometry guy 21:50, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I was going to wait a full 2 weeks to ask about this. --Moni3 (talk) 21:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The plan below looks real good, but it might be useful if there were also some sort of indication possible regarding archiving of "dead" threads, as per the concerns expressed above. One option might be that the montiors could decide somehow to agree that matters are "resolved", and agree to archive on resolution, with another option, like Moni3 said, based on recent activity in the section. It might be possible that someone raising an issue might not consider a matter resolved when either the inactivity period has passed, or disagree with a decision regarding whether something is "resolved," but I'm not sure myself how to address such matters in a brief summary. As you all no doubt have noticed by now, I'm a longwinded old coot and "brief" and I don't get along real good. ;) John Carter (talk) 22:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Fine with me. I appreciate constructive advice rather than attacks on my respected advisers, who have been very responsive and responsible, in my opinion. I thanks you all! Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 22:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Summary

It is generally agreed that:^{This is my (Geometry guy's) interpretation of and response to the above discussion.}

1. the monitoring page is not another talk page (it isn't a talk page – this page is a talk page);
2. the main if not sole purpose of the monitoring page is to help Mattisse stick to her plan;
3. posts to the monitoring page should only concern alerts that Mattisse is (or is in danger of) breaching her plan, and advice to Mattise on how to stick to her plan.

With this in mind, it is proposed that:

1. the preamble of the monitoring page makes the purpose of the page clear;
2. in particular, editors are advised to raise issues in neutral language (on the monitoring page - talk page comments permit freer expression), to provide diffs for the issues they raise, and to be aware that their comments may be refactored to comply with the purpose of the page and promote a productive response.

Editors also have noted that:

1. it is helpful for alerts to be signed, both to identify more easily the source of the concern now, and to minimize potential misuse of the diff in the future;
2. concerns are restricted to Mattisse's contributions, not those of other editors (including her mentors);
3. discussion of the contributions of other editors on the monitoring talk page may help to inform the advice provided to Mattisse, but any issues for other editors to address should be raised in other fora, not here.

Can we improve the monitoring page with this in mind before there is another problem? Thanks, Geometry guy 21:50, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The summary looks good, except that I for one have no interest in providing commentary that "may be refactored" to "promote a productive response". I don't want to be represented as signing some Newspeak that I have no control of;^* I say what I mean, or say nothing. Consequently, it's fine by me if the instructions state that people's comments may be removed if they're not useful, or something like that. Admittedly, my opinion of the plan is not the most important, since I'm not that likely to post on the "Monitoring" page again after finding my original input unwelcome; still, I don't think I'm the only editor who doesn't care to be refactored. Bishonen | talk 23:50, 4 October 2009 (UTC).

*"The underlying theory of Newspeak is that if something can't be said, then it can't be thought". Wikipedia article, Newspeak.

No, you're not alone in that view. This will very likely be my only posting on this page, as my comments to date have been almost uniformly ignored by Mattisse. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that was precisely why I proposed unsigned posts. There was no consensus for that. Comments of a subjective nature can always be made on the talk page. Geometry guy 01:00, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I still think that refactoring is a good idea. Assuming that the objective is to keep Matisse focused on the many useful things she does on wikipedia and keep her away from the stuff that is a no-no, it is important not to make this a 'dump on Mattisse' page. Removing is one way of ensuring polite discourse, but then we may lose essential input. We don't want Newspeak to become nospeak (so to speak)! --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 02:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Concerns regarding "shooting the messenger"

As raised by Unitanode "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. "[2] and others on the main page.

I am moving my post regarding that here:

• 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)

  This is entirely covered by my proposal above. Geometry guy 23:21, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

  I'm afraid I must disagree. While I think your proposal to instruct those giving alerts to make them unsigned, much as in Article Rfc, is an excellent move, this hardly addresses Philcha's numerous inappropriate actions. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 23:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

  I quote: "In particular the page is not: 1. a place to discuss the conduct of other editors". Philcha's approach would be impossible under the proposed changes, as there would be no signed messenger to shoot. If you wish to discuss Philcha's past behaviour, rather than ways to improve this page, I suggest you do so on his talk page, or another more appropriate forum than this one. Thanks, Geometry guy 23:33, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

  So you're undertaking to police the page, and remove inappropriate content, signatures etc? I merely wish to confirm that this sweeping change will have the support of all the monitors. I realize you wish to close this matter, and I respect that and sympathise, however I cannot view this as closed on only your input. None of the other monitors have stated they support this and that they believe this will mitigate, if not remove, Philchas unfortunately counter-productive efforts. They may have other solutions, or suggestions. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 23:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

  I am undertaking nothing and wish to close nothing: I started a thread above with my suggestions for improving this page. I would welcome comments on that thread. Other ideas for improving this page are likewise welcome. This has been the first occasion it has been seriously used, and there is much to learn. Geometry guy 00:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

  I appreciate your suggestions and think they are a step on the "right road". Hopefully it would prevent editors from airing individual beefs with each other here, as that kind of thing proves distracting to me. I cannot follow it, especially complaints that are general and do not contain diffs. I appreciate all suggestions for my improvement. With 72, 000+ edits, almost all related to content, my editing problems center around the relatively few "other" edits I have made, and those centering around a few specific editors. I welcome all suggestions on how to get along with these editors. I understand the suggestion to just avoid their articles. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 20:43, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Mattisse commenting on Geogre again

I happen to have SlimVirgin's talkpage watchlisted, and noticed this comment Mattisse made regarding Geogre. Was not this a part of her "plan" or whatever? I was under the impression that she needed to quit inserting herself into situations regarding Geogre, Bishonen, and Giano, as well as other users on her plague list. UnitAnode 23:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

No, I do not believe it is part of my plan that I cannot support another editors view [3] The fact is the Ottava Rima did offer to provides references to Geogre's article. I merely backed up Ottava Rima's statement. My connection with Geogre is that he used a sockpuppet to discredit me, part of the evidence I submitted to ArbCom that resulted in his desopping. I do not believe I am prevented from addressing anything that has to do with an editor that used a sockpuppet to discredit me, if that is what you mean.[4] Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 23:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Incredible. You "merely" backed up the hostility of Ottava Rima, a notoriously rude editor currently on RFAR, and now, here, you "merely" go on to badmouth Geogre further. So the injunction to leave George alone and your various undertakings mean nothing ? You're on the wrong page, Unitanode: alerts are supposed to go on the User:Mattisse/Monitoring page. Bishonen | talk 00:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC).

Just noticed this from Bishonen. The main page had been organized as if it were to simply contain the plan. And when I put an alert there one other time, it was moved here, so I thought this was right. Sorry for my mistake. UnitAnode 00:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it is perfectly clear from the diff that my posts are far from hostile and that I was working to help Geogre. The only thing you could consider "hostile" is when I pointed out that one of -your- articles at FAR did not reflect critical consensus as it left out some major Theatre historians who were about and well known from the 60s to the 90s. That was a major gap that was neglected. When it came to Geogre's articles, the only problems were citations. I had no problems with his citation style. Furthermore, -I- initiated the Rfar and it is about people like you causing problems, not about me causing problems, which is clear from the evidence put forth. Your statement above reflects the problem and I will ask you to apologize for your blatantly incorrect statements above. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Mattisse, Geogre hasn't edited in two months. I don't really understand why there would be a need to criticize him at all at this point, irrespective of any disputes you might have had with him in the past. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea why this utterly unhelpful thread was started precisely at the moment that productive discussion had recommenced on this page. I intend to move it to another page and at the moment, my preferred candidate is User_talk:Mattisse/Monitoring/Sideshows. Geometry guy 00:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have not criticized him. Please look at the diff offered above. I merely backed up that Ottava Rima was making a true statement. Why cannot the truth be stated without attack? Why so much defense of Geogre who was desopped, in part, for using sockpuppets to diminish my credibility. Why I am I the bad guy when the editor was desyopped, in part because of his duplicitous edits regarding me. I do not understand the "values" of arbcom members. This is the problem with the "monitoring" page. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 00:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

• "Utterly unhelpful", eh? What are we supposed to do when we see Mattisse violating her plan? I thought his page was FOR that purpose. If this is how her "mentors" are going to treat good-faith notices, then what's the point of the plan? UnitAnode 00:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Geometry Guy: no idea why the thread was started.. ? That sounds like you're criticizing Unitanode for coming here to alert the mentors to Mattisse's inappropriate behavior. Remember her request, just above, for suggestions on "how to get along with those editors"? (Here's a simple tip, Mattisse: teaming up with Ottava Rima ain't it.) I hope that's not what you meant. I suppose you're not trying to warn off everybody from using these pages at all? Bishonen | talk 00:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC).

I don't know that there's any other way to take what GG wrote. UnitAnode 00:37, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec again.) Yeah. And you're right that there's certainly no obvious, let alone inviting, place on the main page to place alerts. I think it's intended to be reorganized in a while, see GG's note about improving the main page "before there's another problem" (Too late for that :-(). In the meantime, I suggest you simply place comments at the foot of either of these pages, it's not like they can be hard to find. Sorry I confused the issue. Bishonen | talk 00:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC).

Mattisse can be returned to arbitration at any time. The point of the plan is to help her avoid that. This page does not exist for the satisfaction of other editors, only for its prime goal as stated. At the moment the page is in transition, and if editors were not aware of that before this remarkably timely post, I apologize for suggesting otherwise. Geometry guy 00:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

So the antagonism in your first reply to me was intended? I'm still not certain as to why, since I was under the impression that this was what we were supposed to do when we had a concern about some action she had taken. UnitAnode 00:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

No, antagonism towards an individual editor is never my intention. Geometry guy 01:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I fail see how else your calling my concern an "utterly unhelpful thread" could possibly be seen as anything other than "antagonism towards an individual editor." UnitAnode 01:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Sadly, I cannot help you with your failings. Geometry guy 01:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

So snarkiness and sarcasm is your chosen response to legitimate concerns? Wow. Just wow. UnitAnode 01:29, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

According to your interpretation, not mine. Geometry guy 01:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I think any uninvolved observer would see the snarkiness and sarcasm in your "Sadly, I cannot help you with your failings." UnitAnode 01:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

You say that this post on the talk page of Slim Virgin is a violation of her plan. I'm not sure I see exactly how you come to that conclusion. The closest thing I can see to anything in that comment to "criticism" is the phrase of "for reasons of his own," which does seem kind of neutral, at least to me. And, under the circumstances, considering that Mattisse seems to hold OR in at least moderate regard, as demonstrated by her comments elsewhere, I'm not sure if this can really be counted on as being in the situations she should avoid. She is, so far as I can tell anyway, more standing up for and offering information she has in support of a friend than criticizing Geogre. This isn't saying that the negative comments on this page are really anything I think particularly useful, but, again, under the circumstances, I'm not sure that comments here are necessarily among those that get "counted". However, it might be valuable to perhaps define whether "avoiding people she has had problems with" extends to situations when she may be entering into a discussion regrding those individuals seemingly apparently for informational purposes, or to perhaps offer support for a person who is in a "situation". Again, I'm not really in love with the comments Mattisse made here either, but considering the thread in question had been basically "dead", I'm not sure that I myself would necessarily look with warm regard upon something which might be seen as extending it, particularly when the comment in question doesn't seem to be necessarily primrily criticial of Geogre, but rather offering seemingly factual information regarding the nature of OR's contacts with Geogre. Any opinions? John Carter (talk) 00:46, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I too have a problem with the claim that Mattisse's post was simply "for informational purposes." It seemed like piling on a user who hasn't been active for quite some time. And it was piling on a user with whom Mattisse has had conflicts in the past. It was for these reasons that I brought this here, and I'm growing concerned (for, really, the first time) that this page is more about protecting Mattisse from the big, bad community than it is about helping her see how she went wrong, and how she can interact more productively with other people in the future. UnitAnode 01:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

"For informational purposes"? Newyorkbrad sure did get it all wrong, didn't he? I've had enough of your hypocrisy and beating-about-the-bush and swaddling your protegée in tl;dr euphemisms, John Carter. I guess my comments about Newspeak were even more relevant than I thought. I've had enough; I don't know why I tried; I'm out of here. Bishonen | talk 01:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC).

I notice that two people have now responded to my question with insinuations against me. I should have mentioned that Mattisse did in the psst request OR as one of her mentors, as can I believe be seen I think in the records. And, also, despite the fact that both responses have ignored that point, that maybe she was, in fact, standing up for a friend. I did however, believe it or not, ask a question which both responses have seemingly saw fit to ignore. I wonder if there will be any direct response to that, or just further insinuation and denigration of others of the kind that would probably get Mattisse in very big trouble. And, by the way, the phrase "for informational purposes" was intended to be related to the question asked, rather than this particular situation. John Carter (talk) 01:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

What am I supposed to think, John? I posted a concern, and have been attacked as unhelpful by one mentor, and now have you claiming that my concerns about the mentor response would "get Mattisse in very big trouble." Tell me, how am I supposed to view these responses? UnitAnode 01:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

• I've asked Brad for guidance here. I'm very much flummoxed by the response to what I feel was a legitimate concern, which I intentionally worded in a non-inflammatory way. If I've done something wrong here, I'd like for Brad to inform me where my mistep was. UnitAnode 01:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

And I would regret to say that you still seem to be misinterpreting the statement I made, and still not responding to it, rather than actually addressing the legitimate question I asked. To clarify, because evidently it wasn't clear enough, the "offering information" was one of two situations which I could see arising in the future when Mattisse might be wanting to involve herself in dealing with people she "should avoid", the other one being helping a friend. And, please note, I think I implied that was what was being done here. And, yes, when a question is specifically and I thought clearly asked, and, rather than respond to it, people instead attack me for what I think is something I didn't even say, how are we supposed to interpret that. And, for what it's worth, the comment about behavior was actually, unfortunately, for directed at Bishonen than you. I wasn't thinking primarily of you, and you have my apologies if it seems that it was directed primaily at you. Once again, however, I wonder whether anyone is actually interested in responding to the question, rather than continue to discuss the behavior of people other than Mattisse. John Carter (talk) 01:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

My answer would be that she should offer her information to one of her mentors, who could then evaluate it for usefulness, and post or not post it at their discretion. As for "supporting friends", if it involves engaging with or about a person with whom she's had conflict, she should either follow the same procedure I give above, or simply email a note of support to that friend. UnitAnode 01:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the answer, and I could agree to that idea myself. However, I do hope you can understand that I think we would want to have that written down somewhere as part of the plan, and to do that would require having people agree to it before it would be made operational. John Carter (talk) 01:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd think that what I recommended would be kind of common sense -- something she should think of before posting about X editor on her plague list. I hope you're not saying that her post is okay because there's not some explicit, written portion of her plan that says, "Do not post negatively about members of your plague list." UnitAnode 01:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

It probably is common sense, but there will be times for any of us when emotion, like wanting to help a friend, takes over. And I think it's probably in those types of situations that the problems arise. So, yeah, for normal situatons you'd be right, but I think most normal situations don't wind up becoming the problematic ones for Mattisse or others. John Carter (talk) 01:59, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

How does the situation I raised here fit in, do you think? I view it as pretty clearly unwise for her to post about Geogre in the way she did. How do you see that fitting in here? UnitAnode 02:04, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Unwise, yeah. But, then, lots of people have been found doing really unwise things lately, as I think we both know, regarding other matters. Personally, like I said, Mattisse was, at least I think, trying to help out OR, whom she respects. Even when she might be trying to help out others, though, it could probably be fairly easily misinterpreted, if certain other parties are involved in any way. Logically, were it me, I would hope that I might realize that my saying something directly might wind up just adding fuel to the fire, and possibly wind up making the situation worse. So, yeah, in this case, if she were to have asked, say, me, what to do, or left a message on this page or elsewhere where I or one of the others might see it, I hope I would think to leave a message on, in this case, Slim's talk page, maybe with a link to Mattisse's statement here and/or a paraphrase. To do that, it might help if there were some sort of way for Mattisse to leave a "help" tag for one of us to see fairly quickly, and, at this point, I'm not sure if we have one worked out, other than leaving a message on one or more user talk page. Maybe we could use the "you have a response on person x's page" template (which I myself never use, that's why I don't know the name) for situations like this. Mattisse could probably copy that to each of us fairly easily, I think. John Carter (talk) 02:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

This might be good, in that it would also give Mattisse some "lag-time" to really consider as to whether offering the commentary was the best idea. UnitAnode 02:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I suggest that Mattisse refactor the first sentence of the comment as follows and strike out the second sentence: :It is true that Ottava Rima unsuccessfully offered several times to provide references and in other ways tried to be helpful to Geogre. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 02:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

• While I would think not offering the commentary to begin with would have been the best idea, I think this is, perhaps, a "next-best" option. UnitAnode 02:37, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

• I think it will be a good way for Mattisse to think about how to frame her comments down the road. And would help us move on :-) --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 02:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Lets cut down to it

I saw above statements that Mattisse and I are friends. Mattisse has made it clear that they avoid my pages because they are intimidated by me and feel that I am utterly hostile to them. They have also torn apart (grammar, style, MoS, etc), many of my FACs and had over a year worth of disagreement with me on multiple issues relating to FAC. Do Mattisse and I talk? No. Are we social? No. Do I stand up for Mattisse when others refuse because Mattisse shows that they care about content and Wikipedia? Yes, as I stood up for just about everyone else who is actually here for the Wiki. The truth is that Geogre did a lot of problems. Bishonen aided Geogre in those problems. Bishonen and others are in a crusade against abuse of sock puppets, and the claims of hypocrisy will come up as there is plenty of evidence that was lodged against Bishonen before of her acting inappropriately. As such, this evidence is brought up for two reasons: 1. to show that Bishonen has a double standard when it comes to ethics and 2. that this double standard implies a treatment of Wikipedia as a battleground to silence people who she does not like which, when combined with number one, is a very problematic series of actions and a damaging mindset. Bishonen's constant attacks on those like Mattisse and others across other pages is extremely troubling. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

• Without commenting on the substance of your complaints about Geogre and Bishonen, may I suggest that you strike through everything after "everyone else who is actually here for the Wiki"? UnitAnode 02:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

No, as it explains the inappropriateness of Bishonen's actions on this page. Combined with her misleading claims about what I have said above, this is important. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, then. I would say that redacting them with a strike-through would probably place you in a much better light than not doing so, but that choice is, of course, yours to make. UnitAnode 03:07, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Looking for clarity

It does help if we have some clarity over the ArbCom decision and Mattisse's plan to edit on Wikipedia with less conflict.

• The ArbCom decision was that Mattisse submit a plan "to govern and guide her future editing" which would include "refraining from making any comments regarding the motivations or good faith of other users".
• Mattisse's plan includes the words, "I must avoid making any comments regarding the motivations or good faith of other editors."

As such, Mattisse's comment on SlimVirgin's talkpage that "OR was rebuffed, ignored, for reasons only Geogre can fully know" is part of the area of concern, as Mattisse has made a comment regarding the motivation or good faith of another editor.

As such it is appropriate that Unitanode brought the comment to the attention of those who have offered to assist Mattisse.

For clarity, there have been no individuals named in the ArbCom decision nor on Mattisse's Plan. The remedy extends to every user on Wikipedia, not a select few. It would be a mistake to think that there are special guidelines regarding Mattisse's interaction with certain individuals - the guidelines mean that Mattisse should, as we all should, assume good faith, and not seek to stir up conflict with anyone. However, given Mattisse's history with certain individuals, such as Geogre, it is understandable that people are more concerned to draw attention to comments regarding such individuals as these may prove to be flash-points.

This monitoring page where users can draw attention to potential problem postings can be useful - can indeed be very valuable in preventing conflict. However, as we have seen, the actual language used when informing us of the problem can develop into an unhelpful discussion of the motives of the person bringing the message. And further, the resulting debate can escalate into a drama that is not helpful to addressing the original concern, while also creating a negative interaction between those who are here to assist Mattisse with her plan, and those who are willing to inform us of her postings.

My suggestion for how this page is used, is that people simply post a link to the comment that is causing concern. No further message is needed. A link, and a signature. That is the most neutral and helpful thing that can be done. (If we agree to this, then any additional message attached to the link can be removed when seen by one of those who have agreed to assist Mattisse.) As a follow up, a note can be left on the poster's talkopage thanking them for leaving the link, and letting them know that the matter is being dealt with. I think at that point the poster's involvement should cease in order to prevent any extra drama. The situation is then left for those who signed up to the plan (and them alone) to advise Mattisse. If the advise that Mattisse is given is so inappropriate that Mattisse continues to cause conflict then Mattisse WILL be brought back to ArbCom. But we will be better able to assist everyone if our own motives and methods are not continually examined and criticized.

As regards this particular incident, I support RegentsPark's example of how Mattisse could have posted her comment. That is a positive example, and I would urge Mattisse to study that example and compare it carefully with what she did post. The original post caused conflict, which is splashed out above on this page. If RegentsPark's example had been used instead, there would not have been any drama. SilkTork *^YES! 11:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Good analysis. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 13:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

• Now she's bolstering her "case" at SV's talkpage with diffs for some reason, instead of just letting it die. While this normally wouldn't be a bad thing, would it not be most advisable for her to simply disengage there? Especially given that another member of the plague list (Giano) has taken issue with what she posted?

  For the record, SilkTork, I think your post here is excellent, and I'd have no problem with a plan whereby people with concerns simply post a diff, with a sig. Would it be acceptable, then, if the person posting the concerning diff engaged a mentor they trusted about exactly what they find concerning about the diff? UnitAnode 13:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

• "the motivation or good faith of another editor." Saying that the motivation -cannot- be known is directly -not- discussing the motivations or good faith of another editor. This is what Mattisse is -supposed- to do. Don't attack her for that. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

  No, it's a passive-aggressive, non-attack, that leads to further conflict. Even she has struck that portion. UnitAnode 14:07, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Moved from Mattisse's talk page

(subsequently removed [5] [6])

Request

Hi, Mattisse, I suggest WP:DNFT :-) --Philcha (talk) 11:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

First, Philcha, you are way out of line with your link. Second, Giano, this is already being discussed at User talk:Mattisse/Monitoring, if you're interested. UnitAnode 12:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Philcha's attitude is -- fortunately -- not the norm. John Carter, RegentsPark, and SilkTork have all engaged about the concern there, and are going to be engaging with Mattisse regarding the problems with what she's doing at SV's talkpage. UnitAnode 13:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I mostly agree with you here, and have mentioned her continued participation to those mentor at the page who do seem intent on actually mentoring her. UnitAnode 13:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The list of diffs was added after my last comment. I think it's a step too far.

Mattisse, I think you should strike out the list of diffs. One of the habits you need to stop is that of harping on at the same point. I'm disappointed that you disregarded the advice I gave privately, "I suggest you leave it at that." --Philcha (talk) 15:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Mattisse, I've just noticed your message, which shows that you added the diffs before seeing my message - so I withdraw my comment about disregarding my advice, my apologies.

However I think my other comments stand - you do need to learn to stop after you've summarise your views, and avoid adding detail after detail. --Philcha (talk) 15:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Are giving diffs considered "details"? If so, I will stop trying to support a position using diffs, although I have been criticized for not using diffs. Please be willing to stand up for me the next time I am criticized for not providing diffs. This is the first time I have defended Ottava Rima against a statement made about him that was untrue. Is that considered harping on a subject? I always appreciate at when someone does the same for me. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 15:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Question from Mattisse

Since I have been criticized for making statements without providing diffs and also criticized for making statements that include diffs, which is the correct way to go? I would prefer not giving diffs, as they are difficult to find. I only give them out of fear of criticism. Am I free to make statements that are not backed by diffs, or should I avoid giving diffs? Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 15:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

When addressing someone else's statements, diffs are as essential as providing sources in an article. Without diffs, I can make any array of claims from accurate to outrageous and spin what I think you are trying to say, or perhaps your motivations for saying it. Diffs simply provide the connection to what was actually said. I would not expect someone to stand up for me for not providing sources in article space, and would not hope that someone would support me if I were criticizing someone else (or merely describing another's words) without the link to what was said. Furthermore, looking for diffs, in the rare occasions I make commentary about someone else's remarks, forces me to re-read the original statements, and on more than a few occasions the second and third time I read something I construed it differently. --Moni3 (talk) 15:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Moni3, you are supporting my use of diffs, and disagree with the editor criticizing me for using diffs? Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 16:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Mattisse, your diffs are fine because they provide support to your statement that OR offered to provide references etc. The problem with your original comment was the tone in the latter half of the comment, particularly the rebuffed, ignored, for reasons only Geogre can fully know part. The diffs you provide obviously do not support that statement (no diff can show the absence of something!). My suggestion is, as always, to keep things as simple as possible. You want to say something in support of Ottava and you're entitled to do that but you need to say it in a way that doesn't make an assumption or implication of bad faith on the part of another user - irrespective of who that user might be. Therefore, the simplest thing to do is to refactor your original comment along the lines suggested above and move on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RegentsPark (talk • contribs)

Always use diffs. I actually don't know who criticized you for using diffs. Diff, please? Ha, no. I'll read this entire page to look for it, but I don't know if the criticism was using the diff, using an incorrect diff that did not support your point just like including a cite to a source that does not say what the cited sentence does, or misrepresenting someone else's comment as, for example, an attack when it might have been lighthearted or not referenced you at all such as some of the younger editors who are quick to take personal offense when adolescent judgment is questioned in general. --Moni3 (talk) 16:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) OK. I understand what you are saying, RegentsPark. I will try to do as you say regarding avoiding assumptions that do not have diffs. The diffs do support that OR was trying to be helpful, yes? What do you mean "refactor" my comment? I am not sure what "refactor" means, unless it means delete? I have been criticized for changing comments already made, which is why I choose to strike out. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 16:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

My suggestion above was that you add the word 'unsuccessfully' in the first sentence and strike out the entire second sentence. Your comment will then read It is true that Ottava Rima unsuccessfully offered several times to provide references and in other ways tried to be helpful to Geogre. (followed by the struck out part). As far as I'm concerned, you can leave the diffs because they support your statement and are neutral in presentation. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 16:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec, but similar)

In general I agree with Moni3's "Always use diffs." The best course would have been for Mattisse to:

• Check the diffs before making any comment.
• Write only that some of Ottava's attempts to help appear at diff1, diff2 and diff3.
• Then stop. Mattisse's addendum "rebuffed, ignored, for reasons only Geogre can fully know" had 2 faults:
  • She had no business speculating on Geogre's thoughts.
  • The repetitive phrasing "rebuffed, ignored" was much too rhetorical, and even one of these terms would have been more than was needed - Ottava had already mentioned the lack of response. --Philcha (talk) 16:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

• OK, I am trying to understand all this. The list of diffs was a "selected" list as there are many more. So are you saying that in providing a selected list of diffs, the maximum number in a selected list should be three diffs (even if three does not cover the range of variation of types)? I struck out the remaining sentence and altered per RegentsPark's suggestion. Hopefully, that is "refactoring", as I don't know what that means, except possibly moving the comments of others around, which I don't think I should do. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 16:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The number of diffs is not hugely important, except that too many might appear obessive.

"refactoring" is a dumb piece of jargon, AFAIK misadapted from computer programming. "second thoughts" would be clearer - and would correctly imply that you can only edit in your own second thoughts, as others' are unknowable unless they write them in. --Philcha (talk) 16:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, "refactoring" functionally just means "editing previous comments." And, while I could myself see using words like "rebuffed" or "ignored" if there were clear evidence from the user in question, through their own edits, that they used the words themselves, I would try to avoid using such potentially loaded language, and provide diffs to the comment where the language was used if I did use them. I'm sorry for not having seen the potential "insult" in them earlier, but it would probably be preferable to use completely neutral language like "chose not to accept offer", "declined...", etc.. If the editor in question used rather, ahem, "interesting" language to respond to or comment on any such offer, it might be best to just add a link to the statement with a comment like "and his response was [diff]." But that sort of approach avoids doing any sort of "judging" or "commenting on others", as per ArbCom, and would be much harder for anyone, even an "enemy", to take justifiable exception to. John Carter (talk) 17:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation and ideas on how to handle this issue. This has been a useful lesson and I will be much more careful in the future. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 17:56, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

• Mattisse, the monitoring process doesn't seem to be doing any good at all. Why can't you just avoid any sign of trouble and get on with things? Tony (talk) 00:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Tony, I don't see how "the monitoring process doesn't seem to be doing any good at all". The original incident spread over 3 sections, and the last (this one) achieved a satisfactory explanation of the issue and a satisfactory response from Mattisse. Moni3 and RegentsPark should be thanked for starting this particular section in a calm and objective manner. It is not the fault of Mattisse or her mentors that other editors started the earlier sections on the same issue in a manner that was hostile and sometimes insulting. --Philcha (talk) 06:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I certainly hope you are not lumping my initial report into your last statement. UnitAnode 14:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I know I can't necessarily speak for anyone else, but personally I wouldn't include it in that group. Other people, with perhaps a longer history with Mattisse and of "colorful" language, might be a different subject. John Carter (talk) 14:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know, I have no history with Unitanode and s/he was not involved in my arbitration. We have not edited the same articles nor the same wiki pages, except for this monitoring page, nore had any wiki interactions. I believe Unitanode registered under this username in March of 2009 so s/he is unlikely to have an indepth understanding of the history underlying these issues. —mattisse (Talk) 15:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)