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)

I'm greatly encouraged by the rapid responses already! Thanks, Geometry guy 22:17, 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).

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)

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).

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)