Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Monitoring

< Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration | Requests | Case | Mattisse

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cool Hand Luke (talk | contribs) at 16:52, 1 March 2010 (→No more alternate accounts: These were not "alternate accounts."). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 16:52, 1 March 2010 by Cool Hand Luke (talk | contribs) (→No more alternate accounts: These were not "alternate accounts.")(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

This page is primarily intended as place for Mattisse and her advisors to discuss her editing and responses to stresses, so that clear guidance can be provided and understood. The Clarification motions do not specifically forbid other editors from contributing to such discussions, but Mattisse and her mentors/advisors would appreciate being given space here. Editors can report concerns and issues at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Alerts and provide constructive commentary at Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Alerts

Role of this page/talk page

I've cut back the associated page to its basics, and made an initial attempt to find a useful role for the talk page. This might be a good place for advisors/mentors and Mattisse to have transparent discussions. Discussion as to how to make this page as useful as possible would be welcome. Geometry guy 22:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Indefinite ban from 2010 Haiti earthquake proposed

I'd like to notify other mentors/advisors and Mattisse that I believe it is appropriate, in the light of this now archived discussion, to extend the ban I made (that Mattisse should not edit 2010 Haiti earthquake for 36 hours) to an indefinite ban (for that article and its talk page), until such time as Mattisse posts to an advisor/mentor that she wishes to edit the article again, giving reasons, and her request is approved. Any comments on this proposal are welcome. If none are received in the in the next 12 hours, I will post this ban. It can, of course be disputed subsequently. Geometry guy 22:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

That is OK with me. I have been effectively excluded from 2010 Haiti earthquake anyway and have no wish to edit it. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 22:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I just came here because I saw this heading on my watchlist. You might want to clarify that you are talking about this article only. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:37, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Good point, thanks. Geometry guy 22:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I would like to point out that this ban is for a talk page violation and has nothing to do with the quality of my edits to the article, which were high. It is unfortunate that good editors are prevented from editing articles because of the politics of talk pages. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 23:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect. The talk page violation was minor and could have been resolved (indeed it was). The ban is for escalation and subsequent comments. Mattisse was asked to seek these reasons on her talk page, but she has so far not done so. She will not be able to fully appreciate this ban until she does. Geometry guy 23:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, your questions got buried in further comments that seemed to cover your questions. I have said that being banned from the article has pretty much eliminated me from editing it again. So, since I am out of the editing loop, I am resigned to never editing the article again. It would be quite difficult to gather the data again and update myself. I have ceased following it and am unwilling to do all the work it would take to return to editing the article. Also, the "lead editor" issues remain. So if you ban me indefinitely, it is immaterial to me. It is Misplaced Pages's loss. And the article's loss. (I was balancing out some POV.) But since that is the way Misplaced Pages works, ok. I explained the "wow" statements as copied from responses I have seen by editors on[REDACTED] that seemed to be effective. I explained that my very poor eyesight makes poorly formated replies difficult for me to follow and read. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 23:53, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I have made further replies on my talk page which I think is just a repetition of what I have said here. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 00:08, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Mattisse, you really have to learn to be a minimalist in responses. All you had to do was to strike the one comment that GeometryGuy had suggested you strike and the matter would have been a minor one and long over. There is absolutely no question that there is a pattern here where a small matter becomes huge because you just can't keep shut. I have no choice but to support this indef topic ban and, once again, ask you, no implore you to not respond at length to every slight that you perceive being directed at you. Better still, don't respond at all. Just do what is asked and keep editing. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 02:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this analysis and advice. I also agree with Mattisse that it is a great loss to the article that she is no longer able to contribute to it in the collaborative spirit which preceded the events leading to her ban. I have recorded the outcome on the monitoring page, and would add for clarity that this ban only refers to this particular article and its talk page: Mattisse has worked on related articles without problems and may continue to do so. Geometry guy 16:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

There is a lot of POV in the article. I would like to support those who also think so on the talk page. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 23:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, through your own actions, you cannot do so at present. Contrary positions will prevail if other editors support them; the same is true for supportive views. Geometry guy 00:07, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, when? Actual errors in the article, e.g. a misunderstanding of the UN peace keepers as "aid providers" riddle the article. No understanding of the history of the UN peace keepers. Also, a bias toward the Miami Herald and certain reporters views. I would think Misplaced Pages would want a balanced article and not POV. —mattisse (Talk) 00:20, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Up to you. Others may fix the article. If you want to do so, you need to regain the confidence of your advisors about removing this ban. You have not done so to date. Geometry guy 00:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Discussion re alert on Music of Minnesota

The following was originally posted on the Alerts talk page.

::::Yes, I wonder why she asked why I had an unusual interest in the article? That seems strange. Making three edits gives me an unusual interest in the article? Well, I guess she was stressed out by the unpleasantness of the whole experience. Misplaced Pages is not the encyclopedia that "anyone can edit" if three edits cause a challenge. Perhaps if they encouraged more editorial input and were not so possessive of articles, those articles would get more help at FAR. Certainly a one in three error rate in sources is not good. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 00:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

This kind of comment is contrary to your plan, Mattisse, and I advise you to strike it. It isn't particularly relevant anyway. Thanks, Geometry guy 00:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, it is relevant to why I no longer contribute to the encyclopedia. Your wikilink above reminded me of the inappropriateness of the bad faith comment on my talk page about my "sudden" interest. Struck. So, to clarify, I should not make three edits to an article without worrying about being accused of a "sudden interest"? I believe this is contrary to the "anyone can edit" philosophy and encourages ownership of articles. —mattisse (Talk) 00:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

This does not seem very productive towards resolving the original alert, and so is better discussed here, as part of the monitoring process, without outside comments. Geometry guy 01:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

To clarify, three edits to an article are too many and invite attack and innuendo on my talk page? (Yes, I made two mistakes in this case, but it is not very often I do that.) However, being already fearful of doing any reviews or much copy editing, nothing like I used to do in my prolific days, I find myself frightened even more of doing anything. I should feel this way you agree? I ask again, I should not make as many as three edits to an article, in case I may be attacked and an "alert" registered? I am not accorded any leeway? This is reasonable? I truly don't think this is what arbcom had in mind. —mattisse (Talk) 01:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree. There is no problem making edits to articles, and you should not be afraid of making good faith mistakes. Problems only arise when you try to interpret the intentions of other editors. This is not the place to discuss their intentions. What matters is how you respond to their queries. Interpreting the post of another editor as "innuendo" personalizes a content discussion: you must not do so, even if it seems another editor has; seek advice instead. The "alert" was a request for attention without prejudice; you have not been attacked. This matter should be easy to resolve, but you make it more difficult for yourself and everyone than necessary by being unable to let your frustrations go.

You have plenty of leeway if you stick to your plan. If you do not, you have very little. Geometry guy 02:11, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

So for another editor to ask what is my "sudden interest" in an article, because I have made three edits, is reasonable? —mattisse (Talk) 02:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

In general, it is not productive to try to deduce the motives of others (whether on[REDACTED] or in real life for that matter). Ninety nine times out of hundred, the reasons behind an acerbic remark have nothing to do with the situation at hand and, it is best, to just think so unless more compelling evidence arrives. Once is happenstance, twice coincidence, and, it is only the third time that you have to worry about enemy action! (paraphrased from Goldfinger) --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 02:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. This is another situation where assuming the other editor has good intentions and a genuine wish to understand is a win-win situation. Many editors have challenges they are trying to deal with and don't always seem to behave "reasonably". Editors are human with complex feelings and motivations, but text is digital. Don't attach too much weight to an individual remark. We all need to cut each other a bit of slack sometimes. Geometry guy 02:40, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Then, why is it justification to open an "alerts" about three of my edits? This is at a time when there is an RFC over the crisis that editors don't do reviews and copy edits for FAC. Certainly I no longer do any. There was a couple of years in which I used to do several FAC reviews a week and got ample praise from those whose articles I copy edited. The same for GAN. Now I no longer do either of those. Why was it good for 2006, 2007, 2008 but now it it not? Now three edits opens an "alert". I do not think this is what arbcom had in mind. Please see this arb comment:baiting —mattisse (Talk) 02:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Mattisse, may I remind you that there you are essentially on probation. What that translates to is that there is heightened scrutiny of your actions on wikipedia. You may not like it, but that's the way it is, and, if you want to contribute meaningfully to the encyclopedia, you have to learn to accept it. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 02:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

In this respect, an alert draws mentors' attention to an issue. That is not baiting. Geometry guy 03:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it is exactly what Vassyana meant. —mattisse (Talk) 03:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec) It is not worth worrying about whether this is baiting or not. If it is baiting, avoid the bait. If it isn't, then where's the problem. What Vassyana meant or did not mean is not important either. At this point, if you want to keep editing on wikipedia, you have to take the knocks that come your way. Look at it like this. There was a perceived issue. You apologized ~~BEFORE it was brought up~~ possibly before you saw it on the alerts page - you were possibly purer than pure. People can see that. If, after that, the discussion gets protracted and deteriorates into who did what and why, all people will see is the mess. What's the point in that? --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 03:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

As the discussion regarding the dwindling willingness of editors to review FAC and GAN reveals, it is not just me. The ownership culture is taking its toll. Gone are the days when I gave freely of my time and energy to benefit the articles of others. To answer RegentsPark, I guess I just don't care anymore. I haven't contributed meaningfully since the arbitration, and I doubt I will in the future. There is absolutely no incentive at all to do so. —mattisse (Talk) 03:12, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

That will be too bad. But, to be brutally honest, if you can't let things go (and live with the slings and arrows), you'll likely find that you can't contribute anyway. The thing to always remember is that wikipedia's strength is in the vast numbers of editors and not in a particular subset of useful editors. Mattisse, RegentsPark, GeometryGuy, SandyGeorgia, any of us can leave and that departure will have absolutely no effect on the encyclopedia. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 03:22, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I realize that but it just is not worth it anymore. Misplaced Pages's strength is dwindling; that is obvious by the crises it is facing in the increasing loss of editors and the increasingly ridiculous articles that achieve FAC, while FAC editors count their awards and their main page appearances. No skin off my back. Why should I help others to collect awards and achieve "fame"? I feel it is up to[REDACTED] to show me why I should continue to pour energy into contributing when there is only punishment for three edits. I am no longer willing to do so. —mattisse (Talk) 03:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

(undent)Hi, Mattise, few comments:

Early in my real-time career I was told, "Those who do the most work make the most mistakes." You're one of the most editors, you're abound to make mistakes, and very rarely you'll make a bunch. Apologise graciously, fix the mistakes if that's appropriately, and move on.
You do get most scrutiny than most editors, but what matters is how you deal with it. If you do it right, you're get most friends (there are plenty on your Talk page).
Don't worry about baiting on your alerts page, the worse baiters were send packing in your original "alerts" page in autumn 2009, and your advisors are quite capable of dealing with cases that arise now.
If you see what you suspect might be baiting elsewhere:
- Take a rest from WP for a hour or two, to cool around! Respond immediately and heatedly has been the cause of most of your troubles. Don't take the bait!
- Then consult your advisors before responding!
- Often the best way to deter a suspected baiter is to deal with the real issue (if any) in a completely straight and courteous manner - most baiters will get bored after a couple of rounds of this.
- If you suspect persistent baiting, pass the evidence to you advisors, we know how to know. --Philcha (talk) 07:48, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Good observations Philcha. For all of us :) --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 15:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

As explained to RegentsPark, I apologized before I saw the "alerts" entry. I agree with SandyGeorgia that the record should be correct. And I request that some some good faith be used in assumptions about my motives. There is no need to downplay and minimize my correct behavior. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 16:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I last saw the discussion as of 23:56 and thought of posting to congratulate everybody on a successful resolution of the alert. It seem then that the alerts page was working as intended. So its a little sad that we have had another minor disagreement. The discussion after that seem to go off the what I see the point of the alerts page that is fixing a particular problem. I'd prefer to keep it brief and to the point, which probably involves everyone bighting their tongue a little bit. --Salix (talk): 20:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the discussion was continued unnecessarily on RegentsPark's talk page. This is what the alerts page was to avoid the endless nitpicks which caused RegentsPark to strike some of his comments. I did apologize before the "alerts" as I explained, I have no way of knowing there is an alert unless I am looking at my watchlist which I am not doing if I am looking at a situation and replying on my talk page. But everything I do has to be questioned on other pages. This prolongs a situation unnecessarily and polluted what could have been a successful incident. Because another editor is about to loose it is not a reason to raise an alert for me over three edits, two of which were mistakes for which I apologized. I am being baited. You can say that I don't have to take the bait, but these will all be collected and saved in a file. So it is important to set the records straight. This was a very minor incident that has been pumped up into a big deal. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 22:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

In my view these contributions by Mattisse and SandyGeorgia are simply editors trying to be sure that others understand their good faith and intention: SandyGeorgia raised the alert before Mattisse apologized; Mattisse apologized before she saw the alert. Both acted with good intentions. There is no reason for recrimination or further discussion here.

<IMPORTANT FOR MATTISSE> Alerts, Mattisse, are as much for your benefit as the benefit of the encyclopedia. If you had got involved in an escalating confrontation with SusanLesch, then you would have been blocked, as you are on conduct probation. Without the alert, your apology may have been sufficient to avoid confrontation, but please note that the alert drew your attention to this being a stress situation, as you acknowledged. That information (and hence the alert) was helpful to you.

Salix alba, I think we made need to revisit the format of the alerts template, as the tail may have wagged the dog a bit here. In particular, my contributions after your diff led to the comments that brought discussion to monitoring talk. I could have waited, or we could have a different format. Ideas welcome. Geometry guy 23:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

<to Geometry guy> I do not get into "editing wars". When was the last time you saw that happen? I do not war. I had no intention of further editing that page before I received the alert. The alert was totally unnecessary. My comment thanking the editor for the information was merely an attempt to be polite. It was also a recognition that the problems were with that page and that other editor, rather than my three little wikigrooming attempts. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 23:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- There was no suggestion of "editing wars" in any of the above text: the nearest reference concerned talk page escalation. It didn't happen. Good. Let's be happy about that. Geometry guy 23:42, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
  - There was no talk page discussion to escalate. The whole thing was over before it began. I wasn't going to edit the article more anyway, even if the editor had not posted on my page. Merely an opportunity to blame me for another's problems. —mattisse (Talk) 23:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Malleus Fatuorum talk page comments, WT:FAC, and SandyGeorgia's talk page

Comments on Malleus' talk page came at the end of a day where Mattisse posted at WT:FAC and on SandyGeorgia's talk page in threads her advisers should be aware of.

See the FAC thread here and Sandy's talk page at this thread and the thread below it.

Thank you. --Moni3 (talk) 14:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for notifying us of those Moni. I was aware of the FAC discussion and had read through it. Even though it was raised at the ArbCom Clarification, Mattisse was not banned from FAC discussions.

Mattisse raises a FAC point, and the point is discussed. There's an edge to some of the discussion because of the possibility of negative motives. And perhaps there are negative motives. However, without looking for negative motives what can be seen is an editor raising a question about should there be a limit on number of nominators. I can see that Sandy openly challenged Mattisse's motives, and this created tension to which Mattisse responded, but I don't see it spilling over into an uncivil conflict.

The comment on Sandy's talkpage about the post she had left on Ceoil's talkpage would be an extension of the tension created on the FAC talkpage. I don't like it. I think it is unwise. But it is related to the FAC discussion.

I don't quite relate the FAC and the Malleus incidents, unless you are suggesting that because Sandy challenged Mattisse's motives and didn't take her FAC question seriously, that Mattisse became frustrated and left provocative and negative comments on another editor's talkpage - an editor on whom Sandy made positive comments during the FAC discussion? I suppose it is possible, however, I don't think we should be going down the route of closely analysing people's motives. I would rather Mattisse didn't leave unpleasant comments on another editor's talkpage. Equally, I would rather that people assumed good faith where possible. SilkTork * 16:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I also think Mattisse's comments at [[Wikipedia_talk:FAC#Should_there_be_a_limit_on_number_of_nominators was OK - Moni3 and SlimVirgin made similar comments after Mattisse's and IIRC SlimVirgin says comment of her's supported Mattisse's. The discussion get a little warm, but over half was contribited by SandyGeorgia.

OHOT this thread at SandyGeorgia's talk page was dumb - in Mattisse should not instigate discussions on other's Talk pages. --Philcha (talk)

No, I too have noticed patterns of escalation. In the original ArbCom case I believe I identified it as every three months, but that was when I was not tracking issues closely. I do not think it coincidental that all this happened in one day. While I agree that Mattisse offered a point and a discussion ensued on the FAC talk page, there is an element in these discussions that appears to be deliberate obfuscation of rules or procedure. In this case, Mattisse appears to be concentrating on promoting the negative aspects of article ownership as it applies to FA contributors, relating it to editors' standings on the WBFAN list. As posted on the monitoring page, you asked Mattisse to be mindful of what caused the comments on Malleus' talk page. This, I believe, is it.

Mattisse has posted elsewhere that she dislikes an atmosphere of article ownership. She sees it more at FA/FAC. While this can be true, but may not be in many cases, I believe she is painting FAC with a wide brush and is frustrated with the lack of insight or action to stem ownership. She has not, however, clearly defined instances that this takes place. If she has legitimate issues, she should document them and bring them up with her advisers so you may assist in facilitating a discussion about particular articles with particular editors. Yesterday's attempts to bring this to other editors' attention was unsuccessful for Mattisse, as many editors expressed their opinions that the thread was unhelpful. She got frustrated and ended up posting vindictive comments on Malleus' talk page. --Moni3 (talk) 17:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

There is food for thought in what you say. And there is also food for thought in that a person would need to first assume an ulterior motive in Mattisse's FAC discussion point in order to respond to it. People have the choice of 1) responding positively to the point raised, 2) ignoring the thread completely, or 3) challenging Mattisse's motives so she becomes frustrated. I would suggest that option 1 is the best, but if people can't manage that, then go for option 2. Selecting option 3 is inappropriate, and leads to ill-feeling for everyone involved, and more drama. SilkTork * 18:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The Malleus talk page thread was gratuitous and unnecessary, especially after the point that Malleus asked Mattisse to leave. Mattisse must understand that this sort of drive-by commenting on the motives and actions of others is neither polite nor productive. The FAC thread is less clear to me as a problem (probably because my understanding of FAC is about the same as my understanding of the Big Bang!). Mattisse seems fairly reasonably clear and polite there and the question that she raises makes sense to me. I am a little concerned by the readiness to assume, in that thread, that her motives are suspect and suggest that all editors give her a fair shot at making her point without questioning her motives. As an aside, I support SilkTork's block, I think that her interaction with Malleus shows that problematic side of her that this monitoring is supposed to address. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 19:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

(Explanatory addendum: Mattisse made a point on her talk page that advisors could not block her without warning but I don't see that stated explicitly anywhere. Given that, I support the block as applied by SilkTork. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 21:46, 11 February 2010 (UTC))

(ec)Maybe the ulterior motive is where we diverge. It gets muddy for several reasons. As I said, she may have a valid point about an article or an editor who watches an article vigilantly. Maybe she has brought it up or pointed it out on the article's or a user's talk page, but was rejected because that's not an easy thing to take. So it transfers into "FA editors WP:OWN FAs" and then "FA fosters article ownership", sounding more like general accusations than her experiences with individual articles and editors. Such generalities on the FA talk page will inevitably not be taken well by most FA participants. An ulterior motive started as a legitimate point, or a difference in opinion as to what should go in a particular article, and as we know, this can vary with experience. But communication about specific instances gets broadened to general applications to the FA system. If the FAC discussion yesterday is the root of the disruptive posts on Malleus' talk page as I suspect, and you're encouraging Mattisse to find the source of her complaint, find specifics. Mattisse is not solely to blame for general communication mashups, because everyone takes what they hear and makes individual judgments and can react constructively, dismissively, or rudely. Those reactions then taint any subsequent interactions. If anything can come from this instance or this mentoring process, allow Mattisse to be able to tell one of her advisers that she is frustrated, she feels she is not being heard, or is being dismissed. Suggest different ways to frame her point so that it is not taken as an accusation. That point where she posts that she is frustrated becomes the measurement where things can go well, or they can dissolve into problematic comments where she gets blocked again. So far, this mentoring process has been about complaints against Mattisse, but it should not be limited to that. She can also request assistance. --Moni3 (talk) 19:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

It has been made clear to Mattisse that we are available to be consulted in times of stress or if she feels she is being baited. Historically this is not an option Mattisse has taken up. I wish she would. I find it difficult to assist Mattisse to handle a situation when it has already got out of hand. If somebody hears noises downstairs, they should call for assistance before going down to investigate. I would much rather stand by Mattisse while we ask the intruders to leave, than have to mop up the blood and drive her to the police station after she has attacked them on her own. So far she has never given me the opportunity to give her any support, and I am frustrated at the role I am being forced into. It is not the one I thought I had signed up to. It is only because I gave Matisse my commitment that I am still here. But, to be frank, there have been times when I have been very close to walking away from this. SilkTork * 20:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Principles, the plan, etc.

I am responding here to Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Alerts#The_plan, as this talk page is the place for discussion among mentors and Mattisse alone (per the ArbCom clarification). Bolding is for Mattisse's benefit.

I support SilkTork's recent block of Mattisse, and the extension. I also support the unblock by RegentsPark, but only as an olive branch for Mattisse, not for the reason stated ("Previous block was not per plan").

<IMPORTANT MATTISSE> Let me restate my view on some basic principles of absolute importance, in case Mattisse reconsiders decides her Plan is a better option than Arbitration.

Mattisse's Plan is her responsibility, and hers alone. It provides basic behavioral guidelines for her to follow to avoid her case being reconsidered by ArbCom.
Mattisse is under conduct probation since the ArbCom clarification in December. Let me restate that as it is crucial for Mattisse to understand this and its implications:
- "Mattisse is placed under a conduct probation for one year. Any of Mattisse's mentors may impose sanctions on his or her own discretion if, despite being warned or otherwise advised, Mattisse repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to any expected standards of behavior and decorum.
Mattisse's advisors/mentors are volunteers who have offered to help her stick to her Plan.
- The Plan places no constraints on other editors, including her advisors/mentors, beyond community norms.
- Mattisse's advisors/mentors are not a police force and we do not patrol her contributions. If Mattisse is disruptive, it is her responsibility, and other editors should not be "astonished" if advisors/mentors do not act or are unavailable.
- Mattisse's advisors/mentors are free to use their own judgment to help Mattisse. They can choose to act with or without consultation with other advisors according to the best interests of the encyclopedia and helping Mattisse stick to her plan. It is not Mattisse's decision whether she was adequately warned, although she is entitled to her opinion.
- If Mattisse does not value the advice and support of some advisors/mentors, that is also her choice, but without advice and support, she may find herself facing Arbitration for failing to adhere to her Plan.

I hope we can broadly agree on this. It makes no sense to me to discuss whether advisors/mentors have been following Mattisse's Plan. It is a distraction from the real issue, which is that Mattisse repeatedly engages in behaviors entirely contrary to her Plan.

Mattisse clearly does not appreciate the implications of being under conduct probation. She seems to think she can ape the poor behaviors of other editors, and that it is unfair if they get away with it while she is blocked. If she wants to be treated like other editors, it is up to her to demonstrate that she has moved beyond her past failings which have brought her to her current position.

Instead of this, she pushes the envelope of what she can get away with, and cries that she is being treated like a child. She is either doing this willfully to garner attention, or simply has not appreciated that her right to edit is on a knife edge.

She has been warned repeatedly about commenting negatively about other users. Warnings do not expire. It would be a nonsense to suggest that it is okay for Mattisse to comment negatively about Malleus in a couple of weeks, because she would have to be warned first before being blocked.

This is why I support SilkTork's initial block. Some have regarded it as punitive. I do not: it is preventative in the long run. I support the extension because it was clearly preventative. Mattisse overreacts when her behavior is criticized, and she can continue to lash out, as in this case. She has to learn that blocks are not punishment, but are for her protection and the protection of the encyclopedia. Extending a block until she regains perspective is sensible and effective.

Mattisse has indicated she wishes to disavow her Plan. She should consider that matter very carefully. Geometry guy 20:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The "warning" regarding Malleus was three months ago. That is too far in the past. Subsequently he has continued to post provocative posts on my page, which I ignored. None of my mentors/advisors commented on these instigating and rude posts. His last post was nine days ago. Please do not ignore instigating posts on my talk page, if you wish to help me. Part of the adviser/mentor role was to protect me for baiting and instigating behavior toward me, which the arbcom commented was equal to my behavior. —mattisse (Talk) 23:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Please read my plan before applying it

Measures my advisers/mentors may use to help me cope constructively:

Freely offer me advice, feedback and consultation in any situation they deem problematic and expect me to be receptive.

Strongly suggest that I take more or longer wikibreaks.

If I do not seem amenable to reason, after a warning, block me for short time frames as an extreme measure, e.g. 3 to 12 hours, or until my perspective is restored.

After a warning, force me to avoid or limit my participation on certain pages (for example, FAC) by temporary page or topic bans for what they judge to be an effective length of time.

Consequences for failure to adhere to plan
This proposal is an escalating series of consequences for a failure to adhere to the plan, ending with a return to the jurisdiction of ArbCom:

Wikibreaks as suggested by my mentors/advisers

Temporary page or topic bans

Punishments:

Short blocks after a warning

Punishment in the form of blocks of escalating length, after warning.

Application to ArbCom to reopen the case

These measures will be applied by my mentors/advisers in consultation with each other. (Two or more mentors/advisers can decide.)

The provisions of my plan are not being followed. This is contrary to what I can tolerate, as I believed in the plan and believed my mentors/adviser would follow it. Now it is clear than it has not even been read, and therefore is not being followed. If you are sincere in wishing to help me, you will follow the provisions of the plan.

Regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattisse (talk • contribs) 23:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

It seems like I've missed yet another round of the saga. It does seem to me that what is required is swift action to prevent escalation. It does seem that we mentors have not been following the strict rules of the plan, in that we have not given explicit warnings before a block. Maybe what is needed is to make a section here for warnings where we can post a warnings for Mattisse to calm down a bit before a block. I'm envisioning a very short time frame, maybe a few hours between a warning and a block. Hopefully a warning to cease commenting in a venue will be enough.

There may be a problems with the FA, I'm too distant from that to be able to comment on that. From what I've seen of other organisation I would not be too surprised if there are problem, it does seem to be the nature of groups. What I have also seen is that some techniques, however well intentioned, generally don't help. Short critical comments seem to make the atmosphere in a group worse but don't seem to bring about any real change. Finding was to actually improve situations, that's a much harder job.--Salix (talk): 11:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The problem with a warnings page is that Mattisse maintains a huge watchlist: the best place to warn her is on her talk page, so she gets the orange bar. Geometry guy 21:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Ironiically, I was even threatened with a block and called disruptive for pointing out parts of my plan, although my mentors/advisors appear unfamiliar with My Plan and are not following its provisions. Only once has a temporary page ban been employed; once a permanent article ban was employed but that was for an article that I was contributing very positively while adding valuable references and had done no harm. It was the first time in a long time I had been able to get interested again in writing an article. The point of the article ban was lost on me as it seemed punitive and unrelated to the offense which had nothing to do with article work. I have not written or edited an article since and will not do so.

Never has a "wikibreak" been suggested, the first measure outlined by the Plan. Never have the short bans suggested in My Plan of a few hours been used. My mentors go straight for the 24 hour jugular, with another punitive second 24 hours tacked on because I did not "apologize" though no apology was requested. There is either no warning before these blocks, or the warning is buried in reams of text that I have trouble reading. Since "blocks without warnings" were listed as the most stressful event for me in My Plan, it is counterproductive that my mentors chose this as their favorite method. There is nothing educative about a block; it punishes without teaching.

I maintain that if My Plan had been followed, the outcome would have been much different and we would not me at this point now. This bitter episode need not have occurred. The effect has been to encourage misbehavior on my part because it has engendered enormous frustration. The consequence of not following the plan has been the ill will that now prevails. —mattisse (Talk) 14:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Things have moved on since the above post, so I will only make one comment: advice from advisors/mentors to walk away from the computer is a suggestion of a voluntary wikibreak. It could perhaps be phrased more strongly in future. Geometry guy 21:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

No more alternate accounts

Mattisse has been indef blocked for alleged misconduct by alternate account(s). I have strong reservations about how the blocked has been handled, but IMO that is a separate issue. If the block is lifted / reduced, IMO for WP's and Mattisse's sake I suggest that we have a procedure ready for immediate use:

It is Mattisse's responsible to notify us of all alternate accounts controlled by Mattisse.
We indef block all alternate accounts controlled by Mattisse.
We indef ban Mattisse from create further alternate accounts.
After this, for each further alternate account control by Mattisse, we block Mattisse's main account User:Mattisse for a period equal to the time for any each alternate account is live, plus any incidents in which each alternate account - such blocks to be consecutive. --Philcha (talk) 13:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

These were not "alternate accounts." User set up not just one, but three accounts editing on Venezuelan topics. User apparently did this to avoid scrutiny that is on this account and avoid prohibitions on attacking other users. There is not only no justification for three (known) accounts, and user has done this in a grossly deceptive manner. Given the history of socking, this was entirely unacceptable. Cool Hand Luke 16:52, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages

talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Monitoring - Misplaced Pages