Misplaced Pages

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

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration | Requests | Case | Mattisse | Monitoring

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mattisse (talk | contribs) at 22:41, 2 November 2009 (→Low-level, never raised: thank you). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 22:41, 2 November 2009 by Mattisse (talk | contribs) (→Low-level, never raised: thank you)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Is the main page for discussing Mattisse's mentorship?

Hi, SilkTork. Is this the main page for discussing the progress report and suggestions for managing M's mentorship? --Philcha (talk) 15:30, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks like you got elected nem con :-: --Philcha (talk) 16:13, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Just to confirm that I am watchlisting this, and am happy for discussion between mentors on any report asked for by Arbcom to continue here. I don't believe, however, that there is a long-term role for a page in the user space of one of the mentors. Geometry guy 19:45, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
I understand Guy's concern, and have myself been uncomfortable seeing my name attached to this report - my intention was to get the report started, and I wished to stay away from the contentious arena of User:Mattisse/Monitoring. We can either move this to Misplaced Pages:Mattisse report (or some other such title) or move it to a subpage of User:Mattisse/Monitoring. SilkTork * 13:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Synthesis of various monitoring proposals, w comments

Location and duration

Appears to be unanimous. --Philcha (talk) 16:28, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Appears to be unanimous, and is currently done. --Philcha (talk) 16:28, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Some debate about this:
  • SilkTork prefers faster archiving, saying, "The aim should be to deal swiftly and discretely with matters, and then move on."
  • Moni3 suggested 7 days after resolution. I can't find the page (possibly a victim of recent reshuffles) but IIRC Moni3 thought less than 7 smakce dof sweeping under the carpet.
  • I don't think less than 7 will be politically acceptable, and there would be cries of "cover-up". There may also be cases where a valid response from e.g. the original poster arrives after a gap, e.g. vacation. OK, that also leaves a gaps for mischief, but we should be able to sort out constructive from mischeivous or irrelevant ones. --Philcha (talk) 16:28, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
  • In fact I'd archive after a month, as then we can point out that we are keep this as in the open as possible. --Philcha (talk) 16:28, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
  • My awareness is that practise across Misplaced Pages is that when something has been dealt with discussion is closed either by archiving or some other device. I am not aware of any activity, such as RFC, AFD, ArbCom, remaining open after a decision has been reached. It would be highly unusual to keep a discussion open after resolution. For what purpose? The archive is available as a record, and I have suggested that we can have a person available to answer any queries on the way an incident has been/is being handled. I would strongly urge we follow normal procedure that has been found to be effective across Misplaced Pages, and close discussion on resolution. SilkTork * 13:42, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Layout of a "case"

I started out to list all the items proposed at various places, but this turned out TLDR, so here's a proposed synthesis, plus brief notes on items I discarded.

  • Specify problem concisely, along with specific link(s)
A few points debated here:

Who can report a situation?

  • Philcha thinks only a putative "victim" of the conduct to be examined. That means someone already involved in the discussion (or whatever). Some later comments may be trouble-making or simple meddling. And even a good-faith 3rd party may have misunderstood the situation - with some editors I get on well with, discussion can become quite ... playful, and could look like trouble if quoted out of context by someone who didn't understand the context. --Philcha (talk) 17:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
  • RegentsPark thinks that anyone should be allowed to make the initial report. Monitoring serves as an early warning signal and the earlier the better. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 18:19, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Salix alba: ideally anyone should post. --Salix (talk): 22:12, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Anyone. SilkTork * 13:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Anyone, as long as there is a plan for what to do (how to combine it or whatever) when many people report the same incident. —mattisse (Talk) 14:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Mattisse's "as long as there is a plan for what to do ... when many people report the same incident" raises a fair point. One possible cause would be edit conflicts - an editor who's hit an ec may often just slam it in without further preview, to minimse the risk of be hit by a further ec. Is there any reason why the mentors should not combine reports by copy relevant parts of later reports into the first, making later reports link to the first and then closing the later reports?

Should the original poster describe the problem?

  • SilkTork wrote "no additional comments. If mentors/advisors need more information they are to contact the alerter directly."
  • Philcha thinks the original poster should describe the problem, but concisely and in non-flammatory language - if the OP's phrasing is verbose or flammatory, the mentors can request improvements and take no action until done. Contacting the OP directly if clarification is needed looks cumbersome, especially if multiple mentors request clarification. And the result of the clarification should be part of the public record. --Philcha (talk) 17:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Regents Park thinks that it will not be practical to not let posters describe the problem. Intemperate language should be avoided but will happen. I suggest refactoring. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 18:19, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
  • SA Yes, maybe set an advisory word limit. --Salix (talk): 22:12, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
  • My preference is for a simple link to the edit. I accept that people will post comments anyway. The comments may be intemperate and could inflame the situation, as we have already witnessed. If our guidance is that people post a link only, then removing the comments would be acceptable. However, if we allow comments, then refactoring might escalate drama. If we are to allow comments we need to accept that people posting may be in a frustrated state, and so likely to be less than delicate with their wording. We would need to take that on board and not allow a flame war to develop. Let us always address the alert, not the wording of the alert. So:
    I continue to suggest that people post links only, and are informed that comments on the alert page will be removed, but they may talk to someone directly if they wish to make extra comments.
    If comments are to be allowed, then they are not refactored, and people pledge to not get dragged into a flame war. SilkTork * 14:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
    SilkTork, could you please clarify your last comment? How you expect inflammatory comments to be handled? --Philcha (talk) 14:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
    If we allow comments then we are allowing inflammatory remarks. As we are allowing and expecting such infammatory remarks it is incumbent upon us to ignore such remarks. My observation is that the inflammatory comments do not cease when responded to - they increase. If we wish the comments to cease, we ignore them. We are here to build this encyclopedia, not to argue with people over the way they word comments when they are upset. If the comments and/or behaviour get out of hand, then we raise the issue in the appropriate arena - up to and including a request from ArbCom to look into the matter, as this is under ArbCom jurisdiction. I would say that at no point should we respond too quickly. I would have welcomed Mattisse consulting us on Moni3 locking User talk:Mattisse/Monitoring so we could have consulted together on the most appropriate response. We might have decided to either downplay the incident by accepting that Moni3 was angry and frustrated at what was happening, or we could have raised our own ArbCom clarity request. Either way, I think we need to consider more carefully how we respond to provocation. SilkTork * 17:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
    Is it not a double standard if others are allowed remarks when they are "angry and frustrated at what is happening", but that I am cut no slack if I was "angry and frustrated at what is happening" when I make comments? Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 18:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

1 link or many?

Mentors' recommendation

Philch liked placing recommendation high in the layout, so we easily scan cases later, e.g. for a progress to ArbCom. --Philcha (talk) 17:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
RegentsPark concurs. The recommendation should come immediately after the original post. Discussion can be below that.--RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 18:19, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Mattisse agrees with this. —mattisse (Talk) 20:37, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Actions taken

Often remedial action by Mattisse, e.g. apology and/or rephrasing; block on Mattise in the worst cases.

Mentor discussion

Obviously needed.

Statement by Mattisse

I suggest Mattisse should comment after the mentors have had some discussion. We can't forbid her to commit, over time we want to improve Mattisse's ability to diagnose problems and ultimately to anticipate and avert them. However in the early stages an early comment by Mattisse might paint her into a corner and make resolution more difficult. --Philcha (talk) 17:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Statements by others

They may occasionally raise interpretations or approaches the mentors miss. We can just ignore any unconstructive comments. --Philcha (talk) 17:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Items discarded by Philcha:

  • Cite the Arbcom point(s) at issue, with specific links
    • Philcha this would be unifornative, as the key section of the ArbCom is a brief but wide-rangig list of behaviours to be avoided. Requiring a link to the ArbCom case would also restrict raising of incidents to those who are familiar of the case, while I suggest we should allow for those who have common sense norms of conduct, without even a need to cite conduct polices and guidelines. This should not be restricted to policy wonks. --Philcha (talk)
    • RegentsPark agrees with Philcha. An additional problem with arbcom points etc is that the discussion could get bogged down in what arbcom meant or did not mean. Better to stick to the basics. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 18:19, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
    • SA citing arbcom seems unnecessarily complicated. It would require detail background knowledge which the usual suspect will know but a new reporter will not. --Salix (talk): 22:12, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Action recommended by complainant
I agree with RegentsPark's comment "may be excessive and not neutrally worded ... the point of mentorship is not to provide relief to other, possibly aggrieved editors, but rather to channel Mattisse in the right direction". --Philcha (talk) 17:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
  • What about citing the[REDACTED] policy/guideline that I violated? If what I did was common behavior, should they not cite what policy/guideline I violated to explain why I am being singled out? —mattisse (Talk) 20:58, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't think that is a good idea. It seems to me good faith complainants will have a hard time figuring out applicable policies and guidelines and bad faith complainants will be willing to argue endlessly about which policy or guideline has been violated. The less people are allowed to say, the less the possibility of the page going out of control. (You, Mattisse, have to be willing to swallow gratuitous postings because your responses only add fuel to the fire and you're the one who ends up suffering.) --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 21:11, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Likewise I'd discard "Describe what you (complainant) expect Mattisse to do", for much the same reasons. --Philcha (talk) 17:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
SA No, this open flood gates for people telling Mattisse what to do, this generally seems to be counter productive. --Salix (talk): 22:12, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Follow-up Whether the remedy was successful or not
I agree with John Carter's comment, ""Follow-up" is going to be hard to define the content of too. Would this include, for instance, checking (x) time later whether the previous suggestions worked, os some statement when we might become involved should similar problematic behavior arise, or what?" --Philcha (talk) 17:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Geometry guy's suggestion

Please see here for s nifty idea suggested by User:Geometry guy. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 19:44, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy for discussion to take place here, if that is preferred by mentors and Mattisse. Monitoring talk may be a better place to obtain wider input. Geometry guy 19:48, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I've boldly posted at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Re_monitoring_formats that here should be the central place for discussion of all the various ideas on formats, after I found several independent discussions going on. For convenience, here's a copy of G-guy's post to Mattise, which provides links to G-guy's examples of the solutions he's proposed: --Philcha (talk) 05:24, 19 October 2009 (UTC) (ce --Philcha (talk) 08:04, 19 October 2009 (UTC))

There are (at least) three ways to encourage better use and provide structure to the Monitoring page: text on the monitoring page itself, preloaded structure in the edit window, and editintros which appear above the edit window. I've set up drafts of these last two at User:Geometry guy/preload and User:Geometry guy/editintro. You can see the effect that these would have by adding a new report to the test page I have set up. Geometry guy 19:29, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


Thanks, G-guy! I like the approach in the "adding a new report" example as it gives posters / complainants plenty of guidance and practical assistance with the paperwork - and inline (X)HTML comments on what goes where and who completes what parts. --Philcha (talk) 05:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Would it be good to use sub-headings rather than ordinary bold text for sub-sections? I notice ArbCom uses standard sub-section headings. --Philcha (talk) 05:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Is it technically possible to place new "cases" at the top of the page, so that the page has the oldest cases at the bottom, including those that have been closed but not yet archived? --Philcha (talk) 05:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Nice one Guy. I have reservations about people leaving comments rather than a link, however we can but run it and see what happens. There may have to be an acceptance that people posting may be emotionally agitated and so unable to be as courteous as they could be - also, that some people's postings tend to the abrupt which can be misread as hostility on message boards. We should be tolerant of evocative language and concentrate on the reason for the posting rather than how it has been worded. SilkTork * 13:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
The only way to know how the form works it to try it out, once it is finalized, and evaluate after each use until it seems to be conveying the appropriate information satisfactorily. Hopefully, the form will prevent some level of discourteous and overly emotional expression. I think a link is necessary, as how else would I or my mentors/advisers be able to locate the issue they are talking about? Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 13:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad you folks like the idea. I comment on your replies in order:

  1. The problem with subheadings is that this will lead to less compact and concise reports, both because of the layout, and because of a tendency to say more when there's a whole subsection to fill.
  2. If it is technically possible, I don't know how to do it. Since there will be some preamble on the page, it may actually be easier to find new cases at the bottom anyway.
  3. The intention is that *both* comments and links/diffs should be left; the editintro can be reworded if that is not clear. I believe it is important to give posters the opportunity to say why they see a problem, as this is useful information that may not be obvious from a link or diff.
  4. Rewording of reports by mentors is a delicate issue and I had in mind that this would be in the preamble of the Monitoring page, rather than the (transient) editintro. It is good to get some input from Mattisse that conciseness/clarity is more important to her than courtesy. In the light of criticism about "shooting the messenger" this is worth all mentors noting.

I agree with Mattisse that we should try it out and adapt it as necessary. As I remarked at the ArbRequest, any structured solution would be an improvement on the status quo. Geometry guy 18:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Report for ArbCom

Few more incidents

Incidents handled in various places while the monitoring pages were locked:

Philcha, please review the diffs above; the chronology is wrong and the AN/I was clearly already archived in your previous diff. I'm not sure why this matters, but these recurring glitches complicate matters. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
I see that this ANI thread was boxed as "archive" at 16:42 on 14 Oct, so my comments (around 18:30) were a little behind the times (as I was relying on diffs before 16:42 on 14 Oct). This "glitch" is probably peculiar to ANI, where the history often shows 500 edits a day and many discussions are closed after a few hours. Most discussion and review pages, which have provided most of the issues the mentors have examined, remaining active for a few days at least, and will seldom present such complications. --Philcha (talk) 18:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Presentation of report

Would it help to present the incidents in a table, e.g.: date of incident, date of complaint, descr of complaint, action recommended (? w date ?), action, date of action. --Philcha (talk) 08:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Do we have a consensus?

Carcharoth suggests the Arbs should review the procedure and layout on Friday. Effectively we have 2 days to resolve any outstanding issues in this discussion and pretty them up so we can announce them at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification late Thurs / eary Fri. Otherwise one of the other proposals may pass by default - and I think we've done the most thorough analysis, including more thoroughly reviewing alternative proposals. --Philcha (talk) 06:30, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

A draft report would be useful. Something along the lines of:

Since the close of the ArbCom case om 1 July, there have been six identified incidents of edits by Mattisse being challenged, and one case of alternative accounts being used inappropriately. The edits tend to be low level, isolated expression of dissatisfaction, such as and . Each of the incidents has been picked up on by one or other of Mattisse's mentors/advisors, and discussed with her so the incidents did not escalate. Where problems have occurred is in the reporting of incidents, and subsequent discussion which at times has been bitter and unpleasant, with a number of complaints and accusations aimed at the mentors/advisors, and counter-complaints and accusations aimed at the notifiers.

Specific problems
  • Too much conflicting advice from people not listed as being part of the plan.
  • Over-reaction by various people - including Mattisse's own advisors.
  • Mattisse not making enough use of the people listed on her plan BEFORE reacting to a situation.
  • Suggest adding:
Solutions
  1. User:Mattisse/Monitoring is designated the approved place where concerns about Mattisse should be raised.
  2. The page should be displayed at the top of Mattisse's talk page.
  3. Notifiers to use: User:Geometry guy/test
    In case this is not obvious: I propose to move User:Geometry guy/editintro and User:Geometry guy/preload to subpages of User:Mattisse/Monitoring. I will then add the main link at User:Geometry guy/test to User:Mattisse/Monitoring. My test page can then be deleted. Geometry guy 18:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
  4. Once concerns have been dealt with, the concern and any related discussion by the mentors/advisors is archived
  5. That an individual should volunteer/be appointed to act as mediator in situations where someone who has a legitimate interest in an edit by Mattisse is not satisfied or is concerned by the response to the edit.
  6. That only those assigned by Mattisse and ArbCom should refactor or protect subpages set up by Mattisse
  7. That only those assigned by Mattisse and ArbCom should offer advice on subpages set up by Mattisse for the purpose of receiving advice
  8. That Mattisse should seek advice before posting in what may be a problematic arena, or in response to a challenge. If in doubt if an arena is problematic - seek advice.

I have adjusted some of the language (complaints changed to concerns, etc). SilkTork * 09:21, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, SilkTork. Re the report, I think the Arbs will want to see a list of incidents as well as the summary. --Philcha (talk) 10:25, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
We discussed a layout and procedure issues above. It looks like we're close to a consensus on it - all active mentors have contributed except John Carter, and I've just aksed him to contribute, and sign up for it if he agrees with what's been proposed so far. --Philcha (talk) 10:25, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
I think we should also, at the top of the report, make it clear that mentoring is working well but that the unstructured nature of the report made the discussion unfocused and free-flowing. The sole purpose of this is to structure report for a more controlled discussion. I am a little concerned that while Mattisse has been doing a fairly good job of restricting her comments and following the advice of mentors, the clarification request gives the impression that she has not responded positively to the arbcom sanctions (if that is the right word!) when, IMO, she has. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 12:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
My only real concern is the somewhat ambiguous phrasing "those assigned by Mattisse and ArbCom", which seems to indicate that ArbCom is actively assigning people to this position. Will we have specific people "assigned" to refactor the page by ArbCom, or, if that refers to the "assigned" mentors, wouldn't it be easier to add that specification? John Carter (talk) 12:43, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

We can provide links to the incidents and the discussions arising from them. There are some links on the other page as a starting point. Or we can provide a link back to the other page in the report. SilkTork * 13:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Is it clear that posters use the form only to post complaints? Also, is it clear that discussions/arguments between posters should not take place, but that this is a page for registering complaints only, after which the mentors will control the content of the page? —mattisse (Talk) 14:23, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Use of User talk:Mattisse/Monitoring

I've been a bit slow to catch up on the rest of this talk thread but am concerned that the discussion above and revised form below does not fully address a major problem: excessive chatter getting in the way of clear reports and responses. At the ArbRequest, I made the following statement of principle:

Actually, it is pretty simple: as with almost any page on Misplaced Pages,
That way at least the user page will provide clarity to Mattisse, in the form of the original alert/concern, actions taken in response, and the consensus advice.

This informed my proposed structure for the report form above. In particular, I think it is a very bad idea to have discussion of a report on the same page as information about it, especially discussion by arbitrary editors, as the page will easily be overwhelmed by multiple edits, which is the main problem, in my view, with the current set up. We need to encourage concise and clear reporting and concise consensus response.

If separate discussion of reports by mentors (only, onwiki) is considered helpful, a more logical place would be somewhere in a mentor's user talk space, because of the additional flexibility users traditionally have over their own user and user talk space. Geometry guy 18:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC) 21:14, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposed layout of an issue

After previous discussions on the structure and use, and G-guy's suggestions for making the process easy to use, I think it's time to try out a layout - we only have 2 days. --Philcha (talk) 16:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments, please, at #Comments_on_proposal. --Philcha (talk) 08:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Form

(section title by originator - must be concise and courteous)

Description of the issue

<!-- Completed by ORIGINATOR. Must be clear and courteous, and supported by link(s) and/or diff(s). Mentors may edit inflammatory phrasing. If multiple links / diffs are provided, the description must make the connection between them clear. -->

Mentors' recommendation

<!-- Completed by MENTORS after any required discussion or clarification. -->

(recommendation when agreed)
Actions taken

<!-- Completed by MENTORS, usually in 2 stages: (a) Remedial action by Mattisse or her mentors; (b) Marked issue "closed". -->

(action taken)
Issue closed
Mentors' discussion

<!-- Completed by MENTORS. Will usually lead to recommendation and actions in the sub-sections above. -->

Mentor comment 1
etc.
Statements by Mattisse

<!-- Completed by MATTISSE. Mentors may edit inappropriate phrasing or ask Mattisse to do so. -->

Comment by Mattisse
etc.
Statements by others

<!-- Clarifications or other comments. Mentors may edit inappropriate phrasing. -->

Comment by a third party
Comment by another third party

Notes on the form

  • New issue reports are formatted using the techniques G-guy prototyped.
  • Since there was concern that use of sub-headings would waste space and perhaps lead to verbose accounts of issues, the Mediawiki implementation of the (X)HTML Definition List is suggested - "heading" marked by semi-colon, "content" by colon - e.g. in the edit window:

;Description of the issue
<!-- Completed by ORIGINATOR. Must be clear and courteous, and supported by link(s) and/or diff(s). Mentors may edit inflammatory phrasing. If multiple links / diffs are provided, the description must make the connection between them clear. -->
:Mattisse accused A-Hypothetical-Editor of trolling when A-Hypothetical-Editor questionedd a reliability of a source at .

  • The (X)HTML comments (<!-- ...... -->) should be displayed in the edit window, but will not appear in the output. Making "ORIGINATOR", "MENTORS" etc. capitalised in the (X)HTML comments will make it clear who uses which sub-sections.

Intro panel for new issue

To be displayed above the edit window when a new issue is raised - based on User:Geometry_guy/editintro

How to complete a monitoring alert

  • Please provide a concise and courteous section title which summarizes the issue you are raising.
  • In the edit window below, under the heading "Description of the issue", specify the problem/concern as concisely and objectively as you can, with specific link(s) and/or diff(s) as appropriate.
  • Please avoid personal commentary on the issue: if you wish to amplify your concerns, please do so on the associated talk page.
  • Please do not edit other parts of the monitoring report.

Once you are done, save this page: your signature and the date of your alert will be provided automatically.

Comments on proposal

I have commented above on the problems with having reporting and discussion taking place on the same page. Geometry guy 08:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, G-guy. For discussion of specific incidents, it seems to have run narrowly in favour of discussion on the same page. That way the the incident report (description w links, mentor's recommendations, action, etc.) and the discussion for the specific incident would be archived at the same time. I'm working from memory here, as the discussion was about archiving and I couldn't find it again after the "arrangement".
We could always wrap discussion for the specific incident in a hide/show box if it became unwieldy, edit or remove disruptive comments, etc. We could still use the Talk page for e.g. further improvements. --Philcha (talk) 15:52, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
PS I think I've found the bulk of the previous discussions. --Philcha (talk) 16:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
"it seems to have run narrowly in favour of discussion on the same page"? According to whom? You, Philcha? I see no thread which addresses the specific issue of whether it would be better to have discussion on the same page as the report or otherwise. Favouring easy archiving ahead of discouraging pile-ons and flame wars seems like a bizarre choice to me. All we need is just one page, somewhere, which does not become a pile-on at every incident. Missing the opportunity to create such a page would be a grave mistake. Geometry guy 19:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
I have to agree with GG here. If the discussion with outsiders and comments from Mattisse and mentors had the same names, the archiving could take place at the same time anyway, and I do see how there could be definite problems with allowing the discussion to potentially be hindered by too many outside comments. The relevant material can either be linked to or copied from the discussion page in any event. John Carter (talk) 19:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
I think Philcha is referring to this I am in favor of whatever will cut down on the endless discussions that get nowhere. If there is something I should do e.g. redact, apologize etc., then I should do it. Perhaps there can be a master list somewhere: Mattise apologized 12 in December, or some sort of ultimate tally, rather than endlessly litigating every little point. Many if the issues are a point of view and there is no final right or wrong. —mattisse (Talk) 19:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
That thread concerns "only one page for complaints" (i.e., the original post) which I agree with. Concerning the latter remarks, SilkTork's post later on this page is worthy of consideration. Geometry guy 20:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi, G-guy, I was beginning to imagine things, but then found the points at bulk of the previous discussions:
  • Re existence of a comments section:
    • Posts that supported or assumed that a comments section would be included: RegentsPark (10:07, 15 October 2009; 15:19, 15 October 2009); Philcha (12:53, 15 October 2009; 15:54, 15 October 2009); Karanacs (15:36, 15 October 2009); Mattisse (15:51, 15 October 2009; also see her comment at User_talk:SilkTork/Report#Statements_by_others at 15:51, 15 October 2009) - in most cases with qualifications / restrictions added.
    • Reservations about including a comments section: John Carter (15:10, 15 October 2009)
  • Re location:
    • Within incident report: RegentsPark (10:07, 15 October 2009; 15:19, 15 October 2009); Philcha (12:53, 15 October 2009)
    • W strong qualifications: John Carter (15:10, 15 October 2009); Karanacs (15:36, 15 October 2009, for "involved editors" only); Mattisse (15:51, 15 October 2009)
So I think there was a majority for statements included in each incident, although with various qualifications. --Philcha (talk) 20:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't see discussion of the possibility of using different pages for different purposes. But we are wikilawyering. The point is to do the right thing according to our current consensus. John Carter has added his up-to-date view above, so we don't need to infer it from the archives. Geometry guy 20:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I think all the mentors have to look at the format as soon as possible, as we have less than 24 hours to agree and then package and report our recommendation to ArbCom. In particular we need to see if there are any reservations about the proposal that were not apparent a few days ago. --Philcha (talk)

I haven't caught up (heck, I may not be able to :), but in view of how hard all of you are working, and to give you a heads up so as not to throw a monkey wrench into the works at the 11th hour after so much work, I am still seriously concerned about the idea that issues with Mattisse can only be raised on the Monitoring page (as opposed to elsewhere, like AN/I). On the upside, all of you appear to be much more engaged now, so this may work, but on the downside, the page wasn't working well in the past, which leads me to concern that editors should have the option of going to AN/I if problems persist. My concern could be alleviated if ArbCom would agree to expand the Mentoring committee to include someone who has a longer history with and understanding of the issues that lead to Mattisse's behaviors or is more involved in the content review processes where issues have occurred. My first recommendation would be Karanacs, but I don't know that she would accept, or Mattisse would be amenable. But, because you all are working against a deadline, it's only fair for me to mention that this remains a concern for me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
AN/I is always available, as is a return to arbitration and other normal channels: the point of this provision is that there should be, for clarity, only one port of call as part of the mentoring provisions. Regarding Karanacs, in my view, it would be great if she would be willing to help. Geometry guy 21:55, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree. There is no reason why incidents cannot be taken to ANI. Hopefully, a calm eye will be able to see if mentors (who are as human and as confused as everybody else!) have responded appropriately or not. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 21:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
My understanding also. All the normal channels are available as they were before. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 21:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
If everyone agrees on that, then perhaps there could be a wording adjustment to incorporate that, for clarity ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
What wording forbids all the normal channels? How would it even be possible to forbid them? Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 22:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Um ... well ... with all this work, I no longer know what the current or proposed wording is, but there were incarnations that said that issues with Mattisse could only be presented on the Monitoring page, which seemed to preclude other venues like AN/I. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Heading out the door, but saw G guy's change on the main page, which covers it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
This was a cut and paste from Moni3's original ArbRequest post. We knew what she meant and so hadn't updated it. The main page of this talk page is very much a draft. Geometry guy 22:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
  • That was never the case that the normal channels were ruled out. There is not a way to rule them out, in any event. Regarding my history, the two people that have known me and interacted with me the longest are User:SilkTork and User:Salix alba. Salix set up my first RFC to save me from sockpuppet attack in 2006. SilkTork also knows me from those days. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 22:10, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
  • My concern is that neither of them are active at the content review processes where issues have occurred, and until very recently, Salix was fairly uninvolved in this mentorship. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:13, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Geometry guy is involved in content review at GA where there is a greater likelihood I will be active. I am very unlikely to be very active at FAC. As I said, I only review a FAC upon request and I withdrew from Ceoil's latest FAC The Disasters of War after all this started and notified him by email that I could not continue. He recently asked me to copy edit and review as has Ottava Rima. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 22:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
ArbCom will expect proposals on Friday. Do any of Mattisse's mentors have any proposals to present? --Philcha (talk) 22:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Additional evidence

Please forgive me if I'm in the wrong place, it's still quite confusing all this red tape. I was going to let this go as the incident happened in July and I'm generally a 'water under the bridge' sort of chap, but I have a problem with Mattisse's behaviour and the mentor response from then, just a few weeks after the 'plan' was accepted, and as her behaviour and the monitoring is to be weighed in the balance again it may be material to the case.

This is a long read, but bares some scrutiny now the dust has settled on the lamentable Advisory Council on Project Development. Also here on her talk and here. I had some sympathy for Mattisse then (rather less now). The group appeared to be convened with about a quarter of members who had participated in Mattisse's RfAR and naturally enough she was concerned about 'cabals'. There was no cabal of course - Mattisse just isn't as important as she thinks she is (although given the extraordinary bureaucracy surrounding her now, she might be forgiven for thinking she is) The trouble is, with her first post she immediately started personalising the issue.diff second post to board

(ec) What is the purpose of having two members of ArbCom on the committee devised to advise ArbCom? Also, from a personal perspective, I am somewhat concerned that out of 18 members (so far), six were indirectly (one) or directly (five members) involved in instigating the recent arbitration against me. Can you reassure me that this is a coincidence? Also, why are certain areas of Misplaced Pages overrepresented e.g. LGBT contributors, while others (science, religion) are under represented? What was the process in selecting these members? Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 22:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The problem is possibly further compounded in that some of the mentors (also naturally enough) were participating in the general debate. As I said, I have some sympathy for Mattisse's questions here. When I participate in debates however, I'd like to think that I'm not just banging a drum for my personal situation, but rather for the betterment of the community - Mattisse was under restriction to not personalise disputes and the quality of the debate suffered due to Mattisse's interventions. Calls from her mentors appeared to go unheeded and several further edits were made of a personal nature. I think Mattisse was rather hard done by in one instance when in this diff at the end she asks "where is resignation tendered." I think was misinterpreted by some as a call for his resignation rather than the innocent request to be pointed to it. Mattisse is then compelled to defend her meaning but further strife ensues resulting in Giano losing his cool and eventually intemperately saying "Mattisse, while your code of conduct is bizzarre at the best of times, you seems to be currently behaving like a vulturistic vampiric banshee." at which point Mattisse launches a crusade of indignation demanding in all corners that the 'attack' be removed. on my talkher talk further indignation at the noticeboard another user's page. At this point, in my opinion her behaviour had become entirely disruptive, and both she wasn't listening to mentor's calls for calm, and they weren't making them strongly enough (if ever there was a time for a wake up, short block, that was it). Eventually, despite aspersions being cast about my motives, and further allusions to cabalism, because I'm a friend of Giano (yes they exist - we both like architecture) - I remove giano's comments and post a polite notice on Mattisse's page, having previously called for calm on the notice board. I note no mentor suggested she retract whatever it was she was implying about my relationship to Giano - that would have been nice, but I have got a thick skin.

In summary, dealing with Mattisse is all rather hard work. There's an aspect here that such levels of paranoia may actually become a self-fulfilling prophecy. I'm certainly less inclined to be sympathetic to her - what the hell have I ever done to her, or am I just guilty by association? I find it incredible that it takes this much work from all of you to try and keep her in check - but if you're up for it, who am I to complain - good luck. More broadly, I think the mentors need to think hard about how to both participate in debates themselves, when Mattisse is also involving herself (can the community distinguish between your mentoring comments and general debate) - it's an invidious position to have to do both in my opinion - it would be better if either Mattisse participated and you guys mentored, or (better) vice versa. Perhaps some things to think about. Kind regards --Joopercoopers (talk) 17:21, 20 October 2009 (UTC) (ps. if needed I'll tighten up the diffs here, but really I recommend reading the noticeboard and mattisse's talk at that time in full)

Joopercoopers, I'm confused about what you're trying to achieve. If you want to report a recent incident involving Mattise, I suppose this may be a reasonable place until the current debate about the format is concluded by ArbCom (due Fri 23 Oct 2009, there's a link in a section further up). If you are dissatisfied with the response of mentors, perhaps the ArbCom "Clarification" page (link in an earlier section) is appropriate. Either I think you'll need to be more specific and a lot more concise. --Philcha (talk) 18:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Ok. 1. If you're reporting to Arbcom - this incident and some kind of analysis, lessons learnt etc. should be in it. 2. Those lessons should include advice regarding how Mattisse and the mentors should go about their participation in community debates and how disruption can be prevented. 3. Some kind of acknowledgement to me might be nice (but really not essential). --Joopercoopers (talk) 19:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to thank you for your help in drawing attention to this incident, which is one I also remember. The more complete the mentors' report is the better and you have also saved mentors some work by providing some useful diffs. Geometry guy 19:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
You are welcome. I must say though, if this is allowed to stand "In July Mattisse made some comments on the Advisory Council on Project Development - a potentially problematic area. She talked through the issues on her talkpage - and - and aired her views without incident." I'll be making pretty loud representations regarding 'whitewashing'. I'm also pretty concerned that this exchange with Malleus isn't so much as being mentioned. Do you not think that publicly falling out with/rejecting her mentors might be relevant? remove mentor/adviser added after abcom approved plan 01:23, 14 September 2009 However Mattisse added Malleus to the list 2 days previous to the Arbcom decision on the 28th June . and Mattisse had indeed asked him Re-invention of her own history in a more glowing light than the reality, is all part of the 'denial' here. If progress is to be made, as has been said all over, by the looks of it, then a stark confrontation of the reality is really a first step. To date, some 4 months after the sanction, it still looks like there's been little progress even on this most basic of steps.--Joopercoopers (talk) 09:10, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Malleus asked to be removed from the mentors/advisers list and I accommodated him. Ling.Nut retired from Misplaced Pages so his name was removed. Fowler&folwer became too busy and was off Misplaced Pages for a time, so his name was removed. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 14:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Notwithstanding which, you fell out with him, and then claimed he was never a mentor in the first place, despite the evidence to the contrary. --Joopercoopers (talk) 14:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Can we keep the back chat to a minimum here. It precisely the sort of comments like the above which has led to problems in the past and and I don't want to see yet another flame war emerge.--Salix (talk): 14:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
I replied to Joopercoopers comment and he accepted my explanation. —mattisse (Talk) 20:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Not quite. I said it 'sounded' like a sincere and honest account. I've since asked for clarification --Joopercoopers (talk) 17:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
What "disclosure" are you talking about? What are you looking for? —mattisse (Talk) 17:42, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
My point is that Malleus is not the best role model, so I was not unhappy to see him go. Recent examples on a FAC page: See reprimand: (He has improved his behavior lately, as he did apologize.) Also, although he made general criticisms about my behavior, he did not offer specific advice as to what I should do, eg how I should reword a comment or whether I should strike it. —mattisse (Talk) 13:17, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
While you are characterizing my post as a reprimand of Malleus and saying that for such reasons he wouldn't be an optimal mentor, you might remember that one of your current mentors is involved in the same scuffle. Your response contradicts itself. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Fowler&fowler is no longer one of my mentors. When he went on a hiatus, he was taken off the list and did not decide to be reinstated. So your statement "Your response contradicts itself" is incorrect. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 14:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, he's still listed here, so could y'all please sort this out officially. Also, in trying to locate the plan among all of the various pages about this matter, I noticed there is no longer a link to the Monitoring page, or anything else, on your talk. Is that intended? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
He is not listed here

I may have missed it in all the links and verbiage, but the mentors seemed to have missed a key diff in this incident, one that continues the remarks of cabalism aimed at me, since I was the only who mentioned turning down the offer. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:08, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

  • "one that continues the remarks of cabalism aimed at me"? I think you are over personalizing; as far as I know, you were never on that Advisory Council, were you? So that remark could not have included you. If you turned down the offer to be on the Advisory Council, I was unaware of it. The diff does not show that you turned it down. Did you turn now a position on the Advisory Council? —mattisse (Talk) 14:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Mattisse, coyness will not resolve disputes. By all means, use your e-mail to let your mentors and ArbCom know just who you were referring to in those posts, and provide a diff. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Question to mentors: Is the purpose of this report to a) summarize the incidents in which mentors intervened or b) summarize Mattisse's behavior since the ArbCom case? If it is a, then some of the concerns noted in this thread are not relevant for the report; however, the report needs to then make it very clear that it is not an all-inclusive list of potential behavior issues. If b), then I suspect that this may need a lot more factfinding. Karanacs (talk) 15:57, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree that this thread has lost its way and is no longer on point. —mattisse (Talk) 16:10, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
The point that it is on is that all of this goes to the matter that you need to stop naming or referencing or poking at editors with whom you have disputes, hold grudges, allege cabalism, or are on your plague list. I suggest that the report should specifically mention this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
I think you should stop bringing up the past and stop bring up stuff that has already been brought up in the RFC and the arbitration. The fact is that most of the persons on the "plague list" I have had no contact with since the arbitration. There are only a few editors, namely Moni3, that I have had a problem with since the arbitration ended. And she is not on the so-called "plague list". Lar, Dorova, FloNight, Calisber, Fainites, Malleus, Jennevecia and others I have had minimal or no contact with. Isn't there some wiki saying about WP:Beating a dead horse and WP:Battleground? Please assume good faith. —mattisse (Talk) 23:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
The horse isn't dead Mattisse. That's the problem.Fainites scribs 11:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Fight prevention not fire fighting

As I was walking home with my daughter this afternoon my thoughts wandered onto this Mattisse situation and I feel that essentially it comes down to two things: 1) Mattisse's posts that irritate people and 2) People's response to Mattisse's posts. I do feel that people respond immoderately to Mattisse and aggravate matters - but having been one of those in the past who has been irritated by Mattisse, I can say that Mattisse does have a way of getting under the skin and making otherwise reasonable people behave badly (let alone those who are unreasonable to start with!). Mattisse's posts that irritate people are generated in their turn by grievances she has accumulated by encounters and treatment she has had on Misplaced Pages. Mattisse has not had an easy time on Misplaced Pages, and has been rather unfortunate. However - at this point it's a vicious cycle and even now with ArbCom involvement and several people trying to help matters, there appears to be no break in the cycle.

We can say that we are in discussion with Mattisse and we have examples of where we have pointed out to Mattisse that her posts have been inappropriate. And we can say that we have a page and a process for where people can bring concerns about Mattisse's posts to our attention. To do what exactly? So her mentors can tell Mattisse that she has been out of order, and not to do it again? Is that really what we are here for? I seem to recall that the idea of the plan was that Mattisse would get in touch with one of us when she felt under stress and was about to make a post that could inflame a situation. Not that she would post first and ask questions later.

I think I have observed two things here.

1. Mattisse makes posts that irritate people.

2. A process that invites people to off-load their irritation regarding Mattisse's posts simply amplifies the incident and spirals out of control.

We need to be looking at something that breaks the cycle rather than something that encourages it!

We should not have a page where people can off-load their Mattisse frustration. That is not helpful to anyone.

What we should have is a system whereby Mattisse consults with one of us before posting. And where Mattisse is patient with that - and waits for a response. Being patient is key. More harm is done by posting in heat and haste, than by waiting - even 24 hours - for one of the mentors to respond.

I'd much rather deal with one query from Mattisse in which she says - "XXXX has said this, is it OK for me to say this in reply" than deal with all the crap we are dealing with right now. Let's talk about fire prevention rather than fire fighting.

New proposals:

  1. We scrap the Monitoring page
  2. We set up on off-Wiki communication in which Mattisse when she feels aggrieved or irritated by something/someone gets in touch with us, and we give advice.
  3. Mattisse to not post in anger or frustration anywhere on Misplaced Pages without having first consulted us
  4. Mattisse to not make any remark about another editor on Misplaced Pages that could be seen as negative without first consulting us
  5. We support Mattisse in bringing genuine and legitimate grievances to the appropriate arena.
  6. Mattisse is to be patient
  7. We are to employ some of the sanctions listed in the plan if Mattisse does not abide by the new system

I feel that some of the behaviour surrounding Mattisse has been worse than Mattisse's own behaviour - and I can share some of Mattisse's frustration regarding that. However, we are not advising others, we are advising Mattisse. And we attempting to prevent some of the drama we have recently witnessed. SilkTork * 19:42, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

There is a lot to be said for fire-prevention rather than fire-fighting, and I think such an approach would satisfy more concerns and solve more problems than process tweaks. However, I believe we would still need the monitoring page as a fall back, for those situations that slip through the cracks, or where different editors have different perspectives on the same issue. Geometry guy 20:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
I feel like a character in Marat/Sade, a production of which I was once in. —mattisse (Talk) 20:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
You and a few million other inmates in this crazy place, Mattisse :-) --Philcha (talk) 21:52, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Being in a Kafka novel is far worse, believe me. Geometry guy 21:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Could be worse - The Metamorphosis --Philcha (talk) 22:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Taking another angle, how about No Exit? —mattisse (Talk) 23:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
SilkTork and Geometry guy are both right. Ideally the monitoring page should gradually be a fall back. Hopefully fire-prevention will become more dominant. --Philcha (talk) 21:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you doing anything to fix this?

Please ban Mattise from writing "Giano" or "Geogre" or "Bishonen," referring to them obliquely or hinting at them in any way whatsoever on Misplaced Pages. Is this rocket science?


Formerly uninvolved but previous hate-target Hipocrite (talk) 17:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Closing discussion

There has been some mention of leaving discussions on the mentoring page open for seven days after the incident has been resolved. This is not standard procedure, and I am still not convinced that value can be gained from leaving a discussion open after resolution. I can see potential harm from people then feeling that it is still appropriate to continue posting - thus potentially inflaming a resolved situation. The archives are readily available on the Monitoring page for anyone to inspect at any time. However, if people wish a resolved discussion to remain on the Monitoring page for seven days before moving to the archive I suggest we use {{archivetop}} and {{archivebottom}} so that it is clearly understand that the matter is over, and no more comments are required. SilkTork * 09:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Are there any plans to restore or include in archives the posts that Mattisse moved to another page; it doesn't appear that you all plan to use the "Editorial" page, so what will become of it? Also, pointing out that there's a difference between archiving incidents from the main page, and archiving discussion from the talk page (the best way to avoid incidents is for the behaviors to stop, but sweeping talk archives under the rug in less than seven days isn't likely to calm situations). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:54, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
I think the discussion and resolution should be visible for a bit. There are plenty of kibbitzers around and we don't want them to wonder what happened to the discussion (and start parallel discussions in other places!). Clear archive flags are a good idea. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 15:26, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Clean-ups, clarifications, questions

The ArbRequest is now almost impossible to navigate, and I'm trying to clean-up the second half of the page here to make it easier to follow. I got stuck on the FAR incident because it had the same diff repeated twice. What edit of Mattisse generated concern, and which edits deescalated this concern? Thanks, Geometry guy 22:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I think what bothered Sandy is a comment I made that it was "disingenuous" of her to mention James Joyce in the contest of FAR, as James Joyce was not an FAR article. Philcha has since recommended that I change "disingenuous" to "irrelevant" which I have done through a strike out. —mattisse (Talk) 22:54, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
G guy, my latest post (Mattisse's activity at FAR) to the request page should help clarify. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:55, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Also, what escalated the issue was that, after Ling.Nut brought the issue to Mattisse's talk page, she accused me of stalking her to James Joyce, an article I have long followed and which is apparent in the article history. She has now struck, which is progress. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
That is all stuff covered in the RFC and the subseequent Arbcom. I think this should concentrate on September/October, after the Arbcom and after the mentors became aware that they needed to be more active. Covering stuff before I even had mentors/advisers seems irrelevant to the issue now before ArbCom. —mattisse (Talk) 22:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately, it has become relevant because you brought Giano back into the dispute, and made inaccurate statements about the Unreviewed FA list on the Request for clarification page. Unfortunately, I seem to be the only editor who knows where to find the correct history and diffs, but this is taking time that I don't have; pehaps removing your inaccurate statements would be more expedient for all of us? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
I brought up Giano because he has recently been posting on my talk page, e.g. five times on October 5 and because User:Unitanode brought him up repeatedly. That does not mean it is right for others to bring up issues that were already covered in the RFC and the arbitration. This is all before I had mentors/advisers. It seems at best irrelevant to the current situation. —mattisse (Talk) 23:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
You were the one who stated, incorrectly, that you locate FAR noms from the Unreviewed list. That is what necessitates my correcting the record on the Requests page, and a good deal of time it takes to correct the record when this occurs. Further, the accusation that I stalked you to Joyce was after the ArbCom, and unfortunately, explaining that incident requires delving into the entire history, all of which could have been avoided by 1) not accusing others of stalking when they plainly have a history on the article; 2) not bringing Giano into the dispute by raising a completely tangential matter on your talk page; and 3) refraining from nomming FARs of editors with whom you have had disputes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Please stop it both of you (without prejudice or blame), or take it elsewhere. Geometry guy 23:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

This is just one event to be clarified, and I am only interested in clarifications post June 2009. What was the post June 2009 dispute and how (successfully or unsuccessfully) was it deescalated. Sandy has provided a reasonable diff. Are there subsequent diffs which clarify the resolution of this discussion? Geometry guy 23:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I cannot clarify it further, except to say it was a misplaced joke, as the James Joyce diff had nothing to do with the subject under discussion (FAR) and seemed to come out of nowhere, unrelated to the subject. I understand now that I cannot joke or be ironic about anything, that everything is taken literally on wikipedia. —mattisse (Talk) 23:57, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, G guy, but it's not clear to me if you're asking for more from me: just too tired. Let me know if you need more? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Sure, I will: rest well both. I'm hoping someone else (whoever posted the diff here originally perhaps), will clarify how this incident is relevant, and what we can learn from it. Geometry guy 00:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
If you are referring to the James Joyce diff, perhaps you will accept User:Ling.Nut's response: —mattisse (Talk) 00:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, after spending some time reading around the issue, I have added a more neutral commentary. My understanding of the issue has raised two questions, both of minor importance:

  1. (For Mattisse). It has been argued that your edits to James Joyce were relevant in the FAR context because you generally tag articles in advance of nominating them at FAR. Did you have such a nomination in mind in this case (if editors did not respond to your tags etc.)?
  2. (For SandyGeorgia). The article had and still has "The single largest collection of James Joyce artifacts is owned by The Poetry Collection of the University at Buffalo,..." Does this superlative statement require a citation to a reliable independent source at the FA level (the current citations are both to University at Buffalo sources)? Geometry guy 23:01, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Reply to Geometry guy. I tag lots of articles, both FA and non FA. When it is an FA, a common reaction is for an editor to add a citation. If editors do nothing, I normally do nothing, unless I notice that most of the article is uncited or not reliably sourced. In that case, I used to approach editors on the article talk page, but because of "ownership" issues regarding FA articles, I am reluctant to do that now. Note that I originally approached the Buckingham Palace article in September of 2008 and was told that the material was "uncontroversial" and didn't need referencing. It was only in February 2009 that I finally brought the article to FAR, during which I helped others who improved the article. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 23:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the answer and clarifications. Geometry guy 23:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm just getting to this after a long and exhausting two weeks; one of us has lost the plot, unsure which of us, could be me :)? G guy, are we here to discuss the FA status of Joyce, the problems that developed in recent months at FAR, or Mattisse's "disengenous" remark, incorrect tags, and accusing me of stalking? If we're delving into the FA status of Joyce and unrelated problems that began occurring at FAR (of which I've never said Mattisse was a leader, perhaps only following an unfortunate trend that developed there), then I'll have to give another one of my gazillion KB off-topic history posts, which I don't think you want. So, if you can refine your question and point to exactly which diffs and posts of mine you're referring to, I can try to give a briefer response. The issue was: I have Joyce watchlisted. I saw incorrect tagging (and an unrelated issue is that Mattisse spends a lot of time tagging dead links without checking internet archive, which is good practice-- she's not obligated to do that, but doing so will increase her respect at FAR), was reverted by Mattisse when I pointed out the link was accessible, was accused of stalking, and raised the tagging of that article in a relevant overall discussion of FAR issues on the FAR talk page, and was called "disingenous" (since struck). I'm not sure what else you need from me ? To cut to the chase, if it will help you complete this Report, I am satisfied that Mattisse struck the "disengenous" comment, but she hasn't struck or apologized for accusing me of stalking, and I'm not yet convinced that she understands the problem here. I do wish you all would consider that this Report has served its purpose (mentors are now more aware and working on the issues) and re-focus your efforts on getting workable Monitoring and Plan pages in place, so this Request for clarification can be cleared up. I think the necessary clarification is underway now, and we should all be working towards avoiding another ArbCom and continued rehashing of old issues. Workable Plan and Monitoring pages are what is needed now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Please be patient with me: I have not lost the plot. I agree that putting a working Monitoring page back in operation is a high priority and I intend to proceed to that soon. Geometry guy 20:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
PS, G guy, if you want the long, unrelated explanation of the problems that occurred at FAR while Marskell was on a long wikibreak, I'd be willing to put that on your talk page, but I don't have time to look up the diffs and don't want that to cause a diversion of the issues here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
No I don't, and I agree it would be a diversion, so please don't waste your time on it. Geometry guy 20:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

An additional issue, that I don't think has been raised in the Report (but I could have missed it, I'm busy these days) is that Mattisse's Plan calls for her to refrain from personalizing issues, yet when another editor posted factual, hard data to the talk page at FAR, she responded with this and this. I'm not convinced, either, that she understands the problem here. Data is data. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Nor am I, as the diffs you have just given (which I have seen) suggest a feeling of persecution: I want to help her find more ways to react more positively. To do this she needs a better understanding of the way conflict can develop in the wikiprocess.
Data is indeed data, and the data I am querying concerns the sentence I quoted in #2 above. It is a trifling matter, but it is a trifle I would like to clarify. In response to your request, the diffs concerning this sentence are, in sequence:
This thread appears open to multiple interpretations and hence misunderstandings between editors, even when (as we should assume) everyone involved is acting in good faith. The sentence may still fail verification, and the site does require membership to do anything other than view some introductory pages. Geometry guy 20:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I'm still seeing a distraction from the plot here. Whether Joyce warrants FA status isn't what brought us here. Mattisse claimed she couldn't access a perfectly accessible site. Membership is not required to access that info; it's plainly on the page. Discussing before readding 'membership required' for information that is plainly accessible is the better way to go. Clarification of the misunderstanding or computer error or whatever it was is here, (and since Mattisse's archives aren't set up by date, finding this was not fun :) and that should have been the end of that minor incident. This should have been a minor issue, easily resolved, moving on to more critical issues about the article and its sourcing. But instead, it led to "disingenous" and "stalking". And none of this addresses the stalking issue; it is her assumptions of bad faith that are leading us to a protracted discussion of a silly "membership required", which no one else seemed to need. Added: I apologize for the impatience in my response; I realize this provides an example of how conflicts arise and disputes can be solved, but searching this out takes time I didn't have. I wish the assumptions of bad faith would just stop; it is silly that a 'membership required' resulted in so much discussion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
It need not. Many editors routinely put "membership required" in their footnotes, out of courtesy to the reader. It is no big deal. Just be honest about the footnote. —mattisse (Talk) 23:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
This is not a distraction, nor is it about whether Joyce warrants FA status, but about differences of perception and how Mattisse should deal with them. I will comment further later. For now, I will simply note the following: it was not "membership required" which led to the continuation, but a comment at WT:FAR, which linked the second diff above, prior to the discussion of membership. Geometry guy 09:18, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
With all due respect, if we're doing all of this work and diff digging to deal with "differences of perception", then I should bow out of trying to help here by adding further clarifications when requested. This page isn't for mediation or therapy; we're here to get a Report and Workable Plan in place and to address violations of the existing plan and ArbCom rulings, such as accusations of stalking. The plot that has been entirely lost here is the stalking accusation that resulted from a minor issue. The rest is taking time that none of us have, and getting an effective Plan in place, and responding to Carcharoth's request to not take too long in finishing up here, seems a better use of time at this point. Added: If the sub-text here is that the perception is that "I poked first", please note that the discussion was initiated by SV (not known as a Friend of Sandy :) within days of the Joyce incident, and it was the easiest and most recent tagging example I had at hand. Mattisse needs to learn to AGF, not personalize discussions, and review article stats before making accusations of stalking: perhaps in retrospect, she can see that I never maligned her in that incident, only stated diffable facts, while she routinely impugns the motives, integrity, character and good faith of many editors all over many Wiki pages. This is what causes the problems, and what needs to stop, and that is why we're here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, Sandy, I requested just one simple clarification above about this sentence, and five posts later you still haven't answered it, so I do not feel responsible for any loss of wikitime here. If we are not even able to get a clear answer as to whether Mattisse's tag was "incorrect", we are going to have much more trouble discussing more controversial points. And no, the subtext here is not that you poked first. This is not about you: you have not been brought to Arbcom, and you are not facing possible further sanctions. Indeed I would go further: I consider and presume (per AGF, which I try to follow) that all your contributions regarding Mattisse have been made in the genuine belief that they will help to improve the situation and achieve the best outcome for the encyclopedia. Indeed the energy with which you have contributed, despite being very busy, demonstrates how much you believe you can help thanks to your long-term awareness of the issues.
Unfortunately, I don't think Mattisse believes this. Her perception of your position differs from your own (and mine). Similarly, your perception of her position differs from hers. There's not much point in simply telling Mattisse that what she believes is incorrect: she needs to be shown. If you think this is unimportant, given your observation below about the low-level irritation, then you are mistaken. I will unindent and comment more generally. Geometry guy 23:18, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

(←) I did not expect this thread to turn out so long, and for the first time, I am commenting at length myself. The relevance of ascertainment bias, and the closely related selection bias, has been mentioned elsewhere. Editors only see what they see, not what they don't see. Further, we all filter what we see through what we have previously seen, and this leads to quite different perceptions of the same events.

Here is a perception about Mattisse (I'm not claiming anyone holds it in this form): she holds grudges against editors, seeks out FAs by them and their friends, tags them incorrectly and brings them to FAR to get them delisted. There are many milder variants of such a perception, based on past experiences, but they do not match with Mattisse's straightforward response above (which we may choose to believe or not) that she tags a lot of articles and brings FAs to FAR when article improvements fail to happen (that's her perception). So whose perception is right? Well, everyone and noone.

This thread concerns James Joyce, which was featured in 2004 after a nomination by Filiocht who has barely contributed since 2005. According to comments on the ArbRequest page this is a known friend of Giano, Bishonen and Geogre, and Mattisse targeted the article for that reason.

Well, maybe she did, maybe she didn't, but the sentence cited and discussed above (as an example of this) doesn't support such an allegation. The sentence needed and still needs citation to an independent source: tagging it was correct, even if the tag could have made the main concern clearer. IMO, Sandy made a good faith mistake, and I don't understand why her reply to my question was not simply "I made a mistake: that sentence needs a better source" instead of several kilobytes of confusion.

This is a good example of ascertainment bias: if editors presume that Mattisse is targeting enemies and their friends in her tagging, then each case when she does will confirm their view, while they will not notice when she tags other articles. A similar criticism has been applied to this mentorship. We all see what we see, and filter it through our past experience.

However, my main motivation here, and for continuing this thread, is to turn the above on its head. Mattisse needs to appreciate that everyone else is human and we all filter what little we see through our perceptions. In her position she has to be especially careful not to feed into (mis)perceptions. Her ill-advised post about stalking is not explicitly an accusation that SandyGeorgia stalked her and she has referred to it as a joke, but she needs to understand why ambiguous comments like this will be found offensive by other editors, and she needs to stop such needling. If she can understand that other editors reactions to her are just as human as her reactions to them, then she might she might do better according to what she believes is right, not simply according what is required by Arbcom. Geometry guy 23:18, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, considering your objective here (to clear up misperceptions), I propose a different approach. We could go in circles all day about her tagging, but the tag was incorrect, and whether the article warrants FA status is not something I am about to make a pronouncement on (that is FAR business, but with the correct tags, and I'm not going to put myself, as FAC delegate, in the position of making pronouncements about all 2,600 FAs). I do not see the mistake you refer to: the site is accessible, and the cited information is on an accessible page-- that was part of the dispute. So, I suggest a different approach to clearing the air and clearing up misperceptions (which seems to be your and probably should be the main objective), rather than going in circles on a trivial issue. If you're willing, I'll start another thread below; not that this is necessarily the best place for it, but this seems to be the calmest page, with the least outside interference, tempers seem to have subsided, and I *think/hope* that in this environment, I will be able to say some things that may help alleviate some of Mattisse's concerns and perceptions. But I'm not going to start down the road of making pronouncements about FAs; if the quality of the sourcing is in question, that goes to FAR with a correct tag, not a misunderstanding because Mattisse thought the page required membership. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your quick response. In the meantime I have tagged the article: as noted above, this has nothing to do with the membership issue of the site (and Mattisse's original tag also had nothing to do with this). I agree with you entirely that discussion of FA status belongs elsewhere, and am very sympathetic to your position, as I sometimes face a similar one at GAR, despite having no formal role. However, you are welcome to start a thread below that serves to diffuse tension and promote mutual understanding. I will endeavor to contribute with such a goal in mind. Geometry guy 23:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) OK, but before I start down that road, I want to make sure everyone's clear, as I don't want to be accused of dragging out old business. I think, that if I say some things about the Major Depressive Disorder FAC, it will help alleviate some of Mattisse's concerns and misperceptions, and I can say those things now without affecting the article or the FAC (I couldn't before, and Mattisse needs to understand that sometimes my hands are tied since I have to be impartial). I want to make sure you think this is a good path, before I revisit an old issue; I hope what I have to say will alleviate some of Mattisse's "cabalism" concerns. Also, I was extremely busy over the last two weeks, but have plenty of time today and tomorrow, until I promote on Saturday, so if you're on board, I'll say what I have to say. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
It would be nice to see new insights into an old story being used to promote mutual understanding. I have no more wikitime today, but will have tomorrow evening (UTC) and Saturday. This page does seem more constructive than many others, and hopefully SilkTork's positive spirit will continue to influence our discussions. Geometry guy 00:05, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
OK, since you're out of time, I'll aim to post something here tomorrow, when I hope you'll be around? I'd not like to see a discussion spin out of control again, and I hope it won't. I do spend all day Saturday reading FAC, though. 'Til tomorrow, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
PS, I probably don't have to tell you it will be a looooong post ;) But I'll prepare it in Word, so it hopefully won't be full of typos! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Oh, no! Please do have mercy, SandyGeorgia, as many of your posts are just TLTR. If you could develop a concise style, it would be most helpful. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 10:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Since it will trouble you to have to read my post, I'll forego the opportunity graciously afforded by Geometry guy, since preparing the post will take quite a bit of time. An ongoing concern, Mattisse, is that all of my efforts, always, to help you are met with sarcasm and hostility. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:05, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't believe this is hostility, but an attempt to phrase a request in a light-hearted way (and so it is with perceptions). Anyway, perhaps this is a diversion, and I have spent my wikitime instead updating the monitoring page. However, Sandy, if at any point you decide it is worth the effort to share your insights about the MDD FAC, you are always welcome on my talk page. I will read it, even if it is long :-) Geometry guy 21:13, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the offer, G guy; I had hoped that things had evolved to the point that we might discuss what seem to be Mattisse's perceptions as a helpful way to move forward, but since "perceptions" aren't necessarily diffable, in light of Mattisse's reaction to my offer to do so, it doesn't seem that we're yet at a point where that might be helpful, or even wise. I note that your correct tagging of James Joyce produced a source in under an hour, by an editor I've never encountered before, so that at least had a good outcome. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
You are welcome and I had hoped so too. Regarding James Joyce, unfortunately, that source still doesn't support the "single largest collection" statement in the text. I think the simplest thing to do is tweak the text so that it reflects the material in the sources. Geometry guy 22:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
I try very hard not to involve myself too much in FAs, other than routine watchlist items like vandal fighting or MOS or citiation formatting cleanup, and to avoid tagging or changing content in areas that are not my area of expertise. In this case, I tried to clear up incorrect tagging, and here I am, drug into a dispute not worth having :) While Marskell was active at FAC, citetag-bombing of articles was discouraged, in favor of using talk pages, asking for a few citations, and filling in more if someone worked on the first set. The recent trend of citebomb-tagging FAs before bringing them to FAR is a new one. But, generally, I try to avoid the content or sourcing disputes on FAs, only doing cleanup, unless they are articles I'm more involved in (autism, Asperger, etc.). In other words, feel free to edit the article, I only watch it for routine things and vandalism, to try to keep it at the level that passed, without passing judgment on that level. :) Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
I did not mean to imply that someone else should fix it: I do indeed feel free to edit the article myself. Thanks for taking the rest to my talk page. I have replied there. Geometry guy 20:22, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
I want to make it clear that starting in the spring (during the RFC), I withdrew from my high level of copy editing and reviewing FACs. Since the arbitration, I have withdrawn even more. There will never again be a time in which I copy edit and review FACs at the volume and thoroughness, nor the breadth of topic, that I did before. I will go further and say that, with a few exceptions, I will not copy edit articles for an editor who plans to take that article to FAC. That should allay your concerns, SandyGeorgia. I will comment on and review very few FACs. I have already turned down Ceoil and Ottava Rima on that basis; they are editors that I normally would have helped out as requested. As far as FAR, I rely on YellowMonkey's council for that. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 23:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Activity of mentors and stability of Plan page

Could I ask those preparing this report to see what I said here? I would like to see the report include something about the activity of the mentors (and why the confusion over who was a mentor wasn't picked up), with a view to reducing the numbers to those that are best-suited to giving advice, and for Mattisse to wait for advice, rather than having enough mentors to have 24-hour advice. Could the report also summarise the stability of the 'Plan' page (as well as that of the 'Monitoring' page)? It was the 'Plan' page that ArbCom signed off on, and it was changes to that page that specifically had to be approved by a consensus of mentors. All associated subpages should, of course, stick to what was described on the 'Plan' page, but as long as that condition was met, changes there are more flexible, in my view. And while it shouldn't be rushed, please don't spend too long on this (my additional requests above don't need a huge amount of reporting). I am saying don't spend too long on this, because there are valid concerns that this whole process is a timesink for many of our best and most productive editors, so a decent report that we can move forward with soon, and request comment on from other parties, is what is needed now. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 09:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

There needs to be some clarity over the role of those who agreed to assist Mattisse with her plan. I'm not sure who considers themselves to be a mentor. I certainly don't. I agreed to assist Mattisse by giving her advice upon request. Responsibility for Mattisse's behaviour is - as I have always understood it - in Mattisse's hands. If Mattisse decides not to ask for advice then that is Mattisse's responsibility, not mine. The question, in my mind, should not be "the activity of the mentors", rather it should be "the activity of Mattisse in requesting advice". It is not possible or desirable for people to overlook Mattisse's edits 24 hours a day. Nor is it really helpful to have to deal with the consequences of a misjudged comment after it has been made.
While I understand that it makes sense to have a plan in place to deal with the consequences of a misjudged comment by Mattisse, I would urge everyone to consider such a plan a back-up rather than the primary method of dealing with this situation.
I am committed to assisting Mattisse, however I feel I can only achieve that successfully if Mattisse herself accepts that she at times makes posts that provoke a reaction, and that consulting people BEFORE posting is the better way of reducing drama. If others would also put their weight behind that observation then perhaps we can make progress that would be acceptable to all.
I would urge that the first six proposals in User:SilkTork/Report#Draft_Final_Report are accepted and put into action.
I understand that people who are reacting to a post by Mattisse may get a bit lost by who to consult, which is why the proposals include this point: "That an individual should volunteer/be appointed to act as mediator in situations where someone who has a legitimate interest in an edit by Mattisse is not satisfied or is concerned by the response to the edit." I have already gone on record as saying that I am prepared to undertake that role (within reasonable limits). Provided that the proposals are adopted in which Mattisse agrees to contact an adviser before posting, then it would not be helpful to reduce the number of people that Mattisse could consult. As to those who are "best-suited", I feel that would be for Mattisse herself to discover. If she follows the advice of X, and the result is drama, then she would learn not to ask the advice of that person in future.
We need to be clear that we are here to offer advice and assistance to Mattisse, but she is free to make her own mistakes and take the consequences for her own actions - even if that leads to being banned from the site. Having said that, I have already made clear to Mattisse that I am prepared to block her in order to reduce drama which may lead to such a banning. SilkTork * 10:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to formally acknowledge and thank Carcharoth for the helpful feedback here (and will link this response to the Arb page). I'd also like to point out to the mentors that another ArbCom is in no one's best interest; it will result in yet another visiting of already clear issues, more agida for Mattisse, and another timesink for many productive editors. If the concerns and issues are not clear by now, then folks aren't paying attention. Please try to come to consensus with Mattisse and among yourselves to find a way that will allow Mattisse to continue to do what she does well, without disrupting content review processes or targeting other editors. Many proposals have been floated over the recent, confusing months, so I won't revisit them, but the problems occur when Mattisse continues to poke at editors with whom she has had conflicts, by naming them or referring to them or targeting their articles, becomes upset, and then disruption to content review processes results. Whether Mattisse isn't aware of when she does this, or can't contain herself, or does it on purpose is unclear, but straightforward, measurable statements (her emotional state is not measurable, and asking that she no longer post when angry is ineffective) specifically addressing what she should no longer ever do on Wiki, backed by a block if she does it again, should resolve the problems. She shouldn't be mentioning, referring to, or targeting anyone on her plague list ever again on Wiki. She shouldn't be reviewing or initiating reviews of articles involving "plagued" editors. As a counterexample, might I offer the ArbCom cases regarding SlimVirgin; she and I have a perfectly cordial on-Wiki relationship today, and are able to work together. We don't refer to past issues anywhere on Wiki: they are done. All of this back and forth is not helping anyone; please submit a concrete, measurable Plan so that we can all get back to work. If I read Carcharoth correctly, the mentors have the chance to help avoid another ArbCom; please set aside how you all viewed your initial roles here and take this opportunity. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:01, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Agree I would like to second SilkTork's proposal. I believe that only by trying out a format will I and my mentors/advisers see how it works out. I will be more assertive in contacting my mentors/advisers about problems. The first six proposals are clear enough. I still would like to see Geometry guy's format adapted to prevent long, unfocused complaints by others on the monitoring page. —mattisse (Talk) 14:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Comment - I think it would help maybe if we had a better definition of the roles of individuals involved. It might not be a bad idea to have clearer definition of "mentor" and possibly "contact person". I would think a mentor would be someone for Mattisse to contact somewhat regularly with concerns, while a "contact person" might be someone to contact when dealing with specific matters those individuals either raise to Mattisse themselves, or for Mattisse and/or the mentors to contact for assistance in topics of their particular knowledge or interest. Working out details to define the two statuses might be difficult, but I do think it would be worth exploring. John Carter (talk) 20:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps each mentor/adviser should weigh in and note what designation they prefer e.g. "contact person", "adviser" or other and what role they see themselves playing. All seem available to me, except Salix alba, who is not on wiki very much. But he is valuable for his knowledge of my[REDACTED] history, as is SilkTork. All mentors/advisers (except Salix) seem to be available (my impression). —mattisse (Talk) 21:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I prefer "adviser" - largely because the mentorship role on Misplaced Pages carries certain expectations that create stress and tension for all concerned and tends not to be successful as a result. SilkTork * 21:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Apology and suggestion

  • I apologize to my mentors/advisers if there was ever any confusion over who was a mentor. The mentors were drawn from a signup list on the Arbitration page (the workshop page as I recall). As I recall, all mentors volunteered, except RegentsPark whom I asked, and I requested them all to sign up officially. Subsequently, Malleus said he wished to withdraw and so I removed his name from my plan. Fowler&fowler was inactive for at least a month (August). When the monitoring page became active recently, I emailed him the link and asked him if he was still willing to be a monitor/mentor and he replied that he had time restraints. So I have now removed him from my plan. The persons I have known longest of my mentors are Salix alba and SilkTork. SilkTork and I are former bitter enemies from 2006. Salix alba helped me when I was a relative newbie and found myself a target. He knows my history. I have full faith in the judgment of all my mentors/advisers. Perhaps it would help if they each indicated the best way to contact them and how often I can contact them. Mostly I worry about bothering them too much with my concerns.
  • I suggest that the monitoring report concentrate on the recent (September/October, or including August if you want) for the report. The rest has been gone over multiple times. Since I have not participated in FAR since last July, or very much in FAC, if at all now, I don't see putting emphasis on that. Most likely I will resume GANs in the future. I do not see my involvement in dyk as a problem. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 15:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The sock incident

Right. Speaking as Mattisse's target in the socking incident in late August, it seems to me essential that the more important actions of the mentors are mentioned in this report, as well as Mattisse's actions. The way the mentors have functioned, and—well—all right—frankly—the attitudes a few of them have brought to the advising of Mattisse—is vital, surely, to the arbcom's firming-up of the mentoring system, for which we all devoutly hope (don't we?). In my opinion, Mattisse in the sock incident was profoundly influenced by the excuses and defenses offered by Philcha in particular, which Mattisse picked up and used on her talkpage. That can't possibly be a good thing for her, and her relations to the community. Further, it is surely of interest to the arbcom that Philcha and RegentsPark (and maybe others, who knows) pooh-poohed Mattisse's attacks on me as "innocuous" and "harmless"? (Here they are: .) These claims were immediately adopted by Mattisse herself ("I made a few quite harmless edits", etc ) Several mentors, including those I have mentioned, insisted the block was unfair and that a warning would have been enough; and persistently dragged in User:Geogre, an editor who had left the project months earlier. Philcha declared my own use of linked and public alternative accounts (such as User:Bishzilla, User:Little Stupid, etc., nowadays in practice used only for light banter with friends on my page and theirs) to be more harmful than Mattisse's use of secret socks to attack me. Mattisse's socks shrink in Philcha's appraisal into "a few niggles" and are transformed into irony at my supposedly "undisclosed use of socks". (I don't use "socks", btw, let alone undisclosed socks. "Sock" means abusive or disruptive unacknowledged alternative account, and I don't use such.) Thus, per Philcha:

"Geogre was de-sysopped but not blocked after operating for years socks that he used to stack discussions. Mattisse got a 2-week without warning after posting complaining about Bishonen's undisclosed use of socks. IMO stacking discussions is much more harmful than complaining about undisclosed use of socks"..

Geometry Guy and RegentsPark have displayed a much more reasonable attitude IMO, though I can't say I was thrilled about RegentsPark's defense of Mattisse at my expense , or about Geometry Guy's telling the readers at User talk:SandyGeorgia that he could "imagine" me laughing my head off. Bishonen the teflon user! My messages to RegentsPark and Geometry Guy were the only comments I posted in the entire sock debacle: two posts in all. Perhaps it was remiss of me never to address Philcha, to try to come to an understanding with her. I did think about it, but she seemed so hostile right from the start. I offer the caveat that I found Philcha's own comments sometimes difficult to understand, so I may have partly misunderstood her. I believe she wrote in a bit of a hurry in the sockpuppetry discussion; see for instance this, which is pretty mysterious in its preoccupation with what admins or "undisclosed admins" were speaking about on my page, or how these categories of users relate to "lynch law". (User:Daedalus isn't in fact an admin, nor is User:Ched Davies.) Bishonen | talk 03:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC).

I deeply apologize to you for the socks. I am very sorry. You did post other places about it, such as and many posts on the my monitoring page entitled starting with "Venom alert" heading.. —mattisse (Talk) 14:03, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
That's nice that you're sorry, but what you say about my posting is not true. (Not that I can quite see what the interest would be even if it was true, but it seems undesirable to let incorrect statements stand.) The post you cite first is one of the very two I mentioned that I had posted in the sock debacle (=message to Geometry Guy). Read them: they're the same. And in my posts on the monitoring page I certainly didn't spontaneously mention the sock incident, which was a month old by then. I had to bring it up briefly, or so I felt, because of a series of misunderstandings by Philcha. But I came to the page for a quite different purpose than chewing over that old business, namely to report some inappropriate references to Geogre that you had made. One of the mentors received me so aggressively that my first report at the monitoring page will also be my last. (I think this may have been the original incident that made people start to refer to the reception of complainants as "shooting the messenger".) I don't have the patience of Unitanode for these things. Bishonen | talk 15:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC).
RE (I think this may have been the original incident that made people start to refer to the reception of complainants as "shooting the messenger".) Unfortunately, I'm afraid that's not the case, but I don't have time to dig back into the history to locate all of the instances of shooting the messenger. I'll just say that I hope now that they're aware of the fine line between advocacy and mentoring (or "advising", as so many of them now seem to be backing off of the original "mentorship" status). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
I also noted that messengers complaints about being shot at were later sidelined and derided as "bickering" or people conducting irrelevent arguments with each other on the monitoring page. There is an ongoing tendency to remove/archive/gloss over/ignore Mattisses attacks on others in the hope that it will all just go away. This may be fine for mentors but not for targets.Fainites scribs 21:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Have you been "targeted" since the arbitration, Fainites? If so, would you point out where? Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 22:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
I haven't suggested I have been Mattisse. However, several other editors plainly considered they had been and raised it on your talkpage and then subsequently on the monitoring page. That is what is being referred to here.Fainites scribs 22:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Mattisse, I think you're doing much better lately, and holding up under the (delayed) Request for clarification quite well. We do still need to work to get an effective Plan and Monitoring page in place, though, and to that aim, still need to make sure the "mentors" are up to speed and not "shooting the messenger". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

On behalf of all the advisors/mentors I would like to apologise for any biting that has taken place. It is clear that people's emotions have got worked up at times, and few of us can walk away from this with clean hands. I would like to draw people's attention to a line I have had in the draft report from early on, and that - I have just checked - is still there: "Over-reaction by various people - including Mattisse's own advisors." We have drawn attention to the biting, we acknowledge it, and intend to improve. I am very keen that if the plan is used as was originally understood by myself and the others (and it is worth revisiting the statements we made during the ArbCom case to clarify our roles - because it will be clear that we are not backing away, but rather reaffirming our position), then we have a better chance of preventing all this drama. SilkTork * 22:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I acknowledge your point about your roles, SilkTork, but that is where I think ArbCom failed Mattisse, in that the Plan was too vague and not "measurable" or "actionable". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Any plan that relies on Mattisse voluntarily seeking advice first before posting in certain venues or when in a certain frame of mind is doomed to fail as there is no evidence that Mattisse is any closer to understanding why her actions are problematic or why her posts have the effect on people that they do. I assume that had she consulted her mentors first as to whether she should, for example, join in a GA review on a psychology article by Moni3, create sockpuppets to abuse Bishonen, tag an article written by Giano, put her plague list on her subpage or accuse SandyGeorgia of stalking her, her mentors (or some of them anyway), would have given her certain advice. If the mentors position is that they are advisors, available to help out if their advice is sought or mediate in disputes, then that is fine as far as it goes, but it is not a plan which addresses the issues that require resolving.Fainites scribs 10:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Correction needed

The Report page says "In talk about restricting FAR nominations ... " This is subtly misleading; the long-standing practice at FAR of one nom at a time had been temporarily changed, with little discussion, and was restored as a result of that longer discussion, initiated by SlimVirgin. More correct wording would be "In talk of restoring the long-standing practice of one FAR nomination at a time ... " or something similar. Otherwise, the statement leaves the impression that I was arguing to change FAR, rather than restore a long-standing practice at FAR that had been reversed with little discussion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out. I did not intend to imply a viewpoint (I don't have one on this matter). I have reworded the segment so that (I hope) no viewpoint on the debate is implied. Geometry guy 20:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, G guy; excellent and neutral. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Low-level, never raised

This edit presents an example for mentor awareness. This, for example, is not something I would ever raise under G guy's new Monitoring format; it's too low-level, and wasn't likely to affect the outcome, but presents an example of the way in which Mattisse adds to low-level irritation, and things that the "community" notices, while "mentors" may not. Samuel Johnson was a collaboration between Malleus, Ottava, and me. I present this only because it may help "mentors" understand some history surrounding possible pointyness and "targeting" of certain editors. The article was Today's featured article on the occasion of Johnson's 300th birthday; I'll leave it to all of you to ponder Johnson's impact on the English language. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Good grief! --Joopercoopers (talk) 19:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
It is a little odd, yes. I acknowledge that a lot of non-English majors may not think of Johnson as particularly important, but he is extremely notable within that field. I, of course, took several honors courses in high school, and heard of him there. Whether the same would hold true of the average man on the street, I don't know, but we're basically not writing to reflect man on the street beliefs anyway. I'll advised, yes. Possibly "negative", maybe, depending on how well Mattisse actually knows that field herself. Having said all that, however, I don't think the name has come up in conversation anywhere I've been in the past several years, so it might be possible that the statement was accurate to the best of Mattisse's knowledge. But it probably would be best to refrain from such statements in reviews. John Carter (talk) 22:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't think the statement itself was odd (it is not unreasonable to hold the view that few English speakers have heard of Johnson) but the use of the 'you' in the statement ("how many people do you know") is unwise because it seems to make it personal, and, in particular, seems to be addressing the previous comment. Personalization of a discussion is best avoided, particularly when the rest of the discussion seems fairly dispassionate. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 22:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
OK. Lesson learned and point well taken. I did not think of "you" that way but you are right. I assume that using "one" instead of "you" has the same effect. Therefore, I will be very careful about using "you" or "one" from now on. I just had not thought of it that way. My apologies to all. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 23:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks; apologies work :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

"We are blinded in examining our own labours by innumerable prejudices. Our juvenile compositions please us, because they bring to our minds the remembrance of youth; our later performances we are ready to esteem, because we are unwilling to think that we made no improvement; what flows easily from the pen charms us, because we read with pleasure that which flatters our opinion of our own powers; what was composed with great struggles of the mind we do not easily reject, because we cannot bear that so much labour should be fruitless. But the reader has none of these prepossessions, and wonders that the authour is so unlike himself, without considering that the same soil will, with different culture, afford different products." Johnson: Rambler #21 (May 29, 1750)

--Joopercoopers (talk) 09:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Good point. I suppose perhaps the only thing to add is maybe, in this case, to perhaps recognize that a lot of comments made by several people on talk pages and suchlike here are, as it were, not intended as what Johnson or others might call a "final draft". Maybe they should be, that's another matter. But I do have to question whether it might not be the case that, once in a while, particularly in the case of an editor whose behavior has been in some way challenged, we might read to much into the occasional "slip of the typewriter". This is not to say that such comments might not deserve some recognition and an effort made to adjust them, particularly if the party in question has had their behavior challenged, but that we might acknwoledge, once in a while, that people will use common daily usage, like Mattisse might have been using here, and not have it be seen as something other than that. It is inexact, but it is also standard usage for lots of people, at least in the central US, where I'm located. John Carter (talk) 16:37, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for saying that. —mattisse (Talk) 22:41, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Monitoring/ Report Add topic