Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 14:11, 13 May 2009

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. The Arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions—the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.

Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators and clerks may edit, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.

Motions and requests by the parties

Request to limit discussion to recent history and outcomes of previous discussions

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Jayen, this page is for discussion. Simply saying "support" contributes nothing to the discussion. As Brad said recently, the trend of saying "support" and "oppose" on workshop pages is in general unhelpful. As to what is being discussed here, I'd say limit discussion of past stuff to things that are unresolved or have recurred, but don't dredge up detail here - if possible, link to previous detail (in an RfC for example), or simply provide evidence of a recurring pattern without revisiting the earlier dispute (again, if possible). Very old stuff (more than two years) is unlikely to be given much weight. Also play it by ear. If someone says you are digging up old stuff, step back and try and see their point of view. Some stats on account creation and number of edits, and major activity over the years, can sometimes be useful to give overall background. Carcharoth (talk) 22:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Obviously, there have been a number of events in which Mattisse has been involved over time. Several of these matters have been dealt with before. We could of course have this case go over each and every edit that party has made since they created an account, but I honestly cannot see how that would accomplish any good, and it would certainly create excessive work for the parties and the arbitrators. I therefore request that the scope of this arbitration be limited to the recent circumstances which caused the request for arbitration to be filed, and only information regarding early matters which can be seen as directly relevant, such as how early discussions may or may not have been resolved to the satisfaction to the parties then involved. John Carter (talk) 23:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would support limiting the scope to events from February 1, 2009 to the present. The RfC was filed in early January and can be consulted for reference to earlier events. Karanacs (talk) 00:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I agree there's no point trawling through reams of ancient stuff but February 09 is too limiting unless events have been fully set out in the RfC. Some earlier events may be relevent, when they are repeatedly brought up, in order to explain background. Grudge bearing and patterns of behaviour are issues. Why not let editors set out what they have to say in evidence and then let the arbitrators decide what, if any the cut off point should be for the purposes of the workshop.Fainites ^barleyscribs 00:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are definite, recurring patterns in Mattisse's interactions which are highly problematic. I agree that we shouldn't belabor stale issues, but for the most part, the past has been prologue here. I think that past events are essential to understanding the pattern here, but of course they should be presented in a context which makes their ongoing relevance clear. MastCell ^Talk 00:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Jayen466 14:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In view of Carcharoth's comment above, I'll expand on that a bit. :) There seems to be an unfortunate tendency for editors commenting on this matter to refer to things that happened last year (as e.g. in one of the first comments in the AN/I thread) or even longer ago. This may indeed be part of the problem. Setting a cut-off date of February 1st allows for a period of more than 3 months to be examined, which should be sufficient to effectively circumscribe the current situation. Jayen466 22:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I generally support this proposal in that arbitrators should consider what can be done now to smooth the interaction between Mattisse and other involved editors. Past behaviour (by all) is relevant if it helps to inform where we are now. However, I do basically agree that February 09 is a good date to fix when considering whether there is a serious ongoing concern. Geometry guy 22:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Question and observations from Newyorkbrad

I am not in any way prejudging the case in advance of reviewing all the evidence and other input that will be submitted. However, based on a review of the statements made at the acceptance stage as well as comments in the RfC, I think it is fair to state as at least a tentative view that there is consensus that (1) Mattisse makes valuable mainspace contributions, but (2) there are significant concerns involving how her interaction with other editors over a long period of time.

The key question to be addressed in this case is whether we can collectively craft a remedy that would retain for us the benefits of (1) while eliminating the problems surrounding (2). Although all statements, evidence, and workshop proposals in this case will be valued, input addressed directly to this issue will be particularly valuable.

To an even greater extent than in other cases, I urge that all editors submitting their views in this case do so in a straightforward, civil, and decorous fashion. Also, please note that input in the statements at the case acceptance stage is already before us and does not need to be repeated, unless there is new material to be presented such as additional diffs.

Please present all evidence and proposals in this case as soon as possible—and in any event within one week from today—so that the matter can be resolved and we can move forward in the best interests of all concerned.

Thank you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add that it is not only Mattisse's mainspace contributions which are valuable, but also her reviewing contributions, at WP:GA, WP:FA, WP:DYK and WP:PR. Several editors have noted this in their evidence. I can mainly comment from a GA perspective, which is particularly relevant here as it was a GA disagreement which prompted this RfArb. I believe Mattisse is widely regarded as an excellent WP:GAN reviewer who encourages editors to improve the encyclopedia. On relatively rare occasions, reviewing leads to conflict, and on these occasions Mattisse can (sometimes but not always) exhibit the behaviour that has given rise to this RfArb, and that is the behaviour that I hope ArbCom will try to understand and address. Geometry guy 21:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed final decision

Proposals by User:X

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Jennavecia's evidence

The evidence presented by Jennavecia in this dif appears to show Mattisse requesting an undo of what is an out of process revert by Jennavecia. And then goes on to show Jennavecia making disparaging remarks to Mattisse: "I view you opening of the GAR as a POINTy action", "But yes, go on with your typical behavior." In response to a valid question of process: "Do what you want, Mattisse. But keep your assumptions of bad faith off my talk page." To another request that Jennavecia to undo the revert, explaining (with some justification given the eventual response - ie, this ArbCom) that she was uncertain of doing it herself for fear of reprisal: "You really need to take a step back and discontinue commenting until you are again grounded in reality. To a repeated request to undo the action: "Your comments are really over the top, and I honestly think you should take a break from the whole thing for a few hours." To Mattisse explaining to Jennavecia that she is genuinely concerned about the reprocutions of undoing the action of an admin, the reponse: "Are you serious when you write these things? I mean, really, I honestly can't tell. It seems like a joke, or some sort of game. I don't even feel it worth clarifying further if you are apparently selectively reading my comments with the worst assumptions of bad faith possible. Completely fabricating and misrepresenting my comments. Regardless, your comment here and wherever else you make it is much less powerful than you probably intend for it to be, as you have proven time and again that you do not hold true to your word with these types of promises." - and so the matter goes on.

I fail to see how the diff shows Mattisse in a bad light. But it appears to me to show Jennavecia assuming bad faith and being highly insulting. Certainly insulting enough to provoke a strong response from most users. Mattisse's guarded responses, to my eye, show a decent handling of a tense situation. SilkTork *^YES! 13:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose the dif can be summed up as a mild spat between two editors. It could be a matter of opinion as to which behaved the worse. But as evidence of unreasonable and disruptive behaviour by Mattisse, it is lacking in unreasonableness and disruptiveness. SilkTork *^YES! 13:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

This discussion is a little bit out of the way. It is possible not many people have found their way to this page yet and read all the way down here. Particularly as the header is still "Template". Discussion of evidence (confusingly) also takes place on the evidence page talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 22:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I have to agree Jennavecia's refusal to perform reasonably requests actions, refusing to directly respond to comments addressed toward her, and engaging in the kind of gratuitous insults as demonstrated above say a lot more about Jennavecia then they do about Mattisse. John Carter (talk) 13:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Jennavecia's behaviour was out of line and I have every sympathy for Mattisse feeling intimidated, given Jennavecia's admin status. To summarise, Mattisse initiated a GAR which, despite Jennavecia's attempt to stop it, went ahead and has so far resulted in several established GA reviewers taking the view that the article in its present form should be delisted. Work has begun on fixing the problems Mattisse pointed out. [1] So the net result of Mattisse's action, for Wikipedia, is that the encyclopedia is being improved. The net result for Mattisse is that she has been attacked, insulted, and spoken down to by several admins, accused of wikihounding, and is now the subject of this case.

We could look at giving Mattisse, as a result of these proceedings, some protection from the various administrators who seem to have her earmarked for "special treatment". She should not be afraid of them while doing her work as a GA reviewer. Just like we specify that admins involved in a topic should not use their admin tools in relation to that topic, it may be worth thinking about if admins who are similarly involved with Mattisse should be told to refrain from using their admin tools in relation to Mattisse. Jayen466 11:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response by Jennavecia: I don't revert myself on actions that I believe were necessary. The opening of the GAR was unnecessary during an on-going PR, but I did tell her to revert it if she wanted. Her claims that I would block her are typical behavior, as I showed with multiple diffs in my evidence. Additionally, there was no threat of ArbCom or anything else at that point. I think the evidence pretty much speaks for itself, and I think Mattissee's show of bad faith (later put into her Plague list) is pretty much indisputable.

Also, I feel it's worth pointing out that Jayen466 is perpetuating a falsity started by Mattisse, which is that anyone used administrative tools during this dispute, which is demonstratively untrue. لenna vecia 13:10, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jennavecia, I am not saying -- and have not said -- that you used admin tools. But you are an admin, so put yourself in Mattisse's position. She is having a procedural dispute with you and knows that if you give her a block for edit-warring with you over the GAR, there is very little she can do about it. Jayen466 13:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 467: / Line 467: @@
 ::Also, I feel it's worth pointing out that Jayen466 is perpetuating a falsity started by Mattisse, which is that anyone used administrative tools during this dispute, which is demonstratively untrue. [[User:Jennavecia|<span style="font-family:Lucida Handwriting Italic;color:#9B30FF">'''ل'''enna</span>]][[User talk:Jennavecia|<span style="font-family:Lucida Handwriting Italic;color:#63B8FF">vecia</span>]] 13:10, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 :::Jennavecia, I am not saying -- and have not said -- that you used admin tools. But you are an admin, so put yourself in Mattisse's position. She is having a procedural dispute with you and knows that if you give her a block for edit-warring with you over the GAR, there is very little she can do about it. <font color="#0000FF">[[User:Jayen466|Jayen]]</font>''<font color=" #FFBF00">[[User_Talk:Jayen466|466]]</font>'' 13:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
+::::This is exactly what I'm talking about. I could lose my tools for using them during a dispute I'm involved in. By policy, I could not block her. This is widely known. So, in fact, she would have had a great deal of recourse had I blocked her. Not that I have, at any point in time ''ever'' that I recall, threatened to block her. Nor do I have a history of questionable blocks. [[User:Jennavecia|<span style="font-family:Lucida Handwriting Italic;color:#9B30FF">'''ل'''enna</span>]][[User talk:Jennavecia|<span style="font-family:Lucida Handwriting Italic;color:#63B8FF">vecia</span>]] 13:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
+:::::Well, this may be clear to you, but it is demonstrably not clear to Mattisse. Hence the idea of spelling out that admins in content or procedural disputes with Mattisse are not allowed to block her. Making that clear through a remedy might help calm the situation somewhat. The AN/I thread, in which I believe multiple admins with a history of disputes with Mattisse commented, must have felt like a witch-hunt to Mattisse. All because she listed an article for GAR that deserved it, judging by comments there to date. This should not be the result of someone listing an article for GAR. <font color="#0000FF">[[User:Jayen466|Jayen]]</font>''<font color=" #FFBF00">[[User_Talk:Jayen466|466]]</font>'' 14:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
+:::::::For clarity sake, you're saying that Mattisse, with more than three years and sixty-six thousand manual edits on this project, is/was not aware that admins are prohibited from using their admin tools (including blocking) during a dispute they are involved in? [[User:Jennavecia|<span style="font-family:Lucida Handwriting Italic;color:#9B30FF">'''ل'''enna</span>]][[User talk:Jennavecia|<span style="font-family:Lucida Handwriting Italic;color:#63B8FF">vecia</span>]] 14:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 ===Template===