Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Workshop

Jenna/Jayen exchange

Moved from workshop as unrelated to the discussion there

• • There are grey areas here. It is not unheard of for an involved admin to block a POV editor for vandalism, and escape censure. [1] This being so, I think it is expecting too much of editors to have 100% confidence in these principles; Mattisse collected a few blocks ages ago, and once bitten, twice shy. Jayen466 17:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Why are you linking a diff like it's evidence when it's just a diff to you making this same argument elsewhere? Where are your examples? لennavecia 17:18, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I had the wrong diff in the clipboard. I have revised the post above. Full documentation is here. To cut a long story short, an editor who made admittedly inappropriate, POV edits to an article was blocked by one of the authors of the article, for vandalism. The same admin then also reverted the edit and reestablished the prior content. The point being, while the edit was inappropriate, it was not vandalism. They did not write four-letter words or anything, they just tried to insert an inappropriate POV. Jayen466 17:25, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Jayen, Mattisse is not a party to the Scientology case. Don't you agree it would be best to keep this case here as straightforward as possible? Durova^Charge! 17:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This needs to be moved to the talk page, as it's completely unrelated and in no way an example of what is being discussed here. Totally different situation, wherein the editor you're basically comparing to Mattisse was engaged in a completely different type of editing, had received a full series of warnings, and an admin made a warranted block. Your reframing of that situation is a completely different matter that should probably be addressed elsewhere, as it's highly inappropriate, serving to paint other participants in this case in an unwarranted bad light. لennavecia 17:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The situation was a bit more complicated, but I do not wish to discuss this further. I have no objection to moving this to the talk page, or indeed striking it. It was probably a bad example to bring up. Jayen466 17:35, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement about power in wikipedia

Some of you may find this at best off base, and I can understand why, to a degree. However, I do think that it can be seen as addressing at least one of the more basic issues here. It is a statement DGG left on an RfC recently here. I will not quote it in full, because you have a link to it anyway, but will quote what I think relevant here.

"The total situation works by the two sides trying to maneuver (or bully) until the key representative of one position commits an unforgivable conduct error, at which point that person can be removed. What is selected for is relative skills at Wikipedia, and relative emotional stability under pressure. To the extent that our decisions are to be based on the attempt to find a correctly neutral position, not internal and external politics, those factors are not relevant. What they favor is the established editors, who have throughly learned the rules and have to some extent been selected by time for self-restraint, and whatever may be the positions they happen to hold. fortunately, their positions are not uniform, but it's a haphazard way of doing things."

I think most of us would acknowledge that, partially because of previous extreme situations she has been in here, Mattisse is not one of the "established editors, who have throughly learned the rules and have to some extent been selected by time for self-restraint". Basically, I think that only can be seen to the current and former admins among us. Most of us admin-types have learned how to be "PC" as per wikipedia's sense of that term. However, as she herself has not "sold out" for position or any sort of personal gain here, she is also probably one of our most reliable "outside parties" for several disputes, and probably one of our best reviewers of controversial material. However, this comes at a cost. I don't think she's the only non-admin senior editor who isn't an admin who is occasionally looked at with some curiosity by others. In some of those other cases as well, being a non-admin causes people to, in some cases, look down on them, thinking they must have done something wrong to not get made an admin.

So, in effect, many senior non-admins like Mattisse start off with a "strike against them", to use baseball terminology. Add the fact that Mattisse, possibly more than most, can and does display some occasionally excessive behavior, and she has in the eyes of some two strikes against her.

Now, the question comes back to the rest of us. This individual, given her training and basic independence of the wikipedia "system", may well be one of the best people to help provide what might be called "objective" input into a lot of things. She, after all, has never been so exposed to our own internal workings, which themselves aren't necessarily uplifting, to consciously or unconsciously adapt to them. However, it does seem to be the case that to keep her as an active and extremely productive outsider, the rest of us may have to do some degree adapt to her. Are we willing to do that, and, if we are, to what degree are we willing to do that? I obviously can't know the answers to that. I do hope that this arbitration does close with us displaying a bit more bendability than some might expect from a stodgy old encyclopedia. John Carter (talk) 17:17, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with much of this, and its relevance. However, even in quotes, "objective" is not quite the right word, and may even under-represent the value added to the encyclopedia by independent spirits such as Mattisse. Mattisse is not objective, no editor is. Her input is often challenging, different, calling attention to detail, other viewpoints. It can be just plain wrong, but that isn't the point. The GAR she initiated, after its initial phase of argument, has actually resulted in two extremely good but very different editors, Awadewit and Jayen, beginning to collaborate with each other to make an excellent article. That is something the encyclopedia should value. Geometry guy 20:24, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree that admins look askance at senior editors who aren't admins as if they must have done something wrong not to be admins. I would have thought few content editors with limited wiki time care about being admins. Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:21, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Fainites here. I certainly don't look down upon non-admin veteran editors. And surely not content editors. I value them above all others, regardless of their admin status, or lack thereof. Editors should be judged by their edits, not their "status". لennavecia 21:57, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Pile-on opposition to the idea that people look down on Mattisse (or most editors) for not being an administrator. (I'm surprised many times to find out who is - and is not - an administrator, and having the bit doesn't change my opinion of editors.) I do agree with the statement that what really needs to be decided is where the adaptation needs to be made - does Mattisse need to change her behavior or do others need to react differently to her? Karanacs (talk) 15:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I think everyone should disregard the baggage that comes with the name attached to what has been said. One of the attractive aspects of the internet is that we know very little or nothing about the person behind the username speaking to us. It could be a grandmother, an Iranian, a blind teenager, a person in a wheelchair, a professor of economics, a bus driver, a brain surgeon, a Muslim, a Jew, a person with warts, a stunningly good looking person, whatever... What really counts is what is being said. The prejudices attached to race, religion, background, appearance, etc, are all left behind. What is sad here, is that a picture is being created that we cannot leave prejudice aside. We apparently want to create boxes into which we place people. This person is an admin, therefore every judgement they make is good and caries authority. This person flew off the handle two years ago, and so is clearly unreliable and a bit emotional. This person did a bit of good editing on a few articles that others liked, therefore they are intelligent and should be listened to. It's all bollox. We all have good moments and bad moments. We all get a bit emotional at times. And even the weakest of us sometimes has something very profound to contribute.

What we should look for to applaud in users is willingness to improve the encyclopedia. Willingness to speak out for the good of the aims of the project. Evidence of cooperation, consensus building and an ability to negotiate in broadly neutral terms, and to be flexible. What we should look to chastise is evidence of disruption and destruction. Evidence of blocking or interrupting positive progress. Stubbornness and unwillingness to negotiate.

I think Mattisse displays signs of both the things we should be applauding and the things we should be chastising. I'm not sure, however, that Mattisse displays excessively more of the bad elements than some of the people who have brought evidence against her here. If there is to be a cure of problem behaviour, it would be inappropriate to single out one person. The cure should be site wide. What do we do when people are having a spat? RFC and ArbCom seem heavy and time-consuming methods of solving the problem. And I'm not sure we have reliable evidence that these things work. My understanding is that conflicts are carrying on all over the project as we speak. SilkTork *^YES! 19:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

SilkTork, I'm not sure what you mean by "cure" but I don't think it would appropriate to start suggesting sanctions against people without making the allegations clear, with evidence, and with them having an opportunity to defend themselves. Like Mattisse has. Fainites ^barleyscribs 20:36, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I also note from this link posted by you SilkTork that your reaction to a negative experience with Mattisse was actually far more extreme than many editors here - though it eventually ended in apologies all round - and that plainly this type of reaction was out of character for you but you had felt driven to it. Given this, I am puzzled by your suggestion above of a sort of slapped wrist all round for everyone.Fainites ^barleyscribs 13:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

If this discussion was "How can we all behave better, recognising that we all have weak moments" then I would have a different attitude to one that is "How can we stop one particular editor from having weak moments." I think part of the process toward improving relationships on Wikipedia is for all of us to admit that we have weak moments, and not to point the finger at one individual without reflecting on our own involvement in the dispute. The individual under discussion here, it is turning out, has been victimised and unfairly hounded more than most (two malicious RFCs, the ugly Starwood ArbCom, and at least one user blocked for harrasment), and part of the baggage attached to her is that because of previous mudslinging, some of it has stuck. Mattisse is not squeaky clean. But the evidence being presented is that she is not quite as dirty as people thought, and much of the problems may be occuring because of people's reactions to her reputation rather than her actual behaviour. It is easier for all of us to jump on the community scapegoat than to accept personal responsibility - and I have been part of that. Mattisse was being debased back in 2007, and her own "O woe is poor me" attitude added to the general feeling that what we had was someone weak and easy to blame. What I am pleased to see is that Mattisse has come into this ArbCom and is standing up for herself. Her language is stronger and more confident than I have seen for a while, and I think this new, calmer, more confident Mattisse might be a person better able to deal with talkpage conflicts than the more timid Mattisse of old. It is human nature that we treat the confident with more respect than the timid. SilkTork *^YES! 09:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmmmm. The trouble with this is that I really don't see any connection between the old RfCs and the subject matter of this arbitration. All of the people providing evidence have done just that - provided evidence. Frequently this is based on personal experience, either of being involved in a conflict or witnessing it. Apart from one mildly careless mention of "past Rfcs" I don't see anyone mudslinging on the basis of the old RfCs. Secondly I absolutely disagree that Mattisse is timid or that people think the "Oh woe is me" stuff means Mattisse is weak and easy to blame. Blame for what anyway? I suspect most people are simply exasperated by it, in which I would include all the "I don't know how the internet works" or "I don't know how to collect diffs" type stuff. Mattisse perseveres with conflict situations in the teeth of the most forthright opposition, collects and hides diffs in her archives, is plainly a hugely experienced and knowledgable wiki operator with many highly supportive friends and acquaintances and appears at times to positively seek out conflict with her supposed enemies. I am not saying that being the subject of either malicious or justified dispute procedures is not upsetting or does not leave scars but I do not accept your characterisation of Mattisse as a timid unconfident editor who has been victimised and hounded more than most. There is collegial effort from most editors here to acknowledge the best in Mattisse (of which there is a lot) and find a solution, but the solution must be based on the reality of the situation. Fainites ^barleyscribs 14:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Potential remedies

It seems there are two different ways of viewing this case. One is to look at Mattisse's conduct and to estimate the direction it would take if remedies were implemented, then weigh that against the substantial positives she brings to the site. The other is to look at the processes she frequents and at the effect of insoluble conflicts upon other productive editors, then weigh that against the overall effect upon the processes and articles. Those two approaches tend toward different directions.

Another consideration is self-restraint. Typically at arbitration, one key difference between difficult editors who receive involuntary remedies and those who don't is whether they correct their behavior. Self-correction is ideal. Editors who cannot or will not self-correct typically get involuntary remedies. ArbCom has a limited set those, most of which are blunt instruments. Sometimes this means the site loses out on valuable talents. Working closely with ScienceApologist on his FA drive for the optics article during his siteban brings a keen awareness of both sides regarding that.

One of the problems that led to the present dilemma is Mattisse's habit of pledging to avoid processes (or people, etc.) and returning shortly after the pledge is made. It's as if she regards any request from anyone for her return as a release from the vow. It would go down better if she consulted with the people to whom she had made the promise. Those who received the promises feel slighted, and some express suspicions that Mattisse's pledges were never sincere in the first place. In human interactions it often happens that people who make unfounded accusations are accusing others of their own faults. That may or may not be the actual dynamic here, but it is a reasonable reaction on the part of the volunteers who have been the subject of unfounded bad faith speculations. This is one of the ways a collaborative environment gets poisoned.

So how to solve that? I'd like to keep the beneficial part of Mattisse's work and curb the disruptive element. Anyone have a better solution? Durova^Charge! 21:26, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

One idea I had was anonymizing the reviews. See peer review, anonymous peer review, and open peer review. If both Mattisse and those receiving the reviews back were able to just see the comments and no name attached to the comments, a lot of the heat would be taken out of the situation. I believe similar anonymizing systems have been suggested for other areas of Wikipedia, but I don't think anything has ever got implemented. If that is too radical, it might be possible to have a moderation system, whereby a moderator acts as a buffer and all comments are passed through the moderator. Of course, that would slow things down a lot, but it would not be impossible. And the main problem would be integrating on anonymous or moderated system with the current system which would continue to be used by other editors. The other problem is that this would not address Mattisse's behaviour outside of the reviews (e.g. on people's talk pages or on project talk pages). But it might be worth considering either anonymous reviewing or moderated reviewing. Carcharoth (talk) 23:31, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I think giving some form of moderator/facilitator assistance to FAC/FAR/GAR discussions could help. At any rate we know that the unmoderated format fails at times, with interpersonal issues remaining unresolved and being carried forward after the actual discussions that caused them have long been concluded. Jayen466 01:51, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

FAC and FAR are moderated to some extent, by Raul and his delegates (SandyGeorgia et al.). Also editors can moderate each other: Durova has given an example of an FAC thread which she refactored to the talk page. GAR is informally moderated too, by myself and one or two other regulars. I also refactor off-topic discussion to the talk page, remind editors what the relevant GA criteria say, and so on. If anonymous contributions were considered a good idea (this would have to be discussed in the relevant fora) they could be emailed to a neutral facilitator/regular. Facilitation of PR would be much more difficult because of the sheer quantity of articles involved. However, I'm not aware of any evidence that PR is problematic. We need to be careful not to try to solve problems which don't exist! Geometry guy 15:18, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

PS. Concerning Mattisse's supposed habit of making pledges/vows and breaking them, I think it is very important to give diffs and/or context, because this covers a multitude of behaviours. In particular, there is a big difference between a pledge and (please forgive my not mincing words) a temper tantrum. I am not aware, for instance, of anyone asking Mattisse to stay away from GA, or her making any pledge to do so. Yet she has quit GA reviewing on at least one occasion. Geometry guy 15:18, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

No one asked her to, however she implied that I had, or that I wanted her to: "I have formally withdrawn from all GA reviews" and "I will not review GA anymore". Read in full for context. لennavecia 21:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

With edit summaries "ok you win" and "well, whatever". These surely represent poor behaviour by Mattisse, but they are not pledges or vows made in a calm state of mind. Geometry guy 21:58, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that's the point. She makes these pledges, vows, or whatever you want to call them, but she does so in the middle of disputes where she is not, as you say, in a calm state of mind. Once the dust settles, she goes back to whatever it was she dropped out of. لennavecia 22:06, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

It is in the nature of human disputes that people, when upset, will vow to do things which they then do not end up doing, yet vow to do again in the next dispute. For example, when someone says "I've had it with you", it is very rarely so. Jayen466 22:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

That's true, but not the point. لennavecia 22:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Mattisse dropped out of reviewing Millennium '73 in January, after a hugely impressive start. [2]. This was around the time the third RfC was launched. I think she dropped other articles she had begun reviewing as well at the time. Jayen466 22:02, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

To my knowledge, Mattisse has never been asked to drop out of any reviewing processes. As I mentioned in my evidence, she does periodically promise to stay away from X area of wikipedia (or asks for a ban). I don't know whether these are true "temper tantrums" (as described above) or deliberate attempts to avoid discussions about practical solutions for the behavior that was called into question. Either way, the vows tend to derail discussions about what, if anything, should be changed. Karanacs (talk) 15:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

With regard to Jayen's comments there's the issue of credibility to consider. When an editor makes promises freely and consistently breaks those promises, a compassionate response does not necessarily mean a free pass from all consequences. Within the last year I terminated a mentorship because someone had broken his promises. He and I remain on friendly terms and sometimes collaborate on content together. But if anyone initiates a conduct RfC on him, I'll certify it. He knows that means business; perhaps it's one of the reasons why the problems haven't gone any further. Durova^Charge! 23:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Self-revert

I posted some analysis of Fainites' evidence earlier today [3]; realising that the diff I posted actually dates back to over 15 months ago, I've self-reverted so as to keep evidence analysis focused on the time period we are reviewing. Jayen466 17:05, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

There were certainly testy exchanges to which I put my hands up. But that incident ended well and all was forgiven and forgotten. I included it because Mattisse brought it up 9 or 10 months later for the AT GAR, bearing huge grudges.Fainites ^barleyscribs 19:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you think that some sort of moderation could help people stay focused on content (rather than interpersonal stuff) in these discussions? I mean, do you see now, 15 months later, more clearly what Mattisse may have meant than you were able to in the moment? Or do you still feel, looking at this soberly, that what she said missed the point as much as you felt this at the time? Jayen466 21:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you are missing the point here Jayen. I am not "bringing up" the RAD FAC as such. I am using it to illustrate that months later Mattisse was bearing grudges about SandyGeorgia and in relation to RAD that interfered with a review process. On the issue of moderation - I think it is highly unlikely that enough suitably knowledgable people would be found to moderate discussions in general. Neither, at FAC etc, is it necessary. The occasional moments when somebody forgets themselves are usually swiftly resolved by other editors. When editing articles, parties can seek mediation. A moderation service may have its uses in some cases though.Fainites ^barleyscribs 06:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Hyperbole and perpetuations of falsities and fallacies

Some of Mattisse's defenders are taking it a bit too far with their wording in some instances, in my opinion. Two examples that immediately come to mind are John Carter's Proposed finding of fact: Rush to judgement and Jayen466's comment under Durova's Proposed remedy: Probation. I don't believe this is doing anything to help Mattisse. Instead, good points are being overshadowed by unnecessary hyperbole, as in the case of the former, and claims that cannot be supported by evidence are being made in the latter which only serve to distract from the discussion at hand and perpetuate fallacies started by Mattisse. I think everyone would be better served, most importantly Mattisse herself, if those defending her kept their arguments a bit more sound and, as Jayen put it, sober. لennavecia 12:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for that, and wholly in agreement. Very well put. Durova^Charge! 15:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Jennavecia, were you referring to this statement of mine being unsupported by evidence? Jayen466 16:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes. لennavecia 18:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

That's not the kind of statement you can support with evidence. Jayen466 18:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Partially correct. Where you've used hyperbole to illustrate your point, it's not possible.

• "each time an admin violently disagrees with her assessment" - What would constitute violence on Wikipedia?

In other cases, you most certainly could provide evidence if the claims were true.

• "Admins need to be encouraged to avoid personalising content disputes, avoid the temptation of using their admin "clout" to get their way, and refocus on their role as editors in content disputes." - Which admins personalized content disputes and which used their clout to get their way? لennavecia 19:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I thought the AN/I complaint was an example of side-stepping a content dispute by reframing it as a disciplinary problem. Some of the other responses Mattisse and others received, since added to my evidence, illustrate a similar tendency to personalise the interaction in order not to have to engage on content terms. Jayen466 16:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'm glad you raised this issue Jennavecia, and agree with your general concern. In both the examples you have mentioned, I have already noted that I thought they went too far. However, I do trust the arbitrators to distinguish the good intention behind any proposal from any hyperbole that accompanies it. I've not seen hyperbole in a Proposed Decision. Geometry guy 19:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The revenge of the old AMA

Let's take a step back and look at what's going on here. I think that the way this case is progressing is of serious concern. If Mattisse wants to participate in this case, she is welcome to. If she prefers not to participate, she is welcome not to. I think it's incredibly destructive and counter to community norms for her to organize a defense via proxy, where a handful of editors in off-wiki contact with her press her case on her behalf. This approach is obviously contributing nothing to resolving the dispute, and the choosing of sides and semi-legal "advocacy" for one party has turned this proceeding into even more of a battlefield than the usual ArbCom case. On a practical level, it provides a mouthpiece for some of Mattisse's more contentious formulations while insulating her from the natural give-and-take which ensues when you accuse other editors of perpetuating a "Reign of Terror". As I think one of the central issues in this case is the discrepancy between Mattisse's eagerness to dish out abuse and her response to receiving criticism, the layer of advocacy is especially counterproductive. This is exactly why the old WP:AMA was discarded. Do we really want a Wikipedia where ArbCom cases are litigated in this fashion? MastCell ^Talk 18:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Having already admitted my virginity at ArbCom (I signed a vow!), I am unfamiliar with the way they are run. Your questions, however, bring up some concerns. I am at a loss, despite my interest in creativity, in creating a proposal to end this impasse. I believe my anger and displeasure in interacting with and watching Mattisse helps do this. I would rather not deal with her at all than undertake what seems to me to be a lot of effort and energy to improve the behavior of an adult whose actions seem to be beyond what reasonable editors exhibit. I am not convinced that she understands the concerns of editors bringing these issues to ArbCom. Without evidence of her understanding of these issues I do not see how any win-win (she continues to participate in article assessment in any forum she chooses) situation can be reached. --Moni3 (talk) 18:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Disclosure: I am not in off-wiki contact with Mattisse, nor with anybody else commenting here. Jayen466 18:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Jayen, I've always had a positive impression of you, and I didn't have you in mind when I wrote that. If I'm substantially in error about Mattisse playing a guiding role in her "defense", then I'll retract that statement with apologies across the board, but as a general comment I do think this pattern is unhealthy. MastCell ^Talk 19:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Jayen466 19:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

As far as I am aware the only editor representing Mattisse's interests is John Carter and it seems she would like to withdraw the arrangement for his sake. In contrast to MastCell's characterization, I have been finding this RfArb very collegial, with many editors whom I have long admired struggling to find a way around the impasse mentioned by Moni3. I hope we will continue in that spirit. Geometry guy 19:18, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreeing with MastCell. Also with concerns about the long term divisiveness that could result from this approach. Traditionally within arbitration, editors either assume responsibility for their actions or they don't. It isn't tenable over the long term to plunge into disputes freely, while remaining insulated from the effects of one's participation. Either an individual stands up and takes ownership of the results of their actions (justifying the good and rectifying the bad) or else involuntary limitations get set upon them to reduce the problem. The overriding concern of arbitration is the smooth functioning of the website, not the feelings of one individual. Every time anyone hits the edit window we all have a statement before us that warns, "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it". We're all expected to be tough enough to hold up under challenging discussion. Some people thive in this environment; others are really better off operating their own website. Durova^Charge! 19:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with points raised by both MastCell and Durova, but I also agree with points made by G'guy. However, what I find most concerning is the comment G'guy pointed out, posted to User talk:Carcharoth seen here. She writes:

I don't kow how to address the arbitrators except through you. It is obvious that the FEC editors and affiliates will not let up. I feel it is hopeless. I don't want John Carter to have to deal with the ugliness, considering he is dealing with a death in his family. Therefore, I would like to withdraw all defense. If it is the judgement of the FEC editors and affiliates that I am unfit to edit at wikipedia, then I will not contest a ban. In most of the examples given, I have been right, but the editors would rather dump on me than take seriously my points. I will be better for me not to undergo this misery any more. Ir is affecting my well being in real life. So it will be in my best interests to ban me, if that is your decision. I would rather that than to be "supervised" on "parole" be those who have less knowledge than I do. My experiences is that these processes are misused. I am too tired to continue to go through this and would rather that it just end, whatever the outcome. Sincerely, —Mattisse (Talk) 9:21 pm, Yesterday (UTC−4)

I think it has been made abundantly clear by most everyone involved that Mattisse's contributions in these areas of content improvement are of value, but it is merely a behavioral issue that needs to be addressed. This continues the fallacy of cabalism wrt the editors whom she perceives to be against her, or out to get her. (As an aside, can someone please tell me what FEC stands for?) Additionally, no one, as far as I have read, has called for a ban from any of these areas, much less a site ban.

To me, these comments are a serious concern. Either she is not following the case, or she is not taking anything from the comments at all. She acknowledges no wrong-doing, only points out that she has been right in most of the given examples, continuing the assumption of bad faith that those commenting in the case are only doing so to "dump" on her despite her valued contributions. I find it quite troubling that she cannot see that the result that (I believe) most of us are going for is a way to attempt to have Mattisse continue to participate in these areas while somehow improving the tension that currently exists between her and other regular editors in these various areas. I'm sort of at a loss for what purpose this case now serves. لennavecia 20:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, her comment "[they] will not let up" indicates to me that perhaps she expected that a lack of participation from her in this case would leave detractors less inclined to participate themselves or something similar. I could be off base, and welcome alternative interpretations of this comment. لennavecia 20:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Guess: FEC is a typo for FAC? --Moni3 (talk) 20:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, considering a fair many participants are not FAC editors, that doesn't do much in the way of improving the light on the message. لennavecia 20:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

In the UK it stands for Full Economic Costing which is even more contentious and divisive than FAC, as if that were possible :-) Geometry guy 20:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

PS. More seriously, Mattisse has started posting her own evidence.

(ec x2) I've added a diff to that comment in my evidence. It's another example of a pattern I was trying to show - Mattisse's behavior is called into question, Mattisse asks for a ban (either site or topic) on herself (while refusing other types of sanctions). In previous cases, this has often derailed the conversation enough that the matter is simply dropped for the time being. Karanacs (talk) 20:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes Mattisse refers to FAC editors and those supported by them whoever they may be. And - GeometryGuy - I really disagree with you about FAC being divisive and contentious! Tough and argumentative yes.Fainites ^barleyscribs 20:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

It was a joke and I agree with your characterization. Geometry guy 20:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I know it was a joke GG!! Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

One of the things I have learned in the last 5 months interacting with Mattisse, is to take statements she makes like this with an extremely large pinch of salt. I don't believe that deep down she really wants to be banned. She loves contributing to Wikipedia. But I think she is aware herself that her dogmatic enthusiasm for the project sometimes takes her to places which bring her and other editors into conflict, causing unhappiness both for herself and them. Now that she is providing evidence, I believe that arbitrators have a really difficult challenge: to know when to listen to her evidence, and when to ignore it. I hope others who have interacted with Mattisse can provide some helpful insights. Geometry guy 20:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd be surprised if anybody ever thought she did mean it really. However, I don't think anyone has suggested it. I do wonder whether actually not taking part in reviews as she herself has proposed more than once would be the answer or part of the answer. Reviews do provide a peculiarly fertile ground for conflict and high feelings and wikidrama and do form the subject matter of many (though not all) the concerns.Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not her 'dogmatic enthusiasm for the project' that causes the problems. It's her readiness to presume the worst in ambiguous situations, coupled with a dogmatic refusal to pursue normal methods for resolving ambiguities. Durova^Charge! 23:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I've just become aware of this thread, and that Mattisse has begun posting evidence. What Mattisse has said on the evidence talk page is, in my view, reasonable (considering the reason John Carter has been unavailable), even if the second sentence is an unwarranted assumption, at least as far as ArbCom is concerned:

"I was told by an Arbitrator that it was fine if I had a spokesperson. However, I understand from the comments made against me that it is not all right, and that this is being held against me. I confess I stopped reading this Arbitration on Saturday, since I have not heard from my spokesperson since then. Therefore I will try to do my best."

However, part of the reason I suggested and endorsed the use of an advocate here was to avoid the arbitration case descending into a series of arguments between Mattisse and others. Since Mattisse has begun presenting evidence, there is not much that can be done now to return to the advocate model (unless John wants to resume that when he returns, if resuming that role is even possible in practice). I suggest that all disagreements about the use of an advocate cease, and that back-and-forth rebuttals and extensive talk page discussions be avoided unless absolutely necessary. Limited rebuttals in evidence can be helpful, but no rebuttals of rebuttals - please trust the arbitrators to sort through the evidence and see for themselves what has been going on. In other words, please concentrate on presenting evidence, not arguing about it. If anyone has complaints or concerns, please contact an arbitrator or clerk. The talk page message Mattisse left me is probably moot now, but for the record I notified my colleagues when I noticed that post, and I also received an e-mail from Mattisse on similar lines to the talk page post. I talked to Brad (who is drafting the proposed decision), and he said he would give his views at some point. My view is that it is important that Mattisse and all interested parties commit to staying the course in this arbitration (whether with an advocate or not), the aim being to resolve the dispute in a binding manner so people are clear where they stand and can move forward from that point. Carcharoth (talk) 00:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Case status

I am the arbitrator who has volunteered to draft a proposed decision in this case. I had originally intended to post a proposed decision today. In light of John Carter's request that he have a few more days to present evidence because of a death in the family, I have pushed back the schedule slightly. My current plan is to post a draft on the workshop Thursday or Friday and then to the proposed decision page a couple of days later.

I am sorry about the delay this will cause, as everyone wants this case to move as promptly as possible, but it would obviously not be right to move ahead without giving John the short additional time he has requested.

I would encourage Mattisse to present any evidence or proposals she may have in any manner that she wishes. I understand that she finds the format of an RfAr stressful, but that is actually true of most editors who participate in one. If she would prefer not to participate, that is of course up to her.

Please be assured that the Arbitration Committee will do its best to reach a fair and well-informed resolution of this case to the best of our ability, as soon as possible. Input from all editors will be taken into account based on the merits of the material presented.

Could the Clerk kindly post a link to this note anywhere else that may be appropriate, to make sure that the parties to the case all see it. Thank you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I anticipated that a case would be opened last week while I was out of town, but could never have imagined that upon my return today I would find that evidence and proposals were requested by no later than today. I'm glad to see ArbCom taking steps toward moving more quickly, but feeling a bit disenfranchised by such an unusually accelerated schedule. I would appreciate clarification on whether my input would be welcome at this (apparently late) stage. It would, of course, take me some time to prepare evidence, but I would endeavor to do so by Wednesday. Maralia (talk) 03:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Generally, shorter cases result in less drama, and so an accelerated case schedule is preferable. If you required additional time to compile and present evidence, however, then you need do nothing but request it; although I speak only for myself, I'd venture to say that the request would probably have fell on sympathetic ears. Respectfully, AGK 11:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to Brad for the status update. In the previous discussion wrt John's request, I think it was pretty much unanimous in support of a delay in proceeding. لennavecia 14:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

To Maralia: Please go ahead and present your evidence. Thank you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Moni3's proposal

Sorry, all. I don't want to muck up the templates on the Workshop page. I don't know where this should go.

My ideas for a possible solution:

For a year, Mattisse's comments on Wikipedia shall be under the stewardship of three other users whom she and the community trusts. They shall be identified by name before the final decision of the Arbitration Committee. At least one shall be an administrator. If any of the three leave, retire, or go on a prolonged wikibreak, or if the admin gets desysopped, the individual in question is replaced and agreed upon by Mattisse and the Arbitration Committee. Following the decision of the Arbitration Committee, Mattisse shall be unable to request steward substitutions.

• Major premise: Mattisse shall treat her fellow editors as BLP articles. No accusations that cannot be supported with evidence shall be posted. If they are, they shall be removed immediately and she may be blocked.

This trio shall have the task of:

• Refactoring Mattisse's comments to strike out personal insults, allegations, and unsupported accusations. Please refer to the following example taken from the GAR for Ali's Smile: Naked Scientology, chosen because it was the first one I came to.

:::*Well, you just took the trouble to make nasty remarks on AN/I about me, which I would say puts you in the "involved" camp. I think you still resent me for putting your article Attachment therapy up for GAR and it was delisted. All I said was that I would like some opinions from neutral parties who are familiar with the GA process. I have reviewed close to 200 articles for GA in the last few months, and I would be interested in hearing from some editors with similar experience. I suppose I should not have requested any preference. I am sorry I offended you. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

This comment was edited for strikeouts by User:ArbComX per [link to ArbCom decision]

• Discussing with Mattisse on her talk page why her comments were stricken, and what she should do when she finds herself upset at other editors. If necessary, they shall urge her to take a break for her own peace of mind.
• Participating in any FAR or GAR processes Mattisse initiates in varying degrees:
  1. Pre-approving and endorsing any FAR or GAR she initiates, not to support the article's delisting, but to acknowledge Mattisse's views that the article has problems that should be addressed and it is not an action taken against any particular editor.
  2. Commenting in the FAR or GAR processes to identify themselves as stewards of the discussion, where they will likewise buffer between the high tensions of other editors and Mattisse.
• Speaking with, first, and perhaps for, if necessary, Mattisse in her defense should matters escalate to ANI or further Arbitration Committee actions, and there is evidence that other editors are antagonizing Mattisse or she requires support.
• Developing a schedule of blocks dependent upon actions of varying offense. For example, if one of the stewards has already stricken her comments, they have been discussed on her talk page, yet she remains resolute and continues to accuse other editors of corruption, she shall be warned by any of the stewards. Following that she shall be blocked for a week by the steward(s) with administrative capabilities. If she continues after her return, the block shall be lengthened to two weeks. And so on.

• After Sam Blacketer's confession, I'm also proposing all three stewards submit to a CheckUser or some other process to ensure they are indeed three individuals who are unrelated to Mattisse or any other editors with whom she has had egregious conflicts in the past.

No doubt there are holes in my proposal that I cannot see. I intend for this to be a basis to build upon. If something should be altered, I hope we can discuss it here. --Moni3 (talk) 15:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

clarifying goals

• Having never really participated in an Arb case, I'm not sure where to write this. But I think (as I mentioned twice on the workshop page) that the arbs need to clarify here and now whether our goal is punishment or rehabilitation. I'm fairly sure they won't (no attack intended; just cynicism), but they definitely should. So.. the workshop is kinduva multi-headed hydra, and people are branching off in one way or another, based wholly on unstated goals. Setting goals would, among other things, enable the discussion to move in a clear direction. Ling.Nut (talk) 23:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

It needs some discussion certainly. Those two principles you mention are not mutually exclusive. Also there is a distinction between goals and methods. I suppose punishment is a method whereas rehabilitation is both a method and a goal. Then there is the distinction between goal for Wikipedia and goal for a particular editor - though ultimately those two merge.Fainites ^barleyscribs 08:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Has a song ever been used at ArbCom? Here is my first choice.

You've got to accentuate the positive

Eliminate the negative

Latch on to the affirmative

Don't mess with Mister In-Between

In other words encourage positive trends in Mattisse's contributions, discourage negative ones, and have no tolerance for the conflict that takes place at the boundary. Geometry guy 22:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

You've got to... acce...ntuate the positive

Eli...minate the negative

Latch on... to the affirmative

Don't mess with Mister In-Between

The best I can do in the absence of actual wikinotes. Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for being a rational voice Ling Nut. I too hope that the goals are clarified before jumping to judgement; my heart sank when I saw the proposed 60-day ban. For myself I'd always be prepared to put up with "the negative" from a contributor like Mattisse, whatever our personal relationship, but I also recognise that she does need help and support in dealing more delicate flowers. I think Moni's proposal above has some merit, and could maybe work? --Malleus Fatuorum 23:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• Ideally the goal should be to contain the problem with as little damage to the positives as possible. Durova^Charge! 03:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)