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

Typos and corrections needed

Per this edit, there is a typo (FAR) in the DYK section. Also, both this and the Monitoring page indicate that "Notifying YellowMonkey (or Art La Pella) was accepted by Arbcom as a monitoring method"; I have never seen any finding or indication or diff to back that up, and absent one, it should be removed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:48, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, a reminder that mentors should maintain the log here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:51, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions

Three issues as a result of me being the first guinea pig to use this page:

1. Can the pre-load be added directly to the section where alerts are posted? I missed it the first time through and had to re-do my submission.
2. Why is the Monitoring page gone, considering Motions 9 and 11? I suggest a return to the Monitoring page would have avoided the need for this alert.
3. Mattisse entered a diff to a discussion on Moni3's talk page that I had never seen before and was uninvolved in, and had nothing to do with this issue whatsoever. But as I recall, I'm not supposed to respond to responses on the alert page, to avoid escalating. So where would I enter that feedback?

Can the page be adjusted to reflect these issues? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

A fourth point. Silktork just entered a comment that needs my feedback. I'm not sure where I would add that? Can we get the page format corrrected? I'll wait, since this is the first use of this page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Or am I intended to add responses to my original alert? I'm unclear on this, so will wait for feedback from y'all before adding anything else. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

G guy, the redirect that led to my confusion is here, in Motion 9; the User:Mattisse/Monitoring there is a redirect to this Alerts page (needs fixin' :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I will fix that. Concerning your other comments...

1. It was an oversight to leave in the section "Issues reported to mentors" (and its edit link) in place. Thanks for removing it: I have replaced it instead with another link to start a new section.
2. For the record, I think we are agreed that WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Monitoring exists. I hope arbitrators and clerks will not object to the links we added to the Case.
3. It is inappropriate for Mattisse to edit alerts, and I have removed her comment. The point is indeed to avoid escalation.
4. The natural place to comment on alerts is here on the alert talk page. I have separated your reassurances and concerns into a separate section.

I frequently advise Mattisse not to post in haste as this can create unnecessary problems and work. I extend this advice to all, including myself and other advisors. Let us comment with consideration and aim for mutual understanding. Geometry guy 20:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, good; I'm glad this worked as a guinea pig incident for getting the kinks out. If any of us had known sooner that Mattisse was concerned about an FA drive and being excluded from that, while I was responding to Moni about developing a guideline, we might have avoided all of this. I hope we can view it as a guinea pig case for how the mentoring pages work, and move on, but I still think it would be helpful if any issues were moved to the Monitoring page in the future, instead of spreading across talk pages. Thanks for everything, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome.

It isn't clear to me that any issue of FA drive exclusion is at all relevant: while I have ongoing concerns about Mattisse's contributions today, which I will discuss with her and other advisors, post-reaction and cause can be quite different. I also have some thoughts on this alert and the monitoring page, which I may add in due course below. Geometry guy 20:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I suggest (but could be wrong) that the concern over a potential FA drive exclusion is what made Mattisse's reaction hard to understand for, at least, me. I had no idea where she was coming from, or why she diffed me on your talk page, when I was dealing with a guideline, not an article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments on Monitoring Alert

In the meantime, if it will help calm Mattisse, I was completely unaware of any potential FA drive, and my "congratulations" on Moni3's talk page were specifically about her return to editing (following some earlier comments and a semi-break she had taken) via a new niche of carving out a guideline for similar articles, and were unrelated to any potential FA drive. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Another reason I think it important to use the Monitoring page is that Mattisse has repeatedly asked, and repeatedly been supplied with, a link to the 36-hour ban, but still says she can't find it. Registering such info on a Monitoring page might be easier for all involved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I was concerned about the "lead editor" and ownership issues, as expressed in Moni3's response to your comment on her page congratulating her on the article, as she tried to clarify to you Sandy. I should make it clear that the article is not in the shape it is because of me. There are a score of editors who deserve barnstars for what they have done. You had said . Moni, I looked at the article, and was shocked that such a new article, with mainpage coverage, is in such beautiful shape. Congratulations Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 20:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

1. Your diffs are wrong. 2. You've altered a post well after several people have responded to it. More importantly and very troubling, 3. you have left off the key parts of my sentence following "Congratulations", which specifically show that I was congratulating Moni on her return to editing and work on a new niche for her (a guideline page). This could give the appearance that you are misrepresenting my post. [1] [2] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it misrepresents your post.[3] You say, Moni, I looked at the article, and was shocked that such a new article, with mainpage coverage, is in such beautiful shape. Congratulations ... I'm glad you're back in the saddle, carving out a new niche ... and she replies I'll consider your suggestions about hurricanes and floods, Sandy. I should make it clear that the article is not in the shape it is because of me. There are a score of editors who deserve barnstars for what they have done. Those are the diffs I have give above. —mattisse (Talk) 21:49, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Since we appeared to have been talking past each other (you seem to have been talking about/thinking about the article, while I was talking about Moni3's return to editing, taking a lead on that article after somewhat of a break, and taking the lead in starting a guideline for similar articles), I hope that you are reassured by Moni's response, where she clearly gives credit where credit is due. I now see that you may have been concerned that you were being excluded from any potential FA drive in spite of your contributions, but this was never the case, and if you had expressed that concern more clearly, we might have all gotten on the same page sooner. The first time I saw Ceranthor's diff was when you posted it here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I do not want to see a repeat of the discussion which I archived on my talk page. I hope a line can be drawn here. Thank you both. Geometry guy 20:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I want to make it clear that I was not concerned about an FA for myself, as I do not believe in article ownership and no longer participate in FA, FAC or copy edit articles for FA editors. I am concerned about the casual way article ownership or "lead editor" is accorded to privileged editors. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 20:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

That article was also my return to editing after a "break" as I have not edited seriously since before my arbitration. But in contrast, I was banned from the article because I deferred to the article leader on the talk page. The article leader concept is not allowed to be mentioned or alluded to. —mattisse (Talk) 21:33, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear, this is beginning to look all too familiar. There are no "privileged editors"; just take a look at my block log if you don't agree with me. Or your own. Neither are there "FA editors". There are just editors trying to do the best they can in an imperfect system. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

PS. Let me try and draw a distinction for you. Article ownership is a very different thing from article leadership. Every worthwile human endeavour needs leadership, and leadership does not imply a single all-powerful leader. Just a bunch of people who care. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

---

For information, I will share some of my views to help other editors understand them. For background related to this incident, there is a summary by SilkTork here. I do not believe that Mattisse has yet understood where the escalation really started and I intend to discuss that with her.

Here, I will comment only on the alert. In my view, it is up to mentors/advisors and Mattisse to make best use of the Monitoring page; so far (since Clarification) we have not used it. I think it may be a good idea to use the Monitoring page to record blocks and bans (even though this already takes place at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse#Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions) as more detail can be provided on the Monitoring page. However, the basic problem is a failure to read: the best place to alert an editor to an issue is their talk page and if an editor does not read carefully their own talk page, then there is not much more that can be done.

In addition to the Monitoring page, I consider Mattisse's talk page and mentor/advisor talk pages as appropriate places for mentors and Mattisse to discuss issues. Further, situations like this may require a rapid response, when there may only be one mentor/advisor online. Motion 7.1 places Mattisse under conduct probation and empowers each mentor/advisor to impose sanctions; sometimes any one of us may decide that this needs to be done swiftly.

It remains to discuss diffs to other pages: whether they are made on Mattisse's talk page, mentors' talk pages or the Monitoring page, they only involve other editors if such editors decide to involve themselves. For example, I have much less tolerance for escalation on my own talk page than on a community page, because I have complete editorial oversight there. I was disappointed to find the thread I archived there. That Mattisse initiated this thread indicates that her thinking was still wrong-headed. That the thread continued thereafter was regrettable. Geometry guy 21:49, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, apparently there is no appropriate place where I can discuss my concerns and obtain clarification. As far as reading my talk page, I do have a problem with eyesight and the way a comment is formated is very important. Your ban announcement was not formated in a way I can easily find and read. Even when hunting for it I have trouble. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 21:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

And that summarizes why I'd like to see more use of the Monitoring page. That Mattisse used Geometry guy's talk page, to accuse me of encouraging or furthering ownership (a bad faith assumption, as well as an ongoing misread of what I wrote), and no other mentors appeared to be around to contain the issue (which is still going on), is my concern. These bad faith assumptions were supposed to stop; they're still going on, and I don't like to see my name smeared across popular talk pages. It belongs on the Monitoring page, where you all can deal with it without it being spread and escalating. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you are making too much out of this. I am not accusing you of bad faith. The incident did not really involve you. I think this is what the arbitrators were talking about e.g. The general negative terms in which Mattisse and her mentors are regularly characterized in hyperbolic language is 'baiting' in my eyes. It is sure to frustrate, and get a rise out of, Mattisse and in the arb clarification. It seems you are seeking to escalate this situation which really involves an error of judgment on my part on an article talk page and the reaction of my mentors. It has nothing to do with you, SandyGeorgia. You added yourself for some reason. There is no "smearing" of your name. Please do not assume bad faith. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 22:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

When you say "ownership is being assumed" and diff me as an example of destructive behavior pointed out by ArbCom in a misread of anything I've written on Moni's page, you are involving me.[4] That is why I want the mentors to begin to use the Monitoring page; you have been able to do this with no mentors around to contain it, and G guy once again having to carry all the work of addressing this. I follow G guy's talk for FA and GA issues, not so I can see my name trod upon. I opened this alert because most of the other mentors were uninvolved or unavailable as this issue spread to four pages and six threads. That should stop; that's why we have a Monitoring page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

This was a conversation between me and Geometry guy about what we loosely called "ownership". It did not concern you, SandyGeorgia. You have inserted yourself into our conversation and taken remarks personally. We were not talking about you; you were not on our minds. We were talking in general about Wikipedia practices. The terminology we were using was employed to convey concepts to one another, not to accuse anyone of anything. You are way over personalizing something that has nothing to do with you. I believe this is another case of characterizing me in negative terms, and taking one incident and talking about it in hyperbolic language. Such characterizations serve no good. As far as the diffs, they speak for themselves. They would not be an issue if you had not made them so. This had to do with my talk page comment on 2010 Haiti earthquake and only that originally and only that. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 22:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

When you diff someone's post as an example of "destructive behavior", you involve them. Perhaps you'd like to retract now that it has been made clear that my "congratulations" to Moni were for her return to editing and initiating a guideline page, and also retract the ownership claim. Amazingly, you continue to stand behind your charges against me, in spite of how many times I've clarified to you exactly what I wrote. And where are all the mentors as this goes on? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I deeply regret making a comment that you have interpreted personally. You were furthest from my mind when I used the diff. I was concerned about the article 2010 Haiti earthquake and you happened to make a comment that encapsulated what I wanted to say to Geometry guy. As I say, the comment stands on its own, and can be interpreted however persons may wish. I apologize to you that you interpret it so negatively. I urge you not to personalize so. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 22:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, you have the art of the non-apology apology and non-retraction down :)[5] Nice! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

When you make accusations Mattisse you either have to stand behind them, fight your corner and take the consequences, or withdraw them and apologise. Running and hiding behind big brother is what kids do. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

---

Mattisse, could you please comment on this edit summary? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:28, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

(allow me) ass -> add. It's just a typo as the "s" is next to the "d" on a QWERTY keyboard; quite a good one, but no need to imagine an insult there. Yomangani^talk 23:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! I urge again that good faith be assumed and that all parties avoid personalizing this. Thank you for your good sense. You assessed the situation correctly. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 23:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Please stop

Nothing good is coming out of this. There are no explanations, apologies or excuses needed - just silence. The more comments that people make here, the more hurt there is, the more time consumed, and the greater potential for disruption. If anyone feels there is anything important for public record that they are aware has not yet been covered, please email me and I'll discuss with them if it is helpful to be placed here. Otherwise, I think the most appropriate thing is for people to stop posting about this incident for at least 24 hours. SilkTork *^YES! 23:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)