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

Archives

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4

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)[reply]

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

Suggestions related to Alerts page

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

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.
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.
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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.
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.
It is inappropriate for Mattisse to edit alerts, and I have removed her comment. The point is indeed to avoid escalation.
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I do not know what a "potential FA drive exclusion" means. That phrase is unfamiliar to me. However, I do not involve myself in anything that has to do with copy editing or contributing to articles that are seeking FA status as a matter of policy. Perhaps that is what you mean. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 17:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on Monitoring Alert

Alert resolved. Please do not edit this discussion. Geometry guy 18:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Actually, please start. What is needed here is a discussion of the Alert lodged; whether the Monitoring page is being utilized to best benefit, and how escalation of these issues across talk pages can be prevented. Particularly, are all the mentors still on board? G guy has had to handle this almost alone, with the exception of a few posts from SilkTork. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is needed here is up to mentors/advisors to decide. Your comments will be taken into consideration, thank you. Geometry guy 23:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see the Monitoring page is in use, so my concerns are resolved. I hope the Monitoring page will be used more, to avoid escalation across multiple talk pages. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Close?

I am satisfied with G guy's writeup and the resolution of this Alert, whenever y'all want to archive. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Music of Minnesota

Mattisse, read the source carefully. Even I could tell that the two incorrectly tagged refs were correct :) Also, please try not to make general statements about source quality (better to stick to specific examples of poor sourcing without editorial comment). --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 20:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I am sorry for the mistakes. I am glad the bad source was removed. I will take your advice and be more careful. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 21:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Do you mean "one correctly and two incorrectly" above? One was correctly tagged. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 21:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I raised the alert because SusanLesch has put hundreds of edits into trying to salvage the article, and she seems very stressed, as obvious by her comments on the FAR. She has been hit three times since she started working on the FAR by a dynamic IP damaging the article, and she seems to be growing very frustrated, so the timing of the incorrect tagging was unfortunate. I'm glad this incident seems contained, it can probably be archived whenever y'all want, but because SusanLesch seems pretty frustrated independently of the tagging, you might want to keep a close eye on things, so there's no escalation. Thanks, all ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to all for working together so well. I'd like to add two small comments.

The current consensus advice seems a bit strong to me: it can be reasonable to raise general concerns based on indicative examples, but Mattisse should do this with sensitivity to the good faith contributions of article editors.
Learning to use {{talkback}} may be useful for Mattisse, as it may sometimes be better to direct attention to her comments in context, rather than quote them out of context.

These are just suggestions. Geometry guy 00:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many people are irritated by the {{talkback}} and are vocal about it. I would hesitate to use it for that reason. I believe there is even a user box against them. I know some people state they are against them on their user pages. Also, the templates don't work well unless one instantly accesses it. I have often gotten one, only to go to the user page and be faced with lengthy confusing text, none if it pertaining to me. Perhaps some users think that the template is an actual answer in itself and don't understand they are to leave something on their talk page. Anyway, I agree with the people that are vocal about disliking them. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 00:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that concern. An alternative is a direct wikilink like this. This is also just a suggesion. Geometry guy 00:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<Comments moved to monitoring page> Geometry guy 01:31, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GeometryGuy, re your suggestions on 'conclusions'. Please go ahead and modify them. In this case, we may not even need a conclusion other than "Mattisse apologized" but I leave that to your discretion. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 13:45, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The plan

Re the alert raised by moni3. There are three separate questions here:

Has the plan been violated? Looking at what Mattisse posted, it does appear that a warning should precede a block and that two or more advisors should consult before taking action. If that is indeed the case, then we mentors have not been acting as per the plan for a while. And, Mattisse's block should be lifted immediately.
Mattisse wants to dissolve the mentorship. That is entirely her prerogative and there is no need to consult with arb about this. The plan is at her behest and if she wants to dissolve it, it should be immediately dissolved.
Comments about other editors. I would cut her some slack here (of course, that's only what I would do). Never a good idea to kick a person when they are down. (My opinion entirely.) --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 23:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On point 2: What is the alternative? What takes the place of the mentoring plan? This is why clarification is needed. --Moni3 (talk) 23:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant was that that is not the concern of the mentors/advisors. The way I see it, our role ends if Mattisse dissolves the plan. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 23:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(I have removed it.) If there is still a problem in 24 hours, please advise. Geometry guy 23:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am more than ready to discuss if the Plan is working or if it should now be dissolved. However, that discussion should involve Mattisse and a member of ArbCom as the Plan is under jurisdiction of ArbCom and there are implications for both Mattisse and ArbCom in dissolving the Plan. As Mattisse is currently under stress and possibly not able to visualise the implications of what might happen if the Plan is dissolved, such discussion should wait until she shows signs of being more reasonable. Bear in mind that without the Plan Mattisse will very likely be banned. SilkTork *^YES! 09:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the issue is less whether the plan is working and more whether we, the mentors, are implementing it as per the arb case. If we, the mentors, are supposed to act after consultation and block only after warning Mattisse, we haven't been doing that. It is a simple enough question that does not need reference back to arbitrators or to Mattisse. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 15:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mattisse has been warned. Several times. I suppose we could put a sticky notice on her talk page which says: "If I am uncivil to another user I will be blocked," just so that she doesn't forget it. We could include the previous warnings she has had and the ArbCom statements about sanctions for her behaviour. But I think that would be demeaning. I think we would expect by now that she would cease from inappropriate behaviour, and would consult with us when she feels threatened or under stress. But none of this happens. Instead she misbehaves, and then expects nothing more than a "whoops, don't do it again." Indeed, if she gets a stronger sanction she pleads abuse of all sorts, unfair treatment, and picks at previous statements in a wikilawyering way to escape responsibility for her poor behaviour. She attempts to avoid responsibility by claiming a three month time limit on warnings, sanctions and advice. As far as I am aware I have not stepped down from my declared position of blocking her if I become aware that she is making uncivil and inappropriate comments about and to other editors. And as far as I am aware the ArbCom findings are still in force, such as : Users who have been sanctioned or legitimately criticized for improper conduct are expected to avoid repeating that behavior in their continued participation in the project. Similarly, a user who has promised to discontinue a certain type of problematic behavior on-wiki must make every effort to avoid returning to that pattern of behavior. Failure or inability to do so may necessitate imposing further restrictions or sanctions, or in the most serious cases, loss of the privilege of participating in the project. and The most recent blocks and unblocks of Mattisse, carried out by one or more of her mentors and advisors, are noted and endorsed. Mattisse's attention is drawn to items 2 and 3 of the report submitted by her mentors/advisors: "Mattisse to not post in anger or frustration anywhere on Wikipedia without having first consulted her mentors/advisors." and "Mattisse to not make any remark about another editor on Wikipedia that could be seen as negative without first consulting her mentors/advisors." Mattisse's mentors and advisors are asked to keep a log of such blocks and to return here if such conduct continues without signs of change.

I feel I have been upholding my side of the commitment. My intention has been both to protect Mattisse from having to return to ArbCom and face being banned, and to protect Wikipedia and the other editors here.

I think what we are acknowledging, however, is not that we shouldn't be employing approved and agreed sanctions to attempt to modify Mattisse's behaviour, but these sanctions are not working. If Mattisse reflects on what has happened and makes a statement apologising for her inappropriate remarks on Malleus's talkpage, then there may be some hope left for the PLan. But if she does not do that, then when this current 24 hour block is up, we can talk about dissolving the Plan and the case going back to ArbCom. SilkTork *^YES! 16:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify my last point. I think we should talk about the Plan regardless of what Mattisse does. My position would be that there would be room for discussion about keeping the Plan going if Mattisse showed signs of responding to sanctions. As time goes by we could look at lessening the sanctions. But if Mattisse shows no sign of responding to sanctions then I would fully support dissolving the Plan. SilkTork *^YES! 16:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, IMO, the plan is not working. It is far too easy to point Mattisse back to her advisors if an editor does not like what she is saying. Hardly the sort of thing that good discourse is made of and, clearly, the entire onus of assumption of good faith falls on Mattisse. All this is probably moot anyway since I notice that Mattisse is gone, for the time being anyway. BTW, I don't agree with your block extension. It was both unnecessary as well as provocative. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 16:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mattisse/Plan#Coping_techiques and User:Mattisse/Plan#Consequences_for_failure_to_adhere_to_plan say blocks should be imposed after warnings. User:Mattisse/Plan#Consequences_for_failure_to_adhere_to_plan also added "These measures will be applied by my mentors/advisers in consultation with each other. (Two or more mentors/advisers can decide.)". So it's clear that most of the blocks imposed by advisors have not complied with the letter of the plan.

However, so last Mattisse has not objected on this grounds. I would think that Mattisse has the current discussion on her watchlist. If there is any doubt on this, or a current block may prevent her from response here, we should request that she response at her Talk page.

If Mattisse has not objected, I suggest that only ArbCom have a right to object - and I suggest ArbCom will not intervene if incidents are being dealing promptly, fairly and following the principles spelt out in the initial ruling and the Clarification. I see no reason why anyone else should or can objective to a procedure that is slightly more stringent that described in the current of the Plan.

The phrase "Mattisse wants to dissolve the mentorship" is unclear, e.g. does it mean "replace some / all of the advisors" or "scrap / significantly change the Plan".

If "replace some / all of the advisors", IIRC Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Proposed_decision#Users_willing_to_act_as_advisers shows that ArbCom would have the the right and interest to been involved, but IIRC would have to decide that the situation would then propose rules.
If "scrap / significantly change the Plan", IIRC ArbCom required Mattisse to design and following the Plan, and I would thought that ArbCom would approve /disapprove any significant change, etc. I not expect that ArbCom would approve scrap the Plan until its objectives are met, i.e. until Mattisse's conduct is fairly typical. If Mattisse unilaterally scrap / significantly change the Plan, the mostly consequence would be that ArbCom bans Mathelping tisse from all activity WP for a very long time, or possibly undefinitely.

In other words, the advisors should forget all the "ifs" and "but" and focus on helping Mattisse to improve her conduct. --Philcha (talk) 17:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That last statement makes sense to me. Thank you, Philcha. I'm going to make a start by unblocking Mattisse (hope that's ok with you SilkTork) since the plan does call for consultation with advisors - even if we ignore the warnings part. Unfortunately, and I speak only for myself, I think I've failed as an advisor and mentor wrt the objective of channeling Mattisse's behavior by simultaneously taking on a larger and smaller role than I should have. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 17:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec - not my page!) ::Mattisse loose a volley of unpleasant comments on 11 Feb and IMO that was an emergency. I support SilkTork's 1st block in order to limit the damage. Then we collectively spent too much attention on the "legal" issue and far too little on getting Mattisse to remedy the damage. As Mattisse was unwilling remedy the damage, I think SilkTork had impose the 2nd block.

The comments were posted by Mattisse at other editor's Talk page, and Mattisse was in the wrong from the start. Some 3rd parties then posted at the same Talk (not Mattisse's) some hostile. If such comments appears on any of Mattisse's pages (Talk, any of the Plan or Monitoring pages), I'd tell to back out and we'd deal with it. But in this case Mattisse was in the wrong and we have not have a case to fight.

Like SilkTork, I'm concern about real improvement in Mattisse's conduct. In the short time we'll have to fight fires, but ArbCom won't let that continue for ever - if we were willing. We need to make Mattisse realise that she needs to the real work, and most of that willing be in her mind. --Philcha (talk) 17:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the problem is that we come in only when things go out of control, we are forced into a punitive role rather than an advisory role (which is not something I signed up for). For example, at this point, it would have made sense for Mattisse to step back and ask an advisor to evaluate the situation. One or more of the advisors could have weighed in and perhaps the situation wouldn't have resulted in Mattisse posting on Malleus' page (I honestly don't understand that at all). To the extent that Mattisse does not herself initiate a consultation with advisors, the plan is not working. And, IMO, that is the only way that this advisory relationship can work. Anyway, let's see what Mattisse does. She has been unblocked and the proverbial ball is now in her court. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 18:23, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While I do not agree with, I do not condone RegentsPark for undoing the block - blocking is a controversial and unpleasant tool, and I also recognise that it must have taken some thought by RegentsPark to reverse my action, but it does signify the difficulties we face when we cannot agree among ourselves. I think we have reached the end of the Plan. I feel we have shown that neither by discussion, nor by negotiation, nor example, nor by use of sanctions have we been able to modify Mattisse's behaviour. And Mattisse herself has lost confidence in the Plan.

I feel we need a formal discussion to agree on dissolving the Plan, and we must inform ArbCom what is happening. Mattisse should be part of this discussion, however I think we should give her some time to collect her thoughts. I suggest we start the discussion on Monday 15th Feb and notify the other mentors/advisors what is happening. SilkTork *^YES! 18:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think we've reached a crossroad here with Mattisse and the plan, and I see the unblock as a good faith gesture to Mattisse more than anything else. It's up to her to do what she wants to do (go back to arb, stick with the plan the way it is being run, or not return to wikipedia) but I do think that the choice should be hers. I'm dismal about the prospects of the plan but am willing to stay the course if that's what she wants. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 18:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have commented on the Monitoring talk page. Geometry guy 20:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dissolve the Plan

My advisors, while well meaning, have not been following the plan. They have been blocking me after a very stale warning for edits the context of which they appear not to have taken into account, and without even bothering to consult with each other. Their existence gives editors who disagree with me a club to hold over my head. I have, in good faith, followed the plan for months, but it is time for it to end. I disavow it, and dismiss them, with my thanks for their well meaning efforts. If anyone cares to ask ArbCom for action, they are free to, but in the meantime I intend to edit as usual.

Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 20:13, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mattisse, I have commented on the monitoring talk page. Warnings do not go stale and advisors are not required to consult. I suggest you consider very seriously whether you really want to abandon your plan.
Irrespective of whether ArbCom is asked to take action, you are still under conduct probation for one year unless ArbCom decides otherwise.
Regards. Geometry guy 20:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion post indef block of Mattisse

Disclaimer: this thread does not strictly concern an alert and any discussion here may be moved elsewhere if a more appropriate forum is found.

Comments on the way forward are welcome here. They will be viewed by advisors and arbitrators who are watchlisting this page. Geometry guy 21:52, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The mentorship experiment (in my opinion) is over. My suggestion is that the case go back to the community to decide whether Mattisse should be allowed to continue to edit on wikipedia. --RegentsPark (talk) 22:08, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments moved from mentoring page:

These were not "alternate accounts." User set up not just one, but three accounts editing on Venezuelan topics: Mr. Unsigned Not worth it (talk · contribs) ChrisCopo (talk · contribs) and Charles Rodriguez (talk · contribs). User apparently did this to avoid scrutiny that is on the primary account and avoid prohibitions on attacking other users. For example:

hello, I thought anyone could edit but it is not true? This belongs to SandyGeorgia? Charles Rodriguez (talk) 18:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See also. There is no justification for three (known) accounts in this area, and user has conducted herself in a grossly deceptive manner. Given the history of socking, this was entirely unacceptable. Note also, that one of the recently blocked accounts first edited in October 19, 2009. Given the age of this account, there are very probably sleepers beyond the reach of checkuser. Cool Hand Luke 16:52, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This Charles Rodriguez section heading may have been missed by observers, since I changed it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored an accidentally deleted section[6][7] and commented in support of the block and the way it was handled. In due course, arbitrators will need to decide what this means in terms of sanctions, but with an indef block in place there is no rush. Geometry guy 20:56, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to open old wounds, but why wasn't anything done in late 2006 when all of this came to light?[8] Viriditas (talk) 20:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was an arbitration case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Starwood a very ugly case, I'd very much like to avoid a repetion of that. --Salix (talk): 20:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, but all the warning signs were there and the problem continued - for years. Just want to make sure it doesn't happen again. Viriditas (talk) 20:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]