Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment

Arbitration Committee proceedings

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Case requests

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
Persistent WP:IDONTLIKEIT behavior in WP:NCROY discussions		10 May 2024	0/4/0

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Venezuelan politics	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	20 Apr 2024	04 May 2024

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Conflict of interest management	13 Apr 2024
Mzajac	7 May 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Request for clarification AND amendment: Alastair Haines|Request for clarification AND amendment: Alastair Haines]]	none	none	6 December 2009
[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Request for clarification: Lyndon LaRouche, Lyndon LaRouche 2, and C68-FM-SV|Request for clarification: Lyndon LaRouche, Lyndon LaRouche 2, and C68-FM-SV]]	none	none	6 December 2009
[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria|Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria]]	none	none	30 November 2009
[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse|Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse]]	Motion	none	14 October 2009

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for clarification

Request for clarification AND amendment: Alastair Haines

Initiated by Ncmvocalist (talk) at 09:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

List of any users involved or directly affected:

• Ncmvocalist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Alastair Haines (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Tznkai (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Skomorokh (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Kaldari (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

(all users have been notified)

Statement by Ncmvocalist

Background

A recent AE request was filed by Kaldari based on a ban that was imposed by Sandstein in June 2009 (on Alastair Haines), and which was supposed to last until June 2010. The ban on Alastair Haines was imposed in response to a separate AE request (that was filed by Kaldari in June). In June, Sandstein had invoked remedy 1 of the case which read "Should Alastair make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be disruptive, he may be banned from any affected page or set of pages. The ban will take effect once a notice has been posted on his talk page by the administrator. Should he violate this ban, he may be blocked for...up to a month in the event of repeated violations. All blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alastair Haines#Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions." Remedy 1 expired in September 2009. Tznkai held off enforcement due to uncertainty over whether sanctions imposed under standard ArbCom probation (or discretionary sanctions) were intended to outlive the the case remedies. Sandstein has since accepted that he regrettably did not take this expiry date into account when he specified 1 year in his ban, and Skomorokh has declined the AE request accordingly. The case log, which still specifies the ban, has not been amended. It is clear that our AE admins are clearly surrounded by an unfortunate dilemma, and uncertainty.

Request for clarification

Here's a scenario. The community imposes a standard probation for a period of time on a user or area. The user was page-banned for 3 months, 2 days before the probation was set to expire. Would it not be incredibly foolish to refuse to recognise the child sanction (page ban) 1 month down the track, because the mother sanction (probation) passed away 2 days after giving birth to the child sanction? Can ArbCom clarify what the problem is - are we not drafting things properly, or do inadequate guidelines (if any) exist regarding AE? Personally, I'm inclined to think it's the latter. This formal request for clarification was opened to assist future AE.

Request for amendment

In the meantime, I am concerned by the AE that led to this clarification. In addition to the probation, Alastair Haines was also "required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page" in the case. This was the revert that unambiguously violated the page ban, and was obviously problematic. No accompanying discussion of the content reversion exists. At the AE request, Alastair Haines also asserted "I am very happy for this matter to come up, because it demonstrates how defamatory the ArbCom publication last year actually was. If discussion shows people think less of me because of that ArbCom publication, then it proves defamation has occurred." There are other problematic assertions he made there. I believe the relevant now-expired case remedies intended to address certain problems, and need to be re-enacted "indefinitely" rather than "for one year". Rather than subjecting the community to a number of issues, like wikilawyering, potential courtesy blanking issues, other issues the ArbCom case has already encountered, etc. etc., I am requesting ArbCom to nip it in the bud (perhaps using a motion). Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

• This case was primarily opened because Alastair Haines was relying on technicalities to justify inappropriate actions - based on the above, what has changed? He's now expecting me to declare myself (and has tried to make me out below) as 'involved' - but on the basis of what? A comment I made in November 2008 that was clearly marked as uninvolved? On a separate note, while users who file a request provide an appropriate (and civil) notification to the user mentioned because they are required to, would ArbCom class this as an appropriate way to respond to such a notification? Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:26, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

• Alastair Haines, please cease in your repeated attempts to misrepresent my position. I am neither involved, nor am I disappointed by any of the outcomes ArbCom has delivered on this case so far - quite the contrary. I'm mystified that you really don't seem to be getting it: making foolish accusations only undermines the notion that your conduct has improved to a sufficient level that further or continued sanctions are unnecessary. For the record, I am a Hindu contributor, and have no objections to a review of my actions. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

• Carcharoth/NYB/bainer: Kaldari's comment appears to suggest that there are ongoing problems. We know and seem to agree that admins at AE (Sandstein in this case) should have the discretion to reset the sanctions. We can also agree that there was an inability of some sort (be it perceived or actual), despite what appears as a clear willingness to do so at the time. So should ArbCom remedy the inability by resetting the sanctions so they expire in June 2010? Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Sandstein

It is good practice to provide all relevant links in any post to any forum. The relevant remedy is here (direct link because Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alastair Haines is, strangely, blanked); the AE threads are here (1 year topic ban imposed, June 2009) and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Alastair Haines (enforcement of topic ban declined, December 2009). I have no opinion beyond what is stated in the latter thread.  Sandstein  10:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Kaldari

Alastair Haines has managed to be continually disruptive on Wikipedia for over a year now while evading or ignoring any effective remedies against him (apart from about 10 brief blocks). Each time, he has pleaded innocence and received undeserved allowances. I've tried numerous times to get relief through the proper channels, and each time, it ends up being nothing more than a brief respite, or in this last case, a complete waste of time. I would have filed a separate Rfa in the beginning, but I was encouraged to request relief through the existing Rfa (which was still in force at the time). If I attempted to create a new Rfa at this point, it would probably be rejected to due to the age of most of the evidence. Am I really left with no alternative than to start the process completely from scratch and act as if there is a clean slate? Such a scenario would be quite unfortunate, and IMO a reward for bad behavior. I am requesting the ArbCom review the actions of Alastair since the enactment of the original decision and if appropriate enact further sanctions via ArbCom motion rather than a completely new Rfa. Kaldari (talk) 16:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments moved from arb's section

• • (Not sure if I'm allowed to comment here, but...) I think what we need (and what you are implying here) is some concept of probation, i.e. if an editor consistently fails to abide by the terms of their arbcom decision while it is in force, discretionary sanctions can be extended as appropriate without having to completely restart the process. Any uninvolved admin should be able to act as a "probation officer" through Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. Otherwise we are creating a legal loophole, where editors who are under Arbcom restrictions have no incentive to abide by those decisions when the expiration dates are approaching, as any additional penalties will be null and void at the end of the deadline. And to answer your question, I would be happy with the existing topic ban if it can, in fact, be enforced until June 2010, otherwise I'll have to file a new Rfa. Kaldari (talk) 03:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Strike that, Alastair needs to be indefinitely banned from patriarchy and gender-related articles. See his recent edits here (unilaterally rewriting the lead of patriarchy and adding massive amounts of POV material without any discussion), here (unilaterally restoring an article merged through AfD with no discussion), and here (unilaterally rewriting the lead of gender, removing information, and rearranging the article to support his POV). He is causing substantial disruption to these articles which he has been doing consistently since he joined Wikipedia. He is now also personally attacking me on other user's talk pages. Kaldari (talk) 15:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
    • And just to top off the cake, he's now making thinly veiled legal threats (which he's been blocked for before).[1][2] Kaldari (talk) 15:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Another example (from last week) of Alastair recreating an article deleted through AfD[3] and then attacking the admin who deleted it[4] ("a fragile ego", lacks the "confidence to be able to apologize", "obstructive and divisive"). Kaldari (talk) 17:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Alastair Haines

So far I am impressed by the conduct of all parties.

Firstly, I am impressed by the original ArbCom that did a very good best in a situation fraught with strongly expressed emotions and generally more heat than light.

I am even more impressed by the amendment that provided me with relief from one of the original baiters.

Finally, I was impressed by the "strange blanking" that was so courteous.

Sandstein was right to act as he did on the basis of what he could see. He acted quickly at the time, but so did I, I was getting married the following week.

Kaldari is certainly not wrong here, either, on the basis of what he can see.

If nothing is done here, Kaldari and I are going to have some rather difficult talking to do together and who knows how that will go. But isn't that the normal hard work of Wiki?

NCM, you seem to have lasting suspicions regarding my editing.

Perhaps you can see things I cannot see. Please come to my talk page, as you have in the past, and talk with me about them one-to-one. You are actually an involved party by virtue of some previous events. Email me if this issue is really worth your time.

Sandstein and Tznkai have been particularly gracious here.

But I am very willing to answer to anyone who has doubts about my responsible editing.

Is this the most helpful forum, though? Alastair Haines (talk) 10:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

PS I've just read Sandstein's comments, and I'm confirmed in my opinion that there is no longer any issue here. I expect and welcome some rigorous content debate at Gender of God, Patriarchy and other places, when I get back to them, who knows when? But those articles have never have been my priority at Wiki and nor has discussion there reached fever-pitch much at all.

In the interests of ongoing harmony, I'm willing for my comments re Kaldari to be buried where no one need read them. Alastair Haines (talk) 11:24, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I think Tznkai is wise to point out that AE is not a forum for expanding or reducing the original ArbCom.

Review of original AC

If AC, nonetheless, thinks it good to review the past, I have this to say.

NCM participated in discussion related to that AC, and is no doubt disappointed that it upheld my complaints about two adminstrators and multiple baiters. I, on the other hand, am obviously disappointed that it also found faults with me that I (and others) continue to think are unsustainable. AC awarded me with restrictions; the community awarded me with two barnstars! ("Defender of the Wiki" and "Civility") Hindu and Jain contributors insisted I not be restricted from religion articles. Is that a sign of a difficult editor? Or rather a sign of a neutral team-player?

Actually, I would love the whole case to be reviewed, because current discussion shows that it's high time I was exonerated completely, and that others got their trouting. But I'm not vain enough to think I'm that important, and not vindictive enough to want to see anyone trouted.

So, I'm certainly willing for us to review that ArbCom; but, if we do, the first points of business should be addressing the behaviour of administrators and baiters who were not explicitly considered at that time, contra Brad's criterion for taking on the case in the first place ("behaviour of all to be considered"). Observe the embarassing oversight regarding mediators and Abtract, and those were not the only obvious oversights, as several 3rd party posters evidence. Indeed, my own actions should be reconsidered also; and, as I have said, exoneration should be one of the possible outcomes. NCM also is actually one of the minor involved parties whose actions need to be explicitly reviewed if we conduct such a review.

However, because there are no outstanding restrictions on my account, I'm happy to let the whole thing slide. Internet communication is imperfect and I'm happy to write things off to that.

Addressing the current content issue

If the past is not reviewed, what about the future?

It is currently proposed that a topic ban be placed on my account. I don't wish to forestall further discussion of that option; but if it is enacted, I will almost certainly oppose it, in a wide range of forums until all past, as well as present, issues are resolved as thoroughly as possible. I have been adopting the low-profile response to very rude treatment for some time. Eventually one must indicate one is not a doormat.

Continued harassment of my account on the basis of presumed past indiscretions on my part is something of a concern to me. Especially when, in the current case, Kaldari is deliberately edit warring over reliably sourced material that many, many third parties have expressed a desire to see in article space. He is a late-comer to the content discussion and has appealed to process rather than sources to suppress information which he knows is recognised by the community as important, as well as by tons of reliable secondary material too.

But what's the real issue here? A brute fact like the universality of patriarchy is as unpopular with everyone as it is accepted by the more than 30,000 reliable sources (possibly most of them feminist, granted) regarding it, that were presented in a deletion discussion. It is simply unfair to pour scorn on a Wikipedian brave enough to cop the understandable flak for posting such an unpopular fact.

If any further discussion regarding my suitability to edit in that subject area is considered necessary, that's fine, but it needs to explicitly deal with the content issue at least indirectly. What impact does restricting Alastair lead to? It leads to erosion of reliably sourced material. How much drama is there when he operates without restrictions? Well, actually, there is little or no evidence of much drama at all. All blocks on Alastair's account bar one have been appeals to the AC restrictions, all bypassed content issues, and the grounds for the first have been overturned by subsequent events. Indeed, the blocks, on investigation will prove to be groundless, and they compromised reliable sources Alastair had been defending. Most on topics unrelated to patriarchy. (The Oxford Dictionary and Bible at other articles were two classic examples.)

In fact, the patriarchy article currently admits the universality of patriarchy, but attributes the discovery of that fact to feminism. That, of course, placates some readers, but does not reflect the history of the literature. Anthropology establishes the universality of patriarchy. The most prominent secondary source that synthesizes the anthropology, and the one attributed with doing so by the other secondary and tertiary literature is, very (in-)famously indeed, Steven Goldberg.

All this is covered in talk page and deletion discussions and is well known in the community now. However, it doesn't stop Kaldari from edit warring about it, challenging consensus and bypassing discussion, creating drama by bringing things here.

If we are to consider the future, what is good for content and harmony, Kaldari needs to be co-defendant. No priveleges for administrators. No priveleges for content area experts like myself either.

But why discuss it here? There are other forums specifically designed for it. AC has other pressing business. Kaldari saw a chance offered by AC restriction placed on me and he took it. Wouldn't you if you shared his personal convictions? But now those restrictions are past, there is a level playing field. Frankly, I think there will be less drama now, because people like Kaldari will not be able to bypass consensus building by wikilaywering, threatening (and acting) to attack me, rather than interact with my content-related actions and talk page comments.

Much of this is in answer to Tznkai's questions. My priorities are listed on my user page. The biology of gender is indeed one of my priorities, partly because documenting reliably sourced material stops people endlessly squabbling with one another rather than finding sources that are abundant, even online. (Singular they had editors going bouts with each other until I provided the linguistics they needed to settle the dispute.) I claim that "knowledge ends prejudice". Facts often show that opposing parties are both right and both wrong, since they've been overlooking reliable empirical evidence. Give people the facts and they stop fighting. Patriarchy is universal. So put the beast to death! But how do we know it is universal? By the hard work of women and men who did field studies in 3,000 societies in the early 20th century. Feminism is a superb and reliable source for exposing patriarchy in contemporary society. But can you find this information at Wiki? Only if you go back into the edit history. Why? Because Kaldari doesn't want you to know.

As scandalous or laughable as I think the Wiki community and beyond would find that. It might surprise people to know that I'm sophistated enough not to let such things change my priorities too much. The New Testament is much more important than the Wikpedia feminist task force censoring information. I'm not going to let people like Kaldari force me to make their agenda my number one concern. Mind you, I don't want him to keep getting away with it either. Were others taking action, I would relish the opportunity to wash my hands of it.

Stablizing some content is a long process, the longer the better, but making bids to silence reliable content providers is not the way to let that process work itself out. It is not me who is provoking drama, sources I provide perhaps, processes that do their best but remain imperfect perhaps. Can the blame-game stop soon, please.

Obviously I wouldn't like a topic ban, but it's not because I'm some one-track-minded POV pusher*, it's because reliable sources stabilize content and promote harmony, even when people don't like them. It's also because if AC here and now impose such a ban, it implies they believe I'm less than the reliable content editor I am known to be. It will be because they have been misled, and it will mislead others. Because it concerns my public reputation, I will, as I said, need to address that.

Although I trust no new restriction will be applied. If such is the considered wisdom of people here, please ensure you apply every due diligence, because the implications of such a decision are profound, and will, this time, be subject to intensive scrutiny.

Content and behaviour are not always easily separated. There is so much content related material underlying allegations against me, that although I don't have the experience to understand all ACs concerns, I understand enough to have refrained from appealing to it myself to solve content issues. I can only urge you to avoid getting entangled in content you are simply not expected by those who appointed you to have to deal with. Alastair Haines (talk) 02:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

• Footnote: observe that at the original AC the only voices against me were people who were found to be wrong on various points and had specific ideological commitments, yet voices endorsing me came from all sorts of subject areas and ideological backgrounds. I do not work alone. I do not work for myself. I love this project. Alastair Haines (talk) 03:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll add this while retaining the previous post which answers questions posed by Tznkai. I've just discovered that User:Crusio is the editor-in-chief of Genes, Brain and Behavior. What that means is I don't need to "keep Kaldari honest" when it comes to deleting information regarding the biology of gender. For example, quite independently of me, Crusio has recently sourced a stub Brain Gender I put up some time ago, and restored after a speedy. Biology of gender material frequently gets rough treatment. But there's people much better qualified than me to handle it. Kaldari may have us believe Goldberg's explanation of patriachy can be dismissed as rejected by "most sociologists", but it is right in line with contemporary research. Knowing of an editor better qualified than me to handle content in the area, means I have a way to refer edits I think to be in error to a third party specifically equipped to deal with the content issue.

If the issue is ongoing disharmony, as I think it should be, we have a low-key remedy in at least one reliable point of contact.

If the issue is specifically trying to flag some fault in me. That's quite another thing indeed. Whatever it would be, would need to be something that could be demonstrated had been discussed informally with me on my talk page prior to any escalation.

I need to return to real life work. Thanks for your consideration in this matter. Alastair Haines (talk) 06:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Tznkai

I have no opinion on Alastair Haines, Kaladari, or the case that led to this point, but my view point on the AE process is simple: enforcing administrators are not in the business of litigation, and they are not in the business of extending, shrinking or overturning Arbitration cases. A good enforcing admin will look beyond what information is given, but they are not obligated to have a omniscient wisdom and clairvoyance as to history, extenuating circumstances and various twists and turns. It is the participating parties who must make what they want, and why we should listen to them, clear.

On the matter of the relevant provision, time limited discretionary sanction remedies need to be better drafted to ensure whatever discretionary sanctions are imposed are either limited by the time sanction, or not. I've given it a shot. My instinct is with Sandstein, that discretionary sanctions should not live past their host remedy.

As a final thought, again professing ignorance and ambivalence to the case at hand, Arbitration remedies like this seem to be running under the assumption that a sanctioned editor is mucking up the article creation process, and not trying to, but it can also make them vulnerable to baiting and someone using enforcement as leverage for a content position, again, without really trying to. I'm not entirely sure what the solution is, but I operate under the assumption that ArbCom was aware of this danger, and thought it was worth the risk. I try to keep an eye out for manipulation of the process anyway, and I presume my fellow patrolling admins do as well.--Tznkai (talk) 17:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Further comments

It appears I neglected the word "not" in my statement above, which is embarrassing, but I'm going to qualify it anyway in a moment.

When ArbCom puts a time limit on a remedy, it seems to be telling enforcing administrators that it only believes the remedy needs to last for a certain time, or that ArbCom wants an opportunity to review it. The use of administrator discretion to extend a remedy past that time, or exercising discretion to extend remedies (somewhat like wishing for more wishes) seems contrary to the intent and the purpose of a time limit. Blocking in general is supposedly actually controlled by the enforcement provision, in this case up to a month, all of which seem to be signals against a year long ban. That said, I'm hardly going to argue against administrator discretion and flexibility, so maybe the rule of thumb is that a discretionary sanction should live past its host remedy, but not live longer.--Tznkai (talk) 01:21, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Penwhale

I think it's okay to review this, however, I don't think any sanction that was initiated at the time was wrong to begin with (in real-life a law that becomes ineffective do not retroactively apply to old situations.) - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 17:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Clerk notes

• Clerk note: Please remember to only comment in your own section and avoid threaded discussions. Thank you, Tiptoety ^talk 22:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Comment - I would normally say that imposing a block/topic ban that greatly exceeds the expiration date of the original sanctions should be avoided, but I suspect it is not that uncommon, actually. A good example is the escalating series of blocks that end in a year-long block in some cases (such year-long blocks would normally exceed the expiration date of the original sanction). There are also cases where editors have ended up indefinitely blocked following arbitration enforcement, and that remains long after the original case sanctions have expired. What is needed, I think, is for such sanctions to be reset. When Sandstein imposed the patriarchy topic ban in June 2009, he should have been able to reset the original sanctions to expire one year from that June 2009 date. This sort of resetting of sanctions is commonly seen when people evade a block. This would resolve the "remedy outliving the original sanction" issue, but would raise other issues as well. My view is that admins enforcing an arbitration ruling should have the discretion to reset the original sanctions.

  As for the specifics of this incident: (1) The case blanking was a courtesy (to respond to Sandstein's comment); (2) Alastair Haines should have at the very least asked for clarification on what the status of his topic ban was before his edits to articles in the Patriarchy topic; (3) Alastair Haines has said "I expect and welcome some rigorous content debate at Gender of God, Patriarchy and other places, when I get back to them, who knows when? But those articles have never have been my priority at Wiki and nor has discussion there reached fever-pitch much at all." - I have three questions here: (a) What is your priority at Wiki? (b) Where has discussion reached fever-pitch (not a good thing)? (c) Do others agree with what Alastair Haines has said here? But other than that, if Alastair Haines is willing to abide by the topic ban until it expires in June 2010, and Kaldari is happy with the original arbitration enforcement that led to that topic ban for Alastair Haines (and does not want to raise further issues), and future infractions of that topic ban are sanctioned as needed, then we are done here. Carcharoth (talk) 18:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

• My initial reactions here are the same as Carcharoth's. Awaiting responses to his questions and observations. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:53, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I am extremely concerned by the tone of some of Alastair Haines's recent contributions and am watching this situation closely. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:15, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

• Where a remedy incorporates the ability for what might be termed delegated remedies to be implemented (as is the case here, or with discretionary sanctions remedies, for example), it would deprive the remedy of much of its meaning to interpret its time limit as automatically providing a time limit for delegated remedies applied under it. Of course, new delegated remedies can't be instituted beyond the time limit, but that shouldn't prevent ones instituted within the time limit from having all the necessary scope to be effective. In this case, the indefinite page ban as originally proposed in the arbitration enforcement thread would have been excessive and not supportable by the remedy. A year is a long term, but not excessive given community and arbitration standards on the subject of page bans. Thus, I think this page ban can stand. In the future I think we ought to be as specific about length of delegated remedies as we are about the length of blocks used to enforce remedies in order to avoid confusion in this area. --bainer (talk) 00:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
• There is no doubt in my mind that a sanction imposed as a consequence of an open-ended remedy can extend past the originally enabling remedy unless it was otherwise specified. The Committee imposes such remedies without the expectation that its expiration becomes a date for hostilities to resume. — Coren ^(talk) 04:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I should add that I find, as a rule, that imposition of topic bans by administrators to be one of the more measured responses to disruption — even in the cases where they were not specifically shored up by a specific arbitration remedy (though, arguably, the bar to impose them is lower when such a remedy is present). — Coren ^(talk) 04:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
• Clarification. The expiration date of probations, discretionary sanction remedies, and related sanctions are the date when administrators can no longer impose measures under those sanctions. They are in no way a time limit on any restrictions or other measures imposed under those conditions. Vassyana (talk) 13:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
• Re: Amendment request. I am very receptive to the amendment request. Alistair Haines continues to engage in several problematic patterns of behavior. Personal attacks and bad faith assumptions are ongoing. There is a continued denial of wrongdoing and tu quoque arguments. He continues to disregard community feedback regarding due weight, original research, and POV forking. He rejects the results of community consensus and processes. The restoration of the universality of patriarchy article is a very good illustration of these two previous points. Some of the principal signs of disruptive editing listed in the eponymous policy describe this situation. Currently I am considering an indefinite general conduct probation with discretionary sanctions. (This example is exactly the text I would use, except for the name of the editor.) I will wait for responses from the commenting editors and other arbitrators before moving to propose any measure. Vassyana (talk) 13:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

---

Request for clarification: Lyndon LaRouche, Lyndon LaRouche 2, and C68-FM-SV

Initiated by SlimVirgin 09:13, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

• SlimVirgin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
• Cla68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Statement by SlimVirgin

This is part request for clarification, part request for help, and part expression of bewilderment. It's an issue I'm not keen to be involved in, because of the ArbCom ruling that Cla68 and I avoid each other. I'm therefore going to post this, and hope that it ends my involvement.

Cla68 and I were asked some time ago to avoid unnecessary contact with one another. This followed an ArbCom case in May 2008. I made a statement there [5] that Cla68 was following me to articles I edited and he never had, to strike up positions that opposed me, and was generally making very negative comments about me on and offwiki, and doing so frequently, a situation that started in 2006. I have not sought to enforce the ruling that we avoid each other, because his onwiki comments about me mostly stopped after the case, though his offwiki remarks continued. When Will Beback wrote to Cla recently to say that his onwiki remarks about me seemed to be starting again, I did ask Cla if we could please both adhere to the spirit of the ruling. [6]

Over the last few months, Cla has been discussing offwiki with a banned LaRouche editor, User:Herschelkrustofsky on Wikipedia Review, a project to restore an article HK created in 2004 as a platform for the LaRouche movement, Eurasian Land Bridge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I and several other editors opposed the creation of this article in 2004 (under the title Eurasian Land-Bridge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and it was redirected. [[7] [8] The article was one of the issues in both LaRouche 1 and LaRouche 2, as an illustration of editors using WP to promote LaRouche.

Cla has now restored the article, and has added LaRouche to the lead and given him his own section in it. The Eurasian Land Bridge is a project that Lyndon LaRouche has claimed at various points to be behind or somehow involved in, though there has never been any independent evidence of his involvement. HK's creation of the article in 2004 can be seen here. It reads: "The Eurasian Land-Bridge was first formally proposed in 1991 by the American economist, politician and philosopher, Lyndon LaRouche." This is similar to LaRouche claiming, as he did, that he was behind the idea for Star Wars.

As I see it, Cla68's restoration of this article with the LaRouche material in it is a violation of the ArbCom ruling that he and I avoid each other (Cla knew that this was an article I had been involved in opposing); a violation of the LaRouche ArbCom rulings that say material stemming from the LaRouche movement should not be added to articles that aren't about the movement; possibly a violation of WP:BAN, because he's arguably acting as a proxy for a banned user; and most importantly a violation of WP:UNDUE, because LaRouche is a tiny-minority, fringe source. We shouldn't add LaRouche's views to an article about the land-bridge, just as we don't add to Queen Elizabeth II that LaRouche thinks she's a drug dealer (though the BBC has reported he claims this), or add to Autism that Scientologists say autism doesn't exist (though reliable sources have reported that Scientologists claim this). UNDUE is one of the most basic principles of the NPOV policy. There are only two English-language sources that mention LaRouche and the bridge that are used in the article. Both are articles mentioning LaRouche's campaigning, not articles about the bridge. Both are relying entirely on LaRouche. Neither of the texts has been linked to in the article so we can't even see exactly what the sourcing consists of.

My opinion is that Cla68 is doing this to continue his campaign of baiting me, and perhaps I am rising to the bait by filing this request for clarification, but I don't know what else to do. If I ignore it, I have no doubt that something else will be round the corner, because that has been the pattern so far. I would like it to stop.

I tried to remove the LaRouche material from the article, [9] but was reverted by Lar and Cla. [10] [11] I therefore opened an article RfC [12] and hope not to have to comment on the article again. I have also opposed Cla's attempt to get GA status for it while the LaRouche issue remains in it. [13] My purpose in posting here is to ask the ArbCom to look at the situation, and decide whether any previous rulings have been violated. I also want to get it on the record that Cla is continuing to do this kind of thing. I have not tried to do anything formally about his offwiki remarks about me (though I've emailed Brad a couple of times about them), even though they've caused considerable distress, but I'm upset that this continues after three years of similar issues. I find the obsessionality worrying.

My specific question is whether the rulings below apply, and whether the ruling in Cla68/SV that the parties avoid, "Uncivil comments to or regarding other editors, personal attacks, and unsupported allegations of bad faith" applies to remarks on other websites.

1. LaRouche 1:

• "Original work which originates from Lyndon LaRouche and his movement may be removed from any Wikipedia article in which it appears other than the article Lyndon LaRouche and other closely related articles."

2. LaRouche 2:

• "Administrators may use their discretion in determining what constitutes a LaRouche-related article. The prohibition against inserting La Rouche material into other articles remains in effect."

3. Cla68/SV:

• "[T]he parties are admonished and instructed to avoid the following ... Unnecessary interaction between Cla68 and SlimVirgin ... provided that this does not preclude legitimate involvement in formal dispute resolution procedures where necessary."

SlimVirgin 09:13, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Cla68's claim below that he is "caught in a personal feud between two reportedly longtime editors" doesn't stand up to a moment's scrutiny (and HK is not a longtime editor), but it's exactly the kind of disingenuous, injured-innocence type of comment he's been posting for three years. He has strongly supported User:Herschelkrustofsky, a staff member of WR who has been out to get me for years because he was blocked many moons ago after several editors, myself included, took him to the ArbCom. Please don't let Cla get away with this anymore. His pursuit of me needs to end, as does his willingness to use mainspace to keep it going. SlimVirgin 10:07, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Carcharoth

• What looks like a content dispute isn't really. As Will says, Cla created this article explicitly as part of his involving himself on Wikipedia Review with the LaRouche issue. He did that only because of me. It has been quite clearly discussed in those terms on Wikipedia Review. The article is just a vehicle for making the claims about LaRouche—were those claims to be removed, I believe he'd have no further interest in the topic.

• Regarding your questions, I have made a couple of attempts to reach out to Cla68 by e-mail, and I once asked Giano to mediate between us, but it makes no difference. He seems obsessed with me, and I use that word advisedly because no other word would seem to describe what has gone on. He started it around the end of 2006/beginning of 2007, and has continued unabated, either on WP, or WR, or both. He has posted regularly about me on Wikipedia Review, sometimes naming me, sometimes only referring to me obliquely. It lessened somewhat after the 2008 ArbCom ruling, but only somewhat. The main change is that he would try to get other people to do things for him, instead of doing it himself. For example, he posted recently on Wikipedia Review, effectively looking for someone to cause me to be "put through the wringer":

"QUOTE(Cla68 @ Sun 1st November 2009, 1:24am) *

"If someone wishes to dispute SV's removal of Chinese sources at the reliable sources noticeboard, and leaves a message at the WP:China talk page asking for interested editors to comment, I suspect that she'll be put through the wringer. I can't do it, however, because I've been asked not to enter into disputes with her." (my bold)

This has been going on for so long now that the length of time alone worries me. I can understand people falling out on WP, but to keep something going for three years, when the other party isn't responding, crosses all kind of lines. I see no reason that I should have to tolerate it anymore, to be honest, given how stressful and damaging it is. SlimVirgin 14:29, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Cla68

I seeem to be caught in a personal feud between two reportedly longtime editors of Wikipedia with a strong interest in the same topic. I'll explain the background of my involvement in full within the next day or so. For right now, though, I simply suggest checking the article history, the article talk page, and the article itself. The article's topic is valid, the treatement is within policy, the sources are solid, helpful community involvement was ongoing and productive (until today), and SlimVirgin (SV) was not an active editor with this topic. I think the quality of the article speaks for itself. More to follow... Cla68 (talk) 09:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

• Some months ago (I'll find the exact date) I was involved in a discussion with several others and User:Herschelkrustofksy (HK) on Wikipedia Review. SlimVirgin is also a member and has interacted with HK in that forum, but not in that particular discussion. The discussion concerned HK's description of the LaRouche movement's involvement in the Bering Strait crossing and Eurasian Land Bridge projects. I and several others were giving HK a fairly hard time about it, because he couldn't back up what he was saying with any sources or evidence.

• As the discussion was ongoing, I received an unexpected email from SV which congratulated me on the hard time that we were giving HK. I didn't respond to the email, because it made me uncomfortable. In the email, SV appeared to take personal delight and gloat in HK's discomfort. In contrast to her attitude, I saw the discussion as simply a debate about a mildly interesting topic. If I still have the email, I am willing to share it with ArbCom if requested.

• Around the beginning of November, a coworker of mine, for unrelated reasons, emailed me this article. After reading the article, I realized that the Eurasian Land Bridge was an actual, real thing. I became interested in the subject, so I decided to write an article on it, which I started in userspace [14]. The article's history did not show that the topic belonged to SV. Since it had been a subject of discussion before in WR, I started a thread there about what I had found. Later, as I worked on the article, I noted that I had not found any reliable sources mentioning LaRouche's involvement. I later did, however, find three sources, which, along with the high number of Google hits on the "Eurasian Land Bridge" search term, meant to me that the association was notable enough to include in the article, which I did. The sources are not linked to the LaRouche organization, so no violation of the ArbCom ruling occurred.

• Since posting the article, I believe it has been a model of community collaboration. Editors from the Rail and Russian wikiprojects have added content, disagreements have been amicably resolved, including about the mention of LaRouche in the article, and the page was progressing towards what I hope to be FA status.

• All of this changed suddenly two days ago. SlimVirgin went against the current consensus by removing the LaRouche content. She was reverted by another editor.

• What followed was an onslaught of hostility and obstruction. All SV needed to do was open a content RfC, which she did after I suggested that course of action. The discussion in the RfC so far seems to be leaning towards SV's opinion [15], which is fine and is the way that we like to do things when it comes to content dispute resolution. So why did SV initiate so much drama surrounding this issue? I think the reason is that she carries intense personal feelings with regard to the LaRouche topic and sees Wikipedia and LaRouche as a battleground between her and banned "LaRouche editor" HK. I'll show why this is evident below.

• SV vs HK. The long-time, intense, bad blood between SV and HK is obvious. In fact, it seems that a significant aspect of SV's involvement with the LaRouche articles is geared solely to a mission to prevent HK from somehow editing it, even to the point of maintaining an investigation page in her userspace. Will BeBack appears to share this hostility judging from the barbed questions he put to me in that forum. Note that although Leatherstocking was blocked for being linked to the LaRouche organization and POV editing, SV and Will BeBack have started referring to the editor as a "sock" of HK, indicating the intense personal animosity the two feel towards HK which is clouding their objectivity. SV has been very open in expressing this opinion, both on and off wiki.

• Thus, I believe that SV's hostility related to the mention of LaRouche in that article is because she sees it as a battle between herself and HK, which HK cannot be allowed to win. Unfortunately, as evidenced above, her intense hostility is disrupting what otherwise was a fine example of community collaboration working to build a quality article.

• The allegation that I'm to blame or in violation of ArbCom sanctions is disingenuous. I and SV have interacted or communicated numerous times since our ArbCom case closed. See, for example, [16] [17] [18] [19]. Also, SV has emailed me on a number occasions, including trying to ask for my assistance in hounding FT2 from the Committee, which I declined to provide (she did not use the word "hounding", but that's how I interpret what she was asking me to do. Again, if I still have the emails, I'm willing to provide them). In the Jeremiah Duggan article, I took her side. Note that SV and Will BeBack did not quote the ArbCom sanction and ask me to vamoose at that time, but waited until just before they moved on Leatherstocking, whom they evidently believe to be a sock of HK. No, this is not about me, this about the ongoing war between SV and HK.

• I believe that it is now evident that the issue of mentioning LaRouche in the Eurasian Land Bridge article was not a problematic issue, as far as content disputes go, that was not being resolved by the community. It was and is being resolved by the normal dispute resolution process. The problem here is SV's and Will BeBack's overly emotional response, disruption, and what could be interpreted as harrassment. The impetus for their behavior appears to be an uncontrolled animosity for a banned editor and SV's and Will's willingness and, unfortunately, ability to turn Wikipedia into a battleground over it.

• In order to prevent this from happening again, I suggest that SV and Will BeBack be topic banned from the LaRouche topic, interpreted broadly. If the Committee agrees I hope they will simply prefer a vote on it, or else ask someone to propose it at the ArbCom enforcement board. Such an action should resolve this situation for the long term.

• Thank you for your attention on the matter and I'm sorry that this had to be brought to your attention in this way. Cla68 (talk) 23:28, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Will Beback

• Will states that as far as he remembers he has never, "expressed any animosity nor used disrespectful language when referring to HK." To help refresh his memory, here, he calls HK a "lying zealot." Anyway, the article was just promoted to Good Article. Effective collaboration has resumed, including helpful input from Will. Cla68 (talk) 02:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Will Beback

Following Cla68's considerable involvement in October with the AfD on a topic edited by SlimVirgn, WP:AFD/Jeremiah Duggan in October, I posted a notice reminding him of the ArbCom's remedy in C68-FM-SV.[20] (After I posted that, and with no connection to Cla68, it was serendipitously discovered that Leatherstocking (talk · contribs · count · api · block log) was a sock/meat puppet of banned serial puppet master Herschelkrustofsky (talk · contribs) WP:LTA/HK, and the account was blocked the same day it was discovered. Cla68 jumped to the conclusion that he was "chased away" ahead of time in order to prevent him from interfering with the block.[21] There is no truth and no evidence of that.)

The LaRouche movement has advocated a variety of proposals in its political platforms over the years. A reasonably inclusive list is now at Views of Lyndon LaRouche and the LaRouche movement#Campaign platforms. It includes planks ranging from a return to the gold standard and the colonization of Mars. But the support of the LaRouche movement is not a significant factor in the promotion of the proposals, so LaRouche is not mentioned in those Wikipedia articles. The LaRouche movement is a small group holding what are generally described as fringe or extremist views. The only LaRouche proposal that has received significant coverage in secondary sources was a 1986 ballot proposition in California concerning AIDS patients. The 2009 Obama=Hitler campaign has been widely reported, but despite being mentioned in dozens of newspapers articles and hundreds of blogs, none of the sources I've seen have actually discussed LaRouche's health care proposal. The attention was just on the posters and the genocide accusation.

While the movement does publish articles on the Eurasian Land Bridge (ELB), they are ignored by mainstream writers writing about the topic. The view that the LaRouche movement is a significant advocate of ELB is held only by the LaRouche movement. No one else says that. There are many institutions that have actual, significant connections to the topic but which aren't mentioned by name. Sources that say it's a plank of the movement don't go into any greater depth. Devoting a named section partly to LaRouche's promotion is undue weight.

While the other aspects of the article appear to be of good quality, Cla68 says that its creation was due to the discussion on Wikipedia Review concerning LaRouche, Herschelkrustofsky, and SlimVirgin. The LaRouche material is not just a random paragraph inserted into a pre-existing article but rather it's the reason for the article. The inclusion of this content appears to be determined by factors beyond NPOV article writing on Wikipedia.   Will Beback  talk  12:29, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Cla68

Cla68 makes a number of charges against me without providing evidence, and misstates or misinterprets events.

• To the best of my recollection, I have never expressed any animosity nor used disrespectful language when referring to HK or his numerous socks, nor to Lyndon LaRouche or the LaRouche movement.
• Cla68 seems to question the block of Leatherstocking. The constant stream of HK's sock puppets has been frustrating. I've repeatedly gone above and beyond any reasonable assumption of good faith, only to find out in every case that the accounts were more of HK's socks. (Not to mention the bizarre Cognition issue). If anyone wants to start a serious discussion of whether Leatherstocking was blocked unfairly then I'd be happy to defend it in detail.
• Cla68 continues to assume that my reminder to him of the ArbCom remedy was connected to Leatherstocking's block. Looking on my email archive, I see that I did not consult with SlimVirgin about issuing the reminder. My note to him followed his posting to Talk:Lyndon LaRouche, a page that Cla68 certainly knew was often edited by SV.[22] The following afternoon, while reviewing the contribution list of the mediation in which Leatherstocking (LS) and I were engaged,[23] I re-discovered LS's IP address. I'd seen it before, but it geo-located to a city far from HK so it appeared to be an "alibi". That's probably why he was cleared by at least one checkuser. However a different search revealed that it actually belonged to the LaRouche movement's office in the same city as HK. Once identified, it was easily confirmable and showed LS's mendacity. The account was blocked within hours of the discovery. So here was an editor pushing the identical fringe POV as HK, generally behaving the same as HK, vehemently denying his connection to the movement (as is typical for HK's socks), and who we now know was lying from his first edits (even assuming he's a different person from HK). Recall that HK was found to have used socks from the beginning of his editing on Wikipedia, and was only discovered by a small mistake that was revealed in a careful checkuser analysis. He was a sophisticated puppet master from the start. Evidence and contemporary accusations indicate that HK used socks back on the Usenet before he arrived at Wikipedia. HK's use of socks to promote a fringe group makes this history reminiscent of a one-man COFS case.
• The basic question that SlimVirgin presumably wants answered by the committee in this clarification request is whether the prohibition on unnecessary contact between she and Cla68 includes editing LaRouche-related articles. Given that SlimVirgin has had extensive involvement in the topic going back many years, and given that Cla68 usually edits article totally unrelated to the LaRouche movement, it would seem that he could easily avoid unnecessary contact by not editing pages related to the LaRouche movement. That doesn't mean SV "owns" the topic, but it does mean she got there the "firstest with the mostest". If these kinds of restraining orders have any applicability then I'd think the remedy would apply to this topic.

Reply to Lar

Lar's request that I be topic-banned is not accompanied by any evidence of misbehavior.

Reply to Cla68, #2

Thanks to Cla68 for researching that. As I wrote above, dealing with a serial sock puppet master has been frustrating. When I wrote that, in September 2008, 29 socks of HK had already been blocked, along with various IPs. In the 14 months since then, at least 30 more have appeared and been blocked. The last major account, Leatherstocking, repeatedly lied about his involvement in the LaRouche movement. User talk:Leatherstocking#"What a bizarre fantasy!". That's on top of the lies inherent in using multiple socks at the same time, and other specific lies along the way. Given the effort HK has devoted to promoting this fringe view, and that he apparently closely monitors the activities here even though he's been banned for years, I think that he it's accurate to view his participation here as zealous. "Someone who is zealous spends a lot of time or energy in supporting something that they believe in very strongly, especially a political or religious ideal."[24]   Will Beback  talk  05:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Lar

I think the real violation of sanctions here is by SlimVirgin and WillBeback. Their (coordinated?) thesis that this is "her" article and therefore Cla68 has to stay away beggars belief. They seem to be bent on harassing Cla68, and anyone who has the temerity to get involved in anything related to LaRouche. I ask ArbCom for a summary judgment banning SlimVirgin and WillBeback from all LaRouche related articles, broadly construed. Including this one, which is a fine article... might be an FA someday if it's just allowed to be worked on peaceably, instead of being interfered with as these two seem determined to do.

I may have more to say later. ++Lar: t/c 15:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Tznkai

I may be missing something here, but the only possibly sound approaches SlimVirgin seems to want to pursue are:

• An accusation that Cla68 is editing the article as an indirect attack on SlimVirgin;
• The suggestion that SlimVirgin's virtual presence is somehow so strongly associated with Eurasian Land Bridge Cla68 should not be involved; and
• Its within (SlimVirgin's?) administrative discretion to handle the LaRouche aspect of the article.

I'm going to skip over analysis of whether SlimVirgin exercising administrative discretion in this situation is proper (it isn't) and just suggest it would be an incredibly bad idea to use a content related remedy position in the midst of what appears to be actually fruitful discussion.

As for the Cla68-SlimVirgin interaction angle, if I was actioning this request on WP:AE (where Arbitration enforcement usually goes), I'd say SlimVirgin has to meet a high burden of proof to convince me that Cla68 is acting (in bad faith) to attack SlimVirgin, or that creating an article for even allegedly dubious content positions on the significance of the LaRouche movement is relevant to SlimVirgin or any other policy.--Tznkai (talk) 17:32, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Mattisse

I worked with Will Beback (talk · contribs) on LaRouche criminal trials in a successful effort for it to become a FAC and found him to be reasonable on all accounts and without an agenda regarding the facts. I do not believe SlimVirgin (talk · contribs) was involved at all in that article, so I have no statement regarding her involvement in the issues at stake. —mattisse (Talk) 23:46, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Dtobias

The concept that merely creating or editing an article on a particular subject is somehow inherently "harassment" of SlimVirgin is the sort of ridiculous stretch of the concept of harassment that cheapens actual harassment; crying wolf too many times about this sort of thing will result in people ignoring you if and when you actually do get harassed.

However, I do share with Slim some skepticism about whether the involvement of LaRouche and his movement in the concept of a Eurasian land bridge is truly notable; is that really what the reliable sources show? *Dan T.* (talk) 05:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Clerk notes

• Slim, just a reminder to notify Cla of the request. Also, I don't see a User:Herschelkrustofksy registered. Assuming there is a typo in there somewhere, could you notify him as well. Assuming his talk page is unlocked, he could post a statement and have it transferred here or email it to arbcom. MBisanz ^talk 09:33, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I have notified Cla. I'll check the typing of HK's name, but he is not an involved party; he has been banned for some time. Apologies if this is in the wrong place; please feel free to move it. SlimVirgin 09:45, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

• Clerk note User:Herschelkrustofsky (or at least the individual on Wikipedia Review claiming to be him) requested the Arbcom email, which I have provided, so the Arbitrators will want to be aware that an email may be sent in this matter from him. MBisanz ^talk 22:40, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Comment - this appears to conflate a content dispute and a ruling about the interaction of two editors. As regards the content dispute, might I suggest that other parts of the article are expanded before returning to that dispute? As far as the "avoiding unnecessary contact" bit goes, can I ask the two parties involved if they have been able to interact amicably outside of Wikipedia or not? The other question is whether they (and any others here) are engaged in disputes outside of Wikipedia that they are bringing onto Wikipedia? I take a very dim view of editors who argue about something outside of Wikipedia, and then continue that argument here on Wikipedia. You need to be able to leave baggage at the door when you come to edit Wikipedia. Carcharoth (talk) 13:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

• Tznkai summarises the situation well. I don't think it has been made out that Cla68 does not have a genuine desire to contribute to the article, nor that the bare fact of Cla68 editing the article constitutes "unnecessary interaction". As can be seen from the portion of the remedy SlimVirgin quoted, the relevant parties are not prevented by the remedy from legitimately participating in dispute resolution processes, such as this request for comments on the article. As for the potential applicability of remedy 1 in Lyndon LaRouche, that is, at the end of the day, a content question and the request for comments currently underway is capable of answering that. --bainer (talk) 00:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
• Concur with bainer. Vassyana (talk) 21:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
• It seems clear to me that this dispute can be resolve strictly within the confines of the RfC, and that the participation of the parties in that RfC is appropriate and not barred by remedies. — Coren ^(talk) 04:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

---

Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria

Initiated by Canadian Monkey (talk) at 20:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

• Canadian Monkey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Nickhh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Diff of notice [25]
• Nishidani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Diff of notice [26]
• Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Diff of notice [27]

Statement by your Canadian Monkey

Can topic-banned users, who have been “prohibited from editing any Arab-Israeli conflict-related article/talk page or discussing on the dispute anywhere else on the project” participate in AfD discussions related to articles that fall within the scope of the topic ban?

Background

Earlier this year, as an outcome of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria , I, along with 7 other editors, were topic banned from editing any Arab-Israeli conflict-related article/talk page or discussing on the dispute anywhere else on the project. Two of the topic-banned editors have been actively participating in an AfD discussion regarding Jonathan Cook, a freelance journalist whose notability arises from his writing on the I-P conflict, as is stated in the first two sentences of the lead of his article. Several other participants in the AfD have expressed concerns that this violates the topic ban. ([28]; [29]), and have removed the banned users’ comments from the AfD ([30]; [31]; [32]). These comments were re-inserted into the AfD, one of these re-insertions being done by User:Nableezy, who is himself subject to a similar topic ban, arising from a different Arbitration Enforcement ([33].

Clarification requested

The editors themselves have acknowledged that their participation is questionable (e.g: User:Nickhh: “I wonder if I'm allowed to say anything here, given the topics the man tends to write about” ([34]; User:Nishidani: “Yes, technically we should keep out of it.” ([35]), so a clarification seems to be in order.

Reply to Nableezy

I don't know if this is a violation of the topic ban - this is why I am asking for clarification here, rather than for enforcement at AE. Since this topic ban affects me, I'd be happy to know the answer - perhaps I've been foolishly avoiding contentious AfDs in the I-P area, when in fact I am free to participate.
As regards your own topic ban, the update you linked to clearly states "Nableezy banned for 2 months from all pages within subject areas relating to this arbitration case, except article talk pages" - I don't think an AfD project page is an "article talk page" - but perhaps I'm wrong, and a clarification with regards to this would be good, too.

Statement by Nableezy

If CM or any other user feels it is a violation of the topic ban the proper venue for that complaint is WP:AE. That is all that I asked those who were taking it upon themselves to make that determination to do instead of remove other peoples comments. Those removals also left the replies to the comments, making parts of the page completely unintelligible. And CM, you may want to look at this regarding my being subject to a similar topic ban.

Reply to the reply. I look at the AfD as an extension of the talk page, but if I am mistaken I wont participate further. But my point on AE is not that AfDs dont apply to your, and Nick and Nishi's, topic bans (they clearly do), but whether or not this specific AfD is within the topic ban should be taken up there. Whether or not a BLP of an author who writes about the conflict is a part of the conflict is something that should be taken up at AE in my opinion.

Cptnono, the edits to the file had nothing to do with the conflict. When a file is listed as an orphaned fair use image it is deleted after 7 days. The images, at the time of my edit, were not orphaned fair use images (one is now). Besides that, they were listed as orphaned as fair use images by a sockpuppet of the banned User:NoCal100 (User:Millmoss). But my edits to the files had nothing to do with conflict, I did not change the description or add the image to any article. This petty game of trying to catch me on something is getting tiresome, would you mind finding a new hobby? If you feel my edits to those images violated my topic ban, which had nothing to do with Judea and Samaria case which this request for clarification is about, WP:AE is thataway. nableezy - 04:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I have, not one thing in them relates to the Judea and Samaria case which this request for clarification is about. If you feel the edits listed were a violation of my topic ban go to WP:AE, you dont need a request for clarification for that, much less one on an unrelated case. nableezy - 05:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

It would appear that CM has himself "likely" commented in the AfD in question and was one of the users who removed the comments by Nick and Nishidani ([36]. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mr. Hicks The III) nableezy - 01:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Nishidani

I apologize to both Arbcom, and whoever found my remark there objectionable. I allowed my spontaneous disconcertion at what was happening (a perfectable reasonable page on a perfectly notable journalist and author being pushed for deletion on no other grounds than a patently political WP:IDONTLIKEIT sense one might get away with wiping Cook out, and, with the vote at 4-2 in favour of deletion, I dropped my comment, and I think most, Canadian Monkey and arbitrators, would be right in saying I am in breach of a sanction, though certainly my remark is not characteristic of a member of a 'gang of bullies' as Gilabrand suggested. If you think my ban should extend beyond the I/P area, to elsewhere, I won't object. Indeed, it would be logical, though I must confess I haven't examined this thread, or the fine print of the decision to see if there is wriggle room to sneak out of this lapse and its consequences. I admit I felt strongly, once the edit went up, that, though rational and eminently appropriate to the aims of the encyclopedia, that I was in breach, and should have shut up.Nishidani (talk) 22:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I should add that admitting my own culpability should in no way reflect on Nickhh's position, who is under the same ban. For the simple reason that he sees this differently, being an editor who has an intense interest in the area of journalism, and Jonathan Cook belongs professionally to that generic category, as his record shows. My interest, instead, was in the I/P area, from which I was banned.

I would note for the record, as I have on my page, however, that something good has come out of my infraction since, thanks to Mackan, it brought to light something former I/P editors had a good deal of implicit empirical knowledge of, but which, since it was intuitive, could not be documented for the Arbcom Committee. The Arbcom Committee could have had no knowledge or awareness of the fact that User:NoCal100, and User:Canadian Monkey were the one person (and they could not know, as I think it was generally understood by I/P editors on my 'side') that User:Tundrabuggy, who participated in the debate, on many of those pages, and regarded himself as 'involved' but was not included in the indictment, employed sockpuppetry while editing, stalking and targeting for AN/I reports several of the I/P editors who were subsequently perma-banned. In the Arbcom Decision, retrospectively, it now turns out that 5 experienced editors (6, if you include NoCal100/Canadian Monkey/Tundrabuggy's successful attack triangulation to get User:Ashley kennedy3 banned several times, and finally for a year)who were classified as working to ensure that the Palestinian side of the issues was duly represented, were taken out, while Jayjg and one other editor were removed from the side engaged in ensuring that one of many Israeli perspectives was defended. Over that period therefore, at least 6 serious editors were removed, in good part because of a conflict with just two editors, with numerous sockpuppets, who all used sockpuppetry to harass them, or belabour articles where they edited with tendentious interventions, at the expense of one known, experienced editor on the other side(User:Jayjg). That imbalance is striking. I note this not as a pro-memoriam for review or revocation, but simply to underline how little of what was really going on actually could be noted, given the rules of evidence. If therefore my infraction, on being reported by a sockpuppet (who hasn't even deigned to defend himself), has contributed to bringing this to air, then I'm quite happy to wear the consequences. Rules are rules, and I broke one, and have no right to complain. Indeed, the infraction has inadvertently cleaned up another of the many zones of obscurity that hover over much of the historic I/P area, and in that sense, was functional to the aim of this encyclopedia, that of ensuring quality, and not trash articles made up of compromises by serious editors with the unending sockpuppets and political manipulators who are naturally attracted to it. Nishidani (talk) 11:57, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Look, this is getting out of hand. What began as as a patently obvious attempt to wipe out an article on a professional journalist made me loose my self-restraint for a few minutes, and I made a comment, when the voting indicated that this dodge might succeed without anyone noticing. Unlike Nickhh, who is passionate about all journalistic issues, I thought this a sign of manipulative behaviour in the I/P area. When my behaviour was in turn denounced, I fully admitted my fault, or lapse, or breach of the protocol governing my ban, apologized, and expressed my readiness to suffer any further sanction an arbiter might wish to impose on me for my egregious lapse.

I expressed my guilt and readiness to be punished almost a week ago. In the meantime, the community has by a very strong 'keep vote' underlined the spuriousness of the original proposal (made by someone who should have known better since he was subject to review in the original Arbcom case), which was deeply ill-advised (2) various editors have shifted the goalposts, trying now to get Nableezy indicted as well, more or less over a dispute on whether what I and Nickhh wrote should or should not be kept on the page. It was this malady, of obsessively having recourse to AfD's, AN/I, AE etc.etc., endlessly to create trouble for serious editorial work on articles that led to the Arbcom case, and it is now being revived, using the Arbcom judgement only to worsen conditions in here for dedicated I/P editors. Nableezy's only crime over the last week has been that of helping me with his technical gifts, and some additional research, in creating a new article for Wikipedia (Franz Baermann Steiner), and if this is to be taken as guilt by association, and reason to go after him as well, then we have lost focus, in the intricate weave of rules and wikilawyering, that the goal is to work on articles, not on other people.

It's like watching a cancer metastasize. I apologized a week back, I've waited to be banned from all wiki articles since then. I suggest the way to stop this bickering is to act immediately and extend my perma-ban. Otherwise, my own lapse, and the niceties of where it may be shifted, who may shift it onto what page, will be manipulated to take out one more extremely good conscientious editor who is not responsible for my original sin.Nishidani (talk) 08:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Nickhh

As noted on my own talk page, of course this does run close to the ban. However, I did not "vote" on the AfD, and I did not discuss his politics in my comments. I simply observed that there were other journalists of far less notability and who have not made such serious contributions to the journalistic record who have pages, and that - as a journalist - he would seem to pass the inclusion threshold. I also said that the AfD should avoid the politics, and left a note on the WP:JOURNALISM project page asking for outside input, in a bid to steer the discussion down that road. Overall, that seemed to be a constructive contribution. My interest on WP (and my fairly sporadic edit count) has always been far more about media issues, general politics and other topics than it ever has been about I-P issues per se. Sometimes these overlap, and there are borderline areas in relation to the - totally bizarre, but that's another matter - topic ban. I acknowledge this is one of those. Having said that, I'm not sure exactly what clarification is being requested, and whether the litigant is actually after some form of punishment or enforcement. And I note from their own submission that editors were deleting comments from the AfD page - personally I'm far more concerned about that, about politically motivated deletion drives and about the risk that if it survives, the Jonathan Cook page will now become a magnet for BLP-violating contributions from those who dislike what he writes. Perhaps fortunately, I'm not allowed to get entangled in any of those issues in any substantive way of course. That at least, we can be clear about. --Nickhh (talk) 17:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

ps: in response to Vassyana below, I don't think anyone's claiming that relevant AfD pages - in principle - are not covered by the topic ban as worded. I'm certainly not, and agree that they pretty clearly would be. The point is more about whether making a general comment about journalistic notability in an AfD debate about one journalist's page is indeed a breach of a ban that stops editors discussing I-P issues. Also note that Nableezy's situation is different from that pertaining to me and Nishidani, as he has explained. I would add as well that brief humourous notes on friendly user talk pages surely do not need to be policed with quite the same rigour as a substantive intervention on article pages. Nor, as far as I am aware, are they usually. We're all muddling through here in an online environment, not building a correctional facility

Statement by other user

From Cptnono

I think clarification is definetely needed. In Nableezy's case, he edited files within the topic here and here. These were helpful edits and they were not contentious. He also edited user talk pages in discussions of the topic. These reverts (here and here) could be a concern but they also could just be considered keeping an eye out. The decision was "all pages (including both article and article talk pages) within those topic areas". Was the intent of the decision to prevent edits to the articles and their talk pages and not files or discussion on the topic in general? Cptnono (talk) 01:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Reread my comments, Nableezy.Cptnono (talk)

I didn't say it was. I seconded clarification on your Arbcom case that another editor brought up. I said your edits to the file were not contentious. I'm on the fence about your reverts. Stop knee-jerking and relax. I'm not out to get you or hurt your feelings.Cptnono (talk) 05:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

From Tarc

Hrm. As similar questions were raised back in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive46#Jayjg about MM coming off a 6-month absence to "get Jay", it is worth noting that Canadian Monkey here is back from an absence of the same time frame to file this? Tarc (talk) 19:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Mackan79

A clarification may be appropriate, since there appears to be more pushing at the boundries of this decision than in most cases, partly because of the large number of interested editors who arrive at enforcement discussions and obscure what is generally done.

If there is a clarification, however, I would like to raise two more points:

1. Does the topic ban prevent one editor under the ban from reporting another editor under the ban for a violation at WP:AE?
2. Does the ban cover edits to articles which are not directly related to the IP conflict (such as one on Jonathan Cook), but where the edits change material relating to the IP conflict?

One enforcement discussion, here, addressed both of these issues, with confusion about whether this edit would violate the topic ban. The point has been raised since, with what seems to be ongoing confusion. I have some concerns about the ban, but I think that certainly the boundries should be as clear as possible so that everyone can understand the scope. Mackan79 (talk) 19:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Canadian Monkey, NoCal100 and apparent sock puppetry

I have just filed a report here regarding apparent sock puppetry relating to this arbitration case. A checkuser has been run and found it "likely" that NoCal100 and Canadian Monkey (both having been sanctioned in this case) are both the same editor as User:Mr. Hicks The III, an account that has recently been attempting to enforce this remedy. User:NoCal100 has already been banned for socking that preceded this case. This may be separate from whether a clarification is needed, or perhaps it is relevant, but it does seem that more eyes will be needed to sort all of this. Mackan79 (talk) 03:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Statement by JoshuaZ

A few minor remarks. Regarding Mackan79's remark, Jayjg's edit to the section on anti-semitism in the Unification Church is not comparable to editing Jonathan Cook. In the Unification case, the section is primarily about remarks made claiming that the Holocaust was retribution to the Jews crucifying Jesus. Completely separate. Indeed, everyone seems to agree that the insertion of Israel related material in that article was utterly irrelevant. It seems unreasonable that the addition of marginally related material that probably should not be in an article would somehow add the article to the I-P umbrella. Worse, if so, does the article permanently go under it? Does it only stay as long as the material stays? This way lies madness.

Cook on the other hand is a journalist who primarily reports on Middle-Eastern issues. He has multiple books about the I-P conflict and related issues. His most recent book is "Disappearing Palestine: Israel's Experiments in Human Despair." I'm thus puzzled by Mackan's characterization as Jonathan Cook as being an article "not directly related to the IP conflict".

The next issue then is whether edits to AfDs should be included in the ban. That seems to me to be pretty obviously yes as a matter both of how the ban is worded and what the ban was trying to solve. Many of the most serious problems on I-P articles have been in AfDs. So yes, it seems pretty clear that the AfDs should be included in the ban (and for that matter, *fDs in general). JoshuaZ (talk) 03:00, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Epeefleche

As to nableezy:

1. He suggests his ban does not apply to the AfD because after one month it no longer applied to talk pages. However ...
2. An AfD is clearly not a talk page. When one performs a search under "Wikipedia talk", AfD pages do not show up. See also this, where Wiki pages (which include AfDs) and Wiki talk pages are two different search categories. Though AfD discussion (or "talk") pages show up. AfD pages fall squarely within his "all pages" prohibition.
3. As to timing, his ban was first handed down on October 29. In its original form it was for four months, " all pages within subject areas relating to th[e] arbitration case."
4. Two portions of the "all pages within the subject area" were then shortened on November 3. Article pages to "2 months from all pages within subject areas relating to this arbitration case, except article talk pages, from which he is banned for 1 month."
5. He was editing the AfD page by November 28. Even if the 1 month ban started on October 29 (and not on November 3, the day it was handed down), and even had the AfD been an "article talk page" (which it clearly isn't), he was editing on a page on the subject before he should have.
6. But, most importantly, its clear that AfDs are not "article talk pages". That is the only area he has been allowed to edit during the entire time of the AfD--all of his many edits at the AfD, on his talk page, and on the AfD talk page have been in flagrant violation of his ban.
7. nableezy had indicated on my talk page that this "request for clarification in no way applies to my topic-ban." As he was a named party, and his ban discused here, it would be helpful if arbs were to indicate (if it is the case) that it does apply to his ban as well.

--Epeefleche (talk) 08:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

As to Nishidani:

1. He refers above to the two comments he left at the AfD as a "spontaneous disconcertion", and says the AfD "made me loose my self-restraint for a few minutes". But that fails to explain why he left his two comments--made 12 hours after the AfD opened--up for the next 7 days. Only crossing them out a few hours before the AfD closed (w/the accurate edit summary: "Striking out comment written in breach of my ban, as indeed I should have when this was first complained of"). For me, that clearly takes this out of the category of a crime of passion, and places it in the category of a willful flouting of his ban with intent to influence the AfD.
2. I don't know how he became aware of this AfD, but whether it is because he is watching for AfDs in the I/P area or is in contact with other editors with that interest, it may perhaps be more prudent for him to desist while his ban is in place.
3. My view is that at the beginning of the AfD the article did not have sufficient RS support to be a Keep. Additional RS support was surfaced in the middle of the AfD, and I changed my vote to Keep. But Nishidani's suggestion that this was an unreasonable nomination is wrong IMHO.
4. Nishidani says the reason he weighed in was because the vote at the time was "in favour of deletion". That reflects a desire on his part to influence the outcome of the AfD, which--mildly speaking--he was not allowed to do.
5. I would think his ban should be extended not in scope, but in time.

--Epeefleche (talk) 15:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

As to Nickhh:

1. I also don't know how he became aware of this, but the same suggestion that he try to avoid whatever prompted his ban violation in this instance apply.
2. He started off the first of his three comments at the AfD by saying "I wonder if I'm allowed to say anything here". I didn't know about his ban at the time. But I am surprised that he would have had any doubt as to whether he could say anything at the AfD. Given Nishidani's express motives, and the fact that the two of them violated their bans in quick succession, legitimate concerns as to Nickhh's motives may perhaps be reasonable.
3. Nickhh left his AfD comments up for the entire course of the AfD, never striking them out.

--Epeefleche (talk) 15:53, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Tznkai

Enforcement of arbitration is handled here and sockpuppets are handled here. You will find this is not merely bureaucratic shuffle, but non overlapping specialties.

Also, seriously? Topic bans means write about something else. Not some thing the same, but different. --Tznkai (talk) 10:42, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Short reply to CM's question: No. More complete reply: AfD discussions about IP-related articles quite clearly falls under "participating in any community discussion substantially concerned with such articles". There is no grey area. An AfD is about as perfect of an example as you get for a "community discussion substantially concerned with such articles". Even less broadly worded topic bans are treated in a broad fashion. If ArbCom or the community says that an editor is prohibited from editing or discussing certain articles or topics, that editors should not edit or discuss those topics. Shifting discussion over to user talk pages or other venues is at bare minimum a gross violation of the spirit of a topic ban. I, individually, consider shifting discussion to another venue as an unwelcome attempt to skirt the edges or jump through loopholes of the sanction. As far as I'm concerned, the confusion here is only arising from splitting hairs and trying to look for grey areas where they do not exist. The topic bans are perfectly clear and AfD is unquestionably included even in a strict reading of the sanction language. Vassyana (talk) 18:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• "[A]ll pages ... which relate" seems to make the scope inclusive and clear in a similar fashion. Neither topic ban makes an exception for discussing unrelated issues on related pages. They are prohibitions on editing related pages. Full stop. Vassyana (talk) 21:48, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

• Agree with Vassyana. When someone is given a topic ban in a particular area, they are meant to move away from that topic area and develop interests in other areas, and demonstrate that they can edit other areas without similar problems arising. At that point, it may sometimes be possible to relax the original restrictions given the good behaviour in other areas. If, on the other hand, an editor shows an inability to move away from a topic area, then sanctions should be enforced, and if the sanctions are reviewed, this inability to stay away would be taken into account. The normal response would be to either extend the topic ban (if it is not already indefinite), or to move on to harsher sanctions. In essence, an inability to disengage from and move away from a topic area is generally indicative of a battleground mentality, of being too invested in a topic area to edit neutrally, and (in some cases) or becoming a single-purpose account. To be charitable, it may also simply indicate a lack of self-control (if that is the case, a prompt apology and genuine contrition and recognition that someone has lapsed briefly, might be accepted, but not in all cases). AfD discussions are, in my view, part of broadly construed topic bans. Carcharoth (talk) 12:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

• I agree entirely with Vassyana. --bainer (talk) 00:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
• Agreed with my colleagues; an AfD discussion of an article within the topic area definitely and unambiguously falls into that topic area. The only case where I would consider any ambiguity is if the topic ban specifically excluded talk pages or was explicitly limited to articles; and even then it could be argued that a discussion about deletion is too "close" to the topic ban to be confortable. — Coren ^(talk) 04:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: Agree with Vassyana et al. Wizardman 06:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

---

Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

• Moni3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Mattisse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) notified [37]
• SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) notified [38]
• Karanacs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) notified [39]
• Philcha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) notified [40]
• RegentsPark (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) notified [41]
• Geometry guy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) notified [42]
• Unitanode (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) notified [43]
• Salix alba (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) notified [44]
• John Carter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) notified [45]
• SilkTork (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) notified [46]

Statement by Moni3

The monitoring plan as approved by ArbCom has proven to be confusion marked with a lack of clarity, scope, and structure. There is no process in place for editors who have had conflicts with Mattisse in the past to place their concerns and have their concerns recorded, discussed by Mattisse's mentors, and dealt with in any formality. Mattisse has a page off of her talk page User:Mattisse/Monitoring where it appears to be somewhat structured. However, there is no clarity about how complaints are to be filed and responded to. There are no stated expectations of the mentors or Mattisse. There is no clarity about where discussion about these issues is to be held.

The incident which has prompted me to file this is my protect is this:

• Two weeks ago, I suggested that the User:Mattisse/Monitoring page have some structure, User_talk:Mattisse/Monitoring/Archive_3#Structure. You can see it was met with no reaction until Geometry guy (talk · contribs) asked about it.
• I suggested it again, here: [47] Mattisse responded by altering the suggestion because she saw the original complaint as incorrect or invalid. Actually, I don't know why she altered it, but she did not seem to understand that it was a proposed format for her Monitoring page. [48], [49], [50], [51], [52].
• I requested again here.
• I requested again here, yesterday.

Mattisse's mentors have not instituted any kind of cohesion or clarity. I do not understand what is trying to be accomplished on this Monitoring page. Discussions about complaints take place on Mattisse's talk page, the Monitoring page, and the Monitoring talk page as well as individual user pages. When SandyGeorgia attempted to encourage the formatting of the page [53], it was removed from the Monitoring talk page by Mattisse to another offshoot, [54], here. I finally fully protected the Monitoring talk page for 6 hours.[55] Mattisse opened an ANI topic on that protection, [56], which is fine. It's actually a logical reaction to simply the absolute muddle this Plan and its implementation have ...whatever...I don't even know anymore.

This process is no process. It's utter chaos. I am quite confounded that SandyGeorgia and I, two editors with whom Mattisse has had serious conflicts in the past are pushing to get this process organized. My suggestions on organizing the Plan have been met with silence and an astonishing lack of direction by Mattisse's mentors. It is my intention in this request for clarification for the ArbCom to set their own parameters here. Step it up, folks, really. I'll be happy to give you an example of the structure that is required. --Moni3 (talk) 16:12, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Elucidation: RegentsPark has a point and I was in a hurry and a bit stressed, which made me use some hyperbole and I should not have. Mattisse's mentors were discussing the proposed structure of the page, so I cannot claim that my suggestions were met with silence. I will stand by the comment that there is an astonishing lack of direction, however. I neglected to point out in my original post above, for perspective, that this Plan was implemented months ago and only seriously, it seems to me, gone into scrutiny within the past month after Mattisse returned from a 2-week block for sockpuppeting. I do not know how to impress upon Mattisse's mentors that they should be taking matters seriously enough to take some action. They waited until the 2-week block to reassess their efficacy, and unfortunately, little has changed. Mattisse continues to enter into conflicts, which is borne from a lack of clarity from the mentors, who, in my opinion the day after the ArbCom decision should have structured a venue for receiving complaints and a method for dealing with comments ranging from serious to spurious, and established a forum for other editors who have been involved with Mattisse in the past to discuss the issues at hand. It has not happened, and I am really unable to be so frustrated at them when ArbCom itself has not set the parameters for how this will be accomplished. --Moni3 (talk) 17:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposal for Newyorkbrad

1. User:Mattisse/Monitoring is the only place where complaints about Mattisse should be registered.
2. The page should be displayed at the top of Mattisse's talk page, which I believe it is now.
3. Mattisse shall not refactor anyone else's comments to the User:Mattisse/Monitoring page or its talk page. Any of her mentors or Mattisse herself can move comments or complaints from her talk page to User:Mattisse/Monitoring. Any reformatting necessary for the User:Mattisse/Monitoring page or its talk page should be completed by a mentor.
4. Assign at least one mentor who has had significant problems with Mattisse's behavior in the past.
5. The User:Mattisse/Monitoring page shall be archived no less than 7 days after the first post about a complaint.
6. Adopt the layout created by SandyGeorgia that was moved to User_talk:Mattisse/Monitoring/Editorial_comments as laid out below, and place specific instructions about what is expected from a complainant to the page, from Mattisse, and from the mentors.

• Specify the problem(s) concisely and courteously, along with specific link(s): Complainant only edits this
• Cite the Arbcom point(s) at issue, with specific links: Complainant only edits this
• Describe what you think Mattisse could do to improve the situation and/or avoid similar problems in future: Complainant only edits this
• Describe what you expect the mentors/advisers could do to help resolve the issue(s): Complainant only edits this
• Action(s) taken by mentors Mentors only edit this
• Comments from Mattisse Mattisse only edits this

Discussion, if any, to take place on talk page.

After each complaint, Mattisse and her mentors evaluate the success of handling each issue.

After one month or two complaints--whichever comes first--Mattisse, her mentors, and other interested parties evaluate the success of the plan as a whole. If the plan is seen as successful so far, constant reassessment is to be done by mentors, Mattisse, and the various interested parties.

If general consensus is reached after one month or two complaints that the system has failed in the following ways: Mattisse's mentors have not addressed serious complaints or have disparaged the complainants, Mattisse has ignored the advice of her mentors or acted beyond their advice (per the sockpuppeting issue where she did not seek their advice before acting), or despite the best efforts of all involved problems still persist, further advice should be sought from ArbCom to include a schedule of increasing blocks.

Awaiting discussion by Arbcom members. --Moni3 (talk) 22:20, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Statement following Carcharoth's post

My initial intent in this request for clarification was to get some direction from ArbCom about how mentoring should work. It appears to me that mentoring is not a tried or true method of dealing with problematic editors and y'all are seeing what works and what doesn't, hence the lack of structure, this wait and see method, and the request for a report. I have some serious concerns about conducting experiments without any parameters and I feel quite strongly that it is a mistake not to set any. If this was a conscious decision in a type of experiment, i.e. to watch an editor flame out of her own making to justify an indefinite block later on, I find it disrespectful to all of the editors involved. I truly hope it was simply what I suspect: something that has not yet been tried and ArbCom members did not foresee how it would unravel. Although again, I'm at a loss as to how this was not anticipated.

So Carcharoth seemed to have opened this fresh hell, where instead of structuring the mentorship situation, the focus has shifted to the overall effectiveness of mentorship with Mattisse and her place at Wikipedia. If possible, I would like to refocus the purpose of this request for clarification to ascertain what ArbCom views are reasonable expectations and consequences and a structure for registering comments and complaints about Mattisse. If the proverbial cat has left the bag and this is now a minor issue in a much larger tapestry I simply do not know what is to be achieved by re-opening the entire case to look at evidence of Mattisse's behavior and the myriad ways it has been perceived by dozens of editors since the original case was closed. Which scenario is worse: no clarifications are made and the editors with whom Mattisse has had conflicts in the past are left once more to wade into a tar pit of confusion and accusations that surround her? Or she gets indefinitely blocked and adds no more to Wikipedia? In any case, I don't know what more I can do now that this seems to have taken on a life of its own...Let me know...I'll be in my corner playing with something sparkly.

In a related note, I strongly encourage ArbCom to devise a structure for mentoring controversial editors in the future. If this vortex of time and energy is worth something, per this day-brightener, it should allow us to recognize that there may be brilliant, productive, and prolific editors who have problems working in a collaborative environment. What would you do with an Einstein who became a Phineas Gage? Figure it out now to save a dozen editors in the future the stress and disappointment, please. --Moni3 (talk) 15:35, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Clarification for Vassyana

I don't understand what needs to be clarified. Let me know what you need to know. --Moni3 (talk) 22:43, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

For Moni3: Why did you feel page protection was necessary? Why did you intervene directly? Did you have any reservations about instituting protection? In retrospect, do you feel it was the proper thing to do or do you believe that another action would have been more proper? Vassyana (talk) 23:13, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

1. Page protection was necessary because there is simply no clarity in this process. From the original ArbCom decision I have been pushing for clear structure, where there are no questions from anyone about what is proper, what procedures are necessary, what is expected from every person involved. Instead, mentors neglected to create any logical structure, then slowly began contemplating it two weeks ago, and began discussing it asking each other what they thought. When SandyGeorgia attempted to help in this clarity by expanding upon plans, Mattisse created another page, moved SandyGeorgia's comments, splintering an already confusing lack of process. I think I've already made the point clear enough that this is chaotic and needs no further disruption. The very next action I took was asking for clarification here (interrupted by an aside post about the ANI thread). I'm finding that I have to escalate the seriousness of these issues. I should not have to do this. This should have been clear from the start.
2. I intervened directly because no one else was. I was in the middle of constructing a reply on the Monitoring talk page about something when I checked my watchlist to see text had been moved. Threads about complaints have been archived in less than 24 hours. There is no integrity in this process. It needs to stop and ArbCom needs to step up and do what they neglected to do months ago.
3. I have no reservations about protecting the page for six hours. I have serious reservations about acquiescing months ago when Ling.Nut demanded I stop trying to formulate some kind of logical process. I should not have. I should have pitched a holy fit then because that's apparently what people pay attention to here. Something else for ArbCom to think about: editors who are respectful and reasonable are dismissed for those who speak at a fever pitch. ArbCom appears to become used to a crisis and response method instead of discussing issues calmly and professionally. I find it unfortunate in the extreme that I have to take admin action in order to be heard.
4. The more proper action is what I have been saying all along: ArbCom should have set parameters that are easily read and followed, leaving no questions from mentors about expectations from Mattisse, mentors, or the editors who have conflicts with her. None of this would be necessary if that was put in place from the beginning. Problems with Mattisse, including her 2-week block for socking and various other issues probably would not have arisen either. --Moni3 (talk) 00:12, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Philcha

I agree it's been messy, partly because of a degree of piling in. A few days Moni3 suggested a more structured presentation, and I support this - see this and this. I also support Moni3's recommendation that items at Mattisse's monitoring page should not be archived for at least 7 days after the "case" is closed - I'd prefer retention for a month before archiving. To preserve a balance between getting the business done and allowing others to comment, I've suggested an "ArbCom lite" type of structure - the item on the monitoring page should stick to the format we're developing and only the original poster, mentors and Mattise should post there; but there should be a separate subpage for comments by others. --Philcha (talk) 16:36, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

PS RegentsPark summarised the activities of the mentors accurately - only two "cases" were presented clearly enough to be resolved, and they were resolved. As Ottava Rima also pointed out, there's been a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing, which has obscured what has been achieved. --Philcha (talk) 17:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Response to Moni3

With hindsight, Moni3 appears to have been right - a more structured approach would have shut down the useless noise. Personally, I interpreted ArbCom's decree as meaning other editors should not regard the mentoring arrangements as an opportunity to "punish" Mattisse. Unfortuately that's the behaviour that occurred, and events showed I was optimistic. However, as RegentsPark mentioned, we resolved 2 "cases" despite all the noise, and a more structured approach will improve the signal-to-noise ratio - to the benefit of posters who actually want to resolve issues, of Mattisse, and of ArbCom, which I assume has an interest in how this turns out. --Philcha (talk) 19:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC) --Philcha (talk) 22:20, 14 October 2009 (UTC) (ce)

Response to SandyGeorgia

This comment "... they do all appear to be more engaged now in addressing the issues" became possible as we cut down on the inflammatory and unconstructive comments. Well-defined comments are still being handled as we see them, for example at Karancs' concerns. One result of this was noted by SandyGeorgia. --Philcha (talk) 20:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Re to SandyGeorgia's list of Mattisse's alleged recent misconduct

A few hours ago SandyGeorgia posted here a list of Mattisse's alleged recent misconduct. The first of SG's diffs I looked at does not support a charge of misconduct. So I thought it necessary to check the rest. Results:

• (the first I looked at, just because of its eye-catching label) about tightening of FA criteria. SG labelled this as "alleges a "class system", presumably at FAC". This was not "presumably at FAC", it was explicitly and honestly about FAC, following YellowMonkey's comments that even some 2007 FAs now fail to meet the current criteria. I've seen discussion at WT:FAC of systemic difficulties at FAC, one being that some review get an easy ride while others face an inquisition, depending on who turns up. SG has failed to WP:AGF about Mattise's comment. Yes, I can provide diffs about "systemic difficulties at FAC".

The rest, in SG's order:

• Mattise's comment about the "Advisory Council" proposal. SG labelled this post "cabalism". Most of the criticisms about the "Advisory Council" proposal opposed the un-transparent nature of this proposed appointment of "the great and good", often in quite forthright terms. I see no reason to single out Mattisse's post out of similar hundreds of similar ones.
• SG's "allegations about FAR" is a post by Mattisse supporting SG's own comment there, "when we're seeing multiple supports without source checks, that raises eyebrows, since WP:V is a pillar". As far as I can see, that discussion was not explcitly about FAR, it was about poor checking of source's actual content at various reviews - at least one of SG's comments there was about GAN. Mattisse's comments in that discussion were relevant, courteous and largely agreed with SG's own words!
• SG describes this "accuses me of stalking her edits to a page I've long been involved in". This was at Mattisse's own Talk page, initially in a conversation of Ling.Nut, who IIRC was at the time one of Mattisse's mentors. At this point SG's name was not mentioned. I notice SG did not show the whole of that discussion. SG's name was introduced by SG herself, "Mattisse, in the (I hope unlikely) event that you are actually implying that I stalked you to James Joyce". I see no basis here for an accusation against Mattisse.
• SG's "disingenuous" was in a discussion about FARs. Mattisse's full comment was "Very disengenuous. That article was not at FAR". I think Mattisse's response was rather literal, but SG's preceding comment was slightly off-topic - the article SG mentioned was not at FAR. Mattisse's "disingenuous" was a poor choice of word - I'd have preferred "irrelevant". But it's a storm in a teacup.
• SG's "James Joyce issues continue with edit warring" refers to a simple disagreement about the use of a particular source in James Joyce. For some reason I looked at this series of edits at the time - can't remember what rang my bells. My impression was that Mattisse misunderstood the way that source was being used, but I had my doubts about using the source's own description of itself as "the largest library of ...". At the time SG did not raise Mattisse's edit at Talk:James Joyce, so presumably SG did not consider the question important at the time. --Philcha (talk) 07:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC) (ce: --Philcha (talk) 13:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC))
• SG's "personalizing issues at FAR" shows no basis for an accusation against Mattisse. The preceding post by YellowMonkey said, ".. a very large proportion of people are willing to do anything unless their star is at stake ... putting their star under the hammer is the only way to get the article improved (or removed) unless a small amount of FA regulars [Philcha's emph] have to rewrite half the 2005 or 2006 articles after reading a lot of books ... Else we end up with double or quintuple standards of FAs ...". Mattisse simply agreed with YellowMonkey's concerns. (ce: --Philcha (talk) 13:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC))
• At another post by Mattisse on the same topic, Mattisse says she's found FAR too stressful and is withdrawing. How can SG describe that as "more personalizing of issues at FAR"?
• Re Mattisse's edits to her own Talk page on [57], which SG describes as "alters talk page headings to target me":
  • Mattisse created the "SandyGeorgia's supportive posts" series of headings at Mattisse's Talk page. The preceding version of Mattisse's Talk page, with a section about Mattisse's block for use of sockpuppets. Into that SG inserted a long list criticsms of Mattisse's conduct, with a long list of diffs.
  • I looked at a few of SG's diffs at the preceding version, and the few I checked were diffs that I've examined above, i.e. poor evidence of anything.
  • If SG wanted to improve Mattisse's conduct, SG could have raised these diffs one at a time as they occurred, and explained why they raised concern. The laundry list SG presented is hard to see as anything than hostile.
  • SG's "yet another thing" list was inserted into a thread about Mattisse's block for use of sockpuppets, but was irrelevant SG's list was not to the sockpuppet case.
  • I think it quite reasonable to move SG's list into another section. Since it's a list with no obvious theme, it's hard think of a title that does not include SandyGeorgia's name. I'd prefer "SandyGeorgia's recent posts" rather than "SandyGeorgia's supportive posts". However I think it was a fairly restrained title.

SG's selection and interpretation of these diffs is seriously flawed, and consistently presents each as unfavourably as possibly. --Philcha (talk) 09:30, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Re monitoring formats

There seem to be several parallel sets of discussions, which have little contact with each other: at Clarification#Proposal_for_Newyorkbrad, by Moni3; at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Response_to_Carcharoth_2, by SilkTork; one by SandyGeorgia, containing hypothetical examples at User_talk:Mattisse/Monitoring/Editorial_comments#Sample_of_how_proposed_process_would_work and at User_talk:Mattisse/Monitoring/Editorial_comments#Second_sample_of_how_proposed_process_would_work; and one that has grown out of discussions at User_talk:Mattisse/Monitoring#Draft_report_form and User_talk:Mattisse/Monitoring#Proposed_structure. I apologise if I've missed out any other discussions and their contributors. As far as I can see, all are based on a proposal originated by Moni3 on 6 Oct 2009 and still share the major elements, although differences of emphasis have developed and the various discussions have explored various approaches to minising the impact of foreseeable problems. I suggest we need a single place for further discussion of format and procedure, where contributors to the parallel threads can pool ideas. --Philcha (talk) 21:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC) (ce: --Philcha (talk) 06:04, 17 October 2009 (UTC))

We are using User:SilkTork/Report for reports and consensus on procedure and layout, and User Talk:SilkTork/Report for discussion of ideas on these. --Philcha (talk) 18:05, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Response to Joopercoopers

In Joopercoopers's one of very long posts, this at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification makes the interesting comment "It should have been about teaching Mattisse to develop a thicker skin, not the development of a partisan group of sympathetic ears. Sure, Mattisse provokes reactions, and some of them may be unjustified because of misunderstandings, however surely what was needed was a dual responsibility of the Mentors - one to advise Mattisse and the other to sanction her to prevent further disruption." Is that Joopercoopers means about "develop a thicker skin"? --Philcha (talk) 18:54, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I've just had another interesting post from Joopercoopers, this time at my own Talk page: "... is this your alternative account, or should I look elsewhere?". --Philcha (talk) 21:35, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Response to GiacomoReturned

GiacomoReturned wrote "the lies just trip off her toungue" [sic]. Unfortunately GiacomoReturned has not got the facts right:

• The entire discussion that started this is shown in full (unless there was a post in that thread weeks later). The discussion starts with insults from GiacomoReturned.
• I had Mattisse's Talk page on my watchlist - we had recently discussing DYK for Phylactolaemata - and it was hard to miss GiacomoReturned's attack, and the fact that it was about Palladian architecture.
• The full discussion as shown at Talk:Palladian architecture.
• Earlier on 9 Aug 2009 Mattisse had {{cn}} 2 paras from the article.
• This was a 2004 FA which passed a Jan 2007 Featured article review (see Talk:Palladian architecture. The article's history shows that GiacomoReturned had not previously edit the article and Giano II had last edited it at 22:33, 24 September 2008. The evidence does not support [GiacomoReturned accusation of malicious by Mattisse against GiacomoReturned or Giano II.
• GiacomoReturned removed the uncited passage without any Talk discussion.
• See GiacomoReturned's accusation at Mattisse's Talk page, I tried to return the focus on the content by copying the removed para to the article page and suggestions about improve the paras citation and prose, in order to ensure that the article continued maintain current FA standards.
• IMO GiacomoReturned's accusation was thoroughly inaccurate: rather than "lies just trip off her [Mattisse] toungue", the {{cn}} tags were justified; I was not "acting in unison with one of her mentors", I found this discussion by accident and tried to re-focus on the content. I can't comments on whether Mattisse has a specific interesting but notice that she edits on a very wide range of topics. I agree I do not have an interest in architecture of any style, and that was the sole grain of truth in GiacomoReturned comment. --Philcha (talk) 19:43, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

If I had not removed the paragraphs we would have just had another of these incidents [58]. You and frail old granny should juts stop trolling and spewing your lies. Giano (talk) 19:55, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding proposed bans

As as I need can see, the various proposed bans all have same have similar flaws, e.g.:

• Mattisse can unwittingly violating one, e.g. because an article is nominated while she is working on it, or because an editor she should avoid has an alternate a/c).
• Some can be gamed, e.g. a ban on interaction with X can be used by X to shut Mattisse out of a discussion - possibly in order to remove a helper of someone else in whom X has a dispute.

I've see other comments on this page the inutility of bans, can possibly find diffs if needed. It would be much more effective and productive to focus on Mattisse's behaviour - first eliminating the "bad" behaviours such as making "plague" lists, carrying on vendettas, and adding interminable series of comments instead of once well-thought one; then dealing with the underlying cause, which several of us think is being too ready to defend her views without thinking out first why, when and how she should comment; and finally learning to be a normally editor, focussed on the content rather than on personalities, but reasonably assertive when appropriate. --Philcha (talk) 18:15, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Statement by SandyGeorgia

I'll add commentary here as soon as I have time. For now, here is a permalink to the AN/I page, and User talk:Mattisse/Monitoring/Editorial comments is the new page that Mattisse began moving commentary to, from the talk page of her plan page, without any apparent on-Wiki consensus from any of her mentors, and without responding to good faith queries about what was going on.[59][60] She persisted in moving content, without responding to queries, when Moni3 protected the page. She also deleted content (that I later restored on the new page [61]), and added commentary to the new page under sections where it wasn't originally posted,[62] making it very difficult for mentors or other readers to sort what happened when they try to catch up. This kind of spinning out of control is seen often on that page; the day before, Mattisse moved a large chunk of text from her talk page to her monitoring page,[63] and yet here she seems to have decided she no longer wants other editor commentary on the Monitoring page,[64] [65] although it was decided mutually between her and her mentors that other editors could post to the page. Oh, my, do I really need to find diffs for all of this? Can anyone just stick a citation needed tag on anything I have wrong ?  :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I understand and respect that Mattisse may have lost some of the posts while moving them because of edit conflicts, but one way to avoid that would have been to respond to good-faith queries about what she was doing, and wait for consensus from her mentors.

Here is my summary of events this morning: I will supply diffs as needed. Mentors and Mattisse had previously agreed that other editors could post to the Monitoring page, and were working to develop a structure. Geometry Guy and others stated that they would work on the new structure on Sunday, when they had time. Based on good discussion, Philcha proposed a very workable solution-- an adaptation of the structure proposed by Moni3. I provided, on talk, a sample (which I considered a trivial issue, or better stated, an issue I've become accustomed to but should be addressed), using Philcha's proposed structure, so that kinks could be worked out before Geometry Guy worked to install a structure this weekend. (diff of page before Mattisse began removing content, which supports all of the above) Mattisse began unilaterally moving my posts, losing some of them, and incorrectly combining some posts to wrong sections. When she didn't respond to queries, Moni protected the page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Regents and Philcha that the most recent issue received adequate feedback from the mentors at the Monitoring page,[66] but the page spun out of control after Mattisse moved commentary from her talk page to the monitoring page,[67] so a clear structure is needed here. Mentors were advancing in that direction when Mattisse began to unilaterally change the page this morning. Mattisse needs stronger encouragement towards patience, understanding that her mentors aren't always around, and working with them before making moves and changes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:29, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Summary: Mattisse continues to make undiffed and unsubstantiated comments about my motives (added: and other editors),[68] including but not limited to the most recent ones linked on the new "Editorial" page above. She stated that I opposed ArbCom's decision, when what I have opposed is the chaotic, unstructured plan, and mentors with varying degrees of willingness to engage (as they stated up front).[69] Mentors lately have worked very hard to address these issues, and good progress towards a new Plan structure was underway. As I see it, the only factor that led to this current brouhaha is that Mattisse acted unilaterally, without waiting for her mentors until Sunday (as they requested), disrupting the progress that was being made, while failing to respond to good-faith requests about what was happening. If anyone disagrees with any of my undiffed statements, please request diffs on my talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:32, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Update: Mattisse has struck some commentary at AN/I. [70] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Response to SilkTork

There is a page - User:Mattisse/Monitoring - where people may bring their concerns. Um, but this problem arose because Mattisse decided that people may not bring their concerns there, and she implemented that change without, apparently, discussing that with her mentors, and without responding to requests about what was happening. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The proposals in the current draft of the final report read like "therapy", are not measurable (how does anyone except Mattisse know when Mattisse is "angry"), and are another setup for failure. There are two possibilities: Mattisse is not aware when she becomes emotional and doesn't do these things on purpose, or she is aware and violates her plan nonetheless. Either the proposal is telling her she must govern emotions that she's already shown she can't recognize, or is assuming that she violates her plan intentionally when she becomes "angry". Also, how can the Monitoring page have been a place to offload complaints, when until recently, it wasn't even open to anyone besides mentors? I, for example, didn't lodge any complaints as there was no forum for doing so. Second, there is no mention that the mentors came to consensus with Mattisse to change the page to allow for input from other editors, which was the confusion that led to this Request for clarification. We have arbs making statements that Mattisse was acting in accordance with her Plan, yet no clarification from the mentors that they, themselves, had changed the Plan in consensus with Mattisse, and that led to this Request for clarification from ArbCom. This Request was intended to get a workable Plan in place; the proposals presented after a great deal of effort are neither workable nor measurable. Workable proposals cannot be based around someone else's emotions, which no else can judge or quantify or measure. Workable proposals will be measurable, as in: "Mattisse will not mention Giano on Wiki again, unless Giano has spoken to her first". Mattisse brought Giano into this dispute, by mentioning him on her talk page, first. If she needs clarification about something she doesn't understand about Giano, e-mailing a mentor is an option. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Followup (after Giano's last post): also referring to other editors she has had past conflicts with or made allegations about or are on her "plague" list, or impugning their motives, even when not naming them, as she did with me in these two posts, without using my name, even though I'm clearly referenced: [71] [72] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Response to Ottava Rima

Much earlier, I thought most of the "battleground" issues arose because of the role the mentors were playing; of late, that is less and less true, as they do all appear to be more engaged now in addressing the issues. The best way for Mattisse to avoid "battles" is to consult with her mentors and cease the behaviors that ArbCom noted in the original case. If that doesn't begin to happen soon, even I will begin to question if the time that so many productive editors have had to invest in this case has been worth it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:08, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Re "a long history in which there was a dispute between you and Mattisse. I do accept that you were negatively dealt with during the dispute", I have no idea what you are talking about, Ottava. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Response to NewYorkBrad

We are right where I feared we'd be: a dysfunctional mentorship because the initial plan accepted by ArbCom was too vague and then was poorly executed, and mentors had varying degrees of availability and willingness to address concerns, compounded by no effective format for expression of concerns. Arbs have to weigh their own responsibility for having accepted this vague plan in their final decision: was Mattisse adequately served by the plan that ArbCom approved, weighed against has the disruption been enough, considering that so many of Wiki's best editors have been involved in trying to help, taking inordinate amounts of time, with many of the issues unchanged? Everyone made mistakes here, which is why Moni and I have been joined by several others in railing for months for more attention to be paid to the dysfunctional mentoring plan. On the upside, the Monitoring page was close to becoming a well functioning page before today's derailment, and the mentors have been doing a sound job lately. On the downside, today's brouhaha was a direct result of no mentors being available, and Mattisse not waiting to consult her mentors (unless something private has not been revealed). If Mattisse isn't availing herself of so much effort from so many other editors, that should also be factored. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:18, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

There is a recurring, unaddressed issue that needs to be factored into whether a mentorship will work. Mattisse does not know how to locate and read diffs, or how to review the editing history on Wiki pages. This leads to many of her faulty assumptions and statements, and anyone who has worked closely with her has seen this, and knows that until it is addressed, it will be at the core of the recurring issues. A more active mentorship is needed. The reason the ATC mentorship worked is that I devoted darn near 24/7 for two months to leading her by the hand through each issue, teaching her how Wiki works, while an admin was on board to block when she didn't respond. None of Mattisse's mentors appear to really understand what is behind her problems, no one is on board who will block, and I suggest they will continue to occur until someone teaches her to read diffs and edit histories. Mattisse's edit count is deceiving in this sense, as she still is lacking in some basic editing skills. (See discussion on her talk; this is "not my job". I was not listed on her "plague list" likely because I refrained from commenting in earlier go-rounds, but I think most observers know that I am one of the editors most frequently targeted by her, so someone else needs to help her learn to read edit histories and use diffs; that may help her avoid some of these recurring issues.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:22, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Response to Moni's response to NYB

Good. Put that woman on ArbCom; as she said all along, this is how it should have been done from the beginning. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Response to Regents Park response to Moni

On too much time for the format, Boloney :) I put up a sample today in less than 10 minutes, including the time to find diffs. :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:41, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Response to Carcharoth

I'm concerned when you precede a statement with "I'm not 100% sure of what is going on here yet", and then proceed to make recommendations. Your recommendations amount to giving more time to a situation which hasn't changed since within weeks after the Arb closed, and worse asking even more work of the mentors by suggesting they submit a report, when you already have ample evidence that the mentorship as currently structured isn't working. Wikipedia is severely lacking in editors lately (just in case we all haven't noticed :) and vandal fighting, admin processes, and content review processes are all suffering, and yet here we have many of Wiki's finest and hardest working editors devoting already large amounts of time to helping sort issues with one editor, and you suggest that they do more by submitting a report. That sounds like unnecessary paper shuffling to me. All of these editors could be writing articles, fighting vandals, and participating in content review processes: it is time for Mattisse to begin listening to her mentors. The recent event unfolded because she took unilateral action, against their consensus that other editors could post to the Monitoring page, without consulting them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:06, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Carcharoth, I don't think you've noticed that she doesn't have that many active mentors, several of them are MIA, all of them are busy, and there aren't surplus people to write reports. By the way, will this report be public, since she was allowed to designate a mentor committee of only her own choosing (biased by ArbCom design in her favor)? I don't see what a report could add to what has already been presented, particularly considering how very busy all of those editors are. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:39, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I do agree with Moni that Carcharoth's post has opened a new and peculiar "hell" and detracted from our focus here. Mentoring Mattisse is taking inordinate amounts of time from many of Wiki's finest editors, and it's time for ArbCom to step up to the plate, and not request "reports" on a mentorship that isn't working because it was too vaguely defined, and where too many messengers are being shot in the process. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Carcharoth's characterizations of what constitutes "productive" feedback on a complex case notwithstanding (and noting that he overlooked the attack in that edit summary <ahem> while calling out others), apparently the editor on whose page that post was made had an opinion in the matter which might not be entirely in line with Fowler's. Arguing the semantics of whether the attack was "racist" or merely "ethnic" hardly seems useful, particularly since neither of those editors are any longer on Wiki to refute the argument, one of them having left after writing numerous FAs. Even less useful are Fowler's opinions about an editor with whom he joined Mattisse in conflict who is no longer here to speak in his own defense. (I'm still confused why ArbCom accepted a Plan where one of the mentors was someone who was party to some of the same conflicts in which Mattisse engaged, and still hoping that there will be some attempt to refocus this Request for clarification on its original intent-- fixing a faulty Mentoring Plan by assigning more neutral mentors.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:15, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Carcharoth, for your most recent helpful update and clarification, and feedback on the Report page. I've responded on the Report page. The lack of available arbs in this case is a concern, and I hope another ArbCom can be avoided with some concrete, measurable proposals for moving forward. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Response to Mattisse

Mattisse has repeatedly stated that "the monitoring page was locked down with the major suggestions by my mentor/advisers removed" and similar; this is simply not true, and she has shown no diffs which evidence that, and the failure to provide diffs is misleading and will only cause arbs and other newcomers to the page to spend extra time trying to sort the situation, as it is presented inaccurately. The only person removing content was Mattisse, and the only content she removed was mine.[73] (Correction: she later removed more here, and after my two queries and a warning, she removed still more. No suggestions by her mentors/advisers were removed by anyone, and no content was removed by anyone but Mattisse.) She also stated on talk that she removed comments after I introduced negative comments; this is also false. She unilaterally began removing productive content with no notice, and the page was only protected after she started that process and failed to answer queries (see my diffs above and on her talk page).

Further, although one of her mentors, and myself more than once has asked her to strike derogatory statements at AN/I,[74] she has not done that, although she continued to edit all day and did go to AN/I to alter an archived comment.[75] Although a mentor she trusts requested it,[76] she has still not stricken "Moni3 has no right to lock down my user page because SandyGeorgia is not getting her way" from AN/I. Mattisse does not seem to understand the original arb case or the issues that lead to these flareups, or how to read page histories or diffs. For mentorship to work, Mattisse has to be willing to work with her mentors, and recognize the severity of ArbCom's previous findings and the need to change the behaviors and back her beliefs about other editors with diffs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Curiously, Mattisse also states that "User:Mattisse/Monitoring ... is for mentors/advisers only"; this is not the case, consensus on the page with her mentors was that other editors could post there, and Philcha has pointed this out to Mattisse. So, most of what Mattisse presents in her statement is simply inaccurate or misleading, and it's regrettable that so much time has to be spent sorting an issue that could have been avoided if she had simply consulted her mentors before unilaterally deciding no one else could post to her mentoring page. She questions if she must have "superhuman abilities" to stay on Wikipedia; no, she simply has to stop the behaviors that led to the original Arb sanctions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Mattisse also asks Karanacs to list behavioral issues since her ArbCom; there are too many to diff, so in addition to the two I already listed on the "new" Monitoring ("Editorial") page, here are some other diffs since the Arbcom (recalling that assumptions of bad faith and allegations of cabals of editors were part of her arb):

cabalism, allegations about FAR, accuses me of stalking her edits to a page I've long been involved in, "disingenuous", James Joyce issues continue with edit warring, personalizing issues at FAR, more personalizing of issues at FAR, alleges a "class system", presumably at FAC, alters talk page headings to target me. This is a small sampling; others are detailed in the archives on the Monitoring page (where they were prematurely archived) and in the new "editorial" page. I'm also concerned about her use of edit summaries. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

After I responded to this query, Mattisse removed the query to Karanacs.[77] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Re FAR: However, because of your repeated demands; [78] what repeated demands are you referring to, Mattisse? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Re this, no, there is nothing wrong with tagging articles before FARing them, but when the tags are likely to be used as a justification for a subsequent FAR, the tags should be correct. And there is something wrong with reverting to reinsert a faulty tag once your error has been pointed out, and without discussion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Re this, I didn't search your edit history for other instances (although I'm aware that you frequently assert that I do so); I was there when it happened and noticed, because that's an article I watch. I'm happy to AGF and assume that you simply made a mistake there, but treat other editors as you want to be treated would be good advice for you to follow. Did you strike the implication that I had stalked you to James Joyce, an article I've followed for years? With so many old FAs that need review, is it necessary for you to focus on G/B/G/F FAs (considering past conflicts), including one that was already reviewed? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Re this, look at the posts you moved to the new Editorial page, and the example I gave in my Update today, where you delayed in following Philcha's recommendation. And then there's the recent Geogre issue, in archives. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Re this, we're not here to claim or disprove that your editing is "as bad" as it was before; rather to get clarity on the mentoring plan and whether it's working or how it could be more effective. As Vassyana pointed out, you aren't addressing the issues head on that have occurred. This dialogue between us is not the direction you should be heading and is just re-hashing old territory rather than moving forward; reread Vassyana's most recent input.[79] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Since Carcharoth has effectively silenced all feedback here, I will simply say that the statements about FAR here are completely inaccurate, lest false impressions are left about how FAR works. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:10, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

RE this, you always have the option of using your e-mail button to let your mentors and ArbCom know just who you were referring to in those posts (I assume you will provide diffs as evidence). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

RE this, at issue in your mentoring and Arb case is how you continue to poke at editors (like Giano), even when they leave you alone (as I did and as he did), and reference editors on your plague list or against whom you hold grudges. That's why we're here. If you were referring to another editor in those diffs, by all means, forward a confidential e-mail to your mentors and ArbCom and specify that editor, with evidence; then I'll be glad to strike my posts and consider those matters closed, but since we are here to examine your Arb and your mentoring, they remain relevant queries. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Mattisse FAR activity

Mattisse states that "I have initiated, several FARs ... The articles were on SandyGeorgia's list of Wikipedia:Unreviewed featured articles." This is incorrect, and omits another incident, both of which indicate pointy use of FAR to further grudges.

The Buckingham Palace FAR was initiated by Mattisse on February 1, 2009. As the January 2009 Unreviewed FAs page shows, that article was moved off of the Unreviewed list in May 2007. If Mattisse is alleging that she merely reviews this page for potential FAR noms, in this case, it's clearly untrue. She nominated for review an article by Giano which had been previously reviewed.

She also fails to mention the deleted Heinlein FAR. Mattisse initiated that FAR in November 2008 (I'm sorry, I'm not an admin, so I can't retrieve a deleted page to get the exact date), and subsequently had that FAR removed and deleted to make a different FAR nomination instead (at that time, a one-FAR-at-a-time rule was in place at FAR; Wehwalt later nominated the Heinlein article at FAR). On November 11, she nominated Augustan literature, after removing her previous Heinlein FAR. She made the Augustan literature nomination immediately after a tussle on the talk page, which points to the concern that she uses FAR as a vehicle to further grudges.

These two incidents together, and her history at FAR, point to the concern when she began incorrectly tagging the James Joyce article, which had also already been reviewed and was not on the unreviewed list, and whose principle author was a known friend of Giano/Bish/Geogre (Filiocht). FAR should not be used as a vehicle for furthering grudges, particularly when there are so many old, truly bad FAs in need of review. For this reason, I request that ArbCom limit her participation at FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

She also disrupted the Che Guevara FAR, but since that was covered in the previous Arb case, I won't expound unless requested to do so.[80] I hope that the arbs and mentors will understand how much work and diff digging it takes to explain why the James Joyce incident, in which she accused me of stalking,[81] and edit warred to insert incorrect tags, [82] is relevant to the ongoing behaviors, and necessitate a full review of even the older issues. If Mattisse used the Unreviewed FA list to locate FAR noms, why must she dig back into already reviewed articles of an editor with whom she has had conflicts, when the list of unreviewed FAs numbers in the hundreds? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Mattisse's FAC activity

I am too tired to sort through the diffs now, but will supply them (with time) if requested. Mattisse disrupted at least the following FACs with misunderstandings, incorrect interpretations of guidelines, off-topic posts, copyediting errors, and creation of multiple posts to those FACs without striking resolved issues. My attempts to explain guidelines to her were met with hostility. I hope these examples exhibit why the FAC disruption has been such a concern to reviewers and nominators alike. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Reactive attachment disorder, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Major depressive disorder, and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Eric Brewer (ice hockey); there were others, but locating them now will be time consuming. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:51, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Response to Philcha's analysis of diffs

From the Arb findings and the Arb-approved plan:

• Amendments to the plan may occur by consensus of the mentors, whereby the changes become provisional.
• As a starting point in developing the plan, Mattisse and her mentors or advisors should consider ... Mattisse's refraining from making any comments regarding the motivations or good faith of other users ...
• Among other things, Mattisse frequently personalizes discussions by responding to other editors' routine comments about article content as if they were personal attacks or accusations directed against her.

Philcha, your analysis of the diffs I presented is incomplete and in several instances inaccurate, and disregards knowledge of the articles or pages and how those diffs specifically relate to the Arb and subsequent Plan; if you will number your list instead of using bullet points, I can respond to correct any misunderstanding when I'm home tomorrow, explaining exactly how they relate to the points above (apparent to editors more familiar with those articles and instances, but perhaps not to you). On the other hand, I don't know if this is the page where we need to analyze all of the instances where she has failed to adhere to her Plan; that's not why we're here, and doing so is likely to muddle the purpose of this Request for clarification. Mattisse asked for samples from Karanacs, so I put up just a few. (added Those were only intended to be a sample of past issues that weren't raised because an effective means of dealing with them was not in place, and messengers were being shot. We should focus instead now on new instances, moving forward.) If you all get a working structure installed on the Monitoring page, situations can be handled there, but I can see from this example that if editors are required to briefly list only diffs, mentors might not get the full picture or history, so a limited page structure might not work. You all do need some mentors who know and see the issues from the "plague list" side of the equation; this has always been a shortcoming in ArbCom allowing her to choose only mentors acceptable to her, and has resulted in "shooting the messenger" of complainants and mixed messages to Mattisse.

Even without the sample diffs, we already have ample indication that Mattisse is not working with or listening to her mentors or following her Plan. These include, but are not limited to: the socking incident; the incident which led to this Arb Request, where she failed to gain consensus with mentors before unilaterally changing her plan; her failure yesterday to adopt your suggestions about her disparaging commentary on AN/I; and the two sample incidents I recorded on the new "Editorial" page. I think we're here to evaluate whether the plan is working rather than an extensive analysis of sample diffs of where it's not. She made those disparaging posts about other editors at AN/I within days of the archival of the most recent incident on her Monitoring page (regarding her comments about Geogre on AC/N, which by the way, I can't find in archives, a complaint-by-complaint archival system is needed), where she did get good advice from her mentors, so it's apparent she isn't listening to y'all, isn't working with y'all, and continues with the same issues, only days later in this case, and failing to strike those comments as you recommended. We have plenty of examples that the Plan isn't working and she isn't listening to her mentors; something needs to change, with or without extensive analysis and understanding of the diffs I listed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:14, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I will, though, provide at least one example of the problem with your analysis of the diffs. [83] In that discussion, someone presented hard, factual data about the number of nominations at FAR. Data is data. Mattisse has been reminded not to personalize discussions; this directly relates to the Arb and the behaviors that led to it. Mattisse responded to hard data as if it was an attack on her, personalizing the discussion; this is a frequent pattern. If you will work harder to understand all of those diffs and how they relate to her Plan, it will help editors on the "plague" list feel that the Mentorship has a chance of working. You might also note that Mattisse's messages are often conveyed in her edit summaries, and pay close attention to them, reminding her of the appropriate way to use edit summaries. If this mentorship is going to work, it needs to be a much more active mentorship than the original Plan provided for; as things stand, mentors aren't often aware what work is needed and when issues are occurring. You also suggest that I should have raised these issues one at a time; have you not observed what happens when I specifically try to engage Mattisse to resolve disputes (yesterday) or how the "messenger was shot" on any incident raised thus far? She came to James Joyce-- an article I have edited for years-- edit warred to remove a source twice, even though her error was pointed out (your recollection there is wrong), and then implied that I had stalked her to that article (you need to know the timeline, and you all should help her learn how to read article histories and diffs, where it's plainly apparent how long I have been involved at the James Joyce article). Should I spend all of my Wiki time trying to resolve these ongoing Mattisse issues, when what matters now is simply, is she adhering to her plan and is she listening to her mentors? When y'all get a working system, issues can be raised when they occur; so far, there was no means of raising issues, and the messenger was often shot. I left two samples on the "editorial" page that you all can use to develop a new system. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:42, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Update

I was traveling most of September, several days last week, will be out all day today, and have Dr. app'ts tomorrow. I am preparing several responses, that I may not get to until Monday or perhaps Tuesday. The only thing I'll add for now is that an established editor like Fowler should be familiar by now with WP:EDITCOUNTITIS; as most observers of my edits know, it takes me many more edits to complete a post than younger editors with better eyesight and better prose than mine, and I took multiple posts to add diffs and commentary here. I will try to update in one post, but it is highly unlikely to happen. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:49, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I haven't yet found the time for an update, but expressed this concern on the Report page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:52, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

This whole affair (and by that, I mean what I see as ArbCom's initial less than optimal handling of the mentorship portion of the decision, and including one unfortunate comment from an arb which was subsequently and thankfully struck from this page) has been exhausting and exasperating for many editors, and has really drained enthusiasm for Wiki among some of our best FAC reviewers. I hope the pending Mentoring report will be viewed in the context that: 1) the committee was self-selected by Mattisse, 2) the Monitoring page was only for mentors until recently, so complaints couldn't be presented there, hence the record is incomplete; 3) many of the mentors didn't even have the Monitoring page or Mattisse's talk page watchlisted until mid-September;[84] 4) some editors gave up and left FAC or Wiki; and 5) there were initial concerns of "shooting the messenger" and incidents not being paid attention to when they were raised, leading at least one editor to bow out.[85] [86] [87]

I largely stood down in the first Arb, thinking these issues would be addressed, but since then, I've watched as I, other productive editors, and content review processes are maligned across multiple pages, while little was done until this most recent incident prompted action. The mentors do seem to be more engaged now, but I continue to note that 1) none of them signed on to "babysit" or follow contribs; 2) none of them has or agreed to use the power to block; 3) some of them remain relatively uninvolved; and 4) often, clear issues are first noted by other parties, notably Karanacs.[88][89] I continue to believe the mentorship will have a better chance of success if the mentoring committee is expanded to include someone who actively follows Mattisse's talk and content review processes, such as Karanacs, who has demonstrated the ability to notice issues unnoticed by her mentors and calmy and politely convey issues to Mattisse without raising hackles.

I also find the frequent statements about "overinvolvement" or lack of "neutrality" by anyone curious; in which sort of forum are "victims" expected to be silent while little action is taken in the face of continued behaviors?

Regarding ongoing confusion from Mattisse's editing style (evidenced on this page), one of the mentors mentioned a full day into this recent debacle that he had just figured out where the moved posts went.[90] Karanacs has explained how Mattisse's frequent moves, combines, and failure to understand diffs and article histories contributes to confusion and some of her misunderstandings; this is a pattern I have long observed, and which affected FAC. I've had a sense of frustration that her mentors going in didn't seem to understand the source of some of Mattisse's confusion, and how her own misunderstandings fuel her perceptions that other editors are out to get her.

I am concerned that the Monitoring page must allow for ample input from complainants, to avoid the partial analysis of situations and diffs as presented by Philcha in the examples I gave above (which we do not need to explore further here, because they are in the past, we need to move forward); the complainants need to be able to discuss and clarify, with no "shooting the messenger" forcing them to back down. Alternately, they should take issues back to Arb or to AN/I. Because the mentorship wasn't working out until recently, I didn't report them on the Monitoring page whenever I saw issues, but was stunned that the mentors didn't even notice issues right on Mattisse's talk page. I hope we're beyond that now.

At a minimum, I never understood why ArbCom didn't rule that Mattisse should no longer review (or initiate) FACs, FARs, GANs, GARs or DYKs of editors with whom she has had previous conflicts. Giano/Bish/Geogre/Filiocht have been clear targets at FAR (note the James Joyce incident, where the article was incorrectly tagged twice; [91] [92] Mattisse tags articles before bringing them to FAR, and surprisingly, reviewers weren't always checking if the tagging was accurate); there are plenty of truly bad FAs in need of review, perhaps Mattisse could focus elsewhere, and Mattisse once nominated an article at FAR, then removed and had it deleted per the "one nom at a time rule" after she engaged in a tussle on a G/B/G article, so she could FAR it instead ... sorry, I'm not an admin, can't locate the deleted FAR). ALL of this context is necessary to a full understanding of disruption at FAR, and why Mattisse might have personalized the discussion when another editor pointed out that almost half of the FAR noms were hers (added and two other editors) when the "one nom at a time" rule was temporarily suspended.[93] I agree that we don't want to lose her sometimes valuable input at FAC and FAR, and to that aim, G guy and I once discussed the idea of allowing her to comment on talk pages only,[94] so the review pages wouldn't be derailed, as they are when she is emotionally involved. (I've seen numerous references to her copyediting skills, yet she seemed so upset during the Major Depressive Disorder FAC that she introduced copyediting, spelling and grammar errors almost every time she edited the article; she shouldn't stay involved in reviews if she becomes emotional. Those are noted in the MDD talk archives.) Added: I note that Mattisse seems to acknowledge now the need to disengage if she becomes emotional and seems to be doing more of that, but ArbCom found in the original case that she didn't always stick to those promises. ^{SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)}

A recent example supports some of what Durova observed. It took a long time for Mattisse to strike a comment from AN/I, that was initially called to her attention by Karanacs, with a followup from Philcha, on her talk page. I stuck with it this time, although previous attempts at discussion with Mattisse have all failed, because there were enough observers involved to hopefully assure the discussion would stay on track, and because her mentor had specifically recommended a course of action that she delayed (substantially) in following. But from observing that interaction on her talk page, and that she twice went to AN/I and yet did not follow her mentor's advice until a long while afterwards and with a lot of prodding from me, makes me wonder what's going on there. It appears disingenuous, as pointed out by Durova. If she can find her way to AN/I to strike one comment, and then alter an archived comment, why can't she notice both of Philcha's comments, and why did it take so much prodding for her to follow her mentor's advice and why will she not answer direct questions from editors attempting to resolve disputes?[95] [96] She found her way to AN/I to strike one comment,[97] alter a comment after archival of the thread,[98] but managed to overlook until she was significantly prodded the other issue raised by Philcha and Karanacs in the very same posts.[99]

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

And. I want to reiterate that lots of folks share the blame if the mentorship fails: ArbCom for accepting a Plan that was too vague to work; all of the editors who were too silent or left (including but not limited to Moni3 and myself, who backed down when faced when Ling.Nut's proposals, and although I consider Ling an excellent editor and friend, he sometimes shoots from the hip or misses the forest for the trees); mentors for sometimes "shooting the messenger" and failing to fully understand or engage the history and issues that lead to Mattisse's problems; and Mattisse, for failing to acknowledge and change the behaviors noted by ArbCom. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:55, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

New issue

This talk page thread merits review. The issue was, again, first noticed by Karanacs, several editors tried to help Mattisse with a long-standing problem she has with diffs, her issues were again deflected to an unrelated Giano issue although Giano had made no comment, and there are some "loaded" replies from a mentor. I continue to be concerned that, when mentors do not model the best behavior to Mattisse, they don't help her case. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:44, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

To follow ArbPage conventions, Giano responded with this post. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Response to Fowler

I would debate your use of the word "choice" in referring to Dinesh's departure from Wiki if I revealed private e-mail and if it were relevant to this case. It's not. What is relevant is that the Plan included a mentor who was part and parcel of Mattisse's ongoing issues with Dinesh, in lieu of more neutral mentors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:55, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you're not a mentor, then that reinforces the reasons we're here, because her Plan listed you as one until a few hours ago, when she just removed you. And I raised this concern in the original ArbCom, because you were a party to a person she is in conflict with. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

As this post makes clear, you were a mentor, and that is exactly the sort of mess that prevails in this case and that we're here to sort. Who on earth can keep up with all the various pages this case has resulted in, and the Plan was the ArbCom-approved page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:27, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Response to RegentsPark

But this sums up part of exactly why we are back at ArbCom; is "advocacy" mentorship working in this case, or should the arbs choose a different path? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Re this, I acknowledge that most of you are exercising your best effort to do the best job you can, but I was always concerned that there was a panel of mentors chosen who didn't have a long enough history with Mattisse to understand how and where she gets into trouble; that understanding is key to helping her! I acknowledge that the recent weeks have been a steep learning curve for all of you, and agree that things might work better from here forward, but find myself in the unfortunate position of having been on the "plague" list for almost two years and highly involved at the places where the issues surface, hence understanding the history of the issues better than several of the mentors. My interest is in making sure that a revised Plan will work, and it won't if we continue to have mentors who weren't up on the issues or were party to the issues. As a result of this Request for clarification, hopefully several of you are now more aware of the history and the nature of the issues and why the "shooting the messenger" mentality of several months ago became such a big problem, but I continue to be amazed that a mentorship committee included one mentor who was party to Mattisse's issues with a "plagued" editor and one mentor who wasn't apparently following the case at all. That biased the mentoring towards pure "advocacy" rather than mentorship, with Geometry guy as the notable exception, and doomed the mentorship in the ways we are now seeing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:28, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Expanding: as someone who once tried to mentor Mattisse, I knew there were three keys to helping her become a better editor, and that some on the mentorship committee (with a few exceptions) weren't aware of these key issues. She doesn't know how to research, store and interpret diffs (see the recent thread on her talk page); she holds grudges and doesn't let go of issues once they're resolved (see the ArbCom findings); and she doesn't acknowledge and apologize/strike and move on, rather evades and deflects (see the recent Giano issue, which severely complicated this case, and her delay in striking the comments at AN/I about Moni and me as recommended by Philcha). When I pressed her two years ago to explain her previous socking, she didn't, couldn't or wouldn't: she evaded. Until and unless the mentors help her deal with these three key issues, a mentorship will not work, and that was the problem with the Plan that ArbCom accepted. The Plan was doomed to fail: Mattisse, content review processes, and those "plagued" paid the price. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:15, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Summary

More effective and measurable sanctions are needed to address the ongoing issues here: although there have been improvements recently, the mentorship is not working.

1. I am aware of several FA writers and reviewers who have left Wikipedia, or FAC, or stopped submitting FAs or GAs because of Mattisse. Since that is based to some extent on private e-mail, ArbCom will take it FWIW, but I hope my record (in other cases) of how I handle private e-mail, and that I must guard confidentiality and respect neutrality as FAC delegate, is taken into consideration. Of course, editors leave Wiki and FA writing all the time for various issues, but there is a disturbing trend affecting FAC and FAR here.
2. Many editors who used to post to my talk page are afraid to do so, and now e-mail me with requests to look over their articles, as they are afraid that posting to my talk page will result in their articles being targetted by Mattisse. This problem with transparency is very troubling to me, as I prefer Wiki business to be kept on Wiki. This is also encumbering my willingness to nominate candidates at RFA.
3. Mattisse's behaviors continued-- after the first ArbCom, and after the socking block. These behaviors amount to some low-level irritation and other outright failures to AGF-- like accusations of stalking (clearly aimed at me, although I was unnamed)-- and personalizing discussions at FAR [100] and targetting of other editors with pointy opposes (see discussion below). The fundamental underlying behavior here is a failure to AGF, and that doesn't appear to have changed.
4. The Mentors Report continues to contain unmeasurable and unworkable proposals, such as "Mattisse to not post in anger", "Mattisse is to be patient", and "Mattisse to not make any remark about another editor on Wikipedia that could be seen as negative". Only Mattisse can judge her own emotional state: these are not measurable. And if she knew when her remarks "could be seen as negative", presumably she wouldn't make them to begin with, nor have the mentors shown an ability to recognize when she does this (see example below).
5. The mentorship has failed because it's not a mentorship: there are several advocates, and one mentor, IMO. The advocates seem unable to see the issues until others raise them, often having to do so vociferously to get their attention. More stunning is that ArbCom initially accepted a Plan that included a mentor who was part and parcel of Mattisse's ongoing conflict with Dineshkammanbadi, an editor with numerous FAs who did leave because of what he was enduring. I regret that neutrality prevented me from responding forthrightly to his e-mails; I wish he had taken his concerns to WT:FAC, but he is not the only editor who gave up. Further, Mattisse cherrypicked from the ArbCom decision to highlight on her Plan the comments made by one arb in her favor,[101] and seemingly missed the overall picture.
6. It is equally astounding that ArbCom accepted an initial Plan that was so vague that it was unworkable, there wasn't clarity about who the mentors were or how the Monitoring page was to be used, it was initially set up only for mentors so others couldn't enter a complaint, mentors present incomplete analysis of diffs indicating problems on this very page, and with the exception of some changes implemented by Geometry guy, it doesn't appear that anything will change if the mentorship is the only sanction in place. Some of the "mentors" have backed off on their "mentorship" role, and now call themselves "advisors". The one who is acting as a mentor, IMO, did not fully endorse the final report.[102]
7. One incident that I raised on the talk page of the Report (Aug 27, 2009) highlights that little has changed and that Mattisse continues to target other editors with low-level but irritating behaviors that her mentors don't acknowledge or address. The responses to this minor issue are illuminating in what is lacking: not a single mentor asked the right questions to address the issue of a pointy oppose aimed at targeted editors. Facts:
   1. Samuel Johnson and Samuel Johnson's early life were collaborations between Malleus Fatuorum, Ottava Rima, and to a lesser extent me-- all editors with whom Mattisse has had differences.
   2. As far as I am able to determine, having gone through the entire history, Mattisse has never opposed another TFA/R.
   3. Prior to the August oppose, Mattisse had not posted at TFA/R since May.
   4. Mattisse has lodged 7 Supports at TFA/R, 5 of those for articles she has copyedited, Dec 2008, Jan 2009, Jan 2009, May 2009, Nov 2009 and 2 others. Jan 2009, May 2009

   The issue itself is inconsequential; the mentor response to it is what concerns me. Mattisse bears grudges and targets editors, and her mentors don't see it.

I am coming to the perception that Mattisse's targeting of FAC, FAR, FA writers, and editors known to be friendly with me is possibly related to me being forced to back out of mentoring her, following the Z ArbCom when I offered to mentor her,[103] after the attack on Dineshkammanbadi forced me to recuse from a FAC [104] and because she wouldn't forthrightly discuss her previous socking with me. I am concerned that she may be taking out her resentment of me on FAC, FAR and by targetting FA writers. I am also concerned, based on posts on external sites, that her perceptions and actions may be influenced by a now banned editor from a former ArbCom we were both involved in;[105] I have seen indications that they may still be in contact. My efforts to resolve these issues directly with her, at G guy's urging, were rebuffed or met with sarcasm.[106][107] I urge ArbCom to vacate the previous decision and replace the Mentoring Plan with specific, measurable sanctions, that can be listed at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions for community enforcement, aimed at curbing the behaviors and addressing the issues behind those behaviors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Followup to Bishonen's question

I, too, noticed a curious omission in the "Report", which focused on her responses to the Advisor Panel wrt Kirill, but overlooks another pointy point about an editor she has targetted: me. [108] To my knowledge, I was the only the person to publicly "turn it down". That incident is more allegations of "cabalism" from Mattisse, in spite of an ArbCom finding to that effect. Do the advocates simply fail to see what might be driving Mattisse's statements in that discussion? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:55, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Response to Motion to reopen case and Geometry guy

I am dealing with an emergency veterinary situation and don't have time to respond today: would like another day if possible, but I was hoping there are other ways to deal with this without having to reopen the case. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Bish, and will put forward my suggestions for how this can be resolved via motions as soon as I have time (certainly by tomorrow). In the meantime, it would be helpful if one of the arbs would explain the statement in the original case about ArbCom's continuing jurisdction in this case. I'm not sure what that means or why you can't just use that to propose some simple restrictions that will address the issues, considering the failures of the mentorship. There are restrictions implied in the Plan that ArbCom accepted, which could be enacted and turned over to the Community, since the mentors won't or can't enforce them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Response to Durova: No. Because just in the last few days, we've seen here the one who was mentoring using this forum to advance a personal attack on me, and misrepresent or misunderstand my statements right on this page, and ignore crucial evidence in a biased and inflammatory and inaccurate attack on me. Clearly, giving the mentorship more time is not the way to go; they can continue if they want, but editing restricions, based on the very Plan Mattisse agreed to, must be turned over to uninvolved admins for enforcement. Even at this late stage, the mentors are *still* "shooting the messenger" and in spite of the weeks (months?) given, failed to submit a workable plan to help Mattisse contribute best in the ways she can, while allowing the rest of us some breathing space from the ongoing behavioral issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

First, my sincere apologies to Geometry guy for possibly misreading his post, and to Mattisse and all for the resulting confusion here. Until today, I had only viewed his post as a diff:

----
I am coming to the perception that SandyGeorgia's obsession with Mattisse possibly stems from a guilt complex going back to her backing out of mentoring following the Zeraeph Arbitration.
----

and did not understand that the Wiki formatting he used possibly rendered his comment as a hypothetical example. Combined with his subsequent statements, I read it as a statement that he was emphasizing that I was obsessed with Mattisse because of a guilt complex. I should not have responded here yesterday, in the midst of a personal crisis, without having fully read the page, accounting for his Wiki formatting. As I now see that he may have been posing it as a hypothetical, for illustration purposes, I have struck some comments above. But, there are still troubling indications in his other statements that he may believe what he has expressed as a perception.

"However, Mattisse's perception is not entirely without basis ... " and "In contrast, there is some evidence that SandyGeorgia remains overly interested in the case of Mattisse. The extent of her contributions to this request is but one example, ... " and "Despite this evidence concerning SandyGeorgia's motivations, ..."

Yes, after having sat by with my arms crossed for almost two years, while Mattisse ripped up WT:FAC—at one point her posts were 40% one-quarter of all posts there,[109] and many of them were pointy, targeted, disruptive and unhelpful, but that was all presented in the RFC, so no diffs should be necessary here—and having mostly stood down during the RFC and the Arb case, and then watched as the mentorship failed to serve either Mattisse or content review processes or targetted editors, I have subsequently taken a serious interest in this case. If, in fact G guy, you believe that I am "obsessed" with Mattisse, how can you diff my silence, as my hands were tied by neutrality, during the year-and-a-half while she targetted FAC and FA writers and I could say nothing, or my relative silence in the previous steps of dispute resolution?[110][111] Yes, because of the damage to FAC, and the faulty Plan, it is time for me to speak up, and I have taken an interest. I also don't consider the volume of my response here inappropriate, considering that Mattisse has half a dozen formal advocates.

As to your apparent perception of a "guilt complex", yes, there are three things I feel responsible for:

1. FayssalF: I opposed FayssalF in the 2008 ArbCom elections without fully doing my homework. I'm still concerned that he didn't take all evidence into account when he said, "Not Mattisse again" (the other party was equally responsible), but at that point, I hadn't fully investigated Mattisse's background, and if I had done so, I would have seen that his response was not worthy of an Oppose.
2. Fainites: In early 2008, when his FAC was stalled with little review, in all good faith towards Mattisse's FAC reviewing, I recommended that Fainites ask Mattisse to review it. I can't find the diff for that, but Fainites can confirm. Mattisse's feedback there was extremely unproductive, off-topic, and she failed several times to understand fundamental sourcing issues; the FAC had to be restarted. My recommendation to Fainites to consult with Mattisse earned him a spot as a "plagued" editor, and has affected his editing ever since. He can speak to that here: I don't need to diff it. Also see User talk:SandyGeorgia/archr, which sheds additional light on the extent of Mattisse's perceptions of and issues with me.
3. My relative silence in the RFC and previous Arb case. Had I presented the full evidence of Mattisse's disruption, the case would have been quite convincing, but since re-hashing old business now is in no one's best interest, it's my fault for not having done that when I should have. To the extent FAC, FAR and FA writers have paid the price ever since, I feel responsible.

What I emphatically do not feel guilty about is backing out of mentoring Mattisse. Obviously, mentoring an editor who is attacking a prolific FA writer puts me in a COI, and I backed out and recused as soon as I realized that was happening, combined with the realization that she would not be honest with either herself or me, even in private e-mail, about her previous socking.

I can't find anything in my Summary post that needs to be struck. ArbCom has "institutional memory" and several examples of how I deal with confidential correspondence, and I'm confident they will not give undue weight to my statements without evidence. If a FAC delegate can't speak to trends at FAC, who can?

"I also found it somewhat implausible that Mattisse, who needed to be told how to save diffs on Firefox, frequents external sites."

Please read what I wrote so you can ask the correct questions. Nowhere did I say that Mattisse "frequents external sites": you have misrepresented or misunderstood my post here.

My reference to "their" articles was simply sloppy prose, because I'm accustomed to referring to "their nominations" at FAC. IMO, discussing this is a semantic diversion from more important matters.

"However, I am firmly convinced that Mattisse's approach was primarily motivated by this being a psychology-related article, not by Moni3 being an FA writer" and "Any claims that she has motivations other than improving the encyclopedia should likewise be based on evidence."

Then please review the following:

• User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch48#Kept promise
• User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch49#Quid pro quo

These are merely the easiest for me to locate (because I remember they happened while I was sick last December with a fever), but had I participated fully in the ArbCom, there would have been legions of similar examples. There is plenty of evidence that Mattisse targeted Moni3. A worse example of how she targets editors she perceives to be friendly to me is the time she mixed up Colin and GrahamColm, but I can't locate that diff now. [112] (Graham and Colin are both medical editors with whom I work closely.)

"Mattisse is increasingly learning to recognize situations in which she might make a post that she will later regret."

Learning, but not yet there: evidence her posts of yesterday. The concern here is that she has made promises before that she doesn't keep.

"This misrepresents the two threads cited ... "

Regarding your conclusions about the James Joyce incident, I don't see how my statement misrepresents them (I tried to engage to resolve the dispute with her, she returned hostility and sarcasm), and I see your approach to the Joyce incident as more of what we saw in several GA conflicts: diverting a behavioral issue to a content dispute, based on after-the-fact, new information.

"However, I am not aware of substantial evidence that she has targeted FA writers and friends of SandyGeorgia since arbitration in June", and "One recurrent problem with Mattisse is that she states she will "never do X again" and then does it when she changes her mind."

Whether she has done it since June isn't the only question: as you have noted, she doesn't always stick to her promises, and the concern here is that she will again revert to the same behaviors as soon as this Request closes. That is why I don't believe we can continue to leave this in the "advisors" hands, and we need to see some formal editing restrictions imposed so that it doesn't re-occur. And I note that in spite of her frequent assertions, I have never called for Mattisse to be banned from FAC: she sometimes makes very good observations there. But, considering the "mentors" did not submit a Report or Plan to address the very issues raised in this Request for clarification, I do believe we need to put some editing restrictions in the hands of uninvolved admins. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposal

From the Arb case:

"The Arbitration Committee retains jurisdiction over the subject-matter of this case, as it does in any case. Should the preceding remedies fail to improve the situation described in this decision, after a reasonable time, an application may be made to reopen the case and impose other remedies as may be necessary."

"1a.iii) The plan submitted at User:Mattisse/Plan (version as of 24 June) is considered satisfactory and enacted as a baseline. Amendments to the plan may occur by consensus of the mentors, whereby the changes become provisional. At the discretion of the mentors, or if there are significant objections by the community, the provisional changes will be reviewed by the Arbitration Committee at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment."

From the Plan approved by ArbCom:

• Per ArbCom, I am prohibited from engaging in unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, and disruptive point-making. I must avoid making any comments regarding the motivations or good faith of other editors.
• I must not accuse others of conspiring against me.
• I must avoid all comments that seem as if I a personalizing the routine remarks of others. I must limit my comments to article content and not the characteristics of other editors.
• I must avoid making statements that I will not return to a forum, as that is an indeterminate statement implying no time limit and opinions will vary as to when, if ever, I could return. If I make such a statement, I must give a timeframe and adhere to it.

Considering that Mattisse herself agreed to the above, and yet continued all of the above after the Arb case, why can't ArbCom just re-open the previous case, per the ongoing jurisdiction, and impose formal editing restrictions based on Mattisse's own statements above? I have never called for Mattisse—or any other editor—to be banned from FAC. All I want is for those behaviors to stop, and for uninvolved admins to have some power to block if they continue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Response to NYB and Mattisse

I haven't called for a ban on you at FAC, Mattisse, and there have been problems at GAN, including with Fainites and Moni3. NYB, in general, I just want something enforceable should behaviors resume. If your Motion is accepted, what will be the enforcement? Opening yet another case? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Mattisse, do you see how this is the kind of behavior Durova mentions? Has anyone asked you to stop copyediting for Wehwalt? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

<sigh> This demonstrates why I say we need enforceable editing restrictions. This is taking way too much time. Mattisse, do you not see that "SandyGeorgia considers her area" is personalizing a dispute ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Silktork, yes, she often identifies key issues at FAC. She identified a key issue in the Major depressive disorder FAC (but then went on to derail the FAC instead of resting her case, as she seemed to sincerely believe that I-- one of the architects of WP:MEDRS and a strong proponent of it-- would promote an article which relied heavily on primarily sources because it had "FAC cabal" support. If she had merely stated her case there, and rested her case, there would not have been an issue). The problem is when she becomes emotionally tangled. I want the disruptive behaviors based on perceptions of cabalism to stop -- not the reviewing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

General statement in response to NYB's proposal: this is a general statement, not about Mattisse in particular, that I intend to make on another, similar case (and there are more similar cases). I do not believe it behooves Wiki, or the process of determining Wiki's best articles, to restrict any editor from participating at FAC. To use an old adage, "Even a stopped clock is right twice a day". Mattisse often identified key issues in a FAC, and FAC delegates have the ability to restart a FAC, or move disruptive commentary to talk, when a FAC is derailed. If the arbs believe that some restrictions are necessary, I would want to at least allow Mattisse to comment on talk pages of FACs, but it is true that she hasn't disrupted a FAC recently. It is the failure to AGF, and the targetting of certain editors and processes that concern me-- not the participation in content review processes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:43, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Response to motion 2

I emphatically state that I am strongly opposed to any ban of any editor from FAC, where we need every bit of input that any editor can provide. Mattisse's reviewing at FAC is not the problem: her grudge bearing and targeting of some editors is. We don't help FAC or the FA process by setting the precedent of banning editors who make good observations at FAC from the process. Further, the FAC delegates know who the most disruptive FAC reviewers are, and Mattisse isn't one of them; the larger problems with her occurred when she disrupted the FAC talk page, but those behaviors have largely ceased. I would support some version of Fainites' latest proposal, but would expand one of his comments to: "Not to take part in FAC unless invited by the nominator or FAC director/delegates." I urge the Committee to seriously consider precedents that may be set in this case, considering other cases before ArbCom now, and other cases in the dispute resolution pipeline. Banning anyone from FAC will compromise the quality of Wiki's best articles. Delegates are able to ignore disruptive editors there: ArbCom remedies should focus on the disruptive behaviors elsewhere. The issue with Mattisse is the disruptive behaviors that she outlined in her plan, not her FAC reviewing. Address the issue! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:39, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Response to Carcharoth motions 3 thru 6

Generally, these look like a workable next step and I don't see anything wrong with them on the surface. I am, however, concerned about the eventuality of Mattisse tangling on a FAC and the delegates being forced to work through the mentors to deal with any issues that might surface on a FAC. I don't think this will happen, since Mattisse hasn't disrupted a FAC recently, but in the unlikely event it does happen, delegates have to retain the ability they have always had to act within their discretion at FAC-- to remove comments to talk, restart, etc. Somehow the wording of the motions has to reflect that FAC can't be run by a panel of advisors: not sure how to adjust the wording for that or if it's a problem, but something to think about. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:40, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Further response to Carcharoth: I'd like to generalize even further and explain my concern (keeping in mind that there are other editors more disruptive at FAC than Mattisse, and I don't want precedents established that will alter the way FAC functions). I'd not like to see any posts ever removed from a FAC, and would rather not start the practice of outside "civility police" enforcing FACs: all posts are weighed there by the director/delegates, and disruptive posts are routinely moved to the FAC talk page. To my knowledge, in three years of following FAC, a post has never been removed there, although posts are often moved to the talk page. I don't see this being an issue with Mattisse, but don't want to invite this precedent at FAC, where the delegates have the ability to manage disruption while weighing all commentary. Sometimes, even disruptive commentary contains a kernel of truth that is helpful in evaluating the FAC. Is this workable? An additional wrinkle, in the case of FAC, is that I would never file a report anywhere when a FAC is ongoing, as doing so could prejudice the outcome of the FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:46, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Afterthought: I do recall Raul once removing a post that divulged someone's identity. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Response to G guy response to motions

With all due respect to the arbs, I agree with G guy's latest post, and fear that because of the rambling incoherent nature of this Request for clarification, some may have lost the plot. The problems occurred precisely because there was no place for other editors to report issues, and by reporting them directly to mentors, discussions were decentralized, spread across many pages, and not always addressed. Although it is clear that the mentors are more engaged now, and previous issues may not recur, it seems we're moving backwards again here if there is no place for other editor input. The new motions are also characterized by the same kinds of ambiguities that plagued the first case: for example, what is the "duration of the mentorship"? The motions appear to be headed in the direction of making User talk:Geometry guy the central place for reporting issues. Is that the result intended by the arbs, is that fair to him, and what happens if he (or any mentors) resign? I'd like to see the Motions clear enough that we don't end up back here for further clarification this time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Response to Mattisse response to Jooperscoopers

Interesting. A review of User:Dr pda/List of FAs by citation density shows that Mattisse had to go very deep into this list (almost 200) to choose those particular FAs to tag, while there are many more at the top of the list with far lower citation density, and a review of Mattisse's contribs shows that those were the only FAs she chose to tag. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Mattisse responds that she checked other articles previously, but the appearance is that she chose to tag only these three articles, in spite of numerous articles at the top of the list that show a "zero" citation density. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Mattisse, perhaps you can clear this up by explaining why you passed over hundreds of FAs at the top of the list with less citations, to choose those three to focus on? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Response to Vassyana

After so much apparent progress in this case—with some of the mentors now more fully engaging—we seem to be again moving backwards. While Vassyana certainly is entitled to "vote" according to his views of the case, ArbCom is the final place for a full airing of evidence, but we find continued stifling of evidence with comments like "gross overreaction" and "borders on farce". Hopefully it isn't necessary to remind an arb to AGF, or that we all ended up in this position because of clear deficiencies in the original case as decided by ArbCom and many editors attempts to help the mentors help Mattisse do what she does well in the face of a vague and ill-defined arb decision.

The issue, per the original case, is whether Mattisse holds grudges and personalizes disputes and uses FAC and FAR as an instrument for furthering those issues when there are many other deficient FAs where she could instead direct her attention; for Jooperscoopers to present ongoing evidence of such—in the final forum of dispute resolution where all issues should be aired—hardly seems like a "gross overreaction" to those who have long edited alongside Mattisse and are aware of these issues. Threats that stifle feedback here won't help anyone or further the best interest of content review processes. I'm also unclear why the discussion degenerated into one of article ownership, which has very little (or nothing) to do with the issues.

Further, Vassyana, I'm curious if you read this page diff-by-diff, or just read what is on the page at the time you visit. Mattisse responded to my queries by altering her previous posts, rather than adding a response, so that a straight read of the page makes less sense after the fact. It would be helpful if Mattisse would respond to direct questions rather than altering her posts after others have already responded to them (perhaps this is an issue the mentors can work on?).

Here is my analysis and some questions based on User:Dr pda/List of FAs by citation density:

#	Article	# cites/# paras
170	Swedish allotment system	0.52
174	Sylvia (ballet)	0.53
175	Battle of Smolensk (1943)	0.53
176	History of merit badges (Boy Scouts of America)	0.53
178	Autostereogram	0.54
180	Yom Kippur War	0.55
186	Gas tungsten arc welding	0.57
187	Texas Ranger Division	0.57
189	Omnipotence paradox	0.57
190	Deconstructivism	0.58

Mattisse says she was "going down the list of Dr. Pda", yet a review of the list shows that she had no input on seven seriously deficient FAs that fall between Swedish allotment system and Omnipotence paradox on that list. Raising the question and presenting evidence about how she chooses which FAs to review need not be labeled with such drastic language as Vassyana has used. The question remains: why did Mattisse choose those particular articles to edit, while ignoring more seriously deficient FAs while she was "going down the list"? The question is not how minor her edits were: it's a question of whether she targets certain editors when there is so much more work that can be done on other, more clearly deficient FAs.

Further clarification needed

We're all in this position because ArbCom passed a vague and unworkable Plan in the original case, yet we are seeing more of same in the proposed Motions. Geometry guy's questions have not been answered, one mentor is out sick, and two mentors (only) seem to be now actively following. That renders some of the Motions here tenuous and vague again, and it's not clear what should happen if we lose mentors. Further, some clarification of Motion 8 is needed: I have never observed "baiting" of Mattisse, but I have observed numerous editors trying to figure out what to do with the deficient Plan, previously unengaged mentors, how to structure the pages so they would work to Mattisse's best interest and serve content review processes, and sort out the ensuing confusion of an ill-defined Plan. It would be helpful if Vassyana, or some arb, would put up some specific evidence of this "baiting", so we can all know their definition of such and what to avoid. Vassyana seems to have a clear idea of what he considers "baiting"; it would be helpful if the rest of us could see some examples, and if AGF were factored in to his comments.

The handling of this case has not been an example of one of ArbCom's finer moments; it would be considerate if the veiled comments about those who have tried to help sort the ensuing mess would cease.

New issues, December 8

User:Mattisse/Plan acknowledges "I must avoid making statements that I will not return to a forum, as that is an indeterminate statement implying no time limit and opinions will vary as to when, if ever, I could return. If I make such a statement, I must give a timeframe and adhere to it."

After a friendly reminder about her DYK reviews from User:Ucucha, Mattisse replied "OK, I'll abandon doing DKYs", to which Ucucha politely responded, "Well, that's a bit of an overreaction. I quite appreciate your contributions to reviewing DYKs; I just wanted to note a rule you may not have been aware of."

In spite of the November blocks, Mattisse still has to be reminded by her mentors to consult them.[113] As a result of this Request for clarification, some of the mentors are more fully engaged now, but that won't help if Mattisse doesn't consult them.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Closing

I support Carcharoth's post about closing the Request within 48 hours even if some ambiguities remain. Mentors are now more fully engaged, and the Motions that are passing will serve the original purpose of this Request, which was to sort how the Monitoring page should be used and where concerns should be reported, considering some of the lack of clarity in the original Plan. Mattisse should not have this page hanging over her head during the holiday season, and even if a few things remain murky, there is enough clarity now. But ... two concerns remain. What happens if we lose mentors? And the mention of "baiting" in Motion 8 remains unclear and more guidance as to exactly what the arbs are considering "baiting" would be helpful. For example, if we lose mentors, and then other editors engage in a discussion, is that considered baiting? As far as I know, that is all other editors have done (attempted to sort the problems with the Plan), many editors engaged to try to help Mattisse and sort the vagueries in the Plan, and the only thing I recall seeing that might be considered "baiting" has been Mattisse's references to Giano. Absent more clear guidance, it seems that-- should problems present-- other editors would be advised to never discuss this case. Is that the intent, even if we should lose mentors? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Mattisse

• Please see See this version of User talk:Mattisse/Monitoring], prior to lock down of the page. We began working on a structure yesterday and were making good progress. Previously the page had devolved in to arguments and attacks on my mentors/advisers with nothing constructive resulting. (Here is a snapshot of what the page looked like yesterday.[114]) The page was TLTR with many long editorial essay. Arbcom made in clear in its decision that User:Mattisse/Plan was to be "my plan" and I was to be responsible for it. I was going bonkers with all the bickering and the repetitiousness of the comments, and someone cleared the page. When discussions between SandyGeorgia and Moni3 reappeared there this morning, I moved the comments to another page,[115] and my mentors/advisers and I are working on a new format. (I lost some material, not on purpose, because of the repeated edit conflicts. I ask SandyGeorgia to assume good faith that I did not intentionally lose content.[116]) That is, until an involved admin User:Moni3 locked down my user page so that I could not edit it any more. Hence the problem now. I have faith in my advisers/mentors and I have faith that ArbCom make a well thought out decision. No one thought that this would be easy. But it is not for SandyGeorgia and Moni3 to control what happens on my user page because they think their way is best. I believe that if my mentors/advisers and I are left along to do our work, ArbCom will be satisfied.

• I made a very bad mistake since the Arbitration in creating what I thought were "joke" sockpuppets e.g. User:Big Toxic Personality, User:CallMeNow, the latter made a few edits that I now see were pointy and hurtful[117]. I was blocked for two weeks for that. I have made errors in judgment in wording my concerns. Never was it my intention to be disruptive. I am learning more what is considered "wrong" for me, Mattisse, to do by Wikipedia through my mentors/advisers. It is not true that they have failed to provide me with input. They have, much of it by email because any posting on the monitoring page or my talk page causes a storm of opinions and arguing from other editors. I am trying to learn. Please have faith in my mentors/advisers and allow us to work unimpeded. Please do take into consideration that almost everything I did on the monitoring page and the editorial comment page was met with edit conflicts, and I lost much material that explained my actions.

• I agree with RegentsPark that "everyone and his aunt" felt they could comment on the monitoring page, with resulting repetitiousness and chaos. Thus the need to severely limit the posts there to a stringent format, and move "discussion" to the editorial talk page. I also agree with him that progress has steadily been made. Please allow me and my very fine panel of advisers/mentors to work on the problems without chaotic, repetitious, distracting input, in our own way.

• Unfortunately, the monitoring page was locked down with the major suggestions by my mentor/advisers removed.Please see this version and the progress we had made. Editors are basically repeating themselves. Agree with User:Ottava Rima that the page has become a battleground. And my mentors/advisers can find other ways of communicating. On an open page, my mentors/advisers end up being attacked. It is too stressful for both me and my mentors/advisers to sustain ourselves in this us against them mentality. I am fearful they will not want to continue, as it is so unpleasant to be under attack.

• I note other "uninvolved" editors had a fundamental misunderstanding of my monitoring page and were adding and removing material.[118]

My editing

If superhuman abilities are required at Wikipedia, then I admit I fail. I am human and do make mistakes. My mentors/advisers have been all to willing to point them out to me. Ultimately, it is up to arbcom to decide what level of human fallibility is tolerable here. Having taken up reading arbcom pages, on the advise of one of my mentors/advisers, I think my failings are minor compared to what arbccom regularly deals with and concern a small group of editors. For example, I do not vandalize or edit war to insert agenda into articles. I do not insert POV.

Please take into account the timestamps on the diffs of my behavior provided. Today is October 15. Many of the diffs refer to much earlier, such as July and August. Please look at my entire editing history since the arbcom. Since almost five months have passed and over 8,000+ edits on my part, I submit my errors in judgment are minor in number and confined to specific loci only. The vast amount of my work and my interactions with other editors is problem free. Please note that I am No. 124 on Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits as of October, 2009. I submit that this is because I have given unstintingly of my editing skills to Wikipedia and that my problems lie with a very narrow group of editors. I am very willing to make every effort to avoid that subgroup of editors. In reading through the many diffs offered as complaints about my behavior, many of them seem to be situations in which an assumption of good faith would have resolved.

My editing has changed. I used to regularly review articles for FAC, several per week and copy edit extensively several more. Now I no longer review or copy edit FAC's unless requested by the nominating editor, and even then, as in the case of The Disasters of War, which Ceoil asked me to review, I withdrew and I will not complete that review. I have been asked to review Ottava Rima's current FAC, The Author's Farce, but I will not complete it. I used to review review 3 to 5 GAN's a week. In the last year I have done 236 (seeUser:Mattisse/GA). I no longer am willing to do GANs at present, although in the future I may return perhaps. I do not do GAR or FAR at all. The last FAR I initiated was Wikipedia:Featured article review/Delrina/archive1 in July 2009. The last GAR I commented on was the Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Münchausen by Internet/1 GAR in August 2009. I used to help out with verification of dyks, but after Durova's complaint, I am unwilling to review a dyk unless I know the editor is not a sock puppet. So I write dyks, of which I have written 10 so far in October, 2009, and work on my own articles, as well as upload PD pictures.

I now have 75,000+ edits, 103 dyks and tto in the hopper. I have created close to 556 articles. Almost all my work has been in the article space and there have been no complaints about my work there. The work on the monitoring page has been productive. (See version prior to lockdown.[119]), I think my mentors/advisers have been very successful in a difficult situation, one that has been stressful for them.(See unhelpful comments added) As others have pointed out, mentoring/advising is difficult work and I think mine are doing a stellar job.

Over involvement and use of admin tools

Moni3 was an involved admin, and not one of my mentors/advisers; she should not have used her admin tools to control my mentoring in my userspace. I ask arbcom to consider that both SandyGeorgia and Moni3 are overly involved in my case, as noted by (former mentor/adviser) Ling.Nut at the end of this long discussion Saddens me to say .... They both have made their points multiple places on Wikipedia. After the Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Münchausen by Internet/1 in which I gave my opinion regarding an article by Moni3, she commented on my talk page Mattisse is full of neurotic bullshit] and refused to address aggressive remarks at request of an admin. And here also. (This is also an example of the attacks on my mentors/advisers.) As an example of this over involvement is here[120] and today, October 20, Sandy and Moni3 continue posting long remarks on a mentor's talkpage, not satisified with this arbcom.[121][122] It is the posting of such long remarks on my talk page, the monitoring page and elsewhere that I found unhelpful and disruptive.

The page did not have to be locked down. If it was, I could have been notified that this was a legitimate use of admin tools by an invested admin. That was my only question at AN/I. This did not have to come to arbcom because of this incident. It was an over reaction by an invested admin. This was not an article in article space. This was a userspace page. What does it matter who is able to write on my userspace page for six hours that warrants arbcom attention? Nothing in particular happened today, except that my mentors/advisers and I made some very good progress in coming up with a format for a complaints page, and I became frustrated by multiple edit conflicts that confused me. We were revising the format and continue to do so. We welcome constructive feedback.

SandyGeorgia continues to be overinvolved, answering questions directed specifically at another editor [123] and not allowing my mentors/advisers to work without interference.[124] As Philcha mentions, that SandyGeorgia put a long list of grievances on my page just after I was blocked and still upset, and that was not experienced by me as a constructive attempt to change my behavior but was experienced by me as an attempt to inflame. I concur with his analysis of the diffs she provided relating to July and August. I will try to use better wording in the future, but I also think she tends to personalize my remarks and not assume good faith. I would like to know if she has any recent evidence (e.g. in October) of my disruptive editing (other than the incident related to Moni3's lockdown of my userspace page). Note that I no longer maintain my long-standing practice of extensive copy editing and reviewing of several FACs a week but only review selectively upon request. I have not participated in FAR for several months and have no desire to do so at present. Giano maintains links regarding me on User:Giano/Things to remember and numerous other userspace pages[125] and [126], whereas, I have been told by Karanacs that keeping such pages of links is "problematic" and told to delete any pages I had, which I did. I am troubled that the "rules" do not seem to be applied fairly.

I also wonder at the involvement of "uninvolved" User:Unitanode, someone with whom I have never had an editing interaction, who has posted on the mentoring and talk pages more than my advisers/mentors, or anyone else but me. [127][128] He repeatedly states that monitoring me is "stressful"[129] and that he will become uninvolved[130][131][132] but has posted thither and yon about me.[133][134] including all of my mentor/adviser's pages e.g. [135] and had argumentative interactions with those who defended me such as Ottave Rima.[136] And posting on AN/I about my mentors. e.g.[137] Also, his attempts to impute motives to my comments, insisting I have an agenda, taking my words in a bad light and not in good faith. e.g.[138] Unitanode focuses on Giano and accusing me of bringing Giano into the dispute.[139][140]He has continually posted on my talk page, even to this day, [141][142] defending User:Hipocrite who brought up a 2006 incident on my talk page[143] brought up here. And to other pages today to stir the pot.[144][145] There has been too much "stirring the pot" in my opinion, which gives the appearance of a ground swell against me.

Comment on "univolved" Unitanode and Giano

Unitanode is apparently defending Giano who has repeatedly posted on my talk page, although I never post on his, repeatedly calling me a "troll". (I have been told that calling someone a "troll" is a personal attack). Examples of Giano posts: [146][147]On one day alone, October 5, Giano posted 8 times on my talk page. e.g.[148], carrying on a conversation with Unitanode.[149] Other examples:[150] [151] [152] [153] And other posts also:"she trolls" Between Giano and Unitanode, I feel harassed. This does not help my abilities to edit on wikipedia. My only "sin" regarding Giano is asking for references for one of his articles, and for not realizing until later that Geogre, Bishonen, and Giano are effectively, if not literally, the same person. I did present evidence against Geogre, as he had used his sockpuppet Utgard Loki to discredit me in the FAR process. Although he was found to have been using a sockpuppet abusively, he was never blocked for this. I used a sockpuppet briefly to poke at Bishonen's [[User:Little Toxic Personality] sock and some of her other socks. For this I was blocked for two weeks. I am not complaining about that block, but I do wonder if there is any fairness at Wikipedia, or whether some editors are scapegoated and others get a free ride. The reason I tote my achievements is that I feel I have done and continue to do a great deal of work for Wikipedia, but I receive abuse instead of a "favored editor" treatment that some old hands receive who are not as productive as I am. If You can clear up this feeling I have, I would appreciate it. How are any comments I have made been more hurtful or destructive than the harassment I have received via Geogre and Giano?

Now I have received this warning:[154] from User:Hipocrite an editor I do not know who, before he issued it, made accusations referring to an incident in 2006, when I was a new editor.[155] I need to know whether involved editors are allowed to issue warnings and blocks. I need to know what the rules are. I need to know if I will be blocked for posting in this arbitration.

Response to SandyGeorgia

User:Mattisse/Monitoring (the prior to lockdown version is the one we will revert to once the lockdown ends) is for mentors/advisers only. I sought to remove the unhelpful comments[156] and return the page to its constructive mood. This is to prevent the bickering, the attacks on mentors/advisers that were turning the page into chaos. ArbCom made it clear that I was in charge of my mentoring.

I would not mind more mentors. Beginning in the fall, I ceased editing in FAR and only selectively, and upon the author's request, at FAC. As noted, I withdrew from Ceoil's Disasters of War because of this arbcom clarification, even though he specifically requested that I copy edit the article and review. Ottava Rima requested that I copy edit and review his current FAC, but I have lost my taste for that work. I mostly do dyk's and write new and expanding articles, and upload PD pictures. I would welcome a mentor/adviser in this area.

If you note my editing history, I drastically reduced my FAC reviewing and copy editing during the RFC against me in the spring and have cut down to only a couple a month, if that. I no longer do FARs which I did, with YellowMonkey's permission during the summer. He ok'ed every nomination and my behavior there. However, because of your repeated demands posting of diffs regarding my behavior at FAR, such as those posted here, I no longer work at all at FAR. Check my editing history. You will find very little there for anything to do with FAC and nothing regarding FAR in the last couple of months. By the way, there is nothing wrong with tagging articles before they go to FAR. There is no rule that FACs cannot be tagged if they have problems. All my behavior was watched by YellowMonkey and when I asked him to comment on his talk page, he did not find fault with my behavior.

You found one instance of me "reverting without discussion" in my editing history. Can you no assume good faith in this once instance?

I would appreciate any recent (e.g. September or October) instances of my problematic editing. Some that do not have to do with the current dispute but that show that in September and October, aside from the recent dispute, that my editing is as bad as the instances brought up in the arbcom and the RFC. Specifically, some problematic edits in FAC or FAR from September or October.

Regarding SandyGeorgia's statement: "I never understood why ArbCom didn't rule that Mattisse should no longer review (or initiate) FACs, FARs, GANs, GARs or DYKs of editors with whom she has had previous conflicts. Giano/Bish/Geogre/Filiocht have been clear targets at FAR (note the James Joyce incident, where the article was incorrectly tagged twice."

I have never initiated FACs, GANs, GAR, or DYKs of Giano/Bish/Geogre/Filiocht, as SandyGeorgia alleges. Indeed, I don't know who Filiocht is and have never to my knowledge had an interaction with him. I have initiated, several FARs by many different editors, one was apparently by Geogre, Wikipedia:Featured article review/Augustan drama/archive1, and one was apparently by Bishonen and Geogre, Wikipedia:Featured article review/Augustan literature/archive1, and Wikipedia:Featured article review/Buckingham Palace was by Giano. The articles were on SandyGeorgia's list of Wikipedia:Unreviewed featured articles. I initiated several more FARs by other editors with no incident. I added references to Buckingham Palace, Giano's article and tried to help fix it up, and several editors did a lot of work on it to retain its FA status. Geogre's Utgard Loki sockpuppet harassed me for these nominations. The "James Joyce incident" refers to an article that was NOT at FAR, so it should not be part of this discussion. It was just an article where I had trouble accessing one reference. Since I became active in FAR, the rule was changed so that an editor, cannot nominate another article until prior nomination is clear. In effect, since articles stay at FAR for upto four or more months, I could not nominate another there until Delrina, nominated by me on July 23 is taken off the list. It is still listed. Therefore, it is only possible for any editor to nominate two or three articles a year. YellowMonkey polices FAR now, removed frivolous entries and in other ways keeps order. These are all issues already brought up in the RFC and the arbitration. I bring them up here to show that I have not engaged in any FAR initiation since July, 2009, nor had any problems with GAN, FAC, or DYK since the arbitration. These are issues brought up before I had mentors/advisers in line. So these issues are irrelevant to the current concern over whether my monitoring can be improved and enhanced.

Art LaPella stated in the arbitration that he has never noted disruptive behavior by me at DYK.[157]

SandyGeorgia, you are not accepting my answered in good faith.[158] You are also not accepting the arbitrators efforts in good faith, as exemplified by this thread on your talk page.[159]

Regarding my mentors/advisers, User:Mattisse/Monitoring, the page we are all focused on, has always been clear about who is currently active.

Regarding SandyGeorgia's latest entry entitled "sigh", she has already taken up many kilobytes more that me and my advisers have. Please take this into consideration. My side has not presented the case. Please just ban me from the areas that are considered SandyGeorgias, apparently FAC, FAR, TFA. Please.

SandyGeorgia, you repeatedly confuse GAN with GAR. Please take the time to learn the difference. I never did a GAN of an article by Fainites, Moni3 or any favored "FAC editors". I will take extra care not do do any future FACs.

Response to 'I told you so' by Durova

Durova's dyk complaint relates to an April 29, 2009 action[160] which apparently relates to a sockpuppet of hers.[161][162] I am not quite clear. Durova did not respond to my attempt to clarify.[163] I sincerely regret that an incident from April 2009 is still painful to Durova. I have never been given any feedback that my responses to dyk's were considered inappropriate, so I did not know. I wish Durova had not waited until now to bring up what seems to be a painful incident from six months ago. I deeply regret that this incident has affect her so, but there is nothing I can do but apologize I do think we should avoid each other, since I cannot make sense of what Durova says. If she is using sockpuppets, then I will not know it is her.

Response to revised statement by Durova

I continue to be baffled by Durova's statements and the psychoanalyzing or "detective work" she conducts regarding my words, behavior, and my answers to hypothetical questions. In the RFC Mattisse, much the same happened and I was equally baffled. I simply don't understand her meaning. Perhaps there is a cultural barrier.

Response by Mattissee to Karanacs

Please specify the "behavioral issues" I have had. I admit there have been a few, but considering that I have completed 8,000 edits since the arbcom, do you think there have been many? Struck as Karanacs has not responded to this specific question.

Response to Karanacs

• Update. Karanacs has apologized acknowledged she was mistaken in blaming me on Geometry guy's talk page for archiving or otherwise removing posts from the monitoring page[164]. She accepted my explanation.[165] She apologized clarified on my talk page that she had been mistaken in her accusation.[166] I acknowledge that I removed a few posts to try to gain some control over the page in the period immediately before the page was locked down by Moni3. However, it is only during this small period of time before the page was locked down that I removed a few posts. At no other time did I remove posts from the page, although others did, and I did not set up the archives nor archive anything. Perhaps Karanacs is not clear on this issue and I suggest she consult page and editing histories to clarify. I acknowledge that Karanacs did not apologize for her mistake, and have struck that she did.

This incident is important as it shows how the "common wisdom" regarding my behavior is spread and accepted as true, even by common-sense editors like Karanacs. Many editors belief that I was removing posts willy nilly from the monitoring page. This was not true. Karanacs had the kindness to acknowledge her mistake. Karanacs apparently continues to believe that I removed posts in periods other than the time just before the page lockdown. A look at the page history will show that I last even posted on the page on October 7. My next editing was on October 14 in the period just before the lock down where SandyGeorgia posted 12 times and I posted 7 in quick succession because I was trying to clean up the monitoring page and make it usable. My attempts to do this are given as justification for Moni3's locking down the page. ArbCom has acknowledge that it was within my right to do this.

To the degree that I do not understand statements made to me, as Karanacs says, then that is a fault of mine due perhaps to cultural differences between me and some other editors. It is true that Durova makes no sense to me, and I apparently do not understand much of what Karanacs says. And it is true that I find remarks by other editors quite offensive at times. I guess ArbCom and Wikipedia has to decide how much tolerance exists for editors that do not think as do my most outspoken critics: SandyGeorgia, Moni3, Karanacs, Malleus and Unitanode. Yes, I am different than these folks. My sense of humor is not the same, I don't like joke blocks and joke sockpuppets etc. I am offended by much of the language. This is something arbcom must decide: how much tolerance for editors whose culture is outside the boundaries of what is considered "ok" and how much good faith is extended to those of us who lie outside the norm. There is not much I can do about misunderstanding other editors, except to listen to those I do understand, such as SilkTork, Salix alba, Philcha, John Carter, RegendsPark, Geometry guy etc.

What does arbcom suggest in the case of cultural differences and true misunderstandings? The level of anger expressed against me is scary, especially as 99.999% of my energy goes into improving the encyclopedia. Should I just give up?

• I have looked through all of the diffs for the history of User talk:Mattisse/Monitoring. On one occasion that I saw, I moved comment from my talk page to the monitoring talk page. Until the final dispute on October 14, I did not move or remove any posts on that page that I can see from the history. I commented only. Please provide diffs showing that I did.

• I have looked through all of the diffs for the history of User:Mattisse/Monitoring. On two occasions I moved comment from my talk page to this page[167][168] That was a mistake as I must have either not realized or become confused about the existence of a mentoring talk page. (I still occasionally get the mentoring page and the mentoring talk page mixed up.) However, until the final dispute, I did not remove posts from this page nor move them on the page. Please provide diffs showing that I did.

Response to Fainities

Someone else noted that the link checker tool is incorrect and needs to be check manually.[169] Have they broken a rule also? Is it against the rules to note that the link checker tool cannot be counted on?

In response to Vassayana

I think the mentoring/advising has improved matters greatly and will work even better with an improved communication system. If you look at the complains in my RFC and in the arbitration, they are much larger in number and more severe than the complaints brought up now, which are restricted in number and location. However, it seems that the issue is fundamental flaws in my character, for which wikipedia has no tolerance. I will stay away from whatever areas of wikipedia you want me to or stay away entirely. Please accept in good faith that I have done my best. If it is not good enough, even with the help of my mentors/advisers, and you see no hope for the future, then it is not enough. I can do no more.

Response to Joopercoopers

• I acknowledge that these remarks were not well thought out and I regret them. I think there is some defense for a few of them, especially the ones made just after my block. Some of the remarks are attempts to have frank discussions with my mentors/advisers on wiki, which I now realize is not possible.

• The first three diffs occur in direct response to a post by Giano defending Geogre's Utgard Loki account on July 23, calling me a troll; I admit I was tired of him calling me that repeatedly since my attempt to get references for Buckingham Palace.[170] The fourth is is a request during the Geogre arbitration for his abusive sockpuppet, for which I made a reasonable request for a check user for User:Disinfoboxman, who like Utgard Loki disrupted my comments at FAR. The fifth and sixth are reflective of my experience posting on the Buckingham Palace talk page, trying to get help for the article and when one of my mentors/advisers posted for me in a similar situation with an article when I refused to post and got a poor response on the article talk page. (I think it was Philcha.) I admit calling someone "disingenuous" for making an irrelevant remark and have amended the word "disingenuous" to "irrelevant" as recommended by a mentor/adviser. I hope the arbitrators take into account that most of those diffs come from my talk page during the period shortly after I was blocked for two weeks, while others were posting inflammatory remarks there. I don't think that just after a person has been blocked is a time to pile on.

• I already explained to Joopercoopers the situation regarding Malleus[171] which Joopercoopers seemed to accept.[172]

• I regret that I made strong statements regarding the new committee proposed by arbcom, on which both Giano and Joopercoopers were members and wish I had expressed my feeling more moderately.

• Joopercoopers diffs further point out that my problems on Wikipedia involve a narrow group of editors over narrow issues. I believe most of it stems from my September 28, 2008 attempt to get references for Buckingham Palace[173] which met with resistence.[174] I believe that this is the only article related to Giano with which I have been invovled. I do not have such problems with almost any other editors. (For example, I have reviewed 236 articles for GAN without incident. Although I have copy edited a wide range of articles, I have never been accused of POV.) I am willing to do what I can to avoid these editors and ask that they also avoid me.

• Joopercoopers posts to arb User:Risker speculating that I or my mentors are using sockpuppets seems to me the wrong way to go about this now.[175] as does the rest of the posting after his speculation on that talk page. I do not think it is good to spread these issues over multiple talk pages.

Response to Giano

• You have continued to post provocatively on my page. Examples: [176][177][178] These are in addition to those listed above.[179]

• Note that I do have an interest in architecture, having edited many architecture articles, including one for FAC, Hoysala architecture and I have started many architecture articles to fill in architectural blanks. See Architecture articles I have started. My reference books on architecture indicate that Palladian architecture in the U.S. is a loose concept and did not back up the statements made in the article. I searched for other references but could not find any. I wanted references to clarify the statements in the FA. That is not an unreasonable request. Fainities and Giano, please assume good faith.

• Note that Edgar Speyer was passed as FAC in part because of my copy editing, according to User:Malleus Fatuorum.[180]

Final statment

• I hope the effect of all the attacks on my mentors/advisers has not been to drive them off. It has been very rough going for all of us recently, and not an atmosphere that is encouraging for my continuance here.

• There seems to be no assumption of good faith toward me and any of my remarks. What I do is put in the worst possible light and my motives are assumed to be disruptive, even though it defies common sense that I would seek to be disruptive.

• I am discouraged for the first time. Thank you for your kind consideration. I am but an old woman, way older than almost all here, and perhaps I really am unfit for wikipedia. My eyesight is way worse than SandyGeorgia's, as I am no where close to even being a baby boomer. My children are baby boomers. So if it is fitting to ban me, please do without qualms. Thanks, —mattisse (Talk) 00:52, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• Fainities has found one instance of my misbehavior in September/October. There was an instance I commented twice in a way she felt was inappropriate. In fact, this instance was brought to my attention by my mentors/advisers. However, if this one instance of commenting twice is reason enough to call my mentor/advisers work a failure, then so be it. I am quite willing to do no more copy editing of FAC articles, to do no more reviewing of FAC articles, and to not engage in FAR work. In fact, I have almost stopped completely doing FAC work since last spring. I will stop offer as a proposal to arbcom that arbcom specifically restrict me from doing any remaining FAC work, and will turn down instruct me as part of this arbitration to turn down requests to do so in the future. I propose that arbcom specifically restrict me from doing any FAR work. If I am not engaged in this work, I will have no reason to comment on the talk pages of these projects. I will have no need to draw attention to the fact that the automatic link checker is fallible. Will that take care of the problem? (In addition, to satisfy Durova, I will not propose that arbcom state that I am review any problematic dyk hooks, nor hooks by questionable editors who could be sockpuppets, I will that I should only review those I can verify.)

I will agree to avoid posting regarding any specific editors, if those editors will agree to reciprocate and assume good faith when it comes to my behavior. (I admit that I do not always know who an article belongs to, so if I tag a missing reference on an article I don't think that should be taken personally.)

I continue to have faith in the good judgment of my mentors/advisers. I hope they will be allowed to continue to mentor/advise me. (I need help. On October 14, after my mentoring page was locked down, there were 44 posts to my talk page alone, not including my own posts. To continue on wikipedia, I need help so as to avoid being overwhelmed.) ====Response to SandyGeorgia's attack on Geometry guy==== I wish to be banned from Wikipedia as soon as possible. I cannot stand the trashing of my good faith advisers anymore. Please just end this for all concerned. I wish to save those who have helped me. Please prevent further criticism of those who had good will toward me. End this now. Please. If Geometry guy is open to attack, then I do not stand a chance in this environment. Please, please, end this. I am willing to forgo anymore editing on Wikipedia if that will stop this. Please. I feel the same about the attacks on my other good faith advisers.

====Response to Durova==== I will take your advise and retire. I have one more dyk to reach my 100th so I would like to wait until then. I thank you for all your helpful and constructive advise. I will take you advise and announce my retirement after one more dyk. Thank you so much for all you have done to aid my survival on Wikipedia.

No one is requesting that I remain. I am willing to leave. I do not want to see editors I value hurt further. To be clear, there is not a single voice wishing that I remain.

However, I am close to 75, 000 edits. So I may reach that goal first. Then I will be happy to follow your suggestion and retire. The fact that I did not collect personal trophies such as WP:FAN is held against me, although I helped many attain that goal.

Ban on FAC articles

I would accept a ban on FAC articles. I have already started telling editors that I will not copy edit their articles if they are aiming for FAC. However, I do not agree with a ban on GAN articles. I have reviewed 236 articles for GAN (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mattisse/GA) with no problems whatsoever. Since it is primarily SandyGeorgia who thinks that I am personalizing, I am quite willing to avoid all her areas of wikipedia.

I believe that I am already avoiding everyone on my "plague list", most of which I have had no contact or interaction with since the impulsive plague list was written. The list: Cirt, Jennevica, Flonight, Malleus Fatuorum, Calisber, Durova, Fainites, Awadewit, Maralia, GianoII, Tex, Bishonen, Risker and Lar. Again, I regret that I did not understand the parameters of the "joke puppet" and I apologize again to Bishonen. Durova's complaint related to my treatment of her sockpuppet in Spring, 2009. Malleus only briefly when he asked to be removed from my adisers list. None of the others on the "plague list" have I had contact with recently (since June, at least, except for Giano repeatedly posting on my talk page -- I did remove his comments). Cirt, Flonight, Calisber, Fainites, Awadewit, Maralia, Tex, Risker and Lar I have had no contact with since the arbitration whatsoever.

I urge the ArbCom to go with the banning from FAC and articles that are aiming for FAC. GAN has nothing to do with this. As shown above, I have no problems with reviewing GAN. I agree to avoid any editors SandyGeorgia designates an "FAC editor". I presume this means User talk:Wehwalt, User:TonyTheTiger, and any other editor that has proposed an FAC.

Please ban me from FAC, "FAC editors" of all stripe, FAR, TFA, and any area SandyGeorgia considers her area. I think my work for GAN and DYK has been good and beyond reproach. Please do not confuse the GARs Fainites and Moni3, identified by SandyGeogia as "FAC editors". I will avoid all editors who might be identified as "FAC editors" including such as User:Sasata and any other editor that goes for FAC. I think I would be wrong to single out special "FAC editors". I agree to avoid them all.

Response to JooperCoopers: "Question. What have Swedish allotment system, Deconstructivism and Omnipotence paradox got in common?"

This shows that I should be banned from FAC and FAR rather than avoid merely avoiding particular editors and their articles.

Regarding the complaint by JooperCoopers, I was going down the list of Dr. Pda.User:Dr pda/List of FAs by citation density as it popped up recently on my watchlist; the list is meant to identify FAs with possible problems. There has been talk recently of the need to update older FAs. I went down the list, starting at the top with those worse off at the beginning of the list, checking those articles than I had not checked previously. When I came to one I wanted to make a change in, I first consulted the FAC nomination to make sure the article did not belong to an editor I might be "in conflict" with and checked the recent edit history and talk page for evidence of the involvement of editors with whom I am in conflict.

On the Swedish allotment system I checked the FAC nomination to make sure that it was not by a familiar editor.[181] I did not see familiar names. Then I merely made a few minor improvements to the article and corrected a spelling error. I did not "tag" it.[182] I added a notation on the talk page. With Deconstructivism, I first checked to make sure that a familiar editor had not nominated it. [183] I did not see familiar names. Then I added two minor tags to the article.[184] and a notation on the talk page. And so with Omnipotence paradox (which is no longer an FA but a B class article). I looked at the original FA nomination[185] and did not see a familiar name. So I added a request for a citation that seems reasonable[186]

This incident demonstrates that if I am to avoid editors with whom I have been "in conflict", then I need a list of those editors. I would not have thought that JooperCoopers was on that list, or any of the owners of the three articles named by JooperCoopers above, but I guess he is and they are since he is making this complaint. He says on the article talk page that he edited the article under a different account.[187] Therefore, somehow I will need to know all past account names of editors with whom I am "in conflict".

Two of my advisers/monitors I have been in severe conflict with in the past: Silk Tork and Geometry guy, so should I avoid interacting with them? Some editors that I might guess I have had "conflict" with may not think if it that way, and the opposite could be true also. For example, I could have been considered in "conflict" with Ottava Rima and Ceoil, yet both have asked me to copy edit their articles at FAC since the conflict. I consider myself to have "conflict" with SandyGeorgia, yet I have never knowingly copy edited or "initiated" a process with any of her articles, as I do not know what they are. Perhaps I need to be given a list of editors and a list of the articles considered "theirs".

There is also the sockpuppet problem. Durova complained about something I did regarding one of her sockpuppets at dyk. How will I know this in advance? Therefore, I will need all sockpuppet names of editors with whom I am in conflict.

Does this mean I avoid all FAC and FAR because conflicts with SandyGeorgia? This[188] indicates "yes", as there is no assumption of good faith, but rather mind reading and inferring my motivation, then casting it in a poor light. Dr. Pda's list should have directions and warnings on it if editors cannot use there own judgment in making use of it. I merely looked at articles that I have not previously satisfied myself about, but that is seen as wrong and used to show that my motivation was nefarious.

This seems to me a dangerous position to put me in unless I am absolutely clear about those editors I should avoid, their past and alternative account names, and a list of the articles they consider theirs.

I hope that "Question. What have Swedish allotment system, Deconstructivism and Omnipotence paradox got in commo?" demonstrates what a difficult position I am in if I am to work at all on FAC, FA, or FAR articles. It seems the question demonstrates that I cannot work on FAC, FA or FAR articles at all and should be banned from the process of copy editing, writing, reviewing or improving FAC, FA, or FAR articles for my own good, unless the parameters of what I must avoid are clear. They were not clear in the three articles used as evidence by JooperCoopers.

If I was in the wrong in making these three edits above, and in making talk page comments, please, ArbCom, let me know how I should have known that these three articles were "off base" to me as they belonged to editors that I should have known I was in conflict with. How should I have known? Were the edits I made "overboard" or disruptive? One article I tagged was an FA and I left a comment on the talk page. One FA article that I corrected the spelling in and noted the reference citation language, which is not "tagging" the article but improving it. And one article I "tagged" was a B class article. None of the articles "belonged" as far as I could tell to an editor that I was "in conflict" with.

Summary: I "tagged" one FA and noted it on the talk page. Is that out of the bounds of what I am allowed to do? In other words, it is all FA/FAR articles that I should avoid, regardless of who owns the article? Judging from SandyGeorgia's remarks below[189], it seems that is the case as she is making assumptions about my motivations, seeing what I do in the worst light. Is there a "correct" way to use Dr. Pda's list? I have gone through that list many times to evaluate articles. Is this truly a volunteer project where we are all encouraged to contribute as we are best able? Or are my motivations over the minor tagging of one FA going to be impugned?

Suppose I had tagged two FA articles, instead of just one? The point seems to be that I should never tag any FA article, regardless of the ownership of the article. The message seems to be that I should be banned from FA articles and reviews of such.

Reply to Risker regarding ownership of articles

If ownership of FA articles is expected and encouraged[190], then I urge that this policy be made explicit. Virtually all my problems leading to this arbitration came directly or indirectly from my mistaken belief that ownership of articles was contrary to Wikipedia policy. If I had known from the beginning that ownership of FA articles was condoned, I would have avoided most of the issues that caused me trouble. Please publicize this issue. Make it known that FAs are owned and set for policies and procedures for the permissible interactions those of us who are not in an ownership position be allowed to interact with these articles. The procedures in place are not adequate. Too often an editor gets called a "troll" for bringing up a problem on the talk page of an owned FA and any sort of change is resisted. Editors are harassed for bringing up problems at FAC and FAR.

Perhaps Wikipedia needs to decide which is more important: encouraging active editors to contribute to and engage with the articles, or to preserve in the original form old FAs that are out of date, inaccurate and/or no longer conform to current FA standards. If Wikipedia expects to encourage active, new editors, then there cannot be a superstructure of entitled editors who preserve relics of the past. Is Wikipedia a vital community or do the elder statesmen hold all the cards and can chase editors like me away for tagging one FA article (as in JooperCoopers' complaint)?

Also, how is "ownership" determined? In Swedish allotment system, Bishonen was "thanked" for copy editing in the nomination. Are all editors who are thanked, or who receive Barnstars, or in some other way acknowledged considered to have an ownership stake? Therefore, if the editors that I am "in conflict" with are mentioned or thanked in an article nomination, I must avoid that article also. Should there not be a formal place to register "ownership" titles, so people like me don't have to spend an hour's time to determine "ownership" to decide if I can make a spelling correction? If Malleus is considered to be an editor with whom I am "in conflict", then do I have to avoid all the hundreds of articles he has had a significant role in either writing or copy editing or both. Do I not need a list of these articles so that I may avoid them?

Reply to SandyGeorgia's query

In answer to SandyGeorgia's query[191], I have been through the top part of that list dozens of times and I know the articles that I am familiar with. Please look at Geometry guy's listing of my relevant FA edits[192]. That does not support a view that I have singled specific articles out with malevolent intentions.

Codicil by Giano

• If the above is another of her snipes "everyone and his aunt", then I would like it known I have never posted on any of her various monitoring pages in any guise at all. Nor do I intend to take part in Mattisse's games or those of her "mentors."

This whole ongoing process of numerous user pages, forms and red tape then meeting an entire committee of mentors before lodging a complaint against one editor is completely ridiculous and smacks of self indulgence. Only a fool would humour that indulgence. If Mattisse irritates me, I shall ignore dismiss the entire fantastical process and post on ANI or her talk (depending on the severity and my mood at the time) as I would with any other editor, and I advise all others to do the same. Never read such rubbish in all my life. Giano (talk) 18:51, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

If as someone suggests Vassyana comments refer to me, then Vassyana is ill-advised and naive. S'he would do well to checj their facts very carefully. I ignore Mattisee untill she deliberatlty treads on my feet. Then is one expresses disatisfaction one is attacked by her "mentors". So Vassanya, if that is what you meant - check your fact or hush. Giano (talk) 09:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• I have just been forced to make this edit on Mattisse's page to refute unfounded allegation made by Mattisse [193] and her more illinformed friends and mentors. Could the Arbs please dissmiss these mentors and impose a collection of sound and sensible people to mentor her. Giano (talk)

JC, Regarding her most reent edits here, just give up, the lies just trip off her toungue [194], here she is acting in unison with one of her "mentors" [195] Neither of them have the remotest interest in architecture. Giano (talk) 18:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• [196] Indeed she did edit Hoysala architecture, it is one of Dinesh's pages, he's the editor she drove off with this vile comment [197]. How much more of this from her are we expected to listen to? Giano (talk) 20:22, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Response to Fowler and Fowler [198]

Dinesh was a very good writer, who researched well. Not a native speaker, his prose was not the best, he accepted that - his fault was that his judjement was poor on whom he allowed to help him. On FAC he was hectored and bullied by Fowler and Fowler who likes to take over other people's FAs and make them his own after reading one or two books, he considers himself an expert.

Are you sure that Sandy's post was "strange" [199]? It seems she was not the only person who thought you were one of the famed mentors [200] Care to explain or are we all imagining things?. I won't dignify your justification of Mattisse's vile racism, with a reply. Giano (talk) 18:01, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Response to Silk Talk

Forbidding Mattisse to mention me, would help. Howver, at one time or another she is at war with half the encyclopedia. You are also forgetting the early few stages of this debacle here, and most of her RFC and RFArbs were without my presence completely. She has to go and as soon as my wiki-break (I'm currently breaking it) is over I will launch a case to bring that about - no more chances. Too many are sick of her. Giano (talk) 07:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Response to Carcharoth[201]

Your partisan responses have served to do nothing but inflame a volatile situtaion. For the record - I will accept no restriction as a result of this page, I would rather go. I suspect other here feel the same. Many spend their entire wiki-;ives hoper Mattisees and her gang come nowhere near them! Understand that Carcharoth, and you might just begin to grasp the problem here. Giano (talk) 07:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Finale

Can we just call a halt to this unseemly circus. It is evident that there need to be a new and full arbitration case. Like the Arbs, Even Mattisse [202] and her "mentors" now seem confused [203] and to have lost the plot, as to who is mentoring who, and the point of it all. This continuing situation is benefiting no one. I think the Arbitration committee have severely failed the victims of Mattisse and her friends, they pass these sanctions and judgements then just abandon and move on and leave the rest of us to suffer. So let's finish this here. I feel revolted, by some of the garbage here. That this post [204] can be justified in this way is more than obscene, it disgraces us all. - the Arbs, Admins etc should be ashamed of themselves for ever allowing it and it's author to remain. I shall be launching an arbitration case in the near future, it would be encouraging if the Arb Com, or some of those Admins normally so keen to block, sorted the matter first. In other words, took responsibility and assumed some honour, or if that is too much, some common ethics. - something very lacking here to date. I'm done here. Giano (talk) 19:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Karanacs

I agree that more clarification is needed, on both the role of the mentors and the way in which concerns can be brought. Several editors have tried to bring concerns to the attention of Mattisse's mentors; instead of responding to the content of the request, several mentors have instead derailed the conversations into discussions of the reporter's motivations. "Do not feed the trolls" [205] [206] [207] This has even extended to other user talk pages [208] "I would welcome a response to my earlier question as to why you are taking an interest in Mattisse"

The lack of structure, lack of agreement on roles the mentors should play, and a lack of documentation on actions taken is contributing to the chaos and drama that has surrounded this page. The current situation can only harm Mattisse.

Karanacs (talk) 16:52, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I would also like clarification on what this means: [209]. I am concerned that fragmentation of the requests will lead to inconsistent advice for Mattisse and much less transparency on what is going on. Karanacs (talk) 19:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Response to Newyorkbrad

On the one hand, I think that the lack of structure and clear roles has made it difficult for the mentorship to work, and that fixing these problems could give the mentorship new life. If we're going to try this again, I like Moni3's plan, especially the shorter time limit. The 12-month period proposed by one of her mentors seems way too long for a trial; a lot of disruption can occur in that time frame (although I sincerely hope it won't).

On the other hand, I don't see that Mattisse's behavior has improved that much, and I don't see many indications from her that she actually understands the gravity of her situation and is amenable to permanent changes. Her references to the Arbcom case often seem to focus on the side comments made in voting that others have baited her, and make it appear to me as if she is still blaming the rest of the world for her troubles. I'm also troubled by her statement here that she hasn't had many behavioral issues since the case. Yes, in some ways it is better, but in some ways it is equally disruptive. Karanacs (talk) 00:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Response to Mattisse

I had not planned on posting here again, but now I see that Mattisse is misrepresenting or misinterpretating my comments. I have not "apologized" nor have I stated that Mattisse has not moved text. Instead, I acknowledged that she was not the only one moving posts. She very definitely moved posts from the monitoring page to the editorial comments page, hence why we are here. There is a big difference between the statement I left for her and her representation of that here.my comment Mattisse's interpretation

Also, I wonder why she brought this up here. It has nothing to do with comments I have made at this clarification request, but instead posts I made on another editor's talk page. I have not retracted any statements I made here, and her statement should not be interpreted that I have. Karanacs (talk) 14:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Further response to Mattisse

Again, Mattisse appears to have misunderstood all of my posts and makes inaccurate characterizations [210]. My initial statement on Geometry Guy's talk page was that posts had been moved around and then archived from several places into one page. I incorrectly attributed all of that to Mattisse; she moved posts from her talk page to the monitoring page, from the monitoring page to the editorial comments page, and occasionally moved posts to different locations within the monitoring page, but her mentors archived. I have not said that I "believe that [Mattisse] removed posts in periods other than the time just before the page lockdown."

This is an extremely unimportant (imo) incident, but it represents a larger pattern (as noted by Durova). Mattisse misunderstands/misinterprets other editors' comments, attributes motives/beliefs to those other editors, and brings her misrepresentations/misinterpretations to forums where they are not relevant, potentially prejudicing whoever she is communicating with. I don't know how to help Mattisse with the first step (misinterpreting), and if she cannot recognize these incidents, I don't know if she will be able to stop steps 2 and 3 - if you don't know you've done something wrong, how can you fix it?

Thoughts on motion to reopen the case

I think it would have been useful to reopen the case several weeks ago, but at this point in time I don't know what benefit it could have. This poor request for clarification by now contains almost all the information that would otherwise be on an evidence page. The draft and talk pages for Silk Tork's report, as well as Mattisse's mentorship page and its talk page contain almost everything else.

Mattisse's behavior has been better over the last few weeks. It is impossible to tell whether that is due to a sincere desire for change, the scrutiny brought about by this case, or a lack of opportunity (no psychology articles nominated for GA, perhaps). (I do note that in my experience her controversial behaviors tend to come in spurts.) The mentors have also done a lot of work in designing a new system for reporting conflicts, although this has yet to be tested to see whether it will work better in practice. I continue to worry that the role the mentors see for themselves leaves some gaping holes - Mattisse is left to figure out when she needs to ask for help, no consequences have been defined, and many of the mentors still appear to act more as advocates.

If the case is reopened I request that arbitrators make it very clear what additional information you would like to see, or how you would like to see this request's mountain of diffs rearrranged. Otherwise, I think this could be dealt with by motion - either let this go to see if the new plan will work, help flesh out the plan to fill its holes, or provide sanctions of some sort. Karanacs (talk) 17:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Statement by RegentsPark

I agree with the spirit of Moni3's statement above. In my view, Mattisse is under a sort of behavioral probation that restricts her from making any comments that could be perceived as lacking in good faith or as a comment on an editor (rather than on content). As a monitor, I see my role as advising her on how to avoid getting into these sorts of imbroglios and, if she does find herself embroiled in one, how to extricate herself in as undamaging a way as is possible. However, that's not what seems to be happening. Rather, things spiral quickly out of control once the mess begins because everyone (Mattisse included) is in a hurry to chime in to support her or to dump on her. The page quickly becomes useless because the original complaint gets buried under a sea of accusations, counter-accusations, and general cant and the entire process becomes a mess.

However, I disagree with moni3 that his/her plan has been met with 'silence and an astonishing lack of direction by Mattisse's mentors'. From what I can see, several mentors have offered their own suggestions, as have I and there is a healthy ongoing discussion. As a fairly neutral editor in all this, I believe that the main intent of monitoring is to serve as a one-stop location which mentors can use to help Mattisse. But, because it has also become a place where everyone and their aunt can comment, it needs structure and that's what the current discussion is focusing on. Mattisse has to be a part of the discussion because without buy in from her we might as well throw up our hands and tell her to leave wikipedia.

My suggestion is that everyone takes a deep breath and note that the process has so far dealt with two complaints. One was resolved based on suggestions made by the monitors, and the second required that Mattisse be advised appropriately, which a monitor did. Bottom line, the process is sort of working. What isn't working is the chaotic nature of the monitoring page but this is a learning process for everyone and the page will evolve. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 17:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

(Note: I agree with SandyGeorgia that Mattisse should be more patient and try not to respond or defend herself until mentors have had a chance to comment and discuss the incident in question. Less is, more often than not, more.--RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 17:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)))

Response to NewYorkBrad

As I note above, I think it is premature to call the plan dead in the water. What's working well is that concerns are getting reported and mentors are giving suggestions. Two things are not working well. The discussion goes way beyond the original concern and Mattisse does not seem to see where the boundaries are wrt her comments though, to be honest, I think there is a lot of provocation. Perhaps arbcom needs to clarify, for Mattisse, what her limits are as well as the consequences of not adhering to these limits and we, the mentors, need to come out with a plan that limits discussion (and, as a side effect, reduces provocation as well). --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 22:22, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment on moni3 proposal

The general thrust is fine but I don't agree with the specific format. First, the amount of work that the complainant has to do is enormous. A simple expression of concern should be all that is required. Second, the complainant is likely to be someone with whom Mattisse has had negative interactions in the past and expecting Mattisse to passively accept suggestions and advice from them is not practical. My suggestion is that the format be simpler, with a section where an editor can express their concern (like unitanode did), and then where mentors can respond with comments and then with a specific course of action (if necessary). Additional comments can go elsewhere, away from the main thread. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 22:36, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Response to Carcharoth proposal

Sounds good to me. The unnerving speed with which the things develop is definitely one of the problems here so a short time out is a good idea anyway but I also ike the idea of compiling a mentor report on how successful the process has (or has not) been and on how the current problems can be better addressed (re the moni3 proposal). --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 02:28, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Response to Carcharoth new proposal

I don't think Moni3's proposal as presented is workable (as discussed here). I believe that a simpler structure, that allows for complaints but restricts judgmental comments about Mattisse's actions from non-mentor editors is a preferable process. Quoting arbcom decisions is, IMO, overly bureaucratic, and suggesting course of actions is likely to be inflammatory. A good example of what should be posted is Unitanode's posting (here) and, IMO, an excellent example of how the process actually worked well (Mattisse got good concrete and actionable advice which she acted upon). This is true despite the fact that the discussion spiraled out of control because of comments from other editors and because Mattisse was too quick to rush to her own defense. If Mattisse can promise not to respond to complaints, and if outside comments can be kept at a distance, this mentorship is both workable and working. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 01:12, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Response to JooperCoopers

With reference to your comment on mentors becoming advocates of Mattisse and the Lima Syndrome, I think you misunderstand the role of mentors. Roughly speaking, a mentor is defined as a 'trusted and experienced advisor', and the mentor is meant to be 'trusted by' the individual being mentored, rather than by the community at large (of course, a good mentor should have the trust of the community as well but that is not the same 'trust' that is implied by the definition). To retain that trust, a mentor has to, by definition again, become at least a partial advocate for the person being mentored (it must include an element of 'looking out' for the person being mentored). A mentor who carries a big stick and uses it freely is not a mentor but an overseer and if arbcom had wanted oversight of all Mattisse's actions, they would have appointed an oversight committee of some sort but that is not what they did. My understanding of the situation is that a mentor does not have to watch over everything Mattisse does (which would be impossible anyway) but is to be available to help her channel her comments in a constructive direction rather than in a destructive one, either when she seeks help or when another editor points toward a destructive comment or action. Of course, there is no reason to believe that a particular mentorship will work and many a mentored person stays stuck at the bottom of the corporate ladder and it is entirely possible that Mattisse will remain stuck in a cycle of ill-conceived comments, followed by criticism, followed by more ill-conceived comments however long and actively she is mentored, but, if mentorship is to work, it does need to include some amount of advocacy. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 18:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Response to SandyGeorgia

Re whether mentorship is working or not. I can't answer that question because, and I admit fault here, I am quite unaware of the history of this case. In that sense, I also admit to being a poor quality mentor. Given what I've seen after the arbcom case, I'd say that mentorship is showing signs of working, at least structurally but I agree with those who have said that there are too many mentors for this to work well. A couple of people who have Mattisse's trust as well as community trust, and have plenty of time to watch over and help Mattisse would be far better than having many mentors, each with their own ideas of the role they play, and each expecting, in good faith, that the slack will be picked up by someone else. Perhaps this is the best we can do because it is not easy to find editors with the time at their disposal in what is, after all, a volunteer organization, but, it it is at all possible, I would support moving to a much smaller mentorship, or failing that, an oversight set-up (though the latter will probably mean the end of Mattisse on wikipedia). --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 19:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Response to follow-up by Durova

I agree that it is better to table the discussion for the time being and give the process time to work. If at the end of a reasonable interval of time, and four months is reasonable, it doesn't look like it's working, so be it. There has been progress toward a structured page where users can express their concerns, and, while that may or may not work, it seems like a reasonable idea to give it a fair shot. I also agree that we should aim to see a movement toward autonomy in Mattisse's conflict management. Mentorship can work for a while but it is not a substitute for her figuring out the right time to say things and the right way to say them.

I've been following this page with interest and, at this point, feel that the rehashing of old incidents, some going back a couple of years, is not helpful but is, in a sense, the natural corollary of keeping this page open. As long as there is an open-ended venue for comments, there will be comments and if the venue stays open long enough, the usefulness of those comments will decline. Perhaps arbitrators may want to consider closing this immediately with a note that they intend reviewing the case after a few months. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 02:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Response to motion by rlevse

Respectfully, I suggest that the motion be turned down. Several editors have invested a good deal of their time in creating a process for mentorship and I believe that the good faith attempt behind this investment should not be treated lightly. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 03:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Response to new complaint by JooperCoopers

I took a look at the specific edits that Mattisse made to the articles referenced in the complaint and they seem reasonable to me and it does seem that providing the clarifications and references would improve the articles. It is impossible to say whether Mattisse intended to single out particular editors and a quick look at her recent contributions shows no obvious pattern that might indicate whether this was the case or not. Since the clarify this and reference that tags are helpful, perhaps it is best to AGF that this is not a subtle attack of some sort. Meanwhile, I strongly suggest that Mattisse not, absolutely not, respond to complaints without taking some advice from her advisors. Her responses have the tendency to take small matters and make them into big ones (with due respect, of course!).

On a related note, I am curious to discover what this clarification has clarified? Should new complaints be directed to the Mattisse monitoring page? Is there some other remedy in the works? As a self-appointed advisor/monitor, I am wondering what my role is in all this, if, that is, I have a role. I respectfully suggest that the time has come to make a decision of some sort and archive this page. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 22:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Ottava Rima

I feel that there are too many partisans operating at the page, and that this is not in the best interest of Mattisse. Instead of being a way to help Mattisse get away from the battlefield mentality, the page has become a battleground with many more players. I find the situation unfortunate. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I am highly disappointed to find out that Moni3 had used her ops on Mattisse's page while she is an involved user. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Sandy, from what I know you have had a long history in which there was a dispute between you and Mattisse. I do accept that you were negatively dealt with during the dispute, and that there were problems that you were not to blame for. However, I do not believe that there is a way to see you as neutral in the issue. While your actions may be just in regards to history, they are not neutral. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:41, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Brad, I feel that your words suggest that the previously available options have disappeared and that there is nothing less. If that is the case, I feel that we would be in a regretful situation. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

"I have no idea what you are talking about" - If you are going to claim that there was no dispute between you and Mattisse ever, then I have nothing further to say to you and if any Arbs believe that there is no dispute, they are welcome to email me and I will point out the obvious. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:32, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Statement by SilkTork

There is a page - User:Mattisse/Monitoring - where people may bring their concerns. There is ongoing and active discussion - User talk:Mattisse/Monitoring - on how best to use that page. We are working with people to address any concerns. I have today agreed with User:Unitanode that I may be pinged directly. While I accept that Moni3 is raising legitimate questions about the process, because discussions are happening right now to improve matters, I am slightly concerned that this request might divert attention from that discussion, or fragment it by moving it to another venue. The monitoring page has had its problems; however, we are endeavoring to sort out those problems.

I continue to be keen to assist, though good will is hard to maintain (and I was warned privately that good will can get worn down in any "mentoring" situation!) when those willing to help are questioned and criticised too closely. If those willing to assist Mattisse are so worn down they are no longer willing to maintain that role, then we are back to square one. However, Mattisse's "mentors and advisors" are not assisting matters when responding too quickly with negative comments, so a general air of conflict is created.

I would welcome everyone drawing a line now on what has happened in the past, and resolving to work positively together in the future. SilkTork *^YES! 18:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Response to Newyorkbrad

• Is the decision working out as well as we had hoped? No.
• Should additional time be allowed for things to be adjusted? Yes - because there is awareness by all concerned that the plan is not yet working effectively; and Mattisse and those who offered to assist her have been working on, and continue to work on, improvements to the plan. This is actively ongoing. Plans are rarely perfect and ongoing adjustments are needed. This has been the case. If there had been no attempt to improve the plan I could see reasons for concern, but there has been reflection on the merits of the plan and ongoing suggestions for making it better. If we were a long way down the road and the plan had been altered many times with no success, I could see reasons for concern. But this is relatively soon, and with only a few incidents to test the effectiveness of the plan.
• Should ArbCom provide additional guidance on how things ought to work? Possibly. It might be useful if people indicated areas of concern that required a decision that ArbCom could rule on. Though for the plan to work as devised, and as agreed by ArbCom, the actual mechanics of the plan should be left in the hands of Mattisse and her advisors. In short, Mattisse has to stand or fall by the plan - and Mattisse and her advisors should be given room to make it work. To allay concern that this might be an ongoing excuse for Mattisse to misbehave, there could be a time limit imposed on the plan. 12 months from now ArbCom could look again at the plan, and if it was felt not to be working, that would be the appropriate time to vacate the original decision and replace it with a more conventional one. Though I would add, that if the plan is still failing in 12 months time, it would be pertinent to look into the reasons for the failure, not just that it had failed, and to take into account positive endeavors (or not) by Mattisse to make the plan work. SilkTork *^YES! 22:12, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Response to Carcharoth

For clarity, Moni3's proposal was a development on Geometry Guy's essay into looking at structuring the process as the advisors had already become aware that there were problems with the reporting - User_talk:Mattisse/Monitoring/Archive_3#Monitoring_goals_and_ideals. I feel it is important to mark this, as the impression being given is that the advisors have not been considering the issues.

My observation of the current process is that confusion is arising because there has been no regulation on who offers Mattisse advice. There appear to be a number of people willing to offer advice, but it is difficult for Mattisse (or myself) to know who to listen to as some of the people trying to assist Mattisse have not been formally recognised by ArbCom or Mattisse. It might assist matters flow more smoothly if people who wish to formally be part of the assisting process be ratified by both Mattisse and ArbCom in advance. Too many voices can create such noise that the right signals get lost.

I also have observed that when people have reported potentially problematic edits by Mattisse that if they have been offended by the edit, their wording can be coloured with their emotion, and that this has caused problems with a side-discussion of the motives of the messenger rather than dealing with the edit in question.

I have also noted that while side-discussions remain in open view that bickering continues even when Mattisse has been admonished for her edit, and she has made no further edits in the arena in question. This is clearly not helpful. The plan is to assist Mattisse become aware of which of her edits are problematic and to guide her away from such editing so she can concentrate on her productive work. The intention of the plan is not to hang Mattisse's dirty washing on the line, or to be a public stocks. Indeed, the less drama the better. People closely involved in issues around Mattisse and Mattisse herself do not respond well to drama, and there is a tendency for things to spiral out of control. The aim should be to deal swiftly and discretely with matters, and then move on - an appropriate record having been made of the incident.

With these views in mind I will comment on Moni3's proposals and offer some of my own.

Moni3's proposals:

1. User:Mattisse/Monitoring is the only place where complaints about Mattisse should be registered.

   Agreed

2. The page should be displayed at the top of Mattisse's talk page, which I believe it is now.

   Agreed

3. Mattisse shall not refactor anyone else's comments to the User:Mattisse/Monitoring page or its talk page. Any of her mentors or Mattisse herself can move comments or complaints from her talk page to User:Mattisse/Monitoring. Any reformatting necessary for the User:Mattisse/Monitoring page or its talk page should be completed by a mentor.

   As the purpose of the plan is to assist Mattisse herself to edit with confidence and without issue, I don't think it would be helpful if someone else edited Mattisse's own subpages on her behalf. Mattisse should have ownership of her own plan, and of the structures she puts in place to assist her with the plan.

4. Assign at least one mentor who has had significant problems with Mattisse's behavior in the past.

   I feel this might cause Mattisse to lose confidence in the plan, and has potential for discussions to become unnecessarily heated

5. The User:Mattisse/Monitoring page shall be archived no less than 7 days after the first post about a complaint.

   Not agreed for reasons given above

6. Adopt the layout created by SandyGeorgia that was moved to User_talk:Mattisse/Monitoring/Editorial_comments as laid out below, and place specific instructions about what is expected from a complainant to the page, from Mattisse, and from the mentors.

   Not agreed as it is too bureaucratic, and with the best will in the world, if someone has been upset by an edit Mattisse has made, they will have difficulty reporting it in a neutral manner - we have already experienced the flack that can result from wording that was felt by the poster to be neutral, but which was received as problematic.

My proposals:

1. Alerts on User:Mattisse/Monitoring should be links to the problematic edits only - no additional comments. If mentors/advisors need more information they are to contact the alerter directly.
2. Once alerts have been dealt with, the alert and any related discussion by the mentors/advisors is archived
3. That an individual should volunteer/be appointed to act as mediator in situations where someone who has a legitimate interest in a problematic edit by Mattisse is not satisfied or is concerned by the response to the edit. I am willing to put myself forward on the understanding that I do not expect to devote time to answering queries from people who are simply curious (I will expand on this if necessary).
4. That only those assigned by Mattisse and ArbCom should refactor or protect subpages set up by Mattisse
5. That only those assigned by Mattisse and ArbCom should offer advice on subpages set up by Mattisse for the purpose of receiving advice

SilkTork *^YES! 11:13, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Draft report

A report is being drafted here. So far it hasn't been signed off by the other mentors/advisors so shouldn't be taken as the final version of the report requested. I indicate it merely to show that a report is in progress. SilkTork *^YES! 10:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Role of the "mentors/advisors"

There appears to be a lack of understanding/clarity regarding the role of those who agreed to assist Mattisse with her plan. I have previously given a statement on this matter - and I feel it is worth repeating much of that here.

Mattisse was requested by ArbCom to submit a plan to govern and guide her editing. As part of that request the notion of mentors or advisors being involved to help shape the plan was raised, and it was considered how these people could continue to give assistance. The idea of the plan was that Mattisse should reflect on those situations which cause her stress and to consider ways of dealing with that stress. My involvement is to be available to give Mattisse honest advice when requested, and - if needed - to urge her to cease activity in a certain area, and block her if she does not respond positively. This is useful. It clarifies some of the points for how those named in the plan see their role. I want to make it clear that the plan as accepted by ArbCom was to give responsibility to Mattisse for her own actions. And that includes her own decision as to when to call on me and the others for advice. Within the plan was also the freedom of myself and others to give advice to Mattisse as and when we felt appropriate, but we had no responsibility to overlook Mattisse's edits or her behaviour. Mattisse has historically not responded well to some interactions on Wikipedia. There are differing opinions on Mattisse's own culpability for this, though there is an acceptance that Mattisse has been stalked and goaded. One of the outcomes of the ArbCom case was looking at how Mattisse could deal appropriately herself with actual or perceived negative interactions. The outcome was not that Mattisse should be monitored. I do feel that people should revisit the case and acquaint themselves both with the outcomes and the discussions leading to those outcomes. A good understanding of the case should answer any queries about the role of myself and others. While I understand that much of the criticism of those who agreed to assist Mattisse comes from frustration, such criticism is not helpful, and may create a negative - indeed adversarial - atmosphere. I also feel that a good study of the plan is helpful. Mattisse is responsible for herself, but can call on us for advice. If she decides not to do this (as was the case with the recent alternative account behaviour which led to her block) then that is her responsibility, and she must face the consequences. She allows in her plan for any admin to warn and block her for inappropriate behaviour.

I think that most (if not all) Wikipedia editors, no matter how experienced and/or level headed, have times when we need to call upon the advice of others. Mattisse has a bank of willing advisors. It is her responsibility to use those advisors. If we advise her to do something inappropriate, then we can be blamed - but up to that point, the responsibility for Mattisse's own ventures into questionable areas are entirely hers. SilkTork *^YES! 10:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Response to motion by Rlevse

In no particular order:

• While there may be some value to be gained in examining again the impact of Mattisse's posts, I feel that the time and good will that would be used up in doing so would be out of proportion to that value.
• This Request was to look into Mattisse's Plan in order to clarify it. I feel we should see out that request. People have in good faith worked toward a clarification of that plan and the role of those assisting Mattisse with it; to abandon the attempt at clarification now without a conclusion having been reached, yet while very close, would be rather irksome to say the least!
• A discussion on the prepared Report before considering further action would be appropriate. SilkTork *^YES! 10:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Response to Newyorkbrad's suggestion

We might need some clarity on problems encountered by Mattisse's presence in process work outside of FA. I am aware of some isolated GA problems involving Mattisse, though I am also aware of GA problems involving other editors, and my understanding is that Mattisse does not have a significantly high number of GA problems - and when the number of reviews she has undertaken are taken into consideration, she probably has fewer problems than the average reviewer. G Guy is in a better position to advise on this. My understanding is that she is largely a respected GA reviewer. I also understand she is appreciated in DYK.

There is, however, some merit in considering how to minimise the conflict between Mattisse and "those with whom she has historically disagreed". I think that is at the heart of this. Not any particular process work, but flash-points` between individuals.

I think that Sandy has said that Mattisse's work is acceptable at FA (please correct me Sandy if I'm wrong) - it is the friction that occurs at times that is the cause for concern.

What is problematic for neutral observers of this case is the actual cause of the conflicts. Diffs have to be explained, and the explanations can go back years. Perceptions need to examined closely. However, what is agreed is that Mattisse's comments can at times cause conflict with some individuals.

A solution that focuses on Mattisse's interactions with "those with whom she has historically disagreed" might be worth exploring. SilkTork *^YES! 20:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Old evidence

There are a number of matters being raised on this page which are quite old, and evidence being presented which relates to events which took place before the ArbCom case earlier this year. While I am aware that members of the Arbitration Committee are the sort of people who are well able to distinguish signal from noise, and will disregard material which doesn't relate to the matter in hand, the bringing up some of these old matters is, however, emotive and potentially distracting, so the use of it is worth discussing.

This page is a request for clarification on the Plan to guide Mattisse's behaviour, and on the role of those who agreed to assist Mattisse carry out the Plan. The discussion is to look into if the Plan is working, and if those assisting the plan are doing that role effectively - as such it may be regarded that the evidence presented here should only be of Mattisse's behaviour since the Plan has been in operation, and of the effectiveness of the mentors/advisors in keeping Mattisse to the Plan.

I am aware, however, that the past has an influence on how people respond to some of Mattisse's posts, and so an awareness of what has previously occurred can inform an understanding of why a person reacted as they did. As such it may be regarded that some reference to past events may be helpful.

However, as all past matters were fully aired at the ArbCom case, and people commenting on this page are aware of that case and the evidence presented there (or if not, can - indeed should - visit that case for a full understanding of this matter), then it might seem that raising these old matters is not actually needed.

My feeling is that raising old matters can provoke feelings that will simply escalate drama, and it might be worth considering, in whatever time is left for this Request, that posters are encouraged to only bring in as worthy of comment the matters at hand, and what has happened since the ArbCom case. SilkTork *^YES! 20:18, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment on Motion 2.1 and Motion 2.2 per Carcharoth's request

• 2.1: Mattisse is indefinitely banned from initiating FACs, FARs, GANs, GARs or DYKs of editors with whom she has had previous conflicts.

• 2.2: Mattisse is indefinitely banned from participating in FACs, FARs, GANs, GARs or DYKs of editors with whom she has had previous conflicts.

The motions are unclear and problematic. The wording is incorrect, as we do not have FACS, etc (article quality assessments?) of editors, we have article quality assessments of articles. The assumption is that the intention is for Mattisse not to initiate or participate in an article quality assessment on an article which has had significant contributions from certain editors. However, the wording makes it problematic to enforce, and may cause more problems than it intends to solve. If a certain editor created an article, and Mattisse herself then improved the article and nominated it for FAC, we could have long and unpleasant discussions regarding if Mattisse had infringed her ban. Added to the mix, is the vagueness of "editors with whom she has had previous conflicts". Who determines who such editors are, and would I - for example - be given a list of such editors to enable me to give appropriate advice to Mattisse?

If Mattisse makes a post in an article quality assessment (indeed, ANYWHERE on Wikipedia) that ANY editor (regardless of previous conflict) feels is inappropriate, they can get in touch with me or the other mentors/advisors either directly or via the reporting system set up for the purpose, and we will look into it. If we agree it is inappropriate, then we will deal with the matter up to and including blocking Mattisse. This action is covered in Mattisse's plan, and in the other Motions being carried in this clarification; as such Motions 2.1 and 2.2 are effectively redundant. SilkTork *^YES! 16:32, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Response for Joopercoopers

I am keen that Mattisse does not cause you or any other user any problems. I have looked at the articles you list, and I am not fully clear what she has done that has caused you to become frustrated. If you would explain the problem, and how you would like the advisors/mentors to deal with it, I will look into it. Though, as this is not the correct venue for raising such concerns, I would suggest that (until ArbCom decide otherwise) that User:Mattisse/Monitoring or the talkpage of one of the advisors/mentors is a more appropriate venue. I have User:Mattisse/Monitoring watchlisted, so if you wish to move this discussion there, I will become aware of it. SilkTork *^YES! 11:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I have left a note on Joopercoopers' talkpage advising that I may be contacted on my talkpage to discuss the matter. SilkTork *^YES! 21:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Revised statement by Durova

Original statement here. After Fowler&Fowler and Mattisse responded yesterday I went to their talk pages to discuss matters with them. With Fowler&Fowler things went pretty well.[211] I wish it were possible to say the same about the discussion with Mattisse. Her assertion "And the fact that some hold grudges over time should not determine whether I am allowed to continue to contribute to the project or not"[212] appears to attribute the entire range of objections to bad faith motives. I asked "Could it be possible that some of your critics are sincere (even if mistaken) and do not bear you a personal grudge?"[213] Her reply was doubtful and requested examples,[214] which I supplied. The subsequent dialog fits into a pattern she has previously exhibited.

Mattisse never specifically clarified whether she believed it possible that editors could object to her conduct without holding personal grudges against her. Instead she responded with continual requests for more input, claiming not to understand the input that had already been supplied. One example concerned a DYK review in a specific regard--Mattisse had appeared to apply a higher than normal standard--possibly because the hook might be regarded as promotional (four sources for the hook were supplied including the Washington Post and a book published by Simon & Schuster; Mattisse ceased responding and another editor eventually approved it).[215] Rather than respond to the specific query about the appearance that she might have appplied a double standard in that one instance, Mattisse offered to give up DYK reviews entirely--which was far outside the realm of anything I had suggested.[216] She followed up by telling a third party that she was under attack at DYK and being driven away from that process,[217] which is something an experienced editor would normally assert only after being very certain of the matter. I asked her directly whether that referred to me, and assured her specifically that I had no intention of attacking her.[218] Subsequently she sought more input from me without resolving any of the outstanding questions.[219] I pointed out the discrepancy and requested an answer before proceeding further.[220] Since that time she has made 19 posts on other matters without responding.[221]

It is reasonable to conclude that mentorship made zero substantial progress in her response methodology to constructive criticism. She avoids specific reply to direct questions, speculates the lowest motives of those who criticize her conduct, and spreads tangential and inflammatory claims to third parties about the criticism itself. At best, that behavior expands minor problems into larger ones. She even behaves this way within hours of receiving tangible advice about an effective way to apply WP:AGF.

Another potential explanation arises--regarding which one of this site's most experienced mediators has given feedback (who will remain unnamed for confidentiality reasons). Possibly this is a political game. Mattisse's content contributions demonstrate that she has no shortage of basic intelligence. Could it be that play dumb + draw them out + misrepresent the criticism to third parties as attack + continue to draw out the critic until no one else will read the actual criticism constitutes a tactic to deflect attention from her real conduct issues? If so, this is someone who has no real intention to reform in response to criticism and is rather clever about persuading intelligent people to insulate her from it.

Leaving it to the Committee to determine which scenario is more likely, and to respond as appropriate. Durova³²⁶ 18:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

To Newyorkbrad: have a look at the dialog with Fowler&Fowler; also note that the previous subthread header was a word for word repetition of something I had stated in May. No, mentorship is not useful in every situation. Yes, I did issue repeated warnings--and then finally backed off to let others see empirically. Determination of what is or is not helpful predicates belief that something would be helpful. See this followup, which still attempts to draw me out without any answer at all to outstanding queries. And again, as if clarification were a unidirectional obligaion. And once more, imputing feelings that had never been expressed and still without answering any questions. The conversation yielded nothing but a large catch of red herrings. Call this cynical if you want, but I actually was willing to revise this statement in several directions. Mattisse has been consuming the attention of the arbitrators and some of the site's best editors for how many months? The most helpful advice I can supply is cut your losses; I make no claims to diplomacy about how to deliver that. It probably isn't what many people want to hear, but it's sincere. Durova³²⁶ 19:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Followup

Having taken off nearly two weeks to work on content without looking at this page, it's a bit surprising to see things still ongoing without visible movement toward resolution. Secondhand word had been that matters were dragging on--but the degree of stagnation is surprising. This is one of the reasons why I really think mentorship is rarely suitable as an arbitration remedy: many good contributors are getting polarized in this discussion and their interactions may remain strained regardless of the outcome of this particular mentorship. In the interests of consensus harmony here's a suggestion: table the matter for four months and open another review. A big knockdown drag-out wiki bout could be more trouble than it's worth. If the skeptics are right then time will tell and make consensus easier to achieve. If the optimists are right then wonderful: Mattisse is already a superlative content contributor and the project will be the winner.

What I specifically want to see is movement toward autonomy in Mattisse's conflict management. When editors raise a concern with someone they generally like to see that specific concern addressed--without lengthy discussion that ranges to other areas, without attempts to ensnare other editors, and without ritual abasement. Direct, professional, and brisk interaction is the goal. Speculative and vulgar interpretations should be the recourse of last resort. To quote Freud out of context, "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar."

Quote me in four months if this suggestion gets implemented, and if that's the direction things are taking I'll give a barnstar to Mattisse and to each of her mentors. Durova³⁴⁷ 22:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Response to request to reopen case

In response to the request for feedback on the proposal to reopen the case, would prefer the four month holding pattern suggested on 27 October. The reason is both pragmatic and humane: it was never my opinion that mentorship was an appropriate solution for this situation. That opinion remains unchanged and more people agree with it, but there is not a clear consensus. So the two alternatives at this juncture would be to reassess the mentorship now in a contentious atmosphere where the balance might tip, or else to give Mattisse and the mentors another term for the undertaking to succeed. One thing that probably everyone agrees upon is that Mattisse does not handle conflict and stress particularly well. Arbitration is a taxing experience even for the hardiest editors; the odds of anything good coming out of this format decrease the longer it festers. Would it not be less trouble for everyone if Mattisse and her mentors got a few months' breathing room, to demonstrate the matter empirically one way or the other? Durova³⁶² 18:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

With respect extended toward both SandyGeorgia and Bishonen, it is indeed troublesome to observe an ill-advised mentorship in action--especially if one is getting bitten by it. It's relatively easy to ignore, though, when the community is well aware that not every statement by that editor is entirely trustworthy. Mattisse appears to be the only person at Wikipedia who classifies Giano and myself as being in some secret league together. The irony of that is good for a belly laugh.

On a more serious note, after I tried my best and failed to convince the Committee and the potential mentors of the pitfalls of this enedeavor, there was nothing left to do but watch it play out and hope to be proven wrong. Years of experience with Wikipedian mentoring has distilled the conclusion that the two most important decisions in mentoring are (1) deciding whether it's worthwhile in the first place, and (2) knowing whether and when to quit. Unsuitable mentorees will attempt to charm the mentors and follow trivial advice, while politely ignoring the substantive advice or reverting to problematic behavior under stressful conditions. Meanwhile the unsuitable mentoree attempts to maneuver the mentors into serving as insulation between bad conduct and its normal consequences. It is usually possible to spot warning signs in advance, once one has experience with that sort of behavior. If that assessment is correct in this instance then consensus will inevitably form around it; I find it much simpler to wait and create featured content in the meantime. Durova³⁶² 20:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

With regard to Mattisse's post,[222] nothing prevents you from announcing retirement and leaving. You may bring about the equivalent solution in a dignified way without requesting assistance from anybody. Due to past conduct I regard the request for a siteban as non-serious, likely to be retracted in under one day, and anyone who takes it at face value is likely to encounter a hostile response from Mattisse afterward. The questions to ask are whether a substantive improvement is occurring here, and whether the site's other productive editors should continue to divert time and attention into management of one productive but difficult individual who habitually acts this way. Of course, if consensus does not exist a nearly adequate alternative is to minimize the time one diverts in that direction. ;) Durova³⁶² 21:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC) If I read this correctly,[223] the next step in the pattern is to withdraw the idea entirely, making further allusions to productive content contributions and/or asserting that unnamed persons have requested that she remain. Durova³⁶² 22:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC) Regarding two more posts,[224][225] there is another equally satisfactory alternative if Mattisse's real intention is to relieve Geometry Guy from the stress of a perceived attack: she has plenty of other mentors; she could release him in particular from the mentorship.

If, on the other hand, the real goal is to avoid involuntary sanction, then one deliberate "gambit" strategy could be described as follows:

1. Propose an extreme solution before any other specific proposal goes on the table.
2. Frame the situation as if it were primarily driven by forces outside Mattisse's control.
3. Divert discussion with reminders of useful content work.
4. Post in a tone of ritual abasement.
5. Draw attention to editors who express frustration at the sameness of this behavior, and characterize them as cruel.
6. Back away from the extreme proposal, having ensured that no alternative reaches the table.

Although this occurs at a fairly high social register it is not very different from the behavior an omega wolf displays to elicit sympathy when it fears getting rejected from the pack. My antenna has been up in this regard since last January during Mattisse's third RFC, when she replied to a routine post about gender clarification by requesting to be addressed as it.[226] This is characteristic of people who recognize and respond to power differentials in a sophisticated manner while remaining essentially tone deaf to the substance of the problems that cause the conflicts. Durova³⁶² 00:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

To Newyorkbrad

Very much, although it's unlikely that a polite request would have the desired effect. Have been moving toward the opinion that a structured namespace editing restriction would be the most feasible solution for this and perhaps other situations where an editor is consistently productive in mainspace yet consistently counterproductive elsewhere. With respect extended toward Sandy, process pages that relate to featured articles and other vetted content should be excluded from that type of restriction. The basic idea would be to implement a preapproval requirement and one or more screeners as a filter for posting within certain other areas. So, for example, Mattisse would be able to initiate a 3RR thread when a screener approves that the thread is meritorious and professional in tone. The screener would prevent this type of missive before it actually occurs, by either outright refusal to grant posting permission or by requiring a rewrite until it sheds the passive-aggressive tone. Call this the "Mother, may I?" solution: onerous to Mattisse, but a relief to everybody else. Durova³⁶² 17:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Unitanode

The only statement I want to make is with regards to Ottava Rima's last about being "disappointed" in Moni's use of the tools. Her use of the tools in this case has been almost unanimously endorsed as appropriate. As such, OR should strike that portion of his statement.

A note about the Mattisse/Durova back-and-forth

While Durova's choice of heading for her statement was unfortunate, Mattisse's response, in which she downplays the problems (including abusive sockpuppetry) that she's had, and minimizes the problems she's had in re: Sandy and Moni is even more problematic. I stumbled upon this mess initially when she made a problematic post to a page I watch (I believe it was Slim's talkpage). I reported it to her monitoring page, and was thus "sucked into the vortex" that the monitoring page has since become. There was a significant amount then (and remains even through today) of "shooting the messenger", with a few of Mattisse's mentors looking for ulterior motives in my report, and just generally attacking me. This seems to have receded a bit, with the issue finally making its way back to the purview of the Arbitration Committee, but it is not a problem that should simply be ignored. Mattisse needs strong mentors, who are willing to challenge her when she crosses the line. It appears that's starting to happen after Moni brought the issue here, but even in her statements here, Mattisse still is exhibiting some of her most problematic behaviors. UA 01:28, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Quick note to Carcharoth

I completely concur with SandyGeorgia here. There's little point in waiting a week for a "Report." This needs dealt with and the underlying confusion clarified immediately. Waiting on some kind of bureaucratic "report" won't accomplish a whole lot. This request for clarification should serve as more than enough of a "report" that the mentorship is not going well at all. UA 03:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Addendum to my quick note

If #4 of Moni's proposal is not adopted, the plan is then, in my view, rather neutered. Mattisse needs a voice (like Moni's, for example) that will challenge her in ways which are constructive. Moni has clearly demonstrated that this is possible. Thus, not having amongst the mentorship, such a voice of one who has had conflict with Mattisse previously, seems inadvisable. UA 01:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

To Vassayana

You need to be very clear about who you're accusing of "rancid" attacks on Mattisse and her mentors. That's a pretty bold allegation. UA 18:20, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

No, I think you do need to name names, Vassayana. Otherwise, you're simply painting everyone who's brought an issue to the Monitoring page with the same broad brush. The way your statements stand right now, you're making allegations that -- for the few weeks I've been watching the Monitoring page -- aren't just ill-advised, but objectively untrue. UA 18:51, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

It took me two minutes to find this thread where Mattisse complained to ANI about Moni's protection of the Monitoring page. The protection was apparently endorsed by Xeno and Mjroots at ANI. UA 23:40, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

It would seem that two people who were given the opportunity to say, "Hey, not a good idea", but clearly chose not to do so could be viewed as a tacit endorsement. This is why I said "apparently endorsed." Your unequivocal statement that my view was "blatantly false" is noted, as is your assertion that Moni was wrong to protect the page. I can't say more than this without coming close to the line of what would be considered civil. With the tone of your earlier, more oblique comments, and now these, more specific comments, I don't feel I can afford to even approach that line. UA 20:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

To Joopercoopers

Just so you know, Moni is not an official mentor of Mattisse. Even still, I find the stridency of the criticism of her admin actions unwarranted. I just wanted to let you know that she's not one of the official mentors. I too share your concern that perhaps the "love should be tougher", but at least there's real discussion happening there now, so that's a start. UA 23:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

In support of Karanacs statement

Karanacs is absolutely correct in her statement regarding Mattisse's removal of text. As that page is on my watchlist, I observed Mattisse removing posts as fast as Sandy made them, even when the posts were directly asking her why she was doing this, and requesting that she stop doing so. I also fail to see how Karanacs' acknowledgment that Mattisse wasn't the only one who removed text could possibly be construed as an "apology" or anything like it. UA 15:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Response to Mattisse's most recent insinuations

If you have something to say to me, please do so directly, and not in the form of these insinuating "questions." I've explained to both you and your mentors how I came upon the edit that first brought me to your monitoring page. Please stop playing the ingenue. If you have accusations to make against me, make them directly. But stop with the games.

No, Mattisse, stirring the pot is what you do, with your implications without merit. Your "mentor" Philcha was lecturing Hipocrite, and it smacked of the "shoot the messenger" problems that many (including myself, including what you just posted) have faced when trying to deal with you and your mentors. I simply communicated that to Philcha. You're trying to shift the focus all over the place (to Giano, to me, to how people "treat" your mentors), instead of focusing on quitting the things that you are doing that cause problems. UA 16:39, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Slightly expanded statement

For those actually interested in why I have quite a few edits to that page, it's quite simple. I've brought two problematic behavior examples to the attention of her mentors. In the first instance, I was subjected to a "shoot the messenger" mentality, and responded several times. In the second instance, Mattisse began moving entire threads from her talkpage to the monitoring page, and then complained about how cluttered the monitoring page was. When I suggested that perhaps moving the extra threads to the talkpage of the monitoring page would clear things up, she (I thought) agreed to this. (Karanacs read the situation the same way.) I made the move, which took multiple small edits to correct formatting at the talkpage. It was at this point, that all hell broke loose, and I haven't edited that page since. The sooner I can wash my hands of this whole mess, the happier I will be. I will not, however, simply stand by and let Mattisse obliquely accuse me of ... what? I'm not actually certain, but I won't let her implications just stand there. UA 19:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

What are the possibilities of closing this?

This request for clarification has turned into a train wreck. It is clarifying nothing, muddling further the very real issues, and it seems that the only thing that will come of this is a "report" produced for an arbitrator who has already made up his mind. The ratio of heat to light has risen exponentially since Carcharoth's ill-advised commentary, and there doesn't seem to be much chance for that ratio to return to anything that would approach usefulness. It's clear that nothing further is to be gained from this exercise in futility. UA 00:16, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Fowler&fowler

Having been out of the loop for a while, I can't say I clearly understand what is going on here. To the extent I do, I agree with the spirit of RegentsPark's statement (and also with the spirit of Ottava Rima's first statement that the page might have become a battleground). I think the process should be allowed to evolve more and to reach homeostasis. Perhaps another mentor should be brought in. I would like to recommend user:Abecedare for this (contingent, of course, on his assent). He is great at dispute resolution. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• Response to Durova: If you've decided to keep a distance from Mattisse, then why are you holding forth, with no seeming end, in an inimitably preachy style here? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:57, 14 October 2009 (UTC) I think you're being too oblique in your statement and response. If you think a three month ban is merited, then you should say so clearly and provide your reasons. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• Response to Carcharoth: I agree with Carcharoth's statement. A report would be very helpful and would clarify the situation. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:12, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• Response to SandyGeorgia and OttavaRima: I agree with Ottava Rima that SandyGeorgia might not be in a neutral position. Apparently, she is really worked up over this. Her page statistics are a testament: 63 edits (only 11 minor) from 2009-10-14 16:46 to 2009-10-15 15:45. That is way more than anyone else, including the initiator of the discussion, Moni3, Mattisse herself, or any of the mentors or arbitrators. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:24, 16 October 2009 (UTC) To: SandyGeorgia, In retrospect, what I wrote was unfair. My apologies. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:34, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Response to accusations of racism by Giano:

Since Giano has chosen to repeat his bogus allegation of racism (against Mattisse), I am copying my previous response here:

I can't speak to all the issues mentioned above, but I can say something about her dealings with user:Dineshkannambadi. First, let me say unequivocally, to whomsoever wrote the statement above, that what is given as an example of user:Mattisse's racist comment is not even remotely racist. There is no "racial" (whatever that means) difference between residents of southern India who speak the Tamil language and those who speak Kannada language; the differences are ethnic, as indeed there are among Kannada speakers themselves. All Mattise is doing there is pointing to a long simmering dispute on Wikipedia that, in my limited observation, is mostly the creation of the latter group. It is like a chihuahua (Kannada speakers) nipping at the heels of an elephant (Tamil speakers), a "dispute" that looms large in only one pair of eyes. I've seen evidence of this cultural inferiority-complex on other Wikipedia pages, such as India, where Kannada-speaking editors had relentlessly nickel-and-dimed issues of no consequence all because it made their region (long-neglected and diminished in their view) come out looking a little better. In addition, I found this "Kannada nationalism" on Wikipedia to be infused with Hindu nationalism, as is evidenced, for example, in this post by user:Dineshkannambadi on the Talk:India page:

"I dont Phoo (sic) Phoo (sic) your clever 'number of hits on google' arguement (sic). I am just amused, seeing a clear religious inclination emerging in your debates, of which I advice (sic) you against. The languages these writers, Iqbal and Galib (sic) wrote in is (sic) hardly considered native to Indian soil, though I am sure their writings are highly cherished. The influence of Urdu/Persian on Indian history is at best minimal to Indian culture (16 (sic) century onwards) and this does not compare competitivly (sic) to a great language like Kannada language which is not only native to India, but has evolved on Indian soil for over 2000 years, has influenced Tamil, a classical language of India, has been an administrative language for almost 1600 years and has a proven "extant" literature from the 9th century, with numerous references to Kannada writers from as early as 5th-6th century. Why should Galib (sic) and Iqbal get the same stage as the seven gems of modern Kannada." (Italics and "sic"s mine.)

To which I replied:

"What soil is Urdu native to? Pakistan? Afghanistan? Iran? Arabia? It was created smack in the middle of India, in an around Delhi and UP. Muslims (according to 2001 Census of India) comprise 13.4% of India's population and a large majority are speakers of Urdu. Many more than there are Kannada speakers."

As for user:Dineshkannambadi's Wikipedia articles, the limited evidence that I have examined in three—Kingdom of Mysore, Kannada literature and Western Chalukya architecture—is one of an editor with poor writing skills. My impression is that, user:Dineshkannambadi had leaned on user:Mattisse in order to turn his (Wikipedia) sow's ears into silk purses, but has given her little credit for her extensive work that, in most cases, had gone far beyond routine copy editing. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:55, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

PS Mattisse didn't drive user:DK off Wikipedia. He chose to withdraw himself. Knowingly or unknowingly, he was synthesizing the history of his region over thousands of edits across many Wikipedia articles. He got caught. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:55, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Response to Sandy Georgia Please don't be coy. I responded above to Giano's bogus charges. Giano has no clue either about Indian ethnicity or regional politics. Why are you responding? As for what information you have in your private email, I have no interest. I am not the only one who thinks that user:DK synthesized history across numerous articles. Admin RegentsPark (see his post here), LaserBrain, Septern* (PM Anderson), all thought the same. As for your other mysterious implication, I have no interest in becoming Mattisse's mentor. I was away most of the summer. I don't have the time. Let's not complicate this more than it already is. It is a request for clarification, not one for obfuscation. As this post from Mattisse makes clear, I was not on the list of mentors whenever it was made (June?); I was away. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:56, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Slp1

I'm no doubt being a bit Pollyannaish, but when thinking about solutions I urge Arbcom members (and others) to think about ways that would facilitate greater trust and better communication. A formalized system for dealing with the concerns of other editors, as has been suggested, would be a great start. I also suggest reducing the number of mentors so that there are fewer, more clearly identified voices for everyone to deal with. On the other hand, multiple voices need to be encouraged in other fora. There have been suggestions that one editor's opinion be "discounted" because s/he is "involved" and others be discounted because s/he weren't "involved" (so didn't have the full picture). While any kind of piling on is unhelpful and a concern, so is the danger of loss of trust in the process when there are attempts to silence voices.

In reducing the number of mentors, it may be useful to think about those with the best skills to help Mattisse improve her integration into the community. Mentors have a difficult role to juggle between guiding their mentee in a supportive yet effective way, and playing what is essentially a mediator (or even arbitrator??) role when responding to aggrieved editors. Their interventions need to be calming and respectful, and show a strong emphasis on open, honest, unbiased communication. They need to model to Mattisse and others appropriate attitudes and interactions, even when frustrated. While some communication may need to take place behind the scenes, evidence that they are responsive to concerns needs to available for all to see. The best mentors will be those capable of balancing the two, quite different roles, and these will, ultimately, be those that have the trust of all. I have seen evidence in the last few days of much more open, clearly productive interactions between Mattisse, her mentors, and those concerned about Mattisse's actions, and as a result, my personal trust in the process has grown. In my view, the mentors and how they execute this very difficult and to date ill-defined role will be a major key to success, if there is to be any. The other key is whether Mattisse is able to use their insights to modify her behaviour, and cease to rub editors up the wrong way.--Slp1 (talk) 03:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Clarity in this clarification is clearly important, (;-)) so I would like to ask for more explanation of the 7.1 motion. Do arbitrators mean to suggest that only Mattisse's mentors can ever block her, no matter the issue (3RR, socks, etc) ? The phrasing "Conduct probation" and "repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to any expected standards of behavior and decorum" covers a lot of ground, and I can foresee problems unless this motion is understood by all in the same way. --Slp1 (talk) 00:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Statement by MastCell

The mentorship has not worked. It has not provided a sounding board for trusted advisors to dissuade Mattisse from pursuing her less constructive instincts. It has not provided a forum for serious, good-faith concerns about Mattisse's behavior to be addressed. It has not seemed to increase Mattisse's expressed level of contentment or enjoyment on Wikipedia. By any objective standard, Mattisse's behavior in the areas of concern has been the same or (IMO) worse since the ArbCom case closed. Opinions certainly differ on why the mentorship has not worked, but I would hope we can all appreciate that it has failed to produce the desired result. If we can't get that far and learn from it, then there is really no hope here.

Loeb's second law of internal medicine states: "If what you're doing isn't working, stop doing it." It's time to stop this mentorship in its current incarnation. We could have a discussion about what should replace it. Giving the current system "more time" will not help. Creating more subpages will not help. MastCell ^Talk 05:10, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Statement by John Carter

I personally see two weaknesses with the present system. One is that, right now, in a lot of cases, Mattisse's contact with her mentors is more or less limited to comments interchanged away from any of the real "action". To the best of my kowledge, there isn't that much real "regular" contact between her and them. Possibly having Mattisse say what areas she expects to be involved in for a while, even if only in comparatively vague terms if that is as specific as she can be, would make it possible to check to see if there were someone active in that area who would agree to be a mentor with whom she would have regular contact and who would more easly by able to see if any conduct issues arise, might be useful.
Also, there is a bit of a problem in that, right now, Mattisse chose all her mentors. While these are presumably individuals whose word she would trust, it also might produce results which are in a sense unbalanced in her favor. If there would be any way for an outside body to maybe recommend mentors who might in some cases be more directly relevant, which Mattisse could either accept or reject, preferaby only with a good reason, that might help as well.
I too have come to the conclusion that, whatever the intentions, the lack of structure of the current method is problematic. I doubt very seriously ArbCom intends to make this sort of resolution at all standard, given the amount of work and number of people involved, but there might arise the possibility that it wants to take some sort of similar approach regarding another issue later. If that is the case, I might ask them to suspend taking any judgement on Mattisse until we either have a system in place which is workable, and could thus presumably be copied in any similar situations in the future, or it decides that there is no way in which such mentoring is ever likely to work, and suspend it on that basis. John Carter (talk) 16:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Recommendation by Sandstein

I am uninvolved in and uninformed about the case and/or previous dispute(s) behind this, but I recognize a major waste of time when I see one. And time is our most precious resource.

My recommendation is that the Committee or the community determine whether any aspect of Mattisse's current editing constitutes disruption of the sort described in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse#Findings of fact.

• If yes, she should (like any other persistently disruptive user) be indefinitely blocked until the community is convinced that she understands the problem and won't disrupt Wikipedia any more.
• If her conduct is not found to be disruptive any more, then there is no need for any Arbitration Committee action whatsoever here, and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse#Remedies should be vacated.

All this bureaucratic fiddling around with "mentorship", a "plan to govern and guide her future editing", etc. appears to me, as an uninvolved observer, as a waste of time and effort on the part of all involved.  Sandstein  16:34, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Fainites

I think Vassanya needs to name names with those kinds of allegations, (a set of editors has continued to assume bad faith, make derogatory comments, and otherwise demean Matisse and her mentors on a regular basis). Otherwise the statement made will be applied to all those who have expressed a concern about either Mattisse or some of her mentors. Further, without being specific about who is being referred to, the threat of sanctions (I will be seeking sanctions against those who have engaged in the baiting and incivility that contributed to the poisonous atmosphere and failure) is intimidating to all those who have registered a concern about Mattisse or mentors and discourages editors from raising matters here.Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:27, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Response to Vassanya

Thank you for striking that particular part. As for the rest, you may be right in the general run of things. However, it isn't just a question of whether an editor thinks the words apply to them. It's also a question of whether Mattisse and/or her mentors think the words apply to that editor. Some may assume your words are meant to apply to Gianoparticular editors, but what if they are taken to mean anybody who has raised a concern about Mattisse's behaviour? Fainites ^barleyscribs 00:29, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Second comment re Moni3

The rather extreme criticism of Moni3 is unwarranted. The absurd situation of there being nowhere to address concerns and "shoot the messenger" responses had been going on for some time. Refactoring and moving other peoples comments in a disorganised way, coupled with early archiving brought further chaos to an already chaotic situation. I appreciate the point about involved admins, but really the breathing space and the protection of threads was needed.Fainites ^barleyscribs 20:48, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Third comment

I think it would be better if Mattisse didn't keep changing her posts after people have responded to them. If you change your mind about something you said Mattisse (which everybody does), just collapse it or strike it.Fainites ^barleyscribs 17:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Fourth comment

Mattisse has asked for evidence of problematic posts in September or October, specifically at FAC or FAR if possible. As far as I can ascertain there have not been any problematic posts on FAC or FAR itself during the period from 12th September when Mattisse started editing again. A number of non-FAC/FAR related problematic posts have already been referenced on this page. There is one I would like to mention because it illustrates the difficulties Mattisse has in understanding the likely effect of her posts on others and in just letting things go. Hence, in my view, the necessity for a plan that contains clear and straightforward guidelines. Way back in November 2008 Mattisse posted remarks about Ealdgyth's work at FAC. They were not well recieved. All water under the bridge - except that out of the blue, and unnoticed by her mentors, Mattisse renewed the issue here. Mattisse and her mentors need to work out how to prevent these incidents occurring if possible.Fainites ^barleyscribs 13:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Mattisse, if I am wrong and this incident was raised by your mentors/advisors, I am quite willing to strike it. Please show me where. Thanks.Fainites ^barleyscribs 16:25, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I have now found where this issue was raised by SG and commented on by John Carter, although there is no indication that John Carter was aware that this was a revisiting of an old incident.Fainites ^barleyscribs 16:48, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Fifth comment

Arbitrators may wish to read this exchange and the spin off here with care. The dynamics are pretty clear and most unhealthy.Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Response to Carcaroth

Please don't make assumptions about what I mean Carcaroth. If I am expressing myself poorly and you want clarification, just ask. I said "dynamics" because it involves relationships, actions and reactions. Yes Mattisse was responding to her mentors advice and suggestions. However, despite the efforts of her mentors to ignore it and focus her on the point she simply could not leave Giano issues alone. Unfortunately what might have remained a pleasant, informative exchange about archiving with mentors and others guiding Mattisse away from Giano issues, was derailed by inappropriate interventions and the whole situation turned to poo as it so often does. What is needed is a coherent proposal to prevent this kind of thing as much as possible although I appreciate a counsel of perfection is easy for outsiders to propose. The first thing that needs to happen is for Mattisse to stop poking her "enemies". The second is for the mentors to do what they were doing here which was guide/suggest/tell/ (whatever) Mattisse to stop poking. The third is for people to let the mentors have a shot at this, now they are more engaged than they were formerly. (It goes without saying that people should not poke Mattisse.)

In relation to the link checker issue, it isn't about whether its' legitimate to raise that the link checker tool is crap. It seems to me that it is exactly this kind of personalisation of issues that her mentors need to explain to her and advise her on. I'm sorry if this sounds patronising, but it is positive that in her response to this Mattisse describes her own actions as "misbehaviour". If you think, as may well be the case, that perhaps people react more quickly to Mattisse than they do to others, that may have something to do with the length of time all this has been going on. Editors are only human.Fainites ^barleyscribs 10:56, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Response to Philcha

I have never looked at Palladian architecture before. Nor have I ever exchanged a word with Giano until very very recently. However, since you posted your comments above I have looked. It is obvious that it was written largely by Giano. It is also well known to anyone on the plague list that the appearance of Mattisse on a plague list featured article, tagging things, is quite likely to herald an unpleasant train wreck of a dispute. Giano either had to run around doing Mattisses bidding in finding citations, something he has repeatedly refused to get involved in, as Mattisse well knows. Or ignore it altogether risking a tagging spree and a FAR. Or do what he did in an attempt to save the article. Do you not think that as a mentor, you might ask yourself exactly why Mattisse is tagging like this and exactly why the articles authors are reluctant to engage in talk page discussions with Mattisse and you? Have you looked at the history of Mattisses interactions with her plague list? Your inability to recognise and understand how Mattisse pokes her supposed enemies calls into question your role as mentor. Be a supporter/co-editor/advocate of Mattisse if you wish, just not a mentor. Mattisse is not helped by this sort of thing.Fainites ^barleyscribs 20:13, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Response to Durova's follow-up

Actually Durova the matter is simply awaiting the mentors report - which obviously can't be drafted in a rush.Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Response to Rlvese

The advisors report/proposals mean more of the same. Despite improvements too many advisors still can't see the wood for the trees and by the looks of it never will. We have now apparently moved from merely shooting the messenger to photon torpedoes. What possible reason is there for believing more time alone will resolve anything? Simple, enforceable editing restrictions now required I think. Given ArbComs continuing jurisdiction I don't see why this can't be done by Motion. If it can't, another arbitration sooner or later seems inevitable. Fainites ^barleyscribs 20:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

GAN/GAR

For what it's worth, given that SandyGeorgia and Mattisse has raised it, and Mattisse's remarks to SandyGeorgia about the distinction between GAN/GAR, the Attachment therapy was a GAN. Mattisse became involved at the point at which the reviewer was about to pass it, accused the reviewer of only passing it because of alleged interference by SandyGeorgia and promptly GAR'd it. All this was in the RfC. Moni3's Munchausen by Internet was also a GAN when Mattisse got involved. Mattisse also GAR'd within hours an article by another plague list editor which I had just reviewed, with whom she had just been having a dispute on a different article. Sorry if this appears to dig up old stuff but this rewriting of history when pleading for particular proposals should not go unchallenged. However, I cannot find any specific GAN reviews by Mattisse of plague list editors articles. It is more getting involved with other GAN reviewers reviews and GAR's of plague list editors.Fainites ^barleyscribs 23:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

It appears MBI was GAR'd by he author before Mattisses involvement by the author. This does not affect the basic point that it does not appear that Mattisse has got into difficulties undertaking initial GAN's, but only when getting involved in other peoples reviews, GAR's, or initiating GAR's.Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Rlvese

Alternative possibilities to the Motion of banning from all FA processes;

• Not to take take part in FAC unless invited by the nominator,director or delegates (suggested by SG)
• Not to nominate articles for FAR or GAR, nor take part in the reviews.
• Not to edit or review any articles substantially authored by editors on the "plague list".
• Editors may apply, with evidence, to be entered on the list.

Fainites ^barleyscribs 15:24, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Carcaroth

I suggest you name names Carcaroth if you are suggesting injunctions against "several others" so that people have the opportunity to defend themselves. Fainites ^barleyscribs 17:53, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

What does this; And any statements by Mattisse in response to the report would have to be checked first to avoid them inflaming the situation. mean in practice? Fainites ^barleyscribs 20:50, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

The bainer

There is no necessity to "ban" editors from the monitoring page. Nobody went there until concerns were raised about mentors not being aware of issues arising, at which point editors were invited to raise their concerns there. It said To raise an issue, please start a new section on this page. All that is required is for the monitoring page to revert to being reserved for Mattisse and advisors/mentors only, rather than inviting editors to raise concerns there as was the case. I note that this has now been done with a link to where issues can be raised. Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Re JoopersCoopers recent (December) concerns

I looked at articles in the 0.00 section of that list – 41 in all – from January 2008 to date. I looked to see if they were either tagged by Mattisse for lack of citations or the like or whether she had raised lack of citations/sources/references on the talk page. Out of 41 articles this occurred in 4 articles. Two were Geogre/Bishonen/Giano articles, namely Augustan literature and Francis Petre. The other two appear unconnected to editors allegedly targetted by Mattisse, namely Delrina and Thomas Pynchon.

I also note this 6th December edit from The Relapse talkpage, "The Relapse" being another Bishonen production. Followers of this drama will note the not-so-subtle reference to a dispute on the Buckingham Palace (Giano) featured article about what is common knowledge in the UK. Fainites ^barleyscribs 23:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Also this this. Fainites ^barleyscribs 19:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Geometry guy

I will try to be brief, as part of the problem here has been the sheer quantity of talk, with wide-ranging interest and a diversity of views on "How Do You Solve a Problem Like Mattisse?".

I share the concern that some aspects of Mattisse's Plan were not sufficiently worked out when it was accepted, and I was already advising Mattisse in July to revisit it. I also share the concern that the Monitoring page is currently not working. It has effectively been another talk shop. Mentors and other editors have made 3-4 attempts (starting with this thread) to develop a more coherent mode d'emploi. Typically, the discussions were overwhelmed by events or opinions and ended up being, you guessed it, another talk shop. I think this has been frustrating for many editors (for instance, I failed to assume good faith on one occasion, which is fairly rare for me) and mentors (who are volunteers like any other editors) have understandably wanted to go and do something more pleasant. Ironically, the movement of threads which led to the page protection and the ArbRequest was stimulated by the latest effort to organize the Monitoring page.

However, I don't wish to dwell on the past as I see that as another problem here. I hope the above remarks are sufficiently generic that I don't have to dig up diffs. Indeed I'd rather simply strike them. Concerning the present, I regard this request as being primarily about the Monitoring page, rather than Mattisse's recent behaviour. Apart from the sock incident, for which she has served time, there hasn't been, as far as I am aware, the kind of significant disruptive behaviour that merits a substantial reevaluation, in my view. In particular, on the GA front, I am only aware of two occasions where her behaviour has been called into question: the GAR of Munchausen by Internet, and her second opinion on the History of Sesame Street. The vast majority of nominators and reviewers have valued her thoughtful and careful reviews.

So, where do we go from here? We need clarity of purpose and we need implementation. Regarding the former, I have consistently espoused the view that Mattisse's Plan is ultimately her responsibility, as she is the one who will be blocked or banned if she doesn't stick to it. Mentoring and monitoring are resources to help her keep to her plan. If at any stage the community and Arbcom resolve that instead they want other editors to enforce and hence be responsible for Mattisse's behaviour, then so be it — in that event I will walk away with no hard feelings. That being not yet the case, it is important to remember the purpose of the monitoring page: it is not there directly for the satisfaction of other editors that Mattisse is "under control", but to help Mattisse stick to her plan by alerting editors to problems and allowing coherent advice to be given. Of course, this should indirectly satisfy the community, as the more closely Mattisse sticks to her plan, the happier everyone will be.

Concerning implementation, I note the request for a report to Arbcom and that mentors have begun work on one. While I see no harm in this (indeed it should be helpful), it is important to recognise that what is needed here is action. There's general agreement on what needs to be done to fix the Monitoring page (e.g. Moni3's first 3 points above) and even if there is disagreement on minor details, pretty much any of the proposals would be an improvement. Actually, it is pretty simple: as with almost any page on Wikipedia,

• User:Mattisse/Monitoring should be for information and
• User talk:Mattisse/Monitoring (only) should be used for discussion.

That way at least the user page will provide clarity to Mattisse, in the form of the original alert/concern, actions taken in response, and the consensus advice.

This was me trying to be brief :-) — time to sign off! Geometry guy 12:16, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment in response to Vassyana

Although I found the page protection (and indeed the opening of this ArbRequest) frustrating at the time, I don't believe it is helpful to criticize Moni3 on this point, even less to consider it a "serious issue". Hindsight is 20-20, the heat of the moment another story. And in fact this request has in fact been useful in focusing minds on improving the monitoring page so that it will better serve Mattisse and the community. Geometry guy 19:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Please stay on topic

The ArbRequest page is now well over 250KB, and very few of those bytes can be attributed to the Asgardian-Tenebrae discussion below this. This request is meant to provide clarification about the mentoring and monitoring processes introduced since the Arbitration case in June. The discussion is currently going off track:

• it is alarming that editors are now discussing issues and disputes ranging from 6 months to two years old (and probably issues that date back even further) – these issues have been discussed extensively already;
• it is also alarming that arbitrators' views are being disregarded so readily – there's not much point in asking ArbCom to provide clarification without engaging positively with what arbitrators have to say.

There is more I could say, but I won't. Geometry guy 00:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Further comments

Sadly, I have to comment at length, although I hope this will not lead to another 250KB of discussion. Geometry guy 23:55, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Report

I agree with Bishonen that it this not much of a report. If this were a paid job, I'd produce a ten page PDF detailing all of the issues and points of view, with an executive summary and a list of recommendations. However, it isn't, and while this request for clarification has been useful in many respects, such discussion distracts us from the volunteer work we all do to improve the encyclopedia.

I hope this clarifies what is in the report. However, the preceding deliberations provide useful additional information. In particular, I have tried to summarize the events since arbitration in June here and would welcome comments about omissions and clarifications at User talk:SilkTork/Report. Geometry guy 23:55, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Advising

I am grateful for kind words about my contributions, but I simply try to be fair, and to focus attention on improving the encyclopedia. I have failed to assume good faith at least twice in connection with this case, and have also not contributed to some threads because of "circus fatigue", so I am far from perfect. I repudiate any suggestion that I have been a "better" advisor/mentor than others. In particular, I would highlight the leadership of SilkTork, the impartiality and outside view of Salix Alba, and the care shown by John Carter. Geometry guy 23:55, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia's summary

While I thank SandyGeorgia for her kind words about me, I am rather disappointed by her summary. Such words reveal more about SandyGeorgia than about this case, and I have considered letting them speak for themselves to arbitrators. However in fairness, she should have the opportunity to reconsider them.

Many of these comments, in my view, should be struck, and it might even be better to remove the entire section (in which case I will remove this section) in the interests of encouraging a more positive continuation to this case. However, for now, let me comment on each point, and explain my concerns.

1. FA writers who have left Wikipedia. A "disturbing trend" should be based on evidence. In addition there is no information as to whether this is a recent phenomenon, or a reference to old stories. If FA writers have been driven off Wikipedia by Mattisse since June, then there should be onwiki evidence of Mattisse's behaviours that drove them off. The closest example I can think of is the way Mattisse pressed her case over Munchausen by internet. However, I am firmly convinced that Mattisse's approach was primarily motivated by this being a psychology-related article, not by Moni3 being an FA writer.
2. Editors afraid to post to User talk:SandyGeorgia about "their articles". There is no ownership of articles on Wikipedia. Any editor, including Mattisse, can copyedit, add tags to and generally fix any article with the goal of improving the encyclopedia. Any claim that Mattisse has edited articles because of posts to User talk:SandyGeorgia should be based on evidence, not on speculations about the motivations of a vague number of editors sending emails. Any claims that she has motivations other than improving the encyclopedia should likewise be based on evidence.
3. Continuing behaviours from low level irritation to accusations of stalking. Yes, Mattisse sometimes makes irritating posts. She should learn not to. Here is a recent example which pokes at the discussion I had with SandyGeorgia over a psychology topic ban for Mattisse. I drew Mattisse's attention to the pointy nature of her post, and she struck it and apologized. There is no reason for incidents like this to escalate into the large scale conflicts seen on the monitoring page, in which it sometimes seems that everyone who has a view on Mattisse chips in.

   Concerning stalking, anyone who frequents User talk:Malleus Fatuorum should know that "I think someone is stalking me" is neither a personal attack (it doesn't name an individual) nor, more importantly, an accusation of stalking (it refers to a personal perception). SandyGeorgia has repeatedly referred to this post as an accusation of stalking.[227][228]. I agree that it is likely that this post is referring to SandyGeorgia, and I believe that Mattisse has an ongoing perception that SandyGeorgia is overly interested in her. However, Mattisse's perception is not entirely without basis, and while an apology from Mattisse would be welcome, it will be somewhat empty so long as the underlying perception remains.

   There has indeed been a failure by Mattisse to assume good faith. We all fail to assume good faith sometimes, but we should all strive to assume as much good faith as we can. SandyGeorgia's summary fails to assume good faith repeatedly. Mattisse needs better role models than this.

4. Unmeasurable and unworkable proposals. Mattisse is increasingly learning to recognize situations in which she might make a post that she will later regret. Seeing ones own diffs after the passage of time brings this into focus. A measurable outcome is a reduction of ill-judged posts. Her advisors can help provided she, or other editors, draw our attention to an issue. She is getting better at this. The new approach to the monitoring page is intended to help other editors draw attention to an issue without escalating it.
5. The mentorship has failed because it's not a mentorship. I prefer to refer myself as an advisor, because it more accurately describes the role I signed up to, and I imagine other advisors/mentors feel the same way. Indeed one of the reasons I prefer "advisor" is that it does not include advocacy, but describes a third party role. Also, mentors have been accused of failing to do things that they never said they would do. To take a trivial example, no one needs the approval of Arbcom to explain to Mattisse how to use Firefox to save diffs: anyone can

   Concerning the composition of the advisors, I would welcome other editors volunteering to help out. However, it is unrealistic to exclude editors who have had a common conflict with Mattisse over a particular issue or editor. Such an advisor can simply recuse in situations related to that issue.

6. Workability of the initial plan. I have already expressed the view that the initial plan needed more work. In particular, the need for a place for editors to register concerns was missing. This discussion led to the reinvention of the monitoring page for that role. However, in my view, the result has so far been a trainwreck, as it simply provided another place to escalate disputes. I have attempted to restructure it as a place to highlight issues and de-escalate disputes, but it may still depend on good will to work.
7. "Mattisse bears grudges and targets editors, and her mentors don't see it". There are a lot of perceptions here, including Mattisse's motivations (which only she can know) and what mentors see (which only they can know). Everyone has a different perception of the same event, but perceptions are not diff-able.

---

I am coming to the perception that SandyGeorgia's obsession with Mattisse possibly stems from a guilt complex going back to her backing out of mentoring following the Zeraeph Arbitration.

---

Read that sentence again. Notice that despite it being ostensibly about perceptions, it elevates one perception to a fact: the idea that SandyGeorgia is obsessed with Mattisse. Now look at the corresponding statement in SandyGeorgia's summary, which similarly elevates to a fact the idea that Mattisse targets FA writers and editors known to be friendly with SandyGeorgia. I am aware of Mattisse's past perceptions of there being an FAC cabal, and her feeling that (despite her contributions) she has been excluded from a club. However, I am not aware of substantial evidence that she has targeted FA writers and friends of SandyGeorgia since arbitration in June.

In contrast, there is some evidence that SandyGeorgia remains overly interested in the case of Mattisse. The extent of her contributions to this request is but one example, and her contributions can be found on many other pages related to this case, such as User talk:SilkTork/Report and the monitoring page. Let me hasten to add that comments by all editors are very welcome; I am only discussing extent here. SandyGeorgia also brings up this case in other contexts.[229][230][231][232][233][234][235][236][237][238][239][240]

The final remarks of her summary present useful illustrations:

"My efforts to resolve these issues directly with her, at G guy's urging, were rebuffed or met with sarcasm.[241][242]"

This misrepresents the two threads cited (in reverse order). The first thread began as an attempt by me to clarify a minor issue about the James Joyce article, related to the broader question as to whether Mattisse targets FA writers and friends of SandyGeorgia at FAR. SandyGeorgia has provided evidence about this here. My conclusions are:

• Mattisse did not know Filiocht and the suggestion that she did is an assumption of bad faith;
• Mattisse added a correct tag;
• Mattisse did not edit war;
• Mattisse was confused about the accessibility of the site concerned, which required membership for searches, but not for basic information.

I was disappointed that two extensive threads were needed to reach this understanding and this admission.

The other remark is this one:

"I am concerned that she may be taking out her resentment of me on FAC, FAR and by targetting FA writers. I am also concerned, based on posts on external sites, that her perceptions and actions may be influenced by a now banned editor from a former ArbCom we were both involved in;[243] I have seen indications that they may still be in contact."

I have already commented on the alleged targeting. I also found it somewhat implausible that Mattisse, who needed to be told how to save diffs on Firefox, frequents external sites. I asked her explicitly about it by email and she found this claim "outlandish" and also confirmed that she has had no contact with Zeraeph. Her comments at the May 2009 RfA for User:LessHeard_vanU demonstrate her wariness concerning Zeraeph.

---

Despite this evidence concerning SandyGeorgia's motivations, I believe Mattisse's perceptions are wrong and they stem from the same very human issue that believes "it is all about me". In every edit I have seen by SandyGeorgia, the thing which motivates her (in my view) is to ensure Wikipedia is a place for content contributors and content reviewers to flourish.

This is a goal I share. However, noble ends do not necessarily justify all means. The forthcoming arbcom elections have become an unfortunate subtext to this request (one example). If arbitrators are judges, then editors should not try to influence their decisions beyond providing them with information. This is another reason why I believe the summary is inappropriate. Geometry guy 23:55, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Recommendations

This request for clarification has served its purpose. It started because the monitoring page (reinvented since Arbitration in June) was a trainwreck. It has focussed editors minds, including those of Mattisse and her advisors, on how to ensure that she does not disrupt our shared goals to improve the encyclopedia. Attempts have been made to make the monitoring page a place for de-escalation rather than escalation. They may be baby steps, but they need to be tried out.

Indeed, it doesn't require a geometer to note that small changes can convert a downward spiral into an upward spiral. There has been a vicious circle here, in which editors' perceptions have fed other editor's perceptions. However, there are encouraging signs[244][245] that editors wish to move forwards rather than rehash old stories. There are also examples of cooperation or at least coexistence which need to be encouraged by all sides.

In my view, it would be entirely reasonable for arbitrators to do nothing in conclusion of this request. However, there are also plenty of minor proposals that might be useful. One recurrent problem with Mattisse is that she states she will "never do X again" and then does it when she changes her mind. So there is no harm in imposing (as other editors have suggested), e.g., a single account restriction, no edits to psychology related articles, no unprovoked references to editors with whom she has had previous disagreements. However, in that case, arbitrators might also consider whether anything can be done to discourage editors other than Mattisse (particularly those editors who have past history with Mattisse) from escalating conflicts: again, small tweaks and advice may work better than the dreaded "sanctions". Geometry guy 23:55, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Response to SandyGeorgia and comment on motion to reopen

First, to SandyGeorgia, misunderstandings happen, but I accept with thanks your apology. I likewise apologize unreservedly if any misinterpretation of my post caused you distress. And to Mattisse and the community, I regret that this became a flash point.

The statement was indeed hypothetical and I do not believe SandyGeorgia has a "guilt complex" (it would be highly out of character for me to believe anything of the sort about any editor). My post was all about perceptions and misperceptions and the dangers of confusing these with facts. About Zeraeph, I would go further and add that nothing I have seen onwiki or discussed privately with Mattisse leads me to believe that this story contributes significantly to Mattisse's current perceptions and misperceptions. Instead, I believe those perceptions are primarily driven by ongoing pressure. She has been under a level of scrutiny that any editor would find hard to handle.

My comments about the "evidence" for some of her perceptions being "not without basis" are intended as information for arbitrators and the community about what some of Mattisse's perceptions might be (only she can know for sure) and the onwiki contributions that she might base these perceptions on.

Let me repeat (as stated above), to be crystal clear about this: my personal perception is that SandyGeorgia is motivated, above all else, by the wish to ensure Wikipedia is a place for content contributors and content reviewers to flourish. If Mattisse's perception differs from this (and I think it may), I think Mattisse is wrong.

However, the flip-side of this issue concerns perceptions about Mattisse. There is plenty of information on this page about those perceptions and the evidence that they are based on. There are long-standing issues concerning Mattisse and I understand why some may perceive (for example) that she "targets" FA writers.

However, I have primarily been interested in how she has contributed since June. Mattisse makes a lot of edits. If editors perceive that these edits have been driven by a particular agenda, then there is quite a high risk that ascertainment bias will confirm that perception, whether it is accurate or not. As stated above, Mattisse sometimes makes irritating posts based on her perceptions, but I've seen no evidence of an agenda other than frustration. In particular, I've not seen evidence of targeting FA writers, and one example that I looked into turned out to be a misunderstanding.

Misunderstandings happen. One happened here, only yesterday. Mattisse responded too soon, while still stressed, despite her advisors urging her not to make such posts. If I can try to extract a positive from a negative, let me suggest that this is a very indicative example. If arbitrators and the community believe that Mattisse's behaviour was unacceptable, they should ban her, both for her sake, and the sake of the encyclopedia. If instead they/we conclude that there are measures that can be put in place which will accentuate the positive and help to eliminate the negative, they can enact such measures, or endorse proposals that have already been made.

I have no view on whether this requires a new case: that is a procedural matter. I think what has dismayed the community is the idea that we need to rehash all of the arguments. Discussion of conduct can be very divisive, and I make no apology for spending much of my wiki-time refocusing attention on content. The evidence is all here, on this page or linked from here. I don't see why arbitrators need a new case to enact new motions, but if they do, so be it. I simply request that this does not divert more energies from improving the encyclopedia. Geometry guy 18:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Request for clarification re motion 2

Regretably, I believe that a motion of this sort is needed. Mattisse has attempted to withdraw herself from the featured article process previously, but she receives many requests to copyedit etc. on her talk page, and can easily get drawn into an FAC or FAR discussion. An externally imposed restriction would be helpful. However, for this she needs clear boundaries, and so I request that the meaning of "all pages relating to the Featured article process" be clarified. In particular, does this include, to any extent, any article or article talk pages (current FAs, FACs, FAR/FARC's), where Mattisse has done much useful copyediting work? Geometry guy 14:23, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Fainites first two proposals are exactly the sort of clarity such a motion needs, and I would support this approach, including a restriction on nominating community GARs and SandyGeorgia's proposed addition (in the next diff) concerning FAC delegates. I do think that an externally imposed restriction from the talk pages WT:FAC and WT:FAR would also be helpful to Mattisse and the community.

Fainites other points concern interactions with particular editors. I think this should be handled by a separate motion to avoid confusing issues. Geometry guy 16:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Just two brief points.

1. I think it is unrealistic to hope that a single motion will suffice to conclude this Request, so why not see if we can find consensus on one step at a time?
2. Mattisse has made it quite clear that she wants to stay away from FA, and her reduced involvement since June has surely contributed to lower levels of conflict, given the number of preceding incidents that have been highlighted on this page. However, she has a history of not sticking to her pledges. I do not think it should set any precedent whatsoever to agree a motion that addresses this, and there's even a glimmer of consensus on a proposal which would.

Geometry guy 18:12, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Information regarding proposed motions 5–9

To the extent that these involve the role of User:Mattisse/Monitoring and communication between Mattisse, advisors, and the community, I hope that a brief summary from the perspective of an advisor may be helpful to Arbitrators in finding and agreeing upon the best formulations.

The approved plan states:

"I will start a dedicated page User:Mattisse/Monitoring upon which my mentors/advisers may discuss my behavior and their advice, as well as any measure that may need to be taken to help me cope."

I did not and do not regard this statement as excluding input from other editors, and in September, I updated the page in response to the need for a place to alert advisors to problematic behaviour by Mattisse.

Despite its failures, I still believe that Mattisse, advisors and the community would value a page dedicated to raising alerts. Contacting individual advisors is suboptimal for many reasons (e.g. availability).

This page does not need to be User:Mattisse/Monitoring - it could be e.g. User:Mattisse/Alerts. However, the location is not the real issue, in my view. The key issues (to avoid the type of incident that ultimately led to this time-consuming Request) are:

• On that page, the only input from editors other than Mattisse and her advisors should be the initial alert itself (editors can discuss the issue elsewhere);
• On that page (and its talk page), advisors should only address the behaviour of Mattisse, and what advice to give or action to take to ensure her behaviour is consistent with her plan (editors can discuss the actions of other parties and/or the appropriateness of the alert elsewhere).

This is the position underlying the recommendation "The monitoring page is updated to use forms based on User:Geometry guy/test" in the advisors' report. Restricting the monitoring page to advisors and Mattisse is fine, but the real need is for a place to raise alerts without escalation. Geometry guy 19:47, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Clarity requested regarding proposed motions 2.1–2.3

These refer to "editors with whom she has had previous conflicts". Mattisse has shown a willingness to avoid some of these editors on several occasions and I believe she would be willing to do so systematically, but she needs clarity. If advisors are to advise on (or especially approve) her interactions, we need clarity too. How should the editors "with whom she has had previous conflicts" be determined? For instance, should I include myself in such a class, because of the conflict Mattisse and I had over Scientology in Germany? I hope not, but without criteria, this is hard to determine. Geometry guy 22:24, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

This evening has been disappointing for me. I went to the library today to check a source for an article I want to improve and was hoping to spend my limited wikitime on it this evening. That hasn't been possible.

I am disappointed that my concern above (from 2 weeks ago) hasn't received attention sooner. I am disappointed in Mattisse for the way she has escalated this without consultation from advisors. I am disappointed that other editors have not set Mattisse a good example about assuming good faith, and being patient before responding.

However, with a good night's sleep, this disappointment will be gone, and I will sympathise with all concerned. We all have limited resources and energies, and we all have failings.

This situation illustrates the kind of ascertainment bias that I have mentioned previously: Mattisse can make hundreds of edits, but a handful may upset other editors. Advisors have no control over this: we can only advise Mattisse not to respond or escalate. If she does not listen to our advice, we will block her.

—

I did intend to post briefly today my comments on motions 2.1-2.3. It looks like 2.3 is unlikely to pass, and I agree that it is too bureaucratic.

Aside from the issue of "editors with whom she has had previous conflicts" raised above, I have the following additional comments. First, 2.1 in its current form groups together quite different processes, and it would be embarrassing if it passed as currently worded: it is hard to imagine initiating an FAC, GAN or DYK by an editor with whom one has had a previous conflict; the issue here is GAR and FAR. These problems do not arise in 2.2 but the "editors with whom she has had previous conflicts" becomes more problematic due to article ownership issues. I would also suggest that "indefinite" is not the right timescale: 1 year is already mentioned in the motions.

To end on a positive note, I am grateful to arbitrators for motions 4 and 7.1. I believe it benefits Mattisse and the encyclopedia for advisors to have additional discretion to impose blocks. As in this evening (so far) a warning should suffice. Geometry guy 23:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

PS. I hope we are not simply waiting for the last votes to come in here, but that all Arbitrators will revisit and discuss the issues.

Information regarding Mattisse's edits

I have had a look at Mattisse's recent edits in article space. Misunderstandings may have arisen because Dr.PDAs list was made in June 2008, and many of the articles are now former featured articles, particularly those with low citation density. Those with "no citations" include articles which use parenthetical references such as Monty Hall problem.

My impression is that Mattisse's recent edits to FAs and former FAs start around 3rd December with Caesar cipher (100), but I could easily be wrong. It is a start point anyway, and numbers in brackets are placings in Dr.PDAs list (in order of lowest citations per paragraph in 2008). The edits by Mattisse are followed by, in chronological order:

1. Frank Zappa (not on the list)
2. Liberal_Party_of_Canada_leadership_convention,_1968 (111)
3. Canadian_federal_election,_1993 (117),
4. Coconut_crab (140)
5. Captain Marvel (162)
6. Equal Protection Clause (163)
7. African-American literature (164)
8. George_H._D._Gossip (not listed)
9. Swedish_allotment_system (170)
10. Algerian Civil War (185)
11. Omnipotence_paradox (189)
12. Deconstructivism (190).

If I have made factual errors, please feel free to correct them. Geometry guy 21:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Closing and disclaimer

I concur with Sandy that this Request for Clarification has served its purpose and can now be closed. I also agree that it would be therapeutic (for want of a better word) to close it before the holiday season. On the other hand, I think arbitrators should take the time they need to make sure that the motions passed are optimal: there is no rush to do this in 48 hours.

For clarity, I disagree with motions 2.1-2.3. These motions are not needed as long as the passing motions are taken seriously by all. Further, I will not participate in any activity which encourages a culture of article ownership. In particular 2.3 asks advisors to do the work that no one else seems willing to do or even define.

Much of the work I have done to improve GA has been addressed at reducing article ownership, and I believe this has been beneficial. (I sympathise that at FA the ownership culture is more deeply embedded and difficult to address.) But also, purely pragmatically, I have better things to do with my leisure time than protect editors who might complain if "their" featured articles have typo's fixed or requests for additional references. Those editors are perfectly able to defend themselves, and the Alerts page proposed by Arbcom should be able to accommodate their concerns. Geometry guy 23:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Wehwalt

Having happened upon this page last night, and having worked with Mattisse here, I see no complaint against Mattisse here that requires arbs to do anything except encourage editors to work things out among themselves.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Statement by user:Joopercoopers

I have given a summary of some events that troubled me to Silk Tork, in the hope they will be included in the ArbCom report. I think it was Malleus who commented just 14 days after Mattisse was put on restriction, that the first test of the plan was 'not going well'. Worryingly it seems that 3 months on, Mattisse's behaviour is still periodically continuing to be problematic. If we must have this systematic drain of time and effort to keep one user in check, I'd urge the mentors to at least strive to make it effective - part of that is reviewing what went wrong and coming up with better ways of dealing with it in the future. (Personally I think the love needs to be tougher, but that's your call).

On the flip side, for Vesayana to say "Protection of a user subpage by an obviously involved administrator with no indication from the administrator that such actions are even questionable (and every indication to the contrary) is a very serious matter." needs some scrutiny:

Arbcom have in a sense delegated the enforcement of bringing Mattisse's behaviour up to scratch to the mentors (The responsibility remains, rightly with Mattisse), but there's no reason why other admins can't lend a hand. To berate an admin for using their judgement and tools to effect that end, seems to me appalling. If Mattisse's behaviour in the judgement of her mentors or admins is problematic, then you should at least give them the latitude to deal with it, rather than carping in hindsight that the usual adminstrative i's haven't been dotted and t's crossed.

Here Arbcom could help - traditionally, extensive latitude is given to user's pages and subpages (and talk pages too). I'd like a statement from Arbcom, that 1. restricts the usual rights of Mattisse in this area and 2. empowers mentors and admins to do what they see fit to keep it in order. 3. Allow the use of admin tools in any way they see fit, to control Mattisse's behaviour - to sanction one so strongly for what may have been a minor infraction, surely will make the others think twice about doing anything - don't tie one hand behind their backs, help them be more effective. --Joopercoopers (talk) 23:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

:To Newyorkbrad - Option 1, continue as we are - no. Option 2, tweak the existing arrangements - maybe, but it's got to be less not more bureaucratic and frequently reviewed to see if it's effective. Option 3 - vacate the mentoring scheme. I think Mattisse has some great stuff to offer the project (If only she could do it in a locked room without interacting with others) so it would be a shame to see her go. Personally I think it's all a great waste of productive editor's time, but if they'd rather spend their days here nursing Mattisse's fragilities then who am I to say they shouldn't. --Joopercoopers (talk) 23:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC) Striking this until I've seen the completed mentor's report. --Joopercoopers (talk) 12:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Stockholm and Lima syndrome

I was not privy to Arbcom's decision to pursue a mentoring route for Mattisse, rather than a more straightforward sanction. I would hope it was an attempt to retain a valuable editor in some form that would prevent further disruption to the project. For reference perhaps a look at what Mattisse signed up for, might be beneficial.

1. Per ArbCom, I am prohibited from engaging in unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, and disruptive point-making. I must avoid making any comments regarding the motivations or good faith of other editors.
2. I must not accuse others of conspiring against me.
3. Per ArbCom, I am instructed not to maintain on-wiki any lists of users with whom [I have] had negative interactions or of whom [I have] a negative view. I must not maintain such lists of other users.
4. I must avoid all comments that seem as if I a personalizing the routine remarks of others. I must limit my comments to article content and not the characteristics of other editors.
5. I must avoid making statements that I will not return to a forum, as that is an indeterminate statement implying no time limit and opinions will vary as to when, if ever, I could return. If I make such a statement, I must give a timeframe and adhere to it.
6. I must keep the betterment of the encyclopedia as the foremost goal and direct my behavior to further it.

The following diffs have all occurred since the sanction and violate at least one of these promises. Some perhaps are mitigated by provocation, but in toto, the pattern is persistent and ongoing. [246] [247] [248] (mitigated in response to this) [249] [250] [251] [252] [253] [254] [255] [256] [257] [258] [259] [260] [261] [262] [263] [264] [265] [266] other than the sockpuppet I have done nothing wrong cabalism [267] unwanted mentor [268] [269] [270] [271].....this is to the 21st September, at which point I've grown tired of trawling - perhaps other's might offer additional evidence, I've also not reviewed contributions to FAR etc. (see also here for the final deletion of subpages contravening no.3, at the suggestion of someone else some 4 months after the Arb decision])

call me now - abusive sockpuppeteering - time now served

[272] [273][274]

Clearly this unravelled at a rather early stage. From Mattisse this was all rather situation normal, however the mentor reaction is more worrying. Various pleas and calls to disengage went unheeded, but also unpunished. Whilst I understand a necessary degree of trust building between mentor and mentee, ultimately the mentorship should have been about preventing disruption to the project and not cosying Mattisse's fragile sensibilities. It should have been about teaching Mattisse to develop a thicker skin, not the development of a partisan group of sympathetic ears. Sure, Mattisse provokes reactions, and some of them may be unjustified because of misunderstandings, however surely what was needed was a dual responsibility of the Mentors - one to advise Mattisse and the other to sanction her to prevent further disruption. If calls to disengage are being ignored then mentors should begin to compel disengagement. This is what has been missing in the plan and is key to its failure [275]. Some of the mentors have developed a Lima syndrome with respect to their charge.

Symptomatic of this is the report currently published by them. Early attempts entirely gloss over Mattisse's behaviour. It's still 'low level and isolated expressions of dissatisfaction' in the draft final version, and the contributing factors of others 'provocation' is emphasised. I'll leave Arbs to decide if they can find a provocation that deserves Mattisse's persistent overreactions. The report also fails to note a rather public falling out with one of her more strident and effective mentors. Why is this not worthy of mention? Where is Malleus? Exhausted apparently. And why is simply questioning her version of events, something to be stifled? The reality, is much of the behaviour that we were promised would improve in the plan, is ongoing, and most of the mentors have simply become Mattisse's advocates. We have no reason to believe that further promises from Mattisse will result in positive improvement as long as the current arrangements are in place.

To move the situation forwards, I suggest the following alternatives should be considered:-

1. Some of the issues arise from an ever growing dissatisfaction of other users with Mattisse's behaviour, and Mattisse being apparently unable to deal with that in a productive manner. Perhaps the best solution is for Mattisse to start a new account, disclose it to Arbcom, vacate/block the Mattisse account and get a fresh start. This would be with a clear understanding that should problems arise with the new account, the consequences will be severe. The account should further be restricted to article creation or improvement for a period, after which Arbcom should review her contributions and if she's been playing nicely on article talk pages, possibly ease the restriction and permit editing in other areas. This remedy would also incorporate all of the restrictions 1-6 noted in the original RfARB
2. Vacate the mentorship and sanction Mattisse, with at minimum a restriction to avoid mention of Giano, Bishonen, Geogre, Lar and whoever else is on the 'plague' list, avoid Sandygeorgia (consider reciprocal arrangement here). FAR, FAC, GA, GAN etc.etc.
3. Apply Moni's suggestion, but first review the effectiveness of the individual mentors and replace as necessary.

--Joopercoopers (talk) 15:36, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Response to the impending horror of a full arb case

I thought Halloween was over? Surely the evidence is now before you from this, already extraordinarily long, clarification request for you to form opinions and make judgements, without another drain on the communities precious time? What would a full case achieve? Please no. --Joopercoopers (talk) 23:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Question. What have Swedish allotment system, Deconstructivism and Omnipotence paradox got in common?

Answer: Well apart from all being tagged by Matisse in the last 24 hours, I am the principle editor of Decon, Bishonen is the second principle editor of Swedish allotment system and Sandy is in the top 5 for Omnipotence paradox. With over 3 million article it's an extraordinary stretch of good faith to believe this is a coincidence. I do wish she would stop playing silly buggers like this - if she's committed to the spirit of getting out of peoples faces then this sort of crap really has to stop. --Joopercoopers (talk) 14:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

@Mattisee. Good faith, might at a stretch allow you to have unfortunately stumbled on my FA - which I have readily conceded on the talk page. Apparently you can use the Wikichecker which is surely a better way to find out who are the principle editors of an article, but you have chosen a more labourious method. Ok, with some scepticism I might take that on board. But that you would find 3 articles in quick succession edited by people who have participated in this RFC stretches good faith to breaking point. I suggest that part of the reason that people get so annoyed with you is that, you do all this low-level irritation stuff, and then when called out on it, expect us to believe it's all unfortunate coincidence. There's never an "oops sorry". Just an "AHA! There's ownership of articles at FAC!". Just pack it in please. --Joopercoopers (talk) 19:23, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Salix alba

So does all this discussion help towards the the creation of an encylopedia? Largely I would say no, indeed it has all become a large drama distracting everyone from that task. Hence I would urge the arb to close this request for clarification as soon as possible. My preference would be for a more structured mentor page as discussed in User:SilkTork/Report.

I have been looking at Mattisse recent actions and away from her talk page, the monitoring page, the report page and this one I've found little to be concerned about. Yes one or two silly comments, which would be best ignored and no worse than I would expect from most other editors.

What we do see is a lot of people bringing up some past event in a critical or hostile manner. Mattisse then tries to defend herself and we have another little skirmish. The mentors then try to calm the dispute by basically telling everyone to shut up. Hence drawing some complaint about mentors not working. Too a large extent this is all predictable. If folks want an argument then they have certainly found the right way to do that. If folks want less drama then it will require a greater degree of self control by everybody. --Salix (talk): 10:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

In response to the motion to reopen. Things are nice and quiet now, but I know if the case is reopened we are in for a whole new round of drama, much of this will be about old issues rather than any new issues which is where the mentoring is really needed. --Salix (talk): 07:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved user Jtrainor

What a ridiculous circus. Who thought putting such an ornate system into place to keep a hold of one editor was a better idea than the usual clear set of sanctions that could just be tossed on WP:AE when violated? It's obviously not working at all.

I find Giano's statements about this situation to be accurate. Close clari, and either enact some restrictions that don't require a useless and unneccesary layer of bureaucracy or just plain indef Mattisse. Jtrainor (talk) 10:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved user bwrs

I wish to confine my comments solely to the subject of multiple-account usage: I think that a single-account restriction is in order; that is, the respondent should only be allowed to use one account. As for the merits of the rest of this discussion, I have no unique or special insight. Bwrs (talk) 02:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Question from Bishonen about the mentors'/advisors' report

I happened to notice a post from SilkTork on Carcharoth's, Vassyana's and Newyorkbrad's pages, informing them that the mentors' report is now finished, giving this link for it. Carcharoth's reply sort of implies — I think — that the report isn't ready to be discussed yet. So I won't exactly discuss it here — for instance, I will later, rather than now, make a statement about the sockpuppetry incident which I was the target of, and which (remarkably) isn't mentioned in the report as it now appears. But I do need to ask, on behalf of all the people who have been waiting for this report: is that really it?

The report as linked to has no summary of events, though there is a draft of one on another part of the User:SilkTork/Report page.[276] Nor is there any mention of what the mentors have done since June (although Carcharoth requested that a description of that be included). There is no suggestion for removing or adding mentors. There is no self-critique in the "Self-described roles" and "Activity of the above" sections. The criticism coming from the community that these mentors, selected by Mattisse, have functioned as a Mattisse Defence Force is not mentioned or addressed. And so on. It's altogether, well, frankly, not much of a report. In my opinion, that is.

What I'd like to know is if I've misunderstood SilkTork's message on the three arbitrators' pages. Does SilkTork's link represent the whole of the report? Or is the entire User:SilkTork/Report page — or its entire section "Draft Report to ArbCom"? — actually intended to constitute the report? Sorry if I'm being stupid, SilkTork and other mentors, Carcharoth and other arbs. But could one or more of you clarify where this report begins and ends, before people start to discuss it, please? Bishonen | talk 15:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC).

Addition: Rlevse's proposed motion

With some reluctance, since I've already composed an Evidence statement about the (poor) way several mentors dealt with Mattisse's sockpuppetry and block, I advise ArbCom to do the whole thing by motion. Mattisse has been the subject of enough community and ArbCom time, energy, and attention.

The Mattisse Defence Force—the mentoring/advisory group—should in my opinion be disbanded. No doubt all the mentors/advisors are activated by good motives, and some of them give good advice. Philcha's advocacy, however, has IMO been harmful to an extent that the ArbCom might consider banning her from contact with Mattisse (with thanks, indeed, for her hard work and good intentions), rather than to accept her as a more or less official mentor. I'm prepared to unfold my reasons for this opinion if the ArbCom requests it. Anyway, I ask the active arbs to please propose a motion that in some way takes into account the past and future existence/position of Mattisse mentors (these mentors, or others). Bishonen | talk 18:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC).

Response to Durova

"In response to the request for feedback on the proposal to reopen the case, would prefer the four month holding pattern suggested on 27 October. ... Would it not be less trouble for everyone if Mattisse and her mentors got a few months' breathing room, to demonstrate the matter empirically one way or the other?" What? We just did that! Exactly that very thing! (I don't know if you were watching over the past four months of "breathing room" for Mattisse and her mentors, but that time period was empirically a lot of trouble for everybody.) Bishonen | talk 19:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC).

Statement by Tznkai

We all have better things to do than go through this again. If Mattisse is too much trouble to keep around, ban her. If she's worth keeping around but needs better restrictions, apply one by motion. If she's worth keeping around but needs better restrictions and you can't think of one, throw her to the wolves at WP:AE under general probation, again by motion. If she's worth keeping around and needs not restrictions, discard them by motion.

If you throw her to AE or any sort of uninvolved administrator sanction for whatever reason, please make some notation as to whether you believe I and the other regulars there will be considered "involved" cause I see that fight looming large.

Consider for a moment, that we have an election to run, and there are several cases y'all should endeavor to close out by the end of the year. This one wouldn't be one of them.

Responding to Wizardman's motion

Please see my above post about needed clarifications, as well as general clarifications on what related to FA is. For example: are all featured articles related? That would be a reasonable interpretation on its face. Spell it out, and remember that all topic bans will end up in WP:AE eventually. We need guidance, support, and clear rules of engagement.--Tznkai (talk) 06:34, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Brief headnod from Xeno

Simply confirming further to Vassyana's statement below that my closing of the ANI thread made no statement (implied or otherwise) as to the propriety of the protection. –xeno^talk 17:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Statement by recused/inactive Risker

I have assiduously avoided reading or commenting on this request for clarification as I was inactive at the time it was filed and informally continued my recusal from the initial case, the exception being to point out to my colleagues that they were now voting on more motions than there were clauses in the original decision.

I note Joopercooper's recent comment. As this case winds down, and there is every appearance that Mattisse will be permitted to continue editing Wikipedia, before the ink is even dry on the amendments she is already returning to her old patterns of behaviour, targeting articles where those she has come in conflict with in the past are primary or significant editors.

All articles can be improved; older articles can probably use more improvement than those that have just completed the FA cycle. However, Mattisse has made a conscious choice to resume behaviour in exactly the areas and involving the same editors that resulted in the original case, and in this return for clarification. She does good work, sometimes. She also seems incapable of self-control when it comes to the work of editors with whom she has had conflicts. Since this behaviour has already resumed without this clarification even being closed, there is every reason to believe that Mattisse will return to the very behaviours on GAC, FAC and FAR that have created so much disharmony. I ask the sitting members of the Arbitration Committee to review the latest actions of Mattisse prior to closing this clarification, and to give consideration to different sanctions that will, genuinely, put a halt to her personalisation of content contribution. Risker (talk) 15:15, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Addendum: Some arbitrators who are not familiar with typical practices involving featured articles may not be aware that there is an (unwritten) expectation that significant editors to an FA will keep the article in "respectable" condition: periodically tidying up vandalism, updating here and there, ensuring that any additions are of the same quality as the original article. They're expected to respond to questions on talk pages and to keep the articles on their watchlist, and they're notified when an FAR is initiated; again, they're generally expected to work on improving the article and returning it to FA quality. If the significant editors of an article leave Wikipedia, it is a near-guarantee that the article will fall into disarray and will be demoted, unless some other editor takes on the responsibility of ongoing maintenance and improvement. There is a fine line between responsibility and ownership and it is easily blurred. Whilst some may feel that an editor's continued ties to an article they have made significant investment in is "ownership", recent reports out of the Wikimedia Foundation indicate that one of the significant issues in editor retention is the lack of recognition and reward. Risker (talk) 17:57, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Further comments: I've written further on the conflict between the featured content culture (with implied continuing stewardship) and the wiki culture (of altruistic collaboration without regard to the contributor's identity) on my talk page here. Some may find this informative, but it is not specific to this case. Risker (talk) 21:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Recuse, still. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 18:49, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: Ordinarily, when we find that an editor has engaged in conduct sufficiently problematic to warrant an arbitration finding, we impose an appropriately tailored sanction. In this case, in drafting the decision, I found that we were dealing with an editor whose content contributions were respected but who frequently was finding herself in interpersonal conflicts with others. Mattisse had expressed a desire to improve her behavior, several other editors had expressed a desire to work with her in doing so, suggestions were already being made while the case was pending for how this could be done, and it seemed to make sense to allow Mattisse to work with these editor to develop such a plan. At this remove a few months later, I am not certain that the decision is working out as well as we had hoped. The question before us is whether we should allow additional time for things to be adjusted, whether we should provide additional guidance on how things ought to work, or whether we should vacate our original decision and replace it with a more conventional one. Cogent comments on this question, devoid of personal attacks and the like, will be appreciated. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comments:

Original statement collapsed 14:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

(1) I'm not 100% sure of what is going on here yet (there is a lot to look through), but what I think is happening is that people are not giving each other enough space, and while some people might want the monitoring page worked on and worked into a definite structure right now, it is sometimes the case that if you stand over someone (or a group) insisting they fix something, it can make things worse. Somewhere in all this, someone suggested that Mattisse should be more patient and wait for her mentors to deal with things at that page rather than trying to sort thing out herself. I agree with that, but would go further and say that those who responded to Mattisse's actions should also have waited as well. Why not just take things slowly, with no need for moving of comments back and forth, or page protections, and just talk about it calmly (or wait for others to arrive), instead of escalating? (2) Turning to what Brad has said, I disagree that it is possible to pass judgment yet on whether things are working out or not. On 20 September, I presented an internal report to ArbCom titled "Review of ArbCom mentorship remedies Dec 08 to Sept 09" (it was more a listing of the seven mentorship remedies passed this year, but it did briefly give updates on the status of each one). In my conclusions to that review, I recommended that we ask for a status update on the two mentorships that were still in progress. One of those was Mattisse, but sadly nothing further was done with my suggestion to ask for a status update (though we did make progress with one of the other mentorship remedies). I think the best way forward here is for there to be a delay of a week (during which time Mattisse and everyone else should be patient and wait - with injunctions to enforce that if needed), while her mentors prepare a report for ArbCom on how successful they think things have been so far, and what changes they are proposing to make (they could look at Moni3's proposal, among others, and also suggest changes to who the mentors should be). Once that report is ready, others can comment on it. That will be far more productive than trying to deal with things at a clarification request and have ArbCom voting on different alternatives. (3) Turning to what Durova has said. My view here is that it is inappropriate and unhelpful to turn up at a request like this and say "I told you so". The philosophy and advice on mentorships is good but presenting it in this way is not. Others are making comments that are less than helpful as well. As I said, what is needed here is space for productive discussion to take place without extraneous noise. Which is why I am suggesting that Mattisse's mentors be asked to produce a report, and we then take things from there.Thank you, Durova, for refactoring what you said. Might I suggest that following up on people's talk pages may not be the best option here? The more people that get that closely involved, the more difficult it is to resolve this. Carcharoth (talk) 01:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC) Updated 01:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC) Sandy, the "not 100% sure yet" bit refers to stuff that hasn't been mentioned here. I always take what people say in cases and at requests with a pinch of salt, as there is often more going on than what people are saying here. When I've finished looking at the context of some of the events described here, I'll update what I've said. Meanwhile, I will note that if Mattisse's mentors (maybe only two of them?) concentrate on a report, instead of spending time at this request, and everyone else goes back to doing the things that Sandy mentioned (vandal fighting, admin processes, content review and writing articles), that is less people overall spending time on this matter. I would support any temporary injunctions needed while this was being done. Carcharoth (talk) 03:35, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I've taken another look at this, and I have some ideas about what could be done here, but as I'm going to be away from now until Sunday evening, I'm not going to actually propose any motions to deal with this. What I will do is give a general outline of two options (one long, and one short), and other arbitrators can hammer out details, or adopt something from the suggestions above, or suggest something completely different.

A - (1) Suspend mentorship; (2) Place Mattisse under an injunction; (3) Request report from the mentors; (4) Request public comment from the case parties and others on the report; (5) Draw conclusions and take things from there (either re-instate a changed mentorship, or adopt a different sanction).

B - Present a version of the proposal made by Moni3 for a more structured approach (after review by an arbitrator) to Mattisse and her mentors and ask if they are willing to adopt the version presented. The version I would present of Moni3's proposal is everything except point 4.

I would support either of the above approaches to this. Option 'A' is intended to combine firm action, careful deliberation, public input, change where change is needed, and increased and new sanctions where such sanctions are needed. Option 'B' is intended to be a much quicker way of dealing with this. There are other options, but those come later. The alternative is a timesink of a clarifications request that may linger here for days. Hopefully, by the time I next look at this on Sunday, a motion of some sort will have been proposed, based on either 'A' or 'B', one of the other suggestions above, or something else. Meanwhile, in anticipation of a motion based on Moni3's well-written proposal, can I ask those who have commented here so far to briefly state whether they would support Moni3's proposal, or a version of it, and say what they would accept and what they would change (I note that a version of what Moni3 proposed was being discussed here, that being itself based on an earlier proposal by Moni3). If everyone focuses on that, we may be able to get this sorted out relatively quickly. Carcharoth (talk) 00:54, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Older comments

I've taken another look at this clarification request (to see what progress has been made over the weekend), and I see that things may have settled down somewhat, even if things are not totally clear yet. From what I can gather so far, Moni3 and others had legitimate concerns, and in the face of what may have been a slow or inappropriate response (that is, ultimately, a subjective judgment), the issue was forced (by several of those concerned) and escalated by a page protection, an ANI thread and coming here. Hopefully, if de-escalation is taking place, productive discussion can resume where this all started, maybe after the discussion here has concluded. It would be ideal if those concerned could sort it out themselves. I suggest arbitrators and others check back on this towards the end of this week (Friday), and see what progress has been made. Carcharoth (talk) 14:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC) Regarding the fifth comment by Fainites, I agree the dynamics there are unhealthy, but possibly not in the same way as Fainites does. I see Mattisse responding to the concerns expressed, and, with the advice of her mentors, responding appropriately. I am unimpressed with Giano's attitude there. I have warned Giano in the past about making inappropriate comments about Mattisse ([277], [278], [279]). Regarding the fourth comment by Fainites, even if it may have been unwise of Mattisse to comment where she did, it seems to me that she raised valid points. Focusing on the fact that it was Mattisse who said it (rather than someone else) is the sort of focusing on the contributor, not the comments (personalisation of disputes), that Mattisse has done in the past. I concur with Vassyana that more introspection by Mattisse will help here. I have had to warn her off myself at times, as I did with Giano, and that is not good for either of them. They should both know better. Going back a bit, to the issue of Mattisse moving the comments made by Sandy (what started this off), I think that incident is being blown out of proportion. The wider issues were (and continue to be) Mattisse reacting too quickly to perceived problems, and those critical of Mattisse being too quick to criticise (both should interact via the mentors when problems arise). Essentially, I see over-sensitivity on all sides here, and some people trying their best to calm things down and getting criticised for their attempts to do that. At the moment, it would be best if people thought long and hard about whether adding more to this request for clarification would be productive, and to instead let the arbitrators digest what has been said and come up with something, and for the parties to this to avoid escalating things elsewhere. On related matters, could Mattisse's mentors say whether there is a report or update on the monitoring page and whether any progress has been made there? Carcharoth (talk) 07:08, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to SilkTork for the update, and thanks to those who have added productive comments to this request for clarification without the use of attacks in edit summaries. Seeing that I've been accused of stifling feedback, I need to point out that I made it very clear on this very page that after any report, there would be a public feedback session to allow for corrections and misunderstandings to be cleared up:

A - (1) Suspend mentorship; (2) Place Mattisse under an injunction; (3) Request report from the mentors; (4) Request public comment from the case parties and others on the report; (5) Draw conclusions and take things from there (either re-instate a changed mentorship, or adopt a different sanction).

That bit I have just quoted was one of the set of options I thought was workable. The parties to this request might like to consider why no other arbs (apart from Vassyana and Brad) have commented here so far, or voiced support for my proposal to suspend Mattisse's mentorship, or made a motion to that effect. I had considered a motion to put the entire request on hold until a report was produced, but the fact that this clarification is still open and being commented on should make clear that feedback is not being stifled. What I have been trying to do is urge people to go about this in an orderly manner, not the back-and-forth seen here. What I see, instead, is some people taking this all far too personally. A lot more calmness is needed. Some aspects of this request have indeed resembled a trainwreck, but other aspects have managed to clarify some points. What I also see is some of those commenting here reacting against what arbitrators (primarily me and Vassyana) have been saying, and chosing to decamp to an alternative venue and engage in heavy criticism of arbitrators that disagree with them. The point of arbitration is to have a panel of editors as the final stage in dispute resolution to make their own independent judgment on conduct issues. Central to that is recognising that arbitrators will disagree with you at times, but that should lead to cordial discussion, not veiled and not-so-veiled hints at requesting recall. If you don't like what some arbitrators are saying, ask others to give their opinions instead. Ultimately, if a majority of arbitrators take a different view of this than I do (and I am, despite what some are saying, keeping an open mind about this - I am open to increased, changed, lifted, or new restrictions, for several people involved here), then that will be what passes as a resolution to this request. Carcharoth (talk) 01:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Popping in here briefly to note that only six arbitrators are both active and unrecused on this case (something I hadn't fully realised earlier). I was proposing to post motions following the report, but given the size and complexity of the request, and the number of inactive arbitrators, it might be possible that re-opening the case is needed to allow fuller consideration. Giano, can I ask that you hold off on filing for a new case until we consider whether to post a motion here to re-open the case? Unless things change, one of several motions I am considering posting will be to re-open the case (unless a relatively simple change can be found that meets the concerns raised here). I also intend to offer up many of the options suggested here for voting. Regarding the confusion over Fowler&fowler and whether he is a mentor or not, I agree that the confusion there is not good (I may also have picked the wrong diff to identify as 'productive' - it was meant to be an example only). Please note what I said at the end of the case in this section on Fowler's talk page. Accordingly, I am going to ask those preparing this report to look at the activity of the mentors, with a view to looking at what Sandy and others have suggested, which is to incorporate new mentors, or reduce the existing number, the aim being to have Mattisse wait for advice, rather than have 24-hour advice available from mentors who may not be very active, or giving poor advice. I won't be around to follow this request for a few days (I am working on another case), and other arbitrators I asked to comment here have said they are busy or still thinking, so please do be patient. I am aware that some have said that there has been a failure to keep this request under control, but please look over the volume of what has been posted here and think whether that was ever a realistic hope. I will once again ask that people please try and remain calm and patient. Carcharoth (talk) 08:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• Noting here, for the record, an exchange I had with Mattisse on my talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 00:15, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Original statements. I will replace it after further review and consideration. Something more nuanced, and specific, is needed. Vassyana (talk) 19:21, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

This entire situation is distressing to me. I agree that Mattisse has some continuing problems and I will not belabor that point as others have more than well-expressed the problems, except to note that the downplaying of some problematic behavior by Mattise is extremely concerning. It is difficult, if not impossible, to presume in good faith that someone will alter their conduct sufficiently when prior problems are not acknowledged or minimized. That said, one thing that is utterly striking about this request that allows me to still hope for a better outcome is Mattisse's attempt to maintain a positive focus and failure to note the egregious behavior of some detractors. Out of the gate, a set of editors has continued to assume bad faith, make derogatory comments, and otherwise demean Mattisse and her mentors on a regular basis. Mattisse and her mentors have been subjected to an utterly rancid and constant stream of aggressive demands, insults, and so forth. That Mattisse has maintained a relatively high amount of cool about it and has not raised it in the all too common "look at what they did" defense is commendable. If the mentorship fails, Mattisse will almost certainly face other restrictions to curb the negative behavior. However, if the mentorship fails, I will be seeking sanctions against those who have engaged in the baiting and incivility that contributed to the poisonous atmosphere and failure. If this situation reaches that critical point, the conduct of all involved parties will be examined for acute violations of our policies and community norms. I would exhort everyone involved to take a few steps back, allow some breathing room, and reconsider their individual approach to the situation. Vassyana (talk) 18:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC) In response to Fainites, I have reformulated one statement. That noted, please consider my comments in the same vein as general arbitration findings, warnings, probations, etc. They need not name names in order to be effective warnings. Everyone involved here is experienced and quite familiar with our rules and norms. If someone is unsure whether or not it applies to them, it is a good indication that they may need to reconsider their conduct. I will be honest and say that I am not very swayed by chilling effect arguments about general observations and warnings, particularly when the affected parties should be more than aware of where the lines are drawn. People can raise concerns and express that they feel misconduct is taking place without descending into gross bad faith, insulting snark, and personal attacks. If they cannot, they need to stop commenting. Vassyana (talk) 18:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Older comments. Just collapsing for the sake of screen space and readability. Vassyana (talk) 19:58, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Misrepesentations and hyberbolic representations of facts and circumstances are common and witnessed in this request: As an additional note, I find [T]he complaints against Mattisse in this situation regarding changing her mentoring plan by way of editing/managing her subpages [appear] to be without foundation. Nothing in the plan prohibits her from taking such actions or establishes a particular subpage regime. (Whether or not her actions were ill-advised is another matter and unrelated to the point.) Indeed, her plan has long-specified the purpose of the monitoring subpage (see [280]), which is exactly the purpose that she asserts in this situation. Thus, contrary to complaints, the good faith interpetation is that she is trying to stick to her plan and return the page to its purpose while creating another subpage to address the obvious demand for a centralized discussion location. I see no reason to presume otherwise. Vassyana (talk) 18:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC) Unitanode's claim that the protection was endorsed by two administrators is blatantly false. Xeno simply closed the thread in light of this request. Mjroots did nothing more than note the blocking rationale. Neither can be reasonably asserted to be endorsements. Vassyana (talk) 18:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC) [Placeholder] Protection of a user subpage by an obviously involved administrator with no indication from the administrator that such actions are even questionable (and every indication to the contrary) is a very serious matter. There was no emergency. Even with more pressing matters in mainspace, administrators are expected to not act when involved and file a request for protection like anyone else. This is deeply concerning to me. Please give me a reason for my concerns to be laid to rest. (Noting that I do not think even a formal warning is warranted here. This is an isolated incident and I have no reason to believe it will become a pattern. This is not an invitation to give me a reason and derail this request. RfC is that way if necessary. I am only addressing what's in front of me.) Vassyana (talk) 18:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC) As clearly illustrated by the evidence outlined by Durova and a detailed review of the situation, Matisse has serious and continuing issues with making matters personal and reacting extremely. A close examination of matters seems to make it clear that there is little hope that this will change simply with a more structured approach to mentorship, despite the good faith of those involved. I am open to being convinced otherwise, but I have become extremely skeptical. Vassyana (talk) 18:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC) Matisse, you are talking a lot about other editors and a lot about your editing benchmarks, but you are addressing very little of the concerns about your conduct and reactions to matters. I'm not saying other people are blameless, as you can note by comments here, but you really should be focusing on your actions in this situation. I want to know why I should hold good faith in the potential of the mentoring process, when it does not seem to have improved matters. I still see you reacting in such a way that makes it very difficult for other editors to engage with you. You are simultaneously expressing confusion, assuming the worst faith, and insisting (explicitly or implicitly) that people want you to stop editing. (This is even evidenced in your comments on and about this request.) You must understand how this appears to other editor. Imagine if someone responded to what you thought to be reasonable feedback with something that indicated they had no idea what your point was, but that they felt it was raised in bad faith and (though you didn't even imply anything of the sort) they all but accuse you of trying to push them out of the area. Wouldn't you find it at least a bit difficult and frustrating to try and communicate with that editor? This is not the whole of the issue, but it's one of the main patterns that I see and if that were resolved, other things would much more easily follow. Vassyana (talk) 18:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC) [Placeholder]

Request answered. Thank you Moni3 for the prompt reply. Vassyana (talk) 19:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I neglected to mention in my original comment that I would like a more complete statement from Moni3 regarding her protection of Mattisse's subpage. My apolgies for the oversight. Vassyana (talk) 18:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC) For Moni3: Why did you feel page protection was necessary? Why did you intervene directly? Did you have any reservations about instituting protection? In retrospect, do you feel it was the proper thing to do or do you believe that another action would have been more proper? Vassyana (talk) 23:13, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• Noting that I am not convinced that Mattisse's recent edits present a problem of personalizing the dispute on her part. The gross overreaction to those edits does underscore the need for Motion 8 in my eyes. One edit was purely noting source language and making a small grammatical correction. Another edit was marking a Wikipedia mirror as a questionable source. Regardless of other edits, it borders on farce that editors are using these edits as part of a claim of undue personalization and shenanigans. In my perception, the complaints certainly illustrate both, but not on Mattisse's part. Vassyana (talk) 20:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Motions

Motion 1

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse be reopened as Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse 2.

Support

: Feel free to tweak. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

1. Unfortunately, has to be done. Wizardman 04:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

   I could work woith NYB's suggestions if he wishes to make that a motion. Wizardman 19:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. After reviewing the reactions to this proposal, it is clear that there is little stomach for the reopening of the case (at least not right now). Thus I am opposing this motion. However, this doesn't preclude dealing with some of the behaviour seen here from various people, but by summary motion instead (based on what has been presented so far). And in response to Durova's point here, that strategy doesn't work at ArbCom (or it shouldn't). There are other options here, and other arbs may be proposing different motions over the next few days. Carcharoth (talk) 02:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
2. Per Carcharoth, the last thing this situation needs is more pages and more words. At this point, I am considering whether the best answer for all concerned might be to ask Mattisse, if she wishes to remain active as an editor, to edit primarily in mainspace and to leave process work (FAR, GA, etc.) and wikispace to others for a time. And perhaps Mattisse might best emphasize her efforts on editing of pages whose creators or contributors request her input, and creating new pages of her own, as opposed to weighing in on the contributions of those with whom she has historically disagreed. Does that work for everyone? Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
3. Please no. Vassyana (talk) 08:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
4. bainer (talk) 17:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
5. No. Given the amount of input here, it would be a waste of time to push it all to another forum. We need to sort this out now. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:54, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
6. Finish it here. Cool Hand Luke 00:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
7. No. Last time/last chance.  Roger Davies ^talk 08:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Abstain

Recuse

1. Still recused. — Coren ^(talk) 01:47, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrator discussion

• Given the initial reaction to the report on events since the last case (prepared in Silk Tork's userspace), this is one of the options that should be considered (and is one option I suggested earlier when discussing this with Rlevse). I do, however, want to hear more reactions to the report from others first, and also whether those critical of the report would like the case reopened, or whether they are looking for a speedier resolution to this (e.g. by motion right now), as a case will (if that is possible) take up even more time than this clarification thread has done. I also think that any motion or new case should acknowledge the production of the report - the report may only have been an initiative following my suggestion during earlier comments at this clarification thread, but several of those here ran with the suggestion, and it is fair to say that the absence of most other arbitrators from the earlier part of this clarification request may have been taken as consent by silence for the preparation of such a report. If that was not the case, that needs to be made clear as well, as a re-opening of the case implies that the report was insufficient, and that should be said by an explicit vote, not merely by omission. Carcharoth (talk) 02:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Clerk notes

• Given the length of time since the start of this clarification thread, could a clerk please notify those who were a party to the original case, and those who have commented at this clarification thread, as their opinions on re-opening the case should be heard. And could a list of non-recused arbitrators active on this motion be prepared as well, to aid in calculation of majorities for this and any other motions. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 02:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

 Done All participants notified and arb list is below. Manning (talk) 04:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Motion 2

Mattisse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely banned from all pages relating to the Featured article process.

Support

— Rlevse • Talk • 12:48, 15 November 2009 (UTC) okay, one last chance. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. This is not nuanced enough and does not address the real problem, as pointed out by SandyGeorgia here. My preference would be for (possibly mutual) non-interaction and non-commenting injunctions between Mattisse and selected others, across all namespaces. That way, calmer editors would prevail in any discussions, without unhelpful comments from editors who personalise the issues. And there are several editors here, not just Mattisse, who overly personalise things. Carcharoth (talk) 17:49, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
2. Per SandyGeorgia and Carcharoth. Vassyana (talk) 08:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
3. bainer (talk) 17:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
4. Cool Hand Luke 17:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Abstain

1. Lean support though I understand Sandy's concerns. Wizardman 17:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
2. I have proposed finer-grained remedies below, but am leaning towards supporting a indef ban on featured content discussions in order to stave off many potential crises which consume so much of the communities time. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 12:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrator discussion

Clerk notes

Motion 2.1

Mattisse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely banned from initiating FACs, FARs, GANs, GARs or DYKs of editors with whom she has had previous conflicts.

Support

1. Lifted from SandyGeorgia 18:14, 22 October 2009. This appears to be a very sensible and minimal remedy. --John Vandenberg ^(chat) 12:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
2. In most of these you can't really 'initiate' articles of others anyway, so this would work. Wizardman 17:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
3. Cool Hand Luke 00:08, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

   Switching to oppose. Initiating reviews of the status of articles written in large part by those you have been in conflict with is possible, but the problem here is defining "with whom she has had previous conflicts". Having said that, a ban from initiating such reviews is not onerous, so I will support anyway. Carcharoth (talk) 21:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. The last thing we need to do is encourage or foster, even by implication, an ownership culture. At minimum a change from "of editors" to "credited to editors". Also, it doesn't track well as written. I presume that this is intended to address FAR and GAR, but to include the normal promotion processes seems way out of place. Vassyana (talk) 18:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
2. bainer (talk) 23:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
3. Switching to oppose from support. This isn't really workable. It was based (as John said) on a suggestion by Sandy ("At a minimum, I never understood why ArbCom didn't rule that Mattisse should no longer review (or initiate) FACs, FARs, GANs, GARs or DYKs of editors with whom she has had previous conflicts."), but Geometry guy's objections (which Sandy has also pointed towards) demonstrate that this is not workable. I think something more like motion 2.3 is needed, and am switching to supporting that instead. Carcharoth (talk) 01:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Abstain

Motion 2.2

Mattisse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely banned from participating in FACs, FARs, GANs, GARs or DYKs of editors with whom she has had previous conflicts.

Support

1. As with motion 2.1, this is lifted from SandyGeorgia 18:14, 22 October 2009. I think this is necessary at the moment; I would be willing to lift this after there is a long period without conflict. --John Vandenberg ^(chat) 12:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
2. Wizardman 17:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
3. Cool Hand Luke 00:22, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
4.  Roger Davies ^talk 08:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. The last thing we need to do is encourage or foster, even by implication, an ownership culture. I would switch to abstain with a change of "of editors" to "initiated by editors". Vassyana (talk) 18:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
2. Per Vassyana and ownership concerns. FARs and GARs should be about the articles, not those who wrote them. Participation is fine as long as someone else initiates them. Carcharoth (talk) 14:14, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
3. bainer (talk) 23:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Abstain

Motion 2.3

For 6 months, Mattisse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is required to note her intention to participate in FACs, FARs, GANs, and GARs on the Mentoring page, and wait for feedback from the mentors, who are expected to decline if they have reason to be concerned.

Support

1. Weak support. This should have the effect of limiting old conflicts from occuring, ensure that a mentor can watchlist the relevant pages beforehand, and (for good or ill) reducing the number of FACs, FARs, GANs, and GARs that she engages in. --John Vandenberg ^(chat) 12:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
2. Switching from abstain to support. Firmer and clearer restrictions needed (i.e. from recent events, it seems that red tape is needed here). Also, this needs to apply to tagging of articles and commenting on talk pages on the quality of featured articles and good articles (i.e. the 'prior' stages to a formal review). I would phrase this as

   For 6 months, Mattisse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is required to note her intention to participate in FACs, FARs, GANs, and GARs on the Mentoring page, and wait for feedback from the mentors, who are expected to decline if they have reason to be concerned. Mattisse is also instructed to seek approval from her mentors before tagging articles, or making comments on the talk page regarding quality of articles, where the articles in question are featured, are good articles, or were previously good or featured articles.

   To avoid drama, those objecting to any proposal Mattisse makes to participate in one of these reviews (or initiate a FAR or GAR, or tag or comment on an article talk page - those behaviours need to be restricted as well), need to wait for a response from the mentors, and to accept that if the mentors approve a potentially controversial proposal, it is likely due to not knowing what may be controversial about the proposal, and to either accept the approval, or find a way to alert the mentors to a potential problem without causing drama. Would prefer that explicit reasons are not provided for declining any proposed reviews by Mattisse - naming people will only personalise the issue. Mattisse, for her part, needs to accept that things have got to the stage where she needs to steer clear of certain areas. The six-month review point is needed, as nothing as restrictive as this should be permanent, and those who object to working with Mattisse (or having Mattisse review their work) should always keep open the option of working with her at some future point. Anyone who wants to invite Mattisse to review their work should (per common sense) over-ride this, but those editors should be sensitive to the concerns that may be raised by others who have worked on the articles. Carcharoth (talk) 08:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. If we're already blocking out ones where she's had conflicts I think we'll be alright. Besides, I would trust the mediators to look over this even without the motion. Wizardman 17:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
2.  Roger Davies ^talk 08:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
3. I think the other motions will take care of it. This is a strong final warning. Cool Hand Luke 16:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
4. bainer (talk) 23:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Abstain

1. Too much red tape, though I appreciate the sentiment. Vassyana (talk) 18:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

   Switching to support. 08:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC) May be needed at some point, but not now. Carcharoth (talk) 14:22, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Motion 3

The report submitted by Mattisse's mentors and advisors here is acknowledged and a copy and link of the report shall be filed at the case pages. The report and its conclusions will be taken under consideration by the Committee, along with the public review and comments made at this clarification thread that led to that report. Further motions and sanctions to clarify or amend the case will be considered and presented here for voting.

Support

1. Formalising the process here. We have what we need. We now need to make a decision. But the report and the comments made at this thread and on the report talk page are an important part of the process and need to be entered into the record on the case pages. Carcharoth (talk) 18:30, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
2. Wizardman 17:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
3. Vassyana (talk) 08:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
4. bainer (talk) 17:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
5. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
6. Cool Hand Luke 04:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
7.  Roger Davies ^talk 08:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

: — Rlevse • Talk • 02:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

Arbitrator discussion

Clerk notes

Motion 4

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.

Support

1. Noting that things are getting stricter. Carcharoth (talk) 18:42, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
2. Wizardman 17:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
3. Vassyana (talk) 08:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
4. bainer (talk) 17:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
5. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
6. Cool Hand Luke 04:40, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
7.  Roger Davies ^talk 08:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

— Rlevse • Talk • 02:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

Arbitrator discussion

Clerk notes

Motion 5

Any editor with concerns about a post made by Mattisse in any location may remove the post and file a report at User:Mattisse/Monitoring. Once this is done, further discussion should be limited in nature and those filing a report should wait for a response from Mattisse's mentors and advisors. If editors repeatedly file reports that are found to be frivolous or unwarranted, this should be noted by Mattisse's mentors and advisors, and the concerns raised in the appropriate places.

Support

1. Try to lay out what should happen, based on the points made in the report. Carcharoth (talk) 18:57, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
2. Wizardman 17:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

— Rlevse • Talk • 02:13, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. This is contrary to the documented plan, which reserves the page for another purpose, as noted in my comments above. If nothing else, we should not be perpetuating the gross misconception regarding page structure. I would prefer it if we simply noted "an appropriate designated page" or explicitly noted that we are imposing a direct change to the page structure and mentoring plan. Vassyana (talk) 08:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
2. Per Vassyana. What needs to happen is for that page to be reserved solely for the purposes of the mentorship. Proposing alternative below. --bainer (talk) 17:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
3. Per Vassyana. Overly wonky besides. Cool Hand Luke 04:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
4. Per Vassyana and CHL.  Roger Davies ^talk 08:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Abstain

Arbitrator discussion

• Responding here to Sandy's concerns here. If there were problems at a FAC, then any editor (including the FAC delegates) could either remove the questionable post altogether and file a report at the monitoring page, or a FAC delegate could move the post to talk, or restart the FAC. What the intention here is, is for both Mattisse and the person filing the report, to then wait. Not to get into an argument there, here, over there, at the FAC page, on user talk pages, or anywhere else, and not to discuss the matter with others on their talk pages lamenting how terrible it is that this has happened, but to wait. i.e. Everyone has to be patient. Remove the post, file the report, state concern, and then wait. Only at the end of the process, would concerns be raised if it was felt the response was inadequate. And any statements by Mattisse in response to the report would have to be checked first to avoid them inflaming the situation. I should note here that if any editor does repeatedly file frivolous or unwarranted reports, then they will likely be barred from filing any such reports in future. The aim is to allow potential incidents to be stopped rapidly at the beginning, and to avoid the discussion merely continuing and spiralling out-of-control elsewhere. i.e. Put things on hold until a calm review can be done, and to have a record for future reference if needed. Carcharoth (talk) 20:28, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Clerk notes

Motion 5.1

Any editor with concerns about a post made by Mattisse in any location may remove the post and file a report at the appropriate designated page.

Support

1. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I dreadfully fear the drama potential for arguments over the removal of comments, including what is an acceptable "error rate" in doing so. This is not a bad idea, but seems way too open to gaming. Vassyana (talk) 11:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
2. Also wonky and drama-prone, as above. Cool Hand Luke 04:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
3. Wizardman 00:18, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
4.  Roger Davies ^talk 08:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
5. bainer (talk) 23:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Abstain

1. Carcharoth (talk) 14:27, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrator discussion

Clerk notes

Motion 6

Those who have been critical of Mattisse's conduct and the feasibility of the plan, and critical of the action or lack of action taken by her mentors and advisors, are asked to engage with the new process and give it a chance to work. Those who have historically had poor interactions with Mattisse, are asked to either file a report at the Monitoring page, or to talk to her mentors and advisors first if they have concerns. This approach should be used instead of approaching Mattisse directly, or discussing issues related to Mattisse on user talk pages among themselves. Mattisse is instructed to refrain from participating directly in such discussions, and to instead direct her responses and concerns to her mentors and advisors.

Support

1. Final piece of the jigsaw, I hope. Carcharoth (talk) 19:01, 15 November 2009 (UTC)Update: Wording changed 20:39, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

: Mattisse should probably be advised this is likely her last chance. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. It should not be necessary to ask people not to interfere with a remedy in this way. --bainer (talk) 17:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
2. Concur with Stephen.  Roger Davies ^talk 08:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Abstain

1. Good intent, but general discomfort with wording. Also, please note my opposition to the monitoring page motion, which would need to be rectified there or here before I could consider support at all. Vassyana (talk) 08:35, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
2. Too broad as everyone seems to be included in it, and lacks a binding decision required to make it enforcible, which is most needed here. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 14:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
3. I think I'm where John Vandenberg is. Cool Hand Luke 16:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
4. With emphasis on Rlevse point; we cannot give any more rope. Wizardman 17:46, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrator discussion

Clerk notes

Motion 7

Mattisse (talk · contribs) is placed under a conduct probation for one year. Any of Mattisse's mentors and any uninvolved administrator may impose sanctions on his or her own discretion if, despite being warned or otherwise advised, Mattisse repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to any expected standards of behavior and decorum.

Support

1. Proposed. A safety valve to prevent a repeat visit before ArbCom should other measures fail. It is appropriately qualified to prevent such a probation from short-circuiting the opportunity for mentoring to work. Vassyana (talk) 08:47, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
2. Equal preference, so long as the uninvolved admins really are uninvolved. Wizardman 20:38, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Am not confident that uninvolved administrators can avoid being urged to act by others with the claim that the mentors are failing to do their job. Any uninvolved admin taking action needs to do so on their own judgment. If too many "uninvolved" administrators step in and take action, it may make it impossible for the mentorship to work. There will also likely be differing definitions of "repeatedly or seriously" at work here. Some will lose patience quicker than others - should action really be taken by those who lose patience fastest? Situations like this really don't work well when thrown open for any admin to take action. Carcharoth (talk) 03:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
2. Per Carcharoth, this would undermine the ability of the mentors to work effectively. --bainer (talk) 17:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
3. Uninvolved administrators can take action when required, in the event that the mentors are MIA. They shouldnt be imposing discretionary sanctions. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 14:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
4.  Roger Davies ^talk 08:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
5. Cool Hand Luke 20:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Abstain

Arbitrator discussion

Clerk notes

Motion 7.1

Mattisse (talk · contribs) is placed under a conduct probation for one year. Any of Mattisse's mentors may impose sanctions on his or her own discretion if, despite being warned or otherwise advised, Mattisse repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to any expected standards of behavior and decorum.

Support

1. Proposed. In response to concerns above. Vassyana (talk) 05:43, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
2. Carcharoth (talk) 01:20, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
3. Equal preference. Wizardman 20:39, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
4. This does not prevent other admins from taking appropriate action when required - it gives the mentors discretionary sanctions, which should be logged on the case page. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 14:50, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
5. Cool Hand Luke 04:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
6.  Roger Davies ^talk 08:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

1. bainer (talk) 23:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrator discussion

Clerk notes

Motion 8

Editors are reminded that baiting, antagonistic comments, and other such behavior is disruptive. Uninvolved administrators are encouraged to handle such circumstances as they would any other disruptive conduct, including appropriate warnings and advice, short page bans, as well as escalating blocks for repeated or egregious misconduct.

Support

1. The other half of the safety valve. Vassyana (talk) 08:47, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
2. This is needed, agreed. Carcharoth (talk) 03:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
3. Wizardman 07:04, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
4. I have added "short page bans". John Vandenberg ^(chat) 14:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
5. Support as baseline. Cool Hand Luke 04:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
6.  Roger Davies ^talk 08:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Inadequate. Proposing alternative below. --bainer (talk) 17:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Abstain

Arbitrator discussion

Clerk notes

Motion 9

All users, except Mattisse (talk · contribs) and her mentors, are banned from User:Mattisse/Monitoring, its talk page and any other pages created for the purposes of carrying out the mentorship, for the duration of the mentorship. Users wishing to comment upon any aspect of the mentorship may contact the mentors directly.

Support:

1. Opportunity must be given for the remedy to be implemented without external interference. --bainer (talk) 17:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
2. Fair enough. Wizardman 07:05, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
3. If, and only if, Motion 10 passes. Otherwise, oppose. Cool Hand Luke 04:45, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
4. per Cool Hand Luke. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 12:29, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
5. Yes but only if Motion 10 also passes.  Roger Davies ^talk 08:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
6. Switching to support from abstain, but only if motion 10 passes. Common sense should prevail about the wording, as Motion 10 implies what Vassyana is saying, so these two motions should be modified or combined before publication. Carcharoth (talk) 14:38, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
7. Noting that Motions 10 and 11 amend this motion, and that should be reflected in the implementation notes and final publication. Vassyana (talk) 11:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

# How are issues going to be reported? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 14:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

1. The lack of a "or on a subpage designated for such a purpose" clause is a deal-killer. I would prefer to depend on common sense and appeal to the spirit of the rules to work. However, hairsplitting and to-the-letter approaches are far too predominant to extend such hope. Vassyana (talk) 18:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

Switching to support. 14:38, 5 December 2009 (UTC) This appears to be a less structured alternative to motion 5. If changes were made along the lines Vassyana suggests below, I might move to support. I won't oppose, though, as something giving the mentorship room to work is needed, even if I don't agree that this is quite the motion to do that yet. Carcharoth (talk) 01:28, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrator discussion

• Recommended addition to the closing statement: "or on a subpage designated for such a purpose by the agreement of Mattisse and her mentors". Also, I see this as complementary, not exclusive, with Motion 8. Vassyana (talk) 05:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
• If we pass motion 10, giving the community a page to report issues, then I can support this motion. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Clerk notes

Motion 10

"Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Alerts" will be set up for the community to report issues to the mentors.

Support:

1. Mattisse should limit her involvement in this page. If this motions passes, I can support motion 9, and motion 11 is less important. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
2. I can get behind this. Vassyana (talk) 11:39, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
3. Per John. Cool Hand Luke 04:44, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
4. Bureaucratic, but okay. Wizardman 00:18, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
5. Per John.  Roger Davies ^talk 08:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
6. Carcharoth (talk) 14:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. To prevent the same disruption that has led us to this point, 'concerned members of the community' should contact the mentors directly. --bainer (talk) 23:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

Motion 11

User:Mattisse/Monitoring is moved to "Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Monitoring".

Support:

1. Some of the tension is because the community is reporting problems in Mattisse's userspace. I think that motion 10 hits the nail on the head, but this cant hurt. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
2. Noting its purpose for coordination between Mattisse and her mentors. Vassyana (talk) 11:40, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
3. Clerical. Cool Hand Luke 04:46, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
4. Wizardman 00:19, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
5. Carcharoth (talk) 14:52, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. bainer (talk) 23:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

---

Arbitrator list

Active

1. Carcharoth
2. Cool Hand Luke
3. John Vandenberg
4. Newyorkbrad
5. Roger Davies
6. Stephen Bain
7. Vassyana
8. Wizardman

Recused

1. Coren
2. FloNight
3. Risker

Away or inactive

1. FayssalF
2. Rlevse

Clerk notes

• Motion 1) Failing 1/7/0
• Motion 2) Failing 0/4/2
• Motion 2.1) Undecided 3/3/0
• Motion 2.2) Undecided 4/3/0
• Motion 2.3) Failing 2/4/1
• Motion 3) Passing 7/0/0
• Motion 4) Passing 7/0/0
• Motion 5) Failing 2/4/0
• Motion 5.1) Failing 1/5/1
• Motion 6) Undecided 2/2/3
• Motion 7) Failing 2/5/0
• Motion 7.1) Passing 6/0/1
• Motion 8) Passing 6/1/0
• Motion 9) Passing 6/1/0
• Motion 10) Passing 6/1/0
• Motion 11) Passing 5/0/1

- Carcharoth (talk) lasted updated 09:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Noting that only three motions are left to be decided, and only three arbitrators active on this are left to complete or start voting. One of those arbitrators has indicated he will vote in the next 24-48 hours. During that time, I will notify a clerk to look this over in preparation to closing it. Could all those who still wish to comment do so within that time period, focusing on the motions themselves and keeping comments brief. Carcharoth (talk) 12:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Only two arbitrators left to vote on this. I have asked again, as a matter if urgency, that those arbitrators vote here to help resolve the undecided motions, and for the other arbitrators active here to review the latest comments to see if any of their votes change. If the three undecided motions are not resolved in 48 hours, I will ask for the passing motions to be enacted and the undecided matters held over to a later date. Carcharoth (talk) 09:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

---