Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Evidence
Mattisse and POINTyness
Mattisse has already acknowledged and apologized for violations of WP:POINT. I have great difficulty in seeing why the specifics of how Mattisse has violated this guideline are required after they have themselves admitted violating it. John Carter (talk) 17:04, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- It is more of a technical matter. The evidence section is not just used for determining ways to correct the problems but also for evidence as to the facts surrounding the case. Now, I would recommend submitting evidence saying the same as above, so that we could get that put into the facts of the case. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- Ottava Rima's comment is correct as a general matter, but please see also my comments at the top of the workshop page. Thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- Would it be appropriate to either reproduce or provide a link to Mattisse's earlier comment, or is it assumed that the arbitrators will see it on the request page? John Carter (talk) 17:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- I've seen it, and hopefully other arbitrators will have as well, but a link wouldn't hurt. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- I've contacted Mattisse about how to proceed here, as I don't want to do anything on my own. I am however concerned that the more recently added evidence by Tex also seems to be, in effect, accusing Mattisse of specific things that they have already acknowledged doing in general. Is this sort of thing going to continue, and, if it is, to what point? John Carter (talk) 20:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- I think one of the problems that may be investigated here is whether Mattisse has a history of acknowledging wrongdoing and apologizing, yet continuing to display the same behavior in later instances. If no evidence is forthcoming of that type of thing, then I wouldn't have any objection to removing some of this to the talk page. Karanacs (talk) 21:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- I could actually understand that, if any of the evidence put forward actually made such a claim. To date, none of the parties have made any sort of statement or produced any sort of evidence to that effect. If they intend to do so, I sincerely hope that they do so soon. John Carter (talk) 22:01, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- I think one of the problems that may be investigated here is whether Mattisse has a history of acknowledging wrongdoing and apologizing, yet continuing to display the same behavior in later instances. If no evidence is forthcoming of that type of thing, then I wouldn't have any objection to removing some of this to the talk page. Karanacs (talk) 21:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- I've contacted Mattisse about how to proceed here, as I don't want to do anything on my own. I am however concerned that the more recently added evidence by Tex also seems to be, in effect, accusing Mattisse of specific things that they have already acknowledged doing in general. Is this sort of thing going to continue, and, if it is, to what point? John Carter (talk) 20:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- I've seen it, and hopefully other arbitrators will have as well, but a link wouldn't hurt. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- Would it be appropriate to either reproduce or provide a link to Mattisse's earlier comment, or is it assumed that the arbitrators will see it on the request page? John Carter (talk) 17:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- Ottava Rima's comment is correct as a general matter, but please see also my comments at the top of the workshop page. Thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I hope everyone can understand the position that the Arbitration Committee is in here. On the one hand, we need to have before us the facts we need to come to an informed conclusion as to what result is best for the encyclopedia and for the community (of which Mattisse and all the other editors involved here are a part). At the same time, we want to handle this difficult situation with discretion, sensitivity, and humanity. Beyond that, I really can't say too much more about what people should and shouldn't do, except to urge that that all please be respectful of these considerations. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
My thoughts on this case
Mattisse has certainly contributed positively to this project, a fact which I believe is undisputed here. However, there also seems to be a pattern which has been established over time of unpleasant interactions with her. I do not believe that Mattisse is acting in malice, taking into account that by her own admission she seems to have had some difficulties which ocassionally impeded her ability to contribute constructively.
I think what is needed here is not a remedy nor a warning, but a compromise of trust between Mattisse and all parties which have interacted with her in the past. Mattisse must accept that there is no conspiracy against her, and that the community should likewise acknowledge that she is a good-faith contributor. The Arbitration Committe can act as a guiding authority here by examining some past incidents in order to determine what is or isn't acceptable behavior, bearing in mind that Mattisse is an established editor who is struggling to figure out the best way to work within the system. In the end, all sides want the same thing: a fear-free environment where editors can cooperatively build an encyclopedia. ←Spidern→ 04:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)