From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

ArbCom statement[edit]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Proposed decision

  • Note: This plan has been dissolved

My advisors, while well meaning, have not been following the plan. They have been blocking me after a very stale warning for edits the context of which they appear not to have taken into account, and without even bothering to consult with each other. Their existence gives editors who disagree with me a club to hold over my head. I have, in good faith, followed the plan for months, but it is time for it to end. I disavow it, and dismiss them, with my thanks for their well meaning efforts. If anyone cares to ask ArbCom for action, they are free to, but in the meantime I intend to edit as usual. With thanks —mattisse (Talk) 20:26, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Within 15 days of this decision, Mattisse shall, in conjunction with one or more mentors or advisers, submit to this Committee for approval a plan to govern and guide her future editing with the continued assistance of those mentors or advisers. The plan shall seek to preserve Mattisse's valuable and rewarding contributions to Wikipedia while avoiding future disputes and the types of interactions that have been hurtful for herself and others. As a starting point in developing the plan, Mattisse and her mentors or advisors should consider the suggestions made by various users on the workshop page of this case, including but not limited to Mattisse's taking wikibreaks at times of stress, avoiding or limiting Mattisse's participation on certain pages, Mattisse's refraining from making any comments regarding the motivations or good faith of other users, and Mattisse's disengaging from interactions that become stressful or negative. The plan should also address how any lapses by Mattisse from the standards of behavior described in the plan shall be addressed.

ArbCom findings regarding my behavior[edit]

I believe ArbCom is saying the important dimensions of my behavior that need to be addressed are the following:

  1. I cast aspersions.[1]
  2. I personalize the routine remarks of others.
  3. I make accusations and personal attacks on others.
  4. I have accused a group of editors of cabalism. I composed a list including these editors among others.
  5. I continue to comment long after an issue is resolved and this is considered POINTy.
  6. I make statements that I will no longer participate in a particular forum but I have returned to that forum.
  • Note. Regarding casting aspersions:
  • This applies to people commenting on Mattisse as well as Mattisse commenting on others. Civil behaviour is required both ways here, as is use of dispute resolution, rather than sniping, bringing up old disputes, and returning to previous behaviour. Some have pursued dispute resolution here. Others have sniped. -Carcharoth
  • This cuts both ways.-Cool Hand Luke
  • The observations of Carcharoth and CHL are well made. -bainer

Situations in which I tended to become stressed (per Ling.Nut's request)[edit]

  1. Being blocked without warning
  2. Reviews or discussions such as FAC in which my comments are ignored and/or refactored under an irrelevant heading, or where my comments are answered with disrespectful edit summaries, like "Yawn", "Blah"
  3. Reviews or discussions in which I am told I am wrong because I don't have the credentials or the real world experience of the person who is responding to my comments
  4. Reviews or discussions where I am called a troll, made fun of, etc.
  5. Reviews or discussions in which I am told that I have not justified my comments, but when I add more justification I am told that I am being disruptive
  6. Reviews or discussions in which many other editors seem to come from nowhere and support a position against me
  7. Situations which seem unfair, such as when a new article I had listed at DYK was merged without discussion with another article, and I am required by a mediator to supply references to the second article.
  8. Reviews and discussions of articles in which there is a primary editor who is emotionally invested or "owns" the article and/or appears, from my viewpoint, to have a POV.
  9. People who post directives on my page when I have no clue who they are, but they act like I do know. After a while I get frustrated.
  • These are situations that I must step back from, disengage, and let be.

Behavioral rules[edit]

  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 by behavior to further it.

Interactions with mentors/advisers[edit]

  1. When posting, if I receive two negative, comments in a row (discounting irrelevant intervening comments), I will not comment further until I consult with a mentor.
  2. If I receive one negative response, but am able to refocus editor attention on the content issue, then I may inform one or more mentors that I have achieved a small success. This will also alert my monitoring mentors to a stress so as to be able to follow it.
  3. I will listen to the advise and feedback of neutral mentors/advisers, whether solicited or not, and follow that advice even if I do not want to do so.
  4. Mentors are urged to offer me constructive criticism freely whenever they see the need.
  • Note: A "negative comment" is one which criticizes my character, competence, behavior or motives in a discussion in which I am already involved on the same or related page. It explicitly excludes disagreements that do not include criticisms of my character, competence, behavior or motives; that is, civil disagreements about matters of fact or interpretation relating to articles, guidelines or policy are not considered "negative".
  • I hope my mentors/advisers take into account that ArbCom recognized that my problems were not all my fault. Example:
  • Would note here that some behaviour by others has not helped. Sometimes Mattisse was not the instigator. -Carcharoth
  • Tend to agree with Carcharoth. We're not laying all of the blame on Mattisse. -Cool Hand Luke

Coping techiques[edit]

Per Arbcom: Mattisse and her mentors or advisors should consider the suggestions made by various users on the workshop page of this case, including but not limited to Mattisse's taking wikibreaks at times of stress, avoiding or limiting Mattisse's participation on certain pages, Mattisse's refraining from making any comments regarding the motivations or good faith of other users, and Mattisse's disengaging from interactions that become stressful or negative.

I believe that ArbCom's suggestions are constructive and designed to encourage me to learn to cope by avoiding and/or disengaging from stressful situations before I engage in any of the disputes and other interactions that have been hurtful for me and for others in the past, while still allowing me to contribute to the encyclopedia at the same level of quality as before.

Techniques to reduce stress:

  1. Disengage from interactions in which I feel stress or negative emotions before my behavior become problematic.
  2. Consciously copy the editing behavior of good role models such as SilkTork and Geometry guy, especially their methods of disengaging early in a discussion.
  3. Consciously be aware that I do not have to address points registered against me, but can choose to disengage instead.
  4. Refrain from tendency to answer every point made in remarks to me.
  5. Carefully select articles to edit or comment upon by first being aware of the article's editor(s) and their level of emotional involvement in the article.
  6. Avoid editing or commenting on articles that are edited with emotion by the article's editor(s).
  7. Take frequent wikibreaks
  8. Edit at a lesser volume
  9. Initiate frequent consultation with trusted advisers/mentors to gain perspective and to prevent the build up of stress
  10. Follow the advice of trusted advisers/mentors, rather than overlooking it as I have at times in the past.

Measures my advisers/mentors may use to help me cope constructively:

  1. Freely offer me advice, feedback and consultation in any situation they deem problematic and expect me to be receptive.
  2. Strongly suggest that I take more or longer wikibreaks.
  3. If I do not seem amenable to reason, after a warning, block me for short time frames as an extreme measure, e.g. 3 to 12 hours, or until my perspective is restored.
  4. After a warning, force me to avoid or limit my participation on certain pages (for example, FAC) by temporary page or topic bans for what they judge to be an effective length of time.

Consequences for failure to adhere to plan[edit]

The plan should also address how any lapses by Mattisse from the standards of behavior described in the plan shall be addressed.

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.

This proposal is an escalating series of consequences for a failure to adhere to the plan, ending with a return to the jurisdiction of ArbCom:

  1. Wikibreaks as suggested by my mentors/advisers
  2. Temporary page or topic bans


  1. Short blocks after a warning
  2. Punishment in the form of blocks of escalating length, after warning.
  3. Application to ArbCom to reopen the case
  • These measures will be applied by my mentors/advisers in consultation with each other. (Two or more mentors/advisers can decide.)
  • I believe any editor or group of editors, if they feel I am being sufficiently disruptive, can appeal to a disinterested admin to warn me regarding disruptive behavior and to block me if I do not desist, as they would any other editor they deemed disruptive.
  • Any editor or group of editors can petition ArbCom to reopen the case and take further action to restrain me.


  • User:Art LaPella is willing to report to my adviser(s)/mentor(s) should I be disruptive at DYK. He has not seen any disruptive behavior on my part there.[1]
  • User:YellowMonkey says he does not put up with unruly behavior at FAR, so there are no worries there, I think.[2] He encourages me to participate in FAR.[3]

Mentors list[edit]

I have the following list of editors who have provided significant interaction with me regarding advising/mentoring me. They have productively advised me in the past. I trust their judgment and I trust that they have Wikipedia's best interest at heart. I believe that it should be my responsibility to solicit and obtain advice in the manner most comfortable to me and to each adviser. (List compiled from Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Proposed_decision#Users_willing_to_act_as_advisers)

  1. Salix alba - admin
  2. John Carter - admin
  3. Philcha
  4. Geometry guy - admin
  5. SilkTork - admin
  6. RegentsPark - admin
  7. Ling.Nut[4]


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.

Submission to Arbcom[edit]

Per directions of NewYorkbrad, this plan was emailed to each arbcom member. I also posted it on the clerks notice board. It is also linked to the Workshop page. As far as I know, I have notified all arbcom member of this plan.


Mattisse (Talk) 00:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Input from Arbcom is welcome[edit]

I do not have a clear idea what the Arbcom is looking for in this plan. I have done the best I can, trying to take into account the advice of those willing to give it, my mentors/advisers. I have tried to make the plan realistic, not placing a burden on others. As Fainities noted on the plan talk page, the vast majority of my edits are problem free. I have not had any problems since the arbitration started (exempting the incident that resulted in this arbitration, which both Art LaPella regarding DYK[5]) and Geometry guy elsewhere regarding the GAR did not see as inappropriate behavior on my part), although I have resumed my editing patterns employed since the RFC ended in January.

Any proposals/modifications/suggestions from the Arbcom as to the direction this plan should take or the specifics it should contain will be gratefully accepted and incorporated into the plan.


Mattisse (Talk) 15:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Directive from Arbcom committee[edit]

  • ""Amendments to the plan may occur by consensus of the mentors, whereby the changes become provisional." Please note that this only applies to the official plan. Nothing stops you from making changes - it is just that they won't be "official" until they are confirmed (technically, ArbCom are only approving the 24 June version - you should, to be pedantic, get approval from your mentors for the changes made since then). As for approaching ArbCom, the idea is that you (and others) work with your mentors/advisors (and with you), rather than with ArbCom. The hope is that coming to ArbCom again will be a last resort." —Mattisse (Talk) 14:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


  1. ^ "It is unacceptable for an editor to routinely accuse others of misbehavior without reasonable cause. Legitimate concerns of fellow editors' conduct should be raised either directly with the editor in question, in a civil fashion, or if necessary on an appropriate noticeboard or dispute-resolution page. Although broad leeway is granted to allow editors to express themselves in their interactions with one another, particularly in dispute resolution, a consistent pattern of making objectively unsupported or exaggerated claims of misconduct can necessitate sanctions or restrictions even if the editor subjectively believes that they are true." Proposed decision: Casting aspersions

Request for clarification: User:Mattisse[edit]

Initiated bymattisse (Talk) at 02:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

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


Statement by other user[edit]

Clerk notes[edit]

Arbitrator views and discussion[edit]