This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. The Arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions—the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.

Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators and clerks may edit, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.

Motions and requests by the parties

Request to limit discussion to recent history and outcomes of previous discussions

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Jayen, this page is for discussion. Simply saying "support" contributes nothing to the discussion. As Brad said recently, the trend of saying "support" and "oppose" on workshop pages is in general unhelpful. As to what is being discussed here, I'd say limit discussion of past stuff to things that are unresolved or have recurred, but don't dredge up detail here - if possible, link to previous detail (in an RfC for example), or simply provide evidence of a recurring pattern without revisiting the earlier dispute (again, if possible). Very old stuff (more than two years) is unlikely to be given much weight. Also play it by ear. If someone says you are digging up old stuff, step back and try and see their point of view. Some stats on account creation and number of edits, and major activity over the years, can sometimes be useful to give overall background. Carcharoth ( talk) 22:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Obviously, there have been a number of events in which Mattisse has been involved over time. Several of these matters have been dealt with before. We could of course have this case go over each and every edit that party has made since they created an account, but I honestly cannot see how that would accomplish any good, and it would certainly create excessive work for the parties and the arbitrators. I therefore request that the scope of this arbitration be limited to the recent circumstances which caused the request for arbitration to be filed, and only information regarding early matters which can be seen as directly relevant, such as how early discussions may or may not have been resolved to the satisfaction to the parties then involved. John Carter ( talk) 23:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC) reply

I would support limiting the scope to events from February 1, 2009 to the present. The RfC was filed in early January and can be consulted for reference to earlier events. Karanacs ( talk) 00:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

I agree there's no point trawling through reams of ancient stuff but February 09 is too limiting unless events have been fully set out in the RfC. Some earlier events may be relevent, when they are repeatedly brought up, in order to explain background. Grudge bearing and patterns of behaviour are issues. Why not let editors set out what they have to say in evidence and then let the arbitrators decide what, if any the cut off point should be for the purposes of the workshop. Fainites ^barley scribs 00:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC) reply

There are definite, recurring patterns in Mattisse's interactions which are highly problematic. I agree that we shouldn't belabor stale issues, but for the most part, the past has been prologue here. I think that past events are essential to understanding the pattern here, but of course they should be presented in a context which makes their ongoing relevance clear. MastCell ^Talk 00:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Support. Jayen 466 14:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC) reply

In view of Carcharoth's comment above, I'll expand on that a bit. :) There seems to be an unfortunate tendency for editors commenting on this matter to refer to things that happened last year (as e.g. in one of the first comments in the AN/I thread) or even longer ago. This may indeed be part of the problem. Setting a cut-off date of February 1st allows for a period of more than 3 months to be examined, which should be sufficient to effectively circumscribe the current situation. Jayen 466 22:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC) reply

I generally support this proposal in that arbitrators should consider what can be done now to smooth the interaction between Mattisse and other involved editors. Past behaviour (by all) is relevant if it helps to inform where we are now. However, I do basically agree that February 09 is a good date to fix when considering whether there is a serious ongoing concern. Geometry guy 22:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Is this to say that all evidence should be limited to edits after Feb 1? If so, I find that to be extremely limiting when considering the existence of pattern. I agree that things from more than a year ago are best not revisited, but I would think anything from at least that last six months would be relevant when gathering information to show repetition of negative behaviors. لenna vecia 19:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC) reply

I think if the pattern ended since the last RfC was filed, then it probably shouldn't be brought up here (we can assume that the RfC helped "fix" that behavior). If the pattern has continued, then you may have to go back longer to establish the facts, but we need to have recent evidence that this is still an issue. Karanacs ( talk) 19:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC) reply

In my evidence, concerning her expressing a belief that I've threatened to block her, I include diffs from this most recent incident as well as others dating back to Dec 08. I think that's necessary and relevant. In my last section, speaking on divisive comments, I believe all the links are from Dec. If necessary, I can remove that section entirely, if that is preferred by arbitrators. لenna vecia 19:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC) reply

If people believe that Mattisse herself bears long term grudges they should be allowed to evidence that. Its also been suggested that the most recent RfC is not repeated here at length on the evidence page but left as a link - to be included in that way. Fainites ^barley scribs 09:23, 17 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Questions to the parties

Question and observations from Newyorkbrad

I am not in any way prejudging the case in advance of reviewing all the evidence and other input that will be submitted. However, based on a review of the statements made at the acceptance stage as well as comments in the RfC, I think it is fair to state as at least a tentative view that there is consensus that (1) Mattisse makes valuable mainspace contributions, but (2) there are significant concerns involving how her interaction with other editors over a long period of time.

The key question to be addressed in this case is whether we can collectively craft a remedy that would retain for us the benefits of (1) while eliminating the problems surrounding (2). Although all statements, evidence, and workshop proposals in this case will be valued, input addressed directly to this issue will be particularly valuable.

To an even greater extent than in other cases, I urge that all editors submitting their views in this case do so in a straightforward, civil, and decorous fashion. Also, please note that input in the statements at the case acceptance stage is already before us and does not need to be repeated, unless there is new material to be presented such as additional diffs.

Please present all evidence and proposals in this case as soon as possible—and in any event within one week from today—so that the matter can be resolved and we can move forward in the best interests of all concerned.

Thank you. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 14:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC) reply

I would like to add that it is not only Mattisse's mainspace contributions which are valuable, but also her reviewing contributions, at WP:GA, WP:FA, WP:DYK and WP:PR. Several editors have noted this in their evidence. I can mainly comment from a GA perspective, which is particularly relevant here as it was a GA disagreement which prompted this RfArb. I believe Mattisse is widely regarded as an excellent WP:GAN reviewer who encourages editors to improve the encyclopedia. On relatively rare occasions, reviewing leads to conflict, and on these occasions Mattisse can (sometimes but not always) exhibit the behaviour that has given rise to this RfArb, and that is the behaviour that I hope ArbCom will try to understand and address. Geometry guy 21:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Proposed final decision Information

Proposals by Durova

Proposed principles

Good faith and reciprocity

1) Wikipedia's assume good faith guideline is implicitly reciprocal: editors cannot expect to consistently receive a great deal more good faith than they extend.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

While technically the above may be true, I have to question whether it is at all relevant to this case. I can hardly call being the subject of two RfCs in which the worst that can be said about Mattisse is that she is occasionally "excessively firm in tone" is even remotely any evidence of good faith on the part of the rest of the community. That being said, when one is factually facing repeated incidents of bad faith from the part of others in the community, there is reasonable cause to question whether the "other side" of good faith is there. And there is to my eyes no way that anyone can say the first two, dare I say, abusive RfCs demonstrate even the most minimal good faith on the part of the filers, although that of course does not necessarily apply to those who expressed outside opinions. And when one is faced by clear evidence of bad faith on at least enough people to file two basically baseless RfCs, there is reasonable cause to question just how much "good faith" that individual receives from at least substantial parts of the community. John Carter ( talk) 21:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Response to Durova: I acknowledge that the 3rd RfC was nowhere near being in the same league of illegitimacy as the first two. However, that is in only 1/3 of the RfCs which Mattisse has been the subject of. And while it may be "rare" that it doesn't go to ArbCom, when the first two RfCs were so obviously flawed as they were in this case, I am not sure whether they should technically be counted as following within the realm of normal occurrances. John Carter ( talk) 21:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Another response to Durova: You stated "if you want to receive good faith, the best way to receive it is to extend it". Your statement, however, fails to take into account what to do when you are in fact regularly not receiving good faith through, possibly, no failure of your own. In effect, it sounds almost like saying "turn the other cheek" to someone who has faced before, and can thus reasonably expect to face again, someone swinging a 2x4 or worse. In some cases, such optimistism can be seen as being almost suicidal, and I do not think that it is reasonable to assume that people should act like the young Candide just to try to make people who apparently have often already made negative opinions of them possibly become nicer. And if, except for a few isolated incidents, one regular receives among the worst of others, it is not reasonable for them to act as if that were not the case. John Carter ( talk) 21:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Proposed. Durova^Charge! 19:31, 15 May 2009 (UTC) reply

To John: make that three conduct RfCs. It's rare that conduct issues go through three formal requests for comment without proceeding to arbitration immediately. I had nothing to do with the first two, and exerted my best faith efforts at the third. Durova^Charge! 21:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC) reply

If you look though the diffs provided in my evidence, you'll find that I've presented one consistent principle to both sides in this conflict: if you want to receive good faith, the best way to receive it is to extend it. I wrote that first as critique of Casliber's opening presentation at Mattisse's third RfC, then as advice to Mattisse regarding the Buckingham Palace FAR. Continued that principle through her conflict over the recent GAR until she suddenly withdrew all her good faith in me and became rather aggressive in postulating the opposite across multiple fora. After the case opened I offered her the opportunity to critique my evidence, and I had the full intention of extensive refactoring (as Mattisse saw I had done with Zeraeph). Mattisse wasted that opportunity, and yet you and she demand fresh leases upon my good faith. Nay: she liked me better than I deserved until the first moment when I gave inadvertent offense, and nothing since then has restored her good opinion. She has burned through several other helpful people in a similar manner, and unless you remain her passionate advocate under all circumstances I suspect she will also turn on you. That seems to be the pattern. Durova^Charge! 21:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Well, the contrary is true, as well. It is not humanly possible to consistently extend more good faith than one receives, and we should not expect our editors to be superhuman, continuing to assume good faith in the face of clear evidence to the contrary. The outside views on the first two RfCs speak a clear language, and the AN/I complaint that was the proximate cause of these proceedings was, to my eyes, a clear act of bullying.

Besides, the assumption of good faith is not a magic bullet to solve any and all concerns. People have followed dictators in good faith; this does not change the fact that their behaviour was morally wrong. People had slaves for centuries because they assumed in good faith that this was an acceptable form of social order. It is quite possible to assume good faith and still consider another's action completely inappropriate. Jayen 466 21:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Actually I have extended considerably more than I received in the leadup to this arbitration. Nonetheless, Jayen reverses the principle. It is commonplace and human to hope for a little more good faith than one extends; it is not reasonable to consistently expect a great deal more. If one assumes the worst of others, then over the long haul one cannot expect others to assume the best of one. Durova^Charge! 21:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC) reply

To John: see the related principle about appropriate fora. Durova^Charge! 21:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Jayen, I have asked you once before in this case to please keep the scope of the matter narrow. You and I are both named parties within another arbitration case that has been ongoing for over five months. It is the longest running arbitration case in Wikipedia site history. Arbitrations often take their toll on participants, particularly so with long cases (I speak from experience). In good faith I posted to ANI in the belief that months of long running positive interaction with Mattisse would not be conflated with an individual I also mentor on a different topic. Please accept that good faith at face value. Durova^Charge! 22:52, 15 May 2009 (UTC) reply

To John: please review the RFAR statements by [1] and [2], both of whom also attempted to act as peacemakers. [3] I was the third in this position, not the first. Durova^Charge! 22:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC) reply

What you are advocating, Durova, seems to me like the law of the jungle. I have seen enough situations where three or more people ganged up on Mattisse, inserting themselves into conversations that really were none of their business. When someone is bullied in real life, be it at school or in an adult context, you do not tell the victim to assume more good faith. You tell the bullies to stop. Jayen 466 21:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Durova, are you at all able to see how one might perceive the complaint at AN/I that got us here as a case of bullying? Does this conversation seem disingenuous to you? Jayen 466 21:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC) reply

I think Durova's statement above was intended to be formatted like this: "To John: please review the RFAR statements by SilkTork and Ling.Nut, both of whom also attempted to act as peacemakers." SilkTork * ^YES! 10:11, 16 May 2009 (UTC) reply

The problem Jayen ~~and SilkTork,~~ with you calling others bullies, is that I am sure I am not the only one who sees Mattisse as the one with the bullying behaviour (whether consciously or not) and others as her victims. I don't think using this kind of language towards those who've posted their evidence is really helping here. Fainites ^barley scribs 21:33, 16 May 2009 (UTC)Strike name - sorry, misread a post. Fainites ^barley scribs 13:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Appropriate fora

2) The appropriate locations to discuss editor conduct concerns are talk pages and dispute resolution mechanisms, preferably in separate sections dedicated to the conduct issues rather than mixed in with content or policy matters. Although occasional off topic posts inevitably occur in Wikipedian discussion, habitual or persistent introduction of conduct concerns into preexisting discussions of other issues can have detrimental effects upon the resolution of the principal topic.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This of course assumes that the individual has any reason to trust the "appropriate fora". I assume two abusive RfCs are somehow referenced as "occasional off topic posts" in the above language. And does this apply as well to those who have, according to the evidence, rushed to judgement regarding Mattisse's actions? Such as some might say was the case regarding the ANI thread? John Carter ( talk) 21:44, 15 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Response to Durova: You make several assumptions in your comment, few of which can be demonstrably proven. That you "could not possibly have been responsible for the (putative) misuse of process in the first place". Presumably, here, you're discussing yourself, not being responsible for the sockpuppet attacks which were the first RfC. And, for what its worth, to use the word "putative" when there was unanimous agreement regarding the subject strikes me as being at least a bit dubious. Like it or not, you can't say you could not possibly have been involved there. Neither can I. Sockpuppeteers have been known to use multiple accounts, and I'm certain at least a few puppet masters were also editors who did frequent work in a single main account which is probably often not immediately questioned. So it could be "possible", even if not likely. And is your question below really about anything other than yourself and how Mattisse thinks of you? Believe it or not, just arguing in favor of someone doesn't mean that they are necessarily bound to liking you. And, yes, after doing what at least I saw as being a clear misreading of her own fairly obvious statements, I can see how someone might personally choose not to involve themselves with someone who cannot or will not notice their even most obvious rhetoric. This is not necessarily a criticism of you, but we can't expect people we defend to automatically like us or trust us, which you seem to be at least potentially doing. John Carter ( talk) 15:33, 16 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Proposed. Durova^Charge! 19:31, 15 May 2009 (UTC) reply

A single editor's disillusionment with certain processes is not adequate pretext to abandon all established processes. Particularly not when the individuals regarding whom s/he pursues out-of-process grievances could not possibly have been responsible for the (putative) misuse of process in the first place. Assuming all you assert, someone else misused RfCs 1 and 2. Shall she hold me culpable, after having been absent from both of them and defending her in the third? Durova^Charge! 23:05, 15 May 2009 (UTC) reply

By "talk pages", do you mean user talk pages? Geometry guy 11:06, 16 May 2009 (UTC) reply

User talk pages, FAR talk pages, etc. One of the examples from my evidence was the Buckingham Palace FAR, where the interpersonal issues diverted from the encyclopedic discussion. Tried to divert that to FAR talk. Durova^Charge! 15:32, 16 May 2009 (UTC) reply

This is a good point and I try to do the same at GAR. However, this does not mean I consider GAR talk pages to be a good place to discuss interpersonal issues, merely that they are a better place than the review pages themselves! Geometry guy 15:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Forum shopping

3) The introduction of a conflict into multiple venues where it does not need to be raised, when done in preference to resolving the conflict, constitutes forum shopping.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Durova^Charge! 19:31, 15 May 2009 (UTC) reply

I don't see how giving a behaviour a label is helpful: we discourage that in article space! Geometry guy 11:08, 16 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia is a collaborative website

4) It is essential in a collaborative editing environment that editors interact collaboratively. Occasional lapses are natural, yet when an editor consistently interacts in a hostile manner with a substantial set of people that individual is expected to either pursue normal channels for resolution or else withdraw from the interaction (and remain withdrawn from it).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Not sure how much the phrasing of the above applies in this case. The phrasing seems to be placing the burden of the hostility on Mattisse's shoulders, and I have seen nothing which indicates that the facts of the matter support that phrasing. And I am reading from the above some sort of implicit statement that if you are hounded enough by others, you should leave? Is that some sort of endorsement of lynch mob justice? John Carter ( talk) 21:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Response to Durova: I have no reason to doubt your statement below. However, I still call into question the phrasing of the proposal, which can not unreasonably be seem to perhaps at least leave the door open to that interpretation. John Carter ( talk) 21:52, 15 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Proposed. Durova^Charge! 19:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Lynch mob justice would be the last thing I'd endorse, John. See my own arbitration case. ;) See an old version of Wikipedia:Words of wisdom: "When you start accusing everyone of being in on a conspiracy, you shouldn't be surprised if they decide to confirm your paranoia by banding together against you." — khaosworks [4] The pertinent matter is that if any editor seriously believes a cabal has come into existence, then the appropriate responses are either to pursue formal dispute resolution or to withdraw. If a third course of appropriate action exists, please define it. The perception of a lynch mob (whether or not any exists) does not constitute a license to misbehave. Durova^Charge! 21:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC) reply

There are few Wikipedians who are more aware of that concern than I. It would take an exceptional reading of this proposal to construe that. Durova^Charge! 22:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Proposed findings of fact

Good faith

1) Mattisse has expected to receive good faith from fellow editors in ambiguous situations and/or where circumstances were against her, while failing to extend reciprocal good faith toward other editors in ambiguous situations.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I am not entirely sure that I agree with the phrasing of the above. Based on everything I have seen, I have to say that it is clear to at least me that Mattisse has not in fact expected to receive good faith from fellow editors. Rather the opposite in several cases. And, at least to some degree, she has been apparently right to not make such assumptions. I'm not sure how much this applies when one has repeatedly been falsely accused, been the subject of rushes to judgement regarding one's own motivations, actions, and intentions, and the other negativity that Mattisse has fairly regularly been subject to. John Carter ( talk) 21:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Proposed. Durova^Charge! 20:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Defense of Mattisse's actions presupposes extensive good faith: she repeatedly pledged to withdraw from processes when community based remedies were possible, then in all instances broke the pledges shortly afterward without consultation with the parties to whom she had made those pledges. If anyone at all requests her return (even weeks before she pledges to withdraw from a process) then Mattisse regards herself as entirely released from the commitment. Each time a new noticeboard thread or formal dispute resolution proceeds to a certain point, Mattisse initiates the same cycle without acknowledging the opinions of the people who consider themselves slighted or the inevitable price to her own credibility. Durova^Charge! 21:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC) reply

In my understanding, the wording of the proposal implies an incorrect use of the concept of "good faith". "Good faith" in the sense of WP:AGF is not something you extend to somebody else, "good faith" is something you act in. What you extend towards others or receive from them is the assumption of good faith. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:59, 16 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Perhaps better worded as: 1) Mattisse has expected fellow editors to assume good faith of her in ambiguous situations and/or where circumstances were against her, while failing to assume good faith of other editors in ambiguous situations. لenna vecia 12:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Forum shopping

2) Mattisse has forum shopped grievances in lieu of resolving them.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Such conduct is not necessarily unexpected when one believes that the situation in which the discussion is originally taking place is not necessarily going to be a fair one. And, I once again question whether the situation which caused the ANI thread, which several others, including one of if not the top person in the GA process, have said on the Evidence page was an instance when Mattisse's own conduct on the GAR page was acceptable, might also qualify as "forum shopping" in lieu of resolution. John Carter ( talk) 21:50, 15 May 2009 (UTC) reply

In response to Durova's comments below about the apparent "qualifications" of the people involved in the ANI discussion, being a great writer, or for that matter arbitrator, does not in any way mean that one has a thorough understanding of the GA process, which seems to me at least to be a substantial part of the cause for the dispute. The people most frequently involved in the GA process would likely have been the better people to contact in this instance. John Carter ( talk) 19:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Proposed. Durova^Charge! 20:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC) reply

When one believes the discussion taking place is unfair, the best solutions are to withdraw and/or initiate appropriate processes. Random dispersion of grievances across multiple fora is not acceptable. Durova^Charge! 22:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC) reply

It is too easy to sit in judgment and pronounce others less than perfect. The fact is, the dispute about the GAR was forum-shopped to AN/I. A crowd of editors with previous issues assembled there like a flock of birds, without evincing any apparent interest in the merits of the case that was brought, but a great interest in raking over old coals. Which appropriate process does an editor invoke when they find themselves at the centre of a witch-hunt at AN/I? And all of that for voicing a justified GA concern, serving the interest of encyclopedic integrity. A great reward for a capable and valued contributor, not. Jayen 466 00:20, 16 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Arbitration seldom happens when editors are perfect. More to the point, the 'crowd of editors' included some of the site's best volunteers. One of them had written two dozen featured articles, another is a sitting arbitrator. At what point does a discussion become a 'witch hunt'? Is it the point where is in minority opposition? Durova^Charge! 15:50, 16 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Your argument illustrates the problem. It matters not who those who attended were, what matters is (a) what they were doing, and (b) what was their intent. Mattisse listed an article for GAR. I am confident her intent was to improve the encyclopedia. The GAR has improved the encyclopedia. Other editors tried to prevent that GAR from happening and attacked Mattisse over her action. I am confident that their intent was not free from irritation or personal bias towards Mattise. That did not help the encyclopedia. We are not here to stake out turfs, we are here to build the best encyclopedia we can. Jayen 466 22:21, 16 May 2009 (UTC) reply

I think you're mixing content and behaviour. The fact that Mattisse has good points to make about article content, supported by other reviewers, does not retrospectively justify the behaviour. Fainites ^barley scribs 23:02, 16 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Probation

1) Mattisse is placed on probation at good article and peer review processes. If Mattisse makes a post deemed to be gratuitously uncivil or bad faith or in violation of WP:LINKVIO, then any uninvolved administrator may remove or refactor it as appropriate. If Mattisse follows an editor from these processes to other pages in violation of WP:HOUND and WP:POINT, then any uninvolved administrator may block as appropriate.

Comment by Arbitrators:

The only way I can see this working is if a group of admins and editors sympathetic to Mattisse take on the role of steering her clear of trouble/reining her in (depending on your viewpoint), and Mattisse agrees to listen to them and does listen to them (this bit is vital). Fundamentally, the conflicts here are due to breakdowns in communications. Both Mattisse not listening (or only partially or temporarily listening) to those who criticise her attitude, and those who find her attitude unacceptable deciding to confront Mattisse, instead of talking to her friends and seeing if a win-win situation can be achieved that way. However, I agree absolutely that treading on eggshells around any editor is not workable long-term, and all editors need to be individually approachable (not sheltered behind others), so ultimately, if no way of keeping the peace can be found, the choice here may be between Matisse changing and adapting, or others changing or adapting. Ideally, if the arguments for change are valid, both sides will give way and a compromise can be found. Carcharoth ( talk) 20:19, 16 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Weak oppose. The problem with "gratuitously uncivil" or "bad faith" is that I know of several editors, including one very good one who was just blocked from another ongoing arbitration, who will make reasonable comments which contain in them a phrase or two which might be over the top. Hoping I don't get in trouble myself for putting forward this example, " John Adams could not have been Thomas Jefferson's father. He was only eight years older than Jefferson. You'd have to be a total jackass to believe that." Such a comment on someone's talk page could be seen as a violation of HOUND or POINT, and potentially blockable. Certainly, some of Mattisse's "enemies" might well claim to an uninvolved admin not familiar with the circumstances that a block in such instances is more than justified. Also, there are, potentially, linguistically relevant if not polite turns of phrase which could be used. " User:Lingam is acting like a total dick." And, without equivalent sanctions being made enforcable for the others involved, whose own actions might be seen (maybe fairly) as HOUNDing or POINTing to Mattisse, it would have the appearnace of being unfair to her. That may not seem particularly important to most of the rest of us, but I do get the impression from Mattisse that appearance of unfairness or differential enforcement is one of a significant factor in what she perceives as the "unfairness" she faces. And, if I do get blocked for a while for the above comments, I'll try to keep up from my talk page. John Carter ( talk) 19:29, 16 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Response to Carcharoth: Agreed. There does seem to be some openness to such an idea from Mattisse, as indicated by my own proposal below #Alternate means to address perceived misconduct of Mattisse. I myself don't know if there is any way to add a page other than one's own talk page to the "new messages" function that makes me see the yellow new messages display, but if there is I think we might be able to get one or more editors who might be willing to "sign on" to it and maybe form a sort of back-up group for these purposes. John Carter ( talk) 20:47, 16 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

A copy/paste of the previous proposal at ANI. In Jennavecia's words, "I think this is a good proposal as it allows continued participation in these process [sic], merely prohibiting the negatives that too often bring down what would otherwise be constructive discourse between content editors." [5] Durova^Charge! 22:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC) reply

To Carcharoth: starting dialog at workshop talk. Durova^Charge! 20:43, 16 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose. Mattisse is entitled to warnings, like everyone else. To put Mattisse in a situation where any admin can block her without a warning is humiliating, unconscionable and tantamount to making her some sort of outlaw. You are not dealing with a 15-year-old vandal who has inserted the same profanity in one article after another, but with a highly valued contributor whose review work naturally takes her into situations where emotions may run high in response to legitimate criticism. She will be baited until she cracks, and dragged to AN/I again. And we know there are admins who have prior history with her. This is the way to get rid of independent thinkers, and kill diversity. Jayen 466 00:38, 16 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Besides that, why GA and PR? Several notable and respected GA reviewers have already voiced their opinion that Mattisse's requesting a GAR was uncontroversial from a GA or PR point of view. Jayen 466 09:25, 16 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose. We are here because some people have "deemed" Mattisse's actions to be "gratuitously uncivil or bad faith", yet there is legitimate debate about that. Putting an ability to block Mattisse into the hands of those who may be guilty of unjust treatment of Mattisse is inappropriate. SilkTork * ^YES! 10:22, 16 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Although I don't want to be dogmatic about it, I think I am unlikely to be in favour of any individual proposal that uses the both the words "good article" and the word "block" in it. If editors can glean any understanding of Mattisse's psychology from the evidence, they will surely see that such proposals will be completely counterproductive. Suppose Mattisse gets into an argument with article editors over a GAN review. Where is the uninvolved administrator going to come from? Quite likely a post at AN/I. Mattisse will perceive this as a stick that article editors can wave at her, further adding to her sense of persecution and her misperception of administrators as those wielding authority against her. In this case, I agree with the comments by Jayen and SilkTork, although Jayen goes too far in his implied criticism of other editors. Geometry guy 11:42, 16 May 2009 (UTC) reply

I support this still, as quoted above. Although I agree with John Carter that there is only one valid RFC to consider, there is an abundance of evidence showing various incidents wherein Mattisse displayed problematic behavior that hindered rather than helped the process she was working in at that time. The main concern here is that although, on the whole, Mattisse makes highly valuable observations in the review process, shows exemplary attention to detail, and clearly has the best interests of the project in mind; her temperament is a repeated issue. When such negative comments deemed to be unnecessary and unhelpful to the process at hand are made by Mattisse, I believe it is a good idea for uninvolved admins to cautiously remove those comments and place a gentle reminder on her talk page. Best case scenario is that she takes it to heart and refocuses her attention to the content. I don't think anyone's goal is to block Mattisse, and surely no one is pushing for her to be banned from any process, as I think it's unanimously agreed upon by all involved that she is an asset in these areas; however, steps need to be taken to nip the negativity in the bud. This proposal seems to be the mildest possible, and the best option for all involved. لenna vecia 19:07, 16 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Its a nice idea, but who is there to enforce this who Mattisse trusts and who will not join the conspiracy (metaphorically speaking) if they do not see things Mattisses way? Fainites ^barley scribs 21:40, 16 May 2009 (UTC) reply

To Carcharoth: It is beyond question that the ideal outcome of this case will entail a change in behaviour both by Mattisse, and by others. Mattisse should feel valued and secure – she deserves that. In that frame of mind she can do her best work, and much of the negative behaviour will simply drop. If she understands that the project values her work, values it highly, she will not feel like she is two steps away from the chopping block each time an admin violently disagrees with her assessment of an article's content.

Admins need to be encouraged to avoid personalising content disputes, avoid the temptation of using their admin "clout" to get their way, and refocus on their role as editors in content disputes.

Perhaps we should have a kind of "status symbol" for editors who have a track record of doing excellent GA or FA work. Some label like "nth degree expert encyclopedist" or "black belt reviewer" or whatever, to be awarded based on GA or FA contributions. Just to level the playing field somewhat in situations where someone like Mattisse, who does not have formal status, is "pitched against" someone who has because they are an admin or bureaucrat.

Otherwise we may be in danger of emphasising disciplining/power functions over content functions. In an encyclopedia, it is the latter which matters, and which is the project's raison d'être. Jayen 466 22:42, 16 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Re this she will not feel like she is two steps away from the chopping block each time an admin violently disagrees with her assessment of an article's content. Admins need to be encouraged to avoid personalising content disputes, avoid the temptation of using their admin "clout" to get their way, and refocus on their role as editors in content disputes. This strikes me as rather a serious allegation/assumption if true. I personally have not seen anything like this in Mattisses interactions with admins. Do you have any diffs to support this contention? Fainites ^barley scribs 22:57, 16 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Quite right. The only "violent" disagreements and use of "admin clout" has been in Mattisse's perceptions of events that included neither. See talk page for further thoughts on this claim and similar on the talk page. لenna vecia 12:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC) reply

I oppose this on two grounds. First, as a general observation, such editor-specific probations have a horrendous track record of ineffectiveness and seem to generate exponentially more problems than they resolve. More specifically to this case, I think that history indicates that any uninvolved admin taking an action unfavorable to Mattisse will rapidly be assigned to the "Plague/Torment" category, limiting the ability to gently steer Mattisse in the right direction and confining the range of available responses to blocks and other blunt instruments. MastCell ^Talk 18:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by John Carter

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Rush to judgement

1) Several individuals, including even on these pages, have indicated that the simple existence of previous RfCs and other material, even material found to be fundamentally flawed on the very page itself, can be used as evidence against a person. This is completely unacceptable, and seems to reflect the worst aspects of the Reign of Terror, when the simple accusation of a party was at least in some cases cause for conviction. John Carter ( talk) 15:54, 20 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. John Carter ( talk) 15:38, 16 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

~~Support this,~~ Having read over the first two RFCs, there was indeed no apparent need for either of those, unlike the third, which raised several valid concerns. For the purpose of this case, it should be considered that Mattisse has had one valid RFC. لenna vecia 18:40, 16 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Struck support only over the wording. لenna vecia 12:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC) reply

I don't think the two early ones were included in the opening case were they? I also have looked at the two earlier RfCs and they seemed utterly irrelevent to me. Fainites ^barley scribs 21:43, 16 May 2009 (UTC) reply

All three RfCs were prominently cited in the original AN/I thread that got us here. [6] One of the first comments in that AN/I thread was, "It's clear to me that Mattisse has a history of such behavior, as seen in previous RFCs". Jayen 466 23:07, 16 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Yes I can see that. The whole statement is It's clear to me that Mattisse has a history of such behavior, as seen in previous RFCs and as I've witnessed myself with her behavior on Malleus Fatuorum's talk page last year regarding SandyGeorgia.. Fainites ^barley scribs 23:50, 16 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose Hyperbolic and inflammatory. Even if one grants the premise that two conduct RfCs were totally meritless, the third raised valid concerns and editors waited several months past that before bringing matters to arbitration. That's a normal pace of action. Editors who were not present for the first two cannot be blamed for any excesses that occurred there, nor does bad process constitute a free pass for subsequent problematic behavior. Durova^Charge! 00:02, 17 May 2009 (UTC) reply

While I take Durova's point, a toned down version of this proposal may be helpful. It also may work better in conjunction with or as a statement of principle. In RfArb's I've seen, arbitrators are very good at coming up with moderate but helpful statements along these lines. Geometry guy 16:06, 17 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose: On several grounds, including basic historical inaptness. The Reign of Terror typically refers to a particularly violent period of the French Revolution, in the late 18th century. J'accuse most commonly refers to Zola's famous letter provoked by the Dreyfus affair, which occurred more than 100 years later at the turn of the 20th century. Far from encouraging baseless accusations or summary judgment, Zola's letter was a protest against those tendencies. We actually have decent articles on both topics, for anyone interested in learning more. :) Besides which, the hyperbole in this statement falls just short of invoking Nazism, and seems distinctly unsuited for these proceedings and the attendant requests for calm, dignity, and objectivity. It might be argued that Mattisse has a tendency to see a grand campaign of persecution and victimization in any attempt to provide constructive feedback; this finding plays into that unfortunate and unproductive tendency. MastCell ^Talk 23:23, 17 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Comment Makes a valid point that needs to be expressed more soberly. Jayen 466 08:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Was actually intending to refer to the use of the word "J'accuse" being in some cases sufficient for a conviction during the periof of the Reign of Terror (at least in The Tale of Two Cities, which is all I personally really know of the subject), and at least in these cases citing particularly the first, completely objectionable, RfC could reasonably be seen as being similar. Have rephrased to more accurately reflect the original intention. John Carter ( talk) 15:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Doesn't it qualify as a rush to judgment to confuse fiction with history? Durova^Charge! 16:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC) reply

You know, according to Suetonius ( De vita Caesarum), the emperor Claudius used to enjoy serving as a magistrate in the local court system. Apparently, he was a bit too ready to assume good faith of the various defendants brought before him; finally, a frustrated prosecuting attorney demanded: "How can anyone ever be found guilty, if all they need do is deny the charge?" Claudius responded: "How can anyone ever be found innocent, if all you need do is accuse him?" Of course, to further blur the line between history and fiction, I believe this vignette was included by Robert Graves in I, Claudius. MastCell ^Talk 16:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC) reply

And Suetonius himself has a rather, ahem, dubious reputation with a lot of historians. But the point is a fair one, and, last I remember anyway, most of the legal systems people tend to think highly of still say "innocent until proven' guilty" (emphasis added). Regarding my own "rush to judgement" regarding using Dickens as a historical background, hey, I never claimed to be perfect (OK, not often), and that material is notably included in his work there. To the best of my knowledge, and I checked, there is nothing specifically included in the article Reign of Terror which specifically supports that statement, although some of the material included does at least indicate the possible/probable veracity of such a claim and there is nothing in it which I could see specifically contradicts that conclusion. If Durova wants to call such a conclusion a "rush to judgement", she is more than free to do so. John Carter ( talk) 17:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Hey guys! We're in an arbitration case, in case you forgot. ;) Maybe pick one of your user talk pages and move this chitchat there? Thanks. لenna vecia 17:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Alternate means to address perceived misconduct of Mattisse

1) Alternate means to alert others of concerns about Mattisse's behavior be developed.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. I have been in fairly regular contact with Mattisse, as I think I've said before. She has indicated that she would be agreeable to having some system set up which would allow others who have concerns about her conduct to notify some other party, who would then work with her to address it. Perhaps adding a note to her talk page to the effect of, "If you have concerns about my conduct in GAC/GAR, etc., please leave a message with (X)." One of Mattisse's concerns is that she wants to, wherever possible, reduce the amount of incivility and abuse directed at her, which I can understand. Allowing criticism of her to be posted elsewhere, or possibly sent as e-mail, to someone whom Mattisse would be able to trust would not be biased against her, and would not use abusive, insulting language toward her, might be one way to reduce the amount of distrust and apprehension she still does feel around here, for reasons which I regret to say I find understandable. John Carter ( talk) 15:56, 16 May 2009 (UTC) reply

I have concerns about any system that would put the communication off-Wiki. I firmly believe in transparency, and I think discussions related to matters on-wiki need to take place on-wiki. I would be very distrustful of any system that involved an editor having to email someone rather than place a note on a talk page. Also, I would like to see diffs in evidence of the "incivility and abuse directed at" Mattisse. This theme has been mentioned several times on this page, and needs to be backed up. Karanacs ( talk) 16:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Here an example from 2 editors. (Bear in mind that Mattisse posted a description of further problems shortly after, and that a majority of editors subsequently voted delist, prior to substantial referencing improvements which resulted in the article being kept as FA.) Here is one from another user that wasn't directed at Mattisse, but illustrates the attitude that led to Mattisse sarcastically thanking (in the edit summary) that same user for letting her edit Buckingham Palace. I am not saying this is great diplomacy. But neither is this or this. [7] [8] [9]. Another: [10]. Edit summary: "Undid revision 251125502 by Mattisse Idiotic challenge; do some READING" Jayen 466 18:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Actually, in response to both Karanacs and Durova, I didn't think it necessarily called for any "off-wiki" comments, and that it was more or less a real proposal. Basically, I am discussing the creation of a special user talk subpage for some other editor or editors, which that editor or editors would maintain, for discussion of any matters relating to the conduct of Mattisse. Then, this other editor, whom Mattisse would with any luck have earlier indicated she would agree to trust, would be able to raise concerns regarding the matter in a way which would, with luck, be less provocative and confrontational than many of the original comments might have been. I didn't necessarily imply that any such comments would be through e-mail, although of course they could be if that is what that editor in question thought best in that particular incident. Reasons for thinking that might include earlier conversation with Mattisse through e-mail regarding a similar topic or editor, etc. And, if it were to possible for the appropriate parties to get the yellow (I think it's yellow) you have new messages bar, or something similar, to appear when a new message is posted there, all the better for everyone. That is I know a technical matter though. John Carter ( talk) 15:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Response to Maralia: The proposal is for the creation of a special subpage or similar for one or more users to be able to keep up with. While clearly it would be possible for Mattisse herself to watch the page in question, and see the comments directly, the focus is more on how to notify the interested others of whatever perceived misconduct by Mattisse has taken place. I'm not sure how that is a real contradiction. John Carter ( talk) 14:44, 23 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

We would all like to see a better solution, but this really isn't a proposal. Please come up with one (as time allows); it would be good to have concrete ideas on the table. Durova^Charge! 00:03, 17 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Karanacs is onto something. Not sure I'd go in precisely that direction, but siphoning dialog offsite could have unintended consequences with a situation where there are consistent concerns about bad faith, misrepresentation, and personal attacks. If those same problems recur via email, then that could force a subsequent arbitration because no other body than ArbCom is capable of handling the attendant privacy and copyright issues. Durova^Charge! 22:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC) reply

This proposal is at odds with your explanatory note, John: the proposal focuses on how others would be notified of concerns, while your note directly below it is about how Mattisse would be notified of concerns, i.e. through a proxy. Maralia ( talk) 14:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Group of possible advisors/monitors

2) Mattisse be given a group of editors whom she can trust who will agree to assist her as much as they can in the issues that she may face.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Mattisse has indicated here that she has an unofficial group of advisors/colleagues who would be willing to assist her in some of the situations she may face down the line. In response to her question there, I agreed to join this unofficial group myself. Would some sort of possible formalization of this group be sufficient to constitute a form of mentorship/advisor group in the eyes of the rest of you? John Carter ( talk) 23:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Response to Durova: I thought I did qualify as "actual people". And please note that, as indicated on the link, I qualify as the fourth. I think there may now be a fifth as well. John Carter ( talk) 14:19, 23 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

I'm quite happy to be Mattisse's friend - someone she can consult as a friend and equal, and with whom I can share some of my own worries and concerns, as friends do. I would be unwilling for this relationship to be "formalised" by an outside party, with expectations and responsibilities monitored by others. I am quite as capable as the next person of saying the wrong thing at the wrong moment. I think Mattisse has strengths, skills and positive qualities that I don't have - and I have weaknesses that Mattisse does not have. While it is appropriate and helpful for all of us to lean on each other in times of need and doubt - this should always be as part of a mutual relationship, not one in which an assumption of superiority is given to one of the parties. As we have seen in this ArbCom a significant issue has been the lack of respect shown by people toward Mattisse, and Mattisse's own acceptance that she is not worthy of this respect, even though she, as all of us do, desires respect. My feeling is that Mattisse should encouraged to stand on her own two feet and to devise her own means of seeking support when needed. If Mattisse comes to me for advice, then as a friend and an equal and as someone who respects her strengths and recognises her weaknesses, I would give that advice. She is perfectly capable of arranging her own network of friends and doesn't need assistance or official approval for that. I don't think we have an ailing elderly aunt here - we have an intelligent, active person with useful skills who has not had a positive experience on Wikipedia and so feels uncertain. I'd be happier to see a proposal along the lines of - "If someone has a problem with Mattisse and wishes to block her, call an RFC or ArbCom, or otherwise initiate an official action against her, that they first get in touch with x, y and z who will talk through the evidence with them. The x, y and z people to do drawn from those involved in this ArbCom - one arbitrator, one person who has spoken in favour of Mattisse and one who has spoken against her." An example of x, y and z would be Geometry guy, Durova and Newyorkbrad. The advantage of this is that having a buffer zone would afford Mattisse more peace of mind, and should prevent some of the inappropriate RFCs being called against her that have been called in the past. SilkTork * ^YES! 07:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC) reply

The old RfCs are quite old. The old sockpuppet thing is very old. Are there any other RfCs we are not aware of? Is it being suggested here that the last RfC was inappropriate? I don't see the prevention of RfCs like the old sock puppet thing as being an issue that needs addressing here - unless it is being suggested that there is some connection with the complaints on the evidence page and the recent RfC. Fainites ^barley scribs 20:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC) reply

I've recommended this to Mattisse before and I think it is a good idea. Although this would not diminish the trust issue, it will allow Mattisse some support, which is needed during stressful situations. Ottava Rima ( talk) 21:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose on principle. See WP:EARTH. Categorically rejecting all proposals that attempt to conjure shadowy legions of willing volunteers upon which to dump problems. Find actual people, get Mattisse's willing cooperation, make sure those actual people are willing to shoulder the responsibilities you conceive, and then give those individuals enough scope of discretion that they don't get hamstrung or cornered politically. Then I'll consider supporting. Durova^Charge! 21:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC) reply

I think the "actual people" Durova asks for are already visible. Even if Durova does not accept Mattisse's statement on that point, John Carter an d SilkTork have stated above that they are willing to act as Mattisse's advisors. So am I. I've already discussed with Mattisse how she can recognise a situation that needs to be handled carefully, and how to proceed in such situations. Mattisse seems comfortable with that and Geometry Guy wrote that he thinks it looks workable.

It wold be helpful if Durova could explain what she means by "give those individuals enough scope of discretion that they don't get hamstrung or cornered politically". -- Philcha ( talk)

Difficult to get more specific without naming names. Do you want examples? Cutting to the chase: the impression on this page is that mentorship appears attractive to most of the participants. 'Structured and empowered' mentorship appears attractive to the Committee also; that seems to be the fashion. So if this is a serious discussion that's a very tough question to answer; there's a respect we'd prefer to extend toward people who are working to rebuild their reputations. If it's more of a debating club question (asked solely for purpose of preparing rebuttal) then respectfully conceding. Things have reached the point where the best option may be to step back and let people see for themselves. If I'm wrong then congratulations; ping me in six months with a diff to this post and you'll get a barnstar. If I'm right and if there's no way to stop the mentorship experiment, then the only thing to be gained from further discussion is the chance of saying 'I told you so', which isn't very gracious. Best wishes; whatever happens I truly hope it turns out well. Durova^Charge! 03:44, 25 May 2009 (UTC) reply

This seems like the only workable solution to me. I have in the past had some sort of mentor like role with Mattisse which I hope has had some calming effect, and help to negotiate some troubled waters. Much of this was off wiki which I think can help. You can add me to the list if it will be any of help. -- Salix ( talk): 19:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Mattisse be advised to take a wikibreak

3) Mattisse is advised to take a break from wikipedia, preferably for at least two weeks, but for however long as she wishes, during which time she can allow herself the opportunity to determine where she thinks her efforts to improve the encyclopedia are most useful and where she can expect the least difficulties. During this time, the exact length of which she is requested to indicate in advance, she will not be asked by anyone else to take part in any specific functions or activites.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. The evidence indicates that Mattisse is often called to assist various wikipedia endeavors quickly after ceasing with such endeavors. This can and does make it difficult for her to give herself time to spend on anything else, and can also reasonably be seen as placing her under a good deal of stress. This proposal is to give her the time to take a well-earned wikibreak. John Carter ( talk) 17:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC) reply

This places a restriction on other editors who may be unaware of this arbcom case. We can't stop people from posting messages asking for Mattisse's help unless we protect her talk page, and I'm unsure whether that is a good idea. For this type of voluntary wikibreak to work, Mattisse would have to be willing to stick to the wikibreak, and previous experience shows this may be difficult for her. Karanacs ( talk) 17:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Response: Mattisse could place the {{ wikibreak}} template on her talk page, also indicating the date of her expected return. Also, with her permission, the talk page could be protected during the period, to prevent any such requests. I grant that this doesn't rule out e-mail to Mattisse to the same purpose, but I don't know of any way to prevent it which doesn't create its own problems. John Carter ( talk) 17:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Best solutions are those which address the issues which cause the conflict. Bans, breaks or blocks are not addressing the issue, and are not long term solutions. SilkTork * ^YES! 18:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC) reply

There isn't one solution to this. Dismissing one solution because it only covers a small aspect is a mistake. I believe that multiple small solutions will be much more effective than one grand gesture. I think a short break may be part of such a solution. Geometry guy 21:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Mattisse to withdraw from discussions when two editors involved in the discussion indicate that they believe Mattisse has been disruptive

4) Mattisse will withdraw from any discussions when and if two other editors involved in the discussion indicate that they believe Mattisse has been disruptive to the discussion.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. I have been in communication with Mattisse regarding this matter and she has indicated that she would find it acceptable. When and if such an incident would occur, she would contact one of the advisors/mentors that have been established and inform them of the situation. If, in the opinion of that other individual, Mattisse has in no way acted inappropriately, and the comments are basically groundless, there would be no basis for Mattisse to withdraw. If it is found that there are grounds for the comments, then Mattisse will ensure that whatever relevant comments she have regarding the matter in question be indicated somewhere in the discussion, withdraw from the conversation and from editing the relevant article, and allow one of the advisors/mentors to take over from there. John Carter ( talk) 14:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

I'm not convinced this is the right way, as it would only teach Mattisse to run away from tense situations. Apart from the fact that this strategy is vulnerable to being gamed, it would be much better for Mattise to learn how to repair such situations and then how to avoid them. -- Philcha ( talk) 16:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply

I think this could be worded better: the idea is surely that Mattisse will seek advice (from a mentor/advisor) rather than run away when challenged by more than one editor. Seeking advice does involve temporary withdrawal until advice is obtained, but that is not the main point. Geometry guy 19:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by Wehwalt

Proposed principles

Outstanding editing record by Mattisse

1) That the Arbitration Committee applauds Mattisse for her many and valued contributions to diverse areas of Wikipedia, including WP:FAC, WP:GAN, and WP:DYK.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I think this is definitely appropriate. Karanacs ( talk) 16:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Support under the very limited conditions that the ArbCom also includes some negative conclusions regarding Mattisse. If they do not, then inclusion might be seen as problematic. John Carter ( talk) 16:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Proposed.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 06:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Support this. I think pretty much everyone involved with this case has acknowledged Mattisse's exceptional contributions to these areas. لenna vecia 13:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Support. SilkTork * ^YES! 18:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC) reply

I suspect the arbitation committee can find a better wording, but a statement along these lines would be helpful. Geometry guy 21:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose: Objecting in principle to arbitration findings that express praise. Let's not go there again after Kelly Martin is thanked for her long and honorable service and The Committee commends Jossi's voluntary restraint. Barnstars serve well enough for praise; official ArbCom praises are vulnerable to misuse as stamps of approval for subsequent problematic behavior. Durova^Charge! 21:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC) reply

I see what you mean. Jayen 466 22:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Support. Mattisse's ability is exceptional. Jayen 466 21:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose. Everyone involved speaks to Mattisses valuable contributions but its not approprisate to ask ArbCom to make findings about it. That's not what ArbCom is about. Fainites ^barley scribs 22:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Support some similar wording. The way we package/present things matters. Ling.Nut ( talk) 04:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Removing specific mentions of ArbCom would help; e.g., "Mattisse has been a productive contributor to several areas of Wikipedia..." I think the community as a whole recognizes this, not just the Arbitration Committee. Dabomb87 ( talk) 01:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Colloboration

1) That Mattisse be required to seek out one or more editors of experience to work with her over the next six months.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 06:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose on principle to phantom mentorships. Find someone to fill the position before proposing it. Durova^Charge! 22:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Talk page notification

2) That Mattisse's talk page, for the next six months, contain a prominent notice asking any editor having concerns about one of her edits to also post those concerns on the page of the editor working with Mattisse. The notice shall contain a link to this Arbitration.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 06:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC) reply

I think the idea of mentorship is worth exploring, but I'd like to see at least a little bit of responsibility placed on Mattisse. Rather than requiring everyone interacting with her to jump through additional hoops, why not ask/instruct her to bring any situation she finds difficult to her mentor herself? That might translate into a more useful skill set once the mentoring expires. MastCell ^Talk 18:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC) reply

There may be some mileage here: a list of editors that Mattisse can contact when she comes into difficulty (fear of block, conflict, etc.) Mattisse is required to contact at least one such editor. Care would be needed to make it work, but it might. Geometry guy 21:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Has potential merit, and is not too alien to Mattisse's natural behaviour, since she does consult others for feedback and advice. Jayen 466 21:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose on principle to phantom mentorships. See above. Durova^Charge! 22:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Phantom... because under discussion. It's not strange to fill in the blanks only after general principles have been agreed on. I like G-guy's idea. Ling.Nut ( talk) 04:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Agree with G guy's statement. Perhaps the proposal could be altered to say, if the discussion is about a GA matter, something about the post being to one of the talk pages of WP:GA instead, where the most knowledgable people on such matters are most likely to see it. John Carter ( talk) 17:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC) reply

No, phantom because no one has volunteered for it and Mattisse has not agreed to it. Please do not put words in my mouth, Ling.Nut. I strongly object to proposals of this type after the travesty that nearly transpired during the Fringe Science arbitration and actually did transpire in the PHG arbitration. Wikipedia lost one (and perhaps two) featured article writers because of ill-conceived attempts to 'structure' mentorships without willing participants. That won't happen a third time, not if I have anything to do with it. If we must draft mistakes, please choose fresh and original ones; they're less boring. Durova^Charge! 21:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC) reply

During this discussion, Mattisse has been actively seeking to engage other editors as sources of good advice and counsel, and multiple editors have responded positively. You may have had bad experiences elsewhere, Durova, but they need not cloud this discussion. Geometry guy 22:09, 21 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Geometry guy, please refrain from personalizing conjectures; they resemble condescension. The fact that an editor seeks counsel by no means amounts to mutual agreement for any structure a third party wants to impose upon the counseling, nor does that constitute a long term commitment on the part of the counselor. Are you volunteering to fill these proposed roles? If so, ask Mattisse to post her consent and my reaction will change rapidly. Durova^Charge! 22:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Erm, I was actually de-personalizing it. Several editors have volunteered to act as counsel on invitation by Mattisse. Geometry guy 22:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC) reply

FWIW, Mattisse indicated in her evidence a while ago that she would welcome mentoring. JN 466 23:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC) reply

That still fails to address the essential problem: the willingness of Mattise to receive mentorship (in the abstract) and the willingness of others to extend voluntary assistance (of some sort) does not add up to anybody's willingness to operate under the specific terms proposed in this workshop. None of the mentorship-related proposals on this page are practical plans. For an example of a structured agreement that's fair and feasible, see this current proposal. All three designates had agreed to the provisions before the proposal went up, and the individual served by the proposal emailed his agreement to ArbCom. Bring forth something on that level, please. Durova^Charge! 05:37, 22 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Required action

3) That upon receipt of such a post, Mattisse and the editor working with her seek to address any valid concerns in good faith.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 06:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose on principle to phantom mentorships. Find someone to fill a position before attempting to propose and structure it. Durova^Charge! 22:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Time limitation

4) That this Arbitration is conditionally closed, but may be reopened at any time within the next six months if these remedies do not prove satisfactory, by vote of any two arbitrators who have not recused in this matter.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 06:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose on principle. No one exists to fill the putative role that would serve as a basis for closing arbitration. Durova^Charge! 22:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Ottava Rima

Proposed principles

Wikipedia is not a battleground

1) Wikipedia is not a battleground and people are expected to attempt to work together. When situations become heated and users become defensive, the best solution is to deescalate the situation through acting objectively and ignoring personal attacks.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Mild agreement. I might add a comment to the effect of trying to involve other parties who have a good understanding of the nature of the dispute as well. John Carter ( talk) 19:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Wikipedia in reality is a battleground. To state it is not is naive, in my opinion. I think it would be better to restate this proposal as "Wikipedia is a collaborative venture where editors must work together to form well-written and researched articles. To accomplish this, editors need to focus on article content instead of the individual personalities." -- Moni3 ( talk) 18:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC) reply

I agree with Ottava that this is an important principle in this case, and with Moni3 that it might be more applicably phrased. The key point is that whether or not one conceives of Wikipedia as a battleground, it is always counterproductive to view things primarily through the prism of personalities, to keep enemies lists, to harbor indefinite grudges and persecution complexes, and to collect and nurture a list of injustices one has suffered. Interpersonal conflict will always be a part of what we do here. The issue is finding more functional ways to manage it than those in evidence here. MastCell ^Talk 19:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Moni - would it be better to say that "Wikipedia is not supposed to be a battleground"? :) By the way, I was referring to WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND with that wording. But yes, your idea would be good, but as a separate proposal about collaboration (or one combined super proposal). Ottava Rima ( talk) 19:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC) reply

OR, honestly I don't know. I'm not sure what protocol is here. I know that WP:Battleground is what it is, but it's folly to pretend Wikipedia is not being used as a battleground. This issue with Mattisse is less about agenda-driven edits and more about interpersonal breakdowns, as I know you know. I'm for the SUPER proposal, whatever it may be. -- Moni3 ( talk) 19:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Its just a proposal. Who knows if any Arbs would even bother to take it. But yeah, I am sure that if any find any of this or the proposal worth while they will incorporate it. :) (by the way, they read the comments sections, so we don't have to worry about them not seeing any concerns :) ). Ottava Rima ( talk) 19:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Agree with this. SilkTork * ^YES! 10:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC) reply

I'm trying to parse separate threads about niceness. It may take me time. I would oppose any proposal that elevates (or appears to elevate) niceness over the pursuit of quality in the encyclopedia. Instead, we should emphasize that when niceness appears lacking, certain informal methods and/or (as a later/last resort) formal processes should be followed to help discussion (and by extension, article writing) move forward. I have no desire to see a codified Play Nice Hammer with which folks can be indiscriminately bonked. Ling.Nut ( talk) 04:22, 23 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Don't defend each other

2) Sometimes defending one's friends or associates regularly causes problems within the community and can cause problems to escalate. This is particularly true when statements become subjective instead of objective and an "us versus them" mentality is exhibited.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Agreed. This would be particularly problematic if one party were to regularly, in multiple venues, be seen as being the "defender" of another. Of course, that would not necessarily be true if there were some sort of formal relationship, like mentorship, but defending parties either after the "mentorship" or other formal relationship has ended, or defending someone else in place of that person making their own statements, again, without some sort of current recognized "relationship" of some sort, could be very easily problematic. John Carter ( talk) 19:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC) reply

I don't know about this. Users are encouraged to stand up when they see misbehavior. Especially at FAC, we encourage reviewers to politely point out when a nominator or another reviewer crosses the line (either by making opposes for inactionable reasons, for personalizing situations or getting off-topic, etc). It is not uncommon for users to find that their activity heavily overlaps with other users, and it would not be uncommon to find that those two (or three or more) editors share some opinions. I'm not prepared to accept any finding that says I can't speak up if I see someone making a pointed personal attack, or arguing a point of policy I disagree with, just because the original comments were aimed at editor X and not me. Karanacs ( talk) 19:26, 20 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Response to Karanacs:You make valid points. I do note that the proposal starts with "Sometimes" and that it doesn't seem to necessarily be implying that there is any unacceptable intent in any of the actions involved. And, clearly, if the discussion is for instance about a policy or guideline about which two editors have similar opinions, such apparent support of each other would be extremely well justified. And I know myself that in a lot of cases where I disagree with someone I generally hold in high esteem who also seems to be more knowledgable about the subject than I do, I will at times reserve comment on the basis of that respect. That could, in the eyes of some, be seen as offering a form of back-handed support to them. If there were an associated proposal to the effect of "try to call in other knowledgable editors if you believe others could mistakenly interpret your comments in a given discussion" or "try to point out by links to relevant policies or guidelines that support your position", that might help reduce the reasonable reservations you state above. John Carter ( talk) 19:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Clarifying the wording in proposal above to focus on article content as opposed to the personalities of editors would take care of this. -- Moni3 ( talk) 19:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Valid point. This sort of thing feeds into the absurd GA -v- FAC business as well creating a poisonous atmosphere. Fainites ^barley scribs 21:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Agreed. DefendEachOther is perhaps the most objectionable page at Meatball Wiki: it's a theoretical framework for blind partisan cabalism. Durova^Charge! 21:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:SilkTork

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Buffer zone

1) An advisory group to be formed of three individuals. If someone has a problem with Mattisse and wishes to block her, call an RFC or ArbCom, or otherwise initiate an official action against her, that they first get in touch with this advisory group who will talk through the evidence with them. The group to do be* drawn from those involved in this ArbCom - one arbitrator, one person who has spoken in favour of Mattisse and one who has spoken against her. The advantage of this is that having a buffer zone would afford Mattisse more peace of mind, and should prevent some of the inappropriate RFCs being called against her that have been called in the past.

*edit - SilkTork * ^YES! 10:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This presupposes that the most recent calls for changes to Mattisse's behavior have been done in bad faith (leaving out the two initial RfCs, which were long ago anyway). I don't see the evidence supporting this type of remedy that would essentially make good-faith editors jump through hoops if they saw a serious issue with Mattisse's conduct that they couldn't resolve otherwise. Karanacs ( talk) 22:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

I think the idea of the 3 different people is an interesting one. However, the old RfCs are old and do not really relate to current concerns. Whilst its unpleasant to be pursued by bunches of socks etc and the experience obviously upset Mattisse, I don't think that kind of thing should be be the focus of this group. Suppose this group were also the group Mattisse consulted? Fainites ^barley scribs 07:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose. No better than any other phantom mentorship proposal. See WP:EARTH, please. Or draw from a very old lesson:

LONG ago, the mice had a general council to consider what measures they could take to outwit their common enemy, the Cat. Some said this, and some said that; but at last a young mouse got up and said he had a proposal to make, which he thought would meet the case. “You will all agree,” said he, “that our chief danger consists in the sly and treacherous manner in which the enemy approaches us. Now, if we could receive some signal of her approach, we could easily escape from her. I venture, therefore, to propose that a small bell be procured, and attached by a ribbon round the neck of the Cat. By this means we should always know when she was about, and could easily retire while she was in the neighbourhood.”
This proposal met with general applause, until an old mouse got up and said: “That is all very well, but who is to bell the Cat?” The mice looked at one another and nobody spoke. Then the old mouse said:
“IT IS EASY TO PROPOSE IMPOSSIBLE REMEDIES.”^[1]

Durova^Charge! 22:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by Newyorkbrad

Proposed principles

Purpose of Wikipedia

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of cameraderie and mutual respect among contributors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 01:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Suggest The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality free-content encyclopedia. This is best achieved in an atmosphere of cameraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Fainites ^barley scribs 15:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Prefer Fainites wording. لenna vecia 14:40, 23 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Good concept. Both versions express it well; Fainities's refinements look preferable. Durova^Charge! 03:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Editor conduct and decorum

2) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, and disruptive point-making, is prohibited.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 01:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Yes. Re Play Nice Hammer, the two needn't be mutually exclusive or in fact have any bearing on each other at all. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 06:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Please see my remarks above about a Play Nice Hammer. Ling.Nut ( talk) 04:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Casting aspersions

3) 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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed; adapted from Zeraeph. It might also be worth adding this: "Although broad leeway is granted to allow editors to express themselves in their interactions with one another, including in dispute resolution, a consistent pattern of making objectively unsupported or exaggerated claims of misconduct can necessitate sanctions even if the editor subjectively believes that they are true." Newyorkbrad ( talk) 01:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC) reply

I'd add it. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:30, 25 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

You might want to elaborate on "reasonable cause", but adding or substituting "evidence" such as provided by diffs, and that the accusation or complaint matches the underlying evidence or source. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 03:47, 22 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

With Casliber's suggested additions. لenna vecia 14:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Per Casliber and Jennavecia. Durova^Charge! 03:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Evaluating user conduct

4) An editor's positive and valuable contributions in one aspect of his or her participation on Wikipedia do not excuse bad behavior or misconduct in another aspect of participation. An editor's misconduct also is not excused because another editor or editors may also have engaged in such conduct. Such factors may nonetheless be considered in mitigation of any sanction to be imposed, or for other relevant purposes such as an inferring a user's overall intent toward the project.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed; from C68-FM-SV, with the addition of the last clause, which is important and often overlooked. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 01:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

ok. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 10:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Agree in principle. Although it's reasonable to extend extra chances to the difficult editors who also bring substantial positives, ultimately the same policies apply to everyone: good content work does not generate a license to be rude. Durova^Charge! 03:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Recidivism

5) Users who have been sanctioned or legitimately criticized for improper conduct are expected to avoid repeating that behavior should they continue to participate in the project. Similarly, a user who has promised to discontinue a certain type of problematic behavior on-wiki must make every effort to avoid returning to that pattern of behavior.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed; first sentence is per precedent; second sentence is new, but I trust uncontroversial. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 01:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Yes, and very specific to this case. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 06:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

As the articulation of an important principle, something is be missing. There is sense in which recidivist conduct represents both a missed opportunity and a failure of informal and formal dispute resolution systems -- not in specific incidents, but also more generally across the broad spectrum of collaborative editors. The tenor of comments in this case illustrate a focused determination to contrive a resolution which is better than whatever had been attempted in the past. In my view, some acknowledgment of this implicit optimism needs to be encompassed within the express ambit of this restatement. -- Tenmei ( talk) 02:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Mostly good. The wording should they continue to participate in the project implicitly leans toward one type of remedy. Perhaps ...are expected to avoid repeating that behavior, or involuntary restrictions may be imposed upon them. Leaves open a broader range of solutions. With productive editors it's best to retain the positives while restricting the negatives, if that's feasible. Durova^Charge! 03:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Proposed findings of fact

Mattisse's contributions

1) Mattisse ( talk · contribs) is an experienced editor who has made more than 65,000 edits on Wikipedia. Among other contributions, she has created or contributed substantially to hundreds of new pages, many of which have been recognized as featured articles, as good articles, or on "did you know?" She frequently acts as a copyeditor and her skills in this area are widely recognized. She has also provided input to editors in evaluation processes for featured content, good articles, and DYK. Mattisse's userpage reflects that she has received approximately 30 substantive barnstars from various fellow editors in recognition of the extent and quality of her contributions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. "Background" positive findings are sometimes thought unnecessary, but it would be churlish at best to evaluate Mattisse's participation in the project without making prominent mention of these facts. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 02:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Recognizes the good without going too far. A very good balance. That said, even the best written finding of this type seldom cushions the blow in the eyes of the editor to whom it refers. But it's useful for others who are less familiar with the circumstances, and that makes it worth it. Durova^Charge! 03:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Mattisse's behavior

2) During her years of participation in the project, Mattisse has engaged in a pattern of troublesome comments and behavior. These have led to many stressful controversies affecting both Mattisse and many other editors. 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. She has engaged in personal attacks, accused various editors of cabalism or conspiring against her, and maintained lists of editors who she believes has wronged her, under captions such as "plague" or "torment."

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. It is a matter of difficulty in drafting to know how much detail to include in a case such as this. I hope I have not said either too much or too little. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 02:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Very importantly, has misrepresented previous episodes to portray other editors in a negative light. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 10:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC) reply

PS: A second observation which postdates Durova's agreement below - need to highlight the fact that she holds grudges, and that she may repeat misattributions weeks and months afterwards. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 06:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

With Casliber's amendment. Durova^Charge! 03:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Prior agreements

3) Although Mattisse has sometimes agreed to address certain issues concerning her interactions with other users, such as by avoiding discussions in which troublesome interactions take place, she has soon returned to the same forums and behavior patterns she had agreed to avoid.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 02:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

A key point. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 10:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Comments by Mattisse

4) Mattisse has stated on-wiki several times, including in this arbitration case, that her participation in Wikipedia is often very stressful for her and that continuing to contribute may not be good for her welfare and well-being.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. In this sensitive and troublesome case, it is not clear to me whether this fact ought to be mentioned in the decision. My motive in proposing that we do so is not to treat this or any editor in a paternalistic manner or to penalize her for an excess of candor, but to explain why the remedy structure that I am considering which includes a period in which Mattisse can reflect on her relationship with Wikipedia could be in the best interests of all concerned. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 02:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I think you should strike this. It is too paternalistic, as you say. Also, unless you have a court order of guardianship, not your job. :) -- Wehwalt ( talk) 18:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Not very keen on this. As a statement of fact its true in that Mattisse has said these things, but put here it sounds like you might consider banning/blocking her for her own good! Surely thats not what you meant? Fainites ^barley scribs 22:03, 23 May 2009 (UTC) reply

In English Literature circles this might be analysed as a response to the text, not the subtext. Geometry guy 22:12, 23 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Or the other way round. Fainites ^barley scribs 22:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC) reply

(undent) Oppose this. It is "something to live down to" rather than "something to live up to". As I said in another place.. what is our goal here? I think there are three or four goals at play in the arb case (some contradictory.. punishment vs. reform). I think we need to clarify and codify our goals... now... Ling.Nut ( talk) 23:30, 25 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Despite the well-intentioned attempt to set things in context, it's almost impossible to find a golden mean with this. If it's merited it probably strikes too close to home, and if it isn't merited then it would be a particularly damaging mistake. Durova^Charge! 03:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Suspension of editing

1) Mattisse shall not edit Wikipedia for a period of 60 days and may resume editing thereafter only with the permission of the Arbitration Committee.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. The length of the 60-day minimum period is a matter of which I am unsure and would welcome comments (as I would also on all other aspects of these proposals). The purposes of this remedy go beyond those ordinarily associated with a block or ban—which is why I have not used those terms, though I suppose in a way the distinction is purely semantic—but also to allow Mattisse to think through whether and how she wishes to continue editing in accordance with remedy 2. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 02:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Is this simply a ban? Let's call it what it is, a ban. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC) reply

And I'd go 90 days or indef until she shows sign of improvement. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Although I can see the reasoning behind a time limit (and the self-doubt on the length), a more flexible way might be an indefinite block which will be lifted as soon as mentors and mentorship plan are in place. This could take as little as a few hours, although a few days are more likely. The discussion can take place on the user's talk page variance of the block isn't necessary. The activity of arbs is such that once a plan is agreed on, the arbitration committee would likely approve it within a day or two. As a final note, is it worth spelling out any possible prerequisites of such a plan (for instance, lengthening blocks for further unfounded attacks) in the remedies before the conclusion of the case? Casliber ( talk · contribs) 03:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Speaking strictly for myself here, I'm not entirely sure I agree with this proposal. Yes, Mattisse has indicated more than once that she might be considering leaving the project, and I do agree giving her time to consider whether she wants to might be a good idea. But I have to question the phrasing, much like Casliber above. Maybe a rephrasing, something like "Mattisse is encouraged to take a bit of a vacation from wikipedia, preferably for at least two weeks, possibly longer, to consider how active, if at all, she wants to continue to be in the project, and where she believes her efforts would be most effective," might work better. This is not specifically saying that I support my own altered phrasing either. I would prefer something like #Mattisse be advised to take a wikibreak above. John Carter ( talk) 14:31, 23 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

I find the above completely wrong. Mattisse has crossed the line, but not in the way that many people have. 60 days? That would set a horrible precedent. There are many people who have done far worse and are allowed not only to go without being blocked at all but keep the ability to block others. Mattisse only has words, and in terms of words they have proven a net benefit. 60 days would be 60 days punishment to the encyclopedia. I have half a mind to leave for 60 days if this proposal is to be accepted, so any Arbitrators considering the above time can compound it by two content contributors not filling out the many redlinked pages, working to improve the pages, and the such. Ottava Rima ( talk) 03:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Agree with Ottava Rima. It is striking that the findings of fact so far attribute all blame to Mattisse, and none to anyone else. In other words, it is obviously fine for editors in encyclopedic disputes to bowl at the (wo)man rather than the wicket. Go for your opponent's character flaws rather than discuss content. I am not sure that will foster a collegial climate, or build a better encyclopedia. As far as I am concerned, it's not cricket. JN 466 21:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC) reply

In regards to Rlevse's current statement, if Mattisse is banned for longer than 60 days, I will be sitting out for just as long. I find an increased amount of time exponentially more objectionable. Ottava Rima ( talk) 02:50, 25 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Yeah, I'm not comfortable with this either. I don't think Mattisse should be blocked at all, but rather a clear action→consequences agenda should be developed to make it clear that she can be blocked for certain behaviors that have proven to be disruptive. -- Moni3 ( talk) 21:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Not happy with this at all. Where is the evidence that Mattisse has been disruptive to the encyclopedia? Even those who wish her to modify her behaviour have said that she is a benefit to the encyclopedia and would not see this as a solution. The crux of the matter is handling disputes - and the remedy should address the handling of disputes. Under this remedy, Mattisse is banned, feels aggrieved, comes back after 60 days and then encounters a dispute. Will she handle the dispute better or worse after this treatment? I think worse, because she has not been given support and will feel nervous. SilkTork * ^YES! 13:46, 23 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Please - if you don't think the proposal is a good one, fine. I'm not sure I think it's the best option either. But let's not go around claiming that there's "no evidence Mattisse has been disruptive". There is a boatload of such evidence, and it does her absolutely no favors to pretend otherwise - it simply enables a pattern of behavior which I think a lot of people find unacceptable. Mattisse brings a lot to the table, and it would be a shame to lose her good contributions, but the status quo is not working; it's not acceptable; and it needs to change. It's clear that a simple pledge from Mattisse to alter her behavior is not sufficient. What else would you propose? MastCell ^Talk 23:12, 23 May 2009 (UTC) reply

The evidence points to personality clashes for sure. But it doesn't point to actions directly harmful to the encyclopedia. Mattisse raises points in arenas where discussion is encouraged, and when these points are challenged, her fault is that she sometimes finds that difficult to handle, and this spills out onto individual's talkpages. However, if her comments are ignored, then there is no disruption. People are selecting themselves to react. The encyclopedia itself is not harmed or disrupted. What I have been concerned with during this ArbCom is to look at how best to handle the reasons for Mattisse's behaviour, and I feel that the solution is within all of us, Mattisse included, and that is we should not be over-reacting to personality clashes and emotional spats. I would say, given that Mattisse has been the subject of several AN notices, RFCs, a legitimate GAR reverted and now this ArbCom, that she is more sinned against than sinner. She is not Snow White by any means - but neither is she the devil in Prada. And using a wheel to break a butterfly takes us away from tolerance and equity. SilkTork * ^YES! 08:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC) reply

SilkTork - other people do not agree with your "personality clash", "six-of-one - half a dozen of another" interpretation, or that it is Mattisses responses to others challenges that are the problem. That is why we have arbitrators. Respected editors to read and weigh all the evidence and come to the best decision on the facts they can. Lets confine this section to views about the proposed penalty shall we? Fainites ^barley scribs 09:20, 24 May 2009 (UTC) reply

MastCell, I can see that Mattisse has started her fair share of conversations that quickly spiralled down into unseemly personal wrangling, and ended up upsetting her and others. The excesses these conversations end in have to stop or at least diminish, for her sake and others'. However, I see absolutely nothing wrong with the GAR that led to these proceedings. More to the point, neither do the GA regulars. That being so, isn't it indicative of a problem that we are here talking only about Mattisse? To be blunt, I have met a considerable number of editors who in my estimation were more obnoxious, less capable, and less motivated by the encyclopedic ideal than Mattisse. JN 466 10:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC) reply

I share the above concerns. I don't believe the findings so far have taken into account the evidence that Mattisse's interactions with other editors have improved and that her recent actions, including those which precipitated this RfArb, were not considered inappropriate by several editors. Additionally, in my evidence I noted the encouraging sign that she is now seeking the advice of editors with whom she has previously argued: myself (for some months), and now also Malleus.

If a suspension of editing is to be considered by arbitrators to be an essential part of a remedy, I would suggest that it does not need to be very long (10-20 days?) and that it should not be considered as a ban, but a wikibreak. For instance, some of the editors that Mattisse most trusts could undertake to oversee such a suspension, reverting her edits and/or making short blocks (at least two of us are admins) if she is unable to stay away. It would be quite a challenge to her psychology to retain trust in those editors in such circumstances; were she to rise to that challenge, it might satisfy her critics that she is sufficiently mentored (in the sense of having a group of editors whose advice she will seek and listen to) to return to editing. Geometry guy 14:19, 23 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Sixty days and then only after getting permission from ArbComm? How is that building the encyclopedia? I try to avoid ArbComm, as all right-minded Wikipedians should, but it is appalling, appalling. ArbComm has (in my view wrongly) accepted this case; this proposal ducks the really difficult decisions that we rely on ArbComm to make and we entrusted its members to formulate, when we elected them. Please do not duck the formulation of what is necessary in this difficult case or expect Mattisse to do it for you or leave. Because the latter is what would happen. This would lose Mattisse to the project, because she would never come back, and both Wikipedia and her would be the worse for it.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 18:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC) reply

I too would like to express my dismay at the prospect of a 60-day ban, which I believe will likely cause more harm than good. A block of a week or so may be justifiable, and perhaps even productive if it succeeds in giving Mattisse some time away from the project to reflect on her perspective on it, but no longer. That would just seem like a punishment IMO. -- Malleus Fatuorum 20:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC) reply

60 days is ridiculously long - how often do persistent vandals or POV-pushers get such heavy sentences?

What's the difference between "ban" and "block"? Does it mean for instance that she could not edit her own Talk page? If so, that would simply freeze any attempts to make things better in future - or make thngs worse, as other editors would remain free to post unfreindly comments there.

Re "may resume editing thereafter only with the permission of the Arbitration Committee", how would Mattisse request such permission? And on what basis would Arb Com decide, since it's very unlikely they'd have any new information? -- Philcha ( talk) 11:21, 24 May 2009 (UTC) reply

What's our goal here? Is it "unfettered punishment"? Then 60 days is appropriate. Is it "time to rethink the reality that our words and our suspicions can cause real damage to our colleagues"? Then 60 days is inordinately long. Try 10 days. Ling.Nut ( talk) 00:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Is a sixty day hiatus likely to solve the problem? Durova^Charge! 03:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC) reply

I agree with Casliber. Rather than a set amount of time, indef until a plan is in place, setting out specific conditions/mentorship/whatever. Could be hours or a few days, but two months is a bit excessive. She does much good work. We don't want to prevent that. Also, her editing has decreased significantly since the start of this case, so she's been on a bit of a break already. لenna vecia 05:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Resumption of editing

2) Should Mattisse wish to return to editing Wikipedia, she shall, in conjunction with one or more mentors or advisers, submit to this Committee a plan to govern and guide her future editing. 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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 02:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Yes, something needs to be in place here. Hopefully tight mentoring will be better than increasing blocks at minimising distress for all concerned. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 09:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Agree in spirit. Durova^Charge! 02:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by Salix alba

Proposed principles

Lists of hostile editors

1) The keeping of lists of editors perceive as being hostile is not conducive to maintaining a civil atmospheres.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. -- Salix ( talk): 20:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC) reply

A statement along these lines would be helpful. Geometry guy 22:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Agreed. Durova^Charge! 02:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Agree with G'guy. لenna vecia 05:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Proposed findings of fact

Mattisse has kept lists of perceived hostile editors

1) Mattisse has kept such lists on-wiki for many year.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. These lists have proved to be a point of contention as editors object to being placed on such lists.-- Salix ( talk): 20:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC) reply

This needs to be substantially reworded, but I can imagine a rewording meeting consensus would be possible. Geometry guy 22:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Something along these lines. Durova^Charge! 02:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Removal of lists

1) That all such lists created by Mattisse be deleted and that Mattisse be bared from creating such lists.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Not a full solution but may help a little. -- Salix ( talk): 20:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC) reply

This addresses one of the superficial symptoms without addressing the underlying problem. MastCell ^Talk 23:22, 25 May 2009 (UTC) reply

I agree with MastCell, but I do not believe there is one global solution to this case. Instead I believe that several small solutions may combine to create positive direction. This is a such a small step worthy of consideration. Geometry guy 22:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Agree with MastCell. Durova^Charge! 02:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by Moni3

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Mattisse shall treat editors as BLP articles

1) For a year, Mattisse's comments on Wikipedia shall be under the stewardship of three other users whom she and the community trusts. They shall be identified by name before the final decision of the Arbitration Committee. At least one shall be an administrator. If any of the three leave, retire, or go on a prolonged wikibreak, or if the admin gets desysopped, the individual in question is replaced and agreed upon by Mattisse and the Arbitration Committee. Following the decision of the Arbitration Committee, Mattisse shall not be allowed to request steward substitutions.

Major premise: Mattisse shall treat her fellow editors as BLP articles. No accusations that are not or cannot be supported with evidence shall be posted. If they are, they shall be removed immediately and she may be blocked.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Similar to the mentoring proposals that have already been made. I think the BLP comparison is a useful concept. JN 466 09:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC) reply

The Committee tried a three-way mentorship last year and it didn't work out. The mentors had a lot of difficulty keeping up with that editor's activities, and that editor was substantially less prolific than Mattisse. Durova^Charge! 04:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC) reply

While I'm disappointed that I didn't create a brilliant system and someone thought of it first, I didn't know about this previous solution and by extension, how it failed. What if the three stewards kept a Mattisse Noticeboard page off her user page with an Incidents section where she would be required to list beforehand (or the day of, whatever) the GA assessments and FACs she was planning to participate in, and where she would propose the articles she would like to take to GAR or FAR, listing them at least 48 hours before the review is initiated so the stewards can check out the merits of her case? The incidents section would be for the stewards to discuss comments they found problematic or Mattisse to ask for assistance in confrontations where she is feeling persecuted.

I envision that the stewards would be quite busy during the first month or so of this system. However, there is a certain amount of trust this system inherently places in Mattisse to govern her own behavior and learn to avoid posting the kinds of comments that brought her here. I imagine if I were still striking the same comments in six months as the day after the decision passed I would be quite drained and frustrated with Mattisse to learn already what's irritating people. So there is quite a lot of room for failure in my idea if the stewards don't care, are absent, or Mattisse just refuses to abide by the rules. But you know, I'm trying to make chicken salad here, so...if the concept is faulty what is better?

Three stewards

2) This trio shall have the task of:

Refactoring Mattisse's comments to strike out personal insults, allegations, and unsupported accusations. Please refer to the following example taken from the GAR for Ali's Smile: Naked Scientology, chosen because it was the first one I came to.

:::*Well, you just took the trouble to make nasty remarks on AN/I about me, which I would say puts you in the "involved" camp. I think you still resent me for putting your article Attachment therapy up for GAR and it was delisted. All I said was that I would like some opinions from neutral parties who are familiar with the GA process. I have reviewed close to 200 articles for GA in the last few months, and I would be interested in hearing from some editors with similar experience. I suppose I should not have requested any preference. I am sorry I offended you. — Mattisse ( Talk) 21:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

→This comment was edited for strikeouts by User:ArbComX per [link to ArbCom decision]

Discussing with Mattisse on her talk page why her comments were stricken, and what she should do when she finds herself upset at other editors. If necessary, they shall urge her to take a break for her own peace of mind.
Participating in any FAR or GAR processes Mattisse initiates in varying degrees:
1. Pre-approving and endorsing any FAR or GAR she initiates, not to support the article's delisting, but to acknowledge Mattisse's views that the article has problems that should be addressed and it is not an action taken against any particular editor.
2. Commenting in the FAR or GAR processes to identify themselves as stewards of the discussion, where they will likewise buffer between the high tensions of other editors and Mattisse.
Speaking with, first, and perhaps for, if necessary, Mattisse in her defense should matters escalate to ANI or further Arbitration Committee actions, and there is evidence that other editors are antagonizing Mattisse or she requires support.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I am not sure "antagonizing" fits in the last sentence – "attacking" perhaps? The strikeout method, should it ever become necessary, might help other editors concentrate on the issues that can be discussed productively. It is also evident that Mattisse would have profited from more support in the cases where her actions were appropriate, yet she was still attacked. Potential downside: there will be times when none of the three are online. However, if something like this were to fly, I don't think there would be much need for intervention. JN 466 09:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC) reply

The distinction is that if I call you a dickhead, that's an attack. If I begin to insinuate that your motivations are based in assisting your pals or promoting an agenda that is not part of Wikipedia's five pillars, that's antagonism. The semantics are ultimately not my focus, but it should be clear subtlety and the bit o' passive aggressiveness that pops up in her comments will be included in what is not acceptable and what will be enforced. And that it goes both ways from Mattisse and from other editors. -- Moni3 ( talk) 12:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Moni3, while it would be nice to legislate against subtle aggression, I don't think it's possible. For example many skilled users of English can deconstruct (euphemism) a proposition they oppose in quite wounding ways, but in the most polite and seemingly objective terms and without identifying persons in any way. That last sentence was almost an example, please don't take it personally. :-)

It might be better to try to rule out "piling on" and phrasing that the hypothetical "reasonable person" would consider a veiled attack "beyond reasonable doubt". -- Philcha ( talk) 14:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC) reply

I am sure I am in agreement with what you mean, Moni3. It's just that I (speaking UK English, if that helps) understand "antagonising" to mean, "turn someone into an enemy" or "to anger someone". For example, if I "antagonise" a traffic warden (= make him angry with me), he may give me an extra-hefty fine, whereas if I had mollified him, he might have let me off. It is not that sense that you meant this in, or is it? JN 466 14:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC) reply

While the subject of this ArbCom has been Mattisse's antagonism of her fellow editors, she has also been antagonized. I never claimed that Mattisse's attitudes toward cabals and corrupt editors were baseless, but my personal experience is that she paints anyone who disagrees with her with such a wide brush that she does not seem to differentiate between someone who is undermining her comments and someone who simply disagrees with them. I hope that my idea here not only makes Mattisse more accountable for what she says about other editors, but protects her from the ones whose articles have genuine problems, and who are attempting to waylay the work they should have done in the first place by trying to discount Mattisse in the eyes of others. I don't think, if comments are to be refactored, they should be related to only insults or blatant personal attacks, but the needling, rib-nudging snarky things she insinuates of others. All commentary should be about articles, whether that commentary comes from Mattisse or the editors she encounters. -- Moni3 ( talk) 15:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC) reply

I don't agree with the example. From what I've seen, that is actually one of Mattisse's comments that, if all of her comments were like that, there would be no problem. It is when Mattisse goes the next step and mentions malice, accusing people without evidence, and the rest, that problems start. Mattisse made a clear "here is why I believe you have a conflict of interest". Ottava Rima ( talk) 21:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC) reply

The comment was made at a GAR, heaving the topic from the article to an interpersonal power struggle. I understand that the next step is much more serious, but a few posts way above are rightfully discussing getting to the crux of the problem instead of issuing 60-day blocks. This is the crux of the problem: too often editors make it about each other than the article. By far, Mattisse is not the only editor to do this, but it is her slippery slope. When I read her comments (well, anyone's) on an article that stray into this interpersonal realm, in my head it's all "blah blah words words" until she makes an actual point about the content. I consider it something like three editors to assist her in getting off of something that's nearly addictive. Simply, cut it off. No more interpersonal comments. Not only would she not alienate other editors, but it stops the cycle of "You suck" and "No, you suck more". -- Moni3 ( talk) 22:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC) reply

We are our work, no? It is impossible for people to be objective when it comes to criticism like that, and it is impossible to separate the implications of criticism. We decorate certain users as having many FAs and being a good writer, so it seems obvious to use the same language when expecting responses or justifying responses to a situation. I'm not saying this is right, but it is human. Ottava Rima ( talk) 00:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC) reply

I'm sure you know my emotions are wrought up in the articles I write, and yes, I agree somewhat that it's difficult to listen to criticism about one's work, but it's not impossible. Filter out the riffraff. So my article is at FAR or GAR: what are its problems? Not with me, with the article. FAR and GAR is time for brass tacks on article content, not a marriage counseling session. I have an agenda? I insulted someone? I opposed an RfA? I'm a homo? So what? What's wrong with the article? And be detailed. It's a good model for anyone to follow. -- Moni3 ( talk) 12:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC) reply

I agree with Moni3 here. It has to be about the article. Even people one loathes may have things to say that make the article better and more stable. JN 466 13:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC) reply

I agree with Moni3 also, but I just think it would be impossible to enforce. At the Restoration drama FAR, Mattisse did cross the line by assuming bad faith that there would be a emotional and negative response to the FAR but that doesn't change that there was. Sure, it shouldn't have been said and should have been dealt with by others imploring objectivity, but whatever system we create will not remove it. There is far too much pride involved. Ottava Rima ( talk) 14:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC) reply

I think it will be sticky and problematic to enforce in the first month or so. Content assessment and personality inventory almost seem to go hand in hand at times. But it takes two to have a fight. If I bring an article to FAR, listing its problems that are based in policy, and the primary author calls me a dickface, that doesn't fix the problems in the article, and it won't assist that author in the FAR. Yes, quite. I am a dickface, but the article still has problems that have not been addressed. The stewards should direct all commentary toward content, weeding out the nuttiness that distracts us so easily like cheap shiny pencils to a 1st grader. Editors who lose sight of this end in mind replace it with their own image as the object of the discussion. I don't anticipate that this decision will fix all the squabbles on Wikipedia, but it will assist Mattisse with article assessment, and it will assist her as well in not overreacting when there are stewards who have promised to tell her when she's wrong, and protect her when she's right. To me, that's a win-win. -- Moni3 ( talk) 14:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Problematic episodes have been more subtle than Moni3's hypothetical example. Foul language is evident at a glance, but other problems (such as a potentially misrepresented chronology) have to be examined diff by diff. Who has time for that? Durova^Charge! 04:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Though I don't support this proposal, I feel that Moni3's comments in the discussion above are very useful. This summary rings true: "While the subject of this ArbCom has been Mattisse's antagonism of her fellow editors, she has also been antagonized. I never claimed that Mattisse's attitudes toward cabals and corrupt editors were baseless, but my personal experience is that she paints anyone who disagrees with her with such a wide brush that she does not seem to differentiate between someone who is undermining her comments and someone who simply disagrees with them." The other comments that Mattisse needs assistance to stay off the slippery slope are also very useful and true - though I am not convinced that singling out Mattisse's comments in a discussion and striking them through are going to be helpful in calming the water, in giving Mattisse the respect and confidence she needs, and in improving her reputation so that she is not treated as the poor cousin. While solutions need to be found to assist Mattisse and others to work together without too much stress, I am not keen on solutions which will have the effect of diminishing Mattisse, as I don't think that would either be appropriate or workable in the long-term. Humiliating Mattisse with blocks, bans or strike-throughs is likely to increase her feelings of alienation and hostility with consequent resentful remarks from her in future discussions when the editing gets hot. An equable solution might be that the stewards strike through ALL personal or imflamatory remarks in any discussion with Mattisse regardless of who makes the remark, and people are reminded to focus on the issue not the person. It also has to be considered that the reality of the situation is that three people might find it tricky to track and monitor Mattisse's edits across Wikipedia in a timely enough manner to prevent the initial stirrings of umbrage. However, better late than never I suppose. SilkTork * ^YES! 11:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC) reply

If being hauled to ArbCom after an extremely detailed RfC isn't humiliation enough, anything after that seems like cupcake sprinkles. There is merit in the stewards filtering all personal comments that may be construed as potentially derailing article assessment off the topic. I could go with that. I think it would be jarring to many editors to see that for the first time, but FAC admins and editors, since the MDD FAC have begun removing off-topic blah blah to the FAC talk page. I think it deserves further discussion. -- Moni3 ( talk) 12:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC) reply

@SilkTork: Strikethrough Police? C'mon, get real. Any stewards would be there to offer alternaate interpretations of situations. The operational aspects of trying to serve as Strikethrough Police are impossible. Ling.Nut ( talk) 12:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Proposed enforcement

Block schedule

1) Stewards shall develop a schedule of blocks dependent upon actions of varying offense. For example, if one of the stewards has already stricken her comments, they have been discussed on her talk page, yet she remains resolute and continues to accuse other editors of corruption, she shall be warned by any of the stewards. Following that she shall be blocked for a week by a steward with administrative capabilities. If she continues after her return, the block shall be lengthened to two weeks. And so on.

After Sam Blacketer's confession, I'm also proposing all three stewards submit to a CheckUser or some other process to ensure (as is reasonable) they are indeed three individuals who are unrelated to Mattisse or any other editors with whom she has had egregious conflicts in the past.

I posted this originally here, and was encouraged by Jayen466 to place it on this page. [11] [12] -- Moni3 ( talk) 12:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I don't like it for one reason - I don't think a progressive block structure is acceptable. Have all blocks be either 12 or 24 hours. The idea of the above is the condition a response/condition away a response from Mattisse. Long blocks instill a punitive feeling and remove the purpose of the block. We need to use short blocks as prevention of escalation and to allow Mattisse to know that they stepped over the line and not to cross it. Ottava Rima ( talk) 21:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Well, not that I'm drawing from a lot of experience here. I just thought I should propose something other than disagreeing with Newyorkbrad's solution of the 60-day block. Start at 24 hours, I dunno. What else would you suggest? -- Moni3 ( talk) 22:29, 27 May 2009 (UTC) reply

As I alluded to above, just 24 or 12 hour blocks. If it takes 12 24-hour blocks, then it takes 12. A "progressive" structure never works and becomes punitive. Hence why we have someone like Giano blocked for three weeks over something that deserved a 12 or 24 hour block. "Upping the ante" only alienates and punishes, and causes far more destruction. We should crush that mentality and create a system that can effectively deal with frequent but relatively minor problems (this isn't stalking, large scale revert warring, sock puppeteering, massive vandalism, etc, after all). Ottava Rima ( talk) 00:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC) reply

I appreciate Moni3's effort to make a proposal that has enough teeth to perhaps be acceptable to Mattisse's critics, while avoiding the 60-day solution. Having said that, I agree with Ottava Rima's argument that blocks don't need to escalate in this case. Ultimately, if a proposal like this were acceptable to all involved, it would function as a deterrent, or a commitment to avoid overentanglement, rather than as a schedule of sanctions. JN 466 00:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC) reply

24 hours isn't so bad. My concern with that is it's negligible enough to plan around. With the knowledge that she may be blocked for 24 hours, she goes ahead and says what she feels, regardless of this ArbCom. She may anticipate the block to the point of getting her reviews and other wiki affairs in order enough to take a 24-hour break. A 24-hour block may come to be part of the cycle: bait, needle, complain, block for 24 hours and start all over. -- Moni3 ( talk) 12:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC) reply

A progressive block schedule is fine for vandals and others who do similar damage to articles, such as WP:BLP violations, because we're prepared to block them indef if they persist. AFAIK that is not envisaged for Mattisse.

Re Moni3's concern that Mattisse might build an attack plan around a 24-block, I suggest we cross that bridge when we come to it. So far I've seen no sign that Mattisse is so coldly calculating, as her outbursts appear to fuelled by emotion. OTOH if we start getting explicit about what would constitute evidence of such calculation, that's asking to be gamed, most likely not by Mattisse - I've seen seen what looks like to me like entrapment in other cases. -- Philcha ( talk) 13:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC) reply

If the progressive thing is opposed by most, then make it a solid week every time or some other happy medium. 24 (and up to 72 imo) hours is too short, progressive is not ideal, ok. But with respect, I do not think we should leave anything in an ArbCom to bridges that may be crossed. It invites misunderstandings, miscommunications, and hemming and hawing at the time of action. It also negates the time and effort we are spending here in discussing how to curb undesired behavior. A clear set of consequences for a set of actions that everyone understands is the way to go. Are we not serious by bringing this issue to ArbCom? Have we not expressed our frustration with dealing with this problem enough? Why invite another What do we do now about Mattisse thread at ANI when it happens again? If the consequences are spelled out in the ArbCom, none of that is necessary. I furthermore have no problem adding that if Mattisse keeps her arguments to the letter of article content and another editor starts in with suggesting she has ulterior motives, they should be likewise warned and blocked if they persist. The stewards, in my grand vision, assist Mattisse with ending her own interpersonal comments, and buffer and protect her at the same time from others. -- Moni3 ( talk) 13:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC) reply

"it's negligible enough to plan around" If Mattisse is biding her comments and planning in doing all of their work first before making them, then I would honestly say that is a major improvement. The problem is that Mattisse does not plan the comments and most seem to be an emotional, defensive response to a situation in which they feel trapped. Plus, 24 hours for a content editor seems like forever, especially when you are in the middle of something large. Ottava Rima ( talk) 14:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Fundamentally similar to the dilemma ArbCom nearly created in the Fringe Science case; politicizes the role. And in this instance an additional problem: if Mattisse gets blocked by these stewards, afterward she would probably cease to trust them. Durova^Charge! 04:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by Rjanag

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

DYK monitoring

1) I was contacted by Mattisse about this RfAr, and she noted that she has mentors/advisers in the FA and GA projects but not in the DYK project. Thus, I would be willing to keep an eye on DYK (specifically on WT:DYK, which is probably where any alleged disruption by Mattisse occurred) and contact Mattisse's FA and GA mentors if any problems arise. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:02, 30 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Mattisse

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Development of advising/mentoring plan

1) I am working to develop an advising or mentoring plan in conjunction with those willing to help me do so on my work page at User talk:Mattisse/Plan. I hope to address all the Committee's concerns about my behavior there, and to provide a means for me to learn new coping techniques to substitute for my behavior than caused pain or distress to others. I fully believe that with a panel of supportive advisers and my new awareness of my firm need to withdraw from contentious situations such as the two comment rule proposed by John Carter, that my past regretful behavior will not reoccur. If the Committee accepts this plan in a final form, or proposes another more acceptable plan, and then in the future it finds that my behavior is unacceptable, I will gratefully accept any further sanctions the Committee deems appropriate. I have a panel of 11 editors who have offered to advise/mentor me listed on the plan page. (Some on the list are uncomfortable with the word "mentor".)

If the committe would prefer that we develop the plan elsewhere, please let me know and I will move it accordingly.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Monitoring

2) User:Art LaPella has agreed to report any disruptive behavior by Mattisse at DYK to the designiated monitors/mentors/ advisors. [13]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I treat any nonsense from any one at FAR accordingly from all parties. It isn't a place for rioting. I don't take kindly to FAR being politicised, YellowMonkey ( cricket calendar poll!) 04:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Dear YellowMonkey, I'm sorry I don't understand your sentences. Could you please explain or restate them (for example, "accordingly from all parties")? Please also state what post or context you are responding to. :) I am trying to understand different points of view in this RfArb as I attempt to draft a paragraph or two on what might constitute my own responsibilities. Regards, Fowler&fowler «Talk» 15:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Same here, I was a bit stumped about what your message was referring to. I just figured maybe it was accidentally posted under the wrong section? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 15:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC) reply

I think this is in response to my question to YellowMonkey if he would be willing to monitor any disruptive behavior of mine at FAR. Regards, — Mattisse ( Talk) 15:07, 5 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Z

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Jennavecia's evidence

The evidence presented by Jennavecia in this dif appears to show Mattisse requesting an undo of what is an out of process revert by Jennavecia. And then goes on to show Jennavecia making disparaging remarks to Mattisse: "I view you opening of the GAR as a POINTy action", "But yes, go on with your typical behavior." In response to a valid question of process: "Do what you want, Mattisse. But keep your assumptions of bad faith off my talk page." To another request that Jennavecia to undo the revert, explaining (with some justification given the eventual response - ie, this ArbCom) that she was uncertain of doing it herself for fear of reprisal: "You really need to take a step back and discontinue commenting until you are again grounded in reality. To a repeated request to undo the action: "Your comments are really over the top, and I honestly think you should take a break from the whole thing for a few hours." To Mattisse explaining to Jennavecia that she is genuinely concerned about the reprocutions of undoing the action of an admin, the reponse: "Are you serious when you write these things? I mean, really, I honestly can't tell. It seems like a joke, or some sort of game. I don't even feel it worth clarifying further if you are apparently selectively reading my comments with the worst assumptions of bad faith possible. Completely fabricating and misrepresenting my comments. Regardless, your comment here and wherever else you make it is much less powerful than you probably intend for it to be, as you have proven time and again that you do not hold true to your word with these types of promises." - and so the matter goes on.

I fail to see how the diff shows Mattisse in a bad light. But it appears to me to show Jennavecia assuming bad faith and being highly insulting. Certainly insulting enough to provoke a strong response from most users. Mattisse's guarded responses, to my eye, show a decent handling of a tense situation. SilkTork * ^YES! 13:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC) reply

I suppose the dif can be summed up as a mild spat between two editors. It could be a matter of opinion as to which behaved the worse. But as evidence of unreasonable and disruptive behaviour by Mattisse, it is lacking in unreasonableness and disruptiveness. SilkTork * ^YES! 13:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Comment by Arbitrators:

This discussion is a little bit out of the way. It is possible not many people have found their way to this page yet and read all the way down here. Particularly as the header is still "Template". Discussion of evidence (confusingly) also takes place on the evidence page talk page. Carcharoth ( talk) 22:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

I have to agree Jennavecia's refusal to perform reasonably requests actions and engaging in the kind of gratuitous insults as demonstrated above say a lot more about Jennavecia then they do about Mattisse. John Carter ( talk) 13:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Addition: Regarding the comments on Malleus Fatuorum's page, it should be noted that he himself (I hope it's a he, anyway, I hate getting that wrong) has evidently rather repeatedly used much the same, if not identical, phrasing himself, as can be seen somewhat here. I'm not sure if it would be reasonable to sanction one person for, in effect, repeating what the person they're talking to had themselves said several times. John Carter ( talk) 19:40, 16 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Jennavecia's behaviour was out of line and I have every sympathy for Mattisse feeling intimidated, given Jennavecia's admin status. To summarise, Mattisse initiated a GAR which, despite Jennavecia's attempt to stop it, went ahead and has so far resulted in several established GA reviewers taking the view that the article in its present form should be delisted. Work has begun on fixing the problems Mattisse pointed out. [14] So the net result of Mattisse's action, for Wikipedia, is that the encyclopedia is being improved. The net result for Mattisse is that she has been attacked, insulted, and spoken down to by several admins, accused of wikihounding, and is now the subject of this case.

We could look at giving Mattisse, as a result of these proceedings, some protection from the various administrators who seem to have her earmarked for "special treatment". She should not be afraid of them while doing her work as a GA reviewer. Just like we specify that admins involved in a topic should not use their admin tools in relation to that topic, it may be worth thinking about if admins who are similarly involved with Mattisse should be told to refrain from using their admin tools in relation to Mattisse. Jayen 466 11:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Response by Jennavecia: I don't revert myself on actions that I believe were necessary. The opening of the GAR was unnecessary during an on-going PR, but I did tell her to revert it if she wanted. Her claims that I would block her are typical behavior, as I showed with multiple diffs in my evidence. Additionally, there was no threat of ArbCom or anything else at that point. I think the evidence pretty much speaks for itself, and I think Mattissee's show of bad faith (later put into her Plague list) is pretty much indisputable.

Also, I feel it's worth pointing out that Jayen466 is perpetuating a falsity started by Mattisse, which is that anyone used administrative tools during this dispute, which is demonstratively untrue. لenna vecia 13:10, 13 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Jennavecia, I am not saying -- and have not said -- that you used admin tools. But you are an admin, so put yourself in Mattisse's position. She is having a procedural dispute with you and knows that if you give her a block for edit-warring with you over the GAR, there is very little she can do about it. Jayen 466 13:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC) reply

This is exactly what I'm talking about. I could lose my tools for using them during a dispute I'm involved in. By policy, I could not block her. This is widely known. So, in fact, she would have had a great deal of recourse had I blocked her. Not that I have, at any point in time ever that I recall, threatened to block her. Nor do I have a history of questionable blocks. لenna vecia 13:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Well, this may be clear to you, but it is demonstrably not clear to Mattisse. Hence the idea of spelling out that admins in content or procedural disputes with Mattisse are not allowed to block her. Making that clear through a remedy might help calm the situation somewhat. The AN/I thread, in which I believe multiple admins with a history of disputes with Mattisse commented, must have felt like a witch-hunt to Mattisse. All because she listed an article for GAR that deserved it, judging by comments there to date. This should not be the result of someone listing an article for GAR. Jayen 466 14:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC) reply

For clarity sake, you're saying that Mattisse, with more than three years and sixty-six thousand manual edits on this project, is/was not aware that admins are prohibited from using their admin tools (including blocking) during a dispute they are involved in? لenna vecia 14:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC) reply

It is not as easy as that. As Cirt put it at AN/I, "As I am an involved administrator on this issue, I would appreciate another administrator taking appropriate action here." So one involved admin had already characterised Mattisse's GAR request as "wikihounding" and "disruption". A second admin – you – had reverted her GAR request. Under those circumstances, Mattisse would have to be pretty stouthearted to revert the second admin, without fearing that some admin would arise who would block her for disruption. Accordingly, she was reluctant to revert you. That seems quite human to me, and I am sure you would have felt the same in her place. The point is, none of that should have been the result of an editor with a known, excellent track record of article review work listing an article for GAR. Jayen 466 14:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC) reply

(←) No, I would not have felt the same. I would have reverted it after being told I could do so. لenna vecia 14:44, 13 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Based on some limited experience of mattise, and reading a boatload of the evidence section, while the individual incident that silktork is concerned about isn't a big deal, it is characteristic of mattise to misinterpret actions and comments of administrators to be attacks and threats, when they are not intended or stated that way. -- Rocksanddirt ( talk) 20:32, 13 May 2009 (UTC) reply

In response to Jennavecia, for what it's worth, having been in regular contact with Mattisse lately, yes, Mattisse does believe that admins could block editors for engaging in misconduct directed toward them. I'm not sure the specific phrasing you have used above is what Mattisse would say, but Mattisse has communicated the basic belief to me. And there is some reason to believe that they do. I have, whether for good or ill, indefinitely blocked several sockpuppets of a party who seems to take some sort of bizarre thrill in vandalizing my and Ned Scott's talk pages, even when the vandalism was to my page. And, given that some of the individuals Mattisse perceives some conflict with are members of the ArbCom itself, it wouldn't be unreasonable for someone to assume that an arbitrator who shares similar feelings with one of the cases before them might be more lenient to that party. Yeah, I know, officially in the UK, US, Canada, etc., that doesn't happen. Officially. Why officially? As someone who has himself been involved in a few such matters, it's because the documents in the file are changed after the fact to eliminate any indication of there having been a problem earlier or to appear to discredit one of the parties involved. It does happen, more often than some would probably like to suspect. Particularly if there is some sort of threat of a lawsuit involved. So while we all might say that it isn't the case that such would happen here, if one had been involved in or aware of a similar event happening elsewhere, it might not be unreasonable for them to think that it could happen here. John Carter ( talk) 15:54, 14 May 2009 (UTC) reply

I'm not sure where the talk of "lawsuits" came from or how it applies here; but I think it falls under ABF for an editor to think that an admin is going to block them while in conflict with them, and then get away with it through lenient treatment from arbitrators the blocked party has crossed, especially considering such arbitrators are also involved and would have to recuse from such proceedings. There had been no warnings or threats of a block either. It is, as I pointed out in my evidence, common for Mattisse to state that she has been subject to threats of blocks (several times from me) when it's not the case. Three years and 66k edits suggests that one would be familiar with these standards. It seems an unreasonable expectation for me to treat an editor with twice as many edits as me like they're a new editor with no knowledge of how Wikipedia works behind the scenes. لenna vecia 12:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC) reply

The purpose of the statement was simply to indicate that it is not unreasonable for someone who is directly aware of misconduct by persons in some sort of authority, here or elsewhere, to be reasonably suspicious of other persons in authority. Once bitten, twice shy as it were. And I'm not myself so sure that it is necessarily an "unreasonable expectation" to assume that someone with however much experience of wikipedia, but limited experience of arbitration or admin action, to if not assume at least hold open the possibility of someone acting poorly. Nor was there necessarily any intention of singling you out in particular. The same might hold true for any other admins this individual might face in similar situations. John Carter ( talk) 15:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Part of this exchange may need to be moved to the talk page (not sure, I may start to drift here). Uhm, I don't know. I suppose it's difficult for me to see it from your perspective, as I view RFCs as informal arbitration, so considering she's been taken there three times, and has participated in ArbCom cases (IIRC) I can't bring myself to believe she doesn't understand these types of standards. لenna vecia 16:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC) reply

I can understand your thinking, but the impression I've gotten in the e-mails is that Mattisse has thought that ArbCom itself was generally for blocking and banning and not much else. She may have been involved in a few before, but she's also told me she's never actually read through any Arb pages, so I can understand how her impression of Arbitration might be differnt from that of others, yes, myself included. John Carter ( talk) 16:54, 15 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Fair enough. However, reminding once again that there was no threat of ArbCom at that point. لenna vecia 16:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Unrelated discussion moved to talk page. لenna vecia 17:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC) reply

I just read the follow-up posted by SilkTork (somehow missed it until now) where it has been stated "as evidence of unreasonable and disruptive behaviour by Mattisse, it is lacking in unreasonableness and disruptiveness". I didn't present it as such. It is evidence of Mattisse assuming bad faith and misrepresenting other's comments. There's some irony here. لenna vecia 17:33, 16 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Re John's comments wrt Malleus Fatuorum's talk page, I removed that section earlier today or last night. I don't recall exactly when. لenna vecia 19:49, 16 May 2009 (UTC) reply

I don't know if Jennavecia is aware of this, but sometime earlier this year we had a discussion at one of the GA Talk pages about PR's and GARs, and concluded that a GAR should not be held up by a PR, because such a rule could too easily be gamed. While I accept that Jennavecia genuinely thought a GAR was inappropriate during a PR, her removal of the GAR banner was mistake, as was her statement that Mattisse's nomination of the article for GAR was pointy - when a less aggressive presentation of the issue might have avoided a lot of trouble. -- Philcha ( talk) 11:30, 24 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Whether PR holds up GAR and whether Mattisses nom. was pointy are two different issues. The first may well have been decided somewhere back in the past on some talkpage of which other editors are unaware. The second is a matter of opinion and is one of the elements that is the substance of this case and does not at all follow from the first. I'm afraid that efforts to suggest that its perfectly OK to GAR articles within hours of GA and that the only possible motivation could be the well-being of the encyclopaedia, when you have just been involved in unpleasant conflicts or making unpleasant allegations against the editor, are some of the least convincing arguments put forward in this whole sorry business. Fainites ^barley scribs 14:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC) reply

I am not aware of anyone suggesting that the well-being of the encyclopedia was the "only possible motivation" for Mattisse's GAR nomination. Numerous motivations are possible. Personally, I prefer (and try) not to second guess editor motivation; such second guessing causes many problems on Wikipedia. On the other hand Philcha's new comment in this thread, while not inaccurate, adds no new factual material, and does not appear to have been helpful so far.

Concerning whether it is perfectly OK to GAR articles within hours of GA, the answer is yes, as long as clear explanation is provided as to why the article does not meet the criteria. It happens quite often, actually: many GARs are the result of disputed GANs. Unjustified GAR nominations are administratively closed. Geometry guy 20:15, 24 May 2009 (UTC) reply

I understand the theory of of the process GG. An issue here for ArbCom is more about whether there has been an abuse of process or a perceived abuse of process. Fainites ^barley scribs 21:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Yes, I agree, and the same issue applies to the use of ANI. Geometry guy 21:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC) reply

And indeed all processes. Fainites ^barley scribs 21:38, 24 May 2009 (UTC) reply

I'd like to agree with Fainites that whether or not the action was pointy is open for interpretation. I believe it was pointy, obviously. As for GARs being opened during a PR, I did not know of such a consensus and I don't really agree with it anyway. If there is an open PR, the necessary changes should be brought up there. If they are not addressed in a timely manner, then open a GAR. That, to me, seems like a better plan. Could just be me, though. Not an ArbCom issue. لenna vecia 21:45, 24 May 2009 (UTC) reply

The adjective "pointy" (or "POINTy") is used rather too readily in my view. WP:POINT is titled "Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point". Describing an action as pointy implies first that it is disruptive, i.e., it does not help improve the encyclopedia but even inhibits such improvement; second it implies that the intention was to be disruptive in order to make a point. That's a strong statement.

The independence of GA from other processes (PR, WikiProject assessments) is something that I defend at every opportunity. Peer review is formative assessment, GA is summative. Geometry guy 07:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Sounds a bit fortress GA GG. My experience of peer reviews is that they are far more in-depth than GA's and frequently informative on content so its not inherently unreasonable to see how a PR pans out before reaching conclusions. The issue is not whether the situation is inherently pointy but whether Mattisses behaviour is pointy. On that I suspect editors here will continue to differ. Fainites ^barley scribs 13:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Integrity is a quality that I value in both editors and processes, but we are getting a bit off-topic here. Geometry guy 19:45, 25 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Well, to me it was disruptive, because the GAR, in my view, was not necessary while the PR was open. To me, it was unnecessary stress placed on the article custodians. PR is more detailed than GA anyway, in my experience, as it focuses more closely to the FA criteria. It seems implausible to me that one would, in good faith, believe that they could not use PR to deal with such an issue. Or that it would not be preferable to attempt to address the issue through PR, giving more than a few hours for those concerns to be addressed, before opening a GAR. لenna vecia 18:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the refocus, Jennavecia (although I'm happy for tangential discussions to continue on User talk). As you know, Mattisse commented both on the talk page and at the peer review before opening a GAR. Neither thread was getting anywhere, a misunderstanding being one of the underlying causes. Whether GAR was necessary is certainly a matter of opinion and whether Mattisse alone was to blame for the threads getting nowhere may also be a matter of opinion. But being unnecessary is not the same as being intentionally disruptive.

I will likely continue to disagree with the application of labels in complex situations, even when I greatly respect the editors involved. I don't see a WP:POINT violation (check out the examples there). If one was to apply a label, it might be "forum shopping", but then one also has to consider the ANI thread: the initial posts by Mattisse at GAR, and by Cirt at ANI have very different flavours. Geometry guy 19:45, 25 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Durova's evidence

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I too have to question how such a statement as jayen466 links to below could be interpreted by any reasonable person as being a legitimate request, which is apparently what Durova took it as. I also note that Durova apparently did nothing to address the fairly clear statement from Mattisse that Mattisse's belief that it was the "same old gang" trying to "drive [Mattisse] away" was inaccurate. It would not be unreasonable for a person who holds such belief, when not presented with a denial of that statement, to take it as accurate. In effect, Durova may have confirmed Mattisse's fears. To argue that people who see themselves cornered will display the same "patterns of behavior", well, duh. However, to extrapolate from those limited situations into broader ones is illogical. It also smacks, regretably, of conspiracy theories. And, if Durova wants to say that on the basis of this evidence, which while good is not necessarily conclusive, she can see a "pattern of behavior", well, I regret to say that some of her own history regarding such matters indicates that she may not necessarily be the best judge of such matters. John Carter ( talk) 23:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC) reply

John, as you may have noticed, I have posted to Mattisse's user talk to notify her of my evidence and accept requests for amendment. In making that post I offered to wait 24 hours or until she resumed editing before proceeding to the workshop. She has already resumed editing without replying to the offer, so I posted a second time to her user talk with a diff of her subsequent edit and a repeat of the request whether she intends to respond. It was not my intention to post at all to this workshop before giving her a fair chance to follow up, but I see that you have already initiated a thread. It's a little odd that you critique me without noting that offer; you do watchlist Mattisse's user talk, don't you? But since you have initiated this thread (and the preconditions for following up with workshop proposals of my own have already been met), I may legitimately follow up in the reasonable belief that Mattisse has nothing further to say for herself. She has not even asked for time. If I continue to delay you may regard it as an act of good faith. Durova^Charge! 02:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC) reply

While the offer on that talk page was welcome, Mattisse has recently indicated to me more than once that s/he would prefer your not posting there again. John Carter ( talk) 16:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC) reply

This was her actual quote in direct response to my query of what to do, after she had explicitly declared that no amicable solution was possible. [15]

Put restrictions on me, instead of all this whinning about no restrictions on me. Restrict me from FAC. Go ahead. Just stop this endless whinning over my behavior. If I am that bad, then get rid of me.

That doesn't look like rhetoric. It looks like someone who expects that after three conduct RfCs actual sanctions were imminent and wanted to get them over with--and who preferred that they be proposed by someone she trusted. Up until that moment she did demonstrate trust in me. The proposal I actually entered shortly afterward was considerably milder than the topic ban she had in mind. It was in my opinion the most likely way of avoiding a topic ban or an arbitration case. The rhetorical statement was something she posted shortly after the proposal went up. As I comment in evidence, notice the abrupt change of tone. Apologies that a couple of diffs were misplaced. There are over 50 diffs in my evidence; that sort of thing was one reason why I invited Mattisse to provide feedback. Durova^Charge! 02:54, 15 May 2009 (UTC) reply

I have been in regular e-mail contact with Mattisse, generally receiving at least half a dozen e-mails from her per day since this arbitration began. I thought it was clear that she had indicated she did not want to take part in the discussion directly herself from her earlier statements. Although she has to date once indicated that she might want to post evidence directly, and I indicated I would support her in that if she so chose, she has evidently subsequently decided against that. And as stated elsewhere Mattisse has displayed that she has a rather pronounced lack of faith in the likelihood of a fair, impartial judgement from others. John Carter ( talk) 12:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Follow up. I just received an e-mail from Mattisse, which contained, and this is a quote: "Durova was asking me in her post on my talk page, I believe unless I read it wrong, to comment on her Arbitration statements. As far as I know, there are no complaints related to GA posted there. And posts regarding GA on my talk page, I have answered there. I do not want to address Durova's post. I do not see the point of it, as you are already formally representing me." I'm not myself so sure about "formally representing" Mattisse, but that's what was said. John Carter ( talk) 14:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC) reply

I've now provided evidence that this is not the first time Mattisse has asked for sanctions to be imposed on herself, and that she has been warned before that if she continued the behavior, someone would likely take her up on it. Karanacs ( talk) 15:35, 15 May 2009 (UTC) reply

John, if Mattisse has any rebuttal to my evidence that she wants me to take on board in good faith, it ought to be forthcoming very soon. No one is obligated to go approach a named party at arbitration in this manner and offer to refactor/amend evidence. The conditions set forth in my original offer have already been satisfied, and neither you nor she has seen fit to reply there. I am not going to chase around willy-nilly to other pages looking for discussions; you didn't notify me of this one. Sometimes I bend over backwards in good faith, and if the responses come back in a manner that takes the gesture for granted and presumes it's not enough, my spine tends to straighten and stiffen. If you know what I mean? Durova^Charge! 15:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC) reply

I clearly agree that there is no such obligation to rewrite evidence, and appreciate your offer to do so. I do however get the impression from Mattisse via the e-mails that s/he has never considered the possibility of anyone refactoring evidence before, and perhaps finds the offer a bit strange. This is in no way a criticism of you for making the offer, but simply a statement by me that Mattisse might find such an unusual offer rather strange. John Carter ( talk) 16:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC) reply

I find that a little hard to believe. Mattisse has provided evidence in multiple arbcom hearings in the past, and I know that in at least one of those cases (Zeraeph), people refactored their evidence throughout the collection period. Karanacs ( talk) 16:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Possibly. But, as I have indicated elsewhere, Mattisse says that she has never actually read through an entire ArbCom page. While I can and clearly do assume you're right in your statements (I haven't myself looked yet), to say that she was necessarily paying attention to those changes, which were presumably in sections other than her own and possibly, I don't know, maybe not that directly relevant to her own statements, might be stretching things a little. John Carter ( talk) 19:35, 15 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Durova says she interpreted this post by Mattisse [16] as a personal invitation by Mattisse for her, Durova, to draw up a proposal to restrict her. At the time, I was amazed at how Durova understood – or in my eyes, misunderstood – that exchange. I was actually wondering if Durova wilfully misunderstood Mattisse. I said a lot of things at that thread and elsewhere, and have apologised to Durova since, but this point seems relevant: Mattisse had written,

"This is the same old gang that dogged me on my RFC. And they wonder why I refuse to continue my work at FAC. This is why. And if the FAC editors and friends want to drive me away from Wikipedia entirely, then do it. Put restrictions on me, instead of all this whinning about no restrictions on me. Restrict me from FAC. Go ahead."

This struck me as an entirely rhetorical request, and if it had been directed at anyone, it seemed to have been directed at the "gang" which Mattisse said dogged her on the RfC: "If they want to drive me away, then [they should] do it." Not at Durova. So when Durova drew up the proposal, I was not surprised that Mattisse felt betrayed and concluded that Durova had joined her "tormentors."

I also feel that Durova has a rather alarming pattern of supporting people up to a certain point in time and then, when she knows them really well, turning on them with a "killer blow". I daresay people like Jossi and Jehochman, and perhaps some of her ex-mentorees, would agree. Her initial support of Mattisse, now changed to "As productive as Mattisse is, what she gives with one hand she takes with the other: how many other productive editors has she driven away?" (which to me translates as: off with her head!) arguably fits the same pattern.

As for Phase 4 of Durova's evidence, I fail to see the pattern she perceives in it. This seems, overall, an astoundingly businesslike and emotionally neutral discussion between Cirt, Awadewit, Mattisse, Durova and others, given the events of just a few days prior. If anything, the editor most insistent that DYK should be about new articles rather than expansion of larger existing articles, as Durova proposed, was Cirt (if I have understood that discussion correctly). The little spat between Mattisse and Durova about Uncle Tom seemed at best a matter of two people talking at cross-purposes. Perhaps I am missing something here, or perhaps I am misconstruing events terribly, but FWIW, those are my impressions. Jayen 466 22:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Thank you for pointing out a minor error in my diff. That rhetorical statement came after the proposal was made. I'll amend the evidence to make the invitation clearer--the one she posted before the proposal went up. Durova^Charge! 02:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC) reply

I honestly don't know what you are talking about. In your evidence (Phase 2) you say,

"Mattisse offered one, and specifically invited me to propose a sanction upon her. [17] I took her up on the offer [...]"

You post the same diff in Phase 3 of your evidence as well ("she subsequently invited me to propose a sanction on her [18]"). Mattisse's so-called "invitation to you to draft a proposal", which I interpreted as a rhetorical statement, was posted at 23.42. Your proposal followed just five minutes later, at 23.47: [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25]

It is a mystery to me how you can fail to see that your drawing up that proposal was extremely hurtful to Mattisse. You are still hanging on to your, "But she asked me to!" If you had merely done what Mattisse had asked you to do, she would hardly have reacted in the way that she did, would she? So please accept that you either completely misread the situation, or chose to take Mattisse at the letter rather than the spirit of her words, for your own reasons.

Another point in your evidence is your saying "Mattisse explicitly adds Giano to the putative cabal with me." Again, I honestly can't follow how you come to that conclusion. It is abundantly clear to me that Mattisse did not describe a "cabal", but in a moment of extreme emotional distress, brought on in no small part by you, created a list of all the people by whom she felt hurt. [26] And while I don't think drawing up such lists is a good idea, I feel the evidence shows that some of the people on that list had indeed, jointly and individually, behaved very poorly towards Mattisse.

And as for "the most likely way of avoiding a topic ban or an arbitration case", as you express it in your reply to John Carter above, did it ever occur to you to simply say at AN/I, "I know Mattisse has had problems, but I think Cirt is off base here"? I think that would have done a lot more to avoid this arbitration than posting what you did. Are you sure you really did want to avoid this arbitration? Because I am once more struck by the vast gulf separating your professed intentions and the real consequences of your actions, which can only be explained in two ways: ineptitude or design. If it is the former, then please be more reticent next time, and check if you really have understood people correctly before taking action that could possibly inflame an already inflamed situation further. If it is the latter, then don't think people don't notice. Jayen 466 08:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Where's the diff that shows Mattisse's reason for starting her plague list was because "she felt hurt"? Not that it justifies it, but I'd like to see it. لenna vecia 12:58, 15 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Jayen's explanation appears to hinge on two presumptions. First, it expects me to be a mind reader who knows when Mattisse's words mean something other than what they're written. I reject that. Second, it presumes Mattisse is authorized to do anything at all the moment her feelings are hurt. She could have come to me directly and written, "I didn't really mean it" or "I've had a change of heart; would you withdraw the proposal please" and I probably would have done as she asked. Instead, without giving me a chance, she proceeded rapid fire to attack my motives and character in multiple venues. When someone behaves the way Mattisse did then their reasons become irrelevant, because that's unacceptable behavior under any circumstances. Durova^Charge! 15:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC) reply

While I can understand the thinking above, sarcasm and other rhetorical phrasings are generally in common enough use that it is not unreasonable to expect someone to recognize them. Anyone would of course have the right to accept or reject whatever they see fit. And it never occurred to me to say anything at ANI because I wasn't involved in this situation at the time and I wasn't considering functioning in this way until well after I posted my first statement on the RfA page. While I can understand how that might not occur to anyone, it is not accurate to assume I intended to be involved in any serious way in this discussion as early as then. Also, I have to question the reliability of "second guessing" others actions in general. Perhaps it isn't unreasonable to question the specific form individual's actions take, and how clear and coherent they are, but questioning motivations is also a rather dicey proposition in general. John Carter ( talk) 16:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC) reply

It is at least as reasonable to suppose that after three separate conduct RfCs some kind of formal action was imminent: either a community-based sanction or an arbitration case. The best chance of avoiding more serious action was to propose a mild one. Bear in mind that what I put up would have allowed her to continue useful participation in all venues. The proposal didn't authorize more than administrators are arguably empowered to do already; it just would have taken the drama out of intervention. She's experienced in dispute resolution; she's seen cases go to arbitration before. John, you seem to be arguing that because she changed her mind afterward, and behaved extremely poorly about it, that makes me presumptively wrong for not intuiting some hidden meaning behind her words. That isn't a tenable position to assert. Durova^Charge! 17:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Like I said elsewhere, while she has seen cases go to ArbCom before, she has said she never read any ArbCom pages through. I can speculate (because I don't think I've seen this directly), that, on that basis, like many other people in similar situations, she might only clearly remember the more "dramatic" ones, like those involving blocks or bans. She has specifically indicated to me that she has thought of ArbCom as being basically the place to get someone blocked or banned, so it isn't that unreasonable to think that's what she thought would be the motivation and expected outcome here. And while I don't think that I'm arguing about your having to assume a "hidden meaning", I guess I do think that in this particular case, at least to me, it wasn't hidden very well at all and it might not be unreasonable in such circumstances to seek clarification first, if one does personally see the potential ambiguity of the original statement. Regarding the three formal RfCs, as I have said in evidence, there was no serious criticism of Mattisse in either of the first two, so it would be at best unusual to assume that they would necessarily wind up leading to an ArbCom. Generally, there has to be some sort of clear fault found in one's actions to prompt such matters. Also, I thought it might be relevant to add something here Mattisse recently sent me. In that message, which like all others I have received I will forward to ArbCom at their request, she stated, that regarding her request to be blocked, banned etc., those were expressions of her extreme frustration. Now, she is regularly being told she is a valued contributor, but in general she receives few if any such statements and is often treated with disrespect. In general, the acknowledgement she has received does not come from those individuals whom she sees as being most difficult to work with. She concludes asking whether the sort of treatment she has received from the likes of Cyborg Ninja and others is something she can expect to see continue, and indicates that she may not be able to tolerate that sort of "misery" in the future. John Carter ( talk) 17:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC) reply

As for phase 5 of your evidence, Durova, Mattisse says in the discussion you diffed, "We are on completely different wavelengths. I don't understand where you are coming from or what your goals are regarding me. I believe to pursue this further is futile. I think it is best if we have no further contact." I think it would be a step in the right direction if you accepted that that is how Mattisse feels, and accepted that you indeed do not understand Mattisse. And I suggest that you respect her wish that you should leave her in peace, rather than trying to "help" further. To me – and, I suspect, to Mattisse – your offers of help sound like this: "I have inserted the knife here, just under your third rib. Would you like me to move it a bit? Would it be better under the second rib? What about the fourth? Would that be good?"

If you had wanted to "help", you could have just said at AN/I, "Actually, I think this complaint is a bit over the top." This was about a GAR, which has exposed problems and led to productive discussions on that article. (And as for all these RfCs on Mattisse, the outside views in the first two are pretty clear as to where the problem lay.) Come to think of it, you can still do that, if you really want to help Mattisse. Add a line to your evidence, saying: "Actually, I agree with Geometry guy and the others here. That GAR was justified. The way Mattisse was dragged to AN/I over it was, come to think of it, rather disproportionate." This is something you could do. I am sure Mattisse would appreciate it. It is a form of support she would understand. Jayen 466 19:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC) reply

But that's not the way she feels, it it? At least not very long. Less than half a day after she requested mutual avoidance, she posts to me again. [27] That sort of post delivers little information other than a tangible reminder that this is not a person who exercises consistent self-restraint or whose pledges are trustworthy. Durova^Charge! 15:58, 16 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Another possible interpretation is that, considering you had seemingly not responded in any clear way to the first request, that making another one was called for. I should also note that Mattisse had specifically asked me how to respond to your comments indicating that they were not welcome, and I indicated something along those lines might be best. If you wish to blame anyone for that comment, I would suggest you blame me. However, I do believe that, considering you had evidently made no clear response to the earlier comment, a follow-up comment to confirm the earlier comment is not particularly extraordinary or unacceptable. John Carter ( talk) 16:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Cyborg Ninja's evidence

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

It seems to me that the evidence presented by this user, which seems to be limited to events of roughly a year and half ago, could be seen as being more indicative of a judgemental, prejudicial conclusion based on only a minimum of evidence and the implicit belief that no one ever changes in any way, a belief which I believe is directly contradicted by all the evidence of both physiology and psychology I have ever encountered. For what little it might be worth, it was in anticipation of evidence like this that I proposed the evidence presented be limited to recent events, as this evidence bears little if any direct relevance to the discussion at hand. It does however demonstrate that at least this editor, and possibly others as well, seemingly arrive at a prejudicial conclusion regarding the behavior of others, in this case Mattisse. That conclusion itself may often be based on a less than accurate or thorough understanding of the current and previous circumstances. Regretfully, such judgemental, prejudicial conclusions regarding Mattisse seem to be a recurring theme in this discussion. And, as stated elsewhere, providing a link to WP:DICK, although it has in the past few months been rather more called into question in regular usage, is hardly real grounds for criticizing anyone. Mattisse has informed me that she and LessHeardVanU have since reconciled in any event, so I even have to question how that particularly evidence is even necessarily relevant. John Carter ( talk) 12:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Response to Fainites: Possibly. Which recurring behavior are you speaking of though? The seemingly regular recurring rushes to judgement about Mattisse, as can be demonstrated by the first two almost abusive RfCs, and some of the other situations in which others have rushed to judgement regarding Mattisse detailed in the evidence page, or her own less than stellar conduct in some cases? I would have to say based on what I have seen the amount of the former far exceeds the amount of the latter. John Carter ( talk) 21:24, 15 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Second response to Fainites: Agreed. Patterns can involve more than one person's conduct though. And I agree that this time the first two RfCs have not been brought forward as evidence very seriously very often. This time. But they themslves can be seen as a mild "pattern" of misconduct toward Mattisse on their own, with or without other occurrences, and, if there are other occurrences, that could constitute a "pattern" as disturbing as any other. John Carter ( talk) 20:58, 16 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Third response to Fainites: A pattern of misconduct does not necessarily have to be from the same person or even regarding the same basic subject, although I do think that the general topic of Mattisse's reviewing is the main subject of discussion here. The fact that there have been two basically scurillous RfCs made against her can reasonably be seen that at least a few other editors, not necessarily working together, have rushed to judgement regarding Mattisse and her conduct. If you were the party to have been the subject of two almost gratuitous RfCs, I think you could, reasonably, think that there were some sort of flaw in the system, or some other systemic shortcoming, making such possible. That could reasonably be seen as being at least the beginnings of a "pattern of misconduct". John Carter ( talk) 15:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Re "such judgemental, prejudicial conclusions regarding Mattisse seem to be a recurring theme in this discussion." Perhaps its a recurring theme because its based on recurring behaviour John. Fainites ^barley scribs 21:13, 15 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Response to John: "Patterns" of behaviour is plainly an issue. I don't think anybody's referring to first two RfCs much. Mattisse linked those herself. Fainites ^barley scribs 20:51, 16 May 2009 (UTC) reply

2nd Response to John: How are those first two RfCs "patterns of conduct toward Mattisse"? That thing with the bunch of sockpuppets - what has that to do with this? I have been attacked myself by a bunch of sockpuppets, a long-term perma-banned abuser and a POV nutter - all now indef banned. Does that make a pattern of misconduct towards me in the absence of evidence relating them to each other? Are you suggesting the editors who raised concerns in the recent RfC or in this arbitration are in some way linked to the old RfCs as part of some long running plan? This would be truly disturbing as you say if it were the case but I can only see one name from then appearing here or at the recent RfC and would not like to try and judge the rights and wrongs of an old RfC now. Fainites ^barley scribs 21:51, 16 May 2009 (UTC) reply

3rd response. I profoundly disagree. I do agree that being on the receiving end of the scurrilous abuse of procedures by gangs of sockpuppets and the like is no fun. Been there, done that. But an accumulating "rush to judgement" on the basis of this is unfounded - even if one editor somewhere says "RfCs" rather than "RfC". The evidence page is heaving with links and diffs to extremely unpleasant behaviour from Mattisse towards multiple editors - most of which nobody ever took to ANIs or RfCs. I knew nothing of old ANIs and RfCs when I saw the recent RfC but I had experienced and seen Mattisse displaying the kind of behaviour evidenced in this arbitration. (I'm not now sure whether you are expressing her view as her advocate or your own view as an editor.) Fainites ^barley scribs 22:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC) reply

John Carter's evidence

In a recent addition to his evidence, John added the section titled " Other instances in which Mattisse has been the subject of dubiously justifiable criticism". He states that the evidence "describes an incident in which Mattisse was threatened with a block for making an "in joke" to fellow professional, which that party clearly acknowledged was taken as a joke by him."

The party, Casliber, did not acknowledge that it was a joke until hours after the warning was issued. The comment itself could easily be taken as a personal attack considering the heated dialogue the two had shared just prior to the incident presented. Additionally, this thread John has posted shows Mattisse claiming personal attacks on the part of Casliber against her repeatedly, linking to a diff showing a thread where she takes comments regarding her words as personal attacks, then claims harassment. In addition to being outside of the time frame I thought we'd agreed to work within, I don't believe this evidence supports the claim of the title given to it, nor the summary written for it. لenna vecia 17:45, 16 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Points taken, actually, and I don't deny the age of the material or that Casliber took hours to respond, as was indicated on that page, partially because he's on Australian time. The reason it was introduced was only to indicate that there is a history of misconduct (of a kind) directed at Mattisse, and it was indicated by the arbitrators that adding some evidence regarding "patterns of conduct" could be relevant. This is perhaps one piece of such a "pattern of conduct" of people "jumping the gun" a bit about Mattisse. By saying that, however, I am in no way denying the validity of the other points Jennavecia raises. John Carter ( talk) 17:55, 16 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Considering what John has on his hands right now, perhaps we can wait a few days before parsing his evidence? Durova^Charge! 18:17, 16 May 2009 (UTC) reply

In case anybody is interested in what's being talked about, here is that whole exchange leading to the ADHD comment Immediately afterwards Casliber set out in detail with diffs how he thought Mattisse had started the acrimony. Mattisse removed it. Here is the admin fall-out. As far as I can ascertain, the reference to "casliber acknowledguing it was a joke" refers to his edit summary of "hahaha". Here is the last piece. Fainites ^barley scribs 23:23, 16 May 2009 (UTC) reply

I believe the acknowledgement of the joke you were looking for was here. Of course, Casliber also said other things besides there. Jayen 466 00:13, 17 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks Jayen. Fainites ^barley scribs 08:35, 17 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Note here Casliber says he was was bemused more than anything else by this. That seems to be the sum total of everything on this issue. Fainites ^barley scribs 22:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Reading all this it doesn't look like this was "clearly acknowledged as a joke" to me unless I'm missing something. Perhaps Casliber can clarify. (cf the Buckingham Palace FAR where Mattisse harasses Casliber for not immediately responding to her requests/demands etc but editing elsewhere). Fainites ^barley scribs 22:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC) reply

A bit more.

Regarding the first point of John's evidence, Mattisse's opening statement contained a pledge which she broke very shortly after making it, and then refactored (without striking through the original) after the breach of promise was pointed out. Then within two days she also broke the revised pledge. If the promises were not sincere (or at least not long lasting) then that casts doubt over the sincerity and durability of the regrets.
Other instances where Mattisse has been the subject of dubiously justifiable criticism: the existence of bad criticism does not invalidate meritorious criticism. Nor does is justify improper conduct.
With regard to John Carter's response, plenty of other Wikipedians had participated in that thread before I read and responded to it. The notion that the complaint against Mattisse was forum shopping did not appear until afterward, and I dispute it. The overwhelming consensus among responses at the thread was that the admin was the proper venue to take the developing problem that was unfolding, and that the occasion was the most recent in a long pattern of similar problematic behavior. We do not operate a website in which certain people are free to violate policy. Individuals who take the problem to proper channels are not to be blamed if the misbehaving editor's behavior continues to worsen. As noted in evidence, I first sought amicable resolution and sought outside feedback before entering the proposal. Those are all the proper steps that a reasonable editor takes (and a bit more than usually gets attempted).

Durova^Charge! 16:43, 20 May 2009 (UTC) reply

As the admin who warned Mattisse regarding the incivility, I'm astonished (dismayed, really) that no-one has had the courtesy of notifying me that this was being discussed. If I hadn't been perusing the Signpost and noticed this Arbcom was open, and popped over out of curiosity, I might never have known.

It seems you've decided it lies outside of the scope of the case, so I'll say no more. But I would like the entire episode struck from the evidence, as it is wrong for one perspective of an incident to be represented unchallenged. -- Dweller ( talk) 16:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Moni3's evidence

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Moni3 says, "However, when Mattisse encounters editors who are more confident in their grasp of article content, editing, copy editing, writing, and Wiki policy, she no longer is helpful." I would like to point out that there is also another explanation. This is that new editors are inspired by her intelligent and accurate input, while more established editors have more turf, ego and investment issues. I am struck that more often than not, Mattisse ends up being proved right. In The Age of Reason, the Moore reference has not been reinserted. Editors commenting at the Ali's Smile/Naked Scientology GAR have in the majority said that the article has problems and does not reflect the book well, much as Mattisse did. Improvements have been and continue to be made to that article. Remember, it was this article's GAR that brought us here. Even the Buckingham Palace FAR, widely cited as an example of inappropriate behaviour by Mattisse, resulted in a majority of delist votes that only switched to keep after many improvements were made – "referencing vastly improved" (Casliber), "Casliber has done some excellent work here" (Cirt, after earlier delist vote). The clamour and upset is remembered more than the fact that Mattisse's action profited the encyclopedia. Jayen 466 23:08, 17 May 2009 (UTC) reply

I don't view the evidence as questioning Mattisse's points so much as the way she goes about delivering them. Moni3 elaborated on this in his/her evidence, actually. To me, the point being made seemed to be: Mattisse makes good points, but she undermines herself with her attitude, and now it seems her reputation may also precede her. This is pretty much in line with the desires of others involved, in my opinion, whom have pointed out that Mattisse's contributions to these areas of content improvement is of a very high quality, but the behavioral issues are getting in the way of collaboration and improvement. لenna vecia 12:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Yeh, that's what I meant. If I must clarify, I will. -- Moni3 ( talk) 12:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC) reply

We cannot ignore the fact that there are two sides to this communication. If people react defensively, or even aggressively, as in the case of the AN/I filing that got us here, because they think "their article is good enough" and Mattisse "is just being disruptive", then this will obviously have an effect on Mattisse's ability to make her points in a non-confrontational manner. Especially if the conversation becomes polarised between two positions ("good enough, no need for any change"/"not good enough, needs improvement"). I agree that the difference between her interaction with comparative novices and more established editors is striking. But I think that is in part a reflection of how her suggestions – which more often than not have merit, and often address points previous reviewers have missed (example: [28]) – are responded to. Someone who is able to pick up what others have missed is an asset. Jayen 466 12:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC) reply

I think this is covered by "her reputation precedes her." لenna vecia 12:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC) reply

This was kind of my point in my evidence. It's a collaborative encyclopedia, and FAC is a forum where many editors discuss content and policy for the betterment of what should be Wikipedia's finest work. Sometimes people are going to reject my ideas when I give reviews. My copy edits have been overturned. That's the nature of the project. I choose how much of a big honkin' deal I can make of how my suggestions are received. I don't think anyone is disputing that Mattisse often has very good points. I'll accept that people are rejecting her delivery instead of her points. It seems to me that Mattisse wants her suggestions taken, and if they are not she flips out and takes articles to GAR, FAR, and makes wild, sloppy, paranoid accusations of cabalism and that those who have rejected her are out to get her. How does this assist with collaboration? This is a kind of manipulative hostage situation. To keep from being branded a member of a cabal and a torturer I have to follow her points. If Mattisse were paying me and giving me an evaluation with a potential raise, then I might be more inclined to do things her way. But we're all volunteers here. Good gracious: I can change an article in a heartbeat with a respectful delivery and have done so with other editors' suggestions. I think this ArbCom is a result of people bending like trees around an editor, and the system (the group of editors she has affected, and who have participated in the ArbCom) has decided it has had enough. Gentle nudges have not worked. RfCs have not worked. Helpful messages on her talk page have not worked. Hostile exchanges have not worked. What is left? -- Moni3 ( talk) 13:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC) reply

You make it sound as though Mattisse requesting FAR, GAR etc. is a regular occurrence. Is it? As far as I can see, there have been exactly four Featured Article Reviews initiated by Mattisse over the past 15 months, with the first occurring in February 2008 – far less than many other editors have initiated over the same time period. Three of these reviews resulted in delisting, while the fourth resulted in substantial article improvement before the article was kept. I would say that is an excellent and productive use of the FAR process. I don't know what the number of GARs is that Mattisse has initiated, and don't know a quick way to check (I remember reading it was two), but at any rate Geometry guy's comments here lead me to think that Mattisse is doing a fine job there as well. Jayen 466 13:36, 18 May 2009 (UTC) reply

My evidence is based on my perceptions. My perceptions are based on my observations and interactions with Mattisse. I've never participated in ArbCom before, so I'm not sure exactly what I'm supposed to be doing. If I need to clarify my evidence, I can do that. However, I am confident in my assessment of Mattisse's behavior and the response to it in FAC forums. I'm not attempting to make anything sound any other way than how I see it. That is ultimately the only way we can present evidence. I appreciate your enthusiastic defense of her, but my points stand. -- Moni3 ( talk) 13:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC) reply

If you assert your impression that "Mattisse wants her suggestions taken, and if they are not she flips out and takes articles to GAR, FAR" then you should provide diffs that prove it. As far as I can see, she has only ever initiated 6 reviews (2 GAR, 4 FAR). All of these resulted either in delisting or in recognition of a need for substantial improvements, with these improvements made before the article was kept. This is not compatible with the theory that she makes meritless and disruptive FAR listings out of pique. Jayen 466 13:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC) reply

In the meantime, Jayen, you should provide diffs for this. لenna vecia 14:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC) reply

This is an integral distinction to make. That it is being misunderstood makes me believe I should elaborate in the evidence: I have never stated Mattisse's actions are meritless at FAR or GAN. I have admitted multiple times that her points are often valid. However, the manner in which she goes about critiquing articles is not conducive to a collaborative project. I've read Wikipedia Review forums that claim FA writers are overly vain; they think their articles make Wikipedia turn. Ok. I'll accept that for the sake of argument. Perhaps FA writers wish to be treated with kid gloves, and if all comments are not preceded by praise for their efforts then nothing will ever be changed in an article. The FAC process is often so fraught with difficulty that it seems the FA designation appears to be a final product. It is difficult to remember that the article can still go through changes after it has been designated as an FA, especially when in preparation for the nomination the article received attention from the best editors available. I honestly have no idea where editors are coming from when they post on the talk page of one of the articles I have improved to FA. It could be a passing, random comment. It could be an agenda-based criticism masked in policy. I do my best to assume editors are acting in good faith, but I must weigh critiques based on my experience researching the article. For example, an RfC was recently called at Harvey Milk to shorten the lead. Because it got a lot of attention as an RfC, I changed the lead, which is a decision I now regret. I was pressured to do it based on opinions from editors who for the most part do not seem to be familiar with FA criteria.

The following issues I agree to:

Mattisse often has valid points.
Mattisse is not the sole contributor to poor communication. This is impossible because two or more editors are required in order to have poor communication.
Mattisse approaches article talk pages aggressively, and as a result the responses from editors are often about Mattisse instead of the article. See the talk page for The Age of Reason in sarcastic comments to Awadewit. See struck comments in the FAR for Restoration comedy. See commentary in the FAR for Buckingham Palace where ScottMac questions if Mattisse is trolling. Even giving her the benefit of the doubt that her points are valid does not explain the antagonistic commentary she provides in text and edit summaries, as per [29]. Although we seem to be concentrating on issues since the beginning of 2009, I cannot exclude what I saw in the FAC for Major Depressive Disorder where she posted multiple times back to back that she was being attacked [30] [31] [32] [33] which was followed by an attempt to re-track the FAC by Looie496 [34] and me [35] which Mattisse moved, calling it "moralizing" [36], and was replaced by Karanacs [37]. I saw the same pattern when Mattisse posted multiple warnings and reminders of good faith on Giano II's talk page [38] [39] [40] [41] during the FAR for Restoration comedy.
As such, it is my assertion that when the watchlist pops up and Mattisse is the last commenter on the article talk page, I would not be surprised to find that many editors' blood pressures go through the roof even before seeing the nature of the comment. I know I prepared myself for a battle during the recent RfC at Harvey Milk, even though Mattisse kept her comments to a minimum. I anticipated, based on her commentary elsewhere, that Milk's article would be soon going to FAR. She had previously and I think unnecessarily posted Same answer. If you are Moni3 you can get a badly written, POV article through because it is Moni3's. in her 3rd RfC, P.S. You better toe the line and continue in the "niceness" role, or you will have your guts torn out. I do not blame you for bowing down to avoid the wrath of those that control. I am just not the type that accepts overriding dictatorial authority. Sorry! I am part of the 60's generation which is why I know the Harvey Milk article is POV. I was there. But heck, I am not a FAC favorite. And don't want to be. It is demeaning enough to have their petty RFC regarding me, but more demeaning would be to be considered one of them, eligible for the pat on the head quid pro quos. Your are a different generation, I think. I prefer the RFC to your role. from SandyGeorgia's talk page, and vague accusations on the Milk talk page [42] [43] and my attempt to clarify [44] which was not answered.
This cycle is baffling and it takes up way too much time than is necessary. Mattisse requests changes be made. She meets resistance because of the way she has asked. Processes become more about her, either by her own multiple postings, or others questioning if her goals are for the quality of the article or to get one up on another editor. It devolves into disasters that end up at the ANI page or an RfC. Promises are made, broken, and here we are again. -- Moni3 ( talk) 16:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Again, I think the point is that article contributors are not being given the chance to make improvements before the article is hauled to process. For example, I have one FA to my name, and it would be very discouraging for someone to come along and take it to FAR without giving me and the other editors who maintain it the opportunity to make desired improvements. This is not solely about content, as you're focusing on. It's about the environment that is created by Mattisse and her actions. It is discouraging for editors to be told they will have time to address issues only to find when they wake the next morning that they were given no time at all, for example. A demand that others assume good faith wrt her concerns coupled with no assumptions of good faith wrt the article custodians ability to address those issues without being taken to the review/reassessment process. I believe that's the point. لenna vecia 13:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC) reply

What is so bad about the process? It gives the community a chance to make an input. Many articles are improved during FAR or GAR and kept. Jayen 466 13:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC) reply

As I said, article custodians should be given the opportunity to make the desired improvements, particularly if they were just told such time would be given. لenna vecia 14:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC) reply

We have to query whether the concept of an "article custodian" is compatible with WP:OWN. It's human to feel apprehensive when an article one has brought to FA or GA is subjected to renewed scrutiny. But obviously, it is also an opportunity for an article to improve, and when all is said and done it's incompatible with the nature of this project to want to keep other eyes out of an article. There has to be some kind of trust that if a greater number of experienced editors look at an article, this will tend to benefit rather than harm the article. FWIW, the GA review you are referring to ran for more than a month. The primary editor was explicitly given time to address concerns prior to any decision being taken. The review ended with a decision to delist. I have looked at several versions of the article. I've read the entire GA review. I believe the decision to delist at the end of that month was correct. [45] Jayen 466 17:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC) reply

(←) Jayen, you are completely missing the point. You're focusing on content while everyone else is focusing on behavioral issues affecting the collaborative environment. Misinterpreting "article custodian" for a WP:OWN issue is just further distracting from the point. لenna vecia 17:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC) reply

(outdent) At the risk of being repetitious Jayen you really really are missing the point, as does Mattisse. For example, the issue, as is made clear in my evidence, is about the stuff she posted on talkpages beforehand making the review irredeemably corrupted before it even started. I fail to see why any editor should be expected to work collegiately with someone who behaves in that way - even though I made the futile attempt. To illustrate the point, of the 6 editors commenting, 3 said delist and 3 did not. Now you seem to be saying you agree with the delisters so the behaviour displayed is OK because it benefits the encyclopaedia. Does it therefore follow that if you had agreed with the non-delisters the behaviour would not have been OK? Do you see now how this is about behaviour, not content? Fainites ^barley scribs 21:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC) reply

The two are not entirely separable, because in the extreme case you have someone who takes it as an uncollegial personal attack if you list their FA for review.

In the case of your article, it was unfortunate that you were first led to believe you would have a chance to avert the review, and then Mattisse went back on what she had said, after consulting with someone else, but it was not malicious. Jayen 466 01:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Look at the talkpage posts I put in the evidence Jayen. They are obviously malicious. How can a review be taken seriously in that context? I appreciate that your experiences with Mattisse have been positive but I think there is a limit to how far editors whose experience is not positive can be assumed to be primarily to blame! Most of them are not editors with a history of problematical interactions and sanctions. Nor are they all FAC editers or "affiliates". The ones who might be (and I make no judgement here) like Giano have not taken part in the Arb. Mattisse has far, far more wiki knowledge and experience and "wikifriends" than I do but I have quite enough experience to look after myself. I worry about the less experienced, non-politically involved editors who wish to add content but know little and care less about the history and behind the scenes shenanigans. They don't have to be on the receiving end of Mattisses attentions - just to see it. Fainites ^barley scribs 07:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC) Fainites ^barley scribs 07:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC) reply

I had looked at and read the talk page posts before I commented. I just see Mattisse talking shop with a mate. Jayen 466 10:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Well that explains a lot. Fainites ^barley scribs 13:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC) reply

I have not experienced anything like "It seems to me that Mattisse wants her suggestions taken, and if they are not she flips out and takes articles to GAR, FAR, and makes wild, sloppy, paranoid accusations of cabalism and that those who have rejected her are out to get her" (Moni3, 13:04, 18 May 2009) - BTW sorry, I've only just noticed this statement.

I get the impression I'm a rather argumentative "reviewee", but I've had no such trouble with Mattisse - the most striking example may be Talk:Arthropod/GA1. In that review if I had reservations about one of Mattisse's comments, I explained my view of the item. Sometimes she was happy with that, sometimes we had a bit of a discussion, which sometimes led to a better definition of the problem, followed by quick, painless agreement of a solution. Whatever course each discussion took, we wound up with a result that we were both happy with. Both of us took each item as a simple examination of how to improve the article, rather than as a part of some overall tendency on the other's part. -- Philcha ( talk) 22:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC) reply

I believe Mattisse reacts differently when she has had previous negative interactions with an editor. I also believe that other editors react differently when they have had previous negative interactions with Mattisse (or are aware of a "reputation"). In my view of Wikipedia, the unit of currency should be the edit, not the editor, and previous interactions or reputations should be irrelevant. However, it is very difficult to convey nuances across a text-based interface, so it is inevitable that previous interactions colour our judgement. All we can do is try to assume the best possible faith on the part of other editors, and focus on the edit, not the editor. I'd welcome a finding of principle encouraging us to do that, but it sure can be hard to live up to that ideal sometimes. Geometry guy 23:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC) reply

I think it might be extremely instructive to investigate the genesis of Mattisse's several dysphoric relationships, and compare them to others which are more congenial. Was there something particular or identifiable in the unhappy exchanges which triggered Mattisse's displeasure? Did, for example, someone stop talking about the edits or the topics and start saying "You did this, you did that, you always do this, you always do that..." etc., focusing on the individuals rather than the task? Or perhaps, in the more unhappy exchanges, did Mattisse have more of a personal stake in the issues? All of this info is useless for the Arbcom, but may be useful for Mattisse herself. If Mattisse can self-identify the particular contexts in which she/he becomes distressed, then she/he can self-monitor, reshaping future exchanges (and reshaping self-talk) along more congenial lines whenever they are heading in a direction that triggers her discontent.. Ling.Nut ( talk) 23:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC) reply

I can compare my own relationship with Mattisse, which has been very congenial, with her conflicted relationship with user:Dineshkannambadi, who collaborated with Mattisse on a number of South India-related articles. In the end, I believe, Mattisse was proved right in her view of the latter relationship. Dineshkannambadi withdrew from Wikipedia when it became clear that he was obsessively creating articles of dubious value from obscure sources (see the end of this failed FAC review). I have stated my personal view of the relationship in Outside view by Fowler&fowler. As for bias at FAR/FAC, consider this exchange with user:SandyGeorgia. It is hard, in my view, to come away from it thinking that she was being neutral and not subtly siding with "established" FAers, such as user:Dineshkannambadi, whose contributions in an obscure/exotic area were mostly beyond the available reviewing expertise at FAC. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 16:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Mattise's evidence

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

As the admin who warned Mattisse regarding the incivility, I'm astonished (dismayed, really) that no-one has had the courtesy of notifying me that this was being discussed. If I hadn't been perusing the Signpost and noticed this Arbcom was open, and popped over out of curiosity, I might never have known.

It seems you've decided it lies outside of the scope of the case, so I'll say no more. But I would like the entire episode struck from the evidence, as it is wrong for one perspective of an incident to be represented unchallenged. -- Dweller ( talk) 09:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

References

^ Æsop. Fables, retold by Joseph Jacobs. Vol. XVII, Part 1. The Harvard Classics. New York: P.F. Collier & Son, 1909–14; Bartleby.com, 2001. www.bartleby.com/17/1/.

[1] Æsop. Fables, retold by Joseph Jacobs. Vol. XVII, Part 1. The Harvard Classics. New York: P.F. Collier & Son, 1909–14; Bartleby.com, 2001. www.bartleby.com/17/1/.

[1]