Revision as of 02:31, 22 May 2009

Misplaced Pages Arbitration
About arbitrationTalk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appealsReport
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss+ Contact Members Procedures ElectionsTalk History Clerks+ Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk StatisticsTalk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

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)

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)

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)

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 scribs 00:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

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  00:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Support. Jayen466 14:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

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. Jayen466 22:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

• 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)
• 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. لennavecia 19:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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. لennavecia 19:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

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 scribs 09:23, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

Proposed final decision

Proposals by Durova

Proposed principles

Good faith and reciprocity

1) Misplaced Pages'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)

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)

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)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Durova 19:31, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

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 21:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

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 21:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

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. Jayen466 21:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

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 21:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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 Misplaced Pages 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 22:52, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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. Jayen466 21:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

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? Jayen466 21:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

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 * 10:11, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

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 scribs 21:33, 16 May 2009 (UTC)Strike name - sorry, misread a post.Fainites scribs 13:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Durova 19:31, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

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 23:05, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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 15:32, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

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 19:31, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

• 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)

Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Durova 19:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Lynch mob justice would be the last thing I'd endorse, John. See my own arbitration case. ;) See an old version of Misplaced Pages: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 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 21:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

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 22:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Durova 20:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

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 21:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

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. لennavecia 12:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Durova 20:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

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 22:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

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. Jayen466 00:20, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

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 15:50, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

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. Jayen466 22:21, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

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 scribs 23:02, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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 , merely prohibiting the negatives that too often bring down what would otherwise be constructive discourse between content editors." Durova 22:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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. Jayen466 00:38, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

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. Jayen466 09:25, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

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 * 10:22, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

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. لennavecia 19:07, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

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 scribs 21:40, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

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. Jayen466 22:42, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

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 scribs 22:57, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

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. لennavecia 12:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

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  18:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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. لennavecia 18:40, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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 scribs 21:43, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

All three RfCs were prominently cited in the original AN/I thread that got us here. 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". Jayen466 23:07, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

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 scribs 23:50, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

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 00:02, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

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  23:23, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment Makes a valid point that needs to be expressed more soberly. Jayen466 08:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

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

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  16:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

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. لennavecia 17:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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. . Another: . Edit summary: "Undid revision 251125502 by Mattisse Idiotic challenge; do some READING"Jayen466 18:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

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 00:03, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

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 22:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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 * 07:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

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 scribs 20:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

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 21:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Template

3) {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 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 Misplaced Pages, 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)

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)

Comment by others:

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

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

Support. SilkTork * 18:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

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 21:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I see what you mean. Jayen466 22:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Support. Mattisse's ability is exceptional. Jayen466 21:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

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 scribs 22:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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)

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

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)

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  18:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

Has potential merit, and is not too alien to Mattisse's natural behaviour, since she does consult others for feedback and advice. Jayen466 21:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

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. Misplaced Pages 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 21:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

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 22:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

FWIW, Mattisse indicated in her evidence a while ago that she would welcome mentoring. JN466 23:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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

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

Misplaced Pages is not a battleground

1) Misplaced Pages 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)

Comment by others:

Misplaced Pages 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 "Misplaced Pages 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)

• 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 Misplaced Pages 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  19:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Moni - would it be better to say that "Misplaced Pages 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)

• 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

• 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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

Comment by others:

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

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

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 * 10:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

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 scribs 07:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

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.”

Durova 22:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages

1) The purpose of Misplaced Pages 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)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Editor conduct and decorum

2) Misplaced Pages 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)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Evaluating user conduct

4) An editor's positive and valuable contributions in one aspect of his or her participation on Misplaced Pages 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)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Mattisse's contributions

1) Mattisse (talk · contribs) is an experienced editor who has made more than 65,000 edits on Misplaced Pages. 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)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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 has 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)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comments by Mattisse

4) Mattisse has stated on-wiki several times, including in this arbitration case, that her participation in Misplaced Pages 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 access 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 Misplaced Pages could be in the best interests of all concerned. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

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 * 13:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

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 * 13:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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. So the net result of Mattisse's action, for Misplaced Pages, 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. Jayen466 11:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

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. لennavecia 13:10, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

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. Jayen466 13:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

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. لennavecia 13:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

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. Jayen466 14:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

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? لennavecia 14:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

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. Jayen466 14:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

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

• 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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages works behind the scenes. لennavecia 12:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

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. لennavecia 16:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

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

• Unrelated discussion moved to talk page. لennavecia 17:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

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. لennavecia 17:33, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

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. لennavecia 19:49, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

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 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)

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 02:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

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.

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 02:54, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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 15:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Comment by others:

Durova says she interpreted this post by Mattisse 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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. Jayen466 22:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

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 02:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

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. 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"). 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:

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. 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. Jayen466 08:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

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. لennavecia 12:58, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

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 15:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

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 17:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

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. Jayen466 19:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

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. 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 15:58, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 scribs 21:13, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

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 scribs 20:51, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

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 scribs 21:51, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

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 scribs 22:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

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. لennavecia 17:45, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

Comment by others:

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

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 scribs 23:23, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe the acknowledgement of the joke you were looking for was here. Of course, Casliber also said other things besides there. Jayen466 00:13, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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 scribs 22:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

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 scribs 22:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

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 16:43, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

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. Jayen466 23:08, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

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. لennavecia 12:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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: ) – are responded to. Someone who is able to pick up what others have missed is an asset. Jayen466 12:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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 Misplaced Pages'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)

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. Threeof 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. Jayen466 13:36, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

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. Jayen466 13:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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 Misplaced Pages Review forums that claim FA writers are overly vain; they think their articles make Misplaced Pages 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:

1. Mattisse often has valid points.
2. 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.
3. 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 . 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 which was followed by an attempt to re-track the FAC by Looie496 and me which Mattisse moved, calling it "moralizing" , and was replaced by Karanacs . I saw the same pattern when Mattisse posted multiple warnings and reminders of good faith on Giano II's talk page during the FAR for Restoration comedy.
4. 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 and my attempt to clarify which was not answered.
5. 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)

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. لennavecia 13:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

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. Jayen466 13:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

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. لennavecia 14:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

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. Jayen466 17:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

(←) 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. لennavecia 17:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

(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 scribs 21:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

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. Jayen466 01:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

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 scribs 07:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC) Fainites scribs 07:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I had looked at and read the talk page posts before I commented. I just see Mattisse talking shop with a mate. Jayen466 10:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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/.