Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Monitoring/ Report

"I think the best way forward here is for there to be a delay of a week (during which time Mattisse and everyone else should be patient and wait - with injunctions to enforce that if needed), while her mentors prepare a report for ArbCom on how successful they think things have been so far, and what changes they are proposing to make (they could look at Moni3's proposal, among others, and also suggest changes to who the mentors should be). Once that report is ready, others can comment on it. That will be far more productive than trying to deal with things at a clarification request and have ArbCom voting on different alternatives."

- Carcharoth

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

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

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

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

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

Moni3's proposals:


 * 1) User:Mattisse/Monitoring is the only place where complaints about Mattisse should be registered.
 * Agreed
 * 1) The page should be displayed at the top of Mattisse's talk page, which I believe it is now.
 * Agreed
 * 1) Mattisse shall not refactor anyone else's comments to the User:Mattisse/Monitoring page or its talk page. Any of her mentors or Mattisse herself can move comments or complaints from her talk page to User:Mattisse/Monitoring. Any reformatting necessary for the User:Mattisse/Monitoring page or its talk page should be completed by a mentor.
 * Not agreed. As the purpose of the plan is to assist Mattisse herself to edit with confidence and without issue, I don't think it would be helpful if someone else edited Mattisse's own subpages on her behalf. Mattisse should have ownership of her own plan, and of the structures she puts in place to assist her with the plan.
 * 1) Assign at least one mentor who has had significant problems with Mattisse's behavior in the past.
 * Not agreed. I feel this might cause Mattisse to lose confidence in the plan, and has potential for discussions to become unnecessarily heated
 * 1) The User:Mattisse/Monitoring page shall be archived no less than 7 days after the first post about a complaint.
 * Not agreed for reasons given above
 * 1) Adopt the layout created by SandyGeorgia that was moved to User_talk:Mattisse/Monitoring/Editorial_comments as laid out below, and place specific instructions about what is expected from a complainant to the page, from Mattisse, and from the mentors.
 * Not agreed as it is too bureaucratic, and with the best will in the world, if someone has been upset by an edit Mattisse has made, they will have difficulty reporting it in a neutral manner - we have already experienced the flack that can result from wording that was felt by the poster to be neutral, but which was received as problematic.

My proposals:


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

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

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

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

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

Response to Silk Tork's propsal
I actually like this proposal quite a bit. My one suggestion might be that in addition to the link to the questioned edit of Mattisse the poster might be allowed to indicate which policy or guideline they believe it violates. There is always the possibility that something Mattisse did is questioned by others but not actually in violation of anything, or that a link to only a single statement might not be enough to convey a violation involving more than one edit. In such cases, when the nature of the complaint cannot be simply provided with a single link, I think it would still be a good idea to restrict the editing that can be done by the complainer anyway. In such cases, one of the mentors could converse with the complainant off the page and add material they deem necessary to understand the situation. John Carter (talk) 15:56, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Statement by salix alba
I generally agree with most of the above, and I support the other mentors who have more time to devote to this. With regards to moni's point 3, we have had some problems with refactoring of the page. Generally what seems to happen is that mattisse acts in haste in stressful situations which causes later complications. Generally what we are doing here is trying to slow things things down a bit. Maybe what we would want is "re factoring of the page should only happen with agreement between Matisse and at least one mentor". A seven day archive policy seems a nice simple straight forward policy, exact rules seems to be a good thing here. Maybe three days could be good to quickly close discussions. --Salix (talk): 17:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Mattisse
Actually, there was a misimpression that I was doing this, as stated on Geometry guy's talk page and Karanacs has apologized acknowledged  to me that she was mistaken for blaming me for archiving or otherwise removing posts from the monitoring page. I only removed posts just before the lockdown of the page by Moni3 as I was attempting to gain control of the page.

Comments from Philcha
I've posted some at User_talk:SilkTork/Report. It might be best to handle discussion there, and show results / consensus here. --Philcha (talk) 18:00, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Draft summary of events
Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse closed on 1 July 2009 with this plan approved to govern and guide Mattisse's future editing with the continued assistance of those mentors or advisers mentioned in the plan. As part of the plan Mattisse created User:Mattisse/Monitoring as a place for mentors/advisers to provide advice, and discuss her behavior as well as any measures to be taken to help Mattisse stick to her plan.

Subsequent relevant events include the following.
 * 10-14 July. Advisory council on project development and Kirill's resignation. This event generated controversy and strong feelings among many editors. Mattisse expressed concerns about the composition, e.g., (ec) What is the purpose of having two members of ArbCom on the committee devised to advise ArbCom? Also, from a personal perspective.... She also commented on Kirill's resignation: It does demonstrate how severely out of touc this ArbCom member is..., which generated this reaction from Giano.
 * Discussion of the issues took place in two threads on her talk page: Advisory Council an Kirill's Resignation.
 * 30 July. Revisiting an issue with Tony1. Mattisse posted this comment on Tony1's talk page, revisiting a thread at the arbitration case.
 * She was criticized for this on her talk page by one of her (then) mentors.
 * 9-10 August. Palladian architecture unsourced text. Mattisse tagged some uncited paragraphs in Palladian architecture. Giano removed the unsourced material.
 * In subsequent discussion on her user page – Palladian architecture – escalation of conflict was avoided.
 * 8-13 August. WT:FAR and James Joyce. During talk about FAR nomination policy and practice, SandyGeorgia commented, "For example, this could have been fixed almost as fast as it was tagged" (by Mattisse on 8 August) linking this diff. Mattisse responded: "Very disengenuous. That article was not at FAR."
 * Mattisse's comment was raised and discussed on her talk page.
 * 12-16 August. Münchausen by Internet. Moni3 asked for a good article reassessment of this article following a very brief and unclear review. Mattisse's contributions to the discussions led to considerable friction and disagreement between herself and Moni3.
 * This led to the following thread on Mattisse's talk page: Expert syndrome.
 * 28 August: Abuse of alternative accounts and block. Mattisse made a number of edits using an alternative account, apparently in an ironic critique of sockpuppetry, but targeting Bishonen in particular, including one unambiguous personal attack. She was blocked for two weeks.
 * The block and subsequent discussion on Mattisse's talk page can be found here. The issue was also raised and discussed on Geometry guy's talk page and on SandyGeorgia's talk page, among other places. There was other minor fallout, e.g., at Talk:History of Sesame Street/GA1.
 * 13-19 September: End of block and opening up the monitoring page. The end of Mattisse's block led to renewed discussion on her talk page, and in particular the need for a place for editors to register concerns. Mattisse added a hatnote to her user talk page, and reminded editors to watchlist the monitoring page; the page was updated to provide a general place for such alerts/concerns to be raised.
 * Subsequently, two incidents have been reported to the Monitoring page and discussed: see User talk:Mattisse/Monitoring/Archive 1 and User talk:Mattisse/Monitoring/Archive 2.

A review of these incidents may lead different editors to different conclusions.

Draft problems and solutions
Since the close of the ArbCom case om 1 July, there have been six identified incidents of edits by Mattisse being challenged, and one case of alternative accounts being used inappropriately. The edits tend to be low level, isolated expression of dissatisfaction, such as and. Each of the incidents has been picked up on by one or other of Mattisse's mentors/advisors, and discussed with her so the incidents did not escalate. Where problems have occurred is in the reporting of incidents, and subsequent discussion which at times has been bitter and unpleasant, with a number of complaints and accusations aimed at the mentors/advisors, and counter-complaints and accusations aimed at the notifiers.


 * Specific problems
 * Too much conflicting advice from people not listed as being part of the plan.
 * Over-reaction by various people - including Mattisse's own advisors.
 * Mattisse not making enough use of the people listed on her plan BEFORE reacting to a situation.


 * Moni3's proposals


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


 * Some proposed solutions


 * 1) For clarity, there should be single place, User:Mattisse/Monitoring, for editors to register alerts and concerns as part of the mentoring regime. (This does not - and cannot - preclude the use of normal procedures such as AN/I, Requests for comments, etc.)
 * 2) A link to this monitoring page is displayed at the top of Mattisse's talk page.
 * 3) Alerts on User:Mattisse/Monitoring should be links to the problematic edits only - no additional comments. If mentors/advisors need more information they are to contact the alerter directly.
 * 4) Alerts are supplied in a standard format, along the lines of the demonstration at User:Geometry guy/test.
 * 5) Once concerns/alerts have been dealt with, the concern/alert and any related discussion by the mentors/advisors is archived
 * 6) That an individual should volunteer/be appointed to act as mediator in situations where someone who has a legitimate interest in an edit by Mattisse is not satisfied or is concerned by the response to the edit.
 * 7) That only those listed on the plan approved by ArbCom should refactor or protect subpages set up by Mattisse
 * 8) That only those listed on the plan approved by ArbCom should offer advice on subpages set up by Mattisse for the purpose of receiving advice
 * 9) That Mattisse should seek advice before posting in what may be a problematic arena, or in response to a challenge. If in doubt if an arena is problematic - seek advice.

Draft further ideas and proposals
1. Mattisse makes posts that irritate people.

2. A process that invites people to off-load their irritation regarding Mattisse's posts simply amplifies the incident and spirals out of control.

We need to be looking at something that breaks the cycle rather than something that encourages it!

We should not have a page where people can off-load their Mattisse frustration. That is not helpful to anyone.

What we should have is a system whereby Mattisse consults with one of us before posting. And where Mattisse is patient with that - and waits for a response. Being patient is key. More harm is done by posting in heat and haste, than by waiting - even 24 hours - for one of the mentors to respond.

I'd much rather deal with one query from Mattisse in which she says - "XXXX has said this, is it OK for me to say this in reply" than deal with all the crap we are dealing with right now. Let's talk about fire prevention rather than fire fighting.

New proposals:


 * 1) We scrap the Monitoring page
 * 2) We set up on off-Wiki communication in which Mattisse when she feels aggrieved or irritated by something/someone gets in touch with us, and we give advice.
 * 3) Mattisse to not post in anger or frustration anywhere on Wikipedia without having first consulted us
 * 4) Mattisse to not make any remark about another editor on Wikipedia that could be seen as negative without first consulting us
 * 5) We support Mattisse in bringing genuine and legitimate grievances to the appropriate arena.
 * 6) Mattisse is to be patient
 * 7) We are to employ some of the sanctions listed in the plan if Mattisse does not abide by the new system

Final Report
Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse closed on 1 July 2009 with this plan approved to govern and guide Mattisse's future editing with the continued assistance of those mentors or advisers mentioned in the plan.

It has been observed that Mattisse makes posts that irritate people. Since the close of the ArbCom case there have been six identified incidents of edits by Mattisse that people have found irritating, and one case of an alternative account being used inappropriately. The edits tend to be low level, isolated expressions of dissatisfaction, such as and.

Mattisse's involvement in the discussion regarding the Advisory Council on Project Development, has been noted as a particular example of how her posts can inflame. This post in response to Krill's announcement that he was resigning, provoked some discussion: "It does demonstrate how severely out of touc this ArbCom member is with the community's belief about what ArbCom's parameters are. How can he think that accepting a position, as an ArbCom member, to a board that "advises" ArbCom on any subject is a reasonable idea? I think he needs to acknowledge this severe lapse in judgment in some meaningful fashion, if indeed he believes it is. Where is the resignation tendered?" This post is useful for ArbCom to consider, as it does reveal the difficulties present in assessing Mattisse's ability to irritate. The post can be read several way. The post was seen by some as a call for Krill's resignation, though another reading, given the context (it was in response to Krill's announcement that he had resigned), is that it is a request to be shown where Krill offered his resignation. Another reading is that Mattisse is somewhat disbelieving of Krill's announcement, and wants confirmation. Regardless of Mattisse's intention with that post, the reality is that the post provoked a reaction.

The most recent incident of a Mattisse post that provoked a reaction is this comment: "This is probably a joke arbcon, like the joke sockpuppets and the joke blocks. Farce, right? I'm smiling too! Regards, Mattisse" - which resulted in this, this, this, and this, among other postings and activity.

Essentially, regardless of the low level nature of the commentary, Mattisse's comments provoke extreme reactions which drain time, energy and good will of the people who get drawn into the resulting dispute.

In order to help her deal with the fact that her posts provoke strong responses, Mattisse created User:Mattisse/Monitoring as a place where mentors/advisers may discuss her behavior and give their advice, as well as any measure that may need to be taken to help Mattisse cope. This page has proved problematic in itself. It has served as a focus for complaints - and, unfortunately, a process that invites people to off-load their irritation regarding Mattisse's posts simply amplifies the incident and spirals out of control. There is some consideration that what is needed is a process to prevent the fire from starting in the first place, and the mentors/advisors are exploring that process. However, it is felt that having a place where people can raise concerns about Mattisse's posts is still useful.

The process for using the Mentoring page has been amended, and a form created by Geometry guy (demonstrated at User:Geometry guy/test) is to be used.

While looking at the posts that Mattisse makes, people will have differing opinions. People will also have differing opinions on how people deal with Mattisse's posts. Some will argue that the reactions are justified because Mattisse is a special case who has a history of provocation. Others will argue that the reactions are much worse than the original posts. It should be clear, however, that both the posts and the reaction to the posts should cease. Any solution should include the means to minimise all drama and disruption.


 * Specific problems
 * Too much conflicting advice from people not listed as being part of the plan.
 * Over-reaction by various people - including Mattisse's own advisors.
 * Mattisse not making enough use of the people listed on her plan BEFORE reacting to a situation.


 * Proposals:


 * 1) An off-Wiki communication space is set up in which Mattisse when she feels aggrieved or irritated by something/someone consults with her mentors/advisors.
 * 2) Mattisse to not post in anger or frustration anywhere on Wikipedia without having first consulted her mentors/advisors.
 * 3) Mattisse to not make any remark about another editor on Wikipedia that could be seen as negative without first consulting her mentors/advisors.
 * 4) Her mentors/advisors will support Mattisse by bringing genuine and legitimate grievances to the appropriate arena.
 * 5) Mattisse is to be patient
 * 6) Her mentors/advisors to employ some of the sanctions listed in the plan if Mattisse does not abide by the new system.
 * 7) User:Mattisse/Monitoring is designated the approved place where concerns about Mattisse should be raised, and this to be advertised at the top of Mattisse's talk page.
 * 8) The monitoring page is updated to use forms based on User:Geometry guy/test.
 * 9) Once concerns have been dealt with, the concern and any related discussion by the mentors/advisors will be closed using archivetop and archivebottom then archived after seven days.
 * 10) That an individual should volunteer/be appointed to act as mediator in situations where someone who has a legitimate interest in an edit by Mattisse is not satisfied or is concerned by the response to the edit.
 * 11) That only those listed on the plan approved by ArbCom should refactor or protect subpages set up by Mattisse
 * 12) That only those listed on the plan approved by ArbCom should offer advice on subpages set up by Mattisse for the purpose of receiving advice
 * 13) That ArbCom issue a general admonishment regarding inflaming incidents/postings by intemperate behaviour and language.


 * Self-described roles
 * Geometry guy - advisor/facilitator
 * RegentsPark - advisor/sanity checker
 * SilkTork - advisor
 * Philcha - advisor
 * John Carter - advisor/contact (I think GG is probably in general the best person to "go to" in many instances, but I would be willing to function as a secondary)
 * Salix alba - mentor without portfolio, still intending to watch for trouble and communicate with Mattisse on and off wiki.
 * Activity of the above
 * Salix alba - not had much time to commit to this. Willing to continue being a mentor.
 * Geometry guy - I have limited wikitime, but have past experience of conflict with Mattisse and an understanding of some of the backhistory; I am willing to continue to advise and provide technical support.
 * RegentsPark - While I have limited time to spend editing, I'm usually on-wiki all day (US-ET). I am beginning to understand the backhistory as well as the dynamics that are driving this situation and am willing to respond to requests from Mattisse or suggest ways by which she can correct herself. However, I am unwilling to get involved in lengthy discussions, investigations, clarifications, etc.
 * SilkTork - I have variable wikitime. Currently I am logging on for brief periods several times a day. I understand and empathise with RegentsPark's comment about being unwilling to get involved in reading lengthy commentary - it would be helpful to all concerned if commentary and discussion were kept succinct.
 * Philcha - have been fairly active. I agreed with SilkTork and RegentsPark that comments should be concise and thought-out cleary before posting.
 * John Carter - somewhat active, circumstances are curtailing my availability lately, but should be available at least virtually every day for at least a short while. Want to clearly agree that all comments from all parties should be thought through and concise before posting.

Confirmation that the above report is satisfactory

 * Confirm  SilkTork  *YES! 21:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Confirm. --Philcha (talk) 21:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Confirm --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 21:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Confirm --Salix (talk): 21:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Confirm. --John Carter (talk) 21:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Five out of six aint bad. While I do not fully endorse the above report, I also have expressed the view that too much talk is unhelpful. Given that five out of six active advisors/mentors consider the report satisfactory, there is not much point in arguing further over it. The main thing is to ensure that future concerns about Mattisse's editing are handled more effectively and productively. In terms of responses (by Arbcom and others) to this report, I would note that I agree with the basic stance of the report on three main issues: (1) Mattisse sometimes makes irritating posts directed at editors (with whom she has had past disagreements) and this needs to stop; (2) Mattisse has interacted considerably better with other editors since arbitration in June and the sockpuppetry incident is the main example of failure; (3) Because of past histories, some editors may have overreacted to Mattisse's comments, and may be propagating conflicts that are now out of date. Geometry guy 22:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you all. I appreciate that all of you are willing to take on this responsibility. I resolve to live up to expectations and not to let you down. Regards, — mattisse  (Talk) 22:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)