Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Alerts/Archive 2

Problematic addition at AC/N
Unit Anode  23:56, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right, it didn't exactly help. But there is a question here as to whether most any other comment on that thread was "productive" either. An infraction, yes, but there is a question as to whether Mattisse should be singled out for taking part in a joke, which appears to be what she is doing here. And I don't really see any comments on the motivations of any parties. Calling the unspecified subject a "joke ArbCom (sic)" seems at worst more a generic criticism than any attempt to speculate on the motivations of others. But I could be wrong, and I'd welcome any other input. John Carter (talk) 00:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * "There are none so blind as those who will not see." --Malleus Fatuorum 00:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Is the above comment supposed to make any form of sense, I wonder? I certainly cannot see how the quotation without amplification makes any sort of sense. Could you perhaps say something directly relevant to this situation, rather than quoting? John Carter (talk) 00:19, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced...actually, I'm wholly unconvinced that Mattisse is adept at satire and that that post was a joke. I think she's serious. --Moni3 (talk) 00:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, it was directly addressed to you John. You appear to be completely blind to what is going on here. Time that you wised up I think. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It was meant as a joke, but it is true that I am wholly incapable of understanding what is a joke on Wikipedia and what is not. You are saying that was not a joke thread, so making a joke was inappropriate of me? I can't tell what is real and what is not. Regards, — mattisse  (Talk) 00:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Put it to the Duck Test. Or to Occam's Razor. Usually good guidance from application of those standards. Hamster Sandwich (talk) 00:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It didn't read as a joke to me. It struck me as veiled griping about the Geogre thing again. The thread to that point basically consisted of people teasing each other. Mattisse's comment didn't strike me that way. Anyway, I just saw it as something that was potentially quite problematic, so I posted it here. Do with it what you will. Unit  Anode  00:50, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Geogre? He never crossed my mind. How is he involved in this? He did not have jokes, as far as I know. — mattisse  (Talk) 01:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Mattisse's comments about her previous "jokes" regarding Bishonen indicate to me that, if true, her sense of humor is markedly different than my own, and that is why I personally reserve judgement. I acknowledge that others will see things the way they are inclined to, including me. The earnestness of the comment "I'm smiling", etc., is one of the factors in making me think it may have been intended as a joke to maybe "break the ice", and I could certainly understand the motivation behind that. The fact that the thread is about Risker, who was associated with Geogre, is a concern, and the comment could be taken, even by me, as a bit of a "dig" into Risker, or maybe Bishonen, or ArbCom, or whoever the comment is about, I'm not honestly sure there. However, I acknowledge the potential ambiguity, or, at least to me, the very real ambiguity, of the comment. If nothing else, I might suggest refraining from jokes which might be interpreted as "cutting". The downside there is, of course, that many jokes are insulting to someone at some level. So, like I said, I'm leaning toward taking her at her word here, but acknowledge that the joke, if that is what it was, could, maybe, have been funnier and more obviously an attempt at humor? If it was not intended as a joke, however, I would agree that "cutting humor" is probably a bad idea for anyone, including Mattisse, and would urge her to refrain from it. John Carter (talk) 01:13, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You're very trusting, that's all I'll say. Given the context, who the thread was about, and the fact that it wasn't in the least bit funny, you're very trusting. Unit  Anode  02:29, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I obviously don't belong to the "culture" that pervades Wikipedia. I am one of those editors that does not "fit in" to the pervailing class that make profane and other obnoxious "jokes" constantly. Does that I am excluded from ever making a comment? As far as I know, my content contributions have been gratefully accepted. Is the problem that I am not of the "class" that is allowed to comment?  Regards, — mattisse  (Talk) 01:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Mattisse, funny or not, the comments were not opportune or timely. I'm sure that you can look at the people involved and see that there would only be a negative reaction. Please be more careful next time and don't make yourself vulnerable by making such comments. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * When I first started giving talks, I was advised: "Never tell a joke with a victim" and "Never tell a joke unless you know and understand your audience's sense of humor." MastCell Talk 03:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Mattisse, your AC/N comment was - well, not very sensible:
 * It did not focus on the content - in this case it was hard to see whether there was any content, and that should have been a warning sign.
 * It refers to incidents (joke socks, joke blocks) that got you into trouble.
 * Some prior posts in that discussion was by an editor with whom you've had trouble (including one of your "monitoring" discussions that the editor in question phrased in a very hostile way). Despite WP:AGF, I think it likely that editors with whom you've had conflict are mor elikely to interpret your words unfavourably.
 * While you're an excellent editor, you don't (so far) seem to be good at jokes in the WP environment.
 * Right now I don't see a need any remedial action from you. For example your comments contain no phrases that should be rephrased. So for now I think you should simply avoid such unnecessary risks. --Philcha (talk) 06:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I support Philcha's comment.  SilkTork  *YES! 09:02, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

"Commenting" class
Personally, although I can and do acknowledge that you should be allowed to make jokes, like anyone else, at this point it might not be the best of all possible times to try to start making them, or, alternately, maybe to make them on less "official" pages. User talk:Bishzilla gets quite a few joke edits, including from me, and if the comment is such that it is obviously a joke, I think it would be taken as one. But, yeah, right now, you are still, in a sense, on some form of "probation", and, even though I myself have never been involved in the legal system, I know that anyone who is involved is supposed to be very, very careful about what they do and say. I got nothing against jokes myself, and tell rather more of them than I should, but it might not be a bad idea to try to choose the places for jokes very carefully for at least a while, and, maybe, to use language more obviously joking. And maybe adding a few jokey items to your userpage, indicating the kind of sense of humor you have, might not be a bad idea either. John Carter (talk) 01:38, 13 October 2009 (U
 * Well, probably you are right, but that is bad for Wikipedia. A very small "class" of people controls Wikipedia at a time they are trying to "retain" new editors. This small, elite class prohibits editors from having opinions, which decreases the desire to contribute. I used to regularly contribute to whole areas of Wikipedia that I stay away from now, like FAC. And I no longer review GAN articles, even though I was considered a stellar reviewer, because of the bile of the few. Is this really for the good of Wikipedia that this small in-group contributors decide who is on the shit list and who is not? I know many valuable editors who have left for good. And I am about to be one of them, as the  snugness of the (self-appointed) "few" that at the moment are in power is disgusting. Regards, — mattisse  (Talk) 01:50, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it isn't. And I agree people like Giano and others are treated with probably unearned kid gloves, and that in many cases people are pushed away because of not understanding "how things work around here." But this isn't the only place it happens. I have been accused of things which even the accusers themselves realize are unlike me at work over the years, because, strange as it might sound, I'm a "nicer" guy than most people are used to, and in several cases people find it difficult to accept that there isn't anything I'm "after", particularly female co-workers. I think the main issue here is not the comments themselves, but rather the comparative uniqueness of it. The fact that there is a small group of volunteers effectively controlling a larger volunteer community is pretty much standard for non-profits. But, in those cases, the small group of people tend to know the ropes better, and knowing the ropes always helps anyone anywhere. And I don't think that it's really a matter of trying to prohibit people from having opinions. But it is useful to know when, where, and how to express them in such a way as to not cause others to react on the basis of preconceptions. Part of the problem is, I think, considering you have not involved yourself partcularly much in such discussions to date, people will question why you would involve yourself in the few you do involve yourself in. This is a bit of an example of same, particulaly after the "enforced break" joke from Bishonen earlier in that thread. People like Bishonen, Baseball Bugs, and a few others are at this point known to make a lot of jokes of a certain kind, and now people have come to expect that of them, and to, yes, "cut them some slack" if there's a question as to whether it is serious or not. Right now, even though you've been around a long time, you aren't known for involving yourself in many such matters, or in displaying a sense of humor very often, from what I've seen anyway. I get the impression from what I've seen of you that you tend to be serious most of the time, and so that's what people expect. I don't doubt you have a well-defined sense of humor, but no one here knows what it looks like, and the unknown always is looked at with reservations for a while. So, in cases like this, I would urge you to do what I try to do in such cases. If you're not sure how your comments might be perceived, add a qualifier at the beginning, to indicate what you're "aiming at" and make it clear what you intend to be addressing. And, yeah, the one thing I would urge you to try to do is to not make any comments which might be perceived as "making a point", because that's the core of your prior difficulties. Granted, any comment is open to interpretation by others, and that's unavoidable. But you do have control over how you present yourself, and that's the thing to focus on.
 * One thing I remember from when I was a kid, was to try to "taste" the words before they come out of your mouth, or, in this case, keyboard. At this point, I think you would probably be best served by doing that in almost all cases where you might be driven by any form of feelings. Yes, this place is screwed up big time. One of the best editors I've known changed his name to avoid getting weird e-mails from people. Another of our top editors has temporarily retired I don't know how often. That's going to happen. In your case, like in mine, try to focus on what it is that you want to accomplish here, and spend most if not all of your time doing that. If you became an admin, or involved yourself in "office politics" more regularly, then I think your comments would probably be more welcome, better received, and carry more weight. The downside is, you'd probably wonder why the hell you're wasting your time on it. I know I think that once in a while myself, regarding the policies, guidelines, noticeboards, and what all.
 * From what I can see, one other thing you've found you're good at is starting new DYKs. Personally, I wish I could do that more often myself. I started with the saints, and I think there are only about 7000 or so left uncovered here, out of a total population of about 11000, so there's still a bit of work to be done there. If you like doing DYKs, do it as well as you can. You were a great reviewer, but the DYK section gets updated what, 4 times a day? That area clearly needs a lot of attention to. If you like it, and you have no problems with it, go for it. I don't doubt you would be as valuable there as anywhere else. And, if you want, I might even be able to help you find a few people who might be able to point out some of the articles we're missing. There are still a ton of them.
 * Shutting up now, believe it or not. Finally. :) John Carter (talk) 02:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I sincerely hope that any comment that I make is taken in a spirit of goodwill. Earlier, I suggested the Duck Test. I meant it seriously. When it looks like sarcasm, and feels like sarcasm, it probably is. By the same token, if comments look/feel like they're meant as humourous, they probably are.


 * When you read any comment that you are unsure of its intent, ask the poster. Inquire, politely if the comment was meant to be serious. Asking questions is (or should be) the catylist for a serious discussion. If you feel like you're not getting any kind of "straight" answer, then it may be time to ignore the comments, and get on with what you were doing.


 * I would like to think that spirit civility, and good humour go hand-in-hand within the project.


 * I understand your concerns about the "clubbishness" of WP. Allow me to share an observation I have made. I have a wide variety of interests, so I have a wide variety of pages that I watch for changes. I should describe these as my "spheres of interest." I seldom encounter individual "groups" or "clubs" or "cliques"... what-have-you's... away from their particular "sphere." But, year after year, those same editors hover around the same articles, policy discussions and votes! pages. Theres no law against that, or rather there are rules that govern edit wars and whatnots, but by and large, those groups are going to be one of the hazards of editing in and around those spaces.


 * I have gone on the WP record - for as long as I can recall - quite strenuously opposing any "Off-WP" communications that are intended to stack the results in any of the projects' various "spaces/spheres." The mechanisms for reporting abuses of process are there; a current arbitration seems to be addressing the issue of off WP communications. So, sometimes its just a matter of waiting, and the thing that you want to happen might just happen. The other side of that coin, is: We as editors often end up abiding by decisions that we disagree with.


 * I wanted to let you know that I apprciate the (to me) exasperated tone of some of your recent posts. I hope that by sharing some of my experiences, I might help to ameliorate some of that feeling. In closing, I suggest that when in doubt, always take the high road. Don't respond to percieved sarcasm with sarcasm....stay the steady course, and no one could ever accuse you of not taking any particular discussion with perfect, concentrated seriousness, and gravitas. Good luck, and good editing! Regards, Hamster Sandwich (talk) 04:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * If you want to improve skills in WP-humour, which is may be a valuable skill, use your friends as guineau pigs. In that case all you risk is getting some poor jokes back :-) --Philcha (talk) 06:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * So am I to understand that, even though I make statements at arbcom and enter evidence, I am not allowed to make a comment there, because any comment I make will be scrutinize for a way to take it in bad faith? I have made comments before  at abcom, especially recently  The arbs themselves have seemed receptive to my questions and statements. But this behavior on my part is no longer allowed by the self-appointed censors? Am I no longer allowed to make statements or present evidence also? Or is it being suggested that if I do it more, I will be "tolerated" like Giano and Bishonen and other disruptive editors  are. It does seem that if someone is sufficiently disruptive, they are tolerated by the ruling elite. Is there any place on Wikipedia that I can make a statement or have an opinion, even if it is not perfectly worded? I can be tarred and feathered because I can't word jokes to the liking of the elite censors of Mattisse? This outcry about a trivial comment, perhaps misunderstood, but not rising to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors is an attempt to undermine my confidence and drive me from Wikipedia.     — mattisse  (Talk) 13:18, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't understand the lack of options in this case. If you disagree with the actions of editors, certainly you are not restricted to participating in the same behavior in protest. In fact, I don't see this as effective in any form. You have an array of possibilities which include ignoring all of it entirely, or creating a large-scale protest and process by which the behaviors you designate to be unacceptable are brought to light at ArbCom and the Wikipedia community in total, though it may be rejected soundly. Your mentors should be directing you toward more productive uses of your time. You are yourself protected by double standards that may have had any other user indefinitely blocked for creating unnecessary disruptions, but because you are at times constructive, we are here discussing you instead of having moved on a long time ago. --Moni3 (talk) 16:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * In the last statement you make above, you seem to be assuming that people are in fact "out to get you", which I think in private correspondence with most of the people involved I have found not to be the case. And the rhetorical questions aren't particularly productive, either. Yes, like it or not, right now you have what many people consider a "history" of pointy comments, which some people might characterize differently as "petty", "vindictive", or whatever. Making any future comments which could be seen as being similar won't help anyone. Given the history people have percived in you, it is in your best interests to avoid making such statements. I don't think ArbCom would officially even tell Giano to go away, even though he seems to use clearly objectionable words more often than any other kind. I know that you pereceive the system to have problems here. So do I. It's one of the reasons I am fairly regularly involved in policy discussions. But, like anywhere else in the world, if someone has been perceived as fairly regularly making "cutting" or disparaging comments of others, and makes statements now which can be perceived as something similar, those statements will be perceived by at least some people in that light. In such case, it really isn't the fault of the person seeing what is an obvious connection to previous comments, though. If there is fault, it's that of the person who makes comments which can be so easily interpreted as being like the earlier ones. Useful, productive comments, even if at times extremely critical of the previous ones, are if not "welcome' in all cases accepted as part of reasonable conversation. I don't want to tell you how many people have ripped into the various policy and guidelines proposals I've made, but I had to assume that they were made in the right spirit. But it's a different matter with comments that are less than clear even in regards to what they're talking about, which is what the comment prompting this discussion was.
 * In response to the I think rhetorical questions about whether you will be "allowed" to make comments, sure. However, I think you should realize that your previous "comments" in some cases have caused people to at least consider imposing something like a topic ban on you. You don't make them really want to change their minds by making more comments now that could be interpreted as continuing in that vein. You seem to be indicating that the rest of wikipedia wants to impose some restrictions on you. If that is true, then it is because, unfortunately, you don't seem to have been interested in imposing any sort of restrictions on your own actions and comments. The one thing that would be most effective to reduce the posts to the page would be to make sure that you don't do anything which raises the question of "pointyness" or whatever in the minds of anyone else.
 * Positive comments, or comments which obviously have as their objective improving something somewhere, are going to be welcome anywhere around here. But this comment doesn't seem to be one such. There will be places where it is appropriate to criticize existing standards as well, generally because those locations are aimed at finding ways to improve the system. But I'm not sure the place you posted this comment is one such. Regarding the "cabal" controlling the rules around here, ever look at any national government? ;) Most people are neither sufficiently interested in or knowledgable about policy to want to address such matters. If the policies and guidelines created by the cabal are still good ones, though, then even I, who really dislike most public officials, have to admit that their actions are probably good, even if their person is less than appealing.
 * Basically, try to contain your comments to those which clearly are productive, in some way, or are in a venue where "dubious" comments are going to be expected and accepted. Given your lack of history in a lot of the "governmental" areas around here, at this point your comments there aren't expected. I and others would welcome seeing them there, but this comment wasn't the best way to "introduce" yourself in those venues. "Make haste slowly", like Augustus said. And, at least for a while, make sure that any comments you do make are such that they can't be easily misintepreted. If you can agree to do that, I honestly think the difficulties would be resolved. It's just, basically, up to you if you're willing to do that. John Carter (talk) 13:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Removing the kid gloves for a moment, calling productive editors "disruptive editors" is surely not helpful, whether done here at your talk page, at the "monitoring" page, or on an Arbcom page. As that portion of Mattisse's commentary isn't being addressed, I wanted to point it out. It's unacceptable to refer to other editors in this way, simply because you don't get along with them. Unit  Anode  15:02, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Then surely you will call for the ceasing of other editors calling me "disruptive". I am an extremely productive editor. So please encourage others to stop applying the "disruptive" label to me. By the way, I would appreciate your addressing me as an editor, rather than referring to me in the third person on my own talk page. Regards, — mattisse  (Talk) 15:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Please refrain from lecturing me on how to address you. I was clearly referring to John Carter's post that didn't deal with your calling productive editors "disruptive." Unit  Anode  16:02, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * :I am a productive editor who is called "disruptive" at the drop of a hat, including by people I have never heard of, in an apparent "bandwagon" effect. I made a huge mistake in thinking I could make a joke out of "joke" sockpuppets. I paid the price for that with a lengthy block, something that even Arbcom has not done to the last two editor they found engaging in ongoing abusive sockpuppetry. Other than that, although there has been much complaining after my arbitration, there has not been any other evidence that I have done anything wrong. I don't think Arbcom's intention was to make me into a perfect person, but rather to allow me to continue to be a productive editor while refraining from making personal attacks and casting dispersions. I have not engaged in the behavioral examples described in POINTy, WP:NPA etc. Please remember that I am an actual person and realize that I have human frailties. If you want an editor to feel good about Wikipedia, then picking apart their every action is regrettable. How come no one picks apart my editing? Isn't that the reason we are all here? That should be the issue, not the few remarks I only very occasionally make. My behavior is less likely to improve if I feel as intimidated as I do, and people unknown to me, who do not edit on the pages I do, who were not part of the arbitration or even made any comments about me and who have never posted on my talk page or tried to contact be personally and ask what I meant by a comment, then turn up with criticism on my monitoring page. This method does not further a constructive environment. Putting an editor on the defense immediately is not likely to foster good will, improve behavior or ultimately benefit Wikipedia.      Regards, — mattisse  (Talk) 15:33, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Your mainspace edits aren't really the problem. You're quite a good copyeditor, particularly. It's when you start commenting on other editors that problems arise. Unit  Anode  15:39, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Mattisse, that is what your monitoring page is for! It is a neutral venue that gives any editor, regardless of whether you've previously interacted with them, the opportunity to comment on edits of yours that they felt might be inappropriate.  It is not just a place for people who participated in the arbcom to bicker. Karanacs (talk) 15:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, Karanacs, and dislike editors referring to me in the third person on my own talk page and arguing with each other. Unitanode repremands me for not understanding he was replying to someone else.  Crips.  — mattisse  (Talk) 16:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Good points both there, actually. The last page I would expect someone to be refered to as a "he/she/it" would be that person's own talk page, and this probably isn't the best place to conduct a conversation with someone else. I'm beginning to regret starting the thread myself at this point. And I know some of my own language above might have been a bit excessive, both in terms of length (no argument there) and possibly in lack of tact. All I can do is basically repeat what I said. At this point, you aren't exactly thought of as one of our "policy wonks", and people might be surprised by seeing comments from you on some of the infrastructure pages. Particularly if the comments seem uncomplimentary and without any specific suggesions for correction. I don't like it either, but right now that seems to be the case.
 * And, Mattisse, even though there is apparently going to be a lot of criticism of various sorts aimed at you in the near future, partially as a result of the monitoring page, I want you to know that you are in no way one of the most problematic editors around. Giano I think wins that one hands down, with two separate arbitrations explicitly about him. And, no, it doesn't seem possible that his conduct has any chance of impoving, while I think even the worst of your detractors probably thinks you might be able to address and reduce the incidence of the problems that have arisen.
 * I just hope you realize that even much or most of the criticism you receive here is in effect given because the people making it think you are actually interested in reducing the problems. I seriously wonder whether anyone thinks Giano at this point even cares about how unpleasant his own conduct regularly is. John Carter (talk) 16:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec) Unitanode, your "calling productive editors "disruptive editors" is surely not helpful" is ... not helpful - and your "Removing the kid gloves for a moment" was even less helpful, so put it mildly. While Mattise has made mistakes, there are "productive" editors who regularly and long-term get away with seriously disruptive behaviour. Do you have the same zeal for scrutinising their behaviour? --Philcha (talk) 15:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * There you go again, lecturing people who try to point out the problematic areas. The kid gloves you all wear around Mattisse are not working. I've posted nothing here that is in the least bit inappropriate. And this isn't the forum for discussing the behavior of other editors. Deflection of the concerns raised is much less helpful than raising those concerns in the first place. Please deal with your mentee in a way that lets her understand that she can't simply call other editors "disruptive" at her leisure. It's just not acceptable. Unit  Anode  16:05, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Unitanode, as Karanacs has stated above, this page is not for making statements to or arguing with other editors. That is the purpose my monitoring page, to prevent this endless bickering between other editors from occurring here. I request that you take you attacks on me and my advisers to the monitoring page. Regards, — mattisse (Talk) 16:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Mattisse, for acknowledging that Unitanode should be able to comment at the Monitoring page (thus implying that you understand that posts there are not meant to intimidate you, but to raise issues in the appropriate fora).  Also, if you are disappointed with bickering on this page, we should also admonish Philcha, who started this round by commenting on Unitanode rather than the issue at hand. Karanacs (talk) 16:26, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec)Unitanode, your comments here were too vague to be constructive. And, as Mattisse correctly and courteously pointed out, the monitoring page is where you should raise any questions about Mattisse's conduct. --Philcha (talk) 16:29, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * They weren't vague at all. They were a direct challenge to those who weren't addressing one of the larger problems with Mattisse's response. Additionally, JC brought the discussion here, with his "Commenting class" post, so unless the whole thread is moved there, then my comments were not at all misplaced. Unit  Anode  16:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry to see this again degenerate into squabbling by one "mentor", when things seemed to be going well in terms of helping Mattisse understand how to avoid these issues. Philcha, again, your approach to this mentorship is not serving Mattisse well. One thing that I haven't seen any mentor clarify yet: RE: I am a productive editor who is called "disruptive" at the drop of a hat, including by people I have never heard of, in an apparent "bandwagon" effect.  It may be instructive to review ArbCom's findings, rather than focusing on perceptions of other, non-specific editors. Staying away from problematic areas may be a good strategy; if humor is a problematic area, then avoiding it is wise. Many of the mentors have stated as such on the monitoring page, so I'm sorry to see this recent squabble, which once again only serves to obscure the issues that matter: how to help Mattisse avoid these issues and be a more effective editor. Can everyone move on now? The message was delivered on the monitoring page; it's up to Mattisse whether she will take the mentors' advice. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 17:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * SandyGeorgia, if you have comments specifically about my activities here, it might be better to post them at my Talk page. You might like to look at this example of the kind of feedback (from myself and then SilkTork) I think is most likely to resolve situations. Some earlier clear, specific feedback, following a lead from Moni3 and RegentsPark. --Philcha (talk) 18:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Mattisse's behavior
2) During her years of participation in the project, Mattisse has engaged in a pattern of troublesome comments and behavior. These have led to many stressful controversies affecting both Mattisse and many other editors. Among other things, Mattisse frequently personalizes discussions by responding to other editors' routine comments about article content as if they were personal attacks or accusations directed against her. She has engaged in personal attacks, accused various editors of cabalism or conspiring against her, repeated some of her assertions long after any underlying issues had been resolved, and maintained various lists of editors who she believes have wronged her, sometimes under captions such as "plague" or "torment."
 * Passed 10 to 0 at 04:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Prior attempts at resolution
3) Mattisse has sometimes agreed to address certain issues concerning her interactions with other users, such as by avoiding the types of discussions or interactions that she finds to be stressful. However, in each instance she has soon returned to the same forums and behavior patterns she had agreed to avoid.
 * Passed 10 to 0 at 04:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Sandy Geogia please add diffs of relevant new behavior of mine
The arbitration findings directed against rehashing old incidents. Please add diffs of relevant new new behavior of mine rather that rehashing old complaints in essay fashion. Please follow the arbitration directions. Regards, — mattisse (Talk) 17:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The diff which led to the squabble on your talk page is plainly linked, where it was first raised, on this page, as is the full discussion. Curiously, what is not linked on this page, is ArbCom's final decision (rather, the proposal page is linked); perhaps one of the mentors could correct that.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, the proposed decision with passing votes is all I have been able to find. It is what I based My Plan on. So until I have knowledge of another set of findings, that is what I will rely on.  Regards,  — mattisse  (Talk) 17:51, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse is the final page, and probably the one that should be linked here. I'm sorry the mentors don't point these things out. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the link, although as a summary of the decision it lays out behavior that is applicable to all editors, not just me. I am asking you to stop the personal attacks and the casting of aspersions for which you have provided no diffs. I have almost completely stated away from FAC, I no longer freely copy edit articles for FAC and I no longer provide in depth reviews for FAC. Because of your complaints, I no longer work with articles at FAR. If you have recent diffs of my misbehavior that others have not provided, please give them. And please keep in mind that a central theme of my arbitration that not only I, but other editors also, must follow the rules set up for me, especially in not rehashing old issues and persevering on past events. Regards, — mattisse  (Talk) 18:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sandy was casting no aspersions on you. You need to cease these accusations. The portions of the case that Sandy posted related directly to you, and posting them was in no way a "personal attack" or an example of "casting aspersions." Unit  Anode  18:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Once again, noting that mentors haven't taken tadvantage of ample oppportunity here to help Mattisse avoid recurring issues, and one of them (Philcha) focuses more on shooting the messengers than guiding Mattisse. First, singling out an editor in a section heading is never good practice (see WP:TALK), although it is often done at Arb Cases, but if you single out an editor, at least spell it right :) Second, while the discussion at your talk page was clearly diffed, you have accused me of personal attacks without providing a diff: this is the kind of behavior that led to your Arb.  Where is the personal attack you allege I made, please ?  Third, I remain interminably puzzled at why your mentors don't clarify things you clearly hold to be true, to make things easier for you.  You refer to the Proposed Decision rather than the final case, and you say above that "although as a summary of the decision it lays out behavior that is applicable to all editors, not just me."  Your mentors do not seem to have helped you understand that the case does pertain to you, there is nothing written about other editors in either Sections 6.2 Findings of fact or 6.3 Remedies, and the thread on your talk page, which led to this squabble, was an attempt by several of your mentors to help you see how you could avoid the behaviors listed in the case. This case has become much more about a failed mentorship than helping Mattisse, and before the recent derailment on Mattisse's talk, it actually looked like things were progressing well for once~! No, Philcha, with moves of talk page posts hither and thither, I've no interest in taking items related to this case to yet another place ... I placed my comments on the talk page where the discussion originated; I prefer to keep discussions together. So, now we have an issue where the mentors clearly explained to Mattisse how she could avoid the problem in the future, but now Mattisse has started a thread, making it All About Me, and accusing me of a non-existing personal attack. When will this cycle stop ? Sandy Georgia (Talk) 19:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * She has a point here. The conduct of other editors has been problematic at times, but the ArbCom itself indicated no special penalties which could be levied against anyone for attacking you beyond the standard. And this thread, with the title it has, could very easily itself be seen as being an attempt at diversion. A simple message to Sandy on her talk page requesting an addition of the diff would have been just as effective, and created less drama. Drama of any sort is probably in virtually every instace bad for the project, and it tends to make any situation worse. We've all been told repeatedly to comment on the edits, not the editor. This thread kind of clearly goes against that. If we can keep the conversation about the subject which I think brought us all here, the improvement of the encyclopedia, rather than in making any sort of accusations or demands on each other, I think that would be very good for everyone involved. We are all basically here to improve the encyclopedia. Distracting ourselves with "personalities" of any sort is probably one of the worst things we could do. If we can all act rationally and deal with the issues presented before us first, rather than deal with questions regarding other editors or trying to act on any preexisting ideas we might have regarding them, that reduces the amount of "personality" and "drama" involved and generally makes for a more collegial environment. Having anyone jump to conclusions regarding the actions of another is going to ultimately be counterproductive itself. John Carter (talk) 20:01, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the material linked to is at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. I have to admit that the comments, while relevant, did, in a sense, detract from the flow of the intended purpose of the thread, and could be seen as being off-topic. They do also seem to put a bit of a damper on the express purpose of the thread While it is probably perfectly acceptable to indicate errors, I'm not sure that the comments here were necessarily either required for the thread or particularly helpful to it.
 * In addition to ensuring that you do not do things which are literally against the ArbCom decision, it's probably a good idea to encourage you to not do things which might, while perhaps technically acceptable, wind up generating more less than favorable views of you. No one really needs to have people hold more reservations or grudges about them than are absolutely required, and I could see how comments of this type could generate more ill will than good will from others. And I do think that they were probably off-topic, which didn't help. Such comments could very easily make people more likely to look for and see reasons to object to other conduct elsewhere. And, yeah, one of the best ways to ensure that one doesn't get criticized is by making people less likely to criticize you, partially by giving them less reason to think ill of you.
 * If, as I think reasonable, we are here not only to ensure that you do not engage in overtly disruptive behavior, but also behavior which might unnecessarily stimulate ill will against you, I would have to say that those comments could very easily been omitted, or, perhaps, placed in a different thread. I don't think it would necessarily have reduced any effectiveness they might have had, and it would probably reduce the amount of negative response you get from others. Doing that would in and of itself be a benefit to you. John Carter (talk) 19:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Probably so. I used to follow behind and fix the situations where the link checker screwed up. Now, of course, I no longer do all the grooming of FAC articles that I used to do. I think it is recognized that the link checker itself is a crude tool and does not replace actually checking the links. So I probably did not need to remind anyone, although there are still those who believe it is accurate. It is rather misleading to have a link to the link checker on review pages without explaining its caveats.  Regards,  — mattisse  (Talk) 19:24, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Your third and fifth sentences are perfect examples of the types of comments that you should be making at WT:FAC - > I think it is recognized that the link checker itself is a crude tool and does not replace actually checking the links. ... It is rather misleading to have a link to the link checker on review pages without explaining its caveats. This could be followed with a concrete suggestion for what to do differently (remove the link, add text, etc).  This type of feedback is more likely to lead to improvements, and cannot be interpreted as disparaging the efforts of any other editor or as simple complaining. Karanacs (talk) 19:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

John Carter & Mattisse's Mentors.
(moved here from my talk page ) — mattisse  (Talk) 19:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This one should be removed but unfortunately I just noticed it now, so I probably can't remove it.  I will see if I can do so.  — mattisse  (Talk) 20:22, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Seeing as you wish to discuss me on this page, you can have the reply on this page. John Carter, would you please stop referring to me in this debate concerning your protegee. I avoid her as often as possible and have no wish to associate with the like of you either. That you can say "I agree people like Giano and others are treated with probably unearned kid gloves." about an editor who is no part of this matter or debate shows you are unfit to be either a mentor or an Admin. Mattisse and her "mentors" are becoming increasingly concerning. I suggest you concentrate your efforts on your protege and leave the rest of us out of these all too frequent skirmishes that she causes. Giano (talk) 19:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps if you acted according to guidelines yourself and didn't just vandalize her talk page, your comments might be taken better than they are. John Carter (talk) 20:01, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Accusations of vandalism should certainly be accompanied by a diff, or they should not be made at all. I've questioned from the start the wisdom of dragging the names of other users into these discussions. When she begins her "but X editor does Y", it should simply be nipped in the bud, and not encouraged. Unit  Anode  20:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Here is diff: I request that both Giano and Unitanode  stop posting on my talk page. Regards, — mattisse  (Talk) 20:26, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I have done nothing to merit such a request. You really need to stop with this now, Mattisse. Not everyone that finds your commentary problematic can simply be dealt with by "banning" them from your talkpage. And until and unless I violate some policy in my dealings on your talkpage (and it won't happen, because I just won't do it), "banning" me from there in such a way as you seem to be requesting reflects very poorly on you, and not on me. Unit  Anode  20:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * (e-c)Restoring comments she removed here may not qualify as vandalism as per WP:VANDALISM, but, consdering that Mattisse has evidently asked him to stay off her page before, I have to think that he was the one who in fact inserted himself with his own belittling commentary here, evidently against Mattisse's own apparently previously expressed request that he stay off her talk page, as per her most recent edit summary there. So, in effect, we did not "bring him into the conversation", he was the one who introduced hiself to it, apparntly against previously expressed wishes by Mattisse to leave her alone. John Carter (talk) 20:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You guys bring him into a lot of these discussions by mentioning him. And what you diffed isn't close to vandalism. Unit  Anode  20:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Accusing someone of trolling and making other derogatory remarks is considered a personal attack. Examples:   and inflammatory remarks not meant to be helpful.  as well as personally attacking my mentors/advisers. — mattisse  (Talk) 21:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm still waiting for a diff to the personal attack you alleged of me here; it is customary, and a sign of good faith, to strike comments once you realize they are inaccurate. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

It is unrealistic that editors with whom Mattisse has had conflicts in the past be expected to avoid her talk page or this monitoring page. It is entirely realistic that everyone remain somewhat civil before discussions unravel and names start flying that accompany wild accusations that are not supported by any evidence. What should remain on this page are very plain links to comments that users count as unhelpful, potentially inflammatory, or blatant attacks and accusations. This is the last time I will suggest this because all I can do is suggest, but adopt the formatting I put forth here to keep these discussions from spiraling out of control. What has taken place today is a fraction of the ill will that has surrounded Mattisse in the past and apparently the atmosphere can get very hot very fast. Neglecting to control it pre-emptively only makes me think that inevitably the people in charge (a term I use with some significant skepticism) have no problem with the chaos. --Moni3 (talk) 20:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I an not asked anyone to avoid posting on the monitoring page. That page is free to anyone, and I have not sought to restrict anyone's access. I asked Giano and Unitanode to stop posting on my talk page, Giano because of personal attacks and Unitanode because he was addressing other editors and not me on my talk page. Yesterday he posted six times in one day with dialogs directed at other editors. I asked people posting on my talk page to please address me, and not refer to me in the third person. I have not asked anyone to stop posting on my monitoring page. I ask all beefs with other editors be conducted on the monitoring page. Is that unreasonable? — mattisse  (Talk) 21:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Having a short conversation with another person (in this case, JC) about you on your talkpage is in no way problematic. Your choice to "ban" me from your talkpage based on that is, as I mentioned, a reflection on you, not me. Unit  Anode  21:15, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * To Unitanode, you can conduct those conversations here. That is what this page is for. To Moni3, unfortunately, posters seem way more interested in attacking my mentors/advisers than in seeking to help me deal with my behavior. Most comments are complaints about others. I am lost in the shuffle as there are hardly any constructive comments directed at me. You suggestion, which I endorsed, was lost in the shuffle in attacks of one editor on another and whatnot. — mattisse  (Talk) 21:18, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Mattisse, if you really like Moni's suggestion above, you can take the initiative to implement that here. This page should be set up in a way that benefits you.  It might be as simple as moving all this to the talk page and creating blank templates so that other editors would know what format you would like them to follow. Karanacs (talk) 21:21, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * "the past be expected to avoid her talk page or this monitoring page" Then those users should be blocked. If people cannot avoid each other, then there is a clear way to deal with it. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Karanacs, how do I implement anything? Do you not see that the attacks focus on my mentors/advisers, not me? I am not in control here. Perhaps the aim is to create chaos here so as to prove to arbcom that the mentor/adviser idea does not work and get me banned. I feel guilty about my mentors/advisers, as they are taking the brunt of the abuse. I am fearful that mentors/advisers will no longer be willing to undergo the attacks that regularly take place here on anyone who tries to treat me like a human being and gives constructive advice. If you can implement it please do. I obviously cannot stop the carnage going on here and on my talk page. Regards, — mattisse  (Talk) 21:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Mattisse, your comment is not helpful. Please strike it. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:39, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, Mattisse, please stop responding to this current thread for now. If you want to talk about it, please feel free to email me. There is nothing good that can continue here at the moment and your statements suggest the beginning of a spiral that would be problematic. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You are in control here, Mattisse; you moved a thread from your user talk to here, which was a factor in this page spinning out of control. If the same need arises in the future, you might move the thread to the talk page associated with this page rather than this user page. If you look at Moni's link above, you'll see she is proposing a very simple structure for this page; it wouldn't be hard to implement. The issue that was initially raised here resulted in you getting good advice from all of your mentors; the page was working fine until the thread from your talk was moved to here. Also, perhaps you could adjust your thinking to realize that the world is not all enemies or friends; many of us are very frustrated that your mentors aren't adequately helping you. Can you not perceive that these are not attacks against your mentors, but pleas that they do the job they signed on to do? Sandy Georgia (Talk) 21:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I said at the time I agreed with Moni3's suggestion and I repeated that I agree above. Salix alba's comments below are dead on. I appreciate his constructive point of view. I hope he and others will help me turn this into a constructive page. I actually made one bad mistake in the joke sockpuppets for which I was blocked for two weeks, a penalty longer than those dispensed by arbcom when they find abusive long-term sockpuppet abuse. They have issued no blocks for such behavior on the editors responsible for the socks. I do not think that anything else I have done warrants talk of a ban or even of my mentors/advisers "failing" me. I would think you would be disinterested as I no longer copy edit or do in depth reviews of FACs and I no longer work on FARs. All my FAR work was checked with YellowMonkey. Regards, — mattisse (Talk) 22:29, 13 October 2009 (UTC)