Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Alerts/Archive 4

Use of this page
Argh. Is this page working? I've been quite quiet as a mentor as others have been quicker to respond than me.

From my past experience there is a pattern which has repeatedly occurred: one small comment angers some other user or group of users. Over the next few days this spirals out of control with an escalating cycle of angry responses. If left unchecked this can get very ugly for all involved. I've no particular wish to be involved in another such long running dispute and I see one of the task of the mentors as to try and dissipate such situations as quickly as possible. Unfortunately I'm beginning to see the opposite occurring with this page becoming a place for longer arguments which may not be productive - precisely the early signs the flame wars we are trying to avoid.

If this mentoring is going to work it will require some restraint by all involved. Mattisse is already working under a restrictive set of guidelines and I would remind her to reread those and follows them, even on this page - probably best to dis-engage. Other editors will also wish moderate their behaviour here as well. This is not the forum to complain about the result of the arbitration the mentors are merely the executive trying to enforce a decisions.

I do think it would be wise to implement the template for reporting here --Salix (talk): 22:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Specific problem this causes:
 * Arbcom point at issue:
 * Expectation from Mattisse:
 * Action mentors took:


 * Good idea, but I might add to the format perhaps a link to the comment in question, with perhaps a short description of the objectionable material, to maybe make it easier to see how the cited problem can be seen as being relevant to the specific ArbCom point in play. John Carter (talk) 22:22, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think diffs are essential. Almost all of the criticism of my behavior has been general bemoaning and not linked to a specific incident. Thus one error in my judgment leads to multiple editors declaring the adviser/mentor plan a failure, all out of proportion to my actual transgression. It would also be helpful to know what the complainant wants as a remedy, aside from the continual calls for banning me completely from Wikipedia. Also, I think it is harmful to attack my mentors/advisers. It sets up an attack mentality which has triumphed on this mentoring page and made meaningful interchange impossible. The mentors/advisers are volunteers also. They deserve praise. I understand now why mentor/adviser plans fail on Wikipedia. There is not a way, with editors responding in such a negative tone, for any such plan to succeed. Regards, — mattisse  (Talk) 22:40, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with Salix alba, the page is a mess and is currently largely counterproductive, with long threads erupting either here or on the talk page, extending disputes rather than resolving them. This thread itself belongs on the talk page, not here, but while there is no clarity, I don't have the enthusiasm to move it.
 * There are plenty of suggestions to improve the set-up here on the talk page, and I suggest someone just does it: almost every proposed change would be an improvement, so please use the wiki process to sort out minutiae. I will have time to contribute on Sunday, but would be happier if progress is made before then: if need be, I can do technical things like nice editintros and preloads to encourage best use of this page, but there needs to be a clear understanding of what this page is for. That has not been evident to date. Geometry guy 22:45, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * OK lets work on a draft report form until close on Sunday. Ammend the form below until then. --Salix (talk): 22:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Draft report form

 * Specific problem this causes (include one diff):
 * Arbcom point at issue:
 * Expectation from Mattisse:
 * Action mentors took:
 * Can I just archive this page? There is nothing useful on it at this point. Reading it is not helpful but rather the opposite. If I could archive it, set up a template (which I don't know how to do) something like:

---Draft report form---
 * Specify problem concisely, along with specific link:
 * Document the damage caused, citing the Arbcom point at issue:
 * Describe what you expect Mattisse to do:
 * Specify what you expect the mentors/advisers to do:
 * Note actual actions taken by the mentors/advisers:

Then if I had permission to remove or delete general complaints with no diffs, attacks on my mentors/advisers, arguments between editors using this page as a forum, moralizing, "I told you so", etc., then I would have control of the page. I would not allow editorializing, lecturing, moralizing, "I told you so"s or attacks on mentors/advisers. Frankly, I have not read much of what is on the page now, as I just can't get through it: TLTR. Regards, — mattisse (Talk) 23:13, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm ok with that. The only suggestion I have here is that it should be clear that the complainant should be the only editor to alter the first four points unless someone needs to fix minor formatting. The only editors to edit the last point should be Mattise's mentors. This should not be a refactoring free-for-all. --Moni3 (talk) 23:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. This should not be a "chiming in" free-for-all. Too many editors watchlist too many talk pages and feel free to butt in with opinions. I think that has been the problem here. I want this to stay on track. Regards, — mattisse (Talk) 00:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Just to be clear, this form doesn't preclude other editors from participating in discussions on this talkpage, nor would it keep them from offering their own view of the situation at the talkpage as well. Or am I misunderstanding the set up? Unit  Anode  00:18, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * From my point of view, yes, you are misunderstanding the set up. There has been too much opinionating by everyone, including people like you who are apparently not familiar with the history. My aim is to tie all comments to the actual arbcom ruling. This is not an editorial page where editors take sides. That is what torpedoed it currently. Too many opinions/editorials.  And the mentors/advisers are not fair game for attack. Remember, they were approved by the arbcom. Let them do their work. This is a work page. Regards, — mattisse  (Talk) 00:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * In so far as "opinions" aren't particularly what we're looking for, I tend to agree. However, I do think that we might allow some latitude in the "Expectations from Mattisse" section, because there is always the possibility that the person filing the complaint is either very young or otherwise not really able to address the matter very well themselves. It also might be possile to add an "Outside comment" section, but I would believe that such comments should probably be as limited as reasonably possible, and maybe allow for "refactoring" parts of comments that don't add any significant points to the discussion. John Carter (talk) 00:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm talking about on the talkpage, not inside the actual form. I don't think this form should preclude anyone from proffering a take on a given situation at the talkpage. Also, I have a not-insignificant problem with Mattisse referring to me as "people like you", and implying that since I haven't feuded/been friends with her for however long, I'm in some way less qualified to address concerns I see in her behavior. That's just not true.  Unit  Anode  00:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, a reasonable "alternate opinions" section is ok with me, as long as it isn't a "chiming in" or a "taking sides" comment, but is an original alternate explanation or inquiry about the issue. Regards, — mattisse (Talk) 00:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Even better on the talk page. The way the page is now, I cannot follow it and many of the conversations are beefs between other editors and don't even include me. Regards, — mattisse (Talk) 00:49, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The main clutter on this page is where you moved all that stuff from your main talkpage. I'm going to move it to the talkpage, to clean this area up. I tried to clean it up for you, by moving all the "clutter" to the talkpage. Why did you revert it, if you're truly concerned about the clutter here? Unit  Anode  00:54, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You are apparently unfamiliar with the history of the arbitration and this page. The issue of this page is all about me "owning" it. I am supposed to take charge. Instead, I made an comment and it was lost in an edit conflict because the section no longer existed. My understanding is that it is not for you to make major decisions unilaterally about this page. Regares, — mattisse (Talk) 01:12, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I was trying to help you, based upon your direct comment above. And would one of Mattisse's mentors please address what I see as her fundamental misunderstanding about "owning" this page, and "taking charge" of things? I'll ask you again, Mattisse, do you want the clutter here moved to the talkpage? I've already placed it there, with levels and everything fixed. All you need to do is cut and paste this last bit there, and then remove the rest of it from this page. Unit  Anode  01:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I want my mentors/advisors and interested/previously involved others to contribute to a finalization of the format for complaints. Removing their valuable input on this issue wasted the page and did my no favors. Please leave these drastic decisions up to the people who have been involved before your first edit in March 2009. So the answer is no, I do not want you deciding what is on this page. You removed all the valuable suggestion and the outline for a new "complaint format". With the removal of that, all out constructive "new beginnings" where we were reaching agreement are are wiped out.
 * I would have to say that if there is any fundamental misunderstanding, it would be that of the person who thinks he has the right to move content, and then objects and wants others to address what he claims is someone else's "fundamental misunderstanding" of how such material should be plced. Having said that, I think it would probably be best to just remove the entire section from both this page and the talk page, provide a link to the previous discussion, and allow it to continue, to the extent that it will continue, from that point. John Carter (talk) 01:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Do with it what you will. I had a decent little timesink trying to clean it up a bit, and this is how I'm treated? Wow. My message at your talk is the last I'll be communicating with you about Mattisse. Unit  Anode  01:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I have lost a second edit to edit conflict. This never happens to me that the browser cannot retrieve the edit conflicted edit. I don't know what is going on, but I plead with Unitanode to step back and leave the page alone for a while to those familiar with its operation try to repair the damage. Please consider that action not carried out with prior consensus is not helpful, and in fact is detrimental. Perhaps because of your new arrival to Wikipedia you are not familiar with the processes in this case. I would appreciate your leaving any clening up to those who are familiar with the issues of the case. Regards, — mattisse (Talk) 01:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I would much rather see a simpler report that (broadly!) contains: The complaint/concern, Comments by mentors, Recommended course of action, Follow-up, General discussion with other editors commenting in the general discussion section. The current format is out of control and it is impossible to make sense of most of the discussion. The way I see it, an editor expresses a concern, the mentors respond with comments and agree on a specific remedy if necessary, and we all move on with our lives. If others want to chime in, either wrt the original concern or because they feel that the mentors are not doing their job properly, they can do so in the general discussion section. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 01:57, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi, RegentsPark, I'm not fond of forms myself. However a lot of the posts at Mattisse's have little to do with resolving actual issues and too much general backbiting at Mattisse. So I think we need a format that guides the discussion along constructive lines. If people find it does not cover some legitimate concerns, they can post enhancements to the form at this Talk page. Based on the layout recently by Mattisse, itself based on Moni3's proposal, I suggest:
 * Specify the problem(s) concisely and courteously, along with specific link(s):
 * Describe what aspect(s) of Mattisse's conduct concern(s) you in the incident(s) you have documented.
 * Cite the Arbcom point(s) at issue, with specific links:
 * Describe what you think Mattisse could do to improve the situation and/or avoid similar problems in future:
 * Describe what you expect the mentors/advisers could do to help resolve the issue(s):
 * Note actual actions taken by the mentors/advisers:
 * Comments, everyone? --Philcha (talk) 08:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Problems have arisen from comments that people have made when notifying us of potential problems. When people are reporting on a post that Mattisse has made, they have quite likely been provoked by that post, and - with the best will in the world - some of the impact of that provocation will come through in their wording, even if they attempt to be neutral or courteous. Others then react to the wording, and a conflict unrelated to Mattisse's post develops, which is not helpful. I strongly urge that we stick by the notion that people post a link to the problematic edit, and do not comment further on the monitoring page. It would be more helpful if that page were kept clear for a discussion by those that signed up to assist Mattisse, and Mattisse herself. If the notifier wishes to talk further about the edit, this page can be used, or the talkpage of any relevant person. And I think it would be helpful if we ensured that the monitoring page is kept clear, by assiduously moving inappropriate comments to this page.  SilkTork  *YES! 08:32, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I understand SilkTork's concern that people are reporting on a post that Mattisse has made, they have quite likely been provoked by that post, etc. However if posters provide only links without specifying what they think is the problem(s) and the ArbCom points at issue, we'll get a lot of pure fishing expeditions. So I think posts must take responsibility to define the issue(s) and show how they are relevant to the ArnCom verdict. OTOH we could drop or treat as optional "Describe what you think Mattisse could do to improve the situation and/or avoid similar problems in future" and "Describe what you expect the mentors/advisers could do to help resolve the issue(s)". I'd favourr treating them as optional, as some posters will come up with helpful suggestions - for example Moni3 has criticised Mattisse's conduct several times but has provided several constructive suggestions. --Philcha (talk) 08:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * My understanding of arbcom's intent is that any editor can make a complaint, but after that it is up to me to deal with it with the advice and consent of my mentors/advisers. None of the wording in the arb decision indicates that I should have to deal with a free for all that includes editors unrelated to the complaint, lack of specific diffs, or opinion from editors who are unrelated to the situation but are "chiming it". The complaint that  Unitanode makes above, that he does not like my wording "people like you"  is an example of how complaints can spiral out of control. Whereas "people like you" may be misinterpreted and taken offense to if AGF is not employed, if my  wording in making a relevant comment can taken by another editor as grounds for second complaint unrelated to  the arbcom decision, this page will turn into a free-for-all again. The wording "people like you" is not the sort of problem arbcom was addressing, especially as I clarify what I mean as those editors "apparently not familiar with the history".  — mattisse  (Talk) 12:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Sample of how proposed process would work
(comment moved to User talk:Mattisse/Monitoring/Editorial comments, the proper forum for those not appointed as my mentors/advisers.)

Monitoring page (per My Plan)
According to My Plan, approved by ArbCom, it is the job of my mentors/advisers to monitor my behavior. See User:Mattisse/Plan. Provisional changes to My Plan may be made by consensus of my mentors/advisers.

Therefore, I believe that the monitoring page should be restricted to the comments/suggestions etc. of my monitors/mentors. I agree that a limited and concise "form" to provide a means of allowing outside editors to make a complaint, per the suggestions of my mentors/advisers above can be tried out, and retained if it is found useful. However, this is not strictly necessary, as any editor may complain to any of my monitors/mentors directly, who in turn are urged to provide feedback to me regarding any complaints. Further, any editor may apply to a disinterested admin to have my behavior dealt with as they would with any other editor whose behavior they find problematic. Also, any editor or group of editors can petition ArbCom to take further action taken to restrain me. This page is primarily a means and a forum for me to interact with my mentors/advisers.

I believe the monitoring page has not worked because it was not implemented as intended, as a forum for my mentors/advisers to problem solve with each other and provide feedback to me. Rather, it was used by other editors to complain about them and carry on arguments. If other editors insist on continuing this type of behavior on this page, then this page will certainly fail.

I would like to suggest the removal of all comments, other than those of my mentors/advisers. If a limited "complaint form" is implemented for the use of other editors, it must be very structured and focused on a specific complaint about my behavior, with diffs and so forth as suggested above. This is not the place to criticize the mentors/advisers.

This is a page in my userspace, and not for use as a free-for-all forum. I appreciate all feedback from my mentors/advisers on what to do next.

Regards, — mattisse (Talk) 14:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * (further comments by other editors moved to User talk:Mattisse/Monitoring/Editorial comments This page is a work page for my mentors/editors only). — mattisse (Talk) 15:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Stop moving comments until it is decided what these pages are for or I will protect this page. --Moni3 (talk) 15:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I have fully protected this page for 6 hours. --Moni3 (talk) 15:36, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposed structure
One basic principle we should keep in mind is that Mattisse is a human being and we humans don't take kindly to being preached at or talked down to. If the purpose of the monitoring process is to keep Mattisse doing the good stuff she does here then we must recognize that and take steps to keep the page simple and to keep everything as clinical and non-judgemental as possible. With that in mind, I propose a very simple structure as well as a process that is controlled by her mentors:
 * 1) Concern. This is stated by an outside agent.
 * 2) Proposed remedy. Only mentors can add remedies. I don't like the idea of outside agents adding remedies because they may not be neutral agents and this will only rile Mattisse.
 * 3) Follow-up Whether the remedy was successful or not
 * 4) Mentor discussion.
 * 5) Statement by Mattisse. This needs some thought as to what she should and should not say here.
 * 6) Statements by others. Rather than one long threaded discussion that goes back and forth, let others have their say in their own subsections.

I'm not married to this structure but I think we need to have control over the page and not cede that to others, not even (with apologies!) to Mattisse. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 10:07, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * That looks good. I was also thinking of a "Mentor discussion" section, similar to but a lot smaller than the "Motions" sections at ArbCom. "Statements by others" is similar to my suggestion of a separate discussion per "case", but a "Statements by others" section is easier for archiving.
 * I assume only the original poster is allowed to use "Concern", plus possibly mentors if we mentors to get the concern clarified. I'd prefer 3rd parties to be restricted to the "Statements by others" section, and forcibly moved there if necessary.
 * I understand "I don't like the idea of outside agents adding remedies because they may not be neutral agents and this will only rile Mattisse". However:
 * Some original posters may have constructive suggestions that may be a good basis for action, and we should consider whether original posters should be allowed to propose remedies in the "Concern" section.
 * While we don't want 3rd parties trying to grab control or cause confusion, if they propose appropriate remedies in "Statements by others" we can use or ignore them. --Philcha (talk) 12:53, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * My main concern with letting others propose remedies is that they may be excessive and not neutrally worded and may force Mattisse to respond to the complaint (that's pretty much when all hell breaks loose!). Much better for proposals to come from her mentors (who can also decide whether a remedy is needed or not - some complaints may not be justified). The thing is, IMO, that the point of mentorship is not to provide relief to other, possibly aggrieved editors, but rather to channel Mattisse in the right direction. And it is the job of the mentors to do that channeling. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 14:58, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It looks godd, although I have two concerns. "Statements by others" looks like it could really be an accident waiting to happen. Having some pretty clearly defined rules which govern what can and cannot be considered relevant for conclusion there would be a definite plus. Also, "Follow-up" is going to be hard to define the content of too. Would this include, for instance, checking (x) time later whether the previous suggestions worked, os some statement when we might become involved should similar problematic behavior arise, or what? It would probably help if the intended content for that section were a bit clearer than it is right now. John Carter (talk) 15:10, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree about "Statements by others" being too open ended but don't really see how we can control what goes in there (Mattisse really has to learn not to respond to everything!). About the Follow-up, I'm not really sure what I meant to put there. Something vaguely along the lines of "Mattisse struck her comments on editor xxx's page and here is the diff". Not sure what else would go there but I guess we also need some way of seeing patterns of problematic behavior and this section could help keep track of that. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 15:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you all help the rest of us understand what is wrong with Moni's proposal on the Arb page? Understanding your thinking may help avoid another train wreck, and several of us regret having backed down earlier on making sure a workable plan was put in place. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 15:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * And would you all mind using one of the samples on the "Editorial" page to work out any kinks here on talk before something is installed? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:27, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec):Moni3's proposal is fine except for its emphasis on the complainant. Letting the person complaining define the remedy is not, in my opinion, going to work. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 15:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Makes sense (but my recollection is that her model asked for suggestions for mentors more than defining the remedy ... ??? ... as in my samples on the "Editorial" page.) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:32, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * (So that's where the disappeared stuff went - I should have checked!) Both your proposal as well as moni3's specifically ask the complainant what they think Mattisse could do to improve the situation and what mentors should do. That is the part I don't think will work. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 15:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec) For the most part, I like the example RegentsPark posted, although, like John Carter, I'm unsure what follow-up would/should be used for. Perhaps the Statements by Others could be split into two sections. Involved editors (who may be able to provide valuable context but were not the one who filed the complaint), could post on the main page, while editors uninvolved in that particular dispute would be restricted to the talk page? I would also encourage that no uninvolved editor be allowed to post until after a) Mattisse has made her initial statement on this issue and b) at least one of the mentors has weighed in on this page. That would give a little break for tempers to calm and allow comments to be more appropriately addressed at the potential response. Karanacs (talk) 15:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

— mattisse (Talk) 15:51, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I also like RegentsPark's example. My suggestions:
 * Directions. I think there needs to be directions to be concise. e.g. Describe in a concise sentence, or something similar. (This is to prevent an extended, unfocused description.)
 * Only one incident at a time. Only one incident should be dealt with in any one complaint. The one incident should be supported by one or two diffs. (This is to prevent the unfocused laundry list of complaints and diffs of varying relevance and widely varying timestamps as previously was the case.)
 * Content of page strictly controlled. Care must be made in monitoring any "statements by others" on this page to prevent arguing, attacks on mentors/advisers, discussions between editors that are not advisers/mentors etc. Every effort must be made to keep this page clear and focused. Emotional wording should be avoided/removed, as should editorial comments on the process. There should be another page for discussions of the process and suggested changes to it.


 * (ec) "Involved editors" may be too involved, and that's when trouble can start. I'd suggest: "Involved editors" can post at the "Statements by others", possibly only after Mattisse has made Mattisse has made her initial statement on the issue and at least 1 mentor has commented; uninvolved editors have been mostly trouble so far, and should stay out unless invited by the mentors (just in case we find exceptional cases). --Philcha (talk) 15:54, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Re "Follow-up", that would be clear only after a few months, by which time the "case" would probably be archived. If we need some sort of follow-up (lower case), I think it would have be a "summary and highlights" report. -Philcha (talk) 15:54, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Mattisse, I agree with your first and 3rd points. However "Only one incident at a time" would make it difficult to handle recurring patterns such as charges of feuding. How about if we said "Only one incident at a time, unless the complainant can show that a set of incidents clearly form a pattern" - on other words the onus is on the complainant to demonstrate a pattern, otherwise the case is dismissed. --Philcha (talk) 15:58, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree there needs to be a format for a "pattern". There needs to be a definition of a "pattern" though, as statements made months apart should not, willy nilly, be used to show a pattern, especially when the topics are different. I really want to avoid the laundry list of unrelated diffs spanning long time frames that have been proposed in the past regarding me. Not only is such a laundry list unwieldy, it engenders a hostile tone to the monitoring page. I think it is essential to prevent the negative ambiance that has pervaded the monitoring page previously. I am only human. When the tone is harsh and punitive, the outcomes is less likely to be constructive. — mattisse  (Talk) 16:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Suggest that a pattern is three or more related diffs on the same or similar subject {e.g. reaction on article talk page) within a short time frame. I'm not sure what the time frame should be. But the linking or connection between the diffs should be obvious. — mattisse  (Talk) 16:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think that (a similar subject) is necessarily the only type of pattern. For an unrelated example, if I were to point out that an editor had a battleground mentality, I might find two instances where his comments at a user talk page showed that, one diff of a similar type of instigation at article A talk page, and another example at article B talk page.  These would span three distinct subjects, but would all be evidence of a larger pattern of behavior.  From my reading of your post, this type of concern would not be allowed. (please correct me if I misunderstood.) Karanacs (talk) 16:49, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, there is a theoretical possibility, if only a slight one, that the pattern might only become apparent over a longer period of time. If for instance, I impugned someone's motives, then, in my next contact with that person several months later, made substantially similar impugning of that person's motives, and again in the next contact several months later, that could reasonably be seen as being a pattern. I would suggest that long-term, intermittent patterns be permitted, althogh I would also acknowledge that if, in the opinion of the mentors, they re insufficient to require separate action, that they be dismssed as insufficient basis for a complaint. John Carter (talk) 16:55, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * (ec) ::::Karanacs, I agree that recognising patterns is tricky. For example identifying a "battleground mentality" would require analysis of the the topic(s) and/or editor(s) involved - some topics are notorious battlegrounds even if one particular editor withdrew (e.g. nationalist issues are common), and some editors are particularly combative (a random sample from ANI would find a few).
 * Mattisse, I agree that a "laundry list of unrelated diffs spanning long time frames" is difficuly to unravel. However an accusation o ffeuding would involve a list of "unrelated diffs spanning long time frames".
 * I think in such cases 1 or more mentors would have to research the history, possibly going back before the cited diffs. Right now I would not dare to classify the main types of outcome, and hopefully such complex cases would be rare. Mattisse, in such cases you should nopt coment until after your mentors have analysed and commented. We're quite capable of dealing with complaints whose credibility or good faith is doubtful. --Philcha (talk) 17:07, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Karanacs, I would consider the similar subject to be "battleground mentality". I was not thinking of "article topic", although that could be included. But I want the net to be narrow so it will be focused. Otherwise we will have what is happening now, a laundry list of diffs that occuring in July and August, for example. It is important that the diffs be related in time and have a similar theme, not just a list of several unrelated mistakes I made.  — mattisse  (Talk) 17:58, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clarifying. I misunderstood your post and interpreted subject more narrowly than you intended (I thought subject meant "editor X", "article Y", or "process Z"). Karanacs (talk) 18:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Editintros and preload, with a draft
I'm not sure which section above to add this to, so I'm starting a new section. Please feed forward any consensus to this thread. While these discussions of principles are valuable, it may help to be aware of the tools we have for implementation.

There are (at least) three ways to encourage better use and provide structure to the Monitoring page: text on the monitoring page itself, preloaded structure in the edit window, and editintros which appear above the edit window. I've set up drafts of these last two at User:Geometry guy/preload and User:Geometry guy/editintro. You can see the effect that these would have by adding a new report to the test page I have set up. Geometry guy 19:29, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I have now moved this here and updated the page accordingly. It may require tweaks. Geometry guy 20:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Handling of amendments to Arb/.../Clarification
Hi, Mattisse. I agree with the http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FClarification&action=historysubmit&diff=321232600&oldid=321217208 comments] that you should not completely change of remove old comments there. It's not like an article or article Talk page, as most ArbCom pages are all about evidence. I suggest the least confusing approach may be to strike out the old stuff, so readers saw there was content but it's obsolete, and explain your new thoughts in a separate para. --Philcha (talk) 18:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * OK. I will do that from now on. Regards, — mattisse  (Talk) 18:19, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Mattisse. It was a not big issue in this particular case, but the arbs are very busy, and having to reconstruct history just makes it harder for them to sort things and understand why some responses were made.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:35, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I suggest you also reinstate the incident you deleted (re Karanacs), and then add and update under it. --Philcha (talk) 18:36, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, I think I did it correctly. — mattisse (Talk) 18:51, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Arb Decision
G guy, while you're at work on this page, I still wonder why the "Proposed decision" from ArbCom is linked, but the Final case page, where the final decision is rendered, is not? Sandy Georgia (Talk) 20:32, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This dropped off my watchlist, my apologies; this has been a busy time. Anyway, on returning, I think I've spotted the problem you refer to, and have fixed it. Geometry guy 19:55, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Clarity regarding blocks
In view of Carcharoth's motion to endorse recent blocks, I thought it might be helpful for advisors to discuss this. I believe that the block worked well as a preventative measure to de-escalate the discussion and hence avoid Mattisse causing further disruption and harm to herself. I'd particularly highlight the approach taken by SilkTork to extend the block until Mattisse struck the personalizing or otherwise unhelpful comments on her user talk page.

Whatever happens at the Request for Clarification, I think we can learn from this experience, with a view to providing clarity to Mattisse, and satisfying the community that measurable actions and consequences are in place. I propose also that we add a general principle that Mattisse, when blocked, should not continue the dispute on her user talk page, and blocks will be extended until all such comments are struck.

I'm raising it here also because the Monitoring page would be the natural place to log such blocks and I'd be happy to set-up a form to help us do so. Well, you know I like templates :-) Geometry guy 19:37, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK vs FAR
I just noticed the following on the Monitoring page: "User:Art LaPella has offered to report on Mattisse's contributions to DYK at my ArbCom > Workshop > Development of advising/mentoring plan.[1] Please contact him if my behavior at FAR is disruptive." Should "FAR" read "DYK" there? (Apologies if this is the wrong place to be raising this, just thought I should point it out). Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 02:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, it should read that User:Art Lapella should offer evidence of transgressions on dyk, not FAR. He as offer evidence at other arbitrations regarding dyk pages so I am confident that he will do so in mine. Regards, — mattisse  (Talk) 03:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This typo has now been fixed. Geometry guy 21:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)