Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Monitoring/Editorial comments

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Arbitration. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

This page is for comments and suggestions regarding my behavior by those other than my ArbCom-appointed mentors/advisers.

User:Mattisse/Plan
I have the following list of editors who have provided significant interaction with me regarding advising/mentoring me. They have productively advised me in the past. I trust their judgment and I trust that they have Wikipedia's best interest at heart. I believe that it should be my responsibility to solicit and obtain advice in the manner most comfortable to me and to each adviser. (List compiled from Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Proposed_decision#Users_willing_to_act_as_advisers)

Please contact one or more of my mentors/advisers if you have a problem with my editing. —mattisse (Talk) 19:06, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Sample of how proposed process would work

Following Philcha's proposed outline above, I'm putting this on talk so you all can use it as a sample:

Specify the problem(s) concisely and courteously, along with specific link(s):

Mattisse makes unsubstantiated claims about other editors,[2] [3] [4] does not back them with diffs when requested,[5] [6] [7] and does not strike them from her commentary when other editors comment.[8] Unsubstantiated statements about other editors remain on record, unaddressed and uncorrected.

Describe what aspect(s) of Mattisse's conduct concern(s) you in the incident(s) you have documented.

The concern is that her mentors help her understand the need for and appropriate use of diffs, what a personal attack is (vis-a-vis stating my opinion that one of her mentors is harming more than helping the mentorship), that she not personalize discussions, and the importance of AGF and the benefit to her in improving good will by striking comments that are unsubstantiated.

Cite the Arbcom point(s) at issue, with specific links:

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse#Mattisse.27s_behavior

Describe what you think Mattisse could do to improve the situation and/or avoid similar problems in future:

Work with her mentors to understand how to use supporting diffs and the importance of striking commentary that is unsupported. Learn to refrain from making comments about other editors unless they can be backed by a diff that cleary shows what she believes they show. By doing so, she will help everyone understand her better, and where the problems occur.

Describe what you expect the mentors/advisers could do to help resolve the issue(s):

Be aware of when Mattisse makes unsubstantiated statements about other editors, how that is detrimental to a collegial working environment, and help her understand that diffs in commentary about other editors are as important as sources in an article, and should be taken seriously. Unsubstantiated comments about other editors will not help her towards the goals of the ArbCom.

Mentors' responses

Mattisse response

Discussion

I would also like to see someone add a link to the final ArbCom decision to the monitoring page, as Mattisse still seems confused about the difference between the final decision and the proposal page. If mentors want to move this to the main page as a sample of how the page should work, I don't mind, but I suggest it would be better used on talk as a sample only, to help work out any kinks in the system. I hope this example will show mentors staying focused on the issues with Mattisse's edits, rather than side issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Second sample of how proposed process would work

Specify the problem(s) concisely and courteously, along with specific link(s):

Mattisse does not respond to good faith queries from other editors,[9][10] leading to confusion about her work-- in this case, specifically, her monitoring page, where previous consensus had determined that other editors could participate on talk.

Describe what aspect(s) of Mattisse's conduct concern(s) you in the incident(s) you have documented.

Mattisse's edits created such a jumble on the page that editors who come along after the fact are less likely to be able to sort what happened, what remains to be done, etc. None of her mentors were present when Mattisse decided to restructure her monitoring talk page, apparently deciding that other editors could no longer post there and moving comments to this page (only partially), apparently against the previous consensus between herself and her mentors, resulting in page protection. Did she consult with her mentors about the change to her monitoring page? If so, none of them informed other editors.

Cite the Arbcom point(s) at issue, with specific links:

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse#Mattisse.27s_development_of_a_plan

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse#Mattisse.27s_behavior

Describe what you think Mattisse could do to improve the situation and/or avoid similar problems in future:

Wait for input from her mentors before unilaterally changing the structure of the monitoring page, learn the difference between a user page and a talk page, and the need to have an associated talk page for user pages.

Describe what you expect the mentors/advisers could do to help resolve the issue(s):

Help Mattisse understand the need to respect consensus and consult her mentors before changing the structure of her ArbCom-approved monitoring page.

Mentors' responses

Mattisse response

Discussion

Sample of how proposed process would work 2

(comment moved to User talk:Mattisse/Monitoring/Editorial comments [11], the proper forum for those not appointed as my mentors/advisers.)

For clarity, Mattisse; are you asking that other editors no longer post to this talk page? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, by moving my sample to User talk:Mattisse/Monitoring/Editorial comments instead of User:Mattisse/Monitoring/Editorial comments, there is no talk page associated with the Editorial comments page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Everything can be said here. All the discussion etc. that was taking place on the monitoring page, now restricted to the mentors/advisers and me, can take place here. If you feel the need for additional pages you can use the red link you provided above. Do keep in mind that these are my user pages. Thank you. —mattisse (Talk) 19:12, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Will one of her mentors please explain here the difference between User:Mattisse and User talk:Mattisse, and why I shouldn't use the red link for talk, and that she set this page up at user talk rather than user space? I've already tried; could someone else please try? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Sandy does have a point. WP:Talk page and WP:User page taken together make it clear that it is basically always good to have a page for the real "work" to be done, and then a page for the commentary on the material. In this case, such commentary could, conceivably, include questions as to whether certain statements on the comments page should be there or not. Right now, with only one page, having a thread along these lines is a real possibility.

Comment:Mattisse melts when you pour water on her. Hahahaha. Unnamedtroll 12;00

Oh, come on, do we really need comments like that here? SilkTork 12:02

Oh, shut up, you're just as bad as she is. Unnamedtrolltroll 12:04

I propose moving this string of comments off this page, as it doesn't help the discussion here at all. Me 12:06

Shut up, you clown. This secton is for outside comments and that's my outside comment. [Vague comment about mentors as flying monkeys] Unnamedtroll 12:07

....

(12 e-c later) Good god, when will this end?! Frustrated ArbCom'er 14:06

To prevent all such comments, and comments on comments, and comments on comments on comments, all being pushed together into one thread, and probably unnecessarily raising the level of heat, it is always a good idea to have one page for the desired material itself, and another to discuss if some of the material, in this case, might not be appropriate. But by pushing all the material on a single page, it becomes much more difficult to do that, and has a very good chance of unnecessarily raising the level of acrimony, which I suspect is going to be fairly high on this page in any event. John Carter (talk) 15:51, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Monitoring page (per My Plan)

Please note that the page did seem to be working (in the last incident) until you moved a section from your talk page to the monitoring page. If editors aren't allowed to comment on your talk, and aren't allowed to comment here, the page will also fail. Are you now suggesting that this is not the page for recording concerns? That seems to go against the previous consensus among yourself and the mentors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

What I think at least Mattisse is saying is that the Monitoring page should be a place for 1) the complaints to be recorded, 2) Mattisse and her mentors to discuss the issue at hand, which I agree with. A record of problems and what the mentors and Mattisse have done about it should be clear and not muddied with discussion from other editors who may disagree with whatever is going on. Relevant discussions from other editors can go on this talk page. It will inevitably take place because we all have disparate views. The mentors will not hurt to take some advice--or at least get a different perspective--from those with whom Mattisse has had conflicts in the past.

I want to make it clear at the moment that I disagree that the Monitoring page is archived so quickly, in less than 24 hours. It looks like editors are trying to hide something. I think it should be set on a 7-day minimum. --Moni3 (talk) 15:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

That's unclear, so I've asked Mattisse to clarify. [12] Since she moved the sample from this talk page, I get the impression she doesn't want other editors commenting here either. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:18, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

And, where are the mentors, as the page spins out again ? :) Mattisse, by moving this comment to my Sample, you separated it from the comment it was responding to, and added it to my Sample, which it was not originally part of. It is things like this that cause the page to spin out of control, and make it impossible for the mentors to follow what happened when they eventually show up. I set up an example of how the page might work; it has now been complicated by 1) a page move, 2) to a talk page rather than a user page, and 3) addition of comments that weren't part of the original Sample. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Moni3 that items should be retained on the Monitoring "front" page for at least 7 days - I'f prefer a month, but I know I'm a squirrel.

I'm beginnning to wonder if a sort of "ArbCom lite" structure would give a reasonable balance between keping the main bisiness concise & mamageable and giving other editors the chance to comment. For example:

On the Monitoring "front" page should contain only the original poster's description of the case, mentors's conclusions and any remedial action by Mattise. All of this in a structured format like the variants we've been discussed.
A separate subpage for discussion of each item.
That means there would be no need to archive comments subpages. When a main item is archived, the link to the related comments page woudl still be valid. When the mentors close a case, they can add a history snapshot of the Monitoring "front" page so that the final state of the discussion contains a read-only link to the main item even after it is archived.

How do you think that would work? --Philcha (talk) 16:20, 14 October 2009 (UTC)