User talk:Mattisse/Plan

• User:Mattisse/Plan This is my proposed plan. I have tried to take into account the opinions below, as well as what is feasible for me. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
• Although it has not been passed yet, ArbCom has so far suggested that I come up with a plan in conjunction with one or more of my advisers. Mattisse shall, in conjunction with one or more mentors or advisers, submit to this Committee for approval a plan to govern and guide her future editing with the continued assistance of those mentors or advisers.

I wish to invite all those willing to help to add suggestions and comments.

FAC and FAR

• My current thinking is that it would be better if I did not contribute to FAC and FAR any more. I have congenial working relationships with DYK and GA editors in general, so I am hopeful that few problems will arise. Any problems that do arise can generally be addressed on the various GA and DYK talk pages. I believe that if I stick to GA and DYK, concerns about my willingness to respond to collaborative suggestion will not be an issue, as it has not been so in the past. I welcome my panel of advisers and will be more than willing to consult with them if any problems arise. I will be joyful to have the collaborative relationships. In the past I have had successful and immensely satisfying consulting relationships with User:Salix alba, User:SilkTork and User:Geometry guy, all of whom have offered to continue their advising relationship with me now. If more is required, I welcome suggestions here.
  • You have said before that you might drop out of FAC and FAR, but subsequently felt tempted or invited to return later on. Is it wise to make such a statement as the one above if the same thing may happen again? Would it not be better to say that you leave your options open, and will see how you feel as time goes on? JN466 23:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

    My view on this if that Mattisse decides to commit to this direction, then it should be part of the agreement she makes with the community that there will be an enforcement mechanism to ensure she does not contribute to FAC and FAR in the future. She can instead keep this option open, but then she needs to convince the community that mechanisms are in place to ensure that her contributions will not result in disruption to these processes. It is a hard choice to make, but I believe Mattisse should be the one who makes it. Geometry guy 23:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

    I would prefer to be able to continue to comment on articles I have copy edited at GAN or by request and followed to FAC. However, it may not be feasible for me to continue to do this. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:35, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Personally I would think it is quite feasible, provided you absolutely commit to commenting only on content and not editors, at least for some considerable amount of time – say, a year – until the dynamic has changed and people no longer associate you with past troubles. JN466 06:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I have previously advised that Mattisse would suffer less stress if she stayed away from FAR and FAC. The issue that needs to be raised here is that Mattisse gets a great deal of satisfaction from working in that area, can do some valuable work in that area, and would get tempted to get involved again in the future, especially if someone began talking to her about an ongoing FAR. Also, how to deal with an article that Mattisse has been substantially involved with that gets taken to FAC or FAR. A plan would have to deal more comprehensively with the issue of FAC/FAR than M saying she isn't going to get involved. While FAR/FAC is a significant area of potential conflict for M, and M has recognised that herself, she has been unable to stay away. SilkTork *^YES! 07:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Would it be workable for Mattisse to make comments in a FAR or FAC (added: when she has been challenged and feels stressed) if she agrees her comments with at least one of her fellow editors in advance. And that she then only posts what has been agreed. If she posts without clearance from a fellow editor, or alters the agreed wording, she is topic banned from that particular FAR or FAC. SilkTork *^YES! 07:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Either the discussions take place off Wiki, where it has to be done one-on-one, without the collaborative approach of several fellow editors looking at the wording, and no record afterwards of what was agreed, but where Mattisse can vent safely. Or it has to be on Wiki, with the benefits of recording keeping and collaborative advice, but Mattisse can be challenged for what she has said as early versions of what Mattisse wants to say might contain what would later be seen as personal attacks. SilkTork *^YES! 07:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest that venting or anything similar to it had best be done in private e-mail only, simply because the evidence includes cases of editors looking at other users' talk pages to see what Mattisse has said about them there. JN466 13:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• (undent) (ec, drat!) All final decisions are up to Mattisse. Since she has solicited opinions, I will opine: The eventual (post-mentor-period) "happy ending" goal here is for Mattisse to have full, unfettered and unmonitored participation in all forums, to whatever degree she wishes (a crucial qualification). Having said all that, many folks (including Mattisse herself, as it seems) feel that stepping away from or at least cutting down on participation in some areas would be quite wise during a temporary period of reflection and learning etc. In a nutshell: cutting down or quitting for a while (or permanently, at her discretion) would almost certainly be a Good Thing.
• I further believe that the idea of a proactive, micromanaging mentorship, such as the model described by SilkTork, is off the mark. It would shift the burden of decision-making from Mattisse onto the mentors, which is not particularly healthy, and would prevent or hinder Mattise from getting the hang of making the types of decisions that will be necessary when she returns to flying solo. It would also present formidable operational challenges. In my opinion, a better model would be a mentorship that combines regular contact/discussion/"processing" with mentors (at relatively frequent intervals, possibly diminishing over time), and reactive intervention/participation in non-mentor interactions (e.g., in various forums), whenever the latter is deemed necessary (i.e., if any problems arise). This accords Mattisse both the respect and dignity that she deserves, as well as the prolonged, purposeful cooperation that the community believes she needs.
• The greatest degree of micromanaging I might consider appropriate might be a self-determined, relatively generous and slightly flexible quota of edits per week(perhaps per a given time period; perhaps not) in forums (fora?) that are deemed as trouble spots. When the quota has been hit, editing should temporarily pause until after a confab or "processing" session with some number of designated mentors. The quota could become more and more generous over time. That is just a thought.... Ling.Nut (talk) 08:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

My concern is also that Mattisse takes on board responsibility for her actions - see my other comments on this page - however, the area in which she appears to need greatest assistance is dealing with challenges during FAC/FARs. Solutions which restrict Mattisse from any editing in this area, or limiting editing by time or amount I'm not sure are helpful. I don't see the value of restricting Mattisse to ten valuable edits on Wednesday, when she is capable of delivering twenty more on the same day. But allowing her to respond inappropriately ten times on Thursday when she reacts to a challenge. We need to focus on what it is that causes concern - and it appears to be Mattisse's responses to challenges. Blocks, bans, edit restrictions, Wiki-breaks or any other solution which is simply imposed without regard to what is actually taking place appear to me to be more in line with punishment than assistance, and are not helpful.

Example: Tom likes playing in the sandbox. Tom can play in the sandbox all day with no trouble. But when somebody comes along and says, "What are YOU doing in the sandbox," Tom can get defensive, and the conversation can lead to a punch-up. Tom may be challenged at any point in the day. He can be challenged as soon as he sits in the sandbox, or several days later. Restricting the time Tom spends in the sandbox may lower the risk of encountering conflict, but doesn't prevent the encounter and doesn't help deal with the conflict when it arises. So a solution that says that Tom can only play in the sandbox for an hour a day (or not at all, or only after a break of xx days) is punishing Tom, but not addressing the issue of what to do when he is challenged.

While I agree that we should not be putting words in Mattisse's mouth, it would be appropriate to look over what she wants to say and advise her not to reword something that may be provocative. This is not micro-managing, it is what happens between collegues in offices every day. I think it would be a rare person who has never been asked by a work collegue to look over an email/letter they are about to send, or has not asked a collegue for the same favour. SilkTork *^YES! 11:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

@ST: I'm deeply concerned about the debilitating aspects of the top-down, paternalistic relationship that you would form between M. and her peers. The perpetual "calling on the carpet" inherent in asking M. to ask for permission for every statement she makes can do nothing but inhibit growth and foster resentment... I'm also truly in admiration of the grand, pretty circle of logical fallacies you've drawn around yourself. You have a pair of straw men: you come out strongly and persuasively in opposition to punishment involving blocks and bans – when no one mentioned them. You decry the foolishness of of scrutinizing someone's behavior at certain times and ignoring it at others – when no one advocated such a position. You suggested that colleagues confer every day, which is a neat fallacy of composition, because although somewhere or other in the world different colleagues certainly do confer every day , no individual is forced to run every decision – indeed, every utterance – by someone else. You refer to consultation and discussion as punishment. And so on. Really, I myself would be convinced by your arguments, if I wasn't aware of the fallacies involved. It would be more honest, ST, to just come out boldly and say, "Dammit, I want a lid on that woman's mouth! Ling.Nut (talk) 12:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that Mattisse does have a lot to offer to FAC (I don't visit FAR, so won't speak to that), and that much of the time are comments on nominations or at the FAC talk page are appropriate. I would like her to be able to continue to offer those comments, provided that those comments are focused appropriately on article content or the process, and not on behavior or motives of individual editors or a collective group of editors. If that extra, unnecessary, commentary was eliminated, I don't think there would be any issues with Mattisse's participation there. Karanacs (talk) 15:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Karanacs. I don't think Mattisse should be a priori banned from FAC/FAR. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Karanacs. We need as many reviewers as possible at FA, and Mattisse has a history of giving quality reviews. --Moni3 (talk) 16:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Karanacs. JN466 19:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I did ask User:YellowMonkey if my participation would be a problem in FAR, since he has taken over the running of FAR, and he repried no.[1] Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 02:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

4 Ling.Nut. I'm not expressing myself clearly. In an attempt to clear up some points:

• Looking back at what I had said above. Where I said "Would it be workable for Mattisse to make comments in a FAR or FAC if she agrees her comments with at least one of her fellow editors in advance." I realise I missed out the conflict part that was in my head. Should read: "Would it be workable for Mattisse to make comments in a FAR or FAC when she has been challenged and feels stressed if she agrees her comments with at least one of her fellow editors in advance." My thinking (not expressed) was that Mattisse is working on a FAR, an editor is unhappy with M's suggestions and starts making disparaging remarks, before responding, M contacts one of her guild of fellow editors to look over what she wants to post. It is this key point that I missed out. And it is that key point which is at the heart of this ArbCom, and the issue with M. Sometimes it is M over-reacting. And sometimes it is the other editor who is over-reacting.
• Blocks and bans and Wiki-breaks have been mentioned in the ArbCom - I was making reference to those as a link to the restriction comment you made for a quota of edits, as I feel any such restrictions (quotas, bans, etc) would not address the issue: which is how Mattisse reacts to challenges. The principle is the same whether it is a quota, a ban, or a Wiki-break - a restriction now when there is no specific problem is simply a punishment. However, a specific topic ban at the moment of conflict to prevent matters getting out of hand would be an appropriate use of restriction.
• I feel the rest of your comments are related to the missing key point. Now that the missing part has been put in, does my proposal make more sense? SilkTork *^YES! 07:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

(undent) My opinions are as follows:

1. We are talking too much. It's Mattisse's show.
2. See # 1.
3. See #1, and addend with "...and I don't mean merely you and me; I mean a whole host of folks, across three or four forums... all that should be heard from us is WP:The sound of one hand clapping".
4. Whatever plan Matisse devises, in consultation with her peers, it must be one that places the responsibility for learning and growth on her shoulders.
5. It must be one which gives her broad latitude/freedom to interact at any time she wants in any forum she wants,
   1. in order to serve both as a workshop for learning
   2. and as a body of evidence to persuade the community that she is ready and willing to take on the challenges of interacting in a community where roles can be confusing, since it certainly is a battleground for competing ideas at the same time that it is emphatically not a battleground for personal combat or personal attacks.
6. Peeling the concept of "battleground" into two parts, then keeping one while decisively discarding the other is a key aspect. Wikipedia is a place of competing ideas, but not a place of combating people.
7. We are talking too much. It's Mattisse's show. Ling.Nut (talk) 09:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• YellowMonkey has posted on the arbitration workshop page that he can handle all problems at FAR and does not tolerate "rioting".[2] Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 19:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Mentor term

• I would use the word "mentors" but it seems there is opposition to the use of that word. I personally have no objection to a mentoring relationship. I welcome more such relationships and opportunities for feedback. User:Philcha and I have successfully collaborated in the past and hopefully we will continue to do so. Warmest regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 21:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

  I have hesitated myself about using the word "mentor" on its own because it wasn't clear to me that this was the best name for the support role Mattisse needs to continue to contribute to the encyclopedia without further problems. However, if Mattisse is comfortable with such a moniker, then I am happy to go along with that. Geometry guy 22:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I am uncomfortable about the term "mentor" as there is an imbalance in that relationship. Part of my issue with the way that Mattisse is treated is the lack of respect she is shown, and I don't feel that Mattisse herself should buy into that. I feel that Mattisse should be encouraged to stand up for herself, and not to hide behind a mentorship in which she can claim no personal responsibility. I feel our role would be to offer suggestions, and to give an honest appraisal of a conflict situation, but that it is Mattisse who makes the final decision. If the decision is inappropriate, she should be warned, if she ignores the warning, an action is taken to prevent the conflict escalating, which would include blocking if needed. I do not wish to take on a mentorship role. But I am quite comfortable in giving my appraisal of a situation, giving warnings, and blocking - just the same as any other user on Wikipedia - but in this case, knowing a good degree of Mattisse's history and how she behaves, and the attitudes of otehrs toward her, so my advice is guided by knowledge and experience. SilkTork *^YES! 07:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The Mentors

Are you asking for these three editors to come up with a series of responses and consequences? To avoid issues being unclear and misunderstandings about everyone's role, I strongly suggest that you and all three mentors agree on what their actions should be in this role before presenting it to ArbCom. I say this to protect you as well as other editors. Providing ArbCom with everyone's expectations will make it easier when issues arise in the future.

Do you have significant objections to what has been outlined here? --Moni3 (talk) 22:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

• As far as I know, Arbcom has not put a limit on the number of advisers or mentors I have on my panel. My preference is for as many as are willing. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 22:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

• As far as the plan linked above, it will take me awhile to work through it and understand it. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:29, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

• Does the plan mean, for example, that for each of these 179 GANs completed in the last several months, each of these would be analyzed and commented upon by a steward? How about the many hundred article edits I do per week? I usually copy edit the GAs I am reviewing as well as the DYK articles when I review the hooks, besides copy editing articles on request. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

• Also, I would prefer a plan that educated me and helped me develop skills and expand as an editor, rather than one that encourages me to be dependent and helpless by expecting a mentor to run interference for me on a regular basis, for example. User:Geometry guy is an excellent example of an adviser who promotes individual growth. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

• Sandy Georgia mentioned Ling.Nut, Geometry guy and Malleus earlier today as people who she felt had taken a realistic view of the issues. Do you share her assessment, and would you be happy for those three to play a prominent role? Do any other editors have particular misgivings about the suitability of this group of three? JN466 23:00, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Ling.Nut and Geometry guy have volunteered and Malleus has accepted my invitation, so all three are already aboard. I also trust their judgment. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. JN466 23:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Mattisse that helping her develop skills and expand as an editor is valuable in any positive relationship. I also agree that the number does not need to be limited to three - and indeed, the more the merrier. I would expect that Mattisse would consult more than one fellow editor in any given incident, and that the more people she has to call upon, the more likely that there will be at least one available. My experience with Mattisse is that she gets very anxious if she doesn't get a speedy response to requests for assistance. If the magic number of three is wanted - then it could be that in a conflict situation that Mattisse gets a response from at least three of her fellow editors before making any more comments or edits in that conflict area. SilkTork *^YES! 07:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it could get very confusing and bitty if there were more than three named advisors/mentors. This doesn't stop Mattisse discussing whatever she likes with other editors she trusts and values. The three suggested above are good solid choices.Fainites ^barleyscribs 15:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

For me, having just three advisers would be inordinately stressful, as the likelihood that none of them would be available for periods of time would be high. I know from experience that much of the time I am on line Geometry guy and Ling.Nut are not, as they are in different time zone than I am, as is Malleus. So much of the time I would be left rudderless under pressure. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 17:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Mattisse. Concerns about the membership of the league of extraordinary fellow editors becoming so unwieldy as to be confusing need only be addressed if and when that starts to look like it may happen. At the moment Mattisse has selected those she feels she can work with, and out of those, seven have responded positively. I don't see seven as being an unweildy number. For Mattisse's plan to work she would need to get quick access to assistance; and she would gain confidence from knowing that assistance is close at hand. SilkTork *^YES! 10:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Correction - the number is now 11. I feel that is acceptable (and encouraging). The way of things is that some of those are likely to drop out over time, while others may well go on holiday, or just be off-line at the time of crisis.SilkTork *^YES! 10:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Number of mentors/advisors/monitors

• Do many still feel that I should reduce the number of editors/mentors on the list? —Mattisse (Talk) 00:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

As long as you are happy with the people you have in the league then I don't see a problem. The risk is mainly yours after all. If somebody gives you inappropriate advice, or there's no one available, and you escalate a dispute, it is you who suffers the consequence. The person who gave you the wrong advice would feel the embarrassment and guilt of putting you in an awkward position, but would not be blocked. You would.

ArbCom are asking you, in conjunction with your advisers, to submit a plan to guide your editing with the assistance of your advisers. I don't see in the wording of the ArbCom proposal a limit to the numbers of advisers. SilkTork *^YES! 07:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

It is great that you have more than three capable people willing to work closely with you, and you should keep them all on board. However I think it would be more effective to have three mentors who are responsible for coming to an agreement any time a decision is needed. For example, if you need to take a wikibreak, or change from one topic to another to escape some stressful situation, .. or .. be blocked ;-( If eight people are involved in the mentorship, and only three opine quickly, the likely result is that there would be a pregnant pause until the other five come online, and the discussion could be quite large. If the mentors dont act in a timely manner, the community may become nervous and seek more action/drama, such as taking the issue to ANI. If there are three who are designated as decision makers, it should be pretty easy to rustle up two of them to put their heads together in a timely manner. Also, in the event that the mentors need to interface with the Arbitration Committee, having "the three" speak for the rest of the mentors will result in less confusion.

Maybe you might want to pick three you are most comfortable with initially, and then rotate them. I am just thinking out loud here, so this isnt a "recommendation with clout" or anything like that. Just something to mull on. I've full confidence that the mentors will muddle their way through this just fine, whether there are three or eight. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with John that it would be a good idea to think about this sort of thing ahead of time. Carcharoth (talk) 11:26, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Mentors list

Compiling names from Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Proposed_decision#Users willing to act as advisers, as well as those editors indicating else where that they would be willing to mentor or adivise me, I have the following list:

1. Salix alba
2. Ottava Rima
3. John Carter
4. Philcha
5. Fowler&fowler
6. Moni3

   Malleus Fatuorum (upon request)

7. Geometry guy
8. RegentsPark
9. SilkTork

   Ling.Nut (upon request, retiring)

I welcome advice, feedback and/or mentoring from all of these editors and thank them for being willing to be so generous as to aid me in this manner. —Mattisse (Talk) 15:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Consequences for failure to adhere to plan

One of the things that the arbitrators have sought is some sort of indication as to what sort of consequences Mattisse should face if, for whatever reason, she did not adhere to the plan. I would think that, at a minimum, should that happen, Mattisse should be banned/blocked from participating in the discussion and related article regarding which she failed to adhere to the plan. Would that be sufficient in the eyes of others, or would additional consequences also be indicated? John Carter (talk) 17:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, temporary page bans would be a good start, but I think there must be a form of escalating consequences as well. Continued disregard for the plan (if that occurs) should be dealt with more severely. Karanacs (talk) 18:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I should have actually thought of that myself. Any specific ideas what kind of escalation "slope" (for lack of a better word) should be involved here? How much should the penalty be increased for successive violations? For such purposes, maybe adding only the second penalty might be a starter. So, for first violation, if it is FA or GA candidate/review related, block/ban on the page until the FA or GA process is complete, and maybe(?) a day (or week, whatever) if the article/page in question is not FA or GA related. For the second violation, ...? John Carter (talk) 18:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that if I am blocked or banned more than a few times, say three to five times for example, I should just be taken back to Arbitration and banned. Remember, I have not been blocked for real since October 2007 and I have never been topic banned, ever. I would take such measures seriously. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk)

I think it would be best for Mattisse to propose the guidelines of behavior that needs to be followed as well as the consequences if others think those guidelines aren't being met. This page is lacking in specifics, and I think that has a lot of the observers confused as to what would/should happen. Karanacs (talk) 18:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Behavior to be addressed

• The ArbCom endorsed the following finding of fact:

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 has wronged her, sometimes under captions such as "plague" or "torment."

Therefore, I conclude that I must avoid such behaviors as personal attacks and accusations toward others that they are conspiring against me, avoid taking the comments of others personally, avoid repeating issues that have been resolved, and refrain from maintaining lists of editors I believe have wronged me. So I believe this is the type of behaviors I must avoid. I must learn not to take issues personally. I must learn more clearly what a personal attack is. I want to be educated in these things. There are nuances I don't understand. I realize that I continue to respond way after the point I should stop. I am earnestly working on refraining from this behavior. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 19:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe ArbCom is saying the important dimensions of my behavior that need to be addressed are the following:

1. I personalize the routine remarks of others. I must refrain from taking the comments of others personally and responding as if they were made personally.
2. I make accusations and personal attacks on others. This must stop. As I said, sometimes it is hard to determine exactly what falls under "personal attack".
3. I must stop accusing various editors of cabalism. And certainly I must not compose lists of such persons.
4. I continue to comment long after an issue is resolved and this is considered POINTy. I must stop this pattern of behavior.

These appear to be what ArbCom is concerned about. They acknowledge that others have engaged in such behavior toward me and that it is a two-way street for which others also bear responsibility. One of them acknowledged the "sniping" that continued in the current arbitration. However, I can only address my end of this issue and improve my behavior. I believe this will involve my avoiding certain areas, and have already reduced my participation in general on Wikipedia. But I will have to play this by ear. I have never been topic banned and my last 24-hour block was in October 2007 without warning. I take such sanctions seriously. I do not believe I will continue in a behavior that will lead to a block or a ban. There is no reason to believe that I will. I have no history of continuing a behavior after a warning. I never have. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 20:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I do not doubt your word. However, it seems to me likely that the ArbCom may want some sort of provision in place in the event you do act in a way that is unprecedented for you. People have bad days, and you would be far from the first one to engage in such bahavior. In the event something unprecedented does happen, what kind of penalties do you think would be reasonable to impose? I'm particularly thinking about to what degree they should be increased should they recur. Maybe something like "one day block for first offense, one week for second, additional week for each subsequent", or something to that effect might be sufficient. John Carter (talk) 21:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• The ArbCom seems to be suggesting a graduated scale starting with a level of imposed wikibreaks, perhaps moving to topic bans, short blocks, increaingly longer blocks.

  Mattisse and her mentors or advisors should consider the suggestions made by various users on the workshop page of this case, including but not limited to Mattisse's taking wikibreaks at times of stress, avoiding or limiting Mattisse's participation on certain pages, Mattisse's refraining from making any comments regarding the motivations or good faith of other users, and Mattisse's disengaging from interactions that become stressful or negative.

I am very encouraged by the ArbCom statements and have every reason to comply. They have recognized that I am not the only one at fault. Carcharoth noted: "Would note here that some behaviour by others has not helped. Sometimes Mattisse was not the instigator." And he also said:

In my view, this is not just directed at Mattisse, but is also aimed at those that interact with Mattisse. If a suitable plan is put in place, and Mattisse is keeping to it, then I expect the committee to come down hard on anyone reigniting this dispute. On the other hand, consistent failure by Mattisse to stick to an agreed plan will also have further consequences.

This is a powerful incentive that gets my attention and increases my motivation to overcome my faults and keep my behavior in check. There can be a limit set, so many blocks or whatever is appropriate, at which point I would return to ArbCom for their harsh final judgment. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 21:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

It is good that you have been able at this time of stress to isolate and accept that the issue relates to your reaction to challenges. You are not alone in finding some exchanges on Wikipedia challenging and stressful. We have different coping mechanisms for when the editing gets hot - there's even an essay on it: Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot. What works for one may not work for another, so you have to find your own way of coping. I commented above (rather misleadingly at first, as I missed out vital words) that I felt that FAR and FAC are hotspots for you, that should be treated with care. But that provided there are systems in place, that you shouldn't be afraid to go back into them as that is something you enjoy and are good at. People respect your work there. A suggestion I thought of was that if you start feeling stressed, uncomfortable or intimidated by what an editor or editors are saying, that you consult with one of your league of fellow editors before responding in that arena.

Of course, one of the difficulties at times is knowing we are over-reacting. It's not always obvious. We might feel righteously indignant, or that the other person is simply being rude or has not clearly understood, and so we respond in what we feel is an appropriate manner.

Can you recognise when things are getting "hot"? SilkTork *^YES! 21:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The "disengage after two negative reactions in a row" rule (or whatever is the best way to phrase it) is a good rule. Then I will seek advice first before I continue. Also, I will be careful to comment only a couple of times, and not more in an unsure situation. I think FAR will be OK because of YellowMonkey. The only two GARs I have initiated have had unfortunate results, so I don't know if I will do that again. I will have to be very careful at FAC. Unless it is an article I have been involved with in some way, I probably will not comment anymore. I will avoid the articles of any editor of whom I am unsure for GA and DYK hook review. If someone disagrees with me, I will just let the issue go and not reply or persist. Perhaps you can suggest some issues that you have noted from your observation of my behavior? —Mattisse (Talk) 22:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• Further behavioral suggestions are listed at User talk:Moni3/Mattisse stewards arbcom.

Mentors vs stewards

One suggestion I have received is that I have two lists. One list for stewards that would monitor the mentoring process. The other would be my list of trusted advisors who I would consult with to obtain advise and perspective. For example, User:Salix alba and User:Geometry guy would be on the list of trusted advisors, rather than in a position of monitoring. Perhaps User:Moni3 could be one of the three(or whatever number is decided to be optimal) monitors. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 00:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I have stated at the arbitration case that I believe any mentoring relationship involves an agreement between Mattisse and each of her mentors. There is no reason why all of these agreements should be identical. So I definitely favour the idea that different mentors could have different roles. I'm not yet convinced by two lists, but can see the distinction between "trusted advisor" and "steward". This may address Mattisse's concern that she would find it hard to engage with a trusted advisor who also might block her, while also addressing (e.g.) Karanacs concern about Mattisse's discomfort in consulting someone who might sanction her.

I believe the community needs there to be a monitoring role, perhaps along the lines of the three stewards proposed at User:Moni3/Mattisse_stewards_arbcom, but that Mattisse needs a fairly diverse panel of advisors to consult, and a structure in place so that, if all goes well, the monitoring role would be fairly light touch.

Whenever mentoring, or something similar, is proposed as a solution, it is important to ask "who watches the watchers?". A monitoring arrangement would answer that, but also begs the question "who watches the monitors?". The ultimate answer is ArbCom, but the ideal plan would only involve them as a last resort. Hence clear definitions of roles, conflict of interest issues and so on need to be built carefully into such a plan. Geometry guy 22:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I cannot feature how this would work. I understand having mentors or advisers, whether or not they are formalized, but the monitors sound like they would follow me around in the User:Moni3/Mattisse stewards arbcom and User talk:Moni3/Mattisse stewards arbcom proposal and then lecture me. There is no role for a mentor or consultant in that view. Speaking for myself, my best learning does not take place in a didactic form. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 23:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Your version of the plan can omit "Watch Mattisse's interactions in discussions involving article content" if you like. It's not practical for the mentors / whatever to check your contribs every 5 minutes, or even every 30. On the other hand I think they should have that option for occasional use if it looks like a tricky situation is developing - but as seldom as possible, since the ultimate objective is for you to run your own WP business. But mostly, and preferably, I think the mentors should respond to issues you raise. And then in general I suggest only 1 or 2 should get involved ina particular issue. --Philcha (talk) 10:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Two in a row

I still have reservations about the two in a row clause. It would seem to rule out any comments which have any sort of intervening comment between them. If, for instance, another reviewer called Mattisse's comments disruptive about a given footnote in a GAC, and then the article's developer added a comment like "fixed photo" relative to an earlier comment, then to be followed by a concurrence about the disruptivity, that the intervening comment might be potentially considered as grounds for saying "no problem". I know that sounds almost paranoid, and probably is close to that, but think the language might be tweaked a little to make it clear whether discussions with two or maybe more criticisms, not necessarily literally one after another, might be considered not worthy contacting one of the mentors. John Carter (talk) 22:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

That would not apply to GA, as in those cases there is just the reviewer and the article writer dialoging. In 179 GA reviews, I have never had anyone complain of disruption. However, say in FAC, FAR or on article talk pages, where there can be intervening comments, I would say that they (the intervening comments) are irrelevant and only the comments relative to the thread would count. In any event, in User:Mattisse/Plan I don't believe I used the term "in a row". At least, that is not my intent. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I added "(discounting irrelevant intervening comments)". Hopefully, that is satisfactory. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Initial response from Ling.Nut

Here's my initial cut at a response... You may have further observations, and others may as well. My comments are just a part of the whole joint response formulated by you and everyone else involved:

• Complaints about my behavior

• I would like to see item 1 unpacked a bit. For example, I would encourage you to take a day or two to make a fearlessly honest inventory of your most bitter and unpleasant past interactions, spending time reflecting on exactly where and when the comments of other editors successfully hit your hot button(s). Was it when folks challenged your authority? Was it when they discounted your insights? Was it when they stopped talking about content, and in some way started talking about you? I have no idea; I'm just bringing up some possibilities. If you can brainstorm/reflect and generate a list of such scenarios, it would be extremely helpful for you as you self-monitor future interactions. You can think, "OK, User:InsertUserNameHere just started challenging my authority or discounting my insights or talking about me instead of about the issue at hand.. Now is when I need to start working through my checklist of personal strategies for dealing with this sort of situation."
• It's possible that you may see find details in items 2–4 that need to be tweaked. In general, however, to me they look right on the mark.
• I think #5 does not constitute a full understanding of the situation. I think this item of the plan is aimed at addressing observations such as the following, from the Prior attempts at resolution section of the Proposed decision:

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.

But this observation itself is not formulated in a way that would explain the underlying problem(s) clearly. i think people's comments are meant to address 2 similar problems:

1. When you state that you want or need to quit a forum, you should listen to yourself. Your remarks are a signal from yourself to yourself that the stress level in this forum is approaching danger zones. Unfortunately (and I have this problem too—very much so), you let the need to.. the need to explain yourself, or justify yourself, or defend yourself, or protect the encyclopedia... or whatever... override the warning signal that you are sending yourself. Instead you need to tell yourself, "I don't need to defend myself; I am worthwhile. I don't need to explain myself; misunderstandings and miscommunication happen sometimes, and simply are a fact of life.. I don't need to protect the content of the encyclopedia; it will not collapse. What I need to do is take care of myself, and I do so by withdrawing and letting my stress levels subside."
2. I think people are also concerned that you make promises regarding your desire and commitment to adopt a course of action that will change your interactions with others for the better, but then you backslide or renege on these promises. In some ways, this is quite similar to what I just discussed immediately above, and it would be easy to get these two separate but related problems confused. both involve saying one thing, but then doing something else.

• Behavioral rules
• The nut of the matter, here, is adverse interactions with other editors. There should be some loose and flexible format for structuring and prioritizing these infractions. For example, #10 is (in my opinion) just drama; hardly worthy of anything more than a mildly disapproving comment from others. On the other hand, #6 deals with writing with a venomous pen. It is very unacceptable, and should not be dealt with in any other light. This has real consequences. For example, there is a close relationship between some ordering of the "behavioral rules" and the ordering of the sequence of "Consequences for failure to adhere to plan". It would be illogical to assume that the consequences of falure to adhere to #6 should be the same as those for #10—poisonous posts would be dealt with much more severely. Structuring these and prioritizing them loosely is called for, giving priority/prominence to the idea that the core problem is shooting various kinds of poison darts at other editors.
• Coping techniques

1. The relationship between you and your peers/colleagues/advisers/mentors needs to be unpacked a lot, lot more. This a a crucial aspect of the plan. It is necessary, in my opinion.

• Consequences for failure to adhere to plan

• I mentioned this above; this sliding scale does not reflect the idea that some undesirable actions are far more undesirable than others. I don't think each aspect needs to be ranked and defined and quantified down to the last iota. I think some broad discussion or explanation of how this scale would work in real life is called for.

• That's all I can think of now! You may have further observations, and others may as well. Drop me a line on my talk if you have any questions (but put the actual question here)... later! Ling.Nut (talk) 06:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• PS — I think the "troubles we want to avert" section of User talk:Moni3/Mattisse stewards arbcom bears greater discussion. Moni also has some ideas regarding a format for pages of interaction with mentor(s) here; this might also be useful... Ling.Nut (talk) 07:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for your suggestions. I have tried to do some of what you said. As far as Moni3 page suggestions, I don't really understand much of it. And a lot of it seems directed at "how not to be accused of..." which I'm not sure is relevant in some cases, since I can't control the behavior of others. Some of the issues need to be operationalised. How not to be accused of "poor me", for example. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 00:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• Also, I think the suggestions that you reference at here are very much off the mark. To suggest that I avoid the articles of specific editors seems to form a group of "protected FAC editors" and send a very wrong message, from my point of view. Perhaps the rule should just be that I do not post any disagreeing comments at FAC. Also, there is no way I would openly discuss my frustrations/problems. As has be noted before, in the past such public posts where I have attempted to be candid about my problems have been used as evidence against me. I have had productive advising relationships in the past with Salix alba, Geometry guy, SilkTork and recently with John Carter where they have disagreed with me and I have followed their advice nonetheless, so I don't think I would receive bad advice from them. And I don't think my participation in rather adversarial ANI-like pages would be a pleasant experience, or lead to anything positive. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 13:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• I was referring to Moni3's "ANI-like" page; not so much Sandy's comments. A one-stop shopping page for your mentors/advisers... Ling.Nut (talk) 13:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• Would not such a page encourage what you refer to as "yammering"? I do not have the energy for that. Plus I could not be candid on such a page. I would be in the role of a supplicant, hat in hand. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 13:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

(undent) Maybe it would encourage yammering; I dunno. My point is that some fresh ideas about the precise methods of communication between yourself and your advisers would definitely be a pleasant development. The nuts and bolts of the relationship need to be spelled out with something approaching clarity, else how can anyone know whether they feel it would work or not? As for hat in hand; I dunno, I don't see it that way, since... the people you would really be communicating with are your selected group of trusted editors. But again, I dunno... I would just love to see something take a real and definite shape. Ling.Nut (talk) 13:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I feel that my communications with those currently acting as my mentors/advisers is pleasant and productive, without the harsh, punitive tone of the suggestions at User:Moni3/Mattisse stewards arbcom. I am beginning to think that less is more. I already am getting lost in the maze of suggestions. —Mattisse (Talk) 14:07, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Eh, the burden of a growing "maze of suggestions" is exactly why I threw a wild hairy fit. I'm not pressing you to follow anyone's suggestions; I'm sorta nudging you to outline a reasonably detailed plan of your own. ;-) Ling.Nut (talk) 14:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I have done what I can. I want it to be productive for me (selfishly), and not more of a negative experience. I cannot "rank" offenses as I have no idea which are worse. I have been surprised at the reactions from editors at the Arbitration, as I had received no formal series of warnings or blocks. So now my behavior has my attention, and I will change it. Any editor can apply to ArbCom at any time to have me banned. —Mattisse (Talk) 14:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Re "Consequences for failure to adhere to plan"

I have 3 concerns about this section:

• It fails to state the purpose of the "consequences". Are they meant to be punishments, cool-down periods or what? I think resolving this will help in dealing with the other aspects.
• The scale has a sharp jump from 24 hours to 1 week.
• It fails to say in what circumstances a particular level of "consequence" will occur. --Philcha (talk) 07:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• Basically, I modified it from User:Moni3/Mattisse stewards arbcom. I revised it downward when I noticed the the consequences of violating the Date delinking remedies proposed by ArbCom, where the behavior had been far worse than mine, were so much gentler in the beginning, even though the behavior to be avoided is much clearer. I believe the consequences are punishment. Otherwise, it would not have been proposed as a fixed number of hours that jumps from 24 hours to possibly one week for second offense, as there is nothing about a fixed number of hours that guarantees a decrease in frustration. —Mattisse (Talk) 13:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• I do not know what circumstances the level of "consequence" should occur. I am assuming that each of the areas that ArbCom pointed out as faulty or disruptive behavior on my part are equal. Therefore, an infraction of in any area calls forth the punishment. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 20:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Mentor actions

I agree with issues raised by Ling.Nut and others, and believe that some principles have been established, but the application of these principles needs some work. I don't believe a plan with entirely passive mentors will be acceptable to the community and ArbCom. At the other extreme, a plan with mentors who follow Mattisse's every edit is utterly impractical and unnecessarily patronizing.

So what can mentors do? Some, apparently, should be willing to block Mattisse if she does not adhere to this plan. Only a few mentors are admins. I'm one of them, but I currently don't use the block tool, and would only want to use it in this case under clear parameters defined by Mattisse. I believe other mentors who are admins also need to agree their position with Mattisse.

But maybe discussion of a lesser question would be more helpful now. Is there a role for mentors to strike (or even remove) comments by Mattisse that are contrary to her plan? Such action by mentors is a much lighter touch than imposing topic bans or blocks. Geometry guy 21:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I kind of share this concern, and it resonates with something Mattisse said a few days ago (IIRC) about not trusting administrators who had the power to block her. I may have got hold of entirely the wrong end of the stick though.

This active vs passive mentoring issue you raise is an important one though, but it can perhaps can be addressed by Mattisse's panel including mentors who are active in the same areas as she herself is, or wishes to be, and so will likely be aware of events in those areas and can step in when needed or asked.

Let me finally say that I've peeked at various versions of this plan over the last few days and quite frankly they make my skin crawl. Mattise is not a child who needs to be put on the naughty step for increasing periods of time for each infraction of the rules; she's a mature adult who can make her own decisions and ought to be allowed to do so. In her position, and I can't help but feel that I may well be in her position one day, I'd be looking to make an honest statement accepting whatever fault I believed on mature reflection was attributable to me, and to make a committment to avoiding that problematic behaviour in the future. Or not, if I felt that the case against me was entirely without foundation, in which case I'd simply pack up and go. None of this demands that any kind of process or protocol is put in place, it just demands that there is a recognition and acceptance of a long-standing problem and that there's a clear committment to address that problem or else face the consequences. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

What we need... I know I sound like a broken record (no one listens to LPs any more!), so forgive me... what we need is a plan from Mattisse which clearly spells out the roles of her mentors/advisers etc. There is a philosophical tension here between the desire of the community to see Mattise come alongside other editors as a learning experience versus Mattisse's dignity etc (as I have repeatedly mentioned). This philosophical tension cannot be left unresolved Ling.Nut (talk) 02:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe that I have expressed what I would prefer. I acknowledge the findings of the ArbCom and would be grateful for a panel of mentors/advisors to help me deal with difficult situations, rather than being alone. I sincerely regret my past behavior and do not intend to repeat it. However, Malleus does express my feelings regarding the various plans that have been put forth. I sincerely accept the advise of a panel of those that I trust. If I violate that trust, I believe admins can be found to block me and/or I can be taken before the ArbCom again. I do not know what else I can do. These painful attempts to prevent me from reoffending are misguided, in my view. Only I can prevent that from happening, and if it happens then I should be punished accordingly. I do not know what else to offer. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 02:27, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I see a section titled Monitoring where you say that you'd create a page for interaction with the motley crew who have agreed to consult with you. I don't see any discussion of the roles that the monitors would play — both a general discussion of the whole range of roles that you foresee any and all monitors playing, plus a more specific account of the roles of each editor. Note that the latter doesn't have to be bogged down in minutia; a sentence about each would be sufficient. Of particular interest is the sensitive issue of blocking (for those of us who have breached that sphincter into the dark recesses of admindom known as WP:RFA). Does this discussion exist somewhere, and I just missed it? Ling.Nut (talk) 02:53, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe any admin can block me. It does not require special powers beyond that of being an admin. Why such a concentration on that, rather than that I receive some constructive help and advice? As the ArbCom decision noted, I have not been exclusively at fault. Many comments by others indicate a misunderstand of the situations at issue. "Sniping" at me was continued in the Arbitration, as noted by the ArbCom. My findings have not been misleading in any of the situations, but rather the means I used to convey my point of view was wrong. Every point I made has been held up and supported by others. I must learn to convey my ideas more appropriately, but I have not been conveying misinformation in FAC, FAR, or FAC or the RFC in question, which I note my view is still being supported by others.[3] Those editors who did not like my message retaliated. Is is best for Wikipedia that I be silenced in favor of a favored group of editors? Ideally, my detractors would desist also and treat my opinion more respectfully. That would go a long way to help me, in addition to my restraining my own behavior. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 03:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, philosophical points taken, and I hope Arbitrators and Mattisse take note of Malleus' clearly stated view. For the time being, though, can we focus on concrete questions, and hope that the philosophy will sort itself out in due course? In particular, let me ask again, is there a role for mentors to strike (or even remove) comments by Mattisse that are contrary to her plan? Geometry guy 11:59, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I have no objection to short blocks if my behavior is seen as out of control. However, per a recent incident, an editor characterized as frequently disruptive had his three week block reduced to 24 hours by another admin. What is the point of an escalating series of punitive blocks in my case? Is punishment the main tool or is rehabilitation? I would like to know the philosophy behind this thinking. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 12:22, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I would regard someone's striking or removing my comments as equivalent to a public spanking. I would prefer a short block. I can be asked to remove or strike my comments if that is needed, and trusted to comply. Recently an admin misunderstood my comments, and Karanacs entered a clarifying comment underneath which I found quite helpful and not at all patronizing. Anything that serves to publicly undermine my authority as an editor and treat me like a child I will not see as helpful but rather as punitive. Part of the reason for my frustration was the overt disrespect with which I was treated. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 12:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Speaking only for myself, that's exactly the kind of statement I've been waiting to see from you Mattisse, and I very much hope that others, and of course ArbCom, feel the same. --Malleus Fatuorum 12:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

At least we're acquiring more specific information now. I spoke out against a Strikethrough Police in some forum or other; I forget where. But... hair-trigger short blocks are not always a good answer... see the misunderstanding that Karanacs straightened out. Ling.Nut (talk) 12:53, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

That would be at User talk:YellowMonkey#FAR I guess. Geometry guy 14:06, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Mattisse: this is considerable progress. My understanding of behavioural guidelines is that they are intended to be preventative not punitive, and fully agree that the measures in this plan should be aimed at preventing frustrating situations getting out of hand. An important aspect of the plan is that the mentors have a clear understanding of what their roles involve, and what actions are more likely to be productive and helpful, which is why I asked the question.

So we are agreed that mentors should *not* strike out or remove comments that appear contrary to Mattisse's plan. Instead they should either try to obtain clarification of intent from Mattisse, or ask Mattisse to strike out or otherwise refactor them. Would it be helpful to add this as a concrete example of "I will listen to the advise of my mentors/advisers and follow that advice even if I do not want to do so."? Geometry guy 14:06, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

"Anything that serves to publicly undermine my authority as an editor and treat me like a child I will not see as helpful but rather as punitive. Part of the reason for my frustration was the overt disrespect with which I was treated." Warms my heart to read that. I have been arguing that point since the damned RFC earlier this year (mostly, I must confess, via email discussions). I'm so pleased to see you articulate it in such a clear and confident manner. I do feel that, nasty as it has been, this ArbCom has been positive in some ways. It has shown you that there are people who respect you and are willing to stand by you. And it shows that there is an official recognition that your weakness has been exploited when disputes arise.

Blocking others is not something I have a particular interest in. I tend to feel that discussion and negotiation works well enough. However, I have blocked a user, so I know how to use the tool, have used it, and am prepared to use it again in the right circumstances. I don't feel blocking for putative reasons is helpful to anyone. However, blocking someone who is out of control and doing harm (to Wikipedia, to another user, or to themselves) is an appropriate use of the tool. I don't feel that there needs to be a particularly special "Mattisse block" rule - Mattisse should be blocked as appropriate along with any other user who is doing harm. SilkTork *^YES! 15:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

"I do feel that, nasty as it has been, this ArbCom has been positive in some ways. It has shown you that there are people who respect you and are willing to stand by you. And it shows that there is an official recognition that your weakness has been exploited when disputes arise." I can't help but feel that comments like that are at the very least unhelpful. This is not a case of "poor little Mattissee, see how her weaknesses have been taken advantage of"; that's precisely the kind of attitude that's led to where we are today. Adults take responsibility for the consequences of their actions, they don't try to blame everyone else. If the basic proposition that certain aspects of Mattisse's behaviour have been problematic over a considerable period of time is not accepted both by Mattisse and all of her mentors then we will find ourselves right back here in the not too distant future. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:11, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• I don't think "poor little Mattisse, see how her weaknesses have been taken advantage of" needs to be invoked to accept that ArbCom acknowledged that I was not always the instigator, that it was a two-way street, and that the "sniping" at me continued even in the arbitration. Although I fully accept the wrongfulness of my behavior, some of it was driven by frustration when my action made in good faith were treated as being a "troll", for example. I want my mentors/advisers to recognize this. For example, Malleus, you recommended that I instigate the Attachment therapy GAR for which I have been repeatedly attacked. Now I know that I should not have listed all the things wrong with the article, but at the time I thought that was what a reviewer was supposed to do. I am more aware now that this is unwanted and will not list the faults of an article again. In the Ali Smiles GAR, I think I made an appropriate summary but I was still attacked. I want my mentors/advisers to help me with these situations appropriately, as being attacked for a legitimate GAR is very frustrating. That is in no way an excuse for my behavior. It is a recognition that often my good faith behavior is not accepted as such. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 19:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• We have to start from where we are, not where we'd like to be. To take your specific example of the GAR for attachment therapy I stand by my opinion that initiating it was justifiable, as I thought the article had very considerable weaknesses. You need to do the same thing, either stand up for your actions or apologise for them, not blame others. You need to take and to demonstrate responsibility in other words; nothing else will work. I'm not always right any more than you are, but I don't attempt to lay the blame for my occasional cock-ups on anyone else but me. If people choose to attack me, and they not infrequently do, it's my choice as to how I respond, not theirs. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:13, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• OK, taking the Attachment therapy GAR as an example, this is what I don't understand. That GAR was included in the RFC and the arbitration against me. Standing up for myself in the GAR merely caused me more trouble. What should I have done? I am confused. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 20:32, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• The question is not what should you have done, but what would you do now. This isn't an inquest, it's a plan. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

While not disagreeing with Malleus, I think the question is still worth answering. If you look at Fainites' evidence and her diffs –

"I was therefore somewhat surprised when Mattisse started the GAR late that night. Note the GAR includes a PA to the effect that having made 900 edits I don't have the perspective to sort the article. On going to her talkpage I was disturbed to find this, this this and this and this followed not long after by this and this. Following the conversation to Malleous talkpage reveals this and this. Note the decision to list straight away taken just after she had agreed to give me time to address her concerns [4]."

you will note that there are multiple personal comments in that evidence that clearly antagonised Fainites and made her feel that the debate had already moved into personal territory – thereby making your person "fair game". I think you should drop these personal references from your approach, concentrating in your comments on article content instead. If you ever need to speculate or vent about editors or group dynamics, it is best to do so in private (e-mail, not talk page), so it does not create waves. For if the purpose of saying something like that is to get it out of your system, this works much better if you don't get dragged to RfC or arbcom for it. Far from getting it out of your system, this exacerbates the situation, and intensifies the feelings through a negative feedback loop. Almost everything you said in the GAR was good faith and about nothing but content; just when it comes to other editors, don't wear your heart on your (public) sleeve where everyone can see it. That would be my advice.

Btw, I'd be honoured if you ever wanted to ask me for advice. The reason I have not put myself forward as an advisor or mentor is that I don't think I'd be of use to you; I just don't have the community standing that your mentors should have. Best to pick people who are widely respected, especially by those who have had problems with you. JN466 23:10, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I accept your point. Thank you for clarifying. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 14:28, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

@Malleus Fatuorum. There are many aspects of this case. One of them is that Mattisse has been somewhat bullied. Yes, her manner has at times invited criticism, but not to the degree she has suffered. She has been at times inappropriately treated, and that has caused matters to escalate. I'm not ignoring Mattisse's flaws - indeed, we all have flaws - but there are plenty enough here who seem willing to remind her over and over again of her flaws. My concern is to see that her self esteem and confidence is built up, and to recognise when she is displaying the strengths we want her to display and to praise her when she is doing that. This: "Adults take responsibility for the consequences of their actions, they don't try to blame everyone else" can be read as a put down. I'm sure it wasn't meant that way, but it was poorly worded to suggest that Mattisse was immature. Mattisse did well not to rise to it. SilkTork *^YES! 00:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

You are of course entitled to your opinion, just as I am entitled to mine. We have all been "inappropriately treated" both here and in real life, but we do not all as a result construct hate lists, for instance. I firmly believe that your apparent refusal to look at what's gone wrong, and why, is doing Mattisse no favours, and will ultimately simply encourage her to continue in the same way that has sadly brought us all here now, and will undoubtedly bring us here again if she listens to your advice. You and of course Mattisse may take what I've said to heart or leave it; I'm not bothered either way, not my problem. Your accusation that I described Mattisse as being "immature" I would suggest displays either your very poor grasp of the English language or a complete inability to face the facts. Either way I'm done here. What will be will be, with or without me. Or you. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

@Mattisse. "being attacked for a legitimate GAR is very frustrating". Yes. Unfair and frustrating things happen on Wikipedia. People make good faith edits, and they get revoked by idiots. People make sensible suggestions, and people steam in and call them idiots. Debates sometimes get heated and people speak out strongly. You will go about improving Wikipedia with your good faith edits, and somebody will attack you for it. The attacks will carry on. The attacks will not stop, because that is the nature of our universe here. Everyone gets attacked at some point. Remember that, when you are attacked. And be aware the other person is attacking because they are either hurting or reacting inappropriately. Anyone who attacks you is in the wrong. Recognise that, and take strength from it. We should be able to debate any question without resorting to personal attacks or snipes. But human nature being what it is, even the best of us sometimes lash out. Forgive and forget. Concentrate on the issue, not the personal statements. You seem already to be getting the idea. I think you're doing very well. SilkTork *^YES! 00:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Some time ago G-guy gave the advice "Focus on the content, not the person(s)" in relation to content. The analogous advice when considering Mattisse's behaviour is "Focus on her tactics, not her personality." In other words help her to: recognise situations that may blow up; avoid tactics that are likely to get her into trouble; decide whether any hostility by others is sufficiently serious or persistent to need a response, or should be ignored per "Do not feed trolls"; produce responses that deal firmly but concisely and civilly with serious hostility on the part of others. --Philcha (talk) 07:59, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

This is very good advice, Philcha. I think it can be boiled down to this. If I follow the above, I will avert much trouble. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 16:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

SilkTork and Geometry guy have not only given me very excellent advice over time, but even more importantly, have led by example. Recently, SilkTork gracefully disengaged from a GA review he was conducting when another editor entered into it. (I believe Philcha has noted that incident somewhere.) If I had done that in the instance in which Geometry guy entered into a GA review I was conducting, perhaps the outcome would have been better, and I would have have managed to exit a situation in which I felt uncomfortable more appropriately rather than by reacting in a way that could be seen as attacking Geometry guy. Would that have been an improvement, Geometry guy? Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 16:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

From my perspective there was no need for you to disengage from that situation: you left good review comments, the article was improved as a result, and I did not take your discomfort and subsequent reaction personally. From your perspective, however, I believe it would have been better to disengage and/or seek advice sooner: the situation caused you stress, led you to make comments which others have later quoted in support of concerns about your editing, and resulted in you not contributing to GA for a while. The question to ask, in drafting your plan, is will your proposed measures protect you from yourself in the future? For example, look back at that episode in the light of the "two negative responses" rule and the "cast no aspersions" rule. Regarding the first, I tried to focus on content and avoid criticizing your "character, competence, behavior or motives" although I did ask you to calm down and assume good faith: would you have spotted two negative responses? Regarding the second, did your comments at any point amount to casting negative aspersions? If so, when? With your plan in place, would the warning sirens have sounded in time? Only you can judge if your plan is robust enough to protect you in the future. Geometry guy 22:09, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Looking back at what appears to have been the interaction, I clearly took things personally. I responded way too often and did not take my time. Plus, I always to worse when others enter the dialogue, as I get confused. So, looking at that situation in retrospect, I would have done better to merely disengage from the article in the beginning, as the more that was said, the more uncomfortable I became. I think there are known issues that should now alert me now to disengaging at the onset. The "two negative responses" certainly would have ultimately covered it, I believe, but it would have been best to disengage earlier, rather than regrettably accusing you of POV. I'm not sure of the rationale I could have used on the review page before it became clear there was an edit war. And, of course, now I would never edit something that had to do with Scientology. I didn't realize what a minefield the subject is on Wikipedia. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 22:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Addendum: There are also general issues of judgement regarding my whole handling of the article, aside from your involvement, that I would do differently now. I was too involved in the article as a reviewer and used poor judgement in my responses on that score also. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 23:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad you believe your plan would have worked in that case, and also that you refer to the issue of responding too often and not taking your time. This may be a useful part of your plan: if you are not sure whether you need to disengage, a first step is to slow down. There are quite a few minefields on Wikipedia, some in surprising places, so you never know when you will run into one. Geometry guy 20:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

As an aside, I actually don't mind being told (whether rightly or wrongly) that I have a point of view—indeed I'm sure I have plenty of points of view! WP:NPOV is a great policy, without which there would be many more minefields (or perhaps Wikipedia would not even exist). I have a pet peeve about the acronym though: it suggests an NPOV/POV dichotomy analogous to the NOR/OR dichotomy. Consequently many editors (I'm not referring to Mattisse here) talk about a "POV edit" (or "that's POV") as if POV were intrinsically as bad a thing as OR. That isn't true: whereas WP:OR and WP:NOR are shortcuts to the same policy, with "N" emphatically for "No!", WP:POV is an essay on describing points of view and the "N" for "Neutral" is the particular point of view adopted by Wikipedia articles. Wikipedia needs editors with points of view to ensure that all significant viewpoints are represented fairly and without bias. The big verboten in a Wikipedia article is endorsing one point of view among competing ones (NPOV even forbids endorsing the neutral point of view: for one, that would be a self reference, and for two, we let the reader decide). Even on topics where I have a strong personal point of view (and the status of Scientology is not one of them), I would not be happy if a Wikipedia article endorsed that view. Geometry guy 20:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I think it is very clear that I need to respond much less (I have way over responded in the past) and to respond much more slowly and deliberately. I think I jumped to conclusions and did not assume good faith in that incident and others. Your point about POV is interesting. I don't know how widespread your take on POV is, but I agree that it is realistic to accept that people have POVs. I do not edit topics in which I have an emotional involvement. I do not think editors do their best editing when they are emotionally involved in the topic. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 00:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Not as widespread as it should be :-)... In turn, I agree that when one is involved (emotionally or otherwise) in a topic, it may be better not to edit articles on it. However, involvement is not the same has having a viewpoint. For instance, Jayen quite likely has a viewpoint on Scientology and some editors have been critical in the past; yet my experience of his editing is that it contributes positively to the fair representation of viewpoints. In contrast, at homosexual transsexual and related articles (as I think you have seen), several editors have quite rightly recused themselves from editing, due to involvement and/or conflict of interest issues. Geometry guy 19:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Interactions with mentors/advisers

I think point 5 "I will not make accusations or cast aspersions toward another editor without consulting with one or more mentors first ..." shoudl be rephrased, e.g. "I will not criticise another editor's conduct without consulting with one or more mentors first. ...". Accusations and aspersions are not allowed, per WP:NPA. --Philcha (talk)

I also think there's an inconsistency between point 2 ("If I receive one negative response, but am able to refocus editor attention on the content issue, ...") and point 6 "I will consult with my mentors/advisers if there is any dissension or problem regarding my comments in a post before I reply." Point 2 seems to imply that you deal with the first negative comment yourself, which I think is desirable. --Philcha (talk) 22:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

You make a good point that I need to firmly keep in mind, that all I should address are content issues and, if it is appropriate, actual behavior, rather than what I imagine to be motivations etc. I am very much trying to refocus and address the problems in my behavior that are being pointed out to me. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 23:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this, and especially the spirit of it. I'm a firm believer that improving the encyclopedia should inform every action. Geometry guy 23:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Update

Noting here, for the record, that ArbCom are aware of this plan (which Mattisse notified us of), and a finding of fact on it has been included in the case and the plan has been incorporated into the remedies section as well. I've also asked some questions and made some suggestions, over on the case proposed decision talk page. See here. Once those concerns have been addressed, I'll be happy to sign off on the case, and hopefully the rest of ArbCom as well. After that, it will up to Mattisse and her mentors/advisors. Carcharoth (talk) 11:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC) Note also this edit.

Moved from page

I have never seen one of these pages before and am not sure if it is an open event or not. However looking over this section in particular it seems to me that Mattisse could profit from reading Miguel Ángel Ruiz's very short book, The Four Agreements.

These agreements are:

1. Be Impeccable With Your Word.
2. Don't Take Anything Personally.
3. Don't Make Assumptions.
4. Always Do Your Best.

I would be glad to expound on any of these, but really, in some ways Ruiz probably does a better job of it. Carptrash (talk) 14:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)